General Drop Tank Tender?

[Condottiere]

Unless objects are precisely right angled, there's going to be plenty of dead space required to move around odd shapes.

This isn't reflected in Traveller's ten percent storage surcharge.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Unless objects are precisely right angled, there's going to be plenty of dead space required to move around odd shapes.

This isn't reflected in Traveller's ten percent storage surcharge.

I agree.
It's also not reflected in the fact that CT never required specifications for dimensions of cargo holds/hangar bays, so you never had to deal with any "square peg, round hole" type issues.

Take the LBB S7 Type-S dimensions at face value and then compute the volume of a rectangular prism of those dimensions.

• 37.5m long x 24m wide x 7.5m high = 37.5*24*7.5/14 = 482.14 tons

However ... "as we all know" ... the Type-S is only 100 tons of hull displacement and can be berthed inside of another craft that has 110 tons of capacity available.



This is why deck plans can become the "enemies" of spreadsheets.
The spreadsheet says it will work.
The deck plan glares at you in horror.



Physicist: Assume a spherical chicken of uniform density-
Engineer: HOLD IT. Stop right there ...

 

[Condottiere]

Which brings us back to containerization.

If we think of free traders more as sixteen wheelers, the cargo holds would be configured to act as slots, for standard sized sub hulls (if you calculate them as spacecraft), or presumably, a subvariant of a vehicle chassis.

So crated spacecraft would be designed to fit within, though likely at minimum fifty percent premium space, or refrigerators, which coincidentally, tend to be right angled and easier to pack together.

Benefit would be faster loading and unloading, plus the goods would be (more) secured against damage.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Which brings us back to containerization.

Indeed it does.
Standardization simplifies a lot of these questions.

Fun thing is that "boxes" tend to fit together with the least amount of waste space around the containers when dealing with roll on/roll off type of loading/unloading arrangements. You only move away from "boxy" shapes when forced to by configuration shapes needed for pressure hulls (such as rounded fuselages, for example, as is often seen in pressurized aircraft).

Benefit would be faster loading and unloading, plus the goods would be (more) secured against damage.

I agree.
Even at the speed of jump, Time Is Money still applies.

Starships earn revenue by MOVING (stuff) ... not by sitting still. The faster you can load/unload and be on your way, the better your marginal profits on your business (relative the the alternative of just dawdling around for an extended duration of time to no useful purpose).

 

[Grav_Moped]

I agree.
It's also not reflected in the fact that CT never required specifications for dimensions of cargo holds/hangar bays, so you never had to deal with any "square peg, round hole" type issues.

Take the LBB S7 Type-S dimensions at face value and then compute the volume of a rectangular prism of those dimensions.

• 37.5m long x 24m wide x 7.5m high = 37.5*24*7.5/14 = 482.14 tons

However ... "as we all know" ... the Type-S is only 100 tons of hull displacement and can be berthed inside of another craft that has 110 tons of capacity available.



This is why deck plans can become the "enemies" of spreadsheets.
The spreadsheet says it will work.
The deck plan glares at you in horror.



Physicist: Assume a spherical chicken of uniform density-
Engineer: HOLD IT. Stop right there ...

The XBoat Tender Problem, basically.

 

[Condottiere]

Maybe a carwash configuration - first in, first out.

Assembly line maintenance.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The XBoat Tender Problem, basically.

The "solution" to that problem is to have dedicated hangar spaces for "ice cream cone" shaped XBoats and a separate space for a Scout/Courier to dock into an internal hangar bay. That way, rather than having an oversized "multi-purpose" volume that needs to accommodate a variety of different craft dimensions, instead you have purpose built hangar spaces for specific craft dimensions.

It's one of those considerations I would would want to keep in mind if doing a rebuild of Express Tenders for the IISS (which I need to get around to doing at some point here).

 

[kilemall]

Yes, of course, both are design limitations.



Popped popcorn seems to be below the 70 kg/m³ (≈1000 kg/14 m³) limit. Sawdust is too heavy.

Iron ore is ~2400 kg/m³ or 33 600 kg/Dton.


I would say 1000 kg/m³ (14 000 kg/Dton) is a more reasonable assumption than 70 kg/m³ (1000 kg/Dton) for generic cargo.

That’s what I was thinking, basically the density of water. Allows for a few dump weight scenarios without it being constrictive.

 

[coliver988]

Starship Geomorphs has some ideas about XBoat storage and maintenance.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Starship Geomorphs has some ideas about XBoat storage and maintenance.

Yes, it does.
But have you ever noticed just how LARGE those plates are?

The full sized decks are 20x20 deck squares in size ... which is 30mx30mx3m = 2700m³ / 14 = 192.86 tons displacement.

In other words, that Xboat Repair Bay 302 image that you've provided is ITSELF basically "100 tons of single deck volume" ... and it's supposed to link up with "lots of other sections" to create proper deck plans.

So if you're wanting deck plans for something that is more BCS scale, it's all wonderful, because you've got 2k+ tons worth of starship/space station to play around with and fill up with all kinds of "stuff" for your PCs to wander around (and get lost) in as part of an extremely large structure/craft. But if you're looking for something more akin to an ACS scale of 1k tons or less, a lot of the plates available from Starship Geomorphs are simply "too big" for purpose.

Consider that a 1k starship ought to only have FIVE plates of 20x20 for its interior (less if you want to exclude volume used for fuel tankage).



Don't get me wrong. The symbology used and the visual language detailed by Starship Geomorphs is TOP NOTCH!
I have no complaints about the details going on in the plates and samples, because it's all masterfully done!
In fact, I use them rather routinely as both reference and inspiration for my own deck plan designs!

Where Starship Geomorphs starts running into problems is on the smaller end of scaling, since everything is done in a 20x20 or 20x10 or 10x10 layout (for easy mix 'n' match, of course). That basically means that the smallest sections you can pull from the set are basically ~50 tons (48.2 tons, actually) for a 10x10 deck squares module, which is usually going to be "too big" for most purposes of laying out most of the legacy ACS from LBBs.

For BIG stuff, it's fantastic.
For a 2k ton craft, you would need at least 10 sections of 20x20, with perhaps a 20x10 or a pair of 10x10 stuffed in somewhere to make the tonnages "feel right" for the size the craft ought to be ... but by then, you're not really dealing with an ACS anymore ... you're on the low end of BCS at that point.

Although, to be fair, "small" ACS are going to be necessarily "constrained" in their deck plans in ways that aren't exactly amenable to the usage of Starship Geomorphs anyway ... hence why liberal quantities of copy/paste clipping into custom deck plans is "the way to go" with using Starship Geomorphs for the creation of ACS deck plans.

 

[coliver988]

to be fair it IS designed for large scale ships. I use it for buildings, starports, stations. never actually used it for starships in the Traveller universe.

 

[TamsinP]

That is great in a warehouse, but not so great in a moving vehicle where the stacks can fall over. The cargo presumably has to be secured in three dimensions, like in an aircraft.

Or like how TEU (and FEU) containers are secured above deck on container ships - using twist locks at each corner for to secure them vertically and a lashing-rod/turnbuckle system to secure them laterally to the lashing bridges. Containers stored below deck in the holds also use twist locks, but the lateral hold is by guide rails between stacks.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I use it for buildings, starports, stations. never actually used it for starships in the Traveller universe.

Yeah. I'm a weirdo about that.

 

[kilemall]

One of the difficult ones I have is the CT Corsair which is described as having a 160 ton cargo bay with the ability to stow a 100 ton ship. Usually one Type S would come to mind, meaning it has to accommodate the classic wedge and the extra height of the back end, but that could also mean the x boat or other versions of the S.

Nowadays I visualize as more the boarding/cargo pinnace plus fighters and loot space, as the small craft do high speed closing while the corsair is more ops carrier/base.

 

[coliver988]

Yeah. I'm a weirdo about that.

well, I did use it for a larger ship lost in the dark...Big Wreck in the files section

 

[AnotherDilbert]

One of the difficult ones I have is the CT Corsair which is described as having a 160 ton cargo bay with the ability to stow a 100 ton ship. Usually one Type S would come to mind, meaning it has to accommodate the classic wedge and the extra height of the back end, but that could also mean the x boat or other versions of the S.

The concept of a generic hangar, as opposed to a hangar for a specific craft, is there in Traveller, but it's a uncommon case...

The Corsair says 160%, The XBoat Tender says 150-300%:

CT S7, p11:
The major part of the ship (600 tons) is taken up by a cavernous ship bay. This area can accomodate four express boats or two scout/couriers with little or no problem.

HG says ~200%:

HG'80, p30:
Empty weapons bays may be put to a variety of uses, such as holding small craft (airlrafts, ATVs, fighters, pinnaces, etc), or storing cargo. Vehicles and craft may be carried in otherwise unused bays at 50%wastage (100 tons of bay holds 50 tons of vehicle or craft). A bay may launch one craft per turn.

HG'80, p38:
3. Launch Tubes: Rapid launch facilities may be created to allow the fast deployment of fighters or other craft. The required tonnage is 25 times the tonnage of the largest craft to pass through the facility; cost is Cr2,000 per ton.

MgT2 says 300%:

MgT2 HG'17, p60:
This kind of docking facility consumes three tons for every ton of the largest ship it is capable of handling or the total tonnage of ships it can handle at any one time (so, a 6,000 ton docking facility can hold ships totalling up to 2,000 tons).
For every ton they consume, docking facilities cost MCr0.25. They also need 1 crewman for every 100 tons.

So, they exist, and should be quite a bit larger than the carried craft, but there is no consistency on how much larger.

In the end, it's a game, so we have to simplify to a simple (≈usable) solution. I don't really have that much of a problem with the Corsair, but I would require a bit more extra space from a home-made design.

 

[kilemall]

Interesting, I am just working off the CotI supplement one, the original Type P benefit for pirates.

The small craft bits are from the risky disposable replaceable role of actually closing, boarding and taking loot/people off. They are usually high g too, perfect for the role if they can just stay out of range of patrols.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The small craft bits are from the risky disposable replaceable role of actually closing, boarding and taking loot/people off. They are usually high g too, perfect for the role if they can just stay out of range of patrols.

Yes, Ship's Boats are great, but why leave the most expensive loot by far: the captured ship?

That is something the Corsair did right, the ability to carry off the captured ship for a multi-million credit payoff.

 

[kilemall]

Yes, Ship's Boats are great, but why leave the most expensive loot by far: the captured ship?

That is something the Corsair did right, the ability to carry off the captured ship for a multi-million credit payoff.

Can’t carry off what it can’t swallow, CT version is limited to 100 tons. The jump link thing is unlikely due to limited time before response.

Clean jump escapes assumes surrender- most starship fights risk damage to power plants, jump drive, mdrive if short of 100D, possibly the computer or bridge. If you can great, boarding crew can handle, but I wouldn’t count on it.

 

[Spinward Flow]

One of the difficult ones I have is the CT Corsair

Which was quite obviously designed for a LBB2 Small Ship Universe.

which is described as having a 160 ton cargo bay with the ability to stow a 100 ton ship.

This is why in my most recent thinking, external docking and towing has taken on such a prominence in what I do and post on these forums. If you can DOCK with another ship externally, you don't NEED to "pull it inside and close the doors" necessarily, so all of the "what shape is the volume of internal space?" questions get sidestepped (rather than needing a trash compactor to make stuff fit into deck plan images).

With respect to the Corsair "stowing" a 100 ton ship into its 160 ton cargo bay ... I figure that's a case of only needing to get the prize "partially" into the bay, rather than "entirely" into the bay (and shut the doors). So long as the prize can be "clamped in" and is unable to escape, that's all that's really needed. It would probably require leaving the (big) bay doors open to vacuum, but so long as the Corsair can "plug the prize" MOSTLY into the bay, that's enough. It's okay if some of the prize taken sticks out past the (open) doors.

Ship's Boats are great, but why leave the most expensive loot by far: the captured ship?

Yet another example of why I'm of the opinion that external docking and towing rules are needed for CT.