From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Mar 11 00:21:32 1991
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA03506) Mon, 11 Mar 91 00:20:36 EST
Received: from tektronix.tek.com by RELAY.CS.NET id aa28849; 11 Mar 91 0:02 EST
Received: by tektronix.TEK.COM (5.51/7.1)
	id AA11450; Sun, 10 Mar 91 21:03:01 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA07595; Sun, 10 Mar 91 21:01:20 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.0/7.1)
	id AA22358; Sun, 10 Mar 91 21:01:11 PST
Message-Id: <9103110501.AA22358@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: Dan Corrin <dan%engrg.uwo.ca@RELAY.CS.NET>,
        Chuck McKnight <mcknight@TUSUN2.MCS.UTULSA.EDU>,
        "James T. Perkins" <jamesp%metolius.wr.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET>
Subject: TML Bundle #175: Msgs 2194-2209
Reply-To: TML Administrator <traveller-request%metolius.wr.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET>
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 91 21:01:10 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp%metolius.wr.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET>
Status: RO


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Mar 10 21:01:06 PST 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #175: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
2195  05-Mar-91 gsw@moss.att.COM  RE: holocrystals << In TML subject 2188, Mark
2196  06-Mar-91 wilson m liaw     Re: (2193) Challenge Mag and GDW << > Bad new
2197  06-Mar-91 sfellows@slate.Mi Holographic Crystal Memory << Jerry Williams 
2198  06-Mar-91 Bob Koester       Planetary Armed Forces << In a recent note, R
2199  06-Mar-91 "Robert S. Dean"  Cargo Transportation << Does anyone know offh
2200  07-Mar-91 gsw@moss.att.COM  Re: Holographic Crystal Memory << In TML arti
2201  07-Mar-91 09nilles%cuavax.d Re: Holo Crystals << > 4) A company would nev
2202  07-Mar-91 METLAY@vms.cis.pi Crystals << My standard for crystal storage a
2203  07-Mar-91 METLAY@vms.cis.pi cargo containers << Generally the movement of
2204  07-Mar-91 "Robert S. Dean"  Re: (2198) Planetary Armed Forces << > In a r
2205  07-Mar-91 "Robert S. Dean"  Cargo Haulers << I *think* 4 displacement ton
2206  07-Mar-91 "Robert S. Dean"  TL10 Navies << I have been working very inter
2207  08-Mar-91 Jo Jaquinta       Containerised Cargo << Despite the new found 
2208  08-Mar-91 Marc Alexandrovic Planetary Armed Forces and Navies, etc << To 
2209  08-Mar-91 Bob Koester       Planetary Armed Forces << Regarding RSD's fur
2210  08-Mar-91 wew@naucse.cse.na Hello! << I've just joined the list and am ve

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2195
From: gsw@moss.att.COM (Jerry Williams)
Subject: RE: holocrystals
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 91 13:08:55 EST

In TML subject 2188, Mark Cook writes:

> In TML subject 2186, woodsb@ecn.purdue.edu (Brent L. Woods) writes:
> 
> >      What's the data capacity of a holocrystal?  [ ... ]
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> Given these boundary conditions (pixel depth, image dimensions, and
> number of frames per second), we can estimate the amount of storage
> neccessary for 5 hours of continuous visual data.  Figure 24-bit pixels
> in a 1024x1024 image, scanned 60 times per second, and you end up with
> 1,509,949,440 bits of data per second.  Multiply that by the number of
> seconds in 5 hours (18,000) and you get 2.7179 x 10^13 bits of data.
> 
> [ ... ]

Whoa!  A holocrystal holds 5 hours of HOLOGRAPHIC video.  I think the
parallel soundtrack is nothing compared to the fact that this data is
3-D.  The picture is likely to be 1024x1024x1024.  Multiply that number
by another 3 orders of magnitude to get 2.7831 x 10^16 bits (3,240,000
Gigabytes) if the data is uncompressed.

> 
> Regarding the compression of image data, I offer only one tantalizing
> point.  Recent date compression reseach has demonstrated that very
> complex natural images (a fern, a tree, a mountain skyline) can be
> reduced to a single factal equation for storage, and then reproduced
> in total detail, with no loss of resolution.  Optimists suggest that,
> eventually, more sophisticated methods will be found which allow ANY
> image to be stored in fractal form.  This form of compression results
> in a storage space reduction several magnitudes of order smaller than
> the original image.  The current drawback is that discerning the correct
> storage fractal is very hit-and-miss, and deriving it is extremely
> time-consuming.  Some images fail to be fractally compressed.
> 

Actually, fractals are really just the beginning.  There are many amazing
compression techniques which are just being developed now.  For instance,
you can time-compress pictures for a tremendous savings, and without
using nearly as much CPU time as fractalizing would take.  For example,
you might fractally draw a picture once, then move regions of the picture
from frame to frame.  Any compression technique like this would incorporate
a way to patch the new frame, so that you can optimize between drawing new
parts of the picture and moving the old ones.

You could also get even better compression ratios with 3-D fractal 
expansion (although not enough to out-weigh the fact that the picture is
3-D as opposed to 2-D).  There are many other compression techniques, too.
For instance, you could take advantage of things such as locality of color,
which might let you use 8 bits instead of 24 bits (or something like that)
to represent colors).

We could also probably assume that maximum compression is available, no
matter how much processing power is needed.  Computers are bound to be
pretty fast by that time (even hand-comps).

The question remains -- how much compression can we get?  Uncompressed,
the images might take 3 million billion bytes.  I can't tell you how
much all of the compression techniques give you, but lets assume that
fractalizing gives you a 32 K to 1 savings, time-compression gives you
a 128 to 1 savings, and various other methods such as color-compression
give you a further 32 to 1 savings.  Wow!  Already down to 25,920,000
bytes!  Of course, this is a very rough estimate, but entirely feasible.
Also, this would be an AVERAGE.  You could get better or worse
compression depending on what you're recording.  Hopefully, compression
techniques will have advanced enough to cover just about all cases by
then.

> [ ... ]
> 
> I don't know about you, but I always assumed that these crystals were
> about half the size of a standard domino.  Considering that modern
> high-density 3.5" floppy discs can already hold over 1 Mb. of data,
> This only represents a 2 order of magnitude improvement in data storage
> density, which doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me.
>

Well, 3 1/2" CD-ROMs can hold 250 MB of data.  Assuming they use the
outer 3/4" band to store data (remember that they are only 1 3/4" in
radius), they have about 6 1/2" of surface ares.  A square inch of
surface area would thus hold 40,330,000 bytes of information.  If you
think of it as a square of bits, thats 6350 bytes per side, or 20,000
bits per cm.  Well, that's 8 x 10^12 bytes (7450 Gigabytes, or
6.4 x 10^13 bits), for a 1x2x4 cm chunk, assuming that all else is the
same as today except we use 3-D crystals instead of 2-D disk storage.

In any event, that's 300,000 times the size I (optimistically)
estimated as required for storage.  You could assume that the (usable)
crystal is 1/40 of a cm on a side.  Or, you could assume that data
compression techniques are much less efficient.

One thing you DON'T want to do, however, is to assume that you can
store 3,240,000 Gigabytes on a crystal.  You can't.  Compression simply
lets you store video, which, if uncompressed, would take 3,240,000
Gigabytes to store.  Pure DATA compression is an entirely different
matter, and in most cases can't come anywhere near the ratios that you
can get with video.

> 
> If we assume that one of these 5-hour holo-crystals is 1x2x4 cm., then
> the total number of them in a cubic meter of crystal would be 100 x 50
> x 25, or 125,000.  If we assume that each crystal can hold 2.7179 x
> 10^13 bits of data, before fractal compression, then you have 3.3974 x
> 10^18 bits of storage per cubic meter.  Since volume of a sphere is
> stated as 4/3 pi R^3, where R (in this case) is 50,000 meters, the
> total volume of a 100 Km. diameter sphere is 5.2360 x 10^14 cubic
> meters.  Multiply that by the storage capacity per cubic meter, and
> you have a total storage capacity of 1.7789 x 10^33 bits.
> 

Again, remember that fractal and other video compression methods do not
apply to pure data.  You might be able to get this kind of storage, but
take data compression out of the picture.

Using my CD-ROM model, I got 8 x 10^18 bits (931,000,000 Gigabytes)
per cubic meter, for a total of 4.19 x 10^33 bits (4.88 x 10^24
Gigabytes) for the entire sphere.  You could probably increase this
with data compression as well, but probably on the order of 2 to 10
times, not the same level that you can get with video.

In any event:

o There is more data to store than you thought.  I'm pretty sure that
  the intention was for the images to be 3-D.

o I think that data compression may be able to more than make up for
  it (but who knows).

o Don't take fractal compression into consideration when considering
  how much data a crystal can store.  This merely means you can store
  more video using the same amount of data.

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

Jerry Williams
gsw@moss.att.com

#include <std.disclaimer>

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2196
From: wilson m liaw <macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: (2193) Challenge Mag and GDW
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 2:57:30 EST

> Bad news, because I just sent in a subscription which I thought would last
> a year.  Even though the subscription was paid by using gift certificates
> it looks like I will have to renew in August.  They also mistakenly sent me
> 47 on my subscription, which I told them I already have.  Oh well, I'll
> just give it to one of my players.

        No, I do believe the year subscription is still a year even though
they are going monthly. At least, it's so according to my address lable.
 
                                Mac

Wilson MacGyver                      | In every heart, there is a time machine
Internet:macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu | if you believe in your memeory. Trace
=====================================| every place you've been, you know what
Disclaimer:All opinions are mine only| it means.    -Encouragement from Martika



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

Archive-Message-Number: 2197
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 91 11:58:19 -0700
From: sfellows@slate.Mines.Colorado.EDU (FELLOWS STEVEN B)
Subject: Holographic Crystal Memory

Jerry Williams discussed Holographic data storage in the kind of 
detail that I like.  But one other thing should be mentioned:

Packaging

The crystal itself could be 1/40 cm on a side, but fit into a package
the size of a domino.  I could see that customers would want this for
several reasons:

1)  If it is too small, it can be easily lost.

2)  It needs to be protected from harmful elements:  atmospheres, rain,
dust, and coffee to name a few.  (How many of you drink coffee or something
else while you are at the computer?)

Also, the crystal could be made of a material that easily dissolves, and
thus moisture in the air would ruin the surface.

3)  Big enough so that a label can be placed on it.  (Important!!!! Would
not want to load "Debbie Does Gushemegga"  by accident instead of "Fluffy 
goes to the Circus" when showing it to the kids.


4)  A company would never sell a tremendous amount of data storage.  They
want their customers to continue buying their product, so give them 5
hours.  Thus, the chip could be very small, allowing more to be sold per
production unit.  One could say this makes the company more profit, but
more importantly it keeps the cost of the product down (remember your
supply and demand curves , and rate of return from economics?).


Can anyone else think of other reasons why a small chip would be placed in
larger package?  The package could still be the size of a domino, but I
would imagine it would be a little bigger, for the above reasons.  This
would not apply to computers, but then they also might have a special
packaging for the memory.  Remember, the company who manufacturers the
computer might buy its memory cells from the Holographic company.  The
Holographic company might make special memory cells (hold more data because
they are bigger) but they might still include them in some sort of package
for protection.

Steven B. Fellows
sfellows@slate.mines.colorado.edu



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

Archive-Message-Number: 2198
Date:    Wed, 06 Mar 91 13:07 CST
From: Bob Koester <ASTRJKPA@UIAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:  Planetary Armed Forces

   In a recent note, Robert S. Dean asked whether high-tech worlds would
bother having ground forces, since such worlds are not likely to see
large ground battles, and whether low-tech worlds would bother having forces
at all, since they would not be of much use against attack from higher-tech
neighbors.
   Dealing with the high-tech case first, remember that in the world today
most national armies exist with the primary function of either protecting
the government from its own citizens or for controlling the government.  Very
few nations have the ability to conduct protracted military operations beyond
their own borders.  Thus ground forces for internal security could be very
sizeable, and not just in a balkanized situation.  Governments in which the
military is the final judge of political conflict (a la Chile, Argentina,
Brazil), governments where the military is split along political lines and
thereby maintains some sort of balance of power (China, perhaps), governments
where different military branches are an important part of the federal system
(USA), all of these would necesitate sizeable ground forces even if there was
no threat from outside.  This ignore governments of planets in rebellion and
pure military government, as well as feudal government.
   I myself wondered about the utility of low-tech armed forces for a while,
but now think I have a justification for them.  They are there to protect
the planet from casual interference, not from determined attack.  Think about
the walls that midieval towns had, and the town levies.  Not particularly
useful against military attack, but useful against bandits, pirates, and
roving vagabonds (i.e. most traveller players).  They also perform(ed) an
important psychological role when dealing with higher authority, giving the
people a certain sense of independence.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2199
Date:     Wed, 6 Mar 91 16:57:48 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Cargo Transportation

Does anyone know offhand what the size of an Imperial Standard cargo container
is?  I was toying with the idea of working out the designs for the Tl12-Tl15
equivalents of semi-trucks, cargo aricraft, railroads, or whatever.  There is
a design in 101 Vehicles for a 200ton monster reminiscent of the contra-grav
ships from H. Beam Piper's COSMIC COMPUTER (or JUNKYARD PLANET, if you prefer).
That might well be economically feasible, but I suspect there would still be
a market for something in the 10-20 displacement ton line--I've got a pre-
liminary version of a TL13 10 ton vehicle, which ends up with 8 dt's of
usable volume--2 3x3x6 meter 4 ton containers worth.

Would cargo really move in human-driven vehicles, or would it be better to
move bulk goods around in robotic railway systems?  That would keep it out
of the sky being used by Joe Traveller in his family air/raft.

Any opinions?

Rob Dean



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

Archive-Message-Number: 2200
From: gsw@moss.att.COM (Jerry Williams)
Subject: Re: Holographic Crystal Memory
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 9:54:12 EST

In TML article (2197), Steven Fellows writes:

> Packaging
> 
> The crystal itself could be 1/40 cm on a side, but fit into a package
> the size of a domino.  I could see that customers would want this for
> several reasons:

Yes, that was what I meant by saying that the (usable) crystal might be
only 1/40 cm on a side.  Look at modern ICs.  The "brains" of the chip
are often less than a cm on a side.

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

> Can anyone else think of other reasons why a small chip would be placed in
> larger package?  The package could still be the size of a domino, but I
> would imagine it would be a little bigger, for the above reasons.

I can think of several reasons:

o It would be difficult to put a 1/40 cm crystal into a computer and
  expect it to line up perfectly so that it could be read.  You would,
  in the very least, need something to align the crystal.

o There might be some kind of mechanism for actually GETTING TO the
  data on the crystal.  This could be as simple as a lens, or as
  complicated as a laser read/write head.

o By using a standard exterior size, you could package different size
  (in MB storage) crystals into the same (physical) size package.
  Similar to the way you have double versus high-density disks.  This
  would let the same computer read any size crystal (especially if the
  crystals contain their own read/write heads) without requiring a new
  holocrystal reader.

o There's also aesthetics.  Everyone thinks of a holocrystal as a
  "crystal".  The packaging might actually be more "crystal"-looking
  than the crystal itself is.  It could also come in different colors
  or shapes.

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

The lens I mentioned earlier gives me an idea of how to label the
crystals.  The label itself could be tiny, embedded in the crystal,
but a lens on the holocrystal could make it readable to human eyes.
You'd probably have to use a machine to label the crystals, but who
cares?

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

By the way, if you're interested, here's my idea of a holocrystal:

  Holocrystals in general look like crystals.  They come in all colors
  and shapes, but all crystals have a 2 cm square base,  You can look
  into this base to read the label on the crystal.  To attach the
  crystal to a holo-reader, simply "plug" the crystal into it.  It
  attaches itself magnetically (or something similar to magnetically),
  and lines itself up this way.  Some crystals actually contain several
  "programs".  You can access the different ones by either turning the
  crystal (allowing up to four programs), or attaching a different base
  (if the crystal has multiple bases).  This would be mostly used for
  video (computers could access the crystal randomly), but would have
  other uses (Corporal Flak, switch the computer to auto-evade! 8-).

  The holoreader would be either covered while not in use or would use
  some advanced technology to keep itself free from dust.  I prefer the
  latter, since the crystals could use the same technology.

  Military holocrystals tend to look more like dominoes, with the base
  occupying 1/2 of the face of the domino.  They can also contain as
  may as four programs, but usually only do this by having four bases.
  They would probably be color-coded so it would be abvious which
  program was currently running.

  Civilian holocrystals more often look like cubes or pyramids, but
  come in a variety of shapes, including the "1/2 domino" compact
  crystal which is very popular for use with hand-comps.  The cube
  shape is popular among video libraries, since it can contain as
  many as 24 "programs", although those who can afford a large
  number of crystals more often use pyramids, which are a bit easier
  to keep track of (especially if they are color-coded).

  Military crystal (showing one base):

           .-------.
          /       /|
         /       / |
        /       / /
       /_______/ /
      / ....  /|/
     / ....  /|/
    / ....  / /
   / ....  / /
  .-------. /
  |       |/
  |_______|


  Civilian crystals (showing one base):

       .-------.
      / ....  /|
     / ....  / |
    / ....  /  |
   / ....  /   |
  .-------.    |
  |       |   /
  |       |  /
  |       | /
  |       |/
  |_______|


       .-------.
      / ....  /|
     / ....  / |
    / ....  / /
   / ....  / /
  .-------. /
  |       |/
  |_______|


       .-------.
      / ....  /
     / ....  / /
    / ....  /
   / ....  /  /
  .-------.
   \      |  /
    \     |
     \    | /
      \   |
       \  |/
        \ |
         \|

Anyway, that's my conception of a holocrystal.  Your mileage may vary.

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

Jerry Williams
gsw@moss.att.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2201
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 09:12:32 EST
From: 09nilles%cuavax.dnet@netcon.cua.edu (Fiver Toadflax)
Subject: Re: Holo Crystals

> 4)  A company would never sell a tremendous amount of data storage.  They
> want their customers to continue buying their product, so give them 5
> hours.  Thus, the chip could be very small, allowing more to be sold per
> production unit.  One could say this makes the company more profit, but
> more importantly it keeps the cost of the product down (remember your
> supply and demand curves , and rate of return from economics?).

We have to remember that we are assuming that they are using the same or
slightly better resolution in their displays.  Using the home TV as the
base example, it has developed from limited gray scales to the possibility
of over 256 colors and better resolution.  The main thing holding back
HDTV or any new type of TV is the FCC.  They demand that any new TV system
be backwards compatable (IMHO - a good move) so that poeple do not have
to go out any buy the new sets just to watch the news or whatever program
they want.  True the FCC cann't set those requirements for other nations,
but it is a good PR idea.  Those advances have come over the past 25 or so
years.  What is to say that the base resolution hasn't dramatically increased.
After all, we are not talking about broadcast pictures.  And LaserDiscs now
have noticably greater resolution then video tape or broadcast TV.


> Can anyone else think of other reasons why a small chip would be placed in
> larger package?  The package could still be the size of a domino, but I
> would imagine it would be a little bigger, for the above reasons.

Kids might have to handle them.  The old Atari game system had s small chip
relative to its 'boxed' appearent size.  Nintendo cartigest are most likely
has alot of empty space for its size.

Having a large ammount of space would allow for different recording
lengths.  ie the T120 VHS tapes and the T160 VHS tapes both fit and work
in the same sized machine(though the tape itself is thinner).  Or the
90 min. Cassetes vs 60min or 120min or 100min.  It would let the producer
sell "HIGH DENSITY HOLO Crystal.  You can record for 7 hours instead of the
normal 5."  I can see that being a big selling point particularly to people
who are going on vacation in a back water world where they cann't go down to
the local drug store and pick up a 3 pack of holo crystals.


David Nilles
09nilles@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2202
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 14:23 EDT
From: METLAY@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: Crystals


My standard for crystal storage at and above TL 11 (i.e. Standard IMperial
spread) is a disc approximately the diameter of a USA 25-cent piece and
about 3mm thick, with imprinting on one side and a small set of notches
on the other to identify the type of crystal reader the disc works on, 
like music, video, holo, or data (note the moronic insistence on different
crystals for different types of machines in the Imperial Encyclopedia).

This makes them convenient, easily stacked and stored, and allows for a 
whole gamut of nifty packaging devices for various sorts of crystals. The
one disadvantage of the circular shape is orientation difficulties, but
it would be simple enough to make the connections axially symmetric....

metlay

PS. Haven't had a chance to check the reference to the animal Mark mentioned...


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2203
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 91 14:31 EDT
From: METLAY@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: cargo containers


Generally the movement of cargo at high speeds is one of those things
that I believe will have a human operator as a safety feature, simply
because humans get nervous when thinking of unsupervised blocks of 
mass moving at high speed. The "gravitruck" is a ubiquitous vehicle in
my games, essentially being a manned grav vehicle with capacities in
the tens to hundreds of tons. For really big-ass mass movement without
mucking up the environment, maglev or grav-float "trains" on fixed lines
would do the job nicely and could conceivably automatically, but humans
might be handy there too.

I conceive of a situation where a trucker drives out of East Phart with
his grav-hauler groaning under a tandem cargo pallet weighing 100 tons
or more, drives it down local roads carefully, gets to larger highways w
where he can drive with impunity, and after no more than 100 Kilometres
reaches the "Mainline", where he locks into a traffic control program,
kicks up his feet, and sleeps while robots convey him across the continent
at high speed. Then, at the other end, he wakes up, gets off the Mainline,
and wends his way down smaller and smaller roads until he makes his delivery
at Pymple's Corners.....

metlay

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2204
Date:     Thu, 7 Mar 91 15:19:06 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (2198) Planetary Armed Forces

>    In a recent note, Robert S. Dean asked whether high-tech worlds would
> bother having ground forces, since such worlds are not likely to see
> large ground battles, and whether low-tech worlds would bother having forces
> at all, since they would not be of much use against attack from higher-tech
> neighbors.

Close.  Actually, I recognize the probable need for infantry/security/military
police troops regardless of tech level.  I just think that at TL15, say, that
those all purpose undersea to orbit grav vehicle are going account for 90% of
your 'army' budget.

>    Dealing with the high-tech case first, remember that in the world today
> most national armies exist with the primary function of either protecting
> the government from its own citizens or for controlling the government.  Very
> few nations have the ability to conduct protracted military operations beyond
> their own borders.  Thus ground forces for internal security could be very
> sizeable, and not just in a balkanized situation.  Governments in which the
> military is the final judge of political conflict (a la Chile, Argentina,
> Brazil), governments where the military is split along political lines and
> thereby maintains some sort of balance of power (China, perhaps), governments
> where different military branches are an important part of the federal system
> (USA), all of these would necesitate sizeable ground forces even if there was
> no threat from outside.  This ignore governments of planets in rebellion and
> pure military government, as well as feudal government.

Agreed.  But I'm still curious about particulars.  Take TL15 again.  First,
would many/most/all governments be willing to use FGMP-15 battledress equipped
infantry for crowd control?  What about armored vehicles?  What does "very
sizeable" work out to in terms of population or GNP percentage?  If weapons
were tightly controlled, one battledress equipped infantryman would be capable
of suppressing hundreds or thousands of ill-armed citizens in unrest 
(assuming you'd be willing to flame down ritoers, say, en masse).

>    I myself wondered about the utility of low-tech armed forces for a while,
> but now think I have a justification for them.  They are there to protect
> the planet from casual interference, not from determined attack.  Think about
> the walls that midieval towns had, and the town levies.  Not particularly
> useful against military attack, but useful against bandits, pirates, and
> roving vagabonds (i.e. most traveller players).  They also perform(ed) an
> important psychological role when dealing with higher authority, giving the
> people a certain sense of independence.
> 

   But would we see these forces armed with indigenous weapons, or would they
feel it was better to import a "token" quantity of high-tech equipment, along
with the technicians to maintain it, or perhaps even hire mercenary units 
already trained in the appropriate tactics?  A shipload of TL11 Vargr pirates
is going to be an armful for a TL5 planetary army, when the Vargr infantryman
can wear armor that can only be penetrated by the local artillery.  (I know, I 
know--Traveller has a serious armor/penetration imbalance in favor of the 
defense.)

     I like the psychological angle, although I think it still might tend to
manifest in the form of highly equipped (though perhaps not well trained or
maintainable) "palace guards" rather than masses of TL6 armored divisions.

Rob


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2205
Date:     Thu, 7 Mar 91 15:27:43 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Cargo Haulers

I *think* 4 displacement tons is a standard container size in this game.

Anyone want to think about the economic rationale of these things?

Rob
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------


LSP Model 1006 Transporter TL13

     The Model 1006 transporter is a high speed cargo mover common on high 
tech worlds.  With a cargo capacity of two Imperial Standard 4 ton cargo 
containers, it can rapidly deliver shipments from a starport to any location 
on the planet.  The total weight of cargo containers can be up to 123 tons 
without affecting the vehicle's speed.

  CraftID: Model 1006 Transporter, TL13, Cr2,290,000
     Hull: 9/23, Disp=10, Config=4SL, Armor=1F, Loaded=143.2t, Unload=34.9t
    Power: 1/2, Fusion=31.5MW, Dur=4 days
     Loco: 1/2, StdGrav=300t, Max Speed=1000, Cruise=750, NOE=170,
           MaxAccel=1.1G
     Comm: Radio=Continental
  Sensors: EMS Active(VDist), ActObjScan=Diff, ActObjPin=Diff
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Comp0*2, HeadsUpDisplay*1, HoloLink*4
    Accom: Seats=Roomy*2 (Driver, Passenger), Env=Basic env
    Other: Fuel=3.36kl, Cargo=108kl (8t), ObjSize=Average, EmLevel=Moderate

LSP Model 7012 Transporter TL13

     The Model 7012 is a large, low speed cargo transporter, suitable for low 
priority containerized cargo.  The cargo compartment is fitted to carry 16 
Imperial Standard 4 ton containers in a two high by eight long configuration.  
Side doors open to allow access to containers not at the rear of the vehicle.  
Up to 900 gross weight tons of containers may be carried without affecting 
vehicle performance.  

  CraftID: Model 7012 Transporter, TL13, Cr5,651,000
     Hull: 63/158, Disp=70, Config=4USL, Armor=1F, Loaded=966.5t,
           Unload=100.9t
    Power: 1/2, Fusion=126MW, Dur=13.6 days
     Loco: 2/4, StdGrav=1250t, Max Speed=300, Cruise=225, NOE=40,
           MaxAccel=0.3G
     Comm: Radio=Continental
  Sensors: EMS Active(VDist), ActObjScan=Diff, ActObjPin=Diff
      Off: Hardpoints=1
      Def: -
  Control: Comp0*2, HeadsUpDisplay*1, HoloLink*62
    Accom: Seats=Roomy*2 (Driver, Passenger), Env=Basic env
    Other: Fuel=22.9kl, Cargo=864kl (64t), ObjSize=Average, EmLevel=Moderate

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2206
Date:     Thu, 7 Mar 91 16:50:40 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  TL10 Navies

I have been working very intermittantly on recreating in MT the mass of data
and designs I have for various navies designed to High Guard standards in my
area of play interest.  This happens to include the Sworld Worlds, and I sat
down today to see if I could build something along the lines of a heavy cruiser
or so, to be armed with a particle accelerator-K.  This is the largest spinal
weapon available at that TL, and I figured they would use it despite the
widely known drawbacks of PA weapons.  (Besides, the armor levels on many of
my ships have been going down, making PA's look a little better.)

At any rate, the Model 4 computer would seem to have a maximum controllable
value of 15,000MCr at TL10, which is not sufficient to build much of a vessel
around a PA-K.  Does anyone think there would be any major structural
catastrophes (-8 in the game system if:

     a) The maximum cp input rule was ignored completely, which in this
        case would give you a huge crew (maybe ok)  or...

     b) Six model 4 computers were installed under the assumption that they
        were two cooperating networked systems and their respective backups?
        In this case, I suppose you could even work out that System 1 was
        responsible for fire control and System 2 was responsible for flight,
        and apply appropriate penalties when one full system (including
        backups) was destroyed.

Any opinions one way or the other?

Does one feel more "artistically" correct?

Rob


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2207
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 12:55:16 GMT
From: Jo Jaquinta <jaymin@maths.tcd.ie>
Subject: Containerised Cargo


	Despite the new found predilection for kilolieters I have always
assumed the standard unit of measure, and thus the size of one container
of cargo, in the ton.
	Given the normal 1.5m floor grid one ton occupies two squares
of a normal starship deck. This gives a rather overbalanced crate so my
standardised cargo containers are four deck squares in area and only half
a deck's height. There are standards for projections and indentation by
which they could be lifted and stored. All connections are simple mechanical
to facilitate production and repair at all tech levels. They all have a
certain necissary load bearing capacity to enable them to be stacked as
well as a maximum weight for the unit. This is sumarised below:

        Volume of  Shape     Height   Max          Supporting
        container                     Weight       Weight
        1 ton    1.5m x 6m    half    40,500kg     283,500kg
        1 ton      3m x 3m    half    40,500kg     283,500kg
        2 ton      3m x 6m    half    81,000kg     567,000kg
        4 ton      3m x 6m    full   162,000kg     486,000kg
        8 ton*     6m x 6m    full   324,000kg     972,000kg

*The 8 ton cargo container is optional and is generally only supported by
the largest of transports. Class A facilities must be able to handle these
but not necissarily in all berths.

	By simple examination you can see the standard requirements that
cargo bays be fitted with 6m wide doors. Similarly that containers may
be stacked as much as four full sized containers deep or eight half sized
containers deep. The specific density of a container cannot exceed that
of three times water. There are further regulations covering how much
shock, temperature extremes, and so on cargo may be subjected to. These
are very important for insurance reasons.

				Jo Jaquinta
				jaymin@maths.tcd.ie

PS: There are now 260 ships in the "library". Volunteers for creating
background or floorplans are always welcome.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2208
From: Marc Alexandrovich Volovic <mav@cs.huji.ac.il>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 09:11:38 PST
Subject: Planetary Armed Forces and Navies, etc

 
  To expand on Robert Dean's question - what's a world GNP? How much GMP
does a Rich Industrial world generate?
 
  If and when we know that figure we can assume that a world spends some
percentage of the GNP on miltary and security matters.
 
  On our own balkanized world we would have ranges from 0.001% or so for
Andora (an army of 35 - the band) to 35% of Iraq from 1980 to 1991.
 
  My fear is that if the GNP be known, most of the naval ships are
horribly expensive. A backward world would probably not have anything
beyond an SDB or two.
 
  The internal security matters are less problematic - all it takes a
few armoured cars of MCr0.5 each to settle many problems very well. If
there is balkanization then more major expenditures are required. The
jump from "wheeled 25E water hose" to "grav 65E 100MW laser" seems to
be about MCr20 or so in Rob's designs. When GvPz Battalions are raised,
Credits roll.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 2209
Date:    Fri, 08 Mar 91 14:46 CST
From: Bob Koester <ASTRJKPA@UIAMVS.BITNET>
Subject:  Planetary Armed Forces

    Regarding RSD's further questions.  First off, back to the high tech case:
    While it may seem silly to keep a bunch of fusion gun armed troopers
around for crowd control, remember that all weaponry is relative (this is
a problem that I have with the standard Law Level system, as you will see).
There are both criminals and otherwise law-abiding citizens around in the
USA who have fully automatic weapons or weapons that can be easily converted
to such, as well as all kinds of explosives.  As a result police where vests
and have access to shotguns and SWAT teams to handle such threats.
    Translating this to a high-tech case, a relatively libertarian future
society will have some citizens who are well armed for criminal purposes,
for self-defense, or for recreation, and the police and internal security
will scale up to deal with this.
    Possible Imperium organization:  the IPA - Imperial Plasma-Gun
Association.  Plasma Projectors don't kill beings, beings kill beings.
    On the other hand, a government sufficiently restrictive and intrusive
to prevent the citizenry from being well armed would probably have an
internal army like the Soviet MVD for all sorts of uses.  Not necesarrily,
though, as the case of England points off (not perfect, but they do better
than we).
    On the low-tech side, a small high-tech palace guard is very likely,
especially if the rulers don't trust the local people, but I think that
the bulk of the army would still be low tech, simply for price's sake
(in my universe the exchange rate is more slanted against low-tech planets
than the Trillions Credit Squadron table).  To be honest, I also do this
because I like Byzantine political struggles (between the low-tech militia,
the mercanaries, the mid-tech imperial wannabes, the government trying to
keep them from shooting each other, security forces looking for treason,
etc.  Yes, I do occasionally play Paranoia).
    As for the armed forces being turned completely into triphibious grav
vehicles, I stick with Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers) and say that
the infantry will always be there.  They're the cheapest self-aiming
self-controlling weapons available.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 2210
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 16:00:24 -0700
From: wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Bill Wilson)
Subject: Hello!

I've just joined the list and am very glad to be a part of the group!

I have one question: Has anyone else out there put together an alternate
damage system for MT?  I am testing one that I think may be pretty good.
I have taken ideas from Striker, Twilight 2000, and Cyberpunk and have
designed a system based upon hit location and damage level.  It seems
to run pretty fast.  

If you would like to look at this system, or would like to pick up copies
of some programs that I have written to help with Traveller and Striker,
you can ftp into my machine at wew.ucc.nau.edu (134.114.32.3) between
9 to 4 MST.  It is a PC hooked into the Internet and should be accessible
mon-fri during those hours.  Keep trying since only one person can get in at
time.  You can use anonymous ftp.

Enjoy!

Let sleeping dragons lie........                    | The RoleMancer 
- - --------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Wilson (wew@naucse.cse.nau.edu | ucc2wew@nauvm | wilson@nauvax)
Northern AZ Univ  Flagstaff, AZ 86011

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

