|
Post by deltav on Mar 2, 2017 20:55:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 2, 2017 20:55:43 GMT
Are you bored with life planetside? Find adventure with the COADE Space Corps! Find adventure and honor in service. This guide is to help you understand the duties you may be assigned, and how life will be aboard your assignment craft. As a COADE crewman, spacious accommodations will be provided with roughly 3.4 m^3 per crewman. You will be deployed on average of 6 months tours of duty with full hazard pay and benefits to your family and loved ones. Between deployments you will recuperate from the strain of deployment on a spin gravity space station or planetside depending on COADE Space Corp needs. Updated: 03/15/17 As of COADE update 1.10, here is the duty roster with duty requirements. Key: "≈" Approximately Equal to "≲" Approximately Equal to or less than "≳" Approximately Equal to or more than "per type", "or", "∪" = each type of listed objects MUST be the same exact model and type to share maintenance staff. "+" = each type of listed objects CAN be different models or even different types and share maintenance staff. O-Commissioned Officer, P-Non Commissioned (Petty) Officer, E-Enlisted, For most E crew, they would receive their orders directly from the Officer(s) in their department, and also the Logistics Officers who would serve as the hands and feet of the X.O. Number after "O", "P", "E" etc. is ≈ min years education/experience to achieve this position at the level seen in COADE in the US Navy. (Includes Degrees, Boot, A School, B School, C School, on the job experience, promotion time, etc. depending on position.)12 Officers positions, 15 EnlistedAdmin "Brass" 6O-12-Captain "C.O.": 1 total (Senior officer on the Ship, given broad authority to accomplish all objectives given by the flag officer (Admiral), etc) O-10-First Officer "X.O.": 1 total (Manages day-to-day, ex. maintenance and logistics, frees the CO to concentrate on tactical planning/execution, etc) O-10-Doctor "Pecker Checker": 1 per ≈108 crew (Provide high-quality medical care for service members, like diagnosing ailments, treating injuries and saving lives, etc) P-5-Chief Yeoman "Yoyo": 1 per ≈108 crew (Admin/Clerical, protocol, instructions, crew evals, type business/social letters, notices/messages/directives/reports, etc) P-5-Executive/As. Chef "Bread-burner": 1 per ≈54 crew (Prepares quality hot food, preparing menus, keeping food budgets/service records, manages stores, etc) O-5-Logistics Officer "Chop": 1 per ≈27 crew (Strategic, Operational, and Tactical support, anticipating mission/operational needs and coordinating accordingly, etc)
Operations "Ops" 6 O-5.6-Astrogation Officer "Gator": 0 or 3 or 6 total {0 if a station, 3 if ship has no weapons or ≲14.99 kt Ship mass, 6 if ship has weapons and ≳15 kt of Ship mass} O-5.4-Comm Officer "COMMO": 3 or 6 total {3 if ship has no weapons or ≲11.99 kt Ship mass, 6 if ship has weapons and ≳ 12 kt of Ship mass} E-3.7-Sensor Specialist "Ping Jockey": 3 or 6 total {3 if ship has no weapons or ≲ 9.99 kt Ship mass, 6 if ship has weapons and ≳ 10 kt of Ship mass} E-1.9-Waste/Water Tech "Turd Chaser": 1 per Crew Module (Ensures pumps, conveyors, blowers/other waste/water treatment equipment are functioning properly, etc) E-1.9-Air Circulation Tech "Turd Chaser": 1 per Crew Module (Maintains/repairs intl heating, air conditioning, refrigeration and air purification/circulation systems, etc) E-1.8-Refueler Operator "Boomer": 1 per 5 Auto-Refueler per Type ( Responsible for safely and effectively refueling other spacecraft during orbital operations, etc)
Engineering "Snipes" 8 O-11-Chief Engineer "Cheng": 1 total (Heads the Engineering Department that maintains the ship’s power plants, life support systems, fresh water, etc) O-6.0-Nuclear Engineer "Nuke": 1 per 5 Any Nuclear Reactor (Thermoelectric+ Engine) (Research/design/maintain/regulate nuclear reactors/power plants, etc) E-3.1-Nuclear Reactor Tech "Glow-stick": In Threes {1 per ≈1.33 Nuclear Engine Reactor} (Thermoelectric+ Engine) (Operates/monitors Nuclear Reactors) E-3.1-Fission Reactor Tech "Glow-stick": In Threes {1 per ≈.83 Fission Reactor} (Thermoelectric) (Operates/monitors Thermoelectric Component of Nuclear Reactors) E-2.1-Weapon Tech "Gun Monkey": {1 per 5 Fixed Mount (and/or Detached Laser) per Type}{1 per ≈3.33 Turret per Type}3,6,10... (Coilgun ∪ Railgun ∪ Cannon ∪ Laser) E-1.9-Radiator Tech "Pit Bilge": 3 total (Ensures pumps, conveyors, blowers and other cooling equipment is functioning properly, etc) E-1.9-Refueling Tech "Fuel Snipe": 1 per 5 Auto-Refueler per Type (Ensures pumps, conveyors, blowers and other fuel pumping equipment is functioning properly, etc) E-1.9-Engine Tech "Flange-head": {1 per 5 Any Engine}{1 per ≈1.66 MPD} ([Combustion+ Nuclear+ Resistojet] ∪ MPD) (Operate/service/repair engines/steering, etc)
Weapons "Weps" 9 O-6.0-Tactical (Ship) Pilot "Wheel": 0 or 1 or 2 total {0 if a station, 1 if ship has weapons and ≲7.99 kt Ship mass, 2 if ship has weapons and ≳8 kt Ship mass} O-5.1-Elec. Warfare Officer "SWO": 0 or 1 or 2 total {0 if no weapons, 1 if ship has weapons and ≲7.99 kt Ship mass, 2 if ship has weapons and ≳8 kt Ship mass} E-3.1-Drone Tech "Nose Picker": # per Drone Varies w/Drone, ≈ Listed CR per Drone Launcher per Type ≈ Total CR of an individual Drone's Components for Launcher per Type}{Stock Drones ≈2 Nose Pickers per Launcher per Drone} E-2.1-Gunner "Gun Monkey": {1 per 5 Fixed Mount per Type and/or Detached Laser per Type}{1 per 2.5 Turret per Type} (Coilgun ∪ Railgun ∪ Cannon ∪ Laser) E-2.1-Drone Fly-By-Wire Pilot "Spacedale": 1 per 2 Drone Launcher per Type (Remote pilots drones, plan/analyze missions, perform pre/post mission checks, etc) E-1.9-Missile Fly-By-Wire Pilot "Tweener": 1 per 12 Missile Launcher per Type (Operate/Test/repair guidance/optical equipment, repair missiles/related systems.) E-1.9-Missile Technician "Tweener": 1 per 10 Missile Launcher per Type (Operate/Test/repair guidance/optical measuring equipment, repair missiles and related systems.) E-1.9-Launcher Tech "Tweener": 1 per 2 Launcher per Type (Missile ∪ Drone ∪ Decoy Launcher) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes: ~Descriptions and nicknames are from 2017 US Navy/Air force adjusted for space context, based mostly on submarines, as well as the "human" element like shifts and rank. ~Ratings that are the same job in the US Navy were given the same nickname here (even though they are still listed separate). ~A crewed space "day" is 18 hours and includes 6 hours on watch, 6 hours off watch where they relax, study/train or clean/do light maintenance, and 6 hours for sleeping. ~Ratings that are per crew/ship (Yoyos, Pecker Checkers, Bread Burners, Legos), work inside the crew module, are more about preparation and planning than responding to emergencies and mostly only work during the "day" for the most part. If they do their jobs right there are few emergencies. ~Ratings that automatically come in "threes or sixes" (like Gators, COMMOs, Ping Jockeys, and Hull Apes) work around the clock, alone or in pairs per shift. ~Ratings that mainly are combat oriented would always be on alert, but not work regular shifts, and when they did work would only be 4.5 hours at a time. ~Most "O"s and "P"s and those who are on that track, are highly educated and committed and must serve 8 to 10 years min. Most "E"s have much more modest educational records and commitment and serve 2 to 4 years. ~More to the point, "E"s don't tend to serve long enough to become experts in more than one job. ~All ratings are trained to know the basics of every other job but are not high skilled in that position. ~Almost all ratings get their own bunk, although 3 "pukes" (new guys) per ship often have to share 2 bunks. ~The bunk is the only private area on the ship (even the head is semi public), and includes a curtain, small locker or drop down shelf, and this is where most spacers will relax. ~Our crew modules have about 3.4m^2 of interior space per person, and this has to include workstations, the sickbay, cafeteria, the heads, etc. ~Space is at a huge premium. At the same time most people need some feeling of privacy each day to be happy so these 2 have to be balanced. ~Pilots don't fly by the "stick" but by the "mouse". Drones need "minding" more than "flying", but that minding is essential. ~Flying one drone doesn't qualify a pilot to fly another. Military Drones often have vastly different controls and handling from model to model.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watch_system "US submarine system with three sections A 3-section submarine watch
| Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | 2330–0530 (Mid Watch) | Team 1 | Team 2 | Team 3 | 0530–1130 (Morning Watch) | Team 2 | Team 3 | Team 1 | 1130–1730 (Afternoon Watch) | Team 3 | Team 1 | Team 2 | 1730–2330 (Evening Watch) | Team 1 | Team 2 | Team 3 |
Aboard United States submarines, where the working day is 18 hours instead of 24, the crew is normally divided into three sections, with each section standing 6 hours of watch followed by 12 hours off-watch. The 12 hours off-watch are further divided into the first 6 hours being used for maintenance, cleaning, and entertainment; while the second 6 hours are usually for sleeping. Note that this arrangement results in one of the sections having two watches in one (24-hour) day, and there are no dog watches. Also, watch reliefs occur no later than the bottom of the hour (2330, 0530, 1130, 1730). This is because the first 30 minutes of the hour are used for the oncoming section to eat, and the second 30 minutes of the hour are used for the off-going section to eat."
'From the book: "The 6-on/12-off schedule is operationally valuable because it allows 24 hour coverage with only 3 watches. This is required by the space limitations on submarines. The schedule also limits the duration of each watch to 6hr. The shorter watches are considered necessary to assure maintenance of alertness during sometimes monotonous work performed at all hours of the day."
The book also explains why a lack of 24 hour phasing was not considered an issue at the time: no natural light on submarines and no weekends/days off for crew members to adapt to their biological clock.
According this article, the 18 hour schedule was introduced in the 60s. Before that, apparently, a 4 hour on/8 hour off schedule was the norm.
"Since the 13th century, maritime workers have utilized a 4 hours on, 8 hours off (4/8) watch schedule that continued into the Polaris submarine patrols of the early 1960s. However, because modern Submariners must also train, qualify, and conduct drills when not on watch, the 4/8 schedule prevented them from obtaining sufficient sleep during their off-watch periods. During prolonged patrols, Submariners suffered from progressive sleep debt. To remedy this, the 6 hours on, 12 hours off (6/12) schedule was adopted."' ask.metafilter.com/230592/Why-18hour-schedule-on-submarines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Selected Sources www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=34835.0 www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/missile-technician.html www.cool.navy.mil/usn/enlisted/mt.htm www.thebalance.com/navy-class-a-school-student-policies-and-restrictions-4054191 www.thebalance.com/career-profile-navy-unmanned-aerial-vehicle-careers-2356485 breakingdefense.com/2015/01/drones-need-humans-badly/ www.usmilitary.com/29254/air-force-military-jobs-drone-pilots/ www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/virtual-cockpit-what-it-takes-fly-drone-1C9319684 www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/virtual-cockpit-what-it-takes-fly-drone-1C9319684 www.quora.com/What-would-it-take-to-become-a-Naval-Aviator-Fighter-pilot-preferably-and-what-would-it-be-like www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9552547/The-air-force-men-who-fly-drones-in-Afghanistan-by-remote-control.html rickcampbellauthor.com/styled/index.html work.chron.com/qualifications-navy-captains-9058.html www.defencecareers.mil.nz/navy/jobs/chef#job-training www.marineinsight.com/careers-2/how-to-become-a-ships-cook-types-of-galley-jobs/ www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/hull-maintenance-technician.html www.usmilitary.com/4198/military-enlisted-refueling-boom-operator/ www.airforce.com/careers/detail/in-flight-refueling www.military.com/join-armed-forces/navy-jobs.html www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/585353/what-it-takes-to-be-a-boom-operator.aspx www.quora.com/How-much-time-it-takes-for-a-marine-engineer-to-become-chief-engineer-starting-from-a-cadet www.thebalance.com/engineman-en-navy-enlisted-rating-job-descriptions-3345807 www.nukeworker.com/forum/index.php?topic=22239.0 www.physicsforums.com/threads/so-i-joined-the-navy-to-be-a-nuke.211672/ www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-US-Navy-RVW4058698.htm www.thebalance.com/career-profile-navy-gunner-s-mate-2356480 www.cool.navy.mil/usn/LaDR/abf_e6.pdf www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/different-systems-on-a-naval-submarine/ maritime.org/doc/fleetsub/air/index.htm www.thebalance.com/to-be-a-quartermaster-3345857 www.wisegeekedu.com/how-do-i-become-a-quartermaster.htm www.navy.com/careers/engineering-applied-science/mechanics-industrial-technology#ft-key-responsibilities goatlocker.org/resources/nav/navyslang.pdf timeandnavigation.si.edu/navigation-for-everyone/meet-the-navigator/submarine-navigator-us-navy-ret www.thebalance.com/surface-warfare-officer-3356616 www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1uma8d/i_am_a_deck_officer_in_the_merchant_navy_i_have/ www.npr.org/2016/02/22/467210492/u-s-navy-brings-back-navigation-by-the-stars-for-officers books.google.com/books?id=swcNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=how+long+to+become+a+Navy+Sensor+Specialist&source=bl&ots=y35BhZu6wX&sig=7GRsCLl8F9gUa3fIj_PbfryMHiE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9vsfq9NTSAhVFZCYKHc7zAXQQ6AEIQzAH#v=onepage&q=how%20long%20to%20become%20a%20Navy%20Sensor%20Specialist&f=false study.com/articles/How_to_Become_a_Sonar_Technician_Education_and_Career_Roadmap.html www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/sonar-technician.html www.cool.navy.mil/usn/search/CERT_CEC872.htm answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110819195236AAqOK3Z www.qmss.com/article/advice.html www.navydads.com/forum/topics/qm-quartermaster news.usni.org/2014/12/03/brief-list-old-obscure-obsolete-u-s-navy-jobs www.hazegray.org/faq/slang2.htm www.cool.navy.mil/usn/enlisted/ad.htm www.cool.navy.mil/usn/enlisted/rating_info_cards/ad.pdf militarynewbie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/US-Navy-course-Aviation-Machinists-Mate-3-2-NAVEDTRA-14008.pdf www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/drone-pilots-are-quitting-record-numbers www.navy.com/careers/nuclear-power/surface-warfare-nuclear.html#ft-key-responsibilities www.cool.navy.mil/usn/LaDR/yn_e1_e9.pdf www.navy.com/careers/business-legal/purchasing-supply-logistics#ft-key-responsibilities
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Mar 3, 2017 17:56:31 GMT
Many of those crewman functions could possibly be executed by a single person.
Like comm/sensor/astrogation. If you ever played KSP and used mechjeb, you see that navigating through space is already quite easy with computers aiding you. And mechjeb is just a user mod, imagine a military navigation computer in the near future.
Also, maintenance techs. No need for separate radiator/reactor/engine techs, they are all part of the same system or work under the same concept. The same for weapon techs, could be a single dude responsible for the operation of all weapons systems onboard. I'm not talking about actual combat, just maintenance.
I also question the need for a cook. We already have space meals on the ISS, which don't need any special preparation.
Apart from that I think it looks fine. If you have in mind some missions take years, you have to take into consideration all the resources you have to pack for your crew in such a long haul. It's not little, and with automation being the trend nowadays, I think it's quite plausible that we are being conservative here. It's possible that in such a future as CoaDE's, even less people would be needed.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 18:02:26 GMT
I also question the need for a cook. We already have space meals on the ISS, which don't need any special preparation. vegetal do you want good food or bad food?
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Mar 3, 2017 18:06:28 GMT
I also question the need for a cook. We already have space meals on the ISS, which don't need any special preparation. vegetal do you want good food or bad food? If I can have pizza, I'm happy. After serving on the military, my standard of "good" dropped a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 18:10:06 GMT
A spinner thingy in an oven could cook food normally, that being said, I wonder what bread made in space would look like?
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Mar 3, 2017 18:22:02 GMT
A spinner thingy in an oven could cook food normally, that being said, I wonder what bread made in space would look like? Tortilla's/wraps are used instead of bread (no crumbs). You can probably find this on youtube.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 18:24:42 GMT
Many of those crewman functions could possibly be executed by a single person. Like comm/sensor/astrogation. If you ever played KSP and used mechjeb, you see that navigating through space is already quite easy with computers aiding you. And mechjeb is just a user mod, imagine a military navigation computer in the near future. Also, maintenance techs. No need for separate radiator/reactor/engine techs, they are all part of the same system or work under the same concept. The same for weapon techs, could be a single dude responsible for the operation of all weapons systems onboard. I'm not talking about actual combat, just maintenance. I also question the need for a cook. We already have space meals on the ISS, which don't need any special preparation. Apart from that I think it looks fine. If you have in mind some missions take years, you have to take into consideration all the resources you have to pack for your crew in such a long haul. It's not little, and with automation being the trend nowadays, I think it's quite plausible that we are being conservative here. It's possible that in such a future as CoaDE's, even less people would be needed. I just want to play devil's advocate for a minute.KSP is a simulation. It's an educational program. Would you play Need for Speed and think it's easy to race cars? We would have to compare it to real life. In real life when someone goes into space, they have this... Computers in 2017 can already do calculations many times faster than a human ever could, so why all these people in mission control? Why not just one guy with a huge computer?Because computers can't think. They can't innovate. And they can't deal with anything that hasn't been pre programmed into it by a innovative thinking human. So... saying all that. There is no AI in COADE. There is no AI in COADE. There is no AI in COADE That is our assumption right? Because if we have AI, then that changes everything. So before we say... computers/robots/androids can do it.... There is no AI in COADE. So any task we give to computers/robots/androids has to be preprogrammed, straight to the point, need no creativity or guesswork, need no judgement or intuition, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So keeping that in mind. How How could 1 guy monitor 360 degrees of space missing nothing important, plan and execute tactical burns, and handle and monitor all the comm traffic that comes through all at the same time? And let's not forget There is no AI in COADE. So without AI can the computer can tell him what comm traffic or sensor data important or something similar? It can only do what is preprogrammed. It can't think. So maybe something can be cut, but we have to really think it though, and make sure our thoughts are logical. So back to Comms/Astro/Sensors all in one station...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In most states driving while talking on cell phone is illegal because it's been proven that such a person is as impaired as a slightly drunk person. Now have that same guy talk on a cell phone, while driving, while trying to play around with a gps. What are the chances this guy is doing any of those tasks well? Very low. Now have the guy hand the phone to his wife, and the gps to his daughter. How much better are things now? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Astrogation is infinitely more complex than driving a car. Interpreting sensor data is infinitely more complex than using a GPS. And monitoring and communicating with 100 or even thousands of ships/stations/etc is infinitely more complex than talking on a cell phone. So is this logical that one person can do it without AI? Really?
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 18:36:22 GMT
vegetal The cook does more than "cook". I'm sure he rations the food so some glutton doesn't eat it all. He makes sure everyone is getting full nutrition. Plans menus. Etc. But there is only one cook per 54 crewman. So if I were going to cut, I'd find somewhere else to cut no? Meals on ISS really suck. We can do better than that. Fresh hot food is doable. About radiator/reactor/engine being all the same system so we only need one set of techs... So you are saying that the same guy who knows all about how to fix and repair radiators, basically huge car radiators, would have any idea what to do with a MPD? Or any idea what to do with a Nuclear Fission reactor? Is that reasonable? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anyhow this is why I put up this thread, to really analyze what each crew member does, how many we need depending on our ship designs, and really good hard data instead of speculation mostly based on current spaceflight and the Navy.
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Mar 3, 2017 18:45:33 GMT
You have only questioned me on the astro/comm/sensor part, so I will assume you agree with me on the rest =P
They have all those people on mission control simply because why not? If you can have a bunch of people together on a task, great. But.... They are all on the ground. There's no mass/room/life support cost in that.
Also, you are misinterpreting the meaning of AI I feel. We don't need a sentient supergenius machine for those tasks. We just need a certain degree of automation.
You are right that KSP is a simulation, it doesn't have N-body for example. But our own household computers are already capable of trajectory calculation, so going to other planets, making plane changes and intercepts is easy as a button press. The fact we don't have that in-game is more a design choice from Qswitched, probably in order to get the players engaged in the game. In reality, you could launch a missile salvo and just tell the computer "intercept enemy with X parameters". Or set a moon as a target and tell "plot a hohmann transfer to there", things like that.
And on that car scenario with a single person driving, navigating and communicating: That's what a single pilot does in some modern jets.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 19:25:21 GMT
You have only questioned me on the astro/comm/sensor part, so I will assume you agree with me on the rest =P They have all those people on mission control simply because why not? If you can have a bunch of people together on a task, great. But.... They are all on the ground. There's no mass/room/life support cost in that. Also, you are misinterpreting the meaning of AI I feel. We don't need a sentient supergenius machine for those tasks. We just need a certain degree of automation. You are right that KSP is a simulation, it doesn't have N-body for example. But our own household computers are already capable of trajectory calculation, so going to other planets, making plane changes and intercepts is easy as a button press. The fact we don't have that in-game is more a design choice from Qswitched, probably in order to get the players engaged in the game. In reality, you could launch a missile salvo and just tell the computer "intercept enemy with X parameters". Or set a moon as a target and tell "plot a hohmann transfer to there", things like that. And on that car scenario with a single person driving, navigating and communicating: That's what a single pilot does in some modern jets. I disagree with the thinking behind the comments not so much any of those points. The points can be argued one way or another. So here is where we really differ on the basis of our assumptions. My basis... 1st Basis...COADE is based on tech that either is workable in 2017, or at the very least has a working prototype. So all our assumptions about what we see in COADE have to be 100% based on workable prototypes or working tech 2017 and that only. So any and all thoughts using KSP, which is a computer game, or theories about what could be possible in the future with AI computer automation, are not valid arguments in our discussion. 2nd Basis... that certain types of jobs, particularly service jobs (plumber, technician, locksmith,etc) jobs that require a human to be creative, solve problems and do physical work to accomplish it can not be done by a machine/computer/robot short of AI. So unless you can show me a working prototype or tech that can do service jobs such as plumber, even in a simple manner, you have to accept this. 3rd Basis... a human can be good at one discipline, but the human who is very good at many is rare. Too rare to be standard on every spaceship in COADE. So while there might be the rare genius who has master certifications in nuclear reactor servicing, space radiators, nuclear engines, MPDs, Chemical rockets, etc and can do all equally well, it's not realistic for that to be standard in a whole fleet of ships. So the idea that the same guy who can fix nuclear reactors, is also an expert in every type of spaceship engine, and every type of space radiator, that's smacks of inexperience with any kind of service job or maintenance job.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 19:31:51 GMT
Many of those crewman functions could possibly be executed by a single person. Like comm/sensor/astrogation. If you ever played KSP and used mechjeb, you see that navigating through space is already quite easy with computers aiding you. And mechjeb is just a user mod, imagine a military navigation computer in the near future. Also, maintenance techs. No need for separate radiator/reactor/engine techs, they are all part of the same system or work under the same concept. The same for weapon techs, could be a single dude responsible for the operation of all weapons systems onboard. I'm not talking about actual combat, just maintenance. I also question the need for a cook. We already have space meals on the ISS, which don't need any special preparation. Apart from that I think it looks fine. If you have in mind some missions take years, you have to take into consideration all the resources you have to pack for your crew in such a long haul. It's not little, and with automation being the trend nowadays, I think it's quite plausible that we are being conservative here. It's possible that in such a future as CoaDE's, even less people would be needed. I just want to play devil's advocate for a minute.KSP is a simulation. It's an educational program. Would you play Need for Speed and think it's easy to race cars? We would have to compare it to real life. In real life when someone goes into space, they have this... Computers in 2017 can already do calculations many times faster than a human ever could, so why all these people in mission control? Why not just one guy with a huge computer?Because computers can't think. They can't innovate. And they can't deal with anything that hasn't been pre programmed into it by a innovative thinking human. So... saying all that. There is no AI in COADE. There is no AI in COADE. There is no AI in COADE That is our assumption right? Because if we have AI, then that changes everything. So before we say... computers/robots/androids can do it.... There is no AI in COADE. So any task we give to computers/robots/androids has to be preprogrammed, straight to the point, need no creativity or guesswork, need no judgement or intuition, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So keeping that in mind. How How could 1 guy monitor 360 degrees of space missing nothing important, plan and execute tactical burns, and handle and monitor all the comm traffic that comes through all at the same time? And let's not forget There is no AI in COADE. So without AI can the computer can tell him what comm traffic or sensor data important or something similar? It can only do what is preprogrammed. It can't think. So maybe something can be cut, but we have to really think it though, and make sure our thoughts are logical. So back to Comms/Astro/Sensors all in one station...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In most states driving while talking on cell phone is illegal because it's been proven that such a person is as impaired as a slightly drunk person. Now have that same guy talk on a cell phone, while driving, while trying to play around with a gps. What are the chances this guy is doing any of those tasks well? Very low. Now have the guy hand the phone to his wife, and the gps to his daughter. How much better are things now? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Astrogation is infinitely more complex than driving a car. Interpreting sensor data is infinitely more complex than using a GPS. And monitoring and communicating with 100 or even thousands of ships/stations/etc is infinitely more complex than talking on a cell phone. So is this logical that one person can do it without AI? Really? A large number of people in the control room are monitoring the rocket to make sure it works, there is even one guy whose only job is to talk to the people in the rocket, so mission control is a bad example it would be better in the admiralty, comparing driving a car to flying a spaceship is wrong, a car requires constant control to not crash a space ship does not need that kind of control, a spaceship requires a course and a button pusher to fly, Comms is taking place over minutes because of light-lag and does not need constant attention and anything fast enough to kill you in the minute of downtime is going to kill you anyway (most likely), one guy to look over sensor data seems fine, there is very little you need to look for and its coming from mega-meters away, drive flares and radiators are hard to hide. the most dangerous time is when you are arriving at a "neutral" spaceport, there might be someone with a shoulder launcher missile impossible to spot until the nuke is flying your way but that time is when everyone is on duty anyway.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 19:35:12 GMT
A large number of people in the control room are monitoring the rocket to make sure it works, there is even one guy whose only job is to talk to the people in the rocket, so mission control is a bad example it would be better in the admiralty, comparing driving a car to flying a spaceship is wrong, a car requires constant control to not crash a space ship does not need that kind of control, a spaceship requires a course and a button pusher to fly, Comms is taking place over minutes because of light-lag and does not need constant attention and anything fast enough to kill you in the minute of downtime is going to kill you anyway (most likely), one guy to look over sensor data seems fine, there is very little you need to look for and its coming from mega-meters away, drive flares and radiators are hard to hide. the most dangerous time is when you are arriving at a "neutral" spaceport, there might be someone with a shoulder launcher missile impossible to spot until the nuke is flying your way but that time is when everyone is on duty anyway. Are you sure a large number of people in the control room are just "monitoring the rocket to make sure it works"? So you need 20 people to watch the rocket? Really? Come on. ;D I could list each one of the jobs but what would be the point? It's common sense you don't need 20 people just to watch something happen. Those people are there because every single person does some job vital to the optimal operation of the spacecraft. They aren't watching a football game. They ARE the football game. In our COADE ships all of those people who do the jobs of mission control have to be ON the ship. 20 plus people in mission control become just 3-4. So how can you reduce it further? That's not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 19:39:19 GMT
You have only questioned me on the astro/comm/sensor part, so I will assume you agree with me on the rest =P They have all those people on mission control simply because why not? If you can have a bunch of people together on a task, great. But.... They are all on the ground. There's no mass/room/life support cost in that. Also, you are misinterpreting the meaning of AI I feel. We don't need a sentient supergenius machine for those tasks. We just need a certain degree of automation. You are right that KSP is a simulation, it doesn't have N-body for example. But our own household computers are already capable of trajectory calculation, so going to other planets, making plane changes and intercepts is easy as a button press. The fact we don't have that in-game is more a design choice from Qswitched, probably in order to get the players engaged in the game. In reality, you could launch a missile salvo and just tell the computer "intercept enemy with X parameters". Or set a moon as a target and tell "plot a hohmann transfer to there", things like that. And on that car scenario with a single person driving, navigating and communicating: That's what a single pilot does in some modern jets. I disagree with the thinking behind the comments not so much any of those points. The points can be argued one way or another. So here is where we really differ on the basis of our assumptions. My basis... 1st Basis...COADE is based on tech that either is workable in 2017, or at the very least has a working prototype. So all our assumptions about what we see in COADE have to be 100% based on workable prototypes or working tech 2017 and that only. So any and all thoughts using KSP, which is a computer game, or theories about what could be possible in the future with AI computer automation, are not valid arguments in our discussion. Computers can compute Holman transfer orbits easy, they can compute intercepts easy, the AIM-9 Sidewinder missile can intercept enemy aircraft in high-G maneuvers, and barley has a computer to its name, imagine what a computer guided missile could do2nd Basis... that certain types of jobs, particularly service jobs (plumber, technician, locksmith,etc) jobs that require a human to be creative, solve problems and do physical work to accomplish it can not be done by a machine/computer/robot short of AI. So unless you can show me a working prototype or tech that can do service jobs such as plumber, even in a simple manner, you have to accept this. ROVs duff said3rd Basis... a human can be good at one discipline, but the human who is very good at many is rare. Too rare to be standard on every spaceship in COADE. jack of all trades, master of none, make your ship idiot proof and problem solvedSo while there might be the rare genius who has master certifications in nuclear reactor servicing, space radiators, nuclear engines, MPDs, Chemical rockets, etc and can do all equally well, it's not realistic for that to be standard in a whole fleet of ships. So the idea that the same guy who can fix nuclear reactors, is also an expert in every type of spaceship engine, and every type of space radiator, that's smacks of inexperience with any kind of service job or maintenance job. radiator flow is radiator flow no matter what feeding it, swap radiator for nuclear reactor, thermal rocket or what have you, different tolerances depending on model but the operation is the same
-Enderminion in Red
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 19:41:32 GMT
A large number of people in the control room are monitoring the rocket to make sure it works, there is even one guy whose only job is to talk to the people in the rocket, so mission control is a bad example it would be better in the admiralty, comparing driving a car to flying a spaceship is wrong, a car requires constant control to not crash a space ship does not need that kind of control, a spaceship requires a course and a button pusher to fly, Comms is taking place over minutes because of light-lag and does not need constant attention and anything fast enough to kill you in the minute of downtime is going to kill you anyway (most likely), one guy to look over sensor data seems fine, there is very little you need to look for and its coming from mega-meters away, drive flares and radiators are hard to hide. the most dangerous time is when you are arriving at a "neutral" spaceport, there might be someone with a shoulder launcher missile impossible to spot until the nuke is flying your way but that time is when everyone is on duty anyway. Are you sure a large number of people in the control room are just "monitoring the rocket to make sure it works"? So you need 20 people to watch the rocket? Really? Come on. ;D I could list each one of the jobs but what would be the point? It's common sense you don't need 20 people just to watch something happen. Those people are there because every single person does some job vital to the optimal operation of the spacecraft. They aren't watching a football game. They ARE the football game. In our COADE ships all of those people who do the jobs of mission control have to be ON the ship. 20 plus people in mission control become just 3-4. So how can you reduce it further? That's not realistic. using a decent computer that flags potential problems before the rocket blows up allowing the operator to fix it, then one person is fine. also they don't have to be on the ship they have to be within 50Mm for a short enough control loop (commandship idea)
|
|