Hello Jeffery,

I think there was a blurb that the the earliest jump drives were

used to make in-system jumps on runs that took more than

a week using a maneuver drive. Of course that means they

would still use up 10% of hull volume for fuel and the volume

of the jump drive.

Tom R

From: "Jeffrey Schwartz" <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
To: "TML" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>, "Tim" <xxxxxx@little-possums.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 7:30:55 AM
Subject: Re: Multi Jumping is no big deal since LBB5v1, was Re: Incredibly efficient! was Re: [TML] L-Hyd not necessary for jumping & mi
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:36:45PM -0700,  (via tml list) wrote:
>> On 24 May 2016 at 0:15, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:
>> > How far would you have to be travelling in order to require, let's say
>> > it's the standard 'scout ship', a two-week constant 2G accell (towards
>> > the 'target'), a coasting time of one week, & then a two-week decell
>> > in order to arrive w/ only a small relative diff in velocity?
>>
>> If you have jump drive you'd never do this unless you *wanted* to
>> waste a month for some reason. Because you can do it in a week by
>> using the jump drive.
>
> If you have the jump fuel to waste, yes.  There are plenty of reasons
> why you might want to get to the destination with full tanks.
>
Or it might be an in-system cargo hauler, where there's economic
advantage to not having 10% of the hull taken up by fuel and the
expense of a J-drive
-----
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://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=zZOCJCw2BI9jPrGTB4OJoibiHbbTEiok