TRAVELLER Digest 584

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various... by fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
  2) Re: Virus is Rare by fredm@datasync.com (Paul)
  3) Re:  Zhodani's and the Empress Wave by fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
  4) Task Systems by anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  5) Fire & Counter Fire by FKiesche3@aol.com
  6) Re: Why Streamline Spaceships -it's not needed! by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
  7) Transstar by lewis@chara.gsu.edu
  8) Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT) by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
  9) Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT) by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 10) (Fwd) ad2300] Beanstalk stuff by "Shalom Zaidfeld" <yu145850@goth1.yorku.ca>
 11) RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various... by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
 12) Re: CG capabilities by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
 13) USLs and CG by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:43:47 -0600
From: fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <199602061943.NAA15999@osh1.datasync.com>

       --Jerry

darkstar@strauss.udel.edu

         &

        Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


Make a note of your opposing email address.  Please use these for any
further mudslinging, let's discuss things on the mailing list and sling mud
privately.  If either of you have to weak an ego to let the other get the
last word in, all I can say is I feel sorry for your current or future
families.  Sorry guys, but that's what I see.  If I'm wrong everyone else,
let me know.


Paul Walker

"I still need a good tagline."


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:43:26 -0600
From: fredm@datasync.com (Paul)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Virus is Rare
Message-ID: <199602061943.NAA15981@osh1.datasync.com>

>
>With reguards to "Virus is rare", you need to analyze the tables in TNE, 1
>in 36 wilds encounters will be a virus ship. (Maybe more, but I KNOW it's
>at least 1 in 36). So the "Virus is Rare" theory is not supported by
>existing rules material. Especially since a single system requires 2-5
>encounters on normal ops.
>

Thanks for the advice.  I did analyze the tables (last night, so forgive me
if the math is incorrect:)) and in the Wilds, any ship encountered with the
exception of a Naval Type ship has a 1 in 6 (16.67%) chance of being a Virus
ship.  a Naval Type ship has a 5.7 in 6 (95.00%) chance of being a Virus
ship.  This by itself would put an end to the "Virus Is Rare" theory I
posted, but consider two other points:

1.  The chance of having an encounter in the wilds is so slim that that
negates the fact that the chance for an encounter being a Virus is common.
I think it works out to be 1 in 60 chance of having an encounter AND the
ship encountered bieing a Virus ship.  Even if you follow the rules to the
letter (see number 2 below) that is only a chance of 1 in 10 systems.  If
players jumped into every system in a subsector and either
                a) refueled at a Gas Giant only,
                b) landed on a world only, or
                c) docked with an orbital facility
they would encounter Virus ships only 3 times (assuming an average subsector
has 30 worlds).  This means only 48 systems in a sector will have a Virus
ship encounter.  By my count there would be fewer than 1000 Virus ship
encounters in the whole of the Imperial wilds.

2.  The rules for starship encounters specifically states that "These
starship encounter tables are an aid to the referee's imagination." (TNE,
pg.228)  The above numbers are an estimate if you follow the rules to the
letter (ie, roll a ship encounter at every pass).  If your referee
imagination sticks with the guidelines in the description of virus, then "it
is uncommon to find active strains of it [Virus] anywhere." (TNE, pg.97)

I still stand by my opinion that Virus is rare.  Virus will be more abundant
around the RC because of the Vampire Highway, but I still don't think it is
a major threat anymore.  (I would agree, though, that TNE is a post holocost
era.)
I'm not trying to say that Virus is dead, and that you CANNOT have it in
your campaign, I'm just saying that it is common to enter the Wilds and
never encounter Virus.

All of the above percentages above are based on the TNE main rules book.  If
there are other ship encounter tables for TNE and Virus, I would like to know.

(P.S. - The TNE Rulebook may contradict itself about Virus.  Page 97 states
that "surviving Virus is most common in the Wilds."  I interpret this to
mean most commonly encountered in the Wilds, but that is not supported by
the Starship encounter tables on page 228.  The encounter tables give a
higher probability of virus being encountered in the RC & Pocket Empires.)


Paul Walker

"I still need a good tagline."

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 13:43:58 -0600
From: fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re:  Zhodani's and the Empress Wave
Message-ID: <199602061943.NAA16009@osh1.datasync.com>

Thanks for the responses on my previous post.  They were all interesting.

This is what I thought of. (If this is an impossibility because of CT/MT
cannon, forgive me as I didn't "get on the bandwagon" until late MT and TNE.)

The Zhodani core expiditions were getting too close to Grandfather, so he
hit them where it would hurt, the glue of their civilization.  When the
Ancient's War was over, Grandfather retired to the clean environment of the
core(compared to the devastated area of known space).  There, with
specimines of all the major and minor races he could collect as well as many
animal specimines, he continued his genetic experimentation until he saw
(heard, sensed, whatever) the Zhodani's coming coreward, and getting rather
close to some of his experiments.

At this point my idea has changed with what I thought originally.
Originally, I thought He would design a Zhodani specific weapon, but further
thought (And Rob's post) led me to believe that He wouldn't spare the time
to make the weapon that specific.  He would have designed a weapon that
disables psionic powers.  We don't know what is behind the wave nor do we
know how long the wave will last.  My guess is that it will last only
seconds, but the effects will be permanent.  I think it will disable all
psions by destroying the portion of the brain that allow psionics.  This
would not alter the Zhodani genetic code and therefore not altering the
ability to give birth to psionic Zhodani children; in essence the effects
would only last one generation.

The fighting observed in the coreward sectors of the Zhodani consulate is
fighting over the one thing that will save a psion -- a psionic shield.  The
very nature of Zhodani society leads me to believe that psionic shields
would be illegal items and only high nobles would own one.  The last of the
Zhodani core expiditions (I think its seven or eight) jumped into a system
shortly before the Wave hit.  One of the Nobles had brought along his
Psi-shield and was showing it to his pals when the wave hit.  He was the
only one left with any psionic powers after the wave passed.  This knowledge
was quickly (as quickly as possible) carried back through the wave to the
Consulate.  The effects of the wave were leaked out (how many government
secrets can you keep in a psionic society) and the infighting started over
the few available psi-shields.  As the wave closes in on an area the
fighting gets more fierce.

Closer examination of the ships logs showed that the passive EMS sensors
were blacked out during the wave passage.  This would explain why the
Longbow coreward stations were not responding.  They were blacked out during
the Wave passage and the signal couldn't penetrate the wave to get back to
the Regency.

The Exodus is an effort by Nobles to gain access to Psi-shields in the
Regency without having to fight other Nobles for the shield when the wave
got closer.

Note: Unborn children couldnot be shielded, and therefore would be effected
by the wave.

If this violates Cannon let me know.


Paul Walker

"I still need a good tagline!"


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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 11:13:49 -0900
From: anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Task Systems
Message-ID: <v01530500ad3d6447fce9@[137.229.100.57]>

> I didn't
>care for the MT concept of Skill/5 as an additional DM on the roll as it
>started to induce unnecessary math (as you stats started dropping due to
>injury you had to recompute your DMs)

Don't you mean Attribute/5, Rob?

Remember MT Tasks

Success: 2d + Skill Level +(Att/5)
Time:   {3d - [Skill Level + (att/5)]} * TimeIncrement

Success targets of 3+/7+/11+/15+/19+ for the five difficulty levels.
Hasty: halve final time, increase difficulty +1 level (Effectively a DM-4)
Cautious: Double Final Time, decrease difficulty -1 level (Effectively a DM+4)

Yes, thogh it  needed 5d6, it worked. My personal preference was to use the
D10 & 3d6 system from 2300 (It works identically, but you use a d10 rather
than 2d6 on the success check.)

TNE Tends to confuse even some veteran (15+ year) math-phobic gamers;
everyone in my group currently relies on calculators or pre-figured
difficulties. (I'm currently at 360-1082, and they're in vland about to
cross the rift.)

The players like the CGen, but most are neutral about the task system (TNE
is simpler, but not as easy on players.) We had to switch to D10's for
damage, as TNE isn't lethal unless you do.

-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ANWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:29:21 -0500
From: FKiesche3@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Fire & Counter Fire
Message-ID: <960206162921_215634638@mail06.mail.aol.com>

Greetings All:

I would like to make a general request that everybody take a deep breath,
step back, close their eyes for a few minutes and chill out. This is just a
game, a fun game, a game that has obsessed me since 1977, but it is just a
game. There is no need for bickering, sniping, etc. We are all decent human
beings and there is no reason why we can't conduct a civil conversation
without resorting to name calling and the like.

A second request, for those of us who pay for our on-line time: If possible,
could folks refrain from cutting and pasting a whole message in order to
write a smallish reply? A little editing would help those of us who are
paying $$$$ for this time. Or perhaps, if the conversation is becoming a mano
a mano fight, could we move those discussions to private e-mail?

Many thanks for your thoughtful consideration.

Fred Kiesche
(FKiesche3@aol.com)
(Knight of the Third Imperium)

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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 17:53:45 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Streamline Spaceships -it's not needed!
Message-ID: <s1179564.035@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>

Phillip McGregor writes:

>Well, yes, on page #10 of FF&S, column #2, second paragraph it *does*
>say that "unstreamlined hulls may do neither" ... i.e. neither skim gas
>giants as streamlined hulls nor land on planets with an atmosphere as
>aerofoil hulls.
>
>But my point is, *so what*?!

   In that case my 4 mm gauss pistol does 20D6 of damage with a
penetration rating of 20.  I know what the rules say, but--so what?

>There is information elsewhere that makes that statement a nonsense.
>The two key points -
>
>* F&S, pg. #16, Section #8: Atmospheric Speed = notes that spacecraft
>with contragrav lifters "may fly NOE" <snip>

   They are specifically referring to spacecraft that can enter an
atmosphere according to the rules.

>Assuming that you accept this as canon -and, gee, Chadwick and
>Nilsen have said it in FF&S, the "holy book", haven't they?! - then it
>makes it quite plain that craft with Thruster Plates (CT/MTrav) and
>contragrav lifters (TNE) have a "stall speed" of less than 40 kph!

-   No, what is plain is that if a vehicle or vessel with no NOE avionics
is limited to 40 kph, for they go any faster, they will go out of control and
crash.

>Ergo, they do not need to be streamlined.

   Ergo one of your basic premises is shot down and your conclusion
false.

>As an exercise in logic, consider this. We have a USL vessel, built in
>orbit, with 6G Maneuver drives. Are you seriously telling me that it is
>going to be less structurally sound than one built on a planetary
>surface?

   Of course not.  On the other hand, to do what you want to do, you will
have to take into account:

   The speed of rotation of the planet at the point you wish to enter the
atmosphere, the speed of the atmosphere itself, any atmospheric
turbulence--including so-called ``jet streams``, ability of certain external
devices such as antennas to withstand the additional stress placed on
them by friction--something you don't have to account for in space,
electrical or magnetic disturbances that may effect critical components--
can you say ``giant lightning rod``?, heating of certain surfaces
regardless of how slow you ooze into the atmosphere, the effects the
additional atmospheric pressure will have on certain areas of the ship,
and well anyway you get the idea.

>>As for the rest of your analysis, mildly interesting, but irrelevant.
>
>As for your comments, it would have been nice if you'd actually *read*
>the relevant sections of FF&S before putting pen to paper, or foot in
>mouth.

   I did read the relevant sections, and stand by what the rules say.
If you want to allow unstreamlined ships to sink into the atmosphere, go
ahead--I'm not the Traveller Orthodoxy Police.  Besides, I don't think the
U.S. - Australia extradiction treaty covers trivial disagreements over
currently out-of-print science-fiction role playing games.

   Lighten up.  Smile, it's summer where you live while I'm current stuck
in -1 degree C weather.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 96 18:22:48 -0500
From: lewis@chara.gsu.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Transstar
Message-ID: <9602062322.AA01323@chara.gsu.edu>

 Muir wrote:
>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.

I like this.  Most of Transstar's intrests lie in the RC, so the OBD
would be a small operation, probably underfunded, operating on a
shoestring.  That way the players wouldn't have tons of support, and
would be on their own at times.
If you want to write up something on the OBD that would be cool. If you
don't I'll write up something, but it will be after a few other things.

 Muir wrote about an adventure Seed for the  OBD.
This was pretty good.  Another twist would be to have the RCES come in
on a smash and grap, and actually grab the thing that the players were
negotiating for. Preferably after they had paid off the TED, but before
they loaded the goods into their ship.  The players would have to
decide whether to fight the RC in court, attack the ship in orbit which
just launched the SAG, or to just give up and go home.  Yeah right, how
many players will just give up. :)

I was reading Hard Times last night, some of the adventures in there
could fit in nicely with Transstar and the OBD.  The first adventure
has the players recovering some manufacturing equipment for an
abandoned factory.  Another has them dealing with workers who resent
Hortz de Cie taking over their jobs.  With a few name changes and bit
of fiddling they could easily be New Era adventures.

  Having Transstar deal with TEDs, raises all sorts of questions.  I
don't think Transstar would sell weapons to TEDs this would run
contrary to RC intrests.  But if they sold machine tools, these could
be used to make weapons, so its a pretty grey area.  I like playing in
the grey areas, there are all sorts of role playing possiblities.

  An idea that popped into my head was to have a corporation actually
buy a planet in the wilds.  They could offer a TED 100Mcr and a villa
on Aubaine in exchange for the entire planet.  They would set up a
puppet government, or maybe just rule it themselves.  They could then
structure the laws for maximum profits.  They could allow merchants to
sell salvaged items, without taking the 50% cut that the RC does at its
official auctions.  RC wouldn't be too happy about this, might send in
a decapitation strike.  Of course the natives might not like being
bought and sold, and try to revolt.  On the other hand they might like
the new influx of technology and money.  The planet would have plenty
of oppurtunities for player involvment.
 This doesn't really sound like something Transstar would do, but
another company might.

Muir wrote:
>CORPORATE RIVALS
>This is one thing misssing from the Transstar piece....

I agree.  Looking through Path of Tears, and Star Vikings I saw a few
minor comments about corporations, such as Kruytercorp, Trybecorp and
the various shipyards.  But nothing else, that is one reason I wrote up
Transstar. We need more corporations, but I'll leave that up to someone
else for now.

I came up with an idea for the Transstar logo. A large blue T outlined
in silver on a starscape.  There is a stereotypical rocket ship on the
upright part of the T, with a smoke trail swooshing around the T.  (I
don't know if that really conveys the idea or not.)  Transstar ship
crews and cargo handlers wear jackets with this embroidered on the
right breast.  Its also emblazoned on the back. The logo  is also
painted on the outside of the ships, big and bright so everyone can
see.  The company colors are red and blue.
Lewis

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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 18:33:48 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <s1179ec5.005@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>

Rob Miracle writes:

>Please point me to the TNE rules that lets me build or modify a starship
>without using FF&S.  You are the second to say that I don't have to use
>FF&S, but I don't see a way around it.

   Brilliant Lances.  It also uses pregenerated weapons, which cuts
down significantly on your design time.

>I can find no design sequences for vehicals except those in FF&S.

   True, there is no vehicle counterpart to Brilliant Lances, perhaps there
should have been.  On the other hand there was no vehicle design
system that was the counterpart to High Guard in the CT era--you used
Striker or you were out of luck.

Regards,

Harold


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:31:37 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along? (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <9602062331.AA07059@Rt66.com>


>       Jump  100 Ton      200 Ton       400 Ton
> TL12   1    5 tons/23mcr 10 tons/46mcr 20 tons/92mcr
> TL13   1    4 tons/15mcr 8 tons/30mcr  16 tons/60mcr

The Jump drive table is pretty clear.  Given the choice between a page
of premade weapons or sensors and a page that has a table to calculate
2% of hull (then various hull sizes)
3% of hull ("")
etc., I'd take the former.  The latter would take about a half an hour
for all TLs (I can post one after I get home to FFS if you wish).

I know you mean for more than that example, but it really isn't any
different than the HG system.  Besides, FFS Light would have the
eqivilent drives to the Book 2 stuff :-)

> In Traveller terms, I cant go to TNE (and somewhat so with MT) and say to
> the players "Ok that Pirate took out your Jump Drive, you need Xmcr to fix
> it" without doing work that will typically break the flow of the adventure.

Hmmm, when my car stops running I have no isdea what it costs to fix til
I either look at it (more than 5 minutes) or have it looked at (much
more than 5 minutes).  My point is that they'd need to take time to
assertain the damage, and while they're doing it you do
0.03*200*MCr(from table)=cost, not too hard (*much* worse for a PEMS,
though :)

One idea would be to keep the design document for any PC ship, then
you'd know all the subcosts all the time.

I see your point, but given limited pages being made I'd rather get the
rules to make a widget consistant with the universe (crucial point) than
a small list of widgets.  Preferably I'd like both, though.

-Merrick

-merrick@rt66.com

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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:42:13 -0500
From: "Shalom Zaidfeld" <yu145850@goth1.yorku.ca>
To: TML <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: (Fwd) ad2300] Beanstalk stuff
Message-ID: <199602062342.SAA50689@comoro.yorku.ca>

------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From:          Brian Hoover <hoover@cougar.multiline.com.au>
Subject:       ad2300] Beanstalk stuff
To:            ad2300@mars.galstar.com (ad2300)
Date:          Sun, 4 Feb 1996 22:06:28 +0800 (WST)
Reply-to:      ad2300@mars.galstar.com (The ad2300 mailing list)


Hi fellow 2300ADers. Here's something I saved from a long time ago which
I found in rec.arts.sf.science.

Thought some may find it interesting, even if you don't live at Libreville.

=========================

Path: multi.multiline.com.au!news.uwa.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yarrina.
connect.com.au!classic.iinet.com.au!news.uoknor.edu!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladi
 n.american.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com
news2.near.net!cat.cis.Brown.EDU!news
From: burton@het.brown.edu (Joshua W. Burton)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.science,sci.physics,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Orbital Elevator (long)
Date: 6 May 1995 13:26:55 GMT
Organization: Brown University
Lines: 130
Message-ID: <3oftev$ds0@cocoa.brown.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: poncho-slip4.cis.brown.edu
Xref: multi.multiline.com.au rec.arts.sf.science:8739 sci.physics:51571 sci.
astro:37110

> Can anyone supply me with any information on earth to orbit
> elevators?  In particular, do they require (as in Arthur C Clarke's
> book) exotic materials, or *could* one be constructed with 20th
> century technology?  Secondly, what are the limits on placing
> the 'bottom' end?  How close to the equator does it need to be?
>
> TIA -- Richard Tibbetts

I did a lot of calculations about this a few years back; here are
some results that might interest you.  Here's the apparent strength
of gravity as you go up the elevator, allowing for both the earth's
rotation and the 1/r^2 field:

    0 km9.8 m/s^2 2500 km5.0 m/s^2
  350 km9.0 m/s^2 3400 km4.0 m/s^2
  700 km8.0 m/s^2 7500 km2.0 m/s^2
 1200 km7.0 m/s^210500 km1.0 m/s^2
 1750 km6.0 m/s^218500 km0.5 m/s^2

Weightlessness comes at the Clarke point, of course, 35950 km up.
Above that, there is a centrifugal effect, and the earth appears to
be 'above' you---but you would have to be nearly 200,000 km up before
the apparent gravity reaches -1.0 m/s^2.  In practice, no one would
build it out that far; you just want to go far enough to keep the
center of gravity at the Clarke point, plus a bit more to put the
lower end of the elevator in tension.  A big mass just slightly
above synchronous orbit is probably the way to go.

Midway Station, the lowest point where you go into an elliptical orbit
instead of hitting the ground if you jump off, is 23450 km up, and has
a tiny apparent gravity of 0.29 m/s^2.  The total energy cost from
ground to the Clarke point is just over 13 kW-hr per kg lifted, which
means $100 a ticket at today's energy prices, minus savings for energy
generated by the 'down' cars, plus (rather large) financing charges on
the capital investment.

Next come strength-of-materials considerations.  We need a material
with the highest possible (breaking strength)/(density), which is a
tough sell, because Kevlar, good piano wire, and nearly everything
else has essentially the same optimum value for this parameter.  They
all have breaking strengths of a 'few' billion Pa, and a density of
a 'few' thousand kg/m^3, where 'few' is the same number in both cases.
The strongest high-tensile materials are the heaviest, by and large.
Exotic materials like spun sapphire or diamond do better on the micron
scale, and buckytubes get close to the theoretical limit (the strength
of the chemical bonds themselves).  In principle, such materials
should be anywhere from 40 to 120 times stronger than the optimal
value above, which I shall call '1x piano wire'.  But Griffith theory
teaches us that the length of the 'critical' crack (one that releases
enough energy to drive its own spontaneous propagation) goes down as
1/(stress)^2.  So even if exotic materials can be machined in gigaton
lots, we may find that they are unusable at the huge stresses we
need.  The first woodpecker that comes along may bring the whole
thing down if the critical crack is a few microns long.

But let's assume we can cope with this issue, if necessary with
nanobot inspectors checking for micro-cracks, or simply a sheath of
unstressed material around the structural members.  The tension is
essentially zero at the bottom:  if we wanted we could leave the
cable hanging loose a foot from the ground.  (We want _some_ tension
there, of course, when we build an actual elevator, or the dynamic
oscillations will kill us.)  At the Clarke point, where the stress
is largest, the stress depends on the weight of the tower below,
which depends on the strength of the material.  It's like rocketry,
ironically enough:  the 'fuel' for the upper stages is 'payload' cost
for the lower ones.  In this case, of course, it's upside-down:  we
have to keep the _lower_ part of the tower as light as we dare, so
that the _upper_ part doesn't have to be exponentially heavy.  And a
high-tensile steel tower, like a rocket powered by Wisconsin butter
(happy now, Senator Proxmire?), just doesn't have enough juice.

Assuming each wire has to take a thousand tonnes of tension at the
bottom (add wires as needed, depending on what you want to send up
the tower...), we get a minimum thickness profile like this:

strength/density5000 km    10000 km    Midway    Clarke orbit

 6x piano wire      r = 16 cm      34 cm      72 cm       86 cm
 7x   9 cm      21 cm      36 cm       39 cm
 8x   8 cm      14 cm      22 cm       24 cm
10x   4 cm       8 cm      11 cm       12 cm
15x   2 cm       3 cm       4 cm        4 cm

These have _no_ margin for error, so in reality you would need a
material 20 or 30 times stronger than the best steel wire before you
could even think about the 6x scenario.  And the figure I used for
'ordinary' piano wire is itself way out at the bleeding edge of
1990s metallurgy; we can't produce such wire in suspension-bridge
lots yet.  The 6x version is already at the point of exponentially
diminishing returns:  we need a 5-foot-thick steel cable at the top
to run a two-inch cable to ground.  For 1x piano wire, a cable
*fifty* feet in radius will carry a thousand tonnes only down to
about 11000 km, and will have to taper to dental floss at 0 km.

In short, the prospects look pretty bleak:  we need a smaller planet,
or one with a faster rotation rate, in order to do this with any
known engineering materials.  The mass of my kT-load cable is 1.4 MT
for 15x, 2.9 MT for 10x, 8 MT for 8x, 25 MT for 7x, 95 MT for 6x,
580 MT for 5x, and over 500 GT (!) for 3x---that's right, lowering
the breaking strength from 5x to 3x multiplies the weight of cable
a thousandfold.  I don't even have the heart to calculate 1x; the
cable would weigh as much as a moon.  For real fantasy, at 100x, the
cable only weighs 6 kT, a few times its 'payload', and we are finally
in the regime of conventional engineering, where supporting the
structure's own weight isn't the sole concern.

If we want the upper end of the elevator to sling payloads into deep
space, we need to run it up about 11000 km beyond the Clarke point,
but when you consider the cost of construction, it might be simpler
to just take a conventional rocket engine up the elevator in pieces,
and launch it from geosynchronous orbit.  Other arrangements are
possible:  Robert Forward has done some interesting calculations
involving 'skyhooks' that don't quite touch the ground.  You get a
considerable advantage, because it's only the bottom thousand km
that are under anything like one gee.  Also, you avoid weather.  You
can land on the bottom platform of such a skyhook with a very
low-tech suborbital rocket---a V2 or a Scud-B gets that high.  Even
more interesting is the idea of lowering the platform from a
non-geosync orbit, thus greatly reducing the weight of cable, and
spinning the cable end-over-end at a speed that leaves the lower
end almost stationary each time it swings into the earth's atmosphere.
If the rotation period and the orbital period are commensurate with
each other and with 24 hours, you can have regularly scheduled pickup
points at fixed (ocean!) locations.  Many such solutions are within
reach of 2x or even 1x cable, but again you must allow a (5-fold?)
safety factor before you apply for a permit.

Repugnare ut detur vacuum |====================================================
sive in quo nulla plane   | Joshua W. Burton (401)435-6370 burton@het.brown.edu
sit res.  -- R. Descartes |====================================================

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Hoover, Perth Australia. hoover@cougar.multiline.com.au Multiline BBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     -Shalom Zaidfeld

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: yu145850@yorku.ca                            |      Anthropology Major
"One day, it will happen.. one day,                 |         York University
 one day it will all make sense"   -Bj/rk, Debut    |         Toronto, Canada


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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 18:55:50 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <s117a3f8.043@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>

Phil sums up by saying:

>You need to drop your grandiose dreams of a resurgent Traveller that
>will exceed even it's own Golden Years. It's not gonna' happen. The
>time for that is long past. GDW tried your "new markets" scheme twice
>& it failed, twice. This strategy will only bury it for good. Traveller needs
>to go back to what worked for it previosly & then build from there.
>Otherwise it may just as well be, "Traveller -AD&D", "Traveller -The
>Clans", or something else that wouldn't be Traveller at all.

   What say we cut the level of pure bullsh_t around here folks?  You
hate TNE and everything it stood for, you've made that abudantly clear
AD NAUSEAM--that doesn't mean that the TNE storyline deserves any
less support than any other aspect of the Traveller background.  This is
not an episode of ``Dallas``, Strephon will not be walking out of the
shower to let everyone know the Rebellion and the Collapse didn't
happen.  Perhaps if we all put as much effort in figuring out how to end
the story of the Post-Collapse Era as we did griping for this or that era,
Marc Miller would have a large sourcebook on the subject ready to
publish as soon as FarFuture Enterprises gets off the ground.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 18:01:58 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: CG capabilities
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960207010158.00704b40@lynx.csn.net>

At 11:58 am 2/6/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Dave Golden wrote that rather than having CG counteract 99% of a ship's
>weight, his version counteracts all but a little of the gravitational
>force on the ship.  My question:  what's the difference?  This isn't a
>flame or anything -- I seriously don't understand how Dave's version
>differs from a canonical CG lifer.  Gravitational force *is* weight.

        I didn't say it "counteracted the gravitational force" or nullified
the object's weight. I said it generated its own force. To simplify using
existing designs, I simply assumed that _my_ style generator had to be about
the same size as the canon generator to generate enough force to lift the
ships. That way I don't have to redesign every single ship and vehicle.

        If you've got the "canon" generator, which creates a field which
nullifies 99% of the weight of _anything_ in the field, you've got serious
problems.

        1. Just keep piling stuff in the field. No matter how much mass you
pile in there, it still draws the same energy. No conservation here.

        2. Put your asteroid in a close approach orbit to a star. As it
falls in it gets faster and faster, but slows back down the same amount as
it moves away from the star. But wait! I turn on my CG at the point of
closest approach -- now since 99% of the gravity is _not_ acting on me
anymore, I don't slow down! Free Energy! Pick my orbit right and I'll split
any planet in a bazillion pieces.

        3. Put on my grav belt, which generates a field around it. 99% of my
weight magically disappears. Stick my arm outside the field. Now everything
up to my elbow is only feeling 0.01G. Everything beyond my elbow is feeling
1G. *SNAP* *RIP* Now I don't have anything past my elbow.


        To repeat, I didn't say mine "nullified" gravity or change an
objects weight. It uses the input power to create a force, which acts upon
the generator and is then transmitted structurally to the rest of the ship,
just like a thruster. This force is simply in the direction of gravity. If I
put a small generator in my big ship, it only generates a small force not
enough to lift the ship. I just waved my hands and said that for existing
ships the designers had sized them to be able to generate enough force to
lift the ship. That way, I could use existing designs without having to
swallow the "magic field." And yes, I know, antigravity is just as magic as
"ContraGravity." But I can see it happening a little more easily.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www.whip.com/~goldendj/index.html

  "Faith is not belief without knowledge.
   Faith is trust without reservation." -- unknown


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 18:17:01 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: USLs and CG
Message-ID: <9602070117.AA11182@Rt66.com>


One point I forgot to clarify in my previous post...

Obviously a 6g USL ship could use CG lifters to decend along the thrust
axis, rockets down.  Then the arguements about aerodynamics, etc. would
still apply, but there'd be no reason the CG wouldn't work assuming you
have CG installed.

I also though of an example.  A 747 can pull g's (more positive than
negative (a point to note)), right?  So that means that it can stand on
one wingtip, right (assuming it was balanced to do so without falling
over)?  Wrong, it isn't stressed to do this.

Remember that FFS _adds_ streamlining sub-options compared to HG.  AF is
"Streamlined" from HG.  SL is "Partial Streamlining."  USL is
"Unstreamlined."  The addition is that an SL ship with CG may do
anything that an AF may do.  Since FFS is vague on this, it is open to
some interpritation.  I would say that we need to read it in such a way
that it matches the canon as closely as possible, not that it should be
read to the opposite effect.

Just my 2Crs again...

-Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 584
***************************
