200t J2 Econo-Trader Deck plans

[77thPatron]

She's streamlined, so I was thinking more atmo piloting than looking out into space. Out in space you have plenty of time to repair/tweak/reboot sensors. A glitch during reentry/transition to orbit (especially within 2 km of a downport) would mean you'd need something that worked 'right now', until you could get clear of other traffic and take up station to work on your avionics.

 

[rust]

A glitch during reentry/transition to orbit (especially within 2 km of a downport) would mean you'd need something that worked 'right now', until you could get clear of other traffic and take up station to work on your avionics.

Well, if there is a downport the pilot would "fly blind" anyway, following
the flight path transmitted to him by the downport's tower. In such a case
a communicator problem would be much more serious than a sensor pro-
blem.

 

[DFW]

A glitch during reentry/transition to orbit (especially within 2 km of a downport) would mean you'd need something that worked 'right now', until you could get clear of other traffic and take up station to work on your avionics.

Well, if there is a downport the pilot would "fly blind" anyway, following
the flight path transmitted to him by the downport's tower. In such a case
a communicator problem would be much more serious than a sensor pro-
blem.

Correct. Even today at TL 7, an airliner coming in at night lands by instruments and "tower control". There is nothing to see.

 

[77thPatron]

Any examples of manned aircraft that do not include unpowered optics?

 

[DFW]

Any examples of manned aircraft that do not include unpowered optics?

At TL 7 or, TL 12+? And, included or, always able to be used?

 

[rust]

Any examples of manned aircraft that do not include unpowered optics?

The idea is very old and has already been tested many times, for example
in 1996 by NASA:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/1996/Feb96/96_12.html

Right now cockpit windows are mostly there for psychological reasons, not
because they would be necessary to fly the aircraft. The first windows to
disappear, however, will be those of the passenger department, several
airlines are in the process of testing such airplanes after polls delivered
the result that the huge majority of passengers does not care whether the-
re are any windows or not. The next step, after that, will probably be the
windowless cockpit.

By the way, the main argument against cockpit windows looks like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IAF_UH-60_after_birds_strike_outside.jpg

If this had been a fast jet instead of a slow helicopter, the pilot would have
been killed and the aircraft would have crashed.

 

[BP]

In a systems failure (probably complete - like P.P. and emergencies failure), optical viewport might be useful when EVA is ill advised just for looking. I.e. - seeing what the h... just happened to the outside of the ship!

Another 'feature' of having viewports - it helps when targeting 'organic control systems' :twisted:

IIRC, the original ST Enterprise worked quite well with only a viewscreen on the bridge (did it have any optical portals except in recreation/lounge?).

 

[rust]

... did it have any optical portals except in recreation/lounge?

I think the quarters had windows, which is why the ship looked a bit like
a christmas tree with all those lights when viewed from outside - or was
this a later Enterprise version ? :?

 

[BP]

I think the original TV series only really had 'navigation' lights for the most part... the first movie added a lot of 'lights' that probably are crew quarters (well select ones, since there are internal quarters).

Don't remember any viewport shots in the original TV series - maybe small portals in the background? (Or just bad memory )

EDIT: Quick google yielded nothing useful - except this original model pic: http://assets.hemmings.com/uimage/3980810-1000-583.jpg

 

[DFW]

In a systems failure (probably complete - like P.P. and emergencies failure), optical viewport might be useful when EVA is ill advised just for looking. I.e. - seeing what the h... just happened to the outside of the ship!

In all likely hood looking out a window that is flush, or more likely, set deep into the hull, will show you nothing about what happened to your ship. To take a look, if all systems are down would require an EVA anyway.

In an airliner, the pilots can't see anything of the fuselage by looking out the cockpit windows either.

 

[Solomani666]

.


Who would have thought that Yugo would eventually build starships.

It might be OK for a fleet of corporate ships, but no character of mine would ever personally own a ship that ugly.

It looks as if the naval architect was working at gunpoint.


.

 

[DFW]

.

Who would have thought that Yugo would eventually build starships.

It might be OK for a fleet of corporate ships, but no character of mine would ever personally own a ship that ugly.

It looks as if the naval architect was working at gunpoint.


.

I for one welcome our resident Troll to the thread.

 

[rust]

Who would have thought that Yugo would eventually build starships.

It might be OK for a fleet of corporate ships, but no character of mine would ever personally own a ship that ugly.

It looks as if the naval architect was working at gunpoint.

Use this size the next time, please, it fits the content much better. :wink:

 

[BP]

In a systems failure (probably complete - like P.P. and emergencies failure), optical viewport might be useful when EVA is ill advised just for looking. I.e. - seeing what the h... just happened to the outside of the ship!

In all likely hood looking out a window that is flush, or more likely, set deep into the hull, will show you nothing about what happened to your ship. To take a look, if all systems are down would require an EVA anyway.

In an airliner, the pilots can't see anything of the fuselage by looking out the cockpit windows either.

Quite true - hence the use of the italic 'might'

Ex: looking out the windows of a plane might confirm the tip of a wing just fell off...

Not saying this is necessarily overly useful info to have... though a fighter or gunner's turret could confirm useful things - like weapon's stanchions missing, landing gear not deployed, etc.

Just like today (rust's commercial airliner example; houses that don't take advantage of earth as a heat sink or natural insulating building materials; consumer cars) designs very often are inefficient, silly or down-right unsafe.

 

[DFW]

In a systems failure (probably complete - like P.P. and emergencies failure), optical viewport might be useful when EVA is ill advised just for looking. I.e. - seeing what the h... just happened to the outside of the ship!

In all likely hood looking out a window that is flush, or more likely, set deep into the hull, will show you nothing about what happened to your ship. To take a look, if all systems are down would require an EVA anyway.

In an airliner, the pilots can't see anything of the fuselage by looking out the cockpit windows either.

Quite true - hence the use of the italic 'might'

Ex: looking out the windows of a plane might confirm the tip of a wing just fell off...

Not saying this is necessarily overly useful info to have... though a fighter or gunner's turret could confirm useful things - like weapon's stanchions missing, landing gear not deployed, etc.

Just like today (rust's commercial airliner example; houses that don't take advantage of earth as a heat sink or natural insulating building materials; consumer cars) designs very often are inefficient, silly or down-right unsafe.

Yep. Good points.

 

[Solomani666]

.


You have succeeded spectacularly in creating a economical design with lots of cargo space.


Notes:

The aft section on the upper deck is 'awkward'. I would probably move the ships locker to where the airlock door is and then reverse the airlock door positions.

I would move the low berth next to and aft of the airlock and adjacent to the outer hull.

Having the ships reactor just outside of the bridge is probably not a good idea.

Only 2 crew staterooms. An expert astrogation program should be added.

The crew has neither a galley, nor a common area, and with only 2 crew members, leaves the ship highly prone to hijacking.

Adding additional crew members as gunners, security, or navigators will lead to double occupancy in already tight crew quarters. Few people would want to serve on such a ship for any length of time.

Unarmed, minimal crew, lots of cargo space. These ships will become the new Honda's of hijackers everywhere.

Also... Cargo bay doors might be a nice feature.


.

 

[DFW]

.You have succeeded spectacularly in creating a economical design with lots of cargo space..

Thanks. That was the intention.

 

[Solomani666]

.You have succeeded spectacularly in creating a economical design with lots of cargo space..

Thanks. That was the intention.

What is the tech level?

P.S. It's still fugly

Cargo bay doors cost extra.


.

 

[Solomani666]

On a more serious note...

I personally do not design ships to the 'exact' tonnage of the deck plans.
I try to get the 'components' correct (cargo included), but I don't get overly concerned about adding some additional corridor, access, or drive deck space.

An extra 5% of empty space is not going to effect the ships drive/life support/mass/etc performance. And the jump bubble being a few centimeters closer to the hull on each side is not going to turn the ship into cinders.

If you don't use a little poetic (architectural?) license, you may wind up with the types of terrible deck plans you see in the main Traveller rulebook. Compare them to the deck plans in Chthonian Stars or Classic Traveller and you will get my point.

Think of ship design as "art for the left brained individual".

If I can find a good free drawing program I may post a few designs of my own.

Any recommendations?

Thanks for all the effort you put into this. The graphics actually are quite good.


.

 

[DFW]

What is the tech level?

P.S. It's still fugly

Cargo bay doors cost extra.

The ship is built at a TL 15 yard. This is to get lower TL components at a discount. Function wise ~TL 12.


Yeah, it is meant to be a design based on function. Think of a tramp freighter plying the Danube in the early 20th century or similar. Also, my TU leans towards the hard sci-fi side of Trav so we (my group) don't have space ships that have external design elements that don't serve a purpose. Kinda like nuke subs all having a similar look due to function forcing the design.

I forgot the bow cut line for the cargo door. It opens down to make the ramp.

As far as size, early on I got tired of the CT design being SO far afield on tonnage it got to the point not being able to tell what an X tonnage ship would look like inside. Some were off by ~50%. My players like to have a feel for what would in reality, be inside a ship of a given class/size. I stay within 5% of tonnage.

You should try a making a system survey/1st contact ship. Multi-mission capable.