Alternative Scout/Courier 100Dtons

Oh, the stock barracks. It's for 'animals and slaves' and not an example to munchkin staterooms. I would be hard pressed to believe a scout ship would have the 'crew' of one living in the bridge while other personnel are housed in bilge quarters. Scary yet humorous.

I need to copy and blow up the deck plan to see how best this ship can fit in the MgT rules. It's still intriguing.
 
Hmmm. Looking over the deck, I see the people are standard size and, if they held an arm out, I see those central deck plates as 1.5x1.5 meters. Build a grid around them. Those 'staterooms' are coffin hotels! Then again, take a look at the real coffin units and they are packed with amenities. So far the design has merit.

I'm using a paint program to copy one central tile to measure other areas. The bridge is 2x3 which would be 3 dtons. A compact bridge for a 100 tonner would be 7.5 dtons so this bridge is way off.

Each maneuver section is 3x4 for a total 24 tiles or 12 tons. That's about a drive N for a scout. The split reactors are 1x3 or 6 tiles for 3 tons for a size A or B power plant. The separate forward machinery would be the jump with a total of 8 tiles or 4 dton which... isn't on the charts. Oh well.

Those blue areas are fuel and the twin units attached would be fuel processors. Flanking each side of the galley are fuel scoop machinery.

As for the living space, 29 tiles not counting the corridors to engineering for 21 dtons. Corridors add another 4 dtons for a total of 6 stateroom unit space. As we see 8 beds, these staterooms are double occupancy.

Cargo is 3x5 and airlock is 2x2. 19 tiles for 9.5 tons. Adds up to about 56.5 dtons... It's a jump cutter.
 
Yep, the stock barracks. It's essentially a shipping container. And actually you could cram a bunch more in there, with the limitations being on how strained the air, water and waste filtration systems could go. But space wise (assuming you had no worry about a mutiny over living conditions!) you could cram them in much tighter than what's listed. I read about human smuggling cases where empty semi's have 80-100 people crammed inside of them. Or worse, some of those ships smuggling migrants. Ugh. What crappy conditions.

If only the rules simply called out how much environmental equipment Dtonnage was required to support 1 person. Le sigh.
 
phavoc said:
If only the rules simply called out how much environmental equipment Dtonnage was required to support 1 person. Le sigh.

I created just such house rules so that I could break away from the "stateroom" paradigm and create crew conditions more like on subs and mil ships.
 
Traveller ship innards are more like WWII ships and subs. Ships shouldn't count since you get out in the air far more often than a two week trip in a starship.
 
Reynard said:
Traveller ship innards are more like WWII ships and subs. Ships shouldn't count since you get out in the air far more often than a two week trip in a starship.

Well, more like super high tech subs. But, you're right. Ships are not a good example at all. There is also SDBs that might have 1-6 month stints where the crew is inside without break.
 
Subs can always come back to the surface, if something goes wrong.

On spaceships, I'd distribute life support, so that there can't be a single point of failure, but connect them through a central ventilation system.
 
If you are interested in reading the USN policy of shipboard accomodations (nothing visual, just policy speak), check out this doc:

http://doni.documentservices.dla.mil/Directives/09000%20General%20Ship%20Design%20and%20Support/09-600%20Shipboard%20General%20Outfit%20and%20Furnishing%20Support/9640.1B.pdf

I found this set of images for berthing compartments. Most are stacked 3-high, with each bunk having under-mattress storage. I would expect that in the future they wouldn't get any worse (on the USS Texas (launched in 1910) the berthing compartments for sailors sucked! They stacked these guys 5-6high in wire mesh basket bunks dangling from chains in the ceiling. Officer compartments were very tiny too (but at least they had their own sink and only two per room). Not to say that players (and cheap navies) will try to cram as many people on a ship as possible, but pen and paper people don't have to take into account crew morale or things that in reality DO have a major impact on ship operations.

http://www.midwaysailor.com/military/shiplife.html
 
If I understood my correspondent correctly, someone was describing how they still get stacked three high on assault ships, submariners get to sleep on torpedoes, and I saw one documentary where submariners will sleep in storage closets, and hope that nothing needs to be repaired until after they finish their nap.
 
Condottiere said:
Subs can always come back to the surface, if something goes wrong.

On spaceships, I'd distribute life support, so that there can't be a single point of failure, but connect them through a central ventilation system.

One would assume a back up system. Which is what kicks in when you do double occupancy. That's the way I have it spec'd anyway.
 
Condottiere said:
If I understood my correspondent correctly, someone was describing how they still get stacked three high on assault ships, submariners get to sleep on torpedoes, and I saw one documentary where submariners will sleep in storage closets, and hope that nothing needs to be repaired until after they finish their nap.

Yes, new sub crew members get cots on torps. Sub chow is the best in the entire US armed services to help morale... Never heard of crew sleeping in closets on US subs.
 
Condottiere said:
If I understood my correspondent correctly, someone was describing how they still get stacked three high on assault ships, submariners get to sleep on torpedoes, and I saw one documentary where submariners will sleep in storage closets, and hope that nothing needs to be repaired until after they finish their nap.

Don't forget subs may also use hot racking, three to a single bunk that are on different shifts.
 
It wasn't stated, but I suspect that the reason the closet was used was for privacy.

Life support should shrink and become more efficient in higher tech levels.
 
AndrewW said:
Don't forget subs may also use hot racking, three to a single bunk that are on different shifts.

The last I read was that practice ended on the attack boats with the debut of the LA class subs (boomers didn't have a space issue). The previous classes (Thesher, Permit, Skipjack) did actually do hot bunking. From what I recall I think they struggled with even having enough beds for the crew off duty to sleep in. I don't know if it was ever THAT bad (i.e. a bunk was in use during all three shifts). But it certainly sounds challenging (to a land lubber).
 
phavoc said:
The last I read was that practice ended on the attack boats with the debut of the LA class subs (boomers didn't have a space issue). The previous classes (Thesher, Permit, Skipjack) did actually do hot bunking. From what I recall I think they struggled with even having enough beds for the crew off duty to sleep in. I don't know if it was ever THAT bad (i.e. a bunk was in use during all three shifts). But it certainly sounds challenging (to a land lubber).

Not sure if it is still in use anywhere currently or not.
 
You can hang hammocks from the ceiling or spread out sleeping bags in the corridors.

You can always squeeze in more people, if you can't find place for more equipment.

I could imagine that the Solomani could pack an assault carrier to the gills with troops, on the assumption they'd only be onboard for three or four weeks, before disembarking on assault shuttles.
 
Condottiere said:
You can hang hammocks from the ceiling or spread out sleeping bags in the corridors.

You can always squeeze in more people, if you can't find place for more equipment.

I could imagine that the Solomani could pack an assault carrier to the gills with troops, on the assumption they'd only be onboard for three or four weeks, before disembarking on assault shuttles.

The main problem is feeding those people...

The Solomani could let the troops ride in the assault shuttles the whole way.
 
I think I'm correct from pictures and video I've seen over the years that subs have become more accommodating to crews for physical and mental concerns. A soldier that is constantly tired and physically run down is not an efficient one. Not sure we'll see crew quarters of the Seaview but they still be far better off than earlier spartan tin cans.

This is a good analogy for space and starships too. Once a race gets the primitive and very expensive experimental craft out of the way, the modern systems of maneuver drives and AG/IC will make comfort relatively inexpensive and therefore common. There are enough examples that the military still cuts corners mostly for space saving such as the frozen watch yet still try to avoid degrading work efficiency.
 
We, as players, like to min/max our designs. But we don't have to live on the damn things for months on end. One of the reasons that the Navy has changed their acommodations is that they HAD to, in order to keep attracting the right kind of person to serve. Barracks housing is pretty decent these days, in some ways its just like living in an apartment. When you are a volunteer there's really only so much shit you'll put up with till you decide the military life ain't for you.

And, of course, technology has really enable a lot of changes. Things are smaller, so you have more room for more shit - including crew comforts. Plus you need fewer crew with more automation and machinery. But, the flip side to all that is your crew ARE smarter, and educated, so they are less willing to put up with crappier conditions when they know better (or have better options to avoid).

There are exceptions, of course. Cramming a bunch of guys into a ship for an assault is one thing. But living that way day in and day out for weeks or months is another. Nobody wants to live in an assault shuttle, but you can bet your troops wanna ride one down if someone is shooting. They'll temporarily trade survivability for creature comforts.
 
One reason I mentioned the Solomani, is because they seem to have a shortage of ships, but probably lots of soldiers they can borrow from neighbouring star systems.

Solomani destroyers could have been built to be able to accommodate troops and function as fast transports.
 
Back
Top