Boeing is at it again

[atpollard]

I love lots of this sort of technology and questions ...
... what would airships be like at TL 6, 7 or 8?
... Wing In Ground Effect craft ... Flying Boats.
... Variable wing aircraft.
... lifting body orbital smallcraft.

The problem that I keep running into is that Grav Tech becomes available somewhere around TL 8 or TL 9, so most worlds will never have a need for anything but air rafts and G-carriers.
Take the proposed tilt-wing VTOL on the OP, remove the wings and rotors, install grav plates and a magic fusion PP ... it is now 100 times better and can operate on any world.
TL 8 invalidates anything interesting and pre TL 8 is more Steam-punk/Diesel-punk that Travelleresque.

It makes me sad.

 

[-Daniel-]

I love lots of this sort of technology and questions ...
... what would airships be like at TL 6, 7 or 8?
... Wing In Ground Effect craft ... Flying Boats.
... Variable wing aircraft.
... lifting body orbital smallcraft.

The problem that I keep running into is that Grav Tech becomes available somewhere around TL 8 or TL 9, so most worlds will never have a need for anything but air rafts and G-carriers.
Take the proposed tilt-wing VTOL on the OP, remove the wings and rotors, install grav plates and a magic fusion PP ... it is now 100 times better and can operate on any world.
TL 8 invalidates anything interesting and pre TL 8 is more Steam-punk/Diesel-punk that Travelleresque.

It makes me sad.

Or... you can create your own version of the Traveller Universe where Grav Tech does not show up until TL 14 and thus is very costly. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

Though they probably have better weather radar on board then we have now and can plot a course around the storm themselves.

Maybe, but it is still limited to horizon range (before meson magic). Once you have some kind of network to allow aircraft to get around that, it's probably part of some centralised control.

 

[Anonymous]

Not quite as accurate as you think...if o are over the radar horizon you have to have your own radar on board...

No idea what that sentence means. If you are over the radar horizon of who?

 

[wbnc]

Not quite as accurate as you think...if o are over the radar horizon you have to have your own radar on board...

No idea what that sentence means. If you are over the radar horizon of who?

The air control networks radar stations...
radar works on line of sight. If you are in a location where the natural curvature of the planet blocks line of sight..your over the horizon. Also radar is limited by terrain obstructions, and atmospheric conditions.

You need dozens of radar towers to accurately form a wide spread network. Each one linked to a central system which can put together all the data from the systems.Then software has to filter through ground echoes, wildlife ( flocks of birds), and weather system to figure out which return belongs to an aircraft.

Without those system an operator sets at a radio, and gathers information from aircraft in the area. such as where they are, and what altitude, course and speed are.

And it is possible to operate large complex formations using only the resources of the formation..ask the Eighth Air force. once in the air, and over enemy territory they navigated, coordinated flight patterns, and executed their missions just using maps, stopwatches, a sextant and decent maps. and a weather report that was not very accurate.( accurate as the dickens for the time.) They could navigate across Europe, find a five mile wide target area, then set up for their bombing run. While being shot at with heavy artillery, and swarms of fighters.

 

[Anonymous]

Not quite as accurate as you think...if o are over the radar horizon you have to have your own radar on board...

No idea what that sentence means. If you are over the radar horizon of who?

The air control networks radar stations...

I know of no such regulation (but then I do not fly in the USA).

This debate is spiralling out of control.

Since you now agree that aircraft may need modifications when moved to a new planet, and that air traffic control is used for weather redirects, and not only for avoiding traffic jams at the airport, can we now move on to Traveller?

 

[atpollard]

I love lots of this sort of technology and questions ...
... what would airships be like at TL 6, 7 or 8?
... Wing In Ground Effect craft ... Flying Boats.
... Variable wing aircraft.
... lifting body orbital smallcraft.

The problem that I keep running into is that Grav Tech becomes available somewhere around TL 8 or TL 9, so most worlds will never have a need for anything but air rafts and G-carriers.
Take the proposed tilt-wing VTOL on the OP, remove the wings and rotors, install grav plates and a magic fusion PP ... it is now 100 times better and can operate on any world.
TL 8 invalidates anything interesting and pre TL 8 is more Steam-punk/Diesel-punk that Travelleresque.

It makes me sad.

Or... you can create your own version of the Traveller Universe where Grav Tech does not show up until TL 14 and thus is very costly. :wink:

I do, but it is then so far from Rules as Written that it becomes hard to share.
I would push Grav Drives to TL 13 ...

• Then TL 7-9 becomes all about two sets of rockets ... Surface to LEO and beyond LEO with lots of room for interesting things like VTOL SSTO Rockets and Beanstalks and those cool 2001/2300 rotating artificial gravity ships
• TL 10-12 becomes all about starships with fusion torch reaction drives.
• TL 13-15 becomes the Magic Grav drive Traveller that we all know and love.

 

[phavoc]

Not quite as accurate as you think...if o are over the radar horizon you have to have your own radar on board...

No idea what that sentence means. If you are over the radar horizon of who?

The air control networks radar stations...
radar works on line of sight. If you are in a location where the natural curvature of the planet blocks line of sight..your over the horizon. Also radar is limited by terrain obstructions, and atmospheric conditions.

You need dozens of radar towers to accurately form a wide spread network. Each one linked to a central system which can put together all the data from the systems.Then software has to filter through ground echoes, wildlife ( flocks of birds), and weather system to figure out which return belongs to an aircraft.

Without those system an operator sets at a radio, and gathers information from aircraft in the area. such as where they are, and what altitude, course and speed are.

And it is possible to operate large complex formations using only the resources of the formation..ask the Eighth Air force. once in the air, and over enemy territory they navigated, coordinated flight patterns, and executed their missions just using maps, stopwatches, a sextant and decent maps. and a weather report that was not very accurate.( accurate as the dickens for the time.) They could navigate across Europe, find a five mile wide target area, then set up for their bombing run. While being shot at with heavy artillery, and swarms of fighters.

Newer radar allows for precise imaging over long-distances without the penalty of the Earth's curvature. Also, if you have space-faring capability it's far cheaper to put orbital satellites up to monitor this. With civilian traffic you'd simply have them put transponders on, and then each craft can locate and identify anyone in the area as well as receive a data feed from the satellites and determine exactly where all traffic is, including headings, altitude and speed. With the computational capabilities of the higher tech levels it would be quite easy to continually project course and speed and alert any nearby craft of potential collisions.

Pilots of old also used ground landmarks, such as cities, rivers and such to also estimate and correct their positions. That's why the navigator got to see outside. Sometimes the Mk 1 eyeball was all they needed. And, of course, every plane had it's own navigator and they essentially used group-think to get their courses right.

Now the pilots in the Pacific, with mostly water, had to do much better calculations in order to get back to their bases and carriers. Without the benefit of landmarks (for the most part).

I would think grav tech would quickly supplement all other forms of transport because of its advantages. Though it's not the fastest, so hypersonic aircraft still beat the pants off a G-carrier or G-bus or whatever you want. And pure ground vehicles should still be around as they would become quite cheap in comparison, not to mention that many tasks can still be performed quite well with pure ground transport.

Grav is great and has TONS of advantages. It just won't necessarily replace all other forms of transit. You should always see a mix of it no matter where you go.

 

[wbnc]

Newer radar allows for precise imaging over long-distances without the penalty of the Earth's curvature. Also, if you have space-faring capability it's far cheaper to put orbital satellites up to monitor this. With civilian traffic you'd simply have them put transponders on, and then each craft can locate and identify anyone in the area as well as receive a data feed from the satellites and determine exactly where all traffic is, including headings, altitude and speed. With the computational capabilities of the higher tech levels it would be quite easy to continually project course and speed and alert any nearby craft of potential collisions.

Not up on radar systems better than the basic radar used by control centers now. Getting around line of sight would be useful.

Currently all commercial aircraft, and any aircraft wanting to use larger airports are required to carry those transponders. If your not equipped with a transponder the air control network only has a very vague idea of where you are.

Pilots of old also used ground landmarks, such as cities, rivers and such to also estimate and correct their positions. That's why the navigator got to see outside. Sometimes the Mk 1 eyeball was all they needed. And, of course, every plane had it's own navigator and they essentially used group-think to get their courses right.

back in the 80s we had LORAN, and not much more...I carried a road atlas handy most of the time. You don't want to fly visual flight rules ( using the EYE-1) If weather is iffy....My instructor ended up in a tree in the middle of Pisgah national forest. He was trying to fly in cloudy weather, and got lost...ran out of gas, and had to land in a tree top.

Now the pilots in the Pacific, with mostly water, had to do much better calculations in order to get back to their bases and carriers. Without the benefit of landmarks (for the most part).

One of the pilots in my Cival Air Patrol squadron was a Pacific era pilot...best pilot and navigtor I ever met.

I would think grav tech would quickly supplement all other forms of transport because of its advantages. Though it's not the fastest, so hypersonic aircraft still beat the pants off a G-carrier or G-bus or whatever you want. And pure ground vehicles should still be around as they would become quite cheap in comparison, not to mention that many tasks can still be performed quite well with pure ground transport.

Grav is great and has TONS of advantages. It just won't necessarily replace all other forms of transit. You should always see a mix of it no matter where you go.

I agree completely.

 

[Condottiere]

I suspect air/rafts are ubiquitous.

Let's be fair, you don't need to travel that far in most cases, and air/rafts would be subject to air traffic control.

Smart cars should predominate, since they will be driverless, and won't need to be armoured to cater for the suburbanites' peace of mind and over compensation as a proxy to their mid-sized life crisis. Uber being a a mainframe controlling these on demand automated taxis.

 

[wbnc]

I suspect air/rafts are ubiquitous.

Let's be fair, you don't need to travel that far in most cases, and air/rafts would be subject to air traffic control.

Smart cars should predominate, since they will be driverless, and won't need to be armoured to cater for the suburbanites' peace of mind and over compensation as a proxy to their mid-sized life crisis. Uber being a a mainframe controlling these on demand automated taxis.

With airborne transport available and common I can see the entire city Air/ground net being automated by a central system. for the mos art I think a drone/self driven vehicle would be pretty common.( which might explain why the is a whole list of them coming out in my little project)

 

[Condottiere]

The big issue in the Third Imperium seems to be liability if something goes wrong, though that might not really translate that well dirtside.

 

[Anonymous]

One of the tech/robot books says the Imperium has a massive anti-robot bias because of some war. Of course not ever game is set inside 3rd I.