NON Canon thoughts, Ship's Grav in LBB123

[sid6.7]

its pertty much implied there is AG
look at any of the canon ships that
were published...everything is built
just like a normal ship on earth....
and you wouldnt need staterooms as
shown...you'd just have vertical
sleeves/bags for sleeping...things
would be so much differently designed
in canon starships...

the other thing is grav vehicles are
mentioned alot...these are AG veh.
if you have AG veh. you have AG on
starships...it goes without saying...

 

[sid6.7]

its pertty much implied there is AG
look at any of the canon ships that
were published...everything is built
just like a normal ship on earth....
and you wouldnt need staterooms as
shown...you'd just have vertical
sleeves/bags for sleeping...things
would be so much differently designed
in canon starships...

the other thing is grav vehicles are
mentioned alot...these are AG veh.
if you have AG veh. you have AG on
starships...it goes without saying...

 

[jawillroy]

Yeah, it's pretty clear that by the time deckplans started getting published that deckplates were pretty much considered the norm - it's just curious that it's not spelled out in LBB2. I know quite well the degree to which AG is assumed in canon. I'm trying to see whether it was assumed prior to canon's development.

I don't think it necessarily follows that the presence of AG vehicles indicate ubiquitous AG deckplates.

It does occur to me that AG deckplates not assumed, there would either have been more (some) discussion of zero-g activity, and there might have been some discussion of how gravity was provided on shipboard (acceleration, rotation, and so on.)

So the implication in hindsight's pretty clear. Though on first opening those books, it wasn't.

 

[jawillroy]

Yeah, it's pretty clear that by the time deckplans started getting published that deckplates were pretty much considered the norm - it's just curious that it's not spelled out in LBB2. I know quite well the degree to which AG is assumed in canon. I'm trying to see whether it was assumed prior to canon's development.

I don't think it necessarily follows that the presence of AG vehicles indicate ubiquitous AG deckplates.

It does occur to me that AG deckplates not assumed, there would either have been more (some) discussion of zero-g activity, and there might have been some discussion of how gravity was provided on shipboard (acceleration, rotation, and so on.)

So the implication in hindsight's pretty clear. Though on first opening those books, it wasn't.

 

[jawillroy]

That all being said, I think that I'm going to have to bow to G-plates for MTU. With air/rafts available at tech 8 and book 2 drives kicking in afterwards, the tech seems to be sufficiently advanced for it for any spacefaring empire: the high cost of staterooms suggests to me that the price includes grav tech as part of the "life support" systems.

 

[jawillroy]

That all being said, I think that I'm going to have to bow to G-plates for MTU. With air/rafts available at tech 8 and book 2 drives kicking in afterwards, the tech seems to be sufficiently advanced for it for any spacefaring empire: the high cost of staterooms suggests to me that the price includes grav tech as part of the "life support" systems.

 

[far-trader]

Just a point, the reason it never occurred to me that part of the high cost of staterooms was for grav was because there's no similar cost associated with any other ship spaces (save perhaps the Bridge). No artificial grav included in engineering, cargo and such raises other issues. That's why I'd always included artificial grav as part of the cost of the hull, and thus a field effect within same. Never liked the idea of "grav plates"

Oh, and air/rafts are a totally different principle in MTU. That's not artificial gravity but contra gravity. Related yes, the same no. An upside down air/raft won't fly

 

[far-trader]

Just a point, the reason it never occurred to me that part of the high cost of staterooms was for grav was because there's no similar cost associated with any other ship spaces (save perhaps the Bridge). No artificial grav included in engineering, cargo and such raises other issues. That's why I'd always included artificial grav as part of the cost of the hull, and thus a field effect within same. Never liked the idea of "grav plates"

Oh, and air/rafts are a totally different principle in MTU. That's not artificial gravity but contra gravity. Related yes, the same no. An upside down air/raft won't fly

 

[jawillroy]

Good points, Dan - I'd actually started to get my wheels turning about those other areas - how far do them "common areas" extend? I've no problem handwaving gravity into the engineering and bridge along with the living areas: there might be a good argument for saying that the hold would be a zero-g environment.

APROPOS NADA, just this instant received a set of 1st edition LBB123, purchased for purposes of comparison and mining. YAY!

 

[jawillroy]

Good points, Dan - I'd actually started to get my wheels turning about those other areas - how far do them "common areas" extend? I've no problem handwaving gravity into the engineering and bridge along with the living areas: there might be a good argument for saying that the hold would be a zero-g environment.

APROPOS NADA, just this instant received a set of 1st edition LBB123, purchased for purposes of comparison and mining. YAY!

 

[mike wightman]

In the original CT rules the engineering compartment was a separate section of the ship that is " (shielded)", while the main compartment that contains everything else is "(pressurized)".

It may be that the engines were supposed to be off limits, like in the Leviathan and other similar designs, and grav plates only exist in the main compartment.

 

[mike wightman]

In the original CT rules the engineering compartment was a separate section of the ship that is " (shielded)", while the main compartment that contains everything else is "(pressurized)".

It may be that the engines were supposed to be off limits, like in the Leviathan and other similar designs, and grav plates only exist in the main compartment.

 

[far-trader]

It sure could be taken that way Sigg. In fact I kind of like it

I'd limit it a little more than the Drives/Main split. Maybe only the habitation and control spaces (staterooms, lowberths, bridge and computer tonnage) have artificial gravity and life support, while the rest is subject to whatever local effects are in play gravity and other acceleration wise.

So engineering is like you say either off-limits or a hassle (magnetic boots and vaccsuits), and cargo and vehicles have to be secured (and again usually require vaccsuits and magnetic boots). Special cargos would travel in specialized containers with their own internal artificial gravity and/or lifesupport.

Yep, it's not the OTU but it fits within LBB1-3, and I'll say again, I kinda like it. So many little nuances for the players to work with.

 

[far-trader]

It sure could be taken that way Sigg. In fact I kind of like it

I'd limit it a little more than the Drives/Main split. Maybe only the habitation and control spaces (staterooms, lowberths, bridge and computer tonnage) have artificial gravity and life support, while the rest is subject to whatever local effects are in play gravity and other acceleration wise.

So engineering is like you say either off-limits or a hassle (magnetic boots and vaccsuits), and cargo and vehicles have to be secured (and again usually require vaccsuits and magnetic boots). Special cargos would travel in specialized containers with their own internal artificial gravity and/or lifesupport.

Yep, it's not the OTU but it fits within LBB1-3, and I'll say again, I kinda like it. So many little nuances for the players to work with.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
Good points, Dan - I'd actually started to get my wheels turning about those other areas - how far do them "common areas" extend? I've no problem handwaving gravity into the engineering and bridge along with the living areas: there might be a good argument for saying that the hold would be a zero-g environment.

For my money the common areas are generally taken from the stateroom allowance. I find with 4tons per stateroom that you can get a workable deckplan with a 2ton (actual) stateroom and pull the other half together to make up the corridors, galley and common room. It's really tight on small ships and not much better on larger ones, but it works for me.

I can see good reasons for keeping artificial gravity and life support out of engineering so I'd probably not include it there.

My bridge volume usually breaks down as half for (black box) controls (stuff like the contra-grav and station keeping thrusters, landing gear and lift-off thrusters, marker lights, communications, sensors, avionics and such). Then the other half is typically half for actual control seats and workstations (the "bridge') and half for access to it (often lumped into general common spaces).

Yep, several possible good reasons for no artificial gravity and life support in the hold too, chief among them being expense

Secondary being clearance height. This actually fits my old take on the spaces quite nicely. I have the holds open floor to ceiling at about 3m ht while in the habitated spaces I have the life support and artificial gravity reducing the ceiling to about 2.5m with 0.5m lost to the comforts. I also always imagined the engineering spaces as being full 3m height too. Yep I like this "new" interpretation

And I like the idea of doing away with inertial compensation too.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
Good points, Dan - I'd actually started to get my wheels turning about those other areas - how far do them "common areas" extend? I've no problem handwaving gravity into the engineering and bridge along with the living areas: there might be a good argument for saying that the hold would be a zero-g environment.

For my money the common areas are generally taken from the stateroom allowance. I find with 4tons per stateroom that you can get a workable deckplan with a 2ton (actual) stateroom and pull the other half together to make up the corridors, galley and common room. It's really tight on small ships and not much better on larger ones, but it works for me.

I can see good reasons for keeping artificial gravity and life support out of engineering so I'd probably not include it there.

My bridge volume usually breaks down as half for (black box) controls (stuff like the contra-grav and station keeping thrusters, landing gear and lift-off thrusters, marker lights, communications, sensors, avionics and such). Then the other half is typically half for actual control seats and workstations (the "bridge') and half for access to it (often lumped into general common spaces).

Yep, several possible good reasons for no artificial gravity and life support in the hold too, chief among them being expense

Secondary being clearance height. This actually fits my old take on the spaces quite nicely. I have the holds open floor to ceiling at about 3m ht while in the habitated spaces I have the life support and artificial gravity reducing the ceiling to about 2.5m with 0.5m lost to the comforts. I also always imagined the engineering spaces as being full 3m height too. Yep I like this "new" interpretation

And I like the idea of doing away with inertial compensation too.

 

[jawillroy]

Ooo!

I like these. In fact, I'm taking this interpretation to town, IMTU. No grav in the holds (expensive!) no grav in engineering (mungs with the engines, and you don't want to be in there while they're running anyhow!)

 

[jawillroy]

Ooo!

I like these. In fact, I'm taking this interpretation to town, IMTU. No grav in the holds (expensive!) no grav in engineering (mungs with the engines, and you don't want to be in there while they're running anyhow!)

 

[robject]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Just a point, the reason it never occurred to me that part of the high cost of staterooms was for grav was because there's no similar cost associated with any other ship spaces (save perhaps the Bridge). No artificial grav included in engineering, cargo and such raises other issues. That's why I'd always included artificial grav as part of the cost of the hull, and thus a field effect within same. Never liked the idea of "grav plates"

Oh, and air/rafts are a totally different principle in MTU. That's not artificial gravity but contra gravity. Related yes, the same no. An upside down air/raft won't fly

I never cared for grav plates either, but they seem to explain several chunks of Traveller. Or, at least, the idea of lifters that push or pull orthogonal (is that the right word?) to a mass do. There may be other, better explanations, but it seems possible that:

Air/raft "lift modules" (1 per T) are related.

Grav belts are related. (Cr100,000 each, right?)

If they're part of spacecraft hulls, then that explains why we don't have to fool with them during ship construction. Similarly deck plates.

Finally, if they're reversible, then these CT lifters are nothing more than a primitive kind of tractor/pressor generator.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Just a point, the reason it never occurred to me that part of the high cost of staterooms was for grav was because there's no similar cost associated with any other ship spaces (save perhaps the Bridge). No artificial grav included in engineering, cargo and such raises other issues. That's why I'd always included artificial grav as part of the cost of the hull, and thus a field effect within same. Never liked the idea of "grav plates"

Oh, and air/rafts are a totally different principle in MTU. That's not artificial gravity but contra gravity. Related yes, the same no. An upside down air/raft won't fly

I never cared for grav plates either, but they seem to explain several chunks of Traveller. Or, at least, the idea of lifters that push or pull orthogonal (is that the right word?) to a mass do. There may be other, better explanations, but it seems possible that:

Air/raft "lift modules" (1 per T) are related.

Grav belts are related. (Cr100,000 each, right?)

If they're part of spacecraft hulls, then that explains why we don't have to fool with them during ship construction. Similarly deck plates.

Finally, if they're reversible, then these CT lifters are nothing more than a primitive kind of tractor/pressor generator.