Reconciling ANNIC NOVA designs

[nyrath]

I'm not sure if this post belongs in this section, let me know.

I'm doing some computer meshes of the ANNIC NOVA (since I did the original drawing back in 1979).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyrath/sets/72157626769746781/

Going through the deck plans, I've noticed some discrepancies. I'd like the forum's input on dealing with these.

As source material, I'm using the Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society #1, and Signs And Portents #93. I'm still trying to find my copy of Double Adventure #1. The JTAS#1 deck plans were drawn by Marc Miller. The S&P#93 deck plans were drawn by master artist Ian Stead.

1. Pinnace docking port on cargo deck
It is stated that the pinnaces are laid out in opposite handedness, so that they will not dock on the incorrect shaft. That is, the port pinnace will only dock on the port shaft and the starboard pinnace will only dock on the starboard shaft. This is due to the position of the hatch on each pinnace.

But this implies that there should be two, not one, docking hatch on the cargo deck?

JTAS#1 says that the cargo deck has a large sliding door which corresponds with the cargo hatch on pinnace 2. However, the cargo hatch on the pinnace starts 5 squares (7.5 meters) back from the pinnace's nose, while the cargo hatch on the cargo deck docking bay is only 3 square back. 5 back is past the rear edge of the cargo deck.

Should the docking bay on the cargo deck be extended deeper into the bay so that the pinnace's cargo hatch is totally inside the cargo deck?

I don't know if it makes any difference but the JTAS#1 has the starboard pinnace being the "cargo" pinnace, while in S&P#93 it is the port pinnace. The only difference I see is which side of the docking port will have the cargo door.

In my current visualization
[FONT=arial,helvetica]http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyrath/...57626769746781
I put two sunken walk-ways in for the pinnace ports. This is because I did not want the top of the docking port protruding into the bottom of the stellar collector.

2. Central Lift Shaft
In [/FONT]JTAS#1, the decks Bridge, Quarter, Cargo, and Machine are connected by a central lift shaft. The shaft is pressure-tight, with half taken up by a lift and half taken up by a ladder. There are iris valves on each level, and one at the bottom connecting to the main air lock.

How does a person using the ladder get from the ladder to the iris valve at their level if the lift is elsewhere?

My best guess is there are hand and foot holds along the wall. But these will have to be recessed into the wall, otherwise they will interfere with the movement of the lift. Any better solutions?

I also presume that the lift platform will need some sort of fence on the "back", that is, the edge farthest from the iris valves. [FONT=arial,helvetica]Otherwise somebody could fall off the edge of the lift platform and plummet down the ladder shaft. The fence will need a gate, to allow somebody on the ladder to enter the lift, if the lift happened to be at the desired deck.

[/FONT]S&P#93 shows the ladder shaft equipped with floor and ceiling hatches at each level. This confuses me. It seems to me that there also need to be hatches leading into the lift shaft. Otherwise there is nothing preventing a depressurization of the lift shaft from also depressurizing the ladder shaft. And if that is true, the hatches on the ladder shaft perform no function.

3. Remote missiles
JTAS#1 describes a set of 4 remote missiles equipped with audio, visual, and telemetry devices. These are not mentioned in S&P#93. I'm not sure if they are mentioned in Double Adventure #1.

Are they there or not?

4. Jump Pod Access Door
S&P#93 shows an access door on the port jump pod (which will depressurize the level if you open it). This is absent in JTAS#1. I'm not sure if it is mentioned in Double Adventure #1.

Is it there or not?

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Be great to see this on the Calendar when you've finally got it nailed down...

 

[nyrath]

That would be super!

 

[DeltaX15]

The remote missiles are in DA1, exactly the same description as in JTAS.
There are no Jump Pod access doors in DA1.

Hope this helps.

 

[robject]

Cargo Docking

I'd never thought about the handedness of the pinnaces posing a problem for cargo-port docking. In fact, some clever speculation is that there was a cargo port smallcraft which was typically stationed there to provide thrust for the ANNIC NOVA. Presumably, that craft was launched with survivors escaping from the plague on board.

That just makes the question more interesting.

Could the cargo port have an ambidextrous docking ring that pinnaces fit into?

It is not unreasonable for the docking bay on the cargo deck to be extended deeper into the bay. For that matter, that might solve part of the ambidexterity issue. At any rate, perhaps the other pinnace has to roll upside down to dock (and be careful of those gravity plates...)

 

[Rigel Stardin]

Could the pinnace that is being discussed, have a different shape from all the rest? Maybe it was a two seater, who's nose didn't go that far into the cargo bay. The rear of the boat could have been larger housing fuel and scoops like a refueling shuttle? The two pinnaces on the booms were the actual ran the cargo to the planet surface?

Note: I have never seen the plans for AN.

 

[aramis]

Regarding the lift - if the lift makes use of the ladder as its traction rails, it's a non-issue. Ladder users will need to step off. The lifts don't actually need railings, etc - those are a result of a culture of litigiousness coupled with risk averse policy making, and such safety features need not be present on alien craft.

I've given the lift idea some thought over time, and this is pretty much a standard feature lift mode for many ships IMTU:

Envision the ladder as a horizontal bar- make the rails 5cm diameter (~2"), the rungs 3cm diameter, and the wall struts are L-shaped, fixing the short side into the inner side of the rails, in between rungs. Power is in an outside, recessed T-shaped channel 1.5cm deep, cathode on one rail, anode on another, with the actual contact facing the rung-side. A shoe runs in that channel, to power the lift, and is longer than the between deck (probably 2cm) gap in the ladder, for the floor iris. The outside of the rails is non-conductive non-skid, and the lift has motors on deck and wheels in shoes around the rails of the ladder. The lift runs half shaft; there are two independent lifts; when parked, they are parked one half on floor, one on ceiling. The lift deck can be removed with a few minutes and two persons; the lift mechanism can be be removed with hand tools, a maintenance hatch key, and 10-15 minutes. A joint operational mode can be triggered where both half-shaft lifts operate together as a whole shaft lift.

 

[Easterner9504]

My view of TRAV lifts is that there is an automatic sliding hatch that covers each deck so no open lift space ever exist for more than a few seconds. Hatches on each deck cover the ladder openings.

The docking space is hatched on both sides so a vessel can be accessed in the cargo dock.

The boom and the baroque appendages has the fuel/water storage and missiles.

The MgT J-D hatch is new. So are the iris valves separating the J-D booms from the centerline. The iris valves are long overdue.

UNRELATED TO ABOVE
My revised AN is here. Added bow water tankage, visible as dotted lines on deck 3-4. Enlarged bridge with post recovery added offices. Enlarged Deck 4 with lab/lounge and large rear porthole from Sean Kennedy's artwork. Note swimming pool in cargo bay. From Freelance Traveller websites RAIN ROOM article, not standard; added in mid campaign. Added small infirmary opposite hydroponics room on deck 5 post recovery.

http://s214.photobucket.com/albums/cc164/easterner9504/?action=view&current=AnnicNova21-1.jpg

 

[nyrath]

[FONT=arial,helvetica]DeltaX15: thanks for the info re DA1

[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]robject: I'm not sure about an ambidextrous [/FONT]docking port. I see it as sort of a rotating ring with an embedded hatch, rotating to switch the hatch from port to starboard. Which will be a problem if there is a power failure. I'm also unsure about a pinnace docking "upside down". When you step out of the pinnace you'd fall on your head.

Aramis: your design sounds fascinating. I am having a little bit of trouble visualizing it. Would it be possible for you to make a quick sketch? I'll try mocking it up in Blender.
[FONT=arial,helvetica]
[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica]Easterner9504: sliding hatch covers would fix the problem nicely. It seems to me that the iris valves separating the J-D booms from centerline are required if you have a J-D hatch that opens to vacuum, but are not required if there is no hatch or other pressurization fail point. I had already seen your revised deck plans. You did make the hydroponics section five squares wide instead of three, which I had noticed was a problem. See my image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nyrath/7498366960/in/set-72157626769746781
I had placed the floor midway in the spine's axis. This means the slanted windows cut into the walk-space on either side of the stairwell. Tight fit. I also noticed there is a need for a guard rail around the stairwell, or it is too easy to have a dangerous fall.
Sean Kennedy's artwork is an interesting interpretation. I'm not sure I can extend Deck 4 backwards like that. I lined up the existing deck plans around the lift shaft.


[/FONT]

 

[Easterner9504]

Huh, I never realized I widened 5th deck. Not sure a drafting error or the 1.5 sq were so few I widened the deck to (allegedly) correct tonnage.

 

[Orr]

Many thanks to everyone who posted their pics and designs. They're all wonderful.

About the vertical ladders between deck hatches, I always thought of them as curved and covering maybe 120 degrees of the hatch's circumference like the ladders in ship escape trunks.

I also thought steep inclined ladders that you use like stairs would be used in some places too, like those also used on ships. I cannot draw this but the ladders between a lot of decks would look like a zigzag when seen from the side. If you had a bunch of decks, A, B, C, etc., and the hatches all on square 1, the steep ladders would connect the floor of square 2 on deck A to the hatch in the ceiling of square 1 deck A. That hatch would also be in the floor of square 1 on deck B. The next ladder would go from the floor of square 2 on deck B to the hatch in the ceiling of square 1 deck B which leads to the floor of square 1 on deck C.

 

[aramis]

Aramis: your design sounds fascinating. I am having a little bit of trouble visualizing it. Would it be possible for you to make a quick sketch? I'll try mocking it up in Blender.

Gross overview, parked

 

[Easterner9504]

I increased the size of the original AN because it came nowhere near the 1200 sq a 600t vessel needs to be 600t. One question was does the collector count towards displacement? Seems not since displacement measures volume and an open collector would have 443,556 squares. The closed one would also easily displace 400-800 tons depending on how it's measured.

But as I said my plans don't affect your basic question as your concerned with the anomalies of the vanilla version.

 

[nyrath]

Aramis, thanks! It makes sense now.
So there should be a hatch on the lift floor, so if the power goes off one can bypass the lift and use the ladder?

 

[far-trader]

I increased the size of the original AN because it came nowhere near the 1200 sq a 600t vessel needs to be 600t.

By my count the original comes to about 477tons. That's pretty darn close to 600tons, and I didn't count the collectors at all in that, just the deck plan.

One question was does the collector count towards displacement?

Of course it does. Unless the volume is zero, which it isn't. The only question is "how much".

Seems not since displacement measures volume and an open collector would have 443,556 squares.

It looks like you've confused area and volume here. The 443,556 squares you state means nothing without the third dimension. If it is paper thin that might be about 150tons. I wonder if you might have made the same mistake in calculating the original tonnage by just counting squares? That only works if the deck height is 3.0m for every square.

For example the "cargo deck" square count is about 210 (about 105tons IF 3.0m tall), however the description states the cargo capacity is 150tons. So the cargo deck would appear to be 4.5m tall instead of the standard 3.0m tall to arrive at about 1.5 times the square count. The Pinnaces do not come to 40tons each if you just count squares for another example, only about half that. With those two examples alone, if you simply counted squares you'd be nearly 200 squares or 100tons under the described volume, and then you could well say it was nowhere near the 1200 squares of 600tons.

The closed one would also easily displace 400-800 tons depending on how it's measured.

OK, you do get volume, so how did you measure it for that figure? And if you came up with a closed volume why did you choose to ignore that volume for the overall ship volume? Especially such a large possible minimum volume?

But as I said my plans don't affect your basic question as your concerned with the anomalies of the vanilla version.

True enough, but having mentioned them you piqued my curiosity about your choices

 

[aramis]

Aramis, thanks! It makes sense now.
So there should be a hatch on the lift floor, so if the power goes off one can bypass the lift and use the ladder?

Naw, you just switch ladders. You never park the two parts together, and you only have two platforms per accessway.

 

[Easterner9504]

I had originally held some SQ back to count for the collector. But quick count shows I added somewhere in the range of 130-150 Sq. So I must have come up with the 477ish figure. I also came to the conclusion the collector had to be ignored, otherwise I think (and this is where I can be way off) divide the total Sq of the collector by 6 and that''s its volume: 20K tons? Also the volume system doesn't cover headroom as the 1.5m Sq are not 1.5M high.


RANT barely related to designs
I have come to the conclusion Marc's decision to use liquid measure to show linear displacement is flawed. It works after a fashion but an awful lot of nooks and crannies a ship needs falls by the waysides. AN is undersized, Lanthenum Petal and Broadsword oversized. Ships lack essential systems or they are handwaved away.

And by biggest pet peeve the endless designs with no consideration for crew amenities that are standard on real ships: waste disposal storage and processing, water recyclers, food processors and recyclers, laundries, linen closets, refrigeration, physical gaming (grav ball etc) and swimming pools, cleaning services, offices and exercise rooms.

Close haul traders going from Regina to Efate can do w/o these or use the the fresher catchalls as crew can get lots of liberty on civilized worlds but large ships like Scout Cruisers and warships need these things for when they are on frontiers or extra-Imperial missions. AN, Kinunir and Leviathan all have some of these, very few do since these designs as they are not covered in Starship Designs. I usually see stateroom space used to cover labs and offices.

 

[boomslang]

It is not unreasonable for the docking bay on the cargo deck to be extended deeper into the bay. For that matter, that might solve part of the ambidexterity issue. At any rate, perhaps the other pinnace has to roll upside down to dock (and be careful of those gravity plates...)

Orientation should not be too much of a problem for two reasons:

First, you probably want the boat deck to be in microgravity while loading/unloading -- even if it's only personnel. Bearing in mind that small craft have simpler drive systems than big craft, and that the resulting limited acceleration compensation mandates special acceleration couches, in comparison to big craft, small craft are going to be better laid out to take advantage of microgravity during operations. Ingress and egress will be faster and easier in microgravity, I would think.

Second, all your non-dirtside cargo handling will be in microgravity anyway, simply for convenience. Cf. the Laurel & Hardy short "The Music Box."

IMTU, all craft are designed with at least one "planar" docking port -- a port that will mate flat against an infinite plane. This allows any vessel to dock against any other vessel, and as a result, there are an unbounded number of wacky orientations which can necessitate turning the gravity off before passing through the hatch lest hilarity and injury ensue.

Maybe the cargo hatch is longer to give it room to swing inboard?

 

[Carlobrand]

...And by biggest pet peeve the endless designs with no consideration for crew amenities that are standard on real ships: waste disposal storage and processing, water recyclers, food processors and recyclers, laundries, linen closets, refrigeration, physical gaming (grav ball etc) and swimming pools, cleaning services, offices and exercise rooms.

Close haul traders going from Regina to Efate can do w/o these or use the the fresher catchalls as crew can get lots of liberty on civilized worlds but large ships like Scout Cruisers and warships need these things for when they are on frontiers or extra-Imperial missions. AN, Kinunir and Leviathan all have some of these, very few do since these designs as they are not covered in Starship Designs. I usually see stateroom space used to cover labs and offices.

I was under the impression the standard 4 dT allotment covered some of those details. I tend to figure it as roughly 2 dT for the room itself, 1/2 dT per room for halls, another 1/2 dT for freshers, and the rest for lounge/dining/kitchen/laundry. The smaller craft end up looking like the living room of a bachelor's apartment - which is to say the washer/dryer, kitchen, dining room and so forth all end up sharing the same space and looking like a single multi-role room. The big ships, you can actually throw something like an exercise room or a small pool into the mix while maintaining the 4 dT/room average - that's one of the things that'd make them more popular than the tramp ... er, free ... traders.