			    TRAVELLER Digest 105

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Docking Rings	by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
  2) Re: Anti-matter accidents	by bonn0015@itlabs.umn.edu (STEVEN M BONNEVILLE)
  3) Re: Question about penetration	by Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@informatik.uni-kiel.d400.de>
  4) Challenge 75	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  5) Tank shells: Trojan Rift	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  6) Addresses for Datadumps	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  7) DOCKING RINGS	by john.bogan@asb.com
  8) Critisims of AM Warships	by michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
  9) Re: Anti-matter accidents	by bonn0015@itlabs.umn.edu (STEVEN M BONNEVILLE)
 10) Another AM calculation	by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
 11) Re: Another AM Calculation	by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>

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

Date: 17 Nov 94 10:33:06 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Docking Rings
Message-ID: <9411171531.AA16662@internet1.lotus.com>

Ed the Caffeine Achiver <fok @ chaph.usc.edu> wrote:


>Fellow Sentients-

Watch it!  8-)

>Can anyone care to explain the physical configuration of a "Docking
>Ring" and why it's volume requirement is equal to that of the space
>craft to be *not* serviced?

A docking ring sounds more like a depression in the hull in which
the carried craft rests.  If you've ever read _Downbelow Station_
by C.J. Cherryh (highly recommended), there is a drawing at the
beginning (done to the author's specifications) showing the Battle
Carrier Norway and its Riderships.  (Guess where GDW got the idea
for Battle Riders in the first place).

The Riders are shown sort of imbedded in the hull of the carrier, but
not completely contained within it.

I think that's what they mean.


>I had envision this as being something like the Apollo-Soyuz docking
>module, Space Shuttle-Space Station docking module, etc...What pray
>tell is wrong with this picture?

This is more of a "two-body" thing.  If one is really "carrying" the
other, then it's more like an external grapple.

>May the photons be at your back...

What's the difference?  And how would you know?  8-)

>Ed

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Smith - Lotus Development Corporation - Release Engineering


"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it"
             --Donald Knuth

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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 11:13:26 -0600
From: bonn0015@itlabs.umn.edu (STEVEN M BONNEVILLE)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Anti-matter accidents
Message-ID: <199411171713.LAA10427@conch.itlabs.umn.edu>

Michel Vaillancourt <michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com> writes:

>         Hi there.  I was in an odd mood today, and was thinking about how
> much anti-matter all of those Alliance designs that keep going by have.  I
> decided to figure out how much DV would be done to a bystander at 1L-sec
> away if ONE ton of AM detonated.

> 9E+22 = 1000000 9E+16

There are some math errors.  For one thing, I think your units are off.

Say we convert one ton of matter to energy.  Energy == mass * c squared.
Energy is in Joules.  Mass is in kilograms.  Lightspeed is in meters per
second.

E == 1000 kg * (3 * 10^8 m/s)^2
  == 9 * 10^19 J
  == 9 * 10^13 MJ

One megaton TNT == about 4.2 * 10^15 J of energy (sci.space FAQ)
                == about 0.05 kg of matter -> energy

So the blast is roughly equivalent to 21 gigatons of TNT.

Ships at the edge of a one-tenth light-second sphere would take

                       9 * 10^13 MJ
  E per cm^2 ==  -------------------------- == 3.2 Joules/(cm^2)
                 4 * pi * (1.5 * 10^9 cm)^2

Anybody spot any errors with this?

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@gold.tc.umn.edu>


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:18:01 +0100
From: Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@informatik.uni-kiel.d400.de>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Question about penetration
Message-ID: <9411171616.AA04246@donald>

Cynthia,

thanks for your answer. But...

I think, the whole systems doesn't take into account that not only
armor protection but also weapon effectiveness will improve.  If you
compare a TL7 G3 (it was introduced 1968 I think) with an TL 12 body
protection it's no wonder that this armor will protect its wearer.  If
you however use a TL 12 G8 (to give it a name), I expect that its
rounds will penetrate.  I'm no expert but I think there'll be enough
room for improvements (for example to use other metal or ceramics for
the round or other explosives with more power or mix up the right
chemicals to melt the armor and so on)

>         AV 4 = side armor of M113 APC.
>         AV 6 = front armor of M113 APC, LAV-25

If that M133 APC is the same M113 armored personal transport tank I
know, then a G3 is able to penetrate its armor (12 mm aluminium) at
short range.

My dream-weapon (feel free to design it :-): I think that TL12 G8
should be able to penetrate any low-tech (6-10) armor, doing about 5
dice damage with `normal' 9x50 mm ammunition, having a size about 76
cm and weighting about 3 kg.  (I think weapons will became lighter to
reduce their encumbrance) The extended version for shooting HEAP etc
could be as heavy as 6 kg (about the weight of a G3, I suggest)

As it was an error of Traveller to think that 1970 computer technology
will not change about the centuries, it is an error to think the same
about weapon technology.

Lasers are another point.  They are completely useless in relation to
their TL.  If a TL 13 laser can't wound a TL12 soldier, I don't need
it.  I would say, without special ablative armor, lasers will
penetrate all conventional armor.  And ablative armor will be damaged
(melted) due lasers, so it only offer a temporary protection.

That's another point. Armor can't be damaged.  You can walk in your AV
6 battle suit over a battlefield full of machine gun fire and all you
notice are some nasty bee stings.  Not that permanent gun fire would
slowly damage and penetrate your amor -- no it will look as good as
when you bought it (going with the rules -- of course as a referee I
would correct this. I only what to show this rules leak here)

>I haven't playtested the combat rules yet, but they look reasonable,
>and they've undergone several generations of shaking out (these
>are an evolution of the T2K-C&D-DC combat rules).  Hope this helps
>you sort things out.

I too thought that the rules _looks_ good -- but maybe you should try
them yourself.  T2K is a current day fire fight game, with very
different intention as an (hard) SF game.  Of course, a AV 6 trooper
on a battle field today would survive probably any hit by small arms
but that shouldn't be true when weapon TL raise.

As I sidenote: I could start thinking that the TNE rules _want_ to
allow players to wear perfect-protection (tm :-) armors and to allow
them to "have a good boody fight" again hordes of NPCs whose weapons
can't harm the PCs.  But if that's the only thing for what the
designers thought TNE is good, roleplaying is lost. A fire fight isn't
roleplaying at all IMHO.

Perhaps it's the idea that at high TL all troops will look like
StarWars stoorm troopers or that guys that are shown RC Equipment
Guide (with a AV 6 light battle dress) that is wrong.  But I think,
it's not me but the combat system... :-)

So, if there anybody out here who as the same problems as I -- without
talking about what ideas are 'more realistic' -- and as some solutions
other that using classic traveller (with a also not good combat
system), please reply.

thanks for your attention,
bye.
--
Stefan Matthias Aust //                                 Never for Ever

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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 20:52:57 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Challenge 75
Message-ID: <199411180152.UAA13751@chopin.udel.edu>


Has Challenge 75 hit the racks yet?  It seems overdue to me, but I'm
not too sure because Traveller stuff tends to come in erratic spurts in
my neck of the woods...

        --Jerry

|>  Jerry Alexandratos                **  "vengo de la tierra del    <|
|>  darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         **   fuego ten cuidado cuando  <|
|>  darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  **   llamas mi nombre..."      <|

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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:00:43 -0500 (EST)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Tank shells: Trojan Rift
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9411171538.A17038-b100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


When I design my 10-cm diameter warhead, the volume for it comes up to
.000008 kl. (FF&S, pg.141)  This leads to 64,000 shells in a 5 kl space.
Is this right, or am I doing something wrong?

Related question: as I don't have the info needed to compare the Imperial
tank to the Solomani tank in TNE, could someone tell me why does RCES
detest the Solomani TL-13 tank? ("Death trap" comes to mind...)

And: is anyone playing a TNE campagin set in the Trojan Rift?  I feel that
this sector is probably the most interesting in the TNE universe,
composing of old Aslan Worlds, the Aslan Rebellion-Era conquests
("Humans yearning to break the yoke of bondage"), and a few hold-out
Regency worlds, as well as the Florian League.  And that interesting,
ex-Imperial world of Tobia, with it's Human/Aslan Clans.

Finally: consider that the Aslan New Lords are right next to a cross-Rift
route to thousands of unclaimed lands, just waiting to be taken.  The
older Aslan have earned their glory fighting Virus, but the younger males
(The Brand New Lords) want to reclaim all that free land....  I'm
nearly certain that the Aslan have been sending out scouts since the
1170's.  And I would not be surprised at all if the Aslan are the first to
re-enter the Wilds in force.


Alvin Plummer
(Ready the Fleet!)


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 1994 17:46:21 -0500 (EST)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Addresses for Datadumps
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9411171721.A21643-9100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


Hi!

I'm currently compiling an address list for interesting stuff from the old
TML archives.  Anyone here interested?  E-mail me your address, and I'll
add you on!

Alvin Plummer
(ROBOTS...  WET SHIPS...  ROBOTS...  WET SHIPS...  ROBOTS...  WET SHIPS...)


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

Date: Thu, 17 Nov 94 21:02:47
From: john.bogan@asb.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: DOCKING RINGS
Message-ID: <9411172102.A5508wk@asb.com>


> Can anyone care to explain the physical configuration of a "Docking
> Ring" and why it's volume requirement is equal to that of the space
> craft to be *not* serviced?

> I had envision this as being something like the Apollo-Soyuz docking
> module, Space Shuttle-Space Station docking module, etc...What pray
> tell is wrong with this picture?

THOSE modules qualify as "grapples" in TNE/FF&S terms.

A docking ring is where the subordinate craft practically "plugs in"
into the ship, like on Broadswords.  Even when the craft is gone,
the structure it docks to still takes up space.

For those who have it, the Rock from Expedition to Zhodane docked
Pebble in a similar manner.

A liberal interpretation of the definition of "docking ring" includes
circumstances where (in absolute terms) the subordinate craft is
actually partially exposed.

(This interpretation came up on the GDW-Beta list, regarding the
docking of the AHL's fuel shuttles.  It really doesn't make sense to
leave vital, thin-skinned shuttles OUTSIDE the ship's armor, but the
traditional AHL design did just that.  The patch for this glitch was
to allow the ventral groove of the AHL, where the shuttles dock, to
qualify as a docking ring rather than as an external grapple arrangemnet)



John Bogan

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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 08:23:32 -0500
From: michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Critisims of AM Warships
Message-ID: <9411181224.AA05453@Prograph.Com>

>The moral of the story is that it's misleading to criticize AM ships as
>vulnerable to lucky one-shot kills. Sure, they are, but so are all other
>ships. In fact, AM ships are _less_ vulnerable because they're generally
>harder to get the lucky hit on in the first place!
>
>Ken


    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear.  I was saying that hitting an AM
powered starship wouldn't just kill the target, it'd kill anything within
several thousand kilometers of it.  The potential for collateral damage is
massive.

    I'll try and re-run the math on the 1-ton thing again, taking into
account the corrections people have suggested today.  See you later...
--
    -+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=-
 Michel Vaillancourt            Written from, not for:
 "Live, Love, Learn"            Prograph International
 MetroCity 2.0.2.0 BBS          2745 Dutch Village Rd,
    902.835.9766                     Halifax, NS
1:251/17@fidonet.org            "Watch your language!"


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 11:11:00 -0600
From: bonn0015@itlabs.umn.edu (STEVEN M BONNEVILLE)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Anti-matter accidents
Message-ID: <199411181711.LAA13809@moby.itlabs.umn.edu>


[I posted this once, but there's no sign of it in the digest.
 Other people said much the same sort of thing in that digest,
 but I think that this sums it up nicely enough to re-post.

 Incidentally, Steve Higginbotham's suggestion of using internal
 armor to protect the Antimatter Plant from damage is very good.
 Even though the plant is hard to hit, its' small size makes it
 a good candidate for thick internal armor.

 Another note:  AM8: _Darrians_ states that experimental TL17
 antimatter plants on Darrian and Mire both detonated due to
 the effects of the Maghiz.  (Flare on Darrian, electronic
 effects and maintenance failures on Mire.)  Not like they
 didn't have enough problems!]


Michel Vaillancourt <michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com> writes:

>         Hi there.  I was in an odd mood today, and was thinking about how
> much anti-matter all of those Alliance designs that keep going by have.  I
> decided to figure out how much DV would be done to a bystander at 1L-sec
> away if ONE ton of AM detonated.

> 9E+22 = 1000000 9E+16

There are some math errors.  For one thing, I think your units are off.

Say we convert one ton of matter to energy.  Energy == mass * c squared.
Energy is in Joules.  Mass is in kilograms.  Lightspeed is in meters per
second.

E == 1000 kg * (3 * 10^8 m/s)^2
  == 9 * 10^19 J
  == 9 * 10^13 MJ

One megaton TNT == about 4.2 * 10^15 J of energy (sci.space FAQ)
                == about 0.05 kg of matter -> energy

So the blast is roughly equivalent to 21 gigatons of TNT.

Ships on the surface of a one-tenth light-second diameter sphere
centered on the explosion would take

                       9 * 10^13 MJ
  E per cm^2 ==  -------------------------- == 3.2 Joules/(cm^2)
                 4 * pi * (1.5 * 10^9 cm)^2


[That's MJ divided by the surface area of a one-tenth light-second
 diameter sphere, with 0.1 light-second == 3 * 10^9 cm.  These
 are real-world calculations throughout, although not insanely
 rigorous.

 If you look at E == m * c^2, c^2 is a constant, so that the
 amount of energy released is directly proportional to the amount
 of mass converted.  A ten-metric ton conversion is a blast with
 a 210 gigaton TNT release.  A one gram conversion is a 20 kiloton
 TNT energy release.]

Anybody spot any errors with this?

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@gold.tc.umn.edu>


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

Date: Fri, 18 Nov 94 14:05:24 AST
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Another AM calculation
Message-ID: <9411181805.AA06103@Prograph.Com>

1.  A question for the group: should this be a traveller list thread, or an
xboat thread?  Opinions, please.

2.  I will not bore you with my equations, which allow, I think, for what
everyone has posted here, correctly computing flux in Mj/cm^2 as a guide to
penetrations, and consistantly calculating in MKS until that last division of

the flux in MJ/m^2.

3. If we say that the danger zone for a warship is within the 1 MJ/cm^2
sphere
(which would represent a pretty nasty attack on surface features if nothing
else,   and ignores the very unpleasant heavy particle wave that the rest of
the
ship has been converted to) then a single 1 tonne AM pod has a danger zone of

about 40km.

4.   The last alliance ship I recall seeing had 377 tonnes of AM on board.
That
works out to about a 750 km danger zone.

5.   SO if you have AM in your fleet, dispersion becomes VERY important to
avoid
a chain reaction.




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

Date: 18 Nov 94 13:30:17 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: xboat <xboat@MPGN.COM>, traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Another AM Calculation
Message-ID: <9411181831.AA17218@internet1.lotus.com>

Les Howie asked:
>1.  A question for the group: should this be a traveller list
>thread, or an xboat thread?  Opinions, please.

My opinion is it should be *both*.  The Alliance ships using AM
are based in CT, but AM *is* listed as a power source available at
high TLs in TNE/FF&S.


And while we're at this, OK, KEN, WHY DON'T YOUR ALLIANCE SHIPS
HAVE MESON SCREENS?


--Derek

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Smith - Lotus Development Corporation - Release Engineering

"Her mind is like a lawnmower on jumpjets: she makes amazing
leaps of logic and intuition, and chews up and spits out whatever
she lands on."

Associates have suggested that this statement was made as a
reference to Camille Paglia.

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 105
***************************
