Comparing that response to the now-inaccurate subject line, I am reminded
of something I forgot to put into the 4-axis thrust reply. All of that
only applied to TNE ships, as previous Travellers all had inertialess
M-Drives so "thrust bells" were never an issue. I assume that subsequent
editions of Traveller have repudiated the "no inertialess drive" heresy.
> Reading the article and examining the warp drive diagram again, I am
> reminded of Marc's standard 1980s-era convention FAQ answer to how
> antigrav drive worked to propel an air/raft through the atmosphere. He
> explained that it created a positive node (or push up) at the back of the
> air/raft and a negative node (pull down) at the front of the air/raft, so
> the air/raft was constantly "sliding down hill" and that created its
> forward motion, which is similar to what that warp diagram shows. How much
> fun it would be to try that in an atmosphere is another issue.
>
> So on that basis it looks more like an inertia-less drive. Newton not
> happy.
>
> Bonus off-topic minefield: The ring ship looks an awful lot like the
> semi-official spaceliner Enterprise that was in a bunch of books and made
> it onto the wall of the recreation room in STTMP. How come Marc and the ST
> guys always know this stuff in advance?
>
>> Meanwhile...
>> http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/nasa-may-have-accidentally-developed-a-warp-drive/
>> So assuming that it can ever be scaled up to the size of something as
>> large as a manned spacecraft, are we looking here in Traveller terms as
>> reactionless thrusters or more like something akin to stutterwarp? Or
>> is
>> it something completely different?
>>
>>
>
>
>
of something I forgot to put into the 4-axis thrust reply. All of that
only applied to TNE ships, as previous Travellers all had inertialess
M-Drives so "thrust bells" were never an issue. I assume that subsequent
editions of Traveller have repudiated the "no inertialess drive" heresy.
> Reading the article and examining the warp drive diagram again, I am
> reminded of Marc's standard 1980s-era convention FAQ answer to how
> antigrav drive worked to propel an air/raft through the atmosphere. He
> explained that it created a positive node (or push up) at the back of the
> air/raft and a negative node (pull down) at the front of the air/raft, so
> the air/raft was constantly "sliding down hill" and that created its
> forward motion, which is similar to what that warp diagram shows. How much
> fun it would be to try that in an atmosphere is another issue.
>
> So on that basis it looks more like an inertia-less drive. Newton not
> happy.
>
> Bonus off-topic minefield: The ring ship looks an awful lot like the
> semi-official spaceliner Enterprise that was in a bunch of books and made
> it onto the wall of the recreation room in STTMP. How come Marc and the ST
> guys always know this stuff in advance?
>
>> Meanwhile...
>> http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/nasa-may-have-accidentally-developed-a-warp-drive/
>> So assuming that it can ever be scaled up to the size of something as
>> large as a manned spacecraft, are we looking here in Traveller terms as
>> reactionless thrusters or more like something akin to stutterwarp? Or
>> is
>> it something completely different?
>>
>>
>
>
>