[TML] [Merchant Shipping] Some ideas I came up with to make merchant shipping more interesing

[Tom B]

Do you know what the major problem with nuclear power is vis a vis our power
grid these days? It isn't the safety issue. It isn't the fact they are
expensive to build and have maintenance expenses (and by the way, those
really should be per X hundred hours of operation, so if I'm in port for a
week with it running, then I'm bringing my plant maintenance date closer for
no purpose).

It is the fact that power plants of a nuclear variety are not terribly
adaptable in power output. A 40 MW plant puts out 40 MW. This is a big
problem in the grid because the demand can change by as much as 50% in the
course of a day. Nuclear can meet the load below that amount, but start up
times on current plants are on the order of weeks or months (not hours). But
we can't sink the excess power when we don't need it without huge battery or
capacitor farms. So nuclear is a poor solution for that reason alone to many
of our issues with the electrical grid. (Note, I think this could be worked
around, but it is not a small problem to solve by any means)

And on our conjectural ship... what do I do with that power when I'm not
actively using it to thust the ship, power weapons and sensors, etc? If I'm
in port, it is quite likely that I'm not using enough of that power (even a
significant portion, since most would go into powering jump capacitors or
driving the manouver drive) so where would I put the extra wattage?

Also, the ports may *require* you to shutdown your plant if your posted
departure window is more than 48 hours from your arrival. They may be
uncomfortable with the possibilities of people trying the 'manual disengage'
or just running plants on freighters that may be 200 years and well past
their last annual maintenance date. Insurance underwriters or safety
authorities may demand you are shutdown when in dock.

The ports may also *require* you to shutdown and use their power and air for
economic reasons. They have to keep their own big plants running and they
want places to sink the power. They also want the revenue from docked ships.
They probably charge you a single flat fee per berth or per foot and that
includes air and electricity and if you don't use the air or electricity,
you get no discount. So you're going to pay for it if you dock, so again,
why run the plant?

So, you've just argued that we don't have batteries capable of running a
ship - with which, by the way, I will argue given most FFS tables. For all
you need to run minimal life support and lights and a bit of
heating/cooling, you don't need anywhere near the normal operating budget of
power for a starship. Batteries can easily supply that for a week. Heck, in
case of plant failures, you'd expect that civil starfaring authorities would
*require* you do to have adequate backup generators/batteries to support
some number of days of operation without going into cold berths. So let's
assume we've got good battery tech. But I *doubt* it's good enough to sink
the output of most hefty reactors for length periods. So where does the
energy go?

You could try radiating some of it as heat but that's a limited utility
given the problems of radiating heat in a vaccuum without bleeding mass left
right and center. Maybe some stations, a bit underpowered on their own main
plant, might have battery banks and encourage spacers to sell power from
their plants, but this would be the odd and interesting exception rather
than the rule.

Ultimately, you want the dramatic hook in the game. There are plenty of
valid economic, safety, and mechanical reasons you can throw at it to
reinforce the presencce of that dramatic hook. That's really all there is to
it. If you don't want such a hook, leave it out in your game. But the canon
suggests it and I've suggested reasons it may be so enough to satisfy myself
:0)

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Jerry W Barrington <
jerry.barrington at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/10/08 12:20 PM, "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Normally, when unloading, sitting in dock, reloading, fueling, being
> > worked on, etc., the starship is usually in a Powered Down state, with
> > only lighting and other minimal life support systems running. The
> > Power Plant is deactivated and batteries are temporarily taking up the
> > slack. In order to lift, or to run combat systems, it is necessary to
> > power up the main power plant (unless, for some reason, an ungodly
> > number of very fast discharge, high reserve batteries are installed on
> > the ship...).
>
> I've never understood this.  Given the effort it takes to restart a power
> plant, why would it ever be shut down?  Sure, if you're doing maintenance
> *on* the plant, or for running silent.
>
> But the plant poses no danger to the port.  After all, it's running for a
> couple weeks at a time anyway.  Surely it's safe enough to keep on in port
> for a few days!  And in many places where PCs take their ships, being able
> to take off on a moments notice or defend yourself could be major
> advantages.
>
> It's not fuel consumption: the design systems allow for the plant running
> for a month anyway.  And no reasonable batteries are going to run the
> ship's
> systems for days or weeks in port.  Pay the port for electricity when I've
> got my own plant?  I don't think so.
>
> The only reason seems to be so the GM can inflict things on the players
> "with their pant down", which is a meta-game reason, not an in-game
> reason.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TML mailing list
> TML at travellercentral.com
> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>



-- 
"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a terrible
responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine