Speculative Traders

[Scarecrow]

It does veer dangerously close to Star Wars 'magic crystals', but I'm afraid I agree with Ran. These are vehicles from the far future and so I'm happy to build them from handwavium, just so's I can make it look the way I want it to.

This really has come down to personal taste, as do a great many ship designs, and infact almost every aspect of Traveller. I would never pass off a flying cube as streamlined, but I'm happy to say that my design above is streamlined even though a physicist could probably prove to me that it wasn't even close. So where does one draw the line between physics and aesthetics? Well, wherever one is happy with the line being drawn, I guess.

To be honest this design has failed anyway. It's failed because, regardless of what I feel about it, it didn't meet with Falkayn's approval and so as a design it needs altering and rethinking. I'm not going to do that because it was only an idle afternoon's doodling and doesn't warrant any more attention. Falkayn (in the modular scout thread) asked if I'd be interested in having a crack, so I did. I'm mostly happy with what I produced and so I'll leave it at that for now.

I do, however, greatly appreciate everyone's comments and criticisms and I've definately taken them on board for my next design.

Crow

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
To be honest this design has failed anyway. It's failed because, regardless of what I feel about it, it didn't meet with Falkayn's approval and so as a design it needs altering and rethinking. I'm not going to do that because it was only an idle afternoon's doodling and doesn't warrant any more attention. Falkayn (in the modular scout thread) asked if I'd be interested in having a crack, so I did. I'm mostly happy with what I produced and so I'll leave it at that for now.

Let me just say that I am very grateful Crow toook a crack at this - both because we all got to see another interesting Traveller starship design, and because Crow's comments got me to re-think my own deckplan.

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
I do, however, greatly appreciate everyone's comments and criticisms and I've definately taken them on board for my next design.

Here, here! You guys did get me to re-think my own deckplans. I have re-jigged Deck A (Deck B on this plan is still the old one), and I like the rresult a lot more than my first attempt. There is probably even less fuel in this plan, but the overall sense of it is better - with plenty of ideas stolen from Crow's deckplan.
<a href="http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/falkayn/Lanthium_Petal_Deckplanv2.gif" target="_blank"> Lanthium Class Deckplan v2 (in progress)

</a>

 

[Scarecrow]

I think that's great! Much better. The layout feels much more reasoned and logical. I'm still not convinced by the asymetry of Deck B but in such a minor way, I wouldn't consider changing it.
I will voice one concern and it's something I've noticed on many, many Traveller deckplans. How do you get into the airraft? It's jammed into a space no bigger than itself. You can't open doors. You can't get into the left hand side without climbing over the seats. I know the rules are okay with it, but I genuinely feel that vehicle bays need to be substantially bigger than the vehicles themselves.
Actually, whilst I'm typing I'm also thinking that there's not really any need to board the airraft whilst it's stowed. It could be deployed first, I guess and then boarded.

Anyway, that's a minor observation.
Nice one.

Crow

PS - I forgot! Some folks mentioned the 'turrets' on my design and I forgot to reply. They're the sandcasters.

 

[Tanuki]

Originally posted by Falkayn:
Here, here! You guys did get me to re-think my own deckplans. I have re-jigged Deck A (Deck B on this plan is still the old one), and I like the rresult a lot more than my first attempt. There is probably even less fuel in this plan, but the overall sense of it is better - with plenty of ideas stolen from Crow's deckplan.

If you move the pinnace to starboard and forward you could balance Deck B better. The pinnace hatch could be in the bow, alongside a bow cargo hatch/ramp, and the jump drive could slot into the center aft space vacated by the hanger and cargo bays.

Sort of like this:

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Tanuki:
[QB]If you move the pinnace to starboard and forward you could balance Deck B better. The pinnace hatch could be in the bow, alongside a bow cargo hatch/ramp, and the jump drive could slot into the center aft space vacated by the hanger and cargo bays.

Sort of like this:

Beautiful! My eventual plans for Deck B are to have the 2 turrets in the forward half and the cargo bay more balanced, and possibly accessible from both sides.

I was going to move the pinnace so it came in from the side, but I might also do something funkier with it. You've given me some more good ideas - thanks!

 

[Scarecrow]

Yeah, that works nicely.

Could the Pinnace just drop out of the bottom of the ship? Does it need to move forward through those doors?

Crow

 

[Andrew Boulton]

The new A-deck is *much* better. I like it.

I agree with Crow about the Pinnace.

 

[rvatsaas]

The lift shaft's don't appear to line up. Do you plan on having the form of the ship a flattened disc? If so, the State rooms will have really low ceilings. You may mediate this by putting the state rooms on a middle deck (like a sunken floor) but then you will have to contend with sloping floors, too.

Another approach is to put fuel into the least usable space around the periphery.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Good point. The SRs are slightly longer than normal, though, so you could put a cupboard against the hull, and the rest of the room might be okay.

 

[daibaka]

Well, sloping ceilings in state rooms never seemed to upset anyone on the Enterprise-D in ST:TNG. I know there's a big difference in scale and that the angles are maybe more acute, but maybe its a "feature" of this class of vessel? Put the bed under a window in the hull and your passengers can sleep "under the stars"! As long as they are careful not to bang there heads by sitting up to suddenly in the morning...

 

[savage]

nice we'll take an order of 20.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Egapillar:
The lift shaft's don't appear to line up. Do you plan on having the form of the ship a flattened disc? If so, the State rooms will have really low ceilings. You may mediate this by putting the state rooms on a middle deck (like a sunken floor) but then you will have to contend with sloping floors, too.

Another approach is to put fuel into the least usable space around the periphery.

Deck B will be changed, but is not yet .... that's why it is "in progress"

.

As to the staterooms ceilings, I've got 3 explanations for that:
1. There is a 0.5m overhead space for machinery etc. That is the bit that disappears first as you go to the edge.
2. A slight sloping ceiling adds to the room's interest.
3. These two decks aren't the only bits of the ship, they're just the bits that matter to the crew. The 0.5m overhead space is a LOT more in the center of the ship (where the sandcaster turrest are) and a bit less near the edge. Some of that missing fuel is actually overhead, handwave, handwave ...

As to sloping floors, when the artificial gravity is on they wouldn't slope at all ...

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Scarecrow:
Yeah, that works nicely.

Could the Pinnace just drop out of the bottom of the ship? Does it need to move forward through those doors?

Thanks!

I'd have problems with that from a practicality viewpoint. You may well want to use the pinnace when on the ground ... but if it drops from underneath you'll need really huge legs to do so (a bit like Thunderbird 2

).

Also, I figure that having the smallest doors possible into the hangar makes the problems you find when they break smaller.

I do like the idea of a forward cargo door, if nothing else you'd get some shelter from the bridge above.

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Savage:
nice we'll take an order of 20.

A nicely turned out Vargr male in a shopkeeper's apron takes out a pencil-equivalent and note paper.

"Roight then, lot of 20 Petals ... what colours will they be in? Puce, grey and orange? Red, violet and neon-blue? Or just the standard khaki, apricot, beige, pink and lime?"

 

[savage]

20 - Red. What shades are standard?
I assume your production factilities are capable of the following additions.
-Full Entertainment Pkg
-Basic Software Suite
-Defensive Wpns Pkg

Savage

 

[Falkayn]

OK, the new deckplans are complete. Notable changes include:
* Replaced sliding doors with normally opened doors (extra handle on bulkhead helps door opening/closing when in zero-G).
* Followed the suggested change for the pinnace.
* Less fuel on Deck B, and the correct amount of cargo (it was short before).
* The lifeboat's emergency low-berths are horizontal, stacked 4 high, the ship ones are vertical.
* A 2nd airlock is given for the pinnace hangar in case it must dock nose first, however, if it does so then the cargo doors are unavailable.
* A shaded area representing the cargo ramp when landed.
* The 2 forward popup turrets are accessed from within staterooms - which is OK if you put the gunners in there.
* I've split the Jump drive and made that section thinner.
* Re-arranged fuel access hatches and irises (these are needed for future adventure possibilities). The starboard aft fuel tanks are inaccessible (but access each other) on this plan. They can be access from the port aft fuel tank on Deck A through a crawlspace (not shown - VERY claustrophobic).
* Passengers are assumed to load through the pinnace, or the forward airlock next to the cargo doors - either way they avoid going through crew country.
* The Air/Raft garage has a larger door than before, but it still would be preferable to load it either outside the ship, or within the cargo airlock if the atmosphere is unfriendly (or you want privacy).
* Every room comes with a view - except the passengers. I tossed up the idea of viewports above the passenger common area (requiring hull depressions as their IS fuel/mechanics up there). But commonsense says that their wall-screens should be good enough, and you don't want unnecessary 'windows'.
* The Lab area could be replaced with an enlarged passenger entertainment area (jacuzzi, gym etc.) if you so wished - or it could even be a set of offices/meeting rooms.
* If you chose to do without the popup turrets, then I would replace them with extra fuel space, and turn the port bow fuel tank on Deck A into something mroe interesting, or knock back the starboard aft fuel tank so more cargo could be carried.

<a href="http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/falkayn/Lanthium_Petal_Deckplanv3.gif" target="_blank"> Lanthium Class Deckplan v2

</a>

Overall I am much happier with this design, thanks for everyone's input!

[EDIT: I have upgraded the version # as Bigpond seems to have cached the old one.]

 

[Falkayn]

Originally posted by Savage:
20 - Red. What shades are standard?
I assume your production factilities are capable of the following additions.
-Full Entertainment Pkg
-Basic Software Suite
-Defensive Wpns Pkg

Var Savage,

So nice to handle a discerning customer. Our reds come in:
- Human Red.
- K'kree Red.
- Vargr Red.
- Blood Crimson (mix of above).
- Broken Terracotta.
- Spilled Wine.
- Ferrari Red (fave with Terran lovers).
- Red Dwarf.
- Go Fasta' Red.
- Rose Red (for the discerning femme).
- Medium Rare.
- Rare.
- Afterburner Red.
- Too Hot Red.
- Angry Red.
- Revenge Red.
- Pirate Red (a favourite).
- Rust Red.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

It's still a little too asymetrical for me. I'd put the Pinnace back where it was, with the jump drive either side. Put the cargo ramp in the centre, with the hold running down either side of the Pinnace (which you can give hatches on both sides - oh, and does it really have a jump drive?)

I don't think you really need to have the gunners stations with the turrets, so put them with the ones on A deck.

 

[Scarecrow]

I, on the other hand like a little bit of assymetry. It looks more convincing.

Crow

 

[Ran Targas]

Angus! That looks great! Excellent job!

Crow, keep in mind that naval engineers and architects will cut corners where they can and given the opportunity to weld two mirror images together, they will.

It reduces the number of calculations required, makes plans easier to follow, will reduce construction time, and makes any alterations (and their will be) easier to adjust for.