Drive Technology

[DrSkull]

Anthony, I'm using that idea from now on. (assuming anyone ever asks me, they seem pretty satisfied with "it makes the ship go")

 

[Uncle Bob]

Ah, yes, Electrogravity. I would dearly love to believe it, and I wonder if Woodward is coming at this through "the backdoor."

As for the maneuver drive being some sort of warp drive, I can't quite buy it. IIRC the outragous energy demands hold for low-velocity travel, so turning on your maneuver drive will still consume 10% fuel. To get the energy down to a this managable number the geometry has an external dimension on the order of a plank length.

Worse, with such a small exterior the power plant will have to be shut off to avoid cooking the crew and combat will be difficult or imposible.

I like it, and it would be great for some games, but not really Traveller. Besides, the whole mass/cube issue only applies to MT, not CT.

A big reason I didn't like MT

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
As for the maneuver drive being some sort of warp drive, I can't quite buy it. IIRC the outragous energy demands hold for low-velocity travel, so turning on your maneuver drive will still consume 10% fuel. To get the energy down to a this managable number the geometry has an external dimension on the order of a plank length.

This is why I said 'major variant'. Handwaving the energy requirement for a warp drive is no worse than handwaving the multiple violations of conservation laws associated with thruster plates.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Anthony:
This is why I said 'major variant'. Handwaving the energy requirement for a warp drive is no worse than handwaving the multiple violations of conservation laws associated with thruster plates.[/QB]

"Thruster plates", another reason I hate MT

I figure a Woodward Machs principle or "electrogravitic" drive needs energy relative to the background mass of our universe. I haven't got a hard number yet, but something between 3 and 100 GW to accellerate 1 ton at 1 m/s seems reasonable.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by Uncle Bob:
I figure a Woodward Machs principle or "electrogravitic" drive needs energy relative to the background mass of our universe. I haven't got a hard number yet, but something between 3 and 100 GW to accellerate 1 ton at 1 m/s seems reasonable.[/QB]

Try 3x10^12W (speed of light * thrust in newtons). If it's interacting with some mass, the energy requirement can be less depending on relative velocity, of course.

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Try 3x10^12W (speed of light * thrust in newtons). If it's interacting with some mass, the energy requirement can be less depending on relative velocity, of course.[/QB]

A theoretical maximum, which makes sence looking at the furthest objects in the universe. However, they are receeding in all directions, so I hope that our velocity relative the the Universe's center of mass to be somewhat lower.

As you say, grav drives that interact with local gravity require orders of magnitude less energy, but then you have to keep track of your instantaneous velocity, because with a constant power supply the accelleration is alway changing.

My head hurts. Thank God the maneuver drive is a Black Box.

 

[Bruce]

We just chock it up to that miraculous substance known as "Handwavium".
I agree it's fun to try and base the 'science' somewhat on what theories we as a race have come up with or postulated, but sometimes you just have to take a spoonful of handwavium to make the medicine go down!
In "role" playing terms does it really matter how it works? Does the actual theory of the beast make a hairs breadth difference to the role playing and the story?
I could see if making a difference IF the story was revolving around a bunch of renegade scientists trying out forbidden knowledge or some such, but generally, the science works.

Bruce

 

[tlindsey]

So, does a starship use its maneuver drive to "hover" when landing or does it require a separate grav drive unit for this?

I'm curious because if it only requires the maneuver drive, this means that the motive force is either omnidirectional, or that ships must land on their tails.

I'm not concerned with how it works, I just want to know how most folks handle this in their TU.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by tlindsey:
So, does a starship use its maneuver drive to "hover" when landing or does it require a separate grav drive unit for this?

I'm curious because if it only requires the maneuver drive, this means that the motive force is either omnidirectional, or that ships must land on their tails.

Based on canonical CT design sequences and deckplans, either the force is omnidirectional, or CG is automatically included in drives (presumably as a side effect, since unstreamlined ships don't get a reduction in drive size).

 

[Uncle Bob]

Originally posted by Bruce:
We just chock it up to that miraculous substance known as "Handwavium".
I agree it's fun to try and base the 'science' somewhat on what theories we as a race have come up with or postulated, but sometimes you just have to take a spoonful of handwavium to make the medicine go down!
In "role" playing terms does it really matter how it works? Does the actual theory of the beast make a hairs breadth difference to the role playing and the story?
I could see if making a difference IF the story was revolving around a bunch of renegade scientists trying out forbidden knowledge or some such, but generally, the science works.

Bruce

I supose it depends on the flavor of the game you are striving for. For example, the post on omnidirectional thrust could make a very real game difference.

If you have someone like me or (I suspect, Anthony) in your game we will be looking for every advantage we can get. Ie., "Can we imobilize them by taking them out to the Kuiper belt where their gravitics won't work? But our maneuver drive will, right?"