Yeah, I would say the hardpoints rule is for vessels that need to do more than be a floating weapons platform - in short, the hardpoints indicate the degree of structural stress from movement the ship is designed to withstand, so a non-moving vessel, or a very slow one (less than a tenth-g I would say) doesn’t need to follow those rules. Or if you build the ship around the weapon system it serves as part of the superstructure.

On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 06:11 Thomas Jones-Low <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
        I've done similar kinds of technical rule violations in building (unpublished)
designs in order to match a ship I had seen or idea I had. But I have never seen
anyone describe their designs as "violating rule X", so you generally have to
figure this out as you go.

        I would have to double check my references, but my memory is that the turret
launched missiles are 250mm diameter and the bay launched missiles are 500mm
diameter.

        The challenge here is if you go to Special Supplement 3: Missile in Traveller
(included in JTAS 21), take that volume of a missile, but using the 250mm
diameter, you end up with a missile 11 feet long. Not exactly an easy thing go
manage.

On 6/15/2019 7:50 AM, Thomas RUX wrote:
> Morning from the Pacific Northwest Thomas Jones-Low,
>
> Thank you once again for another reply in a long list of my questions.
>
> One of my issues with the design sequence is when designers "technically" violates the build instructions without indicating the choice which causes me to think I've done something wrong. Of course my attempts to follow the rules often result in an unintended violations.
>
> I was not thinking that a 100 d-ton missile bay was being installed in a 20 d-ton space. My thought was the missile bay is being crammed into a 120 d-ton space. I dug through my MT design spreadsheets until I found one that was mostly complete and ran the design. Comparing the numbers, since the specification sheet has not been worked out yet, in the spreadsheet with the sample the only number I did not match, as usual, is the cost. My cost is about MCr3 more than the one listed.
>
> Thank you for the recommendation about building a 100 d-ton missile using CT Striker which I will try since I bashed together a spreadsheet for the MT: COACC 80 mm rockets.
>
> Tom Rux
>
>> On June 15, 2019 at 3:49 AM Thomas Jones-Low <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>      While this is technically a violation of the build rules the MT design system
>> does not have a ship weapons design sequence. There is no way to build the
>> equivalent of a 100 ton missile bay launcher. So the designer was taking the
>> idea of a 100 ton bay weapon and using that as part of the design sequence.
>>
>>      It is clear from real life designs, many fiction sources, and even some hints
>> in Traveller that a free-floating weapons platform is a possible thing.
>>
>>      So don't think of this as a 20 ton ship mounting a 100 ton bay, think of this
>> as a 100 ton bay mounting just enough equipment to operate independently. I
>> highly doubt you can simply slap this into the 100-ton bay socket on a cruiser
>> or battleship. Though there may be people who would try.
>>
>>      If you really wanted to be complete about this, you could go back to the
>> striker design system and build a 500mm space launch missile system with
>> autoloaders and large magazine and see how much you can fit into 100 ton space
>> (mass is no object here).
>>
>> On 6/14/2019 11:51 PM, Thomas RUX wrote:
>>> Howdy Cian,
>>>
>>>
>>>   From MT: COACC page 93
>>>
>>>
>>> GUARDIAN-CLASS (TL12) ORBITAL BATTLE STATION
>>>
>>>
>>> CraftlD: Orbital Battle Station, TL12, MCr21
>>> Hull: 901225, Disp = 120, Config. = 4, Armor = 40F
>>> Power: 1 /2, Fusion = 6 Mw, Duration 120/360
>>> Commo: Radio = Planetary, datalink only
>>> Sensors: Active EMS = Planetary
>>> Off: Missile = x09
>>>                         Batt 1
>>>                        Bear 1
>>> Computer: 1 x 1
>>> Other: Fuel = 120 klloiters, ObjSize = Small, EMLevel = faint
>>>
>>>
>>>        The Guardian-class orbital battle station is armed with a 100-ton missile bay containing two battery rounds of UCP Factor-9 nuclear missiles. Once activated in orbit, it automatically acquires and fires upon shipping that does not respond to the correct pre-programmed transponder code. It is easily and cheaply mass produced as a last line of defense in low orbit.
>>>
>>>
>>> My question about the 100-ton bay stems from the CT requirement that a ship can have 1 bay per 1,000 tons of hull which I thought was the same in MT. Searching my PDF copy of the Referee's manual I did not locate a similar requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, the MT: Referee's Manual requires 10 hardpoints to mount a bay.
>>>
>>>
>>> A 120 displacement ton hull does not have 10 hardpoints to mount a 100-ton bay.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hopefully you or someone else can figure out what I'm not getting.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for the question and hopefully the material provided will provide the information needed to solve the possible issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Rux
>>>
>>>> On June 14, 2019 at 7:09 PM Cian Witherspoon <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       What’s the specs on everything else? The battle station might be built around it, instead of the usual procedure.
>>>>
>>>>       On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 17:19 Thomas RUX < xxxxxx@comcast.net mailto:xxxxxx@comcast.net > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>           > >
>>>>>           Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           I've run into a bit of a problem with Guardian-Class Orbital Battle Station on MT: COACC p. 93.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           In the Other block of the Specification sheet the battle station has a 100-ton missile bay.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           Unfortunately, the Hull block has Disp = 120 displacement tons.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           Can anyone suggest a solution otherwise the Battle Station has to be really reworked>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           Tom Rux
>>>>>
>>>>>           -----
>>>>>           The Traveller Mailing List
>>>>>           Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
>>>>>           Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com mailto:xxxxxx@simplelists.com
>>>>>           To unsubscribe from this list please go to
>>>>>           http://archives.simplelists.com
>>>>>
>>>>>       >
>>>>       -----
>>>>       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://archives.simplelists.com
>>>>
>>> -----
>>> 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://archives.simplelists.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>           Thomas Jones-Low
>> Work:        xxxxxx@softstart.com
>> Home:   xxxxxx@gmail.com
>> -----
>> 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://archives.simplelists.com
> -----
> 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://archives.simplelists.com
>


--
         Thomas Jones-Low
Work:   xxxxxx@softstart.com
Home:   xxxxxx@gmail.com
-----
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=DZZu00eGt8rDmt14P7liTVEolKKLZVUJ