On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:30 PM,
> <gzg-l-request@mail.csua.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> If it's that dangerous, they wouldn't be in common usage except for
Very true.
> John, have you given any thought about the mini fuel cell technology
Nope. As long as my electronic doohickys work, I don't care what sort of
batteries they run on, as long as I can get said batteries when I need them.
> 1: Contra-grav. Â The way it has always worked in my brain (mine, I
Yes, and Yes. But how much the energy expended in space travel is getting it
from point A to point B, and how much is expended in getting it out of A's
gravity well and controlling it's entry into B's? I'm not saying mass is
utterly irrelevant, but I am saying that if space travel is economical enough
to be commonplace, and economical enough to be launching an invasion, you
aren't going to be worried about a couple kilos here and there.
> 4: I'm also presuming that FTL drives, when engaged, pull along
Perhaps, if there aren't other considerations. Like the fact that minis makers
and gamers don't like 'em. So you have to come up with some PSB to fix that.
> If you have a Traveller-like 100 diameter limit for FTL, then
And if you don't, you don't have organized political bodies very long.
:)
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:15:54 +0430, John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, and Yes. But how much the energy expended in space travel is
I'm more thinking of the difference between shipping balsa wood (<
1t/m^3)
and tightly packed depleted uranium shells (~19t/m^3). Even between
water and iron, there's a seven fold difference in mass. You're right that a
few kg, or even a few tonnes, isn't going to make much difference in the sort
of backgrounds we're interested in.
In terms of what difference CG would make, it's mostly going to be for low
acceleration ships (close to 1g) close to the planet. Assuming an
Earth-like world, gravity will cut (outward) acceleration by 1g, so
a ship with an acceleration of 1.1g will see a ten-fold improvement
when using CG. At the high-end of Traveller, a 6g ship 'only' sees a
20% improvement.
For that 100 diameter trip to a safe Jump distance, that's 1,280,000km. After
only 6,400km (a mere 5% of the trip), the planet's gravity has
dropped to .25g. It's down to 1/16th at 10%. I haven't done the maths,
but even for a relatively low acceleration ship, most of the advantage of CG
is during initial take off and landing. After that, it's contributing very
little.
It would allow cheap, low thrust ship designs however if people aren't worried
about how long the journey takes.
Picking up on the smuggling comments - CG might make it easier to
ship stuff between orbit and the surface. If CG units are small and relatively
cheap, they may be harder to detect than rockets or large parachutes, making
it possible to drop small packages from orbit without detection.
In my Traveller, CG (actually described as repulsor beams) had a
relatively short range. It was used to land/hover spacecraft without
having to burn up the landing pad with hot thrusters. Altitude was limited to
a few tens of metres for most ships.
> Would this lead to spherical ship design?
Agreed.
> If you have a Traveller-like 100 diameter limit for FTL, then
:)
I don't recall the B5 episode where White Stars jumped out of Hyperspace
directly above a Martian base to provide air support, but yeah, the lack of
such a limit would be a game changer.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, Sep 14,
> 2010 at 8:12 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 06:15:54 +0430, John Atkinson
"Endgame", season 4
Mk
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lJohn A said:
Perhaps, if there aren't other considerations. Like the fact that minis makers
and gamers don't like 'em. So you have to come up with some PSB to fix that.
Answer: "They experimented with round ships. It was a promising design due to
the
best ratio of hull volume to cargo volume and some of the drive-field
and shielding dynamics. However, it didn't pan out. It turns out that longer,
flatter ships can be more easily cast in Unobtainum at the Ship Foundries."