A question of style

All Art critics,
I have a new deck plan but a few questions.
* Should a deck plan have large machinery in the engineer spaces or is a note that this room is engineering good enough?
* How about the Low Berth room? a note or filed with symbols?
* Is a deck plan better with a numbered key or with labels?

I have been doing deck plans for 40 years and I must say I have for most of that time done plans with equipment other furnishings, but I am not sure.

 

[Badenov]

Covered in LBB5. Not extensively, but the rules exist.


Traveller mostly pre-dates mass containerization of cargo; the literature it was based on definitely did.

Well, they almost sort of did. The cutter (Modular Cutter inMgT) can carry 30-ton modules. If cargo were containerized in 30-ton lots as well, they could use modular cutters to ferry cargo modules to and from the cargo ship. IMTU, this is a thing becaused containerized cargo is much easier to onload and offloadonto a freighter.

 

[Dragoner]

It's easy enough to add in:

 

[Grav_Moped]

Well, they almost sort of did. The cutter (Modular Cutter inMgT) can carry 30-ton modules.

More likely it's in Trillion Credit Squadron but I have a cat on my lap and can't get to the book to look it up.

(Refitting rules are in TCS, p. 34*).

*I knew I'd cited it before, so I looked up the post where I did. Cat's still in lap, for now.

 

[kilemall]

Covered in LBB5. Not extensively, but the rules exist.


Traveller mostly pre-dates mass containerization of cargo; the literature it was based on definitely did.

Book5 and TCS limit refits quite a bit, more of what you can’t rather than what you can.

Which I don’t have a big problem with as ships involve combinations of whatever jump/maneuver fields need, balanced build for center line thrust one way or another, and flight characteristics in atmo and out that have to handle different cargo mixes.

Slapping a big new maneuver drive on probably would throw it off.

 

[Enoki]

Not to TL 9 standard though. TL7 composites are what we have today...

The technology is fairly far advanced.

This would result in far too many imperfections and nowhere near growing one continuous crystal with no discontinuities, boundaries, or flaws. The TL 10 crystaliron would be one large perfect crystal. We can't do that yet.

Perfect crystal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You wouldn't want one crystal in a hull. One hit that is sufficient to crack it dooms it. The whole thing shatters. Instead, what you want are perfectly sized microcrystals with none larger or smaller than the others. That adds toughness to hardness. Hardness alone won't cut it. Diamonds, for example, are very hard but easily shattered, eg., not very tough. This is why you use powdered metals and ceramics. They constrain crystal size and give greater uniformity increasing toughness for the same hardness.

Gravitics allows for mixtures not possible within gravity, and also I am postulating perfect crystals, something that can not be done as yet. We can not collapse the electronic structure of materials today, which is what is required for superdense.

But none of them can produce perfect crystals, nor can they collapse the electronic structure to result in superdense.

Not even close to the performance of superdense, let alone bonded superdense.

We can already produce some perfect crystal alloys and such in materials but lack the means to do it consistently in large surfaces.

Perfect crystal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, these don't occur naturally.

What I'm saying is you can achieve this--not today however--in ways other than manipulating gravity. For example, if you have a material that is an alloy, being able to place the various agents (molecules) in exactly the correct position every time would be critically important here whether you densify the material or not.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Well, they almost sort of did. The cutter (Modular Cutter inMgT) can carry 30-ton modules.

Isn't the Cutter the Eagle Transporter from Space 1999? (Ok, reskinned and adapted, but still...)

(Image credit: moonbasealpha.fandom.com)

 

[Badenov]

Isn't the Cutter the Eagle Transporter from Space 1999? (Ok, reskinned and adapted, but still...)

(Image credit: moonbasealpha.fandom.com)

I never saw Space 1999 growing up because we had one TV in my house, and my mother firmly controlled the remote. And Space 1999 was up against her shows. My glib answer as to why I have not checked it since is that I am not interested in historical shows.

 

[mike wightman]

The technology is fairly far advanced.

It is still only current baseling tech and doesn't produce the material types the game invents. I'm eagerly awaiting vehicle scale fusion power plants, null grav modules, and personal laser weapons... perhaps all those UFO sightings are... no, never mind

You wouldn't want one crystal in a hull. One hit that is sufficient to crack it dooms it. The whole thing shatters.

I agree, although it depends on the properties and structure of the crystal, the elements that are contained within and a whole lot of other factors. This is sci fi at TL10, if I knew how it worked or could be made I would be patenting it now and becoming very rich.
Discussions about real world tech and sci fi tech always have that flaw.

I personally wouldn't build it in the whole, (this isn't a GP hull after all) I would have the crystaliron panels in sections so that damage can be repaired and access is available to surface fixtures.

Instead, what you want are perfectly sized microcrystals with none larger or smaller than the others.

That is not what I want. What I want is one continuous crystal with the property that when sufficient force is applied layers of atoms "slide" across each other. Crystalline metals with perfect metallic crystal lattices don't shatter - they deform.

That adds toughness to hardness. Hardness alone won't cut it. Diamonds, for example, are very hard but easily shattered, eg., not very tough.

Metallic crystal structure is very different to diamond.

This is why you use powdered metals and ceramics. They constrain crystal size and give greater uniformity increasing toughness for the same hardness.

I will stick with perfect metal crystal lattices.

We can already produce some perfect crystal alloys and such in materials but lack the means to do it consistently in large surfaces.

I will have to go and find the papers on those, perfect crystals you say...

Perfect crystal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Of course, these don't occur naturally.

What I'm saying is you can achieve this--not today however--in ways other than manipulating gravity. For example, if you have a material that is an alloy, being able to place the various agents (molecules) in exactly the correct position every time would be critically important here whether you densify the material or not.

What Is A Perfect Crystal And Why They Don'T Exist? 👨‍🏭 - Eng. Gelson Luz

en.gelsonluz.com

So today we can produce tiny amounts, but add gravitics and by TL10 we can make crystaliron - whatever it is.

 

[mike wightman]

Isn't the Cutter the Eagle Transporter from Space 1999? (Ok, reskinned and adapted, but still...)

(Image credit: moonbasealpha.fandom.com)

CT 77 cutter and cutter module

Space 1999 - TV series 1975 to 1977

The time frame fits... (frame he he)

 

[mike wightman]

Just out of interest I asked copilot, here is the question and conversation, take with the usual pinches of sodium chloride:

me - what would the properties of a perfect metallic crystalnbe?

"Perfect metal crystals—meaning metals with a flawless, uninterrupted atomic lattice—would have some truly extraordinary properties:

• Unparalleled Strength: No grain boundaries or defects mean no weak points, making them far stronger than any metal alloy we currently use.
• Superior Electrical Conductivity: Resistance is largely caused by imperfections. A flawless crystal would conduct electricity more efficiently than today’s metals, possibly rivaling superconductors.
• Extreme Thermal Conductivity: Heat transfer is disrupted by defects, so a perfect crystal could be fantastic for heat dissipation.
• No Fatigue or Wear: Without grain boundaries, stress wouldn’t concentrate in weak areas, so it wouldn’t crack or wear down over time the way regular metals do.
• Optical Transparency (Maybe?): Some perfect crystals, like silicon or gallium arsenide, are transparent to certain wavelengths. A perfect metal might show bizarre optical effects.

The downside? Such perfection is incredibly difficult to achieve—impurities and atomic-scale misalignment happen naturally. But if we could grow massive, single-crystal metals, they might revolutionize aerospace, electronics, and quantum computing."

I then asked about using them as starship hull material:

"A starship built from perfect metal crystals would be practically indestructible. Here’s how it could shake up spacecraft engineering:

• Nearly Invulnerable Hull: With no weak points, a starship’s skin wouldn’t crack, fatigue, or degrade, making it resistant to micrometeorite impacts, radiation, and even extreme temperature shifts.
• Massively Lightweight: A single-crystal metal could be lighter than traditional alloys while maintaining superior strength, meaning better fuel efficiency for deep-space travel.
• Self-Healing Properties? While metals don’t normally self-repair, perfect lattice structures could be engineered to rearrange at the atomic level, automatically closing small fractures before they grow.
• Magneto-Active Shielding: If made from a perfect crystalline superconductor, it might be able to generate magnetic fields strong enough to deflect cosmic radiation—or even protect against exotic sci-fi weapons.

The biggest challenge? Manufacturing vast sheets of such flawless material. We’d likely need zero-gravity fabrication, quantum-scale atomic deposition, and mind-bending nanotech."

When asked about real world research it provided a couple of links:

https://kc.pnu.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2021/05/Defects-L1-Perfect-and-Imperfect-Crystals.pdf

This link is to the purchasing site for books on the subject, you can read a chapter for free though.

Perfect crystal - Knowledge and References | Taylor & Francis

taylorandfrancis.com

This is now heading towards meta-material research, fascinating stuff but requires its own thread

 

[whartung]

Manufacturing vast sheets of such flawless material.

You make crystals the size of complete hulls, and carve out the spaces. No joinery save for doors, windows, and other ports.

 

[Dragoner]

Single crystal casting process https://www.theengineer.co.uk/conte...-single-crystal-turbine-blade-casting-foundry

 

[mike wightman]

From the article itself:

"Normally, metals are composed of many crystals – ordered structures of atoms arranged in a regular lattice, which form naturally as the metal cools from a molten state. These crystals are typically of the order of tens of microns in size, positioned in many orientations. At high temperatures and under strain, the crystals can slide against each other, and impurities can diffuse along the boundaries between the grains. This is known as creep, and it badly affected early turbine blades, which were forged from steel and later nickel bars."

So not single crystal, despite the publicity. A single crystal would be just that, one continuous crystal with no grains or boundaries. TL10, I can see why. Saying that you never know what they may invent next... we may even get vehicle sized fusion power plants and null grav modules.

 

[DentArthurDent]

If all the microcrystal domains were aligned then the entire ship would be a very large magnet.
Unless … with advanced technology, crystal domains were randomized to make the metal paramagnetic but also interlocked, or interwoven, to greatly strengthen it.


Shout out to HyperPhysics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/ferro.html

How can anything so 90s be so cool?

 

[mike wightman]

If all the microcrystal domains were aligned then the entire ship would be a very large magnet.

Not if the crystal contains elements with the opposite magnetic domain.

Unless … with advanced technology, crystal domains were randomized to make the metal paramagnetic but also interlocked, or interwoven, to greatly strengthen it.

That would work too

Shout out to HyperPhysics.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solids/ferro.html

How can anything so 90s be so cool?

The 90s is an often overlooked decade of cultural enrichment

 

[Rupert]

When it comes to (open life support) wet navy surface ships, the long running joke is that "steel is cheap and air is free" when crew spaces need to be allocated.

And even they tend to end up fairly cramped, especially once a few extra systems have been added, some more crew to man them, and so on. That the designers and operators also tend to assume that the crew can go topside if they need a bit of space doesn't help with that either. Nor is it helped by those paying for the ships tending to see 'wasted' space as wasted money and wanting either the same ship in a smaller hull, or more ship in a given hull (resulting in quite a few destroyer classes in several navies in the inter-war period being rather less seaworthy than intended).

As @whartung demonstrates above, it can be helpful to try "putting stuff into compartments" and see how far you get before you start running out of room/walkable access floor space.

I find looking at the deck/floorplans and walk-throughs of luxury yachts to be quite illuminating. The owner and guest areas look very spacious, but often have a lot of clever design to fit a maximum of stuff into the available space. The crew areas are usually just downright cramped, but at the same time also space efficient. One thing to remember about them is that they're not warships, and so rapid movement and access isn't nearly so important, so they have narrow corridors and rooms that tend to be long and thin, whereas if you look at warship plans they have more and wider access ways and rooms that are less narrow so people can get past each other easily.

 

[Rupert]

To really do it right, you require Interior Elevations of the room to really show the 3D nature of how spaces function on things like Ship's or Pullman Coaches. I started to address that in my design just a bit in the staterooms. You should be able to identify the BED with its rounded corners. Below the bed would be storage draws that slide out and the bed itself lifts to reveal under-bed storage behind the draws. To the wall side of the bed is a storage unit of built-in shelves and cabinets and cubbyholes. Next to the bed is a narrow wardrobe locker and a fold-out desk. All this would be impossible to detail in plan.

I usually assume two beds, with drawers above, between, and below. A locker at the end of the beds for clothes that need to be hung and long personal items (not generally guns and vacc suits - those belong in the armoury and the suit locker by the airlock, respectively). The other wall has a fold-out deck, etc. and there's a 'fresher in one corner.

A more cramped ship would have bunks of both sides of a room, and you share a communal fresher with several other rooms worth of crew.

 

[Dragoner]

Since Traveller is "70's in Space" ship's should have a "grooving area."

 

[atpollard]

Since Traveller is "70's in Space" ship's should have a "grooving area."

View attachment 6387

I just had a mental image of a group of Hivers covered in oil slithering over one another and shaking hands in a central pit as they discover "the Summer of Love".

 

[Grav_Moped]

Since Traveller is "70's in Space" ship's should have a "grooving area."

View attachment 6387

Technologically-advanced self-fluffing deep shag carpet, cleaned by sophisticated robots so it's never grungy.

Interior paneling and fixtures in Avocado Green and Harvest Gold.

Macrame with alien fibers.

Genetically modified ferns.