|
|
|
#1 |
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Indianapolis
|
Okay, I want to allow, in my setting, contragravity, tractor beams, grav beams, pretty much every grav tech EXCEPT artificial gravity.
In other words, I want flying cars, floating cities, force beams, etc, but I want space ships to need to be thrusting or spinning to generate gravity. It's a flavor thing, cause I want space travel to be different than flying in a 747, but I still want it to be fairly common. My idea is that screening is easy (using forcefields or some such), but generating is hard (thrusting, spinning or the old fashioned way: with a massive object under your feet). So, any technobabble I can use to explain this lacking tech in an otherwise superscience setting?
__________________
Wine is full of truth Beer is full of strength Water is full of bacteria |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Join Date: May 2008
|
Sure - just say generating grav beams is too expensive to be used everywhere on a spaceship. You can stick them in tractor beams or grav beams, but only because they just need a small amount of the Unobtanium Element in order to work since they're close to point-beams. Make them wider, so they cover a large area (like a 1m square floor), and the cost becomes way too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Sure. There's no reason 'force' technology needs to allow for artificial gravity, so just say it doesn't work. This probably implies that force beams are a surface effect (i.e. you probably shouldn't have gravity beams that ignore DR), but CG the rest of the technology doesn't really need to be gravity-based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
This is probably best, If you could cover the floor with tractor beam emitters with an 8 foot range and a 9.8 meter per second per second force it'd act a lot like artificial gravity.
__________________
Fred Brackin |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY- the weak live elsewhere!
|
Gravity control implies manipulation of an existing gravitational field, so it doesn't work in micro-gravity/free-fall environments, just as airplanes don't work in a vacuum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Oz
|
Quote:
Thing is that I think the OP wants to have grav beams and tractor beams on spacecraft. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
Ben
__________________
My roleplaying blog: Maximizing Rockmost Quirk: Describes real people in GURPS character creation terms. [-1] Azure, two bars ermine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
|
In addition to Langy's suggestion (which is a good one), you can also say that contragravity is a very precise technology, whereas gravity generation (tractor beams, grav guns, etc) have a highly-variable and barely-controllable output. A tractor beam that spikes at the wrong time pulls the targetted ship in a bit more quickly - an artificial gravity system damages organs or (at extreme levels) turns the crew into jelly. So, you can still use the system for weaponry, but using it for artificial gravity generation is a bit... dangerous.
__________________
Quos deus vult perdere, prius dementat. Latin: Those whom a god wishes to destroy, he first drives mad. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Greenlawn, NY
|
Another idea: maybe the graviton beams or whatever are toxic at close ranges to the emitters. Not a problem for thrust or tractor beams, but you don't want to live on top of one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Indianapolis
|
You guys are awesome. Thanks. By no means stop, I love all your ideas.
__________________
Wine is full of truth Beer is full of strength Water is full of bacteria |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|