Random speculations on the 4dT/2dT living space.

[Carlobrand]

This may boil down to a "stating the obvious" thing for some of you, but ...

I'm playing around with some ship design concepts. I begin with the standard assumption: 4dT total living space for a single person on a civilian ship, 2dT (or double-occupancy) available for military. Then I introduce some of my own assumptions: for his Cr 8-10,000 investment, the civilian passenger is entitled to a private (if small) room and a private (if small) restroom.

I begin with a 3m by 3m (2dT) room as the minimum for passenger comfort - enough room for a twin or full-size bed, small wardrobe, nightstand, comfy chair, and a desk-and-office-chair with a computer linked to the ship's entertainment system. Maybe a few other amenities, but these are the ones that take up floor space.

Then I add a 1.5m by 1.5 m (1/2 dT) sanitary facility - toilet, washbasin, small shower. Tight, but doable.

Now, hallways are needed - they tend to run 0.5 to 0.625 dT per room, when I design.

There must be a place to eat, be entertained, etc., and a place to cook. Modern conventions estimate roughly 5 square feet (1/10 dT) of kitchen per person served, and 10-14 square feet (~2/10 to 3/10 dT) for seating.

Leaves me with a bit under a half dT per room/passenger for other needs - a laundry service, maybe some luxuries if I have enough room.

Wait, I tell myself, why can't a couple or someone traveling with a child share a room? I can charge them a bit more, make more money for the same space.

Well, myself says, an odd thing happens. The two share one room, one fresher - but more kitchen is needed, and more dining space. Unless I do two-to-a-room very sparingly, where I can take the extras into the dining room and feed them from the kitchen without crowding things too much or needing too much more room, my spare for those other needs will all but disappear, down from almost half a dTon to around 1/10th dTon per room. I lose my laundry facility and other items, eaten by the larger kitchen and dining space unless I crowd the dining room or move to staggered/scheduled seating, which is not the kind of thing a person who plonks down Cr10,000 expects to find - and that leaves my steward staff spending the bulk of the time in the kitchen and not available for other duties.

In a nutshell, two to a room doesn't work if you're offering private restrooms.

On the other hand, the military doesn't expect private restrooms. Maybe the captain and the senior department heads get one (since they get full space under High Guard rules). For others, the common ratio for public sanitation facilities comes down to something in the rough vicinity of 1.5dT per 20 persons. Or less! With communal restrooms, my spare for other needs goes to a bit over 1/2 dT per quarters.

In other words, if you're doing double occupancy, then you're also doing communal restrooms - which I guess makes a certain amount of sense.

(I'm also playing with 4 to a 2dT room for enlisted - pairs of bunk beds - or a set of bunkbed in a spartan 1dT room for petty officers, not to save space but on the thesis that the military will generally want them out of their room except for sleeping and will therefore be focusing more on communal living space and less on private sleeping space, assigning rooms by shift schedules so that occupants are in the rooms at different times to ease crowding and burden on the room's air systems.)

 

[aramis]

A handful of things:

• It's canonical that half of the stateroom tonnage is in common areas rather than the room itself
• CT mid and high passengers are entitled to a room to themself for the listed price
• Some of the canonical deckplans show 2x3m (1.33x2 sq) or 2.25x3m (1.5x2 sq) staterooms - see the plans for the Broadsword... esp. rooms 65 and 69... and Safari Ship upper deck rooms 8 & 20. Several more show 2.25x4.5m (1.5x3 squares)
• Many canonical deckplans don't work with 3m decks.

 

[atpollard]

On a cruise ship (where people do pay for rooms) a 10ft x 10 ft room is about right for the 'cheaper' rooms; only the room comes with two single beds that can be pushed together to make one large bed. The rooms come with the expectation that two friends or one couple will share the room (and 1 refresher).

Strictly in terms of meeting human needs, college dormitories often have 1/2 dTon private rooms with a 'refresher' shared by 4 rooms. So smaller basic accommodations are possible.

I remember a rant from Scarecrow (the artist) where he talks about throwing the ship design details out of the window and just starting with the basic statistics ... if the design says staterooms for 4 people, then the ship should have 4 beds - how he arranges the spaces is 100% his prerogative and nit-picking 4x2dT staterooms, 4x0.5 refreshers, a #dT common room, etc adds nothing and stifles creativity. After thinking about it, I agree.

Per rules, 20 people need 80 dT of living space (commercial) or 40 dT of living space (military or crew) ... how you divide that space is 100% up to you. I have lots of design 'rules of thumb' that I use, but almost no hard and fast 'rules'.

 

[McPerth]

In MT S&A (page 41) it's specified that solomai ships may save up to 20% of living space, so that a stateroom takes only 3.2 dton and a small stateroom 1.6.

It's not specified how can this affect any so designed Solomani ship trading inside the Imperium...

 

[McPerth]

A handful of things:

• It's canonical that half of the stateroom tonnage is in common areas rather than the room itself
• CT mid and high passengers are entitled to a room to themself for the listed price
• Some of the canonical deckplans show 2x3m (1.33x2 sq) or 2.25x3m (1.5x2 sq) staterooms - see the plans for the Broadsword... esp. rooms 65 and 69... and Safari Ship upper deck rooms 8 & 20. Several more show 2.25x4.5m (1.5x3 squares)
• Many canonical deckplans don't work with 3m decks.

(emphasis is mine)

I think I already talked about that on another thread some time ago, but IIRC in Alien Relams (CT) there was an adventure (a vargr one) where, in the introduction, was told that middle passengers meant shared stateroom (In this case with a human that leads the group to the adventure).

Of course, I'm not sure if this may apply also to Imperial Space, and I don't know about other sources saying this is accepted.

 

[Enoki]

Now, this is in terms of reasonably nice:

http://inhabitat.com/incredible-transforming-lego-apartment-packs-4-rooms-into-1/

Micro apartments is a good place to start on a whole design.

I'd also say there is a vast difference between what passengers, officers, and crew would get as quarters.

I could see "crew" on a ship having smaller cabins with dual occupancy and shared, common, 'facilities' rather than these being in each cabin.

Officers might have dual occupancy if junior but with more space and their own facilities while senior officers get single occupancy cabins.

Passengers I would think are the same: While Traveller generally only has two classes, High and Mid, with mid being more of a last resort than a real option, I could see an expanded list:

High or 1st Class where the cabin is spacious (possibly even divisions within this class could be had) and well equipped for single or double occupancy. Say 10,000 cr and up.

Mid or 2nd Class where the cabin is adequite, fully equipped, and double occupancy. Maybe 7 - 8,000 cr and up.

3rd Class where the cabin is cramped but equipped and is double or more in occupancy (bunks). 5 - 7,000 cr

Low or 4th Class: More of a domitory style situation in which the passengers share common facilities. 2 - 4,000 cr

Low or "Steerage": You are in cold sleep. 2,000 cr or so.

That would give more options for travelling, but it is possible that not all would always be available either. This does fit with the past eras of sea travel, and even to a degree air travel, here.

 

[McPerth]

One of the problems to the setting that allowing middle passage double occupation is that it makes them more profitable (to the ship owner) thatn high passages.

On high passage gives the owner 8000 Cr (10000 Cr minus 2000 Cr for life support) per 4 dtons, and you need a steward per 8 high passengers.

One middle passage gives the ship owner 6000 Cr, and only one steward per 20 passengers is needed. If they're allowed to share rooms, the earnings for the owner are 12000 Cr pr stateroom, while the costs go downward a little due to less stewards required.

And this could allow for large lineers (mostly corporate owned) to have distinct travel classes, another advantage to big lineers against the tramp trader, that has middle passengers just as a way to fill the empty rooms.

OTOH, if both require a full stateroom, I guess few people will pay the high passage if there are free rooms to fill with middle ones, as the difference may not be priced those 2000 extra Cr it costs for most people. Only the very rich people will pay them to have better food and steward attention if they may reach their destination for less money and in the same stateroom.

IMTU, middle passengers may be put at double occupancy, and some lineers have half staterooms for them, in distinct ship sections (and less luxurious) than the high passengers (and with less steward attention, off course), middle passengers only put in full staterooms if middle passenger section is full and there's high passenger places empty. Of course, tramp traders don't use to have those disctinctions, and middle passage is treated as usual for them (always treated as middle passage full and high passage not), as to make a stateroom double (mostly for unrelated people) must modify them and costs money (and time, what also means money), not being able to use the same stateroom as single in one trip and as double the next one.

 

[flykiller]

There are some living quarters deckplans in the "deckplan viginettes" link in my signature below.

 

[Enoki]

One of the problems to the setting that allowing middle passage double occupation is that it makes them more profitable (to the ship owner) thatn high passages.

On high passage gives the owner 8000 Cr (10000 Cr minus 2000 Cr for life support) per 4 dtons, and you need a steward per 8 high passengers.

One middle passage gives the ship owner 6000 Cr, and only one steward per 20 passengers is needed. If they're allowed to share rooms, the earnings for the owner are 12000 Cr pr stateroom, while the costs go downward a little due to less stewards required.

And this could allow for large lineers (mostly corporate owned) to have distinct travel classes, another advantage to big lineers against the tramp trader, that has middle passengers just as a way to fill the empty rooms.

OTOH, if both require a full stateroom, I guess few people will pay the high passage if there are free rooms to fill with middle ones, as the difference may not be priced those 2000 extra Cr it costs for most people. Only the very rich people will pay them to have better food and steward attention if they may reach their destination for less money and in the same stateroom.

IMTU, middle passengers may be put at double occupancy, and some lineers have half staterooms for them, in distinct ship sections (and less luxurious) than the high passengers (and with less steward attention, off course), middle passengers only put in full staterooms if middle passenger section is full and there's high passenger places empty. Of course, tramp traders don't use to have those disctinctions, and middle passage is treated as usual for them (always treated as middle passage full and high passage not), as to make a stateroom double (mostly for unrelated people) must modify them and costs money (and time, what also means money), not being able to use the same stateroom as single in one trip and as double the next one.

How is any of that a problem? If you run a tramp ship / trader you switch almost entirely to double occupancy middle-passage cabins and take less wealthy passengers. For big liners the additional ammenities outside just the cabin (better food, more recreation facilities, etc.) are the draw for High Passage while this is subsidized some by mid passage being the profit maker.

But, then I don't see these prices as necessarily fixed either. I think there could be a fairly large variation in them. For small ships with player owners I'd think they might even take passengers at a discount on occasion just to go with a full ship and not take a loss even if at no profit to them.

 

[rancke]

I think I already talked about that on another thread some time ago, but IIRC in Alien Relams (CT) there was an adventure (a vargr one) where, in the introduction, was told that middle passengers meant shared stateroom (In this case with a human that leads the group to the adventure).

Of course, I'm not sure if this may apply also to Imperial Space, and I don't know about other sources saying this is accepted.

The evidence is, alas, very strong that it does not apply in Imperial Space. IMO this is something that ought to be retconned. There is no good reason for it and the administrative apparatus needed to enforce it would make the Imperium far more intrusive than the evidence suggest that it is.

My suggestion for retconning it in a way that retains 95% of the canonical evidence AND introduces per-parsec pricing into the bargain is to make High, Middle, and Low Passages passage vouchers that can be exchanged for tickets for a single jump of any length at a specified standard. Low Passage gives low passage, Mid Passages gives passage in a single stateroom and High Passage gives the same plus the ability to cut in line.

If you exchange it a voucher for a jump-1 passage, the issuing organization pays the liner for a jump-1 ticket and if you exchange it for a jump-4 passage, the organization pay the liner for a jump-4 ticket.

Meanwhile, double occupancy passage ("Economy Passage") is alive and well, but no one issues Economy Passage vouchers, so no one runs around with any of them in their pockets.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

How is any of that a problem? If you run a tramp ship / trader you switch almost entirely to double occupancy middle-passage cabins and take less wealthy passengers. For big liners the additional ammenities outside just the cabin (better food, more recreation facilities, etc.) are the draw for High Passage while this is subsidized some by mid passage being the profit maker.

But, then I don't see these prices as necessarily fixed either. I think there could be a fairly large variation in them. For small ships with player owners I'd think they might even take passengers at a discount on occasion just to go with a full ship and not take a loss even if at no profit to them.

The problem is for the setting as it changes the economics on what it is based. As Traveller stands, the usual way to travel awake is with high travel, middle travel being the exception. As you say, by applying that, the usual way to travel awake becomes the middle passage, the high passabe becoming the exception, mostly for larger lineers.

Also the economics for runing a tramp trader are affected, as the income for passengers is raised. As an example, the type M lineer, shown in CT as a ship to carry 21 high/middle passengers (with a maximum income, once life support paid, of 168 kCr) now may well be for 11 high and 20 middle passengers (with a maximum income of 208 kCr), or even for 42 middle passengers (maximum income 252 kCr), while the stewards numbers are not increased.

 

[PFVA63]

On a cruise ship (where people do pay for rooms) a 10ft x 10 ft room is about right for the 'cheaper' rooms; only the room comes with two single beds that can be pushed together to make one large bed. The rooms come with the expectation that two friends or one couple will share the room (and 1 refresher).
....

Hi,

From some stuff I looked up for another thread which was discussing modern ocean liners, I'm not so sure that a 10ft x 10ft room (~3m x 3m) is necessarily all that common for a modern cruise liner. Specifically, for the relatively new large cruise ship Freedom of the Seas, the owner's website shows the following cabin sizes:

Looking at the info for the Freedom of the Seas on its website it notes that:

a standard inside cabin is 150.7 square feet of deck space
an accessible interior stateroom is 264 sq ft
a promenade stateroom has 160.4 sq ft
an accessible promenade stateroom 264 sq ft
a family interior stateroom 323 sq ft
and a promenade family stateroom 300 sq ft.

Assuming the ship were laid out in nominal Traveller deck squares, 50 sq ft of deck area is very close to 1dton (assuming a 3m/10ft deck height from Traveller). Thus you would end up with:

a standard inside cabin is just about 3dtons
an accessible interior stateroom is about 5.28 dtons
a promenade stateroom is about 3.21 dtons
an accessible promenade stateroom is 5.28 dtons
a family interior stateroom is about 6.46 dtons
and a promenade family stateroom is about 6 dtons

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=28500

 

[DaveChase]

LOL

Well don't forget to consider social or racial needs.

Remember that K'hree need more space per individual because not only their size but social and racial (mental issues) about space (room).

Even here in the now RL, space is an issue for some cultures.

So, social/culture/racial besides ergonomics is something to consider besides just do you have enough room for a bed and enough freshers for the guests.

BTW, I so do enjoy reading people's takes on these subjects. It is good to learn from how others see things.

Dave Chase

 

[Timerover51]

Hi,
an accessible interior stateroom is 264 sq ft

an accessible promenade stateroom 264 sq ft

Accessible is this case means "handicapped accessible", allowing for wheelchair or other mobility aids use. I was on the Freedom of the Seas for the maiden voyage in one of those cabins.

 

[aramis]

(emphasis is mine)

I think I already talked about that on another thread some time ago, but IIRC in Alien Relams (CT) there was an adventure (a vargr one) where, in the introduction, was told that middle passengers meant shared stateroom (In this case with a human that leads the group to the adventure).

Of course, I'm not sure if this may apply also to Imperial Space, and I don't know about other sources saying this is accepted.

It's worth noting that that's an error of the adventure - Vargr use standard rates of no more than 1 passenger per stateroom per AM3. One that didn't propagate into MT. One of many grievous errors in that book.

If one is going to accept double occupancy based upon standard rates...
A High Passage SO costs the ship 1/8 of a steward (LS+Salary+Lost SR), and 2000 in LS
Steward makes KCr3/mo, so KCr1.5/jump, or Cr187.5 per passenger
Steward has LS costs of KCr2 per jump, or KCr250 per passenger
His SR is KCr8 per jump or KCr1 per passenger.
Passenger LS is KCr2
So...
HP makes (roughly) KCr10-(2000+250+187.5+1000)=6562+Costs
HPDO should make about the same, perhaps a bit more. Say, Cr3500 per passenger plus costs (which remain about KCr3.5), for KCr7 or so

MP is KCr8, less KCr2 in LS, for KCr6+Costs
MPDO should be about KCr3+Costs, or about KCr5.

If one actually amortizes the cost of the staterooms vs cargo space, the numbers go up a bit.

 

[Enoki]

The probles is for the setting as it changes the economics on what it is based. As Traveller stands, the usual way to travel awake is with high travel, middle travel being the exception. As you say, by applying that, the usual way to travel awake becomes the middle passage, the high passabe becoming the exception, mostly for larger lineers.

Also the economics for runing a tramp trader are affected, as the income for passengers is raised. As an example, the type M lineer, shown in CT as a ship to carry 21 high/middle passengers (with a maximum income, once life support paid, of 168 kCr) now may well be for 11 high and 20 middle passengers (with a maximum income of 208 kCr), or even for 42 middle passengers (maximum income 252 kCr), while the stewards numbers are not increased.

I still don't see that as a problem. I see that as a good thing. If you have more chance of getting mid passage passengers then why not do something like that? If you use your own design or one that is modified some from standard ones, you could add more ammenities for only the high passage passengers so they think they are getting more for their money.
So, on an actual passenger ship of some size there might be a gym, spa, Z-G play area, etc., for only high passage passengers while the middies get to use their area for dining when meals aren't being served and can watch holovids or something....

 

[PFVA63]

Accessible is this case means "handicapped accessible", allowing for wheelchair or other mobility aids use. I was on the Freedom of the Seas for the maiden voyage in one of those cabins.

Hi,

Thanks for that info. Looking at the list, it appears that the smallest cabin that they listed has a deck area of about 150 sq ft which is 50% greater than a 10ft x 10ft room.

 

[Carlobrand]

Nice to see it generated some interest.

A handful of things:

• It's canonical that half of the stateroom tonnage is in common areas rather than the room itself

Of course it is. I'm playing with some ideas derived from a 1995 set of guidelines issued by the U.S. Navy for ship design, among other sources. MegaTrav gave us "bunks"

• CT mid and high passengers are entitled to a room to themself for the listed price

There may be some difference between what they're entitled to and what they ask for. I don't expect players to start advertising double occupancy tickets, but I'm curious as to how far one can go making exceptions for the budget-minded newlywed couple or the woman travelling with her six-year-old before it starts crowding the lounge.

• Some of the canonical deckplans show 2x3m (1.33x2 sq) or 2.25x3m (1.5x2 sq) staterooms - see the plans for the Broadsword... esp. rooms 65 and 69... and Safari Ship upper deck rooms 8 & 20. Several more show 2.25x4.5m (1.5x3 squares)
• Many canonical deckplans don't work with 3m decks.

As near as I can tell, the canonical deckplans pay little heed to design rules. The 800 dT Broadsword, for example, offers triple staterooms. It also appears to be in a 1200dT sphere, which might explain how it manages to be so generous with deck space. The canon scout offers us 25 dTons of crew space in the course of serving its four 4dT staterooms - then adds a 7.5dT multipurpose "rear section" that serves as a second crew lounge on detached duty ships.

Thus, I'm not sure if they offer any useful guidance on the subject at all.

 

[rancke]

It's worth noting that that's an error of the adventure - Vargr use standard rates of no more than 1 passenger per stateroom per AM3. One that didn't propagate into MT. One of many grievous errors in that book.

Oh, come on, Wil. Surely a book that implies that one rule applies all across Vargr space HAS to be the one with the grievous error! It's a fundamental aspect of the Vargr that they do not have standard rules that applies to all of them. Such a standard rule HAS to be a simplification!

Indeed, although I've never thought about it before, I think a standard passage rule for all Vargr disposes effectively of all talk of the standard rule for humans proving anything at all about how things are in the Imperium or anywhere else in "human space".

Oh, if only that pesky TNE passage you quoted at me a while back, didn't exist!


Hans

 

[aramis]

Oh, come on, Wil. Surely a book that implies that one rule applies all across Vargr space HAS to be the one with the grievous error! It's a fundamental aspect of the Vargr that they do not have standard rules that applies to all of them. Such a standard rule HAS to be a simplification.

Or a reflection that Vargr and non-Solomani Humaniti have the same need for personal space. It's easier to cross understand the Alien Realms reference as a different division of the 4Td per each due to different psychology. Say, 2 to 3Td of cabin, and 5 to 6 of non-cabin space for the 2 Stateroom pair, and the cabin is shared.

In fact, that it's constant for Imperials, Aslan, Vargr, Darrians, Vilani, Vegans, Zhodani, Newts, Ael Yael, and even Hivers and Dolphins, but different for Solomani, Droyne, Virushi, Dandies and K'Kree, shows that it's at least partially about needs, not wants. Solomani are, unlike generic imperials, from a cluster of several overpopulated hive worlds long settled (by the time covered in AM Solomani, 3500 years of space travel, most of it desperately seeking an edge, driven by manifest destiny, and racism - a superiority complex driving tolerance for smaller volumes).

I expect each race's layout to differ - for example, hiver decks are only 1.5m tall, so a Td is 4 squares, not 2, and so a hiver stateroom looks larger on the plan. Many of the plans work fine with 2-2.5m decks - the venerable S7 Type S plan is about 2m at the staterooms, and slightly less at the bridge. Use a 2.1 or 2.2 meter deck height, and it works great. Unless you're a Virushi.

And when an adventure conflicts with a rulebook, I side with the rulebook every time. In part, because, as a rule, I don't buy adventures unless they're also some form of sourcebook. Hence why I only bought A1, A3, A4, A5†, and A12. I was given several others. Until I got the CDs, I missed most of the addenda of CT - Tarsus, most of the DA series, several adventures, the actual rules for striker (tho I had the design sequences and AHL), Dark Nebula, and most of JTAS.