CT Only: HandComps and Personal Computers

[mike wightman]

Number of times the word tape appears in CT LBB1-3 77 edition

zero

number of times the word tape is used in 81 edition LBB1-3

zero

Number of times in The Traveller Book - 11, all in reference to voice recorder, video recorder and text recorder in the equipment chapter, the same can be found in the Starter Edition.

 

[kilemall]

Number of times the word tape appears in CT LBB1-3 77 edition

zero

number of times the word tape is used in 81 edition LBB1-3

zero

Number of times in The Traveller Book - 11, all in reference to voice recorder, video recorder and text recorder in the equipment chapter, the same can be found in the Starter Edition.

Wasn’t it jump cassette?

 

[mike wightman]

It was, but no mention of tape.

 

[Condottiere]

I have considered the matter, and have come to the conclusion it has a certain je ne sais quoi.

 

[whartung]

The modern AIs are completely useless, just mostly.

 

[infojunky]

The modern AIs are completely useless, just mostly.

Honestly, that is how I imagined all Traveller "computer" programs early on... (We had a PCjr in the house way back when)

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Enoki]

... and yet:

"Hand Computer (11) Cr1000. Provides services of a small computer (equivalent to Model/1 in computing power), plus serves as a computer terminal when linked to a larger computer (such as on board a ship). Weighs 500 grams." [The Traveller Book, pg 108]

... and a Model/1 is (TL 5) Cr 2,000,000. Weighs 1 ton (1000 kg?) [The Traveller Book, pg 58]

I have some SERIOUS personal issues with a 1900-1949 "computer" operating a Starship through FTL Travel 3-body multi-dimensional physics calculations ... I don't think an electro-mechanical Babbage Engine, the Norden Bombsight, the Enigma Machine or even the 1946 ENIAC were up to the task. However, the goal was to interpolate between the GIVEN data points, not to render the Starship Creation rules void by creating new computer rules based on 21st century iPhones and a 1980's magazine article.

I would say you could get something from about 1935-ish forward to do the job but it would be gigantic and extremely specialized with a lot of manual inputs. I could see something akin to a major shipboard electro-mechanical fire control computer manned by say, a dozen people gathering data and inputting it, being just capable of doing sufficient calculations to allow a starship to operate.

The Curtiss Whirlwind of 1950 could just handle the calculations for a crude ABM system. It's electro-analog.

The SAGE system for the USAF in 1950-ish could do the job too.

It takes up about 5000 sq ft of floor space, give or take and had 64K of memory with 150 K of storage space for data and it's digital. Here's a sci-fiy photo from an old 60's B-movie of it...

 

[Enoki]

Jump tape? Hum, why does that term always make me think.....

View attachment 5549

It could be worse... Your computer uses punch cards and somebody accidentally spills the cards just before you want to jump...

 

[mike wightman]

IS plotting a jump a calculation a computer can actually do? or like many of the problems we set computer simulations today can they just crunch the numbers and then take the most probable.

Question to Copilot:

Ok, hypothetically if you could plot an n-body problem for two adjacent solar systems in real time what if we introduce both systems being part of a mullti-dimensional or hyper dimensional solution.

Copilot's reply:

Introducing a multi-dimensional or hyper-dimensional aspect to the n-body problem for two adjacent solar systems adds another layer of complexity. Here's how this might influence the simulation:

Higher-Dimensional Space​

• Additional Forces and Interactions: In a multi-dimensional space, bodies might experience forces not just in the familiar three dimensions but in higher dimensions as well. This could alter their trajectories and interactions significantly.
• New Equations of Motion: The equations governing the motion of the bodies would need to be reformulated to account for additional spatial dimensions. This would involve more complex mathematics and increased computational demands.
• Potential for Novel Dynamics: Higher-dimensional spaces could introduce new types of stable orbits, chaotic behavior, or even novel physical phenomena not seen in lower-dimensional simulations.

Impact on Real-Time Simulation​

• Computational Load: Real-time simulations of such complex systems would require even more powerful computational resources. Advanced algorithms and possibly quantum computing could be leveraged to handle the increased complexity.
• Accuracy and Precision: The need for precise initial conditions and high accuracy in calculations would be even more critical, as small errors could propagate rapidly in a higher-dimensional system.
• Visualization Challenges: Representing and visualizing higher-dimensional interactions poses a significant challenge, as our intuition and graphical capabilities are limited to three dimensions.

Potential Outcomes​

• Enhanced Understanding: Such simulations could provide deeper insights into theoretical physics, including string theory and other models that propose higher-dimensional spaces.
• Predictive Power: Accurately modeling these interactions could improve our understanding of celestial mechanics, potentially revealing new stable configurations or helping to explain currently unexplained astronomical phenomena.

While purely hypothetical, exploring n-body problems in higher dimensions pushes the boundaries of our computational and theoretical capabilities, offering exciting possibilities for future research.

Now for the fun bit. I asked if Wolfram's work could help solve this:

Cellular Automata​

Cellular automata are discrete models used in computational mathematics, consisting of a grid of cells that evolve through time according to a set of rules based on the states of neighboring cells. Wolfram's work on cellular automata, especially Rule 30, has shown how simple rules can lead to complex behaviors.

Hypergraph Theory​

Hypergraph theory is a generalization of graph theory where edges can connect any number of vertices, not just two. This makes hypergraphs useful for modeling complex relationships in various fields, such as databases, machine learning, and bioinformatics.

Application to N-Body Problems​

While cellular automata and hypergraph theory are not typically used for simulating n-body problems in physics, they could offer interesting approaches:

• Cellular Automata: Could be used to model simplified interactions in a discrete space, potentially revealing emergent behaviors.
• Hypergraph Theory: Could help in visualizing and analyzing complex interactions between multiple bodies, especially in higher-dimensional spaces.

These methods might not replace traditional numerical simulations but could provide new insights or complementary perspectives.

And just as we were getting somewhere this bloke called Butler turned up...

 

[casquilho]

Number of times the word tape appears in CT LBB1-3 77 edition

zero

number of times the word tape is used in 81 edition LBB1-3

zero

Number of times in The Traveller Book - 11, all in reference to voice recorder, video recorder and text recorder in the equipment chapter, the same can be found in the Starter Edition.

Number of times I have seen folks use the term jump tape on forums and in game? Way more than zero. While I appreciate your attempt to stop the joke dead in its tracks, I will also say, I do not care how many times it shows up in the rules. You are welcome to visualize the game any way you wish and I will continue to giggle slightly when I see someone say "Jump Tape" and get a little joy out of it.

 

[Condottiere]

An eight track jump tape gives you eight possible options to jump to your stated destination.

 

[atpollard]

I would say you could get something from about 1935-ish forward to do the job but it would be gigantic and extremely specialized with a lot of manual inputs. I could see something akin to a major shipboard electro-mechanical fire control computer manned by say, a dozen people gathering data and inputting it, being just capable of doing sufficient calculations to allow a starship to operate.

... and RAW it will run games and Library and Anti-Hijack and Auto-return fire and pilot the ship at TL 7 with that Raw COMPUTING POWER fitting on your arm by TL 11!

It always "snapped suspenders" no matter how you stood on hour head to wrap your brain around it.
The choices are a radical HOUSE RULE CHANGE, or shrug and move on [Mental compartmentalization is a beautiful thing ].

 

[atpollard]

It could be worse... Your computer uses punch cards and somebody accidentally spills the cards just before you want to jump...

It is kinda depressing when the SOTA equipment you learned to program on starts showing up in museums.

 

[whartung]

IS plotting a jump a calculation a computer can actually do?

Well, obviously, we don't know what it takes to compute jump. But there's a program to do it, so the base assumption is "yes". We don't need "spice" or anything, it's not a psychic phenomenon, apparently someone with "Navigation-1" can pull it off. Arguably it can be pulled off with Nav-0, depending on the ruleset. It should also be noted that there's no distinct "Jump Navigator" skill. It's just Navigation, for both Jump and sub light, intersystem work.

Intersystem courses can be readily plotted. We do that today, but they're very involved, and very complicated. But that's only because we're trying to use as little delta V, and fuel as possible, taking into account the fractions of G forces that are encountered in the system (The Sun and Jupiter dominate any long range intersystem travel in our solar system). That said, we got to the moon with little more than slide rule technology.

In Traveller, we don't have that problem. It's point and shoot. This simplifies the math by being able to ignore many of the finer details. 1G of unlimited acceleration is very powerful.

Any computer calculating anything involving a differential equation (which space flight is filled with), is "simulating" it. Those are all iterative algorithms. At the same time, however, there's nothing stopping a computer for symbolically solving the equations to, perhaps, simpler equations that can be directly solved. (It should be noted that even primitives like multiplication and division are iterative at the most base level of computing.)

 

[Enoki]

The way I see the calculation is this:

You know the variables and inputs you need to do this, such as where you are to begin with (preferably with no momentum on your ship to make it easier). You know where you want to go. You know how things involved, like your ship, the system you are jumping to, etc., are moving. That stuff isn't particularly variable but more like constants. You have other known influences on doing a jump.

You put all that into your computer and it spits out a bearing and distance to be jumped. You point the ship at that spot and jump. With a navigation program, you already have the necessary data for places you are likely to jump to available. If you don't have that specific data, you can purchase a copy from some local source that sells navigational data.

The alternative is you do it manually. You get the book or something...

 

[mike wightman]

That's the thing, we have been told that the positions of planets, satellites etc are easily predictable and therefore can be computer modeled. They can't, at least not with certainty. Computers can only approximate, they are good approximations, but the models are not 100%.

Are you willing to bet your life on a weather forecast for a weeks time? Based on data that is a few years out of date?

Now think about that system you are jumping to, if you use real world observations you can likely build a model for the system, but all the data you use is already a few years out of date, and our telescopes will have to improve an awful lot so see everything in an adjacent system.

One of the jobs the scout service must have is gathering data on systems to make a real time model of every system and how they interact with each other. Your data will have to be constantly updated because planetary orbits are not as stable as we are lead to believe.

 

[kilemall]

That's the thing, we have been told that the positions of planets, satellites etc are easily predictable and therefore can be computer modeled. They can't, at least not with certainty. Computers can only approximate, they are good approximations, but the models are not 100%.

Are you willing to bet your life on a weather forecast for a weeks time? Based on data that is a few years out of date?

Now think about that system you are jumping to, if you use real world observations you can likely build a model for the system, but all the data you use is already a few years out of date, and our telescopes will have to improve an awful lot so see everything in an adjacent system.

One of the jobs the scout service must have is gathering data on systems to make a real time model of every system and how they interact with each other. Your data will have to be constantly updated because planetary orbits are not as stable as we are lead to believe.

Exactly. The USN and other major navies are constantly engaged in oceanographic survey to be able to best move and fight in that environment. Same thing for such a gravitational sensitive tech as jump.

 

[whartung]

Now think about that system you are jumping to, if you use real world observations you can likely build a model for the system, but all the data you use is already a few years out of date, and our telescopes will have to improve an awful lot so see everything in an adjacent system.

Sure, but, I mean, you're talking different levels of scale here.

Yes, calculating orbits and positions can be very complicated. My understanding is that lunar calculations involve dozens of variable (such as the Sun and Jupiter and, probably, even Saturn). But that's for very high precision calculations. For most purposes, they're not necessary.

Consider the "leap year" for the Gregorian Calendar. Imperfect, but completely practical. With the only real correction being the odd leap second every year or so. Jumping into a system with 100 year old data that's off by 100 seconds, at a solar system scale, should not be a problem for most anything, Especially in Traveller where there's a lot of power.

But, sure, if you're passively flinging satellites and probes around gravitational masses to accelerate them out of the system, then yea, you need precision, error adds up and complicates things.

"Space is big" -- D. Adams.

It's simple enough to hedge your arrival, plus, to be fair, there's a built in safety mechanic. The 100D Jump limit that pulls ships out of jump space allows jump calculations to be a bit sloppy without necessarily endangering the ship (i.e. smacking it into a sun or planet accidentally).

Once you arrive, you can always refine your calculations.

 

[mike wightman]

Sure, but, I mean, you're talking different levels of scale here.

Yes, calculating orbits and positions can be very complicated. My understanding is that lunar calculations involve dozens of variable (such as the Sun and Jupiter and, probably, even Saturn). But that's for very high precision calculations. For most purposes, they're not necessary.

I would imagine jumping into another solar system would require you to know where everything over the size of your ship is in that system. The other issue is that the gravitic dance the planets etc perform are organised chaos.

Consider the "leap year" for the Gregorian Calendar. Imperfect, but completely practical. With the only real correction being the odd leap second every year or so. Jumping into a system with 100 year old data that's off by 100 seconds, at a solar system scale, should not be a problem for most anything, Especially in Traveller where there's a lot of power.

If a planet has shifted in its orbit due to a gravitational interaction...

But, sure, if you're passively flinging satellites and probes around gravitational masses to accelerate them out of the system, then yea, you need precision, error adds up and complicates things.

"Space is big" -- D. Adams.

It's simple enough to hedge your arrival, plus, to be fair, there's a built in safety mechanic. The 100D Jump limit that pulls ships out of jump space allows jump calculations to be a bit sloppy without necessarily endangering the ship (i.e. smacking it into a sun or planet accidentally).

Once you arrive, you can always refine your calculations.

Yes, once you are in a system you can improve your data and then jump out with that data to build your models.

The current modelling we use for our solar system is good for ~100 years into the future.