XBoat deckplans.

[Tekrat04]

You are making an assumption that it is a bad design decision and that there is not a good use case for it. Aramis's suggestion could touch on the frequency of mis-jumps, intervention by local governments driving away tenders, pilot error in jump calculations, etc.

Given the bulkiness of the 80's communication equipment Traveller is predicated on it may make maintenance easier allowing the easy replacement of equipment that would be defeated by an automated airlock.

It will also allow easier access if the defenceless stationary x-boat is taken over by pirates. It may take welding equipment to 'lock' that door from the inside.

Regards defences, given the x-boat has none and attempts by the pilot to repel boarders is near futile, it may also deter foolish actions by the pilot removing the inclination to attempt to defend encrypted communications. This could be a rare example of Health and Safety in the Traveller universe.

The fact that we do not 'know' the reason, does not in itself mean it is a 'bad' design choice.

I'll admit I should of expressed my view of the design decision as "poor" not "bad".

Here is why is see it as a poor design. There is nothing to be gained by having two different type of door side by side. All you are doing is adding cost and waisting cubage that could be put to better use. Terquem got it right in his explanation, the manual hatch is the best choice for this particular application.

Same goes for your explanation of equipment replacement, the airlock with the iris hatch is redundant. There is no need to have two airlocks. Two set of crew, one inside, one outside. Less cycling of the airlock. If the equipment is that bulky then it would get replaced during a major refit. At that point it may be easier to just cut the hull open to pull out the old out and then put the new in and re-patch the hull. I've seen that done for both ships and buildings.

The defence explanation also make no sense. Why add to the cost and waist of cubage just to make it easier to lose the ship?

Knowledge and first hand experience is why I say that having two airlocks with different type of doors side by side is a poor design decision.

 

[Terquem]

now, on a bigger ship, maybe two different styles of entry, with some small space between them, would be an option (particularly for managing "security" issues). But on one such as this, where every other decision is based upon the idea of "premium" tonnage being set aside for the most important function of the vessel, carrying information, redundant hatches just seem out of place.

 

[aramis]

now, on a bigger ship, maybe two different styles of entry, with some small space between them, would be an option (particularly for managing "security" issues). But on one such as this, where every other decision is based upon the idea of "premium" tonnage being set aside for the most important function of the vessel, carrying information, redundant hatches just seem out of place.

Two airlocks fall into "WTF do I do to use up the 20 Td of bridge tonnage?" ... and two airlocks is a standard.

 

[Patron Zero]

I think this is another issue as to whether an airlock is used solely as a point of crew transfer or whether such is also acting as a rescue compartment or supporting EVA operations.

Mind I've always held that there is no such thing as a 'standard' airlock, such vary with fittings (iris or manual hatches) and features (hard-dock capacity, EVA or rescue).

 

[Shadowrunner]

Extremely lovely.

 

[kilemall]

Two airlocks fall into "WTF do I do to use up the 20 Td of bridge tonnage?" ... and two airlocks is a standard.

For the small boats I always figured the 20 tons was either the heavily amped up detection capabilities of the Type S, or heavy automation making a 4 man Type A crew be able to handle passengers.

I should think at least 2 exits on opposite sides and levels, so you can get out from an out of control fire or the ship being sliced in half. Makes sense that one would be an emergency access/egress, could save space on the no airlock or explosive hatch principle.

 

[Selandia]

No point - the X-boat cannot maneuver. Primary reason for outside views is deciding whether or not to open the door...

You are mostly right. But before peoples start design blind Xboat, lets remember that operation of a Xboat requires that a Xboat Tender commes alongside. So, having some form of Bridge's wing make some sense

Have fun

Selandia

 

[Condottiere]

I make the assumption that a ten tonne Mongoose starship bridge, based on available blueprints, is three or four workstations, plus one tonne airlock and one tonne ship's locker.

 

[Brian Smaller]

In this case I wasn't trying to redesign the XBoat - for the life of me I never figured out why they had no maneuver drives when they can easily fit it - I just wanted to deck plan the classic vessel.

Actually I did think of a reason why they might not have a maneuver drive. Probably obvious really - makes them useless for anything other than being an X-Boat - unless you have one of Patron Zero's flying wing attachments.

 

[Selandia]

In this case I wasn't trying to redesign the XBoat - for the life of me I never figured out why they had no maneuver drives when they can easily fit it - I just wanted to deck plan the classic vessel.

.

My guess: given the Xboat network infrastructure already present, two tons of databank (the reason d'être of the Xboat) would be more beneficial than a M drive that would be useless more than 80% of its service time and iddle or redundant the other 20% of the time.

That is of course an attempt at making sense of the OTU.

have fun

Selandia

 

[rancke]

My guess: given the Xboat network infrastructure already present...

Non-existent? Which is the extent of the X-boat infrastructure back when the X-boats were designed.

...two tons of databank (the reason d'être of the Xboat) would be more beneficial than a M drive that would be useless more than 80% of its service time and iddle or redundant the other 20% of the time.

So give it a 0.1G maneuver drive. Or an 18T bridge. Or a small stateroom. Or make it a 110T design.


Hans

 

[Terquem]

No maneuver drive - no piloting skill. Program the jump, keep an eye on the data cooling equipment, and take a nap.

 

[flykiller]

I've always held that there is no such thing as a 'standard' airlock

imtu they're all standardized, by law and by custom, on every ship that has a jump drive and on most of those that don't.

 

[Condottiere]

Otherwise they might try to integrate a cat-flap.

 

[flykiller]

cat in a vacc suit going out to pee.

wait ....

 

[Condottiere]

Or a canary, to see if the air is breathable.

 

[flykiller]

"canary in a space void ...."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxifgnPnC4E

 

[aramis]

In this case I wasn't trying to redesign the XBoat - for the life of me I never figured out why they had no maneuver drives when they can easily fit it - I just wanted to deck plan the classic vessel.

Actually I did think of a reason why they might not have a maneuver drive. Probably obvious really - makes them useless for anything other than being an X-Boat - unless you have one of Patron Zero's flying wing attachments.

CT 1E...	CT 2E	CT HG, T20	MGT 1E
20 Bridge 08 SR x2 15 JD B=4 40 JFuel 1J4 04 Model/4 13 Payload ---- 100	20 Bridge 08 SR x2 15 JD B=4 40 JFuel 1J4 04 Model/4 07 PP B=4 10 PP Fuel = 1 week 00 Payload ---- 104	20 Bridge 04 Model/4 08 SR x2 05 JD TL13@4 08 PP TL12@4 08 PP Fuel = 1 week 40 JFuel 1J4 15 Payload	10 Bridge 08 SR x2 00 Model/4 15 JD B=4 07 PP B=4 (needs 2Td fuel per week) 40 JFuel 04 PP Fuel 2 wk 16 Payload ----
One cannot, however add a PP and standard fuel: 04 PP A=2 20 PP Fuel 4w One could, in theory, give it several days fuel and an MD... 04 PP A=2 01 MD A=2 08 PP Fuel = 8/20 of 28 days = 11.2	you can't even build it, as the JD requires matched PP.	03 MT TL9@1 12 Payload No point not doing so	Adding MD... 02 MD A =2 14 payload

[/td]

So, yeah, it really needs a reason....

 

[Patron Zero]

In this case I wasn't trying to redesign the XBoat - .....- unless you have one of Patron Zero's flying wing attachments.

The aforementioned 'attachment' is a non-canon 100Ton X-boat Support Tractor, essentially a M-drive tug that ferries and recovers Express Boats to-from launch-recovery points or between ISS XB Network facilities.


http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=1729
Gravas Class Support Tractor

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=1738
Express Boat Station

 

[Selandia]

Non-existent? Which is the extent of the X-boat infrastructure back when the X-boats were designed.

a) Read my quote, I never said "Non-existent"

b) X-boat may cover a diversified reality over time. For various reasons they might not have been all Jumper at all time. It is therefore not possible to provide an extensive answer to your question as asked.

c) if your question was :.. when THAT MODEL of Xboat was designed, I'd say
that this type of Xboat was designed together with the XBoat Tender. Unless somebody design things that can't operate for lack of required infrastructure or infrastructure that have no use for lack of user, both the Xboat Tender and the Xboat were designed as a match to upgrade whatever was previously existing.

So give it a 0.1G maneuver drive. Or an 18T bridge. Or a small stateroom. Or make it a 110T design.


Hans

As I said, just trying to make sense of the OTU. If the OTU does not make enough sense for you, do like me, fix it. However, sometime, it makes sense without fixing.

110 T to gets more databanks, might be a fine idea, I hope you do it IYTU. But availability of space do not justify counter productive use of it by fitting in 2 T of useless and expensive machinery.

Useless refer to "large" M drive. In my understanding of the OTU Jumpers still have thrusters (I guess your 0.1g M), simply because it would not make sense to have such an expensive piece of machinery unable to stabilize or stop helplessly drifting after a minor impact.

As to the 20T bridge & the stateroom, all are CT canon. Simplicity does have its virtues and its sins.

have fun

Selandia