Pondering starship evolution

[casquilho]

And here's what happens when you swap out the holo lounge for a sick bay.

The TL=9 sick bay can still fit:

• 1 Autodoc bed
• 1 Closet for miscellaneous storage
• 1 Privacy Screen retractable curtain
• 1 Medical Workstation for the attending medic
• 1 Medical Locker for specialized medical storage that needs to be kept secure

I do not think the sick bay looks that bad with the thicker walls. It looks like it could still do its job just fine.

 

[Spinward Flow]

What does R/F stand for?

Given that it is in the galley, I'm assuming Refrigerator/Freezer (and ST = Storeroom).

Correct.

R/F = Refrigerator / Freezer
It's the place to keep the cold stuff cold.

ST = Stores (or Storeroom, if you prefer)
It's the place to keep room temperature consumable stuff.

I see a square in the center that seems a lift (between two . If so where is it planned to go?

The central square (between the 4 iris valves) is a Grav Lift (or a lift shaft, if you prefer).
Additional details concerning these (and how they work) can be found in LBB S7 on p6-7.

The grav lift is used for direct vertical access (dorsal/ventral) between Boxes when they are docked together (vertically) in arrays.

Why the airlocks? If the container is expected to be inside a ship, I don’t see the need for them (after all, the room doors in most ships are not bulkheads, but simple doors)

Although the Boxes are generically intended for transport, they can also be used in stationary deployments as accommodation modules in a base camp delivered to planetary surfaces (or by prospectors living in planetoid belts). There are many "non-transport" roles that these Boxes can be used for, so the EVA Airlocks are included to better support these other mission uses that have nothing to do with starship operations.

Because the EVA Airlocks are there, you can use them for "camp mode" in almost any terrestrial environment (just provide housekeeping power and life support consumables for occupants).

Appreciate the attention to detail there. It's farther than I generally go.

It's certainly farther than I've ever gone before.

In my work, I consider the line weights to be indicative, not descriptive.

This is often times the case. The visual language used is primarily symbolic, to get ideas across clearly, rather than being taken to a level suitable for immersion.

LBB A1 and LBB S7 deck plans definitely fit the description of being more about getting the symbolism right, rather than worrying about correct proportions of wall thicknesses, etc.

I do not think the sick bay looks that bad with the thicker walls. It looks like it could still do its job just fine.

Well, that's because it "shrinks" by only 2 pixels next to each wall.

• TL=9 has 120x112 pixels (3m x 2.8m) between walls.
• TL=10 has 124x116 pixels (3.1m x 2.9m) between walls.

So it's only slightly smaller inside ... enough so that you might be hard pressed to notice the difference in terms of interior volume when walking into the two respective spaces. It's a difference of approximately 3.3-3.5% in terms of wall to wall measurements, so it would be a subtle difference rather than an obvious one.

 

[kilemall]

Ok, what about laundry facilities? Perhaps something that pops out from the floor?

 

[kilemall]

Looking at the stateroom box in general, there aren’t a lot of destinations in there.

Would work fine as a drop in for the Type S for instance as the crew has bridges, engineering, turret cargo and air raft berth to move around in.

But for racking and stacking paying passenger space, this is very much an introvert shut in sort of experience built in.

Two ways to go here.

You can have an entertainment destination type box that has more space dedicated to common areas and functions. Wouldn’t be a default for most 1-3 box sized ships, but could be a good option for 4+ box liners or yachts.

The other would be two common freshers, freeing up two fresher sized areas as mini destinations/facilities.

That gets into some creative market differentiation for what those little spaces could be.

Workout space. Mini pool with option for resistance current. Hobby workbench with toolset for everything from bonsai to woodworking to model building. Holobox with options like walking through a forest with grav fields making for fancy treadmill/‘solid’ objects. Shooting range (probably only yacht/hunter/merc ships). Music studio. Destination planet acclimation.

Plenty more I haven’t thought of I’m sure.

 

[kilemall]

The yacht/hunter shooting range got me to thinking, might be a market for your optimized ship designs in that arena.

Slimmed down yacht for fast distant travel, load up for an expedition with small craft and expeditionary vehicles on exterior boxes.

So could be an exercise for a design.

Key economics, other than people wanting to switch for the above purposes modularity likely won’t be a big factor as it adds up having more then dumb vehicle/cargo bays not in use at a starport without a large megacorps/line function in play.

Rental might be an option but again not for expensive stateroom swaps.

The payoff for going modular box for yacht/hunter is onetime cheap customization upon speccing the new/used ship. Main ship is class/mass production savings, only have to architect for the special needs boxes.

Mercs would be in the same category, fast quick security/specop/intervention vs full J1 loadout, but presumably would tend to own their boxes so they aren’t caught short on a fast reaction ticket.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Ok, what about laundry facilities? Perhaps something that pops out from the floor?

Will something in the Galley compartment do?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Looking at the stateroom box in general, there aren’t a lot of destinations in there.

It's 9.8m x 7.m x 3m (center of outer bulkhead to center of outer bulkhead).

Dimensional Transcendentalism hasn't been unlocked by TL=9 (for some reason).

When you're the size of only 4 staterooms ... there's only so many places you can go ...
I consider myself lucky for having been able to figure out a way to fix 6 compartments into that limited amount of displacement volume.

 

[kilemall]

Will something in the Galley compartment do?

I was thinking that was the oven, but sure that works.

 

[mike wightman]

The canonical stateroom from Safari Ship and Signal GK
"Standard passenger comfort demands a certain level of amenity in the stateroom.
In order to meet this standard, staterooms are self-contained living areas which need
never be left during a voyage. The stateroom contains a bed, a fresher, entertainment
consoles, and miscellaneous furniture. All basic items in the stateroom collapse
into the floor, wall, or ceiling, when not in use.
Functions supported by the stateroom can be divided into four basic categories:
eating, sleeping, sanitary necessities, leisure, and possession storage.
Sleeping is supported by the standard size bed which folds from the wall at command.
Grav plates can be adjusted to provide a range from 0.0 to 1.5 G for personal
comfort.
Meals may be taken on a collapsible table and storable chair. The stateroom is
large enough for four persons to eat around the table comfortably. Meals themselves
must be delivered from the passenger lounge; there is no automated delivery system.
A small refrigerator stores snacks and small quantities of food for immediate
availability.
Sanitary necessities are handled by the fresher, which includes a multi-function
shower, a toilet, a sink, and a small washer/dryer (for the benefit of middle
passengers). All components fold unobtrusively out of the way when not in use.
Leisure activities are a necessary part of stateroom life. They relieve the boredom
of the long jump voyage by providing entertainment, research facilities, and computer
access. The wide range of entertainment activities includes holographic
theatrical productions, video shows, interactive drama, and audio programming.
There are also games (played against the main computer, or against other
passengers). The computer terminal also allows access (on a restricted basis) to
the main computer for data processing, word processing, and library data inquiries.
Storage of personal necessities is handled by several collapsible compartments
and cabinets. Passengers can store up to 100 kilograms of baggage in their
staterooms; high passengers may store an additional 900 kilograms in the cargo
compartment (access to any needed items requires the assistance of the crew)."

 

[Spinward Flow]

the crew has bridges, engineering, turret cargo and air raft berth to move around in.

But for racking and stacking paying passenger space, this is very much an introvert shut in sort of experience built in.

As a matter of starship security, are passengers supposed to "have the run of the ship" to be able to go anywhere and do anything while aboard at any time?

• Are passengers "welcome" on the bridge?
• Are passengers "welcome" in engineering?
• Are passengers "welcome" to wander into turrets or the cargo hold(s)?
• Are passengers "welcome" to visit the vehicle berth (to just hang out?) whenever they feel like it?

During scheduled/guided tours, the answers to all of the above may be a YES ... but at random unscheduled times, no so much.

Keeping the passengers segregated from any crew areas is just basic design sense, particularly when the threat of hijacking (by someone already onboard at departure is present in interstellar travel.

The other would be two common freshers, freeing up two fresher sized areas as mini destinations/facilities.

Let me get this straight.

In a space that @ 16 tons and a deck plan of 6.5x5 deck squares (more or less) ... I can fit 6 compartments that are roughly equal in size (they're not EXACTLY equal, but close enough for conversation).

You're saying, "that's not good enough" ... because there ought to be 8 compartments in there, not just 6.

• Stateroom, common room, common fresher (for 2), Stateroom
• Access hallway
• Stateroom, galley, common fresher (for 2), Stateroom

So ... your idea for adding extra places to go to is ... a shared bathroom down the hall???

Um.
Yeah.
About that ...
Don't call us ...

Workout space. Mini pool with option for resistance current. Hobby workbench with toolset for everything from bonsai to woodworking to model building. Holobox with options like walking through a forest with grav fields making for fancy treadmill/‘solid’ objects. Shooting range (probably only yacht/hunter/merc ships). Music studio. Destination planet acclimation.

Plenty more I haven’t thought of I’m sure.

What you're talking about is more properly represented by the Passenger Pod found on LBB S9, p22.

Passenger Pod: A large pressurized hull with 225 staterooms, plus recreational facilities, safety compartmentalization, and fittings for comfort. MCr212.5

It's a 1000 ton Pod meant to be towed by a 5000 ton Jump Ship.

 

[kilemall]

As a matter of starship security, are passengers supposed to "have the run of the ship" to be able to go anywhere and do anything while aboard at any time?

• Are passengers "welcome" on the bridge?
• Are passengers "welcome" in engineering?
• Are passengers "welcome" to wander into turrets or the cargo hold(s)?
• Are passengers "welcome" to visit the vehicle berth (to just hang out?) whenever they feel like it?

During scheduled/guided tours, the answers to all of the above may be a YES ... but at random unscheduled times, no so much.

Keeping the passengers segregated from any crew areas is just basic design sense, particularly when the threat of hijacking (by someone already onboard at departure is present in interstellar travel.

Let me get this straight.

In a space that @ 16 tons and a deck plan of 6.5x5 deck squares (more or less) ... I can fit 6 compartments that are roughly equal in size (they're not EXACTLY equal, but close enough for conversation).

You're saying, "that's not good enough" ... because there ought to be 8 compartments in there, not just 6.

• Stateroom, common room, common fresher (for 2), Stateroom
• Access hallway
• Stateroom, galley, common fresher (for 2), Stateroom

So ... your idea for adding extra places to go to is ... a shared bathroom down the hall???

Um.
Yeah.
About that ...
Don't call us ...

What you're talking about is more properly represented by the Passenger Pod found on LBB S9, p22.

It's a 1000 ton Pod meant to be towed by a 5000 ton Jump Ship.

I said nothing about allowing the passengers the run of the ship. I’m explicitly contrasting how the crew only experience is different from the passenger experience, especially paying twice the salary of a pilot for one week cooped up in a room.

That segue-ways to describing destinations they reasonably can get to, which would be within their own box, not the ship itself. No mocking necessary.

Yes shared facilities. My model is more the Pullman cars of the US railroads. There were full staterooms with bathrooms but most travel had berths with seating, shared bathrooms. What made it palatable was being able to go to dining, club and observation cars- destinations in my parlance.

Course they also had the Harvey Houses on the Santa Fe, a wonder of travel service even today and unknown back then. Not exactly an option in jumpspace, the steward will have to do.

One option would be two with freshers, two without. The middle passage passengers would usually get the without, more differentiating value. For extra kick maybe the high passage passengers get access to the extra facilities and the middle don’t.

I will continue to post more/better/different or present to others reading and considering ship design issues, assuming that the point of forums was to do exactly that.

For 1000 tons I would expect a modern cruise liner with all the amenities. Pretty hard line though to not have middle ground for the 600+ ton total ship crowd.

 

[TamsinP]

For 1000 tons I would expect a modern cruise liner with all the amenities. Pretty hard line though to not have middle ground for the 600+ ton total ship crowd.

1000 dTons is nowhere near the size of a modern cruise liner; the closest I can find in size would be a mid-range superyacht such as the bravo Eugenia (which works out as 867 dTons):

Bravo Eugenia (yacht) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Modern cruise liners are able to have all the amenities they do because of their size and the number of passengers they are able to carry. The 70th largest cruise ship is the Carnival Firenze which comes out as 30872 dTons; the smallest Carnival Lines ship is Carnival Elation at 16710 dTons able to take 2130 passengers.

However, in the context of this thread, that is irrelevant. If you read back, these are intended to be standardised cargo/passenger pods carried externally. As such, each pod needs to be self contained. Would people want to travel that way? Probably not. Would they travel that way? Yes, if there were no better options for them.

 

[kilemall]

The canonical stateroom from Safari Ship and Signal GK
"Standard passenger comfort demands a certain level of amenity in the stateroom.
In order to meet this standard, staterooms are self-contained living areas which need
never be left during a voyage. The stateroom contains a bed, a fresher, entertainment
consoles, and miscellaneous furniture. All basic items in the stateroom collapse
into the floor, wall, or ceiling, when not in use.
Functions supported by the stateroom can be divided into four basic categories:
eating, sleeping, sanitary necessities, leisure, and possession storage.
Sleeping is supported by the standard size bed which folds from the wall at command.
Grav plates can be adjusted to provide a range from 0.0 to 1.5 G for personal
comfort.
Meals may be taken on a collapsible table and storable chair. The stateroom is
large enough for four persons to eat around the table comfortably. Meals themselves
must be delivered from the passenger lounge; there is no automated delivery system.
A small refrigerator stores snacks and small quantities of food for immediate
availability.
Sanitary necessities are handled by the fresher, which includes a multi-function
shower, a toilet, a sink, and a small washer/dryer (for the benefit of middle
passengers). All components fold unobtrusively out of the way when not in use.
Leisure activities are a necessary part of stateroom life. They relieve the boredom
of the long jump voyage by providing entertainment, research facilities, and computer
access. The wide range of entertainment activities includes holographic
theatrical productions, video shows, interactive drama, and audio programming.
There are also games (played against the main computer, or against other
passengers). The computer terminal also allows access (on a restricted basis) to
the main computer for data processing, word processing, and library data inquiries.
Storage of personal necessities is handled by several collapsible compartments
and cabinets. Passengers can store up to 100 kilograms of baggage in their
staterooms; high passengers may store an additional 900 kilograms in the cargo
compartment (access to any needed items requires the assistance of the crew)."

Never read either of those, except the Hunter ship plan as better Yacht then Type Y, so first time reading.

I virtually never see any 4 person seating tables in any ship plans. About the only practical way I could see it is Pullman style seating below the bunk like Spin has, or a fold down table from a wall possibly with folding picnic benches.

The computer/video/gaming/holo is a given. But that’s still a whole week of binging whatever in a room. I don’t know that room delivered meals to a Spaceflix/Call of Imperial Duty game makes that worth Cr2000 more.

The surprise to me is the laundry facility in-room. Definitely never denoted on plans but in keeping with the don’t leave room narrative. However the text implies that the steward is doing high passenger laundry and presumably everyone’s bed/towel linens so still need some facility they can use.

 

[Spinward Flow]

However, in the context of this thread, that is irrelevant.

QUITE irrelevant.
Among other things, I'm trying to engineer starship designs that work @ TL=9-11 using LBB2.81 standard drives, which puts hard limits on the drives (A-D/E-H/J-K) which in turn puts hard limits on combined displacements when computing drive performance.

Suffice it to say, everything relevant to what I'm doing in this thread involves stuff that prefers to be 1000 tons or less in total ... with starships that prefer to fall into the 250-400 ton range.

@ TL=12 with L-N drives, I could potentially go as high as 600-800 tons for the starship.

Everything that I'm doing is "small time, free trader" type ACS Traveller stuff, which could just as easily be a PC starship in a campaign as it could be an NPC starship (class) in the background of a campaign. I'm trying to make something extremely versatile that can be useful in an incredibly wide variety of use cases, all because it is designed from the outset to be "standardized modular" and therefore easy to configure to meet a variety of needs.

As demonstrated earlier upthread, at most you can load up one of these TL=9 250 ton J3/3G Clippers with enough external loading to make it a J1+1 liner for 120 passengers using 33x Stateroom Boxes (for passengers and crew). I already know what that's going to have to look like on the deck plans ... I just need to have enough time to be able to buckle down and draw it all up in the Preview app that I use.

If you read back, these are intended to be standardised cargo/passenger pods carried externally. As such, each pod needs to be self contained.

Internally (for better drive performance) or externally (reducing drive performance in exchange for greater revenue tonnage capacity) is the tradeoff. You can't DO that without putting the necessary "amenities" into a hull of some sort (just like with any other small craft/big craft).

It's "more expensive" to do things this way, in terms of raw construction cost ... but the return on that investment is ease of modular (re)configuration after construction AND being able to bring more investors into the arena. When you don't need to buy the railroad ... just the rolling stock that runs on the railroad's tracks ... you can bring a lot more capital investment and "players" into a regional market.

Additionally ... since the 16 ton Boxes are small craft, they can be constructed at any TL=9+ type B starport (type A not required). This then makes it possible for type B starport worlds to "get in on the action" of producing Boxes for transport on starships built at worlds with type A starports, increasing the volume of trade capacity available and enhancing economic "soft power" through trade volumes for worlds with type B starports. Ideally speaking, there would be a "surplus" of stock in Boxes relative to starships capable of carrying them, allowing third parties to invest in interstellar trade by buying Boxes to transport freight and passengers, increasing the demand for starships capable of towing those Boxes to desired (see: interstellar charter) destinations.

I just need to finish designing it, first.

Would people want to travel that way? Probably not.

To be honest, interstellar travel is going to have its limits on luxury no matter what you do.
Reason being is that just like with a submarine, displacement volume is at an absolute premium.
It's not like a planetary surface where The Sky's The Limit (or words to that effect).

When you realize that a 150m RADIUS sphere displaces 1 MILLION tons in Traveller terms ... and then realize that means you could "fit" 250,000 staterooms into that 300m DIAMETER sphere ... every single one of those staterooms had better be "broom closet" sized if you want them all to be able to fit in there!

Suffice it to say that O'Niell Cylinder style habitats are best thought of as being GIGAton to TERRAton construction projects, in Traveller terms (especially when the cylinder is kilometers, plural, long).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Slimmed down yacht for fast distant travel, load up for an expedition with small craft and expeditionary vehicles on exterior boxes.

Already ahead of you.
That's been a "feature" of my research into this arena from the start.

Key economics, other than people wanting to switch for the above purposes modularity likely won’t be a big factor as it adds up having more then dumb vehicle/cargo bays not in use at a starport without a large megacorps/line function in play.

Rental might be an option but again not for expensive stateroom swaps.

The payoff for going modular box for yacht/hunter is onetime cheap customization upon speccing the new/used ship. Main ship is class/mass production savings, only have to architect for the special needs boxes.

There are multiple angles on this point ... too many for me to exhaustively describe ... but you're starting to cotton on to one of the hidden advantages of the design principles I'm pursuing.

For a "pure" dedicated purpose, a class designed as "optimized" towards that purpose is going to be the cheapest/best option ... but depending on how far you take the specialization of the design, it might ONLY be useful for one to maybe two purposes. For everything else, it's sub-optimal.

By contrast a "plug & play" modular design might cost more "up front" but if you need to reconfigure it for a different or modified purpose, the cost to do so is exceptionally low.

Take the Type-S Scout/Courier conversion to Type-J Seeker, for example.
From canon source in LBB S7, p27, the cost to do that conversion work is MCr7.59 and involves "gutting and replacing" a significant fraction of the interior space(s) of the stock Type-S to achieve the conversion.
Considering the fact that the base price for a (40 year old) surplus Type-S Scout/Courier is listed as being MCr17 (LBB S7, p27) ... meaning that the conversion cost is +44.64% of the purchase cost for the surplus starship. That's ... a bit steep.

However, if the Type-S was redesigned to have 2x 16 ton Boxes in it, you might not need to swap out the Boxes at all ... and would only need to arm the turret with a pulse laser (MCr0.5) and swap out the air/raft (4 tons, MCr0.6) for a prospecting buggy (4 tons, MCr0.75).

Even if such a "modular Type-S" had a 100% single construction cost of MCr35.074 ... after 40 years of depreciation it could be sold at surplus for 35.074*0.6=MCr21.0444.

A 25% rebate on selling the original air/raft yields MCr0.15 ... while purchase of the pulse laser and prospecting buggy costs MCr0.5 and MCr0.75 respectively.
0.5+0.75-0.15 = MCr1.1 conversion cost (no architect fees needed)

• 21.0444 (single production surplus) + 1.1 = MCr22.1444 total

Compare that to what LBB S7 has to say about the price of buying a Type-J Seeker.

• 17 (volume production surplus) + 7.59 = MCr24.59 (including architect's fees)

Now, if you were a hardscrabble shoestring operation that needed to shave every credit that passed through your hands ... which would you rather pay for?
The ship you can buy for MCr22.1444?
Or the ship you can buy for MCr24.59?

You get three guesses.
The first two don't count.

 

[Spinward Flow]

16 ton Laboratory Box TL=10 (regenerative biome life support)

16 ton Laboratory Box TL=9 (regenerative biome life support)

Dunno how anybody else feels about this, but I'm certainly enjoying the "voyage of discovery" involved in this topic.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And here's the 16 ton Cargo Box TL=9.

Turns out that explaining to @atpollard how the doors work in post #391 highlighted an error that I had made with the pressure doors on the ends and the placement of the manual hatches on the port/starboard sides in that previous design.

At the time, I also wasn't thinking (yet) in terms of a 100 ton J2/2G TL=9 Scout/Courier variant using 2x 16 ton Boxes incorporated into its design features (that happened in post #394). The problem there was that any kind of "2 Box" form factor in anything akin to the traditional Scout/Courier rhomboid pyramid hull would necessarily need to put the Boxes on the centerline of the single level deck plan. The Stateroom Box would be forward, so as to allow a pass through from the bridge forward to the engineering section(s) aft, but then you get a Cargo Box "in the tail" of the deckplan aft along the centerline, but access INTO it becomes problematic ... if you've got an Air/Raft berth and a 12 ton collapsible fuel tank occupying those 16 tons of Cargo Box capacity.

So I worked out a way to put the side access hatches on the beam line with the vertical access iris valves (no grav lift shaft in the Cargo Boxes) and then carefully adjusted the length of the asymmetrical pressure doors on the forward/aft ends such that they can't block the port/starboard hatches when the pressure doors are opened all the way out to 270º on their vertical axis hinges. I also reversed the long/short pressure doors on the ends such that you could have an Air/Raft berthed on the starboard side aft, meaning that you would only need to open the "short" aft door on the starboard side to launch and recover the Air/Raft from its berth in the Cargo Box.

This arrangement then allows vehicles to enter/exit out the aft door(s) of the Cargo Box+Hangar Bay/Cargo Bay without needing to "unload" the Cargo Box completely from the interior of the starship. Access to the vehicle berth(s) can then be done through the forward, port or starboard manual hatches without needing to open the forward pressure doors on the Cargo Box (if there are no internal obstructions/occupancy factors).

The basic idea here is that in a (modified) Scout/Courier design, access to the vehicle berth for the Air/Raft would still be on the aft starboard side of the ship, except now the vehicle berth is closer to the centerline and the engineering spaces for the drives are more widely separated to port and starboard (unlike the legacy Type-S, where the drives bay is in the center).

Anyway, the important point is that because of the dimensions of the Cargo Box, when fully swung open by 270º the pressure doors on the ends do not block access to the manual hatches on the port/starboard sides. The "long" pressure doors have manual hatches built into, rather than separate from them, so when the "long" pressure door is swung open the manual hatches goes with them.

 

[kilemall]

And here's the 16 ton Cargo Box TL=9.

Turns out that explaining to @atpollard how the doors work in post #391 highlighted an error that I had made with the pressure doors on the ends and the placement of the manual hatches on the port/starboard sides in that previous design.

At the time, I also wasn't thinking (yet) in terms of a 100 ton J2/2G TL=9 Scout/Courier variant using 2x 16 ton Boxes incorporated into its design features (that happened in post #394). The problem there was that any kind of "2 Box" form factor in anything akin to the traditional Scout/Courier rhomboid pyramid hull would necessarily need to put the Boxes on the centerline of the single level deck plan. The Stateroom Box would be forward, so as to allow a pass through from the bridge forward to the engineering section(s) aft, but then you get a Cargo Box "in the tail" of the deckplan aft along the centerline, but access INTO it becomes problematic ... if you've got an Air/Raft berth and a 12 ton collapsible fuel tank occupying those 16 tons of Cargo Box capacity.

So I worked out a way to put the side access hatches on the beam line with the vertical access iris valves (no grav lift shaft in the Cargo Boxes) and then carefully adjusted the length of the asymmetrical pressure doors on the forward/aft ends such that they can't block the port/starboard hatches when the pressure doors are opened all the way out to 270º on their vertical axis hinges. I also reversed the long/short pressure doors on the ends such that you could have an Air/Raft berthed on the starboard side aft, meaning that you would only need to open the "short" aft door on the starboard side to launch and recover the Air/Raft from its berth in the Cargo Box.

This arrangement then allows vehicles to enter/exit out the aft door(s) of the Cargo Box+Hangar Bay/Cargo Bay without needing to "unload" the Cargo Box completely from the interior of the starship. Access to the vehicle berth(s) can then be done through the forward, port or starboard manual hatches without needing to open the forward pressure doors on the Cargo Box.

The basic idea here is that in a (modified) Scout/Courier design, access to the vehicle berth for the Air/Raft would still be on the aft starboard side of the ship, except now the vehicle berth is closer to the centerline and the engineering spaces for the drives are more widely separated to port and starboard (unlike the legacy Type-S, where the drives bay is in the center).

Anyway, the important point is that because of the dimensions of the Cargo Box, when fully swung open by 270º the pressure doors on the ends do not block access to the manual hatches on the port/starboard sides. The "long" pressure doors have manual hatches built into, rather than separate from them, so when the "long" pressure door is swung open the manual hatches goes with them.

Have you considered engineering modules?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Have you considered engineering modules?

Before you mentioned the idea?
No.

Part of my reasoning is that the 16 ton form factor is decidedly sub-optimal for LBB2.81 letter drives.
Also, my own sense of starship design is that small craft/big craft need to have their engineering spaces "integrated" into the craft, rather than being something that can be "bolted on" (or into) the shell of a hull.

Closest I would get to the notion of an "engineering module" would be to start with a Cargo Box and put a fusion power plant into it (either a TL=9 PP-A drive from LBB2.81, or something smaller from Striker) along with an Internal Demountable Fuel Tank (with a Collapsible Fuel Tank optional if buying a smaller Internal Demountable Fuel Tank to make room). That way you've got a source of housekeeping/baseload power for an outpost on deployment. Gives you a way to "containerize" a power+fuel source.

But maneuver drives?
No.

Besides, if you add a power plant AND maneuver drives, you're most of the way to building a self-propelled small craft of some kind (like a Launch or a Ship's Boat) ... at which point you need either a Bridge or a Computer, and a crew.



Now if you're talking about some kind of dedicated shipping container for the interstellar transport of drive components, rather than something that can be "switched on" and be made to work in situ ... at that point the drive components are "just cargo" that needs to be delivered.

 

[aramis]

Do I need to apologize for not spending HOURS and HOURS and HOURS scouring every page of CT source that included an exception to satisfy both you and aramis?

Took me about 20 minutes. Then 10 min to tone back.
Basically, my objection is more about you claiming an authoritative view that's not well supported and a 5 min search and 15 min of reading from a local copy of the CTvCD clearly shows is at best incomplete, at worst, actively disingenuous.

And also claiming an effect that is easier explained by simply looking at the break points in the design sequences.