Revamp of ships' computers

[kaladorn]

I think Gb has been re-engineered by the same marketing weasels that turned Mb into 1,000,000 bytes instead of its proper total. There was a lot of weaseliness involved in hard drives in the elder days and that's the source I think that was responsible for this weaseliness. I'm sure the same sneaking about affected thinking about Gigabytes.

Next thing you know, somebody will be telling us that we shouldn't use 8, 16, 32 or 64 bit words, but we should use 10 or 100 bit words because it rounds easier. Just like declaring Pi to be 3.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by kaladorn:
I think Gb has been re-engineered by the same marketing weasels that turned Mb into 1,000,000 bytes instead of its proper total. There was a lot of weaseliness involved in hard drives in the elder days and that's the source I think that was responsible for this weaseliness. I'm sure the same sneaking about affected thinking about Gigabytes.

Next thing you know, somebody will be telling us that we shouldn't use 8, 16, 32 or 64 bit words, but we should use 10 or 100 bit words because it rounds easier. Just like declaring Pi to be 3.

Q. How can you tell when a Traveller player isn't a gearhead?

A. He substitutes 3 for PI in Traveller calculations. *

* I'm not a gearhead. I think I usually use one significant digit.

-----------------------
Andy -


I like your revamp of the computer rules.

Remind me: in Traveller, aren't fiber-optic models computers which actually use fiber optics in their logic circuitry? Instead of silicon, that is? (Sounds exotic.)

Sigg and others also re-value the computer volume as "Computer, Sensors, and Comms" volume, or something similar. For whatever that's worth to you.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Andy,what do you imaginr these "connections" are? And why do they take up so much space?

 

[JAFARR]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
Andy,what do you imaginr these "connections" are? And why do they take up so much space?

Let me beat around the bush on this one. I was in the navy when hand held calculators became common household items because their prices dropped in the range where anyone could afford them. The first one I had was about the volume of a pack of smokes. It could add, subtract, multiply, and devide. I paid $10 for it in the ship's store (an onboard store for use of the ship's crew with prices comparable to the Naval Exchange system) A few years later I bought a programable (up to 50 steps that could store programs on magnetic strips) version with 10 memory slots. It also had interchangable chips with different functions. It cost about $75 and was about the size of an index card and about 1/2 inch thick. I later found out that the first example I mentioned was likely capable of doing most of what the second example could; but in order to make all the connections needed to provide input required to do those things it would have needed a case the size of a loaf of bread and cost multiple hundreds of dollars.
Now to take it to a space faring vehicle. Some, but not all the connections needed to operate it would be sensors and controls for: drives and power plants, life support systems, weapons systems, maybe intertainment/liberary consoles. I was stationed the USS Enterprise and the USS Nimitz. They each had over 7 miles of sound powered phone system wiring plus bunches of other systems all requiring countless controls. As I was in the reactor department, I know those systems best, but as far as I know that information is classified. My concept of a shipboard computer as used in Traveller is that it is the brain that keeps every system on the ship operating. You tell me what is installed on a given ship that requires a computer connection and then I may be able to give an inteligent answer. Until that time, I just make reasoned estimates based on the data already supplied by existing Traveller materials. My reasoned estimates may be off, but I think that they are a good starting place. One of the reasons I started this thread was to get inputs from others to fine tune my premises.
When I worked for Walmart, we had what I thought were the stores computers in one of the back rooms. It turned out to be the backup power supplies, but they looked just like a tower on steroids. They stood about half way between my knee and hip, and were about 3 feet deep by 18 inches wide. That is my idea of the actual size of the ship's computer, but the whole room represents the space needed to hook up all the input and output connections.
Not trying to be smart, just trying to clearify my thoughts.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Well, that explains it. You're professinal experiance is with 1960s to early 1970s technology. And whoever told you about calculators lied. OK, he over-simplifed.

And the ship's computer does not control all he ships subsystems. As demonstrated by destoying the computer does not shut down life support, the power plant, weapons, or any other systems.

The architecture clearly uses local processes for control, so the data backbone does not have to be very big.

 

[JAFARR]

However, destroy the computer and you cannot target weapons or launch ordinance. You cannot jump out of the system you are in. ETC. Yes I over-simplified the calculator illustration. The point still remains that on large ships, there are many sensors that feed input to the computer and the computer outputs instructions to many other devices on the ship. Also you have to account for the military mentality - redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. Every thing has backups for the backups. When you use the same rules to build civilian craft as military, you the same thing carried over to civilian crafts.

On top of everything else the intent is to upgrade the computer systems and still keep it simple so the trivalities of the real world don't take away the fun of the Traveller world.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Andy Fralix:
However, destroy the computer and you cannot target weapons or launch ordinance. You cannot jump out of the system you are in. ETC.

Which all sounds like part of the sensor system, not a central procesing unit.

Yes I over-simplified the calculator illustration. The point still remains that on large ships, there are many sensors that feed input to the computer and the computer outputs instructions to many other devices on the ship.

All that is requird by canon can be handled by half a dozen 1/4" coax cables. At TL7.

Also you have to account for the military mentality - redundancy, redundancy, redundancy. Every thing has backups for the backups. When you use the same rules to build civilian craft as military, you the same thing carried over to civilian crafts.

So you need twenty co-ax cables

On top of everything else the intent is to upgrade the computer systems and still keep it simple so the trivalities of the real world don't take away the fun of the Traveller world.

So you replace the dated and unsatisfactory explanations in canon with an equally dated and unsatisfactory one. I think it will satisfy no-one who is unhappy with canon.

I change one word, "computer" to "sensor". Pretty simple, does nothing to game play, and keeps from annoying those of us who also live in real world.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Although, Vhela, the amount of space actually consumed inside the case has gotten smaller, as well. The large tower I bought in '98 would handle several GBs of HDD, different disc devices, a goodly amount of memory, and loads of expansion cards. However, that required multiple drive bays for the HDDs and the CD/DVD/floppy, lots of open PCI slots, etc. Now, I have a medium tower with a single drive of 200GB, a single multi-format optical drive, and only use 2 expansion slots: video and modem. Everything else now fits on the motherboard, and I still have more connections (particularly USB) than I know what to do with.

The only thing really taking up space in there now is the heatsink for the CPU....

 

[JAFARR]

It seems to me that there is a practical limit as to how small you can make things and still have them functional. My brother used to have a watch that had a calculator built in. The buttons were so small nhe had to use a ballpoint pen to push them. There are lots of calculators being sold, but I haven't seen one of these offered for sale in years because they just weren't practical enough to keep them selling after the novelty of them wore off. Yes I agree that computers have shrunk in size and increased in functions dramatically over the years. The idea of this whole discussion grew out of what you just wrote about how your computer has changed in a few years. How can we intergrate the actual way real world computers have changed into Traveller?

Let me give you something else to consider. The USS Enterprise was the navy's first nuclear powered carrier. She had 8 reactors and 6 could supply full battle load power. USS kenedy was supposed to have 4 reactors until congress decided that nuclear power was too expensive. Then came the USS Nimitz. She had 2 reactors and full battle load was 75% power on each reactor. (I served on both Enterprise & Nimitz.) To supply power to the ship, Enterprise has 8 2500KW generators at 440 volts while Nimitz has 4 8000KW generators at 4160 volts. Main lines out of both are about the size of an adult arm. During training on Nimitz, we were told that if they had used 440 generators that powerful, the wires would need to be as big as your waist. Don't ship's computers control the jump grid's power distrubition? How small can you make those connections? It's easy to speculate on things that don't exsist in TRW. If these ships realy existed, how much of what we imagine would be really close to actuality?

 

[Pickles]

In common with every Traveller ref I know, I used to regularly reduce CT computer volume in line with real-world advances. Now, 17 years since I started, I've gone back to canon tonnages. I guess I'm just getting nostalgic in my old age, but I actually like the retro-tech 70's-SF feel of those LBB design rules.

My Blakes 7 (Buy the DVDs!) campaign uses straight HG rules with different weapons systems and time distort instead of jump. But the ship's computer still takes up a whole room.

 

[TheEngineer]

The Traveller computer issue perhaps depends on the definition of computer, meaning what belongs to this thing.
To the largest degree, size efficiency is related to processor, memory and other transistor based components. Power and infrastructure components also experience some size shrinking, but due to the vastly increased capabilties of the core components there often is more infrastructure around, too.
As a result the volume occupied by electronics e.g. in automotive products rapidly increases, where most volume is indeed occupied by infrastructure (wiring), protective components (isolation, shock proving) and interface technology.
Extrapolating this into Traveller schemes, I have less problems with the vast volumes occupied by a computing system controlling perhaps several million components on a starship.
Really, a model 3 starship computer with 12 kl volume really does not differ much to a double twin E10K cluster in a climate control and protection cubical along with all the wiring to the outside world....

Regarding the jump drive and power issues we should note, that even superconductors have practical limits (a few 1000 A/mm2). Dealing with Traveller energy amounts, connectors might still take up quite a volume

.
Some realworld info: HTSCs (high temperature superconductor cable) with a diameter of 15 cm are good for power transmission of 115 MW.
Thinking of the vast amount of jump fuel used there might be a striking energy flow (well, depends on JDs power efficiency, which isnt noted anywhere AFAIK....).

 

[Erik Filean]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Ya know, just the other day, I read where they are about to start with holographic storage on discs (like CDs), that will give storage in the terabyte+ range. These should make DVDs obsolete in 10 years.

Crap. That means I'll have to buy Blackadder all over again.

 

[JAFARR]

As a followup to Engineer's last post: Just what is a computer or maybe to ask the question another way, why did MT drop the 20 ton or 2% of hull volume as bridge size? LBB2 and LBB5 required a bridge + computer while MT required a computer + controls. Then MT reduced the actual volume of the computers while requiring a minimum of 3 to support starship operations.

My thoughts on a minimum size for the computer is that all the control panels required by MT are part of the computer system. Looking at my home system I find that the tower housing the actual computer takes only a part of what I call "my computer". I know that monitors are shrinking in overall volume as they are getting larger in viewing area, but mine takes more volume than the tower. I also have a scanner, a printer, and a cable modem taking up desk space. I would have a UPS as well if it were serving in a work related capacity. There are also some other nice accessories that could be added as well. All of this is what I call my "computer". I am referring to the whole system as the computer.

When I think of a computer on a starship, I am thinking of it as more in the function of a server with multiple terminals located at the various crew control positions. For ease of designing, I prefer to use the LBB system vs the MT system. Then I can assume that all the needed controls are part of the bridge and be done with it. On the other hand, I like the 3 computers requirement, but I think they should be somewhat comparable the LLB computers in total size and cost. Or maybe even smaller and cheaper to compare to TRW computers. In actuallity, I think of a ship's computer system as a network of local terminals used as control stations located through out the ship. Hey you can even throw in some personal entertainment/data providing terminals for the crew and passengers.

 

[Tobias]

I agree with theEngineer and Andy. I can also assure you that even on much more modern naval vessels than the Nimitz (a Frigate launched in 1995, to be precise), the computer with its associated access and linking equipment does occupy a lot of space.
In addition, I think that HG summarizes Sensors, ECM systems and Communications, in short, the whole electronics suite, with the "computer" rating. I conclude this from the tremendous effect that the rating has on starship combat and from the fact that there is no other provision for these things in the CT rules.
In this light, the sizes and energy requirements for computers make a lot more sense IMHO.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Straybow]

No, the energy requirements cited are still absurd. One EP is 250MW. A computer using .01EP would turn the bridge into a pizza oven from the waste heat left over after 99.9% has been shunted through a heat sink.

 

[TheEngineer]

Cooling / Climate control ?
I just know, that the power requirement for a major inet provider computer center in Karlsruhe, Germany is 8 MW.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Hey, Straybow, you just figured it out! All the waste energy gets stored in the galley, for cooking!

 

[Uncle Bob]

Tobias, enlighten me.
The USS Nimitz is an aircraft carrier launched in 1975, and still in service. http://www.nol.navy.mil/homepages/cvn68/
The U.S. Navy does not give two ships the same name at once, and I have no reference for a German frigate of that name.

TheEngineer, a server farm is not a good model fot a ships computer, even with 1990s technology. Perhaps for the entertainment system for a liner, but that asin't the function of a ship's computer.

It is obvious that no IT professionas play Traveller anymore, or you wouldn't get away with this BS. I haven't heard a single arguement that I didn't make twenty years ago and had shot-down then. So either accept the rules as written, knowing they're wrong and making no excuse, or do something radical.

At above TL7 the computer and data back-bone become a vanishing small percentage of the bridge. More capable systems might be more expensive, but still trivial in size. Ignore them.

In the rules, computers navigate, calculate jumps, target fire control, and nothing more. These can be computer functions, but are also sensor dependent.

Replace the words ships computer with the words sensor array and no other rule change is neccessary, although you might have to fiddle the deckplans a little.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Looking at FF&S2, even a high-end commo & sensor suite is less than a dton.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Uncle Bob,
I believe Tobias is referring to a frigate that is newer than the Nimitz, not one named Nimitz. (Though, there was a USS Sullivan and a USS The Sullivans - different folks, so technically not the same name.)

I take it you are a little frustrated with the discussion....