Windows/Viewports in Bridge/Control Cabin
- Thread starter SpaceBadger
- Start date
depends highly on the magnetic conditions. during an ion storm, no, nit at all... the cameras are less reliable than a window. the windows is complimentary to sensors, and impossible to replace with sensors. Visual inspection is also immune to virus, hackers, and low bid construction. And far more resistant to poor maintenance (almost but not quite immune).
I would fire any idiot naval architect not allowing a significant inspection and astrogation viewport on a patrol craft.
Warships, a different role, have less use for them. I would expect them to have about the same size manual astrogation domes as the patrol craft... on a ship 500 to 1000 times larger... 1 or two tons.
Then again, my merchants and scouts often have the bridge underside forward... for landing pad visual inspection. The eyeball is the most reliable sensor aboard.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
The window through which they're viewing things certainly isn't. If it's a low quality material, or doesn't get replaced often enough, micro-meteor scouring could make it hard to see through, or the material could simply deteriorate with exposure to cosmic radiation. The material used in airliner windows has similar difficulties (not saying you would use the same material). So, it's not a panacea, but it is a part of the whole array of sensors.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Of course.
I was only posting in regards to:
and that I think this is achievable with technology sans windows. I feel it's other considerations, which you and others have pointed out, that are more pertinent to design specs.
Sensors would probably be redundant even if not exactly, if camera/telescopy is lost heat, electromagnetic, gravitonic and numerous other sensors would still provide a better weapons lock than crew eyeballs. Of course there could be some system in common that causes the loss of all sensors. Power, display?
However I do like the idea of a ship without a bridge window and the captain yelling after the sensors take a hit "Johnson, run to the port airlock. Smith go to the lounge portal. I need eyeballs on that pirate!" and crew calling out vectors to try and hit with weapons.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
One I've done is that a ship has several (2+) 'automatic astrolabes' that are slaved to the navigation system. These devices mounted somewhere on the outside of the ship's hull are necessary for the navigation system to get readings on stars, etc., for input into the system.
It is relatively easy to imagine that these without regular maintenance or being damaged in a fight could render the navigation system either inoperable or inaccurate. Therefore, I'd think that at least one or several viewing ports would be desirable for navigation alone.
It is relatively easy to imagine that these without regular maintenance or being damaged in a fight could render the navigation system either inoperable or inaccurate. Therefore, I'd think that at least one or several viewing ports would be desirable for navigation alone.
I am trying to imagine the crew of a Ticonderoga cruiser trying to set eyeballs on a Backfire at a range of a hundred miles or so. Eyeballs are always going to be useful within their limits, but for certain things it's the technology or nothing.
CosmicGamer
SOC-14 1K
Agreed, but why can't eyeballs make use of technology too? If we are talking options if sensors go down I assume eyeballs include things like light intensification and heat vision on a range finding telescope. Heck, in a pinch throw on your battlesuit helmet and use its functionality?
Aside from battle damage to the sensors, the other reasons generally preclude the uses of visual enhancements...
if you have a significant magnetic disruption and/or ionization event, suit sensors are as worthless as ship sensors, or worse, as suit sensors lack the large receiver areas needed for distance resolution, and must needs use smaller and more susceptible to magnetic and/or ionization interference with the sensor's operation.
The best reasons for visual sensing with the naked eye also are about not restricting to the sensor and display resolutions... both artifacting and synthesis of image distort things...
Fire control without working sensors, at the ranges envisaged in Traveller, is more a matter of luck... your best hope is a manual sighting "turret", getting a fix, and saturating the sighting ±1°... but that presumes you can see the target at all, and is pretty much (tho to less accuracy) how fire has to be handled anyway. Keep in mind that the ranges are mesured in tenths of a light second....
Similarly though, I wonder how realistic it would be for the Captain of such a ship to try and moor his ship and/or conduct underway replenishment alongside another ship from a fully enclosed position within the ship using only sensor output and no lookouts, etc.
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Look up "F-35 DAS"... the F-35 Lightning II fighter that is finishing development has (in the "nearly-completed development" phase), a helmet-mounted display that combines the output from 6 "visual" sensors positioned around the aircraft (as well as the radar, etc) to provide a "full-globe viewing" capability.
The pilot can "look" anywhere... behind the aircraft, under it, "through" it... that he wants to, without needing to turn his head much (if at all).
What is our electronics TL again? ~8?
Even the most-cheaply-built starship of TL9+ would have this (or better)... allowing the bridge crew to"look" anywhere they need to... with IR/UV enhancement, "telephoto-zoom" capability, image-enhancement capability, and so on.
Yes, this could be disabled... then you need those observation domes. But you are likely dead anyway at this point. Human vision is rated in the "double-digit kilometers" range at best... giving literally only an eye-blink of reaction time at most ship-movement speeds.
Since most ship-ship combat takes place at ranges of hundreds to thousands of kilometers, direct vision is useless for 99.99% of all combat situations.
Sorry... those domes might be great for scenic viewings (and for a romantic "sex-among-the-stars" rendezvous), but they would be useless for all but an exceptionally-rare instance when it comes to navigation/piloting/weapons control.
Again, you overgeneralze. And make a GRIEVOUS error.
Navigation is one of the things that a dome with a hardpoint mounted sight can do just fine.
In fact, The Mk1 Eyeball has unlimited range provided the signal is strong enough; on a clear night you are able to see light from many thousands of light years away.
And, using a non-magnified instrument, Apollo 13 astronauts put themselves on a fix tight enough for reentry corrections. In point of fact, NASA had the whole apollo program using manual checks to verify the nav data, because the old tools were more than well enough accurate for what they needed, and more accurate than the radio nav of the 1960's.
Interestingly enough, even with the hightech helmet and sensors doesn't the F-35 also still have a clear, conventional canopy for the pilot to look out of as well? I suspect that the helmet/sensors and the conventional canopy both complement each others capabilities and help serve as a backup for one another.
Last edited:
Could let the computer do it using sensor inputs, but I'd still want an eye on the ship and a hand at the controls just in case. That'd be a bad time to find out your navigator picked up a virus while using the computer to surf unauthorized websites when you were planetside. :devil:
pendragonman
Absent Friends Margrave
What? Professional Naval Crewmen surfing ⌧ sites at work? Never happen. :smirk:
Depending on the era your playing in that could be disastrous!!! :devil:
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Window versus technology? Just ask Luke Skywalker...
SpaceBadger
SOC-14 1K
"No, use your targeting computer, Luke. That's what it's for."
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
Interestingly enough, even with the hightech helmet and sensors doesn't the F-35 also still have a clear, conventional canopy for the pilot to look out of as well? I suspect that the helmet/sensors and the conventional canopy both complement each others capabilities and help serve as a backup for one another.
Yep... since the F-35 pilot is dealing with ranges in the tens of kilometers, and speeds below 2,500 km/h (usually in the hundreds of km/hr or lower).
My mention of DAS was to answer the objections of "electronic vision systems have narrow fields-of-view".
The Apollo pilot/navigator was still dealing with relatively short distances and slow speeds, in a well-charted (albeit remotely) and very small section of space.
The starship (or even spaceship) pilot/gunner/navigator is dealing with distances in the thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of kilometers, and speeds in the tens of thousands of km/hr, in sections of space that might not be charted at all.
Locating yourself in relation to large objects with very well-known locations and vectors is quite different from locating yourself in a less-known system... much less finding all those smaller objects whose locations & vectors are completely unknown, so you can avoid hitting them at those tens of thousands of km/hr!
Not to bring up a dead argument, but there are a large number of factors that most of the people here have been remiss in forgetting.
- For most vessels, specifically more primitive vessels using chemical or fusion engines, there is a controlled explosion happening behind the vessel which is more than sufficient enough to allow for visibility of vessels up-to and slightly beyond 1LS with minimal enhancement. Within traveller combat bands, anything within medium range (approx. 1/10th LS or less) using those drive systems is easily visible. Remember, to achieve anything remotely like a reasonable acceleration at the speeds we're considering (several G's for six *minute* combat rounds [at the lowest end. TNE was up to half-hour combat rounds]) you will have super-heated gas plumes (which radiate a bright light as well) of immense length, not to mention a very, very bright light.
- Space combat with Newtonian physics generally provides one of three combat scenarios: they're attempting to get past you, in which case they are thrusting at full power, they're attempting to catch you, in which case they're attempting to make the relative speed and distance between your ships as small as possible to give their gunners the best possible targeting profile, or they're attacking someone nearby and you're plotting an intercept (which tends to produce results like the second scenario). In the second two scenarios, having a viewport is useful, because it takes less time to process visual data than it does for you to process sensor data (proven fact: having to think about it slows you down). Admittedly, you can reduce the time needed for processing by converting it to a visual image, but the point remains.Considering that these two latter scenarios are also done with ranges and speed differences much more appropriate to the human eye, it's entirely appropriate to allow for the use of the standard mk 1 eyeball.
- Viewports in modern aircraft, both military and civilian, are a convenient place to put useful information. Both civilian and military craft have HUD systems that project into the pilot's standard visuals (the view port/windscreen) which provides sensor information, bearing information, and navigational information. (This is great if you're playing MT or post MT and get hit with the AI virus. Imagine the kinds of things it can spam at you while you're trying to fly)
- A lot of folks make the assumption that people are all using the standard mk 1 eyeball. In fact, there are numerous versions of subsequent mark eyes, including telescopic eyes which allow you to see virtually the entire EM spectrum (MGT's S08: cybernetics).
- Target profiles play a huge part in combat. If you've got a gunner who can regularly shoot out my 4 sq meter window at distances of 1LS or better, I give up. There's a reason damage tables are randomized. The odds of you hitting that window vs you hitting the rest of my ship (doubly so when half the time I've got my butt pointed at you with full engine thrust trying to slow my relative velocity) are slim at best, with the pure mathematics placing the odds somewhere around 1 in 50 when I'm nose on.
- Aesthetics: One of the most serious problems that affect people in any enclosed environment is claustrophobia. Most people can control it for a limited amount of time, but for people who live in space for months or years, it can quickly get maddening. Worse, there's not a lot you can do about it. Having an obvious place where people can see there is more to the world than the four walls around them helps a lot psychologically, especially to those who aren't seasoned spacers. Considering that 1 in 20 people have this particular problem to varying degrees, this could be seriously played up in any campaign.
Long story short, there's a lot of uses for having a window. It's not strictly necessary, but for a lot of people it's a great thing to have. As a pilot, I can fly by instrumentation alone. It's certainly doable, and there are times when it can be pretty exciting, but I really don't care for it. The ol' mark one eyeball is something that no degree of sensor coverage will ever make me feel comfortable without.
Just my 2 cents.
- For most vessels, specifically more primitive vessels using chemical or fusion engines, there is a controlled explosion happening behind the vessel which is more than sufficient enough to allow for visibility of vessels up-to and slightly beyond 1LS with minimal enhancement. Within traveller combat bands, anything within medium range (approx. 1/10th LS or less) using those drive systems is easily visible. Remember, to achieve anything remotely like a reasonable acceleration at the speeds we're considering (several G's for six *minute* combat rounds [at the lowest end. TNE was up to half-hour combat rounds]) you will have super-heated gas plumes (which radiate a bright light as well) of immense length, not to mention a very, very bright light.
- Space combat with Newtonian physics generally provides one of three combat scenarios: they're attempting to get past you, in which case they are thrusting at full power, they're attempting to catch you, in which case they're attempting to make the relative speed and distance between your ships as small as possible to give their gunners the best possible targeting profile, or they're attacking someone nearby and you're plotting an intercept (which tends to produce results like the second scenario). In the second two scenarios, having a viewport is useful, because it takes less time to process visual data than it does for you to process sensor data (proven fact: having to think about it slows you down). Admittedly, you can reduce the time needed for processing by converting it to a visual image, but the point remains.Considering that these two latter scenarios are also done with ranges and speed differences much more appropriate to the human eye, it's entirely appropriate to allow for the use of the standard mk 1 eyeball.
- Viewports in modern aircraft, both military and civilian, are a convenient place to put useful information. Both civilian and military craft have HUD systems that project into the pilot's standard visuals (the view port/windscreen) which provides sensor information, bearing information, and navigational information. (This is great if you're playing MT or post MT and get hit with the AI virus. Imagine the kinds of things it can spam at you while you're trying to fly)
- A lot of folks make the assumption that people are all using the standard mk 1 eyeball. In fact, there are numerous versions of subsequent mark eyes, including telescopic eyes which allow you to see virtually the entire EM spectrum (MGT's S08: cybernetics).
- Target profiles play a huge part in combat. If you've got a gunner who can regularly shoot out my 4 sq meter window at distances of 1LS or better, I give up. There's a reason damage tables are randomized. The odds of you hitting that window vs you hitting the rest of my ship (doubly so when half the time I've got my butt pointed at you with full engine thrust trying to slow my relative velocity) are slim at best, with the pure mathematics placing the odds somewhere around 1 in 50 when I'm nose on.
- Aesthetics: One of the most serious problems that affect people in any enclosed environment is claustrophobia. Most people can control it for a limited amount of time, but for people who live in space for months or years, it can quickly get maddening. Worse, there's not a lot you can do about it. Having an obvious place where people can see there is more to the world than the four walls around them helps a lot psychologically, especially to those who aren't seasoned spacers. Considering that 1 in 20 people have this particular problem to varying degrees, this could be seriously played up in any campaign.
Long story short, there's a lot of uses for having a window. It's not strictly necessary, but for a lot of people it's a great thing to have. As a pilot, I can fly by instrumentation alone. It's certainly doable, and there are times when it can be pretty exciting, but I really don't care for it. The ol' mark one eyeball is something that no degree of sensor coverage will ever make me feel comfortable without.
Just my 2 cents.
