CT Only: Small Craft Life Support

[vegas]

In CT:B5 p34 we read:

Passengers: Provision for passengers is on the same basis as for crew. Each requires an acceleration couch and life support at one-half ton, Cr25.000. Such passenger couches can be easily removed to convert the space to cargo hold....

Staterooms: Crew and passenger couches allow temporary transportation, up to a maximum of 36 turns in combat (12 hours), and 24 hours for routine operations. For longer periods, staterooms must be provided. Small craft staterooms allow sleeping and privacy at two tons each, Cr100,000. Such staterooms may allow double occupancy (each person has the facilities for half a day) on non-commercial flights.

The question arises whether having a stateroom is required in addition to a couch or if it replaces the need for a couch. A strict reading of the RAW says staterooms are an addition; there is no exception indicated to the phrase "each [passenger] requires a couch" and there is no indication that small craft staterooms include life support that couches provide.

Still, I thought I'd look for a canon example of a small craft with a stateroom to see if a couch was also provided or not. So far, I have not found a such vehicle.

Grognards, do any of you know of an official small craft with a stateroom? How do you interpret the above rules?

This exercise also brings to mind a cost inconsistency:
1) ship staterooms require 4 dt and cost Cr500,000
2) small craft couches require 0.5 dt and cost Cr25,000
3) small craft staterooms require 2 dt and cost Cr100,000

whether small craft staterooms are additive to or replace couches, it is still far cheaper to transport a body in a small craft than a ship. This suggests commercial and troop transports should be housed inside small craft in carriers rather than ships!

 

[Grav_Moped]

There's a slight difference that still doesn't entirely explain the discrepancy: Starship staterooms can be double occupancy concurrently (sleeping two, simultaneously) while small craft (SC) staterooms in double occupancy require sleeping in shifts (one up, one down).

Wait. Each crewmember needs a stateroom for extended operations. So, a crew of a pilot and gunner could have two couches and two staterooms. The staterooms themselves can be double occupancy (but not for hire) so there could be an additional two non-paying passengers that would not need couches.

I really don't believe they thought this all out. It sort of goes along with "non-starship hulls cost half as much as starship ones". And maybe there's a bit of extra redundancy in a starship stateroom because if you're in Jump Space you have to wait up to a week to be able to call for help should something go wrong. Or they didn't expect small craft to be doing very long trips (that is, they were presented as "starship accessories", not something bought for independent operation). But it still doesn't quite add up.

Edit to add:
One other thing: there's a difference in life support duration between "combat" and "routine operations"? And they're "acceleration couches"? This strongly implies that small craft do not have artificial gravity or inertial compensation!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And they're "acceleration couches"? This strongly implies that small craft do not have artificial gravity or inertial compensation!

If we are petty only ships have internal gravity specified, small craft are not discussed at all:

Tech level requirements for maneuver drives are imposed to cover the grav plates integral to most ship decks, and which allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal.

Small craft are not ships, see LBB2'81 p12.

It's not until MT that small craft are specified to have internal gravity by default.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The question arises whether having a stateroom is required in addition to a couch or if it replaces the need for a couch. A strict reading of the RAW says staterooms are an addition; there is no exception indicated to the phrase "each [passenger] requires a couch" and there is no indication that small craft staterooms include life support that couches provide.

LBB2 gives a hint of how they thought:

Couches are individual passenger seats; one is required for each passenger carried (if a stateroom or cabin is not provided).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Grognards, do any of you know of an official small craft with a stateroom?

Not a good example, but the Modular Cutter in JTAS#5 has a module with (presumably) 4 regular staterooms, and no specified couches.

On the other hand only 16 Dt of the module's 30 Dt are specified...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

whether small craft staterooms are additive to or replace couches, it is still far cheaper to transport a body in a small craft than a ship. This suggests commercial and troop transports should be housed inside small craft in carriers rather than ships!

Interesting question!

Let's make a small troop transport craft:

WT-0602201-000000-00000-0       MCr 17,9          50 Dton
bearing                                            Crew=1
batteries                                           TL=12
                           Cargo=20 Fuel=1 EP=1 Agility=2

Single Occupancy                                   20        17,9
                                     USP    #     Dton       Cost
Hull, Streamlined   Custom             0           50            
Configuration       Flattened Sphe     6                      4  
                                                                 
Manoeuvre D                            2    1       2,5       1,8
Power Plant                            2    1       3         9  
Fuel, #J, #weeks    J-0, 4 weeks                    1            
                                                                 
Bridge                                                           
Computer            m/1                0    1       1         2  
                                                                 
Couch                                       1       0,5       0,0
Staterooms, Small                          11      22         1,1
                                                                 
Cargo                                              20            
                                                                 
Nominal Cost        MCr 17,88            Sum:      20        17,9
Class Cost          MCr  3,75           Valid      ≥0          ≥0
Ship Cost           MCr 14,30

At 50 Dt size it can carry 20 troops + 20 Dt cargo. I assume we need a decent amount of supplies with us for an interstellar campaign, I choose 1 Dt/soldier more or less at random.

As a small craft it would be carried aboard a carrier in a 65 Dt hangar.


Regular accommodations aboard a troop transport would take 3 Dt per soldier (2 Dt in half-stateroom + 1 Dt cargo), so the same 20 soldiers would take 60 Dt at a cost of MCr 5.


It would seem regular accommodations are cheaper.



Let's see if we can abuse cutter modules to get over the 30% extra space for hangars on large ships. Carry the modules as integral modules, so directly accessible and no extra space. I guess this involves a bit of bending of the rules...

An open cutter module with 14 soldiers (7 cabins + 14 Dt cargo) is 30 Dt and would cost about MCr 3.

Regular ship's accommodations for 14 soldiers would take 7 staterooms and 14 Dt cargo = 42 Dt at a cost of MCr 3.5.

Small craft modules aboard ships is much cheaper than regular accommodations, since they are smaller hence requiring a smaller ship. As a bonus the modules are air-tight and can be left at the deployment site as barracks when the transport ships leaves.

I don't think this is RAI, but perhaps we can argue ourselves into that it is RAW.
As a Referee I would not allow it, of course.

 

[kilemall]

If someone pulled the small craft stateroom accountant move on me, I think I would allow it, then start doing sanity damage on them past a few weeks, possibly morale hits especially if those navy guys have better digs and it's not total war.


Think SDBs are full-blown subs and small craft are midget subs.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

If someone pulled the small craft stateroom accountant move on me, I think I would allow it, ...

Yes, of course it is possible to build ships this way, and I agree it should be handled with disadvantages that makes it undesirable, not just ban it.


Old-school submariners would scoff at the vast amounts of space starship crews are given and gripe about...

 

[Proneutron]

Old-school submariners would scoff at the vast amounts of space starship crews are given and gripe about...

Even modern Bubble Heads would laugh.

 

[Condottiere]

They can always surface.

Also, I suspect they get psychologically screened.

 

[Proneutron]

Also, I suspect they get psychologically screened.

Not really. As they are all volunteers and want to be in subs. Only real life experience can tell if they are too claustrophobic to take it. Those that can't get transferred to targets (aka skimmers).

 

[Drakon]

Also, I suspect they get psychologically screened.

It's one of those, "If you're crazy enough to join us, we're crazy enough to take you." kind of thing. And if after 2 years of boot camp, A school, nuke school and prototype before getting aboard, if you find out you got a problem with tight spaces, you got to suck it up.

There is a psychological phenomena I noticed when I was at sea. It seemed that after the 3rd day underway, the sub "popped out" a bit. It seemed a bit larger. When you first get aboard, it seemed very cramped. But after 3 days, it just seemed more open.

It has to be a purely psychological perceptional thing, the boat don't change size that much. And going down it gets smaller, not larger anyway.

 

[boomslang]

This strongly implies that small craft do not have artificial gravity or inertial compensation!

Pretty much.

I am thinking that is why couches or cabins are required for all personnel aboard: whether it is a bunk or a comfy chair, everyone needs to be strapped-in to something while the vessel is under acceleration. Acceleration which civilian craft probably want to limit to about 2Gs, for passenger comfort, I would expect.

Thus you want to build and use big craft for anything more than about a six-hour jaunt -- to get that acceleration compensation from the full-sized M-drives. And I would assert that small craft on (for example) interplanetary journeys in-system will need to periodically cut thrust and coast for a while, so everyone can stretch their legs (because it is generated by plating and not the drives, artificial gravity should still be available in the 0-2G range perpendicular to the deck; only thrust-axis-aligned acceleration compensation is not workable due to the simplified design of the engines), use the head, change shifts, take a quick meal, and so on.

It would seem that small craft are not "spaceships" in the full sense that starships and non-starships are -- small craft are basically slightly-hardier types of vehicles which can function reliably and efficiently for short-range travel through the vacuum and radiation of outer space. Often at high acceleration and with comparatively small sensor footprints, which is a large part of what makes them an attractive idea in certain applications. Plus, of course, under CT at least they are apparently maintenance-free.

They are also hideously overpriced (by at least 2x), I would venture. Maybe that is part of why they are so low-cost to operate. After purchase, the only overhead is crew salaries, life support, and fuel, in perpetuity. (Plus possible ordinance replenishment.)

Yeah, clearly not really thought all the way out, there.

 

[whartung]

There is a psychological phenomena I noticed when I was at sea. It seemed that after the 3rd day underway, the sub "popped out" a bit. It seemed a bit larger. When you first get aboard, it seemed very cramped. But after 3 days, it just seemed more open.

Mind, I'm completely making this up. I think I've been on a submarine once, and that was a museum in San Francisco.

But it occurs to me, based on what you said, the perhaps one of the things that happens in those 3 days is that you get used to the air in the sub.

I would think, just by its nature, the submarine air can be a bit stifling. It can only be so "fresh", for example, and perhaps has some "body" to it that the outside air does not.

Not quite stuffy, but...anyway.

After a few days, you get used to the air and it feels less imposing, thus giving that "opening up" effect you talk about.

Also, after 3 days, you've probably stopped painfully bonking soft body parts in to hard submarine parts.

 

[Proneutron]

I would think, just by its nature, the submarine air can be a bit stifling. It can only be so "fresh", for example, and perhaps has some "body" to it that the outside air does not.

If you live in an industrialized country modern sub air is better than you are breathing now.

 

[BRover]

Pretty much.

. . .

It would seem that small craft are not "spaceships" in the full sense that starships and non-starships are -- small craft are basically slightly-hardier types of vehicles which can function reliably and efficiently for short-range travel through the vacuum and radiation of outer space. Often at high acceleration and with comparatively small sensor footprints, which is a large part of what makes them an attractive idea in certain applications. Plus, of course, under CT at least they are apparently maintenance-free.

. . .

Those carried by starships would have their price included in the starship price, so in the annual maintenance fee, would they not?

 

[boomslang]

Those carried by starships would have their price included in the starship price, so in the annual maintenance fee, would they not?

Maybe? That has always seemed plausible to me, but it is not explicitly stated.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Pretty much.

I am thinking that is why couches or cabins are required for all personnel aboard: whether it is a bunk or a comfy chair, everyone needs to be strapped-in to something while the vessel is under acceleration. Acceleration which civilian craft probably want to limit to about 2Gs, for passenger comfort, I would expect.

Thus you want to build and use big craft for anything more than about a six-hour jaunt -- to get that acceleration compensation from the full-sized M-drives. And I would assert that small craft on (for example) interplanetary journeys in-system will need to periodically cut thrust and coast for a while, so everyone can stretch their legs (because it is generated by plating and not the drives, artificial gravity should still be available in the 0-2G range perpendicular to the deck; only thrust-axis-aligned acceleration compensation is not workable due to the simplified design of the engines), use the head, change shifts, take a quick meal, and so on.

It would seem that small craft are not "spaceships" in the full sense that starships and non-starships are -- small craft are basically slightly-hardier types of vehicles which can function reliably and efficiently for short-range travel through the vacuum and radiation of outer space. Often at high acceleration and with comparatively small sensor footprints, which is a large part of what makes them an attractive idea in certain applications. Plus, of course, under CT at least they are apparently maintenance-free.

They are also hideously overpriced (by at least 2x), I would venture. Maybe that is part of why they are so low-cost to operate. After purchase, the only overhead is crew salaries, life support, and fuel, in perpetuity. (Plus possible ordinance replenishment.)

Yeah, clearly not really thought all the way out, there.

And definitely in their own conceptual silo.

Grav vegicles are cars/helicopters, for use on planetary surfaces. While they can get to orbit because antigravity, that's not what they're meant to do and not how they're thought of.

If you want to go to or from orbit, or to a moon -- that's what small craft are for. They're how you get down from orbit from your unstreamlined starship. They can also be fighters. While you could use them for extended in-system travel, you wouldn't because that's not what you think of them doing. Otherwise you'd put starship staterooms in them.

The longer insystem trips (say, to Mars or something) you'd need a non-starship. That's what they're for.

 

[coliver988]

as much as a I prefer small ships to have no gravatics, Reban has posted access to a new short story in the T5 world of Bland here and the assault shuttles do have gravity control.

Still - that may be an assault or higher-end small craft. So I think in MTU cheapskates may not have grav in their shuttles. Though I believe that technology is mature and cheap in the OTU, much like powered windows and A/C for cars now.

 

[mike wightman]

Smallcraft need to have gravitics.

Their deckplans are orientated for gravitics.

Several of them are capable of multi-g acceleration - 12 hours at 3g+ is going to kill, not to mention the perceived g forces of combat maneuvering.

You don't build a 6g drive into a craft and then routinely use it at 1g, you build a 1g drive into it in the first place.