General Repulsors

[gchuck]

With the refinements of gravitics in known space, how is it that there are no repulsors.
If an anti-grav 'field' can be produced, why wouldn't it be capable of 'focusing' and projecting said field with some sort of containment i.e. pgun/fgun?
As a defensive weapon, it would be a great deal more economical than buying canisters for your sandcaster.

Comments, concerns, catcalls?

 

[Condottiere]

Current edition has them.

Deflector screens are technological level ten.

 

[mike wightman]

Yup, it is edition specific - and numpty specific.

Repulsors are a thing in CT HG, GT, GT:ISW, T20, HT, MT.

They were removed in TNE because the idiots in charge decided that lasers would trump missiles and hence missiles should become detonation x-ray lasers, repulsors are not needed as point defence will take care of missiles that are nit x-ray detonation missile

 

[Condottiere]

When used as a tractor beam, a successful attack roll causes no damage to the target. Small repulsor bays can hold objects of up to 100 tons, medium bays up to 200 tons and large bays up to 800 tons. Multiple repulsor bays can stack to hold larger ships.

When I read that, I thought candidate for vehicle propulsion.

 

[kilemall]

When used as a tractor beam, a successful attack roll causes no damage to the target. Small repulsor bays can hold objects of up to 100 tons, medium bays up to 200 tons and large bays up to 800 tons. Multiple repulsor bays can stack to hold larger ships.

When I read that, I thought candidate for vehicle propulsion.

Yes the bigger question is tractor beams as extensions of floor gravity.

 

[McPerth]

See that in CT/MT repulsors were said to also be useful against close attacking fighters, but I never saw rules for it

Also, ground based repulsors were told to be used to assist ships landing, and, in the description of Imperial Palace (TD #9), to keep it floating in the air (though it has its own gravitics as a backup)

 

[AnotherDilbert]

MT RM, p56:
The second major breakthrough is artificial gravlty. Created by manipulating subatomic forces, artificial gravity is not anti-gravity but is instead a unique force that acts upon the natural gravity field created by all matter. Artificial gravity can be made to either push or pull. Because of its nature, artificial gravity is not a very efficient means of locomotion in deep space where there are no strong gravity wells to push against.

There's only one basic artificial gravity technology, used for many applications.

Internal gravity, inertial compensation, grav drives, and repulsors are all the same basic tech.

 

[Condottiere]

Repulsor is push, and there are wide area screens of that.

So, tractors being pull, you could assume that a field effect can be created, rather than thousands on tiny tractor beamers embedded in the floor.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

They were removed in TNE because the idiots in charge decided that lasers would trump missiles and hence missiles should become detonation x-ray lasers, repulsors are not needed as point defence will take care of missiles that are nit x-ray detonation missile

Are you sute it wasen't because a-grav drives was removed, and replaced with countergrav that wouldn't make a good basis for repulsors?

 

[infojunky]

With the refinements of gravitics in known space, how is it that there are no repulsors.
If an anti-grav 'field' can be produced, why wouldn't it be capable of 'focusing' and projecting said field with some sort of containment i.e. pgun/fgun?
As a defensive weapon, it would be a great deal more economical than buying canisters for your sandcaster.

Comments, concerns, catcalls?

Heck, "Repulsers" are part of the Maneuver drive reading Beltstrike.

Also in the Traveller Adventure's description of the March Harrier the gravetic system for handling cargo seems to indicate they exist as well.

 

[mike wightman]

Plasma armour - a powerful magneto(gravitic) field holding a plasma window could deflect radiation and small meteorites.

 

[Condottiere]

If you need only a minimal amount, have part of the exhaust of manoeuvre drive exit the spacecraft cone.

 

[willtron3030]

Yes the bigger question is tractor beams as extensions of floor gravity.

IMTU, it all falls under the handwavery category of "indirect momentum transfer systems". Its simulated gravity, reactionless thrust, and some other cute effects, all under one umbrella.

 

[kilemall]

L

IMTU, it all falls under the handwavery category of "indirect momentum transfer systems". Its simulated gravity, reactionless thrust, and some other cute effects, all under one umbrella.

Sure, but in many versions tractor beams are not a thing, and in others they exist but at higher TLs then LBB5 repulsors.

 

[Straybow]

The main problem for "repulsors" or "tractors" being that gravity is omnidirectional, impossible to "focus," and falls off at 1/d².

It would seem that grav drive doesn't push as much as shape the gravity field around the ship, or the deck, to bias it in one direction. The effect is centered on the drive, and can't be projected out to a target.

IMTU the artificially generated gravity falls off at 1/d³. The ship's structure makes the effect act like a closed magnetic field, so the ship experiences nearly uniform acceleration. At a dozen yards away from a ship with an engaged drive, the gravity might make a bystander feel a vertigo-like sense of falling toward the ship. Within a couple yards a person would be pulled off balance, but might become suspended between the ship gravity and local gravity rather than actually hitting the ground. In contact with the hull, or maybe a within a foot, a subject might be pulled against the hull.


Note bene: IMTU I apply real world physics, which means drive power requirements are proportional to the SQUARE of acceleration, not linear. That means ¾G drives are typical, and ships primarily intended for orbital use may be ½G or even ¼ G. A 1G drive is an upgrade requiring twice as much power, while 1¼G and 1½G at 3-4 times the power are considered high performance for commercial ships. A 2G+ military drive takes nearly 8 times power. Fighters top out at 3G, while missiles can sustain 3½G for their short lives, and would have a separate short-burn targeting drive rated at 4G for one minute of closing maneuvers.

Spacecraft drives are designed to allow short periods (10-30 min) of overdrive producing 50% more acceleration. This allows ¾G ships to easily land on 1.1G planets without needing supplemental airfoils or chemical thrusters. Short-burn targeting drives would be overdriven to nearly +100%, approaching 8G.

Close to a large body, drive units can be designed to redirect the local field, utilizing the fact that most of the planet exerts gravity at angle, which cancels out by symmetry for a net straight "down" gravity. Redirection allows the craft to "float" in the planetary field, requiring as little as 40% of the power of artificially generating a counteracting gravity field. A ½G can float in 0.8G and, combined with overdrive, land in 1.2G local gravity.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Someone has been paying attention ...

 

[Condottiere]

I would same that the principles (and laws) involved are the same, just how it's applied.