Travel times question

A

Anonymous

Guest
Page 153 of the beta has a 1G ship taking 333 minutes to travel 1,000,000km

Page 152 has travel calculations as "Time = 2 x Square Root of (distance/ acceleration)"

Time measured in minutes, distance is km.

Lets go with a 1G ship...

Square root of (1,000,000/1) is 1,000

2 times 1,000 is 2,000

But the table says 333 minutes

Is the table wrong or am I doing something wrong?
 
Yeah, the table is skewy.

It would be _really_ cool if someone could go through the table and send me corrections so I can stay focussed on High Guard :)
 
I noticed that as well, some time back, and figured out the math.

The table uses different units than the ubiquitous kilometer, 'G', and minute. The travel formulas are straight out of physics, so units matter.

Distance is best converted to meters, to match acceleration.

Acceleration is rounded to 10 meters per second squared per G of thrust (real gravity is about 9.8 meters per second squared) (Note: this is stated in the paragraph below the table, for reference.)

Using those values and units gives Time in seconds, which will need to converted to minutes or hours to make it more useful.

So, to use your example of 1,000,000 km at 1G
d = 1,000,000,000 m
a = 10 m/s/s

t = 2*sqrt(d/a) = 2*sqrt(1,000,000,000 m / 10 m/s^2)
= 2*sqrt(100,000,000 s^2)
= 2* 10,000 s = 20,000 seconds
= 20,000 s / 60 s/min = 333.333 minutes

I don't know if explaining that in the rules, or adding equations with that already done, would be easier.

Also, on that note, as I read the explanation again. It states that the travel time formulas use kilometers for distance. If kilometers are used the answer will be off, since acceleration is stated to be in meters (in the case of the above calculation turning 20,000 seconds into 632.5 seconds (10.5 minutes).
 
Lee

Thanks for pointing out my math error and the inconsistency in the rules.

I'll stick the numbers in the table into Excel and post it, I have a feeling the table is fine now it's clear we're using metres, seconds and a rounded 1G.

Tim
 
OK, so I knocked the table up in Excel extending to 10g for fun. The distances seem a little random to me, I would re do it out to 40 au, approximately the Kuiper Belt and as far as I'd want to go without jumping.

Traveller_distance_time_table.jpg


The table in the print friendly beta is basically right but there are typos.

For example, 1,000,000,000km at 4g and 5g is the same 3.3 days

1,000,000,000km at 3g I calculate at 4.2 days, the table has 3.7 days which is the time I get for that distance at 4g. Looks like someone copy/pasted the wrong columns.

I've stopped there at working out what's right and wrong.

Matt, I'll try sticking it into a Word table and mail you that and the Excel sheet.
 
Depends on how comfortable people are with math, those that are can work out what they need from the formula won't need a table, some prefer a table. Some will use an estimate that fits their game's needs and ignore the math and table.

There's more to explore in most systems than just the main world, having an idea of the time it takes to get there is a good thing.
 
hiro said:
There's more to explore in most systems than just the main world, having an idea of the time it takes to get there is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the problem is that things like Oort Clouds scale with the parent star. There's no convenient "fixed distance" for them. What you need for that is a separate table that scales "system features" like this by star size and mass.
 
Tenacious-Techhunter said:
Agreed, but the problem is that things like Oort Clouds scale with the parent star. There's no convenient "fixed distance" for them. What you need for that is a separate table that scales "system features" like this by star size and mass.
Click to expand...

There's no need for a generic rules set to "scale system features", what on earth are you talking about?

There's no fixed distance for anything if you really want to get into the details, it's all moving. To model that is way too complex and gets away from the fun of playing the game.

If a GM wants to put something in the far outer system and the players want to go there, they'll have a departure point and a destination so a distance is easily figured/hand waved.

That's all they need and then if they want, a table or formula to work out the time to get there, if not, fine, hand wave that too!
 
hiro said:
Tenacious-Techhunter said:
Agreed, but the problem is that things like Oort Clouds scale with the parent star. There's no convenient "fixed distance" for them. What you need for that is a separate table that scales "system features" like this by star size and mass.
Click to expand...

There's no need for a generic rules set to "scale system features", what on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Things like the "Oort Cloud", and "Kuiper Belt" are dependent on star mass and intensity; they won't be at a fixed distance for every star. So rather than using our "Kuiper Belt" as a benchmark, it would be better to have a chart that scales star system features of this sort, that are likely to be fairly universal across star systems. The regular travel times can then be limited to diameter limits.
 
hiro said:
Lee

Thanks for pointing out my math error and the inconsistency in the rules.

I'll stick the numbers in the table into Excel and post it, I have a feeling the table is fine now it's clear we're using metres, seconds and a rounded 1G.

Tim
Click to expand...


Glad it was helpful, Tim.

I was just as confused when I started looking at it.
 
Sorry to necro this, but I have stumbled upon this myself. Hiro, I was wondering if you could repost the spread sheet you did. I would be very grateful - especially if you did go all the way up to 10G (I like playing with High Technology from High Guard. :D ) If Hiro isn't active anymore, does anyone else have that information? Fully correct charts to 10G would be frikkin awesome! I have made 15-20 ships using the rules in High Guard, almost all of them with higher than TL15 tech, though I tend to discard the costs, because heck with that jazz, and I can go back if I really need to. One of these is an advanced heavy fighter capable of 10G thrust, basically as fast as missiles. (Yee-ha!) So, having that chart go up to 10G would be great.

I tried to follow the math in the earlier posts, but my math skills are not what they used to be, so I flubbed it.
 
The table in my copy is only mostly correct. The last few entries in the 4g column are copied from the 3g column. IF I remember right, 1e had the same problem. They just copied and pasted an incorrect table.
 
Hi all,

My PDF CRB 2e copy has 4G and 5G the 600,000,000, 900,000,000, and 1,000,000,000 taking the same timed of 60.9h, 74.5h, and 3.3 days.

Thank you AnotherDilbert for your spreadsheet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
How far do Ship sensors work to?
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
2K
Condottiere
C
K
Robot Handbook - Cyborgs
Replies
2
Views
405
kevinknight
K
K
passenger and freight table inconsistencies
2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
Condottiere
C
Technetium 98
Small Craft Catalogue: Errata
Replies
18
Views
1K
Peleliu
Peleliu
adzling
Adzling’s Guide to Chasing Starships
Replies
18
Views
6K
adzling
adzling
Back
Top