True. And technically, they're neither cat-people* nor samurai either. It's all cool**.It's not a fetish, it's a cultural trait.
*David Bowie earworm time. Enjoy!
*...for cats, it's cool for cats. Now it's Squeeze.
OTU Only: Shugushaag (600Td J5 Freighter, LBB2 2nd Ed.)
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
*David Bowie earworm time. Enjoy!
*...for cats, it's cool for cats. Now it's Squeeze.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I slink down the alley lookin' for a fight
Howlin' to the moonlight on a hot summer night
Singin' the blues while the lady cats cry
"Wild stray cat , you're a real gone guy"
Howlin' to the moonlight on a hot summer night
Singin' the blues while the lady cats cry
"Wild stray cat , you're a real gone guy"
Gonna make me do it the hard way, huh?Simple.
Those workshops are coin operated.
You just need a roll of quarters ...
<seals helmet visor>
<loads coins into ammo hopper of Mass Driver Pistol, Man-Portable, TL-15>
<fires at exterior bulkhead>
<shifts aimpoint rightward by about 2.5cm, fires again>
<shifts aimpoint righward again by about 2.5cm, fires again>
Just a few minutes and I'll have that feed-through slot cut right out...
Last edited:
I think I'll restart this thread to make a more readable version (maybe not immediately, though).
Anyone see issues with these deck plans that I haven't yet mentioned?
Anyone see issues with these deck plans that I haven't yet mentioned?
Hairy Jim DeGriz
SOC-12
For all of the great work you've done so far, I think you've got enough material here to put it into a document and publish it: a couple of pages in a single PDF is easier to digest IMHO. I like your Rubenesque, 600 ton, edge-of-the-RAW, starship.
Hairy Jim DeGriz
SOC-12
Along the same lines, the inability to easily access the engine room is a security feature.
There are paraplegic US vets using mechanical assists as part of DARPA testing.
There are pretty advanced prosthetics at present.
Several double amputees note that they can run faster and more comfortably, as well as jump higher, on their prosthetics than the could beforehand. But those are not hard to notice - those are bow-spring athletic below-the-knee prosthetics.
We have strong reasons to believe there is access to limb regrowth (per Traveller's Digest, part of the MT canon).
We know there is cloning, but true and modified.
We know there are really good prosthetics, because we have such already.
Hairy Jim DeGriz
SOC-12
I compiled most, but not all of the Shugushaag class design into a PDF as a reference for Boughene Blues. I can put it up as a plain text, RTF or DOCX if you want to edit. I also took the liberty of naming the remaining 16 ships that were built. Another boondoggle is CY Lines, a subsidiary that was set up as a golden parachute for the executives who greenlighted the Shugushaag project. An overfunded line subsidized by Collace Yards which was then spun off into a new independent company, owning 3 ships outright, and headed by the executives who convinced the board to underwrite their unprofitable venture.
Nice compliation, and it'll work as-is. That's a clean presentation of an untidy thread.
I like the idea of somebody skimming an ongoing grift off the project other than Collace Light Industry's Yard #3.
There ought to be a note for the plans for Deck 2 that the cargo hold is the upper 3m of a 6m tall space.
Likewise for Deck 3, a note that while the space is 6m tall, the deck is only flat to the inner curved line; forward of that, the doors curve upward toward the nose and to the sides. (I could probably phrase those descriptions a bit more clearly, don't use them verbatim. An isometric cutaway view would explain it perfectly, but it's a product of MS Paint... so that's a back-burner project.)
Thank you!
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Since it's been kind of my "thing" I'm going to go ahead and mention it here.
Although the Shugushaag "fails" economically as a 600 ton internal cargo J5 merchant transport, it ought to be on MUCH firmer economic footing as a 400 ton external cargo J3 jump tug (1000 tons total). Note that the external cargo could even be non-starships such as 400 ton system defense boats (for example) with the 600 Shugushaag operated as a J3 Jump Tender capable of 1G maneuver fully loaded.
And if you're willing to exchange parsec range for even more external jump towing capacity ... a Shugushaag would be capable of J1 with up to 2400 external tons of cargo (maneuver capacity from the F-drive would drop below 1G though). However, if that 2400 tons of external load is in fact 6x 400 tons "strapped on" then after jump a Shugushaag would be capable of 1G maneuvering to deliver those 6x 400 ton blocks of cargo one 400 ton block at a time using 1G maneuver. However, if we're talking a delivery of 6x 400 ton System Defense Boats, the boats can maneuver under their own power to rendezvous with the Shugushaag tender/transport, link up, jump and then after breakout from jump undock with the SDBs deploying independently to their assigned stations in a battle rider/tender configuration for ops. If needed, the Shugushaag would then go on to refuel (J1 doesn't go far per jump) and if the SDBs need to keep going further they can redock and repeat the whole operation to reach the next star system.
3 jumps to deliver 2400 external tons 3 parsecs is a lot better than 1 jump to deliver 400 tons 3 parsecs distant.
So here's a potential economic use case for these ships that both "makes sense" AND could potentially give the Collace shipyards a good deal more work ... delivering 400 ton System Defense Boats up to TL=13 (which CAN be built by a type B starport!) to other friendly star systems in the Five Sisters, District 268 and even Glisten subsectors as potential markets (Collace is on the Spinward Main after all).
In other words ... the Shugushaag has an unexpected(?) use case as a tender transport for System Defense Boats should another star system want to buy from Collace instead of building their own (would still need a type B starport to maintain them though).
And if you can deliver non-starships as external cargo ... you can deliver external cargo as external cargo.
Suddenly, you're going from earning up to Cr41,000 for a full cargo bay per jump (up to 5 parsecs) to earning up to Cr441,000 for a full load of cargo inside and outside the ship per jump (up to 3 parsecs). 10x the revenue on 60% of the range? Yes please!
The way I see it, low jump number ships are "internal cargo merchants" while high jump number ships shift over into being "external cargo merchants" (effectively) that simply match how much external cargo they load themselves up with based on how far they need to jump. Don't need to use full maximum parsec range for the next destination? Load up with more external cargo to make more efficient (economic) use of that big jump drive you've got, rather than letting it just go to waste.
Of course, my personal house rule for the availability of cargo that can be "towed" externally through jump is going to be one of Major Cargo ONLY (minor and incidental cargoes are internal only, major can be internal or external). Note that with such an interpretation, Amber Zones have no Major Cargo bound for them (and Red Zones are "right out" after not counting to 5) meaning that Amber Zone destinations would be limited to internal cargo only with no external cargo available.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box.
Although the Shugushaag "fails" economically as a 600 ton internal cargo J5 merchant transport, it ought to be on MUCH firmer economic footing as a 400 ton external cargo J3 jump tug (1000 tons total). Note that the external cargo could even be non-starships such as 400 ton system defense boats (for example) with the 600 Shugushaag operated as a J3 Jump Tender capable of 1G maneuver fully loaded.
And if you're willing to exchange parsec range for even more external jump towing capacity ... a Shugushaag would be capable of J1 with up to 2400 external tons of cargo (maneuver capacity from the F-drive would drop below 1G though). However, if that 2400 tons of external load is in fact 6x 400 tons "strapped on" then after jump a Shugushaag would be capable of 1G maneuvering to deliver those 6x 400 ton blocks of cargo one 400 ton block at a time using 1G maneuver. However, if we're talking a delivery of 6x 400 ton System Defense Boats, the boats can maneuver under their own power to rendezvous with the Shugushaag tender/transport, link up, jump and then after breakout from jump undock with the SDBs deploying independently to their assigned stations in a battle rider/tender configuration for ops. If needed, the Shugushaag would then go on to refuel (J1 doesn't go far per jump) and if the SDBs need to keep going further they can redock and repeat the whole operation to reach the next star system.
3 jumps to deliver 2400 external tons 3 parsecs is a lot better than 1 jump to deliver 400 tons 3 parsecs distant.
So here's a potential economic use case for these ships that both "makes sense" AND could potentially give the Collace shipyards a good deal more work ... delivering 400 ton System Defense Boats up to TL=13 (which CAN be built by a type B starport!) to other friendly star systems in the Five Sisters, District 268 and even Glisten subsectors as potential markets (Collace is on the Spinward Main after all).
In other words ... the Shugushaag has an unexpected(?) use case as a tender transport for System Defense Boats should another star system want to buy from Collace instead of building their own (would still need a type B starport to maintain them though).
And if you can deliver non-starships as external cargo ... you can deliver external cargo as external cargo.
Suddenly, you're going from earning up to Cr41,000 for a full cargo bay per jump (up to 5 parsecs) to earning up to Cr441,000 for a full load of cargo inside and outside the ship per jump (up to 3 parsecs). 10x the revenue on 60% of the range? Yes please!
The way I see it, low jump number ships are "internal cargo merchants" while high jump number ships shift over into being "external cargo merchants" (effectively) that simply match how much external cargo they load themselves up with based on how far they need to jump. Don't need to use full maximum parsec range for the next destination? Load up with more external cargo to make more efficient (economic) use of that big jump drive you've got, rather than letting it just go to waste.
Of course, my personal house rule for the availability of cargo that can be "towed" externally through jump is going to be one of Major Cargo ONLY (minor and incidental cargoes are internal only, major can be internal or external). Note that with such an interpretation, Amber Zones have no Major Cargo bound for them (and Red Zones are "right out" after not counting to 5) meaning that Amber Zone destinations would be limited to internal cargo only with no external cargo available.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box.
Hairy Jim DeGriz
SOC-12
So much to digest there. I know you're in favor of towing stuff through jump, but I think in later rules (don't ask me where) the consensus became that you had to sort of lock that stuff down, and the functional effect was docking and locking hardware that used 5-10% of the capacity of either the cargo module, or the tender, or both, which makes sense to me - especially if you're going to transit between host and cargo module in J Space. If you've got ~ $10 to spend, I would recommend the Cepheus Engine Starship Design Guide, because, IMO, they took 40+ years of Traveler house rules, articles and mods and compiled a faithful to the original form set of rules, that covers many unanswered questions from 1977-1985.
The thing is, this design as presented only makes sense at the intersection of LBB2'81 and LBB5'80.
In an LBB2-only TU, it's just TL-13 and can be any shape you want it to be because it's nothing special at that TL.
In a both/and TU, it can also be any shape you want as long as it's not Jump-5. [See the last paragraph of my next post in this thread.]
In that case, J-5 is beyond what HG says TL-13 should be capable of building, if you assume HG's TL limits on Jump capability are the general case. This indicates that it's at the bleeding edge of TL-13 jump tech, requiring a very conservative hull shape -- it also could be a prolate or oblate spheroid (US football or a squished soccer ball), or a sphere if you didn't need streamlining. Anything farther from "sphere" than those shapes might not actually work if built at TL-13! (This is a MTU interpretation, but it feels like the best way to reconcile the "LBB2 loophole to HG TL limits to Jump range").
I'm only familiar with T5's rules for things built at inadequate TLs. Do they exist in other rules sets? While the design as presented would fit with that, it'd be structurally and functionally different; the lack of a jump governor and an even larger jump drive might make it unworkable.
I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with Cephus Engine to know if it works in that system at TL-13 -- that is, did they keep the LBB2/LBB3 paradigm of TL limiting drive size but not capability, or adopt the HG-and-later paradigm of TL limiting capability but not size?
In an LBB2-only TU, it's just TL-13 and can be any shape you want it to be because it's nothing special at that TL.
In a both/and TU, it can also be any shape you want as long as it's not Jump-5. [See the last paragraph of my next post in this thread.]
In that case, J-5 is beyond what HG says TL-13 should be capable of building, if you assume HG's TL limits on Jump capability are the general case. This indicates that it's at the bleeding edge of TL-13 jump tech, requiring a very conservative hull shape -- it also could be a prolate or oblate spheroid (US football or a squished soccer ball), or a sphere if you didn't need streamlining. Anything farther from "sphere" than those shapes might not actually work if built at TL-13! (This is a MTU interpretation, but it feels like the best way to reconcile the "LBB2 loophole to HG TL limits to Jump range").
I'm only familiar with T5's rules for things built at inadequate TLs. Do they exist in other rules sets? While the design as presented would fit with that, it'd be structurally and functionally different; the lack of a jump governor and an even larger jump drive might make it unworkable.
I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with Cephus Engine to know if it works in that system at TL-13 -- that is, did they keep the LBB2/LBB3 paradigm of TL limiting drive size but not capability, or adopt the HG-and-later paradigm of TL limiting capability but not size?
Last edited:
I know the Jump Ship in Supp 7 needed some of the cargo pod space for docking hardware, and I think it needed some space in the tug itself.
That requirement does show up in MgT, at least. Don't know enough about other systems yet to comment intelligently.
If so, 5% of a 600Td hull is 30Td. That's most of the Shug's internal payload right there. It'd end up being a different ship; IMO, it'd be a prolate spheroid with retractable grapples/adapters to interface with external cargo modules, and little or no internal cargo space. For J5, it would need to retract the adapters to keep them from getting sheared off by the jump bubble, while less-intense jump fields could enclose a much larger volume without presenting this risk.
Last edited:
Which is to say that a Jump Shuttle built around a Size Q Jump Drive (and a Size K, not F, maneuver drive if it fits) could be a really useful and versatile ship! It just wouldn't be this ship.
Functionally, pods are just carried craft. So... that would be, at least under HG... (Bk5-80 p30)
| Tonnage of craft | Cradle on <1 kTd | Cradle on >1 kTd | Cargo or WeaponBay |
| >= 100 Td (Big Craft) | 110% @ kCr2/Td | 110% @ kCr2/Td | Not Listed |
| <100 Td (Small Craft) | 100% @ kCr2/Td | 130% @ kCr2/Td | 200% @ Cr0/td |
Bk5-79 lists 20Td per fighter for the hangar, and 5Td per fighter as maintenance, 500 Td per launch tube, and all of that at kCr2 per Td. Note that the fighters therein run between 9 and 10 Td, inclusive.
Now, IMTU, containerized cargo modules carry at 100% of TD+1× container airlock. THe standard is the 3x3x6 container (4td) shown in TTA, and there are 3m, 9m and 12m variants (2, 6, and 8 Td)... I imagine 6×6m pallets are also fairly standard. The locking fittings are probably not too dissimilar from the lugs on modern 1 TEU and 2TEU=1FEU containers.
1 TEU is roughly 2.75 Td ( 2.44×2.59×6.1m - rounded up next 0.01, 38.55 kl,, ~2.754 Td)
1 TEU High Cube 3.08 Td (2.44×2.90×6.1 m, 86.083 kl)...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Supplement 9 Fighting Ships ... not Supplement 7 Traders & Gunboats.
I presume this was a simple typo (easy enough to make those, I make plenty of them myself).
This is where you run into trouble trying to reconcile the two systems because at the fundamental paradigm level they work in completely different ways starting with completely different assumptions.
LBB2 drives operate on a "standard drive" system in which the drive gets built FIRST and then you install the drive into something. The drive performance profile depends on what you put it into. The only tech level limit is "which standard drives" can be built at what tech levels. Put the "standard drive" into a small enough hull and you can get Jump-6/Maneuver-6/Power Plant-6 performance out of the drive. The tech level limit is only on the "drive letter" not on the "drive number" ... so the "drive number" is a second order effect depending on whatever hull you put the drive into (see the lookup chart).
That's basically what I did for my external cargo analysis above.
I went to the LBB2.81 drive letter to number lookup chart and simply looked at Q-drive in different hull sizes.
- 600 ton hull = 5
- 800 ton hull = 3
- 1000 ton hull = 3
- 2000 ton hull = 1
- 3000 ton hull = 1
LBB5 drives operate on a "custom drive" system in which the hull gets determined FIRST and then you need to formulate a drive adequate to produce to the desired performance. The drives are NOT standard anything ... they're ALL CUSTOM drives (for that particular ship class). Consequently, "the drives need to be sized to fit the hull" rather than it being a case of "the hull being sized to fit the drives" in order to achieve the desired performance output. Building custom drives like that to match hull displacements is what places the tech level limits on jump and maneuver performance, because the drives need to be "tuned for the hull" as a unique custom design rather than being a standard drive that gets slotted into all kinds of different hulls for different performance profiles (1-6).
For LBB5 drives, I simply run the drive % formulas in reverse to figure out how much a defined tonnage a drive can "push" at different performance levels. Instead of going to a lookup table like LBB2 referencing a drive letter in different hull sizes, I simply "do the math" to figure it out.
- 300 ton hull Jump-3 = 12 tons of jump drive (300*0.04=12)
- 400 ton hull Jump-2 = 12 tons of jump drive (400*0.03=12)
- 600 ton hull Jump-1 = 12 tons of jump drive (600*0.02=12)
The way I do it is to take the currently calculated drive tonnage to install and then simply divide by lower drive performance numbers to calculate the tonnage amounts where that works because everything works "simply" via formulas.
- 12/0.04=300 Jump-3 (+0 tons external)
- 12/0.03=400 Jump-2 (+100 tons external)
- 12/0.02=600 Jump-1 (+300 tons external)
- 42/0.14=300 Maneuver-5 (+0 tons external)
- 42/0.11=381.8 Maneuver-4 (+81.8 tons external)
- 42/0.08=525 Maneuver-3 (+225 tons external)
- 42/0.05=840 Maneuver-2 (+540 tons external)
- 42/0.02=2100 Maneuver-1 (+1800 tons external)
Because custom drives are more ... finicky ... for balancing hull and performance, since the drive is being custom built for the hull size, you wind up with a different matrix of technological limitations on performance (the LBB5 set, derived by formula rather than lookup table).
What this ultimately means is that there are two different approaches to the engineering which have very different results for performance.
- Drive first, hull after ... where the tech level limit is the drive letter before installing into a hull (any ol' hull).
- Hull first, drive after ... where the tech level limit is the drive number before custom building for the hull.
CT doesn't allow for any "experimental beyond tech level" allowances explicitly within the rules. The caps are HARD caps.
A Referee is, as always, free to allow experimental next tech level tech to be attempted as part of a research project, complete with backstory and so on, but such would be an explicit "exception to the rules" justified by the circumstances, rather than being something that rules lay out as the way to go about doing such things.
Jump governors are only "a thing" needed for LBB2.77 drives.
LBB2.81 drives are already "updated" in such a way that jump governors are already "built into" the jump drive (the fuel formula got updated, basically) and become an obsolete item. So it's only the LBB2.77 rules that needed the correction.
Aside from knowing that the Cephus Engine exists, I know nothing about CE.
All of my Traveller knowledge is CT based.
This is a very good point ... but also one that has limits.
I've always viewed the carried craft as being explicitly internal stowage inside the larger ship. The 110%/130% requirement was to allow for clearance around the hull of the smaller craft for maneuvering in and out of the internal berth plus some additional workspace so crews could access the exterior hull of the smaller craft (basically, the berth wasn't "shrink wrapped" conformal around the smaller craft).
However, that assumption goes away with external docking. You don't need to spend extra "internal" space on an entirely (and explicitly) "external" located craft.
However, @aramis comment here has made me re-examine the assumptions I was making about that.
If you start operating from an assumption that the external capacity is ALSO subject to the 110%/130% carried craft limitation, so as to account for the necessary hull "anchor points" and strengthening for such dockings, things start getting rather interesting.
So even if a 300 ton Jump-3 starship CAN (per formula demonstrated above) transport up to 300 tons externally at Jump-1 ... if you factor in the 110% "waste factor" assumption for doing so, you wind up with a situation where 300/1.1=272.7 tons of ACTUAL external loading winds up being the functional equivalent to the +300 tons compatible with drive performance limits. In other words, the external loading is not 100% ton for ton "efficient" the same way that internal cargo capacity is. That way, the external loading capacity is "paid for" (somehow) and is not 1:1 equivalent to internal loading capacity.
Yes ... this is a workable extrapolation that makes for an interestingly complex (and therefore, varied) set of possibilities.
Thank you, @aramis for the comment.
Just to be clear, this is an IMTU interpretation, but:
The idea underlying this is that HG's jump-capability limits by TL are how jump drive technology works when it is fairly well understood, and the LBB2 standard drives are exceptions to this for reasons not well understood in-universe.
This got thrashed out in the "Something Funny Happened on the way to Collace" thread in which I introduced the Shugushaag-class and the 400Td 6Boat that I modded into what I'd eventually call the Israfel-class courier (J6/1G, short fuel and half the crew are robots because robots don't need even half-staterooms).
I summarized the exceptions in post #13 of that thread:
The idea underlying this is that HG's jump-capability limits by TL are how jump drive technology works when it is fairly well understood, and the LBB2 standard drives are exceptions to this for reasons not well understood in-universe.
This got thrashed out in the "Something Funny Happened on the way to Collace" thread in which I introduced the Shugushaag-class and the 400Td 6Boat that I modded into what I'd eventually call the Israfel-class courier (J6/1G, short fuel and half the crew are robots because robots don't need even half-staterooms).
I summarized the exceptions in post #13 of that thread:
There is the Sup 7 SDB Jump Carrier. Page 38. WHich mounts the SDB as a large external.
In re cargo efficiency: containerizing always results in lost capacity, if only that occupied by the container itself.
Cargo can be broken down by several modes... one to think about is nature of loading...
2: The difference between breakbulk on palletes and miscelaneous objects is in how you have to handle them for rough seas or turbulent skies, especially with adjacent lots. Say I strap a dozen SCBA tanks and 4 sets of turnout gear (Fire helmet, mask, bunker coat, bunker trousers, boots, gloves), which have been folded and tied, to a pallete. (Yes, I've seen that as a cargo in real life. A village was apparently replacing their fire gear.) I have no straight sides, so anything next to it needs to be either secured to prevent falling over it, or low-enough center of mass to not fall onto it, breaking one or both.
Same cargo, as palletized break-bulk, I've got 3 crates of 4 tanks, a box of 4 masks, a box of 4 turnout coats and trousers, a box of boots, and 4 individually boxed helmets. The stack is still only half height, but now extends to 2 edges of the pallete. (If I'm nice, it's on one end, and the shipper can put some breakbulk on the other half) Adjacent load isn't nearly as likely to fall over onto it, and (on water) I can set it braced so that it's roll-resistant.
Likewise, if I palletize a hummer, I can't drive the hummer... but I can also nail down a $1.50 baking sheet to catch engine oil drip. Or I can load the hummer as RO/RO (Roll-on/Roll-off) and tape town that tin. Or I can chain it down on a sideless 1 TEU container with 4 corner pillars for lift/stack, and drop it in the middle of a container load... and, provided the adjacent containers are vans, not have to worry much about it getting damaged.
Cargo can be broken down by several modes... one to think about is nature of loading...
- Bulk usually broken into one of several subcategories:
- Liquid
- Cryo-liquid (special handling - temp and pressure needs)
- powders (Time for base level labor rolls for the cargo hands)
- gravel-like/grain-like
- pressurized liquid other than cryo
- pressurized gas
- Break-bulk
- rugged bags (Such as luggage, mail, or laundry)
- boxes (of various strengths and stacking limitations)
- inflated bags¹
- palletized
- palletized break-bulk²
- palletized objects²
- Containerized (can be containerized bulk, break-bulk, palletized)
- oversized/individual (several subtypes)
- RO/RO vehicles
- hangarized vehicles
- cradled vehicles
2: The difference between breakbulk on palletes and miscelaneous objects is in how you have to handle them for rough seas or turbulent skies, especially with adjacent lots. Say I strap a dozen SCBA tanks and 4 sets of turnout gear (Fire helmet, mask, bunker coat, bunker trousers, boots, gloves), which have been folded and tied, to a pallete. (Yes, I've seen that as a cargo in real life. A village was apparently replacing their fire gear.) I have no straight sides, so anything next to it needs to be either secured to prevent falling over it, or low-enough center of mass to not fall onto it, breaking one or both.
Same cargo, as palletized break-bulk, I've got 3 crates of 4 tanks, a box of 4 masks, a box of 4 turnout coats and trousers, a box of boots, and 4 individually boxed helmets. The stack is still only half height, but now extends to 2 edges of the pallete. (If I'm nice, it's on one end, and the shipper can put some breakbulk on the other half) Adjacent load isn't nearly as likely to fall over onto it, and (on water) I can set it braced so that it's roll-resistant.
Likewise, if I palletize a hummer, I can't drive the hummer... but I can also nail down a $1.50 baking sheet to catch engine oil drip. Or I can load the hummer as RO/RO (Roll-on/Roll-off) and tape town that tin. Or I can chain it down on a sideless 1 TEU container with 4 corner pillars for lift/stack, and drop it in the middle of a container load... and, provided the adjacent containers are vans, not have to worry much about it getting damaged.
