Golden Age Starships 5: Cutters and Shuttles now available
- Thread starter Michael Taylor
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Hmmm, I haven't seen it so this is just a guess, could it be a new approach and be 2 decks of 4.5m wide, boxed not cylindrical. That's about 50tons. It would be different though. It would fit better in multi-use decks though since the hanger would be squared with a flat walls all around, much better for cargo handling.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
I see it more as a local contract and maintenance issue myself. My interpretation is that you can't easily service a TL13 ship at a TL9 starport, so for all those worlds they don't import above their TL. Not that you can't build or repair above your local TL, just that it's not easy or economical.
And further, imtu The Imperium restricts the higher TL designs to certain parties as a control of space measure. Most private individuals are limited to owning TL9-12. Minor nobles, Client State world governments, and some Corporations are allowed to own TL13-14. Only the high nobility, Imperial world governments, a few Megacorporations and of course The Imperial Forces are allowed access to TL15 plus... which is not to say that there aren't some who break those laws. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree that the locals would, in general, have the lower tech small craft. However it is the Military Cutter that my comments stem from. By 993 virtually the entire Imperial Navy is at TL13, most of it is TL14 and some of it is TL15. At the time of the Fifth Frontier War-Rebellion (early 1100s) virtually the entire Imperial Navy is at TL15 with a few TL14 holdouts and some TL16 borderline TL17 gear. I would expect Naval "Military" Cutters to be at a minimum of TL-13, given the extreme performance increase at TL13 and the fact that the Navy has no apparent problem maintaining a high tech fleet. Further given the fact that small craft are quicker to build, I would think that the Small Craft would be fitted, and retrofitted faster than main fleet elements.
Just some random thoughts.
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
Tekrat - it's not a mistake. We discussed this before doing the deckplans. The assumption is that if you take the cross section of a cylinder and have 2 decks, each the same width, the floors of those decks are located both slighlty below and slightly above the centreline. So while the deckplans themselves are 4.5m diameter, the cutter's maximum "width" is more than 4.5m.
Yes, it's different to GURPS modular cutter assumtions, but we have no intention of stepping on Loren's work.
Yes, it's different to GURPS modular cutter assumtions, but we have no intention of stepping on Loren's work.
I'm sorry that you dislike the plans. Like many of the other deckplans in existence, there is a bit of fudging going on. For example, for the other cylindrical small craft out there with one deck, the deckplans never really show how the entire volume is used and just present what is often a single deck that expands to take the diameter of the cylinder.
In this case, depending on how you want to do your handwaving, you can assume that either the cutter is more boxy than cylindrical, Michael's explanation, the 10-20% slop allowed for deckplans is where the rest of the cylindrical volume exists, or the deckplans show the maximum area taken on each deck, but the walls are appropriately curved.
Or, some combination of the above.
Personally, I think that my original thinking was that the cutter should be more boxy than cylindrical to better handle standard cargo containers and the deckplans showed the usable volume. I don't remember for sure since it's been a year since the deckplans were originally created. I do remembered that Michael and I considered changing the deckplans though.
Note that the crawlspace isn't in the cylinder. It's above it.
Ron
I very purposefully did not look at the GURPS Modular Cutter book (which I don't have) while working on our supplement, even to the point of not picking it up at GenCon for the cheap even after GAS-5 was done.
I may pick up the book after GAS-7 is out, but I don't want to even give the sense that I might be copying someone else's work.
Ron
Tekrat04
SOC-11
Ron, Michael - I apologize for flying off the handle like I did. While I've read and understand what you trying to achive, I still belive you did not do a proper job of conveying your ideals.
The space that is not accessable should of still have been represented on the deckplans.
Had you done a cross section to work out if it is possible to get two deck and the crawl space within a 6m cylinder, you would of discovered that the upper and lower deck could not be the same width. The lower deck would be narrower than the upper deck.
The space that is not accessable should of still have been represented on the deckplans.
Had you done a cross section to work out if it is possible to get two deck and the crawl space within a 6m cylinder, you would of discovered that the upper and lower deck could not be the same width. The lower deck would be narrower than the upper deck.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Did you ever see the Traveller/Call of Cthulhu adventure in a White Dwarf magazine?
They used Grenadier Imperial Marines and Airfix Eagle transports in the pictures that accompanied the scenario.
Looked pretty cool too
They used Grenadier Imperial Marines and Airfix Eagle transports in the pictures that accompanied the scenario.
Looked pretty cool too
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yep, it even comes out to pretty close the right dimensions
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Heh, yeah, I spotted that, too!
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Here's the graphic that got me to Eaglize the cutters in my game, back in the late 80s. It's from a Rob Caswell graphic in MT's Rebellion Sourcebook:
Click thumbnail for link to the quick scan. No copyright infringement intended. Not for copy or use.
Click thumbnail for link to the quick scan. No copyright infringement intended. Not for copy or use.
Michael Taylor
SOC-13
Hi Tekrat.
Quote from Ron: "Note that the crawlspace isn't in the cylinder. It's above it."
Quote from Ron: "Note that the crawlspace isn't in the cylinder. It's above it."
Scarecrow
SOC-14 1K
I do like Rob's work a lot, actually. That's a nice design. I'm not keen on the hard-edged doughnut on the tail end but the rest of it's really nice. And look, a module that isn't a perfect cylinder. In fact, a ship that isn't a perfect cylinder. It's like sweet-meets to mine eyes!
Bliss!
Crow
Naturally, the docking ring is a slightly different shape.
I'm sorry that you dislike my interpretation of the cutter deckplans. I suggest that you avoid GAS-7 LSP Modular Ship when it comes out as it is a 300 ton modular ship that carries 6 cutter modules and has deckplans for 8 new modules.
Ron
Scarecrow
SOC-14 1K
I just purchased your book, fellas and I have to say for £1.50 it's well worth it. I do have one teensy observation, though. Isn't page 13 a bit pointless?
Anyways, as for the comments about the decks and cylinders, well, to me it looks more like the Space Shuttle body with a spine (the crawlspace) and no wings - which works fine. I know it's described as cylindrical in the stats but that's a shortcoming of the design rules as far as I am concerned. Perhaps there should be a new category: 'Rounded-off box'?
I was looking through my CT book 2 at the small craft again. The modular cutter write-up says that it can do 4-Gs but gives no indication of the type of power-plant and drives and their relevant mass/volume. Do we just guess this one?
Ahh or is it treated as a 100ton hull? - in which case it's class B (drives 3tons and powerplant7 tons).
Crow
Anyways, as for the comments about the decks and cylinders, well, to me it looks more like the Space Shuttle body with a spine (the crawlspace) and no wings - which works fine. I know it's described as cylindrical in the stats but that's a shortcoming of the design rules as far as I am concerned. Perhaps there should be a new category: 'Rounded-off box'?
I was looking through my CT book 2 at the small craft again. The modular cutter write-up says that it can do 4-Gs but gives no indication of the type of power-plant and drives and their relevant mass/volume. Do we just guess this one?
Ahh or is it treated as a 100ton hull? - in which case it's class B (drives 3tons and powerplant7 tons).
Crow
Thanks for the kind words.
As for page 13 (with the deckplans for the Cargo, Fuel, and Open modules), perhaps a tad pointless, but not entirely. Particularly, for the Open module, my intent there was to give a "blank" module onto which Referees could draw their own modules. For the cargo module, I could see some Referees drawing out cargo containers and such for tactical purposes.
Ron
Scarecrow
SOC-14 1K
See what you've done now? You've created a monster. I've started scribbling ideas for a modular cutter (LBB 2 stats). I'm basing the dimensions of the pod around the size of the ATV (LBB illustration) and taking it from there. It's looking awfully like a sort of cross between the drop-ship from ALIENS and the Osprey VTOL cargo plane at the moment. Groovy!
I've got single deck nose cone that has a dropship style cockpit with the two seats staggered port and starboard. Underneath are the fuel scoops and forward lifting thrust nozzles to assist the main lifters and balance the thing in gravity. Behind the cockpit is a double bunk area with under-bunk storage. After that is an airlock that has a universal docking ring in the side for ship-to-ship external docking and a rear connecting door to either the pod or the outside world (if there is no pod). This inlcudes a slide-away boarding ramp.
Over the top of the pod is the spine (containing the fuel) from which sprout two wings that angle down either side of the pod. On the ends of those wings are two vectorable thrust units containg the powerplants and m-drives. The end of the spine has a cone-like cowl that streamlines the back of the pod (not sure wether to make this part of the hull or part of the pod yet) and tailfins. If I take it further than the scribbles on my desk notepad, I'll be sure to post it here.
Crow
I've got single deck nose cone that has a dropship style cockpit with the two seats staggered port and starboard. Underneath are the fuel scoops and forward lifting thrust nozzles to assist the main lifters and balance the thing in gravity. Behind the cockpit is a double bunk area with under-bunk storage. After that is an airlock that has a universal docking ring in the side for ship-to-ship external docking and a rear connecting door to either the pod or the outside world (if there is no pod). This inlcudes a slide-away boarding ramp.
Over the top of the pod is the spine (containing the fuel) from which sprout two wings that angle down either side of the pod. On the ends of those wings are two vectorable thrust units containg the powerplants and m-drives. The end of the spine has a cone-like cowl that streamlines the back of the pod (not sure wether to make this part of the hull or part of the pod yet) and tailfins. If I take it further than the scribbles on my desk notepad, I'll be sure to post it here.
Crow
Similar threads
