Space Stations - What's the use of Docking Arms?

[phavoc]

I was going back through Space Stations and after some thinking, I started scratching my head in regards to the implementation of docking arms. After further review I think it's not a logical construct.

For those that have not seen Supplement 14, here's the primary description of what docking arms are, and what they do:

Docking Arms
External arms which connect to the vital feeds on a starship, docking arms do not allow for the transfer of cargo or passengers without the use of shuttle craft. They do allow for a ship to refuel and for atmosphere to be exchanged. Each ton of docking arms allows 20 tons of starship to dock.

For example, a ship with 200 tons of docking space could only dock a 100 ton starship. However it would only take 5 tons worth of docking arms to dock the same vessel.

Conceptually I have no issue with it or them. It's a space-equivalent of a cowboy tying up his horse to the rail outside a saloon that also has a water trough. Your horse (ship) isn't going anywhere and while it's just standing there it can get a drink (fuel and atmosphere). But it's still limiting, as you have to take your horse back to the livery stable to get fed. The space equivalent means you need a shuttle to get to the station (unless you plan on floating across in your ship).

So here are my specific issues:

(1) The tonnage scaling makes no real sense. One ton of docking arm allows for 20 tons of ship. The designer part of me is a big fan of percentages and scaling. So a scoutship can 'dock' at a 5ton addition and get fuel. A 5,000 ton freighter can 'dock' at a 250ton addition. But after a certain point it stops making sense. One could argue that the larger docking arms are necessary because of the added mass of a ship, and the increased need for larger pipes to pump larger quantities of hydrogen, except that doesn't quite work out. As long as the ship is stationary smaller docking arms should be more than adequate to keep the ship attached in in place. We can make cables today that can hold massive amounts of weight that also have to deal with stresses that aren't present in space. As for the size of the fuel pipe, that, too, gets to be ridiculous because fluid engineers will tell you that you don't build pipes that large to pump more fuel. You increase the pressure/flow to pump faster. Not to mention that if you had a huge diameter pipe on the station your flow is going to be limited by your internal piping - which will always be smaller due to the need to squeeze every cubic centimeter of useful space out of a spacecraft. The only logical reasoning I can find to make them so big is to physically extend the arm away from the station.

(2) The operation of a docking arm doesn't make a lot of sense either. Today, at airports we have planes that will park away from a jetway (assuming there is one). Buses with passengers will come to the aircraft. Fuel trucks will drive out to refuel, and cargo too will be loaded externally on the aircraft. So a ship, once it arrives and is on-station, could also be serviced in such a manner. And it would have to if any cargo or passengers needed to be exchanged. It would be just as easy to have the transfer lighter/shuttle that delivers or picks up people and goods to bring fuel too.

(3) The book gives a chart of docking fees. Technically a ship docked externally via a docking arm is assumed to be docked, just the same as a ship that is inside a hangar. The problem here is that the fee for docking is the same, whether you are internal or external. External docking is far and away a much less useful state to be in. Yet the pricing for docking doesn't reflect this. It would probably be cheaper to just take up station a few kilometers away and use a small craft to access the station. This would save you the docking fee and it's what you would need to do anyway if you wanted to board the station.

(4) Docking arms take up their full tonnage as part of a stations overall tonnnage. That, too, doesn't make sense really. They are protrusions away from the station and have no access points other than fuel/atmosphere connections. There is no corridor, and even if we were to assign SOME tonnage to anchoring them to the hull and providing pumps and piping, the scalar model breaks very quickly. To hold a 5,000 ton freighter in place should really take no more space than to hold say a 500 ton ship. The tensile strength of the hull materials is more than sufficient, as would be a relatively small set of pumps to transfer hydrogen. So while you could rate a docking arm for larger tonnages, there should be no need to add actual tonnage once you reach a certain plateau. Each plateau could be rated for ships UP TO a certain size, and then you'd use the next size up.

When I first heard about the concept behind docking arms I thought we were talking about space jetways, which would be extended from the station, perhaps along arms or corridors, that would allow people to leave via the ships airlock and walk onboard the station. Instead of a large hangar (with the 30% overage in required displacement) you could make a space station to operate much more like an airport, with the long arms of docking areas radiating out from a central area. Ships without large amounts of cargo would be able to dock and the crew/passengers board the station. This would still allow a station to service a larger number of vessels AND allow easy egress to/from the ship. You could even have 'passenger' and 'freight' designated arms, such that the 'freight' arm is large enough to allow the loading/unloading of bulk cargo and containers in a sealed atmosphere environment. Hangars would still be needed, but routine docking and servicing could be accomplished via this concept.

It would be simple enough conceptually to also add in fueling (and even atmosphere) connections to the jetway so that the ship would be able to load and unload while taking on fuel at the same time. As they are listed, docking arms are really nothing more than fueling stations. And if they were listed as such (with the appropriately smaller charge) then they would make perfect sense.

Does anyone else see things this way? How would you treat them? Do you think that docking arms missed the conceptual boat?

 

[DickTurpin]

I agree completely. It would be a trivial construction challenge to build telescoping corridors to handle cargo and passengers, the fuel and atmosphere lines can then be run along underneath them to make a complete docking and service installation. It would be far cheaper than increasing the diameter of the station to accommodate additional ships and allow greater flexibility for different ship sizes as well.

The size (and expense) of the docking extensions would have to be increased to account for the increased size and equipment, but most of the added area is empty space so it would not have to increase much. For a reduced docking rate, I can see shuttles used to bring fuel, life support, cargo and passengers out to ships in parking orbits well away from the station itself. The current airport model of using a swarm of separate, dedicated fuel trucks, passenger busses, and luggage carts makes the most sense rather than one huge shuttle to accommodate everything make the most sense to me.

 

[sideranautae]

Does anyone else see things this way? How would you treat them? Do you think that docking arms missed the conceptual boat?

IMTU there are a few assumptions.

1) Up Ports are the norm given sufficient Pop & TL.

2) At the commercial (not Tramp) level there is ship design standardization to accommodate the movement of cargo, supplies & passengers in the external docked config. (much like you envision)

3) Containerization: Cargo is moved in a couple different standard sized containers which are vac rated. This of course excludes Bulk carriers.

4) "Tramp" ships are more like General Aviation. Less standardized, more reliant on vehicles to fuel, move passengers, etc. (Cost is higher per unit as a result)

The tonnage quoted in the Supp. is WAY out of line. Inertia applies once vectors are matched with Space station. Doesn't take much to keep a ship in place.

 

[Fovean]

IMTU I have a few things to handle this:

Airlock: Standard airlock we know and love, allows 2 people abreast and 1dton containers. Opens directly to space/atmo.

Cargo Lock: Standard airlock in a cargo hold, allow up to 10 dton vehicles, 5 people abreast, shipping containers up to 30 dtons (passing thru long-ways). Opens directly to space/atmo.

Breaching/Docking Tube: as in High Guard, soft but atmo-safe extendable tube that mates with another air/cargo lock of the same type. I use the rules in High Guard for these but limit them to ships of up to 2000 tons due to length and fragility.

Docking Arm: Hard telescoping or swinging 'corridor' up to 100 meters in length with comms, fuel and atmo lines. Considered bulkhead or ship armor value 2. Mates with air/cargo lock of the same type and allows vessels of any size to link up, required for capital ships.

 

[phavoc]

Docking Arm: Hard telescoping or swinging 'corridor' up to 100 meters in length with comms, fuel and atmo lines. Considered bulkhead or ship armor value 2. Mates with air/cargo lock of the same type and allows vessels of any size to link up, required for capital ships.

I think we are on the same wavelength here. That would definitely work out for most everything. Though due to their nature I'd probably say that docking arms would be ship armor value of zero, though since you've suggested them as a "hard" corridor you could indeed armor them up since they need not contract/expand like a typical jetway.

The tonnage quoted in the Supp. is WAY out of line. Inertia applies once vectors are matched with Space station. Doesn't take much to keep a ship in place.

Yeah, that bugged me too. Orbital mechanics are pretty straightforward. Once you parked yourself, even in low orbit, you aren't going anywhere the station isn't. Though at some point you'd probably need to fire the thrusters to nudge you back in place. But for the time a ship is hanging around to load/unload, yeah, it's a static thing. Might as well pull into a parking lot.

The size (and expense) of the docking extensions would have to be increased to account for the increased size and equipment, but most of the added area is empty space so it would not have to increase much. For a reduced docking rate, I can see shuttles used to bring fuel, life support, cargo and passengers out to ships in parking orbits well away from the station itself. The current airport model of using a swarm of separate, dedicated fuel trucks, passenger busses, and luggage carts makes the most sense rather than one huge shuttle to accommodate everything make the most sense to me.

Sort of the orbital equivalent of 7-11's, airlock-to-airlock convenience! For ships just coming in to tank up there would be no need to get anywhere near the station and it's traffic pattern. They could easily hang 100 Km trailing the station and have a fuel lighter to come out and top them off. Flight time for a M-drive equipped lighter to/from the station would be minutes at 1G. The station would know about the inbound fuel requirements by ships who transmitted their needs upon arrival and the lighter could be waiting for them to arrive (assuming you had a reasonably competent crew).

 

[Infojunky]

I was going to ask about Docking clamps for a hard dock, but y'all suggestions of Docking arms makes more sense in general terms.

Thoughts are that they should come is standard sizes is relation to airlocks, from one man up through cargo sized. And various lengths.

One of the standards I have been pondering for MTU is the Lock/tube and integral lift/cargo handling system, with a AirCargo-eqse load unit that is a 2 meter cube, though a 1.5 meter pallet is in the running as well. The idea is the Load moving system also has a or multiple transit cars for personnel movement.

Back to Space stations, I thought it was funny that there where only two docking options provided in the book, and that you had to come all the way on board to transfer personnel or cargo. I was alos hoping for more info on things like asteroid bases...

 

[phavoc]

I was going to ask about Docking clamps for a hard dock, but y'all suggestions of Docking arms makes more sense in general terms.

Clamps would allow a hard dock against a station or ship, but the arms (by definition) should put them further out from a station. In theory you might have a ship with docking arms, but that would probably be more of a specialized vessel. Airlocks have some sort of inherent docking tube already.

Thoughts are that they should come is standard sizes is relation to airlocks, from one man up through cargo sized. And various lengths.

I would tend to think so too. Airlocks would be pretty standardized, for the most part. You'd have the smaller ones for smaller ships, and larger ones for larger ships. Passenger liners (big ones, not like the subsidized liner) would have much larger airlocks than normal to allow for people to easily pass through. Large warships, too, would be larger, though naval designers would not need to be as generous with the dimensions for naval personnel. Admirals and Captains can just walk in front of everyone.

On a lot of ship designs you don't see things like the major corridors attached to the airlocks. It's probably more detail than anyone wants so see, but I'm one who likes those kinds of details. Like where are the cargo airlocks to take on the larger cargo? Where are the larger corridors to the non-existent cargo holds that store the food, spares and the myriad things that a ship needs while away from base? I think it was TCS that put in the concept of underway replenishment for ships. So one would assume that this is accomplished via shuttles, or perhaps this would be one of the rare instances that a spacecraft would mount a docking arm. Say you had a docking arm on each side of a replenishment ship, about 4.5m wide. This should allow you to mate up with another ship's cargo airlock and move containerized supplies straight into their cargo holds or at least a staging area. It would work for munitions, too (wouldn't that be a sight... ratings moving torpedoe's down the corridor to magazines.. :shock: ).

One of the standards I have been pondering for MTU is the Lock/tube and integral lift/cargo handling system, with a AirCargo-eqse load unit that is a 2 meter cube, though a 1.5 meter pallet is in the running as well. The idea is the Load moving system also has a or multiple transit cars for personnel movement.

Back to Space stations, I thought it was funny that there where only two docking options provided in the book, and that you had to come all the way on board to transfer personnel or cargo. I was alos hoping for more info on things like asteroid bases...

Are you talking about what airliners have today? I've done some aircargo container loading waaaay in the past. The floors are covered with wheels and you (sometimes two of us) could manhandle a 4,000lb container by ourselves across the floor. It makes moving the air containers fast and easy. I never loaded them in the aircraft, but it would be easy enough to either lower the wheels so the pallets are physically touching the bottom, plus you'd always tie them off in place to prevent load shifting. With Traveller tech though, you could make an anti-grav cargo jack that could easily move the containers. I'd assume that the airlocks wouldn't have lips on them, so that would make it much easier to move stuff in/out. Though one problem might be that some airlocks would be awful cramped if you moved a pallet inside, since they are only 1x1 square. It's enough, but a tight, tight fit.

 

[Infojunky]

I was going to ask about Docking clamps for a hard dock, but y'all suggestions of Docking arms makes more sense in general terms.

Clamps would allow a hard dock against a station or ship, but the arms (by definition) should put them further out from a station. In theory you might have a ship with docking arms, but that would probably be more of a specialized vessel. Airlocks have some sort of inherent docking tube already.

If you look at modern Cargo ships they carry a personal gantry that also can serve as a boat dock frequently, but that is only big enough to transfer personnel and whatever cargo people can transfer. Were most cargo transfer is done by crane either dockside or as part of the ship, translating this to starships means the Station probably has a gantry system for transferring cargo that can withstand vacuum. And ships that service small down ports probably have the own internal cargo handling system. Plus probably a system for transferring both bulk and breakbulk cargo in a "shirtsleeve" environment, as per my previously described system....

Thoughts are that they should come is standard sizes is relation to airlocks, from one man up through cargo sized. And various lengths.

I would tend to think so too. Airlocks would be pretty standardized, for the most part. You'd have the smaller ones for smaller ships, and larger ones for larger ships. Passenger liners (big ones, not like the subsidized liner) would have much larger airlocks than normal to allow for people to easily pass through. Large warships, too, would be larger, though naval designers would not need to be as generous with the dimensions for naval personnel. Admirals and Captains can just walk in front of everyone.

On a lot of ship designs you don't see things like the major corridors attached to the airlocks. It's probably more detail than anyone wants so see, but I'm one who likes those kinds of details. Like where are the cargo airlocks to take on the larger cargo? Where are the larger corridors to the non-existent cargo holds that store the food, spares and the myriad things that a ship needs while away from base? I think it was TCS that put in the concept of underway replenishment for ships. So one would assume that this is accomplished via shuttles, or perhaps this would be one of the rare instances that a spacecraft would mount a docking arm. Say you had a docking arm on each side of a replenishment ship, about 4.5m wide. This should allow you to mate up with another ship's cargo airlock and move containerized supplies straight into their cargo holds or at least a staging area. It would work for munitions, too (wouldn't that be a sight... ratings moving torpedoe's down the corridor to magazines.. :shock: ).

Speaking from personal experience with UNREPs in this case a hard dock looks preferable than just going alongside, though a rigid connection would much less problematic with starships than with maritime ships as for the complete absence of wave action....

One of the standards I have been pondering for MTU is the Lock/tube and integral lift/cargo handling system, with a AirCargo-eqse load unit that is a 2 meter cube, though a 1.5 meter pallet is in the running as well. The idea is the Load moving system also has a or multiple transit cars for personnel movement.

Back to Space stations, I thought it was funny that there where only two docking options provided in the book, and that you had to come all the way on board to transfer personnel or cargo. I was alos hoping for more info on things like asteroid bases...

Are you talking about what airliners have today? I've done some aircargo container loading waaaay in the past. The floors are covered with wheels and you (sometimes two of us) could manhandle a 4,000lb container by ourselves across the floor. It makes moving the air containers fast and easy. I never loaded them in the aircraft, but it would be easy enough to either lower the wheels so the pallets are physically touching the bottom, plus you'd always tie them off in place to prevent load shifting. With Traveller tech though, you could make an anti-grav cargo jack that could easily move the containers. I'd assume that the airlocks wouldn't have lips on them, so that would make it much easier to move stuff in/out. Though one problem might be that some airlocks would be awful cramped if you moved a pallet inside, since they are only 1x1 square. It's enough, but a tight, tight fit.

Aircraft did enter into the picture, but I was more thinking about through deck cargo lifts on ships like Aircraft carriers and supply ships. Though specifics like the Air Cargo floors helps flesh it out as well. Passage through the airlock would more a action of the automatic system than accompanying it, but since this would be part of a mooring system as well a cargo transfer in shirtsleeve environment I suspect the lock cycling would a little perfunctory until a atmospheric sensor was tripped.

 

[phavoc]

If you look at modern Cargo ships they carry a personal gantry that also can serve as a boat dock frequently, but that is only big enough to transfer personnel and whatever cargo people can transfer. Were most cargo transfer is done by crane either dockside or as part of the ship, translating this to starships means the Station probably has a gantry system for transferring cargo that can withstand vacuum. And ships that service small down ports probably have the own internal cargo handling system. Plus probably a system for transferring both bulk and breakbulk cargo in a "shirtsleeve" environment, as per my previously described system....

Yeah, I recall those. You can see them in older military images too, with the motorized boat pulled up alongside the ship, and people disembarking to get onboard. Nowadays a lot have ramps from the quay to let people on/off. If you recall some of the pics from Pearl Harbor and battleship row you can see them in the photos.

Vacuum-transferred cargo would, I think, be containerized. Shouldn't be a problem to build a container that is airtight and can be exposed to space during transfers. Since we are talking zero-g it could easily be something along the lines of using a cable/pulley system and then just winching across your cargo from airlock to airlock. It works, though I would suspect that they would probably come up with a more elegant 33rd century version.

Speaking from personal experience with UNREPs in this case a hard dock looks preferable than just going alongside, though a rigid connection would much less problematic with starships than with maritime ships as for the complete absence of wave action....

If it's possible, that would probably be best. But some of the ship designs don't necessarily lend themselves to that sort of thing, at least not easily. Though I would suspect that is because nobody is actually keeping an eye towards that sort of thing either. We are playing a game after all. But don't underestimate those sneaky vacuum waves! They'll suck you down under the, umm, ether(?) without any warning.

Aircraft did enter into the picture, but I was more thinking about through deck cargo lifts on ships like Aircraft carriers and supply ships. Though specifics like the Air Cargo floors helps flesh it out as well. Passage through the airlock would more a action of the automatic system than accompanying it, but since this would be part of a mooring system as well a cargo transfer in shirtsleeve environment I suspect the lock cycling would a little perfunctory until a atmospheric sensor was tripped.

Ah. Well, sure, that works too. I didn't think about that (i.e. internal cargo lifts). It would make sense. Once you got something onboard to have lifts down to your cargo stowage decks. I suppose a large enough ship may have entire sections and corridors dedicated to nothing but moving stores and missiles around.

 

[simonh]

The only issue I have with the docking arm rules is that I think they should include passenger and cargo transfer capabilities into the current stats.

The smallest useful docking arm is going to be 5 tons, for 100 dton ships, which on a floor plan is about 10 1.5m squares. That's huge for just a glorified fuel pipe, but if it integrates say a 6 square long, 1 square wide corridor it makes a degree of sense. The remaining tonnage would be fuel and power conduits (very little space required) and a rail-mounted cargo container transfer grapple on the outside, exposed to vacuum. The crew attaches cargo pods to the grapple and the rail carries them to a loading dock on the station.

Realistically though the smallest practical docking arm is going to be around 20 dtons so it can handle any ship from 100-400 dtons. I'm assuming that larger arms can still connect to ships smaller than their maximum limit. A 20 dton arm is 40 deck plan squares. That's huge. Half of that as a 1 sq wide corridor would be 20 squares long.

Ruling them this way gets rid of the docking fee issue. Also I don't think running shuttles back and forth between a station and ships 'parked' nearby is a cheap or easy option. Those shuttles need to be manned by highly skilled personnel compared to a ground bus. The shuttles also cost a heck of a lot more too, and the docking problem doesn't go away. It just gets delegated to a smaller shuttle, but it still has to dock somewhere. Finally, ships 'parked' in orbit near a station won't stay still. Anyone who's played KSP or has any experience with orbital mechanics knows that ships parked nearby, with very little or even no relative motion, drift around quite considerably in the course of a single orbit. A relative displacement of a few hundred meters turns into many kilometers in the course of a single orbit, especially if one object is in even a slightly higher orbit than the other.

Simon Hibbs

 

[sideranautae]

Also I don't think running shuttles back and forth between a station and ships 'parked' nearby is a cheap or easy option. Those shuttles need to be manned by highly skilled personnel compared to a ground bus.

Why would they be manned? We could make them unmanned now. Why would you want to run an orbital facility at less than TL 7?

 

[phavoc]

The only issue I have with the docking arm rules is that I think they should include passenger and cargo transfer capabilities into the current stats.

The smallest useful docking arm is going to be 5 tons, for 100 dton ships, which on a floor plan is about 10 1.5m squares. That's huge for just a glorified fuel pipe, but if it integrates say a 6 square long, 1 square wide corridor it makes a degree of sense. The remaining tonnage would be fuel and power conduits (very little space required) and a rail-mounted cargo container transfer grapple on the outside, exposed to vacuum. The crew attaches cargo pods to the grapple and the rail carries them to a loading dock on the station.

Realistically though the smallest practical docking arm is going to be around 20 dtons so it can handle any ship from 100-400 dtons. I'm assuming that larger arms can still connect to ships smaller than their maximum limit. A 20 dton arm is 40 deck plan squares. That's huge. Half of that as a 1 sq wide corridor would be 20 squares long.

I'm working on some IMTU rules for docking arms. Really they are just glorified jetways, except that they can make an airtight seal. Useful in certain places! I was of the mind to have two types for airlock/personnel, and 2 types for cargo. A smaller version and then a much larger ones. Docking arms would actually also be used for ground landings, or pretty much anywhere you didn't want people walking across a tarmac. But when we think of space stations that "space" makes you think vacuum. But think of an asteroid base, with an internal docking cavern. ships would set down on landing pads and they'd need to get people off, preferably not in a space suit. You could have crawlers come up with portable ones, or have a more permanent fixture.

Ruling them this way gets rid of the docking fee issue. Also I don't think running shuttles back and forth between a station and ships 'parked' nearby is a cheap or easy option. Those shuttles need to be manned by highly skilled personnel compared to a ground bus. The shuttles also cost a heck of a lot more too, and the docking problem doesn't go away. It just gets delegated to a smaller shuttle, but it still has to dock somewhere. Finally, ships 'parked' in orbit near a station won't stay still. Anyone who's played KSP or has any experience with orbital mechanics knows that ships parked nearby, with very little or even no relative motion, drift around quite considerably in the course of a single orbit. A relative displacement of a few hundred meters turns into many kilometers in the course of a single orbit, especially if one object is in even a slightly higher orbit than the other.

Simon Hibbs

Oh, there should always be a docking fee cost. But it should be smaller than say docking in a hangar. On a planetary starport you could pay top dollar for docking in a hangar facility, but also you should be able to pay cheap for docking out in the long-term parking lot too. It's not as convenient and all you are doing is buying some space on ceramacrete, but for a lot of players that's all they want or need.

As far as drift, well, any TL9+ spacecraft should be able to have their autopilot set to maintain a distance and let the computer do the grunt work. We can do that today, so the "parking" orbit is both figurative and literal. Never played the Kerbal space program though. Sounds fun.

Also I don't think running shuttles back and forth between a station and ships 'parked' nearby is a cheap or easy option. Those shuttles need to be manned by highly skilled personnel compared to a ground bus.

Why would they be manned? We could make them unmanned now. Why would you want to run an orbital facility at less than TL 7?

Probably for the same reason Google has to put controls in their automated cars. It's a human thing. And currently the manned craft that dock with the ISS have a pilot there. The only ones that don't are supply craft. So assuming humans stay human, there would be a pilot on that ship's boat ferrying people to and from the station and their ships.

 

[sideranautae]

Probably for the same reason Google has to put controls in their automated cars. It's a human thing.

The reason that there are controls is that they are using off the shelf vehicles. But, they will NOT require a driver, at TL 7. At TL 12+, there won't be pilots in those kind of things. People, over 100's of years, WILL get used to it. It is inevitable.

 

[phavoc]

Probably for the same reason Google has to put controls in their automated cars. It's a human thing.

The reason that there are controls is that they are using off the shelf vehicles. But, they will NOT require a driver, at TL 7. At TL 12+, there won't be pilots in those kind of things. People, over 100's of years, WILL get used to it. It is inevitable.

Well, in theory, sure. The computers are going to be superior. But remember the Imperium is rather restrictive on auto-controlled things. Space taxi's may or may not be in the mix.

From a safety perspective it's good to have both a human and a computer at the controls. They balance each other out pretty well.

 

[Infojunky]

Probably for the same reason Google has to put controls in their automated cars. It's a human thing.

The reason that there are controls is that they are using off the shelf vehicles. But, they will NOT require a driver, at TL 7. At TL 12+, there won't be pilots in those kind of things. People, over 100's of years, WILL get used to it. It is inevitable.

Actually that is a good point, remembering the "Buses" that used to service aircraft back in the day befor jetways. I can see a automated 20 dTon shuttle ferrying passengers, with the gate person boarding with the passengers to do a physical hand-off at the ship.

 

[simonh]

Probably for the same reason Google has to put controls in their automated cars. It's a human thing.

The reason that there are controls is that they are using off the shelf vehicles. But, they will NOT require a driver, at TL 7. At TL 12+, there won't be pilots in those kind of things. People, over 100's of years, WILL get used to it. It is inevitable.

I'm sure you're right. The OTU as written is a bit backward about things like that. However this is I think intended to be a setting agnostic supplement.

In reality I'd expect in any given setting, or at least interstellar polity, there would be standardised designs of docking arms at specific sizes but for a generic supplement you need to give the underlying design system those are built using.

Simon Hibbs

 

[sideranautae]

Probably for the same reason Google has to put controls in their automated cars. It's a human thing.

The reason that there are controls is that they are using off the shelf vehicles. But, they will NOT require a driver, at TL 7. At TL 12+, there won't be pilots in those kind of things. People, over 100's of years, WILL get used to it. It is inevitable.

I'm sure you're right. The OTU as written is a bit backward about things like that. However this is I think intended to be a setting agnostic supplement.

I understand that. But, I wish the editors would pay more attention. This isn't a setting problem a much as the authors not understanding technology TODAY and looking at what is minimally likely at very much higher TL than 7. I understand the original Trav shortcomings as Marc is NOT a science guy but a liberal arts person. But, there are plenty of people now in the RPG space who would vet these works before they are finished. For no pay either.

 

[simonh]

I understand that. But, I wish the editors would pay more attention. This isn't a setting problem a much as the authors not understanding technology TODAY and looking at what is minimally likely at very much higher TL than 7. I understand the original Trav shortcomings as Marc is NOT a science guy but a liberal arts person. But, there are plenty of people now in the RPG space who would vet these works before they are finished. For no pay either.

The thing is, ultra-realistic extrapolation of future technology and all it's implications isn't the be-all and end-all of SF. A lot of SF setting creators and fans have a mental image of the kind of SF setting they want, the way things work and the kinds of technological norms they would like for a whole host of reasons based on the kinds of adventures, issues, problems and stories they want in that setting. Technological extrapolation is only part of that, and often just an enabler of specific themes or elements rather than a goal in itself.

The OTU is based on a relatively outdated model of what the future might be like. Mongoose have gone some way to update it with rules for computers, robots, etc that are more acceptable for an audience today versus back in the 1970s, but have only taken that so far. They still need to be true to the overall vision from the 1970s. Their rules and supplements can and do support more aggressively futurist interpretations, and autopilot like the one your suggest is possible (at least it's not impossible) using the computer software rules, but they also still need to make allowances for the way things are in the OTU. That means making some compromises, but adapting this material to a setting more to your liking is pretty trivial.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Reynard]

Mongoose give rules for autopilots on ships. In your games, create automated shuttlebugs. It's that simple.

As to why there's a lot of manned vehicles is there are a huge variety of cultures in any Traveller universe and some may actually favor human labor over automation. Other places will feature places such as orbital stations buzzing with auto vehicles. It's silly I'm seeing people howling about Traveller having a 70's outlook then demanding a strict 2000 outlook on every instance in a Traveller universe. Be flexible an creative!

As to the docking arm issue, it would be nice to hear from the designer(s) exactly what they conceived it to be. That said, there is a lot of room for interpretation. The tonnage to me is the machinery and reinforcement of the arm and its mooring to the station. It's job is to securely arrest the vessel in place while being long enough to keep any configuration of ship at a safe distance. Docking arms are for ships with less interaction with the station such as they plan only short duration stays and cargo transfers are trivial best handled by small craft. Bays are for extensive service and transfers. I'm fine with the arms including the lower docking fees.

As I'm reading the forum, I started remembering the 'workbees' from Star Trek The Movie. There's something that should have an equivalent around Traveller space stations either manned or a remote drone version and have multi tasking acting as 'forklifts' for cargo and material transfers while having capacity for holding and controlling repair robots for external works. The vessel would actually be based on a larger size but is mostly the work portion of a vessel while the rest is for any pallets it can connect to haul.

 

[AndrewW]

As I'm reading the forum, I started remembering the 'workbees' from Star Trek The Movie. There's something that should have an equivalent around Traveller space stations either manned or a remote drone version and have multi tasking acting as 'forklifts' for cargo and material transfers while having capacity for holding and controlling repair robots for external works. The vessel would actually be based on a larger size but is mostly the work portion of a vessel while the rest is for any pallets it can connect to haul.

See the Utility Pod in Supplement 10: Merchants and Cruisers.