Computers in Traveller

[Elliot]

Has anyone got any idea what a PDA like a Palm rates as in Traveller terms - the rules say that a 'handcomputer' has the power of a model 1. The rules also say that the model 1 is tech 5 (I think, or is it 6!).

By my reckoning the modern PDA is more powerful than a tech 5 main frame.

Furthermore, from the description of a traveller handcomputer, the Palm or its competitors can do everything that the traveller handcomputer can do and more.

Could it be that in c.1977 (when Traveller was being conceived) the Commodore PET was considered a pretty cool machine, the web was only in the mind of a few military dudes and biological circuitry was considered to be SCI-FI, rather than the next step.

I think the real question is - do traveller computers need to be re-written to account for the fact that c.1980 tech predictions do not mirror modern reality.

(OH YEA - WHERE CAN I GET A MAP BOX AND BATTLE COMPUTER TO PLUG INTO MY PALM - CAN I DO WITH A FLASH CARD?)

 

[vegascat]

The hottest little thing around about 1980 was the TRS80 PC2 hand computer. That little wonder had 2.5K RAM/ROM and was expandable up to a whopping 10.5K. It will fit in a pocket. I guess we have moved beyond that little wonder of technology.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Computer 1 is TL 5, the same as radio and automobiles. I guess it had vaccuum tubes.

In the early '70s the computer on board the Apollo spacecraft was considered the state of the art. It was over a cubic foot, weighed about sixty pounds and, IIRC, had 16K memory. The astronauts loaded one program at a time and had to unloead the old program first (Sound familiar, CT fans?)

The alternative was an IBM 360. This weighed several tons, filled several good-sized rooms, and a best ad the power of a 386. Hard-drives were the size of dishwashers and held 20-100 MB on 8" platters.

The Traveller rules failed to forsee the microchip revolution, much less than computer power doubling every three years for decades. By 1980 the rules were obviously irrelevant.

 

[gardclan]

Just as a contrast, my HP-48G calculator (which is a few years out of date at this point btw) has 32k of ram onboard, can expand this to 2MB, accepts programing in several languages, can communicate via x-modem and kermit protocols, performs graphing functions, and can perform symbolic integration (albeit very slowly). It has daytimer and clock functions, and plays a mean game of tetris (last time I had the program.)

This is circa 1992 (TL8?) technology... and its only slightly larger than a PDA.

Now, I can see a Model/1 being a cheap and simple computer... but I can't see something that will be controling a TL9+ starship as being overly massive unless it has way more capability than CT rules suggest.

Now, I know that the Mars Rover used something on the order of an 8086 series processor; that the space shuttle uses computers that were designed in the mid-'70s; and that aircraft often have control systems that are at least ten years behind the technology of the airframe itself.

But, honestly... circa 1950 systems driving a starfaring vessel? Seems a bit strange to me, especially when you could use circa 1990 tech for a tiny fraction of what it costs to build you an eniac... and with alot more punch to it.

 

[William]

There are a couple of issues conflated here. First is the TL of the various products. IMTU at least, the TL is the manufacturing TL. The Model 1 can be built using technology available at that level. It does not necessarily coincide with what we had available in RL at that time.

The second is what goes into those systems. We assume, since this coincides with our experiance, that this must be tubes logic and core memory. That does not have to be. These are all systems that have to interoperate from hand held to running a battleship to providing the net for the Sol system. And they have to interoperate from TL5 to TL15 - they certainly are going to all use the same IO connectors for example. To assume that they bear any resemblance to modern computers is a good way to give yourself a headache.

Ok they're big, they use too much power, and seem underpowered to us in 2002. Rather than try to limit them to what we know right now (so that they're out of date again in 2 to 5 years), work with them as they are and assume that a fundamentally different computing and hardware architecture is in use. For practical purposes there really isn't that much difference between the Vaxen that were coming online when Traveller was written and the racks of x86 boxen in use today. But there is between the computers we know and the computers that the 3rd Imperium uses.

Just food for thought.

William

 

[Uncle Bob]

About now someone usually points out that the displacement for computers includes space for input/output and consoles. Sorry guys, that is what the bridge percentage is for.

Handheld computers. A HP-45 from 1974 was as capable as the 1965 vintage Apollo onboard computer. A Palm or Windows CE hand computer of 2000 compares favorably with a desktop computer of 1990 or a mainframe of 1970.

The big mistake CT made was in assuming bigger was better. This is very much the attitude of 1950s-60s science fiction where you had planet sized super computers. Even in the 1970s we knew that smaller is better.

 

[stormcrow]

There is an adventure idea (planet sized computer).. Adventurers stumble across Deep Thought and mess it up mere hours from when it comes up with The Answer (to life, the universe & everything, which btw = 42)..

Said adventurers are now marked men, and they have wasted several thousand years of computation.....

OK, it's a SILLY idea, but it IS an idea.

 

[Elliot]

So what you all are saying is: I can plug my Palm into a scout ship and take it J2 all the way to Regina (if I sleep in cold birth - presumably also controlled by my Palm).

The question is: when virus struck - why didn't the Star Vikings just look for a tablet shaped object with poor character recognition software that only recognised the Vilani alphabet and hit it with a hammer!

 

[Nearside]

I think the space taken up by computers in CT (or any version) doesn't represent just it's computing power, but the space taken up with interfaces and connectivity to other systems, which might take up easily as much room as the processer and support systems of the computer itself.

With some imagination, you can justify almost anything.

 

[MichaelL65]

Originally posted by stormcrow:
There is an adventure idea (planet sized computer).. Adventurers stumble across Deep Thought and mess it up mere hours from when it comes up with The Answer (to life, the universe & everything, which btw = 42)..

Said adventurers are now marked men, and they have wasted several thousand years of computation.....

OK, it's a SILLY idea, but it IS an idea.

Um, it wasn't The Answer they messed up, but The Question (which turned out to be "What do you get when you multiply six times eight?" - which in turn showed there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe).

 

[stormcrow]

No No No.. interrupt Deep Thought, not it's grand successor of a computer: The Earth.

Deep Thought was an almost planetary sized computer that was tasked with providing The Answer.. this took a good bit of time to provide.. so what if our hapless adventures did something that interupted it JUST before it was to give the answer that they had been working for several thousand years towards? Say they had a firefight in a 'non-descript factory type place' that was actually a primary computing center?

Just a thought.

 

[RandyT0001]

Computers in CT basically interact with two other aspects, jump ability and space combat. It has been suggested that twenty five years after first printing and the computer rules don't reflect reality and need updating. IMTU I explain this seeming disparity this way. The specified model number gives a minimum tonnage of that TL's computer science and equipment of that time. For example a Model 1 requires at least one ton of ship volume of vacuum tubes, etc to function. A model 2 computer requires two tons of ship volume of transistors, resistors, etc. (computer science items of that TL). A model 2/bis computer requires 2 tons of IC's, chips, etc. Whatever computer science technology (bio-memory, etc?)that is prevelent at TL 9, once configured requires 3 tons of space.

This seems to explain why computers have such a big effect in HG combat. It not a question of how fast the computer processes but a reflection on the requirement in technological advancement of computer science needed to affect space combat.

Computers model number affects jump ability also. The amount of calculation required to effect a jump of 1 can be accomplished using a vaccuum tube Model 1 of sufficient size. This can calculate (somewhat slowly) the numerous variables (planet, asteroid, etc, locations / orbits, etc)to assure a safe jump of approximately one parsec. The mathematical calculations required for a jump of 2 increase in complexity so as to require a Model 2 (or equivalent) computer of transistors, etc to process the variables to ensure a safe jump.

So I don't really see a reason to change the computer rules. I suggest that maybe the entry in Book 3 for a hand computer might need adjustment to a lower TL.

Randy

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
About now someone usually points out that the displacement for computers includes space for input/output and consoles. Sorry guys, that is what the bridge percentage is for.

Actually I always justified the large computers as being the signal enhancing and processing parts of the sensors which are otherwise completely absent from CT.

The bridge I figured included things like control stations, airlocks, antenas (the hardware end of sensors) and other sundry items which could be expected to increase with the tonnage of your ship (fuel scoops and landing gear to name a few) but that don't otherwise have listings of their own.

YMMV

 

[gardclan]

I'm not actually bothered by the size issue. The computers tonnage thing could be explained away as everything from workstations and consoles to hamster cages for all I care.

My chief complaint is the capability issue. In CT/Snapshot there was a scenario where a group of sabateurs aboard a free trader waited until just before jump (when the ships computer would be using too much memory in the process of running the jump program to be able to still run the anti-hijack programs) to stage their take over.

This lack of computing power just dosen't sit well with me. The technology required to construct a jump drive is well beyond what we have now, as are the fusion power plants required to run the whole ship. Installing something with vaccuum tubes, with the massive power requirements and heat production (not to mention fragility) just dosen't make sence.

Traveller cannon aside, why would anybody trust their lives, ship, passengers, cargo, and crew to a delapedated old dinosaur several tech levels lower in design and construction than the ship itself; when CHEAPER, smaller, less power intensive, and more robust models are available at the same tech level or at most one TL lower than the ship itself?

Besides, IIRC HG requires the components in a ship to match (at least initially) the construction tech level of the ship. Jump drives require TL9+, why use a TL5 computer? For that matter, how would a ship equipped with such a computer expect to keep its high passengers happy when the entertainment consoles run at 6-8 DEKAHERTZ?

I realize that TL indicates the tech at which the machine FIRST becomes available. But consider what the computer has to do.

Requirements for a ships computer should include: control of most ship functions (environmental plant, engines, fusion reactor, jump drives, etc.), oversight of all automated tasks, calculation of jump parameters, control of jump field geometry, sensor data analysis, safety systems, and entertainment for the passengers. Also, lets not forget the ship's library.

Some of this stuff is fairly processor intensive taken alone. Taken together and you suddenly need a very powerful computer.

I realize that Traveller cannon says that model/1 = TL5... but I just can't see any shipyard building such a beast into one of their brand new starships! It just doesn't have the processor power to do what it needs to do.

 

[FlightCommanderSolitude]

I think William stated it best:

Rather than try to limit them to what we know right now..., work with them as they are and assume that a fundamentally different computing and hardware architecture is in use.

Put another way, just because TL6 or whatever in our own experience means fridge-sized computers with vacuum tubes, doesn't mean that TL6 everywhere in the 3I means vacuum tube technology.

I tend to assume that starship computing facilities incorporate all manner of hardware that I'm unaware of and don't really care about anyway; that all of this is neccessary to capably and safely run a starship; and that the tonnage required includes not just the CPU but all kinds of wiring, redundancy, access space for maintenance, etc etc.

In addition, I tend to disconnect TL factor from the real-world examples provided by canon, which really (IMO) should only be thought of as vague indications of technological capabilities as opposed to concrete limits and specific technological artifacts like vacuum tubes and punch cards.

On a related tangent, the TL progression itself is a bit odd in that modern eras seem over-represented. (It's like in the dinosaur sketch from Monty Python: thin at one end, fat in the middle, and thin at the other end.) I'm not sure if this was done to deliberately characterize the "ambient" tech level of the 3I, or just because modern eras are more readily represented.

 

[aoehler]

Perhaps one way to think about it is to look at an analog today. Certainly, to design a modern microprocessor requires a high "tech level" and it's done in places that have this high "tech level". But that doesn't prevent other "lower" tech countries from taking those parts, replicating them thousands of times and then assembling them into a computer.

However, let's say that something goes wrong with your Model/1. You're stuck at a world that's TL5. Can you get it fixed? Are the technicians of that world able to do the work? Are the parts available?

Also, the construction of a Model/1 computer on a TL5 world would be a major undertaking, requiring a lot of resources (time and money). Whereas, the same computer could be made "just in time" on a world with a higher tech level.

Just a thought...

 

[Gaming Glen]

Yep, a Palm pilot has more computing power than an IBM 360. But a Palm pilot does not have to run 5,000 terminals, 10 tape drives, dozens of printers, etc. Those big machines of yesteryear also ran a network, something that a Palm pilot cannot do. It still requires mainframes to run a major airline's reservation system (where I used to work). Those mainframes still take up lots of room, for the CPU(s), drives, printers, monitors, and walking/sitting areas for people (which will never shrink unless people shrink). The CPU footprint is smaller, but the space is about the same from years past due to larger networks. So I usually ignore most people's scoffing based on raw power. There's more to a computer system than the CPU.

I do agree that Traveller's treatment of computers, and future technology in general, is a little short-shighted. Much of it has to do with our non-prescience ability, we do not know what will happen. We can guess, and we usually guess wrong (some of the old sci-fi authors excepted

). Some technology has to be created (FTL, anti-grav) and anything goes for them.

I always thought Comm-dots were neat. But I think they might come sooner than given, if we don't bury comm-devices beneath our skins first.

Glen

 

[GBoyett]

Originally posted by Gaming Glen:
Yep, a Palm pilot has more computing power than an IBM 360. But a Palm pilot does not have to run 5,000 terminals, 10 tape drives, dozens of printers, etc. Those big machines of yesteryear also ran a network, something that a Palm pilot cannot do. It still requires mainframes to run a major airline's reservation system (where I used to work). Those mainframes still take up lots of room, for the CPU(s), drives, printers, monitors, and walking/sitting areas for people (which will never shrink unless people shrink). The CPU footprint is smaller, but the space is about the same from years past due to larger networks. So I usually ignore most people's scoffing based on raw power. There's more to a computer system than the CPU.

I do agree that Traveller's treatment of computers, and future technology in general, is a little short-shighted. Much of it has to do with our non-prescience ability, we do not know what will happen. We can guess, and we usually guess wrong (some of the old sci-fi authors excepted

). Some technology has to be created (FTL, anti-grav) and anything goes for them.

I always thought Comm-dots were neat. But I think they might come sooner than given, if we don't bury comm-devices beneath our skins first.

Glen

Good example regarding computer sizes. I remember when my dad first became a pipeline dispatcher in the early 1970s the computer controlling the pipeline filled up half a floor of the office building. By the time he retired in 1992, the computer only filled a 25' x 25' room, but still had another room for the terminals and printers.

I believe your right regarding the comm dots. The KGB or the CIA had a transmitter that could fit in the heel of a shoe back in the 1970s. comm dots are just around the corner.

 

[vegascat]

A large part of computers in networks now is the LAN hub. Wires coming from everywhere, plugging into a rack of boxes. That may be minimized later on, but with all of terminals on a ship plugged into a rack, it will still take up some room. Of course, a purpose built area will shrink down the size somewhat, but it will still take up room.

My .02Cr

 

[JeffryCrews]

And that doesn't account for redundant systems, or routers. We use a small room full of computers (modern computers) in my job at the NRC (national response center). We're kind of a 911 service for chemical and oil spills. We also maintain a database of spills which goes back into the 70's. With all the terminals and networks I'd estimate we have about three tons of computer or more networked together and thats not including racks, data cables and output (terminals printers etc) and we arn't running astrogation software, life support systems and weapons and targeting software and a fusion reactor. So I dont think the tonnage requirements are off.

I also belive that the cockpit tonnage - 15 tons represents space for ergonomic seating display and input devices and control surfaces not computers. Especially since 15 tons isn't a lot.