• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

Could you stand living in a scout ship?

Thanks for the explanation. Not sure why it applies though.
It is used as a shorthand for "this is my opinion and I am entitled to it; you may or may not have a different opinion, which is ok, too".

I use it to separate when I am offering my opinion, to when I am attempting to state a fact.
You can correct my facts if you think they are in error, but my opinion is irrevocably mine and you are free to agree or disagree as you please.
 
It is used as a shorthand for "this is my opinion and I am entitled to it; you may or may not have a different opinion, which is ok, too".

I use it to separate when I am offering my opinion, to when I am attempting to state a fact.
You can correct my facts if you think they are in error, but my opinion is irrevocably mine and you are free to agree or disagree as you please.

Thanks for the further explanation.
 
YMMV? What does that mean?



Water has a mass per molecule of 18, Sodium has a mass per atom of 23. The lighter the molecule or atom of reaction mass, the higher the specific impulse, and hence final velocity for equal mass-ratios. The optimum reaction mass is Liquid Hydrogen, which was proposed for use in nuclear-powered space ships in the 1960's, where it was used both as reactor coolant and reaction mass. One reason the Shuttle was burning excess hydrogen in its engines was to reduce the average molecular weight of reaction mass to increase specific impulse. The other advantages of water is that it is a liquid at normal temperatures, has the ability to absorb a lot of heat, and can be used to cool the exhaust nozzle of your reaction engine.

That's assuming a pure chemical reaction with some heat for thrust. I read Traveller tech as a little higher order than that; some kind of controlled fusion release process where the nuclei are split, and the resulting energy is focused aft through induction.

Interesting side note; HE3 rockets were supposed to be the "rockets of the future" with a very promising plasma reaction sustained in a magnetic field. It is a current technology. Regrettably, however, the mass of the magnet required to contain such a reaction makes current use highly impractical, as the magnets would weigh down said rocket too much to be of any use (at least as a measure of lifting against a severe gravity well, say the surface of the Earth). But there was lots of talk some 20 years back about using them for interplanetary exploration and travel, and allegedly, if the magnetic field issue can be solved, then we might have seen HE3 rockets in our life time. Regrettably, again, I think the world's supply of HE is supposed to run out in the next 20 years (possibly earlier). However, lunar regolith is supposed to have pockets of the stuff frozen underneath the powdery surface.

Getting back to Traveller; the thrust issue, as I see it, and this is just going by what's shown in the drawings, is that thrust plates or "reactionless" drives are BS. You've got to have some kind of substance "to burn" and jet aft to push your craft forward. It seems, to me at least, that there's a turbine kind of mechanism involved. And, again just my personal opinion, the hydrogen nuclei are hypercharged to a plasma state, spun up, and the lateral momentum is directed aft through the nozzles.

Magnitude and containment fall into the handwave arena. But, such technology could be possible for one man to handle; i.e. maintain and fix without a lot of super tech and support crew to trouble shoot problems. Thereby making life aboard a scout ship that much more feasible.
 
Getting back to Traveller; the thrust issue, as I see it, and this is just going by what's shown in the drawings, is that thrust plates or "reactionless" drives are BS. You've got to have some kind of substance "to burn" and jet aft to push your craft forward.

Just as a side note, the "Thruster Plate" is not necessarily reactionless in the proper sense (well, it is in MT, but not necessarily in other rulesets). The Thruster-Plate M-Drive interacts with the Gravitational Field in the star-system, and is thus in one sense "reacting" against the other masses in the system (which have corresponding momentum changes which are so small as to be unobservable). Think of it as when you drop an object and it falls to the Earth under gravity. Technically, the Earth and the object are falling toward one another with the same change in momentum in opposite directions, but the change in velocity (i.e. acceleration) of the Earth is insignificantly tiny because the mass of the Earth is so huge by comparison.

A thrust agent is only reactionless if momentum is only changing in one part of the system (i.e. the ship) w/o a corresponding change in reaction in other part(s).
 
Last edited:
Maxwell Hunter, in Thrust Into Space, copyright 1966 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, describes how a nuclear-powered spaceship, using Liquid Hydrogen for reactor cooling and reaction mass, would work. It is well within current technology to engineer it.

As for Helium-3, one fast way to make it is bombard Lithium with neutrons or deuterons.
 
Just as a side note, the "Thruster Plate" is not necessarily reactionless in the proper sense (well, it is in MT, but not necessarily in other rulesets). The Thruster-Plate M-Drive interacts with the Gravitational Field in the star-system, and is thus in one sense "reacting" against the other masses in the system (which have corresponding momentum changes which are so small as to be unobservable). Think of it as when you drop an object and it falls to the Earth under gravity. Technically, the Earth and the object are falling toward one another with the same change in momentum in opposite directions, but the change in velocity (i.e. acceleration) of the Earth is insignificantly tiny because the mass of the Earth is so huge by comparison.

A thrust agent is only reactionless if momentum is changing in one part of the system (i.e. the ship) w/o a corresponding change in reaction in other part(s).

That's how I pictured it - using the existing gravity field to push or pull the ship.

A side-effect of that IMTU is ships having an emergency backup thruster at the back in case the ship somehow gets itself where gravity was too weak for the M-Drive to work properly (mainly a hand wave to explain why so many ship designs seemed to have engine exhausts at the back).
 
It is used as a shorthand for "this is my opinion and I am entitled to it; you may or may not have a different opinion, which is ok, too".

I use it to separate when I am offering my opinion, to when I am attempting to state a fact.
You can correct my facts if you think they are in error, but my opinion is irrevocably mine and you are free to agree or disagree as you please.

You make it sound so confrontational. It means, "this has worked for me, results not gauranteed.":)
 
Getting back to Traveller; the thrust issue, as I see it, and this is just going by what's shown in the drawings, is that thrust plates or "reactionless" drives are BS. You've got to have some kind of substance "to burn" and jet aft to push your craft forward. It seems, to me at least, that there's a turbine kind of mechanism involved. And, again just my personal opinion, the hydrogen nuclei are hypercharged to a plasma state, spun up, and the lateral momentum is directed aft through the nozzles.

Magnitude and containment fall into the handwave arena. But, such technology could be possible for one man to handle; i.e. maintain and fix without a lot of super tech and support crew to trouble shoot problems. Thereby making life aboard a scout ship that much more feasible.

The problem is where to draw the lines between scientific accuracy and convenience to plot. True realism results in ships that are ~90% reaction mass, and probably look more like the ISS with a pusher plate than any of the free trader deck plans. For you, reactionless drives are one plot convivance too many. For others, it would be gravitationally superdense hulls. I think the Traveller universe does okay by me by at least having a system where ships need to refuel every month or so and after every ftl flight or so. It feels more realistic than space fantasies like Star Wars, without the ugly aspects of a truly realistic science fiction (or with ftl travel and artificial gravity being the only caveats).
 
Your Mileage May Vary

Thanks for the explanation. Not sure why it applies though.

"My opinion, take it or leave it, but please don't try to change it" is the usual way I read it. It indicates a clear expectation of different opinions.

It's often used in a dismissive way (tho' it wasn't here) to indicate a perceived generally unreasonable or unreceptive audience, but with hope that some will find it of value.
 
"My opinion, take it or leave it, but please don't try to change it" is the usual way I read it. It indicates a clear expectation of different opinions.

It's often used in a dismissive way (tho' it wasn't here) to indicate a perceived generally unreasonable or unreceptive audience, but with hope that some will find it of value.
I use it as "This is the way I see it, but there could be other, equally valid, interpretations".


Hans
 
The problem is where to draw the lines between scientific accuracy and convenience to plot. True realism results in ships that are ~90% reaction mass, and probably look more like the ISS with a pusher plate than any of the free trader deck plans. For you, reactionless drives are one plot convivance too many. For others, it would be gravitationally superdense hulls. I think the Traveller universe does okay by me by at least having a system where ships need to refuel every month or so and after every ftl flight or so. It feels more realistic than space fantasies like Star Wars, without the ugly aspects of a truly realistic science fiction (or with ftl travel and artificial gravity being the only caveats).

Yeah, either way you have an engine or device of some kind to get you from point A to point B. To me the "thruster plate" was essentially something like a magic-tech sheet of alloy that had a lot of high-energy engineering put into it such that it pushed in one direction. IMTU they would be something different from gravitics, which generate a field of force that can be reshaped and directed as desired, verse an "electronic rocket" of sorts that still left some sort of exhaust or trail.
 
Yeah, either way you have an engine or device of some kind to get you from point A to point B. To me the "thruster plate" was essentially something like a magic-tech sheet of alloy that had a lot of high-energy engineering put into it such that it pushed in one direction. IMTU they would be something different from gravitics, which generate a field of force that can be reshaped and directed as desired, verse an "electronic rocket" of sorts that still left some sort of exhaust or trail.

For what it's worth, I have found (which is what I mean by YMMV) that if it uses fuel, is separate from the FTL drive, and is derived from points of thrust at the back of the ship, it is good enough for me, whether those points of thrust are glowing blue rectangles ("reactionless thrusters") or some form of cuppula/fusion rocket nozzle. I just mentally replace it with "implausibly efficient fusion rocket."
 
For what it's worth, I have found (which is what I mean by YMMV) that if it uses fuel, is separate from the FTL drive, and is derived from points of thrust at the back of the ship, it is good enough for me, whether those points of thrust are glowing blue rectangles ("reactionless thrusters") or some form of cuppula/fusion rocket nozzle. I just mentally replace it with "implausibly efficient fusion rocket."

I kinda like the "Sparks go down, and the Smoke goes up" drive along the wire that goes from where you where to where you need to be.....:o
 
Well, I didn't want to kill the thread by saying that realism isn't possible, so just hand wave it. Timerover, if we were to make the fusion plant fuel requirements more realistic, how much should they use per MW-month or whatever unit you like?

That would be a real game changer, to have the power plants last for years on a recharge. Then things like figuring out requirements to grow your own food or how long between port calls really would become significant.
 
A Mongo Shipyards.

I kinda like the "Sparks go down, and the Smoke goes up" drive along the wire that goes from where you where to where you need to be.....:o
True, those do rock, but they tend to antiques and finding Spark-Smoke is a lot harder than skimming gas giants. Ming the Merciless my ass, Ming the Moneygrubber what with that proprietary drive of his. Still it is memorable. :)
 
True, those do rock, but they tend to antiques and finding Spark-Smoke is a lot harder than skimming gas giants. Ming the Merciless my ass, Ming the Moneygrubber what with that proprietary drive of his. Still it is memorable. :)

Perhaps The Lord Hemdian, Baron of Mongo could put in a good word for you with the Parochial Emperor . . . :)
 
His Excellency responds.

Perhaps The Lord Hemdian, Baron of Mongo could put in a good word for you with the Parochial Emperor . . . :)
Good idea, but I think I'll find a beat up one and get me some locals from Neo-Cuba to restore it, I hear they still use them there. :devil:

I prefer to have Brian Blessed fly me around with his hawkmen.
:rant: Heritic! There is only one Flash Gordon and his world is monochrome! Now, where did I put my stakes and torches...

EDIT: By the way, thanks Mods! That [rant] tag is the best! :D
 
Last edited:
:oo: What Have I started?

Gonna go out on my Scouts balcony and sip my tea while leaning on the rail next to the Pom-Pom Blaster......
 
Back
Top