A thought about bridge size

[Gray Pennell]

Ok we are all almost in agrement that the bridge size rule makes for large bridges space wise. So I just thought about this. Why not make the bridge size the space for all or main ship controls. If you have a 2000 ton ship thats 200 tons for bridge or 300 squares. They can do the bridge, engineering gunnery etc. I am only talking about space for crew not the actually equipment. The equipment would just take up the full amount of space.

 

[atpollard]

If I understood you correctly, a 200 ton ship might have a 2 ton crew space and 18 tons of 'equipment' (20 tons total) and a 1000 ton ship might have an 18 ton crew space and 2 tons of 'equipment' (20 tons total).

The 'problem' with that 'solution' is ... why does a 1000 ton ship need so much less 'equipment' than a 200 ton ship?

[and if that is not what you meant, then please explain it a little further.]

 

[Hyphen]

In JTAS #25, Marc himself detailed the P. F. Sloan-class, and said he spreads both the bridge and stateroom tonnages around the ship's corridors abd common areas.

 

[Hyphen]

The 'problem' with that 'solution' is ... why does a 1000 ton ship need so much less 'equipment' than a 200 ton ship?

I don't think that's what he means. The problem is that the rule enforces a linear progression, with no tapering for effiencies of scale. The amount of space allocated to "bridge" just gets bigger and bigger - so what do you do with all that space?

Bowling lanes is one option...

 

[DangerousThing]

I don't think that's what he means. The problem is that the rule enforces a linear progression, with no tapering for effiencies of scale. The amount of space allocated to "bridge" just gets bigger and bigger - so what do you do with all that space?

Bowling lanes is one option...

Corridors, galleys, and perhaps bowling lanes.

 

[Gray Pennell]

I like a pool/game room with all sorts of things for people to do besides doing their job.

 

[mike wightman]

The CT bridge is 20 tons for the first 1000t of ship.

Ships over 1000t use 2%.

Ships of 1000t and less have 2 people manning the bridge - the pilot and navigator.

Ships of 2000t have pilot, navigator, captain, XO, then there are the 3 admin personel attached to the command crew (not part of the bridge crew IMHO)

 

[far-trader]

I generally figure the "bridge" is a bit of a catch all term for a few things though primarily it is concerned with command and control of the ship. Per 20tons* (in mtu of course):

5tons actual sitting around space broken down as 5 full function workstations (each workstation = 1/2 ton of seat and control board, 1/2 ton of access space, optionally capable of emergency ejection and reentry as a capsule with limited life support and lowberth function)

5tons electronics and mechanicals associated with ship command and control functions (commo, sensors, and such)

3tons of airlock space, generally to separate the bridge from the rest of the ship and allow secure access (a full 3tons of open space with mechanics subsumed in the electronics bridge tonnage above)

2tons of ship's locker space (quite separate from the engineering locker space) adjacent to or part of the airlock (breaks down as 1ton of actual storage and 1ton of access next to it)

5tons of corridor access between the bridge proper and other areas (so one can make things work out sensibly)

* and I'll often take the literal (early? first printing?) rules of CT where it was 20tons of bridge per 1000tons (or fraction) of ship (not a percentage... iirc)


That's the basics. So ships up to 1000tons have 5 crew stations on the bridge, even if not all those will be in use in all cases. For example:

The 100ton Scout/Courier in MTU has 5 crew stations, not the 2 typically shown. Normally the ship can operate fine with a single crewperson, and 4 seats unoccupied. However... one could also have a Pilot, Navigator, Engineer (remotely monitoring the drives), Commander (doing tactical) and Gunner (again remotely, running the turret) all on the bridge for easy communications and smooth operation in combat.

And so on for other ships.

Bigger ships add more possible functions, and fwiw in MTU those Admin personnel (or at least 1 per duty shift) do occupy a bridge position

Other possible bridge positions include Chief Engineer, Gunnery Chief, Battery Master (1 per weapon battery), Screens Officer, Flight Officer, Security Officer, etc. etc.

My interpretation summarized is:

A ship up to 1000tons will have 20tons of bridge with 5 bridge workstations and the required crew per small ship calculations, though it may have additional crew.

A ship over 1000tons up to 2000tons will have 40tons of bridge with 10 bridge workstations and a minimum of 10 crew under CT in MTU.

A ship over 2000tons up to 3000tons will have 60tons of bridge with 20 bridge workstations and 20 crew under CT in MTU. Of that, 5 workstations and 5 crew are overage and could be a small emergency bridge and extra crew for a shift.

A ship over 3000tons up to 4000tons will have 80tons of bridge with 30 bridge workstations and 30 crew under CT in MTU. Of that, 10 workstations and 10 crew are overage and could be a backup bridge and extra crew shifts.

...and so on. On really big ships the bridge tonnage can be further divided (at no extra tonnage imo and in MTU) into backup bridges if you're having a hard time using up the space, and the crew divided into shifts and reserve personnel if you run out of jobs for them all to do (see above notes)

...and no, the bridge tonnage is not for bowling alleys, or putting greens, or shooting ranges, or any of the sort. Except in the usual way of putting some of those long corridors to optional recreational use when it's safe to do so

 

[atpollard]

Far Trader,
True to form, you interpret the rules nearly perfectly as written ... and completely contrary to every official deck plan ever drawn (with the possible exception of some 1000 dT ship where the plans and rules might accidentally converge.) o: [strictly 100% IMHO, but I think that the artists intuitively understand that a 20 ton bridge for all ships from 100 to 1000 tons doesn't quite make graphic sense.]

To others,
Moving 'bridge tonnage' to corridors leads to wild mental gymnastics to rationalize why a 100 ton ship with 2 seats on the 'crew bridge' has more 'bridge corridor space' than a 600 ton ship with 4-6 seats on the 'crew bridge'. [Which is exactly what I do, trusting in the 'slop' (+/- 10%) to cover over a lot of rules silliness. I was particularly inspired by a quote from Scarecrow where he shared something to the effect that he was tired of having his designs strangled by counting squares and if the design says "4 staterooms" and the deck plan has 4 staterooms then that was good enough. - and I say AMEN to that!]

To Gray Pennell,
Could you clarify your opening post so I can at least start out understanding what you are proposing.

[EDIT]

 

[Carlobrand]

Far Trader,
...To others,
Moving 'bridge tonnage' to corridors leads to wild mental gymnastics to rationalize why a 100 ton ship with 2 seats on the 'crew bridge' has more 'bridge corridor space' than a 600 ton ship with 4-6 seats on the 'crew bridge'. ...

Umm, why does your 600 ton ship have 4-6 seats on the bridge? I thought High Guard defaulted to Book 2 in that size range, and Book 2 only wants a pilot and a navigator; engineering crew can do their bit in the drive room. In fact, the bigger bridge crews don't kick in until you're dealing with ships over a thousand tons (which coincidentally is when bridges get bigger), and not all of those need to be on the bridge at the same time.

I always figured the 20 tons as a couple of seats, control interfaces, a tiny fresher ('cause he really should stay close to the bridge when on duty), and lots and lots of space devoted to sensor suites and control equipment. I never count squares for that - I calculate the approximate volume of the hull, subtract fuel and most of the bridge (aside from the seats/fresher/etc.), and then introduce squares for the remaining volume wherever there's enough height for a man to stand upright, making the assumption that fuel tankage and sensor/communication machinery fill in the voids that would otherwise be useless space.

The wiring conduit running from the bridge panel to the drive room, through that narrow space along the upper spine where no man could ever fit in - that's Bridge volume. I don't have to map it all in, I just have to assume it's in all that space that would otherwise go to waste.

 

[Icosahedron]

On smaller ships I tend to handwave it like Marc and add the Bridge space in with the the Accommodation space (and I would probably do that with the very large ships, too, but I've never found the time to prepare deckplans for those). In medium sized ships, I allocate increasing amounts of space to support functions.
In the smallest ships, the Bridge is effectively just a two seat cockpit. As ships get bigger, they incorporate more workstations, a WC, an ever-growing Ship's Locker, a fresher or two, a Captain's Ready Room, a Captain's Office, executive offices, board rooms, a 'War Room' with all the holographic maps and staff to electronically push all the ships and fighters around, Star Wars style 'orchestra pits', grandiose spaces, mezzanine throne rooms, etc, etc.

 

[atpollard]

Umm, why does your 600 ton ship have 4-6 seats on the bridge?

For most versions of Traveller, "Traders and Gunboats" is the most widely used reference for 'adventurer class' ship plans. I was going by memory of the ballpark number of seats drawn on the bridges of the Classic Traveller version of T&G (the one that I am most familiar with).

I like 'the bridge = 2% of ship' as a graphic guideline and aim for that as a starting point for the deck plans of any ship that I create. As a practical matter, I would consider a Pilot Station, Navigator Station (for jump), Engineer Station and Gunner Station as a reasonable lower limit on any Jump capable adventurer ship ... so that makes 4 seats minimum on a 'typical bridge' (gathered together or scattered around the ship is a design preference that I base upon the ship's layout and function).

 

[GypsyComet]

Ah, *this* discussion again.

Prior to MT, "Bridge" included sensors and comms, and could be construed to include airlocks, engineering workstations, the ship's locker, and even parts of life support. ALL of those were broken out in MT and TNE, leaving "the bridge" to be a room full of workstations for flying the ship, and depriving the map maker of some wiggle room for corridors.

I have no problem considering the direct corridor path from the airlock to the bridge to be part of "bridge" volume. Corridors will normally come out of stateroom and lab space anyway, but having a little extra doesn't hurt.

On the classic arrowhead Scout/Courier, the entire nose in front of the bridge's aft bulkhead (about 7 dtons) is "Bridge". So is most of the Upper Gallery, as it holds sensor gear in an active ship.

 

[atpollard]

OK, after rereading the OP for the sixth time, I think that I finally get it …

Ok we are all almost in agrement that the bridge size rule makes for large bridges space wise.

General statement that bridges are really big.

So I just thought about this. Why not make the bridge size the space for all or main ship controls. If you have a 2000 ton ship thats 200 tons for bridge or 300 squares.

GP thinks that the ‘bridge’ space should represent ALL of a ship’s crew control spaces.
His calculation of spaces is off for Classic Traveller (2000 dTon ship x 2% = 40 dTons = 80 spaces), but his basic point that this is a lot of squares on a deck plan is still valid.

They can do the bridge, engineering gunnery etc. I am only talking about space for crew ...

GP suggests that rather than require a single (80 space) main bridge, the squares can be divided into crew work areas throughout the ship. The flight ‘bridge’, the engineering ‘bridge’, the gunnery ‘bridge’ (etc.) will have a combined volume/area equal to the 40 dTons/80 spaces required for a ‘bridge’.

... not the actually equipment. The equipment would just take up the full amount of space.

GP clarifies that other items in the ship design rules would require their full design volumes. No ‘crew space’ would need to be carved out of the designated Maneuver Drive/Power Plant/Jump Drive tonnage for a crew Control Space since some of the ‘bridge’ space would be located adjacent to engineering to serve that function.


Now that I think that I understand what Gray Pennell was saying …

Sure, that makes sense to me.

Arthur

 

[MCEvans]

For most versions of Traveller, "Traders and Gunboats" is the most widely used reference for 'adventurer class' ship plans. I was going by memory of the ballpark number of seats drawn on the bridges of the Classic Traveller version of T&G (the one that I am most familiar with).

I like 'the bridge = 2% of ship' as a graphic guideline and aim for that as a starting point for the deck plans of any ship that I create. As a practical matter, I would consider a Pilot Station, Navigator Station (for jump), Engineer Station and Gunner Station as a reasonable lower limit on any Jump capable adventurer ship ... so that makes 4 seats minimum on a 'typical bridge' (gathered together or scattered around the ship is a design preference that I base upon the ship's layout and function).

Just an FYI from S7 and bridge seating;

x-boat - 2 (100dTon)
Scout/seeker - 2 (100 dTon)
X boat Tender - 4 (1000 dTon)
Sub [Type R] - 3 (400 dTon)
A2 - 2 (200 dTon)
Gazelle CE - 2 (300 dTon)
SDB - 5 (400 dTon) [This appears to have a bridge that is a full 20 dTon in size as it is the entire upper deck]

Just adding fuel to the fire.

 

[mike wightman]

Looking at CT deck plans in T&G and a few other sources:

100t X-boat - 7 tons, 2 workstations
1000t tender - 12t, 4 workstations
100t scout - 5t, 2 workstations
400t fat trader - 10t, 3 workstations
200t far trader - 6t, 2 workstations
300t CE - 4.5t, 2 workstations
400t SDB - 18t, 5 workstations
300t rock - 12t, 4 workstations
800t broadsword - 32t, 5 workstations
200t safari ship - 14t, 2 workstations
600t liner - 18t, 2+ workstaions?
1200t kinunir - 17t, 8+ workstations

Conclusion:
1 workstation 3 tons
2 workstations 4-7 tons
3 workstations 8-11 tons
4 workstations 12-16 tons
5 workstations 16-19 tons

Hypothesis:
small craft 1-2 workstation bridge
civilian
100-300t 2 workstations
400-900t 3 workstations
1000t+ 4 workstations
military ships add workstations as required.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

For reference, here are a couple sketches and such that I've done in the past for some ships, showing how I represented the bridges.

The 1st is off an attempt that I made to draw up a MGT style Yacht that had a 10 dton Bridge.

Here I assumed a two man crew, but added a third "Captain Kirk" style seat since I figured the "owner" might like to sit there at times and play like he's in charge. Around the bridge I assumed that it was ringed by various control consoles to house the comms, sensors and other such equipment.

The 2nd image is for an alternate 100dton scout/courier design that I modified off a small merchant ship that I had done previously. The merchant ship was done in MGT/and early draft of T5 and so had a 10 dton bridge, but for the Scout/Courier variant I decided to use the original CT LBB2 rules, so it has 20 dtons allocated to the "bridge and basic controls".

Here you can see that the "bridge and basic controls are split over two levels, with the lower level containing the sensors & sensor equipment, while the upper level has two crew seats, some equipment racks and consoles (in yellow), a ship's locker, a computer "server room", a small coffee nook (forward on the starboard (left hand) side, and a w/c (head). There is also an Air Lock just aft the bridge on this level.

Since a big mission for a Scout/Courier probably involves Scouting I providing a large sensor area on this ship (for its size) seemed to make sense to me.

Anyway, here is a link to the PDFs that I pulled these images from.

Regards

PF

http://MNVDET.com/OtherY200a.pdf

http://MNVDET.com/CV/Pocket Trader C.pdf

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Atpollard: I'm in total agreement with your comment. I've always assumed the bridge is part of network between, sensors, enginering and avionic. The central Computer is more like a network hub than a CPU. As I have stated in another post, most Traveller drawings don't show the avionics bay but it has to be there. That is why I include them in my drawings. This would account for the large area devoted to the bridge.

 

[Enoki]

While not completely relevant to the issue as this is a science fiction game, we can look at "bridge" sizes on vehicles of various sorts that exist and get some measure of what is required. The best two equivalents are aircraft and ships I would think.

The flight deck size of aircraft really hasn't changed in decades. Today's aircraft have flight decks roughly the exact same size as they were in say, 1940 or 1950. The complexity of flight systems has changed however and these today take up considerably more room than they did back in the times listed.
You have multiple computers, fly-by-wire, redundant hydraulics, etc., all taking up space within the aircraft. These also are scattered throughout it in a way where they mostly, by Traveller standards would be in 'waste space' of a design.

Ship's bridges haven't changed size much in over 100 years either. They have gotten more complex but the driving factor of size is a combination of manning and need to be able to observe from it the surrounding ocean. On military ships the same is true. But, on these what has grown expotentially is the sensor, command and control, and communications systems. Modern warships have alot of volume consumed by their CIC and the related electronics.

One can also see that on ships and aircraft that the bridge size remains relatively constant past a point regardless of how much bigger the ship or aircraft gets. That is, the flight deck on a twin turbo prop, 737, 777, or C-5 Galaxy are all nearly the exact same size. The same is true of ships. The bridge of a large trawler, destroyer, aircraft carrier, and super tanker are all nearly the same size.

This is true even in something like an automobile. The control station (driver's position) hasn't really changed size. What has changed is the amount of electronics and other sensors associated with operation. There are now black boxes scattered throughout the car. The dashboard itself is far more complex and the space taken by insturments and wiring has increased. Again, this is mostly into 'waste space' however.

So, we can see several things are true from this:

1. Bridge size is primarily determined by manning not equipment.
2. As complexity of systems increases more waste space gets consumed in providing a place for that equipment rather than bridge size increasing.
3. Bridge size is not a linear function. I'd postulate it is an inverse square function. That is every time you double the size of the ship the bridge as a percentage of volume decreases and past a certain point no matter how big you make the ship the bridge remains essentially the same size.
4. When you add specialized functions such as aircraft operations on a carrier, weapons systems, and stuff like that you increase the size of ancillary bridge structures like the CIC on a warship. The control of the ship bridge doesn't change however unless these things are co-located.

 

[DangerousThing]

OK, does anybody have something like a deck plan or layout of a modern aircraft carrier's bridge along with the dpeople required to run it?