• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Got Life-boats ? - Canon or Not

Call such what you like, escape pods, life pods or just life-boats but is there any particular canon materials outlining such, more specifically requiring such to a ship's design.

Myself I know of an older JTAS article but can't seem to recall anything LBB or otherwise depicting such for use or inclusion to a vessel.

I can see the argument made for such for dedicated passenger liners or yachts but such would take up needed space on a 'working-class' freight hauler where a small auxiliary craft might do the same job.

That said, might a freighter be so equipped to 'jettison' it's cargo if said vessel were facing a catastrophic abandon-ship scenario ?

While not likely a candidate for inclusion into the Traveller Universe, the transport ship Hunter-Gratzner, seen in 2000 SF film, Pitch Black, did seem capable of such actions.
 
If you really look at the risks and possible scenarios, space lifeboats don't make sense most of the time.

In Jump, leaving the ship is fatal.

Unless the lifeboat is a small craft, then how is it better than just staying in your stateroom?
 
Three words: Emergency Low Berth.

Traveller assumes that, more often than not, you're safest staying with the ship.

THAT SAID, carried craft can be used for escapes - there's hints of this as early as ANNIC NOVA. And in T5, turrets can be Deployable. In this mode they can act as life pods. But again, you're usually safer with the ship.
 
Call such what you like, escape pods, life pods or just life-boats but is there any particular canon materials outlining such, more specifically requiring such to a ship's design. ...

Without getting into the debate about whether lifeboats are useful or not in practical terms (they're not), they can be sometimes useful as a plot point. Think, "escaping from the blockade runner" in Star Wars. In that vein, CT Book 2 offered a lifeboat based on the launch, and Double Adventure 4 (Marooned/Marooned Alone) placed at least two 23-seat "lifeboats" (presumably dual-use launches also serving as orbit-to-ground ferry for the ship's passengers) equipped with survival kits (well, a few of them anyway) aboard the Cote d'Azur, an "interstellar passenger liner" of unstated size and performance. Same supplement mentions that one such kit needs to be carried for each passenger, but it does not stipulate that they must be carried in lifeboats; a Free Trader could satisfy the requirement by carrying some in the ship's locker.

My thought would be that ships that were unstreamlined (or partially streamlined, in High Guard) would be required to carry a boat equipped to carry passengers to serve their ground-to-orbit needs when at a world that lacked its own ground-to-orbit transport, and that this boat would double as the ship's lifeboat in times of emergency.

As to how many such boats a ship would require, I'd argue against mandating specific numbers. There'll be precious few situations where you aren't better off on the ship (as one site pointed out, if your drive is about to blow, you're better off jettisoning the drive than getting off the ship). A boat can make multiple trips if you have to ferry everyone off to some habitable but otherwise unhelpful planet for a long stay, and if you absolutely gotta get off right this instant and float in space in a lifeboat for a while, then there are emergency resources you can use to overcrowd a boat or take people in the boat's cargo space and still keep everyone alive for quite a long time. No need to spend millions and lose additional space on another boat - just have enough boats for the ship's routine needs and keep them stocked with the emergency equipment you'd need in the event you need to overcrowd them.

Consolidated MegaTrav Errata offers an interesting item: a half-dTon 3-person "Emergency Atmospheric Reentry Capsule," nestled inside a one dTon launch system. Enough room for three people and three emergency kits in there, with life support for 22 hours. There are ways to extend that, most easily by including an application of fast drug in each emergency kit and giving the capsule's life support system a "power-save" mode that reduces power consumption to take advantage of the use of fast drug.

At any rate, if you decide on the spur of the moment to throw in some plot element requiring your players to abandon ship in something not equipped with boats, you could arbitrarily decide that the ship has these aboard, perhaps carved out of the allotment for staterooms. That's only about a third of a dTon per stateroom, and if you carve one out of the bridge allotment for bridge crew and one (or more) out of the drive space allotment for engineering crew, then it's less of a burden on the stateroom allotment. They're small enough that you won't have to spend a lot of energy explaining why the players never noticed them before. ("Oh, those? They're standard equipment. It's just never come up before.")
 
also, pg. 35 of book 3

"a vacc suit is capable of 3 inches of acceleration" (1" = 1000 miles)

"a foamed atmospheric reentry ablation shield (part of the vacc suit kit) can protect the individual while entering the atmosphere, providing his vector, while entering the atmosphere, does not exceed 2 inches" (presumably the foam also cushions your landing, or the last 1" of acceleration is used to land)
 
Lifeboats? No.
Rescue Balls? yes. 2 per stateroom. reputable merchants move one to the commons (add one if the stateroom is double occupied), and have one on each duty station.

Mind you, even ships with a launch will STILL have rescue balls. Why? To get passengers into the launch if the hull is compromised.
 
My sincere and humble thanks to all points and opinions cited and shared, in particular to Carlobrand and the thoughts concerning unstreamlined ships.

I also tend to feel that lifeboats would serve more of a plot device than a practicality, best example to give is the lack of 'lifeboats' on modern wet navy submarines.

Lifeboats however could become one of the burr-in-the-blanket bits of ship design that naval architects must tolerate regardless of their efficiency or actual value.

I'm picturing older merchant vessels where such 'mandated' fixtures have been reallocated as storage closets, contraband lockers or, in some instances, improvised-retrofit freshers. Such's original purpose sort of placed on mental back-burners and essentially forgotten by the crew in heir day to day routine-work schedules.

All said, it does make one a bit cautious of which handle to pull when 'flushing' all the same.
 
also, pg. 35 of book 3

"a vacc suit is capable of 3 inches of acceleration" (1" = 1000 miles)

"a foamed atmospheric reentry ablation shield (part of the vacc suit kit) can protect the individual while entering the atmosphere, providing his vector, while entering the atmosphere, does not exceed 2 inches" (presumably the foam also cushions your landing, or the last 1" of acceleration is used to land)

Miles?? I presume you're talking about the 1977 version. Page 34 of Book 2 of the 1981 edition has something similar:

"Individuals in vacc suits may abandon ship during the ordnance launch phase providing no other activity is performed during the player turn. Such persons may then be picked up by other ships or vessels. If no one is available to perform a rescue, then an attempt at landing on a local world is possible. A vacc suit can support its occupant for up to 21 one-thousand second turns; an additional air tank set will provide another 21 one-thousand second turns. A typical vacc suit is capable of a total of 100 mm of acceleration. A foamed atmospheric reentry ablation shield (part of the vacc suit kit) can protect the individual while entering atmosphere, provided his vector, while entering atmosphere, does not exceed 75 mm. Accident or mishap can occur during the process. Throw 7+ to survive provided all else is performed properly; allow a DM of + vacc suit skill."

One millimeter is 100 km in 1981 Book 2, so a vacc suit can put on 1 G for 1 turn (1000 seconds) to achieve a maximum velocity change of 10 kps and can survive re-entry (in the ablative foam) at an impressive re-entry speed of 7.5 kps - sometimes. 7+ is not exactly odds to look forward to, even with a vacc skill boost.

And, I'd suspect your landing phase would be by chute. It'd be an impressive foam that could take you through re-entry and then decelerate you from terminal velocity at impact without leaving your brains squished against the inside of your skull.
 
Speaking of that aforementioned ablative foam used for vac-suit re-entry, has anyone ever considered an 'up-scaled' dispersal system capable of 'coating' an unstreamlined ship facing an emergency atmospheric maneuver ?

Mind speaking of a one-time use-last resort sort of thing as the foam likely being stored in pressurized tanks being of a decent volume-displacement as well as the network of nozzles or jets needed to deliver such.

Does make for an interesting end-run scenario, burn-up outright entering an atmosphere as 'naked' spikey clunky chunky bit or still entering the soup but now somewhat cocooned in far-from-perfect aero-shell that slows the descent and does give some protection from the fiery passage down.
 
Consolidated MegaTrav Errata offers an interesting item: a half-dTon 3-person "Emergency Atmospheric Reentry Capsule," nestled inside a one dTon launch system. Enough room for three people and three emergency kits in there, with life support for 22 hours. There are ways to extend that, most easily by including an application of fast drug in each emergency kit and giving the capsule's life support system a "power-save" mode that reduces power consumption to take advantage of the use of fast drug.

I'm trying to find this and am having difficulty, it is probable that I have an out-of-date version of the Errata. Could you please provide a link if it is online? I would like to view this lifeboat concept to get some ideas for MTU.
 
I have sometimes included lifeboats in my HG/TCS designs, taking the view that lifeboat nay-sayers were about when the Titantic was designed and "staying with the ship" was one of the drivers behind Biggles not getting a parachute in WWI. Even today lifeboats are not part of most (all?) submarines, but not because it is safer to stay with the ship in a hostile environment.

The opinions here though are all decidedly against lifeboats in space, which I find curious. What have you guys read that I haven't?

... There'll be precious few situations where you aren't better off on the ship (as one site pointed out, if your drive is about to blow, you're better off jettisoning the drive than getting off the ship).

Can you provide a link? Anyone else got any links?
 
There'll be precious few situations where you aren't better off on the ship (as one site pointed out, if your drive is about to blow, you're better off jettisoning the drive than getting off the ship).

I keep thinking about this and find myself asking the same question. Given the published deck plans for Traveller, how do you go about "jettisoning the drive"? Are you referring to the Jump Drive or the Maneuver Drive? I assume that you are not referring to the Power Plant.
 
I'm trying to find this and am having difficulty, it is probable that I have an out-of-date version of the Errata. Could you please provide a link if it is online? I would like to view this lifeboat concept to get some ideas for MTU.

CT errata and some other interesting tidbits are here:

http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/trav.html

I have sometimes included lifeboats in my HG/TCS designs, taking the view that lifeboat nay-sayers were about when the Titantic was designed and "staying with the ship" was one of the drivers behind Biggles not getting a parachute in WWI. Even today lifeboats are not part of most (all?) submarines, but not because it is safer to stay with the ship in a hostile environment.

The opinions here though are all decidedly against lifeboats in space, which I find curious. What have you guys read that I haven't?



Can you provide a link? Anyone else got any links?

A bit of exploration on lifeboats, and a critique of same, can be found at Atomic Rockets:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/advdesign.php

To summarize the arguments against lifeboats:

Your ship is designed to protect you from the hazards of space, most significantly vacuum and solar radiation. If all power fails and the hull is holed, it will still do a good job of protecting you from solar radiation. In any case where the ship itself does not face imminent destruction and rescue is available - which is the case at any A-C starport and might even be the case at some D ports - any emergency measures that would give you life support, while rescue comes for you, can just as easily be used on the ship itself as on some pod ejected into space. Unless the ship itself faces imminent calamity, you are better off sealing holes and making a refuge in the dead ship.

With only the resources available to us moderns, you can survive on a ship days or even weeks - we today have such resources to help miners trapped in mines and mariners trapped in submarines to stay alive until rescue reaches them. And in a game that offers 6G ship's boats, getting rescue from the starport to the ship doesn't tend to take long.

The imminent destruction scenarios boil down to situations where disaster is unfolding too quickly for even a 6G boat to get to the ship in time. Probably the most popular - and least likely - is the sci fi trope of abandoning the ship before it blows up. Think that one through: if the ship is about to blow up, then there is something on the ship which is known to have a risk of blowing up. If you know it's there, and it fails in a way that gives you time to abandon ship, then it is also giving you time to jettison it safely away from the ship, assuming only that the ship is designed to do that. Better to design the ship with a way to eject the ticking time-bomb than to require that passengers flee their best shelter. Conversely, if there isn't time to eject it, there isn't time to reach the lifeboats.

The other popular one is crashing: falling from orbit, or finding yourself on a collision course with some world or other significant mass and with no ability to change course. That's a popular trope in space fiction, but when you think about the scale of space, it's less likely than a passenger plane being hit by a large meteor. If you are navigating with some intelligence, you're making very sure that your course doesn't intersect known masses ahead, just in case those drives fail. If you are flying with half a brain and your drives fail while coming in from deep space trying to achieve orbit around some world, the result is you will overshoot your orbit and fly on out into space (most likely to be rescued by a tug), or perhaps end up in some wide parabolic orbit. Traffic control is NOT going to give you an approach that might result in a ground impact if you screw it up, and no sane pilot would chart such a course. If your drives fail and you spot a mass in your sensors, sensor ranges are long enough that you attitude jets alone are more than adequate to ensure a miss. (This by the way is an excellent reason not to rely on gyros alone.)

The only time you're actually at risk for falling from orbit is when you're in orbit (assuming some calamity takes out your drive while giving you a push that sends you falling), trying to achieve orbit, or descending from orbit to make a landing. In orbit isn't an issue at most worlds: you're headed for the starport or docking at the highport, not lingering in orbit.

If it happens while you are descending, then one assumes you're in a streamlined ship. Your problem then isn't the descent - Trav ships are built pretty solid, and it's a good bet your controls, inertial dampers and attitude jets have access to emergency power and backup control lines. Your problem is the sudden stop at the end. Escape pods might be useful, but whether you'd have enough time to organize an evacuation of untrained passengers between the moment you realize the problem and the moment you go thud could probably feed an entire thread full of debate. Your best bet is something like an ejection seat with a chute, and plan to eject in lower atmosphere after you've decelerated to an acceptable speed. One can (arbitrarily) decide that any small craft couch meets that requirement; there ought to be some reason that this glorified easy chair comes in at half a dTon and costs 25 thousand credits. Better in most cases would be to aim for a large, deep body of water.

If it happens while you are launching from the surface trying to reach space - well, it's about the same problem as descent.

All of that sums up to saying: for the vast majority of ships on the vast majority of flights, lifeboats are unneeded because there's a starport handy to give you a tow or send out a rescue boat, and events too quick for a rescue are also too quick to make anything but an ejection seat practical. Exceptions would be ships visiting systems that did not have available rescue or whose population was hostile to ship and crew. In other words: warships, explorers, and merchants who planned to frequent worlds with little or no ground support. You might note that both the subsidized merchant and subsidized liner come with a boat.

As regards submarines, to the best of my knowledge it is in fact usually "safer to stay with the ship in a hostile environment." There've been efforts to make ways for men to get off a submarine without external assistance, but the challenges in getting a human body safely up from the depths are daunting enough that the preferred option has become getting a rescue craft attached to the ship and pulling people off in that. There is at least one sub that carries its own escape craft, and it's not a bad idea, but space is not the ocean depths: there's not a giant fist of death outside waiting to crush your ship like a grape or to rush in like a juggernaut smashing everyone and everything in its path. There is only the great cosmic vacuum cleaner.
 
I keep thinking about this and find myself asking the same question. Given the published deck plans for Traveller, how do you go about "jettisoning the drive"? Are you referring to the Jump Drive or the Maneuver Drive? I assume that you are not referring to the Power Plant.

Hmmm, good question. That it's the best way to do things is not something that seems to have occurred to most deck plan makers. Easiest to retcon would be to declare that whatever part goes "boom" - that zuchai crystal assembly, maybe - can be independently ejected from the drive housing it and into space, much the way Star Trek keeps going on about ejecting warp cores. Most drive compartments are at least partly adjacent to the rear hull, and what goes where is pretty much up to the designer's imagination. Other than the jump drive and its capacitors-cum-zuchai-crystals, I'm hard pressed to think of something that can go boom with enough force to do more than slag the specific drive it's in and maybe cause a few injuries in the drive compartment. Still, the game says ships go boom sometimes, so there's something somewhere that presents the potential. Lacking a clear idea of what that something is, I find it difficult to plan how to get it off the ship quickly, but presumably a trained architect of the Trav universe would not have the same problem.

Second easiest to retcon would be jettisoning the entire drive room, since it's typically a bulkheaded compartment unto itself, but that seems a bit excessive.
 
Thanks for the reply. I thought that I had missed something. Only things that I can think off that would go "boom" are an uncontrolled reaction in the power plant, but that is not a drive, or the Jump-Drive capacitors, as they have a massive amount of energy to release in a controlled manner.
 
I feel since Traveller is an adventure game, rather than a sort of simulator, that a certain element of drama is intentionally implied in regards to all actions, hence the reason ships can-do blow-up.

As to life-boats, I view such IMTU as just another possible plot device or 'texture' added to detail the scenery the players act against, should that make much sense.
 
. . . Only things that I can think off that would go "boom" are an uncontrolled reaction in the power plant . . .

Except that a Fusion Power Plant does not undergo an uncontrolled reaction, despite popular sci-fi movies to the contrary. The reason we don't have a Fusion Power Plant today is the difficulty of keeping a fusion reaction going. A damaged Fusion Plant will shut down (though if its reaction chamber is breached, you may get a conventional explosion due to the high pressure and temperature environment of the chamber - with some radiation release).

A Fission Reaction can run-away and become uncontrolled because it is a chain-reaction that needs to be moderated by control rods. (And an Antimatter plant would likewise present its own set of dangers from its fuel alone). But those are not standard Traveller starship power-plants.
 
Back
Top