Traveller-digest     Wednesday, August 25 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1015



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Experience System 
Re: GT Weapons Question
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Strephon and Iris 
Re: Re Bagpipes 
Re: Experience System 
Re: Will the real Strephon..... 
Re: Oops 
RE: Streamlining
Re: GT Weapons Question
[BITS] The Famille have arrived 
[BITS] GenCon UK 99 - A Week and Counting
Re: Bureaucrats (was re: Puzzling Sig)
re: Longbow II
re:Atlantis class redesign
Re: Grav Pong
GT Bridge design questions

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

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:36:38 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

>No, according to the combat rules a ship can do _at least_ a 180 degree
turn -- you just can't measure more than 180 degrees.


Why not?

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

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:45:57 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

> Part I:
>> The main problem is not being torn apart by the winds (which are faster
>> than the 35 mph being bandied about here) aloft,  it's being torn apart
by the aerodynamic forces acting on the hull once tumbling begins.  Once
tumbling begins, the ship is subjected to air pressure based on its speed
relative to the air around it.
>
>While the winds can be significantly faster than that, the high speed winds
are also mostly at high altitudes and thus significantly lower pressure.  In
any case, we're mostly talking about landing under contragravity, at quite
low speeds.  Given the overall structural strength of a typical traveller
starship, being torn apart is essentially a nonissue, if you can evade at 6
Gs you're way too tough to worry about being damaged by wind.


As we all seem to agree, the problem indeed isn't the risk of being torn
apart by the winds. The winds just start the tumbling process which, unless
the craft is stable (we're assuming not being stable is part of what makes
it USL) or is actively stabilised by a system with sufficiently high thrust
and low latency to compensate in real time (again, I'd assume this wouldn't
normally be present on a USL ship although it *could* be installed in
theory) can increase substantially - enough to tear a craft apart.  I've
seen aircraft type-test simulations which illustrate this quite nicely.

Modern fighters are capable of withstanding 7-9G evasive manoevring if the
aerodynamic forces are carefully controlled (ie direct pull-up) but it's
still possible for one to shred itself in flight in the event of a
catastrophic control failure. Or, of course, to fall out of the sky
altogether - equally catastrophic.

>> Part II:
>> A lot less force is required to rotate an object around its center of
mass
>> than it does to start the object moving in a straight line (hint:  you
are not accellerating the entire mass equally, the center is hardly being
accellerated at all).  Anybody feel up to calculating torques and moments of
revolution?
>
>Nah, it requires a different kind of force.  It's true that a strangely
shaped ship (close or open structure) will be subject to substantial torque,
but many unstreamlined ships are basically shaped like large bricks, and
aren't going to be terribly unstable.


Keeping this scientific, it doesn't require a different kind of force to
turn a body at all. It requires a moment, which is just a force applied at a
distance from a pivot (in this case, the centre of mass).

On a second point - a brick is not an aerodynamically stable shape. Compare
a paper dart in flight with a brick in flight. If the nose of both is lifted
slightly, the dart's nose will be flipped back down again by aerodynamic
forces (it is stable in that configuration) whereas the brick's nose will
not.

NB

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

Nick Bradbeer writes:
> >No, according to the combat rules a ship can do _at least_ a 180 degree
> turn -- you just can't measure more than 180 degrees.
> 
> 
> Why not?

Well, you only measure heading at the end of a turn.  Your heading, from beginning to end of turn, cannot change by more than 180 degrees -- because a 270 degree change is a 90 degree change in the other direction.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:59:16 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

>Nick Bradbeer writes:
>> >No, according to the combat rules a ship can do _at least_ a 180 degree
>> turn -- you just can't measure more than 180 degrees.
>>
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Well, you only measure heading at the end of a turn.  Your heading, from
beginning to end of turn, cannot change by more than 180 degrees -- because
a 270 degree change is a 90 degree change in the other direction.


True, your scalar heading change cannot exceed 180 degrees, but (for
example) a 270-degree turn is a widely used way of describing a 90 degree
turn taken the long way around.


I take it you never skateboarded? :)

NB

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:52:53 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Experience System 

> From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>

> >Thing is, the 'wanker' isn't active, it's passive.
> 
> I'm sorry??  Tell me that's an obscure piece of US slang, please.....<g>

No, sorry, it's British, not US (or, as Churchill put it, we are one one
people divided by a common language).

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:03:18 -0400
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com>
Subject: Re: GT Weapons Question

Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:

> Subject: Re: GT Weapons Question
> 
> Errr, ummm, NO.
> 
> All those units predate the metric system. Their SI _definitions_ are
> based on metric measurements (mks system or maybe cgs, I forget which),
> as are joules,ergs, etc, but the only truly _metric_ system units are
> meters (distance) or grams (mass).
> 
> One definition of an ampere, in fact, is a _chemical_ term: one amp = 1
> mole of electrons, 6.02 x 10^23 electrons.

Ugh, where's my copy of Halliday & Resnick when I need it...

My failing memory seems to recall that an amp is defined in terms of the
current required to achieve a certain attractive (or repulsive) force in
a pair of wires of a given size suspended a certain distance apart... it's
too damn hard to measure all those electrons zipping by.

Ah-ha! All praise AltaVista... from
http://www.sp.se/pne/ElectricalMetrology/ElMeteng/dccurrent.htm :

The ampere is that constant current which, when maintained in two parallel
infinitely long rectilinear conductors of negligible circular section placed
at a distance of 1 metre apart in vacuum, produces between these conductors a
force of 2x10-7 newton per metre length.

Everything comes back to meters, seconds and kilograms, eventually.
- --
Ethan Henry                                            egh@klg.com
Java Evangelist, KL Group                       http://www.klg.com

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:11:33 CEST
From: "Patrik Holmström" <glappkaeft@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

>And trying to weasle out by saying "but the computer will compensate"
>requires that the computer have been programmed *in advance* with the
>aerodynamic properties of the ship. Which, since *by definition* USL
>ships are never intended to land seems more than a little unlikely.

Isn't this a bit of a circular argument. If you intend a USL ship to
land you must surly have programmed the computer. Not that I would
like to be in a USL ship attempting to land in either case.  Maybe we should 
compare the risk of landing USL ships with the (rigid) Zeppelins of the 30is 
and 40is. Usually safe but not a good idea under some (most) conditions.

</serious>
Clearly this outrageous practise of operation of unsafe starships must be a 
flagrant breach of the Imperial Safety Regulation on the Operation of 
Atmospheric Craft. (or ISRotOoAC for short)
<serious>

Maybe we should split streamlining into two steps.
1. USL, SL or AF.
2. Landing or no landing.

Oh and while I remember it:
Shouldn't FFS allow for designs with limited access space say for example 
fighters. You could ump the effective volume by say 25-50%, increase repair 
time and/or diff mods (having to use access panels or remove the parts). 
Maybe a size limit on the ship.

What do you think?

Patrik Holmström <glappkaeft@hotmail.com>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:09:35 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Strephon and Iris 

> > From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
> 
> > Considering that Longbow II was partially psionic in nature, and it was Imperial policy to stomp on psionics, I'd say it
> > was something *too* serious to trust outside of the 'need to know' circle.  Remember, Longbow II detected the Empress Wave
> > inbound.  That's pretty serious, IMNSFBHO.
> 
> Yep. And still Tranian at least should have known it. Unless he was 
> a convinced anti-psionics type in private as well as in public.
> 
> > Also, Lucan and Varian were never considered to be viable candidates for the Throne, thus were only given the *basics*. 
> > If something had happened to Iphegenia, this 'oversight' would have been corrected of course.
> 
> Hmmmm.... was VARIAN taught only the basics? Is there a source for 
> that bit of data? He was *before* Lucan, so maybe it was just Lucan 
> who was left to himself... and maybe that's the reason he got jealous 
> enough to want to usurpe Varian's right.

Varian's training was a guess on my part.  Lucan's training is canonical.

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:46:58 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Re Bagpipes 

> >Ha! Everyone knows Imperial Marines route the enemies of the 3I to the
> >strains of war bagpipes.
> >
> Not IMTU.... Bagpipes are the Scouts weapon for chasing savages away...
> (Scouts/Scots... who can tell?)

Scouts don't wear kilts.  Unless they're from Caledon, of course...

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:42:07 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Experience System 

> >> Before you start making bad puns, remember that Gil Hamilton's in the
> middle
> >> of an asteroid ring right now with at least three active Zhodani ships
> and
> >> one that's acting decidedly funny nearby......
> >
> >Thing is, the 'wanker' isn't active, it's passive.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry??  Tell me that's an obscure piece of US slang, please.....<g>

Nope.  Brit slang.  I was refering to the ship that made us go into stealth mode.

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:41:18 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Will the real Strephon..... 

> >My main complaint about Virus is, it leveled the field *too* well and
> implemented a nearly undefeatable enemy in the process.
> 
> 
> I like giving players nearly undefeatable enemies (expect to come across one
> in SVL eventually). Giving them anything less doesn't stretch them enough.

There's 'nearly undefeatable' and there's 'nearly undefeatable'.  Somebody 
who's highly connected to the local politics and can get away with just about 
anything is one thing.  An entity that takes the death of hudreds to 
thousands to defeat is another.

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:35:56 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Oops 

> "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com> writes:
> 
> >> I apologize for the duplicate messages, my site just went from
> >> an OpenVMS Mail server to a Microsoft Exchange mail server,
> >> there appear to be a few bugs left to work out.
> >That's what they get for using WindowsNT.
> >And people wonder why we call it 'Windows *NOT TODAY*'!!!!!
> 
> And Windows 2000 will be Windows Oh-Oh! ;-)
> 
> Don't mention NT please - it gave me some specific problems writing/editing
> 101 Patrons...

Now you know why I'm happy they ported Word Perfect to Linux.  Just wish
they'd get their fingers out and port Paradox over, too.

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:44:04 -0400
From: Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca>
Subject: RE: Streamlining

Juliean Galak writes:
>>         1) non-streamlined ships are unstable in atmosphere and
>>            require specific software to fly
>I'm still not convinced of that, although between Leonard's analysis of 
>wind force and my analysis of maneuvering thrusters, it seems more an
>more likely...

	I'm not totally convinced either, but at the very least it's
	not much of a hand-wave.

>>         2) even with this software, unstreamlined ships in
>>            atmosphere move slowly and are unable to handle stormy
>>            weather
>That's ok, IMHO that's not a major factor for civilian operations (when a 
>jump takes a week, a few hours on either end aren't _that_ 
>significant.  I'm not talking courier work here)

	It depends on just how slow the ship has to move, and how deep
	the atmosphere is.  And the weather issue remains.

>>         3) landing unstreamlined ships requires special docking
>>            facilities on the ground that are specific to that
>>            particular class of ship (and may also require special
>>            modifications to the ship).
>Again, that's ok.  A given spaceline would standardize to one type of
>ships and need only one type of cradle.

	What this does mean is that only dedicated ships on
	established routes could make use of this option.  It
	doesn't allow for much flexibility, and effectively
	leaves out most PC's.

>>         4) using a highport with connecting shuttles is more cost-
>>            effective, entails less risk to the ship, shortens the
>>            turn-around time, and makes it much easier to load/
>>            unload
>Now that I have trouble buying.  You are talking about putting in a whole 
>additional infrastructure - highports, shuttles, orbital refueling,
>living quarters, etc...

	I'm assumimg that the highport is not built just for this
	purpose.  Appart from the military considerations, where do
	these unstreamlined ships get built?  It may even be cheap to
	build streamlined ships in free-fall.  How are the 
	unstreamlined ships that don't fit the landing gantries in
	the downport going to load/unload/refuel?   IMTU there are
	also tugs which are used to push around all sorts of stuff
	(wrecks, asteroids, cargo containers, etc.), and some of 
	these most definitely cannot enter the atmosphere with their
	load: the highport is the only option.  On some planets there
	may be other reasons to use the highport, such as insidious
	atmospheres, high G, political considerations, etc.

>>         With this approach, the PC's could try to enter an atmosphere
>>         with an unstreamlined ship in extremis, but there will be risk
>>         involved and landing would tend to be a one-way affair.
>If a landing is possible, the takeoff shouldn't be any difficult...

	That depends on the condition of the ship after landing ;-)

>Again, I recognize the fact that in the OTU the highport/interface craft 
>model is the one used.  I'm just trying to figure out why...

	I'm with you there, and am just throwing out some ideas as
	they gurggle up.  One possible approach is to rule that
	unstreamlined ships do indeed land on well used routes in
	certain parts of the galaxy.  Perhaps the Zhodani favour that
	system while the Imperium does not.  Hmmm... that's 
	interesting...

Peez

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:50:23 -0500
From: "Bont" <felix@felixcafe.com>
Subject: Re: GT Weapons Question

> Bruce Johnson writes:
> > One definition of an ampere, in fact, is a _chemical_ term: one amp = 1
> > mole of electrons, 6.02 x 10^23 electrons.
> 
> That would be mol, not mole, and is also a SI unit (1 mol is a number of
> grams of a material equal to its molecular weight)
> 

If I remember my Basic Electricity and Electronics courses, one 
amp is produced by one coulomb of electrons passing a given point 
in 1 second.  I "believe" there 6.24 x 10^18 electrons in one 
coulomb.  One electron has the charge of  1.602 x 10^(-19) 
coulomb so the inverse of this gives the first number.  

Wow!  Those energy weapons pump out a lot of electrons!

- - - -
FELIX (Thomas L Bont)

- - Encrypt your messages!
  That way only the government knows what you wrote!

- - It is truly the wise man that knows what he doesn't!

- - With your shield or on it ... (Old Spartan Blessing)

- - Fidelitas super omnia, honore excepto

- - Help Stop Forest Fires.  Outlaw Matches.

Be sure to visit The FELIX Cafe at
     http://www.felixcafe.com/

- - - -

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:00:09 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: [BITS] The Famille have arrived 

BITS - British Isles Traveller Support

...is proud to announce the arrival of possibly the most dangerous Acrobat
PDF file ever to the BITS Website at http://www.bits.org.uk/

*Do the names Winiipitaa, Niipita Indifar, Shidaar and Hengabar mean
anything to you?

*Is Moonshine something you drink?

*Was Caligula Roman?

*Can a Pogo Stick reach orbit?

If the answers are 'No', 'Yes', 'Yes' and 'No' to you then you need to
visit BITS on the archive page and download the Complete Famille Spofulam
Winter 1997 Catalogue.

All the products from:
Famille Spofulam Yards, LIC
Famille Spofulam Yards, Weapons Division
Famille Spofulam Toys & Games
Famille Spofulam Gravitic Transports
Famille Spofulam Armaments
Famille Spofulam Mail-Order Martial Arts Equipment

Compiled by Roderick Darroch Elliot, Aide to Hengabar Spofulam, founder of
Famille Spofulam, the Imperium's leading design house.

Ships.

Vehicles.

Guns.

More Guns.

And the "Other".

BITS - http://www.bits.org.uk/ Terran Agents for Famille Spofulam Yards.

Note: this is Roderick's compiled collection of designs he produced when he
created the Famille and was active on the TML. He has very kindly allowed
us to host the material.

Dom (BITS webmaster)


- -------------Dom Mooney---webmaster@bits.org.uk----------------
                 BITS - British Isles Traveller Support.
 http://www.bits.org.uk/              mailto:bits@bits.org.uk
Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
GURPS is a registered trademark of Steve Jackson Games, Inc.
BITS and CORE are trademarks of BITS UK Limited.
All rights reserved.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:06:34 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: [BITS] GenCon UK 99 - A Week and Counting

BITS - British Isles Traveller Support

http://www.bits.org.uk/

A week is left before GenCon UK 99, and we continue preparing the planned
launch of three new books for Traveller, the running of a stand in the
trade hall, and a large number of demos and tournaments.

Want a space to play Traveller? Drop us a line and if you're happy to run a
demo game, we'll find the people.

Want to play? Try a demo, or the tournaments 'Delta 3 is Down', 'the return
of the SpaceDogs' and 'the Fun' tournament.

If you want to try running Brilliant Lances, MayDay or one of the other
Traveller games because you've had the box on your shelves for years, come
and see us and we'll try and get you introduced to like minded players. We
plan to run Traveller Full Thrust in a final set of Playtests, and ACQ may
also figure.

If you're going, and you want to help promoting Traveller, drop me a line!

Dom (BITS webmaster)

- -------------Dom Mooney---webmaster@bits.org.uk----------------
                 BITS - British Isles Traveller Support.
 http://www.bits.org.uk/              mailto:bits@bits.org.uk
Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
GURPS is a registered trademark of Steve Jackson Games, Inc.
BITS and CORE are trademarks of BITS UK Limited.
All rights reserved.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:23:49 GMT
From: jzeitlin@cyburban.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Subject: Re: Bureaucrats (was re: Puzzling Sig)

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:07:36 -0400 (EDT), "Matthew Bond"
<mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk> wrote:

(In reply to Leonard Ericson)

>Ahh, but it wouldn't be on official paper, the layout wouldn't conform to
>regulations, the form doesn't exist on the authorised database etc etc ad
>infinitum / nauseum.

>After all, to any bureaucrat worth his pension, the *only* bureaucracy the
>exist is the one he/she/it is in.  Any attempt to get them to sign *an
>offworlder's* (shudder) documentation will simply result in being presented
>with a application form for an appointment with the bureau of
>xenobureaucracy.

Now, why am I seeing an image of "duelling forms"...?

>Your post has been lodged with the appropriate authorities and will be
>considered carefully before rejection.

I'm sorry, you must fill out form QK78-M32 (Sub 3, Rev
1106-B-1-F) "Request for Authorization of Post-Posting Post
Rejection" before rejecting any posted posts.  Until this form is
correctly filled out and properly submitted, your post-posting
rejection of the post in question must be rejected.
- --
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin@cyburban.com

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:19:23 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: Longbow II

Dan.Haag@midata.com writes:

>What is Longbow II?

Please go with the nice men in Black Battledress ;-)





<Spoiler>










A top secret sequal to LongBow 1, which was a massive (multiparsec) sensor
array used to spy on the Zhodani. It doesn't exist as far as the Imperial
populace is concerned.

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: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:06:01 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: re:Atlantis class redesign

>the Atlantis is 
>equiped with enough life pods to support the full crew (six pods 
>support 24 people, enough for the crew and a squad of RATs). 

Why so many?

A single 5DT long term life pod should be able to support 12 people (5DT SL,
cockpit, 0.5 manouver, 3 low berths, 12 seats).

>The lasers, however, are large single-barreled weapons giving
>the Atlantis a long range energy punch.

Could you post the design details please?

>The harshest criticism of the Atlantis is its armor - or more
>properly, the lack of armor.

You could use advanced armour to lighten the ship, and allow more armor for the
same performance.

You could use a heavy or a very heavy frame to double or quadruple hit points.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:06:46 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: Re: Grav Pong

> Of course, once a ship has no offensive
> weapons or maneuver drives, taking out the plant will be pretty trivial...

Except most systems should have battery backup, and batteries are all over the
ship, so Grav Pong is still an option. I also put a few minutes battery backup
in all my thruster modules.

Also sneaky is powering up the missile rectionless thrusters inside the turrets.
In GT they have 1800 lbs of thrust each and there are 77 in a magazine so
potentially they could move you at a small fraction of a G for an hour, or
simply give you an unpredictable spin. Just remember to turn the self-detonation
warhead off!. Hmm, how hard is a hardpoint?

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:08:10 +0100
From: John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>
Subject: GT Bridge design questions

I have been trying to duplicate the bridge modules in GT using Gurps Vehicles. 
The price tags I get are significantly higher than the GT book price.

For GTL10 bridges I calculate figures around:

Cockpit   3 MCr (GT 2.5)
Basic     6 MCr (GT 4.0)
Command  11 MCr (GT 9.6)

In particular the AESA & PESA costs alone exceed the book price of the bridge.
I have allowed for the ten times range factor for non-atmosphere use and the
long range price formula but I cannot make them match. 

e.g. GTL10 Basic bridge (GT price : MCr 4.0)

Item       Range   lbs   cf     Cr        kw  comments
AESA       10000  7500  150  2,625,000  2500  ten times range in space
PESA        3000  3000   60  2,800,000     0  ten times range in space
Radscanner  2000  2500   50    525,000     0

So nearly MCr 6 for the sensors alone.

What am I missing?

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1015
***********************************

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
