|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 4:55:50 GMT
David367th Even if drones are used to repair areas outside the ship, since no AI, techs still have to remote control the drones and control all their movements, maybe with some type of VR suit. Maybe like that Star Trek episode with the VR suit controled repair drones. Yeah that's not wrong at all, it makes sense that someone would be piloting the drones, still don't see why we need 50 technicians on larger ships though. Also, I'll stop swearing if you stop double posting fucking triple posting, please stop. I high key believe that if we consolidated all your double and triple posts into edits like you're supposed to you'd have like 200 posts. I don't know what you are talking about. But I'll post the way I choose. If you want to use profanity, and aggressive language, that's your choice, but I don't want to be a part of any conversation like that.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 5, 2017 4:57:39 GMT
Yeah that's not wrong at all, it makes sense that someone would be piloting the drones, still don't see why we need 50 technicians on larger ships though. Also, I'll stop swearing if you stop double posting fucking triple posting, please stop. I high key believe that if we consolidated all your double and triple posts into edits like you're supposed to you'd have like 200 posts. I don't know what you are talking about. But I'll post the way I choose. If you want to use profanity, and aggressive language, that's your choice, but I don't want to be a part of any conversation like that. So you're saying if I keep swearing it'll help you stop double and triple posting? Guys I think I'm about to join the navy.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 4:59:07 GMT
Alright, let's do this.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine1. To reach that range at 11 km/h, the mission would last 4 months. So, comparable. 2. There is no control base. If there was, it could be easily traced by following the comms. They only have GPS. 3. It expects complete autonomy. It's a drug-smuggling submarine. Note that there are no weapons, the systems are different, and the people's lives don't depend on these systems. But overall, these things are cost-effective and successful at their missions with extremely small crew. I like the data based approach. More of this please. Exactly the kind of discussion I am looking for. Taking the most direct route at the speed, the trip would take about 11-17 days, not 4 months. Tried both Atlantic and Pacific and tried for most distant options (sticking to one coast) on the site to be sure. Also GPS is the equivalent to a control base in that it is data transmitted to the GPS unit from Satellites. Those kind of signals might be jammed or spoofed in a hot space war. sea-distances.org/www.unitconversion.org/velocity/kilometers-per-hour-to-knots-conversion.htmlThis comes back to duration of mission. We do need to look at smaller crews for short duration missions. There is no reason a smaller deltaV ship like the Orbital Defense Craft, which will never be far away from a base, needs to have a Yeoman, or a full command staff, etc. It can get away with 10 people or less. In other words I agree that ships with short missions should have less staff. Maybe this can be based on deltaV? Not sure how this would be practically implemented though.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 15:09:57 GMT
Mission duration for a ship can be figured as a function of deltav and acceleration. Those 50 kms dv mpd ships with milligravity thrust are obviously going to be out "on patrol" much longer.
This assumption is still rough, since a low dv ship can sit in a stable orbit indefinitely, but it still gives us an as-designed value as a basis for mission longevity.
Also, for damage control, look at the doctrine that every submariner is a firefighter first. By training all crew members in rudimentary damage control, an incident or post-battle damage can be managed with only a few dedicated repairmen leading a whole-crew effort.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 16:51:56 GMT
Mission duration for a ship can be figured as a function of deltav and acceleration. Those 50 kms dv mpd ships with milligravity thrust are obviously going to be out "on patrol" much longer. This assumption is still rough, since a low dv ship can sit in a stable orbit indefinitely, but it still gives us an as-designed value as a basis for mission longevity. Also, for damage control, look at the doctrine that every submariner is a firefighter first. By training all crew members in rudimentary damage control, an incident or post-battle damage can be managed with only a few dedicated repairmen leading a whole-crew effort. I'm with you in spirit, I like the way you are thinking and what you have to say, just the last part loses me. You need all hands on deck, but you need guys who can field strip every part on the ships too, at least for ships that are designed to go on for 6 months plus. On earth, if you have to, in an emergency, a sub or carrier in trouble can get men and supplies to them within a day or even less by air. In COADE, depending on the situation, a damaged ship could be stuck out there with no help for quite a while. So I don't see trying to get rid too many of the techs. To me they may be more essential than some of the command staff. I guess my real question is... 1. We get rid of missile techs, gunners, fly by wire pilots, and train techs to do all those jobs when needed. 2. On short duration mission ships, you get less crew, maybe cut out almost everyone except a skeleton crew.What more do you want to cut?
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on Mar 5, 2017 17:07:08 GMT
There's the fact that a 200 gram chemical rocket uses the same amount of crew time as a 5-ton NTR. It'd be nice to scale those somewhat. The same with weapons; a 200kw laser system used solely for automated antimissile use needs little oversight, while a 10-stage missile-launching coilgun with a huge capacitor bank could need a lot more babysitting.
Edit: Apparently there is scaling? If so, I've never noticed it.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 5, 2017 17:25:16 GMT
There's the fact that a 200 gram chemical rocket uses the same amount of crew time as a 5-ton NTR. It'd be nice to scale those somewhat. The same with weapons; a 200kw laser system used solely for automated antimissile use needs little oversight, while a 10-stage missile-launching coilgun with a huge capacitor bank could need a lot more babysitting. There is some scaling. The Operations staff get tripled at certain mass sizes.
|
|
|
Post by Easy on Mar 5, 2017 17:28:24 GMT
Mission duration for a ship can be figured as a function of deltav and acceleration. Those 50 kms dv mpd ships with milligravity thrust are obviously going to be out "on patrol" much longer. This assumption is still rough, since a low dv ship can sit in a stable orbit indefinitely, but it still gives us an as-designed value as a basis for mission longevity. Also, for damage control, look at the doctrine that every submariner is a firefighter first. By training all crew members in rudimentary damage control, an incident or post-battle damage can be managed with only a few dedicated repairmen leading a whole-crew effort. I'm with you in spirit, I like the way you are thinking and what you have to say, just the last part loses me. You need all hands on deck, but you need guys who can field strip every part on the ships too, at least for ships that are designed to go on for 6 months plus. On earth, if you have to, in an emergency, a sub or carrier in trouble can get men and supplies to them within a day or even less by air. In COADE, depending on the situation, a damaged ship could be stuck out there with no help for quite a while. So I don't see trying to get rid too many of the techs. To me they may be more essential than some of the command staff. I guess my real question is... 1. We get rid of missile techs, gunners, fly by wire pilots, and train techs to do all those jobs when needed. 2. On short duration mission ships, you get less crew, maybe cut out almost everyone except a skeleton crew.What more do you want to cut? I think we don't need system specialized techs for many systems. Where the tech works a partial shift of routine maintenance and is otherwise on standby for when needed. The main power reactor tech and a general ship-engineering tech makes sense for three 8 hour shifts. But do you need more reactor techs for more reactors? Even heterogeneous reactors will have similar principles with only different operating limitations. Then you've got railgun techs who likely can be multiple system trained to service all railguns and probably would be somewhat competent on other weapon systems. Not to mention black box technologies that are not crew serviced. Drone is broken? Well it is dead weight until next port call. Some modules will have spare parts that are either kept on hand or on-demand manufactured at the machine shop from bulk stock. Replacing parts on a module is a trained skill but it might not be a specialty. Looking at crew a different way we can abstract a crewmember to not only be the fleshbag, but also the mass and volume of spare parts and equipment support that each module requires. So the game's two technicians might only be one technician who has two big and heavy toolboxes. There's the fact that a 200 gram chemical rocket uses the same amount of crew time as a 5-ton NTR. It'd be nice to scale those somewhat. The same with weapons; a 200kw laser system used solely for automated antimissile use needs little oversight, while a 10-stage missile-launching coilgun with a huge capacitor bank could need a lot more babysitting. The NTR actually uses more crew due to the reactor. Chemical rockets are .2, NTR are .7 crew. The crew reqirements of drones and missiles is based on the crew requirements of each module on the system on the drone/missile.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 5, 2017 17:38:23 GMT
Mission duration for a ship can be figured as a function of deltav and acceleration. Those 50 kms dv mpd ships with milligravity thrust are obviously going to be out "on patrol" much longer. This assumption is still rough, since a low dv ship can sit in a stable orbit indefinitely, but it still gives us an as-designed value as a basis for mission longevity. Also, for damage control, look at the doctrine that every submariner is a firefighter first. By training all crew members in rudimentary damage control, an incident or post-battle damage can be managed with only a few dedicated repairmen leading a whole-crew effort. I'm with you in spirit, I like the way you are thinking and what you have to say, just the last part loses me. You need all hands on deck, but you need guys who can field strip every part on the ships too, at least for ships that are designed to go on for 6 months plus. On earth, if you have to, in an emergency, a sub or carrier in trouble can get men and supplies to them within a day or even less by air. In COADE, depending on the situation, a damaged ship could be stuck out there with no help for quite a while. So I don't see trying to get rid too many of the techs. To me they may be more essential than some of the command staff. I guess my real question is... 1. We get rid of missile techs, gunners, fly by wire pilots, and train techs to do all those jobs when needed. 2. On short duration mission ships, you get less crew, maybe cut out almost everyone except a skeleton crew.What more do you want to cut? I'm on par with that. I was countering a prior point about planning to have personnel for emergencies, at which time everyone pitches in. It seemed like someone was advocating for a dedicated, fully staffed damage control crew... Which seemed very wasteful to me. Figuring out the relationship between number of skilled folks and mission duration will be tricky, but that would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 5, 2017 21:20:02 GMT
Taking the most direct route at the speed, the trip would take about 11-17 days, not 4 months. You are correct. I erroneously added an extra zero to the range. It cannot be based purely on dV. If you saw the Homecoming thread, the ship I used had 422 km/s dV and performed its mission in 2.5 months. That ship would be a pretty crazy outlier if it was just based on dV. Propellant tankers would also get shafted. My suggestion would be to have a slider in the ship editor to directly say how long a mission the ship is expected to run, and base the crew requirement on that slider.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 5, 2017 22:27:10 GMT
Taking the most direct route at the speed, the trip would take about 11-17 days, not 4 months. You are correct. I erroneously added an extra zero to the range. It cannot be based purely on dV. If you saw the Homecoming thread, the ship I used had 422 km/s dV and performed its mission in 2.5 months. That ship would be a pretty crazy outlier if it was just based on dV. Propellant tankers would also get shafted. My suggestion would be to have a slider in the ship editor to directly say how long a mission the ship is expected to run, and base the crew requirement on that slider. And reactor lifetimes too
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 23:34:13 GMT
I'm on par with that. I was countering a prior point about planning to have personnel for emergencies, at which time everyone pitches in. It seemed like someone was advocating for a dedicated, fully staffed damage control crew... Which seemed very wasteful to me. Figuring out the relationship between number of skilled folks and mission duration will be tricky, but that would be a step in the right direction. I don't think anyone here advocated for a dedicated fully staffed damage control crew. Only that we should have enough techs on our ship to handle emergencies with heavy damage, not just enough to deal with light and infrequent maintenance. I don't think anyone so far has asked for more crew, except Enderminion, he want space marines on board. But some have pointed out that we should be careful not to get rid of too many techs, but to cut elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 5, 2017 23:47:58 GMT
There's the fact that a 200 gram chemical rocket uses the same amount of crew time as a 5-ton NTR. It'd be nice to scale those somewhat. The same with weapons; a 200kw laser system used solely for automated antimissile use needs little oversight, while a 10-stage missile-launching coilgun with a huge capacitor bank could need a lot more babysitting. Edit: Apparently there is scaling? If so, I've never noticed it. Please read my post at the beginning of the thread, there is scaling, in fact almost every crew position is scaled. If you have data I don't please send it, it could always be you know something I've missed. About the crew required for a chemical rocket being the same as a NTR, it's not true at all. Chemical Rockets only require .2 people per module, I'm assuming because they need less maintenance. NTRs require .7 per module, more than 3x the crew needed, and that makes sense. All the crew are scaled but they scaled based on different factors, and many of them are based on some kind of shift system. I think 3, 9 hour shifts like NASA Mission Control. There is 1 doctor per about 108 crew, but only 1 waste/water tech per command module. No matter how many flak missiles you have, you only need 1 fly by wire pilot for them, and 1 missile tech. Take the time to really delve into this if you are interested, but please take the time to focus on the data.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:00:51 GMT
It cannot be based purely on dV. If you saw the Homecoming thread, the ship I used had 422 km/s dV and performed its mission in 2.5 months. That ship would be a pretty crazy outlier if it was just based on dV. Propellant tankers would also get shafted. My suggestion would be to have a slider in the ship editor to directly say how long a mission the ship is expected to run, and base the crew requirement on that slider. Yeah I think the slider is a logical idea. I was thinking something almost exactly like that. But there would have to be real consequences to that decision, with advantages and disadvantages. Maybe if you use the ship in sandbox or on a mission, and it runs longer than the time, you get a message, "Sorry your crew has starved to death." "Our condolences". Or perhaps if you get a certain amount of damage, even if you survive a battle, you get a message that your crew has died due to not having enough technical staff to fix onboard problems. Eventually I envision COADE as a more persistent world where bases can be built and last, and solar system wide theater war is a real thing. All of these considerations will mean much more then.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 6, 2017 0:15:14 GMT
Then you've got railgun techs who likely can be multiple system trained to service all railguns and probably would be somewhat competent on other weapon systems. Not to mention black box technologies that are not crew serviced. Drone is broken? Well it is dead weight until next port call. Some modules will have spare parts that are either kept on hand or on-demand manufactured at the machine shop from bulk stock. Replacing parts on a module is a trained skill but it might not be a specialty. Looking at crew a different way we can abstract a crewmember to not only be the fleshbag, but also the mass and volume of spare parts and equipment support that each module requires. So the game's two technicians might only be one technician who has two big and heavy toolboxes. It's true that someone who can service a coilgun should also be able to service a railgun and maybe even a cannon. But when it comes to drones and missiles, a nuclear missile is vastly different than a flak missile. Where we are so far (please anyone speak up if they disagree), is to eliminate missile techs, gunners and fly by wire pilots, and have the other techs do those jobs if needed. I guess we could eliminate drone techs too, but I don't know about that. Drones in general are alot more expensive, complex and are also reusable unlike missiles. It's clear that drones are expected to be reused or even retrived, after all, Stock Drone carriers have drone refueling ports standard. I think Qswitched intended to allow drones to be stowed after a mission, but hasn't gotten around to programming it yet. If so drones techs would be all the more important. I agree we need to cut, just I think we have to really be serious, and not whimsical about who we cut...About the idea that the game is counting not just people but their equipment, if so all bets are off. And we can't make any suggestions to the system at all . I'd like to think that isn't the case because it makes crew analysis almost impossible, since we have no data on what sorts of tools the crew use or their equipment.
|
|