       TRAVELLER Digest 9

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1)  by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
  2) TRAVELLER digest 8       by Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>

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

Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 13:06:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Message-ID: <2E500384@msmail.trl.oz.au>


Steve Bonneville writes:
BB  Battleship/Dreadnought
    The big guns.  Battleships are expected to meet the best the enemy
    has to offer and defeat it.  Battleships start at about 90000 d-tons
    and work their way up.  Dreadnoughts, as far as I can tell, are a
    heavier hybrid of a battleship and a fleet carrier, and may carry
    tens of fighter squadrons.  (Yes, I know this is different than
    what a historical dreadnought is.  So, what's your point?)  Some
    are built specifically to operate in a supporting role to the main
    BatRons, to save construction expense.
 -----------------
I had different ideas for the "classical" division of battleships 
classifications based on their defences:
BB Battleship- this has lots of armour ( prehaps enough to shrug off nukes! 
) which makes it very massive for its hull size which substantially reduces 
its ability to conduct evasive maneuvers. This makes it very vulnerable to 
meson guns.
BC Battlecruiser- this has very large maneuver drives and comparatively 
light armour which allows it to conduct extensive evasive maneuvers but is 
vulnerable to light weapons such as turret lasers ( what pun? ). This does 
make BC's a difficult target for meson guns.
BD Dreadnought- this has a balance of armour and agility so it dread's 
nought but fears most!

Django

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

Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 08:10:49 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 8       
Message-ID: <199408150610.AA09787@oslonett.no>

alvin plummer <plummer@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca> writes:
>I calculated the damage that a 100 kg mass would cause using the
>collission tables, and I came up with 75 damage points, enough to cause
>'critical hit' to small spacecraft.
But what is it's penetration rating?
If it doesn't penetrate armor, it won't cause anything but surface
damage.

>Does anyone have a grip on this problem?
Lasers to evaporate the junk too small to collect.

>Just FYI, there is a usenet group which believes that we should built '
>Beanstalk' , a multi-mile tower used like an elevator for spacecraft.
>This, they feel, is needed to save on fuel needed to break out of Earth
>Gravity.  The Beanstalk would deposit spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit,
>leaving the craft to continue it's journey at major fuel savings.
I read someplace that the 'beanstalk' is impossible to build. The weight
of the structure increases faster than the structural strenght, thus
limiting the height of it. And the will the ground manage to bear this
weight without the structure sinking. What about an earthquake? Besides
there isn't many places you can put the beanstalk. And most of the
places are eather seismical unstable or politically unstable or both....


>Incidentally, we already have the tech to build a mile-high towers, if
>wish it.  Also, the Japanese has _plans_ to build a set of artifical is
>(all this at TL 8!) At what tech level would we be capable of building
>elevators to the Moon?
If the moon was at geo-sync orbit and the structure could take the
stress, at tech 12 or something.

>It seems a good bit more difficult to go underground than to enter spac
>Our deepest shaft goes about 1 mile below ground.  How would this chang
>with tech levels?
The Japanese are planning to build cities under ground to save space.
Toronto got city blocks under ground already.


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre
                                                     

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 9
*************************
