Pondering starship evolution

[TamsinP]

I suspect that it is the shape of the Type S/Type J that necessitates that size of landing gear bay to be shown on the deckplans; other ships like the Far Trader and Type R have (relatively) flat bottomed hulls, so their landing gear doesn't need to extend so far into the ship and therefore don't need to be shown on the deckplans.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Origami.

The legs and skids can be telescoped.

Well, the P.1127 Harrier pioneered the "self shortening oleo" landing gear ...

I suspect that it is the shape of the Type S/Type J that necessitates that size of landing gear bay to be shown on the deckplans; other ships like the Far Trader and Type R have (relatively) flat bottomed hulls, so their landing gear doesn't need to extend so far into the ship and therefore don't need to be shown on the deckplans.

Which is fair.
I still think it's more intellectually honest to actually specify where the landing gear "goes" in the deck plan, rather than just forgetting about it entirely ... so I'm doing it.

---

On a tangentially related note, I managed to work out what the outer line of the wings containing the fuel tanks of the main deck ought to look like and test them out (and add up the deck squares). I needed something that gave a minimum of 312 deck squares of area for fuel ... and managed to come in at ~320 deck squares when adding up all the fuel spaces (including the upper hangar deck) ... so right about on target.

Ironically, the longer "stretch" of the forward and aft hull sections (because of the scale up from 303 tons to a 400 ton starship) meant that although the fuel tankage increased from 121 tons to 150 tons of integral main tank fuel capacity, the longer fuselage meant that the wings didn't need to be as wide as in the previous version. This meant that the wing shape became less of a "paper airplane delta" with rounded wingtips like in the previous design ... and instead shifted to more of an ogee curve S-shape that is more reminiscent of a Concorde wing shape.

Although, because of the length difference between the forward and aft deck sections, the forward concave curve is only 31.25% of the overall length of the wing before the S-curve shape needs to turn outwards into a much longer convex sweeping curve, so the "balance" of the shape is not the same as Concorde. Definitely a more "complex" shape than I've attempted to do previously, but I was able to work out a way to do it with as little as 2 lines joined together (so I could manipulate the midpoints independently to make the concave+convex curve shapes that link up in at the crossover point). Whole thing winds up looking a bit like a bell curve (kinda sorta).

 

[Dragoner]

Logically, like in the schematic, it would be better to put a half deck under the deck plan for mechanical systems, safety as well for belly landing.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I managed to grind out the rest of the deck plan details.

Here's what the ship looks like with the two decks separated to make the visuals easier to look at, with the upper deck aligned (longitudinally) to match its placement over the lower (main) deck.



Here's what it looks like when you stack the upper hangar deck on top of the main deck (to check alignment). Note that the Grav Lifts in the Laser Fighter and 12 ton modules all stack up perfectly. The iconography in the rooms away from the central axis gets a bit confusing to sort through, but this gives a (slightly) better sense of the 2.5D 3D arrangement of the upper deck over the main deck.



And this is what happens when you pull 8x 12 ton modules out of the hangar bay so as to use the 96 ton collapsible fuel tank to enable double jump capability. You wind up with 4x 12 ton modules externally docked over each wing, with additional docking space below the wings as well for even more (third party) modules.



The two Grav Lifts in the corridor to the Bridge can also dock either 2x 12 ton modules or the Laser Fighter externally dorsal forward of the hangar bay over the main deck. Additionally, 160 ton cargo pods (1-4) can also be externally docked on the ventral centerline and/or over/under each wing for bulk transport charters by third parties in order to tow even larger payloads via maneuver and/or jump drive (at reduced drive performance output levels).

 

[Grav_Moped]

Definitely a more "complex" shape than I've attempted to do previously, but I was able to work out a way to do it with as little as 2 lines joined together (so I could manipulate the midpoints independently to make the concave+convex curve shapes that link up in at the crossover point). Whole thing winds up looking a bit like a bell curve (kinda sorta).

You only need to do one side of the wing leading edge, cut/copy/paste, then flip it on the vertical axis and select/drag the flipped copy into place on the other side.

 

[Spinward Flow]

You only need to do one side of the wing leading edge, cut/copy/paste, then flip it on the vertical axis and select/drag the flipped copy into place on the other side.

Which is exactly what I did ... except I did it as 2 curves (1 concave, 1 convex) for the copy/paste then flip vertical to make both sides identical. Helps avoid any "off by 1" discrepancies that can crop up unexpectedly in pixel placement when dealing with curves.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And ... just like that ... ... I realized there was a different configuration that ought to work better for flexibly allowing cargo pods over 100 tons to be loaded internally for deorbit transfers through atmosphere to world surfaces inside the internal hangar bay (which needed to get larger to pull off this stunt in order to make everything "fit"). The cargo pods got slightly smaller (but still above 125 tons so as to be able to transport ANY LBB2.81 Z-drives) but a few other things started falling into place better.

One "casualty" of this Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) was the realization that the way the Laser Fighter was getting deployed and used basically meant no more than 18 hours of deployment outside the parent starship being escorted, so very much a "short range" escort patrol duty cycle ... rather than the longer duration (24+ hours) that I was originally envisioning which would necessitate a 2 ton small craft cabin space allocation. Removing the 2 ton cabin and scaling down to a 22 ton small craft hull (rather than 24 tons) had some very curious knock on effects that percolated throughout the totality of the integrated design, both for the Laser Fighter itself and the parent starship. Lots of little "fiddly bits" that involve tinkering around the edges that allow JUST ENOUGH(!) marginal adjustments to be made to allow certain other puzzle pieces to move/shift into a new configuration and settle into a new pattern.

Among other things, it allowed me to add another 12 ton module into the mix (for a total of 11 in the standard trim package) that expanded transport capacity (without external loading) to 5 high passengers and 60 tons of cargo (36 tons in environment tanks, 24 tons in cargo boxes) that can be transported @ J3. The internal hangar bay gets resized to be able to accommodate 140 ton cargo pods (which at 110% tonnage consume 154 tons of hangar space). 11x 12 ton modules is 132 tons, plus 22 tons for (the new) Laser Fighter is ... 154 tons ... so a hangar tonnage convergence has been found. I then bumped up the hangar tonnage to 155 tons capacity and put a 100 ton capacity collapsible fuel tank INTO the hangar bay displacement allocation (so 154+1=155 with the fuel tank collapsed) and ... it all fits inside of a 400 ton hull form factor.

If I combine the Pilot and Gunner positions for the Laser Fighter into a single crew position (Ship's Boat-2/Gunnery-2), then the bridge of the Laser Fighter with its 2 acceleration couches can carry a single passenger in addition to the Pilot/Gunner ... and passenger capacity increases to 6 high passengers. I checked LBB4, LBB5, LBB6, LBB7 to verify that it was possible to obtain Ship's Boat AND Gunnery skills on a single character using extended character generation for Marines, Navy, Scouts and Merchants careers. LBB1.81 permits Ship's Boat-2/Gunnery-2 from only a Navy career, but does permit Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 (because of -1 to Pilot skill for use in small craft as Ship's Boat skill) from Navy, Scout and Merchant careers. The beauty of having Pilot-3/Gunnery-2 required for "both pilots" (starship and small craft) is that it makes the two pilots interchangeable as far as "who gets which seat right now" but also means that because the starship is unarmed, whoever is piloting the starship doesn't have to fill 2 crew roles at the same time and can thus apply their full Pilot-3 skill to piloting the starship ... which in LBB5.80 ship combat means an (effective) extra +1 Agility for the starship, making it easier for the (unarmed) starship to Break Off By Acceleration (from the Reserve, which is an extra +2 Agility for the starship, with the Laser Fighter screening from the Line of Battle) to escape from unwanted encounters.

"I know a few maneuvers. We'll lose 'em."

So ... "cool deck plans, bro" ... now throw them out and do them all over again!

Why?

Client changed what they wanted.

Oh.

Yeah. Here's the new spec sheet.

Oh.

Think you naval architects can generate design blueprints for that in the next 4 weeks?

Ask me again in 4 weeks ...

 

[coliver988]

reminds me of these (and yes, the little fighters fit on the larger ships)

 

[Spinward Flow]

Removing the 2 ton cabin and scaling down to a 22 ton small craft hull (rather than 24 tons) had some very curious knock on effects that percolated throughout the totality of the integrated design, both for the Laser Fighter itself and the parent starship.

And here's what happens to the deck plan when I pull the small craft cabin out of the Laser Fighter, reducing the tonnage from 24 to 22 tons of hull. I'm thinking it's actually something of an improvement ...

The cargo bay is 0.6 tons, but has a 0.1 ton demountable fuel tank (LBB A5, p14) installed in it standard, which leaves 0.5 tons of cargo space remaining ... and is actually sufficient to install/transport a single Low Berth if necessary (and I already measured, I've got an icon that will fit that space exactly!).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Fun fact ... I think the redesign is going to work out even better than I'd been anticipating when it comes to deck planning.

Seen from the side, the stacking of the 12 ton modules stacks up like this (chart not drawn to scale, obviously):

Laser​	Fighter	Laboratory​	Laboratory​	Environment Tank​	Environment Tank​	Environment Tank​
	Stateroom pilot/gunner, pilot/gunner, navigator​	Stateroom engineer/engineer, steward/steward, medic​	Stateroom 3x high passengers​	Stateroom 3x high passengers​	Cargo Box​	Cargo Box​

• Laser Fighter (22 tons)
• 4x Stateroom Box (12 tons each)
• 2x Laboratory Module (12 tons each)
• 3x Environment Tank (12 tons each)
• 2x Cargo Box (12 tons each)
  • 22 + 4*12 + 2*12 + 3*12 + 2*12 = 154 tons

What I found from the full main deck plan from Post #87 onwards was that the hangar space for 6 modules in a line amounted to (roughly) 31 squares long by 5 squares wide. The reason why that's "fun" to know is that if you take those dimensions (31x5) and work out the volume, you get the following answer:

• (31*1.5)*(5*1.5)*(2*3) = 2092.5m³/14 = 149.46 tons

So if I wanted to put a 140 ton cargo pod into that hangar bay, the dimensions for that would be (and looks like this on the same chart):

• (29*1.5)*(5*1.5)*(2*3) = 1957.5m³/14 = 139.8 tons

(empty) (empty)​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​
	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​	Cargo Pod 140 tons ​

So a 29 squares long 140 cargo pod fits into the 31 squares long space occupied by 6x 12 ton modules per deck (with 1x5 squares left empty on each end inside the hangar bay).

However, as per LBB5.80, p32 ... Big Craft (100+ tons) require 110% of their tonnage to be stored internally on other craft.

• 140*1.1 = 154 tons

Huh ... there's that 154 tons number again (how convenient! ).

• 22 + 11x12 = 154
• 140x1.1 = 154

So this becomes the new inflection point, where 154 tons of hangar bay can load either a Laser Fighter + 11x 12 ton modules ... OR ... a 140 ton cargo pod. This means that by moving all the small craft out of the hangar bay, a 140 ton big craft cargo pod can be loaded into the hangar bay for an atmospheric entry descent from orbit to surface for unloading.

Additionally, a 22 ton Laser Fighter plus 140 ton cargo pod (with the 110% tonnage factor), you can still add 2x 12 ton modules to reach the 200 ton total displacement limit for external docking to maneuver tow @ 1G limit on a LBB2.81 Maneuver-A drive:

• 22+140*1.1+2*12 = 200

This means that it then becomes possible to "reshuffle" where everything is marshaled for staging, both on the ground and in orbit, in order to be able to mobilize ALL of the parts and pieces ... 400 ton Starship, 22 ton Laser Fighter, 12 ton Modules, 140 ton Cargo Pod ... in just a few relay runs round trip (2-6 depending on how much external loading there is), which seems to be a pretty wonderful compromise for the kind of operational flexibility this modular transport business model makes possible. Best of all, the Laser Fighter gets to take up a High Guard overwatch posture to defend orbital transfer operations by the Starship.

 

[coliver988]

I think for cargo pods, which do not need space around for maintenance or getting in/out of, would not need that 10% extra space. Like a dropship with cargo that just slides into the cargo slot. You may like this one as it is not entirely w/in the airframe, though not technically externally mounted.

At least that is how I interpret that 10% rule.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I think for cargo pods, which do not need space around for maintenance or getting in/out of, would not need that 10% extra space.

Which is FAIR ... * but * ... not the way the rules work concerning these things (or a direction I would want to go).
Extrapolating from and extending the rules in ways that are congruent/compliant with precedent in RAW is perfectly fine.
OVERWRITING and diverging away from the rules in ways that contradict/refute precedent in RAW is objectionable.

So, forgive me, if I disagree with that perspective and trajectory in thinking.

---

Building off my latest deck plan (seen upthread), I've decided that the airlock hanging off the end of the maneuver drive like I did last time was superfluous ... so I'm deleting that feature from this next iteration. The way to do that is to take those 2x2 deck squares off the end and simply insert that 2x2 square into the "long" portion of the drive bay instead (basically shuffling where the squares go). The interesting thing is that doing that then encourages a redesign of the jump drive+power plant machinery layout in being something slightly more refined.

This is what I wind up with as a template for the engineering bay sections, which can be mirror vertically flipped for the port/starboard copy/paste around the central hangar bay. This is why there is no lettering implemented, because those elements are not mirror image flip friendly.

In terms of dividing up the drive space(s) into the correct number of deck squares, here's how things shake out this time on the spreadsheet:

• Jump-F = 35 tons = 2x 36.3 deck squares
• Maneuver-F = 11 tons = 2x 11.4 deck squares
• Power Plant-F = 19 tons = 2x 19.7 deck squares
• Total Drives = 65 tons = 2x 67.4 deck squares

And here's what it looks like on the deck plan layout:

By counting squares directly:

• Jump-F = 36.5 deck squares
• Maneuver-F = 11 deck squares
• Power Plant-F = 20 deck squares
• Total LBB2.81 Drives = 36.5+11+20 = 67.5 x 2 = 135 deck squares = 65 tons

I'm a bit more pleased with how the "shapes of machinery" turned out this time, because the "tubes on the ends" of the of the Helion Fusion styled section of the power plant look more like they have "fuel intake plumbing" associated with them this time around. That means that the fuel is drawn into those volumes before being energized into hydrogen plasma and "shot" together into the center to create a stationary fusion reaction (hence the pinky/purple color created by hydrogen fusion) which is then tapped for energy. Power plant fusion reactions operate on more of a "rapid discrete pulses" system of engineering (which then buffers energy into hypercapacitors+batteries for power conditioning and distribution around the starship), where the tempo of shots determines overall output (faster shot pulses for more output per unit of time), rather than using a continuous fusion reaction.

Fusion plasma is directed aft (around the bend) into the HEPlaR reaction drive systems to produce maneuvering thrust. When jumping, up to 120 tons of fuel are needed to vent the tremendous quantity of waste heat generated by the fusion power plant when it temporarily goes into overdrive to supply sufficient power to the jump drive for the starship to jump.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Y'know ... I think I'm getting better at doing this ...

Made some really nice progress today on building up the (new) aft deck engineering bays along with the upper+main deck of the internal hangar bay. Also managed to add in some of the TL=10 Fuel Purification Plant forward of the port/starboard access corridor ... and I'm thinking, "so far so good" this time.

Upper Hangar Deck​

Main Deck​

Next steps are to add in the Bridge (might rework the module a bit), the Model/2bis Computer and the Avionics spaces forward out to the nose cone.

One of the new innovations here is the "sweeping S-Curve" bulkhead pieces seen at the aft end of the main deck. It's actually just a single line curved through a 3x0.5 squares space which can then be copied for rotate/flip operations before repasting back into the main image. The real trick though is doing a "flat to 45º" turn through the curve, rather than trying to do a "flat to 90º" turn through the curve like I was doing before. What's nice about this specific curve piece is that I can copy the exact same curve onto the fore/aft ends of the upper hangar bay for a more gracefully "rounded" hull shape around the "barn doors" of the hangar bay. The upper level has pressure doors fore and aft, while the lower level on the main deck only has aft doors. This arrangement then makes it possible for the Laser Fighter to launch and recover horizontally without needing to shuffle the contents of the hangar bay out of the way or open a dorsal hangar bay door. Note that the forward end of the upper deck of the hangar bay actually "overhangs" above the fuel purification plant systems on the main deck.

Both the upper and lower hangar bay decks have robotic arms situated in the walls of the hangar bay to assist with loading/unloading and docking maneuvers. There is no bulkhead between the upper and lower hangar bay decks, it's double deck space (the 12 ton modules are simply a single deck height each and stack on top of each other).

Of course, I've done this basic layout so many times already, that it's starting to feel like ...

I might actually be able to get everything edited, proofread, polished, finished and finalized to a point that feels fit to publish in The Fleet forum sometime in February.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Next steps are to add in the Bridge (might rework the module a bit), the Model/2bis Computer and the Avionics spaces forward out to the nose cone.

It's starting to look kind of intentional now ... and the choice (a long time ago, in a previous starship design many many threads away...) for a Configuration: 1 (Needle/Wedge) hull is starting to look highly justifiable with this latest iteration.

Overall length is going to be 51 deck squares from nose to fantail (76.5m) for this 400 ton starship design.

The new forward deck configuration (and modified bridge module that didn't need to incorporate a Grav Lift into its layout) permitted 13 deck squares to be allocated to the Avionics section up in the nosecone forward of the computer bays (letting me put in a little more equipment up there). I'm really liking this arrangement of Avionics -> Computer -> Bridge -> Access -> Hangar Bay along the centerline of the main deck. It just looks really functional.

The use of hatches forward of the bulkhead aft of the bridge is a deliberate choice so as to permit the bridge crew to egress forward in the event of a complete power failure, rather than be trapped inside the bridge. The three Grav Lifts inside the starship proper provide sufficient external evacuation points for crew, although iris valves are used around the Grav Lifts for security reasons, since any Grav Lifts may need to be used by passengers to move (through the ship) to other externally docked modules.

Under nominal operational procedures, engineering crew should only enter the drive bays proper for visual inspections, routine maintenance or repairs of the drive machinery. Most of the time, engineering crew will monitor and control all drive systems from the shielded workstations within engineering or from the engineering workstation on the bridge. For annual overhaul maintenance and/or shipyard repairs, the entire aft bulkhead of the drive bays can be removed, allowing shipyard crews to pull entire drive units from the engine bays for inspection, overhaul and/or repair work.

I suppose if I REALLY wanted to, I could move the forward fuel purification plants to rotate them back 90º to stack alongside the port/starboard oriented ones. That would shift 3 deck squares of hallway corridor forward into the Avionics section (making it 7.5 squares long instead of the 6.5 squares long seen in the nosecone here) and reduce the overall length of the hull by 2 squares (from 51 to 49 squares, a 73.5m overall length). However, all things considered ... I actually prefer the "wraparound" symmetry of the current layout used for the fuel purification plants, so I think I'll continue with the "habitable hull" shapes I've already assembled. As is, the overall visual impression is "long and sleek" looking, in a way that feels stylish, rather than purely utilitarian.



Next challenge ... working out the fuel tank wing structure silhouette. Ideally speaking I want something that's closer to a double delta wing that looks more like one of these:

Cropped delta​

Compound delta​

Cranked arrow​

Ogival delta​

The problem is that the inner hull spaces "don't fit" those shapes all that well.

The distance from the transverse fuel purification plants back to the aft bulkhead of the maneuver drives is 27 squares.
The distance from the same fuel purification plants forward to the nosecone is 17.5 deck squares.
This makes the interior hull shape 1:1.5 in terms of distribution along its length, which makes it very hard to have a steeply swept wing root.

One way to "solve" this problem is to allow the trailing edges of the wings to be swept forward, outboard of the maneuver drives, then crop the wingtips. That might permit me to get closer to the ideal of a cranked arrow/cropped (double) delta shape or possibly even a modified ogival delta wing shape. I'll need to play around again to see what is possible, given the 150 tons of fuel design constraint.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well that turned out nicely really awesome looking!

Here's what it looks like with the upper hangar deck stacked on top of the main deck to help visualize the "3D-ness" of the design.

Overall length (fore to aft): 51 deck squares = 76.5m
Wingspan (tip to tip): 34 deck squares = 51m
Hull height (dorsal to ventral): 7m (landing gear up), 9m (landing gear down)
Note that these dimensions mean that the length/width ratio is a very simple 3:2 ... which helps explain why this new deck plan layout looks so visually pleasing to the eyes on casual inspection.

As you can see, I was able to achieve something akin to a cranked arrow/double delta wing shape this time, which I'm really happy with.
Wing root leading edge = ~70º aft sweep
Wing tip leading edge = ~49º aft sweep
Wing trailing edge = ~15º forward sweep

When I counted up the deck squares for fuel tankage, the answer came back as totaling >466 ... over 1.5x the 311 minimum needed for 150 tons of fuel ... which means that the wings have a lot of leading edge taper for aerodyamic efficiency added into their structure.

---

One of the side effects of "re-engineering" this concept around a 22 ton Laser Fighter, 12 ton modules (11 in the standard loadout) with the option to transport 140 ton pods (externally AND internally!) is ... those 140 ton pod hulls can be used for more than just cargo transport (I know, shocker! ).

The first realization was that 140 tons means 35 starship staterooms ... or 140 tons of laboratory equipment space ... or 140 tons of Environment Tank (just add environment settings) ... or the original notion of 140 tons worth of cargo space.

The trick though is ... 2x Stateroom Pods + 1x Laboratory Pod (regenerative life support for 70 people) + 1x Cargo Box (with a LBB2.81 Power Plant-A and a 8 ton demountable fuel tank for power supply) can become LIVING QUARTERS for a deployment of 70 people to any location as a base camp habitat. Add in more Laboratory Pods (to provide employment for those 70 people), an Environment Pod (or two) for use as "public park/recreation space" for those 70 people that can simulate "back home" for them, plus Cargo Boxes/Pods for carrying additional supplies and vehicles ... and you've got the nascent capability to deploy COLONISTS to new places where they can set up shop and start trying to make a living for themselves.

After all, 70 people would amount to a UWP Population: 1 ... while 105-140 qualifies as UWP Population: 2.
Deliver 30x 140 ton stateroom pods (enough for 30*35=1050 people) and you've just mobilized a UWP Population: 3 number of colonists!
Traveller as a City Builder game, anyone?

In other words, depending on the loadout, this starship class could be anything from a merchant ship to a safari ship to a lab ship to a colony logistics transport. Best of all, the starship is mostly operated as a transport/tender/tug for a remarkably wide variety of mission roles and tasking, simply by virtue of being able to swap out the modules that it's loaded with (internally and/or externally). It becomes an incredibly flexible option for deploying a huge variety of people and materiel in support of mercantile interests or as a wartime auxiliary transport.

Despite having a J3/3G performance (unencumbered), the economics of commercial operations (either as a privately owned tramp or under government subsidy) wind up being remarkably advantageous ... far more so than I was originally expecting to see ... while also being more flexible than I'd even originally envisioned.

Best part is that although the 400 ton starship requires a type A starport @ TL=10+ to construct, all of the associated small craft/non-starship big craft (Laser Fighter, 12 ton modules, 140 ton pods) can be constructed by a type B starport @ TL=10+ to construct ... leading to a circumstance in which the starship producing shipyard does not necessarily need to also be producing all of the sub-craft that make the whole enterprise a commercial success. The starship becomes the transport/tug while the modules and pods do the job of standardizing containerization in a way that brings the addition of third parties who want to conduct interstellar commerce without the hassle of owning and operating their own starship(s) themselves, creating opportunities for delivery services to grow and thrive, increasing competition and driving down costs for everyone.

So yeah ... feeling a mite bit proud of this iteration.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Decided to do a little bit more tweaking of the deck plans I've been working on.

Having a 90º "flat" pressure doors on the (double deck) aft end of the starship hangar bay for horizontal loading/unloading of modules and pods into the bay makes some sense. Doing the same for the (single deck) forward end of the upper deck of the hangar bay didn't feel right.

So going back to the online triangle sin calculator, I computed that a 3m high deck with a 70º angle (the same as the wing roots) would require a pressure door that is 8.25m long, which would change the appearance of the iconography and hull shapes used for the upper hangar deck. So I stretched the (70º angled) pressure door in front of the Laser Fighter out to 5.5 deck squares, adjusted the outer lines of the hull silhouette to include this angled forward extension and made a new pair of deck plans depicting the changes.

Although it doesn't quite manage to look like it (because of top-down perspective), the nose of the Laser Fighter does have some forward clearance between the canopy bubble and the forward hangar bay upper deck sloped pressure door(s).

Also makes me glad I put the dorsal/ventral bridge egress hatch as far forward as possible in the avionics/computer bay area forward of the bridge.



Something else I've been pondering lately is if I ought to change the pressure doors used in the stateroom modules for hatches instead.

Anyone have any opinions about making such a change?

 

[Spinward Flow]

Something else I've been pondering lately is if I ought to change the pressure doors used in the stateroom modules for hatches instead.

So I tested the option, but I don't think it looks quite as good as the pressure doors.

Hatches above.
Pressure Doors below.

Part of my reasoning for sticking with the Pressure Doors for the individual staterooms is that the manual hatches require physical effort to open/close, rather than being something done automatically for you (when the power is on) simply by touching a stud on the wall beside the door (like with an unpressurized sliding door or an iris valve).

Another reason is that the "hallway spaces" between the rooms are also doubling up as decontamination airlocks, because these 12 ton modules could be deployed as living quarters for an expeditionary basecamp in potentially hostile environments. In such circumstances, the inadvertent/careless opening of a manual hatch while a decontamination airlock is midway through its cycle could be especially problematic. Additionally if a manual hatch from the decontamination airlock to a stateroom is left open and forgotten about, the airlock can become "unavailable" for use as an airlock and/or decontamination space until the manual hatch is closed, which in stress situations (the monster is catching up and is going to eat us if we don't get inside!!! ) can be panic inducing ... especially since the open/close state of the manual hatches cannot be discerned directly by visual inspection from the outside.

So for those rather mundane reasons, I think that sticking with the automatic pressure doors for access to the staterooms is the superior design choice.

That said, I'm glad I took the time to analyze the manual hatches alternative.

"There are no experimental failures. There is only more data."
- Bryce Lynch, Head of Research, Network XXIII

 

[kilemall]

I’d say pressure doors for passenger use, hatches for naval/scout/pirate use. The value would be precisely manual open/close in case of loss of power/control.

 

[Condottiere]

Pivot door.

You can't move large equipment through it, but the crew can squeeze past them.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I’d say pressure doors for passenger use, hatches for naval/scout/pirate use. The value would be precisely manual open/close in case of loss of power/control.

The thing is, a manual hatch to an iris valve >1m away doesn't doesn't make for a good argument on that score, methinks.

You would have to start taking out the iris valves around the decontamination airlocks as well, at that point.

Pivot door.
You can't move large equipment through it, but the crew can squeeze past them.

No.
You'd still need to be getting furniture through the door (desk, bed, etc.), not just people.
The Pressure Doors are simply Sliding Doors that can maintain the pressure seal of a bulkhead (which with TL=10 Crystaliron only needs to be 3.3 inches/8.4 cm thick to achieve Striker Armor Rating 40).

So less THIS:

And more THIS: