A
Anonymous
Guest
Assuming powered and maintained are we talking months, years, decades, forever, what?
Gentleman John
Banded Mongoose
TNE mentioned people who had survived in low berths in automated shelters since the release of the Virus. So, we could be talking 75+ years here.
I woudn't say forever, but possibly a very long time. There isn't (as far as I know) an explanation on how slow time goes by while in suspended animation, but let's say your body's functions are slowed down to 1/100th of normal. So for every "day" in a low berth would equate to 100 days in normal time. A year in low berth would be roughly 3 days of aging to your body.
That seems relatively reasonable since it's slowing down your body, not creating a field where time stops. If you wanted to make it much longer than change the period to 1/1000th of normal. Which would mean roughly three years pass in real time for every day of low-berth time. A thousand years could pass for just one year of low-berth. Which seems very reasonable to me, as one might expect the machinery to begin failing after 1,000 years.
That seems relatively reasonable since it's slowing down your body, not creating a field where time stops. If you wanted to make it much longer than change the period to 1/1000th of normal. Which would mean roughly three years pass in real time for every day of low-berth time. A thousand years could pass for just one year of low-berth. Which seems very reasonable to me, as one might expect the machinery to begin failing after 1,000 years.
Old School
Mongoose
There are examples of VERY long times spent frozen as cited above, but those are rarely intentional. As for what would be considered “routine”, I would go with “years”, given the known concept of the navy’s frozen watch.
Gentleman John
Banded Mongoose
And there were the sleeper ships that colonised the Islands sectors. That would support the view that low berths could be used to keep somebody alive for centuries at a stretch.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Depends on how invasive the procedure.
If its just deep freeze, than as long as the capsule has a consistent power supply, and has that annual maintenance.
If its just deep freeze, than as long as the capsule has a consistent power supply, and has that annual maintenance.
Slow drug is 1/60th, so it's fair to expect that a low berth would be even more efficient at slowing metabolism. One key difference is that slow drug requires no external interface. Once administered it just work. Low berths require an external process (the low berth itself) to cryogenically freeze the user. We don't know how much power is required to sustain such a thing (like long can it work on internal power), or how much effort is required mechanically to keep it running.
I think it's fair to assume the mechanical side has been reduced to being very simple mechanically speaking, thus the MTBF of the units would be pretty high. However everything eventually stops working, so what would be a good period for a low berth to continually function with an occupant? Higher TL could translate into a longer-lasting unit, but I don't think the process would be much different from a lower TL.
I think it's fair to assume the mechanical side has been reduced to being very simple mechanically speaking, thus the MTBF of the units would be pretty high. However everything eventually stops working, so what would be a good period for a low berth to continually function with an occupant? Higher TL could translate into a longer-lasting unit, but I don't think the process would be much different from a lower TL.
A
Anonymous
Guest
100 years MTBF (mean time between failures) sounds great, but this means you can expect 1% of units to fail each year, assuming you have them in continuous operation. (If they're all started at once, chances are the failures will synchronise around a bellcurve)
I can see why MTBF is the preferred way to state it. AFR (annual failure rate) 1% sounds much worse than MTBF 100 years.
I can see why MTBF is the preferred way to state it. AFR (annual failure rate) 1% sounds much worse than MTBF 100 years.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I'd avoid using moving parts.
Permafrost?
Permafrost?
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Been slowly working my way thru Milieu 0. There’s an adventure in the T4 Anomalies book that establishes several thousand 2nd Imperium sleepers surviving for two millennia with roughly 50% mortality using cutting edge low berth tech. So that might help set the outer practical limit for discussion purposes.
Standard commercial low berths will not be built to that level of durability - it’s too expensive. And the rest of the support systems - especially power - would need to be designed to a similar standard.
Standard commercial low berths will not be built to that level of durability - it’s too expensive. And the rest of the support systems - especially power - would need to be designed to a similar standard.
dmccoy1693
Cosmic Mongoose
Frankly, they should last as long as the plot of your game needs them to. If someone has been in there an hour shy if a century and they die when it hits exactly 100 years, and they have to race against time to get the person unthawed using the weird configuration of such an old tube, then that is what it is.
A
Anonymous
Guest
dmccoy1693 said:
That is kind of not an answer. It’s quite obvious for one individual low berth in one game session that it will be plot dependent but the technological limit matters for campaign consistency and affects the game setting.
Old School
Mongoose
I agree with Dale. My games are going to be much more affected by that one low berth in the plot than by whatever the standard answer is. My campaigns have yet to suffer for this question not being answered.
