But what does <insert component here> actually do?
- Thread starter Geir
- Start date
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
It doesn't have to be all or nothing, either. At higher tech levels with gravitics, it could be like a game of Tetris. Move individual containers however you like and get the ones staying out of the way while the rest are offloaded. Loading could be done in a similar manner. Loading belts? No longer needed. Ditto cranes. The magic just happens.
And higher quality quarters should count more. Bigger freshers? More comfort and an easier time of it. Better beds? Same. A gourmet kitchen? You get the idea.
I believe that residential areas require supply points like stateroom bound personnel.
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
A cargo crane makes the work easier. Let's say you are stacking one crate on another. Reduce the gravity or reverse the gravity to lift one crate and you lift the other. Also, alignment of said crate is easier with a mechanical hands-on approach.
Loading belts extend beyond your grav plates. Using creative gravitics to make your cargo fall out risks damage and log-jams. Like the Three Stooges all trying to go through a door at the same time, albeit with less eye-gouging.
Yes, biosphere SHOULD count, because even if it is only an algae vat and a garden hidden away, fresh food beats space-food.
Space station residential zones should cost as much as a ship.
Until better rules come out, simulate the reduction of SU's from a biosphere by the same percentage that the bioshere reduces the combined cost of maintenance and cabin/person life support.
When I get a chance, I will make a toggle on my spreadsheet that will let the biosphere, gaming, library and entertainment sections have a visible effect on a calculated moral.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
Ooooo! Instead of cranes, how about robotic arms! They are probably that already, but the word crane comes with our present day understanding of the term.
And if residential areas don't accrue the same supply unit costs as people in a stateroom, they should. Do the residential areas have accompanying common areas? If not, that should be calcualated, too.
ottarrus
Emperor Mongoose
And this, boys and girls, is why Logistics Ships are just as important as battleships in your Trillion Credit Squadron 
I tried looking up 'how often does a USN carrier needs to be resupplied' and just came up with generic links to 'underway replenishment'. I assumed no one would be interested in The History of Resupply at Sea so I didn't link any of it.
Here are the facts as I understand them and as I use them in Traveller:
[note: 'supplies' means everything... from heads of lettuce to ordinance to Jump Drive parts]
1. Ships with thousands of personnel consume several tons of supplies a day;
2. Those ships can contain several tons of supplies but there definite limits to how long a ship can proceed without replenishment;
3. Every single officer and most Chiefs know generally how long that is for the ship and precisely how long that is for their department;
4. Unless you resupply by shuttle or you create a hull-to-hull connection with the logistics ship, any resupply will include Zero G physics at some point;
5. Zero G physics will markedly increase the resupply time;
6. ANY time ships are maneuvering close to each other is dangerous to both ships and ships must maneuver very close to resupply no matter what technique is used;
7. Fresh food is better than packaged food is MUCH better than ration packs [think of the difference between fresh beef stew, beef stew out of a can, and beef stew out of a ration pouch];
8. Fresh food is far, FAR bulkier and much less efficient of space than packaged food;
9. Everybody prefers fresh food pretty much every time.
Therefore it is not unreasonable to presume that UNREP operations for naval vessels will take AT LEAST an entire watch of time at least once a week. This usually is a 'most hands stand to' situation as each department must be available to take delivery and sign for each pallet /cargo container of their ordered supplies and then get those supplies off the landing stage as quickly as possible and stowed in the proper areas of their department.
I tried looking up 'how often does a USN carrier needs to be resupplied' and just came up with generic links to 'underway replenishment'. I assumed no one would be interested in The History of Resupply at Sea so I didn't link any of it.
Here are the facts as I understand them and as I use them in Traveller:
[note: 'supplies' means everything... from heads of lettuce to ordinance to Jump Drive parts]
1. Ships with thousands of personnel consume several tons of supplies a day;
2. Those ships can contain several tons of supplies but there definite limits to how long a ship can proceed without replenishment;
3. Every single officer and most Chiefs know generally how long that is for the ship and precisely how long that is for their department;
4. Unless you resupply by shuttle or you create a hull-to-hull connection with the logistics ship, any resupply will include Zero G physics at some point;
5. Zero G physics will markedly increase the resupply time;
6. ANY time ships are maneuvering close to each other is dangerous to both ships and ships must maneuver very close to resupply no matter what technique is used;
7. Fresh food is better than packaged food is MUCH better than ration packs [think of the difference between fresh beef stew, beef stew out of a can, and beef stew out of a ration pouch];
8. Fresh food is far, FAR bulkier and much less efficient of space than packaged food;
9. Everybody prefers fresh food pretty much every time.
Therefore it is not unreasonable to presume that UNREP operations for naval vessels will take AT LEAST an entire watch of time at least once a week. This usually is a 'most hands stand to' situation as each department must be available to take delivery and sign for each pallet /cargo container of their ordered supplies and then get those supplies off the landing stage as quickly as possible and stowed in the proper areas of their department.
Last edited:
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
The latest iteration of the ship spreadsheet calculates how many supply units (in tons) are needed and how long they will last. Ignore allocating that tonnage at your peril.And this, boys and girls, is why Logistics Ships are just as important as battleships in your Trillion Credit Squadron
I tried looking up 'how often does a USN carrier need to be resupplied' and just came up with generic links to 'underway replenishment'. I assumed no one would be interested in The History of Resupply at Sea so I didn't link any of it.
Here are the facts as I understand them and as I use them in Traveller:
1. Ships with thousands of personnel consume several tons of supplies a day'
2. Those ships can contain several tons of supplies but there definite limits to how long a ship can proceed without replenishment;
3. Every single officer and most Chiefs know generally how long that is for the ship and precisely how long that is for their department'
4. Unless you resupply by shuttle or you create a hull-to-hull connection with the logistics ship, any resupply will include Zero G physics at some point
5. Zero G physics will markedly increase the resupply time
6. Fresh food is better than packaged food
7. Fresh food is far, FAR bulkier and much less efficient of space than packaged food
8. Everybody prefers fresh food pretty much every time
Therefore it is not unreasonable to presume UNREP operations will take AT LEAST an entire watch of time at least once a week. This usually is a 'most hands stand to' situation as each department must be available to take delivery and sign for each pallet /cargo container of their ordered supplies and then get those supplies off the landing stage as quickly as possible and stowed in the proper areas of their department.
The logistics ship will have an UNREP system. That's pretty much a given. I designed each 50,000-ton fuel/cargo pod (46,295-ton capacity) for the Warmonger battle tender (it can carry 16) to have its own UNREP system so many ships could get serviced at the same time, and the pod can empty itself in 2.3 hours.
The UNREP system is only required on one end of the link between a logistics ship and target get the transfer rate, too. A good logistics ship will be able to top a ship off in a hour or two, or it isn't well designed. It has a lot of ships to service and a whole watch is wasted time.
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
Classified, but every couple of weeks at most. The tenders make ONE stop at the carrier, top off fuel for the planes, and resupply provisions. The carrier resupplies the escorts.
The people in charge of the storage bays know the codes. They kept all of the sugared cereals on board and let the Wheaties go to the escorts.
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
What you are saying is only true at TL8.5, when gravitics are still primitive and not widely used. Folks who use cranes every day provide feedback to folks who design cranes and folks who build cranes -- the same will also be true for any new tool that comes into wide use. Gravitics operations will be pretty much a solved problem before the end of TL 10. How do you wrap a sling around a cardboard box with multiple refrigerators in it? You don't -- you put the box on a pallet, or in a crate, or use some other piece of materiel which is designed to be handled by the crane.
In today's (not-yet-TL 7) cargo handling ports it is not at all unusual to see stuff packed in sea freight containers which can easily lock to the neighboring containers; and those 'twist locks' on the corners are sufficiently strong to suspend several metric tonnes from. So it is not too much of a stretch to imagine an entire cargo of space-freight containers locked together strongly and securely. As long as the forces between the containers do not exceed the multi-tonne force limit of the twist-locks (and all gravitics in Mongoose Traveller 2e is explicitly defined as affecting a volume, not a mass) then there is little problem.
I think 'Residential Zones' should be both larger and more expensive than a ship -- folks are expected to be able to be born, grow up, live, work, raise a family, and die in a space habitat. That should mean there is a way to be self-supporting in space; and that 'whatever it is' should be built into the residential zones. Right now I am just figuring that half of the 'supply points' a ship uses are nutrition; but that is a clumsy kluge -- almost as bad as basing 'Supply Points used per day' off the tonnage of the hull.
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
I look at it as the equivalent of the crane may be enhanced gravitc controls. The standard ones are just that. Standard.
Residential zones - different cultures may see things differently. For example, sleep crates, or the size of "affordable" apartments in NYC.
With sufficient common space sheltered from weather, some may come to be conditioned to accept less space.
Now, with life support, the biosphere handles the O2 cycle and food, which is half of the costs. Upkeep/maintenance/filters/food the biosphere doesn't produce is on the stateroom costs.
Won't argue about supply units being a kludge, but it is a simple system that is easy to apply towards the niche group of Naval military Traveller campaigns.
(For myself, I won't even think about stepping on a ship for a pleasure cruise, so I'm not going to pretend to be indentured to a ship in a game...
)J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
I really cannot recommend this video nearly enough:I look at it as the equivalent of the crane may be enhanced gravitc controls. The standard ones are just that. Standard.
Residential zones - different cultures may see things differently. For example, sleep crates, or the size of "affordable" apartments in NYC.
With sufficient common space sheltered from weather, some may come to be conditioned to accept less space.
Now, with life support, the biosphere handles the O2 cycle and food, which is half of the costs. Upkeep/maintenance/filters/food the biosphere doesn't produce is on the stateroom costs.
Won't argue about supply units being a kludge, but it is a simple system that is easy to apply towards the niche group of Naval military Traveller campaigns.
(For myself, I won't even think about stepping on a ship for a pleasure cruise, so I'm not going to pretend to be indentured to a ship in a game...
The video is predicated on the idea of inexpensive, skilled robotic labor & cheap. plentiful energy from fusion -- both things that Traveller has in abundance at TL 8+. In the example arcology people are 'jam-packed' into about 215 dTons per person; which includes food, water, sewage treatment, etc.
Terry Mixon
Emperor Mongoose
As places like Collace use arcologies, this is very educational.
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
And the discussed arcologies are a template for space habitats; although I consider his '100 levels with 5 hectares per level' to be extremely small. It is the disconnect between these future (but very possible in the real world) arcologies and 'residential zones' that bothers me. The arcologies are explicitly self-sufficient; but a 5000 person 'Medium Residential Zone' requires 5 MCr and 20 dTons of 'Supply Points' every day. Scaling one of these 'arcologies' up to the equivalent of a 10 million person O'Neil Cylinder incurs staggering (and completely unsustainable) costs.
It seems deeply incongruous; Traveller should have no problems with TL 8 space habitats. But here we are.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Yeah... so part of my problem is in trying to get things to match what's in High Guard, which, in my opinion, gives too much space to people on spaceships and not anywhere enough on space stations. But that also depends on what the space station is for and what it should emulate: The quarters for an Antarctic outpost or an offshore drilling operation are very different from those of a small settlement. And a cruise ship is something else entirely (though from what I understand, crews have it a lot more cramped than even the budget passenger staterooms and crews are onboard for the season, not the outing).
So what we have (haven't done good math and its been a long day, so poke at this as needed) is a timeframe problem:
Travel between two star systems - short term - days or a couple of weeks - certainly not self-sufficient
Duty on a commercial or scientific outpost - medium term - months, maybe a year or two at worst - also not self-sufficient
Permanent living space... well, you know, decades, one hopes. Reasonable self-sufficient, one hopes.
And then we have to factor in the level of self-sufficiency. 'Agricultural' manufacturing factories and biospheres neither seem to model hydroponic farms very well - if we assume his 200m^2 per person ~ 600 m^3 per person ~ 43 dtons per person to feed them.
Living quarters seem to be all over the place, but two numbers from here in Seattle that stand out right now: they're selling a condo downtown that comes in about 250 square feet ~ 25 m^2 ~ 75 m^3 ~ 5.35 dtons. Meanwhile, still within city limits, my wife and I and two cats occupy a 2630 square feet house ~ 263 m^2 ~ 789 m^3 (though the downstairs ceiling is low, but we're short - ignore that... cats are shorter) ~ 56.35 dtons or 28ish dtons per person.
We have more space than we need (but not for my books!) and I suppose you could put a family of 4 in that tiny condo, but that's sort of the definition of SOC 2 housing in America (and SOC 5 or more in other parts of the world, so it's all relative.)
So what do you do? If you call it 2 dtons per SOC, I'd be a Count, so not linear. Issac's example of 10,000 square feet ~ 3000 m^3 ~ 214 dton per person is obviously... all inclusive. I'd go more with half for food, half for the rest, and round up to 100 dtons to support a person in a permanent settlement. But that is pushing post-scarcity if we assume it for Traveller and Traveller puts that at more than TL15 (I use 17, because... just because, it seems right for the setting)
Need to watch some more videos...
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
In the end, it tends to come down what's most convenient, and/or cheapest.
If money isn't an object, the most effective and aesthetically pleasing.
I suppose I could spend some time, thinking about the most convenient way to transfer stuff from one spacecraft to another, but I'd say breakaway hulls.
If money isn't an object, the most effective and aesthetically pleasing.
I suppose I could spend some time, thinking about the most convenient way to transfer stuff from one spacecraft to another, but I'd say breakaway hulls.
Good luck retrofitting this into a system that has been around since I was a boy. That 4 DTon per passenger has been around forever and hand-waved since the internet was in short trousers.
I think the issue of personal space is often framed in terms of our experience of travel accommodation. We all know that our houses are generally bigger than they need to be and even then we offshore into our local community for most of our hours in the day. When we are abroad for a week we probably more closely approach a more realistic level of space allocation for accommodation (depending on our real world equivalent of SOC of course). Those who work out of hotels probably have an even better understanding since I suspect many of us usually require the extra space to accommodate our leisure time activity rather than our basic human needs.
Focussing on square meterage (assume a 2m high room) - not including access.
Sleeping and resting we need only the bed space (and the standard is a small bed) 1.5 sq.m. A lot of the space above and under the bed could be used for storage (easily the 100 Kg of a middle passage). Sitting around watching tv or reading can use the same bed space (either as is or by folding up and converting into a sofa). You can save space by sharing that either by sacrificing storage for bunks or by hot bunking.
Seating and table space to eat meals 1 sq.m (chair will be under table when not in use and in access space when in use).
Food prep / storage if you get the full 2m cupboard 0.25 sq.m is probably plenty for a week or two. This is 500 litres and enough to include all consumables plus more personal storage plus autochef. This could be reduced further with shared messing due to economy of scale.
Fresher 1 square meter. This could be reduced further if some of the facilities are shared (en-suite was not always the default and only luxury accommodation would include a bath). Sonic showers only need standing room so we are probably talking a small wash basin and a toilet. There will probably be storage above.
All in all less than 4 sq.m per person - 8 cu.m ignoring air, utilities and access space (which could be shared for basic passengers). As we assume 3m decks we have another 4 cu.m which could accommodate all the utilities without changing the square meterage. Access space will depend on the layout of the accommodation unit. If laid out properly you could access all areas within the room with as little as 1 sq.m making 5 sq.m overall (around 1 DTon assuming 3m decks).
Access space is where the SOC really comes in. Low SOC basic passengers will share access space, medium SOC middle passengers expect dedicated space, high passengers expect extra space to just flounce around in. You could probably spend half your waking time in a 5 sq.m room for an extended period without going nuts (reading or watching TV). You could double the baseline 5 sq.m for Middle Passage and double again for High, but these decisions would really need to be made at ship design time.
If you were a binge watching couch potato you might be able to spend several days in a 5 sq.m space without getting cabin fever, but most people require human interaction and physical exercise which is where the common areas come in. The higher the SOC ironically the more of the "common" areas you want exclusive access to. Low SOC might uses the crew common room, high SOC might expect a "Captains Salon" and an exclusive dining room and lounge. If you are not carrying High passengers presently you might mothball the exclusive areas or you might just allow everyone access to make everyone's trip less stressful.
Accessing the room itself from other parts of the ship will also require corridor access space but that is subject to a lot of variation.
I also cannot see why an empty state room costs anything in life support and why each person on board costs KCr1 (and also if you are paying life support per person why there is any costs attached to the stateroom itself). What does life support even mean once the power part is taken out of the equation. Heat is power (which we already paid for in our powerplant costs), light is power, cleaning is power. So we are talking air, water, food and waste. Without an extra person aboard these do not increase so the cost of the stateroom simply existing should be nil.
The advanced base can have life support added, and has two options which require either weekly or quarterly replenishment. The quarterly replenishment cost 1000 for 2 people and requires 50kg of supplies. I cannot see why any ship would have the equivalent of short term support given the delta in cost is insignificant compared to the cost of a stateroom. The cost of these recyclables is therefore less than Cr200 per month per person.
The final cost element is food. This is where we should really be seeing a difference between the classes of travel. Referring to the cost of meals information in the core rulebook tells us that Basic passengers might expect to pay Cr10 per day eating out. Middle probably closer to Cr50 per day and High class might spend Cr500 per meal (but I doubt they are having 3 "sybaritic feasts" per day). These are retail costs and contain other elements such as entertainment. They are definitely not the food costs the establishment itself as to meet. Realistically food costs per person per month might be Cr150 for Basic, Cr750 for Middle and Cr1500 for High. The Steward provides the extra value with High Passage producing exotic meals with the mostly the same ingredients as the Basic passengers with a few luxury items such as fine wine.
It's hard to make a credible without a significant reassessment and realignment of a lot of costs in the books (and the costs of passage themselves compared to cargo).
I think the issue of personal space is often framed in terms of our experience of travel accommodation. We all know that our houses are generally bigger than they need to be and even then we offshore into our local community for most of our hours in the day. When we are abroad for a week we probably more closely approach a more realistic level of space allocation for accommodation (depending on our real world equivalent of SOC of course). Those who work out of hotels probably have an even better understanding since I suspect many of us usually require the extra space to accommodate our leisure time activity rather than our basic human needs.
Focussing on square meterage (assume a 2m high room) - not including access.
Sleeping and resting we need only the bed space (and the standard is a small bed) 1.5 sq.m. A lot of the space above and under the bed could be used for storage (easily the 100 Kg of a middle passage). Sitting around watching tv or reading can use the same bed space (either as is or by folding up and converting into a sofa). You can save space by sharing that either by sacrificing storage for bunks or by hot bunking.
Seating and table space to eat meals 1 sq.m (chair will be under table when not in use and in access space when in use).
Food prep / storage if you get the full 2m cupboard 0.25 sq.m is probably plenty for a week or two. This is 500 litres and enough to include all consumables plus more personal storage plus autochef. This could be reduced further with shared messing due to economy of scale.
Fresher 1 square meter. This could be reduced further if some of the facilities are shared (en-suite was not always the default and only luxury accommodation would include a bath). Sonic showers only need standing room so we are probably talking a small wash basin and a toilet. There will probably be storage above.
All in all less than 4 sq.m per person - 8 cu.m ignoring air, utilities and access space (which could be shared for basic passengers). As we assume 3m decks we have another 4 cu.m which could accommodate all the utilities without changing the square meterage. Access space will depend on the layout of the accommodation unit. If laid out properly you could access all areas within the room with as little as 1 sq.m making 5 sq.m overall (around 1 DTon assuming 3m decks).
Access space is where the SOC really comes in. Low SOC basic passengers will share access space, medium SOC middle passengers expect dedicated space, high passengers expect extra space to just flounce around in. You could probably spend half your waking time in a 5 sq.m room for an extended period without going nuts (reading or watching TV). You could double the baseline 5 sq.m for Middle Passage and double again for High, but these decisions would really need to be made at ship design time.
If you were a binge watching couch potato you might be able to spend several days in a 5 sq.m space without getting cabin fever, but most people require human interaction and physical exercise which is where the common areas come in. The higher the SOC ironically the more of the "common" areas you want exclusive access to. Low SOC might uses the crew common room, high SOC might expect a "Captains Salon" and an exclusive dining room and lounge. If you are not carrying High passengers presently you might mothball the exclusive areas or you might just allow everyone access to make everyone's trip less stressful.
Accessing the room itself from other parts of the ship will also require corridor access space but that is subject to a lot of variation.
I also cannot see why an empty state room costs anything in life support and why each person on board costs KCr1 (and also if you are paying life support per person why there is any costs attached to the stateroom itself). What does life support even mean once the power part is taken out of the equation. Heat is power (which we already paid for in our powerplant costs), light is power, cleaning is power. So we are talking air, water, food and waste. Without an extra person aboard these do not increase so the cost of the stateroom simply existing should be nil.
The advanced base can have life support added, and has two options which require either weekly or quarterly replenishment. The quarterly replenishment cost 1000 for 2 people and requires 50kg of supplies. I cannot see why any ship would have the equivalent of short term support given the delta in cost is insignificant compared to the cost of a stateroom. The cost of these recyclables is therefore less than Cr200 per month per person.
The final cost element is food. This is where we should really be seeing a difference between the classes of travel. Referring to the cost of meals information in the core rulebook tells us that Basic passengers might expect to pay Cr10 per day eating out. Middle probably closer to Cr50 per day and High class might spend Cr500 per meal (but I doubt they are having 3 "sybaritic feasts" per day). These are retail costs and contain other elements such as entertainment. They are definitely not the food costs the establishment itself as to meet. Realistically food costs per person per month might be Cr150 for Basic, Cr750 for Middle and Cr1500 for High. The Steward provides the extra value with High Passage producing exotic meals with the mostly the same ingredients as the Basic passengers with a few luxury items such as fine wine.
It's hard to make a credible without a significant reassessment and realignment of a lot of costs in the books (and the costs of passage themselves compared to cargo).
Last edited:
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
The 4 dt stateroom has long been representd by only 6 deckplan squares, although there are deck plans out there where it gets all 8 and some where it only gets 4 squares. Note 3 squares is a 10' by 10' room.
In order to provide walkways, common areas, corridors deck plan squares had to be borrowed from bridge tonnage, stateroom tonnage and to a limited extent drive tonnage.
If you want the complexity then walkways, corridors, common areas will need to have displacement tonnage allocated during construction.
In order to provide walkways, common areas, corridors deck plan squares had to be borrowed from bridge tonnage, stateroom tonnage and to a limited extent drive tonnage.
If you want the complexity then walkways, corridors, common areas will need to have displacement tonnage allocated during construction.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Ah, yes, but the Count of Louzy's coffee beans are certified to have passed through the digestive systems of a pair of creatures certified to be from completely different ecosystems. care for a taste? That'll be Cr499 for those 30 ml, please.
I know what you mean: the four tons and one person for high AND middle passage has been around since 1977 and it has never made sense to me (which is why I call it 'some weird Vilani privacy fetish'). With ship costs driven primarily by displacement tonnage, I'd think you'd want to do what ever you could to minimalize the required space per person, passenger or crew.
I'm also not sure how to model the space requirement or cultural expectation we're expecting. Back when a friend gave me a tour of the Carl Vinson while he was still a naval aviator, his lieutenant's quarters were a bunk for two officers in a room smaller than the size of my childhood bedroom - complete with overhead piping and located right below the catapults, and the enlisted quarters looks like something half cyberpunk, half summer camp worth of stacked bunks, communal showers, and loose wiring (though that last thing didn't really seem like a good idea...). And that's great compared to a WWII (or WWI) submarine with hot-bunking between the torpedoes - and maybe the captain got a semi-private curtained-off berth the size of a walk-in closet (I mean a closet for use by proles with too many shows, not for the rich and famous with too many everythings). So do we throw in a TL factor too? Higher tech, more space required (but what if you add holographic walls (or a full holodeck) to a small stateroom - more cost, but maybe even less space?
And it is cultural too. Haven't seem any cubby-hole sized accommodations in Western counties, and maybe they'll decrease in Japan now that the population (but not real estate prices?) are shrinking. You can say that a communal society might go for smaller quarters, but a log cabin or a prefab dwelling for some outdoorsperson/survivalist could be smaller than a city apartment, so I'm not even sure how to model that, except 'it depends.'
I'm trying to separate permanent accommodation sizes from stateroom sizes from crew sizes in the vehicles book, but the only metrics I can think of for 'why should I pick this over that?' is how long, if ever, does it take for a negative DM from fatigue or just leg cramps (thrombosis???) to set in, and how low a social status can I be before I find this lodging 'acceptable' - so duration and SOC are the only slider bars right now.
But there's also a cultural component, and obviously for Traveller, a sophont component as well: big spaces for K'kree for both physical and social reasons, communal spaces for Droyne (but should they be scaled smaller??) Do Vargr go for more 'pack-like' communal quarters with only the
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Why does My Little Pony have an ice cream cone on it's head? Never mind. Yeah, those sets don't intersect, but I'm not sure how to draw a 'pick two' option - unless you add a third dimension.In the end, it tends to come down what's most convenient, and/or cheapest.
If money isn't an object, the most effective and aesthetically pleasing.
I suppose I could spend some time, thinking about the most convenient way to transfer stuff from one spacecraft to another, but I'd say breakaway hulls.
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
Maybe do the same diagram with the antonyms; and instead of a unicorn we get a 'You are here' marker. It is possible to step out of that area by crossing over one of the edges (not corners).In the end, it tends to come down what's most convenient, and/or cheapest.
If money isn't an object, the most effective and aesthetically pleasing.
I suppose I could spend some time, thinking about the most convenient way to transfer stuff from one spacecraft to another, but I'd say breakaway hulls.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
1. Default construction time is directly linked to default cost.
2. In theory, you could pay for overtime at diminishing returns.
3. Or, mass production, at economies of scale.
4. For a fortnight's trip, you might tolerate tighter quarters, than for a long cruise.
5. Speaking of cruises, the point is mingling, so common areas have primacy.
6. A voyager might prefer more of a private sphere, so quarters might be more configured as hotels.
7. You might want, and need, to isolate, one or more crew and/or passengers.
8. If you think a cruise ship in an open atmosphere having an infectious bug running rampant can be horrifying, consider what happens in a confined spacecraft.
9. Life support could also be graded, with economy being exposed to a lower atmospheric pressure and oxygen content.
2. In theory, you could pay for overtime at diminishing returns.
3. Or, mass production, at economies of scale.
4. For a fortnight's trip, you might tolerate tighter quarters, than for a long cruise.
5. Speaking of cruises, the point is mingling, so common areas have primacy.
6. A voyager might prefer more of a private sphere, so quarters might be more configured as hotels.
7. You might want, and need, to isolate, one or more crew and/or passengers.
8. If you think a cruise ship in an open atmosphere having an infectious bug running rampant can be horrifying, consider what happens in a confined spacecraft.
9. Life support could also be graded, with economy being exposed to a lower atmospheric pressure and oxygen content.