[Errata] Bubble helmets

[Mailanka]

I'm convinced bubble helmets have erroneous entries. The text states:

Bubble Helmet (TL9-12): A fishbowl helmet made of
rigid transparent plastic or diamondoid. The user should
wear his own vision and communication gear.

Fair enough, but at TL 9 and 10, they weigh as much as the Visored Space Helmet, cost the same amount, and have less DR and no integrated electronics. There's no reason to expect that rigid plastic would be as expensive as an armored helm full of electronics. At TL 11 and 12, the DR improves (it becomes diamonoid) and the price goes up, and it becomes as expensive as the Space Combat Helm, despite having less DR and less electronics. Now, we can argue that this is a function of aesthetics, and when I raised the point before, that's the argument people gave.

But I also note that the bubble helmet requires batteries. After 24-36 hours, it runs out of batteries and then... what happens? Does the plastic dissolve? Do the non-existent electronics give out? Perhaps the air stops flowing into the bubble-helmet... but the flexible space helmet has no power requirement, and is effectively just a plastic bag, a flexible version of the bubble helmet... and since it has no electronics or any complicated elements, it makes sense that is has no power requirement. So why does the bubble helmet?

It seems like the bubble helmet was originally intended to be something else, then it was simplified, but its entries in the table weren't updated to match its description.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

But I also note that the bubble helmet requires batteries. After 24-36 hours, it runs out of batteries and then... what happens? Does the plastic dissolve? Do the non-existent electronics give out? Perhaps the air stops flowing into the bubble-helmet...

Best guess if you wanted to use that statistic: the temperature regulation stops working and you either cook or freeze to death. A huge transparent bubble will after all allow in more sunlight and/or radiate more heat than the solid helmet with insulation or reflective surface everywhere, so it's not ridiculous it could change the power required for the air conditioning.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Best guess if you wanted to use that statistic: the temperature regulation stops working and you either cook or freeze to death. A huge transparent bubble will after all allow in more sunlight and/or radiate more heat than the solid helmet with insulation or reflective surface everywhere, so it's not ridiculous it could change the power required for the air conditioning.

But this isn't a problem with a flexible (unarmored) space helmet because...?

It sounds less like an actual thing and more of an attempt to justify a bad rule. Why not just note that the rule is bad? Or perhaps tug on the authors sleeve and ask "Why is this so?" He might say "Oh, that's a typo." It's not like UT doesn't have errors.

(I actually don't want to use that statistic, though I'm not really clear on what a better one would be, other than "They don't use batteries," of course. The rest is less clear. But I don't need SJGames permission for a house rule. I might need to notify SJGames that they have a mistake in their text. The batteries are almost certainly a mistake, and if they're a mistake, there might be other mistakes, hence the thread)

[weby]

DR: Realistically a bubble helmet should likely have less DR than other types of helmets as being limited to transparent materials will likely make you chose less than optimal materials for other purposes, including protection. Though the descriptive text about being diamondoid would make it super armored at TL 11.

Weight: The way I see the bubble helmet is that it is one of those 50s fishbowl helmets. They tended to be rather large in area and that adds weight.

Price: A diamondoid version would be expensive (but have high DR), other versions should likely be fairly cheap.

Electronics: The air circulation system and temperature control system likely need power.

[weby]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

But this isn't a problem with a flexible (unarmored) space helmet because...?

That is where I would place the bug.

But on the other hand I could see the base suit life support system expanded to contain those things and have the helmets be passive with connectors to the main suit.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

(I actually don't want to use that statistic, though I'm not really clear on what a better one would be, other than "They don't use batteries," of course. The rest is less clear. But I don't need SJGames permission for a house rule. I might need to notify SJGames that they have a mistake in their text. The batteries are almost certainly a mistake, and if they're a mistake, there might be other mistakes, hence the thread)

Not all Ultra-Tech equipment is consistent with all other Ultra-Tech equipment, but it's all guesswork anyway. If you want to remove the batteries, sure, go ahead. If you want to add a power consumption to helmets that didn't get one, you could do that too. If you just want to use all the statistics in Ultra-Tech as written, go ahead, and if that means some gear will be less effective in all measurable ways that some other piece of equipment that is also available it's not like that never happens in the real world.

Is it a reasonable issue to bring up if there is ever another playtest, sure, but I wouldn't say there is an obvious mistake. Even if there is, why assume it is requiring a battery for this helmet and not the battery is missing for the other one? Any power consumption given for a space suit that doesn't require a calculation that takes into account stuff like incident sunlight, the rate you are spending fatigue and the thermal conductivity of anything you happen to be standing on is seriously wrong anyway, so....

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by malloyd

Is it a reasonable issue to bring up if there is ever another playtest, sure, but I wouldn't say there is an obvious mistake. Even if there is, why assume it is requiring a battery for this helmet and not the battery is missing for the other one?

Because the life-support systems are described if the space-suit section, and they merely note that you need some kind of space helmet to seal it. For example, a skin suit, a smart vacc suit, a space biosuit and space armor can all be sealed with a bubble helmet or a flexible space helmet or a visored space helmet. But the skin suit lacks the DR or the climate control that the others have, while the space biosuit doesn't require nearly as much power as the others. Thus, if I were going to design the system, it would be a nightmare to say "Well, this suit provides climate control for 3 weeks! But the helmet only works for 1 day, so eh, you have to constantly change batteries." Instead, it's phrased like the space suit itself provides the climate control and the air and such, and the helmet "merely" seals it, but some of them contain integrated electronics and, obviously, those need their own power: radios don't power themselves.

Though on the other hand, the power sources listed don't provide sufficient power to handle their electronics (an infrared visor requires 1 b-cell for 10 hours, while a small radio requires 2 b cells for 10 hours, so we'd need 3 b cells to operate them for 10 hours, and one b-cell will operate your helmet integrating a radio and a visor for 24 hours). So, um, actually these are all a bit of a mess.

[Mailanka]

Just as a mental experiment:

Pyramid 12 on page 8 and 9 contains a "hardshell suit" that we can use to "tailor" our own armor. The skull has a 0.05 multiplier, so a TL 11 hardsuit protecting the skull would weigh 2.4 lbs and cost $120 and provide a DR of 45. A light infantry helmet from UT176 isn't much different; it's DR 36, $250 and 3 lbs. We can find armored visors on the same page and it covers the eyes and face for $100 and 3 lbs, and a DR of 30. So our helmet is, at the lightest/cheapest, 5.4 lbs and $220 for a DR of 45/30.

A small radio is $200 and 0.5 lbs. It requires 2 b-cells for 10 hours.
An IR visor is $500 and 0.6 lbs, but it's usually integrated into the visor. Let's assume that we can subtract the visor cost and that the weight is completely integrated into the armored visor. We get a cost of +$400 and no weight. It requires 1 B cell for 10 hours.

Finally, we need some kind of sealing effect, so we need to integrate a flexible space helmet in there. That's $500 and 0.5 lbs and requires no power (it also has a DR of 8*).

If we make this a combined gadget, the most expensive is the flexible space helmet, and the rests costs $1236, the heaviest thing is the helmet, and I think the visor just weighs what the visor does, but if we integrate the rest, we come to w weight of +0.8, so our helmet should weigh 6.2 lbs. It requires 1 c-cell, which provides 10 times the power of a b-cell, so I'd get a combined duration of about ~33 hours (3 b-cells would give you 10 hours, 3 c-cell would give you 100 hours, so 1 c-cell will give you 33 hours).

If we compare, we find that the cell is off by an order of magnitude (a TL 11 visored space helm requires a B cell for 36 hours, while we require a C-cell for around the same amount of time). UT has a DR of 40/30, which is within spitting distance of our 45/30. Ours costs $1236, theirs costs $2000, and ours weighs ~6 lbs, theirs weighs 4. But if we fuss and say that their costs can be reduced by lowering the DR to 40 or that it really represents something else (the Flexible Space Helmet also offers some DR) and drop it to $1000, then make it an Expensive Gadget, we get to $2000 and 4 lbs.

So we pass the smell test. It seems to be basically a hardshell helmet with integrated electronics. The battery power is wrong, but the rest is fine.

It we argue that the bubble helmet is basically an armored visor on all sides,
we come to a DR of 30, a cost of $200, and a weight of 6 lbs. If we add a flexible space helmet to represent the fact that it's all sealed, we get a price tag of about $660, a weight of 6.4 lbs, and no power requirements at all. Meanwhile, the actual thing has a cost of $3000, a weight of 5 lbs and power requirements. It's possible that it's also an expensive gadget (2/3 of 6.5 = 4.3, and the cost becomes ~$1200), but that's still too cheap.

Bubble helmets are definitely off. They don't pass a smell test. I'll grant you that the combination-gadget thing doesn't always work, but it should put you roughly in the same ballpark, but the bubble helmet doesn't, and it's pretty clear to see why. The weight is fine, the price is way off, and there should be no power requirement that I can see, unless the flexible space helmet is wrong, and the other helmets need a much higher power requirement.