So How Big is a Starship?

3 posts · Jul 17 1998 to Jul 26 1998

From: Michael Blair <amfortas@h...>

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 02:24:20 PDT

Subject: So How Big is a Starship?

So How Big is a Starship? The Fleet Book changes the basic assumptions on
which ships are designed, the value of the units of MASS have decreased by
about 2.5 as ships now have about 2.5 times the MASS they had under the second
edition rules. I was thinking about the design of assault ships for invading
planets when I realised that the figures given in More Thrust were not
applicable for ships designed using the Fleet Book. The following is an
attempt to show the workings and the conclusions that resulted from this. For
those who do not want to work through this mess the results are tabulated at
the end.

What is a MASS? The Fleet Book gives us some hard numbers to work with. 1 Mass
represents a displacement of 10 tonnes. Now displacement in wet navies and
Traveller [1] is a measure of volume worth 1 and 14 cubic metres respectively.
The first for the amount of water displaced and the latter for liquid
hydrogen. These give us two possible values for one mass, 10 or 140 cubic
metres. We will use the latter as:
i.   It gives us a larger volume to play with.
ii. Hydrogen is more applicable in a Science Fiction setting. iii. If you
don't use 140 cubic metres the following is bunk. The mathematicians among you
are probably screaming already at the careless transposition of volume and
mass but if you assume that the design unit known as a MASS is a measurement
of volume and not mass then

you should be able to choke this down.

Transporting Vehicles An M1A1 Abrams tank occupies a volume of roughly 10 x 4
x 2.5 metres [2]

giving a volume of 100 cubic metres and a mass of 60 tonnes. If we assume that
the M1A1 is a size 3 vehicle then according to More
Thrust it would occupy a volume of 12 CS or 12/50 MASS (FT II). Now that

ships have increased in size this is equivalent to 12/50 × 2.5=0.6 MASS
(FT III). This approximates to ½ MASS per vehicle size. This is reasonably in
accord with the real volume of an M1A1 as there will be wasted space,
particularly if the ship is combat loaded
[3].

Transporting People According to the Fleet Book one MASS gives one passenger
space. Does this mean that one passenger occupies one MASS? For commercial
passengers travelling in luxury the answer is yes, for grunts, no.

> From Traveller we have the following figures (cubic metres):
Small Stateroom       28   One man
Large Stateroom       56   One in comfort or two normally.
Low Berth 14
Emergency Low Berth   28   Originally for transporting animals.

Applying these to our 140 m^3 MASS gives the following figures per MASS:
One Man  Standard      5
	 Comfortable   2.5
	 Cryosleep    10
One Horse 5

Now 14m^3 per cryoberth seems very roomy, going down to 7 m^3 feels right and
appears to be the FT III volume.

More Thrust gives the following values in cargo spaces (CS). 1 Man 4 CS
Cryoberth 1 CS

Now 1 CS is 1/50 of a MASS (FT II) but with the Fleet Book ships are
about 2.5 times larger, so one FT II MASS is equivalent to 2.5 FT III MASS.

Unit Volume CS MASS (FT II) MASS (FT III) # per MASS (FT III)
1 Man	   4 CS    .08		 .2		  5
Cryoberth  1 CS    .02		 .05		 20

These match the Traveller derived figures given above (post tweaking for

the cryoberth). When FT III finally comes out we will probably not see the
Cargo Space, as the FT III MASS has a smaller value there is no need to
subdivide it further. ½ MASS per man is a workable figure, matching the ½ MASS
volume

for a size one vehicle.

Cost The Fleet Book does not charge anything for cargo or passenger spaces.
Though in principle I do not agree with the cost of passenger space would be
so low (one point is worth 10 million!) as to be not worth bothering about, so
assume that the hull cost pays for it. Only cryoberths are going to cost
'extra'. in FT II they cost 10
points/MASS or .1 per man. In FT III this translates to 2 per MASS.

Finally we have the FT III volumes:
Object		    MASS    # per MASS	Cost per MASS
Passenger, Grunt     0.2     5		0
Passenger, Luxury    1	     1		0   Straight from the book.
Size 1 Vehicle	     0.5     2		0
Size 2 Vehicle 1 1 0
Size 3 Vehicle       1.5     -          0
Size 4 Vehicle       2       -          0   And so on
Cryoberth           1/20    20          2
Horse (Frozen)	     0.2     5		2

Notes
1.    All references to Traveller are to Frank Chadwick and Dave
Nilsen's Fire Fusion and Steel (GDW, Bloomington, IL, 1993).
2.    Peter Gudgin in Armour 2000 (Arms & Armour Press, London, 1990)
gives dimensions of 9.8 x 3.65 x 2.44m for the M1A1.
3.    Combat Loading is loading a ship so that its cargo can be unloaded

quickly and in the order that it will be required. This is very a very
inefficient use of the available volume. As an example of what not to do:
apparently at Suez the first lorry ashore carried regimental silver.

MRB

From: Noah Doyle <nvdoyle@m...>

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 22:04:59 -0500

Subject: RE: So How Big is a Starship?

I always thought that MASS is just that - mass.  200 tonnes (metric
tons) per unit, by the FB background. Volume will be related, but not too
closely. Given of course that we estimate ship minis by volume, not mass,
but we still assume a pretty much constant volume - mass ratio.
Traveller used tonnes of liquid H as a volume rating because that was the main
fuel
for manuver and FTL drives, and 10-60% of a ships' volume was taken up
by fuel. Far more important than in FT, AFAIK. And according to Fire, Fusion &
Steel (TNE), most ships came out massing about what they would if they

displaced H20, not liquid H. Your engineers on a FT ship are not going to be
concerned with dispacement at all unless you have to fit one thing into
another - it's all about mass; and boosting it.

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 16:37:11 +0200

Subject: Re: So How Big is a Starship?

Michael Blair wrote in a week-old post:

> So How Big is a Starship?

[snip]

> What is a MASS?

> worth 1 and 14 cubic metres respectively. The first for the amount of

[snip]

The Mass ratings are, according to Jon T., just that - mass, not volume.
This does disrupt your arguments a little :-/

The short answer to your question is, of course, "1 MASS is just as large as
you like"... and depends entirely on your background. I strongly suspect that
1 MASS in a B5 scenario is a *lot* less than 1 MASS in a Star Wars scenario,
for example (unless you like Mass 600 Star Destroyers
<g>).

> Transporting People

Not at all. There is NO ratio given in the FB between the amount of Mass
allocated to passenger/cargo transport and how much cargo/how many
passengers these spaces can carry. According to the FB, one MASS of passenger
space gives one MASS of passenger space, not space for one passenger...

> Cost

> Though in principle I do not agree with the cost of passenger space

Two reasons:

1. The FB ship costs are a scenario points system. Passenger and cargo spaces
aren't worth anything in a fight (except as victory conditions), so shouldn't
cost anything to buy. (Why pay to give the enemy more defenceless targets...?)

2. Compared to the same Mass of, say, starship engines, impervium armour or
neutron megablasters, passenger areas are virtually free...

Regards,