tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post9075176530330252629..comments2024-03-28T00:36:19.403-07:00Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Space Warfare XI: La Zona FronterizaRickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comBlogger234125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-27871606566800772332010-08-28T07:23:48.774-07:002010-08-28T07:23:48.774-07:00Oh and something else. This a good time to bring u...Oh and something else. This a good time to bring up compartementalization in spacewarships, as it can save a lot of stuff (including people) if anything happens...<br /><br />Ships would start looking like the setting of HyperCube or something.<br /><br />Hypercube: <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cube_film_seriesTurbo10khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052157965564640932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-66850850213474623502010-08-26T09:49:40.456-07:002010-08-26T09:49:40.456-07:00Life support aboard nuclear submarines would be re...Life support aboard nuclear submarines would be relevant, with the proviso that in an emergency subs are normally just a few minutes from Earth surface environment. Spaceships have to make do with what they've got till they get where they're going.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-19537061287731744782010-08-24T17:49:27.557-07:002010-08-24T17:49:27.557-07:00Fire suppression all really depends on the individ...Fire suppression all really depends on the individual spacecraft. A small lunar shuttle or a modest space station definitely wouldn't use carbon dioxide or halon suppression systems because of the nasty undesired consequences they would both result in. I guess you're then just left with a liquid-foam option, fired from some kind of jet nozzle. But that has the chance of damaging on-board equipment. <br /><br />If you've got a Goliath sized spacecraft like the International Space Station then you could get away with using a regular fire extinguisher.Seannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-23311282014611676832010-08-24T16:32:20.215-07:002010-08-24T16:32:20.215-07:00So now I'm driven to ask - how do you put out ...So now I'm driven to ask - how <i>do</i> you put out a fire in zero gravity? You can't just pour a bucket of water on it. Then again, zero gravity may actually make fires less hazardous because they end up choking themselves. Just turn off the ventilation system for a while.<br /><br />Farming obviously needs farmers, unless your closed life support is based on a (laughably absurd) self-supporting ecosystem with the passengers harvesting it as hunting-gatherers. But I don't think liners will have closed life support systems. Sailing ships didn't. Closed ecosystems are for true habitats, aboard colonies and/or space stations. Those would obviously have technicians - and for that matter, those would also be where ships dock for repairs.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-61055538230096329612010-08-24T15:56:08.390-07:002010-08-24T15:56:08.390-07:00I think life support will require ongoing maintena...I think <i>life support</i> will require ongoing maintenance. But your earlier question about whether that included the cook is to the point. A lot of trouble can start in the galley, like a good grease fire. And there's plumbing that can clog, etc. <br /><br />If you have long term, closed cycle life support, you have some form of farming/gardening going on, with a lot of complex and varied activity cycles that probably need some maintenance.<br /><br />Drive engines and the like are a different matter - there probably isn't much maintainable/repairable by an onboard toolkit. They'll be serviced between missions, with building cage facilities available.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-15461736053813759622010-08-24T15:15:55.934-07:002010-08-24T15:15:55.934-07:00Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying that the most ...Yeah, I agree. I'm just saying that the most defining systems on a ship - life support, engines - are instantaneously critical. On a passenger liner, the less critical systems would probably be little different from the stuff found in a planetside hotel, aside from that zero gravity thing.<br /><br />Of course part of the problem is that Rick said he thinks ships will need constant maintainance, but didn't elaborate what kind of maintainance he envisions...Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-65912766431762094572010-08-24T14:54:17.768-07:002010-08-24T14:54:17.768-07:00If you want an example of human repair work, look ...If you want an example of human repair work, look at Skylab, and the assembly work on ISS. (OK, that's not a repair, but it's close enough.) Humans have gone outside and fixed things that machines either broke or were deemed too expensive to do. An unmanned satellite has to do it all automatically. I'm just suggesting that costs could fall a lot if we were able to remove the extensive quality-checking on things like that. It's far easier to have a human reboot the computer if it glitches than to build two redundant computers and test them to the utmost. The above is in case of non-instantaneously-critical systems, of course.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-86432899412467436572010-08-24T14:47:27.208-07:002010-08-24T14:47:27.208-07:00"Things will change when people have self-dri...<i>"Things will change when people have self-driving cars and robot air transports...We won't have a navigator perhaps, but we will have a commander/pilot that takes trajectorial decisions,"</i><br /><br />Yes, of course, but this can be done by ground control. Passenger liners don't generally expect to run into anything that would require quick thinking. A chartered liner should already know what route it's planning to take before it even lifts off.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57434722976885244092010-08-24T14:21:10.522-07:002010-08-24T14:21:10.522-07:00I agree with Milo in that life-support will be the...I agree with Milo in that life-support will be the last-to-fail equipment in the ship, as human carrying ships are valuable, and during a war, they constitute the only decision making force. Repair efforts and survival will all revolve around this complex but extremely robust and redundant base to work upon or from...Turbo10khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052157965564640932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-54001629198321919342010-08-24T14:18:14.489-07:002010-08-24T14:18:14.489-07:00I think I understand what you are trying to say - ...I think I understand what you are trying to say - that as damage and failures come in degrees, so does the corresponding repair work. An engine fire can be handled and damage minimized nearly automatically in a modern jet, I believe that automation in space craft would lead to most problems being dealt with efficiently. For harder repairs, ie software crashes, damage to areas inaccessible to repair bots (bulkheads, ventilation conduits, other places robots have difficulty accessing) we could have technicians with welding equipment and such. I do however see them staying inside the ship, and commanding a multi-purpose repair bot (Waldo with arms and directional jets) much like surgeons do today; with a screen and joystick...<br /><br />With modular ships however, the best redundancy would probably be just disposing of damaged parts, as to reduce total weight and increase chances and speed of return-to-base. One example is having to deciding to dump the reactor and switch to emergency one, or attempt to repair it. <br /><br />"Technically even a navigator is dispensable for liners expecting uneventful voyages, but passengers are definitely not going to like that idea."<br /><br />Things will change when people have self-driving cars and robot air transports...We won't have a navigator perhaps, but we will have a commander/pilot that takes trajectorial decisions, even if it is more like a modern 747 (or 380) taking a several month trip on autopilot. In other words, you point and it does. You just twiddle thumbs until completion.Turbo10khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052157965564640932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-78461036944170147842010-08-24T14:00:51.958-07:002010-08-24T14:00:51.958-07:00I'll give you that once you have crew on board...I'll give you that once you have crew on board anyway, it's good for one of them to know how to do maintainance, just in case - not because it's something that will come up often, but because losing even one human-carrying ship once in a long while is undesirable risk. This doesn't equate Rick's "substantial maintenance during missions", though. It seems to me that if you have the technology to build all the complex components of life support that can't be allowed to fail, you should also have the technology to build the simpler components to be robust enough to not need constant babysitting.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-57336662110735824902010-08-24T12:09:37.720-07:002010-08-24T12:09:37.720-07:00Milo:
SMAD was mostly about unmanned satellites. ...Milo:<br />SMAD was mostly about unmanned satellites. Even then, when we speak of life support breaking, I'm thinking of, say, a filter needing to be replaced, not a wholesale meltdown. Think of the ship like a computer. Current systems require that nothing goes wrong. I'm picturing that if it crashes or, say, a setting gets messed up, the humans on board can fix it. That doesn't mean they can deal with the hard drive completely dying. That's a completely different set of issues.<br />Plus, we apparently differ in how we think about spacecraft. You think in airplane terms, while I think in terms of naval vessels. In some ways, the naval model is better. Spacecraft won't crash if the engine breaks (at least not most of the time) and they're usually out for weeks or more. I'm just pointing out that a large part of the reason spacecraft are so expensive is the amount of failure-tolerance built in to deal with stuff a human could do if on-site. Even on your 747, what happens if an engine dies? The crew can try to restart it and if that doesn't work, glide to a crash-landing. Modern spacecraft are doing their best to make sure the engine doesn't fail, and all the other parts, too. I'm probably not making much sense right now, but I may try again later.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-30973008071570224132010-08-24T11:29:28.136-07:002010-08-24T11:29:28.136-07:00"When people stop thinking of spacecraft as d...<i>"When people stop thinking of spacecraft as disposable, which the shuttle sort of is, considering it's servicing requirements, and start thinking of them more like ships or aircraft, we'll start to see more activity in space."</i><br /><br />Does a Boeing 747 have a mechanic and an ample supply of replacement parts onboard? What about an oil tanker?<br /><br />I see them as being serviced, if at all possible, <i>between</i> missions, not during them. If you can at all help it, repairs should be conducted in a properly equipped spaceyard. Spaceships will be designed with multiple redundancy so if some something breaks, they can still make it to a spaceyard for repairs.<br /><br />Putting a technician onboard was easy in the days of sailing ships, when mending your engine could be done with needle and thread. The more complicated the technology, the more advanced infrastructure is necessary to fix it properly, infrastructure that is hard to carry with you.<br /><br /><br /><i>"SMAD spent a lot of time talking about how it was necessary to failure-proof everything. I didn't have to worry as much, because the crew could fix things."</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but I don't want my life support's integrity to be reliant on "oh well, we can fix it when it breaks". I don't want my ability to not get stranded in space be dependant on the engineer's ability to quickly jury-rig a new fusion reactor from pocket lint and duct tape when the old one breaks.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-34355751973554042342010-08-24T08:05:28.877-07:002010-08-24T08:05:28.877-07:00"1. Design a failproof vehicle that will last..."1. Design a failproof vehicle that will last the duration of the flight.<br />2. Design a self repairing vehicle.<br />3. Design a vehicle with life support for a crew of technicians to fix any problems in flight.<br />4. Design a super fast vehicle with repair crews but just store supplies."<br /><br />In other words, make sure your vehicule doesn't need repairs (1, 4) or repair it when in use (2,3).<br /><br />Except that 'self-repairing vehicule' and 'a crew of technicians' is pretty much the same, just different reapir methods. Repairs, just liek any other operation, can probably be fully automatic, and programmed for most errors.<br /><br />"Well, maybe if you're counting the cooks as part of the life support staff :)"<br /><br />I wonder how you can cook in micro-gee...some much stuff we eat relies on convection and such, all wierd stuff will happen in space.<br /><br />"Robotic craft for bulk cargo will be written off if they have serious malfunctions (as already happens with space launches)."<br /><br />Not really. If the ship malfunctions after launch, it will continue coming towards you, at interplanetary speeds. Today, we just write them off because:<br />a-A repair mission costs ten times or more the cost of that mission<br />b-The rocket will break up, explode in flight (preprogrammed self-destrcution) or fall back down in a few. An interplanetary bulk cargo ship will:<br />a-Drift towards you at initial velocities<br />b-Cause lots of trouble because of a<br /><br />Whatever happens, you will have to deal with that craft, even if it won't strictly be repairs. You might divert it with an intercept mission, but I believe adding repair equipment onto the intercept mission won't cost a lot more and will get you back an operational ship.<br /><br />-will continue later-Turbo10khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052157965564640932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-20598306911016967882010-08-24T06:33:38.733-07:002010-08-24T06:33:38.733-07:00Seems like there are four routes:
1. Design a fail...Seems like there are four routes:<br />1. Design a failproof vehicle that will last the duration of the flight.<br />2. Design a self repairing vehicle.<br />3. Design a vehicle with life support for a crew of technicians to fix any problems in flight.<br />4. Design a super fast vehicle with repair crews but just store supplies.<br /><br />The cyclers I keep suggesting follow model 3. We can get to the moon and back. But the long trip through interplanetary space is harmful to human life. So the trick I use is: Fly to the moon (the cycler) then move the moon to the destination, then fly to the destination. That is also the model for cruise ships. You drive on in Miami, party for a couple weeks, then drive off in San Francisco. Model 4 would be: Rent a car (taxi) to get to the airport. Fly 4 hours. Rent a car at the other airport. One big difference is that in model 3, you get to take YOUR car while in model 4 you have to use A car.Citizen Joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-70432356076737121762010-08-24T05:45:59.683-07:002010-08-24T05:45:59.683-07:00But you should hedge your bets anyway. It's f...But you should hedge your bets anyway. It's far better to have a tech on board and not really need him than to need him and not have him. I would think that anything with very high performance would need a mechanic on board. We don't really do that now, but that's because the ships get serviced after every mission. The ISS doesn't, but they have people to repair it.<br />Part of what will drive space colonization will be a fundamental shift in the psychology of designers of spacecraft. Currently, everything that goes up, with the exception of the shuttles, is going up once, and that's it. It has to work that time, and when it's done, it's useless. When people stop thinking of spacecraft as disposable, which the shuttle sort of is, considering it's servicing requirements, and start thinking of them more like ships or aircraft, we'll start to see more activity in space. That was one of the oddest things about spacecraft design documents when I was doing my project. SMAD spent a lot of time talking about how it was necessary to failure-proof everything. I didn't have to worry as much, because the crew could fix things. When we get there, it will be a huge reduction in costs. Also, they won't have to be designed for each mission.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-46276216506717293682010-08-23T21:44:08.341-07:002010-08-23T21:44:08.341-07:00"Robotic craft for bulk cargo will be written...<i>"Robotic craft for bulk cargo will be written off if they have serious malfunctions (as already happens with space launches)."</i><br /><br />Yes, but a multi-kiloton interplanetary hauler (and its cargo) may be worth more than a present-day satellite, and a spacefaring civilization should already have the infrastructure in place to more easily and cheaply access and repair spacecraft. They might still write some ships off if it's not economical to save them, but it wouldn't be like today where you more or less have to write satellites off no matter how many millions of dollars you're losing, because the capacity to fix them simply doesn't exist.<br /><br /><br /><i>"But I think that life support for human carrying ships will turn out to require substantial maintenance during missions."</i><br /><br />Well, maybe if you're counting the cooks as part of the life support staff :)<br /><br />I don't think that keeping the air pressurized, at the correct temperature, with the correct oxygen ratios, and such would be an issue in a properly-functioning spaceship. Those seem to be within the capabilities of computer control systems.<br /><br />They'll still have a life support engineer anyway, though, for the reason I already outlined. And of course, they'll do thorough checkups between trips.<br /><br />Technically even a <i>navigator</i> is dispensable for liners expecting uneventful voyages, but passengers are definitely not going to like that idea.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-48896373662385215612010-08-23T20:48:42.780-07:002010-08-23T20:48:42.780-07:00Fair points. Slow cargo transports could be much l...Fair points. Slow cargo transports could be much like river tugs, small core spacecraft handling much larger cargo pods.<br /><br />Robotic craft for bulk cargo will be written off if they have serious malfunctions (as already happens with space launches). <br /><br />But I think that life support for human carrying ships will turn out to require substantial maintenance during missions. The drive engine and other systems, not so much; liners might just have a tech or two onboard, as you suggested.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-49492733729076625192010-08-23T20:33:09.056-07:002010-08-23T20:33:09.056-07:00"Long mission spaceships won't really be ...<i>"Long mission spaceships won't really be free of moving parts (and thus wear and tear). Human carrying ships have a complex life support system with constant activity. The drive engine, which may operate for much of the trip, is designed for maximum power density, meaning intense heat loads and other effects."</i><br /><br />I was talking about unmanned cargo ships, and I was specifically discussing how they're costing you little <i>while they're coasting with the engines turned off</i>. So neither of these applies. Regardless of whether they use Hohmann trajectories or steeper ones, I expect unmanned cargo ships to be built with a simple and robust design. At least as much so as the satellites of today, which operate without being serviced for years, doing far more actual work than these cargo transports would for much of their trip.<br /><br />For manned spaceships, of course, you have a strong incentive to make the trip as fast as possible.<br /><br />Need for servicing during missions can happen to anyone in a freak emergency, but it's most likely to be a concern for military ships, which by their nature have a heightened chance of encountering freak emergencies. Such as someone shooting at you.<br /><br />For unmanned ships, you would probably deal with malfunctions either by just writing the ship off as a loss, or by letting it coast until it's close to its destination, at which point you can send out a tugboat to meet it, then push it to somewhere that it's more convenient to try to make repairs (like a space station if you have those).<br /><br />Passenger ships would probably have a technician on board just to make the passengers more comfortable, even though he'll rarely have much work to do.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-46755980269735722972010-08-23T19:20:36.575-07:002010-08-23T19:20:36.575-07:00Wow - Blogger actually split this thread!
Long mi...Wow - Blogger actually split this thread!<br /><br />Long mission spaceships won't really be free of moving parts (and thus wear and tear). Human carrying ships have a complex life support system with constant activity. The drive engine, which may operate for much of the trip, is designed for maximum power density, meaning intense heat loads and other effects.<br /><br />Ship structures may last for generations, but onboard systems will require maintenance and servicing between missions, and in some cases during missions.Rickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16932015378213238346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-3687348702884488042010-08-23T17:00:25.834-07:002010-08-23T17:00:25.834-07:00"Your scenario is more of an interception the...<i>"Your scenario is more of an interception then a pursuit."</i><br /><br />A pursuit is simply an interception where both sides started near the same point.<br /><br /><br /><i>"And while energy makes agriculture easier, I can't simply use it to grow food faster, or to do much to increase the yield."</i><br /><br />You can use energetic irrigation/fertilization infrastructure to make arable land from previously impractical plots, thus increasing yield. You can also reduce the amount of crops that are lost to drought, pests, disease, etc. And you can use automization to increase the amount of crops you can sow and care for with a given amount of work.<br /><br />Granted there's not much you can do to actually make plants grow <i>faster</i>. More sunlight on a plant just causes it to get scorched, not grow faster. However this is throughput vs latency again.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-14969393580185527232010-08-23T16:45:23.372-07:002010-08-23T16:45:23.372-07:00Your scenario is more of an interception then a pu...Your scenario is more of an interception then a pursuit. My concepts were worked out for an (ultimately short-circuited) RPG adventure in which the heroes rescue a spy, and then have to outrun a ship trying to stop them from getting away. Their ship leaves first, but is of lower acceleration, and delta-V is pretty much irrelevant. In that case, my statement stands. On the flip side, it's best for the pursuer to use kinetics as late as possible.<br />And while energy makes agriculture easier, I can't simply use it to grow food faster, or to do much to increase the yield.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-10359380764269790292010-08-23T16:15:30.994-07:002010-08-23T16:15:30.994-07:00Byron:
"It's far easier to turn energy i...Byron:<br /><br /><i>"It's far easier to turn energy into a computer than a burger."</i><br /><br />There are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture#Energy_and_agriculture" rel="nofollow">plenty of ways in which plentiful energy would make agriculture easier</a>: climate control for greenhouses, manufacturing of artificial fertilizers, removing the salt from seawater to make it drinkable, etc. And of course, transporting the food once you're done growing it. Actual cooking also uses a variety of energy-intensive processes.<br /><br />Granted, it's still true that not all products are going to change price at the exact same rate. I wouldn't dare predict <i>which</i> would benefit most from reduced energy costs, but - if you want space trade - you have to justify why energy cost reductions have had a <i>bigger</i> impact on the cost of space travel than on the cost of manufacturing the stuff they're carrying.<br /><br /><br /><i>"when the pursuer is farthest behind"</i><br /><br />Remember that farthest behind depends on both your relative positions and your relative velocities.<br /><br />In fact, I thought of an interesting situation: consider a "pursuee" that is actually currently behind the "pursuer", but is moving so much faster that the "pursuer" can't accelerate enough to catch up with its velocity! The "pursuer" gets one chance to shoot at the "pursuee" as it passes by, but if it fails to score a kill, it loses. This would actually be a quite good time for both sides to use kinetics.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Still, there is the problem of stopping at the end."</i><br /><br />Remember what I said about "ring-outs". If you've pushed the pursuee to the point that it can't stop at its destination, then you've effectively won the chase even though your quarry is still alive.<br /><br />This can be convenient for authors if you find you need a way to have the heroes lose a particular encounter without killing them.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Actually, dumping remass into the exhaust isn't quite like an afterburner, tempting though the comparison may be."</i><br /><br />The mechanism is different, but "increase thrust at the expense of reduced delta-vee" for spacecraft is conceptually pretty similar to "increase thrust at the expense of reduced range" for airplanes. The most important difference is that airplanes with afterburners typically only use them in emergencies, since air friction means brief higher thrust has little effect on your long-term speed. By contrast, spacecraft will often find their "afterburners" help them complete interplanetary cruises faster.Milonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-76961176538493271642010-08-23T15:39:55.372-07:002010-08-23T15:39:55.372-07:00Actually, dumping remass into the exhaust isn'...Actually, dumping remass into the exhaust isn't quite like an afterburner, tempting though the comparison may be. An afterburner adds extra fuel, which, burning at the back, adds thrust, but not as much as it would have if the same amount were used in the normal engine. A mass-enhancement system only adds remass, which doesn't increase system energy. It cuts velocity and adds thrust.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7494544263897150929.post-42504326778312890612010-08-23T15:36:17.074-07:002010-08-23T15:36:17.074-07:00Milo, I now see where we differed. Your argument ...Milo, I now see where we differed. Your argument makes much more sense now that I see your assumptions. I, of course, assumed that cargo was fairly valuable relative to shipping costs. Still, in some ways, we're both right. The steepness of the orbit is determined by the value of the cargo. We just used different starting values.<br />On the rest, energy costs seem like something that will be a real game-changer for any setting. If they're high, then stuff goes slowly, and ships are expensive. If they're low, then stuff goes fast, and ships are cheap. Still, it might be that manufactured goods sink in price relative to food. It's far easier to turn energy into a computer than a burger. Just a thought.<br />On an unrelated note, I've given more thought to chases in space. It turns out, it's best for the pursuee to launch kinetics when the pursuer is farthest behind. This gives maximum overtake time, and thus maximum lethality when it hits. And the fact that the pursuee will have significant velocity over the pursuer makes dramatic chases all a matter of timing. Still, there is the problem of stopping at the end.Byronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07778896782683765138noreply@blogger.com