Pondering starship evolution

[Spinward Flow]

But ...
If I were to "bulk things up" to make the installation of a model/4 computer possible, I would need to increase the (LBB2.81) standard power plant from A to B (increasing output from 2 EP up to 4 EP) and would have an upper limit on small craft tonnage of 20 tons displacement that would still need to fit into the 7.5x5.5 deck squares form factor of the 20 ton Boxes.



20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1
8 tons for LBB2.81 standard A/B drives (codes: 6/L, TL=10, Agility=6, EP=4)
1 ton fuel
4 tons bridge
4 tons model/4 computer (EP: 2)
1 ton mixed triple turret (missile/sandcaster/missile, TL=10)
* 180 tons external docking (180/1.1=163 tons capacity)
2 tons small craft stateroom
= 8+1+4+4+1+2 = 20 tons

Single production (100%) cost: MCr55.76
Volume production (80%) cost: MCr44.608

Definitely a LOT more expensive, but that's only to be expected when you need to increase both your installed power plant (+MCr8) AND computer capabilities (+MCr12).

MCr35.288 / 16 = MCr2.2055 per ton of displacement
MCr 55.76 / 20 = MCr2.788 per ton of displacement

Ah, but what would such a beast look like if it were drawn up into deck plans?

20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1
11 tons for LBB2.81 standard A/C drives (codes: 6/W, TL=9, Agility=6, EP=6)
1 ton fuel
4 tons bridge
3 tons model/3 computer (TL=9, EP: 1)
1 ton triple turret: pulse laser/pulse laser/pulse laser (TL=9, code: 2, EP: 3)
* 180 tons external docking (180/1.1≈163 tons useful capacity)
= 11+1+4+3+1 = 20 tons

Single production (100%) cost: MCr51.46 (vs MCr55.76 for the model/4 + missile/sand/missile version above)
Volume production (80%) cost: MCr41.168 (vs MCr44.608 for the model/4 + missile/sand/missile version above)

So by "switching from missiles to lasers" the single production cost goes down by MCr4.3 and the volume production cost goes down by MCr3.44 ... which will show up in the "profit break even points" of the economic analysis.

Long term (40 year time horizon), the laser option would be cheaper to own and maintain (always a plus for merchants operating along the fringes of civilization!), there isn't any ordnance that can "run out" as a result of extended/repeated combat engagements, since lasers have "deep magazine" capacity (just supply EPs) ... while expended missiles and sand canisters have restocking costs associated with them and missiles have additional constraints on their availability (HE missiles require TL: 7+, Pop: 7+ and Law: 7- for domestic manufacturing and sales at ports of call, Pop: 6- can import from foreign suppliers that meet the TL and Law requirements at increased expense).

The downside to making such a change is that the offense/defense mix of the triple pulse laser variant suffers relative to the (more expensive) missile/sand/missile alternative, along with a reduction in operational range from a base or carrier.



The 2x batteries of code: 1 missiles backed by a model/4 computer need a to hit threshold of 6-4=2 on the dice, before taking adversary size, computer model and agility, not to mention range modifiers, into account. Missiles perform better at long range (no penalty), which is advantageous since under nominal circumstances all LBB5.80 combat starts at long range and the opening move is typically going to be an attempt to Break Off By Acceleration (to minimize exposure to hostile fire) ... so the basic play is for "long range opens up to beyond weapons range" for an escape attempt within a single combat round from unwanted encounters.

For reference, the defensive modifiers of the same 2x missile + model/4 fighter design would be: -2DM for size, -6DM for agility and -4DM for computer model ... a total of -12DM. This means that the 20 ton missile/sand/missile armed fighter can't shoot itself in adversarial combat between fighters of the same type ... because you would need to roll a 14+ on 2D in order to hit at long range (or 15+ at short range).



Contrast that performance with a 1x battery of code: 2 pulse lasers backed by a model/3 computer needing a to hit threshold of 7-3=4 on the dice, before taking adversary size, computer model and agility, not to mention range modifiers, into account. Lasers perform better at short range (no penalty), but are -1 to hit at long range.

For reference, the defensive modifiers of the same 1x triple pulse lasers + model/3 fighter design would be: -2DM for size, -6DM for agility and -3DM for computer model ... a total of -11DM. This means that the 20 ton triple pulse laser armed fighter can't shoot itself in adversarial combat between fighters of the same type ... because you would need to roll a 15+ on 2D in order to hit at short range (or 16+ at long range).

However, for anyone who enjoys "Q-ship surprises" ... upgrading the TL=9 triple pulse laser laser turret into a TL=13 triple beam laser turret would yield a 1x battery of code: 4 beam lasers backed by a model/3 computer needing to hit a threshold of 6-3=3 on the dice ... but if those beam lasers hit something under 400 tons displacement, automatic critical hits will result (under LBB5.80).

So ironically, the laser option is cheaper and more sustainable ... while simultaneously being "less of an adversarial threat" (to itself or to other craft when engaging) due to the weapon swap and the downgrade in computer model.

Oh and the life support endurance is reduced from "4-5 days" of operational range (limited by fuel consumption) down to "12-24 hours" of operational endurance (limited by life support capacity of acceleration couches) due to the small craft stateroom/cabin being deleted. This operational range reduction means that the fighter would have "short legs" and be functionally "tethered" to a base of operations for crew rest and upkeep ... so no interplanetary patrols unless operating near a carrier ... which is probably a wiser choice anyway, all things considered.



Ah well ... back to the (naval architect office) drawing board.
Fortunately, I can keep the same form factor that I was using previously and only need to make a relatively minor update to the deck plans (which will then cascade through the numbering of compartments for the entire starship).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Ah well ... back to the (naval architect office) drawing board.
Fortunately, I can keep the same form factor that I was using previously and only need to make a relatively minor update to the deck plans (which will then cascade through the numbering of compartments for the entire starship).

You know ... if I'm going back into the naval architect office to redesign the Escort Fighter (so as to switch from missiles to lasers) ... I might as well ALSO do yet another iteration of the 20 ton Boxes (Stateroom, Laboratory, Environment and Cargo) using a slightly different form factor that I previously dismissed out of hand.

12.25m long x 7.6m wide by 3m high = 279.3m³ / 14 = 19.95 displacement tons

Since I use a deck plan grid of 60 pixels per 1.5m (center of grid line to center of grid line), the above dimensions yield a "four corners" rectangle size (in pixels) of 12.25*40=490 pixels long and 7.6*40=304 pixels wide. As far as the deck plan is concerned, this computes out to each 20 ton Box being 8.1 deck squares long x 5 deck squares wide.

For contrast, the previous iteration (that can be seen upthread) is 7.5 deck squares long x 5.5 deck squares wide.



Starting this paper chase deck plan drawing all over again from scratch with a new dimensional form factor (to make life easier when laying out the fighter that needs to fit into the "box" space) gives me the opportunity to tighten up some of the design elements that were a tad bit "annoying" in previous versions. Things like how the windows and pressure doors/hatches "broke" the outer bulkhead hull line such that the individual boxes when stacked together needed some "white space" between them to prevent iconography from overlapping. So with this new revision, I've decided to enforce a "don't break the outer edge line" on the boxes, so as to get better stacking efficiency out of them in the hangar bays (less wasted space around them).

Getting to redesign the lounge area was definitely a lot of fun.
Very similar to the previous version, but the change in form factor (more rectangular/less square) opened up an opportunity that I was able to take advantage of to make use of an otherwise "dead corner" for some extra countertop space. Also decided to put some hydroponic greenery in the compartment to help keep the air freshened.

The change in form factor for the stateroom compartments has also had ... interesting repercussions ... with the big one being that the new floor plan eliminates the opportunity for windows. There just really isn't a "sensible" place to put any windows into the outer hull anymore. However, this is probably for the best, since the only times when those windows MIGHT have been of any particular use would have been when the Boxes were NOT berthed in the internal hangar bay(s). However, even then, the placement of the windows in the outer hull was decidedly "sub-optimal" for being able to "look out and see stuff" while the Boxes were docked externally over/under the wings to port and starboard. In a LOT of the external loading configurations, for center of mass reasons, the Stateroom Boxes (with the windows) tended to be located in places that simply couldn't offer good viewing angles on stuff outside the ship.

So something that I think I'll do with this next revision is build an Observation Lounge area on the upper deck between the forward (Escort Fighter) hangar bay and the aft (4 Boxes long per deck stacked in 2 decks) with a dorsal window that can be unshuttered for direct Mk I eyeball views of spectacular sights during orbital maneuvering (just roll the ship). The ventral side of the ship needs to be kept "clean" since that's where the reusable atmospheric entry thermal (and chemically hostile) atmospheric protection needs to be kept as unbroken as possible (aside from the landing gear wells).

All of which means yet another starship deck plan ... but at least I'll be able to reuse/reference almost everything I've done with this class up to this point as I iterate the design yet again.



So here's what the basic fundamental building block ... the 20 ton Stateroom Box ... (now) looks like in this new 8.1x5 deck squares form factor.

"Loft bed" located over the "sitting area" below is shown in 2 of the 5 staterooms. The other 3 staterooms have the same arrangement, but the beds are omitted from the deck plan for clarity of visualization for the folding couches facing each other across a table that can be retracted into the deck so the couches can fold out to meet in the middle to create an additional bed space if needed.

Each stateroom has 2 closet spaces, one by the entrance (narrow and deep) and one by the sliding door to the fresher. I also rearranged the facilities inside the fresher for easier access and slightly improved sight line privacy if the sliding door is opened.

Really happy with the "reshaping" of the lounge space, once I was able to make "everything fit" into the new form factor. I think the wall garden by the entrance adds a nice touch that helps to keep the interior from becoming "too sterile" due to space engineering dominating almost everything about these compartment spaces. The privacy screen curtain "hides" the galley/laundry/stove top oven when they are not in use so that passengers or crew can gather around the holo booth to enjoy shared entertainments. The trideo projector for the holo booth is located in the ceiling of the compartment, allowing a floor retractable table to be used for communal mess hall dining.

 

[Spinward Flow]

So here's what the basic fundamental building block ... the 20 ton Stateroom Box ... (now) looks like in this new 8.1x5 deck squares form factor.

Made a few nips and tucks to subtly shift a few details here and there by a pixel or few to make a better balance of the interior decoration.
Also made a sick bay variant that replaces the common lounge.

Fun fact: the "loft" beds in the staterooms and the autodoc in the sick bay are all 100 pixels long, which at 40 pixels per meter means beds that are 2.5m long. For (native) Solomani, this would be excessive ... but both Caladbolg/Sword Worlds and Grote/Glisten are low gravity mainworlds (Size: 3 for Caladbolg, Size: 5 for Grote in my re-survey of the Spinward Marches). This means that the two worlds have surface gravity ranging from 0.35-0.65G standard for the natives of those worlds ... and since Caladbolg is the "sponsor" that gets this particular starship class launched into service (in the class history that I've written), that means needing to be able to comfortably accommodate a branch of humaniti who natively grow taller in lower world surface gravity conditions. So extending the length of beds from 2m (80 pixels) out to 2.5m (100 pixels) in length feels completely justified.

I also figured that I can "safely" include the loft beds over the sitting area in 4 of the 5 stateroom spaces, while the 5th omits the loft bed (and ladder up to it) on the deck plan drawing so as to clearly show the couches and table sitting area below (because it's basically a duplicate arrangement of the bottom right stateroom compartment). There actually IS a loft bed in the bottom left stateroom (just like the others), it's just not shown to make it easy to see the space underlying the loft bed.

The EVA airlock in the sick bay variant is replaced by an upgraded decontamination airlock to help prevent the transmission of pathogens or other caustic substances that may be involved in or a result of medical treatments in the sick bay. The medical doctor's quarters are directly opposite the sickbay across the hall/decontamination airlock.

Another fun fact: if you're using LBB2 damage rules, a cargo hit will destroy 10 tons of embarked craft or cargo. The new Box design is 20 tons ... so a cargo hit will destroy approximately HALF of one of these 20 ton Boxes, while leaving the other half "relatively intact" (or words to that effect). Therefore, bulkhead compartmentalization of each stateroom/common area space is definitely warranted from a damage control perspective.

 

[kilemall]

Can these be dropped on a surface and be an expeditionary habitat? Do they require additional environmentals, have a few days of power/processing with integral tanks, or have to be set up with external power and life support?

For ship swapping, assuming they are not standalone the whole modular system is going to need standardized utility connection ports, and I am assuming possible pass through in nature on all faces.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Can these be dropped on a surface and be an expeditionary habitat?

Yes.

Do they require additional environmentals, have a few days of power/processing with integral tanks, or have to be set up with external power and life support?

The way that I think of them, they qualify for the "U - Unpowered" Ship Type Qualifier (LBB5.80, p26) since they lack a power plant. They DO require "housekeeping power" to be supplied to them from an external source (typically a starship's power plant under "mobile" conditions, but in "stationary" circumstances any stationary power plant or grid can power them).

According to the fuel consumption formula in CT Beltstrike ... 1EP consumes 0.35 tons of fusion power plant fuel per week. 20 tons of hull has a "basic power" requirement of 0.01 tons of fusion power plant fuel per week (so, functionally, a demand load of 0.02857EP per 20 ton Box when you do the math). As far as starship power plants go, it's basically a rounding error ... until you start stacking up a lot of them together (35x 20 ton Boxes = 1EP load demand).

If you assume that 1EP=250Mw then each 20 ton Box has a "housekeeping power" demand of ≈7.143Mw each ... which can be supplied (relatively easily) using vehicle scale fusion power plants if need be.

The Stateroom Boxes are built to starship accommodation standards, so absent additional supplementary life support, you're looking at a life support consumables overhead expense of Cr2000 per person per 2 weeks ... just like any other starship stateroom accommodations. Adding in additional Boxes with regenerative biome life support systems and linking them together (either aboard spacecraft/starships or as static installations on terrestrial surfaces) changes that calculus by offering a closed loop environment option, but this increases the quantity of 20 ton Boxes needed (which then increases the amount of "housekeeping power" supply needed for each person).

I can very easily imagine 20 ton Stateroom Boxes plus a Cargo Box (outfitted with a "modest" fusion power plant for housekeeping power needs, fuel tankage, life support consumables reserve and vehicle hangar) being used as a deployable (stationary) "base camp" for longer term residency in an incredibly wide variety of contexts and circumstances. Anything from resource extraction work camp to academic researcher expeditionary surveys could be handled this way. The whole thing "modularizes" into what amounts to "shipping containers" that can be deployed for later pickup or even be bought for use as family/clan housing.

For ship swapping, assuming they are not standalone the whole modular system is going to need standardized utility connection ports, and I am assuming possible pass through in nature on all faces.

The way that I handle that is that each 20 ton Box has to "pay for" what amounts to "hangar bay capacity" (at Cr2000 per ton, just like an internal hangar bay) to build the necessary docking connections and hull strengthening needed to "link" multiple Boxes together. Since the Boxes are 6-sided rectangular box shapes, I just specify that they need to be capable of "docking" with 20*1.1=22*6=132 tons of external loading ... which at Cr2000 per ton adds a surcharge of Cr264,000 to the cost of the hull for each 20 ton Box so they can be daisy chained together (fore/aft, port/starboard, dorsal/ventral).

The current design has fore/aft and dorsal/ventral connections, but no port/starboard pass through connections (mainly because it would cost too much deck plan floor space that's already at a premium). However, there are docking interconnect features built into the standard for port/starboard linking in "side by side" stacks if desired. The flexible extendable airlock tunnels COULD be extended (and turned to the side) sufficiently to create a makeshift port/starboard connection between 2 Boxes, if necessary (and if there was enough free space outside the hull of each to do so).



Hope that answers your questions.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Made a few nips and tucks to subtly shift a few details here and there by a pixel or few to make a better balance of the interior decoration.

Did another "interior decorator rearrange" for the compartments.

Decided to simplify things by making the loft bed and sitting area under the bed be 2.8m long (112 pixels) instead of just 2.5m (100 pixels) and leave some wasted space at one end (or both ends). This rearrange made it possible to consolidate the closet space into a 1.425m x 0.5m x 2.5m (≈1780 liters) volume space by the iris valve entrance to the stateroom compartments. Some of this volume would be taken up by the standard issue vacuum suit and rescue ball emergency safety equipment that needs to be stored in each stateroom, both for crew and passengers, in the event of a decompression event (intentional or not).

At this point, the living spaces were getting so large that I needed to upscale the toilet and sink in the fresher to make things look like they still "fit" together.

Also brought back the decontamination airlocks by the extendable airlock tunnels, since those are going to be the "walk outside" locations when Stateroom Boxes get deployed as a basecamp on the surface of a world with a chemically hostile atmosphere (A-C) or a "stellar baked regolith" (atmosphere 0-1) where you need a "mud room" to prevent environmental contaminants from getting into the interior habitable spaces.

The EVA airlocks are for use with the central grav lift, in case the Box is not docked to another Box on the dorsal or ventral surface.

 

[casquilho]

Did another "interior decorator rearrange" for the compartments.

Decided to simplify things by making the loft bed and sitting area under the bed be 2.8m long (112 pixels) instead of just 2.5m (100 pixels) and leave some wasted space at one end (or both ends). This rearrange made it possible to consolidate the closet space into a 1.425m x 0.5m x 2.5m (≈1780 liters) volume space by the iris valve entrance to the stateroom compartments. Some of this volume would be taken up by the standard issue vacuum suit and rescue ball emergency safety equipment that needs to be stored in each stateroom, both for crew and passengers, in the event of a decompression event (intentional or not).

At this point, the living spaces were getting so large that I needed to upscale the toilet and sink in the fresher to make things look like they still "fit" together.

Also brought back the decontamination airlocks by the extendable airlock tunnels, since those are going to be the "walk outside" locations when Stateroom Boxes get deployed as a basecamp on the surface of a world with a chemically hostile atmosphere (A-C) or a "stellar baked regolith" (atmosphere 0-1) where you need a "mud room" to prevent environmental contaminants from getting into the interior habitable spaces.

The EVA airlocks are for use with the central grav lift, in case the Box is not docked to another Box on the dorsal or ventral surface.

This is a pure opinion and as such is subjective. I like what you have done except the need to go back and forth through the airlock to get to some of the rooms. I go from the interior into the DCON area and then into a room. I have always thought of airlocks and DCON areas as a barrier between the interior and the outside. But other than that, I love your work.

 

[Spinward Flow]

This is a pure opinion and as such is subjective.

Which is perfectly fine.

I like what you have done except the need to go back and forth through the airlock to get to some of the rooms.

That's basically a function of the "tyranny of tiny" (or words to that effect) when dealing with low tonnage displacement deck plans. You have to get ruthlessly economical with your use of deck space, because there's a very (very!) limited quantity of the stuff.

I have always thought of airlocks and DCON areas as a barrier between the interior and the outside.

Same here.
If I had more room to work with, the airlocks (decontamination and EVA) could be done as single purpose spaces in a larger deck plan.
However, in this case, with a 20 ton displacement, that luxury simply isn't available.

The deck plan is 8.1x5=40.5 deck squares in size.
There are 6 compartments for staterooms/common area that are 2.7x2=5.4 deck squares each, for a total of 32.4 deck squares of area.
The access corridor through the center is 8.1x1=8.1 deck squares of area.
32.4/40.5=80% by deck area.

So I've only got 20% of the deck area available to do multiple things:

1. Lateral docking points (fore/aft) with extendable airlock tunnel machinery (which enables port/starboard and other "corner case" docking options, kinda sorta)
2. Vertical docking points (dorsal/ventral) through a grav lift in the center
3. Airlock compartmentalization between interior spaces and exterior spaces (decontamination, EVA or otherwise)
4. Common access corridor to pressure compartments on either side of the hallway

The way that I think about the decontamination and EVA airlocks is that "in normal flight" when the Boxes are stowed aboard a starship (either berthed internally in a hangar/cargo bay or docked and being towed externally on the outer hull), the "additional features" of the airlocks become more or less superfluous, so there's the OPTION to just open the iris valves on both ends and use them as a "pass through access corridor" when it's convenient. However, if someone needs to ingress from/egress to the external environment, those airlocks can serve as airlocks with those specific functions. Makes it more of a hassle to move around inside the 20 ton Box on the regular ... but if you're dealing with a hostile atmosphere (exotic, corrosive, insidious) or even just "unweathered regolith" due to a lack of atmosphere (vacuum, trace) as part of a static installation terrestrial base camp, you're going to WANT to have those airlock features to help prevent the outside environment from getting in to contaminate your habitation spaces.

Here's what happens when I carry over the latest 20 ton Stateroom Box layout redesign into a 20 ton Laboratory Box (regenerative biome life support) deck plan layout.

The 4 "habitable" compartments each have garden wall hydroponics in them (to varying degrees).
There's deep water aquarium tanks with fish in them and hydroponics growing on the water surface, yielding FRESH meat and vegetables for consumption by crews and passengers.

There's animal pens (with water pools in the pens for the animals being farmed) and a hydroponics wall garden to provide feed for the animals being raised. Evolutionary descendants of the Solomani chicken are prized by crews (and passengers) who delight in being able to eat fresh eggs.

There's an arboretum of fruit bearing trees/bushes that can be harvested for delicious fresh vegetables produce and nuts. Really happy with how this arrangement turned out this time.

And finally, there's an entire compartment devoted to a continuous garden wall loaded with vertical farming of cereal grains, legumes and a wide variety of other vegetables to round out a well balanced diet

Life support recycling and processing/buffering machinery is located in the spaces between laboratory compartments, substantially automating the work of maintaining the regenerative biome life support systems. Maintenance hatches enable access to the machinery from inside the Laboratory Box from the Grav Lift. External maintenance hatches, which are typically used only by starport personnel during annual overhauls, allow the entire contents of the life support machinery in each bay to be disconnected and pulled out of the hull for inspections, integrity testing, maintenance and repairs.



And before anyone asks, Caladbolg/Sword Worlds has trade code classifications of Agricultural and Rich, in addition to being TL=A ... so I'm thinking that a selection of native species from Calabolg suitable for this kind of life support laboratory work won't be all that difficult.



Notice that with this new deck plan arrangement of the laboratory compartments, the decontamination airlocks (carried over "copy/paste" from the Stateroom Box deck plans) are located EXACTLY where you would want them to reduce the opportunity for environmental containment breaches.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And just for shizzle, here's the Laboratory Box (astronomical observatory).

Each hexagon has an area of ≈4.78m² ... so with 10 hexagonal mirrors, the light collecting reflector area is 47.8m².
For reference, the polished mirror area of the James Webb Space Telescope is 26.3m².

 

[casquilho]

Which is perfectly fine.

That's basically a function of the "tyranny of tiny" (or words to that effect) when dealing with low tonnage displacement deck plans. You have to get ruthlessly economical with your use of deck space, because there's a very (very!) limited quantity of the stuff.

Too true. The space you are working with is tight for what you are adding into it.

I look forward to more great stuff from you.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I look forward to more great stuff from you.

You asked for it!

Here is the redesign of the 20 ton Environment Box/Cargo Box in the new form factor (the only difference for the deck plans is the labeling of the doors).

The hatches on the port/starboard sides are there as secondary access (yes) ... but importantly allow collapsible fuel tanks stored in the internal hangar bay walls to inflate through the side hatches to fill the interior of the Box if it isn't loaded with cargo (or whatever). That way, you don't necessarily have to move an otherwise empty Box outside the hull in order to fill that 20 tons of internal berthing space with (collapsible) fuel (tankage) if you don't want to. Most civilian/merchant operators of the class would prefer to move the box outside the hull for external towing for a variety of other potential reasons if they need to use internal hangar bay space for fuel reserves, but not all situations, contexts or circumstances are the same ... so flexibility being built in at the design specs stage is important.

The fore/aft hatches (obviously) mate up quite nicely for docking with other Boxes when daisy chaining them together. The vertical grav lift in the center is downgraded to simple iris valves in the dorsal/ventral hull, so as to not occupy the center of the Box with a dedicated vertical shaft that cannot be removed which all cargo loaded into the Box must "shuffle around" to fit. If the "center space" of the Box is left unoccupied, Grav Lift platforms from other Boxes can rise/descend through the iris valve(s) into the interior at the center of the Environment/Cargo Box.



Next step ... redesigning the Escort Fighter deck plan ... now with MOAR LAZERS!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Here is the redesign of the 20 ton Environment Box/Cargo Box in the new form factor (the only difference for the deck plans is the labeling of the doors).

Only once I try to put vehicles into that form factor do I realize that the doors need to be "swapped" (since they're unequal lengths to accommodate the hatches in the center).

Here's what happens when you turn a 20 ton Cargo Box into a vehicle hangar for transporting a GCarrier (8 tons), a Speeder (6 tons) and an Air/Raft (4 tons).

Yeah.
That'll play.

There's even 2 tons of space left over for break bulk miscellaneous "stuffs" that can go in there with them, if you really have to "clog up all the space with "stuffs" to take with you.

 

[casquilho]

There's even 2 tons of space left over for break bulk miscellaneous "stuffs" that can go in there with them, if you really have to "clog up all the space with "stuffs" to take with you.

In real life I know someone who accepted a job in London and part of the agreement was they shipped a sea container over from the US for his "stuff". He put his car into the container, strapped it down, then filled in the remaining space with stuff he wanted to take with him until he hit the weight he was allowed. A real-life example of what you are talking about.

 

[whartung]

Yeah.
That'll play.

That just looks a bit tight of a packing of vehicles to me.

You can't get out of the left hatch on the G carrier, and can only get out the right one if the bay door is open (unless they can crawl out of the top of the carrier).

I guess folks jump out the back of the air/raft.

A ship is a pretty dynamic environment, I would think, with things that close together risking bumping into each other.

Can't move the fighter with the G carrier in place either.

Just saying, overall, looks a little tight.

 

[coliver988]

That just looks a bit tight of a packing of vehicles to me.

You can't get out of the left hatch on the G carrier, and can only get out the right one if the bay door is open (unless they can crawl out of the top of the carrier).

I guess folks jump out the back of the air/raft.

A ship is a pretty dynamic environment, I would think, with things that close together risking bumping into each other.

Can't move the fighter with the G carrier in place either.

Just saying, overall, looks a little tight.

and if there are interior hinges on the doors, not sure you can actually get things in and out as the vehicles are flush with the walls. And depending on the actual interior height, not sure if the GCarrier even fits as well. Has the interior height of these boxes been established? The exterior I assume is 3 meters, but grav plates, plumbing, life support, lighting, etc will take up a bit of that interior space.

However, Traveller has never really worried about the actual placement of things: if the tonnage fits, I sits.

edit: wonder how much vertical space an iris valve requires?
edit 2: re: tonnage/fits: though this thread is specifically about how things fit

 

[Spinward Flow]

That just looks a bit tight of a packing of vehicles to me.

Only because it is.

Can't move the fighter with the G carrier in place either.

There's doors on the forward and aft ends.
Open the port side forward door and the Speeder can back out, no problem.

Just saying, overall, looks a little tight.

It is.

and if there are interior hinges on the doors

The doors open outwards and swing all the way around through 270º.

And depending on the actual interior height, not sure if the GCarrier even fits as well.

GCarrier is 2m high (CT Striker B3, p29-30).
Interior cargo hold volume is 2.8m height free and clear.

However, Traveller has never really worried about the actual placement of things: if the tonnage fits, I sits.

Definitely the case with CT.

 

[Spinward Flow]

20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1
11 tons for LBB2.81 standard A/C drives (codes: 6/W, TL=9, Agility=6, EP=6)
1 ton fuel
4 tons bridge
3 tons model/3 computer (TL=9, EP: 1)
1 ton triple turret: pulse laser/pulse laser/pulse laser (TL=9, code: 2, EP: 3)
* 180 tons external docking (180/1.1≈163 tons useful capacity)
= 11+1+4+3+1 = 20 tons

Single production (100%) cost: MCr51.46 (vs MCr55.76 for the model/4 + missile/sand/missile version above)
Volume production (80%) cost: MCr41.168 (vs MCr44.608 for the model/4 + missile/sand/missile version above)

And here's the proof that the fighter redesign "fits" (exactly) within the 8.1x5 deck squares form factor of the 20 ton Boxes redesign (used an overlay of layers).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Huh.
Well I wasn't expecting THAT to happen ...

Went back to the "Analysis of Alternatives" approach to the business model and tried looking at what happens when "compressing" the crew complement down to the minimum number of possible berths.

Answer ... 7 crew minimum (Cr36,060 per 4 weeks crew salaries).

With 20 ton Boxes (2x Stateroom, 1x Laboratory for regenerative biome life support), that means 10 single occupancy staterooms ... which then leaves accommodations for 3x high passengers (instead of 8).

However, doing THAT then means that I can get away with a simplified 8x Boxes aft hangar bay with the Escort Fighter in the aft hangar bay, rather than going for the (1+8)x Boxes hangar bay berths that I was doing before. That then leaves 4x Box berth slots internally for Environmental/Cargo Boxes, instead of the previous 2x Box berth slots.

Adjust the starship hull displacement to account for the change and ... I've got a 488 ton starship (again) that has 1x GCarrier (8 tons) and 1x Speeder (6 tons) as vehicle support, along with a 5 ton Mail Vault and 160 ton capacity collapsible fuel tanks that get stored in cargo bay spaces.

488 tons starship hull
85 tons for LBB2.81 standard H/H/H drives (code: 3, TL=10)
176.4 tons of total fuel: 488 tons @ J3 = 146.4 tons jump fuel + 30 tons power plant fuel
8 tons for TL=10 fuel purification plant (200 ton capacity is minimum)
20 tons for bridge
2 tons for model/2bis computer
176 tons for 176/1.1=160≈160 tons of hangar berths capacity
1. Escort Fighter = 20 tons
2. Stateroom Box = 20 tons
3. Stateroom Box = 20 tons
4. Laboratory Box (life support) = 20 tons
5. Environment Box = 20 tons
6. Environment Box = 20 tons
7. Cargo Box = 20 tons
8. Cargo Box = 20 tons
Vehicle Bay: 1x GCarrier = 8 tons
Vehicle Bay: 1x Speeder = 6 tons
Mail Vault = 5 tons
160 tons capacity Collapsible Fuel Tanks = 1.6 tons
= 85+176.4+8+20+2+176+8+6+5+1.6 = 488 tons
Pilot/Gunner, Pilot/Gunner, Navigator, Engineer/Engineer, Engineer, Steward/Steward, Medic = 7 Crew
3 high passengers, 40 ton environmentally sensitive cargo, 40 tons cargo internal, 40 tons cargo external, 5 tons mail

MCr260.178 (100% cost single production)
MCr208.1424 (80% cost volume production) (LBB5.80, p20)

The Escort Fighter undergoes a compromise as well, but one which makes it pre-date the SIE Clipper starship class. The origins of the Escort Fighter are actually from an earlier (provincial) interplanetary system defense patrol fighter class (native to Caladbolg/Sword Worlds) that simply needed a naval architect office redesign that retained the performance specs but updated the hull form factor to "fit" into the 20 ton Box hangar berth dimensions while strengthening the new hull shape to permit dorsal/ventral docking and towing of 20 ton Boxes in a secondary role as an auxiliary.

20 ton small craft hull, configuration: 1
8 tons for LBB2.81 standard A/B drives (codes: 6/L, TL=9, Agility=5, EP=4)
1 ton fuel
4 tons bridge
4 tons model/4 computer (TL=A, EP: 2)
1 ton single turret: pulse laser (TL=A, code: 1, EP: 1)
2 tons small craft stateroom
* 176 tons external docking (176/1.1≈160=160 tons useful capacity)
= 8+1+4+4+1+2 = 20 tons

MCr53.702 (100% cost single production)
MCr42.9616 (80% cost volume production) (LBB5.80, p20)

The 488 ton starship can externally dock and tow 2x 20 ton Boxes @ J3/3G drive performance (standard).

Comparison:

• 500 ton starship = 8x high passengers + 20 tons Internal Environment + 20 tons Internal Cargo + 20 tons External Cargo + 5 tons Mail = Cr165,000 revenue (100% manifest)
• 488 ton starship = 3x high passengers + 40 tons Internal Environment + 40 tons Internal Cargo + 40 tons External Cargo + 5 tons Mail = Cr175,000 revenue (100% manifest)

Less (high) passengers + more cargo capacity is looking mighty advantageous when it comes to being able to transport "useful loads" in and out of low population (4-) ports of call, while still being able to reliably make a profit after accounting for overhead expenses. The lower number of (high) passengers also reduces the need for "ship's troops" for onboard security. Conversely, the higher cargo capacity also makes it easier to engage in speculative goods trading ... the REAL profit potential business opportunity ... particularly when the original home port base for the class is supposed to be Caladbolg/Sword Worlds, an Agricultural+Rich world with Population: 7 and commodities to export into nearby District 268 star systems (most of which are Non-industrial and therefore need imports).

So trade fewer passengers for more cargo capacity AND vehicle berths while reducing the crew numbers to the bare minimum.

The J3 (and J2+3) range revenue performance looks "decently profitable" under subsidy.
The J2 (and J2+2) range range revenue performance looks "decently profitable" when the starship is paid off.
The J1 (and J1+1) range range revenue performance looks "decently profitable" when the starship is operating under bank load financing.



Very interesting results ...

 

[Spinward Flow]

You know ... I think I went a bit overboard with making the sitting area and loft bed above so large (2.8m long x 1.45m wide, 112 pixels long x 58 pixels wide).

A more "normal Solomani sized bed" ought to be 2m/80 pixels long by 1.05m/42 pixels wide (not including the ladder).

If I make the beds shorter, I can fill the remaining space with another big/deep closet for storage AND can restore the windows and privacy screens into each stateroom compartment. Fortunately, the compartments follow a repeating copy/paste pattern (just add rotations) to get them all.

Making the beds in the staterooms smaller will also mean the autodoc in the sick bay ought to get smaller as well (to match), freeing up some floor space in the sick bay as well.

I'm also not completely happy with the way the deck plan for the Escort Fighter turned out.

Back to the naval architect's office for that one too.

 

[Spinward Flow]

A more "normal Solomani sized bed" ought to be 2m/80 pixels long by 1.05m/42 pixels wide (not including the ladder).

If I make the beds shorter, I can fill the remaining space with another big/deep closet for storage AND can restore the windows and privacy screens into each stateroom compartment.

Huh.
Well that's interesting.

Making the bed(s) more "normal Solomani sized" made it possible to put in a 0.8m deep walk in closet for storage space along an entire wall of each stateroom. It also "uncramped" the sick bay compartment (as advertised, above).

And although the windows serve "little to no purpose" while Stateroom Boxes are loaded into internal hangar bays (ooooh, bulkhead walls, wooo... ), that "lack of a good view" changes when Stateroom Boxes get deployed to a planetary surface (with a great outdoors) that can offer some impressive vista views (or outside the starship's hull for some orbital views).

So, on balance, this resizing is looking Net Positive™ ... especially since I've tinkered with the spreadsheet of performance specs for the Escort Fighter to restore its Small Craft Stateroom (2 tons, MCr0.05) on the grounds that the version deployed with the SIE Clippers is a "civilian defense redesign" (to fit the 20 ton Box form factor for hangar bay storage commonality) of an already pre-existing interplanetary patrol fighter design native to Caladbolg/Sword Worlds used as an auxiliary to system defense and policing (keep the performance specs, just update the hull).