And from what I can tell, non-Newtonian. Either that, or they have some way to interact with the ether so they maneuver like airplanes...
Type S as a Tailsitter Prolate Spheroid
- Thread starter Grav_Moped
- Start date
And from what I can tell, non-Newtonian. Either that, or they have some way to interact with the ether so they maneuver like airplanes...
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Canonical reactionless drives (explicit in MT and T4) produce thrust. That thrust is generated without throwing reaction mass out the back.
They are reactionless but not inertialess, and they are on-unit thrust, rather than field effect thrust.
They are reactionless but not inertialess, and they are on-unit thrust, rather than field effect thrust.
| Reactionless | Produces thrust without throwing mass the other direction. |
| Inertiales | Movement starts when the drive goes on, and stops when it's turned off. Doesn't exist in canonical traveller. Does exist in Doc Smith's Lensman series |
| Contragravity | As defined in TNE & T4, it cuts off local gravity's acceleration |
| Artificial Gravity | Field or flow effect causing things within to accelerate in a specific direction. Flow effect would need a source and drain, and only work between same; field effect would, most likely, be an attractor plate emitting a field perpendicular to the plane of the emmitter. |
And a gas mask is all they need to survive in space. The only instance I saw a person in Star Wars wear a spacesuit was at the Cantina in A New Hope.
On that last bit, CT/HG shows repulsor tech but no tractor beam tech, so I figured the artificial gravity/inertial compensation function is more ceiling repulsors 'pushing down' then floor plates 'pulling'.
Yeah, it was a pretty toxic atmosphere there. Guy could catch high-velocity lead poisoning, as well as explody plasmas, especially when Mr. Solo wants to make a particularly dramatic point.
MT has tractors at TL16 in 100Td
TL 16 Factor 2
TL 17 Factor 4
TL 18 Factor 6
TL 19 Factor 7
TL 20 Factor 8
We can infer that the field effect is much earlier, but much weaker.
IMTU, tho' shipboard AG uses a flow model, not a field, and especially not a beam.
Coming back to this on a "cold read":
True. But if it were a corridor, it would be 8Td, since it's only 1.5m x 1.5m. A corridor would be 1.5m (wide) x 3m (tall).
While you could have horizontal 1.5m square access tubes, I haven't really seen them on canon deck plans (or homebrew one, either, for that matter).
The real problem with them is that they don't present "playable spaces" for combat rules. No long corridors or open spaces, so everything is at basically point-blank range.
True. But if it were a corridor, it would be 8Td, since it's only 1.5m x 1.5m. A corridor would be 1.5m (wide) x 3m (tall).
While you could have horizontal 1.5m square access tubes, I haven't really seen them on canon deck plans (or homebrew one, either, for that matter).
The real problem with them is that they don't present "playable spaces" for combat rules. No long corridors or open spaces, so everything is at basically point-blank range.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
When you have the high ground, you can drop a grenade.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
If it was a single deck design you would probably not need it at all, so it would be 0 Dt, or perhaps ~1 Dt as an extendable elevator down to the ground.
You'd need some corridors, unless you want people walking through staterooms to get to the engine room or guns or whatever. Not that this is necessarily bad -- consider bunking arrangements in a submarine, for example.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Certainly, you always need access-ways, but in my (limited) experience ships with many small decks needs more. Your ship have plenty of corridors in addition to the elevator.
Here is a reimagining of the classic Scout fitted to a 100 Dt hull I made a year or so ago:
Obviously more than 16 Dt crew-space, with just a small corridor to the bridge and a two-deck elevator.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
There are more efficient ways to optimize positioning of ship components.
But I get the impression this is more an extension of dungeon mapping.
But I get the impression this is more an extension of dungeon mapping.
Definitely exploiting the use of fuel tankage as edge filler (as in the original, and quite a few other designs as well)!Certainly, you always need access-ways, but in my (limited) experience ships with many small decks needs more. Your ship have plenty of corridors in addition to the elevator.
Here is a reimagining of the classic Scout fitted to a 100 Dt hull I made a year or so ago:Spoiler:
Obviously more than 16 Dt crew-space, with just a small corridor to the bridge and a two-deck elevator.
The extra corridor space on the cargo/air-raft/gunnery deck isn't strictly necessary except for security purposes (the elevator could stop halfway between decks and open to the turret if I wanted to save space). The corridors in the lower bridge/pilot's suite aren't really necessary either (I wanted somewhere in the ship to sneak around in, for narrative/game play purposes).
In a lot of designs (I think this was covered in another recent thread) that's very much the case.
Last edited:
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
If, for example, the engines have to be positioned in a particular way, that means you have to build around those limitations.
If, for example, the engines have to be positioned in a particular way, that means you have to build around those limitations.
That was something I changed from my 1986 drawing (well, aside from the tiny fuel tanks) and others I drew up at the time. Back then, I hadn't really appreciated the Jump Drive fuel burn rates, and assumed that drive was just a field generator. Therefore, it didn't need exhaust vents, but it did need to be positioned closer to the center of the ship than the rest of the drives. Thus, the drive stack was Jump Drive on top (forward) of the power plant, with the Maneuver Drive on the bottom (aft), either flush with or sticking slightly out of the bottom (aft) end.
It makes sense because at the time I didn't take into consideration that the Jump Fuel burn happened entirely in the 17-20 minutes prior to Jump, rather than spread out across the entire week.
But in Traveller -- except for TNE with its grav-boosted fusion rockets -- the Maneuver Drive doesn't actually need an exhaust bell or whatever since it's some kind of gravitic reactionless thruster doohickey. Meanwhile, the Jump Drive needs serious exhaust vents because of how much fuel it goes through in such a short time.
But who draws ships up without some kind of rocket exhausts for the maneuver drives? It's kind of expected, even when the game's fictional physics don't call for it.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
In theory, you should place manoeuvre pr rocket modules in a balanced position(s), so that the spaceship doesn't twirl out of control.
The jump drive should be central.
The jump drive should be central.
Here are the deck plans I originally included in the first post of this thread, but which vanished in the forum platform transition:
First, the section view (in retrospect, the inter-deck space needs to be narrowed a bit -- the ceilings are too low):
First, the section view (in retrospect, the inter-deck space needs to be narrowed a bit -- the ceilings are too low):
Last edited:
And here are the deck layouts. They're numbered clockwise from top left, in top-to-bottom order. Fuel tank is neither numbered nor depicted.
The heavy black outline is the median circumference; the light outline is the maximum circumference (when they aren't the same).
The white rectangles on decks 2 and 3 at the 6- and 12-o'clock positions are fuel scoops (not technically needed on a LBB2 design; it's an artistic decision).
The heavy black outline is the median circumference; the light outline is the maximum circumference (when they aren't the same).
The white rectangles on decks 2 and 3 at the 6- and 12-o'clock positions are fuel scoops (not technically needed on a LBB2 design; it's an artistic decision).
Last edited:
