• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

AG and IC in CT Core Rules

aramis said:
Bk2 also fails to mention the lethality of extended high-G (2+G) flights. It also fails to mention that one shouldn't spend days under more than 1.5G.
Click to expand...

Quite.

aramis said:
Therefore, the implication is that some form of rendering gravity a non-issue must be present. And, given the antigravity tech in Bk3's tech listing, it's the least damaging assumption. (The other options are physically invasive and unpleasant...)
Click to expand...

Which would either involve the Physically Invasive and Unpleasant, OR the slow. That is, long distances to be travelled at or around 1G; High G maneuvers possible* for short maneuvers, but not recommended for long duration.

*I gotta find that Hi-G NASA Study thread again... how many 1000 second turns at High G can a body take?

Mmm. "Physically Invasive, Unpleasant, or Slow." Cole Porter's least popular and most challenging song.
 
I like my anti-grav for the same reason I like my air-raft, both smell & taste like science fiction and both provide a much more civilised Traveller experience.

Now if we were talking the back-up AG/ID systems for a 6g Dreadnought, that would be interesting, else when the AG fails, our 6g Dreadnought has to slow to 1-1.25g for crew safety.
 
jawillroy said:
Quite.



Which would either involve the Physically Invasive and Unpleasant, OR the slow. That is, long distances to be travelled at or around 1G; High G maneuvers possible* for short maneuvers, but not recommended for long duration.

*I gotta find that Hi-G NASA Study thread again... how many 1000 second turns at High G can a body take?

Mmm. "Physically Invasive, Unpleasant, or Slow." Cole Porter's least popular and most challenging song.
Click to expand...

2G is probably 12 hours before perfomance impairment becomes too severe to continue (survivable for a little over 24 hours for most people), but still is going to require actual proper seating for them to be doing anything for more than a couple. 3G is a matter of not-even-two to greyout. 4G+ even the best rated guys are in greyout before the first turn is over. Transient forces (2min or less) of 3-4 G are no problem.

For comparison: a coordinated turn in an airplane is typically under 1.5g's.
 
Out of curiosity, what would be the affect of hi-Gs on folks in low berths?

How will the higher Gs affect them while frozen?
 
jawillroy said:
The ship designs in book 2 don't have any statements whatever about CG or inertia damping. Deckplans came later.

Now, people would die if they went at 4-6G for interplanetary distances. Nothing says that you have to do that.

Some of the ships listed in LBB2 can accelerate between 3-6Gs indefinitely. Nothing says they have to, or should.
Click to expand...

That's about the weakest argument I've seen in as long as I can remember.
 
Depends on the model of low berth. There was an article that described two different types. As I recall the first one (early tech) was cryogenic with drugs used during both the freezing and thawing. Survival rates were low, similar to the CT rates. The second iirc was better and used gravitic control to induce stasis by stopping all motion. In either case I don't see high G acceleration having any effect on the person in such a state which is why I suggested it as one possible alternate solution.
 
pmbnss said:
Out of curiosity, what would be the affect of hi-Gs on folks in low berths?

How will the higher Gs affect them while frozen?
Click to expand...

OOhh! Good question. The NASA thingamawhatsit here...
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930020462_1993020462.pdf
seems to suggest that if you're lying down, you can withstand more (if I'm reading it right.) So if you're lying down AND you're techncally already dead and frozen to boot, I bet you could withstand Gs a LOT better.

Of course, you'd have to want to go fast REALLY badly if you were prepared to accept having the whole crew go into cold sleep to deal with acceleration...
 
pmbnss said:
Out of curiosity, what would be the affect of hi-Gs on folks in low berths?

How will the higher Gs affect them while frozen?
Click to expand...

There are three main possibilities for such berths:
1) cryonics: pump you full of antifreeze and freeze you. You're essentially solid.
2) hybernation: drug you into a coma like state and support the minimalized metabolic rate.
3) hypothermia berths: induce hypothermic shock after some drug preparation to extend viability post chill.
4) stasis boxes: suppress time within the box

Traveller doesn't seem to support #4.

In a cryo-berth, you're essentially frozen solid. If you thaw improperly, you die, as it requires medical intervention in all cases. As long as nothing chips or cracks you (and you're frozen meat, remember? think steak...) you're going to have little to worry about.

Hybernation, you're still squishy, but you ain't reacting. You can still bruise, still need to breath, still need to pump blood.... you just do it all much less often. Compares to tetrodotoxin... if the dosage is titrated right, tetrodotoxin slows resps to 1/min, and heartrate to under 4BPM... so normal G exposure would probably be same or worse.

Hypothermia, probably the same as hibernation.

Stasis: How do they move the box, anyway? ;)

The core doesn't make much of the differences. Various SF have used Cryonics (Trek, Vorkosiverse, TV Buck Rogers, some Niven stories) and hibernation (2001, oBSG, Niven in some books).

Niven invented stasis boxes and used them in Trek TAS...
 
aramis said:
There are three main possibilities for such berths:
1) cryonics: pump you full of antifreeze and freeze you. You're essentially solid.
2) hybernation: drug you into a coma like state and support the minimalized metabolic rate.
3) hypothermia berths: induce hypothermic shock after some drug preparation to extend viability post chill.
4) stasis boxes: suppress time within the box
Click to expand...

I would tend to go with #1 in CT for two reasons. 1) Why not use "fast" for Low passage and, 2) Frozen watch being kept for very long periods of time.
 
HG_B said:
I would tend to go with #1 in CT for two reasons. 1) Why not use "fast" for Low passage and, 2) Frozen watch being kept for very long periods of time.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree for a game where HG is in use... but without HG, or certain adventures (Adv 3 and 12, specifically), nothing rules out hibernation nor hypothermia, since Bk2 doesn't make it clear whether one is required to be awakened every week or not...
 
aramis said:
I would tend to agree for a game where HG is in use... but without HG, or certain adventures (Adv 3 and 12, specifically), nothing rules out hibernation nor hypothermia, since Bk2 doesn't make it clear whether one is required to be awakened every week or not...
Click to expand...


True. HG defined frozen watch
 
aramis said:
I would tend to agree for a game where HG is in use... but without HG, or certain adventures (Adv 3 and 12, specifically), nothing rules out hibernation nor hypothermia, since Bk2 doesn't make it clear whether one is required to be awakened every week or not...
Click to expand...

I'm forgetting - was the "wake up every week" thing a medical thing, or an operational thing? I could see a need for making sure that the frozen watch at least knew where they were supposed to be going...
 
You do realize HG says nothing about frozen watch time in berth either right? There are no Frozen Watch assignments. Nothing about Navy personnel aging slower. Zero data to suggest that it is any different than regular low passenger berths. Later data changed some of that of course but in CT Core Rules it is another bit of largely undefined technology. The only thing one might garner from HG over LBB 1-3 about lowberths is the Navy may be better at reviving than your typical Free Trader. Or they may not be. Crew losses might be below the level of the game when talking the hundreds plus needed. It's a very abstract system.

LBB 1-3 seems to imply that a week in a berth is the advised rotation and I see nothing in HG contradicting that. Maybe the Navy is willing to accept such losses. Maybe it really is the punishment assignment I always pegged it as. "That's it Chief, you've crossed the line, it's the coolers for you, 3 rotations of Frozen Watch." Sorta like keel-hauling of olde.

Maybe longer than a week is even more unhealthy. Or maybe the small systems used aren't up to longer term support. Again, later embellishments changed this.
 
jawillroy said:
I'm forgetting - was the "wake up every week" thing a medical thing, or an operational thing? I could see a need for making sure that the frozen watch at least knew where they were supposed to be going...
Click to expand...

It was a trade thing :) (It might be a medical thing, or even a systems thing though)

Personally I think keeping the Frozen Watch more or less cognizant of what year it is and what sector they're in makes sense ;) I'd make it one week for the IN as well. Also see my musing above.
 
HG_B said:
There was no "wake up every week" rule in CT.
Click to expand...

And there was a "no need to wake up every week" rule? :file_22:

Actually the only rule on it that I can recall is in fact a wake up every week rule. You pay for a 1 jump (1 week) trip in low berth, and then you wake up. Simple ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top