Have you ever considered how vast the 3rd Imperium is?

[whulorigan]

To clarify what Whulorigan said, I believe he meant 1% per parsec, or 10% per Hop #. A Hop 1 is 10 parsecs, so the fuel would be 10% of the ship. Similarly a Skip is 10% per Skip #, or .1% per parsec.

According to the RAW (T5 p. 321):

JUMP DRIVE
The Jump drive consumes fuel equal to 10% of the hull volume of a ship per parsec of jump. . . To accomplish Jump-2, it requires 20 tons of fuel (= 10% of hull volume times jump-2).

Performance. J-Drive performance is evaluated in Jumps measured in parsecs (Drive Potential = J). Standard Jump Drives can produce any level of integer Jump equal to or less than its performance. A Standard Jump-2 drive can produce Jump-1 or Jump-2. Experimental, Prototype, or Early Jump Drives are capable of producing only their specific rated performance. An Early Jump-2 drive can only produce Jump-2 (not Jump-1).



HOP DRIVE
The Hop Drive is an order-of-magnitude enhancement of the Jump Drive: its base TL of 18* means that it is rarely encountered in Charted Space . . . The Hop drive consumes fuel equal to 1% of the hull volume of a ship per Hop number; For example, a 100-ton hull with a Hop Drive-A is capable of Hop-2. To accomplish Hop- 2, it requires 2 tons of fuel (= 1% of hull volume times Hop-2).

* - PROBABLE ERRATA: Should be TL-17

Performance. H-Drive performance is evaluated in Hops measured in tens of parsecs (Drive Potential x10 = H). Standard Hop Drives can produce any level of integer Hop equal to or less than its performance. A Standard Hop-2 drive can produce Hop-1 or Hop-2. Experimental, Prototype, or Early Hop Drives are capable of producing only their specific rated performance. An Early Hop-2 drive can only produce Hop-2 (not Hop-1).



SKIP DRIVE
The Skip Drive is a second order-of-magnitude enhancement of the Jump Drive: its base TL of 20 means that it is very rarely encountered in Charted Space . . . The Skip drive consumes fuel equal to 0.1% of the hull volume of a ship per Skip number. For example, a 100-ton hull with a Skip Drive-B is capable of Skip-4. To accomplish Skip-4, it requires 0.4 tons of fuel (= 0.1% of hull volume times Skip-4).

Performance. S-Drive performance is evaluated in Skips measured in tens of parsecs (Drive Potential x100 = S). Standard Skip Drives can produce any level of integer Skip equal to or less than its performance. A Standard Skip-2 drive can produce Skip-1 or Skip-2. Experimental, Prototype, or Early Skip Drives are capable of producing only their specific rated performance. An Early Skip-2 drive can only produce Skip-2 (not Skip-1).


​

 

[esampson]

Huh. You are correct. It does pretty clearly say it is 1% and .1% per hop or skip. It even provides examples so it doesn't seem like someone fumbled and misspoke.

Wacky. I can't imagine why the ships would become so ridiculously fuel efficient (except I guess for the fact that you are suppose to use the jump drive after you've used the hop drive in most cases), especially since at those TLs you are able to use antimatter power plants which don't take up nearly the same tonnage.

 

[whulorigan]

Huh. You are correct. It does pretty clearly say it is 1% and .1% per hop or skip. It even provides examples so it doesn't seem like someone fumbled and misspoke.

It seems that with each increasingly better FTL-Drive system, all parameters get better by an order of magnitude. But I think I agree with you that it seems to be a little extreme.

Wacky. I can't imagine why the ships would become so ridiculously fuel efficient (except I guess for the fact that you are suppose to use the jump drive after you've used the hop drive in most cases), especially since at those TLs you are able to use antimatter power plants which don't take up nearly the same tonnage.

But remember also that you don't really need a Jump Drive after the Hop or Skip: If you need to do a 1-9pc Jump, you just aim the Hop or Skip Drive at the 100-dia gravity well and force-precipitate out at the boundary after a day/several hours, respectively. You just can't use the Hop or Skip Drive to do a 1-9 pc Jump into deep space.

On the other hand, "Skip Scatter" of the higher level drives may make having a lesser secondary drive system advantageous.

 

[mike wightman]

What whulorigan said - you do not need to use a lower order drive to jump a shorter distance provided you can aim at a gravity well. The 100D rule means you precipitate out regardless.

A hop, skip, leap or stumble drive can make an insystem jump if it aims at a moon or planet within the system.

A hop drive only has a minimum range of 10 parsecs for empty hex jumps.

So the safest way for the long range drives to avoid issues is actually aim above or below the galactic plane and then make a second "jump" to the destination system.

 

[esampson]

What whulorigan said - you do not need to use a lower order drive to jump a shorter distance provided you can aim at a gravity well. The 100D rule means you precipitate out regardless.

A hop, skip, leap or stumble drive can make an insystem jump if it aims at a moon or planet within the system.

A hop drive only has a minimum range of 10 parsecs for empty hex jumps.

So the safest way for the long range drives to avoid issues is actually aim above or below the galactic plane and then make a second "jump" to the destination system.

Actually, I was just thinking about what the odds would be of missing the 100D radius around a star due to scatter when I came across something very interesting.

Pg. 375 "For Jump technology with distances of 1-9, it is possible to astrogate a course in which the jumpline terminates in a star or world . . . Astrogation for jumplines longer than 9 parsecs cannot be specific enough to end in a star or world. . ."

Unfortunately the two paragraphs use slightly different wording. On the first it says that it is the technology that matters. On the second it says it is the length of the jump that matters and they talk about the precision of data that can be viewed.

However I'm pretty sure that ships would largely use recorded data and predicted motions rather than visually looking where things are, so that's kind of weird.

Either way it is clearly not possible to fly straight to your destination if it is over 10 parsecs away (unless you get lucky with scatter) and it may not be possible to do it to targets that are closer than that if you are using a Hop drive (and I suspect it isn't, because there is mention somewhere in the book about ships with hop drives also having Jump drives for shorter distance).

 

[whulorigan]

A
Pg. 375 "For Jump technology with distances of 1-9, it is possible to astrogate a course in which the jumpline terminates in a star or world . . . Astrogation for jumplines longer than 9 parsecs cannot be specific enough to end in a star or world. . ."

Either way it is clearly not possible to fly straight to your destination if it is over 10 parsecs away (unless you get lucky with scatter) and it may not be possible to do it to targets that are closer than that if you are using a Hop drive (and I suspect it isn't, because there is mention somewhere in the book about ships with hop drives also having Jump drives for shorter distance).

That's interesting.

I wonder, however, if it would still be possible to pick a "termination destination point" 10 or more pc away (somewhere in free space) beyond your actual intended destination, and simply "run the ship" into the 100 dia gravity well of a nearer destination point along your hop-line, where you acutally want to go? Scatter is based on the destination point of the astrogational plot; if something intervenes along the hop-line, you should still precipitate at the intervening object, unless I am misreading/misunderstanding.

 

[esampson]

That's interesting.

I wonder, however, if it would still be possible to pick a "termination destination point" 10 or more pc away (somewhere in free space) beyond your actual intended destination, and simply "run the ship" into the 100 dia gravity well of a nearer destination point along your hop-line, where you acutally want to go? Scatter is based on the destination point of the astrogational plot; if something intervenes along the hop-line, you should still precipitate at the intervening object, unless I am misreading/misunderstanding.

Well, that's the question. Like I said, the wording on the two paragraphs don't quite agree with one another. In the first paragraph it says 'Jump technology with distances of 1-9'. That would mean that a hop drive cannot be intentional run into a 100D gravity well since it is based on technology with a distance of more than 9.

The second paragraph is different, however. It talks about the jumpline and arguably the planned jumpline is ending before you've reached 10 parsecs. Yes, the destination programmed into the jump computer is further than that but since the goal is to drop out earlier than that it could be argued that the planned jumpline is shorter. The explanation of the lightspeed delay would seem to support that but then the explanation of the lightspeed delay wouldn't be applicable if you were flying about through well mapped space.

Guess we will have to wait for the errata to clear it up.

 

[mike wightman]

I can't see it being cleared up with errata, unless it is clarified that lower order drives are no longer needed as the better ones are discovered. The alternative would be either a rule change (see below) or a fudging.

If your jump, hop , skip, leap, vault takes you within 100D of a planet or star you precipitate out of jump - that's the rule.

If that object is 1AU away you have just jumped, hopped etc 1AU

By the time you have a hop drive you have sensors that can map a system a parsec away no problem - so fire up your hop drive and aim for the star (plot a jump line for a point 10 parsecs away that the star in question just happens to get in the way of ). 1 parsec hop. Now aim for the planet or moon of interest (same method)- insystem hop.

Two hops gets you where you want to go, faster and more fuel efficiently than using a jump drive.

If a subsector is well charted then I can't see the need for a jump drive ever again, except perhaps a deliberate empty hex jump.


Unintended consequence of a rule I always consider silly, perhaps?

If ships in jump are only affected on entry an exit then they could ignore planets and stars on the jump line except at entry an exit. Now you would need your lower order drives.

 

[esampson]

I can't see it being cleared up with errata, unless it is clarified that lower order drives are no longer needed as the better ones are discovered. The alternative would be either a rule change (see below) or a fudging.

If your jump, hop , skip, leap, vault takes you within 100D of a planet or star you precipitate out of jump - that's the rule.

If that object is 1AU away you have just jumped, hopped etc 1AU

By the time you have a hop drive you have sensors that can map a system a parsec away no problem - so fire up your hop drive and aim for the star (plot a jump line for a point 10 parsecs away that the star in question just happens to get in the way of ). 1 parsec hop. Now aim for the planet or moon of interest (same method)- insystem hop.

Two hops gets you where you want to go, faster and more fuel efficiently than using a jump drive.

If a subsector is well charted then I can't see the need for a jump drive ever again, except perhaps a deliberate empty hex jump.


Unintended consequence of a rule I always consider silly, perhaps?

If ships in jump are only affected on entry an exit then they could ignore planets and stars on the jump line except at entry an exit. Now you would need your lower order drives.

The errata would clear it up by saying that it is based on distance and not technology or else it is the nature of the technology makes it difficult to intentionally run into the 100D well. If you can't intentionally do it at distances of less than 10 parsecs it doesn't mean it can't occur, just that it is hard to do it deliberately.

That's already what happens with hops longer than 9 parsecs. It isn't that suddenly the science changes and the drive won't precipitate at 100D, it's that you can't aim to deliberately do that.

The only real question is whether you can't aim because it is 'too far to hit' or if it is a basic inaccuracy in the tech.

 

[mike wightman]

How can you possibly not aim thanks to the new rules on jump lines etc?

 

[esampson]

How can you possibly not aim thanks to the new rules on jump lines etc?

Because hop drives work differently from jump drives. Their function is similar, but not identical.

As an example, perhaps both departure point and arrival point are subject to scatter for hop drives. I understand that the concept of scatter on the departure point is strange but the whole concept of jump drives have a certain strangeness to them, so just go with it. Even though you depart from a specific point your actually line is drawn from a 'scatter point' based on that point.

If the scatter point for your departure is large enough (perhaps 50 million km) it could be very difficult to intentionally run into a gravity well. An astrogator would still need to plan the route because you would want to make sure that the 'jump cylinder' didn't intersect any gravity wells since that means there is the potential to accidentally precipitate, but you would never be able to count on it.

 

[Brian Smaller]

Hmmm. In reading all the responses to this thread about the new drives I think that for my Traveller universe they are just a Step too far. Most of my campaign area is at TL11-12 with occasional TL13-14. Wont have to worry about Hop drives for a few thousand years

Interesting though and definitely shrinks Known Space. I think that the best use of one of these drives in my campaign would be an ancient relic starship or perhaps running into a scout from an advanced civilisation from out there somewhere.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

Question

I wonder what tech level Pain Free dentistry occurs?
What tech level do we get cell repair/replacement nanobots for extended longevity?

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

TL-C+

I wonder what tech level Pain Free dentistry occurs?
What tech level do we get cell repair/replacement nanobots for extended longevity?

Pain free dentistry is TL-C since Biologics become standard there and then they just grow replacement teeth in place or smear repair paste on the affected tooth which eats the bad parts and grows new tissue to replace the bad parts.

TL-F is your nano-cell surgeon repair systems, though it isn't really mechanical nano-bots, but specially created and functioning bio-bots.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

Thanks!

Pain free dentistry is TL-C since Biologics become standard there and then they just grow replacement teeth in place or smear repair paste on the affected tooth which eats the bad parts and grows new tissue to replace the bad parts.

TL-F is your nano-cell surgeon repair systems, though it isn't really mechanical nano-bots, but specially created and functioning bio-bots.

Darn It!
I need that tech C stuff yesterday
(I am having another Implant put in to replace a bridge)

 

[Chris Barlow]

Yes, but once societies rejected Divine Right, ALL hereditary Nobility/Royalty with real power was abolished. Hence, the 3I isn't plausible.

Depends on your definition of hereditary Nobility/Royalty. On late twentieth and early twenty first century Earth, we have in North Korea, Syria, Cuba and China with its "Red Princelings" numerous situations where people have high levels of power/wealth/influence simply because their parents did.

 

[GypsyComet]

Hmmm. In reading all the responses to this thread about the new drives I think that for my Traveller universe they are just a Step too far. Most of my campaign area is at TL11-12 with occasional TL13-14. Wont have to worry about Hop drives for a few thousand years

Interesting though and definitely shrinks Known Space. I think that the best use of one of these drives in my campaign would be an ancient relic starship or perhaps running into a scout from an advanced civilisation from out there somewhere.

Even in Charted Space they are probably a couple centuries into the Fourth Imperium.

 

[rancke]

The use I would make of hop or skip drives IMTU (if I decided to make use of them) would be in the form of Ancients relics. There are some possible variants:

a) The PCs find one Ancient ship with a skip drive and have to figure out how to turn it into a vast fortune (turning it over to the Imperium would only give them a few tens of millions in reward).

b) A sinister group of Bad Guys have found a handful of ships with hop drives and is using them to futher their nefarious plots. (OK, needs a bit of further work ).

c) A pocket empire of some sort (probably scrappy freedom-loving Good Guys) has gotten hold of a sizable number of ships. They have to defend their windfall against more powerful neighbors. Fortunately the ships also have really good guns.

d) Inspired by a John Brunner novel: When mankind first ventured into space, they found tens or hundred of millions of empty (and unarmed) ships floating around.

e) Some new detection device allows the detection and opening of Ancient "hangars" (pocket universes) stuffed with lots and lots of ships. People and governments from one end of Charted Space to the other can and do get their hands on millions of Ancient starships.

All ships have self-repair capability and are self-maintaining.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

First of all, once more, let me remind you I don't own, nor have access to T5, so, anything about hoop drives I know has been read in this board.

IMHO it breaks too much the nature of OTU. Even a few prototypes will allow faster communications for the Imperial government, and a few VERY HUGE (over 1 Mdt) tenders capable of carrying battelships or even battletenders with their complements will surely alter the nature of war in OTU (imagine one of those tenders in a deep raid on Zhodani space in FFW, carrying whole battle squadrons and profiting they can be quite far away when news of their same existence arrive to reinforcements, or just moving reinforcements, allowing to kkep more deep reserves). They will be worth their cost, no matter how high is could be...

 

[Drakon]

Depends on your definition of hereditary Nobility/Royalty. On late twentieth and early twenty first century Earth, we have in North Korea, Syria, Cuba and China with its "Red Princelings" numerous situations where people have high levels of power/wealth/influence simply because their parents did.

Hereditary nobility is not actually based on a Divine Right to rule. They are based on basic and essential property rights. The "Right to Rule" whether garnered via a combination of Right by Conquest, democratic aquiessence, or some other means, the earlier nobility assigned this to part of the estate they passed onto the their descendents.

In areas where religion has sway over the actions of the populace, political organizations will co-opt those sentiments to further reduce challenges to the existing power structure. So of course property rights are divine, especially for those who can pass an empire to their sons.