Thread: Re: Buckminster Fullerines (fuel tanks in Traveller) originally Meta

Since this discussion followed directly on the metallic hydrogen
discussion, the density problem with MHyd applied here as well. This would
be a major change to the way starships are designed, and call into
question the entire volume-based system that we had been nursing along
since 1977. Infinitely recursive starship designs are no fun for most
players. The relative lightness of LYhd tankage was the secret fudge
factor that allowed us to get away with volume-based design system for as
long as we did. You usually only saw the cracks in the system with SDBs
and BRs. But when we eliminate LHyd Jump fuel tankage as the great
compensator, it calls the entire design system into question.

I think the science/engineering

Since the entire CT starship system, and therefore all subsequent starship
systems, were based on volume, when you installed M-drive it was based on
volume, not mass. And since Traveller consistently attempted to portray a
"realistic" vector-based system (with some exceptions, but we were serious
about it TNE), G-rating must be based on mass, not volume. If the overall
density of a starship remained at or near 14 tonnes per displacement ton,
the volume-based G-rating worked, sort of. Our solution was the if your
density was below 14 tonnes/Dton, your G-rating was whatever you
calculated it as when you installed the volume-based M-drive. BUT, if it
was above 14 tonnes/Dton, you had to calculate your G-rating on actual
mass, not the volume-based approximation.

This was not completely accurate in that it did not give really light
ships the extra Gs they would really have, but at least it didn't give
phenomenally massive ships free G performance they could not acheive.

That was our fix. The "cracks in the system" I referred to was that until
we imposed the rule for ships above 14 tonnes/Dton, there was a implicit
assumption that all starships in Traveller had a density of 14 tonnes/Dton
or less, but this simply wasn't true. Without large jump-fuel tankage,
SDBs and BRs were always way over 14 tonnes/Dton, which gave them
G-performance that violated the laws of physics we were trying to honor.

And that goes back to having a starship design system based on volume for
ease of use by players, but which had effects that complicated things.

Did that make sense? And I may have some of my numbers wrong, but
hopefully the premise was comprehensible.

> Without any proper volume calcs we would end up with approximate armor
> factors of CT. How thick is the hull of a craft size C with armor A? And
> will the 75mm canon be able to penetrate? Or the 2Mj Fusion gun?
>
> The CT way was too abstract for me to be of any fun.
>
> What cracks in the system did you see?
>
> ---
> Roger Malmstein
> Administrator / Webmaster
> www.travellerfreeport.com
>
>
> From:
> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2012 7:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Traveller_TNE] Buckminster Fullerines (fuel tanks in
> Traveller) originally Metallic Hydrogen storage
>
>
> Infinitely recursive starship designs are no fun for most
> players. The relative lightness of LYhd tankage was the secret fudge
> factor that allowed us to get away with volume-based design system for as
> long as we did. You usually only saw the cracks in the system with SDBs
> and BRs. But when we eliminate LHyd Jump fuel tankage as the great
> compensator, it calls the entire design system into question.
>
>
>
>