Author Topic: Jumpship RetroTech  (Read 11822 times)

Takiro

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1426
  • BattleTech: Salient Horizon
    • Your BattleTech
Jumpship RetroTech
« on: 01 May 2011, 11:27:16 »
Still in search of a faster and cheaper way of fielding a Jumpship fleet in the 3050s since interstellar salvage fell through I hit on another when reading the new House Liao Handbook. On page 15 under the sidebar entitled the Liao Fleet a description of Franco's armada is given in comparison to modern craft - warships, jumpships, and dropships. His 2367 (24th century) interstellar flotilla is described as "Most JumpShips of the time were similar in design to modern WarShips; they had maneuvering drives that let them move in-system, as well as massive cargo bays and small craft bays, but the DropShip as we know it wasn’t developed and accepted until well into the 25th century."

Very interesting build on stuff we already know but it got me thinking about retrotech of sorts for Jumpships. The KF Core on modern ships is massive but it enables jumps of up to 30 light years in distance while the 1st Core on the TAS Pathfinder went only to 18 light years in distance. Now I know that normally equipment is refined into smaller more efficient models but with KF mechanics being so complex could modern 30 LY cores be larger than their 18 LY forerunners? If so how much? Apparently enough to have massive cargo bays and interplanetary engines included on earlier models. The drives like would be all that powerful like 1,2 or 2,3 at best maneuvering but structural reinforcement may have been necessary adding even more weight. And remember these ships are smaller than your Merchant, Invader, and Star Lord not to mention the Monolith.

So here is what I was thinking of purposing for Jumpship RetroTech - what about smaller 20 LY KF Drives? Clearly they would open up weight on Jumpships for other uses such as cargo, small craft, fighters, or weapons. Engines don't work as they would change it from a Jumpship into something else. Station keeping drives and minimal structural integrity go together so if you up the speed you need to up your structure. Still might make for a better Jolly Roger. Would they be able to transit as many Dropships - the KF field generated might not be as efficient as the 30 LY Core. 20 LY models would likely be cheaper, easier to maintain, and possibly faster to build.

So how about an introduction of Jumpship RetroTech?

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6266
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #1 on: 01 May 2011, 11:30:06 »
Hasn't this been published? Or am I misremembering drafts and publications again?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40758
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #2 on: 01 May 2011, 11:32:14 »
It has. What he wants is the Aquilla from XTRO Primitives.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Takiro

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1426
  • BattleTech: Salient Horizon
    • Your BattleTech
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #3 on: 01 May 2011, 19:58:38 »
Not really. Are there rules for building old jumpships with primitive KF Cores? In any event I'm talking about the use of a new more simple type of KF Core that resembles the old primitives. 20 Light Years in range. They'd be easier to build, cheaper but less efficient to 30 Light Year range.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #4 on: 02 May 2011, 09:46:12 »
Not really. Are there rules for building old jumpships with primitive KF Cores? In any event I'm talking about the use of a new more simple type of KF Core that resembles the old primitives. 20 Light Years in range. They'd be easier to build, cheaper but less efficient to 30 Light Year range.

Those rules are to be published in the upcoming Interstellar Operations.  The primitive cores are not going to get a cost savings for losing efficiency, however.  The reason they and the compact core aren't used for normal operations is specifically that they're more expensive than what's now termed the standard core in economic terms, probably in both initial construction and operational costs.  The primitive cores went extinct in favor of the somewhat more advanced compact cores since they also didn't offer a competitive advantage in weight savings if you were inclined to pay a premium.  Their edge is probably that simpler technology bases can support production, but even that is speculative.

Takiro

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1426
  • BattleTech: Salient Horizon
    • Your BattleTech
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #5 on: 02 May 2011, 19:09:48 »
I look forward to such rules but the new simplified drives I'm proposing for modern use the Jihad if you like would exactly be primitive. Let me go through the drives I know of.

Primitive - The first KF Cores which were capable of 15 or more light years (varies from 18 - 22 LYs)
Standard - Modern jumpships use this massive device which transports it 30 LYs
Sub Compact - For Bug Eye and ultra small warships (see Tactical Operations) distance 30 LY
Compact - Modern warships utilize a smaller version of the standard core capable of 30 LYs
Jump Booster - Experimental device fitted on the SLS Manassas (Aegis) which gave the ship a 40 light year jump

My new proposal;

Simplified - With the destruction of Galax and Alarion engineers around the InnerSphere began to search for easier methods of KF Drive construction. Take a page from the RetroTech solutions sweeping the Sphere scientists were able to construct a simpler KF Core. Studying older primitive drives and new standard cores with the help of jumpship crews researchers discovered what was absolutely essential to its operations. This stripped down, bare bones device is smaller than the standard seen on modern jumpships and only capable of 20 Light Year Jumps. Easier to build it requires less sophisticated space facilities to construct and is cheaper than standard models as well. Generating a smaller KF Field vessels equipped with the new simplified drives cannot carry as many dropships as standard core jumpships. Simplified jumpships may mount 1 docking collar (dropship) for every 100,000 tons of the ship's mass.

Thoughts?

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #6 on: 02 May 2011, 19:26:52 »
I look forward to such rules but the new simplified drives I'm proposing for modern use the Jihad if you like would exactly be primitive. Let me go through the drives I know of.

Primitive - The first KF Cores which were capable of 15 or more light years (varies from 18 - 22 LYs)
Standard - Modern jumpships use this massive device which transports it 30 LYs
Sub Compact - For Bug Eye and ultra small warships (see Tactical Operations) distance 30 LY
Compact - Modern warships utilize a smaller version of the standard core capable of 30 LYs
Jump Booster - Experimental device fitted on the SLS Manassas (Aegis) which gave the ship a 40 light year jump

My new proposal;

Simplified - With the destruction of Galax and Alarion engineers around the InnerSphere began to search for easier methods of KF Drive construction. Take a page from the RetroTech solutions sweeping the Sphere scientists were able to construct a simpler KF Core. Studying older primitive drives and new standard cores with the help of jumpship crews researchers discovered what was absolutely essential to its operations. This stripped down, bare bones device is smaller than the standard seen on modern jumpships and only capable of 20 Light Year Jumps. Easier to build it requires less sophisticated space facilities to construct and is cheaper than standard models as well. Generating a smaller KF Field vessels equipped with the new simplified drives cannot carry as many dropships as standard core jumpships. Simplified jumpships may mount 1 docking collar (dropship) for every 100,000 tons of the ship's mass.

Thoughts?

How much lighter are we talking about?

Gus

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #7 on: 02 May 2011, 20:03:14 »
The reason they and the compact core aren't used for normal operations is specifically that they're more expensive than what's now termed the standard core in economic terms, probably in both initial construction and operational costs. 

Agree with you regarding the compact core, but what is your source that primitive cores are more expensive than standard cores? Are you basing this on a post-jihad environment; that it would cost a lot to set up the infrastructure to build them?

Their edge is probably that simpler technology bases can support production, but even that is speculative.

Agree with you here. I think more than a few nations/entities/corporations wouldn't say no to a few Aquilas, if they can be built relatively easily. I even had a bad idea: pack one with guns. Even with low strategic mobility, it might be able to perform as an interesting in-system patrol craft. I'll wait until I see the rules before I say that this is a good idea or not, though!

Takiro

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1426
  • BattleTech: Salient Horizon
    • Your BattleTech
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #8 on: 02 May 2011, 20:14:05 »
That is the question DarthRads. Bigger than Primitive Drives as they travel slightly farther than the one featured on the Aquila but smaller than Standard Drives which they more likely to resemble. After all they can transport dropships via docking collars and have jump sails like modern jumpships. I would also say Simplified Drives are going to be bigger than Compact Drives seen on warships. But I'm open to reasonable suggestions on all aspects of this development. 

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #9 on: 03 May 2011, 08:39:16 »
Agree with you regarding the compact core, but what is your source that primitive cores are more expensive than standard cores? Are you basing this on a post-jihad environment; that it would cost a lot to set up the infrastructure to build them?

No, I'm basing that on comments in StratOps about K-F drive development and costs as well as the fact that we know genuine "civilian" compact core designs have never fared well economically once the modern JumpShip evolved in the 25th century.  (Sylvester fluff, TRO3057R.)  The only transport that really fared well at all - the Carrack - was built by the SLDF, who had more money and yards than anyone else.  The Clans just inherited them.  The infrastructure just makes things even worse since the infrastructure to build primitive cores is well and truly gone, so you're starting from scratch.

Agree with you here. I think more than a few nations/entities/corporations wouldn't say no to a few Aquilas, if they can be built relatively easily.

Actually, you'd be surprised about how useful they might find them.  Most entities need DropShip collars and an Aquila would need a Scout to haul a transport to unload it.  Sure, you could find uses, but it's not as useful as, say, a few Merchants would be for most people.  You'd also have to find parts and trained workers to maintain a maneuver drive that's not really much like modern JumpShip drives.  Building relatively easily isn't a situation you're likely to find in my opinion.

Simplified - With the destruction of Galax and Alarion engineers around the InnerSphere began to search for easier methods of KF Drive construction. Take a page from the RetroTech solutions sweeping the Sphere scientists were able to construct a simpler KF Core. Studying older primitive drives and new standard cores with the help of jumpship crews researchers discovered what was absolutely essential to its operations. This stripped down, bare bones device is smaller than the standard seen on modern jumpships and only capable of 20 Light Year Jumps. Easier to build it requires less sophisticated space facilities to construct and is cheaper than standard models as well. Generating a smaller KF Field vessels equipped with the new simplified drives cannot carry as many dropships as standard core jumpships. Simplified jumpships may mount 1 docking collar (dropship) for every 100,000 tons of the ship's mass.

Err, no.  The end result of that same basic thought process - stripping it down to the minimum necessary - is the standard core.  Go reread StratOps if you don't believe me.  Using more primitive parts (primitive and simple are not synonyms, and whatever you're doing, you're going to have to be able to build parts no one's ever used before) is counter-productive, getting you a drive that doesn't use standard parts (unlike the incredibly numerous handful of standard JumpShip classes, particularly the Invader and Merchant), is less capable, and in the long run, costs a hell of a lot more because you need more JumpShips to move DropShips even within its limited operating radius.  Factor that in and things get worse again.  It's likely not really going to get much cheaper out front, either, assuming it does it all, an assumption I do not agree with since the entire point of the standard core is to be cheap.  Given that it's going to take literally years and billions (if not tens of billions) of C-Bills, plus divert materials from expanding and repairing existing yard capacity that will give a much better economic return, I don't see this as viable.  That doesn't mean no one would try it, but I think the proposals would probably get rejected due to a cost-benefit analysis.  At best, some FWL splinter or Periphery state might find it useful, but they're the ones least likely to have the experts available to domestically bring an entirely new type of K-F drive and ship into production from first principles.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10106
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #10 on: 04 May 2011, 00:16:34 »
Jump Boster would be a nice to have with a LF Battery!
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

Red Pins

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3970
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #11 on: 04 May 2011, 00:33:54 »
Jump Boster would be a nice to have with a LF Battery!

See: WoB superjump.   ;D

...I like the idea of a simpler, less effective and shorter-ranged JumpShip for my AU - but I'm not sure the primitive core is workable, presented as is.  What else do we know about the development of 1st generation jump drives?
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Work-in-progress; The Blake Threat File
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
TRO: 3176 Hegemony Refits - the 30-day wonder

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #12 on: 04 May 2011, 01:50:02 »
Jump Boster would be a nice to have with a LF Battery!

"All hands, brace for jump! Helm, engage mechanical booster on my mark...NOW!"

<giant boot mounted on an extension to the JumpShip's aft winds up to give it just the right "kick"...>

:D

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #13 on: 04 May 2011, 02:16:20 »
"All hands, brace for jump! Helm, engage mechanical booster on my mark...NOW!"

<giant boot mounted on an extension to the JumpShip's aft winds up to give it just the right "kick"...>

:D

Oh dear...

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #14 on: 04 May 2011, 07:33:39 »
...I like the idea of a simpler, less effective and shorter-ranged JumpShip for my AU - but I'm not sure the primitive core is workable, presented as is.  What else do we know about the development of 1st generation jump drives?

"Simpler" is unlikely for the reasons I described above.  The move for a simpler core is what made the standard core.  In an alternate universe, that may not hold up, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Here's a few things we know.  First, to make something clear, the thirty light-year limit was reached early in the 2200s, per StratOps.  The Aquila suffers from it since it was launched in 2148, but that feature was standardized over a century before the standard core started evolving.  It's also not really one that you can get around without some really exotic measures based on what we know about things like the two super-jump systems.  Energy storage and drive durability improvements around the same time got charging times from hydrogen down to what we're used to.

Second, the Aquila commits only 54% to things like internal structure, primitive core, maneuver drive, and minor items, exclusive of fuel, armor, crew/passengers/escape pods, weapons, storage, and small craft complement.  This means that the core size itself is actually within ~10% (probably closer) of the compact core on a similar modern design to allow room for the maneuver drive and other systems.

Third, the standard core is, given that figure, ~50% more efficient per ton because it can move DropShips.  A primitive core had to have internal space because it can't move DropShips, but a standard core can move a little over twice its tonnage in Behemoths on the collars.  In operational practice, given the scarcity of Behemoths, this isn't fully realized, but the potential efficiency is there.  This is where the real difference is.  Removing the K-F boom system will simplify the core enormously because the docking collar are what drive cost and (apparently) complexity within core types but you've also just shot yourself in the foot as far as normal shipping procedures go, requiring specialized procedures and longer JumpShip loiter times, which are going to drive operational costs through the roof because even if the same hull can move the same amount, you would need more non-collar hulls to move the same amount of cargo in the same amount of time.

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2441
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #15 on: 07 May 2011, 18:11:13 »
REmember that for some technologies, the older versions aren't cheaper, aren't more reliable, and in fact are inferior in everyway.

It'd be like trying to get an ME-262 engine as a cheaper version of modern engines-- it isn't, not when you account for inflaction, and it breaks if you look crosseyed at it, and falls apart after 20 hours of flight time.

If the primitive jump cores were campetiative, in any way, they'd probably still be around-- the fact that they aren't indicates that they were as much, or more difficult to build and maintain as the newer cores, just as expensive, etc, and so there was no downside to melting them down for materials to put in the new KF drives.

verybad

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #16 on: 09 May 2011, 15:37:54 »
^ the voice of reason.

Thank you sir.
Let Miley lick the hammers!

Paladin1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1544
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #17 on: 12 May 2011, 08:17:53 »
"All hands, brace for jump! Helm, engage mechanical booster on my mark...NOW!"

<giant boot mounted on an extension to the JumpShip's aft winds up to give it just the right "kick"...>

:D
Two words that will give many here convulsion fits.

Bop Drive

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #18 on: 19 May 2011, 05:20:09 »
I think the primitive jumpships are going to be built more like warships than jumpships since they have to travel from the planet to the jump point and back again.

I'm not sure about the price or their complexity. They're probably just as expensive and complex just in a different way. I think they'd be a little less expensive though as there's no K-F Boom and the computers don't have to be as powerful to calculate longer jumps. Those things are of course what made the primitive k-f drives extinct. They couldn't carry as much as far or unload and load as fast. Of course being able to actually travel to the planet is a plus. They'd need more maintenance though which is a drawback.

Think of them like cars. A car built 20-30 years ago, or more, isn't all that different in capabilities, than a car built today.  The big difference is in maintenance and possibly mileage.  Older cars are simpler but require more maintenance. Repairs are less expensive though, providing the parts are available. Newer cars are a lot more complex, require less maintenance but are more expensive to fix. You're replacing a less expensive part more often versus replacing a more expensive part more rarely. In the end the cost evens out. At least as long as parts are available. If they're not its going to get expensive no matter how old the car is.

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4242
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #19 on: 19 May 2011, 05:38:41 »
I got the Proliferation Cycle through the re-release on BattleCorps. In the Draconis Combine story, I noted the Trader-class JumpShip is mentioned (at least two named vessels) as of 2461.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

Marwynn

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3984
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #20 on: 19 May 2011, 07:32:54 »
I don't think the older jump cores were unreliable, there is mention that some are still in use in the Periphery. The reason the primitives aren't used often anymore is because of the "paradigm shift" of using DropShips and docking collars, making transportation much more efficient.


Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #21 on: 22 May 2011, 06:12:40 »
I vaguely recall someone (probably Cray, possibly in SO itself) pointing out that compact cores came first, and standard cores evolved as Moonsword mentioned above (i.e. as a more economic refinement of the technology).  Also as Moonsword pointed out, if you're looking for cheap, just omit the docking collars (the main cost driver).  Don't underestimate the strategic mobility of "station keeping" drives, either.  Even a tenth of a G of continuous thrust is still useful on that scale.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #22 on: 22 May 2011, 06:42:45 »
I vaguely recall someone (probably Cray, possibly in SO itself) pointing out that compact cores came first, and standard cores evolved as Moonsword mentioned above (i.e. as a more economic refinement of the technology).  Also as Moonsword pointed out, if you're looking for cheap, just omit the docking collars (the main cost driver).  Don't underestimate the strategic mobility of "station keeping" drives, either.  Even a tenth of a G of continuous thrust is still useful on that scale.

In one of the StratOps fluff sections, yes. Page 123, "JumpShip History".

jimdigris

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8736
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #23 on: 22 May 2011, 06:45:59 »
As has already been said in this thread, the big variable that determines what gets built is cost.  Standard core jumpships and dropships were simply cheaper to build and operate than the original version.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #24 on: 22 May 2011, 07:56:36 »
I don't think the older jump cores were unreliable, there is mention that some are still in use in the Periphery.

Where is that mentioned?  I've never seen anything implying that.  The Aquillas were in use in the Periphery as late as the Reunification War, certainly, but nothing about current day use.

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #25 on: 22 May 2011, 17:48:49 »
Would something like the Aquilla be like the Pirate vessels in fluff? Remember in the Cameron fluff, those vessels were able to manoeuver and had weapons that could threaten a warship when operating in numbers and I can't imagine Pirates having true compact core vessels.

Korzon77

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2441
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #26 on: 22 May 2011, 20:53:41 »
Another questoin is: is the 15 LY limit on older drives something that can be repaired by a software patch, or is it inherent to the actual structure of the drive?

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #27 on: 22 May 2011, 23:12:36 »
Would something like the Aquilla be like the Pirate vessels in fluff? Remember in the Cameron fluff, those vessels were able to manoeuver and had weapons that could threaten a warship when operating in numbers and I can't imagine Pirates having true compact core vessels.

Functionally, an Aquilla is a compact core design that doesn't have any collars and is limited to 15 light-years per jump.  All you're really doing is slowing them down and forcing them to burn some extra hydrogen before they get to go "Arr, matey!"

You need to reread the fluff, though.  The Saint Joan wasn't overwhelmed in terms of combat power and there's nothing to suggest those were necessarily WarShips (which, for construction purposes, an Aquilla is a much closer match to than what we'd normally call a JumpShip).  Her power systems completely failed which left her unable to fire back.

Another questoin is: is the 15 LY limit on older drives something that can be repaired by a software patch, or is it inherent to the actual structure of the drive?

It's not just a software problem, it's part of the basic technology.

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #28 on: 23 May 2011, 04:52:10 »

You need to reread the fluff, though.  The Saint Joan wasn't overwhelmed in terms of combat power and there's nothing to suggest those were necessarily WarShips (which, for construction purposes, an Aquilla is a much closer match to than what we'd normally call a JumpShip).  Her power systems completely failed which left her unable to fire back.



I'm well aware of that, My point was that it is unlikely that Pirates would be using ComCore WarShips and that DropShips would be so much cannon fodder for true WarShip, yet Piracy was a Problem in the SL-era...so what were they using? A Semi-Compact JumpShip with a few Cap Weapons could be the answer.

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #29 on: 23 May 2011, 09:46:57 »
I'm well aware of that, My point was that it is unlikely that Pirates would be using ComCore WarShips and that DropShips would be so much cannon fodder for true WarShip, yet Piracy was a Problem in the SL-era...so what were they using? A Semi-Compact JumpShip with a few Cap Weapons could be the answer.

The primitive core you're looking at is, in terms of size, a compact core, not a standard core, and not some sort of "semi-compact" core.  It may not be exactly the same size but it's very close.  They may have been using something from the development path of the standard core design but that's not going to look like an Aquilla and is a couple of centuries removed from it technologically.  It's not going to have the jump limitation problem, for instance, since the feature that let people work along those lines doesn't evolve until well after K-F technology had reached the modern plateau of 30 light-years.

And yes, "pirates" did, in fact, have real, honest-to-Kerensky WarShips sometimes (Houses having shadow wars, accounting irregularities like the ones TRO3057R references a few places), whether the ones engaging the Saint Joan did or not.  My point there was the results were such we just don't know whether this group did or if they were really that suicidal to try it.  Overall, even then, raiders were not that likely to have WarShips.  Occasionally, they certainly would, but they didn't need them.  No one had the WarShips to assign one to every convoy, every JumpShip wandering around as a tramp freighter, defending every podunk little backwater colony.  Piracy was riskier business, sure, but there's no need for them to be constantly operating out of what are de facto major combatants.  Could they have sometimes been using ancient, rickety old Aquillas, centuries past their sell-by date?  Sure.  But a lot of the time, a converted Mule could do plenty of work by itself.
« Last Edit: 23 May 2011, 09:48:29 by Moonsword »

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #30 on: 24 May 2011, 03:48:50 »
They could have purchased or stolen scrapped warships and fixed them up.

wundergoat

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 328
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #31 on: 26 May 2011, 00:52:02 »
Or the could have been Periphery naval vessels that were never accounted for..or wrecks of the same.

What it comes down to is the old primitive jump drives were essentially lower tech compact cores.  As tech got better, the cores got smaller and the range got better.  Someone figured out how to make a core that was less mass efficient but worlds cheaper, and suddenly that became the best option for the merchant marine while the compact core remained necessary for warships.  There isn't anything that suggests using a primitive compact core would realize any cost savings.  Yes, it should be simpler but a lot of the improvement might just be refinement in the manufacturing methods, drive tuning, and just a better understanding of KF technology in general.

Knightmare

  • BattleTech Developer
  • System Admin
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • Wrench'in it
    • BattleTech.com
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #32 on: 26 May 2011, 09:24:43 »
In term of cost, also keep in mind some of the strategic costs of widespread use of primitive drives.

At the time many of the primitive ships were using their engines to recharge. That equals more fuel, which equals more money. With the reduction in jump range you now require more fuel for more jumps to travel between Point A and Point B. And don't forget the refueling stations, repair facilities (since more jumps & travel to X planet = additional wear and tear on the shiny bits!) etc. The whole support infrastructure for Primitive drives is pretty hefty compared to the-now Standard Core.

While the difference of wear and tear between JumpShip Cores and Types might be negligible, the primitive types do tend to cost more overall simply because they're jumping more and using more fuel. I'm not sure what the distribution of GravDecks was either. If many of the primitive types lacked GravDecks, the cost of operation continues to increase.

Sure primitives might work as an attack vessel in a pinch, but wouldn't a Merchant loaded with a couple of modified Q-Ships work even better? I mean, if some pirate is going to go through the trouble of outfitting a decrepit Aquilla, why not just outfit a couple of Mules? By the Star League era, I'm sure a common Trade DropShip cruising through a system is going to raise a lot less eyebrows than an ancient Aquilla. They're both easier to hide in plain sight and make a get away - especially with a standard core. With an Aquilla I can now limit my search radius to systems in 15 rather than 30 light years.

Yea, space is big, but shouldn't recharging via the engines make it easier to locate in-system compared to a low, slow sun charge? Anyone know if that's true or been addressed? 
 
BeemerCon Summarized. Knightmare, end of turn: "How come none of my weapons fired?"
Look, dude, when you are a real mechwarrior you don't need to get all dressed up in cooling suits and cool helmets to work on your mech. You just strip down to your 1980s panties and crop top vest and start wrenchin' it.
Yen Lo Wang = David Lo Pan

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #33 on: 26 May 2011, 15:52:52 »
What it comes down to is the old primitive jump drives were essentially lower tech compact cores.  As tech got better, the cores got smaller and the range got better.  Someone figured out how to make a core that was less mass efficient but worlds cheaper, and suddenly that became the best option for the merchant marine while the compact core remained necessary for warships.  There isn't anything that suggests using a primitive compact core would realize any cost savings.  Yes, it should be simpler but a lot of the improvement might just be refinement in the manufacturing methods, drive tuning, and just a better understanding of KF technology in general.

How much smaller they got is an open question.  A modern WarShip built to the same specifications as an Aquilla on everything but armor has right around 5.1k tons of extra space.  Keep in mind that one of the tonnage numbers we don't have is the transit drive.  Since we know primitive fighter drives are somewhat larger, it stands to reason that part of that may be going into the power plant and transit drive, not the core.  Interestingly, their fuel efficiency isn't any worse - the Aquilla uses the same 19.75 tons per burn-day as a modern unit would.  Fighter cockpits are also larger, so again, there's another possible place some of that tonnage is lurking, although that's a much smaller piece of it unless the primitive controls were designed for elephants instead of people.

Answering all of this is going to require Interstellar Operations to do more than reverse-engineer the total "missing" tonnage the way I did.

Yea, space is big, but shouldn't recharging via the engines make it easier to locate in-system compared to a low, slow sun charge? Anyone know if that's true or been addressed? 

It hasn't been addressed, per se, but it's not that big an issue.  Thermal and optical detection ranges (which this falls under) are low enough that most of the time radar detection is much more likely to pick the target up before you need to worry about that.  The "engine" isn't running, just the fusion plant, and therefore there's no drive plume to detect from 10 light-seconds out.  Check out the sensor rules on StratOps pages 117-119; the relevant sections are on page 119.

Paladin1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1544
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #34 on: 26 May 2011, 15:56:09 »
Actually this brings up a good point.  Would a Neutrino detector work better or worse on this primitive type of drive?

Knightmare

  • BattleTech Developer
  • System Admin
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • Wrench'in it
    • BattleTech.com
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #35 on: 26 May 2011, 16:46:05 »
Actually this brings up a good point.  Would a Neutrino detector work better or worse on this primitive type of drive?

That's what I was thinking.

It hasn't been addressed, per se, but it's not that big an issue.  Thermal and optical detection ranges (which this falls under) are low enough that most of the time radar detection is much more likely to pick the target up before you need to worry about that.  The "engine" isn't running, just the fusion plant, and therefore there's no drive plume to detect from 10 light-seconds out.  Check out the sensor rules on StratOps pages 117-119; the relevant sections are on page 119.

Thanks Moon - I was trying to remember the relevant section. Appreciated!
BeemerCon Summarized. Knightmare, end of turn: "How come none of my weapons fired?"
Look, dude, when you are a real mechwarrior you don't need to get all dressed up in cooling suits and cool helmets to work on your mech. You just strip down to your 1980s panties and crop top vest and start wrenchin' it.
Yen Lo Wang = David Lo Pan

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #36 on: 26 May 2011, 17:13:03 »
Actually this brings up a good point.  Would a Neutrino detector work better or worse on this primitive type of drive?

You might want to review Cray's post here on them.  Since neutrino detectors are one of those things stuffed in a deep, dark hole out in the wilderness along with Far Country, I'm not sure this is something to worry about most of the time.

That said, neutrino detectors are looking for the fusion plant.  What matters is the fact that the fusion reactor is running.  Whether or not the difference in intensity and time (less and more, respectively) for a primitive core is important, I don't know, but the fact that they can reportedly spot the fusion plant of a Star League family car from 10 AUs argues that the reactor rate is irrelevant at the scale we're talking about, so you're probably exposed anyway.  On the other hand, unless you were sitting at the emergence point (which is a great way to get found by other sensors if someone bothers to go out there and look), the fusion plant was probably turned on to maneuver at some point, so the detector may have a very good chance of finding you whether you're charging from a sail or not.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #37 on: 27 May 2011, 08:04:24 »
Quote
Sure primitives might work as an attack vessel in a pinch, but wouldn't a Merchant loaded with a couple of modified Q-Ships work even better? I mean, if some pirate is going to go through the trouble of outfitting a decrepit Aquilla, why not just outfit a couple of Mules? By the Star League era, I'm sure a common Trade DropShip cruising through a system is going to raise a lot less eyebrows than an ancient Aquilla. They're both easier to hide in plain sight and make a get away - especially with a standard core. With an Aquilla I can now limit my search radius to systems in 15 rather than 30 light years.

Mules can't jump away with their plunder or to get away from in coming warships. Besides by modern times I think if anyone saw a jumpship underway they'd think it was a warship. The results being they'd be fired on. Aquilla operators, if there are any, probably just used them as regular jumpships with no docking collars.

Knightmare

  • BattleTech Developer
  • System Admin
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • Wrench'in it
    • BattleTech.com
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #38 on: 27 May 2011, 10:04:29 »
Mules can't jump away with their plunder or to get away from in coming warships. Besides by modern times I think if anyone saw a jumpship underway they'd think it was a warship. The results being they'd be fired on. Aquilla operators, if there are any, probably just used them as regular jumpships with no docking collars.

I'm just wondering why a Mule would have to get away from incoming WarShips. By the Star League era, using the DropShip/JumpShip combo could conceivably allow a Pirate group to hide in plain sight among normal civy traffic. If said group saw a WarShip protected convoy - Pass. Just hang out long enough for something better or move on to greener pastures. An ancient Aquilla might immediately draw unwanted attention. Sure you could eventually jump out, (Can primitives mount a L-F Battery?) but not before you're tagged.

Think of it like this. How often do you notice a specific run of the mill Honda or Volvo in the swarms of automobiles driving on the road? What about a Model-T or other super old Antique? Once a design becomes so antiquated outside of the norm the design's liabilities start to outweigh its usefulness depending on future use and user. In this case - Pirates.
 
BeemerCon Summarized. Knightmare, end of turn: "How come none of my weapons fired?"
Look, dude, when you are a real mechwarrior you don't need to get all dressed up in cooling suits and cool helmets to work on your mech. You just strip down to your 1980s panties and crop top vest and start wrenchin' it.
Yen Lo Wang = David Lo Pan

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #39 on: 27 May 2011, 15:55:44 »
I'm just wondering why a Mule would have to get away from incoming WarShips. By the Star League era, using the DropShip/JumpShip combo could conceivably allow a Pirate group to hide in plain sight among normal civy traffic. If said group saw a WarShip protected convoy - Pass. Just hang out long enough for something better or move on to greener pastures. An ancient Aquilla might immediately draw unwanted attention. Sure you could eventually jump out, (Can primitives mount a L-F Battery?) but not before you're tagged.

An excellent point about hiding.

We don't know whether they can in a rules sense (this is another one of those questions that's presumably going to be answered in Interstellar Operations), but the question of would primitive cores mount a lithium-fusion battery has a very simple answer: very, very unlikely.  They weren't formally introduced until 2531 (possibly on the Avatar cruisers, depending on whether the stats we have are for the first build or not), and even giving it a century of leeway for one-off prototypes (something I'm not inclined to do in my games, mind you, but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument here) would still be in the mid-2400s, over a century after the modern compact core was introduced.  They'd have to deliberately break out much older designs and tools to do the work with rather than designing around conventional, contemporary techniques.  Retrofitting with lithium-fusion batteries is evidently expensive and time-consuming, so I don't really see someone with the technology (which, in this time period, is the Hegemony and maybe the other Houses) as likely to expend the effort on primitive core designs.

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #40 on: 27 May 2011, 23:17:49 »
An excellent point about hiding.

We don't know whether they can in a rules sense (this is another one of those questions that's presumably going to be answered in Interstellar Operations), but the question of would primitive cores mount a lithium-fusion battery has a very simple answer: very, very unlikely.  They weren't formally introduced until 2531 (possibly on the Avatar cruisers, depending on whether the stats we have are for the first build or not), and even giving it a century of leeway for one-off prototypes (something I'm not inclined to do in my games, mind you, but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument here) would still be in the mid-2400s, over a century after the modern compact core was introduced.  They'd have to deliberately break out much older designs and tools to do the work with rather than designing around conventional, contemporary techniques.  Retrofitting with lithium-fusion batteries is evidently expensive and time-consuming, so I don't really see someone with the technology (which, in this time period, is the Hegemony and maybe the other Houses) as likely to expend the effort on primitive core designs.

Yeah, teh Avatar is the earliest design we have so far for LF Batterie

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #41 on: 28 May 2011, 05:49:33 »
Quote
I'm just wondering why a Mule would have to get away from incoming WarShips. By the Star League era, using the DropShip/JumpShip combo could conceivably allow a Pirate group to hide in plain sight among normal civy traffic. If said group saw a WarShip protected convoy - Pass. Just hang out long enough for something better or move on to greener pastures. An ancient Aquilla might immediately draw unwanted attention. Sure you could eventually jump out, (Can primitives mount a L-F Battery?) but not before you're tagged.

Because unless they can jam the jumpships communications, the jumpship is going to call for help. That means the pirates would have to have a jumpship and dropship to evade capture. Which of course many do. An Aquila though can bluff others as being a warship as it can move about, which jumpships can't do. Then it can plunder and jump away. Or it could pretend to be a regular jumpship without docking collars if it jumps into occupied territory.

Quote
Think of it like this. How often do you notice a specific run of the mill Honda or Volvo in the swarms of automobiles driving on the road? What about a Model-T or other super old Antique? Once a design becomes so antiquated outside of the norm the design's liabilities start to outweigh its usefulness depending on future use and user. In this case - Pirates.

That all depends. I tend to notice older cars because I drive them older cars. I also love classics so they stand out to me. Newer cars though, I have a hard time telling apart.



The Periphery or anyone who wanted to be able to evade attack might be interested in a battery.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37060
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #42 on: 28 May 2011, 07:15:38 »
More precisely, jumpships can't "move about" at 1G acceleration.   A "station keeping" drive's tenth of a G is plenty to move around a solar system on anything above a tactical time scale.

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #43 on: 28 May 2011, 08:04:58 »
Good point.  They're still targets though.

Knightmare

  • BattleTech Developer
  • System Admin
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • Wrench'in it
    • BattleTech.com
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #44 on: 28 May 2011, 15:34:57 »
That all depends. I tend to notice older cars because I drive them older cars. I also love classics so they stand out to me. Newer cars though, I have a hard time telling apart.

Guess that's one of the benefits of using the standard DropShip/JumpShip routine when raiding. There's also some benefit to using DropShips over Small Craft when pillaging transferring cargo from one vessel to another. A standard JumpShip/DropShip duo has the option. The Aquilla, not so much. Assuming of course, the target craft has an extra docking collar you can connect directly with the target JumpShip. Alternatively, a Pirate group with extra docking collars can simply steal a target DropShip in its entirety. Armed with an Aquilla, again, not so much. Honestly though, either setup can still steal a JumpShip, so that's a moot point and fun!   

BeemerCon Summarized. Knightmare, end of turn: "How come none of my weapons fired?"
Look, dude, when you are a real mechwarrior you don't need to get all dressed up in cooling suits and cool helmets to work on your mech. You just strip down to your 1980s panties and crop top vest and start wrenchin' it.
Yen Lo Wang = David Lo Pan

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #45 on: 29 May 2011, 07:12:36 »
Quote
Guess that's one of the benefits of using the standard DropShip/JumpShip routine when raiding. There's also some benefit to using DropShips over Small Craft when pillaging transferring cargo from one vessel to another. A standard JumpShip/DropShip duo has the option. The Aquilla, not so much. Assuming of course, the target craft has an extra docking collar you can connect directly with the target JumpShip. Alternatively, a Pirate group with extra docking collars can simply steal a target DropShip in its entirety. Armed with an Aquilla, again, not so much. Honestly though, either setup can still steal a JumpShip, so that's a moot point and fun! 

The Dropship/Jumpship combination is a big advantage why why the older jumpships faded away but there's still some small ones that can't carry dropships. Actually not having docking collars could be a plus because pirate dropships couldn't match up with them. They'd have to send small craft. Being able to maneuver then is a big advantage. It really all depends on the skipper and crew though. Some don't like fun. :)

Knightmare

  • BattleTech Developer
  • System Admin
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • Wrench'in it
    • BattleTech.com
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #46 on: 29 May 2011, 08:41:08 »
The Dropship/Jumpship combination is a big advantage why why the older jumpships faded away but there's still some small ones that can't carry dropships. Actually not having docking collars could be a plus because pirate dropships couldn't match up with them. They'd have to send small craft. Being able to maneuver then is a big advantage. It really all depends on the skipper and crew though. Some don't like fun. :)

Too true. (But I have to say, no pirate crew in their right mind would ride a Jumper without rings! Otherwise, they'd just go with the Aquilla! ;))
BeemerCon Summarized. Knightmare, end of turn: "How come none of my weapons fired?"
Look, dude, when you are a real mechwarrior you don't need to get all dressed up in cooling suits and cool helmets to work on your mech. You just strip down to your 1980s panties and crop top vest and start wrenchin' it.
Yen Lo Wang = David Lo Pan

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #47 on: 29 May 2011, 12:22:44 »
The Dropship/Jumpship combination is a big advantage why why the older jumpships faded away but there's still some small ones that can't carry dropships. Actually not having docking collars could be a plus because pirate dropships couldn't match up with them. They'd have to send small craft. Being able to maneuver then is a big advantage. It really all depends on the skipper and crew though. Some don't like fun. :)

It could be but they're not especially common, with only two known classes, and those are both late in the game for what we're talking about and at the opposite ends of the scale for target desirability.  As a result, it's difficult to talk about what any of this looks like in general.  If you want to look the classes up, they're both in the back of TRO3026R and the Explorer was also republished in TRO3075.

One of those two classes is the Explorer, which will actually get targeted aggressively because they were frequently used as VIP transports.  That's a known pattern for piracy and other forms of accomplishing a kidnapping because it historically can pay off pretty nicely.  Given that they were unarmed, they probably stayed to well-policed travel routes where piracy was rare.  The other is the Quetzalcoatl, which is a former Scout (and therefore not necessarily deliberately targeted depending on how visible that is) that traded the collar for a pair of fighter squadrons and doesn't really have a lot of cargo space, nor any integral ability to move transportation for it, so it's primarily going to be supporting fighters out of the capacity.  This is for obvious reasons not really a desirable target under most circumstances unless you're just that hard up for spare parts and gas.

rlbell

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 929
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #48 on: 30 May 2011, 11:27:27 »
In term of cost, also keep in mind some of the strategic costs of widespread use of primitive drives.

At the time many of the primitive ships were using their engines to recharge. That equals more fuel, which equals more money.

Yea, space is big, but shouldn't recharging via the engines make it easier to locate in-system compared to a low, slow sun charge? Anyone know if that's true or been addressed? 
 

Ignoring FASAnomics, charging with solar power represents a false economy.  Replacing the sail with the equivalent mass of extra tankage should be enough hydrogen fuel for the main powerplant to jump once a week for many decades, if not centuries.  The starlight is free, but the energy collector costs money.  Unless the fusion plant is shut down while charging the jumpcore, the power output of a fusion engine running at a low enough power to keep the plasma warm and running at a low enough power to keep the plasma warm while charging the core.

You might want to review Cray's post here on them.  Since neutrino detectors are one of those things stuffed in a deep, dark hole out in the wilderness along with Far Country, I'm not sure this is something to worry about most of the time.

That said, neutrino detectors are looking for the fusion plant.  What matters is the fact that the fusion reactor is running.  Whether or not the difference in intensity and time (less and more, respectively) for a primitive core is important, I don't know, but the fact that they can reportedly spot the fusion plant of a Star League family car from 10 AUs argues that the reactor rate is irrelevant at the scale we're talking about, so you're probably exposed anyway.  On the other hand, unless you were sitting at the emergence point (which is a great way to get found by other sensors if someone bothers to go out there and look), the fusion plant was probably turned on to maneuver at some point, so the detector may have a very good chance of finding you whether you're charging from a sail or not.

Neutrino detectors in the BTU are an even bigger departure from the laws of physics than BT fusion engines, or are subject to huge amounts of hyperbole.  Neutrino detectors work by the tyranny of numbers.  To detect a neutrino, you present a large amount of matter for it to interact with and hope that, despite the long odds, enough neutrinos interact with the detector make an observation.  Current detectors are not sensitive enough to provide realtime data on the Sun's location, even though they only have a fifty percent chance of missing a single photon created by a neutrino interaction (for every pair of neutrinos that they could detect, they only miss one), as, despite all of the neutrinos put out by the sun a second, less than one neutrino per hour interacts with the detector.  The other difficult part in a neutrino detector is that there are many, many other particles out there, so the detector has to be shielded from everything else.  Current detectors are in disused mineshafts one or two miles below the surface, but they are drilling a new one into the Antarctic icesheet.  As the ice is already there and transparent at the photon energies of interest, they can make the detector hundreds meters across, instead of merely tens.

Even these 'primitive' neutrino detectors will register a neutrino from a fusion powered car at 10 AU.  You just need to be patient and not have any other sources to mask the faint signal with noise, such as a star at one AU, or a running fusion plant only a few tens of meters away.
Q: Why are children so cute?
A: So parents do not kill them.

That joke usually divides the room into two groups:  those that are mortally offended, and parents

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #49 on: 30 May 2011, 12:29:47 »
Ignoring FASAnomics, charging with solar power represents a false economy.  Replacing the sail with the equivalent mass of extra tankage should be enough hydrogen fuel for the main powerplant to jump once a week for many decades, if not centuries.  The starlight is free, but the energy collector costs money.  Unless the fusion plant is shut down while charging the jumpcore, the power output of a fusion engine running at a low enough power to keep the plasma warm and running at a low enough power to keep the plasma warm while charging the core.

No, it won't, because FASA physics is in play.  It takes approximately 10 burn-days to charge a jump.  Again taking the Merchant as an example, this is nearly 200 tons of fuel.  The sail, meanwhile, is only 46 tons.  There's no false economy here - the sails are a more efficient and cost effective solution.

Even these 'primitive' neutrino detectors will register a neutrino from a fusion powered car at 10 AU.  You just need to be patient and not have any other sources to mask the faint signal with noise, such as a star at one AU, or a running fusion plant only a few tens of meters away.

I was talking about precisely the ones Cray was in that comment and didn't bother to narrow it down.  You're quite right on how real world systems operate.  We're not dealing with those.

Knowing there's some extra neutrinos (assuming they can filter an extra plant out from noise from every other source, like say that local star you mentioned) isn't necessarily that big a deal.  That's not what BT neutrino detectors do.  Go back to that discussion I linked to.  There are some of them mounted in shipboard installations, which is not a great condition for noise isolation with that honking big fusion plant a few hundred meters back and a density of hull materials that puts Weberfoam to shame, and then there's the ones people are walking around with in their hands.  They will automatically see all of the fusion plants in 10 AUs, never mind whether the star is there or not, and at ranges that no other sensor aside from emergence wakes can manage.  (Yes, BT sensor ranges are short.  Welcome again to the difference between physics texts and the rule books.)  They'll also apparently find the locations, which is a major headache for someone trying to hide.

It's the technomagical ones that are dumped in the hole here.

rlbell

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 929
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #50 on: 30 May 2011, 13:55:53 »
No, it won't, because FASA physics is in play.  It takes approximately 10 burn-days to charge a jump.  Again taking the Merchant as an example, this is nearly 200 tons of fuel.  The sail, meanwhile, is only 46 tons.  There's no false economy here - the sails are a more efficient and cost effective solution.



Two hundred tons of hydrogen is good for up to 54x10^18 joules.  A ten square kilometer jumpsail (bigger than any described in the canon) at 10 AU from the Sun can collect  1x10^15 joules in the week taken to charge the core.

Q: Why are children so cute?
A: So parents do not kill them.

That joke usually divides the room into two groups:  those that are mortally offended, and parents

Moonsword

  • Acutus Gladius
  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16580
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Jumpship RetroTech
« Reply #51 on: 30 May 2011, 15:54:50 »
Two hundred tons of hydrogen is good for up to 54x10^18 joules.  A ten square kilometer jumpsail (bigger than any described in the canon) at 10 AU from the Sun can collect  1x10^15 joules in the week taken to charge the core.

You missed the point of what I was saying.  Let's try this again.  I'll repost that remark so that we don't have to look at it again.

No, it won't, because FASA physics is in play.  It takes approximately 10 burn-days to charge a jump.  Again taking the Merchant as an example, this is nearly 200 tons of fuel.  The sail, meanwhile, is only 46 tons.  There's no false economy here - the sails are a more efficient and cost effective solution.

To expand on that, I'm not aware of a problem with your math and I'm not challenging the actual science here.  The problem is with your starting assumption that the formulas you're using accurately describe Reality According To FASA.  They don't.  This is why I said that this time around the problem isn't the fact that BattleTech economics are apparently made to make sense to Cthulhu, it's the fact that this is one of those times and places FASA's physics simply doesn't line up with reality.  In this one case there's compelling economic logic to this decision.

If you open StratOps and turn to page 88, you'll see the following: "Each power plant-based charging attempt of the drive requires 10 burn-days of fuel[,]" which is modified by margins of success or failure on a control roll on that same page.  It may go as low as 4 burn-days or if you truly screw up, it can go a lot higher, but 10 burn-days is a good quick and dirty reference.  Taking the Merchant as an example, we have a 120k ton hull according to TRO3057R page 92.  The sail is 46 tons (30 + 120k/7.5k) per formula on StratOps page 149.  The tons per burn-day figure is 19.75 for a hull this size (StratOps page 147), thus we have 197.5 tons, which I rounded up to 200 tons last time.  Fuel costs 15k C-Bills per ton according to StratOps page 179, although if you have a whole bunch of units sitting around doing nothing during a maintenance cycle but cracking water, you can supply it for free but then you've got to ship it out, which requires more gas, and thus more fission, fusion, or solar engines to do the cracking, and thus more deferred maintenance.  From the JumpShip owner/operator's point of view, that's probably academic.  I will note that in this area there may be FASAnomics involved since that figure may be either cheaper or more expensive than it needs to be.  Those of you who are interested may want to calculate the cost of sufficient .25 ton TR D fusion plants using the support vehicle rules to make hydrogen from water, their maintenance costs, and the incidental cost of shipping it out.

That standard 10 burn-days I mentioned costs 2.9625 million C-Bills. Anyway, fuel use may be somewhat lower but at best you can never expend less than 79 tons of fuel (1.185 million C-Bills) on this operation, and even being generous and saying they routinely manage a margin of success of 8 on the aforementioned control roll, you're expending at least 158 tons (2.37 million C-Bills) charging the core.  This is without any questions about station-keeping.  You've got to replace that about once a week and given where JumpShips usually jump in, doing it involves burning a lot of gas in and of itself.  The cost of the sail, including the final cost modifier, is 2.875 million C-Bills.  If you don't do better, it's cheaper in one week to just pay the money out for the sail.  It'll pay for itself on two jumps with an MOS of 8 on each one and in three jumps with the absolute minimum figure.  In this particular case, the cost of just paying the sail is lower.  They're using it because the physics is screwed up and, over time, it's cheaper than buying and shipping hydrogen

Whether the energy efficiency here has anything to do with the energy efficiency of this same hydrogen when used for thrust is another interesting question I'll leave for someone else.