Pondering starship evolution

[aramis]

Custom LBB:2 ship hulls are still split into an engineering compartment for drives and a main compartment for everything else.

A standard hull for each drive combo AAA, BBB, CCC is far too much to ask for

True... but due to the table, that's way too many... we only need the 6 performances, or more sanely, 3 performances (1 1 1, 2 2 2, or 3 3 3)
The standards
100: A A A for 2 2 2, MCr18 savings (due to min MCr20 for custom)
200: A A A for 1 1 1, MCr12 savings
400: D D D +5 T for 2 2 2, MCr24 savings (D E E for 2 2 2 is possible. Or C F F for 1 3 3.)
600: H H H for 2 2 2, MCr12 savings
800: R R R for 4 4 4, No cash savings
1000: R R R for 3 3 3, No cash savings.
Note that 100, 400, 600 use 2 2 2 performance,
Expanding that table to be 1 1 1, 2 2 2, 3 3 3, 4 4 4 would make it half a page; adding 300, 500, 700, and 900 would be nice, too...
but...

I think that standards really should have been in both 1 1 1 and 2 2 2 versions.
My biggest issue with Bk2 is the hull and bridge minimums. (min cost non-standard hull MCr20 [TTB 56], min bridge 20 Td

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

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

Anti-hijack protects the ship against potential takeovers
by hijackers. This program constantly monitors conditions
within the starship, and automatically locks the access
doors to the bridge and controls when a hijack situation
occurs. Because this system is not foolproof, would-be
hijackers may gain access in spite of the program on a
throw of 5 or less.

The March Harrier details in TTA make it clear Passengers are usually limited to the forward lounge, the passenger hallway, and the passenger staterooms. The access to the aft lounge is at captain's discretion, but is designed so it can be crew only if desired.

It's pretty clear that passengers are not typically welcome in ANY locations on a March class Type R other than forward lounge, their quarters, and the passenger hall; on some, also the aft lounge.

Other locations would be only during embarkation and debarkation.
No sane merchant is going to let passengers in the engineering spaces, nor the cargo bay, nor crew quarters. CQ are off limits for sanity and to prevent hostage taking of a key crewmember. Turrets are off limits because of risks of sabotage by pirates' agents.
The Bridge is likely to be occasionally allowed on a tour, but unlikely to be any time, simply because there's too much of import there.

 

[Spinward Flow]

It's pretty clear that passengers are not typically welcome in ANY locations on a March class Type R other than forward lounge, their quarters, and the passenger hall; on some, also the aft lounge.

The same can be said for the Marava-class, so it's not a "unique feature" for specific merchant starships. Rather, it is standard practice.
LBB S7, p26:

Peculiarities: The design of the far trader has ship security in mind, and so all passengers are segregated onto a passenger deck. Their access to the bridge and to other areas of the ship is limited. Unfortunately, when a seventh passenger is carried, he or she is berthed adjacent to the bridge. Original specifications did not envision more than six passengers, but the profit motive has led to them being overridden.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Custom LBB:2 ship hulls are still split into an engineering compartment for drives and a main compartment for everything else.

A standard hull for each drive combo AAA, BBB, CCC is far too much to ask for

Agreed, but I still think that for in-universe reasons that the Standard Hull needs to be built for the drives of the most-common ship of any given standard tonnage. Typically, that'd be whatever gives J1/1G, but it might be for J2/2G (J2/1G for LBB5-based build systems, or LBB2'77).

In a build-system with fractional drives, "1/2-A" drives (J1/1G/Pn-1 in 100Td) should have a 100Td Standard Hull available for them, just because of how common it would be.

 

[Grav_Moped]

My biggest issue with Bk2 is the hull and bridge minimums. (min cost non-standard hull MCr20 [TTB 56], min bridge 20 Td

Hull cost probably should scale down, proportionate to size -- that would make sense.

Minimum bridge size? I am sort of in favor of it, but the HG "computer and a seat can equal a bridge" rule justifies a way around that. Normally it's 20Td/20%, but you should be able to throw money (and maybe tech, maybe not) at the problem. Have one level of expenditure get you down to minimal small-craft bridge (4Td) plus a de-rated computer for starships, and perhaps a twice-down-rated computer and seats also substituting (up to 1KTd) on starships with some additional negative modifiers in the mix.

Basically, 20Td is the size of a standard control/sensor suite.

4Td is as far as you can miniaturize those capabilities (at a cost) while still retaining them. (And it almost certainly can't be Scout/Mil grade at that size.)

You can get them down to 1-2Td (at high cost) but you're not getting full active sensor range and maybe not a terribly precise positoning system (relies on local satellites instead of pulsars, might take longer to establish a Jump course, might have a slightly higher misjump rate, etc).

 

[mike wightman]

The thing is that the CT bridge includes a lot of stuff, sensors, avionics, control stations etc.

There is a minimum size that stuff can be. It is a question of do you want to waste time selecting

avionics - basic, advanced
sensors - basic, advanced
workstations -
control systems -
comms -
etc.
and pick the same basic package for every ship

 

[Grav_Moped]

The thing is that the CT bridge includes a lot of stuff, sensors, avionics, control stations etc.

There is a minimum size that stuff can be. It is a question of do you want to waste time selecting

avionics - basic, advanced
sensors - basic, advanced
workstations -
control systems -
comms -
etc.
and pick the same basic package for every ship

That's sort of what I was getting at. (Mostly) same package, pay to shrink it, but there's only so far one can go before it starts affecting capabilities.

You're adding "shed capabilities to shrink it, from the start" to the discussion as well. Useful!

 

[atpollard]

The thing is that the CT bridge includes a lot of stuff, sensors, avionics, control stations etc.

There is a minimum size that stuff can be. It is a question of do you want to waste time selecting

avionics - basic, advanced
sensors - basic, advanced
workstations -
control systems -
comms -
etc.
and pick the same basic package for every ship

Detail that "MINIMUM SYSTEMS" Bridge for a 100 dTon ship with a crew of 1 and a 1000 dTon ship with a FULL Bridge crew and see the issue from a [WORKSTATION, Seat, Equipment, Ballroom Dancing] deck-plan POV.

 

[mike wightman]

They did, it is 20t. The 1000t ship can get away with the same bridge as a scout. It costs a lot more but the basic systems are the same.
Two workstations, an avionics bay, comms, ship control systems, sensors. The smallest package is 20t. The 1000t ship gives a bit more room to walk around on deck plans thanks to "borrowing" from the "communal" space granted by staterooms.

If you want to go into real detail then the stateroom should be reduced to 3t and 1t allocated to corridors and common areas.

If a computer and workstation is all that is needed in a 99t shuttle it does ask the question why you can't get away with that for a 100t spaceship, and what are the benefits of a smallcraft bridge beyond not reducing computer model by 1 for High Guard purposes, how it affects LBB2 combat is anyone's guess.

 

[Spinward Flow]

If you want to go into real detail then the stateroom should be reduced to 3t and 1t allocated to corridors and common areas.

I would argue that the balance to strike is closer to 2 tons for stateroom compartments and 2 ton for corridor access plus common areas. You ironically wind up with less "waste space" that way when doing deck plans, because the usage of available deck floor area is more efficient.

If a computer and workstation is all that is needed in a 99t shuttle it does ask the question why you can't get away with that for a 100t spaceship

The answer to that question (I think) is a rather indirect one ... because it's a matter of endurance.

If you've got a 99 ton shuttle (as stipulated) that has a crew of 1 and the class is "built cheap" so you've got just a model/1 computer and a single acceleration couch ... if there are no additional crew accommodations, that shuttle is going to be limited by crew life support to voyages of 24 hours or less. This basically keeps the shuttle "local" to its home base. It simply doesn't have the "legs" to go out too far.

Compare and contrast that with a 100 ton non-starship. As a craft, it is going to be held to a higher standard ... starting with 4 weeks of power plant endurance and 4 ton (starship) stateroom with life support that can last for weeks.

In other words, the journey times can get a LOT longer for the 100 ton non-starship than they would for the 99 ton shuttle. Those "longer legs" mean that the 100 ton non-starship can "depart from controlled space" in orbit around a planet and its moons and undertake interplanetary voyages. That means that 100 ton non-starship is going to be flying away from starport/spaceport traffic control monitored regions, so the support available through the entire flight envelope changes.

The 99 ton shuttle can "offload/outsource" a tremendous amount of its sensor and navigation work to traffic control or other ground control operators (sometimes known as "Houston").

By contrast, the 100 ton non-starship going on interplanetary journeys will not always be within range of a traffic control sensor net ... so the non-starship had better have its own sensors and navigation gear if it wants to be able to maneuver precisely (and safely) to its destination.

It's the difference between staying on the mall parking lot, under the watchful eyes of your parents (99 ton shuttle) versus getting in the car and driving to another state (or country) on a multi-day road trip. The length of the voyage places different demands on the engineering, safety and preparation needed to reduce the opportunities for mishap to an acceptable minimum level as controlled by the regulatory authorities.



As gamers, we look at the difference between 99 and 100 tons and think that it isn't that much of a breakpoint for these kinds of differences (and it isn't, since it's a difference of 1 ton of total displacement). However, if you think of it in terms of short endurance versus long endurance, it starts making more sense.

To put it in aviation terms, the 99 ton shuttle is a short range, visual flight rules puddle jumper.
The 100 ton non-starship is an instrument rated intercontinental craft designed to fly over long ocean stretches (think Pacific "tyranny of ranges") to reach faraway destinations in all kinds of weather.

The safety and redundancy requirements for those two flight profiles have some commonalities, but also a LOT of differences between them. The longer range instrument flier has "more stuff" that needs to be done right (without failures) than the short range one does.



So the answer is there ... if you care to look deeply enough into the demands placed on crews by the two types of craft, from the "lived experience" angle.



By the way, minor side note of hilarity.
In terms of construction cost, a larger hull with a bridge and no computer will almost always be cheaper to construct (and therefore, maintain) than a smaller hull with a computer and no bridge. The only time when that isn't (always) the case is when you're approaching 100 tons on a small craft.

 

[atpollard]

Detail that "MINIMUM SYSTEMS" Bridge for a 100 dTon ship with a crew of 1 and a 1000 dTon ship with a FULL Bridge crew and see the issue from a [WORKSTATION, Seat, Equipment, Ballroom Dancing] deck-plan POV.

Point of Clarification:
"Detail that 'MINIMUM SYSTEMS' Bridge" meant try to create a non-nonsensical 20 dTon BRIDGE DECK PLAN that accommodates a crew of 1 or the Bridge Crew of a 1000 dton ship in the same space by identifying "WORKSTATIONS with Seats" plus "EQUAL ESSENTIAL Equipment" plus the leftover space for "Ballroom Dancing" in the ONE PERSON BRIDGE" that would be filled with all of the other crew members on the 1000 dTon ship bridge (but are now empty because those workstations are not needed for people to sit in).

 

[aramis]

Hull cost probably should scale down, proportionate to size -- that would make sense.

Minimum bridge size? I am sort of in favor of it, but the HG "computer and a seat can equal a bridge" rule justifies a way around that. Normally it's 20Td/20%,

it's 2% or 20tons. So, for anything under 1000 tons, it's 20. And should probably not be.

They did, it is 20t. The 1000t ship can get away with the same bridge as a scout. It costs a lot more but the basic systems are the same.
Two workstations, an avionics bay, comms, ship control systems, sensors. The smallest package is 20t. The 1000t ship gives a bit more room to walk around on deck plans thanks to "borrowing" from the "communal" space granted by staterooms.

If you want to go into real detail then the stateroom should be reduced to 3t and 1t allocated to corridors and common areas.

Rules say half, not a quarter...

 

[mike wightman]

And yet looking through Trades and Gunboats there are a lot of 6 square staterooms. On the deck plans with 4 square staterooms there is a lot more common space.
So we have another option - cramped stateroom 2t and more common space 2t, or 3t stateroom and 1 ton to use for corridors and common space.

 

[kilemall]

And yet looking through Trades and Gunboats there are a lot of 6 square staterooms. On the deck plans with 4 square staterooms there is a lot more common space.
So we have another option - cramped stateroom 2t and more common space 2t, or 3t stateroom and 1 ton to use for corridors and common space.

Which was exactly my point about the non fresher stateroom and passenger preferences and destinations.

Not passengers having free run of the ship, just highlighting the voyage difference.

For lack of a better differentiation, think introvert vs extrovert.

The introverts will be happy being locked up in their stateroom, high fiving perhaps through networked games but otherwise taking meals and binge watching the brave future of T5 the series.

The extroverts will want to congregate, communicate and in general be around other sophonts.

IMO you would then have stateroom designs that cater to both preferences.

 

[Spinward Flow]

IMO you would then have stateroom designs that cater to both preferences.

In that case, I'd like to think that my 16 ton Stateroom Boxes strike a decent balance.
You get 4 private single occupancy staterooms, each with their own fresher ... plus 2 common areas (1 utility, 1 holo lounge or sick bay) where those 4 people can get together and socialize ... and it all "fits" within the available volume.

Kind of difficult to do much better (at this scale).

At much LARGER scales (10x, 20x, 40x, etc.) you have more opportunities to pool common areas together into larger spaces and get some greater variety of "destinations" for people to go to.

 

[kilemall]

In that case, I'd like to think that my 16 ton Stateroom Boxes strike a decent balance.
You get 4 private single occupancy staterooms, each with their own fresher ... plus 2 common areas (1 utility, 1 holo lounge or sick bay) where those 4 people can get together and socialize ... and it all "fits" within the available volume.

Kind of difficult to do much better (at this scale).

At much LARGER scales (10x, 20x, 40x, etc.) you have more opportunities to pool common areas together into larger spaces and get some greater variety of "destinations" for people to go to.

Shrug, I would do it with ships small as Free Traders along the lines that I suggested before.


The High and Medium passenger levels IMO also justify a difference in staterooms and access to destinations. High Passage would have first dibs, presumably they would pick the private fresher ones.

Even if the private fresher version is the standard, the holotable room ought to have variable facilities from box to box to make for those different destinations/facility features even in a small 2-4 box setup.

Your show, but I think if I were a passenger operator or box builder I would do some customization to support different passenger tastes/markets.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The High and Medium passenger levels IMO also justify a difference in staterooms and access to destinations. High Passage would have first dibs, presumably they would pick the private fresher ones.

Nice theory, but it doesn't exactly square with practice.
So what do I mean by that?

The internal fittings and facilities are not going to be sufficiently "plug & play" that an operator can swap them out at every single starport (I'm assuming). My assumption is that the contents of a Stateroom Box are determined at construction, but in order to "rearrange and redecorate" there's going to have to be some downtime in a shipyard (or equivalent) in order to make the changes.

Point being that you transport passengers "with what you've got" rather than with whatever is optimal for the passenger mix from this point of origin to that destination, if you're working on a 1 jump per 2 weeks commercial tempo (or if double jumping, 2 jumps per 3 weeks).

In other words, the staterooms aren't going to "reconfigure" based on what tickets get sold.
Therefore, everything gets set up from the get go to assume that all passengers will be high passengers.

If you're following LBB2 passenger ticket sales rules, high passengers get priority by default. Only after all of the high passenger tickets are sold can any middle passengers buy tickets for the remaining staterooms.



Now, those assumptions can change if you're dealing with a third party passenger cruise company that simply charters tonnage with known starship operators (they have "an arrangement" between them) and that third party has enough Stateroom Boxes with various types of interiors in order to "tailor" the Boxes used to the tickets being sold. THAT I can easily envision, but it would require the third party company to have a surplus of Stateroom Boxes in order to mix 'n' match the interiors they need with the tickets they're selling (well in advance of departure).

Even if the private fresher version is the standard, the holotable room ought to have variable facilities from box to box to make for those different destinations/facility features even in a small 2-4 box setup.

The private freshers in 4 compartments would be the default stock trim for Stateroom Boxes, I'm assuming.
Other interiors are possible (and can be constructed upon request), but they would be more of a "special order" type of deal.

I'm thinking that the "2 stateroom suites" variant would probably be used for luxury yachts and "high power C-suite" business types, but they would be less common. Speaking of which, I should probably try a different internal arrangement for the 2x stateroom suites deck plan to see if I can do a better job of it.

I think if I were a passenger operator or box builder I would do some customization to support different passenger tastes/markets.

I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that there will be regional differences to support different markets in order to meet different passenger tastes (and public morals) ... starting with different variants for different species of sophonts. Droyne (for example), prefer to live communally rather than separately, so designing more of a common shared living space would make sense for them.

So the details can be different, if needed (and make sense). In fact, I can easily imagine that the 2x stateroom suites variant would probably be preferred by Droyne since it allows for more of a shared/family living experience.

 

[casquilho]

In other words, the staterooms aren't going to "reconfigure" based on what tickets get sold.
Therefore, everything gets set up from the get go to assume that all passengers will be high passengers.

If you're following LBB2 passenger ticket sales rules, high passengers get priority by default. Only after all of the high passenger tickets are sold can any middle passengers buy tickets for the remaining staterooms.

I think of real-life cruise ships that sometimes sell a room at a marked discount when they are not full. Some put up specials that are real good, but not available until a day or two before the cruise and deal that are never guaranteed to be available on any one cruise.

 

[kilemall]

Nice theory, but it doesn't exactly square with practice.
So what do I mean by that?

The internal fittings and facilities are not going to be sufficiently "plug & play" that an operator can swap them out at every single starport (I'm assuming). My assumption is that the contents of a Stateroom Box are determined at construction, but in order to "rearrange and redecorate" there's going to have to be some downtime in a shipyard (or equivalent) in order to make the changes.

Point being that you transport passengers "with what you've got" rather than with whatever is optimal for the passenger mix from this point of origin to that destination, if you're working on a 1 jump per 2 weeks commercial tempo (or if double jumping, 2 jumps per 3 weeks).

In other words, the staterooms aren't going to "reconfigure" based on what tickets get sold.
Therefore, everything gets set up from the get go to assume that all passengers will be high passengers.

If you're following LBB2 passenger ticket sales rules, high passengers get priority by default. Only after all of the high passenger tickets are sold can any middle passengers buy tickets for the remaining staterooms.



Now, those assumptions can change if you're dealing with a third party passenger cruise company that simply charters tonnage with known starship operators (they have "an arrangement" between them) and that third party has enough Stateroom Boxes with various types of interiors in order to "tailor" the Boxes used to the tickets being sold. THAT I can easily envision, but it would require the third party company to have a surplus of Stateroom Boxes in order to mix 'n' match the interiors they need with the tickets they're selling (well in advance of departure).

The private freshers in 4 compartments would be the default stock trim for Stateroom Boxes, I'm assuming.
Other interiors are possible (and can be constructed upon request), but they would be more of a "special order" type of deal.

I'm thinking that the "2 stateroom suites" variant would probably be used for luxury yachts and "high power C-suite" business types, but they would be less common. Speaking of which, I should probably try a different internal arrangement for the 2x stateroom suites deck plan to see if I can do a better job of it.

I have NO DOUBT AT ALL that there will be regional differences to support different markets in order to meet different passenger tastes (and public morals) ... starting with different variants for different species of sophonts. Droyne (for example), prefer to live communally rather than separately, so designing more of a common shared living space would make sense for them.

So the details can be different, if needed (and make sense). In fact, I can easily imagine that the 2x stateroom suites variant would probably be preferred by Droyne since it allows for more of a shared/family living experience.

Very good on all that, my only comment is that I didn’t have a constant per trip/leg swapping out process in mind.

Whatever profits one can extract from passenger hauling would be burned up by such profligate box shuffling.

What I had in mind was an extension of the high passage bump rule, where the middle passengers are bumped by high and that’s an option to make sure one leaves the system on time.

The idea is that the high passengers get pick of the staterooms, in order of purchase or possibly SOC, then the middle passengers in the same order. So they will go private fresher. If there are more high passages then fresher staterooms the later ones are out of luck.

I’m not really dealing with full on cruise liners, that would be exclusive decks, whole boxes dedicated to pools, theaters, one box one suite, restaurants etc.

Whatever choices, the galley/laundry/food storage should be standard.