DataPacRat wrote: > and I haven't figured out how best to model zero-gee gas > gets (perhaps simply stealing some hand-thrusters from Ultra-Tech);
VXii9, cold gas thruster. > The bit that likely follows the rules most loosely is the piloting > station - the pilot is a humanoid missing the legs, and is inserted > into this prosthetic from the waist down. A cycle-seat or harness were > plausible, but I went eenie-meenie and picked battlesuit controls. Questionable, since a battlesuit system assumes that existing limbs control mechanical limbs. Here you have mechanical limbs in place of missing real limbs. Also, a battlesuit system encloses the operator. Does that sound right? I'd go with neural interface and a harness crew station. > TL9 Taur prosthetic TL9-11, actually. Keeping that straight now will save a lot of worry later on :-) > Occ: battlesuit body control (quick access), neural interface remote > control (-1 telepresence penalty), waste relief system, 1-man total > life support system Cargo: See above. > Equipment > All: realistic flesh biomorphic skin (surface sensors, fur); > self-sealing hull. Body: 10-gig mass storage system (hardened); > visual sensor (360-degree vision); basic communicator (standard > voice); PESA (scan 11, 1-mile range); basic radiation sensor; inertial > compass; socket interface; gyrobalance; small robot brain (complexity > 3, +0 DX; compact, hardened). Tail: arm motor (ST:10, striker, > extra-flexible). Leg: four sharp claws (retractable). Realistic flesh and the description sound like something where you plug the torso into new legs. Life support and the sealed hull (and the battlesuit game mechanic) give the impression of something which encloses the operator. Which is it? > Volume: 9.09 cf Pretty large in comparison to the torso. If it had the density of water -- a first approximation of living beings -- it would be something like 600 lbs. >From the second mail: > Here's a simple thought on improvement: Instead of just having a > single 20-lb, .2 cf battery, have two modular sockets, each of which > can accept a module containing such a battery, allowing for more > flexibility about swapping them in and out, having one charge from the > super-blanket while the prosthetic is being used elsewhere and so on. Are there standard sizes for batteries in your setting? With classic 3E, there is an efficiency breakpoint somewhere between the D and E cells, and the VE formula only works for E and bigger. > This also potentially allows for replacing one of the batteries with a > RTG or NPU. At TL9, an NPU fitting that slot would generate 1.67 kW, > last one year, and cost $20k; an RTG would generate 1 kW, last 14 > years, and cost $2k. The current build uses up to 1 kW for the legs, > .1 kW for life-support, and .05 kW for the tail motor, so the NPU > would cover all of that and then some. The RTG would cover almost > everything, as long as the legs were only used at up to .85 kW - to > run flat out would mean having to rely on a battery for life-support. > And if I end up throwing in a small AESA, or other power-using > equipment, there would be further power-based tradeoffs. How likely are you using the tail as a limb at top speed? > And, of course, there would be a few in-play issues that aren't quite > covered by Vehicles, such as the legal and social consequences of > walking around with a "nuke in her butt". The normal isotope battery (RTG) uses natural decay. Nothing one could switch on, turn off, or overload. As I understand your setting, there would be no irrational fears, right? Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
