Bridges

[phavoc]

To integrate this all the way down, how does this interface with cockpits?
A small, single operator vessel or craft doesn't need multiple control stations, but the station needs to do everything without overwhelming the operator. Before the development of AI assistants, you had to rely on pilot training and making the interface as simple and clear as possible to be functional.
Tech level makes a pretty big deal for usability and reducing fatigue and overload and yet the only nod to that we have is the addition of holographic controls at TL9 and the virtual crew software that starts at TL10.
Also, why does having a small bridge affect a small ship functionality but a cockpit doesn't? What are the break points for each type of bridge and what are the bonuses or penalties for using an over or under sized bridge for your vessel type?

Cockpits are different than a bridge. There is no flight deck for one. Cockpits are chairs and the person occupying the chair is surrounded by controls and displays. The operator is stuck in there until they return to base. Flight decks (and bridges) allow for a person to get up, for them to be replaced by another crew member, for them to interact with others on the flight deck.

TL giving crews more options is true, but TL also gives you more data, and thus you have the potential of data overload. A modern cockpit gives the operator sooooooo much more information than say one from 1940. There the pilot paid attention to his compass, his fuel, and maybe engine temperatures and oil pressure. He had very limited ability to know more and that was how it was. Now you have a crap ton more information available to the flight crew - but much of it has little to do with normal operations. They can actually get MORE stressed trying to keep up with all the information available to them - even if a lot of it is shunted to automated systems and alarms that only raise an alert in X situation.

And, let's be very honest here - the greater automation that is taking place is NOT necessarily a good thing. What we have seen from some very notable accidents is automation crashing the plane. The 737 crashes (Lion and Ethiopian airways) were the result of automation crashing the plane due to sensor errors. The Asiana flight that crashed at SFO on the seawall was a result of the crew over-reliance on automation and not taking control during the landing. Automation, AI and advances in the tech are great things. However they are not magical panacea's that will eliminate the human aspect. Traveller as a game is predicated upon people still being required for interstellar travel, and the game also posits a relatively hostile environment towards artificial beings. Lump all that together and I'd say your average starship is still gonna be very dependent upon human crews. Which I see as a good design (both in reality and the game). We may never be able to automate the human condition - and we probably should hope that we never do!

 

[Sigtrygg]

The most common cause for air accidents remains human error by a country mile.

Pilot error and other human factors 62%, malfunction 20%, weather 15%, foreign object collision 2%.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Well, I suppose in theory, but when you build a ship of a type, adding in the physical locations is the way you'd get it off the production line. At some point if owner A decided to automate it then the station would go unused. And if owner W decided he wanted a human crew (AI unions and all that), the control runs, consoles and spaces would already be there. Retrofitting a ship for such things would be a bitch. Overall the tonnage and cost amortized over the life of the ship reduces it to not a lot of credits. Just makes too much sense to see them go unused rather than not installed at the start.

So, the unmanned submarines that they are building now in the real world? Do you think they have a bridge for a human crew since they are designed and built to operate without one? It makes zero economical sense to build something you have no use for. Do they put cockpits in unmanned drones? No! Of course not. That would be stupid.

 

[Vormaerin]

The point was not that Traveller ships should have flag bridges, the point is that redundancy is theoretically good, but has costs that have to be considered. The comment I was responding to was that of course neural net controlled ships should have back up manual controls. To which the answer is, sure, in theory. Just like ideally you'd have back up control spaces. As you pointed out, that doesn't happen because that takes up space and costs money.

This whole discussion comes down to deciding what the space allotted to "bridge" represents. Traveller heavily abstracts spaces, with items like staterooms and bridges covering for all kinds of other things like kitchens and avionics that it doesn't seem to want to track separately for simplicity.

 

[Condottiere]

Redundancy isn't represented well in Traveller.

You might want three separate sets of wiring controlling the spacecraft, but might not be willing to host two more bridges, nor want to triple the cost.

 

[phavoc]

So, the unmanned submarines that they are building now in the real world? Do you think they have a bridge for a human crew since they are designed and built to operate without one? It makes zero economical sense to build something you have no use for. Do they put cockpits in unmanned drones? No! Of course not. That would be stupid.

I do not. These vessels are not meant to be manned. They are also not taking an LA-class hull and making it robotic. These vessels are entirely different designs and sized for automation rather than having humans.

I think the example of a Free Trader is a better analogy. You may have a computer program as your gunner, thus negating someone at the weapons control location. But if you decide to add a gunner then you need that station.

I don't equate the unmanned drones to using computer programs as crew substitutes.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I do not. These vessels are not meant to be manned. They are also not taking an LA-class hull and making it robotic. These vessels are entirely different designs and sized for automation rather than having humans.

I think the example of a Free Trader is a better analogy. You may have a computer program as your gunner, thus negating someone at the weapons control location. But if you decide to add a gunner then you need that station.

I don't equate the unmanned drones to using computer programs as crew substitutes.

Why not? If your ship is designed to use a smaller crew it would make sense. If it was a retrofitted thing, obviously not.

 

[Condottiere]

I would think it would need to be in the description, that it is an unmanned turret with no gunner workstation.

Though, what's the advantage to one with a gunner workstation?

They're not cheaper, or more efficient.

 

[MasterGwydion]

I would think it would need to be in the description, that it is an unmanned turret with no gunner workstation.

Though, what's the advantage to one with a gunner workstation?

They're not cheaper, or more efficient.

I thought we were talking about bridge stations. Did I misunderstand?

 

[Vormaerin]

They aren't cheaper or more efficient solely because the game only has manned turrets. Turrets have always included a fire control station. In earlier editions of traveller, you could have the designated space for the fire control set aside even when you didn't have an actual turret installed yet.

 

[phavoc]

Why not? If your ship is designed to use a smaller crew it would make sense. If it was a retrofitted thing, obviously not.

Right, IF you were designing a vessel that was never supposed to have a crew, your allocated spaces for crew, a bridge, quarters, etc, would all be omitted. You'd only need, at most, maintenance access ways - and not even those if your maintenance is done by removing hull panels to get at the things below.

All of my comments have been directed towards having standard designs (i.e. a free trader, a subsidized merchant, etc) where some operators may desire to replace physical crew with computer programs. But this would be done AFTER the ship had been built to the standard design (i.e. crew work stations). This allows any operator to make the choice and switch back and forth as needed/desired.

Any ship that is purpose built to NOT utilize a crew (or automates specific roles from the beginning) would obviously NOT have these work stations and could, potentially, reallocate this space to something else.

 

[rinku]

It's probably fair for any bridge size modifiers to tasks to only apply to normal crew, possibly to robots. If it's the computer or a ship brain, they should neither be penalised for no bridge or a small bridge, nor benefit from a larger one.

Most likely there is scope for the part of the bridge that ISN'T workstations and walk around in volume (mostly sensors and comm gear) to exist as a component. As it is, currently, a no bridge ship has no radar or radio. (Unless I've missed something).

 

[Condottiere]

You get what you pay for.

If you're paying for a small bridge, the wiring costs half and the virtual crew is penalized for that.

 

[MasterGwydion]

It's probably fair for any bridge size modifiers to tasks to only apply to normal crew, possibly to robots. If it's the computer or a ship brain, they should neither be penalised for no bridge or a small bridge, nor benefit from a larger one.

Most likely there is scope for the part of the bridge that ISN'T workstations and walk around in volume (mostly sensors and comm gear) to exist as a component. As it is, currently, a no bridge ship has no radar or radio. (Unless I've missed something).

The way I do it is that you still pay the same price for the bridge as it is per ton of ship and not per ton of bridge. You save the space from the physical bridge but you still have to pay for all of the wiring and connectivity.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

As it is, currently, a no bridge ship has no radar or radio. (Unless I've missed something).

Why would the programs running the ship no have access to whatever sensors are aboard? At the least basic sensors and any other level of sensors are allowed and they all include radar. Drone ships can be remote controlled and therefore communications are included as well.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Why would the programs running the ship no have access to whatever sensors are aboard? At the least basic sensors and any other level of sensors are allowed and they all include radar. Drone ships can be remote controlled and therefore communications are included as well.

Sensors are separate from the bridge tonnage. Communications are likely part of the sensor package, but I actually have no idea.

 

[Fluffy Bunny Feet]

Communications are likely part of the sensor package, but I actually have no idea.

That is what I would think and as Basic sensors have no cost, tonnage or power neither would basic communications.

Drone ships have communications, basic sensors and no bridge with no extra cost for communications which supports that communications are either part of the sensors or hulls with no tonnage/power/cost of their own.