Re: [GZG] [FT] Fuel, Starship endurance

["Grant A. Ladue" <ladue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> > Ok, I found the following SSD's. I'll assume that this refers to the
> new
> > support ships, and merely extends their own names to the mostly
> generic
> > ships.
> > 
> > http://members.iinet.net.au/~stub/Full%20Thrust5.html
> 
> Well, that's one fellow's website and one fellow's opinions.  He's put
> some work into it, but we're all free to decide for ourselves if it fits
> the game universe we play in.
> 
> I guess Grant can be reassured he didn't miss a major GZG posting or
> publication.
> 

   Indeed.  I was wondering.  :-)


   My personal take on "supplies" is that I think engines have to be 
 reactionless or nearly so.  Otherwise you have to start worrying about a 
 ship's mass changing over time, which is a major pain.  I would think that
 "fuel" is maybe reactor mass or something, which isn't consumed in huge 
 quantities like reaction mass.  I would think the major components of supply
 for most SF ships would be personnel, spare parts, and consumable resources 
 like food and missiles.
   
   Still, if someone wanted to worry about "engine fuel" in a campaign, more
 power to them.  I'd resist it being part of the standard game setup though.


  grant

 (ps. It would probably not be unreasonable to consider the mass/acceleration
  for small ships before and after they launched big things like missiles.  
  Of course, it would probably also be reasonable to allow missiles to be
  mounted outside of ship as well outside of the normal mass restrictions of
  construction.  Then you'd have slow missile carriers that sprint away after
  launch.  Probably a viable "real world" tactic.  )
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l