On 24Apr2020 1845, xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:
> Modular ship parts (esp in the Empire) just make sense. Even on a  > military ship - the ability to have a destroyer sized vessel that >
could load modules as diverse as: Ship to ship batteries, ortillery >
and sensors, cargo, extra fuel, a jump capsule module with marines, > a
boarding module for customs enforcement (heavy shuttle w marine > BPs),
missile batteries, missile storage, medical bay (portable > hospital),
VIP module (for muckety mucks who want a full stateroom... > wimps!),
survey or EW (different electronics), etc.
The problem is that fitting and unfitting modules isn't as easy in
practice as it sounds. For them to be truly 'plug and play' they'' need
to have the same standard mass, have the same centre of gravity, etc.
They will need to have no special requirements with regards to power,
water, data, etc., which can be quite limiting if you're trying to
upgrade. For a warship there's also a matter of armour - if the module
carries armour, what do you do if there's no module? If they don't, the
module now also has to have any surface fixtures only through standard
holes in standard places. Also, for full effect the armour probably
needs to be in sections that are as large as possible, so the module
seams are a weak point unless the armour is rebuilt every time a module
is changed. I can see a warship carrying a few module slots for highly
standardised things (and in CT that's exactly what turrets and bays
were), but most of the ship's systems will be part of an integrated whole.

Another factor in favour of few/no modules is that modules tend to be
volume inefficient because of the space around each socket, and the need
for an entire system to fit into a set, regular, volume. Traveller's
starships are volume-limited, so wasting volume on putting each system
in a nice cubical box means losing capability compared to fitting it all
together in as compact an arrangement as possible.

> To me, the way to build a jump tug or battle tender (for the battle  > riders to be carried by) was to build a spine with fuel capacity, >
computers, and jump drives and a minimal M-drive.
That is how battle tenders are generally perceived as being arranged.
Mind you, given how much of their volume ends up being fuel tanks they
probably end up looking a lot 'fatter' than we tend to picture them as
being.

> Side Gripe: There's a steward skill which is reasonable. There's not  > a ship's security skill (well in the version of the game I own) >
unless it came form a 3rd party. More importnantly, given the 3I's >
sole raison d'etre is trade, it is amazing that we have trader, > legal,
admin, broker, steward, medics for the coldsleepsickles, etc. > but *we
do not have a cargo handling skill*.
GURPS (and thus GURPS: Traveller) does.

> DC is a skill naval personel learn to deal with and to some extent,  > well qualified civilian merchants from bigger lines do as well. It's
 > not fixing stuff like the trade skills (electronics, gravitics, etc).
 > but it is more general - what do I need to do to make the ship and >
its load and embarked life forms safe? How do I do this quickly if > the
captain needs the broken computer linkage from the bridge to the > jump
computer bypassed?
Damage control past a pretty minor level isn't much of a thing on modern
freighters. If the pumps can't handle it, abandon ship. With cheap (for
their size) construction and next to no compartmentation these ships
sink very quickly once things get serious, and if the crew doesn't
realise the ship is sinking and abandon it ASAP they will go down with it.

--
Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>