Weber Forums • View topic - VISUALIZATION OF HONOR

Re: (STICKY) VISUALIZATION OF HONOR
by Frankjg » Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:55 pm
Frankjg Lieutenant (Senior Grade) Posts: 73 Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:01 pm Location: Nanaimo British Columbia Canada	Not Bad. Keep it up. I say you are close to what Honor should look like. Uniform clashes with the House of Steel. But I go for it. Bottom 2 pictures are the best.
Top

Re: (STICKY) VISUALIZATION OF HONOR
by AirTech » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:56 pm
AirTech Captain of the List Posts: 476 Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:37 am Location: Deeeep South (Australia) (most of the time...)	runsforcelery wrote: Spacekiwi wrote:cheers t2m and hvb. I had forgotten about the ev of needing them in cic and boarding tubes. They aren't normal wear for boarding tube personnel exchanges inside boat bays. There is some risk of a catastrophic rupture, but it's about on a par with the chances that a 4-engine plane will lose all 4 engines simultaneously to unrelated causes --- that is, it can happen, but the insurance actuaries don't remember the last time it actually did. Now it is customary for yard workers to suit up when transiting the much longer (and more exposed) boarding tubes connecting a space station to a ship under construction/repair, because it's far more likely that something --- like a small craft with an engine/guidance failure, for example --- will have an opportunity to rupture the tube. In addition, such tube connections are made for larger number of people and are exposed to possible over much longer periods of time, which increases the window for catastrophic failure of one sort or another. Perhaps the most reasonable rule-of-thumb or model would be to consider current wet-navy experience. For certain jobs, life jackets and safety lines are SOP, but the engine room snipes don't usually employ either of them. It's a matter of threat assessment versus productivity and crew comfort on a risk-benefits analysis and, as another point which really needs to be considered here, a hull breach which causes explosive decompression of any significant portion of a ship's interior is going to be incredibly rare outside actual combat conditions . . . at which point everyone is suited, regardless of his or her station. Only so much air can escape through a breach of a given size in a given period of time, and the provision for sealing off breached compartments is pretty darned impressive on ships designed by people who've spent 2,000 years wandering around interstellar space. I've seen this issue compared to the case of a nuclear sub which suffers a hull breach while submerged, but the cases are actually far from parallel. A sub operates in an environment which wants to crush it and in which the compression effect of inrushing high-pressure water will literally heat the air in a compartment to levels which would have killed the personnel in it even if they hadn't been crushed themselves or drowned. The vacuum outside a star ship will cheerfully suck all the air out of it, given time and opportunity, but that offers no direct threat to the structural integrity of the ship as a whole and the threat can actually be dealt with pretty effectively unless whatever damage caused the breach was, in itself, sufficient to destroy the ship's structure. That is, it's a heck of a lot easier to seal air into a punctured starship than it is to seal the water out of a punctured aircraft carrier or --- far worse --- a punctured sub at 500 feet. As for four engine airliners losing power - it happens about once every four to five years - running out of fuel or air will do it. (The fuel is obvious - not putting it in (refer Gimli Glider), air is harder and usually requires a volcano (BA009) but water will do too). Mechanical failure is an option too - piston engined airliners used to lose an engine on every second transatlantic flight - sometimes literally, QF32 showed that this can still happen (and they had one engine disintegrate, another engine FOD out as a result and a third jammed at full throttle - not a nice scenario, El Al 1862, China Airlines 358 and AA191 were worse with a total loss. On a military ship I would be designing a uniform that can be worn under an emergency pressure suit in a pinch - you have 30 seconds useful consciousness in a compartment opened to space - access to oxygen is critical to survival. Jackets may be stylish but they are totally impractical in a zero g or engine room environment and get in the way in engineering services - there is a reason boiler suits were invented and worn by those whose job (i.e. engine room crew) involves getting dirty for a living - human skin is not very resilient to sharp objects at any speed. Snagging is a big issue that needs to be watched. (BTW naval engine room boiler suits are traditionally white cotton to prevent tattooing of the dye and debris in the overalls in the event of a high pressure steam leak - more of a historical note now but it has become traditional even though Nomex would now be a better choice). I would suggest a kevlar / nomex / gortex / elastane analog dress code would be more common - current military flight suits (olive drab optional - black makes better camouflage in space - electro- / chemo- / photo-luminescent built in may be an option too for recovery in dark enviroments - look at the NASA Z-2 pattern pressure suits) would be a more typical pattern than current naval patterns for operational use. Engineering areas should have universal fit pressure suits (similar to the Z pattern suits) directly adjacent to the work areas as in an emergency you can't spend 5 minutes pulling on a skin suit, and emergencies don't always give notice. (In the event of a leak you would step into a pressurized closet (phone booth?) and into the suit back and step back to work). Dress uniforms are another matter and I would expect excessive tinsel to be normal for some services (i.e. take South American / African military for example). Survival capsules would need to include pressure suits for all occupants and survival equipment for more benign environments.
Top

runsforcelery wrote:
Spacekiwi wrote:cheers t2m and hvb.
I had forgotten about the ev of needing them in cic and boarding tubes.

They aren't normal wear for boarding tube personnel exchanges inside boat bays. There is some risk of a catastrophic rupture, but it's about on a par with the chances that a 4-engine plane will lose all 4 engines simultaneously to unrelated causes --- that is, it can happen, but the insurance actuaries don't remember the last time it actually did. Now it is customary for yard workers to suit up when transiting the much longer (and more exposed) boarding tubes connecting a space station to a ship under construction/repair, because it's far more likely that something --- like a small craft with an engine/guidance failure, for example --- will have an opportunity to rupture the tube. In addition, such tube connections are made for larger number of people and are exposed to possible over much longer periods of time, which increases the window for catastrophic failure of one sort or another.

Perhaps the most reasonable rule-of-thumb or model would be to consider current wet-navy experience. For certain jobs, life jackets and safety lines are SOP, but the engine room snipes don't usually employ either of them. It's a matter of threat assessment versus productivity and crew comfort on a risk-benefits analysis and, as another point which really needs to be considered here, a hull breach which causes explosive decompression of any significant portion of a ship's interior is going to be incredibly rare outside actual combat conditions . . . at which point everyone is suited, regardless of his or her station.

Only so much air can escape through a breach of a given size in a given period of time, and the provision for sealing off breached compartments is pretty darned impressive on ships designed by people who've spent 2,000 years wandering around interstellar space. I've seen this issue compared to the case of a nuclear sub which suffers a hull breach while submerged, but the cases are actually far from parallel. A sub operates in an environment which wants to crush it and in which the compression effect of inrushing high-pressure water will literally heat the air in a compartment to levels which would have killed the personnel in it even if they hadn't been crushed themselves or drowned. The vacuum outside a star ship will cheerfully suck all the air out of it, given time and opportunity, but that offers no direct threat to the structural integrity of the ship as a whole and the threat can actually be dealt with pretty effectively unless whatever damage caused the breach was, in itself, sufficient to destroy the ship's structure. That is, it's a heck of a lot easier to seal air into a punctured starship than it is to seal the water out of a punctured aircraft carrier or --- far worse --- a punctured sub at 500 feet.

As for four engine airliners losing power - it happens about once every four to five years - running out of fuel or air will do it. (The fuel is obvious - not putting it in (refer Gimli Glider), air is harder and usually requires a volcano (BA009) but water will do too). Mechanical failure is an option too - piston engined airliners used to lose an engine on every second transatlantic flight - sometimes literally, QF32 showed that this can still happen (and they had one engine disintegrate, another engine FOD out as a result and a third jammed at full throttle - not a nice scenario, El Al 1862, China Airlines 358 and AA191 were worse with a total loss.
On a military ship I would be designing a uniform that can be worn under an emergency pressure suit in a pinch - you have 30 seconds useful consciousness in a compartment opened to space - access to oxygen is critical to survival. Jackets may be stylish but they are totally impractical in a zero g or engine room environment and get in the way in engineering services - there is a reason boiler suits were invented and worn by those whose job (i.e. engine room crew) involves getting dirty for a living - human skin is not very resilient to sharp objects at any speed. Snagging is a big issue that needs to be watched. (BTW naval engine room boiler suits are traditionally white cotton to prevent tattooing of the dye and debris in the overalls in the event of a high pressure steam leak - more of a historical note now but it has become traditional even though Nomex would now be a better choice).
I would suggest a kevlar / nomex / gortex / elastane analog dress code would be more common - current military flight suits (olive drab optional - black makes better camouflage in space - electro- / chemo- / photo-luminescent built in may be an option too for recovery in dark enviroments - look at the NASA Z-2 pattern pressure suits) would be a more typical pattern than current naval patterns for operational use.
Engineering areas should have universal fit pressure suits (similar to the Z pattern suits) directly adjacent to the work areas as in an emergency you can't spend 5 minutes pulling on a skin suit, and emergencies don't always give notice. (In the event of a leak you would step into a pressurized closet (phone booth?) and into the suit back and step back to work).
Dress uniforms are another matter and I would expect excessive tinsel to be normal for some services (i.e. take South American / African military for example).
Survival capsules would need to include pressure suits for all occupants and survival equipment for more benign environments.

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

VISUALIZATION OF HONOR