Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 350
Date:	95-07-18 12:35:56 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com

From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)
			    TRAVELLER Digest 350

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Why not microjump?
	by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
  2) TRAVELLER digest 348
	by AQLH90D@prodigy.com (MR JON G FULLER)
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 349
	by lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
  4) Re: Walkers
	by Hans-Christian.Prytz@ffi.no
  5) Re: Walkers
	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
  6) Earn $100,000 with your RECIPE!
	by Profwelks@aol.com
  7) ADMIN: Spamming this list (was Re: Earn $100,000 with your
	by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
  8) Re: TRAVELLER digest 348
	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 14:41:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Why not microjump?
Message-ID: <300B05B5@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie) writes:

 --------------------------
While greasing up my ship design spreadsheet, I ran some numbers on fuel
consumption for sub-parsec jumps, and got some very interesting results.
For example, for a 1000 D-Ton Jump 4 ship, the fuel consumed per light
second is only .00085 litres.  To put that in perspective, the average jump
from jupiter orbit to earth orbit (2500 ls if the TNE travel distance tables
are accepted) is only 2.13 l of fuel.  This is probably less volume than the
milk which the Captain will take in his tea during the week in J-Space.  And
what's a week?  A 9 g hour burn from the table still gives a 5 week travel
time -- for most ships you probably get dry tanks long before you get under
a week.
 ---------------------------

I thought that the jump drive fuel requirements followed the following:
fuel = TL factor x mass of ship x ( jump Number +1 )
This being the case a micro-jump ( jump 0 ) would require half the fuel a 
jump 1 would no matter what the distance is within the system.
This would be the case because much of the fuel is used to create the hole 
in spacetime as opposed to travelling through the hole.

 ---------------------------
Microjumps restore the reasons for capturing a Gas giant.  You arrive on
target with full tanks, and instead of being out in the open like a blazing
torch that says "here I come, calculate my ETA", the target cannot tell if
you are after the homeworld, or on to the next system.
 ---------------------------

My comment above does not change the tactic, only the degree of it's 
application.

Django.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 00:55:50 EDT
From: AQLH90D@prodigy.com (MR JON G FULLER)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 348
Message-ID: <013.08742150.AQLH90D@prodigy.com>


Brendan O'Donovan wrote:
>I like the idea of walkers, but they may not be as agile as anime 
films portray. 
>The Dante robot, built to climb down into a volcano, took several 
days to reach 
>the bottom, because of the care necessary in placing its feet. I 
can't remember 
>the story exactly, but I've got a feeling that it fell over in the 
end anyway. 

The problem with the association you're making here is that Dante is 
a first or second generation walker --- very specifically not 
designed for combat.  A combat walker would have to be a stable 
weapons platform (i.e. it wouldn't fall over at the drop of a hat).  
As for anime style manuevers --- people driving walkers would rather 
kill something at a distance...so infighting would lag in development.
  I think infighting abilities for walkers WOULD be developed 
eventually, at least for the smaller walkers (rate 3 and less), 
because they would be pitted against battle dress.

>The Battletech walkers are not good examples of hard science fiction,
 they're 
>far too large to be useful as all terrain vehicles, in woods they'd 
trip up on 
>trees, and in water they'd fall over because of drag on their legs, 
but slightly 
>smaller walkers like the Star Wars AT-ST could have some tactical 
uses.

I definetly agree. 

>Apart from jumping, contra grav would have one 
>other use, it would make it easier to build a stable structure for 
the walker, 
>by reducing stress on the legs from the weight of the upper body.

I've been playing with a walker design that incorporates High Bypass 
Turbofans for 'jumping' (inspired by Masamuni Shirow's Landmate 
designs in Appleseed).  Very small walkers like the AT-ST have 
definate potential...even more so when they FLY(I use an air 
efficiency of .2 and they almost outrun Grav tanks).  Big walkers = 
big targets (even if they've got a few zillion megajoules of 
firepower).  Small walkers w/ jet engines = better than battledress 
and five times as deadly.

I'll go back to "lurker" mode now...

.JF.  


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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 08:28:02 -0300
From: lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 349
Message-ID: <9507171135.AA03836@lrmi.com>

Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com> wrote
>
>Here's some suggested rules to play with (enjoy!):
> (( useful tables omittedd ))
>A nuclear explosion within the "Rad Hit" range of a spacecraft will
>produce a radiation hit, resetting computers (just as if the ship were
>hit with a particle beam weapon).  Explosions beyond this range have
>no effect on a spacecraft.
>
These are excellent rules, and I will use them.  The only thing needed for
space combat use now is a set of rules for getting a missile inside this
sort of range.

question: how should armour protect against the "rad" hit?

Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
Atlantic LRMI


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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 12:38:53 +0200
From: Hans-Christian.Prytz@ffi.no
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Non Receipt Notification Requested)
Subject: Re: Walkers
Message-ID: <"317 95/07/17
12:38*/G=Hans-Christian/S=Prytz/O=ffi/PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/"@MHS>

> 
>    This technology becomes available at TL 12 I believe.  I have a great
> deal of difficulty with the concept of a battlemech, however.  Arms
> may have some utility on a walker in that they would allow it to better
> manipulate its environment (like say piling up boulders to use as a
> defensive position), but would be practically useless as melee weapons,
> as it would be highly unlikely that a battlemech would get that close
> to the enemy.  I'm not sure what kind of weapons arms large enough
> to be on a battlemech could hold, but they would probably be less
> powerful than those you could mount in a turret, and have less of a
> arc of fire.  As for a head--why?  Aesthetics perhaps?  You'd
> probably be much better off with a turret and no arms and no head,
> IMHO.
> 
> 
> --Harold
I agree with you, this was just to tell how it's been done in another system.

One thing about arms is that they have a much better movement arc than
turrets do. You 
can point them down or up much easier than you can turrets. And as you said,
if you 
have arms you can move large things as well.

As for the head: the only reason I can think of for having a head where the
pilot sits, is 
that you then have a very good place to put nosy and bothering subordinates.

Lt. Roberts (int. sec.) "Sir, I have a report here about captain Peterson
beeing seen on a 
hot date with your wife."
Col. Adams "What!?!?!? Ok, assign him to the mech company. Make sure he gets
one 
with a BIG head!!!!"

Just my Cr 0.02



Hilsen (Regards)
Hans-Christian Prytz
**************************************************
PGP public key available on request.
**************************************************
X.400 : G=Hans-Christian;S=Prytz;O=FFI;P=UNINETT;C=NO;
RFC   : Hans-Christian.Prytz@FFI.NO (hap@ffi.no)
 
Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt - FFI
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment - NDRE
Postbox 25, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway

Tlf(Phone) :+47-63 80 72 53    Telefax : +47-63 80 72 12

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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 10:39:36 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Walkers
Message-ID: <s00a3dff.096@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

Brendan O'Donovan writes regarding walkers:

>Contra grav means that you can jump higher, but making the walker
>lighter will  not improve your ground speed, as gravity is perpendicular
>to travel, so weight  doesn't affect acceleration. Mass, on the other
>hand does affect acceleration,  but this is not cancelled out by
>contra-grav. 

   This is the same conclusion I reached after talking with someone
who knows a bit more about physics than I do.

>As suggested, reducing weight  will, if anything, slow the walker
>down. This is because the walker can only  move its legs so fast
>before the foot slips, this maximum speed is determined by  the amount
>of friction with the ground. The more weight, the more friction, so  the
>higher speed you can reach. 

   Would this mean then, that the more legs you have, the slower you
go?  Or the opposite?  I don't think it would matter as long as the
transmissions were equally efficient.

>Apart from jumping, contra grav would have one  other use, it would
>make it easier to build a stable structure for the walker,  by reducing
>stress on the legs from the weight of the upper body.

   But how would you incorporate that fact into the design rules?  My
suggestion would be that transmissions, etc. could be smaller and
lighter on a contra grav equipped walker.

>I like the idea of walkers, but they may not be as agile as anime films
>portray.  The Dante robot, built to climb down into a volcano, took
>several days to reach  the bottom, because of the care necessary in
>placing its feet. I can't remember  the story exactly, but I've got a
feeling
>that it fell over in the end anyway.

   Dante is (was) an example of a TL 8 direct input robot.  You would
move slowly too if you were faced with the kind of terrain Dante
encountered on its journey (we can assume it did a much better job
in the parking lot before being sent to its near doom--I seem to recall
reading somewhere that they managed to recover it).  Presumably
the ability of walkers to move and negotiate terrain would improve as
the technological level increases.

>  The Battletech walkers are not good examples of hard science fiction,
>they're  far too large to be useful as all terrain vehicles, in woods
>they'd trip up on  trees, and in water they'd fall over because of drag
>on their legs, but slightly  smaller walkers like the Star Wars AT-ST
>could have some tactical uses.

   The more robotic looking mechs in Battletech are able to move so well
because they incorporate a neural interface (as someone else pointed
out).  They are to a degree aesthetically pleasing--I object to them
because there are more efficient, cost effective ways to arm a walker.

   The Star Wars AT-ST makes a better model IMHO.  Though it has a
rather high profile, it would nevertheless be excellent for use in areas
where it could take advantage of cover and concealment (such as
the deep woods, jungles, and urban areas.  I would of course paint it
*anything* other than white (I guess the GALACTIC EMPIRE felt like they
didn't need to worry such trivial matters as camouflage).  The people 
who make Battletech miniatures make less robotic looking walkers in
addition to the high tech samurai types.  These also might serve as
design inspirations.


--Harold


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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 13:18:05 -0400
From: Profwelks@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, epass@nyx10.cs.du.edu, majordomo@iniana.edu
Subject: Earn $100,000 with your RECIPE!
Message-ID: <950717131803_116651266@aol.com>

I know, I know, this is ridiculous! Right? No, it makes sense if you think
about it...it is based on the economic principles of mutually beneficial
exchange, voluntary transactions, and perfectly competitive markets (I'm an
economist, I can't help preaching free enterprise). So, here goes...

This is the letter, just follow the directions and see what happens.
***************************************************************************
$$$ FOR YOUR RECIPES $$$

Please do NOT change anything contained in this letter EXCEPT as
directed!

EARN AS MUCH AS $100,000.00 OR MORE IN 30 DAYS, LEGALLY!

EARN MORE THAN EXTRA MONEY!!
YOU WILL BECOME FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT!!

Here's how to do it.
IT WORKS EVERY TIME!  Again don't change anything.

Follow these instructions exactly and you could make $100,000
in the next 30 days.  This program REALLY works.  It makes money
for those who do it honestly! Take the time to read it COMPLETELY!

I know, ordinarily, we disregard these letters because they usually
don't work like they're supposed to, but this ONE is DIFFERENT!

Carl Simmonds used this legal program last year and made $82,360 in
cash the first time he used it.  Needless to say, he quit his job
immediately paid off all debts in full, and started another mailing.

Believe me, this is an EASY opportunity.  You can do this all on your
computer, by "JUST PRESSING A FEW BUTTONS".  You will EASE YOUR FINANCIAL
PRESSURES, and begin to make GOOD things happen for you and your family.
 READ
ON!

* * * * * * *  INSTRUCTIONS  * * * * * * *

1.   Send $2.00 (cash only) inside a sheet of carbon paper or
construction paper, and send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to each of
the
DEALERS (1 through 4) below for the recipes they offer.

2   Save this letter on disk.  Remove the name, and recipe title that
is in the number 1 position.  Move the others up a space.  Put your
name, address, and the name of your recipe in the number 4 position.

3   Post this file just as it appears (with your name, etc.) in 10
different places on-line (newsgroups, forums, etc.).  Do the postings between
6
a.m. and 7 a.m. Friday, Saturday or Sunday to get the highest position and
have your posting read first.  Ten postings should yield about 100
responses, which should then yield about $100,000.

4   **When the money begins coming to your HOME MAILBOX, put your
recipe in the provided SELF-ADDRESSED, STAMPED ENVELOPE - sit back, smile,
and know that you NOW OWN AN HONEST AND EASY SMALL HOME-OPERATED BUSINESS!
 KNOW ALSO, THAT YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING SMART TO ACHIEVE FINANCIAL
INDEPENDENCE!

* * * * * LOOK AT THESE FIGURES WITH ONLY A 15% RESPONSE! * * * * *

Step 1:  Fifteen dealers mail at least 15 letters each with your name
in position #3 AND send you a request for a recipe and $2 each or $30.

Step 2:  Two hundred and twenty five (225) dealers mail at least 15
letters with your name in position #2 AND send you a request for a recipe and
$2
each or $450.

Step 3:  Three thousand three hundred and seventy five (3,375) dealers
mail at least 15 letters with your name in position #1 AND send you a
request for a recipe and $2 each or $6750.

Step 4:  Fifty thousand six hundred and twenty five (50,625) dealers
send you a request for a recipe and $2 each or $101,250.

TOTAL CASH RECEIVED (15% RESPONSE) $108,480.00
ELAPSED TIME: 30 days!  Everyone responding immediately.
ADVANTAGE: $8 Initial investment.

Professional care has been taken to insure that this Marketing Plan
does NOT violate any laws!  (Reference U.S. Code, Title 18: Section 1302,
1343, and TITLE 39, Section 3005).

The key factor is that we are Mailing Merchandise...OUR TREASURED
RECIPES.

Be honest in every way.  Be sure to keep accurate records of income
for Income Tax purposes.

GOOD FORTUNE TO YOU!

* * * * * * * * DEALERS Listed* * * * * * * * * *

1.    Don Anderson   (Atomic Salsa)
       P.O. Box 3907
       Winchester, VA  22601

2.    Martin McCann  (Grammy's fantastic veggie mac and cheese)
        8826 Betty Way
        West Hollywood, CA 90069

3.    Ryan Johnson   (Super Chocolate Chunk Cookies)
         1898 77th AVE N.E.
            Bellevue WA 98004

4.    Mike Welker (Mouthwatering Cheese Cake!)
            332 Reserve Ave
            Steubenville, OH 43952
******************************************************************
S. Finch -- I made $141,000 the last time I used this program.  It
REALLY
WORKS!
********************************


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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 13:33:05 -0400
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: ADMIN: Spamming this list (was Re: Earn $100,000 with your
Message-ID: <199507171731.NAA16161@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>

I have asked that this individul please not spam this list.

If any one else wants to spam this list, please avoid it.

Thanks

Rob

At 01:20 PM 7/17/95 -0400, you wrote:
>I know, I know, this is ridiculous! Right? No, it makes sense if you think
>about it...it is based on the economic principles of mutually beneficial
>exchange, voluntary transactions, and perfectly competitive markets (I'm an
>economist, I can't help preaching free enterprise). So, here goes...
--
Rob Miracle (rwm@mpgn.com)   | GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v
C++>++++ 
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V--
-po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++
u** 
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

Date: Mon, 17 Jul 95 18:49 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 348
Message-ID: <memo.642057@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199507160134.VAA27807@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior) To:
  > Subject: Re: Ground vs Grav 
  >  
  > One thing you're forgetting with the cost comparison between ground
  > and grav vehicles is support infrastructure.  Look at the cost of
  > building and maintaining roads.  Sure, the cost of a car isn't much,
  > but if you had to pay for the road out of your own pocket... 

I suppose it's a trade-off between several factors - on a low-population,
high-tech planet, grav might be preferable, since the roads wouldn't get
the use to justify their building, (plus there wouldn't be the tax income
to pay for them). On a high-pop planet, this would be reversed, (a mixture
of the two might be best). Physical characteristics of the world would also
play a part: obviously, a water world would have few roads.

  > Air traffic control is a big problem with grav vehicles.  
  
I would expect computer control (either onboard or remote) to be compulsory
for flights over cities/starports/etc.

  > From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk> To:
  > Subject: Re:Combat walkers 
  >  
  > a feeling that it fell over in the end anyway. The Battletech walkers
  > are not good examples of hard science fiction, they're far too large
  > to be useful as all terrain vehicles, in woods they'd trip up on
  > trees, and in water they'd fall over because of drag on their legs,

I wouldn't think they're terribly stealthy, either.


P

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 350
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Tue Jul 18 12:34:55 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mailgate.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA049895295; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 12:34:55 -0400
Return-Path: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id LAA00299; Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:10:38 -0400
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 11:10:38 -0400
Message-Id: <199507181510.LAA00299@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: traveller@mpgn.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 350
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

