From: [email removed] (Stephen D Smith)
Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge
And some of Scott's thoughts on the rules.
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
Scott is in the processing of moving so his access is
even more limited. His previously given address and
phone will be of dubious use, depending on the US Snail.
Anyone wishing to contact him should leave a message
with me and I'll forward it to him.
*********************************************************
*********************************************************
WHEN I BREAK THE RULES
I don't hold by some of the design rules. Those of you who
have looked closely at some of my designs already know this (maybe
you have already commented on my liberties I don't know yet, such
is my limited access to the list.) The main rule I've broken is
the one about manuver drives. Here is my justification:
The rules state that you can't put a spacecraft thruster drive
or a spacecraft antigrav drive into a craft smaller than 20 tons.
The only place you find that rule is in 'Shattered Ships of the
Squabbling Imperium' in reference to the FS-15.
Well, it is a good guide line. Most craft under that tonnage
can't fit enough of a power plant to run one anyway. But, you can
if you are careful. I can see that there is a minimum of size to
these units. The smallest unit they list is 5.4Kl. Ok, don't
build one under that size. However that 5.4Kl drive takes up 17%
of a 2.3 ton vehicle. Therefore, theoretically, a 2.3 tonner would
have 6G acceleration if you built it. So would that mean that
everyone would want 6G air/rafts?
No. I suggest that you use the manuver drives if you are
designing either a spacecraft or a craft that is large enough to
warrent such a drive.
Here is how I interpret the difference bettween the standard
grav thrust units and the anti grav drives. The standard grav
units being small create only a small disturbance in the local
gravitational field. the only area substantially affected is
within the volume of the grav unit itself. That is the sort of
propulsion unit designers would want for a small craft which
carries people or comes in close proximity with other such
vehicles. Two air/rafts could fly along in close formation without
effecting each other.
Now the grav drive units on the other hand create a large
field: One which extends beyond the confines of the drive unit
and possibly the ship itself. That's Ok because that's how the
craft that use these drives operate. One doesn't often ride down
Main street in a 30 ton ship's boat. "Ooops! Charley, you better
pull over, the gravitic field has picked up another traffic cop!
Boy, he looks funny stuck to the side of the hull..."
Craft using the drive units would operate out of airports,
spaceports and starports. Areas designated for their use. After
all, if every scoutship could operate VTOL why should you need a
landing pad at the starport?
Basically, I would say, if a craft is going to operate in a
congested or confined area use grav units. That includes most
craft. But in the case of space based fighters one would use drive
units. Other craft that would use drive units would be large
transports which don't operate without some provision for their
landings. From 101 vehicles applicable designs for drive units,
the Zeff grav cargo transport, vehicle #95, or the Tachcel
hypergrav transport, vehicle #100.
Military craft would not necessarily want to use grav drive
units as the fields can be detected. Anti-grav drives would give
off a particularly detectable gravfield. Actually, in my opinion,
when computing the object size of a craft, the total grav thrust
of the craft should be added to it.
This is all the more reason for military craft to use
thrusters. Grav tanks which have to operate in various
environments in close coodination with troops will still want to
use grav units. You don't want the troops stuck to the side of
the grav carrier do you?
The nice thing about this interpretation is that it partially
accounts for grav drive units performance being dependent on a
crafts volume rather than it's weight. Assuming a grav field is
of a certain size, it would effect a certain volume. Size and
power of the field would give a certain performance. Real
gravitational fields after all give a uniform acceleration to a
certain volume. ie. The gravitational field of Earth gives a
nearly uniform acceleration of 9.8m/sec^2. An artificial
gravitational field should have similar properties. Therefore, an
anti grav drive ship will have less need for inertial compensators:
If the hull of the ship and it's innards is being pulled along at
6Gs that would include the passengers as well. The ship's volume
would be in freefall. A strong artificial grav field will probably
have some variations and not be a suitable environment for people
to stand in; thus the need for inertial compensators and artificial
gravity inside ships with anti grav drives. So while you might
consider ommiting inertial compensators from a ship with 2G
acceleration, I would advise against it with a ship using anti grav
drive units.
Another 'rule' I break regularly is putting aircraft hardpoints
on grav vehicles.
Well, that is not actually a rule. Nowhere has it been put
down that you can't use them. Actually, with the exception of
missiles and cluster bombs most aircraft ordainance will be of
doubtful use when put beside high powered energy weapons which do
more damage without having to be reloaded.
They are of limited use but I like them. Their chief
disadvantage is the drag they induce. Fast re-enty may damage the
ordainance carried.
The ability to fire off volleys is extremely valuable. Check
out my designs of the Viper, Talon and Indianapolis.
Scott Kellogg
via Stephen D Smith USENET: [email removed]
BIX: sdsmith
- - --Name = STEPHEN SMITH Mailbox # = 68