--- On Fri, 10/12/12, Onno Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: > And Brandon wrote: > > > I'm trying to explore the question Eric raised. No > firm > > > goal > > > yet, just a general devil's advocate. > > > > > > A) The FTL component has just the FTL drive, no > STL drive > > > at > > > all. > > > B) The FTL component has STL maneuvering > thrusters, but not > > > > > > enough for long STL flights (whatever > that > > > is in context). > > > C) The FTL component has proper STL drives as > well. > > > > > > If you argue that it can't be A), why stop at > half > > > measures? > > > > Because the FTL component doesn't need full thrust. > It's not going to land > > or takeoff from a world (it really shouldn't even be > streamlined). It can > > stay hooked to the STL component until until it reaches > a space station. > > If you have a station, there is no need to have the STL > component > land.
That was poorly worded on my part. Not all worlds will have highports, so the STL ship must land. They may also want to land on some world, evn if there is a highport. > > Then, as I see it, the FTL component unhooks from the > STL component (which > > is unloading passengers and cargo, or landing on the > planet). The FTL > > component then maneuvers to an FTL component being > readied to leave and hooks > > Typo? Yes. Should be " ... to an STL component being ..." > > on to it, or maneuvers away from the space traffic if > one isn't ready or if > > it will attach to a ship that is landed on planet. > > Wouldn't that be more efficient if a combined FTL/STL ship > drops containers and picks up new ones? Not if the STL component is carrying passengers or speculative cargo. Brandon _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
