The Space Issue in Traveller

[Publius]

I was describing this phenomenon to someone and thought it might be interesting to share.

http://www.indalopublishing.com/travellerspaceissue.pdf

The "issue" is that 4 tons for Staterooms and everything else is too close a margin. No one wants to buy luxuries just to expand a hallway so the hallway space comes from the 5-10% overage. That also allows for the airlocks that are supposed to come with the hull and so forth (what I refer to here as "Unaccounted stuff").

What exacerbates the problem, at least for me, is that when you draw the plans like I do, with actual walls as opposed to lines on a grid, the space gets even tighter since you have to account for the extra space a wall takes up. A 5x5 Elevator is really much smaller unless you totally skin the walls and leave nothing for the mechanicals (I generally say that spaceship elevators are platforms on independent grav controls so that there is no pulley system or what have you, but still, the cage (or simple platform) has to slot into something now doesn't it? which means you at least have a wall so your 60" suddenly becomes 54-52" -- doable, but just barely)

 

[far-trader]

Darn. I was all ready to debate the counter-point but you surprised me and it turns out you're arguing my point In other words, I pretty much totally agree but thanks for sharing. A quick look at your pdf workup shows you could get a little more useful room in your staterooms the way I do (and Traveller generally does) by using a sliding door (aka pocket door) instead of the standard hinged door.

I have a standard stateroom 3m x 3m with a closet fresher, bunk beds, large flat panel display two lockers, two chairs, table, desk and shelves. All accommodated through use of fold up and away and multiple function usage. All with actual wall thickness intruding (at least partly) into the volume. It can be done, but it is functional, not luxurious or spacious. Not claustrophobic (for most) but cramped with two sharing. Though the additional 2tons of volume mitigates, especially if you can arrange the rooms around the common space to avoid giving up volume for dedicated hallways.

Someone else will have to weigh in with the "but compared to what modern naval ship and submarine crews put up with... " counter-point

 

[aramis]

Just been waiting for this...



This is a 2m x 4m (by 3.5m tall) 4 man room, reasonably sized for 2 TNE deck squares, 28m³ (2Td) INCLUDING fresher and seating area. which means if it's part of 2 small staterooms, there's another 2 Td elsewhere; if part of 2 large, then there's 6Td in commons.

Green box is Life Support. Note overhead storage spaces. A nice cozy space.
Wall thickness of 10cm means losing 5cm off the sides; it won't be noticed. Folding toilet in shower stall (there's an old thread on folding toilets...). A folding door would be better than the curtain, but the curtain was easier to put in. Easier still woul be a japanese style trench toilet, but lots of people find those unpleasant.

 

[shadowdragon]

That also allows for the airlocks that are supposed to come with the hull and so forth (what I refer to here as "Unaccounted stuff").

Bk2 and Bk5 say nothing on airlocks. MT airlocks are in the 'bridge' section, T4 they are a separate item, TNE puts them in lifesupport, and with T20 you get 1 free included in the bridge tonnage, and if there is space, others can be allocated to bridge tonnage as well, otherwise it has a cost. In none of these systems do you take airlock space from the stateroom tonnage so that's one less item to eat up space.

When doing deckplans, remember that most systems do a 1.5m x 1.5m grid. A 1.5m wide hallway is a little wide (nearly 5 feet) but adjusting the width will require some futzing. Only in a dedicated passenger liner would I leave them that wide, or wider. Eliminating the hallways by having the staterooms open onto the common area is another solution. Take a look at passenger liners (not cruise ships) and you will notice the staterooms were not really all that big in many cases.

here is a link to the Andrea Doria:

http://www.andreadoria.org/DeckPlans/DeckPlan.htm

and one to the Lusitania:

http://rmslusitania.info/pages/deck_plans.html

 

[far-trader]

Bk2 and Bk5 say nothing on airlocks...

Actually Bk5 (the first printing ) while not specifically mentioning airlocks does mention a whole lot of other stuff that are "suggested uses for interior space... " many of which but not all may be... "subsumed in the costs and tonnages of the 4 ton staterooms." Items such as...

mess halls, gallies, ward rooms, labs, storerooms, commo suites, avionics, ecm installations, gunnery simulation trainers, computer ops, parts storage, vehicle garaging, maintenance, and launch, recycling stations, medical wards including isolation, surgery, pharmacy, and examination, gardens, hydroponics, algae tanks, theatres, craft shops, libraries, pools, squad barracks, training rooms and armories, brigs, ammo magazines, vacc-suit storage, drop capsule launch areas, and briefing rooms.

For deckplanning purposes mainly, and presumably using that 20% leeway, but the features needed to make the ship function can be taken as included even where the design system does not spell it out.

It's not a stretch at all to add airlocks to that. And it's easy to see it as included but not mentioned even in Bk2. I think I've long used Bridge tonnage for a lot of that. Maybe even as far back as Bk2.

When doing deckplans, remember that most systems do a 1.5m x 1.5m grid. A 1.5m wide hallway is a little wide (nearly 5 feet)...

You might think so but once you allow for wall thickness and hand/grab rails down each side it's right about where modern building code says it should be. And a tight fit for bulky low tech vacc-suits or battle-dress which every PC will insist on wearing

 

[aramis]

Dan: if the walls are the same construction as on modern naval craft, you're looking at wall thickness of 2-3cm, tops, for most walls. Even if we assume office-partition style walls, those are under 5cm. Only pressure walls (bulkheads) should be thicker than that.

a 5cm thick rail, 5cm from the wall (that's about 4") is useful, but not really likely on TL11+ ships (due to reliable Artificial Gravity); more likely is that such a rail will be well above the walking level, used almost exclusively when gravity fails. Say, 2.0m from floor. For odd times, that also provides a clip rail, and most adults will be able to reach it.

Modern naval passages tend to me 2.5 to 3.5 feet (82cm-115cm), no handrails, and when you need to push off, you use the walls themselves as your brace points. Only on weather decks and ladders are handrails that common. A few ships have 5-6 foot (1.6-1.9m) wide passages in some areas; these areas tend to be two-way thoroughfares.

 

[shadowdragon]

You might think so but once you allow for wall thickness and hand/grab rails down each side it's right about where modern building code says it should be. And a tight fit for bulky low tech vacc-suits or battle-dress which every PC will insist on wearing

I wouldn't have passenger spaces a full 1.5m, maybe 1.25 or thereabouts. High traffic areas would be of course wider for obvious reasons. Full on vacc-suits or battledress shouldn't be in the passenger spaces. That indicates bad things have happened.

And battledress isn't ACS armor. Anyone in my game trying to live in it will soon discover that bed sores and nifty fungus issues are intimate friends of theirs.

 

[Publius]

Interesting replies. Certainly nothing I vehemently disagree with and some things that I should probably think about seriously.

This conversation was about a passenger type liner (or at least something that was designed to carry lots of people and was not strictly military). But I tend to use 5 foot hallways when I can anyway (I generally assume two-way thoroughfares in non-military ships). Once you start dragging equipment and things like that down a 3 foot wide hallway, you understand that sometimes you need that extra space. Again, not always mandatory, and in this sort of "bulk housing" I may end up cutting it down, but the cube is actually closer to 12x12.5 remember,so that cuts the hallways down a bit right there to make the numbers work right.

The pocket door/sliding door versus pressure door thing is something I tend to go back and forth on. I usually adjust it for the tech level and the "feel" of the ship. I'm in the process of putting together a passenger liner (not the project I was discussing in the pdf) and I used sliding/Pocket (TOS Star Trek-ish) doors because the Liner is a Luxury ship, and the passengers would not expect such crude things for their staterooms. Even on that design, there are some swinging hatch doors, mainly to ship/crew-related areas.

That's really interesting about the wall thickness in modern naval craft. No doubt the joys of using metal rather than conventional building materials (and of course, these would use metal the same way wouldn't they?). That bears some though on my part as a major shift in my design theory. I'kll have to do some research (do noises carry excessively, what is the precise thickness et al). Also, I wouldn't have a pocket door (which of course, they do not for the most part right?) in something that thin unless that portion of the wall were a bit thicker though (actually that might look kinda cool, inset doors along the hallway).

As far as the airlocks, no these are not mentioned much in the old stuff (and isn;t included in Mongooses' "Living space" assumptions either, which was why I had to call it "non-accounted stuff"), but Mongoose says that they are included in ships (pg. 137 Main Book) and when you are trying to figure out a layout, that space has to come from/'count' somewhere. I'm trying to work with the most recent extant material.

Aramis, the layout looks interesting, I'd like to see the 2D. Actually, I wasn't going for the most hyper-efficient layout really here, I wasn't even trying. Those were staterooms I had for a different project and I just grabbed one, paste>paste>paste then laid them out simply as a demonstration. That being: when looking at the issues surrounding layout with "Living space" involved, the use of Stateroom tonnage for hallways is enormously costly. The problem actually gets much much worse when you look at hallways in the functional areas of the ship. Should have mentioned that in the opening blurb. But the stateroom you mention does look mighty interesting.

I think that part of the problem is that 4 tons for staterooms, if you count all that other stuff in the mix, is too thin a margin. The problem is that 4 tons is about what the "market will bear" (i.e. the most we can accept from a numbers design perspective when we build the ship). The solution, in my mind, is to use the old concept of "overage" to account for this stuff. And there is precedent. CT S07 (LBB Traders and Gunboats), pg 5:

In addition, a limited volume of passages has been added to some starships. Passages and access ways which have no other use may be safely added to a ship without affecting its volume or displacement' for construction purposes; such additional passages should amount to no more than an additional 10% of the total ship volume.

I just included stairs, elevator shafts, and stuff like airlocks onto that list. So there is some rationale, it's just that nowadays, that sort of thing isn't spelled out the same way and/or readily apparent to those of us who haven't been playing this game for a long time (like the guy I was chatting with).

 

[Publius]

That being said, I was wondering what folks thought of a few other related issues:

1) Adjoining Staterooms and Cargo areas (not for paid passengers, more for Crew/military style accommodations). Right now, I have done that in one design, but not counted the hallway spaces as Cargo tonnage. Frankly, I could drop a wall there, but aesthetically, I left the open space. The Cargo area does not open directly to vacuum either, before that is an issue (and indeed, it would be). No real space saving per se, just your thoughts.

2) Incorporating dedicated cargo space into staterooms. Something I had seriously considered while doing a luxury liner. I places a lot of counter/cupboard space in one of the large staterooms and thought about this. Even if it were only a half-ton or so, it would limit the amount of luxuries I purchase (for the extra space) and it would accommodate some of the Cargo allowance for the High-Class ticketholders (I assumed a half ton for each stateroom in baggage and a half ton in the bulk cargo area, actually the cargo which was adjoining the Crew Staterooms mentioned above). Such cargo space would be dedicated/reserved for passengers, and not usable for bulk cargo obviously. I did not go with this idea, but I was tempted.

3) Using a portion of the the Engine tonnage for an "Engine Room". While this tonnage could be taken from the Bridge tonnage (and often is), I thought that the tonnage of the Engines should include the gauges, indicators, consoles and such associated with those components. Since this is not an area which is used for cargo or whatever, but might be a good place for adventurers to linger/have to get to/encounter scene/whatever why not? I'm very interested in other folks thinking on this.

4) Zero G Vertical shafts. On the passenger liner I am working on, I have both elevators (3 for 40 High class staterooms, so there are plenty) and vertical shafts. I did not opt for stairs (huge space wasters). I was wondering about making the Vertical shafts (which are not impinging on the hallways but adjacent to them) zero-G to facilitate ease of use. Not everyone is going to make use of them, but the Crew will for quick hops between floors and maybe some adventurous passengers.

 

[leo knight]

Years ago, I read about the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg. The book had deck plans of the passenger spaces. The actual cabins were quite small, 6'6" by 5'6" inside. The partitions were foam covered in hull fabric, about 4" thick IIRC. The common areas, dining room, observation room, etc, were quite expansive. I remember doing the math, and coming to about 4 tons per passenger. Here's a link to images:

http://balduin.wordpress.com/2006/10/13/speisesaal-im-luftschiff-hindenburg/

I keep coming back to this in my own designs. Enjoy!

edit: More info here:

http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/interiors

Enjoy!

 

[Icosahedron]

I've never found the 4dT allowance to be restrictive, in fact I've found it to be a useful guide. However, I do tend to use 1m corridors, avoid corridors whenever possible and take engine rooms from the drive tonnage.
I avoid stairs on smaller ships, using ladder wells instead (ZG wells are a good idea - thanks, I'm sure I'll use that ). Passenger baggage is usually stored in cabins, but High passengers get 1dT of cargo space in addition. I might allow a PC crew to store some small items of speculative cargo in vacant cabins, but not general freight.
The Hindenburg is very much how I see small starships.

 

[Publius]

I might allow a PC crew to store some small items of speculative cargo in vacant cabins, but not general freight.

Actually, the half-ton of cargo space idea (which I didn't use) in the stateroom was to (a) get a bigger space without resorting to using luxuries (not because of the extra cost but the fact that it made for too many luxuries on the ship's spreadsheet and I wanted their to be Steward positions in the Crew) and (b) was specifically NOT supposed to be freight of any sort -- only baggage. Freight tonnage should not go into staterooms, empty or not, especially if you use 1m hallways.

Also, to clarify: my argument is solely that the 4 ton-allowance should not be used for accessways and corridors, not that it is too little for the staterooms themselves. When I said that more than 4 tons should be allocated, that was in relation to the living space + accessways coming out of that tonnage allocation, and even then I'm not convinced.

I like the overage-use rule, it ensures that overage not be used for other things (weapons, cargo etc.) while solving this issue. In some ships, you'd use way less than 10%, especially if there are a limited number living areas, but since it is solely for the purpose of accessways, no problem.

 

[aramis]

the overage ONLY applies to plans, not to designs themselves, Publius.

 

[leo knight]

Just found this article about single occupancy passenger cabins on liners:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/a...el-Cruise-ships-embrace-single-traveller.html

Each of the 100sq ft studio staterooms will include a full-size bed, flatscreen-TV, storage spaces and colour-changing mood lighting. Since many of the studio staterooms are connecting, they allow friends to travel together while giving each their own private space.

Enjoy!

 

[far-trader]

Neat find leo knight

Here's a link to a page for deckplans of the ship. The page is a rotatable view of the ship and if you mouse over it the decks will highlight and link to a plan view. Now I just have to figure out which deck is the one with the studio staterooms...

http://www.epic.ncl.eu/the-ship/deck-plans/

...decks 11 and 12, along the center of the ship to each side of the corridor.

 

[Publius]

the overage ONLY applies to plans, not to designs themselves, Publius.

Precisely, that is why it cannot be used for anything else.

 

[far-trader]

Overhead view of the Studio Stateroom layout from the ship mentioned above:

I like the idea of the one-way porthole onto the corridor (the round bit on the wall at the bottom above). Gonna have to add that to some Traveller deckplans

 

[Icosahedron]

Freight tonnage should not go into staterooms, empty or not, especially if you use 1m hallways.

Officially I'd agree, but in simulating reality, I have to go with the idea that a wily captain faced with a shortage of cargo space is going to improvise, and I can't think of any reason why he couldn't use a vacant cabin. No way he'll get a pallet in there, of course, but he could manhandle a few boxes through the doors.

Also, to clarify: my argument is solely that the 4 ton-allowance should not be used for accessways and corridors, not that it is too little for the staterooms themselves. When I said that more than 4 tons should be allocated, that was in relation to the living space + accessways coming out of that tonnage allocation, and even then I'm not convinced.

If I understand you, you're saying that you think the actual staterooms should be 4dT not 2dT? (I'm used to CT so the 'luxuries' thing is outside my comfort zone. ).

I like the idea of the one-way porthole onto the corridor (the round bit on the wall at the bottom above). Gonna have to add that to some Traveller deckplans

Nice pic.

Not sure about the one way porthole, though. High tech materials might help, but current mirror glass is highly light dependent.
I can see it now: dimmed night-lighting in the corridor and that blonde is getting undressed with her cabin light full on...

OTOH, maybe it's not such a bad idea. :devil:

 

[leo knight]

far-trader,

Wow! I didn't follow the link to the cruise ship site. Amazing stuff. Thanks!

 

[aramis]

Also, to clarify: my argument is solely that the 4 ton-allowance should not be used for accessways and corridors, not that it is too little for the staterooms themselves. When I said that more than 4 tons should be allocated, that was in relation to the living space + accessways coming out of that tonnage allocation, and even then I'm not convinced.

The rules explicitly state that:

When allocating space within the ship for deck plans, assume that only a portion of stateroom tonnage must actually be in staterooms; the remainder should be used for common areas and other accommodations for the crew.
(TTB, p67)​

Since NOTHING else but bridge has sufficient tonnage, and accessways are in fact accomodations for crew needs...

Either you take the accessways out of the bridge, or out of staterooms.