TNE Only: TNE FF&S Ch. 11 Life Support Artificial Gravity/G-Compensators

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

Is the Life Support Equipment table entry, TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 p. 77, of Artificial Gravity/G-Compensators for a single system or two systems with the same requirements?

 

[elbmc1969]

p. 78-10, "Ships equipped with artificial gravity generators (covered above under G compensators) automatically have a steady 1G environment. Ships without grav compensators must instead generate generate gravity by means of spin."

Sort of hidden, but it's there.

BTW, p. 77-7 about crews automatically withstanding G its complete nonsense, given the design of most Traveller ships. If the decks are parallel to the axis of acceleration of the ship, you're screwed. The Azhanti High Lightnings are one of the few designs that work properly for allowing natural G tolerance to figure in.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning elbmc1969,

Thank you for providing an answer to my question and my apologies for the delay in replying.

p. 78-10, "Ships equipped with artificial gravity generators (covered above under G compensators) automatically have a steady 1G environment. Ships without grav compensators must instead generate generate gravity by means of spin."

Sort of hidden, but it's there.

Merging the cited material on p. 78 with the this entry on p. 77

"Artificial Gravity G compensators (AG/GC in my shorthand) create an artificial gravity field in direct opposition to the axis of acceleration, thus negating acceleration (up to the limit of the artificial gravity field)."

the Life Support Equipment Table entry "Artificial Gravity/G Compensators*" is a single system.

BTW, p. 77-7 about crews automatically withstanding G its complete nonsense, given the design of most Traveller ships. If the decks are parallel to the axis of acceleration of the ship, you're screwed. The Azhanti High Lightnings are one of the few designs that work properly for allowing natural G tolerance to figure in.

To be honest I have never really given much thought about what "All crews can automatically withstand 1G, so the maximum acceleration without degrading crew performance is actually 1G above this level, as shown in the Max Accel column to the left of the slash." meant.

My interpretation has been that when an AG/GC system set to provide a 1G field the crew has been trained to operate without degrading performance under 2Gs while sitting at a workstation.

Thank you again for the help.

 

[elbmc1969]

To be honest I have never really given much thought about what "All crews can automatically withstand 1G, so the maximum acceleration without degrading crew performance is actually 1G above this level, as shown in the Max Accel column to the left of the slash." meant.

My interpretation has been that when an AG/GC system set to provide a 1G field the crew has been trained to operate without degrading performance under 2Gs while sitting at a workstation.

No, it means that if we're sitting on top of a rocket ship that's providing 1G of acceleration, that's indistinguishable from sitting in a desk chair here on Earth (except that you really, really wouldn't want to fall out of your chair ...). We're all able to tolerate 1G; it has nothing to do with training.

So, let's say that the rocket provides 4G of acceleration. That's enough to be really annoying, but our bodies are set up to take 1G of that. If a compensator can take away 3Gs, the crew is just sitting there in a perfectly normal 1G environment.

The problem is, what if you ship is set up so that the base of your desk chair is effectively bolted to the side of the rocket? If the compensator takes away 3Gs, you still have 1G pulling you toward the back of your seat. If you have a headrest leg supports, and so on, that's not really a problem, but too many crew positions in Traveller deck plans are set up with their chairs sideways to the axis of acceleration. There is just no way to make that comfortable and ergonomic. You really want to neutralize the acceleration along the thrust axis an also provide 1G toward the deck.

Fortunately, if the rocket's acceleration is 4G, that doesn't require a full 1G + 4G = 5G of compensation/generation. Pythagoras is your friend, so 1^2 + 4^2 = 17. Square root of 17 is just barely more that 4G, so just round down and call it good. However, this means that you're not taking advantage of the body's natural proclivity for 1G. In fact, you're generating an additional G just to keep your body happy! So, throw out the "1G more" parts of the table for anything that's not set up like an Azhanti High Lighting.

You might wonder why anyone would ever be nuts enough to build a ship that's no a tail-sitter, but there are real benefits to a "sideways" deck setup, like those seen in the classic Free Trader, Far Trader, and Scout. It's just so much easier to get cargo in and out, for one thing.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning elbmc1969

No, it means that if we're sitting on top of a rocket ship that's providing 1G of acceleration, that's indistinguishable from sitting in a desk chair here on Earth (except that you really, really wouldn't want to fall out of your chair ...). We're all able to tolerate 1G; it has nothing to do with training.

Oops, my bad the training was for the 2Gs of acceleration. Of course from the rest of the reply I still appear to be out to lunch.

So, let's say that the rocket provides 4G of acceleration. That's enough to be really annoying, but our bodies are set up to take 1G of that. If a compensator can take away 3Gs, the crew is just sitting there in a perfectly normal 1G environment.

The problem is, what if you ship is set up so that the base of your desk chair is effectively bolted to the side of the rocket? If the compensator takes away 3Gs, you still have 1G pulling you toward the back of your seat. If you have a headrest leg supports, and so on, that's not really a problem, but too many crew positions in Traveller deck plans are set up with their chairs sideways to the axis of acceleration. There is just no way to make that comfortable and ergonomic. You really want to neutralize the acceleration along the thrust axis an also provide 1G toward the deck.

Fortunately, if the rocket's acceleration is 4G, that doesn't require a full 1G + 4G = 5G of compensation/generation. Pythagoras is your friend, so 1^2 + 4^2 = 17. Square root of 17 is just barely more that 4G, so just round down and call it good. However, this means that you're not taking advantage of the body's natural proclivity for 1G. In fact, you're generating an additional G just to keep your body happy! So, throw out the "1G more" parts of the table for anything that's not set up like an Azhanti High Lighting.

You might wonder why anyone would ever be nuts enough to build a ship that's no a tail-sitter, but there are real benefits to a "sideways" deck setup, like those seen in the classic Free Trader, Far Trader, and Scout. It's just so much easier to get cargo in and out, for one thing.

Thank you for the education one more bit of information added to my collection of knowledge.