TRAVELLER Digest 574

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) way stations by shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
  2) Transstar by John Muir Macpherson <muirmac@uclink.berkeley.edu>
  3) Re:  Uh-huh. by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  4) Discarding TNE?!, & various... by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  5) two TL-8/9 shuttle designs by bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
  6) Re: TRAVELLER digest 573 by "Lorenz E. Pogue" <lpogue@notes.cc.bellcore.com>
  7) Re: TRAVELLER digest 572 by Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz
  8) RE: TRAVELLER digest 573 by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
  9) Save our timeline by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
 10) Getting up on the learning curve. by nmiceli@moe.morgan.edu

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

Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 19:44:34 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@mgpn.com
Subject: way stations
Message-ID: <ZwuJiD3w165w@krypton.rain.com>

"David E. Brooks Jr" <dbj@MPGN.COM> writes:

>On Sun, 28 Jan 1996 Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz wrote:
>
>> Since j-torps have currently been under discussion, I thought I would raise
>> one of my pet subjects - way stations.
>> Empty space has just been left as empty space in the Traveller universe.
>> There seems to me to be no reason why the Imperium or whoever could not
>> place man-made way stations aparently empty space. A jump 4 gap between two
>> worlds could be made manageable by jump 2 ships if a way-station were placed
>> between. I have to say that in my Trav universe such way-stations exist.
>> Some are secret and available to Imperium ships. Others are even more secret
>> and are used as locations for research. None of these man-made way-stations
>> are available on commercial available charts so their location still appears
>> as empty space.
>> No doubt someone lurking out there will let me know if such way-stations
>> exist already in the wealth of Trav published material.
>
>They do to an extent.  In the Regency Sourcebook they describe
>Callibration Points--Artifically created stations in deep space for
>Military use.  In this case, they are used as alternate paths across
>the Great Rift and require something like J5 or J6 ships to even reach
>them.
>
>As for CPs/Way Points inside settled space, they could certainly
>exist, but the need would have to be great.  They take considerable
>time to construct and would be expensive to maintain--It would
>probably be cheaper to build a small fleet of high-jump capable ships.

Well, what's overlooked is that the space between star systems is *not*
empty. You've got everything from proto-comets to "rogue" planets. And
even an *average* sized cometary body will make a great way station, as
it'll be a several km spheroid of "ice" and rock. It'll have *lots* of
hydrogen, and a fair amount of other useful elements. Carbon, Nitrogen,
Oxygen, maybe some rock and iron...

It'd be nice if someone could dig up the current astronomical estimates
of size and distance distribution of such bodies and turn them into
some rough rules.

But in any case, I'd imagine the method for setting up a way station
would be to jump into "empty" space in a ship that has enough fuel to
jump back, *plus* a *lot* of manuever fuel, and some long term
life-support consumables.

Better yet, use a *pair* of ships, trying to jump in a few hundred AU
apart.

Then you just deploy a one meter Schmidt camera or similar
astrophotographic rig, and start taking pictures of the full 360 degree
sphere. Then, you either wait a week or more and take another set, or
exchange info with the other ship.

Comparing the images will show that some objects are in different
positions. The size of the shift will give you the distance based on
either the distance between the ships, or the movement of the single
ship. Then it's just a matter of picking a "likely" target and either
sending out some automated probes, or checking it out with the ship.

I'd recommend using probes, as you can have something that'll get there
in a reasonable amount of time (say a month :-) and thus let you check
them out without moving the ship. Then you move the ship over to the
best candidate.

If it checks out, you unload the contruction gear. First order of
business is a fuel refinery, a power plant, and life support. Then,
having the place made *livable*, you start on the communications setup
and navigational sensors and beacons.

Once you've got a way to relocate the place, you can jump back (if you
were using two ships, you've *already* sent one ship back). You leave a
crew onboard the station, and jump. They'll work on expanding it, and
stockpiling hydrogen, water, etc.

The ship reports the location and either it loads up on more
construction supplies and equipment, or an "engineering" ship is sent
out.

Either way, you'll have a base in a reasonable amount of time, with a
not *too* huge investment.Heck, it's even within reach of player
characters who have a ship capable of making two jumps without
refueling.

Not only are such way stations useful to traders, they provide a nice
place for a base which might be almost impossible to find.

Some interesting scenarios are possible.

1. finding old records of a way station that got "lost" during a war or
   the Long Night. Odds are that if it can be relocated, it'd be
   repairable without too big an investment. It could be anything from
   merely a fueling base with life support for crew and transients up
   to a full fledged starport with dockyards and shipbuilding
   facilities!

2. misjumping and trying to find an icy body before lifesupport fails.

3. Pirates using an old way station as a base.

4. (TNE only) A virus running a waystation. If it's a full fledged
   naval base, things get *really* ugly unless it's "friendly".

5. Finding an "abandoned" way station (either by misjump or from old
   records) only to find that it is inhabited by descendants of the
   original crew. Say during a war, the records of the base could be
   lost, but if the station had limited ship repair facilities, they
   could keep their own machinery going, and hunt for more comets to
   get more materials. You could have quite a population after a few
   centuries.

6. A survey mission looking for a cometary body to build a station on
   finds something odd on the photos. Something too *big* (a rogue
   planet?) or something moving too fast (a generation ship? A
   "sleeper" ship? A near-light speed probe or ship?)


Also, the Scout service would be using similar techniques to locate
stars beyond the boundaries of the Imperium. With a 1 parsec baseline,
you can accurately locate stars a *long* ways off. Probably thousands
of parsecs.

For folks running in an era where there are still unexplored frontiers,
or in their own background, this allows the players to have maps of
star location and type, plus some info regarding *possible* planets,
but not have enough to kill the thrill of exploration.



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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:03:25 -0800 (PST)
From: John Muir Macpherson <muirmac@uclink.berkeley.edu>
To: Traveller Mailing List <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Transstar
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9601310831.A22450-0100000@uclink.berkeley.edu>

lewis@chara.gsu.edu
>Here is a write up on Transstar the former Solomani Megacorporation,
that now
>exists in the RC.  I'd be intrested in feedback.
>Lewis
>
>TRANSSTAR

I can see how this would be the case since there are fewer
high-value, low-bulk cargoes to be carried between low tech worlds.
However, I could also see that Transstar would have an interest in
developing business opportunities in the Wilds.  This is where the
players would come in.  An Office of Business Development attached to
Corporate HQ could serve a function similar to the RCES Long-Range
Planning people.  The difference would be that instead of doing silly
things like SAGs to recover relic weapons the OBD of Transstar would be
after truly valuable things, like hi-tech machine tools.  Also, in view
of their law-abiding approach, Transstar would approach things much more
subtly so as not to sour future business in the Wilds.
Lets say that Transstar has recently acquired a small company
which has been prospecting on one of the RC boneyard worlds.  The
opportunities on this planet were beginning to tap out, so they got the
company cheap.  The OBD wants to turn their talents to prospecting in the
Wilds and wants the players to serve as intelligence gathering and
security for these operations.  Adventures would include hunting down
rumors and following leads to promising caches, establishing premliminary
negotiations with local rulers to get access to those caches, and
providing security to the recovery team as they carefully remove the
relic equipment.  You could make it even more rewarding for the players
by having Transstar use each piece of relic equipment to produce a few
goodies for them (better ships sensors, more compact batteries for their
gauss rifles, etc.) so that they can see the results of their efforts.
Heres a good one:  The characters have spent several gaming
sessions tracking down a load of TL15 heavy industrial goods for making
electronic equipment.  They discover that the ship the goods were on
landed on this planet but never took off.  Further investigation shows
that the tools were traded for desperately needed repairs.  Some were
later destroyed but they have reason to believe that the merchant who
bought them saved some and took them out of the city to mothball them in
the hinterlands before Virus hit the planet.  The cany players track down
the goods but cant remove them with out a lot of fuss because theyre too
delicate and need to be carefully disassembled and prepared for transport.
They negotiate a deal with the local TED to swap the TL15 tools which are
too advanced for him to make use of anyway for some lower tech tools from
Transstars Balduri machine tool affiliate and extensive technical
assistance.  The recovery team brings in their special fat trader and all
their gear and is half way through the recovery when the RC decides to
pull a particularly bloody SAG raid on the planet.  Complications with the
local TED ensue. :-) Not only is this a much less military type of
adventure for everyone sick of those, but it should give the players a
much different perspective on the drawbacks to going in guns blazing like
the RC does so often.

CORPORATE RIVALS
This is one thing misssing from the Transstar piece.  Outside
the RC there's plenty of room for conflict with the Guild or with Free
Traders who feel like Transstar is taking away their business.  On the
other hand, Transstar could ally itself with the Traders and give them
financial and technical backing against the Guild.
Inside the RC you could have corporations from other worlds or
technarchs from Oriflamme who are competing against Transstar.  I'll
leave this for some other time, this post is long enough :-)

Once again, great job and great idea!

--Muir

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:26:34 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re:  Uh-huh.
Message-ID: <10fa7670@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

Responding to Rob Miracle:

>>This is an example of a list maintainer's worst nightmare.  Where do you
draw the line between censorship and trying to maintain a reasonably a list
that is for the most part not offensive to anyone.<<

I hear ya.  I wouldn't want you to censor anyone either, unless such obscene
rants become _personal_ in nature.  Thanks for addressing my complaint, though.

--Chris

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:02:29 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <10fafd20@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

Responding to Phil Pugliese:

>>There is precedent; GDW has inval-
idated alot of the early licensed stuff that has been published, including
sector maps. (They generated new ones to replace the old ones). If individual
refs want to continue with the TNE timeline, "more power to them". Discarding
TNE doesn't fragment the timeline, it just changes it.<<

The key word is "licensed" stuff.  This was GDW material, much of which was
produced by people who have been with the game since the beginning.  Not shoddy
Judge's Guild stuff.  Just because a few folks don't like the canonized
material, I don't think they should ruin it for those of us who do.

>>That's easy to say when it's not *your* ox that's getting gored. But if it's
true then I'd prefer that *you* create your own continuation of the TNE time-
line while MM supports the one *I* want.<<

Don't take this the wrong way, Phil, but your Ox has been riding along the
non-canonical path for some time now.  Why stop now?  Chances are, whatever new
development comes out won't meet with what you've done either.  I still think
the answer lies in going ahead another few hundred years and making a Trav
universe in which we can all live.


And responding to Phil McGregor:

>>As for trying to make TNE/Trav into Space Opera, you might note that SO had
a TL system as well! Not as detailed as Trav's, but it was there! My dislike
for the concept was something that has become stronger/developed over the
years since then as the idiocies that it leads to have become more and more
apparent.<<

Actually I never played SO, but lurked over some of the discussion about it in
recent TMLs.  I understand your beef about putting TL into real-world terms and
the problems that result.  See my reference to the CT computer "programs" that
were a reflection of early 80s DOS-based home computers.  But unfortunately, the
real world is the best anchoring point we have.

Not all of us have done the research or read every issue of Scientific American
and Omni for the past decade, so we don't know what might exist in the future.
Though it ain't perfect, the TL system does the job.  My players know when they
go from a TL-12 world to a TL-15 world that the differences extend beyond just
security troops carrying gauss rifles vs. fusion guns.  The TL system has
successfully established a certain feel to the Traveller universe.  Subtle
differences can be employed advances.

For instance, I just completed a Regency campaign merc adventure in which the
players were hired to guard Mora's gravball team for the duration of the Regency
Cup competition, held on TL-16 Vincennes.  I indicated that the playing field,
which is a tough plexi-glass type capsule about the size of a hockey rink, was
more advanced on Mora and Vincennes than it was on say, Rhylanor or Efate.  The
capsule didn't require bonded superdense struts to support it but was instead
supported gravitically by manipulator technology, available at TL-16.  There are
differences all along the way from TL-8 to -16 that provide a good framework.

--Chris

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:34:32 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: two TL-8/9 shuttle designs
Message-ID: <9601311834.AA18334@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu>


As an exercise (and to go with some starship designs I'm working on) I
tried to design TL 9- (TL 9 without contragrav) ground-to-orbit shuttles.
It mostly worked, without breaking the FFS rules more than slightly.
The only major difference in fact was that I used the real delta-V
formula rather than the simplified FFS one
(see http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/thrusters.html, especially the
article from cyhiggin@usa.pipeline.com, though her transfer orbit
formula looks wrong to me.) I did use FFS engines (see below.)
Ways in which the design changes with alternative rules, or CG, are also
discussed at the end.

TL-8 versions of these designs would look almost identical; if anyone is
really interested in the subtle differences I can post them.

The one major difference to published TNE rules is of course the delta-V
to orbit. The TNE rule-book number-of-G-hours to orbit, as has been noted,
are completely wrong. Delta V from earth's surface to a 150km orbit
is 8.00 km/s. (Not 0.64 G-hours, which is 22.5 km/s.) Getting back
from orbit requires much less delta-V, too; all you have to do is
change your orbit so it scrapes the atmosphere more, and then aerobrake
(like the Space Shuttle does.) This raises total delta-V to 8.04 km/s.
If you start near the equator delta-V goes down; 7.64 km/s is the figure
I used, appropriate for a 30-degree inclination takeoff.
For a size 9 world of normal density delta-V is 8.52 km/s, for a size 7, 6.72
km/s.

These are delta-V in a vacuum and assuming very high instantaneous
acceleration. Real atmosphere and gravity complicate this somewhat.
FFS talks about non-CG spacecraft using 1-g of their thrust to negate
gravity until they reach orbit, which is spectacularly nonsensical, even by GDW
standards. *Anything* that's moving is in an orbit; a thrown baseball is
in an orbit - just a *very* long and skinny elliptical orbit that
happens to intersect the Earth's surface. The trick for a rocket is to
make sure your orbit never actually reaches the ground. For finite
accelerations this means some amount of delta-V is spent going upwards as the
spacecraft lifts off, which is less efficient than a pure Hohmann
transfer orbit. In addition, you lose delta-V due to atmospheric friction.
Together these add about 1.5 km/s to the delta-V requirements for a classical
rocket, and require that the takeoff acceleration be significantly higher
than 1G.

The shuttle designs below are horizontal-takeoff designs which use their
airbreathing AZHRAE engines for takeoff and to climb to high altitudes
(and, in the case of the first design, for some extra delta-V.) This is similar
to the (now-cancelled) X-30 Aerospace Plane. This approach has been pretty
much abandoned in the real world, but FFS makes it easier to design than
most other single-stage-to-orbit designs (see below.) It also means that
the acceleration required of the engine is only 1G (or even less.) I've
allowed 0.6 km/s delta-V for remaining atmosphere drag (8.1 km/s round trip
to 150-km orbit from 30 degrees latitude), which is typical for the Pegasus
air-launched rocket. There's a huge range of operational parameter space for
these vehicles depending on the atmosphere, density and diameter of the world
they're operating on; I've designed for an Earthlike world.

Terminology for those who don't have FFS: AZHRAE is the acronym
for a combination turbojet/ramjet/rocket engine. HRF is hydrogen
rocket fuel. HCD is hydrocarbon distillates (petrochemical fuels.)
EAPlaC is the incredibly efficient solid-rocket-like TL-9 engine in FFS,
normally used in missiles.



TL-9 commercial single-stage-to-orbit airbreathing shuttle.

General:
Displacement: 100 tons                  Hull Armor:1 (Internals stressed to 1G)
Length: 28m                             Volume: 1400 m^3
Price: MCr 32.39                        Target Size: S
Configuration: Cyl AF                   Tech Level: 9-
Mass: Loaded/Empty: 577.32/88.02

Engineering Data:
Power Plant: 0.34 MW fuel cell (0.34 MW/hit), 8 hour duration at full power
G-rating: 1 (AZHRAE rocket mode), 0.66 (AZHRAE ramjet), 0.4 (AZHRAE turbojet)
          (gives maximum speed 1400 km/h with turbojet,  2324 km/h ramjet)

G-turns: 7.36 km/s delta-V from rockets. 8 minutes turbojet flight
         2.2 minutes ramjet flight (0.64 km/s delta V, limited by maximum
         ramjet speed.) Total=8.0 km/s delta-V loaded, 12.5 km/s with no cargo.
Fuel:    43.44 m^3 of HCD, 1086.18 m^3 of HRF
Maint:   141


Electronics:
Computer: 2xTL-9 Mod Flt Computer (0.03 MW each)
Commo: 3000km radio (0.1 MW)
Avionics: TL-8 avionics (0.1 MW)
Sensors: Radar (3 km; 0.02 MW)
ECM/ECCM: None
Controls: 2xopen crewstations

Armament: None

Accommodations:
Life Support: Basic (0.02 MW), not covering fuel or engines

Crew: 2 (1x Maneuver, 1xElectronics)
Crew Accommodations: none other than crewstations
Passenger Accommodations: 14 adequate seats
Cargo: 140 m^3 (120 tonnes)with one large cargo hatch

Notes/operating mode:
  The shuttle takes off and lands like an aircraft. It uses 4 minutes of
turbojet fuel to take off and climb, then fires the ramjets for 2.2
minutes, accelerating to 0.64 km/s and punching through most of the
atmosphere, then firing the rockets for the rest of the trip to orbit.
It de-orbits with a brief rocket burn (0.05 km/s), aerobrakes like the
shuttle, glides most of the way to its landing sight, then activates
the turbojets for the last part of the landing. Enough turbojet fuel
is available for four minutes of full thrust at landing, but since it
weighs much less while landing and doesn't need to run the engines at
full thrust it can run for more than half an hour at 350km/h during
landing, a comfortable safety margin.

  Operating costs are dominated by fuel (HRF costs Cr 1000
per m3.) Cost to orbit for commercial service would therefore be around
Cr 10,000 per tonne of cargo and 2,000 per passenger (possibly somewhat
less if there is enough traffic that shuttles always fly full both to
and from orbit.) Compare to the EAPlaC disposable discussed below -
shuttles would probably only be used for people and fragile/urgent cargoes.




TL-9 exploration single-stage-to-orbit shuttle

General:
Displacement: 100 tons                  Hull Armor:1 (stressed to 1.5 G)
Length: 28m                             Volume: 1400 m^3
Price: MCr 31.78                        Target Size: S
Configuration: Cyl AF/VTOL              Tech Level: 9-
Mass: Loaded/Empty: 445.94/92.17

Engineering Data:
Power Plant: 0.94 MW MHD turbine (0.34 MW/hit), 8 hour fuel including oxygen
G-rating: 1.25 (AZHRAE rocket mode), 0.83 (AZHRAE ramjet)
          0.5 (AZHRAE turbojet)
          (gives maximum speed 1750 km/h with turbojet,  2920 km/h ramjet)

G-turns: 8.17 km/s delta-V from rockets. 12.5 minutes turbojet flight.
         0 minutes ramjet flight. 8.17 km/s total delta-V fully loaded,
         11.0 with no cargo

Fuel:    332.14 m^3 of LHyd for AZHRAE, 901.72 m^3 of HRF
Maint:   108

Electronics:
Computer: 2xTL-9 Mod Flt Computer (0.03 MW each)
Commo: 3000km radio (0.1 MW), 1000 AU maser (0.6 MW)
Avionics: TL-8 avionics (0.1 MW)
Sensors: Radar (3 km; 0.02 MW), HRT (30 km)
ECM/ECCM: None
Controls: 2xopen crewstations

Armament: None

Accommodations:
Life Support: Basic (0.02 MW), not covering fuel or engines
Crew: 2 (1x Maneuver, 1xElectronics)
Crew Accommodations: none other than crewstations
Passenger Accommodations: 6 cramped seats
Cargo: 70 m^3 (60 tonnes) with one large cargo hatch

Notes:
This version is designed for field operations on unexplored worlds.
It's VTOL-capable (Using the VTOL aircraft rules, this adds 10% to the hull
material volume, and requires a minimum acceleration of 0.5G, which the
turbojets satisfy.)
The AZHRAE engine burns hydrogen in its airbreathing modes rather than
hydrocarbons. Since hydrogen is so bulky, it's no longer efficient to use
the AZHRAE engine for any delta-V beyond that needed for takeoff and landing,
but this makes the shuttle completely field-refuellable.

The shuttle normally starts in orbit, carried by a starship. It de-orbits
(0.05 km/s delta-V) and aerobrakes, then glides towards a carefully pre-
selected landing site. It activates the turbojets for 5 minutes at
0.1 G (350 km/h) to find the landing site, then 3 minutes of hovering at
0.5 G for landing. Vertical takeoff uses another 2 minutes of 0.5 G, then 5.5
minutes of full thrust are left to climb to altitude before firing the rockets.

For field refueling the shuttle would carry down a fission reactor
(60 tons) and then a fuel refining plant, modified to refine both
liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, and several fuel storage tanks.
Using some of its HRF tanks, and the cargo hold, for  plain liquid hydrogen
the shuttle can carry 295 m^3 to a 150-km orbit.

Operating purely as an aircraft (with the HRF tanks full of hydrogen
for the turbojet) it has an endurance of about one hour, plus a margin for
vertical takeoff and landing.

Since it only has one electronics operator, it can only operate a total of
two sensors or communicators at any time.


Notes:

FFS engines have low thrust-to-weight but also lower fuel consumption than
the Real World. This is actually an advantage for craft like this one which
have quite low accelerations. Using more realistic engines (see the URL
above) bites heavily into the payload; designs are available if anyone is
really interested.

One can argue that craft that aerobrake should have higher armor values
than normal craft, but one can also argue that AV=1 and especially the
internal structure is far heavier than real world craft needed, so I've
just left it at AV=1.


EAPlaC:

   These designs don't use EAPlaC for a variety of reasons:
(1) I started with the exploration shuttle, which needed to be completely
field-refuellable.
(2) I wanted them to be basically practical at TL-8
(3) I wanted the commercial shuttle to emphasize rapid turnaround, thinking
that this would decrease operations costs. (I was wrong.)
(4) Even though the rules implicitly assume EAPlaC rockets can be turned off
and re-ignited (unlike solid rockets in the real world), they're still a
type of solid, and no-one in their right mind uses solid rockets on a
manned vehicle. (The NASA Space Shuttle is a case in point.)
(5) EAPlaC is poorly-explained magic, not extrapolated technology.

   However, EAPlaC has an *incredible* ISP. It's very tempting. If the safety
considerations don't apply, TL-9 shuttles would probably at least use
expendable strap-on EAPlaC boosters. A shuttle that gets part of its delta-V
4 ton (28 m^3) strap-on EAPlaC boosters can carry 390 tonnes into orbit at a
fuel cost of MCr 1; commercial shipping charges would be about Cr 2500 per
tonne.

   Additionally, pure EAPlaC unmanned rockets would almost certainly dominate
the bulk cargo market, where safety is irrelevant. A 100-ton unmanned
disposable EAPlaC cargo carrier can carry 1280 tonnes into orbit, and costs
MCr 0.42! It's so cheap - dominated by fuel costs - that it's not even worth
reusing. Commercial cost to orbit would be about Cr 500 per tonne.




The Real World:

   In the real world, SSTO's are unlikely to look like this. Partially this
is because we don't know how to make an AZHRAE engine, and partially it's
because of various details like landing gear that FFS doesn't model.
Without AZHRAE engines horizontal takeoff has no advantages and in fact
is a net disadvantage, because you have to design the wings and landing
gear to lift the whole loaded weight of the spacecraft, not the empty weight.

   Current SSTO paper designs are either VTHL (vertical-takeoff/horizontal
landing) rocket takeoff/glide-landers, kind of like the Space Shuttle with no
external  tank or boosters, or VTVL (vertical-takeoff/vertical landing) craft
which look a lot like 1950s science fiction and hover/land using thrust from
rocket engines (the DC-X and proposed follow-ons.) See sci.space.policy
and s.s.tech for perpetual debates as to which approach is better.
Neither works well with FFS engines. Also, a VTVL doesn't work very well
for a shuttle that starts in orbit - it has to land/hover while carrying
all the (heavy) fuel it needs to get back into orbit. Realistic rather than
FFS engines are better for these high thrust-to-weight designs, but they're
still very hard to do (I suspect because the interior structure mass in FFS is
too high for small craft.)


Contra-Grav:

   At classic TL-9 (contra grav, fusion rockets, but no HEPlaR), altitude is
free but delta-V is expensive. My guess is that easiest orbits to reach (in
delta-V terms) are highly elliptical, with apogee of thousands of km and
nearly skimming the planet (150km) at perigee. A CG shuttle would climb out to
meet a starship at apogee, where it's moving very slowly. There's a tradeoff
in apogee height, though, as the shuttle has to spend more delta-V to
reach this distance in a reasonable time. For an Earthlike world, limiting
total travel time to three hours, the optimum orbit has a 18000km
apogee; delta-V to reach this orbit with contra-grav is 4.28 km/s.
The shuttle turns on its CG, leaves the atmosphere at a few hundred km/h,
accelerates a little more to 1.7 km/s, coasts for 3 hours with the CG on
to an altitude of 18000km, then kills it's outward velocity and
accelerates to 2.6km/s, which puts it in a 18000km/150km orbit.
(There may be more exotic trajectories with lower delta-V, but they'd be
much harder to calculate.)

   I can post the full CG version of the shuttles if anyone is interested.
The commercial model costs MCr 19.97, has an acceleration of 0.5 G, and can
get 170 tonnes of cargo to this elliptical orbit. Cost to orbit would be
about Cr 6000 per tonne. EAPlaC versions have so much delta-V that they can
go to any orbit they like, with costs in the 500 per tonne range.
Still, TL-9 starport owners are probably best off investing in an imported
TL-10 HEPlaR shuttle.

Bruce Macintosh
bmac@astro.ucla.edu (or bmac@igpp.llnl.gov)

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 13:54:46 -0500
From: "Lorenz E. Pogue" <lpogue@notes.cc.bellcore.com>
To: "traveller" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 573
Message-ID: <199601311854.AA08898@notesgw2.cc.bellcore.com>

Jerry,

How many zero place holders are there in a gigillion?

LP

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

Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:39:10 +1300
From: Simon.Harding@vuw.ac.nz
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 572
Message-ID: <199601311939.IAA28519@rata.vuw.ac.nz>


>        Last I know someone was complaing about cyberware, genetics and etc.
>First of all trust me the cyberware in Traveller is no where the level in
>most cyberpunk campaigns and it does make sence to have it. Genetic
>engineering is here now so rest assured it will be better and more popular
>by then. Unfortunately progress marches on and drags us with it.
>        Well put my 2 cents in
>                                        Leigh O'Neil
>                                        Kimber@spectra.net
>--
Leigh, I suggest you read your incoming mail a little more carefully. Nobody
was complaining about cyberware, genetic engineering etc. If fact it was
said there should be more of it in Traveller. What was being complained
about was the Cyberpunk game itself and overflow of cyberpunk style BS into
the Traveller environment. The last thing we want to see in Traveller is the
"chrome and gloss" that is painted all over the Cyberpunk game like a '80s
hangover.

Simon Harding
Administrative Assistant
Graduate Students Office













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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:43:38 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: TRAVELLER digest 573
Message-ID: <199601311943.OAA13595@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14: 23:38 EST
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:43:38 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Jerry,
:
: How many zero place holders are there in a gigillion?
:
: LP
:

Way toooooooo many.

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 17:52:43 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Save our timeline
Message-ID: <163@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

The discussion of MT/CT rules vs. TNE rules seems to have been going in
circles, and we are not going to reach agreement. I have all three rule sets in
some form or other, and I think it would be difficult to decide which rule set
is best. MT combat seems faster, but TNE's initiative rounds are a lot easier
to handle than interrupts in MT. Likewise task systems are both very good, and
yet very different. Still, in my opinion, neither is anywhere near perfect, and
as long as whatever Marc Miller produces is better than any rules set produced
to date, I'll buy it. A superb rules set could be produced from the evolution
of MT or TNE, or dare I say it, a compromise (dirty word on this list of late)
between the two?

As for the timeline, I'm at a loss as to why the CT/MT camp want to discard the
TNE background. They say they want the Rebellion to end, and then Hard Times to
pass without the release of virus, but then the Imperium will return to what?
Basically Classic Traveller again, so if that is the game they want to play,
why can't they just play it in the CT part of the timeline, and leave the
future for people who want to do more than just return to the status quo. The
coherent background is an important part of the game, and while GDW may have
issued revisions in the past, discarding all the material published for TNE
would be a great waste. Given the importance of background however, I did feel
that TNE was lacking in conveying this history, and I hope future editions
include an Imperial Encyclopaedia section to demostrate the richness of the
setting to newcomers.

The virus may have caused all sorts of reality checks in the game, but it did
solve the problem of avoiding needing to choose a winner for the final war.
Hard Times may have appeared to signal an end to hostilities, but considering
the sizes of the 'safe' areas even late into Hard Times, the major powers would
have had little trouble resuming Black War scale hostilities within a decade.
When this happened, as it inevitably would, given the stubbornness of the
factions involved, the wilds and frontiers would be slowly pounded into dust
far faster and far more completely than by virus. With hindsight there are many
more elegant solutions than Virus, but it worked, and it has no effect on you
if you play in the past, as much effect as you want on the present, and who
knows what will happen in the future. The fact remains that if you don't want
to deal with virus, then you can relegate it to history, even in TNE (Sandman
is virus-proof given the strength of peacemaker systems, and sandman should be
able to clear out virus infections fairly easily)

There has been discussion of taking the timeline 300, or even 800 years further
into the future, and I think there is some validity in wanting to do this, but
at the same time, I think it would be premature. There are still several very
major questions which need to be resolved in the TNE present before we can even
guess at the shape of the future -

1/The fate of Virus - Wipe out almost all of the malicious virus sure, but
please leave Sandman and similar strains, which I think bring some much needed
life into the Traveller computers - 'Yes, you too can have an AI computer at
TL12'
2/The Empress Wave - This is too big a plot hook to leave unresolved, see the
comments on 'secret enemy' backgrounds below.
3/RC/Regency relations - Not another war, but maybe skirmishes in the wilds
until they join forces against a threat from...
4/Behind the Black curtain.

I feel that a good future background for Traveller would be a 'secret enemy'
plot, ala Babylon 5. This allows small actions, such as those of the players,
to have profound implications (eg understanding the conspiracy/threat, only
you can save the world), but at the same time minimal physical effects
(information gathering is more important than open war, you avert the
disaster before the general population realises what's happening, and the
conspirators cover their tracks). This would mean that the plot could be
ignored by referees who don't like it, but that it is always there to help
provide adventures if needed. In fact, ignoring this aspect of the
background, what remains would be a setting very close to classic
traveller, which would help please everyone. Also, this background tends to
lend itself to more interesting adventures than straight shoot-outs, with more
investigation, character interaction, plot and all those other things which
people complain are missing in The New Era (although I can't see it myself).
These are just personal opinions so no flames please (my asbestos suit is at
the dry-cleaner's)
--
Brendan

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

Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 14:10:23 EDT
From: nmiceli@moe.morgan.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Getting up on the learning curve.
Message-ID: <0099D36E.5393F880.565@moe.morgan.edu>

Dear List Members,

As someone who is relatively new to Traveller, but not strategy
games (i.e., Harpoon), what do you recommend as a way of becoming
familiar and literate regarding how to play Traveller?

Thanks in advance for suggestions.

Regards,

N. S. Miceli
nmiceli@moe.morgan.edu

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 574
***************************
