[email removed] (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> Subject: reality checks bouncing
That's why *you* need *our* product!
The Space-Time Fabrication Institute is pleased to announce a new
service, a STFI exclusive:
Overdraft Protection for your Reality Checks (tm)!
Yes, that's right. The same people who brought you the Reality
Patches with Extra-Strong Gluons (tm) can, through a new universal
creditability arrangement, prevent the embarrasment of having your
reality checks bounce!
And don't forget about our patented Reality Patches with Extra-Strong
Gluons (tm). They are just the thing when your universe gets strange,
and their 100% certified up to improbability levels of 4.2x10^17 against.
> So *two* changes need to be made for radio. First, the power levels
> need to go *down*, or the ranges need to go up. Second, somewhere
> between 20 and 100 MHZ, the signals quit bouncing off the ionosphere (if
> the planet has one). At that point, range is *restricted* to
> line-of-sight.
It seems as though GDW assumed that both the transmitter and the reciever
would be using low-efficency omnidirectional antennas, and if you want to
get any sort of directional antenna, you have to buy a 'maser'
communicator.
Seriously, though, I've got an off-the-cuff suggestion to "fix" the radio
range problem (and yes, it *is* a problem). What about the following:
Unless special conditions apply, any planet with a thin, standard, or dense
atmosphere (tainted or not) has an ionosphere. The referee should determine
the presence or absence of an ionosphere in other cases (none, trace, and
very thin normally don't, while exotic, corrosive, and insidious normally
do).
Radio communicators should be designated as 'space' or 'planetary' when
constructed (this is a rough idea of it's frequency capabilities). 'Space'
radios are designed to take advantage of radio windows in planetary
atmospheres to be able to line-of-sight broadcasts through the ionosphere.
'Planetary' communicators take advantage of the ionospheres to bounce
signals around the planet. For existing designs, spacecraft are assumed to
be equipped with 'space' radios, while planetary vehicles are assumed to be
equipped with 'planetary' radios.
'Planetary' communicators of 1kw or more can be recieved anywhere on the
planet, as if at long range. 'Space' communicators follow the standard
rules.
The second change I would suggest is that the range of the *transmitter* be
used to determine the range (the range rating of the reciever being
irrellevant in this case). Of course, if you are trying to establish 2-way
communication, both sides will be transmitting, limiting the range of 2-way
conversation to the shortest of the ranges of the communicators involved.
However, you should be able to use the energy gathering qualities of a dish
antenna, combined with powerful low-noise amplification provided by a maser
or the more efficient TWT (travelling wave tube) amplifiers, to improve the
eception range. This is assuming that the FF&S radio communicators are
designed assuming an omnidirectional antenna on both the transmitter and
reciever, and that FF&S 'maser' communicators represent any radio with a
directional transmit or recieve antenna. The change I propose is as
follows:
You may use radio communicators and maser communicators in together. The
short range of such a combination is the longer of either half the short
range of the maser communicator, or the shorter of the ranges of the two
communicators. For example, if a radiocomm of 60km was used to communicate
with a 30,000km masercomm, the short range would be 15,000km. On the other
hand, the short range of a 30,000km masercomm and a 30,000km radiocomm is
30,000km.
No, it's not perfect, but it just might be a 'quick-n-dirty'
fix. Any other comments?
> Now for the drive problem.
Well, Traveller maneuver drives have never conserved energy. Violating
conservation of energy makes interplanetary travel much more 'interesting',
in that it doesn't take unreasonable amounts of time to get where you're
going.
The HEPlaR drive as detailed in FF&S is *COMPLETELY* and *TOTALLY*
impossible, and breaks at least three different physical laws. If this
bothers you, work out some guidelines for "reasonable" drives (you've gotten
off to a good start in your post) and go ahead and use them.
However, HEPlaR drive makes Brilliant Lances space combat interesting and
playable. Other drives would profoundly affect the game, and you should
consider the playability effects that this would have (not to mention you
would have considerable work to do to prepare new ship designs and new rules
for your new drive).
If HEPlaR bothers you only a little bit (and that's about the category it
falls in for me), slap a reality patch on it, and buy some overdraft
protection for your reality checks, and then you don't have to worry about
it ;-)
[email removed]
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
In the Far Future