I'm going to toss a relevant link to Atomic Rockets in here, then duck for cover.
Rules Only: Regenerative Life Support
- Thread starter Spinward Flow
- Start date
Agreed, the hold is generally behind a bulkhead and airlocks, so self-contained as it were. Exceptions are possible, as you point out.
I would also exclude fuel tanks.
I guess that’s why the rules landed on a per-stateroom paradigm… kind of like common spaces on deckplans, there’s enough wiggle room to cover the entire ship without having to actually cover the entire ship.
Sure, but those contaminants vanish pretty quickly once they're vented to space. Not sure if that's a real concern. Seems to me that adding atmosphere capability to the fuel tanks is a minor enough capability to all under "why not", and makes maintenance potentially easier (which, you know, actually costs money and time).
Oh, being able to push air into the tanks might be handy. Don't think it needs full life support capability though (maintainers can wear SCBA if they're going to be in there a while).
Is anyone considering that O2 in an H2 fuel tank is a bad mixture under any circumstances?
Having gravity and/or inertial compensation, yes.
Explosive chemical mixture, no.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. Life support includes artificial gravity, or should.
2. The issue with hydroponics, is opportunity cost(s); paying directly for life support is basically just in time, whereas allocating biosphere space is an indirect overhead, and takes up volume that could be leveraged for either cargo or passengers.
3. In theory, you could isolate areas for human occupation, though I don't recall it ever being directly addressed in the rules.
2. The issue with hydroponics, is opportunity cost(s); paying directly for life support is basically just in time, whereas allocating biosphere space is an indirect overhead, and takes up volume that could be leveraged for either cargo or passengers.
3. In theory, you could isolate areas for human occupation, though I don't recall it ever being directly addressed in the rules.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
S ome
C ome
U p
B arely
A live
Are you seriously proposing to "SCUBA dive" into a liquid hydrogen fuel tank?
Liquid hydrogen melting point: 14.01º K
Liquid hydrogen boiling point: 20.28º K
Sounds like a bad place to go SCUBA diving.
Might get frostbite.
Not at all. SCBA (not a typo, it's "self-contained breathing apparatus", nothing to do with being underwater) is required when asphyxiation is a hazard. Gaseous hydrogen (or simply an airtight enclosed space that starts with a breathable atmosphere, if you're in it long enough) presents such a hazard.
Presumably it would be brought up to a safe temperature while personnel were performing maintenance inside the tank.
Presumably it would be brought up to a safe temperature while personnel were performing maintenance inside the tank.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Uh ... the "safe temperature" you're talking about is room temperature ... at which point you might as well just empty the fuel tanks before physically entering them. Under controlled conditions, that would usually be a drydock operation, so emptying the fuel tanks for an in person internal inspection makes too much sense. Under barely controlled conditions, such as a salvage operation, the fuel tanks are probably empty anyway if the craft is adrift or if it has been damaged (fuel hits are somewhat common) or like one of the Kinunir class ships is in the scrapyard ... and if there is still fuel in there that you can't empty out, just send a robot in to do the inspection, rather than a person (the robot inspectors can be made smaller than skilled adults most of the time).
One would hope so. The idea is to vent them to atmosphere (if you're working in there on a shirtsleeve world, or flush them with 70/30 N2/O2 mix at STP if you're working in vacuum) to purge as much of the hydrogen gas as possible.
Think about working inside an empty fuel storage tank at a modern-day oil refinery. It's like that.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
There is an option for cargo/fuel hold/tank, which I think just needs a purge.
The other one, being the fuel bladder, which shrinks on it's own, and one assumes, doesn't need a clean up.
The other one, being the fuel bladder, which shrinks on it's own, and one assumes, doesn't need a clean up.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
I'd think that air and water could be continually recycled and reused, but generating more food and other needs like that would require technology well above 16 to happen. CO2 scrubbers and such for cleaning and recycling air already exist and are used on submarines for example. Water can be filtered and treated to clean out waste. But a Star Trek-like make food and whatnot out of thin air doesn't exist in Traveller at the tech levels the game has.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Like the articles on the topic say ... recycling disgust is a problem for a psychologist, not an engineer (once you solve the engineering problems).
Matter transporters tend to be TL=17 ... along with anti-matter power plants and artificial intelligence in Traveller parlance.
So you aren't going to have Star Trek types of materialization of foodstuffs.
What you are going to have is Makertech starting at TL=10+ that essentially 3D prints "stuff" out of the requisite feedstock materials. As the tech level increases, the variety of feedstock materials that can be 3D printed increases.
In the real world today, we're on the verge of being able to mass produce meat for human cooking and consumption by 3D printing processes (that are cheaper and less resource intensive than animal husbandry to raise animals for butchering for meat) and are also on the verge of developing micro gravity 3D printing technology for autologous organ replacement in humans (which requires round trips to orbit for the micro gravity environment during fabrication).
Hmmm.
According to Traveller, true proper Makertech starts at TL=10.
An argument can therefore easily be made that closed cycle life support recycling ... via Workshop: Life Support, 4 tons, MCr0.5, TL=10 minimum, removes consumable life support cost requirement for 2 persons ... would be a TL=10 advancement and not available at TL=9.
Aha ... interesting.
So what if the CT (for now, house) ruling for this notion works like this?
Workshop: Life Support = 4 tons, MCr0.5, TL=8+ (so basically equivalent to a 4 ton starship stateroom)
Effect: removes Cr2000 per 2 weeks life support costs for persons covered
Capacity: TL=8 requires 2 Workshops per person, TL=9+ requires 1 Workshop per TL-8 persons
Presumably, starting at TL=17 a new technology arrives (call them Food Replicators if you like) but which don't become widespread and mainstream until TL=19 when matter transporters become commonplace (according to the Traveller Wiki on technological epochs).
Yes ... that looks like a MUCH more interesting way to rule on the subject, since just like with fuel purification plants, it makes the tech level relevant to how much tonnage/extra cost needs to be devoted towards additional life support to achieve a closed cycle of regenerative recycling.
Anyone who is friends with (the) Marc want to run the idea past him? See if he has any opinions?
Replicator technology is a lateral engineering effect of matter transporter technology.
Matter transporters tend to be TL=17 ... along with anti-matter power plants and artificial intelligence in Traveller parlance.
So you aren't going to have Star Trek types of materialization of foodstuffs.
What you are going to have is Makertech starting at TL=10+ that essentially 3D prints "stuff" out of the requisite feedstock materials. As the tech level increases, the variety of feedstock materials that can be 3D printed increases.
In the real world today, we're on the verge of being able to mass produce meat for human cooking and consumption by 3D printing processes (that are cheaper and less resource intensive than animal husbandry to raise animals for butchering for meat) and are also on the verge of developing micro gravity 3D printing technology for autologous organ replacement in humans (which requires round trips to orbit for the micro gravity environment during fabrication).
Hmmm.
According to Traveller, true proper Makertech starts at TL=10.
An argument can therefore easily be made that closed cycle life support recycling ... via Workshop: Life Support, 4 tons, MCr0.5, TL=10 minimum, removes consumable life support cost requirement for 2 persons ... would be a TL=10 advancement and not available at TL=9.
Aha ... interesting.
So what if the CT (for now, house) ruling for this notion works like this?
Workshop: Life Support = 4 tons, MCr0.5, TL=8+ (so basically equivalent to a 4 ton starship stateroom)
Effect: removes Cr2000 per 2 weeks life support costs for persons covered
Capacity: TL=8 requires 2 Workshops per person, TL=9+ requires 1 Workshop per TL-8 persons
- 1 person per 2 Workshops at TL=8
- 1 person per Workshop at TL=9
- 2 persons per Workshop at TL=10
- 3 persons per Workshop at TL=11
- 4 persons per Workshop at TL=12
- 5 persons per Workshop at TL=13
- 6 persons per Workshop at TL=14
- 7 persons per Workshop at TL=15
- 8 persons per Workshop at TL=16
Presumably, starting at TL=17 a new technology arrives (call them Food Replicators if you like) but which don't become widespread and mainstream until TL=19 when matter transporters become commonplace (according to the Traveller Wiki on technological epochs).
Yes ... that looks like a MUCH more interesting way to rule on the subject, since just like with fuel purification plants, it makes the tech level relevant to how much tonnage/extra cost needs to be devoted towards additional life support to achieve a closed cycle of regenerative recycling.
Anyone who is friends with (the) Marc want to run the idea past him? See if he has any opinions?
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
The problem with maker tech is that, unless it can make things at the molecular level, would be using things like basic organic molecules--proteins, sugars, etc.-- to make "food." When you run out of potato powder, or whatever you use, you need to get more. Star Trek makes food out of what appears to be just basic atoms. That could be more closed loop. The crew's waste becomes the material (atoms) for the food and whatever they consume.
I'd also think that such tech isn't quite as good (eg., it's widely considered awful) as the real thing and make that part of any game as well. It would get better at higher TL obviously but at the low end, it's pretty much reviled.
I'd also think that such tech isn't quite as good (eg., it's widely considered awful) as the real thing and make that part of any game as well. It would get better at higher TL obviously but at the low end, it's pretty much reviled.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
This is a fair point that I've been considering and which was pointed out (indirectly) upthread. However, as a matter of game design/rules it becomes a relatively fine distinction (kind of like how there is no explicit "cooking" skill in Traveller for more highly skilled chefs, unless you want to count Steward and/or J-o-T for that purpose).
So the limitation that would come about would be that closed cycle life support workshop capacity can be used for crew ... but not for passengers.
The idea being that closed cycle life support recycling can be "right sized" for the crew, who should always be present aboard (to get the load balancing right) ... but passengers are not necessarily a constant. It's perfectly possible to have no passengers at all (for example) one jump and a full load of passengers (however many that might be) the next jump. That lack of consistency isn't something the closed cycle life support recycling can easily/rapidly scale up/down around on incredibly short notice just because some extra passengers come aboard (or not) for the next jump.
Additionally, the comparative "luxury" of not using recycled waste as water and food through an open cycle life support for passengers, where you still need to stock up on consumables for them (air, water, food, filters and scrubbers, etc.), particularly high passengers but also for middle passengers starts making a lot of sense.
So the solution is a kind of two tiered system, in which the closed cycle life support can be set up as a crew only option (for the "permanent residents" aboard), while the open life cycle life support (using consumables that cost Cr2000 per 2 weeks per person) remains the standard for both crew and passengers.
As for the closed loop life support being widely considered awful ... I wouldn't be so quick to just blanket assume that by default. I would prefer to take a more ... nuanced approach to the question. Some systems fabricated by some worlds will no doubt be precisely that, utilitarian to the point of boredom bordering on disgust (the proverbial tasteless wet cracker). Other systems fabricated by other worlds could be remarkably efficient and effective ... it just depends on the R&D that has been poured into the technology in different places by different cultures.
Ironically, I would expect Agricultural/Garden/Rich worlds to have poor(er) technological development in this area of research and development, simply because they have access to biosphere that makes the technology redundant. Instead, you would want to be going to places like Hellworlds or other extremely hostile environments where closed cycle life support becomes a necessity for survival, so consequently as a matter of improving the standard of living there is keen interest in developing the technology beyond "the mere basics" in order to obtain a more satisfying product that is otherwise not obtainable (or at least, not cheaply).
Kind of like how if you want a REALLY GOOD high quality vacc suit, your best bet is an asteroid belt mainworld system (I'm thinking Glisten/Glisten/Spinward Marches as the maximal example) because the environment there puts pressure on the development of rugged and reliable technology that WILL NOT FAIL unless abused really badly (and sometimes not even then). Same deal with closed cycle life support systems. The places that will invest the most into developing and refining the technology will be those places without easy access to world sized habitable biospheres, where life support resources are "scarce" and valuable (and not to be squandered in a disposable way).
Remember, in the Dune universe, it was the Fremen who had the most advanced water extraction/filtration/measuring technology ... because they had to, given the demands of their hostile environment (and the value of water in it).
So in the Regina subsector of the Spinward Marches ... I would expect that closed cycle life support systems built at Regina's shipyard for starships would not be "as good" as comparable systems built at (say) Boughene's shipyard, since Boughene (the moon/mainworld) has a code: B corrosive atmosphere and all human habitat within the system is artificially constructed. Consequently, at Boughene, closed cycle life support recycling technology is relatively advanced (dare I say, boutique?) compared to the same technology available at Regina (ignoring the TL=12-13 difference for the moment). The difference between the systems is a matter of environmental pressure and local culture, rather than being one of pure technology level stat in the UWP. So a closed cycle life support system from Regina would tend more towards the "yuck" end of the scale, while a closed cycle life support system from Boughene would tend more towards the "yum" end of the scale ... all other factors being equal ... simply because Regina is a Rich world, while Boughene is very much NOT a habitable environment absent a LOT of technology assistance.
Some people think MREs are delicious and would eat them every day if they could.
Some people think MRE stands for Meals Rejected by the Enemy (or comparable less polite terms).
Both can be true at the same time for different people.
HanleyTucks
SOC-11
With CT, at worst with Jumping in past a gas giant, flying at 1G to a target terrestrial world, finding a buyer for cargo and unloading it, finding new cargo and loading it, taking off and flying out to the gas giant again - at worst it's about a month per world you visit.
If that world has any kind of food, then your ship only needs a month's food per crew member. Think of the people who keep twelve months' food on hand in their basement for their while family. It's not much more than a CT crew cabin.
Ship space isn't the issue for food in CT, which has very spacious ships. The issue would be if you were spending all your time going to worlds producing little or no food, and crew morale from eating the same thing all the time.
If that world has any kind of food, then your ship only needs a month's food per crew member. Think of the people who keep twelve months' food on hand in their basement for their while family. It's not much more than a CT crew cabin.
Ship space isn't the issue for food in CT, which has very spacious ships. The issue would be if you were spending all your time going to worlds producing little or no food, and crew morale from eating the same thing all the time.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Aye.
CT life support costs are set up around the notion that you're traveling to a new star system with life support replenishment available every 2 weeks. That assumption falls flat on its face if you're assigned to a long duration survey or research project (for example) "a long way out" from habitable biosphere and/or easy replenishment supply lines. Closed cycle life support technology is also something you would want for an interplanetary/pre-interstellar civilization that is TL=8 for long duration missions.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
1. I've begun to appreciate canned vegetables and fruits, and assuming quality control is the same as (my) local, so will starship crews.
2. In terms of minimal financial outlay, ramen, fresh vegetables, and minimalistic meat; invest in getting the autocook a Far Eastern cuisine programme.
3. If you do turn the life support knob really low, still suits would be useful.
4. If you do have emergency supplies, prepper recommended seems about right.
5. One assumes that the fuel processor can do reverse osmosis, and turn hydrogen back to water, and water into component oxygen.
2. In terms of minimal financial outlay, ramen, fresh vegetables, and minimalistic meat; invest in getting the autocook a Far Eastern cuisine programme.
3. If you do turn the life support knob really low, still suits would be useful.
4. If you do have emergency supplies, prepper recommended seems about right.
5. One assumes that the fuel processor can do reverse osmosis, and turn hydrogen back to water, and water into component oxygen.
If I had to build a ship with this regenerative life support (I see its usefulness for space stations and other crafts wich wil lbe long time without a port of call, as long distance explorers), I agree taht scale would be important. A few people are likely to need more tonnage per person than a large number of them.
So, I's set at a tonnage per person (I won't dare to even suggest how much), but with an efficiency scale (as MT Power plants), so that a 3 people crew would be quite inefficient (and so needing quite more tonnage), while a 10000 population would have increased efficiency, so needing quite less tonnage per person.
Of course, TL would also increase efficiency, as algae can be genetically tailored for the duty...
So, I's set at a tonnage per person (I won't dare to even suggest how much), but with an efficiency scale (as MT Power plants), so that a 3 people crew would be quite inefficient (and so needing quite more tonnage), while a 10000 population would have increased efficiency, so needing quite less tonnage per person.
Of course, TL would also increase efficiency, as algae can be genetically tailored for the duty...
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
To be fair, I'd build in a lot of redundancy, for either model.
