Loaded vs. Unloaded M-ratings

[CosmicGamer]

But as I said, this whole "gravity well in front of the ship" argument seems to have been pulled out of thin air anyway and has no basis in the MGT rules.

Perhaps a personal elaboration on what a gravitic drive does? I too am not aware of a specific reference to "gravity wells". If you don't like gravity wells it's not MgT's fault. As I said.

some theory hatched (from previous versions or wherever else) which breaks the laws of science is what is wrong, not MgT.

There are rules about guns and damage but no scientific details or explanation are provided in MgT regarding chemistry and gunpowder to determine how fast a bullet travels so I guess the gun can't work?

The point is that MgT does use gravitic technology even if the details are not provided.

The gravitic drive is the standard for spacecraft throughout the Imperium

Gravity wells are a part of todays gravity science and not some made up thing. To me, with gravitic technology the mass issues that rockets or other methods of propulsion might have are explained with todays understanding: an apple and a ball of lead do accelerate at the same rate. I personally think some futuristic gravitic drive is more believable than jump drives and flat 2D universes with locations spaced exactly multiples of jump1 apart.

Many parts of the game are for playability and not simulation.

 

[Wil Mireu]

But as I said, this whole "gravity well in front of the ship" argument seems to have been pulled out of thin air anyway and has no basis in the MGT rules.

Perhaps a personal elaboration on what a gravitic drive does? I too am not aware of a specific reference to "gravity wells". If you don't like gravity wells it's not MgT's fault. As I said.

No, it's not MGT's fault, because MGT doesn't mention "falling down gravity wells" at all - yet people seem to be insisting on assuming that is how they work. They're wrong. I would like them to stop insisting that they are right, because there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they work like that at all, and a lot of evidence that they don't.

Now that I'm back home I can check my books:

The MGT corebook has no mention of how M-Drives work at all. MGT High Guard mentions that they are gravitic, but elaborates no further:

The gravitic drive is the standard for spacecraft throughout the Imperium, combining efficiency with moderately high thrust.

The small craft section on page 57 of MGT HG says:

A Gravitic drive is a smaller version of the drive plates used by larger spacecraft, and propels the craft using artificial gravity.

Again, not really clear, since "using artificial gravity" could mean anything - Thruster Plates as described in TNE work using artificial gravity too. Though this section also says that drive plates are used for small craft and larger spacecraft.

I will note that MGT HG also mentions Reaction Drives (i.e. rockets, or something else that uses reaction mass that pushes the ship forward), which ignore the mass of the ship again and use its displacement - that blows away the argument that mass doesn't matter since Reaction Drives do not depend on volume - they depend on mass. So quite obviously the volume being pushed must be assumed to have a mass, though the rules simplify things so much that it's impossible to tell what it is.

And that's all Mongoose Traveller has to say about how they work.

Previous editions have more info though:

Megatraveller Referee's Companion (pg 33-34):

TL 10: [...] Gravitic maneuver drives replace older chemical thrust maneuver drives. However, gravitic maneuver drives have difficulty operating away from large masses (they need the strong gravity field to push against.

TL 11: [...] Research into the problems of gravitic drives leads to the introduction of thruster technology. Thruster technology, a combined spin-off of gravitic and damper technology, uses a strong molecular repelling force to produce reactionless thrusters which push against large plates mounted on the space vessel Thrusters do not require the presence of a large gravity field to operate effectively, but instead are highly localized with virtually none of the projection ability of gravitics.

And then there's TNE which I quoted earlier (page 73, FF&S):

Maneuver drives in previous editions of Traveller were explained as related to the same body of theoretical physics which allowed artificial gravity and damper fields, which is to say manipulation of gravitational force and the strong nuclear force. Artificial gravity was defined as a force which could either push or pull and which acted on the gravitational field of a mass. Clearly,this would not be an efficient means of travel outside of a gravity well,and so a further advance was postulated which allowed the force generated by the drive to push on the actual thruster plates of the ship itself, propelling it through space and achieving a true reactionless drive.

I could spend more time looking through other editions, but they say pretty much the same thing too, so as far as I'm concerned we are done with this aspect of the discussion. Thrusters are a reactionless drive with a gravitic origin that push against plates mounted on the ship to move the ship through space. That's it. The notion that any "gravity wells are created in front of the ship" in the OTU needs to be excised from peoples' minds because that does not happen in Traveller.

The data and the evidence I have presented is pretty clear - hopefully clear enough for people to understand now.

There are rules about guns and damage but no scientific details or explanation are provided in MgT regarding chemistry and gunpowder to determine how fast a bullet travels so I guess the gun can't work?

No, because that's stupid - projectile weapons obviously work in a similar way to how they work here. Lasers and plasma guns though would require some explanation. The question is how do M-Drives work though - there IS material in Traveller that explains that, but people are just making stuff up or making false assumptions and touting them as "fact" for the setting when they are not.

The point is that MgT does use gravitic technology even if the details are not provided.

No, the point is that "gravitic technology" does not necessarily mean "the ship falls towards gravity wells it creates in front of it".

Gravity wells are a part of todays gravity science and not some made up thing.

No, they're not made up. But that isn't anything to do with the question. The question is "how do M-Drives work in Traveller"... and as I have demonstrated quite clearly here, they don't work like that.

To me, with gravitic technology the mass issues that rockets or other methods of propulsion might have are explained with todays understanding: an apple and a ball of lead do accelerate at the same rate.

To you, that's great. To anyone wanting to know how they work in Traveller, it's useless because that isn't how they work in Traveller.

Do I need to repeat myself any more, or is my point finally getting through to anyone who still thinks that ships move by "falling toward gravity wells" produced by their M-Drives? Obviously if you want them to work like that in your own settings then nothing is stopping you - but when we're discussing how the official Traveller universe works, what is said in the books - which I have quoted here - trumps "house rules".

 

[CosmicGamer]

Do I need to repeat myself any more

If you feel you need to repeat yourself, please go ahead. I'd prefer clarification over repetition of the same thing.

To me, with gravitic technology the mass issues that rockets or other methods of propulsion might have are explained with todays understanding: an apple and a ball of lead do accelerate at the same rate.

To you, that's great. To anyone wanting to know how they work in Traveller, it's useless because that isn't how they work in Traveller.

If you could please clarify the words I underlined.

I can't figure out if "they" is supposed to refer to something from my words you quoted or something from some other post. Gravitic drives in MgT? TNE manuever drives? Something from Megatraveller?

Similarly, what is "that" supposed to refer to?

When you say "Traveller", do you mean MgT? Some other version?

 

[Wil Mireu]

Do I need to repeat myself any more

If you feel you need to repeat yourself, please go ahead. I'd prefer clarification over repetition of the same thing.

I thought I was being pretty clear... but OK.

To me, with gravitic technology the mass issues that rockets or other methods of propulsion might have are explained with todays understanding: an apple and a ball of lead do accelerate at the same rate.

To you, that's great. To anyone wanting to know how they work in Traveller, it's useless because that isn't how they work in Traveller.

If you could please clarify the words I underlined.

Sure. I'll just expand it to be even clearer:

"To anyone wanting to know how Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives work in Traveller, [your explanation] is useless because "falling towards a gravity well in front of the ship" isn't how Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives work in any official published version of Traveller in which Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives have been explained."

MGT isn't a work in isolation. If some item of technology isn't explained in MGT but is explained in a previous edition, it's not unreasonable to assume that it works in the same way as described in that previous edition since that information is available. And there's no reason to assume that it's suddenly changed in MGT either - it even mentions 'drive plates' in HG.

And yes, balls of lead and feathers accelerate at the same rate (in vacuum) in a gravitational field. But that has nothing to do with how Reactionless Gravitic M-Drives work.

 

[Sigtrygg]

There is one fundamental flaw in your postings.

MgT is based on CT not MT, TNE or any of the others.

MT and TNE - TNE in particular - changed the rules and changed the way the OTU drive paradigm works.

MT an TNE - TNE in particular - took ship mass into account for maneuver drive performance.

In CT, '77 edition, maneuver drives were fusion rockets but this doesn't actually make sense from a physics point of view.

In CT HG2 onwards the nature of the maneuver drive was never explained.- the reactionless drive meme start to take hold.

The folks at DGP wrote MT and changed a lot of the underlying assumptions about Traveller technology. A lot of their pseudo-science handwaves don't make sense. Their explanation of how thruster plates being one of them.

T5 has redefined how maneuver drives work - in that set of rules (the most recent so has to trump previous editions, right?) the maneuver drive uses the gravity well of a star or planet to reach out and push against.

MgT is CT re-imaged. (It should have gone back to the fusion rocket paradigm of CT IMHO and hand waved Higgs field de-coupling an inertial mass reduction fields, but I digress) The decision was made to have a gravitic maneuver drive. The MgT gravitic maneuver drive is not explained in detail, but it definitely isn't the magic thruster plate of MT or TNE. It is absurd to think it is.

In MT and TNE the mass of the ship is a factor in drive performance.

In CT and MgT mass is not a factor in drive performance.

Maybe one day MgT will produce a supplement that details ship operations and how the technology is hand waved - the could call it something like Ship Owner's Manifest or something.

Until then the MgT gravity maneuver drive works by gravity. The exact details are left to you to house rule

 

[Sigtrygg]

"To anyone wanting to know how Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives work in Traveller, [your explanation] is useless because "falling towards a gravity well in front of the ship" isn't how Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives work in any official published version of Traveller in which Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives have been explained."

Those publications are not MgT, they change the drive paradigms to suit their ruleset assumptions (and hence change the OTU in the process - wake up in the shower time)
In addition the explanations change over time, MT and TNE are similar, T4 is afferent, T5 is different.

MGT isn't a work in isolation. If some item of technology isn't explained in MGT but is explained in a previous edition, it's not unreasonable to assume that it works in the same way as described in that previous edition since that information is available. And there's no reason to assume that it's suddenly changed in MGT either - it even mentions 'drive plates' in HG.

It is an unreasonable assumption.
Those rulesets change the drive paradigm.

And yes, balls of lead and feathers accelerate at the same rate (in vacuum) in a gravitational field. But that has nothing to do with how Reactionless Gravitic M-Drives work.

Yes, it is.

In MgT.

Mass does not affect drive performance.

There are a couple of technobabble explanations but for now the gravity (maneuver) drive isn't explained in MgT.

 

[F33D]

No, it's not MGT's fault, because MGT doesn't mention "falling down gravity wells" at all - yet people seem to be insisting on assuming that is how they work. They're wrong.

All I want is a drive explanation that comports with the MGT rules on how spacecraft are moved in space. NO ONE else on this thread has done so. YOU have no explanation that is in keeping with the rules. So, rather than attacking someone who has an idea, come up with one yourself.

Waiting.

 

[Ishmael]

just to throw another wrench in the gears,

What about how the alternate 'realistic' thrusters listed in the SRD work?
The use reaction mass abstracted as increased fuel use for a form of g-turns ( fuel use related to total g's per hour until fuel runs out, isn't it? ) and yet they also ignore mass. They are not gravitic drives.

How do they work?

Simply declaring drives as projected-gravitic-well because they ignore mass is a personal choice of technobabble.

btw, to clear up a bit of misinformation, mass does not play any part in determining a ship's acceleration in MT. Its only used for agility.
As a result, the explanations given there for how drives work should still be valid as the performance is determined in a similar fashion as MgT. Or in the absence of a specific description in the rules, please insert your choice of technobabble as desired, but recognise that others may not accept it.

As for myself, I use mass a good deal. Heck I even use it in determining peformance of jump-drives, given how a mass's gravity field affects it. IMTU, it is far more important in performance than volume. "Simplify and add lightness" is true for adding performance in pretty much all endeavors.

The entire volume schtick is just the assumption that ships have similar densities for the sake of ease-of-play. Using it as evidence for a particular species of technobabble is a mistake, IMHO.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Sure. I'll just expand it to be even clearer:

Thank you

"To anyone wanting to know how Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives work in Traveller, [your explanation] is useless because "falling towards a gravity well in front of the ship"

[your explanation] - are you referring to me? I never mentioned the use of a gravity well in MgT other than to state it was a real world thing and not something made up, which it seamed was being implied, and to agree with you that I believed this was not anywhere in the MgT rules (the ones I own at least).

MGT isn't a work in isolation. If some item of technology isn't explained in MGT but is explained in a previous edition, it's not unreasonable to assume that it works in the same way as described in that previous edition since that information is available.

I can agree with that. Can you agree that it's reasonable to assume not everyone that buys MgT has all or even any other version of Traveller? A method someone comes up with for MgT may not agree with some other version of Traveller but that does not necessarily break the MgT version of Traveller. There are many things in MgT that are different from other versions of Traveller. Each version has it's own rules and in many cases they are different but this doesn't somehow make any of them wrong or broken. I can't see how someones ideas for MgT are so absolutely wrong.

And there's no reason to assume that it's suddenly changed in MGT either - it even mentions 'drive plates' in HG.

And yes, balls of lead and feathers accelerate at the same rate (in vacuum) in a gravitational field. But that has nothing to do with how Reactionless Gravitic M-Drives work.

In some version of Traveller where Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives use drive plates it specifically says the devices don't use the general principles of gravity? If so, "gravitic" drive is quite the misnomer.

 

[Wil Mireu]

All I want is a drive explanation that comports with the MGT rules on how spacecraft are moved in space. NO ONE else on this thread has done so. YOU have no explanation that is in keeping with the rules. So, rather than attacking someone who has an idea, come up with one yourself.

Sorry, but I won't F33D the Troll anymore. You've contributed nothing useful to this thread at all.

 

[Wil Mireu]

There is one fundamental flaw in your postings.

Nope. My logic is quite sound.

MgT is CT re-imaged. (It should have gone back to the fusion rocket paradigm of CT IMHO and hand waved Higgs field de-coupling an inertial mass reduction fields, but I digress) The decision was made to have a gravitic maneuver drive. The MgT gravitic maneuver drive is not explained in detail, but it definitely isn't the magic thruster plate of MT or TNE. It is absurd to think it is.

It is completely absurd to claim that it isn't the "magic thruster plate of MT or TNE". It's like saying "We didn't see a self-destruct sequence for the Enterprise before Star Trek III, so in all the films and series before that it wasn't possible to self-destruct the ship". That is just plain stupid.

Thruster Plates were explained in MT and TNE, and other editions have not contradicted that explanation. Given the lack of explanation in MGT, but also given the mention of "Drive Plates" and "Reactionless Drives" and "Gravitic M-Drives" there and that energy put into it produces thrust, it is entirely reasonable to assume that MGT uses Thruster Plates as described in MT and TNE.

Yes, MGT isn't explicit about it. But that means that the "ship projects a gravity well in front of it that it falls towards" is NOT an official explanation for how M-Drives work in Traveller. However, there ARE official explanations for how they work in other versions of Traveller that do agree with the details that ARE in MGT. So it makes sense to assume those are true since they are available, unless we explicitly told otherwise.

Until then the MgT gravity maneuver drive works by gravity.

Do people here have reading comprehension problems or something? I have quoted a lot of things that say that Thruster Plates "work by gravity" in the sense that they are gravitic in origin. They just don't work by projecting a gravity well in front of a ship that it then falls towards - that is a house rule that some people here are claiming is official when it is no such thing.

 

[Wil Mireu]

Those publications are not MgT, they change the drive paradigms to suit their ruleset assumptions (and hence change the OTU in the process - wake up in the shower time)
In addition the explanations change over time, MT and TNE are similar, T4 is afferent, T5 is different.

OK... T4, Starships, page 71:

Another effect of the tech level 12 mastery of gravitics (the science of gravity) is the invention of thruste rplates. Earlier contragrav technology only negates the effects of a gravitational field: thruster plates actually use the field itself for propulsion,by grabbing onto the curvature of space and running along it much like an ant on the slope of a sugar-bowl. Rather than wasting valuable mass by hurling it out the rear of the ship,as lower-tech rockets do, gravity drives use the stellar system itself as their reaction mass(much as a train pushes against its track, and the planet below, rather than by expelling exhaust). A small change in a star's momentum translates to a huge velocity change for the much smaller spacecraft.

Unlike the ant of the earlier example,however,the slope of the bowl has a different effect on gravitic-drive ships. They depend on the slope for propulsion. Beyond a certain point, quantum-gravitic effects drastically reduce the efficiency of a gravitic drive ship by a factor of a hundred or more, and thus they cannot maneuver effectively in deep-space unless they have an auxiliary drive, though they can remain there while, for example, computing jump parameters. The cutoff parameter turns out to be around 2,000 solar radii. Beyond this point, thruster plates are virtually worthless for anything beyond station-keeping, and some alternate form of propulsion is needed. Thus,the Drenid Deep Space Research Facility in Sylea system is still resupplied using an automated freighter driven by a fusion rocket.

Another disadvantage of thruster plates is their gravitic and visual signature: gravity-wave sensors can easily detect the peculiar emissions characteristic of the system. Normal telescopic sensors are approximately as useful: the 'thruster plates' themselves give off exotic particles, which very quickly decay as they leave the thruster field. The bright blue glow emanating from the rear of many new Imperial vessels is, perhaps, more distinctive than the subtle space-warp.

So, slightly different in description to MT and TNE but pretty much identical in practical terms, but still not a "gravity well projected in front of the ship".

It is an unreasonable assumption.
Those rulesets change the drive paradigm.

No, they don't. The Drive is gravitic in all editions of Traveller. (OK, the default drive in TNE was HEPlaR - also used in T4 - but the 'traditional' Thruster Plates are still explained in both editions)

In MgT.
Mass does not affect drive performance.

It doesn't affect performance in any other version of Traveller either, so what's your point?

Looking at TNE further, Drives generate "tonnes of thrust":

Thrust is measured in tonnes. Spacecraft require (for the sake of simplicity) 10 tonnes of thrust per displacement ton to achieve an acceleration of 1G, and spacecraft with a final mass of more than 15 times (rounding fractions to the nearest whole number) their hull rate (in displacement tons) should recalculate their acceleration based on the actual thrust-to-mass ratio, dividing thrust (in tonnes) by mass (in tonnes) to determine acceleration in Gs. Most Spacecraft however will mass less than 15 tons per displacement ton.

So in TNE drive performance isn't even really directly related to mass. Assuming a 'tonne of thrust' is equal to 10,000 Newtons, then through F=ma (F= 100,000 (10 tonnes of thrust), M=?, a=10) they are assuming that 1 dt of starship has a mass of 100,000/10 = 10,000 kg = 10 metric tons.

The "hull rate" there is the total dt of the ship. So a 100dt ship requires 1000 tonnes of thrust to accelerate 1G. Its actual loaded mass doesn't matter unless it's greater than 1500 metric tons (a 100dt Scout/Cruiser's loaded mass in TNE is 698 tons, so it's a long way from that).

There are a couple of technobabble explanations but for now the gravity (maneuver) drive isn't explained in MgT.

It isn't explained in MgT. So people need to stop insisting that it generates a gravity well in front of a ship. Because by your logic, if what happens in all the other editions of Traveller is just a "house rule" in MGT, then "falling towards gravity wells in front of ships" (which magically don't attract anything else to them other than the ship, so it doesn't even make any sense) is certainly one here too.

And that's all I want people to accept here really. Despite what our resident troll says, I have taken a lot of time and effort to provide a lot of official explanations from previous editions for how M-Drives work here. Maybe you can argue that they don't apply in MGT since they're not explicitly explained there, but I think it's just silly to ignore what has been said before about the same subject just because it's from a different edition. But there is CERTAINLY absolutely no basis for arguing that the official explanation for how MGT M-drives work is by "projecting gravity wells in front of the ship that the ship then falls towards' - that's certainly "house rules" because MGT doesn't say anything like that at all. At least I'm using the precedent of previous editions to explain how M-Drives work, which is a lot better than the "gravity well" explanation which is clearly someone's own personal interpretation.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Nope. My logic is quite sound.

All I can say to that is ... well... lol.

It is completely absurd to claim that it isn't the "magic thruster plate of MT or TNE". It's like saying "We didn't see a self-destruct sequence for the Enterprise before Star Trek III, so in all the films and series before that it wasn't possible to self-destruct the ship". That is just plain stupid.

Actually we did, Kirk threatened to use the self destruct several times in the original series, but that's just me scoring pedant points so please ignore it

Thruster Plates were explained in MT and TNE, and other editions have not contradicted that explanation. Given the lack of explanation in MGT, but also given the mention of "Drive Plates" and "Reactionless Drives" and "Gravitic M-Drives" there and that energy put into it produces thrust, it is entirely reasonable to assume that MGT uses Thruster Plates as described in MT and TNE.

There are just two things wrong with your logic here.

MT and TNE changed the technological paradigm of a lot of CT technology to fit in with the designers' house rules. Ships in MT have much lower jump fuel requirements for example, and the standard maneuver drive of the TNE OTU is the HEPlaR reaction drive. The drives in MT and TNE are different sizes to MgT drives too.
T4 and T5 have contradicted those explanations.

MgT is built on the technology of CT, not MT or TNE. The MT and TNE maneuver drive rules can't explain the way ships work in MgT.

Yes, MGT isn't explicit about it. But that means that the "ship projects a gravity well in front of it that it falls towards" is NOT an official explanation for how M-Drives work in Traveller.

I agree, we don't have an official description of the tech behind the MgT drive. Until we do we just know it is gravity based.

However, there ARE official explanations for how they work in other versions of Traveller that do agree with the details that ARE in MGT. So it makes sense to assume those are true since they are available, unless we explicitly told otherwise.

We don't need to be told explicitly, the thruster plates of MT work in a completely different way from a game rules as written, and what's more the explanation given is drivel. The T4 an T5 version is better but still total handwavium of the worst sort.

Do people here have reading comprehension problems or something? I have quoted a lot of things that say that Thruster Plates "work by gravity" in the sense that they are gravitic in origin. They just don't work by projecting a gravity well in front of a ship that it then falls towards - that is a house rule that some people here are claiming is official when it is no such thing.

The things you quote aren't relevant to the explanation of how maneuver drives work in MgT.

 

[Wil Mireu]

[your explanation] - are you referring to me? I never mentioned the use of a gravity well in MgT other than to state it was a real world thing and not something made up, which it seamed was being implied, and to agree with you that I believed this was not anywhere in the MgT rules (the ones I own at least).

I'm going to trust that you're smart enough to figure out what I meant.

I can agree with that. Can you agree that it's reasonable to assume not everyone that buys MgT has all or even any other version of Traveller? A method someone comes up with for MgT may not agree with some other version of Traveller but that does not necessarily break the MgT version of Traveller. There are many things in MgT that are different from other versions of Traveller. Each version has it's own rules and in many cases they are different but this doesn't somehow make any of them wrong or broken. I can't see how someones ideas for MgT are so absolutely wrong.

The problem is that this "gravity well" nonsense is claimed to be the official explanation for how the Thruster Plate M-Drives work in MGT. It isn't, because MGT doesn't say anything about the subject at all. Therefore in MGT there is not "official explanation" for how Thruster Plates work. HOWEVER, there are plenty of official explanations in previous editions. Whether people have them or not is irrelevant, they're still there, and anyone reading this now knows about them. It makes more sense to me to assume that those explanations are also valid in MGT than to just leave a giant gap in the knowledge base for MGT and pretend it's something else.

In some version of Traveller where Reactionless Gravitic Maneouvre Drives use drive plates it specifically says the devices don't use the general principles of gravity? If so, "gravitic" drive is quite the misnomer.

It isn't a misnomer. "gravitic" means "based on gravity". Thruster Plates manipulate gravity to provide thrust. Therefore they are "gravitic" in all editions where it has been explained.

 

[F33D]

All I want is a drive explanation that comports with the MGT rules on how spacecraft are moved in space. NO ONE else on this thread has done so. YOU have no explanation that is in keeping with the rules. So, rather than attacking someone who has an idea, come up with one yourself.

Sorry, but I won't F33D the Troll anymore. You've contributed nothing useful to this thread at all.

When called out for needlessly pounding a poster & asked for a solution you go ad hom. Indicative of the quintessential troll. Projection is your strong suit.

 

[Wil Mireu]

There are just two things wrong with your logic here.

MT and TNE changed the technological paradigm of a lot of CT technology to fit in with the designers' house rules. Ships in MT have much lower jump fuel requirements for example, and the standard maneuver drive of the TNE OTU is the HEPlaR reaction drive. The drives in MT and TNE are different sizes to MgT drives too.
T4 and T5 have contradicted those explanations.

Irrelevant. CT doesn't even explain drives at all, so it's completely worthless as a source of information for this.

In TNE the HEPlaR drive was standard but as I have already quoted, Thruster Plates are explained in detail in FF&S, so your argument can be dismissed.

T4 changes the details, but it still isn't a "gravity well in front of a ship".

The things you quote aren't relevant to the explanation of how maneuver drives work in MgT.

I give up. You're just refusing to understand what I'm saying, so there's no point in continuing this discussion.

All I want is for people to accept that the official explanation for MGT Thruster Plates is not "gravity well projected in front of a ship". MGT has no "official explanation". I think it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use previous explanations to fill the gap (which at least have some pretence of validity since it's the same bloody game setting) - if you don't, then fine - just stop pretending that an explanation that has been pulled out of thin air is any more valid.

 

[F33D]

In MgT.
Mass does not affect drive performance.

It doesn't affect performance in any other version of Traveller either, so what's your point?

It DOES affect it in MT. As you've been told before. So, rather than ranting without understanding, try reading posts and learning.

 

[F33D]

It isn't a misnomer. "gravitic" means "based on gravity". Thruster Plates manipulate gravity to provide thrust. Therefore they are "gravitic" in all editions where it has been explained.

Incorrect. In MT they are NOT gravitic drives. Read and learn something.

 

[F33D]

All I want is for people to accept that the official explanation for MGT Thruster Plates is not "gravity well projected in front of a ship". MGT has no "official explanation". I think it makes a hell of a lot more sense to use previous explanations to fill the gap (which at least have some pretence of validity since it's the same bloody game setting) - if you don't, then fine - just stop pretending that an explanation that has been pulled out of thin air is any more valid.

It doesn't explain why there is no performance degradation due to load. "thruster plate" is NOT an explanation for how it works. What EXACTLY don't you understand about that????

 

[AndrewW]

Can we try and keep the discussion friendly? Without resorting to any personal attacks, name calling and the like.

That would be preferable to the thread getting locked.