Low Berth travel is for the condemned only?

[Rick]

Wouldn't a TL12 AutoDoc be able to revive a Low Berth passenger without a Medic?

I'd argue that the AD would be interfaced across the ship's network with the low berths and it would control the revival process. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Either that or have the ship's computer running expert and medic programmes and let it do the work.

I could understand more if it was the ships computer running the appropriate programs, as my understanding is that the AD is a self-contained, fixed unit that you put a patient into and let it work on. However, the RAW are vague to say the least on all this. I'm thinking that 'Ships Operations' might need a book of its own!

 

[sideranautae]

I'm thinking that 'Ships Operations' might need a book of its own!

THAT would be awesome.

As to Hiro's Q. An autodoc should be able to revive someone that dies from a LB "unfreeze" if placed inside within 15 minutes (or is it 30?)...

 

[Rick]

I'm thinking that 'Ships Operations' might need a book of its own!

THAT would be awesome.

As to Hiro's Q. An autodoc should be able to revive someone that dies from a LB "unfreeze" if placed inside within 15 minutes (or is it 30?)...

Ah, now - that's an entirely different question, isn't it? :wink:
Once he's died in the low berth capsule, you can take him out, carry him to sickbay and put him in the autodoc.

And that is just one example of why there should be a bit more background on starship operations, etc. Maybe only a few variant rules, but a lot of background and info; what exactly does a high berth with Tukera lines consist of? How much does a taxi or bus from the outside of a class A or B starport to the nearest town cost? Now, these are things that a referee can come up with on their own, but it might be good to have a series of examples - run through a Tukera liner and a small independent traders' passenger operations, so you can have a baseline to veer off from.
Just a thought.

 

[sideranautae]

Ah, now - that's an entirely different question, isn't it? :wink:
Once he's died in the low berth capsule, you can take him out, carry him to sickbay and put him in the autodoc.

Oops qualify my assertion: "At TL 14, an Autodoc is capable of reanimation, provided no more than 15 minutes have passed since the subject’s death."

And that is just one example of why there should be a bit more background on starship operations, etc. Maybe only a few variant rules, but a lot of background and info; what exactly does a high berth with Tukera lines consist of? How much does a taxi or bus from the outside of a class A or B starport to the nearest town cost? Now, these are things that a referee can come up with on their own, but it might be good to have a series of examples - run through a Tukera liner and a small independent traders' passenger operations, so you can have a baseline to veer off from.
Just a thought.

I'm working on (as I write the rules) a ship operations doc for my game. Everything from details of what exactly an Astrogator does, and WHY. To how anti grav works, ships fusion PP's, weapons, sensors, piloting, et al.

Not to confine the players but to give them enough data so they can know what is possible without asking a million questions.

 

[Rick]

Yup, but not just that - what about watch operations? Are there any traditions about having a meal with the Captain on big ships, or do they follow the old airline guideline that the Pilot and Co-pilot should never be seen out of the cockpit at the same time! There are a few hints in the Library data book, but it's still a bit thin.

 

[sideranautae]

Yup, but not just that - what about watch operations? Are there any traditions about having a meal with the Captain on big ships, or do they follow the old airline guideline that the Pilot and Co-pilot should never be seen out of the cockpit at the same time! There are a few hints in the Library data book, but it's still a bit thin.

Yes, that would be nice. But, I'm sticking to setting neutral data right now. Much of what you are talking about might well vary from one area (sub-sector) to the next.

One thing we do know, while in jump there is nothing for a pilot to do. Alea iacta est, so to speak.

 

[Rick]

Indeed, unless the ship's owners have a clause in the crews contracts that, in order to reassure the passengers that somebody is always in control of the ship, the bridge must have a skeleton crew, even in jump. This is the kind of flavour I was thinking about.
I know this is about 100 yrs out of date even to us now, but it is still interesting reading: http://www.gjenvick.com/SteamshipArticles/SteamshipCrew/1906-AnOceanLinersCrew.html#axzz3G3fzp6o9
Or this: http://www.fordham.edu/normandie/people/PS3 The Purgatory of Crew Life.html

 

[sideranautae]

Indeed, unless the ship's owners have a clause in the crews contracts that, in order to reassure the passengers that somebody is always in control of the ship, the bridge must have a skeleton crew, even in jump. This is the kind of flavour I was thinking about.
I know this is about 100 yrs out of date even to us now, but it is still interesting reading: http://www.gjenvick.com/SteamshipArticles/SteamshipCrew/1906-AnOceanLinersCrew.html#axzz3G3fzp6o9
Or this: http://www.fordham.edu/normandie/people/PS3 The Purgatory of Crew Life.html

Yeah, too out of date. We are about to see driver-less cars (which is MUCH harder to pull off than outer space piloting via computer) and we are talking about people 5,000 years in the future. Most likely by then, if they saw a person on the Bridge they'd think that the Ship's computer had suffered a major failure and that a much slowing acting and less precise biological was at the controls ... OMG!

 

[Rick]

Aha Sid - that is a completely flawed argument you absolute rotter!
If a ship has crew on the bridge before and after a jump, why then would your argument work only for when the ship was in jump? If the passengers were that nervous about seeing flawed humans on the bridge during a jump, who do they think is piloting the ship the rest of the time? :lol:

 

[Rick]

Actually - the reason for the links wasn't necessarily about the bridge crew, but I was quite interested in what some of the duties of the 'stewards' involved. I tend to think of them as, say, stewards on a luxury sleeper train (Orient Express comes to mind) or staff in a hotel; making drinks, serving food, cleaning, making beds and providing fresh linen (or equivalent), for example. However, for High Passage passengers, you might have hairstylists, beauticians, professional entertainers, etc. Again, not something that is covered in the RAW, just a bland 'steward' entry.

 

[sideranautae]

Aha Sid - that is a completely flawed argument you absolute rotter!
If a ship has crew on the bridge before and after a jump, why then would your argument work only for when the ship was in jump? If the passengers were that nervous about seeing flawed humans on the bridge during a jump, who do they think is piloting the ship the rest of the time? :lol:

:lol: True. I should amend that at NO time shall biologicals be on or, near the Bridge. :mrgreen:

 

[Rick]

Remind me never to be a passenger on Sideranautae Starlines! :shock:

Sideranautae Starlines! - to err is human, so we don't employ any of 'em! :twisted:

 

[sideranautae]

Remind me never to be a passenger on Sideranautae Starlines! :shock:

Hey! 30% or less delivered alive, on time or, your passage is FREE

Avoid the space Noid!

 

[Reynard]

Don't fully automated naval freighters and airlines with autopilot still have to have crew on the bridge at all times because... well, no one trusts a computer much today either?

I wonder how many corporations want to take the financial and PR risks with these things.

 

[sideranautae]

Sideranautae Starlines! - to err is human, so we don't employ any of 'em! :twisted:

You're hired as V.P. Marketing :idea: As long as you are a computer that is.

 

[Anonymous]

AUTOMATE ALL STARSHIPS!

NOW!!!









oops, couldn't help myself...

 

[sideranautae]

Don't fully automated naval freighters and airlines with autopilot still have to have crew on the bridge at all times because... well, no one trusts a computer much today either?

No, it is because the two positions you mention are MUCH more difficult to automate than piloting a space craft. As most people in the developed world now know, automated cars are being introduced as we type. That is also MUCH more difficult of a problem but it has been surmounted...

 

[Reynard]

Why would a spacecraft be less complex than a freighter or plane?

Automated cars are still prototypes with no real world testing. They're still a long way from being commercially safe. Johnny Cabs are still scifi.

 

[Anonymous]

There are several unmanned spacecraft zipping around our solar system now. OK, they don't have the complication that is life support for humans, crew or passengers but still, the computational power to get them from A to B is within our reach now. What I understand Sid's point to be is that the math for space travel may be complex, in comparison to negotiating the traffic of down town Delhi, it ain't that hard.

If all our downtowns had managed traffic it would be that much easier to navigate cos the randomness that is human input doesn't need to be figured in.

As to whether a space craft is more or less complicated there are some would argue that the NASA missions of the last 25+ years have been beset by an extremely dogmatic and health and safety obsessed culture that has made the craft unnecessarily complex. Space X appear to be less bloated and possibly a better model for how a TU may be.

 

[Rick]

I can see both sides to the automation idea - on the one hand, when everything goes right, everything stays where it's supposed to and nothing interferes, it is an easy task that could be programmed. When things start to go wrong, however, that is when a pilot really earns his crust.

As to NASA, yeah they were overly safety conscious - both the Russians and Americans wanted to go into space, but only NASA worked out how to get them back again! :lol: