Lifeboats
- Thread starter Pwyll
- Start date
That's pretty much how I feel about it too.
And I bet, even if it is a waste of space, if I were to produce ships with these on it in a TU where some ships didn't use them, I could fetch higher rates for my tickets, thus making my enterprise equally viable. One of the biggest jokes in Traveller is the equal price for passages without regard to ship type, features, etc. But that's a whole other argument...
Drakon
SOC-14 1K
Continuing to say it won't make it so
Starships will sink, in this case if they lose power they will fall (sink) into the nearest gravity well. That could take years or longer in which case you probably want to hang on as long as feasible or until you can make a safe transfer to someplace better. Or it could be a matter of minutes or hours before your ship sinks into a gas-giant or planet, and then you'll want to abandon ship and try for a better place, even a controlled landing on the planet or a stable orbit.</font>[/QUOTE]
No need to get snarky. I just don't see the cost benefit coming out the way you want.
You're right, everything is moving wrt to something else. And if you are in high orbit, and need to bail, like another poster mentioned, vac suits come with re-entry setups.
Anything you put on a lifeboat is something that could just as easily be made a redundant system on the main ship, for less cost, if nothing else. No thrusters, you need thrusters on your life boat. Why not just put them on the main ship? Radio, life support, fuel cells, all the redundant systems you require for a lifeboat, can be utilized to save the main ship.
And a lifeboat is only going to be good when you can expect rescue in a relative short time, or if there is a nearby terrestrial planet that you can get to. If you are in more civilized space, maybe you have a point. If you are out on the frontier, you cannot count on either possibility.
So, I would rather devote the money to making the ship's systems more robust, less likely to run into stray planets, and provide redundancy in case something fails. Reducing the risks in other ways.
On another note, nice job on the collapsible lifeboat however. For some reason, I got in my head a picture of the side of a liner, blowing bubbles, and watching the bubbles drift off.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Originally posted by Drakon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Continuing to say it won't make it so
No need to get snarky. I just don't see the cost benefit coming out the way you want.</font>[/QUOTE]My apologies, I was not aiming at snarky. Would you believe I missed humor by thaaaat much
You could be (in fact probably are) right about cost benefit, it wasn't really the priority in my mind at all.
I guess maybe it comes down to a difference in imagining the way the ships are built. I've always figured they were built to a high degree of safety and redundancy already and couldn't be made any better. That and the chance for damage to still incapacitate a ship leads me to feel there is a place for lifeboats.
As for the vacc-suits I'm solidly in the camp that says most civilians won't know how to use them, anymore than most today know how to use scuba gear. I usually allow one heavy vacc-suit and eva MMU unit per required Engineer and one standard vacc-suit for each other crew person as part of the standard ship's locker. No re-entry kits. They can be purchased separately but are typically a military or extreme sport item, much like parachutes today, which you don't see many aircrew sporting.
Yep, the rescue must still be timely, even with a lifeboat, but at least it is weeks rather than hours or days. I figure you can hope if you (for example) misjump spatially (1d6 x 1d6 typically 9-16 parsecs) to be found in about three to five weeks (reported overdue, Scouts begin search, 1 week per 3 parsec ranged averaged for Type S and X-boat messages). This of course would assume your ship was on a regular route, and keeping a schedule, and that you or your passengers rated such concern. Naturally a free-trader could file a route schedule as they went, sending ahead to the next world the intended time of arrival by another ship or X-boat message. Good adventure nugget there (free-trader owner concerned because he has a high profile cargo or passenger so they send word along with a friendly Captain headed that way who happens to be in desperate need of some cash and sells the info to some pirates)
So yeah, lifeboats are probably not a priority for a free-trader Captain but would probably be mandatory on a subsidized route (that is far less likely to actually need them
Maybe we're not so much in disagreement as looking at it from different angles, and that's all good.
Thanks for the kudos on the collapsible lifeboat, it was a team effort, I was just the first to publish. I like the imagery you had, reminds me of something, somewhere...
Drakon
SOC-14 1K
I think I understand your position. We can make them as safe as we know how, but its the situations we don't think about, that bite us.
So again, we look at all possible failure modes (that we can think of), and exactly how a lifeboat will help. Generally speaking, if its a mechanical failure, or a collison, the ship may be severely damaged and nothing but junk afterwards, but the situations where it disappears are going to be pretty rare. And in those cases, abandoning ship deprives you of resources you could otherwise use to help your situation.
Also all the systems a lifeboat requires, are systems that can be used by the main ship to keep the ship going or improve its chances in a crisis, or reduce the risk of the crisis in the first place.
In situations where you lose the ship, (re-entry burn, explosions) on explosions I see that as extremely rare. I don't see fusion reactors being particularly sensitive to exploding. Heck fission reactors should be more sensitive to exploding, rather than melting down, but it is actually quite easy to design the reactor to make a nuclear explosion impossible. Physics is helpful there, and I see as it being even more helpful when fusion comes along.
Now, ammo explosions may be problematic. But again, I can already see, just off the top of my head, means and design considerations to render such events less than catastrophic. Blowout vents in the magazine bays, etc.
For re-entry, you may have a case. But again, only if its a life bearing planet, and only if you have enough time from the realization of a catastrophic emergency to getting to the life boats. If its a gas giant, or has a poisonous atmosphere, such as CO2, you still screwed. If you have like a minute to evacuate the ship, unless its a very small passenger list, or pre stationed close by, you probably won't have enough time to evacuate, assuming you can, while the ship is burning up.
And if you have a long time, decaying orbit over a life bearing planet, and are high enough, shuttles and vac suits satsify.
Vac suits: you might have a point about general ignorance there. I am not qualified to say, as I am an ex-submariner, and also have my PADI card. Heck if I can understand it, it can't be that hard.
Mis-jumps: Perhaps I am missing something here, but why would a simple "out of gas" require abandoning ship? That sounds like the last thing you would want to do. As long as the ship is still there, as long as it ain't leaving, you shouldn't either.
So again, we look at all possible failure modes (that we can think of), and exactly how a lifeboat will help. Generally speaking, if its a mechanical failure, or a collison, the ship may be severely damaged and nothing but junk afterwards, but the situations where it disappears are going to be pretty rare. And in those cases, abandoning ship deprives you of resources you could otherwise use to help your situation.
Also all the systems a lifeboat requires, are systems that can be used by the main ship to keep the ship going or improve its chances in a crisis, or reduce the risk of the crisis in the first place.
In situations where you lose the ship, (re-entry burn, explosions) on explosions I see that as extremely rare. I don't see fusion reactors being particularly sensitive to exploding. Heck fission reactors should be more sensitive to exploding, rather than melting down, but it is actually quite easy to design the reactor to make a nuclear explosion impossible. Physics is helpful there, and I see as it being even more helpful when fusion comes along.
Now, ammo explosions may be problematic. But again, I can already see, just off the top of my head, means and design considerations to render such events less than catastrophic. Blowout vents in the magazine bays, etc.
For re-entry, you may have a case. But again, only if its a life bearing planet, and only if you have enough time from the realization of a catastrophic emergency to getting to the life boats. If its a gas giant, or has a poisonous atmosphere, such as CO2, you still screwed. If you have like a minute to evacuate the ship, unless its a very small passenger list, or pre stationed close by, you probably won't have enough time to evacuate, assuming you can, while the ship is burning up.
And if you have a long time, decaying orbit over a life bearing planet, and are high enough, shuttles and vac suits satsify.
Vac suits: you might have a point about general ignorance there. I am not qualified to say, as I am an ex-submariner, and also have my PADI card. Heck if I can understand it, it can't be that hard.
Mis-jumps: Perhaps I am missing something here, but why would a simple "out of gas" require abandoning ship? That sounds like the last thing you would want to do. As long as the ship is still there, as long as it ain't leaving, you shouldn't either.
The topic of lifeboats came up at my Coastal Navigation course last night. We talked about extreme weather sailing, about the races that have had disasters around England and Australia, etc.
The thing people found is that a lot of those who died in the life rafts might have lived if they'd stayed with the boat. The boat has the supplies, radio, etc. So, you are right that the main ship has resources.
Note however that on the titanic, those who stayed with the boat went down with it.
A good simple quote and guide is this
"Always step up into a lifeboat."
What that means is, if your ship is going down, get into the lifeboat. Until it *is* going down, don't.
The problem with this is:
Let us say there are 100 failure points on the ship. I gain 10% space by removing my boats. (Just making numbers up). So, I devote 0.1% to each? probably doesn't make a big difference. Or I pick the top 10, and apply 1% each (enough to make a difference). But wait! The other 90 can still fail. And you then have no boats.
This boils down to the fact the ship is big, complex, and has many many kinds of possible failures (IMO/IMTU). The lifeboats offer you an 'out' (even if it is only an extension of life) in these situations. Sometimes they'll save you, sometimes not. Sometimes they may make the difference between going down with the ship and being around when rescue arrives, sometimes they will take you to a rescue, sometimes they'll only prolong your suffering before you run out of life support. But it is a chance.
Since the ship is complex enough and since you don't gain enough space to introduce extra redundancy (note that even redundant systems fail, in fact switched backups beyond the third INCREASE the risk of failure - Systems Engineering taught me that), the lifeboat is an 'all failures' option.
Most 3I systems have some population. Even non 'life bearing' planets may still have domes, underground cities, etc. But a lot of the 3I has C D or E Starports, some X, and a lot of local tech levels are 8-.
Pah! I too am PADI certified as well as being in the process of certifying for offshore sailing. There is a huge amount that goes into the former certification here (about 10 or 12 courses and a lot of hours on the water), and a fair amount (you've obviously done it) that goes into the former.Vac suits: you might have a point about general ignorance there. I am not qualified to say, as I am an ex-submariner, and also have my PADI card. Heck if I can understand it, it can't be that hard.
I saw people panic in the pool and on the open water dive. I myself got a touch of a problem at the surface in full dive kit. These types of problems often have nothing to do with knowledge, but with discomfort, fear, awkwardness, etc.
The people who had problems at the open water dive had already spent hours in the classroom, hours in the pool, etc. - unlike your civ passengers.
And space is even more dangerous than diving (so I am assured by the Discovery channel).
If things go wrong out there, you can't do an emergency swimming ascent and end up breathing air, even if you are a bit sick. You just die.
You need fuel to keep the LS running. You need fuel to keep the thermal systems running to prevent overheating. You need fuel to keep hatches, etc. running and lights. You need fuel to move.
If you are genuinely out of fuel, abandoning ship to get to a nearby planet *might* make sense.
Might....
I'm not disputing your overall logic about making ships more robust. I'm just noting they are complex and the lifeboat is a potential safegaurd against all the *unforseen* failures since you can't (by definition) forsee them, and you may not be able to engineer in redundancy against every failure....
Drakon
SOC-14 1K
The problem with this is:
Let us say there are 100 failure points on the ship. I gain 10% space by removing my boats. (Just making numbers up). So, I devote 0.1% to each? probably doesn't make a big difference. Or I pick the top 10, and apply 1% each (enough to make a difference). But wait! The other 90 can still fail. And you then have no boats.
This boils down to the fact the ship is big, complex, and has many many kinds of possible failures (IMO/IMTU). The lifeboats offer you an 'out' (even if it is only an extension of life) in these situations. Sometimes they'll save you, sometimes not. Sometimes they may make the difference between going down with the ship and being around when rescue arrives, sometimes they will take you to a rescue, sometimes they'll only prolong your suffering before you run out of life support. But it is a chance.
Since the ship is complex enough and since you don't gain enough space to introduce extra redundancy (note that even redundant systems fail, in fact switched backups beyond the third INCREASE the risk of failure - Systems Engineering taught me that), the lifeboat is an 'all failures' option. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not getting you here. You have to build the systems for the lifeboat, and carry that dead weight around anyway. Things like manuvering drives, and life support being probably the most essential. And a scenario such that you have a dead ship, not going anywhere and are stuck aboard, why is having these on a separate vessel better than them on the main one?
Or, how does having a second (or third) manuvering drive increase the chance of failure of all of the drives?
Also, what I am thinking is that the lifeboat system itself is going to create failure points, that would not exist, and there would be more, than those created by having the systems onboard the main ship as backups. You need hatches, some kind of quick launch system, etc. Hatches alone I can see increasing the risk of decompression, the more you got, the more problematic that can be.
I understand we just look at the problem differently. I do look at things more like the first point you made, that a life boat should be a "step up" from your situation. I just see that "step up" as not being that applicable in space flight. Yes, space is very dangerous, and also very very big. But unlike the Titanic, hitting an iceberg (comet?) is not going to sink the ship. It may be cracked, and junk afterwards. But its still more resources than you can pack into a lifeboat smaller than the original vessel.
I am not arguing against any and all auxilary craft either, shuttling to some outward planet. I do have a problem with a craft dedicated solely as a lifeboat, that has no other function (legal or otherwise) but to abandon the ship. Mostly because I don't see those situations as being that realistic.
I am not saying that ships should be impervious to faults and breakdowns, (although they should, in the real world, reality has a different opinion) but what I see is either, 1) you don't have enough time to respond, or 2) if you have enough time, you are better off hanging around the ship until rescued.
I had not thought about re-entry burns, I admit that. But well, our one data point suggests that crew did not have sufficient time to react, even understand, even if they had an lifeboat in place.
So it comes down to a choice, carrying dead weight around, that, at the very least, might increase the risk of a hull failure, and will do you little, if any good on the extremely rare occasion that it is needed. Or using the resources that go into providing lifeboats to making the ship more robust, making the situation where such a craft is needed that much less likely, reduce the added risks associated with the lifeboat systems, and possibly increase the economic viability of the ship.
Yeah, dealing with probabilities and predicting the future is dicey. Assessing risks is really what this is about, and there we get into disagreements. Just how likely is a re-entry burn up, or an explosion that occurs in such a manner to give you time to get to the life boats, but not your shuttles, fix the problem, or what have you?
Yep, and whatever crisis that the redundant ship wasn't designed for, when it finally comes up, the lifeboats *may* offer a way out.
I can't really put it much plainer. You might not agree with my thinking. That's fine, as I don't agree (though I do understand) yours.
I could bother you with a bunch of probabalistic math, but won't. Save to say: For highly reliable systems (P(fail) < 0.02), any backups past a third actually enhance the risk of failure. Why? Because for each switched in backup, there is some very small chance the thing will switch itself in at an inopportune moment. Thus, when you get enough of them, the amount they increase defence against failure is less than the amount the new system increases the odds of a new failure.
<This makes a few assumptions, but I can live with them - things like very reliable drives and such>
Possibly, except this is where you look at two things:
1. If I need a lifeboat, and it fails to go off... low odds.... I'm no worse off.
2. If lifeboats go off when I don't need them, that's not the end of the world, though it is annoying.
Yes, you are correct: Any system has potential failure points. However, the lifeboat, by its nature, has to do less service and for less long than a ship. Hence I expect it to withstand the stresses it has to deal with adequately. You will get failures, but not too many. And this is probably part of the rationale that makes modern ships carry 125% capacity in escape rafts/lifeboats.
Don't take the analogy literally, it was not meant so. It was merely meant to point out that designers and experienced crew have failed to see impending disasters and decisions that were predicated on the robustness of a transportation platform (thus allowing one to dispense with lifeboats) has proven a poor choice when that unforseen disaster occured. Infer nothing about the specifics of the disaster. Merely that it was unforseen and terminal.
Well, IYTU, you can have it however you like
Me, I'd not be comfortable on a ship that didn't have them. Maybe it is psychological, but since I'm the passenger with the creds, I'll demand a lifeboat. Maybe even math and examples of how this is a bad investment wouldn't sway me. But I'd probably be like a lot of people out there - swayed by ideas, even illogical ones.
All it would take is one big disaster where lifeboats *could* have saved some people, and there would be an outcry and media frenzy.
Or so I suspect. But YMMV.
And people have tried to suggest that there may be reasons this isn't feasible, but you haven't bought them. So be it.
You can lead a horse to water... <*grin*>
In the case of Challenger, I think you'll find that the crew was alive when they hit the water. Because they had a life capsule of sorts in the command bridge. And that was a 'unforseen' disaster. Of course, the fact that their little unit was no longer watertight and no one could get to them and they were out cold probably spelled their doom...
My feeling is people will say (esp starving merchies) "I could make the ship more robust, but its pretty good now. Nothing much will happen. And if it does, we'll either die or be somewhere we can get rescued. (Recognize the refrain?)" and instead use the extra space for cargo.
That's just human nature. At least with mandated lifeboats, you haven't got a choice left in the hands of a cash-driven Captain.
And what do we not know about the technology? What new risks await? What flammable or explosive things are carried aboard? What kind of astronomical threats exist we don't know much about? Etc. Etc.
This is all conjectural. I think it boils down to opinion and how you like your TU.
I said it before and I'll say it one last time:
The lifeboat offers many more role playing possibilities than the slightly more redundant ship. Full stop. That alone is sufficient justification IMTU.
Nice chat!
Drakon
SOC-14 1K
Originally posted by kaladorn:
Okay I think I see where you are coming from. The switch can fail at the very least. Then it comes down to how the switch fails, gracefully, or catastrophically. I still think it can be designed to, at worse fail gracefully. Such that if it kicks in, (I am thinking life support and manuvering drives, what else would be essential to your life boat?) at worse you get too much O2, or a vector difference on your trajectory.
Assuming automatic switching and such.
Actually, what I was thinking is support systems for the life boat on the main ship. Thinking along the lines of your life boats mounted to the exterior, and getting to it via a hatch. A failure of the hatch might endanger the ship's occupants. An increase in risk that would not be there if the lifeboat was not.
Perhaps difference in mounting, maybe have them in the cargo bay, but that increases the time required to deploy them. Tradeoffs, hate them.
Yes, there are unforeseen circumstances. BUT, and this was something I was trying (poorly?) to explain earlier, there are no impossible ones. There are a lot of these circumstances and scenarios that can be rendered physically impossible, such as causing a nuclear explosion in a fission reactor.
Grin, this is probably your best argument.Well, IYTU, you can have it however you like
Me, I'd not be comfortable on a ship that didn't have them. Maybe it is psychological, but since I'm the passenger with the creds, I'll demand a lifeboat. Maybe even math and examples of how this is a bad investment wouldn't sway me. But I'd probably be like a lot of people out there - swayed by ideas, even illogical ones.
All it would take is one big disaster where lifeboats *could* have saved some people, and there would be an outcry and media frenzy.
Or so I suspect. But YMMV.
Something else I was thinking, in our discussion of PADI, you mention some folks simply panic. I am wondering if this could be alleviated, less expensively, with larger rescue balls? A rescue ball built for two or three.
Actually I was thinking Colombia. Which brings up a whole nother ball of worms. Detaching a lifeboat, while traveling hypersonic, through an atmosphere. Without destroying either ship.In the case of Challenger, I think you'll find that the crew was alive when they hit the water. Because they had a life capsule of sorts in the command bridge. And that was a 'unforseen' disaster. Of course, the fact that their little unit was no longer watertight and no one could get to them and they were out cold probably spelled their doom...
It does sound familiar.But again, that is not was I was advocating. Again, unless the ship is going out from under you, putting yourself in a smaller vessel to get away deprives you of resources that you could otherwise use, or might need to fix your situation in the first place. You should build your systems as robustly as possible, as redundantly as possible.
Because space is not water, starships don't sink. They may explode, or they may burn up on re-entry. In which case, there is a big question of time, (Can you deploy/get to the lifeboats beforehand) and whether it will do you any good (Being stuck in deep space with no hope of rescue)
We can deal with the exploding bits, by design and redundancy. Re-entry burnups is a bit more tricky. And if it is a gas giant, or poisonous atmosphere, you really have not bought much.
And also, your vac suit essentially doubles as a life boat, for re-entries anyway.
This gets into a whole area of politics that I really do not want to get into. The world is full of well meaning but simply wrong folks all to willing to enforce their point of view on others, for their own good, at the point of a gun. Unless you can demostrate a clear need for them, then the use of force becomes simply overruling any dissenting opinions, at the point of a gun.
And that can have economic effects, increase the price of goods (as it increases both capital costs and maintenence expenditures) and travel, decreasing the number of ships in the star lanes, reducing trade, etc. Small operators will be locked out, big operators will get richer and richer.
Hmmm... interesting plot ideas there.
Besides which, as you have already argued, the customers will settle that issue for you without government interference. Those that will not fly on a ship without lifeboats, won't. Potential markets lost and all that. Those without, depending on how that works out, will be forced to cut prices.
Exactly, its all conjectural at this point. That goes both ways here. I admit I like a lot of science in my science fiction.
Extrapolating from what we know about the potential technologies and such, as limited as it may be, I think I can label the most worrisome explosive problems and immediately solutions come to mind to deal with it. The fuel is liquid hydrogen, and its chemical properties are pretty well known. We do know how hard fusion is, we've been at it for what, now, 50 years and still haven't cracked it? Ammunition is easy enough to deal with.
As for astronomical threats, that is a good one.
Anyway, thanks for the chat.I have enjoyed it too.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I'm thinking that IMTU this might all boil down to the following:
Ships in commercial passenger service (above a certain size, say 400 dtons and up) would be required to have one or more small craft that can also serve as lifeboats for the crew and passengers. They do not have to be dedicated lifeboats and in fact would usually not be, but rather a secondary function of the normal passenger/cargo shuttles. All vessels in commercial passenger service (of any size) would also be required to have rescue balls for all the passengers, and vacc suits for all the crew, plus survival gear for everyone.
Ships in noncommercial service (detached duty scouts, yachts, safari ships, merc cruisers, etc) would not be required to have anything more than the rescue balls for the passengers and vacc suits for the crew, plus the survival gear.
Military ships IMTU would be required (by Navy regulations) to have lifeboats of some kind for the entire crew, plus the rescue bubbles, vacc suits and survival gear.
I think that military ships are actually more likely to need lifeboats. They go in harms way, and if your ship is shot full of holes and the enemy is not going away, abandoning ship and scuttling might be the best option.
A simple lifepod, perhaps designed using STRIKER with a one-use rocket motor for escape and a simple life support system and rescue transponder, is all you'd need. I bet you could fit such a lifepod into 1 dton easily, maybe even more than one. Between the lifesaving ability of the ship's boats, people using vacc suits and thruster packs, and enough of these lifepods you should be able to evacuate your ship fast enough.
I'll work on the lifepod design over the weekend and see what I come up with, unless someone knows of somebody who's already done something like it.
Ships in commercial passenger service (above a certain size, say 400 dtons and up) would be required to have one or more small craft that can also serve as lifeboats for the crew and passengers. They do not have to be dedicated lifeboats and in fact would usually not be, but rather a secondary function of the normal passenger/cargo shuttles. All vessels in commercial passenger service (of any size) would also be required to have rescue balls for all the passengers, and vacc suits for all the crew, plus survival gear for everyone.
Ships in noncommercial service (detached duty scouts, yachts, safari ships, merc cruisers, etc) would not be required to have anything more than the rescue balls for the passengers and vacc suits for the crew, plus the survival gear.
Military ships IMTU would be required (by Navy regulations) to have lifeboats of some kind for the entire crew, plus the rescue bubbles, vacc suits and survival gear.
I think that military ships are actually more likely to need lifeboats. They go in harms way, and if your ship is shot full of holes and the enemy is not going away, abandoning ship and scuttling might be the best option.
A simple lifepod, perhaps designed using STRIKER with a one-use rocket motor for escape and a simple life support system and rescue transponder, is all you'd need. I bet you could fit such a lifepod into 1 dton easily, maybe even more than one. Between the lifesaving ability of the ship's boats, people using vacc suits and thruster packs, and enough of these lifepods you should be able to evacuate your ship fast enough.
I'll work on the lifepod design over the weekend and see what I come up with, unless someone knows of somebody who's already done something like it.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
That all seems quite reasonable, and fits with known ships. The old CT Fat Trader leaps to mind as a great example. A 400T subbie with a launch that can't hope to handle the 200T of cargo besides which the ship is streamlined and the launch is externally mounted. If it's not a Lifeboat then why is it there
As for the type of liferaft you're thinking of I've handwaved that for CT and TNE over the years, as optional modules that drop into an empty standard hardpoint/socket (1.0T in the first and 3.0T in the second). I guess they could be installed anywhere for a few more creds. Each version had cramped seating for 4 and served as an emergency lowberth. Each was capable of a soft landing from orbit and very limited manuevering. Cost was (iirc) about Mcr0.2 Of course I also handwaved that a standard turret had the same ability for the local Gunner and could be automatically or manually ejected. A lot of the Relics in TNE turned up this way. Just a couple old mtu ideas
don't let them interfere with your own design fun though
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Hey kaladorn and Drakon, thanks for the great discussion. I might have been able to put it as well but the debate you two had did both sides of the issue justice, and all with excellent manners. Kudos too for Pwyll for kicking this topic off and everyone else who contributed, lots of great ideas to mine here
salamander
SOC-9
Here's my HG2 design for a life cannister suitable for a larger liner.
Type: Life Cannister
Architect: StaySafe Industries
Tech Level: 12
USP BE-0301101-000000-00000-0 MCr 16.425 30 Tons
Bat Bear Crew: 1
Bat TL: 12
Cargo: 1.000 Fuel: 1.000 EP: 0.300 Agility: 0
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Architects Fee: MCr 0.164 Cost in Quantity: MCr 13.140
Detailed Description
HULL
30.000 tons standard, 420.000 cubic meters, Cylinder Configuration
CREW
Pilot
ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 1G Manuever*, Power plant-1, 0.300 EP, Agility 0
AVIONICS
No Bridge Installed, Model/1 Computer
HARDPOINTS
None
ARMAMENT
None
DEFENCES
None
CRAFT
None
FUEL
0.900 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 84 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
1 Acceleration Couch, 46 Low Berths, 1.000 Ton Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
1 Emergency M-Drive (1.000 ton, Crew 0, 0.300 Energy Point, Cost MCr 0.000), 1 ELB-Couch Canopy (0.500 ton, Crew 0, Cost MCr 0.000)
COST
MCr 16.589 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 0.164), MCr 13.140 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
16 Weeks Singly, 13 Weeks in Quantity
COMMENTS
Emergency M-drive: 10 minutes at 6G thrust, 20 G-minutes of 1-G "course
adjustment and station-keeping".
0.3 EP required during first 1 hour of operations to burn away from distressed
vessel and establish stable orbit at 100D limit. After that, computer and
powerplant slide into maintenance mode, maintaining only station-keeping orbit
corrections, and broadband emergency beacon, extending operating life to
252 days.
Type: Life Cannister
Architect: StaySafe Industries
Tech Level: 12
USP BE-0301101-000000-00000-0 MCr 16.425 30 Tons
Bat Bear Crew: 1
Bat TL: 12
Cargo: 1.000 Fuel: 1.000 EP: 0.300 Agility: 0
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops
Architects Fee: MCr 0.164 Cost in Quantity: MCr 13.140
Detailed Description
HULL
30.000 tons standard, 420.000 cubic meters, Cylinder Configuration
CREW
Pilot
ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 1G Manuever*, Power plant-1, 0.300 EP, Agility 0
AVIONICS
No Bridge Installed, Model/1 Computer
HARDPOINTS
None
ARMAMENT
None
DEFENCES
None
CRAFT
None
FUEL
0.900 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 84 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant
MISCELLANEOUS
1 Acceleration Couch, 46 Low Berths, 1.000 Ton Cargo
USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
1 Emergency M-Drive (1.000 ton, Crew 0, 0.300 Energy Point, Cost MCr 0.000), 1 ELB-Couch Canopy (0.500 ton, Crew 0, Cost MCr 0.000)
COST
MCr 16.589 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 0.164), MCr 13.140 in Quantity
CONSTRUCTION TIME
16 Weeks Singly, 13 Weeks in Quantity
COMMENTS
Emergency M-drive: 10 minutes at 6G thrust, 20 G-minutes of 1-G "course
adjustment and station-keeping".
0.3 EP required during first 1 hour of operations to burn away from distressed
vessel and establish stable orbit at 100D limit. After that, computer and
powerplant slide into maintenance mode, maintaining only station-keeping orbit
corrections, and broadband emergency beacon, extending operating life to
252 days.
marginaleye
SOC-12
You need fuel to keep the LS running. You need fuel to keep the thermal systems running to prevent overheating. You need fuel to keep hatches, etc. running and lights. You need fuel to move.</font>[/QUOTE]But if all you want to do is keep the low berths frosty, and an automatic radio distress beacon going, why not use a tiny little fission reactor, with some a fairly long half-life isotope at its core? A ship equipped with a low berth for everyone aboard and such a reactor could spend decades in the depths interstellar space, waiting for a salvage team, without fatalities.
I'd say that almost every starfarer's biggest nightmare is emerging in interstellar space with empty fuel tanks. From a purely psychological perspective, requiring enough emergency low-berths for everyone aboard makes more sense than requiring lifeboats.
Or not even a fission reactor, but an RTG - Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. No moving parts, and quite a long duration - we used them to power the Pioneer and Voyager missions.
Lifeboats on some modern vessels are designed to deploy AFTER the vessel sinks, the theory being that even the sinking ship is the best place to be for as long as possible. While I doubt a similar scheme is workabel for space travel, it does lend a bit of weight to the 'shelter' concept. If you have lifeboats aboard, and you're 'abandoning ship' for any reason other than the imminent (sp?) destruction of said vessel, you're going to want to keep the lifeboats docked to the ship.
Lifeboats on some modern vessels are designed to deploy AFTER the vessel sinks, the theory being that even the sinking ship is the best place to be for as long as possible. While I doubt a similar scheme is workabel for space travel, it does lend a bit of weight to the 'shelter' concept. If you have lifeboats aboard, and you're 'abandoning ship' for any reason other than the imminent (sp?) destruction of said vessel, you're going to want to keep the lifeboats docked to the ship.
The Oz
SOC-14 1K
I decided not to wait for the weekend....
This is a MegaTraveller vehicle design with one TNE/FFS element, the Solid Fuel Rocket.
TL 10 Personal Escape Pod: .5dton volume, mass 9 tons, cost Cr90,000.
Hull: 0.5 dton/6.67m^3 volume, cylindrical, unstreamlined, crystaliron armor factor-40.
Drive: 0.5 m^3 TL-8 Solid Fuel Rocket, gives 10G thrust for 3 seconds.
Power: 2 solar cell units, 0.054 MW
Backup Power: 1 fuel cell unit, 0.02MW. 1.35m^3 fuel (H2 and O2) for 1000 hours duration.
Backup Power: 540 battery units, about 24 hours duration.
Planetary range Radio Communicator.
1 Adequate seat, with Basic Environment, Basic and Extended Life Support.
1 Model 0 computer, linked to 12 units of Electronic Linked control panels.
0.5m^3 of survival rations (cargo).
The TL-10 Personal Escape Pod (PEP) is intended to be the standard escape mechanism for naval personnel forced to evacuate their ship. It is not capable of re-entry and is solely intended to keep personnel alive until they can be recovered by rescue vessels.
I imagine the PEP would be carried in dedicated launcher tubes, the launch tube would take 12.5 dtons and carry 25 PEP, and you'd add 15 more PEP to the tube for a total of 40, which would be all you could launch in one combat turn. So in 20 dtons you'd have individual lifepods for 40 people. Even if you ruled that pods could not be stored in the launch tube, you still need only 32.5 tons for 40 pods plus launch tube.
And if anyone can come up with a reasonable way to change the acronym from PEP to PEZ, so that we could have PEZ dispensers on our ships, I'll bless you.
::edited to change small error in solar cell power output::
This is a MegaTraveller vehicle design with one TNE/FFS element, the Solid Fuel Rocket.
TL 10 Personal Escape Pod: .5dton volume, mass 9 tons, cost Cr90,000.
Hull: 0.5 dton/6.67m^3 volume, cylindrical, unstreamlined, crystaliron armor factor-40.
Drive: 0.5 m^3 TL-8 Solid Fuel Rocket, gives 10G thrust for 3 seconds.
Power: 2 solar cell units, 0.054 MW
Backup Power: 1 fuel cell unit, 0.02MW. 1.35m^3 fuel (H2 and O2) for 1000 hours duration.
Backup Power: 540 battery units, about 24 hours duration.
Planetary range Radio Communicator.
1 Adequate seat, with Basic Environment, Basic and Extended Life Support.
1 Model 0 computer, linked to 12 units of Electronic Linked control panels.
0.5m^3 of survival rations (cargo).
The TL-10 Personal Escape Pod (PEP) is intended to be the standard escape mechanism for naval personnel forced to evacuate their ship. It is not capable of re-entry and is solely intended to keep personnel alive until they can be recovered by rescue vessels.
I imagine the PEP would be carried in dedicated launcher tubes, the launch tube would take 12.5 dtons and carry 25 PEP, and you'd add 15 more PEP to the tube for a total of 40, which would be all you could launch in one combat turn. So in 20 dtons you'd have individual lifepods for 40 people. Even if you ruled that pods could not be stored in the launch tube, you still need only 32.5 tons for 40 pods plus launch tube.
And if anyone can come up with a reasonable way to change the acronym from PEP to PEZ, so that we could have PEZ dispensers on our ships, I'll bless you.
::edited to change small error in solar cell power output::
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Good on ya! That's a nice little design. You should post a note (or copy) on the MT forum here in case they miss it.
Originally posted by The Oz:
And if anyone can come up with a reasonable way to change the acronym from PEP to PEZ, so that we could have PEZ dispensers on our ships, I'll bless you.
