Adventure-Class Starships in T5

[robject]

Andrew, that's an awesome pic. Obviously there's plenty of room in 3t to fit people, and that 1t is more than enough space for a workstation. And in CT the computer is not part of the bridge.

In T5, the computer has an allocation on the bridge, as do sensors. That allocation on the 10t bridge is 4t.

 

[roger.books]

Do we all gotta have that haircut?

You are being totally insensitive, clones have feelings also.



Roger

 

[Andrew Boulton]

With FF&S2, a TL-13 Scout/Courier with good (but not great) sensors needs almost exactly 3dt - 2 1dt workstations + 1dt of electronics. If I go mad, I can cram in 12.5dt of electronics, which isn't far off the deckplans.

I doubt if any adventure-class ship would need more than 4 bridge workstations.

Civilian ships would need 1-3dt of electronics, and Scout/Military ships 1-20dt, depending on size and role.

In T5, the computer has an allocation on the bridge, as do sensors. That allocation on the 10t bridge is 4t.

As you can see, fixed-sized bridges just won't work.

 

[robject]

As you can see, fixed-sized bridges just won't work.

Rather, it's just that starship design is a Holy War, something we've already known.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

No, it just *doesn't work*. I used FF&S2 because it's the current and most realistic version (and I have a spreadsheet), but I can quote figures from every other version to prove that bridge crew + electronics varies enormously depending on size and role.

 

[atpollard]

I doubt if any adventure-class ship would need more than 4 bridge workstations.

At the risk of running further off track and just for the sake of conversation, let’s compare 100 dTon through 400 dTon commercial ships.

What is your* logic for how many bridge stations a ship needs?

Is there any difference between the Pilot’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Navigator’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Engineer’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Sensor Tech’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Communication Officer’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Life Support workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Would any of these be different for a 1000 dt freighter?

[* ‘your’ is not directed specifically at anyone but is an open invitation to share opinions.]

For ME,
I like to use 2dt of bridge and 1 required Crew member per 100 dTons of ship. I chose to place more emphasis on the ‘bridge = 2%’ rule than the 20 dt minimum size since none of the CT ships I ever saw had a big 20 dt bridge area on the deck plan.

When designing actual plans, I create a ‘workstation’ for each basic ship function and let the crew jump from station to station. For a small ship, each ‘station’ might be a single panel with the ‘pilot’ able to reach 3 stations at his finger tips and quickly jump to cover 2 more.

 

[atpollard]

In T5, the computer has an allocation on the bridge, as do sensors. That allocation on the 10t bridge is 4t.

Just a quick clarification, please.
Does that 10 dt bridge have a 4dt computer (plus additional dts of sensors) or does that 10 dt bridge have 4dt of (computer plus sensors)?

 

[robject]

Just a quick clarification, please.
Does that 10 dt bridge have a 4dt computer (plus additional dts of sensors) or does that 10 dt bridge have 4dt of (computer plus sensors)?

*Currently* (that word's important to keep in mind):

The 10t bridge has an allowance of 1t for the computer and 3 consoles for sensors. Each console has a workstation, and is able to 'hold' up to 1t of sensor equipment. So, you can't have more than 3 sensors on the 10t bridge, but you could have one 3t sensor. Additional sensors can be installed off-bridge, carried at their own volume I believe. I don't know of any penalties associated with having sensors off-bridge. If your computer displaces more than 1 ton, the remainder will be off-bridge. But, T5 computers start small and cheap (and grow fast), and civilian small starships only need 1t.

Sensors also have a hull surface requirement. It is possible or likely that sensors are therefore not part of the cockpit, even though they're part of the bridge.

Computers are rated by the number of processes they can run, and most small starships appear to require a Model/3. The Model/3 is significantly less than 1 ton.

Sensors are "standard" at 1t. A couple of TLs past "Standard" and they shrink in size and cost while improving their accuracy. At TLs below "Standard" they grow in size and cost and lose accuracy. Improving or degrading range increases or decreases size and cost.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi...

Hi,

Although I haven't played Traveller in a while, I've really enjoyed these forums since I first ran across them a couple months ago. When I did play, the ship design stuff was one of my favorite parts. All the discussions I've come across on ship design on these forums have been really interesting and informative and have reminded my of alot of the discussion my friends and I used to have when we played.

When I played we used the 1st edition of CT where it indicated under the heading for Bridges that starships would have to allocate 20dt for Basic Controls, which included stuff like radars, machinery controls, communications equipment, and other stuff that might be required for ship control (except computers). As such I would end up drawing the bridge just about any size that seemed reasonable (with maybe an adjacent avionics bay or something similar) and then assume that some of the rest of the space might be included as a machinery control space or maybe as part of some maneuvering thrusters throughout the ship (like on the space shuttle). As such 20dt didn't seem too much space to me at the time.

One thing my friends and I were never really sure of was whether a ship's gunners would be located at the turrets or whether there should be someone on the bridge controlling the weaponry (kind of like in Star Trek). Anyway as a compromise, one thing that I would do was to make sure that there would be space for fitting a weapon control station on the bridge if the owner were to want one. I see however that later versions of CT and High Guard, etc appear to suggest that on a starship's the bridge itself is a minumum of 20dt (if I am understanding correctly). As such I can see how some may feel that this much space may perhaps be a bit large for some ships.

However, if I am understanding correctly in T5 there are a couple different allowable bridge sizes (down to I think 10dt) and this space includes allowance for equipment racks for the ship's sensors, communications equipment, computer and other such stuff. A couple things I think that may be included on a ship's bridge that may consume some space may be stuff like a large viewing screen (kind of like in Star Trek) and maybe something like a holographic map/chart table or something similar. As such, T5 bridge spaces don't necessarily seem too big to me right now.

Anyway, while I'm thinking about it, over the years I have collected some data on things related to ocean going ship design, modern aircraft design, and other similar things that may be of interest to anyone trying to do their own bridge layouts.

In addition to some of the data on ocean-going ships that I have posted on previously, in the book "Aircraft Conceptual Design Synthesis" it suggests that a minimum length for a pilot/co-pilot crew space on an airplane of 1.3m long (or about 1 deck space square), but that this may be reduced to 1.1m if the crew member does not require flying controls. Additionally, in the book "Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design" it recommends an average total length for a flight deck for a long haul transport aircraft of about 150inches on average or about 3.8m (or about 2.5 deck squares) however this does not appear to include any avionics bays, etc.

Anyway, just some info and thoughts I wanted to share.

Regards

PF

 

[robject]

Thanks PF; more research is always good to have.


More info on the ship's computer. In T5, it's a network of components, rated together as a "computer". So your jump drive has a computer with a small number of processes, which is integral to the jump drive.

 

[atpollard]

Setting aside the question of exactly how large a workstation or bridge should be, the basic flaw with any system of fixed bridge sizes but variable crew requirements can be illustrated as follows: Assume each crew member/work station requires 10% of the bridge and the remaining tonnage is used for ‘equipment’. (the exact percentage is unimportant, just notice the tradeoff between crew and other)

Now examine several ships.

Micro Merchant = 100 dTon, crew 1; The bridge is 10% crew and 90% equipment
Small Merchant = 200 dTon, crew 2; The bridge is 20% crew and 80% equipment
Large Merchant = 400 dTon, crew 3; The bridge is 30% crew and 70% equipment
Super Merchant = 1000 dTon, crew 10; The bridge is 100% crew and 0% equipment

If all of these ‘bridge tonnages’ are 10 dTons or 20 dTons, then why does a Micro Merchant require so much more ‘equipment’ than a Large Merchant? If the bridge tonnage is a fixed value, then the logical conclusion is that all ships require the same amount of control. The logical consequence of this is that any of the bridge crews could work on any ship with the tradeoff being between Crewmen vs automated controls.

Thus the 20 dton bridge with a ‘pilot only’ like B2 requires for a scout ship, would have the ‘pilot’ acting as the ship commander with near total automation of all of the essential bridge systems (helmsmen, navigation, sensors, communication, etc.).

The 20 dton bridge with 10 crewmen like a 1000 dTon ship requires in CT, would have a room full of crewmen with no automation of any of the essential bridge systems (helmsmen, navigation, sensors, communication, etc.).

If all ships require the same bridge tonnage, then this is a design choice that should be based on FUNCTION rather than SIZE. All Warships should have large bridge crews for optimum flexibility. All freighters should have small bridge crews for maximum economy.

Conversely, if the crew requirements are based on ship size, then the bridge size must also be based on Ship or Crew size with no ‘one-size-fits-all’.

Either a “fixed crew/fixed bridge” or a “variable crew/variable bridge” will work, the mixing of the two for “variable crew/fixed bridge” creates either large empty spaces with no logical function, or disappearing equipment on large ships. THAT DOES NOT WORK.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

At the risk of running further off track and just for the sake of conversation, let’s compare 100 dTon through 400 dTon commercial ships.

What is your* logic for how many bridge stations a ship needs?

Is there any difference between the Pilot’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Navigator’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Engineer’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Sensor Tech’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Communication Officer’s workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Is there any difference between the Life Support workstation on a 100 vs 400 dTon ship?
Would any of these be different for a 1000 dt freighter?

[* ‘your’ is not directed specifically at anyone but is an open invitation to share opinions.]

For ME,
I like to use 2dt of bridge and 1 required Crew member per 100 dTons of ship. I chose to place more emphasis on the ‘bridge = 2%’ rule than the 20 dt minimum size since none of the CT ships I ever saw had a big 20 dt bridge area on the deck plan.

When designing actual plans, I create a ‘workstation’ for each basic ship function and let the crew jump from station to station. For a small ship, each ‘station’ might be a single panel with the ‘pilot’ able to reach 3 stations at his finger tips and quickly jump to cover 2 more.

Don't forget, at TL10+ controls are dynamic and can be reconfigured to perform any function - a pilot's workstation from a 100dt ship could function as a sensor/commo w/s from a 1000dt ship.

Small ships will only need one or two bridge crew (pilot & astrogator); I always install at least 2 w/s. Larger ships will need more, but it can vary enormously.

 

[atpollard]

Larger ships will need more, but it can vary enormously.

Why do larger starships need more bridge crew?

Larger Sailing ships need more crew to handle more sails, but that isn't applicable.

Does a 747 or the new Super Airbus need 5x as many 'Pilots' (as opposed to servers) as an airliner with 1/5 as many passenger seats?

Merchant cargo ships all seem to require about the same TOTAL crew even though the ship size varies by a factor of 10 in some cases?

Why can't the bridge of a 1000 dTon freighter have 2 seats like a scout? Sure it might need a lot more Engineers to maintain the bigger engines, but does it really need a larger bridge crew? In other words, why is the scout pilot able to call the tower himself, while the Freighter needs a communications officer (or two)?

 

[aramis]

ATP:

Why does a Cessna need only one creman, but a 727 needs 3 (P, CP, FltEng), and the 747 used to have 4 (P, CP, Nav, FltE)

I suspect the issue for the smaller craft isn't fewer creman needed*, but more skilled crewmen required due to smaller space available, and fewer displays needing monitoring.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Why do larger starships need more bridge crew?

Larger Sailing ships need more crew to handle more sails, but that isn't applicable.

Does a 747 or the new Super Airbus need 5x as many 'Pilots' (as opposed to servers) as an airliner with 1/5 as many passenger seats?

Merchant cargo ships all seem to require about the same TOTAL crew even though the ship size varies by a factor of 10 in some cases?

Why can't the bridge of a 1000 dTon freighter have 2 seats like a scout? Sure it might need a lot more Engineers to maintain the bigger engines, but does it really need a larger bridge crew? In other words, why is the scout pilot able to call the tower himself, while the Freighter needs a communications officer (or two)?

Just because one person *could* run the bridge of a 1000dt freighter doesn't mean it's a good idea. Few people are multi-skilled enough for a start, and it would be slow, stressful, and dangerous...which is why it's against Imperial law.

On a big ship, it's sensible to have dedicated sensors, engineering, etc bridge crew (it's not like you're short of space), and then you need a Captain and probably an XO.

On a small ship, the bridge crew control the ship. On big ones, you need extra ones to control the *people*.

 

[atpollard]

The 11 metric ton DC3 (1940) had a crew of 2.
The 49 to 85 metric ton 737s have a crew of 2.
The 364 metric ton 747 Large Cargo Freighter has a crew of 2.

Under Traveller’s logic, if the DC3 had a crew of 2, then the 737 should have a crew of 4 to 8 and the 747LCF should have a crew of 33 (including administrators due to the large crew size).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_DC-3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737#Specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747_Large_Cargo_Freighter

For what it is worth, I understand that the idea that ‘Big Ships have Big Crews’ and ‘Little Ships have Little Crews’ makes perfect sense. I am only pointing out that the reality (at least for Aircraft and Ships) disagrees with that logic. If it requires a Pilot to fly the starship and a Navigator to plot a Jump Course and an Engineer to monitor the systems, then ALL starships should have that requirement from 100 dTons to 1000 dTons.

The basic ship function could easily alter the crew requirements. A Cruise Ship needs a much bigger crew than a Cargo Ship which might need a larger crew than a Bulk Tanker, but that has more to do with the safety factor based on the ‘value’ of the cargo. So for Starships, a Bulk Ore carrier might only require a crew of 1, while Containerized Cargo carrier might require a minimum crew of 3 and a Passenger liner might require a minimum crew of 5 – but that should apply whether it is a 200 dTon Starship or an 800 dTon Starship.

 

[PFVA63]

Some Bridge Sketches

Hi,

Below are are some sketches of a couple bridge concepts that I've been thinking about. The one on the right is from a Merchant Ship Design I had drawn up based on the GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars (GT:IW) rules. In the GT:IW book it gives several alternate bridge sizes, and the Standard Bridge size is listed as being 2.5dt in size and is supposed to have "five crew stations and plenty of walking around room".

When I drew it I made it just a little than 6 deck grid squares (which is nominally 3dt) since I figured that the deck height in way of the bridge might not be the full 3m (10ft) in height. However, when I drew it up the available space looked kind of tight to me, so that I ended up only drawing in 3 crew stations. Anyway, my thinking on T5 would be that if they allowed a 2.5 to 3 dt cockpit it might look something similar.

The figure on the left though, shows some thoughts I had for a 20dt Standard Size Bridge using the T5 Rules (as best as I understand them). In putting this figure together I ended up making the chairs wider based on a couple other comments I had seen in this thread about the possible need to operate the ship while wearing a space suit. The original chairs I had drawn had a seat of only about 15inches wide based on some stuff I had seen for seats on sea-going vessels. Based on a couple sketches I had seen on the command chairs on the space shuttle (where I believe that the crews wear space suits during launch) I increased the seat width to about 24inches.

Anyway, along the front of the space I put some space (equal to about 1dt) for a large view screen. Along both sides of the space I put space for two 1dt sized equipment racks for the electronics for the ships comms and sensors, etc. Additionally, there are also two spaces aft for a "server room" type space for some of the computer equipment and another 1dt space for more electronics equipment. Totalled together if you count the forward view screen this should give the bridge a total of 6 1dt spaces for equipment racks which I think is what RObject has indicated a 20dt Standard T5 Bridge would have.

The three crew spaces shown include stations for a Pilot, Astrogator, and Engineer, with a large empty space in the aft right hand (starboard side) corner for an additional station for a gunner if any weaponry is carried. Alternately, the bridge could be re-arranged a little to instead incorporate a break area (with a coffee machine), storage for emergency equipment and Vacc Suits, or some other type arrangement in that space. I also tried to make sure there was a fair amount of space in way of the equipment racks and around the crew stations etc for access and servicing.

As such, looking at sketches like this is part of the reason why I'm OK with the current bridge sizes that have been discussed for T5.

Anyway, just some thoughts I thought I'd share.

Regards

PF

 

[Ishmael]

I don't think using aircraft for this is a good example.
Bigger airplanes don't need bigger crews to 'operate', but then again, modern big aircraft have power assisted controls that a cessna probably doesn't have. Without those, could a single person move such large control surfaces in filight. That would be a crew multiplier, surely.
Also, a pilot/co-pilot will not be doing any maintainence/upkeep to speak of, compared to a Traveller j-ship merchant or a tech 7 sea-going container ship.
( but that might be normal for a player group to spend no appreciable time chipping paint, polishing brass, greasing machinery, etc.)

Maybe the crew numbers should increase as a square root of ship volume or something? ...not increase linearly with ship volume.
I think ocean going ships is a better model.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Total crew can vary hugely, but even a large shp is unlikely to have have a bridge crew of more than 6.

 

[aramis]

Military crews can often have a dozen.

But that's due to specialization and redundancy.

Each watch, you have a man on QM duty, a man on the helm, a man on the coms, a man on the radar, a man on the sonar, and a gunnery coordinator, plus the Officer of the Watch, and sometimes a marine or two, and sometimes a runner or two.

Plus you have bridge lookouts at times.

Plus the CIC, with more of the same.

Some have dual helms (boomers and the nuclear hunters usually show both sides of the helm manned... redundancy... when being filmed), a watch officer, a couple sonar techs, a missile tech, a torpedoman, and a QM/navigator, plus a station for an engineering rating to keep the bridge aprised; I've seen that manned and not on the documentaries. Or, more correctly, I presume that's the station that the Nuclear Boiler Tech is working...