CT Only: Inertial Compensation

[infojunky]

Manuver drives, if the iterations of CT's ship construction Inertial Compensation is part and parcel of that installation.

As part of the driscription in Book5 thrust is limited by compensation.

In a lot of ways it makes more sense to have Inertial Compensation as part of the hull calculations. In that you can have oversized drives, but use beyound the hull's compensation limit requires the crew to strap in. Also over-stressing the the hull can lead to adventure causing complications as well.

Book5 change for this is Manuver number precentage turns into 2% per drive number for thrust. While Compensation as part of the hull is total thrust (Gs) compensated minus one equels the persentage required as part of the hull.

i.e.

• m1 = 0%
• m2 = 1%
• m3 = 2%
• Etc... ect.

Net result is no change in total volume required in the Book5 system. Book2 requires a little more work though.

Comments?

Side note MT half assedly does the above, while it part of TNE.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's below the level of CT ship design detail level.

If we want to bother with such small details, we can use MT or FFS?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To be more positive:
If we want more options and more detail, go look at MgT. In there you'll find many more options that will make a difference to the players, options for payload, such as different types of staterooms, workshops, small bridges and large bridges, autodocs, med bays, grappling arms, cargo handling equipment, hydroponics, towing cables, etc, etc. It's even simply presented and simply implemented.

Just having "staterooms" and "cargo" is a bit lacking, look at the Safari Ship.

 

[Condottiere]

Still somewhat clueless as to how inertial compensation works.

We do now know the primary source, though, as it originates from the manoeuvre drive and counterbalances thrust.

 

[mike wightman]

Inertial compensators are built into decks along with grav plates and offered acceleration compensation even when the m-drive was a fusion drive.

 

[Condottiere]

I think it should be possible to isolate the feature, and install it separately.

 

[mike wightman]

It is mentioned as a separate feature in S7 T&G, and some design systems have it as a separate system too.

As to how it works? Not a clue.

 

[Dragoner]

It's magic. *waves hand (now I'm thinking of Masterpiece's Press)

 

[Tobias]

I think it should be possible to isolate the feature, and install it separately.

The more interesting option would be not to install it. Or to install less than you'd normally have. For example, because your crew are all robots (Hiver gunboat?) With the idea that you could save some percentage of the maneuver drive by doing so, that would make for a viable design decision.

Of course, we'd need rules for robot crews first...

 

[mike wightman]

There are so many different sets of rules you could use for your robot crew:
CT - JTAS article, LBB:8
MT - MT Robots
GT - GURPS Robots
MgT - Robots
T5

The sensible thing is to make the entire ship the "robot"...

 

[Grav_Moped]

It is mentioned as a separate feature in S7 T&G, and some design systems have it as a separate system too.

As to how it works? Not a clue.

My best guess is repurposed artificial gravity, able to pull in arbitrary directions and respond quickly.

 

[Condottiere]

Almost everything in Traveller is based on gravitational technology.

I tend to believe it's a field effect.

 

[Tobias]

There are so many different sets of rules you could use for your robot crew:
CT - JTAS article, LBB:8
MT - MT Robots
GT - GURPS Robots
MgT - Robots
T5

Building the robots is not the issue, but having rules on which percentage of the crew they can replace at which capacity etc.
K'kree and Zhodani would probably (for different reasons) use robots to replace large chunks of maintenance and engineering crews, while Hivers (at least under Book 8 canon) could replace entire crews with robots. For them, as you say, a warship would be a robot, and the mobile maintenance and engineering drones would be parts of it.

 

[infojunky]

It's below the level of CT ship design detail level.

If we want to bother with such small details, we can use MT or FFS?

Not going to argue that, just pointing out a detail.

It's in the same category as detailing life support.

And honestly MT is just High Guard for the most part.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

As to how it works? Not a clue.

It's presumably artificial gravity, just in another direction.

Gravity is acceleration, just set up an artificial gravity field in the opposite direction of the perceived inertial acceleration and you have inertial compensation.

If you have artificial gravity, inertial compensation is trivial.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

And honestly MT is just High Guard for the most part.

Agreed, but with a lot of small details that don't really matter, but still have to be specified and calculated.

 

[mike wightman]

I don't think it is the same as artificial gravity.
In any case saying if you can do magic a different spell is no problem doesn't actually explain it.

I can take a stab at explaining gravitics, but not how you can explain inertial compensators which cancel all lateral 'forces' - a ship with a 6g engine could be pulling tens if not hundreds of 'g's in a turn. At least not without resorting to warp bubbles and possibly tachyonic fields.

So how do you generate artificial gravity?
What's the difference between the null grav modules of grav vehicles and the artificial gravity of grav plates?
Since grav plates and acceleration compensation are separate systems in what way are they different?
Why is there no acceleration compensation in the Striker design sequence?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

In any case saying if you can do magic a different spell is no problem doesn't actually explain it.

Yes, essentially, except it's the same spell in a different direction.

So how do you generate artificial gravity?

I have absolutely no idea whatsoever. It's just as magical as jump drives.

We artificially curve space-time?

What's the difference between the null grav modules of grav vehicles and the artificial gravity of grav plates?

According to MT it's the same thing, a grav module can either "push" or "pull", presumably create either a positive or negative grav field.

Since grav plates and acceleration compensation are separate systems in what way are they different?

"Grav plates" only work in one direction, "inertial compensation" varies in direction and strength, otherwise its the same thing.

I mean something like this, in the simplest case:

Drive thrust accelerates the ship right, the occupant perceives an acceleration left as the ship accelerates away from him.
"Artificial gravity" grav plates creates a gravity field that accelerates the occupant down, perceived as normal gravity.
"Inertial compensator" grav plates creates a gravity field right that accelerates the occupant right at the same rate and direction as the ship, so the occupant perceive no relative motion.
If we can do red, we can just as well do green, it's exactly the same thing.

LBB5 says:

LBB5'81, p17:
Tech level requirements for maneuver drives are imposed to cover the grav plates integral to most ship decks, and which allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal.

"Inertial compensators" is grav plates.

Why is there no acceleration compensation in the Striker design sequence?

No idea.

I can take a stab at explaining gravitics, but not how you can explain inertial compensators which cancel all lateral 'forces' - a ship with a 6g engine could be pulling tens if not hundreds of 'g's in a turn.

A turn is accelerating sideways, a 6 G ship can only accelerate by 6 G, so only turn by 6 G.

If you mean rotate the ship to point the drive in another direction, we have no idea how fast ships can do that, but it's a much more complicated case as we have to create a curved gravity field to accelerate occupants with the ship, i.e. compensate for inertia.

 

[infojunky]

"Grav plates" only work in one direction, "inertial compensation" varies in direction and strength, otherwise its the same thing.

Ok, you are over thinking it. Internal Compensation only has to realistically operate in one direction, which is to counteract the main axis of thrust. while there may be a amount of force felt when rotating into another angle of thrust that is minuscule compared to the main line of thrust. Remember there are no aerodynamic forces acting in vacuum, thus a turn doesn't have a changing angle of felt "gravity". Note this means a solid hit is still going to show you around as it introduces an additional force arrow, but that is transitory at best.

Also note that Artificial Gravity will tend to dampen those extraneous induced vectors as it provides an additional consistent felt vector outside of the compensated line of thrust.

If this helps do the force diagram for just the inertial compensation, which zeros out the forces felt from what it is compensating. Then do the an additional force diagram from that zero state, doing them together makes it confusing.

IMHO, Inertial Compensation is just Artificial Gravity that is coupled to the drives main axis of thrust. While additional Anti Gravity is installed to simulate whatever is the consensus direction of Down. Transitory forces can still affect you, but you need to look at their magnitude or the amount of perceived effect.

Please not it isn't out of the concept to provide compensation of perceived rotational forces as well, in the term of rotating the ship to a new facing, but those forces will be less than the main axis of thrust mostly.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Ok, you are over thinking it. Internal Compensation only has to realistically operate in one direction, which is to counteract the main axis of thrust. while there may be a amount of force felt when rotating into another angle of thrust that is minuscule compared to the main line of thrust.

That depends entirely on how fast we rotate the ship... For a civilian ship we have little reason to rotate fast, but a military ship may want to accelerate erratically in small increments to be difficult to pinpoint ("agility"), so may want to rotate quickly?

And according to MT we can vector the thrust, so the axis of thrust is variable, but that isn't defined in CT.