			    TRAVELLER Digest 167

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 166	by Michael Llaneza <mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu>
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 166	by Michael Llaneza <mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu>
  3) Idol Dreams	by Shalom Zaidfeld <cs911408@red.ariel.cs.yorku.ca>
  4) Re: Moving rocks in peacetime	by "Bruce Johnson" <JOHNSON@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu>
  5) Moving rocks...	by CyHiggin@aol.com
  6) RELATIVE VELOCITIES	by john.bogan@asb.com

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 22:22:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Llaneza <mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 166
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950118221119.13628A-100000@mercury>

=09On the topic of the intrinsic vector of each solar system...

=09I have been toying with the idea of writing a program to=20
calculate vectors for each of the planets within a solar system. This=20
would simply randomize the starting positions for a reference date, and=20
then calculate positions and vectors for any given system at any given=20
time.
=09For use with interstellar travel I plan to keep the velocity=20
relative to the system of origin and project it onto the destination=20
system. In this way, I'll be able to keep track of every moon and planet=20
within a sector :)

=09I intend to assume that all of the stars are fixed relative to=20
each other and to the map. Most of the effect will come from the orbital=20
motion of each world. I=D5ll have to come up with a reasonable random=20
factor involved in each jump.

=09If anybody else is interested I'll post updates and put working=20
versions on your neighborhood ftp site as well.

Michael Carter Llaneza
Conceptual Design Services             The Worse it gets,
Pi Kappa Phi                           The more I get used to it.
"I am the NRA"=09=09=09       Duty Now For The Future



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

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 22:24:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Llaneza <mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 166
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950118222308.16542A-100000@mercury>

Ive been working up a TL12 armory of assorted space weapons for my own
amusement and possibly for use in a planetary assault scenario.
    

Designs include     a Meson Gun meant for use in a parallel mount
   
                a laser barbette 
                    a battleship
grade heavy laser



TL-12 Meson Gun 3500 Mj
BR: 3(-1):6-3-2-1
BL:
3(-1):189-95-47-35
Vol           2943 m^3
Mass          3266.4
ton
Cost          210.66 MCr
Surf          70 m^2
Leng          57.6
m
MW            486.0 MW
ROF           50
Crew          1 (dont forget
to leave access for maintenance crew)

This unit has a very short
range as is typical for meson guns of this TL. It was designed to fit
into a 2000t hull in cylinder configuration as a parallel mount. This
wont hurt a battleship, but small warships will be in trouble in close
enough.





TL-12 Laser Barbette (3 m) Point Defense 225 Mj
BR:      
    8:(-1) 1-1-0-0
BL:           8:(-1) 35-1/35     28-1/9     9-1/3  
  3-1/1
Vol           72.84 m^3
Mass          122.29 ton
Cost         
1.6815 MCr
Surf          7.07 m^2
MW            31.25 MW
Crew         
1
ROF           50

This unit is designed for, obviously, anti-missile
defense work. It is capable of engaging missiles at 32 hexes, but due
to range mods wont be able to hit until at about 20 hexes.



TL-12
Heavy Laser Bay (12m) 600 Mj 
BR:           10:(-2) 10-8-5-3        

BL:           10:(-2) 735-1/235     367-1/118     184-1/59    
92-1/29
 (looks more like a spinal mount dont it?)
Vol           318.19 m^3
Mass          701.39 ton
Cost          31.8415 MCr
SA            113.1 m^2
MW            0 MW
Crew          1
ROF          
100


This unit has  a focal diameter of 12, count em, 12 meters. As a
result at TL-12, the effective range is 120 hexes. Woof. Consequently
at normal combat ranges, the damage and penetration are intense. This
model is accompanied by a fusion reactor that provides the 166.67 MW
required by the weapon. The data above is a complete package, I can
also provide full stats for this weapon both with and without the
reactors.

The immense damage and penetration rating are indicative of
the imbalance between spaceship weapons. This laser fits into the (TL
x 50Mj) limit for lasers discussed previously on the TML, but the wide
focal array gives a long efective range and so at the range where fire
is possible the discharge energy is multiplied. The meson gun above
gives much worse performance and for seven times the price.
Admittedly, lasers are a mature technology at TL-12 while meson guns
are relatively new.  




Michael Carter Llaneza
Conceptual Design Services             The Worse it gets,
Pi Kappa Phi                           The more I get used to it.
"I am the NRA"			       Duty Now For The Future


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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 17:05:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Shalom Zaidfeld <cs911408@red.ariel.cs.yorku.ca>
To: TNE Mailing List <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Idol Dreams
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950119170411.28303A@blue>


Did anyone on the list tried to play the "Idol Dreams" adventure in the 
TNE book?  What do you think about it?

                -Shalom Zaidfeld
----
Student, Newtonbrook Secondary School
Toronto, CANADA
Internet: cs911408@ariel.cs.yorku.ca

	

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

Date:          Thu, 19 Jan 1995 16:37:37 MST
From: "Bruce Johnson" <JOHNSON@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Moving rocks in peacetime
Message-ID: <MAILQUEUE-101.950119163737.320@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu>


> From: Alvin Plummer <plummera@SHERIDANC.ON.CA>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Best way to move asteroids...
> Message-ID:
<Pine.OSF.3.91.950116203035.11693A-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
> 
> 
> Over at xboat, there's quite a discussion on rock-throwing for military 
> purposes.
> 
> My question for this group: what is the best, most cost-efficent way to 
> move rocks in system during peacetime: 
> 
> Jump Drives?                  Fusion Drive?
> Solar Sail's?                 HEPlaR?                  Ion?
> 
> My personal bet is solar sails, since it's free and probably the least 
> costly (by FAR).  The only down-side I can see is the long travel times 
> needed to move, say a 20 km-diameter asteroid. (no numbers to calculate 
> mass, right now...)

	Yes but, I doubt you'ld want to wait the decades it's take to get a 
sail-driven rock to the orbit you want.  Sails are meant for a BIG 
sail-area:mass of payload ratio.  I'd go for fusion, ion or even good 
ol' chemical drive...

> I'm assuming that - if you can move the rock cheaply enough - it's 
> definitely less costly to mine it in orbit around the mainworld rather 
> than out in the dark.

	Only if the cost differential made the time costs worthwile...like I 
said, using a sail, you could go broke waiting for your rock to come 
in.

> An associated question: is there any non-violent reason why a megacorp
would 
> want to move a rock quickly?   
> 

	Ahhh...there's the fun part...Claim Jumping? Hiding Resources? Stealing 
alien technology stuck on the rock? Getting a (large) cache of supplies to 
the right spot?  Putting a beacon of some sort into place? Using it 
to build L5 Colonies? Lotsa excuses for moving a rock.  There is an 
ooooold SF Novel 'Moon Zero-Two' (late 60's I think) which was involved with
such a 
plot...in this case the rock was a twenty or so ton emerald, that 
they were trying to get to "land' on a pre-staked claim on the moon.  

  
Bruce Johnson
Information Technology/College of Pharmacy
The University of Arizona
johnson@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu 

As if this place HAD any opinions...

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 1995 20:13:30 -0500
From: CyHiggin@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Moving rocks...
Message-ID: <950119201012_6964030@aol.com>

 Alvin sez:
>My question for this group: what is the best, most cost-efficent way to 
>move rocks in system during peacetime: 

My personal favorite is O'Neill's -- mass driver using chunks of the rock 
for reaction mass.  Solar sail is way too slow -- you won't overcome 
inertia for centuries... Ion drive isn't much better.

Merrick Burkhardt:

>HEPlaR isn't an option (it isn't a particularly effective way of moving even
a
>ship these days :) 

For rocks, no --- might be a good way to move an ice asteriod, tho.  Not an
effective way of moving a ship?!?  What do you use, the Seaton-Crane effect?
HEPlaR is pretty miraculous by the standards of real-world rockets (which
FF&S emasculates horribly).

As for SDBs, they should have jump 1 drives for in-system travel.  Small ones
should use HEPlaR to conserve mass, and large ones should use Fusion Rockets
to cut down reaction mass and powerplant weight, and get bonus free power
to run the weapons from the Drive power tap-off.  Around here, we treat
HEPlaR
as being as hot as fusion rockets, since the performance is only possible
with
a fusion rocket anyway.  You want to land in cities, use chemical rockets and
Contragrav.

                                     -- Cynthia


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

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 95 19:26:34 
From: john.bogan@asb.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RELATIVE VELOCITIES
Message-ID: <9501191926.0RBAO00@asb.com>


Rob Prior say:

> As to conserving velocity, remember that every star is moving at a
different
> vector as it orbts the galactic core.  I can't recall exact speeds, but
> remember from some quick research a few years ago that the different
vectors
> between systems was enough that sips would need a long time (and a lot of
> fuel) to match vectors with each world.  Allowing a Jump to change your
> vector at least gets around this problem.  (In fact, it may have been the
> reason Jump changed vectors.)


I did a real quickie estimate of this a while ago, based on the radial
velocity of 45 stars within 5 parsecs of Earth.  There is an error here
in that this is the radial velocity and not true relative velocity, but
it makes for a decent estimate.  The scale is in BL/BR hexes per turn,
which I don't remember off the top of my head.

hexes/turn:  0       1      2      3      4      5      6        7      15

# of stars:  14       15    6      2      2      2      1        1        1

Or, expressed in terms of percentage of stars with a radial velocity
equal to or less than a given velocity:

hexes/turn:       0     1      2      3      4      5     

       % =<:      31    64    78     82    86    91


Realizing that true relative velocity takes into account motion in
three dimensions rather than just along the direct line to Earth
(the radial velocity), corrections will drive the numbers upward,
especially at the low end.  However, a not-going-too-far-out-on-a-
limb guess would put most still under 2 hexes/turn.

Of course, you will still have those occasional wildcards, like
the one moving 15 in this sample.

If anyone wants to do better, go right ahead, I wouldn't mind 
more accurate numbers myself.

John Bogan

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 167
***************************
