In the arena of Inertia and Gravity I think its a 2 part problem.
1. Using gravity technology to 'nullify' the 'pull' of a planet's gravity
field so that any object effected would have buoyancy in proximity to the
gravity source (regardless of medium, air, methane, none, ect) doesn't
strictly remove the issue of killing the biological occupants or relieving
the craft's frame stresses when performing 90 degree turn when traveling
'at speed" even if the craft would be capable of performing such
a maneuver without simply tearing itself apart.
2. Many Scifi settings assume Inertia compensator as part of gravity
manipulation technology. Whether true or not it releases the authors having
to explain elaborate ship/vehicle design to simulate a comfortable
working/traveling environment for the characters of their setting/stories.)
A possible technobabble explanation could be motion 'experienced' but a
given object, be it organic or in-organic, can be cancelled out by a
quantum field of equal frequency in a similar way sound wave can be
canceled by a precisely opposite sound wave. This would nullify the
'experience' of motion for the effected object/person without actually
impeding the motion of the object is space/time.
The caveat being the power required to achieve complete nullification. So
at this point you can say at higher energy(Gs) levels it incredibly power
intensive to counter so its not practical to try and compensate beyond a
certain point, which has the side effect of limiting 'thruster-less' real
space acceleration. But this is only if you feel it needs a limitation.
Also to the energy dump point the compensators could simply store or
convert the motion cancellation to another from of energy. Electrical,
Magnetic, HPG motion, or just light emission from the exterior of the hull,
Either way its up to the setting designers to set a precident or a GMs
preference.
If you can't wrap your mind around how Inertial compensators 'could' work
don't worry about it as most trained scientists have difficulty grasping
Quantum Mechanics. And this is way beyond that.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Roger Malmstein <
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.