Scout/Courier Deckplan Breakdown

[Spinward Scout]

Here's a deckplan breakdown of our favorite Scout/Courier. This is using the deckplan listed in the original CT Traders and Gunboats. It's almost identical to the deckplan on this page:

http://seegras.discordia.ch/Roleplay/Traveller/Shipyard/Courier/Courier.png

Except Traders and Gunboats has a Forward Cargo Bay, instead of an aft one.

20 sections of the ship, with the details for each section. The Staterooms are set up for a crew of 4: Pilot/Captain, Medic, Engineer, Gunner. Leaving one Stateroom open for Passengers.

SCOUT/COURIER DECKPLAN

Main Deck

01 – Avionics
. A. Forward Outer Hatch
. B. Bulkhead Sliding Hatch
. C. Crawlspace
. D. Flight Controls
. E. IFF Transponder
. F. Ship’s Data Recorder Black Box
. G. Collision Avoidance Sensors

02 – Bridge
. A. Pilot Station
. B. Co-Pilot/Navigator Station
. C. Engineering Wall Console
. D. Sensors Wall Console
. E. Computer Wall Console
. F. Communications Wall Console
. G. Viewport
. H. Wall Iris Valve

03 – Main/Lateral Corridor
. A. Forward Ladder w/ Overhead & Floor Hatch

04 – Captain’s Cabin
. A. Captain’s Office
. . 1. Desk
. . 2. Secondary Computer Access and Communications
. B. Ship’s Vault
. C. Captain’s Bunk and Personal Storage
. . 1. Media Access Panel
. . . a. Ship’s Library and Ship Systems View
. . . b. Limited Comms
. D. Sliding Door

05 – Medic’s Cabin
. A. Medic’s Office (Sickbay)
. . 1. AutoDoc
. B. Ship’s Dispensary
. C. Medic’s Bunk and Personal Storage
. . 1. Media Access Panel
. . . a. Ship’s Library and Ship Systems View
. . . b. Limited Comms
. D. Sliding Door

06 – Crew’s Cabin
. A. Engineer’s Bunk and Personal Storage
. . 1. Media Access Panel
. . . a. Ship’s Library and Ship Systems View
. . . b. Limited Comms
. B. Gunner’s Bunk and Personal Storage
. . 1. Media Access Panel
. . . a. Ship’s Library and Ship Systems View
. . . b. Limited Comms
. C. Sliding Door

07 – Open Stateroom
. A. Bunk and Personal Storage
. . 1. Media Access Panel
. . . a. Ship’s Library and Ship Systems View
. . . b. Limited Comms
. B. Bunk and Personal Storage
. . 1. Media Access Panel
. . . a. Ship’s Library and Ship Systems View
. . . b. Limited Comms
. C. Sliding Door

08 – Common Area
. A. Galley
. . 1. AutoChef
. . 2. Food and Utility Storage Pantry
. . 3. Water Dispensary
. . . a. Water Storage and Purifier
. B. Lounge
. . 1. Large Media Screen
. . 2. Lounge Furniture
. C. Dining/Conference Table and Chairs
. D. Fresher
. E. Aft Manual Hatch

09 – Fuel Tankage
. A. Port Fuel Tank
. . 1. Port Access Hatch
. B. Starboard Fuel Tank
. . 1. Starboard Access Hatch
. C. Fuel Scoop Mechanism
. D. Fuel Purifier
. E. Fuel Connection and Routing Lines
. . 1. Refueling External Port

10 – Landing Gear
. A. Forward Landing Gear
. B. Port-Aft Landing Gear
. C. Starboard-Aft Landing Gear

11 – Axial/Aft Corridor
. A. Overhead Iris Valve to Upper Level

12 – Drive Room
. A. Forward Iris Valve
. B. Engineering Station
. C. Ship’s Computer
. D. Fusion Reactor Power Plant
. E. Maneuver Drive
. . 1. Port Thruster Unit
. . 2. Starboard Thruster Unit
. F. Jump Drive
. G. Artificial Gravity Unit
. H. Overhead Gunnery Station Iris Valve
. I. Aft Emergency Iris Valve

13 – Aft Lounge
. A. Fresher
. B. Ship’s Locker
. C. AutoLaunder
. D. Aft Airlock
. E. Aft Overhead Outer Hatch
. . 1. Ladder

14 – Air/raft Berth
. A. Berth Iris Valve
. B. Air/raft
. C. Charging Unit
. D. Outer Doors

15 – Armory


Upper Gallery – “The Attic”

16 – Gun Turret Control
. A. Gunnery Station
. B. Floor Iris Valve

17 – Life Support
. A. Floor Iris Valve
. B. Air Filtration
. C. Atmosphere Replenishment
. D. Waste Control
. E. Heating and Cooling Unit

18 – Upper Storage

19 – Forward Sensor Equipment
. A. Forward Sensor Array
. B. Forward Sensor Station
. C. Forward Upper Hatch
. D. Floor Iris Valve


Lower Deck – “The Cellar”

20 – Forward Cargo Bay
. A. 3 Tons Cargo Storage
. . 1. Gangplank/Cargo Ramp
. B. Floor/Outer Hatch
. . 1. Extendable Ladder

 

[Hyphen]

Stellar! A Scout with a medic AND an autodoc??!! How will we be able to continue justifying their woeful survival rolls now?? ;-)

(Seriously, what's the cost of an autodoc IYTU? The _Merchants & Merchandise_ one is Cr100,000, for comparison.)

 

[Spinward Scout]

It's only Cr40,000 in the Mongoose book (pg. 95). The AutoDoc is TL 12, and would be cheaper if the ship was refit at TL 15, I'd think.

 

[Timerover51]

Looking at the deckplan reminded me of something I have been wondering about for a while. I am used to looking at wet ship general arrangement drawings both from above and the side. Has anyone ever done a set of plans showing a side cross-section of a scout as well as the overhead view?

The reason that I ask is that you basically have a 7.5 meter by 3 meter box running the length of the scout from the rear to just behind the bridge. Looking at the outside overhead view, that does not seem to be reflected in the taper of the streamlining. I am not sure if the bridge would also be 3 meters in height as well. If so, then you have to have a fairly fast taper from the bridge to the nose of the scout to maintain streamlining. There is also a need for a forward landing strut, unless the scout is heaviest at the rear, in which case it could balance on the landing pads and rear of the ship.

 

[Spinward Scout]

Has anyone ever done a set of plans showing a side cross-section of a scout as well as the overhead view?

The Seeker 15 mm deckplans had a side view.

There is also a need for a forward landing strut, unless the scout is heaviest at the rear, in which case it could balance on the landing pads and rear of the ship.

I've wondered about this, too. I included a Forward Landing Gear in the breakdown, but I wasn't exactly sure how it, or the Cargo Ramp, would work. I think you're right, if the two legs are far enough forward, there's no need for a front one.

 

[Patron Zero]

I have done unofficial-'non-canon' line drawings of the classic Scout-Courier that include end views and a cross-section layout for the ship's use IMTU.

My variation to the design included a raised flight deck (bridge) as well as more compact 'staterooms' which allowed for a larger common area.

-An autodoc equipped med-bay aboard a Scout-Courier should be a standard feature rather an after-thought.



http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Ga...ntier_variant_100_Ton_Scout_cross-section.jpg

 

[aramis]

Looking at the deckplan reminded me of something I have been wondering about for a while. I am used to looking at wet ship general arrangement drawings both from above and the side. Has anyone ever done a set of plans showing a side cross-section of a scout as well as the overhead view?

The reason that I ask is that you basically have a 7.5 meter by 3 meter box running the length of the scout from the rear to just behind the bridge. Looking at the outside overhead view, that does not seem to be reflected in the taper of the streamlining. I am not sure if the bridge would also be 3 meters in height as well. If so, then you have to have a fairly fast taper from the bridge to the nose of the scout to maintain streamlining. There is also a need for a forward landing strut, unless the scout is heaviest at the rear, in which case it could balance on the landing pads and rear of the ship.

the bridge is considerably less than 3m height.
The forward staterooms lose the upper and lower forward outside corners.
The "Forward Cargo Bay" should be the "Aft Cargo Bay, and line up under engineering, IMO.

Note that, based upon the allocated grid squares, I don't think it uses the standard 3m decks.

 

[Patron Zero]

I'm tending to lean with Aramis' position concerning deck heights being a debatable issue.

That said I would give the supposition that Scout-Couriers being 'workhorse' designs, rather than something more targeted for merchant or transport markets, that such are likely more utilitarian in nature.

The ISS needed a no-nonsense, dependable and reliable vessel and the design of the Suleiman class clearly depicts such, the sheer number of said ship being constructed and put into service supports it's merits.

 

[Carlobrand]

Lessee:

The classic scout/courier is 37.5 meters long by 24 meters wide by 7.5 meters tall, according to Supplement 7. 7.5 meters is a clue that we're off the beaten path to begin with - there's not room for three decks. Shape is basically a four sided squished pyramid if we go by the accompanying illustration. Volume of a four-sided pyramid is base area times height divided by a third. I get the base area as 90 square meters, times height of 37.5, divided by 3, 1125 cubic meters.

A dTon is 1.5 by 3 by 3 or 13.5 cubic meters. The Supplement-7 scout/courier is 83.33 dTons if we assume it's the pyramid shown in the accompanying illustrations.

Ergo, either the illustration is wrong and the thing is not a flat-sided pyramid, or the deckplan is wrong and the pyramid is bigger than described.

For the record, the backshot of the Seeker shows a ship that is 9 meters tall at back, not 7.5. THAT gives us 1350 cubic meters, which is a perfect 100 dTons. Thus, the description (and accompanying illustrations) are errata: the scout is 9 meters tall, not 7.5.

 

[aramis]

Note: I used 7.5m tall, per the plan drawings from Sup 7. It will make a small difference, but not enough of one. But, since I drew it in sketchup, then touched it up in Cadintosh, I can tweak the plans a bit.

Note that the 7.5m figure matches the aspect ratio of the Keith Bros illos from the covers of various JTAS issues.

 

[Carlobrand]

Another interesting tidbit, just for fun.

See that hatch in Supplement 7 between the main deck and the forward cargo bay and upper gallery? The one just outside the door to the bridge? If we assume a 9 meter height at centerpoint of the tail sloping down to a point at front 37.5 meters away, the ship is 3.75 meters tall at that point, peak to anti-peak. Assuming the main deck is 3 meters, that gives you about a 15 inch (37.5 cm) crawlspace top and bottom into which to enter that gallery and cargo bay. The hatch just has room to open fully, assuming it's about shoulder-width. Cutting the main deck to 2 meters at that point only gives you more room to crawl - another half-meter height in both sections. Can't really stand erect till you're almost above the engine room - or maybe halfway there if you go with a 2 meter deck. That upper "storage area" is very much like an attic space (and is described as such), and the "forward sensor positions" is a literal crawlspace.

You don't gain much by assuming a 2 meter main deck instead of a 3 meter main deck - just a bit more attic headway and a slightly more comfortable forward crawlspace.

 

[aramis]

ran some projections in Cadintosh...

and found that the center-of-hatch clearance on a 3m deck with a 9m tall scoutship is 30cm at the forward end of the gallery.

I also found that, at 2m deck height, most of the cargo bay is also 2m tall.
At 3m, it drops to about 5cm tall.

Moving the "forward hold" to the aft actually allows for the allocated cargo tonnage of the design to fit. (7Td as a book 2 design.)

Note that with 2m deck height, a dTon of 14 m^3 is about 3 deck squares (3.111 to be more precise)... which, before accounting for the trims of the forward staterooms, is a better fit to the drawn plans.

I suspect the original design was 2m decks and the small cargo bay being aft; the basement being mostly bridge tonnage. Note that the "upper cargo bay" is 21 deck squares for 7 tons...

Also note: this is one of the few designs that really is improved in all other versions of ship design. HG gives it 28 Td of cargo or so. MT likewise. Mongoose gives it 35Td of cargo space...

Attached image is the 9m tall lines for 2m (top) and 3m (bottom) deck heights, and showing the location for moving the lower cargo aft.

 

[lspitz]

Yeah, the layout of the Type S always bothered me. Realistically, the slope of the hull makes for some pretty tight spaces and clipped corners.

I still think it's a really cool shape for a starship, but it doesn't give you much human-usable space to work with at the 100-ton scale.

 

[Carlobrand]

Well, this isn't a design that wins high marks for accuracy. The deck plans are off to begin with: four staterooms and 3 dTons of cargo only give you 19 dTons to work with, yet there's 25 dTons showing just between the staterooms and the "common area", and another 7 in that portside rear storage area, and another 7 for the starboard rear air/raft bay. If you want an accurate (CT) design, you lose the attic and basement, access gunnery through the engine room, and then you do a radical alteration of the interior to put about 40 squares of interior space back into fuel space. If you don't care about accuracy, there's no need to worry about the deck arrangement.

However, if I were working from a High Guard design, or I think someone mentioned that Mongoose also gave it more cargo space to work with, I'd like that second cross-section, with the 3 meter main deck.

 

[rancke]

Well, this isn't a design that wins high marks for accuracy. The deck plans are off to begin with: four staterooms and 3 dTons of cargo only give you 19 dTons to work with, yet there's 25 dTons showing just between the staterooms and the "common area", and another 7 in that portside rear storage area, and another 7 for the starboard rear air/raft bay.

On the other hand, you're "paying" 20T for the bridge when bridge and avionics put together amounts to 4½ T. That's 15½ T you have to account for somehow on the deck plans.


Hans

 

[aramis]

Well, this isn't a design that wins high marks for accuracy. The deck plans are off to begin with: four staterooms and 3 dTons of cargo only give you 19 dTons to work with, yet there's 25 dTons showing just between the staterooms and the "common area", and another 7 in that portside rear storage area, and another 7 for the starboard rear air/raft bay. If you want an accurate (CT) design, you lose the attic and basement, access gunnery through the engine room, and then you do a radical alteration of the interior to put about 40 squares of interior space back into fuel space. If you don't care about accuracy, there's no need to worry about the deck arrangement.

However, if I were working from a High Guard design, or I think someone mentioned that Mongoose also gave it more cargo space to work with, I'd like that second cross-section, with the 3 meter main deck.

Only if you're presuming 3m deck floor to ceiling and 3.1m floor-to-floor...

Let's see the design:

Td Bk2	Td Bk5	Td MGT	20
20	20	10	Bridge
1	1	0	Computer 1/bis
16	16	16	4xSR
4	4	4	PP A=2
1	5	2	MD A=2
10	3	10	JD A
20	2	4	PP Fuel
20	20	20	JD Fuel
4	4	4	Air/Raft
1	1	1	Turret
3	24	29	Air/Raft

and the stuff within the drawn plans:

Sq	3m	2m	20
5	2.5	1.67	Bridge
4	2	1.33	Avionics
0	0	0	Computer 1/bis
20	10	6.67	Common Room
24	12	8	4xSR
14	7	4.67	Halls
20	10	6.67	Drives
15	7.5	5	Mission Bay 1/bis
12	6	4	Air/Raft
8*	4	2.67	Turret
21*	10.5	7	Upper Cargo Gallery (Attic)
8*	4	2.67	Forward Upper Cargo
11*	5.5	3.67	Lower Cargo
4.5	2.25	1.5	landing gear

[tr] [tc=4]* indicated squares definitely not full height.[/tc]

Note that using halls, commons, and staterooms at 2m tall, the total tonnage is 17. The Bridge, Avionics, and the mission bay are 8. Count the landing gear, and you get to 10Td. Add the upper gallery... (aka Ship's Locker)... and under 2m decks, you get right close to 20 Td.
And count the "forward cargo" areas as half height, and you get the 3 tons of cargo space under 2m decks.

I've done the math. This isn't the first time, either. It's clear, when one applies a little logic and math skill, that the plan was developed with 2m tall decks. It also looks like a HG design, since the tonnage of drives is too small for Bk2.

 

[Spinward Scout]

I've done the math. This isn't the first time, either. It's clear, when one applies a little logic and math skill, that the plan was developed with 2m tall decks. It also looks like a HG design, since the tonnage of drives is too small for Bk2.

Which means no large Sophonts in the Scout/Couriers. And no one over 6 and a half feet tall. U.S. Navy has a height restriction of no taller that 6'8", last I heard. I'm surprised Scout/Couriers even have artificial gravity. It would be easier to get around in Zero-G.

 

[pendragonman]

Which means no large Sophonts in the Scout/Couriers. And no one over 6 and a half feet tall. U.S. Navy has a height restriction of no taller that 6'8", last I heard. I'm surprised Scout/Couriers even have artificial gravity. It would be easier to get around in Zero-G.

Doesn't mean that at all. Just means that tall/large sophonts would either be exceptional recruits or they have had an extended period of shortage of recruits of the right size.

Remember, there are a few nearly 7 foot fighter jocks and chopper pilots, and in WWII there were many over 6 foot submariners in the U-boat fleet and those boats have ~ 2 meter spacing.

 

[Carlobrand]

Only if you're presuming 3m deck floor to ceiling and 3.1m floor-to-floor...

Let's see the design: ...

Note that using halls, commons, and staterooms at 2m tall, the total tonnage is 17. The Bridge, Avionics, and the mission bay are 8. Count the landing gear, and you get to 10Td. Add the upper gallery... (aka Ship's Locker)... and under 2m decks, you get right close to 20 Td.
And count the "forward cargo" areas as half height, and you get the 3 tons of cargo space under 2m decks.

I've done the math. This isn't the first time, either. It's clear, when one applies a little logic and math skill, that the plan was developed with 2m tall decks. It also looks like a HG design, since the tonnage of drives is too small for Bk2.

Uh, what? We're redefining the ton? Or rather, we're inferring that they must have calculated the cubic meterage available from the offered dTons and then designed plans around a 2 meter ceiling height? Which means they ignored that bit on page 5:

"Since the square grid scale used for deck plans is 1.5 meters squares, a ceiling height of three meters means that two floor squares, extended floor to ceiling equals four 1.5 meter cubes or about 14 cubic meters (1.5x1.5x1.5x4=13.5 cubic meters), or one ton. ..."

And then they ignored the very nice graphic on page 6, which incidentally tells us there's no room for the usual between-decks equipment like grav plates and environmental equipment and such - because they're using those cubic meters for halls and rooms instead. Which leaves us carving room for that equipment out of the fuel tanks. Which still makes the ship wrong.

If the decks were perpendicular to the drives, I could maybe argue for this. No grav plates, fresher and sinks close to the engine room to eliminate the need for return pipes, ceiling 8" above your head (and pity you if you are unusually tall), lighting on the walls instead of in the ceiling, pipes visible on the ceiling edges where wiring bundles run about, air ductwork runs visible through ducts attached to the ceiling and you have to duck under it all in places. Cramped, cave-like, downright claustrophobic, but not impossible.

Unfortunately, this is a design with decks parallel to the direction of travel: even if you eliminate all the other comforts, you gotta have grav plates and inertial dampers or your bedroom floor is a wall when you're thrusting. There's obviously no room for them in the walls (not to mention that's in the wrong direction), and if you put them in the floors on a 2 meter deck then your head is now brushing the ceiling even if you're average height. And anywhere else you argue putting them, that means they're coming out of fuel tankage.

The hypothesis basically asks us to believe that a designer designed a claustrophobic cave-warren in which your head is brushing the ceiling and you're ducking under air ducts, all so that they could give you a generous 10' by 15' bedroom, a nice 20' by 25' living room, and a basement and attic? It has a certain adventurous appeal, but I can't see sacrificing my forehead just so I can have a bigger living room. I would say that's a stretch, but I might bang my head on the ceiling.

It's easier for me to ret-con this as a High Guard design.

 

[aramis]

Being over 6', and having been aboard 3 different US Subs (none underway, but still; HS Cadet tour), including one SSAN, and one SSBN... the 2m ceilings are not too uncomfortable. The racks are a pain; they had us all climb into them on the SSAN. I'd have to curl up to sleep in them.

I've been aboard about 11 different large US Navy vessels total (3 subs, 3 CVAN, 3 DD, 1 FF), and I had to bend for every hatch anyway, except the CVAN 65... but that's also the one I was under 5' tall for... (Family day cruise, 8 hr, out of Alameda - my cousin was a crewman, and got permission, since his mom wouldn't go.) (I won't get into the motor launches, landing craft, etc.)