New Type S design

[DFW]

I uploaded a new Type S I designed if anyone wants to take a look. Download link below. :shock:

Edited with updated link.

http://www.4shared.com/document/Ls1epC3-/Type_S_Modular2.html?

 

[far-trader]

Doesn't add up. There's 2tons left over.

 

[DFW]

Doesn't add up. There's 2tons left over.

That's added space in the cargo hold that allows crew to "move past" modules to get to air lock, allow for fuel tank connections, etc. Not usable for cargo so I didn't list.

 

[far-trader]

Ah, just needs a note to that effect then

Personally though I don't see it as a requirement. It's not like Traveller intends that there be zero clearance fitting of small craft, vehicles, or cargo for a stated volume. The rounding math is already included in the designed tonnage. So for example your listed 24.5tons of cargo hold is rated for 24.5tons of cargo (or whatever) and will permit reasonable access through and around said cargo (or whatever). It's the only logical conclusion imo.

I'd say either just add it to the cargo or state it as added expedient access bypass around/through the cargo hold, but the design should really note it somewhere

 

[rust]

You could add the "Access Space 2 dtons" under Extras to avoid confusion,
and perhaps also add "(closed)" to the grav car, although that should be
obvious.

Otherwise, a nice but rather expensive ship.

 

[DFW]

... I'd say either just add it to the cargo or state it as added expedient access bypass around/through the cargo hold, but the design should really note it somewhere

I agree. I don't do much writing anymore and it's been a couple years since I was published so, I'm a bit rusty.

 

[rust]

I'm a bit rusty.

Ahem. *cough*

 

[DFW]

You could add the "Access Space 2 dtons" under Extras to avoid confusion,
and perhaps also add "(closed)" to the grav car, although that should be
obvious.

Otherwise, a nice but rather expensive ship.

Thanks. I'm using the "Grav Car" from Civilian Vehicles (such as it is) as the model. Remember, knock ~MCr5 off as the IISS installs their own s/w and doesn't pay for it over and over, But hey, it's gov money... Sorry about the "rusty" statement...

 

[DFW]

Fixed. http://www.4shared.com/document/Ls1epC3-/Type_S_Modular2.html?

 

[far-trader]

...I don't do much writing anymore and it's been a couple years since I was published so, I'm a bit rusty.

No sweat, that's why sharing is good, free nitpicking

I like the versatility and utility of modular/multipurpose designs like this. Thanks for sharing!

Is there anything in the rules (HG maybe?) about modular components? Swap out times, wasted volume, extra cost, and that sort of stuff? Or is it still part of the presumed built into the totals and a minor detail not worth factoring? Just wondering.

 

[rust]

Is there anything in the rules (HG maybe?) about modular components?

Only a limit of 75 % of a ship's internal space for modular components
and that bridge, drives etc. may not be modules. GURPS Traveller has
more rules for modules, but these are not really compatible, because
the entire design system is different.

 

[DFW]

Is there anything in the rules (HG maybe?) about modular components? Swap out times, wasted volume, extra cost, and that sort of stuff? Or is it still part of the presumed built into the totals and a minor detail not worth factoring? Just wondering.

Nothing I've seen. I took the general idea from the Scouts book star ship equip, and from the conversions they've done on some nuke subs to make them into SEAL/Intel platforms. Yes, I presume (with the added 2 tons) it is built into the totals. The idea was that the Scouts design around standard cargo containers and have external "plug in" connectors for fuel, power, etc. The large airlock is for launching probes and the like without depressurizing the entire hold. Our Navy is increasingly designing around this concept for $ savings (less specialized ships needed). Just swap and go, or (Jump).

 

[AndrewW]

Is there anything in the rules (HG maybe?) about modular components? Swap out times, wasted volume, extra cost, and that sort of stuff? Or is it still part of the presumed built into the totals and a minor detail not worth factoring? Just wondering.

Swap out times are usually covered in the individual ships description such as the Modular Cutter. Extra cost is figured in the hull cost, If you designate 50% of the hull as swappable that increases the hull cost by 50%.

 

[far-trader]

Thanks for the modular design notes everyone, much appreciated

 

[AndrewW]

Didn't do a detailed analysis, but a few things come to mind:

The structure is showing as 3, should be 2 unless you are using a high tech hull in which case the hull would also be more.

A compact bridge should be 7.5 tons and cost 550,000.

From the 50% increase to the cost of the base hull I'm guessing 50 tons are modular but you don't say which parts are modular, and you probably don't need 50 tons modular, unless you want the staterooms as modular as well.

The emergency low berth isn't figured into the life support costs (though rules aren't entirely clear on this they don't differentiate and say an emergency low berth doesn't count as a low berth for life support costs).

With 4 staterooms there would normally be 4 escape pods.

Most versions of this hull are streamlined, any reason you didn't use it on this one?

As an alternate to increasing fuel storage for longer duration you could add solar panels, though not useful if the ship will be under thrust most of the time.

 

[DFW]

Didn't do a detailed analysis, but a few things come to mind:

The structure is showing as 3, should be 2 unless you are using a high tech hull in which case the hull would also be more.

Thanks must be a spreadsheet glitch.

A compact bridge should be 7.5 tons and cost 550,000.

In High Guard there is no additional cost. See Scout book for bridge smaller than compact.

From the 50% increase to the cost of the base hull I'm guessing 50 tons are modular but you don't say which parts are modular, and you probably don't need 50 tons modular, unless you want the staterooms as modular as well.

The 50% is for armour. See Main Rule book on ship design. The ship isn't itself modular. The modules are designed to fit into the cargo hold.

The emergency low berth isn't figured into the life support costs (though rules aren't entirely clear on this they don't differentiate and say an emergency low berth doesn't count as a low berth for life support costs).

Yep.

With 4 staterooms there would normally be 4 escape pods.

It's a Scout ship. At least the air doesn't stink after a couple weeks. Actually some pinhead exec wouldn't sign off on the design unless it had them. He didn't notice it was only one and approved it.

Most versions of this hull are streamlined, any reason you didn't use it on this one?

The design bureau determined that trying to take the space & dimension requirements and make them fit into a lifting body shape wouldn't work with a 100 ton hull.

As an alternate to increasing fuel storage for longer duration you could add solar panels, though not useful if the ship will be under thrust most of the time.

That was considered but as the duty station was likely to be in outer system, the inverse square law got in the way of using solar.

 

[AndrewW]

A compact bridge should be 7.5 tons and cost 550,000.

In High Guard there is no additional cost. See Scout book for bridge smaller than compact.

See High Guard errata for the cost. There is a ship in Scout that uses the compact bridge but that's the normal size from High Guard at 7.5 tons for what would otherwise be a 10 ton bridge. Though cost is off, that does predate the High Guard errata.

From the 50% increase to the cost of the base hull I'm guessing 50 tons are modular but you don't say which parts are modular, and you probably don't need 50 tons modular, unless you want the staterooms as modular as well.

The 50% is for armour. See Main Rule book on ship design. The ship isn't itself modular. The modules are designed to fit into the cargo hold.

You've got 1,000,000 under armour already, plus the hull at 3,000,000. Normal cost for a 100 ton hull is 2,000,000. So you are paying twice for the same armour?

Ok, the modules fitting into the cargo hold isn't mentioned.

 

[DFW]

See High Guard errata for the cost. There is a ship in Scout that uses the compact bridge but that's the normal size from High Guard at 7.5 tons for what would otherwise be a 10 ton bridge. Though cost is off, that does predate the High Guard errata.

Yes, I know. It is a Scout design. If you read the description you'll see that it was more than paid for...

You've got 1,000,000 under armour already, plus the hull at 3,000,000. Normal cost for a 100 ton hull is 2,000,000. So you are paying twice for the same armour?

Sorry didn't have design in front of me when answered. High tech hull.

Ok, the modules fitting into the cargo hold isn't mentioned.

Written in description, "Typical modules installed in the hold include,.."

 

[AndrewW]

Sorry didn't have design in front of me when answered. High tech hull.

Ok, in that case it would still be hull and structure 2 points, would need to be a TL 16 hull at double cost to increase it (which would go to 4). So no reason to go to a TL15 hull, unless you want increased protection at personal scale rather then ship scale.

 

[DFW]

Ok, in that case it would still be hull and structure 2 points, would need to be a TL 16 hull at double cost to increase it (which would go to 4). So no reason to go to a TL15 hull, unless you want increased protection at personal scale rather then ship scale.

I round when past the 50% threshold.

A little bit of "Scout envy"?