External Docking Mounts

[atpollard]

External Docking Mount: To conserve interior deck space, it is possible to mount a small or large craft on the outside of another ship. Rather than taking up space from the hull, whenever a craft is docked to the ship the size of the craft is added to the hull size of the ship for purposes of determining acceleration, jump capability, fuel use, etc. An external docking mount does require a small amount of interior space from the mothership’s hull. This is equal to 30% of the size of the craft to be docked. For example, to install an external docking mount capable of carrying a 40-ton small craft would require 12 tons of hull space in the mothership.
An external docking mount will reduce the streamlining of a small craft or starship by one factor (i.e. streamlined to partially streamlined, etc). This streamlining penalty can be avoided by doubling the cost of the mount to reflect the extra care and expense of working the mount directly into the streamlining of the mothership itself.

A simple question, since a ship could be stored INTERNAL for 100% of its size, why does the same ship require 30% for a docking mounts and 100% for the craft to be stored on the exterior? I found no discussion on this in a limited search.

Shouldn't this require the 30 ton module on a modular cutter to have a 9 ton external docking mount (at double cost to restore streamlining)? The 50 ton cutter design does not reflect this.

I am just trying to understand what is needed to use the 30 ton modules on another craft.

 

[far-trader]

How'd I miss this when you posted it? I kind of wondered what you were talking about in the design thread

Oh well, my 2 centicreds, late as it is...

A simple question, since a ship could be stored INTERNAL for 100% of its size, why does the same ship require 30% for a docking mounts and 100% for the craft to be stored on the exterior? I found no discussion on this in a limited search.

I'm sure it has been discussed, at length, unless it was just in my head

It bugs me to no end as well. That and a 95ton shuttle needing more hanger space (123.5tons) than a 100ton scout (110tons) on ships over 1000tons.

And the whole "modular" thing as well of course...

Shouldn't this require the 30 ton module on a modular cutter to have a 9 ton external docking mount (at double cost to restore streamlining)? The 50 ton cutter design does not reflect this.

I have done a T20 design of the Cutter with docking mount. With a couple small cheats First I built the Cutter as a 20ton ship, so it only needs a 4ton bridge. Second, the Cutter being the smaller, I figured the docking mount for 20tons instead of 30tons. Everything fits, just.

Currently though I figure the 30ton module is a 30ton small craft carried at 100% of it's volume aboard the 50ton cutter. So the Cutter has to be designed as a 50ton craft, meaning a larger bridge and a full hull.

I am just trying to understand what is needed to use the 30 ton modules on another craft.

So, I'd say:

Did you price them as hangers? And pay the full hull cost for the carrying craft? And built the rest of the ship to be able to carry them?

If yes then that's fine imo. Seems to be the way the rules are meant to work. I still don't think it's at all realistic but, "it's a game", right?

 

[veltyen]

It bugs me to no end as well. That and a 95ton shuttle needing more hanger space (123.5tons) than a 100ton scout (110tons) on ships over 1000tons.

This I find OK. Maybe I've self justified it.

Small craft have different bridge requirements. Small craft are designed to be maintained externally (in a hangar or other open space) whereas large craft are designed to be maintained from within. The additional space required for stowage is therefore to facilitate maintenance.

 

[atpollard]

I have done a T20 design of the Cutter with docking mount. With a couple small cheats First I built the Cutter as a 20ton ship, so it only needs a 4ton bridge. Second, the Cutter being the smaller, I figured the docking mount for 20tons instead of 30tons. Everything fits, just.

This was the approach that I tried for the first draft of the 'Stone Pony' Shuttle. It could work, but it just didn't 'feel' right.

Currently though I figure the 30ton module is a 30ton small craft carried at 100% of it's volume aboard the 50ton cutter. So the Cutter has to be designed as a 50ton craft, meaning a larger bridge and a full hull.

This looks closest to how the official 50 ton cutter did it, but they didn't seem to pay for the 'small craft' module. The 1 MCr price tag is too low for 30 tons of fuel tank. The current prices are set up more like an interior remodel of a 30 ton cargo bay which is not what the text has traditionally described.

Did you price them as hangers? And pay the full hull cost for the carrying craft? And built the rest of the ship to be able to carry them?
If yes then that's fine imo. Seems to be the way the rules are meant to work. I still don't think it's at all realistic but, "it's a game", right?

For the Stone Pony (a double-module 'Cutter'), I paid full price for three hulls - the 40 ton core, and two 30 ton 'modules'. Then the core was designed with a 100 ton craft worth of drives and bridge. In the end, my craft was intended to be equal to two 50 ton shuttles, so I tried to follow the official design as much as possible. I just moved the hull cost for the module from the 'cutter' to the 'module' so you could buy the 'cutter' without the modules and the modules without the cutter.

 

[shadowdragon]

The docking mount needs to be anchored to the hull itself in order to hold the docked ship secure and safe while underway. Accelerations can wreak havoc when applied to two separate objects in close proximity-- envision driving down the highway with a cabinet attached to the top of your car. without those handy ropes and straps to hold it tightly in place the roof of your car can suffer significant damage, if the cabinet and your car do not part company at some point due to various acceleration forces such as wind, lane changes, braking, accelerating etc... that is why the mount itself takes away from your available hull space. the reason 100% of the docked vessel affects your acceleration rating, jump range etc...- well its considered part and parcel of the hull volume since they are now in close contact and locked together.

and as far as hanger space goes- i use the rules for ships above 1000 dTons for all hangers and docking bays, regardless of mothership size, unless the bay or hanger is designed for a specific hull form. adding automated docking systems which pull the craft to its docking position allow the bay or hanger size to be reduced to a minimum of 105% over subordinate craft volume, and designing the bay to allow egress only and docking only while at a repair facility (i.e. escape pods) will reduce it to 101%.

but thats just me