Hello Craig,Please tell me the proper term of how one goes from 0G to 1G?Tom RFrom: "Craig Berry" <xxxxxx@gmail.com>
To: "TML" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 4:26:48 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....Nope, you're still talking about "coasting", and that never happens in an LBB2 trip. The assumption there is constant acceleration to midpoint, then constant deceleration to arrival. The m-drive is always on.You also can't "accelerate to 1G". 1G *is* an acceleration. You accelerate to some velocity, not to an acceleration. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time. 1G is roughly 10 m/s^2; that is, every second of 1G acceleration adds 10 m/s to your velocity. It's a vector quantity, so "adding" can happen in any direction. While a word like "deceleration" is convenient at times, it doesn't really mean anything in math or physics terms. An acceleration is just a rate of change of the velocity vector, in any direction, including opposite the current velocity vector (which is what we call "deceleration"), but also along it, or off at any angle from it.On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:08 PM, <tmr0195@comcast.net> wrote: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 RFrom: "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 isthat a ship that accelerates to 1G and shuts downthe M-drive continues at 1G until mid-flight whenthe hull flips over to decelerate for arrival at thedestination. The longer one waits to do the flipthe higher the deceleration that is required.Of course I could be in error and probably havewaited until I got home.Tom RFrom: "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 gotohttp://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://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=PltOdItWBSgOP4y0Q6abkGbDI1eus0lz