|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:32:40 GMT
You literally just took the assumption that everything can be automated and threw it out the window. If I have a computer to watch for errors in case the plumber isn't watching the nuclear toilet instead of three plumbers, I save weight in crew size, accommodations, food, wages, and now my ships has better efficiency. If I do this I quite literally cut my service and technical staff in half. If that's 100 people I now have roughly 30. In CDE there is a big difference in a ship that has 100 compared to 30 Yes we have to assume that COADE ships have the latest in computers and tech. So we must assume that everything that can be automated in COADE ships, already has been.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 3, 2017 21:32:51 GMT
My expectation for a crewed ship would be like this:
2-3 captains 2 plumbers 2 electricians 2 metalworkers 2 reactor core techs 2 electronic warfare specialists (if applicable) 1 doctor/psychotherapist 1-3 generalist extras to follow orders of specialists, and as replacements in case somebody is unable to function
That's it.
|
|
|
Post by beta on Mar 3, 2017 21:40:58 GMT
Facts and data, cool.
Why the navigation, sensors, and communications can be handled by a single person during normal operations (ie: not general quarters they are shooting at us, etc.): There is no navigation to be done after a burn has been made until you reach the point for your next burn, if the next burn is days or months away you wait. Sensors, as defined by the developer, are primarily IR telescopes. The analyzing of the data given by them is something done with an algorithm that will then give results to an operator to interpret. Much like navigation, during the majority of the flight comms will mainly compose radio checks (whatever the space equivalent of that will end up being) and situation reports - ie: "hey we can still hear you" and "this is what happened today". Nothing so taxing that it requires the undivided attention of a crewmember.
During docking maneuvers, orbital maneuvers, combat, or other "high intensity" periods, more crew will be required, so you do want each of those 3 stations manned by a single crew. However, for the "quiet periods", any of the crew members could be trained to monitor sensors, monitors comms and provide simple reports and returns, and monitor the orbit line saying how many days/hours till the next burn.
Maintenance can also be monitored by the crewmember on watch. Much like a car has lights to say "coolant low", "check engine", etc., similar automated safety features could be designed into spacecraft systems.
Take radiators. Monitor the coolant pressure with a sensor, if it drops below a certain value, sound a warning, if raises above a certain value, sound a warning. Monitor the turbopump RPM, if below or above a value, sound a warning. These are not cutting edge technologies that require deep AI to run.
For actual in flight maintenance, most posters here are not thinking military enough. Do military aircraft require the pilot to service the engine's fuel pumps during a flight? Does an aircraft carrier require the reactor control rods to be replaced during a 3 month deployment?
The spacecraft will surely be designed such that you do not have to conduct deep maintenance during flight as it will not only be dangerous, but the required replacement parts or facilities to re mediate or manufacture new parts will not be readily available on a warship. Again, radiators. Turbopump gave a warning? Turn it off, take it out, put new one in, test, turn back on. If the design is simple enough, maybe try and find out what is wrong with the old one, but more likely, exchange it for new spare part when you arrive at a logistics point. You do not require a degree in mechanical engineering to replace parts. An argument can be made for having a representative on the ship that has in depth theoretical knowledge of ship systems, but the difference between operator maintenance and maintainer maintenance will still exist.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 21:44:31 GMT
You literally just took the assumption that everything can be automated and threw it out the window. If I have a computer to watch for errors in case the plumber isn't watching the nuclear toilet instead of three plumbers, I save weight in crew size, accommodations, food, wages, and now my ships has better efficiency. If I do this I quite literally cut my service and technical staff in half. If that's 100 people I now have roughly 30. In CDE there is a big difference in a ship that has 100 compared to 30 Yes we have to assume that COADE ships have the latest in computers and tech. So we must assume that everything that can be automated in COADE ships, already has been. If we're going to assume that something in CDE is done and can't be improved, then why do we argue adding anything to the game at all? The crew sizes are unrealistically high and we have good reasoning on where and why they could be fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 21:45:04 GMT
My expectation for a crewed ship would be like this: 2-3 captains 2 plumbers 2 electricians 2 metalworkers 2 reactor core techs 2 electronic warfare specialists (if applicable) 1 doctor/psychotherapist 1-3 generalist extras to follow orders of specialists, and as replacements in case somebody is unable to function That's it. A ship has one captain, no more no less.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 21:45:50 GMT
I was gone for 45 minutes and there were like 3 more pages when I got back
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 21:46:18 GMT
I was gone for 45 minutes and there were like 3 more pages when I got back deltav does know how to put up a fight.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Mar 3, 2017 21:47:13 GMT
yes throwing out the automating argument without looking at it...
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:49:21 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 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. Maybe so maybe not. We'd need research or facts on that. I hear your points. We would have to see the history of servicing while "underway" and what is possible. Like the direction. But more sources or historical examples, less pure speculations...
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:50:11 GMT
My expectation for a crewed ship would be like this: 2-3 captains 2 plumbers 2 electricians 2 metalworkers 2 reactor core techs 2 electronic warfare specialists (if applicable) 1 doctor/psychotherapist 1-3 generalist extras to follow orders of specialists, and as replacements in case somebody is unable to function That's it. Is this tongue in cheek?
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 21:51:13 GMT
deltav you do know you can quote multiple posts at a time with the cog on their posts right.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 22:01:05 GMT
yes throwing out the automating argument without looking at it... Not throwing it out. Logic. This is all about logic. We know it is possible to run ships without any crew onboard. The reason given in COADE that crews on spacecraft were 1. lightspeed lag and 2. need for repair. Logically... 1. That lightspeed lag is an issue, means that clearly that drone ships would not be self-directed, but would need commands like a cruise missile or drone. If computers were able to follow commands automotomously without need for direct human control, then light speed lag is not an issue. Therefore we must conclude that everything that can be automated regarding command/operations already has been. 2. That repair crew are needed, presupposes that robots/ computers cannot do the same job. Therefore we must make the assumption that everything in COADE that can be automated already has.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Mar 3, 2017 22:07:06 GMT
We'd need research or facts on that. Here's some: "An 18 m long narco-submarine can reach speeds of 18 km/h and carry up to 10 tons of cocaine. They are typically made of fiberglass, powered by a 225-260 kW diesel engine and manned by a crew of four." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narco-submarine
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 22:15:41 GMT
If we're going to assume that something in CDE is done and can't be improved, then why do we argue adding anything to the game at all? The crew sizes are unrealistically high and we have good reasoning on where and why they could be fixed. We do have a list of jobs and how many hold that job. We do not have data on the way our crew does their jobs. We do know in space, the more minimal the crew, the better. We do know that in COADE money is no object, so we can logically conclude that COADE ships would use the most advanced automation, computers, and logistics tech to reduce the crew down to minimal levels. Therefore since we know automation/robots must be heavily used, and that all the resources to maximize the usage of these machines is available to COADE spacemen. For all these reasons, we must conclude that COADE ships have already been automated as much as they can be automated. However it can help us to analyze the crew compliment and their jobs and then see to what degree their jobs are redundant, or double crewed. And to compare them to real world examples. It will help us to understand COADE so much better and to improve it if possible.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 22:23:11 GMT
RE manual and my job: No, you can't become a civil engineer from a manual. BUT, I'm treating spacecraft maintenance as similar to aircraft or sub maintenance, where every detail is known and documented (unlike buildings). There are strict TOs to follow. Sure, that could be compared to depot(space base) level work, but some can be accomplished en route. Take a look at machinist mate responsibilities after just 9 weeks of training: www.navycs.com/navy-jobs/machinists-mate.htmlInteresting read on sub crew positions (matches up to our coade positions pretty well): navyformoms.ning.com/group/submoms/page/meet-the-crew-of-a-submarineNote that I'm only addressing maintenance folks, and making a point that checklist and procedure driven routine maintenance can be done with minimal training.
|
|