• 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.

Commercial starship lifeboat requirements

Status
Not open for further replies.
One issue I have with suggestions of venting spaces and or pumping stuff here and there is that a) the ship design rules would have to be such that sufficient excess "air' is carried onboard the vessel and in sufficient multiple locations that it can be accessed when needed and b) there is an assumption here that not only is the ship so configured that you can "seal off" certain sections and move about from a sealed off location to a non-sealed off one and c) that sufficient power will be available to do so in all the potential situations where you might need to do so.

In looking at most existing Traveller deck plans that I've seen, I don't really think I've seen such features being addressed and as such whether you're considering lifeboats or saferooms etc we're still talking about some significant changes to typical designs, and whether a saferoom is also "ejectable' as a separate lifeboat/lifepod is another consideration.
 
One issue I have with suggestions of venting spaces and or pumping stuff here and there is that a) the ship design rules would have to be such that sufficient excess "air' is carried onboard the vessel and in sufficient multiple locations that it can be accessed when needed ...

I realy don't see carrying extra air to be a problem. You've already got the tech to condense hydrogen by a factor of almost 800. Ship design sequences make clear that there's quite a bit of overhead machine space available on the typical passenger deck - looks like about 20% of the height of the deck in Supplement 7. Seems to me there's plenty of space available to store extra air. And, if I'm remembering correctly, one of the books mentions putting the inhabited spaces in vacuum before entering battle (and presumably having everyone in vacc suits or some comparable protection) so as not to have to deal with an explosive decompression.

... and b) there is an assumption here that not only is the ship so configured that you can "seal off" certain sections and move about from a sealed off location to a non-sealed off one ...

Configuration's not as big an issue as navigating between sections. The subsidized merchant, for example, has a discrete passenger section and crew section sep[arated by bulkheads and iris valves, and the bridge is likewise a separate section. The far trader has passenger quarters on an upper deck and crew quarters in a separate lower starboard section, with the bridge in a separate lower port section.

Navigating between sections is up to the gamemaster's imagination. Maybe there's no way to do it. Maybe there's a pull-down partition in the ceiling, say something of the same material as the MegaTrav pressure tent, that can be pulled down to seal off an area a few feet around the iris port to make an improvised airlock.

... and c) that sufficient power will be available to do so in all the potential situations where you might need to do so. ...

Even if main power is not available, there should be emergency power available for a bit. Iris valves are powered; they can be forced open (with a good deal of effort) but not closed. They can be locked by computer signal, and they close automatically if there's pressure loss in a section. Canon doesn't mention their behavior when power is out, as far as I know. It would be very easy to imagine an emergency battery connected to the door to power the door for a few operations in the event of power loss, or a manual override - say a hand crank in a box beside the door - that would function if they were closed but not locked. Having had some experience of modern life safety codes for buildings, it seems to me that such a provision would be as ubiquitous an emergency feature as exit signs and emergency lighting. However, it's up to the gamemaster.

... In looking at most existing Traveller deck plans that I've seen, I don't really think I've seen such features being addressed and as such whether you're considering lifeboats or saferooms etc we're still talking about some significant changes to typical designs, and whether a saferoom is also "ejectable' as a separate lifeboat/lifepod is another consideration.

For the most part, I'm not seeing much if any change to existing designs, at least not so far as safe areas are concerned. Ejecting a significant portion of the ship - well, when I think of a safe area, I think of taking the existing areas bounded by bulkheads - the engineering space, the bridge, the quarters section (which usually means several staterooms and their hall, etc., not one room), and setting them up so they can independently maintain life support (for a while, at least) if something happens to ship's power or some laser pokes a hole in a neighboring section. I'm not thi9nking of building a whole separate room dedicated for the purpose - 'cause that room is as likely as any other section to be the one the laser shot goes through. And, rigging a big section to be shot free of the ship is a bit scary - what if something goes wrong and that entire section blows free while you're in jump space?
 
I realy don't see carrying extra air to be a problem. You've already got the tech to condense hydrogen by a factor of almost 800. Ship design sequences make clear that there's quite a bit of overhead machine space available on the typical passenger deck - looks like about 20% of the height of the deck in Supplement 7. Seems to me there's plenty of space available to store extra air. And, if I'm remembering correctly, one of the books mentions putting the inhabited spaces in vacuum before entering battle (and presumably having everyone in vacc suits or some comparable protection) so as not to have to deal with an explosive decompression.

Hi,

An important thing to consider is that this overhead space also appears to have to include wiring/cabling, heating/ventilation & air conditioning, fresh and waste water plumbing, and water reclamation and air scrubber equipment, plus grav plates, general structure, and the machinery and space allowances around any deck mounted iris valves etc so there may not be as much space as you might think.

Configuration's not as big an issue as navigating between sections. The subsidized merchant, for example, has a discrete passenger section and crew section sep[arated by bulkheads and iris valves, and the bridge is likewise a separate section. The far trader has passenger quarters on an upper deck and crew quarters in a separate lower starboard section, with the bridge in a separate lower port section.

Navigating between sections is up to the gamemaster's imagination. Maybe there's no way to do it. Maybe there's a pull-down partition in the ceiling, say something of the same material as the MegaTrav pressure tent, that can be pulled down to seal off an area a few feet around the iris port to make an improvised airlock.

To me, its the lack of airlocks that really seem to be a big issue. Looking at the following image of a Scout from the images section of this forum as an example, although there are iris valves separating the Bridge from the passageway aft of it, the living spaces, the passageway in way of the cargo space and the machinery spaces etc, the loss of pressurization in way of the cargo bay could lead to no way of getting from the machinery spaces to the Bridge without depressurizing some fairly large space unless you have some sort of "portable airlock' that could be used, but this then presents the question of where those would need to be located and how many are carried and how much space they take up etc.

Beyond this there are also the impact there may be on any systems that passed through the cargo bay and connected passage that may be impacted by the loss of pressurization, power and/or other factors in way of these spaces.



http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Gallery/images/61/1_scout_deck_plans.jpg

Even if main power is not available, there should be emergency power available for a bit. Iris valves are powered; they can be forced open (with a good deal of effort) but not closed. They can be locked by computer signal, and they close automatically if there's pressure loss in a section. Canon doesn't mention their behavior when power is out, as far as I know. It would be very easy to imagine an emergency battery connected to the door to power the door for a few operations in the event of power loss, or a manual override - say a hand crank in a box beside the door - that would function if they were closed but not locked. Having had some experience of modern life safety codes for buildings, it seems to me that such a provision would be as ubiquitous an emergency feature as exit signs and emergency lighting. However, it's up to the gamemaster.

To me, a concept like emergency power for each subsection of a ship would suggest some form of battery power, capacitors(?) or other power generation or storage systems in each section that would need to be placed somewhere. If these are also intended to go in the overhead then that would likely mean less space for "back up air storage" etc.

For the most part, I'm not seeing much if any change to existing designs, at least not so far as safe areas are concerned. Ejecting a significant portion of the ship - well, when I think of a safe area, I think of taking the existing areas bounded by bulkheads - the engineering space, the bridge, the quarters section (which usually means several staterooms and their hall, etc., not one room), and setting them up so they can independently maintain life support (for a while, at least) if something happens to ship's power or some laser pokes a hole in a neighboring section. I'm not thi9nking of building a whole separate room dedicated for the purpose - 'cause that room is as likely as any other section to be the one the laser shot goes through. And, rigging a big section to be shot free of the ship is a bit scary - what if something goes wrong and that entire section blows free while you're in jump space?

To me, the biggest impact that I would see on ship design if the intent were to be to allow damaged sections of the ship to be segregated off from the rest of the ship, then I'd probably expect to see (at the very minimum) would be either to break the ship into discrete sections with either built in air locks between them or specific locations identified for where portable airlocks can be emplaced, plus storage locations for these devices, as well as some thought given for laying out the ship to prevent the loss of any one section of the ship from impacting access to other major sections of the ship.

On the topic of the Scout layout I noted above, another issue that likely would need to be addressed is just simple issues like freshers. Although no specific freshers are shown in the deckplan, it appears that enough space is allowed for in the living spaces to allow for fitting them into each stateroom.

However, in looking at the deckplan it does not appear that there is really any other spaces where a fresher may likely be fitted. As such, from the limited data available I'm left wondering if the loss of pressurization in way of the living spaces would mean that the ship is left without any accessible fresher facilities, not to mention food and other such stuff as well.

And finally, in the end if the intent is to have a 'saferoom' onboard where the crew could evacuate to in the event of an emergency then I'd suspect that such a space would have to be shown on the ship, complete with maybe emergency fresher spaces and food storage etc (or as an alternative maybe a fresher and emergency food storage facilities should be located in each major hull subdivision.
 
PFVA63 - " .....And finally, in the end if the intent is to have a 'safe-room' onboard where the crew could evacuate to in the event of an emergency then I'd suspect that such a space would have to be shown on the ship, complete with maybe emergency fresher spaces and food storage etc (or as an alternative maybe a fresher and emergency food storage facilities should be located in each major hull subdivision. "

In small ships such as a Scout/Courier it's a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul for finding room for most everything you think you might need aboard and always things that are overlooked.

That said, a 'safe-room' could be established in something as simple as a specifically outfitted standard cargo container, the 'obvious' rescue-life support stores for a crew of say 4 or 6 for seven to ten days and the container itself reinforced-upgraded against hazards such as fire, radiation and atmospheric decompression.

To save space an 'expandable' airlock could be utilized to preserve-protect the air in said container as well as act as an impromptu decontamination chamber if conditions demand such measures. Realistically the workable 'floor-space' inside would be 3M by 3M, a fresher unit and general stores would consume the remaining 1.5M by 3M easy enough.

Also talking about spartan accommodations, troop-crash seats along the walls with fold-down Pullman-style bunks above, likely storage bins in both the floor and ceiling of the unit. Every inch (CM?) counts so a real Chinese puzzle box arrangement of drawers, hatches and nooks to fit the basics as well as the necessities for waiting out rescue or repair of whatever catastrophe bestrode the ship.

Not all emergencies end in abandon ship protocols taking place but in many cases getting the crew (and passengers) out of harm's way while damage control efforts put wrong back to right are a given and to those effecting such work, much appreciated.
 
...An important thing to consider is that this overhead space also appears to have to include wiring/cabling, heating/ventilation & air conditioning, fresh and waste water plumbing, and water reclamation and air scrubber equipment, plus grav plates, general structure, and the machinery and space allowances around any deck mounted iris valves etc so there may not be as much space as you might think.

Of course. Only a fraction is available - but you only need a fraction. Consider that ship design only gives us the 4dT stateroom allowance for habitable space. Let's say that 20% overhead is machine space: each 4dT stateroom includes 0.8 dT of machinery overhead and underfoot. Some of that is the grav and inertial damper system, some of it's life support including air recycling, water and water recycling, a solid waste system for the toilets, and so forth, and so forth. Quite a bit of work for that 0.8dT - as well it should be: much of that Cr500 thousand we're spending on a stateroom is bound up in that equipment, at least in CT. (MT makes us pay Cr400,000 for the stateroom but bills us separately for gravitics, inertial dampers and life support, which means that plumbing system must be gold-plated. :D)

That means each stateroom constitutes 3.2 dT of open space to keep fresh. I compress hydrogen about 800 times to get from the gas to the liquid. If I compress the O2/N2 atmosphere mix only 200 times, then I can fit enough gas to fill that volume in a container of 0.016 dT. I can do that six times and only take up 1/8 the machinery space volume. Modern scuba gear reaches pressures in that range and more, so I can actually store 6 or more "fill-ups" in no more than 1/8 the available overhead space using modern tech.

To me, its the lack of airlocks that really seem to be a big issue. Looking at the following image of a Scout from the images section of this forum as an example, although there are iris valves separating the Bridge from the passageway aft of it, the living spaces, the passageway in way of the cargo space and the machinery spaces etc, the loss of pressurization in way of the cargo bay could lead to no way of getting from the machinery spaces to the Bridge without depressurizing some fairly large space unless you have some sort of "portable airlock' that could be used, but this then presents the question of where those would need to be located and how many are carried and how much space they take up etc.

Beyond this there are also the impact there may be on any systems that passed through the cargo bay and connected passage that may be impacted by the loss of pressurization, power and/or other factors in way of these spaces. ...

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, because the ship's sections are stacked in a line - bridge/hall/quarters/hall/engine room - a loss of pressure in one of the intermediate compartments cuts the bridge off from the engine room. The crew would have to use one of the compartments as an improvised air lock, and that could have unhappy effects on other items in the compartment being used. Which is where I say the game master can step in and come up with some kind of equipment that serves as an emergency airlock - if that's what he wants in his world.

You need a means of creating a small improvised half-dTon compartment around the iris port - something that will hold tight to the wall around the iris port and that can be depressurized without collapsing. The existence of the pressure tent and the survival bubble both show that there are plastics that can be constructed to hold up under pressure, so imagining a collapsible emergency airlock that can be stored adjacent to the iris valve as standard emergency equipment is not a great hurdle.

... To me, a concept like emergency power for each subsection of a ship would suggest some form of battery power, capacitors(?) or other power generation or storage systems in each section that would need to be placed somewhere. ...

That, or solar panels as standard equipment on the hull. Or both. CT offers no guidance that I know of, but in MegaTrav the basic life support's 0.001 Mw per kiloliter of hull: 0.054 Mw for the typical stateroom allocation. MegaTrav solar panels are - magical, producing several times more power than the sun puts out, but even putting MegaTrav aside and restricting ourselves to the solar output at Earth as a standard, a 6m by 6m panel will power live support for a stateroom. Alternately, 100 kg of TL9 batteries will power life support in the standard stateroom allocation for an hour at a cost of 375 credits. Batteries for 24 hours life support are 2.4 tons (~0.18 dTons) and cost Cr9000. There are better batteries, but they get expensive: the same batteries at TL14 cost 13 times as much but would give you almost a week of life support. (Considering the cost of a stateroom, it'd be nice if we could get something more for it than silk sheets and a flat-screen TV.;))

So far I can provide reserve atmosphere and 24-hour life support at TL9 and still have 2/3 of the overhead space available for other equipment. That should at least hold you together until the rescue ship arrives - unless you're too far from rescue.

...To me, the biggest impact that I would see on ship design if the intent were to be to allow damaged sections of the ship to be segregated off from the rest of the ship, then I'd probably expect to see (at the very minimum) would be either to break the ship into discrete sections with either built in air locks between them or specific locations identified for where portable airlocks can be emplaced, plus storage locations for these devices, as well as some thought given for laying out the ship to prevent the loss of any one section of the ship from impacting access to other major sections of the ship...

I've discussed airlock options. Smaller ships, there's a limit to how many different routes can be planned within the limits of the tonnage allocated for habitation. Scouts and free traders and such are just going to have to accept a certain amount of impaired functionality. There's just not a lot of room to play with: the guys are just going to have to get in vacc suits and say goodbye to the wine and the cologne.

...On the topic of the Scout layout I noted above, another issue that likely would need to be addressed is just simple issues like freshers. Although no specific freshers are shown in the deckplan, it appears that enough space is allowed for in the living spaces to allow for fitting them into each stateroom.

However, in looking at the deckplan it does not appear that there is really any other spaces where a fresher may likely be fitted. As such, from the limited data available I'm left wondering if the loss of pressurization in way of the living spaces would mean that the ship is left without any accessible fresher facilities, not to mention food and other such stuff as well.

Freshers are in the stateroom proper. The deck layout's just to show you where things are generally, not to give you details. You also don't see a kitchen, pantry, laundry facilities, closets and so forth. If you want things to that detail, you take the existing deckplan and play around with it.

However, yes, the loss of pressure in the living compartment is a major headache, especially on a ship with only one living compartment (the Subsidized Merchant has two; the Free Trader and Far Trader have living quarters on two decks). You could lose access to your kitchen, your freshers, and so forth. You could find yourself finishing out the voyage living on emergency rations and whatever dried foods survived the incident, and doing your business in chamberpots.

... in the end if the intent is to have a 'saferoom' onboard where the crew could evacuate to in the event of an emergency then I'd suspect that such a space would have to be shown on the ship, complete with maybe emergency fresher spaces and food storage etc (or as an alternative maybe a fresher and emergency food storage facilities should be located in each major hull subdivision.

If you design a dedicated stateroom, yes. I don't like the dedicated stateroom: it's as likely to get hit during battle or from whatever random event strikes as any other section of the ship - as I mentioned. I prefer the idea that ANY section of the ship should be able to serve as an emergency retreat - and an emergency retreat only needs to keep people alive, not make them comfortable. If you have to sleep on the floor of the engine room, go hungry for a few days and poop in the corner to survive, then you sleep on the floor of the engine room, go hungry for a few days and poop in the corner to survive. The important thing is to keep breathing - that, and some emergency water stored here and there; you can go maybe 3 weeks without food, no more than 3 days without water. If you really can't abide pooping in the corner, then a urinal bottle, a bedpan, a lidded barrel with maybe some chemicals at the bottom to contain the stuff and kill some of the odor, and an improvised curtain for privacy will see you through the emergency. Emergencies by their nature are uncomfortable affairs.
 
Carlobrand - " .....as I mentioned. I prefer the idea that ANY section of the ship should be able to serve as an emergency retreat. ....."

I've always employed something I refer to as a 'rescue' locker on starships IMTU as far back as I can recall, nothing more than a 1.5M (by 3M) specifically stocked and equipped for such situations.

More often than not, said lockers were located between in compartments that were separated by bulkheads and a definite feature adjacent to any airlocks or egress points.

While not a fan of what's referred to as 'rescue balls', such do have their place and purpose and are found available in a rescue locker's inventory along side full feature vac suits, respirators and various tools applicable to preservation of life.

While not a dedicated emergency retreat, a rescue locker does provide immediate basic essential support until more comprehensive and coordinated actions are taken.
 
Hi,

Overall, I'm not trying to suggest that all current Traveller ship designs are flawed or anything like that, but rather just that if we really are thinking that sub-sections of a ship can be sealed off then there are likely things that need to be added in to those deck plans that don't really seem to show up in current plans.

On a slightly different, but related topic, with regards to the utility of lifeboats I think its important to consider a couple of things.

First, while it may be that there would be some significant issues with trying to launch a rescue from a great distance to retrieve escape pods/lifeboats, that doesn't mean that a rescue craft coming from a large distance is the only potential means of rescue for those in a lifeboat or lifepod. Other ships in a closer vicinity can also play a role, similar to how in the real world the passenger liner "Ile De France' played a major role in rescuing passengers stranded on the sinking Italian liner Andrea Doria in 1956.

Second, while it might be of interest to look at a limited number of possible scenarios (including potential worst case ones) just because a lifeboat or lifepod may not seem of great use in those scenarios does not mean that they are of no use at all. A good potential analogy here could be modern automobile safety systems such as seatbelts and airbags. Such systems may not be of all that great utility in some potential "worst case' and "near worst case" scenarios such as "collision with a fully loaded gas tanker" etc, but that does not mean that 'since airbags and seatbelts aren't of use in these cases we should just get rid of them overall". Just as seatbelts and airbags will still provide benefits in other scenarios so too could lifeboats and/or lifepods provide benefits in other scenarios rather than just "what happens in a misjump", etc.

Anyway, just some thoughts
 
Lifeboats or life-pods will always have their purpose and presence in the Traveller universe, where better to find improvised holding cells for unruly passengers-crew or provide that never-checked-before-leaving-port hiding spot for stowaways. :D
 
Stowaways.

Lifeboats or life-pods will always have their purpose and presence in the Traveller universe, where better to find improvised holding cells for unruly passengers-crew or provide that never-checked-before-leaving-port hiding spot for stowaways. :D
Who doesn't check for stowaways before lifting, then again who leaves the ship unattended and unlocked allowing stowaways to get on board anyway? Seriously bad security there if you have stowaways.
 
Who doesn't check for stowaways before lifting, then again who leaves the ship unattended and unlocked allowing stowaways to get on board anyway? Seriously bad security there if you have stowaways.
[except for the 'unlocked' part]
Every starship that I have ever been in a PbP game on. :)
 
That's Free Traders for you.

[except for the 'unlocked' part]
Every starship that I have ever been in a PbP game on. :)
See kids, that is the difference between having started as a Merchant as opposed to Navy. In the Navy there are Ship's Troops to secure the ship and regs and checklists to make sure things are squared away and hatches are not left just hanging open to whoever wanders by. Sloppiness can get folks killed.
 
A lifeboat/pod gives the people on the ship a chance to survive a catastrophic event. The concept is no different in space than it is here on Earth today. But I've noticed throughout the thread that the comparisons aren't quite correct.

Today small personal vessels don't typically carry life rafts, but they do carry emergency equipment. The same goes for planes - no parachutes, but you do get life preservers for water landings. This would be equivalent to ships that spend the majority of their time traveling short distances. A shuttle flying up from the planet to a station would not carry life pods, nor, I suspect vac suits. I guess you could equate that to a train, which also doesn't carry parachutes or life preservers. But passenger vessels carry life boats AND life vests for every single person and crew member. So do offshore oil rigs, pretty much anything that you can't get to quickly in an emergency has a life boat or emergency raft available to it in the event of a disaster and they have to abandon ship. It's all done to offer the people a chance. And it's the law.

A shuttle that went from the Earth to the Moon (a few hours flight) would also not carry a life pod. And it's likely the passengers would not get vac suits. The cabin, though, should be compartmentalized so there could be some survivors in the case of a hull breach.

Commercial ships that carried some minimum passenger size would be the ones carrying life pods (as well as military craft I would expect). You never know exactly where you are going to be, and if something happens and you have to abandon ship, it would be nice to have a place to go. And safety laws would, I think, make passenger safety of paramount importance. That shouldn't change from today.

And nobody really mentioned the idea that spaceships just might spend days/weeks/months traveling in space between far-flung stations and moons and the asteroids and never enter jump space. For them they could be days away from another vessel. Don't forget that if you are in deep space it takes time for your radio transmission to get back to a planet/station (which hopefully receives it), and it will take time for another ship to get to yours. Depending on where your vessel is, it could be minutes, or hours before your signal reaches someone, and then they have to respond. So a life pod would come in really handy to the crew/passengers who wanted to live.

Sure, staying on board is probably the safest thing, but what if you can't? The ships suffered a disaster and you have to leave, ergo you get in your life pod and get the hell out of there. Maybe your ship's maneuver drive failed and you are on a collision course, or de-orbiting, or another ship hit yours or whatever. It's a disaster and you gotta get off (the boat!). Especially if you are carrying passengers.

So yeah, I don't agree with the arguments that there is no reason why to have a life pod. Those arguments don't hold up. Even the ISS has a life boat AND space suits for its crew. It's within view of the Earth, right? :)
The reason you don't see them in Traveller canon is because I'm sure nobody tried to cram them into the ships. It's far easier to leave stuff out than to try to work it in. Besides, that's what supplements and game masters are for. :)

For my Traveller stuff I've approached the problem in three ways (not really canon, but oh well). First each passenger has essentially a throw-away vac suit assigned to them in the case of an emergency. It's really nothing more than a plastic suit with a plastic helmet, gloves and boots and a very basic life support system. Secondly, each stateroom is designed with its own emergency life support system so anyone trapped onboard can try and weather out the emergency for a few days. Finally, the emergency life boats/pods are designed along the lines of commercial life boats, not the Traveller launches. Their hulls and drive system are very basic and passengers are crammed in there with minimum space. Power is from batteries and solar panels, and their drive system is electric ion, with rocket power to get away from a doomed ship. If they are in deep space then drugs are administered to passengers to slow their metabolism and essentially put them in a coma to extend their life support. Onboard supplies are for 3 days. I tried to model them after lifeboats on cruise ships today.
 
There's a motive for carrying lifeboats that go beyond the practical: reassurance. Some luxury passenger ships may carry lifeboats -- at least enough for the luxury class passengers -- just as a propaganda gimmick.


Hans
 
But passenger vessels carry life boats AND life vests for every single person and crew member. So do offshore oil rigs, pretty much anything that you can't get to quickly in an emergency has a life boat or emergency raft available to it in the event of a disaster and they have to abandon ship. It's all done to offer the people a chance. And it's the law.

Spaceships can't sink. So the analogy isn't sound...
 
A lifeboat/pod gives the people on the ship a chance to survive a catastrophic event. The concept is no different in space than it is here on Earth today. But I've noticed throughout the thread that the comparisons aren't quite correct.

Today small personal vessels don't typically carry life rafts, but they do carry emergency equipment. The same goes for planes - no parachutes, but you do get life preservers for water landings.
Not true.

Only airliners are required to have flotation devices, and that's because when they go down, they tend to have given advanced warning, and rescue is mobilizing before they hit water.

Small commercial aircraft are not required to have flotation devices. Small airliners are - ISTR that being more than 12 seats, but I'd have to check the current FARs... At least one local airline asks if you want a life jacket for their cessna 208s... but if you go down in Alaskan costal waters, without a wetsuit or a drysuit (or a sailor's survival suit), you're dead in 300 seconds from hypothermia.

You survive about as well as you would in vacuum. 5 minutes unless you have a suit.

Sure, you've got an EPIRB or ELT... and that is consolation to your next of kin when you end travel in water. By the time you can be retrieved, you're dead, but at least your next of kin get to bury you.
 
Not true.

Only airliners are required to have flotation devices, and that's because when they go down, they tend to have given advanced warning, and rescue is mobilizing before they hit water.

Small commercial aircraft are not required to have flotation devices. Small airliners are - ISTR that being more than 12 seats, but I'd have to check the current FARs... At least one local airline asks if you want a life jacket for their cessna 208s... but if you go down in Alaskan costal waters, without a wetsuit or a drysuit (or a sailor's survival suit), you're dead in 300 seconds from hypothermia.

You survive about as well as you would in vacuum. 5 minutes unless you have a suit.

Sure, you've got an EPIRB or ELT... and that is consolation to your next of kin when you end travel in water. By the time you can be retrieved, you're dead, but at least your next of kin get to bury you.

I guess you've not been out on a lake and gotten a ticket for not having the proper safety gear (i.e. life jackets). And the SOLAS convention requires even more. Rescue can only begin AFTER a disaster has occured. And it takes time to get a vessel out to the stricken one. There's no magical chopper in space to speed rescues.

US Federal law does in fact require aircraft flying over water to carry flotation gear. Section 91 of the FAR states "(a) No person may take off an airplane for a flight over water more than 50 nautical miles from the nearest shore unless that airplane is equipped with a life preserver or an approved flotation means for each occupant of the airplane. (b) No person may take off an airplane for flight over water more than 30 minutes flying time or 100 nautical miles from the nearest shore, whichever is less, unless it has on board the following survival equipment: (it then goes on to list the equipment)"

The kicker there is that if it's your own personal plane, and it's under 25,000 lbs, the section doesn't apply to you. Unless you are in Alaska, which requires survival gear on all aircraft flown within the state. And other jurisdictions, like the Bahamas, also require that flotation gear be carried by all aircraft.

So in space you'd expect passengers life vests to actually be vac suits. That would be the appropriate analogy.
 
Hi,

As I understand it:

Space is a hostile environment in which an unprotected person can only survive for a very limited period of time, with consciousness measured in tens of seconds and life measured in only a few minutes.

When on the surface, water can range from being an extremely hostile environment down to being a somewhat more benign environment depending on temperature, weather conditions, local wildlife and other factors.

Under the surface water is a very hostile environment in which typical people can not survive for more than a few minutes.

For a ship operating in space, damage to the ship could result in the loss of the "safe" environment within either the whole ship or a part of it subjecting the personnel onboard to the extreme harsh environment of space, unless those onboard can make it to a portion of the ship not damaged (if available) or if they can don a protective suit with attached portable life support or make it to some other structure such as a lifeboat/lifepod or rescue ball etc.

For a ship operating under the surface of the water, damage to the ship could result in the loss of the "safe" environment within either the whole vessel or a part of it subjecting the personnel onboard to the extreme harsh environment of being underwater, unless those onboard can make it to a portion of the ship not damaged (if available) or if they can either don rescue hoods/breathing apparatus with attached portable life support (if I am understanding correctly) or make it to some other rescue pod like escape vessel, with maybe the possibility of also free swimming to the surface as well (if the distances and other factors allow) but I believe that there may also be an issue with potential damage to oneself from ascending too quickly both when free swimming and I think when using some sort of hood/breathing apparatus.

In addition to this, there is the possibility that even if the personnel onboard do make it to a "safe" undamaged portion of the ship, they still might not be safe because the flooding of the damaged spaces may result in the Bessel submerging to too great a depth for rescue and/or which may result in the total destruction of the vessel etc.

For a ship operating on the surface of the water, damage to the ship could result in the loss of the "safe" environment within either the whole vessel or a part of it potentially subjecting the personnel onboard to the water environment, unless those onboard can make it to a portion of the ship not damaged (if available) or if they can either don life vests and also possibly survival suits which may not require any attached portable life support (for the most part) or make it to some other rescue raft or lifeboat, with maybe the possibility of also free swimming on the surface as well (if the weather & temperature is not too extreme).

In addition to this, if enough of the ship is flooded it may sink.

As such, there are differences between space vessels and surface vessels and submarines in that both the surface vessels and submersibles can sink completely depriving the personnel onboard from any residual safety that they may provide, but there are also similarities in that damage to all three type of vessels could result in either the partial or total loss of the relatively "safe" environment onboard, subjecting those onboard to environments that can be very extreme, to the point that they can result in the death of an unprotected individual in a matter of just a few minutes).

Here the major difference to me would seem that if all vessels are equally damaged to the extent that no "safe" refuge onboard remains;

  • on a space vessel would still potentially offer some protection from some of the threats of the outer space environment (such as radiation and micrometeorites, etc) but it would no longer provide any form of "life support" and without a space suit, rescue ball or a lifepod/lifeboat life expectancy would still be measured in just a few minutes with loss of consciousness much sooner,

    while on the surface ship or submersible damage to the extent that there are no 'safe' refuges onboard would likely mean that the vessel would sink, eliminating any protection that the remaining structure may have provided, and for a submersible you would also be left in a hostile environment where life expectancy would be measured in just a few minutes (I believe), unless you can safely make it to the surface (without damaging yourself through too rapid an ascent), while for a surface ship the extent of the severity of the environment that you get thrown into may range from potentially relatively benign (for at least a little while) to an environment where life expectancy is measured in just a few minutes (similar to both the underwater case as well as the in space case).

For situations where damage to the habitable portions of the ships is not complete, for both the surface ship and submersible it may still be that the extent of damage is enough to sink the vessel, while for the space ship it probably is likely that the ship will remain. However, the loss of some spaces onboard may well mean that you no longer have all/some of your onboard systems, and I'd suspect that ships with dispersed structures etc may have specific issues with retaining structural integrity etc.

As such, since damage to either a space ship, surface vessel or submarine could result in the personal onboard being subjected to an extreme environment where life expectancy may be measured in just a few minutes I believe that there are sufficient similarities to make an analogy, even though in some instances a space vessel may still provide some limited protection while a surface ship or submarine may not, and for some cases the environment that personnel evacuating from a surface vessel will not likely require breathing apparatus and depending on the weather & temperature life expectancy may actually be measured in much longer than just a few minutes.
 
Except. I made no analogy. I stated a fact. Keep flipping the pages of your new dictionary until you get to the the F section... :rofl:

No genius, I made the analogy. But you still don't seem to get that. You need to read up on facts as well. I'm pretty sure you don't have a monopoly on facts, and that anyone else can state a fact as well.

Lemme 'splain it to you again... Aircraft and vessels that travel over water are required to carry flotation devices and/or life boats for passengers in the event of an accident. As you so succintly pointed out, ships sink, space ships do not because they are... wait for it.. SPACE ships! Now, hold on to your shorts here, because this is where that big word 'analogy' comes into play.

You can drown in water, but assuming you are still floating (which is the primary reason for a flotation device) you can still breathe. You can't drown in space, but you also can't breathe. That's where those life pods/boats come in hand because they become your space flotation devices. Or, from your point of view, they allow the passengers to "float" in space and not have a vacuum suck the air out of their lungs. "Float", of course, being another analogy because you float in space where there is no gravity, and you float in water because there IS gravity (and buoyancy, but I don't want to muddle your train of thought there with a new concept).

But I really can't make the comparison much simpler than that. Others get it, you don't.

@PFVA63 - Yup. You get it!

The logic behind any safety device, regardless of the tech level, is that you offer protections against known and unknown dangers and disasters. Things fail, people fail. So you plan for the worst and hope for the best.
 
I like to use the sleeper tech in my game, thus the player end up going into Cryo Sleep when going into Sleep regardless of the tech level, it is only the duration gets shorter as the TL increases. That is a choice I use in my game and that works well for me and my games. Now My Cryo Sleep chambers also are connected to the Life Pod system for the ship. They either stay on board or are shot out into space in a life-pod mode.

It all comes down to what the GM wants to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top