The problem with the so called pin mines is that space is so large the chances of anything coming close enough to get hit by them is practically nill. Anyway they'll drift and stay in space until they detonate, and do you want to be responsible for them hitting that passenger ship that comes through here in a few months time?
INSIDE - The Type S Scout/Courier
- Thread starter far-trader
- Start date
That's true. But I was thinking more along the lines of chaff to screw up sensors. An anti-matter explosion at point-blank range should pretty much blanket your sensors. Depends how you run hull armor and what can and can't damage it. And how much anti-matter you use. A shotgun shell sized one would probably not be all that much - most of the space in the mine being taken up by a containment device. I don't know if Traveller ever did much with space mines. Anyone know?
Later,
Scout
Later,
Scout
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Well, a long time coming for a lot of reasons and not a finished deal yet but here's a link to a rough set of deckplans for my vision of the T20 Type S:
http://www.geocities.com/far_trader_mail/Scout_Courier.html
The second post on page one should serve as a good guide for what you'll see but since someone is bound to ask here's a short key:
The red grid is standard 1.5m scale.
The light purple is the hull outline, showing the turret at the rear. The grey shaded areas are half-height spaces. The white voids in some of the walls are access plates for repair and maintenance.
The object outside the hull is the T20 standard stretch air/raft. It is open topped with four seats and cargo space behind. The dark grey squares are small cargo crates.
1 - Bridge. Four of the five workstations are here. The dark blocks are the computer interface controls and are half-height. Access to the bridge is through an iris hatch.
2 - Commons. The light blue on the wall in the center is a display panel and above it is an iris hatch to the top of the hull. In the upper corner is the autonutrimat and the small closet galley, accessed by a sliding door. Across from the galley is the round table and bench seating. Additional seating requires using stateroom chairs. To the aft of the commons, past the staterooms is a manual hatch to engineering.
3 - Staterooms. Standard model with fresher (F), two beds (bunk) and two chairs and a table (fold away, shown in port stateroom). Each stateroom has a standard display panel by the door. The three staterooms on the starboard side are connected by sliding doors.
4 - Electronics Bays. Shown in the decommissioned form with the starboard bay housing the standard model/1bis and the port bay empty.
5 - Engineering. In this area is the jump drive (J), fusion power plant (P), the fifth workstation, and the void where the fuel purifier (dashed outline) once was. To the aft are the twin manuver thrusters (M), and two engineering lockers (L). Between these is the overhead iris hatch to the turret.
6 - Modular Mission Bay. This area is accessed by two sets of double wide sliding hatches and has two seperate lifts in the floor.
7 - Vehicle Bay. Typically used for the standard stretch air/raft. Access is through a double wide sliding hatch, standard iris hatch from the cargo bay, or the full size overhead hatch.
8 - Cargo Bay. Rated for 3tons of cargo with a double wide sliding hatch.
9 - Air-Lock. Exterior access is through either the double wide sliding hatch to the rear or the standard manual hatch in the floor. Interior access is through a manual hatch to port or double wide sliding hatch to starboard.
G - Landing Gear. Only the rear are shown, with access through maintenance panels in the back of the lockers. The forward landing gear are below the bridge.
Comments and critiques appreciated.
http://www.geocities.com/far_trader_mail/Scout_Courier.html
The second post on page one should serve as a good guide for what you'll see but since someone is bound to ask here's a short key:
The red grid is standard 1.5m scale.
The light purple is the hull outline, showing the turret at the rear. The grey shaded areas are half-height spaces. The white voids in some of the walls are access plates for repair and maintenance.
The object outside the hull is the T20 standard stretch air/raft. It is open topped with four seats and cargo space behind. The dark grey squares are small cargo crates.
1 - Bridge. Four of the five workstations are here. The dark blocks are the computer interface controls and are half-height. Access to the bridge is through an iris hatch.
2 - Commons. The light blue on the wall in the center is a display panel and above it is an iris hatch to the top of the hull. In the upper corner is the autonutrimat and the small closet galley, accessed by a sliding door. Across from the galley is the round table and bench seating. Additional seating requires using stateroom chairs. To the aft of the commons, past the staterooms is a manual hatch to engineering.
3 - Staterooms. Standard model with fresher (F), two beds (bunk) and two chairs and a table (fold away, shown in port stateroom). Each stateroom has a standard display panel by the door. The three staterooms on the starboard side are connected by sliding doors.
4 - Electronics Bays. Shown in the decommissioned form with the starboard bay housing the standard model/1bis and the port bay empty.
5 - Engineering. In this area is the jump drive (J), fusion power plant (P), the fifth workstation, and the void where the fuel purifier (dashed outline) once was. To the aft are the twin manuver thrusters (M), and two engineering lockers (L). Between these is the overhead iris hatch to the turret.
6 - Modular Mission Bay. This area is accessed by two sets of double wide sliding hatches and has two seperate lifts in the floor.
7 - Vehicle Bay. Typically used for the standard stretch air/raft. Access is through a double wide sliding hatch, standard iris hatch from the cargo bay, or the full size overhead hatch.
8 - Cargo Bay. Rated for 3tons of cargo with a double wide sliding hatch.
9 - Air-Lock. Exterior access is through either the double wide sliding hatch to the rear or the standard manual hatch in the floor. Interior access is through a manual hatch to port or double wide sliding hatch to starboard.
G - Landing Gear. Only the rear are shown, with access through maintenance panels in the back of the lockers. The forward landing gear are below the bridge.
Comments and critiques appreciated.
First, a comment: Very Nice! Well worth the wait!
Second, questions: The Modular Mission Bay "has two separate lifts in the floor", are these equal in size? Are they arranged Fore and Aft? What weight limit would you impose on these "lifts"?
Any other nit-picky details you could provide e.g. personal effects lockers in the staterooms, ship's locker (yes/no) etc., etc. would be greatly appreciated.
I patiently (almost) wait for information concerning the mission specific modules. Though I expect they will be along following lines: Ground Survey, Orbital Survey, Diplo/VIP, Repair/Salvage, Relief/Recovery, Crew Transfer, Bulk Low Passage, Orbital Insertion, X-Boat Data Relay and Mini Ship’s Boat. You can stea...view all of these at Brook’s Traveller Lowport
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/modscout/
Thanks for your generosity in supporting this collective habit of ours.
Second, questions: The Modular Mission Bay "has two separate lifts in the floor", are these equal in size? Are they arranged Fore and Aft? What weight limit would you impose on these "lifts"?
Any other nit-picky details you could provide e.g. personal effects lockers in the staterooms, ship's locker (yes/no) etc., etc. would be greatly appreciated.
I patiently (almost) wait for information concerning the mission specific modules. Though I expect they will be along following lines: Ground Survey, Orbital Survey, Diplo/VIP, Repair/Salvage, Relief/Recovery, Crew Transfer, Bulk Low Passage, Orbital Insertion, X-Boat Data Relay and Mini Ship’s Boat. You can stea...view all of these at Brook’s Traveller Lowport
http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/modscout/
Thanks for your generosity in supporting this collective habit of ours.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Thanks for the praise.
Yes the lifts are equal and wall to wall together, split evenly fore and aft, and can work in tandem as a single, or even be used with one end stationary to form a ramp. Since they are part of the grav system of the ship I don't worry about a real weight limit*, as long as it fits in the volume. That volume is made to fit the standard cargo containers up to the 3m x 3m x 12m 8ton unit.
* within reason of course
The gritty details would be nice, and complete the package. Maybe someday
The only "lockers" are the two in the back to port and starboard of the air-lock. Mostly tools and parts. Suits are on racks in the airlock if not stored folded in the lockers or staterooms. Now you got me rambling the details
Yep, the mission modules would be much like those (stolen I tell ya! ), I have some different names but much the same functions. As well as the standard Lab Modules and Sickbay Module.
You're most welcome for whatever I can give back, for the enjoyment the game has given me.
Yes the lifts are equal and wall to wall together, split evenly fore and aft, and can work in tandem as a single, or even be used with one end stationary to form a ramp. Since they are part of the grav system of the ship I don't worry about a real weight limit*, as long as it fits in the volume. That volume is made to fit the standard cargo containers up to the 3m x 3m x 12m 8ton unit.
* within reason of course
The gritty details would be nice, and complete the package. Maybe someday
The only "lockers" are the two in the back to port and starboard of the air-lock. Mostly tools and parts. Suits are on racks in the airlock if not stored folded in the lockers or staterooms. Now you got me rambling the details
Yep, the mission modules would be much like those (stolen I tell ya!
), I have some different names but much the same functions. As well as the standard Lab Modules and Sickbay Module.You're most welcome for whatever I can give back, for the enjoyment the game has given me.
Nice job, Dan.
The doors in the staterooms: You could probably fudge the fore and aft beds into their respective corners but isn't the one in the mizzen (ooooh! get me!) room kind of in the way? I suppose you could squeeze round in an emergency and they aren't the primary access, so it's no biggie. Also, the doors leading to the electronics bays (4) I assume they are just access hatches and don't require regular access because the beds are definately in the way of them.
The only other nit I would pick is that on the web page, the entire image loads in as a thumbnail which you have to save out locally to view at full size. Make this a much reduced thumbnail that hyperlinks to the full size image. Or simply load in the image at it's full size.
Keep up the good work on this, fella.
Crow
The doors in the staterooms: You could probably fudge the fore and aft beds into their respective corners but isn't the one in the mizzen (ooooh! get me!) room kind of in the way? I suppose you could squeeze round in an emergency and they aren't the primary access, so it's no biggie. Also, the doors leading to the electronics bays (4) I assume they are just access hatches and don't require regular access because the beds are definately in the way of them.
The only other nit I would pick is that on the web page, the entire image loads in as a thumbnail which you have to save out locally to view at full size. Make this a much reduced thumbnail that hyperlinks to the full size image. Or simply load in the image at it's full size.
Keep up the good work on this, fella.
Crow
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Thanks Crow, it just pales so next to your work
The main purpose of the connecting doors is to allow joining two staterooms as a suite. Normally the bed(s) wouldn't be in the way being folded into the (outboard in this case) wall. Also at this size and this cheap program the detail is poor. Think of the elements as more iconic than specific
I think the beds are about the right size but the table and chairs (showing the daytime config) in the lone stateroom, and the workstation chairs, look too big.Correct. And just half-height crawlspace in the electronics bays. Nice place to stash a "small package" if it wasn't so obviously a nice place to stash a "small package"
Well it's just a free yahoo page and I was lazy. Not sure I can load it any other way, at least not without paying. I might play with it some more and see. If I get time to improve the thing. Actually what I'd like to do is collect everything that was to be the submission, polish it up, and either submit it or slap it up as a pdf for download. But first I need the time and energy
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Why not swap the aft staterooms and the common area around, like on a "real" Type S? Looks nicer and gives better access.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Only one reason really, I was making the plans match* Bryan Gibson's interior life sketches of the main corridor and ships galley for this version.
* Well, as close as possible in layout and features, originally the sketches were linked (in the first or second post here) when the art area was still around. If Hunter brings it back I'll fix the links, until then, I'll try to remember to drop Hunter and Bryan a note and see if I can post the copy I saved or if they are already posted somewhere.
Of course, like all stateroom volume the place is pretty easily reconfigured within that volume (from the bridge bulkhead to the engineering bulkhead). Being limited only by not being able to change the three hatches and two access panels.
Looks nicer? Well that's a personal preference, I like this better actually. This layout gives a little more open area in the commons than the old way, 4.5m x 4.5m (20.25m2) vs. 6m x 3m (18m2), including the seating in both but not the closet galley.
Better access? Not sure, I think both are about the same, unless I'm missing something.
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the look and feedback.
* Well, as close as possible in layout and features, originally the sketches were linked (in the first or second post here) when the art area was still around. If Hunter brings it back I'll fix the links, until then, I'll try to remember to drop Hunter and Bryan a note and see if I can post the copy I saved or if they are already posted somewhere.
Of course, like all stateroom volume the place is pretty easily reconfigured within that volume (from the bridge bulkhead to the engineering bulkhead). Being limited only by not being able to change the three hatches and two access panels.
Looks nicer? Well that's a personal preference, I like this better actually. This layout gives a little more open area in the commons than the old way, 4.5m x 4.5m (20.25m2) vs. 6m x 3m (18m2), including the seating in both but not the closet galley.
Better access? Not sure, I think both are about the same, unless I'm missing something.
Thanks Andrew, I appreciate the look and feedback.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
"Looks nicer?"
I like symmetry.
"Better access? Not sure, I think both are about the same, unless I'm missing something."
You don't have to go through staterooms to get to the elec bays.
I like symmetry.
"Better access? Not sure, I think both are about the same, unless I'm missing something."
You don't have to go through staterooms to get to the elec bays.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Yeah, I like symmetry too, especially as concerns craft balance. Still there is something to be said for breaking up symmetry where you can.
True about the access, I was thinking just the general access. At one time in the design process the access for the electronics bays was through the forward areas of the vehicle and module bays, and I briefly toyed with making it just external access.
True about the access, I was thinking just the general access. At one time in the design process the access for the electronics bays was through the forward areas of the vehicle and module bays, and I briefly toyed with making it just external access.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Of course, these design problems could explain why the ships are unknown a century later...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Could be, I just figured this model was local to Gateway while the Sulieman was local to the Marches and I'm trying to figure where to put the Florian, maybe the Rim. Naturally that's just mtu and some of each will find their way to distant parts. I used to know when the Sulieman was first built but forget now, not even sure where the info was but I seem to recall the Sulieman is an old design. Anybody know?
Oh, they're not problems, they're "design choices"
Oh, they're not problems, they're "design choices"
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Well the Type S being the workhorse of the Scout service there is no single profile for one on active duty. Loadouts will vary with the mission being assigned.
I discuss some of this in the second post of this thread. Various mission modules, different electronics configurations, and of course the fuel purifier (as shown in outline on the deckplan in the engineering bay). And because it is a Scout/Courier there will be times one will be engaged in carrying small but important cargo, generally less than 3 tons but as much as 11 tons, typically to systems off the x-boat routes.
I discuss some of this in the second post of this thread. Various mission modules, different electronics configurations, and of course the fuel purifier (as shown in outline on the deckplan in the engineering bay). And because it is a Scout/Courier there will be times one will be engaged in carrying small but important cargo, generally less than 3 tons but as much as 11 tons, typically to systems off the x-boat routes.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
"Its basic design has remained unchanged for the past century" according to S9, so it probably entered service around 1000.
Tekrat04
SOC-11
Since you ask for my opinion about your take on the T20 S/C.
You fail at evaluating the dimension of the hull. Base on the lenght and width of your deck plan and keeping the proportion of the artwork the scout would be over 200 dT. Had you done an evaluation of side profile to find the best location for the decks location and the profile for them you probably would has realized your mistake.
The power plant, jump drive and maneuver drive are taking up half the space they should be taking up.
On the positive side you did good at keeping the living spaces within the alocated cubage. The only thing that would improve this is relocating the access panels to the electronic bay to the vehicle bay and mission bay. Dido for your alocation of the cargo cubage and vehicle bay size.
Your big mistake is that you did not take the verticle dimention into account when calculating the size of the scout.
You fail at evaluating the dimension of the hull. Base on the lenght and width of your deck plan and keeping the proportion of the artwork the scout would be over 200 dT. Had you done an evaluation of side profile to find the best location for the decks location and the profile for them you probably would has realized your mistake.
The power plant, jump drive and maneuver drive are taking up half the space they should be taking up.
On the positive side you did good at keeping the living spaces within the alocated cubage. The only thing that would improve this is relocating the access panels to the electronic bay to the vehicle bay and mission bay. Dido for your alocation of the cargo cubage and vehicle bay size.
Your big mistake is that you did not take the verticle dimention into account when calculating the size of the scout.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Thank you for your look and comments Tekrat04.
I did look at the height but only as an approximation, and presuming some sloping of the hull. I picture the main section as nearly full height then a steep sloped S curve down to a thin edge to reduce some of that displacement. I have only a vague guess as to how close the shape as a solid would come to 100dT. Close but probably over by a fair bit is the guess. Being that the basic views don't show the underside I might be able to carve a little more out there
As for the engineering items, my method of deckplan allocation is to apply the model of the example of stateroom allocation where half is the actual item and half is other and common space. That's why the "actual" volume of the components is half what you'd expect. The rest is required for access space for maintenance and inspection and such. Same with the air/raft though in it's case the half volume is from it being half height. If it were an enclosed version then it would fill the vehicle bay and not allow any maintenance while carried.
I thought about putting the access panels for the electronics in the other areas but they just felt better there. They might make more sense as you suggest but both placements have good points. In fact at one time I had both but that was too much.
So while I did consider the vertical dimensions it was perhaps not critically considered. I didn't want it to take as long as my accurized Type A Free Trader deckplans
Again, thank you very much for your excellent observations.
I did look at the height but only as an approximation, and presuming some sloping of the hull. I picture the main section as nearly full height then a steep sloped S curve down to a thin edge to reduce some of that displacement. I have only a vague guess as to how close the shape as a solid would come to 100dT. Close but probably over by a fair bit is the guess. Being that the basic views don't show the underside I might be able to carve a little more out there
As for the engineering items, my method of deckplan allocation is to apply the model of the example of stateroom allocation where half is the actual item and half is other and common space. That's why the "actual" volume of the components is half what you'd expect. The rest is required for access space for maintenance and inspection and such. Same with the air/raft though in it's case the half volume is from it being half height. If it were an enclosed version then it would fill the vehicle bay and not allow any maintenance while carried.
I thought about putting the access panels for the electronics in the other areas but they just felt better there. They might make more sense as you suggest but both placements have good points. In fact at one time I had both but that was too much.
So while I did consider the vertical dimensions it was perhaps not critically considered. I didn't want it to take as long as my accurized Type A Free Trader deckplans
Again, thank you very much for your excellent observations.
