• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Rules Only: Regenerative Life Support

Spinward Flow

SOC-14 5K
I know that In CT we have the basic cost of Cr2000 per 2 weeks per sophont crew member needed to cover life support expenses ever since LBB2.77.
This setup is essentially "open cycle" where consumables (food, water, air, scrubbers, etc.) require restock and replacement.

Was there ever an extension to the rules made which enabled "regenerative life support" so that Cr2000 per 2 weeks cost would not need to be paid (that way)?

I'm wondering if something akin to a 4 ton/MCr0.5 Workshop space per sophont crew member/"live" passenger (low berths have different life support requirements) was ever contemplated as a workaround for a kind of "closed cycle" of life support in which everything gets recycled (like they say on the international space station ... yesterday's coffee is today's coffee is tomorrow's coffee) thanks to the "miracle" of high tech life support reclamation systems (thanks to Makertech).

So instead of needing to pay Cr2000 every 2 weeks for a total of 25 times per year (so as to include 2 weeks of annual overhaul maintenance every 52 weeks) for a total of Cr50,000 per year in consumables ... if you instead dedicate 4 tons of Workshop space/cost per sophont aboard to the task at MCr0.5 per sophont, then you only need to "pay" for that regenerative "closed cycle" life support capacity once per year as part of the cost of annual overhaul maintenance (which would be Cr500 per year, not including the larger hull size to accommodate).

Of course, at that point, you're looking at a 100:1 cost differential between open cycle and closed cycle life support systems, which might be too much of an advantage for the long haul closed cycle approach if you're talking deep space explorer/survey/research vessel, or even just a credit clipping merchant prince who wants to cut every corner off the perfect sphere of their profit margins.

However, from a pure economic advantage standpoint, a merchant ship would be "saving" on life support costs, while at the same time be "losing" on cargo/passenger capacity (4 tons of cargo space is Cr4000 per 2 weeks revenue potential, compared to Cr2000 per 2 weeks of life support cost in this context). So although the Workshop: Life Support notion would seem to be advantageous at first glance, this current interpretation I'm using here (4 tons per sophont as a starting point for the conversation) winds up costing elsewhere on the balance sheet (trading costs reduced for revenue reduced).

So this solution is kinda ... kludgy ... and not really satisfying. :(



Resorting to use of CT Beltstrike, p3 and its 150 person/days per ton of life support reserves yields a basic conversion of life support extension per ton, where each additional 1 ton per person is slightly over 0.4 years of life support (150/365=0.4109589) ... so 5 tons per person slightly exceeds 2 years of life support per person.

If using the assumption that a ship WILL be receiving annual overhaul maintenance at least once per year (no exceptions!) because the ship isn't designed for "5 year missions" beyond the fringes of known space (for example), you can can safely assume that reserve life support capacity in excess of 351 days becomes superfluous (because of the 2 week/14 days of annual overhaul maintenance per year, during which this reserve capacity gets replenished as part of the annual overhaul "flush and refill" process).

365/150=2.433333 tons per person for 365 days of life support reserves
351/150=2.34 tons per person for 351 days of life support reserves

However, if you start with the assumption that each single occupancy 4 ton stateroom has a default life support capacity of 20 person/days, then you would only need an additional 331 days of reserve life support capacity per year per person

331/150=2.20666667 tons per person for 331 days of life support reserves
330/150=2.2 tons per person for 330 days of life support reserves

Beltstrike (as written) claims a Cr1000 per person/day cost for life support reserves, which is just ridiculous and seriously looks like an "off by one (digit)" error/errata to me if you're talking about straight up consumables that need to be replenished. I'm basically convinced that the proper cost ought to be Cr100 per person/day since that aligns cleanly with the notion of 4 ton staterooms having 20 person/days of life support capacity (enough for 1 sophont for 20 days or 2 sophonts for 10 days in double occupancy, sufficient for 8 days of jump time plus 2 days of maneuver in a worst case scenario) at a cost of Cr2000 for 20 person/days. Note that Cr100 per day is still more than 3x the cost of luxurious accommodations and food at a planetside hotel according to LBB3, so for me at least the Cr100 per person/day corrected pricing makes sense when compared to other known cost quantities of long standing within the CT rules.

However ... if you're talking about a permanent modification to a ship's life support systems to make them more of a closed cycle regenerative type of system, rather than simply having a bigger stockpile of MREs, H2O and CO2 scrubber filters in an open cycle life support system ... a more permanent integrated closed cycle reclamation system for life support would more properly increase starship construction costs (and thus annual overhaul maintenance costs) by Cr1000 per person/day. Since I'm looking for a 1 year life support capacity closed cycle system, rather than a 1 year life support capacity open cycle system, I'll be using the Cr1000 per person/day for starship construction cost rather than a Cr100 per person/day consumables replenishment cost.

So, the best compromise I can think of using the Beltstrike approach to the problem is to say:

351 / 150 = 2.34 tons per person for 351 days of closed life support reserves (plus 14 days of drydock "downtime" for annual overhaul maintenance is 365 days)

You then wind up with single occupancy starship staterooms that are 6.34 tons each (1 year life support per stateroom) costing MCr0.851 each to purchase as part of starship construction (so a MCr0.351 cost premium per stateroom, which amounts to a Cr351 increase in net annual overhaul maintenance costs over the standard stateroom for the first in class ship, additional ships in volume production would see a discount beyond that base price).

Note that although the cost savings of Cr2000 per person/2 weeks for a single occupancy stateroom computes out to a 2 tons of cargo revenue at Cr1000 per ton equivalency, so the closed cycle regenerative life support option isn't quite yet cost competitive with the open cycle option.



Ultimately, however, for sheer CT styled simplicity then ... what ought to be happening is something akin to this:
  • (Standard) Open cycle life support stateroom: 4 tons displacement, MCr0.5, 20 person/days capacity, Cr100 per person/day consumables replenishment cost

  • Closed cycle life support single occupancy stateroom: 6 tons displacement, MCr0.85, 365 person/days capacity, annual overhaul maintenance replenishes

  • Closed cycle life support double occupancy stateroom: 8 tons displacement, MCr1.2, 730 person/days capacity, annual overhaul maintenance replenishes
Basically, add +2 tons and MCr0.35 per occupant to each 4 ton stateroom to convert it from being an open cycle life support type that needs replenishment of consumables every 2 weeks (ala LBB2, etc.) into being a closed cycle life support type that regenerates for a year and only needs annual overhaul maintenance every year to keep it operational in good working order.



I don't know about anyone else, but having such a "frontier life support" option available would probably make quite a difference in some old legacy starship designs that we're all familiar with. :unsure:

I'm looking at you, Type-S Scout/Courier with your smelly underpowered default life support system for starters ... 😷
 
I know that In CT we have the basic cost of Cr2000 per 2 weeks per sophont crew member needed to cover life support expenses ever since LBB2.77.
This setup is essentially "open cycle" where consumables (food, water, air, scrubbers, etc.) require restock and replacement.

Was there ever an extension to the rules made which enabled "regenerative life support" so that Cr2000 per 2 weeks cost would not need to be paid (that way)?

I'm wondering if something akin to a 4 ton/MCr0.5 Workshop space per sophont crew member/"live" passenger (low berths have different life support requirements) was ever contemplated as a workaround for a kind of "closed cycle" of life support in which everything gets recycled (like they say on the international space station ... yesterday's coffee is today's coffee is tomorrow's coffee) thanks to the "miracle" of high tech life support reclamation systems (thanks to Makertech).

So instead of needing to pay Cr2000 every 2 weeks for a total of 25 times per year (so as to include 2 weeks of annual overhaul maintenance every 52 weeks) for a total of Cr50,000 per year in consumables ... if you instead dedicate 4 tons of Workshop space/cost per sophont aboard to the task at MCr0.5 per sophont, then you only need to "pay" for that regenerative "closed cycle" life support capacity once per year as part of the cost of annual overhaul maintenance (which would be Cr500 per year, not including the larger hull size to accommodate).

Of course, at that point, you're looking at a 100:1 cost differential between open cycle and closed cycle life support systems, which might be too much of an advantage for the long haul closed cycle approach if you're talking deep space explorer/survey/research vessel, or even just a credit clipping merchant prince who wants to cut every corner off the perfect sphere of their profit margins.

However, from a pure economic advantage standpoint, a merchant ship would be "saving" on life support costs, while at the same time be "losing" on cargo/passenger capacity (4 tons of cargo space is Cr4000 per 2 weeks revenue potential, compared to Cr2000 per 2 weeks of life support cost in this context). So although the Workshop: Life Support notion would seem to be advantageous at first glance, this current interpretation I'm using here (4 tons per sophont as a starting point for the conversation) winds up costing elsewhere on the balance sheet (trading costs reduced for revenue reduced).

So this solution is kinda ... kludgy ... and not really satisfying. :(



Resorting to use of CT Beltstrike, p3 and its 150 person/days per ton of life support reserves yields a basic conversion of life support extension per ton, where each additional 1 ton per person is slightly over 0.4 years of life support (150/365=0.4109589) ... so 5 tons per person slightly exceeds 2 years of life support per person.

If using the assumption that a ship WILL be receiving annual overhaul maintenance at least once per year (no exceptions!) because the ship isn't designed for "5 year missions" beyond the fringes of known space (for example), you can can safely assume that reserve life support capacity in excess of 351 days becomes superfluous (because of the 2 week/14 days of annual overhaul maintenance per year, during which this reserve capacity gets replenished as part of the annual overhaul "flush and refill" process).

365/150=2.433333 tons per person for 365 days of life support reserves
351/150=2.34 tons per person for 351 days of life support reserves

However, if you start with the assumption that each single occupancy 4 ton stateroom has a default life support capacity of 20 person/days, then you would only need an additional 331 days of reserve life support capacity per year per person

331/150=2.20666667 tons per person for 331 days of life support reserves
330/150=2.2 tons per person for 330 days of life support reserves

Beltstrike (as written) claims a Cr1000 per person/day cost for life support reserves, which is just ridiculous and seriously looks like an "off by one (digit)" error/errata to me if you're talking about straight up consumables that need to be replenished. I'm basically convinced that the proper cost ought to be Cr100 per person/day since that aligns cleanly with the notion of 4 ton staterooms having 20 person/days of life support capacity (enough for 1 sophont for 20 days or 2 sophonts for 10 days in double occupancy, sufficient for 8 days of jump time plus 2 days of maneuver in a worst case scenario) at a cost of Cr2000 for 20 person/days. Note that Cr100 per day is still more than 3x the cost of luxurious accommodations and food at a planetside hotel according to LBB3, so for me at least the Cr100 per person/day corrected pricing makes sense when compared to other known cost quantities of long standing within the CT rules.

However ... if you're talking about a permanent modification to a ship's life support systems to make them more of a closed cycle regenerative type of system, rather than simply having a bigger stockpile of MREs, H2O and CO2 scrubber filters in an open cycle life support system ... a more permanent integrated closed cycle reclamation system for life support would more properly increase starship construction costs (and thus annual overhaul maintenance costs) by Cr1000 per person/day. Since I'm looking for a 1 year life support capacity closed cycle system, rather than a 1 year life support capacity open cycle system, I'll be using the Cr1000 per person/day for starship construction cost rather than a Cr100 per person/day consumables replenishment cost.

So, the best compromise I can think of using the Beltstrike approach to the problem is to say:

351 / 150 = 2.34 tons per person for 351 days of closed life support reserves (plus 14 days of drydock "downtime" for annual overhaul maintenance is 365 days)

You then wind up with single occupancy starship staterooms that are 6.34 tons each (1 year life support per stateroom) costing MCr0.851 each to purchase as part of starship construction (so a MCr0.351 cost premium per stateroom, which amounts to a Cr351 increase in net annual overhaul maintenance costs over the standard stateroom for the first in class ship, additional ships in volume production would see a discount beyond that base price).

Note that although the cost savings of Cr2000 per person/2 weeks for a single occupancy stateroom computes out to a 2 tons of cargo revenue at Cr1000 per ton equivalency, so the closed cycle regenerative life support option isn't quite yet cost competitive with the open cycle option.



Ultimately, however, for sheer CT styled simplicity then ... what ought to be happening is something akin to this:
  • (Standard) Open cycle life support stateroom: 4 tons displacement, MCr0.5, 20 person/days capacity, Cr100 per person/day consumables replenishment cost

  • Closed cycle life support single occupancy stateroom: 6 tons displacement, MCr0.85, 365 person/days capacity, annual overhaul maintenance replenishes

  • Closed cycle life support double occupancy stateroom: 8 tons displacement, MCr1.2, 730 person/days capacity, annual overhaul maintenance replenishes
Basically, add +2 tons and MCr0.35 per occupant to each 4 ton stateroom to convert it from being an open cycle life support type that needs replenishment of consumables every 2 weeks (ala LBB2, etc.) into being a closed cycle life support type that regenerates for a year and only needs annual overhaul maintenance every year to keep it operational in good working order.



I don't know about anyone else, but having such a "frontier life support" option available would probably make quite a difference in some old legacy starship designs that we're all familiar with. :unsure:

I'm looking at you, Type-S Scout/Courier with your smelly underpowered default life support system for starters ... 😷
MgT has rules for hydroponics that extend life support endurance. I'm pretty sure they don't replace it, rules-as-written -- but one could extend them to do so. (Something for me to look up later.)
 
Found it. MgT2 High Guard, p. 44: Biosphere. 1Td eliminates life support costs for two passengers, at a cost of MCr0.2 and 1 power point (a small fraction of a CT HG Energy Point).

Seems a little undersized as described in MgT as applied to small occupant loads, but it feels about right for large installations (large long-range exploratory ships, space stations, and so forth).

IMHO, for small installations in ships it's not the "garden bay/parklet" described in the text, but instead is almost a black-box device that takes in air, water, and waste and produces algae-based nutrient bricks and oxygen.
 
Last edited:
1Td eliminates life support costs for two passengers, at a cost of MCr0.2
Sounds too generous for CT.
Why do I say that?
2 Low Berths = 1 ton MCr0.1
2 Passengers biosphere = 1 ton MCr0.2

Hence why I'm thinking that 1 Person biosphere = 2 tons MCr0.35 feels more appropriate for the CT rules.
 
Sounds too generous for CT.
Why do I say that?
2 Low Berths = 1 ton MCr0.1
2 Passengers biosphere = 1 ton MCr0.2

Hence why I'm thinking that 1 Person biosphere = 2 tons MCr0.35 feels more appropriate for the CT rules.
It's an add-on to a stateroom; 25% additional size, 20% additional cost (half that if it'll never be double-occupancy).
In a CT context it might need to be more costly. I haven't done the math, but game balance suggests that it shouldn't be cheaper than normal life support replenishment costs (or everyone would use it). On the other hand, what's the opportunity cost of 1/2Td that could have been used as cargo space?
 
It's hard to pin down the actual costs of life support, since it seems unclear if it's a basic cost, plus accommodations, or if accommodations already includes that.

In any event, it's cheaper to shell out the operating costs for artificial life support, than installing hydroponics; exceptionally, deep space exploration, or maybe homesteading.
 
It's hard to pin down the actual costs of life support, since it seems unclear if it's a basic cost, plus accommodations, or if accommodations already includes that.

In any event, it's cheaper to shell out the operating costs for artificial life support, than installing hydroponics; exceptionally, deep space exploration, or maybe homesteading.
In a CT universe, maybe not. Life Support is Cr1000/jump/person, but "biosphere" is just Cr500/jump/person in opportunity cost (1:2weeks jump cadence) plus financed cost of the greenhouse.
 
Last edited:
While they did rewrite a bunch of stuff in MT, I like to look at MT as the "what did they really mean in CT" edition, as it gave them time and space to consolidate what they were trying to say in CT.

That said, I couldn't find anything about life support in MT.

But in TNE, it's, still, 2000Cr/2 weeks per stateroom. TNE also has 100Cr per Low Berth. FF&S doesn't address costs, or alternatives to life support outside of variations for environmental G sources outside of gravity compensators.
 
In a CT universe, maybe not. Life Support is Cr1000/jump/person, but "biosphere" is just Cr500/jump/person in opportunity cost (1:2weeks jump cadence) plus financed cost of the greenhouse.

At 220% of cost, over 40 years, financed cost is Cr250/fortnight per person. Plus the foregone cargo at Cr500/0.5Td.

Saves Cr250/fortnight on net if it's used, wastes Cr750/fortnight if it's excess life support capacity.
And of course if you're raking in more than Cr1000/cargo-ton/jump (full holds of spec cargo, or your economy has per-parsec rates and/or speed surcharges), the opportunity cost of the lost cargo capacity becomes an issue.
 
Last edited:
... so, basically, on a Type A Free Trader, you want half a ton per crew member for sure, and maybe a ton and a half between the six passenger staterooms (so the costs break even on a half-load of passengers*).

Might even make sense on an A2 because you're unlikely to get a precisely full hold. Maybe.

Another question is whether it ought to cost something if it's unused. That is, you've got (in the smaller units) a vat of algae that's supposed to handle X amount of CO2 and Y amount of waste, producing Z amount of O2 and however many bricks of Soylent PickAColor -- what happens if it doesn't get the CO2 and waste because there's an empty stateroom? Does your life support have life support costs?

Yeah, you can recycle the food bricks back into the tank, but it'll need some extra CO2 regardless.

There should be a size/cost premium for a more palatable and diverse output from the smaller units. At scale, diversity is assumed (though quality might not be...) High Passengers aren't going to settle for Nutri-Brix from the converter, so they'll incur at least part of the Cr2000 life support costs no matter what.

-------------
*I'd have to do more math than I'd like, to figure out what the average passenger load ought to be.
 
Last edited:
Another question is whether it ought to cost something if it's unused.
TNE mentions this, to a point. Notably it mentions that while you don't have to "life support" things like the cargo or fuel tanks, it sure make life a lot easier if you do so you can treat them as T-shirt world playgrounds vs frozen death pressure hells.
 
Life Support is Cr1000/jump/person
Well there's an errata, since LBB2 clearly states that life support costs are doubled for double occupancy staterooms.
It's Cr2000 per 2 weeks per person, which is a standard that has existed since LBB2 through multiple editions.

This is also part of my reasoning for thinking that 1 ton of life support reclamation per person for a closed loop cycle that can be sustained for an entire year "is not enough" for a living sophont ... but that 2 tons required would be sufficient.

Pay Cr2000 for life support for that stateroom and have 2 tons of cargo space that can earn you Cr2000 (best case scenario, net cost Cr0).
- or -
Pay Cr0 for life support for that stateroom and lose 2 tons of cargo space so those 2 tons earn you Cr0 (net cost, Cr0).

Put on that kind of equivalence footing, making a 1 year vs 2 weeks of life support standard, either option is a net Cr0 for those 2 tons of hull capacity in terms of revenue minus cost equals profit in a full manifest context.

Having had more time to think about the proposition, in terms of extreme CT simplicity for rulemaking ... I'm starting to think that a brute force simple +50% tonnage/+50% cost for starship staterooms would be the way to go.

  • Open cycle life support stateroom: MCr0.5, 4 tons, 20 person/days (2 weeks plus 6 day "just in case" reserve) (LBB2 and onwards default standard)
  • Closed cycle regenerative life support stateroom: add MCr0.25 per person, add 2 tons per person, change from 20 person/days to 400 person/days (proposed)
And yes, I recognize that I'm proposing a change to what I said earlier upthread, but I'm still in process of refining the thought process around the idea and soliciting feedback around the notion.

Note that a Workshop of 4 tons, MCr0.5 being the equivalent to a single stateroom in tonnage and cost very neatly then computes out to 1 Workshop equals 2 person/years of closed cycle regenerative life support capacity that will last all year between annual overhaul maintenance cycles.
Single occupancy staterooms = 1 Workshop per 2 staterooms
Double occupancy staterooms = 1 Workshop per 1 stateroom

Keeps things nice and CT simple.
Note that the same thing would apply to small craft cabins as well as a point of commonality. So if you've got a long range interplanetary mission, add Workshop: Life Support (4 tons, MCr0.5) to your small craft design just like you would for a 100+ ton ship.

Note: I would expect starships and non-starships that expect to remain on station away from supply lines for extended periods of time (such as Express Boat Tenders and System Defense Boats) on patrols to need to make use of such extended life support options as a matter of routine operations that reduce their vulnerability to having their supply lines cut (for whatever reason).
Another question is whether it ought to cost something if it's unused.
With a closed cycle regenerative life support system, the workings of the life support engineering would tend towards being more centralized. So instead of devoting a portion of the tonnage for each stateroom towards a communal lounge type of common area, instead a portion of the tonnage spent on each stateroom is devoted towards a communal biome recycling center, rather than each stateroom having their "own" reclamation systems divided up individually for each stateroom. That way the entire life support system throttles down (50% occupancy means 50% demand load on the entire system) rather than it being some parts of it running at 100% while other parts are running at 0% (occupied versus not occupied).
 
TNE mentions this, to a point. Notably it mentions that while you don't have to "life support" things like the cargo or fuel tanks, it sure make life a lot easier if you do so you can treat them as T-shirt world playgrounds vs frozen death pressure hells.
Cargo holds, sure. But why would you bother with life support in a fuel tank? N2 and O2 are contaminants! Artificial gravity is probably a good idea though, just to ensure proper fuel flow.
 
what happens if it doesn't get the CO2 and waste because there's an empty stateroom?
Ostensibly there is some cost involved in empty staterooms as generally speaking they are not vacuum rated. I mean, they only have partition doors so you at least have to maintain the atmosphere requirements.

Starts to get pretty fiddly. Probably only worth worrying about in a misjump or “we’re totally stranded without fuel” scenario.
 
That way the entire life support system throttles down (50% occupancy means 50% demand load on the entire system) rather than it being some parts of it running at 100% while other parts are running at 0% (occupied versus not occupied).
The problem is that the whole system needs a certain amount of CO2 per liter of active biological material for it to remain viable. Too few occupants starts making the conversion medium "sick". Whether that's one chunk of it dying off outright, or the whole batch turning a bit brown, it's still not good.
 
Ostensibly there is some cost involved in empty staterooms as generally speaking they are not vacuum rated. I mean, they only have partition doors so you at least have to maintain the atmosphere requirements.

Starts to get pretty fiddly. Probably only worth worrying about in a misjump or “we’re totally stranded without fuel” scenario.
It's probably down in the static noise anyhow, may as well handwave it.
 
Note that the same thing would apply to small craft cabins as well as a point of commonality.
I'm ok with the MgT implementation (as a tonnage/cost basis, not necessarily the written description).
Maybe it doesn't scale down below 1Td/2 persons.

I don't see it as literally a per-stateroom object -- that is, you don't build individual modules into closets adjacent to each stateroom -- that was just a conceptual artifact. It's undoubtedly centralized!

And continuing on my response to Foevan, above, you shouldn't need to pay life support costs for the cargo hold space (climate control is almost free, gravity less so -- but unless you're carrying livestock, the air composition doesn't need more control than the staterooms already provide). Conversely, if you're using the cargo hold for steerage passengers, they do need additional life support capacity or they'll suffocate (and/or starve and/or end up in a line for the bathroom).

Yes, you might end up with your bathrooms obstructed by queues of emaciated dead steerage passengers. (I suppose I could have rewritten the sentence to make it clearer...)
 
Last edited:
While they did rewrite a bunch of stuff in MT, I like to look at MT as the "what did they really mean in CT" edition, as it gave them time and space to consolidate what they were trying to say in CT.

That said, I couldn't find anything about life support in MT.
The occupancy price is in Imp Encyclopedia, p 89, Cr2K/occupied SR. When it's due isn't listed on the flowcharts.

The actual LS gear is in the vehicle design sequences, and is, in MT, separate from the stateroms. (LS MT RM page 81... step 8.1; SR MT RM page 82 step 9.9)
 
Last edited:
I personally use seperate provisions and Life support Then both are subject to player interaction to reduce costs.

I also use Zero Space additions for things like gardens and the like.

Then there is the installed workshop fabricating/recycling the hardware of life support. Thus lowering the costs, but consider the extra work load.
 
Back
Top