Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Thought I'd try a different shape...

Could it be the rest of the space is taken up by fuel? (A question not a statementI have a question, nice model by hte way, maybe it is more of an observation. All the cutters and ship's boats are shown as being cylinders but, the deck plans don't show it that way. I can see people scratching their heads. Let me explain. The deck plans show a cutter as being 3 - 4 squares wide (4.5 meters - 6 meters) and the the deck hight of any starship/ spaceship is only 2 squares (3 meters). That would give you an oval shape. So why are they always shown as a round cylinder?
When I picture the cutter in my mind, this is very close to what I have always seen it as. Less "round" and more a workhorse to carry the moduels.Thought I'd try a different shape...
![]()
The deck plans show a cutter as being 3 - 4 squares wide (4.5 meters - 6 meters) and the the deck height of any starship/ spaceship is only 2 squares (3 meters). That would give you an oval shape. So why are they always shown as a round cylinder?
The deck plan is an approximation of the cylinder. The illustrations have always depicted the Cutter as a cylinder.
Using the 6m diameter as an example, one could then assume that the 6 m vertical height would allow two levels with each at 3 m tall. However, a plate through the middle would yield a lower level with a 6m wide ceiling and a floor that is less than 1 m wide, and an upper level with a 6m wide floor and a narrow aisle at full height and low ceilings on either side. Neither space is particularly useful.
A ceiling placed 1.5 meters above and a floor placed 1.5 meters below the center of the cylinder would yield a full 3m tall space across most of the width of the hull. The low spaces above and below the ceiling/floor can be used for fuel, equipment and cargo.
That said alternatives are good and bound to exist. A modular cutter that is one deck high and squared would make a lot of sense in an economic usage of space with minimal waste sense.
Ask yourself this, if the Cutter in the official CT deckplans (Supplement 7) are only 3m (one deck) and squared then why is it only about 37tons (as shown)?
If you calculate the volume as a sphere though (Pi)(r)(r)(l) you get 31tons for the module (pretty darn close) and another 31tons for the rest of the hull (but there are the necked bit at the rear and the pinch of the nose at the front to subtract a little from that (so again pretty darn close imo)
The space for fuel in the above and below decks comes from the typical (example) module with an additional nine tons of fuel (I don't know why and disagree with some of the numbers though*)
* like the listed 15tons of cargo in the 12tons shown (some may be in the overhead or below) and needing 8tons for 12 seats (at half ton per should be 6 tons, but there is that 2 tons of open walkway)
Trust us, the cylinder works
The deckplan is an approximation of the central deck in a 6m cylinder. That's always been the artwork even if it's not specified in all the descriptions![]()
I can't tell you why it doesn't added up. Nothing in that book is correct.
Sorry, I don't.
I think this is a ploy by you guys to get me to do a cross sectional of the cutter. Take a look at the image "running off"
bit. Did the post get chopped?image "running off"