Traveller-esque Ship

[Supplement Four]

No stats. Found the image on the net. I think it makes for a nice fit in the Traveller universe.

Maybe someone wants to play around and slap some stats on it?

CLICK HERE TO SEE SHIP

 

[Supplement Four]

I think I'd make this a pretty good-sized vessel. See that dark strip around the boxy bridge area. I'd call that all view ports. The dark rectangular door just a bit aft from the bridge, I'd call the upper cargo hatch--that's probably two decks tall.

The round indentation on the port forward "fin" I'd call a turret mount. Or, possibly a sunken turret that pops up out of that door.

It's at least six decks thick at the central spine of the ship.

Cargo bays probably drop from under the ship, elevator style.

 

[GypsyComet]

I think those are full-sized people down next to the open cargo hatch.

The ship sits between the Traveller and Star Wars vibes, to me.

It came from a concept art session by an artist associated with a computer game that had been in development for eight years:
http://www.moddb.com/games/infinity-the-quest-for-earth/images/asetobin-10-release4#imagebox

The ship does not appear to have made it beyond the concept stage, based on the rendered images in the gallery. A little TOO Star Wars, perhaps, though the larger ship done by the same guy is even more so.

 

[salochin999]

My first thought was some kind of mining ship that landed on a planet and then the whole mid-section including the bridge detached itself and moved out on caterpillar tracks.

 

[Patron Zero]

That is a big ship, agreed on the assumption of six (or more) decks along it's central hull.

Such being said, we're not seeing the under-belly so it's possible that might be somewhat of a concave surface that could be a berthing or docking 'slip' for small craft like 50Ton modular cutters or some-such.

The sloping 'wings' do give the ship a larger appearance than it might actually posses, again going back to the lower surface of the central hull, such might be for purposes of 'embracing' a salvaged or scavenged vessel.

Possibly said ship was a former naval recovery 'tug' or other landing ship transport-medium vessel, now in commercial service.

The large hatches, presumably such being on each side of the ship, suggest deployment of land-based vehicles or bulk cargo transfer, again seeing more a merchant or logistics-support vessel than say an assault lander.

 

[GypsyComet]

Based on the stick people down near the signature, this is in the 1000 ton range.

The top deck has an 8:1 ratio. If we assume the bridge at the front is 6m wide, that makes the top deck 48m long. This makes the top deck at least 64 dtons, and probably closer to 100 based on the wider spots aft. The central structure of the ship that we can see appears to be about three decks tall and skinny, sitting on a fourth wide deck. The flanks may get low enough to form a fifth deck we can't otherwise see, but I think the ship works at four. The space between the flanks and the center are probably filled in, with scoops out of sight at the front. At a 45 degree angle, the ship is thus 33m (22 grid) wide.

In really rough numbers, not taking the forward protrusions into account yet, that makes the ship:
32gr x 22gr = 704sgr = 352 dtons for the bottom deck
32gr x 16gr = 512sgr = 256 dtons for the second
32gr x 12gr = 384sgr = 192 dtons for the third
32gr x 8gr = 256sgr = 128 dtons for the fourth

or 928 dtons total. The stuff forward of the bridge windows should easily bring that up to 1000 tons or a bit more even with the missing bits in the triangular main area.

--------

If we assume the bridge windows are much larger, the ship also gets larger.

 

[cym0k]

I love that. I want to fly it. I found a larger version here.

The figures would match the bridge view port area IMHO.

 

[GypsyComet]

I have a rough four-deck shape worked out at ~1000 dtons, though I'm not happy with how the front wing taper is working at the moment. What I will probably do is fiddle with the geometry a bit more. The result may not match the picture exactly, but the picture will certainly be compatible.

 

[Supplement Four]

I didn't realize those scratch marks were people! I thought it was the artists signature.

Then, on the bigger picture, I see what you're talking about.

 

[Patron Zero]

Sounds like you are on track GC, with the four deck layout, always enjoy your work even when in it's first steps.

Is there a chance the 'wings' might be 'hinged' for the allowance of landing configuration ?

If so don't see a significant movement like on the landing shuttle in Star Wars but some change of dihedral could be an asset for planet-side operations.

 

[GypsyComet]

Variable geometry essentially consigns most of what we known about the ship to fuel storage, and makes the hatch we can see a bit odd.

The translation problem I'm having is not the body, but the two forward elements. I need to break down the picture into a couple more views to either figure out how to render deck slices or convince myself I did it correctly the first time.

 

[GypsyComet]

By removing most of the lower deck and making the hull a bit like a catamaran, I think it will make a reasonable 800 tons. I'm not terribly interested in making it into a Type C, though. Anyone have a preference?

 

[Silverhawk]

I like the catamaran idea. Seems to me that it would allow for a streamlined configuration that is not necessarily implied by the original picture.

 

[Supplement Four]

800 tons seems much too small, GC, given the picture, if that is, indeed, a person we're seeing scratched next to it.

 

[GypsyComet]

The sketch in my post above gives an overall length of 60m, or about 30 times the height of a crew being, which looks about right. I still need to re-do the deck slices based on that sketch, but deck three (the chin) is nearly half of the volume by itself.

I also want to "travellerize" the external form a little so that the Infinity art is not too slavishly followed but still remains an example of the class. I don't intend to use those round bits on deck two as hinges, since that level of variable geometry is not really Traveller style. I may use them as extensible airlocks and boarding tubes with some appropriate resurfacing.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't see the hinges that you're talking about, but although you are right about moving "wings" on a ship not being Traveller, I could buy this vessel with the "wing" perpendicular from the hull, looking like a "T" bow on. Then, having the "wings" drop to support the ship as landing gear. That wouldn't be a hatch in the wing next to the drawn people. That's just a depression where the middle landing gear out from the wing extends on the bottom.

So, when in flight, this vessel wings tilt up a few degrees until they are flat across the dorsal spine of the ship, making a flat table from the edge of the port wing, across the mid-section/main hull, to the edge of the starboard wing. That configuration is its standard movement position.

Only when it lands doe the wings fold down a bit as seen in the pic.

Most access has to be either under the vessel or aft, near the T-Plate emitters.

 

[Patron Zero]

Think I'm voting with the group about 800Tons being a bit 'light' for the ship's displacement, can't see it exceeding 2000Tons but maybe closer to 1200-1600Ton range.

Cargo might be brought aboard by means of 'bomb-bay' type doors opening from under the central hull, that would make intermodal cargo container transfer less of a task while dirt-side, such would also support the possibility of said ship having either docking exterior cradles or dedicated internal hangers for small craft.

Perhaps the variable geometry feature to the 'wings' might also be an asset if the ship has the capacity for fuel-skimming, processors could be located inside the leading edge with compartmentalized storage taking the majority of said hull's space.

 

[GypsyComet]

Most of those possible features don't take up enough volume to justify lifting a huge portion of the ship away from the rest.

Based on the stick figures on the ground nearby, the ship is 4 or 5 decks high. Five would mean those stick figures are over 2m tall, while four makes them a bit short. The difference can be split, since the measurement is to the bottom of the slope. Making the bottom catamaran arrangement a little more than one deck deep puts the stick figures in the right height range.

At four decks total, keeping its presented proportions, and assuming the catamaran arrangement to keep this thing from being a huge flat-bottomed office building, the volume is between 800 and 900 dtons. Going flat-bottomed brings it up to around 1000 dtons but makes the overall shape less interesting.

Keeping something like the original proportions while bumping it up to 5 total decks would nearly double the displacement. It would, IMHO, make some of the original proportions attenuated unless we hid it all under the skirts, which the depicted landing gear do not support, or split features across decks, which is inelegant and wastes the potential of the picture.

An increase to six standard decks, essentially ignoring the stick figures for scale, pushes the ship to well over 2000 dtons.

 

[Patron Zero]

I'm wondering how much of the landing gear we are not seeing in the perspective of the ship as depicted.

If the 'wings' have an active geometry capacity, perhaps elements of the landing struts deploy to act as 'bracing' to support both the central hull and themselves.

If looked at head-on one might see, given the 'inclination' of the wings, each has the appearance of a sort of A-frame giving not just two points of surface contact but four.

And in such deployed array, perpendicularly orientated struts might extend and 'lock-in' to anchor points under the central hull providing increased strength to the assembly overall.

Again, to me, this looks like a seriously 'beefed-up' transport-freighter so the all-terrain'
capable-heavy duty shocks and struts that would compose such, don't appear out of place.

Apologies if over-engineering a loose and unsupported hypothesis.

 

[GypsyComet]

The sketch bits I posted above show wider "struts" than the visible wings. I am planning on having six peripheral landing legs with the structure above them to convey the loads at least feasibly. More under the central body is certainly not out of the question.