• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Deckplan Aides

Spike

SOC-7
So I'm working on designing some ships for a campaign I hope to run soon enough and I was hoping to find some simple systems to laying out the deck plans.

I've been using sheets of graph paper to lay out basic designs, with on square equal to one D-ton, which seems to fit the general concept.

The problem I've run into is that this system will so totally not work with the massive scale battleship designs I want to work on. I've got a sort of engineer/drafts graph paper which I guess will help, but what I really want is a nice electronic grid thing I can make little clip art for things like staterooms and the like, cause drawing out four thousand staterooms and five hundred armories by hand sounds like one hell of a pain in the tuckus.

But so far, I can't find anything of that sort on line.

And bulk drawings, like I've already started on, really won't cut it if I plan on using the ship(s) as set pieces for character action, where layout becomes important.

What does anyone recommend?

Thanks.
 
Just for reference:
if you're going for 1 square per Td, use 2x2m squares 3.5m tall. (3.25 if using MT).

If you want traditional, however, 2 squares per Td at 1.5x1.5m, 3m tall (3.05m really).

Or, in GURPS scale, 2 squares of 5x5 foot, 10' tall, to get the 500 CuFt.


Any CAD program should do what you're asking well enough.

My preference is for Campaign Cartographer; the learning curve can be steep, but the results are worthy. It does all the stuff you'll need, and with the Cosmographer add on, much of it is already done. And CC3 is easier to learn than CC2 was...

Autorealm is freeware, focused on large scale maps, but I've seen plans done with it.

Fractal Mapper is comparable in price and features to CC, but I found it even more counter-intuitive than CC2. And I have CC2 and CC3.

I've also used Appleworks' draw module, MacDraft (back on an SE30), Superpaint (on a Mac LC), Cadintosh (On intel mac)

For 3D CAD, the cheap end is Google Sketchup. I've found I LOVE doing deckplans that way.
 
A lot depends on how much effort you want to put in and how pretty you want the finished plan to be. Usually these are inversely proportional.

Any CAD software, such as the ones Aramis mentioned will do the trick, but if you're not already familiar with CAD software (and if you were, you wouldn't be asking the question), you're probably going to spend the first six to twelve months just learning how to use the software.

You may find tile-mapper software more comfortable for your purposes (Google it).
One of the simplest products I've used is Dungeonforge (Google it). It has a ready-made library (or make your own) of 20x20 pixel tiles suitable for deckplan construction. They are not very detailed, but for ships of the size you describe, you won't have much room for detail.
Oh, and it's free!

For a more detailed interior, capable of producing artwork pretty enough for publication in a commercial game, check out Dundjinni, but you'll have to pay out some money for that one.

I've produced some reasonable deckplans just using MS Paint, but its inability to zoom out makes larger ships a PITA to draw, since you can't get an overall view. However, there are Paint clones out there (some of them free) that will zoom out. (ImageForge springs to mind).

The other two categories of deckplan-creating software are Virtual Table Tops (VTT) (Google it) and drawing software such as Photoshop, Gimp, Inkscape, Corel Draw, Paintshop, etc, but they have steep learning curves like CAD.

My advice would be to try out Dungeonforge first, it's free and simple to learn, so minimum investment. If you like it but want more detail, buy Dundjinni.
Meanwhile try out Autorealm (a free Cad program) and if you like that, you could invest in Campaign Cartographer/Cosmographer.
While you're at it, if you prefer the 'fine art' route, Gimp is a free equivalent of Photoshop, and MapTools is a free VTT.

You could also go the 3D route, but that's out of my league.

Happy Googling, and happy deckplanning. :)
 
Last edited:
If you are considering CAD, try AutoRealm first. Free and easier to use then Campaign Cartographer.

Rough tutorial here to get you started.
 
Last edited:
Also no matter which one you try, if you run into a problem post and ask.

Several of us use the various programs and might be able to point you to a solution. :)

I use CC2 and AutoREALM.

I use AutoREALM the most because it is the easiest and fastest way for me.

Dave Chase
 
Side note to the thread: One thing I recommend doing - if you have it; I wouldn't go out and buy it just for this purpose - is rendering out rooms to see if they're workable using The Sims 2. In Sims 2 build mode, one square on the floor is roughly 2.5 ft on a side; that makes 8 squares per displacement ton. If a Sim can walk around the room and have everything accessible, it's a good room.

After you render the room using TS2, you can use some of the other tools included in it to give your players a "character's-eye view" of the room from various vantage points. The only problem is finding sufficiently Travelleroid or SF-nal furnishings to use for "camera shots".

(At some point when my copious spare time actually becomes a little more copious, I may actually install TS2 on my Win7 box and do a few such renders...)
 
Side note to the thread: One thing I recommend doing - if you have it; I wouldn't go out and buy it just for this purpose - is rendering out rooms to see if they're workable using The Sims 2.

Now I'm picturing space travelers doing that angry pee pee dance with red symbols in a dialog box because I designed something wrong. THANKS. :)
 
Thanks, I'll look into these and see if I can get any to work for me. Might be a bit tough, my desktop's video card just died, leaving me with the practically indestructible, but incompatible with everything, mac.

Regarding ceiling heights: The basic idea there has always sounded off to me. Space ships in general should seem more cramped,which means the lowest practical ceilings (excepting cargo bays mostly), and if cubic volume is an issue, you'd rather have floor space than extra head space. The only way I see to justify ten feet of vertical space per ton is by taking at least two feet of that for infrastructure (piping, etc), but the more decks you stack the less reasonable that becomes.
 
Thanks, I'll look into these and see if I can get any to work for me. Might be a bit tough, my desktop's video card just died, leaving me with the practically indestructible, but incompatible with everything, mac.

I run CC2 and CC3 under wine on an intel mac just fine. (except for text in symbol sets and templates. Text added directly, however, works great.)

Regarding ceiling heights: The basic idea there has always sounded off to me. Space ships in general should seem more cramped,which means the lowest practical ceilings (excepting cargo bays mostly), and if cubic volume is an issue, you'd rather have floor space than extra head space. The only way I see to justify ten feet of vertical space per ton is by taking at least two feet of that for infrastructure (piping, etc), but the more decks you stack the less reasonable that becomes.

8' to 10' deck height is not uncommon on naval vessels. And not always consistent on a given vessel, either.... and 10' floortop to floortop is normal spacing for buildings, too... 6"-2' lost to flooring and floor joists itself, and 1"-1' lost to typical ceilings. Standard buisiness plans use an 8' drop ceiling in a 10' to 12' per floor norm. This allows ventilation, plumbing, structure, data, power, etc to be run out of sight. Likewise, machinery can be installed into that space.

Minimum canonical deck loss is 10cm (bulkhead thickness... which, if we presume a mere pair of 1cm plates and 8cm of joist space... gives a pair of Striker/MT AV 4 steel, AV8 laminate, AV15 Crystaliron, AV21 Superdense, or AV29 BSD plates; this results in AV12 steel, AV16 laminate, AV23 CI, AV29 SD, and AV37 BSD... Pen 30 is reqired to breach a bulkhead (AHL, p.20), but the AHL would also be BSD, so we can either presume 10.1mm BSD single plate, or 2x 5.1 mm plates... or 3x 3.6mm plates.
 
Sorry, you got a bit ahead of me with the AHL's and other acronyms there. Also, the AV numbers strongly suggest you are using a vastly different Traveller than I am (mongoose, in which an armor value? of 37 suggests you have better technology than the Ancients! Not that I don't have my problems with the level of abstractions (100k dton battleships carry more tons of armor but don't actually have more armor for stopping lasers than an equivilent percentage of armor on a smaller vessel.).

I think deckplates and other interior surfaces would be as thin and light as possible to make them in general to reduce mass and to leave as much interior volume for more important things (cargo, weapons, crew...whatever) as possible, leaving only a few 'vacuumproof' bulkheads for compartmentalized design. Even cargo bays, where actual tons of cargo will be stored would rather spend the mass on support struts sized to the 1-ton cargo modules (which... having worked transporting cargo myself seems ridiculously small, even allowing for the idea of d-ton modules holding several mass tons of much denser cargo... which I will ask about in a moment) than the deckplates that lie between those struts. Depending on the ship (the amount of 'luxury' tonnage perhaps being one indicator here), a lot of stuff in the overheads would be, by nature, exposed for easy access for repairs and cost savings. I still think 8 feet is closer than 10 feet for smaller ships especially (even counting belowdecks and ceiling), but I can easily see how a larger, multi-deck ship would undoubtedly have more overhead.

Regarding the measurement of Tonnage: I am presuming that a Displacement Ton is based on the volume of one metric ton of fuel (liquid hydrogen I presume? FAKE EDIT: Yes, I see it in my lone LBB (2) that it is liquid hydrogen's volume), while in the real world it would be the amount of water displaced by the ship (and thus all out of proportion to the ships actual measurements...). However, hydrogen, or even water, is much lighter by volume (density, duh) than most cargos (metals for example) and even high density ship components (armor especially, possibly drives and power plants).

For 'components' like the bridge, the staterooms and so on, I'm willing to allow for averaged densities: The volume of air and other light materials (cushion foam) are offset by the metals and other high density components that make it up. Even with weapons bays and fire control tonnage its possible to imagine a large amount of 'dead space' that offsets the high density components.

For Armor and cargo (I've had asteroid mining on the brain for some reason, so I am working with high density cargos as a standard), this is really wonky, however. As thrust has to be computed against mass, not volume, we have to assume that actual mass is important for almost every aspect of ship design except floorplans and to a lesser extent hull costs (volume increases surface area, which means, obviously, more work). For consistancy Jump should work the same way, but we can (and should) make an argument for jump to be computed by volume... I think.

The reasons this is important are, of course, accounting for armor when designing floorplans (simply deducting the armor's 'tonnage' from available space is easy but unsatisfying, and again: If jump works by volume then heavily armored ships jump as if they were smaller (ratio density for armor becomes important. Notionally I'd say 1/5), or have more floorspace inside, which seems counter-intuitive, to offset the mass.

For ships with large cargo bays the density of the cargo carried (or its even presence) becomes of paramount importance for thrust if nothing else. A 100 ton ship with 30 tons of cargo will have vastly different thrust ratings depending upon wether or not the cargo bay is even full (say, again, a mining ship on its way out to the rocks vs returning). Cargo bays must be rated at least in D-tons of volume, as it seems filling the cargo with fuel bladders is not an unheard of practice, but also must represent a mass limit (or else you get overloaded ships with new thrust ratings).

Maybe my version of the rules is inadaquet for what I'm doing, but the gulf between volume measurements and mass measurements is driving me buggy...

REAL EDIT: I'm downloading the google sketchup. I'm not sure if my OS is 10.5, I think its just 10... but I am neither a talented artist nor a software wizard, so we'll see. :)

It's just OS X 10 I guess... :(
 
Last edited:
OR....

You could just do certain portions (ie. a standard barracks section, standard wardroom, weapons station, ect. you get the idea) and let the story tell itself instead of spending too much time on gearheadedness (I KNOW I DID NOT JUST MAKE UP THAT WORD). :rofl:
 
The AV numbers I used are from CT and MT; Specifically from Striker. Ship hulls start at 40 and go up from there... Battledress ranges from AV10 to AV18.
CI=Crystaliron
SD=Superdense
BSD=Bonded Superdense.

Post in the fleet section, people will provide answers based on any and/or all editions.
Tho' I don't think I've seen any answers based upon Traveller For Hero yet... :)
 
Tho' I don't think I've seen any answers based upon Traveller For Hero yet... :)

Yes, the answers you get will vary by what system people play/house rule, but then again, INSPIRATION is good regardless where it comes from, no?

Haven't tried HERO yet, is it any good? Although right now I can't afford a 2$ PDF anyway :(.
 
Yes, the answers you get will vary by what system people play/house rule, but then again, INSPIRATION is good regardless where it comes from, no?

Haven't tried HERO yet, is it any good? Although right now I can't afford a 2$ PDF anyway :(.

Hero System over all, I like it FAR better than GURPS. Very similar base approaches, VERY different execution. Much more GM-control built in.

Traveller For Hero is a pretty thorough adaptation of the OTU, focusing on CT, MT, and TNE compatiblity. It's big, and it's (as far as I know) no longer licensed.
 
I got the Crystaliron and Superdense (or bonded superdense, as Mong-Trav only has the one)..

CT? Classic Traveller? I assume this is a reference to the original little black books... of which I have 'Book 2, starships'... gained, in all places, from Bagram.

MT? Megatraveller? I played in that eons ago, and I once owned Fire, Fusion and Steel for it (which, in my foolish youth I mostly used to design guns and ignored spaceships)

And I thought I WAS in The Fleet section?!? :oo:


On to other things of interest.

For reasons baffling to me, Mong-Trav does not list displacement tons for grav-tanks, though they are in main book. I gather a grav tank masses around 20-30 tons, but from the Aslan book their displacement is comparable to the ATV (4 tons), but I'd have to double check that. My best source, so far, is the Gurps Traveller Ground Forces book, which lists a lot of technical detail alongside the rules details.

Obviously, I'm focusing highly on technical aspects here more than rules aspects. Also: If the LBB is correct (14m3 for a displacement ton), I'm reasonably certain that I could fit my entire HOUSE inside a single Dton... unless I'm missing some element to cubic measurements. This puts a very wonky spin on the 'size' of the average stateroom, and would render moot every measurement given so far. Either people in space grow to very large sizes or someone (maybe me) screwed something up when measuring stuff...

Some notes/questions that I have generated for myself:

Armories are listed as 2 tons and supporting 10 marines or 50 crew. I am fine with that number for small arms and ammuntion (for the moment lets ignore my question regarding the 14m3 measurment of a single Dton). This is a single bunkroom 'half' of a stateroom, enough space for a couple racks of weapons, some ammunition and a few other things. This may be a bit on the large size, actually, leaving almost enough room for some poor bastard to work inside the thing, handing the stuff out.

On the other hand, it seems way too small for ten battledress marines. I'm not sure I would allow more than 2 marines to dress and arm in Battledress in such a space (and I'm guessing they would require a technician to help them get fully kitted up).

Bathroom/showers: At a guess, a single man stateroom (officer quarters) probably has a private facility. Two man staterooms (for petty officers) probably have one facility for two people. Quarters for ratings and grunt marines would probably use a shared facility... I'm guessing 1 'stall' for every ten bunks in an area. This wouldn't really change tonnage for quarters (well... it probably should, actually but...)... but it does. Strangely, while private lavatories would actually reduce floorspace available, they increase the 'comfort' of the quarters considerably. For 'luxury' passenger quarters, additional floorspace from 'luxury tonnage' or Gurps Traveller style 'Luxury Staterooms' (missing in Mong Trav, but I think easy enough to port in...) would naturally have more expansive facilities. The arrangement of public facilities in this fashion would actually serve to increase floorspace for the group, reducing crowding on the cheap (and would make building the ship's quarters cheaper in theory...) Have I missed a glaringly obvious problem? I assume that water recycling is simple and efficient enough that washing is not a problem.

Mess sections: Ship designs, as near as I can tell, universally do not address eating. Food costs appear to be absorbed into a generic 'life support budget'... though with a fuel processor on board I assume oxygen is pretty cheap (since ships are burning through tons and tons of hydrogen at an appalling rate...and a good chunk of that seems to come from water cracking). On the small ships this doesn't particularly bother me... people eat prepacked whatever in their cabins or workstations... whatever. On a large ship with a crew measurable in thousands, this is simply not a functional design. I'm willing to assume that mess halls then are 'placed' in the Command Tonnage (a 100k battleship has 3k tons of command area.. thats bigger than most Traveller ships to include supercargos.). I believe I've worked out a good ratio of sorts for messes: 1 ton per person who can be fed at one time, which should not be more than 1/3rd the total crew (and can be a lot less), obviously cooks come from the service section, and this tonnage includes the kitchen areas. For actual foodstuffs, I have worked out a very very long series of notes, but we can assume that a ship carries enough frozen foodstuffs for a month in some unspecified area (easier on big ships with the 'dead tonnage' mentioned above. For longer term use, I postulated a SCOP tank (Single Celled Organic Protein), fed by the ships sewage system, after processing. Assuming even a 1 ton tank (I worked with 5 tons, removing 1 ton for hardware), and assuming that the SCOP was 50% water and no more than 5% fiber by volume, I could feed an insane number of people per day from such a tank (adjusting for growth rates, a single kilogram of SCOP provided something like 3500 calories. Even if only half of the tank is the SCOP mass, that's 450 people from a single ton. Growth rates would be high (up to double its mass daily at the high end, but even 10% of mass allows 45 people to be fed indefinitely on a single ton... though not pleasantly). Assuming multiple 'breeds' of SCOP with slightly different protein properties, when properly prepared (dried, flavored, cooked) the SCOP could replace flour, eggs and even sugars in the cooking process, though having multiple tanks for this is only practical on very large ships. Again, tanks would be generally 'hidden' in the Command tonnage, but then filling that with real systems is part of the goal.

Something I can't figure to hide in the command tonnage would be 'hydroponics'. These would be luxury tonnage at best. What I can't do is determine off hand how many people/tons is best. I estimated that you'd need 1 ton per person, but only when dealing with them on a larger scale, and this would only provide a tiny amount of 'fresh greens', mostly in the form of legumes and other higher food density crops... not much fruit I suspect. Most ships, even luxury liners and yachts would do without.

I did figure you could stack chickens that lay eggs into 1 dton spaces fairly easily. It'd be inhumane, but 10 chickens is easy, giving you an appropriate quantity of eggs per person per ton (I've collected farm eggs, but sadly I failed to pay attention. I'm guessing that 9 chickens and a cock could still provide 10 eggs a day average). At the high end, you could fit a LOT more chickens in the same space. Also, I figured you could estimate ounces of meat per person per day with sustainable 'chicken removal', if you have enough chickens to allow for growth... say 90 chickens, giving you 1 to eat per day. Call these extra big/meaty space chickens with 10 pounds of meat... high, but doable. Again: Luxury tonnage probably.

I also estimated you could get a 400 pound 'veal' cow, two per ton... in lots of 200 tons, you can slaughter a cow every day all year round, giving your cows a one year life cycle. To prevent inbreeding you'd use stored semen and probably swap 'batches' at stations, but then I don't imagine anyone would pay that much attention given that these food animals are essentially locked in a small box with life support tubes going in both ends. The extra mass/space accounts for life support specifically for the cows (and yes, they would need to be paid for... seriously: If you want to be a space rancher, you better be prepared to pay for it! On the other hand, you're getting 200+ pounds of tender beef a day... in space. Screw SCOP!)

A lot of these sorts of 'food systems' would be found primarily in long established, very large, space stations rather than on board regular ships, which would make do with frozen and/or dried foods (excepting the SCOP, which could be scaled down to much smaller tanks and still feed normal ship crews for 'free tonnage'. Also: Never eat the stuff fresh out of the tank... wash it first!).

Strangely, aside from SCOP, none of those notes had any value in my planning/design processes. Once I started thinking about the logistics of food in space, I couldn't stop until I'd burned through several pages of notes.
 
I got the Crystaliron and Superdense (or bonded superdense, as Mong-Trav only has the one)..

CT? Classic Traveller? I assume this is a reference to the original little black books... of which I have 'Book 2, starships'... gained, in all places, from Bagram.

Yes, CT is Classic Traveller, the "original" little black books 1-3 and 4-8 additions.

MT? Megatraveller? I played in that eons ago, and I once owned Fire, Fusion and Steel for it (which, in my foolish youth I mostly used to design guns and ignored spaceships)

Correct again.

And I thought I WAS in The Fleet section?!? :oo:

Yep, you are :)

Obviously, I'm focusing highly on technical aspects here more than rules aspects. Also: If the LBB is correct (14m3 for a displacement ton), I'm reasonably certain that I could fit my entire HOUSE inside a single Dton... unless I'm missing some element to cubic measurements. This puts a very wonky spin on the 'size' of the average stateroom, and would render moot every measurement given so far. Either people in space grow to very large sizes or someone (maybe me) screwed something up when measuring stuff...

CUBIC implying to the 3rd power x^3. It's a box 2.41 meters on each side. 7 and a half feet or so. No, you cannot fit your house there.

I believe that it represents the metric volume of a metric ton of hydrogen gas.

Armories are listed as 2 tons and supporting 10 marines or 50 crew. I am fine with that number for small arms and ammuntion (for the moment lets ignore my question regarding the 14m3 measurment of a single Dton). This is a single bunkroom 'half' of a stateroom, enough space for a couple racks of weapons, some ammunition and a few other things. This may be a bit on the large size, actually, leaving almost enough room for some poor bastard to work inside the thing, handing the stuff out.

Depending on what you define an Armory is.. Which is usually a workspace for the maintenance and repair of weapons and armor, NOT a storage area for it.

On the other hand, it seems way too small for ten battledress marines. I'm not sure I would allow more than 2 marines to dress and arm in Battledress in such a space (and I'm guessing they would require a technician to help them get fully kitted up).
I'd venture to guess that they'd gear up in the squadbay after drawing their gear from the storage area. And, not all Marine units (even infantry only ones) automagically get Battle Dress as standard kit. So not every unit would need that space either.

My personal take is that any two troopers can get each other kitted into BD in short order; one trooper can do it alone in a suit fitted for himself prior (a la Starship Troopers, but it takes longer.

Bathroom/showers: At a guess, a single man stateroom (officer quarters) probably has a private facility. Two man staterooms (for petty officers) probably have one facility for two people. Quarters for ratings and grunt marines would probably use a shared facility... I'm guessing 1 'stall' for every ten bunks in an area. This wouldn't really change tonnage for quarters (well... it probably should, actually but...)... but it does. Strangely, while private lavatories would actually reduce floorspace available, they increase the 'comfort' of the quarters considerably. For 'luxury' passenger quarters, additional floorspace from 'luxury tonnage' or Gurps Traveller style 'Luxury Staterooms' (missing in Mong Trav, but I think easy enough to port in...) would naturally have more expansive facilities. The arrangement of public facilities in this fashion would actually serve to increase floorspace for the group, reducing crowding on the cheap (and would make building the ship's quarters cheaper in theory...) Have I missed a glaringly obvious problem? I assume that water recycling is simple and efficient enough that washing is not a problem.
In CT, you are supposed to allocate 4 dT to each stateroom, which can be double occupancy under certain situations. Functionally, half that space is the actual room and the rest goes toward "public" spaces like corridors, squadbays, common rooms, kitchens, cafeterias, mess halls, etc.

Luxury passengers will of course expect much more than the minimum, and would pay accordingly.

Mess sections: Ship designs, as near as I can tell, universally do not address eating. Food costs appear to be absorbed into a generic 'life support budget'... though with a fuel processor on board I assume oxygen is pretty cheap (since ships are burning through tons and tons of hydrogen at an appalling rate...and a good chunk of that seems to come from water cracking). On the small ships this doesn't particularly bother me... people eat prepacked whatever in their cabins or workstations... whatever. On a large ship with a crew measurable in thousands, this is simply not a functional design. I'm willing to assume that mess halls then are 'placed' in the Command Tonnage (a 100k battleship has 3k tons of command area.. thats bigger than most Traveller ships to include supercargos.). I believe I've worked out a good ratio of sorts for messes: 1 ton per person who can be fed at one time, which should not be more than 1/3rd the total crew (and can be a lot less), obviously cooks come from the service section, and this tonnage includes the kitchen areas. For actual foodstuffs, I have worked out a very very long series of notes, but we can assume that a ship carries enough frozen foodstuffs for a month in some unspecified area (easier on big ships with the 'dead tonnage' mentioned above. For longer term use, I postulated a SCOP tank (Single Celled Organic Protein), fed by the ships sewage system, after processing. Assuming even a 1 ton tank (I worked with 5 tons, removing 1 ton for hardware), and assuming that the SCOP was 50% water and no more than 5% fiber by volume, I could feed an insane number of people per day from such a tank (adjusting for growth rates, a single kilogram of SCOP provided something like 3500 calories. Even if only half of the tank is the SCOP mass, that's 450 people from a single ton. Growth rates would be high (up to double its mass daily at the high end, but even 10% of mass allows 45 people to be fed indefinitely on a single ton... though not pleasantly). Assuming multiple 'breeds' of SCOP with slightly different protein properties, when properly prepared (dried, flavored, cooked) the SCOP could replace flour, eggs and even sugars in the cooking process, though having multiple tanks for this is only practical on very large ships. Again, tanks would be generally 'hidden' in the Command tonnage, but then filling that with real systems is part of the goal.

I think CT pretty much absorbs this into life support; since generally ships don't have more than four week's fuel endurance (hence, heat and air to breathe), it's not really a big deal. State of the art Freeze Dried foods take up very little mass and space, and water even today is easy to reclaim and recycle.

Plus I think you aren't giving enough credit to the TL9+ tech that is postulated here; ships don't carry tons of food with them any more than a Greyhound bus does (or even a transPacific airliner). Cruise ships are by their very nature Luxury passage type vessels (here in the 21st century anyway) and yes, do carry lots of food which is fresh. Again, Luxury passengers pay more, so the space to store and carry that kind of cargo is implied outside the minimum requirements specified for comfortable, continued life which most working vessels and money conscious passengers are willing to accept.

Something I can't figure to hide in the command tonnage would be 'hydroponics'. These would be luxury tonnage at best. What I can't do is determine off hand how many people/tons is best. I estimated that you'd need 1 ton per person, but only when dealing with them on a larger scale, and this would only provide a tiny amount of 'fresh greens', mostly in the form of legumes and other higher food density crops... not much fruit I suspect. Most ships, even luxury liners and yachts would do without.
Unneeded, almost universally. See above.

I did figure you could stack chickens ... SNIP big chunk of text due to space SNIP... Screw SCOP!)
Again, given the two-week transit time of most Traveller's journeys and the four week endurance limit of most vessels, unnecessary.

YMMV.
 
Actually, dining facilities are part of the "commons" on the smaller ships. Probably little more than a fridge, an oven, a reconstitution station (steam injector for dehydrated foods), and microwave. Oh, and the infusion extraction station (Coffee pot, tea pot, etc).
 
What Dean said.

Yes, your 14m^3 is a cube 2.41m across, not 14m across. (actually, 2.1x2.1x3 for a ship, which makes a 2dT cabin roughly a 3 metre cube)

Not sure if it's in LBB2, but it's in LBB5 that staterooms actually take up only 2dT, the other 2dT is for general access. I've always used 2dT cabin, 1dT passageways, 1dT communal facilities, and it's worked out pretty well on my deckplans over the decades.

Communal facilities on a 30dT launch might be a WC and a snack machine, but on a larger ship the tonnage adds up to galleys, sick bays, laundries, gyms, etc, and if you need more facilities, just add in a couple more 'staterooms' and give 3 of the 4 dT to facilities (1dT will still need to go to access).

I don't know what the MgT rules suggest. I haven't read them as I don't intend to redesign all my ships.

I have no problem with the 3m deck height. As Aramis says, some of that, perhaps 0.25m, will be taken up with the floor and its support members, some will be taken by plumbing and wiring, some of it may be necessary for legislation, and it's anybody's guess how much space the grav modules for the floorplates take up. I generally go with (a pretty cramped) 2m of accommodation height, 0.25m suspended ceiling and 0.75m underfloor access space for the grav gear (which makes for nifty priest-holes on occasion). YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I keep forgetting that the standard ships seem to be more like a novelty sailboat than an actual working ship. ;)

I, obviously, have been working from a longer endurance model, which is appropriate for military vessels (picket ships, for example, would be very ill served if they spent half their operational time travelling back to base... I also suspect your average miner would like more time in a belt looking for the good rocks... etc).

I look at it from the perspective of a professional logistician. Note that I do suggest that some of this sort of thing would apply more to docks than actual ships (most ships would not want to sacrifice 200 dtons to cows just for half a ton of meat a day... but a station catering to luxury liners might...under certain circumstances).

I have also been looking at various 'parts' of the ship as potential modules for any sort of sustainable life support system in space. While the short endurance model of ships is fine, it also seems vastly incomplete. The TL advance from our own should allow for a lot more recycling of air and water, and sustainable food (if not tasty food necessarily) should be a trivial matter to overcome. RE: SCOP, the Japanese have some gawdawful looking 'mushroom tea' that is essentially a TL 3 (?) version of this they've been using for hundreds of years.

In short: Someone, somewhere must have worked on these problems at some point, and while the technology may not be universally used, it should exist somewhere! I can't help it, I'm an infrastructure kinda guy! :o
 
Well, if you consider modern "wet navies" certainly Do Not carry around enough provisions for more than a month or so so standard tempo operations, it's pretty consistent.

The non-glamorous part of the IN is likely the thousands of supply and replenishment ships that ply the spacelanes with thousands of tons of foodstuffs, ammunition (missiles, sand canisters, etc), repair parts, etc, who deliver to the fighting ships that which they need 'on station' so they don't have to run back to base. Most ships from HG have the ability to skim and refine their own fuel, so you just get it at your destination, although it seems likely that there'd be a few supermassive fuel jump-carriers around (although the return on the investment with the way the rules/setting plays out make these a rarity).

The short endurance of the ships presented in the setting is a direct result of the rules limiting the fuel for the drives and plant. You can add endurance by simply adding fuel; in space, Power is King. If you have no fuel you have no power; no power, no heat, no life support, no water reclamation, etc. Down here in the gravity well, if your ship takes and hit and the plant is down, well, you can still breathe and generally endure the weather - in space, no air is a big problem, and no heat makes absolute zero quite the chilling experience. Likely you'd freeze to death before your vac suit ran out of water...

And, I think the TL advances presumed support the absence of any specific thing that can be pointed to in a standard design for the nutritional and water needs for the crew. Biosphere II ran on (mostly) recycled and reclaimed water, and surely the tech of 100 years hence will have those problems mostly whipped. Food is a stickier topic, but a couple thousand kg of "protein slop", next to the big bunker "carbohydrate powder", beside which the "essential oil fats" container built into the "life support" system is sufficient to sustain life for a couple months, albeit not in an especially tasty fashion. Crew members use up a lot of their personal mass allowance bringing food aboard for when the tire of "Formula 409" (which is the best tasting combo the life support food generation system can produce)

My take. YMMV, as always. :)
 
Back
Top