Cramped spaceships

[rancke]

I just came across a reference to the height of a standard deck on a ship (somewhere between 2.25 and 2.40 meters), and it struck me, not for the first time, how unbelievably pampered Traveller spacemen are. And I'm using that adjective deliberately.

They get paid a substantial salary. They sleep in large single staterooms (on a ship, 3m by 3m is large). Even military people only sleep two to a stateroom, and nary a hint of hot-bunking. And there's the quarter of to half a meter headspace mentioned above. We all know how expensive Traveller spaceships are, so wouldn't space be as much at a premium as it is on 20th Century submarines? Where (if you believe Alistair McLean) the CO and the XO share a tiny little cabin and passengers hot-bunk with them. OK, I don't know, but I'd readily believe that things are a little less cramped in more modern subs, but there's still a long way up to the amount of space a Traveller spaceman enjoys.

And note that this isn't just 12th Century Imperial spacemen who enjoy such conditions; it's everyone, everywhere, at any time. Interstellar Wars, Milieu 0, Milieu 1000... they all use the same cubage for accomodation and life support.

And please don't tell me it's necessary for the mental health of the crew. If a submarine crew can deal with it for months at a time, a spaceship crew can deal with it for weeks.

So if some cheapskate government wanted to build less spacious warships, what would be the lower limits? How much of the traditional 4dT per stateroom is life support, and how little living space can you get away with providing?


Hans

 

[alveric]

I think its cos Traveller (in all its many incarnations) is the high-end, glossy-and-shiny end of science fiction.

Unless you try really hard, even a typical Type A starship ain't Nostromo or Serenity, IMHO.

A.

 

[kafka47]

Early on in the Traveller universe...it was learnt that Space can kill people hence the submarine is perfectly valid. What would happen if a micro metor hit the command deck of Star Destroyer...half the crew would be sucked out...as there are no bulkhead or internal airlocks and everything is built around a central frame.

Traveller is more realistic in this way, also, luxury is always an additional cost...think of how many airplanes today offer beds or cots for passengers. All too often, we think of starships as luxury liners in space (sure Traveller has a number of those) but is more akin to a Mississipi Paddleboat than something lux.

 

[Matt123]

So if some cheapskate government wanted to build less spacious warships, what would be the lower limits? How much of the traditional 4dT per stateroom is life support, and how little living space can you get away with providing?

For that matter, if you resorted to bunk rooms with hamocks (age of sail accomodation) what would thier stats be? Interesting question, I can't help with the answers, but my government accountants are very interested in the concept. We prefer the phrase "fiscally responsible".

Cheers

 

[mmbutter]

Traveller is more realistic in this way, also, luxury is always an additional cost...think of how many airplanes today offer beds or cots for passengers.

Airplanes also only have the passengers for a few hours, not for over a week each trip. Airplanes that routinely travel longer routes are also more likely to have lounges, couches, and cots. Trains are the same - those that travel longer routes have more sleeping cars than commuter trains.

 

[far-trader]

The Devil's (in the details) Advocate

While I agree the salaries and costs are high (I change the economics for MTU) I wouldn't go so far as to say that the ships are spacious or the crew and passengers pampered. Not when deckplans are drawn to the correct size and scale and everything is included.

Let's start with the height issue. 3m clear deck height sounds high but that should include the actual deck plates, hull bulkhead and other solid thickness, so you lose a bit right there. Then there's the required mechanical and electrical chases and equipment, life support, artificial gravity plates, and whatever. All bringing us down to the referenced 2.25m to 2.4m (7'4" to 7'10") of clear ceiling height. For the living areas of the ship this is tight. Modern construction is typically just over 2.4m (8') for ceilings. Naturally cargo spaces will be higher (nearly the full 3m) and engineering spaces will have open/exposed mechanical and electrical chases and equipment, appearing higher (nearly the full 3m) but actually limited to less than that.

Now about that expansive 3m square "stateroom" being so large. It really isn't. Let's not forget we have partition wall thicknesses to account for in that as well, shrinking the overall area within the room. As a bedroom alone it's small. Add even a space efficient fresher and it's downright cramped imo. Of course most published deckplans go way over the +20% and the staterooms themselves are +50% typically, often 3m x 4.5m, some are even +100% at 3m x 6m iirc.

Then try to fit the rest of the "common" spaces into the actual tonnage and you'll find it pretty cramped and doing double duty (at least) as well. Generally as providing a means of getting from one area to another. Using strict accounting of tonnage, and even an honest +20% allowance, you'll find it hard, at least on smaller ships, to have dedicated accessways all over the ship. You'll be lucky to get one, unlike examples showing mulitples. I'm looking at you 200ton Far-Trader that is actually more like 400tons with your long space wasting accessways fore to aft on both sides of the ship.

If I had to guess at a minimal requirement I'd probably go with half the stated volumes, and anticipate mutiny

p.s. I seem to recall various ANSI sources that actually match pretty closely to Traveller design tonnage for stateroom and accessway minimums for commercial ships. Military are a bit tighter iirc, perhaps about half.

 

[rancke]

While I agree the salaries and costs are high (I change the economics for MTU) I wouldn't go so far as to say that the ships are spacious or the crew and passengers pampered. Not when deckplans are drawn to the correct size and scale and everything is included.

I didn't mention passengers at all. "Pampered" is, of course, an exaggeration for effect. It's only pampered in comparison to what people will, demonstrably, put up with in order to earn a good salary or save a few thousand credits on a ticket.

For the living areas of the ship [2.25m to 2.4m clear ceiling height] is tight. Modern construction is typically just over 2.4m (8') for ceilings.

Modern construction doesn't cost hundreds of thousand of credits per dT. Modern construction doesn't have to fit inside a jump field.

Now about that expansive 3m square "stateroom" being so large. It really isn't. Let's not forget we have partition wall thicknesses to account for in that as well, shrinking the overall area within the room. As a bedroom alone it's small. Add even a space efficient fresher and it's downright cramped imo.

Even compared to living conditions on submarines?

Then try to fit the rest of the "common" spaces into the actual tonnage and you'll find it pretty cramped and doing double duty (at least) as well. Generally as providing a means of getting from one area to another. Using strict accounting of tonnage, and even an honest +20% allowance, you'll find it hard, at least on smaller ships, to have dedicated accessways all over the ship. You'll be lucky to get one, unlike examples showing mulitples. I'm looking at you 200ton Far-Trader that is actually more like 400tons with your long space wasting accessways fore to aft on both sides of the ship.

So this is an inefficient design, likely to be outcompeted by a design with 2m ceiling height and crew living in bunk beds with curtains facing the corridor, yes? These dimensions ARE prolifigate when you consider that they represent cargo you don't carry or military stores and munitions you don't have along.

If I had to guess at a minimal requirement I'd probably go with half the stated volumes, and anticipate mutiny

Has there been many mutinies on US submarines lately? Do passengers on transcontinental trains riot much?

p.s. I seem to recall various ANSI sources that actually match pretty closely to Traveller design tonnage for stateroom and accessway minimums for commercial ships. Military are a bit tighter iirc, perhaps about half.

Don't get me wrong, I've no objection to settings where living standards make a 3x3 single stateroom the absolute minimum the Spacers' Union will accept for its members. What I object to is such standards being universal. Such standards are socially enforced, not imposed by grim reality.

(Also, I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a market for passenger transport that packs them four to a stateroom, as long as the cost is reduced in proportion.)


Hans

 

[CosmicGamer]

We all know how expensive Traveller spaceships are, so wouldn't space be as much at a premium as it is on 20th Century submarines? Where (if you believe Alistair McLean) the CO and the XO share a tiny little cabin and passengers hot-bunk with them.

No. At least not IMO. Based on this theory, why are all military ships not built as cramped as submarines?

While submarines (never been on a new one) may still be cramped. I don't recall needing to duck on any of the other military ships I've been on except to get through hatches or for piping or other items overhead. I also don't recall instances of hot bunking.

Can people live in tight spaces? Yes
Will they mutiny? Maybe not
Will people be happier and healthier in a smaller space? No
Will it save money? Yes on construction costs but there is debate regarding how much you save because of higher performance (better moral) and higher retention (require less training) when accommodations / luxuries are increased.

Operating a slave ship where you don't even need to pay the crew and can cram them in nut to but is economical! No?

Maybe those human rights extremists lobbied and got building codes created based on research accumulated over many years of SPACEflight (verses using data based on sailing ships, trains, and airships)

Over time, the trend has tended to be an increase in space and luxuries.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/01/british-warships-get-ipod-docks-surround-sound/

Check out this article indicating $$$ spent on sailors to provide living space when in home port. Someone thinks there is a benefit to the additional cost. http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/05/navy_homeportashore_050408w/

Ship construction is a game mechanic. I always look at these things as guidelines. I don't expect every possible option to be written in the rules. If they were, I wouldn't have time to play because that would be a lot of reading! So what if only the most common, or average solution is provided. Go ahead and use your imagination. Isn't that what this game is about?

So if some cheapskate government wanted to build less spacious warships, what would be the lower limits? How much of the traditional 4dT per stateroom is life support, and how little living space can you get away with providing?

IMO
First, any cost savings will be exceeded by the cost of not having standard ship plans.
Second, staterooms are a small percentage of the space and cost of most typical ships. Passenger ships wouldn't be packing passengers in like cattle and uplifted cows need their space too (dang laws!). So about the only place there would be enough people to allow any significant savings of space or money would be transport ships.
Isn't there information on barracks or barrack modules out there or a troop transport ship? Maybe a colony ship? I know there was a thread similar to this but I searched and couldn't find it.

I think that using 2 people per stateroom (at a time) and hot bunking (3 8hr sleep shifts) each stateroom can accommodate six people without breaking your life support.

If you want to beef up the life support; based on some diagrams for small passenger transport craft, lounges, and sick bays, it seams very possible to have life support handle 1 person per dton of space. This agrees with

If I had to guess at a minimal requirement I'd probably go with half the stated volumes

Perhaps add 100,000cr per person for beefing up life support?

What I object to is such standards being universal. Such standards are socially enforced

Basicly, in the OTU it seams society has created the standards specified in the books. No reason the society IYTU can't be different Hans.

 

[leo knight]

Seconding CosmicGamer's last sentence. IYTU, anything goes. After watching "Master and Commander" I briefly flirted with the idea of equipping all my ships with hammocks .

Here's a link to the page on crew quarters at Atomic Rockets:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3ag.html#bunk

A little ways down is a graph from a NASA report on living space per person, measured in cubic meters. Hope this gives you some ideas.

 

[Mithras]

Surely the Shuttle and ISS little sleeping bags velcroed to the wall really are space-age hamocks. Astronauts have very little private space, and spend weeks if not months aboard the ISS, with only a small space for storage and privacy, and a wall-mounted bag for sleep.

Seconding CosmicGamer's last sentence. IYTU, anything goes. After watching "Master and Commander" I briefly flirted with the idea of equipping all my ships with hammocks .

 

[rancke]

No. At least not IMO. Based on this theory, why are all military ships not built as cramped as submarines?

That's not the right question. The question is, why isn't all ships as spacious as some military ships? And the answer is, in some cases the priorities are different. But in Traveller, the priorities are the same from one end of time to the other and from one end of Charted space to the other.

While submarines (never been on a new one) may still be cramped. I don't recall needing to duck on any of the other military ships I've been on except to get through hatches or for piping or other items overhead. I also don't recall instances of hot bunking.

Because 21st Western Culture is not prepared to treat sailors the way 18th Century Culture took for granted. But that's asocial constraint, not a physical constraint.

Operating a slave ship where you don't even need to pay the crew and can cram them in nut to but is economical! No?

Maybe those human rights extremists lobbied and got building codes created based on research accumulated over many years of SPACEflight (verses using data based on sailing ships, trains, and airships)

And every culture in Charted Space adopted those codes? I don't think so.

Ship construction is a game mechanic. I always look at these things as guidelines. I don't expect every possible option to be written in the rules. If they were, I wouldn't have time to play because that would be a lot of reading! So what if only the most common, or average solution is provided. Go ahead and use your imagination. Isn't that what this game is about?

I thought I was using my imagination here. Instead of just accepting that starship construction is identical everywhere, everywhen, I'm suggesting that this might not, in fact, be the case. How is that not using my imagination?

First, any cost savings will be exceeded by the cost of not having standard ship plans.

Except that I'm suggesting that in some settings those wouldn't be standard ship plans.

Second, staterooms are a small percentage of the space and cost of most typical ships.

Not when you factor in the cost of drives and the space for fuel.

Passenger ships wouldn't be packing passengers in like cattle and uplifted cows need their space too (dang laws!). So about the only place there would be enough people to allow any significant savings of space or money would be transport ships.

Now just why would the option of paying half a year's income and spending a week in a single stateroom invariably be chosen over paying two month's income and spending a week bunking with three others?

Basicly, in the OTU it seems society has created the standards specified in the books.

I hope you don't take this amiss, but that statement precisely exemplified the attitude that I find so deplorable. What society? "In the OTU" covers umpteen millions of societies. Including the one where sailors were stuffed into ship holds at 14 inches to a man hammock space.

There is a very good reason why all ships have jump drives of the same size for the same hull size and jump number. It's enforced by the laws of nature (in this case imaginary laws of nature, but still). And I'm sure there's a minimum space needed to keep someone alive and healthy during a jump. But I'm quite sure that minimum space is less than 4 DT. The difference is the difference between "conditions you wouldn't offer a dog" and "decent conditions". But 'decent conditions' is not an invariant. It will differ from society to society.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

...I hope you don't take this amiss, but that statement precisely exemplified the attitude that I find so deplorable. What society? "In the OTU" covers umpteen millions of societies. Including the one where sailors were stuffed into ship holds at 14 inches to a man hammock space.

Ah, but those umpteen millions of societies are not the few societies that defined and continue to define interstellar space ship design and manufacture except a few. And while one of those few is the same one where sailors were stuffed into ship holds at 14 inches to a man hammock space that was millenia ago and not in space but in a generally nice climate where one could and would spend most of the time on the deck in the open air.

Not only in MTU but in Canon there are examples of differences between the Major Races as they build and approach interstellar space ship construction. In fact the Solomani do allow smaller quarters as standard.

There are differences. Not clearly enough stated or exemplified imo but I don't imagine there should be millions of different ways of doing it, even if one could imagine millions of different ways of doing it

 

[robject]

So if some cheapskate government wanted to build less spacious warships, what would be the lower limits? How much of the traditional 4dT per stateroom is life support, and how little living space can you get away with providing?

In the best sense of "Space Opera", no lower limits beyond what the rules say. So pick your rules carefully. House rules, for you, most likely!

Since I can also pick the ruleset, I'll choose Traveller5, which does not charge for staterooms, and has dropped the explicit life support costs. It keeps the minimum volume requirement per person, and adds a minimum volume of actual quarters space per crew member. It then prescribes one senior officer per 3t stateroom, two junior officers sharing a 3t stateroom, 4 ratings in a 3-ton bunkroom, a 1-ton single-occupancy spacer niche, a 1-ton double-occupancy spacer bunk, and a 1-ton 6-person spacer hot bunk.

 

[Ran Targas]

Having been aboard a number of subs and going to sea as a midshipman on an old fast attack, let me state that accomodations are not quite as bad as related by some. It's no cruise ship or even a destroyer for that matter but conditions are comfortable if cramped. Junior seamen do find themselves sleeping over torpedoes on occassion with little room for personal items other than toiletries but there's excellent compensation; the pay and food are by far the best in the service and once out, the skills they learn are very marketable.

To get a feel for Navy life, check out this link; it's a deposition by the Master Chief of the Navy to Congress concerning the conditions for sailors serving ten or so years ago:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/mcpon/hagn0318.txt

 

[Madarin Dude]

I can attribute the tonnage requirements to Villani culture and would be the norm in most of the Imperium. (I heard it is because people of Villani decent have horrible BO but I digress) I think Swordworlder and Solomani would have different standards. And can put up with more cramped conditions. Considering some of my travel accommodations. (BTW transpacific flights are cattle car just like the rest flew from San Francisco to Shanghai)

On rail accommodations had a sleeper car room in China that I shared with 5 other people I could see that as being a viable accommodation on a week long flight for passengers crew will have to have better than that because they have to deal with it for most of their life you can put up with a lot of crap for a week or so if there is a payoff. I might make a steerage class for accommodations just above cold sleep.

In all likelihood it could be a cultural thing.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Surely the Shuttle and ISS little sleeping bags velcroed to the wall really are space-age hamocks. Astronauts have very little private space, and spend weeks if not months aboard the ISS, with only a small space for storage and privacy, and a wall-mounted bag for sleep.

And not so long ago there outhouses were common. Does this mean starships should have freshers on the outside accessible only by going through the airlock?:rofl:

Progress people. Look forward not back or even current.

 

[far-trader]

And of course the shuttle and ISS have a problem that doesn't exist in Traveller, practically free unlimited mass lift to orbit and beyond. If it didn't cost what, US$20,000 per kilo to put stuff in orbit by shuttle, down to about US$5,000 per kilo other ways, then you might see more luxuries and bigger volume than currently employed.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I thought I was using my imagination here... [clip] ...How is that not using my imagination?

Let me clarify for you that my comment was not inditing you for lack of imagination but encouraging you to continue doing so.

Not when you factor in the cost of drives and the space for fuel.

As i already indicated, I don't believe in typical ship designs the space saved in berthing will alter the ships tonnage enough to change the jump or maneuver drive required. Yes, there would be some fuel savings.

Now just why would the option of paying half a year's income and spending a week in a single stateroom invariably be chosen over paying two month's income and spending a week bunking with three others?

Don't know what motivates all people. Why do some people want larger more expensive homes but want a cozy fireplace or a breakfast nook? I think it is fairly basic human psychology to need both space and closeness. Kinda weird, huh?

Basicly, in the OTU it seems society has created the standards specified in the books.

I hope you don't take this amiss, but that statement precisely exemplified the attitude that I find so deplorable.

Agreed. You caught my shot at the belief that the only possibly way of doing things is the 'canon' way.

'decent conditions' is not an invariant. It will differ from society to society.

Probably very true. I've heard stories regarding certain cramped Japanese accommodations. In the opposite direction, maybe in some societies it is common for family to join crew on board a ship.

 

[Dragoner]

I would say crew quarters on cruise ships are about right, maybe slighty bigger because there is not any going on deck option.

However, starships are a whole other order of magnitude technically over a ship today, which means many more higher trained personel to run and maintain it. A high quality engineer or electronics/IT person would pretty much demand their own cabin. Only low ratings would take a cabin with 4-6 other crew and it would seem that many of the crew would be eliminated if at all possible. Starships would most likely be very officer heavy crew wise and Officers would all want their own cabins.

 

[alveric]

Traveller isn't reality.

We're talking about starfaring cultures with almost magical tech. How many Traveller ships allocate cubage for pressurised tanks of air or waste recycling or hydroponics baths or mycoculture basins? They don't, cos TL10+ can just handwave it all out of - er - thin air.

Most Traveller ships are described as having *carpet*!!!

True, you probably could build a ship with three crew bunks crammed into a 1.2 x 2.4 alcove, and give every deck a 2m headroom, but where's the comfort in that for a culture at TL12?

I mean, six standard staterooms allows for three 3m square staterooms up each side of a lounge/galley area measuring perhaps 6m x 9m at most, and as a passenger, you can't go anywhere else except that lounge for a week or so.

Forgive me, but I don't think that's exactly roomy.

A.