Hangar Bay, Cargo Hold & Steerage Cargo

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Yeah, that's sort of what I was thinking, Vicky, but I wasn't sure if it'd be abusive, since you could build a carrier that keeps all of its fighters clamped outside, jumps into a battlefield, and launches all of its ships in a single combat turn. There would be drawbacks, like servicing the fighters, and targeting them directly while they're still attached. I guess it does balance out. Just odd in my mind.

Rack carriers are a feature, not a bug.

In some contexts they can be a useful alternative to internal-carry carriers. They give up a lot of the functionality, but they are much cheaper per ton of battlerider delivered, and of course can do a rapid rack launch.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Langy

A cargo hold is almost certainly not fit for human use while in space, due to the fact that it takes up no mass - it's just an empty space, devoid of life-support, pressure support, vacuum support, or anything else. It's exactly the same as the cargo hold on the Space Shuttle.

It's inside the ship's armor. Most ship designs have at least 15 percent of their mass giving them a hard, full-coverage shell. That would trivially provide pressure/vacuum support to the cargo bay. Ultralight designs that don't have actual armor, do get a little problematic there...though of course they'd already be problematic in that you're getting free acceleration support.

I'd also note SS43 talking about cargo bay doors potentially spilling air, because they are not airlocks. That wouldn't make sense if they didn't hold pressure in the first place.

Also, SS42-43 on pressure compartmentalization specifically talks about a ship losing pressure due to opening a cargo door.

And of course every book uses Cargo Bays all the time for cargo ships of all sorts, and as minor storage space in designs that aren't freight-haulers by any stretch.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Yeah, that's sort of what I was thinking, Vicky, but I wasn't sure if it'd be abusive, since you could build a carrier that keeps all of its fighters clamped outside, jumps into a battlefield, and launches all of its ships in a single combat turn. There would be drawbacks, like servicing the fighters, and targeting them directly while they're still attached. I guess it does balance out. Just odd in my mind.

There's some president to that, as US aircraft carriers have carried their operational aircraft on the flight deck since the 30s. This allowed American WWII carriers to carry 50% more ready aircraft than the similarly sized Japanese and British ships, and launch them faster (and do silly things like launch B-25s).

[panton41]

Originally Posted by Langy

The Serenity definitely has a hangar bay. It's even used to launch smaller vehicles, after all, though not while in space.

A cargo hold is almost certainly not fit for human use while in space, due to the fact that it takes up no mass - it's just an empty space, devoid of life-support, pressure support, vacuum support, or anything else. It's exactly the same as the cargo hold on the Space Shuttle.

Most cargo holds seen on space ships are either Hangar Bays or Steerage Cargo. If I remember right, Hangar Bays and Steerage Cargo take up the same amount of mass for the same amount of storage - they're basically identical, just Steerage Cargo is smaller.

I simply don't see that and the books really don't support it either. Some of the color text in SS2 even suggests going into the cargo hold in flight.

I see the Cargo Hold system as simply being empty places on the ship with the handling equipment for cargo. As for life support there's not much of a reason to assume they have any less than other areas of the ship and the extra weight to provide it (ducting, plumbing, etc.) would probably fall under the resolution of the system or be included in other modules. (It already assumes equipment to open and close a large door anyway and probably cranes, hoists, etc.)

Steerage cargo is more like supplies needed for the crew in-flight - a pantry, medical supplies, uniforms, repair parts, etc. They might take up significant space and have dedicated rooms, but they're not bulk cargo. Most everything coming in and out of steerage goes through one of the entry airlocks (or is teleported).

A Hanger Bay is just that, a hanger mostly designed to launch small craft. It can be used for storage, but also contains equipment for an airlock-like mechanism, maintenance and diagnostic equipment for the small craft, maybe some routine repair parts, small amounts of fuel, munitions, lubricants, etc. and launching equipment for the ships themselves.


But really Spaceships is so generic it's certainly possible for your game to have unpressurized Cargo Holds, while another GM prefers pressurized and habitable but as specialized for cargo as the engine room is for an engine and others have them as simply being a really big room on the ship that's called a "cargo hold."

[Snoman314]

Originally Posted by Langy

Most cargo holds seen on space ships are either Hangar Bays or Steerage Cargo. If I remember right, Hangar Bays and Steerage Cargo take up the same amount of mass for the same amount of storage - they're basically identical, just Steerage Cargo is smaller.

Actually, Hangars hold slightly less than Steerage. an SM +8 habitat fully dedicated to Steerage Cargo gives 35 tons capacity, an SM +8 hangar gives 30 tons. (And regular Cargo 50 tons).

Personally I think its fair enough to allow Cargo holds to remain pressurized, but that's only a very small part of life support. For starters, if all they did was hold atmosphere, then the temperature would likely get very extreme, either hot or cold. Also, even if there is atmosphere, and even if the temperature wasn't a problem, if you fill it with people, they will overload the life support system, as per Spaceships pg 46. (The rated occupancy comes from cabins.)
This would not be so for steerage cargo one would expect. Although you would need to increase the occupancy for life support loading purposes for each ton of steerage.
It seems to me that there isn't too much disagreement on steerage / hangars etc. But I think that cargo spaces could encompass a range of things, and each GM has to make their own decision decide what it will be exactly. It could even vary from ship to ship within the same game setting with some justification.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by fredtheobviouspseudonym

There is a "wet navy" precedent.

During the mid-years of World War II the British built what they called "merchant aircraft carriers." This was a fully-operational merchant ship (usually a somewhat fast one -- c. 12 kts loaded, fast for the time) with a flight deck built on top. There were very limited fuel facilities and (IIRC) to service the aircraft you set up a fabric "hangar" on the flight deck.

Also the CAM Ship - which was even more of a lash-up job: a merchantman with a single fighter aircraft (usually a Hawker Hurricane) mounted on a launching catapult ... and no landing facilities. These days - and in the future, you'd probably use an RPV due to the problems of pilot recovery.

[Humabout]

I suppose boarding the craft might be a bit tricky, but something could be worked out. The main purpose would be to have a very rapid strike force that could jump to a scene and dump its ships fast. Sort of like a space navy version of the Roger Young form Starship Troopers. You could have a carrier with a squadron or two of aerospace strike craft jump near a planet and deliver a lot of firepower over a wide area fast. The only issue would be withdrawl. Then again, you could do this with drones, too, which alleviates the issues with getting pilots into ships. The whole idea is to free up as many systems in the fighters as possible for weapons, armor, and performance.

I suppose you could do something similar with drop ships, but each ship would need to clamp over an airlock so the soldiers and crew could board. Again, something could probably be worked out - even if it's just a matter of incorporating a small hangar for shuttlecraft that load the larger drop ships. I'm just brainstorming at this point.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Humabout

I suppose boarding the craft might be a bit tricky, but something could be worked out. The main purpose would be to have a very rapid strike force that could jump to a scene and dump its ships fast. Sort of like a space navy version of the Roger Young form Starship Troopers. You could have a carrier with a squadron or two of aerospace strike craft jump near a planet and deliver a lot of firepower over a wide area fast. The only issue would be withdrawl. Then again, you could do this with drones, too, which alleviates the issues with getting pilots into ships. The whole idea is to free up as many systems in the fighters as possible for weapons, armor, and performance.

The major issue with rack carriers (in a permissive setting) isn't in the first sortie. It's everything that comes after. They lack the benefits of a hangar for rearming, refueling, and repairing their parasites after recovering them. On a strategic scope maintenance and environmental protection join the list of advantages of internal carry.

A rack ship is good for delivering a punch, but bad at being a mothership. Whether that results in all rackers, all carriers, or a mix for different missions depends on other elements.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

The major issue with rack carriers (in a permissive setting) isn't in the first sortie. It's everything that comes after. They lack the benefits of a hangar for rearming, refueling, and repairing their parasites after recovering them. On a strategic scope maintenance and environmental protection join the list of advantages of internal carry.

A rack ship is good for delivering a punch, but bad at being a mothership. Whether that results in all rackers, all carriers, or a mix for different missions depends on other elements.

Yeah, at this point I wonder if it perhaps makes more sense to have a disposable unmanned jump-delivery system that can only make one insertion, launches the drones, and proceeds to ram the biggest/slowest target. If maintenance is not relevant, while maximum carrying capacity is, this might make sense.

[Refplace]

What about combining several first in rack ships with fleet tenders for maintenance and such between battles? and if you use missiles rather then beams (which makes rack ships significantly less useful) you could have the tenders rearm too.
And another thought a rack ship could have a small hanger for normal operations that would be slower but could get he job done between most battles.