mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Then why doesn't the ship inside the field melt, or at least get so hot it kills the crew?
General How does maneuver drive propel?
- Thread starter Leitz
- Start date
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That is true, but your explanations should be consistent and not lead to unintended consequences.
Why does it matter in game? Space magic allows it apply in this particular situation, as described in an essay by noted Imperium physicist blah blah mc blah blah.
Maybe? Certainly it needs to be internally consistent enough for you and your players to feel they "get" the rules of your universe and not make it feel like you are constantly changing the laws of physics you should be fine.
Referee: Join my Traveller campaign. This works like the others but in this one ships that "go silent" outside of CT scan range are stealthy and difficult to detect.
Player Smart Like You: Doesn't that break the laws of thermodynamics?
Referee: Um sure.
Player Smart Like You: That must change the nature of society as we know it.
Referee: No it only happens in this one particular situation.
And then you get to decide if that a campaign you want to be in.
Marcatlas
SOC-12
Ah, I may be looking at post 77 Book 2. Because in that CT edition it is not a rocket but non reaction drive
Marcatlas
SOC-12
MT in no way dumped or even hinted at non Newtonian movement in real space
Because the heat is shedding through the exhaust. Its dispersal not bottling/shielding.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yup, by HG80 and the revision to LBB2 in 81 there was no mention of reaction drive. There was also no mention of reactionless drive either but hey ho.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Newtonian dogfighting looks like Babylon 5 Starfuries.
INCREDIBLY short range (visual to Mk I Eyeball) rather than any kind of beyond visual range stuff (measured in increments of 0.1 light seconds!).
WHUT.
Reaction (throwing matter out the back) or reactionless (gravitics) ... it doesn't matter to the physics.
1G of maneuver acceleration "behaves the same" whether it is produced by a reaction drive or a reactionless drive.
HOW the thrust is produced may be different, but the acceleration that results from that thrust (producing velocity changes) is the same.
Sensor range is the limit of (reliable) detection and tracking.
Stuff that is "beyond sensor range" by definition cannot be detected and/or tracked.
All "stealth" does is "debuff the detection and/or tracking" range so you can get "closer" before being detected.
Stealth is not an invisibility/invincibility shield ... it's a "don't notice me" effect.
Personally, I would argue that a craft that is drifting on inertia and running on batteries/(jump) capacitors (so no fusion reaction, meaning no neutrino signature to pick up) would be incredibly difficult to detect. Basically, you "bank" your EPs ahead of time in the batteries, set your course, cut your maneuver drive to zero delta velocity and just DRIFT into range of your target. Use low energy computer (model/2) and weapons (missile, sandcaster) and you can have a "dark fighter" that is capable of making surprise attacks. Use hull configuration: 8 or 9 to make things REALLY difficult for an adversary to (correctly) identify your craft while running silent.
LBB2.77 was explicitly reaction rocketry thrust.
LBB5.80 moved to reactionless drive thrust (just add EPs).
LBB2.81 followed suit and moved to reactionless drive thrust.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
I think you have to have some form of heat exhaust.
Reverse osmosis.
Reverse osmosis.
Marcatlas
SOC-12
All version of LBB2 use propellantless drives. As long as there is power you can maneuver. Unlimited Delta-V in other words.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Propellentless is not the same as reactionless - a reactionless drive breaks Newton's third law.
Marcatlas
SOC-12
That is only for combat abstraction. Read the travel formula for actual space movement.
Marcatlas
SOC-12
Not if it is grav drive. But, propellentless is the same as reactionless. Propellant being the REACTION mass. Without a REACTION MASS there is no propulsion from a REACTION drive.
Marcatlas
SOC-12
For a atomic based power plant on a space ship there is only one way to move heat out. That is by radiating in that part of the EM spectrum. Convection and conduction won't work. So no exhaust
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Depends on the edition.
You do need a large enough gravitational field for the manoeuvre drive to anchor on, and freely manoeuvre upto a thousand diameters.
You do need a large enough gravitational field for the manoeuvre drive to anchor on, and freely manoeuvre upto a thousand diameters.
I didn't know there was so much difference between the 1977 and 1981 editions of LBB2 until your comment drove me to look. In the 1981 edition it has the formula and rough travel times on page 10, and talks about the fuel (10Pn) being enough for "4 weeks" (p15).
The 1977 edition uses the same formula and says there's enough fuel for 288 accelerations (pp5, 6). Using the table from 1981, and the 48 hours you mentioned, a ship with a low M drive couldn't get very far in the system, could it? The 1981 typical travel times chart (p10) says it could probably make 50m km, but would have to refuel. If the destination didn't have fuel, the M1 ship could only go maybe 20m km.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
I have, many times, but it is not relevant.
Since the conversation was about dogfighting then the combat abstraction is rather important.
Combat movement is non-Newtonian.
Marcatlas
SOC-12
Right. Because the '81 edition doesn't use reaction drives. Hence no need to track how much you maneuver. The fusion PP uses fuel at the same rate whether powering the M-Drive or not.
