What is a Safari Ship?

[Spinward Flow]

Then all you need is the fittings, not the tanks.

Exactly.
All you need is the fittings, not the tanks.

Furthermore, if the fittings can accept "standard drop tank sizes" ... even if the configuration of those tanks are not ideally matched to the configuration of the ship (tanks design isn't purpose built for YOUR ship) thereby spoiling the streamlining, so long as you're in vacuum that streamlining factor doesn't matter. All that matters, when you jump (out at 100+ diameters) is the volume of fuel ... not the "shaping" of the drop tanks relative to your hull configuration.

You'll need conformal drop tanks (to retain streamlining) for any kind of fuel skimming operation (gas giant orbital needing partial streamlining or ocean water refueling needing atmospheric streamlining) to fill the drop tanks up in-situ as a single stage refueling operation ... but out at the jump point, any kind of streamlining concerns are a complete non-issue.

Furthermore, as a matter of simple economics ... if there is an in-system drop tank service for commercial use (they fill the re-usable tanks and recover them for refueling after use) allowing for drop tank "rentals" (per se), things get even simpler. If a ship wants to rent the use of a drop tank, they have to pay a rental fee and either the ship prepositions a "fuel deposit" for later use (potentially with a "fuel premium" cost of needing to deliver more fuel to the drop tank service than the ship intends to consume, such as if you're going to use 40 tons you'll need to deliver 50 tons to the drop tank service but will only be allowed to use your 40 tons allocation while the service keeps the rest for sale to other customers), or the ship "buys" the fuel that they're going to be using from the drop tank service (just like buying fuel at a starport) in addition to their rental fee. Such an operation becomes possible if the drop tanks can be jettisoned and thrust far enough away to not be destroyed when the starship jumps ... allowing the drop tanks to be recovered, inspected and refilled for reuse as a local service. After that it's just a question of unrefined/refined fuel and haggling over details (and "loyalty discounts" for repeat customers).

However, such logistical support realities then mean that (as previously mentioned) ... all you need at the design phase is the fittings, not the tanks themselves ... and as LBB A5 demonstrates, adding those fittings onto a ship is an expense of MCr0.01 and zero tonnage (a bargain, really).

Given the minimalist cost involved in adding drop tank fittings to a starship at the design/naval architect phase of construction ... why wouldn't you include such a detail, even if it isn't going to be a "use every jump" kind of option or necessity?

Better to have and not need (especially at that price of MCr0.01) than to need and not have, I'm thinking.



After that, it's a question of deciding what drop tank services are available at different starport types IYTU.
You can even do things such as saying that type A, B and C starports can all construct drop tanks ... but only type A starports will consistently have drop tank rental services available ... and type B starports can be a case of "sometimes yes, sometimes no" depending on location/location/location and other factors. Another option would be to say that drop tank rental services are only (reliably) available at type A and B starports of worlds with Population: 7+ (so not classified as Non-industrial), although there can be exceptions (for reasons various and sundry, such as having a naval and/or scout base in system).

 

[whartung]

We must also make sure the drives support our use cases. If we want to carry the drop tanks around and occasionally drop them for extended range, the drives must be dimensioned for both cases.

Well that's an interesting point.

What about the case where the drop tanks are never intended to be carried through jump?

I would the large mercantile corps would have freighters routinely use drop tanks for this purpose. They never travel with them, they simply fuel, drop, and jump, carrying vastly more cargo through the hole without having to carry those empty jump fuel tanks. The price of managing the drop tanks is made up by being able to carry more cargo.

 

[mike wightman]

That was the original intent of the mercantile drop tanks according to early JTAS TAS News articles.

REGINA/REGINA (0310-A788899-A) Date: 097-1105
Officials of the General Shipyards on Regina today announced that they have completed negotiations with Tukera Lines to locally manufacture L-Hyd drop tanks for use on high-capacity commercial vessels. The first production examples are expected to be available within six months, at which time Tukera Lines will begin high capacity service from the interior. Component assembly will be carried out at General's more modern facilities on Pixie (0303-A100103-D).
L-Hyd drop ships have only been in service for the last dozen years in the interior, being made possible by recent advances in the field of capacitor engineering, a joint press release explained. Commercial vessels equipped with the new generation of long-storage jump capacitors carry jump fuel in specially designed L-Hyd drop tanks in excess of their rated tonnage. Upon conversion of the fuel to the massive energy required for jump, the drop tanks are explosively jettisoned through the use of break-away connections and explosive bolts. Jump is executed when the remains of the tanks are a safe distance from the vessel.
A spokesman for General Shipyards explained that local yards are not yet capable of manufacturing the long-storage capacitors required for the process, but that production of the drop tanks is possible, thus allowing the high capacity starships of the Tukera Lines to begin service to the Regina subsector.
L-Hyd drop tanks are not reusable, and thus increase the absolute cost per jump. However, experience has shown that the increase in cargo tonnage resulting from the elimination of internal J-fuel storage more than makes up for this, the press release explained.
The joint press release concluded by stating that local manufacture of L-Hyd drop tanks marked the dawn of a new era of commerce and prosperity in the Regina subsector. Following the announcement, common stock in Oberlindes Lines
plummeted 27 points on the Regina exchange before trading was suspended. Officials of Oberlindes Lines were not available for comment.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

What about the case where the drop tanks are never intended to be carried through jump?

We still have to make sure that the M-drive is big enough to manoeuvre to the jump point.

I would the large mercantile corps would have freighters routinely use drop tanks for this purpose. They never travel with them, they simply fuel, drop, and jump, carrying vastly more cargo through the hole without having to carry those empty jump fuel tanks. The price of managing the drop tanks is made up by being able to carry more cargo.

Drop tanks are a bit expensive to throw away, it's only really profitable at J-6 and possibly J-5. Great for a liner route e.g. from Regina to Rhylanor?

 

[Spinward Flow]

We still have to make sure that the M-drive is big enough to manoeuvre to the jump point.

In a "purist" LBB2, maneuver drives become "nonfunctional" below a 1G rating (just look at the table and figure out what the - symbol means).

I would argue that wanting to have reserve maneuver capacity to be able to maneuver with external loads (drop tanks or cargo pods) is one of the most obvious reasons why even a merchant starship would want to have a 2G+ maneuver drive performance profile when not needing to maneuver with external loads.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In a "purist" LBB2, maneuver drives become "nonfunctional" below a 1G rating (just look at the table and figure out what the - symbol means).

Yes, it's an interesting "feature" of LBB2. Even more interesting it that too large drives are equally ineffective.

I would argue that wanting to have reserve maneuver capacity to be able to maneuver with external loads (drop tanks or cargo pods) is one of the most obvious reasons why even a merchant starship would want to have a 2G+ maneuver drive performance profile when not needing to maneuver with external loads.

Landing is the big reason; most ships land, most ships don't bother with drop tanks.
External tanks are the only external load we have rules for, anything else is house-ruled.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yes, it's an interesting "feature" of LBB2. Even more interesting it that too large drives are equally ineffective.

Eh ... that's really a side effect of the D6 era that LBB2 originated in. If the answer isn't 1-6, it doesn't exist.
Of course, LBB5 quickly blew that out of the water with power plants routinely exceeding 6 due to the need for additional EP to power computers, weapons and screens.

Landing is the big reason; most ships land

Correction ... most streamlined ships are built with the intention to set down inside of atmosphere on a planetary surface ... but partially streamlined and unstreamlined ships have no intention of "landing" on (most) planetary surfaces and are quite content to remain orbital full time.

most ships don't bother with drop tanks.

I would argue that is a side effect of when drop tanks were introduced into the rules.
If drop tanks had been available Day 1 of LBB2.77, I can guarantee that the XBoat service would have been using them standard as an original feature. Reusable drop tanks solve A LOT of design and capacity issues for an XBoat relay service, after all.

External tanks are the only external load we have rules for, anything else is house-ruled.

External drop tanks have no defining characteristics different from how other "external pods" of any kind ought to operate, game mechanically. The only difference is the purpose for what is in those external loads (consume and drop before jump vs carry through jump).

Since drop tanks can be optionally dropped, rather than mandatory dropped (or you don't get to jump at all, see: Gazelle for precedent), at the game mechanical level that's everything you need to extend into external cargo loading of a variety of different types (fuel, cargo, passengers, small craft, big craft, vehicles, etc.).

Most of the CT rules are concerned with what amounts to "internal stowage" of crew, passengers, cargo, embarked craft and vehicles, etc. within the limitation of the hull displacement, but then sadly neglect to provide obvious/useful extensions of those rules for "towing" of other craft, pods or objects. Things like tethering a ship to a (larger) asteroid so as to use the ship's maneuver drive to alter the asteroid's orbit (or "tow" it to somewhere else, like an ore processing facility). It's a bit like being able to create a pickup truck with no (obvious) rules for towing capacity ... which makes remarkably little sense when you stop to think about it.

Adding external loads to spacecraft/starships ought to reduce their drive performance in exactly the same way that drop tanks would ... and in exactly the same way. The difference is, if you have external cargo pods, presumably you don't want to "drop" them prior to jump like you would with L-Hyd drop tanks ... you would want to retain those external cargo pods just like you could optionally do with L-Hyd drop tanks. The game mechanics "don't care" what's IN that external loading if it is being maneuvered around with (interplanetary) or jumped with (interstellar) with respect to drive performance modifications while operating under external loading.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Eh ... that's really a side effect of the D6 era that LBB2 originated in. If the answer isn't 1-6, it doesn't exist.

OK, but the natural thing to do would be to let too large drives have the same rating of 6 as smaller drives, making them totally ineffective is strange.

Correction ... most streamlined ships are built with the intention to set down inside of atmosphere on a planetary surface ...

Yes, of course ships have to be streamlined to land, but most small ships are and it is almost always cheaper to streamline the hull than to faff about with small craft and fuel shuttles.

I would argue that is a side effect of when drop tanks were introduced into the rules.

Yes, if drop tanks were in LBB2, then LBB2 ships would use it. But LBB2 is very simple, and drop tanks or any external load is well outside the basic system.

External drop tanks have no defining characteristics different from how other "external pods" of any kind ought to operate, game mechanically. The only difference is the purpose for what is in those external loads (consume and drop before jump vs carry through jump).

Except for the obvious difference: In CT we have rules for external tanks, but no other external load.

The idea may seem obvious in retrospect, but I don't think it was all that obvious then. I have seen many people dislike when I play around with drop tanks to this day. Designing ships with external tanks and pods makes the design process much more cumbersome, especially without computer support. I don't think it's a good idea to make ship design impossible without computers, even if they make it much easier.

LBB2 was very simple: A small craft (as close to a pod as we can get) was part of the ship, so a part of the hull, whether it was carried internally, externally, or any other way. Such petty detail was left for the illustrators and deck plan designers.

Even when LBB5 started to recognise the difference between internal carried craft and external (configuration 7) the craft were always part of the hull.

Of course people are trying to fit all components into the hull, the first paragraph of the first ship design system says so:

LBB2'77, p10:
REQUIRED STARSHIP COMPONENTS
Most starships are constructed using one of the six basic standard hulls, and into this hull is then fitted the other required components, including drives and power plants, life support equipment, hardpoints for armaments, computers and other items. The total tonnage of the installed items in a ship cannot exceed the rated tonnage capacity of the hull used.

The only explicit exception to this that we have is external tanks.


Allowing internal modules and external pods would make ships very different by default, dooming most iconic Traveller ships to obsolescence.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Even when LBB5 started to recognise the difference between internal carried craft and external (configuration 7) the craft were always part of the hull.

For the simple reason that when carried as an "internal" item (for bookkeeping purposes), even though it was mounted externally on the hull, the drive performance did not need to change.

900 tons of ship contents + 100 tons of small craft = 1000 ton starship hull
Use drives for a 1000 ton hull. Done.
Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).

Yes, the "ship proper" was only "900 tons" in the example I'm providing for you here, but the hull was designed for 1000 tons of "loading" and the drives were sized/specced for 1000 tons of displacement ... so it all works out in the wash.

Problem is, you need "towing rules" for any kind of salvage operation where you dock your ship to a "dead hulk" and tow it back to the starport (or wherever). Same for "towing" asteroids around into new orbits for mining operations ... or external cargo loads.

Allowing internal modules and external pods would make ships very different by default, dooming most iconic Traveller ships to obsolescence.

To be fair, a LOT of the LBB2.77 first draft designs have become obsolete as Traveller has evolved over the years. Kinunir was the first ship to undergo this kind of rapid obsolescence over the span of just a few years. The iconic XBoat is arguably an "obsolete" design that later iterations of CT did not support.

In other words, rendering the earliest ship designs obsolete is not a bug, it's a feature.
For one thing, it's an OPPORTUNITY to redesign those ships using a new paradigm that more deeply understands and integrates those ships into the Traveller Universe(s) that have grown up and expanded since 1977.

The original designs might be "doomed" as you say, but there's no reason that a "refresh" of those designs for a modern rewrite must also similarly be "doomed" by default as well.

Redo the Yacht.
Redo the Safari Ship.
Redo the Free Trader.
Redo the Scout/Courier.
Redo the XBoat.
Redo the Express Tender.

I think you can see where I'm going with this line of thinking ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

Except for the obvious difference: In CT we have rules for external tanks, but no other external load.

Battle Riders.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Battle Riders.

Except that Battle Riders are done as "internal" tonnage on a 1 million ton Configuration: 7 Tender where the docking points are on the outside of the hull, the capacity for the Riders were "accounted for IN the design" ... so a J4/6G Tender is still a J4/6G performing ship while fully loaded with docked Riders.

It's not like you have a J6/6G Tender of 1 million tons "towing" an external 400,000 tons of Riders (for a total of 1.4 million tons) where the Tender performs at J4/4G with the Riders docked.
7/5=1.4 (LBB5.80 jump percentage fractions)

 

[Grav_Moped]

Except that Battle Riders are done as "internal" tonnage on a 1 million ton Configuration: 7 Tender where the docking points are on the outside of the hull, the capacity for the Riders were "accounted for IN the design" ... so a J4/6G Tender is still a J4/6G performing ship while fully loaded with docked Riders.

It's not like you have a J6/6G Tender of 1 million tons "towing" an external 400,000 tons of Riders (for a total of 1.4 million tons) where the Tender performs at J4/4G with the Riders docked.
7/5=1.4 (LBB5.80 jump percentage fractions)

EDITS: Condensed for clarity.

If the tender was anything other than config 7, they'd be carried internally and you'd be absolutely right. Config 7 explicitly has the carried craft external, though there's no "tonnage discount" for the carriage facilities being docking cradles/clamps rather than internal bays. Note that the section that follows, which says "no additional tonnage" is referring only to the (in the case of Conf 7, absent) requirement for launch facilities to enable launching more than one carried craft per turn.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

900 tons of ship contents + 100 tons of small craft = 1000 ton starship hull
Use drives for a 1000 ton hull. Done.
Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS).

Yes, LBB2 was very simple, LBB5 was rather simple, and then they threw drop tanks into the mix...

To be fair, a LOT of the LBB2.77 first draft designs have become obsolete as Traveller has evolved over the years. Kinunir was the first ship to undergo this kind of rapid obsolescence over the span of just a few years. The iconic XBoat is arguably an "obsolete" design that later iterations of CT did not support.

Sure, but obsoleting all published designs for a game that went out of print ~35 years ago is a bit over the top.

The X-Boat is generally assumed, but not exactly defined, in later editions.

In other words, rendering the earliest ship designs obsolete is not a bug, it's a feature.
For one thing, it's an OPPORTUNITY to redesign those ships using a new paradigm that more deeply understands and integrates those ships into the Traveller Universe(s) that have grown up and expanded since 1977.

You are essentially suggesting LBB2'2022 (CT 3rd edition?).

I see that that is popular, but I don't really see why. If you want all the modern bells and whistles, there's T5. For a more streamlined experience there's MgT. There you can go nuts with external pods, summed drives, and whatnot.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If the tender was anything other than config 7, they'd be carried internally and you'd be absolutely right. Config 7 explicitly has the carried craft external, though there's no "tonnage discount" for the carriage facilities being docking cradles/clamps rather than internal bays. Note that the section that follows, which says "no additional tonnage" is referring only to the (in the case of Conf 7, absent) requirement for launch facilities to enable launching more than one carried craft per turn.

Hangars ≠ Launch facilities.

Hangars ("fittings") are 130% of craft volume for small craft, 110% for big craft, and 100% for config 7 ("no additional tonnage").

Launch facilities are: Ordinary (1/10000 Dt), Launch Tubes, and config 7 free and infinite.

All tonnage costs are included in the hull (even for config 7), and the performance of the carrier never changes. See TCS, p16 for clarified rules.

Simple.

And then came drop tanks...

 

[mike wightman]

Here is a thing to think about.

Say a ship is 100,000 tons and has a 2000t bridge.

You equip 40,000 tons of drop tanks.

You keep them as you jump at a reduced jump drive performance as a 140,000 ton ship. Thing is a 140,000 requires a much bigger bridge...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The ship and its requirements does not change when you attach a drop tank. See the Eurisko fleet (JTAS#10) for published examples.

 

[Condottiere]

My view is coloured by Mongoose, but I tend to think it's a question as to whether the bridge has direct control over a component.

In the sense that if another ship or cargo container is docked to the spaceship, it's a separate hull.

And outside of the drop tank mounts and fittings, the drop tank itself is a separate (sub)hull.

 

[mike wightman]

Which is a misapplication of the rules as written.

Per the rules as written a 140,000t ship requires a 2800 ton bridge to even be capable of jump - and the size of the bridge is determined after fuel allocation which includes drop tanks.

Put another way when you are designing a ship with drop tanks its total tonnage is ship with tanks, then you determine bridge size. Go look it up, page 27, or look at the design checklist - step 5 fuel tanks, step 7 bridge.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The tanks are not part of the ship. The ship + tanks are referred to as "total tonnage", "ship's tonnage" is just the hull.

See pt. 19 in the design sequence:

LBB5'80, p26:
19. Insure that tonnage does not exceed hull, and that cost does not exceed budget.

Neither armour nor bridge is calculated on total tonnage (hull + tanks), but tonnage (hull).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This is a legal design, published in JTAS#10:


I can't recreate it exactly, but I can come pretty close:

BA-K952563-J41100-34003-0     MCr 12 923      11 100 Dton    Ag=2
BA-K931363-J41100-34003-0     MCr 12 923      16 650 Dton
bearing     1     11  Z                          Crew=132
batteries   1     11  Z                             TL=12
  Troops=35 Cargo=63 Fuel=555 EP=555 Agility=1 DropT=5550

Dual Occupancy                                       63    12 923
                                     USP    #      Dton      Cost
Hull, Unstreamlined Custom             K         11 100         
Configuration       Buffered Plane     9          3 885         8
Armour              18                 J          2 886     4 329
                                                                
Drop Tanks          5 550 Dton                                  6
Total tonnage       16 650 Dton                                 
                                                                
Jump Drive                             5    1       666     2 664
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       555       389
Power Plant                            5    1     1 665     4 995
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                    555         
                                                                
Bridge                                      1       222        56
Computer            m/6                     1         7        55
                                                                
Staterooms                                  5        20         3
Staterooms, Half                          162       324        41
                                                                
Cargo                                                63         
                                                                
Triple Turret 2/bat Missile            3   54       108       243    108 turrets organised into 54 batteries.
Triple Turret       Beam               3    1         1         3
Single Turret       Fusion             4    1         2         2
Triple Turret       Sand               4    1         1         1
                                                                
Nuclear Damper                         1    1        50        50
Meson Screen                           1    1        90        80
                                                                
Nominal Cost        MCr 12 922,64        Sum:        63    12 923
Class Cost          MCr  2 713,75       Valid        ≥0        ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 10 338,11                               
                                                                
                                                                
Crew &               High     0        Crew          Bridge    10
Passengers            Mid     0         132       Engineers    29
                      Low     0                     Gunners    70
                 Extra SR     0      Frozen         Service    23
               # Frozen W     0           0          Flight     0
                  Marines    35                     Marines    35

I'm ~50 Dt and MCr 100 off, but it can certainly not fit another 100 Dt of bridge or crew without notice.