Granting your assumptions, how can a pilot on the XBoat avert the accident?
Why aren't XBoats automated?
- Thread starter CTWarlord
- Start date
This makes some sense. But, does this mean satellites or unmanned beacons can be seized as salvage? Are they a separate category because they're not designed to be maneuverable? But XBoats also are designed not to be maneuverable - couldn't they be treated the same as satellites and beacons for salvage purposes?
Assume token attitude jets (as a minimum, cold gas thrusters, might be hypergolics, could even just be directing the exhaust from the power plant or equivalent). At typical 100D distances, should be enough to change a planetary impact into a close fly-by.
An autopilot could do it too though.
Krikkitone
SOC-12
TL 12 only has semi-int robots (primitive artificially intelligent robots)
TL 16 has full artificial intelligence
If one accepts that astrogation requires sophont+computer type intelligence working together, then the sophont part can potentially only be replaced at TL 16. (which would fit with vampire fleets being TL 16 in terms of their programming)
Maybe this is why so many XBoats are deployed, one of them is bound to get through. It would be like a hare race, but the obstacles are dogs.
XBoats, the chew toy of choice for Vargr everywhere!
Brought to you by, ScoutSnax LLC.
G. Kashkanun Anderson
SOC-13
Awareness is the requirement, at least sufficient enough to qualify as a reliable observer, in (I suppose) the von Neumann sense. Where this line exists in biological minds is hazy (I have this distinct recollection of reading an account of unsuccessful jump space experiments involving using lower animals as 'observers', but I cannot recall if this was anything canonical or not), but it can be said that Imperial technology (TL15) is unable to make artificial intelligences that are capable of satisfying this requirement.
That is, at least, until the Imperial Navy stumbled across that hack which conveniently allowed them to do it. But pretty much everyone in Charted Space wishes that they hadn't.
Wait a minute ...
- Kinunir: According to the CT Adventure, the Kinunir did not show any indication of having jumped without any of her crew.I've never read the more recent novelization of what went down, but even if it contradicts this, the mitigating circumstances surrounding the ship (the experimental AI installation, and the fact that the malfunction happened in IY1088, see below) means that the above rule remains unaffected.Spoiler:
- Annic Nova: There is no evidence, anywhere in the text of the Annic Nova Adventure, that even implies that it was jumping without a crew. The ship is simply found, also adrift, with the crew missing and/or dead.Spoiler:
- Virus: The Vampire Fleet ships were capable of independent jump because they achieved full sentience, thanks to the above mentioned hack.
- 101 Robots: This, I do not know what you are getting at. Are you talking about the robots that went rogue and committed criminal acts, including hijacking starships? If so, then hijacking doesn't require one to go solo; lots of living beings can go along for that ride. In fact, since the robots didn't come equipped with Pilot skill, someone else would have to go along with them for that ride.
What is, does not mean what always was. Assuming the publication date of this supplement, autonomous XBoats would be a thing as of IY1105 or so. But CT canon also adds this salient point to the mix:
- CT Book 8 (Robots), Page 10: "Recently, the Imperium has started to experiment with combination courier-pilot robots as xboat pilots, but this is not common knowledge."
So, autonomous XBoats are possible now, but they are a recent and experimental development.
So what, in the Traveller Universe, might have changed to allow this to happen? Why might starships prior to about IY1105 need crews to function in jump space, and those operating after IY1105 might, at least 'experimentally', not? I think we can already guess the answer.
According to Survival Margin, the Deyo transponder chip (the one based on the Cymbeline life form) can achieve full awareness if it is connected to a sufficiently advanced processing network (like a starship computer).
This was the aforementioned hack which, while completely unintended, does allow for autonomous starships. The chips completed final testing in IY1086, and were implemented in all Imperial starships from IY1088-1100.
As such, while every Imperial (and near Imperial) ship built or operating after IY1100 was capable, under the right circumstances, of full autonomy, including jump, no ships (outside of Ancients technology) operating prior to IY1088 could, or did.
Or at least I don't know of any examples of such in the literature. If anyone out there knows of any, I'd like to see it.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Back in the 1980s, before MT came along, it was the consensus among every Traveller player I had contact with that 3I rules forbade non-biological intelligences from operating without some level of control/supervision by a biological intelligence (human/etc).
We got this from the totality of what had come out by then, and the total lack of any ship etc equipped for purely unmanned operation (the text of the X-boat description helped there, as the X-boat was capable of unmanned operation but was always manned anyway).
We got this from the totality of what had come out by then, and the total lack of any ship etc equipped for purely unmanned operation (the text of the X-boat description helped there, as the X-boat was capable of unmanned operation but was always manned anyway).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
No one I have ever played Traveller with has ever subscribed to such a view.
Your LBB:8 argument is interesting but DGP also wrote 101 Robots to give exemplars, and one of the examples is the robot pilot of a Seeker. Also the encounter table for robots is worth a read.
I'm pretty sure there is an autopilot plug in robot somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.
There is no mention in T5 of a living being required for jump, and the extensive Jump Space article written by MWM doesn't mention the requirement of a sophont either.
Forgot one, the jump missile, canonical for 77 CT and A:4
Your LBB:8 argument is interesting but DGP also wrote 101 Robots to give exemplars, and one of the examples is the robot pilot of a Seeker. Also the encounter table for robots is worth a read.
I'm pretty sure there is an autopilot plug in robot somewhere but I can't find it at the moment.
There is no mention in T5 of a living being required for jump, and the extensive Jump Space article written by MWM doesn't mention the requirement of a sophont either.
Forgot one, the jump missile, canonical for 77 CT and A:4
But decanonized afterwards, for what I've heard...
Last edited:
Baroun Tardis
SOC-12
The way I always figured it:
By the time you drop tens of Mcr on a ship, the salary for a sophont to make sure there's someone to handle emergencies is a rounding error
You could put a robot in, but they're more expensive than a sophont and until very high tech levels not as inventive in keeping themselves alive , nor as vested in keeping the ship alive so they remain alive
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
In all craft that leave atmosphere for space ... the crew are just "backups" to the automation and computers.
The crew's "job" is oversight and anticipation/command decision making. The crew are basically "managers" (effectively) of the automated systems, rather than being indispensible cogs in the gears of the machinery.
The way that I envision the XBoats working as an operational standard is that a Pilot needs to be SOMEWHERE controlling/commanding the jump ... but they don't necessarily need to be onboard (remote control command from the Tender works just fine).
And before anyone scoffs at the idea ... consider that XBoats and Tenders BY DEFINITION have more than their fair share of communications bandwidth to play around with.
Think about it.
Q: What's the difference between a pilot station on the bridge of an XBoat ... and a remote control pilot station on a Tender?
A: Not enough to make a material difference in routine operations.
Technically speaking, the XBoat "still requires a pilot" to operate ... it's just that the pilot doesn't need to be onboard in order to "ride" the jump from beginning to end. The sophont pushing buttons/touching the screens can do so remotely from the Tender just as easily as they can from the bridge of the XBoat itself.
Note that a "remote pilot oversees jump dispatches" works perfectly fine for most routine XBoat operations ... AND cuts down on the number of pilots required by the XBoat Network into the bargain, reducing manpower demands.
Pilot on XBoat bridge = 1 jump per 8+ days
Remote Pilot on Tender's bridge controlling XBoat for jump sequencing = 8+ jumps per 8+ days!
That makes a lot more sense from a utilization of skills standpoint than consigning XBoat pilots to a week of "me time" alone every time an XBoat needs to jump somewhere.
The crew's "job" is oversight and anticipation/command decision making. The crew are basically "managers" (effectively) of the automated systems, rather than being indispensible cogs in the gears of the machinery.
The way that I envision the XBoats working as an operational standard is that a Pilot needs to be SOMEWHERE controlling/commanding the jump ... but they don't necessarily need to be onboard (remote control command from the Tender works just fine).
And before anyone scoffs at the idea ... consider that XBoats and Tenders BY DEFINITION have more than their fair share of communications bandwidth to play around with.
Think about it.
Q: What's the difference between a pilot station on the bridge of an XBoat ... and a remote control pilot station on a Tender?
A: Not enough to make a material difference in routine operations.
Technically speaking, the XBoat "still requires a pilot" to operate ... it's just that the pilot doesn't need to be onboard in order to "ride" the jump from beginning to end. The sophont pushing buttons/touching the screens can do so remotely from the Tender just as easily as they can from the bridge of the XBoat itself.
Note that a "remote pilot oversees jump dispatches" works perfectly fine for most routine XBoat operations ... AND cuts down on the number of pilots required by the XBoat Network into the bargain, reducing manpower demands.
Pilot on XBoat bridge = 1 jump per 8+ days
Remote Pilot on Tender's bridge controlling XBoat for jump sequencing = 8+ jumps per 8+ days!
That makes a lot more sense from a utilization of skills standpoint than consigning XBoat pilots to a week of "me time" alone every time an XBoat needs to jump somewhere.
Baroun Tardis
SOC-12
As long as all the hardware works right, yeah, the above makes sense
It'd be sad to lose a mult-Mcr boat due to a decicredit relay hanging though, and a guy onboard to see the red light go on and go replace the part is cheap insurance.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
And yet A4 still exists and so does CT77, they have yet to be deleted from mu cds or a recall notice issued
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
True.
But then again ... if you're talking about a complete loss of craft, which is the better scenario?
The craft was lost along with the lives of all aboard ... or the craft was lost and no one was aboard?
Think twice before answering ...
Uh ... a duplicate workstation on the Tender's bridge would have the exact same red light go on.
And in terms of "insurance" ... the best available "insurance" for dispatches is having a reserve XBoat available in inventory aboard the Tender. That way if XBoat 10 has a problem, you pull XBoat 10 from the rotation and put it into the hangar bay for maintenance while XBoat 11 gets swapped in and readied for dispatch.
One of those "if you're using 10, better have 12" bits of logistics wisdom that the older hands will convince you about the value of if you're inexperienced.
Like the engineers say about redundancy ... "you can have either ZERO or TWO."
Baroun Tardis
SOC-12
True.
But then again ... if you're talking about a complete loss of craft, which is the better scenario?
The craft was lost along with the lives of all aboard ... or the craft was lost and no one was aboard?
Think twice before answering ...
Oh, sure, losing it without people is better.
But not losing it at all is best.
If the light goes on after Jump entry? Not so much.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Granted.
But when the entire point and purpose of the scenario is COMPLETE LOSS OF CRAFT ... coming along and primly saying "well, just don't lose the craft" is about as clear an example of Missing The Point as can be had.
Especially if avoiding loss of craft requires time travel to avert ...
HOW?
WHY?
If you're saying that the XBoat --> communicated <-- that there was a fault AFTER ENTERING JUMP ... those two questions (how? why?) become rather pertinent, wouldn't you say?
If that actually happened ... the red light comes on AFTER the XBoat has jumped away ... the first thing I would be doing (as the pilot at the remote workstation) would be calling for technical staff on the Tender to check the workstation for false positive diagnostics.
I always figured the boat courier deployments was half the source of all those jack of all trades skills. Reading/watching everything in Library plus scout versions of howto videos.
The other half is being flung into dangerous situations and learning obscure facts/hacks actually work is the other.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Night watchman?
Dumping ground for the least qualified pilots?
Dumping ground for the least qualified pilots?
Baroun Tardis
SOC-12
Naw, I'm saying the problem with a remote pilot vs someone aboard is if the red light comes on after jump you're screwedGranted.
But when the entire point and purpose of the scenario is COMPLETE LOSS OF CRAFT ... coming along and primly saying "well, just don't lose the craft" is about as clear an example of Missing The Point as can be had.
Especially if avoiding loss of craft requires time travel to avert ...
HOW?
WHY?
If you're saying that the XBoat --> communicated <-- that there was a fault AFTER ENTERING JUMP ... those two questions (how? why?) become rather pertinent, wouldn't you say?
If that actually happened ... the red light comes on AFTER the XBoat has jumped away ... the first thing I would be doing (as the pilot at the remote workstation) would be calling for technical staff on the Tender to check the workstation for false positive diagnostics.
Might be just a simple fix... But if there's nobody aboard, it ain't happening
Similar threads
