I believe you're confounding things....
THe JTAS 1 entry on TDX makes absolutely no reference to gravitic drives, mentioning only that grav vehicles can fly above the TDX explosions.
How ubiquitous are grav vehicles
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
I believe you're confounding things....
THe JTAS 1 entry on TDX makes absolutely no reference to gravitic drives, mentioning only that grav vehicles can fly above the TDX explosions.
Peter Newman
SOC-12
The real safety problem isn't with the grav vehicle, the safety problem begins when
the driver of the grav vehicle decides to crash it into something. (Admittedly they could do more damage with a starship since it will be bigger and more massive, but starships are rarer, more expensive, and (probably) better controlled.)
Many of the higher population planets in Traveller don't trust their people with a sword. Most of them don't trust them with a gun. Why would they trust them with what is effectively a large bomb? (Once you go fast enough.) How robust is the piloting software at stopping the driver from crashing their grav-speedster into a government building at high speed?
the driver of the grav vehicle decides to crash it into something. (Admittedly they could do more damage with a starship since it will be bigger and more massive, but starships are rarer, more expensive, and (probably) better controlled.)
Many of the higher population planets in Traveller don't trust their people with a sword. Most of them don't trust them with a gun. Why would they trust them with what is effectively a large bomb? (Once you go fast enough.) How robust is the piloting software at stopping the driver from crashing their grav-speedster into a government building at high speed?
Vile
SOC-12
As in the real world, the equation isn't simply a question of how dangerous an item is, but how useful it is. Cars kill a lot more people than privately-held guns in high-tech, high population countries, but there is no suggestion to outlaw cars.
Grav vehicles are likely to be far too valuable to society as a whole to introduce fool-proof controls. What controls there are will be decided on based on a cost/benefit analysis by the powers that be.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
As a previous poster said, they are as common as you want them to be.
IMTU they are quite rare. I houseruled the Striker prices to increase them considerably, because like Aramis, I found I could build them too cheaply and I wanted them to be rare. I decided that grav vehicles needed aircraft controls and instrumentation, which usually added thousands, even tens of thousands to the price.
IMTU, grav vehicles are about as common as helicopters today - used by military, emergency services, corporations, millionaires.
My road infrastructure is cheapened as roads are constructed by 'glassing' the ground with a fusion gun, similar to fusion tunnelling.
I hadn't considered the kamikaze civilian aspect, but I suppose a point defence gun on the building could go a long way toward solving that problem.
IMTU they are quite rare. I houseruled the Striker prices to increase them considerably, because like Aramis, I found I could build them too cheaply and I wanted them to be rare. I decided that grav vehicles needed aircraft controls and instrumentation, which usually added thousands, even tens of thousands to the price.
IMTU, grav vehicles are about as common as helicopters today - used by military, emergency services, corporations, millionaires.
My road infrastructure is cheapened as roads are constructed by 'glassing' the ground with a fusion gun, similar to fusion tunnelling.
I hadn't considered the kamikaze civilian aspect, but I suppose a point defence gun on the building could go a long way toward solving that problem.
Remember that joke about the people who'd gotten so used to each other's jokes that they'd numbered them and now they'd provoke gales of laughter just by saying a number? Well, I'm thinking about numbering some of my responses to Frequently Seen Arguments.
Answer #1: I'm not talking about my Traveller Universe. I'm trying to explore the universe that is the common ground between all of us who discuss Traveller on these boards (Usually referred to as the OTU). If I had been talking about MTU, I would have said so.
Hans
Last edited:
Rigel Stardin
SOC-13
All I was pointing out was there was an explosive based on the science of gravitronics.
In my Universe, damaged grav engines create TDX explosions if they go critical. Thus reducing the number of Grav vehicles.
Author James White, Sector General Series, Star Trek and Star Wars All use tractor beams and replusers. In my mind, replusers and tractor beams are field based and have nothing to do with gravitronics and are far safer.
Enoki
SOC-14 1K
One thing left out here is that the price is that of a new one. I would suspect that like aircraft today the price of a used one drops dramatically. The same can be said of heavy machinery. New these cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. But, you can get a used one in various conditon down into just tens of thousands of dollars.
I can't see where a grav vehicle would be any different. Of course, most people wouldn't likely bother with one if they had no real need for it so...
I would also think that more advanced worlds could fork over millions of credits for grav vehicles that operate as public transportation. Buses in most urban transit systems today run as much as a half-million or more apiece. Light rail is even more expensive.
I can't see where a grav vehicle would be any different. Of course, most people wouldn't likely bother with one if they had no real need for it so...
I would also think that more advanced worlds could fork over millions of credits for grav vehicles that operate as public transportation. Buses in most urban transit systems today run as much as a half-million or more apiece. Light rail is even more expensive.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
But there is no evidence it's actually based upon the same tech as air/rafts.
Without supposing (inventing) less expensive models, Grav vehicles can't possibly be all that ubiquitous: they're simply too expensive.
In much the way that slug throwers remain an economical means of bumping people off at tech levels where fusion weapons are available, it seems to me that even at tech levels where grav vehicles are available there will still be use of lower tech solutions for transportation. A city of even tens of thousands, with two air/rafts in every garage, would be a nightmare for traffic control...
In much the way that slug throwers remain an economical means of bumping people off at tech levels where fusion weapons are available, it seems to me that even at tech levels where grav vehicles are available there will still be use of lower tech solutions for transportation. A city of even tens of thousands, with two air/rafts in every garage, would be a nightmare for traffic control...
It makes me wonder how it is possible to design a grav vehicle that costs Cr275,000 when it's possible to make one that only costs Cr7240.
Sure, the capabilities of the two variants are different. But are they really different enough to explain a cost difference of a factor 38?
Here's the original specifications for the air/raft:
"...the air/raft relies on solid state null gravity modules for lift and propulsion. Four independent, individually replacable modules (CR 100,000[1] each) insure [sic] a maximum of safety. Loss of one module reduces lift by one-quarter. The standard air/raft weighs 4 tons and can carry a payload of up to 4 tons including pilot and passengers. Cruise speed is 100 km per hour with unlimited range and endurance[2]. Normally, air/rafts are open topped; the referee may allow a pressurized one or such options as gun mounts, searchlights, crash cushions or larger capacities at higher prices."
[1] TL8 price; The TL15 cost would be around Cr46,000.
[2] Later revised to ten weeks duration.
[2] Later revised to ten weeks duration.
Hans
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
The analogy of HMMWV vs Jeep has been used.
The jeep was listed as a 1/4 ton scout car. Yep... driver, 1 passenger, and 500 lb (227kg) of cargo (or driver, 3 passengers, and ~200 lb {90kg} of cargo).
Yes, it could physically carry more, but the above spec is what it was designed for.
The Air/raft carries twice the passengers and 16 times the weight of cargo.
I think that a 1-2 day endurance, 5,000' agl*, 150km/hr, 2-4 passenger light vehicle similar to a jeep or a Honda Civic just might be cheap enough to qualify as "ubiquitous".
* above ground level
The jeep was listed as a 1/4 ton scout car. Yep... driver, 1 passenger, and 500 lb (227kg) of cargo (or driver, 3 passengers, and ~200 lb {90kg} of cargo).
Yes, it could physically carry more, but the above spec is what it was designed for.
The Air/raft carries twice the passengers and 16 times the weight of cargo.
I think that a 1-2 day endurance, 5,000' agl*, 150km/hr, 2-4 passenger light vehicle similar to a jeep or a Honda Civic just might be cheap enough to qualify as "ubiquitous".
* above ground level
Last edited:
Easily...
"...the air/raft relies on solid state null gravity modules for lift and propulsion. Four independent, individually replacable modules (CR 100,000[1] each) insure [sic] a maximum of safety. Loss of one module reduces lift by one-quarter. The standard air/raft weighs 4 tons and can carry a payload of up to 4 tons including pilot and passengers. Cruise speed is 100 km per hour with unlimited range and endurance[2].
[2] Later revised to ten weeks duration.
[/INDENT][2] Later revised to ten weeks duration.
[1] Those modules costs are neither striker nor MT compatible... much cheaper in MT... but see also the design for pricing reasons...
Note also: MT designs can not use gravitic locomotion until TL9.
__MW__ __KL__ _Wt_Mg ____Cr _Notes
_0.000 27.000 _0.193 ___881 USP2 Config=4USL AV1D
_0.888 _0.178 _0.356 _17760 8.88TT Std Grav
_0.040 _0.400 _0.200 _11000 Avionics-9 NOE=130
_0.004 _0.008 _0.004 _30000 RadioComm-9-Planetary
_0.001 _0.002 _0.001 _30000 AdvImageEnh Sensors
_0.001 _0.002 _0.001 _15000 All Wx Radar-9-Dist
_0.001 _0.500 _0.100 _60000 Model 0 comp CPx5
_0.002 _1.000 _0.200 100000 Model 0/fib comp CPx5
+0.938 _0.700 _2.800 140000 0.7kL 938kW Fusion-9 0.0021kL/H
_0.000 _3.528 _0.247 _____0 Fuel=10wks
_0.005 _0.020 _0.010 __3500 CompLink Panels x10 = 7CP
_0.000 16.000 _0.080 ___400 Seats=Roomy x4
_0.000 _0.000 _0.600 _____0 Occupants=4 @ 150kg
_0.000 _4.000 _4.000 _____0 Cargo=4Tm
_0.000 _0.662 _0.000 _____0 extra cabin space (Waste Space)
====== ====== ====== ====== ============================
_0.009 0.0000 _8.792 408541 1.01G at max rated load, 1.9G driver only
Note the big hurts on price:
- The semi-requirement for twin computers for flying vehicles using a computer.
- Dropping to a pair of Model 0's instead of a Model 0/fib and a model 0, saves KCr40.
- Dropping to just a Model 0/fib is a KCr60 savings;
- going to just a single Model 0 is KCr100 savings.
- The Fusion PP. (note that a slightly larger plant, +51L, would have 55% more power output...)
- The Active Image Enhancement Visual Sensor (KCr30). Not needed, but useful for military use and civil night use, and fun for civilian day use.
- The Radar can be chopped by KCr5 by dropping the All-Weather functionality.
Listing the passengers at 150 kg means adventurers with gear are unlikely to cut your cargo tonnage; 150kg is well above the 95th percentile... (Which said line peaks at about 116kg) (source)
But that's a very real problem then, because MGT has such an air/raft that costs Cr275,000. Which means that those MT rules are incompatible with the current paradigm. If you can't make a plausible Cr275,000 air/raft using the MT rules, then the MT rules are not a good basis for figuring out how things "really" are in the OTU (In its current state).
I must say that that's a retcon that I'd welcome, seeing as we're nowhere near anti-gravity on Earth today (as we supposedly edge into TL8). But it would be a retcon and therefore needs to be explicitly stated by TPTB in the current set of rules/current setting material.
I'm afraid I have difficulty making heads or tails of your technical specs. But I do appreciate the trouble you've taken. Perhaps if I take another look at them tomorrow.
Hans
And it gets even funner with T5, where there are several types of craft that could be labelled "air/raft". The one closest to MGT might be the 4t enclosed Lift Explorer Van, at Cr 280,000.
At the same time, there's a 1-ton, no-frills, open lift car for Cr 26,600.
Last edited:
Hans, there is a REASON I'm showing the math... and it's obvious from your response you are NOT looking at the spreadsheet, just at the bottom line.
By the way, your quote implies each of the 4 modules is KCr100... which is in error; even all 4 is bogus by striker and MT. CT Bk3 gravitics are a non-system.. they're SWAGs, not based upon a design sequence. It's a flaw of CT that the designs therein were never retrofit to the prices of a striker design.
The basic requirements are to fit in a 4 ton bay, carry 4 metric tons AND 4 crew, and mass ~4 metric tons fueled but unladen.
the problem isn't the gravitics - if you look, the 8.88 TT thrust is essential to get the needed performance. That's cheap... It's the computers that do the cost. Zipyank the 0/fib, and the enhanced vision, and convert the radar to standard, and you get right about KCr274.
But you asked if there is justification for 32x the cost, and I showed you a reasonable performance match high-bid with few extra features (but one big error... I need to up the PP just a bit. It's over by small bit... 4kw. (I forgot to recalc after adding the control panels. I'm doing it the old fashioned way... calculator.)
Corrected, and with the KCr275.5 raw cost budget version. Both should get a 10% standard design discount, and IMTU, they will.
Fully Kitted Explorer Edition
__MW__ __KL__ _Wt_Mg ____Cr _Notes
_0.000 27.000 _0.193 ___881 USP2 Config=4USL AV1D
_0.888 _0.178 _0.356 _17760 8.88TT Std Grav
_0.040 _0.400 _0.200 _11000 Avionics-9 NOE=130
_0.004 _0.008 _0.004 _30000 RadioComm-9-Planetary
_0.001 _0.002 _0.001 _30000 AdvImageEnh Sensors
_0.001 _0.002 _0.001 _15000 All Wx Radar-9-Dist
_0.001 _0.500 _0.100 _60000 Model 0 comp CPx5
_0.002 _1.000 _0.200 100000 Model 0/fib comp CPx5
+0.951 _0.710 _2.840 142000 0.71kL 938kW Fusion-9 0.00213kL/H
_0.000 _3.579 _0.251 _____0 Fuel=10wks
_0.005 _0.020 _0.010 __3500 CompLink Panels x10 = 7CP
_0.000 16.000 _0.080 ___400 Seats=Roomy x4
_0.000 _0.000 _0.600 _____0 Occupants=4 @ 150kg
_0.000 _4.601 _4.000 _____0 Cargo=4Tm
====== ====== ====== ====== ============================
_0.009 0.0000 _8.836 410541 1.004G at max load
Budget Edition
__MW__ __KL__ _Wt_Mg ____Cr _Notes
_0.000 27.000 _0.193 ___881 USP2 Config=4USL AV1D
_0.888 _0.178 _0.356 _17760 8.88TT Std Grav
_0.040 _0.400 _0.200 _11000 Avionics-9 NOE=130
_0.004 _0.008 _0.004 _30000 RadioComm-9-Planetary
_0.001 _0.002 _0.001 _10000 Radar-9-Dist
_0.001 _0.500 _0.100 _60000 Model 0 comp CPx5
+0.951 _0.710 _2.840 142000 0.71kL 938kW Fusion-9 0.00213kL/H
_0.000 _3.579 _0.251 _____0 Fuel=10wks
_0.005 _0.020 _0.010 __3500 CompLink Panels x10 = 7CP
_0.000 16.000 _0.080 ___400 Seats=Roomy x4
_0.000 _0.000 _0.600 _____0 Occupants=4 @ 150kg
_0.000 _5.603 _4.000 _____0 Cargo=4Tm
====== ====== ====== ====== ============================
_0.012 0.0000 _8.635 275541 1.028G at max load
Edit: I can knock a few hundred Cr off the budget more; it needs only 8 panels, not 10.
Last edited:
shadowdragon
SOC-12
Where in that article does it say TDX is made from gravitronic engine nodules? I read that as gravitationally polarized explosive. Were the grav nodes to put out a "disk" of force, they would be used for plowing fields rather than motivating vehicles about. A grav node modifies gravitational gradients in an extremely localized area (by beating up the weak force while sucking up to the strong force :devil
rather than exerting a "force" (imtu at least), otherwise ground pressure at low altitude would have to be taken into account and IIRC that hasn't been done in any version of Traveller(tm).just my cr.02
Shadowdragon
Rigel Stardin
SOC-13
Shadowdragon:
TDX is a gravitronic explosive.
I stated in a later post, in my universe there was a chance that if a grav nodule went critical there could be explosion which I based on TDX.
It also stands to reason, TDX is a byproduct of grav tech. Either found by accident or on purpose. That's the way scientific discoveries are sometime made. It could explain why in CT they were a different price from MT as well. To prohibit people from buying them because of this defect.
There is no way to guess the intend of the person who wrote the TDX article, but I looked at the article I asked myself, why create an explosive from a field of science that might be used in everyday life of a character unless they were going to explain something that might happen during the game?
To put another way: A car's gas tank is leaking, we know what happen if a spark or flame touches the puddle of gas. The same could be said about Grav Tech and TDX...
TDX is a gravitronic explosive.
I stated in a later post, in my universe there was a chance that if a grav nodule went critical there could be explosion which I based on TDX.
It also stands to reason, TDX is a byproduct of grav tech. Either found by accident or on purpose. That's the way scientific discoveries are sometime made. It could explain why in CT they were a different price from MT as well. To prohibit people from buying them because of this defect.
There is no way to guess the intend of the person who wrote the TDX article, but I looked at the article I asked myself, why create an explosive from a field of science that might be used in everyday life of a character unless they were going to explain something that might happen during the game?
To put another way: A car's gas tank is leaking, we know what happen if a spark or flame touches the puddle of gas. The same could be said about Grav Tech and TDX...
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
It'll catch fire.
