• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

CT Only: Supplement 7 Express Boat Tender

Yup, I agree.

TNE almost went this way thanks to surface area being a premium for sensors and weapons.

I remember that. I took this direction a couple years after starting with CT when I couldn't create a usable interior for the Type S. Although, it is to this day my favorite Trav ship from an aesthetics viewpoint.
 
The funny (maybe not the right word) thing about this is that the X-Boat, not being designed to EVER enter an atmosphere, should have been designed as a cube/rectangle. I know that gets rid of the "kewl" factor. However, I am a firm believer in the school of thought supporting the idea that form FOLLOWS function...

Actually, it should have a pair of pyramids on either end, for deflection of particles in either engine first or engine last transit attitudes. (Side on isn't a normal flight attitude; it's only when transitioning at midpoint.)
 
Actually, it should have a pair of pyramids on either end, for deflection of particles in either engine first or engine last transit attitudes. (Side on isn't a normal flight attitude; it's only when transitioning at midpoint.)


X-boats don't have M-drives so there is no mid-point turn over.
 
IMO X-boats lack M-drives to the same degree that Type S scout/couriers are better than Type I scout/couriers. :D


Hans

:D

I think one can make an X-boat in MgT with an M-drive. I think, not sure though.

p.s. I'll post a J2 trader I just completed in the Mongoose forum
 
:D

I think one can make an X-boat in MgT with an M-drive. I think, not sure though.

p.s. I'll post a J2 trader I just completed in the Mongoose forum

Yep. Smaller bridge and smaller PP fuel makes it pretty easy.

10 Bridge
20 JD C
13 PP C
02 MD A
06 Fuel-PP
40 Fuel-JD
08 Staterooms x2
01 Cargo or turret
 
Yep. Smaller bridge and smaller PP fuel makes it pretty easy.

10 Bridge
20 JD C
13 PP C
02 MD A
06 Fuel-PP
40 Fuel-JD
08 Staterooms x2
01 Cargo or turret

That's right! I always forget about the Bridge
 
Last edited:
Hans,

I've been trying to figure out what to say and have spent a couple of hours and dumped what I wrote at least four times (I've lost count)

The closest real world example to the x-boat tenders ship/vehicle bay is the hangar bay on an aircraft carrier. So far the only site I've found with information is http://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier6.htm. The article has a picture that show two F-14 Tomcats and a probable third one parked in the hangar bay. The third aircraft might be a F-18 Hornet.

The two closest ones in the picture in my estimate are parked for storage. The third on might be having maintenance.

I've see a couple of documentaries on aircraft carriers and the TV show JAG in which the hang bays where featured. From what my eyeballs saw I doubt that the aircraft had 2.5 times there displacement tons of space.

Unfortunately, beyond getting the one picture I'm not able to doe any of the math.

Besides the tender is not intended to do any major work. Per Supplement 7 the job is to recover, refuel, make minor repairs, and sending them down the jump highway. A secondary role is being a relay station for inbound and outbound message traffic.

I'll try again tomorrow.

So far, so good. But...


...that's where the rules and reality part ways. Four X-boats actually, in reality, would take up 400T plus the empty space in between. If you use a 40x30x13.5 box to keep them in, they take up 1200T rather than 400T.


OK, that's 1013.33T rather than 1200T, and we can probably round it down to 1000T for the sake of simplicity. It's still the entire 1000T the tender is supposed to be with no volume left over for bridge, drives, accomodation, computer, etc...

My suggested fix is to keep the deck plans but make the tender big enough to have a 1000T bay.


Hans

Yep, I wasn't tracking at all well on this post, my apologies to all.
 
Last edited:
Update Supplement 7 Express Boat Tender 10/31/14

Hello all,

First thank all of you for the help, suggestions on fixing the x-boat tender, and being slow on the up take.

My attention got fixed on two items, the tender's ship/vehicle and layout the decks to verify everything fit into the dimensions of 60 m x 30 m x 12 m. This has led me to overlook that the tenders dimensions yields a result of 21,600 m^3 or 1,600 tons, just a bit over 1,00 tons.

I may have figured out the dimensions that will create a 1,000 ton x-boat tender.

Revised 1,00 ton tender dimensions: 37.5 m x 30 m x 12 m

If I am doing the math right the deck dimensions are:

Bridge: 3 m x 30 m x 12 m
Cargo Deck: 3 m x 30 m x 12 m
Ship/Vehicle bay: 22.5 m x 30 m x 12 m
Fuel tankage: 5.7 m x 30 m x 12 m
Engineering: 3.3 m x 30 m x 12 m

The bridge layout, as shown on page 12, doesn't have a 20 ton bridge, even with the bump-out, which caused the changes I reported earlier. Even by using the original dimensions the deck plan, in my opinion, needs to be redone.

The dimensions for the fuel tanks and engineering results in a couple of tons of extra space.

The dimension of the ship/vehicle bay's length doesn't allow for working on a scout/courier inside the bay. Of course the change also appears to allow for having two x-boats in the bay.

I'm still not sure about the bay being 12 meters from the closed doors and the overhead (ceiling). The explanation that I have come up with is that closed doors clamp the x-boats in place. Of course I would like to see the distance increased a bit.

As Hans and others have tried getting me to see is to get four x-boats into a vehicle bay the tender has to be bigger than the one presented in Supplement 7.

Thanks again for the help and please continue the support even when I'm lost in the woods.
 
Last edited:
The bridge layout, as shown on page 12, doesn't have a 20 ton bridge, even with the bump-out, which caused the changes I reported earlier.

The 20 tons mandated for a ships Bridge is not subsumed by 20 tons of actual Bridge deck space. One only needs space on the bridge for a few staff and electronics. The rest of the 20 tons is scattered around the ship in electronic systems, conduit, air locks, etc., etc.
 
The 20 tons mandated for a ships Bridge is not subsumed by 20 tons of actual Bridge deck space. One only needs space on the bridge for a few staff and electronics. The rest of the 20 tons is scattered around the ship in electronic systems, conduit, air locks, etc., etc.
That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?

It's something that really should be made explicit: how big the bridge itself is (and how to calculate the size), what the other bits and pieces are that is included, and what it costs (in tonnage) to have more than the usual number of airlocks and whatnots. And can you shave off a dton or two if you really need to fit a lot of stuff into a small hull?


Hans
 
That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?

It's something that really should be made explicit: how big the bridge itself is (and how to calculate the size), what the other bits and pieces are that is included, and what it costs (in tonnage) to have more than the usual number of airlocks and whatnots. And can you shave off a dton or two if you really need to fit a lot of stuff into a small hull?


Hans
T20 made it explicit.
 
That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?

It's something that really should be made explicit: how big the bridge itself is (and how to calculate the size), what the other bits and pieces are that is included, and what it costs (in tonnage) to have more than the usual number of airlocks and whatnots. And can you shave off a dton or two if you really need to fit a lot of stuff into a small hull?


Hans

I was beaten to the punch answering. For MgT I'm mid writing up a guide.
 
Evening Hans,

That's the fanon explanation, anyway. Or has one of the later versions made that explicit?

It's something that really should be made explicit: how big the bridge itself is (and how to calculate the size), what the other bits and pieces are that is included, and what it costs (in tonnage) to have more than the usual number of airlocks and whatnots. And can you shave off a dton or two if you really need to fit a lot of stuff into a small hull?


Hans

MT Referee's Manual Environmental Controls page 81 for power, volume, weight, and price.

TNE FF&S Mk 1 Mod 0 page 77 1 airlock is required per 100 tons of hull round the results up. A 150 ton hull has 150/100 = 1.5 round up to 2 airlocks. 50 ton hull requires 50/100 = 0.5 round up to 1.
 
Evening Hans,



MT Referee's Manual Environmental Controls page 81 for power, volume, weight, and price.

TNE FF&S Mk 1 Mod 0 page 77 1 airlock is required per 100 tons of hull round the results up. A 150 ton hull has 150/100 = 1.5 round up to 2 airlocks. 50 ton hull requires 50/100 = 0.5 round up to 1.

MT has no bridge tonnage, per se.
 
Hello aramis,

MT has no bridge tonnage, per se.

True, MT does not explicitly use the term bridge tonnage or require that the tonnage be at least 20 tons regardless of hull size like CT requires.

MT requires a certain number of personnel called the bridge crew. Each crew member on watch requires a control panel and selects how much working space that crew position gets. Put all the numbers together you have the bridge tonnage for that hull.

Which is a much better way to work out the bridge tonnage based on my experience on four submarines and one surface ship.
 
Which is a much better way to work out the bridge tonnage based on my experience on four submarines and one surface ship.
A blanket tonnage is fine for some purposes. It's just that detailed setting-building isn't one of them. Say, for example, that a ship design comes to a few dT over the desired tonnage. Does a ship designer just say "Oh well, I guess we'll go with the next bigger hull size," or does he look around for ways to reduce the standard components by a few dT? Why not shave 10cm off one of the stateroom dimensions? Reduce the size of the crew lounge a bit? Omitting an airlock is drastic, but the designer of the X-boats might have thought it worth while.

For wargaming purposes there's a very good reason to stick rigidly to the rules. For gross scale setting-building it's usually just easier. But to treat these standard sizes as Universe-ordained numbers under all circumstances... not so good.

Not that breaches of the design rules should be trivial. Ideally there should always be a cost. Sometimes the cost could just be the cost; the smaller component costs more. Sometimes it could be an increased risk of breakdowns or some chronic problem ("What IS that smell?!?").

This could also work in reverse. A component might be cheaper but take up more room.

Perhaps one could develop some 'Unintended Consequences' tables to add to the design process. Breaches of the rules could be rated as minor, medium, and major. This would affect the cost, which would be known ahead of time. But in addition, once a design had been built, a number of rolls on these tables would establish additional flaws.


Hans
 
Not that breaches of the design rules should be trivial. Ideally there should always be a cost. Sometimes the cost could just be the cost; the smaller component costs more.

This could also work in reverse. A component might be cheaper but take up more room.

Hans

That is how space ship design options works in MgT. Both directions. Also TL price reduction.
 
Back
Top