Jumps, Time to Orbit, to 10D and 100D

[kafka47]

One point that also needs to be stressed. All those points that one sees on any Traveller official map does not represent the totality of Chartered Space. There are still objects and possibly star systems that have not been mapped 3I Scouts.

Just as when you look at a road map, you will see all the little and big dots representing cities, lakes, oceans but never see the microscopic detail of hills or valleys or unexpected dangers. And, this counting sophiscated maps using the USGS. However, I assure you when you go to less civilized places, say, like Eastern Europe, especially using an old map made in the Communist era, it can make for some interesting adventuring...

So, always keep in mind Van Gough's quotation correlating stars and maps points in France. When you either look up at the night's sky or look with your feet firmly planted on the ground.

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Kafka47:
Just as when you look at a road map, you will see all the little and big dots representing cities, lakes, oceans but never see the microscopic detail of hills or valleys or unexpected dangers.

Topographical Map?
Orthophotos?

However, I assure you when you go to less civilized places, say, like Eastern Europe, especially using an old map made in the Communist era, it can make for some interesting adventuring...

Like adventuring in the border areas around the Marches and getting stuck with inaccurate old Imperial Maps which were produced to help confuse the Mindbenders next door....

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi,

is it possible for somebody to cite the central part of the GURPS stuff, where the straightness of jump plot lines is mentioned (without hurting anybodies copyrights, I hope..)?

I really would like to know, what was written about this topic....

Best regards,

Mert

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi Thrash,

thanks for the hint

Guess thats the reason, why I always interpretated MWMs 2. point just as an example (because of the "if"-clause) and not as a dogma

Is that all, or is also something mentioned in a GURPS product ?

Regards,

Mert

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Lionel Deffries:
Hello.
My take on jumping into empty hexs -

Empty hex jumping is canonical. Has been since "The Traveller Adventure" where demountable tankage is put into the party's ship to enable then to take a J1 craft off the mains, and to Psaydi.

 

[Badbru]

Thanks all for the clarification on jumping into empty hexes. I don't own "The Traveller adventure"
hence my confusion. So given that it can be done but an empty hex represents umm 3.26 light years?
Does anyone have simple rules regarding how two ships would "rendevous" (is there a spell checker on posts?)in an empty hex. It seems to me that it's an awfully big area to find another ship in.

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by thrash:
Not me: Marc Miller. I just work here.

"2. SO, if you plot a jump in a straight line from here to there, and between here and there there happens to be an object of sufficient size, then you aren't going to go all the way. You'll precipitate out of jump when you hit the 100D limit...

"4. Sometimes there is an uncharted or unexpected thing in the way (big ship, planetoid, whatever. That would make you precipitate out. BTW, this implies that there is a one-to-one mapping between jump space and real space."

Marc Miller, private correspondence, 28 December 1998.

Everyone including MWM: Please, please, ignore point #4!

If one were trying to intercept a starship in transit, prediction the starship's course to an accuracy of 100D (of whatever object you use as a snare) is too small to be considered. You don't have FTL communication in OTU, so you'd be guessing at both the originating and destination jump points, as well as the timing of the jump.

Perhaps if the navigator thoughtfully gave you his jump data one week ahead of time it would make things easier... then it would be an inside job and that's going to alot of trouble for a small chance to intercept a ship. You get better odds with the lottery.

The idea of randomly bumping into an uncharted interstellar body is even more absurd. Jump shadow for a medium size star subtends about 2 seconds at one parsec. The largest dark object will be an order of magnitude smaller, and an average rogue (still a very rare object) far smaller than that. Perhaps if someone thoughtfully nudged a planetoid near the midpoint of the direct line of sight between two neighboring stars the probability of hitting the 100D shadow would be worth calculating... but again, that is absurd.

Every star system with planets is surrounded by an Oort cloud, billions of comet-like bodies cast off during planet formation. The Oort cloud is omnidirectional and extends as far as 10,000 au or more. With better data on Oort population the probability of tripping over somebody's 100D shadow on the way in or out could be determined.

I'm going to lay a bet ahead of time: the probability is too small to consider except as an insurance actuary.

Random encounters in deep space are nothing but bad scifi plot devices. We're all trying to keep Traveller out of the "bad scifi" category.

Aren't we?

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi !

Hitting something on the jump path ?
Guess its not absurd.
Regarding Earths actual surroundings hitting something when jumping out-system may be unlikely.

Other planetary systems may/will look different.
Another mass distribution could raise chances to hit something.
It might even make undisturbed in-outsystem jumps unlikely.

I would like to remind that astronomers are still looking for a huge amount of "dark" matter loctated somewhere "in-between"....

Actively intercepting ships in jump ?
That sounds more absurd to me

Regards,

Mert
Complex jump plot priest

 

[Whipsnade]

Badbru wrote:

"Thanks all for the clarification on jumping into empty hexes. I don't own "The Traveller adventure" hence my confusion. So given that it can be done but an empty hex represents umm 3.26 light years? Does anyone have simple rules regarding how two ships would "rendevous" (is there a spell checker on posts?)in an empty hex. It seems to me that it's an awfully big area to find another ship in."


Gentlemen,

Sweet Sufferin' Santanocheev! Yeah, an 'empty' hex is 3.26 light-years across. Guess what? A hex with a stellar system in it is 3.26 light years across too and your navigator still doesn't have any trouble 'finding' the planet, moon, or asteroid you're jumping to in all that space either. Sheesh!

Jump drive has a physical accuracy of 3000km per parsec jumped. That's how ships 'find' one another in 'empty' 3.26 light-year wide hexes. It's how ships 'find' Regina, Mora, Sylea, Earth, and every other planet, moon, and asteroid in Chartered Space in 'full' 3.26 light-year wide hexes too.

If you want to use mass precipitation rules IYTU, go right ahead. If you want to ignore jump masking and jump shadows IYTU, be my guest. Do whatever you want to do because it is Your Traveller Universe. If it is fun, DO IT. That's all that matters.

Just do the rest of us a favor and quit trying to 'prove' that the OTU's rules regarding mass precipitation (It isn't necessary), jump masking (It exists), and jump shadows (It exists too) don't work. They do, they are canon, and -remember - you don't need to use them if you don't want to.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Straybow]

One hundred diameters - some are more equal than others?

What do we "hit" at 100D? Let us, for a moment, consider the practicality of the 100D rule. It has one selling point: it is easy to use. A simple rule is welcome in a game where some people think we should design starships down to the high-g cupholders on the bridge.

Now let us consider what the 100D rule actually means. At no point may a jump path touch a sphere 100D out from the center of mass any star, planet, asteroid, comet, or similarly massive body. No lower limit of object size is specified, but any object an order of magnitude smaller than the ship itself would probably be ignored. The interaction proposed is gravitational, since most massive objects have no significant net electro-potential charge, nor do many have a magnetic field.

The first thing one should notice is that gravity is an inverse-distance-squared moderated force, while the rule is governed by inverse distance (unsquared). So immediately we see that not all 100D limits are equal.

Here in Sol system the 100D mask for Earth is 1.27M km. Jupiter is 318 times more massive than Earth, so the distance out to the same gravitational potential is sqrt(318)·1.27 = 22.6M km. The distance from Sol (335172 Earth-masses) with the same gravitational potential is 735M km, about 40M km shy of Jupiter's orbit.

The superior solution is to specify a gravitational potential rather than a distance. This would mean rolling or assigning mass to each significant body, which becomes a load of additional work. Then one has to choose the limiting potential, and balance the over-shadowing caused by the mass of stars against the under-shadowing of tiny dust-specks like Earth.

On the other hand, a rule of thumb could be invoked: 10D for planetoids (bodies under 1000km, too small to assume a spherical shape under their own gravity), 30D for planets, and 100D for stars.

But that initial question remains: what do we "hit" at whatever limit is imposed? Gravity is a smoothly changing curve, as it were. At 101D the gravipotential is only slightly lower than at 100D, and at 99D only slighty higher. Perhaps the stresses induced by jump drive are magnified by gravitation such that steeper wells cause higher stresses in the objects as they pass into j-space and back into n-space.

OK, I can go with a technobabble answer, but it needs to be reflected in the game mechanics of what happens when we break the limits. Gravipotential doubles each time you move 0.707 closer to the shadowing object. If the limit represents statistically safe jumping, then 0.707*limit will only double that minimally accepted danger, and 0.5*limit quadruple, etc. So that statistically small chance of harm needs to be qualified (what kind of harm occurs) and quantified (so that it can be proportionately magnified).

(This nit-picky grognard thanks you for your patience)

 

[Badbru]

Ok sorry LEW for asking what must have seemed like a stupid question. My reasoning was that 3.26 light years of solar system is there, it was there yesterday the day befor etc etc. What's the range of the Hubble telescope? You can see a great honking star from a long way away with limmited sensors and its allways there. Now my understanding of navigation is that you take distance and direction readings from certain "landmarks" you can see, cross correlate them with other landmarks distance and directions and plot your course. So I was asking if one ship was to jump to an empty hex from one system and another ship was to jump to the same empty hex from somewhere else, is there any difficulty, based on there being nothing in the target hex to navigate by, in each deliberately finding each other? Not accidentally bumping into each other or pulling each other out of j space, I know that's next to impossible. Though I tend to agree with your latter part, use what you want don't use what you want it's your game make it fun, I just though I'd ask...I didn't know jump drives had/have a 3000km accurarcy per parsec and your right sailors for eons have been able to sail to exact points in an ocean to meet another vessel there didn't have to be an island in the vacinity.
It was a stupid question its late err early I should go to bed

 

[mike wightman]

You would use fixed reference points, outside our galaxy perhaps, in order to triangulate your rendezvous coordinates. Once there go active with scanners, communications etc to find each other quickly.
The biggest problem isn't being close enough in space it is that you may have to wait two days for the other ship to turn up since its arrival time can vary.
YMMV

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Larsen E. Whipsnade
Just do the rest of us a favor and quit trying to 'prove' that the OTU's rules regarding mass precipitation (It isn't necessary), jump masking (It exists), and jump shadows (It exists too) don't work. They do, they are canon, and -remember - you don't need to use them if you don't want to.

I appreciate your response, but isn't a forum like this exactly for such cross-examination? Just as we want reasonable rules for dealing with bullets and armor, including forms of armor that are only imagined, we want reasonable rules for dealing with the interaction between known science (inverse-distance-squared action of gravity) and imagined science (jump drive).

If something foolish is introduced into OTU then it tends to permeate Traveller materials - books, tables, charts, adventures, etc. We may all have home grown rules that dispose of MWM's jump mechanics piecemeal, but I prefer to minimize the work of pruning and changing things IMTU.

For example, if the changes in GT tend to cause more blocked jumps then ships have a great need for fuel allowing 2 jumps. So either every standard design will soon be sporting drop tanks (and rules for their use become another area where canon can suddenly change) or fuel requirements are cut in half. These changes will domino into changes about ship design in general, etc.

All because somewhere around 5 years ago (or so) MWM listened to somebody (maybe himself) and added something that hadn't been canon for the first 20 years of Traveller. Perhaps the great and wise MWM did not foresee the impact of the change, and perhaps grousing will inspire smaller changes to minimize the impact. Perhaps declaring as canon the probability of bumping into things negligible and difficulty of deliberate interception nearly insurmountable.

I don't think that's too much to ask. Even if it is, this is the place to ask, for those of us who don't have personal communication with MWM.

 

[kaladorn]

1. The idea of the 100D limit as gravitation has been discussed and its weak. For exactly the reasons mentioned - the distance to an equigravipotential surface will vary considerably. Ergo, it may well be some odd property of mass and not in fact of gravity .

2. Alternately, there is some sort of tidal forces argument that works out almost neatly to be 100D for almost all bodies. There are articles on it that have been written and the mathetmatical analysis done and a comparison to the gravitation model. I think Stuff Online had it or Freelance Traveller. I can't provide the link right off the top of my head, but with some work I could find it.
I lied, here's the link

3. Two ships wanting to RV culd broadcast an omnidirectional signal easily detectable from the local background radiation. Of course, the wavefront can only propagate (along with any other occlusion or event wavefront that might be used in detection) at speed of light or less. Hence, if you appear 3.26 ly from another ship, you really might take a while to find them! Even evidence of their arrival, like IR emissions or radio emissions, have propagation issues. Now, it may be that a grav field disruption or the emergence from jump is an FTL phenomena, in which case the seconds ship out can be detected by the first, but not vice versa.

But Larsen is right, you'd use some common reference points ant the J-drive accuracy is pretty good. Close enough you'd be inside 1 LS conceivably, and easily within scanning ranges given a short period of time.

4. Intercepting ships if you have all of the particulars of the jump (origin, destination, course, energy sequence for the grid, timings) and assuming the jump occured on schedule and correctly *shouldn't be that hard* in terms of locating the ship. What might be tough is getting a 'significant mass' there. Even a 'significant virtual mass' for those who like ideas like point singularity generators.

5. I note from MWM's note to thrash that there is nothing in it to prove straight line geometry... point #2 seems to say "if you plot a course in a straight line" (implication: you don't have to) and another point seems to reference a 1 to 1 correspondence between jump space and real space. Note for those paying close attention: a 1-1 mapping merely means that there is a way to uniquely map every point in space #1 into space #2 and vice versa. This does not necessarily mean that the mapping is somehow linear....

(example: Assume we had two small spaces, 3 x 3. One is jump space, the other is realspace. All points in Sr must map into Sj and all points in Sj must map into Sr. But 1,1 in Sr might map to 2,3 in Sj. There is no necessity for the mapping to be linear.

 

[aramis]

Originally posted by Straybow:
I appreciate your response, but isn't a forum like this exactly for such cross-examination?

Not exactly... this forum is more for "How do I use what's there?" and "How do I work around", with the vast offerings of "Here's How I do it" as examples.

The forum for "This is broken, and needs fixing" really is the Traveller5 forum (both here and at Traveller5.com).

Hopefully, MWM is paying attention there. CT isn't being revised. But T5 is in development.

If something foolish is introduced into OTU then it tends to permeate Traveller materials - books, tables, charts, adventures, etc. We may all have home grown rules that dispose of MWM's jump mechanics piecemeal, but I prefer to minimize the work of pruning and changing things IMTU.

For example, if the changes in GT tend to cause more blocked jumps then ships have a great need for fuel allowing 2 jumps. So either every standard design will soon be sporting drop tanks (and rules for their use become another area where canon can suddenly change) or fuel requirements are cut in half. These changes will domino into changes about ship design in general, etc.

All because somewhere around 5 years ago (or so) MWM listened to somebody (maybe himself) and added something that hadn't been canon for the first 20 years of Traveller. Perhaps the great and wise MWM did not foresee the impact of the change, and perhaps grousing will inspire smaller changes to minimize the impact. Perhaps declaring as canon the probability of bumping into things negligible and difficulty of deliberate interception nearly insurmountable.

1) Jump Masking isn't new. MWM wrote an article on it MANY years ago (I was in high school, so more than 16 years ago)

2) GT is variant in more ways than just having masking in the core rules. Yes, it's derived from the OTU. But it varies in many small ways. Essentially, IMHO, it should be thoguht of as "Loren Wiseman's Traveller." It sets neither rules nor OTU setting canon.

3) Masking is (unless the Ref is MAJORLY ANAL-RETENTIVE) just a plot complication for most mainworlds.

4) MWM publicaly rejected requests in public fora to change to a gravity gradient of 0.01G, instead retaining 100 diameters for T4.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi Jump-Space Community !

Originally posted by kaladorn:

...
But Larsen is right, you'd use some common reference points ant the J-drive accuracy is pretty good. Close enough you'd be inside 1 LS conceivably, and easily within scanning ranges given a short period of time.

MWMs Jumpspace article says something about 3000 miles "target area".

4. Intercepting ships if you have all of the particulars of the jump (origin, destination, course, energy sequence for the grid, timings) and assuming the jump occured on schedule and correctly *shouldn't be that hard* in terms of locating the ship. What might be tough is getting a 'significant mass' there. Even a 'significant virtual mass' for those who like ideas like point singularity generators.

Well, perhaps if we really got all the jump stats, we might place a mass so excactly, that even a smaller one could kick something out of jump

But commulated inaccuracys of jump grid control, power supply etc. might disturb this picture, as you might not be able to perfectly reproduce the jump process with your "hardware".
IMTU timing is hard, because the actual jump travel time is just a few milliseconds. The rest of time is spent in jump transition process.
(Thats my way to explain, that a "normal" jump always takes a similar subjective time).

5. I note from MWM's note to thrash that there is nothing in it to prove straight line geometry... point #2 seems to say "if you plot a course in a straight line" (implication: you don't have to)

Great many thanks for this vote !

and another point seems to reference a 1 to 1 correspondence between jump space and real space. Note for those paying close attention: a 1-1 mapping merely means that there is a way to uniquely map every point in space #1 into space #2 and vice versa. This does not necessarily mean that the mapping is somehow linear....

(example: Assume we had two small spaces, 3 x 3. One is jump space, the other is realspace. All points in Sr must map into Sj and all points in Sj must map into Sr. But 1,1 in Sr might map to 2,3 in Sj. There is no necessity for the mapping to be linear.

Yep. Its just a mathamatical projection, which may be pretty simple or awfully complicate

Regards,

Mert

 

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Aramis:
...this forum is more for "How do I use what's there?" and "How do I work around", with the vast offerings of "Here's How I do it" as examples.

Well, I'm responding (belatedly) to something that appears to be MWM hisself saying, "Here's how it is supposed to be used." That's a major step up from one of us nobodies giving an example IMTU.

1) Jump Masking isn't new. MWM wrote an article on it MANY years ago (I was in high school, so more than 16 years ago)

2) GT is variant in more ways than just having masking in the core rules. Yes, it's derived from the OTU. But it varies in many small ways. Essentially, IMHO, it should be thoguht of as "Loren Wiseman's Traveller." It sets neither rules nor OTU setting canon.

3) Masking is (unless the Ref is MAJORLY ANAL-RETENTIVE) just a plot complication for most mainworlds.

4) MWM publicaly rejected requests in public fora to change to a gravity gradient of 0.01G, instead retaining 100 diameters for T4.

To respond point by point (not that I wish to be contrary, but that seems the simplest way of removing a misunderstanding):</font>

1. The MWM quote was not merely Jump Masking, but precipitation "out of jump when you hit the 100D limit" rather than a mere increase of risk inside the 100D boundary.</font>
2. I didn't state my line of reasoning clearly, but I infer that LW put stricter 100D consequences in GT because of MWM's clarification that such is MWM's intent for the newest version of OTU canon. Personal communication between MWM and LW similar to that cited by thrash is a reasonable assumption. I suppose it could be coincidental.</font>
3. The clear implication of a hard 100D precipitation is that mid-course drop-outs should be more common, either in distant reaches of the origination or destination systems, or out in no-man's-land. This is a random intervention mechanism rather than masking by the system primaries: "Sometimes there is an uncharted or unexpected thing in the way..."
   
   That would mean mid-course precipitation is to be another form of trouble added to the normal threat of misjump when rolling for success. I've not studied enough to know one way or the other about GT, or about an inclination for T5.</font>
4. Retaining a "soft" 100D boundary in T4 is not to be compared to the potential establishment of hard 100D precipitation as T5 canon, potentially foreshadowed in GT.
   
   Likewise, setting forth a specific mechanism other than simple grav gradient is far more useful than reaffirming the already-too-vague 100D without explanation.</font>

So, my first Jan 22 post was my alarm at the notion of space opera bumps in the night creeping in to Traveller. Some people might not have realized how cheesy it would be to turn a one-in-a-trillion event into standard fare. I thought I made that clear by saying:

Random encounters in deep space are nothing but bad scifi plot devices. We're all trying to keep Traveller out of the "bad scifi" category.

Aren't we?

I was aware of tidal stress as a more complicated factor in gravitation but hadn't investigated the math/physics involved. I alluded to it in my second Jan 22 post.

Since I hadn't seen anything resembling graduated effects within 100D in GT I expressed my hope for something in canon to pin down what does happen inside 100D, assuming hard precipitation isn't to be canon.

Nice to have something into which one can sink one's mathematical teeth, instead of vague threats about being kicked rudely out of jump space at some imaginary line on star system map. (Thanks for the link, kaladorn!)

 

[Whipsnade]

Mr. Badbru,

Any apologies made in this thread should be mine. I wasn't frothing over your post in particular; indeed, your question was good one, but I was frothing over the continued moaning regarding jump masking. It's been years now; the jump essay was published in 1985 IIRC, and people are still whining.

Mr. Engineer,

Quit playing hair splitting games from some freshman course in Advanced Semantics. Mr. Miller's letter to Mr. Thrash means precisely what is says and nothing more. Mr. Miller used the term if to denote he was outlining an example and not to denote an either/or choice. Your jump course in jump space could be curved, curled, zig-zagged, and everything in between, but when that course is transposed into normal space it appears as a straight line. Period. There is one man who says what canon is and that is exactly what he says occurs. Period.

He will also be the first one to say; Don't use a rule if you don't like. If you don't like jump masking, simply don't use it IYTU. Just quit trying to prove that jump masking is somehow wrong. When fashioning our TUs, we all make modifications to the OTU. It's normal, it's accepted, and you don't need to explain ad nauseum why you do something.


Finally, about 'hitting' a 100D jump limit. Simply put; you can't do it. Jump drive's temporal accuracy; 33.6 hours usually and ~4 hours using the squadron synch rules from DGP/MT, prevents it. Any jump limit is going to move during that period and you cannot predict when you'll come out of jump space accurately enough to 'hit' a limit.

Instead, you split the difference between your earliest possible arrival and your latest possible arrival. A jump limit viewed over 33.6 hours resembles a tube, you 'aim' for an arrival point that is equidistant(1) from either end of that 'tube'. If you precipitate at 184.8 hours, the planet is 'ahead' of you and you'll need to play 'catch up'. If you precipitate at 151.2 hours, you're 'ahead' of the planet and it will 'catch up' to you.

Have fun playing!


Sincerely,
Larsen

1 - By 'equidistant' I do NOT mean half-way. You'll need to account for the normal space vector you'll have upon arrival and the normal space vector of the object exerting the jump limit. Running all of that together along with your gee rating will allow you to calculate the point along that 33.6 hour long 'tube' that you want to arrive at. From that point, reaching all the furthest possible positions of the 'tube' will take you the same amount of time.

 

[TheEngineer]

Mr. Whipsnade,

please relax.
We are just discussing ideas and interpretations here.
As there is still the will to discuss or think about these topics it may still indicate a major gap of consistent information. Otherwise, nobody would talk about it.

As I was "offline" from any Traveller community for about 15 years, and I do only possess CT/MT/TNE stuff (and a bunch of old JTAS, Digest stuff) I`m still just trying to figure out actual status of some major topics, e.g. jumpspace.
The most detailed thing about jumping I have is just MWMs jumpspace article.

I KINDLY asked people here in this board to provide me information about official sources or publipications, where e.g. is defined, that jumps go straight.
And, without "playing hair splitting games" I just articulated my very first interpretation of MWMs jump masking statement kindly provided by member Thrash. But as we agree, it is just an example.
So if You want to be helpful please stop stressing Your arguments with "period", just share the source of the knowledge, that
"...when that course is transposed into normal space it appears as a straight line"

Again. I will not argue about a "jumps are straight" rule. I just would like to know something about its official inclusion in any canonical stuff.

I completely accept masking effects anyway, as this is IMHO a releated consequence of "out-of-jump" percipitation at the gravity well.

So, where is the problem ?

Regards,

Mert

 

[aramis]

Early CT editions and later ave all said tha t you can enter jump from within 100D (at grave risk), but you can not come out of jump within the 100D limit.

MWM's article of around 1985 was in JTAS, and was a clear example of how to apply the 100diameter limit. it implies a mass based link, but never states it.

That stars also generate the 100D limit is in the 1985 article and in (IIRC) TNE and T4. In any case, it is a logical follow on. Said article also mentiosn that for interstellar jumps, it's seldom an issue. Now, for jumping in-system, it can become a MAJOR issue. (I can probably hit Saturn's or Uranus' 100D limits, since they move slowly enough, and have large enough limits.

That the limits is based upon the "Edge of the Gravity Well" (MT IE p93) is a fudge. MWM has refused to convert to gravity gradients. BTW, I forgot to do the math right 100D = 201R, thus 100D should be 1/(200^2) = 1/40000 G...

Annyway, how to implement it IYTU? IMTU, I don't worry about it so long as the Hzone is outside the star's 100D limit. I Ignore it completely, as the relative effects are, well, perfect excuses for jump transition errors. If you're jumping world to world, yes, most inner system worlds will be missed.

(Since I use MT, these are usually pretty minor. In TNE, they range more broadly over "Minor", but one of the worse campaign killers was a Bingo jump which mishapped, and put the nearly fuel-deplete sship 20KAU out from the desination world. They were starving, but still had PP fuel (THanks to the TNE fuel changes). 320 minutes later, they discovered that they were going to be rescued by a collier JUMPING out to them.)

IMTU, I make two diversions from the 1985 article:
1) only the ends are figured. The rest of the plot goes in direction J, rather than XYZT, and bypasses the J0 mass shadows.

2)Jump Exit point is sed by aiming for the midline, and is draged by the mass shadow if the exit point was inside it to begin with, and precipitation occurs on the nearest edge of siad boundary. (This is a result of the TNE "Bingo Jump" mechanics.. )

Complaints about why it should be changed need to go to MWM... cause you're preaching at the choir.