• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

NON Canon thoughts, Ship's Grav in LBB123

J

jawillroy

SOC-13
Sitting here eating lunch, and thinking on LBB2 ship design.

It occurs to me that in LBB2, as written, there isn't a statement about grav plates. Is there? I haven't got my books here with me, and may be forgetting it. But I don't think there is one.

I'm not concerned about any of what followed - I know quite well that from very early on, grav-plates were a given in Traveller ship designs.

I've an open mind on this. Seems to me that you could rationalize the expense of grav plates to be part of the stateroom/bridge cost (cr500,000 for a 4 ton stateroom, cr600,000 for an air/raft, doesn't seem too farfetched.)

But on the other hand? A traveller universe where virtually all on-ship gravity had to be provided via rotation might look and feel Really, Really cool. Cherryh-ish.

So Looking at LBB123 exclusively, what might the arguments be pro and con the standardness of grav plates in a strict LBB123 universe without recourse to OTU or the supplements?
 
Sitting here eating lunch, and thinking on LBB2 ship design.

It occurs to me that in LBB2, as written, there isn't a statement about grav plates. Is there? I haven't got my books here with me, and may be forgetting it. But I don't think there is one.

I'm not concerned about any of what followed - I know quite well that from very early on, grav-plates were a given in Traveller ship designs.

I've an open mind on this. Seems to me that you could rationalize the expense of grav plates to be part of the stateroom/bridge cost (cr500,000 for a 4 ton stateroom, cr600,000 for an air/raft, doesn't seem too farfetched.)

But on the other hand? A traveller universe where virtually all on-ship gravity had to be provided via rotation might look and feel Really, Really cool. Cherryh-ish.

So Looking at LBB123 exclusively, what might the arguments be pro and con the standardness of grav plates in a strict LBB123 universe without recourse to OTU or the supplements?
 
Well, you could argue that the M-Drive 6G limit was based on no AG. Given an accelleration couch or gel couch and a flight suit, people could withstand 6Gs for a while. Figure 6Gs is a military thing, most civilian ships will be 1G at most. Ships use a fusion/torch reaction drive that produces constant accelleration. Ships could be built like modern rockets and be designed like a skyscraper. 0G would be something that every ship experienced at various times during the voyage. Constant accelleration would negate the need for rotation, except when a ship is in orbit, which would also explain why so many ships opt for the streamlined hull so they can land on a planet and don't have to have centrifugal force for gravity.

When I first started playing back in late 1977, I NEVER thought that ships had AG or IC. I thought it was very much like Mote in God's Eye or CJ Cherryh's books. Only later did it seem obvious that the OTU was going in an entirely different direction.

The Air/Raft was originally 600,000cr, which seemed to indicate that AG was not very common. Later the price was lowered and AG we everywhere.

Personally, if I were still running Traveller, I might hold off on AG and IC until TL12 and then start allowing more than 6Gs accelleration. Civilian ships would be limited to 2G max by law to protect the passengers.
 
Well, you could argue that the M-Drive 6G limit was based on no AG. Given an accelleration couch or gel couch and a flight suit, people could withstand 6Gs for a while. Figure 6Gs is a military thing, most civilian ships will be 1G at most. Ships use a fusion/torch reaction drive that produces constant accelleration. Ships could be built like modern rockets and be designed like a skyscraper. 0G would be something that every ship experienced at various times during the voyage. Constant accelleration would negate the need for rotation, except when a ship is in orbit, which would also explain why so many ships opt for the streamlined hull so they can land on a planet and don't have to have centrifugal force for gravity.

When I first started playing back in late 1977, I NEVER thought that ships had AG or IC. I thought it was very much like Mote in God's Eye or CJ Cherryh's books. Only later did it seem obvious that the OTU was going in an entirely different direction.

The Air/Raft was originally 600,000cr, which seemed to indicate that AG was not very common. Later the price was lowered and AG we everywhere.

Personally, if I were still running Traveller, I might hold off on AG and IC until TL12 and then start allowing more than 6Gs accelleration. Civilian ships would be limited to 2G max by law to protect the passengers.
 
That jibes nicely.

I remember having a similar experience to yours when I started out roundabout '85: I was straight LBB123 then, and it wasn't until I got hold of, I think, one of the double adventures that I saw different.

This is exciting. I'm in the midst of cobbling together a smallship LBB123 TU, and this really changes the feel of things...

More, guys?
 
That jibes nicely.

I remember having a similar experience to yours when I started out roundabout '85: I was straight LBB123 then, and it wasn't until I got hold of, I think, one of the double adventures that I saw different.

This is exciting. I'm in the midst of cobbling together a smallship LBB123 TU, and this really changes the feel of things...

More, guys?
 
How about switching jump drive fuel for power plant fuel in order to better model a reaction drive?

So a 3G ship would need to be 30% fuel. I'd then just ignore power plant fuel requirements (or make the fuel last for years) and have the jump drive powered by the power plant without the need for jump fuel.

Ships would therefore be built as "skyscrapers" - engines at the base - and gravity would be provided by constant thrust.

It may be worth halving the maneuver drive potential so it goes from 0.5g to 3g...
 
How about switching jump drive fuel for power plant fuel in order to better model a reaction drive?

So a 3G ship would need to be 30% fuel. I'd then just ignore power plant fuel requirements (or make the fuel last for years) and have the jump drive powered by the power plant without the need for jump fuel.

Ships would therefore be built as "skyscrapers" - engines at the base - and gravity would be provided by constant thrust.

It may be worth halving the maneuver drive potential so it goes from 0.5g to 3g...
 
Sigg, that's a great discussion - thank you!

What do you think - If I throw out grav plates (at least on commonly found ships!) do I have to throw out Air/rafts?

Looking at the Book 2 drive tables, might the size limitation be associated with the lack of CG, generally?
 
Sigg, that's a great discussion - thank you!

What do you think - If I throw out grav plates (at least on commonly found ships!) do I have to throw out Air/rafts?

Looking at the Book 2 drive tables, might the size limitation be associated with the lack of CG, generally?
 
For my purposes, I'm more interested in thinking about what LBB123 seems to model, rather than to change them to model something else: since grav plates don't seem to be explicitly addressed in LBB123, I'm trying to decide whether grav plates are *implicit,* or no.

The drive performances and fuel consumption rules are *explicit* so I don't want to monkey with that IMTU.
 
For my purposes, I'm more interested in thinking about what LBB123 seems to model, rather than to change them to model something else: since grav plates don't seem to be explicitly addressed in LBB123, I'm trying to decide whether grav plates are *implicit,* or no.

The drive performances and fuel consumption rules are *explicit* so I don't want to monkey with that IMTU.
 
Being that no mention is made of zero-g conditions aboard ship that's either a major oversight or strongly implies internal gravity as standard. In my opinion it's the latter


The cost of stateroom accomodations is another argument for artificial gravity, one I'd not thought of.

Further a week (every jump) in zero-g would be a small problem for most passengers, and a life of such (most Book 2 careers) would stongly imply a level of zero-g adaptation or skill not shown in the rules.

I'm pretty sure you can rest easy that artificial gravity (of some kind) was always there in most cases. I even presume artificial gravity on worlds with sufficient tech and small size, including asteroid settlements. Nobody lives in zero-g for long on purpose.
 
Being that no mention is made of zero-g conditions aboard ship that's either a major oversight or strongly implies internal gravity as standard. In my opinion it's the latter


The cost of stateroom accomodations is another argument for artificial gravity, one I'd not thought of.

Further a week (every jump) in zero-g would be a small problem for most passengers, and a life of such (most Book 2 careers) would stongly imply a level of zero-g adaptation or skill not shown in the rules.

I'm pretty sure you can rest easy that artificial gravity (of some kind) was always there in most cases. I even presume artificial gravity on worlds with sufficient tech and small size, including asteroid settlements. Nobody lives in zero-g for long on purpose.
 
Well, LBB1-3 never state that you cannot run the Mdrive during Jump to maintain gravity.

I do agree that there is an assumption of gravity on all ships, otherwise 0-Gee would be very common. BUT, I don't think that necessarily requires AG.

The book gives formulas for travel times at constant thrust for HUGE distances, Millions of KM as I remember, so somewhere along the way, it was assumed that the M-Drive could provide constant thrust for weeks.

Reading just LBB1-3, I would have (and did) assume that the PP fuel consumption was also what powered the thrust on the M-Drive. I used a Fusion Reaction drive, because nothing in the rules told me anything else and since PP number had to equal Mdrive, that sort of linked the two together, ergo fusion reaction thrust drive.
 
Well, LBB1-3 never state that you cannot run the Mdrive during Jump to maintain gravity.

I do agree that there is an assumption of gravity on all ships, otherwise 0-Gee would be very common. BUT, I don't think that necessarily requires AG.

The book gives formulas for travel times at constant thrust for HUGE distances, Millions of KM as I remember, so somewhere along the way, it was assumed that the M-Drive could provide constant thrust for weeks.

Reading just LBB1-3, I would have (and did) assume that the PP fuel consumption was also what powered the thrust on the M-Drive. I used a Fusion Reaction drive, because nothing in the rules told me anything else and since PP number had to equal Mdrive, that sort of linked the two together, ergo fusion reaction thrust drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Grav_Moped
Type ST Transport Scout: 199Td, J4/2G (LBB2 2nd Ed.)
11 12 13
Replies
257
Views
10K
atpollard
atpollard
Rigel Stardin
  • Article Article
Non OTU: Coti Build 2: Dragon MAC-33 Courier
Replies
7
Views
575
Dragoner
Dragoner
S
Exterior Survival Bubble?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Patron Zero
P
C
How much does a habitat cost?
Replies
12
Views
2K
MikeinBallard
M
I
Anti Grav Dilemma
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
fredofmars
F
Back
Top