Trimkhana-Brilliance stats wanted

[far-trader]

Found the TNS report, and it seems it is just the T-B involved and all 221 souls were aboard...

186-1106

Less than a month ago, the 800-ton liner Trimkhana-Brilliance was lost with 217 lives due to a jump capacitor discharge immediately prior to jump. While all four survivors of the disaster are still under intensive medical care, interviews with the one surviving crew member indicate that the capacitor discharge may have been due to a delay in jump after full charging due to a failure of the port inboard L-Hyd drop tank to separate completely.

So we can't involve other ships for the casualty total. I like that the description suggests (to me anyway) 4 drop tanks (port outboard, port inboard, starboard outboard, and starboard inboard) since it works with my desire for J1 aboard and J4 in drop tanks

Sure there could be more but it works for me

 

[rancke]

The simplest option, probably the best, but I don't know the news story to know if it is clear it was just the T-B involved or not.

Just the T-B. The drop tank failed to separate properly and the capacitors discharged without sending them into jumpspace.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Thanks Hans, I beat you by a minute (finally recalled the site with the TNS collection).

Do any of these design guesses work for you? Something you'd like tweaked?

I always wonder when I see stuff like this (the TNS report) if the person writing it did the workup or just winged it. Or used an existing design. My google-fu couldn't find anything though. Just a couple (this one included) discussions on CotI. I wish the TML database search was working better (unless it's been fixed). I half expect it has been a subject there.

 

[rancke]

Staterooms x90, Lowberths x90
High Passengers: 48 in single occupancy
Middle Passengers: 62 in double occupancy

High or Mid passengers: 48 in single occupancy.
Economy passengers: 62 in double occupancy.

A company like Tukera could probably dig up an extra steward or two if an unusual number of high passengers booked passage. They might have to stay in passenger stateroom(s).


Hans

 

[far-trader]

High or Mid passengers: 48 in single occupancy.
Economy passengers: 62 in double occupancy.

A company like Tukera could probably dig up an extra steward or two if an unusual number of high passengers booked passage. They might have to stay in passenger stateroom(s).

I've got 2 crew (double occupancy) staterooms set aside for up to 4 Gunners that would more likely be used for this option So that's covered. The rare (or not if you want it armed) times Gunners might be needed you could get away with less than 4 by allowing fewer than all 4 turrets or by linking them in battery fire.

Just to note, the way I figured it, if the T-B does have a mail contract, the mail rides in the Boat the whole time.

That might even be the accounting of the survivors. Trying to get the jammed drop-tank off was a matter of some crew (4 - the Pilot, a spotter (an Engineer?), and 2 Engineers maybe) trying to use the Boat to do it. The ship blew before they could get the drop-tank and themselves clear.

 

[rancke]

Do any of these design guesses work for you? Something you'd like tweaked?

About the power plant fuel I shall observe a studious silence, but the on-board jump fuel I'm in two minds about. It's the sort of jackass design that might well appeal to some people. Commercially, it's a dead loss. It's not even any good as a safety feature, since all the fuel gets consumed. But some company bigwig might well have thought that it was smart to give the liners a limited capacity for self-movement. On the other hand, strapping on a set of drop tanks and NOT dropping them would do the same thing better.

I think I'd give the ship's officers their own staterooms, even at the cost of a few high passengers. In fact, I'm more inclined to regard the rule about crew having their own staterooms as set in stone (by regulations) than the one about passengers. I can't see any problem with passengers paying somewhat less to get somewhat less; but crew might need a substantially higher salary to put up with shared staterooms...


Hans

 

[far-trader]

About the power plant fuel I shall observe a studious silence...

...but the on-board jump fuel I'm in two minds about.

My reasoning and (old) ATU ruling on this stems from the first example (yes, a bit broken but... ) of drop-tanks, the Gazelle. I took from it a requirement for some of the jump fuel needing to be aboard ship (J2 worth or a percentage, I don't recall exactly which I went with in the end). All the fuel is burned but some of it has to be done after the hull is clean (drop-tanks away) to allow the reduced tonnage jump.

There's also the safety margin (with the scoops) of possibly allowing the ship to rescue itself if it misjumps, and is lucky enough to survive said misjump, and arrive in a system it can skim from, and that system lies within J1 of other systems it can skim from or make safe port in, and it doesn't misjump from the unrefined fuel skimmed... ok, a long shot, but then so is the misjump in the first place*.

* another MTU rule (or two), drop-tanks impose a DM+1 on the misjump chance, even if you kick them away safely, one reason they're not widely used in MTU and not allowed (save some proposals and testbeds, like the T-B) at all for Commercial ships. Military ships (with their DM-1 or DM-2) are ok with drop-tanks.

I think I'd give the ship's officers their own staterooms, even at the cost of a few high passengers. In fact, I'm more inclined to regard the rule about crew having their own staterooms as set in stone (by regulations) than the one about passengers. I can't see any problem with passengers paying somewhat less to get somewhat less; but crew might need a substantially higher salary to put up with shared staterooms...

I did give the Captain (officer) their own stateroom. I like the idea of higher salaries for shared staterooms for ratings. That's a keeper. Fits nicely with the double crew position rule. Which if forced I'd implement to keep from changing the stateroom total. So instead of double occupancy for the ratings I'd just give them all two positions (ah but then we're down to less than the 221 souls aboard again, dang). I like the idea of higher salaries (similar to the double crew position bonus I'd say) for putting up with shared staterooms though

 

[rancke]

It just occurred to me: Why have provisions for high passengers at all? Why not just have 12 more staterooms?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

It just occurred to me: Why have provisions for high passengers at all? Why not just have 12 more staterooms?

Provisions? You mean the 1dton* allowance? Because it's a rule?

* and yes, 1000kg in CT is 1dton, in many places, cargo especially

I've always figured it was one of a few things:

• Toys. Rich travellers want to take not only their extensive wardrobe for the cruise and where they're going, they also want to take a bunch of toys and luxury convenience items to make the trip and stay on the next world they visit. Maybe even a personal vehicle (bike, segway type, whatever).
• Gear. Adventure travellers will want to bring their camping gear, whatever that may entail.
• Home. Moving travellers may pay the extra expense of High Passage to have 1ton of cargo space for collected household items to move into their new life on a new world. Furniture, collectibles, sentimental stuff.
• Speculative cargo. The only cargo speculators without a starship in MTU are those who travel WITH their speculative cargo. So they book High Passage where they hope to sell that 1ton of speculative cargo they bought cheap. The good ones make a comfortable living doing it and the travel is a fringe benefit.

I allow High Passengers in MTU to (under the table) "sell" the 1ton back to the Captain for Cr900, who then charges Cr1000 to haul freight in that 1ton, or use it for speculative cargo.

The 100kg baggage allowance for Mid passages is what fits in the stateroom. And the 10kg allowance for Low passages is what fits in the lowberth locker.

 

[rancke]

* another MTU rule (or two), drop-tanks impose a DM+1 on the misjump chance, even if you kick them away safely, one reason they're not widely used in MTU and not allowed (save some proposals and testbeds, like the T-B) at all for Commercial ships. Military ships (with their DM-1 or DM-2) are ok with drop-tanks.

The problem I have with that notion is that as of early 1105 "L-Hyd drop ships have only been in service for the last dozen years in the interior" [TNS Newsbrief]. That implies scores, if not hundreds, of drop tank ships doing 35 jumps per year for a decade. If the misjump chance was really 1 in 36, someone would have noticed by now.

Now, if the misjump chance was a little higher than for non-drop tank ships, there may be a controversy raging, with some people insisting that the eight cases of misjumped recorded so far was statistically significant, and Tukera insisting that it wasn't.

(IMTU there is a small chance of a socalled 'unprovoked misjump', increasing with the age of the jump drive, that is far too small to show up in a game rule, but big enough to make companies want to sell off 40 year old ships. Plus, of course, enabling the referee to have any ship misjump at any time for plot purposes.)


Hans

 

[rancke]

Provisions? You mean the 1dton* allowance? Because it's a rule?

Yes, but the rule is that you can't ship a high passenger without giving him a dT baggage space. But I don't recall any rule that says you have to design a ship to have cargo space in the first place. What if you just don't care if you ever get any high passengers?


Hans

 

[far-trader]

The problem I have with that notion is that as of early 1105 "L-Hyd drop ships have only been in service for the last dozen years in the interior" [TNS Newsbrief]. That implies scores, if not hundreds, of drop tank ships doing 35 jumps per year for a decade. If the misjump chance was really 1 in 36, someone would have noticed by now.

Could be down to more vigilance and better standards through the introduction of them (similar to the reasons for the DMs for Naval and Scout ships). Then as they become more commonplace, say 1106ish, production quality slips and complacency in maintenance and procedures creep into the non-military versions. Suddenly you have tanks sticking, or not clearing quite far enough, and bam, ships misjumping and blowing up. Headlines screaming in panic "Drop-tanks not safe!" and conspiracy theories rearing their heads "Ine Givar strike again! Sabatage Drop-Tanks!"

As one way to go

I also impose DMs for age. DM+1 per decade if an overhaul is skipped. It seems a reasonable idea. And of course it's just a die roll, the ref has the ultimate say in implementing it or not.

 

[far-trader]

Yes, but the rule is that you can't ship a high passenger without giving him a dT baggage space. But I don't recall any rule that says you have to design a ship to have cargo space in the first place. What if you just don't care if you ever get any high passengers?

Oh absolutely. I've done such. You don't need a Steward either. I think most Free-Traders should have a hard time getting High Passengers. They'd have to be desperate in most cases.

 

[rancke]

Could be down to more vigilance and better standards through the introduction of them (similar to the reasons for the DMs for Naval and Scout ships). Then as they become more commonplace, say 1106ish, production quality slips and complacency in maintenance and procedures creep into the non-military versions. Suddenly you have tanks sticking, or not clearing quite far enough, and bam, ships misjumping and blowing up. Headlines screaming in panic "Drop-tanks not safe!" and conspiracy theories rearing their heads "Ine Givar strike again! Sabatage Drop-Tanks!"

I think of the Trimkhana-Brilliance as the Hindenburg of drop tank shipping. At least for the Marches. Drop tank ships came to the Marches only one or two years before. Maybe the Deneb-Mora route was opened in 1103, and Mora-Rhylanor and Mora-Trin in 1104. Rhylanor-Regina and Mora-Lunion in 1105. And, BOOM, you get all this publicity about this horrible disaster! Drop tanks aren't safe!

What i can't make up my mind about is what impact it would have further in towards the Core.

I also impose DMs for age. DM+1 per decade if an overhaul is skipped. It seems a reasonable idea. And of course it's just a die roll, the ref has the ultimate say in implementing it or not.

Well, I wouldn't throw for any ship that wasn't owned by PCs (Actually, I wouldn't throw for PCs either; I'd just impose an unprovoked misjump if the plot required it -- and not more than once per campaign at the most). But if I did, I think I'd start with a throw of 30 with 5D for a misjump. Maybe even 36 with 6D.


Hans

 

[aramis]

MGT makes DT's hazardous until TL14.

In re quartering rules vs regs: I've always considered the DO "non-commercial" to mean some regulation requires that paying passengers must have X volume of facilities; since space is often shared, crews on commercial vessels must also have the same rate.

I'm much more likely to let crew double up; crew spend 8+ hours per day outside the stateroom space. Passengers don't.

The DO limits are the limits of the scrubbers; above that rate, you're slowly (or not so slowly) increasing the CO2 levels.

 

[rancke]

MGT makes DT's hazardous until TL14.

I don't see any reason for such a rule, but I don't see any problem with it either.

In re quartering rules vs regs: I've always considered the DO "non-commercial" to mean some regulation requires that paying passengers must have X volume of facilities; since space is often shared, crews on commercial vessels must also have the same rate.

I admit that the Emperor could issue an edict creating such a regulation, but I don't see any reason why anyone should.

Also, I'm more than a little tired of singular aspects of the 3rd Imperium being used to explain odd features of supposedly generic rules. Generic rules really shouldn't have to rely on the distinctive features of any specific setting (Especially not in the case of MGT, which our friends from Mongoose keep telling us applies everywhere from the 3rd Imperium to Megacity One).

I'm much more likely to let crew double up; crew spend 8+ hours per day outside the stateroom space. Passengers don't.

Passengers spend about 200 hours in their staterooms and the associated common areas. They can suck it up if it means saving three months' income. Some passengers may not want to suck it up; I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to buy single accomodation. Or two staterooms, if they want to. But there's no good reason I can see why those who DO want to suck it up shouldn't be allowed to.

The DO limits are the limits of the scrubbers; above that rate, you're slowly (or not so slowly) increasing the CO2 levels.

There I agree with you. I likewise consider 2x<number of staterooms> to be the legal maximum limit for live bodies aboard. (There may be some margin for error, but legally that's the limit).


Hans

 

[aramis]

Simple, Hans...

If one's going to regulate, passengers are most likely to be regulated for more space. Why?
1) They don't know better. Many passengers are likely taking the one trip they will ever make by starship. (based upon prices and incomes, and compared to real world travel cost habits.)
2) They are not screened nor necessarily trained for close quarters life.
3) they have no where else to be than their quarters; each crewman has (effectively) another ton of space, or more, for his duty station, and spends about half his waking time there.
4) the stateroom originally envisioned in the rules is a single bunk. Passengers are not likely to hot bunk.
5) Double occupancy is running the LS at red-line.


Also, Since CT2, and until MGT, in other words 1981 to 2008, Traveller has NOT been a generic system. It's been a system tied to its setting, the OTU, and the OTU is a setting defined as much by the rules as the fluff. Like it or not, that's the reality of things. Therefore, none of the rules make clear physical nor legal restrictions, at least without detailed exigesis. That the SR is a 2 person physical limit is buried in the rules.

On the relative costs. Given that the Cr is essentially a 1977 US$.... and the national average wage was $9779.44 per annum. (source). Roughly $800/month. That should be comparable to a TL 7 Soc 7. At hich point, a mid passage is about a year's salary.Which means, given most people saved up not much more than 10% of income, that means 10 years savings per ticket. That also means a round trip to a neighboring system is going to be at least 20 years savings... once in a lifetime... except for the very rich.

 

[rancke]

If one's going to regulate, passengers are most likely to be regulated for more space. Why?

But why regulate in the first place?

1) They don't know better. Many passengers are likely taking the one trip they will ever make by starship. (based upon prices and incomes, and compared to real world travel cost habits.)

I don't understand this argument at all.

2) They are not screened nor necessarily trained for close quarters life.

You're assuming screening and training is necessary to spend 8 days in close confinement. I see absolutly no reason to assume any such thing.

3) they have no where else to be than their quarters; each crewman has (effectively) another ton of space, or more, for his duty station, and spends about half his waking time there.

Half the tonnage of each stateroom allowance is used for corridors and common areas.

4) the stateroom originally envisioned in the rules is a single bunk. Passengers are not likely to hot bunk.

It's perfectly possible to fit two bunks into a space 3 meters by 3 meters. The Esbjerg-Harwich ferry fits four bunks into less space than that, although the common areas are large and the trip only takes 18 hours.

5) Double occupancy is running the LS at red-line.

How do you know that?

Also, Since CT2, and until MGT, in other words 1981 to 2008, Traveller has NOT been a generic system. It's been a system tied to its setting, the OTU, and the OTU is a setting defined as much by the rules as the fluff.

Oh, I know. My point is that this is a bug, not a feature. In many cases it would have been much better if the rules writers had distinguished between (more or less) universal constraints and setting-specific legal constraints and common practices. That way the referee would be better able to tailor his campaign setting to fit his needs.

Like it or not, that's the reality of things. Therefore, none of the rules make clear physical nor legal restrictions, at least without detailed exigesis. That the SR is a 2 person physical limit is buried in the rules.

SR? Single room? I don't understand this argument either.

On the relative costs. Given that the Cr is essentially a 1977 US$.... and the national average wage was $9779.44 per annum. (source). Roughly $800/month. That should be comparable to a TL 7 Soc 7. At hich point, a mid passage is about a year's salary.Which means, given most people saved up not much more than 10% of income, that means 10 years savings per ticket. That also means a round trip to a neighboring system is going to be at least 20 years savings... once in a lifetime... except for the very rich.

Cr10,000 is the per capita income for a TL8 or 9 society, IIRC. A TL15 society has a per capita income of, again IIRC, Cr24,000 (40% more for an Industrial world). 'Very rich' is overstating it. A world with billions of people will have a LOT of people rich enough to afford star travel in single staterooms (And let's not forget business trips). And just below that group you'll find a group who can afford it if the cost is a little less, like Cr5500 instead of Cr8000.


Hans

 

[aramis]

SR= Stateroom

As for Argument 1, because they don't know what level of confinement is safe, regulation is essential for protecting them from abuse.

As for 2, the US navy has demonstrated it definitely is essential to be trained for overly tight quarters; 1 in 4 submariner applicants can't handle the lack of privacy. NASA also has shown that even well trained & well screened individuals have difficulty in confined quarters... difficulty proportionate to free time, by the way... and that this is the single largest issue for manned spaceflight after the lack of delta-V.

As for 5) because the rules say you absolutely can't support more than 2 people per SR. Redline is the "Do not exceed" point. Reread the passage in Book 2 on p 14...

In some starships (especially exploratory vessels, military ships, and privately-owned starships), double occupancy is allowed in staterooms. No stateroom can contain more than two persons however, as it would strain the ship's life support equipment. A commercial ship must have one stateroom for each member of the crew.​

It's pretty clear that, if a warship can do it, but a commercial ship can't, regulation is involved. If you're regulating crew, you're likely also regulating passengers.

 

[rancke]

As for Argument 1, because they don't know what level of confinement is safe, regulation is essential for protecting them from abuse.

But double occupancy is safe.

As for 2, the US navy has demonstrated it definitely is essential to be trained for overly tight quarters; 1 in 4 submariner applicants can't handle the lack of privacy.

I assume that it has establiched that 1 in 4 sunmariner applicants cannot be guaranteed to perform their job satisfactorily for 90 days. I wonder what the US penal system has established about 8 days incarcerations?

I didn't mean to say that I saw no reason to suppose that there were no limit whatsoever to how many people you can stuff into cramped quarters for extended periods. I meant that I saw no reason to suppose that the limit was anywhere close to 2 dT per person for 8 days. And a very good reason to suppose that it is not: Double occupancy IS allowed for non-commercial vessels. The rules say so.

NASA also has shown that even well trained & well screened individuals have difficulty in confined quarters... difficulty proportionate to free time, by the way... and that this is the single largest issue for manned spaceflight after the lack of delta-V.

Have there been many 8 day manned spaceflights?

As for 5) because the rules say you absolutely can't support more than 2 people per SR.

If they do, they're being silly, or at least grossly inadequate. You can put 20 150 kg sumo wrestlers in a Type A Free Trader, but you absolutely can't put 21 50 kg swimsuit models in one without straining the life support system? Ridiculous.

Redline is the "Do not exceed" point.

Yes, but as it's obvious that not all full sets of crew and passengers will strain the life support system to the exact same degree, people being of different size and size being rather crucial to the amount of strain produced, the red line that will be reached by 20 large persons won't be touched by 21 small persons. The legal limit will be 20 persons; the red line will be some where above the point that 20 somewhat-more-than-average persons will produce. How much more is a matter for conjecture, but there will be enough capacity for an average set of people PLUS a hefty safety margin.

Reread the passage in Book 2 on p 14...

In some starships (especially exploratory vessels, military ships, and privately-owned starships), double occupancy is allowed in staterooms. No stateroom can contain more than two persons however, as it would strain the ship's life support equipment. A commercial ship must have one stateroom for each member of the crew.​

An unnuanced game rule. You absolutely can't have two people and a baby in a stateroom? You can't have four people bunking in one stateroom for every two staterooms with single occupants? Obviously this rule is not realistic.

It's pretty clear that, if a warship can do it, but a commercial ship can't, regulation is involved. If you're regulating crew, you're likely also regulating passengers.

Are you arguing that there is a legal limit to two people per stateroom? Because I never denied it. I thought you were claiming that the rule meant that there was a physical limit to the number of people, that the moment you stuffed three people into a stateroom, the life support system redlined.

Mind you, the limit I can see a sensible reason for would be based on the total life support rating. The LS of a Type A Free Trader would be 20 people in all, not two people in any one stateroom.


Hans