largest known hull deckplans?

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Ellros:

AHL deckplans

Well, better late than never.

I was digging through old threads and found these alternate non-canon AHL deckplans, and I think they're fantastic and inspiring, even if it is a little difficult to see just how accurate they are.

I'm just vaguely prejudiced in favor of horizontally layed out deckplans vs. vertically layed out deckplans.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by bozzutoman:
Those must be home-brew deckplans. The designer confuses some basic features of the AHL. In addition to the difference in deck orientation, the spinal mount is presented as a launch tube, and there appears to be launch facilities in the dorsal fin as well. Then the entire forward cylindrical projection containing avionics and the auxillary bridge is shown as the spinal mount.

In this alternate design, the spinal mount is not presented as a launch tube. The shuttle launch tube, fighter launch tubes, and spinal mount are all present as separate systems.

I just wish a larger version were available, because in many cases the text labels are illegible.

 

[BetterThanLife]

The High Lightning plans are online here. I uploaded them with the kind permission of Mark Miller and Hunter. Though the descriptions from Supp 5 are very useful for them. (Available in the reprint series.)

http://www.travellerrpg.com/cgi-bin/Trav/file/pfile.pl?action=view&itemid=38&h=&s=

As far as stacking decks goes and that being cheating? In reality physics makes more sense for the decks to be perpendicular to the direction of travel. It means less work for compensators and internal gravity if the direction of thrust is "down." It is also safer in the event of loss of inertial compensation and/or gravity. Think about the original Type S plans. If you are standing at the Bridge door and someone cuts the Gravity and inertial comps while the ship is at 2G accelleration you fall the equivalent of about 100 feet or 10 stories. And that is within a 100 T ship with compartmentalization and the blastdoors closed. Now what would happen on a 1000 ton ship much less one that is 60,000 tons!

As for repeating decks and components, If they work once why not repeat them, you are spreading them around so you don't lose all of them at the same time from one hit and you are keeping them the same makes, design, construction, training and orientation easier.

Originally posted by scantrontb:
Originally posted by GypsyComet:


are they online anywhere, i know that the High Lightning is out of print, and i've never even heard of the other one...

[qb]A similar "cheat" was used by the folks who did the 2nd Edition of Albedo RPG. Their ships are arranged vertically as well, and the ships book they did merely presented standard decks at each standard diameter (all their ships are cylinders). Stack to your heart's content...

anyone have any of these online either??

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bhoins:


<snip>

As far as stacking decks goes and that being cheating? In reality physics makes more sense for the decks to be perpendicular to the direction of travel. It means less work for compensators and internal gravity if the direction of thrust is "down." It is also safer in the event of loss of inertial compensation and/or gravity. Think about the original Type S plans. If you are standing at the Bridge door and someone cuts the Gravity and inertial comps while the ship is at 2G accelleration you fall the equivalent of about 100 feet or 10 stories. And that is within a 100 T ship with compartmentalization and the blastdoors closed. Now what would happen on a 1000 ton ship much less one that is 60,000 tons!

As for repeating decks and components, If they work once why not repeat them, you are spreading them around so you don't lose all of them at the same time from one hit and you are keeping them the same makes, design, construction, training and orientation easier.

Oh, I'd agree. Far more "realistic", but I still think the alternate plans *look* better.

And on my own note of realism, although it doesn't matter for the partially streamlined AHL or Fleet Escort, vertically stacked decks are impractical for craft meant to land, unless the ship is designed Broadsword-style, or is built straight up like a skyscraper.

 

[BetterThanLife]

With artificial gravity does internal orientation really matter when on the ground? (As long as you
have a way to orient between the decks and the ground,like in the movie 2001.)

However most large ships won't be spending much of their time on the ground. Unless you are dealing with a bulk carrier that typically calls on class C or worse starports. (You won't see too many of them either, typically the planets with class C or worse starports don't have alot of interstellar trade. If they did have alot of interstellar trade then the starports would be quickly upgraded.

Most large ships will not land on a regular basis. (Berthing costs for something that size while grounded would be huge, costs from ground to orbit are expensive, it is the most power intensive operation of space flight.) (Newton's Laws on Gravitics should prove that rather nicely.) Which is why the Elevator from the Equator to orbit is still being investigated.

Besides something in the size range of an AHL would play merry hell with Air Traffic patterns.

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:


<snip>

As far as stacking decks goes and that being cheating? In reality physics makes more sense for the decks to be perpendicular to the direction of travel. It means less work for compensators and internal gravity if the direction of thrust is "down." It is also safer in the event of loss of inertial compensation and/or gravity. Think about the original Type S plans. If you are standing at the Bridge door and someone cuts the Gravity and inertial comps while the ship is at 2G accelleration you fall the equivalent of about 100 feet or 10 stories. And that is within a 100 T ship with compartmentalization and the blastdoors closed. Now what would happen on a 1000 ton ship much less one that is 60,000 tons!

As for repeating decks and components, If they work once why not repeat them, you are spreading them around so you don't lose all of them at the same time from one hit and you are keeping them the same makes, design, construction, training and orientation easier.

Oh, I'd agree. Far more "realistic", but I still think the alternate plans *look* better.

And on my own note of realism, although it doesn't matter for the partially streamlined AHL or Fleet Escort, vertically stacked decks are impractical for craft meant to land, unless the ship is designed Broadsword-style, or is built straight up like a skyscraper. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bhoins:
With artificial gravity does internal orientation really matter when on the ground? (As long as you
have a way to orient between the decks and the ground,like in the movie 2001.)

It matters whenever the internal power has to be shut off, or if it has to be shut of to internal gravity, or if either fail for any reason, like, I don't know, negligent maintenence, damage from combat, damage from a crash landing, etc.

Originally posted by Bhoins:
<snip>

Most large ships will not land on a regular basis. (Berthing costs for something that size while grounded would be huge, costs from ground to orbit are expensive, it is the most power intensive operation of space flight.) (Newton's Laws on Gravitics should prove that rather nicely.) Which is why the Elevator from the Equator to orbit is still being investigated.

Besides something in the size range of an AHL would play merry hell with Air Traffic patterns.

Well, in a gravity controlling culture, large ships simply nullify the effects of gravity, and user their manuever drives to push themselves into orbit. I doubt it costs so much more than standard flight through vacuum as to make a dent in the ship's books.

IMTU, one-ten million dTon vessels, megafreighters designed to haul bulk foods or bulk liquids reguarly land on High-Pop or Industrial worlds. Offloading at a highport and tens of thousands of trips by smaller transports to get everything dirtside would add far more cost than landing the ship.

<snip>

 

[BetterThanLife]

In Most cases when dealing with combat damage you aren't going to want to go through an atmosphere anyway. But you are right, both ways have their uses. I guess it is just design philosophy.

As for grounding a 10 million ton starship what are the dimensions for that monster? And if technology is to the antigrav point then the High Port with an elevator is going to be fairly commonplace. (At least IMTU it is.) Heinlein predicted it. (I am surprised Jules Verne didn't.) NASA already has several different designs for one. (Not that any of the designs are workable but still the theory is sound.) IMTU the highport/highports, especially in Class A starports, tend to be in geosynchronus orbit and have an elevator/beanstalk/whatever you want to call it, for ease of transport between the Ground and the High Port.

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
With artificial gravity does internal orientation really matter when on the ground? (As long as you
have a way to orient between the decks and the ground,like in the movie 2001.)

It matters whenever the internal power has to be shut off, or if it has to be shut of to internal gravity, or if either fail for any reason, like, I don't know, negligent maintenence, damage from combat, damage from a crash landing, etc.

<snip> </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Darvedd]

Try Antony Farrell's "Star Kingdom of Swan" website.

He's got an "Ultimate Victory class super dreadnought" - 700,000 d.tons, with full TNE stats.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/skaran/Banners/equipment/Craft/Solomani/victory.html

Way bigger than an AHL.

I don't see deckplans posted, but there's a contact page on the site.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/skaran/Contact/contact.html

Quite a few other big ships there too.

http://www.users.bigpond.com/skaran/Banners/equipment/Craft/craft.html

 

[savage]

Lets not forget the darkling worldship from judges guild...here are T20 specs 25.3m kdt
- as I recall a general layout
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/savage/1WorldOrder/CT-Conversions-T20/Darkling_WorldShip.html


and the fasa skyraiders asteroidship 50m kdt
- as I recall a plan of several modules but it didn't have specs. So I gave specs a shot...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/savage/1WorldOrder/CT-Conversions-T20/Homeworld_Sky_Raiders_Asteroid.html

As far as my specs I've done a couple versions of a 10Mdt base ship;
1. columbus mobile starport/colony ship
3. Titan battlestation
http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/savage/1WorldOrder/Savage_Designs_index.html

Savage

 

[SlightlyLyons]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
IMTU, one-ten million dTon vessels, megafreighters designed to haul bulk foods or bulk liquids reguarly land on High-Pop or Industrial worlds. Offloading at a highport and tens of thousands of trips by smaller transports to get everything dirtside would add far more cost than landing the ship.

I was thinking about that same thing but came up with a diferent solution. Mainly that on your mostly vertical orented city worlds a flat space to park your freighter can't be cheep. So I had the Idea of Grav platforms that meet the ship in orbit, offload all the bulk cargo in one swoop, and return to the ground.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Bhoins:

<snip>

As for grounding a 10 million ton starship what are the dimensions for that monster? And if technology is to the antigrav point then the High Port with an elevator is going to be fairly commonplace. (At least IMTU it is.) Heinlein

I recommend a perusal of John Barnes' Duke of Uranium for an excellent description of what happens to a planet when an Orbital Elevator falls to the ground (due to war, in the case of that story). Can you say, "World-Wrapping Grand Canyon."? I knew you could.

I've always thought that the Orbital Elevator would be rendered pointless in a gravity controlling culture given the risks of having one hanging up there (if there is no gravity control, then the Orbital Elevator is worth it's weight in Californium . . . ok, maybe not that much). I guess I should try and study it instead of WAGing around.


As for dimensions . . . I was thinking 2-3 kilometer long bricks with aerodynamic curves for atmospheric travel (ok, they're a little better than that). Basically, they're ultra cheap bulk freighters, and the architects didn't spend a whole lot on artistic design. Big flying boxes.

Originally posted by Bhoins:
predicted it. (I am surprised Jules Verne didn't.) NASA already has several different designs for one. (Not that any of the designs are workable but still the theory is sound.) IMTU the highport/highports, especially in Class A starports, tend to be in geosynchronus orbit and have an elevator/beanstalk/whatever you want to call it, for ease of transport between the Ground and the High Port.

That's a great many targets for people with an agenda.

 

[BetterThanLife]

With countergrav there is no reason for the thing to fall. (Well unless you took out the bulk of the generators and one wouldthink there would be backups and safety interlocks to prevent such a thing. But yes if one were to fall. (Heinlein's "Friday" mentions one coming down.) it would be a disaster. Then again so is taking out a skyscraper or even better a skyraker. (Next generation skyscraper, 300+ stories.) Like the Trade Center there would be built in safety measures. The Trade Center for example was designed so that if it were to come down it would come straight down, instead of falling over. (Which is exactly what they did.)


Being ableto ground a 10 million ton freighter or two takes alot of very expensive and important real estate for a landing berth that big. (And if you thought that the elevator coming down was a disaster how about running away the fusion plants of a 10 Million ton ship's powerplant.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[veltyen]

You answered your own question.

With simple, cheap, reliable contragrav you no longer need a beanstalk. Fast grav vehicles for commuting to orbit. Slower grav vehicles for bulk lift to orbit.

And a 300ton Bulk lifter falling out of the sky can be destroyed/rescued from most grav failures. A 10^20 ton ladder has other problems.

 

[GypsyComet]

my, we wandered away from ship deckplans in a hurry, there.

In the "large but not scary large" category, the converted battlerider-carrier used for the original Traveller PBEM has a set of deckplans online, though I don't have a link at the moment...

 

[Straybow]

How expensive is land in LA? How expensive is land just over the mountains outside Bakersfield? Big difference. Go 100km or so from any major city and you've got expanses of cheap land.

That's where you build a spaceport capable of fielding multi-megaton ships.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Large deckplans. I have seen deckplans someplace for the Babylon station. The Old Star Trek Technical Manual had plans for the StarFleet Academy which were incomplete but in those days was an orbital space station. Now all you would need is to create stats for them.

 

[teinedraig]

as a thought on the big cargo ship discussion - with contra grav etc why would you need it to land - you could have large contrav grav warehouse/processing platforms that the ships dock at and off load too. From there goods are distrbuted where required.

This allows the High Port to deal mainly with small cargo, traffic control, security, tariff's and people flow and the warehouse paltforms deal with the big cargo stuff. Much more throughput if you six or eight of these large warehouses to process, distribute and tranship the goods.