       TRAVELLER Digest 42

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1)  by gdw.support@genie.geis.com
  2) Small Engines by David Hoey <dhoey@it.ntu.edu.au>
  3) TRAVELLER digest 39 by Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
  4) Re: Copyrights by Jonathan Sari <surge@dilbert.cqs.washington.edu>
  5) Re: Demographic Research by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  6) Re: Hydroponics by chrisb@MPGN.COM (Christopher Beattie)
  7) Re:Dropping Stuff From Orbit by "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
  8) Copyright discussion & bits by Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
  9) Starports by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)

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

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 94 02:53:00 UTC
From: gdw.support@genie.geis.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199409160358.AA190017885@relay2.geis.com>

 traveller@mpgn.com
 
 From TRAVELLER Digest 34
 
 John V Banagan
 
 > Does GDW plan on producing supplements for TNE
 > such as the Alien supplements by DGP or perhaps
 > Vehicles 101 or Fighting Ships based on FFS?
 
 I am currently writing the first of the alien modules: _Aliens
 of the Rim vol. !: Hiver and Ithklur_. We will not be reprinting
 the DGP alien modules verbatim, but will be rewriting them from a
 RC or Regency viewpoint (as the case may be). They will not
 always be paired (Hiver and Ithklur just seemed to go together).
 We will not be doing any purely vehicle or purely starship
 sourcebooks, but we will continue with the _equipment guide_
 series for both the RC and Regency, and continue to put equipment
 into various products a few pages at a time.
 
 Seth:
 
 > I think GDW could stand to explain this a little
 > more clearly; a sidebar going into about as
 > much detail as I just have wouldn't hurt.
 > (Are you listening, Loren? :-)
 
 I'll add it to the list of things to do, but I make no promises... : )
 
 Alvin Plummer:
 > I have never seen a life path system, but I understand
 > the Idea, and could draw up one myself for posting on TML
 
 Write it up as a Challenge article and send it in. Get in print
 and be the subject of fawning adulation (and scathing criticism)
 from your peers. : )
 
 > Re: Sleep Tubes
 
 We intended the bunk to be used for this purpose...to each his own.
 
 From TRAVELLER Digest 36
 
 > 2) Really for Loren and GDW, would this be ok?
 > It is kinda border line on the publishing issue.
 
 All your own original material? No GDW copyrighted material? If
 the answer to both of these questions is yes, do so with my
 blessing.
 
 Les Howie
 Re: Protecting Copyrights
 
 > The only good soultion is for GDW to cut a deal
 > for a competent commercial implementation.
 > Mac and Windows, please, guys -- real soon
 > now, and I will gladly pay good money for it.
 
 We are negotiating along these lines. It remains to be seen how
 "competent" you think the final result is. People differ
 radically over these things, I have found.
 
 From TRAVELLER Digest 37
 
 Re Deckplans (several people have asked): These are incredibly
 time consuming both from a design and art standpoint, but we do
 want to issue products containing deckplans.
 
 From TRAVELLER Digest 38
 
 Glenn M. Goffin
 Miniatures comments noted, I'll get them to RAFM.
 
 > The numbers on the second set of RAFM blister packs
 > is not a complete run. Do I have all of the sets released
 > to date?
 [ listing deleted ]
 
 You do as far as I can tell.
 
 Steve Charlton
 
 A hypothetical question for Loren (re: Copyrights and
 Publishing)
 
 > If I have an infinite number of monkeys using an
 > infinite number of typewriters[...material deleted]
 > if they should come up with the Striker II rules before
 > GDW published them, does that mean I get to sue
 > GDW? I
 
 This is a silly question, so I will give you a silly answer:
 Yes, and after an infinite amount of time, your case will be
 thrown out of court and you will be fined an infinite amount of
 money for frivolous litigation. : )
 
 From TRAVELLER Digest 39
 
 Les Howie:
 
 > GDW is just a small group of people who have
 > managed to make a living on a small market
 > with tight margins. They deserve praise, support,
 > and nurturing, lest they go the way of the dodo and SPI.
 
 Thank you Les. This is precisely what GDW is seeking to avoid.
 
 > Copyright laws are there to promote the just
 > treatment of those who live by their creativity,
 > and I for one feel that both the letter and the
 > spirit of those laws deserve respect.
 
 Exactly! How may books, songs, or programs would get written if
 their creators couldn't make any money doing it? Some, I'll grant
 you, but nowhere near as many as do now.
 
 Harold D. Hale (directing a remark to Cynthia H.):
 
 > the fact that you posted your intentions on TML
 > to distribute a game aid that contains copyrighted
 > material (if I understood you correctly)
 
 Actually, Harold, I don't think that's what she meant. I think
 she meant to say that she could if she wanted to, and that she
 felt that there was nothing that should stop her.
 
 Tariq M. Rashid:
 
 < a number of comments re: Fusion Weapons >
 > I wonder if GDW plans to address this?
 
 Frank and Dave may tinker with them slightly, but no major
 revisions are planned.
 
 > HOLLOW POINTS?
 >Any ideas, I was thinking of adding a D6 to the
 > damage value and dropping the pen by one
 > at all ranges.
 
 This is basically what we did in the Twilight: 2000 Referee's
 Screen, but it was left out of TNE as too fiddley.
 
 Loren Wiseman
  for GDW, Inc.
 


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

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 16:16:05 +0930 (CST)
From: David Hoey <dhoey@it.ntu.edu.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Small Engines
Message-ID: <199409160646.QAA28514@morinda>

I have been considering making engines for small craft half to three quarters
of the volume of conventional engines.  Engines for propeller driven
aircraft are half the volume of conventional engines (page 69 FF&S).
The reasons given are:

<1> No volume for maintenance access.
<2> The engine drives the propeller directly without need for any complicated
    drive shafts.
<3> There is less volume and weight consumed by cooling apparatus.

Many of these reasons could also be applied to motor cycles and grav-bikes.
Some quick rules: the number of times the conditions above are reached
reduce the engine volume as outlined below:

  # conditions           volume
      1                  75%
      2                  66%
      3                  50%

I haven't used this rule before and have only thought it up.

Seats:  the seats listed on page 62 assume that the seat is within the 
vehicle.  With motor cycles and grav bikes the seat is mounted upon the
top of the bike.  The ground vehicle rules don't really consider vehicles
where the user is riding on top.  A motor cycle is more than a open vehicle.


-- 
**************************************************************************
*  David Hoey          * Computer Science, Northern Territory University *
*  dhoey@it.ntu.edu.au * Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia           *
**************************************************************************

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

Date: 16 Sep 94 02:56:59 EDT
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:traveller@mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 39
Message-ID: <940916065658_100326.446_BHB75-2@CompuServe.COM>

>> First, you need players that really enjoy discovering new things and _not_
shooting 
them. <<

And what game store do you buy _those_ in blister packs from ? If you know,
tell
me. My bunch just want to kill before they go impotent <giggle>.


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

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 01:00:42 -0700
From: Jonathan Sari <surge@dilbert.cqs.washington.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Copyrights
Message-ID: <199409160800.BAA22907@dilbert.cqs.washington.edu>

The Berne Convention applies only in those nations who are signatories
to the Berne Convention, which includes most of the developed nations
in the world, including the United States.  It is not universal, as a
number of "developing" nations do not adhere to it, but it probably
applies anywhere anyone here wants to copy documents.

-Jon

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

Date: 16 Sep 1994 06:44:05 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Demographic Research
Message-ID: <01HH65L1N6YG8ZMC4A@pimacc.pima.edu>

From: IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM" 14-SEP-1994 20:47:40.81
To: IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC: 
Subj: Demographic Research


 If you, Loren, or anyone else is interested in the
results of the Dublin survey (which I own) I can e-mail
them or put them on a server.
 Cheers,
   Jo
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'd be very interested in a copy.

thanks, Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


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

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 10:28:26
From: chrisb@MPGN.COM (Christopher Beattie)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Hydroponics
Message-ID: <chrisb.207.000A79AF@mpgn.com>

Hydroponics is an interesting field, and I can see uses  for
small  units in some ships.   One problem, however, is  that
of  space.   Although a high level tech might  produce  some
very  space saving systems, when your ship is currently over
capacity  in  crew  and or cargo, (as is  the  case  in  the
campaign  I am in) then space is a luxury.  Some people  may
justify  putting some small units into their  own  quarters,
and  some scientific ships may even justify a complete  room
for research purposes.

Assuming  that  most of the ship's food  stuffs  are  either
stored  or  recycled,  then what would a  small  hydroponics
system  have  on it.  Well, if a person deeply  believes  in
having a unit, probably a small portion of the system  would
be  devoted  to  beauty,  flowers and  or  flowering  edible
plants.   Second most important would be herbs  and  spices,
making the bland recycled food stuff more pleasant to eat.

Another  point to consider in hydroponics is gravity.   When
placed  in  areas  with  no  or little  gravity  on  ship  I
recommend  the  NASA  studies,  otherwise  under  artificial
gravity  you  can  use  studies  of  hydroponics  in   urban
environments as a city apartment is much like a  small  area
devoted to hydroponics.

Disease  would  be  a  problem with all systems,  especially
hydroponics  where the plants share the  same  water.   Crop
diversity,  having a lot of different plants, combined  with
an  active breeding and genetic program, (imagine trying  to
crossbreed  with different strains of plants from  different
worlds)  would  give  the hydroponics  garden  an  advantage
against disease.

That's  one nice thing about technology, in that many things
are  possible.  The only problem in space is often the  lack
of  it.   While there's a lot of space out there  in  space,
there is often too little of it in your ship.



| ****** ****** ****** ****** | Christopher Beattie  | Tantalus Incorporated
|
|   **      **  **  ** **  ** | Tantalus @ Key West  |         P.O. Box 2310
|
|   **    **    **  ** ****** | Development Division |    Key West, FL 33045
|
|   **   ****** ****** ** **  | chrisb@mpgn.com      | Phone: (305) 293-8100
|
| Disclamer:  My opinions are mine, not Tantalus.    |   Fax: (305) 292-7835
|

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

Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 12:46:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
To: Traveller Submission <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re:Dropping Stuff From Orbit
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9409161239.C8766-0100000@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>


Hey all.

Havent sat down to work out energies for objects dropped from orbit formally
but a back of the envelope kinda calculation was giving 250 MJ for 100kg 
cones dropped from 500 km.  These were done on the train home with no 
calculator and lots of assumptions but are ballpark.

The reason Im posting today is because I was reading Jane's All the 
Worlds Fighting Ships 1994-1995 yesterday and saw several discussions 
about using SSBNs in a conventional role.  They would fire Ballistic 
missiles that would go into space.  These would be tipped with Kinetic 
Kill Vehichles as they called them.  The next stage of development is 
putting a GPS recvr into one of these to see if the KKVs position can be 
fixed to the accuracy necessary for such a weapon.  My guess is that IRBM 
and ICBM get up to 100 to 200 km before descent.  When I finally sit down 
to develop the other stuff, I'll try and take a look at this. 

The reason this is now being developed is that a ballistic missile will 
not trigger the automatic response that it would a few years ago.

See Ya

Tariq Rashid

"It is impossible for words to describe what is necessary...to someone who 
does not know what horror means.  Horror has a face...and you must make
a friend of horror....horror and moral terror.  You must make them your 
friends.  Otherwise they are enemies to be feared...they are truly enemies."




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

Date: 16 Sep 94 14:02:44 EDT
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:traveller@mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Copyright discussion & bits
Message-ID: <940916180243_100326.446_BHB95-1@CompuServe.COM>

It occurs to me to ask 

1) How does it work if the program containing the copyright info is
distributed
between a group of friends _all of whom already own the book the data comes
from_. Haven't they already purchased the right to personally use the data ?
It's not even as if the data were being passed off as their property, as the
program has "Traveller" stamped all over it. 

2) Is it entirely fair for a company to strictly enforce copyright on a
product
it _no longer makes_? We never wanted to leave MegaTraveller and still use
it;
however GDW don't make it and therefore can't lose revenue from its' sales.
Despite claims to the contrary, TNE is basically a different game system. So
how
do we stand with respect to Classic & Mega based software ? It seems a bit
like
an ex-husband beating up new boyfriends of the wife he's left!

If Loren is watching: 1) have you an angle on this and 2) please don't take
my
applause for Cynthia the wrong way. Despite what you did to us retro
Traveller
players, I still have the greatest respect for GDW! I have no intention of
making money out of your ideas. All I want to do is game with my dozen or so
mates, and write software to give them and use myself without being made to
feel
nervous!


>>[meteor defence from junk] Possibily with heavy grav devices, or garbage
scoops (real BIG ones)? Maybe with some form of electromagnetic
repulsion/attraction device?
And how much is this going to cost, anyway? <<

Perhaps a couple of cast-off repulsor turrets ?

>>Seriously, I would like to see the subsector names of all the Deneb
subsetors.  My current campaign is set there, and it would add 
flavor to my TNS messages.<<

                   Deneb
                   A PRETORIA
                   B LAMAS
                   C ANTRA
                   D MILLION
                   E SABINE
                   F INAR
                   G DUNMAG
                   H ATSAH
                   I STAR LANE
                   J VINCENNES
                   K USANI
                   L GENISHIR
                   M GULF
                   N ZENG
                   O KAMIAR
                   P VAST HEAVENS

These taken from the Challenge issue with the big map and four sectors.

>> 1) A good outline of what's available - and what's not - at the various
tech levels between TL10 and TL15? <<

It's in the MegaTraveller Rebellion Sourcebook. Chuckle. After comments above
I
hesitate to post the entire table (sad world, isn't it). However, the medical
column goes like this.

10: Antiviral vaccines, Growth quickening.
11: Nerve refusion, artifical eyes.
12: Broad antitoxins, Enhanced prosthetics.
13: Cloned body parts, reanimation.
14: Genetic engineering, memory erasure.
15: Anagathics, pseudobio prosthetics
16: Brain transplants, Crude memory transfer
17: Selective memory erasure, Intelligent antibodies
18: Partial memory transfer (dupe)
19: Noncryogenic suspended animation, advanced bioengineering.
20: Total memory transfer (dupe)
21: Total rejuvenation.

A description of each is provided but is brief and not much use. Rules appear
to
be up to the individual.


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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 94 19:39:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Starports
Message-ID: <1.205635.256.0C78CD5E@execnet.com>

Subject: Starports

I'd written...

T::>  1) An airport has a landing area (the runways) and a service
 ::>  area (hangars/terminals).  A seaport combines the two (into the
 ::>  dock).  Which model should I follow with a starport?

 Rob Miracle replied...

T::>The Airport model is acutally a little better.  But a lot depends on
 ::>the planet.  For instance, one world (from a published GDW product,
 ::>though which one slips my mind) with a 'C' atmosphere, brought the
 ::>ships inside the planet.  Some star ports will have big open areas
 ::>that the ships reside in, others will have docking bays.  In Asmov's
 ::>Foundation series, the Starport at Trantor was of a docking bay config.
 ::>The ships were in the star port, and the people on Trantor never left
 ::>the concreate and steel of the capital.

 Yes, I see your point.  But, broadly speaking, we still have the 
 "airport" class and the "seaport" class.  In the case of the C 
 atmo world above, once the ships are brought into the planet, are 
 they moved from the "elevators" (airport model) or do the 
 terminals and maintenance facilities get linked to them right 
 there (seaport model)?  Similar questions with respect to Asimov's 
 Trantor.  If you have the old "Star Fleet Technical Manual" (the 
 one that corresponded to the original series), you'd see that SFHQ 
 was essentially a seaport model, and many of the (non-canon) 
 novels that described a docking at a starbase used the same model.  
 On the other hand, if all of your starships were designed around 
 airframe hulls (visualize the Space Shuttle with J-drives) the 
 airport model makes more sense, as it would allow for landings 
 that were "environment friendly" and cheap (minimal to zero fuel 
 expenditures.

 For the record, though, the planet in question is habitable 
 without artificial environments.

T::>Depending on the local tech level, you will have either run ways, or
 ::>lifters or both.  Some SciFi (which I use) have large magnetic/tractor
 ::>beams that reach up into space and pull the starship down, and lift it
 ::>back into space.  So you can get by with not having run ways.  Also it
 ::>has been implied that some starships (and ships boats) can hover, also
 ::>eliminating the need for long runways.

 Which, if you assume that this capability is widespread, implies 
 that the seaport model is more space efficient, as with such 
 technologies (remember thruster plates?) there's no reaction wash 
 area to worry about.  This leads into my original question 2, 
 below.

T::>  2) Should I assume that _all_ starships, shuttles, etc., that use
 ::>  the starport are VTOL-capable?  If not, then I obviously have to
 ::>  follow the airport model.  If so, the question is still open.

T::>  3) For ships that use Newtonain reaction mass for takeoffs and
 ::>  landings, how much of a clear area around the vessel itself
 ::>  should I allow?

 In other words, how big is the shuttle, and how big is the blast 
 area around it?  And does the size of the blast area go up as the 
 size of the ship does, and at what rate/ratio?

T::>  4) How big should I make the "parking" zones for the ships, and
 ::>  how far apart?

T::>You should plan to be able to support the largest starship that YOU
 ::>intend to do.  You could say, that for this world, ships over 1000T
 ::>have to use the orbital facility.  You can then plan your space needs
 ::>accordingly.

 Begs the question, though.  I don't have a good feel for what's 
 "realistic".  As I remember, the 100dt type S looked comparable in 
 size to something like a MD-9. Should I look at the plan view of 
 one and just draw the smallest circle that it fits completely 
 within?  Or do I need to allow some extra space to the nearest 
 fixed structure?  Do I depress the actual landing area, or leave 
 smooth ground?  Do I make some docks/landing areas/whatever's 
 capable of handling only the smaller ships, or do I make them all 
 capable of handling the largest ships I expect to have land on a 
 regular basis?  Do I even allow starships to land at the downport 
 at all, or do I instead have the planet run a fleet of ship's 
 boats (with airliner-type usage of the cargo area) between Up and 
 Down?

 Incidentally, my previous comment still stands...

T::>  Once I have these questions answered, I think I can construct the
 ::>  starport sensibly, and then make a decision on the physical
 ::>  relationship between the starport proper, the extrality zone, and
 ::>  the planetary city.  But I'm willing to listen to any comments
 ::>  that anyone else has on this topic...
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
 ~ QMPro 1.52 ~ Chief Archivist, Regency Institute for Cultural Education

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 42
**************************
