Labs (Laboratories) in UT & HT vs. Labs in Spaceships. What gives?

[vicky_molokh]

Greetings, all!

So I decided to equip the base of operations given to the PCs with several labs. I went on to construct the base as a building with a basement, yadda yadda. Then I realised that my Habitat modules cost $3M. That's rather a lot given that the whole installation costs $25M before modifiers.

Checking Spaceships:

• a regular lab (Good, +1) for 2 people costs $1M (or $10M for Physics, $30M for Science!).
• a Large Lab (Fine, +2) costs $10M, though it is good enough for 20 people.
• a Major Lab (best, +TL/2) costs $100M, good for 200 people.

However, checking both Ultra-Tech and* High-Tech, I see:

• Suitcase Lab (Basic, +0) costs a mere $3k. Okay, Spaceships shouldn't bother itself with such petty labs, but then
• Field Lab (Good, +1) still costs a mere $15k. So I might as well equip my base/ship/etc. with field labs housed in unused crew quarters or the like, and save a whopping $985k. But wait.
• Semi-Portable Lab (Fine, +2) costs $75k. 20 SPLs cost $1½M, as opposed to $10M that would be spent on a Large Lab (which supports 20 people).
• There is no official number for a Cutting-Edge Lab (+TL/2), but the ×5, ×5 progression implies that it would cost around $375k. But 200 of those would cost $75M, finally comes close to the $100M required for a Major Lab for 200 people. I suppose rounding it up to $½M for a Cutting-Edge Lab makes the top-of-the-line lab costs between UT/HT and SS compatible.

So, what makes the SS numbers so brutal? Is this an erratum?

Thanks in advance!

* == While UT gets some flack as a hastily published book with large errata, High-Tech is generally considered very solidly researched, and thus the fact that numbers between the two match means that the HT/UT numbers are to be treated seriously.

[Woodman]

Space labs seem to be a lot more expensive, according to wiki the Columbus lab module at the ISS cost a whopping 1.4 billion euros, so this being essentially a one of a kind prototype a mass produced variant should be significantly cheaper, but the extra requirements for being space worthy, like life and pressuresupport or radiation shielding will make them significantly more expensive then simple earthbound labs.
And i would argue the field lab and the semi portable one consist mostly of the equipment and lack all of the structural and installation stuff, a lab will probably get at least some isolated venting, an an extra plumbing, maybe special waste disposal, internal airlocks, without artificial gravity all of the equipment will need to be installed in secured racks and you will also need rugged equipment that can withstand the g forces of space flight and will also function in 0 gravity. So I see a lot of potential extra cost for a spaceship lab that can account for the increased cost.

[David Johnston2]

Cutting edge wouldn't keep to the progression. It would be much more.

As for the spaceships labs those are Star Trek "we can do anything" labs. The labs in the tech books would be for specific disciplines. (And maybe even specialities within those disciplines.)

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

As for the spaceships labs those are Star Trek "we can do anything" labs. The labs in the tech books would be for specific disciplines. (And indeed specialities within those disciplines.)

Only if you select the Science! Labs, which are 30 times as expensive. The labs in UT and HT make no mention of being specialty-specific, just skill-specific.

I do think it makes sense for zero-G labs to be more expensive (though most science fiction gets around that feature of space in one way or another). Pricing for spaceship habitats and structures should be more expensive than terrestrial ones. While it's feasible to use the SS rules to create ground-based vehicles and installations, IMO it rarely gives very satisfactory results.

[Flyndaran]

Spin gravity is perfectly reasonable and should increase the price of labs much if at all.
And nearly two orders of magnitude is a bit much.
I never noticed the huge discrepancy before.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

Only if you select the Science! Labs, which are 30 times as expensive. The labs in UT and HT make no mention of being specialty-specific, just skill-specific.

Additionally, the Spaceship labs are room sized. E.g. If you want to analyze a urine sample, the portable lab will likely do just as well as your spaceship's lab. If you want a full-body scan, you're not going to be able to do that without that massive contraption that's in the spacehsip's lab.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

So, what makes the SS numbers so brutal? Is this an erratum?

It's a combination of problems with SS and problems with UT; the SS numbers are too high in typical configurations, the UT numbers are too low unless they represent labs that are only for initial investigation, where you take it to a real lab once something interesting comes up. Offhand, change it to 'Suitcase Lab: -3. Field Lab: -2. Semi-Portable Lab: -1'.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

It's a combination of problems with SS and problems with UT; the SS numbers are too high in typical configurations, the UT numbers are too low unless they represent labs that are only for initial investigation, where you take it to a real lab once something interesting comes up. Offhand, change it to 'Suitcase Lab: -3. Field Lab: -2. Semi-Portable Lab: -1'.

I already pointed this out, but the numbers in HT are the same as in UT.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I already pointed this out, but the numbers in HT are the same as in UT.

That doesn't prevent them from being wrong. Not everything in HT was researched thoroughly. Truth is, it's not at all clear what a 'lab' is supposed to be in the first place so it's hard to price, but several (say, 5) times the starting wealth of a typical employee is a reasonable place to start, so a lab appropriate to a single GSI would be 50-100k, one appropriate to someone with actual prestige would be several hundred thousand (as a rule of thumb, the more it costs, the more associated staff it has, even if it doesn't really need those staff), and a lab with significant space constraints will cost more.

[Flyndaran]

That number sounds smack in the middle of the two extremes, for the most part.
The size constraints sound like a good reason for an optional cost saving rule.
Double, triple, or whatever the number of cabins a lab takes and reduce the price by whatever seems reasonable. It might even decrease the risks of accidents and machinery break down. No bumping elbows with the guy carrying anthrax or stool samples. :)