Once more, I am not claiming it is canon, and I would be very grateful if you would kindly refrain from the straw man argument.
Non OTU: A jump shuttle for the cutter
- Thread starter Carlobrand
- Start date
Once more, I am not claiming it is canon, and I would be very grateful if you would kindly refrain from the straw man argument.
The cutter isn't controlling the jump. The jump shuttle has both a bridge and a computer.
Boy would these rules lawyers have had a heart attack at my version (IMTU) ... I sailed A LOT closer to the edge than you did. My 20 dTon bridge is divided between 4 dTons on the Cutter and the 16 dTon expansion on the Jump Shuttle ... with the computer on the Cutter.
coliver988
SOC-14 1K
Supplement 7 - System Defense Boat Jump Shuttle.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
You can't split the controls, not without penalty.
Show me 20 contiguous dTons of Bridge in the classic Type S.
Then there is also a reference to small craft sharing life support and power with ships they are attached to.
Then there is also an ability to have a backup computer or bridge.
Then there is the MegaTraveller rules on Control Panels as an expansion and clarification of the CT intent behind the "20 dT, variable cost Bridge".
So what is the RAW penalty?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
A single bridge controls the jump drive at one time; outside of that you can probably do runarounds with the other ship systems.
Like much of the engineering and physics involved, jumping is a mysterious process, but the literature does indicate when in comes to jumping, one suitably large enough bridge is in control.
Like much of the engineering and physics involved, jumping is a mysterious process, but the literature does indicate when in comes to jumping, one suitably large enough bridge is in control.
I find no such rule. I also find no rule saying you can. The prospect of splitting the controls does not appear to be something they'd thought we might try. I don't recall any analogous situation ever coming up. On the other hand, I doubt the drives care where commands are coming from, and if the split systems are designed to interface, I can't think of any technological reason they couldn't other than keeping all the actual displays and keys and such where the user is sitting.
Jump shuttle has room for a full bridge by HG design rules, plus a few dTons to spare for quarters. It doesn't by Book 2 rules: 26 tons over budget with no quarters. I presume it's an HG design, but prices don't match.
Why is the cutter bridge under its normal size? Just curious.
I did up a cutter module that allowed the cutter to jump. 10 dTon bridge extension in the module, plus jump drive and fuel and a net made of the jump cables from the jump ship in S9, erected on spars to fill it out to 100 dTons when you wanted to jump. Planned it as a jump capable lifeboat for something like a "Bligh's journey in the launch" scenario.
I disliked the progression in the rules for 20% for small craft and 2% for starships from the rules since the deck plans disagreed so strongly with the RAW numbers. I just use 2% everywhere with a 4 dT minimum Cockpit. It was just an IMTU thing where I decided that the plans were correct and the rules needed to be fixed. Visually, a 20 dT bridge on a Free Trader just looks wrong.
Okay, that actually makes sense. The canon approach sticks you with 20 dTons on starships but has it costing less as the ship gets smaller, which made no sense at all, not to mention making life a bit harder for the small entrepreneurs.
There it is, the 30 dT jump module for cutters:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=28863&page=7
Jeez, I'd forgotten it had been that long ago.
Someone later pointed out that, with 50 dTons of empty space outside the boat and inside the field, I could stick other things inside the field to take with me, like another cutter module with fuel to provide for additional jumps.
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=28863&page=7
Jeez, I'd forgotten it had been that long ago.
- 10dT bridge extension
- 2 dT jump-1 drive
- 1 dT Model-1 computer
- 10 dT fuel tank
- 2 dT small craft stateroom
Someone later pointed out that, with 50 dTons of empty space outside the boat and inside the field, I could stick other things inside the field to take with me, like another cutter module with fuel to provide for additional jumps.
I actually have no problem with the small ship 20-ton bridge- figure it's a BUNCH of automation that alllows the thin crew of a Type S or A to operate with just one person at the helm.
So 20 tons on a Type S is 10x the automation of an HG bridge, on a Type A 5x the automation, etc.
So 20 tons on a Type S is 10x the automation of an HG bridge, on a Type A 5x the automation, etc.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Hmm - what exactly does a non-OTU tag mean?
Does it mean we are still bound to rule system canon? Which rule system version?
To my mind the 20t bridge minimum has always made sense.
It is the minimum size for:
control systems
cockpit/bridge workstations
avionics
sensors
grav plates
heat management
atmosphere/water system
acceleration compensators
ship's locker
airlocks
The design systems that reduce or remove the minimum bridge size often require you to account for all of those components.
Does it mean we are still bound to rule system canon? Which rule system version?
To my mind the 20t bridge minimum has always made sense.
It is the minimum size for:
control systems
cockpit/bridge workstations
avionics
sensors
grav plates
heat management
atmosphere/water system
acceleration compensators
ship's locker
airlocks
The design systems that reduce or remove the minimum bridge size often require you to account for all of those components.
Draw the deckplan for that same bridge in a 100 dT, 400 dT and 1000 dT hull and see if it still makes sense.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
The way I do it, it does.
Two random 100 ton and 1000 ton ships will not reasonably have the same volume in airlocks (number x capacity), grav plates, or heat management. The 100 ton ship will likely have fewer bridge crew than the 1000 ton ship, requiring fewer crewstations (and thus less volume).
GT ignored minimum bridge size (sort of) and MgT dropped it to 10 tons.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
And yet they both allocate 20t to bridge space, which under my interpretation accounts for all the stuff not in the design sequence.
I think the argument is that the 20 ton minimum should be stricken. I don't see a convincing argument (other than it being RAW) to keep it.
