Non OTU: A jump shuttle for the cutter

[Carlobrand]

The 50 dT Cutter Jump Shuttle offers a means to provide cutters with jump capability for interstellar flight: a cutter docks to the shuttle and the joined pair can then jump to other systems using the shuttle's jump drive. The shuttle uses the same basic hull as the cutter, allowing it to be carried and launched using the same boat bays. Docking cutter to shuttle is performed after launch of both craft; undocking must occur before the craft are taken aboard a host ship, if 50 dTon boat bays are used.

In addition to cutters, a line of 50 dT cylindrical modules, likewise using the same basic hull as the cutter, are available to convert the shuttle for use as a small cargo or passenger transport. It is not cost-effective to serve as a merchant vessel in this role, but governments of lower population worlds may buy shuttles in this configuration to serve their own transport needs.

The 50 dT cargo module comes in configurations to carry cargo, fuel, up to 12 single-occupancy or 25 double-occupancy passengers, up to 100 passengers in low berths, or up to 200 passengers in emergency low berths. The module can also be configured to carry two 20 dT launches or a 30 dT ship's boat. It has small maneuvering jets that allow it to be remotely maneuvered into a bay for storage or out of a bay for docking, but it is otherwise incapable of maneuver.

The 50-ton shuttle's maneuver drive provides 2G acceleration when it is maneuvering solo, 1G when docked to a cutter or a cargo container. Its jump
drive at TL 13 provides jump-1 when docked, with fuel for two consecutive jumps. It carries a crew of one.

The cutter's drives are not used when docked to the shuttle; the cutter draws power for life support from the shuttle when docked to it.

In practice, one jump shuttle is provided for each warship carrying multiple cutters, allowing that ship to convert a cutter for jump, either as a lifeboat or
emergency courier to summon assistance in the event of misjump.

WY-0211111-000000-00000-0 MCr 30.850 50 Tons, 100 with cutter or cargo module docked

50t cutter jump shuttle J1 TL 13.hgs

Hull:	0.000 Td	MCr 11.000
Armour Factor-0:	0.000 Td	MCr 0.000
M-Drive Factor-2/1*:	2.000 Td	MCr 3.000
J-Drive Factor-0/1*:	2.000 Td	MCr 8.000
P-Plant Factor-2/1*:	2.000 Td	MCr 6.000	+1.000 EP
P-Fuel:	1.000 Td	MCr 0.000
J-Fuel:	20.000 Td	MCr 0.000
Scoops:	0.000 Td	MCr 0.100
Purification:	0.000 Td	MCr 0.000
Bridge:	20.000 Td	MCr 0.500
Computer Model/1:	1.000 Td	MCr 2.000	-0 EP
0.5 x Staterooms:	2.000 Td	MCr 0.250
Cargo:	0.000 Td	MCr 0.000
Totals:	50.000 Td	MCr 30.850

*Uncoupled/Coupled

I'm considering two methods of docking. One is to put a docking collar near the bridge, moving it forward to clamp onto the rear of the cutter when docked and withdrawing it into the shuttle when the shuttle is solo, preserving the shuttle's ability to maneuver in atmosphere. This has the disadvantage that the shuttle cannot jump without a cutter or container docked, but it is fairly simple.

The other is to have the shuttle split amidships behind the bridge, expanding it forward and backward on longitudinal struts to open a framework hangar of 50 dT volume in which to dock the cutter or container, with a mesh of jump cables (as used in Supplement 7's jump ship) being drawn up over the frame once the cutter or container is inside the frame. This is a bit complex but means the shuttle can launch independently by expanding to full 100 dT volume.

 

[Brandon C]

I like the concept quite a bit.

One thing, though. Isn't that enough fuel for two J1's? While that makes sense for military shuttles, those in commercial use would be better served using the space for cargo.

Is this a CT:HG design?

 

[Carlobrand]

It is CT HG '80. It carries fuel for two consecutive jump 1's. Even at 60 tons cargo, it can't carry enough cargo to make a profit as a merchantman, and at that size it would be competing head-to-head with free traders in the speculative cargo or passenger trade, so I can't see banks being willing to gamble a loan on someone who came in with a business plan that depended on this ship's profitability, not with second-hand free traders available for purchase. I therefore see this as primarily a military or government ship, serving a role in which small size and versatility are more important than cost. For that role, the second jump is more useful than an additional 10 tons of cargo space.

Someone could conceivably buy one second-hand from the Navy, but it would be up to them to have it modified if they wanted more cargo space.

 

[Terquem]

'm not sure how it can be "classic traveler".

hasn't it been made canon that no ship under 100 dt can ever be fitted with a jump drive?

 

[Carlobrand]

'm not sure how it can be "classic traveler".

hasn't it been made canon that no craft under 100 dt can ever be fitted with a jump drive?

It's canon that no craft under 100 dT can jump.

CT Book 2, '81: "A small craft is any vessel under 100 tons; all small craft are incapable of jump."

HG '80: "Small Craft: Ship 99 tons or less. No jump allowed."

HG '80 also says, "Small craft do not have jump drives."

Not "cannot", but "do not". I guess you could interpret that as either they're not allowed to have drives or they don't have them because it's pointless. I don't tend to interpret rules as things that exist in a vacuum; I presume they are based in some underlying rationale. In this case, small craft DO not have drives because it's pointless - they can't jump.

But, in Supplement 7, we're given an SDB - ordinarily not jump capable because it lacks a jump drive - which has a shuttle that docks with it to allow it to jump. The combination is treated as having the combined tonnage for jump purposes. Ergo, if you dock two craft and their combined tonnage meets the 100 dT limit, you are compliant with the rules as written.

 

[pendragonman]

It's canon that no craft under 100 dT can jump.

CT Book 2, '81: "A small craft is any vessel under 100 tons; all small craft are incapable of jump."

HG '80: "Small Craft: Ship 99 tons or less. No jump allowed."

HG '80 also says, "Small craft do not have jump drives."

Not "cannot", but "do not". I guess you could interpret that as either they're not allowed to have drives or they don't have them because it's pointless. I don't tend to interpret rules as things that exist in a vacuum; I presume they are based in some underlying rationale. In this case, small craft DO not have drives because it's pointless - they can't jump.

But, in Supplement 7, we're given an SDB - ordinarily not jump capable because it lacks a jump drive - which has a shuttle that docks with it to allow it to jump. The combination is treated as having the combined tonnage for jump purposes. Ergo, if you dock two craft and their combined tonnage meets the 100 dT limit, you are compliant with the rules as written.

In that same Supplement 7, we note that the SDB. by itself, is 400 dtons (over the 100 ton minimum). Further, the description of the jump shuttle tells us that the jump shuttle is over the minimum as well, at 200 dtons.

Nowhere does it state that two less-than-the 100 ton minimum, when docked together to make a vessel that meats the minimum, is capable of jump.

Thus this design cannot be canon. The idea of a jump shuttle is canon, one that is not the minimum tonnage is not. As it stands, this would have to be an in YTU design.

Now, boost the size of the shuttle up to the legal minimum of 100 dtons, and maybe fit a longer legged drive in there so that it can keep up with a fleet...

 

[McPerth]

In that same Supplement 7, we note that the SDB. by itself, is 400 dtons (over the 100 ton minimum). Further, the description of the jump shuttle tells us that the jump shuttle is over the minimum as well, at 200 dtons.

BUt it allows a 300 dton ship to have 4 turrets because when drop tanks are added it is 400 dton...

Nowhere does it state that two less-than-the 100 ton minimum, when docked together to make a vessel that meats the minimum, is capable of jump.

Thus this design cannot be canon. The idea of a jump shuttle is canon, one that is not the minimum tonnage is not. As it stands, this would have to be an in YTU design.

Now, boost the size of the shuttle up to the legal minimum of 100 dtons, and maybe fit a longer legged drive in there so that it can keep up with a fleet...

See that just rating it as a 100 dtons dispersed structure ship with 50 dtons dedicated to carry the shuttle, it would be perfectly legal, and even be able to jump without the cutter...

And it would even be cheaper, as the hull cost would be only MCr 5 (MCr 0.1 per ton, 100 tons, halved for config). OTOH it would not be streamlined (but the cutter is...)

 

[pendragonman]

BUt it allows a 300 dton ship to have 4 turrets because when drop tanks are added it is 400 dton...

While it is possible to drop the tanks, I don't recall a canon case of the tank actually being dropped, as dropping the tanks improved the drive power rating but no fuel to use the improved rating. Further, no rules that mean a higher jump drive covers less than maximum jump in a smaller amount of time.

See that just rating it as a 100 dtons dispersed structure ship with 50 dtons dedicated to carry the shuttle, it would be perfectly legal, and even be able to jump without the cutter...

And it would even be cheaper, as the hull cost would be only MCr 5 (MCr 0.1 per ton, 100 tons, halved for config). OTOH it would not be streamlined (but the cutter is...)

Exactly. And a perfectly legal design it would be.

Although my thoughts were to make the 100 ton jump shuttle that could do jump 4-5 when the cutter is attached. (So needing 50% of 150 tons-75 tons-just in jump fuel)

 

[McPerth]

While it is possible to drop the tanks, I don't recall a canon case of the tank actually being dropped, as dropping the tanks improved the drive power rating but no fuel to use the improved rating. Further, no rules that mean a higher jump drive covers less than maximum jump in a smaller amount of time.

IIRC the tanks were usually dropped just before jump, as it is the only way to achieve J5 (with the tanks attached, it is J4, without them, it has no fuel).

And, in any case, once dropped the ship is 300 dtons (and this is counting the gig, that is only attached, as the cutter would be, As without it it would be just 280 dtons), and yet it has 4 turrets...

Exactly. And a perfectly legal design it would be.

Although my thoughts were to make the 100 ton jump shuttle that could do jump 4-5 when the cutter is attached. (So needing 50% of 150 tons-75 tons-just in jump fuel)

See that, as a dispersed frame carrier carries the subcrafts externally, when unattached their tonnage is not really present. So, this way would be perfectly legal (as you say), but would not (IMHO) make too much sense, as its volume without the cutter would be that of a 50 dtons craft, regardless being rated at 100, and thus it would mean allowing what is in fact a 50 dton ship to jump.

I'm with Carlo on this. when two crafts are attached, they are counted as a single one of the added tonnage, and, as such, if it goes over a treshold, is counted as higher one.

As Carlo says, there must be a reason for jumping ships to need to be 100+ dtons. As I have never read it, I assumed that this is the minimum to keep the jump field stable. As such, it does not matter if it's a single ship, or several crafts attached, but as long as they are 100+ dtons, they may keep a stable jump field.

So I find more logical Carlo's version. And see that he rated its jump when unattached as 0, so unable to jump, representing this reduced volume under the 100 dtons treshold that would allow it to jump.

 

[Carlobrand]

In that same Supplement 7, we note that the SDB. by itself, is 400 dtons (over the 100 ton minimum). Further, the description of the jump shuttle tells us that the jump shuttle is over the minimum as well, at 200 dtons.

Nowhere does it state that two less-than-the 100 ton minimum, when docked together to make a vessel that meats the minimum, is capable of jump.

Thus this design cannot be canon. The idea of a jump shuttle is canon, one that is not the minimum tonnage is not. As it stands, this would have to be an in YTU design.

Now, boost the size of the shuttle up to the legal minimum of 100 dtons, and maybe fit a longer legged drive in there so that it can keep up with a fleet...

...Exactly. And a perfectly legal design it would be. ...

I am hearing a semantic argument. A 50 dT shuttle attachment is not "canon", but a 100 dT craft, of which 50 dT is an externally docked cutter, would be "perfectly legal".

I'm really not interested in playing semantics lawyer. Here's the ship. Since I designed it with High Guard Shipyard, which won't give me access to a jump drive unless I set the tonnage value at 100 dT, it is in fact a 100 dT craft of which 50 dT is the cutter. Presumably that satisfies the objections as described. Near as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits it, unless you want to interpret "do not" as "cannot", which - as always - is entirely up to the gamemaster.

One may argue it as canon or not canon, as one pleases. I have argued that it is "compliant with the rules as written", which is not quite the same thing but in some ways more useful. After all, canon "prohibits entry into world atmospheres for the purpose of landing" for spherical ships - while telling us the Broadsword can "ground", which sounds a heck of a lot like entering into a world atmosphere for the purpose of landing. We know canon sometimes conflicted with itself as the game evolved.

I might also point out that the Subsidized Merchant's externally docked boat does not render it a dispersed structure. Given the significant savings in hull cost, I suspect the difference is much more involved. So, other than the discussion about canon semantics, is there any actual objection to the ship itself?

 

[SanDragon]

Near as I can recall, the jump torpedo is/was legal, depending.

You can have your 50-ton jump-capable cutter; I have no problem with it at all. It's your Traveller universe.

I like the concept of a jump capable fighter, like the X-Wing, but...

The jump torpedo has been decanonized for the Original Traveller Universe. Marc sez so.

There. My 2 credits.

 

[pendragonman]

I am hearing a semantic argument. A 50 dT shuttle attachment is not "canon", but a 100 dT craft, of which 50 dT is an externally docked cutter, would be "perfectly legal".

I'm really not interested in playing semantics lawyer. Here's the ship. Since I designed it with High Guard Shipyard, which won't give me access to a jump drive unless I set the tonnage value at 100 dT, it is in fact a 100 dT craft of which 50 dT is the cutter. Presumably that satisfies the objections as described. Near as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules that prohibits it, unless you want to interpret "do not" as "cannot", which - as always - is entirely up to the gamemaster.

One may argue it as canon or not canon, as one pleases. I have argued that it is "compliant with the rules as written", which is not quite the same thing but in some ways more useful. After all, canon "prohibits entry into world atmospheres for the purpose of landing" for spherical ships - while telling us the Broadsword can "ground", which sounds a heck of a lot like entering into a world atmosphere for the purpose of landing. We know canon sometimes conflicted with itself as the game evolved.

I might also point out that the Subsidized Merchant's externally docked boat does not render it a dispersed structure. Given the significant savings in hull cost, I suspect the difference is much more involved. So, other than the discussion about canon semantics, is there any actual objection to the ship itself?

You can claim it to be a valid design in YTU as you want. It isn't canon. Should you wish it to be canon, email it to Marc and get his ok. Otherwise...

 

[pendragonman]

Near as I can recall, the jump torpedo is/was legal, depending.

You can have your 50-ton jump-capable cutter; I have no problem with it at all. It's your Traveller universe.

I like the concept of a jump capable fighter, like the X-Wing, but...

The jump torpedo has been decanonized for the Original Traveller Universe. Marc sez so.

There. My 2 credits.

Correct. In Your TU.

 

[McPerth]

So, other than the discussion about canon semantics, is there any actual objection to the ship itself?

As I guess I already answered about other matters, I see there's only one small stateroom. Unless the cutter itself has some, would it not need more?

I mean, the cutter has a crew of 2 (unless armed), but no stateroom is needed for them, as it's not expected to stay on it for so long. Coupled with the jump shuttle, it would need additional accomodations for the crew.

 

[Carlobrand]

Near as I can recall, the jump torpedo is/was legal, depending.

You can have your 50-ton jump-capable cutter; I have no problem with it at all. It's your Traveller universe.

I like the concept of a jump capable fighter, like the X-Wing, but...

The jump torpedo has been decanonized for the Original Traveller Universe. Marc sez so.

There. My 2 credits.

Agreed. Jump torpedo be a no-go. Marc dropped a thermite grenade down the barrel of that canon.

But technically the cutter at 50 dT is not jump capable. The shuttle at 50 dT is not jump capable, despite having the necessary equipment. The shuttle with cutter docked, at 100 dT, is jump capable.

The expanding version, when expanded, would be jump capable. However, since I know of no example of an expanding/contracting ship nor any way to judge the cost of such a feature, that would quite distinctly be an IMTU design.

 

[Carlobrand]

As I guess I already answered about other matters, I see there's only one small stateroom. Unless the cutter itself has some, would it not need more?

I mean, the cutter has a crew of 2 (unless armed), but no stateroom is needed for them, as it's not expected to stay on it for so long. Coupled with the jump shuttle, it would need additional accomodations for the crew.

My thought on the subject is the cutter crew either needs to be taken off before jump or the cutter itself needs to have provision for a stateroom. There isn't room for another cabin in the shuttle unless I sacrifice fuel space, which I'm a bit reluctant to do in a design intended for going to get help - it'd be confined to jump-1 routes with systems that had fuel available. An HG-based cutter could have a cabin: build it with a pair of couches and a Model-1 instead of a bridge, you get quite a bit of extra space, though it costs a bit more. Navies would probably prefer that, since it gives them a more versatile craft. But, yeah, the standard Supplement 7 cutters would be a bit awkward.

I guess you could also remote-pilot the shuttle from the ship and then have the cutter crew take up residence in the shuttle and hot-bunk it, but that sounds rather unpleasant for a trip that might take several weeks.

 

[SanDragon]

Well, darn.

I meant to say "... jump torpedo is illegal..."

Brain ahead of fingers, or something...

 

[Grav_Moped]

My thought on the subject is the cutter crew either needs to be taken off before jump or the cutter itself needs to have provision for a stateroom. There isn't room for another cabin in the shuttle unless I sacrifice fuel space, which I'm a bit reluctant to do in a design intended for going to get help - it'd be confined to jump-1 routes with systems that had fuel available. An HG-based cutter could have a cabin: build it with a pair of couches and a Model-1 instead of a bridge, you get quite a bit of extra space, though it costs a bit more. Navies would probably prefer that, since it gives them a more versatile craft. But, yeah, the standard Supplement 7 cutters would be a bit awkward.

I guess you could also remote-pilot the shuttle from the ship and then have the cutter crew take up residence in the shuttle and hot-bunk it, but that sounds rather unpleasant for a trip that might take several weeks.

A computer substituting for a small-craft bridge is reduced by one factor. You'd need at least a 1/bis, probably a Mod/2 to support Jump 1.

 

[Condottiere]

For a minute there I thought this was the thread about under hundred tonne starships.

Specific to Mongoose, but I suspect can be applied generally, all you need in a hundred tonne volume for a stable transition. Since Mongoose uses jump bubbles, the two hulls don't need to be wired up specifically; if you do use the lanthanum grid, you drape over a jump net.

 

[Brandon C]

Nowhere does it state that two less-than-the 100 ton minimum, when docked together to make a vessel that meats the minimum, is capable of jump.

However, it is compatible with the rules for two ships connected to each other jumping, using their combined tonnage. As long as the small craft carrying the jump drive cannot jump by itself, I see no rule being broken.