FFS3 for T5

[mike wightman]

I belong to the Dan "far-trader" Burns heresy that has as one of its guiding principles that the original intention of CT was that a shipboard ton was its actual mass - i.e. 1 ship ton equals 1000kg.

I don't think CT really answers the question you have posed, but a spaceship designed using Striker may give you a better idea.

 

[robject]

Marc's recent thoughts confirm that the volume of a hull is also its (typical?) structural mass in tons: 1000kg (1.5 tons) per dton; however, he then throws in payload as (I think) averaging out to about half the mass of water.

Structure is 1.5 tons (= 1000 kg) per displacement ton. Payload is +12 tons per displacement ton.

A 10-ton launch, empty, masses 15 tons of structure.
A 10-ton launch, payload is (7? Displacement tons) = 84 tons.

A 10-ton launch loaded, is 99,000 kg = 99 tons.

More of his recent thoughts includes a preference to keep the Type A Jump Drive at 10 tons displacement.

Thus,

Jump drive volume = 5 tons + 5 tons per 200 jump units.

 

[far-trader]

Is that payload just for cargo and/or fuel though, or as your example shows everything?

In other words is it:

An empty 10ton hull is 15tonnes

A 1ton maneuver drive is (and adds) 15tonnes.

An empty cargo bay adds nothing but each 1ton of cargo put in adds 15tonnes.

 

[robject]

Here's the quote directly from Marc, as a guide for hashing things out a bit.

For example, a 10 ton launch. It has a volume of 135 cubic meters. If filled with Liquid Hydrogen, it would mass 10 tons. If filled with water, it would mass 135 tons.

A 3 meter diameter hull section 1.5 meter long is about 15 m^2. Assuming the hull is 10 cm thick, and titanium (4540 kg per m^3) then it's 680 kg per section. Interior fittings could round that out to 1000 kg per 1.5 m section. The cubage of that section 1.5m is 10.6 m^3
(3.14*(1.5^2)*1.5) or just less than one ton (0.8 tons).

Let's assume cargo is half the density of water = 500 kg/m^2, = 7 tons per "ton". Plus one ton per "ton" for structure.

So let's say:

Structure is 1.5 tons (= 1000 kg) per displacement ton. Payload is +12 tons per displacement ton.

A 10-ton launch, empty, masses 15 tons of structure.
A 10-ton launch, payload is (7? Displacement tons) = 84 tons.

A 10-ton launch loaded, is 99,000 kg = 99 tons.


A 727 fuselage is 2.5 squares = 3.7 m wide. And the useful length (omit tail and end section) is about 24 squares = 36 meters long. Empty (counts wings) = 45,000 kg and max = 95,000 kg.

My eyes generally glaze over, though.

 

[daltoncalford]

Hey robject,

If you have any formulas, notes, rough drafts, etc, for what you are doing, pm them to me and I work them over in a couple of formats. With that in hand I can generate some feedback to you about your system.

I also have all the classic traveller reprints, megatraveller, TNE and T4 books (I am a bit of a packrat). I can come back with diviation numbers from any of the systems once I have your numbers.

best regards

Dalton

 

[ditzie]

HI Gentlemen,

Here's something to contribute to a modular component concept.

I was directed to a nice CT-style 800t yacht recently, and thought it needed a weapon. So I started with a lovely T4 Gunsmith spreadsheet and came up with a laser large enough to mount on the craft.

Then I dumbed down the numbers until I could present the weapon in CT-friendly detail. The result was very nice.

It's a TL15 design, using a soft X ray and a 20cm focal diameter lens. Its range is about twenty thousnd km. It requires 4 EPs to fire, and supposedly generates 1000Mj. Would that inflict 12 hits?

It's a hair under 18m long, and displaces 5 tons. Would that be two hardpoints?

It costs MCr25.

 

[robject]

FFS3 Design Formulae Required for Book 2

</font>

• Hulls at TL12?</font>
• Drives (jump, maneuver, power) at TL12?</font>
• Lasers (beam and pulse) at TL12?</font>
• Missiles at TL12?</font>

I think if we had formulae for each of those components above, then Book 2 could be rebuilt as a collection of modules based on those formulae.

 

[aramis]

No, 1 HP for 5T turrets.

 

[robject]

Thread Resurrect

Okay, I'm starting eight discussions in the playtest Moot regarding ways we can dumb down -- er, I mean, adapt -- Fire, Fusion, and Steel 2, into Fire, Fusion, and Steel 3. The discussions are on:

</font>

• General concepts</font>
• Surface area and Mass</font>
• Hulls</font>
• Bridge/Controls</font>
• Sensors</font>
• Computers</font>
• Crew</font>
• "Extra Space"</font>

Weapons design will probably come up sooner or later. Needless to say, that's a big topic, and we've got plenty to keep us busy without weapons.

I hope to gather up some consensus on changes to these areas, and suggest them to Marc. I also hope to get regular feedback from Marc to guide our process.

I expect the results to be in two parts:

(1) Simplified design steps.

(2) Mappings. A translation key from FFS2 to FFS3.

The ultimate goal is to polish FFS3 down into a simplified system a ten-year-old could use, yet with a basis (more or less) in the detail of FFS2.

I expect that the resulting system will look, at face value, more like High Guard than FFS.


Consider this an invitation. The more, the merrier. And, Bring Your Own Asbestos Underwear.

 

[robject]

EDIT from above. A rewording.

The secondary goal is to keep as much of FFS2 as possible. If needed, a delta of the rules will be produced, yielding a virtual FFS3.

The primary goal is to use FFS2/3 to produce a simplified design system.

 

[Antichrist]

I think a good vehivle design system should incorporate both volume and mass.

BTW, I have T4's central supply catalogue, and I liked the armor system from it so I hope that makes it into T5.

 

[matrix cypher]

Originally posted by Antichrist:
I think a good vehivle design system should incorporate both volume and mass.

BTW, I have T4's central supply catalogue, and I liked the armor system from it so I hope that makes it into T5.

Agreed.

since manuever happens in realspace then it should be figured off of mass.

and since Jump happens in an alternate dimension it should use volume.

Including mass and volume also allows one to figure if the ship floats or not in water or other liquid oceans for wilderness refuling.

 

[Scott Martin]

If we use a reactionless drive that uses a drive "field" then accelleration becomes volume based, not mass based (in much the same way that accelleration in a gravity field is the same regardless of the mass involved)

This is the paradigm used in CT, so that 17% of ship volume would allow a ship to accellerate at 6G, whether this was a tanker with a mean density of ~4 metric tons per dT, or a heavily armoured planetoid monitor with a mean density of ~80 metric tons per dT, it took the same drive volume and power to run.

Needless to say this vastly simplifies starship design, and allows anyone who cares to calculate mass at the end to answer questions like "will it float?" or "how big a dent is this going to leave in a TL-5 tarmac landing field?"

This is (IMO) a vast improvement over needing to know mass to calculate accelleration, adding more powerplant and drive, recalculating mass to determine accelleration... repeat ad nauseum. All very real world like, but most players aren't engineers, and have no interest in doing this: I shouldn't need a computer to play a table-top RPG, so any simplifications that can be made in the design sequence that make this kind of problem go away should probably be explored.

That said, I'm hoping that HEPLAR (or some reaction drive) is included so that those of us who prefer a "harder" SF universe can spend endless hours tweaking (or a few seconds as a macro optizes a design for a given thrust

)

Scott Martin

 

[rhoneycutt]

Why wouldn't jump drive also be mass based, considering that gravity wells can cause misjumps.
I wonder how massive a ship can be before it jump-shadows itself < @.0001g's, based on 100 diameter limit for a earth-like world..size 8 and earth density >

the volume stuff was to make things easy, before everyone had computers and stuff to figure things out....its not like anyone does designs and gearhead stuff *during* a play session, eh?

 

[matrix cypher]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Why wouldn't jump drive also be mass based, considering that gravity wells can cause misjumps.
I wonder how massive a ship can be before it jump-shadows itself < @.0001g's, based on 100 diameter limit for a earth-like world..size 8 and earth density >

the volume stuff was to make things easy, before everyone had computers and stuff to figure things out....its not like anyone does designs and gearhead stuff *during* a play session, eh?

DOH!

 

[Border Reiver]

Part of the FF&S3 paradigm is to make the design sequence less scary to those without easy access to a computer. Simple arithmetic and looking up of tables (or interpolation thereof) is all that should be required.

Although I'm a total gearhead and the more detailed the better, I can see the advantage of this from a marketing viewpoint. Accessibility is king.

 

[Scott Martin]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Why wouldn't jump drive also be mass based, considering that gravity wells can cause misjumps.
I wonder how massive a ship can be before it jump-shadows itself < @.0001g's, based on 100 diameter limit for a earth-like world..size 8 and earth density >

the volume stuff was to make things easy, before everyone had computers and stuff to figure things out....its not like anyone does designs and gearhead stuff *during* a play session, eh?

Um, Yeah people do gearheady stuff during games, like reconfiguring cargo area to quarters, or adding an auxilary power plant to drive the (recently upgraded) M-Drive and weapons system on a converted merchant.

This stuff happened all the time when I played CT, and it took 5 minutes and a calculator.

You may not have noticed, but the whole "jump shadow" thing has taken on a life of its own, with the "100 diameter" rule being used to jump shadow significant chunks of the inner system, which are "shadowed" by the primary, since this is a "diameter" thing not a "gravity" thing.

Some of us heretics use gravity as the cut-off instead, but we are poo-pood by the "true" grognards

Scott Martin

P.S. the 100D cutoff is actually at G less than 0.000025 G, since it's 100 diameters, not radii...

 

[Antichrist]

Originally posted by Shere Khan:
Why wouldn't jump drive also be mass based, considering that gravity wells can cause misjumps.
I wonder how massive a ship can be before it jump-shadows itself < @.0001g's, based on 100 diameter limit for a earth-like world..size 8 and earth density >

the volume stuff was to make things easy, before everyone had computers and stuff to figure things out....its not like anyone does designs and gearhead stuff *during* a play session, eh?

As to making jump drive mass based because gravity can cause misjumps, I'd have to say no. A jump limit is caused by the fabric of space being warped by a huge mass, I.E. gravity. A jump drive obviously works on the fabric of space itself, maybe it needs 'flat' space to operate in, trying to affect space that's already distorted causes problems.

I'd stay with keeping jump drive on a pure volume base.

As to maneuver drives, I'm not sure. In GT there were 'reacionless thrusters' that produced thrust in a non newtonian fashion, those might still be based on the ships overall mass, I agree.

In T4 it was said that the ships use 'grav plates' that operated by pushing off against a grav well and thus could only work in a notable grav field. Those might be volume or power based rather than mass based.

 

[rhoneycutt]

Scott Martin:
gee..I kinda missed that cause I figured it by the 'g' equation in World Ta,er's.....my mistake. Actually, I think I'll figure how massive a ship CAN be without jump-masking itself on the correct limit...woulndn't it be funny if someone built a huge battleship that misjumped alot?
That doesn't happen IMTU for same reason people don't easily upgrade the power plant in a tramp steamer. And it would take a good deal of time, so I'd do things like that between play sessions. Reconfiguring non-load bearing bulkheads is simple. Modifying heavy machinery is not.

Antichrist: yes, space curvature affects j-drive ( IMTU at least ), and ship's mass affects space curvature, ship's volume does not. That's why I suggested making j-drives mass based.....perhaps the tiny amount a ship does curve spave by virtue of its mass lowers the efficiency of the drive, causing it to use more fuel....or jump a smaller distance on the 'normal' amount of fuel.

And, yes...I am a heretic....always been one since late 70's

 

[matrix cypher]

perhaps its not gravity that directly effects the ships ability to misjump but the effect that the stellar body has on jumpspace

the size of the body distorts jumpspace and makes it more risky.

since jumpspace is not understood completely and is just a game mechanic and not base on any realife technology or physics we can use a little handwavium with out getting to into it (we can make up stuff about jumpspace)