On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 4:03 AM Timothy Collinson - timothy.collinson at port.ac.uk (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:

 

Tom B wrote:

>Nice work so far.

 

Thank you.  I like the ‘so far’.  So it could be improved…. ;-)


You write things. I'm quite sure, even after you've sent them to press, you know there are things you'd have wanted to expand, clean-up, etc. That's just how it is with any form of creation.

Those that strive for perfection often produce little for the very reason that the goalposts keep sliding away as you see ways to improve, expand, etc.

 

>>    - is 'bus' the right word?  I'm sort of imagining the main ESS feeding 'big' subsystems (to the

>>right) more directly but the internal and external 'small' electrics through some sort of step

>>down if that's the right expression.

 

>Data bus: Moves bits of information around to other systems.

>Electrical distribution bus: Moves charge around to other systems.

 

>Depending on how you want to lay things out, you can have multiple of each in a vehicle.

 

Yes, I toyed with the idea of putting lots more in but didn’t think it was overly helpful.

I also toyed with including (or making a separate diagram for) more computer links/terminals etc but decided, again, it wasn’t particularly 

helpful (or at least, would make it too confusing). 


Having say 3-5 total diagrams for a vehicle might be reasonable, but don't clutter up any one so badly it will be hard to use or follow.

Keep in mind the black box principle: If a sub assembly can be represented in an overall diagram as a box, then what you care about are its connectivity and its inputs/outputs. You can make another diagram for the subassembly's innards if you need it.
 

 

I might revisit the latter.  I can see a 2nd and 3rd schematic for water/waste water and computers.  Trying to get them all on one might produce the kind of diagram I was rather hoping to avoid!

 

>One reason is to keep different sorts of data separate (like on an airliner where you don't want to

>have the passenger entertainment bus being the same physical wiring as the flight control bus (and

>this stupidity has actually been designed into several modern airliners and hackers have actually

>shown they can go from entertainment bus to flight control).

 

Oh no!  I’d not heard that but I can imagine.  Even I know that that would be a Bad Idea!  Yes, it would be cheaper but not safe/wise. 


I'm amazed that airlines, ship designers (aquatic) and others take shortcuts but the dollar drives a lot of safety decisions under.

"Mr. Titanic Designer, there don't seem to be enough lifeboats."
"Yeah, well, the financiers were demanding cleaner looking decks...."
"Really? You thought that was okay...."
"Well, we weren't planning to hit an iceberg!"
"Seems you ought to have considered that."

 

For this reason I thought about putting the Auxiliary ESS as a complete separate system but it was too difficult to draw on without adding lines everywhere to represent it being able to feed two subsystems when I didn’t know which the second would be (I thought that would be fun for players: “OK, life support is a given but you have to choose between your interior lighting/fresher and comms, say”.  Of course, if it’s easily switchable, it’s not such a problem.

You don't need to leave systems off, Aux ESS. You just need to have a little Venn Diagram:
- These systems (one circle) are critical to survival
- These systems (another circle) are high demand systems (power wise - sustained high consumption)
- These systems (another circle) are low demand systems (power wise - sustained low consumption or limited duration high consumption)

You have one emergency battery.... which you want to energize? (...and here's the standard survival list for a reference...)

 

 

>Multiple power buses will exist for reasons of varying voltage/current loads (you aren't likely to

>deliver motor power and the power for your microelectronics via the same bus - motor start or

>high acceleration might well jump the power demand leading to spikes electronics don't love).

 

Yes, my knowledge isn’t great, but this I did kind of understand.  Hence the drive train being a distinct subsystem from the others (I’m assuming the +1 subsystem for the Aux ESS doesn’t include driving), and the ‘little’ things (interior and exterior electronics) have their own bus.  Glad to know I wasn’t too far off the mark there.


That's good, but it might make sense to label each bus similarly (descriptive name).
 

 

>Are  you using a petrol engine in zero G or in zero P/vacuum? Are you using a combustion engine

>on a planet that has incompatible atmo - heavy, thick, exotic or insidious, or just plain tainted or

>maybe just low or too high on O2 partial pressures.... or too much CO2?

 

Nope.  See above.  “Energy Storage System” (direct from JTAS 3) seems to me to be a battery rather than petrol engine.  Not sure what else ESS could be, but I’m definitely picturing an internal battery (perhaps under the floor rather than a small thing in the ‘engine’ compartment.


Could be a fuel cell (foamed matrix with H2 gas in it and a conversion mechanic to get electricity out of it or some such). They've been looking at some sort of similar scheme for cellphones for longer battery lives.

 

>Batteries might really make more sense.

 

Yes, I assume that Marc Miller I’m guessing it was, thought so too.

 

>>- is the Auxiliary ESS only powering Life Support and 1 other subsystem in an emergency a bit

>>mean?  Is 12 hours too generous?  (Though I think we're in speed of plot territory here).

 

>You'd want to cover:

>heater (for cold planets)

>cooler (for hot planets)

>Atmo systems (whatever you think appropriate)

 

I’m taking those three as all part of ‘life support’.  I was tempted to detail this more, but perhaps on another sheet.


You could have one small diagram for Atmo/Env. I think that might give you some troubleshooting opportunities.

 

>Comms - short range and long range radios, maybe laser or maser, plus a distress beacon (and it

>would have a battery backup)

>Cabin lights

>Door locks if they are electrical and don't have any manual opening options (which they should

>really)

 

See above – I thought it fun if PCs have to choose.  But yes, comms would be the obvious one and I did think of adding the interior lights as a ‘must’ but decided that made it a bit too easy.   I’m thinking the Aux ESS really is ‘emergency only’ (hence thinking 12 hours might be a bit generous).  (And how feasible is it to jimmy it so you can have three subsystems but less time!  oooh, Task rolls…)


We all 'love' darkness or crappy emergency lighting when things get low-power.... ;) (Good call on a plot front, though LED strips are not expensive to run for long periods)

When thinking of duration for AuxESS consider:
Vehicle range (assuming vehicle has driven half its distance out, it will have to come the same back - how long does that take? Aux ESS needs to support that if it is to self-rescue)
What is usage on worst case planets? (that would guide the amount of power).

Depending on your problem, a power spike or some other sort of damage could also affect the ESS, reducing its efficiency or blowing a few of its internal cells... thus leaving you with less than the expected emergency reserve.

 

>Any heaters or coolers that prevent the vehicle's fluids from boiling or freezing.

 

oooh, now I didn’t think of that.  Good thought.  (Though I suppose you could subsume it in life support.  Or indeed, in ‘water systems’ as they’re part of the electronics because they need pumping, filtering etc.)


Yes, but if people aren't driving and don't expect to, then they could shut those down perhaps to lengthen duration of what they do need.
 

 

>Transponders: Basic one, probably.

>Vehicle Data Recorder: Variable by jurisdiction

 

oooh, another good thought.  I’ll add it as an optional extra.  Perhaps in a text description that I’m feeling ought to accompany this.


Yes likely.

 

>AG? What for exactly? Making it more comfortable in high G planets? If so, that better be

>supported by your Auxilliary ESS too.

 

Hmmm, good thought.  Though I think I’m going to say that’s not standard and is provided for on ATVs specifically designed for, let’s say, more than 2G.

 

>If to make you feel less queezy in low-G planets... then not so critical to have Aux ESS support.

 

That’s more what I had in mind.  A ‘luxury’ option if you like.


Sure, there are bound to be all sorts of levels of ATV.
 

 

>To lift the vehicle over crevasses or whatever... not necessary for Aux ESS, but will need some sort

>of tie in to controls and vehicle sensors to manage largely automated jumps.

 

Definitely not thinking that.  Or we might as well just have a grav vehicle!    (But love the Moon Patrol link – thanks for the memory!)


Well, a small, high output CG lifter module that could only really be pulsed (or you'd wipe your batteries really fast) could let you do the 'crevasse jump'. I mean, come on... isn't your ATV pilot going to love the idea of jumping crevasses or over boulders or maybe large alien life forms...? That has 'ADVENTURE!' written all over it. ;)

Again, optional component.

 


Which reminds me, when it says it's 'all terrain' I assume that means water but further I assume that it only really means 'can wade through rivers' or perhaps cross the bottom of a (small?) lake.  I didn't imagine that it really operates on the surface of water as a boat.  Or is that wrong?  


Better define this.

I think ATV is a generic concept.

There's an ATV that can handle some rough terrain (like a modern ATV) that has no environment/life support, you get the comms you carry, limited supplies lashed on (or some have a bed), and in most cases, not amphibious (small quad, trike).

Then there's an enclosed track layer or wheeled ATV system with no real atmo/enviro - it's still an air breather and just fans in atmo. Like a panel van on  off-road suspension. Might have winch or some such.

Sealed environment - On land, but in various non-breathable places so needs atmo, a reserve of air or a reprocess for CO2 (or both) and likely has a duration of 24 hours to 5 days (may depend on people aboard), would need outside sensors to be better, etc. and would likely need a toilet

Then there's that sort of ATV plus atmo/env (vacuum tight) but if you want to operate in vacuum, your tracks/wheels need upgraded as does the drive train due to temps and vacuum effects on things like engines, drive train, lubricants.

Fording - You get some seals, you get a snorkel, you can ford up to about 1' over your roofline, though just above the hood is a more practical level. You can't stay submerged for too long (seals are imperfect and you aren't a sub).

Upgrade to Swimming - You have some atmo and sealed up so you can swim (propulsion from big ridges on OR tires or from track features or from props or water jets or CG at higher levels).

Upgrade to Submersible (Bottom crawler) - You have pressure hull, you have some limited swim power, but mostly you can just crawl along the bottom - underwater external lights, any airlock is one designed to pump out water for transitions, space suits maybe replaced with undersea gear, may have an attached electric propulsion sea sled (or a drone that does the same), you have an ability to rebreathe / process CO2 so that you can stay submerged for 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, etc. (Probably no more than 4 days) and rescue gear would include ascent kits

Full land-sea conversion - you can swim, crawl the bottom, run on land... this is a cadillac but it is expensive

Further steps:

Then you start dealing with higher gravity, exotic or insidious atmo, possibly the need to be armed, possibly the need to mount scientific sensors or systems inside or outside, possibly some CG assist, possibly high end luxury fitouts (wet bar, Tri-D, a spot for your valet)....

Lots of variation. Tech Level would impact what you could do. Early ATV could be late TL-5, last ATV might be specialized hard environment models at early TL-10. Once grav comes along at TL-9 (late stage has prototypes) then you start looking at any contact propulsion as 'why?'.
 


The JTAS [Mongoose] 1 version of the ATV article makes a differentiation with a different vehicle version that operates as a waterbourne vehicle which tends to reinforce my opinion about the basic ATV.


Yes, hard to cram all into one unless you threw a lot of engineers and MCr at the problem.

 

><snip list of charging points>

 

Great list.  I have the ‘larger one’ for connecting the ESS to starport or starship charging (as per JTAS 3).  The ‘small ones’ are what I was thinking of, but I do have one line that goes to an external outlet and I’d not committed myself on whether that was a bit beefier (your ‘medium sized’ one) or just a standard ('small') one – but I like the idea of it being so.  Maybe the engineer has jury rigged something to step down from the exterior outlet to hand comps when out 'camping'.

Could be a charging pad, or field effect charging if you are in proximity to the ATV (that's sweet, you just part it next to your camp.... of course it turns out on the new planet, some critters are drawn to electromag.... lol!).

The ability to dump power out in larger quantity (a large receptacle) might be an optional thing (let's say you regulary have to support external energy hungry gear that needs recharged).I envision a prospector/miners ATV benefiting from this.

 

>>[subsystem control panels?]

>Yes and no. Some things that one is not meant to watch or control (say motors themselves mostly

>outside) would likely not.

 

Well I do have a little auxiliary computer CPU helping looking after the drivetrain but I can imagine you could only control it ‘directly’ by plugging in a handcomp or something.


Ultimately, the design logic might be:
It costs something to put a display unit or a display + small computer at each subsystem.
It also costs to have a central computer. But that also means you can see a lot of data from one seat (important for single-handing... if you have a crowd, it's a different situation).
Both have advantages.
 

 

The ‘controls’ from the airlock is a good idea.  Again, perhaps something for descriptive text rather than another line on the diagram.  But good thought.


Sure. I think a lot of the optionalities could be handled by text.

I think also you could have 'Aux Equipment Sockets' connected to your buses and what (if anything) goes there would be dependent on the option loadout.
 

 

 

>Also: To what I said above:

>Depending on the purchase jurisdiction, more or less safety equipment would be required to be

>present at time of purchase. Similarly, more or less comms/tracking/autonav/transponder type

>stuff will be required at time of purchase again based on purchase jurisdiction (unless you get an

>export only model).

 

Oooh, that’s a good thought.  Although it does of course raise questions about where the March Harrier and/or the ATV were bought.  But…


Won in a Sabaac game from a man named Lando?
 

 

>Further, any ATV that's 'been around' could have been up or down modded with various things that

>prior users felt were necessary or vestigial.

 

… yes, the March Harrier has been kicking around for (I think I said 40 years) so the ATV may be elderly too.  Which means all sorts of things could be missing/added.  I like that.  Perhaps a d66 table is called for along with some descriptive text. 


That'd be fun for older ATVs. You could modify the 77 Quirks for Starships to do that. Or make a D66 version for the ATVs.

 

<sigh>  This is really turning into a Thing, isn’t it?!  (I’ve already thought I ought to do a similar thing but for the new Mongoose _Vehicle Handbook_ version at TL12.)


Sure. It could easily be. The universe is a big place and lots of variations will exist.

 

>The cost of a model may also dictate the interior fit and finish, the power plant options, any

>onboard entertainment and computers,

 

Well, the outlets were for PCs to 'bring their own'.  But yes, posh ones would add this kind of stuff.


Lesson I learned about wealth/power:

The person that is important has a) the biggest desk (it dominates the space and makes a point before you even say a word), b) the cleanest desk (because anything that needs filed, organized, etc. are handled by the minions).

They also don't carry much to meetings - they have people whose job it is to do that. And to type up and clean up what they direct.
So, yes, in theory the people could bring their own, but with vehicles for the rich, they'd have built ins because suckers are the only people who carry their own and rich peeps (or peers) aren't suckers.

 

>Also note that your schematics does not allow for any weapons integration or any external sensor

>integration (like from drones or other exterior sensor packages). Both of those may need antenna >systems that link to the data buses.

 

It sort of does in that that’s what the optional ‘dome’ is if you look at JTAS 3.  It says it can host just those types of things.  But yes, I can see an argument for an additional feed for maybe a fixed external mount or two.  Certainly on militarised versions.


Again, if you had some places in the data bus and the electrical bus that were 'aux equipment feeds/sockets', you could have any given combo fit there depending on circumstance (leaves open to cover all the stuff we can't think up just now too).

 

 

>Also, redundancy beyond the Aux ESS may be more common with higher end/higher quality

>version of an ATV. That might include duplicate computers or other systems.

 

yes, I put in the auxiliary computer for just this reason.  I could change it to an optional extra but it seems like an obvious thing even the base model would have at least a limited back up version of.  I was wondering however if I should sever *any* connection with the main computer (shades of Virus?!?) but decided it would most likely have some kind of ‘last state’ feed and perhaps a diagnostic connection and/or a ‘reboot’ link.

 


Unless you were in TNE, I don't suppose it would be fully separate, but text it such that it can ignore the input from the main computer (shut it down).

Redundant computers (MT recommends 3 on spaceships, but on grav vehicles or full submersibles, I'd expect 3) on non-sealed, normal commuter vehicles - optional. On rough country stuff, at least 1, if full atmo secured, 2 spares.
 
I have some ideas for failure cases and fun things for the eng/tech folks to try to suss out.... but my fingers are bugging so it'll have to wait until the morrow.

TomB


Many thanks for the thoughts and help.

 

tc

 


On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 05:04, <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
Nice work so far.

Comments below.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:24 PM Timothy Collinson - timothy.collinson at port.ac.uk (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com> wrote:

Some doh! questions from my ignorance:

- is 'bus' the right word?  I'm sort of imagining the main ESS feeding 'big' subsystems (to the right) more directly but the internal and external 'small' electrics through some sort of step down if that's the right expression.

Data bus: Moves bits of information around to other systems.
Electrical distribution bus: Moves charge around to other systems.

Depending on how you want to lay things out, you can have multiple of each in a vehicle.

One reason is to keep different sorts of data separate (like on an airliner where you don't want to have the passenger entertainment bus being the same physical wiring as the flight control bus (and this stupidity has actually been designed into several modern airliners and hackers have actually shown they can go from entertainment bus to flight control). The argument for having them on the same wire, but logically different is that (if someone isn't hacking) they are differentiated and one wire run is cheaper than two.

Multiple power buses will exist for reasons of varying voltage/current loads (you aren't likely to deliver motor power and the power for your microelectronics via the same bus - motor start or high acceleration might well jump the power demand leading to spikes electronics don't love). Also, if you get a short or a spike from something on a bus, everything else on said bus could be at stake, Reason for having only one or two, versus a handfull - cost/simplicity (which is another way of saying cost).


Feel free to be harsh - as I say, I don't really know what I'm doing.

- is a 'Starter' just completely ridiculous?  It seemed like a bit of fun and then I thought, ok, it's not a petrol engine which needs to be turned over electrically at first, but it's a big brute of a system and maybe it needs a little something to get it going?  (Or alternatively: something else to go wrong!)

Are  you using a petrol engine in zero G or in zero P/vacuum? Are you using a combustion engine on a planet that has incompatible atmo - heavy, thick, exotic or insidious, or just plain tainted or maybe just low or too high on O2 partial pressures.... or too much CO2?

Batteries might really make more sense (Musk is looking to build transport trucks with power cells, at TL-9). A small power cell might make sense too (a conversion tool for hydrogen or some other gas that is energetic).

- is the Auxiliary ESS only powering Life Support and 1 other subsystem in an emergency a bit mean?  Is 12 hours too generous?  (Though I think we're in speed of plot territory here).

You'd want to cover:
heater (for cold planets)
cooler (for hot planets)
Atmo systems (whatever you think appropriate)
Comms - short range and long range radios, maybe laser or maser, plus a distress beacon (and it would have a battery backup)
Cabin lights
Door locks if they are electrical and don't have any manual opening options (which they should really)
Any heaters or coolers that prevent the vehicle's fluids from boiling or freezing.

- do ATVs have transponders?  Or artificial gravity?  (perhaps the latter should be saved for a higher tech level)

Transponders: Basic one, probably.
Vehicle Data Recorder: Variable by jurisdiction
AG? What for exactly? Making it more comfortable in high G planets? If so, that better be supported by your Auxilliary ESS too.
If to make you feel less queezy in low-G planets... then not so critical to have Aux ESS support.
To lift the vehicle over crevasses or whatever... not necessary for Aux ESS, but will need some sort of tie in to controls and vehicle sensors to manage largely automated jumps.
https://www.arcadeclassics.net/80s-game-videos/moon-patrol  (watch for the moon buggy jumping crevasses).


- is there a better word than 'outlets'?  I'm thinking of the 'sockets' to plug in your own equipment.  At higher TLs they might not be actual 'sockets' but some kind of charging point like my phone pod charger (induction coil or something???)

I think here most electricians refer to plugs in vernacular (which they are not - they are things plugs are inserted into) but formally by receptacles.

You may well have more than one type of charging port in such a vehicle.
Small ones aboard to charge personal gear (trickle currents) - hand comps, portable sensors, portable comms, etc.
Medium sized ones at the back of the ATV to charge spare life support modules for vacc suits (the power part, maybe also they have tanks of O2/mixed gas to load these modules with too).
Larger ones outside which would facilitate bidirectional access to the ESS(es) for power transfer to additional high power equipment the vehicle can transport and/or to take a boost/power up from the outside world.
I think the medium sized ones could power (slowly) some laser rifles/pistols/carbines or the like.


- I'm imagining that things like the airlock and the life support, in fact all of the subsystems really, would have smaller local control panels near the equipment (or somewhere other than the main control boards 'up front') but this seemed too difficult/tedious to show, is it fair to 'assume' it?

Yes and no. Some things that one is not meant to watch or control (say motors themselves mostly outside) would likely not. There would be an on board diagnostic port or a feed of data to the main data bus. For things like battery charge levels, outside atmo/lights from the lock, turning on and off the outside outlets, etc... yeah, I'd figure there would be switches or panels if a panel was needed.

- I'm trying to reconcile the ATV in JTAS 3 which is what I was picturing with the deck plan in The Traveller Adventure in the corner of the March Harrier deck plans which I've only just remembered exists.  I'm not sure it's possible.  The TTA thing looks much smaller even though it's supposed to be 10 tons still.  Anyone looked at this as an issue?  (Best explanation so far I've come up with: TTA shows the 'brochure' version and JTAS 3 shows the actual ATV.

"Product image may not reflect actual size of product." - I just saw this tonight on a box of frozen croissants (the box had a big croissant pictured, I suspect they are wee ones inside the box).

Also: To what I said above:
Depending on the purchase jurisdiction, more or less safety equipment would be required to be present at time of purchase. Similarly, more or less comms/tracking/autonav/transponder type stuff will be required at time of purchase again based on purchase jurisdiction (unless you get an export only model).
Further, any ATV that's 'been around' could have been up or down modded with various things that prior users felt were necessary or vestigial.
The cost of a model may also dictate the interior fit and finish, the power plant options, any onboard entertainment and computers, even some of the more exotic comms and safety systems.
Also note that your schematics does not allow for any weapons integration or any external sensor integration (like from drones or other exterior sensor packages). Both of those may need antenna systems that link to the data buses.
Also, redundancy beyond the Aux ESS may be more common with higher end/higher quality version of an ATV. That might include duplicate computers or other systems.
If there is one major computer that all the controls and panels feed into, that would be a key thing to represent. The higher the TL of the ATV, the more likely that would be the case. In those cases, most interfaces would just feed data to the main computer and the main computer would feed directions to the subsytems and reflect sensor data back to the various stations.

So, having thrown some things out to think of, I now immediately jump using only my charged jump capacitors!

*POOF!*

TomB


tc









On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 22:04, Timothy Collinson <xxxxxx@port.ac.uk> wrote:
now it looks as if my URL is invisible.

what is its problem?!

(I've tried pasting as unformatted text)

Is this any better?

if not, it should be my last post on @timpaa
tc



On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 22:01, Timothy Collinson <xxxxxx@port.ac.uk> wrote:


On Mon, 6 Jul 2020 at 21:54, Kelly St. Clair <xxxxxx@efn.org> wrote:
The list strips attachments, like your image.  Got a link?


Bother,
I thought I'd very carefully posted an URL to my tweet which I posted because I knew TML didn't like attachments.

is this any better:




--
Timothy Collinson
Faculty Librarian (Technology)
University of Portsmouth
Cambridge Road
Portsmouth
PO1 2ST


--
Timothy Collinson
Faculty Librarian (Technology)
University of Portsmouth
Cambridge Road
Portsmouth
PO1 2ST

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://archives.simplelists.com



--
Timothy Collinson
Faculty Librarian (Technology)
University of Portsmouth
Cambridge Road
Portsmouth
PO1 2ST

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=RDHE7iRpfwqlHvVvWBIhpJZsbTiD5NnL