Increased Stateroom Occupancy

[CosmicGamer]

Hot bunking is in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on hot bunking in 8 hour shifts per 24 hour cycle?

Double occupancy staterooms are in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on double occupancy hot bunking for 4 people per stateroom?

Add it all together and you could have 6 people per stateroom.

 

[Timerover51]

Hot bunking is in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on hot bunking in 8 hour shifts per 24 hour cycle?

Double occupancy staterooms are in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on double occupancy hot bunking for 4 people per stateroom?

Add it all together and you could have 6 people per stateroom.

The military has discovered that it is highly detrimental to morale to use hot-bunking. As for civilian ships, that would be a not-starter from the word go.

Do you want to climb into a bunk that someone else has just vacated?

Then there is a small matter of where do you store all of the personal items of each inhabitant of the state room. Also, how do you handle things when someone is sick, hung over, and just wants to grab some extra sleep on his off shift?

I use double staterooms for crew, with draw drapes on the bunks so a person might sleep when someone else was in the room. I would not touch hot-bunking with a 3-meter pole (metric conversion from 10 foot).

 

[atpollard]

Hot bunking is in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on hot bunking in 8 hour shifts per 24 hour cycle?

Double occupancy staterooms are in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on double occupancy hot bunking for 4 people per stateroom?

Add it all together and you could have 6 people per stateroom.

I would pretty much agree with timerover51.
While I would allow it as technically 'possible', I would make it undesirable.

More specifically, since double bunking is allowed (and not unreasonable), I would assume that standard life support capacity is "up to two crewmen per stateroom". If you plan on straining the life support with 6 crewmen per stateroom, then you will need to plan ahead and pay for extra life support in the actual ship design ... otherwise, plan on breathing in shifts and expect the cooling systems to be inadequate ... but, hopefully, you can get used to breathing thin (low O2, high CO2), stale air at 40 degrees C and 100% humidity.

I would treat the obvious morale issue like a ship-wide 'compact bridge' ... adverse living conditions result in a -1 to all crew skill checks.

 

[Timerover51]

Actually, the fun part would be trying to hire a crew under those conditions.

 

[aramis]

The military has discovered that it is highly detrimental to morale to use hot-bunking. As for civilian ships, that would be a not-starter from the word go.

They haven't found it detrimental enough to stop using it on attack subs. And it's not been enough of an issue to cause major complaints to congress. The Airforce switching to 4 man rooms in the dorms at Elmendorf had more congressional complaints than the whole sub fleet. (Sen. T. Stevens). And that was just during a shortage due to renovations! (The rooms in question were 12x15', and each man had a bunk and wall locker, plus the room had two desks.)

The only "private space" a naval seaman gets is his rack and locker - the rest of his "quarters allotment" is shared spaces. Even on the boomers, it's 9-man rooms for seamen.

Hot-racking has always been the answer to "we need 150 crew but have space for 120." And the solution morale-wise has been better food and keeping them busy.

 

[Vladika]

I would pretty much agree with timerover51.
While I would allow it as technically 'possible', I would make it undesirable.

Agreed with both 'possible' and 'undesirable'.

More specifically, since double bunking is allowed (and not unreasonable), I would assume that standard life support capacity is "up to two crewmen per stateroom". If you plan on straining the life support with 6 crewmen per stateroom, then you will need to plan ahead and pay for extra life support in the actual ship design

Not according to TNE p. 219

Briefly, The Regency continued the Imperial

Steerage: This is not used in the Regency, which still operates under the old Imperial travel regulation that outlaw steerage travel. - TNE p. 219

It continues to state the each steerage passenger uses "1/2 ton to one ton left over in the cargo bay." And further that "some crews will pack eight or more steerage passengers into a single stateroom".

So, the ship's life support system is capable as built. The '2 per SR' is thus a regulatory, not physical limitation.

... otherwise, plan on breathing in shifts and expect the cooling systems to be inadequate ... but, hopefully, you can get used to breathing thin (low O2, high CO2), stale air at 40 degrees C and 100% humidity.

I would treat the obvious morale issue like a ship-wide 'compact bridge' ... adverse living conditions result in a -1 to all crew skill checks.

In the case of carrying steerage passengers, the crew would be separated and thus not incur the penalty.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just quoting the rule...

 

[atpollard]

Not according to TNE p. 219

Brought to you by the same people that gave us The Virus.

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just quoting the rule...

Actually, my conclusion was based upon inadequate life support capacity. If the assumption goes away, so does the consequence. So no complaints from me.

From my real life experience, a 100% safety factor seems common in many real world applications. So an argument could be made that the typical stateroom (Classic Era) might be designed to accommodate two people, typically accommodates one person, and has life support capacity for 4 people.

TNE may allow 8 per stateroom, but not IMTU.

[EDIT: One exception ... pump them up with 'Fast' Drug and you can pack them in like firewood ... each using 1/30 of a person of life support (IIRC).]

 

[CosmicGamer]

I would assume that standard life support capacity is "up to two crewmen per stateroom".

We're talking Mongoose Traveller here so for life support
Single = 2,000cr per stateroom
Double = 3,000cr per stateroom
and odd as it may seam
Empty = 2,000cr

In my opinion, using staterooms does give a rough estimate of total crew and passenger space on a ship and thus a quick and easier way to determine life support costs instead of adding up all the dtons of habitual space.

Mongoose also says

No stateroom can contain more than two persons however, as it
would strain the ship’s life support equipment. The tonnage and
cost of the staterooms includes the life support systems needed to
keep the crew alive.

Beyond just the cost of use, it seams the actual life support system would need to be beefed up for staterooms to accommodate more people.

 

[Vladika]

We're talking Mongoose Traveller here so for life support
Single = 2,000cr per stateroom
Double = 3,000cr per stateroom
and odd as it may seam
Empty = 2,000cr

Mongoose also says
Beyond just the cost of use, it seams the actual life support system would need to be beefed up for staterooms to accommodate more people.

Then why your initial question if that's what you are going with anyway?

Hot bunking is in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on hot bunking in 8 hour shifts per 24 hour cycle?

Double occupancy staterooms are in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on double occupancy hot bunking for 4 people per stateroom?

Add it all together and you could have 6 people per stateroom.

Why argue your own initial point?

TNE (And T5) says "pack them in." CT says "No can do." Mongoose say "hot bunk them" (As does T5).

So, which :CoW: will it be today?

 

[Drakon]

Hot bunking is in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on hot bunking in 8 hour shifts per 24 hour cycle?

Yuck! Hated the idea of hot bunking in the navy. You hope your bunkmates have good hygene, however, it is never a guarentee.

Double occupancy staterooms are in the Mongoose rules.
What are your thoughts on double occupancy hot bunking for 4 people per stateroom?

Add it all together and you could have 6 people per stateroom.

Its not the most comfortable arraingment, and frankly would be used only in an emergency situation. When those bodies are not in the rack, where are they?

 

[CosmicGamer]

Why argue your own initial point?

Sorry if anything I posted seamed argumentative. Not my intent.

TNE (And T5) says "pack them in." CT says "No can do." Mongoose say "hot bunk them" (As does T5).

So, which :CoW: will it be today?

why your initial question

Sorry about any confusion. I was asking what peoples thoughts were. When the rules from other versions of Traveller were referenced, I thought it pertinent to have details from the Mongoose rules for comparison and discussion.

I like your summery.

 

[Vladika]

Sorry if anything I posted seamed argumentative. Not my intent.
Sorry about any confusion. I was asking what peoples thoughts were. When the rules from other versions of Traveller were referenced, I thought it pertinent to include the Mongoose rules for comparison and discussion.

Sorry here too. I used "argument", not as a fight, but in it's meaning of a postulation. English, even among English speakers, can be confusing.

 

[CosmicGamer]

English, even among English speakers, can be confusing.

I think perhaps one of the truest statements I've ever seen on these forums!

 

[McPerth]

TNE (And T5) says "pack them in." CT says "No can do." Mongoose say "hot bunk them" (As does T5).

IIRC, MT allowed for bunks (I think it was in HT that they were defined) as a means to transport more people in he same space.

In MT vehicle/ship design, though, life support was velume dependent more than people dependent (in design, not in costs), so, if you have life support for your entire ship, you can stuff it with people (just have to pay for their life support), and asume the oxygen is recycled, temperatura controled and so on...

English, even among English speakers, can be confusing.

Then imagine for the poor of us that don't have English as native language ...

 

[rancke]

The passage on page 219 of TNE establishes that the Imperium had travel regulations and that one of those regulations forbade steerage travel. That I have no problem with; the explanation that standard life support is rated for two people per stateroom seems to cover that pretty well. The "no steerage" rule could be "no putting people in less than half a stateroom", or it could be "no exceeding the life support limit". Personally, I'd prefer the second possibility because it allows for more differentiation (for every single occupancy stateroom you can have a three-bunk stateroom), but I can live with either option.

What does annoy me no end is the absence of rules for double occupancy passenger service. I can't fathom WHY the Imperium would have a travel regulation that prohibited double occupancy for commercial passengers, and yet the rules seem to imply just that. I can't think of any other reason why double occupancy isn't used.

And that, of course, means that generic rules, meant for places other than the Third Imperium in the Classic Era too, ought to include the option of double occupancy. Likewise, generic ship construction rules ought to include options for different levels of life support -- more or less than two per stateroom -- again to support alternate settings.

In addition to that, I would like to see Imperial travel retconned to include double occupancy passengers (Economy Passage). This could be done without causing much disruption by establishing that High, Middle, and Low passages are vouchers that can be exchanged for one trip regardless of length¹, which would allow changing per-jump pricing to per-parsec pricing without losing High, Middle, and Low passages. As for Economy Passage vouchers, no organization issues them (they may not be legal under Imperial Edict 318²), so that's why we've never heard about any.

¹ Possibly limited to 'up to four parsecs'.

² This would be the enabling act for the issuing of passage vouchers. NB! Non-canon.​

Finally, I would like to have rules that distinguish between travel by regular passenger liners and travel by free traders (e.g. people only use high passages to get on free traders in order to bump other passengers when the free trader is full up, and they don't expect high passage treatment on a free trader).


Hans

 

[Vladika]

The passage on page 219 of TNE establishes that the Imperium had travel regulations and that one of those regulations forbade steerage travel. That I have no problem with; the explanation that standard life support is rated for two people per stateroom seems to cover that pretty well. The "no steerage" rule could be "no putting people in less than half a stateroom", or it could be "no exceeding the life support limit".

So what about that same TNE p 219 that places steerage passengers 8, or more, to a stateroom? In addition it allows them to be carried in as little as an half dton of cargo hold per person!

Personally, I'd prefer the second possibility because it allows for more differentiation (for every single occupancy stateroom you can have a three-bunk stateroom), but I can live with either option.

Skipping this as it is covered by TNE above.

What does annoy me no end is the absence of rules for double occupancy passenger service. I can't fathom WHY the Imperium would have a travel regulation that prohibited double occupancy for commercial passengers, and yet the rules seem to imply just that. I can't think of any other reason why double occupancy isn't used.

Me neither. If someone want's off a world bad enough (fleeing the law, war, plague, starvation, natural disaster, etc,) they are going to pay and accept whatever the arrangements might be. (Hans, didn't you not long ago wonder how many people could be carried on a freetrader continent to continent? The TNE answer would be 1 per half tonne...)

And that, of course, means that generic rules, meant for places other than the Third Imperium in the Classic Era too, ought to include the option of double occupancy. Likewise, generic ship construction rules ought to include options for different levels of life support -- more or less than two per stateroom -- again to support alternate settings.

Agreed, and T5, for all its faults, addresses this by paying tonnage for life support not included in the stateroom tonnage.

In addition to that, I would like to see Imperial travel retconned to include double occupancy passengers (Economy Passage). This could be done without causing much disruption by establishing that High, Middle, and Low passages are vouchers that can be exchanged for one trip regardless of length¹, which would allow changing per-jump pricing to per-parsec pricing without losing High, Middle, and Low passages. As for Economy Passage vouchers, no organization issues them (they may not be legal under Imperial Edict 318²), so that's why we've never heard about any.

Sounds good to me.

Finally, I would like to have rules that distinguish between travel by regular passenger liners and travel by free traders (e.g. people only use high passages to get on free traders in order to bump other passengers when the free trader is full up, and they don't expect high passage treatment on a free trader).

That is so long overdue! (Your "bump" reasoning is impeccable.)

I'm a notorious CT fan but "cherry pick" later rules sets for things CT didn't cover. As such I tend to stick with CT as far as possible.

 

[GypsyComet]

You can certainly pack people in like cordwood, but unless they are under duress they will also need common spaces to stretch in. A half-ton space is essentially *just* a bed, like those "coffin hotels" that popped up in a few places, or the shipboard "room" in Fifth Element. You have to condition a populace over many years to accept that as their private space, and provide lots of public space to compensate.

And the public space is the killer of this idea for ship design, because that public space is also "stateroom" space. The corridors that provide access to the coffins are part of quarters space. The mess hall is part of quarters space, the freshers are part of quarters space. Pretty soon you are back up to a couple tons per person.

If you really want to carry them that densely, put in cold berths.

 

[Timerover51]

In considering how much crew space you need, you might want to remember that there is a difference between military ships and commercial/private ships.

A military ship can pack them in if desired as there is this thing called "military disciplinary action" to get people to accept less than desirable conditions.

For a commercial or private ship, you have to "hire" crew. If the ship's conditions are not attractive enough, you are going to have a very tough time hiring crew. Those that you do get probably are not going to be the top-tier of candidates either, or may just be out to hijack the ship. Do you really want a disgruntled crewman in charge of your life-support or power plant or drives? He or she might not necessarily destroy the ship, but a malfunctioning life support system might make for water shortages, read no showers, or lots and lots of not terribly nice smells, or some nasty cases of diarrhea. Playing with the power plant might leave you with a plant needing major repair when you land, with the result that you are not going anywhere for a few weeks to months, and your ship payment is due. A power overload knocking out the computer controls for your jump drive would also make things a bit difficult. Remember, the crewman does NOT WANT to be on the ship. If you, the owner, are stuck with massive bills, he or she could care less. Or they may botch the intended sabotage and take out the ship entirely.

Bottom line is, you keep your crew happy. If you do not, they keep you unhappy.

 

[aramis]

The passage on page 219 of TNE establishes that the Imperium had travel regulations and that one of those regulations forbade steerage travel. That I have no problem with; the explanation that standard life support is rated for two people per stateroom seems to cover that pretty well. The "no steerage" rule could be "no putting people in less than half a stateroom", or it could be "no exceeding the life support limit". Personally, I'd prefer the second possibility because it allows for more differentiation (for every single occupancy stateroom you can have a three-bunk stateroom), but I can live with either option.

What does annoy me no end is the absence of rules for double occupancy passenger service. I can't fathom WHY the Imperium would have a travel regulation that prohibited double occupancy for commercial passengers, and yet the rules seem to imply just that. I can't think of any other reason why double occupancy isn't used.

And that, of course, means that generic rules, meant for places other than the Third Imperium in the Classic Era too, ought to include the option of double occupancy. Likewise, generic ship construction rules ought to include options for different levels of life support -- more or less than two per stateroom -- again to support alternate settings.

In addition to that, I would like to see Imperial travel retconned to include double occupancy passengers (Economy Passage). This could be done without causing much disruption by establishing that High, Middle, and Low passages are vouchers that can be exchanged for one trip regardless of length¹, which would allow changing per-jump pricing to per-parsec pricing without losing High, Middle, and Low passages. As for Economy Passage vouchers, no organization issues them (they may not be legal under Imperial Edict 318²), so that's why we've never heard about any.

¹ Possibly limited to 'up to four parsecs'.

² This would be the enabling act for the issuing of passage vouchers. NB! Non-canon.​

Finally, I would like to have rules that distinguish between travel by regular passenger liners and travel by free traders (e.g. people only use high passages to get on free traders in order to bump other passengers when the free trader is full up, and they don't expect high passage treatment on a free trader).


Hans

There are canonical rules for double occupancy passengers.
They're in T20.

Specifically -
HP: KCr8 each
MP: KCr6.5 each
LS is paid per passenger or crewman in T20. Stewards are per HP, not per SR as well.

 

[rancke]

There are canonical rules for double occupancy passengers.
They're in T20.

Make that "I'd like a consolidated set of comprehensive, self-consistent, versatile rules that aren't going to be ignored by the next version and that explicitly supercedes any previous versions that conflict with them".

Specifically -
HP: KCr8 each
MP: KCr6.5 each
LS is paid per passenger or crewman in T20. Stewards are per HP, not per SR as well.

Middle passage is double occupancy in T20? I never realized that.


Hans