|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 19:49:38 GMT
And on that car scenario with a single person driving, navigating and communicating: That's what a single pilot does in some modern jets. -The modern jet pilot doesn't navigate, command/gps/computers/satellites navigate for him. And speaking of that, modern jets used to have onboard navigators until a generation ago. In COADE all that would have to be on the ship. Lightspeed lag and jamming. -The modern jet pilot doesn't have to serve as comm officer, but only talk to one guy, his control officer. They handle all the decryption of enemy messages, analysis of enemy messages, handling traffic from every other friendly plane in the area, communicating with all those planes, communicating with every base in the area, relating personal messages to family and friends, receiving personal messages, etc. -The modern jet pilot doesn't have to do orbital burns, infinitely more complex than even flying a jet. Nor does he have to plan out his plan of attack or his missions. Command, teams of people make all his decisions of exactly what to do and how to do it. But in COADE all of that has to be on the ship. In COADE ships have missions, but are not told exactly how to accomplish them, as all ships are semi autonomous.
|
|
|
Post by teeth on Mar 3, 2017 19:51:52 GMT
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 them have to be ON the ship. And that's my point. You can reduce their numbers, but we already did that. 20 plus people in mission control become just 3-4. So how can you reduce it further? That's not realistic. Do you think mission control is that packed for a single mission every day? That's most likely for launch (or something very important like a shuttle launch that they can afford to have that many people on), and the danger of launch can't be compared to just falling along on a determined orbital path. Nobody has ever died in space, it's all during launch and reentry. Our ships are more than big enough to stock full replacements of life support and such, just need a few air quality monitors to tell when an emergency is happening.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 19:52:11 GMT
EnderminionShow me a real person who is an expert in rocket engines, nuclear reactors, and space radiators. Better yet, look at submarines. Show me that the same people who fix the reactors also fix the engines and I'll agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by beta on Mar 3, 2017 19:53:00 GMT
Would likely be a mix between aviation and naval. The desire for low mass is more intensive in aircraft, and is the same for spacecraft. Naval vessels generally don't have such tight constraints, so things like hot food, recreation facilities, etc. are more easily accommodated. On a military spacecraft, where cross section, mass, and volume not used by reaction mass are extremely important, you will be cutting out anything and everything you can.
Say you want to do a 2 year journey to Jupiter from Mars. Send your spacecraft in a package - 3 military ships with a "tender". This ship could include all the niceties required for crew health over a 2 year period. Things like gravity, fresh food, space, recreation, privacy, etc. Set up leave blocks where portions of the skeleton crew required for a transit are cycled through the "recreation ship". Space travel after all is 99% waiting to make your next burn. On the long legs between your burns, you could potentially tether the ships such that ease of crew transfer is possible.
Further, drawing from aviation techniques and procedures, the pilot of a combat aircraft is not expected to gather and analyze all their own data. Ground control stations, other aircraft (dedicated or not), and naval vessels all feed information to the pointy end that does the shooting. This would be no different in space. Look at how telescope astronomy already works. It isn't filled with hundreds of scientists clicking through all the images trying to find the dot that might be a planet, they analyze data that is crunched by algorithms. For non-combat situations, a single person is more than enough to monitor your sensors, especially as your ship will not be the only sensor out there - there will be constant updates from other friendly sources. The amount of updates that would incoming also precludes requiring an operator to input them manually, again, this is something that is already automated in aviation.
I see the current crew requirements as leaning a bit too much towards "boats in space" rather than "planes in space". Much like an F18 doesn't carry it's food and facilities around to keep the pilot healthy for 6 months at sea, your combat spacecraft would likely be "lean and mean" and rely on other ships for long term maintenance. Two different approaches and to have both in the game would require a lot more detail in the crew requirements systems.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 19:59:03 GMT
And on that car scenario with a single person driving, navigating and communicating: That's what a single pilot does in some modern jets. And speaking of that, modern jets used to have onboard navigators until a generation ago. A radio intercepts officer is not a navigator, or weapons officers for that matter
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:02:09 GMT
Do you think mission control is that packed for a single mission every day? That's most likely for launch (or something very important like a shuttle launch that they can afford to have that many people on), and the danger of launch can't be compared to just falling along on a determined orbital path. Nobody has ever died in space, it's all during launch and reentry. Our ships are more than big enough to stock full replacements of life support and such, just need a few air quality monitors to tell when an emergency is happening. 1. Too much theory. I want real data and real world facts. Is mission control always staffed? Yes. spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/faq/mcc.htmlJust like 'general quarters" on a Navy ship, during emergencies/ important situations, all hands (50-60 people) get on deck as it were. Around 15-20 are always on duty in mission control as I said. 2. More facts and more data, just theory. 3. More data. 4. Please more facts and data.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:03:10 GMT
Enderminion Show me a real person who is an expert in rocket engines, nuclear reactors, and space radiators. Better yet, look at submarines. Show me that the same people who fix the reactors also fix the engines and I'll agree with you. I never said the same person who monitors the reactor fixes the radiator 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 I said a radiator tech can work on all radiator, a nuclear reactor tech knows how a nuclear reactor operates and how to make it work, and a thermal rocket engineer can work on all Thermal rockets
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:03:30 GMT
EnderminionShow me a real person who is an expert in rocket engines, nuclear reactors, and space radiators. Better yet, look at submarines. Show me that the same people who fix the reactors also fix the engines and I'll agree with you. I would point out that level of expertise doesn't matter... Werner von Braun didn't fly in his rockets, and even if he did, what could he possibly do to fix them? There are plenty of aircraft maintenance procedures which only require the ability to read and follow procedures in a book. People are discouraged from any redneck or rogue engineering. Having a rocket engine expert (IE JPL bubba) on board (the shuttle) may not benefit anyone, since the full facilities required to do any real repair work wouldn't be available. That same thought can be applied to many different levels on a ship. I guess you'd have to look at the repair work that could realistically be accomplished in space (away from 'port')... It's not much Some facts: The current ISS crew backgrounds: science, biochemistry, civil engineering (woot!), 2 pilots, and an aerospace engineer. No space janitors or toilet operators... (Understandably they don't need sensor/weapons/reactor/navigation technicians) Those 6 folks are responsible for maintenance/upkeep of the whole station, and executing scientific projects.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:04:40 GMT
And speaking of that, modern jets used to have onboard navigators until a generation ago. A radio intercepts officer is not a navigator, or weapons officers for that matter Astrogation and navigation is roughly equivalent. Not sure your point though. Sorry
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:05:53 GMT
Do you think mission control is that packed for a single mission every day? That's most likely for launch (or something very important like a shuttle launch that they can afford to have that many people on), and the danger of launch can't be compared to just falling along on a determined orbital path. Nobody has ever died in space, it's all during launch and reentry. Our ships are more than big enough to stock full replacements of life support and such, just need a few air quality monitors to tell when an emergency is happening. 1. Too much theory. I want real data and real world facts. Is mission control always staffed? Yes. spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/faq/mcc.htmlJust like 'general quarters" on a Navy ship, during emergencies/ important situations, all hands (50-60 people) get on deck as it were. Around 15-20 are always on duty in mission control as I said. 2. More facts and more data, just theory. 3. More data. 4. Please more facts and data. just like general quarters, the CIC is on skeleton watch until battle is joined or when something goes wrong (but not too wrong)
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:07:35 GMT
A radio intercepts officer is not a navigator, or weapons officers for that matter Astrogation and navigation is roughly equivalent. Not sure your point though. Sorry You called a weapons officer or RIO a navigator, you know the guy who fires NUCLEAR MISSILES!!!
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:08:01 GMT
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) Too much theory, need more facts. 1. Show me what exact job you want to cut. 2. Show me a real world tech in 2017 that would allow you do it and it being used in something equivalent to our COADE ships, like a navy ship or spaceship or even airplane.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:08:40 GMT
Astrogation and navigation is roughly equivalent. Not sure your point though. Sorry You called a weapons officer or RIO a navigator, you know the guy who fires NUCLEAR MISSILES!!! Quote me I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:11:15 GMT
I can't remember who said it but I believe deltav that you don't need the smart people on a ship, you need people who can read the effing manual, smart people within a few light seconds if anything goes really wrong can maintain a fleet
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 20:12:14 GMT
I can't remember who said it but I believe deltav that you don't need the smart people on a ship, you need people who can read the effing manual, smart people within a few light seconds if anything goes really wrong can maintain a fleet You don't need smart people, you need trained people.
|
|