Alternative to the 1000D M-Drive limit

Condottiere said:
I think less Tee Five revision, more Marc Miller retcon.

How many planets are in Firefly, twenty seven? You can have a rich campaign just bustling around a large system, as long as it's fairly easy to get to the next town of the week.

You could start graduating out in decimal steps greater ranged gravitational based drives, but there are limits as to how this benefits gameplay.

It's pretty much as to how I wouldn't penalize a budget jump drive with a fifty percent greater minimum distance, if I had a choice, because in some systems, that could really screw up your itinerary.

If the Manoeuvre drive gets revised, perhaps it's time to finesse the jump drive algorithms somewhat as well.

Could be, but that would have had to have been done for MgT2, not after is has already been put out... Changing it in Highguard, would just make it messy and invalidate parts of the already revised MgT2 CRB, so not really a great option either...lol...
 
I assume information from MgT's Book 6: Scout is still canon. In the First Contact and Survey area - Outer System and System Overview Phase, "The default entry point is above the system's orbital plane (ecliptic) in the Oort region (typically 50,000 AU from the star...". Fifty times the 1000D limit.
 
Reynard said:
I assume information from MgT's Book 6: Scout is still canon. In the First Contact and Survey area - Outer System and System Overview Phase, "The default entry point is above the system's orbital plane (ecliptic) in the Oort region (typically 50,000 AU from the star...". Fifty times the 1000D limit.

My guess is that the author either had no idea that the 1000D limit was a thing or that perhaps that is the point the ship jumps to for it's initial system survey before then micro-jumping elsewhere in the system. It is a good spot from which to do the initial survey, but you can't really use the M-Drive out there. (1% efficiency) Although to perform that initial survey, you don't need your M-Drive. The ship basically stays put while the crew performs the initial survey and then jumps to other points of interest, including a gas giant or ice comet for refueling. Or since the Oort Cloud is full of ice asteroids, simply take the time travelling at 1% efficiency to travel to one of those, refuel and jump.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Reynard said:
I assume information from MgT's Book 6: Scout is still canon. In the First Contact and Survey area - Outer System and System Overview Phase, "The default entry point is above the system's orbital plane (ecliptic) in the Oort region (typically 50,000 AU from the star...". Fifty times the 1000D limit.

My guess is that the author either had no idea that the 1000D limit was a thing

Probably because for most of Traveller's history, it hasn't been a thing.
 
Arkathan said:
MasterGwydion said:
Reynard said:
I assume information from MgT's Book 6: Scout is still canon. In the First Contact and Survey area - Outer System and System Overview Phase, "The default entry point is above the system's orbital plane (ecliptic) in the Oort region (typically 50,000 AU from the star...". Fifty times the 1000D limit.

My guess is that the author either had no idea that the 1000D limit was a thing

Probably because for most of Traveller's history, it hasn't been a thing.

It pre-dates MgT and is also in T5, so logically, it should have been written into the MgT rules as well, but most of Us know that the creative process sometimes has some holes in it. Almost everything I write, I have to go back dozens of times to rewrite stuff that contradicts things I wrote previously. I can't even imagine trying to write for Traveller. I am too OCD. I hate contradictions in official material. It always felt like the lazy writer trying to hand-waive their laziness. With all of the Traveller material written over the last 40+ years, trying to write things that don't contradict anything else is an endeavor beyond a human's, a small organized group of humans, or a large group of disorganized humans ability to achieve. All of the writers try (well...most of them anyhow), but the task is nigh impossible, so We can't hold it against them.

And to the best of My knowledge, no one has written a "Continuity Control Program" or even if We are advanced enough to write that computer program at Our current level of knowledge. Even if We can, no one has done it, so that is still out of reach at this time.
 
Classic Traveller used reaction mass, I seem to recall in Highguard (CT5) the ship M-Drive plume could be used as a fusion weapon so it was effectively a torch ship. References to gravatics on ships at the time were about the floor field and inertial dampners not the thrust agency.

Megatraveller introduced thrust plate technology probably because it was becoming apparent when they sat down with the numbers that the m-drives would need to run unimaginably hot to get away with the low reaction mass consumption described in Traveller (the amount of kinetic energy needed as a whole increases linearly with the reduction of reaction mass) and so that the full thrust travel/turn around paradigm could be retained with existing ship designs.

TNE reintroduced reaction mass in HEPlaR (plasma) drives probably as a compromise and to make things a bit grittier and harder again but that impacted ship design and usage.

My feeling has always been that Thruster plates are intended to push against nearby masses (like a bicycle does against the ground/earth) so proximity is needed to couple the thruster field with the mass, similar to some of the distance specific atomic forces, and gravity is not actually relevant.
 
Bill Sheil said:
Classic Traveller used reaction mass, I seem to recall in Highguard (CT5) the ship M-Drive plume could be used as a fusion weapon so it was effectively a torch ship. References to gravatics on ships at the time were about the floor field and inertial dampners not the thrust agency.

Megatraveller introduced thrust plate technology probably because it was becoming apparent when they sat down with the numbers that the m-drives would need to run unimaginably hot to get away with the low reaction mass consumption described in Traveller (the amount of kinetic energy needed as a whole increases linearly with the reduction of reaction mass) and so that the full thrust travel/turn around paradigm could be retained with existing ship designs.

TNE reintroduced reaction mass in HEPlaR (plasma) drives probably as a compromise and to make things a bit grittier and harder again but that impacted ship design and usage.

My feeling has always been that Thruster plates are intended to push against nearby masses (like a bicycle does against the ground/earth) so proximity is needed to couple the thruster field with the mass, similar to some of the distance specific atomic forces, and gravity is not actually relevant.


Gravity is directly related to Mass, so I am not sure I understand how you are separating the two. Or I have been out of college for too long and don't know what I am talking about...lol...

Anymore Mass doesn't matter in Traveller. In Traveller Volume=Mass for all Traveller-based calculations. In MgT anyhow. I know in previous edition like TNE, they still used Mass.
 
This is overly simplified but here goes.

Mass is not a fundamental property.

Mass is the result of energy, momentum, pressure, Higgs field interaction et al giving rise to:
1 a resistance to being accelerated (inertial mass)
2 a curvature of spacetime (gravitational mass)

No experiment has yet shown these two expressions of mass to be in any way different from one another - Einstein can sleep easy for now.
 
Sigtrygg said:
Mass is not a fundamental property.

Mass is the result of energy, momentum, pressure, Higgs field interaction et al giving rise to:
1 a resistance to being accelerated (inertial mass)
2 a curvature of spacetime (gravitational mass)

No experiment has yet shown these two expressions of mass to be in anyway different from one another - Einstein can sleep easy for now.

E=Mc^2 is also
E/c^2=M and
E/M=c^2

All of these are part of the same thing. Momentum is just Mass and Energy (expressed as Force). Force is the amount of energy added to a Mass along a Vector to give it Acceleration. Pressure is merely two Masses and their respective energies working in opposing directions. Higgs fields and such are beyond My general physics education. My only point is this. Mass is definitely part of a fundamental property. Mass and Energy are like 2 sides of the same coin. Not sure what you call Mass and Energy together in one thing though, but whatever it is called, that is a fundamental property of the "Universe as We Understand It". coming soon to a Starport near you! lol

But just from a game rules point of view. If you are going to use some kind of D-limit, 1000D or otherwise, what do you think of My idea of it being variable based on the M-Drive of the ship?
 
MasterGwydion said:
Bill Sheil said:
Classic Traveller used reaction mass, I seem to recall in Highguard (CT5) the ship M-Drive plume could be used as a fusion weapon so it was effectively a torch ship. References to gravatics on ships at the time were about the floor field and inertial dampners not the thrust agency.

Megatraveller introduced thrust plate technology probably because it was becoming apparent when they sat down with the numbers that the m-drives would need to run unimaginably hot to get away with the low reaction mass consumption described in Traveller (the amount of kinetic energy needed as a whole increases linearly with the reduction of reaction mass) and so that the full thrust travel/turn around paradigm could be retained with existing ship designs.

TNE reintroduced reaction mass in HEPlaR (plasma) drives probably as a compromise and to make things a bit grittier and harder again but that impacted ship design and usage.

My feeling has always been that Thruster plates are intended to push against nearby masses (like a bicycle does against the ground/earth) so proximity is needed to couple the thruster field with the mass, similar to some of the distance specific atomic forces, and gravity is not actually relevant.


Gravity is directly related to Mass, so I am not sure I understand how you are separating the two. Or I have been out of college for too long and don't know what I am talking about...lol...

Anymore Mass doesn't matter in Traveller. In Traveller Volume=Mass for all Traveller-based calculations. In MgT anyhow. I know in previous edition like TNE, they still used Mass.
Mass is not affected by gravity. Weight is. When you step on a spring driven scale, you measure weight. Mass is measured on a balance.
Edited to add: But you said that. Not sure what I read that I thought weight... My bad.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Arkathan said:
MasterGwydion said:
My guess is that the author either had no idea that the 1000D limit was a thing

Probably because for most of Traveller's history, it hasn't been a thing.

It pre-dates MgT and is also in T5, so logically, it should have been written into the MgT rules as well, but most of Us know that the creative process sometimes has some holes in it. Almost everything I write, I have to go back dozens of times to rewrite stuff that contradicts things I wrote previously. I can't even imagine trying to write for Traveller. I am too OCD. I hate contradictions in official material. It always felt like the lazy writer trying to hand-waive their laziness. With all of the Traveller material written over the last 40+ years, trying to write things that don't contradict anything else is an endeavor beyond a human's, a small organized group of humans, or a large group of disorganized humans ability to achieve. All of the writers try (well...most of them anyhow), but the task is nigh impossible, so We can't hold it against them.

And to the best of My knowledge, no one has written a "Continuity Control Program" or even if We are advanced enough to write that computer program at Our current level of knowledge. Even if We can, no one has done it, so that is still out of reach at this time.
I'm not holding it against them, I am merely stating a fact. The 1000D hasn't been a thing for longer than it has, and consequently, us neck-bearded grognards who have been playing since before all of the LBB's came out, can safely ignore it as the nonsense that it is. Those who WANT to be stranded in Sargasso jump eddies, or have outer planets inaccessible for fuel mining, are free to adhere to it.
 
MasterGwydion said:
Sigtrygg said:
Mass is not a fundamental property.

Mass is the result of energy, momentum, pressure, Higgs field interaction et al giving rise to:
1 a resistance to being accelerated (inertial mass)
2 a curvature of spacetime (gravitational mass)

No experiment has yet shown these two expressions of mass to be in anyway different from one another - Einstein can sleep easy for now.

E=Mc^2 is also
E/c^2=M and
E/M=c^2

All of these are part of the same thing. Momentum is just Mass and Energy (expressed as Force). Force is the amount of energy added to a Mass along a Vector to give it Acceleration. Pressure is merely two Masses and their respective energies working in opposing directions. Higgs fields and such are beyond My general physics education. My only point is this. Mass is definitely part of a fundamental property. Mass and Energy are like 2 sides of the same coin. Not sure what you call Mass and Energy together in one thing though, but whatever it is called, that is a fundamental property of the "Universe as We Understand It". coming soon to a Starport near you! lol

But just from a game rules point of view. If you are going to use some kind of D-limit, 1000D or otherwise, what do you think of My idea of it being variable based on the M-Drive of the ship?
Then how do photons have momentum but zero mass... :)

The answer is pretty easy, momentum does not require mass and the full formula for energy equivalency is

E^2= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

for the rest mass of a substance the energy equivalency reduces to the E=mc^2 you know and love, which gives us m=E/c^2 which means mass is a derived quantity ie not fundamental.

for a mass-less photon you get E=pc - note that momentum is the ability to exert a motive force which is why light has momentum but zero mass.

The full proof is much longer but very well understood.

Here is something that may get you thinking - most of the 'mass' of an atom is due to the kinetic energy of the quark/gluon 'plasma' that makes up a nucleon (proton or neutron). Only 1% of the mass of a nucleon is due to the rest mass of the quarks, the rest is energy.

As to your idea for the m-drive I think I will borrow it if I may :) It's a good un :)
 
Arkathan said:
MasterGwydion said:
Bill Sheil said:
Classic Traveller used reaction mass, I seem to recall in Highguard (CT5) the ship M-Drive plume could be used as a fusion weapon so it was effectively a torch ship. References to gravatics on ships at the time were about the floor field and inertial dampners not the thrust agency.

Megatraveller introduced thrust plate technology probably because it was becoming apparent when they sat down with the numbers that the m-drives would need to run unimaginably hot to get away with the low reaction mass consumption described in Traveller (the amount of kinetic energy needed as a whole increases linearly with the reduction of reaction mass) and so that the full thrust travel/turn around paradigm could be retained with existing ship designs.

TNE reintroduced reaction mass in HEPlaR (plasma) drives probably as a compromise and to make things a bit grittier and harder again but that impacted ship design and usage.

My feeling has always been that Thruster plates are intended to push against nearby masses (like a bicycle does against the ground/earth) so proximity is needed to couple the thruster field with the mass, similar to some of the distance specific atomic forces, and gravity is not actually relevant.


Gravity is directly related to Mass, so I am not sure I understand how you are separating the two. Or I have been out of college for too long and don't know what I am talking about...lol...

Anymore Mass doesn't matter in Traveller. In Traveller Volume=Mass for all Traveller-based calculations. In MgT anyhow. I know in previous edition like TNE, they still used Mass.
Mass is not affected by gravity. Weight is. When you step on a spring driven scale, you measure weight. Mass is measured on a balance.
Edited to add: But you said that. Not sure what I read that I thought weight... My bad.

No worries man! I fail to read all of the time, so I feel your pain on that one...lol...
 
Sigtrygg said:
MasterGwydion said:
Sigtrygg said:
Mass is not a fundamental property.

Mass is the result of energy, momentum, pressure, Higgs field interaction et al giving rise to:
1 a resistance to being accelerated (inertial mass)
2 a curvature of spacetime (gravitational mass)

No experiment has yet shown these two expressions of mass to be in anyway different from one another - Einstein can sleep easy for now.

E=Mc^2 is also
E/c^2=M and
E/M=c^2

All of these are part of the same thing. Momentum is just Mass and Energy (expressed as Force). Force is the amount of energy added to a Mass along a Vector to give it Acceleration. Pressure is merely two Masses and their respective energies working in opposing directions. Higgs fields and such are beyond My general physics education. My only point is this. Mass is definitely part of a fundamental property. Mass and Energy are like 2 sides of the same coin. Not sure what you call Mass and Energy together in one thing though, but whatever it is called, that is a fundamental property of the "Universe as We Understand It". coming soon to a Starport near you! lol

But just from a game rules point of view. If you are going to use some kind of D-limit, 1000D or otherwise, what do you think of My idea of it being variable based on the M-Drive of the ship?
Then how do photons have momentum but zero mass... :)

The answer is pretty easy, momentum does not require mass and the full formula for energy equivalency is

E^2= (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2

for the rest mass of a substance the energy equivalency reduces to the E=mc^2 you know and love, which gives us m=E/c^2 which means mass is a derived quantity ie not fundamental.

for a mass-less photon you get E=pc - note that momentum is the ability to exert a motive force which is why light has momentum but zero mass.

The full proof is much longer but very well understood.

Here is something that may get you thinking - most of the 'mass' of an atom is due to the kinetic energy of the quark/gluon 'plasma' that makes up a nucleon (proton or neutron). Only 1% of the mass of a nucleon is due to the rest mass of the quarks, the rest is energy.

As to your idea for the m-drive I think I will borrow it if I may :) It's a good un :)

Ouch! My brain! Yeah, reality is complicated. Thankfully game rules can be a bit simpler...lol...

Any and all of My ideas are usable by anyone. Chances are good that others will put My ideas to better or at least greater use than I will, as I am only running games for My kids. lol
 
MasterGwydion said:
Gravity is directly related to Mass, so I am not sure I understand how you are separating the two. Or I have been out of college for too long and don't know what I am talking about...lol...
Yes but what we are talking about is the propulsion method and where the momentum comes from. That's likely Newtonian - even with a "reactionless" drive, there may well be a Newtonian reaction mass: but it not carried onboard the vessel like a torch or rocket ship, rather it is being exerted on another nearby mass through some coupling method - like a bicycle or road vehicle in physical contact with the ground. At least with the right ballast and tread a road vehicle would generate the same or very similar motive thrust on any size planet regardless of planetary mass/gravity. The reaction momentum experienced by the coupled body is the same in absolute terms and while almost undetectable for planetary sized body if the coupled reaction mass was something small like an asteroid then it would show a detectable acceleration in the opposite direction of the vehicle movement. But the acceleration of the vehicle is the same for the energy it expends regardless of whether it is pushing against an apparently motionless planetary body with detectable gravity or a rapidly receding rock with no detectable gravity. What matters is that the vehicle and the mass it leverages are coupled together so that they can exchange force.

But there is no reason that the (fictional) coupling mechanism is through a gravity field, that notion seems to stem from people not distinguishing between gravity, contra-gravity, artificial gravity and anti-gravity and because it maybe seems obvious because presence of mass is associated with the presence of a gravity field (which notionally transfers force between masses). But in fact general relativity gravity does not really work like a normal force field so we actually have to invent something fictional for the job instead. Other fields such as electromagnetic and nuclear forces exist and have interesting properties to borrow for our coupling force but all you basically need is something magical that transfers momentum between two spacially separated masses.

In other words Traveller is basically assuming the existence of some currently unknown force (or several) that can be artificially generated and couples with mass (like gravity) but can also be used as an attractive (artificial gravity), repulsive (lifter plates) or orthhogonal (thrust plates) force, or all three simultaneously (like electromagnetic fields on steroids) and may, in some circumstances, have an exponential coupling distance cut off (a bit like like nuclear forces).
 
Bill Sheil said:
MasterGwydion said:
Gravity is directly related to Mass, so I am not sure I understand how you are separating the two. Or I have been out of college for too long and don't know what I am talking about...lol...
Yes but what we are talking about is the propulsion method and where the momentum comes from. That's likely Newtonian - even with a "reactionless" drive, there may well be a Newtonian reaction mass: but it not carried onboard the vessel like a torch or rocket ship, rather it is being exerted on another nearby mass through some coupling method - like a bicycle or road vehicle in physical contact with the ground. At least with the right ballast and tread a road vehicle would generate the same or very similar motive thrust on any size planet regardless of planetary mass/gravity. The reaction momentum experienced by the coupled body is the same in absolute terms and while almost undetectable for planetary sized body if the coupled reaction mass was something small like an asteroid then it would show a detectable acceleration in the opposite direction of the vehicle movement. But the acceleration of the vehicle is the same for the energy it expends regardless of whether it is pushing against an apparently motionless planetary body with detectable gravity or a rapidly receding rock with no detectable gravity. What matters is that the vehicle and the mass it leverages are coupled together so that they can exchange force.

But there is no reason that the (fictional) coupling mechanism is through a gravity field, that notion seems to stem from people not distinguishing between gravity, contra-gravity, artificial gravity and anti-gravity and because it maybe seems obvious because presence of mass is associated with the presence of a gravity field (which notionally transfers force between masses). But in fact general relativity gravity does not really work like a normal force field so we actually have to invent something fictional for the job instead. Other fields such as electromagnetic and nuclear forces exist and have interesting properties to borrow for our coupling force but all you basically need is something magical that transfers momentum between two spacially separated masses.

In other words Traveller is basically assuming the existence of some currently unknown force (or several) that can be artificially generated and couples with mass (like gravity) but can also be used as an attractive (artificial gravity), repulsive (lifter plates) or orthhogonal (thrust plates) force, or all three simultaneously (like electromagnetic fields on steroids) and may, in some circumstances, have an exponential coupling distance cut off (a bit like like nuclear forces).

Yep. I can see this.
 
Back
Top