Tech they ought to have.

WeirdlyWired wrote:At some point doesn't space=size=mass=acceleration penalties (at least for wedge drive ships)? And probably the space for those rec areas comes from reduced crew/reduced crew quarters/ reduced life support requirements? At some point in the future, the "shooters" are going to demand more magazine space, don't you think? Which would encroach on all the rec area.

Larger ships do have lower acceleration (for a given compensator efficiency) but in ships that are already 400 - 1500 km long (CL - SD) finding space for a basketball court isn't a huge consumer of interior volume.

Yes you could find a few more missiles in there - but not enough to be worth the habitability loss. A rough estimate is that (if you ignore the missile handling hardware that would take up some of the space) a regulation basketball court is about the same volume as a pile of 50-60 missiles. Even for a Roland, which is notoriously short on magazine space that's only the equivalent of maybe 5 rounds per tube. (And I don't know if a ship as small as a Roland would have large spaces like that - the scenes I remember with pools or basketball courts were, IIRC, on CAs and larger)

Jonathan_S wrote:Larger ships do have lower acceleration (for a given compensator efficiency) but in ships that are already 400 - 1500 km long (CL - SD) finding space for a basketball court isn't a huge consumer of interior volume.

Yes you could find a few more missiles in there - but not enough to be worth the habitability loss. A rough estimate is that (if you ignore the missile handling hardware that would take up some of the space) a regulation basketball court is about the same volume as a pile of 50-60 missiles. Even for a Roland, which is notoriously short on magazine space that's only the equivalent of maybe 5 rounds per tube. (And I don't know if a ship as small as a Roland would have large spaces like that - the scenes I remember with pools or basketball courts were, IIRC, on CAs and larger)

The RMN likely has standard requirements for recreation facilities per number of crew. For the Roland you can get away with a couple smaller multi-purpose recreation facilities with a crew size of 62 .

WeirdlyWired wrote:At some point doesn't space=size=mass=acceleration penalties (at least for wedge drive ships)? And probably the space for those rec areas comes from reduced crew/reduced crew quarters/ reduced life support requirements? At some point in the future, the "shooters" are going to demand more magazine space, don't you think? Which would encroach on all the rec area.

In SVW, Honor thinks about the Admiral's pool being part of the fresh water reserve for the ship. All of the rec areas would have some dual use purpose -- the gyms make wonderful extra hospital space for casualties, for example.

Daryl wrote:While I agree mostly, you should include DNA tech, which the Honorverse has, but not to my mind 2000 years more developed.

Relax wrote:Nanoscale application today is the main development tech of the future. Computing plateaued a decade ago. Communications 4 decades ago with the only difference changed from analog/digital to near 100% digital. Aerodynamics, 4 decades ago. Chemistry, 4 decades ago. Carnot Engines? 3 decades ago. Still waiting on Stirling engine tech...

I think the damage done to Earth during its Final War, and the resulting backlash against DNA tech being applied to humanity, probably had something to do with DNA tech not being as advanced as you think it should be. And then the codification of the backlash (the Beowulf Life Sciences Code) slowed things down even further.

Plus whatever missteps along the way that wasted time crept in--and there will be errors, we are finding out now the more we know, the more we realize that what we thought we knew isn't necessarily the way things really work in genetics.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:It seems that Michelle and crew has been away from home for quite some time. It probably just feels that way between publishings. Yet, it has to be rather difficult for the crew, whose quarters are the most cramped, to have to endure such long stints cooped up in a warship. Especially when you aren't at a port (system) where shore leave is advisable.

Star Trek's Holodeck gives good therapy. There's no type of play room on Honorverse warships. Time for an Honorverse holodeck?

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy and Jill quite ill!

its hardly a holodeck but the ships do have gyms with pools and backetball courrts (which like school gyms can presumably be repurposed for volleyball, tennis, etc). So it's not like there are no spaces for play...

But yeah, presuming it didn't malfunction in life or mission threatening ways on a not infrequent basis I'd prefer a holodeck to a basketball court

munroburton wrote:Michelle's ships are generally larger and have fewer crew compared to the older designs we saw those basketball courts, gyms and swimming pools on. That might mean some adjustments in overall recreational capacity, however.

Plus, they're not short for shore leave opportunities. When they were stationed in Talbott systems, they certainly sent sailors and marines down to spend their paychecks.

My thinking regarding shore leave is predicated on the fact that now that the RMN knows about this nanotech assassin, they'd be more cautious and pull the plug on shore leave relegating the crew to the ship. Remember, Lt. Meares was only able to be "conditioned" when he was off ship on shore leave.

OTOH, it may not be practical to deny shore leave out of fear. Especially not knowing how long your enemies will remain undercover. It's just that I spent a lot of my life in a military town, and they'd pull the plug on shore leave in a NY minute, at the very slightest of reasons just short of two deaths. Two deaths in my day was pattern enough to mean off-post was off-limits.

Relax wrote:Nanoscale application today is the main development tech of the future. Computing plateaued a decade ago. Communications 4 decades ago with the only difference changed from analog/digital to near 100% digital. Aerodynamics, 4 decades ago. Chemistry, 4 decades ago. Carnot Engines? 3 decades ago. Still waiting on Stirling engine tech...

Huh...

Stirling engine is what the Swedish submarines use when they want to stay submerged(and quiet) up to 6 weeks despite not being nuclear subs.
So THAT´s definitely well in use by now, even if development have been rather a rollercoaster and more or less stalled for a long time up until the 70s.

Chemistry is definitely not stalling, it´s just that they´ve left most of the cheap experimenting behind, so on average it takes longer to get any real innovation.
Actually, if not for the vastly improved ability to simulate chemistry on computers, the current developments would slow down an order of magnitude extra.
When my cousin left the chemistry company she worked for, one of her last projects entailed over a year worth of computer simulations(a lot of it on a supercomputer) and calculations, to prepare for a single 2 day experiment to prove the preparations right or wrong. Yet the hands on experiment all by itself still cost more than her salary for a year. And that was not an abnormal project.

Aerodynamics? Are you joking? Modern aircraft development are still coming up with surprises, even when trying to use "known and reliably proven concepts". It´s like the issue for chemistry, we´re past the quick and easy advancements.


Also, don´t get too hopped up on the idea of nanotech, it´s quite possible that it wont ever happen, simply because there´s an abyss of difference between being able to make something in a lab, and being able to massproduce it(or even just to produce it at all outside of hyperexpensive lab conditions).




#####

Daryl wrote:While I agree mostly, you should include DNA tech, which the Honorverse has, but not to my mind 2000 years more developed.

You most likely think that because this stuff is getting SO much hype in the last decade.
Media writes about it as if we already can do LOTS of things we don´t have a clue about.

Reality is that science today is mostly able to do "advanced genengineering" by what amounts to cheating. We don´t modify specific genes in specific ways while knowing what the starting and end version does, we take a part of a gene, tear it up and semirandomly try to get the same piece from another EXISTING gene to lock on correctly instead.

They succeed because they do it enough times that random chance is good enough, not because it is some kind of precision work.

Since Ten... is from Sweden and English is a 2nd language, I am going to assume you do not know the definition of plateau.

I used the term in this way: A state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress.

Aerodyanmics, Chemistry, Biology etc.

We have barely scratched the surface of printing nanoscale as we currently do not even know the properties. This is the future and like everything its application is the problem.

PS. We have had stirling engines around for well over a hundred years. Stating that one exists on a submarine is not exactly in your favor... A much better argument should be, that with the advent of hybrid vehicles, that a sterling engine makes a LOT of sense.

Relax wrote:Nanoscale application today is the main development tech of the future. Computing plateaued a decade ago. Communications 4 decades ago with the only difference changed from analog/digital to near 100% digital. Aerodynamics, 4 decades ago. Chemistry, 4 decades ago. Carnot Engines? 3 decades ago. Still waiting on Stirling engine tech...

Not exactly. You are painting with too broad a stroke. I understand your intent, but it is too general a statement.

Innovation, application, software design and architecture design, a few examples, hasn't quite plateaued or peaked by a long shot. Software design might never, as it simply isn't afforded the opportunity. The constant evolving and changing of Operating Systems and the constant demand for more powerful hardware has never allowed the software industry to catch up. A fledgling programmer cannot become completely efficient in program design because the platform changes faster than his coding can keep up -- or his motivation to attempt. If it levels out will afford a chance for software to evolve.

There is still very much room for software design to grow. Especially within the new paradigm of system architecture in the fairly new arena of HSA (Heterogeneous System Architecture) which I've currently placed many of my own projects on hold to assist in writing completely new algorithms to help facilitate the growth of this new industry. When insane amounts of money is offered to you for your programming skills, you tend to jump.

Computer design and manufacturing changes with both the availability of different technologies and the needs and demands of users and software requirements. Current CPUs and GPUs are designed as separate components that don't work together efficiently. HSA solves that problem — SEE: https://youtu.be/Me0g_FsgU0U and https://youtu.be/Me0g_FsgU0U — and many others and enlightens the road to future advancements. I'm afraid that the computer industry is limited only by our own imaginations.

Programmers are forced to rely too much on brute force. As we are nearing certain physical and intrinsic limitations, our minds are forced elsewhere to completely untapped regions.

My personal Cray offers computing speeds of 176 teraflops. Of course, it isn't anywhere near the 17.59 petaflops offered by the world's fastest silicon champion the Titan, but that comes with a hefty price tag of $60M of which I cannot afford to indulge my whims. My Cray, bought as soon as it hit the market in 2013 was acquired for less than $600,000 maxed out, representing a $3M dollar value, achieved by innovative computer design. That was achieved just three years ago. Which has given me a head start and advantage in testing and developing HSA written code. CPU performance, GPU performance and energy efficiency of the related HSA is already astounding and is only the tip of the iceberg. There are many more such areas in computing that has not plateaued because the mountain hasn't even been attempted yet. Yet is sitting there, idle. Awaiting minds that aren't... idle.

The thing to note is that there are several plateaus to be reached in the computing industry. Manufacturing, design, materials, innovation, technological innovation, energy efficiency, software design, languages etc., etc., etc., and even the grouping of these ideologies.

As a plateau is approached it becomes better for the end user because it becomes more appealing to the "better" programmers to invest enormous resources and time developing unprecedented code for machines, systems and architectures that won't become obsolete before releasing, therefore belaying development. HSA has that aim.

When you have to dig so deep that you are talking about super computers, that by definition means the industry has plateaued. When your example is at the very extreme, 0.00000001% that nullifies whatever you posted afterwards.

What needs to happen is a 100% wipe of all software forcing everyone to start from scratch again. When my 1984 computer boots faster(instantly where the CRT warming up was the slowest part) and pops programs up faster without hesitation, something is wrong. It is the horrible software blocks piled on top of blocks on top of inefficient blocks.

Processors effectively have not changed in the last 10 years other than becoming more energy efficient due to smaller die size and becoming wider(parallel processing). The only change they can effectively make on the hardware side is to place the RAM/memory on die and don't due to $$$. Yea yea, they are playing with "3d RAM" that also can work as memory..... In either case the true limiting factor is the horrific software bloat bogging everything down.

So, I agree, software has an immense way to go. And..... It will never happen as the only true way to fix it is to start with a clean slate which by definition means roughly a couple million people become obsolete overnight and forcing the world to hold in motionless wonderment for ~4-10 years while everything is started from scratch again. As if that is going to happen.

Relax wrote:Since Ten... is from Sweden and English is a 2nd language, I am going to assume you do not know the definition of plateau.

I have worked as a translator to/from English.
I´m a certified linguist in Swedish AND English.
I´m perfectly well aware of the definition.

Relax wrote:I used the term in this way: A state of little or no change following a period of activity or progress.

Just because you don´t notice the activity or progress doesn´t mean it isn´t there.
Just because there have been fewer "headline news" from a field does not mean it has in any way stagnated.

Relax wrote:Aerodyanmics, Chemistry, Biology etc.

We have barely scratched the surface of printing nanoscale as we currently do not even know the properties. This is the future and like everything its application is the problem.

Aerodynamics, biology and chemistry have more effort and activity put into them now than it had 50 years ago.
MUCH more. Mostly thanks to the ability to use computer simulations.

And there are small advances popping out of that research all the time. But because they mostly are not big enough for you to see them in the headlines, you think they don´t exist.
And sometimes, because even though the new knowledge is valuable as part of the total knowledge base, isn´t applicable to anything used right now.

Relax wrote:PS. We have had stirling engines around for well over a hundred years. Stating that one exists on a submarine is not exactly in your favor... A much better argument should be, that with the advent of hybrid vehicles, that a sterling engine makes a LOT of sense.

Seriously? Do i have to write a frickin Phd thesis?

The Stirling engine pretty much languished more or less "unused" for decades, up until in the 70s when some people connected to Kockum´s shipyard came up with the idea of seeing if it could be used to extend the subsurface longevity for submarines.
Their development was successful, and also generated a secondary effect of getting more people interested in the technology from the 80s and onwards, spawning a lot of new research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_ ... ry_revival

In 1996, the Swedish navy commissioned three Gotland-class submarines. On the surface, these boats are propelled by marine diesel engines. However, when submerged, they use a Stirling-driven generator developed by Swedish shipbuilder Kockums to recharge batteries and provide electrical power for propulsion.[31] A supply of liquid oxygen is carried to support burning of diesel fuel to power the engine. Stirling engines are also fitted to the Swedish Södermanland-class submarines, the Archer-class submarines in service in Singapore and, license-built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries for the Japanese Sōryū-class submarines. In a submarine application, the Stirling engine offers the advantage of being exceptionally quiet when running.

Currently at least 15 subs are using the system, and many more are likely, with several nations already having obtained knowledge or license to copy the tech.


And even though the military revival kept a lot of the developments more or less secret, the Stirling engine today IS a "realistic choice" for anything it is suitable for.

Stirling engines are frequently used in the dish version of Concentrated Solar Power systems.
...
Stirling engines are forming the core component of micro combined heat and power (CHP) units, as they are more efficient and safer than a comparable steam engine. CHP units are being installed in people's homes.

Just because you don´t know about it, doesn´t mean it doesn´t exist.

And just because you prefer to ignore the FLAWS of Stirling engines doesn´t mean they don´t exist. Only an idiot would try to make a hybrid vehicle with a Stirling engine as a primary choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_ ... on_engines