I'm content with the way we went too.
But I think what I meant was that inertial dampers internal to a craft
must be related to reactionless drives, in terms of "where do you dump the
stuff?" But I feel no need to dig into that too hard just for the sake of
discovered contradictions that aren't already known.
And yes, starships turning on a dime is exactly the answer to the question
about MT: "How can you have a vector-based space combat system which
ignores vectors?"
> maybe more interesting, but it into the turf you was moving away from,
> reactionless thrusters. Even though I missed them at first, I felt that
> the game universe gained something by dropping thrusters all together. For
> the same reason I was beither very satisifed with Repulsors and Tractors
> (unless it was the farmer Bob kind).
>
> I could deal with inertial compensators for the interior of craftsm, but I
> have a hard time bending my brains around how they are supposed to work on
> a grav vehicle maneuvering under full thrust. If the inertial compensators
> would affect its maneuverability, it means that excess energy has to be
> dumped someplace, and the craft could turn on a dime any time it wants.
> just think about the effects on starships, which would gain a lot.
>
> ---
> Roger Malmstein
> Administrator / Webmaster
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
>
> From:
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 6:13 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Re: Armor XXI
>
>
> John's answer, which I just found in my spam folder, is much more
> interesting than mine.
>
> And it reminds me that we haven't talked about inertial dampers. Which is
> probably one more way that Frank's "no reactionless drives" was
> compromised by the embedded assumptions of the SF environment.
>
>> If we assume that gravity manipulation is at a level of vehicle sized
>> mastery in a setting. The laws of thermodynamics for conservation of
>> motion are no longer an issue.
>
>