Re: Transport capacities

>Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 15:52:02 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Ryan M Gill <monty@arcadia.turner.com>
>Subject: Re: Transport capacities

>I would imagine that the more compartmentalized (and more damage points
a 
>given hull gets, the less space there would be for crew. Compartments 
>break up the usable space to a degree.

Hmm.  Good point.  I was thinking in similar terms when I stated that:

>>As the number of hull boxes increases, not only does the ship's super-
>>structure become more robust (more pressure doors, double hulls,
bulkheads,
>>etc.) both living and working conditions become less cramped.

Basic assumption is that you'd go from 5-tiered, hot-bunking to maybe
3-tiered individual bunks first...then maybe add a shower and a galley.
I'm thinking WWII era tin-can U-boat vs. modern SSBN or coal-burning
dreadnought vs. modern aircraft carrier.  All of them are cramped, but
the
modern ships are not only more structurally sound, but (relatively) more
comfortable to live in (partly) because they don't need to devote as
much
hull space for engines, fuel, ammo and armor to carry out their mission.

>I'd imagine that purchasing the weapons and fitments includes the cost
of 
>adding crew to man said weapons.

Exactly.  In my example, the hangar bay would have ~9 support crew
assigned
to it since that's how much mass it takes up and the ship's crew is 1
person per unit of mass.  If it were a batteship, they would have been
missile techs or particle beam gun crews or whatever.

>A civil ship (freighter) isn't going to have much in the way of crew
compared
>to a military ship. 

Already taken care of in the FB ship design rules.

>The USN gets a lot of people on their transport and assault ships. I 
>understand the jar^h^h marines spend quite a bit of time spread out 
>cleaning things and doing typical marine like things...

Which explains why the fleet types are so eager to stow them in cryo... 
:)

>In space craft, Mass is the critical factor, not volume. 

Agreed.

>> As for fighters, I feel that it is safe to assume fighters come in a
>> variety of sizes depending on their mission; so you may have a
size-3,
>> 45-ton interceptor and a size-5, 90-ton fast/heavy torpedo bomber. 
But the
>> same standard-sized hangar bay would need to support both.  Therefore
I
>> think we should say that fighters are up to 100-tons (or mass-1) each
and
>> that some (or most) of them are quite a bit less.  
>
>It avoids unnecessary complication...
>
>I'm of the opinion a detachment of AWACS would be a nice addition to a 
>NAC carrier. 

Or anyone else's.

Jeff