System Sustainability

[Bartleby]

I was working on MTU and wanted to invent a TL level at which a planet could be 100% sustainable, regardless of planet type.

So, ignoring terraforming for a moment, if a planet of a million people lived on an airless moon, or corrosive ball of rock, there would likely be a TL where they could produce all the food and resources they require without the need of imports.

Is anyone aware of a reference in one of the many versions of Traveller where this is spelled out?

 

[casquilho]

So a TL high enough that they can have a box that provides all the air, water, food, waste removal, temperature control, light, and anything else needed for life forever without any input from outside the box. Wow. I admit, you have me curious now. I do not remember such a magical system but I am far from an expert on all versions of Traveller so I am looking forward to the answers.

 

[Bartleby]

So a TL high enough that they can have a box that provides all the air, water, food, waste removal, temperature control, light, and anything else needed for life forever without any input from outside the box. Wow. I admit, you have me curious now. I do not remember such a magical system but I am far from an expert on all versions of Traveller so I am looking forward to the answers.

Actually I said "invent" but I meant "decide". I think the highest tech levels as written would be able to most of your list.

 

[Spinward Flow]

there would likely be a TL where they could produce all the food and resources they require without the need of imports.

You have discovered ... TL=9 ...

By TL–9 Bioregenerative Life Support has been developed. Bioregenerative Life Support is the goal of systems on airless worlds, where the biosystem recycles all wastes and provides all needed food and oxygen.

 

[Bartleby]

You have discovered ... TL=9 ...

I should have looked at the Wiki instead of my books. That looks like it is from T4 (which I do not have). Thank you.

 

[mike wightman]

With the political will it could be done today. By TL8 with grav tech and fusion power it is trivial.

A self sustaining Lunar or Mars base are perfectly within current technological capability. It would just be very expensive.

Vertical farms for food production, solar and nuclear power...

Elon Musk still aims to have a million people living on Mars within the next few decades, once Starship is fully operational and he has them being produced at a greater rate.

I will be amazed in China doesn't have a permanent settlement on the Moon within the next decade.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I should have looked at the Wiki instead of my books. That looks like it is from T4 (which I do not have). Thank you.

If you want something more ... small scale (like a single starship with crew and passengers) ... I've got you covered with House Rules.

 

[bookwyrm]

@Spinward Flow Thanks for the post! It's giving me some great ideas!

 

[Condottiere]

If everything can be solved with energy, the technological level eight early fusion reactor would be the starting point for post scarcity.

Technological level nine will bring manoeuvre drive factor/one, which you could attach to conveniently located ice comets.

 

[Bartleby]

If you want something more ... small scale (like a single starship with crew and passengers) ... I've got you covered with House Rules.

Than you to the pointer to the house rules.

 

[whartung]

This is a resource problem as much as a TL problem, yes?

I mean, if you go on the base assumption that all you have it rock, it becomes a question of getting air from that rock. Water would be nice as well. All the rest can be initially imported (organics, livestock, etc.) and ideally self replicating once established.

 

[Spinward Flow]

@Spinward Flow Thanks for the post! It's giving me some great ideas!

We make every pretense of competency around here ...

Incidentally, my research on the topic is what (eventually) led me into my Pondering Starship Evolution thread ... which I really need to get back to at some point here.

Anyway, one of the things that I'm currently thinking about is the possibility of "downscaling" from TL=10 to TL=9 ... which brings a new set of technological challenges/restrictions on what can be done (and gotten away with) in context. The biggest challenge in dropping from TL=10 to TL=9 is the fact that with LBB2.81 standard drives you're limited to only A-D drives @ TL=9 (LBB2.81, p15 or TTB, p87) so there's a pretty hard cap on "what you can do" in terms of starship design.

Fortunately I have House Rule solutions for those kinds of problems too ...
Being able to "revert to formula" so as to interpolate information that the table omits (because it's a table, not a formula) is relatively trivial ... once you figure out the what the formula was that generated the table (and is good for TL=9-14 drives and hull sizes, TL=15 drives are straight up CHEAT CODE MODES that break the formula).



So long story short ... letter drives are code: 1 per letter increment when scaling by 200 tons (see: A-F drives in a 200 ton hull if you need confirmation). Everything is straight add/multiply/divide with the letter drives, no "off by 1" multipliers like you see with LBB5.80 (that make the math "clunky" to use).

C/C/C drives are code: 1 in a 600 ton hull and displace 35 tons ... the maximum that a single engineer crew position can maintain safely before needing to add a second engineer crew position. D/D/D drives are code: 1 in an 800 ton hull and displace 45 tons, so you need 2 engineer crew positions (which CAN be filled by a single person with engineering-2+ skill working both positions). Just like how you can have a pilot/navigator (2 crew positions) or a steward/medic (2 crew positions) requiring dissimilar skills, you can have an engineer/engineer (2 crew positions) or a gunner/gunner (2 crew positions) that require the same skill.

Given a choice between needing 2 staterooms and 2 people with skill-1 each for 2 crew positions ... I personally prefer to allocate 1 stateroom and 1 person with skill-2 for 2 crew positions in the same department. I calculate the crew salary like so:
Engineer-2/Engineer-2 = ((4000*1.1)+(4000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr6600 per month/4 weeks

If you're needing to pay for "standard life support" overhead costs (Cr2000 per occupied stateroom per 2 weeks) ... then the overhead costs per 4 weeks for an engineer with skill-2 working 2 crew positions requires a single occupancy stateroom and ...
6600 + 2000*2 = Cr10,600 per month, 4 tons displacement required for stateroom accommodations

Compare that to a pair of skill-1 engineers needing 2 staterooms in order to fill 2 crew positions.
Engineer-1 (chief) = 4000*1.1 = Cr4400 per month/4 weeks
Engineer-1 = Cr4000 per month/4 weeks
4400 + 4000 + 2000*4 = Cr16,400 per month, 8 tons displacement required for stateroom accommodations

Point being, depending on the "economics" of the starship class(es) you're building, it can be "not unreasonable" to hire more highly skilled crew members in order to fill the required crew positions with a smaller crew. On balance, you pay more in crew salaries (to fewer people) but you reserve more of the starship's displacement for revenue tonnage (cargo, passengers, etc.) AND you also save a decent amount in life support expenses (because air, water and food are NOT FREE in starship economics!).

And just in case you're wondering how the crew salary for a pilot/navigator ought to be computed, here is how I would do it:
Pilot-2/Navigator-2 = ((6000*1.1)+(5000*1.1))*0.75 = Cr9075 per month/4 weeks

With those examples, you can just "plug 'n' play" with your allocation of crew however you'd like.



The advantages of "lean crews" with higher skills? More profitable operations due to lower overhead costs and increased revenue tonnage.

The downsides of "lean crews" with higher skills? Recruiting and ... casualties ... so crew "losses" are going to hurt more than usual.

 

[Timerover51]

I would say that this is a combination of what resources are available at the location as well as population size, as well as the starting Tech Level of the settlers to begin with. I have been using the following for what is the minimum population to support a given Tech Level. For say Tech Level 6, I put that at a population level of 7, tens of millions, based on historic evidence on Earth. Great Britain and Germany, both with populations in the tens of millions, could produce the full spectrum of material needed to support Tech Level 6, but neither was self-sustaining, as both were dependent on imports of various commodities. If the needed resources are available, you could probably support Tech Level 7 and higher with a population of between the tens of millions and the hundreds of millions.

I do not see any Tech Level that could support a large population on the example given, an airless rock, that could be totally self-supporting short of matter transmutation, and even then, the population would need to acquire the matter for transmutation from elsewhere, otherwise, they would be consuming the rock that they were living on. For a population to be self-supporting, you would need a world very similar to Earth, with the full spectrum of resources available, and a population in the tens of millions at a minimum.

 

[Spinward Flow]

For a population to be self-supporting, you would need a world very similar to Earth, with the full spectrum of resources available, and a population in the tens of millions at a minimum.

If we stick to the Traveller UWP and trade codes ... any world with Population: 6- is classified as Non-industrial, meaning that it doesn't have a fully diversified economy (yet). It may have a plentiful supply of SOME goods (raw materials from resource extraction being high on the list) while having shortages in OTHER goods (finished products being the most obvious).

Worlds that are Population: 6- are basically going to be dependent on imports AND dependent on exports.
Imports to bring in goods that cannot be produced locally.
Exports to bring in the necessary cash to keep the local world economy going (so it doesn't collapse and "die back").

Once you reach Population: 7+ you'll have a world that CAN be self-sustaining in isolation, given sufficient technology (and government and law level).

you would need a world very similar to Earth

You need "a Terra type" world in order to obtain "free" life support at TL=0.
Once you reach TL=9-10, you have the basic building blocks you need for closed environments ... just add the necessary elements (nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, etc.) into the life support loop cycle to replace net losses (because no closed loop system is a "perfect" perpetual motion machine). With fusion power and chemical fuel refineries, a sufficiently diversified world economy (see Population: 7+), even in extremely hostile environments it is possible to MINE the necessary raw materials needed to keep the life support systems of a technological world settlement operational (barring mishap/sabotage/terrorism, of course) relatively indefinitely.

As to whether or not such an arrangement is "economically profitable" for the investors/citizens/colonists/squatters is a different question.
Possible? SURE.
Worth it? ... answer hazy, try again later.

 

[Bartleby]

I would say that this is a combination of what resources are available at the location as well as population size, as well as the starting Tech Level of the settlers to begin with. I have been using the following for what is the minimum population to support a given Tech Level. For say Tech Level 6, I put that at a population level of 7, tens of millions, based on historic evidence on Earth.

I have started and discarded a few replies that started with "What about this" or "What about that"? But in each case when I stated my hypotheses I was using technology to offset the population requirement, and thereby changing the TL.

So all to say I had never considered this, and I think you are on to something. I will need to think of this more and its implications IMTU.

I really enjoy UWPs that violate certain rules. I view them as prime opportunities for declining civilizations. I had never considered a minimum population for tech levels.

 

[bookwyrm]

Ag Atmo 5-9 Hydro 5-8 Pop 5-7. TL 3+ or 4+?

I was looking at the Technology page in my rules and started wondering if TL 0-2 is too low to be considered an Agricultural planet. It's not in the rules, but I was thinking that hunter-gatherers and gardens to feed a family and trade with neighbors would in no way be able to feed populations of other planets.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I was looking at the Technology page in my rules and started wondering if TL 0-2 is too low to be considered an Agricultural planet. It's not in the rules, but I was thinking that hunter-gatherers and gardens to feed a family and trade with neighbors would in no way be able to feed populations of other planets.

I'm guessing that you've never been to Sorel/Glisten/Spinward Marches then.

 

[Timerover51]

Ag Atmo 5-9 Hydro 5-8 Pop 5-7. TL 3+ or 4+?

I was looking at the Technology page in my rules and started wondering if TL 0-2 is too low to be considered an Agricultural planet. It's not in the rules, but I was thinking that hunter-gatherers and gardens to feed a family and trade with neighbors would in no way be able to feed populations of other planets.

The following Tech Levels are drawn from The Traveller Book. Tech Level 0 is Stone Age. Tech Level 1 is the Bronze Age. Tech Level 2 is defined as 1400 to 1700.

Bronze Age Egypt was producing sufficient food to export thousands of tons of wheat per year to feed the Roman populace. During the 17th Century, from 1601 to 1700, France was also exporting large quantities of wheat and other grains to countries in Europe, while the Dutch herring fleet was supplying a large portion of Europe with salted herrings. If you have sufficient population, it is possible to have viable food exports at Tech Levels 1 and 2. Agriculture up to roughly the 1860s was heavily dependent on the manpower and land available. At that point, inventions such as the McCormick Reaper and the steam traction engine began to make agriculture less labor dependent, along with better farming methods. The railroads also had a major impact, as they made getting crops to markets much faster and easier.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I do not see any Tech Level that could support a large population on the example given, an airless rock, that could be totally self-supporting short of matter transmutation, and even then, the population would need to acquire the matter for transmutation from elsewhere, otherwise, they would be consuming the rock that they were living on.

Organic materials and environment stuff would be recyclable, as would most metals and some plastic.

 

[Condottiere]

Assuming the basic components necessary to support life, and the industrial base, are present.

The tools to access them, initially, have to be imported.

I'll assume ice formed and is locked in the poles, so the initial colony would be founded at either one.