message 0613

• What kind of drive do Cherryh's spaceships have?

;Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:52:51 +0100
;From: Markus Stumptner <mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
;Subject: cherryhlist

>1) The FTL-Jump using the jumpdrive vanes.
>2) The "dump" and "boost" of realspace velocity using the jumpdrive
>   or a subset of the jumpdrive. This is instantaneous.
>3) A "rocket-like" engine that propells ships causing acceleration
>   stresses for the crew. Engine 3) could play games with gravity
>   to allow systemwide operations, but the only evidence I can think
>   of are total accelerations that could be explained with drive 2).

>Now, take the riderships. Obviously, they have 3), obviously, they 
>don't have 1). The problem is wether they have 2) or not.

>Pro: [...]
>IMHO, these qoutes prove that riders have drive 2).

>Contra: [...]

>IMHO, these qoutes prove that riders have no drive 2).

>Can anybody tell me where the flaw is?

I think the contradictions are quite real, and the flaw rests 
with the original writing.  Cherryh apparently wanted different 
effects at different times.  If you want to reconcile the views, 
however, then I would say the flaw rests with this assumption:

>"Just the flat saucer shape. Manta shape, the blue-skyers called it."
>HB52 No vanes on a rider. Drive 2) uses the vanes.

Why does drive 2 have to have vanes?   At the time when we discussed
the possible differences between rider and carrier drive (assuming that
riders were not simply reaction-based), I argued that there might be
some difference that would provide savings in weight and/or money,
but which kept riders from having jump capability.  So, I postulate
that it's the vanes which give the jumpdrive FTL capability, and
the rider drive's "vanes" are so rudimentary that they fit within
the hull.   Consider the vanes as some kind of afterburner, for
example.

	Markus