[Space] Autopilots and Autoturrets

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Would you really want an automated warship though? The great thing about a human operated warships is that it is very hard to suborn the ship unless the majority of the crew engages in mutiny. Conversely, you only have to compromise the central computer on an automated warship to suborn it.

When it comes to SM+4 to SM+6 fighters, automation is an acceptable risk because it is not really that much more likely than a mutiny. As the warship gets bigger, however, the probability of a mutiny decreases, so the relative risk of compromising the central computer increases. When it comes to SM+12 or larger capital ships, it is an unacceptable risk because the chance of mutiny ends up being much less than the chance of an automated warship being compromised.

In my mind, a rational space military possesses manned capital ships supported by automated drones. While massive numbers of drones protecting against kinetic weapons, large beam weapons end up being the weapon of choice. At TL10, that would mean lasers (UV or normal) for long range sniping or particle beams for close brawls.

I don't really think this is a particularly sensible or plausible strategic priority...but I also don't think anybody is talking about completely unmanned major warships here. Substituting AI for helmsmen and gunners doesn't conflict with having human command crew, or human technicians.

[AlexanderHowl]

Avoiding mutiny and sabotage has always been a high priority for militaries, and I doubt that will change anytime soon. When you have spacecraft that are capable of becoming weapons of mass destruction, I even think that it will receive a higher priority than it does now. Of course, that level of paranoia leads to certain types of adventures and campaigns.

[Gearloose]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Would you really want an automated warship though? The great thing about a human operated warships is that it is very hard to suborn the ship unless the majority of the crew engages in mutiny. Conversely, you only have to compromise the central computer on an automated warship to suborn it.

The thing is, a human just doesn't have the reflexes for piloting a spacecraft. Take the space shuttle for instance, those things where built with 70-80's tech and the only part when a human would actually pilot it was during landing, in atmosphere. Everything else, from launch to re-entry was controlled by computers. The "pilot" mostly just monitored the instruments and pushed a few buttons to compensate for any issues that might happen. In GURPS terms, that sounds more like a Crewman (Spacer) roll than Piloting to me.

I've been thinking of replacing these "low-level operations" for skills like Tactics, for deploying weapons and counter-measures efficiently, Shiphandling for commanding the crew and dealing with operation crisis and Spacer for doing hands-on jobs like emergency repairs or steering the vessel.

[AlexanderHowl]

The pilot of the space shuttle was quite capable of flying the spacecraft, it was just that the entire four part assembly needed automation because of the complexity of multistage rockets. With a SSTO technology, that type of complexity is not needed, so you can have interface travel without that level of automation.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The pilot of the space shuttle was quite capable of flying the spacecraft, it was just that the entire four part assembly needed automation because of the complexity of multistage rockets. With a SSTO technology, that type of complexity is not needed, so you can have interface travel without that level of automation.

Actually, he was not capable of flying the space shuttle until Landing-5 minutes. Until then, the GPCs flew the shuttle. The commander, pilot, and crew were busy with different tasks for the other 3 hours and 35 minutes of the landing process.

And with current technology, the commander wouldn't even need to handle that last 5 minutes of descent. Modern airliners all have and often use autopilots for landing. The pilot is only present to command the flight crew, ensure the craft is on course, handle irregularities, and take control in an emergency.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Actually, he was not capable of flying the space shuttle until Landing-5 minutes. Until then, the GPCs flew the shuttle. The commander, pilot, and crew were busy with different tasks for the other 3 hours and 35 minutes of the landing process.

Joe Engle, on STS-2, was the only pilot to manually control the shuttle at any point in reentry other than approach, having intermittently taken control throughout for planned test maneuvers.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Gearloose

The thing is, a human just doesn't have the reflexes for piloting a spacecraft.

The Traveller and Spaceship rules don't assume that the pilot is piloting a ship via mechanical linkages to direct control surfaces and fuel valves. It's all routed through computers (canonically, Traveller has individually customizable and personalized interfaces), which no doubt do a lot of the routine tasks -- exactly like the "real-life spaceships" cited in the OP, none of which have any autonomous decision-making capability at all, and often no sensors or logic for that task, relying instead on humans to tell them what to do (locally or remotely, and either way still computer-assisted).

Hence the reason the thread jumped straight to AI debates. If you didn't want "manual" control in the sense of a WW I biplane, that's a given even with the existing rules. If you wanted automatic control in the sense of "don't need humans", we're talking AI.

[Gearloose]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The Traveller and Spaceship rules don't assume that the pilot is piloting a ship via mechanical linkages to direct control surfaces and fuel valves. It's all routed through computers (canonically, Traveller has individually customizable and personalized interfaces), which no doubt do a lot of the routine tasks -- exactly like the "real-life spaceships" cited in the OP, none of which have any autonomous decision-making capability at all, and often no sensors or logic for that task, relying instead on humans to tell them what to do (locally or remotely, and either way still computer-assisted).

Hence the reason the thread jumped straight to AI debates. If you didn't want "manual" control in the sense of a WW I biplane, that's a given even with the existing rules. If you wanted automatic control in the sense of "don't need humans", we're talking AI.

So, in this case, wouldn't Crewman be a more appropriate skill than Piloting? If it's more about making the right decisions and inputting the commands in flight computer rather than using a joystick and throttle then it would make sense to be an IQ based task rather than DX based.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Gearloose

So, in this case, wouldn't Crewman be a more appropriate skill than Piloting? If it's more about making the right decisions and inputting the commands in flight computer rather than using a joystick and throttle then it would make sense to be an IQ based task rather than DX based.

I could see having Piloting be based on IQ rather than DX in those cases. I'd still make it Piloting skill, rather than Crewman, though.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Gearloose

So, in this case, wouldn't Crewman be a more appropriate skill than Piloting? If it's more about making the right decisions and inputting the commands in flight computer rather than using a joystick and throttle then it would make sense to be an IQ based task rather than DX based.

The Basic Set already talks about using Crewman to operate the helm rather than vehicle control skill - it specifically implies that you're being closely directed by an officer with Shiphandling who is making the calls.

What might be more fitting than using Crewman instead of Pilot is allowing Shiphandling to be used to control the ship directly, on the principle that the helm interface can take the same orders that the helmsman could.