I always figured, what with G-Compensation and Artificial Gravity availability, that movement of cargo in the cargo bay would largely be enabled by manipulating gravity in the bay.
If Virus can use those systems for 'Grav-Pong', why cant we use them more productively?
Eamon
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 3/3/15, Evyn MacDude [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at
12:11 PM, Derek Stanley
[Traveller_TNE] <>
wrote:
A travel lift crane system inside the ship
is going to take up a metric fucktonne of space. 2m high x
width and length of the cargo bay, even with a modes 10x15m
cargo bay that's 300 cubic meters of cargo space
you're wasting.
Try 1m tall or less for a strong back
lifter capable of lifting a container.
But you do bring up a point, the
difference between geared and ungeared ships. Smaller ships
that serve smaller ports tend to be geared (and thus more
expensive) that ships that service larger
ports.
Realistically
the standard traveller 200 dTon "Freetrader" is
more akin to a semi truck than a container ship, thus is
probably Geared to handle palleted goods and other Pallet
sized boxes. Which as we all know means a couple of good
Pallet-Jacks.--
Evyn
Yeah, we just never got around to explicitly saying anything about it
rules- or general-so-you-know-background-wise. Have fun catching up on the
rest of it!
Wainscotings.
> I always figured, what with G-Compensation and Artificial Gravity
> availability, that movement of cargo in the cargo bay would largely be
> enabled by manipulating gravity in the bay.
>
> If Virus can use those systems for 'Grav-Pong', why cant we use them more
> productively?
>
> Eamon
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 3/3/15, Evyn MacDude [Traveller_TNE]
> <> wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] GURPs Traveller
> To:
> Date: Tuesday, 3 March, 2015, 15:03
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at
> 12:11 PM, Derek Stanley
> [Traveller_TNE] <>
> wrote:
>
> A travel lift crane system inside the ship
> is going to take up a metric fucktonne of space. 2m high x
> width and length of the cargo bay, even with a modes 10x15m
> cargo bay that's 300 cubic meters of cargo space
> you're wasting.
>
> Try 1m tall or less for a strong back
> lifter capable of lifting a container.
> But you do bring up a point, the
> difference between geared and ungeared ships. Smaller ships
> that serve smaller ports tend to be geared (and thus more
> expensive) that ships that service larger
> ports.
> Realistically
> the standard traveller 200 dTon "Freetrader" is
> more akin to a semi truck than a container ship, thus is
> probably Geared to handle palleted goods and other Pallet
> sized boxes. Which as we all know means a couple of good
> Pallet-Jacks.--
> Evyn
>
>
>
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Eamon Watters
[Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>
> I always figured, what with G-Compensation and Artificial Gravity
> availability, that movement of cargo in the cargo bay would largely be
> enabled by manipulating gravity in the bay.
>
> If Virus can use those systems for 'Grav-Pong39;, why cant we use them more
> productively?
>
While we talked about Grav-Pong a lot, it was never clearly supported by
the rules.
Consider this as well, when do low level short ranged Tractors come in to
use? Their use is implied in CT, think of all those conformal docking slips.
You're correct, "rules" for that, or even general guidelines were never
clearly laid out by us. But between artificial grav, 6G inertial
compensators, etc., it would have been possible. But like I said in
another post, how easy is it to do it in one compartment but not the one
next to it, etc. We didn't get the detail pushed out that far.
In your second para, when you refer to "conformal docking slips," are you
referring to the way that in early books you could store small craft at
straight tonnage? I always thought of those as an embarrassing "error" (or
revised ruling) that was shoved into a shallow grave, written out in
subsequent revisions (Books 1-3 had a lot more un-documented rewrites and
revisions than most people realized), and talked about as little as
possible.
Re: tractors, they exist at TL 12, but the force they can exert and the
range at which they can use it is so low that no one spent much time on
them. Actually wait, that's not true, the issue is that only manipulators
can pull it to you AND slow it down so it doesn't whang into you. The only
time I recall spending a lot of time of T/R/M tech was for the TL 16
Darrian cruiser, but it's late and I need to get to bed. Maybe tomorrow
I'll realize there's more to the story.
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Eamon Watters
> [Traveller_TNE] <> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I always figured, what with G-Compensation and Artificial Gravity
>> availability, that movement of cargo in the cargo bay would largely be
>> enabled by manipulating gravity in the bay.
>>
>> If Virus can use those systems for 'Grav-Pong39;, why cant we use them
>> more
>> productively?
>>
> While we talked about Grav-Pong a lot, it was never clearly supported by
> the rules.
>
> Consider this as well, when do low level short ranged Tractors come in to
> use? Their use is implied in CT, think of all those conformal docking
> slips.
>
> --
> Evyn
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:30 AM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Evyn--
>
> You're correct, "rules" for that, or even general guidelines were never
> clearly laid out by us. But between artificial grav, 6G inertial
> compensators, etc., it would have been possible. But like I said in
> another post, how easy is it to do it in one compartment but not the one
> next to it, etc. We didn't get the detail pushed out that far.
>
Pretty much My take on the subject, mostly I was pointing out is generally
came up with other more heated topics.
>
> In your second para, when you refer to "conformal docking slips," are you
> referring to the way that in early books you could store small craft at
> straight tonnage? I always thought of those as an embarrassing "error" (or
> revised ruling) that was shoved into a shallow grave, written out in
> subsequent revisions (Books 1-3 had a lot more un-documented rewrites and
> revisions than most people realized), and talked about as little as
> possible.
>
Yes, the whole straight tonnage thing, and the external clamp ones too to
some extent. Believe my I understand those Re-writes and revisions there is
a Document kicking around (I think it is on Marc CT Compilation cd) Called
Lost Rules that covers a lot of the changes. I have been playing and
running since the 70's and have gone through a number of rules books, as
such I would go through looking to clarify a rule I was using only to find
it absent. Jumps Tapes was the biggest one, as early on I had written a
number of scenarios that used custom un labeled Tapes as a lever to move
the players.
>
> Re: tractors, they exist at TL 12, but the force they can exert and the
> range at which they can use it is so low that no one spent much time on
> them. Actually wait, that's not true, the issue is that only manipulators
> can pull it to you AND slow it down so it doesn't whang into you. The only
> time I recall spending a lot of time of T/R/M tech was for the TL 16
> Darrian cruiser, but it's late and I need to get to bed. Maybe tomorrow
> I'll realize there's more to the story.
>
Low powered and short ranged has all the hallmarks of a boring tool, which
is kinda where I could use them....
Yep Understand it is time for me to take my anagathics and pretend to sleep
as well, hope the Dog doesn't Snore tonight....
I discovered the undocumented rules changes by trying to reproduce a fleet
of modified Free and Far Traders with lots of carried subcraft and noticed
that I couldn't. Remember how the LBBs would gradually have their covers
pop off the staples? I ended up with several sets of LBBs thinking they
were all the same (and that the compilations into the 8.5 x 11 paper and
hardbound formats were also the same), but my big realization was that the
sizes in the drive and power plant tables had all changed. I think of it
not so much as "lost rules" as "undocumented rules changes."
I had forgotten about Jump Tapes, probably because they got deleted early.
Jump Torps I did remember, but didn't realize for a while they only showed
in the one spot so weren't actually means of salvation after all.
While you're correct that Tractor/Repulsor tech could solve a lot of
problems at short range (analogous to laser etching and engraving), for
big things like tunneling it was easier to assume fusion tunneling because
that tech was more widely used, so I didn't spend a lot of time thinking
about niche uses for T/R/M. I know I spoke of embedding the effects of
other technologies, such as nuclear damper/enhancer, and maybe T/R/M in
big systems like fusion plants, but developing them into specific tools,
probably not. Doesn't mean it's not "realistic" or that you can't.
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:30 AM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Evyn--
>>
>> You're correct, "rules" for that, or even general guidelines were never
>> clearly laid out by us. But between artificial grav, 6G inertial
>> compensators, etc., it would have been possible. But like I said in
>> another post, how easy is it to do it in one compartment but not the one
>> next to it, etc. We didn't get the detail pushed out that far.
>>
> Pretty much My take on the subject, mostly I was pointing out is generally
> came up with other more heated topics.
>
>
>>
>> In your second para, when you refer to "conformal docking slips," are
>> you
>> referring to the way that in early books you could store small craft at
>> straight tonnage? I always thought of those as an embarrassing "error"
>> (or
>> revised ruling) that was shoved into a shallow grave, written out in
>> subsequent revisions (Books 1-3 had a lot more un-documented rewrites
>> and
>> revisions than most people realized), and talked about as little as
>> possible.
>>
>
> Yes, the whole straight tonnage thing, and the external clamp ones too to
> some extent. Believe my I understand those Re-writes and revisions there
> is
> a Document kicking around (I think it is on Marc CT Compilation cd) Called
> Lost Rules that covers a lot of the changes. I have been playing and
> running since the 70's and have gone through a number of rules books, as
> such I would go through looking to clarify a rule I was using only to find
> it absent. Jumps Tapes was the biggest one, as early on I had written a
> number of scenarios that used custom un labeled Tapes as a lever to move
> the players.
>
>
>>
>> Re: tractors, they exist at TL 12, but the force they can exert and the
>> range at which they can use it is so low that no one spent much time on
>> them. Actually wait, that's not true, the issue is that only
>> manipulators
>> can pull it to you AND slow it down so it doesn't whang into you. The
>> only
>> time I recall spending a lot of time of T/R/M tech was for the TL 16
>> Darrian cruiser, but it's late and I need to get to bed. Maybe tomorrow
>> I'll realize there's more to the story.
>>
>
> Low powered and short ranged has all the hallmarks of a boring tool, which
> is kinda where I could use them....
>
> Yep Understand it is time for me to take my anagathics and pretend to
> sleep
> as well, hope the Dog doesn't Snore tonight....
>
>
> --
> Evyn
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:04 AM, [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> Evyn--
>
> I discovered the undocumented rules changes by trying to reproduce a fleet
> of modified Free and Far Traders with lots of carried subcraft and noticed
> that I couldn't. Remember how the LBBs would gradually have their covers
> pop off the staples? I ended up with several sets of LBBs thinking they
> were all the same (and that the compilations into the 8.5 x 11 paper and
> hardbound formats were also the same), but my big realization was that the
> sizes in the drive and power plant tables had all changed. I think of it
> not so much as "lost rules" as "undocumented rules changes."
>
I am glad I am not the only one who seems to eat rule books, especially
staple bound Card-stock cover ones. (I will say the digest size sure helped
me fit them in my locker when underway).
>
>
> While you're correct that Tractor/Repulsor tech could solve a lot of
> problems at short range (analogous to laser etching and engraving), for
> big things like tunneling it was easier to assume fusion tunneling because
> that tech was more widely used, so I didn't spend a lot of time thinking
> about niche uses for T/R/M. I know I spoke of embedding the effects of
> other technologies, such as nuclear damper/enhancer, and maybe T/R/M in
> big systems like fusion plants, but developing them into specific tools,
> probably not. Doesn't mean it's not "realistic" or that you can't.
>
The tractor discussion is a recent one spawned from a discussion about
manuvering in the last 10 feet while docking and the shifting of modules
within the cutter wells of the Broadsword class cruisers.