Starship Visual Range Operations Standards

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

My Lords,

Is there a precedent for Starships (or Craft) operating around other Starships (or craft)within visual range, by using a visual system of lights, etc, to convey what the ship is doing operationally, etc? A system similar to the Maritime "Rules of the Road"?

Do you use a system like this in your Traveller Games?

 

[mike wightman]

Do you use a system like this in your Traveller Games?

Definately, especially close to Starports and authorised refueling lanes around gas giants.

 

[jfwking]

Like most modern airports you will be flying with instraments and port guidance. The mk1 eyeball is a usefull backup but bear in mind that looking out of the windows of most designs gives a limited foward view. Monitors can give side/rear/top/bottom views but when you are manovering several hundred dtons (several 1000 tons mass) you want to be a bit more precise than some grizzled old pilot calling out 200m, 150m, slow it down a bit
Ships will have running lights in the same way as aircraft do but if you look at mid air near crashes with big aircraft some are avoided by onboard radar and some are avoided by ground controlers, not many are avoided by the crew seeing the other aircraft.
With transponders and a 3D holo display on the bridge you can see where everything is around you and manover accordingly but I reckon that apart from the back of beyond dirt strip starports you will be flying under port guidance and in fixed flight lanes to dock/undock or even fuel skim.
Using the technology is going to be far safer than using your eyesight which at best is going to be the last resort. Port controlers tend to get a bit upset if you bump the dock and put...ents...in....@)(&*&+_)(&%£$

Trust the technology!
Technology is good.
Have faith in the computer.
The computer is your lord.......

Excuse me a minute, I need to de-virus my computer again

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

So would they be programmable visual arrays that would be standardized to easily read "Towing Astern" or "Carrying Explosives" etc? Would there be a way to establish a standard system politically?

 

[jappel]

You know, I could swear I've seen references to an existing set of RL guidelines for this, but my Google-fu is weak this morning. I'll keep digging, but perhaps someone else knows where to find it?

John

 

[Straybow]

Velocities and distances are too great for eyeballing. Ship beacons are tiny dots. No background for reference means velocities are impossible to judge.

If you mean eyeballing a docking attempt with a derelict or something, maybe. But for any traffic situation, traffic control of some sort is mandatory.

 

[TheDS]

I would think it might be possible to establish a frame of reference by making your running lights always come in pairs that are always a specific distance apart from each other. A small, 100 ton craft might be just barely able to manage to have these light pairs within the necessary regulations. Some might even have to mount them on poles (can't think of the correct term atm) to ensure the distances are right.

Then, no matter what kind of ship it is, you can tell how far away it is by how far apart the lights are. If they appear to be a single light, then it's probably a km or two away.

Naturally, this is ONLY going to work if you're in otherwise slow traffic (within a spaceport, perhaps?) and your maneuvering bridge is mounted somewhere to give you plenty of sight. Please note that a maneuvering bridge is unlikely to be the place where they usually drive the ship from. That will be the CIC, and it will be in a much better-protected location. The bridge is for looking around in slow traffic, the CIC is for everything else.

 

[Straybow]

Could be good as a fall-back in case of emergencies or radio silence. There could also be standard signals, like the light "paddles" for landing on a carrier.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

This system would indeed be in place for close facility operations, and would have little value in longer distances... I think it makes sense... most Starports I'm sure would want to know from as many sources as possible, the essential facts of a vessel... yes, this information could be handled by transponder, but communications and even computers can fail... better to err on the side of caution, especially when the TDX shipment nudges toward the airlock, no?

 

[aramis]

World Builder's has rules which include visual range...

I've always assumed that final docking was done via camera-link, on manual. The cameralink is dual cams for TL <13, and Holographic for TL 13+... thus a scaled three-D holoview, or a dual eye 3d view are available.

Why? Because the ships computers are not TRUSTED to do it. Not that they are not capable, but that they are more corruptable than mere mortals. and each docking link has a dedicated thrust SPU which handles the command translation to the RCS, out of synch with the rest of the systems, and shuts down all other command links to the RCS.

 

[jhulse]

I think that the size of the ship would also determine what kind of visual signals might be used, especially during docking procedures. Any modern passenger plane still relies on a person on the ground with light wands guiding the pilot to the parking position at a gate. But a supertanker or a container ship at a major port might need something a bit more elaborate.
You might be able to extrapolate the Traveller equivalent in any down ports or high ports.

 

[kaladorn]

Interestingly, in the real world, we're pretty far along towards workable landings via autopilot. It has been done, and the systems are getting hooked into all sorts of sensors, glidepath scanners, GPS, and radar and such. The software is nearly solid enough. The only issue is human confidence.

Studies are beginning to show that modern autopilots and collision response systems cause fewer crashes than they would prevent, because contrary to popular belief, when technology gets far enough along, it is *less* likely to fail at a key moment than a human is - humans make bad judgement calls.

So, when the argument boils down to (and it may not be there today, but by TL10 it will)
- trust human judgement or cut your accident chances in half

I'm pretty sure I know which will win. And docking in space is bound to be simpler than flying in-atmosphere. So if we can master that and automate it (we've done it on trains, are working on it in cars, have tried it on planes and spaceships), then we'll see very little done manually.

Now, as to Visual Range Indicators, you'd have these too - not entirely for reasons you suspect. You'd have them for close in piloting around ports, just to provide extra information bandwidth. But they would also be useful to the small pods and such manouvering around so they can see your intentions as you come in in your 600 ton ship and to all the guys out on the hull in space suits doing work of one form or another.

It is, as the Baron pointed out, just another information channel, and a cheap one. So it would be used.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

When I played Elite, the first ship upgrade I always bought was a docking computer...

 

[Antony]

All my ships, and flying craft for that matter have running lights which actually serve little purpose. (I like them to light up the ships name in port) In any case once Chameleon armour material is available (I think about TL11) then the ships hull can be lit up to display almost everything. I particulary like the merchantship flashing advertising slogans as it comes into dock.

 

[TheDS]

That was because you could NOT match your rotation to that of the station. Even the docking computer messed up now and then, especially if you weren't coming in right.

 

[aramis]

True, Autopilots and advnced autolanding systems ARE FAR MORE ACCURATE[/i] than people. (Well, not the Soyouz ones....)

IMTU only final docking is manual. Most other activities, including slipway entry, are automated.

And a few reasons why it is that way IMTU:
1) Confidence (above)
2) beacse that way there is a human committing the ship to station regs by manually docking
3) since you're already in the slipway, you ca't do THAT much damage
4) it "proves" you've a competent ship-driver aboard.
5) it gives practice for those situations where you HAVE to do it manually

Now, many hgh ports IMTU also have a dummy dock, usually automated with a 0.1G drive for course correction... specifically for pacticing manual docking and approach. Often not in orbit around the mainworld, but a satelite thereof.

As for visual recognition, the OTU hasn't specified, aand semi-canon sources (MTSSOM, MTJ) indicate that the cameleon hull is the norm, not the exception. I don't recall any running light requirments being mentioned.

More important are the things which require vastly more precision than skill. Like docking bays, and airlocks.

IMTU, these have a consistant markingn pattern light-wise. Docking bays use quad fresnels (one each side) to tell you visually) how you're doing on bay entry, and lightstrips around the door. Red, Green, Blue, Amber... L, R, D, U respectively, from the standpoint of the bay door. All blue means down is straigth in, all amber means striaght in is up the ship's gravity plane.

As for "Flying by Autopilot", the 3I either does a lot of it, or the skill for pilot is actually "Autopilot Programming".

MTU is designed to accomodate the former,

 

[kaladorn]

Oddly, the Elite comment reminds me of the space station raid in firefly where they came in semi-ballistic and tried to hit the station dock from a course correction 6000 km out or something of the sort, using the Mk I eyeball (well, maybe a few sensors, and a good pilot).

When they arrived, they were still doing a goodly clip and the impact with the docking pillar was... substantial.

 

[Drakon]

Yeah, that was pretty cool. Not sure how realistic it was. (But then again, how fast is too fast? Before you break that pretty space station. You'd want those to be kinda rugged.)

I had this discussion with a co-worker a few years back. I prefer some kind of lighting system just in case everything else fails and all you got is a pilot and some thrusters. Lighting the ship won't make a bit of difference in the big black, or at high speed. But where it will be useful will be in high traffic areas, such as around ports, where you are travelling slow.

And maybe I am old fashion, but these new fangled computers just don't impress me yet. At least if a human (sophont) pilot gets me killed, I can blame him. Computers, they are always blameless.