At 30m by 12m, even for the smallest Size 1 world, at the 100 diameter, you're looking at 100,000 KM circle... 9,250,000,000,000,000m^2 vs 360m^2...
To hit it, you have to pretty much TRY to hit it.
X-boat route silliness
- Thread starter rancke
- Start date
At 30m by 12m, even for the smallest Size 1 world, at the 100 diameter, you're looking at 100,000 KM circle... 9,250,000,000,000,000m^2 vs 360m^2...
To hit it, you have to pretty much TRY to hit it.
The jumps are probably pre-programmed and/or done by the AI.
Odds are you'd win the planetary lotto 1st. But, only if your ship had no active & passive sensors...
Then they are hitting other ships just the same, so - no difference.
Jumping into another system...eh, not really, they probably have a safety interlock on their nav system. Maybe though, just like stealing money from the mint.
Good adventure hooks though, hitting an x-boat, both ways. :devil:
When you consider all systems within 6 parsecs and those within 3 as the highest probability, aren't most of the points on that circle not going to see jump traffic at any given time?
There is a world of difference between a ship that can maneuver a little and one that can't maneuverat all.
No, things don't maneuver all the time. The dependent factor would be the pilot really, if they ignore collision warnings (something which modern aircraft have), then they are a hazard to moving ships also; because there is no relationship to colliding with objects because they are not moving, two moving objects can collide as well.
Maneuvering, not moving. An asteroid is moving, but it can't maneuver.
As for collision warnings ... remember when the Millenium Falcon exited hyperspace and ran smack into the remains of Alderaan? Yeah, Solo prevented the ship from getting splatted, but he's significantly better than the average commercial pilot.
If the x-boat is not maneuvering; sine qua non - "not moving" as it lacks movement, then the idea that it collides with something else is contrary to first part. If it maneuvers or moves, then it still constitutes a collision hazard, so no actual difference in either state by logic vis a vis being a collision hazard.
Pedestrians move and constitute a hazard to navigating the road, still the onus remains upon the driver of the vehicle to not hit them.
One would guess that the controls of spacecraft autocorrect to avoid collisions, otherwise there would be many more deadly collisions than are provided by evidence from the material.
Given that at 6Pc, variability is ±18,000km from target point, and target point only needs to be anywhere in that circle... it's going to be quite a bit..
But really, 90% of merchant traffic is going to be J1 or J2 - ±3000 or ±6000km. Still, ±3000km is roughly 27,450,000m^2.
You'd have to aim to have better odds than a local lottery of hitting the XBoat
DangerousThing
SOC-13
I agree almost fully.
1. The information should be encrypted with a TL-15 encryption device which is shipped to the system that supports the X-Boats (the X-Boats should not have the device on board so they can't decrypt the data officially - easily gotten around). Plus most of the information is, well, boring. I wonder what the Imperial anti-spam laws are like, and if they're as effective as our's?
2. The X-Boats should be jumping to/from a far distance from normal travel. They might do this to avoid, as much as possible, the jump-shadow of the local sun. The Tender should be placed so that scheduled X-Boats aren't shadowed, but shadowing happens.
3. Without M-Drive on the X-Boats, it makes it very difficult for the X-Boats to be picked up if two of them appear far away on opposite sides of the tender. If I remember their life support, they don't have a lot left.
Some good adventures could be had with the things that could go wrong with the X-Boat system. However, dead pilots that could have been saved with a little thought make for bad publicity.
I also feel, given the problems, that all mail is sent at least twice on two different boats to make sure that it gets through at least once.
Just my two crimps.
That's is fine, but your ideas don't stand up to any sort of logic or actual data; what you do in you TU isn't of concern to me though.
Cheers.
The idea that putting a small M-drive on an X-boat will encourage crews try to steal them doesn't make sense to me either.
If my ideas don't make sense to you, I'm sorry, but they make perfect sense to me.
And what is the minimum adequate M-drive?
That might be so if outer space was like a racetrack and starships were like racecars. Since they're not, I very much doubt that the analogy is sound.
Hans
Last edited:
The ships will always be accelerating (gravity) and not having an M-Drive does not preclude attitude control or any other form of 'thrust' ... no rule violation in having a CMG or even small RCS thrusters ala the ISS. 
This would facilitate docking, station keeping, orientating for optimal LOS operations, etc.
This would facilitate docking, station keeping, orientating for optimal LOS operations, etc.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
...and not having an M-Drive does not preclude attitude control or any other form of 'thrust' ... no rule violation in having a CMG or even small RCS thrusters ala the ISS.
This would facilitate docking, station keeping, orientating for optimal LOS operations, etc.
QFT, part of the standard "Bridge" package imo so it has that at least.
AND, again, the xboats are NOT anywhere near regular shipping. From CT Supp 7:
“The local station… accepts messages, encodes them, and transmits them to the tender at the edges of the stellar system.”
There is practically ZERO* chance of an accidental collision with an xboat by ANY ship. There is absolutely ZERO chance for an accidental collision with any legally operated ship.
* so small as to be equal to zero in any real measure of the risk, and that only to other Scout and Naval ships on legitimate business in the X-boat Exclusion Zone, and illegally operating ships.
Similar threads
