The Pub Discussion Board

Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion

You are not logged in.

#101 2021-10-27 02:03:50

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

I'm... not sure how you get the 3-4 times larger calculation.

I said approx. 500m in length.  The USS Nimitz is 333m in length.  That makes for a 1.5x length increase.  I gave no indication of width or height (because I don't know at this time).

The numbers I have written down for the Nimitz II are 124 planes (comprising 152 flight crew), 200 officers, and 3,000 crewmen.  I realize this is quite a bit less than are on a modern aircraft carrier.  My thinking was that automation had reduced the necessary numbers in significant ways.  Also, keep in mind that the overall dimensions of the ship were dictated by its original intended use.  Much of the Nimitz II is underutilized space. (Like a bridge that resembles the NCC-1701 Enterprise, instead of the CVN-65 Enterprise.)

The other large vessels (battleships, cruisers, possibly the destroyers) would all have a few shuttles.  The cruisers might have either patrol or early warning craft, in keeping with their job of fleet defense.  The battleships might carry a few heavy fighters, or perhaps light bombers.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#102 2021-10-27 04:00:06

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

I guess my posts were more feelers Eric but you might think of enlarging slightly or thinking more of replenishment. The crew size was total for ships company plus the air or space wing? A typical nimitz carrier class right now supports 80 aircraft roughly Total crew of 5400. Generally you want 150% aircrew for your squadrons. Distance and duration is bound to go up in space as opposed to sea going ships.
   During Viet Nam we took on stores basically every day. one day would be fuel the next weapons with stores and other supplies thrown in there somewhere. The nuclear ships got a break on fuel but they still needed gas for the planes. Stores and weapons were fairly fixed numbers though. I basically doubled the tonnage to allow for the duration of stored supplies. This is just a WAG (Wild assed guess)
   It takes roughly 50-75 man hours of maintenance support for every flight hour on our aircraft. A typical squadron of 12 planes with a crew of two has 36-40 pilots aircrew and 200-250 maintenance crewmen and officers. Our wings run 6-8 squadrons with some reduced in size by aircraft numbers but increased in aircrew and maintainers. (Example a VAW squadron has 4-5 aircraft but aircrew is 4-6) I have quoted these approximate numbers to try to help. your aircrew size is likely low. I would bet at least a pilot and a weapons officer will be required. we have already had several discussions on reaction times the more duties the slower the reaction.                                                                                                 
   Automation has been tried and has limited success, is it possible you are relying more on it than is justified? I guess it is just an opinion. You definitely like to figure things out, my figures are based on my experience yours are more thoughtful and use math. I would caution you that real life seldom follows laboratory experience but you have to start somewhere. My experience is all on the sea, space is going to teach us all new things. Consider also in combat people and equipment is lost. You need additional replacement assets very close.

Last edited by ChiefRock (2021-10-27 04:23:08)


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#103 2021-10-27 04:38:03

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

Yeah, see all those numbers you're quoting for maintenance?  That's the thing we'd better fix in the future, because that is just outright stupid.

Consider your car.  How many man-hours of maintenance does it receive for one hour of travel?  No, it receives man-hours of maintenance for A YEAR of travel.  While that would be rather extreme for a spacecraft, the numbers you quote are beyond ridiculous from a reliability standpoint.  Now, I know a lot of it is caused by the very nature of jet engines... which would not be a problem in my spacecraft, as they do not have jet engines.  This alone would cause a huge reduction in needed manpower.  Imagine being able to do "maintenance" by just checking for computer codes, and then putting it back in its bay.  Reactionless drives are going to have to be far more reliable than jet engines.

As to replenishment... This may be where my military knowledge falls down.  I don't consider the replenishment ships to be part of my battle fleet, but part of their own "replenishment group".  Thus, they don't get listed in my fleet lineup.  Of course, there are fewer supplies to resupply, as well.  If you think of every ship and every plane as running on a nuclear reactor (that's not what's used, but it'll do as a stand-in), you realize you no longer have need of fuel.  Most of the weapons create their own ammunition (particle beam cannons, lasers, MEP guns).  You'd need to replenish food, of course, and missiles, and rail gun projectiles... and spare parts.

We are NOT, however, going to tackle how you manage to create air or water, in space.  I'm calling handwavium on this one.  3dsmile  (The only reasonable way I can see to do this is in the manner of the replicator:  Taking individual atomic components and recombining them into the elements/molecules you need.  Perhaps this can only reasonably be done with the lighter elements, prohibiting them from using it for things like "replicating" spaceships...)

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#104 2021-10-27 06:22:11

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

You are the author and by the way not the only writer to use hand wavium on issues. I am not even saying you are wrong just trying to throw out devils advocate type info for you. I will add one more item. The Navy has tried the automatum reduction of crew already often it meets with disaster. I would suggest leaving a small pad in your estimated numbers. Look at the stats on the littoral combat ships that are already failing and being decommisioned. They had reduced crew numbers by 50% and could not maintain there ships. Again I am using floating ship statistics for space but space is a hostile enviroment I am not sure the numbers should be discounted


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#105 2021-10-27 14:21:02

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

I make no bones about the fact that the Navy currently has maintenance issues.  My point is, if they don't get those solved, then going into space is going to be a disaster.  I mean, you look at our current crop of space vehicles:  Their missions get postponed if it's windy outside.  That kind of fragility does not a war fleet make.

I guess what I'm saying is that I envision a large part of the technological advancement of the next 200 years to go into making things reliable.  And yes, automation now is often as problematic as it is helpful.  I assume that that, too, will change over the next two centuries.

All that said, I have no recollection of why I chose the 200/3000/152 personnel numbers I chose for the Nimitz II.  That there might be 3500, 4000 people onboard is not really an issue for me.  I do not, however, think it would require the whole 5000-man complement that our current carriers have onboard, due to the basic changes in systems, not to mention lack of certain major systems (a space carrier, for instance, has no need of a catapult/arrestor system...)

In any case, these aren't really things that are going to impact the story.  It's not like I'm going to name and refer to all 3000+ crewmen onboard the carrier.  3dsmile

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#106 2021-10-30 15:08:40

darthel0101
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2013-08-18
Posts: 252

Re: CASS

RE use of resupply ships: how many freighters were sunk in WWII compared to ships of the line (SOTL)? ANY competent commander goes for the supply line -- that is what allowed the Brit's to overcome Rommel in Africa; Malta was sitting astraddle his resupply route. The main target for subs in the Pacific was freighters, and our subs were very good at successfully deploying their torpedoes against them. The convoys across the Atlantic were the impetus for the creation of the escort carriers and they STILL lost freighters on those trips. Talk to veterans from the merchant marine for the stories that neither made the news nor were glamorized by retelling. Consider what is happening today around Somalia. Freighter duty is more dangerous than SOTL duty.

You can use the electronic CO2 scrubbers from nuc subs, but you won't want to dispose of the accumulated gas like the subs do. You won't have a ready source of O2, so you'll want to break it back down to carbon & O2. The carbon can go into your replicator. You can, of course, use electronic disassociation on on all water waste to recover O2 as well. H2 is a wonderful fuel for simple fuel cells like were found on the space shuttle.

Until you figure out a few details on those nuclear engines, you will still need refuelling. Were you aware that "spent" fuel can still have about 97% of the fuel that it started with? It just can't be used due to nuclear poisons rendering the fuel unusable.

RE ship's design: aquatic and aerial vessels are designed to minimize velocity losses due to fluid resistance (you do know that fluid dynamics can apply to gaseous environments, right). This is not a factor in space -- build spheres instead of sticks. Your combat control center is probably going to use very little visual observation, put it in the very center of your ships with critical life-support in the same area. Your main thrusters will be inline with your intended direction of travel, but changing direction will need to be accomplished with attitude control thrusters - spheres allow maximum space usage with minimum delta-v requirements. Remember that your main engine is also your main brakes and rotational velocity must also be stopped using your attitude thrusters as brakes to maintain your desired orientation.

RE maintenance of your small craft: unless you install deflectors in them, those small craft are going to be VERY vulnerable to micro-meteorite damage. If you DO put deflectors in them, then you're going to want to ensure their proper, FULL functionality. That means using PREVENTIVE maintenance, requiring many more man-hours than REACTIVE maintenance. This actually applies, not only to all aspects of that small-craft's maintenance, but also to your capital ships as well.

Last edited by darthel0101 (2021-10-30 15:44:14)

Offline

 

#107 2021-10-30 18:19:14

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Darthel I think you and I have gotten a bit too far afield for Eric's story. He does not have to have all the details developed. That is one reason I let some of the subjects like manning go. He is right it is not like he is going to name every member of the crew.
   Supply or beans and bullets are essential to any large tactical group but they are not very interesting. I brought up the Unreps and what it took to keep us working in a combat zone as part of the size argument but it really does not help write an interesting story. I am not sure that the records of a water war would apply that much to a space supply line either. What made subs so dangerous is you could not see them. It would be so much harder to hide in space.                                                                                         
   Any long time use of space is going to have meteor shielding of some kind and yes it will likely be an ongoing maintenance nightmare but it is not very interesting


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#108 2021-10-31 01:26:43

darthel0101
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2013-08-18
Posts: 252

Re: CASS

RE hiding in open space: how are solar system bodies located? Light reflection and their motion.
How do you hide with no concealing environment? You change how you are seen. Light reflection can be modified by the use of "vantablack" (or whatever that blackest of black pigments is called) and not moving while sitting in a traffic lane. BTW, anytime you know where something is coming from and where it is going to, you have a pretty good chance to figure out the path it'll take to get there.

The comments about maintenance were actually in response to other comments about wasted time in maintenance. Regarding micro-meteorite deflection: that is something that I have rarely seen mentioned anywhere, even when mentioning deflection of larger objects. BTW, micro-meteorite damage is a current issue with the ISS.

Supply in the water navy is something else. How much av-gas do you think the aquatic Nimitz carries as opposed to fuel oil?  IIRC, that beast is a tanker in its own right. Fuel oil is used for BALLAST.

Other things might not make for good story, but failing to know what you are doing with them can damage how a story is presented. Case in point: there is a story that includes an amphibious submarine. This sub supposedly has storage bay doors that can open up while the sub is floating to allow walking out of the bay door and into the water, expecting less than 5ft of water to be dealt with. Ain't happening. The same sub had a problem with CO2 scrubber FILTERS. Doesn't work that way and hasn't worked that way since the Nautilus was commissioned in 1954. The same sub was supposed to have travelled from the continental US to China and back in about 10 days. Doable if leaving from the west coast, but problematic if leaving from the GULF coast and avoiding Panama. Another writer published a story where a plane travelling from DC to S Korea refueled over HI - that flight path is beyond nonsense.

RE maneuvering in space: any velocity must be counteracted or it will remain in effect. This means that making a turn in space will result in "drifting" the vessel until the desired velocity (v = speed AND direction) is attained. Also, reorientation of the craft will require acceleration of the craft into the change followed by a deceleration of the twist to stabilize at the desired orientation.

Little details can break a story that is otherwise well told.

Last edited by darthel0101 (2021-10-31 01:45:47)

Offline

 

#109 2021-10-31 03:30:00

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

I will reserve comment but will state my thanks for thinking these things out. Yes my idea and thoughts about size were because you are right Carriers are also floating gas stations BTW nuc carriers do have fuel oil--it is for there escorts


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#110 2021-10-31 03:32:50

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

darthel:

Okay, so, first, the Chief is right:  You are going WAY too far afield for a SOFT science-fiction story.  The stuff you are talking about is relegated to HARD sci-fi, which CASS isn't even close to.

Having said that, I'm going to point out some places where you're either struggling to apply contemporary technology to a situation 200 years into the future, or you've simply ignored details about CASS you're already aware of.

darthel wrote:

Freighter duty is more dangerous than SOTL duty.

And do you know what one of the biggest reasons for this is?  Because nobody bothered to think, "Hey, these are gonna get shot at.  Maybe we should give them countermeasures and a few WEAPONS."  A freighter is a huge, unarmed, floating "shoot me" sign.  If you are building cargo vessels that are going to go knowingly into a war zone, you build a huge, ARMED, "I will shoot you if you come near me" sign.  They don't have to project power, they just need to be able to protect themselves.

Until you figure out a few details on those nuclear engines, you will still need refuelling. Were you aware that "spent" fuel can still have about 97% of the fuel that it started with? It just can't be used due to nuclear poisons rendering the fuel unusable.

This ignores both the book, and my earlier post, which points out quite clearly that I am not using nuclear power in the story.  The ships in the story work on zero-point energy, which is a limitless form of energy.  My ships do not need refueling.

RE ship's design: aquatic and aerial vessels are designed to minimize velocity losses due to fluid resistance (you do know that fluid dynamics can apply to gaseous environments, right).

Wow, condescending much?  You do know that air is a fluid, right?

This is not a factor in space -- build spheres instead of sticks.

Spheres are wasteful of internal space usage.  Most of the "edge" interior is unusable because of the curving of the outer wall.  It also minimizes outer hull space... and outer hull space is the primary purpose of a warship:  guns, missile launchers, sensory devices, plane launch facilities, landing bays.  All of these things need access to the outer hull.  The vast majority of a sphere's interior is, as you point out, well away from the outer hull.  Since we're not talking about building a ship the size of a Death Star, you would end up having to build a ship much larger than needed, just so you have enough exterior skin to do the jobs you need to do.


Your main thrusters will be inline with your intended direction of travel, but changing direction will need to be accomplished with attitude control thrusters - spheres allow maximum space usage with minimum delta-v requirements. Remember that your main engine is also your main brakes and rotational velocity must also be stopped using your attitude thrusters as brakes to maintain your desired orientation.

The words "reactionless drive system" are lost on you, aren't they?  You're talking like they're using some kind of rocket to propel the ship.  They are not.  Any technology capable of FTL must be working on some principle that either warps, or bypasses, normal space.  Nothing that "thrusts" in any fashion is going to be capable of FTL.  The story has already referenced the "surf drive", which, similar to Star Trek's warp drive, doesn't drive the ship.  It affects the space around the ship, causing the ship to be pushed in a particular direction.  And we don't yet know how the ZPPS works, but I can tell you that it, too, is a reactionless drive.

The other main point to make here:  By definition, a reactionless drive outright ignores Newton's laws of motion.  That's the precise reason it is referred to as a "reactionless" drive.

RE maintenance of your small craft: unless you install deflectors in them, those small craft are going to be VERY vulnerable to micro-meteorite damage. If you DO put deflectors in them, then you're going to want to ensure their proper, FULL functionality. That means using PREVENTIVE maintenance, requiring many more man-hours than REACTIVE maintenance.

And you base this on what knowledge of the deflector systems onboard my ships?  You haven't the faintest idea how they work, so you also have no knowledge of how much time it takes to maintain them.  Especially if even preventive maintenance is a matter of, "Hey, this part has been in use for 200 hours.  Time to replace it."  The amount of time that takes could be seconds.  It depends on how the machinery is designed.  Yes, preventive maintenance takes a long time, now.

I've already said previously that it is my belief that, in the next 200 years, reliability will become a primary goal of military technological advancement.  Part of reliability is ease of maintenance procedure.  Either by engineering the device to be easy to work on, or by preferring simple technologies to complicated ones. 

Consider a contemporary example: A car's internal combustion engine.  Oil changes, timing issues, belt changes... a car's owner's manual tells you that the engine needs to be maintained in some fashion a minimum of every few months.  On the other hand, Tesla's recommended service procedures don't even mention the electric motor.  Why?  Because really, you can't "maintain" an electric motor.  You fix it when it breaks (generally by just replacing it).  If the device is mission critical, you replace it when it reaches "x" number of hours, which is calculated to be well before the vast majority of them will break.  If replacement of said part is easily accomplished, then this preventive maintenance will take very little time.

It is my opinion that any machine that is being worked on more often than it is being used, is not actually "reliable".  Our current crop of aircraft are an example of machines that are useful, but not, in my opinion, reliable.  If you can't beat the shit out of it for days on end without worrying about some little bitty part rendering it useless, then it's not reliable.

RE hiding in open space: how are solar system bodies located? Light reflection and their motion.

RE: hiding military vessels, period:  How are enemy ships located the vast majority of the time?  From their own emissions.  If you're not moving toward me, are not using any power, have no weapons systems active, and are not calling someone else to tell them where I am, you are not a threat to me.  In order for you to do me harm, you have to be using energy.  It is almost impossible for you to do that without radiating energy of some kind.

Light reflection can be modified by the use of "vantablack" (or whatever that blackest of black pigments is called) and not moving while sitting in a traffic lane.

I'd like to point out that super-black paints only work on the visible spectrum.  Stars tend to emit almost the entire EM spectrum, and your ship will still be reflecting some of that, making you just another mirror.

BTW, if you know where something is coming from and where it is going to, you have a pretty good chance to figure out the path it'll take to get there.

This was perhaps the dumbest thing I've ever seen you say.  Do you know how many different routes the military has planned out for Atlantic-Ocean convoys?  Northern routings, southern routings, straight-in routings... those various paths cover hundreds of north-south miles.  That's on what is, essentially, a 2D plane.

Now apply that to open 3D space, where you can travel in any damned direction you want.  Determining where someone is going to be by looking at nothing more than where they started and where they're going, when they're trying not to be found, is the definition of "impossible".  If you're not using sensors to spot them, they're going to have to pass within a few thousand kilometers of you for you to see them.  You have no chance.

RE maneuvering in space: any velocity must be counteracted or it will remain in effect. This means that making a right turn in space will result in "drifting" the vessel until the desired velocity (v = speed AND direction) is attained. And reorientation of the craft will require acceleration of the craft into the change followed by a deceleration of the twist to stabilize at the desired orientation.

And?  First off, you're once again forgetting that these vessels work on reactionless drives.  Newton's laws simply do not apply, however these engines work.  Second, even if they did, you're making it sound like that change in velocity (and YES, I'm aware of the difference between velocity and speed) is going to take minutes to achieve.  This is all down to the ship's structural integrity.  We've already made it clear that the pilot is in an artificial gravity field within the ship, and so is not subjected to whatever forces are caused by the ship's acceleration.  If the ship is capable of withstanding a 200-G turn without breaking up (just picking a number randomly), then that's how fast it will be able to turn.  Even aircraft do a small amount of "slippage" as they turn, and that is what these space fighters would be subjected to, as well.

You're acting like I'm trying to write Clarke or Asimov here.  This is more Roddenberry or Lucas:  People, not Parts.  In other words, I'm interested in how the people behave, how the situations evolve.  The ships, the stations... they're not there to define the story, they're there to serve the story.

As a for-instance, am I ever going to explain how the Zero-Point Propulsion System works?  Nope.  And I don't care how it works, either. Its only function is to allow me to move a boatload of characters from Zero-Point A to Zero-Point B.  (Sorry, couldn't resist...)  Occasionally, the tech will drive a plot point.  At that point, I will explain just enough about how it works to keep us moving forward.  The number of technical details that make this kind of long-term space travel a virtual impossibility without the technological equivalent of magic is something I am going to... ignore.  Because it's not important to the story.

Now, just in case you're wondering why I found the Chief's initial queries more interesting than the direction this conversation has taken:  Our initial conversation was about why we still have pilots in planes.  This was more of a social question than a science one, and the tech conversation had centered around that.  When he asked about ship size, and the number of fighters... again, that was almost more of a social question, wanting to get an idea of the world in which the story exists.  Since then, however, the conversation has strayed more and more into the esoteric, and, frankly, I have found myself asking myself, "Who cares?" more than once.

I understand that readers like to "know the world" the story exists in.  I get that.  But I'm also of the mind that as long as that world is self-consistent, and the story itself is entertaining, you need to just get over the idiosyncracies.  I mean, did you watch JAG?  Did it bother you, every single week, to know that JAG Headquarters is not, in fact, in Falls Church, VA?  Probably not, because, 1) that's always where they put it, so in their universe, that is where JAG HQ is, and 2) It wasn't important to the story.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#111 2021-11-01 03:48:04

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Just to add to Erics post slightly. Spheres will make great freighters, they will not make great warships.
reactionless drives will either be related to gravity or will be gravity fields. Engines will likely perform better if they are center of mass instead of on one end or the other. Exceptions especially on smaller vessels might be pod engines. This is all deductive not hard science. Zero point or micro singularity power is really neat as a concept and seems doable in the future but there are other workarounds to the contaminated fuel issue. Not something to get real exited about


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#112 2021-11-03 02:36:17

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Eric I am not sure this is the proper thread but to continue one of our discussions.  I am still fascinated with the reaction time of a human pilot and what might be done with this. There may well be another story idea for you there, not this one but something in the future. I acknowledge there seems to be a hard limit on what is possible here but time and again science has stretched these boundarys. Allow me to speculate a bit.

While granting it would be hard to get reaction time down I wonder if for say a fraction of men it would be trainable to think ahead of events. this likely would require almost cybernetic aid making the pilot a cyborg. Imagine the failure rate would be very high and the damage to the pilot likely would also be very high. The prevalent thoughts in medicine is the increasing complication of our technology is adding to the PTSD percentages suffered by our soldiers. I am not sure why they think that or even if it is valid but the percentage of affected soldiers is definitely higher. I am not sure this kind of horror belongs in a storyline but it is food for thought.

The cybernetic part might almost be addictive to a pilots physce (sp) A feeling of God like power could both cause emotional trouble and wash out many who could not handle it. It is possible though that by marrying a conciousness and a computer almost intelligence it would both allow the faster reaction times and make the not quite artificial intelligence sane. Just a few thoughts I am sure there are some glaring holes here


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#113 2021-11-03 19:32:25

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

Some thoughts occur to me, but I'm not sure I get what you mean by thinking "ahead of events".  Pilots already anticipate their opponents' actions, so I'm assuming that's not what you mean, so... could you clarify what you're saying?

Eric Storm

PS:  It's spelled "psyche".  3dwink


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#114 2021-11-03 19:59:15

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Thanks on the spelling. Thinking ahead is the term they use for teaching a technique to fighter pilots. They drill and practice thinking 2-4 steps ahead of actions while flying a pattern like landing or takeoff but especially combat maneuvers. I am not sure how to explain except by practicing something it is like training reflexes or muscle memory. According to what I understand the performance of military aircraft passed the human ability of thinking then acting some time around WW 2 and with supersonic aircraft it got worse. As we have discussed there is an upper limit on how fast we can see then react but there are techniques to train instantaneous muscle memory for certain actions and some, not all men can even train to not exactly predict but anticipate what is coming. I was postulating that while everyone could not handle a cybernetic connection that perhaps one out of a hundred or thousand could and that might break the upper limit on reaction speed


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#115 2021-11-03 21:31:13

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

Well, I already knew about "thinking ahead" in that sense:  "Never let your airplane go someplace your mind hasn't gone five minutes before."  (An exaggeration, but a useful one.)  It's the same tactic used by people in hand to hand combat:  You learn to expect what could be thrown at you, and you know how you will counter it ahead of time, so you don't have to make a decision, you just have to enact a decision already made.

This is also what's meant by "muscle memory", which doesn't actually exist: your muscles have no ability to remember anything.  But your brain, through practice, learns a sequence of movements that you then reproduce "on autopilot", rather than having to think about them.  And I get all that.  I wasn't sure how you meant to take that "beyond", in a way that involved cybernetics.

Here is the thought that came to me, after reading your post:  The two things we know cannot be sped up in humans:  nerve transmission speed, and what I will refer to as "perception time".  That is, the time it takes for a sensory organ to be activated by a signal, for the nerves to then transmit that signal to the brain, and for the brain to say to itself, "Hey, Brain!  We just received some input!"  This is not "reaction" time, as no reaction has happened yet.  This is merely the process where you become aware of something at all.  That process takes 13 milliseconds.  Those 13 milliseconds cannot be shortened... UNLESS...

You take them out of the loop.

Imagine, if you will, a system whereby the AI is not acting to make the decisions, but is acting as input and memory.  So you have a pilot in the plane, but he's not watching what's going on.  The plane, instead, has a whole bunch of sensors that are fed into the pilot's mind directly, bypassing the sensory organs and the nerve impulses coming from them.  Then we're left only with the part of the human that must recognize the signal.

Next, instead of depending on the human to remember his combat options, once the human and/or the computer system recognize the situation they're in, the computer will "remember" and present the options for countering that situation.  The human will make the choice as to which one to use.  Then, the plane will automatically perform those maneuvers, bypassing the nerve impulses that would be necessary to make the pilot's limbs move the controls.

Electric wires transmit signal much faster than neurons do.  This would boil things down to where the human was there only to make the decisions.  They wouldn't have to sense, they wouldn't have to move.  They would be fed the data, and their order would then be carried out, all by the machine.

It is absolutely conceivable that this human/machine interface would be "challenging" to operate.  It could certainly cause outright insanity in some people.  And yes, those who could master it would feel very godlike.  (As if pilots needed help in that regard...)

The only reason I can see for taking this risk, however, would be to counter an enemy that had faster reaction times than human beings.  Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense to risk so many people to get the benefit.

Oh, and as to a point you made in your original post, concerning technology and PTSD:  The reason is because most technology in combat is not intuitive.  You have to be thoroughly trained to use it.  Think of it like this:  Pulling the trigger on a gun is a fairly intuitive act.  It's not complicated.  You point, and you pull back your finger, and BLAM!  Gun goes off.  Now, yes, you need some skill to actually be a good shot, but that becomes muscle memory pretty damned fast.

Now, think about flying a fighter plane.  95% of what you're going to do in that airplane is completely unintuitive.  SOME of it is even counter-intuitive.  You're having to actually think through every single damned step.  The human mind is built to not think.  I realize that sounds weird, but it's true.  Our brain is wired in such a way that we process things as quickly as possible, shoving them into categories and little boxes, and then we stop thinking about them, waiting for the next thing to come in.  But technology forces the brain to be processing all the time.  This is stress on steroids for our brain.  Then introduce some kind of psychological trauma.  Because you're already running your brain "at capacity", there is simply nothing leftover for it to process that trauma.  You can't overwork the machine and then expect it to handle things well when something goes seriously wrong... and that's what technology does to the human mind in combat.  We've built planes and tanks and ships and such that are super-sophisticated, to keep the plane from being destroyed and the pilot killed... but in the process, we often end up destroying the pilot without killing them.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#116 2021-11-03 22:54:33

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Yes that was exactly what I was getting at and yes the training does change thinking patterns and often causes trouble like PTSD where the combat training makes you incompatible with civilian life. The cybernetic portion also may or may not be removable. And your explanation is closer to what I was thinking of as the work around for speed. I guess you must work with words a lot huh? Of course a lot of this is speculation and a lot of the technology is not currently available but I think it would be doable someday. Now as to your other point I am not sure I would want things to get so bad we would need this technology but Eric, since when has the world ever listened to this type of plea.


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#117 2021-11-03 23:03:51

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

You have actually written about some phases of this problem. David training with the Gargoyles? He essentially practiced different ways to win against an overwhelming enemy. And this and other actions he had to take threatened to ruin his personality where everyone was worrying about his mental state. I imagine the radical surgery and training we are discussing would really mess someone up. I know soldiers and a few sailors who have killed in combat and it changes them. We have sayings like jumping out of a perfectly good airplane is not a natural act you must train yourself to do it. In the older days when armys would line up facing each other and volley fire mass firings is something they had to train to take it. same even before when they would face spears, pikes, arrows. Not natural acts


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#118 2021-11-19 20:34:57

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

I know we have ended this conversation, and it seems like kind of a bad idea to bring it up again, but I found this guy named Rob Miles on YouTube who does such a wonderful job of explaining this stuff that I thought some of you might get some use out of it.  He is talking about trying to make AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) "safe".  He's actually an AI researcher, and he's not talking about theoretical 200-years-from-now AI, but the kind of problems they're dealing with right now.

I found it to be extremely interesting.  Your mileage may vary. 

AI "Stop Button" Problem - Computerphile (This was the first video I watched from him)

Playlist of videos from him on this subject

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#119 2021-11-19 21:30:28

ChiefRock
Wasted
From: Oklahoma
Registered: 2010-11-29
Posts: 224

Re: CASS

Thanks Eric--I suck at computer research but will look at what you have found soon. I could talk all day long on this stuff but after a while I feel like the relative who keeps digging out the family vacation slides


My worst day at sea is better than my best day ashore
I found a home in the navy-but they land airplanes on my roof

Offline

 

#120 2022-10-14 09:00:17

JR|away
Tipsy
Registered: 2006-11-07
Posts: 1

Re: CASS

Very interesting... Just sat down and read all three chapters in on sitting.  At 3am in the morning.  Nice story and when is the next chapter?

(posted from Chapter 3)

Offline

 

#121 2022-10-14 12:11:17

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

JR|away wrote:

when is the next chapter?

Well, if current progress is any indication, the remainder of the book will not be science fiction, but historical fiction.

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#122 2022-10-27 08:31:35

sermona
Inebriated
Registered: 2019-02-18
Posts: 34

Re: CASS

Wow what an optimistic view on the future development. That would mean i will see real working spaceships in my lifetime.

Offline

 

#123 2022-10-27 10:31:46

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: CASS

sermona wrote:

Wow what an optimistic view on the future development. That would mean i will see real working spaceships in my lifetime.

Perhaps you need to look up the term "historical fiction"...

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson