|
Post by bdcarrillo on Mar 3, 2017 21:07:03 GMT
Yes, they work with us every day. Great, do me a favor. I mean this sincerely. Ask them if the average person with no training and a manual could fix some problem they often encounter in the course of their jobs perhaps ever, let alone in a timely manner, and tell me what they say. Then ask them if they think a person who is a licenced carpenter, electrician and HVAC is common and if such a person is realistic. Have them explain their answer to you. Then come back and tell me what they say. I don't even have to ask to know that they would say it's impossible with just a system manual and zero training, and that a triple certified person likely is out of touch with one or more of their fields. However, that reveals the civil mindset that you're applying. In the military aircraft maintenance community, a step by step guide (TO) is followed rigorously for every activity. That includes troubleshooting, repair, diagnostics, etc. The folks who perform that work have a few months training and then hop on the job. It happens every day, a few buildings over from where I sit. They can do that because every B1 is the same. Here in my squadron, we're civil engineers and every building is different
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 21:09:02 GMT
Look this is way too much theory for me. We don't have to guess that a bunch of untrained people mucking around with million dollars of equipment in order to save on a handful of techs makes zero sense. This conversation is not what I was hoping for. In the real world, you get the best people you can, and you train them the best you can. You don't throw untrained people in situations they can't handle because they will almost always fail. I want fact based data based arguments, using real world data and tech and specific proposals of how our crew can be reduced, not wild eyed pipedreams, about untrained people learning to fix nuclear reactors from reading manuals. I don't think one of us said untrained people working on the spacecraft. but reduce the size of trained people by training them to multitask. The way the game models crew is about one person per gun and radiator. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
|
|
|
Post by beta on Mar 3, 2017 21:11:10 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? Well, I am not referring to the mechanical components of an aircraft compared to a spacecraft. Comparing general structure (fuselage) is somewhat comparable, more than a naval ship (being my main point). Yeah, a turbojet or turbofan is much different to a rocket engine or nuclear reactor. The principle of how you would use people to operate an aircraft versus a spacecraft is where I am drawing parallels. A naval vessel has large amounts of available mass and volume, even a submarine dwarfs an aircraft's capacities. This is also where I am drawing the parallel to aircraft and spacecraft. In space, the craft which can have more payload mass to destroy other spacecraft, or for it's specific mission payload, is better. To optimize these designs, a family of spacecraft will likely be developed to allow for the best performance out of your combat craft. You don't strap 1000L of diesel, an extra 300 rounds of cannon ammo, and 30 days of food and water to a tank and send it off to fight enemy tanks - you use logistics to supply the tank when it needs it. I am proposing that this concept of logistics can be extended further than it already is in game. Consider the crew's long term health, food and water storage as well as their craft's reaction mass. Why carry 6 months of food and water if you can carry 2 weeks worth and resupply every 2 weeks from a ship with your group? Why carry 6 months worth of widgets to repair the thingamabob when you can carry 2 weeks worth and resupply every 2 weeks? Reducing the mass and volume required by routine maintenance (crew and ship) results in a more capable spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:11:28 GMT
You also don't need to be a computer engineer to piece together a computer. The actual engineers already made it so it's like damn legos. If the engineers and designers behind planning these ships were worried about crew sizes, they would go out of their way to simplify everything. Instead of having a shit tonne of technicians, have one guy that's just know as the technician. Make everything the other group were responsible for as simple and relatable as possible so one guy could do it, or teach others to help him with manuals. Really the argument isn't let's conscript a bunch of homeless people to operate and maintain our warships but rather do we need 30 carpenters, electricians, and HVAC for every nut and bolt on the ship when we could have a handful that would be responsible for everything? We don't have anything like that. We have at most 1 or 2 people on duty at any one time per system. I was hoping for more analysis not just speculation. People have to sleep, and they need time off. People who are jacks of all trades, are masters of none. And we must assume every job on COADE ships that can be done by computers or automation, already has been. So for jobs that are 24 hours, you need a minimum of 3 people per system. And no they cannot be replaced with robots/computers.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:12:31 GMT
I don't even have to ask to know that they would say it's impossible with just a system manual and zero training, and that a triple certified person likely is out of touch with one or more of their fields. However, that reveals the civil mindset that you're applying. In the military aircraft maintenance community, a step by step guide (TO) is followed rigorously for every activity. That includes troubleshooting, repair, diagnostics, etc. The folks who perform that work have a few months training and then hop on the job. It happens every day, a few buildings over from where I sit. They can do that because every B1 is the same. Here in my squadron, we're civil engineers and every building is different Okay. Could a person with no background in civil engineering do your job using a manual?
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Mar 3, 2017 21:13:00 GMT
Look this is way too much theory for me. We don't have to guess that a bunch of untrained people mucking around with million dollars of equipment in order to save on a handful of techs makes zero sense. This conversation is not what I was hoping for. In the real world, you get the best people you can, and you train them the best you can. You don't throw untrained people in situations they can't handle because they will almost always fail. I want fact based data based arguments, using real world data and tech and specific proposals of how our crew can be reduced, not wild eyed pipedreams, about untrained people learning to fix nuclear reactors from reading manuals. You are reading what you want to read from our posts, not what we are actually saying. Nobody said people don't need training. We are saying most of the stuff is not that hard to train people to do, so you don't need a bunch of redundant guys sitting around wasting food and oxygen on your ship.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 21:14:26 GMT
You also don't need to be a computer engineer to piece together a computer. The actual engineers already made it so it's like damn legos. If the engineers and designers behind planning these ships were worried about crew sizes, they would go out of their way to simplify everything. Instead of having a shit tonne of technicians, have one guy that's just know as the technician. Make everything the other group were responsible for as simple and relatable as possible so one guy could do it, or teach others to help him with manuals.Really the argument isn't let's conscript a bunch of homeless people to operate and maintain our warships but rather do we need 30 carpenters, electricians, and HVAC for every nut and bolt on the ship when we could have a handful that would be responsible for everything? We don't have anything like that. We have at most 1 or 2 people on duty at any one time per system. I was hoping for more analysis not just speculation. People have to sleep, and they need time off. People who are jacks of all trades, are masters of none. And we must assume every job on COADE ships that can be done by computers or automation, already has been. So for jobs that are 24 hours, you need a minimum of 3 people per system. And no they cannot be replaced with robots/computers. I really don't think you need to have trained people on duty all the time. It's like having a plumber in your house the whole time watching your toilet to make sure it doesn't clog. You have one guy or computer perhaps? that watches for errors so you can wake up the guy who knows how to fix. Also CDE is in a time where reliability is at an all time high, if something's going to go it will probably be from extended use and fatigue not an unpredicted failure.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:15:46 GMT
Look this is way too much theory for me. We don't have to guess that a bunch of untrained people mucking around with million dollars of equipment in order to save on a handful of techs makes zero sense. This conversation is not what I was hoping for. In the real world, you get the best people you can, and you train them the best you can. You don't throw untrained people in situations they can't handle because they will almost always fail. I want fact based data based arguments, using real world data and tech and specific proposals of how our crew can be reduced, not wild eyed pipedreams, about untrained people learning to fix nuclear reactors from reading manuals. I don't think one of us said untrained people working on the spacecraft. but reduce the size of trained people by training them to multitask. The way the game models crew is about one person per gun and radiator. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This is why we need more focus on data and less on speculation. COADE does not require 1 person per radiator. It requires 1 person per shift (3 total) up to infinite radiators. About the guns, that has to be determined. But I want a data and analysis based discussion. Otherwise we can't reach any meaningful ideas except, (meh too many people!). We need concrete ideas based on facts and data. If we have them, we can get COADE changed.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:17:25 GMT
You are reading what you want to read from our posts, not what we are actually saying. Nobody said people don't need training. We are saying most of the stuff is not that hard to train people to do, so you don't need a bunch of redundant guys sitting around wasting food and oxygen on your ship. Where is your proof that there are tons of redundant guys. Assuming people need 8 hours sleep, and 8 hours to relax to be productive. Assuming every job that can be done by computers/robots/automation in COADE is already done. Where is the redundancy?
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 21:17:36 GMT
I don't think one of us said untrained people working on the spacecraft. but reduce the size of trained people by training them to multitask. The way the game models crew is about one person per gun and radiator. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This is why we need more focus on data and less on speculation. COADE does not require 1 person per radiator. It requires 1 person per shift (3 total) up to infinite radiators. About the guns, that has to be determined. But I want a data and analysis based discussion. Otherwise we can't reach any meaningful ideas except, (meh too many people!). We need concrete ideas based on facts and data. If we have them, we can get COADE changed. COADE is speculation. We don't know what war is going to look like in 2500 because it's still 2017.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:22:12 GMT
We don't have anything like that. We have at most 1 or 2 people on duty at any one time per system. I was hoping for more analysis not just speculation. People have to sleep, and they need time off. People who are jacks of all trades, are masters of none. And we must assume every job on COADE ships that can be done by computers or automation, already has been. So for jobs that are 24 hours, you need a minimum of 3 people per system. And no they cannot be replaced with robots/computers. I really don't think you need to have trained people on duty all the time. It's like having a plumber in your house the whole time watching your toilet to make sure it doesn't clog. You have one guy or computer perhaps? that watches for errors so you can wake up the guy who knows how to fix. Also CDE is in a time where reliability is at an all time high, if something's going to go it will probably be from extended use and fatigue not an unpredicted failure. Assuming people need 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of relaxation to be productive. Assuming everything that can be automated already has been. If your toilet breaking meant that everyone in your entire neighborhood would die... would you not be paying that plumber to watch your toilet 24/7? Also we have to compare to real world examples like Navy ships or something similar. In Navy ships and Spacecraft, trained techs are monitoring all systems 24/7. We don't even have that in COADE. Many systems are only watched 8 out of 24 hours.
|
|
|
Post by vegetal on Mar 3, 2017 21:22:16 GMT
You want data on a field that does not exist. The best we can do is make parallels, and that's what we are making here.
Technology for autonomous nuclear reactors exists, the Soviet union flew some satellites with them (see the TOPAZ reactors), and that was 30 years ago.
The game also assumes some things: we have thousands of micro sats scanning space, and we have perfect molecular-level manufacturing. So we KNOW where stuff is, and the stuff we make is ultra reliable.
So yeah, plenty of reason to believe we don't need a hundred guys watching over our systems.
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:25:28 GMT
This is why we need more focus on data and less on speculation. COADE does not require 1 person per radiator. It requires 1 person per shift (3 total) up to infinite radiators. About the guns, that has to be determined. But I want a data and analysis based discussion. Otherwise we can't reach any meaningful ideas except, (meh too many people!). We need concrete ideas based on facts and data. If we have them, we can get COADE changed. COADE is speculation. We don't know what war is going to look like in 2500 because it's still 2017. COADE is not speculation. Star Trek is speculation. Star Wars is speculation. COADE is using all the current knowledge of humanity applied to space warfare with strict adherence to that discipline. Otherwise there is no point at all. Let's go play Eve Online or Elite:Dangerous. They already have multiplayer too.
|
|
|
Post by David367th on Mar 3, 2017 21:27:12 GMT
I really don't think you need to have trained people on duty all the time. It's like having a plumber in your house the whole time watching your toilet to make sure it doesn't clog. You have one guy or computer perhaps? that watches for errors so you can wake up the guy who knows how to fix. Also CDE is in a time where reliability is at an all time high, if something's going to go it will probably be from extended use and fatigue not an unpredicted failure. Assuming people need 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours of relaxation to be productive. Assuming everything that can be automated already has been. If your toilet breaking meant that everyone in your entire neighborhood would die... would you not be paying that plumber to watch your toilet 24/7? Also we have to compare to real world examples like Navy ships or something similar. In Navy ships and Spacecraft, trained techs are monitoring all systems 24/7. We don't even have that in COADE. Many systems are only watched 8 out of 24 hours. 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 by a third*. 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
|
|
|
Post by deltav on Mar 3, 2017 21:31:08 GMT
You want data on a field that does not exist. The best we can do is make parallels, and that's what we are making here. Technology for autonomous nuclear reactors exists, the Soviet union flew some satellites with them (see the TOPAZ reactors), and that was 30 years ago. The game also assumes some things: we have thousands of micro sats scanning space, and we have perfect molecular-level manufacturing. So we KNOW where stuff is, and the stuff we make is ultra reliable. So yeah, plenty of reason to believe we don't need a hundred guys watching over our systems. The data does exist. Remember, everything in COADE is tech that has a working prototype at a absolute minimum. Second we must do cost benefit analysis on everything. Does the meager savings gained from cutting one person worth the risk of a critical system failing at a critical time. If you want to say that reliability makes maintenance irrelevant, I point back to current powerplants, and naval ships, that despite being ultra reliable, are constantly maintained and monitored. If you want to argue we need less maintenance people, make a specific proposal that assumes only 8 hour of work per person per day, that each system would need a specialist, and that everything that can be automated has been already.
|
|