What's Your Astrogator Good For?

[kaladorn]

The skytrain in Vancouver might be a perfect example. It has human operators. They press one button 'go' and the same button for 'stop' (perhaps there is an emergency stop). The train can run itself... it does so in Kuala Lumpur without any operators. Why does Vancouver have them? So that a human is still in the loop if a computer fails. It is an alternate failsafe mechanism.

Anyone who has studies sytems engineering knows that with highly reliable systems (98%+ IIRC) that the ideal redundancy number is about 3.... that is, for parallel switch-in redundant systems. If you get more than that, the mere presence of the redundant systems starts to reduce overall system reliability.

Having redundant computers is nice, but having a redundant system (Astrogator) which has a rather different construction (so might not be prey to threats which might knock out all 3 starship computers) can't hurt.

Also, to the last poster: If you take Tech F and say they'd be okay with TL 8 stuff running without supervision, you might be closer to the truth, given the conservative nature of the Imperium. So Tech C would be TL 6. This pretty much precludes automated Jumping.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Having redundant computers is nice, but having a redundant system (Astrogator) which has a rather different construction (so might not be prey to threats which might knock out all 3 starship computers) can't hurt.

You're ignoring one small point: if the computers fail, you're f*cked. Every system on a ship (life support, comms/sensors, power, drives, etc) is computer controlled. They have to be, there's no way a human could do the job.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Having redundant computers is nice, but having a redundant system (Astrogator) which has a rather different construction (so might not be prey to threats which might knock out all 3 starship computers) can't hurt.

You're ignoring one small point: if the computers fail, you're f*cked. Every system on a ship (life support, comms/sensors, power, drives, etc) is computer controlled. They have to be, there's no way a human could do the job. </font>[/QUOTE]I think that would just be bad engineering, something not uncommon today but I'd think the Imperium would have had time to iron that out. In fact the very implicit crew rules would point to the opposite. Even the Apollo missions I think had a sextant and the crew knew how to use it to at least get back to earth, getting down would presumably have relied on ground based computers and motor firing orders processed manually.

I think every system will have manual overrides. It won't be easy, or even safe, but if all your electronics go dead you would still have a hope, IF you have qualified crew!

Of course the details are all very much MTU or YTU, the only OTU point is the crew IS required and so it must be good for something to warrant the life support and salary, well IMO anywho.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I think every system will have manual overrides. It won't be easy, or even safe, but if all your electronics go dead you would still have a hope

Here's a simple experiment: get in a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, take it up to a few thousand feet, disconnect the computer, and try landing.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I think every system will have manual overrides. It won't be easy, or even safe, but if all your electronics go dead you would still have a hope

Here's a simple experiment: get in a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, take it up to a few thousand feet, disconnect the computer, and try landing. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed, you are now in "command" of an eventual crash, but that's why I noted previously "bad engineering, something not uncommon today" though in this case the costs to add a redundant unwired backup are seen by the aviation companies as unneeded for the expected failure rates, the computers and iirc wiring are duplicated against failure.

Anyway, in the game, starships (and that's mostly what we're talking about) have a minimum of 20dT given over to the "bridge" a significant portion of which IMTU includes such basics as "manual" emergency controls to run most systems as long as there's power.

Hey its your game to play as you wish and if your game doesn't need PC or NPC crew that's fine, but if computers are such that crew is redundant then it follows that failure rates would be insignificant so there's no worry, except as a great adventure seed.

But then my blood sugar is low so my focus is drifting, gotta go recharge before I stop making any sense if its not too late already

 

[Andrew Boulton]

a minimum of 20dT given over to the "bridge" a significant portion of which IMTU includes such basics as "manual" emergency controls to run most systems as long as there's power.

Don't forget that the power plant is also computer controlled (do you really want to try manually controlling a fusion reactor, adjusting the confinement field several hundred times a second?)

Given that ships *do* have these crew members, I've been trying to think of reasons.

1. Tradition.

2. People like to have people in charge, not computers. It's not that they think computers aren't good enough, they're more worried that they're *too* good. People don't like the idea that they're obsolete.

3. Computers are good at, well, computing, but not so great at *thinking*. The navcomp can plot you a course from Regina to Mora, but it takes a human to decide to go there in the first place.

4. Spares are handy. Crew members are usually trained to do each others jobs, so if, say, the pilot is sick or injured, the astrogator can take over.

5. It's useful to have an extra pair of hands to do all the other little jobs, like standing watch or making the coffee.

(Those last two are reasons why most current Western tanks have a human rather than mechanical loader).

 

[robject]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
Given that ships *do* have these crew members, I've been trying to think of reasons.

[edited]

1. Tradition.
2. People like to have people in charge.
3. Computers are not so great at *thinking*.
4. Cross-training.
5. Extra pair of hands to stand watch or make coffee.

Very possible. Yet these points don't seem credible.

It feels better for the crew to be needed, to be nearly as valuable as a Power Plant.

Although, if airline pilots don't do much, I don't see why starship pilots need to do all that much. Hmm. Perhaps it's not such a big deal then. Ship systems are largely trusted, but just untrustworthy enough to require babysitting.

"And the monkey flips the switch."

 

[theSea]

Astrogator - yummy Heinlien-esq science fiction word!

Coupla things here:

1) If the humans are soooo redundant - why not just crew the ship with robots?? A computer is just a tool. Sure you can set things up so that the computer does all of the work - soup to nuts, but one gets the impression that computers do *not* do all of the work on any starship in the 3i any more than robots are completely ubquitious throughout 3i society.

The OTU is very bio-centric.

It's an aspect of the milleaux (bug - nah that's a FEATURE!). Traveller and the 3i are about the actions of men^B^B^B er, sophonts (men, women, Aslan, Hivers; slimy, green, gelatinous blobs - whatever). So in the OTU the monkey does *not* just push the button. This is necessary for a variety of meta-gaming reasons and of course YTU may vary - but if I wanted to play in a cyber-milleaux, I'd do that and not play Traveller.

2) Say it with me: "the computer is JUST a tool." Even in a fly-by-wire aircraft with computer enhanced envelope stability etc. -- the pilot is still flying the aircraft. In MTU the Astrogator wouldn't just tell the computer "I want to go there" and the computer then does all of the work.

More like this:
</font>

• Ship preps for lift - the Astrogator ensures that ships computer has current ephemris for this system and the jump destination.</font>
• The Astrogator receives traffic control instructions from starport and pilot - outbound vector, orbital traffic zones etc.</font>
• The Astrogator calculates (yes, using the computer) course along assigned outbound vector to jump-point, taking into consideration 100 diameter limits, jump masking, desired emergence vector in target system, relative velocities and orientations of the two systems, etc, etc, etc.</font>
• No doubt much of this work is done on a graphic display with the computer handling the grunt work - but the Astrogator has to know how to do all of the steps in the process in order to sense-check the computer's resuts and ensure that the answers that are coming out are related to the questions the crew INTENDED to ask.... even in the 54th century I'm relatively sure nobodies written the "do what I meant" operating system.</font>
• The Astrogater is the person on the crew who is trained to know what to ask of the computer and ensure that the results are what was intended as relates to the ships position in space.</font>
• The Astrogator and pilot are going to know what thrust at what times is going to place the ship where it needs to be when it needs to be there and they are going to sit there at those crucial times and ensure that that those events go down the way they are supposed to.</font>
• Taking the ship into and through jump space is another field of expertise - now instead of working with the Pilot to ensure that things come off as planned, the Astrogator is going to hook up with the Engineer to ensure that the jump drive is going to get all of the power it needs when it is needed.</font>

The Astrogator is the guy who is going to know what all is supposed to happen when and ensure that it goes down as relates to jumping - hit this point in space at this velocity, at this time and deliver this amount of power to the jump drives etc. etc.

Again, the computer is doing most of the actual work but the human is in the loop to ensure that it is doing the right work.

Besides... somebody has to punch the buttons.

Refer to DGP's Starship Operations Manual or the imminent GURPS Traveller Starships for further information.

As always (MTU != OTU != YTU) so your milage may vary.


For a real fun look at TL5-TL6 astrogation, go read Heinlein's Starman Jones - they use books with tables of logarithms and slide rules, working off of photographs.... for interstellar navigation!!!

Just my cr0.02

--michael

I want a ticket off this rock - NOW!!! Or I start chucking dead monkeys out the airlock!!!

 

[Hecateus]

Above the astrogators' station on most ships is a glass box with a sign saying, "In the event of computer failure, break glass". Doing so will reveal an abacus, a slide rule, pencil and paper, similar tools.

Blame the Virus.

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Me, I'd prefer the computer do the flying, but with a pilot there to monitor it in case.

Same here... A computer doesnt need "rest" but then, a human can spot obvious errors where a computer would accept it if it's programming's faulty...

The real reason of course is it is an RPG and we need to find Roles for all the Players in the Game.

That and have something to do while in jump, like preparing your next course a bit, fixing that damned Chicken Soup Machine that keeps giving Trout a la Creme instead and doing some patch-up on dumbnuts that can't differentiate between a spoon and a steak knife

So we have our small ship crew complement of:
[... snip snip ...]

That's my view of things too...

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
In this day of GPS when we have LORAN radio navigation for forty years every ship has at least two officers (Petty officers in the Navy) qualified to navigate by the stars.

Well, when your ship runs Windows and it hangs the rudder full port, you have to know how many circle you made to get back to port, because chance are your GPS-using computer is screwed

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
You're ignoring one small point: if the computers fail, you're f*cked. Every system on a ship (life support, comms/sensors, power, drives, etc) is computer controlled. They have to be, there's no way a human could do the job.

Not so... you plug-in a Thrustmaster Joystick at the helm, get someone pedaling and execute the Ricker Maneuver...

 

[sandman]

Originally posted by Andrew Boulton:
Here's a simple experiment: get in a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, take it up to a few thousand feet, disconnect the computer, and try landing.

Read this on some website (might be Slashdot, don't remember...):

The F22 Raptor still has to do some in-flight computer reboots because the software isn't all done yet... I just hope that there is a backup taking over while the main is rebooting...

 

[Maghwi]

In T20HB, there are some references that imply that good astrogators can control the vector, distance, and duration of jumps. (P 92, It also gives the DC mod for plotting a course with NO functioning ship's computer. personally i'd make that a DC mod of +10, not +5...)

Anyway, since I'm playing T20, that makes it close enough to cannon for me

IMTU, A good astrogator can reduce the amount of time a jump takes by increasing the DC. For every +5 DC mod, the astrogator removes 1 D6 from the roll to determine how long a jump takes. (in T20, jump time is equal too 147 + 6d6 hours. see P352) So, if you were plotting a normal jump, but you wanted to reduce the time by 2d6, your DC would be 25, instead of 15. If you miss this roll, you misjump. If you make the roll, then you come in at 147 +4d6 hours.

Plotting a safe vector is assumed. Getting the exact vector you want when you exit jump adds +5 to the DC.

A good astrogator can also reduce the effects of jumping too close to a gravity well. (see p354). For each +5 to the DC, you may reduce the penalties from jumping too close to a gravity well by 1. (so adding +10 to your DC when jumping from less than 100 diameters will mean you only add +3 to the die roll to check for misjump, instead of +5.)

Another thing an astrogator can do is try to plot a course closer than 100 diameters. For each +5 to the DC, the astrogator can get 10% closer. I refer to this as 'sneaking up on the gravity well'. (if you added +10 to the DC, you come out at 80 diameters) Doing this results in a bumpy ride, and requires a few engineering rolls to make sure the Jump Drive is OK afterwords.

Please note that all of these mods are cumulative, and apply to their roll. And if they fail...misjump. You can take 10 with this roll, but you can never take 20, since there is some level of danger involved.

None of these are really drastic, since most players are going to be hard pressed to consistantly make DC's of 30+. Mostly this is a way to encourage the players to misjump, but it can add some nice flavor if you want to try to arrive at the next system just ahead of the bad guys (or the Law

)

 

[mark_rotteveel]

Here's a simple experiment: get in a modern fly-by-wire aircraft, take it up to a few thousand feet, disconnect the computer, and try landing.

It'd still land, Andrew..... albeit at terminal velocity... but hitting the ground is a landing...of sorts....kinda.....

 

[Andrew Boulton]

It'd still land, Andrew..... albeit at terminal velocity... but hitting the ground is a landing...of sorts....kinda.....

A good landing is one you can walk away from.

A great landing is one where the plane's still flyable afterwards.

An amazing landing is one where the passengers are willing to get back in the plane with you next time.

 

[Jame]

Wouldn't there be several computers, each for a specific department (e.g. one for engineering, one for helm, and etc.), all under a master computer?

 

[robject]

I like theSea's response best, as it feels much like the way I think of Traveller.

And as for multiple computers, you can bet that IMTU Power Plants have their own control systems built into them...

 

[saulweaver]

I had a GPS fail on me once, which potentailly catostrophic consqequences. It was a lifesaver to have a compass and a person with the knowledge to use it.

IMTU humans on starships are redundant safety systems.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Jame:
Wouldn't there be several computers, each for a specific department (e.g. one for engineering, one for helm, and etc.), all under a master computer?

I concur, with reservations. Obviously, the ship's computer does not control all systems because the ship doesn't shut down, blow up, or suffocate the crew when the computer is destroyed.

I prefer to think of the subsystems' computers as "dedicated processors" with hardwired programs.