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)

Re: [TML] Better situationalawareness Rob O'Connor 19 Jul 2015 00:41 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