Better situational awareness
robocon@xxxxxx
(17 Jul 2015 01:22 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Joseph Paul
(17 Jul 2015 03:08 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness
Robert
(18 Jul 2015 00:22 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Grimmund
(17 Jul 2015 12:49 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Richard Aiken
(17 Jul 2015 18:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Greg Nokes
(17 Jul 2015 18:55 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Craig Berry
(17 Jul 2015 19:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Grimmund
(17 Jul 2015 19:47 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Bruce Johnson
(17 Jul 2015 21:05 UTC)
|
RE: [TML] Better situational awareness
Anthony Jackson
(17 Jul 2015 21:44 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Jim Vassilakos
(17 Jul 2015 22:54 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Grimmund
(17 Jul 2015 23:14 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Craig Berry
(17 Jul 2015 23:31 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Richard Aiken
(18 Jul 2015 06:21 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Phil Pugliese
(18 Jul 2015 15:32 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness
rupert.boleyn@xxxxxx
(18 Jul 2015 04:06 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness
Craig Berry
(18 Jul 2015 04:59 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness
rupert.boleyn@xxxxxx
(18 Jul 2015 06:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness Rob O'Connor (19 Jul 2015 00:41 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness
Craig Berry
(19 Jul 2015 03:58 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
rupert.boleyn@xxxxxx
(19 Jul 2015 09:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness
Rob O'Connor
(20 Jul 2015 09:00 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
rupert.boleyn@xxxxxx
(19 Jul 2015 09:02 UTC)
|
Re: [TML] Better situational awareness
Greg Chalik
(22 Jul 2015 06:43 UTC)
|
Rupert Boleyn wrote: > Time dereases proportional to the square root of acceleration, so if > Jupiter is 6 days out at 1G, it's ~2.5 days out at 6Gs. Yep, my mistake. > I just handwaved them as limited to 5% fo lightspeed. 5% of c = 15,000km/s or about 420 G-hours using all thrust to accelerate. > For normal operations in Traveller it only affects 5G and 6G drives, > as they can hit the cap inside 3.5 days and thus it reduces the > distance at which an in-system jump is faster than a 5 or 6G ship. A reasonable compromise which folds increased capability/efficiency with Tech Level. Doesn't get around the power problem, though. All those terajoules of KE per kg vehicle mass have to accumulate somehow. Craig Berry wrote: > 5% of c relative to what? :) Rupert's idea of the cosmic microwave background serving as a reference is a good one. Local star as the preferred frame makes sense for in-system travel but has consequences for relativity, as you point out. Rob O'Connor sorry about the threading; trying to solve the problem