NON Canon thoughts, Ship's Grav in LBB123

[jawillroy]

Hoosh.

The way I've always interpreted HG ranges was to say that close range was within a half-lightsecond or so, and long was airthang else...

That's quite a torch.

Relevant to my project, this - if HG 1st ed assumed fusion torches, that strongly suggests that to be the assumption for LBB2 drives.

When did the notion of the Grav Drive become common currency? Did it appear in the LBBs anywhere?

I mean, it's apocrypha, but how far removed from the core text?

 

[jawillroy]

Hoosh.

The way I've always interpreted HG ranges was to say that close range was within a half-lightsecond or so, and long was airthang else...

That's quite a torch.

Relevant to my project, this - if HG 1st ed assumed fusion torches, that strongly suggests that to be the assumption for LBB2 drives.

When did the notion of the Grav Drive become common currency? Did it appear in the LBBs anywhere?

I mean, it's apocrypha, but how far removed from the core text?

 

[far-trader]

Hoosh indeed

Given the fuel use rules for LBB2 I'd say they could be fusion torches (I always imagined them so). HG cut fuel use by such a factor though that I don't think I could see them being fusion torches, which may be why the rule disappeared by 2nd edition HG.

 

[far-trader]

Hoosh indeed

Given the fuel use rules for LBB2 I'd say they could be fusion torches (I always imagined them so). HG cut fuel use by such a factor though that I don't think I could see them being fusion torches, which may be why the rule disappeared by 2nd edition HG.

 

[jawillroy]

So: If one goes with fusion torches as standard, then downports would be typically well away from built-up areas, and would be restricted to smaller ships; bigger craft, streamlined or no, would be well advised to remain in orbit unless they deliberately wished to burn cities to the ground...

That might be doable IMTU.

 

[jawillroy]

So: If one goes with fusion torches as standard, then downports would be typically well away from built-up areas, and would be restricted to smaller ships; bigger craft, streamlined or no, would be well advised to remain in orbit unless they deliberately wished to burn cities to the ground...

That might be doable IMTU.

 

[far-trader]

Yep, and water landings (as in PCs wanting to dip fuel from an ocean) get a whole new dimension as they come in to settle on the water and create a huge cloud of hot vapour, maybe kicking off a major storm development, with them right in the middle.

 

[far-trader]

Yep, and water landings (as in PCs wanting to dip fuel from an ocean) get a whole new dimension as they come in to settle on the water and create a huge cloud of hot vapour, maybe kicking off a major storm development, with them right in the middle.

 

[far-trader]

Though now I come to think a minute, there's no need to worry about landings, if...

...you take it as given that all hulls incorporate contra-grav lifters and minimal thrusters. I include this in the hull and bridge costs and volume. It gives performance similar to an air/raft so you can gently land and take off with little disturbance, taking an hour per UPP size code to reach orbit.

Now if you are in a hurry and want to light the torch to hit orbit fast, well...

 

[far-trader]

Though now I come to think a minute, there's no need to worry about landings, if...

...you take it as given that all hulls incorporate contra-grav lifters and minimal thrusters. I include this in the hull and bridge costs and volume. It gives performance similar to an air/raft so you can gently land and take off with little disturbance, taking an hour per UPP size code to reach orbit.

Now if you are in a hurry and want to light the torch to hit orbit fast, well...

 

[mike wightman]

...a bit like a firefly doing a full burn in an atmosphere...

 

[mike wightman]

...a bit like a firefly doing a full burn in an atmosphere...

 

[jawillroy]

Well, I'd say that if you've got cg like unto an air raft built into your ship's hull, you don't need to worry about thrusters: I've always envisioned air/rafts being able to operate by adjusting the balance between fore and aft nodes, essentially causing the raft to slide forward, rather like changing the angle of attack on a helicopter.

 

[jawillroy]

Well, I'd say that if you've got cg like unto an air raft built into your ship's hull, you don't need to worry about thrusters: I've always envisioned air/rafts being able to operate by adjusting the balance between fore and aft nodes, essentially causing the raft to slide forward, rather like changing the angle of attack on a helicopter.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Though now I come to think a minute, there's no need to worry about landings, if...

...you take it as given that all hulls incorporate contra-grav lifters and minimal thrusters. I include this in the hull and bridge costs and volume. It gives performance similar to an air/raft so you can gently land and take off with little disturbance, taking an hour per UPP size code to reach orbit.

Yup, in fact, I think this is close to the "official" explanation for how starships land. Maybe. M-drives might be a little bit "sloppy" without good external guidance systems in charge. I dunno.

 

[robject]

Originally posted by far-trader:
Though now I come to think a minute, there's no need to worry about landings, if...

...you take it as given that all hulls incorporate contra-grav lifters and minimal thrusters. I include this in the hull and bridge costs and volume. It gives performance similar to an air/raft so you can gently land and take off with little disturbance, taking an hour per UPP size code to reach orbit.

Yup, in fact, I think this is close to the "official" explanation for how starships land. Maybe. M-drives might be a little bit "sloppy" without good external guidance systems in charge. I dunno.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
This has probably been hashed out elsewhere, but re; Fusion Torch Drives, just how destructive are we talking about? If we're talking about a matter of acres, well, I have no trouble with starports requiring pretty sizeable clear-zones for launch, and keeping ports well out of settled areas. If we're talking about continental incineration when the next mail ship shows up, well, something else must be devised...

This was discussed in details in this thread.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Imperium Festerium:
This has probably been hashed out elsewhere, but re; Fusion Torch Drives, just how destructive are we talking about? If we're talking about a matter of acres, well, I have no trouble with starports requiring pretty sizeable clear-zones for launch, and keeping ports well out of settled areas. If we're talking about continental incineration when the next mail ship shows up, well, something else must be devised...

This was discussed in details in this thread.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Though now I come to think a minute, there's no need to worry about landings, if...

...you take it as given that all hulls incorporate contra-grav lifters and minimal thrusters. I include this in the hull and bridge costs and volume. It gives performance similar to an air/raft so you can gently land and take off with little disturbance, taking an hour per UPP size code to reach orbit.

Yup, in fact, I think this is close to the "official" explanation for how starships land. Maybe. M-drives might be a little bit "sloppy" without good external guidance systems in charge. I dunno. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm... What about RAMJETS/SCRAMJETS? How big would be their (hydrocarbon/oxydizer or L-Hyd/LOX) fuel tanks for takeoff+landing for a Size-A world?

But yes, air/raft style gravitics seem to fit the LBB2 streamlining concept well.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by robject:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Though now I come to think a minute, there's no need to worry about landings, if...

...you take it as given that all hulls incorporate contra-grav lifters and minimal thrusters. I include this in the hull and bridge costs and volume. It gives performance similar to an air/raft so you can gently land and take off with little disturbance, taking an hour per UPP size code to reach orbit.

Yup, in fact, I think this is close to the "official" explanation for how starships land. Maybe. M-drives might be a little bit "sloppy" without good external guidance systems in charge. I dunno. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm... What about RAMJETS/SCRAMJETS? How big would be their (hydrocarbon/oxydizer or L-Hyd/LOX) fuel tanks for takeoff+landing for a Size-A world?

But yes, air/raft style gravitics seem to fit the LBB2 streamlining concept well.