CT Only: Supplement 7 Express Boat

[rancke]

Under Bk2... which does NOT allow for fractional sizes in drive size - anything between 101 and 200 uses drives like a 200Td... the only exception is for JFuel.

I know that fractional sizes aren't allowed¹. Hence the assumption that they are.

¹ And please don't tell me that this actually make sense for maneuver drives. It is a blatant and indisputable game artifact. It's different for jump drives, I admit. So a 101T ship may indeed need a 200T jump field. At least, I can't say for certain that it doesn't, the way I can say for certain sure that a 101T ship don't need to base its maneuver drive on a 200T hull.​

Fixed Costs: Bridge, 2xSR, Model 4, 5ton JDrive Kicker, 40Td PP fuel, 1 Td PP Kicker
78Td. 20+8+4+5+40+1

Ah, no. 1st ed. rules don't need power plant for the jump drive (Nor, apparently, for life support). The power plant needed is whatever is needed to run a 0.1G maneuver drive.


Hans

 

[aramis]

I was using Bk2 81, which is whatI was lead to believe you asked about. I didn't read the quoted text, and you edited between when I opened the thread and I responded.

that 1 Td "kicker" is to make the percentage match that of the tables.

The PP is 1Td +(Pn * 1.5% of hull)
The JD is 5Td +(Jn * 2.5% of hull)
The MD is (Gn * 1% of hull) -1Td

At least, for all Bk2 drives below Drive N.

Above that drive, the formulae break.

The Bk 2-81 requirements include 4 weeks PP fuel.
They don't provide for drives less than 1G, and on ships of 100Td, a drive of 1G would be 0Td formulaically.
They don't provide for fractional performance, either.

All game conceits, true. But also, all part of the design sequences.

 

[rancke]

I was using Bk2 81, which is whatI was lead to believe you asked about. I didn't read the quoted text, and you edited between when I opened the thread and I responded.

Sorry about that.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Sorry about that.


Hans

Oh, and under Bk2-77, the 100Td design only fails 1G due to certain assumptions... But like later, you can't get smaller than a 1Td MDrive...

Bk2 77
_TD _MCr_
100 __2.00 Hull
_20 __0.50 Bridge (100)
__1 _30.00 Model 1bis
__4 __0.25 one Stateroom
_10 __0.00 Fuel P1 for 1 month
_15 _20.00 JD B (J4 on 100Td)
__4 __8.00 PP A (P2 on 100Td)
__1 __4.00 MD A (2G on 100 Td)
_40 __0.00 Fuel J4
__5 __0.00 cargo

Or, you can cut the cargo to 1 ton and add a second stateroom. Or go to a 2 BIS, and not have to switch programs out manually for N-space flight.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Hans,

Unlike the real world, fictional worlds are subject to revision. That's the basic concept of the retcon. Under the 77 rules the power plant-challenged X-boat was possible. Under the 81 rules and HG, it wasn't. For the OTU that meant that things changed so that it never was possible. It's not that they were possible in 1105 and turned impossible in 1110. They never were possible. Unfortunately, the writers didn't follow through on that logic and failed to retcon the X-boats, leaving them a canker in the OTU from that day until this. There is no way to reconcile descriptions made under the old rules with the new rules, even if the writers pretended that there were. Can't be done, and any attempt to do so is futile. And no amount of quoting unrevised descriptions based on the 77 rules will change that.

Hans

My quoting was not to reconcile the 1977 first edition with the 1981 second edition.

The express boat text states that it has no standard power plant. What the text does not clearly say is that the express boat is using a non-standard jump drive since it carries out the capacities and functions of a power plant.

The deck plan side view identifies the single unit as the jump drive and power plant. Per the text in the XBOAT - 51216 block express boats jump drives carry power plant capacities and functions.

Technically the express boat jump drive is also a power plant. My common sense says the express boat has a power generation source which needs fuel to operate, in addition to the fuel needed to make a single jump of four parsecs based on the rules as best as I can interpret them in Book 2 1977.

On this point I'll agree to disagree with the majority and try not to continue make any further comments on the topic of the express boat having or not having a power plant.

Thanks for the replies though.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Mike Wightman,

Just to add fuel to the fire the DGP authors of MT based the core technology on their 77 edition of the rules, hence the jump drive in MT doesn't need a power plant either

So when the rebellion occurred not only did ships suddenly require far less jump fuel, they also could go back to jumping with no power plant, and used their full allocation of jump fuel regardless of jump distance.

You are right that the jump drive, regardless of publisher, doesn't mention the need for a power plant, however just about everything else in MT needs power to operate, so power plants are required.

The only I DGP products that have vehicles and starships are MT Alien Volume 1 and 101 Vehicles. All of the vehicles I see have a power plant.

 

[GypsyComet]

You must have had a kind and gentle referee, most of mine had the express boats showing up in the wrong place.

Ships emerge from jumpspace outside of any and all 100-diameter jump horizons, so unless they drift into one, they will always be pretty close to a viable jump departure point.

There is a problem with the unstated default in my opinion when a deck plan has an airlock in the engineering spaces. My common sense tells me that this airlock is part of engineering not the bridge.

I've taken a course in architectural drawing which stressed that one puts the components in the location they will be used in which takes up space. Of the top of my head I don't remember seeing my deck plans with airlocks and/or ship's lockers shown with in the area identified with the bridge. Usually, they are drawn with a bulkhead and a hatch between the bridge and their location.

On the one or two deck plans I actually have done counting the airlocks and ship's lockers as separate parts has gotten me closer to matching the volume of the hull.

On the first point, the first airlock in a ship is a requirement to make it a ship. That airlock's volume can come from any of the less rigorous ship components, specifically including Bridge tonnage, which does not have to be contiguous. If you count the volumes, for example, the standard Scout Ship's Bridge includes everything in front of the staterooms, the upper and lower Galleries, and at least part of the Common room aft. The ship gains its standard airlock by making all of Engineering into one large airlock, an operation that could be rather rough on anyone else in Engineering. CT is purposely fuzzy on the level of detail you are asking about, because GDW was very specific about not wanting players to sweat the details. The 20% Slop rule for deckplans is there for precisely that reason.

Later editions which sought higher levels of detail included small volumes for airlocks, covering the absolute minimum volume needed to step into and have atmosphere pumps installed, while others explicitly stated that airlocks are not a discrete volume during design but are subsumed in Bridge, Quarters, Cargo, or Engineering.

Ultimately, there is no hard and fast rule in CT, and that was on purpose. Use the approximation that makes you happy.

 

[GypsyComet]

... the jump drive, regardless of publisher, doesn't mention the need for a power plant, however just about everything else in MT needs power to operate, so power plants are required.

...All of the (DGP) vehicles I see have a power plant.

MT had a very different set of design parameters, and there was no simple way to set up a Power Plant requirement for Jump Drives. This is one of the big reasons why MT also re-defined the Jump Drive as a power plant of its own, just a very hot and fast one vs the usual slow and steady. This approach is repeated in other editions that do not use Letter Drives or an abstract number rating for power plants. One reason for this is to avoid putting a MW number on jumping.

Vehicles are another matter. Unless they are large or mount a hungry weapon or propulsion system, vehicles are often *kilowatt* users, orders of magnitude smaller than what starships need. None of them has that mysterious secondary drive system that generates its own power, however, so they have to have some sort of small power plant.

This also applies, in some ways, to the X-Boat. Even in High Guard the EP consumers are weapons and screens, and the power plant is already keyed to the M-Drive. Everything else is so minor by comparison that High Guard doesn't care about it. The two things that an X-Boat lacks? M-Drive and weapons. Lights, computers, and gravity are trivial to keep powered in a 100-ton ship that is already 75% non-habitable spaces, so a little fusion plant tucked into the corner of the drive space is all it needs. Too small to count as anything rated in Book 2 and not particularly thirsty, but enough for the needs of the X-Boat.

 

[mike wightman]

Hello again Mike Wightman,



You are right that the jump drive, regardless of publisher, doesn't mention the need for a power plant, however just about everything else in MT needs power to operate, so power plants are required.

The only I DGP products that have vehicles and starships are MT Alien Volume 1 and 101 Vehicles. All of the vehicles I see have a power plant.

With no MD the x-boat only needs minimal power for stuff like life-support etc.
High TL batteries can provide it, or a vehicle scale rather than starship scale fusion plant.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Mike Wightman,

With no MD the x-boat only needs minimal power for stuff like life-support etc.
High TL batteries can provide it, or a vehicle scale rather than starship scale fusion plant.

Apparently we are dealing with a different definition of a power plant.

My definition of a power plant is anything that provides the electrical energy output to operate systems that need electrical power.

If batteries are the only source providing the power to operate electronic systems it is a power plant.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy GypsyComet,

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
... the jump drive, regardless of publisher, doesn't mention the need for a power plant, however just about everything else in MT needs power to operate, so power plants are required.

...All of the (DGP) vehicles I see have a power plant.

MT had a very different set of design parameters, and there was no simple way to set up a Power Plant requirement for Jump Drives. This is one of the big reasons why MT also re-defined the Jump Drive as a power plant of its own, just a very hot and fast one vs the usual slow and steady. This approach is repeated in other editions that do not use Letter Drives or an abstract number rating for power plants. One reason for this is to avoid putting a MW number on jumping.

My response after reading the post several times shows that I was very confused, for which I apologize.

Trying this again:
The response I made to Post 19 was based on the misconception that Mike Wightman was saying that like Supplement 7's express boat a MT ship design could eliminate the power plant and use the jump drive to power the ship's systems.

Apparently my idea of a power plant is different from Mike Wightman and others think. In my mind anything that generates power to operate electronic systems is a power plant. Of course I think power source or power supply could also be used in my responses.

With your help I realize now I was out to lunch and that Mike Wightman was saying the MT like CT Book 2 1977 the power plant was not tied to the energy needed to run the jump drive.

Vehicles are another matter. Unless they are large or mount a hungry weapon or propulsion system, vehicles are often *kilowatt* users, orders of magnitude smaller than what starships need. None of them has that mysterious secondary drive system that generates its own power, however, so they have to have some sort of small power plant.

I have only two DGP products that relate to the MT design sequence. However, regardless needing megawatts or kilowatts to operate electronic systems a power source or power plant is needed.

This also applies, in some ways, to the X-Boat. Even in High Guard the EP consumers are weapons and screens, and the power plant is already keyed to the M-Drive. Everything else is so minor by comparison that High Guard doesn't care about it. The two things that an X-Boat lacks? M-Drive and weapons. Lights, computers, and gravity are trivial to keep powered in a 100-ton ship that is already 75% non-habitable spaces, so a little fusion plant tucked into the corner of the drive space is all it needs. Too small to count as anything rated in Book 2 and not particularly thirsty, but enough for the needs of the X-Boat.

Per Supplement 7 the express boat does not have a stand alone power plant to generate power for life support, computer, communicators, and data storage banks. The express boat's jump drive is also being used as the power source for life support, computer, communicators, and data storage banks. The express boat has enough fuel to make one jump 4 which provides enough energy for the week in jump space and some how runs all the electrical and electronic systems. At the end of the week in jump space covering four parsecs the express boat returns to normal space with empty fuel tanks.

How is the jump drive providing going to provide even the minimal power needed to run life support, computer, communicators, and the data storage banks without fuel?

Is there an example of an express boat in MT?

If there is an MT express boat can anyone tell me if the design has both a power plant and jump drive or just a jump drive.

 

[GypsyComet]

How is the jump drive providing going to provide even the minimal power needed to run life support, computer, communicators, and the data storage banks without fuel?

Is there an example of an express boat in MT?

If there is an MT express boat can anyone tell me if the design has both a power plant and jump drive or just a jump drive.

MT does not use the abstractions of CT, and the MT version would indeed have a small power plant. The MT version of the X-Boat also doesn't have the problem of the CT version, since it only needs 25% of the hull for jump fuel instead of 40% and does not have a fixed 20 ton "Bridge", though it does have to allocate for Life Support and Airlocks.

Both Mike and I are saying that a CT X-Boat has a power generator of some sort, but that it isn't anywhere close to being even an "A" rating. It is the fusion (or battery, perhaps, or a power take-off coil around the Jump Drive) equivalent of a Honda generator. It runs the lights, gravity, computers, and that most important of X-Boat systems, the Entertainment Center. It wouldn't even cause an M-Drive to register that it was plugged in. By the standards of any other starship it is not a Power Plant.

 

[aramis]

The MT version is a particularly bad design in MT terms. See, in MT, you can readily build a J4 starship at 100Td.

• In CT Bk2-77, you can't build a J4 M2 P2 4 week design, but a minimal computer Model/2 J4 M0 P0 design can carry 15 payload tons plus 1 passenger. You can build it at TL-9. Adding a powerplant, however, forces it up 24 tons, as the PP is rating 2 for an A-plant.
• In CT Bk2-81, you can't build a J4 100Td design.
• In CT-Bk5 (HG, either edition), Model/4 J4 M1 P4 4 week TL13 4 cargo ton design. Or 2G and 1 Td cargo.
  20 Bridge
  _4 Model/4
  _5 J4
  _8 P4 TL 13
  _3 M1
  _8 2xSR
  40 Fuel J4
  _8 Fuel P4
  _4 Cargo
• In MT, you can build it as a J4 M1 P1.1 design... and have a lot of cargo tonnage.
• In T20, well, T20 is essentially using HG 2E, with some extra options and different computer rules.
• In TNE and T4, as with MT, you can easily make it maneuver capable.
• In MGT, due to the smaller bridge and PP requirements, J4 M4 P4 is readily doable, and 2 weeks PP at that (explicitly the minimum allowed), and have 13Td of Cargo. Hell, going to M6 P6 moves 7(=2+3+2) tons of cargo to drives and fuel. You can't cram in J6, tho.
  10 Bridge
  25 Drives BBB =4
  _4 PP Fuel
  40 J Fuel
  _8 2xSR
  13 Cargo

The XBoat network is fine, but the maneuver-less boat is an artifact of CT 1E design systems, and possibly should be struck from the OTU as "nonsensical". After all, only one edition of the 11 (CT-77, (of CT 77, CT 81, MT, TNE, T4, T20, GT, MGT, T4H, GTIW, and T5,) have the issue. And in one other (CT2E) the alternate design rules render a superior courier as well.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Mike Wightman, GypsyComet, and Aramis,

CT Traveller has only one source that generates internal power to operate a ship's electrical and electronic systems which is identified as a power plant.

Per the rules the jump fuel is calculated for the maximum jump rating. A starship that makes a jump at the maximum jump rating uses all the fuel.

How can the jump drive that used all the fuel generate power to run internal systems?

I'm just an old submarine sailor, but if I don't have fuel to run a power generator or power plant then I can't make electricity.

I've been doing some more digging in Book 2 1st edition copyright 1977 and feel that the express boat was broken and no one cared enough to fix it.

On page 11 and 13 is the following description.

The Engineering Section: Each starship is fitted with a power plant (to provide internal power and power for the maneuver drive), a maneuver drive (for interplanetary travel), and a jump drive (for interstellar jumps). Each is essential to the definition of a starship. The drives and power plants table lists the 24 different types of maneuver drives, jump drives, and power plants available, as well as their cost (in millions of credits) and their mas displacements (in tons). Only one of each may be installed in the engineering section, and the sum of the mass displacements of all three may not exceed the mass displacement of the engineering section of the hull. It is important to note, from the maximum drive potential table, that some drive and power plant types will not function in certain types of hulls (those situations indicated by a dash); the drives and power plants table also indicates some drives will not fir into some hulls. It is also possible to fit a set of drives and power plant into a hull and then have insufficient tonnage remaining for fuel, basic controls, or life support. The completeness is intended to cover situations where custom hulls are produced. A jump capability of greater than 6 (or an acceleration of greater than 6 Gs) cannot be achieved with the 24 drive types listed in the table.
The installed power plant must be of a letter at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive (the power plant letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter)."

Rules interpretation has been one of my hang ups in using design and construction processes.

I have been told that if the rules do not specifically say something can be done then I can't that something in the design.

I've also heard the argument that if the rules don't specifically something can be done than I can add that something to the design.

I may be wrong but the Book 2 1st edition Engineering Section rules I quoted above does not say that if no maneuver drive is installed the ship doesn't need a power plant. In fact the rule clearly states that a power plant provides internal power, which I take to mean the computer and life support at the very least.

To me this rule

"The installed power plant must be of a letter at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive (the power plant letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter)."

only indicates that the power plant has to be equal to or greater that any installed maneuver drive's rating. I don't read anywhere that no maneuver drive means one can eliminate the power plant. On the other hand the rule doesn't say the power plant can be eliminated if there is no maneuver drive.

Book 2 second edition closed the fudge factor by requiring that a power plant must be at least the same rating as the large of the jump drive or maneuver drive. The second edition also clearly stated that a starship needed a jump drive and a power plant, while a maneuver drive is an option.

Book 5 first and second editions continued with Book 2 second edition rules. MT and the following Traveller versions dumped the rule from Book 2 and Book 5 second editions.

The express boat in Supplement 7, in my opinion was a broken design from the start and apparently no effort was made to rework the design using either Book 2 first or second edition rules.

Of course when I couldn't get Book 2 first edition,Book 2 second edition, or Book 5 first edition rules to work I just skipped trying my hand at designing. When Book 5 second edition came out my efforts at recreating published got a lot closer to matching, usually MCr was and is still an issue.

I want to thank each of you and everyone who has been sharing on this took with me I do appreciate the help.
MT

 

[atpollard]

To me this rule

"The installed power plant must be of a letter at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive (the power plant letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter)."

only indicates that the power plant has to be equal to or greater that any installed maneuver drive's rating. I don't read anywhere that no maneuver drive means one can eliminate the power plant. On the other hand the rule doesn't say the power plant can be eliminated if there is no maneuver drive.

If I install a MD-0 (0 cr, 0 dT), then I need a PP-0 (0 cr, 0 dT) ... problem solved.


Exception Processing:
Rules are meant to deal with the majority of normal, reasonable cases.
Normal and Reasonable ships have a Hull, PP, MD and may or may not have a JD.
The RAW work just fine for normal and reasonable ships.

The X-Boat is not a 'normal and reasonable' ship.
Setting aside the question of whether or not there is an error in the design, a ship that Jumps and then floats unable to maneuver is conceptually abnormal and unreasonable (by warship and merchant trader standards).

Is it possible to build a JD with a small power pack that is quick charged during the jump drive initiation sequence (when the JD - a LBB2 1ed PP in its own right) and provides battery support for ship's systems (life support and electronics) for two weeks?
Clearly such a unique set of circumstances do not need a rule published in the core book to allow players to create their own JD-but-no-MD ships.
It is not like there will be a huge demand for multiple classes of such ships.
I agree that the X-boat can't be built 100% under RAW, but I don't see the lack of PP under the LBB2-1ed rules as a very big issue, just a trivial handwave for a very unique ship.

... why anyone would build a non-MD X-boat in the first place, is a better question, but not relevant to this topic and already debated elsewhere.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning atpollard,

If I install a MD-0 (0 cr, 0 dT), then I need a PP-0 (0 cr, 0 dT) ... problem solved.

I disagree based the first sentence of "The Engineering Section" rule in Book 2 1977 1st edition on page 11.

Each starship is fitted with a power plant (to provide internal power and power for the maneuver drive), a maneuver drive (for interplanetary travel), and a jump drive (for interstellar jumps).

The way I understand the underlined material a power plant is installed to provides energy for non-jump drive systems that require power to operate systems. Internal systems include the computer, life support, and any electrical or electronic equipment other than the jump drive and/or maneuver drive. The power plant provides the energy that the maneuver drive somehow converts to thrust allowing the ship to move from location to location in normal space.

On page 13 Book 2 1977 1st edition provides the following additional relationship between a power plant and a maneuver drive.

The installed power plant must be of a letter at least equal to the drive letter of the installed maneuver drive (the power plant letter may be higher than the maneuver drive letter)."

Combining the two rules my understanding is that a power plant is needed to provide ship's internal power regardless of having or not having a maneuver installed. If a maneuver drive is installed the power plants rating letter must be equal to or more than that of the maneuver drive rating letter.

Following the checklist on Book 2 1st edition 1977 page 21

1. Select hull size: 100-tons
2. Select drives and power plant
A. Jump Drive provides interstellar movement - 4 parsecs
B. Maneuver Drive provides interplanetary movement- Not installed rating of 0
C. Power Plant provides internal power and power for the maneuver drive. At this point nothing has be installed that needs internal power and the maneuver drive has been omitted resulting in a power plant rating of 0.
3. Bridge. Select (basic) controls, computer, and fire control equipment. I could be wrong but the computer is using the power plant's internal power output to operate.
4. Life Support is contained in staterooms and low passage berths. My guess is that a stateroom has electric lights which requires a source of energy which is drawn from a power plants internal power feed.

Line items 3 and 4 indicate that a power plant is needed with or without a maneuver drive. When a maneuver drive is installed the power plant type letter must be equal or be higher than the maneuver drive's letter.

Exception Processing:
Rules are meant to deal with the majority of normal, reasonable cases.
Normal and Reasonable ships have a Hull, PP, MD and may or may not have a JD.
The RAW work just fine for normal and reasonable ships.

The X-Boat is not a 'normal and reasonable' ship.
Setting aside the question of whether or not there is an error in the design, a ship that Jumps and then floats unable to maneuver is conceptually abnormal and unreasonable (by warship and merchant trader standards).

Per the rules a maneuver drive's primary function gives a ship the ability for interplanetary travel. Unfortunately, CT Book 2 and CT Book 5 don't provide any details on how the ship changes course or maintains its attitude in flight. Reasonably one concludes there is some such system that allows the ship to change course and maintain attitude independent of the main drive.

Is it possible to build a JD with a small power pack that is quick charged during the jump drive initiation sequence (when the JD - a LBB2 1ed PP in its own right) and provides battery support for ship's systems (life support and electronics) for two weeks?
Clearly such a unique set of circumstances do not need a rule published in the core book to allow players to create their own JD-but-no-MD ships.
It is not like there will be a huge demand for multiple classes of such ships.

On more than one occasion I have been informed that unless a design rule explicitly allows for the circumstance then that circumstance is not valid. Now I am being informed that there is are exceptions. No wonder I'm not able to get a handle on the design and construction rules.

I agree that the X-boat can't be built 100% under RAW, but I don't see the lack of PP under the LBB2-1ed rules as a very big issue, just a trivial handwave for a very unique ship.

... why anyone would build a non-MD X-boat in the first place, is a better question, but not relevant to this topic and already debated elsewhere.

Just my 2 cents.

Hand waves, trivial or otherwise, does not help me in verifying a published design. Worse yet when I attempted to use hand waves to explain the design at least one, usually more, let me know I was out to lunch.

I guess I shouldn't even try to support Donald McKinney's efforts to clean-up or fix the published designs. What a bummer

 

[robject]

I guess I shouldn't even try to support Donald McKinney's efforts to clean-up or fix the published designs. What a bummer

On the contrary, you've waded right in, and I think you are helping out, if only to clarify issues for everyone via trial and error.

 

[atpollard]

Sorry for the confusion on my part.

Let me be much clearer ...
The X-boat cannot be fixed under many rules systems and may even be broken under the original LBB2 1ed rules.

Some people have no problem with the ship not needing a PP and some have a big problem. The original Rules-As-Written can reasonably be interpreted either way and any argument, one way or another, will just be an opinion.

In My Opinion, the x-boat is such a unique craft that no person would reasonably want to build another Jump capable-No MD ship, so 'fixing' a unique design is a VERY LOW priority.

So my intention was not to 'solve' your problem, but to suggest that
1. it either "isn't broken" or "can't be solved" based on personal interpretation.
2. Either way, it is not worth getting too excited over ... nobody is going to want to build a 1000 dT version of the X-boat and look to Supplement 7 to figure out how.

I suggest just moving on to other ships that can be fixed.

That was my only point.
Try to have some fun.

 

[snrdg082102]

A partially cloudy 2:22 PM PDT robject and atpollard,

Yep robject I waded right in and the bouncy of my hip high wading boots has resulted in getting thoroughly dunked.

I was already considering giving up, as you atpollard suggest, on trying to recreate the express boat using either Book 2 1st or 2nd edition design and construction rules. Trying to recreate and/or fix the express boat is beyond me considering there is some much hand waving going being applied to the design.

Thank you all for the help. Stay tuned for my next floundering design verification adventure.

 

[infojunky]

In My Opinion, the x-boat is such a unique craft that no person would reasonably want to build another Jump capable-No MD ship, so 'fixing' a unique design is a VERY LOW priority.

>evyn mumbles in response< ANNIC NOVA.....


:devil: