|
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 bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:29:06 GMT
Nooooo you use the manual to train. You do know Jets and the Space Shuttle do have owners manuals too right? I mean they're called flight manual and operations manual respectively but they're still somewhat owners manualsYou 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.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 20:27:22 GMT
It's hard to cite modern facts on space travel. We hardly do anything except bus people to the ISS and fling probes about.
|
|
|
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 bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 13:35:36 GMT
We can draw a few parallels...
UV degradation (for composites/plastics) Metal fatigue (flexing from aggressive maneuvers)
We don't have water in space, so the associated external rust/corrosion are out. We're also not landing our ships, so that particular shock loading won't apply.
With perfect manufacturing, I'd think that mean time between failure for just about any system will be drastically longer.
I'd suggest that damage control, focused on expedient repairs, would constitute the majority of "maintenance" personnel. Sure, some systems will have periodic maintenance and upkeep (filtration, water purification, etc).
In support of that, what is a radiator technician supposed to do on an 8 hour shift? Reactor technician? Weapon system technician? How many spares is each ship carrying for turrets?
How many non-combat personnel would be repurposed during an incident?
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 11:46:24 GMT
COADE uses current tech that as minimum has been made into a prototype. No current robots can maintain equipment even close to a human. They can assist but that's it. That would require AI, or something very close. Let me re-phrase, Semi-Autonomous vehicles, and ROVs NASA is already using a prototype pseudo ROV on the ISS. 1943 tech in the B-29 "computer-controlled fire-control system that directed four machine gun turrets that could be operated by a single gunner and a fire-control officer." sets a precedence for a minimum of two weapons per crew, 6 decades ago. Of course, aircraft don't carry maintenance crews on board. The prior mention that~75% of space crew in coade are support roles is shared across the modern military. That ratio varies per service/situation but definitely stands to reason. Here at my base we have around 5000 folks total to support about 36 aircraft. You could put that at around 138 people per aircraft, 4 of which are aircrew. So 97% "support" staff. The hard part to estimate is the actual maintenance requirement. How do systems degrade in space?
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 2, 2017 16:35:17 GMT
Do lasers that are manually disabled auto-close their aperture lids? I was thinking that a conjoined system that used a series of laser outlets to plink the mirrors on enemy ships before opening up with the main guns would work. But before i risk my 1GW+ i would need them to be safely shielded. Yes they close up if disabled
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 2, 2017 15:19:01 GMT
I mean, given enough fluorine and hydrogen you can get the fissile going fast enough At some point that would be more expensive than a regular explosion triggered nuke. Just wondering where that point is
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 2, 2017 14:13:58 GMT
I'm thinking throwing fusile hollow slugs or rods (possibly mechanical hammer and anvil with fusile between) that squish into critical mass on the surface or inside the enemy armour and go kabboom. Explosive lens based designs would be a lot more efficient in terms of fusile mass used but this could be rather cheap - sometimes the explosives get expensive. Plus detonating directly on or slightly below the surface of the armour would be incredibly powerful. Just a fun crazy idea that is probably beyond coade but what do you think? Well if you miss with these, you have zero effect, whereas a normal explosive driven nuke that misses would at least cause flash damage. I'm not familiar at all with the math, but it would probably be a good idea to look at the KE required to initiate a normal nuke, and see how much mass you'd have to send downrange and at what speed. Just that napkin math may invalidate the idea as impractical
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 1, 2017 3:36:38 GMT
Where the hell are the shield lids i have been looking for them but i cannot seem to find them I didn't see them either...
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 28, 2017 22:13:22 GMT
Excellent counter points! I focused on the simple encounters we see in game and didn't consider the vast portions of the overall situation that aren't shown.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 28, 2017 21:29:05 GMT
I don't see the need (at all) for a dedicated astronavigator or communications person.
We're not travelling by map and compass anymore. Even our home computers can calculate n body orbital maneuvers.
We also don't need a person to flip switches on a radio.
A pair of bridge officers to cover 24 hrs should be able to handle the infrequent navigation changes and queue of messages tagged for them by the computer. They won't have instant communication with anyone while "out on patrol" so to speak
Look at modern military vehicles and the blue force tracker. Grow that technology ~50 years.
Sensors and weapons do have a need for humans to sort through any immediate issues the computer may bring to them.
I struggle to think of why radiator and reactor techs can't be one and the same. Heck, why don't robots handle dangerous work?
Even missile launcher techs sound odd... In the heat of combat they are not likely to EVA or suit up to leave the crew compartment to work on anything. Simply too dangerous. They're definitely not hand loading any munitions either.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 28, 2017 19:53:22 GMT
We can change the game and change this forum. We've seen that. But our suggestions have to be based on serious analysis at least as thorough as what Qswitched did. Oof... That's three fields that need to be combined. Near future computing, robotics, and space naval doctrine. IE: I'd guess that robotics would supplement maintenance, with computer analysis/diagnostics, and human oversight. If you could reasonably estimate all of those factors, you could figure out crew requirements. Pretty tall order filled with speculation. I think we ought to look at positions that can easily be removed. Comms and astronavigation seem excessive when computers can handle the routing of messages and plotting of orbital maneuvers, especially within the micro drone environment and well known solar system bodies.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 28, 2017 19:23:10 GMT
Maybe... but I trust that Qswitched studied the problem and I agree with him. Since a mistake in Coms, Navigation, or Sensors can cause the loss of the entire ship with very little warning, it makes sense that they are double crewed if the ship is large enough to accommodate it. Whether the ship is military or not, Coms, Navigation and Sensors are no less important. And having two crew on duty is not redundant, it would be needed to handle the amount of work required and to double check each other's work. They also would have to know how to detect and repair malfunctions and would be responsible for that. I'm sure both would be busy their entire shift. I think it would be silly to skimp on such an essential position to save on the weight of 3 people. The other positions run equipment that can be shut down in an emergency, but sensors, navigation and coms can't be shut down or the ship is helpless and might crash into a planet or worse. So I agree with the way it is now. I'd counter your premise that those positions would be highly swamped or overly busy on a constant basis. Space is big, the time scale to transit anywhere is massive. The weight of those three people has to include a berth, food, air, and water (or adequate reclamation hardware) for the duration of the trip. So at some point, it may make sense to have them, or it may not be worth the weight. That's where it comes down to "how much can a computer do and how many people can handle that task?" Unfortunately we can't accurately pin that down.
|
|
|
Post by bdcarrillo on Feb 28, 2017 17:51:22 GMT
Ehh... I think there's still room to argue for and against those additional officers. I definitely don't think they should pop in arbitrarily above 8kt
I'd venture to say that it comes down to computer control and safety margins. Ie, a merchant may require far fewer whereas a passenger or war ship might prefer to have redundant personnel.
|
|