
-------- TML Message #1858 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1858
From: Edwin Wiles <elw@netx.COM>
Subject: Elm/Perl DeDigestifier
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 2:01:36 EST

[I modified one of the mailing list addresses in the dedigestifier
below.  The TML submission address is "traveller@metolius.wr.tek.com",
NOT the obsolete "traveller@dadla.la.tek.com".  -- James]

#! /bin/sh
# This is a shell archive, meaning:
# 1. Remove everything above the #! /bin/sh line.
# 2. Save the resulting text in a file.
# 3. Execute the file with /bin/sh (not csh) to create the files:
#	README
#	elmdigest
#	dedigest
# This archive created: Tue Nov 27 02:00:42 1990
export PATH; PATH=/bin:$PATH
if test -f 'README'
then
	echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'README'"
else
sed 's/^X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'README'
XPerl is REQUIRED for this to work.  ELM is suggested, but if it isn't
Xavailable, you can probably subsitute your own mail reader.  Don't ask
Xme questions, I haven't got time.
X
XThis software is provided without waranty or guarantee of any sort.
X
XThe original was Copyright (C) 1990  David J. Camp, under the terms
Xof the GNU Software License.  The original is NOT available from this
Xsite, but is no doubt available from a number of other sites.  The
Xfull notification was removed from the scripts as it was longer than
Xthe scripts themselves.  (One of the annoying aspects of GNU.)
X
XYou may be able to reach D.J. Camp at the following addresses:
X
Xdavid@wubios.wustl.edu                 ^        Mr. David J. Camp
Xdavid%wubios@wugate.wustl.edu        < * >      +1 314 382 0584
X...!uunet!wugate!wubios!david          v
X
XEnjoy!
X---
XPrefered.: elw@netx.com				Edwin Wiles
XAlternate: ...!grebyn!netex!elw			NetExpress Inc., Suite 300,
XWho?  Me?!?  Responsible!?!  Surely You Jest!	Vienna, VA, USA 22182
SHAR_EOF
fi # end of overwriting check
if test -f 'elmdigest'
then
	echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'elmdigest'"
else
sed 's/^X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'elmdigest'
X:
X#    This is 'elmdigest', a program to view a folder made from a digest.
X#    Copyright (C) 1990  David J. Camp,  Modified 1990, E.L. Wiles.
X#
Xset -v
Xperl /usr2/elw/bin/dedigest > /tmp/di$$
Xelm -f /tmp/di$$ < /dev/tty
X/bin/rm /tmp/di$$
SHAR_EOF
chmod +x 'elmdigest'
fi # end of overwriting check
if test -f 'dedigest'
then
	echo shar: will not over-write existing file "'dedigest'"
else
sed 's/^X//' << \SHAR_EOF > 'dedigest'
X######
X# This is 'dedigest' a program to convert a digest to a folder.
X# Currently hardcoded to support only the traveller digest.
X# Copyright (C) 1990  David J. Camp.  Modified 1990, E. L. Wiles.
X####################################
X#	This is a PERL script and must be invoked via "perl dedigest".
X
Xwhile (<>)
X{
X    if (substr ($_, 0, 3) eq "---")
X    {
X	$not_post_subject=1;
X	print "From dummy Wed Feb  29 12:12:12 1990\n";
X	do
X	{
X	    $_ = <>;
X	}
X	until (eof() || 0 != tr/\041-\177/\041-\177/);
X    }
X    $not_post_subject=0 if m/^Subject: /o;
X    s/^>From: /From: /o if $not_post_subject;
X    print $_;
X    print "Cc: traveller@metolius.wr.tek.com (Traveller Mailing List)\n"
X	if ( m/^From: /o );
X}
SHAR_EOF
fi # end of overwriting check
#	End of shell archive
exit 0

-------- TML Message #1859 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1859
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: Just How low IS "Low Recoil"?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 0:36:29 PST

In TML note 1856, Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk> writes:

> > MT does NOT list gauss weapons as being "recoilless".  They list them as
> > being "low recoil", which is appropriate.  If you consider both F=ma and
> > Newton's 3rd Law ("Equal and opposite reaction") then the amount of enery
> > delivered to each gauss needle (and thus acceleration, since the needle's
> > mass is constant) is equal to the amount of recoil energy delivered to
> > the gauss weapon firing the needle.
> 
> 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
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").

>                                                          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.
> 
>       Mass of a fully loaded assault rifle = 3.33 kg     (3.635 kg)
>       Mass of a 6mm slug from assault rifle = 0.005 kg   (0.00365 kg)
>       Velocity of slug = 900 m/s                         (999.7 m/s)
> =>    Momentum of slug = 4.5 kg m/s                      (3.65 m/s)
> By Newton's 3rd law, momentum of rifle = 4.5 kg m/s in the other direction.
> =>    Velocity of rifle = 1.35 m/s                       (1.0 m/s)

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.

> 
>       Mass of a fully loaded gauss rifle = 3.90 kg
>       Mass of a 4mm needle from gauss rifle = 0.004 kg
>       Velocity of needle = 1500 m/s
> =>    Momentum of slug = 6 kg m/s
> =>    Momentum of gauss rifle = 6 kg m/s the other way
> =>    Velocity of rifle = 1.54 m/s
> =>    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.  It is, in fact,
just that.  Have you ever fired an M-16?  You can do it with one hand,
you know.  It has almost no kick.

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.  Chambering the NATO M59 ball round, the values for it are:
        Mass of a fully loaded rifle = 4.07 kg (w/ loaded 35 rnd. clip)
        Mass of std. slug = 150.5 gr. = 9.75 g. = 0.00975 kg
        Velocity of slug = 2789 ft/s. = 850 m/s
        Momentum of slug = 8.29 kg m/s
using the same math you use (which I'm not contending, BTW), we get:
        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.  According to "Cartridges
of the World" - 6th Ed., it has the following stats:
        Mass of std. slug = 40 gr. = 2.59 g. = 0.00259 kg.
        Muzzle velocity of slug = 1150 ft/s. = 350 m/s
        Momentum of slug = 0.908 kg m/s
Now, if we use that round in my Ruger 10/22 (a .22 semi-auto sports rifle),
which has the following weight:
        Mass of loaded rifle = 4.8 lb. = 1.8 kg.
We get a recoil momentum of:
        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 reason I include
this round is that I'd wager that almost everybody on the TML has fired
a .22 cal. rifle (or pistol) and some point in their life, so it gives
a common ground for interpretation.  The 7.62mm round fired by the Galil,
on the other hand, is a Winchester .308 round in civilian life; a big
game hunting round.  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.

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.

References for the weapons and ammo data:
        1) Modern American Weapons - edited by Ray Bonds;
                                Prentiss-Hall, 1986.
        2) Modern Land Combat - David Miller & Christopher F Foss;
                                Portland House, 1987.
        3) World Military Power - Chris Bishop & David Donald;
                                The Military Press, 1987.
        4) Cartridges of the World, 6th Ed. - Frank C. Barnes & Ken Warner;
                                DBI Books Inc., 1989.
        5) The Palladium Book of Contemporary Weapons - Maryann Siembieda;
                                Palladium Books, 1984.
                NOTE: I include this last entry only because it is a
                handy, fairly accurate, quick reference for an RPG.
                It is not a definitive source, by any means.

        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 #1860 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1860
From: "Brent L. Woods" <woodsb@zoo.ecn.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: (1835) "Leviathan" ships
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 5:35:54 EST


 In message 1835, jim@oasis.icl.stc.co.uk (Jim Cheetham) writes:
 >
 >...throw such a huge spanner in the works...

     I've seen this phrase before.  Never understood it, though.  What's
a "spanner?"

 >(Mind you, that's AOK for 1/2 man fighters, but how do they protect
 > the Leviathan ships? They're several kilometers long ... Hmmm ...)

     I had to look twice at this.  If "Leviathan" is being used as an
adjective, then okay.  If you mean the merchant ship from Adventure 4,
that's only 53.5 meters long (from the specs).

     Come to think of it, I've never heard of a ship several kilometers
long in Traveller.  Even the big ships from Supplement 9 aren't anywhere
near that big.  Have I missed something?


- - --
     Brent

INTERNET:  woodsb@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
USNAIL:  2818 S. Sunrise Dr.  /  New Palestine, IN  46163
PHONE:  +1 (317) 861-4844 (voice)

[A spanner is a wrench with a handle and an adjusting screw so you can
use it on a wide range of bolt sizes.  In the states we call this a
"crescent wrench", or a "monkey wrench" (the latter refers to an
aggressively-toothed and levered version used by plumbers for turning
threaded pipe).  Imagine a large machine with gears and rods, etc.  (the
"works") then throw one of these wrenches into it (the "spanner") to get
caught on a gear...  There is also the joke played on new Navy recruits,
where they are asked to find a left-handed spanner -- all spanners are
usable by either hand! -- James]


-------- TML Message #1861 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1861
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 10:08 EDT
From: METLAY@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Subject: TDR and the Big Kids


Some questions have been raised about the relationship between TDR and
the companies publishing MegaTraveller; I think these should be answered 
clearly before we finish anything concrete.

I should soften my statement that we are going to avoid mingling TDR with
involvement from GDW (unlikely at best) or DGP (somewhat more possible)
"at all costs." Obviously this can't be done; the gaming community is a 
small one, and word gets around. So the policy I'd like to adopt is one
of careful distancing from the "official line" until we have something
to show for our efforts. Remember-- we're doing these rules because we've
seen several areas of Traveller, which is overall a wonderful game, that
are, well, BROKEN. And we want to fix them, basically. So what we're 
doing here is creating OUR vision of a repaired MT rules system: Traveller
Done Right. This defines the parameters of TDR as a product: we are not
licensed by GDW to sell it, therefore we cannot, so it MUST be made
available for free, and we cannot represent it as anything remotely 
resembling officialdom. Recall DGP's efforts to "fix" Traveller resulted
in MegaTraveller, a major overhaul whose improvements have often been
ignored in the light of some of the bigger gaffes. We're taking the next
step with TDR, but somehow I doubt that either GDW or DGP is willing to
consider Traveller rev 3.0 just yet. So we need to get our ideas out there
and have them playtested and beaten upon for a while, resulting in updates
and improvements once in a while and in the end, a system that maybe, 
POSSIBLY, might get looked at by GDW and DGP as a worthwhile variant or
addition to the MT rules. This will take years, and as long as copyright
is retained we will always have the option of licensing, but as of now
any involvement with DGP or GDW on an official level is out of the question.

That having been said, let me second Mark's motion and say, get the rules
in BEFORE we try to decide how to distribute them; stop talking and start
doing, folx. (And lest ye point at me, I have a few things of my own on
the way: with Dow, a fixed trade/commerce system, and on my own, an 
expanded skill list and the beginnings of a TON of equipment and weapons
data.)

metlay


-------- TML Message #1862 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1862
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 10:52:08 -0500
From: "T. L. Hayes" <al646@cleveland.freenet.edu>
Subject: Random Thoughts



Traveller on Fusion:

On page 83 of the Referee's Manual it refers to hydrogen fuel and
hydrogen gas (unrefined fuel).  Hydrogen gas is skimmed from gas giants
which we all know are not pure hydrogen but rather hydrogen compounds.
Therefore it seems reasonable to assume that the fusion plants use plain
hydrogen as fuel.  Burning unrefined fuel means injecting hydrogen
compounds (such as water or methane) into the reaction chamber and letting
the ultra-high temperatures break down the molecule and fuse the hydrogen.
The problem with unrefined fuel then is that you have less hydrogen per unit
volume and more non-fuel particles in the way.

Assuming then a p-p chain like reaction (or a related reaction such as the
C-N-O catalytic fusion cycle) neutrinos will be emitted and be detectable
as moving neutrino "hot spots" in the otherwise stationary neutrino
background.  Triangulation will allow estimates of range for reasonably
close targets.  Flux will allow estimates of energy generation.

About Refineries:

I can find no place that says 1 ton of skimmed material will be processed
into 1 ton of refined fuel, therefore since this makes no sense it must not
be the case.  Refineries are rated in kiloliters/6 hours.  I take this to
mean, given raw material, the refinery can produce x kl/6 hours.  How much
raw material depends on the gas giant (or more generally the source).  
Remember 1 ton actually means 13.5 kl (a volume).  So the referee needs to
assign a percentage yeild to the material being processed.  One way to
estimate the percentage yeild of a material would be to estimate the number
of molecules present in 1 kl.  Then multiply by the number of hydrogen atoms
in each molecule (ie 2 for water).  Then see what volume that much hydrogen
would occupy.  The ratios of the volumes is the percentage yeild.  You 
could say that the purification times are for some averagy yeild and high
yeild gas giants would take less time while low yeild gas giants would
take longer.  For mixed material simply use ratios ie if water yeilds 25%
hydrogen and methane yeilds 40% hydrogen then something thats half water
and half methane would yeild (25/2 + 40/2) 32.5% hydrogen.  This can get
very messy very quickly so an alternative is to simply classify the gas
giants as average, high, and low yeild and then adjust processing times
accordingly. (Note the numbers for water and methane are made up.)

Speaking of Volume:

Has anyone considered compressing the hydrogen?  That is putting the same
amount of fuel into a smaller space thus allowing more room for other things?
What I like to do is design the ship as normal but then when I draw it I
don't put in the fuel storage until last.  This allows some "artistic" 
flare when laying out the ship.  i can put in hallways and common areas and
the like (within reason) then when I am finished I take the left over space
and put the fuel in there.  If there isn't enough left over space, then the
fuel is compressed!  I usually end up with about a 2 or 3 compression ratio
at most.  The actual weight of the ship would be higher than calculated
from the books but not alot because the extra space is not used for additional
equipment (cargo space or staterooms or the like) but rather for open spaces
like hallways.  Comments?

TLH

- - --
T.L.Hayes                  |
MIT/Lincoln Laboratory     |
Lexington, MA              |

-------- TML Message #1863 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1863
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 08:40 EST
From: Gerry Williams <gsw@moss.att.COM>
Subject: Volume of a tetrahedron

I didn't remember the formulas either, but I was able to derive them
(hopefully I did this correctly):

                          A * h
V (Volume of a pyramid) = -----
                            3
                                                 2
                                      SQRT(3) * e
A (Area of an equilateral triangle) = ------------
                                           2

                              SQRT(2) * e
h (Height of a tetrahedron) = -----------
                                SQRT(3)

e (Length of a side)

                   3                    2
If V = 50,000,000 m , then A = 219,130 m .

Also, h = 411 m, and finally, e = 503 m.

The Alcyon is roughly 500 meters on a side, and is over 400 meters tall.

*********
Gerald Williams (aka Morton Limner)
att!moss!gsw
gsw@moss.att.com
(201)386-2059
*********

-------- TML Message #1864 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1864
Subject: Re: Random Thoughts 
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 10:34:49 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.WR>


T L Hayes writes:
> ....  Burning unrefined fuel means injecting hydrogen
> compounds (such as water or methane) into the reaction chamber and letting
> the ultra-high temperatures break down the molecule and fuse the hydrogen.
> The problem with unrefined fuel then is that you have less hydrogen per unit
> volume and more non-fuel particles in the way.

Okay, I just can't stay out of this discussion any longer.

When the unrefined fuel enters the reactor, it takes additional energy
to break apart the moecules and ionize the atoms -- considerable energy
in the case of all non-hydrogen elements.  So, the reactor must be run
at a higher fuel flow rate than was necessary for refined fuel, to get
the same output; or in the case of jump engines, it may be difficult to
get power flow to be well-regulated, depending on vagaries in the mix.

Also, the garbage elements absorb neutrons and other particles; in
general, causing the reaction to be less controlled, and slurping up
still more energy.  The isotope transmutation and added scattering leads
to residual radioactivity of the reactor chamber, and accelerates the
normal plasma bombardment/destruction of the chamber's walls.  The end
result is that the reactor chamber needs replacement much more often,
sensors controlling the reaction are more likely to fail, and with the
increased radioactivity one is more likely to have ionization problems
in nearby electronics and power control circuits.

Commercial engines are DESIGNED to run on refined fuel, so they are
smaller, lighter, less shielded, and have less robust control
mechanisms.  Military drives that run on unrefined fuel are built much
more like a brick caca house, are designed to have the reactor chamber
replaced easily and quickly in the field, have more backup control
mechanisms, plus lots of spares are on board to replace the occasional
failure.  The waste reactor cores can be easily and cheaply placed in a
military rad weapons dump somewhere, and so on.  It's only money, and
the military is allowed to spend lots of it.

> Has anyone considered compressing the hydrogen?

I was always under the belief that fuel hydrogen was stored as a
cryogenic liquid.  Liquids are awfully hard to compress.  The only
possible compression I see possible is to solidify it, which is very
hard to do (need very high pressures) with hydrogen, besides which you'd
need to thaw it out to use it in the engines.

I tend not to worry about deck plans being real accurate; they are there
as additional detail to make the fictional universe more palpable.
Besides, the "rule"books indicate that 10% slop either way on deck plan
volumes is acceptable.  I also figure that there are many nooks and
crannies aboard the vessel which are difficult to depict on deck plans,
but are used by something, either freeing additional room for fuel or
actually used for fuel storage itself... as a case in point, have you
ever done a deck plan of a Scout-shaped ship? With such a shape, it
doesn't translate real well to paper (how big a triangle do I draw to
map deck 1? deck 2? Heck, I'll make a rough guess :-).

James
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Traveller Mailing List Administrator	     James T Perkins @ Tektronix, Inc
traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com	     Beaverton, Oregon, USA
uunet!metolius.wr.tek.com!traveller-request  "Load Auto/Evade, Beowulf!"

-------- TML Message #1865 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1865
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: TDR Vehicle Design & Combat
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 12:29:23 PST

>From Burton Choinsk <CHOINSKI@s35.prime.COM>

>>From: John Wilber <wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.edu>
>
>>VEHICLE DESIGN
>>
>>I think that TDR should have a vehicle design system that would apply
>>across the whole range of vehicle sizes- kind of like a "unified field
>>theory" of vehicle design.  Again, I think _Striker_ has the right
>>idea.  I like Striker's system because you know that the resultant
>>vehicle is x meters wide, y meters tall, and z meters long, unlike
>>MegaTraveller.  The designer would use the same rules for designing any
>
>I feel that unifying this much is too much of a good thing.  A car is not
>a boat, nor is a sub a spaceship.

If you think about it, there's less truth to this statement than you may
think.  At the current TL (ours; 8, I think) cars and boats are almost
identical: they both have internal combustion engines; they both are
semi-waterproof (cars from the top, boats from the bottom); they both
have similiar ranges, speeds, and capacities.  The same is true for
subs and spaceships: both have self-contained life support systems;
both are large, cumbersome, and expensive; both require extremely high
tech guidance and propulsion systems; both require crews of >1; both
require exotic fuels (LOX and hydrazine for the rockets, uranium for
the subs); etc.

>                                   There should probably be three sets of
>design rules, based on a common core:
>
>   Ground vehicles: Cars, trucks, etc.  No grav stuff, but includes hovercraft.
>   Watercraft:      Boats, subs, etc.
>   Aircraft:        Grav craft, spacecraft, etc.
>
>I think it should be broken up a bit just because of the differences in design
>philosophy.  If you wish to make an aero-car, you would use the basic aircraft
>rules and add vehicle stuff.  A sub-plane would use either the aircraft or
>watercraft rules, depending on primary emphasis.

Well, at high TLs, where do you draw the line?  When does a gravitic ground
vehicle stop becoming a ground vehicle and start becoming an air vehicle?
If you're going base your rule separation strictly on type of propulsion
system, how granular to you get?  What is an air cushion vehicle: ground,
water, or air?  Why slam it into ground vehicles when it could just as
easily be put in one of the other two?  This seems highly arbitrary to me.

By creating a single "unified" set of design rules, you no longer have
to worry about those (artificial) boundaries.  If the rules big enough
to cover everything seem unwieldy, you simply design them such that
certain unneccessary components become optional (like weapon, environment,
and computer control components for a skateboard).  In a modular, unified
system, you have the best of both worlds: everything is designed the same
way, but you only use what you need.  And the biggest plus of all is that
you don't have to duplicate common design rules for separate systems.

>IMHO, the "overall body damage" system is outdated and should be
>eliminated.  Also, the direct use of characteristics for "hitpoints"
>should be dropped in favor of a more abstract system (perhaps similar to
>"STAR WARS").  Each character is given a "toughness" rating (based on
>Strength, Endurance, and some racial modifiers -- kkee should be tougher
>then humans).  When a character's armor is breached, the "degree of damage
>(DOD)" is determined.  If an optional hit location table is used, head hits
>might be DODx10, arms DODx1/2, etc.  By cross referencing the DOD with the
>toughness, you can determine wounding (superficial, light, moderate,
>serious, critical, lethal).
>
>This system would retain enough of the old system, but add some "space
>opera-ish" taste.

If this is the kind of combat system you want, then you're probably gonna'
love the one Iain Fogg and I are almost finished with.  Heavily based on
Cyberpunk's "Friday Night Firefight", it uses weapon damage translated
into wound types: Flesh, Serious, Critical, Mortal, and Dead.  These
wounds are modified by a BODY TYPE (Very Weak, Weak, Avg., Strong, Very
Strong), so that a K'Kree would naturally be tougher that a Human.

Wait and see.

        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 #1866 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1866
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 13:18:25 PST
From: Vote For NoneOfTheAbove Write In Candidate 27-Nov-1990 1032 <baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM>
Subject: TDR reviewers, drives, etc

RE: TDR rules categories & help

While I don't think I can add much in the way of writing concrete rules, I'd be
happy to review rules submissions, and in general bounce ideas around.
Is there a TDR category for that, or are such a dime a dozen? :-)  I'm not up
on the lastest Traveller, but have good experience with 'classic' Traveller,
and designing homebrew rules systems.

RE: Survey list

You know, this is the first time that I've ever seen anything resembling a list
of who's who in the TML.  Don'cha think it would be nice to know a bit about
who's who?  who knows, maybe there are some Traveller types near me???

RE: TDR rules categories

Should we have rules dealing with world's TL as mentioned in the TCS question?
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!

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.

I don't like having to have three drives, but they seem to be necessary. 
Assuming that the maneuver drive is a reaction drive, you need some other sort
of drive to land without destroying the place.  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.

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.

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.  It seems like pulling a rabbit out of a hat! 
Does anyone else have such misgivings?

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.

There are other possibilities for maneuver drives other then a reaction drive
or a 'rabbit out of a hat' drive, and I hope we can decide on one that fits for
TDR maneuver drives...

Discussion?

RE: TDR unified design rules

It's the only way to go!

RE: Combat systems

I like the idea of being able to figure out where a character has been hit, and
take that in account for damage, but such rules ***must*** be simple and
PLAYABLE!

RE: vehicle movement

I hope that TDR will use the MAYDAY vector movement rules, instead of the
'zones' gimmick use somewhere in Traveller...

Jim Baranski

-------- TML Message #1867 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1867
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 01:59:11 CST
From: Roger Opperman <oppr@cardiac-ra.swmed.utexas.edu>
Subject: GR is low recoil


I agree that if the recoil of a GR is equivalent to an M-16 then it
should be classified as LOW recoil.  The combination of low recoil,
high velocity, low cross section and high round mass make the GR very
nice from a military ballistics standpoint.

The GR should also be able to fire ultra-rapid multi-round bursts like
the HK Gll.  It fires 3 rounds so rapidly that the last round is out
of the weapon before the recoil can change the aiming point.  This makes
it MUCH more likely that at least one of the 3 rounds will hit the
target (unlike most modern assault rifles where the action must cycle
completely between each round thus moving the 'aiming' point of each
subsequent round many mils).  The side effect of this is that the net
recoil for the burst is increased.  Tech 8 and 9 ACRs should probably
have this capability also.

Another area I'd like to see discussed is the use of gyrostabilizers
on personal weapons.  It seems that they would make the aiming process
more difficult unless they kicked in at a relatively late stage in the
process (maybe activated by trigger pull).

Regards

Roger Opperman
oppr@cardiac-ra.swmed.utexas.edu

-------- TML Message #1868 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1868
Date:     Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:35:30 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Robot Design Format

I have appended one robot design to this message, which I trust won't be enough
to offend anyone.  As you are all aware, the scheduled MegaTraveller robot book
isn't on any DGP schedule I've seen lately, so anyone wanting to use robots is
forced to limp along with Book 8.  The following is my attempt to lay out a
Book 8 robot in a format similar to the current "standard vehicle" format, 
hopefully with enough info that anyone could "reverse engineer" the design if
necessary.  I did this a while ago, so I *think* that I laid out any components
in the Referee's Manual Vehicle system according to that system rather than
Book 8, and revised the Book 8 configuration numbers to match the vehicles.  
Damage values are calculated as per the DGP ref's screen (Vol in liters/10),
so don't multiply them by 10 like you would for a vehicle.  This still means 
there is a factor of 10 difference in damage points between a "robot" and a
"vehicle".  Should 'bots be tougher than cars?  I apologize for not doing 
this to some more generally usable robot.  If anyone likes this format, I've
got a dozen or so more general purpose robots I could convert.

Rob Dean

  Imperial Glisten Navy Model 5 Warbot TL15
  
       This warbot is produced by ConTech of Glisten for use by the IGN.  Not 
  substantially more expensive than the equipment carried by a marine in bat-
  tledress, the Model 5 can be used to supplement the capabilities of a human 
  unit, and can be expended in suicidal attacks without qualms if necessary.
  
    RobotID: IGN Model 5 Warbot, TL15, Cr362,300
    Chassis: 10/25, Disp=150L, Conf=2SL, Armor=18G, Weight=231.4kg     
      Power: 2/4, FuelCells=60KW, Dur=10/30
       Loco: 2/4, LPHvyGrav=0.4t, TopSpeed=860kph, Cruise=648kph, NOE=190kph,
             MaxAccel=0.72G
       Comm: Radio=Continental(5000km), MaserComm=VDist(50km)
    Sensors: 2 Visual (telescopic, light intensifying), 2 Audio, 1 Olfactory
        Off: FGMP-14
  
                        Pen/          Max     Auto   Dngr
                        Attn    Dmg   Range   Tgts   Spc    Sig  Rec  ROF
               FGMP-14  34/2    14    Distant   -    4.5     H    H    -
  
        Def: Extensive ECM
      Brain: CPU=1 Synaptic, 10 Parallel, 30 Linear, Storage=30 Standard
    Program: Low Autonomous, Full Command, Energy Weapon-3, Grav Vehicle-2, 
             Infantry Combat-1, Tactics-1
      Other: Fuel=35.8L, Profile=7F83

-------- TML Message #1869 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1869
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:49:38 PST
From: Vote For NoneOfTheAbove Write In Candidate 28-Nov-1990 1315 <baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM>
Subject: Shipping?  Common or Rare?

The Standard 'classic' Traveller cargo charts have basically every cargo known
to man.  I have the feeling that this is not realistic.  In my opinion, it
seems like the only reason for shipping X from point A to point B is because X
is not economically available at point B.  Either it just isn't available, or
you can produce X at point A and ship it to point B cheaper then you can
produce it at point B.

How much does it cost to ship X?  This is what will determine whether if you
can produce X at both places, but for different costs, whether it's feasible to
ship X from point A to point B.

Think about it...  Why ship something when you can produce it where you need
it?  Why carry bauxite from system A to system B when you can mine it in system
B?  I have a hard time believing that there will be a lot of this type of
shipping going on.  I think it's more likely that only rare refined alloys
would be shipped.  In general, it's better to ship finished products, rather
then raw materials which in general abound.

Let's think about the real world...  plenty of bannannas are shipped from SA to
NA.  Why?  Because we can't grow bannannas here.  Why do people eat bannannas?
Beats me!  Mostly because they are cheap food, and they taste good.  Why are
they cheap, because they can grow them cheap and ship them cheap.  But it's not
something people "needed" to have, and thus ordered, it was probably a market
that had to be developed.

Another example... Cars.  We make cars in the US, why do we ship them from
Japan to the US?  Because Japan can make them cheaper and better then we can,
and ship them to us and *still* have them be cheap (and better).

Some more examples of raw materials... Oil, steel, ores...  Today all these
materials are shipped all across the world, mostly from areas which have a lot
of these materials to areas which don't have them.  And industrial areas have
to import materials which they don't have locally which they need for their
products, but the imported raw materials should be a small portion of the total
raw materials used.  Japan, for instance imports a lot of raw materials because
they have very little "raw material" there.

However, these activities are all taking place on a global scale, where these
raw materials do exist only in certain places in the world.  I have a hard time
believing that the same circumstances will hold when you are shipping between
planets or systems.  I would think *somewhere* on a planet or system there
would be a quantity of X.  It may be produced in one place in a system, and
used in another place in system, but I doubt much would be shipped outsystem.

Various levels of development also have an effect on shipping.  A colony
system, traditionally imports all it's manufactured goods, and can pay for them
only with raw materials; a colony will not have developed all it's resources
and industries.  A developed system will probably be able to have developed
resources and industries and be relitively self sufficient, and will be
exporting manufactured goods.  A system that has been settled for a *long*
time, like Terra, may have squandered all it's resources, and *have* to import
raw materials, like Japan does, and will have to be able to add sufficient
value to make it worthwhile.

Can we take this into account on shipping charts?

Jim Baranski

-------- TML Message #1870 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1870
Date:     Wed, 28 Nov 90 11:23:23 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Re:  (1864) Re: Random Thoughts

James,

     I like to reply to one point in your message.  You said that commercial
drives were intended to eat refined fuel, while military drives would eat
unrefined fuel.  This is a carryover from old Traveller that has no existence
in the new design rules, as far as I can tell.  What all military ships have
in the new design rules (and all commercial ships, if they're sensible) is the
fule purifier.  As big and bulky as they are under the new rules, they are 
still cost effective when used on commercial ships, at least according to the
current (broken) trade rules.

Rob Dean

[Oops, my classic Traveller background is showing -- James]


-------- TML Message #1871 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1871
Date:    Wed, 28 Nov 90 17:33 EST
From: PHB100@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: RE:  Just how low IS low recoil?

> Mark Cook says:
>
>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.
>
How does gyrostab make it low-recoil?  My understanding of how gyros work (not
comprehensive, by any means ;+) don't let them absorb recoil, just help you
keep the gun pointed at the target.  Gyros resist torqueing moments (is my
terminology correct? ) but the full recoil should still hit your shoulder
(wrist, whatever...).

Yes?  No?

- - -------

Disclaimer:  This is me.  Do I sound like anyone else?

Paul Baughman          PHB100@psuvm.bitnet

-------- TML Message #1872 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1872
Subject: CAT -- Clearing the Decks
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 8:32:07 PST
From: Richard Johnson <richard@agora.UUCP>

Last week I spouted off about being more interested in working with
TML sophonts on programs to help the GM, than in directly addressing
TDR rules-generation stuff.  This has sparked some interest, and some
heat as well as light.  This message is a summary of CAT to date, a
list of existing participants, and (I hope) removal of some floatsam.

Current participants:
	Richard Johnson		richard@agora.hf.intel.com
	Chuck McKnight 		mcknight@tusun2.mcs.utulsa.edu
	Paul Dale		grue@batserver.
	Dan Corrin		dan@engrg.uwo.ca
	
Others who seem to be interested, by their archives and TML comments,
but who have not actually offered to join in the discussion:
	Jo Jaquinta		lgrant@maths.tcd.ie
	Robert P. Poole		tarquin@athena.mit.edu
	Mark Cook		markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com

Actually, Mark has participated, but his priorities are for TDR.


We, so far, do not actually have a co-ordinator.  We usually just copy
everyone who is participating, as I am with this message.  This one I
felt should be echoed to the TML as well -- sort of a gentle reminder
to others that if they are interested, they can join in.  The feeling of
most of us is that software is better done quietly in private (and 
wash your hands afterwards. :-)  Actually, we're deliberately trying to
avoid committee-think.

Our primary goal right now was IMHO best expressed by Dan:
	A pc in front of every ref? I could care less. I want a pc in
	front of *me* while I am refing. So do others on the list, and 
	I just think that we should get together to program so we don't 
	waste our efforts.

Chuck is currently doing MSDOS ports of existing software on the TML.
Dan and Paul are working on a Deck Plan generator, and I'm just trying
to collect everything so I can see what programs I want to port to 
what machines.  My eventual goal is to have a bunch of programs we can
put together as a package for distribution, a package that covers most 
of the most-needed stuff.

I think most of us are out for personal fun, not profit.  We'll take the
cash if it falls in our laps, though.


Mark and Dan have been discussing the role of CAT<-->TDR.  My view, shaped
largely by Dan's, is that we're programming for ourselves, and sharing 
information.  Right now we're doing MT rules, because they exist.  If,
in the future, someone (or several) want to port the programs to TDR rules,
we'll help all we can.


I'm not sure what Robert Poole is doing, but did understand he was archiving
software for TDR, or something like that.  Robert, if you get your copy,
please let at least one of us know if and how we should co-ordinate
efforts.

Richard

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

