Pondering starship evolution

[Spinward Flow]

If having real cow gets you pluses in high passage rolls, might be worth the trouble.

Quite the LUXURY cruise liner!

One other thing this topic has got me thinking about- unrestricted waste dump, particularly sewage.

We apologize for the inconvenience of making people "think beyond just the numbers" of starship construction and routine operations ...

If you are at a D, E, or X starport whatever life support buys are local ersatz arrangements, possibly exorbitant or troublesome, or not available at any price. The experienced trader will likely bank a couple tons of life support in the hold ala Beltstrike to tide over such backwater stops.

This is one of those topics that CT doesn't really address all that well. There is no guidance for Referees regarding the availability of life support system recharges. There's a baseline price (Cr2000 per person, per 2 weeks) that gets charged by starports, just like with unrefined and refined fuels ... but there's no guidance on what to do if a destination world either doesn't have life support services for sale (probably the case at type E and X starports) or if the demand for life support commodities is so high as to enforce astronomical prices (asteroid belt mainworld, poor and/or non-agricultural trade code, etc.).

My notion is that if you're cruising around in "well settled territory" it's very nearly a non-issue ... but if you're operating out on the fringes of civilization, the logistics of life support supplies COULD become an issue for you and your crew if you're accustomed to living "hand to mouth" on continuous 2 week rollovers on recharges of life support consumables every single time with no reserves in the event of a mishap.

CT Beltstrike addresses this issue (partially) by specifying that consumable life support reserves cost Cr150,000 per ton and supply 150 person/weeks per ton, which requires cargo hold capacity to store. That's enough for 50 weeks for 3 people per 1 ton, which amounts to a "1 year supply" for 3 people in between annual overhaul maintenance cycles (because 50+2=52*7=364 days). Note that this price is EXACTLY the same price as paying for the Cr2000 per 2 weeks life support cost for 3 people every 2 weeks, with the only difference being the cargo hold capacity requirement added on top. I think of this "consumables reserve" Beltstrike way of doing things on an extended endurance basis as being Environmental Control Type IV ... the last stop before getting into the regenerative Type V-a through V-e options.

So if you REALLY WANTED TO ... you could design starships where the stateroom requirements were functionally 13 tons per 3 people, instead of just the usual 12 tons per 3 people, in order to account for the 3 staterooms plus extra 1 ton of life support consumables needed per year to provide life support to those 3 people ... whether they be crew or passengers. That would certainly be the CHEAPEST option as far as construction is concerned, since you would basically only need to replenish your life support reserves once a year while the ship is undergoing annual overhaul maintenance at a type A or B starport, which will almost certainly have life support reserves available for sale at a reasonable rate.

The poor or no facility nature of the starport doesn’t mean the locals don’t mind you dropping sewage at the pad. It may be boondocks to your crew, but it’s their home, paltry as the one poni star village may be.

Hence my notion that one of the options could be to dump your unwanted waste overboard on a trajectory that will intercept a planetary atmosphere where it will friction burn up on entry.

Might even be able to sell the sewage as fertilizer to some organics/chemical poor communities, but definitely case by case. If not, I would expect an agreed upon dumping ground is in order.

There are almost certainly going to be rules and regulations (not to mention, best practices) governing this sort of thing.

So that may mean there are extensive health regulations about where and when such voiding takes place with planetary law taking effect in the absence of formal extrality.

That is a safe assumption.
I figure that a lot of this is covered by the Berthing Fees at starports, so it's only a problem when dealing with type E and X starports (most of the time), along with some classes of spaceports.

 

[Condottiere]

How to Eat Acorns - Hot Leaching Method

I show how to boil and leach the tannic acid out of acorns to make them edible

Bonus - surprise protein!

 

[Spinward Flow]

Well, one side effect of doing all this pontificating about deck planning is that it's allowed me to revisit one of my assumptions about module sizes (12 tons = 5x5 deck squares, single deck) and arrangement. One of the outcomes of that tinkering has been the 2x2 deck square communal fresher.

"Door" access and the "FR" (for Fresher) are omitted from this template in order to allow easy rotation of the Fresher module section as a single 2x2 unit before adding the "FR" label and a variety of door choices for access.

With this 2x2 communal Fresher, which features privacy screens for the toilets and showers (the wavy lines at those entrances), it then becomes possible to re-engineer the entire deck plan of the basic 5x5 single deck 12 ton module. Instead of having four 2.5x2 deck squares rooms around a single corridor running along a single central axis (20 squares of rooms, 5 squares of corridor access) ... it becomes possible to have four 2x2 deck squares rooms with the rest being corridors (16 squares of rooms, 9 squares of corridor access).

The downside of doing this is that the deck area for actual "rooms" goes down, from 80% (20 of 25 squares) with a single corridor to 64% (16 of 25 squares). You can still do three 2x2 staterooms plus another 2x2 common room that all three staterooms then have to share. The advantage, of course, then becomes the fact that 5x5 module orientation "no longer matters" when stacking them together, since they'll always have access connection points at the center of a 6 sides with a grav lift shaft in the center for vertical travel.

For Stateroom Boxes, you then wind up with what amounts to 4 variants:

1. Three 2x2 staterooms + 2x2 fresher
2. Three 2x2 staterooms + 2x2 infirmary
3. Three 2x2 staterooms + 2x2 galley+laundromat
4. Three 2x2 staterooms + 2x2 holo lounge

Problem is, if you get all four, you've got a single communal fresher (2 toilets and 2 showers) for 12 staterooms.

Compare that to the 2.5x2 room plan form that I've been using up until now and you can rather quickly see the difference.

For Stateroom Boxes, you wind up with what amounts to 2 variants (not 4):

1. Three 2.5x2 staterooms with private freshers + 2.5x2 holo lounge+galley+laundromat
2. Three 2.5x2 staterooms with private freshers + 2.5x2 infirmary with private fresher

Additionally, in "3D Tetris" fashion, you don't actually NEED more than a single axis corridor when stacking modules vertically. If modules are stacked on top of each other, they can be rotated 90º such that the lower modules have their access corridor oriented fore/aft while the upper modules are oriented port/starboard, for example. That way, with double stacking you can achieve "access" between all modules in all 6 axes (fore/aft, port/starboard, up/down).

In other words, by not "wasting" 4 out of 25 (16%!) of the available floor space on access corridors that aren't actually needed, a much more efficient (and effective!) use of the available space within the 12 ton 5x5 module form factor is enabled. This consideration becomes additionally important for the 12 ton 5x5 Laboratory Modules, where being able to have two 5x2 rooms on either side of the central corridor becomes highly desirable for a variety of design reasons.



So although I know that there have been calls to switch to communal fresher facilities in the past, rather than continuing with private freshers inside individual staterooms, the simple fact of the matter is that at this scale and with this (5x5) form factor, shifting over into a communal fresher paradigm actually winds up being LESS EFFICIENT in terms of use of space simply due to how the puzzle pieces/LEGO bricks have to fit together within the limited space available. The ... granularity ... of the scaling of the room sizes and shapes really makes that much of a difference.

Additionally, the four 2.5x2 room with single central corridor template paradigm is also "more secure" from an anti-hijack security perspective, since a hostile party is forced into an extremely limited number of routes, all of which have multiple choke points for defenders to take advantage of. Furthermore, when stacking modules together (horizontally and vertically) there are no long corridors offering unobstructed fields of fire for a hostile party to take advantage of. Instead, everything becomes close quarters combat, where use of heavy weapons and even demolitions charges become highly problematic due to a lack of room to maneuver and get clear of any "splash" damage radius. Beyond even that, the "narrow channels" pathing through the modules makes it difficult for a hostile force to bring to bear any superior weight of numbers onto any single specific choke point, which then redounds passively to the benefit of the defenders since it becomes more difficult for a bull rush using weight of numbers to be decisive when the "terrain" is all knife fighting/pistol range with defensive choke points EVERYWHERE, putting attackers at a disadvantage in both speed and maneuver through the maze.

 

[coliver988]

re: I figure that a lot of this is covered by the Berthing Fees at starports, so it's only a problem when dealing with type E and X starports (most of the time), along with some classes of spaceports.

Actually, berthing fees are pretty cheap. With the high cost of life support it *could* be that it also covers the waste handling. and it is subsidized across starport types, so yes, a class A port would really just be Cr100 for waste handling, but you are also paying for the facilities at other Imperial ports. Sort of like how insurance in theory spreads the cost out across a lot of people.

Just a thought

 

[Spinward Flow]

So ... continuing with my pondering what various regenerative biome life support laboratory setups might look like when executed as deck plans, I started wondering what Environmental Control Type V-d would look like if done in a 12 ton form factor when scaled to provide regenerative life support for 3 persons (not 6, as would be the case with Type V-c.

• Type V-c: This level relies more upon the gardens for providing food than the algae vats. It also incorporates small animals like chickens or fish (usually any edible herbivore up to about 10kg).
• Type V-d: This level relies entirely upon gardens to provide both air and food. At this level larger animals can be incorporated into the environmental systems. This level is usually only found on the largest space stations or in domed environments.
• Type V-e: This level is a full working ecosystem incorporating several hundred species of plants and animals. These are usually only found in large domed environments.

So the upgrade step from V-c to V-d is a pretty big deal, as it's one step short of a "full working ecosystem" (which is Type V-e).

The first challenge is that if the waste recycling relies entirely upon the gardens for air and food (and presumably, water filtration/recycling as well), I'm going to need a LOT more vegetation fraction than I have been doing up until now over the last 30 or so posts in this thread. A LOT of the available volume is going to need to be given over to hydroponics/aeroponics to bring the amount of CO₂ to O₂ recycle scrubbing and food production up to more acceptable levels ... which means something of a complete re-organization of what goes where (and why).

Ironically, the result I came up with actually harkens back to something more akin to my original layout that I used for the SIE Clipper deck plan designs, albeit with some rather obvious twiddling of details.

This arrangement yields a lot more vegetation fraction than previous options ... and ironically looks more like the "2x2 rooms in the corners" layout that I outlined in post #43 above. However, this is done in a way that maximizes "hydroponics" area (the fluffy grey stuff) on all available wall surfaces (vertical farming!) while still permitting walk space access for harvesting.

The aquaculture tank in the top left continues to symbiotically support the growth of vegetation on top of the water surface, aquaponics style, to take advantage of the symbiosis between plants and aquatic animals (fish, basically). The animal pens in the top right can host either live animals and/or a carniculture lab for growing "red" meat (as opposed to the "white" meat of fish).

The two "wall hydroponics" rooms down below are segregated in order to be able to raise different species of vegetation, or the same species in different seasons to help balance the life support loading better. Indeed, due to the segregation by airlocks, it is theoretically possible to have all 4 rooms operating in all 4 seasons a planetary year (spring, summer, autumn, winter).

Life support systems and machinery is located in the floor/ceiling space(s) with an additional "closet" that is accessible from the room airlocks via maintenance hatch to monitor the "health" of the overall life support systems equipment.

So ... aquaponics tank and vertical wall aeroponics (top left), carniculture and vertical wall aeroponics (top right), along with the two vertical wall hydroponics farming rooms (bottom left and right) combine to provide sufficient regenerative biome life support services to a Type V-d standard for 3 single occupancy staterooms in a 12 ton Stateroom Box.



And now that I've been able to do THAT (the Type V-d laboratory module) to my own personal satisfaction ... I want to try upgrading my starship design to make use of it (at the expense of cargo capacity and increased crew skills requirements).

Fortunately, I've just discovered yet another "island of stability" for the H/H/H standard drives combination @ TL=10 that looks like it's going to do the trick.

So yet another fork in the evolutionary process path, but not an unwelcome one.

 

[Krikkitone]

One point about regenerative LS, if it produced all of the food by photosynthesis, then it will provide exactly enough O2/CO2 absorption to the people that eat that food.

 

[Spinward Flow]

One point about regenerative LS, if it produced all of the food by photosynthesis, then it will provide exactly enough O2/CO2 absorption to the people that eat that food.

As far as I'm concerned (at the naval architect's office), those details are "tunable" on specifics in order to reach the desired balance point.

{ hand wave, hand wave }
"Life sciences and engineering..."
{ hand wave, hand wave }
"And it all works."

Kind of like with jump, maneuver and fusion power plant drives.
Just plug in the numbers (tonnage, credit costs, etc.) and it all just works.

The LIVED REALITY is a bit more complicated than that ... but for game mechanics and tabletop roleplaying, that's all you really need.

 

[Grav_Moped]

So that may mean there are extensive health regulations about where and when such voiding takes place with planetary law taking effect in the absence of formal extrality.

---

(Edit:, Disregard, point already addressed. )
.

 

[Dragoner]

I've added bactries to stations and such, stolen from Vinge. Problem with hydroponics is that they usually fail and the plants die off, recently t-shirts were brought into an experiment, and the unknown out gassing killed their hydroponics setup. From an engineering standpoint, having a parallel system such as on a vehicle, appears a dead weight loss, it is better to build a more robust singular system.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Problem with hydroponics is that they usually fail and the plants die off, recently t-shirts were brought into an experiment, and the unknown out gassing killed their hydroponics setup.

I'm (conceptually) relying on TL=10 to solve a lot of those problems.
And if Travellerwiki is to be relied upon (*passes salt shaker over*) ... the article on Hydroponics includes the following:

By TL–9 Bioregenerative Life Support has been developed. Bioregenerative Life Support is the goal of systems on airless worlds, where the biosystem recycles all wastes and provides all needed food and oxygen. Few systems can be maintained in such a state long term and must have supplemental supplies.

So ... I think I'm covered on that score.

From an engineering standpoint, having a parallel system such as on a vehicle, appears a dead weight loss, it is better to build a more robust singular system.

That gets into an "all eggs in one basket" approach, compared to a diversified "multiple cells" approach. A larger singular system may be more "economical" due to economies of scale, but a smaller and compartmentalized system will be less prone to catastrophic single points of failure. Furthermore, compartmentalization rather than single unified system offers additional options in diversity (species, habitat, seasonal rotation timing, etc.) that can "smooth out" the yield curves by offset staggering peak harvest times, rather than keeping everything unified on a single growing cycle.

Ultimately, the deciding question becomes one of redundancy, with respect to how many discrete biomes you want to have to pay for and support.

What is definitely true is that there's going to be a "break even" point at which higher grades of regenerative life support will "cost" more than they "save" in terms of lost revenue tonnage capacity. According to my analysis thus far, Type V-c is on the tipping point that straddles that line for starships ... because life support overhead expenses are Cr2000 per 2 weeks per person versus 2 tons of cargo ticket fees earn Cr 2000 per 2 week jump cycle. The Type V-c incurs additional expenses beyond that "2 tons for 2 tons" equivalency (such as additional crew that would not be required otherwise, increased crew skills to keep the Type V-c system operational and maintained, annual overhaul costs) ... so on balance the Type V-c standard is slightly more expensive in Levelized Cost of Operation (LCoO), provided that there is enough demand for cargo transportation services to fill up the 2 tons of cargo hold space equivalence alternative.

Type V-d and V-e standards are definitely a "net loss" in pure spreadsheet terms, since you're basically (under my house rules) spending 4 or 8 tons (Cr4000 or Cr8000 cargo freight ticket revenue potential) to save Cr2000 in life support expenses per 2 weeks, which isn't necessarily "sensible" for credit shaving merchants who need to grind out profits on the margins.

However, in a subsidized business model, where the subsidizing government gets a 50% rake of any incoming revenues, Type V-d starts getting close to the break even point, since you would need to transport 4 tons of cargo for the operator to earn Cr2000 in order to offset the expense of Cr2000 that need to be paid for life support every 2 weeks, because the operator pays for all expenses when under subsidy.

 

[kilemall]

Just one big problem- any hull depressurization such as a pirate hit kills off your life support, so even if you win the fight you lose.

 

[Condottiere]

Vacuum tight doors.

 

[kilemall]

Vacuum tight doors.

Shrug, fine, that’s a change from the CT hull hit effect, means you need to have some subhit to determine when it breaches this system.

 

[Dragoner]

such as additional crew that would not be required otherwise

Which is the big downside to a parallel setup. A whole other skillset.

 

[Condottiere]

I thought this is why bulwarks were designated in the blueprints, to separate sections of the ship to create air bubbles, so it doesn't sink.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Just one big problem- any hull depressurization such as a pirate hit kills off your life support, so even if you win the fight you lose.

Are you referring to this? (LBB2.81, p30 and 32)

Hull: A hull hit decompresses the ship's hull. Further hull hits have no effect.

I was under the impression that ships would NORMALLY depressurize in preparation for combat in order to avoid the cinematic decompression effects of hull hits. Such a notion is addressed in LBB2.81, p33-34.

Decompression: Starships (and other vessels) depressurize their interiors before combat whenever possible, the passengers and crew resorting to vacc suits for safety and comfort. This procedure minimizes the danger due to explosive decompression as a battle result. In some cases, selected areas may remain pressurized (perhaps the hold, for the safety of delicate cargo) while other areas are depressurized.
Any number of areas in the ship may be depressurized in the span of one turn (1,000 seconds). Repressurization requires one turn. In practice, the following parts of the ship may be individually pressure regulated: engineering section, hold, bridge, staterooms (all as one group; on some ships, in groups of four or more), turrets (individually). The pilot controls depressurization from the bridge.
Hull hits result in explosive decompression if pressure has not already been lowered. Explosive decompression kills all persons in that section unless a vacc suit is available and put on immediately. Throw dexterity to put on a vacc suit in an emergency; apply DMs of double vacc suit skill.

LBB2 combat would require a hit to the Hold in order to damage a 12 ton laboratory module built as a small craft. (LBB2.81, p30 and 32-33)

Hold: A hold hit allows potential damage to items in the hold, including ship's vehicles and small craft, as well as cargo. Each hit destroys ten tons of cargo, or one vehicle, or one small craft. Dice to determine randomly which items are damaged.

Note that for starships in LBB2 combat, Hull is a damage result of 6-7 on 2D ... while Hold is a damage result of 8 on 2D ... meaning that the Hold is "slightly better than double protected" compared to a Hull hit (5 in 36 chance vs 5+6=11 in 36 chance).

In LBB5.80 combat, the only way to damage subcraft/vehicles carried internally (or externally, for that matter) is with a Critical Hit (Hangars/Boat Deck Destroyed) result.

Vacuum tight doors.

Hatches.

Iris valves.

Pressure doors.

Sliding doors (not pressurized).

Shrug, fine, that’s a change from the CT hull hit effect, means you need to have some subhit to determine when it breaches this system.

I thought this is why bulkheads were designated in the blueprints, to separate sections of the ship to create air bubbles, so it doesn't sink.

Fixed that for you.

 

[kilemall]

Yes pros depressurize before incurring damage, and IMO to avoid hydrogen leaks into oxygen. I’m assuming the plants and animals will not do well unless you have chicken suits and plant covers.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Spinward Flow]

Yes pros depressurize before incurring damage, and IMO to avoid hydrogen leaks into oxygen. I’m assuming the plants and animals will not do well unless you have chicken suits and plant covers.

Yet another reason in favor of distributed compartmentalization, rather than doing a big "all in one" facility.

A singular large facility can be taken out by a single weapon hit.
A distributed and discrete compartmentalization means ... you gotta hit 'em all ...?

 

[coliver988]

Yet another reason in favor of distributed compartmentalization, rather than doing a big "all in one" facility.

A singular large facility can be taken out by a single weapon hit.
A distributed and discrete compartmentalization means ... you gotta hit 'em all ...?

or just enough so that life support is no longer viable. Draw straws to see who you toss out the airlock?