
-------- TML Message #1882 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1882
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Just how low IS low recoil?
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 13:45:01 GMT

Mark F. Cook <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
> In TML note 1856, Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> writes:
> > 
> > Time for some number crunching.  First, a correction to the above.  It's
> > momentum, not energy, that Newton's 3rd law deals with.
> 
> You're picking nits, Adrian.  Assume the following symbols:
>         m = mass of the gauss needle
>         a = acceleration of the needle at the barrel mouth
>         M = mass of the gauss rifle
>         A = acceleration of the rifle in the opposite direction
	v = velocity of the gauss needle
	V = velocity of the rifle
> If ma=F->, then MA=<-F, right?  By definition, "Momentum" is the magnitude
> of F, without the vector component (staight out of Halliday & Resnick's
> "Fundanemtals of Physics").

Either you've misread "Fundamentals of Physics", or Halliday & Resnick are
wrong, or the universe has changed since I learnt physics.  Momentum is a
vector.  That's how momentum is conserved.  Before firing, momentum of rifle
= momentum of needle = 0.  After firing, momentum of rifle = MV, momentum of
needle = mv, MV = -mv, so MV + mv = 0.

Force is also a vector.  It's rate of change of momentum.  If MV = -mv at any
time up to when the needle leaves the barrel, and MV and mv have had the same
amount of time in which to change, then F = -f.

> >                                                          Figures for
> > Traveller assault rifle and gauss rifle come from Book 4; figures for M-16
> > assault rifle come from "The Armory" by Kevin Dockery, in brackets in the
> > assault rifle part for comparison.

(Lots of figures deleted; you've seen them twice before, and they've served
their purpose.)

> These values are slightly off (you've listed the UNLOADED wt. of the M-16
> and the slug velocity is a little low for a std. DoD issue M193 ball round),
> but I accept your point.

Those values were taken straight from the book, and the weight I quoted was
for a M-16 with a 30-round magazine.  Don't blame me if Kevin Dockery got 
them wrong; give us the right figures!

> > =>    A gauss rifle is no more a low recoil weapon than an assault rifle.
> 
> Let's qualify that: it's no more low recoil that a 5.56mm assault rifle.
> I don't argue this, ever.  The flaw in your argument is assuming that the
> 5.56mm assault rifle IS NOT ALSO A LOW RECOIL WEAPON.

So in TDR, put gauss rifles and 5mm assault rifles in the same recoil class.

> If compare the M-16 to a "real" assault rifle (my definition of "real";
> you're mileage may vary), like the 7.62mm ARM/AR Galil, there's a noticable
> difference.
> ...
>         Velocity of rifle = 2.04 m/s
> This is about 130% that of the gauss rifle and the MT Player's Manual refers
> to this type of weapon as "Med. Recoil" (see the entry "Assault Rifle (7mm)
> on pg. 76).
> 
> Let's compare the momentum of the 5.56mm slug to a different, but popular,
> American round: the std. .22 Long Rifle round.
> ...
>         Velocity of rifle = 0.5 m/s.
> Now, that's only about 37% of the M-16, and about 33% of the gauss rifle.
> (I guess that makes it a "No Recoil" weapon.) :-)
> ...
>		      The 5.56mm M-16 is about in the middle, as is the
> gauss rifle (although tending slightly towards the higher end).  This
> pretty definitely puts both of them in the "Low Recoil" catagory, at
> least by MT combat standards.

So, 5mm assault rifles and gauss rifles are low recoil; 7mm assault rifles
are medium recoil; 5mm pistols are very low recoil.  If anyone is really
interested, I'll do similar sums for 9mm pistols, 7mm bolt-action rifles,
and SMG's.

> One last point, the MT Imperial Encyclopedia (pg. 71) states that standard
> equipment for the gauss rifle includes gyrostabilization.  If that addition
> doesn't make it "Low Recoil", then I don't know what does.

Doesn't the ACR also have that?  Is the ACR also low recoil?

- - -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

-------- TML Message #1883 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1883
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TDR reviewers, drives, etc.
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 14:04:46 GMT

Vote For NoneOfTheAbove Write In Candidate 27-Nov-1990 1032 <baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM> writes:
> RE: TDR rules categories
> 
> What's the chances of varying TL pieces of equipment actually working together?
> In one of the Star Wars books, the Falcon's control system gets shot up, so Han
> Solo cobbles together a 'fluidics' control system;  I thought it was laughable!
This depends on what the equipment is.  I can imagine using TL3 sails to propel
a TL9 water ship in an emergency (a lot of them, though!) but I have trouble
using pieces from one TL 7 computer in another TL 7 computer.  Making a TL 8
computer talk to a TL 7 printer is feasible, as long as the TL 8 computer is
not an IBM PC - making that talk to anything is a serious problem!

> RE: TDR drives
> 
> In general, Traveller ships seem to have two or three types of drives: jump
> drives, and maneuver drives, and perhaps gravitic drives.  The Jump drive is
> used for interstellar travel, the maneuver drives are used for interplanetary
> travel, and the gravitics drives are used to land the ship without damaging
> the real estate.

Nice summary, and I agree with every word.

>						Are there other ways to land
> ships?  Are there reaction drives that are not destructive?  Some scenarios
> have space ports have gravitic landing platforms, and scorched earth
> wilderness landings.  I kind of like that.

Reaction drives are bound to be destructive.  It's all down to Newton's 3rd
law.  Without doing sums, force pushing ship up = force pushing ground down.
If mass of ship = huge, force pushing ship up = lots, so force pushing ground
down = lots, so being under the ship isn't a good idea.  Gravitic landing
platforms - you mean a big repulsor that lets the ship down gently without
the ship doing anything?  Nice idea, and I expect the ship gets charged some
CR for it.

> If you have a gravitic landing drive, perhaps it's combined with the shipboard
> gravity equipment, so that it's essentially free?  In any case, I'd like to be
> able to design ships without gravity equipment.

And at TL <8, you have to.  Which is why the Shuttle has a big, hard launch
pad.

> I definitely don't like the idea of the maneuver drives being (anti)gravity
> drives.  In my mind an antigravity drive has to have a nearby mass to work
> against, and I question if antigrav vehicles should work further in space then
> low orbit.  I'm sure there are ways to explain it away, such that the gravity
> drive generates a gravity field, and the ship falls toward it, but for some
> reason it goes against my grain.

This was discussed on rec.arts.sf-lovers some time ago.  It's about as likely
as making the ship out of iron and fixing a big magnet to its nose.  Either
it has a reaction (the gravity well pulls the ship towards it, and the
generator pushes the ship the other way) or it doesn't, it's a reactionless
drive, and I'm tempted to post my proof that reactionless drives can't work.

> I like the idea of maneuver drives being reaction drives.  Traditionally
> spacecraft have always had some kind of jets or exhaust, even the highest TL,
> and I don't want to change that.  However, it seems that the physics doesn't
> work, if I'm following the TML discussion correctly.

The sums don't work.  The physics do, or the Space Shuttle wouldn't get off
the ground.

- - -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

-------- TML Message #1884 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1884
Date:     Thu, 29 Nov 90 15:15:56 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Designs by Scott Kellogg

I don't know what the overall opinion of the list was, but I'd like to see
the latest batch of Scott's designs.  Can you send them direct?  I can
take as big a message as you can send (or so I'm told by a friend who is
a sysop here.)

Rob Dean


(Sorry to post this to the list...but I can't get a message through the normal 
route to USENET.  Hope you see this, Steve.)

-------- TML Message #1885 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1885
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: TDR SIGs
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 16:56:35 PST

For those of you who don't recognize the acronym, SIG stands for "Special
Interest Group".  TDR is building up steam and we currently have 12 SIGs
forming.  Two new catagories have been added to the original TDR list:
World Building and Equipment.  Of all the catagories, only the "Task Rules"
catagory has generated no interest.  As we all might have suspected, the
MT concept of Task rolls seems to be one of the more or less universally
approved-of mechanisms in the game, or at least one that one feels is
bad enough to require change. :-)

The current list of catagories is as follows:

    1) Character Generation
    2) Character Classes
    3) Character Skills
    4) Combat
    5) Medical
    6) Physics
    7) Task Rules
    8) Trade & Commerce
    9) Vehicle Design
   10) Vehicle Lists
   11) Weapons
   12) World Building Rules
   13) New Equipment

Anyway, here's the elm aliases list I use of TDR contributors signed up
so far.  If your name is on the list in a catagory you're not interested
in, let me know and I'll remove it.  If you'd like to join a SIG, let
me know and we'll add you.  Obviously, we're hoping for lots of those.

Later,

        - Mark F. Cook (TDR Archivist)

 -----------8<-------------8<-------------8<-------------8<-------------8<----

###########################
###TDR Contributor List ###
###########################
bertil   = Bertil Jonell          = d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
burton   = Burton Choinski        = choinski@s35.Prime.com
dow      = W. Dow Rieder          = wr0k+@andrew.cmu.edu
erics    = Eric Sergienko         = s94sergienko%usuhsb.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu
fellows  = Steven B. Fellows      = sfellows@slate.mines.colorado.edu
gwh      = george william herbert = gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu
hayes    = Tony L. Hayes          = al646@cleveland.freenet.edu
iain     = Iain Fogg              = iain@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au
kim      = Ted Kim                = tek@lanai.cs.ucla.edu
markc    = Mark F. Cook           = markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com
mcgrew   = Charles McGrew         = mcgrew@topaz.rutgers.edu
metlay   = Metlay                 = metlay@vms.cis.pitt.edu
opperman = Roger Opperman         = oppr@cardiac-ra.swmed.utexas.edu
pauli    = Paul Dale              = grue@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au
pool     = Robert P Poole         = tarquin@athena.mit.edu
rigney   = Carl Rigney            = cdr@amd.com
salamon  = Andrew Salamon         = salamon%sdbio2@ucsd.edu
sylvain  = Nick Sylvain           = npsylv%wmvm1@vtvm2.cc.vt.edu

############################
#  1) Character Generation #
############################
TDR_char_gen = = sylvain, iain, erics, rigney, burton, poole

#########################
#  2) Character Classes #
#########################
TDR_char_classes = = poole, salamon

########################
#  3) Character Skills #
########################
TDR_char_skills = = opperman, erics, metlay, burton

##############
#  4) Combat #
##############
TDR_combat = = bertil, rigney, opperman, iain, markc, hayes

###############
#  5) Medical #
###############
TDR_medical = = sylvain, erics, markc

###############
#  6) Physics #
###############
TDR_physics = = gwh, kim, hayes, poole

##################
#  7) Task Rules #
##################

########################
#  8) Trade & Commerce #
########################
TDR_trade = = fellows, dow, mcgrew, kim, hayes, metlay, rigney

######################
#  9) Vehicle Design #
######################
TDR_vehicle = = gwh, pauli, dow, kim, burton, rsdean

#####################
# 10) Vehicle Lists #
#####################
TDR_veh_list = = gwh, pauli, rsdean

###############
# 11) Weapons #
###############
TDR_weapons = = opperman, iain, markc, hayes, metlay

############################
# 12) World Building Rules #
############################
TDR_world = = rigney, burton

#####################
# 13) New Equipment #
#####################
TDR_equip = = erics, markc, metlay

-------- TML Message #1886 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1886
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: Recoil: an Apology
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 22:44:39 PST

Well, I have a big-time apology to make to Adrian.  When I screw up, I
don't fool around.  Virtually every argument I presented in my earlier
note (Subject 1859) was flawed.  Sorry about that, fella.  Next time,
I'll make sure I pick a shoe of a different flavor before I eat it. :-)

To recap:

> > You're picking nits, Adrian.  Assume the following symbols:
> >         m = mass of the gauss needle
> >         a = acceleration of the needle at the barrel mouth
> >         M = mass of the gauss rifle
> >         A = acceleration of the rifle in the opposite direction
>       v = velocity of the gauss needle
>       V = velocity of the rifle
> > If ma=F->, then MA=<-F, right?  By definition, "Momentum" is the magnitude
> > of F, without the vector component (staight out of Halliday & Resnick's
> > "Fundanemtals of Physics").
> 
> Either you've misread "Fundamentals of Physics", or Halliday & Resnick are
> wrong, or the universe has changed since I learnt physics.  Momentum is a
> vector.  That's how momentum is conserved.  Before firing, momentum of rifle
> = momentum of needle = 0.  After firing, momentum of rifle = MV, momentum of
> needle = mv, MV = -mv, so MV + mv = 0.
> 
> Force is also a vector.  It's rate of change of momentum.  If MV = -mv at any
> time up to when the needle leaves the barrel, and MV and mv have had the same
> amount of time in which to change, then F = -f.

Well, the correct answer is the obvious one; the universe has changed!
No, seriously, I misread Halliday & Resnick.  I'm sorry.  It's been a
long time since college physics classes (too damn long, obviously).

> > These values are slightly off (you've listed the UNLOADED wt. of the M-16
> > and the slug velocity is a little low for a std. DoD issue M193 ball round),
> > but I accept your point.
> 
> Those values were taken straight from the book, and the weight I quoted was
> for a M-16 with a 30-round magazine.  Don't blame me if Kevin Dockery got 
> them wrong; give us the right figures!

The loaded weight for the M16A1 combat rifle (w/ loaded 30 rnd. clip)
is 3.72 Kg. (see, I said you were close).  The listed weight for the
standard NATO 5.56mm cartridge slug (designated M193 by U.S. Army)
is 56 +/- 2 grains, which translates to 3.629 +/- 0.13 grams.

Now my face is even redder.  I didn't realize that, in your note, the
values on the left were for the MT assault rifle and the values in
parenthesis were for the M-16.  You mentioned something about "brackets"
and I couldn't find any (to an American, these "[]" are brackets), so
I just assumed you'd left something out.  In re-reading your note, I see
that your values are correct (so close to the ones in my references that
quibbles over the difference are pointless).

> > > =>    A gauss rifle is no more a low recoil weapon than an assault rifle.
> > 
> > Let's qualify that: it's no more low recoil that a 5.56mm assault rifle.
> > I don't argue this, ever.  The flaw in your argument is assuming that the
> > 5.56mm assault rifle IS NOT ALSO A LOW RECOIL WEAPON.
> 
> So in TDR, put gauss rifles and 5mm assault rifles in the same recoil class.

We intend to, I promise.

> >                   The 5.56mm M-16 is about in the middle, as is the
> > gauss rifle (although tending slightly towards the higher end).  This
> > pretty definitely puts both of them in the "Low Recoil" catagory, at
> > least by MT combat standards.
> 
> So, 5mm assault rifles and gauss rifles are low recoil; 7mm assault rifles
> are medium recoil; 5mm pistols are very low recoil.  If anyone is really
> interested, I'll do similar sums for 9mm pistols, 7mm bolt-action rifles,
> and SMG's.

Definitely interested.  If we provided data, how many would you be
willing to crank out for us?

> > One last point, the MT Imperial Encyclopedia (pg. 71) states that standard
> > equipment for the gauss rifle includes gyrostabilization.  If that addition
> > doesn't make it "Low Recoil", then I don't know what does.
> 
> Doesn't the ACR also have that?  Is the ACR also low recoil?

Yah, the ACR also has gyros.  Boy, I'm sure consistent.  When I make
mistakes, I make 'em EVERYWHERE. :-)  However, given that the ACR is
a 7mm (and 9mm) weapon, apparently the in-line recoil is sufficient
to put it into the "Medium" range.

Later,

        Mark F. Cook

USMail: User Interface Technical Support
        Hewlett-Packard - Interface Technology Operation
        1000 NE Circle Blvd.  Corvallis, OR 97330

INTERNET: markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com
          markc%hpcvss.cv.hp.com@relay.hp.com

-------- TML Message #1887 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1887
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Gyros affecting recoil
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 10:15:46 GMT

Mark F. Cook <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM> writes:
> 
> Yes AND no, Paul.  You're right that gyros don't absorb any recoil (you'll
> still get kicked in the shoulder just as hard).  But that's not the point.
> >From both a real-life military standpoint AND a RPG standpoint, the
> detrimental effect recoil has on accuracy is barrel climb.  Virtually
> nothing else matters.

I have to disagree again, Mark! :-)

One of the reasons Traveller classes weapons as low, medium and high recoil
is that some people fight in zero-G.  A low recoil weapon (e.g. snub pistol)
is better for use in zero-G than a high-recoil weapon (e.g. PGMP) because
it doesn't send you backwards at great speed into the wall behind you.
There's also the matter of the strength of the person holding the gun, and
the effect the recoil will have on someone who isn't holding it properly.

- - -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

-------- TML Message #1888 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1888
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 07:57:57 -0500
From: wrgate.wr.tek.com!tnc!m0068@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Ship design from Scott Kellogg 11/27/90

To: uunet!metolius.wr.tek.com!traveller
From: m0068@tnc.UUCP (Stephen D Smith)
Subject: Ship design from Scott Kellogg 11/27/90
Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge
 
Well, three days have passed and no one has objected to posting
more of Scott Kellogg's designs. (In fact there has been no
comment,except for the moderators.) So here is *A* ship design.
I'll keep each posting small, so as not to disturb anyone too much,
and not more than one per day. Again I only get together with Scott
every two or three weeks, so feel free to contact him directly if
speed is important.
 
*********************************************************
I have no access to e-mail so you will not be able to 
reach me very easily and there will be long gaps between
my having access to any comments to any designs or ideas
you might have but I would appreciate it
 
      Scott Kellogg      (703)-836-8352
      1202 S. Washington St. #107
      Alexandria, VA, 22314
*********************************************************
 
Attack Submarine TL8 "Alfa" Class 
 
CraftID:  Attack Submarine, Type SSN, TL8, MCr 87.46709 
Hull:     (225/563) Disp=250, Config=1AF, Armor=41C, 
          Unload=2556.171t, Load=2631t, Dived=3375t, 
          SafeDepth=900m, CrushDepth=1350m 
Power:    (24/31) 462Mw Fission, Dur=2yrs 
Loco:     (46/62) Single Screw, DiveTop=80Kph, DiveCruise=60kph, 
          Surface=36kph, 
Commo:    Radio=Cont*1, Reg*3, RadioJamm=Cont*2 
Sensors:  Active Audio*2, Passive Audio*20, Magnetic Sensor*2, 
          Radiation Sensor*2, Environmental Sensor*2, 
          AllWeatherRADAR=Reg*2, RDF, Image Enhance*2, Passive 
          IR*2, AdvActive IR*2, Headlight*2, Video Camera*2, 
          RadarJamm=Reg*2 
          ActObjScn=Diff    ActObjPin=Diff ActAudScn=Form  
          ActAudPin=Form PasAudScn=Form PasAudPin=Form 
          PasEngScn=Diff 
 
Off:            533mm Torpedo Tubes*6 
                                  Max                     Chance 
                Rnds  Warhead     Range Speed Hit% 
Torpedo C       16    300kg 15km        92kph 65% 
Torpedo C Nuc   2     20kton      15km        65kph 
SS-N-15         2      15kton     37km        2100kph 
The type C is a wire guided torpedo. 
The SS-N-15 is a tube launched missile carried depth charge.  SS- 
N-15 Minimum range is 9km 
 
Def:            DefDM=+4  Clusterguard Anechoic coating, Titanium 
                Hull reduces magnetic signature 
 
Control:  Computer=2fib*3, ElectronicLink=670, Electronic Circuit 
          Protect, 
Accom:    Crew=45, SmallStateroom=7, Bunks=38 Env=Basic Env, Basic 
          is, Extend is, AirLock*2 
Other:    Fuel=.924Kl Fissiles, Mag=30Kl, 20 rds, (2 mines can be 
          carried in place of one torpedo) Telescopicmasts*5, 
          Electronic sensors mounted on masts, Cargo=33.054Kl, 
          ObjSize=Avg, EMlevel=Faint 
 
Remarks:  For those of you who don't know, the 'Alfa' class attack 
sub is featured in 'The Hunt for Red October' as one attacks the 
main characters in the climax of the story.  (Great Book!  
Excellent Film!) 
 
    Here is a question, how well would a densitometer see a 
submarine?  It has roughly the same density as the medium around 
it, and when a densitometer has a penetration of 250 meters, is 
that in vapor, or liquid or solid?  Vacuum and air I would say are 
probably negligible, but what about water? 
 
    This is nearly a pure guess.  I reviewed George Herbert's 
guidelines for sub building but I found that the MegaTrav rules 
just aren't up to building a real submarine unless there is 
something seriously wrong with my calculator.  George suggests that
a sub should be able to safely dive to 10 meters times it's armor 
rating.  Well, while I have no reason to doubt him, it is 
impossible to get the 'Alfa' down to the depths it is supposed to 
be able to reach.  This may be due to the fact that the real thing 
has a titanium hull and MegaTrav does not cover that.  Where the 
numbers don't add up I have deferred to reality.  ie the Alfa is 
said to reach 900 meters safely.  The above should reach only half 
that.  Basically, I used the weight of the sub as my main 
guideline.  She displaces approximately 3375 metric tons dived and 
approx 2630 metric tons surfaced.  Oops, make that 'He' (Russian 
ships are masculine) 
 
    Supposedly, The real sub has a 462MW Fission reactor.  Rob Dean
gave the guidelines for the transmission (2*tracked of same TL w/no
suspension).  George Herbert's formula for submarine speeds gave 
the approximate speed the 'Alfa' is supposed to have. 
 
    The passive sonar array is again a guess, so I threw out a 
number:  10 sensors in an array, 20 for 2 arrays.  For Periscopes 
I used heavy robot arms with double the weight and volume and 
price. 
 
    I got the performance numbers from GDW's Harpoon, and "Modern 
Submarine Warfare" by David Miller and John Jordan, Salamander 
Books '87.  The 'Alfa' has the above listed reactor, speeds, 
weapons and compliment.  All the rest is Scotty playing with 
numbers. 
 
    Torpedo tubes?  Pure speculation but here is what I used:  
Cost=1.5MCr, Power=0.5 MW, Volume=3Kl, Weight=6tons 
Torpedo=1.5Kl. 
    I realize this is full of holes, but for what it's worth, here 
it is.  I would greatfully appreciate any input. 
 
Scott Kellogg 
 
P.S.      Going over this design has made me appreciate just how 
inadequate the design rules are in giving the full feel of a ship.
The rules go down to devices costing tens of credits, tenths of 
liters, hundreds of watts, and tenths of kilograms.  Previously, 
this prompted me to think that if a device isn't listed it just 
ain't there.  When craft cost in units of millions it's easy to 
just say, "Sure!  You must have several airlocks on board."  But 
when you look in the listed craft description there are usually a 
lot of omissions of components you would have taken for granted. 
 
Now I'm more of a mind to take craft descriptions as general 
guidelines, not gospel.
 
 
          Stephen D Smith   USENET: m0068@tnc.UUCP
                            BIX: sdsmith
- - --Name = STEPHEN SMITH  Mailbox # = 68

-------- TML Message #1889 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1889
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 07:58:06 -0500
Subject: Ship design from Scott Kellog 11/28/90
From: Stephen D Smith <wrgate.wr.tek.com!tnc!m0068@uunet.uu.net>


Another design from Scott Kellogg.
 
*********************************************************
I have no access to e-mail so you will not be able to 
reach me very easily and there will be long gaps between
my having access to any comments to any designs or ideas
you might have but I would appreciate it
 
      Scott Kellogg      (703)-836-8352
      1202 S. Washington St. #107
      Alexandria, VA, 22314
*********************************************************
 
Heavy Cruiser TL 15 "Atlantic" Class
 
CraftID:  Heavy Cruiser Type CR, TL 15, MCr 76874.71
Hull:     (67500/168750) Disp=75000 Config=4SL, Armor=70G,
          Unload=1737363, Load=1791377.9
Power:    (13050/17400) 2348982 Mw Fusion, Dur=30 @ low power (no
          offensive wpns except BLasers, Agility=0) Combat power
          consumes 2 days reduced fuel per day)
Loco:     (73500/98000), Manuver=5G, (5063/6750) Jump=4, Agility=3
          NOE=190, Cruise=750kph, Top=1000kph,
Commo:    Radio=System*5, Maser=System*5, Meson=System,
          RadioJam=System
Sensors:  EMM, P-EMS=Interstel*3, A-EMS=FarOrb*3,
          Densitometer=1km*3, Neutrino=10kw*3, EMS-Jam=FarOrb
          ActObjScn=Rout          ActObjPin=Rout
          PasObjScn=Rout          PasObjPin=Rout
          PasEnScn=Simp           PasEnPin=Rout
Off:            HPoints=2000
 
          Meson Gun=N0x   Missile=x90     ParticleAcc=x70
          Batt        1                 23                      5
          Bear        1                 30                      6
                BLasers=x09
                Batt        16
                Bear        21
 
Def:            DefDM=+10 Meson Scn-7, NucDamp-9,
          SCaster=x04
          Batt        16
          Bear        21
 
Control:  Computer=9fib*3, LrgHoloDisp=10, HoloHUD=393,
          HoloLink=393, Electronic Circuit Protect
Accom:    Crew=359 5*75 (Command=49, Bridge=23, Engineer=136,
          Gunner=54, Flight=6, Maintain=77, Medic=2, Steward=12)
          Env=Basic Env, Basic is, Extend is, Inertial Comp, Grav
          Plate, Subcraft=50 ton*3
Other:    Magazine=16905kl (149b-r) Battery round=1150 missiles,
          Fuel=563190.6Kl, Scoops, Fuel Pure=72hr, Cargo=2758.4Kl,
          ObjSize=Lrg, EMlevel=Mod
 
Remarks:  "The 'Atlantic' class heavy cruiser is typical of the
Imperial designs for such ships:  a long flattened structure
studded with weaponry, flaring aft for rudimentary control surfaces
useful in fuel skimming.  Well-armed and well-armored, it fulfills
the basic design requirement of meeting the enemy and winning in
battle.
 
    The 'Atlantic' class, however, is fast approaching obsolesence,
and is not the equal of more modern vessels in the Imperium and
neighboring regions.  The slight disadvantage of 5-G acceleration
and agility 5 (sic) are telling in otherwise equal engagements, and
make the class inferior enough to affect strategic judgements
concerning its commitment.
 
    An upgrade program to enhance the class was considered, but
decided against because of cost, although a number of enhanced
prototypes have been reported.
 
    The class of cruiser has lately proven popular with the Navy
for independant missions, especially beyond the Imperial borders. 
Used alone, the ships are capable of a variety of diplomatic and
scientific operations.  Used in squadrons, they provide a useful
show of force or reinforcement for friendly client-states.  The
ship's cargo hold can be used to barrack up to 100 marines for
small commando operations, boarding parties and general ship
defence.
 
    Reportedly, some examples of the 'Atlantic' class have been
fitted with black globe force field generators.  This has not been
confirmed.
 
    Construction:  'Atlantic' class heavy cruisers were produced
by a variety of yards throughout the Imperium, including within the
Spinward Marches.  Ling Standard Products constructed four examples
at Mora/Mora in the period 1020 to 1030.  The last 'Atlantic' to
be produced first flew in 1050 at Deneb.
 
    A total of 794 ships were ultimately produced, of which
approximately 500 remain in service.  Depending on progress in
current ship construction, and on the remain in service.  Depending
on progress in current ship construction, and on the astrographic
region, the 'Atlantic' class heavy cruiser may be considered a
first line or a second line ship.  They are being phased into
second line assignments by the Navy as rapidly as newer vessels can
be obtained.
 
    Transfer:  Approximately sixty examples of the 'Atlantic' class
have been transferred, sold, or disposed of to client states of the
Imperium.  Recipients include several Vargr nations along the
Corridor, Aslan colonial governments allied with or friendly to the
Imperium, and many local human worlds within the Imperium.      -
Supplement 9:  Fighting Ships
 
    The Atlantic figured heavily in an old Traveller's Digest
adventure having to do with stealing a fleet of 'Atlantic's out of
mothballs.
 
Original High Guard Design by Tim Brown, Frank Chadwick & Marc
Miller
Reprinted without permission            (Don't kill me, Homer)
Scott Kellogg
 
 
          Stephen D Smith   USENET: m0068@tnc.UUCP
                            BIX: sdsmith
- - --Name = STEPHEN SMITH  Mailbox # = 68

-------- TML Message #1890 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1890
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 9:23:15 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Robot Design Comment

Bertil writes:

> Subject: (1874) Re: (1868)  Robot Design Format

>  One thing that IMHO would be nice would be to get the stats for the robot
> ie str, dex, int, edu) preferrably on the "Other:" cathegory since one will
> need the book to compute those. 

     It is actually already there.  The other category included the entry
"Profile=7F83", which is Strength, Dex, Int, and Ed in that order.
Sorry not to be more explicit.

Rob

-------- TML Message #1891 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1891
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 9:30:00 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  What does Recoil Mean?

I have been watching all of the discussion lately over whether or not gauss
weapons are considered "low recoil".  Now, correct me if I am wrong, but last
time I looked, the only thing that low recoil meant IN THE GAME RULES was that
use of the weapon was less likely to destabilize the user in a zero-gee
environment than a medium recoil wepoan.  The recoil category has nothing
to do with accuracy, and is carried over from Striker, where it had to do
with whether or not a unit could fire and move in the same turn.   So I am 
forced to suggest that maybe it really doesn't matter, unless we want to 
ahve recoil factored in to the TDR combat rules as something that DOES affect
accuracy.

Rob (It's just my opinion (-:) Dean


-------- TML Message #1892 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1892
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 9:57:27 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Advanced Character Generation

How many people use the advance character generation rules now?  I though the
updated "quick" rules provided a sufficiency of skills to keep the characters
competitive, and more or less feel that all the extra die rolling in the
advanced systems is a waste of time.  Just an opinion...

Rob Dean


-------- TML Message #1893 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1893
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 9:52:34 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (1879) Shipping? Common or Rare?

Jim Baranski asks about frequency of shipping in the Traveller universe, and
suggests that it would be similar to the sixteenth century on earth in many
respects. Yes but...

Since I have read more than I care to think about on the subject of trade and
economics from antiquity to the early renaissance (in pursuit of putting
together a working model for use in fantasy and war games), a better analogy
is probably caravan trade.  Sea-borne trade carried a lot of bulk goods over
coastal routes (e.g. Polish grain to France) because of the low expense of
shipping versus land transport.  Caravans were so expensive that only the
highest value luxury goods could be carried along.  Which version of things
we will model our revised economy on depends, as someone pointed out recently,
on how economical starships are to operate.

As far as planetary self-sufficiency goes, the most important factor to consider
is probably population rather than tech level.  If you have a planetary
population in the billions (9+) there is no way, no matter how cheap star travel gets, that they are going to be able to depend on imports for the necessities
of civilization.  Buy high tech weapons from the planet two jumps over, yes.
Import bananas for the wealthy, yes.  Import wheat or iron ore? No.  Planets
with populations of less than 100 million start to resemble, economically,
single nations on present earth, and probably would have export specialties.
I have always figured that a "Non-industrial" planet might still export
small specialty manufactured goods, and the concept of an "agricultural"
planet comletely covered with farms deserves to be relegated to the same scrap
bin for low imagination as "swamp worlds", "desert worlds", and so forth.  The
simplest planetary ecology is not going to be summed up in one word
(except perhaps, "Vacuum world").  Anyway, I'd like to see the trade system
take into account the population as being a major variable in determining the
quantity of trade.  Some examination of the balance of trade issue should be
considered as well.

Now from a gamemaster's standpoint, I'd be interested to know how this all 
translates into an answert to the question "If I walk into a class B starport
on a Pop 7 world jump-2 from its nearest neighbor, how often can I expect to
find a departing starship?".  I tried one time to come up with a little 
estimate of total merhcant ship tonnage in a region, based on an estimate of the
fraction of a planetary Groos Product provided by trade (using Trillion Credit
Squadron), and came up with things like 3-4 thousand merhcant ships of various
sizes plying the Sword Worlds subsector.  Seemed high, but when I built 
navies for the Sword Worlds with TCS/High Guard, Narsil, a Pop 10 world, ended
up with 300 100,000ton battleships, and 800 or 900 supporting ships down to
2000tons in size.  Maybe.  The Traveller Adventure gave one the impression that
ships were pretty common.  Ah well, enough random thoughts on that.

Rob Dean

(Sorry, I'm still suffering from an ear infection and the baby didn't sleep
well last night, so I'm a little scattered this morning.)


-------- TML Message #1894 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1894
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 11:28:31 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Vacuum Resistance

Since I am working on redesigning the vehicle system for TDR, and since it has
been pointed out on the list that a minimum armor of 40 for a spacefaring
craft is ridiculously high, I thought I would take a quick look at the pressure
vessel calculations in my chemical engineering references.  

As two sample calculations, I considered a cylindrical pressure vessel capable
of containing one standard atmosphere of pressure (14.7psi)  <Sorry about the
English units--I'm an engineer>.  I considered it to be made of mild steel,
with no special alloys, etc, giving a yield strnght of approximately 50,000psi.
I also ignored end cap effects.  I decided that a safety factor of 2.5 was 
sufficient, so I put in a value of 20,000psi as the maximum allowable stress
in the skin.  At those conditions, a cylinder 10ft in diameter would need a wall
thickness of less than 0.05 inches, which is less than Traveller armor value
1.  A 100ft diameter cylinder (ship sized) would require a wall thickness
of 0.44 inches, about Traveller armor value, between Traveller armor values 3
and 4.  50,000psi mild steel would be the equivalent of armor type A (soft
steel).

The result of this little investigation would suggest that vacuum resistance is 
not a valid reason to retain an Armor 40 minimum for spacecraft.  Is anyone out
there capable of figuring out how thick a cylinder has to be to support its
own weight at up to 6Gs?  (I've probably got it around here somewhere.)  This
would give us an idea of how much structural strength would be required to
resist acceleration. (assuming that the weights of interior components more or
less included the structural members necessary to brace them...)

Rob Dean


-------- TML Message #1895 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1895
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 09:40:16 PST
From: Vote For NoneOfTheAbove Write In Candidate 30-Nov-1990 1232 <baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM>
Subject: TDR seperate from TML

Mark Cook, has devised TDR mailing lists.  Does this mean that all the TDR work
is going to be done seperate from TML?  Heck, shouldn't everyone in TML be
interested in TDR?  If we take the TDR out of TML, the volume of both will
shrink, and there's a chance one will fall below critical mass.  It's happened
before.

I'd rather see the majority of mail stay in TML.  Sure, I won't save much of
it, but I'll read, reply to anything I feel like, and delete.

Jim Baranski

PS failing that, put me one all the TDR mailing list.

-------- TML Message #1896 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1896
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 02:05:32 -0500
From: Mark Gellis <f3w@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Subject: Weapon damage and ranges

[I re-sent this mail to the list and modified the subject line to be
more meaningful -- James]

While we are on the subject of weapons (i.e., mayhem), I have a subject
I thought might interest people.  One of my biggest problems in designing
a combat system (something I would not wish on my worst enemies...well,
maybe a couple of 'em) is that the system seems to break down in the 
medium range between weapons clearly designed for people and those clearly
designed for vehicles.  If you use a straight multiplication to determine
damage from muzzle energy, etc., you get something that means no one can
survive being hit by a rifle round--true, rifle rounds do produce a lot
of damage, but much of it ends up being wasted...literally, blowing through
the person and on into the air or space behind him.  If you try to use a
curve of some kind, you generally get better results, overall, but you 
always seem to get an realm of vehicles and/or weapons that seem either
overprotected or underpowered.  For example, using my system, a full battle
tank with case-hardened steel armor (most contemporary tanks) has armor
protection up to 200 points (300 in front), and its 50-ton body gives it
about 240 points of "body."  A tac missile (TOW, etc.) generally does
between 300 and 600 points of damage, depending on the type.  Since you
need twice the body of a vehicle to destroy it (the first level is for
disabling it, but not so badly it could not eventually be repaired), this
means you need between 700 and 800 points to utterly destroy it.  Now,
you can get this with a TOW-type missile with a lucky shot (maximum for
the three kinds of weapons, including double damage for very good shots,
are respectively 864, 1152, and 1728 points), but from what I have heard,
the average shot of a TOW should do a tank pretty well. 

Now, of course, it cannot be very good for the player characters inside
the tank who take a couple of hundred points of damage, if they are hit by
what is left of the blast after penetration (which my system tells you to
check for), and there is also the chance that fuel or ammunition will be
hit, and perhaps this is why the TOW is so dangerous, since most of its
damage is in the form of extreme heat.  Perhaps this is what is meant by
"a killed tank"--it does not matter to the crew inside the tank that their
vehicle could eventually be rebuilt, even after a bad hit, if they are
now crispy critters.

Is the system underpowering weapons?  Perhaps...but under the same system,
the average 15-ton fighter aircraft it blown right out of the sky by a single
missile hit, unless it is an enormously unlucky shot.

I have "solved" the problem by adding fudge rules that say the GM can declare
any hit that penetrates the hull of a vehicle to do crippling or killing
damage (which is very useful for getting rid of NPCs once the plot no longer
requires them).  I do not really like this, but it seems to be the best way
to keep my system both fairly realistic and playable.

I was wondering if anyone else had similar problems, suggestions, comments,
etc.

Mark

-------- TML Message #1897 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1897
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 13:42:12 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Look Ma! No Grav!


Jim Baranski asks:

>						Are there other ways to land
> ships?  Are there reaction drives that are not destructive?  Some scenarios
> have space ports have gravitic landing platforms, and scorched earth
> wilderness landings.  I kind of like that.

Well, depending on how you like to do things, you could always configure your 
as a spaceplane, and land with the assistance of wings and an air breathing
engine of some sort, or for that matter, land as a glider.  'Course, you only
get one chance...(-:

Rob Dean

P.S.  There are a number of potentially useful technologies that Traveller's
reliance on grav manipulation overshadows.  Laser launch systems and 
beanstalks are two that spring immediately to mind.


-------- End of TML Messages --------

