Discussion/Solutions - Milwuakie Plan Revisions - Mission Profile Section/Sizing Categories on Engineering Department

[snip]

: : : : : : : : : : : : Ok So as I said I couldnt find the exact measurements in the TNG manual I swore they were there somewhere in the quarter sections but after three word by word run throughs I dont see them! urgh! So after some digging I found some info that in the 1960s NASa figured 28 meters per person would be a 'good sized long term habitat' for a long term lived spacecraft. So starting with that on a 100 crew sized ship (cruiser in trek terms say) just for crew quarters by that 60s guideline would mean the ship has at least 2,800 cubic meters given over to living space for the crew! Obviously in this measurement that would be only a single deck and s square shape. But I think it gives us a start. Obviously we could use other figures in descriptions for DH officers XO / CO / VIPs having more space but in general I think the 28 meters base for a starting point could work. Thoughts?
: : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : Ok so, in order to help put this into a more readable format I came up with (using above also)
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : Crew Quarters: 28 meters per person (double or triple rooms), 1 x Bathroom Facilities per room of 18 Meters.
: : : : : : : : : DH Quarters: 32 Meters
: : : : : : : : : XO/CO Quarters: 40 Meters
: : : : : : : : : VIP Quarters: 40 meters
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : The other thing that we could also look at would be placing a size on each different Engine type, and minimum crew to man that piece of equipment. That would also follow through with all other (IE: Weapons ECT)
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : The other thought that I had was assigning mass to each piece of equipment, so example a Type 10 Warp Core can go say speed of 9.9, but is reduced per every 1000 of mass, now the ship speeds are set as a standard. The bigger the ship the slower the ship. That part is just a concept though.
: : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Hey phillip thanks for contributing here. I agree with your first part for quarter sizes though I might suggest simplifying it some. The main reason I say this is I agree we need a new system but I also dont want to alienate those who arent good at more complex stuff. Juggling numbers scares folks off trust me Ive seen such in the past where people with good ideas for a ship ran off or vanished even with help when it came to figuring ship size or what not. Having weight measurements for all the other equipment etc would only complicate things
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : So using crew size as a base I'm going to suggest rounding things like so to include the bathroom space in the quarter list you show above.
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : Non-com/JO Quarters: minimum 46 meters (living/sleeping area+bathroom)
: : : : : : : : DH/General Guest Quarters: minimum 50 meters (living/sleeping area+bathroom)
: : : : : : : : XO/CO/VIP Quarters: minimum 58 meters (living/sleeping area+bathroom)
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : I say 'minimum' because this way if a designer wants to go a little higher than the minimum standards for some reason (like I do in description with the mythology class having all the quarters being larger then normal say) then a designer can do so. From here the rest of the ship's size can be determined based on its equipment for the concept during review or by feedback privately. This will make things simpler all around I think.
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : I personally think we should keep the design requirements simple. Some of our specs (speaking personally, the Manhattan and the Mjolnir) are already 20 pages or more on Microsoft Word, and yet some of the most popular (the Disco, for example) is much shorter and simpler (about 10 pages iirc).
: : : : : :
: : : : : : Can you honestly tell me that knowing just how many square meters a Junior Officers' quarters are in any way enhances the spec? It will just make the pages longer, more complicated to read (and write, for that matter), and on the whole much less interesting to anybody outside the designer and the ED itself.
: : : : : :
: : : : : : If anything, we should be requiring *less* detail in the specs, not more.
: : : : : :
: : : : : I don't think this would actually make it any longer on the snack at self what we are looking at earlier was creating a calculator that people can fit think these things into and be able to get the actual size of the ship the goal of that is to make it easier for Novus creators to be able to figure that type of thing out
: : : : :
: : : : : The fact is this does not change the format of the specs whatsoever it simply simplifies how to figure out the size of the ship versus the crew amount
: : : : :
: : : : As i highlighted earlier I would prefer a more simple format as per what Brandon has said. But as we've also highlighted the current sizing usage in milwaukie voids anything close to a canon ship made beyond the galaxy. So we're trying to come up with something newer that addresses this issue yet is easy to understand and grasp by newer designers and ideally those who have an interest in writing such things but not so much the techy grunge bits. So I'm against having each piece of equipment take up X space too. Maybe a simpler figure would be as I suggested each person gets X living space, then by review any further size adjustment for the purposes of the ship's concept/equipment are hashed out? Meaning we don't need a harder ingrained process?
: : : :
: : : I can kind of agree with that, but I also think people should be free to say initially "I want to submit a Cruiser-type ship that's 1000 meters long, 20 meters wide and 250 meters tall, with 600 crew and an entire old-growth forest in the middle" before we say "Well, that's an interesting concept but actually..." instead of having a set of submissions that have been run through some sort of calculator page and are dimensionally correct out to five decimal places and wholly boring.
: : :
: : : Btw, Rob, did you get my email about a month or so ago about a new cruiser design?
: : :
: : I did not get your email about a cruiser design no Brandon. Last submission or question on such I got was over 7 months ago at the start of the term!
: :
: : As for making a ship 1000 meters well thats where reviews come in for realism for things all we want atm is a basic measurement scale (in this case crew rooms) that then based on a reasonable crew size for the ships supposed profile needs we equate in review any further size adjustments.
: :
: : Right now I think the above Idea I made suggesting 28-30 meters per living area for crew quarters would work for a rough scale. Thoughts? I'd like to move this onwards to the other sections in Milwaukie once we got something that fits reasonably without being overly complicated.
: :
: I'm late to this but I have some observations.
:
: First of all, "meter" is a unit of length, "square meter" is a unit of area, and "cubic meter" is a unit of volume. They measure different physical properties. You have to be careful how you use them. A simple analogy I just used to explain this to someone is that length is how much stuff fits on a line, area is how much stuff fits in a (2D) box, and volume is how much stuff fits in a cube. They're different things.
:
: This is relevant to this conversation because it's incorrect to describe a room as being "25 meters", unless that room is one dimensional. A one dimensional room is not useful for beings that live in three dimensions. A correct description would be that it should have an volume of "25 cubic meters", or "2.5 meters long, by 2 meters wide, by 5 meters tall", or "5 square meters with a distance of 5 meters from the floor to the ceiling."
:
: This is not just me being pedantic; this matters because your math to determine the necessary size of the vessel will be incorrect if you do not take this into account. If you guys want to go down the road of doing this much math, then you will have to be careful. I like the idea of doing math to figure these things out, but it might be overkill and I'm honestly not sure if most of is good enough at math to do this right (that's not a put down; most people don't use geometry every day and it might be unrealistic to expect it as a requirement on the part of the designer, at least in early parts of the process).
:
: Also, regarding the NASA study Rob mentioned (available here: https://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/trs/_techrep/TM-2015-218564.pdf). The "25 meters" is "25 cubic meters". They arrived at that number with many assumptions that are not relevant to a Federation starship, such as:
:
: * The ship would have no gravity; so you could store things on ceilings and other otherwise unreachable places
: * The ship only has 6 people; the amount of private space they would need could change in a non-linear fashion if the crew size changed.
: * You don't need to stow any equipment in your room on the ship, because it would be stowed wherever you needed it instead.
:
: Plus, if you keep the 5 meter ceiling, that means the room is going to be 5 square meters. 5 square meters is about 53 square feet. 53 square feet is a very small room. I think the smallest crew quarters on the Galaxy class are 110 square meters (I think it's in the TNG Tech Manual; I picked this number off of Memory Beta so I'm not sure if it is accurate).

Oh, and a quick rule of thumb: a meter is slightly more than 3 yards, and a yard is 3 feet. So 110 square meters x 3 yards per meter x 3 feet per yard = slightly more than 990 square feet. 990 square feet is like a decently sized apartment.

: I think a better approach than guessing the sizes from an arbitrary base, would be to pull the set plans from The Next Generation or Voyager and see what the dimensions of those sets were. They had a modular system of "slots" for the crew quarters, where every "slot" was a certain size and characters got more slots or fewer slots depending on what their status on the totem pole was; from 1 to 4, where the Captain would have 4 and the Galaxy class never had less than 2. I'm sure the floor plans for those sets exist someplace accessible. Maybe they exist in the Tech Manual?
:
: -- Joe

Thanks for your comments joe (and sorry I let this slip! My uncle's death and job hunting just threw me for a loop the past week and a halfish!) exact measurements of the rooms per the tech manual in my copy for the ent-d don't show anything off hand same for my copy of the ds9 one. I'll try doing a set measurment search to see what i turn up in the meantime if anyone has has info please include it! I think this might be an area to start is using the set basis and then extrapolate a rough figure to use for the ships. Then using reviews adjust any size anomalies for the appropriate rooms/tech etc the ship would have for its purposes.

Also while we're on this search what would folks think about meshing this final rule sizing into the technical section near the end of the SSSF document? Which currently has the formula for deck height?

Robert Archer EDir

In topicPosted in the last
Syndicate content