Computer size

:) That's funny, I was thinking about compaction problems a few days
ago... I thought of these fighters aboard a carrier that essentially
came apart so that they could be worked on, and then thought of how the
latching would work.

Then I thought of new weapons designed to make ships come apart, like
launching little robots to unlatch the sucker... :>

Bigger ships will probably need about 1/5 of machinery space for
maintenance, and that will still mean most machinery will be
inaccessable, just that the space allows blocks to be pulled out.
Modularism is likely, with each piece of equipment in a frame to hold it
in place, then linked to whatever else.

Wiring, piping, and so forth is probably going to be a REAL bitch and a
half, even WITH computers, and computers will probably need a fair
portion devoted to maintenance.

Oh, by the by, I asked a little while ago about ship design graphics and
graphics sites... will someone please answer?

- - -Me
[Pooh Bear incarnate.]

> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1991 22:11 CDT
> From: [email removed]
> Subject: (2535) Computer size
>
> The reason I asked about computers is this:
>
> Basically, a starship has 3 computers running in parallel.  Each one
> checks the answers provided by the other two.  If one disagrees with the
> other two, the two out vote the errant one and it is noted.
>
> If one computer is consistantly giving wrong answers it is shut down and
> says FIX ME!!!
>
> So, If the volume of a computer is actually the work station volume, then
> in a starship case it shouls only be 1/3 of that.  And a car with computer
> aided control should have less volume because it doesn't have a work
> station right?

I think Scott is correct here.  Starship computers may include workstations
with all the peripherals, but vehicle and fighter control computers will be
specialized for one type of I/O and operation.  Thus, we have to assume that
the volumes given in the rule books are the actual volumes of the computers,
not including hypothetical workstation peripherals.

> Where am I coming from and why am I babbling so:
>
> Right now, a TL5 car with no computer and a top speed of 100kph
> will perform the same as a TL8 computer with a model 0 at a top
> speed of 100kph.  As far as I can see there is no difference that the
> rules will generate.  Actually a TL8 car with anti-lock braking smart
> suspension etc will perform much better (I would guess anyway)
> What I am looking for is a small computer that would be usable in a small
> vehicle to get just a lousy +1 in difficulty rolls that doesn't require
> the Cr 900,000 model 1 computer!  Right?
>
> So all you vehicle theory guys, what do you say?

My first response would be to "wing it", since what you say makes sense.  I
also pointed out recently that having a Model 7 in your grav tank ought to
give you a noticeable +dm in vehicle combat, which is basically the same idea.


<Discussion of maintenance issues deleted>

> Unfortunately, trav designs are a volume critical process.  There are almost
> no designs that have space left over.  It all gets called the cargo bay
> or in some cases the fuel tank.  That means that there is ZERO room left for
> a mechanic to crawl around in an engine compartment.
>
> Does any of this make sense?

It does.  However, is there anything lost if we make the assumption that the
volume given for a piece of equipment includes the minimum necessary space
around it for maintenance and access?  That would explaing why a lot of heavy
metallic components (like internal combustion engines) get a gross density
equal to that of water...

Rob Dean