Pondering starship evolution

[Spinward Flow]

And, of course ... when I build everything and compute it all the way out down to fuel states and multi-jump performance, I once again discover that I've "overbuilt" for collapsible fuel tank reserve capacity and can subtly trim things just enough to squeeze out one last fraction of a ton for usable cargo hold space in the 400 ton form factor.

The new napkin math looks like this:

• 65+120+30+8+0.96+20+2+4+24+120+6+0.04 = 400

Means that there's 10 tons left over after allocating drives, fuel, controls and hangar bay(s). That 10 tons just so happens to be a moderately versatile bit of space:

• 4 ton Air/Raft + 6 ton Speeder = 10 tons
• 4 ton Air/Raft + 1 ton Demountable Fuel Tank + 5 ton Mail Vault = 10 tons
• 8 ton GCarrier + 1 ton Demountable Fuel Tank + 1 ton Cargo = 10 tons
• 10 ton ATV = 10 tons
• 3 Jump Capsule Launchers + 12 Jump Capsules + 1 ton Demountable Fuel Tank = 10 tons
• 20 Low Berths = 10 tons
• 6 ton Speeder + 6 Low Berths + 1 ton Demountable Fuel Tank = 10 tons

Personally, I like the Air/Raft + Demountable Fuel Tank + Mail Vault as the "standard trim" option, because the Air/Raft can assist with cargo loading/unloading in austere locations that lack adequate ground support services/facilities (so a quality of life upgrade), the Demountable Fuel Tank is an emergency reserve against hazards or mishaps. The Mail Vault is the "densest" revenue generator for the tonnage short of speculative goods arbitrage and can be a reason to set course for locations that otherwise might not be visited (such as low population worlds). Delivery of XMail may not be the "sexiest" item to carry, but carrying XMail out into the fringes of civilization can help a crew build up relationships and a reputation in places where a merchant might not be welcomed quite so warmly/well. Simply carrying XMail can ironically act as a springboard or a trigger for all kinds of opportunities and plot hooks that a Referee might want to insert into a roleplaying campaign, because being an XMail carrier can bring crews into contact will a number of different people who could become patrons or have connections, helping to build reputations for ships and crews that can lead them to adventures.

 

[aramis]

Demountable fuel tanks have overhead losses. See Adventure 5: Trillion Credit Squadron.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Demountable fuel tanks have overhead losses. See Adventure 5: Trillion Credit Squadron.

No, that's Collapsible Tanks:

TCS, p14:
_ _ Demountable Tanks: Sturdy fuel tanks can be installed on a ship to supplement its normal fuel capacity. These tanks take up space in the ship's cargo hold; they occupy that space regardless of whether the tanks are full or empty. Demountable tanks may be installed in any tonnage, but may not exceed the cargo capacity of the ship.
Demountable tanks operate in the same manner as normal fuel tanks, and their fuel is available for use by the drives immediately.
_ _ Demountable tanks may be fabricated a t any class A or B starport, a t a cost of Cr1,000 per ton, in 10 weeks. Once installed, demountable tanks may be demount- ed by the ship's crew in about two weeks, or at a class A, B, C, or D starport by professionals in about one week (at a cost of Cr10 per ton). Remounting costs are similar. It should be noted that demountable tanks (once demounted) must be stored and safeguarded. Costs for such run Cr10 per day per ton of tanks stored.

Demountable tanks can be used by default for jump fuel, they are very cheap. It takes awhile, but you can remove them if you want more cargo space.

 

[Spinward Flow]

See Adventure 5: Trillion Credit Squadron.

{ * engineer sighs in profound disappointment * }

"We've been over this..."

 

[Spinward Flow]

When you're absolutely convinced that if you had to redo your deck plans, there must have been a better way/room for improvements over the previous draft.

Because it can (almost) always be done better!

Did a bit of creative splicing of the hydroponics icon(s) to create a shape (the short hook) that offers superior surface area and volume ... enough so that I could replace one of the hydroponics only rooms with a second aquaponics room (to return to the freshwater/saltwater idea). The new shape also made it possible to add some ground crops into the middle of the hydropnics garden room.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Interesting developments afoot with the plotting and planning for the SIE Big Clipper design I've been working on.

I *THINK* I've got the design spreadsheet specs dialed in where I want them now in a 400 ton form factor ... I've done the business model economics analysis (spoiler alert: subsidized is profitable @ J3, paid off is profitable @ J2 and bank financed is profitable @ J1, when chartered for interstellar services) ... and I've done the fuel state analysis to verify that there will be sufficient reserves to reach a destination world after breakout (spoiler alert: minimum 17-30 tons remaining) allowing for some safety margin.

I've got the Fluff Text™ all roughed out for the evolution, but while I was re-checking certain details following the Third Frontier War in the timeline maintained by Travellerwiki, I noticed some things that I'd overlooked previously. Such as:

• Third Frontier War: 979 - 986
• In 990, Forine/District 268 was compelled by the Imperium to recognize neighboring Elixabeth/District 268 and Talchek/District 268 as client states of the Imperium.
• In 991, the subsector capital was moved from Tirem/Glisten to Glisten/Glisten as a result of a recommendation from the Duchess of Mora to Emperor Gavin.

I had not recognized (previously) that the Glisten subsector capital had not always been Glisten/Glisten from the beginning, nor that moving the capital was done at the recommendation of the Duchess of Mora.

However, from a backstory perspective, this meant that "things got interesting" in this region of the Spinward Marches shortly after the conclusion of the Third Frontier War. Although Grote/Glisten lies on the border/fringe between the Sword Worlds, Lunion, District 268 and Glisten subsectors ... a quick look at the map shows that the closest Imperial worlds with Population: 7+ are ... Caladbolg/Sword Worlds (4 parsecs from Grote) and Smoug/Lunion (2 parsecs from Grote). However, Caladbolg, as an Agricultural+Rich world has a GWP that is 2.3x the size of the GWP of Smoug, a Desert+Poor world. Additionally, Caladbolg is in a "better location" for a world that wants to expand its global economy into interstellar trading as a means of generating Soft Power.

And thus, the Caladbolg Connection (post-Third Frontier War) took root in the backstory for why anyone would want to bankroll the evolution of a 303 ton J3 merchant ship into a marginally more capable 400 ton J3 merchant ship that can move more cargo @ J2 and J3 but not really increase the transport capacity (meaningfully) @ J1. Then, just as the first in class ship is getting shaken down before going into volume production ~990, there are diplomatic developments right on Grote's (figurative) doorstep that creates new market demand opportunities for exports from Caladbolg to secure the economies of these new breakaway client state that have been aided by the Third Imperium in their drive for independence from Forine.

So Caladbolg has the economic might to finance the entire venture, but can't build starships (type B starport).
Grote can build the starships (type A starport), but it needs to export them to interested buyers to "keep the party going" (so to speak).

I figure that Caladbolg would make the arrangements for a flotilla of subsidized ships in order to get the evolved 400 ton class into production, but arrange things such that Grote builds the starship ONLY, while Caladbolg builds all of the small craft/modules/non-starship elements domestically (which then neatly solves the problem of which biome gets used to populate the regenerative life support laboratories). The whole thing turns into a partnership between Grote and Caladbolg, which once demonstrated and proven draws the attention of additional investors into the new class (who don't want a subsidy arrangement) and the whole thing gains enough critical mass to roll over production beyond the first generation.

And the beauty of it is, it can all be built @ TL=10.

Oh, and I figured out how to use the Travellermap Poster Maker Jump Map function to create an image for me that I could then modify using my updated world iconography color scheme (with better/thicker ring colors) to make a beautiful tramp merchant portolan chart jump map for District 268 and the relevant neighboring subsectors.

Yes, those thicker rings on the world icons make them visually easier to read at a glance.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So ... I spent today getting into deck plans for the 400 ton starship with F/F/F drives, working on getting the Aft Deck volume where the hangar decks (2) and engineering (port/starboard, main deck only) and wound up with something that looks like this:

Upper Hangar

Aft Main Deck

Upper Hangar stacked on top of Aft Main Deck (to verify alignment)

Obviously, this doesn't include the Forward Main Deck (computer, bridge, fuel purification plant, cargo bay) or the landing gear wells in the main deck or the outer line of the hull in a sweeping wing silhouette (with fuel scoops) to finish out the design ... but this makes for a pretty decent start.

Trying to decide if I ought to change the EVA A/L on the trailing edge by the maneuver drive ought to be 1 axis (fore/aft) or if it would be better to change it into a 2 axis (fore/aft, dorsal/ventral) airlock. Adding in iris valves for access over/under the wing seems like it would be a good idea for when the starship is landed on a planetary surface, either on terra firma or a water landing.

Walk access is 0.7m wide on either side of the jump+power plant drives along the length of the longitudinal section of the port/starboard drive bays ... so a little "cramped" but not impassible.

The aft bulkhead of the drive bay can be removed (hence the maintenance hatches) in order to pull the entire drive assembly out of the engineering bays for starport overhaul maintenance, repairs or replacement.

The hangar bay has both aft doors (both decks) as well as dorsal doors for vertical egress (although that vertical access doesn't show up in the deck plan).

Seen from the side, the contents of the 12x 12 ton module blocks winds up being the following with all of the small craft berthed internally:

Laser​	Fighter	Stateroom Box (Steward, 2x High Passenger)	Stateroom Box (3x High Passenger)	Environment Tank	Cargo Box
Stateroom Box (Pilot, Navigator, Ship's Boat Pilot)	Stateroom Box (Engineer, Medic, Gunner)	Laboratory Module	Laboratory Module	Environment Tank	Cargo Box

This arrangement means that access to the Laser Fighter is only through the forward crew Stateroom Boxes via the vertical Grav Lifts. Additionally, the passenger Stateroom Boxes are located on the upper level of the hangar, so in order to access the starship itself a passenger would need to move dorsal into one of the two Laboratory Modules before moving forward through the crew Stateroom Boxes, increasing the number of choke points available to resist a hijack attempt, improving security.

Needless to say, I'm rather pleased with how all of this is shaking out thus far.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Was working on how to redesign the Bridge in the forward section and decided to move from a single holo tank with 4 workstations arrayed around it, but where walk access across the room requires walking THROUGH the holotank display ... to a new configuration that has 2 holo tanks with 2 workstations each and a new walk access space along the center line axis of the bridge. Interestingly, this new configuration ALMOST (but not quite!) starts pushing things into the direction of wanting to have "ovoid wings" on either side of the bridge (for holo tank displays) akin to the Type-T Patrol Cruiser. Just one of those, "Huh... " moments.

This new bridge layout occupies 19 deck squares for the section shown ... because 3*5+(2/3*1*3)*2=19.
A 20 ton bridge allocation offers 20*14/3/1.5/1.5=41.48 deck squares of total area to allocate, some of which will no doubt be used for access corridor spaces and supplemental avionics, so 41.5-19=22.5 deck squares remaining for allocation elsewhere.

The way I've got things currently allocated in the deck plans is that the port/starboard transverse corridor in the aft section is actually part of the jump drive tonnage allocation, when adding up all of the "what belongs where" calculations. A consequence of making that decision is that this means that the "spare bridge tonnage" can now be entirely allocated to the forward deck area. Since there will be an 8 squares long access corridor between the aft deck section and the bridge and a 2 squares long access corridor forward of the bridge between the model/2bis computer banks, that means that there is going to be a whopping 12.5 deck squares available forward of the computer bay for a more "proper" avionics bay than I've been able to do in the past.

About the choices for hatches forward and iris valves (plus grav lift) aft, the reason for this is relatively straightforward. The iris valves are there for security/anti-hijack to secure the bridge against a hostile party coming from the hangar deck(s) or the engineering spaces in the aft of the ship. The hatches forward are there for emergency egress by the bridge crew in the event of a complete loss of power or other casualty event so they have an alternative exit route further forward. Got to keep those safety regulations for evacuations in mind!

There is an EVA locker and Weapons locker forward ... and a Fresher along with Ship's locker aft for storage of additional equipment and valuables.

So I daresay that things are looking pretty good so far.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Ooh, nice ... that'll play.

So I was thinking about how to spend the remaining deck squares of the 20 ton bridge allocation, and I've decided to spend 3 of them on life support (to even out something else for symmetry reasons, you'll see it when I get there), leaving me with 9.5 deck squares remaining for an Avionics Bay space.

Since the area under a parabola (which is what happens to lines in Preview when I move the midpoint and keep that midpoint equidistant from the ends of the line) is 2/3bh for area calculation that means that a 4.75 squares high by 3 squares base has an area of 2/3*4.75*3=9.5 deck squares. Rotate that parabola 90º left and I've got the nosecone avionics bay space for the remainder of my 20 ton bridge allocation. I can then wrap THAT parabolic cone curve with a fuel tank that ends exactly 5 squares forward of the bulkhead at the aft end of the avionics bay ... and it will all fit together and work properly.

Back to the drafting board!

 

[Spinward Flow]

And here's what that Avionics Bay nosecone (wrapped with fuel tanks) leading into Fuel Scoops (port/starboard) outboard. Aft of this will be the Computer Bay followed by the Bridge shown above.

Decided to not reach all the way forward for the full 5 squares (limiting to 4.75 squares instead) so as to compensate for the 0.25 squares "overhang" at the aft end of the hangar bay. That means that the overall length of the entire assembled starship will "divide neatly" into a nice integer multiple of 1.5m long deck squares on the longitudinal axis when it comes time to determine the overall hull length.

 

[mike wightman]

Bridge:

basic controls, which include guidance radars, drive and power plant controls, communications equipment, and other devices required for proper control of the ship.

basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors, and other equipment for proper operation of the ship.

Every ship requires a bridge for control of the drives and electronics
and for navigation

The bridge contains all necessary equipment for the control of the ship with the
exception of the computer.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Alright ... I think I've got all of the interior spaces worked out with machinery emplaced where it needs to be (etc. etc.) so that I can measure the longitudinal axis from stem to stern. This is all, of course, a lot easier to do because I basically did the same planform at a smaller scale previously, so I don't need to reinvent the landing wheel here. It's mostly a matter of scaling and getting the puzzle pieces to "fit" together in a visually obvious/pleasing manner that "makes sense" at a glance (provided you're familiar with the Starship Geomorphs iconography set, of course).



Now I just need to do the HARD PART of figuring out what silhouette shape and size the 150 ton wings (loaded with fuel) ought to be ... in order to get even approximately close to something appropriate in terms of volume.

At least I know that with a 3m deck height ... 150*14/3/1.5/1.5=311.111 deck squares of area ... and that "going slightly over" in deck square count is perfectly fine (so that the wing volume can taper in thickness here and there as appropriate). The challenge is figuring out the shapes and area needed, minus the internal pressure hull volume so as to get the scale/size and shaping right for the wing tanks. Unfortunately, managing to make a wing shape that is both visually pleasing and deck squares area correct involves a LOT of trial, error and fumbling with a calculator ... not to mention MANUAL counting of squares to cross-check and verify sums ... so it all gets incredibly fiddly.

Getting the wing shape outline worked out will also help determine how much landing gear is needed (and where to put it all). Right now, I'm thinking I'd want another "trapezoidal" arrangement (forward, mid-ship, aft) again to help spread the ground pressure load when touching down at austere/unprepared landing sites.

And before anyone can ask ... yes, this is a Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge) hull, with aerodynamic wings ... which is definitely an "unnecessary extravagance" of an expense in a merchant ship class (an extra MCr4 for a 400 ton hull versus a Configuration: 2!) ... but Rule of Cool most DEFINITELY applies here ... partly because I prefer to think of this ship class as being "stylish and sleek" as opposed to being a "utilitarian flying brick" type of aesthetic.



At any rate, I do think that things are coming along nicely ... even if I do say so myself.

 

[Grav_Moped]

And before anyone can ask ... yes, this is a Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge) hull, with aerodynamic wings ... which is definitely an "unnecessary extravagance" of an expense in a merchant ship class (an extra MCr4 for a 400 ton hull versus a Configuration: 2!) ... but Rule of Cool most DEFINITELY applies here ... partly because I prefer to think of this ship class as being "stylish and sleek" as opposed to being a "utilitarian flying brick" type of aesthetic.

It's art. You're entitled to make it artistic and stuff.

 

[mike wightman]

I really wish we could edit our own posts.

Anyway my earlier post was to take all of the CT bridge descriptions to come up with a comprehensive list, which could then be used for design purposes. Editing the quotes together:

The bridge contains all necessary equipment for the operation of the ship, with the
exception of the computer, and allows for control of the drives, electronics, and for navigation.

The bridge includes drive and power plant controls, avionics, guidance radars, scanners, detectors, sensors, communications equipment, and other devices required for proper control of the ship.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I really wish we could edit our own posts.

I was kind of left hanging, wondering what you were trying to say and where you wanted to go with it in Post #91. Your thoughts seemed ... unfinished, somehow ...

Anyway my earlier post was to take all of the CT bridge descriptions to come up with a comprehensive list, which could then be used for design purposes.

This is why I take a lot of my design cues from LBB S7 (and even LBB A1, if you can believe that!) when it comes to working out deck plans. As I mentioned above:

A 20 ton bridge allocation offers 20*14/3/1.5/1.5=41.48 deck squares of total area to allocate

There is simply no way possible to assert that the Type-S Scout/Courier with its 5 squares of bridge/cockpit plus 4 squares of Avionics is the entire allocation for bridge tonnage.

There HAS TO BE MORE to it than just that.
Of course, there is ... you just have to go to the upper gallery to find it. But even then, the forward sensor position (19) is only adding another 8 deck squares.

• 5+4+8=17 ... not 41 ...

Same thing happens with the Subsidized Merchant bridge (19 squares, not 41.5) ... and again with the Far Trader bridge (12 squares, not 41.5) ... so the "excess tonnage" has to be going somewhere.

Even the deck plan for The Kinunir in LBB A1 gives the main bridge on B deck only about 30 squares of deck space, for a 1200 ton ship that ought to have a 24 ton bridge. 24*14/3/1.5/1.5=49.77 ... and 30 is obviously not ~50, so some of the bridge space allocation has to be going elsewhere. Note that the Kinunir even has a secondary backup bridge as detailed in LBB A1, in case the primary bridge is lost due to a casualty ... and that auxiliary bridge on A deck isn't ~50 deck squares in area either.

My thought is that some of the "spare area" of the bridge tonnage allocation gets spent on access corridors in order to move around the ship (and therefore run services and communications bus routing around the ship into the bargain). Same deal with drives and engineering spaces. You want the tonnage assigned to engineering (in the naval architect's spreadsheet) to include both the drive bay space (where the machinery is) but also the access space(s) around that machinery and the corridor access space needed to get there from other parts of the ship.

To highlight the methodology behind the thinking here, let's use my most recent examples of deck plan layout to demonstrate how this works out in practice.



So if you add up the tonnage of F/F/F drives from LBB2.81 you get an answer of 35+11+19 = 65 tons.
Assuming a single deck height of 3m (the interior habitable space will be shorter) you then get the following:
Jump-F = 35 tons, so 35*14/3/1.5/1.5=72.59 deck squares
Maneuver-F = 11 tons, so 11*14/3/1.5/1.5=22.81 deck squares
Power Plant-F = 19 tons, so 19*14/3/1.5/1.5=39.41 deck squares
And just for the sake of completeness, 65*14/3/1.5/1.5=134.81 deck squares for the entire engineering section.
72.59+22.81+39.41=134.81 to verify math.

Rounding things off (slightly) just for convenience, we get:
Jump-F = 72.5 deck squares
Maneuver-F = 23 deck squares
Power Plant-F = 39.5 deck squares
72.5+23+39.5=135 deck squares ... an "overage" of a mere 0.14%, so ... good enough for our purposes.

As you can see from the rough highlighting I've done in the image below, here's how those numbers translated into an allocation of deck squares (with a bit of squish factor thrown in to make things look nice.

Jump-F drive (RED): 3.5+12+22=37.5 deck squares (starboard) * 2 = 75 deck squares total.
Power Plant-F drive (MAGENTA): 18+1=19 deck squares (starboard) * 2 = 38 deck squares total
Maneuver-F drive (GREEN): 10+1=11 deck squares (starboard) * 2 = 22 deck squares total
75+38+22=135 deck squares

In other words, I'm spot on for my goal of 37.5+19+11=67.5 deck squares allocated to port AND starboard, for a total engineering space allocation of 135 total deck squares for my F/F/F standard drives from LBB2.81.



Do the machinery icons "perfectly" align with the "zoning" needed for each specific drive element?
No, they don't but the overall totality of space allocation does and the 3 drives need to be integrated to each other anyway, so some overlap isn't necessarily a Bad Thing™. Additionally, there are some pretty obvious "that's not drive engineering" bits included in the respective drive spaces in engineering, such as:

• The access corridor forward (and the decontamination airlock and grav lift out onto the external docking points that are dorsal/ventral on the outboard wing).
• The (shielded!) engineering workstation and airlock forward of the drive bay, along with the equipment locker for storage of engineering tools.
• The EVA locker, life support reserve and the EVA airlock outboard of the maneuver drive HEPlaR units.

So the actual "machinery" of the drive units is obviously occupying far less than the tonnage allocated for their purpose ... but then it would make remarkably little sense to build engine rooms with no interior access in and around the drive systems (for "hands on" inspections, maintenance and repairs, if nothing else). Something that CT Traveller was reasonably good at with the published deck plans was showing that drive bays weren't necessarily "solid blocks of machinery" built all the way out to the walls with no room to move around in.



Take that same mentality of "counting up the deck squares" and it apply it to the bridge space allocation, so you can add in a Fresher, a Ship's Locker, an EVA Locker, a Weapons Locker, an Avionics Bay and corridor access to everything ... in addition to the "Bridge" compartment itself (with holo tanks and workstations for crew) and you're on your way to getting things "solved" for how big your deck plans have to be to Make Sense™ when translated from the naval architect's spreadsheet of tonnages into spaces that people have to occupy, live and work within.

 

[TamsinP]

I was kind of left hanging, wondering what you were trying to say and where you wanted to go with it in Post #91. Your thoughts seemed ... unfinished, somehow ...

This is why I take a lot of my design cues from LBB S7 (and even LBB A1, if you can believe that!) when it comes to working out deck plans. As I mentioned above:

There is simply no way possible to assert that the Type-S Scout/Courier with its 5 squares of bridge/cockpit plus 4 squares of Avionics is the entire allocation for bridge tonnage.

There HAS TO BE MORE to it than just that.
Of course, there is ... you just have to go to the upper gallery to find it. But even then, the forward sensor position (19) is only adding another 8 deck squares.

• 5+4+8=17 ... not 41 ...

Same thing happens with the Subsidized Merchant bridge (19 squares, not 41.5) ... and again with the Far Trader bridge (12 squares, not 41.5) ... so the "excess tonnage" has to be going somewhere.

Even the deck plan for The Kinunir in LBB A1 gives the main bridge on B deck only about 30 squares of deck space, for a 1200 ton ship that ought to have a 24 ton bridge. 24*14/3/1.5/1.5=49.77 ... and 30 is obviously not ~50, so some of the bridge space allocation has to be going elsewhere. Note that the Kinunir even has a secondary backup bridge as detailed in LBB A1, in case the primary bridge is lost due to a casualty ... and that auxiliary bridge on A deck isn't ~50 deck squares in area either.

My thought is that some of the "spare area" of the bridge tonnage allocation gets spent on access corridors in order to move around the ship (and therefore run services and communications bus routing around the ship into the bargain). Same deal with drives and engineering spaces. You want the tonnage assigned to engineering (in the naval architect's spreadsheet) to include both the drive bay space (where the machinery is) but also the access space(s) around that machinery and the corridor access space needed to get there from other parts of the ship.

I always assumed that some of the bridge tonnage was for things like access corridors, airlocks, landing gear, etc., plus some facilities for duty bridge and engineering crew. Also for things like reaction control systems.

 

[Dragoner]

I always considered bridge tonnage to include the avionics bay as that was what was current at the time it was written:

 

[Condottiere]

It depends.

If you have a twenty tonne bridge in a hundred tonne hull, then that free airlock and the ship's locker should be included.

And the fresher.

If it's two percent of hull in a large spacecraft, you can assume some minor components are subsumed, as well.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I always considered bridge tonnage to include the avionics bay as that was what was current at the time it was written

Workstations (in the cockpit/bridge) plus avionics bay(s) for sensors/communications ... no argument.

I always assumed that some of the bridge tonnage was for things like access corridors, airlocks, landing gear, etc.

Access corridors and airlocks?
Landing gear?

My rationale there (in a CT context) is that landing gear would be a component of either Streamlining (an optional extra in LBB2 that consumed no tonnage) or an integral part of a hull Configuration: 1-6 since they could potentially land (safely) on terrestrial surfaces on landing gear. Configurations: 1, 2 and 6 could make water landings in oceans for refueling, while Configurations: 3-5 would be limited to vacuum (or trace atmosphere) conditions where landings are either on rocky silicates or "rocky" ices for terrestrial landings only (no liquid water options). This would then explain why the Broadsword Mercenary Cruiser looks the way it does ... as a sphere with 4 landing "legs" to stand on when landing on vacuum (or near vacuum) world conditions.

However, once again, even under LBB5.80, hull Configuration: 1-6 demands no alteration in the hull space available for other systems (drives, weapons, armor, fuel, etc.). In other words, the landing gear (if any) is essentially "free" in tonnage terms on the naval architect's spreadsheet and basically get paid for out of the hull configuration cost modification to the price of the hull. The landing gear "takes up space" on the deck plans, but that "space isn't paid for" out of some other item on the spreadsheet (drives, bridge, staterooms, etc.). There's no spreadsheet line item for "spend 5 tons of displacement on landing gear" when playing naval architect.

THAT SAID ...

It's helpful to look to precedent of legacy deck plans to come up with a notion for "how much deck area" ought to be devoted to landing gear (if any) should you want to include such details in your own deck plans. It's fun to look at the deck plans for LBB A1 The Kinunir and realize that there are no spaces specified as containing any kind of landing gear. Kind of makes you wonder if the original concept was to keep the ship permanently orbital so it would never touch down on a world surface for a terrestrial landing (water landings in the ocean would be fine though).

In fact, looking at LBB S7 ... the only deck plans showing wells for landing gear are the Type-S and Type-J. Nothing else shows any kind of deck space area allocation for landing gear at all.

BUT ...

If we take the Scout/Courier deck plan at face value and assume that the rear landing pylons are 2x2 deck squares each ... and the forward skid under the nose is 1x2 deck squares ... you wind up with a (presumably) austere landing gear standard of 1 deck square per 10 tons of starship (because 100 tons divided by 2+4+4=10 squares of landing gear). So if you want a larger ship to have "similar" ground field performance characteristics to that of a Scout/Courier, you need to specify 1 deck square of landing gear per 10 tons of craft. Thus a 400 ton ship would need to have 40 deck squares of area allocated to landing gear ... but those 40 deck squares "don't count" as "allocated tonnage" that needs to be accounted for on the naval architect's spreadsheet. That means the landing gear shows up on the deck plans, but not the construction spreadsheet summary of tonnages and MCr costs.

Which is a long winded way of saying that scaling up the Scout/Courier precedent, from 10 squares to 40 squares of landing gear deck plan area, makes a lot of sense for a 400 ton starship in order to achieve a comparable ground pressure performance profile under austere conditions. It at least gives me something to work with and build upon as a starting point.

 

[Condottiere]

Origami.

The legs and skids can be telescoped.