Airlocks/ship's lockers and other similar spaces

[snrdg121408]

My apologies to all if my question has already been asked, unfortunately none of my search criteria attempts resulted in finding anything.

One of my peeves with a few spacecraft design sequences concerns airlocks/ship's lockers which are usually shown on deck plans and are rarely accounted for during the design process other than mentioning they exist in the text.

In other design systems airlocks, ship's lockers, or other similar components are supposedly subsumed into the bridge tonnage even when located in say the engineering spaces.

How will the new edition of HG handle airlocks, ship's lockers, and other similar components?

Yes, I know that in the larger picture my obsession with airlocks, ship's lockers, and other similar components is a minor issue to most players and referees, but I still have to ask.

Please be aware that if by chance I do share a design the airlocks, ship's lockers, and other similar components will be listed on the data card as taking up space. There is not even a small chance at any attempt that of me providing deck plans since all my efforts to date have not provided any that match the numbers of the spaces needed for the design.

 

[hdan]

Classically speaking, the deck plans only have to be within 10% of the listed tonnage, since they're approximations. Even on a 100t ship, you still have up to 20 squares a "slop space" (2 squares being 1dT). Most people considered that space to be where corridors, airlocks, and the ship's locker came from.

I haven't checked to see if Mongoose Traveller allows for the "10% overage" rule though.

 

[AndrewW]

I haven't checked to see if Mongoose Traveller allows for the "10% overage" rule though.

You can vary this by up to +/- 10% as spacecraft will vary in terms of the amount of space consumed by corridors, lifts, computer systems, life support, machinery and other items that are not included in the design system.

 

[hdan]

And there you have it.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello hdan and AndrewW,

Thank you both for the reply.

Per the 2008 Core Rulebook ship's get one airlock per 100 tons at no cost in space of MCr. Over on the New addition of Traveller is Here topic AndrewW cited that additional airlocks or hulls under 100 tons require 2 tons of space at a cost of MCr0.1 per ton. HG 2008 p. 61 lists an airlock taking up 1 ton of space at a cost of MCr0.2.

I will agree that under the rule of one airlock per 100 tons of hull will not cost additional MCr, however the airlock requires space of either 2 tons or 1 ton. A 1,000 ton hull gets 10 airlocks at no additional MCr but should, in my opinion, reduce the remaining tons of space.

While typing this post I figured out why Traveller deck plans with the slop factor are a pet peeve. Way back in junior and high school I took classes in mechanical and architectural drawing, not that I did all the well, there was no slop factor allowed. Then while in the USN I took a course in blue print drawing and reading which is another area that did not allow for slop factor.

Looks like I'll leave the deck plan drawing to others since I've not been able to draw Traveller deck plans without slop factor.

Again thank you both and all the other members for letting me post my two credits on the topic.

 

[phavoc]

Deck plans have ALWAYS had wiggle room added to them. Keep in mind that what you are modeling is more or less an abstract. I echo your sentiment for accuracy, but the issue is you cannot be accurate when your design system is more theoretical and less practical. In this case the loosey-goosey aspect probably provides far more advantage than disadvantage. There's nothing that says you can't make hyper-detailed plans along with the rules you want to enforce. However unless you really, really, really enjoy that sort of thing, who really cares if the closet is 1.2 meters wide or just one when that intruder tosses a grenade down the hallway?

 

[AndrewW]

Also there's the staterooms. Standard staterooms take 4 tons of space but are usually drawn as 3 tons, with the left over being used for stuff such as corridor space and common areas.

Remember this isn't reality, yes to build an actual starship you would want something more exact, for the purposes of playing Traveller though it doesn't have to be.

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening PST phavoc and AndrewW.

Thank you both for the replies and I do realize that in some ways the components are abstract.

AndrewW mentioned in a reply in New Edition of Traveller Here, time stamp of Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:58 pm, that any airlocks above those allocated by the rule of at least one per 100 tons require both space in tons and cost in MCr. In an earlier post time stamped Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:32 pm I think posted by AndrewW indicated the 1 ton of space is required at a cost of MCr 0.2.
The cited tonnage and cost appear to be the same as found on HG 2008 p. 61 in the small craft design chapter.

Based on the information above I will concede that any default airlocks will not have a MCr cost, similar to cargo holds, however I do not understand why or concede that they take up no space when per the advanced rules in HG 2008 additional airlocks above the default number needs 1 ton of space.

The idea that a hull less than 100 tons requires an airlock taking up 1 ton of space with a cost of MCr0.2 while hulls 100 ton and greater get at least one airlock free of both tons and MCr does not make sense to me.

I have now expressed my point of view of why any components that requires space should decrease the hulls tonnage and depending on the component may or may not require a cost in MCr and will try very hard not to bring the subject up again.

Again thank you both and the other members for allowing me to provide my point of view on one of my pet pevees.

 

[AndrewW]

AndrewW indicated the 1 ton of space is required at a cost of MCr 0.2.
The cited tonnage and cost appear to be the same as found on HG 2008 p. 61 in the small craft design chapter.

The size is variable but a minimum of 2 tons. Cost is MCr0.1 per ton.

The idea that a hull less than 100 tons requires an airlock taking up 1 ton of space with a cost of MCr0.2 while hulls 100 ton and greater get at least one airlock free of both tons and MCr does not make sense to me.

Airlocks where an add on for small craft in the earlier edition as well.

I have now expressed my point of view of why any components that requires space should decrease the hulls tonnage and depending on the component may or may not require a cost in MCr and will try very hard not to bring the subject up again.

No need, different opinions can help make things better.

 

[phavoc]

I have always pit in an airlock at no extra charge or space allocation. The reason is that it is a very minor issue and doing so doesn't really positively or negatively impact things. The space is relatively small compared to the ship and the cost can easily be absorbed by the price of the hull. But I only put them I where it makes logical sense to do so. So that pretty much balances things out. It also keeps me from putting an airlock in engineering or on the bridge, but hey, that's just me.

As far as small craft go, I've always thought any craft that's flown without a spacesuit on, unlike a fighter, should have an airlock. It's space for God's sake, and shit happens a lot in space. You never know what might happen and that airlock may be the only thing that saves you in an emergency. And again I use common sense for placement. Small craft would rarely need two airlocks, and their placement should make sense (again, there should be no airlocks on a bridge - exceptions would be if the bridge was the ONLY place on the craft for crew).

In the end come up with the rules you feel best suit your campaigns. If you end up sharing them with the community just make sure you put some verbiage somewhere that explains why you did it as you did.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Andrew,

I have made three attempts at replying to your post time stamped Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:24 am. During the first attempt I selected preview and ended up on a log-in page. Logging in from that page resulted in dumping all my typing. The second attempt ended because I had duties elsewhere. So here is, I hope, the final try.

My apologies for misquoting the information that in the new edition of HG requires additional airlocks above the at least 1 per 100/500 tons of to occupy at minimum 2 tons of space at a cost of MCr0.1 per ton of airlock. The requirement that additional airlocks require space and cost while the at least 1 airlock per 100/500 tons have no space or MCr costs does not make any sense to me.

A 200-ton hull has two airlock which under the Traveller Core Rulebook 2008 Spacecraft Design chapter meets the at least one airlock per 100 tons rule. According to the rule above they take up zero tons and cost MCr0.0, When all the other components are deducted from the 200 tons the hull has 88 tons of cargo capacity.

Looking at the deck plans in both the 2008 and 2016 editions of the Traveller Core Rulebook I think one square equals one ton of space. I'll use the minimum of two tons or 2 squares to represent airlocks installed in the example above.

Cargo capacity is basically any square/tons that are not dedicated to any other function. Airlocks are dedicated as a way to enter or leave the ship, but under the existing rules appear to be considered cargo capacity.

The two free airlocks occupy 4 tons/squares are apparently considered to be part of the ship's cargo capacity, which means that when the hull is carrying a full 88 tons of cargo neither of the free airlocks can be used. By adding a third airlock the cargo capacity is reduced to 86 tons/squares allowing crew and passengers to enter and leave the ship.

Airlocks where an add on for small craft in the earlier edition as well.

From HG 2008 Small Draft Design p. 61:

"Unlike starships, a small craft does not have an airlock by default.
Airlocks take up one ton each and cost MCr 0.2. If a craft does not
have an airlock, then the crew cannot leave the craft except when it
is landed or in a pressurized landing bay without opening the ship
up to vacuum."

My take is that leaving airlocks off a small craft is optional considering that to leave the craft you have to be somewhere that has an appropriate atmosphere.

No need, different opinions can help make things better.

The problem is that I have a tendency of continuing to express my opinion until I drive others a bit batty. Actually I should have replied only to this portion f the post.

Note that I tried to open another copy of this post and had to log-in again.

Is there some time limit on how long one spends on the forum before having to log in again?
If there is a time limit is there a way to stay logged in past the limit?

In future posts I will have to be less verbose.

 

[AndrewW]

Looking at the deck plans in both the 2008 and 2016 editions of the Traveller Core Rulebook I think one square equals one ton of space. I'll use the minimum of two tons or 2 squares to represent airlocks installed in the example above.

The usual for a deck plan is one square = 1/2 ton. Airlocks aren't always drawn to take up 2+ tons.

My take is that leaving airlocks off a small craft is optional considering that to leave the craft you have to be somewhere that has an appropriate atmosphere.

You can also use the whole craft as an airlock.

Is there some time limit on how long one spends on the forum before having to log in again?
If there is a time limit is there a way to stay logged in past the limit?

When you login are you checking the Remember me box? Also make sure you are allowing cookies from this site.

Remember you are free to ignore any rules you don't happen to agree with and can just deduct the airlocks space with any cargo space if you feel a need to do so.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello phavoc,

I have always pit in an airlock at no extra charge or space allocation. The reason is that it is a very minor issue and doing so doesn't really positively or negatively impact things. The space is relatively small compared to the ship and the cost can easily be absorbed by the price of the hull. But I only put them I where it makes logical sense to do so. So that pretty much balances things out. It also keeps me from putting an airlock in engineering or on the bridge, but hey, that's just me.

A 100-ton ship has 100-tons of space to fill or if I have the MgT scale right looking at the deck plans 1 square = 1 ton or 100 square to fill.

Hull 100 tons/squares - Bridge: 10 tons/squares = 90 tons/squares
Hull 90 tons/squares - Power Plant C: 10 tons/squares = 80 tons/squares
Hull 80 tons/squares - 4 weeks of Power Plant fuel: 12 tons/squares = 68 tons/squares
Hull 68 tons/squares - M-Drive C: 5 tons/squares = 63 tons/squares
Hull 63 tons/squares - J-Drive A rating 2 parsecs: 10 tons/squares = 53 tons/squares
Hull 53 tons/squares - J-Drive A fuel: 0.1 x 100 x 2 = 10 x 2 = 20 tons/squares = 33 tons/squares
Hull 33 tons/squares - Model 2 Computer: ? = 33 tons/squares
Hull 33 tons/squares - 4 Staterooms: 4 x 4 tons/squares = 17 tons/squares
Hull 17 tons/squares - Fuel Scoops: = 17 tons/squares
Hull 17 tons/squares - Fuel Processors: 4 tons/squares = 13 tons/squares
Hull 13 tons/squares - Hardpoint #1 Empty Double turret: 1 ton = 12 tons/squares

The unallocated 12 tons/squares is considered to be the cargo hold.

Based on the HG 2008 airlock rules they require at least 1 ton/square on a deck plan.

On the deck plan the 100 ton hull gets 1 airlock which is placed in the passage way between two staterooms, in the one ton space allocated for passageways that are part of the stateroom.

Where is the one ton/square for the airlocks going to come from the staterooms or cargo capacity?

The New HG rule, per an earlier reply, any additional airlocks beyond the at least 1 per 100 tons of hull requires a minimum of 2 tons/squares.

A ship's locker is effectively a cargo hold that has been designated to store a certain amount of standard equipment. When designated on the deck plans the number of tons/squares for the locker are drawn in that in my opinion reduces the general cargo capacity. Custom components like a lab takes up space on the deck plans and reduce the hulls available space.

I will agree that the free airlocks can get by without requiring MCr, but my common sense says that they take up space like a stateroom.

As far as small craft go, I've always thought any craft that's flown without a spacesuit on, unlike a fighter, should have an airlock. It's space for God's sake, and **** happens a lot in space. You never know what might happen and that airlock may be the only thing that saves you in an emergency. And again I use common sense for placement. Small craft would rarely need two airlocks, and their placement should make sense (again, there should be no airlocks on a bridge - exceptions would be if the bridge was the ONLY place on the craft for crew).

I agree with you that small craft that can fit an airlock onboard should have one.

In the end come up with the rules you feel best suit your campaigns. If you end up sharing them with the community just make sure you put some verbiage somewhere that explains why you did it as you did.

My design sharing on a different Traveller related site included details on what I modified and why I did the deed, the comments while not negative did not encourage me to continue sharing designs. I may try again at some point, but I can not say when that will occur.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi again AndrewW,

Looking at the deck plans in both the 2008 and 2016 editions of the Traveller Core Rulebook I think one square equals one ton of space. I'll use the minimum of two tons or 2 squares to represent airlocks installed in the example above.

The usual for a deck plan is one square = 1/2 ton. Airlocks aren't always drawn to take up 2+ tons.

Thank you for the scale being used is 1 square equaling 0.5 tons. The Traveller Core Rulebook 2008 deck plans most of the airlocks appear to be about 1 ton based on the 1 square = 0.5 tons.

My take is that leaving airlocks off a small craft is optional considering that to leave the craft you have to be somewhere that has an appropriate atmosphere.

You can also use the whole craft as an airlock.

Yes, which means that everyone onboard has to be in a spacesuit and any cargo that can be damaged by vacuum and freezing conditions of space.

The NASA Space Shuttle had an airlock and the ISS has an airlock which allows the crew to enter or leave easily and not have to be in a spacesuit for however long the job takes to complete on the outside. Then there is the issue of loosing larger amounts of oxygen and other items every time the structure is depressurized.

The main space capsule for the moon missions didn't have an airlock and to do an EVA everyone closed up their suits evacuated most of the capsule's atmosphere and opened the hatch. Not very comfortable from a commercial aspect.

Is there some time limit on how long one spends on the forum before having to log in again?
If there is a time limit is there a way to stay logged in past the limit?

When you login are you checking the Remember me box? Also make sure you are allowing cookies from this site.

Remember you are free to ignore any rules you don't happen to agree with and can just deduct the airlocks space with any cargo space if you feel a need to do so.

No I have not been checking Remember me because to my knowledge the forum will show me as online.

I have not blocked cookies from the site and when I checked the various setting I do not see any thing related to the site.

On the designs I've shared on other sites including the airlocks when they where not specifically included resulted in not very helpful critiques. As mentioned I will try and let this topic fade out before I push to far.

 

[AndrewW]

No I have not been checking Remember me because to my knowledge the forum will show me as online.

You shouldn't need to. But if you are having trouble staying logged in it might help.

On the designs I've shared on other sites including the airlocks when they where not specifically included resulted in not very helpful critiques. As mentioned I will try and let this topic fade out before I push to far.

Feel free to share designs on here if you wish to.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi AndrewW,

No I have not been checking Remember me because to my knowledge the forum will show me as online.

You shouldn't need to. But if you are having trouble staying logged in it might help.

I have followed the suggestion about checking Remember Me and on the plus side I did not have to log in this morning.

On the designs I've shared on other sites including the airlocks when they where not specifically included resulted in not very helpful critiques. As mentioned I will try and let this topic fade out before I push to far.

Feel free to share designs on here if you wish to.

I'll have to (1) get a handle on the design chapter and (2) get over the past reviews of my designs.

Thank you and everyone who have replied to my question.