Long Distance Travel

[Anthelios]

So I've been thinking about running a game with a more frontier feeling, less nice starports and greater distances between them. My question is, what sort of changes would have to be made to a ship for it to survive without the monthly maintenance?

Can spare parts be used to make repairs, and patch jobs done to keep the thing space worthy as it travels between distance worlds.

How do the long distance colony ships do it?

What about Warships that are on missions into enemy territory? Surely those massive navy ships don't need to be berthed and repaired on every leg of their patrol.

What about the monthly life support cost? Can that be paid ahead of time, or paid later? If you have spare parts can you keep your air scrubbers running and food vats growing for longer than a month?

To be clear, I am using the MGP Traveller.

 

[Anthelios]

Also the rules on repairing a damaged system seem a little strange. It says system damage can be temporarily repaired with a check and some spare parts but always breaks down in 1-6 hours. So if your j-drive takes any damage it wont last long enough to jump back to safety? There is no other way to repair it?

 

[far-trader]

I've always figured the monthly maintenance is something that requires no more than a competent engineer and the standard ship's locker gear.

In MTU the ship's locker includes all the required tools and parts to do routine maintenance for a year, barring needing to make repairs due to damage through neglect or other non-routine problems (like that laser hit to the maneuver drive). I break it down to 12 packages, one per month. Or one per temporary repair attempt. Too many repairs will deplete the locker and you won't be able to do routine maintenance.

You can certainly carry more packages to extend you ability to make temporary repairs or extend your maintenance, but you'll still suffer for skipping that annual maintenance or getting proper permanent repairs done by qualified personnel at a starport.

So ships that don't make regular stops keep getting harder to maintain and suffer more breakdowns. It's a fact of life they take into account. Some may take pains in advance to minimize the need for annual maintenance. Perhaps by building the ship with more redundancy (two jump drives mean each operate half the time so you can go two years between full maintenance) at more expense. Others, such as the Navy, take their annual maintenance and permanent repair with them in the form of jump capable shipyards. Again it's expensive but you aren't dependent on a starport.

Those are the general answers, some rule sets cover some of them specifically if you want to clarify which rules you use I'm sure somebody can point to the source to help.

 

[Anthelios]

I've always figured the monthly maintenance is something that requires no more than a competent engineer and the standard ship's locker gear.

In MTU the ship's locker includes all the required tools and parts to do routine maintenance for a year, barring needing to make repairs due to damage through neglect or other non-routine problems (like that laser hit to the maneuver drive). I break it down to 12 packages, one per month. Or one per temporary repair attempt. Too many repairs will deplete the locker and you won't be able to do routine maintenance.

You can certainly carry more packages to extend you ability to make temporary repairs or extend your maintenance, but you'll still suffer for skipping that annual maintenance or getting proper permanent repairs done by qualified personnel at a starport.

So ships that don't make regular stops keep getting harder to maintain and suffer more breakdowns. It's a fact of life they take into account. Some may take pains in advance to minimize the need for annual maintenance. Perhaps by building the ship with more redundancy (two jump drives mean each operate half the time so you can go two years between full maintenance) at more expense. Others, such as the Navy, take their annual maintenance and permanent repair with them in the form of jump capable shipyards. Again it's expensive but you aren't dependent on a starport.

Those are the general answers, some rule sets cover some of them specifically if you want to clarify which rules you use I'm sure somebody can point to the source to help.

That sounds good, I may use something like that. I'm using Mongoose Traveller at the moment, and relatively new to it as well.

I think simple may be the way to go, just like with modern technology. As things get more powerful they tend to get more complex and need more care to avoid breaking down. Maybe running two simple J-Drives from a high TL port instead of a more advanced, higher jump-capable drive.

 

[rancke]

So I've been thinking about running a game with a more frontier feeling, less nice starports and greater distances between them. My question is, what sort of changes would have to be made to a ship for it to survive without the monthly maintenance?

Any minor maintenance that a ship may need is already assumed to be done by the ship's crew. All a ship needs is an annual overhaul at a class A or B starport. If it can get food and fuel, it can stay away for a whole year. (Though, realistically, you may want to reduce cargo capacity a dT or two to account for consumables being bought every couple of months instead of every couple of weeks).

What about the monthly life support cost? Can that be paid ahead of time, or paid later? If you have spare parts can you keep your air scrubbers running and food vats growing for longer than a month?

Yes.

To be clear, I am using the MGP Traveller.

Oh... I'm not. But if MGP is compatible with previously published versions, my answers should apply for MGP too. If not, I reccomend you ignore what it says ;-).

If you want a more frontiery feel, you may be interested in a campaign setting I wrote for JTAS Online. It's a writeup of Pax Rulin, Egyrn, Glisten, and District 268 back in the Year 400, complete with UWPs and writeups of all settled worlds in the region (Outrim Frontier I & II), plus Leviathan 400, essentially the old CT adventure backdated to Year 400.



Hans

 

[samuelvss]

I agree with rancke, that maintenance is not a ddath of a thousand cuts affair. Ships are already designed with the sort of operations you have in mind. It may be possible to stockpile some spares against contingencies (the odd laser blast or meteor), but routine maintenance is basically built in.

The ramifications are essentially that commercial ships need to plan thier routes to come back to an A or B starport once a year.

Naval ships, not so much, because they bring a great deal with them, and whole squadrons will be dedicated to support. There may even be support sites set up in deep space for strategic reasons.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Don't forget the 'scrap belt' for canibalizing parts. And who knows what 'extra' parts you could find there...

 

[veltyen]

Naval ships, not so much, because they bring a great deal with them, and whole squadrons will be dedicated to support. There may even be support sites set up in deep space for strategic reasons.

"Join the Navy they said. Command the most powerful weapons in the universe they said. Now I get to command a rusting repair truck and chase down vessels that have blown a tire"
Cmdr John "Lucky" Smith
2nd recovery squadron, 7th division, gamma fleet

 

[rancke]

"Join the Navy they said. Command the most powerful weapons in the universe they said. Now I get to command a rusting repair truck and chase down vessels that have blown a tire"
Cmdr John "Lucky" Smith
2nd recovery squadron, 7th division, gamma fleet

Naval auxiliary vessel is an almost untouched subject in canon, except for a bit of information on tankers. There might be an article in it. (Not for me, though).

Hmm... maybe even a campaign...



Hans

 

[samuelvss]

Another idea, for merchants working a frontier with no A's or B's in reasonable distance is a rendez-vous, where the nearest A or B port ships in a team and equipment to do a certain number of annuals within a certain period. (36 ships in 6 weeks, perhaps?) Presumably the cost of the annuals would go up, but the transit time avoided time would make up for this. Have to work the numbers so time...

Possibly there might be some subsidy to underwrite part of the expense. It gives more reason for standardized designs.

 

[veltyen]

(36 ships in 6 weeks, perhaps?)

The only problem with those kind of numbers is that implies there is enough traffic to support 3 annual maintenance bays running constantly.

Now if it was say 5 or so ships that's a different matter.

 

[BlackBat242]

In the last CT campaign I ran, the PC's had a heavily-customized 300dt merchant... with a 10dt "maintenance bay".

It had a large sliding door to the main cargo bay that could pass an air-raft, and had lots of toys... a CNC machining station, a production version of a "rapid-prototyper" and lots of other parts-fabrication equipment.

Given a supply of the correct materials, they were nearly self-sufficient. Anything needed for monthly work (including life-support) and most common repairs they either had or could make. They could even fudge a yearly... mostly.

It helped that between the various crew they had level 3 skills in all 3 engineerings, electronics, and computer... with level 2 in gravitics, mechanical, and life support. One crewman had also attended the Imperial Academy of Science and Medicine, and had a level 2 in starship design!

They tended to work outside the borders of the Imperium... Reaver's Deep, etc.

 

[far-trader]

An excellent point and observation there BlackBat242. The standards presume a minimum competency and materiel. Having an expert, or several, and additional supplies and equipment can do a lot to make one much more self sufficient for longer durations away from bases or starports.

Five stars for your most excellent post!

 

[samuelvss]

The only problem with those kind of numbers is that implies there is enough traffic to support 3 annual maintenance bays running constantly.

Now if it was say 5 or so ships that's a different matter.

Maybe closer to the mark. The point is, there would be a lot of (normally stationary) equipment and personnel going a long way to make this better for the the traders than just hauling a couple of subsectors over to the nearest A or B.

I'm also conceiving of the scouts doing something in this vein for ships on the frontier; they could have a dedicated team, however. It would probably be a high jump ship involved, however, otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.

Imagine an AHL as a floating starport?

I have figured using a few AHL's to rotate being a series of starports in the rift, but the economics always sounded just crazy.

 

[rancke]

Maybe closer to the mark. The point is, there would be a lot of (normally stationary) equipment and personnel going a long way to make this better for the the traders than just hauling a couple of subsectors over to the nearest A or B.

Unless the local worlds only trade with each other, the traders will be going to a world with a Class A or B starport once in a while anyway.

I'm also conceiving of the scouts doing something in this vein for ships on the frontier; they could have a dedicated team, however. It would probably be a high jump ship involved, however, otherwise it wouldn't be feasible.

Imagine an AHL as a floating starport?

I have figured using a few AHL's to rotate being a series of starports in the rift, but the economics always sounded just crazy.

Very true. If there is no world in the region with ship maintenance facilities, it's presumably because there isn't enough customers to make it profitable. I can't see why loading the facility onto a starship (which adds the amortization of expensive jump engines to the expenses) could possibly be profitable.

You're much more likely to have someone subsidize a facility on some centrally located world in the region even if it isn't profitable, in the hope of attracting more traffic and more trade.


Hans

 

[Patron Zero]

Next Exit

I ran a similar flavored game ages back, set on the edges of 'civilized' space.

I opted to have a version of the AAA guidebooks available that listed the various small orbital facilities and downscale dirtside resources on the less traversed spaceways.

Essentially such routes were considered 'rural' highways than popular interstates, hence less exits with food, gas and lodging. That said, the lesser traveled 'roadways' might-do offer unique attractions and opportunities not found elsewhere.

Mind, said guidebooks will not be 100% accurate but then the face of the frontier is often subject to change to the will of forces not found in more settled locales.

 

[far-trader]

Another thought. While generally ships require a suitable starport for repairs and annual maintenance, a ship with proper "authorization"* might be able to arrange for the same at a Navy or Scout base, or even the local world government's own space facilites. Depending on how you rule those facilities.

* money, influence, threat, deception, etc...

 

[ThunderChilde]

Higher tech does not neccessarily mean higher maintence. The jump from steam locomotives to Diesels dramatically lowered maintence. More eveolved designs tend to be more durable and less prone to break downs, and with a higher performance too. It's the general state of technological evolution. Simple and crude, More Complicated and efficient, Much more complicated, and finally the Eligent final evolution at the end of it's development life.

Keep in mind the vast span of time in the OTU, all the standard designs are thousands of years old, thouroghly wrung out and optomized. There are literally thousands of them laying about in scrap yards and other places, just waiting for an enterprising tech crew to crawl through and find the hidden jems.

I agree with both the concept of extra stores to extend the LS needs, and the regular maintence needs already stocked on board. With fore planning even the yearly maintence can be done at a class E starport, it just takes alot longer, and assumes that you have stocked the usuals, and with the incredibly long service lives of theese ships, the usual is very well defined.

Thats my .02 crimp, some one else can have to soap box now.

 

[samuelvss]

Higher tech does not neccessarily mean higher maintence.
I agree with both the concept of extra stores to extend the LS needs,

Thats my .02 crimp, some one else can have to soap box now.

I agree, but here is the dynamic:

The higher tech means greater reliability, but a lot of "black-boxing" of components. Less maintenance, overall. Easier maintenance. Costly parts when it does break.

When "it needs fixed," it is a pricier repair that involves a lot of expense, but not that much equipment or skill at the user level. Laying up these parts: pricey. The benefit, easy fix in the field, and the parts will hold some value if not used.

 

[veltyen]

The higher tech means greater reliability, but a lot of "black-boxing" of components. Less maintenance, overall. Easier maintenance. Costly parts when it does break.

Working from a limited base of knowledge this is indeed the case.

On the other hand how much of this is done via economic means, and how much is technical limitation? At the moment a car (for an example) has components built this way - as clusters of components that cannot be installed seperately, but the reason for that is to pad the profits of the corporations involved - both by pushing up the relative cost of maintenance as an absolute, as well as raising the cost of maintenance so that replacement become a more attractive proposition.

Going to the other end (as someone with a computing technical background) I tend to replace my computer piecemeal rather then as a single component. This is hardly low tech - but it is absurdedly easy to flip in a new video card or a new chip or memory, the hard part is determining what exactly has gone wrong and only replacing that bit. If I used notebooks or other "blackbox" machines then the only option would be to replace the lot anytime anything broke.

So there are examples from both ends that imply that technological development is unrelated to the tendencies that you point out.