Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby phavoc » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:56 am

Barracks aboard ships can be modeled after how crew quarters are done for those aboard ships today. Sizing them along these lines would/should allow for normal morale. Cramming them in would make for lower morale for most vessels. There are some exceptions, like how the old Skipjack class attack subs in the USN HAD to go with hot-bunking because the ships were too small to carry enough crew space. That's an exception. Quarter sizes have continued to grow as the technology allows for it and as society itself makes things like reasonable sized accomodations the norm. WW1 ships had men stacked 5-6 high in wire bunks slung throughout the ship. Space was cramped, food was poor, and morale wasn't always the best. Go further back and you continue to see cramped quarters, low morale, muntinies, etc. Always keep an eye on what's reasonable and go from there.

For smaller craft there's no reason why Medical-0 wouldn't be allowable - even for small passenger carrying ships. But at some point, say around subsidized liner or above, having medical-1 as a requirement is fair (or at a minimum an autodoc and/or the ability to freeze a passenger or crew member during transit). It's what we have today on cargo vessels with crews of 20-30. For some rescue or access to a doc is days away. So a good medical kit, access to tele-medicine and luck is what they go with.

Putting kitchen facilities in staterooms seems a bit... silly. Space is cramped on a ship, period. Passengers aren't going to cook their own meals, and neither would crew. They are too busy. Plus having a galley means crew and passengers socialize (or take their food to their cabin). This is common-sense design that has been there for a very long time. Some of the MGT explanations don't pass the common-sense test. Just like having each cabin a self-contained life support system to justify the high costs (especially when it's empty). Life support makes more sense as a shared facility. Otherwise your quarters would be limited by their water consumption abilities since space to store water would have to be in EACH cabin rather than a central shared supply. Then there is the matter of grey water being generated and instantly recycled? Makes much more sense to centralize things like that. Since canon is spread throughout multiple versions it's another thing to pass the reasonable test and go from there. Life support rules already conflict (costs, capabilities, staterooms vs. livestock carriers/slave quarters, etc).
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:11 am

Moppy wrote: I don't believe you should mix rules from different editions and can't quite see how that works.
I generally agree, but I certainly do it to fill holes in the rules. For me CT sets the expectations of what Traveller is.

Moppy wrote: CT is quite flexible regarding staterooms.
It uses the same basic rules as MgT: 4 Dt per person, twice that possible.

Moppy wrote: However it's clear in Mongoose how staterooms are supposed to work, because there's a line in the dual occupancy rules about the lack of privacy that it brings, which means they are sharing facilities. It isn't two half-size cabins.
HG, p21 wrote: Employing double occupancy on a ship does not cost anything (which is why many commercial captains insist on it) but lack of privacy for extended periods of time can quickly wear on crew not used to it.
We have several stages in the process. We can choose single or dual occupancy in each stage.
1. During ship design we don't really care about rooms, just how many Dt we allocate to living quarters. 4 Dt (single) or 2 Dt per person. Just like now military ships have larger crews and pack them more tightly, than most civilian ships. No hard and fast rules, just most and generally.
2. When we draw deck plans we draw the actual cabins and rooms as you see fit. We have to fit the needed number of bunks into the designed space (approximately) using as many rooms as we like. We can even draw less detailed plans, see e.g. HG p198 where living quarters are 50 Dt squares without detailed cabins.
3. When we move in to a finished ship we can allocate people to cabins.

A commercial captain is generally not involved in the design process. He does not design ships or cabins. He gets a finished ship to play with. The only decision he can make is how to quarter people to existing quarters.

Most standard designs in MgT have standardised 3 Dt staterooms that are capable of single, double, or quad (steerage) occupancy. This is a flexible compromise, but also, as noted, means a lack of privacy in the case of multiple occupancy. You can use the same, but are not limited to only this configuration. If you want living quarters that looks like a Japanese pod hotel, that is entirely up to you. The more people you pack into limited space, the less privacy they will have.

Moppy wrote: There's also a note about "many" commercial captains insisting on dual occupancy, but that's not a rule.
Mongoose seems to generally avoid hard rules, but prefer to leave wriggle room.

Moppy wrote: However, we can assume that extra crew might not automatically be using spare passenger staterooms because of this note, and because the cost for the stateroom is a sizable % of the crewmember's salary.
Not automatically, but generally. Commercial standard is single occupancy. Military standard is dual occupancy. Dual, or even quad, occupancy is always possible. We can even pack people into brigs, animal pens (HG, p47), or even cargo holds (steerage) at up to octuple occupancy.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:16 am

phavoc wrote: Barracks aboard ships can be modeled after how crew quarters are done for those aboard ships today.
I don't think modern warships really do barracks for the crew anymore.

Crew cabin aboard CV Queen Elizabeth:
Image

Image


Barracks:
Image


phavoc wrote: Sizing them along these lines would/should allow for normal morale. Cramming them in would make for lower morale for most vessels.
Agreed. And affect recruitment.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Moppy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:38 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:16 am
phavoc wrote: Barracks aboard ships can be modeled after how crew quarters are done for those aboard ships today.
I don't think modern warships really do barracks for the crew anymore.
It depends on the ship and the crew's rank. Though they tend to avoid the name "barracks" - it's a "berthing compartment". (Barracks is what army passengers go in).

US destroyers fit 30+ to a compartment. There's only a handful of navies in the whole world who operate an equal or better destroyer so I'd consider them still modern.

On the very newest large ships like the QE you linked, junior rates are 8 to a cabin.

Submarines are very special and probably not relevant here but are even more cramped.

edit: added photo link - British Daring class Jnr Rates. https://imgur.com/r/WarshipPorn/zgHMUBy
Last edited by Moppy on Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Moppy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:12 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:11 am
We have several stages in the process. We can choose single or dual occupancy in each stage.
1. During ship design we don't really care about rooms, just how many Dt we allocate to living quarters. 4 Dt (single) or 2 Dt per person. Just like now military ships have larger crews and pack them more tightly, than most civilian ships. No hard and fast rules, just most and generally.
2. When we draw deck plans we draw the actual cabins and rooms as you see fit. We have to fit the needed number of bunks into the designed space (approximately) using as many rooms as we like. We can even draw less detailed plans, see e.g. HG p198 where living quarters are 50 Dt squares without detailed cabins.
3. When we move in to a finished ship we can allocate people to cabins.

Most standard designs in MgT have standardised 3 Dt staterooms that are capable of single, double, or quad (steerage) occupancy. This is a flexible compromise, but also, as noted, means a lack of privacy in the case of multiple occupancy. You can use the same, but are not limited to only this configuration. If you want living quarters that looks like a Japanese pod hotel, that is entirely up to you. The more people you pack into limited space, the less privacy they will have.
Actually that's not right. You have to purchase staterooms in full, so you're allocating 4 dt each time.

Even if these are built and drawn as separate 2 sleeping areas, they is still shared facilies such as as communal, fresher, kitchen. Otherwise there would be zero privacy issues with dual occupancy. Yet we're told there is one.

If you want to ignore that rule, it's fine. It's your game and you do what you want. But it's clear how it's supposed to work in the rulebook.

By the way, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that a scaled out plan at 50 dt per square instead of 0.5 dton per square, has proper represenraton of fine detail? Because if you are, it would affect how I treat your future posts.

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 10:11 am
Moppy wrote: However, we can assume that extra crew might not automatically be using spare passenger staterooms because of this note, and because the cost for the stateroom is a sizable % of the crewmember's salary.
Not automatically, but generally. Commercial standard is single occupancy. Military standard is dual occupancy. Dual, or even quad, occupancy is always possible. We can even pack people into brigs, animal pens (HG, p47), or even cargo holds (steerage) at up to octuple occupancy.
Yes I think we agree that it's "supposed" to be a single occupancy standard, but the reality differs for many ships.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:53 pm

Moppy wrote: US destroyers fit 30+ to a compartment. There's only a handful of navies in the whole world who operate an equal or better destroyer so I'd consider them still modern.
I assume you mean the Arleigh Burke-class. Their combat effectiveness may be modern, but the basic design is cold war. I would not call it a modern design.

With "modern warship" I meant something designed this century.

The modern Zumwalt-class uses staterooms of a maximum of four berths, as indicated by a quickie internet search (i.e. might very well be wrong).

I might agree to call the 30+ berths in the older destroyers "barracks", but not the more pleasant berths in the Visby, Zumwalt, Daring, and QE classes. What I would call it is, of course, entirely subjective.
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Old School » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:16 pm

Since we’re now quibbling over what constitutes a modern design, here are images from the USS Gerald Ford, the largest warship ever built, christened in 2013 as the first of its class. Crew are stacked three high in berths of 36 people. Junior officers are 4 to a room. Puts into perspective just how ridiculously generous crew quarters are in Traveller. A crew member getting a 10’ x 15’ (3m x 4.5m) stateroom to themselves? LOL.



Image

Image
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:30 pm

Moppy wrote: Actually that's not right. You have to purchase staterooms in full, so you're allocating 4 dt each time.
Yes, that is true, but we can allocate a 2 Dt barrack instead of a half-staterooms, at least if we carry troops.

Note that we can theoretically pack in more people per "stateroom", unlike earlier editions. So, one stateroom plus some common areas might be good enough for, say, three people.
Moppy wrote: Even if these are built and drawn as separate 2 sleeping areas, they is still shared facilies such as as communal, fresher, kitchen. Otherwise there would be zero privacy issues with dual occupancy. Yet we're told there is one.
Packing in twice as many people in the same space should have some effect, regardless of how many cabins are drawn on the deck plan.

I agree that there would likely be some common resources, at least a lounge, even if everyone has separate bedrooms.

Moppy wrote: By the way, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that a scaled out plan at 50 dt per square instead of 0.5 dton per square, has proper represenraton of fine detail?
I'm not suggesting that it is proper or detailed, I'm suggesting that Mongoose did it (HG, p198).

Moppy wrote: Yes I think we agree that it's "supposed" to be a single occupancy standard, but the reality differs for many ships.
Agreed. HG only says "most ships", nothing is forced on any specific ship.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Moppy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:45 pm

The new US CVNs under construction still, new design , sleep 30+ per compartments. As said, it is ship and rank specific. There is a trend for crew comfort but much of that just comes from being able to use smaller crews.

I think it’s strange to not consider Burkes modern warships. As far as I am aware, they are still under construction, to a significantly upgraded design. No real info on the replacement except that they’re adding something hard to refit to the Burke, a shitload of electrical power for energy weapons.

edit: Wow, those carrier ninjas type fast!

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:30 pm
I'm not suggesting that it is proper or detailed, I'm suggesting that Mongoose did it (HG, p198).
As I said - I can't see what Mongoose really did, because I can't see the detail in those 50 dton squares and I don't see how anyone else can either.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:58 pm

Old School wrote: Since we’re now quibbling over what constitutes a modern design, here are images from the USS Gerald Ford, the largest warship ever built, christened in 2013 as the first of its class.
I'm surprised seeing such spartan quarters in a modern ship, as it undoubtably is.

This seems to indicate that crew comfort is increased over previous generation ships, and that that was considered important:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... rier-ford/


Old School wrote: Crew are stacked three high in berths of 36 people.
Now that looks like a barrack...

Old School wrote: Puts into perspective just how ridiculously generous crew quarters are in Traveller. A crew member getting a 10’ x 15’ (3m x 4.5m) stateroom to themselves?
To compare with Traveller you have to add up all crew compartments, such as berths, heads, galleys, messes, wardrooms, lounges, gyms, corridors, etc.

This seems to indicate that there is quite a lot of common spaces:
https://www.nwitimes.com/news/national/ ... e2231.html


Single 13 m² cabins are only for civilians and perhaps senior officers in Traveller, naval crew has to make to with much less.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:11 pm

Moppy wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:45 pm
I think it’s strange to not consider Burkes modern warships. As far as I am aware, they are still under construction, to a significantly upgraded design.
Isn't that just a restarted emergency program, since the intended replacement failed?

Moppy wrote: As I said - I can't see what Mongoose really did, because I can't see the detail in those 50 dton squares and I don't see how anyone else can either.
I didn't suggest that there was a detailed design:
AnotherDilbert wrote: We can even draw less detailed plans, see e.g. HG p198 where living quarters are 50 Dt squares without detailed cabins.
Old School
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Old School » Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:16 pm

To compare with Traveller you have to add up all crew compartments, such as berths, heads, galleys, messes, wardrooms, lounges, gyms, corridors, etc.
Much of that would be considered “Common Areas” which are in addition to stateroom or barracks space. I’d be curious to see how much “lounge space” per enlisted crew member the Ford class has. I suspect it is a little long on common areas to make up for the spartan sleeping quarters. So room to be social, but zero privacy.

To be fair, modern cargo vessels, which can be much larger than an aircraft carrier with 1/100th the crew, tend to be much more generous with crew accommodations. The captain might have a three room suite (including her or her office), and even junior crew have their own (usually small) room.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:33 pm

Old School wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:16 pm
To compare with Traveller you have to add up all crew compartments, such as berths, heads, galleys, messes, wardrooms, lounges, gyms, corridors, etc.
Much of that would be considered “Common Areas” which are in addition to stateroom or barracks space. I’d be curious to see how much “lounge space” per enlisted crew member the Ford class has. I suspect it is a little long on common areas to make up for the spartan sleeping quarters. So room to be social, but zero privacy.
Without enough optional extra Common Areas that has to come out of the stateroom budget. Staterooms represent all living areas, not just bedrooms.
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 accomodations for the crew.

Realistically most Traveller ships are too light on common rooms, leaving too much space for individual rooms.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Moppy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 4:37 pm

AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:58 pm
I'm surprised seeing such spartan quarters in a modern ship, as it undoubtably is.

This seems to indicate that crew comfort is increased over previous generation ships, and that that was considered important:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... rier-ford/
One of the first thing you notice when you live on a boat is there is really no space for anything at all, and making the boat bigger is very expensive. When you do find some space, you inevitably fill it with supplies because you can't go to the supermarket.

Part of the reason for crew comfort increases is that smaller crews allow more space per crew.

The other part is that ships need increasing technical skills to operate and it's easy to press the wrong button when tired, in way that would previously have required multiple people to all do the wrong thing.

As a general comment, coal-buring ships with heavy guns had a high crew requirement. Crew went down when we lost the heavy guns and got diesel. Crew is going down again now because of automation and the navies is having to adjust. Civilian automation tech is ahead of theirs, and naval ships are being upgraded as the civilian systems mature (and maybe someone works out how to make them "battle damage resistant").
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:58 pm
Isn't that just a restarted emergency program, since the intended replacement failed?
Probably. Not many surface combat ships more advanced overall than a Burke though. Some selected bits of high tech but nothing has the total package. From teh ships we've mentioned: Visby has that stealth hull and can maybe hide from radar near the coast, but what does it actualy do about a carrier sitting 200 miles out? Zumwalt was supposed to be better all around but "nothing" works and they're not building more. Darings are better for AAW but where is the cruise missile strike?
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Wed Oct 02, 2019 5:03 pm

Moppy wrote: Part of the reason for crew comfort increases is that smaller crews allow more space per crew.
Quite, but part of it also generally increased living standards making it difficult to recruit people who accept such cramped quarters, at least in Europe.

I've seen some discussion of the RN going for single cabins for everyone in the next generation ships.

AnotherDilbert wrote: Visby has that stealth hull and can maybe hide from radar near the coast, but what does it actualy do about a carrier sitting 200 miles out?
Who cares? Russia doesn't have any carriers† and the Baltic is too small.

Its job is to kill the potential Russian invasion fleet crossing the Baltic.

† effectively. If that barely functional museum-piece tried to venture into the Baltic even Sweden could kill it.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Moppy » Wed Oct 02, 2019 6:16 pm

Russia has the world's largest carrier - it's named Rodina. Thing is so big, it exists in multiple oceans simultaneously.
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby phavoc » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:12 pm

Moppy wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 1:38 pm
AnotherDilbert wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 11:16 am
phavoc wrote: Barracks aboard ships can be modeled after how crew quarters are done for those aboard ships today.
I don't think modern warships really do barracks for the crew anymore.
It depends on the ship and the crew's rank. Though they tend to avoid the name "barracks" - it's a "berthing compartment". (Barracks is what army passengers go in).

US destroyers fit 30+ to a compartment. There's only a handful of navies in the whole world who operate an equal or better destroyer so I'd consider them still modern.

On the very newest large ships like the QE you linked, junior rates are 8 to a cabin.

Submarines are very special and probably not relevant here but are even more cramped.
Moppy got it right. Barracks is the term used in MGT rulebooks, so it's the term I was using. But they are interchangeable
phavoc
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 4790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby phavoc » Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:46 pm

Arleigh Burke is a class of warship. The USN doesn't keep designs static. Currently they are on Flight III of the design as of 2016, with the named class ship being launch in 1990. As the ships age they are pulled out of service and given modernizations to the current version - though it's not always a 100% modernization.

The hull design doesn't change. Military vessels in the past have been completely gutted with new engineering, armor, even lengthened considerably, as part of the upgrade. You don't see that as much any more as in the past. Look at the significant changes Japan did to it's BC's to convert them into BB's (Kongo, Haruna, etc) rather than build new ones. They were limited by treaty so they built BB's through the back door.

The USN Spruance class is also a good example. They were built with very clean lines, but also with an eye towards continual modernization as new weapon systems came available. The Zumwalt follows the same path, with it's massive engineering designed to support railguns that will eventually replace their little 155mm guns.
Moppy
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:42 pm

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby Moppy » Thu Oct 03, 2019 7:36 pm

phavoc wrote:
Thu Oct 03, 2019 6:46 pm
Arleigh Burke is a class of warship. The USN doesn't keep designs static. Currently they are on Flight III of the design as of 2016, with the named class ship being launch in 1990. As the ships age they are pulled out of service and given modernizations to the current version - though it's not always a 100% modernization.

The hull design doesn't change. Military vessels in the past have been completely gutted with new engineering, armor, even lengthened considerably, as part of the upgrade. You don't see that as much any more as in the past. Look at the significant changes Japan did to it's BC's to convert them into BB's (Kongo, Haruna, etc) rather than build new ones. They were limited by treaty so they built BB's through the back door.

The USN Spruance class is also a good example. They were built with very clean lines, but also with an eye towards continual modernization as new weapon systems came available. The Zumwalt follows the same path, with it's massive engineering designed to support railguns that will eventually replace their little 155mm guns.

I haven't got diagrams to look at, but considering that latest Burkes are much heavier than the original, there is a good chance that there are hull changes below the waterline.
AnotherDilbert
Cosmic Mongoose
Posts: 3868
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:49 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Spacecraft Operations - Running Costs

Postby AnotherDilbert » Thu Oct 03, 2019 8:00 pm

phavoc wrote: Arleigh Burke is a class of warship. The USN doesn't keep designs static. Currently they are on Flight III of the design as of 2016, with the named class ship being launch in 1990. As the ships age they are pulled out of service and given modernizations to the current version - though it's not always a 100% modernization.
Agreed, obviously, but at a guess the crew quarters are not the first thing to be modernised?

I might even go out on a limb and guess that the crew quarters are basically unchanged?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests