Size really does matter...

[Foxroe]

I know a lot of people have a hard time with starship bridges being 20 tons for ships 100dt up to 1000dt, but here's how I justify it:

LBB2/TTB defines the bridge as "basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors, and other equipment for proper operation of the ship". I've always interpreted "other equipment for proper operation of the ship" as including any equipment necessary to satisfy the purpose of the ship. Think of it as including the required "specialization" space.

So in other words scout ships need extra sensors, data banks for message traffic, surveying equipment; traders and liners need cargo handling equipment, passenger safety/amenity outfitting; yachts are replete with entertainment systems to sate nobles and their guests; warships need small arms ammo lockers, ready rooms, extra sensors; lab ships need sensitive environmental/stability control equipment to support the lab spaces; safari ships need specialized equipment to detect and support the wildlife that they capture... you get the idea.

I would think that this more than adequately "consumes" a good chunk of that 20 ton requirement, and the extra equipment isn't necessarily dependent on the size of the hull (until perhaps they get much larger).

Thoughts?

-Fox

 

[robject]

Well, I agree, but then I also hate to see ship components reduced in size because, well, this is a game and the bridge is one of those funny things that makes small starships interesting, as opposed to large starships.

At the same time, the CT deckplan of the Scout ship clearly does not have a 20 ton bridge. If you squint and tilt your head at a certain angle, perhaps the sensor room just above and behind it can be considered part of the bridge, in which case you get a little more volume. Using that kind of shenanigan you can sort of get to 10 tons without a lot of effort. Marc has allowed 10 ton bridges for very small T5 starships, so that's alright with me. At the same time, he allows ships to mount additional sensors outside the bridge, which presumably will be used to retcon the Type S Scout's "bridge space". So it will maybe have a 10 ton bridge plus 10 additional tons of fancy sensors.

Any change or non-change is bound to offend someone, so the usual mileage variance is in effect.

 

[Foxroe]

Well, IMTU, I wouldn't squint so hard. If I count up all of the squares on the Type S in Supp7, including:

- Avionics (assume only 1.5m high)
- "Bridge" (more of a cockpit really)
- Lab/Sensor/Comm space
- Forward Sensor Space (assume only 1.5m high)
- Storage Attic (assume only 1.5m high)

that looks to be about 18dt -- pretty close to 20dt. If I assume some entertainment equipment has been installed in the Common Area to allow Scouts to while away the long hours on missions, that could account for the other 2 tons... but that would be one helluva Playstation!

-Fox

 

[atpollard]

I would think that this more than adequately "consumes" a good chunk of that 20 ton requirement, and the extra equipment isn't necessarily dependent on the size of the hull (until perhaps they get much larger).

Thoughts?

-Fox

That works to explain why 100 dTon ships need 20 dTon Bridges, but why do larger ships need progressively less extra equipment?

Why do large ships gut 'vital' equipment to make room for more crew stations? (at least until you get over 1000 dTons, where you add bureaucrats and bridge tonnage.)

Do all 100 dTon Merchant ships require smaller bridges or do they get the improved Scout sensors, too?

 

[dean]

...but why do larger ships need progressively less extra equipment?

Economies of scale?

Happy Travelling!

 

[Foxroe]

That works to explain why 100 dTon ships need 20 dTon Bridges, but why do larger ships need progressively less extra equipment?

Why do large ships gut 'vital' equipment to make room for more crew stations? (at least until you get over 1000 dTons, where you add bureaucrats and bridge tonnage.)

Here's how I look at it: regardless of how small a starship is, a certain critical minimum displacement of equipment necessary to safely operate the ship is reached. As the ship design gets larger, there is a point when this is no longer good enough (1000 tons), and the subsystems must expand in displacement to meet the necessary operational requirements. Control functions need more instrumentation, the ship's locker needs to be bigger to accommodate more vacc suits and survival equipment, the sick bay needs to be larger to accommodate more crew, more cargo handling equipment needs to be added to cover larger holds, etc. Sure, some specific ship functions may top out at a maximum volume (sensors maybe?), but other functions will keep expanding. But on the low end, all of these functions reach an absolute minimum volume, all of which combine to make one absolute minimum total volume. For purposes of simplicity in the game design, this total is about 20 tons.

Example (and keep in mind that I'm just throwing up numbers here): A 200-ton passenger carrying merchant vessel may need 4dt for the "bridge" proper, 2 tons for sensors, 2 tons for avionics, a 2-ton ship's locker, a 3-ton sick bay to accommodate ill or injured passengers, a passenger lounge of 4 tons, and 3 tons in cargo handling equipment; a total of 20 tons. The 4-ton bridge would be the absolute minimum to safely guide/control a starship (even if it were upwards of 1000 tons). The same applies to all of the other functions; they're the bare minimum. When a ship reaches 1000 tons, the bridge might need another control station, the ship's locker is starting to burst with equipment, sick bay needs another ICU berth, the passenger lounge is getting a bit cramped... you get the idea. One could certainly make the "bridge" space bigger before the 1000-ton break-point if they desired. Examples of this can be seen in designs that allocate more space to labs, capture tanks, etc.

Do all 100 dTon Merchant ships require smaller bridges or do they get the improved Scout sensors, too?

Merchants wouldn't have the extra sensor/lab suite that scouts of the same displacement have. They would instead have extra equipment pertinent to functioning as a trading vessel (i.e. more cargo cranes, passenger amenities, etc.).

Hey, I admit that this is a lot of hand-waving, but I don't think that it's unreasonable hand-waving.

-Fox

 

[Anthony]

It's not unreasonable to set the bridge volume to some fixed value plus some percentage of ship's mass. The problem is mostly that 20 dtons is an enormous amount of space for equipment, because the dton itself is very large. You could have about a hundred people working in a 20 dton space, though 20-50 is more likely. For comparison, the space shuttle plans can be found off of http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/vehicle/index.html. The entire cabin area (not just the cockpit) appears to be 20-25 square meters, with a total volume of about 5 dtons.

 

[Foxroe]

It's not unreasonable to set the bridge volume to some fixed value plus some percentage of ship's mass. The problem is mostly that 20 dtons is an enormous amount of space for equipment, because the dton itself is very large. You could have about a hundred people working in a 20 dton space, though 20-50 is more likely. For comparison, the space shuttle plans can be found off of http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/vehicle/index.html. The entire cabin area (not just the cockpit) appears to be 20-25 square meters, with a total volume of about 5 dtons.

But the space shuttle isn't jump-capable. I would consider it more like a small-craft, and small-craft don’t require a 20dt bridge.

And the 20dt isn't empty space, it's a mix of space and equipment. I would even say more equipment than space.

A starship is a huge, complex vessel that needs to endure the unrelenting harshness of space. Who knows what systems would be required to control entry into and exit out of J-space? Who knows what technologies will be required to safely navigate the dangerous and inky voids of space? I certainly don't, but I just can't believe that these systems and technologies will be small potatoes. Sometimes I can't help but think that 20dt isn't enough "bridge" to support a starship!

(Edit: Thanks for the link BTW. Very cool! )

-Fox

 

[Plankowner]

Don't forget landing gear, airlocks, cargo bay doors, wings and control surfaces etc. Airlocks can only be so small. Landing gear will have some minimum volume (gotta conceal it while in flight for that streamlined look...)

 

[Supplement Four]

I agree. I've never had a problem with bridge sizes in CT. The rules are clear that we're not just talking about the bridge--but a bunch of other stuff as well. Sensors. Integrated computer systems. Not only the equipment for the bridge but all the other "other" stuff combined. In aggregate, it adds up.

The bridge is a bit of a "catch all" for all the little systems that aren't addressed in the rules.

I've always seen it that way, and I've never quite understood the problem with the bridges some people seem to have.

Same thing with the ship's computer. I don't see it as a huge, room sized, super-computer. I see it as a combination of systems linked throughout the ship. The "computer" space, typically close to the bridge, is the communications and sensors room with interfaces and such. It can also hold coolant, hard ware, hard drives, spare parts, etc for all the ship's computer systems.

 

[Foxroe]

Same thing with the ship's computer. I don't see it as a huge, room sized, super-computer. I see it as a combination of systems linked throughout the ship. The "computer" space, typically close to the bridge, is the communications and sensors room with interfaces and such. It can also hold coolant, hard ware, hard drives, spare parts, etc for all the ship's computer systems.

Your description reminds me of the shipboard computer in the movie "Sunshine". Swanky!

-Fox

 

[PFVA63]

Computer Rooms

Hi,

I hope I'm not getting too off track here, but with regards to computers, my thinking lately has been that even if we are talking about a distibuted network instead of just a large room sized super computer, you probably would still need some sort of large air-conditioned server room which may also include an Uninterruptible Power Supply and other similar stuff. As such, I don't really have any problems with the large computer spaces in CT type ships either.

Regards

PF

 

[atpollard]

I agree. I've never had a problem with bridge sizes in CT ... [snip] ... I've never quite understood the problem with the bridges some people seem to have.

My biggest 'problem' with all of the ship design rules is the almost impossible task of finding an Official Deckplan that follows them. The rules never seem to have applied to the Staff.

 

[Icosahedron]

Maybe the deckplans predated the rules?

I generally ignore the Official Deckplans and design my own ships anyway. There are few enough official deckplans that you don't lose out on much.

 

[Supplement Four]

My biggest 'problem' with all of the ship design rules is the almost impossible task of finding an Official Deckplan that follows them. The rules never seem to have applied to the Staff.

Agreed. That always sucks. If I reverse engineer a set of deckplans, then, dammit, they better fall in-line with the design system that was supposedly used to design them.

It wasn't that long ago that I reverse engineered the deckplans for the Far Trader. Deckplans show a 400 ton vessel where the A2 is decribed as a 200 ton ship.

Bothers me to no end.

 

[Supplement Four]

Maybe the deckplans predated the rules?

There are few enough official deckplans that you don't lose out on much.

?

There's pretty much a set of official deck plans for every official design.

 

[aramis]

Hardly, S4...

Most of Sup9 ship's lack deckplans. They constitute almost half the designs in CT canon.

 

[far-trader]

We are wandering a bit off topic but...

Hardly, S4...

Most of Sup9 ship's lack deckplans. They constitute almost half the designs in CT canon.

...care to make deckplans for a Tigress aramis :smirk:

Besides, as I recall trying to reverse engineer the big ship designs, several of the behemoths don't come out right. Not saying they were designed wrongly but it could be certain things were omitted from the writeups or they were done with an early draft of HG.

Ignoring the (largely) pointless exercise of deckplans for any ship over 5000tons let's qualify S4's statement to 'most useful CT canon ships' do have deckplans. Useful being ships that PCs are likely to have, use and encounter at a level where deckplans are helpful.

By the way, has anyone ever checked the deckplans for the Azhanti for accuracy? I haven't and I don't know why it's never occurred to me before now. There's no good reason to bother, which may be why it never even crossed my mind, but now I'm curious. I'd just rather not do it, if it's been done. Sounds like a terrible bore, and a pointless exercise. Besides I'd be surprised if it even comes out even close.

 

[Foxroe]

Freelance artists are often more concerned about deadlines and presentation than satisfying the rules of an RPG (unless they're fans themselves!). The credits for Supplement 7 indicate that the deckplans were done by Chris Purcell. Did he work directly for GDW or was he contracted? Did he do ALL of the deckplans for every CT publication?

As far as the "official" deckplans are concerned, I always considered them more of a guideline than an absolute; sort of a TU's artist's conception of the actual ship. I spent several years on LA-class attack boats, and I always chuckle when I see "official" plans or cut-away drawings of a 688... they're usually not even close. Not to mention, even official Navy sources had a hard time keeping up with correct drawings. Often the shipyards took minor liberties when it came to interior construction, and last minute equipment changes necessitated rearranging the localized interior layout. The only way to know what any particular boat "truly" looked like inside, was to look at the updated blueprints for that hull number, of which there were very few closely guarded and classified copies. So, I always looked at the Traveller deckplans as approximate interpretations, and I would generate my own plans that mirrored the general arrangement, but were closer to proper design values.

And now that we are completely off the subject ... I see that the credits mention that there is a substantially different CE in JTAS#4. How different was it? Was this the original design, or is the Supp7 design the original?

-Fox

 

[Supplement Four]

Ignoring the (largely) pointless exercise of deckplans for any ship over 5000tons let's qualify S4's statement to 'most useful CT canon ships' do have deckplans. Useful being ships that PCs are likely to have, use and encounter at a level where deckplans are helpful.

Wot me mate said.

By the way, has anyone ever checked the deckplans for the Azhanti for accuracy? I haven't and I don't know why it's never occurred to me before now. There's no good reason to bother, which may be why it never even crossed my mind, but now I'm curious. I'd just rather not do it, if it's been done. Sounds like a terrible bore, and a pointless exercise. Besides I'd be surprised if it even comes out even close.

I've seen the AHL in electronic format. I wonder if it would somehow be easy to just "count squares" using the computer rather than by hand.