On 2017-10-09 05:11, Phil Pugliese (via tml list) wrote:
> I've always wondered if TNE stuff like Heplar, etc, were an attempt  to
> get away from MT's 'plates' & back to CT's 'nozzles'.
>
> For myself I never did care for MT's take on the subject so I stuck with
> CT for that.
> Besides, I really liked those CT deckplans w/ the M-drive nozzles in the
> back.
>
> Also, since it only takes a extra 1/100th of a G, above local grav, to
> actually lift -off w/o anti-grav (which *everybody* must have anyway) it
> really shouldn't be that much of an issue.
> The way I play it, the vessel lifts, like a grav-sled, &, after
> achieving the proper height, zooms off.

The nozzles vs plates thing was an aesthetic choice - in either case
they were reactionless drives so it didn't make much of a functional
difference in how they were portrayed.

I think by switching to heplar and other reaction-based thrusters and
getting rid of anti-grav thrusters (changing to contra-grav instead)
they were trying for a harder SF feel for the setting.

--
Edward Swatschek
xxxxxx@bitslayer.net