Deck Plans

AndrewW said:
That's due to them being generic bays that are designed to fit different ships of that size, some of which may be longer, wider or have a different number of decks.

I don't think that was the logic behind the change. But if you take it from a very generic 50,000 foot conceptual view it fits. However ship designs are all over the place and some of the book ones would not fit at all (400ton lab ship comes to mind). The system overall addresses displacement not actual dimensions. And that's just fine with me, as it's an unnecessary detail for nearly all aspects of the game.

Condottiere said:
Jump Drive

I think there needs to be an absolute ruling whether you can split a jump drive.

M-drives, powerplants and jump drives can be split up in whatever manner you choose.
 
Deck plans over the decades for Traveller engineering have been quite casual and artistic as to the shape and arrangement of power plant and drives. I say nothing canon.

Tom, the Traveller airlock has a built-in docking tunnel so facilities can have universal ports to link to ships in a variety of conditions even if just to avoid bad weather.
 
phavoc said:
AndrewW said:
That's due to them being generic bays that are designed to fit different ships of that size, some of which may be longer, wider or have a different number of decks.

I don't think that was the logic behind the change. But if you take it from a very generic 50,000 foot conceptual view it fits. However ship designs are all over the place and some of the book ones would not fit at all (400ton lab ship comes to mind). The system overall addresses displacement not actual dimensions. And that's just fine with me, as it's an unnecessary detail for nearly all aspects of the game.

Correct some still wont fit. But yes that was the reason for the docking bays being 3x, in order to fit more of the ships of a given tonnage within the dimensions of the bay.
 
(Yes, I'm going to invoke prior editions again.)

Note that TNE went to 4x for a truly comfortable, spread-the-drive-parts-all-over-the-deck, subcraft bay.

In reality, there is absolutely nothing except total ship's volume preventing a ship designer from providing a cavernous bay for every shuttle, fighter, and air-raft on board. Build 'em as big as *you* think you need 'em, as long as the math works.
 
While not being either a physicist nor an engineer, I can't speak to the actual make up of a rocket, a grav drive or a power plant, though I suspect there is some duplication of equipment if you start splitting them up.

Going by the five ton overhead on the Jump Drives, I'm fairly sure there has to be quite some duplication in order to inject and eject masses amounts of hydrogen fuel in coordination through two different modules in a fairly short time frame, while containing whatever forces are created that allow a large physical object to transition to another dimension.
 
Speaking of hangar's, here is an article on the Theodore Roosevelt as it spends some time in port in England. Scroll down to see an image of the hangar deck. They have external fuel tanks hanging from the ceiling. It looks pretty big, but I imagine when everything is crammed into it from up above it's not roomy at all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008214/Towering-20-stories-waterline-1-000ft-long-awesome-naval-power-USS-Roosevelt-reveals-deck-serves-60-war-planes.html
 
From a Traveller POV, that Hangar is between two-and-a-half and three decks high. The ship as a whole is 234 deck grid long, which would be 132 decks tall if arranged like the AHL. It has the room.

One further hangar note. Striker, the CT-related Tactical RPG (for Captains), lists the active stowage ratio for aircraft as Mass x60. A garden-variety Cesna 172 weighs about 1.1 tons loaded. A bay big enough to carry it ready for action, even if it cannot take off from that bay directly, would be 72 tons under Striker. This seems a bit high, since it will fit into a 24 ton bay (barely, due to height), but that's still 24 tons of bay for a Cesna...
 
Hangar space is pretty much volume based, and current examples are the result of a century of experience, compared to the more constrained variants from the Great Patriotic War.

Weight is relevant for the aircraft carrier propulsion calculation and since it's closer to the top, stability. Also, the Americans cheated by installing fission reactors, which negates the need for huge fuel tanks, and have a flight deck, where they can park their aircraft, the equivalent of our docking clamps.
 
Back
Top