Rules for Low Berth Passenger Survival...

[HG_B]

I don't know but, I think the easiest way to figure it is if you were to ask yourself. What would have to be your life situation that you would take a trip where your chance of dying on the voyage is: 1%, 5%, 10%...

Then decide for YTU if that kind of passage would exist as an officially allowed commercial activity. :ssb:

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Well...

I don't know but, I think the easiest way to figure it is if you were to ask yourself. What would have to be your life situation that you would take a trip where your chance of dying on the voyage is: 1%, 5%, 10%...

Then decide for YTU if that kind of passage would exist as an officially allowed commercial activity. :ssb:

Some of would call that surgery. Also riding in cars.

 

[HG_B]

Some of would call that surgery. Also riding in cars.

??? Where is it that one has a 1% -10% chance of dying when you take a car ride?

Surgery? If the chance of dying during the surgery is GREATER than if you don't get the surgery, you are doing it wrong.

 

[GypsyComet]

That's an interesting image: modular low berth units that could be moved in and out of a vessel to allow for a passenger to remain under for the duration of a journey.

A bit like exchanging BBQ/griller gas bottles, only with people in them...

This was one of DGP's better bits, actually. A ship that installs Low berths has the option to install sockets, so that the low passengers are frozen off-ship, wheeled onboard at one end, off-board at the other, and treated like specialized freight in between. The portable units have enough battery power to run for a day or so, but need to be plugged in longer term.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

It is about risk.

??? Where is it that one has a 1% -10% chance of dying when you take a car ride?

Surgery? If the chance of dying during the surgery is GREATER than if you don't get the surgery, you are doing it wrong.

Considering how many cars are on the road and numbers of deaths, it maybe higher. A lot of people seem to think of cars as safe, me, I know better.

Actually, if you are doing it right the risk in surgery is also higher than people generally think and in the case of cosmetic surgery the risk is greater than if you don't get the surgery.

Risk is life, life is risk. Like death (but it turns out not taxes), risk is inevitable.

So, to me low berth death is just another risk, like taking a starship that just might become part of Jumpspace forever. Which I do find amusing all this worry about low berth death but none for the worse fate of being trapped in an alternate dimension that kills and eats life.

 

[HG_B]

Considering how many cars are on the road and numbers of deaths, it maybe higher. A lot of people seem to think of cars as safe, me, I know better.

Um, no. 1% of long car trips don't end up in death. Not EVEN close. :rofl:

Actually, if you are doing it right the risk in surgery is also higher than people generally think and in the case of cosmetic surgery the risk is greater than if you don't get the surgery.

True but, the chance of dying from cosmetic surgery is LESS than 0.0002% ! Everyday living can be that high.

So, to me low berth death is just another risk, l

I'm speaking objectively. And the OBJECTIVE numbers indicate (using modern humans as the subject) it doesn't exist as a form as usual transportation. Only would be used by those who otherwise think that escaping their current circumstances is worth a high chance of dying.

Please list a form of transport in the modern world where chance of death is 1-10% per trip...

 

[Ulsyus]

This was one of DGP's better bits, actually. A ship that installs Low berths has the option to install sockets, so that the low passengers are frozen off-ship, wheeled onboard at one end, off-board at the other, and treated like specialized freight in between. The portable units have enough battery power to run for a day or so, but need to be plugged in longer term.

Very cool. They're in - I'll get back to the group this week to see if they wan't that retconned into their ship.

Though, come to think of it, if it turned out to be a popular move then more and more traders would do it as it would enable a more flexible approach to star travel, and passengers who did need to make a multi-jump journey that can be booked ahead may prefer this to regular wake-ups and shut-downs.

 

[david.wendelken]

Very cool. They're in - I'll get back to the group this week to see if they wan't that retconned into their ship.

Though, come to think of it, if it turned out to be a popular move then more and more traders would do it as it would enable a more flexible approach to star travel, and passengers who did need to make a multi-jump journey that can be booked ahead may prefer this to regular wake-ups and shut-downs.

Two big problems with this.

1) Cost to traveler would be higher. They would have to pay to rent the unit and pay to transport the unit. Since people travel this way because they can't afford better/safer transport, it's not economically viable.

2) The units would pile up on worlds that have lots of immigration into them and be scarce on the worlds where people emigrate from. Someone would have to pay to ship them back empty.

Where it does make sense is when there is a massive colonization program going on and the powers-that-be want to maximize the number of folks who will be transported on each ship. At that point they will be filling up entire cargo holds with the units because it's cheaper than buying a custom built unit with the units permanently fitted in.

 

[rancke]

2) The units would pile up on worlds that have lots of immigration into them and be scarce on the worlds where people emigrate from. Someone would have to pay to ship them back empty.

Right you are. And empties would probably be shipped at the same cost as full ones -- I don't think they would be collapsible.


Hans

 

[boomslang]

Two big problems with this.

1) Cost to traveler would be higher. They would have to pay to rent the unit and pay to transport the unit. Since people travel this way because they can't afford better/safer transport, it's not economically viable.

2) The units would pile up on worlds that have lots of immigration into them and be scarce on the worlds where people emigrate from. Someone would have to pay to ship them back empty.

Where it does make sense is when there is a massive colonization program going on and the powers-that-be want to maximize the number of folks who will be transported on each ship. At that point they will be filling up entire cargo holds with the units because it's cheaper than buying a custom built unit with the units permanently fitted in.

IMTU, portable low berths can fill this niche.

I figure that a portable low berth can mate to a fixed low berth to allow passenger transfer without reviving from low sleep. You (or starport personnel) roll it aboard, plug it into the bottom of the fixed low berth, use a gravitic assist to slide the passenger out of the fixed berth and into the portable one without compromising the seal or disturbing the sleep, roll (or float, if you presume gravitics as above) the passenger off one ship and on to the new one, then reverse the transfer process to reinstall them in a fixed berth there, never waking them or breaking the environmental seal.

Disconnect and clean the portable berth, and then repeat as necessary to transfer as many Low Passengers as required. Starports need only maintain a handful of portable low berths to support this process, and the PLBs themselves may be shipped (empty, of course) as regular cargo should they need off-world servicing or replacement.

Added bonus: passengers in transit but awaiting connections may be temporarily warehoused (for a small pre-arranged fee) in the portable berths until their connection arrives, facility space permitting.

Presumably, a larger version of the Portable Low Berth exists for recovering Emergency Low Berth occupants a quartet at a time from derelict vessels, but the operating principles should remain the same.

 

[rancke]

How about if a switchable inner chamber is part of all (shipboard) low berths? That way you get an empty in return every time you transfer a full chamber.


Hans

 

[boomslang]

How about if a switchable inner chamber is part of all (shipboard) low berths? That way you get an empty in return every time you transfer a full chamber.


Hans

Yes, with adequate quality control -- so you do not get a leaky, century-old sleeve in exchange for the pristine twice-used one you just swapped out with the passenger still in it -- that might also work. Fold the cost into the berth overhead.

But I think I prefer my "keep all my ship's berth's original parts" model.

Also, whatever you go with, do not forget to tack on a Cr100 per use rental fee for the PLB or the sleeve or the module used in the transfer, as well as Cr100 per week "handling fee" for the transfer logistics (paying the personnel to haul popsicles around the starport and otherwise mind them). This surcharge is reasonable and realistic.

 

[GypsyComet]

So we've spent another page re-inventing the MT/DGP swappable Cold Berth...

DGP didn't imply that all cold berths were swappables, so you might have a mixture installed, or you might even refit back and forth at Captain's discretion, based on local customs and market forces. The Four Troublemakers finished their tour in one long Cold transit with only Aybee awake to shepherd the three cold berths, so presumably much of the Imperial neighborhood behind the Claw uses swappables at least part of the time.

 

[Ulsyus]

I figure that a portable low berth can mate to a fixed low berth to allow passenger transfer without reviving from low sleep. You (or starport personnel) roll it aboard, plug it into the bottom of the fixed low berth, use a gravitic assist to slide the passenger out of the fixed berth and into the portable one without compromising the seal or disturbing the sleep, roll (or float, if you presume gravitics as above) the passenger off one ship and on to the new one, then reverse the transfer process to reinstall them in a fixed berth there, never waking them or breaking the environmental seal.

Like anything where people's health and safety is involved, there'd be a certain amount of 3I regulatory oversight. I see all of this happening on SPA territory and therefore under the jurisdiction of the 3I.

Having a mix of permanent and swappables, that sounds sensible. Wouldn't it all come down to market forces in this regard?

 

[boomslang]

Like anything where people's health and safety is involved, there'd be a certain amount of 3I regulatory oversight. I see all of this happening on SPA territory and therefore under the jurisdiction of the 3I.

Having a mix of permanent and swappables, that sounds sensible. Wouldn't it all come down to market forces in this regard?

Well, traditionally the 3I constrains market forces to preserve megacorpoation revenue streams, so I would lean toward expecting regulatory considerations to be the dominant factor.

But this presupposes a certain minimal SPA oversight; who looks into the convenient-for-the-purser coincidence that the passenger who correctly guessed that the low lottery outcome would be -1 also happens to be the only passenger who did not survive the trip, for example?

 

[rancke]

Well, traditionally the 3I constrains market forces to preserve megacorpoation revenue streams...

What do you mean by 'traditionally'? It's a common theory that the 3I favors the megacorporations, but there isn't much evidence to support it, and some evidence that seems to contradict it (namely several mercenary tickets where Imperial regulations limit the forces a megacorporation can bring to bear to support its interests).


Hans

 

[Ulsyus]

Where does the 3I tax stream come from? They don't have any duties or excises on goods traded interstellarly (??), so is it taxes on megacorps and worlds run directly by the Imperium?

 

[rancke]

Where does the 3I tax stream come from? They don't have any duties or excises on goods traded interstellarly (??), so is it taxes on megacorps and worlds run directly by the Imperium?

The Imperium taxes member worlds for military taxes: 30% of each world's military budget goes to the Imperium.

AFAIK there are no other information about Imperial taxes. We don't know how the Imperial Bureaucracy is funded, nor is it clear whether the Scouts are funded from the military budget, are self-financed, or funded from the civilian budget. And we don't know how the duchies are funded, what sort of taxation powers they have.

We do know that the Emperor has a healthy stock portfolio. Getting an Imperial charter to conduct interstellar trade involves giving the Emperor 2% of the company stock (the Emperor's Share), and the Imperial Family has larger shares in many megacorporations (and presumably in lesser corporations too). It's possible that the income is enough to fund the whole Imperial Bureaucracy. Or there could be another, hitherto unmentioned, tax on member worlds. Or there could be Imperial tariffs. We don't know.

It's worth noting that interstellar traffic seems to be relatively small. A megacorporation would be powerful in absolute terms, but compared to the economies of high-population worlds they are small potatoes -- well, maybe medium-sized potatoes.


Hans

 

[Ulsyus]

So quite like a number of the big multi-nationals today: rich beyond belief but still with revenues smaller than moderate first-world nations.

What about worlds in, say, the Marches where they're described as initially populated by Imperial settlers? It seems straightforward to me that the 3I grabbed some systems, allocated them to nobles to oversight, set an administration in place (govt type 6, 8 or 9, possibly evolving through these) and there's another world providing a greater revenue base for the 3I. Would somewhere like Jewell be one of these?

 

[rancke]

What about worlds in, say, the Marches where they're described as initially populated by Imperial settlers? It seems straightforward to me that the 3I grabbed some systems, allocated them to nobles to oversight, set an administration in place (govt type 6, 8 or 9, possibly evolving through these) and there's another world providing a greater revenue base for the 3I. Would somewhere like Jewell be one of these?

Here we get into interpretation of very scanty evidence. Worlds like Mora, Regina and Fornice were settled before the turn of the 1st Century. Some of the other worlds in Trin's Veil and Lunion seem very likely to have been settled early as well. Major inroads in settling the Spinward Marches is said to have been done by 200 [TTB:149]

And yet, the major Imperial expansion and settlement of the Spinward Marches is said to take place from 200-400 [TD18:23].

My explanation for that seeming contradiction is that prior to 200, settlers from the Imperium were commercial ventures like Mora and utopian settlers trying to get AWAY from the Imperium (plus a number of groups expelled from the Imperium during the Pacification Campaigns). Up until 200 only a handful of worlds join the Imperium, and mostly on their own initiative. Then, around 200, Martin II decides to integrate the scattered worlds behind The Claw (that's why he launched the Vargr Campaigns -- to secure the route).

Note that Regina is settled in 75 but doesn't join the Imperium until 250 (same with the other worlds in the Regina Cluster, which have mostly joined by 300).

So my take is that most of the nice colonization goals in the Marches (and some of the not-so-nice colonization goals -- some of the Pacification Campaign exiles were dumped with little consideration, depending on who exactly did the dumping) were settled long before the Imperium took an interest in them.

Also, and this is very much my own take, not even as scantily supported as the preceding bit, I think the Imperium is suppose to defend the autonomy of member worlds and to protect them against undue influence from anyone. No doubt, human nature being what it is, it has failed on more than one occasion, but that's what it is supposed to do.


Hans