kilemall
SOC-14 5K
I prefer solar flares don’t interfere with snack runs.
Type S as a Tailsitter Prolate Spheroid
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
I prefer solar flares don’t interfere with snack runs.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
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
SOC-14 5K
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?
As I understand it, the no-power fallback for iris valves is a manual crank, with a removable handle stowed in an adjacent compartment. Access to the crank handle socket may be behind a mechanically-locked (i.e., with key or combination) hatch, or the manual mechanism itself may have a mechanical lock.Personally, I think that this deck plan element is absolutely BRILLIANT(!)
That said, I vaguely recall seeing (no cite) that with enough total STR (from one or more PCs/NPCs) applied to the door segments, it is possible to force one open if it's not powered and trying to stay shut.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If you do desperately want to get out, and don't really need to return, to the spacecraft.
One shot explosive bolts rigged to a hatch, or airlock.
Or, thermite to make a new hatch.
One shot explosive bolts rigged to a hatch, or airlock.
Or, thermite to make a new hatch.
It could well be that there are Emergency Egress points, Maybe that big picture window in the common area can be opened in an emergency, or there is an emergency hatch.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(!)
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!
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?
When I designed a scout-sized tail-sitter, I had non-powered access on the ground available through an emergency airlock in the base. The base was normally about 2m clear of the ground, so plenty of room under her, but short people might find working the manual controls and then cranking the hatch a bit strenuous. Once the hatch was open you could climb the built-in ladder, then sit on a ledge and crank the outer hatch shut again (there were mechanical interlocks to stop of inner and outer hatches being open at once, and they were only accessible to monkey with from inside the ship proper). Then you stood up and repeated the cranking process on the inner hatch. By now your arms are probably like jelly, but at least from there it's a short climb to the engineering station, from whence you can start the fusion plant (assuming there's fuel, enough charge in the batteries to kick-start the plant, etc.).
Prepared people bring a powered door-cranking tool...
Linear shaped cutting charge.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
It's also a way to get in, and probably less cumbersome than a plasma torch.
The canon "breaching charge" just punches a hole. LSCC cuts a circle, if laid out appropriately.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I wonder if oxygen becomes necessary as an environmental factor, in all these attempts at ingress and egress?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Anyone recall this backdoor, next to the engines.
In fact, between them, and going by the implication of monolithic drive designs, through it.
Anti-hijack routine: lure adversaries into the main hallway, turn off inertial compensation, open the centerline iris valves, floor it, and there they go.
Anyone recall this backdoor, next to the engines.
In fact, between them, and going by the implication of monolithic drive designs, through it.
kilemall
SOC-14 5K
Back hatch yes, straight through not normal.
Anyone recall this backdoor, next to the engines.
In fact, between them, and going by the implication of monolithic drive designs, through it.
Oxygen isn't really all that constraining when it comes to space travel. The average person uses approximately 1 liter of Oxygen per day.
Water is much more of an issue, about 4-5 liters per day. Carbon Dioxide removal is a much bigger issue.
A Free Trader would need about 20 liters of Oxygen per person for a trip.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Way more is needed than that since every crewed volume of the ship has to be able to supply the oxygen, unless the crew wear vacc suits for the whole time in ship.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I think that would be pure, undiluted oxygen.
Optionally, if temperature isn't that much of an issue, you can get a four hour duration oxygen bottle from the ship's locker, and put on either a tee shirt, or a pullover.
Optionally, if temperature isn't that much of an issue, you can get a four hour duration oxygen bottle from the ship's locker, and put on either a tee shirt, or a pullover.
Only if you are dumping your whole atmosphere into space every time you pull into port.
A liter per day is the usage rate.
If you are going to completely replace your atmosphere each trip.
In case you want to store a whole extra ship's atmosphere for a free trader you'd need about 3500 liters or about 1/4 dTon
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
There probably are different procedures for distributing oxygenated air throughout a spacecraft.
The default one we would assume, is that it's a pool of air distributed evenly throughout the spacecraft, and regularly scrubbed, whether anything is changing the standard composition, or not.
The default one we would assume, is that it's a pool of air distributed evenly throughout the spacecraft, and regularly scrubbed, whether anything is changing the standard composition, or not.
