pesco
SOC-9
I am interested, though: Where did this peculiar (and specific) term come from?
Googling, someone on reddit mentions The Winds of Gath, but also claims the term used there was only "raft", no slash.
Air rafts and grav tech
- Thread starter pesco
- Start date
Googling, someone on reddit mentions The Winds of Gath, but also claims the term used there was only "raft", no slash.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I always thought it was a neat play on words.
The hack slash standing in for the letter cee.
The hack slash standing in for the letter cee.
I don't recall; Marc mentioned it in one of his interviews.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Implied was, slow floaty thing.
That is why early Traveller descriptions of the Air/Raft used the synonyms "Floater" and "Flyer" (distinct from the "Speeder"), implying perhaps a general class encompassing several different types of general purpose craft: A Grav Utility Raft for short range transport (like a dinghy or light pick-up truck) and a Grav Car.
Note that some documents also use the construction: "G/Carrier" .
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I've heard variations.
Star Wars had speeders, land and snow.
Grav/sled, implies close to the ground.
Star Wars had speeders, land and snow.
Grav/sled, implies close to the ground.
Badenov
SOC-12
Yes, but a 'raft' implies floating on the currents, not zipping along at 400kph under positive control up to space. The name seems to have been kept while the vehicle changed substantially. The open passenger compartment, chilly but livable for a raft drifting at a hundred meters above terrain, is not really viable at 400kph (where the wind chill factor at altitude gets very dangerous) or above 3000m (where you need supplemental oxygen). Sure you can wear a spacesuit, but can the vehicle be limited to not go past 100kph (World War 1 open-cockpit fighters topped out around here) or 3000m if all passengers are not properly equipped? Or is it like the wild west, where people are free to do as they like and reap the consequences?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
At this point, it seems everything technological, especially propulsion, flows from our understanding and application of gravitational force.
My view is that that force can be segmented, which would explain different performance parameters for different motors.
So, there would be one motor type for slow floaty things, another for ground hugging ones, another one for default spacecraft manoeuvre drives.
And so on.
My view is that that force can be segmented, which would explain different performance parameters for different motors.
So, there would be one motor type for slow floaty things, another for ground hugging ones, another one for default spacecraft manoeuvre drives.
And so on.
TNE Contra grav with thrusters is the only thing that makes sense to me. The game is keeping the vehicle stable while moving and "buoyant". But then you also the issue of thrusters. You don't need much at "99%", but you do need some. And you either need to spin around, or put some in front to slow the thing down.
The premise that contra grav just nulls out the gravitational force, is distinct from resisting the gravitational force (which requires a counter force).
For example, what's it like beneath an air/raft or grav tank that's 1 foot off the ground? SOMETHING is holding the vehicle up, shouldn't that "something" also be crushing what's beneath it? Potentially not so much an issue higher above ground (but, you know, how high? altitude squared high?)
Just like helicopters blow dust in the air, or push the grass aside, I would think a grav lifter would to the same. The detail on a helicopter is that its getting real lift from the atmosphere, that is what's actually holding it up and taking the load. A grav vehicle, not so much.
Contra grav doesn't have that problem, rather it has the thrust problem. Things don't "weight" anything, but they still have the mass to push around. The key point is push. It just has to push it, and overcome air resistance. But even then, a scout ship is 500 tons of mass. That's gonna take some thrustin' push about.
The premise that contra grav just nulls out the gravitational force, is distinct from resisting the gravitational force (which requires a counter force).
For example, what's it like beneath an air/raft or grav tank that's 1 foot off the ground? SOMETHING is holding the vehicle up, shouldn't that "something" also be crushing what's beneath it? Potentially not so much an issue higher above ground (but, you know, how high? altitude squared high?)
Just like helicopters blow dust in the air, or push the grass aside, I would think a grav lifter would to the same. The detail on a helicopter is that its getting real lift from the atmosphere, that is what's actually holding it up and taking the load. A grav vehicle, not so much.
Contra grav doesn't have that problem, rather it has the thrust problem. Things don't "weight" anything, but they still have the mass to push around. The key point is push. It just has to push it, and overcome air resistance. But even then, a scout ship is 500 tons of mass. That's gonna take some thrustin' push about.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Depends if there's a force thrusting downwards, and it's velocity.
And Traveller has a Speeder as well, distinct from the Air/Raft, which was high velocity.
But the term Air/Raft (as distinct from G/Raft) almost does seem to imply Contragrav (0.99 efficient) and using atmosphere for buoyancy.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
You'd use the local gravitational field for buoyancy.
In what way? The Contragrav concept was that the technology screened or eliminated gravitational attraction, but nothing more (and in TNE where it was introduced, it was 0.98 - 0.99 efficient, meaning that in vacuum, you would need a very minor thrust agency).
Now perhaps if you could retain the gravito-magnetic component at full strength while screening the pure gravitic component . . .
Now perhaps if you could retain the gravito-magnetic component at full strength while screening the pure gravitic component . . .
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Like I said, I think it's the same thing, but in different flavours.
In this particular instance, I'd say that that gravitational buoyancy is created through inertial compensation.
In this particular instance, I'd say that that gravitational buoyancy is created through inertial compensation.
I think gravitics can be a set of multiple related technologies, not all of which may be available at initial introduction.
1) Pure (Total or Partial) CG @ TL9
2) Proper Lifters (with a lateral bias) by TL10
3) G-Drive by TL11
4) M-Drive by TL12
5) Full T/M-Drive Style Thruster (DGP/MT) by TL13 (or higher)
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Mass - the resistance of an object to a force, the resistance to acceleration.
Mass - the degree of deformation of spacetime
Every single experiment we have done to date shows that mass is mass, inertial mass and gravitic mass are the same, possibly emergent, property.
Either TL8 null grav module technology and the air/raft show that we are wrong, or Traveller gravitic technology is based on physics we have no conception for.
If equivalence is the universal reality then reducing the gravitic mass of an object should also reduce its inertial mass (this is how I deal with gravitics), if on the other hand an object can be decoupled from gravitic mass and yet still possess inertial mass then you can handwave gravitaional buoyancy. But then how to explain the lateral thrust null grav modules can exert?
Mass - the degree of deformation of spacetime
Every single experiment we have done to date shows that mass is mass, inertial mass and gravitic mass are the same, possibly emergent, property.
Either TL8 null grav module technology and the air/raft show that we are wrong, or Traveller gravitic technology is based on physics we have no conception for.
If equivalence is the universal reality then reducing the gravitic mass of an object should also reduce its inertial mass (this is how I deal with gravitics), if on the other hand an object can be decoupled from gravitic mass and yet still possess inertial mass then you can handwave gravitaional buoyancy. But then how to explain the lateral thrust null grav modules can exert?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I'd say you probably could mix gravitational effects.
The trick might be, that they don't interfere with each other.
The trick might be, that they don't interfere with each other.
