Okay, some of this stuff may be a few days old, but here goes...
Still on the subject of drives:
Anthony Neal [email removed] questions:
> Now, I have Star Systems rolled that my group will be travelling through
>which are all Tech Level 7-8 and they contain off-world colonies. I needed a
>State of the art ( :) ) form of engine to create a few neat things, including
>a design close to that of the Eagle Transport that appeared in the old BBC
>series "Space 1999" (I loved that series!).
> Now, the info for the MPD is as such:
>TL Type TT Mass Vol Fuel F.Type PwRqd PwOP MCr
>- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8 MPD 0.2 10 10 0.005 Hydrogen 0.5 None 0.75
> --- --
> ^ ^
> | |
> \ /
> \ /
> Huh??
>
> Now, If these figures are correct, how does the thing manage to get off the
>ground? Further, taking a quote from page 82...
>
> "With this technology, true insystem commerce
> can begin to flourish freely and easily"
>
> Please tell me these figures are typo'd in some way.
Nope, Anthony, these numbers are not typos at all. They represent the
very low acceleration of a MPD drive. They cannot get off the ground. They
are used for insystem and orbital maneuvering.
I dont know if _Hard Times_ has this,( my data is from the "One Small
Step" article by CE Gannon in Challenge #45) but under Locomotion it is stated:
"Note that many low tech spacecraft...will have G ratings significantly less
than 1. They cannot even get off the ground when planetside. This is _not_ an
error."
This means that a MPD powered ship must have a secondary drive to lift
from a planet, or it never lands. Give it a HiPerf rocket to lift off with and
an MPD for space cruising. For an Eagle, I would have to assume either
a fusion rocket (Oh No, not the evil fusion rocket) or a HiPerf Rocket,
probable the latter. (Yes, it was a fun show.)
And, in order to fan the fusion flames higher and higher:
>Since relatively few people seem interested in addressing the question I
>brought up (why worry about nukes when you have a fusion drive?), I
>suspect that I can make the best use of my time by signing off now...
>
> ---Steve Higginbotham
Indeed. Well then, here is something to add to the discussion.
In order to justify the attitude that fusion drives are good and nukes
are bad (and we musy assume that this is the case, or else bye-bye Traveller
universe), the reasoning must take into account many things, paramount being
public opinion and economics.
On the Public Opionion side: people think nukes are bad. Simple as
that. Nukes are seen as weapons, and weapons only. Not just waepons, but
weapons of such mass destruction that the avarage Imperial subject would react
to them much as an average citizen would today: Nukes are weapons; weapons
kill; nukes kill lots at once; killing is wrong; therefore, nukes are bad. Not
a bad piece of logic, and quite understandable. This attitude seems enough for
a government who says that it represents the people to stricly control nukes
(as well as PGMP, FGMP, machine guns, grenades, battledress, etc).
Of course this belief also taints the usefulness that can result from
the same technology: nuclear power generators, nuclear pulse drives for Orion
(best use I've ever heard for nukes), etc. Many people apply the
reasoning above (nukes are bad...) to oppose anything related to the weaponry.
Hopefully, this attitude is rare, as long as the spinoff technology is safe.
But, what about economics? Lets reconstruct our argument to another
potential killer: the automobile. Killing is bad; automobiles kill lots of
people every year in accidents; therefore, automobiles are bad. Most people
will readilly agree with the first argument, but not with this one. Why?
Automobiles play an integral part of our society. Without them, our
transportational, manufactural, society would not function. Because of the
benifits that come with the automobile, society has decided that the deaths
that result from its use is acceptible. The deaths that result from the use of
a nuke generally outweights the benifits gained from using it.
Change automobiles to starships and the argument is still valid.
We try to minimalize the deaths from automobiles: safety restraints,
traffic lights, good roads, licencing of drivers, laws against abuses and cops
to enforce those laws. These steps must all be taken in the Imperium, also.
Ships fusion reactors must be almost impervious to accidental meltdown and
very resistand to deliberate meltdown, ships drives (and their operators ) must
be fully licenced, ships must travel defined 'travel lanes' and obey traffic
laws, and ships myst be operated by the gov't to enforce these laws. Any
low-tech fusion rockets must only travel along sertial flightpaths, have
alternate planetary drives (a-grav, whatever), etc.
Mind you, noone will probably be able to stop a determined person from
crashing his ship into a planet at high-c speeds, just as its almost impossible
to stop a van full of explosives from running a roadblock and exploding in a
government building. However, this does not mean that vans will be made
illegal. Fusion drives are too useful to toss out the window just because you
could toast a city with them. Fusion reactors (and starship fission reactors)
are entirely to important to the Imperium for them to limit their use,
construction, or distribution in an unreasonable means.
What must be done is a series of safeguards must be in place it help
prevent this from happening.
What safeguards? Possible similar to whats in place to stop people
from crashing their vans into gov't buildingd, or piloting their plane filled
with fuel and explosives into the White House, or some such silly thing.
-Vanya
Oh,yeah...
Massive Congrats to the happy people who have brought new life onto
this TL8 world. May they be the generation that leads us to the stars.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember the Five Top Reasons to Hate Starship Travel:
5) Solomani military music keeping you awake all night.
4) Having a K'kree sit at your dinner table.
3) Aslani furballs cloging up the drains.
2) Allowing a Vargr on board who's not paper-trained. After all, they
slobber all over the place anyway, and scratch up the furniture, and bring in
fleas, and piddle in the corners and,...Oh, forget it.
*And the NUMBER ONE HATE---*
1)Anything to do with the Hivers!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~