no it is not. j3 could be considered militarily justifiable if it reduced the amount of time the ship spent in transit and therefore reduced the chances of enemy forces finding it or trapping it at refueling choke points, but in a civilian setting it's hard to make j3 work. the design almost certainly was heavily subsidized during wartime, but now the war is over and so are the subsidies - most of them, at least. free government money is quite addictive.
T5 Only: Liberty Ship Development Discussion
- Thread starter Major B
- Start date
no it is not. j3 could be considered militarily justifiable if it reduced the amount of time the ship spent in transit and therefore reduced the chances of enemy forces finding it or trapping it at refueling choke points, but in a civilian setting it's hard to make j3 work. the design almost certainly was heavily subsidized during wartime, but now the war is over and so are the subsidies - most of them, at least. free government money is quite addictive.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Quite.
I very simply assumed that: all systems are one TL lower than 1110, and TL14 yards are busy with warship construction and repair.
If so then only Tenalphi and Palique could produce TL13 ships in the Spinward Marches, and only Palique is Industrialised and probably has a decent shipyard capacity.
More worlds can produce TL12, and especially TL11 ships, with presumably much larger shipyard capacity.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
J-3 ships are (in most editions, no idea about T5) the cheapest way of moving cargo for longer distances.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Warships are not constructed at civilian yards, in fact warships of TL15 can be assembled on worlds of much lower TL than Imperial max.
All IN bases have to be TL max also in order to repair the fleets that arrive with battle damage.
IMHO all Imperial A and B starports are Imperial max TL regardless of local world TL, its the only way to make sense of the annual maintenance rules.
All IN bases have to be TL max also in order to repair the fleets that arrive with battle damage.
IMHO all Imperial A and B starports are Imperial max TL regardless of local world TL, its the only way to make sense of the annual maintenance rules.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Hmm, I always figured the CT LBB2 drives were ISO TL independent 'standards' that could be mass-produced at whatever level, and the HG ships were custom and required their TL or greater.
Taking that cue from CT TCS page 35, Starport repairs and the no higher fix then TL of starport.
Of course, TCS is not necessarily 3I canon and all is subject to interpretation/preference-just pointing out existing material can be interpreted differently then what may seem 'inevitable' to you.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Normally yes, but:
I'm sure it can be, but I do not think it is normal or efficient.
Reasonably so, yet:
Not an interpretation I have ever made, but my grasp of canon is fairly limited. This suggests otherwise:
If a market exist J3 away, it is (usually) cheaper (even within T5) to reach it within 1 x J-3 rather than through 3 x J-1. The issue is competing on shorter route against J-2/J-1 ships.
The "Victory" were probably purchased either a)for J3 route, b) for shorter route with JF tankage transformed as Holds c) for tramping with the option to replace J Fuel tank pods by Cargo pods or transformed to have cargo hold in lieu of some Fuel tanks. They would still be more expensive to amortize (J drive are a killing) than "Liberty", but may have been offered at reduced rate after the war. Some may have been given to owners of ships lost in Imperial service to offset their losses (rather than payments). Overall, if you do not have to micro-economic PC owners, there will be aplenty of justification for "surplus" Victory to hang around.
Still, given the pressure of war production, the TI probably did not produce Victory if they can get away with Liberty
have fun
Selandia
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
LBB2 gives that impression, but LBB3, p15 says otherwise.
While that's been my long time "explanation" for the differences between LBB:2 and HG2, I sure it isn't in any way official.
As expected, this has become a fascinating thread.
As also expected, sadly, this thread has been partially derailed by the Terminally Obtuse.
Clay Bush and Major B used the term "Liberty ship" as a bit of shorthand. Rather than type "A deliberately austere and technologically conservative design meant to be constructed rapidly in a number of locations in order to quickly replace ship losses and restore trade between the economic hubs in the Marches" they wrote "Liberty ship".
Clay Bush and Major B did not use the term because they wanted to and believed they should copy the Liberty ship down the pop rivets holding up the toilet tissue dispenser in the captain's day cabin.
Nor are Clay Bush and Major B stupid enough to think that the details concerning the merchant ship deficit in the 3FW era Marches are exactly those concerning the need for merchant shipping on WW2 Earth.
Let's keep focused on the idea and not on some minutiae-quoting, genital-sizing, contest.
As also expected, sadly, this thread has been partially derailed by the Terminally Obtuse.
Clay Bush and Major B used the term "Liberty ship" as a bit of shorthand. Rather than type "A deliberately austere and technologically conservative design meant to be constructed rapidly in a number of locations in order to quickly replace ship losses and restore trade between the economic hubs in the Marches" they wrote "Liberty ship".
Clay Bush and Major B did not use the term because they wanted to and believed they should copy the Liberty ship down the pop rivets holding up the toilet tissue dispenser in the captain's day cabin.
Nor are Clay Bush and Major B stupid enough to think that the details concerning the merchant ship deficit in the 3FW era Marches are exactly those concerning the need for merchant shipping on WW2 Earth.
Let's keep focused on the idea and not on some minutiae-quoting, genital-sizing, contest.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
I almost had to send you a bill for one fried laptop. I laughed so hard you made me spit water at my screen.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Hull and Drives Discussion
Thanks for all of the discussion so far. I really appreciate it though I'm having some trouble keeping up.
Here are some ideas / jumbled thoughts and some drive comparison information.
Tech Level: I am thinking that the ship should be a TL12 design for a couple of reasons though I am not decided yet since it is one level below the original.
Imperial max TL hit 13 in 550 and 15 in 1107. I didn't find a reference to 14 in the consolidated timeline but assume that it was imperial max on or about the 3FW in 982. Consider that the Spinward Marches would mostly lag behind imperial max so there would be a few TL14 yards some more TL13 and most would be TL12 or lower. Remember that this ship is not a combatant but rather is intended to be built by civilian yards to increase shipping capacity and replace losses. TL12 seems to be a better fit for a quickly-produced ship.
Hull Configuration: My initial idea is a cluster or brace cluster hull built with 400-ton subhulls. Each subhull is 9x12x50 meters forming a relatively long, 3-deck high, squarish container. These are arranged around a central hull consisting of 5 such containers fixed together into a solid, 2000 ton hull. The rest of the containers are attached along the top, bottom, left, and right faces as viewed along the long axis. If the drives and crew quarters are too large, I may need to permanently attach the four aftmost containers to the main hull. If so, this makes the main hull 3600 tons and leaves 16 remaining detachable subhulls that can be fitted to carry bulk cargo, loose cargo, passengers (high or low) and so forth.
If the base hull is a cluster, it is cheaper but limited to 1G. A braced cluster can do 3G but costs 1.5 times more.
Extrapolating from the ACS tables, A 10,000 ton Cluster hull will cost MCr 200 while a Braced Cluster will cost MCr 300.
I could cut the hull cost in half by using Organic material but that technology is just standardized at TL12. Polymer provides less AV but no cost advantage but it is self-repairing which cuts down on maintenance costs.
Since this design will not land on a planet, it does not need lifters and we can deduct MCr 50 from the hull costs.
I am thinking Cluster hull (Polymer) costing MCr 150 and limiting acceleration to 1G. Thoughts?
Drives:
Maneuver Drive: If the hull limits us to 1G then we can build a maneuver drive to provide the necessary thrust by yoking 10 E-drives together using nexi in a 2E5 configuration (2 clusters of 5 E-drive units each). This arrangement can be built at TL9, takes up 90 tons, and costs MCr 180. Or, I can use a modified TL11 version of the same engine using 45 tons and costing MCr 90.
I could install a 2G system if I go with a braced hull. Is there an economic advantage to a faster transport?
Jump Drive: The original design is capable of J3. This technology becomes standard at TL12. A 3K5 drive arrangement will do the job at a cost of 825 tons and MCr 825. Also, Jump fuel required will be 3,000 tons. Those are substantial costs which was why I starting asking questions about economics in this thread.
If a J2 option is used instead, it is available at TL 11 and an Improved version saving some fuel space can be built at TL12. The Improved unit needs 550 tons, costs MCr 550, and uses 1800 tons of jump fuel for a 2-parsec jump.
Power Plant: The P-Plant has to match the potential of the jump drive which requires another 3K5 arrangement. This is available at TL10 so a Modified version can be built at TL12 taking 232.5 tons, and costing MCr 232.5. It needs 270 tons of fuel for a month of endurance.
A Modified P-2 version (2K5) is available at TL11 or an Advanced version at TL12. The Advanced TL12 build needs 103.3 tons, costs MCr 620, and takes 160 tons of fuel for a month. The Modified TL11 build needs 155 tons, costs MCr 155, and needs 180 tons of fuel for a month.
So there are all the numbers I can provide to crunch tonight. Please let me know your thoughts on this and thanks again for all of the feedback so far.
Thanks for all of the discussion so far. I really appreciate it though I'm having some trouble keeping up.
Here are some ideas / jumbled thoughts and some drive comparison information.
Tech Level: I am thinking that the ship should be a TL12 design for a couple of reasons though I am not decided yet since it is one level below the original.
Imperial max TL hit 13 in 550 and 15 in 1107. I didn't find a reference to 14 in the consolidated timeline but assume that it was imperial max on or about the 3FW in 982. Consider that the Spinward Marches would mostly lag behind imperial max so there would be a few TL14 yards some more TL13 and most would be TL12 or lower. Remember that this ship is not a combatant but rather is intended to be built by civilian yards to increase shipping capacity and replace losses. TL12 seems to be a better fit for a quickly-produced ship.
Hull Configuration: My initial idea is a cluster or brace cluster hull built with 400-ton subhulls. Each subhull is 9x12x50 meters forming a relatively long, 3-deck high, squarish container. These are arranged around a central hull consisting of 5 such containers fixed together into a solid, 2000 ton hull. The rest of the containers are attached along the top, bottom, left, and right faces as viewed along the long axis. If the drives and crew quarters are too large, I may need to permanently attach the four aftmost containers to the main hull. If so, this makes the main hull 3600 tons and leaves 16 remaining detachable subhulls that can be fitted to carry bulk cargo, loose cargo, passengers (high or low) and so forth.
If the base hull is a cluster, it is cheaper but limited to 1G. A braced cluster can do 3G but costs 1.5 times more.
Extrapolating from the ACS tables, A 10,000 ton Cluster hull will cost MCr 200 while a Braced Cluster will cost MCr 300.
I could cut the hull cost in half by using Organic material but that technology is just standardized at TL12. Polymer provides less AV but no cost advantage but it is self-repairing which cuts down on maintenance costs.
Since this design will not land on a planet, it does not need lifters and we can deduct MCr 50 from the hull costs.
I am thinking Cluster hull (Polymer) costing MCr 150 and limiting acceleration to 1G. Thoughts?
Drives:
Maneuver Drive: If the hull limits us to 1G then we can build a maneuver drive to provide the necessary thrust by yoking 10 E-drives together using nexi in a 2E5 configuration (2 clusters of 5 E-drive units each). This arrangement can be built at TL9, takes up 90 tons, and costs MCr 180. Or, I can use a modified TL11 version of the same engine using 45 tons and costing MCr 90.
I could install a 2G system if I go with a braced hull. Is there an economic advantage to a faster transport?
Jump Drive: The original design is capable of J3. This technology becomes standard at TL12. A 3K5 drive arrangement will do the job at a cost of 825 tons and MCr 825. Also, Jump fuel required will be 3,000 tons. Those are substantial costs which was why I starting asking questions about economics in this thread.
If a J2 option is used instead, it is available at TL 11 and an Improved version saving some fuel space can be built at TL12. The Improved unit needs 550 tons, costs MCr 550, and uses 1800 tons of jump fuel for a 2-parsec jump.
Power Plant: The P-Plant has to match the potential of the jump drive which requires another 3K5 arrangement. This is available at TL10 so a Modified version can be built at TL12 taking 232.5 tons, and costing MCr 232.5. It needs 270 tons of fuel for a month of endurance.
A Modified P-2 version (2K5) is available at TL11 or an Advanced version at TL12. The Advanced TL12 build needs 103.3 tons, costs MCr 620, and takes 160 tons of fuel for a month. The Modified TL11 build needs 155 tons, costs MCr 155, and needs 180 tons of fuel for a month.
So there are all the numbers I can provide to crunch tonight. Please let me know your thoughts on this and thanks again for all of the feedback so far.
Well, as I understand the idea, it's not a true merchant ship, but military freight carrying. If so, I'd expect those economic matters to be ranked second on the priorities when building them the main priority being to have this shipping available i nthe shortest time possible to increase it despite the war losses (as someone has told was the original reson behind them in WWII).
Of course, after the war, when shipping needs decrease, some of them might well be sold as supplus, and, if the price is low enough (as supplus sells use to be), they may well become quite atractive for merchant lines and entrepreneurs, as a high cargo capaity J3 ship is quite valuable for them.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
LBB7 Merchant Prince and The Traveller Adventure.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
Maybe I can push it back towards the original discussion a bit. The US wasn't the only nation doing standardized merchant design at the time. Japan and Britain both did it too.
This just makes sense. But, all three came to somewhat different standards for what they produced based largely on what they had to work with. The Japanese standard merchant designs were slower than the US ones simply because they couldn't provide the engines to do more. Their ships also tended to be smaller.
So, what a "Liberty" ship would be in Traveller I think in part depends on who's building it. The Imperium, or anyone else, would have to go with what could be mass produced cheaply by most builders not what necessarily is optimal. I'd also think there'd be a whole range of different vessels would be standardized. The US program had these types (not all inclusive) included:
C1, C2, C3, C4 cargo ships. These were ocean going designs. That is, larger cargo ships.
EC 1 and 2 Emergency cargo ships. Quick and cheap to build. Not intended to last and not optimal.
T1, 2, 3 tankers. Varying in size mostly.
R1 Refrigerated cargo ship
N1, 2, 3 coastal freighters. Smaller cargo ships for coastal waters.
P1, 2 troop transports / passenger liners.
V4 tug
The idea here would be any reasonably large space fairing "nation" would likely have some similar system in place where a yard could enter the "national" program and build one or more standard types for the government. Most of these ships would end up being turned over to civilian owners once the war / emergency was over.
In peacetime, I could see the same "nations" having requirements for civilian merchant shipping to meet certain standards so that they could be used in wartime... Particularly larger ships. These would almost certainly be capable of rapidly being turned into merchant cruisers and armed escorts.
What I don't see is just a single outlier design being in production. Militaries are more thorough than that.
This just makes sense. But, all three came to somewhat different standards for what they produced based largely on what they had to work with. The Japanese standard merchant designs were slower than the US ones simply because they couldn't provide the engines to do more. Their ships also tended to be smaller.
So, what a "Liberty" ship would be in Traveller I think in part depends on who's building it. The Imperium, or anyone else, would have to go with what could be mass produced cheaply by most builders not what necessarily is optimal. I'd also think there'd be a whole range of different vessels would be standardized. The US program had these types (not all inclusive) included:
C1, C2, C3, C4 cargo ships. These were ocean going designs. That is, larger cargo ships.
EC 1 and 2 Emergency cargo ships. Quick and cheap to build. Not intended to last and not optimal.
T1, 2, 3 tankers. Varying in size mostly.
R1 Refrigerated cargo ship
N1, 2, 3 coastal freighters. Smaller cargo ships for coastal waters.
P1, 2 troop transports / passenger liners.
V4 tug
The idea here would be any reasonably large space fairing "nation" would likely have some similar system in place where a yard could enter the "national" program and build one or more standard types for the government. Most of these ships would end up being turned over to civilian owners once the war / emergency was over.
In peacetime, I could see the same "nations" having requirements for civilian merchant shipping to meet certain standards so that they could be used in wartime... Particularly larger ships. These would almost certainly be capable of rapidly being turned into merchant cruisers and armed escorts.
What I don't see is just a single outlier design being in production. Militaries are more thorough than that.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Enoki, thanks for this. I was aware that there were versions of the Liberty Ships but I did not know of the variety you laid out.
Do you think that similar wartime needs might drive a versatile design rather than many different designs? What I mean is a design based on multiple subhulls that can be tailored to need (assuming enough subhulls are handy).
Need a troopship: Add low berth and/or barracks subhulls
Cargo carrier: Cargo subhulls or subhulls designed to carry refined fuel
Which points us right back at the canonical Marches Auxiliary Naval Service.
Those "Blue Ribbon liners" Cunard, HAPAG, White Star, and many others built and operated between ~1880 and ~1950 all relied on government construction and operation subsidies with government input on design.
Major B's modular/subhull idea provides a great deal of flexibility. A ship can "flex" from freighter to tanker to transport to SDB tender simply by swapping out modules/subhulls.
While a specific design for each role would be better/more optimal, a single design which can fill multiple roles "well enough" might be desirable from the "Build 'em quick/Need 'em now" standpoint.
Last edited:
this would allow any tech level yard to participate, as the subhulls could be assembled and fitted with tech 12 components.
(and as a matter of fact, that's how the wwii liberty ships were assembled so quickly - because the hull sections were pre-built and simply welded together in the drydock.)
(in fact, using lbb2 engineering components, the jump capability of the core could be varied by how many subhulls were attached to it. it need not be stuck at j3. j4 with 2 subhulls, j3 with 4, j2 with 8, j1 with 16.)
heh. I just happen to be re-doing the jewell-class, which has swap modules. I'll be posting it soon.
