CT Special Supplemet 3 Missiles & Consolidated CT Errata

[snrdg082102]

Morning Piper,

Tom;
this is a 6G missile; it moves 600 millimeters on the first turn of movement. In doing so, it consumes ALL of its fuel. Subsequent movement is by Newton, not thrust.

First, I am willing to agree that using the original SS3 my understanding of how a 6G6 maybe totally out to lunch.

However, according to the Consolidated CT Errata version 0.7 dated 06/01/12 that I verified as being correct and is part of SS3-R that is available on the CT CD based on email with DonM my understanding appears to be correct.

Hopefully, someone with a copy of SS3-R will be by to help out.

Page 3, Propulsion Systems, third paragraph (corrections): The third paragraph should read: Propulsion systems are defined by two numbers commonly separated by a capital G. The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make at maximum G. For example, a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burning fuel to achieve 1G once. A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G six times. A 3G3 system can accelerate to a maximum of 3G in one turn, and has fuel to allow reaching 3G for three turns. This same missile could accelerate at 1G for 9 turns, or 2G for 4 turns.

Looks like we'll have to disagree until one or both of us can compare SS3-R to SS3.

One thing I promise is not to share any missile designs with more than the minimum details and no fluff.

 

[rancke]

However, according to the Consolidated CT Errata version 0.7 dated 06/01/12 that I verified as being correct and is part of SS3-R that is available on the CT CD based on email with DonM my understanding appears to be correct.

You seem to be missing the point. Where did the errata of the Consolidated CT Errata version 0.7 dated 06/01/12 originate? What canonical evidence was it based on? WHY did it contradict the example with the continuous burn missile? That the errata says what it says is not in dispute. But SHOULD the errata say what it says or is it based on a misunderstanding or a piece of faulty logic? Should the errata be errata'ed?


Hans

 

[Piper]

The errata may need review.

Traveller missiles were a bit dodgy to start with. To say that a 50 kilo missile can burn at 6G continuously for 50 minutes (that's a 6G5) and that we can build it now (TL7) stretches credibility.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Hans,

You seem to be missing the point. Where did the errata of the Consolidated CT Errata version 0.7 dated 06/01/12 originate? What canonical evidence was it based on? WHY did it contradict the example with the continuous burn missile? That the errata says what it says is not in dispute. But SHOULD the errata say what it says or is it based on a misunderstanding or a piece of faulty logic? Should the errata be errata'ed?


Hans

SS3 is based largely on Book 2 which is determined by comparing several items, the SS3 Radiation Damage table is Hit Locations table from CT Book 2 page 30. With that finding, I went back to the source, studied the matching sections, checked the errata for both documents, ran my calculations and process through a respected and a reliable Traveller authority, and concluded that the published errata appears to be correct.

I did not use a single document to base my information on. SS3 movement system is based on CT Book 2, while the performance of 6G6 appears to come from Mayday. They are both conical.

rancke you know from your long time on the boards/forums that the errata probably does need to the errataed. I am in the process of checking the SS3 errata and have discovered some issues that I have or will be sending directly to DonM so that he can compare them with SS3-R.

I think the best idea is for to put this topic on hold until I have a copy of SS3-R.

Or is SS3-R going to be suspect like the errata or the CT material you can now pick-up from FFE in softcover or CD?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

The topic under discussion appears to be stalled since I'm using the errata, which in theory, updates the CT books and is not used by others.

I'll do my best not to continue to stir the pot any more.

I have a feeling that even if I did cite SS3-R there are members who will stick with SS3.

Thanks to all who have made this discussion interesting and informative. I may restart this one after looking over SS3-R, I'll probably have forgotten about this since the purchase of the CT CD is just a wish.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Piper,

The errata may need review.

Traveller missiles were a bit dodgy to start with. To say that a 50 kilo missile can burn at 6G continuously for 50 minutes (that's a 6G5) and that we can build it now (TL7) stretches credibility.

Yep, I agree that the errata needs review and for the most part there are many things that are dodgy in Traveller.

I'm reviewing SS3 and the errata with the intention of submitting items that appear to contradict or not match with something else. Hopefully, the changes aren't me applying my own world view. I'm sure DonM will trash the crap, thump me about going off on a tangent, and passing my material on for approval.

Thanks for the help Piper sorry I'm a stubborn old codger.

 

[aramis]

The errata may need review.

Traveller missiles were a bit dodgy to start with. To say that a 50 kilo missile can burn at 6G continuously for 50 minutes (that's a 6G5) and that we can build it now (TL7) stretches credibility.

Bk2 combat turns are 1000sec - 0:16:40.
Bk5 combat turns are 1200sec - 0:20:00.

The use of G-Burns in later editions is 1 turn of 1G each.
THe use as errataed is inconsistent with later editions.

And yeah, 5 turns at 6G is at least 1:20:00 - not attainable with realistic chemical reaction thrusters.

 

[DonM]

You seem to be missing the point. Where did the errata of the Consolidated CT Errata version 0.7 dated 06/01/12 originate? What canonical evidence was it based on? WHY did it contradict the example with the continuous burn missile? That the errata says what it says is not in dispute. But SHOULD the errata say what it says or is it based on a misunderstanding or a piece of faulty logic? Should the errata be errata'ed?


Hans

I can answer this...

But first, let me find a copy of 0.6, and make sure of the differences...

Three main sets of errata added for 07..

1. Starting into the ship design errata to clean up HG designs. I really want to do this, but seem to be very slow about it.

2. The Spinward Marches UWP data cleanup, and adding that cleanup to FFW.

3. Incorporating the SS3-R errata.

I think Hans' question really is: Where did this stuff come from? I actually thought I'd put that in the document... but apparently I was too general. So here's the story...

In 1986, Marc received a set of questions regarding SS3 from a fan (my apologies, I cannot find the name -- I'll dig through my e-mails). This resulted in Marc sending him a copy of SS3 with a ton of hand made edits and cut-and-paste table changes. Marc lost his copy of the changes. Two decades later, that fan posted to the web about his copy of SS3, and I asked him to scan it all in and e-mail it to me. I have those images... and I passed them on to Marc for confirmation.

Then some time later, when I was trying to create a template for recreating all the CT books easily in Word for making PDFs, I decided there were so many changes to SS3 (and some of those hand notes are difficult to figure out where they go) that I rebuilt SS3 from scratch, and included the changes. That is what is SS3-R, in November 2011.

At no time did I check the math or logic (I'll confess I tend to regard historical material with some... reverence); I did some slight word and font editing to make SS3-R fit the same page total.

I then later added those changes to the CT errata. That becomes the 0.7 errata, and that's July of 2012.

Then almost a year later, TomR discovers that Marc's math was wrong on one of the tables, and while I'm trying to figure that out, I actually start digging into what Marc changed, and get confused, so I invite TomR to dig into it with me. That's where we are at right now....

My biggest issue was that Marc changed the default missile build, and the one that appears in SS3-R doesn't quite match the default behavior of a missile in either Book 2 or Mayday, and I'd really like to clean that up. And get the math right. And then have Marc look it all over. However, T5 has arrived, and I'm out of time to get his attention for a CT issue for a bit. I'm hoping to pencil some time in late in 2014.

Hans -- I hope that answers your question, and I'll try and distill this into a more coherent form for the 0.8 errata, when I get around to it.

Marc also admits that there are probably many answers to fan questions that would have been considered errata, but were answered by him, Frank, John or Loren and just sent back to the fan. I've asked each of them and none of them have kept 30+ year old letter responses (couldn't ONE of them have been a packrat?), since they all have moved around.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello DonM,

Thanks for dropping by and providing some background on how the Consolidated CT Errata v0.7 relates to SS3 and other products in answer to Hans Rancke's questions.

PS: I'm the guilty TomR that DonM mentions, aka snrdg081202.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi aramis,

First my apologies for taking eleven days to figure out my reply.

Bk2 combat turns are 1000 sec - 0:16:40.
Bk5 combat turns are 1200 sec - 0:20:00.

The use of G-Burns in later editions is 1 turn of 1G each.
The use as errataed is inconsistent with later editions.

Mayday, from my 8.5 inch by 11 inch rule book copyright 1978 and the reprint in FFE 005 copyright 2001, uses a game turn of approximately 100 minutes or 6,000 seconds.

Next I'm not sure about later editions equating G-Burns = "1 turn at 1G each" since the only sources I'm acquainted are Mayday, SS3, and Consolidated CT Errata v 0.7. Is it possible to provide more information on which later editions are being cited please?

Of course with my luck the material is on one of FFE's CDs.

My first introduction to missile movement was in the Mayday 1978 rule book, which like the reprint in FFE 005 doesn't have page numbers, which makes things a bit more difficult when quoting portions of the rule books.

The main difference between the two Mayday rule sets I found are:

1. Mayday 1978 rule book doesn't provide details on building missiles or, at least anything I have found, limiting the maximum total accelerations.


2. Mayday FFE 005 reprint introduces the term burn which appears to equal maximum total acceleration allowed before fuel is exhausted that appears in Section 8. Ships. The reprint has a section on building missiles, how much the components, Gs of acceleration, and burns cost, and limiting the maximum allowed burns to 12.

From Mayday 1978 rule book and the 2001 FFE 005 reprint, note the small craft table actually has 6 vehicles I'm only showing the four with the different maximum total acceleration/burn number.

"Section 8 Ships G Factor:
The following small craft are included on certain ships, or may appear separately. All are without computers, and may not use various programs. The data below indicate model, G factor ( and total hexes course change), and weaponry.

Lifeboat,	1G5,	no weaponry
Ship's Boat,	6G9,	1 laser
Cutter,	5G15,	1 laser
Fighter,	4G12,	1 laser

The acceleration, or G factor for vessels is expressed as an indication of maximum acceleration for the movement phase, and maximum total acceleration allowed before fuel is exhausted. Thus 1G5 indicates a maximum course change (movement of the future position marker in the movement phase) of 1 hex, and a total course change (over several turns) of 5 hexes.

Ships have unlimited fuel, and thus show G factors limiting only course change."

From the above section my understanding is that a 6G12 small craft or missile has a maximum acceleration of 6Gs and 12 turns or burns of fuel for movement during the game.

FFE 007 SS3 reprint page 3 states prior to the missile identification examples:

"Propulsion systems are defined by two number, commonly separated by a capital G. The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make."

To me both Mayday and SS3 appear to state that the first number indicates maximum acceleration and the second number denotes the number of turns the missile can move.

The point at which Mayday and SS3 diverge are the examples. In SS3 the first example is a 1G1 missile which extrapolating to 1G5 appears to match the Mayday example. After the SS3 1G1 missile the wheels fall off.

DonM's Consolidated CT Errata v 0.7, apparently reviewed by Marc Miller per CT Special Supplemet 3 Missiles & Consolidated CT Errata post #28, appears to bring Mayday and SS3 closer together on missile performance and design.

By which I mean that a 6G12 missile can accelerate at a maximum of 6Gs for 12 game turns or burns or G-burns.

 

[mike wightman]

6G12 means you can accelerate at 6G, but doing so consumes fuel burns. The ship/missile can only do so for 2 turns max.

Think of the fuel as fuel units. 1 G burns 1 unit per turn, 6 G burns 6 units per turn.

A ship with 1G5 can burn fuel for 5 turns.

A ship with 5G5 can only manage 5G for 1 turn and then its fuel is gone.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi DonM,

My biggest issue was that Marc changed the default missile build, and the one that appears in SS3-R doesn't quite match the default behavior of a missile in either Book 2 or Mayday, and I'd really like to clean that up.

My guess is that the default missile characteristics of being the CT Book 2 Starships standard homing 50 kg Cr5,000 missile was discussed rather than created using something like Mayday and SS3.

I have two Mayday rule sets. The first is a 8.5 by 11 8-page document, I'm designating as Mayday-1 copyright 1978, and the one from FFE 005 I'm designating as Mayday-2.

In Mayday-1 details added to the a missile are maximum acceleration, turns of allowed movement, propulsion type, additional guidance system including homing, and a detonator. From CT Book 2 a typical missile is a homing, 50 kg, at a cost of Cr,5000 (pages 16-17). Bold type = Mayday and underlines = CT Book 2 compare the two standard or typical missiles:

"Unless otherwise noted, a standard missile is of the homing-type, limited acceleration (6G6) and contact detonation."

Integrating Mayday with CT Book 2 the standard/typical missile is a homing, limited acceleration (6G6), that uses a contact detonator with a mass of 50 kg costing Cr5,000. The details added by Mayday doesn't change the CT Book 2 missile details.

Sometime around 1980/1981 Mayday-2 comes out adding Section 7. Special Rules E Building Missiles which is an improvement since my 1978 rules just lists the components and not how to put them together.

As part of the Mayday-2 missile building process the need to track cost was added, which caused a complication with the CT Book 2 typical missile. The revised, 1980/1981, Mayday standard missile is now a homing-type, limited acceleration (6G6) and contact detonation that costs Cr5,600." A Mayday-2 standard missile costs Cr600 more than the typical CT Book 2 missile.

SS3 is published adding warheads, mass, and changed how cost is calculated to the material presented in Mayday-2. The changes in SS3's design sequence has resulted in the SS3 standard or typical missile not matching the ones described in CT Book 2, Mayday-1, and Mayday-2.

One way that I can see to get SS3 or SS3-R to match CT Book 2's vague typical homing 50 kg cr5,000 missile is rewriting the mass and cost for the propulsion system's casing and fuel load.

For Mayday-2 rewriting the Per G Level equation of G^2 x 100 to G x 500 or something similar would help.

Anyway the above is just my thoughts I have bounced around the inside of my head.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi Mike,

6G12 means you can accelerate at 6G, but doing so consumes fuel burns. The ship/missile can only do so for 2 turns max.

Think of the fuel as fuel units. 1 G burns 1 unit per turn, 6 G burns 6 units per turn.

A ship with 1G5 can burn fuel for 5 turns.

A ship with 5G5 can only manage 5G for 1 turn and then its fuel is gone.

Could be me but I don't read

FFE 007 JTAS Issues 12-24: JTAS 21 SS3 reprint page 3 text states "Propulsion systems are defined by two numbers, commonly separated by a capital G. The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make."

to mean that a propulsion system that can accelerates at 6G in one turn is using the same fuel burns as a 1G system.

SS3 page 3: "For example, a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burring fuel to achieve 1G once."

I read the above as: a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burring fuel to achieve 1G one time.

Using the 1G1 text, substituting 6 and 12 in the appropriate places in the description, and my modification of one time instead of once:

For example, a 6G12 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 6G per turn, and is capable of burring fuel to achieve 6G twelve times."

Per the Consolidated CT Errata v 0.7 reviewed by Marc Miller,
"Page 3, Propulsion Systems, third paragraph (corrections): The third paragraph should read:

Propulsion systems are defined by two numbers commonly separated by a capital G. The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make at maximum G. For example, a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burning fuel to achieve 1G once. A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G six times. A 3G3 system can accelerate to a maximum of 3G in one turn, and has fuel to allow reaching 3G for three turns. This same missile could accelerate at 1G for 9 turns, or 2G for 4 turns."

Based on the information provided by DonM in entry #28 of this thread and comparing SS3 to the Mayday reprint in FFE 005 the definition of G-burns are the number of turns a missile can operate at maximum acceleration before running out of fuel.

Which basically means we agree to disagree until the powers-that-be thump the subject into submission.

 

[Hyphen]

*moan* I guess this means that my "Mayday Missiles Modified" page is now wrong...

Beowulf Down
==> Tavonni Repair Bays
==> House Rules
==> Mayday Missiles Modified

%-(

(The only good thing I can say is that my "Advanced Civilian" version (with two 10G burns) anticipated Power Projection's missiles by over 10 years...)

 

[mike wightman]

1 G burns 1 unit of fuel per turn.
6 G burns 6 units of fuel per turn.

For a 6G6 missile to work the way you claim would require 36 units of fuel in total.

The rules in SS3 and Mayday are pretty clear:

5G5 means 5G thrust, burning 5 units of fuel which means only 1 turn of maximum thrust.

I get the horrible feeling that the errata is actually wrong because the errata writers don't understand it themselves.

 

[mike wightman]

This is what SS3 says:

The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make. For example, a 1G I propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burning fuel to achieve 1G once. A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to reach 6G once. A 3G12 system can accelerate to a maximum of 3G in one turn, and has fuel to allow reaching 3G for four turns. This same missile could accelerate at 1G for 12 turns, or 2G for 6 turns.

These rules work and make sense, they don't require errata.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hi Hyphen,

*moan* I guess this means that my "Mayday Missiles Modified" page is now wrong...

Beowulf Down
==> Tavonni Repair Bays
==> House Rules
==> Mayday Missiles Modified

%-(

(The only good thing I can say is that my "Advanced Civilian" version (with two 10G burns) anticipated Power Projection's missiles by over 10 years...)

First thanks for reminding about your work which might be a way to get CT Book 2, Mayday 1978, Mayday FFE 005, and SS3 to work with each other. As for the spreadsheet I wasn't able to open since I didn't change defaults or add the converter for Excel 4. I've recently added the converter so I've got a copy.

Next your house rules are not wrong since they have been tweaked for your Traveller universe. Doing a quick once over I caught two small items.

The first is that the abbreviations in the propulsion system fuel mass do not match. The equations have a T and the abbreviation key has a B.

The second item is the maximum acceleration per Mayday 1978, Mayday 198?, and SS3 is 6G.

My next project is to build a spreadsheet using Excel 2010 and maybe try OpenOffice's spreadsheet.

 

[atpollard]

This is what SS3 says:

These rules work and make sense, they don't require errata.

For what it is worth, this is exactly how I understand and use SS3.

 

[DonM]

This is what SS3 says:

These rules work and make sense, they don't require errata.

But Marc did alter them...

"The first number is the maximum number of Gs which the missile is capable of in a turn; the second is the number of G-burns of fuel the missile can make at maximum G. For example, a 1G1 propulsion system can accelerate a maximum of 1G per turn, and is capable of burning fuel to achieve 1G once. A 6G6 system can accelerate to a maximum of 6G per turn, and has enough fuel to accelerate 6G six times. A 3G3 system can accelerate to a maximum of 3G in one turn, and has fuel to allow reaching 3G for three turns. This same missile could accelerate at 1G for 9 turns, or 2G for 4 turns."

 

[mike wightman]

Then Marc should be persuaded to ignore the errata - it isn't needed.

1 g of acceleration requires 1 unit or burn of fuel.

What the new rules are saying is that a 6g engine can get 6g from the same 1 unit of fuel.

Or is the fuel required by the 6g engine 6x the fuel of the 1g engine?

Let's say 1kg of fuel is required by a 1g engine to get 1 turns thrust.

That's 6kg to get a performance of 1G6

Under the proposed new rules the 6G6 engine requires 36 kg of fuel.