ProfGrizzlyJon
Cosmic Mongoose
Part of what is frustrating is that there are some great rules available in 20300AD that would be fun to integrate
Part of what is frustrating is that there are some great rules available in 20300AD that would be fun to integrate
I was actually referring to the Aerospace Engineers’ Handbook related to the Vehicle design and Starship design. Yes, stutterwarp is setting-specific, but not everything else isWell, there isn't any reason necessarily why you couldn't integrate them, unless there were two mutually contradictory fundamental setting assumptions involved . . .
I was actually referring to the Aerospace Engineers’ Handbook related to the Vehicle design and Starship design. Yes, stutterwarp is setting-specific, but not everything else is
It's my personal opinion, within the context of Traveller, there's a lot more ground vehicles that levitating metal boxes.
And yet there are a lot more ACSs with air/rafts than ATVs...It's my personal opinion, within the context of Traveller, there's a lot more ground vehicles that levitating metal boxes.
Though in the 2300CE universe it doesn't seem likely that any sapient technological species can survive 18,000 years, or at least survive without giving up being sentient.Part of what is frustrating is that there are some great rules available in 20300AD that would be fun to integrate
Like a lot of things much depends on infrastructure which is of course what Tech Level measures primarily. But another major factor would be environment. For example water worlds at higher TLs would probably default to grav vehicles especially for long distances since water based vehicles are inherently much slower, travel medium being a limiting factor. Another good example would be a planet where living on the ground was impractical, heavy tectonic activity, dangerous gases.It's my personal opinion, within the context of Traveller, there's a lot more ground vehicles that levitating metal boxes.
It's my personal opinion, within the context of Traveller, there's a lot more ground vehicles that levitating metal boxes.
This could get really complex, because you would be interweaving multiple layers of transportation.
Commercially, it should be fairly easy to regulate operations, and set standards.
Then you get into prosumer, consumer, and private usage(s), and my feeling is, within urban areas, these gravitational purposed vehicles would have capped speeds, and be of (very) light construction.
How far automated flight control, and remote override would be implemented, you'd have to assume it would be possible, and implementable, in the name of safety.
I doubt Traveller needs to consider this at all. Why would they? I do not see Lane-Assist, Collision Avoidance, or airbags listed on the Ground Car. Just assume that there is a built-in safety mechanism that lowers the grav vehicle to the ground in the event of a drive failure, kind of like a grav-parachute. My guess is that each advanced city would have it's own Airspace Control, just like airports do now, but on a larger scale and likely automated.Something to consider is how multitudes of air vehicles, or urban air traffic control, would be managed. Accidents could be catastrophic, as a grav system failure at a high altitude could cause cascading effects as the vehicle crashes through multiple layers of traffic until cratering at street level. Operator permit requirements would probably be very strict, including health checks. Robotic or remote control would probably be required once a vehicle joins the air traffic control grid. Vehicle systems could automatically land the vehicle if onboard diagnostics detect serious problems. People who can't get an operator permit would still have ground level grav vehicles, that wouldn't travel above a certain altitude, like several meters above the street. It would be enough to get over obstacles, but not enough to cause severe damage in the event of operator or vehicle failure.