100-ton Scout/Courier Deck Plan

[Takei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bryan gibson:
j,
bryan gibson here.( the artist.)been getting hits on the plans , some certainly legit, others I think less so.

Bryan Gibson
J.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[/B][/QUOTE]

But there are only two staterooms, where the design quotes four.

------------------
Paul

 

[J]

4 staterooms = 16 tons of crew accommodation. It doesn't have to be private cabins.

The scout service have obviously gone for more common area instead of private space. 4 separate rooms wouldn't be much use if only one or two crew were on board.

4 Staterooms would allow for 8 crew (according to the ship building rules). But this could be acheived using double bunks and sleeping 4 to each bunk room, or sleeping on a rota system. Or perhaps even fold-down/convertable bunks in the galley area.

J.

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J:
4 staterooms = 16 tons of crew accommodation. It doesn't have to be private cabins.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Assuming they haven't changed the rule for T20 the usual split is 2 tons for the stateroom and 2 tons for common areas. In this deck plan we have a total of 4 tons given over to the 2 staterooms, 4 tons given over to the common area, and 8 tons for the twisty going nowhere passages. This is increadibly dumb space management as it makes the usable living space a bit too cramped for 4 people much less the theoretical maximum of 8.

This is of course merely my opinion.

David Shayne

 

[bryan gibson]

bryan gibson <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DaveShayne:
Assuming they haven't changed the rule for T20 the usual split is 2 tons for the stateroom and 2 tons for common areas. In this deck plan we have a total of 4 tons given over to the 2 staterooms, 4 tons given over to the common area, and 8 tons for the twisty going nowhere passages. This is increadibly dumb space management as it makes the usable living space a bit too cramped for 4 people much less the theoretical maximum of 8.

This is of course merely my opinion.

David Shayne<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

incredibly dumb? a little harsh there, Dave
as a rule , I am not nessecarily following the "design philoshphy" that everyone seems so glad to cling to... simply put, I have deliberately included specific design flaws and features not readily recognizable to the bean counters and amateur naval architects.
to wit... the scout is one of several variants, all using certain common features.

the twisty corridors allow the ship to be more easily sealed and held in a boarding action.)( a feature of military design specs.)
And yes, the berthing is double occupancy.

 

[William]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunter:
Not yet keyed (it will soon be available as a complete, free PDF), but folks were asking to see it so here you go!

Scout/Courier Deck Plans

Hunter<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very sweet Hunter. I like the crowded single deck messiness...

Heh... I can also see some of what the designer of the Suliman class was trying to fix...

William

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bryan gibson:
incredibly dumb? a little harsh there, Dave
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really. You've wasted half of your living space on hallways. That's not a design philosophy it's just bad architecture. YMMV




------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.

David Shayne

 

[Takei]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bryan gibson:
bryan gibson incredibly dumb? a little harsh there, Dave
as a rule , I am not nessecarily following the "design philoshphy" that everyone seems so glad to cling to... simply put, I have deliberately included specific design flaws and features not readily recognizable to the bean counters and amateur naval architects.
to wit... the scout is one of several variants, all using certain common features.

the twisty corridors allow the ship to be more easily sealed and held in a boarding action.)( a feature of military design specs.)
And yes, the berthing is double occupancy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't think that a 100 ton scout would have any design consideration given to counter-boarding actions. If it's in a position to be boarded in the first place it's a lost cause for this size of ship.

Please don't take this as dislike of the deck plan. I like it. But when looking at ships and deck plans we work within the contraints of the rules, and I feel that if a design specifies 4 cabins then it should have 4 cabins.

You mentioned 'bean counters and amateur naval architects'. Aren't we all? Is there anyone on the boards that really works as a naval architect? If there is then I'd love to hear what they have to say on Traveller's ideas for ships.

------------------
Paul

 

[far-trader]

Time to throw in my two creds...

Bryan Gibson - “the twisty corridors allow the ship to be more easily sealed and held in a boarding action.)( a feature of military design specs.)”

Except that its practically a straight run from the aft airlock to the bridge and...

Takei - “I wouldn't think that a 100 ton scout would have any design consideration given to counter-boarding actions. If it's in a position to be boarded in the first place it's a lost cause for this size of ship.”

With which I’d have to agree.

That said however I like the design overall. I’d justify the arrangement as necessitated for routing circuits and life support, sensor access and shielding, and the myriad of other “functional” aspects that lead to less than perfect human ergonomic engineering in most modern machines (large vessels and small).

I am wondering about the overall displacement of the engineering section, it seems a bit large. Can you provide a breakdown of the tonnage of each drive component (jump, maneuver, power, ???) and is there a fuel purifier? Actually the whole design specs sheet would be nice for all us gearheads (breakdown of all components, tonnage, etc., with designer notes if you can)

I’m glad to see you had the sense to (IISS had the foresight to require bids to) include a sealed air-raft, the old open top could be drafty while making orbital runs

A few minor corrections seem to be required. The overall length seems just a couple or three meters short to fit the exterior views, and the lateral sensors need to be shifted back about the same distance. Also, to jive with the interior sketches the whole deckplan needs to be flipped horizontally, and the bridge hatch needs to move aft about two meters (lined up with the gird line between the stateroom and (presumably, just a guess...) the forward locker, which also makes that a little handier from the bridge).


This is the far-trader Empress Poppaea signing off.

 

[Spinward Scout]

<<<Is there anyone on the boards that really works as a naval architect? If there is then I'd love to hear what they have to say on Traveller's ideas for ships.>>>

I used to make house blueprints using AutoCAD. It's architecture. And I was in the Navy about 10 years ago. : ^ ) The Scout Ship is about the size of a three story house. But then it's also about the size of a small submarine. Which to be honest, it would be more like a submarine than a house. A house would have 5 foot wide hallways, a sub would have 4 foot wide hallways (or smaller in some cases). A house can have as many openings as needed - windows, doors, garage doors. A sub has very few openings - just enough to get in torpedoes, cruise missiles, food, and people - the reasoning is that it is less likely to spring a leak or have a door buckle from the extreme pressures of the deep sea if it has very few doors. Now on the other hand, space is a bit different - it has negative pressure - i.e vacuum. But it also can go into an exotic atmosphere, or into a Gas Giant, or an ocean. So it has to be able to handle all of these situations. And still remain air tight. The Cargo hold on a Scout is three tons - just enough room to fit a large pickup truck (6 squares to put it in perspective). Now, the only reason you usually don't want to open a cargo deck to vacuum is when there is something fragile or damageable or alive in there. You're not going to get much into three tons, and with the design he has, the cargo deck is waaay too large, even including a 4 ton vehicle garage. It's 40 squares, and going by the 2 squares = 1 ton displacement, that puts it at 20 tons with both vehicle garage & cargo deck. But the design would be good for air tightness - only one door for both. If the cargo bay was cut in half, it would match the design... Anyway, in my opinion, any space design is going to be made around air tightness. First order of business - if you can't survive in the ship without a Vacc Suit, then you're not going to be able to eat, use the fresher, etc... If you have ten holes in the hull, it's a lot easier to decompress the ship than if you have 5 holes in the ship. Especially when you have a large cargo door, AND a large vehicle door. I always thought the Scout wedge design should have had an elevator to drop the air-raft and cargo to the lower level. But then I thought the bridge should be on the upper level, and a bunch more changes. So the idea behind the design is good for air tightness, but it's off in the specifications of tonnage. Any military style design will be so cramped that most bunk space per person will only be about a half of a ton and very small common space. Staterooms are for Officers, and they really don't exist on submarines - except for the Captain. If you were an enlisted person on a Navy ship, you'd understand. They build the ships for the purpose they're needed for - they really don't care about bunking accomodations. That's why there is still hot bunking in the Navy - and why some people still have to sleep in the torpedo rooms.

As for the complaint about there being five crew because of the Sensor Ops position on the bridge, it's a Scout Ship, and those are notorious for being run by one person. One person doing the job of Pilot, Engineer, Navigator, Gunner, and yes, Sensor Operator. Just because there's a specialized spot doesn't mean that you need to fill it at all times - just like the Gunner position.

My .02Cr

Scout

 

[J]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ScoutCadet469:
The Cargo hold on a Scout is three tons - just enough room to fit a large pickup truck (6 squares to put it in perspective).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The scout ship in Book 2 has a 3 ton cargo hold. But redesign it in High Guard (or T20) and the cargo increases to just over 20 tons (the drives are a lot smaller). So the hold is about right.

Ships converted from Book 2 to High Guard usually end up with more cargo space and a higher price tag.

J.

 

[Simon Jester]

Very nice plans, even with the previously mentioned error/variations.

But where's the turret access? Given the position of the turret in the hull profile art piece, it would be located directly above the rear airlock, but there's no indication of any access or local control hardware.

Just my 0.02 Imp Credits

p. s.: When are you going to do the Empress Marava class?

------------------
-If it's stupid but it works, it isn't stupid.

 

[TheRaptor]

I am only a TRAVELLER newbie (I bought the reprints). But according to traders and gunboats the scout is a standard design (hence no architects fee). How can a standard design have a completely different variant? You can't put that down to "lowest bid wins the contract". Think of the poor scout maintenance staff, having to know several different versions of scout (and keep parts).
I believe the reason for the new ship designs was an attempt to escape from the retro look of the original ships, however altering the scout so much has to be acknowledge as breaking canon. No more excuses just admit the new scout breaks canon. One final thing although the new scout does look "better" than the original. For a basically cheap and dirty ship, having a curved hull as opposed to a (pretty much equally aerodynamic but alot cheaper to make) angular hull, makes no sense. Maybe to make a battleship more "scary", but who in the right mind would be threatened by a scout? Anyway just admit your heresy and you shall be forgiven. Oh and give yourself a hundred lashes.

------------------
========================
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheRaptor:
I am only a TRAVELLER newbie (I bought the reprints). But according to traders and gunboats the scout is a standard design (hence no architects fee). How can a standard design have a completely different variant? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Imperium is large enough to have many, many standard designs that are all variants of the same basic Scout/Courier concept.


------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.

David Shayne

 

[Spinward Scout]

<<<redesign it in High Guard>>>

Ok, my bad. I haven't read through the reprint yet.

Thanks!

Scout

 

[mjwest]

The scout ship can be perfectly cannon. Remember that this is 100 years before CT. I am sure that ship designs will evolve and change over the course of a century.

Doing a bk 5 TL11 scout ship with "all 2s" and a 1bis will give you 21 tons cargo. Interestingly, if you do a bk 5 TL12 scout ship, you can do "all 3s" and a 2bis and get 3 tons of cargo.

 

[TheRaptor]

Im sure the Imperium is big enough for different scout hulls. But it does seem implausible that the Imperium would pay an Architect exhoberient amounts of money to come up with new scout hulls which have the exact some performance profile! And if the "old" standard scout is a century older than the "new" scout, why would they go for a less sleek design. I am also pretty shore the old socut design was a couple of centuries old. I quite like the look of the new scout (not the deckplans). I just can't see how the redesign is justified regarding established canon.

------------------
========================
That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.

 

[TheRaptor]

And the new one is not a variant. A variant use the same hull and maybe shifts some internal partitions, upgrade drives etc. The only thing "standard" between the old and the new would be light fittings. Its a completely different structure.

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheRaptor:
And the new one is not a variant. A variant use the same hull and maybe shifts some internal partitions, upgrade drives etc. The only thing "standard" between the old and the new would be light fittings. Its a completely different structure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should have said variation instead of variant. Two designs meant to perform the same task the same way. Sorry to have caused confusion.

On the other point you raise; architects fees are an increadibly tiny ammount of money (1% of the cost of one ship) in relation to the huge number of scouts that are likely to be purchased (100+ per year? 1000+?) so I really don't think that the Imperium will baulk at spending the small price to have a large number of similar designs to choose from. Hey they might do it just to ensure business for naval architects and hence the continued availability of said professionals.

YMMV

------------------
I am increasingly of the opinion that RPGs are by the nature of their creation subjective phenomenon. due to the interaction between game designers, game masters, and game players all definitions, rules, settings, and adventures are mutable in acordance with the uncertainty principle as expounded by Heisenburg. This is of course merely my point of view.

David Shayne

 

[hunter]

Why a new version of the scout?

Because the old one was designed using the original ship design rules from CT Book 2. Ship design in T20 is based on High Guard (CT Book 5) and it is impossible to match the original scout using High Guard, and thus T20. So as not to confuse newcomers to Traveller via T20 we chose to ensure that all ship designs we present will be designed using the High Guard/T20 rules.

This does not *break canon* as you put it. There are well over 10,000 worlds within the Imperium, spread out over roughly 20 sectors of space. Because of the distances involved, commanders in the field are given much discrestion in handling local affairs. As such, you could easily have one Scout Command Administator in one part of the Imperium authorizing the construction of scouts that fit the 'standard requirements' as set by central command on core, but customized to meet the needs of the scout service locally.

Hunter

 

[TheRaptor]

Well that is a pretty good explanition
I just always imagined that all scouts where pretty much the same everywhere. However I still dont like the deckplan ;-P