To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #461: Msgs 5500-5515 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  2 22:00:02 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #461: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 461  5500 28-May-1993 Klaus Moeller    Nuclear Power Plants 2.0 << This is ver
 461  5501 28-May-1993 Joe Heck         An idea about the new vehicle design <<
 461  5502 28-May-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  Quickie review of TNE... <<  Well, I ju
 461  5503 29-May-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  more TNE... <<  More TNE:
 461  5504 29-May-1993 PPUGLIESE@pimac  Survival Margin? << Could someone e-mai
 461  5505 29-May-1993 Steven Owens     Games people play << > I had a thought 
 461  5506 29-May-1993 Derek Wildstar   Traveller: The New Era - First Impressi
 461  5507 30-May-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  TNE Ship Design... << TNE ship design n
 461  5508 30-May-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  Now the mistakes... <<  And now for a f
 461  5509 31-May-1993 Bertil Jonell    Swords << > From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
 461  5510 31-May-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: TNE << > From: l.wiseman1@genie.gei
 461  5511 31-May-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Missiles << > From: wildstar@moeng2
 461  5512 31-May-1993 Bertil Jonell    Nonstandard UPP's <<   Thinking of what
 461  5513 31-May-1993 Adrian Hurt      Re: TNE rule question << Joe Heck <CCJO
 461  5514 31-May-1993 Anthony Neal     Another Silly Quyeestion... << Hello.
 461  5515 31-May-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  Various Points... << To Bertil:

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5500
From: Klaus Moeller <Klaus.Moeller@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de>
Subject: Nuclear Power Plants 2.0
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 15:28:57 +0200 (MET DST)


This is version 2 of my nuclear power plant table.
As suggested, I've increased the efficiency of the high tech fusion
and antimatter plants and I've also included a different fuel types
for fission power plants.

I've been told that 5% enrichment is only good for civilian reactors,
military reactors use fuel enriched to up to 60%.
Enrichment would affect three areas. First, a fission reaction can
start more easily in higher enriched fuel (the "critical mass" is lower) so
the reactor can be made smaller. Second, for the same power output,
the fuel would last longer as there's more fuel to use in the same volume. 
With the third, I'm not sure if higher enrichment would also lead to a
higher power output per volume of powerplant, so I haven't used it.

There are now different types of radioactives as fuel, with enrichment
rates of 5, 10, 20, 40 and 60%. I've given them a consumtion rate as in
the low tech supplement in Challenge 61. The 5% enriched radioactives
are the ones we know from MTrav, so their consumtion rate is set to 1.
The consumtion rates of the other types are simply one-half, one-forth,
one-eigth and one-twelweth of the standard type.

The reactor on the table is for 5% enriched fuel, to figure out
the minimum size of fission reactors using other types of radioactives,
multiply the minimum size of the standard reactor by the consumption
rate of the used radioactives type.

I haven't figured out the excat formuals so I've used straight
linear assumptions. These are almost certainly wrong, but I hope that
the basic assumptions are correct.
Maybe someone can give me the correct formulas so I can come up
with a final more or less correct version of the table.

So here's the revised table.

Type        |TL| Wt|Price| Min Vol |  Pow  |  Fuel|  Fuel Type   | Efficiency
===============================================================================
Fission     | 6| 8 | 0.1 | 50.00   |  1.0  |  1.3 | Radioactives |    ----   
Fission     | 8| 6 | 0.1 | 20.00   |  1.5  |  1.5 | Radioactives |    ----   
- - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early Fusion| 9| 6 | 0.2 | 20.00   |  2.0  | 50.0 |  Deuterium   | 29%       
Early Fusion|10| 5 | 0.2 |  4.00   |  2.0  | 40.0 |  Deuterium   | 36% - 13% 
Early Fusion|11| 4 | 0.2 |  1.00   |  2.0  | 30.0 |  Deuterium   | 48% - 16% 
- - -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fusion      |12| 4 | 0.2 | 10.00   |  3.0  | 25.0 |  Hydrogen    | 24% - 16% 
Fusion      |13| 3 | 0.2 |  2.00   |  4.0  | 25.0 |  Hydrogen    | 32% - 11%  
Fusion      |14| 3 | 0.2 |  0.40   |  5.0  | 25.0 |  Hydrogen    | 42% -  6%
Fusion      |15| 2 | 0.2 |  0.10   |  6.0  | 25.0 |  Hydrogen    | 50% -  5%
Fusion      |16| 1 | 0.2 |  0.08   |  7.0  | 25.0 |  Hydrogen    | 58% -  5%
- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimatter  |17| 6 | 0.5 |  8.00   |   500 |  0.3 |  Antimatter  | 58%
Antimatter  |18| 5 | 0.5 |  1.00   |  1000 |  0.6 |  Antimatter  | 58%
Antimatter  |19| 4 | 0.5 |  0.50   |  2500 |  1.5 |  Antimatter  | 58%
Antimatter  |20| 3 | 0.5 |  0.10   | 15000 |  9.0 |  Antimatter  | 58%
Antimatter  |21| 2 | 0.5 |  0.02   | 50000 | 30.0 |  Antimatter  | 58%
===============================================================================
Wt is in tons per Kl of plant. Price is in MCr per Kl of plant.
Minimum Volume is in Kl. Pow is power output per Kl of plant.
Fuel is fuel usage in liter per year per Kl of plant.
Efficiency is the efficiency of the plants of the given level. The right
number is the efficiency for the largest plant (14+ Kl) and the left
number is the efficiency for the smallest possible plant for the given TL.

And here's the fuel table

Type              | Weight | Consumption Rate | Price  |
========================================================
Radioactives (5)  |  12.5  |        1         |  75000 |
Radioactives (10) |  12.5  |        0.5       |  90000 |
Radioactives (20) |  12.5  |        0.25      | 130000 |
Radioactives (40) |  12.5  |        0.125     | 175000 |
Radioactives (60) |  12.5  |        0.083     | 225000 |
Deuterium         |   0.14 |        1         |    350 |
========================================================
Weight is in tons per KL. Price in Cr per KL.

NOTES:

Deuterium Purification plants:
Purification of deuterium needs an extra stage to seperate the
deuterium atoms from the ordinary hydrogen atoms.
For deuterium purification plants, multiply minimum volume by 3,
power consumption by 5 and price by 2.


				Klaus
- -- 
 /     Klaus Moeller, Leiteweg 2, 2940 Wilhelmshaven, West - Germany       \
<    Klaus.Moeller@Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE   078326@DOLUNI1.BITNET      >
 \             security is an exercise in applied paranoia                 /

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5501
Date:         Fri, 28 May 93 14:57:18 CDT
From: Joe Heck <CCJOE@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject:      An idea about the new vehicle design

I was meandering through TNE and noticed something that might be of
interest to the ship-builders. It seems as though the requirements for
Jump fuel have gone down considerably in relation to the amount needed
for thrust.

For example:
Scout/Courier
2G Manuever (not sure if this makes a difference yet)
G-Hours: 40 (56.8 using jump fuel)
Note: "Fuel purification machinery, 20.69 hours to refine 710m(3)."

Far Trader
1G Manuever
G-Hours: 24 (40.8 using jump fuel)
Note: "Fuel purification machinery, 24 hours to refine 1020m(3)."

I assume this is the full fuel complement for each ship - it doesn't state
it elsewhere. With this, the 2G uses 12.5m(3) per hour G, and the 1G uses
25m(3) per hour burn. This also leaves 600m(3) for the far trader (200tons)
to jump2, and 500m(3) for the Scout (100tons) to do the same jump.

Esoterica I guess, but I thought it was an interesting glimpse. Sorry about
the cross post, but I thought both places would find it interesting.

 joe                          (314) 882-5000
 ccjoe@mizzou1.missouri.edu

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5502
Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 19:42:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: Quickie review of TNE...

	Well, I just picked up TNE.  The basic system is, as I suspected,
quite acceptable, though the typos need some work.

	I note that the plasma weapons all have penetration listed in the
anti-vehicle format, but I can find nowhere in the rules where it states
that this is so.

	I also notice a failure of imagination in the grav tank, which has
considerably weaker armour than an M1A1 does, and a primary weapon that
is not as effective as a rifled 105mm tank gun.

	And grav has been changed to something that looks a lot like what
they use in Star Wars or H. Beam Piper's stories:  something that
cancels local gravity, and does nothing else.  No more grav propelled
vehicles, guys.  Now grav vehicles have normal reaction jets to move
them sideways, and the grav just replaces the wheels/tracks/whatever.

	BIG BEEF:

	The Arses.  These guys are the kind of pond-scum my characters have
spent a lot of the years since the orginal Traveller came out pounding
sense into.  I am vastly amused by the assumption that "For obvious
reasons, most Star Viking characters will be player characters", since
the Star Vikings, IMHO, are a lunatic fringe group of murdering,
idealistic, morons.  Of course, that describes many player-characters,
so maybe it does make sense...:-)
	Fortunately, my other big beef will deal with them quite handily. 
The "Hub Worlds" (a sample pocket empire) can match the technology of
the Arses, and outnumber them by a factor of about 40.  So when the two
groups meet, the Arses are going to be either absorbed or annihilated by
the Hub Worlds, unless the Arses decide to rescue the Hub Worlds from
the intolernat, fanatical government of theirs by nuking them out of
existance.  Which, unfortunately, fits well with Arse policy and social
theory.

	For those of you with GDW, just how do you expect that the Hub
Worlds (which are bigger and richer than my entire TCS campaign) will
FAIL to reunite the Empire in the next five years.  My off-the-cuff
guesstimate has them finishing the first 300 (of 2000 they can support)
battleships within four years, and conquering the area of the old
Imperium in hardly more time than it takes to drive across at J-3. 
Remember, these guys are in better shape than the Terrans were at the
end of the Interstellar Wars, and the opposition to such a conquest is
essentially non-existant...

	And thank you for including the entire core area of my TCS game in
your "Frontier".  Survival Margin had me thinking that part of the GRA
had been left out of the Frontier, but the map in TNE pretty clearly
shows that all the worlds of the Islands and the GRA are still (halfway)
civilized...

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5503
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 15:44:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: more TNE...

	More TNE:

	I note with some pleasure that gas giant refueling is now
effectively dead.
	A free trader requires 280 Kl of fuel to jump.  280 Kl gives it 11
G-hours.  So, gas giant refueling, if done under the TNE rules, would
only be profitable if the transit from the GG to the main world could be
done with less than 11 G-hours.
	Well, it can.  If you use 9G-hours (which will save you all of 350
credits when it comes time to refill the tanks, then the trip from
Jupiter to Terra will take only 56 days to complete.  So in exchange for
56 days of yor time, you save 350 credits.
	Hopefully, noone in TNE will be stupid enough to consider this a
wonderful way to save money, and gas giant refueling will become a
rather quaint bit of gaming history.

	I also note that, in a fight between two unarmoured men, you are
better off using your bare hands (assuming the requisiste skill) than
you are using a sword.  This, unfortunately, has always been one of the
hallmarks of the T2K2 system from which TNE was derived.  I had hoped
that it was lost in one of the many revisions the system has gone
through, but it was not to be.

	One moderately serious technical error though:  under these rules,
there are different government ratings in the wilds and the safes.  So a
government rating of "7" means one thing on THIS side of the line, and
another thing on the other side of the line.  This was NOT a bright
move.  Instead, you should have extended the rating scales like was
originally done for the various alien government types...

	And turret size has gone up!  This was my original solution to the
lack of trade-offs in ship design in Classic Traveller.  And after only
twelve years or so, GDW has finally done it.  Congratulations, guys...

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5504
Date: 29 May 1993 19:34:09 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Survival Margin?

Could someone e-mail the GDW product code for 'Survival Margin'?

I think it's 220 but I'm not sure.

thanks,

Phil Pugliese

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5505
Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 21:29:50 -0500
From: Steven Owens <uso01@mailhost.unidata.com>
Subject: Games people play


> I had a thought a couple of weeks ago about what kinds of sports and
> games will be played in the Traveller universe.  I discussed this over lunch
> with a friend and we came up with a few decent ideas for sports. [...]
>
> The biggest change I can see is the invention of grav plates which
> allows zero gee fun on any sufficiently high tech planet.  A few obvious
> candidates come to mind: [...]
>
> Some other games will not convert over very well, [...] wresting (the
> real thing not that stupid acting version) would not work.
> Combat sports (boxing, martial arts) also tend to rely heavily upon
> gravity and thus couldn't go to zero gee.

	Uhm, why not?  Wrestling as we know it often relies on
gravity, but that's simply because we've never tried it in a
gravity-less environment.  I can think of a few holds, off the top of
my head, that don't rely so heavily on gravity and could be converted.
Martial arts can be equally adapted.  Hell, there's even a Zero-G
combat skill.  

	I recall an interesting short story from an old Far Frontiers
about the first zero-gravity martial arts competition.  Forms and
katas have to be very carefully designed and executed so the artist
maintains control of position and trajectory at all times, and
sparring takes on a new dimension (literally) but that just makes it
more interesting.  There's also nullboxing, as in the novel
Streetlethal by Steven Barnes.  Two boxers (more like kickboxers,
extremely violent sport) in a large plastic sphere.

	As for other sports, well of course the temptation to play
around with zero-g is great, but don't forget other advances, in
medicine, simulations technology, protective gear, etc.  You might see
a lot more violent sports, since the participants can most likely be
restored to healthand hence aren't risking their lives as much.  You
might see things like jousting, duelling, etc, perhaps more medieval,
in keeping with the whole rather medeival feel of Imperial society,
where the weapons are simulated, or where they aren't, but the
participants are wearing the civilian equivalent of battledress, or
they aren't, but full-scale TL16 medical teams are standing by.

	There are also more mechanistic sports; the tl16 equivalents
of car, bike, and boat races.  My previous player in the PBEM spent
several years on the grav racing circuit as a grav mechanic, some on
grav bike races, some on solar-sail grav-skiffs.

Steven J. Owens
uso01@unidata.com

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5506
Date: Sat, 29 May 93 23:48:19 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Traveller: The New Era - First Impressions

The following is a copy of E-mail I sent to Loren Wiseman, for him to
share with the rest of the folks at GDW

I picked up Traveller: The New Era yesterday, and have skimmed through
it (I haven't had a chance to read it thouroughly yet).  I got the
next-to-last copy at Dream Wizards (the local game store).  Aparrently,
sales of T:TNE are better than expected: I touched off an exchange
between the storekeepers: "I think you'd better order more copies of
Traveller!" "Wheren't you the one who told me that ten copies was more
than enough?" etc...).  In any case, it seems to be selling well.

In comments to other TML members, you (Loren) mentioned that the
starship construction rules will be part of a board game, while the rest
of the vehicle construction rules will be part of the Technical
Architecture manual (?! or at least, that's how it sounded to me ?!).

I'd like to very strongly suggest that the starship and spaceship
construction rules be in BOTH products.  At $30 or so for the board
game, very few roleplayers are going to be willing to spend *MORE* for
the starship design rules than they spent on the game; and most of the
role-players are probably *NOT* going to be interested in the boardgame.
Therefore, the potential market for the boardgame is the people who are
interested in both Traveller role-playing and boardgaming (most probably
an even smaller minority of Traveller players than ten years ago) plus
those role-players who have $30 to spend on a product that they
fundamentally don't want (an even smaller minority, IMHO).

And if High Guard is any indication, the role-players will be most
interested in the starship design rules out of all the things that are
likeley to be covered in the Technical Architecture suppliment.  If the
starship and spacecraft rules aren't in there, the demand for this
product will be greatly reduced.

Putting the starship rules in the boardgame and not in the technical
architecture suppliment will most likely reduce the demand for the
technical architecture suppliment *without* a corresponding increase in
the demand for the boardgame.  My guess is that most purchasers of T:TNE
could be easily persuaded to shell out an additional $10 to $15 in order
to get *all* of the starship, spaceship, vehicle, weapons, and other
construction rules, tables and charts.  Very few people are going to be
willing to shell out $45 to get all of this, and most aren't going to be
satisfied without the starship construction rules.

With that out of the way, on to my impressions of T:TNE!

Although it's awfuly big for a single volume, I definitely like T:TNE's
price to content ratio.  This one's a good value; particularly when
compared to MegaTraveller (or many of the other games that are on the
market today).

Compliments:
* The artwork is good; I like the mix of new art and old favorites.
* New starship rules look good
* Well organized; the text is in a logical order, and the index and
  table of contents are a nice touch.

Observations:
* Gas Giant refuelling is a very effective way to wast large amounts of
  time and money.  Other than that it's not good for much.  I think that
  Gas Giant refeulling would only be used when a ship is passing through
  a system (without stopping at the starport) and only then if there was
  no world with a liquid water ocean.

Gripes:
* Layout is "busy" - Headers and footers make the page look cluttered;
  and the page numbers are hard to read.  It rather resembles what
  happens when someone gets ahold of a Mac and Pagemaker for
  the the first time (Survival Margin had this problem, and Font Mania [too
  many fonts on one page] too).
* Incomplete index: for example, missles for starships are *not* indexed
  under missiles (which does point you to the rules for using starship
  missles, as well as the TAC missile tables, etc), but it you want to
  find the table of *Starship* missiles, well it's not referenced there.
  (It is under Starship Weapons, though).

Another minor gripe (and it applies to Survival Margin, too): The author of
the virus items is aparrently unaware of the meaning of "Operating System",
and seems hazy on the concepts of computer "hardware" versus "software",
and the distinctions between systems programs, application programs, and
data.  While this admittedly a nit, it is as annoying as is the news
media's inability to distinguish between a Main Battle Tank and an Infantry
Fighting Vehicle, or those who use the terms "bullet", "round", and
"shell" interchangeably.  While it certainly isn't a major flaw, it
certainly does give me pause when reading certain sections.

Notes: I noticed that all of the missiles listed are detonation
lasers.  Detonation lasers are certainly reasonable technology; however
"normal" missiles are certainly possible and effective with Traveller
technology.

An impact with a couple of hundred kilograms of conventional explosive
in a shaped sharge should do heavy damage to T:TNE starships;
particularly given their new (and much lower) armor values.

An impact with a nuke (even one of the "micro-nukes" that normally power
the detonation lasers) should vaporize nearly any ship.  And larger
nukes (in the kiloton range) wouldn't be any larger than the nuke/laser
assembly on a detonation laser, and would be deadly to some distance
even if a direct hit wasn't made.  Perhaps a variety of "Normal" missile
warheads and guidance systems could be made available in the Technical
Architecture manual.  These impact missiles could be deadly at short
ranges, and would be just the thing for arming a fast, highly
maneuverable fighter craft, which can carry them into close proximity to
the target before releasing them.

Conventional High-Explosive missiles are likeley to be a favorite of
merchants, too.  Much cheaper than detonation lasers, and effective
in close-in fighting against pirates.

But enough of that.  My overall impression is a good product, and I am
eagerly going through it.  I will probably follow-up with additional
comments as I notice individual items.  The rules seem good, solid, and
very playable --- I'd say (and this is high praise) that it is as good a
foundation for science-fiction roleplaying as was the original
Traveller.

Good Work!


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5507
Date: Sun, 30 May 1993 22:12:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: TNE Ship Design...

TNE ship design notes:

        Well, I've spent some time looking at the technology of starships
in TNE.  MAJOR differences from previous versions of Traveller.  Enough
so that the basic ships should have been mostly scrapped, in fact.
        There isn't really enough info to do a complete, conclusive analysis,
but a few points are already clear:

        1)  Maneuver fuel seems to be set at 12.5 KL/G-hour/100T displacement
of ship.  Whether intentional or not, given that figure, and the MASS of the
ships, the maneuver drive is medium-high range fusion rockets.  Basically
excellent...
        2)  Design requirements and (possible) mistakes:  All of the canned
ships have quite a lot of maneuver fuel.  All well and good for PCs to rip
around in, but aren't the merchant ships designed to make money???
        A Free Trader, for the first time, carries more fuel than cargo.
        A Free Trader, for the first time, is capable of doing THREE jumps
on one tank of gas.  It'll only leave you 6 G-hours to maneuver in, but
that is MORE than enough on a normal commercial run.
        So the Free Trader should have redesigned into something with only
about 4-10 G-hours, if the goal was OPERATIONAL compatibility with previous
versions of Traveller, or it should have been made clear that the ship can
make SEVERAL jumps, which would go a LONG way toward making it actually
useful to PC merchant types.
        I would suggest that a "normal" merchantman (in a reasonably safe
place, like the Spinward Marches) should have no more than 6 G-hours worth
of maneuver fuel.  That puts (in the case of the free trader) another
570 KL (an extra 75%) in the cargo hold...
        3)  SDBs:  This has become a misnomer.  It should be PLANETARY
DEFENSE BOAT.  The new maneuver limits make it impractical to defend a
whole system with any ship that cannot Jump.  The canned SDBs are entirely
suitable for defending a main world, but transferring back and forth from
the main world to the gas giants and other planets will put a major drain
on the fuel supply, or require LARGE amounts of time.  Either way, it is
easier to use a J-1 boat to do the job that an SDB used to do (after all,
the J-1 requires MUCH less fuel than the normal space crossing, and takes
less time if you are going as far as Jupiter...)
        4)  I note with dismay that the Mercenary Cruiser is now J-1, 1G.
MAJOR CHANGE!  Far more than I expected after seeing the rest of the ships.
Not that this is bad, mind you.  The mercenary cruiser was always a bit
overpowered for the design mission.
        5)  Best of all:  the new system puts a premium on crew skill.  The
PLAYER-CHARACTERS ARE BACK IN THE LOOP.  Fr the first time since HG came out,
having a pilot-6 (or gunner-6, or whatever (well, actually, having the TNE
equivalent, which would be around Astrogator-12, or whatever)) is IMPORTANT
to the survival of OUR HEROES.  I LIKE it!

                                ---Steve Higginbotham


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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5508
Date: Sun, 30 May 1993 23:10:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: Now the mistakes...

	And now for a few mistakes in TNE:
	1)  The "100 Diameters Travel Times" Table on page 225 is incorrect in 
almost every entry.  In fact, the only entries I am not SURE are wrong are SOME
of the entries in the Planet Size 0 column. And I am pretty sure some of THEM
are wrong, sincce one of the entries implies that it is possible to accelerate
at NINE gravities...
	2)  The Interplanetary Distance Matrix has many entries, of which no more than 1/3 are correct.
	3)  The "Interplanetary Speed" Table has nine entries.  NONE are correct.  Being charitable, and assuming the values are rounded, none are correct...
More to follow...
				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5509
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Swords
Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 11:31:46 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
> Subject: more TNE...
> 
> 	More TNE:
> 
> 	I note with some pleasure that gas giant refueling is now
> effectively dead.

  It is *possible* in a system that looks like Regina: Where the mainworld
is in orbit around a gas giant, although it isn't really profitable (it never
was really profitable).

  The main effect of this will IMHO be to slow down the reexploration of 
charted space. If you enter a system for the first time you will hesitate
before jumping in at the mainworld, and if you jump in at a normal gas giant,
you will have to spend 50 days or so going to the mainworld, or send a smaller
faster shuttle. In the latter case the transfer time will be on average 9
days Terra-Jupiter with a 20 G hour burn from a ships boat.
  I think this is good. Without it reexploration would go much too fast. 

(I did a brief calculation on this wrgt the HubWorlds and found out that with
 only a small number of ships, a pretty thorough survey could be carried out on
 all worlds in the Massilia sector in less than a year, even when including 
 duplication of effort)

> 	Well, it can.  If you use 9G-hours (which will save you all of 350
> credits when it comes time to refill the tanks, then the trip from
> Jupiter to Terra will take only 56 days to complete. 

  It's worse than that, actually. Those 9 G hours is only the acceleration.
Since an equal deacceleration is necessary 5 G hours is the max acceleration
possible if you only have 11 G hours to play with.

> 	I also note that, in a fight between two unarmoured men, you are
> better off using your bare hands (assuming the requisiste skill) than
> you are using a sword.
  
  Sure about this? I interpret the '2' damage notation as meaning 2d6.

> 	One moderately serious technical error though:  under these rules,
> there are different government ratings in the wilds and the safes.  So a
> government rating of "7" means one thing on THIS side of the line, and
> another thing on the other side of the line.  This was NOT a bright
> move.  Instead, you should have extended the rating scales like was
> originally done for the various alien government types...

  I agree with this.
 
  BTW: Keeping in mind our long and heated discussions on 'how to armour a
grav tank for planetary combat', I hope you sat down when you saw the 
armour figures for the grav tank:) 
  Even I admit that this is too thin on the non-glacis faces.

> 				---Steve Higginbotham

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."


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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5510
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: TNE
Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 12:00:48 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: l.wiseman1@genie.geis.com
>                Bertil:
>      > Generally positive. The way things work seems to be moving
> towards good ol' Traveller.
>      Thanks. That was certainly what we were trying for.

  There has been some brief comments on TTNE on usenet news that basically
agree about the similarities. I have a hard time putting my finger on them,
but they are there.

>      You seem to have acquired a copy before many people in the USA.
> Our Swedish distributor is very efficient.

  I asked Fabian about it and according to him, they ("Spel & Sa'nt") buy
directly from you via airmail.

  One thing that I have noticed now in the combat chapter that give strange
effects is the environment rules on gravity (p308). As I interpret them, 
a slug thrower would get a close range of infinite in zero gee. I'm leaning
towards using the Jump/Throw table on page 190 instead of local gravity 
when it comes to determining ranges and safe speeds (but not carrying
loads).

>   Loren K. Wiseman
>         for GDW

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5511
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Missiles
Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 13:03:34 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
> Subject: Traveller: The New Era - First Impressions
 
> An impact with a nuke (even one of the "micro-nukes" that normally power
> the detonation lasers) should vaporize nearly any ship.

  Using the T2k2 demolitions rules on the yield sizes gives that the raw
explosive strength of equals a penetration and concussion from about 2000 
to 6000. Halving this for untamped explosions gives that it should give
between 40 and 125 major hits worth of damage. A seat of the pants guess is 
that this will destroy all components within one location of the hit
as per the excess damage rule and also inflict at least one critical hit on
all sizes of ships.

  But based from the system (and the TDR discussions on space combat, agility,
ranges, weapons and hit chanses) IMHO it would be very hard to achieve a direct
hit with a missile. At least 2 levels of difficulty harder. And the defence 
would have a much easier time hitting it.
  This is also a problem for missiles carrying large shape charges.

> And larger
> nukes (in the kiloton range) wouldn't be any larger than the nuke/laser
> assembly on a detonation laser, and would be deadly to some distance
> even if a direct hit wasn't made.

  Is there a nuclear scientist in the house? I only play one on the net:)

  Damage from nuclear explosions in space are mostly in the form of soft xrays
that cause structural damage and other radiation that cause biologic damage
and disturb electronics. None of these effects are even close to strong enough
to affect more than one range band.

  The soft xrays, which in 'normal' explosions cause the fireball by being
absorbed by the air and heating it to a plasma, are absorbed by any solid
structures in space and heat it, creating a shock wave inside them that cause
physical damage. In TTNE terms I'd inflict a Concussion to all inside the
ship, the damage of which is determined by how close they were. (I have
read somehwere that the concussion induced by soft xrays are aproximately of
the same strange at a certain range from a certain yield as the shockwave
in air from an airburst of the same yield at the same range, but I'm not
certain of this). I'd also inflict small scale damage (1h to 1H, say) all
over the ship but concentrated to the side facing the explosion.

> Perhaps a variety of "Normal" missile
> warheads and guidance systems could be made available in the Technical
> Architecture manual.  These impact missiles could be deadly at short
> ranges, and would be just the thing for arming a fast, highly
> maneuverable fighter craft, which can carry them into close proximity to
> the target before releasing them.

  My favourite types of (potential) conventional missiles are the cannister
round and the SFF round: 
  The cannister round replaces the nuke/laser warhead with a lot of heavy metal
spheres and a bursting charge. At the range where a nuke/laser missile would
detonate, it spreads the spheres in a cloud which hit the target at high speed.
  The SFF round uses an explosive warhead that generate the 'cloud of buckshot'
from self forging fragments (a relative of the shape charge, used in the 
experimental SADARM round).

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5512
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Nonstandard UPP's
Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 16:41:59 +0200 (MET DST)

  Thinking of what Steve said, does anyone have a comprehensive list
of the various non-standard UPP codes in existance in canonical
Traveller materials?

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5513
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cee.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: TNE rule question
Date: Mon, 31 May 93 16:34:56 WET DST

Joe Heck <CCJOE@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu> writes:
> 
> Using an example of a 12mm hunting rifle at short range (Pen = 2, Dam = 4)
> and a visored helmet TL 10 (Armor value = 2), the resulting damage would
> work out:
> 
>    AV x Pen       Damage Val - (AV x Pen)
>     2 x 2   = 4       4      -     4      = 0    which means this doesn't
>                                                  penetrate.
> 
> while the same armor versus a 9mm Rifle (TL7) (Pen = 1, Dam = 5) would give
> a result of:
> 
>   AV x Pen        Damage Val - (AV x Pen)
>    2 x 1    = 2       5      -     2      = 3    which means this does
>                                                  penetrate.
> 
> So: A 9mm TL7 rifle will more easily penetrate a helm than a 12mm TL10
> Rifle?

Assuming that low Pen means better penetration, and high Dam means more damage
(which assumptions are based on the idea that better penetration and more
damage mean better chances of harming the target) then it is the data which
gives the 9mm rifle better penetration and more damage than the 12mm rifle
which is at fault.  I would personally expect the 12mm rifle to have worse
penetration (higher Pen) and do more damage (higher Dam) than the 9mm rifle.

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

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cee
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cee.hw.ac.uk!adrian  |  ARPA:  adrian@cee.hw.ac.uk

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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5514
Date: 	Mon, 31 May 1993 23:17:12 -0230
From: Anthony Neal <anthonyn@odie.cs.mun.ca>
Subject: Another Silly Quye^H^Hestion...

Hello.

	Got another silly question for the Traveller Gods, wherever they may
be :-).

	Been looking through the sunbane archives again. Looking at the Sector
data. I figure that in the trade codes, D? where ? is a number means

	Droyne World ? . Yes/No?

	Well, what exactly does that mean. Intelligent Droyne? Not just playful
little Chirpers? 

	And what about these C? trade classifications? Maybe Chirper World?

	Does that mean a world dominated by playful little gargoyle-like Chirpers?

	And, what's worse, Does this mean that there is/isn't a significant Human
population on these worlds? Huh? Hmmm?

	You can imagine how upset I got when I found out the world I was running
my campaign on (at the time) was a D? world (D7 I think) in Diaspora and I had
no idea what it meant.

	BTW, Anyone out there have some nice write-ups on alternate Traveller
Equipment in electronic format? If you do, and you have a moment, could you
E-Mail them to me? Running out of neat toys to steal from the GURPS universe
(Without going into ultra-high Tech Levels...). 

	Thanks all!
	Anthony

	anthonyn@odie.cs.mun.ca


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

Bundle: 461
Archive-Message-Number: 5515
Date: Mon, 31 May 1993 21:54:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: Various Points...

To Bertil:
	Sorry, I typoed.  I meant an ARMOURED man, not an UNARMOURED man when
discussing sords vs. bare hands...

As to the debate over the 9mm vs 12mm.  YOu all seem to have overlooked that the 12mm rifle is TL FIVE, not ten.  The HElmet was TL10.
And, finally, I notice that Wildstar and Bertil got mentioned in the credits for TNE.  Congrats...

		---Steve Higginbotham

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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #462: Msgs 5516-5524 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  2 22:00:02 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #462: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 462  5516 01-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE << Be
 462  5517 01-Jun-1993 Sean Maguire     The New Traveller << I don't have a cop
 462  5518 01-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   T:TNE Comments << Steve Higginbotham wr
 462  5519 01-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE <
 462  5520 01-Jun-1993 Mark Watson      Loren Wiseman's post << Will there be a
 462  5521 02-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Missiles <<   Featured missiles: HE, HE
 462  5522 01-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   T:TNE World Government Fix << There is 
 462  5523 02-Jun-1993 Bray Christophe  Subscription << YES, I would like to ge
 462  5524 01-Jun-1993 Daniel Deremiah  Count me in. << Would you please includ

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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5516
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 11:19:02 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
>   Using the T2k2 demolitions rules on the yield sizes gives ...
> ... between 40 and 125 major hits worth of damage. 

My reasoning was based on physics.  Assuming that the nuke was detonated
"close" to the ship (within about a shiplength or so), the hull of the
ship will intercept between a a quarter and a third of the energy output
of the explosion; probably enough to wreck the ship.  As a game
mechanic, probably about half of those hits go to the point of impact,
and the other half divided evenly between the hit locations adjacent to
the point of impact.

>   But based from the system (and the TDR discussions on space combat, agility,
> ranges, weapons and hit chanses) it would be very hard to achieve a direct
> hit with a missile. At least 2 levels of difficulty harder. And the defence 
> would have a much easier time hitting it.
>   This is also a problem for missiles carrying large shape charges.

Agreed.  I was thinking about, but didn't want to post before I have
finished reading T:TNE, the following game mechanic: achieving a direct
impact hit would be 2 levels of difficulty harder, and achieving a
proximity hit would be 1 level of difficulty harder than the equivalent
detonation laser targetting task.

To even attempt an intercept, the missile should already be in the same
range band as the target, and should have more maneuver fuel available
than the thrust rating of the target's drive.  In other words, the
missile has to start it's final attack from nearby, and must be at least
as maneuverable as the target.

This assumes that the missile is using the T:TNE command guidance
system; alternative guidance systems could make it considerably easier.
The command guidance system has serious problems in co-ordinating an
intercept across distances of several light seconds.  Some example
guidance systems:

Active: Uses an active radar, ladar, or EMS sensor onboard the missile
to detect the target, and guide the missile to intercept.  Large, heavy
and expensive.  Easy to detect missile, may give away location of the
firing ship.  Makes intercept task 1 level of difficulty easier.

Semi-Active: Uses an active radar, ladar, or EMS sensor onboard the
launching vessel, and a reciever onboard the missile, to guide the
missile to intercept.  Relatively simple and cheap.  Easy to detect the
firing ship, and gives away location of the firing ship.  Makes
intercept task 1 level of difficulty easier.  If firing ship stops
operating active sensor (shuts it down, or antenna or sensor destroyed
by battle damage), the missile automatically misses.  Generally
longer-ranged than Active guidance.

Active and Semi-Active guidance can be defeated by jamming the sensor
used to guide the missile, and they can be rendered less effective by
"stealth" techniques which reduce the detection range of these sensors.

Passive: Uses a passive sensor (EMS, Neutrino, Densitometer, IR, etc) to
detect the target, and guide the missile to intercept.  Cost and Size
depend on the type of sensor.  Nearly impossible to detect, and does not
give away the location of the launching ship.  Relatively short
detection and homing range (particularly compared to Active and
Semi-Active missiles).  Makes intercept task 1 level of difficulty
easier.

Passive guidance can be defeated by jamming the sensor used to guide the
missile, or they can be rendered less effective by "stealth" techniques
which reduce the detection range of these sensors.  Passive guideance
can also be defeated by the use of decoys which mimic the passive sensor
profile of the target.

Anti-Radiation: Uses a passive sensor designed to detect specific
emissions (Radio, Radar, Active EMS, missile guidance radars or
communicators) of the target ship, and guides the missile to intercept.
This guidance system makes the intercept task two levels of difficulty
easier.  If the emission stops (is turned off, or the antenna or sensor
is destroyed by battle damage), the missile automatically misses.  If an
impact hit is made, the missile automatically hits the location
containing the antenna for the emission used to guide the missile.

Inertial: The guidance system flys the missile to a location determined
at launch time.  Intertial guidance systems cannot directly cause an
intercept.  Typically used for the first part of a missile's flight, and
then one of the other guidance systems takes over.  This guidance system
is self-comtained, and is nearly impossible to detect the missile or the
launching ship.

Command: The "Normal" T:TNE missile guidance system.  The launching ship
controls the flight of the missile via communications link (Laser,
Maser, or Radio Communicator), or through coded signals from an active
sensor (Radar or Active EMS; this type of guidance is also known as a
"Beam Rider").  The communications link may or may not give the
launching ship's location away.  Can also be used in combination with
other guidance systems.

Guidance system can be combined by specifying when each system is used.
For example, a combined guidance system might consist of Intertial,
Command, and Semi-Active guidance.  Inertial is used for the first part
of the missile's flight.  The Command system provides course corrections
to the Inertial guidance, and commands the switch-over to Semi-Active,
which guides the missile to intercept.  Another example might be a
missile with Active and Anti-Radiation guidance.  The missile is
launched on Active guidance.  If at any time the Active guidance is
successfully jammed, it switches over to Anti-Radiation (the emission it
homes in on is the jamming signal for the active guidance).  If the
Anti-Radiation guidance looses it's signal, the missile switches back to
active.  Nasty.

In all cases of multiple guidance systems, the system that handles the
final ("Terminal") guidance to intercept is used to determine the
intercept task difficulty.

>   Damage from nuclear explosions in space are mostly in the form of soft xrays
> that cause structural damage and other radiation that cause biologic damage
> and disturb electronics. None of these effects are even close to strong enough
> to affect more than one range band.

Definitely.  I've been assuming that an "Impact" (in nuclear terms,
anyway) is anything closer than a shiplength or so.  "Proximity" is
probably a couple of kilometers.  Anything outside of that is a miss.

> the damage of which is determined by how close they were. (I have
> read somehwere that the concussion induced by soft xrays are aproximately of
> the same strange at a certain range from a certain yield as the shockwave
> in air from an airburst of the same yield at the same range, but I'm not
> certain of this). I'd also inflict small scale damage (1h to 1H, say) all
> over the ship but concentrated to the side facing the explosion.

Say, 1h everywhere, and 1H on the sides facing the explosion?  In
general, your ideas sound about right to me, too.

> The cannister round replaces the nuke/laser warhead with a lot of heavy metal
> spheres and a bursting charge. At the range where a nuke/laser missile would
> detonate it spreads the spheres in a cloud which hit the target at high speed.

I'm not sure, but I've always assumed that the detonation laser's range
is tens of thousands of kilometers as a minimum.  At those ranges, the
shperes would be spread too far apart to do much damage.

On the other hand, detonated no more than a couple of kilometers away,
this coule be the basic proximity warhead.  Getting closer to the target
(an "impact" hit) would increase the number of hits, but the penetration
and damage would be about the same.

> The SFF round uses an explosive warhead that generate the 'cloud of buckshot'
> from self forging fragments (a relative of the shape charge, used in the 
> experimental SADARM round).

Again, from detonation laser ranges, this will be ineffective.  However,
from a "proximity" hit, this could have the general effect of peppering
the target with buckshot.  From an "Impact" hit, all of these fragments
would go into one or two hit locations, with pretty severe results.

I like these, and I think that they could work.  Maybe Loren could
forward these comments to whomever is writing the boardgame, and also
for inclusion into the Technical architecture book?


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5517
From: Sean Maguire <smaguire@mihi.une.edu.au>
Subject: The New Traveller
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 12:22:49 GMT-10:00

I don't have a copy, but I have been following the dicussions about it.

The book/game probably won't get here to Australia for another six months
(sounds pessimistic I admit, but I am probably right), but I was wondering
about a couple of things in the game. 

1) Does the new traveller touch on computers at all (I mean apart
from the viris. Like does it give modern day stats to hand computers
etc)

2) Are the old design rules compatible (ie for vehicles). I know the
book does not have design tables, but can you make assumptions enough
on the new technology to be able to adapt old designs ?

3) The new book will cost 60$ Australian I guess, which is roughly
40$ in American currency. Is it worth it ???????

4) Are there any 'how to adapt' guidlines for old to new traveller. I mean
serious well thought out ones, unlike T2000 1 too T2000 mk 2 was (IMHO). 

I guess thats about it. 

Thanks alot (in advance)

Edmunc (C/O Sean Maguire)



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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5518
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 12:32:19 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: T:TNE Comments

Steve Higginbotham writes:
>         2)  Design requirements and (possible) mistakes:  All of the canned
> ships have quite a lot of maneuver fuel.  All well and good for PCs to rip
> around in, but aren't the merchant ships designed to make money???

As a work-around, perhaps we can assume that the provided ship designs
are as modified for exploratory trading in the wilds?  At least until we
get teh Technical Architecture manual (or wherever GDW decides to put
the starship design rules).

> Either way, it is
> easier to use a J-1 boat to do the job that an SDB used to do (after all,
> the J-1 requires MUCH less fuel than the normal space crossing, and takes
> less time if you are going as far as Jupiter...)

Definitely.  It might even be a good idea to put a Jump-0 drive into the
Technical Architecture book.  A jump drive optimized for in-system
travel; probably with a maximum range of under a half a light year per
jump.  Such a drive, particularly if it were cheaper and/or consumed
less fuel, would be particularly nice.  Say, about half size and cost of
a J-1 drive, and about half fuel consumption.  Max jump about a half a
light-year.

>         5)  Best of all:  the new system puts a premium on crew skill.  The
> PLAYER-CHARACTERS ARE BACK IN THE LOOP.  Fr the first time since HG came out,
> I LIKE it!

Yes.  This is a good change.

> 	1)  The "100 Diameters Travel Times" Table on page 225 is incorrect in 
> almost every entry.
> 	2)  The Interplanetary Distance Matrix has many entries, of which no
> more than 1/3 are correct.
> 	3)  The "Interplanetary Speed" Table has nine entries.  NONE are correct

Can you provide corrected tables?

Perhaps Loren Wiseman can tell us how long it will be until a second
printing, and if there's a good way to ensure that everything we find is
brought to the attention of the proper people over there at GDW.

Bertil Jonell writes:
> Steve Higginbotham writes:
> > 	One moderately serious technical error though:  under these rules,
> > there are different government ratings in the wilds and the safes.  So a
> > government rating of "7" means one thing on THIS side of the line, and
> > another thing on the other side of the line.  This was NOT a bright
> > move.  Instead, you should have extended the rating scales like was
> > originally done for the various alien government types...
> 
>   I agree with this.

In my humble opinion, the multiple conflicting definitions for UWP
government codes is the single most serious problem with the rules, and
should be fixed immediately (as in "Is there still time to prepare an
errata page for the boxed edition?") if not sooner.  This multiple
definition was presumably done on purpose, although I must admit that I
can't figure out what the reason was.  In any case, the problems
outweigh the benefits: THIS WAS A BAD IDEA AND NEEDS TO BE FIXED; I'm
treating it as an error, and have prepared what I think is a 
workable fix, which will be presented in a post immediately following.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5519
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 23:08:53 +0200 (MET DST)

  First I'll list my assumptions about the missiles. There is a big risk
this will be obsolete when Technical Architecture and Brilliant Lances comes
out, but I need this stuff now for my own campaign (starting Saturday, provided
I finish a c program that converts old sectors according to Hard Times and
'collapse effects' by then) so I'll use the following until it is superceeded.

  Data given in TTNE: Normal missiles weigh 7 tons, communicate via a lasercom, 
have 10-12 Gturns of acceleration, and use command guidance.

  Extrapolated data: They have a volume of 7m3.

  Assumptions: Normal xray missiles consist of a 150kg warhead(1), 100kg of
electronics, actuators and guidance (aka communicator), and all the rest is
a big engine. Their laser tubes are arranged to spread many beams to cover a 
large area (like the shrapnel from a claymore) and on average 3.5 beams will
impact a 100m2 target(2) on normal range.

  (1) Fractional yield nukes shouldn't weigh much, probably around 20kg, but
the laser tubes takes up the rest.

  (2) This is the profile area of a 50t spherical ship. I use it as baseline
since class VS (10-99t) is used as baseline with regards to hit difficulties.

> I was thinking about, but didn't want to post before I have
> finished reading T:TNE, the following game mechanic: achieving a direct
> impact hit would be 2 levels of difficulty harder, and achieving a
> proximity hit would be 1 level of difficulty harder than the equivalent
> detonation laser targetting task.

  I think we should divide it into four types instead of three.
 
1 'Shrapnel' missiles with speed of light 'shrapnel' effective at long range.
  This is the nuke/laser missile given in the book.
  Standard difficulty.

2 'Shrapnel' missiles with slow 'shrapnel' effective at long range or spead 
  of light shrapnel effective at short range.
  Cannister missile and nuke missile.
  One level harder.

3 'Shrapnel' missiles with slow 'shrapnel' effective at short range only.
  SFF missile.
  Two levels harder.

4 'Impact only' missiles.
  HE and HEAP.
  Three levels harder.
  
  (Short range is a km or two, long range is within the same range band. Slow 
is everything slower than light. Shrapnel too weak to damage a ship (like from 
a normal explosion) is ignored)

  I assume that types 3 and 4 include some kind of end phase autonomous 
guidance (and a proximity fuse for type 3). Apart from this I agree with your
rules on final burn fuel.

  The reason for these increased difficulties is that HE and HEAP missiles 
otherwise become more effecive than nuke/laser missiles:
  They have lesser penetration but inflicts *huge* amounts of damage.

> Active: Uses an active radar, ladar, or EMS sensor onboard the missile
> Semi-Active: Uses an active radar, ladar, or EMS sensor onboard the
> Passive: Uses a passive sensor (EMS, Neutrino, Densitometer, IR, etc) to
> Anti-Radiation: Uses a passive sensor designed to detect specific

  Isn't these types covered by the rules on SIM and FIM? Adding different types
is good, but I don't think it is necessary on this level. It can attached
as an optional rule to the FIM and SIM rules, but I don't think we should
include it so that it becomes necessary in order to use other missiles than
nuke/laser. We should keep it separate.

  BTW: Having some professional experience with missiles, IMHO the best
guidance model is the Track Via Missile guidance. It is basically a 
combination of the best features of FIM and SIM.

  The missile has sensors of it's own and a guidance computer (as a FIM) but
it has also a communication link to the firing vessel (as a SIM or command
guided).
  The link enables the missile to use the much more powerful computer 'on the
ground' (ie on the firing ship in our case)' while the onboard guidance takes
over if the link is broken. The dual viewpoints (sensors on the firing ship 
and in the missile) makes it more discriminating versus countermeasures.

  In traveller terms, I'd describe it as a FIM that uses the best of gunners
skill and onboard skill as long as it is in communication with the firing
ship during the final round. Normal restrictions on number of simultaneously
controlled missiles apply during this round.
  An additional trick that is possible with TVM missiles is the 'accumulated
wave attack'. Missiles are fired during several rounds and given (one at the
time) orders such that they will all arrive at the target simultaneously,
overwhelming its defences.

> Say, 1h everywhere, and 1H on the sides facing the explosion?  In
> general, your ideas sound about right to me, too.

  The soft xrays are totally absorbed by air 'within a few feet' from the bomb,
so I think all of them should stick in the hull on the side facing the 
explosion. But the shock could travel on through the hull and affect all areas
to a lesser degree.

> > The cannister round replaces the nuke/laser warhead with a lot of heavy metal
> > spheres and a bursting charge. At the range where a nuke/laser missile would
> > detonate it spreads the spheres in a cloud which hit the target at high speed.
> 
> I'm not sure, but I've always assumed that the detonation laser's range
> is tens of thousands of kilometers as a minimum.  At those ranges, the
> shperes would be spread too far apart to do much damage.

  I made some calculation on a missile that will spread 15000 1cm tungsten
spheres (10g each, total warhead weight 150kg). 

  To achieve 3.5 hits against a 100m3 target, there has to be one sphere per
30m3. The radius of the cloud at impact will thus be 400m. To achieve a spread
of 400m at a closing velocity of 1 to 30 (60,000km/h to 1,800,000km/h) and
a range of 30,000 km (one range band) requires a radial velocity of 0.2m/s to
6m/s. 
  So I persist that the 'detonation' range of the cannister round can be the 
same as for the xray missile:) (Although I think a variable rate gas generator 
might be more appropriate than a charge, since the rate of dispersion has to 
vary with the closing velocity).

>>The SFF round uses an explosive warhead that generate the 'cloud of buckshot'
>>from self forging fragments (a relative of the shape charge, used in the 
>>experimental SADARM round).
> 
> Again, from detonation laser ranges, this will be ineffective.
  
  Yup, you need to be within a kilometer or two.

> From an "Impact" hit, all of these fragments
> would go into one or two hit locations, with pretty severe results.

  Perhaps too severe for game balance. The effect of one 10mm tungsten sphere
at 16km/second (closure velocity of 1) is 2-30 if I write it in the same
form as the laser damage. Imagine a 7 ton missile...

  I'll post a message with tenative designs for HE, HEAT, Cannister, SFF and
LGB missiles as soon as I've typed them in.

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5520
Date: 01 Jun 93 17:47:14 EDT
From: Mark Watson <100022.3361@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Loren Wiseman's post

Will there be a way for people who have bought the various items that will
be in the boxed set to acquire the "special goodies" without getting TNE
and Technical Architecture again ie: without shelling out for the entire
boxed set?

BTW, I'm told by the local Virgin Games they currently expect TNE on
Tuesday.

Mark


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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5521
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Missiles
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 00:47:13 +0200 (MET DST)


  Featured missiles: HE, HEAP, Cannister, SFF and the LGB pseudomissile.
(What? No proximity nukes? Nope, I did these because I need them in a campaign
 and I can with absolute certainty predict that the PC's won't get any nukes,
 not even of the nuke/laser variety. Period:)

  Further assumptions: The nuke/laser assembly represents the largest part of
the price of normal missiles. After that comes the electronics and the cheapest
part is the actual engine.

  All missiles weigh 7000kg and are 7m3 big.

HE missile.
  This missile has a 1000kg High Explosive warhead that needs to be in physical
contact with the target to cause damage. When used against surface targets it
has a good blast effect but is lacking in fragmentation.
  The extremely large warhead impairs its acceleration at low TL's. The 100kg
electronics etc package include a contact trigger and simple terminal guidance.
  Hitting with this missile is three levels more difficult.
  On a successful hit, only apply the damage once.

TL	Price	GTurns	Damage	Surface Damage	
 8	20k	3	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C
 9	20k	4	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C
10 	20k	5	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C
11 	20k	6	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C
12 	20k	7	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C
13 	20k	8	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C
14 	20k	9	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C
15 	20k	10	2-125	C:250 B:50 Pen:120C

HEAP missile.
  This missile has a 150kg High Explosive Armour Piercing warhead that needs to
be in physical contact with the target to cause damage. When used against
surface target it is lacking in blast and fragmentation compared to the HE
missile and is also more expensive.
  The 100kg electronics package include a contact trigger and simple terminal
guidance.
  Hitting with this missile is three levels more difficult.
  On a successful hit, only apply the damage once.

TL	Price	GTurns	Damage	Surface Damage	
 8	30k	10	1-180	C:100 B:25 Pen:175C
 9	30k	12	1-200	C:100 B:25 Pen:195C
10 	30k	12	1-215	C:100 B:25 Pen:210C
11 	30k	12	1-230	C:100 B:25 Pen:225C
12 	30k	12	1-240	C:100 B:25 Pen:235C
13 	30k	12	1-260	C:100 B:25 Pen:255C
14 	30k	12	1-280	C:100 B:25 Pen:275C
15 	30k	12	1-300	C:100 B:25 Pen:295C

Cannister missile.
  This missile releases 15,000 10g 10mm tungsten spheres into a cloud to ensure
that at least one of them hits the target. The cloud is released at a range of 
30,000km and the velocity with which it expands is automatically selected
based on the closing velocity between the missile and the target to achieve
the maximum probability of a hit.
  The damage comes from the kinetic energy of the spheres. The specific damage
depends greatly on the closing speed of the missile and the target.
  The warhead of this missile weighs 150kg and the 100kg electronics package
is assumed to contain the mechanism that disperses the spheres.
  Hitting with this missile is one level more difficult.
  As with a normal missile, apply the given damage 1D6 times.
TL	Price	GTurns		Closing Speed	Damage
 8	35k	10			1	2-30
 9	35k	12			2	2-50
11	35k	12			3	3-90
13	35k	12			4	3-110
15	35k	12			6	4-150
					8	4-220
					10	5-280	
					15	6-420


  When used against surface targets the cannister missile will work as a
3 round burst of automatic fire against each 10mx10m square in a 400m radius.
Each hit has damage 30 and penetration 2. The missile must be modified before
it can be used in this manner. 
  Even after this modification this missile is unusable against targets on
worlds with an atmosphere thicker than Very Thin. It will make a good
albeit expensive aproximation of a meteor shower however.


SFF missile.
  This missile uses the 'self forging fragments' phenomena to generate a
cloud of fragments that hit the target. At a few kilometers from the target
the missile deploys and detonates several panels consisting of explosives on 
the back and metal that will form the fragments on the front (facing the
target).
  The damage comes from the kinetic energy of the fragments. The specific damage
depends greatly on the closing speed of the missile and the target.
  When used against surface targets, the panels doesn't deploy. Instead the
metal forms lethal fragments similar to how a normal artillery round work.
  The warhead of this missile weighs 250kg and contains 150kg of explosives and
100kg of metal. The 100kg electronics package is assumed to include simple
terminal guidance and a proximity fuse.
  Hitting with this missile is two levels more difficult.
  As with a normal missile, apply the given damage 1D6 times.
  
TL	Price	GTurns	Surface Damage		Closing Speed	Damage
 8	40k	7 	C:100 B:60 Pen:50C		1	2-30
 9	40k	8	C:100 B:60 Pen:50C		2	2-50
11	40k	9	C:100 B:60 Pen:50C		3	3-90
13	40k	10	C:100 B:60 Pen:50C		4	3-110
15	40k	12	C:100 B:60 Pen:50C		6	4-150
							8	4-220
							10	5-280	
							15	6-420

LGB pseudomissile.
  This is, as the name states, not a real missile. Instead this is a missile-
shaped container with 6 1000kg laser guided iron bombs. The container is fired
as a normal missile and the communication laser of the missile turret can be 
used to designate a surface target from up to 10,000m altitude. Any higher
than that (or if it is bad weather on the surface) and another unit closer
to the surface have to handle the designation.
  The individual bombs can not handle atmospheric reentry in any atmosphere
thicker than Very Thin. If they are used to attack a target on a world with
thicker atmosphere, the ship has to be inside the atmopshere at the time of
launch.
  The spread can be chosen: The bombs can either all hit at the same time or
with up to 5 seconds of separations.
  This type of 'missile' can *not* hit a ship unless it stands still on the
ground.

TL	Price	Surface Damage
 8	22k	C:190 B:80 Pen:90C
 9	18k	C:190 B:80 Pen:90C
11	14k	C:190 B:80 Pen:90C
13	12k	C:190 B:80 Pen:90C
15	10k	C:190 B:80 Pen:90C

  A version carrying 4 bombs where each bomb has an ablative heat shielding
that enables them to be deployed from orbit over worlds with an atmosphere
of Dense or thinner is available for twice the cost.


Notes on the roles of these missiles.
  The HE is the basic cheapo missile, hard to hit with but does good damage 
when it hits. It will do a real number of most surface targets. However it
is slow and pretty much unusable a anything but the closest ranges.
  The HEAP inflicts more damage and has better range at the expense of worse
performance against surface targets and a higher price.
  The Cannister is the poor mans nuke/laser. It is almost as easy to hit with,
but it is highly dependent on the closure rate and has generally low 
penetration. It is also next to unusable against surface targets.
  The SFF is an ambivalent missile. It not so good against ships as the 
Cannister, and even though good against surface targets it is too expensive
to use against them. But if you want a missile that can do everything adequatly
the SFF is it.
  The LGB finally is a cheap teddybuster suitable for use against moderately
well defended surface targets. 
  (Against undefended surface targets the 'Argentine Bomb Sights' method is
better: You hover over the target and roll the bombs off the loading ramp
manually).

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5522
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 17:59:16 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: T:TNE World Government Fix

There is a severe problem in the Traveller: The New Era world generation
rules (I believe it was Steve Higginbotham who first noticed it).
The error is in the government type codes: there are two mutually
incompatible tables for government type - one set for the Wilds, and the
other for everything else.  In addition, the UWP data *DOES NOT INCLUDE*
a code that tells you which table to use!  For example, given the UWP
"1827 G867975-8" *THERE IS NO WAY OF DETERMINING* whether it is a
balkanized world or a "mystic dictatorship".  Well, maybe I should go
ask the Pope...

I've decided to treat this problem as an error; the following errata
should produce a workable fix:

pp.188, "World Government" table - change the following entries:
Code  General Description
0 --- No Government Structure.  In many cases family, clan, or tribal
      bonds predominate,
D --- Religious Dictatorship.  Government by a religious, mystic, or psionic
      minority which has little regard for the needs of the citizenry.
E --- Religious Autocracy.  Government by a single religious, mystic, or
      psionic leader having absolute power over the citizenry.

pp.191, paragraph 7, "Government" - change the entry to read:
	First determine if the world is balkanized.  Add the world size
and population code and subtract the tech level to determine the
balkanization number.  Roll 2d6; if the number rolled is equal to less
than the balkanization number, the world is balkanized.  In this case,
the government type is 7.  The referee can determine national government
types as the need arises, using the same technique as is detailed below
for non-balkanized worlds.
	Second, if the world's population code is 5+, determine the
presence of Technologically Elevated Dictators (TED).  Find the total
number of tech levels lost in Step 2 and roll 1d10.  If the roll is less
than the number of tech levels lost, the world's government
automatically becomes a TED.  Place the code Td in the world's
allegiance code, and roll 2d6 on the TED Government Type to determine
the actual form of the TED government.
	If the roll is equal to or greater than the tech level decline,
or if the world's population code is 4 or less, roll for the new
government as follows:
	Roll 2d6-7 + Population code.  Record this number for reference
in determining the world's law level.  Find the result on the Government
Types in the Wilds table; the corresponding code is the world's
Government code.

pp.191, "Government Types in the Wilds" - replace with the following:
Die   Code  General Description
Roll
 1- - 0 --- No Government
 2  - 2 --- Participating Democracy
 3  - 4 --- Representative Democracy
 4  - A --- Charismatic Dictatorship
 5  - C --- Charismatic Oligarchy
 6  - Roll 2d6 on the "TED Government Type" table, and note Allegiance = Td
 7  - D --- Religious Dictatorship
 8  - F --- Totalitarian Oligarchy
 9  - E --- Religious Autocracy
10  - 8 --- Civil Service Bureaucracy
11  - 3 --- Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy
12+ - 9 --- Impersonal Bureaucracy

pp.191, "TED Government Type" table - new table:
Die   Code  General Description
Roll
 2 --- 5 --- Feudal Technocracy
 3 --- 3 --- Self-Perpetuating Oligarchy
 4 --- 6 --- Captive Government
 5 --- B --- Non-Charismatic Leader
 6 --- B --- Non-Charismatic Leader
 7 --- F --- Totalitarian Oligarchy
 8 --- F --- Totalitarian Oligarchy
 9 --- E --- Religious Autocracy
10 --- D --- Religious Dictatorship
11 --- A --- Charismatic Dictatorship
12 --- C --- Charismatic Oligarchy

pp.191, paragraph 8, "Law Level" - change the entry to read:
	If the world is balkanized, the law level represents the most
commonly encountered law level on the world.  The referee should
establish a law level for each nation as the need arises.  Roll 2d6 to
determine the most commonly encountered law level of a balkznaized
world.
	If the world government is a TED, the nroll 2d6+3 to determine
the world's law level.
	Otherwise, roll 2d6-7 and add the world government die roll
(recorded in step seven above) to determine the law level.


Retcons:

The retcons required to implement this change should be minor; only
materials produced with the uncorrected T:TNE rules, and which use the
Wilds government type table will need to be changed.  The following table
summarizes the corrections needed:

Old   New
Code  Code
0 --- 0
1 --- 0
2 --- 2
3 --- 4
4 --- A
5 --- C
6 --- 6 (or roll 2d6 on the "TED Government Type" table) Allegiance = Td
7 --- D
8 --- F
9 --- E
A --- 8
B --- 3
C --- 9

A couple of caveats are in order, however.  First of all, the UWP for
governments in the Wilds provides no way of determining if the world is
balkanized.  The table above ignores this; the preferable solution would
be to test for a balkanized world as described in the modified paragraph
7 above.  Second, TED governments should be generated using the TED
Government Type table above, as noted in the retcon table.



Comments and Reasoning:

The primary goal was to create a single table of government types which
could be used no matter where the world was located.  An examination of
the original "Government Types in the Wilds" table revealed that all but
four of the government types were identical to ones already in use in
the "Normal" government types table (although with different code
values or slightly expanded definitions). 

Of the four new codes, "Mystic Dictatorship" and "Mystic
Autocracy" were defined nearly the same way as "Religious Dictatorship"
and "Religious Autocracy", except for two words ("or psionic") in the
general description.  Since I, for one, have had psionic religions in my
Traveller games for more than ten years, I didn't see much difference
between the two, and folded them together.  Two down and two to go.

The "Tribal Government" is an interesting idea; kind of a half-step
between no government whatsoever and a more formal government.  With
some hesitation, I folded it into "No Government"; if a new set of
government codes were to be devised, this one in particular should get
its own code.

The last code is "Technologically Elevated Dictator (TED)".  The more I
think about this one, the more I feel that this classification isn't
really a government type, but rather a classification (like Autocracy,
Oligarchy, or Democracy); any of the more opressive government types
could be (or could become) a TED, provided that they 
meet the criteria: use of relic or other advanced
technology to maintain their rule, and a certain amount of
unfriendlieness to interstellar visitors (Reformation Coalition in
particular).

Thus, the decision that a TED was better represented by a government
code that indicated what form the government actually took, plus a note
that it is considered a TED.


Let me know what you all think!


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5523
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 09:48:44 +1000
From: cs576112@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Bray Christopher)
Subject: Subscription


YES, I would like to get back onto this list.

Preferabley starting on the daily subscription.

hook

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

Bundle: 462
Archive-Message-Number: 5524
From: dand@netcom.com (Daniel Deremiah)
Subject: Count me in.
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 19:40:19 PDT

Would you please include me in your mailing list for Traveller info on a daily
basis every day.  Also if you have any info on TNE I would like to hear.

dand@netcom.com

- -- 

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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #463: Msgs 5525-5537 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  2 22:00:02 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #463: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 463  5525 01-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE <
 463  5526 02-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE <
 463  5527 02-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: The New Traveller << > From: Sean M
 463  5528 02-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    T:TNE World Government Fix << > From: w
 463  5529 02-Jun-1993 Rob Dean         Missiles << Can you shoot at incoming m
 463  5530 02-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE <
 463  5531 02-Jun-1993 James Johanness  A couple of things from TML nightly: Ms
 463  5532 02-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    The warships are dead... <<   ...Long l
 463  5533 02-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Swords << > From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.
 463  5534 02-Jun-1993 Joe Heck         off hand question << Does anyone rememb
 463  5535 02-Jun-1993 Sean Maguire     Contra Gravity ?? << With the change in
 463  5536 02-Jun-1993 traue@otago.ac.  TRAVELLER: Help a Newbie << [TMLers, Th
 463  5537 02-Jun-1993 James T Perkins  Re: TRAVELLER: Help a Newbie  << (Origi

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5525
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 23:10:05 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
> [assumptions about missiles]

These seem reasonable.

>   I think we should divide it into four types instead of three.

That sounds good, too.  But I'm going to argue that Cannister missiles
should be in category three (short-range shrapnel missiles).  The levels
of difficulty seem about right, too.  One more thing: in category four,
we should probably add "smart rocks": an "impact only" missile with no
warhead; damage by kinetic energy of impact.

>   I assume that types 3 and 4 include some kind of end phase autonomous 
> guidance (and a proximity fuse for type 3). Apart from this I agree with your
> rules on final burn fuel.

I was assuming that the exact type and capability of the terminal
guidance would make a big difference in the effectiveness of the
missile.  But you have a good point; the basics are covered under the
FIM/SIM rules.  The sensor/guidance system types should be optional
rules.

>   BTW: Having some professional experience with missiles, IMHO the best
> guidance model is the Track Via Missile guidance. It is basically a 
> combination of the best features of FIM and SIM.

I'm partial to inertial with terminal active radar homing (and of
course, the bearing only launch option).  The USN Harpoon is a good
example of what I mean.

>   In traveller terms, I'd describe it as a FIM that uses the best of gunners
> skill and onboard skill as long as it is in communication with the firing
> ship during the final round. Normal restrictions on number of simultaneously
> controlled missiles apply during this round.

That sounds reasonable; and the same rules can apply to any type of FIM
missile that has a command reciever as well.  One more thing I can think
of, though.  T:TNE assumes a tightbeam command link (laser); if the
missile ever goes fully independent (the command limk is cut off for
whatever reason), you can't re-acquire the missile --- it stays in FIM
mode because you no longer have accurate pointing data your laser.

> But the shock could travel on through the hull and affect all areas
> to a lesser degree.

That's what I was thinking.  1H for those areas that absorbed X-ray
energy directly, and 1h for those areas that were subject to the
concussion transmitted through the ship.

>   To achieve 3.5 hits against a 100m3 target, there has to be one sphere per
> 30m3. The radius of the cloud at impact will thus be 400m. To achieve a spread
> of 400m at a closing velocity of 1 to 30 (60,000km/h to 1,800,000km/h) and
> a range of 30,000 km (one range band) requires a radial velocity of 0.2m/s to
> 6m/s. 
>   So I persist that the 'detonation' range of the cannister round can be the 
> same as for the xray missile:)

I persist in insisting that it's practically impossible.  You are
putting the detination at 30,000km from the target; anywhere from anout
a minute to nearly thirty minutes between detonation and impact.  But
you can no longer guide that cloud of pellets after detonation.
Assuming the worst case, the target has only to move 400m in that minute
in order to be 100% safe; this works out to slightly under 0.25g --- for
slower approach velocities, the neccessicary accelleration is even less.
So even minor "jinking" by the target can throw off the aim of the
cannister shot; the maneuver expenditure is relatively minor, so ships
could afford to jump around this way even if they didn't detect a
missile closing on them.

On the other hand, detonating one of these at a kilometer or so away
gives the target less than 0.005 second to respond; getting an assumed
50m diameter ship out of the path of the fragments would require
thousands of Gs of accelleration.

> (Although I think a variable rate gas generator 
> might be more appropriate than a charge, since the rate of dispersion has to 
> vary with the closing velocity).

No; fire the bursting charge based on estimated time to impact, so that
the fragments always have the same amount of time to disperse.

> > From an "Impact" hit, all of these fragments
> > would go into one or two hit locations, with pretty severe results.
> 
>   Perhaps too severe for game balance. The effect of one 10mm tungsten sphere
> at 16km/second (closure velocity of 1) is 2-30 if I write it in the same
> form as the laser damage. Imagine a 7 ton missile...

But hitting the target is pretty hard, as we have both pointed out.
Cannister rounds detonated at tens of thousands of km provide the target
with far too much time to get out of the way.

A couple of other points which have occurred to me: the missiles use a
laser link for communications to the firing ship.  A cannister of
anti-laser "sand" placed at just the right spot should do wonders to
break this link; and once lost, it should be nearly impossible to
re-establish.  I'd treat it as firing the sandcaster at the missile; a
hit breaks the link, the results of which depend on the type of guidance
the missile has.

Managing to intercept the target and go for a proximity or impact hit
should be considerably easier if you are quite close to the target.
Like in the same range band with it.  Does T:TNE already have a modifier
for this? (if not, there probably should be one for <1 range band and >5
range bands for proximity and impact missiles).

>   I'll post a message with tenative designs for HE, HEAT, Cannister, SFF and
> LGB missiles as soon as I've typed them in.

Aside from the gotcha with cannister, I've seen these and like them.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5526
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 11:33:00 +0200 (MET DST)

> Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
> > [assumptions about missiles]
> 
> These seem reasonable.
> 
> >   I think we should divide it into four types instead of three.
> 
> That sounds good, too.  But I'm going to argue that Cannister missiles
> should be in category three (short-range shrapnel missiles).

  Perhaps category 2 should be modified from slow shrapnel on long ranges
to slow shrapnel on medium ranges.

  I looked on how much an evading ship could burn since the detonation, and 
moving 400m at 6G takes a little more than 3s. At closing velocity 1, the
shrapnel moves 48km in 3s, and 48km is significantly more than the 'a few km'
that is the range of nuke and SFF missiles (big enough difference to warrant
category 2 IMHO).
  (Back to the charge idea: The spheres has to spread with 130m/s radial to
get to 400m in 3s.)

  The reason for my perservance is that I think there is need for a cheap 
non-nuke missile that works with a penalty of one difficulty level and lower
damage and penetration. It fills a niche.

> The levels
> of difficulty seem about right, too.  One more thing: in category four,
> we should probably add "smart rocks": an "impact only" missile with no
> warhead; damage by kinetic energy of impact.

  Yes, but like I said, I don't want to think about the impact energy of this
one.

> I'm partial to inertial with terminal active radar homing (and of
> course, the bearing only launch option).  The USN Harpoon is a good
> example of what I mean.

  Guess we look on them from different viewpoints: I look on them as SAM's or
AAM's and you use the SSM model:)
 
> That sounds reasonable; and the same rules can apply to any type of FIM
> missile that has a command reciever as well.  One more thing I can think
> of, though.  T:TNE assumes a tightbeam command link (laser); if the
> missile ever goes fully independent (the command limk is cut off for
> whatever reason), you can't re-acquire the missile --- it stays in FIM
> mode because you no longer have accurate pointing data your laser.

  Depends on how tightbeam that laser is, and on if the firing vessel has
a sensor lock on the missile itself.

>>   So I persist that the 'detonation' range of the cannister round can be the 
>> same as for the xray missile:)
> 
> I persist in insisting that it's practically impossible.

  Ok, I've gone down to 50km:)

> No; fire the bursting charge based on estimated time to impact, so that
> the fragments always have the same amount of time to disperse.

  Yup, that's easier.
 
>>   Perhaps too severe for game balance. The effect of one 10mm tungsten sphere
>> at 16km/second (closure velocity of 1) is 2-30 if I write it in the same
>> form as the laser damage. Imagine a 7 ton missile...
> 
> But hitting the target is pretty hard, as we have both pointed out.

  I have an nasty suspicion that a kinetic only missile would be more 
effective than a HE missile... I don't have my books here, but I think the 
energy even at closing velocity 1 would be in the nuclear range (0.1 to 10kt).
  
> A couple of other points which have occurred to me: the missiles use a
> laser link for communications to the firing ship.  A cannister of
> anti-laser "sand" placed at just the right spot should do wonders to
> break this link;

  But think about the trouble to predict where that spot will be. Both the
launcher, the missile and the target jets around at high speed and the TNE
sand casters don't work in the 'eject a large unguided cloud of sand' mode
of classic Traveller.

> Managing to intercept the target and go for a proximity or impact hit
> should be considerably easier if you are quite close to the target.
> Like in the same range band with it.  Does T:TNE already have a modifier
> for this? (if not, there probably should be one for <1 range band and >5
> range bands for proximity and impact missiles).

  I wonder if it is necessary. A simple trader firing a impact only missile
on a Small target within the same range band will have a Formidable task
(Average to begin with, +3 to Impossible for the missile, -1 for the size of
 the target) which usually is a hit 25% of the time. That is good for a 
target that potentially can be 30,000km away.

  Ok, perhaps. But not more than -1 difficulty.

  My idea was that the 'simple terminal guidance' I talk about removes the
need for an extra mod for >5 range bands above and beyond the usual -1
per 3 range bands.
 
> >   I'll post a message with tenative designs for HE, HEAT, Cannister, SFF and
> > LGB missiles as soon as I've typed them in.
> 
> Aside from the gotcha with cannister, I've seen these and like them.

  Thanks. 

  BTW: Does anyone have other ideas for missiles? I have thought about a 
nuke pumped 'fusion gun' warhead analogous to the laser warhead but fail to
see how it would differ to any significant degree.
  Cluster warheads are also a possibility but the anti-ship effect of those 
would be inferior to cannister IMHO.

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5527
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: The New Traveller
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 12:30:03 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: Sean Maguire <smaguire@mihi.une.edu.au>
> Subject: The New Traveller
> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 12:22:49 GMT-10:00
> 
> The book/game probably won't get here to Australia for another six months
> (sounds pessimistic I admit, but I am probably right),

  I'm still amazed in a negative sense by this. There must be a lazy 
distributor in Australia or lazy shops that cause the delay.

  Have anyone considered setting up a postal order outfit specializing in
getting it within a few weeks? Or is the hobby too small for this in AU?

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5528
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: T:TNE World Government Fix
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 12:44:39 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
> Subject: T:TNE World Government Fix
> 
> I've decided to treat this problem as an error; the following errata
> should produce a workable fix:

  I was planning to use small letters for the new types of governments in
my program but this seems to be better.

> The "Tribal Government" is an interesting idea; kind of a half-step
> between no government whatsoever and a more formal government.

  It *could* be introduced as a special code. But I don't know which codes
that has been used.

  (BTW: A related problem that I found out when designing the program: There
are two different 'Gov 0' in Hard Times... I'm thinking of using the Hiver
'anrachy' code for the anarchy result).

> Let me know what you all think!

  Nice. I'll use it.

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5529
From: Rob Dean <robdean@access.digex.net>
Subject: Missiles
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 08:46:07 -0400 (EDT)

Can you shoot at incoming missiles in TNE?  If so, then cheap missiles serve
a useful role as decoys, even if it almost impossible to get a useful hit with
them...

Rob Dean

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5530
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 10:28:53 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Re: "Conventional" missiles for T:TNE

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
>   Perhaps category 2 should be modified from slow shrapnel on long ranges
> to slow shrapnel on medium ranges.

OK.

>   (Back to the charge idea: The spheres has to spread with 130m/s radial to
> get to 400m in 3s.)

This will work.

>   The reason for my perservance is that I think there is need for a cheap 
> non-nuke missile that works with a penalty of one difficulty level and lower
> damage and penetration. It fills a niche.

Agreed.

>   I have an nasty suspicion that a kinetic only missile would be more 
> effective than a HE missile... I don't have my books here, but I think the 
> energy even at closing velocity 1 would be in the nuclear range (0.1 to 10kt).

It may be.  If so, we should chuck the HE and HEAP missiles in favor of
a KEAP missile (cheaper, and lighter too!).  Could you work out this and
the nuclear missiles we discussed earlier (I *still* haven't gotten back
to that section in T:TNE --- I've been reading through it carefully, and
spending far too much time posting on the net:).  Then I'll pull it all
together so that we have everything in one place.

>   But think about the trouble to predict where that spot will be. Both the
> launcher, the missile and the target jets around at high speed and the TNE
> sand casters don't work in the 'eject a large unguided cloud of sand' mode
> of classic Traveller.

True, but blocking the missile's commo link with sand *has* to be easier
than taking out the missile with anti-missile laser fire.

>   Ok, perhaps. But not more than -1 difficulty.

You are probably right; I haven't read the complete combat rules yet.
25% is a high enough chance; I was afraid that it would be less than
that.

>   My idea was that the 'simple terminal guidance' I talk about removes the
> need for an extra mod for >5 range bands above and beyond the usual -1
> per 3 range bands.

OK.

>   Cluster warheads are also a possibility but the anti-ship effect of those 
> would be inferior to cannister IMHO.

On the other hand, they could be very useful for a planetary attack
missile.  How about a series of missiles with re-entry heat-shields and
HE, HEAP, CBM, and nuclear (and probably thermonuclear) warheads?

Other possibilities: a cheap, light-weight missile with (say) about 7
G-turns of fuel and warhead, shorter endurance, etc.  Designed
to be launched from fighters at close range (in the same range band).
These can probably get by with a much simpler guidance system
(laser-designated target?).  Although the lower cost is nice, the real
goal is a smaller, lighter missile, so that a fighter could have 2 or 4
on launch rails.

Other ideas:
	The T:TNE equivalent of a phalanx gun: installed in a turret
hardpoint, this is a small, rapid-fire laser (or gatling laser).  It has
it's own sensor, and fires at anything that comes near.  It can operate
in FIM (Fully-Independent Mode) or SIM, just like a missile.  Intended
to be a defense against proximity and impact missiles, its damage and
penetration aren't much, but effective against missiles out to about
100km.
	Sensor drone: the same general size and shape as a standard
missile, but the "warhead" is the best sensor system that can be crammed
into the available space (probably with a folding array).  Communicates
sensor data back to the mother ship.  Recoverable/reusable.

wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5531
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1993 11:05:13 -0600 (CST)
From: James Johannesson - Registrar's Office - 6763 <James.Johannesson@usask.ca>
Subject: A couple of things from TML nightly: Msgs 5514-5523 V56#2

Subj:	TML nightly: Msgs 5514-5523 V56#2

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
> 461  5514 31-May-1993 Anthony Neal     Another Silly Quye^H^Hestion... << Hello.
>Been looking through the sunbane archives again. Looking at the Sector
>data. I figure that in the trade codes, D? where ? is a number means

Think D is for a Desert world... check the Hydro and that should
tell you for sure or not.... I think that was from the Classic Traveller
harcover book.... dunno for sure though ...   A D? where ? is a number means
Droyne population C? if for Chirpers... 

> 462  5517 01-Jun-1993 Sean Maguire     The New Traveller << I don't have a cop
>3) The new book will cost 60$ Australian I guess, which is roughly
>40$ in American currency. Is it worth it ???????

My initial look at the book was very positive (other than a few
people's comments on the errors. Maybe if we bug Loren Wiseman
enough, we can get another "errata sheet" as there was for Megatraveller.
BTW, being in Canada.. I am surprised at the price above... I checked
the price at my local store. $35.99 + 16% tax (7% Good & Service + 9%
Provincial ... ugh!)... As well - the copy of Traveller:TNE showed
up May 31 here...

> 462  5522 01-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   T:TNE World Government Fix << There is 

I have to agree with Derek & Steve on this... though I have not seen a copy of
TNE, to have two different tables in my mind is kinda silly when you
can't tell which table to apply to a world. Derek's idea has definite
merit... when I get my copy of TNE, I plan to use his ideas...

A couple of other things:

Anyone got their new CHALLENGE as of late? I assume that its being
held off due to the fact that they wanted TNE out and going before sending
out any more CHALLENGE's.... also what is going on with IMPERIALLINES?

In the TNE book.. is there any mention on TAS (Traveller's Aid Society)?
Just wondering if they are still in existance in the Regency..... 

Thanks Heaps...

- -------------
James Johannesson            Email  Internet: james.johannesson@usask.ca
Programmer/Analyst                      or    johannesson@admin.usask.ca
Registrar's Office                      or    johannessonj@sask.usask.ca
University of Saskatchewan              or    johann@jester.usask.ca
Saskatoon, Sask.             Phone:  (306) 966-6763
S7H 0W0                      FAX:    (306) 966-6730

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5532
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: The warships are dead...
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 21:06:10 +0200 (MET DST)

  ...Long live the Missileboats?

> It may be.  If so, we should chuck the HE and HEAP missiles in favor of
> a KEAP missile (cheaper, and lighter too!).  Could you work out this and
> the nuclear missiles we discussed earlier

  I think there are things to discuss wrgt the KEAP missiles still. Regarding
nukes I am 25% of the way through 'The Effects of Nuclear Weapons' and I'll
have to do som wild guesses in any case (mostly with regards to how damage in
TNE relates to damage in Real Life) so it might take a little time too.

  (A NPC have 50% chance of dying after 10D of concussion damage. Since this
very aproximately equals 65 PSI (but it is different with conventional
weapons) so each die can be assumed to be 6.5 PSI)

> (I *still* haven't gotten back
> to that section in T:TNE --- I've been reading through it carefully, and
> spending far too much time posting on the net:).  Then I'll pull it all
> together so that we have everything in one place.

  I've looked on the kinetic energies of 200kg (100kg electronics etc and 100kg
structural members of the burned out engine. I assume a solid fuel engine 
here but I have a few ideas on how to make a solid fuel rocket maneuverable)
moving at from 1 to 30 range bands(1). But remember that this is less than
half the normal payload, so this type of missile should get aprox 20 Gturns.

 (1) It would be really nice to know the 'typical closing velocity', but we
     don't have that data yet. If someone runs a space combat with missiles,
     please please note their closing velocity and post it to the TML.

  The kinetic energy varies between 2.8e10 J and 2.5e13J which is the same 
as 0.006 to 6 kilotons. Redone into kg of TNT and via the demolition rules
into penetration means 705 to 21,000 or 30 to 900 major hits worth. This is
well above the damage of either the HE or HEAP, even at velocity 1. Definite
shipkiller size, since you only need 200 in remaining penetration after armour
to inflict a critical hit on a ship of any size.


  Based on the classic studies of optimum ship design done for TCS, I suspect 
that missiles this effective will totally transform the game. Any price of 
warship can be matched by an equal tonnage of cheaper missile craft (100T 6G 
J1, 1 missile turret) that has a good chanse of getting in a few hits and the 
warship is history.

  This would be a retcon even more major than those jumpbarges we discussed
just before the pocket mailing list started.


  Do we want this? And if we don't, how do we explain it away? One big grey
area is how a heavy object of low density behaves when it collides with a
very dense material. It is also debatable wether energy translates directly 
into penetration.

  Using Richard Ogorkiewicz 'Technology of Tanks' as a source on how things
behave when they collide at high speeds I have two guesses: The first is that
the penetration goes up with speed, but it doesn't increase much with speeds
over 5km/s. Since velocity 1 is 16km/s, we are well into the flat part of
the curve in all cases. Since the equations for penetrators approach the
equations for shaped charge jets we can assume that the missile is a shaped
charge jet and use those simpler equations:)
  The maximum penetration is thus:

		     Density of jet
  Length of jet * ( -----------------) ^ 0.5
		    Density of target

  Using the density of the missiles engine (the electronics package is
denser but it is too short) which I assume to be 0,014, the length of the
missile (7m) and the density of the hull (7 for steel, this is a best 
case penetration caculation) the maximum penetration is 318mm aka Pen 63. 
It won't penetrate an SDB!! (sorry, PDB:)
  
  That is good news, since that is aproximately the same total penetration
as the HE missile and *less* than the HEAP missile. So they will still have
a place, and the KEAP missile will not be the ultimate shipkiller.
  
  (I suspect the excess energy goes into transforming the missile and those
300mm of hull into plasma. I don't have any data on the energy needed to 
transform various metals into plasma so it is only a guess)

  (Yes, I know we can put a 7m depleted uranium penetrator in the center of the
missile and it will penetrate 11m of armour steel if it gets a closing velocity
of 4 or more. I think the question is if we want the missile boat to rule or 
not. If we do we mention the KEAPDU missile, otherwise we ignore it.)

> True, but blocking the missile's commo link with sand *has* to be easier
> than taking out the missile with anti-missile laser fire.
  
  The laser fire is speed of light, the sand is slower.

> >   Ok, perhaps. But not more than -1 difficulty.
> 
> You are probably right; I haven't read the complete combat rules yet.
> 25% is a high enough chance; I was afraid that it would be less than
> that.

  Evasion will make it smaller (to 12% or smaller, assuming skill 5 and stat 5
of the firing character). And it is possible that having a MFD might increase
it to up to 95%.
 
> >   Cluster warheads are also a possibility but the anti-ship effect of those 
> > would be inferior to cannister IMHO.
> 
> On the other hand, they could be very useful for a planetary attack
> missile.  How about a series of missiles with re-entry heat-shields and
> HE, HEAP, CBM, and nuclear (and probably thermonuclear) warheads?

  Why missiles? It would be cheaper to use the 'LGB preudomissile' model
and fill the empty shell with guided bombs of different kinds. 7000kg of 
TL-13 'Rockeyes' will impress almost anyone.

  (Correction: I started to think about the weights and densities of bombs,
and a 1000kg bomb will probably only displace around 0.3m3, so both the 
heatshield and non-heatshield LGB pseudomissile should contain 6 1000kg
bombs: That the weight has to conform to the normal missile is the limiting
factor, not space).

> Other possibilities: a cheap, light-weight missile with (say) about 7
> G-turns of fuel and warhead, shorter endurance, etc.

  Remember that a 6G ships has a 12 Gturns per turn capability. To reach it
you need a missile that has more.

> Designed
> to be launched from fighters at close range (in the same range band).
> These can probably get by with a much simpler guidance system
> (laser-designated target?).  Although the lower cost is nice, the real
> goal is a smaller, lighter missile, so that a fighter could have 2 or 4
> on launch rails.

  Or make them short but of the same diameter as normal missiles so that 
several can be stacked in a normal launch tube and launched one at the time.

> Other ideas:
> 	The T:TNE equivalent of a phalanx gun: installed in a turret
> hardpoint, this is a small, rapid-fire laser (or gatling laser).  It has
> it's own sensor, and fires at anything that comes near.  It can operate
> in FIM (Fully-Independent Mode) or SIM, just like a missile.  Intended
> to be a defense against proximity and impact missiles, its damage and
> penetration aren't much, but effective against missiles out to about
> 100km.
> 	Sensor drone: the same general size and shape as a standard
> missile, but the "warhead" is the best sensor system that can be crammed
> into the available space (probably with a folding array).  Communicates
> sensor data back to the mother ship.  Recoverable/reusable.

  I'll look on this later. We'd probably need the Techbook and Shipdesign
book to do them correctly, though.

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5533
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Swords
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 21:10:08 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
> Subject: Various Points...
> 
> To Bertil:
> 	Sorry, I typoed.  I meant an ARMOURED man, not an UNARMOURED man when
> discussing sords vs. bare hands...

  I still don't understand how you mean. Could you write the example down
briefly?

> 		---Steve Higginbotham

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5534
Date:         Wed, 02 Jun 93 15:41:16 CDT
From: Joe Heck <CCJOE@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject:      off hand question

Does anyone remember right off hand which Double Adventure has the deckplans
for the Lab Ship? (The odd ring-thing with a cutter or ship's boat in the
center). I want to abuse a few players within something like this and was
hoping to get a copy of the deckplans.

I'm hoping it's in one of the double-adventures, but I honestly don't
remember.

Thanks!

 joe                          (314) 882-5000
 ccjoe@mizzou1.missouri.edu

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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5535
From: Sean Maguire <smaguire@mihi.une.edu.au>
Subject: Contra Gravity ??
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 14:55:16 GMT-10:00

With the change in traveller of gravity = contra gravity, how effective
would these 'fusion' rockets be in atmosphere. I'm not a science type person
or anything, but wouldn't air resistance and stuff like that cut into
speed ????

Does this mean we will see combination prop/contra gravity vehicles ???

In H. Beam Pipers novels (where I assume de old contra grav thing
came from), what did he use as the 'thruster' units on vehicles he
described. 

Also, doesn't the 'grav hours' thing seem a bit limited ?? Actually, since
I havn't got the book, what is the average number of 'manuever hours' the
traveller vehicles have now ????

I can remember (murkily) that in 4 day planet (Piper), a submarine/space
craft could go about a week or something like that . . . . . 

Michael (C/O Sean Maguire)



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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5536
Subject: TRAVELLER: Help a Newbie
From: traue@otago.ac.nz
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 04:28:54 GMT

[TMLers, This is from rec.games.frp.misc. Let's see if we can help this
guy out!  Please make sure you copy Murray on all replies -- James]

Hi People,

I recently picked up a copy of the old Traveller Book in a 2nd
hand shop. I like it. 

Problem: no sourcebooks, no modules, no imagination :^)

Seeing as I can't get hold of any adventures, I was hoping anyone
who had some ideas for scenarios etc might mail them to me.

As I intend this to be the RPG game we play when no-one else
shows up, so I'll probably run it with only 2 players.

By the way, has anyone got a simple point based character
generation system for Traveller ?

Oh, and how about deck plans for some of the standard craft?

Feel free to deluge my mailbox with suggestions :^)

Thanks in advance,

Murray

traue@otago.ac.nz


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

Bundle: 463
Archive-Message-Number: 5537
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER: Help a Newbie 
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Administrator)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 93 15:42:32 PDT
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@sp-eug.com>


(Originally-To: traue@otago.ac.nz)

Hi Murray,

I'm the Internet Traveller Mailing List Adminstrator. I forwarded your
posting to rec.games.frp.misc on to the TML. If you want to plug in to
recent discussion on Traveller, please feel free to ask to be added to
TML. If not (the discussion is at all levels and sometimes is over the
head of newer folks, unless they're patient to read and learn), that's
fine too. I hope one or more of us can get you some good answers!

BTW, if you have anonymous ftp, check out ftp.engrg.uwo.ca
(129.100.100.12, dir pub/traveller). Another thing to check out is The
Weekend Warrior, a place in California that sells out-of-print gaming
materials, esp. Traveller. I'm sure they'd have a pile of adventure
modules available. If you're interested I'll get you the address. Deck
Plans? Check out the (out of print) Traders and Gunboats book.

James

__   __/         /   /	    Internet Traveller Mailing List, Administrator
    /     /  /  /   /	   James T. Perkins in Eugene, Oregon, USA
 __/   __/__/__/ _____/   traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca

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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 22:00:04 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #464: Msgs 5538-5550 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun  6 22:00:03 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 22:00:04 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #464: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 464  5538 02-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  Comments and Tables and Stuff... << Wil
 464  5539 02-Jun-1993 Will Hartung -   Nuuukkkeeeesss Innnnnn Spaaaccceeee... 
 464  5540 03-Jun-1993 Pauli            Re: The New Traveller << Bertil wrote:
 464  5541 02-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   T:TNE Space Combat Fix and more on miss
 464  5542 03-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  Swords and Karate... << Bertil:
 464  5543 03-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: T:TNE Space Combat Fix and more on 
 464  5544 03-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Rockets for Missiles << > Bertil:
 464  5545 03-Jun-1993 Stewart Eyres    Lab Ship,Fusion Rockets and Blighty << 
 464  5546 03-Jun-1993 Steve Gibbons    Silly << --
 464  5547 03-Jun-1993 Steve Gibbons    Silly question. << Oops.  Sorry about t
 464  5548 03-Jun-1993 Scott Brandt     Challange? <<   I have to second J. Joh
 464  5549 03-Jun-1993 Joe Heck         Traveller help << Murray,
 464  5550 03-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Re: Comments and Tables and Stuff... <<

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5538
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1993 19:22:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: Comments and Tables and Stuff...

Wildstar:
>Steve Higginbotham writes:
>>         2)  Design requirements and (possible) mistakes:  All of the
>> canned ships have quite a lot of maneuver fuel.  All well and good
>> for PCs to rip around in, but aren't the merchant ships designed to
>> make money???

>As a work-around, perhaps we can assume that the provided ship designs
>are as modified for exploratory trading in the wilds?  At least until
>we get teh Technical Architecture manual (or wherever GDW decides to
>put the starship design rules).

Well, actually, I would consider any ship that pulled only 1G and was
unarmed to be totally useless for exploratory trading in the Wilds.  So,
no, *I* couldn't assume that.  The rest of you will decide these things
for yourself, without any inputs from me, of course...


>> Either way, it is easier to use a J-1 boat to do the job that an SDB
>> used to do (after all, the J-1 requires MUCH less fuel than the
>> normal space crossing, and takes less time if you are going as far as
>> Jupiter...)

>Definitely.  It might even be a good idea to put a Jump-0 drive into
>the Technical Architecture book.  A jump drive optimized for in-system
>travel; probably with a maximum range of under a half a light year per
>jump.  Such a drive, particularly if it were cheaper and/or consumed
>less fuel, would be particularly nice.  Say, about half size and cost
>of a J-1 drive, and about half fuel consumption.  Max jump about a half
>a light-year.

This is what we have been using in our own campaign for many years.  J-0
uses 5% of ship's displacement fuel to go up to 10,000AU.


>>   1)  The "100 Diameters Travel Times" Table on page 225 is incorrect
>> in almost every entry.
>>   2)  The Interplanetary Distance Matrix has many entries, of which
>> no more than 1/3 are correct.
>>   3)  The "Interplanetary Speed" Table has nine entries.  NONE are
>> correct

>Can you provide corrected tables?

Yes...

Oh, you mean NOW?!?  Sure:

NOTE/WARNING:  Lots of boring tables.  Those not interested (which
should be almost all of you) should page-down to the dashed line.

100 Diameters Travel Times:

Time in hours unless otherwise mentioned.  Accurate to 1/10 hour.  Note
that the basic assumption that G-hours can be used as a velocity in
these calculations is adhered to, though many of the numbers in the
size-0 column are small enough that the assumption is not really valid.

== : time required to expend the specified G-hours.
time/== : (specified time OR time required to expend specified G-hours,
whichever is GREATER) OR 25 min, whichever is LESS.  Basically a really
short time.

World size:
               0         1         2         3         4         5
G-hours
     0.1     50m*      12.7      25.3      38.0      50.7      63.4
     0.2     25m        6.3      12.7      19.0      25.3      31.7
     0.3     17m/==     4.2       8.4      12.7      16.9      21.1
     0.4     13m/==     3.2       6.3       9.5      12.7      15.8
     0.5     10m/==     2.5       5.1       7.6      10.1      12.7
     0.6      9m/==     2.1       4.2       6.3       8.4      10.6
     0.7      ==        1.8       3.6       5.4       7.2       9.1
     0.8      ==        1.6       3.2       4.8       6.3       7.9
     0.9      ==        1.4       2.8       4.2       5.6       7.0

* : This is ASSUMED to be correct, just because I have no reason to
believe that there IS a correct answer to that particular question.
Other values for the size-0 case are based upon this.

World Size:
               6         7         8         9         A         SG**
G-hours
     0.1     76.0      88.7     101.4     114.0     126.7      385.8
     0.2     38.0      44.3      50.7      57.0      63.4      192.9
     0.3     25.3      29.6      33.8      38.0      42.2      128.6
     0.4     19.0      22.2      25.3      28.5      31.7       96.5
     0.5     15.2      17.7      20.3      22.8      25.3       77.2
     0.6     12.7      14.8      16.9      19.0      21.1       64.3
     0.7     10.9      12.7      14.5      16.3      18.1       55.1
     0.8      9.5      11.1      12.7      14.3      15.8       48.2
     0.9      8.4       9.9      11.3      12.7      14.1       42.9

** :  It is assumed that Neptune is the size of the generic Small Gas
Giant.  Neptune has a diameter of ~49,000Km


World size:
               LG
G-Hours
     0.1    1086.5
     0.2     543.3
     0.3     362.2
     0.4     271.6
     0.5     217.3
     0.6     181.1
     0.7     155.2
     0.8     135.8
     0.9     120.7

*** :  It is assumed that Jupiter is the size of the generic Large Gas
Giant.  Jupiter has a diameter of ~138,000Km

Interplanetary Speed:

          Time (min)
G-Hours
     1       142
     2        71
     3        47
     4        35
     5        28
     6        24
     7        20
     8        18
     9        16

Note that these values are about 25% lower than those on the original
table.  Which means transits are 25% FASTER.

Interplanetary Distance Matrix:

NOTE/WARNING:  This is the big one, anyone silly enough to have hung on
through to here is advised to skip this one.

Note:  Any distance over ~120,000 light seconds will take the fastest
listed ship over one year to cross, so the parts of this table dealing
with the orbits 13+ are especially meaningless.

Note also that any ship can jump to any orbit 7+ faster than it can
cross the distance in normal space.

Note also that the entries that were correct in the initial tables are
marked with an '*' (all 22 of them)

Outer orbit number
                         1         2         3         4         5
Inner orbit number

      0     (10)       100*      250*      400*      700*     1300*
      1     (20)                 150*      300*      600*     1200*
      2     (35)                           150       450*     1050*
      3     (50)                                     300*      900*
      4     (80)                                               600*

                         6         7         8         9         10
Inner orbit number

      0     (10)      2500      4900*     9700     19300      38500
      1     (20)      2400      4800*     9600     19200      38400
      2     (35)      2250      4650*     9450     19050      38250
      3     (50)      2100      4500*     9300     18900      38100
      4     (80)      1800      4200*     9000     18600      37800
      5    (140)      1200      3600*     8400     18000      37200
      6    (260)                2400      7200     16800      36000*
      7    (500)                          4800     14400      33600
      8    (980)                                    9600      28800
      9   (1940)                                              19200

                         11        12        13        14        15
Inner orbit number

      0     (10)      76900    153700    307300    614500   1273900
      1     (20)      76800    152600    307200    614400   1273800
      2     (35)      76650    152450    307050    614250   1273650
      3     (50)      76500    152300    306900    614100   1273500
      4     (80)      76200    152000    306600    613800   1273200
      5    (140)      75600    151400    306000    613200   1272600
      6    (260)      74400    150200    304800    612000   1271400
      7    (500)      72000    147800    302400    609600   1269000
      8    (980)      67200    143000*   297600    604800   1264200
      9   (1940)      57600    133400    288000    595200   1254600
     10   (3860)      38400    114200    268800    576000   1235400
     11   (7700)                76800    231400    538600   1198000
     12  (15380)                         153600    460800   1120200
     13  (30740)                                   307200    966600
     14  (61460)                                             659400

                         16        17        18        19
Inner orbit number

      0     (10)    2457700   4915300   9830500  19665900
      1     (20)    2457600   4915200   9830400  19665800
      2     (35)    2457450   4915050   9830250  19665650
      3     (50)    2457300   4914900   9830100  19665500
      4     (80)    2457000   4914600   9829800  19665200
      5    (140)    2456400   4914000   9829200  19664600
      6    (260)    2455200   4912800   9828000  19663400
      7    (500)    2452800   4910400   9825600  19661000
      8    (980)    2448000   4905600   9820800  19656200
      9   (1940)    2438400   4896000   9811200  19646600
     10   (3860)    2419200   4876800   9792000  19627400
     11   (7700)    2380800   4838400   9753600  19589000
     12  (15380)    2304000   4761600   9676800  19512200
     13  (30740)    2150400   4608000   9523200  19358600
     14  (61460)    1843200   4300800   9216000  19051400
     15 (127400)    1183800   3641400   8556600  18392000
     16 (245780)              2457600   7372800  17208200
     17 (491540)                        4915200  14750600
     18 (983060)                                  9835400
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------


>In my humble opinion, the multiple conflicting definitions for UWP
>government codes is the single most serious problem with the rules, and
>should be fixed immediately (as in "Is there still time to prepare an
>errata page for the boxed edition?") if not sooner.

This has my vote.  An Errata Sheet is DEFINITELY called for here...


Bertil:
> Further assumptions: The nuke/laser assembly represents the largest
>part of the price of normal missiles. After that comes the electronics
>and the cheapest part is the actual engine.

Before you get too attached to this idea, remember that these missile
all are capable of WELL OVER 100,000m/s delta-V.  These are NOT simple,
solid-fuel missiles.  These are fusion-rocket missiles, and so the
drives are likely to be more expensive than you might guesstimate.

Note also that you are assuming that the det lasers are sprayed wildly
when detonated.  It is probably safe to assume that each lasing element
has the necessary controls to POINT itself at a target before detonation
occurs.


>Cannister missile.
>  This missile releases 15,000 10g 10mm tungsten spheres into a cloud
>to ensure that at least one of them hits the target. The cloud is
>released at a range of 30,000km and the velocity with which it expands
>is automatically selected based on the closing velocity between the
>missile and the target to achieve the maximum probability of a hit.

This is a joke, right?  At 30,000Km, the target ship would have to
expend around _1G-second_ laterally to make sure that the cloud of
pebbles makes a clean miss.



Wildstar:
>pp.191, "TED Government Type" table - new table:
>Die   Code  General Description
<etc>
I like this, but I wonder at the necessity of a TED table at all.  TEDs
are relatively common in classic Trav material (Pavabid, which has a
TED/Religious Dictatorship comes immediately to mind), so why bother
listing it separately?  This sounds like an attempt to codify something
best left to the referee's imagination...

>       If the world government is a TED, the nroll 2d6+3 to determine
>the world's law level.

I disagree with this.  A TED CANNOT maintain tight control with a
dwindling supply of HighTech goodies.  What he will have is a HIGH Law
Level WHERE HE IS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, and almost NO Law Level anywhere
else (since it is NOT in his interests to establish a real government to
run things - they might decide HE is optional, especially if they have
access to his goodies.  If they DON'T, then they will be pretty much
incapable of running things (think of Prison Trustees, in the absence of
Guards)).

                                ---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5539
Subject: Nuuukkkeeeesss Innnnnn Spaaaccceeee...
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 17:26:30 PDT
From: Will Hartung - Master Rallyeist <villy@uunet.uu.net>

I'd like a little clarification about nukes and missiles and what not.

I take it that they're doing the nuclear X-Ray laser missile ala 2300
in TNE now. So, unless there are several alternatives (such as those
that have been suggested), it would appear that missiles would not be
very common on many civilian ships because of the Imperial No-Nukes
policy.

Now, not being a Nuclear Weapons Engineer (I prefer steam locomotives
:-), I understood nuclear weapons to be much less effective in
space compared to an atmospheric burst. Obviously, impact is impact
regardles of the environment, but a nuclear weapon gets a lot of its
power from the shockwave that it produces as the explosion pushes the
air out from the blast.

In space, ain't no air to push, so I would think that they would lose
a lot of their shock value, specifically in a proximity situation.
Now, they would still produce zany amounts of heat, which I would
guess would travel nicely through space. 

Also, with the closing velocities that the ships will have, explosives 
seem pretty weak compared good 'ol kinetic energy. (A paragraph or two
out of 'The Forever War' comes to mind...).

So, I guess I'm asking what you folks are thinking about with these
new missile designs. I like the Shrapnel idea, sounds rather nasty to
me. But, if you can get a 3-5 ton vehicle to actually IMPACT a ship
then why bother with an explosive?

I guess one way would be to send in a salvo of nuclear missles to fry
all the sensors off of the ship, then follow up with a couple of tons
of cinder block or whatever to knock on their door.

Overall, I just don't think that an HE missile would be very effective
(assuming that the explosive is designed to hurt the ship versus deploy
a munition). 

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5540
Subject: Re: The New Traveller
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 93 11:22:19 +1000
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

Bertil wrote:

>> The book/game probably won't get here to Australia for another six months
>> (sounds pessimistic I admit, but I am probably right),

>  I'm still amazed in a negative sense by this. There must be a lazy 
>distributor in Australia or lazy shops that cause the delay.

TNE is in Australia.  I received my copy three days ago from the Australian
distributor (Mil Sims in Melbourne) and I know our local games shop has it
in stock or they did two days ago.  How long it will last is another question,
and resupplies of stocks here do take a long time.






        						Pauli

Paul Dale                       | grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science  | +61 7 365 2445
University of Queensland        |
Australia, 4072                 | Did you know that there are 41 two letter
                                |     words containing the letter 'a'?


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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5541
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 23:42:58 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: T:TNE Space Combat Fix and more on missiles

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
> The kinetic energy varies between 2.8e10 J and 2.5e13J which is the same 
> as 0.006 to 6 kilotons. Redone into kg of TNT and via the demolition rules
> into penetration means 705 to 21,000 or 30 to 900 major hits worth. This is

 ... way too much.  Probably the kinetic energy of impact doesn't convert
readily into explosion damage, and so the demolition rules are producing
funny numbers.

>   Do we want this? And if we don't, how do we explain it away?

I don't think we want this, and it seems that you've managed to explain
it away pretty effectively below ...

> this is a best 
> case penetration caculation) the maximum penetration is 318mm aka Pen 63. 
> It won't penetrate an SDB!! (sorry, PDB:)

That's much better!  Lethal to unarmored ships, but a warship with
enough armor doesn't have to worry as much (and as you point out, it
leaves a place for the HEAP missile).

HEAP missiles can reasonably be restricted-purchase items (since the
only thing they are really good for is shooting at military-type ships).

> I think the question is if we want the missile boat to rule or 
> not. If we do we mention the KEAPDU missile, otherwise we ignore it.

My feeling is that we keep very hush-hush about the KEAPDU missile;
after all, it may not even be practical (how much does that slug of
depleted uranium weigh, after all).

>   Evasion will make it smaller (to 12% or smaller, assuming skill 5 and stat 5
> of the firing character). And it is possible that having a MFD might increase
> it to up to 95%.

95% seems a little too high ... maybe we should work out some way that a
MFD has less (or no) effect on these new missiles.  Or maybe increase
the difficulty of impact and close-proximity so thatyou *have* to have a
MFD to have any reasonable chance of hitting with them.  What do you
think?

>   Why missiles? It would be cheaper to use the 'LGB preudomissile' model
> and fill the empty shell with guided bombs of different kinds. 7000kg of 
> TL-13 'Rockeyes' will impress almost anyone.

Good point.  That's enough to ruin almost any TED's day.

> > Other possibilities: a cheap, light-weight missile with (say) about 7
> > G-turns of fuel and warhead, shorter endurance, etc.
> 
>   Remember that a 6G ships has a 12 Gturns per turn capability. To reach it
> you need a missile that has more.

Ummm, I don't see that bit anywhere; but I do see on pp.313 "Each ship
may spend a number of G-turns limited by its G rating (maneuver
performance)" --- so I concluded that a 6 G ship has 6 Gturns of combat
maneuver capability.  Each Gturn of combat maneuver burns a half of a
G-Hour of maneuver fuel (because each turn is a half an hour).

I also see a potential problem with the space combat rules.  On pp.313
it says "each 2 Gturns of accelleration spent by a ship changes the
closing velocity for the current turn by one".  However, by referring to
good old Sir Isaac:

Accelleration = Constant             A = 10 m/s^2
Velocity = Acelleration * Time       V = 10 m/s^2 * 30 m
                                       = 10 m/2^2 * 1800 s = 18000 m/s
                                                           = 64800 km/hr
Distance = 0.5 * Accell * Time ^ 2   D = 0.5 * 10 m/s^2 * 1800^2 s^2
                                       = 5 m/2^2 * 3240000 s^2
                                       = 16200000 m = 16200 km

Putting this into T:TNE terms, a velocity of 1 is one range band per
combat turn (or 30000km per 30 mins; 60000 km/hr).  A distance of 1 is
one range band (or 30000km), and the unit of time is the turn (30
minutes; 1800 s).

SO, each Gturn of accelleration increases the ship's velocity *for next
turn* by slightly over 1 band/turn.  The distance travelled in the 
*current turn* during this accelleration is slightly more than a half a
range band per Gturn of accelleration expended.


FIX: alter the "Speed Change" and "Compute New Range" paragraphs on
pp.313-314 to read as follows:
	SPEED CHANGE: Each ship may spend a number of Gturns limited by
its G rating (maneuver performance) in order to modify the closing
velocity.  Each Gturn of accelleration spent by a ship changes the closing
velocity *for the next turn* by one.  In addition, each 2 Gturns of
accelleration spent changes the closing velocity *for the current turn*
by one (drop fractions).  The closing velocity may be increased or
decreased.  As Gturns of accelleration are spent, players must
declare whether they are going to increase or decrease the closing
velocity.
	COMPUTE NEW RANGE: At the end of each turn, subtract the current
closing velocity (the velocity *for this turn* as computed above) from
the current range to get the new range for the next turn.  When the
closing velocity is a negative number, remember that subtracting a
negative number is the same as adding a positive number, thus actually
increasing the range.

ALTERNATE FIX: the above, while accurate, may seem too complicated for
some players.  Thus, the suggested simplified fix: alter the "Speed
Change" and "Compute New Range" paragraphs on pp.313-314 to read:
	SPEED CHANGE: Each ship may spend a number of Gturns limited by
its G rating (maneuver performance) in order th modify the closing
velocity.  Each Gturn of accelleration spent by a ship changes the
closing velocity *for the next turn* by one.  The closing velocity may
be increased or decreased.  As Gturns of accelleration are spent,
players must declare whether they are going to increase or decrease the
closing velocity.
	COMPUTE NEW RANGE: At the end of each turn, subtract the current
closing velocity (before the speed changes above) from the current range
to get the new range for the next turn.  When the closing velocity is a
negative number, remember that subtracting anegative number is the same
as adding a positive number, thus actually increasing the range.


EXAMPLES: To help clarify what's going on, the following examples
presime that a standard Scout/Courier (maneuver performance 2 G) is
closing in at velocity 4 on a patrol ship which is station-keeping 8
range bands away.  The scoutship wants to break to a stop as quickly as
possible.

NEWTON: A = 20 m/s^2.  240000 km/hr = 66667 m/s = 20 m/s^2 * T s.  Time
to decellerate to a stop is T = 3333 s = 55.6 min, or about 2 turns.
Distance travelled while stopping is D = 0.5 * A * T^2 = 111111 km, or
about 3.7 range bands.  The ship is stopped at the end of the second
turn, slightly more than 4 range bands from the patrol ship.

ORIGINAL: In the first turn, the scout/courier expends 2Gturns of
accelleration (at a cost of 1 Ghour of fuel).  Velocity changes by 1;
the new velocity is 3, and the new range is 5.  In the second turn, the
scout continues brakeing; new velocity 2, new range 3.  Turn 3: velocity
1, range 2.  Turn 4: the scout comes to a stop at a range of 2.

FIX: In the first turn, the scout expends 2 Gturns of accelleration (at
a cost of 1 Ghour of fuel).  Current velocity is decreases by 1 (to 3);
and the next turn's velocity decreases by 2 (to 2).  The new range is 5.
In the second turn, current velocity becomes 1, and the new velocity
decreases to 0 (the ship will stop at the end of the turn).  The new
range is 4.

ALTERNATE FIX: In the first turn, the scout expends 2 Gturns of
accelleration (at a cost of 1 Ghour of fuel).  Current velocity is
unchanged (still 4), and the next turn's velocity decreases by 2 (to 2).
The new range is 6.  In the second turn, the current velocity is 2, the
new velocity is 0, and the range is 4.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5542
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1993 00:10:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: Swords and Karate...

Bertil:

>> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
>> Subject: Various Points...
 
>> To Bertil:
>> 	Sorry, I typoed.  I meant an ARMOURED man, not an UNARMOURED man
>> when discussing sords vs. bare hands...

>  I still don't understand how you mean. Could you write the example
>down briefly?

	Armour absorbs hits equal to twice its armour levels when hit by a
sword (indeed, any melee weapon, except bare hands).  So a sword (damage
2) does NOT penetrate AC1.
	A man with strength 6 and unarmed melee combat 7 has an unarmed
damage value of 4.  Armour absorbs twice its armour value when hit by a
man with his bare hands, BUT the man also takes one point of damage to
his hand when he hits the armour.

	So the armour allows 2 pts through when hit by a bare hand, and none
through when hit by a sword.

	Note that this is subject to interpretation.  Dark Conspiracy
describes the armed melee rules slightly differently (and the damage
from a sword differently also), and under THAT particular incarnation of
the rules, a sword will generally do more than a man will with his bare
hands.  In the original T2K2 rules, armed melee combat is described
similarly to those on DC, but the sword is again different, and in that
case, the bare hands win out over the sword as long as the man doing the
punching is reasonably strong...

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5543
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: T:TNE Space Combat Fix and more on missiles
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 11:02:54 +0200 (MET DST)

> > this is a best 
> > case penetration caculation) the maximum penetration is 318mm aka Pen 63. 
> > It won't penetrate an SDB!! (sorry, PDB:)
> 
> That's much better!  Lethal to unarmored ships, but a warship with
> enough armor doesn't have to worry as much (and as you point out, it
> leaves a place for the HEAP missile).

  I should practice better dispositions, really. I forgot to note that the
'penetration is dependent on the densities' was way #2 to reduce the 
penetration. And I also forgot to include the limiting effect of those 5km/s
I was talking about.

  Using both, the damage of a KEAP will be 3-200, which means that it will
be rated like this compared to HE and HEAP:

  Damage to thin armour	Damage to thick armour	Surface targets
  	HEAP			HEAP			HE
  	KEAP			KEAP			HEAP
  	HE			HE			KEAP

  So there might be a niche for the HE as a cheap multipurpose missile (while
the SFF is a better but more expensive multipurpose).

> HEAP missiles can reasonably be restricted-purchase items (since the
> only thing they are really good for is shooting at military-type ships).

  Possibly.
 
> > I think the question is if we want the missile boat to rule or 
> > not. If we do we mention the KEAPDU missile, otherwise we ignore it.
> 
> My feeling is that we keep very hush-hush about the KEAPDU missile;
> after all, it may not even be practical (how much does that slug of
> depleted uranium weigh, after all).

  Using a DU penetrator with a slenderness of 1:100 (normal today is 1:20)
around 400kg, but that slenderness might be physically impossible (too slender
and it will break instead of penetrating). With a slenderness of 1:20...
twelve tons.
  Yes, this might make a good excuse.


  BTW: I think the Cannister and SFF missiles should be modified since their
max damage is dependent on the penetration and it is limited in the same ways
as that of the KEAP missile. 
  (2-50 at all speeds for the Cannister and 3-110 for the SFF since it has 
larger fragments. It is probably possible to design it to reach these levels,
but the number of fragments might have to be reduced).
  
>>  Evasion will make it smaller (to 12% or smaller, assuming skill 5 and stat 5
>> of the firing character). And it is possible that having a MFD might increase
>> it to up to 95%.
> 
> 95% seems a little too high ... maybe we should work out some way that a
> MFD has less (or no) effect on these new missiles.  Or maybe increase
> the difficulty of impact and close-proximity so thatyou *have* to have a
> MFD to have any reasonable chance of hitting with them.  What do you
> think?

  I think restricting MFD's to military ships is a better option. I'm reminded
of the old starship combat discussion where I wanted there to be a major
difference between military and civilian ships, and the MFD could be a way
of doing this.

> Ummm, I don't see that bit anywhere; but I do see on pp.313 "Each ship
> may spend a number of G-turns limited by its G rating (maneuver
> performance)"

  Argh! I misinterpreted the 'Friendly Velocity' formula on page 324.

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5544
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Rockets for Missiles
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 11:30:48 +0200 (MET DST)

> Bertil:
> > Further assumptions: The nuke/laser assembly represents the largest
> >part of the price of normal missiles. After that comes the electronics
> >and the cheapest part is the actual engine.
> 
> Before you get too attached to this idea, remember that these missile
> all are capable of WELL OVER 100,000m/s delta-V.  These are NOT simple,
> solid-fuel missiles.  These are fusion-rocket missiles, and so the
> drives are likely to be more expensive than you might guesstimate.

  Didn't someone do a very cheap KEAP missile according to the megatraveller
rules? It might have changed now of course. I'll put in a higher overhead for
the engine in the missiles, but then there has been an opening for solid
fuel missiles with a low amount of Gturns for close in work.

> Note also that you are assuming that the det lasers are sprayed wildly
> when detonated.  It is probably safe to assume that each lasing element
> has the necessary controls to POINT itself at a target before detonation
> occurs.

  Actually I imagined something more shotgun-like. All elements are fixed 
mounted with minuscle differences in direction, and the entire missile is
pointed towards the target.

> >Cannister missile.
> >  This missile releases 15,000 10g 10mm tungsten spheres into a cloud
> >to ensure that at least one of them hits the target. The cloud is
> >released at a range of 30,000km and the velocity with which it expands
> >is automatically selected based on the closing velocity between the
> >missile and the target to achieve the maximum probability of a hit.
> 
> This is a joke, right?  At 30,000Km, the target ship would have to
> expend around _1G-second_ laterally to make sure that the cloud of
> pebbles makes a clean miss.

  Ok ok I've already corrected that.

>                                 ---Steve Higginbotham

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5545
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1993 12:50:38 +0100 (BST)
From: Stewart Eyres <spe@jb.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Lab Ship,Fusion Rockets and Blighty

Hi

To Joe Heck:

Lab Ship deck plans were published in the Double Adventure Death Station. 
I can't remember what the second half was called, or which number it was,
but I'll post that to you tomorrow.  Also, one of the DGP Traveller's
Digests (about number 16?) published a reduced set of plans in the form of
an SGS advert, and of course SGS publish large scale deckplans at about
the price of a house!

To Sean Maguire:

I've always seen fusion rockets as sort of fusion guns used for thrust.  I
can't see why they should be hindered in operation by an atmosphere,
although I would have thought they would be polluting and damaging, as
they spew out fusing plasma (presumably).

To UK subscribers:

T:TNE was in Fantasy World in Hanley (Potteries/Stoke-on-Trent) on
Tuesday, but there was only one copy left on the shelf!

Bye

Stewart
spe@jb.man.ac.uk



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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5546
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1993 06:26:22 MST
From: Steve Gibbons <steve@nereid.sunquest.com>
Reply-To: steve@sunquest.com
Subject: Silly

- --
steve@sunquest.com (SPG6)

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5547
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1993 06:50:13 MST
From: Steve Gibbons <steve@nereid.sunquest.com>
Reply-To: steve@sunquest.com
Subject: Silly question.

Oops.  Sorry about the previous blank message.  (I haven't had my coffee
yet...)

I've always wondered why 6G was chosen as the maximum acceleration available
for M-Drives.  It seems pretty arbitrary to me.  It's been a while, but at one
point I extended the High-Guard tables into the 10G range (as I remember,) and
it was possible to design a sub-100 ton craft with sufficient agility as to
make it nearly impossible to hit.  Add a large enough computer running a souped
up Maneuver/Evade, and you'll never get it in your sights...  :)  Who needs
armor at that point (since no one would ever nuke you, that's _illegal_...  ;)

If I was going to be the "Devil's advocate", I'd say that the limit was on the
inertial compensators, _not_ on the drive itself, and that this shouldn't apply
in a combat situation since TL-8 fighter pilots routinely pull multiple-G
maneuvers.  Add 6G of inertial compensation on top of a G-suit, and a 10-G 
turn is within the limits of a combat maneuver, I think.

I think that this has even more bearing on TNE, since (as I understand things)
M-Drive is no longer the thrust-plate/reactionless model from classic-trav or
MT.

Thoughts?
- --
steve@sunquest.com (SPG6)

P.S. I wonder what the Imperial equivilant of coffee would be.  (A toned-down
version of combat-drug as a beverage additive would really get your heart a
pumpin'...)

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5548
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 09:24:53 CDT
From: nps001!sbrandt@uunet.UU.NET (Scott Brandt)
Subject: Challange?



  I have to second J. Johannesson's question:

>Anyone got their new CHALLENGE as of late?

  I need a fix and I need it now!

- -------------------------------------------
e-mail                  sbrandt@digi.lonestar.org
or more reliably    sbrandt@dsccc.com

"Let them eat static....."
- -------------------------------------------


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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5549
Date:         Thu, 03 Jun 93 10:16:18 CDT
From: Joe Heck <CCJOE@MIZZOU1.missouri.edu>
Subject:      Traveller help

Murray,

I have a "unfinished" set of library data from the original Traveller and
Megatraveller that is sitting in archive as straight text files. I'm also
checking out with Loren Wiseman (GDW) wether or not it will be feasible to
republish (in electronic form) common deck plans. If so, I have most of them
ready to go with the caveat of the copyright dates. For that, however, I
really need GDW's permission. If you'd like to look over the Library Data, I
warn you its in rough an unfinished format (not updated to MegaTrav, and
some "extra" stuff that's not official GDW), but it's available.

FTP to ghost.cc.missouri.edu, it's in the /PUB/Traveller/Lib_Data directory.
If you can't get it, but want it, reply me and I'll mail it to you (It's
big).

 joe                          (314) 882-5000
 ccjoe@mizzou1.missouri.edu

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

Bundle: 464
Archive-Message-Number: 5550
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 12:01:48 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Re: Comments and Tables and Stuff...

Yesterday on TML, Steve Higginbotham wrote:
> >Can you provide corrected tables?
> Yes...  Oh, you mean NOW?!?  Sure:

Thanks.  The more errors stomped now, the better!  Of course, if GDW had
been able to get us a copy of the text for about a week *before* sending
it to the printers, these errors could have been fixed already ...

> >pp.191, "TED Government Type" table - new table:
> I like this, but I wonder at the necessity of a TED table at all.  TEDs
> are relatively common in classic Trav material (Pavabid, which has a
> TED/Religious Dictatorship comes immediately to mind), so why bother
> listing it separately?  This sounds like an attempt to codify something
> best left to the referee's imagination...

I know.  However, T:TNE seems to consider TEDs important (probably
because the TED code indicates "Opportunity for Player Characters to
Engage in Officially Sanctioned Excessive Violence Against Generally
Inferior Opposition" for Star Viking players).  My fix preserves (at
least IMHO) the intent of the rules on pp.191, but without requiring
double definitions for te Government type codes.

After I folded Tribal and the two Mystic governments into the existing
codes, that left the TEDs.  Since they are important to T:TNE, I needed
to put the code somewhere, so I put it in the Allegiance.  That left
nothing in the UWP Government code.  One possibility is to code all of
these worlds as type 6 (Captive Government) and leave it up to the
referee.   I should note that you are still free to do this.

On the other hand, as you pointed out, many different kinds of
governments can be TEDs.  Pavabid came to my mind also (that's the world
from the "Divine Intervention" Classic Traveller Double Adventure).
Others are certainly possible; however I have noted that T:TNE tends to
assume that TEDs are typically Non-Charismatic Leaders.  To make the
different government types explicit, and as an aid to the referee's
imagination, I provided the TED Government Table. 

I ranked the various governments by my estimation of their
probability of becoming a TED, and filled in the table accordingly.  A
large majority of them will be Non-Charismatic Leaders or Totalitarian
Oligarchies, but there is always the possibility of others, all of which
seem at least possible to me.  Some of them could lead to some very
interesting adventures for Star Vikings that don't do their homework and
undercover work.

> >       If the world government is a TED, the nroll 2d6+3 to determine
> >the world's law level.
> I disagree with this.  A TED CANNOT maintain tight control with a
> dwindling supply of HighTech goodies.  What he will have is a HIGH Law
> Level WHERE HE IS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT, and almost NO Law Level anywhere
> else (since it is NOT in his interests to establish a real government to
> run things - they might decide HE is optional, especially if they have
> access to his goodies.  If they DON'T, then they will be pretty much
> incapable of running things (think of Prison Trustees, in the absence of
> Guards)).

I restricted myself to fixing up the Government codes, so that the one
"Normal" government code table could be used everywhere.  I very
carefully preserved everything else in the original T:TNE rules;
including Law Level.  If you look carefully, when all the appropriate
modifiers have been added, the roll on original pp.191 will be 2d6+3.

This doesn't mean that it's right, but simply that my modification only
affects the government code value used (and the allegiance, for TEDs)
and doesn't change anything else.

One possible interpretation: the TED's law level is that which applies
to strangers, and/or near the TED, with the rest of the world enjoying a
lower (possibly much lower) law level.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 22:00:04 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #465: Msgs 5551-5557 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun  6 22:00:03 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 22:00:04 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #465: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 465  5551 03-Jun-1993 Scott S. Kellog  Games Creatures Play << Greetings frien
 465  5552 03-Jun-1993 Scott S. Kellog  Fusion Rockets and Missiles << Thruster
 465  5553 03-Jun-1993 Edward Swatsche  Contra-grav/Piper << > Sean Maguire wri
 465  5554 03-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  solid fuel missiles... << In anticipati
 465  5555 03-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   More Missiles << skellogg@lonestar.utsa
 465  5556 03-Jun-1993 Scott S. Kellog  Re: More Missiles << Wildstar Sagt:
 465  5557 04-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  The New Era campaigns... << WIldstar:

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

Bundle: 465
Archive-Message-Number: 5551
From: skellogg@lonestar.utsa.edu (Scott S. Kellogg)
Subject: Games Creatures Play
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 12:53:48 CDT

Greetings friends,

People have been talking about the sports played by the denizens of
the Trav universe.  Lessee what I got here.

Games Aliens Play:

The most common K'kree game played while aboard their large field
sized ships is the ever popular sport of G'kring.  It is initiated
by either the ship's captain or the steppelord aboard and allows
the entire compliment to enjoy themselves as they pass in
procession all behind the steppelord.  The human name for the game
is `Follow The Leader'.

Another popular game among K'kree is G'nare.  It is very similar to
the ancient game of Polo before the British civilized it.  However,
it is not played with the decapitated head of an executed enemy,
but with a small live carnivorous animal as the `ball'.  Should an
animal actually manage to survive the actual playing of the game it
is usually trampled by the steppelord of the winning team to
celebrate the victory.
     There is an growing trade between the Two Thousand Worlds and
human space in domestic house cats.
     There are rumors of games of G'nare played by the K'kree
soldier caste which use humans or vargr as the `ball'.

The Hivers play many types of sports.  However, they do not
translate well into human concepts.  One (probably very
misunderstood) sport is referred to as `Very Small' or `Pee Wee'
which plays off the innate Hiver curiosity.  It consists of one
Hiver attracting the attention of another and directing him to face
in a certain direction.  The first player then signs `Made ya
look!' to which the second player responds `I meant to do that.'
     A variant of this is where one player intimates that he has
some secret knowlege and the other asks what it is.  (There is
untranslated illustration of two Hiver's playing this game in an
old JTAS cartoon "Our Friends The Aliens" :-)
     1st Player:  `Know what?'
     2nd Player:  `What?'
     1st Player:  `That's What!'

The Ael Yael having evolved to flying many millenia ago have many
aerial games.  Many of which have been adapted to zero-G
environment.  Possibly the most well known of these is Yelachek.
     Yelachek actually is an aerial form of dueling similar to the
honor duels of the Aslan.  It can range in severity from first
blood or even to the death.  However, far more common is a contest
with streamers.
     The Ael Yael will tie streamers to their tails and fly passes
at each other while attempting to catch hold of the other's
streamer.  This gives a slight advantage to the smaller and more
maneuverable males of the species, but the females tend to use
their greater mass for speed in a dive.  Humans may compete in a
game by using grav belts.
     Yelachek as played in zero-G takes place in a large chamber to
allow maneuverability.  Humans will use large fans and flippers to
allow them to `fly' slowly with swimming motions while pursuing
each other.

The Zhodani have a zero-G sport played soully by Telekinetics.
Telekinesis does not ordinarily give enough force to allow the psi
to push against gravity enough to allow flight.  Zero-G eliminates
this problem.  The telekinetics will use their psi to push off of
the walls of the chamber (or ship) in order to fly.  This allows
the TK's to fly, race, and indulge in all manner of aerial
maneuvers.

Scott 2G Kellogg



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

Bundle: 465
Archive-Message-Number: 5552
From: skellogg@lonestar.utsa.edu (Scott S. Kellogg)
Subject: Fusion Rockets and Missiles
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 12:54:25 CDT

Thruster plates are dead.

Fusion Rockets are in.

Well Ladies and Gents, you all outta know what that means.  The
only kind of sensor you'll need to detect these ships is the Mark-I
eyeball.  Fusion rockets are going to be blindingly bright.  You
will NOT need advanced sensors to find your targets.  And there is
almost NO possibility of using decoys.

As a sence of scale, let me point out that the lowest performance
engines here are those of the type S scout ship or the old type A
free trader.  These engines have about 1300 tons of thrust.  What
earthly rocket engines compare?  Well, that's about half as much
thrust as NASA's Saturn V (First stage) launch vehicle which took
the Astronauts to the moon.

I seem to recall a description of the Saturn V lift off as being
along the lines of "The Saturn V didn't lift off:  Cape Kennedy
Sank!"

I think Bertil & Wildstar are getting Far more complicated and
expensive than they have to with their missile seeker heads.
Passive is THE way to go.

Decoys will NOT be practical.  In order to copy the IR signature
you will need something as bright as a Saturn V.  In order to copy
the plasma jet you will need something hotter than a Saturn V.  In
order to copy the mass signature, you'll need some weird grav
equipment.  In order to copy the neutrino signature, you will need
a fusion reactor.

The only practical decoy that could copy the signature of a ship
well enough to fool the sensors and missile programming is...
another SHIP!

Ok, what counter measures can you pull against a missile with a
totally passive seeker head?

Well, you would have to turn to face it head on.  Using the bulk of
the ship to shield it's own engine emmissions.  This maneuver will
be almost completely impossible due to the closing vectors.  Also
you would have to know the precise location of the missile (at
which point you may as well shoot at it).  Furthermore, it will
only protect you from one missile.  If there is more than one
missile coming at you and they are in communication with each
other, it will fail.  Flying into the sun will present similar
problems.  The vectors almost certainly won't add and a bit of
programming should allow the head to distinguish between a ship and
a star.  Thus all you will need is a passive IR head.

Ok, what if he cuts his engines at a critical moment and causes the
missile to loose it's lock?  Well, a ship that is not maneuvering
is an easily found ship.  You already saw it's last vector!
KaBoom!

All right, now that you have this baby closing in, what do you
need?  A proximity fuse.  Well, you can use a densiometer to do
that if the IR has gone off line.  I'd prefer to avoid using an
active radar as a fuse.  It would make the missile easier to find,
and it can be fooled by a chaff cloud (Sand Caster).

In my opinion, a totally passive head will be VERY effective
against TNE Ships.  IR, Neutrino, Densiometer combination will be
EXTREMELY hard to beat.  Furthermore, the Neutrino and Densiometer
are just icing on the cake.  The main component needed is that IR
head.  And remember, that's just a plain old TL6 seeker.  We are
talking about a heavy version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder here!

Also, Bertil mentioned the idea of rolling bombs off the loading
bay manually to attack undefended targets.  Why get so complicated?
Strapped to the back end of your ship is the biggest bad-assed
version of a fusion gun you ever imagined.  We are talking about a
fusion gun that has a back blast like a SATURN V for heavens sake!

Scott 2G Kellogg



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

Bundle: 465
Archive-Message-Number: 5553
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 13:25 PDT
Subject: Contra-grav/Piper
From: Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)

> Sean Maguire writes:
> With the change in traveller of gravity = contra gravity, how
> effectivewould these 'fusion' rockets be in atmosphere. I'm not a science
> type person or anything, but wouldn't air resistance and stuff like that
> cut into speed ????

   I expect they would be as effective as the former anti-grav was - air
resistance affected them as well.

> In H. Beam Pipers novels (where I assume de old contra grav thing came
> from), what did he use as the 'thruster' units on vehicles he described.

   He had separate lift and drive generators, I beleive.  I don't recall any
details on thier operation ever being written.  I'm certain they were not
reaction based.

> Also, doesn't the 'grav hours' thing seem a bit limited ?? Actually, since
> I havn't got the book, what is the average number of 'manuever hours' the
> traveller vehicles have now ????

   Not really.  If you are using reaction mass to move about, there are
strict limits to how much you can change velocity.


   For my own use, I'm thinking of staying with my current usage of
thruster-plates for common use, and fusion rockets where high delta-v/t is
needed.  The thought of the common-folk running about riding oversized fusion
guns is frightening. :)


- --
               Edjs                    _
              ------                _ //  CI$  : 76427,662
   Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca  \X/   GEnie: E.SWATSCHEK


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

Bundle: 465
Archive-Message-Number: 5554
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1993 19:15:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: solid fuel missiles...

In anticipation of Bertil's counter that we should develop some solid
fuel missiles with only a few G-hours of delta-V, as a cheap
alternative, I point out the following:

	For a 150Kg dry mass (warhead, electronics, structure, NO fuel), a
missile with ONE G-hour delta-V requires 70,936,947Kg of the best solid
fuel we make today.  A TWO G-hour missile requires 33.547 BILLION TONS
of fuel.
	So don't waste a lot of time with solid fuel missiles for TNE.

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 465
Archive-Message-Number: 5555
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 22:52:16 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: More Missiles

skellogg@lonestar.utsa.edu (Scott S. Kellogg) writes:

> Thruster plates are dead.
> Fusion Rockets are in.
> Well Ladies and Gents, you all outta know what that means.  The
> only kind of sensor you'll need to detect these ships is the Mark-I
> eyeball.  [etc.]

True enough, although to detect one at any range, you will need an
increasingly large telescope.  Those range bands are *big*!  For a sense
of scale, imagine trying to detect that Saturn V first stage with the
naked eye from the surface of the moon.

> I think Bertil & Wildstar are getting Far more complicated and
> expensive than they have to with their missile seeker heads.
> Passive is THE way to go.

I think that we're now assuming some unspecified form of autonomous
terminal homing; passive IR, Neutrino, or Densitometer are all possible.
Missiles will want long-range targetting information (particularly SIMs)
from the launching ship, so that the missile can be guided to the
correct target if there are several near the same bearing.

> Ok, what counter measures can you pull against a missile with a
> totally passive seeker head?

Well, you can shoot at it.  It probably has a fusion rocket for power,
too, and should be pretty darn obvious.  Lasers are the obvious choice,
but a Cannister missile should do a number on an enemy missile, too.
Delay detonation of the bursting charge until about 1.5s before impact;
this gives a 200m radius sphere with considerably more pellets per unit
volume.  1.5s doesn't give a 12G missile enough time to get out of the
way.

A small fission or fusion warhead should provide an adequate decoy,
depending on the exact technology of the seeker head.  The bomb could be
radiation-enhanced in the appropriate frequencies to better simulate the
ship's fusion exhaust.  This may not be a practical suggestion, however!
;)

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
>   So there might be a niche for the HE as a cheap multipurpose missile (while
> the SFF is a better but more expensive multipurpose).

Great.  And I see that KEAP now becomes a cheap missile (if a little
difficult to hit with) that is more effective in ship-to-ship action
than a HE missile, and considerably cheaper than a HEAP or SFF missile.

>   Using a DU penetrator with a slenderness of 1:100 (normal today is 1:20)
> around 400kg, but that slenderness might be physically impossible (too slender
> and it will break instead of penetrating). With a slenderness of 1:20...
> twelve tons.  Yes, this might make a good excuse.

I think a 1:100 penetrator would be too slender; Uranium isn't a
particularly strong metal ... and it makes a decent reason for not
having a KEAPDU missile.

>   BTW: I think the Cannister and SFF missiles should be modified since their
> max damage is dependent on the penetration and it is limited in the same ways
> as that of the KEAP missile. 

Sounds reasonable.

>   I think restricting MFD's to military ships is a better option. I'm reminded
> of the old starship combat discussion where I wanted there to be a major
> difference between military and civilian ships, and the MFD could be a way
> of doing this.

Good Idea!  MFDs at the current TL restricted to military vessels. 
Authorized para-military outfits (like starmercs with good reputations)
could buy MFDs at a couple of TLs below the current military.  And a few
(*very few*) would appear on the black market (probably the same TLs or
slightly lower as the starmercs can get).

An unauthorized ship with a MFD installed, or with restricted weapons
onboard, could be subject to immediate impound, or even seziure, by the
authorities.  I like this.

>   Argh! I misinterpreted the 'Friendly Velocity' formula on page 324.

Haven't read that part yet.  What do you think of the space combat
movement changes?


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 465
Archive-Message-Number: 5556
From: skellogg@lonestar.utsa.edu (Scott S. Kellogg)
Subject: Re: More Missiles
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 93 22:21:30 CDT

Wildstar Sagt:

> > only kind of sensor you'll need to detect these ships is the Mark-I
> > eyeball.  [etc.]
>
> True enough, although to detect one at any range, you will need an
> increasingly large telescope.  Those range bands are *big*!  For a sense
> of scale, imagine trying to detect that Saturn V first stage with the
> naked eye from the surface of the moon.

Ok, so I exaggerated a bit.  But remember, from Earth to the Moon is
15 range bands or so.  So we're both exaggerating.

> > Ok, what counter measures can you pull against a missile with a
> > totally passive seeker head?
>
> Well, you can shoot at it.  It probably has a fusion rocket for power,
> too, and should be pretty darn obvious.  Lasers are the obvious choice,
[etc]

True.  But those options work just as well against an active missile
or a command guided variety.

> A small fission or fusion warhead should provide an adequate decoy,
> depending on the exact technology of the seeker head.  The bomb could be
> radiation-enhanced in the appropriate frequencies to better simulate the
> ship's fusion exhaust.  This may not be a practical suggestion, however!
> ;)

Practicality aside, I don't think it would work.  How long does a nuclear
warhead last?  If it Could simulate the target ship's signature, it
wouldn't do it for long!  :-)

Scott 2G Kellogg


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

Bundle: 465
Archive-Message-Number: 5557
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1993 07:37:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: The New Era campaigns...

WIldstar:
>I know.  However, T:TNE seems to consider TEDs important (probably
>because the TED code indicates "Opportunity for Player Characters to
>Engage in Officially Sanctioned Excessive Violence Against Generally
>Inferior Opposition" for Star Viking players).  My fix preserves (at
>least IMHO) the intent of the rules on pp.191, but without requiring
>double definitions for te Government type codes.

>After I folded Tribal and the two Mystic governments into the existing
>codes, that left the TEDs.  Since they are important to T:TNE, I needed
>to put the code somewhere, so I put it in the Allegiance.  That left
>nothing in the UWP Government code.  One possibility is to code all of
>these worlds as type 6 (Captive Government) and leave it up to the
>referee.   I should note that you are still free to do this.

This last seems to imply that you think I am running a New Era
campaign.  Not Hardly!  And I am not too likely to do so in the near
future (say before the turn of the century), nor is it likely that
if/when I get around to a New Era campaign that my "New Era" will occur
in/around 1200 - more like 1500...

I exhausted the possibilities inherent in the New Era while reading (and
laughing at) the two canned adventures (incidently, Loren, Cynthia and I
cracked the cypher in the first adventure while sitting around waiting
for my daughter's ballet class to end.  So how come the PCs are expected
to be unable to crack it without being given the key?), and can see no
real point in role-playing the New Era, since I have little if any
interest in beating up technological inferiors (though I concede I might
enjoy a game of beating up on the Arses), and even less in being a
peasant or TED i some backwater....

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 22:00:04 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #466: Msgs 5566-5580 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun  6 22:00:03 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 22:00:04 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #466: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 466  5566 04-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: More Missiles << > >   Argh! I misi
 466  5567 04-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: solid fuel missiles << > From: JNCH
 466  5568 04-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Re: Gov codes << >   IMHO it is good to
 466  5569 04-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Gov codes << >>   IMHO it is good t
 466  5570 04-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Missiles <<   I won't be in a position 
 466  5571 05-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Don't panic <<   /usr/spool/mail has ju
 466  5572 04-Jun-1993 Scott S. Kellog  Re: Fusion Rockets and Missiles << Bert
 466  5573 05-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Fusion Rockets and Missiles << > > 
 466  5574 04-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  missiles and swords and Arses... << Wil
 466  5575 04-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  fusion rockets... << Oh, yeah!
 466  5576 04-Jun-1993 Steve Gibbons    M-Drives in combat craft << OK.  Severa
 466  5577 04-Jun-1993 gwh@lurnix.lurn  Missiles << Bertil writes:
 466  5578 05-Jun-1993 Steven Owens     Re: Fusion Rockets and Missiles << Bert
 466  5579 05-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Nukes in Space << Bertil Jonell <d9bert
 466  5580 05-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Government Codes and Related << Bertil 

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5566
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: More Missiles
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 21:35:59 +0200 (MET DST)

> >   Argh! I misinterpreted the 'Friendly Velocity' formula on page 324.
> 
> Haven't read that part yet.  What do you think of the space combat
> movement changes?

  They sound logical. If the opportunity occurs, I'll try them out this Sunday.

  Addenda on missiles:

  A missile launcher on any ship that hasn't been purpose built to have a 
missile launcher on that specific hardpoint (like the patrol cruiser) will
probably have to be reloaded from *outside* the ship. If we assume that same
density of the starship missiles as of the tac missiles (1) the missiles
will be 7 cubic meters big. That probably translates to something a little
over a meter in diameter and 7 meters long. That comparable to a extended
range Standard Missile, and considerably thicker.
  There is no way you can maneuver this monster around in a scout ship, so
the launcher has to be reloaded from the outside when the ship is not in
combat.

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5567
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: solid fuel missiles
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 21:42:23 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
> Subject: solid fuel missiles...
> 
> In anticipation of Bertil's counter that we should develop some solid
> fuel missiles with only a few G-hours of delta-V,
  
  Ouch! Apparently I should run Maneuver/Evade more often if I'm that
predictable:)

> 	For a 150Kg dry mass (warhead, electronics, structure, NO fuel), a
> missile with ONE G-hour delta-V requires 70,936,947Kg of the best solid
> fuel we make today.

  Ok, but what are the equivalent numbers for hydrogen/oxygen or NERVA-type
nuclear fission rockets?

  And (nasty question) what are the equivalent numbers for a fusion rocket
powered missile? :)

> 				---Steve Higginbotham
 
- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5568
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 16:14:17 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Re: Gov codes

>   IMHO it is good to have the info in the basic world data somewhere, instead
> of having to scan through the extra data for each world to find it.

It would be nice, but I didn't have the canonical list of government
codes, so I had to solve the problem without creating a new government
type code.

Also, I'm not convinced that a TED is really anything different than a
lot of Non-Charismatic Leaders, Totalitarian Oligarchies, Religous
Dictators/Oligarchies, and Feudal Technocracies that we had in the
Classic Imperium.  It's just that instead of "Governments will be
Governments" the attitude towards them is "It's Clobberin' Time!".  Or
in other words, what makes a TED is in the eyes of the beholder, and not
necessicarily a characteristic of the government.

As an example, note the description of Montezuma starting on T:TNE
pp.98; the narrator herself notes that the world's government is not
particularly ornerous (but comments that *in her opinion* it may become
so at some future time); the farmers are not yet peasants, there is
currently a merchant class, and the world enjoys offworld trade on what
seems to be a regular (if infrequent) basis.  But the RCES seems to
have decided that the world is a TED, and that they're going to liberate 
the not-yet-peasants from their not-yet-masters!

wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5569
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Gov codes
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 23:07:34 +0200 (MET DST)

>>   IMHO it is good to have the info in the basic world data somewhere, instead
>> of having to scan through the extra data for each world to find it.
> 
> It would be nice, but I didn't have the canonical list of government
> codes, so I had to solve the problem without creating a new government
> type code.

  I include the trade classifications area and the alliegance field in 'basic
world data'. It's when one has to go to another sheet of paper that it gets
onerous.

> But the RCES seems to
> have decided that the world is a TED, and that they're going to liberate 
> the not-yet-peasants from their not-yet-masters!

  At least in the case of the areas surrounding the RC, we might assume that
any teddy mark in the world lists is a statement by the RCES giving any
official or quasi-official party an 'open season' on the government and that
the mark in the world list reflects a current or future RCES classification,
just like the Amber and Red zones were classifications actually issued by TAS
reflecting their judgement and info about interdictions, instead of 'just'
a game-mechanic.

  It is like a 'most favoured nation' status in reverse. 'Government Non Grata',
'Hunting Licence'.

  (to the tune or 'run wabbit')

  "Run teddy! Run teddy! 
   run! run! run!
   Here comes the RCES's with
   guns! guns! guns!"

   (Howabout that Scott?:)

  Now this system might be abused in several ways. The threat of being 'teddy
marked' might be wielded by those who hold the power against individual
worlds in various nefarious ways. I can think of several plots resulting from
this.
  
  TED's away from the RCES's area of influence are more problematic. Either we
have to trace the word from a commonly known pre-virus source (Ililek Kuligaan
perhaps predicted them and called them TED's, or TED is a word used by 
historians describing similar phenomenas during the Long Night) or say that
"Teddy marking means that the RCES would regard the world as being under the
 control of a TED if they had known about it."

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5570
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Missiles
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 23:11:39 +0200 (MET DST)

  I won't be in a position to do much work this weekend, so don't expect 
anything from me until the beginning of next week. For some reason I have
more RL engagments during the weekend than during the week:)

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5571
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Don't panic
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 00:23:55 +0200 (MET DST)

  /usr/spool/mail has just barfed here at dtek.chalmers.se (some yahoos have
boxes several megs in size) so don't panic if you get bounces from me. 
You should be able to continue to mail stuff to me since I expect all my 
waiting mail to come rushing in as soon as they fix it, but if you want
to be 100% sure that I get it, remail it on sunday or so.

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5572
From: skellogg@lonestar.utsa.edu (Scott S. Kellogg)
Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets and Missiles
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 93 17:56:07 CDT

Bertil Sez:

[Maneuvering ships will be easy to detect]

>   If they burn all the time, yes. But considering the low endurances I suspect
> that most ships will coast along most of the time.

Yes.  They will coast.  But during combat you will most likely be trying
to maneuver in some fashion.

>   If you are close to a planet, the ship can either run its CG lifters, or
> not, or run them at fractional power. That will change its vector without
> any active emissions.

Contra Grav lifters should be detectable by fairly low tech densiometers.

>   In old Mayday you got a 1 light second/100 minutes vector when you passed
> within 1 light second from a planet. Differences enough to make a difference
> for combat purposes are (if Mayday is correct) available futher out.

A missile built for space ought to take gravitational wells into account
in it's programming.

> > All right, now that you have this baby closing in, what do you
> > need?  A proximity fuse.  Well, you can use a densiometer to do
> > that if the IR has gone off line.  I'd prefer to avoid using an
> > active radar as a fuse.  It would make the missile easier to find,
> > and it can be fooled by a chaff cloud (Sand Caster).
>
>   The trouble is that densitometers with that range might be rarer, more
> expensive and more hightech in TNE. The same holds for neutrino sensors,
> so that leaves active proximity fuses.

Well, they were bloody cheap in Trav.  1000 Cr for a densiometer, and
1000 Cr for a neutrino sensor.  (JTAS 21 Missile Suppliment)

> > Also, Bertil mentioned the idea of rolling bombs off the loading
> > bay manually to attack undefended targets.  Why get so complicated?
> > Strapped to the back end of your ship is the biggest bad-assed
> > version of a fusion gun you ever imagined.  We are talking about a
> > fusion gun that has a back blast like a SATURN V for heavens sake!
>
>   Undefended is relative. If you go low enough to use the drives, even
> Captain Hornblower with his TL3 Naval Gun could put a lucky shot in your
> thin-hulled ship. If you stay on 3000m and use laser guided bombs you are
> out of his reach.

Actually, not many TL3 Naval guns could elevate that well...  But my
guess is that the plasma plume of the engines is going to be equivalent
to a HEAVY fusion gun with a range of several kilometers.  If it isn't
then I'd imagine a bit of fooling with the drives could make it at LEAST
as effective as an FGMP-15 or so...  And don't forget:  The old FGMP
had about as much firepower as a 12"  High velocity naval gun...  :-)
- --
Scott 2G Kellogg
"I have some people I have to slam in this song"  -- Metlay


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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5573
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets and Missiles
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 01:03:25 +0200 (MET DST)

> >   In old Mayday you got a 1 light second/100 minutes vector when you passed
> > within 1 light second from a planet. Differences enough to make a difference
> > for combat purposes are (if Mayday is correct) available futher out.
> 
> A missile built for space ought to take gravitational wells into account
> in it's programming.

  What I ment was that the ship, by varying the CG (there already is a 
detectable gravitation fiddling inside it: the inertial compensators and 
artificial gravitation) against the gravitation of a large body could vary
its vector in an undetectable way.
 
> Well, they were bloody cheap in Trav.  1000 Cr for a densiometer, and
> 1000 Cr for a neutrino sensor.  (JTAS 21 Missile Suppliment)

  Well, missiles were cheaper then:)
 
> Actually, not many TL3 Naval guns could elevate that well...  But my
> guess is that the plasma plume of the engines is going to be equivalent
> to a HEAVY fusion gun with a range of several kilometers. 

  Remember that the new fusion and plasma rifles have a range of up to 70m,
and they use a laser to prep the way of the plasma bolt. Without the laser
'the plasma bolt dissipates far too quickly'.

> Scott 2G Kellogg

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5574
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1993 21:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: missiles and swords and Arses...

Wildstar:
>>   Using a DU penetrator with a slenderness of 1:100 (normal today is
>> 1:20) around 400kg, but that slenderness might be physically
>> impossible (too slender and it will break instead of penetrating).
>> With a slenderness of 1:20... twelve tons.  Yes, this might make a
>> good excuse.

>I think a 1:100 penetrator would be too slender; Uranium isn't a
>particularly strong metal ... and it makes a decent reason for not
>having a KEAPDU missile.

Nonsense.  Or are you silly enough to believe that the penetrator MUST
be as long as the missile is?  Put a 400Kg 1:20 penetrator in the
missile, so what if it is short?


Bertil:
>> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
>> Subject: Swords and Karate...
 
>> Bertil:
>> >  I still don't understand how you mean. Could you write the example
>> >down briefly?
 
>> 	Armour absorbs hits equal to twice its armour levels when hit by a
>> sword (indeed, any melee weapon, except bare hands).  So a sword
>> (damage 2) does NOT penetrate AC1.

>  Ok, I interpret the sword as doing 2d6 and AC1 as absorbing 2 of
>these.  While the word 'hits' are used wrgt Armour in Armed Melee
>Combat on page 272, and 'points' wrgt Armour in Unarmed Melee Combat on
>page 269, 'hits' is used to mean the same as 'points' wrgt Armour in
>Unarmed Melee Combat on page 270.

This means that a man in TL10 Battledress is immune to any slugthrower
short of a LAG using DS, or an ARL using HEAP, but that a man with a
sword can kill him fairly easily...


>  Hmm, this weighing of words sounds a little silly, doesn't it? :)

Yes.


>> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
>> Subject: solid fuel missiles...
 
>> In anticipation of Bertil's counter that we should develop some solid
>> fuel missiles with only a few G-hours of delta-V,
  
>  Ouch! Apparently I should run Maneuver/Evade more often if I'm that
>predictable:)

Yep, you sure should...:-)


>> 	For a 150Kg dry mass (warhead, electronics, structure, NO fuel), a
>> missile with ONE G-hour delta-V requires 70,936,947Kg of the best
>> solid fuel we make today.

>  Ok, but what are the equivalent numbers for hydrogen/oxygen or
>NERVA-type nuclear fission rockets?

(assuming the same 150Kg dry mass)

H2-O2:  1 G-hour: 381,000Kg fuel.
		2 G-hour: 967,900,000Kg fuel.

NERVA:	1 G-hour: 13,800Kg.
		2 G-hour: 1,273,000Kg.


>  And (nasty question) what are the equivalent numbers for a fusion
>rocket powered missile? :)

I guesstimated an Isp of 2,000,000 based on the minimum from the three
ship types I bothered to check on, which ranged from 2,000,000 to just
over 3,000,000.

1 G-hour: 265 GRAMS.
2 G-hour: 530 GRAMS.

Presumably, the missile would not have quite so efficient (read:
EXPENSIVE) a drive as a ship though.  But it'll still be trivial...


Wildstar:
>>   IMHO it is good to have the info in the basic world data somewhere,
>> instead of having to scan through the extra data for each world to
>> find it.

>As an example, note the description of Montezuma starting on T:TNE
>pp.98; the narrator herself notes that the world's government is not
>particularly ornerous (but comments that *in her opinion* it may become
>so at some future time); the farmers are not yet peasants, there is
>currently a merchant class, and the world enjoys offworld trade on what
>seems to be a regular (if infrequent) basis.  But the RCES seems to
>have decided that the world is a TED, and that they're going to
>liberate the not-yet-peasants from their not-yet-masters!

Exactly why I ALREADY despise the Arses.  Note that in the first of the
canned adventures, the PCs are hired by the Arses to bring down a Church
and a TED.

The Church is described as one of which the Arses know "not a lot", but
"the Church does a lot of good by the way.  Their hospitals and clinics
take care of the sick..." and "the Church considers itself a force for
justice, and often has been successful in moderating the worst excesses
of local warlords...".  This is described as "the bad news", and the PCs
are sent off to bring this Church down, and the local governments with
them.

I mean, are these guys GREAT examples of HEROES, and GOOD GUYS, or
what???

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5575
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1993 21:51:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: fusion rockets...

Oh, yeah!
I forgot to comment on the conclusion someone drew that the fusion driv
probably be used as weapons (like a plasma gun, only bigger).  My first cut
shows a Free Trader having a drive with an energy output  of about 30KT/SEC.
This is hardly a trivial matter.  ANd really renders everyone's objections to
PCs with nukes pretty trivial.  After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a
det-laser is pretty trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a
small, wimpy drive.  Per second.  Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took off
from.  Like the TED's palace.  Or pretty much anywhere else that offended you.

So stop wasting time babbling about TRIVIA like those det-laser missiles.  If
you really want to disarm your PCs, start by preventing them from getting 
their hands on a ship of any kind....

Think about it....

		---Steve Higginbotham
"A reaction drive is a weapon, whose efficiency is in direct proportion to
its efficiency as a drive"  --- The Kzinti Lesson, from Larry Niven.

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5576
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1993 19:35:38 MST
From: Steve Gibbons <steve@nereid.sunquest.com>
Reply-To: steve@sunquest.com
Subject: M-Drives in combat craft

OK.  Several people have commented on high-G craft.  Let's make some
assumptions:

1) 6G is the upper limit that the inertial compensators can cope with.
1A) I personally think that it's closer to 7G, since on ships with the deck
    perpendicular to the plane of travel, 6G of compensation is in effect,
    along with 1G of artificial Gravity.  (make sense?)
2) Personnel equiped with G suits and suitably trained can _probably_ withstand
   9Gs on top of that for a _critical_ maneuver.
3) I'm pretty sure that G suits compensate well in the 4G range for the length
   of a typical TL-8 dogfight.
3A) I would imagine that _most_ of a 30 minute turn is spent in "non-combat"
    with perhaps 10% in actual combat/evaisive maneuvers.  (reasonable?)
4) Most non-miltary craft won't want to dedicate the maintenance that's
   required to keep things from flying all over the place in a
   non-G-compensated environment.

Given the above, it seams reasonable that it should be possible to build/fly
a 10G military (or paramilatary) craft.  It would accelerate at 6G for purposes
of in-system movement (maybe 7, given assumption 1A, maybe 8, if the pilot's
willing to put up with 2G for a while); but (depending on its agility) have 
substantial DMs on the chance to hit it in combat.  (Is agility retained in 
TNE?)

I chose 10G as pushing the limits of a pilot's endurance during a prolonged
encounter.  Shorter-order work could probably push 14 or 15G.  The 10G craft
could probably push 19G in a dense atmosphere if it was fitted with control
surfaces, but who'd want to do that?  %)

If one assumes that 4X overdrive is used regularly, then the DMs become much
less substantial (but so does the cost.)  I'd still do it, just for that extra
edge...

Is 6G the maximum that the compensators can handle?  (Loren?)
Tossing assumption 1 opens a great big can-o-worms.  :)

On the subject of games:  Did anybody ever play grav-ball?  It was published
about 8-10 years ago.  It even came with its own 15mm lead figures mounted on
little stands.  As I remember, it was sort of like full-contact soccer (except
that you could use your hands.)  The ball was a 10KG steel bearing.  Different
positions had differing amounts of armor (Goalie had the most  :)  All played
in a zero-G arena.  Fun stuff.  Easy to re-do for Trav.  Multi-racial, even.

On coffee: It's notoriously fickle regarding where it will grow, and how it
tastes depends a great deal on the conditions that it was grown in.  I can see
the coffee houses of the (Post)Imperium now, 3100 flavors at your beck-and-call
(for a price, of course...)  Or you can drink the local swill for 10Cr.

- --
steve@sunquest.com (SPG6)

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5577
Subject: Missiles
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 93 19:32:06 -0700
From: gwh@lurnix.lurnix.com


Bertil writes:
>Archive-Message-Number: 5567
>From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
>Subject: Re: solid fuel missiles
>Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1993 21:42:23 +0200 (MET DST)

>> 	For a 150Kg dry mass (warhead, electronics, structure, NO fuel), a
>> missile with ONE G-hour delta-V requires 70,936,947Kg of the best solid
>> fuel we make today.

>  Ok, but what are the equivalent numbers for hydrogen/oxygen or NERVA-type
>nuclear fission rockets?
>
>  And (nasty question) what are the equivalent numbers for a fusion rocket
>powered missile? :)

Well, let me give you a quick basic rocketry tour.
Delta-V (change in velocity) can be found in any rocket
by looking at the following formula:
DelV=g*Isp*ln(Mr)

DelV is change in velocity in m/s
g is gravity, 9.81 (say 10)
Isp is specific impulse, the measure of how long the fuel can provide
	a given thrust
Mr is the mass ratio (initial mass plus fuel mass over initial mass) of the
	stage as a whole.

Say we have a vehicle whose mass ratio is e (2.78ish), so ln(Mr) is about 1 .
That means that the delta-V in m/s is about 10 times the specific impulse.
(To be realistic, the limiting maximum delta-V is about 1.5 times this without
staging, and tends to be about 1.2 times that much).

Hydrogen/Oxygen current day engines max out at Isp of 454 (Space SHuttle
Main ENgines).  THat gives you about 4.5 km/sec per stage, max maybe
7 km/sec per stage.  (A LOX/LH2 Single Stage to Orbit is _just_ possible
on the earth).

One G-hour is 3600 sec * 10 m/s is 36 km/sec.  You'd need roughly an
eight stage rocket using LOX/LH2 to make a g-hour (which equals a mass
ratio from start to finish of about 4^8 or 65,500ish.  Or 9.8 million kg
for the 150kg payload.  A bit bigger than a Saturn V (ten times as large).

NERVA motors have perhaps Isp of 1000, up to 1100 in really far out
designs.  Assuming 1000, that gives you per-stage a delta-V or 10 km/sec,
so you need 3 or 4 stages to reach 1 g-hour.  Maybe a beginning to end
ratio of 100, or 15,000 kg for your 150 kg payload.

Known fusion rocket technologies are around Isp 5,000.  This gives you
a stage delta-V of 50 km/sec, or a little over one g-hour.  This means
a 10-G hour rocket (360 km/sec) needs a seven-stage rocket.  Again,
that's about 2 million kg initial mass.  About the mass of a Frigate
on the sea today.  I guess TNE presumes they get better as technology
marches on 8-)

The hottest rocket around (literally) is the Nuclear Salt Water Rocket
(proposed by Dr. Robert Zubrin of Martin Marietta Aerospace).
Basically, you disolve uranium or plutonium salts in water,
store them in a heavily-internally-shielded tank, and spray them 
into a nozzle where the amount of fuel finally reaches critical
mass and they go FIZZ!.  Specific impulse is about 10,000 for
Uranium, or 15,000 for Plutonium.  That gives for a one-stage
rocket about 100 km/sec to 150 km/sec, or 3 to 5 g-hours.
So you can build a two or three stage nuclear salt water rocket
that will reach 10 to 12 g-hours and is compatable with the
missiles given in TNE.  That missile will mass about 200*150 or
30000 kg, or 30 tons.  More than TNE posits.

I don't know what TNE posits their motors have as specific impulse.
I'll try to work it out over the weekend.

sigh.  *shakes head*  I'm all done now.  Back to work...

- -george william herbert
Retro Aerospace

[yes, as a matter of fact, I _AM_ a rocket scientist.  8-) published, even]



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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5578
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1993 14:51:25 -0500
From: Steven Owens <uso01@mailhost.unidata.com>
Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets and Missiles


Bertil Jonell (BJ>) and Scott Kellog (SK>) discuss the relative merits of
navigating close to a planet to avoid missiles.

BJ>   If you are close to a planet, the ship can either run its CG lifters, or
BJ> not, or run them at fractional power. That will change its vector without
BJ> any active emissions.

SK> Contra Grav lifters should be detectable by fairly low tech densiometers.
[...]
SK> A missile built for space ought to take gravitational wells into account
SK> in it's programming.

BJ> What I meant was that the ship, by varying the CG (there already is a 
BJ> detectable gravitation fiddling inside it: the inertial compensators and 
BJ> artificial gravitation) against the gravitation of a large body could vary
BJ> its vector in an undetectable way.
 
I kind of like this; this means that most serious battles will take
place around planets, which makes a lot of sense.  The problem with
space is that it's too bloody large and empty.  I have a really hard
time seeing any two ships getting together for a fight unless they
*both* maneuver to meet, or one side has an immense advantage in speed
and maneuverability.  This means that the preliminary to combat would
be maneuvering to gain advantage of position around a planet, which
also happens to be the best place to have a chance of avoiding attacks
- -- otherwise you get a mutual kill.

Note that the impossibility of avoiding a missile works against the
missile - since the missile itself can be tracked and defeated with
lasers or counter-missiles in much the same way.  I would imagine
technologies would be developed to take advantage of this.

There's also the potential for coasting missiles; the missiles would
go "dead" for a large part of their flight and hope to avoid detection
until they go active close enough to (hopefully) get in before
defenses could defeat them.  If this tactic were extended to ships, I
imagine space battles would look much like submarine combat...

In reference to detecting contragravity, I suspect that stealth
contragravity technologies would be developed; technologies to hide or
disguise the detectable emissions.

Steven J. Owens
uso01@unidata.com

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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5579
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 18:16:22 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Nukes in Space

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
> Wildstar writes:
> > So, if a 0.25kt bomb would generate a kill at 10m, then a 25kt bomb
> > would be needed to have the same effect when detonated at 100m, 2.5
> > megatons at a kilometer, and 250 megatons at 10 km.
> 
> Looks like you solved the problem of computing the effects of nukes in
> space. Total energy times percentage of soft xrays (blast energy plus
> thermal radiation) converted into TNT converted into hits.

Only sort of.  My first and most fundamental assumption is that the
atomic explosion can be treated as a point source of radiation.  While
this is certainly a good working approximation at most scales, it is
certainly *not* true at other scales.  10m might be pushing it.

Out at 10km, a notional 50-displacement-ton sphere (radius 5.5m,
cross-sectional area 95m^2) should intercept about 76 *billionths* of
the energy output by the bomb; assuming that the inverse-square law
holds down to 10m, then at that range the ship is getting nearly 8% of
the output of the bomb.

Closer than that, I don't even want to guess; of course at contact the
ship will get nearly 50% of the bomb's output.  It seems to me that
"proximity" for nukes is so close that it's effectively "contact",
except for impractically large weapons, of course.

So a nuclear anti-ship missile is effectively a contact weapon, probably
with a warhead around 1kt.  And of course, it's also useful agains
planetary targets.

> > [Maneuver drive performace of more than 6 G, and the effects thereof:]
> It might be enough to outmaneuver a type 2+ missile, so they should get
> extra penalties IMHO.

Maybe one difficulty level harder per 2g max accelleration over 6g?
Assuming a maximum of 15g (or 9g overthrust), this would work out to a
maximum of four difficulty levels harder (some of which could, of
course, be avoided by a MFD.  Still, this should make fighters pretty
hard to hit.
 

wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 466
Archive-Message-Number: 5580
Date: Sat, 5 Jun 93 19:28:51 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Government Codes and Related


Bertil and I [wildstar] have been having a discussion about world
government codes, based in the "fix" I did to the T:TNE world generation
for the Wilds (T:TNE pp.191).  The following is most of that discussion,
edited into a conversational format.  We'd be interested in hearing your
comments on this.

[Lines which begin B: are Bertil talking, and W: indicates me]

B: IMHO it is good to have the info in the basic world data somewhere, instead
B: of having to scan through the extra data for each world to find it.
B: I include the trade classifications area and the alliegance field in 'basic
B: world data'. It's when one has to go to another sheet of paper that it gets
B: onerous.

W: Oh, sorry.  I thought you were complaining about my modification
W: (instead, I guess you were complaining about the original T:TNE rules).

B: [About the "TED" code]
B: At least in the case of the areas surrounding the RC, we might assume that
B: It is like a 'most favoured nation' status in reverse. Government Non Grata,
B: or 'Hunting Licence'.

W: That's what I would assume, too.

B:   Now this system might be abused in several ways. The threat of being 'teddy
B: marked' might be wielded by those who hold the power against individual
B: worlds in various nefarious ways. I can think of several plots resulting from
B: this.

W: This is a good idea, and a lot more
W: interesting that the usual RCES "Which TED will we Smash This Week"
W: adventure!

B: [About the "TED" code in areas away from RCES activity]
B: "Teddy marking means that the RCES would regard the world as being under the
B:  control of a TED if they had known about it."

W: That's probably reasonable.  And most expansion-minded polities are
W: going to have a similar label for similar worlds.  In order to expand at
W: the maximum rate, a polity will need access to all of the resources and
W: (particularly) pre-Collapse equipment and information possible.
W: TED-like governments will be in the way, and the most expeditious means
W: of removing the obstacle will be to stomp them flat.


B: Btw: regarding government codes, the way I'm reading the rules suggests that
B: we will be up to our sensor-clusters in balcanized worlds, so how about
B: marking them too in the trade field?

B: Thus a balcanized world where gov 9 is most common would be marked:
B:   Gov: 7 and in the trade field "B9"
B: And a similar one where the typical noncharismatic TED is the most common:
B:   Gov: 7 and in the trade field "B6 TB"
B: And a noncharismatic TED world (for completeness sake:)
B:   Gov: 6 and in the trade field "TB"

W: OK.  But how about using "B:9" or "B:6" to visually distinguish it from
W: the other codes that are in that field; two letter codes (of the form
W: "Cp", or "Ag") indicate trade classifications.  Letter and number codes
W: ("A5", "C0", or "D1"), or preferably Letter Colon Number codes ("A:5",
W: "C:0", or "D:1") indicate racially mixed populations.  And finally
W: "B:x" codes ("B:9" or "B:6") indicate the most common
W: government type on balkanized worlds.   There is also the "O:xxxx code,
W: which is used to indicate the ownership (hex number) of a Captive
W: world.

W: Finally, the TED code goes in the allegiance slot.   Since it can only
W: occurr in the wilds, the TED code won't ever conflict with an actual
W: allegiance (presumably once the world government becomes part of an
W: interstellar polity, it will no longer be "Government Non Grata" to that
W: polity).

W: SO: A balkanized world where the most common government is 9 would be
W: marked with a "B:9" in the trade classifications, and government type 7.
W: The (fairly common) balkanized world where the most common form of
W: government is a non-charismatic leader TED would have government type 7
W: in the UWP, "B:B" in the trade classifications, and "Td" in the
W: allegiance.  A non-charismatic leader TED world would have a government
W: type of B, and "Td" in the allegiance field.

W: As an alternative, all TED worlds could have government type 6 (with the
W: referee then responsible for deciding on what for the government should
W: have), in which case the latter two are (Gov=7, Trade=B:6, and Alleg=Td)
W: for the first case, and (Gov=6, Alleg=Td) for the second.

W: I'm fairly ambivalent about spelling out the "most common" government
W: (and law, for that matter) codes for a balkanized world.  It is quite
W: possible that nearly any and every government type could be represented
W: on it.  I also still have mixed throughts about the "TED Government Type"
W: table I put in my update; as Steve points out, this is the province of
W: the referee as well.  Since I had to draw the line somewhere, I included
W: the TED government types, and didn't consider Balkanized world
W: government types.  I'll think about it some more, though.

B: Ok, I must admit that my main reason for wanting two-letter no colon codes
B: is that my program will barf at anything else. The only valid argument
B: against colons that I can find is that it will take more place.

B: What letters will be needed for races? I would guess A V H K (and perhaps
B: 'h:4' for human minority worlds?) and a general code for minor races (M?).

B: Time for a page on 'the grammar of world data' :)

W: (presumably once the world government becomes part of an
W: interstellar polity, it will no longer be "Government Non Grata" to that
W: polity).

B: He he he, and the cases where a polity declares a participant government 
B: GNG are plots to adventures. As are the cases where one polity declares an
B: ally of another to be a TED.

B: [on the two coding options above]
B: I don't know which version that is the most intuitive. I'm leaning towards
B: the first (since the TED in the balcanized case is a secondary characteristic
B: it should logically be a subcase of the balcanized case)

B: I will probably treat the 'most common gov' data as a recommendation to be
B: ignored at will by the referee if the plot demands it, as long as they can
B: justify it somehow.

B: For example, what is the most common government type on Terra in Real Life 
B: Right Now? Do we take the most common government by numbers of governments?
B: The government type that the most people live under? Or the government type
B: of the largest country? Largest by population or area? Or the gov of the most
B: powerful nation?

B: [on the whole idea of the "TED Government Type" table]
B: I'd recommend keeping it (and the most common notation) but with an explicit
B: note that they are only there to serve as helps to the imagination of the 
B: referee (like it says somewhere in the TTNE) not as rreplacement of the 
B: same.

W: [on Bertil's program that can't handle 3-letter codes]
W: A valid reason; however *my* program can deal with either; it only adds
W: a little more code.  (suggestion: write a subroutine which parses the
W: string into "words" separated by white space: "procdeure wordscan(input:
W: string, wordnum : string) : string;" btw: No, I don't acutally use
W: Pascal, my programs are in Rexx, where such a function is a builtin).

W: The second concern is a little more real; I've yet to run across a world
W: that currently exceeds the space provided, but is certainly possible
W: as we add more codes.

W: [on using "h:4" for human minority worlds]
W: I generally don't like to make case distinctions.  In *theory* the
W: current system is case-insensitive (as a matter of fact, I uppercase 
W: the UWP and Trade Classifications whenever they are used for
W: comparisons).

W: Another item: Traveller is very inconsistent about noting worlds with
W: non-human populations.  Native minor races often aren't noted in the
W: UWP at all, and it is either mentioned in the notes, or up to the
W: individual referee to determine this.  The only codes I've ever noticed
W: with any consistency are C == Chirper and D == Droyne.

B: Time for a page on 'the grammar of world data' :)

W: Definitely.  The O:xxxx code has been used for quite a while, (and is
W: acutally used in T:TNE), but isn't explained in the section on
W: world-building.

B:    He he he, and the cases where a polity declares a participant government 
B:  GNG are plots to adventures. As are the cases where one polity declares an
B:  ally of another to be a TED.

W: Yup.  You seem to have a talent for thinking up these twists --- that's
W: the second one today that I wouldn't have thought of!

B: Perhaps we should bundle this discussion, edit some things out (like
B: ******************************* DELETED ****************************
B: and raspberry jello) and send to the TML?

W: Sounds like a good idea.  I've been keeping copies of this, so I'll pull
W: it all together and send it to you for comment before I send it to TML.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era



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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #467: Msgs 5581-5594 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  9 22:00:02 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #467: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 467  5581 06-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Taking down the fusion rockets a couple
 467  5582 06-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Traveller "Wake" Announcement << The Cl
 467  5583 06-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Traveller "Wake" Announcement << I forg
 467  5584 06-Jun-1993 John H Bogan     UWP Gov't fix << Hello, all.
 467  5585 06-Jun-1993 rancke@diku.dk   Giving loaded guns to infants (PCs) << 
 467  5586 07-Jun-1993 PIHLAB%CBR.dnet  G-rating << Several people are interest
 467  5587 06-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  The Virus << Sulaiman:
 467  5588 06-Jun-1993 Leonard Erickso  Missiles <<  
 467  5589 06-Jun-1993 John H Bogan     Gov conflict fix << My previous posting
 467  5590 06-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  More Fusion Rockets <snicker> << Bertil
 467  5591 06-Jun-1993 John H Bogan     TMP--> T:TNE <<    I finally figured ou
 467  5592 06-Jun-1993 Steve Gibbons    RE: G-rating << Bruce (PIHLAB%CBR.dnet@
 467  5593 07-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Fusiondrive Control Incorporated << > F
 467  5594 07-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Computer Aces - Not! << > From: PIHLAB%

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5581
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Taking down the fusion rockets a couple of notches
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 11:01:25 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
> Subject: fusion rockets...
> 
> After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a
> det-laser is pretty trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a
>small, wimpy drive.  Per second.  Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took off
> from.  Like the TED's palace.  Or pretty much anywhere else that offended you.

  Now this is a problem.

  Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1. And that
the drive has much too short range to be used in space combat unless you
manage to bluff your way in to 1km or less from the enemy.

  (So how do they reach orbit? Easy: CD plus *small* maneuver jets)

  Space stations and vaccum worlds will however be vulnerable, but they have
always been vulnerable.

  (Another thing that strikes me is that the reflected energy might be bad
for the ship. In space, everything goes away from the ship, so only the
actual engine nozzle or whatever needs to be able to withstand it. But if
you run it in air the air will form a nuke-type fireball *just aft of the 
drives* that will return entirely too much of the thermal radiation to your
ship. Likewise for hosing a space station at 200m)

> 		---Steve Higginbotham

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5582
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 14:18:38 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Traveller "Wake" Announcement



The Classic Traveller "Wake"!


Take some time out of your summer to come and meet other Traveller
players, talk about the "Good Ol Days" of the Classic Imperium, reflect
on the Rebellion, and speculate about the New Era.

When : 198 -2528 (Imperial)  7-17-1993 (Solomani)
       Saturday, July 17th 1993; 6:00pm Local Time

Where: Terra (Sol Gamma) Solomani Rim 1827
       Rockville, Maryland


Please RSVP me (by e-mail, USnail, or phone) for detailed directions and
any special information you might need. 


Bring your favorite party food or drink!  While I will have basic party
supplies, I suggest that you eat dinner first (or a bunch of us can
always do the Famous Role-Playing Standby: order out for pizza).


Guy Garnett

(301) 871-5104 (home) 7-10pm local time weekdays, 9am-11pm weekends

wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

14007 Eagle Court
Rockville, MD 20853





wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                         in the Far Future


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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5583
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 14:35:16 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Traveller "Wake" Announcement


I forgot to mention: the "Wake" is open to any Traveller players, referees,
or interested people that would like to come; you don't have to be an
"old-timer" to attend.  Also, I know that a couple of people on TML are
also on the GEnie traveller forum; if you would like to forward the
announcement over there, I would appreciate it.  I know that there are
several Traveller players in the DC/MD/VA area who are on GEnie but not TML.

wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                         in the Far Future


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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5584
From: John H Bogan <jbogan@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: UWP Gov't fix
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 16:41:41 EDT

Hello, all.
  This is my first post to TML.  Damn, I wish I'd known about it sooner.

Regarding the two different GOV codes, I agree it must be fixed.

To me, the simplest solution seems to be:

Modify the 'Wilds GOV' table on page 191. Add another column.

The existing "Code" column is renamed "Roll"

The new column is "Code", and lists the standard UWP code for the
gov type listed.
                          
No Government              \
Participating Democracy     |    
Representative Democracy    |   
Charismatic Dictatorship    |  All these have standard codes  
Charismatic Oligarchy       |   no further discusion required
Totalitarian Oligarghy      |  
Civil Service Bureaucracy   | 
Self-Perpetuating oligarchy | 
Impersonal Bureacracy      /

 Mystic Dictatorship \  Read the description!
 Mystic Autocracy    / 

"Mystic" govs differ from "Religous" govs only with the (possible)
   addition of psionics.  In the anti-psi Imperium, psi mystics
   were suppressed.  This is no longer neccesarily the case.

The simplest patch is to rename "Religious..." govs with the 
   broader decription of "Mystic...", since the religious ones
   are simply a subset of the mystic ones.

Tribals and TEDs require a decision.

Solution A:

The Trade Class column has long been used as a sort of 'notes',
ie. owner of captive govt, droyne pop percentage.

Designate "Tribal Gov't" as "Balkanized" (code 7) with the note
 'TRB' with the trade class

List TEDs as Non-charismatic Dictators (code B) with the note 'TED'


Solution B:

A review of all GOV codings I can find shows:

0-F ----  Standard
G-N ----  Aslan Specific
P-R ----  K'Kree Specific
S-W ----  Hiver Specific
 X  ----  Droyne Specific

I and O are ignored in the usual fashion.

Unless I'm missing something, this leaves Y and Z available,
ignoring non-alphanumeric symbols (@,#,&,ect.) for real-world
publishing considerations.

Tribal is  'Y'

TED is 'Z'

Easy as pie.

All notes on determining Wilds Gov stand, except if a TED, then
code for TED, and if balkanized, gov code is 7, "dominant" gov
is for whatever the GM wants for that world.


Let's get this cleared up _NOW_, while the only one table and
3 subsectors have to be corrected/clarified.

Hope I was helpful

John H Bogan
jbogan@ic.sunysb.edu

Aramanx? They _LOVE_ us at Aramanx! -- Ray Kaashukiin



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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5585
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: Giving loaded guns to infants (PCs)
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 1993 23:23:30 +0100 (METDST)

Steve Higginbotham:
>Oh, yeah!
>I forgot to comment on the conclusion someone drew that the fusion driv
>probably be used as weapons (like a plasma gun, only bigger).  My first cut
>shows a Free Trader having a drive with an energy output  of about 30KT/SEC.
>This is hardly a trivial matter.  ANd really renders everyone's objections to
>PCs with nukes pretty trivial.  After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a
>det-laser is pretty trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a
>small, wimpy drive.  Per second.  Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took 
>off from. Like the TED's palace. Or pretty much anywhere else that offended 
>you.
> 
>So stop wasting time babbling about TRIVIA like those det-laser missiles.  If
>you really want to disarm your PCs, start by preventing them from getting 
>their hands on a ship of any kind....
> 
>Think about it....

I've thunk. An it seems to me that what we really need is a couple of 
carefully tailored science-fictiony gimmicks to make things work out
properly. I'm thinking about force fields and similar not-very-scientific
whatnots. Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be able to torch 
planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches. Answer: Planetary
force screens. Item: I don't want ship combat to be simply a missile
counter-measure, counter-counter-measure oneupmanship, but with nuclear
missiles being capable of vapourising any concievable metal what can we
do? How about force screens that deflect 99% (or 99.9 or whatever is
needed) of even a contact explosion? Make the generators really expensive
and we solve the problem of making warships much more expensive than
merchant ships too.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5586
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 1993 09:23:55 +1000
From: PIHLAB%CBR.dnet@hhcs.gov.au
Subject: G-rating


Several people are interested in allowing combat G-ratings of at least 6G
above the base 6G that can be compensated.  All arguements have thus far
referred to aircraft pilots pelling 6-9G turns and such for short periods 
of time.

One thing perhaps overlooked is that all of your crew on a star vessel may
not be strapped into acceleration couches at the moment the pilot wants
the ship to dance on it's tail and flip out of harms way.  During combat
in space are we assuming that all crew are in G-suit equiped Vacc-suits
and remain in acceleration couches to do all their work?  Are acceleration
couches factored into crew space for all crew in starship construction
rules?

On another topic:

Anyone know what kill range you would have with a missile equiped with
an anti-matter warhead (either impact, proximity or 2300'ish DET Laser)?

How can a missile with a small computer hit a fast ship with a large
computer when you factor in computer differences on the High Guard to-hit
tables etc.  Surely you can build ships that can't be hit especially
when you have self guiding missiles that don't use the firing ship's
computer rating.

Just got TNE from the local shop $49.95 on the shelf ($45 for me being a
regular customer) which is fairly cheap considering air mail costs and
the current US exchange rate.

Bruce...            pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.au

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5587
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1993 21:42:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: The Virus

Sulaiman:
>TL 7 80286 with DOS 3.3 then I can see the virus possibly working. ALso the
>new designer seem to have little or now idea of computer networks and
>distributed systems. Servers are very hard to infect with anything. Systems
 ...omitted...
>I still don't buy the virus idea. The type of virus that now exists is at
>its heart exactly like viruses going around infecting standalone PCs. But
>generally they are easily found out if you keep good backups and compare
>file sizes often enough.

        You are not up on some of the nastier new "stealth" virii, are you?
Michelangelo, for example, does not attach itself to files or do anything
to file size...

>The activities of the virus are realisable only
>if there are no networks in the Imperium. Real networks with a large
>server/mainframe at center and connected processing units, not network
>in the communication network sense as say internet.

        I don't follow this at all.  Perhaps you could explain?  It seems to
me that "real networks" (mass storage sharing, distributed computing) make
the spread of a virus far easier and eradicating it far hairier a job.

>Generally a TL15 equivalent of the FORMAT drive command should take care
>of Mr big nasty virus.

        Over on the tne-pocket echo we had a prolonged discussion of the
Virus, and what forms it might take.  If one extrapolates the current trend
in reprogrammable hardware (PLA, PAL, etc) to its logical extreme, and
assume that by the Imperial era, all high-tech computers consist of
self-configuring hardware that loads a "program" by rewiring its own logic...
Such a technology is tailor-made for the Virus as described.
        As it is, in the real world (tm), I shudder to think what is going
to happen when some malicious soul writes a virus that hooks into Flash BIOS.
There are gonna be a lot of unhappy customers with dead 486 boxes and trashed
disks...
(Making your BIOS rewritable is a really stupid security hole... not that DOS
has any security whatsoever.)
        BTW, I sensibly assume that Impy computers have some built-in security
provisions to keep any hacker from telling your main defense computer to
reconfigure itself into 3000 microwave oven controllers.. but one of the
major threats of the Virus is that it is the ultimate hacker, and
knowledge of how to crack a given system type is inherited by its children.
                                        -- Cynthia

p.s. FORMAT won't remove Michelangelo from an infected system. :-)



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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5588
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 93 15:21:48 PDT
From: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Missiles

 
I hate to burst peoples' bubbles, but *no* HE or HEAP missiles will be
used in ship to ship combat.

There are 3 velocities one has to consider:

1. closing velocity
2. the velocity at which the *kinetic* energy of 1 kilo of *anything*
   exceeds the energy release by detonating 1 kilo of your best high
   explosive.
3. detonating velocity. This is the speed at which a detonation wave
   propogates thru a high explosive.

I can just about *guarantee* that detonating velocity is *far* below
closing velocity. Which means that shaped charges are useles, as the
missile impact will be moving faster than the detonation of the
explosive. This kills HEAP and doesn't  help HE much either.

And I'm willing to bet that velocity #2 is below closing velocity in
most cases as well. Which again makes HE a waste of time!

I suggest that when evaluating kinetic kill weapons for use against
ships, you look into the studies done on protection against meteorites.
You *don't* want heavy armor. You want something thin and replaceable.
The idea is that small objects will vaporize themselves and a portion of
the foil shield, but that there's enough space between the "foil" and
the real hull that the fireball won't contact it.

This only helps for projectiles rather smaller than we'd be using. So
you are going to have the "cannister" projectiles "cratering" the hull.
And if they punch through, they'll either create one *hell* of a shock
wave in the atmosphere of the ship, or keep punching holes in anything
that gets in their way until they are slowed to  bullet velocities, or
have completely vaporized.

Your several inches of armor could result in *more* damage than an
*unarmored* vessel would recieve, simply because more of the projectiles
KE would be transferred to the vessel!

Also check the railgun studies. I seriously doubt that the tank studies
apply when dealing with projectiles that are several orders of
magnitude faster *and* several orders of magnitude heavier. The railgun studies are getting into the low end of the velocity range. Only studies of meteor craters deal with KE values we have here.

*Very* rough calculations follow based on the estimated energy release
that created the Barringer Crater in Arizona, and the cube-root-of power
crater size formula. (Barrinnger Crater is 1.2 km in dia, and estimated that it took 7.1e22 ergs to create)

For a 5 ton projectile,

V (g-hr) (m/sec)   KE(ergs) (% of BC) kilotons   diameter(meters)
   1      3.528e3  3.112e19     .04     .7 kT        91
   2      7.056e3  1.245e20     .18    3.0 kT       145
   3     10.584e3  2.801e20     .39    6.7 kT       190
   4     14.112e3  4.979e20     .70     12 kT       230
   5     17.640e3  7.779e20    1.1      19 kT       267
   6     21.168e3  1.120e21    1.6      27 kT       301
   7     24.696e3  1.525e21    2.1      37 kT       334
   8     28.224e3  1.991e21    2.8      48 kT       365
   9     31.752e3  2.520e21    3.5      60 kT       394
  10     35.280e3  3.112e21    4.4      75 kT       423
  11     38.808e3  3.756e21    5.3      90 kT       451
  12     42.336e3  4.481e21    3.3     110 kT       478

  47.8  168.522e3  7.1e22    100       1.7 MT      1200   :-)

These figures should give an idea of just what sort of forces we are
discussing. No *possible* chemical explosive will even be noticed in
this sort of energy release.

BTW, for a 5 *gram* projectile, we get 1 millionth the energy, or
1/100th the diameter. So change the diameters above to cm. Which means
that 5 gm  projectile (a BB) at the veocity give by a mere 1 g for 1
hour, will blast a 91 cm crater in solid rock. And likely do something
similar im armor.  How many 5 gm BBs can a 7 ton missile carry and how
large a volume will they fill at "optimum" dispersal?

This may seem extreeme for a "mere" 7/10ths of a kilo of TNT equivalent.
But don't forget that is has a *much* higher brisance and is
concentrated on a *much* smaller area.

(and 5 kilo projectiles are 1/1000th energy and the craters are 1/10th
the size :-)
- --  
uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!51!Leonard.Erickson
Internet: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5589
From: John H Bogan <jbogan@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: Gov conflict fix
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 22:46:52 EDT

My previous posting on the dual gov't code problem may have been
  accidentally sent incomplete.  This is to correct that.
PROPOSED CHANGES AND/OR CLARIFICATIONS:
Page 191:  7. Government
Balkanization test: if the balkanization roll is less than or equal
  to the balk. number, explicitly state that the gov code is'7', balkanized
  and the "dominant" gov't can be determined however the GM sees fit.

TED test: if the world has a TED, this is noted by whatever code is
  being use for TEDs (see below)

GOVERNMENT TYPES IN WILDS table:
The column currently labled "code" is renamed "Roll"
Next to it, a new column, "Code", shows the STANDARD code for the
government type.  All but four gov't types on the table already
have standard codes.  The exceptions are dealt with below.

The two "Mystic..." gov'ts:  Read their descriptions.  These are
     simply "Religious..." gov'ts with the POTENTIAL addition of
     psionics.  During the psi-phobic Imperium, psi-based gov'ts
     were suppressed. This is no longer need be the case.
I propose the Standard codes 'D' and 'E', the "Religious..."
     gov'ts, be renamed under the broader term "Mystic...".
     The new term includes ALL of the old religious gov'ts, and
     allows for psi-based ones as well.

For Tribals an TEDs, a decision must be made.
Method A:
The Trade classifiaction column has long doubled as a 'notes'
     space.(owner of captive gov't, Droyne pop percentage)
Classify Tribal gov'ts as code '7'Balkanized, with a note
     in the trade column 'TRB' to specify a tribal

Classify TEDs as code 'B'Non-charismatic Dictator, with a note
     in the trade column 'TED' to specify a TED

Method B:
a review of all gov't codes I can find shows the following:
0-F ---- standard
G-N ---- Aslan specific
P-R ---- K'Kree specific
S-W ---- Hiver specific
 X  ---- Droyne specific, with 'O' and 'I' ignored as usual
Unless I'm missing some information, this leaves Y and Z open.

code 'Y' is Tribal Government
code 'Z' is TED

Easy as cake.

John H Bogan
jbogan@ic.sunysb.edu



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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5590
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1993 22:40:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: More Fusion Rockets <snicker>

Bertil:
>> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
>> Subject: fusion rockets...
>> 
>> After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a det-laser is pretty
>> trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a small, wimpy
>> drive.  Per second.  Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took off
>> from.  Like the TED's palace.  Or pretty much anywhere else that
>> offended you.

>  Now this is a problem.

Loud laughter is heard in the distance!  Really loud!

It's really fascinating reading this, after listening to all of you
bitch and moan about how MT used reactionless drives, and how fusion
drives would be MUCH better, and more realistic...

More loud laughter is heard!


>  Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
> the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1. And
> that the drive has much too short range to be used in space combat
> unless you manage to bluff your way in to 1km or less from the enemy.

Why should it be bad???  Your reasoning is specious, as can be seen by
looking at pictures of any Saturn launch.  The blast punches DOWN! 
Hard!  Way too hard for anything trivial like atmosphere to slow it
down.  It only takes about 0.0025 seconds for the blast to reach from
50,000 meters to ground level.  Even at mind-boggling pressures, it
isn't going to spread much till it hits ground ("not much" means that it
should still be focused on an area no more than 10Km across...).


>  (So how do they reach orbit? Easy: CD plus *small* maneuver jets)

Probably use Scramjets, just like we used to do back in original Trav
when we first started playing many years ago...


>  Space stations and vaccum worlds will however be vulnerable, but they
> have always been vulnerable.

ALL worlds are vulnerable!  Every last one of them!


>  (Another thing that strikes me is that the reflected energy might be
> bad for the ship. In space, everything goes away from the ship, so
> only the actual engine nozzle or whatever needs to be able to
> withstand it. But if you run it in air the air will form a nuke-type
> fireball *just aft of the drives* that will return entirely too much
> of the thermal radiation to your ship. Likewise for hosing a space
> station at 200m)

DREAM ON, Bertil!  Look at a REAL rocket launch!  MUCH lower exhaust
velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs - they
form long tongues af flame.  Which this will do as well.  Only this will
make them longer, hotter, FAR more lethal!


Hans:
> Steve Higginbotham:
> >Oh, yeah!
> >I forgot to comment on the conclusion someone drew that the fusion
> >drive probably be used as weapons (like a plasma gun, only bigger). 
> >My first cut shows a Free Trader having a drive with an energy
> >output  of about 30KT/SEC.  This is hardly a trivial matter.  ANd
> >really renders everyone's objections to PCs with nukes pretty
> >trivial.  After all, the 500T of TNT equivalent in a det-laser is
> >pretty trivial next to the 30,000T of TNT equivalent of even a small,
> >wimpy drive.  Per second.  Call it 3MT of damage to wherever it took 
> >off from. Like the TED's palace. Or pretty much anywhere else that
> >offended you.

> >So stop wasting time babbling about TRIVIA like those det-laser
> >missiles.  If you really want to disarm your PCs, start by preventing
> >them from getting their hands on a ship of any kind....

> >Think about it....

> I've thunk. An it seems to me that what we really need is a couple of 
> carefully tailored science-fictiony gimmicks to make things work out
> properly. I'm thinking about force fields and similar not-very-
> scientific whatnots. Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be
> able to torch planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches.
> Answer: Planetary force screens. Item: I don't want ship combat to be
> simply a missile counter-measure, counter-counter-measure
> oneupmanship, but with nuclear missiles being capable of vapourising
> any concievable metal what can we do? How about force screens that
> deflect 99% (or 99.9 or whatever is needed) of even a contact
> explosion? Make the generators really expensive and we solve the
> problem of making warships much more expensive than merchant ships
> too.

MORE loud laughter!

Hans, sounds like you REALLY want to play the Star Wars RPG, not
Traveller.  And aren't you one of the guys who used to say rude things
about grav, and wish for realistic fusion drives?


Quite frankly, I am pretty disgusted by the fact that everyone seems
willing to change the "laws of the universe" rather than face up to the
situation presented, and learn to live with it.  If you use the starship
rules ("laws of nature") from TNE, you have to learn to deal with the
fact that ANY ship can toast ANY city (well, any city at TL12-, and most
any at TL14-).
	So what does that mean?  Well, landing ships should be RIGHT OUT! 
Allowing a fusion gun that size near ANY city is INSANE!  So ships
should be docking at space stations FAR from a planet (like
geostationary orbit, for instance.  That gives the planetary defenses
time to scrag anyone who deviates from traffic corridors toward the
planet).  You should LAND in shuttles that have ONLY scramjet/chemical
rocket drives (getting up and down will be pretty damn tricky.  Sort of
like 2300AD).
	Of course, out in the Wilds, there is NO WAY IN HELL that you can
keep PCs (OR NPCS!!!!!) from landing anywhere they like, and toasting
anyone they dislike!  So live with it.  Or stop complaining, and go back
to Megatraveller starship rules (yeah, the ones most of you have spent
YEARS complaining about)!  And remember this the next time you decide to
cry out for "more realistic starship rules".

Loud laughter fading into the distance....

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5591
From: John H Bogan <jbogan@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu>
Subject: TMP--> T:TNE
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 93 23:09:45 EDT

   I finally figured out what the New Era reminds me of. Does any-
one remember "The Morrow Project" ?
   The PCs were part of an organization to rebuild society after
a nuclear war. They were stored in bunkers, low-berth style, to
be signalled to awake a few weeks after the war.  Something went
wrong, and they started waking up a HUNDRED years after it.
   The game had:
- -- technology mostly knocked back to pre-industrial
- -- yokels who mythologized the firey catastrophy
- -- petty despots who terrorized said yokels with caches of
   modern weaponry
- -- islands of civilization where knowledge and technology had
   not sunk quite so low
- -- one module even had an experimental AI running a 'vampire' base
and of course,
- -- Heroic PCs struggling to rebuild a blasted civilization

  the game's main draw was that it used real-life weapons, vehicles,
and equipement.  No rayguns and 'autorifles' but M-16s and a
whole plethora of stuff that real people actually used.
  the game practically died out when T:2K was released and stole
its thunder in the realism department.
  Years later, Traveller converts to the T:2K2 system.
Amazingly, the new background features: ....

Well, you get the idea. What goes around comes around.

In recognition of this observation,(get out your T:2K2 vehicle guides)

I hereby nominate the Commando V-150 as the (un)OFFICIAL wheeled ATV
  of the RCES contact teams!

Don't leave Aubaine without one!

John H Bogan
jbogan@ic.sunysb.edu

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5592
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1993 22:39:06 MST
From: Steve Gibbons <steve@nereid.sunquest.com>
Reply-To: steve@sunquest.com
Subject: RE: G-rating

Bruce (PIHLAB%CBR.dnet@hhcs.gov.au) writes:

>One thing perhaps overlooked is that all of your crew on a star vessel may
>not be strapped into acceleration couches at the moment the pilot wants
>the ship to dance on it's tail and flip out of harms way.  During combat
>in space are we assuming that all crew are in G-suit equiped Vacc-suits
>and remain in acceleration couches to do all their work?  Are acceleration
>couches factored into crew space for all crew in starship construction
>rules?

I tried to account for this in my last post, but you stated it much more
clearly here.  In order for the designs that I was proposing to work, "all crew
are in G-suit equiped Vacc-suits and remain in acceleration couches to do all
their work.  Acceleration couches would be factored into crew space for all
crew."

This would be much easier to design/implement in the smaller non-starships
(like fighters/cutters/SDBs) than in (for instance) a 20,000 ton cruise-ship.
I'd envisioned squadrons of highly maneuverable fighters swarming around the
other more lumbering ships in the arena.  It'd have a very Star-Wars like
feel to it, I think.  Of course, a zippy ship with a Meson gun has advantages
too.  (I think the trade-off in crew-space would account for large portion of
armor, especially if you can only be hit on a rolled 12 [or better ;)  .])  

Nukes in space trash my original hypothesis, though.  I guess that's where
nuclear dampers come into play.

I guess I'm approaching this from High-Guard's POV, since that's what I'm
most familiar with.
- --
steve@sunquest.com (SPG6)

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5593
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 13:18:10 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: rancke@diku.dk
> Subject: Giving loaded guns to infants (PCs)
 
> I've thunk. An it seems to me that what we really need is a couple of 
> carefully tailored science-fictiony gimmicks to make things work out
> properly. I'm thinking about force fields and similar not-very-scientific
> whatnots.

  Yikes! Force fields as a 'every ships item' in Traveller. Somehow that
idea does not excite me.

> Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be able to torch 
> planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches. Answer: Planetary
> force screens.

  I think "BAD IDEA to run the fusion drive in an atmopshere and BAD IDEA
to run it within a km or three from a solid object" takes care of this. 

  Possible holes: Vacuum worlds, 'Suicide ships', and the rockets in missiles:

  Hole one does IMHO not need to be plugged. It has been noted in several
canonic sources that they *are* intensely vulnerable, so this won't change 
anything.

  Hole two is made a little smaller by that ships are expensive, even more in
TNE and the trouble in arranging a remote control or whatnot, and the remainder
of it does not need to be plugged, since you can (probably) get the same 
effects by blowing the powerplant.

  Hole three is plugged with doubletalk (but not as bad doubletalk as 
cheap, common and generally magic 'force fields':). Like Steve has shown, the
engines on missiles are much smaller (and much less effective) than the 
ship drives.
  Presumably the missile engines are related to the maneuver jets of the
ships, and since the 'BAD IDEA' idea needs that the maneuver jets are usable
in the atmosphere without any major bad effects, missile engines behave 
similarily.

> Item: I don't want ship combat to be simply a missile
> counter-measure, counter-counter-measure oneupmanship, but with nuclear
> missiles being capable of vapourising any concievable metal what can we
> do?

  The enthusiasm over the missiles may have given the wrong impression but
at medium ranges, against any vessel with a energy weapon, the missiles are
IMHO balanced wrgt the other starship weapons: This is mostly because you
can shoot them down *at any point of their journey*, and this translates
to several times during a 'typical missile journey'.

  (Wonder if the sandcaster can be used against the laser from the nuke/laser
missiles...)

  Missiles that has to come into a few km or less of the target should be 
even easier to shoot down, say a final round of fire at -1 difficulty. That
will translate to:
  Asset 10, At short range the basic hit task is Average. No range mod, 
Submicro size +1 diff (Difficult), Extra close -1 diff (Average, aka 20 in
this case).

  Hmm, I think I've changed opinion again: To avoid making the class 2+
missiles totally worthless, there should *not* be an 'Extra Close -1 diff'
mod.

  So the way missiles should be used is in overwhelming waves at close range.
Most ships can't accomplish this, so for them all missiles are significantly
inferior to energy weapons unless against inferior targets.

>	Hans Rancke

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 467
Archive-Message-Number: 5594
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Computer Aces - Not!
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 13:33:55 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: PIHLAB%CBR.dnet@hhcs.gov.au
> Subject: G-rating
 
> How can a missile with a small computer hit a fast ship with a large
> computer when you factor in computer differences on the High Guard to-hit
> tables etc.  Surely you can build ships that can't be hit especially
> when you have self guiding missiles that don't use the firing ship's
> computer rating.

  It is possible that I've missed it, but I haven't seen one mention that 
the computer does anything to help combat in TNE (other than 'being there', 
if it ceases to 'be there' there are various negative effects as detailed
in the part on starship damage:)

  The important stats are the ranges of the weapons, the skills of the gunners
and the TL of the MFC if any. The computer does not figure in like it did in
HG.

  Evasive maneuvers and the skill of the pilot make a difference in two ways.
First of all it makes the hit tasks more difficult, and second, if you have
a suitable vector, you can outrun a missile pretty easily.

  (And for the noncanonical contact missiles, the acceleration of the ship
comes into play in that the missile has to be able to intercept it inside
the same range band. If it doesn't have enough fuel to do this, the target
can just thumb it's nose at it when it goes tumbling by into the great void:)

> Bruce...            pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.au

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #468: Msgs 5595-5604 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  9 22:00:02 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #468: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 468  5595 07-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Missiles and Governments and Stuff << B
 468  5596 07-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   T:TNE Errata << I've been thinking abou
 468  5597 07-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated <<
 468  5598 08-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    missiles again << > From: JNCHIGGIN@del
 468  5599 08-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Missile eval <<   Here is the remaining
 468  5600 08-Jun-1993 rancke@diku.dk   Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated <<
 468  5601 07-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated <<
 468  5602 08-Jun-1993 Pauli            The Morrow Project << John H Bogan writ
 468  5603 08-Jun-1993 Pauli            Re: The Virus << Cynthia writes:
 468  5604 08-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Missiles and Drives and Such << Leonard

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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5595
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 15:57:27 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Missiles and Governments and Stuff

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
>   Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
> the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1.

>   (Another thing that strikes me is that the reflected energy might be bad
> for the ship. In space, everything goes away from the ship, so only the
> actual engine nozzle or whatever needs to be able to withstand it. But if
> you run it in air the air will form a nuke-type fireball *just aft of the 
> drives* that will return entirely too much of the thermal radiation to your
> ship. Likewise for hosing a space station at 200m)

Hmmm.  That sounds like a reasonable way to limit the effectiveness of
drives as weapons.  I'd make that about 100 major hits to the aft of
your ship for running the drive in an atmosphere.

As far as attacking a ship, space station, or vacuum world with the
drive exhaust, as a referee I'd probably come up pilot or astrogation
task to aim the drive, and assign an amount of damage based on how well
the roll was made (anywhere from 1 minor hit out at 10km or so, all the
way up to a couple of hundred major hits for firing the drive while in a
docking bay of a spaceport).  For any damage over about 2 major hits,
I'd make the firing ship talk about half damage.  (Note that I don't
have any physics to back this up; this is just what I'd do as a
referee).

John H Bogan <jbogan@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu> writes:
> Regarding the two different GOV codes, I agree it must be fixed.
> To me, the simplest solution seems to be:
> Modify the 'Wilds GOV' table on page 191. Add another column.
> The existing "Code" column is renamed "Roll"
> The new column is "Code", and lists the standard UWP code for the
> gov type listed.

I posted a fix along these lines a couple of days ago (probably just
before you started getting TML).  I decided that "tribal" was an
interesting idea, but effectively "no government" (the entry for no
government mentions "family" authority as a likely ruling body; I
generized this to "family, tribe, or clan").

My fix also placed the TED code in the world's "Allegiance" field (on
the theory that TEDs can only occurr in the wilds, where the idea of a
world's allegiance to an interstellar state is, by definition,
non-existant).

> List TEDs as Non-charismatic Dictators (code B) with the note 'TED'

The other thing I did was that I realized that Non-charismatic Dictators
are not the only possible form of a TED government.  Many common
Imperial-Era Governments would be classified by the RCES as "TEDs"
(including the government of Pallique in the Spinward Marches - the
religious dictatorship that is the setting for the "Divine Intervention"
Classic Traveller Double Adventure).

So I added a "TED Government Type" table, to generate the type (which
could possible include Charismatic Dictators and Oligarchies,
Non-Charismatic Dictators, Totalitarian Oligarchies, Feudal
Technocracies, and and Religious Dictatorships and Oligarchies, in
varying probabilities).  This "TED Government Type" goes in the UWP,
while the Td (for TED) Allegiance Code  indicates a TED.

The TED Code could conceviably be put in the Trade Classifications,
Travel Zone (which isn't used in the Wilds), or the Alliegance.

> A review of all GOV codings I can find shows:
Ah.  Thanks.  Tis is one thing I didn't have, and so was reluctant to
"create" a new code.  At this point, I'm not sure if it's really needed.
Placing the TED code outside of the UWP may be the best solution to the
problem.

> All notes on determining Wilds Gov stand, except if a TED, then
> code for TED, and if balkanized, gov code is 7, "dominant" gov
> is for whatever the GM wants for that world.

Currently, you can't determine which worlds in the Wilds are balkanized
(because the code of the "dominant" government is in the UWP).  My
original fix restored Government code 7 to these worlds.

Bertil has pointed out to me that Balkanized worlds are going to be very
common in the Wilds (probably why GDW didn't use a Balkanized code in
the first place).  So his suggestion was to generate a government code
for these balkanized worlds and place it in the trade classification as
an aid to the referee.  As the T:TNE rules point out, the first and best
resort for world generation is to have the referee do it manually; the
rules and codes are there as an aid to the imagination, not a
replacement for it.

> Let's get this cleared up _NOW_, while the only one table and
> 3 subsectors have to be corrected/clarified.

Agreed.

rancke@diku.dk (Hans Rancke) writes:
> Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be able to torch 
> planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches. Answer: Planetary
> force screens.

Please, No!  This opens far too many cans of worms than it solves.

> Item: I don't want ship combat to be simply a missile
> counter-measure, counter-counter-measure oneupmanship, but with nuclear
> missiles being capable of vapourising any concievable metal what can we
> do? How about force screens that deflect 99% (or 99.9 or whatever is
> needed) of even a contact explosion? Make the generators really expensive
> and we solve the problem of making warships much more expensive than
> merchant ships too.

No, no, no.  First of all, the missiles we have been talking about
aren't more effective than the det-laser missiles described in the T:TNE
rules; they are just *different* - slightly more advantagous under some
circumstances, different costs, slightly less useful under other
circumstances.

THe reason I got started on this was that I felt that the det-laser was
certainly not the *only* kind of missile available for T:TNE space
combat.

Secondly, to make these "new" missiles useful, you really want to have a
MFD (Master Fire Director) which allows you to ignore some or all of the
increased difficulty levels associated with the new missiles.  Bertil
suggested (and I agree) that MFDs should be restricted-purchase items,
and normally found only on warships.

Finally, nukes - even big nukes - just aren't that effective in space;
see my previous posting on the gross effects of the inverse-square law.
You will need to get pretty close to even attempt a hit with one of
these "new" missiles - which translates to plenty of chances for
successful anti-missile laser fire.  And finally, the requirements for a
hit aren't easy to meet:  you've got to get the missile into the same
range band as the target *with enough fuel left over to exceed the
target's G-rating* before you can even attempt a hit.  And when you do
make the attempt, it is at one to three difficulty levels higher than a
"normal" det-laser missile.

PIHLAB%CBR.dnet@hhcs.gov.au (Bruce) writes:
> One thing perhaps overlooked is that all of your crew on a star vessel may
> not be strapped into acceleration couches at the moment the pilot wants
> the ship to dance on it's tail and flip out of harms way.  During combat
> in space are we assuming that all crew are in G-suit equiped Vacc-suits
> and remain in acceleration couches to do all their work?  Are acceleration
> couches factored into crew space for all crew in starship construction
> rules?

I don't know about the others, but for myself I've been assuming that
high G ratings like this will be restricted to special-purpose ships
with small crews (for whom the required accelleration couches, G-suits,
and so forth will be provided). Ships like SDBs, fighters, and the like.

Presumably accelleration couches will be able to be specified in the
ship design (just like you could in Classic Traveller's High Guard and
in MegaTraveller).  I personally would say that ships with a crew of
more than a dozen are too large for overthrust to be practical

> Anyone know what kill range you would have with a missile equiped with
> an anti-matter warhead (either impact, proximity or 2300'ish DET Laser)?

A det-laser is a det-laser is a det-laser; the source of the excitation
x-rays will make the thing lighter or cheaper or be able to pump more
beams, but has no effect on the range or accuracy of the beams
themselves.  Although presumably a high-tech det-laser would have
improved lasing elements as well as an improved source of excitation
energy.

As far as Impact goes, the answer is probably a kill, just like it is
for a large enough nuke.  Proximity depends on the amount of energy in
the warhead, the fraction that is emitted as radiation, and the distance
the warhead is from the target when it goes off.  At more than a few
hundred meters, the energy required gets to be pretty high.

> How can a missile with a small computer hit a fast ship with a large
> computer when you factor in computer differences on the High Guard to-hit
> tables etc.  Surely you can build ships that can't be hit especially
> when you have self guiding missiles that don't use the firing ship's
> computer rating.

Well, the High Guard DMs are all out the window with T:TNE.  In a more
general sense, hitting the target ship isn't a hard problem if you
can manage to keep a sensor lock on it.  The missile can compute the
target's accelleration and velocity from successive sensor observations,
and plan the maneuvers it must make to intercept.  Every time it takes a
sensor observation, it updates it's course, and takes another
observation as fast as it can.  With some knowledge of the target's
capabilities, the launching ship can figure out whether or not the
missile even has a chance to hit before firing it.

Missiles will have to have an accelleration advantage over their targets
in order to achieve an impact hit.  The bigger the advantage, the easier
the hit.  In T:TNE, missiles can have a big accelleration advantage over
their targets; in Classic Traveller, less so.

Back to High Guard for a moment.  Presumably even an autonomous missile
is programmed with the parameters expected of the target ship.  A
powerful computer in the launching ship can produce better guesses of
the target's behavior.  Another possible explanation is to treat the
High Guard computer DM as representative of the electronic
countermeasures and electronic warfare support available to each ship.
Either way, its a case of rationalizing something which was
fundamentally arbitrary.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5596
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 16:57:23 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: T:TNE Errata


I've been thinking about T:TNE errata.  There isn't much of it, but there is
some.  I've saved Steve Higginbotham's corrected insystem travel tables,
and (of course) my own Governments in the Wilds fix.

If anybody has more errata (down to individual typos), if you will send it to
me, I'll edit it into one master list and post it to TML (say) in about a
week.  I'll also take responsibility for making sure that someone at GDW
sees and reads it, so we can get all of this stuff fixed for the next
printing and/or the boxed edition :)

How about it, everyone?


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5597
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 23:47:10 +0200 (MET DST)

> > Hole one does IMHO not need to be plugged. It has been noted in several
> > canonic sources that they *are* intensely vulnerable, so this won't change 
> > anything.
> 
> Solid objects on vacuum worlds are still solid objects; it's just as bad
> for your ship to turn the drive on a space station or other large, solid
> object.  So vacuum worlds aren't *really* that vulnerable.

  I imagine that the mechanism that harm the ship works like this: The 
fusion rocket eject <whatever> (soft xrays perhaps:). If it is inside an
atmosphere, it will form a classical fireball just aft of the ship. If it
is close to an object in vacuum, it will hit the object and do damage through
thermal and ionizing radiation and perhaps particles of different kinds too.
Since it is so powerful it will make a 'fireball' of the material if it is
close enough and that will emit thermal radiation that harms the ship. 
Reflexion of particles and thermal radiation is also possible.

  Since the intensity of the exhaust drops with the square (or is it cube?
it's 11PM here in Sweden:) of the distance, the retransmittance/reflexion
isn't perfect, and the intensity of radiation going back the other way also
drops with the square (cube?) there should be a range at which the ship would
do some damage without any major ill effects to itself.

> > Presumably the missile engines are related to the maneuver jets of the
> > ships, and since the 'BAD IDEA' idea needs that the maneuver jets are usable
> > in the atmosphere without any major bad effects, missile engines behave 
> > similarily.
> 
> Maybe not.

  I can accept a continous plasma gun with range 10 and pen 10 resulting from
the maneuver jets. Imagine the difficulty in maneuvering the whole bloody
ship to aim the thing! :)

> This is just speculation right now, so let me know what you
> folks think:
> 
> Maneuvering jets are only used in vacuum, where the jet dissipates and
> there are no thermal effects to harm the ship.  The jets are small
> enough that they can be used down to the last few tens of meters in a
> docking operation (at which point the delicate final maneuvers are done
> with gas jets (use LH2 or water in a resistojet) and gyros for
> rotational control.
> 
> When entering (or leaving) an atmosphere, the ContraGrav lifters are
> used to vary the ship's attraction to (or repulsion from) the planet.

  I know I used this for a suggested evasive tactics, but there *is* large
grey areas around the CG, especially now in TNE when it has been made clear
that you can't use it for propulsion.
  The CG in general is a minfield of rationalizations that can backfire in
nasty ways: Imagine a powerplant that uses a weight suspended with CG 
and has a generator attached to the wire. If the energy used up by the CG
is less that what you get out of the generator, you have yourself a free
energy device at least as good as the 'thruster plate power plant' that
was possible in MegaT:)

  IMHO we should follow the examples given (that CG needs additional
thrust of some kind to get anywhere).

> Another option: Small maneuvering jets (as above) used only in a vacuum,
> along with gas jets and gyros for fine and close quarters maneuvering.
> WHen in an atmosphere, special ramscoops are opened (part of the cost
> for an atmospherically-stremlined design) which admit ram air into the
> engine compartment.

  I remember the HOTOL and wonder if this setup could be combined with the
fuel scoops:)
  (That would give a reason for keeping the fuel scoops even though GG
skimming is very rare in TNE)

> >   Hmm, I think I've changed opinion again: To avoid making the class 2+
> > missiles totally worthless, there should *not* be an 'Extra Close -1 diff'
> > mod.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.  They don't sound too difficult to hit in the first
> place; and after all, they are a very small target, close in, and moving
> quite fast.

  I'm not certain how an MFD and the sensor lock requirement affect the
usability of missiles. The MFD could presumably make it much easier to fire
against one missile, but the sensor lock could make it more difficult to
fire against the second missile in the same turn.
  Have you found any specific mention of if it is allowed to change fire
to new targets within a turn?

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5598
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: missiles again
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 00:12:55 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
> Subject: missiles and swords and Arses...
 
> Nonsense.  Or are you silly enough to believe that the penetrator MUST
> be as long as the missile is?  Put a 400Kg 1:20 penetrator in the
> missile, so what if it is short?

  400kg, that's 224cm aprox. Against steel... penetration 718. Say
Damage 1/2-360 or 1/4-180.

  On the other hand, a penetrator consising of a one meter long one ton piece 
of high explosives will penetrate 370mm (penetration 75). Say Damage 1-75
since it is a solid lump and not a wierd collection of metal pieces.
  
  I'll post a comparison between the different types against different 
thicknesses of armour

> >  And (nasty question) what are the equivalent numbers for a fusion
> >rocket powered missile? :)
> 
> I guesstimated an Isp of 2,000,000 based on the minimum from the three
> ship types I bothered to check on, which ranged from 2,000,000 to just
> over 3,000,000.
> 
> 1 G-hour: 265 GRAMS.
> 2 G-hour: 530 GRAMS.

  Ok. I was afraid that they were impossible:)

> Presumably, the missile would not have quite so efficient (read:
> EXPENSIVE) a drive as a ship though.  But it'll still be trivial...

  To pull my classical stunt: This means that there is an opening for a 
very small but very very expensive missile:)

> 				---Steve Higginbotham

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5599
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Missile eval
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 00:43:08 +0200 (MET DST)

  Here is the remaining damage versus different armour thicknesses of all
the direct impact missiles. While some may seem large compared to the 
nuke/laser, remember the difference in hit chance and that these only inflict
one hit, not 1d6 hits.

  HE(KE) is a HE missile that is allowed to collide without detonation. It is
more effective than HE(HE) against a limited range of armours. The two HEAP
columns are for TL8 HEAP and TL15 HEAP (3G3). I'm leaning towards letting 
HEAP max out at TL13 or so to keep the balance with the KEAP.

Missile:HE(KE)	HE(HE)	KEAP	HEAP	HEAP
Damage:	1-75	2-125	1/4-180	1-180	1-300
Armour
10	65	105	178	170	290
14	61	97	177	166	286
20	55	85	175	160	280
28	47	69	173	152	272
31	44	63	172	149	269
40	35	45	170	140	260
42	33	41	170	138	258
60	15	5	165	120	240
62	13	1	165	118	238
101	0	0	155	79	199

  Against ground targets they are rated: HE(HE), HEAP, KEAP&HE(KE)

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5600
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 02:06:25 +0100 (METDST)


Bertil:
>   Yikes! Force fields as a 'every ships item' in Traveller. Somehow that
> idea does not excite me.

OK. I don't insist on force fields. If you can make the game universe work
with more realistic means then that's splendid. Everything else being 
equal I'll take realism over wierd science every day. But that's a big if:
everything else being equal. I'll take fun gaming over realism every day.
If a realistic economic system makes piracy totally uneconomic then bugger
realism. If a realistic starship propulsion system makes private fusion
blowtorches as common as trucks then stuff realism. If a realistic weapon
system is all-offense/no defense (or vice versa) then boo to realism.

>>Item: I don't want just any starship owner to be able to torch 
>>planets at will, yet we have these super blowtorches. Answer: Planetary
>>force screens.
> 
>  I think "BAD IDEA to run the fusion drive in an atmopshere and BAD IDEA
>to run it within a km or three from a solid object" takes care of this.

How bad an idea would you say that driving a truck full of explosives into
a fortress wall is? Yet fanatics have been known to do just that.
 
>  Possible holes: Vacuum worlds, 'Suicide ships', and the rockets in 
>missiles:
> 
>  Hole one does IMHO not need to be plugged. It has been noted in several
>canonic sources that they *are* intensely vulnerable, so this won't change 
>anything.
> 
>  Hole two is made a little smaller by that ships are expensive, even more 
>in TNE and the trouble in arranging a remote control or whatnot, 

I thought that TNE rules was to be applicable to any Traveller period. That
ships are going to be few and far between for a few decades after 1200 is no
use in the general way. I personally hope to justify privately owned ships
in Aoreriyya by 1210.

>and the 
>remainder of it does not need to be plugged, since you can (probably) get 
>the same effects by blowing the powerplant.

That just means that power plants needs a fix too.

>  Hole three is plugged with doubletalk (but not as bad doubletalk as 
>cheap, common and generally magic 'force fields':). 

If force fields exist at all I see no reason why cheap, common force fields
is any worse doubletalk than expensive, rare ones. As for the magic part:
sure they're magic, but are they any more magic than jump drives, psionics,
and contragravity?

>  The enthusiasm over the missiles may have given the wrong impression but
>at medium ranges, against any vessel with a energy weapon, the missiles are
>IMHO balanced wrgt the other starship weapons: This is mostly because you
>can shoot them down *at any point of their journey*, and this translates
>to several times during a 'typical missile journey'.

Slice it any way you like, unless you can come up with a cheap, common, and
effective way to protect communities from a nuclear missile then cheap,
common nuclear missiles are BAD, BAD, BAD in a gaming sense. Since (as far
as I know) nuclear missiles _would_ (realistically) be cheap and common in
a high-tech environment I think some protection is in order. And note that
I advocated that such force fields should be expensive: To be found in
cities and on warships, but not in towns and on merchant ships.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5601
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 21:50:09 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
>   I imagine that the mechanism that harm the ship works like this: The 
> fusion rocket eject <whatever> (soft xrays perhaps:). If it is inside an

Probably a jet of hydrogen and helium plasma.  Effectively a continous
plasma gun of some size, as you mention below.  Drop-off is proportional
to the square of the distance, but the constant of proportionality is
different for a cone than for a sphere.

>   I know I used this for a suggested evasive tactics, but there *is* large
> grey areas around the CG, especially now in TNE when it has been made clear
> that you can't use it for propulsion.

Believe it or not, I wasn't using it for propulsion.  I got the idea by
watching paper airplanes fly (they don't have any propulsion either).
All of the control (I was flying sophisticated paper airplanes with
canards, leading edge slats, trailing-edge flaps, rudders and the like)
and the "propulsion" is provided by gravity.  If you made your starship
as light a paper airplane, it could glide too.  Imagine for a
moment a streamlined ship re-entering an atmosphere from orbit (the US
Space Shuttle is a good example).  It re-enters and files in to a
landing without the application of any thrust (after the de-orbit burn,
which happens in a vacuum).  Now imagine a starship equipped with CG
lifters doing the same maneuver.  It wouldn't need heat shielding tiles,
because the rate of descent could be controlled by varying the lift of
the CG lifters.  If the ship is at all streamlined (a basic cone, or a
lifting body of some type) aerodynamic control surfaces can control it's
heading, and it can glide in to the landing pad.  If it actually is an
airframe (like the space shuttle), it can be flown like a glider, with
surprising precision and grace.  Launching works exactly the same way,
except that you are falling UP instead of DOWN.

>   The CG in general is a minfield of rationalizations that can backfire in
> nasty ways: Imagine a powerplant that uses a weight suspended with CG 
> and has a generator attached to the wire. If the energy used up by the CG
> is less that what you get out of the generator, you have yourself a free
> energy device at least as good as the 'thruster plate power plant' that
> was possible in MegaT:)

Granted, but my idea doesn't depend on a something-for-nothing effect;
it still works fine no matter how much energy the CG requires to
maintain it's lift (as long as the ship has a power plant capable of
running the CG).  My "trick" works by using the CG to control the rate
at which potential energy is exchanged for kinetic energy, and by
transforming and controlling the kinetic energy by the action of air flowing
over lifting surfaces.  Principles familliar to all sailplane pilots.

>   IMHO we should follow the examples given (that CG needs additional
> thrust of some kind to get anywhere).

Right.  In this case, the "thrust" is lift force generated by the
atmosphere passing over aerodynamic surfaces, as the ship falls through
the air.  Without a CG, you need heat shielding and attain multi-dozen
mach numbers.  With the CG, you keep it under a couple of machs at all
times, and come in for a nice slow landing.  And you can control your
glide ratio, too.

>   I remember the HOTOL and wonder if this setup could be combined with the
> fuel scoops:)
>   (That would give a reason for keeping the fuel scoops even though GG
> skimming is very rare in TNE)

I like this idea!

>   Have you found any specific mention of if it is allowed to change fire
> to new targets within a turn?

I've only skimmed the ship combat as yet.  I'll have a much better idea
about what will and won't work after I study it thouroughly (planned for
this week).


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5602
Subject: The Morrow Project
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 93 12:59:16 +1000
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

John H Bogan writes:

>   I finally figured out what the New Era reminds me of. Does any-
>one remember "The Morrow Project" ?

Yep, one of the all time classics.  The only game I know of that gave
details for blood transfusions (that were necessary :-)  It packed heaps
of useful information into a rather small rule book (damage because you're
too close to something very hot, radiation damage, electricity, cold, ...)
Lots of hit points and weapons that take them away in large chunks.  A very
fatal combat system added to the mess.

And the players had a tech advantage over most of the nasties they met!
Good clean fun!




        						Pauli

Paul Dale                       | grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science  | +61 7 365 2445
University of Queensland        |
Australia, 4072                 | Did you know that there are 41 two letter
                                |     words containing the letter 'a'?

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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5603
Subject: Re: The Virus
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 93 13:29:09 +1000
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

Cynthia writes:

>        Over on the tne-pocket echo we had a prolonged discussion of the
>Virus, and what forms it might take.  If one extrapolates the current trend
>in reprogrammable hardware (PLA, PAL, etc) to its logical extreme, and
>assume that by the Imperial era, all high-tech computers consist of
>self-configuring hardware that loads a "program" by rewiring its own logic...
>Such a technology is tailor-made for the Virus as described.

Such a technology still requires the virus to convince that computer that
what it just received was really a program not the data that was expected.
Current computers distinguish between the two (well some small ones
don't turn the protection on even if they ought to).

The description of how the virus propogates may work for high TL computers
(I don't know how a TL15 computers works so I cannot comment on it) but
it will not work on lowly TL8 computers without the virus physically altering
the circuits which requires physical contact or at least close proximity to
a large enough silicon area.

I'm quite happy to make the claim that low TL computers are going to be
highly virus resistant.  And I'm willing to extend this claim another TL.
Moreover, once the virus is discovered it is quite a simple proposition
to design computers that are immune to it.  Don't make the computer physically
accessable (large locked box?) and treat all incoming data with caution (and
isolate these inputs).

Even if re-programmable logic is being extensively used, adding a simple switch
that disables the re-programming solves the problem.

Of course, there is a down-side to all this: the secure computers are going to
be harder to access and use than insecure ones.



>        As it is, in the real world (tm), I shudder to think what is going
>to happen when some malicious soul writes a virus that hooks into Flash BIOS.
>There are gonna be a lot of unhappy customers with dead 486 boxes and trashed
>disks...
>(Making your BIOS rewritable is a really stupid security hole... not that DOS
>has any security whatsoever.)

Where did I put my virus writer's toolkit......goody found it

Hmmm, what to add.....

Program in FLASH memory, randomly low level format pieces of all discs
while playing Bach's Toccata and drawing stupid fractal landscapes on the
screen.  Finally, display the "I'm cold" message and fry the system's power
supply.  Add a mutation factor to improve survivability.... heh heh heh.....


Yep done it.  Got it into a few hundred bytes of code.  Now to infect the
world!


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

If you read this far on a PC then you're system will be infected and
your life is just about over!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha




        						Pauli :-)

Who's this knocking at my door?  A couple of friendly men in white coats.
And they've got a new jacket for me to wear.  The sleeves are a bit too long
for me though.


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

Bundle: 468
Archive-Message-Number: 5604
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 00:03:46 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Missiles and Drives and Such

Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Leonard Erickson) writes:
> I can just about *guarantee* that detonating velocity is *far* below
> closing velocity. Which means that shaped charges are useles, as the
> missile impact will be moving faster than the detonation of the
> explosive. This kills HEAP and doesn't  help HE much either.

I'm afraid that I'm no expert on explosives, but presumably the timing
of the detonation can be arranged to work out anyway.  The penetration
mechanism of a HEAP charge is the jet of hot gas generated.  To make it
work at high speeds, you need to have a proximity fuse that will set off
the warhead the right amount of time before impact, right?

> And I'm willing to bet that velocity #2 is below closing velocity in
> most cases as well. Which again makes HE a waste of time!

Not quite.  KEAP is kind of useless agains a ground target - it has lots
of energy, but doesn't deliver it in the most useful form.  So HE will
be around as a ground attach missile that just happens to have a
secondary anti-ship role.

And as Bertil points out, you can always choose *not* to detonate the
explosive, after all - it's still got it's kinetic energy.

JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com (Steve Higginbotham) writes:
>  Your reasoning is specious, as can be seen by
> looking at pictures of any Saturn launch.  The blast punches DOWN! 
> Hard!  Way too hard for anything trivial like atmosphere to slow it
> down.  It only takes about 0.0025 seconds for the blast to reach from
> 50,000 meters to ground level.  Even at mind-boggling pressures, it
> isn't going to spread much till it hits ground ("not much" means that it
> should still be focused on an area no more than 10Km across...).

The Saturn had some pretty darn big flame trenches to contain that blast
and make sure it doesn't interfere with the rocket.  Do *you* really
want to land in the middle of a 10km wide area that's been under fusion
gun attack for the last however long?  And how are you going to get the
landing legs of your starship unstuck from all of that fused soil?  All
concerns of player characters torching cities aside, I don't think you
want to have to land in that stuff, no matter whether or not there is a
local authority to tell you not to.

> Probably use Scramjets, just like we used to do back in original Trav
> when we first started playing many years ago...

One of my proposals (which didn't seem to make it to TML) was to open
some ramscoops and admit air into the fusion rocket chamber.  Heat it to
very high tempratures (possibly with the fusion ignition system) using
power plant energy, and let it expand out the back.  Similar in concept
to the US "Pluton" missile propulsion system (the Pluton used a fission
reactor operating literally a few degrees below it's meltdown temprature
as a heat source).  It wouldn't provide anywhere near the thrust of a
fusion rocket, but it should be enough to maneuver the ship with.

The other proposal was to use the CG lifters to control the aparrent
weight of your vehicle, and literally glide down (or up).  Use
aerodynamic control surfaces to provide control and lift.  This provides
a rationalization for why only streamlined and airframe ships can
operate in an atmosphere (you need to be sufficiently streamlined to be
aerodynamically stable, and you need some control surfaces).

> DREAM ON, Bertil!  Look at a REAL rocket launch!  MUCH lower exhaust
> velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs - they
> form long tongues af flame.  Which this will do as well.  Only this will
> make them longer, hotter, FAR more lethal!

I have seen plenty of real rockets get their tailfeathers scortched by
launching from a pad that had a poor blast deflector design.  For the
rockets I'm talking about, the problem is minor and can be repaired with
a little paint and filler putty.  I doubt that your PC's starship is as
easily repaired when damaged by stray fusion exhaust.

Go fly some real rockets and try different blast deflector designs.
I'll give you a clue: a flat plate is one of the worst offenders.
Something that is angled away from the rocket is much better.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                            in the New Era


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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #469: Msgs 5605-5616 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  9 22:00:02 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #469: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 469  5605 07-Jun-1993 Dane E. Johnson  The Problems with T:TNE << Greetings, S
 469  5606 08-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated <<
 469  5607 08-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated <<
 469  5608 08-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Comedy << > Loud laughter is heard in t
 469  5609 08-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  Fusion Drives & Stuff... << Leonard.Eri
 469  5610 08-Jun-1993 Jason Proctor    TNE <<                        Subject: 
 469  5611 08-Jun-1993 Unknown          Before I go out and buy TNE can someone
 469  5612 08-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated <<
 469  5613 08-Jun-1993 VANYA@utkvx.utk  Fusion Rkts, Combat, T:TNE Rantings << 
 469  5614 08-Jun-1993 PAVEWAY          Low Tech Spaceflight and stuff <<   I p
 469  5615 08-Jun-1993 clh@mitre.org    T:TNE Design Rules << In addition to Lo
 469  5616 08-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  A Modest Proposal` << A Proposal:

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5605
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 93 22:27:04 -0700
From: dane@retzlaff.llnl.gov (Dane E. Johnson)
Subject: The Problems with T:TNE


Greetings, Sophonts!

	I'm pretty new to the list and I've just gotten ahold of T:TNE...

Some comments:

JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com writes:
- ----------------------------------------------------------------

>  Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
> the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1. And
> that the drive has much too short range to be used in space combat
> unless you manage to bluff your way in to 1km or less from the enemy.

Why should it be bad???  Your reasoning is specious, as can be seen by
looking at pictures of any Saturn launch.  The blast punches DOWN!
Hard!  Way too hard for anything trivial like atmosphere to slow it
down.  It only takes about 0.0025 seconds for the blast to reach from
50,000 meters to ground level.  Even at mind-boggling pressures, it
isn't going to spread much till it hits ground ("not much" means that it
should still be focused on an area no more than 10Km across...).
                                                                 
- -------------------------------------------------------------

So basically, with Fusion drives for take-off, you're going to want
landing pads about 10Km across for each ship!  Not to mention the fact
that they're going to need some *major* resurfacing after each use...

I think the only practical thing to assume here is that (primarily) the
scramjet technique is going to be used to bootstrap yourself into orbit.
Maybe the Customs Inspectors in orbit turn off your fusion drive or
something.  Of course, *that* would only work in some sort of civilized
area, not what T:TNE offers up for a campaigning atmosphere.

Of course, what GDW should do if they're going to give the ships this
sort of drive is address the above issues in the combat rules....Which
isn't happening...

_________________________________________________________
>  (Another thing that strikes me is that the reflected energy might be
> bad for the ship. In space, everything goes away from the ship, so
> only the actual engine nozzle or whatever needs to be able to
> withstand it. But if you run it in air the air will form a nuke-type
> fireball *just aft of the drives* that will return entirely too much
> of the thermal radiation to your ship. Likewise for hosing a space
> station at 200m)

DREAM ON, Bertil!  Look at a REAL rocket launch!  MUCH lower exhaust
velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs - they
form long tongues af flame.  Which this will do as well.  Only this will
make them longer, hotter, FAR more lethal!

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

How long are these going to be, exactly?  This could cause some *major*
traffic hazards :)  I think the fusion drives would, "realistically",
change the nature of both combat and general starship practices pretty
heavily.  Things ought to be different, but probably the official GDW
word won't be that much different (sort of like how they probably won't
notice the "demise" of Gas Giant refueling...)

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
- ------------------------------------------------------------

 think "BAD IDEA to run the fusion drive in an atmopshere and BAD IDEA
to run it within a km or three from a solid object" takes care of this.

  Possible holes: Vacuum worlds, 'Suicide ships', and the rockets in
missiles:

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

I think "BAD IDEA" to run the drive anywhere it's going to hit
something, unless you want that thing to get vaporized. :) Take-off/landing
from a Vacuum world is still going to produce a nice molten puddle where
ever you are trying to set down...

Maybe we're safe in assuming that the ships have small (chemical?)
attitude control thrusters, or the like, for small course adjustments
during sensitive stuff (like docking).  If so, you could play lunar
lander (with your CG turned on :).

General ruminations:

"There seem to be more holes in it than a whole planetfull of moths could
account for..."

The actual skill system seems fine and I haven't given the combat much of a
look yet, but the background sucks Zucchai Crystals...And whose bright
idea was it to stick the starship construction in a seperate boxed set?
Grrrr....

My overall impressions of the game have been highly negative, mostly
because I seem to be having some sort of allergic reaction to the
background historical information in the book, linked to a general
inability to digest the Virus...

Dane

traveller@llnl.gov                                       djohnson@willamette.edu
TNS Stringer
Terra/Solomani Rim (1827 G867975-8)

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5606
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 12:37:08 +0200 (MET DST)

> >  I think "BAD IDEA to run the fusion drive in an atmopshere and BAD IDEA
> >to run it within a km or three from a solid object" takes care of this.
> 
> How bad an idea would you say that driving a truck full of explosives into
> a fortress wall is? Yet fanatics have been known to do just that.

  There is a difference here and it ties in with this:
 
> >  Hole two is made a little smaller by that ships are expensive, even more 
> >in TNE and the trouble in arranging a remote control or whatnot, 
> 
> I thought that TNE rules was to be applicable to any Traveller period.

  and this:

> That just means that power plants needs a fix too.

  Having fusion rockets as 'the fusiongun from hell' means that you have an
*unlimited ammo* *no-cost ammo* weapon. Letting people detonate their ships
for some kilotons to some megatons of effect means that they have a *one 
shot* *MCr40+ per shot* weapon.
  These limitations on detonating ships (either through fooling with the
powerplant or with the jump drive) takes away it's usefulness and removes
the problem IMHO.

> >  Hole three is plugged with doubletalk (but not as bad doubletalk as 
> >cheap, common and generally magic 'force fields':). 
> 
> If force fields exist at all I see no reason why cheap, common force fields
> is any worse doubletalk than expensive, rare ones. As for the magic part:
> sure they're magic, but are they any more magic than jump drives, psionics,
> and contragravity?

  In Traveller they are.

  (Although I personally agree with the psionics:)

> >  The enthusiasm over the missiles may have given the wrong impression but
> >at medium ranges, against any vessel with a energy weapon, the missiles are
> >IMHO balanced wrgt the other starship weapons: This is mostly because you
> >can shoot them down *at any point of their journey*, and this translates
> >to several times during a 'typical missile journey'.
> 
> Slice it any way you like, unless you can come up with a cheap, common, and
> effective way to protect communities from a nuclear missile then cheap,
> common nuclear missiles are BAD, BAD, BAD in a gaming sense.

> And note that
> I advocated that such force fields should be expensive: To be found in
> cities and on warships, but not in towns and on merchant ships.

  What you look for already exists in TTNE and it is called the Master Fire
Director. You find it on warships and in the defence networks of worlds, but 
not on merchant ships. Allowing the MFD to do the same for defensive fire
as for offensive fire means that a character with skill 5 and attribute 5
has a 95% chanse of stopping the missile *per individual weapon firing*
controlled by a TL8 MFD!
  Tie two lasers to the MFD and you get a 99.75% stop probability. Three
and it becomes 99.9875%.

  (Ok, there might be some cultural issues here. I (and presumably Hans?) 
don't think that having shore batteries (guns and missiles) around civilian
harbours and gun turrets around international airports in Real Life is
in anyway strange. There are batteries around Gothenburg (a few manned even
now) and turrets around Arlanda International (unmanned).
  Personally I've always assumed that any starport higher than E (and many E
ports too) has several batteries of lasers and missiles. Manned.)

>       Hans Rancke
> University of Copenhagen
>      rancke@diku.dk

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5607
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 12:40:17 +0200 (MET DST)

> >   The CG in general is a minfield of rationalizations that can backfire in
> > nasty ways: Imagine a powerplant that uses a weight suspended with CG 
> > and has a generator attached to the wire. If the energy used up by the CG
> > is less that what you get out of the generator, you have yourself a free
> > energy device at least as good as the 'thruster plate power plant' that
> > was possible in MegaT:)
> 
> Granted, but my idea doesn't depend on a something-for-nothing effect;
> it still works fine no matter how much energy the CG requires to
> maintain it's lift (as long as the ship has a power plant capable of
> running the CG).  My "trick" works by using the CG to control the rate
> at which potential energy is exchanged for kinetic energy, and by
> transforming and controlling the kinetic energy by the action of air flowing
> over lifting surfaces.  Principles familliar to all sailplane pilots.

  Yes, going down. But how about going up? Standing on the ground you have
zero potential energy (if the ground is zero) and zero kinetic energy.

> wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5608
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Comedy
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1993 13:22:20 +0200 (MET DST)

> Loud laughter is heard in the distance!  Really loud!

  Mail me if you start getting a stomach ache after all that laughter and
I'll stop provoking it.

> >  Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
> > the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1. And
> > that the drive has much too short range to be used in space combat
> > unless you manage to bluff your way in to 1km or less from the enemy.
> 
> Why should it be bad???  Your reasoning is specious, as can be seen by
> looking at pictures of any Saturn launch.  The blast punches DOWN! 
> Hard!  Way too hard for anything trivial like atmosphere to slow it
> down.

  You mean like nuke punches the atmopshere out of the way without forming
a fireball? The only example of a large fusion reaction in a normal atmosphere
we have is the hbomb and it sure forms a fireball.
  
  You yourself said that the energy output through a scoutships engines 
equals 125 Terawatts (30kT per second is 1.254 Joules per seconds aka
watts), and considering that this only uses 25 m3 of hydrogen *per hour*
(2G) it seems to me that the exhaust is short on mass. I don't have the MT
books here so I might be wrong about what liquid H2 weighs, but it looks like
the scout would use 480 grams of H2 per second. What kind of pressure will
this flimsy jet inflict a few km from the ship? More or less than the
air pressure?
  (And what part of the exhaust will be in radiation? If the 480g/s is
correct, and if the velocity you stated (20,000km/s) is correct, the
kinetic energy will account for 22 of those 30kT that comes out of the
engines. Will the other 8kT be radiation? Some of it in the form of soft 
xrays perhaps?)

> DREAM ON, Bertil!  Look at a REAL rocket launch!  MUCH lower exhaust
> velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs - they
> form long tongues af flame.

  MUCH denser exhaust, MUCH less radiation.

> Quite frankly, I am pretty disgusted by the fact that everyone seems
> willing to change the "laws of the universe" rather than face up to the
> situation presented, and learn to live with it.

  I am pretty amazed that you lable speculation about how a fusion rocket
might work in different environments as 'chaning the laws of the universe'.
I have not seen a fusion rocket of the yields we are talking about here and 
neither have you. Have anyone of us done professional work on this? Like
simulations or small scale experiments for example? No? Does anyone here 
know wether a fusion rocket with the thrustlevels in question EVEN WORKS IN
AN ATMOSPHERE?!!

> 	So what does that mean?  Well, landing ships should be RIGHT OUT! 
> Allowing a fusion gun that size near ANY city is INSANE!  So ships
> should be docking at space stations FAR from a planet (like
> geostationary orbit, for instance.  That gives the planetary defenses
> time to scrag anyone who deviates from traffic corridors toward the
> planet).  You should LAND in shuttles that have ONLY scramjet/chemical
> rocket drives (getting up and down will be pretty damn tricky.  Sort of
> like 2300AD).

  Sort of Retcon City. The jump barges would be minor in comparision to 
this.

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5609
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 07:46:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: Fusion Drives & Stuff...

Leonard.Erickson:

>For a 5 ton projectile,

>V (g-hr) (m/sec)   KE(ergs) (% of BC) kilotons   diameter(meters)
>   1      3.528e3  3.112e19     .04     .7 kT        91
>   2      7.056e3  1.245e20     .18    3.0 kT       145
>   3     10.584e3  2.801e20     .39    6.7 kT       190
>   4     14.112e3  4.979e20     .70     12 kT       230
>   5     17.640e3  7.779e20    1.1      19 kT       267
>   6     21.168e3  1.120e21    1.6      27 kT       301
>   7     24.696e3  1.525e21    2.1      37 kT       334
>   8     28.224e3  1.991e21    2.8      48 kT       365
>   9     31.752e3  2.520e21    3.5      60 kT       394
>  10     35.280e3  3.112e21    4.4      75 kT       423
>  11     38.808e3  3.756e21    5.3      90 kT       451
>  12     42.336e3  4.481e21    3.3     110 kT       478
>  47.8  168.522e3  7.1e22    100       1.7 MT      1200   :-)

Fascinating.  But you got the velocities wrong on this.  One G-hour is
35280 m/s, NOT 3528 m/s.  Interestingly enough, you got your KE's right,
in spite of the incorrect velocities...


>BTW, for a 5 *gram* projectile, we get 1 millionth the energy, or
>1/100th the diameter. So change the diameters above to cm. Which means
>that 5 gm  projectile (a BB) at the veocity give by a mere 1 g for 1

5gm is NOT "a BB".  It is bigger than a .223 round (which is only
3.5gm).


John H Bogan
>   I finally figured out what the New Era reminds me of. Does any-
>one remember "The Morrow Project" ?

Yes.  Good point.  I'd forgotten the game, but upon checking, I find
(like you) that it is an almost exact parallel with TNE's background
campaign...


>  Hole three is plugged with doubletalk (but not as bad doubletalk as 
>cheap, common and generally magic 'force fields':). Like Steve has
>shown, the engines on missiles are much smaller (and much less
>effective) than the ship drives.

<snicker>.  The missile's drives, in order to be capable of the kinds of
things they are listed as doing are ONLY equivalent to a 100 GIGAWATT
plasma gun, instead of the 100 TERAWATT fusion gun a Free Trader is
carrying around.  But under Striker rules, that's still a penetration of
6000 meters of steel at "short range" of 140Km or less...


wildstar:

>I've been thinking about T:TNE errata.  There isn't much of it, but
>there is some.  I've saved Steve Higginbotham's corrected insystem
>travel tables, and (of course) my own Governments in the Wilds fix.

>If anybody has more errata (down to individual typos), if you will send
>it to me, I'll edit it into one master list and post it to TML (say) in
>about a week.  I'll also take responsibility for making sure that
>someone at GDW sees and reads it, so we can get all of this stuff fixed
>for the next printing and/or the boxed edition :)

>How about it, everyone?

I'll get you a list of the things I have seen by the weekend (I hope)...


Bertil:
>  I imagine that the mechanism that harm the ship works like this: The 
>fusion rocket eject <whatever> (soft xrays perhaps:). If it is inside
>an atmosphere, it will form a classical fireball just aft of the ship.

Nonsense!  It will do no such thing!  It will look just like a classic
fusion gun blast in the 100 terawatt power range.  Remember the Kzinti
Lesson.


>  I can accept a continous plasma gun with range 10 and pen 10
>resulting from the maneuver jets. Imagine the difficulty in maneuvering
>the whole bloody ship to aim the thing! :)

pen-10?  I HOPE you are talking about the attitude jets, and not the
main drive here, or you are full of it.  The main drive should be a
continuous penetration measured in dozens to thousands of meters of
steel...


wildstar:

>Hmmm.  That sounds like a reasonable way to limit the effectiveness of
>drives as weapons.  I'd make that about 100 major hits to the aft of
>your ship for running the drive in an atmosphere.

So you've decided to live in dreamland too?  I'm depressed...


>As far as attacking a ship, space station, or vacuum world with the
>drive exhaust, as a referee I'd probably come up pilot or astrogation
>task to aim the drive, and assign an amount of damage based on how well
>the roll was made (anywhere from 1 minor hit out at 10km or so, all the
>way up to a couple of hundred major hits for firing the drive while in
>a docking bay of a spaceport).  For any damage over about 2 major hits,
>I'd make the firing ship talk about half damage.  (Note that I don't
>have any physics to back this up; this is just what I'd do as a
>referee).

Play Star Wars!  If you are going to ignore physics just to make it feel
good, then play AD&D!  If you are going to throw out the physics, you
might as well start using magic in a big way, and settle for
Spelljammers...

				---Steve Higginbotham

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5610
Date: 8 Jun 1993 12:04:00 U
From: Jason Proctor <jason@insignia.co.uk>
Subject: TNE


                       Subject:                               Time:11:33 am
  OFFICE MEMO          TNE                                    Date:8/6/93
Hi,
> collected TNE errata
Stonking idea. I've just got my TNE (17 squidlets in the UK) and was faced with
the prospect of trawling through n megabytes of TML to find people's
alterations to the govt tables etc - deciding which one of various worthy
version to take, etc. Wildstar to the rescue. Getting it GDW approved so that
they use the corrected stuff as well would be good.

> TNE
Seems like they've changed a lot of stuf that could have stayed the same - e.g.
why 2D6-1 instead of 2D6? Or starting previous ex at 18 instead of 17? Strange
seemingly random changes. I like even numbers so I'll be starting at 18 I
think. Character generation is better, IMHO, simpler and doesn't take weeks to
do like HG/Merc etc. And, v important for lazy people like me, it's much easier
to get the Mac to do it. There seems to be lots of DOS and Unix software
around, is there any Mac stuff anywhere or do I have to write it?

> Virus
Given the extent to which systems would be interconnected 4000 years from now,
don't you think the Virus is eminently possible? Take Gibson for example -
cyberspace is only 50 years away - where computers are troiling around in each
other's guts all the time. The AI controlling that slab of black ice can
infiltrate your machine to such a high degree that it can get the neural
interface to fry your brain. Still think the Virus is impossible? And we'll be
well beyond FORMAT in 4000 years time - at least I **** well hope so. Then
again, Microsoft may still be around :-(

> Trav -> Cyber
Does anyone think it's strange that there's no stuff about implants or other
cyber kit in Trav? Someone mentioned to me that with a few millenia to run at
we could come up with some seriously bizarro augmentation gear - he also said
this was the reason for Cyberpunk's meteoric rise and Trav's relative decline
from hip status. I tried to explain this away with Imperial Humanisation
decrees, or genetic breeding, but I could tell I wasn't getting anywhere.
Comments?

> New versions of RPG favourites
Over in the RuneQuest mailing list, the authors of RQ4 (new version, similar in
scale and impact to TNE) are emailing beta versions around for any old bod to
comment on and pick holes in. The result is an *enormous* amount of playtesting
being done and game systems emerging that are solid and universally accepted
(after heated discussions, etc, admittedly). Did GDW do anything similar for
TNE? If not, why not? Wouldn't it have been great for everyone to have a hand
in the new Trav, and as a side benefit not have any errata to speak of?

czeers
Jase
Sr Sw Eng
Insignia Solutions
jason@insignia.co.uk



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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5611
From: matth@earth.njit.edu (Unknown)
Subject: Before I go out and buy TNE can someone help me?
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 9:04:49 EDT


	Hello There, 
	I had left this list for awhile but I am back for two reasons, my 
gamers want to play Traveller again and because TNE is out. The reason why 
I lost interest in MT is because you really could not play it without using 
the Imperium. Now what I want to know is is it possible to play TNE without 
using the GDW Universe? 

Matt Harelick


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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5612
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 10:42:33 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Re: Fusiondrive Control Incorporated

> From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
> Wildstar:
> > Granted, but my idea doesn't depend on a something-for-nothing effect;
> > it still works fine no matter how much energy the CG requires 
> Yes, going down. But how about going up? Standing on the ground you have
> zero potential energy (if the ground is zero) and zero kinetic energy.

Well, I *have* assumed that the CG lifters can lift the ship a nonzero
distance off of the ground (just as they can for an air-raft or a grav
bike).  Presumably, they will require energy input appropriate to the
work being done (but knowning GDW, I'm not going to count on it).

Until someone can tell me a good reason why not, I'm going to use the
following rationale in my campaigns:  ContraGravity devices can
manipulate the local gravitational field, effectively producing a force
exactly opposed to local gravity, with a magnitude anywhere between 0
and 2 times (inclusive) of the local gravitational force.

Therefore, the maximum upward velocity that can be produced is the
world's escape velocity, and the maximum downward velocity that can be
cancelled is also the escape velocity.  In my campaigns, the CG will be
completely umable to produce any forces in any direction other than
directly against the vector of the local gravitational force.

The energy input to a CG device will be proportional to the work being
done (and the constant of proportionality will be greater than 1 ;) so
that perpetual motion machines are still impossible.

While some of the above will probably be invalidated by the Technical
Architecture Manual (or even detailed analysis of the vehicles in
T:TNE), the above at least makes sense to me, and doesn't grossly
violate any of the laws of physics.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                         in the Far Future


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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5613
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 13:23:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: VANYA@utkvx.utk.edu
Subject: Fusion Rkts, Combat, T:TNE Rantings

Greetings to all denizens of this TML-

Following is a set of fairly unconnected thoughts and ideas that I have been
pondering lately (this senior business isnt all its cracked up to be).  Some of
them I have been able to throw to the wolves (well, wolf, I only have one Vargr
in my current campaign) who are my players, and only now have I been able to
sit down (after reading two weeks of TML posts) and put these tidbits into
electronic info.

On the subject of fusion rockets:

Mr.Higginbotham (JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com) writes:
>Quite frankly, I am pretty disgusted by the fact that everyone seems
>willing to change the "laws of the universe" rather than face up to the
>situation presented, and learn to live with it.  If you use the starship
>rules ("laws of nature") from TNE, you have to learn to deal with the
>fact that ANY ship can toast ANY city (well, any city at TL12-, and most
>any at TL14-).

This was not a problem with MTs reactionless drives, which didnt start with
MT.  Theres a line in High Guard, pg 17, "Power for the maneuver drives is
provided by the starships power plant...Fuel consumption for manuever drives is
inconsequential...regardless of the degree of maneuver undertaken."  This
sounds a lot like a-grav, but it doesnt drop off when not in a gravity field. 
True, reactionless drives greatly disturb the physicist within this astronomer
mind, but they are a lot more poetic than fusion rockets, and I dont have to
worry about my players being able to decimate a city with their starships
engines.  I am willing to trade some scientific accuracy to plug loopholes in
the rules. (Besides, a Vargr is perfectly capable of destroying a city using
only the force of his personality...)

Mr Higginbotham continues:
>	So what does that mean?  Well, landing ships should be RIGHT OUT! 
>Allowing a fusion gun that size near ANY city is INSANE!  So ships
>should be docking at space stations FAR from a planet (like
>geostationary orbit, for instance.  That gives the planetary defenses
>time to scrag anyone who deviates from traffic corridors toward the
>planet).  You should LAND in shuttles that have ONLY scramjet/chemical
>rocket drives (getting up and down will be pretty damn tricky.  Sort of
>like 2300AD).

Chemical drives are too,too,too old tech for me.  While useful for the
technological inferiors who now populate the former Imperium (more on that
later), I cannot see the Grand Navy of the Third Imperium using chem drives, 
nor can I see not allowing my players to land on a planet.  Does this mean that
even a lowly 100-ton scoutship has to carry a shuttle to land on an unknown
planet? 
I can accept two things: first, fusion rockets are cheaper and more powerful
than a-gravs or reactionless drives, and two, that fusion rockets will find
their place on station-based SDB and fighters.  The high acceleration/low
duration needed for fighter craft seems to be perfect for fusion rockets.

Also:
>	Of course, out in the Wilds, there is NO WAY IN HELL that you can
>keep PCs (OR NPCS!!!!!) from landing anywhere they like, and toasting
>anyone they dislike!  So live with it.  Or stop complaining, and go back
>to Megatraveller starship rules (yeah, the ones most of you have spent
>YEARS complaining about)!  And remember this the next time you decide to
>cry out for "more realistic starship rules".

Hear, Hear!  Ive spent my years complaining about the MT construction rules,
but they are useful (once some the the holes are plugged).

>Loud laughter fading into the distance....
>				---Steve Higginbotham

My Vargr and I agree.

On a slightly unrelated note:

PIHLAB%CBR.dnet@hhcs.gov.au (Bruce) writes:
> One thing perhaps overlooked is that all of your crew on a star vessel may
> not be strapped into acceleration couches at the moment the pilot wants
> the ship to dance on it's tail and flip out of harms way.  During combat
> in space are we assuming that all crew are in G-suit equiped Vacc-suits
> and remain in acceleration couches to do all their work?  Are acceleration
> couches factored into crew space for all crew in starship construction
> rules?

I would think that any crewmember in their right mind would strap down into an
acceleration couch whenever the combat alert went off.  The only people who
could move around would be damage control parties and engineers, and even they
would take care to make sure they were holding on tight at all times (remember
the tale of the Old Timer in Starship Ops Manual? Didnt his ship only do 4g?).
Space combat is deadly enough as it is without taking stupid risks.  Three
things that make it more survivable are acceleration couches, vacc suits, and
depressurising the ship.  A-couches to prevent your crew from becoming sticky
jelly that needs to be cleaned off the bulkheads, vacc suits for protection
from the vaccuum of space (and some radiation protection), depressurising the
ship stops shockwaves from travelling through the atmosphere of the ship, and
prevents explosive decompression.

(Yet another change of subject)

I will add my voice to the cacaphony of shouts that dislike the Virus idea. 
The Virus was created for one reason, and that was to bring the Rebellion to a
screeching halt and bring on a deep, dark, long night so that players could
have fun beating up on technologically inferior residents of war-torn worlds.

   ---Puhleeeze!---

Not ragging on the universe in T:TNE (okay, I am:  I loved Survival Margin, I
hope the rest of GDWs newest Traveller will be as well written and assembled. 
They set a new standard for exellence that GDW should always achieve with
Traveller, but I still severly dislike the universe it describes), but, the
Virus was an idea that wasnt really necessary.

Lets pretent...
what might have happened without the Virus...(Sherman set the Way'forward 
Machine)}}}

The Rebellion was already heading for a final showdown (probably between Lucan
and Dilinor) that would draw in the rest of the factions (except the Spinward
Marches) into one great, final spasm of destruction.  After the dust settled
 (oh, bout 1130-1140) the slide into another Long Night would have been
inevitable.  Just wait long enough (oh, by 1200), and the Long Night would be
in full darkness, and slowly getting worse before getting better.
See? All GDW had to do was wait a bit and our beloved Traveller universe would
fall apart before our own, saddened eyes.  Instead, the Virus plunged the
Imperium into a nose-dive into the depths of barbarity; a universe where
survival is the only reward, and suffering is the coin of the realm.
The Virus was only the beating of a once-glorius, but now dead, horse.  Out of
the ashes of the Third Imperium would have, eventually, arose a phoenix, a new
Imperium to once again unite the children of Terra under one protective banner
of brotherhood and peace.  The Virus threatens even that.  The Virus strikes at
the very heart of the Imperium: at the very thing that made it possible:
technology.

With out a high tech base, the phoenix will never be able to spread her wings,
never be able to take flight, never be able to protect the peace that allow
people to live normal, everyday lives.

Oh, dont worry, humaniti will eventually pull itself out of this gutter, like
theyve done for hundread of thousands of years.  Its just, this time, the
future might not be as bright.  With every ship dating from the Third Imperium
either confined to the Marches or destroyed on first sight due to the
possibility of it carrying the Virus, Old Tech equipment will be harder and
harder to obtain.  It will be almost impossible to reinvent the technology
using a basis that the Virus couldnt infiltrate, and any tech copied from older
designs will be just as vulnerable.  Goodbye high tech, goodbye Third Imperium,
goodbye Traveller, goodbye to Science Fiction Adventure in the Far Future.

Goodbye to good old fashioed revenge!  I wanted Lucans head brought to me
on a platter with a side order of fries!  Someone comes along and screws up
your whole universe and theirs nothing you can do to him.

If I wanted a depressing universe, Id play T2000.

My frends, its time to dust off the Classic Traveller universe and turn back
the clock.  The Traveller we know and love is long gone.  I survives only in
our hearts, minds, dreams, and wishes.  All we old-timers can do is keep the
memory of it sacred, and hope its meaning can be taught to The New Era of
Traveller.

Traveller is dead,
Long Live Traveller!

(Besides, I reall cant wait to get my hands on the new rules.  Really, did you
expect me to give up Traveller?)

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5614
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 19:27 GMT
From: PAVEWAY <BSP054@BANGOR.AC.UK>
Subject: Low Tech Spaceflight and stuff

  I posted a thing about some PC's stranded on a primitive world trying to get
to their ship in far orbit by building ssome sort of spacecraft from local bits
  I've tried to suss out the 'small step' rules in Hard Times and wondered if
this idea might work:-
		A set of hydrogen balloons lifting a small LALV fueled either
by Lox and Hydrogen OR LALV using hydrazine and peroxide
anyone want to tell me how feasible any of this might be?
Ta 
PAVEWAY

	

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5615
Subject: T:TNE Design Rules
From: clh@mitre.org
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 93 15:33:17 PDT

In addition to Loren Wiseman's guarantee of a rich craft design supplement
for TNE, there are some items in the TNE rulebook that point to this as
well: The prices for the Air/Raft, GCarrier, etc. are given down to the
last credit!

- - Chuck
clh@mitre.org

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

Bundle: 469
Archive-Message-Number: 5616
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 19:14:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: A Modest Proposal`

A Proposal:

	Far all those who don't like the idea that the TNE universe is a
dangerous place, full of people (PCs and NPCs) who have the power to
toast cities if they want to, I would like to propose the formation of a
Working Group to Study the Problems, and find Solutions.  I propose that
the Working Group be called

		The Traveller Done Wrong Working Group (TDW).

	The main focus for this Working Group should be the use of Magic and
Wishful Thinking to alter the TNE "reality" to suit their view of "the
Way Things Should Be".

	And I further propose that all you people who are kvetching about
the usefulness of a fusion drive as a weapon should immediately join
this working group, since you are patently incapable of handling
"Traveller Done Right".

	In that vein, I'd like to extend a personal invitation to Wildstar,
Hans, and Bertil to start this Working Group off with a bang. 
Hopefully, you all can have a report ready REAL SOON NOW...

				---Steve Higginbotham


PS.  My, I'm getting acid these days...


"Traveller Done Wrong - Let's get the Science OUT of Science Fiction
Roleplaying...."

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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #470: Msgs 5617-5629 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  9 22:00:02 EDT 1993
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 22:00:03 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #470: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 470  5617 08-Jun-1993 JNCHIGGIN@delph  Fusion rockets.... << Wildstar:
 470  5618 08-Jun-1993 Scott S. Kellog  Lift off on fusion rockets << My .02cr 
 470  5619 09-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Fusion Rockets and T:TNE << Pauli write
 470  5620 09-Jun-1993 Pauli            Re: The Virus << I don't usually follow
 470  5621 09-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Lift off on fusion rockets << > I s
 470  5622 09-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: A Modest Proposal << > From: JNCHIG
 470  5623 09-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Missiles << > From: Leonard.Erickso
 470  5624 09-Jun-1993 Derek Wildstar   Re: Lift off on fusion rockets << Berti
 470  5625 09-Jun-1993 BARANSKI@VEAMF1  Fusion Drive Weapons, and Viruii << RE:
 470  5626 09-Jun-1993 Michael A. Surm  Origins '93 <<                         
 470  5627 09-Jun-1993 Scott S. Kellog  Re: Lift off on fusion rockets << Berti
 470  5628 09-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Lift off on fusion rockets << > Ber
 470  5629 09-Jun-1993 Bertil Jonell    Re: Vaporizations << > From: dane@retzl

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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5617
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1993 22:47:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
Subject: Fusion rockets....

Wildstar:
>The Saturn had some pretty darn big flame trenches to contain that
>blast and make sure it doesn't interfere with the rocket.  Do *you*
>really want to land in the middle of a 10km wide area that's been under
>fusion gun attack for the last however long?

*I* wasn't even talking about landing!  *I* assumed sensibly that
landing would be done with scramjets.  *I* was talking about torching
cities.  And I don't have to get down close enough to the ground to be
affected by the backblast to torch a city...


>Go fly some real rockets and try different blast deflector designs.
>I'll give you a clue: a flat plate is one of the worst offenders.
>Something that is angled away from the rocket is much better.

I've flown model rockets for years.  I have yet to see one get damaged
by the backblast once it was ten feet off the ground...and you don't
torch cities by landing on them, then taking off again.  You come down
to within a few Km, then HOVER for a while...


DJohnson:

>So basically, with Fusion drives for take-off, you're going to want
>landing pads about 10Km across for each ship!  Not to mention the fact
>that they're going to need some *major* resurfacing after each use...

It would require a lunatic to take off under fusion flame unless he
WANTED to torch a city.  Remember Niven's Known Space?  It was an
Instant Organ Banks offense to light off a fusion drive in atmosphere.


>Of course, what GDW should do if they're going to give the ships this
>sort of drive is address the above issues in the combat rules....Which
>isn't happening...

I doubt GDW is aware that the problem exists...


>>DREAM ON, Bertil!  Look at a REAL rocket launch!  MUCH lower exhaust
>>velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs -
>>they form long tongues af flame.  Which this will do as well.  Only
>>this will make them longer, hotter, FAR more lethal!

>How long are these going to be, exactly?  This could cause some *major*
>traffic hazards :)  I think the fusion drives would, "realistically",
>change the nature of both combat and general starship practices pretty
>heavily.  Things ought to be different, but probably the official GDW
>word won't be that much different (sort of like how they probably won't
>notice the "demise" of Gas Giant refueling...)

Who knows?  Depends too much on nozzle design, Isp, atmospheric pressure
(though the last won't do too much terribly soon).  George, you are a
rocket guy, so your fluid dynamics is more current than mine is.  What
kind of exhaust profile would you get from an Isp=2,000,000 rocket with
a 100:1 mouth:throat ratio nozzle?  Politely assuming that the nozzle
shape was optimized for the fluid moving through it, of course...


Bertil:
>> Loud laughter is heard in the distance!  Really loud!

>  Mail me if you start getting a stomach ache after all that laughter
>and I'll stop provoking it.

Actually, these last couple, the feeling is more disgust than
laughter...


>> >  Ok, I'd probably (in my campaing) say that it is a BAD IDEA to run
>> > the main drive of a ship inside any atmosphere denser than code 1.
>> > And that the drive has much too short range to be used in space
>> > combat unless you manage to bluff your way in to 1km or less from
>> > the enemy.

>> Why should it be bad???  Your reasoning is specious, as can be seen
>> by looking at pictures of any Saturn launch.  The blast punches DOWN!
>> Hard!  Way too hard for anything trivial like atmosphere to slow it
>> down.

>  You mean like nuke punches the atmopshere out of the way without
>forming a fireball? The only example of a large fusion reaction in a
>normal atmosphere we have is the hbomb and it sure forms a fireball.

Of course, this is an assinine example, since a nuclear weapon doesn't
have a combustion chamber or nozzle, or any of those good things you
need to get reasonably efficient thrust out of the thing.  BTW, in case
you are interested, if you mix LH2 and LO2 in a big puddle on the
ground, then light it, IT FORMS A FIREBALL TOO!  But it still makes a
jet when burned in a rocket engine...

  
>  You yourself said that the energy output through a scoutships engines
> equals 125 Terawatts (30kT per second is 1.254 Joules per seconds aka
> watts), and considering that this only uses 25 m3 of hydrogen *per
> hour* (2G) it seems to me that the exhaust is short on mass. I don't
> have the MT books here so I might be wrong about what liquid H2
> weighs, but it looks like the scout would use 480 grams of H2 per
> second. What kind of pressure will this flimsy jet inflict a few km
> from the ship? More or less than the air pressure?

	Well, I don't have my calculator handy, but assuming that the
exhaust is a cone with length 5 times diameter (which is PROBABLY a
pretty crappy assumption - it probably is more like a cone with length
50-100 times diameter), then the cone is at or above atmospheric
pressure within 7000 meters or so of the nozzle.  Using the 100x
assumption, the cone is above atmospheric pressure 20Km or so from the
nozzle.
	Of course, actually, the exhaust will ALWAYS be at or above
atmospheric pressure, because atmospheric pressure will shape the
exhaust flare.  Which will serve to make the jet longer and thinner,
rather than the reverse...


>  (And what part of the exhaust will be in radiation? If the 480g/s is
>correct, and if the velocity you stated (20,000km/s) is correct, the
>kinetic energy will account for 22 of those 30kT that comes out of the
>engines. Will the other 8kT be radiation? Some of it in the form of
>soft xrays perhaps?)

Probably not.  Probably hard gammas and neutrinos.  But the radiation
will be stopped by the nozzle, or the ship will be useless in atmosphere
or out of it.  So the radiation will go DOWN, and make the damage down
below worse...


>> DREAM ON, Bertil!  Look at a REAL rocket launch!  MUCH lower exhaust
>> velocity, MUCH lower pressures, and they DO _NOT_ form fireballs -
>> they form long tongues af flame.

>  MUCH denser exhaust, MUCH less radiation.

I doubt the radiation has anything to do with the shape of the exhaust. 
And the density is not relevant.  What is relevant is the PRESSURE. 
Which is MUCH MUCH MUCH higher in the fusion drive than the Saturn...


>> Quite frankly, I am pretty disgusted by the fact that everyone seems
>> willing to change the "laws of the universe" rather than face up to
>> the situation presented, and learn to live with it.

>  I am pretty amazed that you lable speculation about how a fusion
> rocket might work in different environments as 'chaning the laws of
> the universe'.  I have not seen a fusion rocket of the yields we are
> talking about here and neither have you. Have anyone of us done
> professional work on this? Like simulations or small scale experiments
> for example? No? Does anyone here know wether a fusion rocket with the
> thrustlevels in question EVEN WORKS IN AN ATMOSPHERE?!!

Bertil, once the plasma leaves the nozzle, it doesn't matter a flip
whether it was the result of fusion, chemical reaction, or someone
blowing real hard.  All that matters is the kinetic energy of the
particles, and the size and shape of the nozzle.  And all the fluid
dynamics *I* ever learned says that a jet that hot will do an enormous
amount of damage to everything below it.  And it won't form a fireball,
unless all those fluid dynamics professors were incompetent inbeciles...

				---Steve Higginbotham


"A reaction drive is a weapon, whose efficiency is in direct proportion
to its efficiency as a drive."  ---The Kzinti Lesson (by Larry Niven).

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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5618
From: skellogg@lonestar.utsa.edu (Scott S. Kellogg)
Subject: Lift off on fusion rockets
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 93 22:20:37 CDT

My .02cr to the bickering:

I see no reason why fusion rockets would fail to operate in an
atmosphere.  The ejection velocity is far greater than sonic
velocities, thus the exhaust will not impinge on the ship itself
unless something reflects it.

The idea of getting hit by your backblast will only present a
problem at lift off.  It therefore seems logical to me that the
Contra-Grav systems will be used to lift clear of the tarmac
and once an acceptable altitude the fusion rockets may be lit
at low power to take the ship clear of the area.  Once clear,
and in a designated traffic corridor, the ship may advance their
throttles to their rated thrust.

The traffic corridors will be guarded by weaponry equivalent to
shore batteries.

BTW, there Have been shore batteries in the US.  They protected
harbors for many years.  If the US was in range of hostile
aircraft, I'm sure we would have ground to air defences at the
airports as well.  We DO have an extensive anti-aircraft network,
but not many people ever really see NORAD.
- --
Scott 2G Kellogg
"I have some people I have to slam in this song"  -- Metlay


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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5619
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 00:23:53 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Fusion Rockets and T:TNE


Pauli writes:
> If you read this far on a PC then you're system will be infected and
> your life is just about over!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Luckily, I was using my trusty Amiga 1000; wrong processor and a real
operating system - too much for your simple virus to deal with  ;-)

Steve Higginbotham writes:

> So you've decided to live in dreamland too?  I'm depressed...
> Play Star Wars!  If you are going to ignore physics just to make it feel
> good, then play AD&D!  If you are going to throw out the physics, you
> might as well start using magic in a big way, and settle for
> Spelljammers...

The name of the game is science FICTION role-playing.  Getting the
science right is important; don't doubt that I take some good care in
getting the science believable.  However, at some level of detail,
absolute scientific accuracy has to take a backseat to storytelling. 
I described (and clearly labelled) what I would do if I had to make the
call as a referee *right then*.  I *know* it's not scientifically
accurate, but it should be good enough for the story to continue.

As opposed to raising a problem and then heckling everybody while we
puzzle it out, what would you do?  I realize that you're in a bad mood
(probably from reading too much Star Viking background in T:TNE), but
try to be constructive here.


Jason Proctor writes:
> Seems like they've changed a lot of stuf that could have stayed the same 
> why 2D6-1 instead of 2D6? Or starting previous ex at 18 instead of 17? Strange
> seemingly random changes.

Most of those sorts of changes are for compatibility with Twilight:2000
(Merc:2000) and Dark Conspiracy.  T:TNE uses the current version of the
GDW "House" (read T2k) role-playing system.

> Over in the RuneQuest mailing list, the authors of RQ4 (new version similar in
> scale and impact to TNE) are emailing beta versions around for any old bod to
> comment on and pick holes in. The result is an enormous amount of playtesting
> being done and game systems emerging that are solid and universally accepted
> (after heated discussions, etc, admittedly). Did GDW do anything similar for
> TNE? If not, why not? Wouldn't it have been great for everyone to have a hand
> in the new Trav, and as a side benefit not have any errata to speak of?

No, GDW didn't do that for T:TNE, although they did post the character
generation system for comments.  I'm not sure why not; several of us
here on the Net specifically asked that they do so.  Such an approach
would have been a very good idea; I feel that the character generation
system is much better for the comments and suggestions it generated as a
result of being here on the net.  And yes; about two weeks with a draft
of the rules and we could have stomped out the errata very effectively.


Matt Harelick writes:
> I lost interest in MT is because you really could not play it without using 
> the Imperium. Now what I want to know is is it possible to play TNE without 
> using the GDW Universe? 

Sure you can.  Admittedly, a lot of the material in the book refers to
the "official" campaign universe.  However, T:TNE is (IMHO) as amenable
to "roll-your-own" universes as the original Classic Traveller was.  You
may want to wait for the Technical Architecture book, though, so theat
you can design your own tech gadgets.

And at $25, it's a lot more feasable to pick up T:TNE on speculation (on
the chance that it might be what you want) than a lot of other games.


Steve Higginbotham writes:
> The Traveller Done Wrong Working Group (TDW).
> In that vein, I'd like to extend a personal invitation to Wildstar,
> Hans, and Bertil to start this Working Group off with a bang. 
> Hopefully, you all can have a report ready REAL SOON NOW...

Not needed, Steve.  It looks like you've got the first draft all
ready to go.  I certainly can't speak for Hans and Bertil, but what I an
trying to do is explain the following observations:

A fusion drive operated towards a planet will flatten forests, and cause
thermal damage for kilometers around the landing/takeoff site.  For
hundreds of meters around the ship, it will be intense enough to
melt and fuse soil, and will excavate a crater hundreds of meters deep.
You yourself calculated that the gross effects would be similar to a
three megaton fusion bomb detonated at ground level.  I should note that
the radiation effects (induced radiation in the soil, radioactive
fallout) would be similar to a fusion bomb as well.  In addition,
various and sundry radioactive gasses would be emitted into the
atmosphere.  Altogether nasty.

On takeoff, the ship will be sitting in the
center of all of that; unless the ship accellerates out faster than the
front of all of these varous effects (which is possible, but with a 1g
drive on a world with 1g surface gravity?), it will be *in* that mess
for some non-zero amount of time.  If the ship landed under fusion
power, it's going to have to stay put until the fused soil melts away
from the landing carriage.

However, all of the available Traveller (Classic, MegaTraveller, and New
Era) points to a very different model of ship operations.  Wilderness
landings and takeoffs don't leave giant craters about the world; all you
need is a relatively flat patch of clear, hard ground.  It is aparrently
perfectly safe for an unprotected human to stand a few hundred meters
from a starship taking off.  This definitely doesn't fit the fusion
drive model.

Therefore, starships operating close to a world don't use fusion drives
when doing so.  You propose that they use scramjets for propulsion in an
atmosphere.  Aside from the obvious problems when operating near a
vacuum world or on a world with an oxygenless exotic, insidious, or
corrosive atmosphere, there are other problems with this suggestion.  A
scramjet (SupersoniCRAMJET) needs for the ship to already have
significant forward velocity before it will produce thrust; not a
problem for landing, but what about takeoffs?  Secondly, adding such
propulsion to a starship would seem to me to be a rather serious retcon.

I have proposed two mechanisms, both of which seem (in my humble
opinion) to be less of a retcon, and more in the spirit of Traveller.
While you have managed to produce a post virtually ensuring a
significant flame-fest, you haven't managed to comment on any of my
recent proposals in any serious manner.

As far as thge possibilities of operating a fusion drive near a
planetary surface or close to a large solid object in deep space, I've
had a chance to do some more thinking.  I still feel that there is a
chance (depending on the amount of damage the starship wishes to do, and
the degree of success rolled by the pilot attempting the task) of damage
to the ship.  THe closer you are, the better the damage done, but the
higher your chances of being accidentally engulfed in the cloud of very
hot, radioactive gas.  Even for an instant, that could cause damage.

Secondly, while the temprature of the fusion exhaust is very high, the
mass flow is very low; I don't know enough about plasma physics to even
begin to calculate what that would do in an atmosphere of any density.
It seems to me that it's possible that the drive would "choke"
and fail to function properly or at all; possibly with damage to the
drive mechanism.

Unless and until someone can come up with some better physics; as a game
ruling (based on referee's judgement of possible effects, playability,
and general story needs) I would *still* say that running a fusion drive
in an atmosphere will cause serios damage to the drive and/or ship.
Running it agains a vacuum world or large asteroid would have a good
chance of damaging the ship, too; particularly as the amount of damage
increases, although not as seriously as I first estimated.  If a player
asked how much damage to the ship, I would probably reply along the
lines of "You don't know; as far as you can remember, nobody's ever
tried.  Do you want to be the first?".

At some point, additional scientific (or economic, or social, or
anything) accuracy becomes detrimental to the game.  The exact point
depends on the technical sophistication of the players and the referee.
When it comes right down to it, none of your players have ever seen a
starship except through their imaginations.  When you've got enough
science that they can successfully suspend disbelief of your fiction,
that's enough.  Any more is actually distracting.

> PS.  My, I'm getting acid these days...

You are.  You really should make the effort to be less so; it doesn't
help you make your point, and it certainly doesn't help raise my opinion
of you.  Maybe you should put less battery acid in your coffee?  ;-)

> "Traveller Done Wrong - Let's get the Science OUT of Science Fiction
> Roleplaying...."

"Traveller Done Wrong - Let's let the quest for absolute scientific
accuracy hobble our game until we all degenerate into obscure physics
arguments and never get any role-playing done ..."


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                         in the Far Future


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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5620
Subject: Re: The Virus
Date: Wed, 09 Jun 93 18:20:34 +1000
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

I don't usually follow-up to myself but in this case it serves a purpose:

Yesterday, I wrote:
[stuff about the unviability of the virus at low TL deleted]

Followed by an innane bit:
>Yep done it.  Got it into a few hundred bytes of code.  Now to infect the
>world!

>M$)02H.30 J  D*(@ 0R   G0(J  E *@!/H"H ">$" *F =@ =@BH  0@  6
>MWB]  "$  !#@5"#T@(P@@"*   ^0$" *D!  "N("( #0 B ,HB  $8"D0 @V
>M@  (D! @"I "H 3H B  JA @"NHM  #0 B  T H  $  !V62$  *0  '79 0
[...]
>M= !?7V5X:70 7VUA:6X 7V5N=FER;VX 7U]$64Y!34E# %]E>&ET %]P=71S
>M %]?9FQS8G5F %]?:6]B    !:"       $ !@    !C              , 

>If you read this far on a PC then you're system will be infected and
>your life is just about over!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


How many people paniced about this part of the message? (none???)

Well this is EXACTLY how the virus is supposed to infect unknown (and possibly
alien) computer systems.  Still sound reasonable at the current tech level???
(I still make no claims about super high tech computers because I cannot know
anything about them).


As an aside: This is quite close to how the 'internet worm' gained access
to WELL KNOWN systems.  It didn't take very long for those systems to be
cleaned up and the bugs fixed.  It is also possible to design a machine
that is totally immune to an infection along these lines even with errors
on the application programmers part.







        						Pauli

Paul Dale                       | grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science  | +61 7 365 2445
University of Queensland        |
Australia, 4072                 | Did you know that there are 41 two letter
                                |     words containing the letter 'a'?


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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5621
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Lift off on fusion rockets
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 10:56:11 +0200 (MET DST)

> I see no reason why fusion rockets would fail to operate in an
> atmosphere.  The ejection velocity is far greater than sonic
> velocities, thus the exhaust will not impinge on the ship itself
> unless something reflects it.

  I was thinking that there might be problems in getting the thing to
ignite in the first place if the ignition chamber or whatever isn't in a 
vacuum. You could rig some contraption that 'opens the door' after 
ignition trusting to the pressure to keep the air out, but there is 
a risk of 'disposable doors' here if the ignition/opening isn't handled
exactly correctly. And if they are gone your engine won't start.

> We DO have an extensive anti-aircraft network,
> but not many people ever really see NORAD.

  Isn't NORAD primarily a detection network?

> Scott 2G Kellogg

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5622
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 11:08:38 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: JNCHIGGIN@delphi.com
> Subject: Fusion Drives & Stuff...
 
> >  I can accept a continous plasma gun with range 10 and pen 10
> >resulting from the maneuver jets. Imagine the difficulty in maneuvering
> >the whole bloody ship to aim the thing! :)
> 
> pen-10?  I HOPE you are talking about the attitude jets, and not the
> main drive here, or you are full of it.

  I thought it was pretty clear that I was referring to them. But since it is
clear that you think I'm full of it regardless of what I actually say I guess
I shouldn't be surprised that you don't read what I write.

> The main drive should be a
> continuous penetration measured in dozens to thousands of meters of
> steel...

  Since you like to babble about the 'laws of the universe', have you
checked the Striker rules against the laws of the universe before you
quote them so readily?
 
> [...] I'm depressed...

  Don't take it out on us.

>                                ---Steve Higginbotham

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5623
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Missiles
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 12:17:35 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Leonard Erickson)
> Subject: Missiles
 
> I can just about *guarantee* that detonating velocity is *far* below
> closing velocity. Which means that shaped charges are useles, as the
> missile impact will be moving faster than the detonation of the
> explosive. This kills HEAP and doesn't  help HE much either.

  Wildstar adressed this.

> And if they punch through, they'll either create one *hell* of a shock
> wave in the atmosphere of the ship, or keep punching holes in anything
> that gets in their way until they are slowed to  bullet velocities, or
> have completely vaporized.

  Are you sure that they are capable of penetrating? If your data is correct
(and I have no reason to doubt it) it would seem that any missile sized 
object would vaporize into plasma (along with a part of the hull) when it
hits. So the effect on the hull would be a crater and the effect inside the
ship a fireball and spalls flying around. No penetration of missile parts.

> Your several inches of armor could result in *more* damage than an
> *unarmored* vessel would recieve, simply because more of the projectiles
> KE would be transferred to the vessel!

  You need a minimum level of armour to get the radiation down to manageble
levels.

> For a 5 ton projectile,

  Too heavy. Abolute maximum 2 tons (for 1 ton of warhead and one ton of
structure) I'd say.

> V (g-hr) (m/sec)   KE(ergs) (% of BC) kilotons   diameter(meters)
>    1      3.528e3  3.112e19     .04     .7 kT        91
>    2      7.056e3  1.245e20     .18    3.0 kT       145
>    3     10.584e3  2.801e20     .39    6.7 kT       190
>    4     14.112e3  4.979e20     .70     12 kT       230
>    5     17.640e3  7.779e20    1.1      19 kT       267
>    6     21.168e3  1.120e21    1.6      27 kT       301
>    7     24.696e3  1.525e21    2.1      37 kT       334
>    8     28.224e3  1.991e21    2.8      48 kT       365
>    9     31.752e3  2.520e21    3.5      60 kT       394
>   10     35.280e3  3.112e21    4.4      75 kT       423
>   11     38.808e3  3.756e21    5.3      90 kT       451
>   12     42.336e3  4.481e21    3.3     110 kT       478
> 
>   47.8  168.522e3  7.1e22    100       1.7 MT      1200   :-)
> 
> These figures should give an idea of just what sort of forces we are
> discussing. No *possible* chemical explosive will even be noticed in
> this sort of energy release.

  Having 1000kg of HE in the missile means that you have a cheap (yes,
militarily speaking exposives are cheap) 1 ton lump of something that won't
work worse than any other 1 ton lump, but will work better in an atmosphere.

  1 gturn is aprox mach 50. I'd like to see a missile designed for space
pull mach 50 in an atmosphere:) I assume they are designed for space since
most situations occur in space and protection against mach 50 would increase
the cost significantly.

  (This also limits the use of KE missiles against ground targets)
 
> BTW, for a 5 *gram* projectile, we get 1 millionth the energy, or
> 1/100th the diameter. So change the diameters above to cm. Which means
> that 5 gm  projectile (a BB) at the veocity give by a mere 1 g for 1
> hour, will blast a 91 cm crater in solid rock. And likely do something
> similar im armor.  How many 5 gm BBs can a 7 ton missile carry and how
> large a volume will they fill at "optimum" dispersal?

  The cannister missile I did used 15000 10mm 10g tungsten spheres, since
I estimated that that would weigh the same as the laser/detonation warhead.

  (Btw: I'll check the crater sizes against the tEoNW, since they look a 
little large for the kilotonnage even at optimum depth of burst:)

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5624
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 09:39:28 EDT
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Subject: Re: Lift off on fusion rockets

Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se> writes:
> Scott Kellogg writes:
> > We DO have an extensive anti-aircraft network,
> > but not many people ever really see NORAD.
> Isn't NORAD primarily a detection network?

That's the part that most people see.  NORAD can call up all sorts of
defenses, though.  The US has an extensive SAM system, as well as
interceptor aircraft.  At different times, it has also had an
Anti-Satellite system (program "WS-437", from 1964-1975), and an
Anti-ballistic missile system (for a whole day, I believe).

Lots of interesting weapon systems were developed for NORAD use,
including the Nike series of SAMs, the Bomarc SAM, the F-106 Delta
Dagger (and it's Genie missile: an unguided AAM with a nuclear
warhead!), and the Safeguard SBM system with its Spartan and Sprint
missiles (Sprint's claim to fame: highest accelleration of any missile
ever built; it had to be, because it was designed to intercept incoming
RVs within the atmosphere).

If it filies over the US, NORAD sees it, and probably has (or at least,
had, until removed by treaty or act of congress) a way of shooting at
it.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                         in the Far Future


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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5625
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 9:46:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NL.NUWC.NAVY.MIL
Subject: Fusion Drive Weapons, and Viruii

RE: Fusion Drives

I've been listening to this debate about Fusion Drives as weapons, and I see
quite a bit of silliness on all sides...

A:  This talk about needing every city and ship have force fields to protect
    them from fusion drives takes the cake!  It's a *major* change to the game
    and basically allows any amount of handwaving and pure magic.

B:  While I'm certainly no authority on the shape of the discharge from a
    fusion drive, I doubt that it's either a fireball, or tens of kilometers
    long.  While we don't have any fusion drives in real life to compare, we
    should be able to extrapolate.  

    Do any of the highest specific impulse or thrust rockets show any sign of
    cutting through air, forming a fireball instead?  What exactly is the
    difference between the chemical rocket and chemical explosive that makes
    one produce a straight line exhaust, and the other a fireball?  

    My first guess says that whatever the difference is between a rocket and a
    bomb, the same difference will apply to a fusion as well as a chemical of
    fission rocket and bomb.  EG fusion drives will not have fireballs.

    Second Idea:  What happens if we try to approximate a much higher energy 
    fusion exhaust, with thinking about what a lower energy exhaust does in a
    denser medium, IE what happens when you try to run a rocket under water?
    Does it create a fireball, or a straight exhaust?  My guess is that it
    would not work all that well.  I haven't seen any jet subs or torpedos
    around here.  This leads me to believe that a fusion drive in atmosphere
    might well be a bad idea.

    Idea three:  Is it possible to tune the shape of the exhaust from the
    fusion drive.  As this is done with chemical rockets and jets, I'm sure
    that it can be done with fusion drives.  So you ought to be able to produce
    something in between the extremes of a fireball and a relatively long
    danger space behind every fusion drive.  Maybe it is only dangerous for
    a fraction of a Km.  I imagine that the highest effeciency has the longest
    dangerous exhaust, but it should be possible to tone it down when necessary
    in the atmosphere.  Remember, nobody's going to like you waving your ten Km
    exhaust around even in orbit if it's a busy place!

    Next:  Needing to use the fusion drives in the atmosphere isn't even
    necessary.  I think that Bertil's idea of using the Contra-Gravity to
    control descent and ascent is ideal.  Having a limit of plus and minus one
    or two G seems to me to contrainst this nicely.  

    Add the SCRAM jets which are also used as thrusters in space and you have
    all that you need for planetary maneuvering without any extra equipment or
    hocus pocus.  The SCRAM jets are *very* simple, feed whatever as fuel in,
    heat it with the basically unlimited power from the power plant, and viola!
    action/reaction.

    Now, I would expect that ?some? space ports would have ?some? hardened
    landing pads and blast deflectors that would allow relatively safe fusion
    takeoffs and landings, but this strikes me as military installation
    equipment.  But most space ports would not need this.

    So the picture of a take off that I have is: initial liftoff on CG and
    thrusters, and once you are in the air at a safe or regulation altitude you
    punch on the fusion drive at low and disappear as far as the ground is
    concerned.  Once you clear orbit, you bring the drive up to maximum.
    Gee kind of sounds like how the space ships in SW took off; don't hold it
    against me! ;-}

    Now, this is not to say that you *couldn't* use a fusion drive as a weapon.
    And I imagine that you could.  I don't see how you can avoid this without
    drastic handwaving.  Any Tool can be a Weapon.  But some Weapons don't make
    very good Tools.  

    In any case, the fusion drive is designed for thrust, while the FGMP/PGMP
    are designed to inflict damage.   I imagine it's possible that fusion
    drives are much less efficient as inflicting damage then the FGMP/PGMP; on
    the other hand, drives are *big*.  I think it's likely that the drive emits
    proportionally much more KE and radiation then matter then the PGMP.  

    I imagine that there is some minimum range below which using the drive as a
    weapon is hazardous to the attacker, and some maximum range where it's
    relatively harmless.  I'll leave it to others to argue about the range.

    If fusion drives *are* going to be used as weapons, will they become the
    major weapons like spinal mount weapons in good-old-fashioned-traveller?
    Very Niven-like, ships with combination drive/spinal mounts.

    Well that's how I see it.

C:  The Virus:  computers keep programs and data seperate.

    Not on your life.  Never have, and never will.  I transfer data between
    systems, stuff it in data files, and them compile and execute the programs
    in those very same files all the time.  What about system control data
    files?

    All that a virus requires is access to the computer in *some* form, even as
    data.  The Virus gets stuffed into a file.  Then the Virus figures out some
    method of fooling the computer into thinking that that file needs to be
    compiled or included into it's programming or control data structures.

    Non trivial, but this will always be the case.  The virus will always have
    the possibility of pretending to be some priviledged user at the least.

    I *don't* believe any of this 'the virus changes/is the hardware chips'
    crap. However, as someone pointed out, most everything is EEPROMS, PROMS,
    PALS, PLAS, and loaded software already anyway.  I don't think that it's as
    simple as 'finding a good backup' though.  The virus is likely to tell your
    operator to mount your old backup tapes to rewrite them, or hang around for
    a few years untill it is on all your backups.

    What we should see, is not computers being impossible, but much more dumb,
    and hardwired computers, and less programmable and adaptable computers,
    more write once storage.

Enough for now...

Jim Baranski

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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5626
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 09:14:14 -0500
From: surman@vortex.lgs.lsu.edu (Michael A. Surman)
Subject: Origins '93

                          Origins '93
          The National Gaming Convention and Exposition
                         July 1-4, 1993
                Tarrant County Convention Center
                 Radisson Hotel & Ramada Hotel
                        Fort Worth, Texas
=============================================================
I will be there will anyone else?


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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5627
From: skellogg@lonestar.utsa.edu (Scott S. Kellogg)
Subject: Re: Lift off on fusion rockets
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 93 9:45:22 CDT

Bertil Sez:
>   I was thinking that there might be problems in getting the thing to
> ignite in the first place if the ignition chamber or whatever isn't in a
> vacuum. You could rig some contraption that 'opens the door' after
> ignition trusting to the pressure to keep the air out, but there is
> a risk of 'disposable doors' here if the ignition/opening isn't handled
> exactly correctly. And if they are gone your engine won't start.

Anatomy of the fusion rocket:
Well, we're going to have some kind of physical thrust chamber, but the
only real way to handle plasma is with electromagnetic fields.  If one
ionized the air inside the physical chamber, it should be a simple
matter to eject the air out of the physical chamber.  If a vacuum is
necessary at all, all you really need would be a vacuum of ten to the
minus three torr (Not very low pressure at all).  At that pressure,
air loses it's ability to flow and acts as individual molecules bouncing
around.

All the plasma and fusion guns of Traveller would have the same kind of
problems.  If we are to assume that a plasma gun works at all, we must
conclude that this is not really a large problem.

> > We DO have an extensive anti-aircraft network,
> > but not many people ever really see NORAD.
>
>   Isn't NORAD primarily a detection network?

I believe so, however, in conjunction with the many USAF bases around
the country, I'd say it was part of an anti-aircraft network.

Scott 2G Kellogg


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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5628
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Lift off on fusion rockets
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 17:20:58 +0200 (MET DST)

> Bertil Sez:
> All the plasma and fusion guns of Traveller would have the same kind of
> problems.  If we are to assume that a plasma gun works at all, we must
> conclude that this is not really a large problem.

  Well, there might be some difference in the size of the chamber, and 
between generating pulses and a continous output.

> Scott 2G Kellogg

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Bundle: 470
Archive-Message-Number: 5629
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Vaporizations
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1993 17:31:44 +0200 (MET DST)

> From: dane@retzlaff.llnl.gov (Dane E. Johnson)
> Subject: The Problems with T:TNE
> 
> Greetings, Sophonts!
> 
> 	I'm pretty new to the list and I've just gotten ahold of T:TNE...

  Welcome aboard!

> I think "BAD IDEA" to run the drive anywhere it's going to hit
> something, unless you want that thing to get vaporized. :)

  Vaporize is a nice clean word for a ugly process:) What will happen is
that you'll turn the matter into plasma, and the plasma may reradiate 
thermal energy in large amounts leading to something far less directed
than 'a long flame'.

> traveller@llnl.gov                                     djohnson@willamette.edu
 
- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

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