Massive Luxery Liners?

[sabredog]

As shown above, a ship in space is in an UTTERLY different environment (and threat environment) than Titanic in 1912.

Oh, I don't know about that....wasn't there a Christmas episode of Doctor Who recently that had the spaceliner Titanic colliding with space icebergs and then crashing into the Earth?

:rofl: Ok, ok,,...I couldn't pull it off with a straight face, but all this goofiness about lifeboats in space and running into planets - I just can't resist.

Wait, wait....won't there be a lookout in the for'rad mast anyway to watch for planets that might come out of the fog, er, nebula? Just stick some poor sod up there with a pair of binoculars and everything'll be ok.

 

[Icosahedron]

Hmm, interesting discussion, and for some reason one I hadn't thought about before - I'd just assumed liner = lifeboats.

Seems to me that it all hinges on how best to increase survival chances:

The safe rooms and backup systems are unquestionably the best option if rescue is guaranteed within their life support endurance, whereas lifeboats are the best option if long term survival depends on making planetfall, possibly from an unstreamlined mother ship, or if the mother ship is in danger of being completely destroyed by some factor which will not also destroy the lifeboats.

Logically then, a liner, which usually plies high-traffic routes between bustling population centres, would probably not need lifeboats, but they would be essential for a survey ship exploring beyond the frontier.

Under what circumstances would abandoning a spaceship be safer than remaining aboard?

No hope of rescue? Radiation leak? Unstable power plant? Monster/plague aboard? Other?

And would the designers consider the risk to be significant?
I'm converted - I think the default condition would be safe rooms unless a need for lifeboats was identified.

EDIT: Thinking about it, would the safe rooms be cabin-size, or would it be better to have larger safe areas?

 

[aramis]

Abandoning ship in space means either aiming for a world that you have the endurance to hit (not terribly likely)... so anything you have to escape has to be fundamentally far worse than the risks of reentry.

A ship in a decaying orbit: if it has any subcraft, that's a good reason to abandon ship. If no subcraft, it's a bit too late to worry about it; see if you can get the drives up and running for long enough to land.

Radiation leaks: If they are bad enough to force abandonment, odds are you can't land the ship anyway without killing at least the engineering crew. But again, without subcraft and a planet in range.... thing is, with fusion (or fission) plants, if it's operating, its radiating, and the question is simply how much.

Toxic reaction in scrubber canisters: Time to suit up. after suit air or subcraft air runs out, you're dead. Marginal air is better than poison air.

 

[abomination]

All the ose little life boats will be harder to locate and where would they go anyway if there aren't any worlds close enough for supporting life?

TBH they don't need to land. Just get to somewhere they'll be found. Shipping lanes or a starport.

 

[spinwardpirate]

Of course, lifeboats ARE dramatic, which may be the best argument for having them...

That was my exact reason for my original post. I need a luxury liner in space with lifeboats that can land on a planet.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Given the nature of the Traveller J-Drive a ship will normally be in a solar system when an emergency occures (Emergency in Jump = Fix it or you are dead!) so leaving the ship and landing will be possible in most cases. And there are quite a few cases where lifeboats, even drifting along, are saver. Say fire, problems with life support, leaks...

In Traveller you can build quite decend interplanetary lifeboats. Those 1g acceleration builds up.

 

[tbeard1999]

yeah, but the people are the same. "don't worry, we've thought of everything, it's all under control, nothing can go worng."

Well, the thing about space travel is that it really is utterly predictable. Unless some force acts on a ship, it will travel in the same direction at the same speed forever. That's why the math to send a spaceship to the moon required very little computing power by today's standard. Indeed, the trajectory could have been worked out with sliderules (and probably was).

In addition, sensor technology is able to see large objects days or weeks before a collision is possible. And given the incredible speeds involved, a collision is extremely unlikely.

So unlike RMS Titanic, which had to grope through foggy, iceberg-filled seas, the TL13 space liner Titanic has no such problems. For drama, I assume that Really Small rocks can't easily be tracked so minor collisions are possible. But this really isn't realistic...

The space liner Titanic simply isn't subject to Acts of God like RMS Titanic was. Its problems will almost always be manmade.

later I'll see if I can run the approach vector math. sounds like fun.

To put it in perspective, consider that a size 7 planet's "0.25G" zone would occupy only 0.044% (1/2677th) of the area of that planet's 100 diameter zone. And that's using only two dimensions. The planet itself occupies 0.001% (1/10,000) of that area.

In 3 dimensions, a size 7 planet's "0.25G" zone would occupy only 0.0009% (1/107,979th) of the area of that planet's 100 diameter zone. The planet itself occupies 0.00001% (1/1,000,000) of that area.

So the chance of hitting a planet by accident is staggeringly remote. Individual grains of sand on a gym floor is probably understating the difficulty...

And as noted, to rendezvous with a moving planet, a ship chooses a trajectory that will place the ship at the planet's future location, assuming that the ship will accelerate at an exact rate for an exact amount of time, then decelerate by an exact amount for an exact amount of time. Any significant disruption in this sequence will result in a clean miss, *not* crashing into the planet.

 

[tbeard1999]

That was my exact reason for my original post. I need a luxury liner in space with lifeboats that can land on a planet.

One way to have this -- and maintain plausibility -- is to assume that these are excursion craft used to take passengers on sightseeing trips into gas giant atmospheres and the like. "See the Rings of Nebulon VI in a luxury excursion on our lavishly appointed star yachts..."

 

[abomination]

I've had a bit of a play about. I figure a liner should be something along these lines.

There's still a few bits to add (including lifeboats) I think a theatre is a must. Maybe some sort of zero-g play area and a creche. Anything else you guys can think of?

CRAFT ID: Princess Aurora Liner TL: 15
MCr21,366.147 (Merchant)

HULL: 67500/168750, Displacement=75000, Config=4U,
Armour=40G (0), Loaded=688,511.03, Unloaded=452,853.33

POWER: 1733/3466, Fusion-F=468,000.Mw Duration=720hrs/30 days
Extended Endurance=720hrs/30 days
No scoops
No purifiers
No EM Mask
ExtEnd excludes: (0g)

DRIVES: Jump=2 3645/7290, Spare fuel for Jump-2, No avionics
Low Maintainence Jump drives
Maneuver=3.5G 6480/12960 Agility=0
High Perfomance Maneuver drives
Speeds:
ATMOSPHERE MAX CRUISE
Vacc: 3,420kph/2,138mph 2,565kph/1,603mph

COMMUNICATIONS: Radio-Syst x 4
Laser-Syst x 4
Maser-Syst x 4

SENSORS: A-EMS (FrOb) x 3
P-EMS (IntStlr) x 4
Hi-Dnst-F (1km) x 1
Radar (FrOb) x 2
Neutrino-E (10 Kw) x 2
Sensor scans: AOS=R AOP=R POS=R POP=R PES=S PEP=R

WEAPONS: 750 hardpoints; 48 occupied; batteries bearing 75 %
Turrets:
Triple Missile-13 x 9 in 3 batteries
Triple Laser-13 x 9 in 3 batteries
Triple Sand-10 x 30 in 15 batteries
Missile magazine: HE=20 b/r
Total=540 missiles. 1 b/r=27 missiles
Combat Statistics:
T B S
Laser 5 - -
3 (2)
Missile 4 - -
3 (2)
Sand 5 - -
15 (11)

SCREENS: DefDM= 8

CONTROL: Computer=Model 9/fib x 3, Panels=Holographic Linked x 17449
Backup computer=Model 9/fib x 3
HUD holo x 30
Basic Env(heat/light
Basic LS (air/water)
Ext LS (food/recyc)
Airlock x 750
Grav plates
Inertial Comp
Auxiliary bridge

CREW: Crew=407
Bridge=13 Engineering=54 Gunners=8 Flight=40 Troops=6
Maintainence=23 Command=23 Medical=20 Steward=220
High=1400 Mid=1400 Low/Frozen=300

ACCOMMODATION: Passenger/watch low x 300 Small stateroom x 350
Stateroom x 350 Emergency low (3) x 10 Std sickbay x 3
(extra bed) x 10 (medicomp) x 2 (theatre) x 1
(robodoc) x 1 25m Swimming pool x 3 Gymnasium x 8
Stateroom x 8 Small stateroom x 25

SUB CRAFT: Cutter x 20 50 tons Crew 2 TL 9
Cutter passenger mod x 10 20 tons Crew 0 TL 9
Cutter cargo module x 10 20 tons Crew 0 TL 9

OTHER: Cargo=180974Kl/13405 tons, EMLevel=Strong
Fuel=472230 Kl/34980 tons, ObjSize=Large
One jump requires 75937KL/5624 tons of fuel
Anti-hijack: Basic software x 1 Camera eye x 15000
+ passive InfraRed x 15000 + light intensifier x 15000
Schematic display bd x 30 Hatch controllers x 1
Gravity controllers x 1 Hull electrics x 30

Custom features:
security office & brig x 1
Beauty salon x 4
Coffin Bunk (passenger) x 350
Shops (various) x 20
Garden terrace x 4
Sky Garden x 1
resturant x 6
Elite Suite x 12
1st Class Suite x 350
coffin bunk (crew) x 190

HIGH GUARD: Q423?J3-050000-50004-0
TCJMPCC-ASMNGR-LEPMI-F Weapons reflected are highest values.

Designed by SHIPS for Windows III v 16.33 on 05 August 2009

 

[tbeard1999]

And would the designers consider the risk to be significant?
I'm converted - I think the default condition would be safe rooms unless a need for lifeboats was identified.

EDIT: Thinking about it, would the safe rooms be cabin-size, or would it be better to have larger safe areas?

It just occurred to me that it might actually be sensible to make passenger cabins into shelter/safe rooms:

1. The passengers know where they are.

2. They are familiar.

3. Most of the space is usable in non-emergency conditions.

Indeed, one way to rationalize small tramp freighters being able to carry traffic profitably is to assume that Imperial Regulations require cabins on ships 800 tons+ (or whatever) to be airtight and stocked with adequate power, air, food and water to last X days. This might increase the stateroom tonnage by 1 dton and maybe double its cost. This extra cost could wipe out any difference in ticket prices.

Shelters would make more sense if a ship wasn't required to maintain sufficient shelters for all personnel (or if the rules allowed unrealistically dense occupancy). This could be the result of outdated or inappropriate regulations. As everyone probably knows, Titanic's lifeboat requirement was set by *size*, not actual personnel. Ships over X tons had to have Y lifeboats. This worked okay, until ship size took a sudden jump. Then, the law was inadequate.

 

[tbeard1999]

Oh, I don't know about that....wasn't there a Christmas episode of Doctor Who recently that had the spaceliner Titanic colliding with space icebergs and then crashing into the Earth?

:rofl: Ok, ok,,...I couldn't pull it off with a straight face, but all this goofiness about lifeboats in space and running into planets - I just can't resist.

Wait, wait....won't there be a lookout in the for'rad mast anyway to watch for planets that might come out of the fog, er, nebula? Just stick some poor sod up there with a pair of binoculars and everything'll be ok.

I liked that episode...Kylie Minogue dressed as a French maid

 

[flykiller]

So unlike RMS Titanic, which had to grope through foggy, iceberg-filled seas, the TL13 space liner Titanic has no such problems.

you're really, really missing the point.

It just occurred to me that it might actually be sensible to make passenger cabins into shelter/safe rooms ....

of course. my liner deckplan has numerous internal bulkheads, and passenger cabin areas are divided into sixteen isolable independent regions with iris valve access. simple precaution, no particular cost.

and, each region is adjacent to a lifeboat deck. two-fer.

 

[tbeard1999]

you're really, really missing the point.

Feel free to enlighten me.

My entire statement was this:

Well, the thing about space travel is that it really is utterly predictable. Unless some force acts on a ship, it will travel in the same direction at the same speed forever. That's why the math to send a spaceship to the moon required very little computing power by today's standard. Indeed, the trajectory could have been worked out with sliderules (and probably was).

In addition, sensor technology is able to see large objects days or weeks before a collision is possible. And given the incredible speeds involved, a collision is extremely unlikely.

So unlike RMS Titanic, which had to grope through foggy, iceberg-filled seas, the TL13 space liner Titanic has no such problems. For drama, I assume that Really Small rocks can't easily be tracked so minor collisions are possible. But this really isn't realistic...

The space liner Titanic simply isn't subject to Acts of God like RMS Titanic was. Its problems will almost always be manmade.


My point was twofold:

1. Space is simply not the same as the ocean. Lifeboats, in particular, seem especially dubious, since there's little reason to leave the spaceship in most plausible disasters. The ship can't sink, and as noted, it's nearly impossible to accidentally wind up on a trajectory that will crash into a planet. Even if this somehow happens, a ship will almost always have time to change course with manuevering thrusters.

2. While it's true that humans are often prone to overconfidence, the FACT is that space is a pretty predictable environment. Unless acted on, a ship will go the same speed and direction FOREVER. There are no storms. No icebergs that can loom out of the fog, giving you two minutes to react. No fog banks. No reefs. No whirlpools. Nothing that is analogous to these things. Most things that *might* be a collision threat -- in the incredibly unlikely event that their trajectory will result in a collision -- can be detected many hours away, which makes evasion an almost trivial exercise. In short, there's an almost complete absence of the kinds of threats that make carrying lifeboats on seagoing ships a Good Idea.

I'd add that IMHO, a far more productive use of resources would be to provide for redundant drives and power and to ensure adequate life support long enough to be rescued rather than carrying hordes of expensive and unnecessary lifeboats.

 

[aramis]

Just a reminder for those on the "They can't get out of their own way" crowd:
1G is 9.8m/s/s, that is, 1 sec at 1G produces a 9.8m/s vector change. Canonical traveller numbers are rounded to 10m/s/s; apparently sylea is just a touch heavier...

RCS thrusters are probably 0.01G, or about 0.1m/s/s

If you have a target 30m across in your path, and 5min before impact, you can generate 30m/sec of vector change at 0.01g. you will have been able to change your final position by 4.5km! (RW: 4.410km)

Heck, one of the fastest moving spacecraft ever built in real life had under 0.05G...

 

[Icosahedron]

It just occurred to me that it might actually be sensible to make passenger cabins into shelter/safe rooms:

1. The passengers know where they are.

2. They are familiar.

3. Most of the space is usable in non-emergency conditions.

Indeed, one way to rationalize small tramp freighters being able to carry traffic profitably is to assume that Imperial Regulations require cabins on ships 800 tons+ (or whatever) to be airtight and stocked with adequate power, air, food and water to last X days. This might increase the stateroom tonnage by 1 dton and maybe double its cost. This extra cost could wipe out any difference in ticket prices.

Shelters would make more sense if a ship wasn't required to maintain sufficient shelters for all personnel (or if the rules allowed unrealistically dense occupancy). This could be the result of outdated or inappropriate regulations. As everyone probably knows, Titanic's lifeboat requirement was set by *size*, not actual personnel. Ships over X tons had to have Y lifeboats. This worked okay, until ship size took a sudden jump. Then, the law was inadequate.

I'm just thinking that a major source of fear is isolation. If there is an unknown threat, people naturally want to congregate. Isolating them in individual cabins may not be the best idea. Equally, they know where the dining room is, or the gym, or the ballroom. I'm not suggesting specialist structures, just designating communal areas rather than cabins as the safe zones.

 

[CosmicGamer]

I'm just thinking that a major source of fear is isolation. If there is an unknown threat, people naturally want to congregate. Isolating them in individual cabins may not be the best idea. Equally, they know where the dining room is, or the gym, or the ballroom. I'm not suggesting specialist structures, just designating communal areas rather than cabins as the safe zones.

A few panicky folk could make the others uneasy and instead of one idiot breaking out of their stateroom and running around the passageways you have a mob of people.

Of course you could have the opposite too, some people in the group calming down those that are more panicky but in an emergency, would you want to gamble which way things turn or keep the passengers contained so that you can deal with the issues?

 

[abomination]

Just a reminder for those on the "They can't get out of their own way" crowd:
1G is 9.8m/s/s, that is, 1 sec at 1G produces a 9.8m/s vector change. Canonical traveller numbers are rounded to 10m/s/s; apparently sylea is just a touch heavier...

RCS thrusters are probably 0.01G, or about 0.1m/s/s

If you have a target 30m across in your path, and 5min before impact, you can generate 30m/sec of vector change at 0.01g. you will have been able to change your final position by 4.5km! (RW: 4.410km)

Heck, one of the fastest moving spacecraft ever built in real life had under 0.05G...

By far the most likely time for a collision or an accident is while approaching / leaving a starport. Commercial airliners don't collide mid atlantic. They do occaisionally hit each other at the airport. The Herald of free enterprise capsized in port in calm seas due to misoperation. Many of the survivors did so by breaking windows & climbing out onto the hull. Clearly this wouldn't be an option in space. In those conditions a rapid safe evacuation is more important than surviving days or weeks drinking your own urine, singing "underneath the speading chestnut tree" and looking hungrily at the cabin boy.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'm just thinking that a major source of fear is isolation. If there is an unknown threat, people naturally want to congregate. Isolating them in individual cabins may not be the best idea. Equally, they know where the dining room is, or the gym, or the ballroom. I'm not suggesting specialist structures, just designating communal areas rather than cabins as the safe zones.

Good point. However, at the end of the day, I suspect that most shipping companies will do whatever is cheapest (in total resource cost) that allows them to comply with the applicable regulations. I'd think that larger areas would probably be cheaper on a per person basis than individual staterooms. Of course, a single large area offers far less redundancy -- one hit/malfunction and the entire "lifeboat" is compromised. Making each stateroom a separate shelter would offer considerable redundancy (especially since staterooms could probably accomodate 4 people in an emergency situation).

Plenty of room for color there.

 

[flykiller]

A few panicky folk could make the others uneasy and instead of one idiot breaking out of their stateroom and running around the passageways you have a mob of people.

this has been the hollywood paradigm for decades. recent studies however have shown that in most disasters most people do not panic at all, but rather are rational and helpful. the primary driver behind this seems to be the inability to comprehend immediately that there is actually a dangerous emergency happening.

By far the most likely time for a collision or an accident is while approaching / leaving a starport.

true of airports today. and takeoff is also the most likely time that problems suddenly become apparent.

I'm not suggesting specialist structures, just designating communal areas rather than cabins as the safe zones.

standard internal bulkheads are sufficient. and there shouldn't be "designated" regions, they should all be self-sufficient.

 

[Icosahedron]

People were calm enough during the Blitz; they just went into the communal shelters when the siren wailed and spent the rest of the night singing songs and looking after the kids.

It's also easier to look after groups of people - if someone is in difficulty, the stewards can see at a glance, they don't have to go knocking at every door.

As it happens, I've always had bulkhead sections with independent life support IMTU - I just never considered it as a sufficient alternative to lifeboats until now.

Abomination is right, take-off and landing are the danger points - however, that sort of danger is likely to escalate so quickly there won't be time to evacuate - or go to designated areas, so maybe cabins would be the safety feature.

Most likely, a ship in serious trouble within the gravity well would put down at sea - so maybe the 'lifeboats' are rubber dinghys after all?