On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Onno Meyer wrote:
A wet/drybulk cargo for a freetrader would usually mean, that the trader
needs to supply suitable containers. Rules for containers including
renting, buying and reselling them are supplied.
Then it isn't wetbulk any more.
It is at the time, when it is sold at the freight spot market. It is when
the cargo is delivered to the freighter, it is again, when the freighter
finally delivers it.
It is not, while the freight ship is in transport, but i would consider it
a technicality.
The rules are for freighters. They collect and deliver wetbulk, their
contract is for transporting wetbulk. If they convert it to container
freight while it is in their hands and then convert it back, that is
IMO outside the scope of what thoose rules are intended for.
For the freighters the freight type in the contract is important to pick
which contracts they want to bid for. They might have fitting containers
from their last job, that they can't or don't want to sell, or they might
not have containers. Depending on the local container situation they can
see, which cargos they can put into their hold, without having them mixed.
OTOH if the wetbulk is in a container, or in a fixed tank during flight,
is of comparably little consequence. If they are plundered by pirates,
containers might make it easier for the pirates.
And while they are cononical i think most if not all traveller freighter
deckplans make no sense at all. I'd build it engine room, bridge, crew
quaters, passanger quaters, cargo hold. In an emergency you can open a
door and shout if internal communications fail, if crew needs to move
between bridge and engeneering (engeneers need extra help for lifting,
engeneers need to repair something on the bridge) it's easier, and a
hijacking attempt can't seperate bridge and engennering.
This makes the assumption that the engines _can_ be placed
in front, or alternatively that the bridge should be built
without forward viewpoints.
I don't really see much place in high tech starship operation for looking
out of a window. And that is the only reason i know to put the bridge to
the front.
If the engines are in the rear and the bridge is in front,
the crew has to pass through the sections in between. The
two classic Traveller deckplans move the passengers to the
top deck, where they are out of the way while the crew can
move down below.
Having crew going through the cargo hold does not seem like a good SOP.
If you need the bridge in the front, i would at least include a walkway,
that is seperated from both passangers and cargo hold. Some deckplans for
traveller at least have that, but i don't remember if they were canonical
ones.
If a ship lands on a SPA downport, it is on Imperial
territory. The crew can then decide if they cross the
XT line to the planetary territory, or not. Same if a
ship docks with a SPA highport.
And if a ship lands on a local downport, it is on
planetary territory. So there is no extrality line,
even if there is possibly a fence around the port.
Why would things be different with a local highport?
You can make legal fictions as easily on downports. (or have a parking lot
in front of the factory as isolated part of a SPA downport) It just is a
lot more blatant, then if you have a ship in a parking orbit, that is
legally part of the highport, in a atereoid belt "world" meeting a
"planetary" space station that is often close to the highport.
As to why you want to do that, leaving the extrality zone means extra
hassles and risks for the freighter (at least the freighter has to check,
if there are no relevant laws or customs that he has to be aware of),
which is one reason, why most freight goes starport to starport.
And you can use such maneuvers also if you get freight types such as CIF.
_______________________________________________
GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]>
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
