CT Errata Compendium

[Carlobrand]

Howdy Carlobrand,




I may or may not have caught this when I submitted errata to Donald prior to the release of Traveller 5.

Tom R

Did you mention the controller?

For SS3, CT Errata 07 states, "The second paragraph should read: For example, the standard missile in Traveller is a 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8), mass sensing (1 kg, Cr1,000, TL 10), proximity detonator (1 kg, Cr500, TL 6), high explosive (10 kg, Cr500, TL 6) warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level), costing Cr5,600 and massing 48 kg. This price does not take into account tech level effects. ..."

I don't see the controller mentioned. SS3 mentions requiring a controller that feeds course adjustments to the propulsion system based on inputs from the guidance package. Controller should be adding 3 kg and Cr 300 to the totals - which incidentally takes the standard over the max 50 kg weight, which implies in turn that the "5G6" part is correct but that the "36 kg" part should be 35 kg and Cr3500, which would bring the whole thing in right at 50 kg. I didn't see anything in errata suggesting controllers had been deleted.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

Did you mention the controller?

For SS3, CT Errata 07 states, "The second paragraph should read: For example, the standard missile in Traveller is a 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr3,600, TL 8), mass sensing (1 kg, Cr1,000, TL 10), proximity detonator (1 kg, Cr500, TL 6), high explosive (10 kg, Cr500, TL 6) warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level), costing Cr5,600 and massing 48 kg. This price does not take into account tech level effects. ..."

I don't see the controller mentioned. SS3 mentions requiring a controller that feeds course adjustments to the propulsion system based on inputs from the guidance package. Controller should be adding 3 kg and Cr 300 to the totals - which incidentally takes the standard over the max 50 kg weight, which implies in turn that the "5G6" part is correct but that the "36 kg" part should be 35 kg and Cr3500, which would bring the whole thing in right at 50 kg. I didn't see anything in errata suggesting controllers had been deleted.

I pretty much went through SS3 and SS3-R, issued on the CD-ROM, one of the areas dealt with the cost of the missiles. Looking through my errata document, JTAS 21 SS3, and SS3-R the continuous burn missile does not need a controller since the course cannot be corrected per JTAS 21 SS-3 page 4 Second Paragraph last sentence: "Continuous burn systems cannot alter course; they continue on the course given when fired."

Tom R

 

[DonM]

Hi Don,

I hope I'm not being pedantic or stating the obvious with this, but, this correction also applies to The Traveller Book and Starter Traveller "Charts & Tables"

My copy of The Traveller Book has the +2 for Atm 8+ already on page 94...

And my copy of Starter Traveller (Forms and Charts) has the +2 for Atm 8+ on page 18.

However, Book 3 '81 has the DM as +1 instead of +2, so that errata is ONLY for Book 3...

Unless there are ST and TTB printings that are different?

 

[DonM]

Looks good.

I'm going to0 add a query:

Special Supplement 3: missiles

Errata states the standard missile is a 5G6, but then it gives a fuel price for what appears to be a 6G5. Was the standard intended to be a 6G5, or is the fuel price wrong?

I think I corrected that, but I'd left it off the list... let's see how this pastes.

Page 3, Missile Identification, second paragraph (correction): The second paragraph should read: For example, the standard missile in Traveller is a 5G6 continuous burn (35 kg, Cr3,500, TL 8), mass sensing (1 kg, Cr1,000, TL 10), proximity detonator (1 kg, Cr500, TL 6), high explosive (10 kg, Cr500, TL 6) warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level), costing Cr5,500 and massing 47 kg. This price does not take into account tech level effects. At TL 9, this missile costs Cr5,800; at TL 12, it costs Cr4,400.

Apparently I cannot make the text blue where it should be... Edit... apparently I can :rofl:

 

[Carlobrand]

Morning Carlobrand,



I pretty much went through SS3 and SS3-R, issued on the CD-ROM, one of the areas dealt with the cost of the missiles. Looking through my errata document, JTAS 21 SS3, and SS3-R the continuous burn missile does not need a controller since the course cannot be corrected per JTAS 21 SS-3 page 4 Second Paragraph last sentence: "Continuous burn systems cannot alter course; they continue on the course given when fired."

Tom R

I think I corrected that, but I'd left it off the list... let's see how this pastes.

Page 3, Missile Identification, second paragraph (correction): The second paragraph should read: For example, the standard missile in Traveller is a 5G6 continuous burn (35 kg, Cr3,500, TL 8), mass sensing (1 kg, Cr1,000, TL 10), proximity detonator (1 kg, Cr500, TL 6), high explosive (10 kg, Cr500, TL 6) warhead missile (all produced at their standard tech level), costing Cr5,500 and massing 47 kg. This price does not take into account tech level effects. At TL 9, this missile costs Cr5,800; at TL 12, it costs Cr4,400.

Apparently I cannot make the text blue where it should be... Edit... apparently I can :rofl:

I apologize if this is not the right setting, not meaning to start a debate on the specifics of missile tech, but inasmuch as it does bear on a potential point of errata regarding what is considered the standard missile:

If a continuous burn missile "cannot alter course; they continue on the course given when fired," ...

(which frankly is absurd: all you need is a good gyroscopic system to turn the missile while the motor burns continuously and, voila, a continuous burn missile that maneuvers - it just does so at the same G-rating until it runs out of fuel or hits something)

...and therefore do not need and cannot use a controller that makes it possible for them to adjust course after launch, ...

(the aforementioned gyroscopic system)

...then why is it receiving a guidance system of any sort? It has a proximity detector to tell it when it is close enough to detonate the warhead. What does it need with a system that tells it where the target went when it can't do anything but fly straight on in whatever direction it was launched?

For that matter, why bother giving it more than a turn's fuel when a target more than a turn away can evade 100% of the time by "sidestepping"? If the standard missile is to make use of a mass detector or any other guidance system, then it needs to have a limited burn or discretionary burn propulsion system - and a controller, of course.

 

[DonM]

I apologize if this is not the right setting, not meaning to start a debate on the specifics of missile tech, but inasmuch as it does bear on a potential point of errata regarding what is considered the standard missile:

If a continuous burn missile "cannot alter course; they continue on the course given when fired," ...

(which frankly is absurd: all you need is a good gyroscopic system to turn the missile while the motor burns continuously and, voila, a continuous burn missile that maneuvers - it just does so at the same G-rating until it runs out of fuel or hits something)

...and therefore do not need and cannot use a controller that makes it possible for them to adjust course after launch, ...

(the aforementioned gyroscopic system)

...then why is it receiving a guidance system of any sort? It has a proximity detector to tell it when it is close enough to detonate the warhead. What does it need with a system that tells it where the target went when it can't do anything but fly straight on in whatever direction it was launched?

For that matter, why bother giving it more than a turn's fuel when a target more than a turn away can evade 100% of the time by "sidestepping"? If the standard missile is to make use of a mass detector or any other guidance system, then it needs to have a limited burn or discretionary burn propulsion system - and a controller, of course.

Good point. Let's pull this out of the compendium thread and build a proper replacement?

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Carlobrand,

I brought the issue about the continuous burn propulsion and no guidance here and over on ctstarships, unfortunately I didn't think about using a gyroscope, which of course resulted in a very short topic.

Great point.

Tom R

I apologize if this is not the right setting, not meaning to start a debate on the specifics of missile tech, but inasmuch as it does bear on a potential point of errata regarding what is considered the standard missile:

If a continuous burn missile "cannot alter course; they continue on the course given when fired," ...

(which frankly is absurd: all you need is a good gyroscopic system to turn the missile while the motor burns continuously and, voila, a continuous burn missile that maneuvers - it just does so at the same G-rating until it runs out of fuel or hits something)

...and therefore do not need and cannot use a controller that makes it possible for them to adjust course after launch, ...

(the aforementioned gyroscopic system)

...then why is it receiving a guidance system of any sort? It has a proximity detector to tell it when it is close enough to detonate the warhead. What does it need with a system that tells it where the target went when it can't do anything but fly straight on in whatever direction it was launched?

For that matter, why bother giving it more than a turn's fuel when a target more than a turn away can evade 100% of the time by "sidestepping"? If the standard missile is to make use of a mass detector or any other guidance system, then it needs to have a limited burn or discretionary burn propulsion system - and a controller, of course.

 

[aramis]

[m;]Missile discussion thread created...[/m;]

Errata Discussion: Missile Guidance

I copied the three prior posts to start it.

 

[aramis]

Just caught a new one.

Book 6
Saturn is 116,464km diameter.
Page 56 shows it as a Large GG
Page 48 defines a large GG as "at least 60,000 km in radius" (underlining added for emphasis). Which means a Large GG is at least 120,000km in diameter...

Saturn is a Small GG, not a large, under book 6 definitions, but is shown as a large.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning aramis,

I have 5 sources, 3 from the web and two hard copy sources, four of which provides different information than in Post #349. Unfortunately, the first site listed is different from the other four:

Web sources
From http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Saturn&Display=Facts

Mean Radius
Metric: 58,232 km
English: 36,183.7 miles
Scientific Notation: 5.8232 x 104 km
By Comparison: 9.1402 x Earth

From http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/saturnfact.html

Radius (1 bar level) (km)
Equatorial Saturn: 60,268 Earth: 6,378.1 Ratio (Earth/Saturn): 9.449
Polar Saturn: 54,364 Earth: 6,356.8 Ratio (Earth/Saturn): 8.552


From http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/solar-system/saturn-article/

Size comparison: Saturn has a diameter of 74,898 miles (120,537 km)

Hard copy
From The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy first published 1977 page 206 table 11.1

Equatorial radius (km): 60,000
Equatorial radius (Earth = 1) 9.41

From Astronomy Today by Eric Chaisson and Steve McMillan 1999

page 288: From Saturn's distance and angular size, the planet's radius—and hence the average density—quickly follow. Saturn's equatorial radius is 60,000 km, or 9.5 Earth radii.

page 271 Panetary Data

Equatorial radius: 60,268 km; 9.45 (Earth = 1)

Just caught a new one.

Book 6
Saturn is 116,464km diameter.
Page 56 shows it as a Large GG
Page 48 defines a large GG as "at least 60,000 km in radius" (underlining added for emphasis). Which means a Large GG is at least 120,000km in diameter...

Saturn is a Small GG, not a large, under book 6 definitions, but is shown as a large.

 

[aramis]

Saturn's right at the dividing line... but it's average radius (averaging polar and equitorial from the latest NASA information, it's still below threshold. It's NOT a Large as defined. Tom.
Nat Geo isn't authoritative; NASA is.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

Saturn's right at the dividing line... but it's average radius (averaging polar and equitorial from the latest NASA information, it's still below threshold. It's NOT a Large as defined. Tom.
Nat Geo isn't authoritative; NASA is.

The Nat Geo site information was written from data provided by NASA/JPL as noted at the end of the article. I guess that citing the source as being NASA is not good enough.

Next, there are two sets of data provided by NASA.

On nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary...aturnfact.html which was last updated 07/01/2013 has the radius as 60,268 km.

I could not find a date when the information on solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/...&Display=Facts was written.

If one goes with the equatorial radius then Saturn can be considered a large gas giant using either 60,286 km or rounded to the nearest thousand km of 60,000.

Using the average of the equatorial radius and polar radius than Saturn is not a large gas giant.

I'm guessing that when CT Book 6 in 1977/1981 was written the equatorial radius was used not the average of the equatorial radius and polar radius.

Personally I'm going with Saturn being a large gas giant based on the equatorial radius.

 

[Timerover51]

Does Starter Traveller come under Classic for Errata, or something else?

 

[aramis]

Does Starter Traveller come under Classic for Errata, or something else?

Yes. As does TTB.

 

[DonM]

The v1.1 errata is posted. Finally.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Donald,

The v1.1 errata is posted. Finally.

I just downloaded and opened today, 2/1/14 0431 PST, the announced up of the Consolidated CT Errata to v1.1. At the top of the screen has the following message.

"The file you have opened complies with the PDF/A standard and has been opened read-only to prevent modification."

The earlier versions allowed me to add sticky notes and highlight text with the read-only status I can do neither.

I have, according to the updater the latest version of Acrobat Reader which is 10.1.9.

Is the file supposed to be read only?

 

[whulorigan]

I have, according to the updater the latest version of Acrobat Reader which is 10.1.9.

The current version of Acrobat Reader is v11.0.06, BTW.

 

[snrdg082102]

Book 2 1979 7th printing

Howdy Donald,

The design rules presented in Book 2 Starships 1977; 7th printing indicate that standard hulls are 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1,000 tons per the hull types chart on page 10. All other hulls are produced as custom designs which are detailed on page 20.

Page 15 of Book 2 Starships 1977 7th has a chart of seven ship's vehicles, with five of them listed as non-starships on page 17.

On page 17 the life boat entry indicates that this ship's vehicle

"....contains five emergency low berths, each capable of holding four persons in cold sleep...."

Book 2 1977 page 14 only describes low passage berths that hold one low passenger, costs Cr 50,000, and displaces one-half (0.5) ton.

Would the missing specifications for an emergency low berth be considered errata?

For that matter, as far as I can tell, there is no way to design the five non-starships listed on page 17 since they all are under 100 tons.

Was there ever errata provided that explained how these five non-starships could have been constructed?

If not, would the lack of a non-starship ship's vehicle warrant an errata entry?

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy whulorigan,

The current version of Acrobat Reader is v11.0.06, BTW.

The version of Acrobat Reader I had, I'm currently downloading and installing, showed as 10.1.9. When I clicked on check for updates the message returned was my Reader was up to date.

Thanks for the heads up.

After installing Reader v11.0.06 the top of the screen has the message of
"The file you have opened complies with the PDF/A standard and has been opened read-only to prevent modification."
and a button with the text "Enable Editing" on the right side.

Clicking Enable Editing brings up a message window with the warning that editing causes the PDF to be no longer compliant with PDF/A with the steps to make the PDF compliant again.

Now comes a new question: Donald, may I please enable editing of Consolidated CT Errata v1.1?

Thank you again whulorigan for letting me know my Acrobat Reader application was lying to me about being up to date.

 

[GypsyComet]

For that matter, as far as I can tell, there is no way to design the five non-starships listed on page 17 since they all are under 100 tons.

Was there ever errata provided that explained how these five non-starships could have been constructed?

If not, would the lack of a non-starship ship's vehicle warrant an errata entry?

No, that would be a Supplement. Like the Air/Raft and ATV, the subcraft were presented as pre-builts.