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

[Joseph Paul]

On 4/11/08 10:40 AM, "Joseph Paul" <josephnjody at sbcglobal.net> wrote:


<rebutal of Jerry’s assertion that modern diesel ships are not analogous to
the Traveller rules for starting a powerplant. This article was referenced
http://www.free-marine.com/i3lossair.htm. It was used to support the idea of
shutting down engines and using the port power supply as well as to show
that starting a large diesel from ‘cold’ was not just a flick of the
switch.>

>I read the article, and the only time he mentioned shutting everything down
>on purpose was in dry-dock & repair yards.

The point was to establish the precedent of sea ships tapping the port’s
electrical lines when the engines are shut down. Starships may very well
have very different reasons for shutting down their engines and some people
have made some good points about the quantum nature of a fusion reactor’s
output that would influence that decision. It may be best to shut it down if
your needs fall below it's minimum output.

>As for multiple engines, it
>sounded like it was designed to be a pretty quick procedure, as would be
>needed in the emergencies he was describing.

I am sorry but you don’t seem to be reading the same article I did. It
specifically states that the diesels would have to be started by finding the
emergency diesel, which is “
a tiny diesel engine that can be started by
hand cranking.” That means that it’s output is not great. It will drive an
air compressor that will  “
slowly fill up a small emergency air reservoir.”
Looking at some data for US Navy ships I am seeing SSDGs (Ships Service
Diesel Generators) that have outputs in the several hundred bhp. It is going
to take quite a bit of air to turn one of them over. The engine may need
several attempts to start also. The SSDG then powers up the larger air
compressors that are used to start more of the engines. Some of the medium
sized US Navy ships have 6-8 diesels. That is not sounding quick to me.

Even if you have push button start many ships are using multiple engines per
screw. These need to be lubed, primed, started, stabilized, and then
integrated with the next engine. Generators need to sychronize and share the
load. And before you move you better make damn sure that everything is
checking out just fine. Losing an engine at sea is going to suck so make
sure that it is in good running order now. That still takes time so it is
very applicable to the Traveller scenario where it takes an hour to get a
powerplant on line. Space is an even more brutal and unforgiving environment
to have something go wrong in so I am pretty sure that only fools and PCs
cut those corners.


<concerning refueling at gas giants and charging fees for acces by inhabited
systems>

>Hmm, charge a few for doing and providing... nothing.  Some systems may do
>so, while others won't.  Whether or not it encourages people to pay for
>refined fuel, it is an added expense.  That gets figured in when deciding
>where to carry cargo.  The more a system does such things, the more they
>price themselves off the trade route.

Most cargo in any modern system already has a destination. PCs take on
speculative cargoes but real ships move stuff that is under contract. Even
today’s tramp freighters are only moving things around. They are not tying
their economic fortunes to actually selling the Duke Norris bobble-headed
dolls they picked up at Regina. That means that ships will move stuff to a
market even if there is no free fuel there. If this causes the unreliable,
trouble-making PC types to go elsewhere then I don’t see how that is a
problem for the stations or the markets in that system.

The gas giant is a resource that will be exploited by those that can control
access to it. Here is how I see this: If a gas giant is opened to free
fueling then it will act like a watering hole and draw pirates as has been
pointed out by others. If the market was a large one you would see many
ships skimming it. Many ships in a small area makes for the possibility of
accidents. The large liner companies will not want to risk their ships in
such an uncontrolled environment and will be complicit in setting up orbital
control to protect from both piracy and collisions. That will cost money and
then you have the basis for fees. The large companies are passing the cost
of fuel on to their customers and don’t really care. When the difference is
paying for measures to insure against the loss of capital that a ship
represents and free fuel the insurance wins.

And yes the SDB is providing a service. Overwatch against pirates.


<concerning running silent>

>I can't cite the book and page (but somebody on the list can), but it has
>been stated on more than one occasion that ships (pirate, spy, navy on
>secret missions, etc.) will maneuver close to an asteroid of something and
>shut the plant down.  Thus it can't be detected by it's emitted neutrinos.
>Then it takes an hour or more to start up properly, or can be crash started
>with some risk.

>The requirements may not be insignificant, but canon says that ships *can*
>do it.  Perhaps they store a bunch of energy in those Jump capacitors or
>something.

No need to cite chapter and verse – I just needed to understand what the
circumstances were. So they are doing something that no respectable merchant
would need to do while travelling normally but you don’t want the merchant
to do it while at dockside to save on fuel?

<discussing dine-and-dash tactics of dodgy PCs causing ports to physically
restrain ships>

>That sort of device will of course discourage illegitimate traffic.  And
>some legitimate traffic as well.  I see nothing comparable in modern port
>operation.

I don’t see how this could be a discouragement to legitimate traffic. Are
car drivers discouraged that they are stopped by the parking garage or a
toll booth? There may not be physical restraints but there are procedural
and legal restraints. It appears that at some modern ports you needed to
show your last port clearance documents before you were allowed to dock. The
port clearance documents were only issued when the port authorities had been
paid. Sterner measures may be necessary in Traveller because we can’t outrun
Motorola but Traveller ships can.

<concerning the need to leave in a hurry. Tramp freighters were given as an
example of ships with no set schedule>

>I wasn't really intending random departures whenever the captain takes a
>whim.  More like when circumstance demands.  Like the
>planet/city/port/whatever being hit by raiders or such.  See below.

But that is the example you gave. Here is my thought on the new example of
immanent threat. This sort of emergency readiness will depend on how
prevalent warfare is in the system. If it is not a real threat then the
station is not going to relax it’s procedures. In a war zone things may be
very different and as such readiness procedures would be instituted. But
doing it all the time is just another PC paranoid dream. Being prepared for
something like that when there is no obvious reason is just another tip off
that the PCs are up to no good.


<concerning adventerous situations>

>I was thinking more of "losing" as in USS Arizona losing the ship...

An example where the ship was under SOP for a routine docking and confined
by its partner for the day's exercises.

>PCs mostly hang out in areas where nastiness happens on a regular basis.


That is their problem and does not need to be addressed for the
verisimiltude of the setting. To do so is to create a meta game rule in
response to the jackassery that PCs get into. I think that there has been
enough support to the idea of shutting down (most) powerplants while docked
to make it a plausible SOP.  Readiness is a problem for the players and ref
to solve but not one for rules about SOP of starships in normal
circumstances to address.


>And giving the ship's engineer an excuse to roll a couple of dice on an
>otherwise unused skill is pretty poor reason for a port SOP.  I've played
>engineering types, and always had other skills and other things to do.

Really? Like what? Most of the rules for Traveller that I have seen don’t
really have much written for Engineers. They seem to only come into play
when something is broken or a tech miracle is needed. Personally I would
like for engine performanc to be tied to engineer performance but that such
rols are done as MT’s blind contest. Player rolls-ref rolls cross index the
result -both pass/both fail/one fail-one pass and adjudicate whether or not
replacing the thermocouple on #2 heat exchanger was the real problem or that
he can squeeze out a bit more fuel efficiency etc.