General Electronics and Traveller

[Timerover51]

I debated posting this here or in Random Static, and decided here as it has its affect on how I run My Traveller Universe and view the game.

A couple of months ago, the radio in the car my wife primarily uses decided to go out. Now, it turned out that the radio controlled a bit more than just the radio. It also controlled most of the climate controls, the interior lighting, the back-up warning, and the USB inputs. About the only thing that it did not control was the starter, speedometer, and odometer. After several trips to the dealer, they finally decided that there was a short in the radio, and replaced it with what they claimed was a new unit. We were looking at going out of town, so we took the car that I usually drive, and left my wife's car to be repaired when we got back.

Well, this afternoon, my wife arrived back home from a craft fair, and had me come out and take a look at the radio. Quite simply, the touch screen was no longer working. No climate controls, no radio controls, no compass, nothing dependent upon the touch screen to change. Again, we are looking at going out of town, so I am not exactly a happy camper at this point. The radio is a sealed unit, so all the service department does is replace it. I am not sure if they even have the ability or knowledge to fix it. I can see the same thing happening on a star ship.

Thus, this problem with overly complex electronic controls is one of the main reason why I do not go with the standard crewing for Traveller ships. I do not go with one engineer, I go with 4 as a minimum. One chief engineer, who does not stand watch, and 3 assistants that do stand watches, 4 hours on and 8 off. Not one bridge crewman, but at least 4. A captain/owner aboard who monitors everything, and at least 3 bridge officers to stand watch. For the cargo/passenger section, again at least 3, all of whom have Steward skill and can prepare fresh meals. Plus a medic on all ships of 100 tons and larger, with more medics as needed. The cargo/passenger section gets a least 3 so that someone is on duty 24 hours a day for meals and passenger needs. A high passenger wakes up in the middle of the ship's night, and decides that he wants something more than a snack to eat. Then there is the crew standing watch that need to eat, possibly at their stations, so the food needs to be brought to them.

A crewman cannot be expected to be 100% efficient for an 8 hour stretch, and clearly, the standard Traveller ship is highly dependent on electronics for all types of monitoring. Now what happens when those electronics develop problems with the solitary crewman is sleeping is never addressed. Will problems develop, see Murphy on that, with the corollary that "problems show up at the worst possible time."

 

[Enoki]

It gets worse. Even if you had the gear to trouble shoot it, and the knowledge and schematics to figure out what part(s) needed replacing, the components have gotten so small and in some ways delicate that you can't replace them even if you wanted to.

Imagine on some more advanced electronic device in terms of Traveller having components that are microscopic and were laid down in layers on a film of some sort using some grossly expensive equipment at a factory in a sterile environment.

There's no way you're fixing that on a ship even if you had some 3D printer of some sort, even a good one.

You might have to peel away layers just to get at the part needing replacement.

Worse, the module could be "ruggedized" and potted in something like an epoxy plastic that has to be whittled off carefully just to get at the components. But, you're likely not to get it all off or will likely damage something doing it.

It'd be like trying to repair an IC chip today. That realistically isn't possible.

Of course, you'd also likely run into issues getting parts. I have enough experience doing that to know that the first problem is your "standardized" whatever-it-is isn't so standardized.
The part you need is the mid production variant that was used between date x and y before it was superseded by an improved model that was later replaced in production models with a completely different unit that was deemed "better."
So, it turns out your particular part is the "rare" one nobody makes anymore simply because it's rare. In order to replace it with the "better" module, you have to also replace six other modules because those won't work with the "better" one even though they worked with your rare variant.

 

[wellis]

Does that mean instead of "repairing a part, electrical components might be sort of modular instead so like you either buy, manufacture, or pull out a spare and slot it in?

For example, for a Transhumanist 2300 AD story they were setting up, a poster I know happened upon this as an idea for servicing weapons:

Whitebox
Modern firearms are, like all transhuman technology, exquisitely crafted and powerful devices. However, this also turns their innards far more complex than ever before. A modern railgun requires finely crafted and secured armatures to keep itself from flying appart during firing. Coilguns and plasers both house complex sequential electromagnetic acceletators, and them and lasers all rely on high-powered, volatile power supplies that buffer megawatts of power per shot from solenoid power cells. Servicing such intricate electronics under field conditions in dirt, dust and hostile atmospheres is nigh-impossible, especialy electronic components.

Modern weapons overcome this issue via the Whitebox system, a functional replication of old gunpowder firearms that were made up of easily stripped and serviced components. Components such as the trigger, control computer, power supply, feeds, bolt assembly, accelerator, data and power feeds and others are encapsulated in enviromentally sealed polymer blocks - a so-called whitebox. Assembling these inside a polymer-and-metal framework creates a fully functional gun. If a component breaks down, the weapon can be opened under adverse field conditions, the offending whitebox module removed, and replaced with a packaged replacement part. For detailed diagnosis, the whitebox can then be introduced into a Field Maintenance Fabber on-site or rolled back through the logistics tail for diagnosis, repair or recycling.

Whiteboxes themselves are relatively simplistic. They contain a basic diagnostics computer with RFID output and a manual E-paper diagnostics display as well as instructions for handling and changing (as well as specifications) with attached QR ID code, and their casing is made from CNT-doped polymer with c-allotrope stability frameworks. Ports allow every nessecary component to be connected, bolt holes or attachment strips serve as mechanical attachment points for the assembled gun.

Field Weaponsmith Robot
FWRs are box-shaped, automated weaponsmith robots, a mixture of centerline workspace sorounded by robotic arms, a replacement parts bay, and a medium-sized specialist fabber with attached feedstock reserves. Most FWRs are about the size of a large suitcase to a light nanosuspension coffin, more lengthy than boxy as their workspace has to accomodate longguns also. FWRs can perform all menial and several specialist duties sorounding modern guns - Rapid cleaning, stripping and inspection, weapon parts modification and attachment managment (with attached storage, fabrication, and recycling), basic and advanced repairs, and advanced models can even craft some guns from scatch, or "frankenstein" cutomized gun models as per demand.

The Kasakeyli Heavy Industries TTC-4 is a typical FWR as carried by combat squads, usualy in the belly compartment of a squads assignerd mules. When not in use, the unit compacts down into a solid block, but when activated it unfolds upwards and outwards, opening up its main workspace. The system can service normal carbines, assault rifles, and gun- and launcher-type heavy weapons. Emplaced weapons in full are beyond its capacity, as are missiles and other shoulder-mounted heavy guns.

FWRs are operated by an LAI and Expert System cloud that specializes in Weaponsmithing. Software and hardware upgrades may be applied to extend the service libary or capabilties of the FWR.

Home Weaponsmith Robot
These civilian variants of FWRs were created as off-shots of the first weapon autoservicing robots, and a widespread "Autobench" item on the colonial frontier. Almost every modern gunowner will have some kind of HWR. Sometimes they are integrated with gun lockers/dispensers and recharge stations, as well. Compared to FWRs, HWRs aren't very transportable - they usualy rely on a homes intergated feedstock distribution system for main fabrication mass (only containing specilaized feedstock silos) and are the size of a workbench, CNC lathe, or a locker, with appropiate weight. Colonial models however, very often do have a UPS power supply and emergency bunker on board together with alternate power and feedstock hook-ups so that they can work somewhat infrastructure-independent.

Unlike FWRs, HWRs have a few advantages. Their greater service space, potential for multiple service spaces are one. They also usualy have facilities for rapidly recharging power cells, refilling civilian plaser cartridges, and fabricating and loading kinetic ammunition, a feature many FWRs ommit out of space concerns. However, without software patches many HWRs are unable to service military firearms, especialy SpecOps models, and they may lack the fabrication and brush bot precision required for various associated components.

(Both FWRs and HWRs are great ways for PCs to customize and maintain their weapons if they cannot do it themselves, or lack the primary knowledge to perform gun modifications - a quit possible obstacle on the frontier. Treat them as expert system gunsmiths, with military systems or priporitory civilian models having a certain capability to adapt and improvise. Civilian systems are also likely to have knowledge on the maintenance of bush guns (and appropiate service spaces), whereas military models have better manipulators and coding expertise for adopting various hardware, as well as "frankensteining" guns. The Autoarmory, a Smart Room that may be installed in spaces of sufficient size and infrastructure, is related to both.)

 

[Maksim-Smelchak]

Imagine on some more advanced electronic device in terms of Traveller having components that are microscopic and were laid down in layers on a film of some sort using some grossly expensive equipment at a factory in a sterile environment.

Different software architecture is one thing... imagine different physical architecture.

Electromagnetic computing is one thing... What about psionic electronics... psychotronics if you will?

It can get really exotic.

http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/Electronics

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

 

[JimMarn]

One school I attended in the US Navy told us no more component replacement, like transistors or vacuum tubes/valves. We would replace entire printed circuit boards.

Its only gotten worse.

Having repaired desktop computers since then, we just replaced the motherboard. Didn't even try to replace components, unless they were in a chip socket.

One of my Arduinos has surface mount chips that I have to use a magnifier, about 6 power, just to see the leads on it.

 

[Condottiere]

Replacement of entire modules speeds up maintenance and turnaround; I think the Hornet was first fighter jet that incorporated that.

And the Navy has decided to remove control touchscreens from some of their destroyers.

 

[whartung]

The term of art is "Field Replaceable Unit", or FRU.

This is the part that gets shipped out and swapped in the field and then returned to the manufacturer who then repairs it in house and tosses it on their spares shelf. Even if the unit requires specialized spares unique to the unit, those will be maintained at the depot or the manufacturer, and sent out as a whole unit that's more efficiently swapped out in the field.

Now, whether any of that happens with an automotive infotainment unit, who knows.

Modern manufacturing methods are very, very specialized. Whether it's an alternator or an ABS control unit. Nobody is going to fix those in the field, they're going to swap them out.

 

[aramis]

In the 80's, the USN was bragging about how Naval Aviation was using unit-swaps on planes to return planes to service much faster...

Time for deep engine maintenance? pull it, swap in the spare, and the bird flies missions today, while the engine shop does the deep maintenance.

Buggered radar? Pop it out, pop in a new, known working one... if that doesn't work, swap the emitters in the radome/nose . Soon as the bad component is ID'd, send it down to Avionics for repair.

The crew of the Constellation (CVN-64)

 

[flykiller]

I do not go with one engineer, I go with 4 as a minimum. etc

works great with a naval ship that has only one bottom line - victory. for a civie ship that requires profits, won't work.

I can see the same thing happening on a star ship.

I've often thought that would be the best reason why traveller computers are so big and primitive - so that there's at least a possibility that they can be repaired in low-tech settings. also why ship bridges are .02 of ship volume - human-repairable components, located in human-accessible bays.

 

[creativehum]

I've often thought that would be the best reason why traveller computers are so big and primitive - so that there's at least a possibility that they can be repaired in low-tech settings. also why ship bridges are .02 of ship volume - human-repairable components, located in human-accessible bays.

This has always been my assumption.

 

[Tiikeri]

M1A1 Abrams was like that. If the engine pack went down, the recovery vehicle could pull the entire pack with its crane and drop another pack into the chassis. The tank would be rolling again in about an hour, while the damaged engine back would go back for higher echelon maintenance.

As for Traveller ship computers, I handwave it.

I say the size of the computers are due to...

They're a collection of systems, like flight control, life support, interior systems control, navigation computers, all that.

The incredible complexity of navigation calculations require large computing systems.

The components are ruggedized against impact, shock, and radiation, and the shielding makes the components physically larger. Reliability is of the utmost priority in their design.

The components are made for 'pluck and chuck' maintenance while the ship is in flight by crewmen who speak different languages and who have varying levels of experience. Technicians are probably trained by rote and have little ability to repair the components themselves.

Redundant systems.

Cooling equipment.

 

[aramis]

I've often thought that would be the best reason why traveller computers are so big and primitive - so that there's at least a possibility that they can be repaired in low-tech settings. also why ship bridges are .02 of ship volume - human-repairable components, located in human-accessible bays.

This has always been my assumption.

Mine as well.

Note that MegaT V&V gives us the basic pattern of Vilani approach to parts...
Every system has discrete pull-and-replace (PAR) parts. Field repairs are simply wiring around and/or pulling error generating parts.

 

[Timerover51]

The term of art is "Field Replaceable Unit", or FRU.

This is the part that gets shipped out and swapped in the field and then returned to the manufacturer who then repairs it in house and tosses it on their spares shelf. Even if the unit requires specialized spares unique to the unit, those will be maintained at the depot or the manufacturer, and sent out as a whole unit that's more efficiently swapped out in the field.

Now, whether any of that happens with an automotive infotainment unit, who knows.

Modern manufacturing methods are very, very specialized. Whether it's an alternator or an ABS control unit. Nobody is going to fix those in the field, they're going to swap them out.

That does mean that you have to be able to afford the spare parts inventory, and be prepared to haul it around with you. Spare parts inventories tend to be expensive and space-consuming. In a combat situation, hauling a massive spare parts inventory might not be a viable option. The other problem is if too many of the same units go down at the same time, then the unit is severely constrained in it operations until the needed spares catch up, which could be a week or more.

 

[Condottiere]

Since shipboard computers are now virtual space on the bridge, your iPhone could calculate monojump algorithms.

Solid state electronics probably are the easiest components to replace, and wouldn't take up much space in the ship's locker.

 

[kilemall]

I have several assumptions going in.


Space ships and starships are built to be highly redundant- take a look at the CT computer damage for instance, same hits that take down entire drives just slows the ship computer down.

The new CT/HG hybrid damage model I've been working up assumes massive redundancy of control/fuel/power/life support systems such that it takes 90% damage to the hull before they break.

Touchscreens are stupid and error prone in any sort of stressful situation, which may be combat or just an accident/disaster- too good a chance of random bits or moving crewmen hitting them and triggering undesired actions. Buttons and switches TYVM.

Robots are not trusted certainly don't want them jacking in and hijacking the ship. Therefore robots have to interact with physical controls same as humans, and the robot owner is responsible for what the robot does.


By the time of TL 9+, electronics is more optronics/gelpacs and there are standard mass produced boards that are configurable, so might be 200 specialized implementations of boards but only 10 basic types to be stored.



On the issue of crewing for the small ships, my thought was that at 2% bridge equipment you need the multiple redundant crew, but when the bridge is 20% like a Type S or 10% of the craft like the Type A/Y, there is 10s or 5x as much automation built in and ends up being cheaper/more reliable/economical for space constrained ships.

The experience of flying a Type S for instance is that it is like 'it flies itself' because literally it IS, thus allowing say one pilot and the navigation/engineering can be automated/deferred and more mission specialists/personnel-courier transfers can be carried.

 

[whartung]

works great with a naval ship that has only one bottom line - victory. for a civie ship that requires profits, won't work.

Since I actually don't know anything about commercial shipping, I just propagate the things I see.

I've referred to them before, but if you want an intimate view of small ship commercial operations, watch "Deadliest Catch".

They spend a week to 10 days at sea, run operations 24x7, and the crew are multifaceted.

The engineer is also either in the pilot house or working the deck. They don't need to be on duty 24x7 because there's someone else watching the boat (i.e. listening for alarms). If something goes off, they wake the engineer.

Modern machinery at the professional consumer scale (i.e. pro-sumer) runs pretty well on its own as long as the gauges are in the "green". Beyond that, it's general maintenance. Whether that maintenance is daily, weekly, monthly or hourly. Change the oil, clean the filters, the machine hums along. Tighten the bolts once every 6 weeks.

The primary cost of most modern operations is labor. Everything the machinery and systems can do to effectively reduce labor leads to a more efficient operation. Starship crews aren't shoveling coal in to the jump drive. Modern freight trains, with 100+ and several locomotives are run by one guy.

 

[whartung]

That does mean that you have to be able to afford the spare parts inventory, and be prepared to haul it around with you. Spare parts inventories tend to be expensive and space-consuming. In a combat situation, hauling a massive spare parts inventory might not be a viable option. The other problem is if too many of the same units go down at the same time, then the unit is severely constrained in it operations until the needed spares catch up, which could be a week or more.

Yet this is exactly what the modern US Military does. Lots of maintenance, lots of spares. The US Military is famous (infamous) for being 90% tail with 10% teeth. Better to scavenge parts from 2 broken vehicles to make one whole than have 2 broken vehicles.

The systems are designed to maintained, but not by those who operate them. Those who operate them are tasked to do their best to bring the damaged system home to where it can be repaired.

In Traveller, if your ship is on the frontier without support at each Starport, then, yea, you better bring spares. If the Heisenberg Compensator on the Jump Drive is know to go out from time to time, it's likely worth having an extra rather than be stuck light years from help in a weakly traveled system. Such ships will be bigger and more expensive to operate because they need to dedicate space to such spares, and carry them, compared to a ship running the mains using reliable equipment from A Starport to A Starport.

Many folks who take their vehicles in to the wilderness take along spare parts that happen to be easily damaged, readily replaced, and cheap to store rather than risk losing a brake line at the top of a steep grade 50 miles from anywhere over 4WD roads.

These folks don't take 2 door coupes in to such situations which are lucky to have a mini run flat spare tire, if anything at all. Many modern cars DO NOT have a viable spare tire today. They rely on run flat ties and road services in metropolitan areas for the occasional breakdown.

No different for reliable ships running common routes to popular systems.

If your ships are unreliable, if you services are rare or long coming, then your ships need to be equipped to operate in such an environment.

 

[Xerxeskingofking]

Yet this is exactly what the modern US Military does. Lots of maintenance, lots of spares. The US Military is famous (infamous) for being 90% tail with 10% teeth. Better to scavenge parts from 2 broken vehicles to make one whole than have 2 broken vehicles.

The systems are designed to maintained, but not by those who operate them. Those who operate them are tasked to do their best to bring the damaged system home to where it can be repaired.

In Traveller, if your ship is on the frontier without support at each Starport, then, yea, you better bring spares. If the Heisenberg Compensator on the Jump Drive is know to go out from time to time, it's likely worth having an extra rather than be stuck light years from help in a weakly traveled system. Such ships will be bigger and more expensive to operate because they need to dedicate space to such spares, and carry them, compared to a ship running the mains using reliable equipment from A Starport to A Starport.

Many folks who take their vehicles in to the wilderness take along spare parts that happen to be easily damaged, readily replaced, and cheap to store rather than risk losing a brake line at the top of a steep grade 50 miles from anywhere over 4WD roads.

These folks don't take 2 door coupes in to such situations which are lucky to have a mini run flat spare tire, if anything at all. Many modern cars DO NOT have a viable spare tire today. They rely on run flat ties and road services in metropolitan areas for the occasional breakdown.

No different for reliable ships running common routes to popular systems.

If your ships are unreliable, if you services are rare or long coming, then your ships need to be equipped to operate in such an environment.

this leads to another potential source of bulk in the bulky travellers systems: built in redundancy, and spare parts sorted in situ. for example, the nav-comp is not only made out of a series of discrete, easily changeable "black boxes" that can be hot swapped to work around a fault, but their is a full, back up nav comp already assembled, plugged in and ready to use, that is set up to step up and assume control if the main nav comp suffers a part failure. This allows the tech to identify the faulty black box at lesure and swap it out with a working part, while still assuring the ship can continue to fly.

 

[Timerover51]

Yet this is exactly what the modern US Military does. Lots of maintenance, lots of spares. The US Military is famous (infamous) for being 90% tail with 10% teeth. Better to scavenge parts from 2 broken vehicles to make one whole than have 2 broken vehicles.

The systems are designed to maintained, but not by those who operate them. Those who operate them are tasked to do their best to bring the damaged system home to where it can be repaired.

Be careful where you cast stones. The British ended World War 2 with the same tooth to tail ratio as the U.S. The Germans had a smaller ratio and never adequately supplied or maintained their units. As for the Japanese, they were pretty hopeless, expecting the units to live off of the land with respect to food. That did not work very well in the South Pacific.

The reason for the high tail to tooth ratio has to do with the enormous quantity of supplies, such as fuel, consumed by mechanized units today. Try 1000 tons of supplies per day per division in combat. Then get that materail from the U.S. to the Persian Gulf, with a 30 to 90 day stockpile of reserves for immediate issue. Then there is all of the vehicles to maintain, and all of the ammunition consumed. When the standard artillery piece is a 155mm verses a 105mm, your ammunition load triples in weight. The same for the 120mm verses 105mm or 90mm tank gun, while the standard WW2 tank gun was 75mm. To move all of that takes even more vehicles and manpower.

People also play games with what it teeth and what is tail. Are the teeth the guys actually firing at the enemy or the division that includes him and all of the supporting cast?

 

[Enoki]

It's a reasonable assumption too. Military grade industrial controls (eg., ship control systems) are bulky as they have been designed to be repaired in various ways.
A typical computerized system might use dozens of "ruggedized" circuit cards that are plug-in types. Most of these cards are of a standardized design used in many different systems. Troubleshooting is relatively easy to do and designed to allow someone with minimal skill to do it if necessary.
The trade off is the system is bulky and expensive, but it is repairable. Been there, done that-- a lot.