Classic Traveller: The Lost Rules

[Supplement Four]

Hi, all; my first post here.

Welcome!

Supplement4, I'm curious. You say that this is a real rule, but I'm not seeing it.

It may have been in the original Traveller rules--the 1977 edition (not many copies of it were printed), back when there were modifiers to damage and sensors didn't use the metric system.

I've never seen a Traveller rule say "a ship with a 1G M-Drive cannot lift from a Size 8+ world", but there is a lot of evidence that suggests it was a rule and then was dropped.

For example...

Just a couple of years ago, Loren K. Wiseman produced several deckplans for sale on his web site. One of these is the 20 Ton Launch that is fitted with a 1G M-Drive. In the descritpion of the launch, it states that the drive is rated at 2Gs with respect to landing on worlds, using the Striker rule below.

I asked LKW about this personally over e-mail. He responded to me that, originally, it was intended for Traveller vessels with 1G M-Drive to be incapable of lifting from Size 8+ worlds.

As Don M. has said recently, that idea was dropped between 1st and 2nd edition Traveller.

If you look at Andy Slack's article about Traveller called Expanding Universe in White Dwarf magazine, it says, bluntly, "On planets of Size 8 or greater and of the same order of density as Earth, a Free Trader--or anything with a 1G drive--cannot take off". The article goes on to speculate how vessels rated at 1G could escape from Size 8+ worlds with external help (boosters).

Then, you look at the High Guard spaceship construction rules, and you find that all small craft will have at least 2Gs of thrust. The minimum drive size of 1ton means you get a minimum 2G drive.

And, if you check this with the space vessels in The Traveller Book, you'll see:

Slow Boat: 3G
Pinnance: 5G
Slow Pinnance: 2G
Shuttle: 3G
Fighter: 6G

But, the biggest evidence comes from the Striker design sequences (vehicle that can be designed for use with Traveller or with Striker).

Striker Book 2: Page 41. The movement rate of a spaceship is determined in the same way as that for a grav vehicle; the ship's maneuver drive rating is used as it's G value. A ship with a G rating equal to or less than the planetary gravity may not take part in combat actions except from orbit.

Striker Book 3: Page 11. One G is needed to keep the vehicle in the air (and if its thrust is less than one G, the vehicle cannot move); thrust in excess of one G is used for maneuver. Thus to find maneuver Gs, subtract one from the total G value.

So, after reading this, LKW's recent design of the 20 Ton Launch makes a lot of sense.

Because you're stating it like it's a written rule (i.e.; "No ship of 1G acceleration may lift off from a world size 8 or greater."), and I'm not seeing it.

The rule was abandoned after the 1977 edition of Traveller. Later editions of the game don't follow it (except for the things that slipped though, like the Striker and White Dwarf passages).

 

[Supplement Four]

Supp 4 is implying a rule that simply doesn't exist. Nowhere in CT does it restrict a 1G ship to any form of movement restriction based on the size of the planetary body.

Um, Striker restricts grav vehicles and starship M-Drives from lifting based on the size of the planetary body. I've already pointed the page numbers out.

Back in the early days some people with a very limited understanding of physics interpretted it that way - they were wrong then and they are still wrong.

They're not necessarily wrong. I won't argue physics with you (because we'll end up saying the same thing), so the argument really rests on the way the M-Drive works.



It is implied (and this is how I reason it imtu), that there are really three drives on a starship. There's the Jump Drive, the Maneuver Drive, and the Grav Drive.

On starships, the Grav Drive is considered a sub-part of the M-Drive, but the G-Drive really does a different sort of job.

For example, if the M-Drive goes out, the G-Drive can't compensate (otherwise, an air/raft would be capable of making an interplanetary journey, and it, clearly, cannot).

G-Drives are used planetary surface-to-orbit only.

M-Drive kick in at orbit and farther out.

Of course, there is some overlap between the two.

This also explains why LKW's 1G 20 Ton Launch is rated for 2Gs when going planet side: 1G M-Drive, and 1G G-Drive.

And, this is also in-line with the Striker rules that say you need 2Gs of grav thrust to be able to move on a Size 8 world: 1G keeps you afloat while the other 1G is used for thrust.

Of course, lifting bodies (wings) and other types of things can help take the load off.

But, that's the way my game goes. Others are free to disagree (and are correct to disagree since this rule has been dropped from Traveller canon).

 

[mike wightman]

Striker is not CT (by which I mean it came along a lot later than the basic rules) - AND IT GOT IT WRONG.

Striker, like a lot of CT supplements, changes the parameters of the game to suit that particular sub-game. Mayday is different to LBB2, HG is different to LBB2, Striker introduces this ridiculous grav vehicle rating for a ship maneuver drive etc.

And since I've mentioned Mayday it actually provides rules for landing and taking off from planets, and guess what? Any ship can, even the 1g merchant, lifeboat and yacht.

Andy Slack got it wrong as well, it's his interpretation and nothing more :devil:

I'd even go as far as to say that Loren got it mixed up too - because first edition High Guard makes it clear that the original CT maneuver drive is a fusion rocket

I have the 1977 edition (two copies in fact) - guess what? No rule restricting ships.

The rule you are implying has never existed in print. Ever. In CT at least.

It does mention streamlining to operate in an atmoshphere - there's your lift.

 

[far-trader]

One thousand meters per second.

What amazing handwavium do you make the tires out of?...

Tires? How quaint It doesn't use tires of course, it has antigrav so it skims along over the surface climbing the whole time in a parabolic until it's in orbit.

 

[mike wightman]

So IYTU, atmospheric drag also left the universe? (I'm not arguing, just seeking clarification.)

Streamlining allows a ship to operate in an atmosphere, that's going to reduce drag and provide lift right there.

 

[mike wightman]

One thousand meters per second.

What amazing handwavium do you make the tires out of? And have engineers thought of any other uses for it? I know I can...

The same stuff as the windows, the hull?

The same material that makes the acceleration compensators work?

The same stuff that allows the magical maneuver drive to work in the first place?

Or the artificial gravity plates?

The 1000 mps was just a stupid number to illustrate a point, the ship will lift into the air long before this due to it being streamlined - which in 1977 edition could be added as an optional extra but by 1981 edition had to be included at the design stage.

 

[mike wightman]

Tires? How quaint It doesn't use tires of course, it has antigrav so it skims along over the surface climbing the whole time in a parabolic until it's in orbit.

Exactly

QFT

 

[mike wightman]

Back to the point (I did promise Don to behave).

Don, do you want every single change between 1977 and 1981 LBB2 ship design?

 

[far-trader]

...streamlined - which in 1977 edition could be added as an optional extra but by 1981 edition had to be included at the design stage.

Interesting lost rule. One I'd occasionally house ruled without knowing it.

 

[Supplement Four]

The rule you are implying has never existed in print. Ever. In CT at least.

But, the rule did exist. There's too much out there to prove that it did, not to mention that Don M just said the rule was dropped after 1st edition Traveller.

Traveller expected the GM to figure some things out. It didn't list a lot of what could go wrong with a High G planet specifically in the rules, either--it expected a GM to figure that, on a 1.5 G world, characters will be 1.5 times as heavy, and their loads will be adjusted accordingly.

I think the 1G-lift-from-Size 8+ world rule was something that a GM was just expected to "get". Size 9 world has gravitational pull of 1+Gs, so a ship with 1G thrust can't lift from it. Elementary.

It was a simple rule, figured by looking at a planet's Size code and a ship's M-Drive rating.

It was a simplification. Not all Size 8 worlds have surface gravity rated at exactly 1G. Some are a little less. Some are a little more.

But, rather than dealing with that, you've got the simple rule.

Which was discarded--probably because it ceased being simple. Probably people started arguing aerodymanic lift, and the lessening of gravity's pull the farther you get from the planet, etc. Obviously people like Andy Lilly and Loren Wiseman knew of the rule and used the rule. Same goes for the boys at GDW when they wrote Striker.

So, to say the rule didn't exist is just plain wrong.

To say that it existed and then was discarded is correct.

 

[DonM]

Guys... I'm not looking for "implied" rules. I'm looking for pieces of the core (not HG, not Mercenary, etc) LBB1-3s or TTB or STT that never made it to the other CT editions.

I really don't want "implied" rules.

So, this thread is already pretty much trashed...

:nonono:

 

[dean]

One thousand meters per second.

What amazing handwavium do you make the tires out of? And have engineers thought of any other uses for it? I know I can...

Probably more like 20th generation teflon coated superdense skids on a salt flat.

Cool site: Here does the heavy lifting for you.

Takes 102 seconds to reach 1000 mps (13153 mph, 3.65 mile/sec).

You do need 372 miles of runway though.

=]

 

[boomslang]

Tires? How quaint It doesn't use tires of course, it has antigrav so it skims along over the surface climbing the whole time in a parabolic until it's in orbit.

Well heck, if it has antigrav, it can just float up to orbit like an air/raft, taking world-size-in-hours to do so, right?

:devil:

 

[boomslang]

Guys... I'm not looking for "implied" rules. I'm looking for pieces of the core (not HG, not Mercenary, etc) LBB1-3s or TTB or STT that never made it to the other CT editions.

Didn't LKW comment on the 1-G issue at some point, and wasn't there an in-house work-around?

Specifically, where did the term "contragravity" enter the Trav lexicon? Wasn't it somehow pre-MT, and therefore CT/BT?

 

[DonM]

I haven't seen contragravity in either LBB edition, or in the Traveller Book, or in Starter Traveller.

I know it's on Marc's list of "don't use these words"...

Since the rest of this discussion isn't about what I'm looking for, I'm abandoning the thread.

 

[mike wightman]

Apologies in advance:

But, the rule did exist. There's too much out there to prove that it did, not to mention that Don M just said the rule was dropped after 1st edition Traveller.

IT DID NOT EXIST IN PRINT IN ANY EDITION OF THE CT RULES EVER PRINTED.

I HAVE THEM ALL, I'VE READ THEM ALL AND IT DOES NOT EXIST.

IT IS AN IMPLICATION, A HOUSE RULE PERHAPS, BUT NOT PART OF THE CT RULES.

Traveller expected the GM to figure some things out. It didn't list a lot of what could go wrong with a High G planet specifically in the rules, either--it expected a GM to figure that, on a 1.5 G world, characters will be 1.5 times as heavy, and their loads will be adjusted accordingly.

I think the 1G-lift-from-Size 8+ world rule was something that a GM was just expected to "get". Size 9 world has gravitational pull of 1+Gs, so a ship with 1G thrust can't lift from it. Elementary.

AND WRONG - CT SHIPS CAN BE STREAMLINED TO ALLOW ATMOSPHERIC OPERATION, THEREFORE LIFT AND DRAG ARE TAKEN CARE OF.

It was a simple rule, figured by looking at a planet's Size code and a ship's M-Drive rating.

It was a simplification. Not all Size 8 worlds have surface gravity rated at exactly 1G. Some are a little less. Some are a little more.

But, rather than dealing with that, you've got the simple rule.

YOUR RULE, ANDY SLACKS'S RULE, EVEN LKW'S RULE - BUT IT IS NOT CORRECT AND IT HAS NEVER BEEN AN OFFICIAL CORE TRAVELLER RULE EVER.

Which was discarded--probably because it ceased being simple.

IT WASN'T DISCARDED, IT NEVER EXISTED.

Probably people started arguing aerodymanic lift, and the lessening of gravity's pull the farther you get from the planet, etc. Obviously people like Andy Lilly and Loren Wiseman knew of the rule and used the rule. Same goes for the boys at GDW when they wrote Striker.

SHAME THEY DIDN'T READ THE RULES IN MAYDAY THEN AND MAKE THE ERROR IN STRIKER.

So, to say the rule didn't exist is just plain wrong.

NO, TO KEEP STATING A RULE EXISTED WHICH DOESN'T IS WRONG - IT IS NOT IN PRINT IN ANY EDITION OF THE CT RULES, AND MAYDAY CONTRADICTS STRIKER.

To say that it existed and then was discarded is correct.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH

Sorry for caps

 

[mike wightman]

I haven't seen contragravity in either LBB edition, or in the Traveller Book, or in Starter Traveller.

I know it's on Marc's list of "don't use these words"...

Since the rest of this discussion isn't about what I'm looking for, I'm abandoning the thread.

Before you do can I ask my question again - do you want every change from LBB2 ship construction 1977 edition to LBB2 1981 edition?

 

[Icosahedron]

since the higher atmosphere runs out of 'lift' long before it runs out of 'drag'.

How would YOU apply this to a typical Free Trader (1G MD taking off from a 1.2G world)?

It would seem to me that even if the shape is a lifting body (a highly suspect assumption) then the ship should reach a maximum speed and altitude in atmosphere where the lift from that shape at that speed and altitude exactly balances the weight of the craft (it cannot climb higher) and the 'thrust' from the MD exactly balances the aerodynamic drag (the craft cannot accelerate to any faster speed). I suspect that this point would be reached long before escaping atmospheric drag and long before reaching orbital velocity.

I was just curious how your thoughts differed (a definitive answer will need to wait for technical details from real reactionless drives, so I'm not holding my breath).

Since you ask for my personal opinion...

IMO 'streamlined' implies a lifting body.

From my quote above, we agree that this aerodynamic lift will get craft off the ground, but will become negligible at a height significantly below 'orbit' and thereafter, any further lift will be centripetal via forward speed.

We differ on whether the ratio of thrust to drag will result in a terminal velocity or whether acceleration (and hence centripetal lift) will continue indefinitely.

A precise calculation of this is probably beyond my mathematical ability and certainly exceeds my available time and patience, and will differ with atmospheric density, size and shape of ship, etc etc, so I choose to wave my hand at this point and say that acceleration can continue until orbital velocity is reached.

(Shuttles are used for unstreamlined ships or to keep the mother ship out of harm's way.)

I haven't completely straightened this in my head even after thirty years, because I don't make it an issue, but I have a tendency to agree with S4 that G-drive and M-drive are different animals - so who knows, maybe a ship has both, leading to a potential 2G lift, at least to orbital range. As you say, I still have to figure out how a reactionless M-drive works...
One way or another, though, I choose not to have stranded ships IMTU.

 

[DonM]

Before you do can I ask my question again - do you want every change from LBB2 ship construction 1977 edition to LBB2 1981 edition?

I think I've got them, but send it to don.mckinney@gmail.com, so I'll actually see it?

Thanks.

 

[Supplement Four]

IT DID NOT EXIST IN PRINT IN ANY EDITION OF THE CT RULES EVER PRINTED.

Is it, or is it not in Striker?

It is.

It's written there.

Striker is a CT supplement.

It's in CT.

And, it shows itself in other areas--the ones I pointed out (and I think there are other references, I'm just not recalling them atm).

Why do you think the B&W printing in Striker doesn't count?

Why do you think LKW made his plans the way he did?

Why do you think Andy Slack wrote an article about it?

ALL of these people are wrong? Right? And, Mike Wightman is absolutely correct?

Nope.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH

I'll double that. AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

Why is it so hard for you to accept that the rule existed, and now its gone?

Oh yeah, everybody else is wrong. Mike is right. Got it.