Yes, 1G is an acceleration not a speed. The CT explanation and
equation for destination times was for continuous
acceleration/deceleration with a flip at the halfway point. No reason
not to do so in normal situations as there is no expense for
propulsion mass.
Dave
Your 'reality', sir, is lies and balderdash,
and I'm delighted to say that I have no
grasp of it whatsoever.
- Baron Munchausen
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Craig Berry <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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=NZ2T1cCxApw0Kw5BG0ZuG6l28bIcPqVY
