pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
Love the TO&E chart. If this is done for every ship class and base in the fleet, you can get an ideal manning level for the Navy, and the bottom end requirement for your Marines...
[Shipyard] 400 ton System Defense Boat
- Thread starter Major B
- Start date
Thank you.
I find the "realism" you've applied to your design an choices behind it very refreshing. Too many of us seem to think that X always means Y, that there would be no changes in manning, crew composition, vehicles aboard, and etc. for different missions or even at different times.
Of course, your real world military experience (like mine) might have something to do with that.
Regarding brigs, a real world example if I may...
My last ship, USS California CGN-36 was built with an honest-to-ghu, real life, two cell brig. It was a head scratcher and we chalked it up to the architect having some space in the blueprints he didn't know what to do with. We used it for general stores and had done so for as long as anyone could remember. Then on a patrol off Petropovlosk in '84, we, for reasons I won't explain, needed a brig. The stores were moved out by a working party and both cells occupied until we steamed back to CONUS.
Your SDB could very well sport a brig. That doesn't mean the crew will always use it as a brig however. Seeing that any brig space would have security "upgrades" such a space would make for a nice secondary arms locker, spirits/gedunk storage, or similar uses.
THIS.
Its a really great and well considered write-up Major. I really like the, how shall I put it, realism and utility that ACS has brought to Traveller ship design. What you get out isn't a string of numbers or capabilities applied to a back-of-the envelope deckplan but a description of something you could really go places in and have adventures. This SDB has really shown that off.
I agree with Whipsnade, cells provide good secure storage for unexpected special cargo or even just that bit of extra unassigned utility space to hang the washing up.
One thing I'm not clear on that you mentioned is the relationship between the cargo bay, the cargo lock and the hanger. I assume from your description the cargo lock is between the cargo bay and the hanger. I'm assuming the hanger can be depressurized and has its own external doors. Couldn't you do away with the cargo lock and use the hanger as a lock leading to the cargo bay? Or is there a reason why you want to be able to lock out 2tons at a time into a depressurized hanger?
Major B
SOC-14 1K
I don't know the official answer but I can relate what I was assuming when I put that note in.
I don't think the two tons for the cargo lock is the space between the outer and inner door. It really doesn't allow much space for cargo and a lot of time would be wasted cycling the lock.
I think the two tons is in small part the door operating mechanism(s) but mostly it is a tank to hold (compressed) the atmosphere drawn from the space you are about to open to vacuum. It would be wasteful to vent all of the atmosphere out every time you open the doors and would put extra strain on the life support system to regenerate the air supply.
Since the hangar has no cost, I think it just represents the free volume around the carried craft that allows the pilot to bring it in and set it down onto the deck. Installing the cargo lock should provide two large doors. On the deckplan, I'll put one on the outer hull to provide access from outside into the hangar (I assume it is big enough for the gig). The other door will be situated between the hangar and the cargo bay. That makes the hangar serve double duty as a big air lock.
If you're curious about the four smaller crew airlocks, I have one in mind to be placed aft center to link to the matching airlock on the jump shuttle. Two others provide crew egress, maybe both topside as in the deckplan from S7 but I think one dorsal and one ventral (that one having handholds along the side of the landing gear so crew can climb down to the surface) is better. The last will provide personnel access between the hangar and cargo bay without having to use the big door (and allowing access when the hangar is unpressurized).
I see what you're saying but I can see it being a little difficult to implement in the way you envisage if you were to allow any size of door.
Let me present how I think its supposed to work.
First of all the normal personnel Airlock is 0.5tons which equals 1 deck square. Thats a nice easy object to depict on a deckplan. It probably uses irises although swinging pressure hatches are easy enough to account for. Generally it allows one person to step inside, cycle the airlock and exit.
Now the listed Cargo Lock is 2tons which equals 4 deck squares. again thats a nice easy box to represent on the deckplan. It will be 3m wide, 3m deep and 3m high (decks and ceilings ignored, which might be ok for cargo spaces). It can probably accommodate 4 people without crowding.
Now check the Shipping Containers. they come in 1ton, 3ton, 5ton and 10ton standard sizes. Elsewhere (The Ton and VehicleMaker) there are examples of containers which are given standard measurements of 3m wide and 3m high per ton. The 1ton container will be 3m wide, 3m high and 1.5m deep and occupy 2 deck squares.
You could cycle two 1ton containers through a 2ton Cargo Lock. Double the size of the Cargo Lock to 4tons, the height and width remain the same but it's now 6m deep and covers 8 deck squares allowing you to cycle the Standard 3ton Container with space to spare. A 6ton Cargo Lock would cover 12 deck squares and cycle a Standard 5ton Container with space to spare. The 10ton Large Cargo Lock can cycle multiple smaller Containers or a single 10ton Container. If you look at the other items on the Specialized Payload Tonnage table I think they can all be stacked in the same fashion to handle bigger amounts/volumes. So you could build a 20ton Cargo Lock by stacking two 10ton Cargo Locks
For the deeper Cargo Locks you could place the long side of the lock against the hull.
In the equipment chapter p620 contains information on the price and capabilities of Hatches and Iris valves. Airlocks are covered on pp6627-628.
The Vehicle Lock sits between the cargo Lock and Large Cargo Lock at 4tons so you might rule that my idea of stacking doesn't work and only 0.5, 2, 4, and 10ton displacements are available or perhaps the Vehicle Lock is fitted with cradles or arrester hooks specially for Vehicle use.
My 2Cr, draw it out and see if it appeals to you. For me it does away with the uncertainty of how much volume a 2ton Lock could cater for in your usage.
Let me present how I think its supposed to work.
First of all the normal personnel Airlock is 0.5tons which equals 1 deck square. Thats a nice easy object to depict on a deckplan. It probably uses irises although swinging pressure hatches are easy enough to account for. Generally it allows one person to step inside, cycle the airlock and exit.
Now the listed Cargo Lock is 2tons which equals 4 deck squares. again thats a nice easy box to represent on the deckplan. It will be 3m wide, 3m deep and 3m high (decks and ceilings ignored, which might be ok for cargo spaces). It can probably accommodate 4 people without crowding.
Now check the Shipping Containers. they come in 1ton, 3ton, 5ton and 10ton standard sizes. Elsewhere (The Ton and VehicleMaker) there are examples of containers which are given standard measurements of 3m wide and 3m high per ton. The 1ton container will be 3m wide, 3m high and 1.5m deep and occupy 2 deck squares.
You could cycle two 1ton containers through a 2ton Cargo Lock. Double the size of the Cargo Lock to 4tons, the height and width remain the same but it's now 6m deep and covers 8 deck squares allowing you to cycle the Standard 3ton Container with space to spare. A 6ton Cargo Lock would cover 12 deck squares and cycle a Standard 5ton Container with space to spare. The 10ton Large Cargo Lock can cycle multiple smaller Containers or a single 10ton Container. If you look at the other items on the Specialized Payload Tonnage table I think they can all be stacked in the same fashion to handle bigger amounts/volumes. So you could build a 20ton Cargo Lock by stacking two 10ton Cargo Locks
For the deeper Cargo Locks you could place the long side of the lock against the hull.
In the equipment chapter p620 contains information on the price and capabilities of Hatches and Iris valves. Airlocks are covered on pp6627-628.
The Vehicle Lock sits between the cargo Lock and Large Cargo Lock at 4tons so you might rule that my idea of stacking doesn't work and only 0.5, 2, 4, and 10ton displacements are available or perhaps the Vehicle Lock is fitted with cradles or arrester hooks specially for Vehicle use.
My 2Cr, draw it out and see if it appeals to you. For me it does away with the uncertainty of how much volume a 2ton Lock could cater for in your usage.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Great point - somewhere I learned that a standard shipping container was four tons and haven't unlearned it yet.
Ah, another bit I haven't discovered yet. Now I know what part I'll be reading tonight. Thanks!
Thank you Major B for your impressively thought out and written documentation. I've enjoyed it both as a player and as a reader of science fiction.
I agree that there needs to be variants with Marines vs. no boarding party, gig vs. air raft vs extra cargo space.
I agree that there needs to be variants with Marines vs. no boarding party, gig vs. air raft vs extra cargo space.
The Traveller Adventure, in the writeup of the March Harrier.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Adjustments
Thanks everyone for all of the feedback. I really appreciate it. I’ve been working over the weekend on the Gig and the Jump Shuttle designs. I’ll post them after I do a final recap of the boat itself.
But before I post a final recap, I’d like to gather feedback on a few adjustments – some new ideas some because I’ve discovered new stuff in the rules and some based on the feedback so far.
Here are the ideas – please let me know what you think:
1. I think another control console is needed. Currently two consoles control three batteries (missile, laser, and nuclear damper).
2. I should increase the crew by one (to 16) to man the additional gunnery console. He’ll need 5 tons of living space too. I already have enough life support capacity for one more though any more additions will reduce the number allowed in the brig without shortening available life support duration. Even then, with the extended life support installed, this isn’t a worry.
3. I need to increase the emergency low berths to accommodate the full crew since the capacity for each is 4 rather than 10.
4. The low berths are installed after figuring controls but I would think they should have control panels and require operator inputs. I’ll map them to the medical console since I already have that installed, and put the low berths next to the clinic on the deck plan. I also need to review the options on page 625 to see if any adjustments or potential stage effects will modify the final component statistics.
5. To incorporate the crewing flexibility suggested by Whipsnade and others, I should eliminate the barracks and build in crew staterooms for everyone. I’m assuming that marines can life in barracks or staterooms but Navy crew have to be in staterooms. The brig & central security desk should be able to incorporate any features that a barracks would have provided over and above simply a place to sleep.
6. Should the security station / brig have a console?
7. Similar to #4 – the air locks should have controls too. If the answer to #6 is yes, then the air locks should be mapped to that console along with the brig. This doesn’t mean the air locks can’t be operated at the door. This allows the security desk officer (Steward when there are no marines aboard) to lock them, operate them remotely, or just get a warning message when one is in use.
8. The counseling operating console can be reduced to a workstation since it really doesn’t control anything.
9. I’d like to separate functions when figuring ergonomics. Using the rules as stated, the counseling console has to be roomy along with the rest to get a decent ergonomics rating, but that console has nothing to do with ship functions. It is only used on an as-needed basis by the crew. Ergonomics for the bridge, engineering, and other minor functions should be determined separately.
10. Related to #5 – I need to adjust the crew diagram for the added crewmember, and build the alternate crew diagram showing a full crew with no marines.
11. I need to adjust my description of the cargo lock based on discussion in this thread.
12. I need to study the stage effects for computers and consoles and incorporate them properly (pages 515-520).
13. I need to check the descriptions of power supplies on page 624 to see if this solves what I think I’m missing when it comes to distributed power. I know that central power requires double the normal P-Plant fuel but I do not know the penalty associated with choosing distributed power. Page 378 does provide volume costs for fuel cells, but not for the other potential sources of distributed power (power cells or fusion plus). Whatever the answer is, I think I need to allocate some tonnage to other power sources. What I did learn from page 624 is that FusionPlus is standard at TL14 so I will probably be using either power cells (volume TBD) or fuel cells (1 ton per compartment or 11* tons per 10 weeks) in the SDB.
A 400-ton hull has 11 compartments each of 35 tons according to the table on page 353.
Any thoughts on these items or others that I haven’t thought of?
Thanks everyone for all of the feedback. I really appreciate it. I’ve been working over the weekend on the Gig and the Jump Shuttle designs. I’ll post them after I do a final recap of the boat itself.
But before I post a final recap, I’d like to gather feedback on a few adjustments – some new ideas some because I’ve discovered new stuff in the rules and some based on the feedback so far.
Here are the ideas – please let me know what you think:
1. I think another control console is needed. Currently two consoles control three batteries (missile, laser, and nuclear damper).
2. I should increase the crew by one (to 16) to man the additional gunnery console. He’ll need 5 tons of living space too. I already have enough life support capacity for one more though any more additions will reduce the number allowed in the brig without shortening available life support duration. Even then, with the extended life support installed, this isn’t a worry.
3. I need to increase the emergency low berths to accommodate the full crew since the capacity for each is 4 rather than 10.
4. The low berths are installed after figuring controls but I would think they should have control panels and require operator inputs. I’ll map them to the medical console since I already have that installed, and put the low berths next to the clinic on the deck plan. I also need to review the options on page 625 to see if any adjustments or potential stage effects will modify the final component statistics.
5. To incorporate the crewing flexibility suggested by Whipsnade and others, I should eliminate the barracks and build in crew staterooms for everyone. I’m assuming that marines can life in barracks or staterooms but Navy crew have to be in staterooms. The brig & central security desk should be able to incorporate any features that a barracks would have provided over and above simply a place to sleep.
6. Should the security station / brig have a console?
7. Similar to #4 – the air locks should have controls too. If the answer to #6 is yes, then the air locks should be mapped to that console along with the brig. This doesn’t mean the air locks can’t be operated at the door. This allows the security desk officer (Steward when there are no marines aboard) to lock them, operate them remotely, or just get a warning message when one is in use.
8. The counseling operating console can be reduced to a workstation since it really doesn’t control anything.
9. I’d like to separate functions when figuring ergonomics. Using the rules as stated, the counseling console has to be roomy along with the rest to get a decent ergonomics rating, but that console has nothing to do with ship functions. It is only used on an as-needed basis by the crew. Ergonomics for the bridge, engineering, and other minor functions should be determined separately.
10. Related to #5 – I need to adjust the crew diagram for the added crewmember, and build the alternate crew diagram showing a full crew with no marines.
11. I need to adjust my description of the cargo lock based on discussion in this thread.
12. I need to study the stage effects for computers and consoles and incorporate them properly (pages 515-520).
13. I need to check the descriptions of power supplies on page 624 to see if this solves what I think I’m missing when it comes to distributed power. I know that central power requires double the normal P-Plant fuel but I do not know the penalty associated with choosing distributed power. Page 378 does provide volume costs for fuel cells, but not for the other potential sources of distributed power (power cells or fusion plus). Whatever the answer is, I think I need to allocate some tonnage to other power sources. What I did learn from page 624 is that FusionPlus is standard at TL14 so I will probably be using either power cells (volume TBD) or fuel cells (1 ton per compartment or 11* tons per 10 weeks) in the SDB.
A 400-ton hull has 11 compartments each of 35 tons according to the table on page 353.
Any thoughts on these items or others that I haven’t thought of?
Spaceresearcher
SOC-12
Wow, such detail, it's great to see such passion. I keep wondering about the early days when ships must have been a case of:
Righty oh, it's a big black beauty of about 200 Tons, it's got a laser and a sand caster. There's 3 main rooms(including flight deck), it's got one main computer, Jump level x, thrust level y, holds this much fuel and can hold cargo p. Done.
This is where T5 is shining like a supernova over T4. Eg, I'm sure everyone loves the Starships T4 book as much as I did after comparing it to something like 'The Starship Operators Manual' from DGP(sarcasm for those not versed with English dialogue). It really is awesome to see people designing ships of such detail and with such thought. Beautiful to see. Myself I was always astonished that someone actually decided to do a deck by deck plan and layout for most of the major Traveller ships in the new Mongoose supplements. Talk about setting the bar high. But for a starship I have to agree it's worth it.
I hope you might consider doing the deck plans in the Cosmographer 3 (http://www.profantasy.com/products/cos3.asp) software Major B.
I'd love to check it out.
Righty oh, it's a big black beauty of about 200 Tons, it's got a laser and a sand caster. There's 3 main rooms(including flight deck), it's got one main computer, Jump level x, thrust level y, holds this much fuel and can hold cargo p. Done.
This is where T5 is shining like a supernova over T4. Eg, I'm sure everyone loves the Starships T4 book as much as I did after comparing it to something like 'The Starship Operators Manual' from DGP(sarcasm for those not versed with English dialogue). It really is awesome to see people designing ships of such detail and with such thought. Beautiful to see. Myself I was always astonished that someone actually decided to do a deck by deck plan and layout for most of the major Traveller ships in the new Mongoose supplements. Talk about setting the bar high. But for a starship I have to agree it's worth it.
I hope you might consider doing the deck plans in the Cosmographer 3 (http://www.profantasy.com/products/cos3.asp) software Major B.
I'd love to check it out.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
G2-2U50 Gig
Here is a quick rundown of the design for the Gig to be carried by our SDB. Before I can get into that though, I have to say thanks Robject for posting this guide to designing small craft. I would like to see that expanded into something like your other two design walkthroughs.
I started with a Pod A2 hull, unstreamlined because page 331 describes a gig’s purpose as:
I chose the smallest possible M-Drive (2 tons) and Power Plant (4 tons). I considered a G-Drive but decided on the M-Drive because the Gig has to be able to operate outside a gravity well. That and the G-Drive requires 9 tons. Looking at the drive formulae, M-Drive - A and Power Plant – A would give me a potential of 10. I share Robject’s wish for a 1/2-A drive. Well, the hull can only withstand 9G plus the limit on power plant potential at TL12 is 5 (see page 338, table at bottom of page). Therefore, I’ll assume that both of the drives are limited to a potential of 5, meaning the M-Drive at least can apply the Improved stage effect for better reliability.
Calculating fuel gives me a 1-ton requirement for a month but I choose centralized power for the gig which means the 1 ton of fuel will really last 15 days in constant use. Since the design is intended for only short-duration inter-ship transfers, this should be good enough.
For armament, I followed the discussion on fitting weapons into firmpoints on page 316. I chose a pulse laser (K) because, as a TL9 weapon, along with the -1 TL gained with the range reduction to R=6 I can apply Ultimate stage effects to the final weapon: Ult FP D (K) Pulse Laser-12 (R=6, MCr 0.6, Mod +4). And it’s inexpensive too.
I chose to install 30-day life support for ten at a cost of 1 ton and 1 MCr. It is not really required since the Gig is intended for short duration missions. Though the free 4-day short-term life support should be good enough, in the event of an emergency I want the Gig to be usable as a lifeboat. Life support for 10 crew for 30 days will support 20 crew for 15 days, which matches the craft’s fuel capacity. Now the Gig is a lifeboat that can carry the entire crew and support them (though not comfortably) for 15 days on a full tank.
Although I think the craft will normally be operated by one crewmember, I installed both a control and an operating console for times where there will be two. I used the TL stage effects described on pages 517-520 to build an Adv Command Console-9 and an Ult Operating Console-8. Although the C+S for these consoles is less than a TL-12 console, each received a positive Mod to counter and the space savings are significant. At least they are if I did it right – this thread didn’t generate a lot of feedback so I’m still not sure.
For payload, I thought a shared fresher would be nice and an airlock is essential. Both take a half ton each which leaves 9 tons for passenger seating and cargo. That is slightly better than the Gig in Supplement 9 (which is a TL13 build) so I devote 3 tons to seats and 6 to cargo.
There is nothing in payload for passenger seating so I guessed at 4 passengers per ton. I think that’s reasonable if a half ton spacer bunk can sleep 2 (page 347). I think the seats would be some sort of fold-away or fold-up design that would allow the seating space to be used for cargo when needed.
Here’s the bookkeeping:
Here is a quick rundown of the design for the Gig to be carried by our SDB. Before I can get into that though, I have to say thanks Robject for posting this guide to designing small craft. I would like to see that expanded into something like your other two design walkthroughs.
I started with a Pod A2 hull, unstreamlined because page 331 describes a gig’s purpose as:
I chose frame and plate for structure since I think it is the best protection available at TL12 and I think a craft like a Gig should be as easy to construct as possible (meaning it won’t have any experimental or early stage effect items). To finish the hull, I chose landing skids and lifters to allow it to maneuver inside the hangar without using the M-Drive. For protection I chose a single layer of Ultimate plate armor, AV-16. Although it will be armed, it is not a combat craft so the volume lost to additional armor is not worth the additional protection.T5 said:
I chose the smallest possible M-Drive (2 tons) and Power Plant (4 tons). I considered a G-Drive but decided on the M-Drive because the Gig has to be able to operate outside a gravity well. That and the G-Drive requires 9 tons. Looking at the drive formulae, M-Drive - A and Power Plant – A would give me a potential of 10. I share Robject’s wish for a 1/2-A drive. Well, the hull can only withstand 9G plus the limit on power plant potential at TL12 is 5 (see page 338, table at bottom of page). Therefore, I’ll assume that both of the drives are limited to a potential of 5, meaning the M-Drive at least can apply the Improved stage effect for better reliability.
Calculating fuel gives me a 1-ton requirement for a month but I choose centralized power for the gig which means the 1 ton of fuel will really last 15 days in constant use. Since the design is intended for only short-duration inter-ship transfers, this should be good enough.
For armament, I followed the discussion on fitting weapons into firmpoints on page 316. I chose a pulse laser (K) because, as a TL9 weapon, along with the -1 TL gained with the range reduction to R=6 I can apply Ultimate stage effects to the final weapon: Ult FP D (K) Pulse Laser-12 (R=6, MCr 0.6, Mod +4). And it’s inexpensive too.
I chose to install 30-day life support for ten at a cost of 1 ton and 1 MCr. It is not really required since the Gig is intended for short duration missions. Though the free 4-day short-term life support should be good enough, in the event of an emergency I want the Gig to be usable as a lifeboat. Life support for 10 crew for 30 days will support 20 crew for 15 days, which matches the craft’s fuel capacity. Now the Gig is a lifeboat that can carry the entire crew and support them (though not comfortably) for 15 days on a full tank.
Although I think the craft will normally be operated by one crewmember, I installed both a control and an operating console for times where there will be two. I used the TL stage effects described on pages 517-520 to build an Adv Command Console-9 and an Ult Operating Console-8. Although the C+S for these consoles is less than a TL-12 console, each received a positive Mod to counter and the space savings are significant. At least they are if I did it right – this thread didn’t generate a lot of feedback so I’m still not sure.
For payload, I thought a shared fresher would be nice and an airlock is essential. Both take a half ton each which leaves 9 tons for passenger seating and cargo. That is slightly better than the Gig in Supplement 9 (which is a TL13 build) so I devote 3 tons to seats and 6 to cargo.
There is nothing in payload for passenger seating so I guessed at 4 passengers per ton. I think that’s reasonable if a half ton spacer bunk can sleep 2 (page 347). I think the seats would be some sort of fold-away or fold-up design that would allow the seating space to be used for cargo when needed.
Here’s the bookkeeping:
Code:
[B][U][FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] Disp Component CP MCr Notes[/FONT][/FONT][/U][/B]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 20.0 Pod A2, Unstreamlined 0.8 Friction /2, 9G Max, -1 Agility[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 Structure = Frame & Plate[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 Landing Skids (tarmac landing) Standard[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 Lifters (Z) / 1 0.2 Allows limited hover and movement [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 1x Layer Ult Plate-12 (AV=16) [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -2.0 Imp M-Drive A-12 (P = 5) / 1 4.0 EP100, Efficiency 110%, Fuel 90%[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -4.0 Std P-Plant A-12 (P = 5) / 2 4.0 EP100, Efficiency 100%, Fuel 100%[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -1.0 P Plant Fuel 15 days, centralized power[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 Std Vision (portholes) R=6, Automatic (see pg. 383)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 Std Surf Vd C Communicator-8 / 1 R=7, Automatic (see pg. 383)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 Std Surf Vd R Radar-9 / 1 R=7, Automatic (see pg. 383)[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -0.5 Ult FP D (K) Pulse Laser-12 / 2 0.6 R=6, Firmpoint mount, Mod +4[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -1.0 Standard Life Support / 2 1.0 20 humans for 15 days[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -1.0 Adv Command Cons -9 (Bridge) 1 0.2 C1-C5, -3 Bulk, C+S=9, Mod +3[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -0.5 Ult Operating Cons-8 (Bridge) 2 0.2 C4 C5, -4 Bulk, C+S=8, Mod +4[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 Ult Mod 0 Comp-12 0.2 Cells=1, C+S=8, Mod +4[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -0.5 Shared Fresher 0.5[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -0.5 Air Lock 0.1[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri] -3.0 Passenger Seating 0.0 12 passenger seats[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri][FONT=Courier New][FONT=Calibri][U] -6.0[/U] Cargo Bay [U]0.0[/U][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri] 0.0 11.8 [/FONT]
Last edited:
Responding.
As far I know and right now work, Staging Effects work on Consoles, Computers, basically any Thing the same s they do for ACS Components, so to me it looks right.
I like how you to cheese the Ultimate Stage Effect for positive Mods to make up for crappy base stats.
I do so dig reading about the why as much as the how in your designs. When I was reading about the Landing Skids and Lifters I could see it floating just about a decimeter off the deck sliding around a hangar.
Excellent work, said the Lurker.
As far I know and right now work, Staging Effects work on Consoles, Computers, basically any Thing the same s they do for ACS Components, so to me it looks right.
I like how you to cheese the Ultimate Stage Effect for positive Mods to make up for crappy base stats.
I do so dig reading about the why as much as the how in your designs. When I was reading about the Landing Skids and Lifters I could see it floating just about a decimeter off the deck sliding around a hangar.
Excellent work, said the Lurker.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
Gig Deckplan
I liked the look of the artwork by Paul Jaquays in Supplement 9 and wanted to try to make the deckplan match it. It didn’t quite work out as I expected but I still like the layout the effort finally produced.
This picture shows the first and second attempts to produce a workable deckplan. There are two alternate versions of the final layout. I like version A.
While I’m still working on the final adjustments to the SDB, at least here is a look at what the final deckplans will look like:
(click for larger version)
Any comments or suggestions? Something I should have included but left out?
I liked the look of the artwork by Paul Jaquays in Supplement 9 and wanted to try to make the deckplan match it. It didn’t quite work out as I expected but I still like the layout the effort finally produced.
This picture shows the first and second attempts to produce a workable deckplan. There are two alternate versions of the final layout. I like version A.
While I’m still working on the final adjustments to the SDB, at least here is a look at what the final deckplans will look like:
(click for larger version)
Any comments or suggestions? Something I should have included but left out?
Sweet!
I think version B looks better, but I haven't looked at the art you cited.
I dig the color coded blocks for the second stage of the deckplan design process.
Again, looks good to me.
I think version B looks better, but I haven't looked at the art you cited.
I dig the color coded blocks for the second stage of the deckplan design process.
Again, looks good to me.
Very nice work, all of it. I don't have T5 yet, so can't comment on compliance, but I really like the way you explain your design process, and am looking forward to when I have the book so I can give it a go. Thanks for posting!
Vladika
SOC-14 1K
I like the design, and the thought process. One point to remember here might be the the passenger seats are NOT acceleration couches. This could be important in certain situations. Though armed, the Gig isn't a fighter, while carrying passengers at any rate.
If you have a look at VehicleMaker there are two options that you could import.
The first is a rule that allows one ton of Load to be converted to accommodations for 5 passengers. (Ref p.287 "Supply vehicles can carry passengers equal to five times cargo capacity (in tons)"). Load is cargo or passenger space measured in tons so its the same as payload in ACS. As Vladika says this isn't acceleration couches but simple seating.
The second is the "Passenger module" from p.300, which is 3tons and provides seating for 20 passengers. Cost 100KCr. I envisage this as providing low fare airline style seating, not a lot of leg room and an aisle down the middle.
Hope that helps.
Major B
SOC-14 1K
That is exactly what I was thinking and it is why I arranged the seats down the centerline facing outboard rather than facing forward. T5 does not have the inertial compensators I remember from MT so I'd think it rare for the Gig to hit maximum acceleration - probably only in an emergency. The best reason for not using acceleration couches is flexibility. I'm thinking these seats can be folded away when not is use, leaving additional room for cargo. Conversely, more seats could be installed down the centerline or the aft exterior bulkheads if needed.
That helps a lot Reban - thanks. I haven't looked very closely at Vehicle Maker yet but I will be soon. I'll adjust to 5 per ton when I finalize the design.
The passenger module doesn't sound like the right concept for this design. I agree with you that seating that dense sounds like an airliner. I was thinking more like the seats on a C-130 or maybe a C-17 is a better example (as that aircraft has actual seats rather than nylon fabric and netting). Anyway, the idea is to be able to accomodate troopers that are kitted out with armor, weapons, and gear (when necessary). They sit facing either inboard or outboard and can ground the gear like assault packs or backpack power sources on the deck in front of their seat. They will naturally be belted in so will have some protection from G-forces while the craft maneuvers to the docking point, but as Vladika points out they will not be comfortable in high-G maneuver.
I'm finishing up on the SDB and hope to post the final soon. After that the Jump Shuttle and the deckplans for both.
Inertial compensators.
While they are not specifically mentioned, if there are Lifters, Grav and Manuever Drives then I can't see a reason to assume that Inertial Compensators are not part of spacecraft at TL-9+.
Still for a military vessel to fitted as if it had no IC isn't such a bad idea, things do get broken in combat.
While they are not specifically mentioned, if there are Lifters, Grav and Manuever Drives then I can't see a reason to assume that Inertial Compensators are not part of spacecraft at TL-9+.
Still for a military vessel to fitted as if it had no IC isn't such a bad idea, things do get broken in combat.
Last edited:
In fact it says:
"Compensators
Integral to Maneuver Drives, Gravitic Drives, and Lifters are an inertial compensation component which counteracts the effects of acceleration on occupants of the ship."
Integral to Maneuver Drives, Gravitic Drives, and Lifters are an inertial compensation component which counteracts the effects of acceleration on occupants of the ship."
Ref: How Maneuver Works p.363
But you definitely do need a back-up for when the compensators or gravity dies. Good old five point harnesses and foot/toe holds would be what I'd provide for gravity failure and being thrown around. Countering g-forces has more to do with posture in relation to the force and mechanical aids like a g-suit so you either have to design seating as g-couches or equip passengers with personal equipment that includes the function of a g-suit. Does a Vacc suit do that?
Similar threads
