Pondering starship evolution

[Grav_Moped]

Worked up the "numbered compartments" image today which I can then use to create a detailed Fluff Text™ write up of the interior (ala LBB A1 The Kinunir style).

Total number of compartments ... 149 (assuming I haven't missed/skipped any numbers along the way).

Consider labeling compartments/areas by type (that is, instead of (for example) giving each turret a compartment number, give all laser turrets one number and all missile turrets a different number).

 

[Spinward Flow]

Consider labeling compartments/areas by type (that is, instead of (for example) giving each turret a compartment number, give all laser turrets one number and all missile turrets a different number).

That's one way to "crunch the numbers" downwards.
However, it doesn't "comport" with how various LBBs handled the issue, and I'm aiming for a format that is "more in keeping" with LBB precedents for the presentation of information (even if it is more verbose than absolutely necessary).

My sense is that retaining that higher level of granularity in details, rather than glossing over it like you suggest, helps with immersion in the "reality" of the construction, making it feel more "life-like" when read and thought about.

So I give each compartment different numbers ... but in the Fluff Text write up there will be a lot of "Same as ###." entries for compartments with duplicate purposes (such as airlocks, for example). That way, a Referee using the information can know that compartment numbers are unique, putting crew/passengers/etc. in specific places on the deck plans for wargaming purposes and NOT have to worry about "which compartment is which" because the numbers get reused. However, the Fluff Text detailing what each compartment DOES and gets used for will not have a Maximum Verbosity™ setting in order to reduce word count. That way, multiple numbered compartments can refer to a single instance of Fluff Text describing multiple compartments of the same type/purpose.

 

[Grav_Moped]

However, the Fluff Text detailing what each compartment DOES and gets used for will not have a Maximum Verbosity™ setting in order to reduce word count. That way, multiple numbered compartments can refer to a single instance of Fluff Text describing multiple compartments of the same type/purpose.

Yep, that's a good way to handle it.

Eschew* verbosity.

---------------
*Gesundheit!

 

[Spinward Flow]

So I mentioned over here and here that I've been contemplating shifting from a 20 ton Box as the fundamental building block to using a 16 ton Box as an "earlier" TL=9 entry point for interstellar containerized transport modularization ... which then brought up a rather obvious question.

Need to work out what the 16 ton Boxes "look like" in terms of deck plans in order to be able to draw the whole thing and write up build posts for both designs (TL=9 and TL=10).

As long time followers of this (rather meandering and self-indulgent) thread already know, I had a pretty decent looking 20 ton Stateroom Box design (with 5 staterooms + 1 common lounge/galley/laundry) that I'd worked out previously which looked like this, with bunk beds that were 100 pixels (2.5m) long:

8.3 deck squares long (12.45m) x 5 deck squares wide (7.5m) x 3m high = 280.125m³ / 14 = 20.00892857 ≈ 20 tons

---

For the 16 ton Stateroom Box, I'm looking at being even more precise with my measurements and scaling of things.
60 pixels = 1.5m is the grid scaling (from middle of grey line to middle of grey line)

So the revision this time is 392 pixels long (9.8m) x 304 pixels wide (7.6m) x 3m high = 223.44³ / 14 = 15.96 ≈ 16 tons

Here's what the deck plan looks like with only 4 staterooms (each with their own private fresher, raised bunk bed over sitting area, exterior window with privacy screen and closet space) plus a holo lounge and a "utility room" that I need to fill out (later) with galley/food prep area, walk in freezer and laundry service machine.

The (bunk) beds in each single occupancy stateroom are 80 pixels/2 meters long, so everything is fitting together at scale really nicely for the 16 ton Stateroom Box.

I wasn't expecting to wind up with 2 out of 6 room spaces being common areas in the 16 ton Box deck plan ... as opposed to the 1 out of 6 room spaces being common areas in the 20 ton Box deck plan ... but as you can see, that's just the way that everything added up.

An earlier preliminary attempt at this 16 ton Box deck plan wound up with a common fresher in the lower center room space, just to see if I could make it work ... but that ultimately made the individual staterooms "kind of janky" for internal arrangement of elements. So I returned to this "private freshers in each stateroom" design aesthetic, partly because doing so yielded 2 public common rooms, which could be assigned different purposes (entertainment vs utilities, for example).

The thing is, I wouldn't have arrived at this 16 ton Box deck plan without having made the 20 ton Box deck plan first ... so none of that earlier experience was "wasted" (per se).



At any rate, I'm thinking that this (new) 16 ton Box modular format enables me to take the double jumping J3/3G Clipper idea all the way down to TL=9 using LBB2.81 standard D/D/D drives in a 250 ton hull with a 16 ton Escort Fighter docked externally (which doesn't reduce drive performance until exceeding 266 combined displacement tons). Can only fit a hangar bay with 4x 16 ton Boxes in it, so can't really afford a regenerative biome laboratory (yet) @ TL=9 ... but with further development of the concept @ TL=10 using LBB2.81 F/F/F drives in a 400 ton hull, still with a 16 ton Escort Fighter, enough 16 ton Boxes can be loaded into the internal hangar that making one (or two, for luxury yachts) of those Boxes a regenerative biome laboratory becomes feasible/practical/rational.

It also means a return to the drawing board, but I really don't mind that aspect of things.
Finding the free time to indulge the project though is a bit more of a challenge.

 

[casquilho]

To be honest, I like the 16 dton box better. Feels more compact and yet not at the same time.

Look forward to seeing more.

 

[Spinward Flow]

To be honest, I like the 16 dton box better. Feels more compact and yet not at the same time.

You are not alone!
I'm REALLY warming up to the idea of a 16 ton Box form factor.

• 4x 4 ton staterooms
• 1x major cargo (10 tons), 1x minor cargo (5 tons), 1x incidental cargo (1 ton)
• 2x speeder (6 tons each, 1x air/raft (4 tons)
• 1x g-carrier (8 tons), 2x air/raft (4 tons each)
• ... etc.

It's really hitting the "sweet spot" of being both Big AND Small at the same time.
So it's big enough to put "useful amounts of stuff" into, while also being small enough to not be that cumbersome to work with.

As far as the deck plans go, the "middle of bulkhead to middle of bulkhead" length (left/right) of the 16 ton Box is 388 pixels.
The staterooms on the ends are 130 pixels long each (middle of bulkhead to middle of bulkhead) while the common areas between them are 128 pixels long (middle of bulkhead to middle of bulkhead).
130+130+128 = 388 pixels
Bulkheads are 4 pixels wide (edge to edge) and partition walls are 2 pixels wide.


But you're right, the deck plan for the 16 ton Box looks and "feels" somehow ... less wasteful ... of its internal volume.
Only what you "need" ... none of what you "don't" in that preliminary deck plan.
The deck plan is still spending 20% of the floor area on access hallway/airlocks along the longitudinal centerline, but I sincerely doubt it would be possible (let alone reasonable) to make that any less if the intention is to be able to "daisy chain" these 16 ton Boxes in a containerized way so as to stack them up into arrays of blocks.

Additionally, because of 3D stacking, you only need a fore/aft corridor and vertical connection through the center. No lateral access is needed within the confines of a single Box. When you start getting into 2x2x2 arrays of blocks, if they need to cross connect, you can simply have the "top layer" rotated 90º from the "bottom layer" and you'll have connecting access through all 8 Boxes (with some small gaps between them to make the vertical grav lifts line up correctly).

 

[Spinward Flow]

To be honest, I like the 16 dton box better. Feels more compact and yet not at the same time.

Look forward to seeing more.

---

The next step is to use this basic form factor and deck plan pattern to do the layout for all the other 16 Boxes that will be using the same modularized form factor ... including the 16 ton TL=9 Escort Fighter.

 

[casquilho]

Yes, I can see using this to add some capacity to a cargo ship when they need it. I like where this is going.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I like where this is going.

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

 

[Grav_Moped]

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing."

 

[Spinward Flow]

I like where this is going.

The obligatory 16 ton regenerative life support Laboratory Box.

I like where this is going.

Me too.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I like where this is going.

Obligatory 16 ton astronomical observatory (or other sensor package) Laboratory Box.

 

[whartung]

The obligatory 16 ton regenerative life support Laboratory Box.

So have you done the math? How much oxygen is generated, and how much CO2 is consumed?

 

[Spinward Flow]

So have you done the math?

Yup.

 

[Spinward Flow]

And here's what the new 16 ton Cargo/Environment Box looks like.
The only difference between the two is that the Environment Box is slightly more expensive to construct (+MCr1.6, actually), because environmentally controlled cargo space costs MCr0.1 per ton.

Going to see if I can fit any vehicles into this form factor before moving on.

 

[kilemall]

And here's what the new 16 ton Cargo/Environment Box looks like.
The only difference between the two is that the Environment Box is slightly more expensive to construct (+MCr1.6, actually), because environmentally controlled cargo space costs MCr0.1 per ton.

Going to see if I can fit any vehicles into this form factor before moving on.

Air rafts easy, AFV/ATV not so much.

Have you considered a skinny version where it’s access and hallway on one long side? Probably better for cylinder and cone hull forms.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Have you considered a skinny version where it’s access and hallway on one long side? Probably better for cylinder and cone hull forms.

These are explicitly rectangular BOXES in terms of hull form, not cylinders.

 

[kilemall]

These are explicitly rectangular BOXES in terms of hull form, not cylinders.

Yes but tough to fit in cones or cylinders.

 

[bookwyrm]

Yes but tough to fit in cones or cylinders.

I would think that if the cones & cylinders are big enough, Spins pods should fit as is.

On the other hand, I would like to see what's going through his mind as he considers other configurations of his Pods for the different Hull Configurations. I mean... cones & cylinders, wedges & spheres, oh my!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Probably better for cylinder and cone hull forms.

Yes but tough to fit in cones or cylinders.

I'm good. Thanks.
Big craft and small craft cargo holds are rarely tubular in form factor (for some reason ... ).
In fact, the ONLY ONE that I can think of is the 30 ton Standard Cargo Module used by Modular Cutters.
No need to reinvent THAT wheel in a smaller tonnage.

I'll leave the "square peg in round hole" problem for disinterested readers of this thread.

On the other hand, I would like to see what's going through his mind as he considers other configurations of his Pods for the different Hull Configurations. I mean... cones & cylinders, wedges & spheres, oh my!

Outer hull configurations of "parent" craft aren't all that relevant (usually).
What IS relevant is the placement of exterior "hard dock" connection points on the exterior of a craft (if they're being towed externally) or the shape of any interior cargo bay/hangar bay space(s) they might need to be stowed in. Fortunately, most deck plans for these kinds of internal spaces tend to be "squarish" from the start, with only a few exceptions (and most of those exceptions wouldn't be compatible with 16 ton "anything" modular containers anyway).