OTU Only: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way from Collace

[AnotherDilbert]

Stock Scout Courier, Size A Jump Drive, takes 2 turns to Jump (J2) under HG.

Replace the powerplant with a TL-15 version that puts out 4EP (4Td, same as the Size A powerplant).*

The LBB2 system does not allow LBB5 drives, but if we allow that it would presumably require fuel as a LBB5 drive.

By JTAS#24 the power plant burns the jump fuel, so no problem with generating the power quicker.

 

[mike wightman]

And the logical conclusion is that all normal jumps ship use fuel from the local Farport or tanker at the 100D limit, and no ships except explorers bother with jump fuel tanks.

You have left the OTU far behind...

I agree, what you end up with is an ATU at best.

Every merchant ship travelling the jump lanes would be able to buy jump fuel from a jump station/tender and wouldn't need jump fuel tankage - thus increasing cargo and passenger capacity by a large amount.
The only ships that would need to carry their own jump fuel would be ships that travel to systems not on the jump lane network.

You said IMTU before, so I guess that is how your game works, but this thread is marked "OTU Only" which is why I drone on about RAW.

I agree once again, there is no canonical evidence that jump stations/tenders can provide the fuel directly to a jump ship in the moments leading up to jump.

 

[boomslang]

And the logical conclusion is that all normal jumps ship use fuel from the local Farport or tanker at the 100D limit, and no ships except explorers bother with jump fuel tanks.

This makes several bold assumptions about infrastructure and its local economic support, however.

The issue at hand is examining the operational relationship between the Type X and the Type XT, a staple of the OTU that breaks the RAW.

 

[Grav_Moped]

It is worse than that.

Under LBB2, a Type S may mount 3 lasers, carry a Model/7 computer (if you make the room), and still Jump at the end of any turn in which is has a enough fuel available for the trip and has crunched the numbers. That is the equivalent of a whopping 14EP out of a level-A power plant right there. Then you add the fact that the full 2Gs of maneuver are concurrently available, and therefore the ship is fully agile, and you are now burning a grand total of 16EP. Per turn. For 28 days straight, if need be.

Maybe that's why the LBB2 power plant fuel requirement is so absurdly excessive in comparison to what Beltstrike gives us as an hourly/daily/weekly usage rate.

HG2 Agility and EPs are actually a step backwards from HG1, I tend to think.

Also, apropos of odd musings, why do exterior demountable tanks even exist?

They're cheaper than drop tanks? What... they're NOT cheaper?!

Oh, and you broke LBB5.

It gets even better when you bring in JTAS #24 with the powerplant burning all the Jump Fuel too. The jump capacitors hold 36 EP... which now all come from the powerplant. So it isn't just 16 EP it's putting out, it's 50 EP.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The LBB2 system does not allow LBB5 drives, but if we allow that it would presumably require fuel as a LBB5 drive.

By JTAS#24 the power plant burns the jump fuel, so no problem with generating the power quicker.

LBB2 doesn't allow LBB5 drives, true. But LBB5 allows LBB2 drives. So build it in LBB5 using LBB2 drives except for the powerplant. Fair?

Which raises a question (the one I averted by mentioning drop tanks): What's the fuel burn rate of a LBB2 maneuver drive coupled to a HG powerplant? (You answered that.) Conversely, what's the fuel burn rate of a LBB5 maneuver drive coupled to a LBB2 powerplant?

Also, JTAS 24 saying the powerplant burns ALL the fuel, even the Jump fuel?
If so, why can't it run overclocked at 36x power (and a truly Astounding* fuel burn rate) at any time other than Jump? (36X because the jump capacitors hold 36EP*MJn and that has to come from somewhere**... ).

Standard burn rate is 0.05 tons x pn per 100 Td per turn (HG). Jump burn rate is 10 tons x Pn (because Pn=Jn) x 100 Td per turn, 200 times higher. And as noted above, it's worse than this.

This suggests that if your Pn is 2x your rated Jn, you could power a spinal mount by overclocking a very under-sized power plant if it's twice the rating of your Jump Drive... for a couple of shots, anyhow.

It also explicitly re-breaks the XBoat, which does not have a powerplant.


*later this would be known as the Analog fuel burn rate.
**see preceding post

 

[Grav_Moped]

I agree, what you end up with is an ATU at best.

Every merchant ship travelling the jump lanes would be able to buy jump fuel from a jump station/tender and wouldn't need jump fuel tankage - thus increasing cargo and passenger capacity by a large amount.
The only ships that would need to carry their own jump fuel would be ships that travel to systems not on the jump lane network.


I agree once again, there is no canonical evidence that jump stations/tenders can provide the fuel directly to a jump ship in the moments leading up to jump.

There isn't. But I thought we'd settled that.

- An XBoat needs to obey LBB2:81 fuel tankage requirements, thus needs 40Td fuel for the powerplant.
- LBB5 says ships don't need Jump Fuel if they use drop tanks.
- Therefore, the Jump fuel has to come from the tender, acting as drop tanks. Or the tender carries around drop tanks to hand off to the XBoats, but nobody ever mentioned it.

Unless it's just plain broken and it doesn't matter. Though we may have settled that as well...

 

[boomslang]

LBB2 doesn't allow LBB5 drives, true. But LBB5 allows LBB2 drives. So build it in LBB5 using LBB2 drives except for the powerplant. Fair?

Fair on the face of it, but specifically disallowed.

At some point, in a JTAS article I cannot put my finger on at the moment, it was clarified that all of a ship's drives must come from the same source -- either B2 or HG2; there is no mix-and-matching allowed.

Again, I suspect this is because EPs are broken for LBB2 ships (but not, interestingly, LBB2 small craft)...

 

[Grav_Moped]

The language may not be perfect, but it is quite understandable with an ounce of good will.
...

One man's "...quite understandable with an ounce of good will" is another man's "you'll have to house rule that since the rules as written aren't explicit on that point".

 

[mike wightman]

There isn't. But I thought we'd settled that.

Nope, most definitely not settled

- An XBoat needs to obey LBB2:81 fuel tankage requirements, thus needs 40Td fuel for the powerplant.

xboats are a setting device of the OTU, they do not obey the rules as written in CT81 etc.
The OTU does not use the CT rules as written.

- LBB5 says ships don't need Jump Fuel if they use drop tanks.

No, what it says is that jump fuel can be carried in drop tanks and used from those tanks as if they are normal tankage or they can be jettisoned before jump to increase the performance characteristics of the ship.

- Therefore, the Jump fuel has to come from the tender, acting as drop tanks. Or the tender carries around drop tanks to hand off to the XBoats, but nobody ever mentioned it.

A tender carrying drop tanks to an xboat makes sense - a tender transferring fuel directly to the jumping ship during the jump process is the issue. Within the OTU it doesn't appear anywhere that this is a possibility, but I personally can't see why it wouldn't work with the systems as described.

Unless it's just plain broken and it doesn't matter. Though we may have settled that as well...

Yup, the setting breaks the rules, it does this all the time up to MT where the rules were written to specifically describe the setting,

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The issue at hand is examining the operational relationship between the Type X and the Type XT, a staple of the OTU that breaks the RAW.

Where is RAW broken? Where, after 1981, is it specified that X-boats don't have power plants?

It's specified how it works under LBB2'77, and not re-specified for LBB2'81.

We can easily make a RAW-legal X-boat in LBB5'80 (with power plant), if the old version is declared no longer valid.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

LBB2 doesn't allow LBB5 drives, true. But LBB5 allows LBB2 drives. So build it in LBB5 using LBB2 drives except for the powerplant. Fair?

Certainly.

Which raises a question (the one I averted by mentioning drop tanks): What's the fuel burn rate of a LBB2 maneuver drive coupled to a HG powerplant? (You answered that.) Conversely, what's the fuel burn rate of a LBB5 maneuver drive coupled to a LBB2 powerplant?

M-drives have the same fuel requirement in both LBB2'81 and LBB5'80: None.
Only P-plants have fuel requirements, regardless of M-drive.

Using LBB5'80 with LBB2'77 would be slightly more challenging, but presumably the limited acceleration rules from LBB2 apply.

Also, JTAS 24 saying the powerplant burns ALL the fuel, even the Jump fuel?
If so, why can't it run overclocked at 36x power (and a truly Astounding* fuel burn rate) at any time other than Jump?

It should be able to do so, but it is not specified how.

(36X because the jump capacitors hold 36EP*MJn and that has to come from somewhere**... ).

Much more than 36 times, I would say. Even with the capacitors full from a black globe, we still need the full fuel requirement to jump.

... you could power a spinal mount by overclocking a very under-sized power plant if it's twice the rating of your Jump Drive... for a couple of shots, anyhow.

Presumably yes, for a fraction of a round, using massive amounts of fuel, making it impractical.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

- An XBoat needs to obey LBB2:81 fuel tankage requirements, thus needs 40Td fuel for the powerplant.

Why would a ship designed in, say, 1978 need to follow future rules?

- LBB5 says ships don't need Jump Fuel if they use drop tanks.

Actually, TCS, not LBB5'80.

- Therefore, the Jump fuel has to come from the tender, acting as drop tanks. Or the tender carries around drop tanks to hand off to the XBoats, but nobody ever mentioned it.

Nowhere in the text about the X-boat is drop tanks or using the tender (or any other spacecraft) as external fuel source.

You are trying to use LBB2'81 rules on a LBB2'77 design, it won't work anymore than using a LBB2'81 design in under MT rules.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

At some point, in a JTAS article I cannot put my finger on at the moment, it was clarified that all of a ship's drives must come from the same source -- either B2 or HG2; there is no mix-and-matching allowed.

Where? I can't find it.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Why would a ship designed in, say, 1978 need to follow future rules?

Because in the fictional universe described by those future rules, it's asserted to still work normally.

Actually, TCS, not LBB5'80.

HG80, p.27, paragraph starting "Disposable fuel tanks..." No mention that you have to have any Jump fuel onboard. With 40-ton drop tanks, it's J2. Drop the tanks, it's J4. Performance increased, as called for in that section.

Nowhere in the text about the X-boat is drop tanks or using the tender (or any other spacecraft) as external fuel source.

Correct. But it can't work under LBB2'81 otherwise. It absolutely can't work as described in S-7 under '81 rules period, so it isn't literally that. The minimum change to comply with '81 rules is to add a powerplant, in which case does work if its jump fuel comes from either drop tanks or something acting like drop tanks. If that's not an option, then in order for it to work it needs to be something other than the '77-rules ship with the minimum change necessary to comply with the '81 rules.

You are trying to use LBB2'81 rules on a LBB2'77 design, it won't work anymore than using a LBB2'81 design in under MT rules.

I'm trying to retcon a LBB2'77 design that has been declared to still work in a universe described by LBB2'81 into compliance with LBB2'81.

And that's the difference between our approaches. You're ok with rules being broken but not bent, if it's never officially declared that they're broken (it just works because they said so, don't ask why). I'd rather bend the rules rather than accept that they're outright broken (they say it works, therefore there must be a fair interpretation of the rules that will allow it -- or something with its essential characteristics -- to work).

And they've done that sort of retcon. The A2 in Twilight's Peak is a '81 rules design (J2/2G). The A2 in Night of Conquest is a '77 rules design (J2/1G). Both are nominally Far Traders, but that means something different in each ruleset.

 

[Grav_Moped]

...

Much more than 36 times, I would say. Even with the capacitors full from a black globe, we still need the full fuel requirement to jump.

No, but that's a different problem. The only reason the jump fuel needs to be burned at that point is to make the magic particles needed for the Jump Drive. The different problem is that if the jump caps are already full, where does the 32 EP generated by burning that fuel for the jump go to?

Presumably yes, for a fraction of a round, using massive amounts of fuel, making it impractical.

10% of tonnage in fuel per turn (that is, what a Jump burn would have been). Not entirely practical, but if the powerplant has taken a lot of hits and can't power the spinal any more, it may be worth trading one Jn of fuel for one shot. It's a "route the Warp cores through the Forward Deflector Dish" kind of stunt.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Where is RAW broken? Where, after 1981, is it specified that X-boats don't have power plants?

It's specified how it works under LBB2'77, and not re-specified for LBB2'81.

We can easily make a RAW-legal X-boat in LBB5'80 (with power plant), if the old version is declared no longer valid.

Yes, but you can't make it at TL-10. Getting that TL requires LBB2.

 

[mike wightman]

Not according to S:9 it isn't

The xboat in S:9 is TL 10 jump4 with no power plant.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Because in the fictional universe described by those future rules, it's asserted to still work normally.

Here's what The Traveller Book says about x-boats:

The express boat (xboat) is a small, fast ship filled with a pilot compartment, message data banks, and jump drives. The fit is so tight that the tiny ships don't even have maneuver drives. Each is capable of jump-4 (four parsecs in a week); it jumps, relays its messages to the station on arrival, and then waits to be picked up by a tender, refueled, and sent on its way to the next station on the route.

What does it say about power plant or TL?

Post '81 canon is not depending on the X-boat being a TL-10 LBB2 design without a power plant.

HG80, p.27, paragraph starting "Disposable fuel tanks..."

LBB5'80 does not allow jump tanks to replace internal tankage, at least not explicitly. You did not complete the quote: "Disposable fuel tanks may be added to the ship to increase its range."

TCS explicitly allows drop tanks to replace internal tankage.

And that's the difference between our approaches. You're ok with rules being broken but not bent, if it's never officially declared that they're broken (it just works because they said so, don't ask why).

No, I'm not accepting breaking the rules of the OTU in the OTU. I'm just not applying unstated rules or canon.

Rationalising away the need for jump fuel does not just break the rules, it breaks the OTU, which is far worse, in the OTU. IYTU you can do anything you want, of course.

And they've done that sort of retcon. The A2 in Twilight's Peak is a '81 rules design (J2/2G). The A2 in Night of Conquest is a '77 rules design (J2/1G). Both are nominally Far Traders, but that means something different in each ruleset.

Quite, the Far Trader was redesigned as needed. Note that 2 G is not stated, it might have it or it might not, we don't know. The extra MCr 4 for the bigger M-drive does not earn any extra revenue, just extra cost. The tonnage does not fit exactly with either 1 G or 2 G.

The X-boat was not published after '81, so was not officially redesigned. Hence we don't really know how the official CT post '81 X-boat is designed in detail. The OTU didn't implode.

I can only note that a LBB5'80 design fits the X-boat specification without breaking any rules, or changing the OTU noticeably. I can't say that is the non-existing official version, of course.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

No, but that's a different problem. The only reason the jump fuel needs to be burned at that point is to make the magic particles needed for the Jump Drive.

As usual that is not defined.

Jump fuel is definitely required and it is supposed to be used to produce energy. No magical particles in CT (I assume that was a reference to MgT).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The xboat in S:9 is TL 10 jump4 with no power plant.

Was S9 published before or after LBB2'81?

It makes a clear difference between LBB5 editions, but not LBB2 editions:

Most have been designed and all have been specified using the rules in Traveller Book 5, High Guard (second edition). Some ships (the scout/courier, the xboat, and the mercenary cruiser) were designed using the starship design rules in Book 2.

P46 specifically points to S7 as the source for the X-boat, hence it is presumably the same LBB2'77 design.


On the other hand the Type C is from LBB2'81.