Isn't that sort of what is going on now with naval shipbuilding? For
example the Mistrals the French are selling to the Russians. They are
building most of it with some of the high tech stuff(propulsion and stuff)
but not some(electronics and weapons) the Russians have to fit their less
capable and cruder systems.I would think you could always swap systems in
as long as they closly fit except if the tech was way out of line
Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
visit violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
When in doubt I think of the immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I
just drank what?"
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 2:59 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Roger--
>
> I agree with your premise about bringing the drive to the hull, but that's
> not the way I went, because it would violate the spirit of starport
> classifications, and it was not our place to undermine too many settled
> Traveller conventions (pick your favorite convention that we DID
> violate--focal arrays vs. Space Battleship Yamato style WW2 turrets is my
> favorite distinction without a difference). The RC and the Covenant of
> Suffren raised this issue all the time, but I didn't want to get into,
> "it's a type A starport except when it's not, it's a type B starport
> except when it's a type A." Logically the difference between Type A and B
> is not like the difference between Lead and Gold, but more like the
> difference between Uranium 238 and Thorium 234. For all I know, the sacred
> UWP difference between A and B is like the number of stars in a Michelin
> guide: some numbskull at TAS decides "it's a B" and it is because he says
> so. That's another piece of the expanded rules I've talked about, "how do
> you develop a B Starport into an A Starport," and I wasn't going to trash
> the distinction, but put out rules to visualize what the distinction
> actually was and how you could manipulate and evolve it. Whether we
> touched on any of that in World Tamer's I don't recall, but think we
> didn't go that far.
>
> So bottom line is that I was deliberately saying that if you were going to
> install a Jump Drive you had to do it at an A starport, thereby working
> within the rules until there was time to expand them.
>
> > The problem with only having one shipbuilding facility in the RC is that
> > if a vampire hit Aubaine like one did to Nike Nimbus the RC is sunk. In
> > addition it would speed up construction and save the construction docks
> > for much needed military craft.
> > My thought was that Say Trybec could build a J-Hawk style ship but near
> > completion a Multi-mission scout with a J-drive and a couple of
> > technicians on board would fly out and with the assistance of Trybec
> > workers install the J-drive. Over time the technicians could step back
> > into an advisory role as the workers took over more of the installation
> > work. The starport would then be, I guess a B+ or A- facility. Being
> > TL-10, Trybec I assume would have most of the where-to-all to build the
> > components of a jump drive, coils and governors might have to be tooled
> > up and final construction of the drive would have to be build, but once
> > this was done and the personal trained up the starport would get its
> > class-A rating.
> > For an idea, check out BARD and an SDB called ATEF, this is my idea on a
> > multi-tech on a single ship. Modules holding higher tech systems like
> > sensors and the computer to run them is a great idea, it would allow ship
> > to up-graded when funds or need wanted. The only connections that would
> > be needed would be to the bridge, electronics workstation and a power
> > connection.
> > My thoughts on the jump computer limiting the distance of the jump is
> > mixed here. On one side FF&S only states that a third computer is needed
> > for a jump capable ship. Here I assume "again" that the jump governor or
> > a small computer integral to the drive itself is sufficient for the
> > required distance of the jump. I can see where limiting the jump
> > distance because of the jump computer TL. I guess this will be one of
> > those IMTU rules.
> > Roger
> >
>
>
>
example the Mistrals the French are selling to the Russians. They are
building most of it with some of the high tech stuff(propulsion and stuff)
but not some(electronics and weapons) the Russians have to fit their less
capable and cruder systems.I would think you could always swap systems in
as long as they closly fit except if the tech was way out of line
Wherever you go there you are-Buckaroo Banzai
We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to
visit violence on those who would do us harm. (Winston Churchill)
When in doubt I think of the immortal words of Socrates when he said:"I
just drank what?"
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 2:59 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Roger--
>
> I agree with your premise about bringing the drive to the hull, but that's
> not the way I went, because it would violate the spirit of starport
> classifications, and it was not our place to undermine too many settled
> Traveller conventions (pick your favorite convention that we DID
> violate--focal arrays vs. Space Battleship Yamato style WW2 turrets is my
> favorite distinction without a difference). The RC and the Covenant of
> Suffren raised this issue all the time, but I didn't want to get into,
> "it's a type A starport except when it's not, it's a type B starport
> except when it's a type A." Logically the difference between Type A and B
> is not like the difference between Lead and Gold, but more like the
> difference between Uranium 238 and Thorium 234. For all I know, the sacred
> UWP difference between A and B is like the number of stars in a Michelin
> guide: some numbskull at TAS decides "it's a B" and it is because he says
> so. That's another piece of the expanded rules I've talked about, "how do
> you develop a B Starport into an A Starport," and I wasn't going to trash
> the distinction, but put out rules to visualize what the distinction
> actually was and how you could manipulate and evolve it. Whether we
> touched on any of that in World Tamer's I don't recall, but think we
> didn't go that far.
>
> So bottom line is that I was deliberately saying that if you were going to
> install a Jump Drive you had to do it at an A starport, thereby working
> within the rules until there was time to expand them.
>
> > The problem with only having one shipbuilding facility in the RC is that
> > if a vampire hit Aubaine like one did to Nike Nimbus the RC is sunk. In
> > addition it would speed up construction and save the construction docks
> > for much needed military craft.
> > My thought was that Say Trybec could build a J-Hawk style ship but near
> > completion a Multi-mission scout with a J-drive and a couple of
> > technicians on board would fly out and with the assistance of Trybec
> > workers install the J-drive. Over time the technicians could step back
> > into an advisory role as the workers took over more of the installation
> > work. The starport would then be, I guess a B+ or A- facility. Being
> > TL-10, Trybec I assume would have most of the where-to-all to build the
> > components of a jump drive, coils and governors might have to be tooled
> > up and final construction of the drive would have to be build, but once
> > this was done and the personal trained up the starport would get its
> > class-A rating.
> > For an idea, check out BARD and an SDB called ATEF, this is my idea on a
> > multi-tech on a single ship. Modules holding higher tech systems like
> > sensors and the computer to run them is a great idea, it would allow ship
> > to up-graded when funds or need wanted. The only connections that would
> > be needed would be to the bridge, electronics workstation and a power
> > connection.
> > My thoughts on the jump computer limiting the distance of the jump is
> > mixed here. On one side FF&S only states that a third computer is needed
> > for a jump capable ship. Here I assume "again" that the jump governor or
> > a small computer integral to the drive itself is sufficient for the
> > required distance of the jump. I can see where limiting the jump
> > distance because of the jump computer TL. I guess this will be one of
> > those IMTU rules.
> > Roger
> >
>
>
>