Head of IISS sacked

[HG_B]

The Head of the IISS was sacked for sabotaging the IISS Courier Branch by refusing to allow less expensive, safer and more efficient Courier ships to be built and deployed. Shortly after his transfer to the Spinal Weapon Institutes live firing test range, the IISS Ship Design Bureau released specs for the new Scout Type I Courier.

The ship is shaped like the ubiquitous Ship's Boat. A streamlined cylinder. Boasting more armor, more cargo space, better crew safety and a larger computer, the new Courier is LESS expensive than the current Type S.

 

[Ulsyus]

Here's a T5 version of the Type I:

Type I Scout/Courier ( SC-AS22 )
Statistics:
100-ton Streamlined Starship
It is fitted with drives giving it jump-2 and 2-G acceleration.
Fuel tankage of 24-tons supports 1 x Jump-2 and 2 months of power plant operations.
Installed on the bridge is a Model/2 bis computer an enhanced sensor suite.

The ship has a cargo capacity of 15 tons.
There are 1 hardpoints fitted and 1 weapons mounted.
The ship has a crew requirement of 3

 

[HG_B]

The ship has a crew requirement of 3

I see that T5 has gone backwards as far as Tech from MgT. Specs are similar but cost twice as much.
Thanks for the comparison and the design!

Nice to see side by side. Reminds me a bit of T4 as far a complexity. Or MT but lots added to it.

I would upload my sheet but apparently I don't have access to that function.

I'll try to do up a deck plan for this Type I.

 

[Ulsyus]

Actually I'm not sure I got the crewing right, but went for 3 as a conservative guess. What I didn't do was add in development stages for the 2bis computer, which is normally TL10, but an Ultimate-development model would be TL14 and provide a further +3 mod to rolls using that machine. You'd imagine by that point that the ship could pretty much run itself with only one crewman checking that everything was running smoothly. In that sense, 3 crew is for beyond-frontier or in-the-face-of-danger stuff where one would want a full crew to manage incidents as they arose.

 

[HG_B]

Actually I'm not sure I got the crewing right, but went for 3 as a conservative guess. What I didn't do was add in development stages for the 2bis computer, which is normally TL10, but an Ultimate-development model would be TL14 and provide a further +3 mod to rolls using that machine. You'd imagine by that point that the ship could pretty much run itself with only one crewman checking that everything was running smoothly. In that sense, 3 crew is for beyond-frontier or in-the-face-of-danger stuff where one would want a full crew to manage incidents as they arose.

I see how that works. Yes, in MgT for a less extra cash you can get a Scout down to 1 person easily.

 

[mike wightman]

I can use HG 2 to get a scout down to 32 MCr. Using a standard hull from LBB2 and HG2 drives I can get the cost per unit down 24 MCr

 

[HG_B]

I can use HG 2 to get a scout down to 32 MCr. Using a standard hull from LBB2 and HG2 drives I can get the cost per unit down 24 MCr

Right. THEN, add 6 points of armor, Model 2 computer & 2 ELB's..

 

[HG_B]

Here's the basic Deck plans I promised.

 

[rancke]

The Head of the IISS was sacked for sabotaging the IISS Courier Branch by refusing to allow less expensive, safer and more efficient Courier ships to be built and deployed. Shortly after his transfer to the Spinal Weapon Institutes live firing test range, the IISS Ship Design Bureau released specs for the new Scout Type I Courier.

In a statement made by the former head of the IISS, he complained about the injustice of being blamed for something that happened before the most recent shift in the Cosmic Axis made the new design possible. "Do you think I would have approved of the old design," he said, "if I hadn't had to use 20T bridges, 20T maneuver fuel, and a lot more tonnage for armor?"

Several commentators admitted the justice of that and opined that the Great Galactic Gods ought to have effected the Cosmic Shift retroactively.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

In a statement made by the former head of the IISS, he complained about the injustice of being blamed for something that happened before the most recent shift in the Cosmic Axis made the new design possible. "Do you think I would have approved of the old design," he said, "if I hadn't had to use 20T bridges, 20T maneuver fuel, and a lot more tonnage for armor?"

Several commentators admitted the justice of that and opined that the Great Galactic Gods ought to have effected the Cosmic Shift retroactively.


Hans

:rofl: It must have been much worse after the MT Fuel consumption/ Jn Jump Space physics cataclysm.

Did ya see the ship plans?

 

[rancke]

Did ya see the ship plans?

Yes, they're very nice. I'll use them instead of the Type S any day.

You got the labels between 1 and 4 mixed up, though.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

Yes, they're very nice. I'll use them instead of the Type S any day.

You got the labels between 1 and 4 mixed up, though.
Hans

Thanks

 

[mike wightman]

I thought it was a feature - the bridge in the middle of the ship where it is most protected rather than at the front.

Nice design

 

[rancke]

I thought it was a feature - the bridge in the middle of the ship where it is most protected rather than at the front.

So did I. Hence the smiley.


Hans

 

[HG_B]

I thought it was a feature - the bridge in the middle of the ship where it is most protected rather than at the front.

Nice design

Thanks. I took my cue's from the latest Attack sub design and from the GURPS starship paradigm. Where there are no windows (nor screen doors) but only sensors that dot the hull. That leaves what you see as the logical most placement. Means that I also have to rewrite hit location tables for large warships.