CT Only: Fixing the Type S (Sulieman)

[Spinward Flow]

But maybe on this version a larger hatch might not be a bad idea.

The smarter play would be to simply "add" the 3 ton cargo hold to the air/raft berth, so you have a 7 ton space there (with the air/raft occupying 4 of the 7 tons).

 

[Grav_Moped]

The smarter play would be to simply "add" the 3 ton cargo hold to the air/raft berth, so you have a 7 ton space there (with the air/raft occupying 4 of the 7 tons).

I did that on the prolate spheroid version, then reverted it because the split bay was expected.

 

[Grav_Moped]

In the original it was not a cargo hole, so it didn't need a large hatch. But maybe on this version a larger hatch might not be a bad idea.

Now I am kind of conflicted. I started out wanting to do a "corrected" version -- and I am most of the way there -- but now I'm also wanting to try to do a "before the executive meddling" version.

There is some overlap, of course, and I am fond of a few of my changes (the forward airlock in particular, since it'd come in handy for water refueling landings).

But I'm pretty sure that when it was drawn up, staterooms (the rooms themselves) were 3Td with 1Td left for common space, across the board, among other early design conventions. Few designs had airlocks between their cargo holds and the living quarters (or the drive bays).

 

[Grav_Moped]

All of the deck plans for Traveller are, I think, set up for firefight scenarios on the ships. No real hard thought was given to getting them right. GDW was a wargaming company and I think they wanted the extra room to play out battles. Start doing deck plans right and you start losing battleground. I always thought this was why the plans were somewhat oversized.
Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and Deck Plans, as long as they are somewhat close.

Good point, though I think some of them started out "right" and then were tweaked to make them more tactically interesting.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Third pass, fixed a couple of details:
- Adjusted "access panels" for clarity
- Added the hatch connecting 12 (drive bay) to 16 (junction airlock), onto area 12 (it had just shown a floor hatch).
- Added title and color key blocks

Still considering: Replace exterior iris valve in 13 with a 3m wide hatch for easier cargo loading.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Third pass, fixed a couple of details:
- Adjusted "access panels" for clarity
- Added the hatch connecting 12 (drive bay) to 16 (junction airlock), onto area 12 (it had just shown a floor hatch).
- Added title and color key blocks

Still considering: Replace exterior iris valve in 13 with a 3m wide hatch for easier cargo loading.
View attachment 3844

I would say go with the larger hatch as that is now the cargo hold.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Was there some genesis of this design, outside of Traveller?

Otherwise, I'm thinking paper airplane.

Went back to re-read this whole post again and saw this. I remember reading somewhere that William Keith was taken by the design of the Star Destroyer in Star Wars and used it as inspiration for the smaller ship.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I remember reading somewhere that William Keith was taken by the design of the Star Destroyer in Star Wars and used it as inspiration for the smaller ship.

LBB S9, p28.

 

[Condottiere]

Fighting Ships of the Solomani definitely was heavily evil Empire.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Where does it state that?

Tech level requirements for maneuver drives are imposed to cover the grav plates integral to most ship decks, and which allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal. Fuel consumption for maneuver drives is inconsequential, and is assumed to be part of the power plant consumption, regardless of the degree of maneuver undertaken.

Doesn't mention acceleration compensation, only grav plates, and grav plates and acceleration compensation are separate systems - see the fluff in ship descriptions and S:7 (and MegaTraveller onwards).
Note it doesn't mention the gravitics as part of the maneuver drive, just a requirement for high g maneuvers.

"allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal" IS inertial compensation, and explicitly done by grav plates.

MT RM, p60:
Inertial Compensators: Inertial compensators, when installed, allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal.

S7: Inertial compensation is part of "Gravitics":



Once you have artificial gravity, inertial compensation is trivial: both are just acceleration; set up an artificial gravity field in the opposite direction of the acceleration imposed by inertia and you are done.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Now I am kind of conflicted. I started out wanting to do a "corrected" version -- and I am most of the way there -- but now I'm also wanting to try to do a "before the executive meddling" version.

There is some overlap, of course, and I am fond of a few of my changes (the forward airlock in particular, since it'd come in handy for water refueling landings).

But I'm pretty sure that when it was drawn up, staterooms (the rooms themselves) were 3Td with 1Td left for common space, across the board, among other early design conventions.

Most early deck plans were presumably drawn before LBB5'79 established 1 Dt ≈ 14 m³ and two deck squares. Hence the huge Empress Marava?

The "other" Type S, JTAS#2:




Huge staterooms, very little common area. The 3 ton cargo hold is much larger than the 4 ton garage.

Few designs had airlocks between their cargo holds and the living quarters (or the drive bays).

The cargo hold is the air lock?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Third pass, fixed a couple of details:
- Adjusted "access panels" for clarity

They are easier to see if slightly narrower. I generally use 2 mm margin either way, so the access hatch is 11 mm of the 15 mm square.

E.g.:

 

[Condottiere]

Anything air tight with two doors and the capability to recycle air is a potential airlock.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But I'm pretty sure that when it was drawn up, staterooms (the rooms themselves) were 3Td with 1Td left for common space, across the board, among other early design conventions. Few designs had airlocks between their cargo holds and the living quarters (or the drive bays).

"Staterooms" need not be any particular size or shape. It's just 4 Dt per person divided into cabins as you see fit.

E.g. Kinunir:

10 is a cabin, 14 is a cabin, 16 is a cabin...
6 wardroom and 9 galley are presumably a part of the stateroom tonnage.




1, 2, and 3 are barracks for one squad, with 4,5, and 6 adjoining facilities. Still "staterooms".
7, 8, and 9 are officer and NCO cabins. Still "staterooms".

 

[mike wightman]

Once you have artificial gravity, inertial compensation is trivial: both are just acceleration; set up an artificial gravity field in the opposite direction of the acceleration imposed by inertia and you are done.

They are separate systems, and my original point that there is no mention of being part of the maneuver drive.

Gravity: Most ships have grav plates built into the deck flooring. These plates
provide a constant artificial gravity field of 1 G. Acceleration compensators are also
usually installed, to negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces
while maneuvering.

I agree they are likely an add on to the grav plates, but they are a separate system to account for from MT onwards.

Grav Plates: Provides internal artificial gravity, such that “down” is always more or less constant no matter what the orientation of the craft. For the optimum in internal gravity consistency, also install inertial compensators.
Inertial Compensators: Inertial compensators, when installed, allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal Inertial compensators negate the effects of inertia, so the occupants of a moving craft have no sensation of motion.

 

[Condottiere]

1. Currently, it looks like inertial compensation is a field effect emanating from the onboard manoeuvre drive.

2. Ye tailsitter, would at acceleration factor one, while in space, just switch off the artificial gravity.

3. In theory, the tailsitter could have the gravity field emanating from the ceiling; you'd think that the opposing effects, al things being equal, would cancel each other out.

 

[mike wightman]

1. No, it is not part of the m-drive. Communicates with certainly, but also needs data with regards to inertia.
2. Won't help if maneuvering in combat, the lateral "g" forces could be pretty high.
3. m-drives push, repulsors push, so why wouldn't grav plates also push...
oh yes, the quote from earlier, they are built into the floor not the ceiling.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Most early deck plans were presumably drawn before LBB5'79 established 1 Dt ≈ 14 m³ and two deck squares. Hence the huge Empress Marava?

The "other" Type S, JTAS#2:
View attachment 3847

View attachment 3846

Huge staterooms, very little common area. The 3 ton cargo hold is much larger than the 4 ton garage.





The cargo hold is the air lock?

"The staterooms (4, 5, 6, and 7) are large and spacious, an essential consideration when the crew may be forced to spend long hours together."
From S-7 Type S Scout/Courier.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Most early deck plans were presumably drawn before LBB5'79 established 1 Dt ≈ 14 m³ and two deck squares. Hence the huge Empress Marava?

The "other" Type S, JTAS#2:
View attachment 3847

View attachment 3846

Huge staterooms, very little common area. The 3 ton cargo hold is much larger than the 4 ton garage.





The cargo hold is the air lock?

Use the extra space in the cargo hold as the common area. Put a bulkhead and hatch to separate the cargo hold from the common area and use the vertical shaft between #1 and @2 staterooms. It would take you right down to the common area. Make the cargo hatch smaller and secure the port hull by the common area. You would end up with a nice sized area.
And no, I didn't do any math on this. Just a quick gamer fix.

 

[Spinward Flow]

1. No, it is not part of the m-drive.