CT Only: Supplement 7 Express Boat Tender

[Ulsyus]

Which is a much better way to work out the bridge tonnage based on my experience on four submarines and one surface ship.

That's a fair call.

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.

Hans

T5 already covers this element through the derivation of comfort and ergonomics rating for each vessel. Want to scrimp on bridge/control space? Your ergonomics rating goes down and it becomes harder to operate the vessel at a high level of efficiency for long, mitigated by frequent port stops and R&R. Want to be able to stay out for a long time with the crew able to maintain high levels of response capability? Have lots of accommodation space, plenty of rec space, and don't hot-bunk them. All regulated by SAN and in particular the Tension check as per p345 & 348.

See: no need for tables!

 

[rancke]

T5 already covers this element through the derivation of comfort and ergonomics rating for each vessel. Want to scrimp on bridge/control space? Your ergonomics rating goes down and it becomes harder to operate the vessel at a high level of efficiency for long, mitigated by frequent port stops and R&R. Want to be able to stay out for a long time with the crew able to maintain high levels of response capability? Have lots of accommodation space, plenty of rec space, and don't hot-bunk them. All regulated by SAN and in particular the Tension check as per p345 & 348.

See: no need for tables!

That's nice. I'll be interested to see to what extent these rules will be used in future Traveller products.


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Hans Rancke,

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.

Blanket tonnages are not a problem, the problem occurs when only a part of the tonnage is used on the deck plans.

I can only vouch for myself about how I handle going over the hulls the original tonnage. The standard components, as I understand Book 2, are the 20 ton bridge for hulls >= 100 tons and <1,000 tons, fuel tankage, weapons, staterooms, low berths, emergency low berths, small craft cabin, and the small craft/control/acceleration couch. These components are the ones I d not shave to bring the hull tonnage down. The only standard component is the cargo space and that is where I shave the numbers from first. If that does not work I start changing the components to bring the tonnage down.

A crew's lounge is not a standard component that I've seen in Book 2 or Book 5. If the crew's lounge uses either the stateroom or small craft cabin then I would not shave tonnage away from it. However, I have figured out that 0.5 tons of a stateroom has an MCr of 62,500 and for a small craft cabin a 0.5 tons is MCr 12,500.

The x-boat has two airlocks as can be seen on the drawing showing the data banks on Supplement 7 page 9 and are detailed in the Interior details on page 10.

From Supplement 7 page 10 Interior details identify them as "Dual airlocks are mounted side by side on the hull. The hatches are intended as safety back-up to the powered iris valve."

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.

By not treating the standard sizes as OT universe-ordained numbers are part of the reason, in my opinion, that so many of the original designs are considered broken. In my opinion the designer of the x-boat manipulated the Book 2 1st edition rules to build the x-boat without a power plant. Book 2 2nd edition and Book 5 second edition then, in my opinion, went to far the other way and required the power plant to be at least the same size as the larger of the two drives.

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

I can agree that such rule breaches should have consequences. I am onboard with the idea of increasing the cost of modified standard components or decreasing the costs based on increased tech levels. MT, TNE, and T4 did give benefits for tech level.

Another way to resolve such breaches would be to add a rule allowing new components to be built or the standard components to be modified to fit.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning everyone,

I've made a stab at drawing the express boat tender's bridge, that hopefully does not break the tonnage of either the deck or the 1,000 ton design.

Here is my attempt Draft X-boat Tender Bridge.

 

[Ulsyus]

Nice. I like the way you've indicated the direction the sliding doors move. I haven't see than before, but am going to use it in future.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Ulsyus,

Nice. I like the way you've indicated the direction the sliding doors move. I haven't see than before, but am going to use it in future.

Thanks, I wish I could claim the idea to be my own, but I can't. The direction of a doors movement is part of what a blued print shows about the whatever structure is being built. Some blue prints I looked at indicated direction of how normal doors swung on their hinges and also included the direction that sliding doors moved.

Of course the real reason for including their direction was remembering one of my referee's comments when being asked which way doors slid to open them after about tens times. No I can't repeat the comments since there was some cussing in two or three languages besides English.

 

[Patron Zero]

I like the work-in-progress, a very nice and logical update to the original layout.

One question about the projecting bridge area, has anyone given any thought to such being a 'tip-out' or deployable section of the hull much in the way that modern-day RVs have similar features ?

If the bridge as such were a more compact configuration while the ship were in say jump-space but did have the capacity to 'expand' for local-space maneuvering and 'on-station' tasks, might that conserve some allotted tonnage for other purposes ?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Patron Zero,

Thank you for taking a look at my attempt to fit the full 20 tons of bridge on in to the original 30 meter and 12 meter dimensions. Okay, I think my bridge is twenty-one tons not twenty, but I think being a bit over is better than not showing all the required tonnage.

I like the work-in-progress, a very nice and logical update to the original layout.

Yep, the re-design is still a work in progress, however I'm not to sure about my idea being logical. At least I think that the bridge is between twenty and twenty-on tons in the drawing.

One question about the projecting bridge area, has anyone given any thought to such being a 'tip-out' or deployable section of the hull much in the way that modern-day RVs have similar features ?

If the bridge as such were a more compact configuration while the ship were in say jump-space but did have the capacity to 'expand' for local-space maneuvering and 'on-station' tasks, might that conserve some allotted tonnage for other purposes ?

No, I had not thought about the bridge being a tip-out type. From the look of the drawing of the tender in relation to the scout/courier and x-boat I just added to what I thought was the bridge view port.

The idea is interesting, and would add more cost at least to the design.

I'm hoping that the doors on the lift shaft are iris valves to ensure that the interior is not depressurized when the doors to the cargo deck and/or ship/vehicle bay is open to vacuum.

On the bridge deck are shown two iris valves that allows access to the mobile turrets. Anything that compromises them or any point on the bridge's hull section will dump the atmosphere with just sliding doors.

I've got another bridge deck design in progress that keeps the view port in the same location as shown in Supplement 7. The bridge gets wider changing the thirty meters to thirty-three. The twelve meter gets pushed to between twelve and a half to thirteen and a half meters. Personally, I can believe that engineering fuel tanks, cargo and bridge decks are 12 meters from what would be the ship's bay doors to the overhead. The ship/vehicle bay height of twelve meters is a bit harder for me to believe. Changing either the thirty meter or twelve meter dimensions also changes the hull's length to allow the 1,000 ton displacement the tender is supposed to be.

Thank you again for looking at the design and giving me feedback.

 

[snrdg082102]

Supplement 7 Express Boat Tender Communicator Relay Facilities

Hello all,

One of the tidbits I missed in the background write-up is that the tender is a communicator relay facility that is used to transfer messages between the x-boats and the populated areas of a system.

Where is the communicator relay equipment shown on the deck plans?

As a guess the deck plan item 16 is a likely candidate. Of course I'm not sure why the facility would be located beside the captain 's cabin.

 

[pendragonman]

Hello all,

One of the tidbits I missed in the background write-up is that the tender is a communicator relay facility that is used to transfer messages between the x-boats and the populated areas of a system.

Where is the communicator relay equipment shown on the deck plans?

As a guess the deck plan item 16 is a likely candidate. Of course I'm not sure why the facility would be located beside the captain 's cabin.

As a captain, where else would you want the radio shack?

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning pendragonman,

As a captain, where else would you want the radio shack?

On the four submarines the captain's stateroom was one deck down. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the radio shack was on the same deck as the captain's stateroom, but I'm fairly sure the shack was not in officer country.

 

[Carlobrand]

As a captain, where else would you want the radio shack?

They're usually found in the local mall, if there is one.

The equipment I'd put in some unused and unusable portion of hull. The room for the men who worked with the equipment, I'd put it adjacent to the bridge so they could do their job without being a distraction and at the same time be able to immediately inform the bridge staff of any issues.

 

[rancke]

The equipment I'd put in some unused and unusable portion of hull. The room for the men who worked with the equipment, I'd put it adjacent to the bridge so they could do their job without being a distraction and at the same time be able to immediately inform the bridge staff of any issues.

I would have assumed that the signals officer¹ was stationed on the bridge. If there's a separate crew/work force for the relay activity then I can see them being stationed separately.

¹ I've always felt that 'communications officer' sounded awkward, so when I came across 'signals officer' in David Drake's Leary/Mundy series, I adopted it on the spot. This is just IMTU, of course.​

Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Carlobrand,

They're usually found in the local mall, if there is one.

Groan and chuckling at the same time :rofl:

The equipment I'd put in some unused and unusable portion of hull. The room for the men who worked with the equipment, I'd put it adjacent to the bridge so they could do their job without being a distraction and at the same time be able to immediately inform the bridge staff of any issues.

I'm working on my next bridge and accommodation layout deck plan which is pretty much done. The snag is I'm still trying to get a decent PDF that shows the key to the diagram and the deck plans that you don't have to have a magnifying glass to see the print.

Anyway, the bridge/accommodations dimensions are:

3 m x 30 m x 16.5 m without the bay window.
3 m x 30 m x 18 m measured from the bay widow

3 meters from the bulkhead between the cargo deck and the bridge and the inner bulkhead where the tender's antenna is shown on Supplement 7 page 30. The width is still 30 meters, the height referenced from the ship/vehicle bay doors to the top ceiling is 16.5 meters without the bay window and 18 meters with the window included.

I've designated the space marked 16 as mostly likely spot the communicator relay facility. Since my bridge is a bit bigger I've enclosed the area with a wall and a passage way to get into the captain's cabin/office.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Hans Rancke,

I would have assumed that the signals officer¹ was stationed on the bridge. If there's a separate crew/work force for the relay activity then I can see them being stationed separately.

¹ I've always felt that 'communications officer' sounded awkward, so when I came across 'signals officer' in David Drake's Leary/Mundy series, I adopted it on the spot. This is just IMTU, of course.​

Hans

IIRC from my time in Holy Loch, Scotland the Royal Naval uses the title signals officer.

In the case of Mistress Mundy, she is much more than a radio operator. Of course she is a highly skilled research librarian that has the backing of a certain highly placed government official.

The tender's write-up indicates that there is a communicator relay facilities, which I take to be some sort of room. My thinking is that the communication specialist has a control console on the bridge and the gear is located in its own space. When something breaks the specialist has to go to the facility to do the repairs.

I'm thinking the that location 16 is probably where the facility is located.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening all,

I've made a new draft of the tender's bridge which I've up load to Draft X-boat Tender Bridge as XT Bridge Mk 1.

The height of the bridge is between 16.5 and 18 meters. The 18 meters is the 1.5 meters of the bay window and the width is still 30 meters.

The width and height for the cargo, ship/vehicle bay, fuel, and drive decks are still 30 meters wide and a 12 meter height.

Adding up the five decks tons together the hull is 1,142.5 tons.

 

[snrdg082102]

XT turrets

Hello all,

After looking at the background information on page 14, the mobile turret inset on page 12, and the pop turret on page 13 has left me a little fuzzy on a couple of design matters.

1. There are two drawings showing the interiors of the tender's mobile and pop turrets that appear to include the gunners' chairs inside the turret.

Is the gunner's chair part of the one ton of fire control (fc) requirement?

If the fc tonnage is inside the turret none of the tonnage would be deducted from the tender's internal volume right?

2. I could not find anything in the tender's background concerning the mobile and pop turrets tonnage and MCr.

A. Pop turret's

A1. The pop turret shown on page 13 appears to show a triple mount turret to be 2 tons and the extension and retraction equipment to be 1 ton.

The one ton addition appears to be for the unidentified object in front of the gunner's couch.

If the pop turret mount three weapons the base cost is MCr1. The one ton of an unidentified mechanism and the one ton retraction/extension mechanism I'm guessing would be MCr 0.2 (the same MCr as a single turret). My pop turret's total tonnage is 3 tons at a cost of MCr1.4

A2. The article Bait: Q-Ships in Traveller by Steven Brinich and James Schwar published in Challenge 25 1986 pp. 32-33 and 38 has information for determining the tonnage and MCr for a pop turret. Challenge 25 on page 33 provides the following information:

"The pop turrets installed on Q-ships do not move except to retract and extend, they include special stabilizing gear (tonnage equal to turret tonnage, MCr 0.1 per ton)."

Here is what I think the above translates:

Single mount pop Turret:
Turret: 1 ton and MCr 0.2
Pop turret stabilization gear: 1 ton, MCr: 1 ton x 0.1 = MCr 0.1

Tonnage and MCr: 1 ton turret + 1 ton stabilization gear = 2 tons, single turret cost MCr 0.2 + stabilization gear cost MCr 0.1 = MCr 0.3

Am I on the right track?

B. Mobile turret
The inset at the top of Supplement 7 page 12 appears to show a mobile turret being 3 tons and mounts a single weapon. I've been unsuccessful at digging up any information on the mobile turret's tonnage or cost.

B1. My first inclination is that customizing a standard turret adds 2 tons which is probably the mechanism that allows the turret to move. The mobile turret's MCr is single turret MCr 0.2 + (2 x MCr 0.2) = MCr 0.2 + MCr 0.4 = MCr 0.6

B2. Modifying the Challenge 24 pop turret to fit a single mount mobile turret. Movement system tonnage equal to 2 x turret tonnage, MCr 0.1 per ton

Tonnage and MCr: 1 ton turret + 2 tons for the movement system = 3 tons, triple turret cost MCr 1.0 + (2 x 0.1 MCr) = Turret MCr 1.0 + Turret MCr 1.2.

What do you think would be the best one?

 

[Carlobrand]

Hello all,

After looking at the background information on page 14, the mobile turret inset on page 12, and the pop turret on page 13 has left me a little fuzzy on a couple of design matters.

1. There are two drawings showing the interiors of the tender's mobile and pop turrets that appear to include the gunners' chairs inside the turret.

Is the gunner's chair part of the one ton of fire control (fc) requirement? ...

Most deck plans I've seen appear to treat the gunner's position as part of the 1 dT fire control requirement. (On the other hand, most of the deck plans I've seen have been grossly over the declared tonnage.)

Me, I'd say fire control includes the accommodation for the person doing the firing. Bridge gets two seats for the bridge crew, the gun should get a place for the gunner.

... If the fc tonnage is inside the turret none of the tonnage would be deducted from the tender's internal volume right?...

If I were drawing a deck plan, I'd judge that if a ship is 1000 dT and has X turrets outside, in which the gunners sit, then the ship's body should be 1000-X dTons. However, I'm pretty nitpicky. I doubt anyone's going to quibble about a deck plan being off by the volume of a couple of turrets.

... 2. I could not find anything in the tender's background concerning the mobile and pop turrets tonnage and MCr. ...

Given that it's a CT ship, I'd suggest 1 dTon per turret unless there's some note specifically mentioning some weapon other than lasers, missiles, and sandcasters.

...
A1. The pop turret shown on page 13 appears to show a triple mount turret to be 2 tons and the extension and retraction equipment to be 1 ton. ...

This being the 1000 dTon ship whose dimensions actually make it around 1500 dTons, our choices are either to accept it as given or redraw the whole thing. Either option would be appropriate.

... If the pop turret mount three weapons the base cost is MCr1. The one ton of an unidentified mechanism and the one ton retraction/extension mechanism I'm guessing would be MCr 0.2 (the same MCr as a single turret). My pop turret's total tonnage is 3 tons at a cost of MCr1.4

A2. The article Bait: Q-Ships in Traveller by Steven Brinich and James Schwar published in Challenge 25 1986 pp. 32-33 and 38 has information for determining the tonnage and MCr for a pop turret. Challenge 25 on page 33 provides the following information:

"The pop turrets installed on Q-ships do not move except to retract and extend, they include special stabilizing gear (tonnage equal to turret tonnage, MCr 0.1 per ton)." ...

Navigation advisory: you are drifting out of canon. I think if you try to include information from a 1986 article on pop turrets into the design cost of a 1980 design, and then calculate your cost by multiplying the 1986 price to account for the larger turret on a deeply flawed 1980 drawing that's 50% larger all around, you're going to miss the price target.

On the other hand, I can't manage to hit the price target on that one to save my life. I'm wondering if it was also designed using the 1977 Book 2. If so, then we need to toss out the Supplement 7 price as errata anyway, and maybe we can add a cost for pop-turrets while we're doing that. However, unless we're going to sit fusion beams in the turret, I'd still say the turret was 1 dT despite the oversized drawing, which would give a 1 dT retraction unit at a cost of MCr 0.1. I would not base the turret's price on a bad drawing.

... Single mount pop Turret:
Turret: 1 ton and MCr 0.2
Pop turret stabilization gear: 1 ton, MCr: 1 ton x 0.1 = MCr 0.1

Tonnage and MCr: 1 ton turret + 1 ton stabilization gear = 2 tons, single turret cost MCr 0.2 + stabilization gear cost MCr 0.1 = MCr 0.3 ...

Yeah, just like that. Never mind what I said earlier.

... B. Mobile turret
The inset at the top of Supplement 7 page 12 appears to show a mobile turret being 3 tons and mounts a single weapon. I've been unsuccessful at digging up any information on the mobile turret's tonnage or cost.

B1. My first inclination is that customizing a standard turret adds 2 tons which is probably the mechanism that allows the turret to move. The mobile turret's MCr is single turret MCr 0.2 + (2 x MCr 0.2) = MCr 0.2 + MCr 0.4 = MCr 0.6

B2. Modifying the Challenge 24 pop turret to fit a single mount mobile turret. Movement system tonnage equal to 2 x turret tonnage, MCr 0.1 per ton

Tonnage and MCr: 1 ton turret + 2 tons for the movement system = 3 tons, triple turret cost MCr 1.0 + (2 x 0.1 MCr) = Turret MCr 1.0 + Turret MCr 1.2.

What do you think would be the best one?

Again we have the core problem of the ship being too big in general. That being the case, I'd not read a lot into the deck plan dimensions of the turret: the artist drew what looked good, not what fit the rules. As to the mobile turret track costs and mass, a standard turret presumably has equipment that allows it to pivot within its hardpoint. This one has equipment that allows it to ride and pivot on a rail. I'd call it even.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Carlobrand,

Most deck plans I've seen appear to treat the gunner's position as part of the 1 dT fire control requirement. (On the other hand, most of the deck plans I've seen have been grossly over the declared tonnage.)

Just checking and I recall an illustration, cannot find the book, that had the gunner's station inside compartment with an airlock taking up space in the hull.

From my one and only attempt at hand drawing a ship's deck plans they squares did not fit into the hull's shape as I envisioned them. I had to re-draw the hull lines to fit he calculated numbers on the paper.

Me, I'd say fire control includes the accommodation for the person doing the firing. Bridge gets two seats for the bridge crew, the gun should get a place for the gunner.

Yep, Book 2 requires a gunner per installed turret and suggests that the individual is has a station at the turret's location.

If I were drawing a deck plan, I'd judge that if a ship is 1000 dT and has X turrets outside, in which the gunners sit, then the ship's body should be 1000-X dTons. However, I'm pretty nitpicky. I doubt anyone's going to quibble about a deck plan being off by the volume of a couple of turrets.

Just checking to ensure that I'm not out on the limb all by myself.

Given that it's a CT ship, I'd suggest 1 dTon per turret unless there's some note specifically mentioning some weapon other than lasers, missiles, and sandcasters.

The pop turret and mobile turrets are not standard Book 2 components. The pop turret is not able to rotate but does raise and lower the turret to fire.

The mobile turrets are not fixed in one place which adds to the turret cost.

This being the 1000 dTon ship whose dimensions actually make it around 1500 dTons, our choices are either to accept it as given or redraw the whole thing. Either option would be appropriate.

Yep, the 60 meters long puts the hull at using 13.5 cubic meters at 1,600 tons. At 14 cubic meters per the hull is 1,542 tons. I'm trying to keep the same design and changed the length and redrawing the deck plans.

Navigation advisory: you are drifting out of canon. I think if you try to include information from a 1986 article on pop turrets into the design cost of a 1980 design, and then calculate your cost by multiplying the 1986 price to account for the larger turret on a deeply flawed 1980 drawing that's 50% larger all around, you're going to miss the price target.

On the other hand, I can't manage to hit the price target on that one to save my life. I'm wondering if it was also designed using the 1977 Book 2. If so, then we need to toss out the Supplement 7 price as errata anyway, and maybe we can add a cost for pop-turrets while we're doing that. However, unless we're going to sit fusion beams in the turret, I'd still say the turret was 1 dT despite the oversized drawing, which would give a 1 dT retraction unit at a cost of MCr 0.1. I would not base the turret's price on a bad drawing.

In theory the Challenge 26 article is part of canon and does appear to work.

The background material on page 11 states that weapons costs have not been included. In Book 2 turrets and weapons add to the hulls cost. Installed empty turrets, in my opinion, should add to the hulls cost.

Yeah, just like that. Never mind what I said earlier.

See the Challenge article worked out rather nicely, but then again at least in Supplement 7 the turrets costs are not included in the price.

Again we have the core problem of the ship being too big in general. That being the case, I'd not read a lot into the deck plan dimensions of the turret: the artist drew what looked good, not what fit the rules. As to the mobile turret track costs and mass, a standard turret presumably has equipment that allows it to pivot within its hardpoint. This one has equipment that allows it to ride and pivot on a rail. I'd call it even.

The mobile turret moves the hard point from one location to another one and still rotates itself. Sort of like a tank, of course the mobile turret is limited to traveling on tracks over a much shorter distance.

Catch you later my bed is calling me.

 

[Patron Zero]

.....Again we have the core problem of the ship being too big in general. That being the case, I'd not read a lot into the deck plan dimensions of the turret: the artist drew what looked good, not what fit the rules. .....

That's the basis for my upcoming attempt to rework the classic tender design as a more rough compound hull than the neat smooth package such appears.

Also my take on tenders, in particular those supporting the express boat network and the ships of the Imperial Interstellar Scout Service, are more a hybrid of tow-truck and mobile dry-dock facility.