Jump to content

Recommended Posts

One thing to consider: The originating star system would continue to develop new technology after sending out a generation or sleeper ship, and might conceivably develop FTL travel before the colonists reach their destination. The colonists might arrive only to find that the system had already been colonized by their descendants, who might have mixed feelings about their ancestors showing up. 

Fuel might not be a problem if you use a magnetic sail:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_sail

This is exactly what happened in the history of the Honor Harrington books. 

They arrived to the Manticore system to find them occupied by other people from earth after FTL was created.

In this case though they arrived and readied the planet for the sleeper ship persons.

Also, after a couple hundred years of maturity, the investments they'd made generated a very comfortable incomes to live off of.

(going from memory here but pretty sure that was the basics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the difference FTL makes.  Online I found the plans for a 1,300-passenger Jump 1 sleeper ship for Traveller:

http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/shipyard/classic/david-shayne/coldcoffin.html

It has minimal cargo space and more guns than I think necessary, but its function is to transport large numbers of workers to developing systems that lack a sufficient labor force.  So it isn't intended to go into the unexplored beyond.  But it all fits into 1,000 tons, large for the original Traveller rules but small for the later High Guard rules.

Sitting down with my copy of High Guard, figuring 2,000 hibernating passengers needing 4 tons of cargo each, maneuver drive 6 to get there as soon as possible sub-light, suddenly I need a ship of 40,000 to 50,000 tons to contain it all.  And since Traveller fuel requirements power the ship for only four weeks at a time, that 130-year trip is going to need a whole lot more tonnage just to keep the nightlights on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is what I came up with in BRP Space:
 
Sleeper Ship
 
2000 colonists: 2000 Modules (Using the module requirements for an autodoc)
 
Cargo: 8000 Modules (4 tons per colonist)
 
10 crew (x4 for cubicles): 40 Modules
 
Open space (10 people, roomy): 20 Modules
 
Bridge (10 people): 10 Modules
 
Computer/AI: 5 Modules
 
Self-repair: 80 Modules
 
Engines (TR 100): 400 Modules (EM Drive plus 400 MWe power plant, nuclear or fusion)
 
Maneuver (TR 100): 400 Modules
 
 
SPEED 4
HANDLING 4
SIZE RATING 15 (11 000 Modules)
 
Hit points: 11 000
Shields: -
Weapons: -
Armor: -
Hyperspace: -
Streamlining: Yes
 
Length: 1500-2500 m (4 decks, 2500 modules per deck. 0.7 decks with frozen colonists, 3 decks cargo, 0.3 decks with engines, small additions for crew area). Height: 20 m
 
 
(Initially I found it ridiculous with s ship of this length, but with present day aircraft carrier ships being over 300 meters it might even be too small). 
Edited by clarence

1683589267_frostbyteloggaFsvarttiny2.jpg.22ebd7480630737e74be9c2c9ed8039f.jpg   FrostByte Books

M–SPACE   d100 Roleplaying in the Far Future

Odd Soot  Science Fiction Mystery in the 1920s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I counted them as colonists, just with their hibernation tanks a bit easier to get in and out of perhaps. Is 10 enough do you think? Or 20, so if a few are lost during the mission there would still be enough crew members to handle things? I guess those will be the characters?

Putting together a nice deckplan is probably a bit more time consuming. Some thoughts on the overall layout: I suppose cargo holds and sleeper chambers could be vast halls with a minimum of leftover space for repairs; maybe put the sleepers in the ship's core for maximum protection? Engines at the rear for simplicity, and the relatively tiny crew areas plus AI in front. Turbolift shafts every 500 meters, with emergency stairs/ladders along the inside of the hull every 250 meters. Oh, and a bunch of airlocks for hull repairs of course! Perhaps an EVA or two, as in 2001?

1683589267_frostbyteloggaFsvarttiny2.jpg.22ebd7480630737e74be9c2c9ed8039f.jpg   FrostByte Books

M–SPACE   d100 Roleplaying in the Far Future

Odd Soot  Science Fiction Mystery in the 1920s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten people awakened periodically to make sure things are okay sounds good.  Youve given them more spacious accommodations than I would have but since it is only for ten people at a time it really doesn't waste space in the grand scheme of things.  Good job.  Keep in mind that WW2 battleships could be 700+ feet long.  And our ark sleeper might have been built in orbit, where its length would be more manageable during construction.

Edited by seneschal
Stupid phone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, and even easier to build a dispersed structure like the international space station.  But both are hard to land on a planet.  Which is easier?  To build a single streamlined ship that can land in an atmosphere?  Or to build an un-streamlined one packed with enough smaller craft to get everyone and there supplies to the surface?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering the planet would be unsettled and likely have less than ideal places to land wouldn't a smaller footprint be ideal?

I honestly don't know since this is part science, part guess, part imagination.

I just keep coming back to the more compressed space being easier to construct, shield, heat, supply power to, etc and then the smaller footprint for landing.

I keep picturing a controlled thrust descent of some sort, perhaps over water? I donno can it float, no clue just throwing stuff out here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, this is what I came up with in BRP Space:
 
Sleeper Ship
 
2000 colonists: 2000 Modules (Using the module requirements for an autodoc)
 
Cargo: 8000 Modules (4 tons per colonist)
 

 

I am assuming that this includes Food, Farming Equipment, Tools, other necessities, etc. 1 human requires 641 kg of food per year. I would recommend 15 months in case of crop failure. 1 year plus 3. 802 kg of food. Total requirements on planet for 2000 colonists: 1,602,500 kg.

https://books.google.com/books?id=gE0qBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA489&dq=1+person+requires+food+per+year&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAmoVChMInP3HqK30xwIVhaOICh0BKgWp#v=onepage&q=1 person requires food per year&f=false

I think also that the colonists would be woken up in stages.

1st: An initial survey crew (colonists) to prepare support/shuttle craft and conduct initial surveys. Additional crew in preparation for downloading colony or general maintenance in case planet is determined to be non-viable or habitable and ship needs to continue on. Estimate a year time frame. Approximately 40 crew and colonists. (.02%) Food usage 32050 kg. If all goes well---

2nd: Support, Administration, Cooks, Supply and Technical/Mechanical personnel to prepare equipment for colonists drop. 5% personnel, 100 plus previous 40 = 140 Food usage: 44,870 kg. Estimate 6 months. Then---

3rd: Initial Colony Insertion. Surveyors, Equipment operators, Farmers, Construction workers, etc. (no families) Purpose: Viability of crops growth and animal survival. Planet side arrival of equipment, seed, grain, starter plants, fruit, berry, etc., construction material, and technical requirements. Approximately 25% of colonists, 500 personnel, (includes previous 140) 3 years. = 961500 kg of food. Planet side arrival of equipment, seed, grain, starter plants, fruit, berry, etc., construction material, and technical requirements.  Finally ---

4th: Foundation, All 2000 colonists, All equipment, Beginning deconstruction of sleeper ship. Committed to course. 15 months food = 1,602, 500 kg.

Final tally: 4.5 years, 2,640,920 kg food.

This would have to be a well stocked Colony ship. Those who could afford such a colony would be Governments, Large Corporations or Religious groups. Because they more often than not would be able to enforce their will upon the colonists if they felt the need. It would also be easier for them to absorb the loss and failure. Usually will only colonize a known destination. Americas are an example.

The next group who would consider it would be merchants, a noble class or a religious culture seeking sanctuary. Their concerns generally would be how can we accomplish establishing a colony with the least amount of money and get the most out of it. Or for Greed. A very good chance that they might fleece the colonists to save money. Maybe even as much as 50% less than needed. And less than 50% of colonists surviving the journey. As long as there is profit. Slavery in the Caribbean and Early American (U.S.) South are good examples of Merchant colonies. This type of colony I think would be more common.

The last group that would attempt colonization would be refugees. Fleeing Persecution, War, Famine and Drought. Not because they want to, but because they have to. They would also be the ones easiest to take advantage of. And susceptible to ill prepared journeys, people of avarice, slavery, murder, starvation and other frailties of human nature. We see it to day with people climbing on dangerous boats attempting to cross seas or over deserts, mountains, or into disastrous situations. They are the ones most likely to attempt it, for the greatest hope or despair, more afraid of the known than the unknown.

I think motivation would be the greatest indicator of who is on a sleeper ship and why. And how prepared they would be.

 

Edited by Ethereal
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also my assumption for anything like this would be a space construction. 

I really can't think of any merit for building something like that planet side that would offset the negatives. This is not me claiming there aren't any of course, I just cant think of one.

I agree. More than likely such a ship would be dismantled for material upon arrival, rather than make the long trip back of 100(s) of years. Building a ship of such a large size and launching it from planet side would be a very difficult task and use a prodigious amount of fuel and energy. Of course the possibility exists that by that time humanity will have developed artificial gravity/anti-gravity to support such a lift.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding food, I think near-future cultivation techniques will lessen the risk of food shortages. There are some interesting large scale tests with growing vegetables both underground and in air-filled greenhouses just below the surface of the sea. While this might not be functional in all cases, I would say that with a controlled atmosphere (inflatable greenhouses) loosing a crop will not be as likely. Food production will rely more on "industrial" cultivation and less on farmers ploughing. At least for a start. But, as Ethereal points out, it also depends on how well organized and funded the expedition is.

About landing the behemoth or not, I think the main benefit of putting it down is to be able to re-use all materials and tech. Feed a few super 3d printers with all that metal and the colonists will have all the machinery they need for a while. Housing can hopefully be built with local materials, packed soil if all else fails.

 

  • Like 1

1683589267_frostbyteloggaFsvarttiny2.jpg.22ebd7480630737e74be9c2c9ed8039f.jpg   FrostByte Books

M–SPACE   d100 Roleplaying in the Far Future

Odd Soot  Science Fiction Mystery in the 1920s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, remember that this is a one-way, one-shot trip.  There is no going back home for more supplies or taking off for the next planet if this one doesn't suit.  Presumably, the arrival crew would examine the solar system's celestial bodies on the way in and chose the most amenable one.  But there isn't enough fuel to head for the next system if the mission planners guessed wrong hundreds of years ago.

Good musings on whether the ship need be able to land on the surface.  However, like Clarence I'd hate to leave all that irreplaceable hardware in orbit.  If you have a fleet of landing craft, they would probably be pre-packed with equipment and people at the mission's launch.  Once they are all down, there is no going back to the ship to grab something you forgot.  It would require too much fuel and a type of ship you don't have to get back up there. While landing a battleship in the wilderness is risky, at least you have everything with you once you are down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a potentially different take, that I hope might be interesting.

What if the ship is dismantled after arrival but instead used primarily to construct orbital facilities.

These are then used to defend, oversee early colonization efforts, provide communication, etc

Gonna need satellites. Might want a space station for scientific or perhaps defensive purposes, maybe oribital farms for early support while colonists terraform the new home etc

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3241t.jpgHere is a potentially different take, that I hope might be interesting.

What if the ship is dismantled after arrival but instead used primarily to construct orbital facilities.

These are then used to defend, oversee early colonization efforts, provide communication, etc

Gonna need satellites. Might want a space station for scientific or perhaps defensive purposes, maybe oribital farms for early support while colonists terraform the new home etc

Defensive: Phagons (Broos in Space) http://moonrakerminiatures.com/phagons.htm

Edited by Ethereal
Add Image
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the ship was hydrogen powered and could refuel off a gas giant or had a solar sail and could use the destination star to fly off again, ditching the first choice to go off to a second star system might be feasible. But there might be some good narrative reason why you want the colonists stranded... in which case, figure out a good reason why it's a one-way trip. Maybe the star system doesn't have any gas giants, or something goes wrong with the solar sail or the refueling system. 

And not to throw a monkey wrench in your plans, but planets may not be the optimal habitat for a starfaring race. Hollow out an asteroid... or a thousand, build yourselves some O'Neill cylinders, and use those nice Alpha Centauri photons to start a farm in space. No need to throw yourself down some gravity well to muck around with the local fauna, which might not even be DNA-based, or worse, might be DNA-based and hungry. Unless, of course, that sounds like fun. Or there's some mysterious health or cultural reason why humans need to live on planets. (See 2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson, where everyone needs to return to Earth every few years to replenish their microbiome.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a potentially different take, that I hope might be interesting.

What if the ship is dismantled after arrival but instead used primarily to construct orbital facilities.

These are then used to defend, oversee early colonization efforts, provide communication, etc

Gonna need satellites. Might want a space station for scientific or perhaps defensive purposes, maybe oribital farms for early support while colonists terraform the new home etc

Satellites would certainly be helpful and could be placed by EVA crews from the main ship before landing.  But here's the deal:  once you're down on the surface, you're down.  You've expended all your resources and energy to get to the new planet and have landed your colonists in (presumably) virgin wilderness.  There aren't any launch facilities to send astronauts up to a space station or other orbital facility.  And there isn't excess fuel to do it, even if you had a launchpad and ships capable of going back up.  Those satellites you've placed had better be in the right positions to do their jobs, and if a component burns out or they wobble out of orbit, too bad.  You won't be able to do anything about it until your new society has developed the infrastructure and industrial capacity to return to space.

Re:  living on planets.  The health and cultural reasons aren't mysterious at all.  Unfortunately, the human body is designed to need a certain amount of gravity and a certain amount of air pressure.  Without them, bones and muscles atrophy, lungs collapse, and bodily fluids don't distribute themselves correctly.  The real world limitation on man's starfaring dreams is the human body itself.  Our machines could conceivably go all sorts of places.  Biology, not technology, is the challenge.  That's one advantage of the sleeper ship we've been speculating on.  Colonists may have to heal accrued cellular damage but their bones and muscles, preserved in suspended animation, will still be able to handle it when they step out on a planet.  With a generation ship, the arriving colonists may be physically weaker and more fragile than their forebears even if they've had some sort of artificial gravity.  Not a good thing if you're trying to build a settlement in a potentially hostile environment.

In addition to the hard work of actually building them, artificial habitats are necessarily cramped compared to a planet, and you still have to get your air, water, and food from somewhere.  Because they are cramped, and because a careless act by one person could kill everyone on the station or habitat, the societies that develop there will be tend to be restrictive and authoritarian.  Lots of rules about what you can and can't do -- to protect the general welfare, of course.  Leisure activities, whether or not you can have pets and if so what type, how many kids you can have or whether you can bear children at all, all sorts of things will be under scrutiny.  Naturally, any sort of dissent -- against the leadership or at work or school -- will be severely punished because a riot or other irresponsible activity could damage or destroy the colony.

Re:  Broo in space.  Um, we do want to keep our colonists healthy, mentally and physically, don't we?  :o

Edited by seneschal
Add comment
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Vile Traveller

It would make sense to keep a large portion of the ark in orbit as a space station - you don't need the resources, that's what the planet is for. That might even allow you to have an escape rocket on the surface in case of disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Satellites would certainly be helpful and could be placed by EVA crews from the main ship before landing.  But here's the deal:  once you're down on the surface, you're down.  You've expended all your resources and energy to get to the new planet and have landed your colonists in (presumably) virgin wilderness.  There aren't any launch facilities to send astronauts up to a space station or other orbital facility.  And there isn't excess fuel to do it, even if you had a launchpad and ships capable of going back up.  Those satellites you've placed had better be in the right positions to do their jobs, and if a component burns out or they wobble out of orbit, too bad.  You won't be able to do anything about it until your new society has developed the infrastructure and industrial capacity to return to space.

 

Couldn't a properly trained small group of botanists and technicians remain in orbit.

Maintain an orbital safe house of seed stock by farming and harvesting in the now largely empty craft as a backup. It would provide some oxygen and their food without need from the planet.

The technicians and their smallcraft maintaining the satellites, etc.

All of this only until the planet has things well under control. If play would be after that has occurred this would be largely pointless of course.

Granted coming back up with ease may be off the table but you don't actually need a manned high fuel use vehicle to continue to deploy items from orbit. They could make drops much like the capsules of the mercury-apollo projects landed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I know I keep mentioning the seed/farming aspect but I think it should be a HUGE concern for colonists.

There isn't a guarantee their seed couldn't fail or be damaged.

Are we assuming they could survive long term on their new home on native vegetation and it's domestication?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I know I keep mentioning the seed/farming aspect but I think it should be a HUGE concern for colonists.

There isn't a guarantee their seed couldn't fail or be damaged.

The natural answer to this risk would be to not preserve seeds, but to grow living plants on board the ark, in hydroponic plants. This would minimize the risk of seed damage: you can always obtain new seeds from the plants.

Of course, the radiation of space could cause subtle mutations to creep in undetected. This would be a much more likely (and much more fun) disaster scenario :)

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...