Mechs in Traveller?
- Thread starter slyen2002
- Start date
In T4's weapons book it shows tl15 battledress as being an egg that the pilot curls up in. the line between suit, mech, and tank blurs and is lost at high tech levels.
another issue i think is Travellers dependance on gravitic technology where BT did not have anti grav at all.
but ask yourself.
how much energy does a grav unit for a 100ton tank consume? how fragile is said grav unit? how much routine maintanance and upkeep would a grav unit and its power supply require? more than a combat walker? does this 100 ton grav tank require more or less upkeep than a 100ton mech?
comparisons
can the mech submerge and move under water?
can the mech use cover better?
can the mech be dropped onto a hostile planet from orbit <star ship troopers style, the book>
personally I can see many areas where the mech would do as well as a grav tank, urban, jungle, forests... granted i am talking about a mech that is 5 or 6 meters tall.
As for traveller being hard science... really its no more hard science than BT. both are equally plausable.
another issue i think is Travellers dependance on gravitic technology where BT did not have anti grav at all.
but ask yourself.
how much energy does a grav unit for a 100ton tank consume? how fragile is said grav unit? how much routine maintanance and upkeep would a grav unit and its power supply require? more than a combat walker? does this 100 ton grav tank require more or less upkeep than a 100ton mech?
comparisons
can the mech submerge and move under water?
can the mech use cover better?
can the mech be dropped onto a hostile planet from orbit <star ship troopers style, the book>
personally I can see many areas where the mech would do as well as a grav tank, urban, jungle, forests... granted i am talking about a mech that is 5 or 6 meters tall.
As for traveller being hard science... really its no more hard science than BT. both are equally plausable.
Basing answers upon MT:
That grav tank is JUST AS TOUGH as an equivalent sized tracked or wheeled vehicle, and for that matter, as a walker.
THe grav tank goes far faster than the wheeled, which is somewhat faster than the tracked, whcih is still faster than the walker, assuming same mass to transmission/thrust systems.
All of them can be waterproofed at the same costs.
The Grav tank will have the least fuel duration, as the larger PP eats it up. It will also have a longer range, due to vastly higher speed.
The wheeled and tracked will be about comparable duration; the tracks go slower, but ar slowed less by terrain...
The walker will have the shortest range of the bunch; IIRC, it will have a duration similar to the wheeled and tracked.
The grav tank combines the hunter-killer helo, the tank, and the air-to-ground strike-fighter... it's slower than a dedicated fixed wing, faster than any helicopter, more maneuverable than a fixed wing, and carries a weapon set comparable with lighter MBT's, and is armored as an MBT. it can operate anywhere a tank can, or a helo, or a strike aircraft. And, since the vast majority are total life support capable, underwater, in space, and in harsh weather (cold, heat).
The only advantages a mech MIGHT have are cover... since the walker movement type has no great speed, and is not inherently advantageous over three dimensional non-reaction thrust. (I assume that Gravitic trusters actually accellerate the target planet/star/moon/asteroid/etc as reaction mass...)
That grav tank is JUST AS TOUGH as an equivalent sized tracked or wheeled vehicle, and for that matter, as a walker.
THe grav tank goes far faster than the wheeled, which is somewhat faster than the tracked, whcih is still faster than the walker, assuming same mass to transmission/thrust systems.
All of them can be waterproofed at the same costs.
The Grav tank will have the least fuel duration, as the larger PP eats it up. It will also have a longer range, due to vastly higher speed.
The wheeled and tracked will be about comparable duration; the tracks go slower, but ar slowed less by terrain...
The walker will have the shortest range of the bunch; IIRC, it will have a duration similar to the wheeled and tracked.
The grav tank combines the hunter-killer helo, the tank, and the air-to-ground strike-fighter... it's slower than a dedicated fixed wing, faster than any helicopter, more maneuverable than a fixed wing, and carries a weapon set comparable with lighter MBT's, and is armored as an MBT. it can operate anywhere a tank can, or a helo, or a strike aircraft. And, since the vast majority are total life support capable, underwater, in space, and in harsh weather (cold, heat).
The only advantages a mech MIGHT have are cover... since the walker movement type has no great speed, and is not inherently advantageous over three dimensional non-reaction thrust. (I assume that Gravitic trusters actually accellerate the target planet/star/moon/asteroid/etc as reaction mass...)
I belive in the idea of mechs. They would be the ultimate developement of the Battle Dress concept. Imagine a 1.5 ton vehicle in the form of a Battle Suit that could carry a marine commando from orbit to a planetary surface and then back again into space. Add a modular missile rack on the back for mission specific loadouts,including anti-shipping and anti-grav tank hunting. Use FGMPS in the arms for anti personel work and then possibly shoe horn a small plasma gun into the frame for bigger game. I have experimented with a few designs and they can be quite a creditable threat on any battlefield.
The Idea of legs is to give the unit mobility for its local setting and to move from cover to cover. In reality such a one man unit is going to do power assisted hops or pop ups or fly NOE from point to point. Depending on the type of drive you squeeze into it a battle suit determines how long and far your marine flys through space.
So how to apply a battle suit concept. First they are cheaper than a tank on a two or three for one margin. They bring all the firepower they need to a fight with their integral weapons and a smart missile load out. They have a sensor suite that may not match but will let them compete with any vehicle on the battle field. They have armour that will protect them from any standard infantry weapon - except tac missiles, makeing heavy weapons a worthwhile skill. They can manouver and be deployed as an attack helecopter with the added benefit of being able to run and hide in the trees. All this and only one man.
In a post Civil War period Regency with both man power and fiscal considerations, the developement of such a vehicle seems likely. Again used by elite heavy infantry units(Marine Strike Recon units?) they expand the ability of the infantry to go into battle with a minimal deployment of personnel. They can act as part of a COAC force with the proper load out. As far as the Solomani are conserned, some where such a unit would again show up on a high tech - low pop world or just as a result of weapons research and sales. So in game terms mechs represent a shift of power back to the infantry like the newest generation of infantry carried anti-tank weapons shift power from tanks in the real world. But it has to be remembered that they can't do it all from ground to space. They have their place yet expand the potential of one individual on a three dimensional battlefield. The can and will be defeated by more expensive, environment dedicated weapon systems (i.e. Grav Tanks and or Space fighters). But the fact remains they are cheaper and alow the possibility of multi-mission tasking to an individual accross all possible battlefields.
The Idea of legs is to give the unit mobility for its local setting and to move from cover to cover. In reality such a one man unit is going to do power assisted hops or pop ups or fly NOE from point to point. Depending on the type of drive you squeeze into it a battle suit determines how long and far your marine flys through space.
So how to apply a battle suit concept. First they are cheaper than a tank on a two or three for one margin. They bring all the firepower they need to a fight with their integral weapons and a smart missile load out. They have a sensor suite that may not match but will let them compete with any vehicle on the battle field. They have armour that will protect them from any standard infantry weapon - except tac missiles, makeing heavy weapons a worthwhile skill. They can manouver and be deployed as an attack helecopter with the added benefit of being able to run and hide in the trees. All this and only one man.
In a post Civil War period Regency with both man power and fiscal considerations, the developement of such a vehicle seems likely. Again used by elite heavy infantry units(Marine Strike Recon units?) they expand the ability of the infantry to go into battle with a minimal deployment of personnel. They can act as part of a COAC force with the proper load out. As far as the Solomani are conserned, some where such a unit would again show up on a high tech - low pop world or just as a result of weapons research and sales. So in game terms mechs represent a shift of power back to the infantry like the newest generation of infantry carried anti-tank weapons shift power from tanks in the real world. But it has to be remembered that they can't do it all from ground to space. They have their place yet expand the potential of one individual on a three dimensional battlefield. The can and will be defeated by more expensive, environment dedicated weapon systems (i.e. Grav Tanks and or Space fighters). But the fact remains they are cheaper and alow the possibility of multi-mission tasking to an individual accross all possible battlefields.
Again this is based upon the idea that gravitic tech will be cheap,easy, and does not require some sort of surface latace to function.
secondly, the grav tank does nothing that a cheaper conventional vehicle cant do and in many cases better.
wheeled/tracked tanks are cheaper and provide the same firepower/armor while requiring less maintanance and crew training.
fighters are cheaper and provide better air superiority than a grav tank. require less crew and would be less vulnerable to ground units.
the mech is cheaper has comparable firepower and mobility when used as orbital drop troops. the mech will be able to hide in buildings and forests or mountains.
pretty much though any general would be had at "Cheaper". when i was in the service our company hg had a quote above the door.
"remember, your weapon was made for the lowest bidder"
No, Jamus, it's based upon extant rules materials. As I said in the post you misquoth, based upon MT rules. Which are close enough to physics for this discussion.
And since I decided to check myself, your idea that legs will be tougher must assume 6+ legs...
MT Ref's, page 85-86 states that the inop number si the same fration of the hul inop dp as the locomotion system is of the hull. this is then adjusted (Halved for wheels. x N/5, where N is number of legs for walker) by motive type for wheeled and legged. So, a bipedal mech has 2/5 the DP for locomotion of an otherwise identical tracklayer or grav vehicle.
So... what does this mean combat wise?
In addition to flyby effect (Getting hit by a faster unit doing a strafe before you can bring to bear on said unit), you have most mechs being less than half the toughness for the same volume of propulsion... a major weakness. "Bug Walkers" (6 or 8 leg), acutally are tougher per unit volume of transmission/suspension. (6/6 or 8/5 multiplier to damage capability...)
Now the problem is that the cool factor is for 2-leggers...
The intimidation factor of mecha is definitely a reason to build a few... but not, IMO, valid enough to make them Primary Combat Units. Police units, say, 3-4m tall, with machineguns, stickyfoam launchers, and autogl's, can be seen as a really effective crowd deterrent... small enuough to maneuver well, large enough to have good clearances, and heavy enough to stop almost all small arms... and protect the officer inside from even heavy arms to a point.
Police units have a different need-set from PCU's. Police mechs, for crowd control, at least, need to be able to outpace individuals, protect occupants, take down civilians, even armed ones, and operate in very cluttered close-in environments with little to no environmental damage hazard.
PCU's need heavy armaments, high maneuverability, high speed, and enough armor to achieve the mission, coupled with long enduances.
Envision, if you will, a 2m tall Bug-Walker, say 1x3x1.5m cockpit module, and about a 3m leg reach... outside, it normally walks with a width of about 3-4 m. Indoors, it can get down to probably 2m... it can pop-up the canopy, probably to about 4m high. It can probably walk faaster than a human run at TL11... and if you give it a very low thrust grav module, it can fly. (Limit the grav to just enough to lift, say .1G above local, and it doesn't even fear being lead off cliffs...
Need a reason for non-PCU mecha? look at the costs of gravitics in MT... a walker is FAR cheaper, and far less versatile.
combined modes, like the police bug above, are very valid uses of technlogy for limited purpose: realism says that since the parts themselves are more expensive, using the grav means more parts needed for it. and even that use, the grav might be as much as 1/3 the cost overall...
minimum cost per ton moved is 2000 for std grav, but note that the cost there incleds 40% of the mass being the grav system....
minimmum power:weight of 4 is 0.004MW/ton.. and that means a measly little drive system of Cr2.5 per ton-mass-of-vehicle + Cr150/Kl-of-vehicle. {(625*.004*tonnage)+(1500*.1*KL).}
Grav is expensive. Better (lower mass per ton of thrust) grav modules exponentially raise the cost.
The "Trubo-grav" concetp from Space opera is probably the best overall... gravitic lift, and maybe a little lateral thrust, plus turbofans (either IC or Electrothermal, or fusion exhaust infusion, or fusion collant heating) to provide high-speed reaction thrust cheaply. I've done similar in Striker...
And since I decided to check myself, your idea that legs will be tougher must assume 6+ legs...
MT Ref's, page 85-86 states that the inop number si the same fration of the hul inop dp as the locomotion system is of the hull. this is then adjusted (Halved for wheels. x N/5, where N is number of legs for walker) by motive type for wheeled and legged. So, a bipedal mech has 2/5 the DP for locomotion of an otherwise identical tracklayer or grav vehicle.
So... what does this mean combat wise?
In addition to flyby effect (Getting hit by a faster unit doing a strafe before you can bring to bear on said unit), you have most mechs being less than half the toughness for the same volume of propulsion... a major weakness. "Bug Walkers" (6 or 8 leg), acutally are tougher per unit volume of transmission/suspension. (6/6 or 8/5 multiplier to damage capability...)
Now the problem is that the cool factor is for 2-leggers...
The intimidation factor of mecha is definitely a reason to build a few... but not, IMO, valid enough to make them Primary Combat Units. Police units, say, 3-4m tall, with machineguns, stickyfoam launchers, and autogl's, can be seen as a really effective crowd deterrent... small enuough to maneuver well, large enough to have good clearances, and heavy enough to stop almost all small arms... and protect the officer inside from even heavy arms to a point.
Police units have a different need-set from PCU's. Police mechs, for crowd control, at least, need to be able to outpace individuals, protect occupants, take down civilians, even armed ones, and operate in very cluttered close-in environments with little to no environmental damage hazard.
PCU's need heavy armaments, high maneuverability, high speed, and enough armor to achieve the mission, coupled with long enduances.
Envision, if you will, a 2m tall Bug-Walker, say 1x3x1.5m cockpit module, and about a 3m leg reach... outside, it normally walks with a width of about 3-4 m. Indoors, it can get down to probably 2m... it can pop-up the canopy, probably to about 4m high. It can probably walk faaster than a human run at TL11... and if you give it a very low thrust grav module, it can fly. (Limit the grav to just enough to lift, say .1G above local, and it doesn't even fear being lead off cliffs...
Need a reason for non-PCU mecha? look at the costs of gravitics in MT... a walker is FAR cheaper, and far less versatile.
combined modes, like the police bug above, are very valid uses of technlogy for limited purpose: realism says that since the parts themselves are more expensive, using the grav means more parts needed for it. and even that use, the grav might be as much as 1/3 the cost overall...
minimum cost per ton moved is 2000 for std grav, but note that the cost there incleds 40% of the mass being the grav system....
minimmum power:weight of 4 is 0.004MW/ton.. and that means a measly little drive system of Cr2.5 per ton-mass-of-vehicle + Cr150/Kl-of-vehicle. {(625*.004*tonnage)+(1500*.1*KL).}
Grav is expensive. Better (lower mass per ton of thrust) grav modules exponentially raise the cost.
The "Trubo-grav" concetp from Space opera is probably the best overall... gravitic lift, and maybe a little lateral thrust, plus turbofans (either IC or Electrothermal, or fusion exhaust infusion, or fusion collant heating) to provide high-speed reaction thrust cheaply. I've done similar in Striker...
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
Founding principle of Traveller: Grav tech is cheap. This was true even before means of propulsion were ever worked out.
Lifting cargo to orbit under default Traveller rules is CR5/ton. Lift to orbit with fusion jet/rocket would be about CR5/kg based on Traveller equipment costs. Lift to orbit for 21st cen rocketry is about CR1000/kg.
Lifting cargo to orbit under default Traveller rules is CR5/ton. Lift to orbit with fusion jet/rocket would be about CR5/kg based on Traveller equipment costs. Lift to orbit for 21st cen rocketry is about CR1000/kg.
All good points Aramis.
so what if our mech has grav as a secondary mode of movement as was mentioned earlier in the thread? If the mech has a good radar set it will see the inc strafer well before he himself is detected, and if outfitted with AA missles or lasers will have a reasonable chance of getting the first shot in.
then again maybe i am being overly nastalgic over star ship troopers <the book> and how cool the mobile infantry was in it.
on another note, when a vehicle such as a grav tank is in flight does it also generate gravity for the crew? is the field selective in what it will allow gravity to affect?
__xxx__ crew
[anti grav unit]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~anti grav field.
^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
gravity
so what if our mech has grav as a secondary mode of movement as was mentioned earlier in the thread? If the mech has a good radar set it will see the inc strafer well before he himself is detected, and if outfitted with AA missles or lasers will have a reasonable chance of getting the first shot in.
then again maybe i am being overly nastalgic over star ship troopers <the book> and how cool the mobile infantry was in it.
on another note, when a vehicle such as a grav tank is in flight does it also generate gravity for the crew? is the field selective in what it will allow gravity to affect?
__xxx__ crew
[anti grav unit]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~anti grav field.
^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
gravity
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Yeh, there's also nuclear damper fields, meson screen fields, inertial compensation fields, artificial gravity fields, white globes, proton screens and personal repulsor screens.
Ok, the last one is only available through Ancient technology, but it is in Traveller
Ok, the last one is only available through Ancient technology, but it is in Traveller
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Traveller antigrav, contragrav (and artificial gravity), and thrusters (and inertial dampers) are all related tecnology, but not exactly the same, or perhaps not even treated the same in different rules sets.
Generally the way I do it is like this (iirc and going from memory):
Gravitics is the field of knowledge and skill to understand and work on the various technologies.
Antigrav is the earliest gravitic manipulation and due to size and power requirements fits small vehicle design the best. Generally up to about 10 tons. It works by projecting a gravimetric thrust perpendicular to a ring. The ring may be made to any convienient size and multiples may be used. Antigrav creates a real force that can raise dust, press on objects in its path, and leave tracks of a sort. It also produces a low heat. The force imparted depends on the distance from the ring and the mass being accelerated. Antigrav is characterized by a hum or whine depending on the percentage of available thrust used. In addition to its primary employment as a lift device it can provide directional thrust between the perpendicular and parallel planes of the ring. The thrust range is 100% when perpendicular through about 25% at 45 degrees to zero when perpendicular. Antigrav may be overdriven with care and at risk of failure. The ring is mostly a solid state device with no gross moving parts. Maximum altitude is limited though orbit can be achieved slowly using lift and directional thrust. The most common applications are grav-belts, air-rafts and similar vehicles. There is no inherent inertial compensation or artificial gravity in the use of antigrav technolgy. Antigrav is of no use beyond the zero gee point of a body and its performance drops off with the reduction of local gravity such that it is really only practical within low orbit and only efficient at 0.25 gees or more.
Contragrav (and Artificial Gravity) is generally limited to small craft or larger vessels due to its size, construction and power requirements. Typically the minimum is about 10 tons. Contragrav is a field effect controlled and manipulated by the hull grid and CG keel. The orientation of the field is set when the craft is constructed and determines the vessel's internal gravity plane. Contragrav fields create a special negation of gravity effects for objects within the field while generating an internal artificial gravity plane. The contragrav "shielded" vessel is effectively massless, though it will retain its inertia. Basically it floats. It imparts no mass footprint as long as power is provided. The internal gravity plane may be adjusted between 0 gees and 1 gee at normal levels, or pushed as high as 4 gees by overpowering the system. This effect is gradual, about 1 gee per minute, and affects the entire vessel equally.
Thrusters (and Inertial Dampers) are also limited by construction, size and power to small craft or larger vessels usually of 10 tons or more. Thrusters provide gravitic thrust in a similar fashion to antigrav but they are not limited to operation in a strong natural gravity. Because they are usually employed with a contragrav system they typically face aft and provide the perpendicular thrust in that direction. Like antigrav they can provide thrust through to nearly parallel with the same drop-off and overpower. This allows the typical tail thruster to land parallel by carefully and briefly overpowering the thrusters. Thrusters, like antigrav, produce some noise and pressure. They also produce some heat. A byproduct of thurster use is the inertial damper effect imparted by the same hull field employed by the contragrav. The inertial damper field exactly mirrors the thruster vector so that if all is working correctly no thrust is felt within the field.
Generally the way I do it is like this (iirc and going from memory):
Gravitics is the field of knowledge and skill to understand and work on the various technologies.
Antigrav is the earliest gravitic manipulation and due to size and power requirements fits small vehicle design the best. Generally up to about 10 tons. It works by projecting a gravimetric thrust perpendicular to a ring. The ring may be made to any convienient size and multiples may be used. Antigrav creates a real force that can raise dust, press on objects in its path, and leave tracks of a sort. It also produces a low heat. The force imparted depends on the distance from the ring and the mass being accelerated. Antigrav is characterized by a hum or whine depending on the percentage of available thrust used. In addition to its primary employment as a lift device it can provide directional thrust between the perpendicular and parallel planes of the ring. The thrust range is 100% when perpendicular through about 25% at 45 degrees to zero when perpendicular. Antigrav may be overdriven with care and at risk of failure. The ring is mostly a solid state device with no gross moving parts. Maximum altitude is limited though orbit can be achieved slowly using lift and directional thrust. The most common applications are grav-belts, air-rafts and similar vehicles. There is no inherent inertial compensation or artificial gravity in the use of antigrav technolgy. Antigrav is of no use beyond the zero gee point of a body and its performance drops off with the reduction of local gravity such that it is really only practical within low orbit and only efficient at 0.25 gees or more.
Contragrav (and Artificial Gravity) is generally limited to small craft or larger vessels due to its size, construction and power requirements. Typically the minimum is about 10 tons. Contragrav is a field effect controlled and manipulated by the hull grid and CG keel. The orientation of the field is set when the craft is constructed and determines the vessel's internal gravity plane. Contragrav fields create a special negation of gravity effects for objects within the field while generating an internal artificial gravity plane. The contragrav "shielded" vessel is effectively massless, though it will retain its inertia. Basically it floats. It imparts no mass footprint as long as power is provided. The internal gravity plane may be adjusted between 0 gees and 1 gee at normal levels, or pushed as high as 4 gees by overpowering the system. This effect is gradual, about 1 gee per minute, and affects the entire vessel equally.
Thrusters (and Inertial Dampers) are also limited by construction, size and power to small craft or larger vessels usually of 10 tons or more. Thrusters provide gravitic thrust in a similar fashion to antigrav but they are not limited to operation in a strong natural gravity. Because they are usually employed with a contragrav system they typically face aft and provide the perpendicular thrust in that direction. Like antigrav they can provide thrust through to nearly parallel with the same drop-off and overpower. This allows the typical tail thruster to land parallel by carefully and briefly overpowering the thrusters. Thrusters, like antigrav, produce some noise and pressure. They also produce some heat. A byproduct of thurster use is the inertial damper effect imparted by the same hull field employed by the contragrav. The inertial damper field exactly mirrors the thruster vector so that if all is working correctly no thrust is felt within the field.
update to Gasaraki.... (youre probly going to hate me)
allright the mechs in Gasaraki were built to counter modern weapons while being set in the present.
specs:
Total Height: 4.4 meters
Total Weight: 2.5 tons
Gross Weight: 4.5 tons
Crew: 1
Weapons:
the Fakes(mechs) in Gasaraki mounted eather of these weapons:
25mm machine gun
75mm recoilless gun
or
Anti Tank Missle Launcher
these where on the left arm.
on the right we had a choice between
a grenade luncher and a manipulator for small operations
all models mounted smoke launchers and thermal vision.
power sources
powered by liquid hydrogen fuel and reusable batteries
thats all for now.
allright the mechs in Gasaraki were built to counter modern weapons while being set in the present.
specs:
Total Height: 4.4 meters
Total Weight: 2.5 tons
Gross Weight: 4.5 tons
Crew: 1
Weapons:
the Fakes(mechs) in Gasaraki mounted eather of these weapons:
25mm machine gun
75mm recoilless gun
or
Anti Tank Missle Launcher
these where on the left arm.
on the right we had a choice between
a grenade luncher and a manipulator for small operations
all models mounted smoke launchers and thermal vision.
power sources
powered by liquid hydrogen fuel and reusable batteries
thats all for now.
IM(MT)TU, repulsors, tractors, AG and Gravitic thrust are totally different things... but are based upon a common set of technologies and theories, called collectively: Gravitics.
following is all IMTU
AG works by being cieling mounted low focus repusor beams.
Gravitic thrust works by using the planet as a reaction mass, literally climbing the gradient in the desired direction.
Maneuver drives work by a gross field effect, accellerating WIMPs... since they are "Weakly Interacting", gravitic fields must be highly effecient at interacting with them. Note this one is a recent change of thought, based upon some recent readings in astrophysics....)
Tractors and repulsors (taken from HG) work b using tight focus and accellerating both the ship and the objects in beam.... in the relevant direction...
Each is an available specialization within gravitics, IMTU. (Specializations, IMTG, provide a benefit of a number of no determination roll retries equal to level, before det rolls and difficulties start to climb).
following is all IMTU
AG works by being cieling mounted low focus repusor beams.
Gravitic thrust works by using the planet as a reaction mass, literally climbing the gradient in the desired direction.
Maneuver drives work by a gross field effect, accellerating WIMPs... since they are "Weakly Interacting", gravitic fields must be highly effecient at interacting with them. Note this one is a recent change of thought, based upon some recent readings in astrophysics....)
Tractors and repulsors (taken from HG) work b using tight focus and accellerating both the ship and the objects in beam.... in the relevant direction...
Each is an available specialization within gravitics, IMTU. (Specializations, IMTG, provide a benefit of a number of no determination roll retries equal to level, before det rolls and difficulties start to climb).
