Like shifting to personal combat turns and roleplaying out those last few agonizing minutes with lots of graphic details ... followed by an OOC discussion on whether some life saving equipment for starships is a good idea or just a waste of money.
Commercial starship lifeboat requirements
- Thread starter HG_B
- Start date
- Status
And that's where your analogy breaks down, because if your sea ship is sinking, it's imperative to get away from it lest it drags you down with it, but if your space ship has air to breathe (which it does if any part of it (such as your hypothetical lifeboats) has air, then the ship has air), there's no reason to get away from it.
Hans
Every analogy breaks down if pushed far enough ... that's what makes it an analogy.
I think that is is fair to ask whether supplying emergency air to passengers aboard a spaceship (just in case of an emergency) is any less valid than supplying emergency buoyancy (a life jacket) to passengers aboard a surface ship. Both are fairly inexpensive safety measures intended to delay death if needed (attempting to breathe vacuum in space or water in an ocean).
Then the discussion becomes what is the 'best' way to provide emergency air ... and the subjective portion of the discussion commences.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
at, you missed where he said the analogy breaks down: it was the part where you have to get away from the sinking sea ship, you don't have to get away from the spaceship.
That all depends on the disaster, right? How can you assume that what will occur will not require the evacuation of the ship? You can't. Or at least I cannot. The arguments have been made over and over against safety devices - seatbelts, life rafts, emergency locator beacons, etc, etc. Each argument utilizes the same non-logic. Of course if nothing bad happens, there's no reason to have safety equipment.
Drakon
SOC-14 1K
Evacuation can be accomplished by simply stepping outside, with the proper vac suit of course. But the utility of a lifeboat comes down to the probability of an event that would require one to not just exit the ship but leave it altogether.
In deep space there are no resources any place else but the ship. So leaving the ship, in general, is an extremely hazardous idea. Staying would have to be more hazardous than being adrift with nothing. Since spaceships don't sink in space, that really leaves exploding as a hazard.
Not just explosions in general. But explosion that would provide enough warning that makes evacuation viable. There are very limited potential causes of such dangers.
Fusion plants run on hydrogen, but fusion rates are based on fuel flow and requires tremendous pressures and temperatures. That makes it easier to to prevent runaway conditions or explosions.
Antimatter systems are a different beast entirely. While I doubt you would get sufficient warning, it seems that manditory lifeboats on antimatter equipped ships would be reasonable. A more reasonable requirement than on fusion powered ships.
Correct. I haven't seen any reality based disasters listed that would require total evac (short of total devastation of the ship in which case no one is left alive anyway). I'm sure there could be one thought of but, about as likely as a cruise-ship blowing itself to atoms.
As near as I can figure, the majority of good reasons for needing a lifeboat apply to warships and exploration ships - and then only when those ships are operating without support.
A ship traveling to a gas giant strikes a pebble at a frightening velocity tearing through a ship containing vast inhabited swaths of oxygen rich atmosphere, tons of liquid hydrogen and a massive fusion reactor (hundreds of megawatts) filled with superheated plasma ...
... without a doubt, a once per century event for any ship (but it happens to some fraction of a percent of ships per year).
I see some potential for a need to exit the ship due to possible risk from radiation, plasma leaks or cryogenic liquids flooding the living areas.
A vacc suit would sure be handy about then.
I see some potential for an survivor to want to alter his course and/or velocity.
A space "life raft" might be a handy thing to have around at that moment.
... without a doubt, a once per century event for any ship (but it happens to some fraction of a percent of ships per year).
I see some potential for a need to exit the ship due to possible risk from radiation, plasma leaks or cryogenic liquids flooding the living areas.
A vacc suit would sure be handy about then.
I see some potential for an survivor to want to alter his course and/or velocity.
A space "life raft" might be a handy thing to have around at that moment.
Try once every few thousand years, if that. And, it wouldn't destroy the ship. A kinetic missile (of hugely greater mass) doesn't even do that...
Yet if there are a "few thousand" ships across the Imperium traveling to gas giants to refuel, it would be an event that afflicted one ship per year. Thousands of ships over the history of the Imperium.
Destroy? No.
But a ship with a powerless magic electric maneuver drive and radioactive plasma from a punctured power plant leaking through the corridors and igniting the atmosphere, hurtling on a ballistic trajectory for Jupiter may be a more hostile environment than a life raft in space.
All that requires is penetration of the crew/engineering bulkhead and a power plant hit.
I recall we had discussions on several of these points:
Pebble at frightening velocity becomes a high temperature plasma burning a little hole through and exiting out the other side.
Massive fusion reactor basically shuts down, the tiny bit of fusion-temperature hydrogen inside expanding, encountering the solid elements of the reactor, frying them and wrecking the reactor but that's about it. With fusion, it takes very little hydrogen to deliver a lot of power.
Hole generated by pebble might allow intrusion of hydrogen into the hull but at a slow rate: there would be time to evacuate the section and it's more likely to eventually flood the compartment - assuming the tank lacks self-sealing mechanisms and they don't have some better alternative like dumping the fuel from the affected tank to space and slapping a patch over the hole - than to achieve the right balance that would result in an explosive mixture capable of rupturing the iris ports.
About the only issue here is his vector when the pebble hit, and since his engines cut out when the power failed, he's not going to end up on the path he'd planned. Unless he was very close when it hit, he's going to miss his rendesvous with the gas giant, probably crossing its orbit before it gets there. If indeed he was very close when it hit, then the pebble was running at that fantastic speed for reasons that had nothing to do with his acceleration - making it more like the once in a thousand year event, as HG-B suggests.
His problem then is whether he has the resources to hunker down until rescue catches up with him or whether he needs to take a lifeboat in order to meet his rescuers halfway. On that point, as I understand it, his ship becomes salvage once he abandons it. Seems to me he has a strong interest in seeing that it's equipped so he can hunker down and hope for a tow rather than abandon it.
But the analogy that I objected to was between a seagoing ship that was sinking and a spaceship that was losing its air. Not between a seagoing ship that was e.g. burning and a spaceship that was suffering a vague nebulous disaster that required the evacuation of the ship.
Hans
Hi,
A couple thoughts come to mind.
First, as I understand it, the analogy was between sea ships and space ships in general, not just sinking versus not sinking. It was pointed out by some that this is the main difference, but that does not mean it is the only point of interest.
Second, because of the fact that Traveller uses Newtonian movement with relatively easy to attain acceleration capabilities, there seems to me to arise an issue that probably also needs to be addressed. Specifically that is, what happens in the event that a space ship is damaged when it has a vector that may be 'undesirable"?
As I've noted before, it kind of seems to me that there is a good potential for an aged or deteriorated component to fail when it is more stressed than normal. As such, what would happen, for instance, if a spaceship suffers some form of failure right about the time it intends to begin shifting from accelerating outboard to when it plans to start decelerating (or 'accelerating in the opposite direction)? Here it would seem that the ship would have its maximum velocity vector and it may be pointed in a direction that will likely eventually take it outbound from the system unless it can be repaired or "captured".
In this case, staying onboard could result in the passengers and crew travelling further from potential "rescue", especially if they were headed outbound toward a planned jump point (I think?). In this event, boarding a powered lifeboat/lifepod kind of seems to me to have some potential benefits.
Other similar situations may also include events where your damaged ship is drifting/passing near a potentially "life supportable, though low population" planet or satellite (or even disused base/mining facility etc) where your damaged ship does not have the ability to alter course and dock/land etc but a small powered lifeboat/lifepod may be able to do so.
Additionally, on the topic of system redundancy on Traveller Starships and Spaceships, there seems to occasionally be some discussion about how the systems onboard a ship are likely redundant and potentially even segregated to allow undamaged sections to not be affected by the possibility that systems in a damaged section of the ship may not be working due to damage in that section.
One thought that crosses my mind here is that in general many versions of Traveller do in fact appear to allow for the redundancy of some systems on a ship (such as the power plant, jump drive, maneuver drive, bridge and basic controls, computer, and some defensive systems, etc) either by allowing the designer to specify the fitting of additional backup systems (such as a backup bridge or computer etc) or by specifying a larger than needed component (such as a powerplant, jump drive or maneuver drive) than needed to attain the desired performance (such as fitting a type C powerplant instead of a type B where they would both put out the same power rating but the type C plant would allow for one extra step of damage over a type B, etc depending on the rules set that you are using).
As such, I'm left wondering just how redundant other systems on the ship may be. If a type B powerplant can only put out enough power to allow you a power factor(?) of 2 and that any appreciable damage to it would drop it below that for instance then that system does not appear to really be all that 'redundant to me'. As such, if such an important system appears to have limited redundancy (unless you specify that the plant is lager than needed) I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that other systems (such as lighting, grav plating, air handling and scrubbing, water supply and reclamation, heating, cooling, and general electrical supply) would likely be more redundant that the power plant.
(As an aside and example, on modern ocean going warships, merchant ships, workboats, research vessels, and auxiliaries electrical power systems are typically configured as a plant consisting of 3 to 4 (or potentially even more) individual generators sized so that one can be offline while the others provide sufficient electrical power for normal operations. that way if one generator goes down the other off line plant can be brought on line to cover for it, etc).
Finally, in looking over the rule for Mega Traveller the other day I noticed that in addition to the potential for system damage and/or destruction due to combat the way the task system rules were written also suggested to me that due to a 'spectacular failure' systems can also be damaged and/or destroyed (if I am understanding correctly) which leaves me with the impression that the possibility for something going wrong on a ship may not be as uncommon as some may think.
Just some thoughts
PF
A couple thoughts come to mind.
First, as I understand it, the analogy was between sea ships and space ships in general, not just sinking versus not sinking. It was pointed out by some that this is the main difference, but that does not mean it is the only point of interest.
Second, because of the fact that Traveller uses Newtonian movement with relatively easy to attain acceleration capabilities, there seems to me to arise an issue that probably also needs to be addressed. Specifically that is, what happens in the event that a space ship is damaged when it has a vector that may be 'undesirable"?
As I've noted before, it kind of seems to me that there is a good potential for an aged or deteriorated component to fail when it is more stressed than normal. As such, what would happen, for instance, if a spaceship suffers some form of failure right about the time it intends to begin shifting from accelerating outboard to when it plans to start decelerating (or 'accelerating in the opposite direction)? Here it would seem that the ship would have its maximum velocity vector and it may be pointed in a direction that will likely eventually take it outbound from the system unless it can be repaired or "captured".
In this case, staying onboard could result in the passengers and crew travelling further from potential "rescue", especially if they were headed outbound toward a planned jump point (I think?). In this event, boarding a powered lifeboat/lifepod kind of seems to me to have some potential benefits.
Other similar situations may also include events where your damaged ship is drifting/passing near a potentially "life supportable, though low population" planet or satellite (or even disused base/mining facility etc) where your damaged ship does not have the ability to alter course and dock/land etc but a small powered lifeboat/lifepod may be able to do so.
Additionally, on the topic of system redundancy on Traveller Starships and Spaceships, there seems to occasionally be some discussion about how the systems onboard a ship are likely redundant and potentially even segregated to allow undamaged sections to not be affected by the possibility that systems in a damaged section of the ship may not be working due to damage in that section.
One thought that crosses my mind here is that in general many versions of Traveller do in fact appear to allow for the redundancy of some systems on a ship (such as the power plant, jump drive, maneuver drive, bridge and basic controls, computer, and some defensive systems, etc) either by allowing the designer to specify the fitting of additional backup systems (such as a backup bridge or computer etc) or by specifying a larger than needed component (such as a powerplant, jump drive or maneuver drive) than needed to attain the desired performance (such as fitting a type C powerplant instead of a type B where they would both put out the same power rating but the type C plant would allow for one extra step of damage over a type B, etc depending on the rules set that you are using).
As such, I'm left wondering just how redundant other systems on the ship may be. If a type B powerplant can only put out enough power to allow you a power factor(?) of 2 and that any appreciable damage to it would drop it below that for instance then that system does not appear to really be all that 'redundant to me'. As such, if such an important system appears to have limited redundancy (unless you specify that the plant is lager than needed) I'm not sure that I'm willing to assume that other systems (such as lighting, grav plating, air handling and scrubbing, water supply and reclamation, heating, cooling, and general electrical supply) would likely be more redundant that the power plant.
(As an aside and example, on modern ocean going warships, merchant ships, workboats, research vessels, and auxiliaries electrical power systems are typically configured as a plant consisting of 3 to 4 (or potentially even more) individual generators sized so that one can be offline while the others provide sufficient electrical power for normal operations. that way if one generator goes down the other off line plant can be brought on line to cover for it, etc).
Finally, in looking over the rule for Mega Traveller the other day I noticed that in addition to the potential for system damage and/or destruction due to combat the way the task system rules were written also suggested to me that due to a 'spectacular failure' systems can also be damaged and/or destroyed (if I am understanding correctly) which leaves me with the impression that the possibility for something going wrong on a ship may not be as uncommon as some may think.
Just some thoughts
PF
As I've not followed the thread more tan some sporadic Reading, excuse me if some of my points here have already been discussed:
It's not that the idea behind the vault in MgT HG (in LBB2 is in page 47)?
And that is one of the reasons to try to stay in the ship, unless there's danger of full destruction (such as collision course and unable to maneuver), to ease rescue operations by giving them only one target to recue people from.
Another good moment to use fast drug (one dose could be in each shelter bouble), that would extend oxigen to about 120 hours (about 5 days). Of course there's also the issue about keeping heat in and radiation out, but hipotermia is a good alternative to full vaccum, and I guess in this situation a radiation induced illness is seen as quite attractive, given the alternatives...
One thing I've not seen to be discussed here is the psycological effect of having such ship evacuation measures to the usual passenger that is unlikely to be a space seccurity expert. People's psicology works such a way that I guess if there's some competition for the passengers, a ship with such seccurity measures, no matter how actually useful could they be, will have a point over one without them, as people will see it as more safe (poor fools).
It's not that the idea behind the vault in MgT HG (in LBB2 is in page 47)?
And that is one of the reasons to try to stay in the ship, unless there's danger of full destruction (such as collision course and unable to maneuver), to ease rescue operations by giving them only one target to recue people from.
Another good moment to use fast drug (one dose could be in each shelter bouble), that would extend oxigen to about 120 hours (about 5 days). Of course there's also the issue about keeping heat in and radiation out, but hipotermia is a good alternative to full vaccum, and I guess in this situation a radiation induced illness is seen as quite attractive, given the alternatives...
One thing I've not seen to be discussed here is the psycological effect of having such ship evacuation measures to the usual passenger that is unlikely to be a space seccurity expert. People's psicology works such a way that I guess if there's some competition for the passengers, a ship with such seccurity measures, no matter how actually useful could they be, will have a point over one without them, as people will see it as more safe (poor fools).
Last edited:
Great summary of previous discussions.
I am not a particularly big fan of lifeboats for starships for most of the reasons mentioned by others.
I, personally, prefer greater compartmentalization to contain damage to one area.
There are two points, as I see it, that do favor the argument for a lifeboat:
1. From a meta plot standpoint, lifeboats are as much a part of the literary grist mill of Space Opera as Faster than Light travel.
So all other things being equal, there is an advantage in leaning a little on the side of "yes Virginia, there are lifeboats."
2. Starships contain within their hulls vast quantities of really dangerous stuff and it is Hubris comparable to "the Titanic is unsinkable, so why install lifeboats" to think that no disaster could ever create a need to abandon the ship. There was some discussion earlier in the topic on how long it would take to die from exposure to vacuum. Exposure to the vast quantities of cryogenic liquid (which is known to embrittle and weaken anything that it is stored in) is a far more deadly environment than the vacuum of space. An argument can be made that inside a starship hull is a more dangerous location than outside the hull.
As a brief aside, I think that the dangers of the Engineering Compartment are underestimated. Especially the fusion reactor, which is really as much of a magic box as the MD and JD since everything we think we know about fusion does not seem to hold true for the Traveller Power Plant. Where is the massive radiation shielding to absorb the high energy particles? Where is the "teaspoon" of hydrogen to power the ship for a year? Where is the vast empty magnetic space that contains the tiny plasma stream? Where is the copious waste heat from the core-of-the-sun temperatures?
So YMMV on the "need" for lifeboats or the "need" for vacc suits or the need for any safety at all.
I simply see room to view a starship as a potentially dangerous environment ...
... therefore, a location that might benefit from an escape pod
... (for all of those stowaways and plucky droids one encounters on adventures.)
Umm, no. You don't understand fusion pp's. So, no radioactive plasma running amok through the ship.
o:This was dissected earlier in this thread. Not a real problem. See earlier.
Hi,
One additional thought with respect to a "sinking" analogy. While its true that a starship does not necessarily "sink" if it suffers a sufficient amount of breaching of its hull, as a surface ship or submersible can, a starship damaged in orbit can 'sink' into a planets atmosphere and a damaged starship on a vector toward/near a planet or other large astronomical body could be pulled into it by gravity similar to how the comet Showmaker-Levy 9 was pulled into a collision with Jupiter. In both situations staying onboard the damaged craft could be a less than desirable alternative.
One additional thought with respect to a "sinking" analogy. While its true that a starship does not necessarily "sink" if it suffers a sufficient amount of breaching of its hull, as a surface ship or submersible can, a starship damaged in orbit can 'sink' into a planets atmosphere and a damaged starship on a vector toward/near a planet or other large astronomical body could be pulled into it by gravity similar to how the comet Showmaker-Levy 9 was pulled into a collision with Jupiter. In both situations staying onboard the damaged craft could be a less than desirable alternative.
- Status
Similar threads
