Re: 2097 Fuel Duration

 In message 2097, [email removed] (Mark F. Cook) writes:
 >
 >2.  Fuel duration & multiple jumps by a starship.
 >
 >  I have a design for a modified Beowulf-class Free Trader that has
 >  jump-2 and maneuver-2.  It burns up 405 Kl. of fuel per jump and
 >  has a total fuel capacity of 859 Kl.  It also has a duration of
 >  30/90 days (whateverthehell that means) according to the design
 >  rules in the Refs. Manual.  If I understand the rules correctly,
 >  that means that it can make one jump (jump-1 or jump-2, it doesn't
 >  matter 'cause the both burn 405 kl. of fuel, thanks to those
 >  mysteriously vanishing 'jump governors').  On the remaining 454
 >  Kl. of fuel, the ship can stay powered for 90 days in some sort
 >  of 'low-power mode (or '8-hour work days' as the Refs. Manual calls
 >  them).  This implies that the ship burns 5.0444 Kl. of fuel per day
 >  in that mode, right?

First, my comment to Mark...

Boy, you sure do get some mileage on TML from my comments during the game! :-)

Second...

Rob the Vehicle Maven writes, on the subject of duration:

>As written the second duration number 30/*90* is functionally meaningless for
>starships.

I agree totally and I will probably leave it off any of my starship designs.
One can just as easily multiply the duration in days by three to get eight
hour shifts or even four for six hour shifts.

>A recent issue of Traveller's Digest legitimized the concept of running your
>starship at fractional power, with a proportional fractional fuel
>consumption. If you look at any of my high-energy weapon large starship
>designs (I don't think the dropship counts), you'll find a note about how
>much power is required in combat versus how much is required in "running
>mode".  *I* usually calculate the running power as full maneuver power plus
>full life support power.  If you wanted to run your ship at the absolute
>minimum power, I'd call it the amount needed for full life support power,
>most of the time...but even that could be reduced if you were willing to cut
>the grav plates (you wouldn't need inertial compensators if you weren't
>accelerating).

I agree.  In general only two modes need normally be figured.  The first being
for times when the ship is in jump.  Basically, computer, life support and
grav plates will be taking your fuel.  The second time is coming out of jump
and going to a planet.  This could really be assuming full power since the
maneuver drive would be going at full output to get to the destination at the
minimum time interval.  Though I would be tempted to ignore the fuel used by
idling the power plant since during the time of travel to the planet the
weapon systems are not using power (unless combat is enjoined of course.)  I
would tend to call these two items a wash.

If anything, if I were to design a submarine with a nuclear power plant, the
rules would lead you to think the thing was operating at 100% power the whole
time if it was not shutdown or idled.  Bull.  They have a full range of
operational power.  They are load-following plants and any engineer that
designed a fusion plant without load following capability isn't worth his
bodily hydrogen.  (Though large commercial plants made for generating power
for the general populace would not have to be load following.)

I also think that Dan Corrin's idea of Jump Fuel Units is also appropriate and
would reflect the fact that a larger jump drive would be required to travel a
farther distance.  The jump field would have to be stronger around the ship to
allow it to travel the greater distance.  In order to travel that greater
distance the jump drive would have to use more energy to generate the stronger
jump field.

+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| *-=Carl=-*    [email removed] | Sixteen empty missile tubes and a      |
|               DELPHI - WULFGAR     | a mushroom cloud. Now its Miller time! |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+