CT Only: First Scout/Courier
- Thread starter Shadow Shack
- Start date
I think the light-colored spot on the port side of the opening, behind the lift strut, is the Cooper Vane (wikipedia).
(It's a simple airflow-detecting lock that prevents the stairs from being deployed in mid-air.)
Wikipedia should probably note that the ability to deploy the rear stairway of a Boeing 727 in flight was a deliberate design choice in the original milspec of the aircraft, specifically to facilitate low-altitude mid-air deployment of paratroopers, and not some sort of hideous engineering and safety oversight hijackers such as "D. B. Cooper" discovered how to exploit themselves.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
There's a suspicion that the Central Intelligence Agency found it useful, and Cooper may have had a past association with them.
Kobeck
SOC-4
thanks for posting that...
GypsyComet
SOC-14 1K
The Iiken is probably the "original" in-universe Type S, or close to it.
The next oldest documented in-universe would be the design from T4.
It would not surprise me if the Serpent was older in-universe than the JG and the Sulie, but not as old as the Snapshot version.
I don't think we have enough data to place the Ninz (Zhodani Type S) on the age chart. It might be very old indeed.
The next oldest documented in-universe would be the design from T4.
It would not surprise me if the Serpent was older in-universe than the JG and the Sulie, but not as old as the Snapshot version.
I don't think we have enough data to place the Ninz (Zhodani Type S) on the age chart. It might be very old indeed.
If the links to the old image gallery are permanently broken, I'll have to repost my deckplans for the tailsitter prolate spheroid Type S.
Might clean 'em up a little too -- mostly just shrinking the staterooms from 3Td per cabin to 2Td and using the space for a full washroom and a larger common area.
Also, I might add an alternate layout that assumes a trustworthy crew instead of having a half-stateroom just under the bridge.
Might clean 'em up a little too -- mostly just shrinking the staterooms from 3Td per cabin to 2Td and using the space for a full washroom and a larger common area.
Also, I might add an alternate layout that assumes a trustworthy crew instead of having a half-stateroom just under the bridge.
casquilho
SOC-13
Hum... What if there was a version dropping rooms to 2T but use the space saved to make an additional stateroom? Or does that mess up all the math?
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Then it's not a single (or double) occupancy stateroom (4 tons) anymore, but instead a pair of single occupancy cabins (2 tons).
From a tonnage and MCr price standpoint that's a distinction without a difference (2 cabins = 1 stateroom in tonnage and price).
I'm not changing the 4Td/stateroom volume allocation here. It's simply making the individual rooms smaller by combining each cabin's "bathroom" space into a shared washroom or two.
This is just an artistic/social interpretation, not a rules mod. When I first drew it up, I was thinking in terms of "everybody gets their own bathroom" as though they were motel rooms. For a ship that's mostly in government service, I came to view that as excessive. Maybe two full bathrooms, each shared with an adjoining cabin, one of which also opens to the common area. Senior scout gets one of the two cabins connected to the washroom that doesn't open to the common area.
Other than that, pretty much what SF said: sure, you can make half-staterooms (see LBB5) but they can't be used for paying passengers under LBB2 unless passengers book them as two-room suites.
Here I'm describing a feature of my own-design Type S that you can't look up right now because the images are gone.
One of the issues with a canon Type S is that the interior layout doesn't provide physical separation between the quarters for the crew (pilot, and perhaps gunner) and those for passengers (up to three paying passengers if the ship's being sailed single-handed). This is an invitation to a hijacking -- especially since a one-man crew can't provide 24-hour coverage!
My solution in this design was to place a half-stateroom next to the bridge, with a bulkhead and airtight hardened doors between the half-stateroom and the rest of the quarters (it's actually at the top of the elevator shaft, so the inter-deck hatches and the elevator doors are what's between the half-stateroom and the rest). During normal IISS operations with reliable crew and mission specialists, the pilot spends a lot of time in the main passenger cabin and the half-stateroom is only used as a breakroom for the on-duty pilot and perhaps for storage.
My IMTU solution to the problem for the canonical version is that Detached Duty Type S ships are still the property of the Third Imperium, and everything inside is tracked by indelible serial numbers. This renders them un-saleable in whole or in part, and Imperial law enforcement will be ruthless if you're discovered with stolen Imperial property. In other words, they're mostly hijack-proof in 3I space because there's little profit in doing so. It could still happen, but the odds are far less than the rules in LBB2 suggest. (I still don't consider this entirely satisfactory, but it's the best I can manage without redesigning the deck plans.)
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Oh, well ... if that's where you were going with things, then there is precedent for that sort of interpretation.
LBB S7 has exactly this going on with its deck plans for the Express Tender on p12 in the deck plans backed up by the explanation on p14.
In contrast to that, the Type-J Seeker trades in the 4x 4-ton staterooms for 4x 2-ton cabins instead, so it kind of depends on which way you want to play it with your deck plans.
Of the two, the Express Tender looks like a better deck plan precedent to follow.
Well ... there's kind of a reason for that.
Type-S Scout/Couriers active in the IISS are basically only going to be carrying "trusted" passengers.
Detatched Duty vessels, awarded as a mustering out benefit, are a different story, of course. Those vessels could be put to "common" passenger service courier/transport duty if the captain wanted to.
As far as "rearranging the staterooms" in concerned on a Type-S floorplan (LBB S7, p17), probably the easily solution to the problem of separating the passenger staterooms from the crew staterooms would be to move staterooms (6 and 7) aft and put the common area forward so as to have a "buffer area" between the forward staterooms of the crew (3 and 4) nearer the bridge and the aft staterooms for the passengers (5 and 6) nearer to the engine room (and aft lounge in 13).
But the simple fact of the matter is that a Scout/Courier is so small (and the crew so small as well) that there almost isn't a good way to "hijack-proof" a Scout/Courier deck plan. There's just too many access points for all areas of the ship. Plus, most ships are operated in a mode where the passengers (if any) are "trusted" because they're being transported under orders by the service, rather than being a mercantile operation open to the public.
That's OTU.
Detached Duty Scout/Couriers remain the property of the IISS and can be recalled (the ship) to active duty in the event of a declared war.
The only Scout/Couriers that are not subject to being returned to active service in the event of a war are those ships that have been sold as surplus to private interests and entities.
Basically, if you BUY one, it's yours ... but if you're AWARDED one (as a mustering out benefit), it's still technically theirs, they're just loaning you the use of it (with a few perks).
Not true ... they can be sold, as surplus (usually 40 years after construction) ... and there are a LOT of Scout/Couriers that get sold off as surplus. So the "fate" of Scout/Couriers after 40 years of service will vary (quite a lot).
After all, if they couldn't be sold at all, the Type J Seeker wouldn't exist.
Except that Scout/Couriers are so ... ubiquitous ... they make excellent cover for infiltration operations by less than savory/honorable types of characters. That whole "best place to hide a tree is in a forest" kind of deal. Most people would never look twice at a Scout/Courier, simply because they're that common ... which then makes them an excellent camouflage for all kinds of nefarious dealings (so long as you don't get caught doing them).
Plus, you're also overlooking the opportunities to use a Scout/Courier in distress as a decoy to lure in a would be rescuer, only to have the rescue crew overpowered in crew on crew combat through the docking hatch between the two ships (yes, Scout/Couriers can play pirate too
).So in terms of being hijack proof ... I have one word to sum up my thoughts on that notion.
HARDLY.
Of course they can. And when they're sold off, the serial numbers of the various components are flagged as "no longer Imperial property" in the big database. Privately-owned Scout/Couriers don't have the protection of being Imperial property, nor should they.
And as I stated, I'm not entirely satisfied by my workaround, but it's either that or a Detached Duty ship just isn't going to be able to carry passengers securely. And that seriously reduces the possible range of scenarios involving them. It's a narrative decision, not a technical one.
I just posted in The Fleet deckplans for an alternate or earlier Scout, if you want to take a look.
Never mind. Found your sig in your profile.
Never mind again, There are two URLs and the other one works.
Last edited:
I would hesitate a bit before boarding a 4000-year-old star ship.
- It would belong in a museum, not under power.
- Stress fractures and corrosion would be a factor
- Finding proper items to specifications would be difficult, how many 4000-year-old factories still exist?
- The computer would be programmed and reprogrammed and parts replaced how many times?
- If any of the original ship still existed after 4000 years of service, it would be a miracle.
- How old would be the oldest existing part on the ship actually be?
- Reentry is not an easy thing. Just how many times would a 4000-year-old scout have reentered to land? Average once a month equals 48,000 times.
- Keeping a log on that ship for its lifespan would be ridiculous. Where has it been, when, for how long, or even its basic info such as name, production number, IFF beacon.
- Even with perfect maintenance and conservative piloting and navigation prep, the low chance of a misjump over 4000 years would have occurred many times over.
- Looking at local military practices, it would probably been refitted as a target training drone.
- Its best circumstance would be for the original manufacturer to reacquire it as an example of how sturdy and dependable their ships can be. A 4000-year-old add for dependability. That would be better than the Top Gear episode where they tried to kill a Toyota Hylux pickup. They couldn’t do it.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
That's because we have a treasure trove of cautionary tales, recently transcribed, which I'm sure the Grimm Brothers would have had a ball collecting.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
There's a fair chance that current TL-9 standard components are entirely backwards-compatible because Vilani gonna Vilani.
Similar threads
