Traveller-digest      Friday, August 27 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1029



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: 101 Starships
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
re: Marc Miller's website?
Re GT vs CT/MT/TNE PP
Re: Orion Drive Modules
Re: Starship Materials
Re: Starship Materials
Re: Streamlining
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
GT Weapon Rules change
Re: Augustus Deo-class Fast Liner (GTL10)
Re: GT Weapon Rules change
Re: GT Weapon Rules change
Re: Augustus Deo-class Fast Liner (GTL10)
Re: GT Weapon Rules change
Re: Ethically challenged merchants
Apologies
Freight Handeling (was re:Streamlining)
Re Landing in Atmosphere
re Units of Measure
Attachments
Wacky attachments...
(OT) Wave Do Svidaniya, Tovarish
Re: Will the real Strephon..... 
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Orion Drive Modules
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: re Units of Measure

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:59:05 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

At 03:14 AM 8/27/99 -0700, you wrote:
>From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
>Subject: Re: 101 Starships
>
> >Well, I'm flattered :)  I just looked at the info on the Majesta, and I
> >pretty much agree with the author, It's the Mega-ships that are the
> >lifeblood of the Imperium.  Although I've never seen an explicit reference,
> >I've always assumed that most "real" freight traffic happens on ships in
> >the 50kdt-500kdt range.  A reference in "Fighting Ships" seems to indicate
> >that 1,000kdt is the largest military vessel ever, and civilian ships that
> >big don't exist.  Hence, I figure these monsters top out at 500kdt...
>
>
>     I have to agree.  Why else do you think I came up with the Tender-Rider
>idea for a ship with a high jump rating?  The Mega-Ship will service the
>mains, but what about outside the mains?  You will need something with legs,
>& still a high cargo capacity, & this idea gives it to you.

Oh I definitely like that idea.  In general, I like really mucking big 
ships....

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:04:42 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

At 10:50 PM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
><snip>
>Lack of motion doesn't mean lack of stress.

ok, good point, I buy that (solids is a bit farther in Physics than I've 
gotten...)

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:23:10 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: Marc Miller's website?

Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca> writes:

>Does Far Future Enterprises have a web site at the moment?  I'm wanting to
>order those collectors' editions of CT materials, but don't know where...

It's linked off the jumpsite page at BITS, first entry. I'd type the URL
but it's kind of long and I can't remember it. BITS is
http://www.bits.org.uk/

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:35:29 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re GT vs CT/MT/TNE PP

"William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net> wrote:
>>(I have ignored Fusion Plus, for while I
>>worship Greg Porter as Gaming God (tm) F+ was not Traveller)
>>
>F+ was Marc Miller's idea, IIRC, not Greg Porter's. At least MWM announced
>it about the same time he announced T4 was in the works...

MM posted something a whle ago that the GP interpretation of F+ was not
what he had intended.

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:40:33 -0400
From: Michael Peters <travelleri@home.com>
Subject: Re: Orion Drive Modules

Juliean Galak wrote:
<snipped>

Possible spoilers




















> 
> Umm, not quite.  What actually happened was a cross between that and
> Orion.  The ship had an Orion/style blast plate at the bottom, and a
> _ground_ based VRF Cannon fired explosive shells at it.  The shells were
> designed to go off just under the plate, and thus provide propulsion.
> 

Sounds about right, I haven't located the book yet to check but this is
a variation on the laser launch system the Pournelle seems to like a
lot, He's used them in several other works.

- -- 
Mike Peters
travelleri@home.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Materials

Robert Prior writes:
> OTOH, assuming that John is correct that you can get an extra G
> acceleration (or more armour) by using advanced materials (and his numbers
> look correct to me), that begs the question: what is the game reason that
> all the published military ships don't use advanced materials?

Possibly related to why they also don't use antimatter power plants and APAWS,
neither of which are obviously impossible in Traveller, and both of which are
available at GURPS TL 12.  The easiest assumption is that TL 12 in GT is
relatively early in GTL 12 (this would require errataing the Darrians to late
TL 12, but that's not obviously bad, a 'full' TL 12 GURPS ship is considerably
more powerful than one limited to Imperial technology).

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Materials

Robert Prior writes:
> OTOH, assuming that John is correct that you can get an extra G
> acceleration (or more armour) by using advanced materials (and his numbers
> look correct to me), that begs the question: what is the game reason that
> all the published military ships don't use advanced materials?

Possibly related to why they also don't use antimatter power plants and APAWS,
neither of which are obviously impossible in Traveller, and both of which are
available at GURPS TL 12.  The easiest assumption is that TL 12 in GT is
relatively early in GTL 12 (this would require errataing the Darrians to
late TL 12, but that's not obviously bad, a 'full' TL 12 GURPS ship is
considerably more powerful than one limited to Imperial technology).

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Streamlining

Leonard Erickson writes:
>  
> It's nowhere *near* that simple, as a few studies on trying to "fly" to
> orbit have shown. The way temp, pressure *and* density fluctuate on the
> way up, you'd wind up crossing the sound barrier at some point unless
> you keep your speed *really* low. 

So?  50 MPH up to 50 miles will do the job, at 50 miles you can safely go transsonic.
> 
> And there's *no* way you are going to get an USL ship to make it
> throught the trans-sonic region in one piece. 

Sure you will, if you're in a trace atmosphere (50 miles)

> Basicly, what Reynolds numbers let you do is compare the flow
> characteristics in different situations. If two different situations
> have similar Reynold's numbers, then the way the fluids involved flow
> around the object involved will be similar. 

Yes, but do we care?  The point is that starships are sufficiently overpowered that flow characteristics aren't terribly important.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

Phil Kitching writes:
> Sorry, wrong answer!
> 
> A Brick (according to High Guard) is partially streamlined and can refuel
> from a gas giant.
> 
> The only unstreamlined configurations are either asteroids or type 7.

Shrug.  Or anything which you didn't put streamlining on.  Given that definition of streamlining, I'm ok with saying unstreamlined ships can't enter atmosphere, its just that basically everything winds up being streamlined so it sort of doesn't matter ;).
> 
> Now an oil rig at sea could be given thrusters in their legs equivalent
> to 1G and fly around in space without breaking up.
> 
> However I wouldn't want to try and fly one through an atmosphere.

I wouldn't particularly want to, but it could probably be done.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Prankard <cmdrx@magicnet.net>
Subject: GT Weapon Rules change

From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>

>There _has_ been a recent, global (i.e., GURPS-wide) change in
high-energy
>(>1 Tj) energy weapons to make them less powerful, specifically as a
result
>of concerns that they were unbalanced against armor -- you can thank
>Anthony Jackson for that one.

I must have missed this rules change.  What is the fomula I should be
using for these superweapons now?
I can't seem to find it on the Pyramid discussion board or on the GURPSnet
archives.

Thanks in advance.

\\  // Commander X
 \\//  CEO X-TEK Industries of Deneb, LIC
T E K  Starship Contractor & High Energy Weapons Research
 //\\  http://www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx/xtek/xtek.htm
//  \\ 0608 D557777-A kk- va+ so+ zh+ da+ A723

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:30:51 EDT
From: GypsyComet@aol.com
Subject: Re: Augustus Deo-class Fast Liner (GTL10)

Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com> boggles thusly:

>>counter-terrorist experts were astonished, the passengers and crew of the

>>Australis Deo were unsurprised. "Even my young niece told him that," said

>>Hengabar Spofulam. 


>
>in 998?


Sure. Just not the same niece. This is the one that Ditzie wants to be when 
(if?) she grows up. This is also (unless he's got REALLY good anagathics) 
Hengabar Sr. The current head of sta...er, company considers the "IV" after 
his name to be a bit ostentatious.
 (Either that or he's a Timer).

GC

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: GT Weapon Rules change

William Prankard writes:
> From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>
> 
> >There _has_ been a recent, global (i.e., GURPS-wide) change in
> high-energy
> >(>1 Tj) energy weapons to make them less powerful, specifically as a
> result
> >of concerns that they were unbalanced against armor -- you can thank
> >Anthony Jackson for that one.
> 
> I must have missed this rules change.  What is the fomula I should be
> using for these superweapons now?
> I can't seem to find it on the Pyramid discussion board or on the GURPSnet
> archives.

It was in the Space 3e playtest, and was actually considered 'optional'.  Basically a response to the problem that armor becomes irrelevant for large ships, which may or may not be realistic, but isn't particularly playable.  It shifts the damage formula from sqrt(E) to 10*E^1/3 for E>1,000,000.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: GT Weapon Rules change

William Prankard writes:
> From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>
> 
> >There _has_ been a recent, global (i.e., GURPS-wide) change in
> high-energy
> >(>1 Tj) energy weapons to make them less powerful, specifically as a
> result
> >of concerns that they were unbalanced against armor -- you can thank
> >Anthony Jackson for that one.
> 
> I must have missed this rules change.  What is the fomula I should be
> using for these superweapons now?
> I can't seem to find it on the Pyramid discussion board or on the GURPSnet
> archives.

It was in the Space 3e playtest, and was actually considered 'optional'.
Basically a response to the problem that armor becomes irrelevant for large
ships, which may or may not be realistic, but isn't particularly playable.  It
shifts the damage formula from sqrt(E) to 10*E^1/3 for E>1,000,000.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:49:38 -0700
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Augustus Deo-class Fast Liner (GTL10)

Robert Prior wrote:
> 

> In 998 Deepak Rao, the notorious terrorist, was captured when he attempted
> to hijack the Australis Deo. Although observers expected a lengthy trial,
> Rao unexpected pleaded guilty, calling himself a "very bad man who should
> be locked away until he can behave himself." While Confederation
> counter-terrorist experts were astonished, the passengers and crew of the
> Australis Deo were unsurprised. "Even my young niece told him that," said
> Hengabar Spofulam. "It is no surprise that he realized it himself."

<SPEEEEEEEEWWWW!!!!>

another keyboard bites the dust! (or coffee in this case!)

- -- 
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:53:19 -0600
From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>
Subject: Re: GT Weapon Rules change

At 10:37 AM 8/27/99 -0700, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>William Prankard writes:
>> From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>
>> 
>> >There _has_ been a recent, global (i.e., GURPS-wide) change in
>> high-energy
>> >(>1 Tj) energy weapons to make them less powerful, specifically as a
>> result
>> >of concerns that they were unbalanced against armor -- you can thank
>> >Anthony Jackson for that one.
>> 
>> I must have missed this rules change.  What is the fomula I should be
>> using for these superweapons now?
>> I can't seem to find it on the Pyramid discussion board or on the GURPSnet
>> archives.
>
>It was in the Space 3e playtest, and was actually considered 'optional'.
Basically a response to the problem that armor becomes irrelevant for large
ships, which may or may not be realistic, but isn't particularly playable.
It shifts the damage formula from sqrt(E) to 10*E^1/3 for E>1,000,000.
>

What he said (although the actual GURPS formula uses "O" for "output
energy", and "E" for a different fudge factor).

Based on some side traffic with Sean Punch (the GURPS line editor), I
understood that this would be the official version, at least where GURPS
Space and GT were concerned. The spinal mounts and bay weapons in GT were
supposed to be errata'ed for the 2d edition. I'm still waiting to see what
was really printed.

This will ultimately require that the armor guidelines for GT: Imperial
Navy be redone, and probably some of the previously submitted designs
tweaked. Since I've only just today gotten my computer unpacked, and I'm
still surrounded by boxes as I type, it may take me a day or two to get to it.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 10:37:29 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Ethically challenged merchants

> From: "Terry Carlino" <carlino@home.com>
> Subject: Re: Ethically challenged merchants
> 
> I don't see piracy as a typical career choice, but rather the result of a
> slippery slope, just as often happened during the age of sail. People
> didn't start out to be pirates. They ended up that way, because they had no
> choice.

A naval ship or squadron is assigned to commerce raiding behind enemy
lines.  They're still at it even though the war is over -- they just
haven't gotten the word yet, or perhaps their side lost and they're
unwilling to surrender, so they keep up the fight.  Naval vessels would
make much better pirate ships than commercial vessels, especially when
acting in as a squadron rather than a single ship.  

- --Glenn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:14:11 -0500
From: Alex Ingram <ingram@airmail.net>
Subject: Apologies

I don't know what happened but to all you out there I offer my apology for the
problems this created.

Alex Ingram

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:58:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joseph Coles <jcoles@nac.net>
Subject: Freight Handeling (was re:Streamlining)

>At 04:34 PM 8/25/99 -0400, Juliean Galak wrote:
>>A cargo shuttle built for interface work will probably be better at it
>>than a jump ship that isn't, even if a kludgy way can be worked
>>out to let an unstreamlined ship land.
>
>While the special purpose shuttle is more efficient, what's really gonna 
>kill you (IMHO) is the extra loading/unloading required, both in terms of 
>money and equipment/manpower.  Remember, pre-Suez canal, it was considered 
>more efficient to sail all the way around Africa then to unload the ship in 
>Egypt, bring them across the narrow isthmus there and reload to another 
>ship in the Red Sea.  It's almost always preferable to keep the cargo on 
>the same vessel for as long as possible.
>

Yes, but that was in the days before containerized shipping, automated bulk
loading/unloading and other technlogical inovations.  This was when
steveodores literally had to unload a ship full of boxes, drums and crates
by hand with nets on cranes, winches, etc. (think of "On the Waterfront").
It could take days to unload a ship.  And if the cargo was bulk - say grain
for example - it was shoveled out by hand.  Nowadays, containerized ships
are loaded/unloaded in a matter of hours.  And of course, pre-Suez was a
time when concerns about freight "getting lost" while between ships was very
real.  

Perhaps another comparison might be long distance common carrier trucking
firms (like, say ABF Freight).  Today, if I am shipping less than a
container of material from one place to another, ABF will send a truck to
the first location, pickup my material and bring it to their "local"
warehouse.  The first truck will be unloaded, and the material will be
loaded onto a second truck fo shipment to the "local" warehouse closest to
the destination.  And at this second "local warehouse" it will be unloaded
again and reloaded again onto a third truck for delivery to the destination.
So here we have a truck full of boxes, drums, vrates, pallets, etc. being
loaded and unloaded twice.  

Free traders, and other jump capable freight/cargo ships, fill the role of
the long distance haul between cities.  There needs to be local companies
avaialble to fill the roles at either end, though.  Someone has to pickup
the freight from the source locations and deliver it to the destinations.
This company will need to have warehousing available to sort out departing
and arriving loads of freight.  Where would these warehouses be?  In the
case of and individual freighter, his/her cargo hold is probably filled with
containers from a variety of locations and which are going to a variety of
destinations within a system.  Some of these destinations are dirt side (and
they can be anywhere on a planet - think of someone shipping material to
Terra - one ship could contain material for cities all over the planet) and
some are not (orbital stations, belter settlements, bases on moons and other
planets, etc.).  And of course, the same situation is true in the case of
the sources of the material.  Why warehouse material bound for the outer
system on the bottom of the main world's gravity well?  It just needs to be
lifted out again.  And as for freight whose destination is on the mainworld,
unless there is only one big city, freight could be bound for literraly
almost any spot on its surface.  Again, why should this warehouse be at one
spot within the gravitywell if the freight will just need to be picked up
and carried somewhere else.  Although, an efficient and cheap surface
transportation system (say waterborne shipping, high tech trains, or the
like) would make a central dirt-side warehouse possible.  

Perhaps larger freighters dock and unload at up-ports because with their
larger cargo holds they are more likely to be carrying freight bound for
destinations both dirt-side and out in the system. But smaller freighters
(with their smaller cargo holds) are loaded only with material bound for
either the up-port of the down-port only.  And of course, PC ships get
whatever's left over and what ever the GM finds reasonable.

- -----------------------------------
Joseph Coles
jcoles@nac.net

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: Re Landing in Atmosphere

>>
>> That will provide enough torque to keep any moderate size ship from
>>flipping
>> over, though it could probably wind up with a 45 degree tilt at times.
>
>But it won't keep the ship from *spinning* abou the axis of the bar. :-)
>

Take and make a drogue... A sufficiently large drogue will...

William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis http://www.alaska.net/~mhaa
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:18:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: re Units of Measure

>> >Why should it?  Americans mix terms all the time.  Volts, Watts, and
>> Amperes are all metric units, and used in this country.
>>
>> Does that include such UK oddities as:
>>
>> "Eight-be-four sheet of six mil ply"	(8' x 4' x 6mm)
>
>Isn't that 8' x 4' x .006"?
>
sounds to me like an 8x4' sheet of something costing $0.006 per ft^2....
(The mil is still a legal value of US money... 1/10th of a cent. Used now
mostly in taxation and gasoline prices. No longer a circulated coin. What's
really fun is asking for an account ballance with a bank in mils.=)

William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis http://www.alaska.net/~mhaa
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:18:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: Attachments

Hey, guys, /PLEASE/ don't send attachments to the list... those of us on
digest mode not only cannot recieve them, but they turn into huge chunks of
gibberish in the middle of a digest (The list does not preserve attachments
when digesting).

William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis http://www.alaska.net/~mhaa
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:20:02 EDT
From: Diespamer@aol.com
Subject: Wacky attachments...

Greetings:

Could the folks who are sending the endless binary messes (at least that's 
how they appear in the Digest version of TML...) please stop it?

Thanks!

Fred Kiesche

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 15:51:48 -0500
From: "Moody, Danny M." <DMoody@bridge.com>
Subject: (OT) Wave Do Svidaniya, Tovarish

A sad day...

http://www.foxnews.com/stage09.sml

'Mir' Crew Heads Home, Leaving Station Unmanned 
The three-man crew of the Russian space station Mir bid adieu and abandoned
the 13-year-old orbiter as they boarded the Soyuz escape capsule for a
return trip to Earth Friday. 
Mir's 27th crew, inclding Russian cosmonauts Viktor Afanasyev and Sergei
Avdeyev, and French astronaut Jean-Pierre Haignere, could be among its last.
The Russian space program has run out of money to keep Mir in orbit, and it
may burn up in the earth's atmosphere within the next year


 -- vargr1                                              UPP-8D9B85 --
The three principle virtues of a good programmer   |   vargr1@jcn1.com
 are Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris.             | dmoody@bridge.com
             ** Omnia dicta fortiora, si dicta latina. **           

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:57:43 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Will the real Strephon..... 

>> Okay Keven - guess which one of the above you guys are up against?
>
>#2 of course.  Somebody who's gonna cost us a few hundred lives or more to
take out.  *IF* we can take them out...


Ahhh, such sweet naievety....

NB

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:57:41 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

>Please re-read my post. 15 degrees per second gives a 24 second time to
>revolve 360 degrees. That makes the "period of revolution" 24 seconds.
>*That* is the "period of rotation" I'm talking about.


Only if you stop thrusting and coast around the rest of the way. In fact, if
it takes one second of constant acceleration to cover 15 degrees, you will
have accelerated to a rotational speed of 30 degrees per second.

Assuming that acceleration (30 degrees per second per second), it should be
possible to spin the ship through 180 and stop in a little under five
seconds (by accelerating hard until the 90 degree point is reached, then
decelerating hard to stop.)

Not sure if this bears on the argument (I stopped paying attention some days
ago) but I thought I'd chip it in.

NB

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:57:51 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Orion Drive Modules

>> Sure, but wouldn't you want to coat it with something either a) tough, so
>> it wouldn't wear as fast as soft graphite or b) ablative and cheap?
>
>Against nuclear weapons, graphite _is_ really tough.  It requires an
enormous quantity of energy and very high temperatures to vaporize (weight
for weight, many times higher than steel), it mostly isn't bothered by
neutrons, and it conducts heat extremely well.  Incidentally, against
lasers, macrocrystalline graphite (with the planes aligned flat on the
surface) would be wonderful armor, it's incredibly hard to vaporize, and
would conduct heat away from the impact point very fast while conducting
quite poorly through the armor.


I meant tough in the engineering sense - as in "resistant to wear". My
concerns were less of neutron or thermal absorption, and more of skin
friction from rocket efflux. (I've seen the steel efflux deflector behind a
Sea Dart launcher scoured to a mirror-finish by the exhaust from a missile
launch.)

I think, however, that we're talking at cross purposes, borne out of the
spaceport-launchpad/Orion-pusher-pad misunderstanding. In space the skin
friction problem is almost non-existant.

NB

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:57:37 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

>No, it does NOT. "Vectored" thrust from a "gimbaled" engine *turns* the
>shiip. It won't push it at an angle. Not unless the engine is mounted
>at the CG (center of gravity, aka center of mass) of the ship.


True and untrue. While it will spin the ship, it will also push it along. If
you can cancel the rotation by some other means (smaller manoevring
thrusters with a better angular position, for example), it may well be
possible to accelerate the ship along a non-axial line.

NB

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:46:28 -0500
From: ehenry@newberlin.org (Eric Henry)
Subject: Re: re Units of Measure

< delurking >

Speaking of units of measure...

i've been reviewing the GURPS Traveller ship designs and have just a few
questions.

When a weapons maximum range is listed, is that in meters, kilofeet, what?
Also, does that mean a weapon will automatically miss beyond max range?

The tech levels appear to be 10 and 12.  Do these exactly correspond to
previous traveller tech levels?

------------------------------

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1029
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
