Hello Craig,

First I did mention I was not using my books.

Next being sloppy and in a hurry I was not very clear in what I was saying.

Since I am now home I will use CT LBB 2 1977/1981 pp. 10-11 to hopefully summarize the rules.

A ship departing World A accelerates to 1G, shuts down the M-Drive and coasts until they need to flip the ship to decelerate at 1G and in theory arriving in orbit around their destination at say World B.

The above, I hope is closer to being correct, and what I thought I typed earlier.

Tom R

---

From: "Craig Berry" <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
To: "TML" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:31:46 PM

Subject: Re: Multi Jumping is no big deal since LBB5v1, was Re: Incredibly efficient! was Re: [TML] L-Hyd not necessary for jumping & misc....

Not "continues at 1G". As soon as you shut down the drive, you're coasting; absent external forces (e.g., gravity fields) you'll continue at the same velocity (direction and speed) forever.

With a CT m-drive, the only reason not to do the midpoint flip with continuous acceleration on both sides is if you're deliberately trying to make the trip last longer or reduce your signature.

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:23 PM, <tmr0195@comcast.net> wrote:

Hello Phil,

IIRC CT's power plant fuel is calculated for 4 weeks.

More recollection since my books are not handy is

that a ship that accelerates to 1G and shuts down

the M-drive continues at 1G until mid-flight when

the hull flips over to decelerate for arrival at the

destination. The longer one waits to do the flip

the higher the deceleration that is required.

Of course I could be in error and probably have

waited until I got home.

Tom R

---

From: "Phil Pugliese (via tml list)" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
To: "TML" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 6:50:37 AM

Subject: Re: Multi Jumping is no big deal since LBB5v1, was Re: Incredibly efficient! was Re: [TML] L-Hyd not necessary for jumping & misc....

This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com) has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't that come in w/ the 'mega-mess' that was MT?

Well, I only use the CT rules myself & that was what Tom & I were discussing.

As I recall, CT deckplans showed M-drives w/  exhaust nozzles.

Still, the CT design allowed constant accell for what , two weeks?
Even a 1G M-drive could really get going, even allowing for constant decell (relative to destination)  during the 2nd week.

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5/22/16, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: Multi Jumping is no big deal since LBB5v1, was Re: Incredibly efficient! was Re: [TML] L-Hyd not necessary for jumping & misc....
 To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 Date: Sunday, May 22, 2016, 4:11 PM
 
 Like,
 inertialess, no-exhaust maneuver drives with near-infinite
 delta v and tiny fuel requirements, for example?
 :)
 On Sun,
 May 22, 2016 at 2:16 PM, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 wrote:
 This email was sent from yahoo.com which does not allow
 forwarding of emails via email lists. Therefore the
 sender's email address (xxxxxx@yahoo.com)
 has been replaced with a dummy one. The original message
 follows:
 
 
 
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 
 On Sat, 5/21/16, tmr0195@comcast.net
 <tmr0195@comcast.net>
 wrote:
 
 
 
  Subject: Re: Multi Jumping is no big deal since LBB5v1,
 was Re: Incredibly efficient! was Re: [TML] L-Hyd not
 necessary for jumping & misc....
 
  To: "TML" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 
  Date: Saturday, May 21, 2016, 9:28 PM
 
 
 
 
 
  From: "Phil
 
  Pugliese (via tml list)"
 
  <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 
  To:
 
  "TML" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 
  Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 3:37:22
 
  PM
 
  Subject: Re: Multi Jumping is no
 
  big deal since LBB5v1, was Re: Incredibly efficient! was
 Re:
 
  [TML] L-Hyd not necessary for jumping & misc....
 
 
 
 
 
  On
 
  Sat, 5/21/16, tmr0195@comcast.net
 
  <tmr0195@comcast.net>
 wrote:
 
 
 
   Subject: Re: Multi Jumping is no big
 
  deal since LBB5v1, was Re: Incredibly efficient! was
 Re:
 
  [TML] L-Hyd not necessary for jumping & misc....
 
   To: "TML"
 
  <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 
   Date:
 
  Saturday, May 21, 2016, 6:06 AM
 
   
 
   Morning
 
   PDT Phil,
 
   
 
   From: "Phil
 
   Pugliese (via tml list)"
 
   <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 
   To: "TML"
 
  <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
 
   Sent: Friday,
 
  May 20, 2016 11:00:59 PM
 
   Subject: Re:
 
  Multi Jumping is no big deal since
 
   LBB5v1,
 
  was Re: Incredibly efficient! was Re: [TML] L-Hyd
 
   not necessary for jumping & misc....
 
   
 
   >Depends on what you
 
  mean by "ruleset".
 
   
 
   >I consider both LBB5's to be part of
 
  the same
 
   ruleset, ie:CT (T1)
 
   
 
   >I can't really see
 
  treating each book as
 
   separate ruleset
 
  even if one book is a revised version of
 
   the other.
 
   
 
   I have the ten FFE CT reprints purchased back
 
  in 2000
 
   until I what I believe is the
 
  complete set. Then I have my
 
   dog-eared
 
  copy if CT LBB 1-3 1977, CT LBB 5 HG 1979, two of
 
   CT HG 1980 (1st and 15th printings), Striker
 
  1981, and
 
   Supplement 12 1983. I've
 
  also have a copy of LBB 8,
 
   which is buried
 
  at the bottom of one of the book piles I
 
   have, unfortunately I'm not sure which
 
  pile and I'd
 
   rather not tip any of
 
  them over.;-)
 
   
 
   In FFE CT
 
  001 LBB 0-8 LBB
 
   1-3 are 1977/1981 3rd
 
  Printings and LBB 5 1980 12th
 
   printing.
 
  Anyone purchasing a complete set of CT after 1981
 
   would not have known about material dropped,
 
  dumped, or
 
   omitted from the 1977 to 1980
 
  issued LBBs. Okay, if the
 
   individual meets
 
  someone with the older version of the rule
 
   set they will discover what disappeared with
 
  the revised
 
   material.
 
   
 
   Tom R
 
 
 
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 
 
  >All true.
 
  (Although I prefer the term 'omitted' rather
 than
 
  "did away with, etc) In fact, I think most of us
 
  probably >didn't 'buy-in' at the very dawn
 of
 
  Traveller, so there would be gaps there & also gaps
 if
 
  one or another of us >didn't keep up w/ all the
 
  pubs.
 
  I was lucky to find the
 
  copy of Traveller in 1977/78 since the books I picked
 up
 
  were the only ones there. While I was deployed to the
 Med
 
  from 1991 to October 1994 I missed a lot of Traveller
 
  material that came. From October 1994 to July 1, 2009 I
 
  tried picking up material I missed. From July 1 2009 to
 mid
 
  2014 I was not buying much of anything because on June
 30,
 
  2009 I got a pick slip from my place of employment and
 
  discovered I had way to much debt and to little income
 
  without a job. Now I'm slowly trying to keep building
 my
 
  collection, okay hoard, of gaming material.
 
 
 
  >So then, &
 
  since few of us live in void, devoid of any contact w/
 
  others, what do you do when someone else >trots out
 their
 
  very much 'official' LBB, etc. & points out
 
  something that you or I wasn't aware of?
 
  >Well, one option is, "I never saw or
 
  heard of that before now so get rid of it or get
 
  lost!".
 
  >Or, perhaps some other
 
  response would be more appropo?
 
  I am guilty of trotting out the CT
 
  LBB 1-3 1977 and CT LBB 5 1979 under certain
 circumstances.
 
  In CT Supplement 7 1980 p. 35 the system defense boat
 has
 
  two missile magazines. CT LBB 5 1980 does not mention
 
  missile magazines, however CT LBB 5 p. 32 does have a
 rule
 
  for missile magazines.
 
 
 
  I have suggested that with some
 
  modification the LBB 5 1979 missile magazine rule should
 be
 
  reinstated in LBB 5 1980. Actually, I included a
 unpolished
 
  modification along with the suggestion. Nothing has
 
  happened, even after suggesting using the missile
 magazine
 
  rule in MT.
 
 
 
  >In my mind the old rules would still be
 
  valid *unless* specifically & explicitly contradicted
 by
 
  a later version.
 
  >And even in that case
 
  (re: jump torps) I believe there should be some leeway
 esp
 
  considering the adv involving >the
 'Leviathan'
 
  .
 
  I may be mistaken
 
  but with CT LBB 1 through 3 the copyright information
 is
 
  1977/1981 while the two copies of CT LBB 5 HG2 are 1980.
 If
 
  CT LBB 5 HG2 had a copyright of 1979/1980 I would agree
 that
 
  the 1979 copy is valid source document. Without the
 
  annotation of 1979 I think makes the material not in
 the
 
  1980 CT LBB 5 HG2 edition is not valid unless everyone
 at
 
  the table agrees to use them.
 
 
 
  CT Adventure 4 Leviathan has a
 
  copyright of 1980 but from the material appears to have
 been
 
  constructed using CT LBB 5 1979 and CT LBB 2 1977
 rules.
 
  Unfortunately, rewriting the design specification for
 the
 
  Leviathan and a number of other published ships to the
 CT
 
  LBB 5 HG2 1980 and CT LBB 2 1977/1981 was probably not
 
  possible at the time for unknown reasons.
 
 
 
  >Also, in LBB5
 
  it is explicitly stated that the LBB2 rules for
 starship
 
  creation are *still* valid despite the fact that
 >they
 
  don't  jibe w/ LBB5.
 
 
 
  Yes, LBB 5 1980 p. 22: Drives  "It
 
  is possible  to include standard drives (at standard
 
  prices) from Book 2 it they will otherwise meet the
 
  ship's requirements; such drives use fuel identical
 to
 
  the formulas in Book 2."
 
  LBB 2 1977/1981 p. 15: "At a
 
  minimum, ship fuel tankage must equal 0.1MJn+10Pn, where
 M
 
  is the tonnage of the ship, Jn is the ship's jump
 
  number, and Pn is the ship's power plant rating for
 four
 
  weeks of fuel. Jump fuel under the formula (0.1MJn)
 allows
 
  one jump of the stated level. Ships performing jumps
 less
 
  than their maximum capacity consume fuel at a lower
 level
 
  based on the jump number used."
 
 
 
  The 
 
  LBB 2 1977 using all jump fuel regardless of jump
 distance
 
  and LBB 5 1979 installation of a jump governor has been
 
  written out of the CT rule set.
 
 
 
  Tom R (hopefully i did better this
 
  time)
 
 
 
 ================================================================================
 
 
 
 I have to disagree...
 
 To agree would be to imply that once certain items are not
 mentioned anymore, they have somehow 'poofed' out of
 existence w/i the TU.
 
 Never to be seen or heard of again.
 
 But these items have been woven into the fabric that
 constitutes the background of the TU.
 
 Once that happens they are here to stay.
 
 
 
 p.s. IMO, "written out", etc. does NOT been
 "gone, illegal, etc.".
 
 
 
 ================================================================================
 
 -----
 
 The Traveller Mailing List
 
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 
 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 
 http://archives.simplelists.com
 
 
 --
 
 Craig
 Berry (http://google.com/+CraigBerry)
 "Eternity is in love with the productions
 of time." - William Blake
 
 
 -----
 The Traveller Mailing List
 Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
 Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
 To unsubscribe from this list please goto
 http://archives.simplelists.com
-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto
http://archives.simplelists.com

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto 
http://archives.simplelists.com

--

Craig Berry (http://google.com/+CraigBerry)
"Eternity is in love with the productions of time." - William Blake

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please goto 
http://archives.simplelists.com

----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto

http://archives.simplelists.com