Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[phavoc]

I'm dealing with comfort levels... no problem for short periods of time, unless you're doing Clown Seating™, but increasing problems the longer you're stuck in a seat with no potty or food.

Anyone who's ridden in the back of a deuce and a half or APC knows all about that. Though they (US Army in my case) do seem to teach you how to sleep while in full gear and freezing your butt off in the cold German winter.

So many things are possible (bitching included for free!)

 

[phavoc]

I'm lifting, er, taking, Lifters strait from T5: slow, but it can gain altitude. No need to diverge, but it does eventually get you above the atmosphere if you are patient. More a secondary transport mode, or something for your 'flying' house, not your air/raft.

I'd have to go crack my dust collector (T5 kickstarter book) to read more on the lifters. Are there any specifications on minimal size/power consumption? And from your description it sounds like it's a bit like a balloon - it renders the object lighter and it will just float up vertically until... when? If that's all the description then I'd assume this is going to work like the MT anti-grav that ONLY works against a grav field.

I'm hoping there is something more, like is it based on the grav field it's operating in? Will it work equally well in a .1G environment vs a 5G one? Good example would be if you had grav lifters on a ship/vehicle operating in a gas giant atmosphere. Does it work equally well the deeper you are in the grav well? If you feed 2X/3X/etc power you get 2X/3X/etc performance against your grav field? If so that would mean LESS power is needed in lighter fields vs standard 1G field.

This still doesn't address how the air/raft or any other gets it's thrust (or even how the grav belt lets you move, because if I recall the description correctly you can actually move around with one, not just float up/down vertically). If lifters operate basically like intertron from Buck Rogers comic strip. Which is kind of like how Traveller anti-grav seems to work (weight but not mass are reduced, and inertia is retained). Is that how you envision T5 lifters to work in MGT Traveller?

 

[Sigtrygg]

You mean the say guy who blames Marc for his company going under. They same guy how said he saved Traveller. No im more inclined to believe Marc who said he did have a strong hand in the core MegaTraveller book and only ask Joe to provide support books.

Read the interviews, read the history of Traveller book. Or do you talk directly with Marc...

 

[Sigtrygg]

Marc had absolutely nothing to do with TNE in fact it was an attempt to remove Marc’s name from the game just like D&D 2ed did to gygax.

There was no attempt to remove his name at all.

T4 does mention jump governors in passing. T20 and GT as well as HT are all licensed products that have their own takes to the game and our alternative universes. T5 specifically doesn’t mention Jump Governor as fluff since it specifically states “an Experimental, Prototype, or Early Jump Drive does not have a Jump Governor.” That statement alone saids that it’s not fluff in fact there is almost no “Fluff” in T5.

You and I have very different definitions of fluff. How much does the jump governor cost in T5? How much hull tonnage does it take?

TNE vastly rewrote the tech system of Traveller across the board and if Marc wasn’t the great guy that he is it would have probably been removed from the setting. It’s so full of counter dictating nonsense to make the system useless. A virus that the message’s inflicts you with cannot be quarantined.

Once again you are just spouting nonsense. The TNE technical architecture was built on Striker just like MT, only done better by people who knew the game better.

MgT2 has done a excellent job in general of merging the divergent tech rules from TNE while staying true to Marc’s Travellers

What are you on about? MgT 1e was a reimaging of CT and the supplements produced for it varied from good to utterly useless.
MgT 2e has made vast improvements thanks to authors actually reading what has gone before and or understanding the game better - but there are still some glaring errors.
T5 tech is gradually making its way in to MgT, the one thing MgT could really do with is a technical architecture book like FF&S that the authors have to follow.

 

[Condottiere]

I just thought of something.

If you have a fuel processor, you could install it on the zeppelin, with seal sealing hull, and continuously pump in helium.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I'd have to go crack my dust collector (T5 kickstarter book) to read more on the lifters. Are there any specifications on minimal size/power consumption? And from your description it sounds like it's a bit like a balloon - it renders the object lighter and it will just float up vertically until... when? If that's all the description then I'd assume this is going to work like the MT anti-grav that ONLY works against a grav field.

Lifters are in the new Starship Operators Manual, despite them not being mentioned at all in High Guard.
Consistency - no this is Traveller after all.

I'm hoping there is something more, like is it based on the grav field it's operating in? Will it work equally well in a .1G environment vs a 5G one? Good example would be if you had grav lifters on a ship/vehicle operating in a gas giant atmosphere. Does it work equally well the deeper you are in the grav well? If you feed 2X/3X/etc power you get 2X/3X/etc performance against your grav field? If so that would mean LESS power is needed in lighter fields vs standard 1G field.

This still doesn't address how the air/raft or any other gets it's thrust (or even how the grav belt lets you move, because if I recall the description correctly you can actually move around with one, not just float up/down vertically). If lifters operate basically like intertron from Buck Rogers comic strip. Which is kind of like how Traveller anti-grav seems to work (weight but not mass are reduced, and inertia is retained). Is that how you envision T5 lifters to work in MGT Traveller?

This is what happens when different authors have different ideas and there is no editorial process to reign them in.
Null grav modules in CT were used in grav vehicles - they provided lift and thrust.
TNE introduced contragravity which are similar to lifters in that they provide lift, but no thrust.

Mongoose, up until SOM, had the CT gravitics providing lift and thrust, and gravitics based m-drives moving ships about.

Introducing lifters ties in with T5 but will require another rewrite of the CRB and HG.

 

[Condottiere]

A ground-effect vehicle (GEV), also called a wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), ground-effect craft, wingship, flarecraft or ekranoplan (Russian: экранопла́н – "screenglider"), is a vehicle that is able to move over the surface by gaining support from the reactions of the air against the surface of the earth or water. Typically, it is designed to glide over a level surface (usually over the sea) by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the moving wing and the surface below. Some models can operate over any flat area such as frozen lakes or flat plains similar to a hovercraft.

Factor/one manoeuvre drive, with one diameter range.

 

[agentwigggles]

why would it require a rewrite the crb and hg? lifters is more granual detail, it being explict in som, doesnt mean it nullifes what in hg. Its abstracted in hg for ships.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Umm, because neither the core rule book or high guard mentions them? And yet they are integral to the setting...

 

[Vormaerin]

I'd have to go crack my dust collector (T5 kickstarter book) to read more on the lifters. Are there any specifications on minimal size/power consumption? And from your description it sounds like it's a bit like a balloon - it renders the object lighter and it will just float up vertically until... when? If that's all the description then I'd assume this is going to work like the MT anti-grav that ONLY works against a grav field.

I'm hoping there is something more, like is it based on the grav field it's operating in? Will it work equally well in a .1G environment vs a 5G one? Good example would be if you had grav lifters on a ship/vehicle operating in a gas giant atmosphere. Does it work equally well the deeper you are in the grav well? If you feed 2X/3X/etc power you get 2X/3X/etc performance against your grav field? If so that would mean LESS power is needed in lighter fields vs standard 1G field.

This still doesn't address how the air/raft or any other gets it's thrust (or even how the grav belt lets you move, because if I recall the description correctly you can actually move around with one, not just float up/down vertically). If lifters operate basically like intertron from Buck Rogers comic strip. Which is kind of like how Traveller anti-grav seems to work (weight but not mass are reduced, and inertia is retained). Is that how you envision T5 lifters to work in MGT Traveller?

I'd have to look at what lifters in T5 do. In T:NE, they just negate 99% of gravity, but provide no thrust. Their function is to allow low thrust to escape the gravity well. Unfortunately, T:NE uses megawatts for power and factor in both surface area and volume as size constraints.

 

[Condottiere]

That is a rather sticky point.

We might have assumed that the manoeuvre drive has them organically, except for vectored thrust for levitation.

 

[agentwigggles]

Why are lifters intergals? Its a neat bit of techno bable but not intergal. SOM if anywhere is where it should bbe since the SOM is about more close in examination of jump ships.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You'd think if they are such an integral part of how ships function they would be mentioned in High Guard and the core rule book. They are not just a fluff item.

 

[Condottiere]

Tee/Five mentions them.

High Guard ignores them.

And, apparently, Starship Operator's Manual mentions them.

So, I would say they exist in Traveller, but would need to be installed.

 

[tytalan]

Mongoose, up until SOM, had the CT gravitics providing lift and thrust, and gravitics based m-drives moving ships about.

Introducing lifters ties in with T5 but will require another rewrite of the CRB and HG.

Why? Ships use maneuver drive not lifters or grav drive there absolutely no reason to rewrite either Highguard or the CRB if you include both lifters and grav drive in the VH.

 

[tytalan]

Read the interviews, read the history of Traveller book. Or do you talk directly with Marc...

Actually I did back in late 80s, 90s and early 2000s when I was hitting the con circuit. Also none of those interviews are with Marc who has as is typical of Marc not commented on it. Even now if you look at T5s construction rules there’s a lot of MegaTraveller in its DNA.

As for Fluff if the not having something effects the game than it’s not fluff. Read the quote again experimental jump drives (ie lower than baseline tech). Lack a jump governor and one can’t be installed you don’t need a size or cost for something the is integrated in to the baseline system and not available at all for the experimental version.

 

[tytalan]

I'd have to look at what lifters in T5 do. In T:NE, they just negate 99% of gravity, but provide no thrust. Their function is to allow low thrust to escape the gravity well. Unfortunately, T:NE uses megawatts for power and factor in both surface area and volume as size constraints.

Here you go
“Lifters Z-Drives Z
Lifters are anti-gravity hull plates that negate local grav- ity and provide a limited abil- ity to change location. Lifters produce only a lim- ited lateral movement vector and are not suited to long distance travel on a world. Lifters have an effective hori- zontal top speed of 25 kph. Lifters operate optimally within 1D of a gravity source; they are ineffective at dis- tances beyond 1D.”

“G-Drives G
Gravitic is a less efficient version of the M-Drive. Usu- ally powered by an integral FusionPlus, it does not need a separate Power Plant. G-Drives are manufac- tured with performance lev- els from 1G to 9G. G-Drives are governed by the 10D limit, and are best suited to operation near worlds (or near stars). Be- yond the 10 D limit, G-Drives operate at 1% efficiency.”

“M-Drive M
Maneuver is the standard in-system ship drive. It in- teracts with gravity sources to produce vectored move- ment. It requires a separate Power Plant. M-Drives are manufac- tured with performance lev- els from 1G to 9G. M-Drives are subject to the 1000D limit: beyond 1000D from a gravity source, the drive operates at only about 1% efficiency.”

In the end it’s fairly simple Lifters are mostly useful for moving cargo and other things which are not meant to move they don’t have the range or thrust to be used for either ships or vehicles.

Grav drive is effective for travel on a planet good for vehicles

And M-Drive is what a space ship or star ship need to be effective.

 

[Condottiere]

You could design gravitational motors around an efficiency/cruising band.

 

[phavoc]

Why? Ships use maneuver drive not lifters or grav drive there absolutely no reason to rewrite either Highguard or the CRB if you include both lifters and grav drive in the VH.

Well, there IS an actual use for them, and one that fills a very important role. Without some form of lift, all Traveller starships are simply too heavy and don't have enough lift to take off on their own. The original SOM postulated vectored gravitic thrust that allowed, for example, the standard Scout ship to literally point it's nose from 90 to 180 and then use it's drive to take off vertically. To accomplish this it could ramp the gravity defying force up to 400% and had to due to how they wrote the rules. Engineering wise it was a terrible idea because running anything at 400% of normal is asking for failure or heavy maintenance. Not to mention it raised multiple other questions about operations where gravity was greater than 1G and you only had a 1G drive (hello Mr. Free Trader) to operate with.

There is also the issue of so much of the artwork that shows ships taking off/landing vertically or in very tight spaces. Or pulling into docking ports. The launch and modular cutter are two examples of small craft that are cyndrical and whose bodies would provide little lift.

Engineering-wise a designer would give their children away to have the ability to hover/float a ship or vehicle (and vehicles had it, so why wouldn't starships?) instead of having to rely on classic aerodynamic forces. Traveller ships are h-e-a-v-y since they are built with materials that are dense and heavy. If a ship with collapsed matter hull plating is able to take off and land on a planet then something is negating it's mass to do so.

M-drives provide thrust, but they have limitations to them (implied that there is mass involved, but the design sequence avoids having to deal with mass). We know this becuase the drive otherwise function the same as rockets today (aside from their large specific impulse output to move their mass).

Everything points to the very reasonable assumption that ships have anti-grav capability built into them. It makes negative sense to try and justify why they wouldn't when everything points to why they would (not saying you are, referring to the game system).

 

[phavoc]

Here you go
“Lifters Z-Drives Z
Lifters are anti-gravity hull plates that negate local grav- ity and provide a limited abil- ity to change location. Lifters produce only a lim- ited lateral movement vector and are not suited to long distance travel on a world. Lifters have an effective hori- zontal top speed of 25 kph. Lifters operate optimally within 1D of a gravity source; they are ineffective at dis- tances beyond 1D.”

“G-Drives G
Gravitic is a less efficient version of the M-Drive. Usu- ally powered by an integral FusionPlus, it does not need a separate Power Plant. G-Drives are manufac- tured with performance lev- els from 1G to 9G. G-Drives are governed by the 10D limit, and are best suited to operation near worlds (or near stars). Be- yond the 10 D limit, G-Drives operate at 1% efficiency.”

“M-Drive M
Maneuver is the standard in-system ship drive. It in- teracts with gravity sources to produce vectored move- ment. It requires a separate Power Plant. M-Drives are manufac- tured with performance lev- els from 1G to 9G. M-Drives are subject to the 1000D limit: beyond 1000D from a gravity source, the drive operates at only about 1% efficiency.”

In the end it’s fairly simple Lifters are mostly useful for moving cargo and other things which are not meant to move they don’t have the range or thrust to be used for either ships or vehicles.

Grav drive is effective for travel on a planet good for vehicles

And M-Drive is what a space ship or star ship need to be effective.

Thanks for the details there. I'd say that 99% needs to be 100% to allow for weak thrusters that one expects ships to use to maneuver to work. We know mass isn't eliminated, just counteracted in the game. Even negating 100% of your weight means your mass still needs power to turn and move. I'd say using your M-drive to maneuver out of a ground hangar would require massive control of thrust - not impossible, but why bother when you'd have maneuvering thrusters whose job is to literally make you turn? I like the engineering models to make practical sense, and practicality should be baked into the design system as much as possible. It doesn't take much other than a few extra thoughts and, sometimes, a sentence or two. Foresight can head off a great deal of future headaches that could/should have been resolved at the design stage.

The G-drives are a bit puzzling with their explantion of integrated power (or at least I'm assuming the FusionPlus is somehow an integral power source). Why they would be that way is a head-scratcher. Does the book explain more about what they are and why they would do such a thing? It sounds like it's a bit like a battery (the H.Beam Piper's universes utilized collapsium-plated batteries for small vehicles, but everything else used standard nuclear plants or mass-energy converters - and Miller cites Space Vikings as a source of ideas). Grav drives are currently fantasy, but until we can replicate gravity we can only speculate on the possibility. The question is why you would embed a power source in your drive. Why not just utilize an external power source? While technicall integral just means integrated into the power source, there is a very wide margin of interpretation here as to what the hell it means. And still, why?

The M-drive failing at the 1000D limit irks me in the fact that nothing is said that it's more effective the closer it is to the same field. So if it can fail without a field present, why isn't it more effecient the closer it is to whatever is generating the field? Sure, it's gravitics and thereby pure fantasy at this point, but if we use magnets as an example, there is a range where the field is stronger, at the optimal distance, and then when it's weak or non-existent.

So with the explanation provided, grav vehicles would have lifters and g-drives. Lifters apparently don't have mention of integral power sources, so another kind of miss there in the model in that it has explanatory gaps. Star and Space ships would have lifters and M-drives.

Argh, now I may be forced to go crack open the dreaded black book.

TYVM for the quotes.