Wanted: Curmudgeony Grognards (to talk TL 5-7 Rockets)

[Enoki]

An easier, in some ways, solution to a TL 5 ship is to use a three-stage design. The first stage would be a powerful solid-fuel booster that produces a $#!+load of thrust for a few seconds accelerating the missile / rocket to supersonic speed. The next stage uses ramjets to boost the missile at several times the speed of sound to the edge of the atmosphere where the final stage takes over using a liquid fuel rocket running on storable propellant at relatively low thrust to accelerate to orbital speed outside the atmosphere and maybe even retain some capacity for additional operation later.

What you do is mass produce this missile such that it can boost into orbit say 200 kg or so payloads (and the airframe of course). You then send up manned and unmanned versions to combine them in orbit into something larger.

 

[Grav_Moped]

Generally speaking, I'm pretty sure a lot of readers noticed that engineering/drives were split in a number of deckplans.

I know I did and thought about semiAs.

If performance/volume is linear, it shouldn't matter; if it's not, then each division should be considered independent and calculated separately.

In LBB2, it's not linear (but cost is...).

Maneuver drives in that system are a perfect example of how "... inference, interpolation, or extrapolation from the Rules as Written could result in outcomes that, while perfectly aligned with the RAW, are nonetheless ... completely nonsensical." A 1/2-A drive (100Gs*Td), by straight extrapolation from the rest of the table (except the W-Z drives), would cost MCr2 and take up 0.0Td.

Calculating backwards from 0.5Td suggests that half of a Size A maneuver drive produces 75G-Tds (that is, 0.75G in 100Td).
So, split that Size A drive in half, use two of them, and your Type S now can do 3Gs if it has enough power (it doesn't).

 

[Spinward Flow]

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS:

1. Does this mean that LBB2 drives (A, B, C, etc) are actually installed as "pairs" of drives?
2. If #1 is true, then does there not exists 1/2 of an A drive [according to S7 rather than a "house rule"]?

That is taking things too far in the literal direction.
The ABC drives starship construction system simply determines how much tonnage must be "spent" on the respective drives ... not what "shape" or even what "configuration" they appear as in the deck plans. The construction system doesn't drill down to the detail level of "how many nozzles on the engines" at all. That's why it's perfectly possible to have single unit Maneuver-A drives like those seen on the Ship's Boat and Cutter designs, while also having dual unit Maneuver-A drives like those seen on the Pinnace, Type-S and Free Trader.

So in that respect there is no "half A drive" to be had (because when you try that, it's "no longer an A drive" at all).
If you want that level of customization, you're looking at needing to move over into LBB5.80 for that level of granularity.

Or to put it another way, "standard drives" have more than one possible configuration on the deck plans. So long as they add up to the correct number of deck squares inside the hull, it's all good.

For me it's much simpler: RAW is the published written rules in the books.

RAW is what is published in the books, because publication (in print) makes it a common point of reference.
The error is the assumption that what has been published is BE ALL/END ALL and there can never be any more ... as if Traveller cannot be amended or updated in any meaningful way (which is clearly wrong once you see JTAS articles migrating into CT books and given the distinction of being published in official Traveller products).

A better way to think of it is that EVERYTHING WE DO (as fans, as ship designers, etc.) is more or less "house rules" at the start ... but depending on the acceptance of others (think "peer review") those proposed "house rules" can be adopted by others as extensions to the RAW as acceptable add on materials. Obviously then, if the acceptance is high enough, it is always theoretically possible for something that one of us has made might one day (somehow...) wind up in an official publication, allowing it to eventually "evolve" into becoming RAW ... but nothing ever STARTS as RAW when we're publishing it here on the CotI forums.

We can REFERENCE the RAW with what we're doing when we publish here on CotI for review by our peers to seek their acceptance, but there is no assumption that what we do here on these forums carries the same weight of deference or presumption of respect as is routinely given to actual publications.

Everything we do here is Fan Fiction.
But even Fan Fiction can become "canon" if it is accepted widely enough and adopted as such by the fan base and/or creators of a setting or game system. But it starts out as Fan Fiction the overwhelming majority of the time. Only the fortunate (chosen) few items are even given the distinction of being able to move from Fan Fiction to Fanon to Canon.

 

[atpollard]

Agreed, it can be done.
But we don't know how to do it.
Here comes the disagreement (perhaps?): The system we put into place to make it is a house rule.

Except that it's only implied. RAW, only that specific ship design can do it, because it -- and only it -- is stated in print as being able to do it, and there are no rules given for doing so in original designs.

The "Jump Cables" are an IMPLIED CONCEPT whose details are more open to being a "House Rule" [I grant that point.]
What is an IMPLIED CONCEPT with a less "House Rule" aspect would be something like the idea that a C Drive (LBB2) could have "2G" performance in a hull of a certain size.

There is nothing in the RAW that suggests that a MD is a quantum phenomenon and EVERYTHING else in the LBB2 Performance Table suggests that Drives offer a linear progression of performance in various hull sizes. It is EXPLICIT in the RAW that hulls of intermediate sizes may be created. Now I acknowledge that the RAW, strictly interpreted, state that a Drive C will not produce 2G in any hull. This is a R.A.W. fact. Thus there are two "logical" conclusions one may draw:

1. Something intrinsic in the Drive C makes 2G performance impossible, or ...
2. The Table is a necessarily simplification that omits non-standard sizes and combinations.

So a Drive C & 300 dTon Hull Combination that yields 2G performance falls outside the RAW ... but it does not quite feel like the same sort of "house rule" as the details of the Jump Cables to tow ships through Jumpspace.

Would each person's "House Rule" interpolating an implied intermediate combination of 300 dTon Hull and Drive C = Performance 2 really be "unique"?
It really seems to be intrinsic to the Performance Table itself (Implied rather than Explicit).

 

[atpollard]

That is taking things too far in the literal direction.

So from 1977 to 1979, the first Starship was 200 dTons because J1 in a 100 dTon hull is a metaphysical impossibility according to the RAW? (... and we know that the first starship was J1).

That is what originally led me to ponder the existence of HALF a Type A JD. Traders & Gunboats just happened to have a picture of one. [LOL]

[Then HG was released and the metaphysics changed ... ]

 

[Baroun Tardis]

So from 1977 to 1979, the first Starship was 200 dTons because J1 in a 100 dTon hull is a metaphysical impossibility according to the RAW? (... and we know that the first starship was J1).

That is what originally led me to ponder the existence of HALF a Type A JD. Traders & Gunboats just happened to have a picture of one. [LOL]

[Then HG was released and the metaphysics changed ... ]

Or the more explanatory T5 rule about "Experimental" , "Prototype" and "Early" drives, where they're as big or bigger than normal, use more fuel, and have less effect.
That rule makes "The first starship was a 200 ton J1" make perfect sense

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The "Jump Cables" are an IMPLIED CONCEPT whose details are more open to being a "House Rule" [I grant that point.]

Yay, we agree on something!

It's kind of a disagreement, in that (IMO) "house rules" can be more, or less, consistent with the printed rules ("better" or "worse" house rules).
For example, one of those stats might be closer to how Jump Ropes were implemented on that one example than the other stats.

Edit to add: I'm using "Better" and "Worse" there with relation to the Rules as Written. It's perfectly possible that inference, interpolation, or extrapolation from the Rules as Written could result in outcomes that, while perfectly aligned with the RAW, are nonetheless detrimental to playability or indeed completely nonsensical.

The "Jump Cables" are an IMPLIED CONCEPT whose details are more open to being a "House Rule" [I grant that point.]
What is an IMPLIED CONCEPT with a less "House Rule" aspect would be something like the idea that a C Drive (LBB2) could have "2G" performance in a hull of a certain size.

I would hesitate to say that one house rule is "better" or "stronger" than another, simply because I am not the judge of your house rules, and neither are you the judge of mine.

I would leave the value-laden language out of it, and let it just be RAW and house rules.

 

[Grav_Moped]

The "Jump Cables" are an IMPLIED CONCEPT whose details are more open to being a "House Rule" [I grant that point.]
What is an IMPLIED CONCEPT with a less "House Rule" aspect would be something like the idea that a C Drive (LBB2) could have "2G" performance in a hull of a certain size.

There is nothing in the RAW that suggests that a MD is a quantum phenomenon and EVERYTHING else in the LBB2 Performance Table suggests that Drives offer a linear progression of performance in various hull sizes. It is EXPLICIT in the RAW that hulls of intermediate sizes may be created. Now I acknowledge that the RAW, strictly interpreted, state that a Drive C will not produce 2G in any hull. This is a R.A.W. fact. Thus there are two "logical" conclusions one may draw:

1. Something intrinsic in the Drive C makes 2G performance impossible, or ...
2. The Table is a necessarily simplification that omits non-standard sizes and combinations.

So a Drive C & 300 dTon Hull Combination that yields 2G performance falls outside the RAW ... but it does not quite feel like the same sort of "house rule" as the details of the Jump Cables to tow ships through Jumpspace.

Would each person's "House Rule" interpolating an implied intermediate combination of 300 dTon Hull and Drive C = Performance 2 really be "unique"?
It really seems to be intrinsic to the Performance Table itself (Implied rather than Explicit).

#2 is my take on it, almost exactly. The rules are an attempt to describe the fictional engineering constraints, physics, and regulatory requirements of the game universe, simplified for playability.

I would hesitate to say that one house rule is "better" or "stronger" than another, simply because I am not the judge of your house rules, and neither are you the judge of mine.

I would leave the value-laden language out of it, and let it just be RAW and house rules.

The value attribution of house rules can be subjective, but should be based on objective criteria. Not all house rules are equally justifiable within the context of the written rules and their presumed intent, and it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate them. There is clearly a space to debate intent, and there's at least an implicit opening to debate written rules that produce wildly implausible results.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

What is an IMPLIED CONCEPT with a less "House Rule" aspect would be something like the idea that a C Drive (LBB2) could have "2G" performance in a hull of a certain size.

There is nothing in the RAW that suggests that a MD is a quantum phenomenon and EVERYTHING else in the LBB2 Performance Table suggests that Drives offer a linear progression of performance in various hull sizes. It is EXPLICIT in the RAW that hulls of intermediate sizes may be created. Now I acknowledge that the RAW, strictly interpreted, state that a Drive C will not produce 2G in any hull. This is a R.A.W. fact. Thus there are two "logical" conclusions one may draw:

1. Something intrinsic in the Drive C makes 2G performance impossible, or ...
2. The Table is a necessarily simplification that omits non-standard sizes and combinations.

So a Drive C & 300 dTon Hull Combination that yields 2G performance falls outside the RAW ...

That might sound reasonable, but LBB2 is very specific on that that is not how LBB2 works, so it would be a house rule nonetheless.

I agree there is nothing in the setting that says m-drives are quantified, but most simplified design systems only deals with acceleration in integers between 1-6. If we used a more detailed system, such as FF&S, we could give the ship any acceleration we wanted, and even calculate different accelerations for loaded and unloaded mass. But LBB2 isn't even remotely that detailed.

I would say if you want to use LBB2, use LBB2 and accept the tyranny of the Drive Potential Table. If you want scalable drives, use LBB5. Or perhaps FF&S? But that doesn't matter to your game...

 

[Grav_Moped]

I would say if you want to use LBB2, use LBB2 and accept the tyranny of the Drive Potential Table. If you want scalable drives, use LBB5. Or perhaps FF&S? But that doesn't matter to your game...

The issue is that LBB5 drives scale differently than LBB2 drives (and scale based on different criteria, notably TL), and if one chooses to use LBB2 it is because they prefer the scaling criteria and factors of LBB2 to those of LBB5.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Everything we do here is Fan Fiction.

Agreed.

But even Fan Fiction can become "canon" if it is accepted widely enough and adopted as such by the fan base and/or creators of a setting or game system. But it starts out as Fan Fiction the overwhelming majority of the time. Only the fortunate (chosen) few items are even given the distinction of being able to move from Fan Fiction to Fanon to Canon.

But we humble fans don't decide canon, GDW or perhaps MWM does.

RAW is what is published in the books, because publication (in print) makes it a common point of reference.

Agreed.

The error is the assumption that what has been published is BE ALL/END ALL and there can never be any more ... as if Traveller cannot be amended or updated in any meaningful way (which is clearly wrong once you see JTAS articles migrating into CT books and given the distinction of being published in official Traveller products).

Yes, but RAW is amended by official publication. I doubt GDW will publish more material for CT.

A better way to think of it is that EVERYTHING WE DO (as fans, as ship designers, etc.) is more or less "house rules" at the start ... but depending on the acceptance of others (think "peer review") those proposed "house rules" can be adopted by others as extensions to the RAW as acceptable add on materials. Obviously then, if the acceptance is high enough, it is always theoretically possible for something that one of us has made might one day (somehow...) wind up in an official publication, allowing it to eventually "evolve" into becoming RAW ... but nothing ever STARTS as RAW when we're publishing it here on the CotI forums.

But then I have no idea what you or anyone else considers RAW, and have no reference to look it up in. Basically everyone has their own version of RAW, in effect deprecating the concept of RAW.

Yes, we all might agree that some house rules are reasonable (however improbable), and I'm sure there are long forgotten agreed house rules on other fora, but until they are published by GDW they remain house rules.



By all means, continue to design ships and post them here, but add "here are my house rules used ..." in a footnote somewhere so the rest of us can see if it might fit into our campaigns.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The value attribution of house rules can be subjective, but should be based on objective criteria. Not all house rules are equally justifiable within the context of the written rules and their presumed intent, and it's perfectly reasonable to evaluate them. There is clearly a space to debate intent, and there's at least an implicit opening to debate written rules that produce wildly implausible results.

But we will not all agree on the same objective criteria, or the application of "reasonable" on every house rule.

Just let it be a house rule... Some people will like it, others might not.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The issue is that LBB5 drives scale differently than LBB2 drives (and scale based on different criteria, notably TL), and if one chooses to use LBB2 it is because they prefer the scaling criteria and factors of LBB2 to those of LBB5.

It might be, but I thought the general use for LBB2 was simplicity, i.e. fixed off-the-shelf components?

If you really want LBB5 with different drive formulae and TL scales, you can of course do that. As a house rule.

Or just use T5?


Note I said:

I would say ... But that doesn't matter to your game...

You do whatever you want, in your game.

 

[Spinward Flow]

There is nothing in the RAW that suggests that a MD is a quantum phenomenon and EVERYTHING else in the LBB2 Performance Table suggests that Drives offer a linear progression of performance in various hull sizes. It is EXPLICIT in the RAW that hulls of intermediate sizes may be created. Now I acknowledge that the RAW, strictly interpreted, state that a Drive C will not produce 2G in any hull. This is a R.A.W. fact.

It's also an example of the Incompleteness Theorem in action with regards to what the RAW actually contains and spells out (as I've been at pains to bring to light elsewhere).

It's not the that LBB2 Drive Performance Table is WRONG ... but rather that it is INCOMPLETE due to information formatting and publishing limitations of the time it was written (77 and 81).

I am not the judge of your house rules

That might sound reasonable, but LBB2 is very specific on that that is not how LBB2 works

LBB2 (77 and 81) as originally written was very much a "paint by numbers" kind of exercise. There are limited parts and pieces available and you can only use them within incredibly restrictive confines (like the drive performance table that lacks sufficient granularity).

I would say if you want to use LBB2, use LBB2 and accept the tyranny of the Drive Potential Table.

There's a difference between "using the table" and being circumscribed and limited to ONLY the table as written.
It's kind of like pretending that fractions "aren't a thing that can happen" because all the available answers can only be found "in this table" and nothing else counts or matters.

You can SAY that ... but it is incredibly limiting to accept that premise as the be all/end all, discussion over and case closed.
Why?
Because LBB2 was simplified more than it should have been in order to create the presentation format used in the publication. Once you recognize the formulas "behind the table values" and can do the math for yourself, you realize that the drive performance table is INCOMPLETE rather than ALL ENCOMPASSING as published and presented.

In other words, we can Do Better Now ... because We Are Smart™.

By all means, continue to design ships and post them here, but add "here are my house rules used ..." in a footnote somewhere so the rest of us can see if it might fit into our campaigns.

Let me get this straight.

You need a disclaimer ... on something created and posted on these forums, long after CT's print run has ended ... in order to figure out if that something was created "outside" of the publications for CT (because if it isn't part of the CT print run it cannot be RAW)?

I would have thought such a thing would be self-evident, no disclaimer needed.

I've gotten enough pushback from RAW Purists™ that I now have to litter my starship designs with citations to RAW on some 30%+ of the line items involved ... and it's STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH for people who demand RAW Purity Tests for everything. I even include appendices to my starship designs EXPLAINING AND HIGHLIGHTING the "house rules" I'm using to lay out the thinking and methodology involved in extending RAW beyond the mere black letter of what was published ... and it's STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH for people who demand RAW Purity Tests for everything.

I take the view that RAW is meant to be a resource ... one that can be expanded upon, with new insights and discoveries just waiting to be made ... not a straight-jacket that has ossified into "this and no more" since publication.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Enoki]

What you want is something like a bigger version of this (that's an Rb 322 surface-to-air prototype missile Sweden made)

The first stage is a powerful solid fuel booster. For the second in our case you have the ramjets as shown, and add the liquid fuel rocket motor that exhausts out the rear of that stage. It should be cheap enough that as an orbital launch vehicle with 200 kg total load, each round costs so little that you can fire thousands if necessary into orbit to build something over time.

 

[mike wightman]

So from 1977 to 1979, the first Starship was 200 dTons because J1 in a 100 dTon hull is a metaphysical impossibility according to the RAW? (... and we know that the first starship was J1).

That is what originally led me to ponder the existence of HALF a Type A JD. Traders & Gunboats just happened to have a picture of one. [LOL]

[Then HG was released and the metaphysics changed ... ]

Under 77 rules the first starships were capable of up to jump 6 (just about doable as a 200t xboat), the HG jump progression wasn't introduced until HG79, the setting then adopted the jump 1 at TL9 etc paradigm despite the rules as written in the 81 revision through TTB and SE still allowing higher jump numbers at low TLs (although the changes to pp required, computer required and drive by TL in LBB3 changed it to jump3 at TL 9 and jump 4 at TL10).

If you just use the rules as written in LBB 1-3, TTB and SE you get a completely different drive performance by TL progression.

So you see yet again the setting doesn't match the CT 1-3 rules as written

 

[mike wightman]

Or the more explanatory T5 rule about "Experimental" , "Prototype" and "Early" drives, where they're as big or bigger than normal, use more fuel, and have less effect.
That rule makes "The first starship was a 200 ton J1" make perfect sense

Only for the Third Imperium setting, and I don't particularly like the T5 experimantal, prototype etc rule.

The minimum TL for jump drive discovery should be TL9 - we can then argue about if it is jump 1 or jump 1-3 or even jump 1-6 depending on which source you cite.

You could keep the stages within the TL - early TL 9 grants the experimental, later TL 9 grants prototype, with mature TL9 granting standard. Higher TL then gives the more advanced versions.

I much prefer the way MgT handles this than the T5 rules - experimantal nuclear reactors before the printing press... no thanks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's not the that LBB2 Drive Performance Table is WRONG ... but rather that it is INCOMPLETE due to information formatting and publishing limitations of the time it was written (77 and 81).

That is an opinion, might even be called a house rule...

So, if I understand you correctly: RAW isn't actually RAW, because you think it should have been something else that it actually is?

I see you quote parts of sentences out of context again. What I actually said was:

I would hesitate to say that one house rule is "better" or "stronger" than another, simply because I am not the judge of your house rules, and neither are you the judge of mine.

Yes, I'm serious: You are not the judge of my game and vice versa.

You can house rule whatever you want in your game, but I will object if you try to redefine RAW.

LBB2 (77 and 81) as originally written was very much a "paint by numbers" kind of exercise. There are limited parts and pieces available and you can only use them within incredibly restrictive confines (like the drive performance table that lacks sufficient granularity).

And yet, the text is unchanged 40 years later...

There's a difference between "using the table" and being circumscribed and limited to ONLY the table as written.
It's kind of like pretending that fractions "aren't a thing that can happen" because all the available answers can only be found "in this table" and nothing else counts or matters.

You can SAY that ... but it is incredibly limiting to accept that premise as the be all/end all, discussion over and case closed.

When you do something that the system specifically says you shouldn't do, it's a house rule even if you really feel the system is wrong or incomplete.

Can we agree that this is what LBB2'81 actually says?

You can of course house rule it however you want, but that is still just a house rule.

In other words, we can Do Better Now ... because We Are Smart™.

You can do whatever you want, but if it directly contradicts RAW I would certainly call that a house rule.

You need a disclaimer ... on something created and posted on these forums, long after CT's print run has ended ... in order to figure out if that something was created "outside" of the publications for CT (because if it isn't part of the CT print run it cannot be RAW)?

When you claim it's a LBB5'80 design I would expect a disclaimer it it actually wasn't.

E.g.:

LSP Modular Pinnace
Ship Type: KB (Pinnace, Boat)
TL=9 (hybrid LBB5.80 design fitted with LBB2.81 standard drives, and off-the-shelf weapon systems) (LBB5.80, p18)

If we look closer it's quite a collection of house rules used.

Which is fine, unless you claim your house rules are RAW.

 

[mike wightman]

What you want is something like a bigger version of this (that's an Rb 322 surface-to-air prototype missile Sweden made)

The first stage is a powerful solid fuel booster. For the second in our case you have the ramjets as shown, and add the liquid fuel rocket motor that exhausts out the rear of that stage. It should be cheap enough that as an orbital launch vehicle with 200 kg total load, each round costs so little that you can fire thousands if necessary into orbit to build something over time.

It would have to be much bigger, much much bigger. Those missiles and others like it are limited in range and also max speed, neither of which are even close to orbital requirements.

A multi stage that may work, and even have recoverable stages would go something like
first stage rocket or even a regular jet engine
second stage ramjet
third stage scramjet
The holy grail would be a combination engine that can configure itself to transition between ramjet and scramjet
fourth stage rocket

The Space X solution - the one we know works - it to have recoverable boosters. The next step will be if they can get Starship to work - if it does then space flight will get much cheaper really quickly.

 

[Enoki]

It would have to be much bigger, much much bigger. Those missiles and others like it are limited in range and also max speed, neither of which are even close to orbital requirements.

A multi stage that may work, and even have recoverable stages would go something like
first stage rocket or even a regular jet engine
second stage ramjet
third stage scramjet
The holy grail would be a combination engine that can configure itself to transition between ramjet and scramjet
fourth stage rocket

The Space X solution - the one we know works - it to have recoverable boosters. The next step will be if they can get Starship to work - if it does then space flight will get much cheaper really quickly.

Early two stage Nike Ajax missiles with 300 lbs. of warhead could reach 150,000 feet vertically launched with an 59,000 lbf (foot pounds) booster alone and had a second stage 2200 lbf liquid fuel motor that ran for 30 seconds. If you go with something using a mix of ramjets and a liquid fuel rocket motor, you should be able to boost 400 to 600 lbs of payload into a low orbit at a minimum