Could you stand living in a scout ship?

[Timerover51]

Did you serve aboard a sub? That would be informative.

I had two brothers that did, one on a ballistic missile sub where the typical patrol was 60 days underwater, no surfacing, and this was one of the earliest ones, so small compared to current ones. The other brother served on a nuclear attack, which had irregular surfacing and patrols did not last quite as long. I was in the Army.

 

[Timerover51]

Just to point out that a better measure of comparison would be to compare the "habitable volume" of the subs to the scout. Gross tonnage comparisons might mislead.

There might also be an issue in crew turnover. A crew that completes a 75 day patrol might get a relatively long leave and some crew might have been rotated out. Compare this to the scout crew that has a relatively inactive week in jump and hectic work days while in real space.

I'm of the opinion that as TL goes up, ways of handling psychological and physical stress on the crew improve too.

The internal volume of the two subs I mentioned includes the fuel and ballast tanks, the quite large battery compartment, the Diesel engine room (one on the U-505 and two on the Silversides), and the motor room. By eyeballing relatively small cross-section general arrangement drawing contained in Submarines of World War 2, by Ernest Bagnasco, published by United States Naval Institute Press, I would estimate habitable volume of both boats at less than 40% of displacement tonnage at best. Also remember that as television was in its infancy, video games did not exist, no did video tapes or DVDs with personal computers, iPods, iPads or equivalent notebook computers, or hologram potential. In short, there was far less available for crew diversion and relaxation that would be possible on a Scout Ship or even current submarine. The crew would hear the steady pounding of the operating Diesels for a large portion of the voyage, and of course, during wartime, they do have the possibility of getting killed. There were a very limited number of survivors from wartime sunken subs, and peacetime sunken subs for that matter.

Then there is the extremely crowded conditions of the sailing men of war, where you may have a crew of up to 800 on a first-rate of less than 200 feet long. with the head room on some of the lower decks being less than 5 feet, with even less under the deck beams. A visit to the HMS Victory at Portsmouth, England was quite enlightening, as was the visits to the USS Constitution in Boston.

 

[robject]

My wife and I did the walking tour of the WWII sub USS Bowfin at Pearl Harbor last spring.

Tight living space. Really tight. I'd have to get military training to be able to live in that environment -- and it would help being part of a crew that had daily responsibilities and a chain of command.

Take away jobs and chain of command, though, and I think you'd get a bona-fide Lord of the Flies scenario.

 

[Timerover51]

I forgot to mention that the crew bunk space on the USS Silversides is located directly adjacent to the forward engine room. There is no insulation or sound-deadening material on the steel bulkhead.

Note, if you think World War 2 conditions were bad, World War 1 conditions were worse. Track down some photos of the interior of World War 1 boats, and then consider how many men served in them.

 

[WistfulD]

Or as you pointed out, try an age-of-sail ship.

One thing you mentioned caught my eye. The whole they-didn't-have-tvs-and-ipods thing. WWI and WWII era, most of these being farm boys, less than a generation since the electric light propegated across the country... I'll bet those farm boys were a lot more used to just sitting and waiting than we are. People getting wigged out because of lack of entertainment is kind of a modern phenomenon. I'll bet that if space travel naturally entails being cooped up in a half-sized motel room with a shared shower for six weeks at a time, no one in that universe has a problem with it.

 

[Reban]

In all submarines even to the present day the living spaces are fitted around the machinery and weapons and only have tertiary importance. This is also true of the age of sail where hammocks were slung at night on the gun decks and all the "domestic" accommodations were temporary and removable for when the ship had to clear for action.

Traveller is a little different in that it specifies the stateroom as standard accommodations. I've always thought of the stateroom representing an "ideal" of the amount of living space required by a person for extended durations i.e. anything over a week in Traveller terms.

WistfulD, makes a great point. "Spacers", those habitually living and working in space or those born and raised in closed environments like ships and stations are probably more likely to be agoraphobic than suffer from stress in a scout ship environment.

 

[aramis]

In all submarines even to the present day the living spaces are fitted around the machinery and weapons and only have tertiary importance. This is also true of the age of sail where hammocks were slung at night on the gun decks and all the "domestic" accommodations were temporary and removable for when the ship had to clear for action.

Traveller is a little different in that it specifies the stateroom as standard accommodations. I've always thought of the stateroom representing an "ideal" of the amount of living space required by a person for extended durations i.e. anything over a week in Traveller terms.

WistfulD, makes a great point. "Spacers", those habitually living and working in space or those born and raised in closed environments like ships and stations are probably more likely to be agoraphobic than suffer from stress in a scout ship environment.

T5 has the average crewman in a "Spacer's Niche"- 1Td per crewman.

 

[Reban]

T5 has the average crewman in a "Spacer's Niche"- 1Td per crewman.

But correct me if I'm wrong, Spacer Niche is only one option. The exact types of accommodation range from 0.5 to 4 dtons.

Huh I see what you mean actually Aramis, niches and hot bunks are labeled crew but staterooms are labelled passenger. But I'd hardly call that a hard rule, especially when T5 has "Crew Comfort" and Liveabilty/Crew Tension calculations.

Oh which reminds me of something. Present day navies have made an effort to improve accommodations for lower ranks to improve recruiting. Actually having read a lot of Royal Navy annuals from the 30s it seems navies have always made a public relations effort to say they have modern clean accommodations for their crews. I can think of Victorian publications describing the neat tidy and shining messes of sailors on the gun deck.

 

[salochin999]

True, and can't you muster out of the scouts with effective free use of a scout ship in many Traveller versions as well?

That said, it isn't the only thing in the Traverse keeping people from just wandering. The whole ship design system is built on the idea of routine refueling. Most ships have 1-2 jumps stored (depending on how far they want to jump), power plant fuel and consumables are set up to last a month (and take up huge amounts of space if you stockpile more). Thus, if you just decide to jump to a nearby system, you might have onboard fuel to jump back, and if that fails, you'd better hope that you can skim fuel from a gas giant or star before your supplies run out. It's a far cry from Star Trek, with its replicators, and ftl transit that runs of ongoing power--which of course does need to be refueled, eventually (see Voyager handwaving), but each ftl transit doesn't use up x% of your cargo hold. Therefore, that universe's rules are set up to facilitate just going somewhere to see what's out there.

Yes, wanderlust without a source of funds would seem to need
a) drifter: travel to planet, work up passage, travel to next - i could imagine there being millions of these, hitch hikers also
b) joining the scouts
or
c) free trading: especially in an old ship
d) wealthy noble: possibly traveling with a support ship

 

[rancke]

Yes, wanderlust without a source of funds would seem to need
a) drifter: travel to planet, work up passage, travel to next - i could imagine there being millions of these, hitch hikers also
b) joining the scouts
or
c) free trading: especially in an old ship
d) wealthy noble: possibly traveling with a support ship

You don't need to be a noble to be wealthy enough to travel. Someone with 10 million credits invested at 3% p.a. would have a work-free income of Cr300,000 yearly. Assume an average of one parsec per month (spending two to four months on each interesting world and jumping two to four parsecs to the next world). Even if he has to spend half his income on maintaining his houses back home, that should still leave him enough to live the good life on his tour. Or perhaps you'd need 20 millions. Something like that, anyway. And high-population worlds will have LOTS of millionaires.


Hans

 

[Timerover51]

One ton, a long ton of 2240 pounds, a slightly over a metric ton, of mixed preserved and refrigerated food, will occupy about 100 cubic feet of volume, and will easily feed the average human for one year. One Traveller dTon is approximately 500 cubic feet, assuming 14 cubic meters (13.5 cubic meters is 476 cubic feet). Therefore, one Traveller dTon of food storage will feed 5 average humans more than adequately for one year. Add to that 1 Traveller dTon of water storage, and that should supply the needs of 5 humans for one year, assuming very little loss in water recycling, which should be the case on a scout ship. Oxygen could be an issue, but you have oxygen in the water and an unlimited supply of power from your power plant. In reality, the power plant for a star ship, for ship power, not for jumping or maneuvering, should only require, at the most, a ton or two of Liquid Hydrogen per year, especially on a ship the size of a Scout.

 

[aramis]

Don't forget air filtration, water filtration, plus hygiene supplies, Timerover. Life Support is more than food and water, at least for civilized civilians. (Think about what shipped in your C-Rats. And what you wanted/needed but wasn't included.)

Assuming one filter per 4 person-weeks at 1L per filter for air, you add 13 L of air filters. Water filtration (a good idea if you're going to crack it, to prevent other chemical issues) adds another 26-39L. Adding the needed CO2 recapture adds about 4L per 6 person weeks (based upon the scrubbers on the apollo missions), or about 35L more. Plus, since it's not covered elsewhere in CT/MT/TNE/T4, you can expect it also includes non-aromatic lubricants for an expected number of mechanisms, and probably also spare non-recycle trash bags, planetside-only recyclable waste stowage bags, and some other odds and ends. (Noting that CT lists 285 person weeks per Td in Mining the Asteroids, Best of JTAS vol 1, page 30.)

Also, only MegaTraveller uses 13.5kL per Td; GT is explicitly 500cf, and all the others are 14kL (tho' sometimes you have to go looking awful hard to find the explicit declaration).

 

[Timerover51]

Don't forget air filtration, water filtration, plus hygiene supplies, Timerover. Life Support is more than food and water, at least for civilized civilians. (Think about what shipped in your C-Rats. And what you wanted/needed but wasn't included.)

Assuming one filter per 4 person-weeks at 1L per filter for air, you add 13 L of air filters. Water filtration (a good idea if you're going to crack it, to prevent other chemical issues) adds another 26-39L. Adding the needed CO2 recapture adds about 4L per 6 person weeks (based upon the scrubbers on the apollo missions), or about 35L more. Plus, since it's not covered elsewhere in CT/MT/TNE/T4, you can expect it also includes non-aromatic lubricants for an expected number of mechanisms, and probably also spare non-recycle trash bags, planetside-only recyclable waste stowage bags, and some other odds and ends. (Noting that CT lists 285 person weeks per Td in Mining the Asteroids, Best of JTAS vol 1, page 30.)

One cubic meter has a volume of 1,000 liters. Your point in the above is? Adding your figures together equals well less than 1 cubic meter per person. Specifically, the added volume is 88 liters, or 0.088 cubic meters per person. One cubic meter will supply sufficient volume for your added items for 11.36 persons.

There are either 14 cubic meters or 13.5 cubic meters per Traveller dTon. The figure of 285 person weeks per ton equates into 5.48 years for one person or 5 plus persons for one year. My statement was that 1 Traveller dTon of food storage would "feed 5 average humans more than adequately for one year." And that is based on a more realistic weight of 6 pounds per person per day, and would include liquids over and above the carried water on the ship.

Also, only MegaTraveller uses 13.5kL per Td; GT is explicitly 500cf, and all the others are 14kL (tho' sometimes you have to go looking awful hard to find the explicit declaration).

One Traveller dTon at 13.5 cubic meters equals 476.748 cubic feet, at 14 cubic meters it equals 494.40533 cubic feet. Per my US Army Field Manual 55-15, Transportation Reference Data, November 1963, the stowage factor for 1 ton of rations is 94 cubic feet. Five tons of rations will equal 570 cubic feet, less than either volume for the Traveller dTon.

One Class A ration for one person for one day is rated at 6 pounds, with a volume of 0.187 cubic feet, and a calorie content of 4,200 calories. Class A rations are what the troops receive in garrison, and include fresh and refrigerated products. Class B rations, which are canned, preserved, and frozen products, for one ration has a weight of 6 pounds, has a volume of 0.127 cubic feet per ration, and contain 4,400 calories. Based on that, Class A rations for 5 persons for one year will occupy 341.275 cubic feet, and weigh 10,950 pounds or 4.9668365 metric tons. Class B rations for 5 persons for one year will weight the same at 6 pounds per ration, but occupy a volume of 231.775 cubic feet. The difference in volume is taken up in the shipping and packaging materials.

I believe that either 4200 or 4400 calories per day is more than sufficient to feed a crewman onboard your typical Scout ship, or any other form of star or space ship. As a typical jump from system to system is one week for the jump, and allowing for one additional day departing a system and one additional day arriving in a system, the 9 day total would allow for the use of Class A rations.

There was also in use at the time the 5-in-1 ration, which was intended for small units and supplied sufficient food for 5 persons for one day, at the rate of 3600 calories per day. Are you interested in that data conversion? I also have the data for the Meal, Combat, Individual, typically called the "C" ration, in two different types of packaging, as well as the Arctic Trail Ration.

And for those interested, the current food cost to feed one member of the US Military for one day is $13.85. I am not sure how that would convert into Traveller Imperial Credits. One dollar in 1978 is equal to $3.63 in 2014, per Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator. As the original prices in Traveller were based on US prices circa 1978, that would equate to 3.82 in 1978 Dollars, so maybe roughly 4 Imperial Credits per day? That is a lot less than used in the article "Mining the Asteroids" in JTAS #3, page 18, where a figure of 25 Credits per day is used.

 

[McPerth]

I believe that either 4200 or 4400 calories per day is more than sufficient to feed a crewman onboard your typical Scout ship, or any other form of star or space ship.

In fact, I see it as an hypercaloric diet for people who will probably have a rather sedentary life (if only for lack of space for other possibility) and in a controled environment with comfortable temperature.

In this conditions, I guess 2000 calories will be more than enough. The rations you talk about are probably thought for people with quite an active life and in uncontrolled environments, as it can be expected for active soldiers.

If your scout ship crew eats over 4000 calories a day, I guess you will have problems to fit 4 of them in a game square (as stacking limits for AHL or Snapshoot) or to keep with the 100 kg per person that we assumed for gravitic vehicles :rofl:

 

[WistfulD]

In reality, the power plant for a star ship, for ship power, not for jumping or maneuvering, should only require, at the most, a ton or two of Liquid Hydrogen per year, especially on a ship the size of a Scout.

Can you give a rationalle for that assumption? At this point we are just beginning to see a break-even point for fusion power. How would we know how much fuel a power plant would need 'in reality?'

 

[whulorigan]

Can you give a rationalle for that assumption? At this point we are just beginning to see a break-even point for fusion power. How would we know how much fuel a power plant would need 'in reality?'

That number is based on the current relative efficiency of Fusion Power relative to its fuel volume. Fusion is at least comparable to Fission in terms of the energy density of its fuel, and hence its fuel consumption rate.

Think of how long Fission fuel in the form of Thorium/Uranium/Putonium fuel rods last in a reactor before needing replacement, or how often a Nuclear Submarine or Aircraft Carrier needs to go in to port for refueling.

Actually, in both the T4 and the TNE rulesets (as well as GT), Fusion fuel consumption (for Power, NOT Jump) was rated in kL/year.

 

[rancke]

Actually, in both the T4 and the TNE rulesets (as well as GT), Fusion fuel consumption (for Power, NOT Jump) was rated in kL/year.

Yeah, it's too bad T20, MgT and T5 regressed to the earlier paradigm. Not only is it hard on the old belief suspenders, those ridiculous power plant fuel tanks have a most deplorable effect on the economics of high-jump traffic.


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

Yeah, it's too bad T20, MgT and T5 regressed to the earlier paradigm. Not only is it hard on the old belief suspenders, those ridiculous power plant fuel tanks have a most deplorable effect on the economics of high-jump traffic.

In MgT:Compendium I, there are some rules for modified Fusion-fuel consumption rates based on the TL of the Power Plant that ameliorate the problem somewhat. (IIRC, the basic idea was that the listed fuel consumption in the Core Book is for a TL-8 power plant, and that with each succeeding TL, the fuel-duration increases (i.e. the consumption rate decreases). At TL-8, 2.0dtons of fuel gives you 2 weeks operation, at TL-12, 2.0dtons of fuel gives you 12 weeks operation, and at TL-15, 2.0dtons of fuel gives you 76 weeks operation.

Alternatively, since Fission plants are detailed in MgT, as a house rule you can always use the Fission-fuel rates for the Fusion-fuel rates as well for Power generation.

 

[WistfulD]

That number is based on the current relative efficiency of Fusion Power relative to its fuel volume. Fusion is at least comparable to Fission in terms of the energy density of its fuel, and hence its fuel consumption rate.

Think of how long Fission fuel in the form of Thorium/Uranium/Putonium fuel rods last in a reactor before needing replacement, or how often a Nuclear Submarine or Aircraft Carrier needs to go in to port for refueling.

You meant current relative efficiency of Fission Power relative to its fuel volume, right? The current efficiency of fusion power is negative. The potential future power is of course many times fission.

 

[whulorigan]

You meant current relative efficiency of Fission Power relative to its fuel volume, right? The current efficiency of fusion power is negative. The potential future power is of course many times fission.

Yes correct. When Fusion is up and functioning as a viable power source, it will be at the least as efficient as Fission, and probably more efficient.