Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Imperial Interstellar Scout Service (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Gravity greater than M-drive potential (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=36107)

Marchand May 8th, 2016 11:24 AM

Gravity greater than M-drive potential
 
How do you deal with it where a world has greater gravity than a ship's M-drive potential?

(Mainly thinking about CT and other rulesets with simpler ship design; I think GURPS and T5 go into some detail on a ship's aerodynamics.)

You might say the ship just can't get off the ground (and will crash if it attempts to land).

Another way to handle it might be that streamlined ships can still take off (and make controlled landings) where Atm is 4 or greater and the pilot makes one or more successful Piloting throws.

Fovean May 8th, 2016 11:38 AM

I've been using the theory that every M-Drive produces twice its rating in Gs - half for maneuver, half for inertial compensation. Turn off compensation and you get extra Gs to work with but your crew/passengers/cargo now suffer the effects of G-forces....

mike wightman May 8th, 2016 11:48 AM

Ships that operate in an atmosphere generate lift.

They take off like an aeroplane and accelerate, getting faster and faster and faster.

They gain altitude, and continue getting faster and faster.

The magic maneuver drive continues generating 1g of acceleration until you reach escape velocity.

whulorigan May 8th, 2016 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marchand (Post 538308)
How do you deal with it where a world has greater gravity than a ship's M-drive potential?

(Mainly thinking about CT and other rulesets with simpler ship design; I think GURPS and T5 go into some detail on a ship's aerodynamics.)

You might say the ship just can't get off the ground (and will crash if it attempts to land).

Another way to handle it might be that streamlined ships can still take off (and make controlled landings) where Atm is 4 or greater and the pilot makes one or more successful Piloting throws.

MT/DGP postulated that the M-Drive could be "overpowered' by +40% for an certain amount of time with minimal risk as long as there was a qualified engineer monitoring it (and could be ramped-up to +400% for a few minutes with proper engineer-supervision and significant risk).

T5 includes (form prior rulesets) both Lifters (Z-Drives) and G-Drives & M-Drives. Lifters merely negate weight (and are a hull-fitting) and allow a small degree of lateral movement. With the Lifters in use, the G-Drive or M-Drive can then operate at full acceleration-efficiency unhampered by planetary G-Fields.

mike wightman May 8th, 2016 12:42 PM

Al that is necessary is streamlined hull generated lift, an airframe hull does so with even greater efficiency.

Whipsnade May 8th, 2016 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marchand (Post 538308)
How do you deal with it where a world has greater gravity than a ship's M-drive potential?


From the first I assumed "contra-grav" or "anti-grav" capabilities as implied parts of the M-drive.

After all, LBB:2 allowed acceleration up to 6 gees without ever mentioning inertial dampening, internal "gravitic nets", or even gee-tolerating mechanisms like special suits, special couches, or the Forever War's pressure-buoyancy tanks.

It was when MT added much detail to ship design and description that we got all the systems CT had earlier implied; contra-grav, gravitic deck plates, plus radios, masers, radars, different sensors, etc.

If you want to ignore CT's implied capabilities while also not using MT's increased numbers of systems, you use the suggestions already posted; aerodynamics, overpowering M-drives, etc.

If exploring a "gravitics-free" setting sounds interesting, you might be interested in fellow COTI member Omer G. Joel's up coming Hard Space. Here's a link

aramis May 8th, 2016 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whipsnade (Post 538325)
From the first I assumed "contra-grav" or "anti-grav" capabilities as implied parts of the M-drive.

After all, LBB:2 allowed acceleration up to 6 gees without ever mentioning inertial dampening, internal "gravitic nets", or even gee-tolerating mechanisms like special suits, special couches, or the Forever War's pressure-buoyancy tanks.

It was when MT added much detail to ship design and description that we got all the systems CT had earlier implied; contra-grav, gravitic deck plates, plus radios, masers, radars, different sensors, etc.

If you want to ignore CT's implied capabilities while also not using MT's increased numbers of systems, you use the suggestions already posted; aerodynamics, overpowering M-drives, etc.

If exploring a "gravitics-free" setting sounds interesting, you might be interested in fellow COTI member Omer G. Joel's up coming Hard Space. Here's a link

MT did NOT add Contra-Grav - that was TNE.

MT used 400% thrust on axis for up to 10 minutes, and inertial compensation.

Whipsnade May 8th, 2016 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 538327)
MT did NOT add Contra-Grav - that was TNE.


Same difference.

CT implied certain technologies while later versions detailed the same down to mass, volume, and power requirements.

Jeff M. Hopper May 8th, 2016 09:41 PM

I like Repulsors.

If they can deflect incoming missiles, then surely they can loft payloads into orbit or give those pesky merchant vessels with no legs a helping lift, for a small fee of course.

aramis May 8th, 2016 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whipsnade (Post 538329)
Same difference.

CT implied certain technologies while later versions detailed the same down to mass, volume, and power requirements.

Not quite. TNE's CG cuts the ship off from 98% of local gravity. Which is VERY VERY different from MT's 400% thrust.

MT, you can take off, but you don't have time to dawdle - 1G in a 1.5 G, you make the roll, and push at 2.5G net... some risk of failure and drive damage.

It also puts all but the cloud tops of GG's as needing to be hypersonic parabolae, even with the 400% thrust, because the journey is too long to maintain it...

The Inertial Compensation simply prevents those on board from being thrown about; it has no external protection.


TNE, however, 1 G in 1.5G is taking off at 0.97G with no risk. In fact, TNE CG means you can go down to near crush depth of a brown dwarf and still escape with a near-zero speed... because you can do down to the 19G line and still be accelerating, and be in deep enough to scoop while doing so, so fuel time isn't an issue.

TNE's CG is a HUGE and significant difference from MT's pure thrust and internal acceleration compensation. And TNE also has IC, in addition...

Essentially, in TNE, any ship with 1G can leave any non-gas-giant world under normal thrust with at least 0.5G's of acceleration, and can pretty safely skim; at crush depths, they typically will be wanting to rise to the surface if the CG is working.

In MT, anything past 4G is unreachable by civil shipping, and further, much of the depths are dangerous.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.