High Guard "Close Structure"

[F33D]

Did Mongoose ever supply a definition for this? I could not find one in any of the rule books.

 

[rust]

"Close Structure" is a description which has been inherited
from earlier versions of the game, and I do not remember
whether it has ever been defined there. All I can guess from
the material I have is that it is less "close" than a sphere or
a disk, but more "close" than a slab ... :roll:

 

[dragoner]

Original close is like the non-streamlined Gazelle, I'm not sure how mong changes that.

 

[F33D]

"Close Structure" is a description which has been inherited
from earlier versions of the game, and I do not remember
whether it has ever been defined there. All I can guess from
the material I have is that it is less "close" than a sphere or
a disk, but more "close" than a slab ... :roll:

Yep, just found it in MT. Undefined of course. :x

 

[dragoner]

"Close structures are assemblages of components around a central framework, while dispersed structures are assemblages around an extended frame".

- HG1 1979

 

[F33D]

"Close structures are assemblages of components around a central framework, ".

- HG1 1979

That definition applies to everything that isn't a planetoid or dispersed structure... I can see why they left it undefined in later editions. They should have just dropped it though.

 

[GJD]

I'd say the Alexi Leonov from 2010 or the Discovery would probably be close structure. I'd say the Enterprise (ToS) was dispersed structure.

G.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

It probably sounded more cool than saying "Boxed" at the time. Too much use of the grid paper back then. Could inspire more box-looking ships.

 

[F33D]

It probably sounded more cool than saying "Boxed" at the time. Too much use of the grid paper back then. Could inspire more box-looking ships.

Truth

 

[dragoner]

It is defined for what it isn't, like a catch all for what doesn't fall in the other categories like sphere, needle, etc. .

 

[rust]

It is defined for what it isn't, like a catch all for what doesn't fall in the other categories like sphere, needle, etc. .

Looking at TNE's Fire, Fusion & Steel, the other configurations
are Needle, Wedge, Cylinder, Box, Sphere, Dome/Disc and Slab.
I find it rather difficult to imagine a configuration that is "close"
without being one of the other mentioned options anyway, and
which also has a surface area that is bigger than that of a Dome/
Disc but smaller than that of a Cylinder.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

TNE was a different game.

 

[rust]

TNE was a different game.

It was the first serious attempt to get some logic and order
into Traveller's often weird technology assumptions.

 

[dragoner]

It is defined for what it isn't, like a catch all for what doesn't fall in the other categories like sphere, needle, etc. .

Looking at TNE's Fire, Fusion & Steel, the other configurations
are Needle, Wedge, Cylinder, Box, Sphere, Dome/Disc and Slab.
I find it rather difficult to imagine a configuration that is "close"
without being one of the other mentioned options anyway, and
which also has a surface area that is bigger than that of a Dome/
Disc but smaller than that of a Cylinder.

Unless of course it is a mix of two or more of those structural configurations.

If one was to be purely logical, 99% of spacecraft would be spherical, such as Rhodan's Saturn, or cylindrical (esp if it had a rotating habitat); however, then we would lose the very nice diversity of shapes in Traveller spacecraft.

 

[F33D]

Maybe it should be renamed, Irregular. Ships that are built of multiple geometric shapes that preclude streamlining?

 

[FreeTrav]

Maybe it should be renamed, Irregular. Ships that are built of multiple geometric shapes that preclude streamlining?

Not necessarily; one image that comes to mind that might legitimately be classed "Close Structure" is the Space-Shuttle-plus-launch-rockets - the big rocket booster with two smaller ones and the shuttle itself attached. I can't really say that that's not streamlined...

I agree with the classification of the USS Enterprise from (any version of) Star Trek - or indeed most starships from any of those shows - as a "Dispersed Structure".

 

[F33D]

Not necessarily; one image that comes to mind that might legitimately be classed "Close Structure" is the Space-Shuttle-plus-launch-rockets - the big rocket booster with two smaller ones and the shuttle itself attached. I can't really say that that's not streamlined...

Yeah, that's a streamlined/airframe ship.

I agree with the classification of the USS Enterprise from (any version of) Star Trek - or indeed most starships from any of those shows - as a "Dispersed Structure".

Yes, for sure. It's those warp nacelles that cause that design I think.

 

[Jacqual]

Would the Voyager from the series be called a close structure then, and it was streamlined or a some what streamlined as they did perform a planetary landing in one episode if I recall correctly.

 

[F33D]

Would the Voyager from the series be called a close structure then, and it was streamlined or a some what streamlined as they did perform a planetary landing in one episode if I recall correctly.

No, it was dispersed. With enough anti-grav anything can enter an atmosphere.

 

[GJD]

Maybe it should be renamed, Irregular. Ships that are built of multiple geometric shapes that preclude streamlining?

Not necessarily; one image that comes to mind that might legitimately be classed "Close Structure" is the Space-Shuttle-plus-launch-rockets - the big rocket booster with two smaller ones and the shuttle itself attached. I can't really say that that's not streamlined...

I agree with the classification of the USS Enterprise from (any version of) Star Trek - or indeed most starships from any of those shows - as a "Dispersed Structure".

Actually, I'd argue that the shuttle stack would be four ships with grapples. Three streamlined cylinders and one airfoil cylinder or wedge.

G.