Streamlining

[atpollard]

The rule is unstreamlined ships can't enter atmospheres to land on a planet. Period.

... And yet, a partialy streamlined ship can suck up literaly metric tons of liquified atmosphere in a few hours (suggests deep into a dense atmosphere to me) and unstreamlined ships can land on a size 10 airless world. What CT streamlined shape is the type A Free Trader?

Your statement is correct, but the rules ARE a little sloppy in this area.

 

[far-trader]

... And yet, a partialy streamlined ship can suck up literaly metric tons of liquified atmosphere in a few hours (suggests deep into a dense atmosphere to me)...

...while the term "skimming" and long duration imo (hours) suggests to me cloud top very thin atmosphere loitering

What CT streamlined shape is the type A Free Trader?

Artwork is notoriously different from design in games and fiction. But I see the type A as a Wedge and therefore streamlined even in HG.

Your statement is correct, but the rules ARE a little sloppy in this area.

Sloppy is a fair call. Vague, open to interpretation, and gray could all apply too. Simple (or simplified) might be fairer. The rules are a product of their time though. When a rule was a rule, until the ref expanded upon, clarified it, or outright rewrote it And I have no problem with any of that as noted, just with not thinking it through and being ready to explain why.

So, can those who think CG allows any hull shape or size, with any maneuver drive rating, to land on any size world with any type of atmosphere, routinely and without penalty or consequences explain why there are any hulls other than the cheapest unstreamlined model in use?

 

[leo knight]

IIRC, the sonic fold was from "Ringworld". It allowed their open topped anti-grav flycycles able to fly at great speed without flattening the riders.

I always figured that streamlining was streamlining, no matter how it was done. Ceramic tiles, sonic folds, force fields, magic fairy dust, if it kept you from burning up on re-entry, it cost money. IMTU, for unstreamlined Book 2 standard designs, I always included more costly streamlined variants that could scoop fuel.

 

[Brian Smaller]

Part of the cost of Annual and Decadal maintenance bills would be refurbishing the ships skin and ablative shields - at least in my game.

 

[Easterner9504]

Streamlined

http://www.the-children-of-earth.org/traveller/

See artwork Issue 1, pg 21...that's streamlined? Looks semi to me.

 

[far-trader]

http://www.the-children-of-earth.org/traveller/

See artwork Issue 1, pg 21...that's streamlined? Looks semi to me.

I will decline comment on the grounds that it may incriminate me in my general distaste for Chris Foss art...

...dang! I mean No Comment.



Again it's a matter of the artist not applying the game rules. You can even like Chris Foss art (and some of it even I don't mind) but you need to accept that few artists will adhere to the game rules when their vision is what drives them. Not a bad thing, just that one can't make general comparisons for that reason.

 

[shadowdragon]

........//... So, can those who think CG allows any hull shape or size, with any maneuver drive rating, to land on any size world with any type of atmosphere, routinely and without penalty or consequences explain why there are any hulls other than the cheapest unstreamlined model in use?

Time? I haven't really looked into this aspect or disagreement yet but here are some thoughts tossed off the top of my head....

Edit: missed the part about "without penalty or consequences", so you can skip the rest if you like. Otherwise, here are my thoughts on the matter......


Heat....any ship that can close to orbit 1 of a Sol type star can do a slow entry of a standard atmosphere. Any ship that can sit in full solar radiance at 1 AU can do a slow entry. Even in Earth orbit objects in full sunlight can reach temperatures of 400C.

High winds..... By scanning the upper atmosphere, I believe the jet streams can be mapped. If this is in fact the case, the ship can accelerate just enough to keep the wind shear at minimally damaging levels. Once below the high upper winds, simply dropping on CG still wont work, as even a 60mph gust might damage exterior mounted objects. Careful and diligent sensor work and piloting would be required. Minor damage (at the very least) is probably a given.

Landing.....As far as stress on the frame due to gravity, if it can maneuver at 1g it can handle 1g stress sitting on the surface. If it has the ability to rotate on an axis, it can handle the stress.
Lack of landing gear.... Depends on how you run CG or "maneuver drives" but even if landing gear are not added it might be able to hover long enough to accomplish its goals. Serious pilot work required in that case. Think of landing a blimp.

and finally- time. The reason it is not more common is that it takes an absurd amount of time to de-orbit in this manner. Hours scanning and mapping the upper atmosphere, hours maneuvering through the winds and getting to the LZ. And then to top it all off, unless landing struts of a variable but probably unreasonable length have been professionally installed the pilot is going to have to sit at the controls trying to avoid slamming into any object nearby, including the ground. More hours go by to load/unload, then its time to do it all again just to leave. Once the atmospheric pressure drops enough, accelerating up to orbital speeds or even just escape velocity will take some more time. IMHO it would take at the very least 2x the amount of time it would be to just drop shuttles, especially if the shuttles were waiting in the orbital parking slot to begin unloading. It would probably take more than that and then there would be minor damage every single time it was done. Which would drive up costs. Time and Cost would kill this idea for any but the most dire circumstances.

But thats just my opinion.

(not to mention its not permitted by the rules...heheh)

 

[Max]

One point Shadow, because a ship can accelerate at 1G does not mean it can maneuver at 1G. There is agility, but that's an abstract value related to maneuverability but without a known conversion chart we cannot tell the magnitude of the relationship between agility and how many Gs a ship can maneuver at. Admittedly a ship which can accelerate at 1G should be able to handle 1G of stress along it's line of acceleration, but that doesn't work if a craft cannot land in way which would have the planetary gravitational stress along it's line of acceleration (maneuver drives pointed down). Not saying you're wrong, but a ship's ability to handle stress is more of a judgment call.

 

[shadowdragon]

consider the straw...it can handle amazing accelerations in the long axis, significantly smaller cross axis accelerations bend it. I understand this principle. However, in what i have reference material on, little is said about actual 0g movement with the handwave that "agility" brings us. I dont recall seeing anything in canon about vector movement, which would kill agility as i see it being put to use. so i would have to agree that its basically a judgment call but I would still rule that if it can handle transverse accelerations without damage to the structure, it would have a good chance of being able to handle the local gravity gradient. especially in regard to what my understanding of how agility is used in game. jinking and other evasive maneuvers, etc. these almost have to put 1+g of stress on the superstructure else they are not going to be all that effective, and since superstructure does not limit agility, just m-drive rating and available power, it leaves a hole.

and it is called the maneuver drive is it not?