Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 400
Date:	95-09-03 13:42:52 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)

			    TRAVELLER Digest 400

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) digest	by tal.meta@pms.metronj.org (Tal Meta)
  2) Indistinguishable from Magic	by Wesley.Esser@hd62.haledorr.com
  3) Missiles as nukes	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  4) Wet Navy Retransmission	by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
  5) Help With Robot Design	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  6) Re: Help With Robot Design	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  7) Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles	by myhre@oslonett.no
  8) Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles	by myhre@oslonett.no
  9) Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 10) Oops!!!	by Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>

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

Date: 01 Sep 95 19:53:48 -0400
From: tal.meta@pms.metronj.org (Tal Meta)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: digest
Message-ID: <8f5_9509021901@nisc.ieee.org>


Konnichiwa traveller!

How does one go about subscribing to the Traveller Digest?

In that Spirit,
I am, as always....
           -TM

.. T.V: automated day-dreaming.
---



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

Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 20:43:00 -0400
From: Wesley.Esser@hd62.haledorr.com
To: Rob Miracle <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Indistinguishable from Magic
Message-ID: <"663*/G=Wesley/S=Esser/OU=hd62/O=hale and
dorr/PRMD=haledorr/ADMD=mci/C=US/"@MHS>

-----Multi-Part-Message-Level-1-1-8506
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi, 
     I just picked up a great book by Robert Forward, the guy
who wrote "Starquake" and the Rocheworld novels, called
"Indistinguishable from Magic".  It's a series of essays about
possible future techs and some short stories using those techs. 
He covers a whole lot of ground, from antimatter to beanstalks

-----Multi-Part-Message-Level-1-1-8506
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"







         to space/time warps to anti-grav.  I havn't gotten through the
         whole thing yet, but one thing really struck me:  he outlines a
         method for reactionless anti-grav drives, ala MegaTrav thruster
         plates, and includes an explanation of why they dont break any
         physical laws, although it does rely on the discovery of a type of
         matter, "negative matter" as yet unknown.  This does mean though
         that thrusters are not any more or less "realistic" than jump
         drive (for what that is worth). 

             I'd recommend this one for any of the TDR sort out there -
         whether or not this stuff is possible, it is at least internally
         consistent.  The articles on beanstalks/space fountains are also
         fascinating, although probably less interesting in a standard Trav
         universe.

             It's out as a Baen paperback, $5.99 US.

         Wes
         wesley.esser@haledorr.com
-----Multi-Part-Message-Level-1-1-8506--

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

Date: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 19:10:11 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Missiles as nukes
Message-ID: <9509030110.AA27989@Rt66.com>


Howdy,

Just thought I'd throw another log on the fire regarding missiles.  In
the absence of kinetic kill missiles all missiles are of the det-laser
type, and are therefore rather nasty weapons of mass destruction.  Any
free trader with a missile launcher is a pretty dangerous guy (er,
person... ah, being :).

If you don't have a non-nuke missile then I assume only the military or
pirates have 'em, right?  *Having* a missile launcher would equal a long
jail term ("...nuclear weapons are looked upon with a particularly intense
revulsion."-FFS, pg.143) since there are *no other* types of missile.

This is kinda interesting for all nuke-missile campaigns---customs would
get close to take a look and make sure you don't have any weapons of
mass destruction around.  If you do, you'd have to have them confiscated
in order to get fueled up to leave the system (you can't drive to the
gas giant unless the primary world orbits it)---that or nuke the patrol
boat :)

And with respect to GDWs design notes on missiles needing to be big
and expensive (another reason againt KKMs), they aren't all that big,
and the warhead costs 1.2MCr out of the missiles 1.25MCr total cost.
All the guidance systems in FFS list costs in Cr, not MCr, BTW (I know
the warhead has all the non-propulsion gear).  I think KKMs would come
in at a price that would let you get 20-25 KKMs for every det-laser
(around 50,000Cr each) missile.  A bay full of KKMs for the price of 2
det-laser missiles :)  Actually, if you use KKMs, this is kinda cool
(aside from letting PCs have missiles that won't get them tarred and
feathered in port) since there is a reason to have smaller missile
launchers.

KKMs would have to be self guiding (even if the target is painted by the
launcher).  Missile bays might have KKMs, and turrets/barbettes would
have the more effective det-lasers.  Smaller ships (military) would have
the detlasers since they can't carry as many missiles.  In addition it
gives the small ships city-killing power if needed---of course a single
scout at the starport could kill an infinite number of missiles trying
to get so close to a city ;-)

-Merrick

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

Date: 03 Sep 1995 02:56:28 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Wet Navy Retransmission
Message-ID: <3860393885.178778880@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca>

I'm working on an update now.  Assuming you have the original Wet navy
article
from Challenge, make these changes:

1) The MVM for a hull is 1.2  (I haven't yet worked out the minimum armour
rating for subs: anyone want to work it out?)

2) Use the FFS engines rather than Wet Navy.  This will penalize you, I'm
afraid, especially as there are no longer scale efficiencies.

3) Use the Wet Navy transmissions.

4) Use Wet Navy armour and superstructure rules.  Design weapons with FFS.

5) Use Wet Navy crews, but reduce accomodation requirements for primitive
ships (tech 0-3): even deck space is good enough for a low-tech crew!

6) Really high-tech ships may want better propulsors, as we no longer have
grav thrusters and heplar underwater can't be stealthed!  Suggestions?  (I
haven't had a chance to work on this yet.)  Remember to consider implications
and crossover effects.

7)  The Wet Navy calculations for speed etc. are still valid.  (They should
be: formulae created by a Royal navy ship designer!)  


I haven't covered everything, but this should get you going.

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

Date: Sat, 02 Sep 1995 22:58:07 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Help With Robot Design
Message-ID: <199509030258.WAA18305@chopin.udel.edu>


Okay, dumb question time.  I just wanted to know if someone out there
could tell me how much volume a human being displaces.  I want to
create a human-sized/shaped robot, but I don't know what kind of volume
we displace.

Thanks in advance.

        --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: Sat, 2 Sep 1995 22:22:38 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Help With Robot Design
Message-ID: <9509030422.AA05985@Rt66.com>

Hi, 
 
> Okay, dumb question time.  I just wanted to know if someone out there
> could tell me how much volume a human being displaces.  I want to
> create a human-sized/shaped robot, but I don't know what kind of volume
> we displace.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
>         --Jerry


I'd hazard about 0.06kl (for me, anyway :)

Figure that people are more or less water, so our density is one liter
per kilogram.  The denser stuff would balance with lower density stuff
(fat, for example) IMHO, so it should be close.

-Merrick


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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 07:36:12 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles
Message-ID: <199509030536.HAA06390@hasle.oslonett.no>

merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) wrote:

>So you're saying docking is impossible?  Or at least boarding.  
Neither are impossible. When you are at the site and controlling, and the 
target not dodging. The only reason you would miss would be that the pilot 
is a jam head.

>Besides if the missile is FIM, then the lag is only 1 second.  And as it 
>gets closer, the lag is less and less.  My KKM rules *require* a missile to
>have its own guidance for this very reason.  I never said hitting would
>be easy, just that it would not be impossible (as GDW says).
A FIM I suppose is a Full Independent Missile. Of course they will not 
experince any time lag as they approach the target. But a Impact missile 
would if it is remotely controlled.

A FIM with its own guidance is vulnerable on several points. If it is 
passive homing it can easily be lured off with a decoy. An active homing can 
be jammed, and it will be detected and shot before it comes too close.



>The scale may indeed be a bit off, but what if the missile isn't seen
>until it fits in the shorter range scale?  You seem to be saying a
>missile could never hit the target.  If the detection/launch range was
>30,000km instead of 300,000km (still with 200 km/s delta v) would it
>hit? 
What I say is remote controlled missiles would most likely miss their target 
if they had to physically hit the target. because you just can't predict 
where the target are going to be in two seconds or three seconds. A small 
ship with high gee capability would easily place its window wherever it 
wants. The controller has to guess where that window is. With other words 
you are shooting blind. If the lag was down to just a few tenths of a 
second, the situation would be different. And now I ain't talking about 
moving a few markers on a gameboard, but real life. In such an environment a 
detonation missile makes sense.
--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Roger Myhre   | myhre@oslonett.no | http://www.oslonett.no/home/myhre/
HIWGmember 142| Some people have one of those days, I got one of 
              | those lifes.
--------------+-------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 07:37:14 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles
Message-ID: <199509030537.HAA06410@hasle.oslonett.no>

merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) wrote:

>So you're saying docking is impossible?  Or at least boarding.  
Neither are impossible. When you are at the site and controlling, and the 
target not dodging. The only reason you would miss would be that the pilot 
is a jam head.

>Besides if the missile is FIM, then the lag is only 1 second.  And as it 
>gets closer, the lag is less and less.  My KKM rules *require* a missile to
>have its own guidance for this very reason.  I never said hitting would
>be easy, just that it would not be impossible (as GDW says).
A FIM I suppose is a Full Independent Missile. Of course they will not 
experince any time lag as they approach the target. But a Impact missile 
would if it is remotely controlled.

A FIM with its own guidance is vulnerable on several points. If it is 
passive homing it can easily be lured off with a decoy. An active homing can 
be jammed, and it will be detected and shot before it comes too close.
--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Roger Myhre   | myhre@oslonett.no | http://www.oslonett.no/home/myhre/
HIWGmember 142| Some people have one of those days, I got one of 
              | those lifes.
--------------+-------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Sun, 3 Sep 1995 00:30:26 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles
Message-ID: <9509030630.AA13881@Rt66.com>

Hi, 
 
> >So you're saying docking is impossible?  Or at least boarding.  
> Neither are impossible. When you are at the site and controlling, and the 
> target not dodging. The only reason you would miss would be that the pilot 
> is a jam head.

OK.  So in real life we agree that if one ship isn't moving around too
much the other can get close to being in the same place at the same
time.  
 
> >Besides if the missile is FIM, then the lag is only 1 second.  And as it 
> >gets closer, the lag is less and less.  My KKM rules *require* a missile
to
> >have its own guidance for this very reason.  I never said hitting would
> >be easy, just that it would not be impossible (as GDW says).

> A FIM I suppose is a Full Independent Missile. Of course they will not 
> experince any time lag as they approach the target. But a Impact missile 
> would if it is remotely controlled.
 
I didn't say it was remotely controlled.  But it might be semi-active
(launcher illuminates target).  In fact I said that they would have to
be FIMs (or SIMs as long as they did their own 'thinking' in the final
stages of the interceot).

> A FIM with its own guidance is vulnerable on several points. If it is 
> passive homing it can easily be lured off with a decoy. An active homing
can 
> be jammed, and it will be detected and shot before it comes too close.
 
OK, it can be jammed.  The point is traveller, though (albeit trying to
make it more realistic but still traveller).  What do jammers do in
traveller (or how can we make jammer/decoys in traveller distract such
missiles with a realistic frequency).  And if you say it can be shot,
I'll agree here, too.  I'll make my missiles full active, but not until
they're within a few tenths of a light second.  How many can you shoot?
I'll shoot one more.  If my missiles cost less than your ship I win
bigtime.  If they cost less than both our ships together I still win.  I
can buy about 5,000 impact missiles for the price of a Gazelle, you have
4 lasers and 30 minutes to get all of them :)  

One of the previous posts said that any missile would be seen if it were
bigger than a grape and metal...  that'd make the sensor active, what if
the missile is a anti-radiation missile?  At the very least these would
force your enemy not to use their active sensors.  Considering how
crappy passives are, that's a good trade..

> >The scale may indeed be a bit off, but what if the missile isn't seen
> >until it fits in the shorter range scale?  You seem to be saying a
> >missile could never hit the target.  If the detection/launch range was
> >30,000km instead of 300,000km (still with 200 km/s delta v) would it
> >hit? 
> What I say is remote controlled missiles would most likely miss their
target 
> if they had to physically hit the target. because you just can't predict 
> where the target are going to be in two seconds or three seconds. 

Lasers do in the game at 2 light seconds... 4 round trip sensor/laser
time.  They have a high ROF, though--- although you can hit at that kind
of range with an ROF of 5 shots in 30 minutes.  As for the prediction,
why not?  A 6g ship can change its position by 176.4 meters in 3
seconds.  Thats a ship radius or so for a battleship.  Enough for a
laser to miss, but not a couple thousand km wide cloud of BSD birdshot.
Remember as well that the weapon need not actually hit the target.  It
just detonates and spreads a cloud of pellets, the lower mass of the
individual pellets makes no difference as the KE goes as the velocity
squared, but linearly with shot mass.  3 seconds assumes the missiles
detonate within less than 1000km, however.

All that said, I agree that they would *most likely* miss.  But what
percentage will miss, that is the important question in the game
(especially when they'd cost 20-25 times less than det lasers).  

I think some would hit give that they have twice the delta v of a ship
for the short period of time it matters (the flight time to target).

>A small ship with high gee capability would easily place its window wherever
it
> wants. The controller has to guess where that window is. With other words 
> you are shooting blind. If the lag was down to just a few tenths of a 
> second, the situation would be different. And now I ain't talking about 
> moving a few markers on a gameboard, but real life. In such an environment
a 
> detonation missile makes sense.

Agreed, det lasers make sense.  The rules should make playing Kinetic
Kill Missiles inefficient if that is the way they'd be.  Instead the
rules ignore the possibility. Det-lasers go off at 0-2 tenths of a second
sensor lag (and 2 tenths is at TL17+).  That puts *any* missile within "a
few tenths of a second" situation.  What if the missile still has
10gturns left at that point?  I can remote controll the missile to
within 2 hexes, then turn it loose (after handing off a sensor lock) 
with a bunch of gturns to use.  My point is that if you can get a
missile to within 15,000km to detonate, I can get one to hit (if it
isn't spoofed or shot down) if it makes it to that point with a bunch of
fuel left and the ability to burn it fast.
 
If you think they'd work at shorter ranges, give me some ideas.  We know
they'll work at hundreds of km for sure.  If they work within a couple
tenths of a light second then fighters have a reason to exist---they can
carry fully ind. KKMs to within a hex or two, then let 'em loose.

-Merrick

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

Date: Sun, 03 Sep 1995 15:15:15 -1600
From: Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Oops!!!
Message-ID: <9509030713.AA26517@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

Sorry about the mispost...bloody clumsy fingers again!
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 400
***************************
