Fully Automated Ships, are they practical, or even possible?

[Malenfant]

There was also the case of a passenger plane flying over... Peru? Chile? at night several years ago (early 90s, I think?). Some mechanical problem occurred anyway, I don't recall if it was engines or gyros, but it actually ended up practically flying upsidedown because of it, which caused it to stall and smack into the forest below.

There was a Horizon program on it in the UK, IIRC. (that was very vague and not very helpful, I know . I'm sure someone must know what I mean). The thing that stuck in my mind (other than the computer simulation of the plane turning upsidedown) was the fact that they found bodies of the passengers around the crash site, and they were all naked. Apparently when planes crash the force of impact actually strips clothing off.

 

[mike wightman]

Check the statistics here

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Check the statistics here

See memory is a fleeting thing.

I had forgotten about the Airbus the Vincennes shot down. There are quite a few more hostile actions than I thought there would be before the 80s. And while they are listed as disasters some of them clearly aren't. 2 seriously injured isn't a crash it is a hard landing. One guy suffering pnemonia from a blunt force trauma as a result of turbulence and dying two weeks later at age 84?

But it is an instructive list.

This list includes planes that definitely wouldn't be considered airliners (in fact, from a short glance, one of them is definitely a helicopter), but quite a few of these didn't make the headlines. The helicopter did and I remember the accident. (It was the last flight to land on the PanAm Building in NYC.)

Thanks for the reference. I stand corrected. (Though it looks kinda funny.

)

 

[BetterThanLife]

I don't see anyone getting shot down on this database. Sorry couldn't resist, perhaps it falls under human error not pilot. (though wouldn't passenger shooting the pilot also fit in this category?

)

The notable causes by category has two very long lists, Sabotage/Bomb and Hijacking resulting in Fatalities are two of the three longest lists. (Fuel Starvation being between those two.)

But I still stand corrected.

(And it still looks funny.)

Originally posted by thrash:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bhoins:
Did I miss any?

Lots: according to this database, sabotage/hijacking/hostile action is still third place behind mechanical failure and weather as non-pilot error causes for aircraft mishaps involving fatalities.

Don't be fooled by what makes the front page. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Wayne]

Bringing this back on subject.

I have, for the last 8 years, work on or for small Canadian Navy ships (MCDVs) that can be run by a minimum of 2 people. One person on the Bridge watching/responding to all outside encounters, and one person in the Machinery Control Room watching/responding to all internal problems. The 'only' limit is that at some point, the people need rest. But with a crew of 6, you could sail as long as the food and fuel last and you have no equipment breakdowns.

The real world crew size is normally around 30+ people with a maximum crew of 39, 45 if extra accommodations are put onboard.

If we can do this now, I see no reason why ships in the OTU or YTU can’t be fully automated.

 

[far-trader]

Actually I kinda see this level of automation as the defining level of the required crew formula in Traveller, and as a side topic, partly explaining the size of the computers. So imtu the ships and boats are already optimized for automation.

The differences in TL of the computer and model number allow better response (faster combat response mostly), more crew substitution (hence bigger ships need bigger computers), and define the type of interface (button punching and defined programs up to voice command and limited a.i. to full blown personality a.i.)

The experimental stealth boat(? ship?) the US is working on is crewed iirc by just 3 (a bridge officer, an engineer, and a rover) and a computer.

 

[robject]

Bringing the topic completely back on track: I recently read a very old article from one of the first four JTAS, regarding the design of robots who can operate starships. For a bit over Cr500,000, one can buy a robot who has Pilot-3. For Cr100,000, one can buy a robot who has Navigation-1, or Medic-1, or Gunnery-4! You can see where this is going.

As mentioned in earlier posts, these robots -- especially the pilot -- may not be able to respond to unique situations, and will have maintenance issues once in awhile. However, they will, in general, perform as good as humans, and I think they make good economic sense in many cases.

 

[mike wightman]

Hmm, crew salaries versus loan payments to buy said robots...

 

[Malenfant]

Why shouldn't automated ships be possible in Traveller? Especially X-Boats. It should be fairly trivial to program the X-Boat ship computer to jump to the target system and broadcast its messages at the given time.

After all, we have fairly complex automated/robotic spacecraft now...

 

[mike wightman]

The only reson this isn't done in the 3rd Imperium setting is the cultural bias against the use of robots.
Most of the other states in known space have no such prejudice and probably use them.

 

[Malenfant]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
The only reson this isn't done in the 3rd Imperium setting is the cultural bias against the use of robots.

I'm not even talking about "robots", in the sense of needing humans on board to tell robots what to do.

We already can (or at least, are a matter of years away from the stage where one can effectively) quite easily program a computer to do tasks like taking a preset sequence of images at a certain time, firing engines for a certain (precise) duration, locking on to a target and broadcasting a signal etc - all with very little (if any) human guidance. Certainly for something like X-Boats this would be a fine solution.

Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure. But some things in traveller can certainly be done on automatic.

 

[robject]

In fact, I suspect X-Boats IMTU are fully automated; that is, the "robot brain" which allows independent decision-making is either part of the ship design or (more likely) is networked into the pilot's station. Either way, the human is unnecessary.

I suspect the human will be there anyway, for whatever grab-bag of reasons. Hmm, what reasons can I come up with?

(1) Scout transfer. What a rotten way to transfer personnel. Still, there it is.

(2) "Human Backup". Probably more PR than reality.

(3) Experience. Well, why not? Maybe Scouts can gain Astrography experience this way. It's still a horrible assignment.


And as far as gunnery goes, if the ship's sensors can detect and lock onto a target, then the ship's guns can fire on that target. Depends on how proven the technology is IYTU, I think.

The JTAS article I was referring to did not talk about these robots being able to think; it outlined tasks that they could be programmed for. Of course, it defined those programs in 1970s terms -- no provision for program storage and loading -- though it did notably allow multitasking.

Also notable was the "field infantry" program and hardware. Want an antigrav robot built around a modified PGMP-12 and ran a "Ground Combat (infantry)" program?

 

[TheEngineer]

Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure.

Yep. It needs true intelligence to kill each other in a professional way....

I would consider automated starship usage as something very suitable for routine mass transport activities.
However computers/automated starships might be "restricted" by imperial law in its right to defend cargo and perhaps kill people.
Perhaps its too easy to "hack" these system and steal vast amounts of goods. (I just heard about another major security leak in the Windows 6000 Server operating system).
If its getting interpersonal I really could imagine that most people dont want some automatic stuff taking care for them. People like to deal with people. So even passenger transports are not a very good place for full automation.

So fully automated starships might be absolutly possible in the TU, but perhaps just not that practical or accepted.
They are at least a very pretty source of adventure...)

 

[robject]

Seems like it's an open question. That's the kind I like: it allows the referee to decide, and doesn't kill the OTU.

 

[robject]

Here's the stats I slopped together for a "crewbot":

Cost: MCr 1.0
Chassis type I (50kg)
Antigrav locomotion
Two light work arms
Voder/Vocoder
Basic physical sensors
Modified SMG
CR-15 Brain (program store = 5)

Assuming programs can be stored in the ship's computer for reprogramming on the fly, this unit can be a pilot, astrogator, medic, steward, gunner, engineer, and general repairdroid. What a guy!

For the nobleman, the following model can also function as a security bot:

Cost: MCr 1.2
Chassis Type III (100kg)
Antigrav locomotion
2 light work arms
Modified Laser Carbine
Modified Auto Grenade L.
Sensor additions:
Night Vision
Low-level audio
Telescopic visual
Comms additions:
MF radio
Counter ECM
Voder/Vocorder
CR-15 Brain (program store = 5)

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Malenfant:
I'm not even talking about "robots", in the sense of needing humans on board to tell robots what to do.

<snip>

Tasks that actually require true AI (e.g. combat) would best be left to biological crew, sure. But some things in traveller can certainly be done on automatic.

Once you automate the x-boat to the point it can function without a crew member on board then the x-boat is the robot.
If it's controlled by a cmputer "brain" then it is a robot IMHO.
Whether you do this with fixed "brain" with remote appendages or fully mobile individual robots is a moot point - it's still a robotic ship.

As to the usefullness of crew in Traveller combat:
in CT the computer programs had more of a DM on space combat unless you have a skill rating of 4 or higher in a relevant skill;
in HG combat the computer model makes all the difference to the combat charts, crew skill and quality only comes into it for fleet tactics (initiative), ship tactics (bonus to computer model), and pilot (agility) - note that you have to have a skill level of 3 or higher to gain a bonus for the latter two.

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by robject:
Here's the stats I slopped together for a "crewbot":

<snip>

Works for me

If you have book 8 you can make pretty much the same robots - they may work out a little more expensive than the JTAS article designs IIRC.

The advantage of book 8 is that it includes rules for skills, program storage etc.

 

[Border Reiver]

I think most crew positions can be deemed necessary only to make humans feel better about themselves in the same way the US has a manned spaceflight programme when most work can be completed by unmanned vehicles. Anyway we already have canon fully automated starships, many (but not all) Vampire vessels in the new era are crewless.

 

[mike wightman]

And the ones that are crewed are full of zombie cyborgs and killer robots

There's so much to love about the TNE setting...

 

[Golan2072]

It's only a matter of flavor. Do you want a HAL-2001 on your TU's ships? a "Mother" (from Alien)? A S.H.O.D.A.N? Or just a simple R2D2? Or no robot at all?

I might design my own TL-12 "Mother" computer - not really sentient, and not creative - so you'll need a Human to make most important decisions, but day-to-day operations would be handled by Mother, or by her slaved robots.

Now, if a good "programmer" (read, Hacker) gets inside this "Mother" and modifies stuff, or if something infests her - you'll get an instant System Shock plot device; a similar late TL-15 system could fully "go SHODAN".

And i wonder how much Ash would cost in Traveller terms