Ship System's Degradation
- Thread starter Vargr
- Start date
Provided you mean the core rules, a translation of my German version
would look like this:
- use the table for small craft for vehicles with less than 100 tons
- use the table for external damage for all bigger ships
- use the table for internal damage for ships whose hulls have been
destroyed by hull damage
would look like this:
- use the table for small craft for vehicles with less than 100 tons
- use the table for external damage for all bigger ships
- use the table for internal damage for ships whose hulls have been
destroyed by hull damage
To my understanding rust has the right of it - and I like Treebore's explanation regarding hull damage.
However, though it is simple, I don't really like the idea of reusing the combat damage location table - especially as it gives precedence to Hull and Strucuture damage (via dice probabilities). This makes sense in combat, but for maintenance?
One could justfiy structure and cargo hold damage to a degree - but not for monthly maintence (unless the ship is just really old and structurally falling apart). A seperate location hit table for maintenance damage would probably be a good idea...
However, though it is simple, I don't really like the idea of reusing the combat damage location table - especially as it gives precedence to Hull and Strucuture damage (via dice probabilities). This makes sense in combat, but for maintenance?
One could justfiy structure and cargo hold damage to a degree - but not for monthly maintence (unless the ship is just really old and structurally falling apart). A seperate location hit table for maintenance damage would probably be a good idea...
Yeah, I think a new table for internal maintenance should definitely be made up. I used to be in charge of the maintenance for my division, so I no periodicity tables were done up for our equipment telling us what time frame equipment was most likely to start failing based on past history.
So if such info could be found on general merchandise, like computers, AC units, etc... we could probably make up a pretty realistic table/chart.
Part of the problem is design longevity. Once upon a time things were designed to last as long as possible, so refrigerators would last 15 to 20 years, now they are designed with only a 10 year longevity. Houses are supposedly designed to go 20 years before major upkeep is needed, but I think 15 years is closer to actuality.
I think AC units, the central air type, are also designed for the 10 to 15 year range.
Something like Consumer Reports probably has such info, anyone have a subscription? Or can contact the company, or go sign into their website and see if they have such stuff? If so we can use that to make reasonably realistic extrapolations on ship gear.
So if such info could be found on general merchandise, like computers, AC units, etc... we could probably make up a pretty realistic table/chart.
Part of the problem is design longevity. Once upon a time things were designed to last as long as possible, so refrigerators would last 15 to 20 years, now they are designed with only a 10 year longevity. Houses are supposedly designed to go 20 years before major upkeep is needed, but I think 15 years is closer to actuality.
I think AC units, the central air type, are also designed for the 10 to 15 year range.
Something like Consumer Reports probably has such info, anyone have a subscription? Or can contact the company, or go sign into their website and see if they have such stuff? If so we can use that to make reasonably realistic extrapolations on ship gear.
It would be interesting to look at the maintenance histories for the international space station.
It's a bit hard to compare current tech to future tech for everything though.
Aren't the Space Shuttle Main Engines overhauled after every trip?
Based on personal experience, I would say that computer equipment needs major components (especially power supplies) replaced every 3-5 years.
The older the ship the more often it should need major repairs. Think about a 10 year old automobile vs. a 2 year old automobile.
Aircraft maintenance might be a pretty good model, certainly commercial airframes are kept in use for at least the same order of magnitude that a Traveller space ship is in use for (perhaps the Traveller ship is expected to be in service 2-4 times as long since banks offer 40 year loans for them).
Frank
It's a bit hard to compare current tech to future tech for everything though.
Aren't the Space Shuttle Main Engines overhauled after every trip?
Based on personal experience, I would say that computer equipment needs major components (especially power supplies) replaced every 3-5 years.
The older the ship the more often it should need major repairs. Think about a 10 year old automobile vs. a 2 year old automobile.
Aircraft maintenance might be a pretty good model, certainly commercial airframes are kept in use for at least the same order of magnitude that a Traveller space ship is in use for (perhaps the Traveller ship is expected to be in service 2-4 times as long since banks offer 40 year loans for them).
Frank
Regards the power supplies, that's engineered obsolescense - older power supplies lasted for decades. Mostly due to very cheap capacitors intentionally selected to fail - 'bearing-less' fans (again selected to fail) are also a major cause. Good fans (read metal bearings) last for decades. Hard drives do fail (optical and floppy as well)- especially modern ones that are mounted 90 degrees to gravity and in laptops.ffilz said:
This is just like light bulbs - most consumer devices are poor examples of reliability and longevity - since they are being designed to fail. Right now I am sitting a few yards from a barn with still working light bulbs that are > 40 years old and a flourescent bulb that has been used several hours a day for 30 years. The 1000 hour bulb is designed to only last that long - versus the 5000+ year variety easily made for about the same cost.
Cars are another prime example - in fact the auto industry is primarily responsible for making this into a science (yes there are degrees in this).
Take AC compressors for example. The U.S. Navy instituted the practice of hermetically sealing them (welding shut) due to the fact that they really don't require internal maintenance (unless bombed or hit by a tank). In the consumer world these 'go out' all the time. When in reality they are prefectly fine - the failsafes just need to be reset and pressurized refrigerant run (and many times it is just the case once again of capacitors going).
BTW: the same holds for transformers (wall adapters) and monitor power supplies and DSL/Cable modems, etc. I fix these all the time using parts that brand new are priced to the 100th of a cent single quantity!
In space systems such market practices will probably not survive - since the extremes will mean their customers might not survive either (while their heirs and their lawyers will).
Want real world examples - try space probes - like the Pioneer and Voyager probes - they have 30+ year operational lives - and the Pioneer probes are probably still operating, just have too weak power (and no longer aimed at earth) for signals to reach us.
The space shuttle is a poor example - since its design is predicated on spreading government wealth to political constituents. It costs a good fraction - 500 to 700 million - of a billion dollars - the original shuttle program only costing $9 billion with each shuttle about $1.7 billion new - for every launch and its technology intentionally requires an inordinate amount of complexity that is inherently not safe. (So this is a variant on the market issues mentioned above).
FYI: According to the Associated Press Jan 15th - you can purchase a used space shuttle for $28.8 million from NASA (recently cut price from $42 million). And space shuttle main engines are free (were $400,000 to $800,000) but you do have to pay shipping and handling
Similar threads
