Depends on what iteration of rules you cite honestly. The over riding cult of Tech Level is a bit much is honestly a MT thing following one from Book5...
Thought Experiment- drop the ship price
- Thread starter kilemall
- Start date
HanleyTucks
SOC-11
In the 16th-19th centuries, overseas travel was not prohibitively expensive, but it was very dangerous.
So if you drop the expense, increase the danger. You can do this with pirates, wars, etc, but also with a touch of realism. Space really wants to kill you.
So if you drop the expense, increase the danger. You can do this with pirates, wars, etc, but also with a touch of realism. Space really wants to kill you.
A Jump Drive C built at TL-9 can achieve Jump 6. It needs a Model/6 computer to control it, though ('79 rules and later) -- and that's TL-12.
Which is sort of my take on the collision/exceptions from LBB2 in the LBB5 tech paradigm: "It (the higher available Jump capability) works for these cases, but we don't know why and can't generalize it to other designs."
This is different from the T5 Tech Level Stage Effects paradigm, which is that you can build stuff (in almost any category) more advanced than your baseline tech, but you probably won't be happy with it.
The idea that "modern" TL 9 is somehow more advanced than "old" TL 9 nullifies the whole idea of tech levels. Considering that the argument is based on an artifact of rules that were written without any idea of the Imperium, I am inclined to dismiss it.
Yes, but very slow overall progress. Which is the point here. Your argument was, if I may paraphrase, that maybe starships should be expensive because they are cutting-edge new technology, like the space shuttle was.
But everything we know about the OTU tells us: They're not. For example, the current design of the Scout/Courier is canonically over a century old and they are still being mass produced. Comparing them to a small series of experimental, individually produced early spacecraft makes no sense.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Starship:
1. Why do you want one?
2. Why do you need one?
3. What do you want to do with it?
4. How do you want to utilize it.
5. When do you want to use it?
6. Questions like that gives you an indication if and when you get hold of one.
7. Cheapest option likely is owner patron onboard.
1. Why do you want one?
2. Why do you need one?
3. What do you want to do with it?
4. How do you want to utilize it.
5. When do you want to use it?
6. Questions like that gives you an indication if and when you get hold of one.
7. Cheapest option likely is owner patron onboard.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yes, according to pure LBB2, but not according to the 3I campaign setting.
Before then the First Imperium couldn't even get J-2 from an A-drive in a 100 Dt hull, even using LBB2'77...
The Solomani too had a defined timeline for discovering Jump-1, Jump-2, and Jump-3 technology. The Rule of Man certainly didn't traipse around at J-6.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Book Two implies that jump range was basically software locked.
Like what's been suggested that cars can upgrade their acceleration by paying extra.
Or just unlock features that you would need through microtransactions, on a month to month basis.
Like what's been suggested that cars can upgrade their acceleration by paying extra.
Or just unlock features that you would need through microtransactions, on a month to month basis.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No, my argument was that spacecraft are not ocean liners.
And I agreed that Traveller ships are probably not saddled with development costs:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Not in LBB2'77. A m1/bis computer at TL-6 was perfectly able to control J-6.
LBB2'81 was changed presumably to be more in line with LBB5, where jump capability was limited by tech level. Still, a TL-6 computer can control Jump-2, and a TL-8 computer can control Jump-3. Yet, the First Imperium couldn't do that.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
No, I don't think so. A Tech Level is a big span.
Let's consider a 19th century steam engine (TL-4):
Were they all equally efficient? No, a late 19th century steam engine was considerably more efficient and reliable than an early 19th century engine, yet they are both TL-4.
Could a current engineer or physicist teach an 19th century manufacturer to make a better steam engine? Yes, of course. Could he teach them to make an integrated circuit (TL'7?)? No.
We even have an Imperial organisation dedicated to teaching lower tech worlds in the Imperium to build better low tech stuff:
So, is a TL-9 world in the 1105 Imperial setting identical to a Ziru Zirka TL-9 world a few millennia ago, or uncontacted Terra in 2087 (when J-1 was developed)? No, but they presumably have broadly the same manufacturing capabilities.
Not the point. The implication with the jump drives was clearly that TL9 ca. 5600 AD does have crucial capabilities that TL 9 ca. 2250 AD did not have. And that reading would obviate the whole TL idea, in addition to standing on really shaky grounds, being solely a derivation of the Book 2 rules.
Ahem...
You dismissed the comparison with an oceangoing ship (a commercially produced means of mass transportation) in favor of a comparison with the space shuttle (an experimental research craft produced in a small series of individual examples). And your point was to justify the idea that the Traveller ships were not too expensive, but if anything too cheap.
However, in Traveller, the former comparison is actually much more apt. That is plain obvious from even the earliest versions of Traveller.
However, I would argue that a big liner is not an apt comparison for a free trader. A good analogue from the era would be something like N3 type ships (not to be confused with the British battleship project) with a construction cost in 1944 of ~1.1 million dollars. That would work out to ~4 million dollars in 1977. If we assume Cr1 = 1 dollar in 1977, our free trader at (-1) price would be at MCr 3.7 - a close match.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Yet that is what LBB2 used in the 3I setting is telling us.
Yes, I dismissed the comparison of high tech jump-capable spacecraft with lower tech wet ships.
I tried to remove the development costs from the shuttle by taking only the building cost of the last shuttle and the flight cost at the end of the program. After a few decades of routine operation it wasn't really experimental. But I agree the shuttle program was anything but mass-produced.
We can compare the mass-produced small cargo ship with a higher tech mass-produced aircraft currently produced in somewhat similar numbers to the N3, say the Airbus A220.300. It is small-craft-sized with a payload volume capacity between a Launch and a Slow Boat, but much less mass of course. The list price is about $90 million, and the running cost is presumably dominated by the fuel consumption of about 20 m³ per 8 hours, or about 1680 m³ per 4 weeks. At $1 per 0.001 m³ that is about $1.7 million per four weeks. The airliner is more expensive than a Traveller small craft, with much higher running costs, but it is much less capable.
My point is that spacecraft are intrinsically more complicated than aircraft, which in turn are more complicated than wet ships. Comparing lower tech wet ships with higher tech spacecraft is rather pointless, like comparing a jet fighter with a Carthaginian trireme.
I'm not saying Traveller ships are too cheap or too expensive. I don't care, they cost what they cost.
If we look at what it costs to deliver 1000 tonnes of payload to the Moon in an hour or so, they are very cheap compared to we can do today, but that is perhaps expected at higher TL and absolutely necessary to get a space-borne game going.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I would like to point out that if using this baseline assumption, it would mean that starships depreciate in resale value by 1% per year (on average).
- Brand new starship = 100% delivery price from the shipyard
- 10 year old starship = 90% delivery price from the shipyard
- 20 year old starship = 80% delivery price from the shipyard
- 30 year old starship = 70% delivery price from the shipyard
- 40 year old starship = 60% delivery price from the shipyard
In the same sense in that it is telling us that ships larger 5000 tons are impossible, yes. But as I've said many times in the past: I'm not interested in nitpicking exegesis of the oldest Traveller rule sets. If there are elements in there that don't gel with the overall setting as it was (or even as I want it) I will just throw them out with no second thought.
Yes, technologically advanced machines are more complicated than less technologically advanced machines. But that is irrelevant in absolute terms. It is only relevant relative to the level of development of the society which produces them. And in that regard, you can very well compare a trireme to a fighter jet.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
OK, but which is the more apt comparison: A jet fighter compared to a trireme or a horse-drawn chariot?
To me they are both completely arbitrary and meaningless.
That depends on the qualities being compared. Asking questions like "How many of them could the military of a major power maintain" or "How much did their construction cost compared to the average earnings of the people who operated them" is very straightforward.
But in general, this is not a productive area of discussion.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
We are not carefully comparing the GDP or productivity of the 3I with WWII USA, current Canada, or ancient Carthage, we are just pulling some arbitrary unrelated figures out of thin air.
We can see that Traveller starships are, by some arbitrary measure, more expensive than US wartime cargo ship production, but less expensive than current jet liners. Neither comparison need say anything much about Traveller.
If you want cheaper ships, just wave the magic Referee wand and say "Cheaperoneous"?
We can see that Traveller starships are, by some arbitrary measure, more expensive than US wartime cargo ship production, but less expensive than current jet liners. Neither comparison need say anything much about Traveller.
If you want cheaper ships, just wave the magic Referee wand and say "Cheaperoneous"?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Institutional inertia, which seems epidemic in the Vilani.
Also, their budget allocations might have been more balanced in regards to military or civilian utilization.
Also, their budget allocations might have been more balanced in regards to military or civilian utilization.
