Airlocks/ship's lockers & corridors/passageways in deckp

[snrdg121408]

Morning GypsyComet,

I've dug out my copies of MT, TNE, T4, and GT and they at least acknowledge the fact that anything on a deckplan drawing is subtracted from the design displacement.

What is abstract about clearly identifying that X number of squares makeup an airlock, ship's locker, or passageway on a deckplan?

The squares supposedly represents the dtons that the components subtract from the total available.

Abstract to me is the component identified as a 20-dton Bridge. How many squares make up a control console or the avionics package? Whatever I as the designer feels is needed provided I do not exceed the 20-dtons allocated to the Bridge.

My apologies for being stubborn and I'll try an drop the subject. I do appreciate the comments and your help, under other names, on the various forums over the past several years.

You really need to go dig up a copy of MegaTraveller or TNE ship design, and leave the purposely abstract versions of ship design to the amateurs.

Setting hard standards for airlocks means you need to start outside the ship and look at the interstellar commerce model. What is being shipped, how it is being shipped, and what sort of facilities will be loading it into a ship's cargo capacity.

Traveller (in MT and TNE) set the size of the hardware that moves the air in and out of an airlock. The airlock chamber itself could be anywhere from a crawl lock (maybe 2.5 cubic meters, just enough to get a person through) to a "two-doored closet" (about half a dton, and fairly common on adventure class ships), to the five dton cargo container lock or something you can drive a 10 dton ATV through.

There are at least as many possible "standards" as there are things to load onto a ship. All of them share the air-moving hardware and two doors through a fully enclosing bulkhead, but otherwise...

 

[Dave Chase]

Sounds like some other discussions I have heard on many SciFi forums.


Bascisly, it is more of an Ergomonics issue than most realize.

Take the 30t module that is used for the Modular Cutter.
It is a round tube 6m dia and about 14.8m long yet it has many different takes on how to put all the various 'deckplans' in it.

GURPS just changed the shape a bit to an oval for their modules.

Head space is another issue that I have some concerns about on some deckplans.

So don't worry, snrdg121408, you are not the first and will not the be the last to raise questions and concerns about such.



Dave Chase

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi Dave Chase,

Thanks for popping in to the discussion. I do realize that not being a professional architect there will be some discrepancies between the designed displacement and the deckplan displacement so having the fudge/slop factor is a good thing. Of course having a basic idea of the craft does have a drawback as this topic has shown;-).

Again thanks for popping in and the comments.

Sounds like some other discussions I have heard on many SciFi forums.


Bascisly, it is more of an Ergomonics issue than most realize.

Take the 30t module that is used for the Modular Cutter.
It is a round tube 6m dia and about 14.8m long yet it has many different takes on how to put all the various 'deckplans' in it.

GURPS just changed the shape a bit to an oval for their modules.

Head space is another issue that I have some concerns about on some deckplans.

So don't worry, snrdg121408, you are not the first and will not the be the last to raise questions and concerns about such.



Dave Chase

 

[GypsyComet]

Morning GypsyComet,

I've dug out my copies of MT, TNE, T4, and GT and they at least acknowledge the fact that anything on a deckplan drawing is subtracted from the design displacement.

What is abstract about clearly identifying that X number of squares makeup an airlock, ship's locker, or passageway on a deckplan?

The squares supposedly represents the dtons that the components subtract from the total available.

Abstract to me is the component identified as a 20-dton Bridge. How many squares make up a control console or the avionics package? Whatever I as the designer feels is needed provided I do not exceed the 20-dtons allocated to the Bridge.

Under CT, T4, and T20, "Bridge" includes sensors ("avionics"). Under CT, T20, and MGT, "Bridge" includes airlocks unless they are clearly associated with cargo handling (such as the big ones on the A2).

Every edition handles the infrastructure of the ship a bit differently. Some spell out the components, some lump them all into "Bridge", which is the overhead needed to make this space-rated box you've designed into a "ship". T4 went so far as to provide overhead in the form of "hull", so I tend to lump the obligatory one airlock per 100 tons into "hull" when doing T4 plans.

As for things like suit storage or a large passenger lock, these volumes get assigned to wherever is most appropriate. A suit closet is "Ship's Locker" and thus part of "Bridge", unless it gets large enough to call an Armory, in which case it gets its own entry on the ship design, or is included in quarters or cargo. I try to avoid lumping dedicated storage space into Cargo, as a ship's cargo rating is supposed to be for making money. Defining the last two tons of revenue Cargo space as "the space above the suits in Airlock Three, plus whatever space Bubba has left in his closet" goes against the grain.

As for lumping Bridge and Quarters together and "winging it", there is nothing wrong with that. The original Scout plan from CT Traders and Gunboats is a classic example. 36 tons of that design fall into that combination (40 if you include the "cargo"), and that catches just about everything it needs to on that deckplan, including the galleries (originally sensor installations), the aft rumpus room, the staterooms themselves, and the tiny slice of the ship forward of the Bridge bulkhead.

Getting too deep into this stuff is very much like violating the rules about significant digits in math and science calculations. With the exception of MT and TNE, every version of Traveller ship building has incorporated significant levels of abstraction; the definition of "Bridge" has usually been the most obvious representation of that, but it permeates the entire process in every case. Imposing double-digit precision and millimeter accuracy on such abstraction is going to be frustrating, as you have discovered.

 

[snrdg121408]

Afternoon GypsyComet,

Could you please provide the page number in the MgT Core Rulebook that clearly states that the airlock is part of the Bridge. Here is what I can find:

Bridge page 107: All ships have a bridge containing basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors, and other equipment for the proper operation of the ship.

Airlocks page 137: A ship has at least one airlock per 100 tons. The average airlock is large enough for three people in vacc suits to pass through at the same time. Airlocks take 10 seconds to cycle. Under normal circumstances, airlocks are locked down from the bridge and require a Very Difficult (-4) Engineering (electonics check to override. An unlocked airlock can be triggered from the outside. Airlocks generally have vacc suits (see page 87), rescue bubbles (see page 97) and cutlasses (see page) in a ship's locker nearby.

Ships with cargo space have cargo hatches, allowing up to 10% of their cargo to be transferred at any time. Some ships, such as the Corsair (see page 129) have specially designed cargo hatches that open onto the entire cargo bay but these are the exception rather than the rule.

Neither of the cited sections, at least to me, state that an airlock is integrated into the bridge.

MgT as far as I can tell does not integrate an airlock into the Engineering Section as some of the other design systems do.

I've checked out the corrected deckplan pdfs and see that the bridge matches the worksheet. However, the air/raft bay shows up as 8 squares in the new plan and 4 squares in the core rulebook.

Now that I've throughly confused myself I think I'll just drop the subject :?

Under CT, T4, and T20, "Bridge" includes sensors ("avionics"). Under CT, T20, and MGT, "Bridge" includes airlocks unless they are clearly associated with cargo handling (such as the big ones on the A2).

Every edition handles the infrastructure of the ship a bit differently. Some spell out the components, some lump them all into "Bridge", which is the overhead needed to make this space-rated box you've designed into a "ship". T4 went so far as to provide overhead in the form of "hull", so I tend to lump the obligatory one airlock per 100 tons into "hull" when doing T4 plans.

As for things like suit storage or a large passenger lock, these volumes get assigned to wherever is most appropriate. A suit closet is "Ship's Locker" and thus part of "Bridge", unless it gets large enough to call an Armory, in which case it gets its own entry on the ship design, or is included in quarters or cargo. I try to avoid lumping dedicated storage space into Cargo, as a ship's cargo rating is supposed to be for making money. Defining the last two tons of revenue Cargo space as "the space above the suits in Airlock Three, plus whatever space Bubba has left in his closet" goes against the grain.

As for lumping Bridge and Quarters together and "winging it", there is nothing wrong with that. The original Scout plan from CT Traders and Gunboats is a classic example. 36 tons of that design fall into that combination (40 if you include the "cargo"), and that catches just about everything it needs to on that deckplan, including the galleries (originally sensor installations), the aft rumpus room, the staterooms themselves, and the tiny slice of the ship forward of the Bridge bulkhead.

Getting too deep into this stuff is very much like violating the rules about significant digits in math and science calculations. With the exception of MT and TNE, every version of Traveller ship building has incorporated significant levels of abstraction; the definition of "Bridge" has usually been the most obvious representation of that, but it permeates the entire process in every case. Imposing double-digit precision and millimeter accuracy on such abstraction is going to be frustrating, as you have discovered.

 

[GypsyComet]

I've checked out the corrected deckplan pdfs and see that the bridge matches the worksheet. However, the air/raft bay shows up as 8 squares in the new plan and 4 squares in the core rulebook.

This one at least is easy. The core book in its original printing treated mapped tonnage as if it were one square per ton, instead of two squares per ton.

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening GypsyComet,

Thanks for the clarification.

This one at least is easy. The core book in its original printing treated mapped tonnage as if it were one square per ton, instead of two squares per ton.

 

[brionl]

Hello brionl,

On one level I agree with your suggestion. However, I've actually had to learn the basics of architecual drawing and blueprints. The instructor stressed that the drawings really need to reflect the real world product. Traveller deckplans are blueprints and the 20% slop factor would have gotten points taken off. Thanks for the reply.

Well, that's the thing. You're not doing a construction blueprint. The deckplans we make are more on the line of concept sketches. It's not a "real world product", nobody is grading them, except you.

And I've taken drafting & architecture classes, as far back as High School, before I joined the US Navy in 79. I was on submarines too, so I'm pretty familiar with how they are laid out internally.

 

[qstor]

Take the 30t module that is used for the Modular Cutter.
It is a round tube 6m dia and about 14.8m long yet it has many different takes on how to put all the various 'deckplans' in it.

GURPS just changed the shape a bit to an oval for their modules.

And GURPS? Made the module into two decks. The module in CT Supp. 7 is one deck.

Mike

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening brionl,

Glad to hear I'm not the only bubblehead around here.

I agree that the majority of Traveller designers are doing design concept sketches. However, even concept skectches includes all measurements used in the drawing. In the case of Traveller the measurement unit is identified as a dton. There are a lot of predefined objects in Traveller, which are deducted from a finite number of dtons. Any dtons left over are generically used as cargo space. Some objects like the ones identified in this topic are not, for the most part, defined. However, these components are added but not subtracted of the finite dtons. This results in the slop factor, which is something that can be minimized. I realize that there will still be some overage, but I would hope less than 10%. Of course, I do judge myself harder than I do others. A large personal fault.

Thanks for the comments.

Well, that's the thing. You're not doing a construction blueprint. The deckplans we make are more on the line of concept sketches. It's not a "real world product", nobody is grading them, except you.

And I've taken drafting & architecture classes, as far back as High School, before I joined the US Navy in 79. I was on submarines too, so I'm pretty familiar with how they are laid out internally.

 

[Dave Chase]

Take the 30t module that is used for the Modular Cutter.
It is a round tube 6m dia and about 14.8m long yet it has many different takes on how to put all the various 'deckplans' in it.

GURPS just changed the shape a bit to an oval for their modules.

And GURPS? Made the module into two decks. The module in CT Supp. 7 is one deck.

Mike

Sorry, didn't know you wanted the fuel level drawn out on the deckplans, too.

The major difference between what CT did and GURPS on deckplans besided the different measurement was GURPS drew out everything. And nothing wrong with that.

But they (GURPS, T4 and some approved supplements changed the shape, size and look over several CT ships. Once again nothing wrong with that as long as they gave some type of explaination behind it.

Let's not get into which version is better on Deckplans, cause in my opinion any deckplan that is usable in a game is a good deckplan.

Dave Chase

 

[simonh]

I think anyone using the MT ship design sequence, as with Hih Guard and Bok 2, needs to acept the fact that the system simply doesn't even try to account precisely for every single dTon, and hence deck plan square, in the design. Insead many components are absracted into composite components, such as the Bridge which explcitly includes many sub-components, or staterooms which implicitly include corridoor space and other shared living facilities.

A key clue in Mongoose Traveller is that starships can only be built in whole hundreds of dTons - no 250 dTon ships. Strictly by the rules, they're just not possible to build. There might be several ways to interpret that, but one way is that a '200 dTon ship' is actualy a ship that's aproximately 200 dTons. Maybe by strict box-counting it turns out to be 210 dTons, with the extra space beig due to variations in component design, technology, materials and construction standards that lead to larger, but cheaper components. At the end of the day, the system only attempts to approximate the 'reality' of the setting.

Personaly I am very glad of that, the classic Traveller aproach that Mongose have updated is easy to use and understand and actualy pretty flexible.

Best regards,

Simon Hibbs

 

[GamerDude]

I think anyone using the MT ship design sequence, as with Hih Guard and Bok 2, needs to acept the fact that the system simply doesn't even try to account precisely for every single dTon, and hence deck plan square, in the design.

Whether squares or hexes (and I in some ways prefer the hex-based plans from SJ Games) are used to make deckplans, the real consideration is that these ships are A) imaginary meant for fun roleplaying and B) Not being designed by people in the aerospace industry (or at least to the detail of plans in that field).

I don't think there is a person out there who is going to design deckplans in such detail that you'll know where ever cable goes, every junction is, every access panel, etc. all are.

What deckplans do is provide a sense of where the major things or, help those how like that visualize the layout, and yes provide for the use of miniatures in tactical combat.

And hey, if they aren't your cup of tea... there is coffee over there on the sideboard for you, caf and decaf.

 

[qstor]

Sorry, didn't know you wanted the fuel level drawn out on the deckplans, too.

The major difference between what CT did and GURPS on deckplans besided the different measurement was GURPS drew out everything. And nothing wrong with that.

To be honest I didn't know the fuel level for the modular cutter was on one level of the module. I was just pointing out as to what I saw as the obvious differences.

Mike

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello simonh,

As I have stated many times in the thread when a component is drawn on the graph paper that item takes up one or more squares. The number of squares used is equal to a defined number dtons which should be subtracted from the grand total. If an airlock is counted as part of the bridge then the dtons have been acounted for. The same airlock that is not counted as part of the bridge then should be accounted for in dtons based on the scale of 2 squares = 1 dton.

Yep, in all the design there are standard components that have a defined amount of dtons. The exact items contained in the standard components are abstract not the amount of space they take away from the designed tonnage. Include a square or two that represents an abstract component called airlock the designer has used a defined amount of space. The exact layout of the sub-components in the airlock is not defined. Likewise the abstract component of ship's locker takes up a square uses a defined amount of dtons. Passageways is were the real problem occurs since many of the design systems state that they are part of a stateroom. I've looked at a large number of the published Traveller deckplans over the years and have found that staterooms rarely account for the dtons used by the passageways.

Please provide the page number or numbers in either the Core Rulebook or High Guard that states implicitly that hull size is only in 100-dton increments. I've read through the rules and seem to have missed that information.

Oops, sorry I went off my medications;-)

I think anyone using the MT ship design sequence, as with Hih Guard and Bok 2, needs to acept the fact that the system simply doesn't even try to account precisely for every single dTon, and hence deck plan square, in the design. Insead many components are absracted into composite components, such as the Bridge which explcitly includes many sub-components, or staterooms which implicitly include corridoor space and other shared living facilities.

A key clue in Mongoose Traveller is that starships can only be built in whole hundreds of dTons - no 250 dTon ships. Strictly by the rules, they're just not possible to build. There might be several ways to interpret that, but one way is that a '200 dTon ship' is actualy a ship that's aproximately 200 dTons. Maybe by strict box-counting it turns out to be 210 dTons, with the extra space beig due to variations in component design, technology, materials and construction standards that lead to larger, but cheaper components. At the end of the day, the system only attempts to approximate the 'reality' of the setting.

Personaly I am very glad of that, the classic Traveller aproach that Mongose have updated is easy to use and understand and actualy pretty flexible.

Best regards,

Simon Hibbs

 

[GypsyComet]

The GT Cutter does look shorter and squatter than the CT version, but that may be the hexes. The CT Cutter had a diameter of 6m, IIRC, so it would certainly be two decks high, but not a good two decks.

The MGT Modular Skiff (T&G) is a short version of the two-deck Cutter, at least by the art. The deckplan not so much.

 

[rust]

A key clue in Mongoose Traveller is that starships can only be built in whole hundreds of dTons ...

At least for capital ships designed with High Guard this is not true, one
can build any size of hull between 2,000 tons and 1,000,000 tons with
that system.

As for smaller ships, I think the whole hundreds of dtons are a conven-
tion, but not a rule. The fact that the design tables only give values for
such hulls does not necessarily mean that other hull sizes would not be
"allowed".

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello GamerDude,

I agree that Traveller deckplans are devices to help visualize what the interior of a space vehicle looks like. Further, unless there is a specific reason, detail down to the actual cable runs, junctions boxes, or other items is not required. However, adding a component to the diagram that is not accounted for as a part of a defined component uses space that should be accounted for as part of the total dtons of the design. Passageways, in my opinion a major part of overage, in some of the design systems are supposedly counted as part of the stateroom tonnage. How many deckplans show a standard 4-dton stateroom and 1-dton of passageway/corridor/hallway? Off the top of my head all of the deckplans I've used shows a stateroom as being equal to a standard 4-dtons and usually 2 squares representing a passageway/corridor/hallway.

Does not counting the dtons of an airlock, ship's locker, passageways, or anything else not defined really matter? I'll have to admit that they don't matter in the long run. However, ignoring a correctable or at least minimizing the overage by simply including the components in the total should be used.

Okay, I'll try very hard not to answer anymore on this topic to help preserve the other forum members mental health. My mental health has been in question ever since I volunteered for duty on a ship that purposely sinks. Please note the ship was also designed to refloat itself.;-)

Whether squares or hexes (and I in some ways prefer the hex-based plans from SJ Games) are used to make deckplans, the real consideration is that these ships are A) imaginary meant for fun roleplaying and B) Not being designed by people in the aerospace industry (or at least to the detail of plans in that field).

I don't think there is a person out there who is going to design deckplans in such detail that you'll know where ever cable goes, every junction is, every access panel, etc. all are.

What deckplans do is provide a sense of where the major things or, help those how like that visualize the layout, and yes provide for the use of miniatures in tactical combat.

And hey, if they aren't your cup of tea... there is coffee over there on the sideboard for you, caf and decaf.

 

[Zowy]

On most of the deckplans that I use. the Stateroom footprint is 2-3 dTons depending on if each room has a private freasher, or if the deck has a larger common one. Allso I keep passageways to a minimum and use a more open arangement of the liveing areas.

When I draw a deckpplan, I start with the ship outline and work my way in. That way slop and oversized areas are kept way down.

 

[Dave Chase]

The GT Cutter does look shorter and squatter than the CT version, but that may be the hexes. The CT Cutter had a diameter of 6m, IIRC, so it would certainly be two decks high, but not a good two decks.

The MGT Modular Skiff (T&G) is a short version of the two-deck Cutter, at least by the art. The deckplan not so much.

Yes that has always been an issue for those of us that care (and I am one that cares

I have drawn various types of modules keeping in mind the curved walls and having only 2 meters of head room to have 2 levels. You can see one of the modules here

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/index.php?n=485

Other modules can be found around that site also.
Just my interpertation of some deckplans.

Dave Chase