400 ton trader

[parmasson]

A Book 2 design.

This ship was generated with CT utility and is intended to be a good sized adventuring ship for a mature campaign. I saw the Type H design (300 tons) but I really wanted a bit more cargo space for them.

It’s a basic design and not too exciting but should do.

Prototype (Frontier Trader class)

The Prototype is based on a 400T, custom hull. It mounts jump drive D, maneuver drive D, and power plant D, giving a performance of jump-2 and 2-G acceleration. Fuel tankage for 100 tons supports the power plant allowing for 1 jump-2 and 4 weeks of operation. Adjacent to the bridge is a computer Model/2.
The ship has the following accommodations:
6 stateroom(s)
10 low berth(s)
The ship has 2 hardpoints and 2 tons allocated to fire control. Installed on the hardpoints are:
2 triple turret(s)
The turret(s) are armed with:
3 pulse laser(s)
3 missile launcher(s)
There are 1 ship's vehicles:
1 launch(s)

Cargo capacity is 180 tons. The hull is streamlined. The ship is subsidized.
A small vault displaces 2 tons.
The Prototype requires a minimum crew of 6:
1 pilot
1 navigator
1 engineer(s)
1 medic
2 gunner(s)

The ship costs MCr163.95 (not including discounts and fees) and takes 16 months to build.

Designed for colonial resupply and support.


Made with CT U.

 

[parmasson]

I am not sure why it has a launch.

Any ideas?

 

[jrients]

On a rough frontier some captains won't want to land their vessel to trade with the locals?

 

[jawillroy]

IMTU, any ship that's going to be applying for subsidies needs to meet a barrage of safety requirements, one of which is some sort of lifeboat system. (Looking at the M and the R types, they both have launches aboard, although the subbie can do atmospheres.)

A Free Trader, or a ship designed to operate like one, won't necessarily require a lifeboat, but it's still a good idea - 'specially if you're going to be operating in sketchy systems now and again, it can be good to be able to fly down to sketchyville to pick up your sketchy cargo with a launch rather than risking the whole ship.

 

[Jame]

Keep in mind that the Type-H is designed as much as a frontier trader/light "expendable" scout/raider.

I agree with Imperium Festerium about the safety requirement.

 

[parmasson]

http://www.geocities.com/danlatch_1/400TonTrader.html
I know it's bad.

Something of a scaled up free trader with the launch bay below and the cargo bay above.

Just got a new scanner so I can start doing stuff again.
I'll try for a better sketch tonight.

 

[parmasson]

Yeah, I like the idea of being able to get out in something besides a vaccsuit as well.

 

[Pickles]

IMHO, every passenger ship should carry some kind of small craft (or a space-worthy grav vehicle as an absolute minimum). I'm not a big fan of escape capsules - not enough survivability, and not very space-efficient. A small craft is a very handy thing even if you never have to abandon ship.

Question about the turrets: is that a mix, or one triple beam and one triple missile? Just an idea, but I would consider putting them on the ship's sides - that way both remain useful on the ground. Of course, if you don't land that often, or only on civilised downports, your layout might provide better coverage.

 

[Liam Devlin]

I concur with Bromgrev, on the need for every merchie built to have at least 1x subcraft for interface work-passenger luggage schlepping to and from orbit.

At the very least, if you have a High-Passage person and no business on a world he/she/it is landing it, why risk your ship?

Shuttle him/her/it downside with the launch, gig, boat, pinnace, cutter, shuttle-what have you.

The Traveller universe showed us its by far cheaper to streamline a single spacecraft than an entire starship, and smallcraft are far more numerous than starships in the Imperium as it is (much less elsewheres).

'Escape capsules' should be for large (1.5kton+) liners, warships, like lifeboats were in prestellar days for wet vessels.

TNE- did some work on these,iirc; and as Dan Burns'/ aka Far Trader , wrote me once on these boards, these fitted into the 3dtn turret sockets. The space was already claimed, so cargo space wasn't affected.

And in the event this vessel s in a non-Rebellion era Imperium campaign, the safety inspection of passenger escape vehicle(s) will be part of the SPA customs check--for Roleplaying possibilities, worries.

"Your stuff not up to snuff?
"Sorry Skipper--you're ability to haul passengers in the Imperium doesn't meet current Imperial Safety Spec. We're pulling your liscense to carry sophonts, these measures won't suffice.."

 

[parmasson]

Ok here is a a deck plan sketch . . .

http://www.geocities.com/danlatch_1/400TonTrader.html
Does not quite feel right.

 

[GypsyComet]

So the cargo is on the top deck? An interesting choice. The lower tankage makes the cargo deck even higher, with no lift anywhere in sight. The sketch also only shows about 275 tons.

Hmm...

 

[GypsyComet]

This hull fell together with astonishing ease, with the increase of the lower deck to 15 meters width making the missing cargo an easy fit. The plans are still missing a few details (like a hatch or two to connect the two decks), but otherwise complete.

The fuel wings are most of a full deck tall at the level of the lower deck, tapering somewhat towards the tips. The "missing" volume is made up in a half-deck addition to the wings below the lower deck. Aft landing skids are also in this lower tankage. With the ship's center of mass firmly anchored in the engineering section, the nose will typically stay off the ground unless the upper cargo deck is badly front-loaded. The nose has a near-flush skid plate hard-mounted for instances like this, but the early crews delighted in teasing newcomers when they planted the front end anyway.

Boarding can be done via the starboard cargo bay door, which hinges from the bottom edge to become a very large ramp, or via the smaller boarding ramp airlock tucked just under the front of the fuel tanks, in the one spot that remains full height whether the ship is sitting on its nose plate or not. There is also a crawl lock (not shown) in the cieling above the aft doors on the cargo deck, which is also the only lock on the ship suited to deep space docking.

The standard Launch can use either the port or starboard bays, depending on it's own cargo door arrangements. The KeiGee is able to carry two Lauches, but rarely does so. Because the Launch deploys sideways in front of the port fuel wing and typically has less thrust than the KeiGee itself, launches under full thrust are not recommended unless a launch ram is installed (allowing the launch to clear the wing very quickly, at the expense of the pilot's lunch) or the carried subcraft is upgraded to 2G. A drop-deck arrangement was considered, clearing the launch below the ship with no interference from the wings, but the structural trade-offs required to do this while still allowing on-ground deployment or recovery were considered unacceptable.

 

[parmasson]

Thank you sir.

Very nice indeed.

Upper deck cargo bay:
The original idea was to have the cargo bay open on top. I guess on the frontier loading from the bottom makes more sense.

 

[Scarecrow]

An underside bridge? Cool. An excellent opportunity to have the seats suspended over a glass floored cockpit for excellent visibility when landing.

Also, take out the ceiling of the lower cargo hold so that it extends up into the upper cargo deck.

Put in Space-Shuttle style cargo doors in the roof for crane loading on civilised worlds (oops! I just read your previous post regarding the doors, Kurega).

Crow

 

[parmasson]

Here is a thought. Since all the power systems are now on the lower deck the upper deck could be modular.

This way if you need to convert it to passenger duty you remove or snap in the components you need through the upper CBDs and you are ready to go.

You might even be able to stack a larger upper deck to make it three decks, now unstreamlined with a J1/1G. No worries because you have space for 2 launches.

[edit] I like the idea of windows in the floor of the bridge.

 

[parmasson]

I just downloaded “Sketchup”
No sure how much time I will have to mess with it but it looks cool.

 

[Pickles]

Just take an hour or so, and you'll have grasped most of the essentials. It's a very clever little program.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
Thank you sir.

Very nice indeed.

Upper deck cargo bay:
The original idea was to have the cargo bay open on top. I guess on the frontier loading from the bottom makes more sense.

Glad you like it. Your design hit me in the right mood.

As you say, loading from the ground would be easier in many cases, and I'm all about making cargo carriers useful in as many situations as possible. As it is, lack of gravitic loaders doesn't hamper this design, while their presence can double loading or unloading speeds. The lower cargo access also allows the launch to be a shirtsleeve cargo transfer vehicle.

As for the upper deck "opening up", you start to get either access or structural problems. Doors along the sides would be doable, but they have the curve of the lower hull to get over unless grav loaders are in use. Big shuttle-style bay doors really complicate non-gravitic loading also. A top-mounted "sunroof" style slider might work, but access is still an issue. The aft hatch is over 35 feet wide, and could conceivably extend along the top in some sort of rolltop arrangement, making a quite effective loading spot, even if it would be a royal pain to keep airtight.

I could see post-purchase mods installing a second lift in the aft cargo bay, but that does cut into the capacity of the upper deck a bit. Not sure I'd want it just open, though that pretty much demands proper placement of a sunroof cargo hatch to allow loading of the really tall stuff.

The big windows in front I leave to the artist who does the exterior. The blacked "bridge" volume could easily accomodate it, though. The specific shape of those windows would be a mark of the owner's whims.

 

[Scarecrow]

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
As for the upper deck "opening up", you start to get either access or structural problems.

Not really. Firstly because it's only a drawing and so imagination comes before physics and secondly because it depends how big they are. They don't have to cover the full surface of the upper hull. Just big enough to get stuff in.

I agree with making cargo carriers as useful as possible so universal access is always best. However, one of the things that bugs me about some Traveller ship designs is they often have vast cargo holds and tiny tiny access ways. They also often have cargo spaces only one deck tall. So despite all that space, they can only carry small containers, limiting their business and taking hours to load.
The reason I suggested removing the ceiling from the lower cargo hold and putting in shuttle doors is that you then have a honking great space with easy access to crane-in huge loads, if necessary.

As an aside, I've often felt that larger cargo haulers should have some sort of onboard system for loading and unloading - for example, a built-in crane or grav lifter so that it doesn't matter what the facilities are like at their destination, they can still unload whatever they have on board.

Originally posted by GypsyComet:
The big windows in front I leave to the artist who does the exterior.

Why!? Half the fun of ship design is trying to make something that's unique. Take a look at the ship, think to yourself, has this been done a thousand times before? If the answer's 'yes' then play around with it. Don't ever let your ship designs be ordinary.

Crow

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Well done and nearly perfectly measured, Kurega

What about a moveable ceiling in the cargo section just in fron of the engineering section, entending storage height to 6 m here.
I see no problems with another huge sliding cargo door just on top of that, making it a top loader

Would you offer a dton or two for the poor engineering crew, in order to make this section a bit less crowded.

Regards,

TheEngineer
(does not like to work in crowded machinery sections...)