>I agree with Starviking. I'd add to that by pointing out that the reaction
mass requirements for the sub-light drive have way more of >an impact on
canon than allowing JD's on ships below 100 dtons.
my translation of the reactionless drives was actually rather simplistic,
during the civil war, almost every starship construction facility was an
acknowledged war target. so, most got hit, and hit hard. not just the
shipyards, but the facilities to manufacture reactionless drives (and otherr
ship components) as well. the most economical means of combatting said
attacks, was to build ships that could be supported by lower tech levels
than the ships were constructed at. so, we have the RE-introduction of
reactionless drives. after 40 years of civil war and the release of virus,
and the collapse that ensued pretty much wiped out anything with a
reactionless drive. IMTU, i allow the re-introduction as a T13 item for
ships, and they can't be 'retrofitted' as they are basically integral to the
hull and structure.
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Axel <> wrote:
>
>
> On 21 May 2010 10:38, Eamon Watters <> wrote:
>
>> --- On Thu, 20/5/10, far_trader_mail <<>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> The authors of FF&S were Frank Chadwick, Dave Nilsen, assisted by Loren
>> Wiseman. The Regency Sourcebook was written by Dave Nilsen. I think it's
>> safe to assume that they were aware of what they were doing.
>>
>
> Not to mention that they were the canonical authors of the period.
> Marc <> God
>
>
>> >Changing this would seriously change the whole nature of the default
>> >Traveller setting. They and the consequences
>> >are at best part of a special sub-set of Alternate TU. An unintentional
>> >Alternate Official TU or something :-)
>>
>> I disagree that it would change the nature of the default Traveller
>> setting. The 55dT Jump Boat is a very limited design by its write-up. As for
>> Jump drives working the same way as they did before - the Jump Drives
>> certainly differ between editions - MT and TNE requiring less fuel than CT
>> and T4.
>>
> so I guess that would mean that TNE could be considered decanonised.
>>
> Starviking ._,___
>>
>
> I agree with Starviking. I'd add to that by pointing out that the reaction
> mass requirements for the sub-light drive have way more of an impact on
> canon than allowing JD's on ships below 100 dtons.
>
>
>
> --
> Axel
>
>
>
>
--
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to
think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla