Based on what actually fits into the hull as drawn, this looks like marketing-speak.
Last edited:
CT Only: Fixing the Type S (Sulieman)
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
So you're saying the drawing is wrong ... not the marketing.
Well okay then!
Hilarious point being that while the staterooms might be large, the LBB S7 RAW for the Scout/Courier has a life support peculiarity that will drive the crew into wanting to spend long hours away from the ship to avoid the stinky smell ...
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Agreed, they are not specified to be part of the M-drive. If anything it should be the hull, since they are built into the decks of the hull?
I would say they are not separate technical systems, but they are separate line items in MT & TNE. IC is an addition to static AG, more AG with quickly variable strength in variable directions.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. What is gravity? Falling towards a centre.
2. Acceleration simulates gravity.
3. For a tailsitter, a gravity field on the ceiling while under acceleration would be both push pull simultaneously.
2. Acceleration simulates gravity.
3. For a tailsitter, a gravity field on the ceiling while under acceleration would be both push pull simultaneously.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
1. gravity is the emergent effect of an object following a geodesic in non-Euclidean four dimensional spacetime.
2. equivalence principle
3. the grav plates are built into the floor, perhaps the acceleration compensation is in the ceiling.
2. equivalence principle
3. the grav plates are built into the floor, perhaps the acceleration compensation is in the ceiling.
I am indeed saying that. Because the drawing is wrong!So you're saying the drawing is wrong ... not the marketing.
Well okay then!
Hilarious point being that while the staterooms might be large, the LBB S7 RAW for the Scout/Courier has a life support peculiarity that will drive the crew into wanting to spend long hours away from the ship to avoid the stinky smell ...
Putting in a non-rules-driven flaw in the airsystem calling for a 1Td sacrifice (and some Cr) is not unreasonable when you've given the players several "free" Td through artistic license beforehand.
I think it's implausible that a flaw like that would still be present after at least decades and possibly centuries of production of the ship class. But OTU's gonna OTU.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I'm reminded of the objections made by Susan Foreman in episode 1 of An Unearthly Child (about 8 minutes in) when she was told to solve a problem using A, B and C as the three dimensions.
Susan: "It's impossible unless you use D and E!"
Ian: "D and E?! Whatever for? Do the problem that's set, Susan!"
Susan: "I can't Mr. Chesterton! You can't just work on three of the dimensions!"
Ian: "Three of them? Oh, time being the fourth I suppose. Then what do do you need E for? What do you make the fifth dimension?"
Susan: "Space..."
Susan: "It's impossible unless you use D and E!"
Ian: "D and E?! Whatever for? Do the problem that's set, Susan!"
Susan: "I can't Mr. Chesterton! You can't just work on three of the dimensions!"
Ian: "Three of them? Oh, time being the fourth I suppose. Then what do do you need E for? What do you make the fifth dimension?"
Susan: "Space..."
"We are the Space Robots. We are here to protect you. We are here to protect you from the Terrible Secret of Space." (Youtube video)
When the scout service buys in 50 year contracts, and the contractor is not required to fix major flaws, ya I can see it.I am indeed saying that. Because the drawing is wrong!
Putting in a non-rules-driven flaw in the airsystem calling for a 1Td sacrifice (and some Cr) is not unreasonable when you've given the players several "free" Td through artistic license beforehand.
I think it's implausible that a flaw like that would still be present after at least decades and possibly centuries of production of the ship class. But OTU's gonna OTU.
Specifically if the flaw was literally specced mistakenly by the service.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Fair enough -- still don't buy it retail, but I'll take it at the discounted rate (that is, it comes out of space that shouldn't be there in the first place).Build to the specs.
Not to the NEED.
Pro:
- it makes sense.
- it was probably that way on the pre-publication original version.
Con:
- it removes the option of firing small-arms out the door from a covered position.
- it's a change from the published version.
" (13) serves many purposes; on scouts, it carries laboratory and sensor equipment; on couriers, it carries communication equipment and data banks; on detached duty ships, it is cleared out and become a lounge for the crew."
It wasn't the cargo hold in earlier versions. So, it didn't need a cargo hatch. All that was needed was an iris valve/ people door. So, with a cargo hatch the stern of the ship would look something like drawing #1
Type S class Scout/Courier - Traveller
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Except that while it's flatter than some of the other images, it lacks the clipped corners. Minor detail.
I note there's one (the header image) that's basically got a shim in between the top and bottom halves. Might work to fit everything in, especially if that moves it to the top end of the allowable error range (+15-20% from the starting -15% adds up to 35Td to the original -- that still aren't "really there" but it might make drawing plans easier). Not nearly as nice as the ones with sharp edges IMO.
Last edited:
I didn't mean exactly like yours, just no iris valve on the Port side and what looks like another large hatch instead. If you were to go with a cargo hatch instead of an iris valve.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
The "clipped corners" was something that the LBB S7 deck plan did, but the art did not ...
Hmmn. Two paths here: just bend it toward what fits, or try to recreate the original by WHK exactly.
The "clipped corners" was something that the LBB S7 deck plan did, but the art did not ...
For now, I'll just bend it. Might do a full-on re-creation version at some point.
Checking some details for the final pass:
- There is a forward dorsal exit with what could be an airlock. It's the ceiling hatch in (original) location #19. I've emulated it with the dorsal exit from the forward airlock (new location #20).
- Likewise for the floor hatch in (original) location #20.
- The main landing gear can afford to have their inboard aft corners clipped slightly at the level of the deck, so those can go back to mostly square rather than hexagons. Cleans the looks up a little.
- I kind of want to border the crawlspace in electronics (green) on the AHL-style version, but am not sure how well that will come across on the plans since the outer edge (hull) won't be shown.
- Not sure what the point of the dorsal hatch in the cargo bay (#13) is, but I think I'll leave it there anyhow.
- The S:9 art style version will not have the kitchenette specifically illustrated, but will have the washroom. I may or may not add beds to the AHL art style version's staterooms to represent all the fittings.
- There is a forward dorsal exit with what could be an airlock. It's the ceiling hatch in (original) location #19. I've emulated it with the dorsal exit from the forward airlock (new location #20).
- Likewise for the floor hatch in (original) location #20.
- The main landing gear can afford to have their inboard aft corners clipped slightly at the level of the deck, so those can go back to mostly square rather than hexagons. Cleans the looks up a little.
- I kind of want to border the crawlspace in electronics (green) on the AHL-style version, but am not sure how well that will come across on the plans since the outer edge (hull) won't be shown.
- Not sure what the point of the dorsal hatch in the cargo bay (#13) is, but I think I'll leave it there anyhow.
- The S:9 art style version will not have the kitchenette specifically illustrated, but will have the washroom. I may or may not add beds to the AHL art style version's staterooms to represent all the fittings.
Last edited:
Similar threads
