Traveller Science-Fiction Adventure in the Far Future

You can call me a yammering gearhead if you like, but I've always preferred 'hard' sci-fi to 'high' sci-fi. I like space opera the same way I like fantasy, which I do enjoy. (I've been playing/DM-ing AD&D since 1979, and playing/GM-ing Traveller since 1982, and many other RPGs over the years, including ALL of Whitewolf...) But, above all RPGs, I find particular enjoyment in those that come closest to the "real world" for its background -- not just history, but also the way things work: chemistry, biology, physics, etc.

Problem is, the more aspects of the 'real world' you include in your game, the less 'playable' it tends to become. More detailed, yes, but more complex. More time consuming decisions for time consuming options. More numbers and formulae on scratch paper. More charts and text to pour over between every 1-second segment of a realistic attack sequence. Or it swings the other way and you resolve hundreds of exchanges with a single die roll. And when you 'hit' something, such pesky little details as *where* you hit are irrelevant. Nagging minutiae like "how does this thing work?" are done away with. Some games are suited to this. But not 'hard' sci-fi.

Everyone is still in search of that 'perfectly balanced' game. Don't look at me, I haven't found it. But there are a few that come close.

Of all of them, Traveller (CT) was the front-runner for me in both realism and playability. Of course, I say that while playing with somewhat radical house-rules. BTW: I have never had the opportunity to play any other version of Traveller besides CT, so I do not know if MT, TNE, T4, or GT do a better job. I know something about each one, but not in-depth.

IMTU------- (Anything below should not be regarded as OTU unless it is obvious.)

Before I got into the realistic mechanics of combat, I first took a look at the overall universal rules. There are several areas in CT where these rules diverge from what we know about the properties of the 'real' universe.

Much of it can be explained by the fact that Traveller takes place in the far future and, therefore, has the luxury of relying on 'theoretical' future inventions and technology. This is great, this is the whole point of sci-fi.

A few issues, however, cannot be resolved by simply ascending in technological advancement. At least not the way they are explained in canon. #1 is FTL travel, #2 is Gravitics.

I have no problem with a 'Jump Drive' that does not break causality. There are plenty of theories being published describing the 'non-local' aspect of the universe, and ideas like 'hyperspace,' 'warp,' 'jump,' the 'Navigator' in Dune, etc. can be looked at as metaphors for the application of such theories. Because they deal with a different 'space' than we do (whether it is a different 'dimension,' 'eigenstate,' 'sum-over-history,' or space-time has been 'folded' so as to *effectively* shorten the 'distance' between locations, whatever) they can get from one parsec to another in a fraction of the time it takes light, without breaking causality at all. Because they are not 'moving' in our universe. They are not traversing space-time in the same place, or under the same laws that physics (here) are bound to.

This should also mean that there is absolutely no contact between the two states. Nothing inside of 'jumpspace' or 'T-space' etc., can have any contact or communication with the 'universe proper' from either direction, during the entire time there is any separation of 'states'. This prevents a particularly obvious break in causality: information cannot travel FTL.

This is one of those little things on a long list of gripes I have with Star Trek and Star Wars, and others. They often use sensors and gather information (and even physically interact, combat, etc.) with the real universe while traveling in 'warp space.' This is almost as moronic as having *sound* in space -- another topic.

So, I have a method of describing Jump Drives IMTU that, though heavily based on unproven/unprovable theories, satisfies my need for an interstellar society that doesn't throw General Relativity out the door. Maybe stretch (or logically deduce, depending on your point of view) the ramifications of certain conclusions derived in Relativity, but not simply negate it.

This also means, of course, that there is no 'time travel.' This is patently absurd. Moving forward in time 10 years is the same thing as being in unconscious stasis for 10 years. Moving backward in time is impossible. The very idea of the 'past' is in your mind, a function of imagination and consciousness that is totally unexplainable and has no connection with the world outside your mind -- it is not a reality in physics, either classical or quantum.

Some will speak of 'tachyons.' They travel faster that light and move backward in time, don't they? Yes they do. In theory -- remember that such particles are purely theoretical, and by their nature cannot be observed in any way. However, the issue of tachyons actually supports the view that FTL is impossible. The math for them indicates that they are particles with no mass, and travel in the opposite direction in time. This is why they cannot move at a velocity under c. It is akin to the idea of matter/antimatter, but rather than the difference being the equal and opposite electrical polarities between the protons and electrons, it is the equal and opposite 'position/velocity' in space-time. A very abstract concept.

There are a couple dozen chapters in some great books I have that should be inserted here to explain more clearly, but that may prove tedious reading for some. :-) Suffice to say that tachyons and the universe they inhabit have no effect on this universe, or vice versa.

Since most of my explanation of Jump Drive and interstellar travel IMTU is based on the aforementioned chapters and books, I will save that for a later publication. A basic synopsis is the idea that (via Ancient technology) a method was reverse-engineered whereby the topography of the non-euclidean surface of space-time could be manipulated in certain ways, though they were limited and required enormous energy expenditure. They found they were able to shorten the 'physical' 3-dimensional distance between two points in space-time and 'travel' between them in a medium that parallels (in time) their universe of origin -- in a manner that can be metaphorically described as a space 'between' the two points that is *not parallel,* or 'shorter' than the distance between them normally.

Among Jump Science engineers, there was heated disagreement regarding the question of whether the 'device' is 'folding' space to make the two points come closer together, or whether it is 'opening' a 'perpendicular' conduit that links the two points in 'jumpspace,' (defined as a subset of the 4-dimensional space-time of our universe) that is less distant than a similar conduit in normal space would be. Until it was discovered that, as far as the math was concerned, it didn't matter. Like the dichotomy of waves/particles or gravity/acceleration, you can look at it whichever way is appropriate. As far as this universe in concerned, they are the same.

The total lack of understanding of the underlying science behind the construction of the original Jump Drive (and all working derivatives) dictates that there can be no further advancement toward eliminating these basic limitations. The limitations being the CT canon of a theoretical maximum of 6 parsecs per jump, the fuel requirements, the technological requirements between the Jump Drive increments (ie., J-1 through J-6), the perception (in both normal space and jumpspace) that every jump takes the same amount of time (roughly 7 days) without regard for distance, the vulnerabilities of the 'jump field' to gravity wells (gravity warps space also, mucking up the precision calculations necessary to line up the two points before traveling 'perpendicular', or jumping.)

To jump, a ship need not be moving at any particular velocity, but it must be far enough away from any gravity wells to avoid the warping of the 'jump field' thus causing a misjump, or worse. 'Far enough away' has (in CT) always been the exceedingly simple 100 diameters from the nearest large body. This formula does not, however, accurately describe the true properties and proportions of gravity wells, as many others have noted.

Gravity is a function of mass (and vice versa), not volume. Diameter is a measure of volume, and tells us nothing about mass. Volume tells us little about the gravity well, other than a bit about its 'reach.' The smaller the mass, the weaker the gravity well -- the smaller the diameter of the mass, the smaller the edges (horizon) of the well, as per the inverse square law. But if a body is of significantly different density than that of Terra, the 100 diameter figure would not apply, it would have to be recalculated to take other factors into account. One important factor is that there are many bodies we know to exist that are extremely dense. Such bodies would have a 'disruptive' gravity well (from the point of view of the Jump Drive) far in excess of 100 diameters. Some white dwarfs, red, brown, black dwarfs, neutron stars, pulsars, black holes, etc., fall into this category. To keep the formula in the canon, use Terra as the standard for a ratio between G and diameter. Or between mass and volume, whatever. The "mask density ratio" for Terra would = 1/1 and signify that 100 diameters is the minimum safe distance (MSD) for jump. You calculate the MSD for different density ratios based on the idea that a safe distance must have the same G force (or less) as it has at 100 diameters from Terra. I call it the "Maximum Safe Gravity," -- this much gravity the jump field can handle safely. Any more G, and the field is too warped to be effective or safe.

And, of course, to avoid the disruption of gravity wells, a ship must keep the proper distance from ALL gravity wells in the vicinity that produce a gravity field greater than the maximum safe gravity.

BTW: I don't really use acronyms for those. (I'm not that far gone yet.)

But the #2 issue (way above) is the one that has changed my house rules the most from canon.

That would be Gravitics. The notion that we can control and manipulate gravity -- for levitation, propulsion, inertial nullifiers, artificial gravity, etc.

Now, in the 'real world,' we don't even know what the hell gravity is. We know that things fall down. We know at what speed. We know how fast you have to move to escape orbit. In other words, we know a lot of the 'symptoms' of gravity. But no clue as to what it is. I can suspend my disbelief enough to acknowledge that in the far future, we may be able to have a working theory of Quantum Gravity, or Unification Theory. If such is the case, then it is not inconceivable (unlikely, but not inconceivable) that there could be an application derived from such a unified theory that would enable a controllable resistance to gravity. Perhaps using something similar to an optic lens (in principle) to focus 'gravity waves' in either direction -- like the optic lens can be convex or concave, similarly, a 'gravity' lens can 'strengthen' or 'weaken' the force of gravity for whatever the 'lens' is 'blocking' from a line-of-sight view of the surface. Obviously, any strengthening of a localized area of gravity would be accompanied by an equal and opposite weakening away from, but in the equidistant vicinity of, the lens' circular area of effect, and vice versa. (Many of you will recognize the many sci-fi books that have already used that metaphor.)

This is what I call 'Contra-Grav.' If there is a massive body around, and you are being effected by its gravity, then a contra-grav device would be able to adjust your perceived weight, down to (and beyond) zero -- allowing flight, and an easy way to achieve orbit. It would also allow things like a 'push' off of planetoids, and a 'tug boat' for meteors, etc.

However, IMO, contra-grav would be the limit of our understanding and ability to control gravity. In the future or the far future, or the ridiculously far future. No matter how good we may become at manipulating existing gravity, there is NO WAY we can 'create' gravity. There is no artificial gravity. Gravity cannot be faked. It's just one of those things.

In order to 'use' gravity, you must be near a massive body. That is where gravity comes from. If there be no massive body, then there be no gravity. Simple, huh? And absolutely true.

Now, this doesn't necessarily spell the end of shipboard gravitics. One of the most basic principles of Relativity is that there is no relevant difference between gravity and acceleration. So, assuming a high enough tech level beyond the future Unified Theory, one can postulate the use of some manner of technology that could 'counter' the perceived effect of a ship's acceleration, from those inside. When the ship is accelerating at around 1G, there is no need for such a device -- ships would be constructed to allow the most usable living/working space to be perpendicular to, and "on top of," the main maneuver drive so that 1G acceleration affords the occupants of the ship the ability to get up and walk around and (if there is a smooth acceleration without quick or forceful course changes) they can behave as if they were downside. Very convenient to life forms designed and adapted for gravity.

As the ship moves into 1.5G and 2G, humans would have to take care how they move as their skeletons are not meant for that kind of stress. They would be able to do things, but they would become fatigued much faster than normal, and it will be easy to accidentally break bones simply by shifting one's position while sitting or standing.

As the ship accelerates above 2Gs, the crew must be in protective 'couches' (if they aren't already), that pad and support them from all angles, distributing the force evenly and preventing most movement. Or, the high tech ships may choose to use their 'Contra-Accel' 'lens' (or whatever) to attenuate the effects of moving at over 1.5Gs. The faster the ship moves, the more attenuating must be done to keep the perceived gravity on the ship within tolerable levels. At 4G and above, the "Contra-Accel' device may be used, though the crew would still be in special protective couches. At high Gs, the slightest change in course would throw a person (and anything not bolted down) violently into the bulkhead. The contra-accel device will not be able to compensate for angles that quickly to avoid such injury. It can only be used to lessen the overall 'heaviness' of your flying body (which is helpful), but hit that bulkhead you will, unless you are strapped in your couch. High-G evasive maneuvers are a different ballgame entirely. The crew must be placed into a very high-pressure, immobile state, while the computer runs the ship (as in "The Forever War", Haldeman), as no living creature could withstand such powerful forces changing angles so rapidly -- it would crush them into a leaky bag.)

Now, if the ship stops accelerating, the contra-accel won't have anything to work with. Nothing can create gravity from nothing. In zero-G and low-G situations, the ship's crew and passengers must get by with velcro or magnetic boots, handrails everywhere, and fancy acrobatics. Think "2001, A Space Odyssey." If you want 'artificial gravity' on a vessel that is not accelerating (or accelerating slowly), then it must spin in some manner. The 'gravity' will be strongest along the equator of the spin, regardless of the shape of the ship. If this equator is small, it will not be useful, as the difference in the force to the feet will be noticeably stronger than the head (if one is standing up). Humans do not function well under those circumstances. However, if the equator is large enough (with, perhaps a minimum of 30 body-lengths between the 'floor' and the center of the spin) then it would be tolerable, to those trained for it. Moving around and even balancing would be difficult, as the force would not be coming down from the top (as on a planet, or an accelerating ship) but would be at a strong slant, because of the spin. The faster the spin, the stronger the perceived gravity. If one were to fall down, they would not fall straight, but would fly off to the side in the opposite direction of the spin.

Changes in acceleration and course would not be smooth and seamless (as in Star Trek or other fantastically convenient magic lands). Crew would have to be prepared and brace for changes -- the higher tech ships with contra-accel would only be able to lessen the damage, not compensate quickly enough to negate it. The ability in ships to change course and acceleration quickly is the reason why all ships (even those that max out at 1G) are fully equipped with acceleration couches for every occupant onboard. Spaceflight is not an easy, convenient business.

To sum: IMTU, it's not as difficult as the present-day NASA program, but the same ideas apply. Working in low or zero-G is an ordeal. There is no technology, at any level, that can create gravity (or its 'effects') out of nothing. Without a massive body, or substantial acceleration, there is no gravity. Period. At high enough tech, some vessels have the ability to attenuate the perceived force of a ship's acceleration. This can be made to make a ship accelerating at 2G or 3G to 'feel' like it's only 1G, and therefore comfortable inside. This can be done at 4, 5 and 6Gs as well, but the danger of even tiny changes in course at this speed usually dictates that everyone stay strapped into their couches during the acceleration.

There is no gravity in jumpspace.

There is no 'movement,' 'velocity,' or expelling of energy from the ship to the 'outside.'

Neither eyes nor sensors can discern anything at all about jumpspace. It 'appears' black. It remains unknown whether it is, indeed, a 'space,' out there, or if there is nothing beyond the ship (the jump field). Nothing can penetrate the jump field from the inside of the ship to 'outside.' There have been no reports of anything ever attempting to get into a ship from 'outside.'

But there is a total consistency in inertia. (Ah, yes! Convenience at last!) If a ship accelerates before engaging the jump drive, whatever perceived force on the crew will remain throughout the entire jump week. Inside jumpspace, you cannot change acceleration or course. In fact these terms are meaningless. Maneuver thrusters (or any other source of energy) have no effect in jumpspace, either in altering the perceived force or direction of acceleration, nor in burning fuel. They are, effectively, disabled during jump. And upon leaving jump, the ship will continue in the exact velocity and acceleration (if any) it was in when entering jump, the direction (y and z axes both) determined randomly. (The x-axis is the position of the ship at the time and point of entry into normal space, of course.)