Inertial Compensators

[Grav_Moped]

...
Your sensors could be blind, comms compromised, weapons systems on lock down. You have to climb out of the gravity well, etc.
...

True, which is what led me down my particular rabbit hole.

My table occasionally likes some game mechanics to hang their actions on, since we don’t actually live in the 57th Century. The ones we’ve come up, some of which I noted above, make them happy and give us a verisimilitude lacking in the RAW.

Depending on range (for combat-capable ships, not 1G traders), the "climb out of the gravity well" bit is going to drop agility by a point or three, while attackers from beyond high orbit (or equivalent altitude) won't be quite so impaired. Also, missiles are going to waste a bit of delta-v getting up and out.

 

[whartung]

One of the best visualizations of Gas Giant skimming would be the aero braking scene in 2010, which is, essentially, Gas Giant skimming.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But that makes me want to build gravitic engines out of inertial dampers. If the average ACS M-Drive needs 20-40 Power for its Thrust rating, a few points of Power to counteract that is an order of magnitude better.

There's a vast difference of scale: The M-drive pushes a few thousand tonnes of ship, the inertial compensator pulls a few tonnes of people etc.

 

[Grav_Moped]

There's a vast difference of scale: The M-drive pushes a few thousand tonnes of ship, the inertial compensator pulls a few tonnes of people etc.

And a few thousand tons of drives, machinery, fuel tankage, furniture...

 

[Condottiere]

A ball point pen becomes a missile, a Ming vase a fragmentation grenade, and a twenty foot container a bettering ram.

Of course, if the drives get loose from their mountings ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

A ball point pen becomes a missile, a Ming vase a fragmentation grenade, and a twenty foot container a bettering ram.

Of course, if the drives get loose from their mountings ...

True, but my point is that it can't be selective enough to just keep the humans from getting flung around (or, worst case, just their coffee mugs even when the camera tilts and everybody has to lurch sideways). Since it's imprecise, if it affects the space between the drives in the engine room, it's also affects the drives. If it affects the living space, it affects the furniture and at least part of the inter-deck volume.

 

[aramis]

Inertial Compensators seem to exist on a traveller ship.

How much of the ships acceleration do they counter?

If you don't offset all the acceleration, how much energy does the ship save?

In the editions which separate them from the maneuver, IIRC, TL-9 G's. But I don't have FF&S on this computer to check.

 

[Condottiere]

1. It has to be all or nothing.

2. Point of contention appears to be where the field originates, from the drives or from the gravitational plating. Could be both.

3. My curiosity is how far it scales and if that is dependent on technological level.

 

[mike wightman]

It is a separate system to the grav plates and the maneuver drive. They must be interfaced with both I would imagine, but the ship design systems that include them as components have them as separate systems.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It is a separate system to the grav plates and the maneuver drive.

In MT, yes, but not in TNE, T4, or Gurps where artificial gravity and compensators are one single component.

Even in LBB5 it is the same thing: "the grav plates integral to most ship decks, and which allow high-G maneuvers while interior G-fields remain normal".


In MT, I would interpret it as just more of the same, compared to artificial gravity. Artificial gravity creates a static field perpendicular to the decks. "Inertial compensators" expands that to create a variable field that can change direction quickly, hence counteract perceived forces due to acceleration. Yet, somehow, you can install compensators without artificial gravity...

As FFS explains:

Artificial gravity G compensators create an artificial gravity field in direct opposition to the axis of acceleration, thus negating the acceleration (up to the limit of the artificial gravity field).

It is always the same technology.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

2. Point of contention appears to be where the field originates, from the drives or from the gravitational plating. Could be both.

No contention; Before T5 it was the grav plating, in T5 it's included in any gravitic drive, but unspecified how. It could still be grav plating, just budgeted together with the drive.


This seems to hint that it is actually a separate component:

Compensators. Integral to Maneuver Drives, Gravitic Drives, and Lifters is an inertial compensation component which counteracts the effects of acceleration on occupants of the ship.

Note that ships generally have artificial gravity in T5, but it is not specified as a separate component:

Gravity. ... Most hulls have artificial gravity in the floor plates that ...
Momentum. Inertia. The effects of inertia remain. Acceleration produces felt effects. Most hulls have inertial compensators which counteract the effect.

 

[mike wightman]

They are specified as a separate component in many CT sources:

Gravity: Most ships have grav plates built into the deck flooring. These plates
provide a constant artificial gravity field of 1 G. Acceleration compensators are also
usually installed, to negate the effects of high acceleration and lateral G forces
while maneuvering.

There are ships that have grav plates but lack acceleration compensation, it does however appear be a component that is added to grav plates rather than a completely stand alone system.

 

[Fovean]

So then it seems CT/MgT provide inertial compensation as part of the hull while T5 includes it as part of the gravity drive system.

I note that neither T5 nor MgT discuss inertial compensation for non-gravity drives (rockets and HePlaR in T5, High-Burn Thrusters in MgT). Both have an implied out that is not really explored (Orion drives in T5 and non-gravity hulls in MgT).

I think I’ve come full circle and will continue to link compensation to the gravity drive system, distributed through a series of plates in the deck flooring. This will give me a Power requirement and a cost, which I can then break out as a separate component if need be.

This can also apply to vehicles such as air/rafts and G-Carriers.

 

[Condottiere]

Not an expert on vehicle design, but aren't some dirtside weapon platforms equipped with inertial compensators?

 

[Fovean]

Not an expert on vehicle design, but aren't some dirtside weapon platforms equipped with inertial compensators?

I would think so but I never play with the big Mercenary-style weapons. It would make sense for things like VRF Gauss Guns and so forth. Battle Dress as well.

Hm. Do the XYZ Guns require compensation or are they considered recoilless?

 

[Jetrock]

I would think so but I never play with the big Mercenary-style weapons. It would make sense for things like VRF Gauss Guns and so forth. Battle Dress as well.

Hm. Do the XYZ Guns require compensation or are they considered recoilless?

Fusion XYZ guns (and Plasma ABC guns) in LBB4 are vehicle-mounted weapons that most definitely have recoil (apologies if you're referring to other weapons.) VRF Gauss Guns weight a couple thousand kilograms so even with grav compensation they'd be difficult to impossible to manpack even with battledress (commonly mounted on a Gcarrier or grav sled, even an air/raft would be a high comedy option similar to mounting an M2HB pintle on a jeep) and of course the PGMP-14/FGMP-15 require compensation to use without battledress.