I thought a campaign during the collapse of virus would be horrifying.
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 3:55 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
> That's a fun campaign to run. My last campaign is frozen with the PCs
> having loaded up a bunch of cargo pods with gear to set up a bunch of
> advance bases and trading posts out in a wilderness/frontier area. The
> whole Swiss Family Robinson-Crusoe scenario is compelling.
>
> > When my PCs were expanding their polity, several things kept coming up
> >
> > * Earth to orbit vehicles - PCs always recover ships but how to get
> > cargo and passengers to and from the ships.
> > * Ship maintenance - the journeys from a central port for maint always
> > took too long, forcing the need to build local advanced ports /
> > bases fit to do annual maint - which is a type D port and a TL8 +
> > some population.
> > * Vehicles - to defeat teds you need tanks and other amour, you can't
> > bomb them all from orbit.
> > * Habitation - salvage bases, orbital port, outposts etc all need
> > habitation / control etc. and the classic advanced base and original
> > 30tn modules are just not up to the task
> >
> >
> > cheers
> > richard
> >
> > On 09/03/2015 06:48, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> >>
> >> It's really good work. Not like you need me to tell you that, but when
> >> somebody do stuff with the game that is exactly the sort of stuff you
> >> were
> >> hoping people would see in it, it's cool, and I just want to be clear
> >> that
> >> I'm excited by what you did, thinking about how to fit the technology
> >> into
> >> the real roles and missions and models for use.
> >>
> >> > I just worked it out for the worst world - I remember that little
> >> > regengade spaceplane had a configurable fuel tank to deal with
> >> > different world sizes.
> >> >
> >> > My PCs established a small polity over in the madoc subsector. With
> >> > recovered relic ships, they managed to re-open trade but as more and
> >> > more ships were recovered / rebuilt (especially scout vessels and
> >> > Bastien liners) there was a desparate need to get people and cargo to
> >> > and from orbit. Mass drivers are fine for bulk good like iron etc, but
> >> > useless for passengers and delicate cargo.
> >> >
> >> > High tech relic small craft had excellent turn around times, and any
> >> > locally produced vessel would have to have something similar. That
> >> > leaves out conventional rockets - but there are real designs for the
> >> > HOTEL type aircraft, + a mention of this approach in hard times and
> >> hey
> >> > presto - 2 shuttle craft that could be turned round on a daily basis
> >> > (assuming about 6hrs flight + orbit time and the rest of the day for
> >> > maint checks)
> >> >
> >> > On 08/03/2015 21:00, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Richard--
> >> >>
> >> >> I am also impressed by the attention you paid to the fact that values
> >> >> would vary from world to world, the issue that always took the
> >> other 90%
> >> >> of design time.
> >> >>
> >> >> > A bigger version of the settler designed to get 100dtn units into
> >> >> orbit
> >> >> > - my polity tended to build saucer shaped ships -cheap and atmo
> >> >> capable,
> >> >> > only a few yards had orbital facilities
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Developed by the Shield Polity in 1204 to provide heavy orbital
> >> >> transfer
> >> >> > capability using the basic TL8 and emerging TL9 technologies at the
> >> >> new
> >> >> > starports opening within the polity. Its purpose was to provide a
> >> >> small
> >> >> > shuttle capable of lifting 100 displacement tonnes into orbit, and
> >> >> > manoeuvring to a space station, whilst allowing a rapid turn
> >> around on
> >> >> > par with the relic Heplar powered shuttles.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The rapid turn around provision prevented the use of solid fuel
> >> >> > boosters. Conventional turbofans are used to provide motive power
> >> to
> >> >> > raise the shuttle to its orbital insertion point (90%) whilst the
> >> new
> >> >> > contra-grav system neutralised the crafts weight. At the high
> >> orbital
> >> >> > insertion point, the shuttle’s fusion rocket could be safely
> >> >> ignited to
> >> >> > boost the shuttle out of the upper reaches of the atmosphere and
> >> into
> >> >> > orbit. The design’s flexibility allowed a significant fuel
> >> >> allowance to
> >> >> > be carried to allow considerable orbital manoeuvring, and even
> >> transit
> >> >> > to nearby moons and planets. A small allowance has been provided in
> >> >> the
> >> >> > fuel supply for the turbofans to allow atmospheric manoeuvring.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Small staterooms are provided for all 4 crew.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The fuel supply allows both powered ascent and descent. The
> >> turbofans
> >> >> > burn for 151.2 minutes for ascent and descent leaving 16.8 minutes
> >> >> spare
> >> >> > capacity. The fusion rocket requires 16.8 minutes burn (0.14G) for
> >> >> > orbital insertion and de-orbit burn, the remainder can be used for
> >> >> > orbital manoeuvring. The following burn times are for a type A
> >> planet,
> >> >> > smaller worlds will provide a greater fuel reserve.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Poni-B Class Heavy Shuttle
> >> >> > Displacement 200 tns; Hull Armour: 10
> >> >> > Length: 17m Volume: 2800m
> >> >> > Price: MCr 95.87407 Target Size: Small
> >> >> > Configuration: SL Sphere,
> >> >> > TL: 8 Mass (L/E): 2934.19 / 1422.19
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Engineering Data:
> >> >> > Power Plant: 45MW Fission , Duration 1 year, batteries 22.4MWhrs
> >> >> > Jump Performance: 0
> >> >> > Manoeuvre Gs: 0.5G on turbofans producing 1000tns thrust, 0.5G on
> >> >> fusion
> >> >> > thermal rocket producing 1000tns thrust, contra-gavity
> >> >> >
> >> >> > G Hours: 1.4 for turbofans, 0.14 for fusion rocket + 2.1 minutes
> >> >> orbital
> >> >> > manoeuvring
> >> >> > Maint: 182
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Electronics:
> >> >> > Computer: 2 x TL9 std
> >> >> > Commo: Radio 30,000km; Maser com, 3,000km
> >> >> > Avionics: TL8 avionics and navigation aids
> >> >> > Sensors: Radar, 300km;
> >> >> > Armament: None
> >> >> > Accommodation: Extended life support
> >> >> > Crew 4 (1 engineering, 2 manoeuvring, 1 elec)
> >> >> > Workstations: 3 bridge, 1 normal, TL9 controls
> >> >> > Crew Accommodations: 4 small staterooms,
> >> >> > Cargo: 1512 cubic metres
> >> >> > Small craft: None
> >> >> > Airlocks 2
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Other: 4 large cargo hatches
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Notes: No fuel scoops or plant. Fuel: 4.5kl radioactive, 176.4kl
> >> >> liquid
> >> >> > hydrogen, 336kl hydrocarbon distillates.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In sub-orbital flight the shuttle has a power surplus of 0.256MW
> >> with
> >> >> > the combined power output of the power plant and the turbo fans.
> >> >> During
> >> >> > orbital transfer, the shuttle uses its batteries to make up the
> >> power
> >> >> > shortfall to power the fusion thermal rocket and the additional
> >> >> > contra-grav requirement. In orbital flight with the fusion thermal
> >> >> > rocket operating, and the contra grav switched off, the FTR is
> >> powered
> >> >> > down to a 40MW level (0.3G).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 08/03/2015 17:20, Todd Kes
> >> [Traveller_TNE]
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> That's actually pretty darn interesting. I wonder if we could do a
> >> >> >> semi-timeline of orbital launch capacity. I.e. show the most
> >> >> >> efficient TL 7 launch platform (efficient = least $/ton into
> >> orbit),
> >> >> >> then TL 8, then TL 9, aso. (I.e. TL 8 means nothing over TL 8,
> >> so the
> >> >> >> below launch platform would count as TL 9).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It would be interesting (to me) to see the cost per ton drop as
> >> the
> >> >> TL
> >> >> >> goes up.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For example your launch vessel below would be:
> >> >> >> TL 9: MCr 54 @ 50 dtons = 1.08 MCr/dton (reusable)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Adding in the resuable costs and turn-around time would be nice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Todd Kes
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> *From:* "rjperks [Traveller_TNE]"
> >> >> >> <>
> >> >> >> **
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I managed to knock up a 100tn quick turn around shuttle that got
> >> >> >> 50dtns into orbit at TL8/9 using the FF&S rules.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 25MW fission plant + batteries, contra-grav to neutralise weight
> >> and
> >> >> >> then turbofans for flight into the upper atmo and then the thermal
> >> >> >> fusion rocket for the last burn into low orbit. Reverse to get
> >> down.
> >> >> >> The contra-grav meant that the drives only had to provide thrust
> >> for
> >> >> >> movement rather than keeping the craft in the air. Even had a
> >> spare
> >> >> >> 1.8 minutes of fusion burn for orbital operations. Snap at only
> >> MCr
> >> >> 54
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> cheers
> >> >> >> richard
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 9, 2015, at 3:55 PM, [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
> That's a fun campaign to run. My last campaign is frozen with the PCs
> having loaded up a bunch of cargo pods with gear to set up a bunch of
> advance bases and trading posts out in a wilderness/frontier area. The
> whole Swiss Family Robinson-Crusoe scenario is compelling.
>
> > When my PCs were expanding their polity, several things kept coming up
> >
> > * Earth to orbit vehicles - PCs always recover ships but how to get
> > cargo and passengers to and from the ships.
> > * Ship maintenance - the journeys from a central port for maint always
> > took too long, forcing the need to build local advanced ports /
> > bases fit to do annual maint - which is a type D port and a TL8 +
> > some population.
> > * Vehicles - to defeat teds you need tanks and other amour, you can't
> > bomb them all from orbit.
> > * Habitation - salvage bases, orbital port, outposts etc all need
> > habitation / control etc. and the classic advanced base and original
> > 30tn modules are just not up to the task
> >
> >
> > cheers
> > richard
> >
> > On 09/03/2015 06:48, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> >>
> >> It's really good work. Not like you need me to tell you that, but when
> >> somebody do stuff with the game that is exactly the sort of stuff you
> >> were
> >> hoping people would see in it, it's cool, and I just want to be clear
> >> that
> >> I'm excited by what you did, thinking about how to fit the technology
> >> into
> >> the real roles and missions and models for use.
> >>
> >> > I just worked it out for the worst world - I remember that little
> >> > regengade spaceplane had a configurable fuel tank to deal with
> >> > different world sizes.
> >> >
> >> > My PCs established a small polity over in the madoc subsector. With
> >> > recovered relic ships, they managed to re-open trade but as more and
> >> > more ships were recovered / rebuilt (especially scout vessels and
> >> > Bastien liners) there was a desparate need to get people and cargo to
> >> > and from orbit. Mass drivers are fine for bulk good like iron etc, but
> >> > useless for passengers and delicate cargo.
> >> >
> >> > High tech relic small craft had excellent turn around times, and any
> >> > locally produced vessel would have to have something similar. That
> >> > leaves out conventional rockets - but there are real designs for the
> >> > HOTEL type aircraft, + a mention of this approach in hard times and
> >> hey
> >> > presto - 2 shuttle craft that could be turned round on a daily basis
> >> > (assuming about 6hrs flight + orbit time and the rest of the day for
> >> > maint checks)
> >> >
> >> > On 08/03/2015 21:00, [Traveller_TNE] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Richard--
> >> >>
> >> >> I am also impressed by the attention you paid to the fact that values
> >> >> would vary from world to world, the issue that always took the
> >> other 90%
> >> >> of design time.
> >> >>
> >> >> > A bigger version of the settler designed to get 100dtn units into
> >> >> orbit
> >> >> > - my polity tended to build saucer shaped ships -cheap and atmo
> >> >> capable,
> >> >> > only a few yards had orbital facilities
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Developed by the Shield Polity in 1204 to provide heavy orbital
> >> >> transfer
> >> >> > capability using the basic TL8 and emerging TL9 technologies at the
> >> >> new
> >> >> > starports opening within the polity. Its purpose was to provide a
> >> >> small
> >> >> > shuttle capable of lifting 100 displacement tonnes into orbit, and
> >> >> > manoeuvring to a space station, whilst allowing a rapid turn
> >> around on
> >> >> > par with the relic Heplar powered shuttles.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The rapid turn around provision prevented the use of solid fuel
> >> >> > boosters. Conventional turbofans are used to provide motive power
> >> to
> >> >> > raise the shuttle to its orbital insertion point (90%) whilst the
> >> new
> >> >> > contra-grav system neutralised the crafts weight. At the high
> >> orbital
> >> >> > insertion point, the shuttle’s fusion rocket could be safely
> >> >> ignited to
> >> >> > boost the shuttle out of the upper reaches of the atmosphere and
> >> into
> >> >> > orbit. The design’s flexibility allowed a significant fuel
> >> >> allowance to
> >> >> > be carried to allow considerable orbital manoeuvring, and even
> >> transit
> >> >> > to nearby moons and planets. A small allowance has been provided in
> >> >> the
> >> >> > fuel supply for the turbofans to allow atmospheric manoeuvring.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Small staterooms are provided for all 4 crew.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The fuel supply allows both powered ascent and descent. The
> >> turbofans
> >> >> > burn for 151.2 minutes for ascent and descent leaving 16.8 minutes
> >> >> spare
> >> >> > capacity. The fusion rocket requires 16.8 minutes burn (0.14G) for
> >> >> > orbital insertion and de-orbit burn, the remainder can be used for
> >> >> > orbital manoeuvring. The following burn times are for a type A
> >> planet,
> >> >> > smaller worlds will provide a greater fuel reserve.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Poni-B Class Heavy Shuttle
> >> >> > Displacement 200 tns; Hull Armour: 10
> >> >> > Length: 17m Volume: 2800m
> >> >> > Price: MCr 95.87407 Target Size: Small
> >> >> > Configuration: SL Sphere,
> >> >> > TL: 8 Mass (L/E): 2934.19 / 1422.19
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Engineering Data:
> >> >> > Power Plant: 45MW Fission , Duration 1 year, batteries 22.4MWhrs
> >> >> > Jump Performance: 0
> >> >> > Manoeuvre Gs: 0.5G on turbofans producing 1000tns thrust, 0.5G on
> >> >> fusion
> >> >> > thermal rocket producing 1000tns thrust, contra-gavity
> >> >> >
> >> >> > G Hours: 1.4 for turbofans, 0.14 for fusion rocket + 2.1 minutes
> >> >> orbital
> >> >> > manoeuvring
> >> >> > Maint: 182
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Electronics:
> >> >> > Computer: 2 x TL9 std
> >> >> > Commo: Radio 30,000km; Maser com, 3,000km
> >> >> > Avionics: TL8 avionics and navigation aids
> >> >> > Sensors: Radar, 300km;
> >> >> > Armament: None
> >> >> > Accommodation: Extended life support
> >> >> > Crew 4 (1 engineering, 2 manoeuvring, 1 elec)
> >> >> > Workstations: 3 bridge, 1 normal, TL9 controls
> >> >> > Crew Accommodations: 4 small staterooms,
> >> >> > Cargo: 1512 cubic metres
> >> >> > Small craft: None
> >> >> > Airlocks 2
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Other: 4 large cargo hatches
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Notes: No fuel scoops or plant. Fuel: 4.5kl radioactive, 176.4kl
> >> >> liquid
> >> >> > hydrogen, 336kl hydrocarbon distillates.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In sub-orbital flight the shuttle has a power surplus of 0.256MW
> >> with
> >> >> > the combined power output of the power plant and the turbo fans.
> >> >> During
> >> >> > orbital transfer, the shuttle uses its batteries to make up the
> >> power
> >> >> > shortfall to power the fusion thermal rocket and the additional
> >> >> > contra-grav requirement. In orbital flight with the fusion thermal
> >> >> > rocket operating, and the contra grav switched off, the FTR is
> >> powered
> >> >> > down to a 40MW level (0.3G).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 08/03/2015 17:20, Todd Kes
> >> [Traveller_TNE]
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> That's actually pretty darn interesting. I wonder if we could do a
> >> >> >> semi-timeline of orbital launch capacity. I.e. show the most
> >> >> >> efficient TL 7 launch platform (efficient = least $/ton into
> >> orbit),
> >> >> >> then TL 8, then TL 9, aso. (I.e. TL 8 means nothing over TL 8,
> >> so the
> >> >> >> below launch platform would count as TL 9).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It would be interesting (to me) to see the cost per ton drop as
> >> the
> >> >> TL
> >> >> >> goes up.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For example your launch vessel below would be:
> >> >> >> TL 9: MCr 54 @ 50 dtons = 1.08 MCr/dton (reusable)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Adding in the resuable costs and turn-around time would be nice.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Todd Kes
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> >> *From:* "rjperks [Traveller_TNE]"
> >> >> >> <>
> >> >> >> **
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I managed to knock up a 100tn quick turn around shuttle that got
> >> >> >> 50dtns into orbit at TL8/9 using the FF&S rules.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 25MW fission plant + batteries, contra-grav to neutralise weight
> >> and
> >> >> >> then turbofans for flight into the upper atmo and then the thermal
> >> >> >> fusion rocket for the last burn into low orbit. Reverse to get
> >> down.
> >> >> >> The contra-grav meant that the drives only had to provide thrust
> >> for
> >> >> >> movement rather than keeping the craft in the air. Even had a
> >> spare
> >> >> >> 1.8 minutes of fusion burn for orbital operations. Snap at only
> >> MCr
> >> >> 54
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> cheers
> >> >> >> richard
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>