Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
3rd class (steerage)(4-berth, 6-berth also present):
Dang. I believe I have stayed in that berth (though it was 6 to a room) on a somewhat more modern ship.
o:
Passenger Transport Pods
- Thread starter Timerover51
- Start date
Dang. I believe I have stayed in that berth (though it was 6 to a room) on a somewhat more modern ship.
o:That's what I meant.
As I recall it, the passage you quoted for me once was from TNE. I don't think it is explicitly stated anywhere in CT. Implied by the game rules, yes.
The circumvention would be to invite friends[*] to come along on a private trip and asking them to contribute to defray the cost of the trip. Say Cr6000? Or a holiday club with a Cr6000 membership fee. Or some similar legal fiction.
[*] New just-met friends.
Also note that TTA explicitly features a shipper haggling with free traders (the PCs) about freight rates, something that is impossible if the rules are followed as written.
Yeah, I've proposed a workable retcon that would preserve the existence of High, Mid, and Low Passages, allow for double occupancy ("economy passage"), and introduce per-parsec prices. But I'm not denying that it would be a retcon. One that would make so much sense, though.
Wow! That's putting a strain on life support with a vengeance!
I hadn't seen that.
Check again. Mid passage is double occupancy. Which, as I said, I consider a mistake. The double occupancy should have been introduced as a level of passage below Mid (I use 'economy' IMTU).
Hans
Passengers paying anything at all except providing in-kind material is likely to be deemed "commercial"... I can give my pilot buddy avgas but can't give him gas money; I can bring lunch but not pay him to do so. I expect starships to be similar, but much more thoroughly checked given the high likelihood of EFT to ATM... and proof of prior relationship being par for the course prior to exit visa.
Yes, it is wonderfully sensible, and IMTU, I use HPSO, HPDO, MPSO, MPDO, & Steerage... plus LP. Steerage is 0.25 SR....
you're talking about a definition which is in the GT book, not the GTFT one... note that I said GTFT doesn't mention it -it merely gives prices, not definitions of passenger expectations. I had it handy to check. GT itself might, and GTFT would inherit that...
I'll also note GTFT prices don't look anything like CT ones. Nor do MgT prices work at all... they don't match CT nor even come close to break-even.
Is this a real world example of some kind? I'll counter with the real world example of private clubs to circumvent licensing laws.
Just who do you imagine would perform the checking? And why?
I'm not inclined to read too much into the rules, because even if there was an Imperial regulation that forbade double occupancy for commercial ships, the rules really ought to provide guidance for anyone who'd like to break that regulation. I simply don't believe that, for example, a free trader jumping from one Class E starport to another wouldn't have an excellent chance of getting away scot free with carrying passengers in double occupancy. Yet the rules provide no potentially illegal passengers no matter what the population level and starport type.
I'm not blaming the rules, mind you. Word count limit what they can cover. I'm just saying that the lack of any mention of double occupancy is not proof of the existence of a micro-managing Imperium forbidding double occupancy for commercial ships. Evidence, yes, but not proof.
The TNE quote, on the other hand, I do accept as very strong evidence
. It's far more likely that the Regency regulation is a relict of old Imperial regulations than that it is something new promulgated by the Regency. No, GT prices are straight out of CT. Cr10,000, Cr8000, and Cr1000.
See the sidebar p. 38 of FT. "In addition, [middle passengers] share a stateroom with another passenger."
No, they're worked out to work for GT rules, which include a much lower life support cost.
Hans
Last edited:
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
I see double occupancy not being just for economy. Someone might want their valet/servant/lady-in-waiting to share their stateroom. Perhaps a bodyguard would request to share a stateroom with whom they protect. Other reasons for double occupancy could include a law man or bounty hunter escorting a prisoner. Couples traveling together might not want separate cabins and what about traveling with children; going to put a young child in a stateroom by themselves? Anyone have a game where there was a need to set up a crib in a stateroom?
I'm not up on all the different versions of Traveller. Is there anyone that can create a list of which ones specifically describe staterooms as being single bunks? Which describe double occupancy and is it always bunk beds? Do any discuss couples traveling and sharing a single, full size bed? Any mention of accommodations for children? How do different versions ship design rules differentiate for cost or size between different types of staterooms?
Well, hold on a minute. Space travel isn't just a matter of putting in extra bunks. Life support capacity has to be able to handle the oxygen refresh rates, additional waste processing, power requirements, etc.
My understanding has always been that the Stateroom and Small Cabin data were guidelines for how much space/tonnage it takes to create the necessary life support and supplies and "leg room" to support that standard of living on board the ship, not ironclad component designs. For example, I have several military ships IMTU where the occupancy of the ship is expressed in small cabins, but the actual design has the freshers set up in one large bathroom, the sleeping spaces in another grouping, and the empty space of the cabins grouped together into large communal living rooms. Same square footage, different configuration.
So, if I were designing Passenger Pods, I'd say they came in 10-ton cubes consisting of a stateroom (4 tons) and 3 cabins (6tons). That's 4 to 10 people per pod. These pods would be self-sufficient, including power requirements, and inaccessible from the standard passenger area of the ship -- unless you're flying in a ship designed by the same manufacturer as the pods, in which case they can all be arranged like building blocks to plug into each other and the normal passenger area.
There'd be some considerations setting wise about who can rent these pods, and where you're allowed to travel with them, and how they get them back to their original owners. It'd be a defining characteristic of a major ship manufacturer nearby, and some of those boxes have no doubt made their way to the poorer end of society as permanent housing.
My understanding has always been that the Stateroom and Small Cabin data were guidelines for how much space/tonnage it takes to create the necessary life support and supplies and "leg room" to support that standard of living on board the ship, not ironclad component designs. For example, I have several military ships IMTU where the occupancy of the ship is expressed in small cabins, but the actual design has the freshers set up in one large bathroom, the sleeping spaces in another grouping, and the empty space of the cabins grouped together into large communal living rooms. Same square footage, different configuration.
So, if I were designing Passenger Pods, I'd say they came in 10-ton cubes consisting of a stateroom (4 tons) and 3 cabins (6tons). That's 4 to 10 people per pod. These pods would be self-sufficient, including power requirements, and inaccessible from the standard passenger area of the ship -- unless you're flying in a ship designed by the same manufacturer as the pods, in which case they can all be arranged like building blocks to plug into each other and the normal passenger area.
There'd be some considerations setting wise about who can rent these pods, and where you're allowed to travel with them, and how they get them back to their original owners. It'd be a defining characteristic of a major ship manufacturer nearby, and some of those boxes have no doubt made their way to the poorer end of society as permanent housing.
Edit: I see that people have already been considering the life support stuff, now that I've read the entire thread. Regardless, I still think that the cabin allocations indicate the quantity of space needed to maintain the life support of the occupancy size at a level they so accustomed.
If you wanted to create a 3rd class passenger section on your ship designs, then by all means, take the commonly accepted layout for a small cabin, and move most of the common space into communal access for all the passengers (or heck, give it to 1st class common spaces), and then take the cubage of freshers and divide it into a common bathroom for 3rd class, and extra freshers scattered around the 1st class living areas.
Regardless, my point is, stop thinking of cabin size as a default diagram you add to blueprints.
If you wanted to create a 3rd class passenger section on your ship designs, then by all means, take the commonly accepted layout for a small cabin, and move most of the common space into communal access for all the passengers (or heck, give it to 1st class common spaces), and then take the cubage of freshers and divide it into a common bathroom for 3rd class, and extra freshers scattered around the 1st class living areas.
Regardless, my point is, stop thinking of cabin size as a default diagram you add to blueprints.
Yes but only the truly stupid would not pay in cash and, after the trip. So not really a problem.
Except that 4 dT staterooms are explicitly able to handle double occupancy. It follows that the capacity of the life support system must be at least twice the number of staterooms, no matter how many are usually not occupied by more than one.
Hans
I think of that as padding. You provide twice the lifesupport so that if it gets damaged, you'll all still live. Greedy captains might fill the ship to the brim, but these same captains are the sort who skip out on regular maintenance to save cash. The last thing, as a passenger, that I would want, is to be on a poorly maintained ship that has exactly enough life support for the passenger list.
I think of it as the legal life support rating. It should be able to handle more, but legally you can't ship any more people than the ship is rated for.
The last thing, as a builder of private yachts, that I would want, is to design a ship that has exactly enough life support for the number of people it can carry. Yet staterooms are just the same tonnage for commercial ships, private ships, and military ships.
Hans
I remember from my very brief Navy experience - on an aging Landing Ship Dock, college ROTC summer tour - being assigned the center of a three-stack bunkbed, with a similar bunkbed across from me and another pair of three-stackers at the foot of those. My "closet" was a pan underneath the mattress. We didn't even bother going in there unless we were actually going to sleep, 'cause there just wasn't room for anything else. At that, the only reason there was enough room for us was 'cause the work shifts made sure we weren't all getting up at the same time. But, the food was good.
On the other hand, they didn't need to keep the compartment oxygenated, maintain balanced CO2 levels, etc., and if I recall correctly, they didn't need to recycle wastes. Fresh water was got by processing sea water, or at least that's what I recall them saying during the orientation. It was a very long time ago.
It was, however, a lot of fun watching the stern end of the thing sink and open up to deploy amphibious tanks.
Yes. Also, based on usual engineering practice, the rated amount is not the absolute max spec. There is a built in safety margin on top of the that.
Well, very few of any of the deckplans that I do have standard drop in quarters, except maybe crew quarters.
One of these days I am going to do a passenger liner and even though a majority of the quarters will be standardized, there will be some non-standard rooms too.
Also, on almost all of my ships, I add a few tons of extra lifesupport. Not only for the just incase it's need but to help clean up the air/atmosphere from those wild parties, exotic odors from planets, and those passengers who smoke & have a strange sense of personal hygiene.
Dave Chase
One of these days I am going to do a passenger liner and even though a majority of the quarters will be standardized, there will be some non-standard rooms too.
Also, on almost all of my ships, I add a few tons of extra lifesupport. Not only for the just incase it's need but to help clean up the air/atmosphere from those wild parties, exotic odors from planets, and those passengers who smoke & have a strange sense of personal hygiene.
Dave Chase
My Dad was on one when he was in the Navy.
I'd call military enlisted style bunking "underMiddle passage". Officers get staterooms. Set up a bunch of bunks in the cargo hold and feed them slop with a port-a-potty or two off to the side. It's not cryosleep but it's the bare minimum. Bring some paperback books, maybe some dice, and a deck of cards for entertainment.
You missed my point - even a missile sub is rated for X-number of crew for the time it can spend at sea underwater. The scrubbers can process the air for that number of crew, plus a few more (I would assume) in excess for a margin of safety. Beyond that number the scrubbers are going to be overloaded and the time will be reduced. The boat can surface to refresh the stale air and reduce the strain on the scrubbers - a starship cannot.
Modern nuc subss CO2 scrubbers use a chemical called Monoethanolamine to remove CO2 from the air when cool. The chemical is then heated releasing the CO2 which is then sent overboard. The other part of the air filtration is solid state, electrostatic. No huge filters to replace like on TL 4 Trav star ships.
I understand how the scrubbing system works - what you are forgetting is that the only reason nuclear subs have an 'unlimited' air supply is because they distill seawater to release the oxygen to replenish the fresh air in the boat.
You can't do that in a starship - it is a completely closed system and there will be an upper limit on the number of people you can safely have breathing the air in the ship during transit. The life support rules for staterooms and small craft staterooms say 2 people per "stateroom" as a quick and easy way to figure that out - not just because for some reason people can't live in a ship for a couple of weeks unless they have a lot of living space. It manages all aspects of the life support equation in one modular block.
You can't do that in a starship - it is a completely closed system and there will be an upper limit on the number of people you can safely have breathing the air in the ship during transit. The life support rules for staterooms and small craft staterooms say 2 people per "stateroom" as a quick and easy way to figure that out - not just because for some reason people can't live in a ship for a couple of weeks unless they have a lot of living space. It manages all aspects of the life support equation in one modular block.
depends of if entry visa checks compare cash on board... if passengers have to declare cash when boarding, and again when exiting, it could get sticky.
Plus, the nature of the penalty matters, too. If it is forfeiture of ship, few will risk it; forfeiture of payment, many will. I tend to use grounded until after trial, and forfeiture of 10x payment plus ground storage fees, with investigations being by the IISS, IMOJ, and IMOTrade, usually based upon complaint or suspicious transfers of money prior, and/or entry cash different from exit cash. All easily checked by documentary evidence on high tech worlds.
