Art: Reference pic, 30 ton utility modules

[wbnc]

I am dong some background illustrations for various portions of my project..thought I would share and get some feeedback.

Illustration Shows Module with rear loading bulkhead removed for loading. Human figure is 1.85 Meters (Six Feet) tall, standing next to a 208 (55 gallon)liter drum

Rectangular module: 6x4x18 meters
Cylindrical Module:6 meter diameter 15 meter length
(currently, measurements are approximate, the figures will be recalculated to allow for hull thickness of module as soon as i can come up with the numbers.)

the modules have integrated power and life support housed in the "forward end of the module, nearest the airlock. The module has reinforced hardware for the carrying vessels docking clamps to lock onto and absorb and redirect load stresses generated by rapid acceleration.

The rear end of the module can be detached for loading cargo although this requires the module be depressurized when in a vacuum. The clamps are designed to positively engage in recesses in the interior hull of the module, contacting directly with reinforced structures. When the module is pressurized the design of the clamps makes it impossible for the clamps to be withdrawn to release the loading bulkhead without damaging or destroying the clamps in the process.

Some models may come with explosive bolts installed to allow rapid depressurization of the module, but this will likely result in cargo or personnel being damaged by explosive decompression, and/or being ejected from the module.

the modules have reinforced fittings to allow docking clamps to be engaged but do not have the hardware for the clamps installed onto the module. These reinforced fittings are also adaptable to systems used by standard design modular cutters. this allows them to be used by any vessel capable of fitting a 30 ton module into it's module bay.

The modules are not armored but they share the same heavy construction as a typical starship hull. allowing them to absorb considerable abuse without being damaged.

The module's life support consists of small pressurized tanks containing breathable air for short duration use. as well as heaters, and cooling units built into the pressure hull of the unit. they can not be used for long term habitation without significant additional life support, or opening a hatch into the interior of a ship, to recirculate the air on a regular basis.

The starship pictured is a 100 ton Geadling class transport that is designed to carry two 30 ton modules as part of its standard equipment package.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

I’m coming at this from the perspective that Cutter Modules only make sense if they’re the Standardized Cargo Container of the Traveller setting.

Cutter Modules should be 30 dTons Clearance, not 30 dTons Volume; as in, it may take up “30 dTons of Cargo Bay”, but there are notable inefficiencies on the exact dimensions:
A single deck takes up 3m of height, but 0.5m of that is used for ducting. A two deck high Cargo Bay can neglect one of those ducting portions, for the sake of additional clearance, granting a 5.5m high Cargo Bay. As such, an outright 6m diameter Cylindrical Cutter Module wouldn’t fit; it would max out at about 5 meters, for the sake of the clearance required for being lugged around by slack-jawed “fork-lift” jockeys, and clueless all-too-literal robots. Rectangular Cutter Modules would likely be just under 6m wide by 5m tall, and, depending on use, may have 2 2.5m high (measured externally) “decks”; making these livable while detached from a ship would require using the vehicle rules; a single “deck” version can have an internal height of 4.5m and still use the starship rules... but the vehicle rules allow for more useful vertical space (goodness knows how the “Starship vs. Vehicle” life support requirements match plays out). While attached to the Cutter, the Cutter spine contributes an additional 1m of height (bringing the total to 6m tall), handles the life-support requirements of simpler modules (like a Cargo Module), and provides a maintenance tunnel navigable by a crewman to reach the drives from the cockpit in the case of an emergency.

Approximate Dimensions:
Cylinder: About 5m diameter x Less than 7.5m long
Rectangular: Less than 6m wide x About 5m high x Less than 7.5m long

For reference, an ISS module approximated to Traveller dimensions, and without the International Standard Payload Racks, has an internal diameter of 4.64 meters, and, for the configurable volume, can be approximated as having a 4.5m x 4.5m (3" x 3") square cross-section along its length; the ISPR units are equivalent to 0.75 meters deep, resulting in 3m x 3m (2" x 2") of completely open passage, ignoring the negligible limitation of an 0.5m symmetrical chamfer on the corners. It would make sense for cylindrical Cutter Modules to inherit dimensions from ISS modules, and for rectangular modules to conceptually inherit from shipping containers.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Accidental duplicate post. Please Disregard.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I’m coming at this from the perspective that Cutter Modules only make sense if they’re the Standardized Cargo Container of the Traveller setting.

Actually, you're coming from another place. Leave wbnc alone.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I am dong some background illustrations for various portions of my project..thought I would share and get some feeedback.

I like the concept. I vaguely prefer the rectangular modules, since I guess they are easier to stuff with boxes, people, or vehicles.

The starship pictured is a 100 ton Geadling class transport that is designed to carry two 30 ton modules as part of its standard equipment package.

The modules sticking out from the sides is fine for a space station, but it would take a lot of structural reinforcement to withstand acceleration.

 

[Condottiere]

I think a rectangle is more practical than a tube.

There may be an issue with maximum acceleration.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Cylinders are indeed pretty strong, but the prevalence of cylinders in spacefaring designs has more to do with strength per weight than anything else. With Traveller tech, cylinders provide no meaningful advantage over other shapes. Arguably better in a cross-wind, I suppose.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

Having just come from trying to fit the 30 ton ship's boat deckplan into a Free Trader with oodles more cargo space and having difficulties, the rectangular ones will definitely be more easily fitted (unless you design slots for them or something cool like that.

The cylindrical ones do look nice on the side of the ship.

As far as acceleration, for reactionless drives, it would be easy enough to assume that the drives "push" or "pull" all parts of the ship equally, if you want to avoid thinking about structural strength in that sense.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

There’s no reason to assume drives do that. As a practical matter, unless you have a basis for it, you should throw out as little physics as possible, so as to leave your players with as much actionable information as possible.

 

[phavoc]

My 2Cr...

The circular modules could work easily, with you burying your lifesupport and other equipment in the top/bottom where the space is better used by automated equipment and not people. Think of how aircraft are structured, with the main flight deck and then the belly (at least on smaller aircraft. Those with larger circumfrence can have full-sized lower decks. The square-sized ones work well for people/cargo as well as putting them inside a cargo hold. Circular modules are typically carried inside a rectangular frame for easier storage.

I would think that the external openings would be hinged/split down the middle. It's simple and allows the structure to bear the weight. You could do a vertical split, too, but that would require a powered system to raise/lower them. Putting them on the sides means you could conceivable manhandle them easily enough. The advantage of the cylinder is going to be structural strength, so if you don't need that part, I say go with the rectangle. And as the Eagles of Moonbase Alpha have shown, you can still fly with a rectangular cargo pod slung beneath your ship.

I would really reconsider putting an airlock on them. Anything meant to be in space potentially on it's own should have an airlock. Although going back to the Eagle's, the passenger pods did not have an airlock - the entire section had to be depressurized. The only airlock they had was from the ship going to the pilot section. So it's nice to have, especially if the idea is you may leave one somewhere on it's own, or perhaps hooking up modules to a central docking mechanism. Something to think about. Nice scalar view BTW.

For your ships with the modules attached, it would be far better to have the modules in-line with the hull as well as the centerline thrust. As it stands it would be a tremendous amount of stress on the joints with them mounted at right angles, plus being in a grav field means lateral stress as well. With 52nd century materials you COULD do that, but it would require additional reinforcement for no real value. Plus all the other ships would make fun of you cause you looked funny. If you swung them 90 degrees so that they fit conformally to the hull and the access corridor/airlock was also at a 90 degree angle you could easily land in a gravity field or maneuver with them. Think of it being like a scuba diver with side-by-side tanks, and how the screw in (yours would be maglocked or something similar, with also a manual backup that could be detached/explosive bolts to drop them in an emergency if needed.

To make it "prettier", you'd want to have them inside the main hull, much like the cutters dock in a 800 ton Mercenary ship. In theory with slight modifications you should be able to also store 30 ton ships boats in there as well.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

There’s no reason to assume drives do that. As a practical matter, unless you have a basis for it, you should throw out as little physics as possible, so as to leave your players with as much actionable information as possible.

I don't see a reactionless drive that moves all parts of an object equally somehow as throwing out any more or less physics than a reactionless drive that pushes an object from a specific location within the object somehow, but YMMV.

 

[Epicenter]

I like the cylinder-shaped modules more from the aesthetics standpoint.

The rectangular shape is more practical, though. Slab shapes are better for when the modules are left, unpowered on the ground on the ground of some world - perhaps if they're used as shipping containers, they stack more efficiently and are much more stable and aren't prone to rolling away like cylinders; they require no stub feet or anything to stabilize them. If they're used as labs or living quarters on world surfaces, it's the same thing.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

I like the cylinder-shaped modules more from the aesthetics standpoint.

The rectangular shape is more practical, though. Slab shapes are better for when the modules are left, unpowered on the ground on the ground of some world - perhaps if they're used as shipping containers, they stack more efficiently and are much more stable and aren't prone to rolling away like cylinders; they require no stub feet or anything to stabilize them. If they're used as labs or living quarters on world surfaces, it's the same thing.

Ah, good point!

 

[wbnc]

Thanks for all the feedback. And I apologize for the slow response.


I decided on putting up two possible shape variations both cylinder and slab/box. I would assume a buyer would purchase the shape and layout best suited for his needs. The rear panels might need som tweaking to allow for a more manageable means of opening and closing rather than just detaching the section entirely.

I've been working on how the modules would be attached detached and used on a wide variety of ship The dedicated modular vessels I have worked up have the modules in line, along the flanks of the ship, or mounted in bays inside the ship. The one in the illustration is a ship not specifically built for modules modified with some after market upgrades.

 

[Jame Rowe]

Wbnc, I'm not sure if I would have a use for that particular design, but thank you for sharing your effort. It's well drawn and I can see you put effort in.

There’s no reason to assume drives do that. As a practical matter, unless you have a basis for it, you should throw out as little physics as possible, so as to leave your players with as much actionable information as possible.

Neither I nor my fellow players know any more about physics than "gravity works." That's why we play a game instead of do science. Do what you want for your own game.