A eulogy for the Type S

[Klaus Kipling]

I want to examine the Starship creation rules using the Type S as an example. Now the scoutship in the v3.1 doc ain't necessarily a Type S but it looks suspiciously close to one, even if the example shown is wrong.

Firstly I want to say that I think the Type S is the most iconic Traveller vessel, and has the most interesting deckplan. I know some folk have a bit of an issue with the Type S (Sulieman class) having too much floorspace, but it isn't that much over and it is such a cool layout.

So I'd hope Mongoose would retain the classic layout as it has so many virtues.

Firstly, it makes such a small ship seem roomy. On long scout missions it would be good for the crew to be able to get away from each other for a bit of privacy. Secondly, it is obviously based on Dark Star, and that can only be for the good. Thirdly, later rationalisations, such as the T20 Scout supplement are just so less interesting (that curvy T20 deckplan looks cramped and claustrophobic in comparison - I wouldn't like to spend 6 weeks on that with 7 crewmates!).

Now the original Type S only has 3 tons of cargo space in a dedicated dorsal area. However, we see all that extra space in the deckplan, such as the upper gallery and the rear crew cabin. In the description in Traders & Gunboats, it states that these areas carried mission specific equipment for the particular role the ship was designated, with all this kit being removed before the scoutship is put on detatched duty.

I've always wanted to know what this kit is...

Now, later versions using HG based rules give a Type S with more cargo space, in fact 20 tons, such as the T20 version. Currently the Mongoose version harks back to the original Type S with only a 3 ton cargo bay, but there's an error in the design giving it a fuel tank twice as large as it needs. The extra space on the original Type S deckplan can actually account for this difference. So....

The Type S, Mongoose style:

Streamlined 100 ton hull
2 tons armour, lets say TL7, so 5 tons
Class A M-drive, 2 tons
Class A J-drive, 10 tons
Class A Powerplant, 4 tons
J-fuel, 20 tons
PP-fuel, 2 tons
Bridge (inc Comp 1/bis), 10 tons
Avionics, basic military, 2 tons
4 staterooms, 16 tons
Fuel processor, 1 ton
A/R, 4 tons
Fire control, 1 ton

So far we have accounted for 77 tons of 100. Add the 3 for the dedicated cargo by, to 80. So where is the remaining 20 tons? Obviously, the new probe and repair drones take up some of this, but as someone else has pointed out elsewhere (was it Aramis?), 20 tons of drones is a bit excessive.

So, let us figure in that extra space in the Type S deckplan, for the rear compartment and the gallery - 36 squares at 1 ton per 2 squares equals 18 tons. Now it's probably less than that as the gallery is not full height, so lets estimate it at 12 tons, and leaving 8 tons for probes (7tons = 35 probes) (or even a magazine for missiles!) and repair drones (1 ton).

That accounts for all the tonnage, and means that detatched duty Type S's have 15 tons of cargo space, albeit only 3 dedicated and 12 more awkward to use (having to carry crates through corridors and up ladders isn't the most convenient way to shift cargo).

A working IISS scoutship would have this 12 tons used up in some way.

A Courier : extra comms equipment, wide-band broadcast and recieve, plus massive amounts of databanks to carry all that necessary info from place to place.
Survey : extra sensors to survey planets and stars and specialist kit to eavesdrop on planetary comms.
Exploration : specialist scientific sensor packages for scanning plantes and stars and extra probe capacity.

So this leads on to possible extra kit to add to your spacecraft.

Broadband comms for multiple sending and receiving - 8 tons
High capacity databanks to hold lots of info - 4 tons
Additional survey sensors - 4 tons
Specialist Planetology sensors - 5 tons
Specialist Astrophysics sensors - 5 tons.

This gives us more toys to play with, and rationalises the Type-S without messing with the best deckplan Traveller has. any thoughts?

 

[AKAramis]

I want to examine the Starship creation rules using the Type S as an example. Now the scoutship in the v3.1 doc ain't necessarily a Type S but it looks suspiciously close to one, even if the example shown is wrong.

This gives us more toys to play with, and rationalises the Type-S without messing with the best deckplan Traveller has. any thoughts?

You missed a couple things, I think, like the ship's locker, prices:

Item                    Td      MCr
Hull 100Td Std (1)    (100)       2
Streamlining             0        0.2
Jump Drive A            10       10     J2
Maneuver Drive A         2        4     M2
Power Plant A            4        8     P2
Jump Fuel               20        0     1J2
PP A Fuel                2        0     4wk
Bridge                  10        0.5
Computer 1/bis           0        0.045
Basic Military Sensors   2        1
4 Staterooms            16        2
FPP 10Td/Day             1        0.05
Ship's Locker            0        0.1
Air/Raft                 4        0.6
Repair Drones            1        0.2
Probe Drones x 5         1        0.1
2 point titanium armor   5        0.2
Cargo 21Td              21        0
Hardpoint x1             0        0.1
Double Turret x1         1        0.5
====================  ====    =======
                       100       26.495

The Sulieman plan shows a lot of half-height or less cargo deck. (Actually, the sulieman plans are impossible unless all three decks are half height.)

The loads of cargo space cropped up the first time someone made a Type S with Bk 5.

Now, I like the sullie, but it's badly, badly broken.

Also, it's not streamlined by the definitions in MoTrav draft 3. (though it is by CT, HG, and MT definitions; MoTrav's SL is MT's AF, MoTrav's Std is HG PSL with landing gear.)

Given the power rules, she can ony fight effectively with missiles.

Oh, and crew is going to be 1-4, not 6-8...

Here is a "better" deckplan for the classic wedgie. It's a t20/Bk5 design, but it shows the problems of fitting cargo space into the hull:
http://aramis.angeltowns.com/cc/TypeSHikaru.PNG[/url]

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I was worried about dtonnage rather than cost, though the prices shape up nicely.

Sorry, I couldn't locate that pic, said it was missing or disallowed.
[EDIT: was finally able to look at it - not bad but still a little claustrophobic for my taste.]

The thing about deckplans is that they're only approximately linked to the design sequence. 2 identical ships could, in RL, feel quite different inside. The way Traveller deckplans tend to be constructed (not always, obviously, but there is a slight tendency ) is around efficiency on graph paper, rather than as interesting layouts in they're own right.

That's why I like the Type S: there's loads of corridors, and even 2 different ways to get to the bridge from the engine room.

How big is the discrepancy between apparent volume as per the deckplans and it's stated volume?

And it is streamlined according to the v3.1 playtest; it's just that being wedge-shaped doesn't make things automatically streamlined, and even then may still enter atmosphere at reduced efficiency.

 

[pasuuli]

How about four weeks of powerplant fuel, to support surveying "dry" systems (which I know probably aren't dry, but maybe finding ice asteroids can be a time-consuming chore sometimes).

 

[pasuuli]

You know Klaus, I never realized the Scout's parallel with the Dark Star, but you're right. They look vaguely similar, and they're both cramped. And I can well imagine the air scrubbers in the Dark Star being a little flaky.

Until recently, I hadn't noticed all of the open space on the deckplans, either. And I think a maze of twisty passages is a good idea for any spacecraft.

 

[Klaus Kipling]

Yup.

You could do a critter game quite well in a Type S; lots of nice places to hide.

 

[pasuuli]

"Ducts... why is it always ducts?"

- Lt. Tawny Madison