Maneuver Drives but no grav plating

[Tom Kalbfus]

Since this has had a month to cool off ...
... my turn to stir the pot.

I like the idea of a 'tail-sitter' that uses 1G constant acceleration to simulate gravity ... it appeals to my inner gear-head.
What I am at a loss to understand is the strong drive for streamlined 'aircraft' forms in space.

If I were going to create a ship that used acceleration for gravity, I would not start with an airplane sitting on its back and build a 15 story 6mx6m flying mini-skyscraper.
Why not start with something closer to the Jupiter from 'Lost in Space', place the engines in the center and build a two-level living torus around the central drives?
The ship doesn't fly like a Frisbee (edge forward), it flies just like it takes off and lands (straight up and down).

This assumes, of course, that the same ship flies from surface to orbit and from world to world.
I personally think that this is a bad assumption, but a logical result of the Traveller magic grav drive.
It might have been interesting to reverse the JD and MD fuel requirements.
Imagine a universe where travel from star to star requires 1% of the ship per Jump number and travel from surface to orbit requires 10% of the ship per trip.
Suddenly a big unstreamlined ship in orbit and a small streamlined shuttle to the surface make a lot more economic sense.
Even something like a beanstalk might be worth looking at.
IMhO, the universe just got a whole lot more interesting ...

... but in Traveller, it will always be easier and cheaper to just land the ship or ... if you really must ... buy a used vacc-suit and air raft to fly to orbit all on your own.
[sigh, the road not taken]

In Star Frontiers, you must reach 1% of the speed of light before your ship can go FTL, at 1g that takes 3.5 days. So it would take a week accelerating and decelerating, and about a day per light year of travel.

 

[Reynard]

Looking at the number of Traveller ship designs, many are not landers. It seems landers in Traveller are the adventure ships especially the lower sized and I'll bet that was obviously for making adventure away from more civilized populated area easier to access. Ever notice the ONLY ship today, the shuttle, has wings? That's so it can land otherwise you drop passengers from orbit in a hollow rock and parachutes. We have yet to need regular spacecraft, let alone starships, and we don't yet need EXPENSIVE systems for propulsion or thrust based life support to keep travelers healthy. If we go with acceleration gravity, I would say our spacecraft will be form fit need and be a cylinder of whatever size is necessary just like we now launch cylindrical spears into orbit because it's the easiest, cheapest shape.

If we use our solar system as common throughout the universe, the cylinder may be THE design for low grav, low to no atmosphere planets. If we suspect there are enough earth-like, landable worlds, we will need ships that can make use of atmosphere with space shuttle like designs. I can also say space combat will either be impossible or a nightmare with no grav plates or inertial compensators.

 

[phavoc]

Looking at the number of Traveller ship designs, many are not landers. It seems landers in Traveller are the adventure ships especially the lower sized and I'll bet that was obviously for making adventure away from more civilized populated area easier to access. Ever notice the ONLY ship today, the shuttle, has wings? That's so it can land otherwise you drop passengers from orbit in a hollow rock and parachutes. We have yet to need regular spacecraft, let alone starships, and we don't yet need EXPENSIVE systems for propulsion or thrust based life support to keep travelers healthy. If we go with acceleration gravity, I would say our spacecraft will be form fit need and be a cylinder of whatever size is necessary just like we now launch cylindrical spears into orbit because it's the easiest, cheapest shape.

I think it's more because we cannot build them, rather than not needing them. We could, in fact, use them, but access to space is expensive - for now. And part of the problem is the system, not the technology. Too many entrenched interests who would not benefit from disruptions. There was a older rocket design, called Sea Dragon (I think) that was the penultimate big dumb booster. Designed to be ultra-cheap and re-usable. Tow them out to the ocean, sink them vertically and light them off. I forgot what the acceptable loss rate was, but the idea still makes sense when you are trying to boost heavy cargo like fuel and water and structural materials to orbit.

Wings on the shuttle were by design, so it could bring back large cargo. The ideas was for it to retrieve intel satellites, but that got dropped and the wings stayed. The original design (donated by the British who could not afford it) was a Toyota with a pilot and co-pilot. NASA went and made it something else. It's a wonderful piece of machinery, but terribly expensive to operate.

If we use our solar system as common throughout the universe, the cylinder may be THE design for low grav, low to no atmosphere planets. If we suspect there are enough earth-like, landable worlds, we will need ships that can make use of atmosphere with space shuttle like designs. I can also say space combat will either be impossible or a nightmare with no grav plates or inertial compensators.

Space combat is entirely possible without grav plates or compensators. A lot would be missile-based for sure. And, depending on the armor factor, those missile are going to be impact based or do the shotgun effect like many of today's AA rockets. In space that's especially useful if the attack is a closing one, not so much if it's a chase.

Dropping cargo into a gravity well is relatively easy - as long as you don't expect to bring the delivery vehicle back up. The easiest way would be to have single-use cargo shuttles, or even drop capsules that could later be scavenged for materials to build your settlement. Now if SpaceX can get their Grasshopper technology to work, or some really tiny company like Armadillo Aerospace is able to make a breakthrough we just might see a big change in the way things are happening. Maybe.

 

[Infojunky]

2300AD feels odd for us Traveller aficionados but the various Interface Vessels make sense in a game system lacking the ease of AG allowing design to go anywhere.

No, not really, 2300 has gotten LOTS of airplay in Traveller discussions over the years.

Also there has been Lots of discussions of tailsitters vs. belly landers over the years.

The real issue is that Internal compensation as compared to thrust has only been addressed in one version of the rules (TNE) as I recall. So with no attention to that detail there has been no reason to prefer one landing regime over the other other than artistic choice....

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

2300AD feels odd for us Traveller aficionados but the various Interface Vessels make sense in a game system lacking the ease of AG allowing design to go anywhere.

No, not really, 2300 has gotten LOTS of airplay in Traveller discussions over the years.

Also there has been Lots of discussions of tailsitters vs. belly landers over the years.

The real issue is that Internal compensation as compared to thrust has only been addressed in one version of the rules (TNE) as I recall. So with no attention to that detail there has been no reason to prefer one landing regime over the other other than artistic choice....

2300 uses centripedal acceleration gravity, because their non-stutterwarp based "Maneuver drives" are not so great and use up fuel quickly. One of the reasons they have that space elevator.