Starship Accommodations

[Vladika]

The requirements are how much space does it require to install life support equipment to support an average human, how much fresh water, how much food. Then how much space that he won't feel claustrophobic.

I once flew Air Canada transatlantic; I have no wish to repeat that experience, because sardines may actually have been more comfortable.

During WW2 troops were transported in rack up to 5 high.

I don't think regular crews could, or would, accept "minimal" quarters but the average traveler would. (Your Air Canada trip and anyone traveling by bus.) These are short duration trips and not their actual living conditions such as for crew members.

That being said, world navies manage, as do the old shuttle crews, capsule crews and even the space station crews. Space isn't exactly comfortable.

 

[rancke]

The requirements are how much space does it require to install life support equipment to support an average human, how much fresh water, how much food. Then how much space that he won't feel claustrophobic.

In Age of Sail warships crew had 14 inches each to hang their hammocks. Since half the crew was on watch at any one time, this effectively meant a luxurious 28 inches per man. I don't have the figures for old submarines, but I understand they were a good deal less than 2 dT per person.

Of course, we can't know for certain sure that being cooped up inside a spacecraft for a full ten days works the same way as being cooped up in, say, a submarine for 90 days (Unless the data we've collected on astronauts can tell us). But even if we can't prove that any particular set of numbers are correct, we can know that there must be different levels of life support, from absolute minimum (any further strain and people start dying), over subsistence (people can live that way but they won't enjoy it much) and average living and good living and high living and any number of levels of luxurious living.

And knowing that, we can fake some numbers that at least can't be proven wrong even if we can't prove them right.


Hans

 

[Patron Zero]

I think when you are definite bare bones necessities for a starship crew that's pretty much bottled water and ramen noodles like many non-dorm based college students exist upon, myself having had that experience.

A given that life-support is a non-negotiable commodity there is still a lot of 'options' for food and drink, the obvious and obligatory vitamin and mineral fortified ration bars to military surplus 'c-rations or Imperial MREs for the most basic of diets.

Water I don't see as a problem as the amount of ice to be found in asteroid belts and free space in general, even the most 'economy' model of starship would have equipment to purify that easily obtained resource.

One thing I have not seen mentioned here or in 'canon' materials is about shipboard hydroponics 'bays' for producing fresh produce, the word bay could be as extensive as a large compartment aboard a high passage liner or just a few lockers refit for 'soup and salad' vegetable gardens.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

I got those.

/snips/
One thing I have not seen mentioned here or in 'canon' materials is about shipboard hydroponics 'bays' for producing fresh produce, the word bay could be as extensive as a large compartment aboard a high passage liner or just a few lockers refit for 'soup and salad' vegetable gardens.

Actually, we here at Daarnulud Design Bureaux have lovely gardens installed in several of our ships, both decorative and food/life support versions. So, yes some us are aware that gardens on board have a multitude of uses.

 

[JimMarn]

During WW2 troops were transported in rack up to 5 high.

I don't think regular crews could, or would, accept "minimal" quarters but the average traveler would. (Your Air Canada trip and anyone traveling by bus.) These are short duration trips and not their actual living conditions such as for crew members.

That being said, world navies manage, as do the old shuttle crews, capsule crews and even the space station crews. Space isn't exactly comfortable.

The berthing spaces were larger to on those troop transports.

We had 3 tier bunks on the DDG I was stationed on.

The 'bunks' were aluminum alloy tubing with canvas stretched via ropes across the frame. Space below the bottom bunk and the deck was about 4-5 inches. Room for your shoes and not much else. Distance between the canvas and the next canvas up, you slept on a 2-3 inch rectangular soft foam mattress, was about 26-28 inches.

Being there for several years, got me the top bunk. Between the canvas and the ceiling, was about 30-32 inches. Luxury.

And as you got in your top bunk, the other two bunks got to smell your feet as they went by.

 

[Carlobrand]

When the air is free, there's quite a lot you can do. When you have to provide it, that becomes the limiting factor.

Canon says it's costing Cr2000 per person per trip/week. That sets a bottom limit on price which itself is going to set a bottom limit on passenger expectations, especially when they can avoid the other guys' smelly feet by going in cold sleep for a fraction of the cost.

Most of us don't like the low berth death rate thing, the more so because it has the potential to kill players who are on a budget and therefore creates headaches for gamemasters who want their players travelling among the worlds. However, if you want that image of stacked-bunk steerage in your universe, you gotta make low berth risky. Conversely, if low berth is safe, there's no demand for stacked-bunk steerage and you're back to the business of trying to find ways to entice people to pay you more for the flying experience.

Actually, it's a bit of a puzzle trying to figure out what that Cr2000 is buying you.

 

[Condottiere]

It buys you life, awareness and mobility.

Nuclear submarines have life support equipment. Also, the option of a torpedo mattress.

 

[rancke]

Canon says it's costing Cr2000 per person per trip/week.

Canon says several different things, but AFAIK the highest cost is Cr2000 per person per fortnight. Unfortunately, canon doesn't explain just what those huge sums of money buys. I've never been able to reconcile life support costs with equally canonical prices.

Other parts of canon says different things. Current (i.e. MgT) canon say Cr2000 per stateroom per month, occupied or not.

None of the various canonical life support costs work for me, in the sense that they all break my willing suspension of disbelief one way or another or fails to account for logical ramifications. For example, the difference between Cr2000 worth of life support consumed in 15 days and ten days worth of life support consumed by a passenger on a standard passage amounts to roughly Cr700, well worth speculating in by a free trader struggling to make ends meet.

That sets a bottom limit on price which itself is going to set a bottom limit on passenger expectations, especially when they can avoid the other guys' smelly feet by going in cold sleep for a fraction of the cost.

Except that I question that the life support a standard mid or high passenger gets on standard passenger liners is anywhere near the bottom limit. And any passenger who boards a free trader expecting the average standard service is kidding himself.

Actually, it's a bit of a puzzle trying to figure out what that Cr2000 is buying you.

It certainly is.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

...Except that I question that the life support a standard mid or high passenger gets on standard passenger liners is anywhere near the bottom limit. And any passenger who boards a free trader expecting the average standard service is kidding himself. ...

Missed the point on that. The point is, if you're faced with a choice between paying, say, Cr3000 to be crowded in like sardines and smelling dirty feet, or paying Cr1000 to go to sleep here and wake up there, you would be an utter fool to buy the Cr3000 ticket unless there was some serious downside to the Cr1000 ticket. Either the Cr1000 ticket MUST come with a serious downside, or the higher-price passage MUST offer sufficient amenities to entice you to pay the higher fee - even if it's a tramp liner.

We can argue down the base cost. Timerover pointed out the JTAS article with the Cr50,000 shelter that provides life support for 100 days for 8 people. That's an averaged cost of Cr62.5 per person-day for the whole shebang, walls, power plant and all. It's hard to justify a Cr2000 per person per trip charge for expendables (and I understood it to be Cr2000 for the trip with the assumption that you were spending the next week in port or otherwise not dependent on ship's life support.) when you can spend less than that for an entire system with power plant and structure.

However, the bottom line will remain that the merchant can earn a minimum Cr1000 per ton for cargo. Whatever he gets from passengers has to equal or exceed that or it's not profitable to take passengers. BUT, whatever he offers passengers for their money has to offer enough amenities that it's worthwhile to take that instead of low passage.

Yes, people will put up with one heck of a lot of misery to get from point A to point B, but nobody nowadays goes to California by Conestoga wagon when they can take a plane, drive their car, hop a train, or buy a bus ticket and thereby enjoy at least some air conditioning along the way.

 

[tinker123]

surely the downside of low passage is the risk of not waking up at the other end? an extra Cr2000 per trip sounds like good value if you can afford it, and low passage is only for those who can't find the extra cash or don't understand risk.

 

[Condottiere]

The actual idea is to put a brake on galactic tourism, and give the characters an incentive to make money.

Also, a number of tropes from the Dumarest Saga.

It would be a great disincentive for Imperium military recruiting if you knew the risks of getting selected for the Frozen Watch.

 

[rancke]

The actual idea is to put a brake on galactic tourism, and give the characters an incentive to make money.

Also, a number of tropes from the Dumarest Saga.

As I understand it, it's taken directly from Dumarest without any thoughts to the difference between the Dumarest universe and Traveller universes in general and the Third Imperium universe in particular. Also, it overlooks the difference between a book where the main character survives low berth travel by author fiat and a roleplaying game where characters throw dice every time they travel by low berth. I presume no one here thinks that E.C. Tubb actually rolled dice to see if Dumarest survived his low berth travels, right?

Furthermore, why would you want to put a brake on galactic tourism? The cheaper interstellar travel is, the more adventuring opportunities there are, or so I believe.

As for paying extra for staying concious during a trip, I assume that although low berths are as safe as described in GT (p. 108), there are nevertheless reasons why people prefer not to use them if they can afford not to. Anything from gruesome urban legends about how dangerous low berths can be to a very real risk of a debilitating 'Low Berth Syndrome'¹ that can take days to recover from.

¹Low Berth Syndrome: Rare debilitating condition brought on by traveling by low passage. Victims suffer from aches and pains for a period ranging from a few days to several months. On occasion the condition can prove to be chronic. Victims of LBS must avoid further travel by low passage until the condition has cleared up or risk aggravating the malady. [Library Data²]

² Non-canon.​

​

Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

Actually, the "low berth travel is dangerous" trope precedes the Dumarest Saga by a number of years.

The first Dumarest book, The Winds of Gath, was published in 1967.

In 1954 Andre Norton's The Stars Our Ours was published - the centerpiece of the novel is a trip from Terra to a world in another system, with the ship traveling FTL and everyone aboard in "cold sleep". 53* survived, 6 died in their cold-sleep boxes during the journey.

6/59 = 10.17% fatality rate.


* 25 men, 23 women, 1 infant boy, 4 girl children

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, Khan was in deep freeze as well.

 

[whulorigan]

As I recall, Khan was in deep freeze as well.

And 12 of the original 84 were lost. But that was after 200+ years of cold sleep which the system was not designed for.

 

[rancke]

Actually, the "low berth travel is dangerous" trope precedes the Dumarest Saga by a number of years.

Really? The term 'low berth' predates Dumarest? That freezing someone is dangerous is a common trope (also a present-day fact), but I thought that High, Middle and Low passages was E.C. Tubb's idea.

Be that as it may, even if Traveller could have gotten the idea from elsewhere, I've always been told that it did, in fact, come from the Dumarest books. If that's not the case, I'm willing to be corrected.


Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

So your contention is that it has to use the exact term to be in any way similar or applicable?

Yes, the specific words "low berth/middle passage/high passage" used in Traveller were from Dumarest - but they were just another name for a concept that had been around much longer, been used by many authors, and had far more influence than the Dumarest books did by themselves - and that includes the "fatalities during cold-sleep/hibernation/whatever else a specific author called it" idea.

Nitpicking over the name used cannot distract from the fact that "travel via reduced-metabolism technology is dangerous" was NOT, as you claimed, purely from the Dumarest books, but rather was a concept well-known in sci-fi before those books were written.


While the Dumarest saga may well have been the largest single influence on, and contributor to, the development of Traveller, the authors cited Poul Anderson's Polesotechnic League novels featuring Nicholas van Rijn as a major inspiration and source, along with other authors' treatments of interstellar trading, society, empire, and so on... and Andre Norton was also among the listed inspirations.

 

[atpollard]

Sorry if this was already discussed (I don't have the inclination to search through all 6 pages of posts right now), but the 'problem' with Low Berth is the cheap and safe alternative of Medical Fast drug.

Why risk death unnecessarily?

 

[McPerth]

Sorry if this was already discussed (I don't have the inclination to search through all 6 pages of posts right now), but the 'problem' with Low Berth is the cheap and safe alternative of Medical Fast drug.

Why risk death unnecessarily?

IIRC in a MTD where cold berth was discussed it said that from TL 13 upwards, cold sleep was more a matter of such drugs that about really freezing people.

And in any case, it would depend on how long is people intended to be in such cold state, as the fast drug is for 60 days, while cold sleep can be held for years. You could travel the whole Imperium in cold berth without ever being awakened.

 

[Vladika]

"travel via reduced-metabolism technology is dangerous"

:rofl: How perfectly PC (Politically Correct). I love it!