notagoodusername
SOC-13
Remember the bridge also include an airlock or two, ship's locker, accessways and the like. Check the design section of T20 for a alist of the included compnents.
Shane
Travelling with the times...
- Thread starter Alias
- Start date
Shane
notagoodusername
SOC-13
Remember the bridge also include an airlock or two, ship's locker, accessways and the like. Check the design section of T20 for a alist of the included compnents.
Shane
Point 1: this is talking about CT, not T20. T20 may have attempted to handwave away the inconsistency, but this doesn't really mean much for CT.
Point 2:
Crewstations: realistic requirements are on the order of 0.2 dtons (about a square meter of deck space) per person, for a quite open working area; something as cramped as your average automobile works out to around 0.05-0.1 dtons. You can use more space if you want room for gawkers, such as on a Star Trek bridge, but there's no reason for a trade ship to need all that space. Crew isn't more than 5 on the bridge, so 1 dton here.
Airlock: 0.5 dton for a rather large one (slightly smaller than a typical elevator).
Ship's Locker: 0.1 dton for about 500 kilos of stuff, which seems plenty.
Access: well, presumably all components include access space for themselves; the 0.2 dtons per crewstation is actually enough to get in and out. Still, we'll add another 0.4 dtons for a small passageway.
Woo...2 dtons used. Only 18 to go.
Point 1: this is talking about CT, not T20. T20 may have attempted to handwave away the inconsistency, but this doesn't really mean much for CT.
Point 2:
Crewstations: realistic requirements are on the order of 0.2 dtons (about a square meter of deck space) per person, for a quite open working area; something as cramped as your average automobile works out to around 0.05-0.1 dtons. You can use more space if you want room for gawkers, such as on a Star Trek bridge, but there's no reason for a trade ship to need all that space. Crew isn't more than 5 on the bridge, so 1 dton here.
Airlock: 0.5 dton for a rather large one (slightly smaller than a typical elevator).
Ship's Locker: 0.1 dton for about 500 kilos of stuff, which seems plenty.
Access: well, presumably all components include access space for themselves; the 0.2 dtons per crewstation is actually enough to get in and out. Still, we'll add another 0.4 dtons for a small passageway.
Woo...2 dtons used. Only 18 to go.
Getting a workstation under 0.5 dton is pretty claustrophobic. Remember these guys are not strapped in the cockpit for a 2-3 hour mission, but working for 2-3 weeks, so think like a submaines conning room, not a jet fighter. And it makes sense to put essential things like air locks as part of the bridge percentage, since they have to be on the ship and they make as much sense in the bridge as engineering or accommodation. Also the ships locker will include parkas, flashlights, light bulbs, tools, flares, vacc suits, and a shotgun or two, certainly 1-2 dtons. (I usually have a 'fresher and a coffee pot on my bridges as well.)
Traveller ship's accomodations are luxurious by naval standards, though. 4 dton per person, 2dton for low-rank military? I figure a RW SSN has about 0.5 dton for EM (including bunks, mess and hygeine) up to about 1 dton for the Captain. U-boats were even smaller, but their crews got to go up on deck at night, sometimes.
I am not complaining, though. The extra space is neccessary for passengers ensures that there will be room for passageways and incidental facitilies in even poorly designed floorplans. Works for me.
Traveller ship's accomodations are luxurious by naval standards, though. 4 dton per person, 2dton for low-rank military? I figure a RW SSN has about 0.5 dton for EM (including bunks, mess and hygeine) up to about 1 dton for the Captain. U-boats were even smaller, but their crews got to go up on deck at night, sometimes.
I am not complaining, though. The extra space is neccessary for passengers ensures that there will be room for passageways and incidental facitilies in even poorly designed floorplans. Works for me.
Getting a workstation under 0.5 dton is pretty claustrophobic. Remember these guys are not strapped in the cockpit for a 2-3 hour mission, but working for 2-3 weeks, so think like a submaines conning room, not a jet fighter. And it makes sense to put essential things like air locks as part of the bridge percentage, since they have to be on the ship and they make as much sense in the bridge as engineering or accommodation. Also the ships locker will include parkas, flashlights, light bulbs, tools, flares, vacc suits, and a shotgun or two, certainly 1-2 dtons. (I usually have a 'fresher and a coffee pot on my bridges as well.)
Traveller ship's accomodations are luxurious by naval standards, though. 4 dton per person, 2dton for low-rank military? I figure a RW SSN has about 0.5 dton for EM (including bunks, mess and hygeine) up to about 1 dton for the Captain. U-boats were even smaller, but their crews got to go up on deck at night, sometimes.
I am not complaining, though. The extra space is neccessary for passengers ensures that there will be room for passageways and incidental facitilies in even poorly designed floorplans. Works for me.
Traveller ship's accomodations are luxurious by naval standards, though. 4 dton per person, 2dton for low-rank military? I figure a RW SSN has about 0.5 dton for EM (including bunks, mess and hygeine) up to about 1 dton for the Captain. U-boats were even smaller, but their crews got to go up on deck at night, sometimes.
I am not complaining, though. The extra space is neccessary for passengers ensures that there will be room for passageways and incidental facitilies in even poorly designed floorplans. Works for me.
Well, a real-world automobile front seat is around 0.05 dtons and not particularly claustrophobic for a full day. A seat in an airplane is around 0.03 dtons, a pretty large, comfortable seat is typically twice that.
Traveller ships are large enough with small enough crews that 0.5 dtons per crewstation isn't a silly waste of space, but even then we're talking maybe 3-4 dtons for the bridge of a Free Trader.
The number of airlocks you need on a ship is pretty much a function of the number of people who need to move in and out of the ship, which is in turn a function of the size of the crew. As such, it makes the most sense as part of accomodations.
Do you have any idea how big a dton is? You can fit all the stuff you're talking about into the trunk of a car, which is typically less than 1 cubic meter (0.07 dtons).
Again, too high. A bunk, by itself, only takes up around 0.1 dtons (this includes access space); the total per person could be as low as 0.2 dtons, though for morale reasons actual volumes are higher unless the situation is very specialized (1 dton per person on a surface ship is reasonable).
The easiest way to fix Traveller volumes is to redefine a dton from 1.5m squares (3m ceilings; total 13.5 cubic meters) to 2 1 meter squares (2 meter ceilings; total 4 cubic meters). Conveniently enough, this would result in a dton actually being fairly close to a ton of mass.
Well, a real-world automobile front seat is around 0.05 dtons and not particularly claustrophobic for a full day. A seat in an airplane is around 0.03 dtons, a pretty large, comfortable seat is typically twice that.
Traveller ships are large enough with small enough crews that 0.5 dtons per crewstation isn't a silly waste of space, but even then we're talking maybe 3-4 dtons for the bridge of a Free Trader.
The number of airlocks you need on a ship is pretty much a function of the number of people who need to move in and out of the ship, which is in turn a function of the size of the crew. As such, it makes the most sense as part of accomodations.
Do you have any idea how big a dton is? You can fit all the stuff you're talking about into the trunk of a car, which is typically less than 1 cubic meter (0.07 dtons).
Again, too high. A bunk, by itself, only takes up around 0.1 dtons (this includes access space); the total per person could be as low as 0.2 dtons, though for morale reasons actual volumes are higher unless the situation is very specialized (1 dton per person on a surface ship is reasonable).
The easiest way to fix Traveller volumes is to redefine a dton from 1.5m squares (3m ceilings; total 13.5 cubic meters) to 2 1 meter squares (2 meter ceilings; total 4 cubic meters). Conveniently enough, this would result in a dton actually being fairly close to a ton of mass.
Uncle Bob,
I have no idea what a dton is...
Sure, computers can be quite small these days, probably moreso in the future. Marc got it wrong, but if you have storage, a mainframe and a spare of everything the space do fill up...
Sure there's always those players that complain, but it is a game after all. They have to accept the setting. If they don't they aren't that fun to game with...
I have no idea what a dton is...
Sure, computers can be quite small these days, probably moreso in the future. Marc got it wrong, but if you have storage, a mainframe and a spare of everything the space do fill up...
Sure there's always those players that complain, but it is a game after all. They have to accept the setting. If they don't they aren't that fun to game with...
Uncle Bob,
I have no idea what a dton is...
Sure, computers can be quite small these days, probably moreso in the future. Marc got it wrong, but if you have storage, a mainframe and a spare of everything the space do fill up...
Sure there's always those players that complain, but it is a game after all. They have to accept the setting. If they don't they aren't that fun to game with...
I have no idea what a dton is...
Sure, computers can be quite small these days, probably moreso in the future. Marc got it wrong, but if you have storage, a mainframe and a spare of everything the space do fill up...
Sure there's always those players that complain, but it is a game after all. They have to accept the setting. If they don't they aren't that fun to game with...
mad13142000
SOC-13
A dton is a displacement ton, referring to the amount of space a ton of liquid hydrogen takes up. It is about 14 cubic meters or about 500 cubic feet. The whole computers thing is on a different thread...
-MADDog
-MADDog
mad13142000
SOC-13
A dton is a displacement ton, referring to the amount of space a ton of liquid hydrogen takes up. It is about 14 cubic meters or about 500 cubic feet. The whole computers thing is on a different thread...
-MADDog
-MADDog
(1) Nanotech. There's no problem with having the adventurers stumble upon a nanotech-affected world while they're jumping around. Make it interdicted, no surface water, no surface bio besides seas of nano-goop: that's what happens when Traveller nanotech goes awry...
(2) Computers. I've handwaved this around a bit, and the computer sizes are almost credible IF:
(2a) the volume includes human workspace
(2b) the computer is composed of subunits:
(2b.i) computation units (0.2 dt)
(2b.ii) storage units (0.1 dt)
(2c) subunits have their own infrastructure
(2d) add a cooling system
(2e) add a redundancy layer
(2f) anything else?
(2) Computers. I've handwaved this around a bit, and the computer sizes are almost credible IF:
(2a) the volume includes human workspace
(2b) the computer is composed of subunits:
(2b.i) computation units (0.2 dt)
(2b.ii) storage units (0.1 dt)
(2c) subunits have their own infrastructure
(2d) add a cooling system
(2e) add a redundancy layer
(2f) anything else?
(1) Nanotech. There's no problem with having the adventurers stumble upon a nanotech-affected world while they're jumping around. Make it interdicted, no surface water, no surface bio besides seas of nano-goop: that's what happens when Traveller nanotech goes awry...
(2) Computers. I've handwaved this around a bit, and the computer sizes are almost credible IF:
(2a) the volume includes human workspace
(2b) the computer is composed of subunits:
(2b.i) computation units (0.2 dt)
(2b.ii) storage units (0.1 dt)
(2c) subunits have their own infrastructure
(2d) add a cooling system
(2e) add a redundancy layer
(2f) anything else?
(2) Computers. I've handwaved this around a bit, and the computer sizes are almost credible IF:
(2a) the volume includes human workspace
(2b) the computer is composed of subunits:
(2b.i) computation units (0.2 dt)
(2b.ii) storage units (0.1 dt)
(2c) subunits have their own infrastructure
(2d) add a cooling system
(2e) add a redundancy layer
(2f) anything else?
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
I know it's slightly off topic but the longevity of firearms tech is one of personal fascination.
1) AK-47: I don't have any personal experience with the Kalashnikov but in the late 80's I was among the last intake of reservists to receive training on our soon-to-be-placed-in-warstock FAL varients. And I would have taken 'Foehammer' (my basic training rifle) date stamped 1958, over my M16 varient that was issued to me on return to unit.
2) Browning hi-power. The last of Browning's designs and built in 1935 Single Action and with a 13 round capacity it's -slightly- surpassed by modern Berreta's and Glocks with their Double Action designs and zillion round magazines.
3) While no longer in use by militaries much the Good old 1911 in all it's incarnations enjoys a lot of popularity in civilian and private hands.
However all the of the above is less than 100 years.
the OTU is what... 3 thousand years in the future? Granted there have been some 'dark ages' in there. But to find the standard civilian handgun is still comparable in design and performance to one of John Browning's two most famous pistol designs? Although, perhaps those designs represent the best conceptional level of firearms tech? And the next breakthrough will be into an entirely new tech?
anyhow. um... where was I?
Right. It may not make sense but I like Traveller Firearms as is.
1) AK-47: I don't have any personal experience with the Kalashnikov but in the late 80's I was among the last intake of reservists to receive training on our soon-to-be-placed-in-warstock FAL varients. And I would have taken 'Foehammer' (my basic training rifle) date stamped 1958, over my M16 varient that was issued to me on return to unit.
2) Browning hi-power. The last of Browning's designs and built in 1935 Single Action and with a 13 round capacity it's -slightly- surpassed by modern Berreta's and Glocks with their Double Action designs and zillion round magazines.
3) While no longer in use by militaries much the Good old 1911 in all it's incarnations enjoys a lot of popularity in civilian and private hands.
However all the of the above is less than 100 years.
the OTU is what... 3 thousand years in the future? Granted there have been some 'dark ages' in there. But to find the standard civilian handgun is still comparable in design and performance to one of John Browning's two most famous pistol designs? Although, perhaps those designs represent the best conceptional level of firearms tech? And the next breakthrough will be into an entirely new tech?
anyhow. um... where was I?
Right. It may not make sense but I like Traveller Firearms as is.
PapaGolfWhiskey
SOC-13
I know it's slightly off topic but the longevity of firearms tech is one of personal fascination.
1) AK-47: I don't have any personal experience with the Kalashnikov but in the late 80's I was among the last intake of reservists to receive training on our soon-to-be-placed-in-warstock FAL varients. And I would have taken 'Foehammer' (my basic training rifle) date stamped 1958, over my M16 varient that was issued to me on return to unit.
2) Browning hi-power. The last of Browning's designs and built in 1935 Single Action and with a 13 round capacity it's -slightly- surpassed by modern Berreta's and Glocks with their Double Action designs and zillion round magazines.
3) While no longer in use by militaries much the Good old 1911 in all it's incarnations enjoys a lot of popularity in civilian and private hands.
However all the of the above is less than 100 years.
the OTU is what... 3 thousand years in the future? Granted there have been some 'dark ages' in there. But to find the standard civilian handgun is still comparable in design and performance to one of John Browning's two most famous pistol designs? Although, perhaps those designs represent the best conceptional level of firearms tech? And the next breakthrough will be into an entirely new tech?
anyhow. um... where was I?
Right. It may not make sense but I like Traveller Firearms as is.
1) AK-47: I don't have any personal experience with the Kalashnikov but in the late 80's I was among the last intake of reservists to receive training on our soon-to-be-placed-in-warstock FAL varients. And I would have taken 'Foehammer' (my basic training rifle) date stamped 1958, over my M16 varient that was issued to me on return to unit.
2) Browning hi-power. The last of Browning's designs and built in 1935 Single Action and with a 13 round capacity it's -slightly- surpassed by modern Berreta's and Glocks with their Double Action designs and zillion round magazines.
3) While no longer in use by militaries much the Good old 1911 in all it's incarnations enjoys a lot of popularity in civilian and private hands.
However all the of the above is less than 100 years.
the OTU is what... 3 thousand years in the future? Granted there have been some 'dark ages' in there. But to find the standard civilian handgun is still comparable in design and performance to one of John Browning's two most famous pistol designs? Although, perhaps those designs represent the best conceptional level of firearms tech? And the next breakthrough will be into an entirely new tech?
anyhow. um... where was I?
Right. It may not make sense but I like Traveller Firearms as is.
Similar threads
