HG 2e Crew questions

[Geir]

Tom,

Thanks for your reply back. I won't try to nest my response within the notes, because I'm sure I'll make a mess of it.
Thanks for the reference to the LBB rules. I didn't go back and check myself, but it makes the crewing make more sense. It also speaks to the problem of using rules not present and trying to match designs built with different rules... except when the designs don't match.

The rounding rule makes sense of engineers, but I think we both agree it's not consistently applied. Also "round down" would mean .99 = 0 or 34.9 tons = no engineer.
I, on the other hand will change my spreadsheet to a normal (?) rounding, so 17.50 tons and above will require one engineer.

Although it is not specifically state, I imagine in the Imperium, the Starport Authority (assuming it is an Imperial institution with consistent policies) would set crew requirements and any independent worlds in the vicinity would follow along out of expediency if no other reason.

I guess the big issue is sort of like a the study of engineering versus the humanities (I can say this since I dropped out of engineering school to get a history degree): If you don't have enough fuel, you can't jump. If you don't have enough power to fire your lasers, you need to find that power from turning off another system or overloading the power system. Clear consequences from a variance. Crew requirements don't have that. They're guidelines and it would be nice if there were rule based consequences for chronically under crewing or cramming them in too small a space or giving them extra space. It would also be nice if the ship designs followed the rules consistently.

And the sensor operator rules are pretty vague, both from a staff and a duties perspective. I still don't know how someone does ECM unless the they have at least military sensors (otherwise, no jammers) and how many sensors can one operator use in a turn? Even the rules on keeping a sensor lock are a bit unclear to me, though I suppose someone could spell those out. I just assume that a ship once detected stays detected unless someone does something drastic.

Also, I agree that ship designers should spell out variances and justifications for crew. It would make it easier to understand if a variance is intentional or a mistake. Because we all make mistakes. Or bad assumptions.

Finally, I assumed Charles Arthur Miller was a relative and I have no idea whether that was a tribute for inspiration or device.

 

[Condottiere]

Engineering tends to be all over the place, since at one time it was one engineer per hundred tonnnes, which interestingly would be about equivalent of dividing thirty five tonne requirement by a third.

But also engines themselves had different formulas, with a three percent leap for each additional gee rating, and jump drives were range plus one percentage, rather than the current two and a half per plus five tonnes.

Security contingent size would be dependent on internal and external threats, whether mutiny or boarding: unlike the Age of Sail, by the time boarding happens, engineering is likely disabled, and if resistance is not considered futile, you could still draw from engineering and gunnery the requisite cannonfodder.

 

[locarno24]

Hello locarno24

My take of the event is that the sensor information being analyzed was done using passive systems not an active system like RADAR. Of course I am probably a bit biased since subs tend to use passive systems to detect and track contacts. Yes, the computer did note that there was something that might be there but not with a high enough threshold which is why there where sensor operators looking at the same data.

Gravetics are indeed a passive system in Honorverse - essentially 'listening' for the gravitational distortion of an active drive wedge. This is largely because gravetics are the one FTL 'signal type' so far brought up in the series.

It was two different groups of officers, though, rather than just computer vs human. Quoted from The Warmasters:

"His "brilliant" subordinates had reported the contact even before CIC, had they? Well, good for them! And as the officer of the watch, wasn't it his job to confirm whether or not the contact was valid as quickly as possible—even before the computers and the highly trained plotting crews in CIC could do so? "

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The crew requirements do not follow the rounding rules in the Core book, whether they should or not.

Look at the example ships, e.g. the Kinunir or the Leviathan (since the uneven size):

Kinunir:
Engineers: (104+50+70) / 35 = 6.4, rounded to 7.
Maintenance: 1250 / 500 = 2.5, rounded to 3.
Administrator: 1250 / 1000 = 1.25, rounded to 2.
Medic: ( 1 + 3 + 1 + 7 + 3 + 1 + 30 + 4 + 35 ) / 120 = 85 / 120 ≈ 0.7, rounded to 1.

Leviathan:
Engineers: (140+95+72+36+111) / 35 ≈ 12.97, rounded to 13.
Maintenance: 1800 / 1000 = 1.8, rounded to 2.
Administrator: 1800 / 2000 = 0.9, rounded to 1.
Medic: ( 1 + 3 + 1 + 12 + 2 + 2 + 10 + 1 + 1 ) / 120 = 33 / 120 ≈ 0.275, rounded to 2?


Note that it is consistently rounded up.


On the other hand the Sub. Liner rounds engineers down, despite the original having more engineers. It still has a medic, despite only needing 30 / 120 = 0.25. Perhaps the last fractional engineer and the fractional medic are combined in one crew position?


IMTU I add up Engineers and Maintenance crew and round up and add up Admin, Medic, and Stewards and round to nearest whole number. That way I get close to the example ship crews, both for small civilian ships and large military ships.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi Geir,

Tom,

Thanks for your reply back. I won't try to nest my response within the notes, because I'm sure I'll make a mess of it.
Thanks for the reference to the LBB rules. I didn't go back and check myself, but it makes the crewing make more sense. It also speaks to the problem of using rules not present and trying to match designs built with different rules... except when the designs don't match.

You are welcome and I do understand not trying to nest replies since I sometimes skip nesting too. Technically all crew requirements of the various Traveller variants are based on CT LBB 2 even CT LBB 5 and CT Adventure 5 Trillion Credit Squadron.

Yes, there are problems with knowing the requirements from the original and the variant Traveller rules.

MgT HG 2e, in my opinion, has merged and modified the CT LBB 2 and CT LBB 5 crew requirements to fit the MgT Universe.

The rounding rule makes sense of engineers, but I think we both agree it's not consistently applied. Also "round down" would mean .99 = 0 or 34.9 tons = no engineer.
I, on the other hand will change my spreadsheet to a normal (?) rounding, so 17.50 tons and above will require one engineer.

I agree that the crew requirements for all Traveller variants apply them inconsistently. I, unfortunately, for got to mention that the census on the Citizens of the Imperium forums is that the calculations should be rounded up to meet the minimum requirements.

Although it is not specifically state, I imagine in the Imperium, the Starport Authority (assuming it is an Imperial institution with consistent policies) would set crew requirements and any independent worlds in the vicinity would follow along out of expediency if no other reason.

GURPS Traveller has a source book on the Starport Authority and I'm sure that there are several articles in the original JTAS and/or other magazines.

I guess the big issue is sort of like a the study of engineering versus the humanities (I can say this since I dropped out of engineering school to get a history degree): If you don't have enough fuel, you can't jump. If you don't have enough power to fire your lasers, you need to find that power from turning off another system or overloading the power system. Clear consequences from a variance. Crew requirements don't have that. They're guidelines and it would be nice if there were rule based consequences for chronically under crewing or cramming them in too small a space or giving them extra space. It would also be nice if the ship designs followed the rules consistently.

And the sensor operator rules are pretty vague, both from a staff and a duties perspective. I still don't know how someone does ECM unless the they have at least military sensors (otherwise, no jammers) and how many sensors can one operator use in a turn? Even the rules on keeping a sensor lock are a bit unclear to me, though I suppose someone could spell those out. I just assume that a ship once detected stays detected unless someone does something drastic.

The creators of Traveller, in my opinion, attempted to merge the D&D RPG with war games and got a pretty good result. Unfortunately, to make Traveller playable they had to pare things down to minimum. They also included the caveat that the rules can be modified to fit the game master's version of Traveller.

CT LBB 2 combat was intended to be conducted using a table top which takes time to plot. In the interest to speed up play CT LBB 5 combat changed to an abstract system of close and far (or some similar wording).

Also, I agree that ship designers should spell out variances and justifications for crew. It would make it easier to understand if a variance is intentional or a mistake. Because we all make mistakes. Or bad assumptions.

If a designer submitted a piece to a magazine the person may have included the variations that got omitted due to space limitations.

Finally, I assumed Charles Arthur Miller was a relative and I have no idea whether that was a tribute for inspiration or device.

In my experience when a book is dedicated to someone that person had some sort of influence on the content. I also broke out my copy of "The Bluejackets' Manual" and compared the CT LBB 5 Crew breakdown with the Ship and Squadron Organization section. The result is they are very similar.

 

[snrdg121408]

Howdy Conottiere,

Engineering tends to be all over the place, since at one time it was one engineer per hundred tonnnes, which interestingly would be about equivalent of dividing thirty five tonne requirement by a third.

But also engines themselves had different formulas, with a three percent leap for each additional gee rating, and jump drives were range plus one percentage, rather than the current two and a half per plus five tonnes.

Security contingent size would be dependent on internal and external threats, whether mutiny or boarding: unlike the Age of Sail, by the time boarding happens, engineering is likely disabled, and if resistance is not considered futile, you could still draw from engineering and gunnery the requisite cannonfodder.

The progression of required engineers is:

CT LBB 2 1977: Starship hull size range >100 to 5,000 tons. 1 engineer per 35 tons or fraction thereof of drives and power plant.
CT LBB 5 1979: Starship hulls 1,000 tons or less 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant. Hull > 1,000 one engineer per 100 tons of drives and power plant.
CT LBB 5 1980: Starship hulls 1,000 tons or less 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant. Hull > 1,000 one engineer per 100 tons of drives and power plant.
CT LBB 2 1977/1981: Starship hull size range >200 to 5,000 tons. 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant.

MgT Hg2e, in my opinion, followed CT LBB 2 requirements for engineers.

Technically all of the ship's crew will be cannon fodder when boarded.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi locarno24,

Hello locarno24

My take of the event is that the sensor information being analyzed was done using passive systems not an active system like RADAR. Of course I am probably a bit biased since subs tend to use passive systems to detect and track contacts. Yes, the computer did note that there was something that might be there but not with a high enough threshold which is why there where sensor operators looking at the same data.

Gravetics are indeed a passive system in Honorverse - essentially 'listening' for the gravitational distortion of an active drive wedge. This is largely because gravetics are the one FTL 'signal type' so far brought up in the series.

Well at least I was not wrong about being a passive system.

It was two different groups of officers, though, rather than just computer vs human. Quoted from The Warmasters:

"His "brilliant" subordinates had reported the contact even before CIC, had they? Well, good for them! And as the officer of the watch, wasn't it his job to confirm whether or not the contact was valid as quickly as possible—even before the computers and the highly trained plotting crews in CIC could do so? "

Yes, Lt. Elvis Santino did come up with the cited text as an excuse for his own failure to notice the contact earlier. Of course there was also a failure to follow protocol for announcing a possible contact by the sensor operator and the NCO of the watch.

Based on my own experience there was not two different groups of officers that screwed up. The CIC watch was relying on the detection parameters set for the computer to make decision about a contact. On the bridge the sensor operators were relying on training and there own senses. The only officer involved was Lt. Santino the Officer of the Watch who failed to do his job.

 

[Condottiere]

As I recall, it depends on which ship design sequence was selected, alphabet or custom High Guard, since alphabets can range upto five kay tonnes.

It was a min max exercise, that extended to Mongoose First.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello AnotherDilbert,

The crew requirements do not follow the rounding rules in the Core book, whether they should or not.

Look at the example ships, e.g. the Kinunir or the Leviathan (since the uneven size):

Kinunir:
Engineers: (104+50+70) / 35 = 6.4, rounded to 7.
Maintenance: 1250 / 500 = 2.5, rounded to 3.
Administrator: 1250 / 1000 = 1.25, rounded to 2.
Medic: ( 1 + 3 + 1 + 7 + 3 + 1 + 30 + 4 + 35 ) / 120 = 85 / 120 ≈ 0.7, rounded to 1.

Leviathan:
Engineers: (140+95+72+36+111) / 35 ≈ 12.97, rounded to 13.
Maintenance: 1800 / 1000 = 1.8, rounded to 2.
Administrator: 1800 / 2000 = 0.9, rounded to 1.
Medic: ( 1 + 3 + 1 + 12 + 2 + 2 + 10 + 1 + 1 ) / 120 = 33 / 120 ≈ 0.275, rounded to 2?

Note that it is consistently rounded up.

On the other hand the Sub. Liner rounds engineers down, despite the original having more engineers. It still has a medic, despite only needing 30 / 120 = 0.25. Perhaps the last fractional engineer and the fractional medic are combined in one crew position?

IMTU I add up Engineers and Maintenance crew and round up and add up Admin, Medic, and Stewards and round to nearest whole number. That way I get close to the example ship crews, both for small civilian ships and large military ships.

Yes, there are a number of design sequences that do not follow the CRB instructions.

Yes, the design samples in HG 2e are inconsistent when rounding.

Per MgT HG 2e page 21/PDF 22 the requirement is 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant. Following the instructions literally as written a ship with 35 tons of drives and power plant requires 1 engineer. A ship with 18 tons of drives fails to meet the 35 ton threshold and does not require any engineers.

Had the instruction been written as 1 engineer per 35 tons or fraction thereof of drives and power plant I would agree that 17 tons of drives and power plant would need 1 engineer.

Thank you for providing the information on how to determine crew requirements for the designs you create.

I'm not sure that I understand the rounding methods being described to determine crew requirements.

Engineers 10.39 + 0.01 Maintenance crew = 10.4 roundup up = 11

Admin 1.05 + Medics 0.1 + Stewards 0.3 = 1.45 round to the nearest whole number. The nearest whole number I think would be 1 since 0.45 is closer to 1 than 2. If the number is 1.5 one could either go to 1 or 2 and if the number is 1.6 the nearest whole number is 2.

How far off base am I?

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Condottiere,

As I recall, it depends on which ship design sequence was selected, alphabet or custom High Guard, since alphabets can range up
to five kay tonnes.

It was a min max exercise, that extended to Mongoose First.

CT LBB 2 starships and non-starships can have hull size types of 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 tons, with custom sizes falling between the listed hulls. The drives and power plants in CT LBB 2 are identified by an alphabetic type code. The hull size is cross-referenced on the Drive Potential Table to the Drive and Power Plant Type to determine the maximum jump number, maneuver drive g number, and the power plant output number. Taking the drive/power plant type code you got to the Drives and Power Plants Table to determine tonnage and cost.

CT LBB 2 has the requirement of 1 engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plant.

CT LBB 5 HG starships and non-starships hull tonnage starts at 100 (USP 1) to 1,000,000 (USP Y) with the drives and power plants taking up a percentage of hull volume.

CT LBB 5 HG 2e 1980 page 32 "...The actual number of crew personnel required for the ship must be computed based on drives, weaponry, and other equipment carried by the ship. If the ship is 1,000 tons or under, then the rules stated in Book 2 should be followed .For ships over 1,000 tons, the rules below govern."

In CT LBB 5 HG 1e 1979 and HG 2e 1980 the requirement is 1 engineer per 100 tons of drive installed for hulls > 1,000 tons.

MgT HG 2e engineer requirements are the same as those found in CT LBB 2. The crew requirements based on hull tonnage appears to be a variation on the requirements found in both CT LBB 2 and CT LBB 5.

MgT 1e had a design sequence that appears to be based on CT LBB 2 and CT Adventure 5 Trillion Credit Squadron (TCS) for non-capital ships and small craft. MgT HG 1e Capital Ship Crews appear to be based on CT LBB 5.

MgT HG 2e crew requirements appear to be based on CT LBB 2, CT LBB 5, and CT Adventrre 5 TCS at least.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Engineers 10.39 + 0.01 Maintenance crew = 10.4 roundup up = 11

Admin 1.05 + Medics 0.1 + Stewards 0.3 = 1.45 round to the nearest whole number. The nearest whole number I think would be 1 since 0.45 is closer to 1 than 2. If the number is 1.5 one could either go to 1 or 2 and if the number is 1.6 the nearest whole number is 2.

Exactly.

I'm mostly concerned with forcing an engineer for every ship, but no service crew for very small ships such as the Scout.

Perhaps Service crew should round up, unless very small.

 

[locarno24]

The only officer involved was Lt. Santino the Officer of the Watch who failed to do his job.

....Not entirely out of character, to be fair.

I'm mostly concerned with forcing an engineer for every ship, but no service crew for very small ships such as the Scout.

That makes sense to me. If you're qualified to act as engineer, you're probably qualified to act as maintainer, and the maintenance demands on a 100 dTon scout is pretty small.

If you take the 'always round up', then you'd in theory the rules would be telling you you need an Engineer and Maintainer and Administrator and Pilot and Astrogator and Medic as a crew complement even on the smallest ship. Which whilst not completely stupid does feel like overkill when we know that 1-2 man crews on small civilian and scout vessels is completely normal.

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning AnotherDilbert from the Pacific Northwest.

Engineers 10.39 + 0.01 Maintenance crew = 10.4 roundup up = 11

Admin 1.05 + Medics 0.1 + Stewards 0.3 = 1.45 round to the nearest whole number. The nearest whole number I think would be 1 since 0.45 is closer to 1 than 2. If the number is 1.5 one could either go to 1 or 2 and if the number is 1.6 the nearest whole number is 2.

Exactly.

I'm mostly concerned with forcing an engineer for every ship, but no service crew for very small ships such as the Scout.

Perhaps Service crew should round up, unless very small.

Yippee, I followed another set of instructions correctly.

I have a quibble with merging the engineers with the maintenance crew.

Engineers are trained to operate, maintain, and repair a power plant, maneuver drive, and when installed a jump drive. In my opinion there are two or three different types of engineers. The jump drive in my opinion needs separate engineers since the system is only on star ships. The power plant should have in my opinion another engineer. The maneuver drive is a toss up since it depends on whether or not it is a separate system from the power plant. Personally I feel that the MD is a separate system and should have its own engineers.

Maintenance crews per the HG 2e table require mechanic skills and are based on the ship's tonnage which suggests they maintain he hull and all the other systems except the JD, MD, and power plant. The systems that the maintenance crew would be concerned with would be life support, electrical systems, plumbing, and the like.

Another quibble is that Administrators are based on the ship's tonnage which suggests to me that they would the MgT Hg 1e page 67 equivalent of Service Crew which appears to have been based on CT LBB 5 HG.

Stewards are based on the number of high or middle class passengers while medics are determined by the groups of 120 bodies carried.

CRB 1e has a crew requirement table that I like better and have fewer issues with.

Oops, got to go my 4 year old neighbor wants to play games.

 

[AndrewW]

Maintenance crews per the HG 2e table require mechanic skills and are based on the ship's tonnage which suggests they maintain he hull and all the other systems except the JD, MD, and power plant. The systems that the maintenance crew would be concerned with would be life support, electrical systems, plumbing, and the like.

Life Support is a specialty of engineer.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I have a quibble with merging the engineers with the maintenance crew.

My highly simplified view is that the Engineering Department is responsible for maintaining and repairing all the ship's equipment. That probably means they need a mix of Engineering, Mechanics, and Electronics.

If we have work for e.g. 1.5 engineers and 0.2 maintenance crew, I consider 2 people enough.

The exact mix of skills or the internal organisation of the department is not needed to be determined, just the number of staterooms needed.

Another quibble is that Administrators are based on the ship's tonnage which suggests to me that they would the MgT Hg 1e page 67 equivalent of Service Crew which appears to have been based on CT LBB 5 HG.

Stewards are based on the number of high or middle class passengers while medics are determined by the groups of 120 bodies carried.

I naively assume Administrators are paper-shufflers. I group all people-oriented positions in the Service Crew: stewards, medics, cooks, quartermasters, pursers, cargo masters, etc, etc...

Just as with Engineers I assume that if we have work for 0.5 stewards, 0.3 administrators, and 0.2 medics, then one person is enough to cover all bases.

CRB 1e has a crew requirement table that I like better and have fewer issues with.

MgT2 crew requirements are not very exact, and probably not intended to be.

Oops, got to go my 4 year old neighbor wants to play games.

Have fun!

 

[Condottiere]

That's an interesting question: why do you need a fusion reactor and/or gravitational drive equivalent qualification for life support?

It's mostly air and water purification.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hi AndrewW,

Maintenance crews per the HG 2e table require mechanic skills and are based on the ship's tonnage which suggests they maintain he hull and all the other systems except the JD, MD, and power plant. The systems that the maintenance crew would be concerned with would be life support, electrical systems, plumbing, and the like.

Life Support is a specialty of engineer.

From The Bluejackets' Manual
"Engineering: This department, headed by the engineering officer, is responsible for operating and maintaining the ship's machinery, damage and casualty control, repair of the hull and machinery, power lighting, water maintenance, and underwater fittings."

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_department
An engine department or engineering department is an organizational unit aboard a ship that is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the propulsion systems and the support systems for crew, passengers, and cargo. These include the ship engine, fuel oil, lubrication, water distillation, separation process, lighting, air conditioning, and refrigeration.

The Engineering Department in Traveller terms is an organizational unit aboard a ship that is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the propulsion systems and the support systems for crew, passengers, and cargo. These include the power plant, maneuver drive, jump drive, fuel, water distillation/separation process, lighting, air conditioning, and refrigeration.

I will agree that the Engineers and Maintenance crew are part of Engineering Department.

I do not agree that the Engineers who are specialists trained in the operation of the power plant, MD, and JD are also responsible for life support.

That leaves the maintenance crew to maintain, operate, and repair every thing else, except for the weapon systems.

SONAR has two branches operators and technicians. An operator is trained to use the equipment to detect, track, and classify contacts. The technician is trained to do an operators job plus maintain and repair the equipment.

Based on the above material and the HG 2e Crew Requirements table my opinion that life support falls to the maintenance crew to operate, maintain, and repair.

 

[snrdg121408]

Afternoon AnotherDilbert from the Pacific Northwest,

I have a quibble with merging the engineers with the maintenance crew.

My highly simplified view is that the Engineering Department is responsible for maintaining and repairing all the ship's equipment. That probably means they need a mix of Engineering, Mechanics, and Electronics.

If we have work for e.g. 1.5 engineers and 0.2 maintenance crew, I consider 2 people enough.

The exact mix of skills or the internal organisation of the department is not needed to be determined, just the number of staterooms needed.

There is no engineering department in MgT HG 2e however, HG 1e, like CT LBB 5 HG, has an engineering section.

The number of staterooms required is based on the total number of bodies that are being carried.

My definition for Traveller in my reply to AndrewW does support your process so I will concede the point.

Another quibble is that Administrators are based on the ship's tonnage which suggests to me that they would the MgT Hg 1e page 67 equivalent of Service Crew which appears to have been based on CT LBB 5 HG.

Stewards are based on the number of high or middle class passengers while medics are determined by the groups of 120 bodies carried.

I naively assume Administrators are paper-shufflers. I group all people-oriented positions in the Service Crew: stewards, medics, cooks, quartermasters, pursers, cargo masters, etc, etc...

Just as with Engineers I assume that if we have work for 0.5 stewards, 0.3 administrators, and 0.2 medics, then one person is enough to cover all bases.

MgT HG 2e page 21/PDF22 has the caveat that have one or two multi-skilled people will cause the ship to be at a disadvantage in high stress situations.

By the crew requirements there are no stewards, administrators, or medics needed for the crew. Of course there is nothing that says you can not add a crew member. Having an crew member with all three skills or three separate crew members is optional not required.

Crud, I know I've seen a crew entry with a position with the annotation (optional) now I cannot find the page.

CRB 1e has a crew requirement table that I like better and have fewer issues with.

MgT2 crew requirements are not very exact, and probably not intended to be.

From what I can see HG 2e omitted the Full crew column from CRB 1e and merged HG 1e crew requirements.

I do not consider the Crew requirements in CRB 1e or HG 1e to be exact either, but they are a lot closer than HG 2e.

Oops, got to go my 4 year old neighbor wants to play games.

Have fun!

I did have fun playing games with him since I try not to win them very often. That way he has a reason to teach me how to play.

 

[AndrewW]

I do not agree that the Engineers who are specialists trained in the operation of the power plant, MD, and JD are also responsible for life support.

Ones with a specialty in Power,M-drive or J-drive no, it is a separate specialty.

Life Support: Covers oxygen generators, heating and lighting and other necessary life support systems.
Safely Reducing Power to Life Support to Prolong a Ship’s Battery Life: Average (8+) Engineer (life support) check (1D minutes, EDU).

 

[Condottiere]

Life support maintenance doesn't require engineering certification, at least not at technological level twelve.

This is basically plumbing and keeping an eye on the filters.

Possibly some knowledge of chemistry and ideal air mixtures.

Unless, they're also responsible for artificial gravity and inertial compensators.