Forums of the Megaverse®

I have been reading through some of the ships in the Starship Design Forum trying to get a feel for how my designs fit in with others and I realized that we have no real common frame of reference for the inside of starships.

How I started to describe ship's capabilities changed rather radically about 20 years ago when I started reading Honor Harrington novels including things like advanced EW and the use of drones but I never did much with the interiors. More recently I started watching people like Spacedock Ship Breakdowns and getting starship posters from 0-Hour Deckplans . These have really gotten me to think about what these ships are like on the inside and how much space is given over to crew.

For these rules I am really only talking about true starships, so Destroyers and larger or at the least Corvette and up.

1. What are the dimensions of the corridors and compartments ? How tall, how wide? You look at ships in Star Trek and Star Wars and even a Seljuk would be pretty comfortable on the capital ships. Might have to take the elevator alone but that's not much. Even games like Mass Effect show pretty spacious ships with lots of crew areas.
2. What are the workstations like? Is each ship built for only a single species or is everything super adjustable?
3. What amenities/facilities are on the ship (gymnasium, theaters, workshops, galley, pantry, weapons storage, etc.)
4. What are the quarters like? I know we like to use naval equivalents for a lot of these but these ships are not floating on an ocean for weeks or months they are crossing the void for months or even years. Are we talking Star Trek style or more something we see in the Expanse or Firefly?
5. How much access to systems is there for field repairs and maintenance? Is it like Star Trek with crawl ways all over the place or do you have to dismantle areas to get access to things for field repairs?
6. Life Support. Is Life Support just this invisible thing that never really matters until it breaks down like in Trek or Star Wars or is it more of visible thing like in the Expanse or even Andromeda?
7. Flight Decks and Hangar bays. We already know some ships carry way more auxiliary craft then they should

For me I tend to view ships in categories. Short, medium and long duration ships.

Short duration ships are military or even cargo ships that are only designed to be 30 to 90 days. Short run cargo ships or things like Patrol Destroyers. These ships have minimal crew quarters, no common crew areas, no workshops or onboard repair facilities, and almost no access to internal systems (spacedock required).

Medium are the 6 to 18 months. These are things like the Hunter Destroyer and this has slightly larger quarters, a few common areas, and just basic workshops for repairs with some access to internal systems.

Long Duration is Warshield and up. These all have decent individual quarters, lots of common areas, full workshops with easy access to inner workings.

I also think it varies by faction. CAF ships might vary, depending on how you run them, by race. TGE ships all have to be big enough for Kreeghor but I have always thought that these ships were more austere with fewer amenities and maybe even cramped barracks and hot racking for the non-Kreeghor crew.

Along similar lines I always thought that Dwarven Iron Ships were sized just for dwarves with some living space tacked on with those hangers for non-dwarf crew and troops.

Has anyone else thought about the interiors of these ships

One thing I've noted is lack of fuel/consumables capacity...in (almost) *every* game I've checked out or played, or book I've read, you have a ship with a fuel tank that is barely larger than the potable water tank.

For example, the Klingon ships in Star Trek use a engine that actually consumes fuel and ejects it to provide thrust. (The warp engines in ST provide no thrust.) Even allowing the use of magnetic ram scoops to suck-up free-floating hydrogen while under thrust, the entire secondary hull should be almost exclusively fuel tankage...and even with the ram scoops, they would have to refuel every time they entered a system. Then, before the advent of replicators, the crew would have to eat their way into Rec spaces and showers.

For 3G ships, the crew spaces (which should still be less than 20% of the volume of the ship, to account for consumables - since almost none I can think of seem to have reactionless drives) would either be sized for the primary race of the user (i.e.: TGE), or for the 80th percentile (i.e.: CAF) to allow the widest range of crew races to serve.

Specialty ships, like the Iron Ships would be like a submarine - scratching at the line of claustrophobic for dwarves, crippling for humans/elves, and impossible for larger races, even on hands and knees.

yep. That is why I hate the 3G ship tables.....it basicly dosen't deal with hard realities like fuel, water, life support, etc...

Borast wrote:One thing I've noted is lack of fuel/consumables capacity...in (almost) *every* game I've checked out or played, or book I've read, you have a ship with a fuel tank that is barely larger than the potable water tank.

The old Nighthawks game did a decent job of requiring space for fuel but I agree most games don't do it well. Now in Rifts and Phase World fuel storage isn't just an issue with starships you have man sized power armors carrying around 25 years worth of fuel. Now to be fair to create a sci-fi and especially a science fantasy setting like Phase World you have to assume at least something along the lines of the Expanses Epstein drive which has incredible levels of fuel efficiency.

Borast wrote:For example, the Klingon ships in Star Trek use a engine that actually consumes fuel and ejects it to provide thrust. (The warp engines in ST provide no thrust.) Even allowing the use of magnetic ram scoops to suck-up free-floating hydrogen while under thrust, the entire secondary hull should be almost exclusively fuel tankage...and even with the ram scoops, they would have to refuel every time they entered a system. Then, before the advent of replicators, the crew would have to eat their way into Rec spaces and showers.

All sub-light / impulse drives in Star Trek run off of fuel but these drives are described as being incredibly efficient and aided by the same tech that provide artificial gravity and inertial dampening.

One thing to keep in mind is just how large Star Trek ships are. This vid by EC Henry on the Enterprise and it is unreal how large this ship is relative to the crew size.

Borast wrote:For 3G ships, the crew spaces (which should still be less than 20% of the volume of the ship, to account for consumables - since almost none I can think of seem to have reactionless drives) would either be sized for the primary race of the user (i.e.: TGE), or for the 80th percentile (i.e.: CAF) to allow the widest range of crew races to serve.

Specialty ships, like the Iron Ships would be like a submarine - scratching at the line of claustrophobic for dwarves, crippling for humans/elves, and impossible for larger races, even on hands and knees.

I think 20% is over doing it but there does need to be some thought into engineering and life support.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:yep. That is why I hate the 3G ship tables.....it basicly dosen't deal with hard realities like fuel, water, life support, etc...

You're giving them too much credit and too much criticism at the same time. There are no 3G ship tables. So far we have 3 authors creating starships in 6 different books and there is no real definition of any of the important tech. I mean forget the life support the explanation of CG drive the most important tech in this setting is almost undescribed.

If you look at the 3G ships the biggest problem is size. So look at the Hunter destroyer it has a length of 91 meters with its 44 crew and 4 fighters.

By comparison in Star Trek the B'Rel class Klingon Bird of Prey is 139m with 36 crew and no fighters and the Defiant Class is 170 m with 40 crew and 2 to 6 tiny shuttle pods.

In Star Wars the Raider class Corvette is 150 m with a crew of 92 and 2 Tie fighters.

Simply put the 3G ships are just too small. My hope is that if anyone ever decides to create a Phase World starship book that they start from scratch. They take existing ships and just use the description and the rest can be changed to fit the new system.

Warshield73 wrote:The old Nighthawks game did a decent job of requiring space for fuel but I agree most games don't do it well. Now in Rifts and Phase World fuel storage isn't just an issue with starships you have man sized power armors carrying around 25 years worth of fuel. Now to be fair to create a sci-fi and especially a science fantasy setting like Phase World you have to assume at least something along the lines of the Expanses Epstein drive which has incredible levels of fuel efficiency.

Never seen that one... Off the top of my head, Traveller is the only one I can think of that required massive amounts of tankage...
Considering the half life of most reactor piles, that is *almost* believable! (Since the "fuel" in that case is pellets of metal.)
Not familiar with the Epstein drive. (Nor the "Expanse" - I presume a series title? - either.)

Warshield73 wrote:

Borast wrote:For example, the Klingon ships in Star Trek use a engine that actually consumes fuel and ejects it to provide thrust. >snip<

All sub-light / impulse drives in Star Trek run off of fuel but these drives are described as being incredibly efficient and aided by the same tech that provide artificial gravity and inertial dampening.

Actually... The UFP uses a reactionless engine (last I remember reading about, anyway). No fuel, just electricity.

Warshield73 wrote:One thing to keep in mind is just how large Star Trek ships are. >snip<

True, especially when you consider that the shuttle bay in the Saucer section takes-up about 1/5th of it's volume, and the one in the Primary/Engineering hull something like 1/4th. As for his estimates of the crew compliment, I always read it as being 1000, PLUS the families. (And the ability to transport a ridiculous number of refugees in an emergency!) He also apparently didn't take into mega tonnage account the cargo the "E" carries regularily. But, yes, it is a ridiculous amount of unused space. I have a copy of the plans somewhere and the Trecknology book... It's a perfect example of my case. The anti-proton tank only holds a few thousands of litres of antimatter...a couple swimming pools worth!

Warshield73 wrote:

Borast wrote:For 3G ships, the crew spaces (which should still be less than 20% of the volume of the ship, to account for consumables - since almost none I can think of seem to have reactionless drives) would either be sized for the primary race of the user (i.e.: TGE), or for the 80th percentile (i.e.: CAF) to allow the widest range of crew races to serve.

Specialty ships, like the Iron Ships would be like a submarine - scratching at the line of claustrophobic for dwarves, crippling for humans/elves, and impossible for larger races, even on hands and knees.

I think 20% is over doing it but there does need to be some thought into engineering and life support.

Actually...the 20% of the volume of the ship I was referencing includes Engineering and Life Support spaces. Water tankage and additional pressurized storage canisters for replacement atmosphere would be considered in the consumables...although likely at single digit percentages of ship volume.

One of the strangest things I've always found in the Three Galaxies, is the fluff text always mentions refueling ships during long voyages, and how important fueling depots are, yet almost every ship has a fuel source that is good for decades to centuries.

Warshield73 wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:yep. That is why I hate the 3G ship tables.....it basicly dosen't deal with hard realities like fuel, water, life support, etc...

You're giving them too much credit and too much criticism at the same time. There are no 3G ship tables. ....snip.

Sure there are. They are in the Phase World®: Fleets of the Three Galaxies™ book.
There is also another ship creation table in one of the Rifters.

Nether of which go into the detail that the ones in the HU book AU:GG do. Even those were lacking when looking at everything that ""should"" be in a ship. So I wrote an expansion to them...

Borast wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:The old Nighthawks game did a decent job of requiring space for fuel but I agree most games don't do it well. Now in Rifts and Phase World fuel storage isn't just an issue with starships you have man sized power armors carrying around 25 years worth of fuel. Now to be fair to create a sci-fi and especially a science fantasy setting like Phase World you have to assume at least something along the lines of the Expanses Epstein drive which has incredible levels of fuel efficiency.

Never seen that one... Off the top of my head, Traveller is the only one I can think of that required massive amounts of tankage...
Considering the half life of most reactor piles, that is *almost* believable! (Since the "fuel" in that case is pellets of metal.)
Not familiar with the Epstein drive. (Nor the "Expanse" - I presume a series title? - either.)

Nighthawks is old, it was part of the Star Frontiers game by TSR, it was the space combat component and while very simple, it was a lot of fun. I actually ran it at convention a few years back when the them was old games.

As for Traveler I own a fair bit of stuff and I did intend to start reading it but I've never gotten around to it so I can't comment but Nighthawks fuel was similar in that it was a radioactive pellet.

The Expanse is one of the best Sci-Fi book series I have ever read. It is the best hard sci-fi, has a great audio book series, and the TV series is the best Sci-Fi in at least a decade. IMHO I have to add that I guess. Epstein Drive is a standard fusion engine but with a special mod that makes it super high efficiency allowing for long periods of engine burn permitting ships to simulate gravity with thrust.

That being said I think it's really important to understand that in Phase World you need a highly fantastic system just to keep magic in the system.

Borast wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:

Borast wrote:For example, the Klingon ships in Star Trek use a engine that actually consumes fuel and ejects it to provide thrust. >snip<

All sub-light / impulse drives in Star Trek run off of fuel but these drives are described as being incredibly efficient and aided by the same tech that provide artificial gravity and inertial dampening.

Actually... The UFP uses a reactionless engine (last I remember reading about, anyway). No fuel, just electricity.

I don't know what has been changed recently but:

In Star Trek 6 Spock specifically says that the cloaked Bird of Prey expended fuel "like any other ship at impulse" so there is that.

In the Star Trek the Next Generation Technical manual (yes I won it, I bought it used he said trying to justify his incredible nerdiness) it describes the fuel and actually shows a diagram for how exhaust is vectored out of the ship. In the DS9 technical manual it described, and I no longer have it just my notes, that like warp drives impulse drives are largely the same across all the factions.

Again both these sources are decades old so it may have changed.

Borast wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:One thing to keep in mind is just how large Star Trek ships are. >snip<

True, especially when you consider that the shuttle bay in the Saucer section takes-up about 1/5th of it's volume, and the one in the Primary/Engineering hull something like 1/4th. As for his estimates of the crew compliment, I always read it as being 1000, PLUS the families. (And the ability to transport a ridiculous number of refugees in an emergency!) He also apparently didn't take into mega tonnage account the cargo the "E" carries regularily. But, yes, it is a ridiculous amount of unused space. I have a copy of the plans somewhere and the Trecknology book... It's a perfect example of my case. The anti-proton tank only holds a few thousands of litres of antimatter...a couple swimming pools worth!

First the shuttle bays don't appear that big in the tech manual or the virtual tour of the ship. My quick calculation is about 11%...ish between the 3 bays. Now there were Dominion war refits where the saucer section was basically empty, the entire ship was run from the stardrive section, and the empty saucer was full of Peregrine fighters, reloads for ships, and assorted other cargos.

The numbers given are pretty specific that most Galaxy class, including the Yumato which was destroyed with a thousand people onboard, and the Venture which after offloading nonessential crew and families had less than 500 onboard when it was destroyed by the Dominion so pretty much just a thousand. It does say multiple times that it can carry over 5,000 though but not standard.

Borast wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:

Borast wrote:For 3G ships, the crew spaces (which should still be less than 20% of the volume of the ship, to account for consumables - since almost none I can think of seem to have reactionless drives) would either be sized for the primary race of the user (i.e.: TGE), or for the 80th percentile (i.e.: CAF) to allow the widest range of crew races to serve.

Specialty ships, like the Iron Ships would be like a submarine - scratching at the line of claustrophobic for dwarves, crippling for humans/elves, and impossible for larger races, even on hands and knees.

I think 20% is over doing it but there does need to be some thought into engineering and life support.

Actually...the 20% of the volume of the ship I was referencing includes Engineering and Life Support spaces. Water tankage and additional pressurized storage canisters for replacement atmosphere would be considered in the consumables...although likely at single digit percentages of ship volume.

OK I wasn't sure about what was in that 20% but for all of that it sounds reasonable.

Whiskeyjack wrote:One of the strangest things I've always found in the Three Galaxies, is the fluff text always mentions refueling ships during long voyages, and how important fueling depots are, yet almost every ship has a fuel source that is good for decades to centuries.

I’m not sure what you are referring to here? Is there a specific reference to refueling?

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:yep. That is why I hate the 3G ship tables.....it basicly dosen't deal with hard realities like fuel, water, life support, etc...

You're giving them too much credit and too much criticism at the same time. There are no 3G ship tables. ....snip.

Sure there are. They are in the Phase World®: Fleets of the Three Galaxies™ book.
There is also another ship creation table in one of the Rifters.

Nether of which go into the detail that the ones in the HU book AU:GG do. Even those were lacking when looking at everything that ""should"" be in a ship. So I wrote an expansion to them...

There are several Rifters that have articles on ships and how to create them but I believe you are reffering to Rifter 34, the Galactic Tracer stuff. That is a point based ship creation that is OK for NPCs but really doesn’t help with the overall problem.
The information in Fleets, IMHO, creates more problems than it solves.
I think I may have a copy of what your expansion, I know we have discussed it before, but yes AUGG is far better starship creation than anything in Phase World and I have used it myself to add on.

Truthfully I'm not sure a setting like Phase World, or Rifts in general, needs a detailed construction system. I point based system like in Rifter 34 that has some sort of cost in credits attached to it might be the way to go.

Warshield73 wrote:

Borast wrote:

Warshield73 wrote:

Borast wrote:For example, the Klingon ships in Star Trek use a engine that actually consumes fuel and ejects it to provide thrust. >snip<

All sub-light / impulse drives in Star Trek run off of fuel but these drives are described as being incredibly efficient and aided by the same tech that provide artificial gravity and inertial dampening.

Actually... The UFP uses a reactionless engine (last I remember reading about, anyway). No fuel, just electricity.

I don't know what has been changed recently but:

In Star Trek 6 Spock specifically says that the cloaked Bird of Prey expended fuel "like any other ship at impulse" so there is that.

In the Star Trek the Next Generation Technical manual (yes I won it, I bought it used he said trying to justify his incredible nerdiness) it describes the fuel and actually shows a diagram for how exhaust is vectored out of the ship. In the DS9 technical manual it described, and I no longer have it just my notes, that like warp drives impulse drives are largely the same across all the factions.

Again both these sources are decades old so it may have changed.

I have the TNG Treknology manual as well... Bought it new.

I'm digging even deeper than that, though. I dig through info back into TOS, TFG's Star Fleet Battles, and FASA(?)'s RPG (I have an official game deckplan/supplement/ship description for a destroyer with TWELVE photon tubes and no phasers).

That being said, I'm about 75% sure that the reactionless STL engine was TOS, and canon.
(And the source of the comments from NASA about using an experimental Klingon style engine on the next generation of space probes back at the tail of the 20th.)