Born in Space?

[archhealer]

In the homeworld tables and guidelines for T20, I've noticed and wondered that one can't have 'no homeworld' or 'born spacer' sort of options. Va, Lo-G I suppose would be close, but it seems to me that, in a universe where a great many people make their living aboard starships and are on board for sometimes weeks at a time in any given month, wouldn't a child born to such people grow up calling a ship home? And what would that do for the homeworld skills/feats/etc?

 

[Chaos]

I´d treat that pretty much the same as an Asteroid Belt homeworld.

 

[veltyen]

I'd have to agree with Archhealer that spacer would be a little different from belter. No mono-focus on asteroidal resource reclamation for starters.

Growing up aboard a ship would probably have a lot of similarities to growing up on a low-pop hostile world. Either way it's tough wandering around outside, and the people you interact with on a regular and contining basis would be quite small. Unlike a small colony you would be potentially interacting with a large number of people on a temporary basis.

Low-G on the other hand I disagree with. Ships (dependant on setting) nearly always have constant artificial grav, probably at around 0.9 to 1.1 G.

So dependant on background both the High and Low population traits could be appropriate, as could industrial (gas giant platforms, mobile construction yard, salvage vessels). The vacuum trait would always be appropriate as well.

 

[parmasson]

JoT and Vaccsuit come to mind as homeworld skills.

JoT because starships are one big failure waiting to happen.

Vaccsuit because they are what you need if that failure happens.

I can see them as mildly agoraphobic as well
[edit] Imagine all the allergies to pollen and other plant stuff.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Well it probably isn't a T20 choice because it wasn't a CT choice. Further the vast majority of Citizens never leave their home world, except possibly to serve a hitch in the military. Travellers are the exception, not the rule. Further like in David Webber's books, I can see Forced leaves of absence for Pregnant Military Personell and even Merchants. (One doesn't want to subject a fetus to things like Fusion Plants and other hazards.)The chances of being born and brought up on a Starship are actually fairly slim. (Though since characters are the exception, not the rule I can see it as a possibility.)

 

[veltyen]

Economics do nix the option thinking about it.

A child on a merchant is taking up valuable cargo/high passage space that is of enormous cost compared to parking the child somewhere. You could buy a place in a really good creche for the oppurtunity cost.

Naval vessels are off limits.

Long range vessels that only return to known space on a several year basis are about the only time that it could occur. The Zhodani coreward missions. Extreme range scouts. Cross gulf traders. So possible but rare.

If the culture ends up more like The Culture then it does become more of a concern.

On a related note the concept of living on an orbital is also not an option, which would be quite similar to being ship bound.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by veltyen:
On a related note the concept of living on an orbital is also not an option, which would be quite similar to being ship bound.

Wait, why not? Are you talking about space colonies? Why wouldn't they be an option?

 

[veltyen]

As in not an option on the homeworld generation tables.

 

[stofsk]

Ah. Me a stupidhead.

 

[archhealer]

While I'd agree about military ships being off limits, and perhaps subsidized merchants, I think private merchant ships are a very possible place for child-reering. I mean, especially if it's a vital member of the crew (Or members) having the child. I can't see the sole owner of a private merchant ship putting it in dock for a couple of years, just cause they ahd a kid.

 

[veltyen]

The problem I see is the potential darwin award winner in the Crewmember who has all their children on board when the ship goes missing.

Far safer to park children with extended family that you visit often, and not an uncommon model these days for similar occupations.

When they get old enough and useful enough that they can pull their own weight then maybe they come back onboard.

Looking over the belter class it fits this aspect quite nicely. The restriction on having mining skills is only after 1st level, otherwise the class isn't a bad model for a spacer brat who has spent from 14 to 18 on board a ship of some kind.

 

[Ran Targas]

Bureaucrats being bureaucrats, I could forsee the child either automatically assuming the citizenship of the parent or failing that, the port of registry of the ship.

 

[Chaos]

I can imagine quite well that a merchant ship crew member would their child with them. I imagine they have some amount of baggage allowance, which they could trade off for the space occupied by the child, and pay the kid´s life support cost out of their salary.
And I can definitely see a ship´s owner-aboard taking their kids.

I´m thinking of creating a variant Belter class (or maybe a Belter/Merchant/Scout mix) called Spacer, to account for those children who grow up in space, which is much more common IMTU than in the OTU - although "grow up in space" includes those who live on space stations, highports, outposts on hostile worlds, and such. Like Belters, Spacers would start out as Young Adults and need to take at least one term of Spacer before starting adventures.

 

[archhealer]

Chaos, that's about where I was headed with this. For those argueing economic restrictions of having kids....Think about why farming families always wanted so many kids; They gotta do what they're told, and after about age 4, or even earlier, they can begin doing simple tasks, and they get progressively better with age. Maybe not with any formal or college training, but damn they'll know their ship. Also, you don't have to PAY them till they're adults. That MUST balance out at least a good chunk of the cost of having them aboard.

 

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Archhealer:
Chaos, that's about where I was headed with this. For those argueing economic restrictions of having kids....Think about why farming families always wanted so many kids; They gotta do what they're told, and after about age 4, or even earlier, they can begin doing simple tasks, and they get progressively better with age. Maybe not with any formal or college training, but damn they'll know their ship. Also, you don't have to PAY them till they're adults. That MUST balance out at least a good chunk of the cost of having them aboard.

True. I think a child can contribute towards running the ship starting about age 10 or so.
They are certainly able to do 1/3 or 1/2 of a steward´s job - washing, cleaning, cooking, looking after the passengers.
And they can probably at least help out with some of the routine technical stuff, running checks with testing devices and so on, plus they can get into places that adults are too big for.
I also bet that passengers who travel with children of their own would prefer to be on a ship with spacer children - having playmates at hand keeps the little ones out of their hair (that alone might be worth a higher ticket price), and they know for sure that the crew has experience looking after kids and keeping them from doing anything dangerous.

 

[Rossoneill]

Using the T20 rules for costs and revenues
I dont think kids would be allowed normally
It takes 750 cr each week for life support and space that could get you 8000 cr in revenue per jump /week
So assuming 2 jumps per month + travel time
You would pay upwards of 3000 cr per month for Ls
And lose upwards of 16000 cr per month in passenger revenue per kid
That to me would eliminate all but owner captains kids, i doubt many ships can afford the revenue hit,and no one makes enough to pay the ship back for the loss in revenue
In one year it would cost roughly 228,000 cr in lost revenue and LS costs for just one kid.
(I assumed the equivalent of one week per month is spent using no Ls from being on the ground )
To a typical free trader i think this would be a very significant loss

 

[archhealer]

Keep in mind, that cost of LS includes food, too. You gotta feed the kid, no matter where they are, may as well be on ship. Same with water, bathing, etc. So that cost doesn't really apply, since it'll happen no matter where you bring them. Air, on the other hand... well, excluding vaccuum and toxic atmospheres, that's free most placed, but still. I don't think it's that unlikely.

 

[Chaos]

And as for lost revenue... parents could share thweir staterooms that with their kid. For smaller children, at, least, that won´t be a problem (I couldn´t see a baby/infant being alone in a stateroom or cabin anyway).

 

[Rossoneill]

I always assumed that all crew shared staterooms
At least on free traders and all navy ships .
On a well run ship you should not have non used staterooms as they are a dead loss revenue wise .
Without having a free stateroom or 1/2 of one at all times you cannot plan on having kids on board as a full time activity .
Feeding a kid on planet with fresh food runs 35 cr a week versus the 750 cr per week for kids or crew on shipboard.
I stand by my original statement That unless you have an extra 1/2 unused stateroom and or a captain that does not mind an extra 3000 cr or more LS wasted per month .
If no 1/2 stateroom is free the loss of a full stateroom at 10000 cr per jump over a year is very significant to me or even 8000 cr per jump for middle passage .

 

[endersg]

I could see the cr750 argument for small ships, but for large bulk ships who rely on cargo mostly, its less of an argument. I think more importantly, source books list some highports as being huge with 10,000 or so occupants. Surely that includes children.

I think it is possible and realistic that there could be 'spacer' children who spend all (or enough) of their lives in space to qualify for a 'space' homeworld.