On 13Nov2019 0938, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:

> IF we look at the design systems as dictated by 3I rules &
> regulations rather than the 'Real World'(tm), we can then assert
> that the ScoutService has a waiver & just go ahead & design an Xboat
> w/o PPlant or MDrive.Perhaps the reason for the 'starships must have
> a Jdrive, Mdrive, & PPlant' regulation is to provide a higher level
> of 'safety' thru redundancy or whatever? Similar to the myriad of
> 'safety' regs that the US federal gov imposes on auto makers that
> wish to sell their products w/i the USA.

> So, just go ahead & design it with just a Jdrive (I'd use CT LBB5 HG
> as this is intended for a paramilitary org but I think CT LBB2 could
> work too), leave out the 'stateroom' cuz' the 'bridge' is actually a
> modified design which allows single or, in a pinch, double bunking,
> add some extra fuel for non-jump power, &/or assume that there's
> always some left over in the Jdrive due to Imperial regulatory
> 'safety' requirements. A lot less hassle that way. p.s. Another idea
> would be to just drop the 'bridge' & state that the 'stateroom' is a
> custom mod (5-8 dT's?) that also includes a very minimal (definitely
> NOT up Imperial standards but allowed under a waiver) suite of ship
> controls. After all how much does an Xboat really need to be actively
> 'piloted'?

The thing is, if you use High Guard 2e, you don't need to do all these
contortions, as there is room for J-drive (5DTons), power plant
(8DTons), fuel (40+4 DTons), bridge (20 DTons), computer (4 DTons), 2
Staterooms (8 DTons), with 11 DTons left over. We can actually put in a
M-4 drive (11 DTons) if there's no need for cargo, and removing one
stateroom for 4 DTons of cargo allows the canon 1 crew, plus 1
passenger, plus 4 DTons of cargo (more than canon), plus the M-drive.
That's at TL13, by the way.

The Book 2 rules are, as Thomas Rux has shown, problematic the other way
- they lack space, and require the sort of things you're suggesting.
However, the official descriptions don't mention any such gymnastics,
only that they left out m-drive and (sometimes) power plant.

One thing this does suggest is that doubling up on staterooms is really
unpopular with people, and that you really do need staterooms for long
duration life support - they aren't just mostly empty space for people
to be in when they aren't working.

By the way, one thing I've always been bothered by in Traveller is the
lack of rules for the weight and volume of 'life support' supplies. We
know they cost Cr2000 per trip (two weeks) per person (in '81) or per
stateroom (used or not in '77). We don't know exactly what this composes
of, or how much extra weeks worth of it masses or displaces. Presumably
the first two weeks' worth are included in the mass and volume of the
staterooms, but what if a ship is going on an exploratory mission into
the deep unknown and is expected to be away from any starport for months
at a time?

As it's not all food (a week's really good eating is ~Cr350), and oxygen
isn't at all expensive (especially at any starport that's cracking
fuel), I assume it's filters, single-use filters and gas absorption
systems, and so on. Which suggests that in the far future while major
capital items (starships, etc.) are built to last, consumables are just
that, and are simply used once and ditched, even fairly expensive items.>
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a