Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[Sigtrygg]

Since a lifter is just a fancy gravitic parachute then yes, a dispersed structure could float down to the ground.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Yeah, depending on the force of the winds it can certainly ruin your day. Traveller ships have mass and don't rely upon wings to generate lift (not to mention their occupants and cargo would have some protections from even noticing being tossed about due to the inertial dampening system/artificial gravity they have).

However I wouldn't consider it a total absolute shrugging off. A big enough storm is going to have a great deal of energy to toss even the mightiest of ships around - but most likely you'd not encounter them on a habitable planet.

Would be interesting to see a table that talks about this and provides some guidance on when you'd start to feel things. A 10ton flyer would feel it more than a 10,000 dton freighter (or at least I'd think so). The artificial nature of generating your own gravity field and the intertial dampeners make for a question about how it would or even should scale based on the mass of the vessel in question. Mother nature has a tendency to overcome many obstacles.

Once you have eliminated gravity, yeah winds would toss you around good. Even a light breeze and you are floating across the landing zone. What is not taken into account is how many Gs of acceleration you need to use to counteract the wind when landing on a planetary surface.

I know Storm Worlds are a classification in T5, but I do not know of any rules that have been written for flying in weather other than the general -1 to all checks when in "high winds".

 

[Vormaerin]

Traveller has a few adventures where weather is a factor in landing a small starship. But they are pretty unusual situations, such as flying very low to the ground to avoid sensors or an extreme weather planet.

Even if the severe weather is problematic for starships, that doesn't change the fact that universal lifter usage means a wider range of ships can make planetfall. If there is no opportunity cost to having lifters because they intrinsic to space hulls or a side effect of Maneuver drives, then a lot of the point of different hull types (especially the various streamlined options) goes away.

And that's the default for T5. All hull types, including unstreamlined types like cluster frames that are explicitly called out as not intended for planetary landings, have them installed by default. Though you can get some money back by saying they don't exist. No space savings, though.

 

[agentwigggles]

Its kinda hard to make weather matter with a space ship. You have to really contrive. Outside, of what I assume storm worlds are, weather isnt homogenious. So if there is a tornado where you're currently at, then even with an M1 drive, you can just go super sonic, travel an hour, be thousand miles away or more, where there isnt a storm, then, you know, go up like normal.

With an M drive and gravitics you never have to deal with bad weathers unless you're absolutely forced to.

 

[tytalan]

Since a lifter is just a fancy gravitic parachute then yes, a dispersed structure could float down to the ground.

No it can’t because of a lot of factors which have already been pointed out. For one lifters do not protect from wind sear, secondly there’s structure support. And that just two things off the top of my head any engineer is going to give you a dozen reasons. But here you go again not giving opinion but instead insisting your opinion is right no matter the counter argument. Maybe it’s not your intention but the way you present your opinions is aggressive.

 

[tytalan]

Its kinda hard to make weather matter with a space ship. You have to really contrive. Outside, of what I assume storm worlds are, weather isnt homogenious. So if there is a tornado where you're currently at, then even with an M1 drive, you can just go super sonic, travel an hour, be thousand miles away or more, where there isnt a storm, then, you know, go up like normal.

With an M drive and gravitics you never have to deal with bad weathers unless you're absolutely forced to.

You do know that the space shuttle had its landing postponed often do the winds. Planes which are definitely streamlined and powered often get trapped by wind. With M Drives I’d agree wind is rarely an issue but lifters are not M Drives and planetiods and Dis Structure are not designed to deal with the stress factors that wind can create especially with only lifters.

 

[tytalan]

And that's the default for T5. All hull types, including unstreamlined types like cluster frames that are explicitly called out as not intended for planetary landings, have them installed by default. Though you can get some money back by saying they don't exist. No space savings, though.

And the whole point is that lifters will not allow a Dispersed structure or a planetiod land which are the only type of ships in MgT2 that are specifically stated as not streamlined and can’t land

 

[MasterGwydion]

Its kinda hard to make weather matter with a space ship. You have to really contrive. Outside, of what I assume storm worlds are, weather isnt homogenious. So if there is a tornado where you're currently at, then even with an M1 drive, you can just go super sonic, travel an hour, be thousand miles away or more, where there isnt a storm, then, you know, go up like normal.

With an M drive and gravitics you never have to deal with bad weathers unless you're absolutely forced to.

I was thinking of landing at a starport in bad weather or on a Storm World. The Downports don't usually move and some cargos, such as bounties, may be time-sensitive.

Or chasing others into a storm or flyng into one to escape being chased.

 

[J. L. Brown]

No it can’t because of a lot of factors which have already been pointed out. For one lifters do not protect from wind sear, secondly there’s structure support. And that just two things off the top of my head any engineer is going to give you a dozen reasons. But here you go again not giving opinion but instead insisting your opinion is right no matter the counter argument. Maybe it’s not your intention but the way you present your opinions is aggressive.

Wind shear is going to be pretty much irrelevant to a ship coming down from space with lifters. It is a bit like a helium balloon not being much distressed by a hurricane; except instead of being built of thin Mylar a ship is made out of hull-metal -- probably the equivalent of a lightly armored ground vehicle. The wind might blow the ship off course, or twist it a little (ships have a lot of mass, and lifters do not change that) but the only time wind might be a problem is if the ship is in danger of running into something.

'Structural support' is almost precisely what lifters are specifically designed to do. Structural supports make sure the weight of a structure does not exert enough force to damage the structure; lifters entirely or partially negate the weight of the ship. And a 'distributed structure' ship will certainly be strong enough to deal with forces of a magnitude similar to what the drive produces -- routinely a G or more.

With lifters, every hull should be able to operate in an atmosphere; the only real obstacles are the higher-than-space outside pressure, and actually setting the craft down on a landing pad. But with lifters, why bother with landing gear? Just hover a few centimeters above the tarmac & station-keep.

 

[Geir]

Yeah, depending on the force of the winds it can certainly ruin your day. Traveller ships have mass and don't rely upon wings to generate lift (not to mention their occupants and cargo would have some protections from even noticing being tossed about due to the inertial dampening system/artificial gravity they have).

However I wouldn't consider it a total absolute shrugging off. A big enough storm is going to have a great deal of energy to toss even the mightiest of ships around - but most likely you'd not encounter them on a habitable planet.

Would be interesting to see a table that talks about this and provides some guidance on when you'd start to feel things. A 10ton flyer would feel it more than a 10,000 dton freighter (or at least I'd think so). The artificial nature of generating your own gravity field and the intertial dampeners make for a question about how it would or even should scale based on the mass of the vessel in question. Mother nature has a tendency to overcome many obstacles.

I've got the start of a wind table going for task DMs and risks of Critical Hits if vehicles do not get out of the wind (especially airships, not a good plan, Admiral Moffett...). Size gets complicated as usual by the difference between volume and surface area changes and whether or not you can 'turn into the wind' - great idea in an open field, not so much on a bridge or on a runway - you gotta point the way you gotta point. So right now, it's probably overly simplistic, but at least it gives you a framework. There is of course the density of the atmosphere to content with, and I have noted that in there.

I have not considered size as a factor, but if I did, then I'd need to consider mass variances as well and that's out of scope for this one. But I wanted to do more than the Core book's 'Bad weather gives you a DM-1' workup.

 

[Vormaerin]

Honestly, I just think the Star Wars style ship just VTOL landing on a pad and then lifting off and zipping into space is kind of boring. I would like it to matter what the hull is designed for. I would like it to be a real cost to be capable of landing on a planet. I want most spacecraft to be built for space and optimized for space and if you want to be aerospace you have to pay for that.

Granted, High Guard just has "streamlined" and doesn't distinguish between lifting bodies or airframes or other streamlined like some other versions of Traveller do (T5, MgT 2300).

The Core Rules say that Partially Streamlined "are ponderous and unresponsive, reliant on its thrusters to stay aloft". But that's manifestly not true, because lifters keep it aloft. The thrusters have nothing to do with it.

Then it goes on to say that unstreamlined ships are completely unaerodynamic. But who cares? They aren't "Flying". They are just levitating with space magic. You don't need to be aerodynamic to levitate up and down.

 

[agentwigggles]

You're right, doing a slow elevator is uneventual. And it should be. If that probblem isnt solved, safe and secure. Then you cant be a space faring civilzation. The risk is too great to do so casually. And OTU requires it to be casual.

Now if you wanna do a high speed chase in an ISS configured space ship, then yea, let all the windshear and drag play havic. Same with partially streamed line ones as well. Streamline can have pop up Ailerons, Elevators and Rudders to control itself, much like how landing struts are tucked away.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Honestly, I just think the Star Wars style ship just VTOL landing on a pad and then lifting off and zipping into space is kind of boring. I would like it to matter what the hull is designed for. I would like it to be a real cost to be capable of landing on a planet. I want most spacecraft to be built for space and optimized for space and if you want to be aerospace you have to pay for that.

I have to second that. If you can't make landing on a planet safe and boring, then you can't really have a starfaring society.

Granted, High Guard just has "streamlined" and doesn't distinguish between lifting bodies or airframes or other streamlined like some other versions of Traveller do (T5, MgT 2300).

My guess would be, because even with a lifting body or airframe, spaceships are just too heavy to fly, except perhaps in the densest atmospheres.

The Core Rules say that Partially Streamlined "are ponderous and unresponsive, reliant on its thrusters to stay aloft". But that's manifestly not true, because lifters keep it aloft. The thrusters have nothing to do with it.

Thrusters may keep the ship from getting flipped over in windshear. If a ship gets flipped over, it is probably crashing since the lifters are on the "bottom" of the ship.

Then it goes on to say that unstreamlined ships are completely unaerodynamic. But who cares? They aren't "Flying". They are just levitating with space magic. You don't need to be aerodynamic to levitate up and down.

This goes back to if they have lots of protrusions that the wind can grab on to, it risks flipping the ship over. Just My thoughts on why this might be.

 

[Vormaerin]

There are lots of ways you can have reliable travel from surface to orbit without requiring lifters. Like only using streamlined vessels that are designed for aerospace operations. And you have them take off or land like aircraft. Or you can still have them VTOL up because you can direct partial thrust in any vector with a maneuver drive. Which, since it's only a fraction of the thrust, can't actually overcome gravity entirely, so once you get off the ground you have to actual flight.

 

[agentwigggles]

I was thinking of landing at a starport in bad weather or on a Storm World. The Downports don't usually move and some cargos, such as bounties, may be time-sensitive.

Or chasing others into a storm or flyng into one to escape being chased.

I didnt saw it was impossible to force interaction with a storm. I said it needed to be contrived. Yea, simplest means to do, is to give a strict time limit.
Otherwise PC should just wait them out. We're all discussing how they should be dangerious. Ahd the most effective means to not be wrecked by them, is to ignore them. If the storm is bad enough it can cause a wreck, I would hope space traffic control would place a no landing advisory until the storm has passed.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Once you have eliminated gravity, yeah winds would toss you around good. Even a light breeze and you are floating across the landing zone. What is not taken into account is how many Gs of acceleration you need to use to counteract the wind when landing on a planetary surface.

I know Storm Worlds are a classification in T5, but I do not know of any rules that have been written for flying in weather other than the general -1 to all checks when in "high winds".

No, you still have mass.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Traveller has a few adventures where weather is a factor in landing a small starship. But they are pretty unusual situations, such as flying very low to the ground to avoid sensors or an extreme weather planet.

And compared to the issues faced by real world aircraft the probability of something going wrong are way to high.

Even if the severe weather is problematic for starships, that doesn't change the fact that universal lifter usage means a wider range of ships can make planetfall. If there is no opportunity cost to having lifters because they intrinsic to space hulls or a side effect of Maneuver drives, then a lot of the point of different hull types (especially the various streamlined options) goes away.

Use your m-drive to stay out of the bad weather?

And that's the default for T5. All hull types, including unstreamlined types like cluster frames that are explicitly called out as not intended for planetary landings, have them installed by default. Though you can get some money back by saying they don't exist. No space savings, though.

Yup, the setting has changed.

 

[Sigtrygg]

No it can’t because of a lot of factors which have already been pointed out. For one lifters do not protect from wind sear, secondly there’s structure support. And that just two things off the top of my head any engineer is going to give you a dozen reasons. But here you go again not giving opinion but instead insisting your opinion is right no matter the counter argument. Maybe it’s not your intention but the way you present your opinions is aggressive.

What factors? Your m-drive protects from wind sheer since you can match wind speed.
Yes it can because your hull is stronger than a modern MBT and you can maneuver at 1g away from the bad weather.
I am responding to you in the tone you adopt.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You do know that the space shuttle had its landing postponed often do the winds.

The space shuttle was a glider, any Traveller ship has a 1g maneuver drive. It can match wind speed or avoid the weather.

Planes which are definitely streamlined and powered often get trapped by wind.

Planes rely on their shape for flight, a Traveller ship uses lifters to be gravitationally buoyant and a 1g m-drive minimum to maneuver - very different/

With M Drives I’d agree wind is rarely an issue but lifters are not M Drives and planetiods and Dis Structure are not designed to deal with the stress factors that wind can create especially with only lifters.

Every starship hull can withstand the stresses and strains of 1g acceleration and violent evasive maneuvers. A bit of weather is not going to affect them, and dispersed structure ships don't just have lifters.

 

[Sigtrygg]

And the whole point is that lifters will not allow a Dispersed structure or a planetiod land which are the only type of ships in MgT2 that are specifically stated as not streamlined and can’t land

That was before lifters became integral.