Large scale colonization ship

RobertDyck · 2020-09-11 13:58:34

My list included Captain and Petty Officer, as well as deck officers. I didn't give deck officers any structure. Also included Chief Steward for crew who care for passengers, and Chief Engineer for engineering crew. Only difference I see with what kbd512 said is an XO. Ok, so one of the officers has to be XO. Not a big change.

Be careful with comparisons to an aircraft carrier. A civilian ship is not there for combat. And a Nimitz class aircraft carrier has 6,012 crew including air wing, according to Wikipedia. This ship has 1,000 to 1,200 passengers depending on cabin configuration, plus crew. That's a lot smaller. There will be greater emphasis on passenger comfort than combat.

kbd512 · 2020-09-11 17:14:25

Robert,

A ship with a 1,000 people onboard will still have all people who fulfill all those roles I named off. If the ship's crew is small enough, then you can start combining roles, but a ship with 1,000 crew is a major surface combatant in the US Navy.

Passenger comfort still involves crew welfare, so the Command Master Chief, Supply Officer, and Messing Officer are still required.

I forgot an additional role as well. Every ship has a doctor onboard, often more than one, along with various Corpsman to care for the injured.

We had a trauma surgeon or flight surgeon, a doctor who acted as a general physician, an optometrist, a pharmacist, and a dentist.

Let's do a realistic head count here:

Command Staff
CO - Commanding Officer
XO - Executive Officer
CMC - Command Master Chief Petty Officer
OPSO - Operations Officer
COMMO - Communications Officer
RDO / Chief Engineer - Reactor Duty Officer or Engineering Officer

Medical Staff
Surgeon - A trauma surgeon, internal medicine surgeon, radiologist, neurosurgeon, and OBGYN as well would be minimally required
Physician - This person needs to be a highly trained clinician
Optometrist - Vision problems are quite serious
Dentist - Trying to go six months with a rotten or broken tooth won't work
Pharmacist - Even in the Navy, certain people are dependent upon medications, and even if you're not, you'll still need prescription drugs
Psychiatrist - This person could be the ship's Chaplain and frequently was
Head Nurse - assists surgeons during surgery, administers medications, takes vital signs
Corpsman - vaccinations, blood work, pap smears, treating minor injuries, much like an EMT (you typically need a good number of these people, but even then they do routine training to treat the wounded in case they're killed; we were taught to stabilize patients / check for injuries before moving them to medical / control bleeding- ABCs type stuff, bandage wounds, deal with poisoning, etc)

You do cross-training as a matter of normal business in the Navy, but that doesn't make you an expert on anything. However, you're required to learn about all the systems aboard your ship, the roles that everyone else fills, etc.

Supply Staff
SO - Supply Officer; supply clerks / store keepers are responsible for movement of supplies on and off the ship
MO - Messing Officer; there are a host of messing specialists who prepare meals
Ship's Barber

Legal Staff
Judge Advocate General - The ship's attorney and legal consultant (typically required just to pull into port somewhere)
Master-at-Arms - This is the only individual who is normally armed aboard a ship outside of combat operations (something this ship will hopefully never become involved in), generally speaking this man or woman is so huge that they look like a linebacker for a professional football team, and he or she has the power and duty to arrest anyone for breaking the law (if they have to bring the Captain back to the ship in handcuffs, they will, you can believe that) and also runs the command urinalysis program (a whiz quiz will follow ports-of-call, reporting to the command, any accident involving serious injury or death, serious destruction of property, random times, etc), breaking up fights between sailors, etc (no different than a normal Law Enforcement Officer)

To believe that 23 people can adequately care for 1,000 people is, quite frankly, a little absurd. That is why everyone will be a part of the crew. The skills learned to hazard a ship will be every bit as useful when they're at the base on Mars.

A typical tour of duty lasts for 3 years in the Navy, but we could shorten shipboard deployment times with shore duty and leave at Mars.

Pretending you don't need all these people when their services are required won't work.

BTW, our ships are going to deliver a minimum of 10,000 colonists per opportunity if we're serious about colonizing Mars in any reasonable timeframe. These will necessarily be real ships with nuclear reactors and nuclear propulsion systems. If not, then we're not very serious about colonizing Mars, we just want some kind of monument to our ability to spend money. If we're going to spend the money to do this at all, then we're going to spend the money to build a real city with its own economy and infrastructure.

RobertDyck · 2020-09-11 18:19:28

First of all, this is not a ship with 1,000 crew. This is a passenger ship. Passengers are living cargo, not assigned duties.

Crew I listed was based on an actual passenger ship, with modifications based on modern cruise ships. This is a passenger transport, not luxury cruise ship so fewer recreational accommodations.

Your position vs what I listed:
CO - Captain
XO - the SS City of New York had a "Chief Officer", but you could use name title "Executive Officer", "First Officer", etc
CMC - Petty Officer (shortened title because crew is less than 100 instead of 6,000)
Operations Officer - do we really need this position? Duties can be assumed by other officers.
Communications Officer - in a world with modern computers, do we need a separate position? Ok, assign this to one of the deck officers.
Chief Engineer - Chief Engineer ... yup

Medical: cruise ships typically have 1 doctor and 1 nurse for this number of passengers. Expect less than 10 patients to visit the doctor per day. You have a lot fewer medical issues when you don't have people shooting at you.

Dentist: most people in civilian life see the dentist once per year. Make sure you don't have any issues before boarding the ship, because you'll be 6 months in space. But you said your ship had a "trauma surgeon or flight surgeon, a doctor who acted as a general physician, an optometrist, a pharmacist, and a dentist." Ok, so again one doctor.

Psychiatrist: I suppose this is necessary when your job is to kill people. And people are trying to kill you. Most people in civilian life never see a psychiatrist at all. Ever. I saw a counsellor when I was in grade 6. I could give an account of childhood problems, but haven't seen any psychiatric professional since. For most people, if you feel you need to see a psychiatrist, there's something seriously wrong with you. Some people speak to a pastor or priest. I guess I did in 2009. A friend cheated on his wife, then his wife made a pass at me. She suspected he cheated; I believe her intention was revenge. I'm not going to do that with a friend's wife, but needed to speak with someone so spoke to a pastor. That was 2009. If someone really needs to speak to a professional, there's the doctor or nurse. Remember, statistically a cruise ship with this many passengers has less than 10 patients visit the doctor per day.

Supply staff:
Supply Officer - do you need that onboard the ship? Wouldn't that be a ground-based position? Supply Officer only has work loading supplies; one needed at each port. Actually, purchasing would be a whole department, with supplies sitting ready in port, waiting for the ship to arrive.
Messing Officer - Chef aka head cook. With other cooks reporting to the chef.

You didn't list Chief Steward. Chef reports to the Chief Steward. Staff includes steward for luxury cabin (first class), but since this ship has so few first class cabins, I believe one dedicated steward is enough. Table waiters, bedroom stewards (housekeeping), cooks, and bartenders/baristas. Positions from the 1903 ship that I didn't think we need: porters, bakers, butchers, and storekeepers. Again, on a civilian passenger ship the storekeeper reports to the Chief Steward. He/she is ultimately responsible for movement of supplies on and off the ship. So it's covered.

Ship's barber - hmm. That may be a good idea.

Legal Stuff:
JAG - on a civilian ship, clearance with ports is a major responsibility of the Captain. A large ship could have a clerk do that, but we won't need a clerk for this ship. Legal stuff will be handled by ground crew. Pulling into orbit will be Captain's responsibility.
Master-at-Arms. A passenger ship is not normally armed at all. This position isn't necessary when no one onboard has a firearm, and no one other than ship officers have any combat training. When necessary, a civilian ship has "security" to do that.

My crew list totalled 60, not 23. Again, this is a passenger ship, not luxury cruise ship or combat vessel. As comparison, an Airbus A380 aircraft has 3 cockpit crew plus 21 in the cabin, for more than 400 passengers.

So let's see. Your recommendation is to add security. We could add an exercise coordinator. I allocated significant space to a gym. Any other?

RobertDyck · 2020-09-11 19:39:55

Sweedums?

Or this guy?
"I will hug him and pet him and squeeze him and call him George!"
tenor.gif?itemid=5741531

kbd512 · 2020-09-11 21:50:17

Robert,

I think part of the reason you have such a cavalier attitude towards the welfare of the people onboard the ship is that it won't be your life in jeopardy. With 1,000+ people onboard who paid at least a quarter million dollars to go to Mars, you sure are obsessed over eliminating a handful of vital crew roles that nobody else without proper training could ever fill. The phrase "penny-wise, but pound-foolish" immediately comes to mind. You're balking at a crew of 23 people to support 1,000 people. That's 43 passengers per crew member. A cargo ship with zero passengers onboard has 20 to 30 crew members, with 6 to 14 officers on average. A cruise liner has about 1 crew member for every two passengers. How you think this 6 month long drinking binge is supposed to work without any crew is beyond my understanding.

Again, you're not going to be getting drunk out of your mind. This is a transport that's operating in a lethal environment, not a party barge. Fires don't wait to happen until you're sober. You don't need anyone shooting at you to get yourself killed. Repairs to vital systems will have to be effected while the ship is underway, which is the case for cruise ships as well as military ships. Part of the reason for having a reasonably good crew onboard is to cross-train them so that one day they have enough experience to assume command of their own ship.

Medical - There are no stop-overs in-transit. If someone is seriously injured, they're going to die without proper medical care. You act as if nothing bad will ever happen to anyone aboard this ship. In most cases that's probably true. In other cases, a lot of people are going to be seriously injured or killed. One doctor is not going to fulfill the roles of a surgeon, a dentist, and a pharmacist. Anyone who believes that is a magical thinker, plain and simple. You're not going to call for a helicopter to fly someone off the ship if something goes wrong.

I suppose the Legal Officer could be eliminated, but this officer performs a lot of legal services for the crew and passengers. I think removing this person would be a mistake.

Master-at-Arms - Hmm... Well, I guess when, not if, someone sneaks a weapon aboard the ship, even if the only intent is to destroy the ship or hurt the passengers to terrorize people, then you'll figure this one out, but probably not a moment before then. Even merchant ships now carry firearms to protect the crew, even though they're not supposed to, because the Navy can't reach them before pirates do in all cases. If we didn't have evil people, I completely agree that weapons would be entirely unnecessary. Please note that I didn't say that the MAA had to have a firearm for personal defense. An electromagnetic baton launcher would work just fine, the baton rounds would be reusable, and most importantly, assure that the hull is never penetrated. There are certainly going to be knives and screw drivers aboard, and those are quite lethal at close range, which any MAA worth having would never stupidly subject themselves to whilst completely unarmed. However, this person is going to be armed with something other than their fists if their job is to subdue someone who smuggled a weapon aboard- and yes, that really does happen quite frequently, on both civilian and military vessels. I am always amazed at the stuff civilians with no close combat training whatsoever, certainly no realistic combat training, believe about combat.

All those officers such as the XO / OPSO / COMMO / RDO, also take turns monitoring the ship from the bridge, aka the CDO.

The Supply Officer is responsible for moving stores about the ship and assisting the Messing Officer. Again, you're balking at 2 crew members who are supporting 1,000 passengers (who won't be mere passengers because they can't be).

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-11 22:55:18

For kbd512 and RobertDyck re development of Crew requirements

Thank you both for giving this important matter attention ...

I think that the idea of cross training the passengers during their six to eight months aboard ship makes a lot of sense. For one thing, it will provide intellectual stimulation and (some) social interaction (ie, team building) which would seem appropriate for people headed to a deadly dangerous environment for an extended stay.

My own experience with an ocean "cruise" isn't very helpful. I was aboard a troop ship for a voyage to Europe as the Vietnam War was heating up. The ship was redeployed to the Vietnam theater on its very next voyage.

There were probably plenty of Navy folks on board, but as a "passenger" I don't remember them. The memorable parts of the trip were the opportunities to stand on the fantail and watch the awesome wake collapse on itself.

RobertDyck's vision is of a fairly cozy configuration, in comparison .... it seems likely to me that most of the passengers will get to at least talk briefly with all the others, especially if that is a planned activity.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2020-09-12 02:13:12

kbd512 wrote:

I think part of the reason you have such a cavalier attitude towards the welfare of the people onboard the ship is that it won't be your life in jeopardy.

You're really determined to be insulting, aren't you. No, that's not true. Your obsession with doing things the military way is beyond annoying. Never forget, the navy deliberately loads every ship with several times the number of crew necessary to operate the ship, because they count on casualties from combat killing of significant portion of crew. The gigantic crew is not actually necessary to operate the ship, it's there as cannon fodder.

kbd512 wrote:

You're balking at a crew of 23 people...

There you go again, repeating a fictional number. I clearly stated 60 crew. That's more than double the number you claim!

kbd512 wrote:

You don't need anyone shooting at you to get yourself killed.

Operating an aircraft carrier you certainly don't. And remember, American aircraft carriers are not normal carriers, they're super-carriers. Jet aircraft landing on the deck of a ship, with waves pitching the entire ship up and down, is very dangerous. Just standing on the deck of a ship while aircraft land is also very dangerous. Handling ordinance that can explode in your face is extremely dangerous. Jet fuel can burn at a temperature so hot it can set steel deck plates on fire. Civilian cruise ships don't have any of this.

Here's an actual reference, what it's like to be a doctor on a cruise ship.
What to do if you want to be a cruise ship doctor

You will usually see 10 to 20 patients per day, mostly with minor problems. The top five most common issues seen (based on my informal poll of doctors I’ve talked to on ships) are; MI, stroke, fractures, lacerations and GI issues (not infectious). These are pretty typical problems faced by the elderly population that frequent these ships. I, at age 55, am younger than almost every paying passenger on the ship. There are some cruises though that cater to a younger crowd, like Disney for example. On those cruises, some pediatric problems might be seen.
Ships have a mini hospital on board. They are required to have at least one hospital bed per 1,000 passengers. Most ships have an ICU bed and a few regular beds. They keep the usual assortment of medications, simple X-ray services, minor surgical equipment, lumbar puncture tray, EKG machine and the basic equipment found in a medical ICU, including the ability to intubate. When a ship is at sea, the ship needs to carry everything needed to get the patient through their problem until the ship arrives at the next port. At that time, the patient is evaluated to determine if the patient’s problem can be treated well on the ship, or if the patient needs to be off-loaded to a local hospital.

Obviously a Mars ship cannot offload anyone until it arrives on Mars. Typical cruise ship carries 3,000 passengers, largest ones carry 6,000. Passengers, not crew. This Mars ship will carry 1,000 to 1,200 passengers.

kbd512 wrote:

Master-at-Arms ... Well, I guess when, not if, someone sneaks a weapon aboard the ship

So you're saying we need to thoroughly search any Americans boarding the ship. Remember, I live in Canada. There are very strict laws about handguns here. It's highly illegal to carry a handgun in public. Those few who do own a handgun are subject to daily criminal record check by police. Daily. Handguns can only be used for target shooting. Transporting a handgun must be unloaded, with a trigger lock, in a locked gun case, and in the trunk of your car or a locked compartment of your vehicle. You lived on a military ship where everyone is trained how to use firearms, and everyone has easy access to weapons. Your argument means all Americans must be banned from space. I really don't want to do that. So, how many weapons issues occur on commercial aircraft per year?

kbd512 wrote:

The Supply Officer is responsible for moving stores about the ship and assisting the Messing Officer. Again, you're balking at 2 crew members who are supporting 1,000 passengers (who won't be mere passengers because they can't be).

Your crew list completely missed the very important position of Chief Steward. Duties for your two military officers will be done by the Chief Steward and Chef. In a commercial kitchen, whether restaurant or ship, a chef isn't just cook. Yes, the chef is head cook, but the chef manages the kitchen. On a ship with 1,000 to 1,200 passengers plus less than 100 crew, what would your military positions do that these civilian positions not?

RobertDyck · 2020-09-12 02:29:24

tahanson43206 wrote:

...during their six to eight months aboard ship...

Hohmann transfer orbit is the most fuel efficient for a high-thrust rocket engine. An ion engine that provides low thrust for months at a time is different, for a chemical engine a transfer to Mars with the least propellant is a Hohmann transfer. That takes 8.5 months. We would never use that for passengers or crew. A free return trajectory is one in which the gravity of Mars will redirect the spacecraft to a trajectory back to Earth. That's in case an Apollo 13 type accident occurs; it allows returning to Earth without using any propellant. For Mars, a free return trajectory is 6 months. It uses 10% more propellant than Hohmann transfer, but the important thing is free return.

We're debating 6 months or 4 months. A 4 month transfer is not at all practical with chemical rockets; it requires an advanced propulsion system such as Open Cycle Gas Core Nuclear Thermal Rocket. We could debate in-space main engines. A 4 month transfer doesn't just get you there quick, it has the potential for more than one round trip per planetary alignment. The down side is it's not free return; if you miss entering Mars orbit, you're headed to the asteroid belt. If you use aerocapture after a 6-month transit, deceleration is *NOT* 10G to enter Mars orbit. But after a 4-month transit, entering Mars orbit would require dramatic deceleration.

The point is an 8 month trip would only be for unmanned probes and unmanned cargo.

SpaceNut · 2020-09-12 08:09:25

The big thing with cross training of many to perform the functions of others is to eliminate the single point of failure which can happen at any time but just because you assume command that does not mean you do not give it back when your tour is done. That is the key to this system as it allows for growth of the individual and not stagnation or resentment of the command structure.

Its how we protect the many that are not with in the command structure from harm. Of course with this is training for the non command personnel for proper response to emergency that goes with a ship of any kind.
I am a civilian that has not served but where I am working currently, these are the command structures and training to ensure all of those that work there can perform there duty in a safe and long term controlled condition. With the goal to all go home safely each day.

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-12 08:34:13

It is good to see this topic growing in a sturdy manner!

This post is intended to provide an anchor for such subtopics as may be included.

For SpaceNut ... I'm hoping you will pitch in to help to maintain this post.

SearchTerm:AnchorLargeScaleShip
SearchTerm:CrewManifest for Large Scale Interplanetary Transport

Crew Manifest Section:

Links to posts go here ...

Flight Plan Section:

Links to posts about flight plan go here ... times possible range from 4 (Earth) months using unobtainium fuel, to a year, including hover time at Mars.

Vehicle Design Section:

Links to posts about design of a vehicle able to provide Mars level simulated gravity for 1000 passengers and crew of 60 go here.

Navigation Planning Section:

This topic envisions a vehicle design never attempted before by humans. The vehicle is subject to the laws of Physics for objects in rotation.

The vehicle is planned to travel with its propulsion unit pointed toward the Sun, which means the attitude of the vehicle will have been adjusted from whatever it was while in Earth orbit awaiting departure.

The vehicle must perform mid-course propulsion maneuvers, which means the attitude of the vessel must be adjusted from in line with the Sun to some other attitude, after which the vessel will be returned to in line with the Sun until arrival at Mars.

At Mars, the vessel must change attitude again in order to perform acceleration maneuvers needed to bring it gently into a matching orbit with Phobos.

None of these maneuvers have been performed by humans before.

There is an opportunity for persons not currently participating in the NewMars forum to register and contribute.

Simulation of the properties of a vehicle on the scale of the proposed Circle Y design would be helpful. In particular, simulation of the effect of applications of thrust at the base of the propulsion unit upon the behavior of the rotating system would be helpful.

The need is to understand how to maneuver the rotating vessel so that force can be applied as needed to depart Earth and to "dock" safely with Phobos.

(th)

Terraformer · 2020-09-12 12:45:37

Forget the obsession with weaponry. With a thousand people onboard for 6-8 months, someone somewhere will start a fight. You need someone in the crew to deal with that. When not breaking up brawls, they can patrol the ship and make sure people aren't going where they're not supposed to.

Most cruise ships do not stray far from port. They hang around specific seas (Caribbean, Mediterranean etc), going from place to place. But even when going trans-oceanic, they still don't take months to do the journey. They can also call for help from other vessels. This is a very, very different situation to the one that exists for an interplanetary liner in the pre-Epstein drive era.

RobertDyck · 2020-09-12 13:15:42

Ok, fine. I had considered small smartphone size cameras as security cameras in public areas such as corridors. Crew compliment of the SS City of New York from 1903 did not have any dedicated security, ship's crew would do that. And a coal-fired steam ship that crossed the Atlantic before development of trans-oceanic aircraft. Built months before the Wright Flyer flew at Kitty Hawk. But you guys believe it will be necessary. Ok, how about one big burly security guard with a handgun locked in a gun safe in his security office. This means a dedicated security office with monitors to watch security cameras.

Ps. Epstein drive is fictional, from the TV show "The Expanse".

However, I am counting on Open Cycle Gas Core Nuclear Thermal Rocket as the primary propulsion system. With Isp of 9,000 seconds. Yes, expected Isp in the late 1960s was 6,000 but work in the 1990s showed it could theoretically achieve 9,000 seconds. Fictional Epstein drive is supposed to achieve 1,100,000 seconds. Um, yea, would be nice, but this is reality.

I also briefly described mid-course corrections done by a pulse fusion rocket from a paper I downloaded from NASA's Advanced Propulsion Concepts division. Good enough?

Terraformer · 2020-09-12 13:38:47

Ps. I know the Epstein drive is fictional, I was making a point about travel times. Interplanetary spaceships will not be comparable to cruise ships for a long while.

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-12 13:43:53

For RobertDyck re topic in general and #312 re paper

It seems to me that everyone in the crew might be hired with a view to multiple capabilities ... I'm thinking of a crew similar in spirit to what I understand is the culture of elite military teams ... everyone knows everyone's job but each person specializes in one or some small number of skills.

For that reason, I don't think a dedicated security specialist is needed, but a very high caliber IT team would seem (to me at least) a prerequisite for a 21st Century space going passenger ship. AI is coming along so rapidly that the science fiction visions of smart ships seems on the verge of achievable.

You may well have previously published something about how you plan to steer your rotating vessel, but I don't remember it, and having already read the entire topic from beginning to where we were at the time, and posted a summary of each post to that point, I would appreciate your showing where you said something about a NASA pulse fusion rocket applied to a rotating vessel of the specific design of the Circle Y configuration as it stands right now.

My guess is that the physics of pointing such a vessel remains to be worked out, and now is a good time to enlist/recruit volunteers with the necessary education, access to the appropriate modeling tools, and a spirit of generosity to contribute without compensation.

Happily, there are (I am confident) thousands of such persons alive on Earth today. An outreach effort might connect with one of them, and ** one ** is all we need to find out what it would take to give the navigator the tools needed to point the vessel before firing the main engines.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2020-09-12 14:16:14

Updated crew compliment:

Captain, executive officer (XO), communications officer, navigator, 3 deck officers
Petty Officer, 4 sailors (janitor, cargo rigging & handling)
Chief steward, 1 steward for luxury cabin, 12 table waiters, 8 bedroom stewards (housekeeping), 12 cooks, 3 bartenders.
Chief engineer, 8 engineering staff (electrician, plumber, etc)
Doctor & nurse
Exercise consultant (gym, reporting to Chief steward)
Security
Total: 62

SpaceNut · 2020-09-12 14:19:44

security is also surveillance in looking for anything out of the ordinary when on watch....so for a 3 shift coverage we will need more personnel for that activity....

RobertDyck · 2020-09-12 14:26:59

Not sure which post, but I suggested micro-fusion thrusters. Multiple thrusters attached to the hub and pointing directly away from the hub. By not using the main engine at all, you don't have to point the ship. Considering steering the ship will be an issue, turning a high mass flywheel, ability to perform mid-course corrections without turning the ship is advantageous. Time thruster pulses to coincide with when the thruster is pointing in the desired direction.

NASA Technical Report Server: Engineering of the Magnetized Target Fusion Propulsion System

::Edit:: Vector of thrust passing through centre of mass of the ship.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2020-09-12 14:32:11)

kbd512 · 2020-09-12 15:43:53

Robert,

tahanson43206 asked for input from someone who's actually served aboard a ship. I gather that you don't like the American military, or Americans in general, but you also have this tendency to make these sweeping statements about how our military operates that have little to no bearing on reality. It's amazing how much more you know about why our military does what it does, rather than someone who was actually there and a part of it. A warship's complement has nothing to do with the number of personnel who may be killed as a result of an attack. When that happens, it just makes life harder for whomever is left. Losses from combat and accidents are why we conduct cross-training. Most naval vessels, civilian or military, set sail with the number of crew that are deemed minimally necessary to operate the ship under nominal use cases. I also told you that those luxury cruise ships, which are definitely not military ships, have about 1 crew member for every 2 passengers. If you're carrying 1,200 passengers, that means the crew size will have to be closer to 600 than 60, which is why I opined that everyone onboard will be considered part of the crew, out of necessity.

We've done both contingency operations (leaving port to avoid tsunamis) and planned exercises where we set sail with whomever was left on watch after the ship enters a port, merely to determine how well the ship could be operated with at least half the crew gone. The end result is that we have problems simply feeding the remaining crew, never mind standing all the watches that are required. It's not an impossibility to set sail with fewer crew (obviously, since we actually did it several times), but the workload doesn't decrease just because you have fewer crew members to do the work. This is something that you learn by actually doing the exercise. Internet conjecture is perfectly fine, but then you have to test your ideas to see how well they'll actually work.

No US Navy ship has suffered mass casualties from enemy action since the USS Cole terrorist attack in Aden, Yemen. That was about 20 years ago. What do you suppose all those extra sailors are doing on those ships whenever nobody is attacking them? I obviously couldn't see what everyone was doing at all times, but every single day while I was working on the ship I saw the other crew members cleaning the ship, preparing meals, moving supplies about the ship, repairing broken equipment, conducting training drills, etc.

Civilian cruise ships don't have any jets onboard, but they definitely have plenty of fuel onboard. For all practical purposes, DFM burns at the same temperature as kerosene. They use a combination of diesels and gas turbines to power the ship, no different than all other non-nuclear-powered military ships, so the threat of fire from the vast quantities of stored fuels remains. In any event, the results of fires or viral outbreaks without proper medical care can be found in the various news articles written about cruise ships over the past ten years or so.

TSA seized 4,432 firearms during 2019. According to "Red Team", the group tasked with testing security at American airports, the TSA also achieves a 95% failure rate at detecting firearms and explosives, year-over-year, for several years now. After hundreds of attempts at different airports, the Red Team manages to smuggle their firearm or explosive past the airport security screening personnel at least 9 times out of 10 in all cases. Since no crewed spacecraft of any kind have ever departed from Canada, the firearms laws of Canada are irrelevant. The notion of RobertDyck "banning all Americans from space" is mildly amusing, but that's as far as that goes. Not that you would know, but nobody has "easy access" to firearms aboard American warships. The firearms are stored in an armory that has numerous locking devices and lots of hardened steel cages specifically designed to prevent a single individual from obtaining access to a firearm without authorization to do so. Please note that I never said the MAA should have a firearm. In fact, I advocated for a non-firearm projectile launcher launching a less-lethal baton round.

We do a reasonably good job with the theatrics to make people who are afraid of their own shadow, along with every other person in society, to "feel safe", despite objective reality (90% of the time security fails to detect and confiscate contraband items), but what that should really tell you is despite the fact that weapons are always present, no matter your belief to the contrary, the number of times they're actually used to hurt anyone else is exceptionally low. There are more firearms than people in America, yet we haven't murdered everyone in the country- because the vast overwhelming majority of people are peaceable and have no desire whatsoever to hurt any of their fellow citizens. All that said, we still plan for the "exceptional cases" because exceptions to the rule can and do occur with enough regularity to dictate appropriate security precautions, one of which is having armed security to deal with violent criminals.

As far as your Chief Steward / Head Chef combination is concerned, I already said that I don't care what you choose to call these people, so long as the jobs or roles are fulfilled. You keep arguing against fulfilling vital roles because you don't like the terminology used. You have words that you wish to use for their positions, and I also have words that I choose to use for them based upon my own experience interacting with these people in actual shipboard environments. The fact that the terminology I used is so upsetting to you indicates to me that you have an ideological problem with a concept you dislike for your own personal reasons. In closing, I don't care what you choose to call the roles that I named off, but they have to be fulfilled because reality is not amenable to the belief that their services won't be needed and all evidence with actual sailing vessels agrees with the basic underlying points I was trying to make.

RobertDyck · 2020-09-12 19:12:35

kbd512,

The idea that ships have extra personnel for combat losses is not something I made up. I have been so informed by several members of the Canadian Forces.

Anything dealing with space has to trim to an extreme extent to make it fly. Cut, cut, cut, and keep cutting; cut to the bone; cut 'til you bleed, then cut some more. Apollo was launched on a Saturn V; the largest rocket ever to successfully launch. Yet engineers removed electrical insulation from some wires where they could get away with it, and the floor of the LM was so thin that when one worker on the ground dropped his screwdriver, the blade went through the metal. I'm trying to design something much larger, something practical. This is huge compared to Apollo, even huge compared to SpaceX Starship. But we still have to be frugal or it won't fly.

Cruise ships are deliberately design for luxury. A passenger ship will not have anywhere near the services or crew per passenger of a cruise ship. There's no way this ship can afford 600 crew to support 1,200 passengers. That's why I looked for a trans-Atlantic ship from before trans-Atlantic aircraft existed. Crew on that ship is more reasonable. If you want a modern comparison, look to commercial passenger aircraft. I already cited statistic for an Airbus A380: 3 cockpit crew plus 21 in the cabin for more than 400 passengers. The SS City of New York travelled at 20.0 knots (23 mph) so assuming a trip from London England to New York City direct, without stopping in Newfoundland, that's 3.459 miles so 150.39 hours or 6 days, 6 hours, 40 minutes. Add some time for slower speed down the Thames, and docking in New York, so about a week. Definitely not the age of sail.

Our interplanetary ship will have to reduce crew. This can be done with automation and modern technology. For example, a hundred years ago a chef would prepare salmon moose by pressing the salmon through a metal screen. Today no chef would ever do that; it's too slow, and far too much clean-up. Today they would use a food processor such as Cuisinart. There are a lot of modern conveniences for everything: food preparation, laundry, etc. We can reduce staff through automation. I posted crew complement for the SS City of New York, no modifications. First change from that is to eliminate the entire division for "donkey men". They shovel coal into the steam boiler, and oil the engine. Even modern ocean ships don't do that; there's automated equipment for oil, and fuel is liquid delivered via fuel pump. No carpenter or blacksmith. Butcher? Not needed if frozen meat is prepackaged, not a whole side of beef. Mess stewards (table waiters for officers) are not necessary, officers can serve themselves.

SS City of New York did not have any security or Master-At-Arms. Ship's crew would handle incidents. Wouldn't cargo handlers be burly enough?

Any security guard is intimidating on purpose, raising anxiety. Exactly the opposite of what we want. Mars is supposed to be a place to get away from the horrors of Earth. The US has police stop people and ask if they're carrying a large sum of cash. If so, it's confiscated. US courts have given multiple orders to police to cease and desist, but those police departments that do this are making so much money that they refuse to stop. This is armed robbery by police; organized crime by police. Police shooting people is a major problem. I could go on.

Another issue is contractors for NASA have scammed the agency for money since the beginning of the Shuttle era. After the Columbia accident, Lockheed-Martin increased cost per flight by 50%. You would think they would perform an one-time-only upgrade, then cost would go back down. But no, their argument was price had to be this high for safety. Corporate executives argued anyone who wants to cut cost is putting money ahead of safety. Senor personnel at the Pentagon knew cost for Shuttle had gotten completely out of hand before Columbia. They knew Shuttle was not sustainable. Costs for Shuttle increased exponentially even before construction was complete. We can't allow that to happen with this ship. And we can't allow the argument "you value money more than safety". That's the same crap that killed Shuttle.

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-12 20:17:01

For RobertDyck re safety vs money ....

And we can't allow the argument "you value money more than safety". That's the same crap that killed Shuttle.

Your words speak for themselves.

You have been consistent from the beginning of this undertaking.

I'll give you that.

Fortunately, as you go forward and reach the point anyone is going to take a serious look at your concept, you'll find that a cavalier attitude toward safety is not going to be welcome.

***
Regarding thrusters ... thanks for your follow up on that point.

You'll be wanting/needing qualified structural engineers to help you guide the forces from whatever propulsion devices you select, through the spokes to the rim where passengers are going about their daily activities.

In the model I've generated, the spokes are rectangular. You have mentioned recently that you are thinking of using a cylindrical passage from the rim to the hub. I'd like to offer the suggestion that you NOT transfer force via that cylindrical passage. Instead, you can (if you so choose) build the spokes with girders outside the passageway, strong enough to guide the forces reliably where they are needed.

Those girders could be exposed to space, but for a bit more expense you could enclose them in inexpensive light weight material, able to hold a modest pressure, so they can be inspected by the crew as needed to insure they are ready for the next thrust exercise.

(th)

kbd512 · 2020-09-12 21:08:50

Robert,

I can't speak to what the Canadian military does or doesn't do, which is why I've never made any such assertions. I can only speak for why American military ships are crewed the way they are. There's always a shift getting ready to assume the next 8 hour watch or perform work. That's why we have at least three of everyone. If we only have two of everyone required, then watches are 12 hours long. Only having one of everyone is not feasible for what should be obvious reasons. There's no such thing as everyone on the ship sleeping, for example. That doesn't even happen when the ship is in port or dry dock. There are always watch standers (Bridge / Operations / Communications / Engineering) operating the ship and the only reason they can ever leave is that they're properly relieved of duties at the end of their watch (another qualified watch stander is available to assume the watch), that part of the ship is on fire, or the ship is sinking and the order to abandon ship has been passed over the 1MC. If you leave your post for any other reason, then the Navy considers that dereliction of duty, and they're pretty serious about it.

The entire point I was trying to make, which was clearly lost in the argument, was that the passengers were going to have to function as the bulk of the crew members for the ship, specifically because there would be so few assigned crew. There's not going to be a distinction between a passenger and crew member. If you live on a ship for 6 months or more, then you need to know how to take care of your home, if only to stay alive and healthy. That means the passengers / walk-on crew members will be cleaning, serving meals, fixing whatever breaks, etc. As far as combining roles, you could certainly do that in some cases. If you have cargo handlers who have hand-to-hand combat skills and have been given authority to act as law enforcement, after appropriate training and testing, then you could use them for that purpose. Who exactly are security guards intimidating, except for criminals? I've never found them to be intimidating in the slightest.

Oldfart1939 · 2020-09-12 23:06:17

In special operations in the Army, the minimum effective team is 3. One person to guard, one person to sleep, and a third for essential things such as food preparation.. This is similar to what kbd512 has stated about the navy and having 3 men for every essential job. An 8 hour watch is quite long, and staying awake through it is essential. When I was discussing the crew of a first mission, the number I suggested was divisible by 3, plus command structure above and beyond that crew minimum. That's where I came up with my minimum of 7 members; or 2 "Triads" plus one, the commander. I suggested for real efficiency that there be 11 or 12 members, so there would be a backup commander available. If the ship size were adequate, I suggested 18 total for 5 triads plus a command group of 3.

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-13 06:04:31

Thanks to Oldfart1939 and kbd512 for what seem to me to be helpful additions to the vision RobertDyck is building here.

I like the idea of enlisting prospective passengers to assume duties during the voyage. This practice seems to me to be fully compatible with the demands of life on Mars, where every resident will be expected to be on constant alert for systems failures, and constantly learning more about how to maintain the safe operation of systems supporting life there.

On the other hand, planning ahead for a significant educational work load on the part of every person seems like a good idea. From what I've read about US submarine service, constant learning activity is a bedrock discipline expected of all crew members.

However, there ** is ** room for the long term prospect of passengers traveling in cruise ship style. That state of affairs is some time out, but it a prospect worth nurturing, because it implies that civilization has progressed to the point that the reliability of onboard systems can be assumed with some confidence.

The logical place for planning and supervision of all this educational activity would be a staff in the hired crew of the vessel. A separate and cooperative education function could be planned for the passenger complement, depending upon the nature of the passenger manifest. If a consortium of universities arrange a flight for students and instructors, then the education mission could be built into the flight plan as preparation for research activities on Mars.

(th)

RobertDyck · 2020-09-13 12:48:27

tahanson43206 wrote:

For RobertDyck re safety vs money ....
And we can't allow the argument "you value money more than safety". That's the same crap that killed Shuttle.
a cavalier attitude toward safety is not going to be welcome.

I'm not cavalier, I actually study the technology and understand it.

Again I repeat, after the Columbia accident the contractors increased cost of launch 50%. Fixes were necessary, but after they were complete any increase in per launch cost had absolutely nothing to do with safety. Nothing! Contractors used the excuse that reducing cost per launch to what it was would be "unsafe", but none of that .oney went to safety. It was solely funnelled into the pockets of contractors. You have "cavalierly" dismissed a critical technology. I don't know why but you're repeating the same excuse United Launch Alliance used to extort money out of NASA for Shuttle.

tahanson43206 · 2020-09-13 13:58:02

For RobertDyck .... this is your project, and I am hoping to be able to help in small ways here or there ...

My recommendation is to forget about cutting expenses until ** after ** you have a design that will pass muster with all the approving authorities, including the company that you hire as prime contractor.

My recollection is that even Henry Ford waited to reduce the number of bolts holding wheels onto axles until after he had the production line up and running. He eventually settled on four bolts as the minimum he could use and still insure the wheel was road worthy. I think you will have plenty of time, and all sorts of advice about how to cut costs ** after ** you have a design that will hold up to the kind of inspection it is going to receive.

I also think it is reasonable to try to enlist someone with computer modeling skills to show the feasibility of your hub pulse navigation system. I think that is an interesting idea, which could be implemented in chemical form in the absence of fusion rockets. The fusion propulsion systems that kbd512 is following may well become available when your vehicle is ready for commissioning, but to avoid unnecessary delay, I hope you will design for the technology you have available now and improve the design later.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#301 2020-09-11 13:58:34

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#302 2020-09-11 17:14:25

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#303 2020-09-11 18:19:28

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#304 2020-09-11 19:39:55

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#305 2020-09-11 21:50:17

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#306 2020-09-11 22:55:18

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#307 2020-09-12 02:13:12

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#308 2020-09-12 02:29:24

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#309 2020-09-12 08:09:25

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#310 2020-09-12 08:34:13

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#311 2020-09-12 12:45:37

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#312 2020-09-12 13:15:42

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#313 2020-09-12 13:38:47

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#314 2020-09-12 13:43:53

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#315 2020-09-12 14:16:14

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#316 2020-09-12 14:19:44

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#317 2020-09-12 14:26:59

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#318 2020-09-12 15:43:53

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#319 2020-09-12 19:12:35

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#320 2020-09-12 20:17:01

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#321 2020-09-12 21:08:50

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#322 2020-09-12 23:06:17

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#323 2020-09-13 06:04:31

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#324 2020-09-13 12:48:27

Re: Large scale colonization ship

#325 2020-09-13 13:58:02

Re: Large scale colonization ship

Board footer