Recent content by AnotherDilbert

No, that is way below the chosen level of abstraction. You are assumed to field a viable ships with good sensors.

Absolutely agreed.

Ran aground? A PBR is supposed to be able to stop from top speed in 10 m or so...

Books? How very 20th century... Isn't that what you do every time you move?

Agreed, but I would assume the opposite causation: The standard hull was dimensioned for the Sub Liner, and was redimensioned for it in LBB2'81. Edit: Checking, I would be wrong: the LBB2'77 standard 600 t hull leaves 15 t free in Engineering, enough for J-4 or M-2.

Sure, but spacecraft are not watercraft. A Tigress accelerates just as fast as a tiny fighter, unlike water-bound battleships. Imagine a battleship accelerating like a PBR...

Chosen at random when LBB2 was written in the '70s?

Agreed, it depends on the situation and the check... I would say flying by the seat of the pants is DEX, executing a preplanned trajectory is EDU, calculating the trajectory is INT, or something like that. The Core book gives us some hints: Performing the same task using Pilot skill is...

Your "rational expectation" is not my "rational expectation", it's your belief of what a "rational expectation" is.

It is your belief that it's reasonable. That is not a provable statement. Based on your belief of what is reasonable. Your belief is not a settled, proven fact, hence not a base for a logical proof. If you can do the proof without using "it's reasonable to expect", I'm eager to hear it. If...

I was just paraphrasing you own motivation for the fallacy: I find your usage of the word "reasonable" rather unreasonable.

That is not what I said, I said it's your belief that its so important it has to be mentioned in every description. I don't doubt you believe that. Yes, that is your belief. Yes, we disagree about if every detail must be mentioned in every article. The description in JTAS is still brief...

Yes, it's a logical fallacy. You deliberately argue from ignorance, because you believe it is reasonable. I don't believe jump space is a small room, or that the exact composition of the plasma in it is an elephant.

So your argument rests on that you believe that a hydrogen-filled bubble is so important that it must be mentioned in all discussions of jump space. I don't believe that every description of a technology in an RPG must be complete. Details may be left out. The description in HG is incomplete...

I believe the main cause of contention is: vs.: The first quote does not mention the role of the power plant. The second quote does not mention hydrogen-filled bubbles. I maintain there is no contradiction (they are not mutually exclusive) as "does not mention" is not evidence of absence...