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 12:24 PM

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 12:38 PM

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 12:48 PM

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 01:30 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 01:42 PM

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

Whipsnade May 8th, 2016 05:45 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 06:31 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 06:43 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 10:41 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 11:55 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.

Whipsnade May 9th, 2016 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramis (Post 538348)
Not quite. TNE's CG...

The details are irrelevant to the point being made, Wil.

CT strongly implied unseen and unnamed technologies which allowed 1g ships to take off in +1 gee gravity fields.

MT by GDW continued that model leaving the answer up to the referee.

DGP, a third party publisher writing for MT, wrote that M-drives can be "overclocked" up to 400% in SSOM, a product just like the Judge's Guild output, is merely approved for use with Traveller.

TNE then decided to answer the questions by providing specific equipment.

So, my point again is, CT left things about to the referee with some sort of CG being part of the M-drive, while later versions provided specific answers with specific attributes.

atpollard May 9th, 2016 12:51 AM

I guess that makes me the lone heretic.

If the ship has too little thrust to lift off, then it docks at the highport or stays in orbit and waits for a shuttle.

JUST LIKE A ROCKET WITH A T/W <1!

(This IS rocket science.) ;)

IMTU a ship with a 400% of 1G MD is called a 4G MD. (Duh). :)

aramis May 9th, 2016 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whipsnade (Post 538354)
The details are irrelevant to the point being made, Wil.

CT strongly implied unseen and unnamed technologies which allowed 1g ships to take off in +1 gee gravity fields.

MT by GDW continued that model leaving the answer up to the referee.

DGP, a third party publisher writing for MT, wrote that M-drives can be "overclocked" up to 400% in SSOM, a product just like the Judge's Guild output, is merely approved for use with Traveller.

TNE then decided to answer the questions by providing specific equipment.

So, my point again is, CT left things about to the referee with some sort of CG being part of the M-drive, while later versions provided specific answers with specific attributes.

Actually, DGP's SSOM was cited as canonical by GDW staffers even while in print. It was clearly considered canonical by GDW, in a way that other licensees weren't, as, essentially, GDW outsourced MT to DGP.

The nature of the handwavium also was already reflected in the times to orbit table in MT IE...

kilemall May 9th, 2016 01:36 AM

IMTU double the G output of the M-drive at a cost of one day's fuel per 100 seconds (effectively forgoing the efficient ion/Emdrive like normal cruise thrust by dumping fuel in for a chemical/grav compressed mode).

It is also stressful, starting at 300 seconds continuous one starts rolling for cracking the M-drive chamber.

G-liners operate more like slow air/rafts in a stressed G capacity (1:1). They simply won't go to high-G planets (grav driven craft are for civilized space).

kilemall May 9th, 2016 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fovean (Post 538309)
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....


That's rather clever. At the moment I want a more guaranteed painful experience at higher Gs, but that could be a fun alternative.

Fovean May 9th, 2016 02:48 AM

Thank you. Clever perhaps, more about simplification. Unfortunately there's little in the RAW dealing with lack of inertial compensation that I can find so I've had to house-rule that :/

Which actually is not a big deal. Acceleration couches/benches, g-drugs and certain EVA/combat suits all take care of most worlds. I've come around to inflicting damage in these situations (if any) at the speed of plot rather than devising over-arching rules. Outside of extreme evasive maneuvers it would generally amount to bruises, nose bleeds and black outs so unless it's the pilot that suffers one of those the team can generally count on getting to the next beat.

Basically I'm doing MDrive - WorldG = Actual MDrive

What makes this simplification interesting to me is the SPEED at which a ship can or can't exit the gravity well - a lot of those hi-g worlds have really fast atmospheric/interface raiders/interceptors that can really mess up a sluggish 1G or 2G ship's day. So yeah, it ain't the maneuvers that'll get you, it's the bad guy running circles around you... Or the disgruntled high passenger suffering an extra 0.4G in addition to the extra several hours to the jump point...

kilemall May 9th, 2016 11:43 AM

Fovean, Marchand, we went into this in detail in one of my first threads, a good read for several takes on a solution to your OP.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Dis...ad.php?t=34502

Marchand May 9th, 2016 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kilemall (Post 538381)
Fovean, Marchand, we went into this in detail in one of my first threads, a good read for several takes on a solution to your OP.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Dis...ad.php?t=34502

Excellent, thanks. I thought it must have been covered previously but couldn't find a reference.

Many good suggestions already in this thread.

timerover51 May 10th, 2016 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 538358)
I guess that makes me the lone heretic.

If the ship has too little thrust to lift off, then it docks at the highport or stays in orbit and waits for a shuttle.

JUST LIKE A ROCKET WITH A T/W <1!

(This IS rocket science.) ;)

IMTU a ship with a 400% of 1G MD is called a 4G MD. (Duh). :)

Make that two heretics.

Edit Note: I should add that I use mainly Classic with a touch of Mongoose for ship design (mainly to get the variety of the interstellar drives in Mongoose). I assume that the maneuver drive rating in Gees is for a fully loaded ship, with all jump fuel and fully loaded with cargo. Generally, I assume 5 tons mass per Traveller displacement ton of volume for Free Traders and mixed passenger-cargo ships, and 15 tons of mass for dedicated cargo and bulk carrier ships. I have some formulas that I use to convert Traveller hull volume to mass for private and commercial ships, with military ships a different category. As such, once a ship jumps, it has a bit of maneuver drive reserve in terms of Gees. The result is that a ship with a listed capability of 1G, if post-jump and traveling light on cargo may actually be capable of 2 or more Gees.

In My Heretical Traveller Universe, fuel for ship operation is a negligible factor in ship's mass, so more of a cushion.

mike wightman May 10th, 2016 03:28 PM

Typical Traveller ships do not have rocket drives, they don't throw reaction mass out of the back and don't have to worry about delta-V or orbital mechanics. The magic 1g maneuver drive provides a constant 1g of thrust.

Don't take off like a rocket, take off like an aeroplane - you accelerate along the ground until you achieve sufficient speed to become airborne thanks to lift - your ship is streamlined remember.
You now keep accelerating and climbing, getting faster and faster until your horizontal thrust is matched by air resistance, so you climb to lesson the air resistance, your thrust remains 1g and you keep climbing and getting faster.
When you reach an altitude where their is too little air to provide lift you will be going fast enough to point the nose up and achieve orbit - gravity falls off with distance and even if you only have effectively 0.01g of net acceleration for this 'rocket' stage of the flight you will still achieve orbit. It won't be as fast as just blasting off with a 2g drive, but you will get their.
Taking off from a 1g world with a 1g ship is easily doable.

atpollard May 10th, 2016 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 538484)
Typical Traveller ships do not have rocket drives, they don't throw reaction mass out of the back and don't have to worry about delta-V or orbital mechanics. The magic 1g maneuver drive provides a constant 1g of thrust.

Don't take off like a rocket, take off like an aeroplane - you accelerate along the ground until you achieve sufficient speed to become airborne thanks to lift - your ship is streamlined remember.
You now keep accelerating and climbing, getting faster and faster until your horizontal thrust is matched by air resistance, so you climb to lesson the air resistance, your thrust remains 1g and you keep climbing and getting faster.
When you reach an altitude where their is too little air to provide lift you will be going fast enough to point the nose up and achieve orbit - gravity falls off with distance and even if you only have effectively 0.01g of net acceleration for this 'rocket' stage of the flight you will still achieve orbit. It won't be as fast as just blasting off with a 2g drive, but you will get their.
Taking off from a 1g world with a 1g ship is easily doable.

Except you don't.
At 1 G thrust on a 1.2 G world you scrape that flat plate that the ship rests on along the ground, throwing sparks and carving a groove in the tarmac until the landing strut fails. ;)

A ship COULD be built to use lift.
The Classic ships (and starports) in the illustrations are not.

QED: That is why class A & B starports have Highports and class C & D starports have shuttles. Now they actually get some use.

aramis May 10th, 2016 04:09 PM

The Dragon Article, Exonidas Spaceport, by Jeff Swycaffer (Issue 76), puts a HG repulsor in the starport for launching ships ...

mike wightman May 10th, 2016 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 538487)
Except you don't.
At 1 G thrust on a 1.2 G world you scrape that flat plate that the ship rests on along the ground, throwing sparks and carving a groove in the tarmac until the landing strut fails. ;)

Ever hear of the wheel? Last time I looked a 0,6g aircraft can take off just fine from a 1g world, ergo a 1g ship can lift from a 1.2 g world, you just have to hope the additional gravity means a thicker atmosphere so you can get high enough and fast enough that you can achieve orbit.
Hmm, how high do you have to be that the gravity has fallen to 0.99g?

Quote:

A ship COULD be built to use lift.
The Classic ships (and starports) in the illustrations are not.
If they are streamlined they do. The illustrations of ships are as much use as Aslan pictures.

hdan May 10th, 2016 05:28 PM

IMTU, I don't like M-drive overthrusting for routine operations like liftoff from a high-G world.

Instead, I have any TL8+ streamlined and standard hulls outfitted with lifter modules (like an air/raft uses). Those lifter modules can raise the ship, and are used for moving the ship around the port landing facility. On liftoff, the ship uses its lifters to get clear of the starport buildings, then activates the M-drive to climb to orbital altitude (and of course to gain velocity if trying to establish an orbit).

The lifters themselves are not capable of very fast acceleration, though of course they technically *could* lift the ship out of the atmosphere, given enough time.

For simplicity's sake, I consider lifters to be part of the cost of the ship's hull. And once or twice, I've had players have to deal with damaged lifters.

atpollard May 10th, 2016 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 538493)
If they are streamlined they do.

Please prove it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TTB,Pg60
Atmospheric Streamlining: The hulls specified are rough deep space configurations incapable of entering atmospheres. They may be streamlined by so indicating in the design plans, at a cost of MCr 1 per 100 tons of ship. This streamlining includes fuel scoops which allow the skimming of unrefined fuel from gas giants and the gathering of water from open lakes or oceans. Streamlining may not be retrofitted; it must be included at the time of construction.

Says nothing about 'lift'. Like the Apollo Capsule, the streamlining simply provides a shape that is stable in atmosphere ... like a bullet. Without streamlining, parts break off. With streamlining, all the parts stay on.

I have no idea why the game provides such wonderful opportunities for High Ports and Shuttles and all sorts of adventures and local color, and then people want to engage in such mental gymnastics to render High Ports useless, and shuttles pointless and wave our arms while frantically shouting "overclock" and discarding all of the rich visual texture of the illustrations as "that's not what it is like".

How about if we embrace "High Ports" and "Shuttles" and "1G means 1G" and all of the artwork ... and a hand full of 1.2 G worlds become just a little more interesting when the SPA directs you to a parking orbit and you get five comms from competing shuttle companies that can transfer people or cargo from orbit to ground at different rates and prices. Do you spend several hours as a slow launch makes lots of trips (and save some money)? Do you spend extra for a 6G passenger service?

What is so terrible about this?

shaunhilburn May 10th, 2016 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 538313)
Al that is necessary is streamlined hull generated lift, an airframe hull does so with even greater efficiency.

Absolutely. Aerodynamic lift is available at TL 5 and doesn't just vanish once spaceflight is introduced.

Also, load factors should be considered. What is the acceleration of a Type A free trader with a full cargo hold? What is the acceleration with an empty hold? Since F=ma, acceleration cannot be the same in both situations. Less payload = more lift; so A Type A trader should be able to depart the most massive terrestrial worlds by leaving with less cargo.

Enoki May 10th, 2016 08:08 PM

Even if there were no atmosphere, the ship could still use forward momentum to build up to escape velocity climbing away from the planet at less than a vertical climb. This is akin to a missile that doesn't use lift but has less than a 1 to 1 weight to thrust combination.

So, it might have to skim the planet's surface for quite a distance slowly building speed to then start climbing away from it.

whartung May 10th, 2016 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 538498)
I have no idea why the game provides such wonderful opportunities for High Ports and Shuttles and all sorts of adventures and local color, and then people want to engage in such mental gymnastics to render High Ports useless, and shuttles pointless and wave our arms while frantically shouting "overclock" and discarding all of the rich visual texture of the illustrations as "that's not what it is like".

If you look at the bulk of Traveller art, ships are depicted landed at a dirt side space port of some kind.

Also, folks tend to like the idea ala Firefly, ala Star Wars, to "set it down over there" in some appropriate clearing and then able to leave without, ideally, sparking off the largest wild fire since Tokyo '45.

The High Fantasy of Traveller is ships buzz around night and day, in and out of planets, with little more than a pleasing, cool humming sound, using little more than a large button and, perhaps, several levers with colorful knobs on them.

Think too hard on it and, yea, you have to come up with things like "Lifting bodies" and such.

LBB 1-3 and TTB are Traveller at is Space Opera-ish, Highest Fantasy-ist.

Issues like this aren't detailed, and don't come up because they don't matter.

Streamlining, fuel scoops, buoyancy, crush depth, lifting bodies, thrusters, heat exchange, blah blah blah -- TMI for the basic premise of getting characters in and out of Adventure™.

Whipsnade May 10th, 2016 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whartung (Post 538511)
Streamlining, fuel scoops, buoyancy, crush depth, lifting bodies, thrusters, heat exchange, blah blah blah -- TMI for the basic premise of getting characters in and out of Adventure™.


Very neatly put.

As always, the issue arises when the needs of those who play Traveller come into contact with the needs of those who play with Traveller.

Between the late 70s and early 90s, I ran countless sessions, adventures, and campaigns for players ranging from high school students to active duty military members to college students to war gamers to just plain folks and not one ever bothered with this question. Ships took off, ships landed, and the fun continued.

Please note: None of those two styles of play are superior to the other. They just have different goals and thus different requirements.

tjoneslo May 10th, 2016 08:40 PM

I recall an early article in IIRC, White Dwarf, where it was possible to purchase a one-time use rocket on high gravity worlds. This was attached to your ship for take off. It would produce something between 0.2 and 0.5 G, and long enough to get your ship into orbit. Cost a few hundred credits. Enough to be painful, but not enough to ruin a good trade.

welsh May 10th, 2016 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 538487)
Except you don't.
At 1 G thrust on a 1.2 G world you scrape that flat plate that the ship rests on along the ground, throwing sparks and carving a groove in the tarmac until the landing strut fails. ;)

A ship COULD be built to use lift.
The Classic ships (and starports) in the illustrations are not.

QED: That is why class A & B starports have Highports and class C & D starports have shuttles. Now they actually get some use.

This has always been my take on it, too. There are some worlds where you can't land if you're in a 1G ship. This doesn't detract from adventures; it just adds some flavour.

I do like some of the workarounds, though. Many ways to skin this cat.

aramis May 11th, 2016 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whartung (Post 538511)
If you look at the bulk of Traveller art, ships are depicted landed at a dirt side space port of some kind.

Also, folks tend to like the idea ala Firefly, ala Star Wars, to "set it down over there" in some appropriate clearing and then able to leave without, ideally, sparking off the largest wild fire since Tokyo '45.

The High Fantasy of Traveller is ships buzz around night and day, in and out of planets, with little more than a pleasing, cool humming sound, using little more than a large button and, perhaps, several levers with colorful knobs on them.

Think too hard on it and, yea, you have to come up with things like "Lifting bodies" and such.

LBB 1-3 and TTB are Traveller at is Space Opera-ish, Highest Fantasy-ist.

Issues like this aren't detailed, and don't come up because they don't matter.

Streamlining, fuel scoops, buoyancy, crush depth, lifting bodies, thrusters, heat exchange, blah blah blah -- TMI for the basic premise of getting characters in and out of Adventure™.

Streamlining...
CT-77 Bk 2 p. 15.
CT-81 Bk 2 p. 15.

It's optional, not standard.
Types S, A, R, and T are standard designs with streamlining. Types M, C, Y are not. (Nor are the later Type P nor L, but the Types J and K are.)

So, normative, but definitely not ubiquitous.

Enoki May 11th, 2016 03:21 AM

Well, there's also the use of the ship's grav system itself. If the system is capable of compensating for maneuvers beyond the 1G of the ship, and even if it isn't, you could conceivably use it to lighten the ship and produce a better thrust to weight ratio...

So, let's say the grav system can produce 1G to let everyone onboard be comfortable. You simply dial that in the other direction such that it now produces -1G and compensates for the say, 1.4G of the planet leaving the ship with a .6G acceleration edge to get out of the gravity well with...

mike wightman May 11th, 2016 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welsh (Post 538528)
This has always been my take on it, too. There are some worlds where you can't land if you're in a 1G ship. This doesn't detract from adventures; it just adds some flavour.

I do like some of the workarounds, though. Many ways to skin this cat.

How do .4g airplanes land on a 1g world?

A streamlined 1g ship will have no problem at all landing - all it needs is a long runway and brakes.

flykiller May 11th, 2016 02:21 PM

Quote:

A streamlined 1g ship will have no problem at all landing - all it needs is a long runway and brakes.
there's a big difference between "streamlined" and "aerodynamic". lots of traveller ships are streamlined but have all the aerodynamics of a brick.

kilemall May 11th, 2016 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykiller (Post 538606)
there's a big difference between "streamlined" and "aerodynamic". lots of traveller ships are streamlined but have all the aerodynamics of a brick.

Conformal deflectors.

atpollard May 11th, 2016 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 538597)
How do .4g airplanes land on a 1g world?

A streamlined 1g ship will have no problem at all landing - all it needs is a long runway and brakes.

LANDING isn't the problem (although walking away can get tricky) :rofl:
;)

Enoki May 11th, 2016 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykiller (Post 538606)
there's a big difference between "streamlined" and "aerodynamic". lots of traveller ships are streamlined but have all the aerodynamics of a brick.

Better a brick than being a lawn dart... :oo:

welsh May 11th, 2016 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike wightman (Post 538597)
How do .4g airplanes land on a 1g world?

A streamlined 1g ship will have no problem at all landing - all it needs is a long runway and brakes.

Flykiller said it already. Streamlined <> Aerodynamic.

Most Traveller ship designs don't incorporate aerodynamic features. This isn't just about illustrations, which can be questioned ... remember, there are also deck plans to go with them.

aramis May 11th, 2016 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by welsh (Post 538669)
Flykiller said it already. Streamlined <> Aerodynamic.

Most Traveller ship designs don't incorporate aerodynamic features. This isn't just about illustrations, which can be questioned ... remember, there are also deck plans to go with them.

of the CT ship designs declared standard under Bk 2...

Types A, R, M, C, T, P, L, K, J...
Streamlined: A, R, T, K, S, J
Wings: R, T
Possibly lifting body: S, J, A

Given some method of maintaining attitude, the S, J, and A types all can maintain aerodynamic lift.

alveric May 13th, 2016 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 538630)
LANDING isn't the problem (although walking away can get tricky) :rofl:
;)

"Just get us on the ground!"

"Oh, that part'll happen pretty definitely..."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:06 PM.

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