Commercial starship lifeboat requirements

[rancke]

An alternate thought that crossed my mind earlier when thinking about possible failure events could be something along the lines of what might happen if you and your players had bought a small used ship and were trying fuel skimming from a gas giant.

If the ship was bought used (and I agree that's reasonable for a PC ship), it's design is still that of the original owner's needs, and very few regular commercial ships will engage in gas giant skimming. I suppose it is concievable that one might contrieve a route where skimming was economically sound. If the gas giant was in a system that lay between two inhabited worlds six parsecs apart and there were no alternate sources of fuel and the insurance premiums didn't render any savings moot, then possibly. I doubt it, but I won't rule it out. But such routes will be very rare and the number of ships using it will be few (if there were many, some enterprising soul would set up a fuel station in the system).

Anyway, in the situation above, if the ship is relatively small I'd also suspect the crew to be so also. Because of the weather patterns and such that seem to be present on at least some of the Gas Giants in our Solar I wouldn't be surprised if there may be a fair bit of turbulence, wind shears and other weather related effects. As such to me both piloting the ship and maintaining the power plant, drives and "fuel purifier" may be challenging tasks and could result in a failure, especially if the ship and its systems are aged etc, not to mention the possibility of maybe even colliding with something hidden 'in the clouds".

And that's when the crew decides that in the future they're going to carry extra fuel along if they ever plan to pass through another system with nothing but gas giants for refuelling.

At some point I could possibly see that if the conditions aren't righted quickly enough abandoning the ship and taking to some form of lifeboat/lifepods or a ship's boat which could operate as a lifeboat may end up being the only viable solution to try and escape.

And if the ship happens to have a ship's boat for other purposes, that's good luck for the crew (or at least a silver lining).


Hans

 

[rancke]

In looking at CT pricing, J1-J3 are profitable under Bk2-77, and J2-3 are just around a break-even under Bk2-81... Using CT pricing, MGT designs do fine for J1-2, and just below break-even for J3... as pure cargo designs. (Optimal size is also 800Td, but 800Td can't fill under Bk2 trade system; it can under the Bk5, and can still make money. A factor on planet pulling an extra set of cargo and freight can fill it, tho', given three weeks down time, and can even fill a 1000Td.)

Because of the slim profit margins, J1 shipping can't really afford life boats, but can afford ELB's for the passenger loads expected without a factor.

Even if CT pricings made sense, ships without lifeboats would still make a bigger profit than ships with lifeboats.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...To me, I would think that any ship that may regularly try and skim fuel from a Gas Giant may find itself in a risky situation ...

That probably represents one of the worst scenarios a ship can find itself in. I really don't see a lifeboat as being much help given the narrow interval between the time you realize you have to leave and the time it becomes impossible to leave, i.e. the ship begins tumbling or plummeting as a result of atmospheric drag. However, that's just my perception of things.

...In addition to that, I'd think if I were on a ship in the TNE era, some form of emergency escape from the main ship (in terms of a lifeboat or lifepod etc) would be highly desirable, ...

Can't speak to TNE. I have a strenuous objection to the milieu and therefore limited interest in the material, so no knowledge of the system.

...Based on the above, it would also seem to me that operations at any point in time where there may have been a bit of "contraction' on the part of the major powers )either economically or in some other form) would likely also be a period in time where I would want some for of backup on my ship. ...

Maybe. Pirates love lifeboats. They sell for a very nice price, once you get the soft crying things out of them.:devil:

...In addition to all the above, I'd also think that any ship that may spend a fair bit of time away from heavily populated space, especially research ships and the like may also be good candidates for including some form of backup (like a lifeboat or lifepod - or a ship's boat acting as a lifeboat/lifepod etc) that wouldn't require waiting for help from someone else. ...

Yes, you've said something like this at several points, and I don't think there's been much disagreement - at least not where warships, exploration ships, or others operating away from support or rescue were involved.

...Livestock transports, and in fact any vessel that may carry a lot of animals (domesticated or not) may also be a good candidate especially since having a lot of animals confined in one place often makes for a fertile setting for the spread of diseases, ...

Ahh, we're running from the plague ship in a lifeboat again. To borrow a phrase from the courts, "asked and answered."

...As I've noted before I think for different ship types and/or different situations different solutions may work best and in some cases a "safe" area may be that solution. However, my two main concerns are that a) from what I've seen most deckplans really don't show such a design philosophy ...

Asked and answered.

...and b) not all areas of known space may be quite as developed as the Core or other areas, and as such it may in fact be that (at least in some milieus etc) that being reliant on outside assistance in the event of an emergency (in the form of waiting onboard your stricken ship for someone to come to your rescue may in fact not be the best solution in non-Core related areas and/or areas away from major hubs etc. ...

Which leads around again to military ships, exploration ships and so forth. You might add "frontier merchants" to the list if what you're envisioning is merchants running to worlds that have little spacefaring technology and no ports to speak of. However, it really doesn't cost an incredible lot to set up a fueling station and a couple of ship's boats for customs and emergency work. I remain pretty confident that, even on the frontier, colonies that want trade will provide the infrastructure needed to support trade. Those that don't - well, you go there at your own peril. The niche for standard-design merchants intended to visit worlds that have little interest or capacity to support trade is already nicely filled by the subsidized merchant.

...Not necessarily. History is replete with examples of how a failure of one system or localized damage in one location can have an impact on other systems through out your vessel, aircraft, or whatever, ...

Asked and answered.

 

[rancke]

However, it really doesn't cost an incredible lot to set up a fueling station and a couple of ship's boats for customs and emergency work.

Anywhere humans live there's a sufficiently cheap way to get water to let them survive, and if there's a way to get water, there's a way to get fuel. Unless the water is so scarce that there's only just enough to go round, a fuel purification plant will provide the locals with a nice little earner and obviate the need for gallivanting off to skim gas giants.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...to me subdivision really seems to me to be anything but trivial and there are ways that you could try and address it in design. For instance, in Mongoose Traveller they appear to have rules that allow specific components to be armored and I think that they even have some sort of rules for breaking the ship up into smaller segments. As such I would think that similar rules for either making certain major components (such as "main engineering', "cargo bays", weapon "bays" and "barbettes" etc) as being self contained could potentially be similarly dealt with as well as maybe stipulating that designs can be done to different levels of 'subdivision'. ...

Many things "could be". Any game master is free to establish supplemental design rules that satisfy his needs. Heck, any game master can chuck the rules and come up with his own system, if that's his thing. if you have some ideas on that front, the In My Traveller Universe forum is a great place to share your ideas.

I can't speak to Mongoose, but CT did not feel the need for such levels of detail, nor did MegaTrav. Under those systems, he who designs the deckplans has freedom to set subdivisions that suit his specific design.

...For very small ships and or merchant ships it may thus be that their level of subdivision would be that the ship is only divided into a bridge and basic controls, the engineering spaces, the fuel tanks and the rest of the ship. ...

In this instance, what "may be" is canonically NOT what is. One may choose to embrace, for example, the Far Trader and its separate subdivisions, or one may decide to impose one's personal IMTU rules in precedence over canon. The Far Trader, interestingly enough, is a fine example of an interesting layout that would be difficult to make under rules that "required" subdivisions of specific size and characteristics. It is possible to make rules that end up squelching originality and style.

 

[PFVA63]

That is for interior armour. It isn't itself, having to do with being airtight. There are no rules in MgT having to do with how many or few areas of a ship are allowed to be partitioned by airtight bulkheads...

Hi,

That's why I only used it as a reference to how something similar could be done for making similar systems airtight and segregated from other sections.

 

[PFVA63]

If the ship was bought used (and I agree that's reasonable for a PC ship), it's design is still that of the original owner's needs, and very few regular commercial ships will engage in gas giant skimming. I suppose it is concievable that one might contrieve a route where skimming was economically sound. If the gas giant was in a system that lay between two inhabited worlds six parsecs apart and there were no alternate sources of fuel and the insurance premiums didn't render any savings moot, then possibly. I doubt it, but I won't rule it out. But such routes will be very rare and the number of ships using it will be few (if there were many, some enterprising soul would set up a fuel station in the system)....

Hi,

As I've noted before different types of ships in different services may have very different requirements. As such, just because a 'regular commercial ship' engaged in 'regular' commercial trade may or may not have specific needs does not mean other ships doing other operations will not have other requirements. Taking modern Earth as an example it appears that a lot of the more interesting 'hunting expeditions are to really out of the way places. As such, I could easily see Safari ships regularly going to out of the way places as an example (in addition to some of the other type operations that I've previously commented on).

As such, to me, just as the type and configuration of life saving appliances on one type of ship in the modern world may differ from those on a different type of ship, in Traveller whether typical operations for one type of ships may seem suggest one thing or another that doesn't mean that you don't also have to consider other types of ships in other trades or operations as well.

 

[PFVA63]

That probably represents one of the worst scenarios a ship can find itself in. I really don't see a lifeboat as being much help given the narrow interval between the time you realize you have to leave and the time it becomes impossible to leave, i.e. the ship begins tumbling or plummeting as a result of atmospheric drag. However, that's just my perception of things....

Hi,

That's why I chose it as an example. In reading about major modern era failures (such as the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukoshima Reactor accidents, as well as the sinking of vessels like the Andrea Doria, Morro Castle, and Oceanos or aircraft accidents like the DC-10 accidents previously mentioned the downing of the Iranian Airbus by the USS Vincennes and other such incidents) many such major events result from a cascading sequence of smaller events all combining together.

...Ahh, we're running from the plague ship in a lifeboat again. To borrow a phrase from the courts, "asked and answered."...

Enclosing a lot of animals in a confined space can be a rich breading ground for diseases. For example, with regards to the Reston Ebolavirus it is believed that the initial infection of the monkeys being sent to the
Hazelton Labs in Reston VA may have been initially picked up by some of the monkeys on a KLM flight before reaching Reston VA. Eventually several workers at the lab were potentially subjected to the virus but fortunately this particular strain of Ebola was (I believe) the only strain of Ebola encountered so far that is (so far) 'is non-pathogenic to humans' ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reston_virus ).

Unfortunately this is not always the case with diseases contracted by animals kept in close proximity to one another. Specifically in a case in 1994 in Hendra Australia thirteen horses, and a trainer at a training complex all died from this illness. Specifically this site ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henipavirus ) notes that;

The index case, a mare, was housed with 19 other horses after falling ill, and died two days later. Subsequently, all of the horses became ill, with 13 dying. The remaining 6 animals were subsequently euthanised as a way of preventing relapsing infection and possible further transmission.[10] The trainer, Victory ('Vic') Rail, and a stable hand were involved in nursing the index case, and both fell ill with an influenza-like illness within one week of the first horse’s death. The stable hand recovered while Mr Rail died of respiratory and renal failure. The source of the virus was most likely frothy nasal discharge from the index case.

A second outbreak occurred in August 1994 (chronologically preceding the first outbreak) in Mackay 1,000 km north of Brisbane resulting in the deaths of two horses and their owner.[11] The owner, Mark Preston, assisted in necropsies of the horses and within three weeks was admitted to hospital suffering from meningitis. Mr Preston recovered, but 14 months later developed neurologic signs and died. This outbreak was diagnosed retrospectively by the presence of Hendra virus in the brain of the patient.[12]

The site goes on to further note that since first crossing over from horses to humans "Case fatality rate in humans is 60% and in horses 75%.[15]

Four of these outbreaks have spread to humans as a result of direct contact with infected horses. On 26 July 2011 a dog living on the Mt Alford property was reported to have HeV antibodies, the first time an animal other than a flying fox, horse, or human has tested positive outside an experimental situation.'

This site also goes on to note stuff about the Nipah virus which appears to have originally started in pig farms in Malaysia but which eventually has spread to humans resulting 105 human deaths (as well as the killing/culling of over 1 million pigs to try and control the disease.)

Overall, its my understanding that in any situation where you have a lot of animals enclosed in a confined area there is the potential for the rapid spread of diseases and a better chance for the illness to spread to humans which I believe is due to the fact that the people can come into contact with the illness and its potential mutations more often than in more limited exposures (if I am understanding correctly).

Along similar notes there have been several fairly recent outbreaks of legionnaire like illnesses in hotels and cruise ships where you often have a lot of people 'relatively' confined in enclosed areas. ( see for example http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5445a2.htm )

As such to me the threat of illnesses n enclosed environments doesn't seem like a trivial issue to me (and the threat of illnesses and diseases as you travel throughout the stars and their spread are something that seems to me to be kind of glossed over a lot in sci fi related stuff).

 

[rancke]

Ultra-tech medical technology is quite a bit more sophisticated than late 20th Century medical technology.


Hans

 

[aramis]

PFVA63:

Cascading failures still won't be good grounds to abandon ship in space.

The only reasons to abandon ship that have any merit are:
1: Dangerous Cargo Leak into Habitat (either suit damaging or radioactive)
2: Hull Failure (not breach, but failure)
3: impending impact.

And in two of the three, if you don't have a small craft, you're STILL better off staying in the wreckage...

• A fusion plant that fails, at its worst, vaporizes the drive bay and kills the engineering staff (and that requires a series of interlocking failures and mishaps that strain credulity, and/or active sabotage by crew... tho' sabotage may be unintentional in the case of inept engineering staff, but still...)
  
• A fuel leak into the habitat will be grounds to move to an on-board refuge, vent the compartment, and patch the tank. A fuel leak of severe nature simply kills everyone in the compartment by freezing them. And, most of the time, such leaks are going to be short lived, as they will probably be caused by penetrating damage. (If they aren't, you have a saboteur.)
  
• Most hazardous cargos will be in the cargo bay - if they're leaking into the crew/passenger habitats, again, either you're in combat (and they're leaking through the hab areas), or you've a saboteur. The rest are passengers of ill will... aka, the infectious, the deranged, the saboteurs* and the hijackers...
  
• As for the infectious: I'll say again - if it's fast enough that quarantining matters, it's easiest and safest to quarantine aboard ship. If it's not fast enough to be able to quarantine aboard ship, you're all likely exposed anyway, and the locals will likely shoot you out of space themselves if you mention why you're abandoning ship in such cases. Or worse, order you back aboard the plague ship, and THEN shoot you.

But the carrying of a small craft for those three rare cases is not something that is justifiable in the OTU, and it's hard to justify without changing the mechanics of ship design significantly.

The only justification for subcraft that makes much sense in terms of the extant rules is that the ship's mission makes it likely they need to be two places at once... Unstreamlined ships, inspection cutters, survey, and troop deployment come to mind.

Any why should you NOT abandon?

1. Solar Winds. Anything significantly less than a disposable hull (MT AV8 - 2cm steel or equivalent) is insufficient to prevent the radiation from reaching the body. At peak, the radiation is lethal dose levels within an hour.
2. Microasteroidal impacts. At the speeds Traveller ships travel, this is even more of a threat than ordinary solar winds, tho' a somewhat lower risk per unit time. If a personal rescue unit (suit, Rescue ball) takes a hit, it's over.
3. Uncontrolled thermal regime. A smaller body has less thermal mass to be overcome... and a higher ratio of surface area to volume... and will radiate faster than a larger body. Even just being inside a box filled with vacuum has the advantage of recapture of some of your radiated energy as it comes back reradiating from the box...
4. Harder to recover multiple targets.

There are compelling real world science reasons not to abandon ship if you can at all avoid it. Reasons to take the risk are few.

----
* Noting that there's a traditional scam of sabotaging a perfectly good ship, getting it to abandon, then a prize crew sliding aboard, and turning it in for recovery award. They may or may not also rescue the survivors...

 

[Carlobrand]

...Enclosing a lot of animals in a confined space can be a rich breading ground for diseases. ... [etc.] ...

As I said, asked and answered. The issue isn't whether disease is a potential far future issue. The issue is whether cramming a bunch of potentially infected people into lifeboats is an effective response to it. It isn't.

 

[CosmicGamer]

A ship spends over half it's traveling time in jump, right? Many emergencies and hazards, like disease, are not kind enough to only strike in normal space.

I think the emergency preparation minded would put a more comprehensive solution in place that will address the problem in both jump space and normal space. This makes the life boat redundant and a waste of space and credits for that particular problem.

 

[mike wightman]

Yup, most merchant traffic goes from 100D to 100D in jump, amount of time in normal space is a small fraction of the total travel time.

Within the 100D range of a developed world rescue can be scrambled and arrive in short order.

 

[HG_B]

A ship spends over half it's traveling time in jump, right? Many emergencies and hazards, like disease, are not kind enough to only strike in normal space.

I think the emergency preparation minded would put a more comprehensive solution in place that will address the problem in both jump space and normal space. This makes the life boat redundant and a waste of space and credits for that particular problem.

Really good point there Cosmic.

 

[aramis]

A ship spends over half it's traveling time in jump, right? Many emergencies and hazards, like disease, are not kind enough to only strike in normal space.

I think the emergency preparation minded would put a more comprehensive solution in place that will address the problem in both jump space and normal space. This makes the life boat redundant and a waste of space and credits for that particular problem.

Not quite half, if using the "standard schedule" - 25/52 weeks in jump, 2 weeks of n-space flight.

Per the rules, anything leaving the ship's jump bubble is destroyed... so any emergency that would justify abandoning ship is essentially a fatal situation.

 

[HG_B]

Not quite half, if using the "standard schedule" - 25/52 weeks in jump, 2 weeks of n-space flight.

Jump is ~168 hours. Time to/from 100D @1G is about 7 hours. So, about 14 hours real space travel time for every 168 hours of J-space time. Or, about 10X as much time traveling (not merely existing in) through J-space than in N-space.

 

[aramis]

Jump is ~168 hours. Time to/from 100D @1G is about 7 hours. So, about 14 hours real space travel time for every 168 hours of J-space time. Or, about 10X as much time traveling (not merely existing in) through J-space than in N-space.

You're also forgetting two weeks downtime for annual maintenance, and that there are potentially customs delays on approach.

And then there's the whole issue of stars blocking direct access... which, for some runs, adds months of travel time.

 

[rancke]

And then there's the whole issue of stars blocking direct access... which, for some runs, adds months of travel time.

This is something to worry about when the publishers of the game start worrying about it. Not a single official adventure mentions jump shadowing much less jump masking, and in all of the rules versions -- even GT -- the trade rules ignore both completely.

If you did start to apply jump shadowing and jump masking, the CT rules would stand revealed as even more broken than they already do.


Hans

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,

As far as cascading failures go, I specifically tried to show an example where just such types of cascading failure could potentially result in just such a need to leave a ship.

As far as merchant ships go, I have noted before that 'typical' merchant operations are not the only vessels that have to be considered. It would maybe be interesting to try and dig up some real world numbers for accidents at sea (not to mention rivers and lakes) and see how many of them involved regular merchant ship traffic, and how many involved pleasure craft, work boats, service craft, military or auxiliary vessels and other such issues.

Focusing solely on merchant traffic to me seems to only be focusing on one part of all the cases that may be encountered in a Traveller type setting.

As for time in real space versus jump space, you probably also need to consider that you will not necessarily be landing planet side in all systems. Specifically, on non-streamlined ships you will likely be spending all time not in jump space in real space.

While you maybe could assume that for 'normal' merchant traffic most/a lot of this time in real space may likely be spent within/near 100D of the planets that you are visiting, for other traffic this will not necessarily be the case.

In addition to this, you also would have to consider non-jump capable ships that would likely basically spend their entire life in real space (unless carried aboard a jump capable ship).

As such, there would also be any/all in system traffic involved in mining of the asteroid belts, any ships that may be involved in fuel collection and refining in system, any ships servicing in-system colonies, outposts, and stations etc.

As for a lifeboat not being of use when in jump, I think I had mentioned previously somewhere that while still docked to the parent hull a lifeboat/lifepod or small craft being used as a lifeboat/lifepod would represent a completely separated 'refuge' with its own life support systems that the passengers and crew could make use of while still in jump space, that could then detach from the parent vessel once jump space is exited. Thus, if the is a cargo leak/mishap, biohazard, escaped alien lifeform, decompressed area of the ship, loss of life support on the ship, or other such incidents while in jump, the lifeboat/lifepod/small craft becomes your self-contained 'refuge' while in jump space that can also be used as a lifeboat/lifepod when not in jump space.

With regards to this, one issue that I believe that I brought up previously (at least in passing) that does not appear to have been commented on is what happens in the event of your ship being damaged and you are passing near a potential source of fresh food, water, and air etc (as well as even other supplies and possible repair parts) such as a habitable planet, satellite, and/or disused outpost, mining facility or the like.

The ability to exit your non maneuvering vessel and make your way to this planet, satellite or disused facility would seem to have potential benefits and a lifeboat/lifepod would seem to offer utility here especially for vessels where a full fledged small craft is undesirable (ie for those cases where some have suggested that they would be too large or too expensive) and/or for cases where too many passengers and/or crew are carried to make trying to carry them all in standard small craft fully practical (ie passenger liners, hospital ships, colony ships, and potentially some naval auxiliaries, etc)

 

[PFVA63]

As I said, asked and answered. The issue isn't whether disease is a potential far future issue. The issue is whether cramming a bunch of potentially infected people into lifeboats is an effective response to it. It isn't.

Hi,

I suspect a lot of this will vary with each individual's point of view. Upon an outbreak of an illness, separating the ill from the rest of the population appears to often be a first step in trying to prevent the spread of an illness. In our modern world filtering, protective clothing and the like is not always an effective means of preventing the spread off illnesses. As such trying to quarantine those not yet showing the signs of illness from those that are showing signs (which can include not just visible signs but also markers in your blood etc that can be detected by testing) by sequestering one group from the other would seem like a potentially good idea.

To basically say that 'it's a bad idea' to try and use a lifeboat/lifepod to do so seems to me to basically be the same as saying, 'if you have been in the same household as someone who has come in contact with the 'flu', 'ebola', 'or any other disease that can be transmitted from person to person, and as such cannot be allowed to leave the house. Along those lines it would seem such actions would be similar to not allowing any docter, nurse, medic or other medical practitioner to be allowed to leave their place of practice if they are treating people with infectious diseases.

It is my understanding (albeit limited) that one of the best ways to prevent the spread of such diseases is to try and limit its extent of exposure to help control how far and fast it can spread and/or mutant strains etc.