Re: Multi Jumping is no big deal since LBB5v1, was Re: Incredibly efficient! was Re: [TML] L-Hyd not necessary for jumping & misc.... Phil Pugliese 24 May 2016 00:15 UTC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just wondering; 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? Since the 'coasting' time will still require the use of the PP, take some time off both ends of the trip so that there'll still be enough power avail to survive & maneuver at the end. -------------------------------------------- On Mon, 5/23/16, 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: Monday, May 23, 2016, 12:31 PM 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://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=EwREIRgLK8vaUEhNlnoNdSGKwnjoID8a