CT Only: LBB2 Subsidized Liner page 19

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

My efforts to verify the subsidized liner on LBB 2 page 19 has met with a couple of glitches using both paper, pencil, calculator, and my spreadsheet. Surprisingly the glitches are, for a second time, the crew and not MCr. I also noticed that the description is missing the maneuver drive-C acceleration performance, which appears to be 1-G when looking at the numbers. I also checked in LBB 2 1977 page 19 which shows the maneuver drive performance as 1-G.

The crew glitches are for the engineers and the stewards.

Per LBB2 page 19 the subsidized liner requires 3 engineers. By my calculations: Jump drive-J at 50 tons + Maneuver Drive-C at 5 tons + Power Plant-J at 28 tons = 83 tons. Total Engineers = round(83 tons/35 tons,0) = round(2.3714,0) = 2.

Rounding up would make a match, which I cannot seem to find in the rules as the correct method. Is there any mention of how to round decimal fractions in any of the CT books?

The three stewards I'm guessing after doing some math and looking at the subsidized liner write-up in CT LBB 2 1977 page 19 was determined based on the assumption that the liner carried at least 20 high passengers.

Personal opinion, the subsidized liner write-up in LBB 2 1981 should include a blurb on the number of passengers, especially high passage ones, the liner can carry which would help calculating the number stewards required.

How much displacement tons of space does 1,000 kilograms of baggage take-up?

 

[McPerth]

Hi Tom

Hello all,

The crew glitches are for the engineers and the stewards.

Per LBB2 page 19 the subsidized liner requires 3 engineers. By my calculations: Jump drive-J at 50 tons + Maneuver Drive-C at 5 tons + Power Plant-J at 28 tons = 83 tons. Total Engineers = round(83 tons/35 tons,0) = round(2.3714,0) = 2.

Rounding up would make a match, which I cannot seem to find in the rules as the correct method. Is there any mention of how to round decimal fractions in any of the CT books?

The three stewards I'm guessing after doing some math and looking at the subsidized liner write-up in CT LBB 2 1977 page 19 was determined based on the assumption that the liner carried at least 20 high passengers.

Personal opinion, the subsidized liner write-up in LBB 2 1981 should include a blurb on the number of passengers, especially high passage ones, the liner can carry which would help calculating the number stewards required.

What about this explanation (fully mine, so no more official than anyone else's):

Since it is a liner (so thought to carry people), and even more than this, a government sponsored (subsized) one, safety regulations are stricter than usual (hence the rounding up in engineers and stewards), as the governments cannot politically afford to be accused of lives lost due to lack of seccurity aboard.

How much displacement tons of space does 1,000 kilograms of baggage take-up?

It depends on what do you cary in your luggage. I always assumed it would fit in the 4 tons dedicated to the stateroom, in any case, even if only for simplicity.

 

[GypsyComet]

A metric ton of personal cargo will take up a cubic meter if it is a big fish tank full of water, and more than that, possibly a lot more, for those who stick to clothes.

 

[rancke]

Per LBB2 page 19 the subsidized liner requires 3 engineers. By my calculations: Jump drive-J at 50 tons + Maneuver Drive-C at 5 tons + Power Plant-J at 28 tons = 83 tons. Total Engineers = round(83 tons/35 tons,0) = round(2.3714,0) = 2.

Rounding up would make a match, which I cannot seem to find in the rules as the correct method. Is there any mention of how to round decimal fractions in any of the CT books?

How many engineers do you need to take care of 70dT of drives and plants? 2. How many do you need to take care of the remaining 13dT?


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy McPerth,

Hi Tom

What about this explanation (fully mine, so no more official than anyone else's):

Since it is a liner (so thought to carry people), and even more than this, a government sponsored (subsized) one, safety regulations are stricter than usual (hence the rounding up in engineers and stewards), as the governments cannot politically afford to be accused of lives lost due to lack of seccurity aboard.

The explanation is great for the description, unfortunately doesn't help me much trying to put a formula together for my spreadsheet.

Thinking about this my solution might be to subtract the number of crew from the number of available staterooms and then divide the remaining staterooms by 8 high passengers. The exception being that at least 1 steward is required for ship's running commercial routes or privately owned hull's that offer passenger services.

It depends on what do you cary in your luggage. I always assumed it would fit in the 4 tons dedicated to the stateroom, in any case, even if only for simplicity.

That seems reasonable but I'm looking for a more solid number related to cubic meters since I can then apply the number to storing missile and sand canister reloads.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Gypsy Comet,

A metric ton of personal cargo will take up a cubic meter if it is a big fish tank full of water, and more than that, possibly a lot more, for those who stick to clothes.

How does the one cubic meter of water in a big fish tank translate to Traveller's 14 cubic meters of hydrogen being 1 ton of ship's displacement?

 

[rancke]

How does the one cubic meter of water in a big fish tank translate to Traveller's 14 cubic meters of hydrogen being 1 ton of ship's displacement?

I suspect that it's the result of a mistake. The baggage allowance of a Low passenger was said to be 10kg, that of a Mid passenger to 100kg, and that of a High passenger to 1000kg -- one metric ton. Somehow someone confused the metric ton with the dT and the mistake got turned into canon. It's not a serious mistake; 1/10th of a dT is a large closet, but it leaves 1.9 dT over for the rest of the stateroom, and 1/100th of a dT can be fitted into a 0.5dT low berth. So my reccomandation is to go with all three baggage allowances being interpreted as dtons. Whatever one may think the original intent was.

Or perhaps the intent was that it was dtons all along. Who knows?


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

How many engineers do you need to take care of 70dT of drives and plants? 2. How many do you need to take care of the remaining 13dT?


Hans

Using the 1 engineer per 35 tons

round(70/35,0) = round(2,0) = 2

round(13/35.0) = round(0.3714,0) = 0

Unfortunately, the liner's crew requirement stated that there are 3 engineers.

Without rounding the calculation up, the only other way I has figured out to get three is a hull >= 200 tons requires 1 engineer regardless of the total displacement tonnage of the jump drive, maneuver drive, and power plant. The two additional engineers are because 70 tons is two time 35.

Apparently I've been wrong in my understanding of what on any ship with tonnage 200 tons or more must have at least 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant for a very long time.

 

[rancke]

Using the 1 engineer per 35 tons

round(70/35,0) = round(2,0) = 2

round(13/35.0) = round(0.3714,0) = 0

No. One engineer can deal with up to 35dT of drives and plants. Another engineer can deal with another35 dT of drives and plants. To deal with the rest requires a third engineer. Zero engineer can not deal with anything. You need an engineer for 15 dT of drives and plants. You can't round down a human.

Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Hans I'm a bit more confused than normal on this one,

I suspect that it's the result of a mistake. The baggage allowance of a Low passenger was said to be 10kg, that of a Mid passenger to 100kg, and that of a High passenger to 1000kg -- one metric ton. Somehow someone confused the metric ton with the dT and the mistake got turned into canon. It's not a serious mistake; 1/10th of a dT is a large closet, but it leaves 1.9 dT over for the rest of the stateroom, and 1/100th of a dT can be fitted into a 0.5dT low berth. So my reccomandation is to go with all three baggage allowances being interpreted as dtons. Whatever one may think the original intent was.

Or perhaps the intent was that it was dtons all along. Who knows?


Hans

One displacement ton = approximately 14 cubic meters

A stateroom is 4 displacement tons or 56 cubic meters.

4 displacement tons - 1/10 (0.1) displacement tons leaves 3.9 displacement tons.

How did you come up with 1/100 and 1/10?

 

[rancke]

Hans I'm a bit more confused than normal on this one,



One displacement ton = approximately 14 cubic meters

A stateroom is 4 displacement tons or 56 cubic meters.

No, a stateroom is a 2 dT room and 2 dT of common areas.

How did you come up with 1/100 and 1/10?

100kg is 1/10th of 1000hg. 10 kg is 1/100th of 1000kg. If 1000kg refer to 1dT, 100kg ought to refer to 1/10th of that and 10kg ought to refer to 1/100th of that.


Hans


Hans

 

[aramis]

Using the 1 engineer per 35 tons

round(70/35,0) = round(2,0) = 2

round(13/35.0) = round(0.3714,0) = 0

Unfortunately, the liner's crew requirement stated that there are 3 engineers.

Without rounding the calculation up, the only other way I has figured out to get three is a hull >= 200 tons requires 1 engineer regardless of the total displacement tonnage of the jump drive, maneuver drive, and power plant. The two additional engineers are because 70 tons is two time 35.

Apparently I've been wrong in my understanding of what on any ship with tonnage 200 tons or more must have at least 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant for a very long time.

roundup is the standard for crew calculations. Each chunk of up to X requires...

 

[snrdg082102]

Afternoon Hans,

No. One engineer can deal with up to 35dT of drives and plants. Another engineer can deal with another35 dT of drives and plants. To deal with the rest requires a third engineer. Zero engineer can not deal with anything. You need an engineer for 15 dT of drives and plants. You can't round down a human.

Hans

Way back when I learned in math class that unless otherwise indicated decimal fractions >= 0.5 round up, while decimal fractions < 0.5 are dropped.

1.5 = 2 and 1.4 = 1 and 0.3714 = 0

I keep trying not to read more into what is in the rule that what is written and I seem to fall flat on my face. Does anyone have a rules set that tells me exactly how to run calculations so I don't have to keep asking silly questions like this?

 

[snrdg082102]

Thank you Hans for clearing the numbers up.

No, a stateroom is a 2 dT room and 2 dT of common areas.



100kg is 1/10th of 1000hg. 10 kg is 1/100th of 1000kg. If 1000kg refer to 1dT, 100kg ought to refer to 1/10th of that and 10kg ought to refer to 1/100th of that.


Hans


Hans

 

[aramis]

Afternoon Hans,



Way back when I learned in math class that unless otherwise indicated decimal fractions >= 0.5 round up, while decimal fractions < 0.5 are dropped.

1.5 = 2 and 1.4 = 1 and 0.3714 = 0

I keep trying not to read more into what is in the rule that what is written and I seem to fall flat on my face. Does anyone have a rules set that tells me exactly how to run calculations so I don't have to keep asking silly questions like this?

In integer mathematics, ratios ALWAYS round up.

Crew calcs are always integer math. You can't have half an engineer...

so if the calculation is 2.3, you still need a 3rd engineer to cover the work. Sure, he's only doing 0.3 work. (well, actually, they're all doing 0.7666 of a full time engineer's load, but...)

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

roundup is the standard for crew calculations. Each chunk of up to X requires...

Is there any place in CT that mentions specifically to round up crew calculations so that I can highlight the information.

If not then I'm going to add in capital letters in all my books to round crew calculations up so that I wont have to go through or put you all through this issue again.

Of course with my luck I run into a crew calculation that rounds down

 

[rancke]

Is there any place in CT that mentions specifically to round up crew calculations so that I can highlight the information.

I dunno. Perhaps some examples of ships where the crews have been calculated by rounding up rather than rounding off? Like 3 engineers for 83 dT of drives and plant?


Hans

 

[aramis]

Hello aramis,



Is there any place in CT that mentions specifically to round up crew calculations so that I can highlight the information.

If not then I'm going to add in capital letters in all my books to round crew calculations up so that I wont have to go through or put you all through this issue again.

Of course with my luck I run into a crew calculation that rounds down

General rules of math in english, as taught in grade 5
if it says "Y for each X" or "Y for every X", round up Y.
if it says "Y for every full X", round down Y
If it asks, "how many Y given X rate", round down Y, as the fraction can't.

This informs the language in HG, as does common sense.

Common sense says that if you don't have at least as many as the unrounded number, you're undercrewed. (TNE allows undercrewing, but has rules to cover it.)

I always round up all the fractions in crew calculations, because of that very principle.

EG: if the ratio works out to 1.333 engineers needed, 1 engineer isn't meeting the requirement. 2 is, but life is easier on both of them.

As a house rule (not a house rule, but a rule in TNE) round up to the nearest 10th and see if you can put in a multi-role position...

 

[atpollard]

In integer mathematics, ratios ALWAYS round up.

Crew calcs are always integer math. You can't have half an engineer...

so if the calculation is 2.3, you still need a 3rd engineer to cover the work. Sure, he's only doing 0.3 work. (well, actually, they're all doing 0.7666 of a full time engineer's load, but...)

While clearly not part of the rules as written, it seems to me that requiring less than 0.5 engineers is an excellent opportunity for a character to have two jobs without the typical skill minus 1 penalty.

 

[snrdg082102]

I dunno. Perhaps some examples of ships where the crews have been calculated by rounding up rather than rounding off? Like 3 engineers for 83 dT of drives and plant?


Hans

To me the write-up is not an example of how the numbers where determined since the math is not shown when the ship was created using the design and construction procedure.

So far most of the time I've made a guess on rounding based on the write-ups I've been wrong, with the exception of MCr which appears that I've finally figured out. That is when I insert the right components.