How Useful Are the Cutaway Displays?

[Colonel Midnight]

I see the MSD as basically the Trek version of a DC diagram for a ship. (Damage Control)

On the few ships I've seen (some coast guard vessels mainly) it was actually laid out like an elaborate deck plan showing compartments as well as indicators for electrical and piping lines.

A ship the size of the Enterprise would probably need something computerized and moving. Tap one level and it turns into a deckplan. Tap two levels and it shows them side by side or shows one as a transparency over the other.

True -- RL DC plates are chockful of info, compartment numbers, deck plan, and "spaghetti" lines showing the various systems. That being said, I don't think it would translate across very well, even on a big screen -- it would probably look like a big grey blur onscreen. Hence the MSD.

And while it would be a nifty effect to have a computerized version (there's been a move afoot to do so within both the USN and USCG), it still would be next to useless if you lose power, even with batteries. Nothing beats good old paper and pencil sometimes...

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And while it would be a nifty effect to have a computerized version (there's been a move afoot to do so within both the USN and USCG), it still would be next to useless if you lose power, even with batteries.

Someone at DARPA suggested that as a general solution to ALL of these "the computer's useless if you loose power" scenarios, all warships should be equipped with an uninterruptible power supply, probably an RTG (radioisotopic thermoelectric generator) like the cells that powered the Voyager and Gallileo spacecraft. RTGs are nice because they give you enough power to run your equipment even in the event of a power less and they don't run out quickly, or at all, for several months at least.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

^ True, but then... you just restricted the number of ports you can go to (even in the case of an emergency) to a rather large extent, since you're basically carrying a small nuclear powerplant.

Still, it's a possibility -- but even with it at some point, you're going to run out of power. There's logic in the KISS principle.

YMMV, of course.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Cary L. Brown]

^ True, but then... you just restricted the number of ports you can go to (even in the case of an emergency) to a rather large extent, since you're basically carrying a small nuclear powerplant.

Still, it's a possibility -- but even with it at some point, you're going to run out of power. There's logic in the KISS principle.

YMMV, of course.

Cheers,
-CM-

The obvious solution is for you to have redundant power systems, with all critical devices having a built-in carry-over supply (basically, batteries or the equivalent). If main power goes down for just a few seconds, every device of this nature is going to continue working, running off of its own battery power, presumably carrying over until external power is restored.

Modern PCs, and particularly laptops, are that way. It's not really all that farfetched to incorporate an integral battery backup into all your key control systems in the same manner, especially considering the minimal power draw that sort of system requires (even today) versus the primary systems for the vessel.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

^ Indeed, there ARE redundant power systems but again, at some point --- you will lose power!

Not to mention, the more number of redundancies you have installed, the overall reliability of the system drops, while the maintainability rises.

I'm not denying there are UPS's in most modern day systems, but you rapidly reach a point of diminishing returns.

What's wrong with having paper and pencil anymore?? Just because I have a modern digital mapping navigation system onscreen, with radar overlay, on most newer ships still does not absolve the CO from carrying a paper chart and maintaining a course/speed plot on it. It's only prudent good seamanship.

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ Indeed, there ARE redundant power systems but again, at some point --- you will lose power!

If your ship is disabled for the amount of time it takes an RTG to run out of power, damage control will be the LEAST of your problems.

Not to mention, the more number of redundancies you have installed

That's why you'd only need one or two RTGs for the entire system. Unless something knocks out the generators themselves, they don't need to have a backup; if something hits the generators, your computer is FUBARed by definition and you might as well abandon ship.

What's wrong with having paper and pencil anymore??

Diminishing returns again. At a certain level of complexity it is no longer feasible to keep track of all the systems by hand; some warships already depend so much on automation that their damage control teams couldn't do this if they wanted to. Besides which, the electronic system allows some of the damage control to be handled by the COMPUTER, which reduces the workload on the human operators so they only have to focus on the most critical aspects like, say, flood control and fire fighting.

Just because I have a modern digital mapping navigation system onscreen, with radar overlay, on most newer ships still does not absolve the CO from carrying a paper chart and maintaining a course/speed plot on it. It's only prudent good seamanship.

By tradition, yes. On the other hand, the Apollo astronauts couldn't exactly carry a paper chart maintaining course/speed plot of their orbit, because doing so would require one of the astronauts to spend ninety percent of his time crunching numbers on a calculator. At the time, the computers necessary to keep track of their course with that kind of precision were the size of school busses and required PhDs in mathematics and computer science to run them, either of which don't fit very well into a space craft the size of a volkswagen.

As a general rule, it's easier to make the computers smarter than the crew.