Low Berth travel is for the condemned only?

[Tom Kalbfus]

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:

Does reviving a passenger in a low berth rise to the same level of human judgement as fighting an intelligent opponent in a fighter? Seems to me that with the technology known and well established, very few things have happened in low berth revivals that haven't happened before, therefore the types of emergencies which threaten the patients life are fairly well known and predictable, thus the remedy for them can be automated in a machine that has something less than the full level of human judgement and reasoning skills. Most of it as to do with tubes leading to the passengers, adding fluids and so forth to aid the warming up process, not every low berth passenger is the same, so the issues that arise in each case may be different, but within certain predicable perimeters that a machine can anticipate.

 

[Rick]

Hmm, so what you are saying is (I believe) that, if you take the rules as they are, you could make a case for hotwiring a TL13 autodoc into a Low Berth capsule because the autodoc may be treated as if it had medic-3?

 

[GypsyComet]

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

Less traffic and a decided lack of pedestrians, hidden terrain (or air currents, the bane of autopilots now), and acts of Referee that don't have a LOT of warning. Space is simple physics, particularly when you have the power and endurance of a typical Traveller starship.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Hmm, so what you are saying is (I believe) that, if you take the rules as they are, you could make a case for hotwiring a TL13 autodoc into a Low Berth capsule because the autodoc may be treated as if it had medic-3?

Yep. I think low berths make little sense for starships with FTL travel, the chance of death is not worth the cost savings. Would you accept a 1 in six chance of death for a trip that takes a week or two? Low Berths make more sense for STL starships, which take decades to centuries to reach the target planet. Though if you don't have an autodoc, you could simply have a large crew and wake up 1 person for a week at a time, he brings the next person out of cold sleep and he goes back into it, so if you have 5200 people, then you can do this for a century.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

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

Less traffic and a decided lack of pedestrians, hidden terrain (or air currents, the bane of autopilots now), and acts of Referee that don't have a LOT of warning. Space is simple physics, particularly when you have the power and endurance of a typical Traveller starship.

The complex part of a starship is during the acceleration phase, the crew can be awake for that time and monitor the starship and make sure its on the right course, and when the ship uses have its fuel, then the ship turns off its manuever drive and goes into cruise mode, then people go into their low berths and sleep for however many decades or centuries it takes to get there, then they wake up, and monitor the ship as it decelerates.

 

[Rick]

:twisted: Here goes.

I dispute the automatic '1 in 6' die rule that you quote - go back a few pages to see why I believe an average person (END +0) would always survive - so it would be people with low END, illnesses etc that would have problems. But, let's keep on with your assumption.

If you have 5200 people in low berth, roughly 870 will die, just given your 1/6 ratio. So you'll need more than this number of bridge crew to ensure that some will be alive to pilot the ship at the end point. Not to mention that, if you want a 1 week watch by only one person, every single passenger will have to be woken up twice to do so. Given your 1/6 ratio, every time someone wakes up, they run that risk; you increase the death toll to around the 2600 mark - so, roughly half of your initial passengers, over a 200 year journey will be dead on arrival. Sort of. What is the breakdown rate of a piece of machinery in operation for 200 years continuously? Even if we assume 1% per 10 years (somewhat low as it would probably increase exponentially over time), that's another 1040 or 520 if we assume roughly half the failures were from the half of the passengers that will be dead anyway. We are left with roughly 2080, less accidents, suicide, other damage to the ship, etc.

Firstly, then, we need to work out a more usable mechanic than the one which arbitrarily gives us a 1/6 chance of death per occupant (see previous posts).
Secondly, to make the 'sleeper ship' idea work, you'd need a far higher level of automation; maintenance bots for all of the low berths would be a priority, autodocs if possible; and if you had that much advanced a TL, why are you bimbling around in STL 'sleeper ships'?

 

[sideranautae]

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:

Both my father and father-in-law worked on the space program until Sky lab. The problems arose because we were trying to send people into space using what is basically explosives tied to a life support container and managed by humans & computers that were so primitive to as not deserve that appellation. I still have EVERY technical manual for EVERY component of the Saturn space system in storage. I'm also trained as a pilot (this is WAY more complex than what Trav "pilots" have to do.)

FYI, the Space shuttle was built as a death trap. Many engineers refused to work on it.

 

[GypsyComet]

I still have EVERY technical manual for EVERY component of the Saturn space system in storage.

Does NASA know you have those? They were admitting to being short some Saturn related technical docs (like blueprints) a while back.

 

[Rick]

Some people really do not appreciate a good bit of sarcasm. Truly, my humour is wasted on you lot! :lol:

 

[GypsyComet]

a good bit of sarcasm.

You know the line about how Lawyers don't laugh at Lawyer jokes because they know they aren't jokes? :wink:

A big part of this whole discussion comes down to an old, old tendency to treat a rule written with some abstraction for simplicity of play as a rigorous and precise model for that bit of the universe. It isn't unique to Traveller, but Traveller has got this bug bad.

 

[sideranautae]

Does NASA know you have those? They were admitting to being short some Saturn related technical docs (like blueprints) a while back.

They know who everyone is who has the docs. NASA has pretty much been dismantled, talent wise, in the last 10 years. It is a large social program now. The AF & USN grabbed most of the stuff that they are now "missing" because they were REALLY losing stuff and allowing it to be wrecked.

 

[Rick]

Does NASA know you have those? They were admitting to being short some Saturn related technical docs (like blueprints) a while back.

They know who everyone is who has the docs. NASA has pretty much been dismantled, talent wise, in the last 10 years. It is a large social program now. The AF & USN grabbed most of the stuff that they are now "missing" because they were REALLY losing stuff and allowing it to be wrecked.

Well, they're not going to last forever without some serious preventative restoration work. Either donate them to a science museum with a good lab, or get some very good advice on how to store them properly. These documents are historical records now - they should be doing a lot more than just being 'in storage'.

 

[sideranautae]

[
Well, they're not going to last forever without some serious preventative restoration work. Either donate them to a science museum with a good lab, or get some very good advice on how to store them properly. These documents are historical records now - they should be doing a lot more than just being 'in storage'.

They are stored well as far as temp and humidity and copies exist with the USAF & USN. They are family property as wished for by the family members who owned them.

 

[Rick]

At least talk to a conservator - put acid free sheets between each of the pages at the very least.

 

[sideranautae]

At least talk to a conservator - put acid free sheets between each of the pages at the very least.

The existing paper is already of low acid content. (tax payers got what they paid for this time) That's why no browning after 40-50 years. Plus, that would be THOUSANDS of pages. They are in original binders and it wouldn't fit anyway.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

:twisted: Here goes.

I dispute the automatic '1 in 6' die rule that you quote - go back a few pages to see why I believe an average person (END +0) would always survive - so it would be people with low END, illnesses etc that would have problems. But, let's keep on with your assumption.

If you have 5200 people in low berth, roughly 870 will die, just given your 1/6 ratio. So you'll need more than this number of bridge crew to ensure that some will be alive to pilot the ship at the end point. Not to mention that, if you want a 1 week watch by only one person, every single passenger will have to be woken up twice to do so. Given your 1/6 ratio, every time someone wakes up, they run that risk; you increase the death toll to around the 2600 mark - so, roughly half of your initial passengers, over a 200 year journey will be dead on arrival. Sort of. What is the breakdown rate of a piece of machinery in operation for 200 years continuously? Even if we assume 1% per 10 years (somewhat low as it would probably increase exponentially over time), that's another 1040 or 520 if we assume roughly half the failures were from the half of the passengers that will be dead anyway. We are left with roughly 2080, less accidents, suicide, other damage to the ship, etc.

Firstly, then, we need to work out a more usable mechanic than the one which arbitrarily gives us a 1/6 chance of death per occupant (see previous posts).
Secondly, to make the 'sleeper ship' idea work, you'd need a far higher level of automation; maintenance bots for all of the low berths would be a priority, autodocs if possible; and if you had that much advanced a TL, why are you bimbling around in STL 'sleeper ships'?

Artificial intelligence doesn't automatically assume the ability to travel faster than the speed of light.

 

[Rick]

Artificial Intelligence? Where did that come from? I certainly didn't mention it. :shock:

 

[dragoner]

If you have 5200 people in low berth, roughly 870 will die, just given your 1/6 ratio.

The rules don't say they can't be resuscitated by a doctor.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Artificial Intelligence? Where did that come from? I certainly didn't mention it. :shock:

You said:
Secondly, to make the 'sleeper ship' idea work, you'd need a far higher level of automation; maintenance bots for all of the low berths would be a priority, autodocs if possible; and if you had that much advanced a TL, why are you bimbling around in STL 'sleeper ships'?

I'd say development of artificial intelligence is on a seperate track than development of FTL. For instance, we exist, we have intelligence, that means intelligence is possible in this Universe and can be recreated in a machine, what we don't know is whether FTL drive is possible as we have no existing examples of it in nature. Before we had airplanes we had birds and bats, it was only by observing those flying creatures that we could begin to make the attempt to recreate that ability in a machine. So what I'm saying is Artificial Intelligence is very hard science, we know it can exist, we know the laws of physics permits it, and if we never leave this Solar System, within a few centuries if not sooner, assuming we survive, we shall have artificial intelligence, so Traveller put AI at a much higher tech level than it ought to be, Artificial Intelligence is really closer to Tech Level 8, as we will probably have in this century! The only reason its put at such a high tech level in Traveller, is we need to leave some space for humans to do stuff. In reality, I think we'll develop AI before we ever have FTL if ever, if FTL is ever developed, it would probably be developed by AI machines, not us! That is my gut feeling.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Artificial Intelligence? Where did that come from? I certainly didn't mention it. :shock:

I'd rather not be a rules lawyer, I think the spirit of the game is more important.