OTU Only: Gypsy Queen Class Fast Merchant, LBB2, 199Td, J26GP7

mike wightman said:

I would argue that if you are introducing s function, eta (H), to get the progression that the drive potential table indicates you no longer have a "simple formula"

Click to expand...

Agreed, obviously not.

mike wightman said:

I'm wondering if some sort of sine function, possibly in the imaginary plane, may produce a value for eta (H) that would give the coefficient necessary for the J drive and the W->Z drives.

Click to expand...

Both numerator and denominator are continuously increasing, so a single phase of a sinus function with a variably stretched base would presumably work.

Polynomial functions would trivially work, too.

So I wonder if I have been wrong all these years, the folks at GDW did use a formula...

there must have been a couple of maths graduates on staff.

mike wightman said:

So I wonder if I have been wrong all these years, the folks at GDW did use a formula...

there must have been a couple of maths graduates on staff.

Click to expand...

My money is on whoever simplified LBB2 down to FF&S.

mike wightman said:

So I wonder if I have been wrong all these years, the folks at GDW did use a formula...

Click to expand...

Probably not for LBB2.77 and probably yes for LBB2.81 ... but the explanation (and thus, show your work, factor) of the formula(s) they wound up using were kept hidden and unpublished (presumably to save precious page layout space).

The LBB2.77 table looks mighty arbitrary in the way it's constructed.
Fill in the table first with what "looks right" ... don't sweat the details (even afterwards) ... never mind trying to use any kind of rational mathematical formula to compute (and verify) the values entered into the table.

LBB2.81 cleaned up a LOT of that with the revision, but (in my opinion) "grandfathered" too much of the LBB2.77 "table shaping" into the revised table (creating new errors and inconsistencies in the process).

Spinward Flow said:

presumably to save precious page layout space).

Click to expand...

Intellectual property reasons, too.

Spinward Flow said:

To be honest, I think you would be better off with a J2/2G starship "tender" and a 6G small craft "yacht" type arrangement. Basically the starship is mainly for interstellar jumping, while the small craft is for zooming around and joyriding in. Even if you do C/C drives in a sub-100 tons small craft and then just build a sub-200 tons jump tender to go with it, you're probably going to wind up with a better (and more plausible) mix of capabilities, I reckon.

Click to expand...

[Bold added.]

Basically the starship as designed is built for running away -- really really fast (and everything else is just a smoke-screen for that fact). A small craft would need to slow down to rendezvous with a carrier ship, and you can't afford that when you're fleeing for your life from the planet you were ruling over until just a few minutes ago...

The typical hangar/launch silo is a secret base inside of an extinct island volcano. (Carving the volcano into the shape of a menacing-looking skull is optional, but definitely adds that essential je ne sais quoi.)

It's also ok as a smuggler's hot rod too, but it's really meant as a getaway car -- in space!

I do have a design for a bug out starship, keeping in mind that considering you have a lynch mob behind you, transitioning at ten diameters becomes a reasonable risk.