Ship's Orientation: Horizontal VS Vertical

[Patron Zero]

Perhaps a moot observation but I've noticed some variance of internal layouts in different Traveller starship designs. Essentially said difference being in the internal arrangement of horizontal versus vertical orientation.

The best example to state regarding vertical 'stacking' would be the 800 ton Broadsword mercenary cruiser with it's definitive polar alignment of decks like a layer cake. Most any other ship in Traveller has a more 'conventional' wet navy configuration of horizontal alignment, longer than tall (more or less).

Perhaps form does follow function with the Broadsword class clearly depicting such but that said, could be it's the exception rather than the rule. One might think the footprint a starship has while groundside might be taken into account as a design factor but seems not a major consideration in the deck orientation issue.

All of the above accepted, one might think more of such specific duty vessels as the Broadsword class would be found plying the spaceways.

 

[Infojunky]

This has been one of the quiet conversations over the years. The entire debate over tail vs. belly landers.

IMHO, there hasn't been much good art work of tail sitters in the general realm of SF so everybody goes with belly landers.

I kinda like tail-sitters, the old Dropship book for Battletech had some good pics. I just have never got around to stating any of them out.

Maybe it's time for some new ships?

 

[Shiloh]

...tail vs. belly landers...

Yeah, that's the difference all right. We 21st century wallahs are more familiar with belly-lander configurations, with both ships and aeroplanes, the roots of many of our ideas and preconceptions about spaceships and aerospace vehicles, following that plan, so I guess that's where most of us draw our inspiration from.

With OTU drive tech there's no technical need for tailsitters, like there is in the era of giant fireworks, so we can have belly-landers if we like.

With fuel tankage being such a significant portion of the tonnage of interstellar craft, actual shape isn't relevant. By which I mean that the most efficient use of internal volume would be to have ships be cuboid, so there aren't any awkward nooks and crannies, and having such a large proportion of the volume holding fluid means that those awkward nooks and crannies created by having interesting or aerodynamic shapes can be filled up with fuel.

I'm not sure space on the ground is a major factor in determining the form of OTU spacecraft. Things like ease of loading and maintenance will be more significant considerations, I'd say.

In the end, it comes down to aesthetics. Though the Merc cruiser in the basic book has wierdness in that its boats aren't aligned the same way as the ship, so you'd have to adjust to the different direction of gravity to board the pinnaces...

 

[RedBeardSean]

I remember thinking it odd, and I still do, to some extent, that the Lightning-class cruisers were tail landers. Then again, I think it was mainly so that the deck plans would fit on the printed sheet more easily. I certainly prefer the aesthetics of belly-landers, myself.

 

[Baron Sidur Haski]

I'm certainly predisposed towards areodynamic style landing operations, lander-types are also a good. Landing's the thing, I guess. I look at it from more of a configuration standpoint. Is a ship a slab, collection of cylinders? That sort of thing.

There is certainly a need for some non-conventional designs, even in regards to non-landers.

 

[klingsor]

Both styles have their pros and cons. Personally I rather like the stacked layout but I think it really comes into its own for the larger, non-landing ships. For the smaller, PC scale ships, it is harder to make it work – not that that it cannot or has not been done of course.

I worry about things like stability – so a roughly conical ship with drives at the bottom, the holds with accommodation above that and the bridge on top might have problems it the holds were empty – so you wrap some fuel around them to keep the centre of gravity as low as possible.

The stacked layout would conserve power – if you are accelerating at 1G you don't need compensators on but this seems to be trivial concern, power is cheap.

 

[Paladin]

Rounded ships = harder to maintain for replacement parts since you have to bend the metal to match the angle & seems to be a lots of wasted space around the edges/lack of square walls. Also seems more difficult to load cargo, particularly large items if a belly/side ramp door does not exist.

I've always wondered why cargo ships aren't more modular with standard containers or pods that "lock on" or drop off in a skeletal type format.

 

[Shiloh]

I've always wondered why cargo ships aren't more modular with standard containers or pods that "lock on" or drop off in a skeletal type format.

Space 1999, the Eagle... [reminisces]

 

[klingsor]

The old P F Sloan class escort, basically a big cylinder with smaller cylinders attached, for fuel I think, always struck me as one of the most 'realistic' ship designs in Traveller in general layout at least. It’s only real failing was that was unstreamlined and could not refuel itself – not required by it's role but always something I would prefer to see.

 

[GypsyComet]

Most of the canon designs that are tail-sitters are military or para-military in function, suggesting that military designers find the built-in bulkhead segmentation and perpendicular floors advantageous for damage control. It may be a strictly philosophical thing, as parallel decks also have a damage control advantage: you don't have to climb into an elevator to get access to a fairly large part of a ship. Canon military designs certainly embrace both approaches, so we can infer that it is a personal/regional thing.

Gravitic technology has been part of the setting for thousands of years by the golden age of the Third Imperium (1100), so day-to-day civilian users and designers have no real issues orienting the ship in whatever way works best for its purpose.

 

[RedBeardSean]

I've always wondered why cargo ships aren't more modular with standard containers or pods that "lock on" or drop off in a skeletal type format.

Space 1999, the Eagle... [reminisces]

I truly loved the Eagle design, except that the pilot seating seemed a bit cramped. The modularity of them was so useful I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't use something like that for extra-atmospheric-only craft in the future in real life. Assuming we ever get to live in space.

 

[Infojunky]

Rounded ships = harder to maintain for replacement parts since you have to bend the metal to match the angle & seems to be a lots of wasted space around the edges/lack of square walls. Also seems more difficult to load cargo, particularly large items if a belly/side ramp door does not exist.

Gee, I wonder how we do it in the real world?

I've always wondered why cargo ships aren't more modular with standard containers or pods that "lock on" or drop off in a skeletal type format.

Me too, Maybe some one should consider this....

 

[Alexander Cecil]

I've always wondered why cargo ships aren't more modular with standard containers or pods that "lock on" or drop off in a skeletal type format.

I have always assumed that it is the same problem as with Jump bladders (external, disposable fuel tanks to allow a second Jump immediately after the first). Having such an item makes it hard to keep things like the Jump-grid aligned and powered properly.

I would allow such a design in my universe, but it would increase the chances of a misjump.

 

[Patron Zero]

Wow, nice to see so many opinions expressed on what I thought might be a dead point, thanks to everyone who responded.

Perhaps the orientation of decks are mandated by the ship's operation, either staying in orbit or coming down dirtside. My own personal preference of layout is stacking the decks, the 1-G acceleration 'bonus' for ship's local gravity simply that.

Just to give the pot a final stir is to mention the spacecraft from the classic film, Conquest of Space, it embodied the best of both variables, that incredible winged landing on Mars to the upright launch of the return vessel. Guess that old dog could teach us some new tricks after all.

 

[Shiloh]

I've always wondered why cargo ships aren't more modular with standard containers or pods that "lock on" or drop off in a skeletal type format.

I have always assumed that it is the same problem as with Jump bladders (external, disposable fuel tanks to allow a second Jump immediately after the first). Having such an item makes it hard to keep things like the Jump-grid aligned and powered properly.

I would allow such a design in my universe, but it would increase the chances of a misjump.

If the "pods" are standard, this doesn't need to be too much of a problem. It might take some testing and calibration for new pods and different configurations of pods before you wind up the J-drive, and failing to do that would lead to a higher chance of misjump... sacrifice a little spontaneity for flexibility.

There's the concept of "Lighter Aboard Ship" to go with that. Basically the compartmentalised (containerised) cargo has its own N-space motive power to get from jump arrival point to final destination.

 

[klingsor]

Minimising the number of plates that needed to be curved was a consideration of the Liberty ship design of WW II, a fairly normal design but optimised for cheap, large scale production. I am sure we could come up with other examples as well.

Traveller has it's version of the Eagle, the modular cutter.

For larger transports I would assume there are standardised containers for lack of a better word that have a common set of dimensions and fittings so any suitable ship can carry them. Angular would maximise useable space but cylindrical is simpler for pressure hulls and they would be at least a hundred tons or so in size. No doubt someone would manufacture or convert them to habitation modules for belters or easy assembly space stations. There would also be small craft that could move them between orbit and a planets surface as well. 2300 had what was basically a container ship design that always struck me as particularly 'right' looking.

 

[Leo Knight]

For more info than you could ever possibly use on 'tail sitter' spacecraft, you can't beat Atomic Rockets:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/

I've had two big problems in designing vertical orientation ships. First, boarding while landed. If you assume the drive room is the bottom of the ship, and maybe shielded, any airlock/ gangway would probably sit higher. All the arrangements for getting people into the ship, ladders, stairs, lifts, etc. seem ad hoc, flimsy and hazardous. Climbing 6-9 meters in a vacc suit seems perilous, but then, I'm an old fart.

Second, my players' exposure to SF has mainly been TV and movies. All the popular ships from Star Trek until now have had horizontal orientation. That visual habit is hard to break.

[/url]

 

[Patron Zero]

<I've had two big problems in designing vertical orientation ships. First, boarding while landed. If you assume the drive room is the bottom of the ship, and maybe shielded, any airlock/ gangway would probably sit higher.>

I've always taken it as a given in more developed dirtside starports that provisions for tail sitters would be in the form of literal pits as landing-launch bays. There was an article in White Dwarf magazine ages back about the potential hazards grounded starships present with the potential for a drive or powerplant to explode. Hence the thick walls often seen depicted surrounding such facilities in science fiction-space opera films of the A & B grade categories.

I believe I still have a xerox of that article should anyone have an interest in obtaining a scan.

 

[Infojunky]

Second, my players' exposure to SF has mainly been TV and movies. All the popular ships from Star Trek until now have had horizontal orientation. That visual habit is hard to break.

That is mostly what I was pointing out.

Thus the need for compelling artwork.

 

[Patron Zero]

Second, my players' exposure to SF has mainly been TV and movies. All the popular ships from Star Trek until now have had horizontal orientation. That visual habit is hard to break.

Must be showing my age as most of my exposure to spacecraft and starships have been from classic 1950s & 1960s science fiction films. I seem to recall more vertical orientation in the ships seen in 20 Million Miles To Earth, It! The Terror from Beyond Space and George Pal's duo, Destination Moon & Conquest of Space.

Now there's a thought, Traveller set in a period universe reflecting the technology and styling of those very imaginative films.