Fuel Purification Plant

[boomslang]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Otherwise, if Book 2 did it your way...if all a PC had to do in designing his ship was say, "I want my ship to be built to use unrefined fuel," then why would there be a unrefined jump penalty DM listed in Book 2 at all?

Because there are some ships which are specifically designed to require refined fuel precisely in order to make them less attractive to hijackers.

The fuel purifiers in the military (and quasi-military) vessels make more sense than what you're proposing.

Um, so, according to B2, how much do they displace and how much do they cost?

B2 is written B5-agnostic; nowhere in any version of B2 is there any evidence of the existence of shipboard fuel purifiers. They are a strictly post-HG artifact, but even later versions of B2 are BT-complete and do not require anything from later Books.

Sorry, but that's how it's written. Shipboard fuel purifiers just aren't there in B2, no matter how hard you care to look for them...

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by boomslang:
Sorry, but that's how it's written. Shipboard fuel purifiers just aren't there in B2, no matter how hard you care to look for them...

OK, the boss isn't looking so I gotta be quick...

I came to that same conclusion myself a while back, and the explanation I came up with for why the drives are the same size and cost but military gets away with using unrefined fuel is because...

OH. Hi boss Me? Nothing, how 'bout you? Up to anything yourself this perfectly awful night? OK, see ya around...

Close, now where was I...

Oh, yeah, the reason is the crewing. Military crews are better trained and led, so they are more on top of issues like cleaning out the flux capacitor and flushing the system, so using unrefined fuel is just a nuisance, not a danger. Civies are just too lazy or dainty to get really dirty doing those jobs so for them running on unrefined fuel can be hazardous.

Same idea covers the difference in sensor performance. It's not that the package the civies have is poorer than the military, they are the same in fact. The difference is in the crew.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by boomslang:
Sorry, but that's how it's written. Shipboard fuel purifiers just aren't there in B2, no matter how hard you care to look for them...

OK, the boss isn't looking so I gotta be quick...

I came to that same conclusion myself a while back, and the explanation I came up with for why the drives are the same size and cost but military gets away with using unrefined fuel is because...

OH. Hi boss Me? Nothing, how 'bout you? Up to anything yourself this perfectly awful night? OK, see ya around...

Close, now where was I...

Oh, yeah, the reason is the crewing. Military crews are better trained and led, so they are more on top of issues like cleaning out the flux capacitor and flushing the system, so using unrefined fuel is just a nuisance, not a danger. Civies are just too lazy or dainty to get really dirty doing those jobs so for them running on unrefined fuel can be hazardous.

Same idea covers the difference in sensor performance. It's not that the package the civies have is poorer than the military, they are the same in fact. The difference is in the crew.

 

[Renard Ruche]

I just skimmed through the TTB and my First Edition LBB2...streamlining seems to have gotten slightly more beneficial between the two. In the 1EdLBB2, Fuel skimming is not even mentioned. That is right, it's not even given as an option in the rule-set. All it say about Streamling is that a vessel MUST have it to enter a planet with an atmosphere. I can't find the companion LBB3 at the moment, but will see if it mentions anything.

 

[Renard Ruche]

I just skimmed through the TTB and my First Edition LBB2...streamlining seems to have gotten slightly more beneficial between the two. In the 1EdLBB2, Fuel skimming is not even mentioned. That is right, it's not even given as an option in the rule-set. All it say about Streamling is that a vessel MUST have it to enter a planet with an atmosphere. I can't find the companion LBB3 at the moment, but will see if it mentions anything.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I came to that same conclusion myself a while back, and the explanation I came up with for why the drives are the same size and cost but military gets away with using unrefined fuel is because...

(Tap, tap, tap on the shoulder...)

(cough)

Oh, hey, you turned around!

Um...no. There are some differences in the Book 2 civilian drives and the Book 5 military drives.

Same ship, created with both systems...

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">TL 9 Type R Subsidized Merchant
------------------------------------------------
Book 2 Book 5
-------------- --------------
Jump Drive-C 30MCr 20 tons 32MCr 8 tons
Maneuver Drive-C 12MCr 5 tons 12MCr 8 tons
Power Plant-C 24MCr 10 tons 36MCr 12 tons
----- ------- ------ -------
Totals 66MCr 35 tons 80MCr 28 tons</pre>[/QUOTE]You've got a 35 ton civilian modular drive at a cost of 66MCr.

You've got a smaller, more efficient military drive, rated at 28 tons, but it costs a lot more at 80MCr.

I say the military drive is more efficient because the powerplant uses 4 tons of fuel per four weeks where as the civilian drive uses 10 tons of fuel per four weeks.

Point being: There definitely are differences in the two types of drives.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
I came to that same conclusion myself a while back, and the explanation I came up with for why the drives are the same size and cost but military gets away with using unrefined fuel is because...

(Tap, tap, tap on the shoulder...)

(cough)

Oh, hey, you turned around!

Um...no. There are some differences in the Book 2 civilian drives and the Book 5 military drives.

Same ship, created with both systems...

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">TL 9 Type R Subsidized Merchant
------------------------------------------------
Book 2 Book 5
-------------- --------------
Jump Drive-C 30MCr 20 tons 32MCr 8 tons
Maneuver Drive-C 12MCr 5 tons 12MCr 8 tons
Power Plant-C 24MCr 10 tons 36MCr 12 tons
----- ------- ------ -------
Totals 66MCr 35 tons 80MCr 28 tons</pre>[/QUOTE]You've got a 35 ton civilian modular drive at a cost of 66MCr.

You've got a smaller, more efficient military drive, rated at 28 tons, but it costs a lot more at 80MCr.

I say the military drive is more efficient because the powerplant uses 4 tons of fuel per four weeks where as the civilian drive uses 10 tons of fuel per four weeks.

Point being: There definitely are differences in the two types of drives.

 

[far-trader]

Oh yeah, between B2 and B5, agreed. I thought the question was why are civy B2 drives any different than military B2 drives as they all cost the same, use the same fuel and take the same space, for the same performance. The difference being one can use unrefined fuel and the other can't.

 

[far-trader]

Oh yeah, between B2 and B5, agreed. I thought the question was why are civy B2 drives any different than military B2 drives as they all cost the same, use the same fuel and take the same space, for the same performance. The difference being one can use unrefined fuel and the other can't.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
The difference being one can use unrefined fuel and the other can't.

I still don't look at it that way, but I guess it's a matter for GM choice.

Given what's written in Book 5, I don't think any Jump drive (Book 2 or Book 5) can use unrefined fuel and not suffer the penalty Jump DM without a fuel purifier.

Given what's written in Book 5, I do think Maneuver Drives can use unrefined fuel at no penalty.

And, as far as military drives created using Book 2: I think it's a cost issue. Book 2 is modular components. Book 5 is custom built jobs.

I guess the distinction shouldn't be civilian vs. military. It should be modular vs. custom built.

It's just that most civilian ships don't go to the expense of being custom built. Modular is cheaper (to the tune of several million credits in the TL 9 Type R I posted above...and that's just for the drives), so civies go modular.

There's no reason why military vessels can't go the modular route. A world wants to save some money, you can't blame 'em for that.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by far-trader:
The difference being one can use unrefined fuel and the other can't.

I still don't look at it that way, but I guess it's a matter for GM choice.

Given what's written in Book 5, I don't think any Jump drive (Book 2 or Book 5) can use unrefined fuel and not suffer the penalty Jump DM without a fuel purifier.

Given what's written in Book 5, I do think Maneuver Drives can use unrefined fuel at no penalty.

And, as far as military drives created using Book 2: I think it's a cost issue. Book 2 is modular components. Book 5 is custom built jobs.

I guess the distinction shouldn't be civilian vs. military. It should be modular vs. custom built.

It's just that most civilian ships don't go to the expense of being custom built. Modular is cheaper (to the tune of several million credits in the TL 9 Type R I posted above...and that's just for the drives), so civies go modular.

There's no reason why military vessels can't go the modular route. A world wants to save some money, you can't blame 'em for that.

 

[JustinInOz]

Hello Good People,

My first post here so bear with me.

Jupiter's G rating at its diameter is 2.621 Gs. Saturn's is 1.157 Gs. Uranus is 0.887 Gs. And Neptune's is 1.16 Gs.

Note that the gas giant's G rating will increase the closer you get to the planet's core.

The statement that the pull of gravity of an object will increase as you entre a body is completely untrue.

The pull at the apparent "surface" is the maximum that it can/will exert. If you can beat it's pull there, you can beat it anywhere.

Think of it this way, the pull of gravity is the result of all of the mass pulling you toward it. As you enter the body a portion of its mass is "behind" you while most of it is "in front" of you. This bit behind you pulls you in the opposite diratcion of the bit in front. So, the deeper you go into an object the lower net pull of gravity you experience.

If you were able to tunnel into the middle of a planetary body (ignoring the effects of crushing pressure or burning magma) you would experience zero g. This is something that I calculated in physics at university.

So if you had a 1 g drive ship and you wanted to skim a Jupiter sized body, you would have to slingshot through the atmosphere. I imagine that you could hit the side at escape velocity and use the drives to adjust for atmospheric drag and course adjustment. the deeper you cut throught the better. The more dense the atmosphere (quicker refuel) and the less pull of the planet you would experience (easier maneuver). You would hate to make a mistake because you would have a real hard time getting out if you misjudged things.

The main trick would be to calculate a trajectory that gave you enough velocity to pass through in one go. It woould be a bit tedious to have to whip round for another go. You do only have 1 g acceleration after all.

Either that or look for a Unranus sized body and skim to your hearts content.

 

[JustinInOz]

Hello Good People,

My first post here so bear with me.

Jupiter's G rating at its diameter is 2.621 Gs. Saturn's is 1.157 Gs. Uranus is 0.887 Gs. And Neptune's is 1.16 Gs.

Note that the gas giant's G rating will increase the closer you get to the planet's core.

The statement that the pull of gravity of an object will increase as you entre a body is completely untrue.

The pull at the apparent "surface" is the maximum that it can/will exert. If you can beat it's pull there, you can beat it anywhere.

Think of it this way, the pull of gravity is the result of all of the mass pulling you toward it. As you enter the body a portion of its mass is "behind" you while most of it is "in front" of you. This bit behind you pulls you in the opposite diratcion of the bit in front. So, the deeper you go into an object the lower net pull of gravity you experience.

If you were able to tunnel into the middle of a planetary body (ignoring the effects of crushing pressure or burning magma) you would experience zero g. This is something that I calculated in physics at university.

So if you had a 1 g drive ship and you wanted to skim a Jupiter sized body, you would have to slingshot through the atmosphere. I imagine that you could hit the side at escape velocity and use the drives to adjust for atmospheric drag and course adjustment. the deeper you cut throught the better. The more dense the atmosphere (quicker refuel) and the less pull of the planet you would experience (easier maneuver). You would hate to make a mistake because you would have a real hard time getting out if you misjudged things.

The main trick would be to calculate a trajectory that gave you enough velocity to pass through in one go. It woould be a bit tedious to have to whip round for another go. You do only have 1 g acceleration after all.

Either that or look for a Unranus sized body and skim to your hearts content.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Justin in Oz:
The statement that the pull of gravity of an object will increase as you entre a body is completely untrue.

Actually, it is true, if you're talking about gas giants, to an extent (the extent I was referring to in that quote was GG skimming).

Gravity is a function of mass. If you drilled down into the surface of the earth, gravitational pull would actually decrease.

But, with a GG, there is no fine line where one can point to and say, "This is the surface". So, a ship captain diving deep past the surface of a GG can certainly experience higher gravitational pull for a time. Which is what I was referring to.

If you dive too deep, sure, gravity will lighten up on you, but the pressure will flatten you like a bug.

FYI, too, there have been several GGs found without the massive gravitiational pull we see in Jupiter. Many GGs have a G rating less than the Earth's.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Justin in Oz:
The statement that the pull of gravity of an object will increase as you entre a body is completely untrue.

Actually, it is true, if you're talking about gas giants, to an extent (the extent I was referring to in that quote was GG skimming).

Gravity is a function of mass. If you drilled down into the surface of the earth, gravitational pull would actually decrease.

But, with a GG, there is no fine line where one can point to and say, "This is the surface". So, a ship captain diving deep past the surface of a GG can certainly experience higher gravitational pull for a time. Which is what I was referring to.

If you dive too deep, sure, gravity will lighten up on you, but the pressure will flatten you like a bug.

FYI, too, there have been several GGs found without the massive gravitiational pull we see in Jupiter. Many GGs have a G rating less than the Earth's.

 

[deniable]

Yes, gravity is a factor of mass, but also the distance from the object.

We were taught f = (G m1 m2)/r^2, so the closer you get, the greater the force.

And if nobody mentioned it, the atmosphere of a gas giant will get thicker as you dive deeper.

And to add another, possibly obscure, reference, when they 'fixed' things in TNE / FF&S they introduced Contra Grav (CG) lifters and

By neutralizing most of a world's gravitational field, a ship with only 1G of thrust can still escape the world's gravity well.

so someone must have been thinking in the same direction. I wish they hadn't. I liked the old way.

 

[deniable]

Yes, gravity is a factor of mass, but also the distance from the object.

We were taught f = (G m1 m2)/r^2, so the closer you get, the greater the force.

And if nobody mentioned it, the atmosphere of a gas giant will get thicker as you dive deeper.

And to add another, possibly obscure, reference, when they 'fixed' things in TNE / FF&S they introduced Contra Grav (CG) lifters and

By neutralizing most of a world's gravitational field, a ship with only 1G of thrust can still escape the world's gravity well.

so someone must have been thinking in the same direction. I wish they hadn't. I liked the old way.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Supplement Four:
Why can't a TL 9 ship do its overhaul at a TL 13 port?

Obviously it can.

Assume for a moment that 2 Class A starports both build Fat Traders for sale in the same subsector. Yard A builds the ships at TL 9 and Yard B builds the ships at TL 13. A third starport (Yard C) builds TL 15 Fat Traders, but is located 4 subsectors away. You are in the market for a Fat Trader and have a fist full of cash to plop down. Which yard should YOU purchase the ship from.

If you choose Yard A (TL 9), then LBB 5 will require your ship to have a large power plant, large fuel purifier, less capable laser turrets and a smaller cargo hold. However, you will be able to have your ship serviced at ANY class A starport in the Imperium.

If you choose Yard B (TL 13), then LBB 5 will require your ship to have a medium power plant, medium fuel purifier, more capable laser turrets and a larger cargo hold (than the TL 9 ship). However, you will be able to have your ship serviced at only some of the class A starports in your subsector. You will need to arrange your schedule to visit a TL 13+ class A starport once per year.

If you choose Yard C (TL 15), then LBB 5 will allow your ship to have a small power plant, small fuel purifier, advanced energy weapon turrets and the largest possible cargo hold. However, you will not be able to have your ship serviced at any of the class A starports in your subsector. You will need to arrange your schedule to visit the nearest TL 15+ class A starport (which could be in another sector) once per year.

It is my opinion that TL 13 is common enough to allow a ship to be serviced in "any" subsector, yet offers significant advantages over TL 9. TL 13 is, therefore, the "best" TL for a Merchant Ship.

 

[atpollard]

Originally posted by Justin in Oz:
Hello Good People,

My first post here so bear with me.

Hello Justin in Oz.
Nice to meet you.

 

[Supplement Four]

Originally posted by Deniable:
so someone must have been thinking in the same direction. I wish they hadn't. I liked the old way.

That "new way" is only in TNE and which ever other Traveller rules set decides to use the same definition.

TNE has "contra grav". MT has "M-Drive overdrive".

TNE has point-defense sandcasters, too. In T20, the point-defense is dropped in favor of the way CT presents sandcasters.

In CT, the rules are different on some things.

The Escape Velocity rule is one of the things that's different.