Topic: SM: Privateers VM Construction & Design: Power Source

[snrdg051306]

One of my small number of quarks is not being very happy with just one design example that doesn't address all the options offered in the construction sequence. For some reason I'm not able to figure out what metric ton is to be used.

Is the Metric ton referring to the vehicle's mass?

Do Fusion, Matter/Antimatter, and Vacuum Power require crew?

[markc]

1) Yes the metric ton is referring to mass of the V.
2) Small craft of limited duration do not have crew aboard for their power plants. They are intended for short (relative) trips to and from and receive their maintenance on the ground or when not in action.   
  Note for larger craft they should have the crew for the PP in the crew total.


MDC

[snrdg051306]

Hello MarkC,

I just noticed, not enough coffee, that the crew requirements are in the tables for the Fusion, Matter/Antimatter, and Vacuum Power.

Now I can push forward on getting a handle on the design sequence. Thanks for the help.

[snrdg051306]

An additional question has just come up.

Chemical Fuels p. 115 lists the following formulas:

Volume =

 1 kiloliter per Metric Ton

Vehicle Range =

(Power per Metric ton) x (Metric tons of fuel) ÷ (Power Cost)

Fuel Cost: 250 per Metric ton

I can't seem to find how the metric tons of fuel is determined?

Which now puts me back to not being sure that Metric tons means vehicle tons.

Today must be Monday since I'm not having a good day with this, I think my Monday actually started Sunday.

Also does the power cost mean the total power cost, in the case of the example 103.5, or the power cost of the drive?

[markc]

 My understanding of the info on Chem Fuels p115 is this:
1) The Volume of the fuel is 1 Kl/metric ton of fuel
2) The wording under the Chem Fuels section to me is a little vague in that they talk about the engine when IMHO they should be talking about the entire power cost of the craft. If you read the paragraph under Select Power Source (21) P115 it makes more sense at what they want in step 21 but again it could be worded better.
 So your example if all power costs were 103.5 then you use that in the bottom of the equation you gave for Vehicle Range; if you just use the drive power requirements then you will not power anything else on the craft besides the drive.


Does that help?
MDC

[snrdg051306]

Well MarkC I'm not sure so I'm going to use the basic staff from the example and the Chemical Fuel directions. Vehicle Mass = 100 mt, Power requirement = 103.5, and Power Per Metric ton of 30 at TL 25.

Volume = 100 kiloliters per 1 kiloliter per metric ton.

Vehicle Range = 30 (Power per mt) x mt of fuel ÷ 103.5 (power cost)

How do I calculate the mt of fuel?

Chemical fuel cost: 250 per mt.

Fuel cost is determined by the amount of fuel in metric tons?

I'm fairly confident, though I haven't tried to figure out the fuel mt from volume, that the fuel mt isn't equal to fuel volume.

[Defendi]

Your just supposed to put in however much fuel you think you need.

[snrdg051306]

Your just supposed to put in however much fuel you think you need.

Hello Defendi,

Thank-you for putting the missing piece of the puzzle on the table.

That means if I have a TL 25 25-ton vehicle with a 150 kph wheeled drive with a power cost of 0.375 and a 1 ton  fuel load the vehicle has a range of 30 x 1 ÷ 0.375 = 80 km. Formula p. 115 (Power per mt = 30) x (mt of fuel = 1) ÷ (power cost  p. 101 (Mass = 25 x Speed = 120 kph ÷ 10,000) per hour)

Have I grasped the Range correctly?

The text on p. 115

To determine how many metric tons of fuel are required for the desired range, compare the power cost of the engine to the power provided by fuel.

now seems to make a little more sense using the same basic inputs I think the text means:

Range in km x Engine Power cost/output ÷ Power Provided per Metric ton chart:
A TL 25 25-ton vehicle designed to travel at 150 kph using a wheeled drive has a power cost of 0.375 and is designed to travel 80 km. At TL 25 Chemical fuel provides 30 units of power per metric ton of fuel.

80 x 0.375 ÷ 30 = 30 ÷ 30 = 1 ton of fuel.

How much volume does the fuel take up 1 kiloliter or 25 kiloliters?

[markc]

1 ton fuel/1 KL of Fuel or 1KL of Fuel/1ton fuel
 so if you have 1 ton fuel x (1KL/1 ton fuel)= 1 KL of Fuel if you have 25 ton of Fuel 25t x(1 KL/1 ton)= 25 KL.


MDC

[snrdg051306]

1 ton fuel/1 KL of Fuel or 1 KL of Fuel/ ton fuel
 so if you have 1 ton fuel x (1 KL/1 ton fuel)= 1 KL of Fuel if you have 25 ton of Fuel   x(1 KL/1 ton)= 25 KL.


MDC

Hey MarkC,

Once again I'm not clear on what I was asking so here goes another try.

With Defendi's clarification the term Metric ton in the equations on page 115 I now take refers to the fuel load of 1 mt/1 KL not the vehicle mass of 25 mt as was previously discussed. Is my new understanding correct?

If the wheeled drive vehicle had to supply 103.5 Power units a fuel load of 3.45 mt would be required. If the system was used to travel the 3.45 mt/3.45 KL of fuel provides a TL 25 vehicle, the data provided in this thread, with a range of 30 x 3.45 ÷ 0.375 = 276 km, right?

I thought Traveller fuel was hard to figure out.

[markc]

 Yes the ton entry in the weight of the fuel. IMHO it could be written in a better way and having correct units are important so you can work things out by dimensional analysis. Or crossing out units to get the units you need.


MDC

[David Johansen]

The vehicle manual is badly organized and poorly edited.  I think the system itself is fine but the book is a mess.

Still, if you want a real mess try the T4 version of Fire Fusion and Steel with 14 pages of erratta and all the equations misprinted.

[markc]

The vehicle manual is badly organized and poorly edited.  I think the system itself is fine but the book is a mess.

Still, if you want a real mess try the T4 version of Fire Fusion and Steel with 14 pages of erratta and all the equations misprinted.

 I agree that T4 FF&S is a disaster IMHO buy the 3rd edition and save yourself lots of grief. I also agree that the SM:P VM could be a lot better with some work. Maybe the guys at The Guild Companion will re-edit the doc when it is re-released on PDF.
MDC

[David Johansen]

I don't think it will be a priority but I'm pretty sure Nicholas would be more than willing to support a fan built solution and release it if it was any good and I'm also pretty sure Robert Defendi would be up to lending a hand and oversight.

[markc]

  I have thought about building my own solution based on Defendi's work, I think I will dig it out again and see what I have done and what needs to be finished. Maybe TGC would like to look at it.
MDC

[David Johansen]

It's really a shame that Spacemaster Privateers came out during the bankrupcy period I think it deserved a better chance than it got.

[snrdg051306]

Evening guys,

My start, after D&D, was with Traveller. The T4 FF&S sure didn't improve on the Traveller: The New Era FF&S. Here is a list of most of my space type gaming stuff, except SpaceMaster of course.

Traveller LBB/Classic
MegaTraveller
Traveller: The New Era
Marc Miller's Traveller (T4)
GURPS Traveller
Traveller T20
Mongoose Traveller
Traveller 2300

In addition, I found my notebook (very out of date) with the following:
Alpha Omega
BattleTech
FTL 2448
Gamma World
GEV
Metamorphosis Alpha
Morrow Project
Space Marines
Starships & Spacemen
Star Frontiers
Twilight 2000
Renegade Legion
Space Opera
Justifiers
Albedo
Big Eyes Small Mouth
Jovian Chronicles
Heavy Gear
RoboTech
Star Trek
Serenity RPG
Mecha

There is one that has us fighting a species that look like dragons in power armor, I think the company that put the game out is called Phoenix Command. I'm probably missing a couple of titles.

[David Johansen]

Phoenix Command was a system by Leading Edge Games and did indeed have powered armor dragon guys in Dragon Star Rising and Living Steel.

I think the T4 FF&S would have been an improvement if the people in editing and layout had understood the project better.  It strikes me as having been badly mauled by the publisher not by the writer.  I've got a copy of his advanced sensor rules around here somewhere and they're very clear and functional, but aparently he never got paid for the book in the first place.

[snrdg051306]

At least I had something right concerning the dragons and since you mentioned Living Steel I know the titles are right for both books.

I've got most of the T4 books and they, at least in my opinion, all needed more work.