VISUALIZATION OF HONOR

Spacekiwi wrote:Personally, on ship I always thought it kind of weird they werent wearing skinsuits pretty much constantly. You are in a working envionment with the hazard of being in space, so wearing protective equipment is a smart thig. Since that equipment is also uniform, really it should be the permanent space uniform.

Crown Loyalist wrote:I was thinking much the same, but then I realized that (not unreasonably) it appears they're combining shipboard-duty uniforms with skinsuits (hopefully they'll still have an independent dress uniform). This makes sense in a visual medium.

Skinsuits are more comfortable than present day vac equipment, true. They are not as comfortable as a normal uniform, however, and these are shirt-sleeve environment ships. Explosive decompression is not a huge threat except in combat, when everyone suits up, anyway. There's not a lot more point in putting them in skinsuits full time aboard ship than there would be in handing out vac suits to every passenger boarding a present day jetliner. If you're going to be working in an area of the ship where rapid pressure loss is likely, then sure, you should be skinsuited; if not, far better to be in shirt sleeves for many reasons, including comfort, efficiency of movement, and avoiding wear and tear on the equipment when it isn't necessary.

Of course, that's just my take on how the RMN sees things.

Love, love, love #4. Encompasses the feel of the RMN for me. I'm very happy to see these visualizations! Makes them clouds on the horizon look a lot less ominous!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thank you for the clarification on this RFC.
regarding wearing the skinsuit where you ay enocunter rapid pressure loss, what areas of the ship did you envisage for this? Would that be areas like the boat bay, and the enigneers working on or in the hull, missile launchers etc?

runsforcelery wrote:

Skinsuits are more comfortable than present day vac equipment, true. They are not as comfortable as a normal uniform, however, and these are shirt-sleeve environment ships. Explosive decompression is not a huge threat except in combat, when everyone suits up, anyway. There's not a lot more point in putting them in skinsuits full time aboard ship than there would be in handing out vac suits to every passenger boarding a present day jetliner. If you're going to be working in an area of the ship where rapid pressure loss is likely, then sure, you should be skinsuited; if not, far better to be in shirt sleeves for many reasons, including comfort, efficiency of movement, and avoiding wear and tear on the equipment when it isn't necessary.

Of course, that's just my take on how the RMN sees things.

There is textev for both of those (see Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington and Echoes of Honor).

The shirt sleeves thing makes sense today, look at what people on the International Space Station wear.

Spacekiwi wrote:Thank you for the clarification on this RFC.
regarding wearing the skinsuit where you ay enocunter rapid pressure loss, what areas of the ship did you envisage for this? Would that be areas like the boat bay, and the enigneers working on or in the hull, missile launchers etc?

runsforcelery wrote:

Skinsuits are more comfortable than present day vac equipment, true. They are not as comfortable as a normal uniform, however, and these are shirt-sleeve environment ships. Explosive decompression is not a huge threat except in combat, when everyone suits up, anyway. There's not a lot more point in putting them in skinsuits full time aboard ship than there would be in handing out vac suits to every passenger boarding a present day jetliner. If you're going to be working in an area of the ship where rapid pressure loss is likely, then sure, you should be skinsuited; if not, far better to be in shirt sleeves for many reasons, including comfort, efficiency of movement, and avoiding wear and tear on the equipment when it isn't necessary.

Of course, that's just my take on how the RMN sees things.

I know, but couldn't remember all the text ev, and was wondering if there were any more areas not mentioned in textev taht RFC also thought needed skinsuits for work.

Donnachaidh wrote:There is textev for both of those (see Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington and Echoes of Honor).

The shirt sleeves thing makes sense today, look at what people on the International Space Station wear.

Well, as a general rule I would guess it could apply to any work environment outside the core hull/main engineering.

So any components in the armored honeycomb voids, as well as on the hull. e.g. weapons systems, sidewall generators, boat bays (at least while only protected by force fields), the actual nodes (as opposed to their power and control systems inside the shirt-sleeve engineering compartments), gravitic and other sensors and targeting systems; fuel/water bunker/tank related systems, etc.

Spacekiwi wrote:I know, but couldn't remember all the text ev, and was wondering if there were any more areas not mentioned in textev taht RFC also thought needed skinsuits for work.

Donnachaidh wrote:There is textev for both of those (see Ms. Midshipwoman Harrington and Echoes of Honor).

The shirt sleeves thing makes sense today, look at what people on the International Space Station wear.

Spacekiwi wrote:I know, but couldn't remember all the text ev, and was wondering if there were any more areas not mentioned in textev taht RFC also thought needed skinsuits for work.

Based on FoD anywhere that there is only one barrier between you and vacuum.[EDIT] For continuous work. I forgot about boarding tubes. I think they would qualify for single barrier. [EDIT]

Mentioned when they are talking about getting the boat bays up and requiring the yard workers needing to wear suits to work in CIC despite it being pressurized.

Which also points out that suits slow productivity.

Enjoy,
T2M

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

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.

Thank you for the clarification on this David.

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.