Pyromancer
Mongoose
According to High Guard, Barracks are 2dt/person, but some ships in Traders&Gunboats suggest a more sensible 1dt/person.
Which one is wrong?
Which one is wrong?
Barracks
- Thread starter Pyromancer
- Start date
far-trader
Mongoose
Neither?
Perhaps T&G created a logical double occupancy option for the Barracks?
Or are you talking deckplan squares when you get 1ton per person? Don't have T&G but about half the 2tons per barracks allowance should be the actual bunk room itself, the rest being corridors and common spaces. Typically. In my opinion.
Perhaps T&G created a logical double occupancy option for the Barracks?
Or are you talking deckplan squares when you get 1ton per person? Don't have T&G but about half the 2tons per barracks allowance should be the actual bunk room itself, the rest being corridors and common spaces. Typically. In my opinion.
Pyromancer said:
I'd say Traders & Gunships since in High Guard Barracks is described as used to either hold prisoners or Marines with 2 tons per marine at 0.1MCr whilst staterooms are 4tons and 0.5 MCr each I'd say Traders is a misprint since it clearly says in there those ships were designed using High Guard rules so it should read half as many barracks with half as many Marines as a result.
Has there been any errata on Traders & Gunships?
Found a thread on this, hope this works!
High Guard Barracks
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Barracks at 2Dtons per person is actually a lot of space but when you deck plan it most of that becomes all those extra bits not sleeping areas.
As Far Trader says. What is on the deck plan is less than the dtons allocated since each also adds a bit to things like the common area, galley and such areas as are needed to keep the Troops fit and happy ready for action.
If you look at something like a sub there are bunks stacked three high in an area of about a Dton but you need a lot of other space to prevent the crew going mad.
2Dtons for a bunk room seems about right, then you can double or triple bunk with a decrease in comfort and efficiency. A trooper would be one per bunk area but you could pack in economy or colonists two per area and in an emergency fit in three with fold down bunks or even going olde schoole and hanging hammocks
Something to consider that is only an abstract in the rules. Regardless of how much floor space you have it is life support that limits how many you can carry. Each area allocated to people includes the life support for that person. Packing in more people will reduce you to limited air and water. For packing in two or three per 2Dton bunk area if all they do is rest in the bunks all day they can manage on limited air but marines doing fitness/training etc are quickly going to become a lot less capable if they are on reduced air.
As Far Trader says. What is on the deck plan is less than the dtons allocated since each also adds a bit to things like the common area, galley and such areas as are needed to keep the Troops fit and happy ready for action.
If you look at something like a sub there are bunks stacked three high in an area of about a Dton but you need a lot of other space to prevent the crew going mad.
2Dtons for a bunk room seems about right, then you can double or triple bunk with a decrease in comfort and efficiency. A trooper would be one per bunk area but you could pack in economy or colonists two per area and in an emergency fit in three with fold down bunks or even going olde schoole and hanging hammocks
Something to consider that is only an abstract in the rules. Regardless of how much floor space you have it is life support that limits how many you can carry. Each area allocated to people includes the life support for that person. Packing in more people will reduce you to limited air and water. For packing in two or three per 2Dton bunk area if all they do is rest in the bunks all day they can manage on limited air but marines doing fitness/training etc are quickly going to become a lot less capable if they are on reduced air.
A
Anonymous
Guest
on a related note
if you're accommodating troops on a ship for weeks/months at a time, you'll need gyms, firing ranges/shoot houses, canteens and recreation space as well as a place to sleep.
i dont recall seeing a traveller deck plan that included most and certainly not all of those.
looking at the modern day equivalent would i guess be a submarine (on surface ships you can go up on deck to shoot tho whether its the best training seems to be in doubt, but if its all you can do) are there any modern subs whose deck plans have been declassified that we could compare the space to?
if you're accommodating troops on a ship for weeks/months at a time, you'll need gyms, firing ranges/shoot houses, canteens and recreation space as well as a place to sleep.
i dont recall seeing a traveller deck plan that included most and certainly not all of those.
looking at the modern day equivalent would i guess be a submarine (on surface ships you can go up on deck to shoot tho whether its the best training seems to be in doubt, but if its all you can do) are there any modern subs whose deck plans have been declassified that we could compare the space to?
Pyromancer
Mongoose
That still leaves the problem that the ship stats in Traders&Gunboats list space for troops as 1dton/person instead of 2dton/person.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Well let’s face it, it wouldn't be the first time that published ships have errors and huge mistakes :roll:
I would suggest that you have ship barracks at 2Dtons per person which allows you to carry on board marines and the like who are ready for action. No penalties to people carried in this way.
Or you can allocate 1Dton per person and call it Troop Shipping (civilian steerage), the personnel carried in this way are not able to deploy mid flight or on arrival and would need one day per week of the voyage to recover and become combat ready. Anyone travelling in this way counts as -1 on all physical skills and Stats.
As regards troop ready rooms and the like not being on deck plans. Agreed. It isn't possible for people to "Go on Deck" but space being so tight on small ships you would probably find that things like gym equipment in the cupboards of the crew lounge used by the troops. Long sections of corridors become running tracks etc.
Also with higher tech things like briefing rooms and meeting rooms are far less important as VR should be common. VR training can be done in any open space and you could easily have a few squads training together on the same VR mission even though one squad is in the crew lounge, another squad is in a empty area in cargo and the other two squads are in the corridors.
I would suggest that you have ship barracks at 2Dtons per person which allows you to carry on board marines and the like who are ready for action. No penalties to people carried in this way.
Or you can allocate 1Dton per person and call it Troop Shipping (civilian steerage), the personnel carried in this way are not able to deploy mid flight or on arrival and would need one day per week of the voyage to recover and become combat ready. Anyone travelling in this way counts as -1 on all physical skills and Stats.
As regards troop ready rooms and the like not being on deck plans. Agreed. It isn't possible for people to "Go on Deck" but space being so tight on small ships you would probably find that things like gym equipment in the cupboards of the crew lounge used by the troops. Long sections of corridors become running tracks etc.
Also with higher tech things like briefing rooms and meeting rooms are far less important as VR should be common. VR training can be done in any open space and you could easily have a few squads training together on the same VR mission even though one squad is in the crew lounge, another squad is in a empty area in cargo and the other two squads are in the corridors.
Hans Rancke
Mongoose
2 dT per person doesn't sound like barracks to me, it sounds like double occupancy staterooms. That is to say, perfectly standard accomodations.
Hans
Hans
Hans Rancke
Mongoose
AndrewW said:
But if they take up the same tonnage, why not use staterooms (with double occupancy)? Are barracks significantly cheaper?
EDIT: Yes, I see from a prior post that they are cheaper, costing only Cr100,000 instead of Cr500,000. That must include the cost of life support for one person. Which suggests that if you pay MCr200,000 per 2 dT of spartan accomodation, you should be able to stuff two people into that space. Not, perhaps, for marine accomodation, but for "steerage" class passenger transportation.
Hans
Naval ships of today use berthing compartments similar to barracks. Though what they have been doing over the last few years is moving to smaller rooms to house people instead of just one big open bay. Which makes a lot of sense when you think about how a starship is a 24x7 operation.
The problem is we don't really know how much life support equipment is required to maintain a person because the rules have never stated it. Does anyone else have a ratio of life support displacement per person? Something like 1dton can support 10 people? Nuke subs would be the perfect example of something to start from, and then extrapolate what you could do with more advanced materials and knowledge to shrink it down to some sort of 'standard'.
As far as space, if you have troops being transported, stacking them 3 high in a space which is normally reserved for one person is reasonable. 1 Dton can easily take bunks for 3 people, with some room left over for storage of personal gear.
Troop transports have rarely been comfortable taxi's for ground pounders. I'd say for naval crew you stick with 2 per space (meaning you stack 2 racks on top of each other). Steerage you COULD put in troop accommodations, but it's hard to think colonists would get crammed like that since they don't have the military training/background for those conditions... but it would certainly be possible.
The problem is we don't really know how much life support equipment is required to maintain a person because the rules have never stated it. Does anyone else have a ratio of life support displacement per person? Something like 1dton can support 10 people? Nuke subs would be the perfect example of something to start from, and then extrapolate what you could do with more advanced materials and knowledge to shrink it down to some sort of 'standard'.
As far as space, if you have troops being transported, stacking them 3 high in a space which is normally reserved for one person is reasonable. 1 Dton can easily take bunks for 3 people, with some room left over for storage of personal gear.
Troop transports have rarely been comfortable taxi's for ground pounders. I'd say for naval crew you stick with 2 per space (meaning you stack 2 racks on top of each other). Steerage you COULD put in troop accommodations, but it's hard to think colonists would get crammed like that since they don't have the military training/background for those conditions... but it would certainly be possible.
Hans Rancke
Mongoose
phavoc said:
That is indeed a problem. We can say for sure that it must be less than Cr100,000 and less than 1 dT. My own suggestion, based purely on what would make for some nice, convenient figures, would be Cr50,000 and ½ dT per person. Though the ½ dT might be too much, seeing as there is no separate life support marked on any deckplan, which means that it must all be stuffed in between decks.
If it was Cr50,000 and ½ dT, a four person cabin would take up 5T and cost Cr600,000, nice round numbers.
Oh, now you're talking about introducing realism into an otherwise facile and factfree debate. Shame on you!
Yes, figures from subs would be a very good starting point if anyone can get them.
I was deferring to the argument about marines needing training and mustering areas, etc.. I certainly wouldn't argue against stacking them in triple bunks, but you still need life support and corridors and galleys and whatnot.
Considering what European emigrants to America were willing to suffer, I don't think anything that won't actually kill them would be out of the question, at least not for a single jump (9-10 days).
Hans
@ Hans
1/2 Dton per four people might be reasonable place to start. Though at some point I guess as you scaled up you would not need as much, as larger machinery would be more efficient and you would be able to use down time to catch up on your life support processing needs.
Training areas, a galley, armory, etc, that should all be considered separate from the living quarters issue. We are talking exclusively about berthing, and the rest of that should be accounted for separately. I think too much gets blended into the quarters issue anyways (like walkways, common areas, etc). But then again Traveller ship design rules make since for very small vessels, but do not scale very well.
Ah, reality again!
1/2 Dton per four people might be reasonable place to start. Though at some point I guess as you scaled up you would not need as much, as larger machinery would be more efficient and you would be able to use down time to catch up on your life support processing needs.
Training areas, a galley, armory, etc, that should all be considered separate from the living quarters issue. We are talking exclusively about berthing, and the rest of that should be accounted for separately. I think too much gets blended into the quarters issue anyways (like walkways, common areas, etc). But then again Traveller ship design rules make since for very small vessels, but do not scale very well.
Ah, reality again!
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
Ok let’s add some numbers then. Hey someone asked :wink:
Information drawn from NASA, Atomic Rockets, WIKI and a few tech head websights.
A crewmember or passenger of typical size requires approximately 5 kg (total) of food, water, and oxygen per day to perform the standard activities on a space mission, and outputs a similar amount in the form of waste solids, waste liquids, and CO2. Thus is: 0.84 kg of oxygen, 0.62 kg of food, and 3.52 kg of water consumed, recycling is 0.11 kg of solid wastes, 3.87 kg of liquid wastes, and 1.00 kg of carbon dioxide produced. Water use during space missions is typically double the specified values mainly due to non-biological use (i.e. personal cleanliness).
This does not count Disposable packaging, one use items, breakages etc which would be considered rubbish not recycling. NASA calculations for the Mars mission are to allow 0.016 cubic meters per person per day including all consumables food, clothing, hygiene and cleaning supplies, work supplies, and other items. This is NOT a passenger level of care but a basic crew level.
The ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System to use NASA speak) which maintains the environment breaks down as follows.
Water. As noted above humans tend to use 3.5kg of water each. Double that to allow for sink washing and double that again to include cooking and showers. Add a bit more on top to cover other eventualities and call it 20Kg per person per day at passenger levels. I am allowing that by tech 10+ things like zero water toilets are a reality.
A company called Water security make a unit for NASA that uses a six stage process to remove 99.9 of all water contaminants and viruses to produce drinkable water cleaner than Tap quality. The base unit is about 1.5 cubic meters (it sits on the back of a pickup) and handles 22 KG of water a minute.
This is at tech 8. I would suggest that this would double in effectiveness every two tech levels or almost 100KG per minute at tech 12. This handles used washing water, urine, sweat in the air and any other form of water that can be pumped into it. Such a size will handle thousands of people a day.
Allow a couple of days of water per person in storage (say 50KG) plus a recycling unit able to handle the water from a few people (call it 10KG allowing for smaller scale loss in efficiency) and you are looking at 210KG for 4 people.
Air is covered under what NASA call CELSS (Controlled Ecological Life Support System) or under a purely mechanical/chemical CO2 scrubbing system.
This needs to include (sorry going all NASA here) Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA), Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly (TCCS) and Major Constituent Analyzer (MCA) to monitor trace gases and water vapor. You can either clean and reuse the air or generate new air and just flush the waste. For Traveller I would think that we would be recycling the air but something must use the huge monthly life support costs.
Many of the air recycling systems are what is termed regenerative in that the filters are reusable but need some work off ship, others are non regenerative or throwaway. In either case they support the monthly cost (whatever that may be) to replace or renew filters and lost air volume.
The ultimate renewable is plants, a high density hydroponic or soil growth racking system. However it takes roughly 1Dton of plants (40 square meters, three high racks with 1meter high in each rack), to provide the air for one person. This does also produce 25% of his food intake as well. Note there is a 4 day optimal cycle to this which I didn’t want to get into but which suggests that the plant efficiency falls off requiring a larger volume per person.
You also have Algae tanks which have the advantage that they consume the human bio waste as well, they take up a smaller space but according to the NASA chap that ran the experiment tasted like green slime. Slime tanks and plant racks need to be trimmed off and produce waste that is not edible that would need to go out with the rubbish every so often as part of life support maintenance.
Cracking the CO2 is very energy intensive at this tech level of and requires volumes of filters and reactive elements such as chemicals or carbon filters. NASA use a system of electrolysis to crack water for air and dump the CO2 overboard rather than filtering it, they ship a lot of water up to the ISS which is costly and takes cargo space though they do recover moisture from urine and breath.
With fusion power plants the energy use is nothing but it still requires portable water stores to crack adding to the volume of water the ship needs each week.
Simple chemical filters are the easiest and take up a tiny volume. The Apollo 13 Astronauts managed to build one from bits in the cockpit after all. It seems to take about a KG of carbon filter to clean a KG of CO2 but there are scaling issues since the basic units unless purely chemical pumps take up a fair amount of space.
The older shuttles used lithium hydroxide (LiOH) canisters to absorb the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the cabin's air. The canisters are pulled out of their containers and placed inside the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS), which moves the cabin air through the canisters. The canisters have to be replaced periodically; for a 4 person crew every 24 hours, for a 7 member crew every 11 hours. These are small cylinders, they look to be about 5KG or so in size.
Columbia has an advanced carbon dioxide removal system on board, called the Regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System (RCRS). The RCRS is installed under the middeck floor and uses two beds ofcompounds known as amines to absorb CO2 out of the cabin's air.
While one part of the system is absorbing CO2, the other bed is venting the CO2 into space -- each bed absorbs CO2 for 20 minutes, followed by a 20 minutes off gassing period. Counting all the cables and pipes this thing looks to be about a cubic meter for a max of 11 crew.
In terms of air the cheapest but bulky way is plants, the smallest way is chemical reaction at about 1KG per person per day. Filtration is bulkier but uses less daily consumables but does need maintenance and regular replacement of filters. Oddly the easiest way to deal with air when on something with hundreds of cubic meters of cargo space is simply to flush the used air into space and use bottled.
Physical waste is not recycled in any timeline useable in Traveller. Human waste can go into the plant or algae tanks and be recycled that way or it can be frozen and dropped off with the rubbish at the next stop. Unless you are looking at extremely long voyages it doesn’t look to be worth solid waste recycling till you start hitting nanite levels of tech when you can simply rebuild the matter into food again.
To conclude.
Ignoring solid recycling here. the poo gets frozen or maybe dropped in the compost for the chefs fresh veg garden.
I am assuming here that a Dton is 14 cubic meters and each cubic meter is 1000 cubic KG.
As I mentioned above. 210KG for 4 peoples water storage and filtration, a small amount ( a few KG a week) would need to be bought in to replace wastage that could not be recovered.
For air. A 1m cube can handle the CO2 scrubbing needs for 10 or so people with roughly 1KG of consumable per person per day which is filters, reactive materials and things like air fresheners for the passengers and crew to avoid that week old sock smell so common to enclosed life support systems.
So one person is going to require roughly 55KG of water and recycling plus say 5 a month, 100KG of Air recycling plus roughly 30 a month. This gives us 190K per person including the month.
Or 73 people can get water and air recycling out of a single Dton.
Information drawn from NASA, Atomic Rockets, WIKI and a few tech head websights.
A crewmember or passenger of typical size requires approximately 5 kg (total) of food, water, and oxygen per day to perform the standard activities on a space mission, and outputs a similar amount in the form of waste solids, waste liquids, and CO2. Thus is: 0.84 kg of oxygen, 0.62 kg of food, and 3.52 kg of water consumed, recycling is 0.11 kg of solid wastes, 3.87 kg of liquid wastes, and 1.00 kg of carbon dioxide produced. Water use during space missions is typically double the specified values mainly due to non-biological use (i.e. personal cleanliness).
This does not count Disposable packaging, one use items, breakages etc which would be considered rubbish not recycling. NASA calculations for the Mars mission are to allow 0.016 cubic meters per person per day including all consumables food, clothing, hygiene and cleaning supplies, work supplies, and other items. This is NOT a passenger level of care but a basic crew level.
The ECLSS (Environmental Control and Life Support System to use NASA speak) which maintains the environment breaks down as follows.
Water. As noted above humans tend to use 3.5kg of water each. Double that to allow for sink washing and double that again to include cooking and showers. Add a bit more on top to cover other eventualities and call it 20Kg per person per day at passenger levels. I am allowing that by tech 10+ things like zero water toilets are a reality.
A company called Water security make a unit for NASA that uses a six stage process to remove 99.9 of all water contaminants and viruses to produce drinkable water cleaner than Tap quality. The base unit is about 1.5 cubic meters (it sits on the back of a pickup) and handles 22 KG of water a minute.
This is at tech 8. I would suggest that this would double in effectiveness every two tech levels or almost 100KG per minute at tech 12. This handles used washing water, urine, sweat in the air and any other form of water that can be pumped into it. Such a size will handle thousands of people a day.
Allow a couple of days of water per person in storage (say 50KG) plus a recycling unit able to handle the water from a few people (call it 10KG allowing for smaller scale loss in efficiency) and you are looking at 210KG for 4 people.
Air is covered under what NASA call CELSS (Controlled Ecological Life Support System) or under a purely mechanical/chemical CO2 scrubbing system.
This needs to include (sorry going all NASA here) Carbon Dioxide Removal Assembly (CDRA), Trace Contaminant Control Subassembly (TCCS) and Major Constituent Analyzer (MCA) to monitor trace gases and water vapor. You can either clean and reuse the air or generate new air and just flush the waste. For Traveller I would think that we would be recycling the air but something must use the huge monthly life support costs.
Many of the air recycling systems are what is termed regenerative in that the filters are reusable but need some work off ship, others are non regenerative or throwaway. In either case they support the monthly cost (whatever that may be) to replace or renew filters and lost air volume.
The ultimate renewable is plants, a high density hydroponic or soil growth racking system. However it takes roughly 1Dton of plants (40 square meters, three high racks with 1meter high in each rack), to provide the air for one person. This does also produce 25% of his food intake as well. Note there is a 4 day optimal cycle to this which I didn’t want to get into but which suggests that the plant efficiency falls off requiring a larger volume per person.
You also have Algae tanks which have the advantage that they consume the human bio waste as well, they take up a smaller space but according to the NASA chap that ran the experiment tasted like green slime. Slime tanks and plant racks need to be trimmed off and produce waste that is not edible that would need to go out with the rubbish every so often as part of life support maintenance.
Cracking the CO2 is very energy intensive at this tech level of and requires volumes of filters and reactive elements such as chemicals or carbon filters. NASA use a system of electrolysis to crack water for air and dump the CO2 overboard rather than filtering it, they ship a lot of water up to the ISS which is costly and takes cargo space though they do recover moisture from urine and breath.
With fusion power plants the energy use is nothing but it still requires portable water stores to crack adding to the volume of water the ship needs each week.
Simple chemical filters are the easiest and take up a tiny volume. The Apollo 13 Astronauts managed to build one from bits in the cockpit after all. It seems to take about a KG of carbon filter to clean a KG of CO2 but there are scaling issues since the basic units unless purely chemical pumps take up a fair amount of space.
The older shuttles used lithium hydroxide (LiOH) canisters to absorb the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the cabin's air. The canisters are pulled out of their containers and placed inside the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS), which moves the cabin air through the canisters. The canisters have to be replaced periodically; for a 4 person crew every 24 hours, for a 7 member crew every 11 hours. These are small cylinders, they look to be about 5KG or so in size.
Columbia has an advanced carbon dioxide removal system on board, called the Regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System (RCRS). The RCRS is installed under the middeck floor and uses two beds ofcompounds known as amines to absorb CO2 out of the cabin's air.
While one part of the system is absorbing CO2, the other bed is venting the CO2 into space -- each bed absorbs CO2 for 20 minutes, followed by a 20 minutes off gassing period. Counting all the cables and pipes this thing looks to be about a cubic meter for a max of 11 crew.
In terms of air the cheapest but bulky way is plants, the smallest way is chemical reaction at about 1KG per person per day. Filtration is bulkier but uses less daily consumables but does need maintenance and regular replacement of filters. Oddly the easiest way to deal with air when on something with hundreds of cubic meters of cargo space is simply to flush the used air into space and use bottled.
Physical waste is not recycled in any timeline useable in Traveller. Human waste can go into the plant or algae tanks and be recycled that way or it can be frozen and dropped off with the rubbish at the next stop. Unless you are looking at extremely long voyages it doesn’t look to be worth solid waste recycling till you start hitting nanite levels of tech when you can simply rebuild the matter into food again.
To conclude.
Ignoring solid recycling here. the poo gets frozen or maybe dropped in the compost for the chefs fresh veg garden.
I am assuming here that a Dton is 14 cubic meters and each cubic meter is 1000 cubic KG.
As I mentioned above. 210KG for 4 peoples water storage and filtration, a small amount ( a few KG a week) would need to be bought in to replace wastage that could not be recovered.
For air. A 1m cube can handle the CO2 scrubbing needs for 10 or so people with roughly 1KG of consumable per person per day which is filters, reactive materials and things like air fresheners for the passengers and crew to avoid that week old sock smell so common to enclosed life support systems.
So one person is going to require roughly 55KG of water and recycling plus say 5 a month, 100KG of Air recycling plus roughly 30 a month. This gives us 190K per person including the month.
Or 73 people can get water and air recycling out of a single Dton.
far-trader
Mongoose
Captain Jonah said:
Not necessarily. Depends entirely on how it does it. Some processes can not be sped up while maintaining the same quality. What you might be able to do is reduce the minimum size and through parallel units increase total output. Similar in effect but not the same. Or there may well be a minimum size to the function and that is where we are at now, so it can't be made smaller or process faster. Tech advances do not always make things smaller, or cheaper, or lighter, or better
Yay! Stats!
Thanks Captain Jonah.
This is actually very useful. Even being generous with the figures, you should be able to state that for every half D/ton (since it's the smallest scale on the map) you can support 35 people.
Of course it would be a house rule, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Thanks Captain Jonah.
This is actually very useful. Even being generous with the figures, you should be able to state that for every half D/ton (since it's the smallest scale on the map) you can support 35 people.
Of course it would be a house rule, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.
Captain Jonah
Mongoose
far-trader said:Captain Jonah said:
Not necessarily. Depends entirely on how it does it. Some processes can not be sped up while maintaining the same quality. What you might be able to do is reduce the minimum size and through parallel units increase total output. Similar in effect but not the same. Or there may well be a minimum size to the function and that is where we are at now, so it can't be made smaller or process faster. Tech advances do not always make things smaller, or cheaper, or lighter, or better
Actually you are right in several ways. Piping water around a load of staterooms requires many meters of pipes and they would have water in them meaning that the volume of water in the system would be higher than that being used. Also even with micro bore pipes you need a certain volume to pump otherwise the system will lose pressure.
With staterooms on several decks and along the length of the ship there could be hundreds of meters of piping for water through the under deck or overheads of even a smallish ship.
phavoc said:
You are welcome, I do like a few stats from time to time :wink:
far-trader
Mongoose
Captain Jonah said:
Actually I hadn't considered those very good points, and really should have. They do eat up a lot of volume. Excellent additions Captain.
And not just liquids (hot 'n cold feeds, potable feeds, grey waste, and black waste)* but air handling as well. Even more so as you can't really shrink the dimensions much (a couple or few inches in diameter I think) without creating problems of flow and noise. Lots of "lost" volume in the LS systems there on even small ships which are as big as houses or more.
* some of those "could" be shared but it can lead to problems
Dave Chase
Mongoose
That piping issue is concern of real world buildings too.
Dave Chase
Dave Chase
