Re: The Fast X-Boat

>
> >No, it's d6d6 hexes (unless they've changed that in MegaT) so
> >the average distance is (3.5*3.5=10.5) hexes.
>
> Oops, I made a slight error here.  However, it isn't that bad.  The mean is
> better than 10.5.
>
>
> Not quite that easy....the mean of a product isn't the product
> of the means.  The result you want is:
>
Yes it is, only I made a calculating error (blush). 3.5*3.5 is
12.25, not 10.5 ;-)
>
> >And since you
> >will most propably need 2 or 3 jumps to get to somewhere useful,
> >two controlled jumps-6 will be preferable.
>
> Most probably you need 2 jumps,  you have an even chance (50%) of getting
> somewhere in 1 jump and a 127 in 128 (= 99.2%) of getting somewhere in 2
> jumps.

Yes, but I said somewhere _useful_. You may have 50% chance of
being within jump-1 of a planet, but what's your chance of
being in range of a high-population (or high-commerce or top
administrative) world?

> If you put a jump-2 drive in the ship you would have a really good chance of
> getting somewhere in 2 jumps.
>

True. You also increase the cost of the ship.

> As seen above, this method is slightly better than two controlled jump-6s
> (.25 hexes on average).

Slghtly better to get to a random one of a number of planets
within 11-13 parsec than to get to a particular, predictable
planet within 12? Don't forget that your percentages are based
on the ship going in any direction after the msjump. f you want
it to go away from the information center you will have to cut
that in half  -  and as I said, whatever the percentage is, it's
considerable less than 50%.

>                       The variance is much larger and since this method
> of communication requires multiple ships to be launched, you have a pretty
> good chance of sending the stuff further.  You also have a nice chance of
> sending is less far as well.

Multible ships, multiple costs. And can you imagine the
insurance payments on ths baby :-)

>
> >About the safety factor: I thought there were a small, but not
> >insignificant, risk that any misjump would slag the engine.
>
> Maybe I'd better include a second engine in the next redesign.

Do that. And make a few cost effectiveness estimates. Don't
forget the cost of replacing the misjump engine every so often...


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     [email removed]