This is where, IMO, too much detail (Hello, MT!), erodes the 'system'.

There is really no way to know how much of *anything* will be needed in this far, far, future universe to be able to do *anything*.

All we have are some general guidelines, which frequently conflict, and also which, for all we know, are the product of bureaucratic decrees rather than actual hard & fast requirements.

Since we can see such things all around us in our present day 'universe', I see no reason to expect it to be any different.

Just consider the difference in habitability requirements for US naval vessels present & past. Not to mention the differences 'tween different navies.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 05:16:51 PM MST, Thomas RUX <xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:

I have no problem with the custom built systems like a hull with only a jump drive. However, when that jump drive is also providing 10 days of life support for the 168 +/- 16.8 hours in jump space leaving between 2.3 to 3.7 days for pick-up at the destination the cost and tonnage has to go up since it needs the bits and pieces that are used to convert the jump drive's energy to the power needed for running the ship.

At this time I've got a draft of CT LBB 2 1977 spreadsheet working to the point that everything identified, but the 1 ton cargo bay, on CT Supplement 7 pages 9 - 10 has been added. Including the 1 ton of cargo capacity leaves 12 tons of unused tonnage.

The cost per CT Supplement page 10 of MCr70.65 assuming no architect's fee and a 10% discount for production in volume. The cost I have calculated without either the architect's fee or the discount the cost for a single express boat is MCr54.5. The architect's fee, I think would be MCr0.55 and the volume discount one express boat has a cost of MCr49.05.

The 12 tons of unused tonnage is going to be allocated for the fuel needed to run life support for 10 days since the 40 tons of fuel is being used maintain the jump days, the massive communicators and the data storage banks. The MCr20.15 probably covers the massive communicators and the data storage banks.

CT Supplement 7 page 10 says that "The standard bridge is complemented by a Model/4 computer in addition to the massive communicators and the data storage banks." Using the Model/4 leaves 12 tons using the Model/1bis leaves 15 tons.

I all want from the designs that use custom systems is the tonnage and cost to be listed somewhere in the specifications and/or the text.

CT LBB 2 1977 as far as I can find does not have the small craft couch or cabin which would be, in my open, viable ways to get more room in an express boat. Instead of a 20 ton bridge use a small craft's acceleration couch and using two small craft cabins.

On November 12, 2019 at 12:38 PM "Phil Pugliese (via tml list)" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:

 
On Monday, November 11, 2019, 08:56:05 PM MST, Thomas RUX <xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:


On November 11, 2019 at 6:12 AM "Phil Pugliese (via tml list)" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:

On 11 Nov2019 1309, Thomas RUX wrote:

> > > CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 TL 13 100-ton Express Boat: J4 Drive at 20 tons
> > > with 40 tons of fuel, Power Plant-4 at 12 tons with 2 tons of fuel,
> > > 20 ton bridge, 4 ton Model/4 computer, and one 2 ton small craft
> > > cabin without any cargo capacity.

On Monday, November 11, 2019, 03:45:23 AM MST, Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That jump drive seems far too big. A J-4 drive in HG should be 5% of the
> > ship's displacement, or 5 DTons. A TL-13 powerplant should be 2 x 4 = 8%
> > of the displacement, or 8 DTons.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> No matter which set of rules is used, IF the exception mentioned in, I believe, 'Traders &
> Gunboats' is allowed &, as a result, there is no PPlant nor MDrive, there should be plenty of
> space, shouldn't there?

In CT LBB 2 1977 I concluded that the Jump Drive was a specialized power plant that was not designed to run a ship's life support, computer, other electronic/electrical systems, maneuver drive, and weapons. Unfortunately, CT LBB 5 HG 5 added the requirement that the power plant number must be at least equal to the higher of the jump drive number or the maneuver drive number. MT Referee's Manual page 58 states that "jump drives are themselves a special high-yield power plant linked to an integral net in the craft's hull for initiating and maintaining the jump field."

If the jump drive's power plant is also supposed to take over the capabilities and duties of a standard power plant, per CT Supplement 7 page 9, to run life support, computer, and electronic/electrical systems then the cost, fuel requirements, and tonnage should probably go up too, but I'm not sure how much.

If I'm not out to lunch using CT LBB 2 1977 without a power plant and maneuver drive my calculations for the CT Supplement 7 X-boat is J4 Type-B drive at 15 tons with 40 tons of fuel, a 20 ton bridge, a 1 ton Model/1bis computer, two 4-ton staterooms, and 1 ton of cargo capacity which leave 11 tons. The X-boat has a maximum range of 4 on 40 tons of fuel and 3 days.

Since the CT LBB 2 power plant only has to be either the same type or a higher type than the maneuver drive I'm going to install a Power Plant-1 Type-A  which is 4 tons. The power plant Type-A requires 10 x 1 = 10 tons of fuel for 4 weeks. The combined total exceeds the 11 tons available. I'm going to reduce the 4 weeks of operation to 3 weeks which I think requires 10 x (3 / 4) = 10 x .75 = 7.5 tons of fuel, which is still over the 7 tons by 0.5 tons.  Cutting the time of operation to 2 weeks requires 10 x (2 / 4) = 10 x .25 = 2.5 tons of fuel. The combined total of a 4 ton Power Plant-1 Type-A  plus 2.5 tons of fuel for 2 weeks of operation is a total of 6.5 which leaves 4.5 tons available to add to the cargo capacity or maybe add another stateroom.

I don't think that the jump drive needs to add the full 4 tons of the power plant-1 type-A, but I do think it should be more than 15-tons, but the fuel requirement should be the same as for a power plant-1 type-A. The cost of the jump drive should also go up. Looking at the CT LBB 2 1977 Drives and Power Plants table on page 11 the change from a power plant type-A to type-B is 3 tons and the cost is MCr8.0. My thought would be to increase the J4 Type-B drive's mass by 3 tons and MCr8.0 since it is adding the functions and capacities of the power plant.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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 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://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a