|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:33:59 GMT
Memorization is prohibited. You clearly haven't taken any secondary education. Memorization is all we're allowed. I was speaking specifically about execution of the steps in Technical Orders. I do hope that wasn't a personal barb... I read it as satire about the education system
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:35:03 GMT
Memorization is prohibited. You clearly haven't taken any secondary education. Memorization is all we're allowed. if you mis-remember something instead of flunking a test, a 1.33Mt nuclear bomb explodes, follow the book by the effing letter
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:36:51 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. Gosh... I hear you but I don't agree with any of it. Almost none of it 1. Aircraft don't carry around 10GW nuclear reactors nor other huge equipment. Aircraft are never in continuous operation for more than a day or so. Aircraft don't have to carry all the food and water for six months. Aircraft are close enough to base to get instant real time communication. Aircraft pilots can eject at any time, and will almost certainly survive. Aircraft constantly have the assistance of huge networks of machines and people that are not carried on the airplane. I could go on, but very few of the assumptions we make about aircraft apply to spaceships. So provided our spaceships never land on planets, there is almost no equivalency to airplanes at all. If you disagree, please show me how spaceships have any parity with airplanes?
|
|
|
Post by teeth on Mar 3, 2017 20:36:53 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. The space shuttle and our warships are completely different beasts. The shuttle was only launched rarely compared to unmanned launches or COADE where space travel is a commodity, of course they're going to have a lot more people watching such an important launch. NASA doesn't have to operate an entire fleet of manned vessels and cut on crew as much as possible to save on crew wages, their only enemy are accidents and those don't optimize themselves by cutting crew. The meta of COADE is all about cost vs cost, optimizing every little part for weight and cost to have as many ships and weapons active at once as possible. Crew are just another part of the optimization.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 20:37:31 GMT
You clearly haven't taken any secondary education. Memorization is all we're allowed. I was speaking specifically about execution of the steps in Technical Orders. I do hope that wasn't a personal barb... I read it as satire about the education system You clearly haven't taken any secondary education. Memorization is all we're allowed. if you mis-remember something instead of flunking a test, a 1.33Mt nuclear bomb explodes, follow the book by the effing letter I meant that the education system is messed up that we all have to constantly memorize things even though down the line we'll just follow instructions. Please don't hurt me.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:38:36 GMT
ok you got me there deltav but the 1950s were two generations ago, a WSO does not fly a plane and bombers have more then 2 crew anyway I don't get your point. My point was that even in jets, there used to be a person who had a job to navigate. Let's move on.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:41:59 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. Gosh... I hear you but I don't agree with any of it. Almost none of it 1. Aircraft don't carry around 10GW nuclear reactors nor other huge equipment. Aircraft are never in continuous operation for more than a day or so. Aircraft don't have to carry all the food and water for six months. Aircraft are close enough to base to get instant real time communication. Aircraft pilots can eject at any time, and will almost certainly survive. Aircraft constantly have the assistance of huge networks of machines and people that are not carried on the airplane. I could go on, but very few of the assumptions we make about aircraft apply to spaceships. So provided our spaceships never land on planets, there is almost no equivalency to airplanes at all. If you disagree, please show me how spaceships have any parity with airplanes? Nope very few of the assumptions we make with aircraft work with spaceships, but a computer can handle a nuclear reactor, food can be non-perishable, water can be kept clean, spaceships are going to be within a few light minutes of a friendly installation so near real time is possible, about ejection you're right but if you don't wanna die why you in the navy? naval dockyards, spare parts don't go stale either.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:43:01 GMT
I meant that the education system is messed up that we all have to constantly memorize things even though down the line we'll just follow instructions. Please don't hurt me. [/font][/quote] That's how I read it, not as an insult
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:43:13 GMT
You think someone can become a nuclear reactor tech just from reading a book? I thought we were talking about scif not fantasy. That's how airplanes and engines are repaired, how bombs are built and loaded. By the book. Step by step. Memorization is prohibited. Without years of training, the manual is useless. It's not written for laypeople. So my point is, that the nuclear tech will have no idea about radiators, etc. And in each position you have to know a ton. SO it's not realistic for one person to be an expert in 3 or 4 different kinds of systems from nuclear reactors to rocket engines except the Chief. And that's why there is only one per ship.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 20:44:15 GMT
I meant that the education system is messed up that we all have to constantly memorize things even though down the line we'll just follow instructions. Please don't hurt me. That's how I read it, not as an insult Then it's just me panicking lol That's how airplanes and engines are repaired, how bombs are built and loaded. By the book. Step by step. Memorization is prohibited. Without years of training, the manual is useless. It's not written for laypeople. So my point is, that the nuclear tech will have no idea about radiators, etc. And in each position you have to know a ton. SO it's not realistic for one person to be an expert in 3 or 4 different kinds of systems from nuclear reactors to rocket engines.. Right but still with the manual you're trained with the manual. I'd imagine you'd want technicians to know about everything on the ship for redundancy, but if trained experts became scarce like they did for the japanese during WW2 then it might be more of an issue.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:46:53 GMT
Let's talk specifics.
What jobs would you cut, and what realistic ways could they be cut. Remember no AI. So no, you cannot replace a nuclear tech with a robot/ computer.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:47:22 GMT
That's how airplanes and engines are repaired, how bombs are built and loaded. By the book. Step by step. Memorization is prohibited. Without years of training, the manual is useless. It's not written for laypeople. So my point is, that the nuclear tech will have no idea about radiators, etc. And in each position you have to know a ton. SO it's not realistic for one person to be an expert in 3 or 4 different kinds of systems from nuclear reactors to rocket engines except the Chief. And that's why there is only one per ship. step one: learn to use tools step two: read book step three: fix problem
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 20:48:01 GMT
That's how I read it, not as an insult Then it's just me panicking lol Without years of training, the manual is useless. It's not written for laypeople. So my point is, that the nuclear tech will have no idea about radiators, etc. And in each position you have to know a ton. SO it's not realistic for one person to be an expert in 3 or 4 different kinds of systems from nuclear reactors to rocket engines.. Right but still with the manual you're trained with the manual. I'd imagine you'd want technicians to know about everything on the ship for redundancy, but if trained experts became scarce like they did for the japanese during WW2 then it might be more of an issue. Have you ever had a service job. Like a skilled trade? Or maybe you built models when you were a kid? Something like that?
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 20:48:23 GMT
Let's talk specifics. What jobs would you cut, and what realistic ways could they be cut. Remember no AI. So no, you cannot replace a nuclear tech with a robot/ computer. whats AI? AI could mean replacing button pushers with computers or keeping a nuclear reactor stable or full on skynet (terminator).
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:48:44 GMT
That's how airplanes and engines are repaired, how bombs are built and loaded. By the book. Step by step. Memorization is prohibited. Without years of training, the manual is useless. It's not written for laypeople. So my point is, that the nuclear tech will have no idea about radiators, etc. And in each position you have to know a ton. SO it's not realistic for one person to be an expert in 3 or 4 different kinds of systems from nuclear reactors to rocket engines except the Chief. And that's why there is only one per ship. Correct, multi skill expert is unreasonable. BUT, the ability to repair multiple systems isn't, by following the book. USAF jet engine mechanics only get a few months of training. The manual they use isn't for reference (when they get stuck), it lists how to do a task step by individual step. They must be strictly followed without deviation. If you apply that to a few similar space systems, one person could follow similar technical orders for routine maintenance. FWIW I am in a highly skilled trade that the Army split into 5 different jobs. We, however, don't use TOs.
|
|