Type S as a Tailsitter Prolate Spheroid

[kilemall]

Hatches.

Cost nothing, and can be installed anywhere on the hull.

I prefer solar flares don’t interfere with snack runs.

 

[Condottiere]

On the other hand, while I want people to be able to get out, I also want to limit the number of ways they can get in.

And those hatches would be tens of metres from the ground if the ship is sitting upright on its landing gear, anyhow.

Indentations on the hull for footholds to climb down.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I didn't include emergency exits in this design, mostly because I didn't expect they'd be necessary

On the other hand, while I want people to be able to get out, I also want to limit the number of ways they can get in.

This is where the XBoat crew access to the exterior starts making a LOT of sense.
If you go to LBB S7, p9 ... you'll see something that basically appears nowhere else in CT deck plans ... a parallel airlock (1 manual hatch, 1 automatic iris valve).

Personally, I think that this deck plan element is absolutely BRILLIANT(!) and really is something that ought to be repeated more often (meaning, more than just the once). It basically gives you a powered + unpowered airlock option, side by side (because iris valves get "ornery" about opening/closing when the power goes off ).



As for the number of access points in/out of various areas inside the habitable volume of a space/star craft ... it's a bit tricky from a "realism" standpoint.

Under IDEAL conditions (nothing going wrong, everything working normally) ... single point of failure access (that isn't failing! ) is better from a security/chokepoint as well as "limited number of holes cut into a pressure hull" perspective.

But then there's the Murphy's Laws of Combat truism ... that if you make a place hard to get into, you've also made it hard to get out of should you need to.

This then introduces the concept of REDUNDANCY ... because as way too many ex-military can explain, you've got two options for quantities of Things™ ... ZERO OR TWO (there is no "one").



Because of this philosophy, born out of real world regulations concerning the need to evacuate enclosed spaces (typically aerospace and/or maritime), there are often times going to be "requirements" for more than a single point in ingress/egress except on extremely small compartmentalized spaces. In this context, I'm thinking that Hull code: 0-1 can "get away with" a single point of ingress/egress ... but that larger hull sizes are going to require 2+ ingress/egress points, just as a matter of safety code regulations.

Furthermore, I wouldn't always assume that any underside/by the the landing gear (or equivalent) type of fuselage to ground type of ingress/egress ought to be "all that is required" on streamlined craft capable of wilderness refueling from liquid water. After all, if you "touch down" your craft into the water (lake, ocean, puddle with an ego problem...) and your craft's hull PARTIALLY submerges, but still has a part of the dorsal hull "above water" (or even just awash from surface waves) ... you're going to need a dorsal ingress/egress point to the outer hull in addition to a port/starboard/ventral ingress/egress point that can access solid surface while the landing gear is deployed.

I mean, you COULD still use the side/ventral airlock(s) while the hull is partially/mostly submerged in water, but you'd better enjoy swimming (and the water can't be too hot/cold for you to swim in). Kind of the difference between entering/exiting a submarine via the (underwater) topedo tube rather than the dorsal sail/conning tower (and about as much of a difference in "comfort" between the two options).



The notion that single points of failure are just WAITING TO FAIL on you (at the most harmful timing!) really ought to be a major concern in deck plan designing and layout. Yes, stuff need to "work" on the regular, but when something stops working ... what are your backup options? If there is a failure or damage to something critical, are you just "up an unsanitary tributary without any immediate means of rectification" at that point?

Or do you just start cutting through bulkheads?