       TRAVELLER Digest 19

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 18 by MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU
  2) Re: Gauss Round Mass by Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
  3) Battle Dress Construction by Jo Grant <Jo_Grant.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com>
  4) Re: Battle Dress Construction by BORIS ZAIDFELD <cs911408@red.ariel.cs.yorku.ca>
  5) Re: TRAVELLER digest 17  by George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>
  6) Gauss Round Mass Errata! by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
  7) RE: Trashing battledress  by Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
  8) Re: Killing Battledress by Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
  9) Navar by Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
 10) System generation by Glenn Myers <gem188@swanson.com>
 11) Re: System generation by rwm@MPGN.COM (Rob Miracle)

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 15:39:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: MSAMUELS@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 18
Message-ID: <01HGAJ6UE9KI9YDPQE@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>

From: IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM" 24-AUG-1994 15:19:10.01
To: IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC: 
Subj: TRAVELLER digest 18

Here's an idea for a weapon system to trash battledress:
At high TL it should be easy to design a propelled grenade/mini 
missile of about 25mm bore which will destroy battledress, a current 
HEDP grenade probably would. Note that 25mm is about 10ga, so stick 
these in an auto-shotgun. Further add solid-state guidance to increase the 
chance of hitting the target (note that a current 40mm grenade is 50% 
fuse - this would be relatively tiny). That ought to be quite 
effective. 

>>>>> Perhaps at close range, but remember that a battlesuit is effectivly
 a one man tank.  You'll need a weapon with anti-tank like capability.
 You could probably register arced fire hits at 1000m with this weapon
 but getting penetration is another matter.  You'd succede in giving
 away your location and the battlesuit would hit your position with
 a nasty anti-personel device.  Better to take on a battlesuit with 
 weapons that can take down an AFV.  Something more akin to the TOW
 missile i'd think.

 Now I know what you are thinking, "...but this is using HEDP ammo,
 that should do the trick."  Just remember that battle suit designers
 don't want schmuckie light infantry to be able to take out their multi
 million credit battlesuit with anthing less than a crewed support 
 weapon.  All kinds of ECM/early warning gear and countermeasures are 
 going to be mounted on the suit as well as composite layered armor part
 of which is going to be reactive armor that will blow a low yield 
 shaped charge shot.  Like this pesky shot gun cum. grenade launcher.
 

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 94 13:46:03 -0700
From: Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Gauss Round Mass
Message-ID: <m0qdPDy-0003MYC@rsoft.rsoft.bc.ca>

Tariq M. Rashid (spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu) wrote:

> Has anyone else noticed that 0.04*(Pi)*r^2 gives exceptionally light
> masses for Gauss Rounds.  Follow this for a second...


   The official fix is  0.02 * PI * r^3  (the mass should change in
proportion to the cube of the change in radius, if all other dimensions
remain in proportion).

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

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

Date: 24 Aug 94 22:30:31 ES
From: Jo Grant <Jo_Grant.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com>
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Battle Dress Construction
Message-ID: <9408242142.AA16256@internet1.lotus.com>

Yo,
 Someone mentioned designing a Laser to penetrate
Battle Dress. This made me think: one thing is missing from FF&S,
rules for designing armour.
 It makes sense. We have all sorts of rules for designing
weapons and so forth, why not armour?
 Have I missed this somewhere? Has anyone thought of
extensions to the FF&S rules to cover powered and non-powered
armour?
    Jo

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 18:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: BORIS ZAIDFELD <cs911408@red.ariel.cs.yorku.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Battle Dress Construction
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9408241839.A29501-a100000@blue>



On Wed, 24 Aug 1994, Jo Grant wrote:

>  Someone mentioned designing a Laser to penetrate
> Battle Dress. This made me think: one thing is missing from FF&S,
> rules for designing armour.
>  It makes sense. We have all sorts of rules for designing
> weapons and so forth, why not armour?
>  Have I missed this somewhere? Has anyone thought of
> extensions to the FF&S rules to cover powered and non-powered
> armour?

Jo, take a look at FF&S again...  Personal Armor design rules are on pages
39-42, Book II Subsystems  There are couple of designs of battledresses
and other personal armor..

 -Shalom Zaidfeld

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

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 22:44:58 -0700
From: George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gwh@crl.com
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 17 
Message-ID: <199408250544.AA29270@crl.crl.com>


From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Re: Beanstalks
>Diagram:
>               Geostat.
()-----------------*-------()
>Planet                     Big Rock
>
>You bulid it on the equator, because the center-of-mass needs to be at the
>geostationary point.  (Not just geosynchronous!)   The idea is, you extend
>the cable beyond the geostationary point, and anchor a large mass to the
>top of the cable.  This mass is moving faster than orbital velocity, so it
>pulls the whole darn thing taut.  The cable has to be strong enough to 
>withstand this tension, which is quite substantial.  This has the side-
>effect that if the cable is cut *at the ground*, the rest of it, now 
>unanchored, will fly off into interplanetary space.  If you cut it higher
>up, everything below the geostationary point will want to fall to earth,
>and the cable is tens of thousands of kilometers long, the planet will
>rotate under it....  Smaller planets are more feasible for construction 
>of a beanstalk, since the problems of gravity/tension needed are lesser.
>Some other neat tricks are possible also.

For more interesting information on Beanstalks go read for example the
Usenet newsgroup sci.space.tech ...

From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
Subject: Illegal G-stress
>  During the last two days, I have been designing a TL A, 30-disp jump ship.
>[...]
>  MY PROBLEM:  I have a HEPlaR engine, capable of giving me 2 G's.  BUT,
>my ship is only designed to take 1 G (due to problems with hull weight).
>
>The FF&S rules are very specific... a ship can only go as fast as it is
>designed to withstand.  But what if my favourate band of stellar bandits
>put's the petal to the metal?  
> 
>How would a 1 G ship take 2 G's ... at a typical, straight-line course?    
>                                ... at a nice, easy turn? 
>                                ... at evasive maneuvers?

Straight-line: no problem.  Between the usual 2x safety factor built into
structural designs for "industrial" vehicles (aircraft are a lot lower, but
they're a lot more weight-critical than traveller spacecraft and can afford
to be more fragile) and such you should be able to take this easy.

Nice, Easy Turn: no problem, again.

Evasive Maneuvers: you start bending things.  To properly answer that would
require a dynamics analysis (determine the vehicles moment of inertia,
thrust, moment arm of the thrust, and find out how dynamic its
maneuvers really are).  Rough generalization: you are now going to start
bending and breaking structural members.

An impact of some sort, explosion etc. which caused lots of shock and 
vibration during one of these maneuvers would make it worse.
An impact during a snap evasion could cause catastrophic structural failure.

-george william herbert
gwh@crl.com

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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 15:12:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Gauss Round Mass Errata!
Message-ID: <2E5D49A0@msmail.trl.oz.au>


"Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu> writes:

Has anyone else noticed that 0.04*(Pi)*r^2 gives exceptionally light
masses for Gauss Rounds.  Follow this for a second...

Lets say a cylinder 6mm in diameter thus 30mm in length.
The FF&S equation gives a mass  0.04*(3.14)*(3)^2=1.13 g/rd
this gives a density of (1.13 g)/(.85 cm^3) about 1.3 g/cm^3!
This just a little more than the density of WATER!
Please check my calculations and tell me that I am wrong!
 ----------------
you're right but see below
 -----------------
The result is that you need ridiculously high muzzle velocities to get
decent energy out of your weapon.  Even if you use the density of
aluminum (2.7 g/cm^3) you get a round with double the mass of the FF&S
rules.  This will allow the same energy with about 2/3 the muzzle velocity.
Go to even higher density material such as steel and youre 5-6 times the
mass of the FF&S round.

>From now on im using 0.1 * (Pi) * r^2 to determine gauss round mass.
Even this is on the light side.
 ------------------------------------
Looks like GDW stuffed up again :-(
I present a derivation of a formula for the Mass of Gauss Rounds:
Assumptions: -the dimensions of the round can be approximated to the form 
given in FF&S.
             -the round is to be made of steel (which has good magnetic properties).
Frontal surface area of bullet=pi x r^2 mm^2 (r in mm)
Length of bullet=5xdiameter=10 x r mm (r in mm)
Volume of bullet=10 x r x pi x r^2 = 10 x pi x r^3 mm^3 (r in mm)
Density of steel= 8 mg / mm^3

Mass of bullet= 0.08 x pi x r^3 grams (r in mm)

The GDW formula followed the same derivation EXCEPT they always assumed a 
length of 5 mm!

For a crystal iron bullet use: mass=0.1 x pi x r^3 grams (r in mm) (use at TL 10-11)
For a superdense bullet use: mass=0.15 x pi x r^3 grams (r in mm) (use at TL 12+)

Django

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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 08:30:13 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Trashing battledress 
Message-ID: <199408250630.AA24011@oslonett.no>

Martin Fay <MFAY@fs2.cp.umist.ac.uk> Writes:
>Here's an idea for a weapon system to trash battledress:
>At high TL it should be easy to design a propelled grenade/mini
>missile of about 25mm bore which will destroy battledress, a current
>HEDP grenade probably would. Note that 25mm is about 10ga, so stick
>these in an auto-shotgun (P.S. I believe Colt are doing exactly this
>at the moment). Further add solid-state guidance to increase the
>chance of hitting the target (note that a current 40mm grenade is 50%
>fuse - this would be relatively tiny). That ought to be quite
>effective. Now you could link that to a smart-HUD to aquire targets
>with thermal/NAS/etc., and a redesign to fire grenades up which then
>home down on the target would allow this to be converted to a
>backpack.
I came upon the same idae yesterday. But I'm using a 4cm TL-10 grenade
with a TL-10 ARL. This gives a HEAP penetration of 41C. Easily
penetrating a heavy battledress with 30 armorpoints }B)

I'll post the dress with support equipment later when I have taken out
the bugs of the design.

Roger "StarWolf" Myhre

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

Date: 25 Aug 94 03:28:04 EDT
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:traveller@mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Killing Battledress
Message-ID: <940825072803_100326.446_BHB68-1@CompuServe.COM>

We've had a design for a backpack RAM grenade launcher for years. Computer
controlled, you can designate one target a round (which it then tracks) and then
launch up to 10 grenades simultaneously. Capacity varies by TL, from about 10 to
25 and so does computer augmentation and tracking ability. We find this nobbles
battledress real nice...

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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 15:43:56 +0200 (EET)
From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Navar
Message-ID: <199408251240.IAA07155@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

Navar is in Diaspora sector. You can find it from ftp.engrg.uwo.ca
if it is still working, if not you can get this sector from me.
That is if someone can help me to send it to you. I wonder if it 
could be done by e-mail.

Joni Virolainen
jonimv@evitech.fi
.


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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 94 10:17:48 EDT
From: Glenn Myers <gem188@swanson.com>
To: traveller%mpgn.com@swanson.com
Subject: System generation
Message-ID: <9408251414>


Hi All,

Just a quick question....

Has anyone come up with a method of generating frontier systems.
Typical attributes would include lower human population, greater
chance of aliens, and lower overall tech level. 

What about unexplored systems. So much of GDW's rules concern 
charted space. Should I just zero out the human population and 
selectively place a few alien worlds?

It seems these are all good candidates for World Tamer. Has anyone
heard what it will include? 

Sorry, I guess that was three quick questions...

TTFN

Glenn

----------------------------------
| Glenn E. Myers                 |
| gmyers@swanson.com             |
| gem188@swanson.com             |
| QA software engineer (pest)    |
| Swanson Analysis Systems, Inc. |
|  Soon to be  ...   ANSYS, Inc. |
| (412) 873-2913                 | 
----------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 10:39:49 -0400
From: rwm@MPGN.COM (Rob Miracle)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: System generation
Message-ID: <199408251439.KAA08524@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>


>Has anyone come up with a method of generating frontier systems.
>Typical attributes would include lower human population, greater
>chance of aliens, and lower overall tech level. 

pp190-192 in the Traveller: The New Era book is a set of World Building
Charts titled: Collapse Effects Determination which gives guidlines for 
blasting down sectors.  It is pretty vicious, but then again, so was
Virus.  

>What about unexplored systems. So much of GDW's rules concern 
>charted space. Should I just zero out the human population and 
>selectively place a few alien worlds?

By the time Virus was released, almost every system within Imperial 
Borders had been explored.  Any interstellar society that had contact
any of the Empire's neighbors, with the exception of the Zhodani and 
the Hivers are probably wasted as well.  Virus was not just for humaniti,
it did not distinguish between man and K'Kree.  

>It seems these are all good candidates for World Tamer. Has anyone
>heard what it will include? 

According to the Ad for it in the back of Star Vikings: Personalities of the
Reformation Coalition, it will include two adventures, a boot strap campaign,
and a full colonization campaign, as well as rules for exploring, surveying,
animals and plants, dealing with natives (xeno/techno-phobs) and colonists.

Rob
--
Rob Miracle
rwm@mpgn.com
"You have a problem?  I have a plan!" -- Anton Devious

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 19
**************************
