Airlocks and Landing Gear

[Bardicheart]

I've been tinkering with 3d modelling some ships again (and trying to get back to finishing the Voshtar) and in the process I've realized a couple things.

Airlocks - The rules state you get a certain number of airlocks free based on the ships tonnage. Specifically 1 standard airlock per 100 dT of hull mass (HG 2e, p22). On many ship designs these are not counted against to total ship tonnage so it appears that when they said "free" they included the tonnage. But it becomes very apparent when 3d modelling the ships that tonnage IS used and isn't somehow magically "free". So my point being is each airlock needs to consume 2 dT of tonnage even if it is "free" so far as MCr cost to install it. This makes most of the new ship designs invalid (not that most of them weren't anyway... but that's another subject).

The Google spread sheet doesn't have an option for these tonnage using but MCr free airlocks btw.


Landing Gear - This was something else I ran into. You design a smaller ship with the ability to land on planets because, well that tends to be handy with the stuff players get up to. So you start designing / 3d modelling the ship. Many illustrations show ships as having landing gear, yet there are no rules for them and no tonnage is ever allocated for this. As I kept working on several model projects (I've got four going right now, one of which is a 30 dT launch) I began to realize there needed to be some sort of rule for this and that meant coming up with a new gear option. What I have so far is pretty simple and I'm asking for thoughts and suggestions:

Ship Landing Gear
Weight = 1% total hull volume. A 30 dT launch would need 0.3 dT of landing gear. A 200 dT trader would need 2 dT of landing gear and so on. Landing gear is only needed for ships intended to land on planetary bodies. The total volume of the landing gear is divided among the various struts, pads, wheels, etc. that might make up the landing gear (specifics are variable) but must provide a stable base (this might be 2 "skids" or 3 struts or a set of 8 articulated "legs", etc. depending on the designers choice and the size of the craft). Landing gear does not provide for locomotion.

Cost = ?

Options = ?

I'm not sure what cost is reasonable or what to base that on. I was thinking maybe borrow something from the vehicle design rules? Suggestions? Likewise what about options, suppose you gave it treads or wheels, could it move and if so how does that work (like a plane using its engine to thrust and the wheels to roll along or are the treads themselves powered)? What about some sort of bonus or penalty for landing on unprepared surfaces based on the type of landing gear. If all you have is two large fixed skids, landing on rough terrain might come at an extra penalty, whereas if you have 6 articulated landing "legs" that can adjust to uneven terrain there might be no penalty. Or is that getting too detailed?

 

[Old School]

This is the kind of thing that can be fun for the detailed ship builder but means little in game play. I don’t see landing gear as a absolute requirement. A ship can be a tail lander or a belly lander as well. I’m good with leaving them out of the design process, with the assumption that landing gear at TL9 and above takes up minimum space. We don’t allocate space for air filtration systems or water storage, either, despite their critical nature.

 

[Condottiere]

Tea Five has some options on landing gear; a tail sitter might have it integrated in it's rear fins, assuming it had any.

Previously, I think the first airlock was free, and part of the bridge overhead, together with the ship's locker.

I don't think that page twenty two mentions that either the volume or the cost are free, though from what I recall, the ship designs included in High Guard treat them as such.

It's a subject I was going to whine about next week.

 

[Bardicheart]

Tea Five has some options on landing gear; a tail sitter might have it integrated in it's rear fins, assuming it had any.

Tea Five? I could easily see something like the mercenary cruiser with its spherical hull and engine "struts" doubling as some sort of landing gear but even there I would think it would need some sort of reinforced struts, pads, etc. to take the weight. Not to mention some ability to level the ship on uneven terrain, which being a mercenary cruiser it might be prudent to be able to land on "unprepared" surfaces.

Previously, I think the first airlock was free, and part of the bridge overhead, together with the ship's locker.

Sounds familiar, been a long time since I dug through the old CT or MT rules.

I don't think that page twenty two mentions that either the volume or the cost are free, though from what I recall, the ship designs included in High Guard treat them as such.

You're right, it more implies it combined with that and the various examples in High Guard, none that I looked at listed tonnage for the airlocks. For the subcraft, they all listed tonnage for at least one airlock. But once you get to the 100+ dT ships they never list any tonnage assigned to airlocks even though they clearly have airlocks. Its another area in which pretty much all the ships designs from the book are messed up.

It's a subject I was going to whine about next week.

An I pop up and set the table for you. Happy new year! LOL

At any rate, for my models visually about 1% of the total hull volume seems to work pretty well so far. At least for creating some sort of landing gear that looks believable which is the main thing I wanted.

For example, on my 1,000 dT yacht design (which is still very much a work in progress, I'm on the 4th iteration of it so far) I went with six landing "legs" that each retract into a bay compartment. So that's 10 dT total for landing gear, divided into six bays of 1.667 dT each or 1.667 * 13.5 m^3 turns out to be 22.5 m^3 and that became a bay about 2m x 3m x 3.875m each in which I can fit my "leg" when retracted so that gives me some clear parameters to work within for my 3d model. So now all I have to do is come up with something that looks sturdy, has some piston bits, maybe some cables and hoses, and some sort of articulate "pad" or "foot" that can extend out far enough to not only hold the ship off the ground but extend out a bit to help level the ship on an uneven surface. An maybe there's an access hatch somewhere in that bay that might lead to some sort of maintenance access that comes out in the cargo bay or something that might be a fun detail for smuggling or an alien to sneak aboard or what have you. Just in case Traveller Yan Bolo needs to smuggle a princess onboard or something (or smuggle something off the ship when the port inspection team is distracted by the irritable Aslan co-pilot on the other side of the ship)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's one tiny detail among many other ignored tiny details. Remember that you have up to 10% leeway when making deck-plans.

Take the airlock tonnage from the stateroom+common space, if needed.

Take landing gear space from engineering, if needed.


T5 details size and functionality of landing gear, and also the size and type of every fresher. Personally I think it's too much detail in the design phase that could easily be left for the deck plan phase.

 

[Condottiere]

That approach works if you treat the design as the whole being greater than the sum of of its parts.

Breaks when you deconstruct it, like giving one hundred and ten percent.