			    TRAVELLER Digest 347

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Multiple targetable laser rods
	by lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
  2) Re: How nasty nukes are
	by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 346
	by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  4) Re: Walkers
	by Hans-Christian.Prytz@ffi.no
  5) Einstein I'm not...
	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  6) Re: Radiation Decontamination & Nukes
	by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
  7) Re: Combat walkers
	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

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

Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 23:01:21 -0300
From: lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Multiple targetable laser rods
Message-ID: <9507140208.AA01499@lrmi.com>

Bruce Johnson Writes

>	This is correct, and probably why nukes aren't used much.  Most of 
>the damage from a nuclear blast on a planetary surface is due to: a) 
>the pressure wave from the blast...something that obviously doesn't 
>happen in a vaccuum environment, and b) the superheated air from the 
>blast setting fires.  The common factor in most of the effects is the 
>presence of an atmosphere as a medium for transmitting the energy of 
>the blast.

Very true.  I would guess that at the very close ranges (<10m - real
contact) the thermal/radiation pulse would do so much damage so quickly that
you would get a shock wave/superheated plasma travelling through the hull as
a result of large scale vaporizion of its material.

Its worth noting that, even in an atmosphere, anything you can protect from
the shock wave needs quite a close hit -- provided you didn't want to walk
around outside it for a few decades.  Even then, I think the plans to crack
silo's depended mostly on overpressure.  The WWII Axis battleships used for
testing survived the experience with only surface damage (but were quite
unusable due to radiation).

Question -- do we assume TL 12 decontam capabilities are substantially
better than ours, or could you render a target long-term hot with an
appropriate weapon?

>	My question is: why not have multiple independently aimed lasers 
>from each blast...this, after all, was the real life design that was 
>proposed with the nuke pumped lasers that they were talking about in 
>the Star Wars program (no not the movie, but that giant Reagan era 
>cash sucker program)
>

My guess: they do, but you use the targetting to play the odds on where the
target will be in 1/10 of a second when your beam gets there from 30,000 km.
An optional rule might allow you to trade hit prob for damage.


Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
Atlantic LRMI


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

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 95 14:01:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: How nasty nukes are
Message-ID: <300705C9@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


"Bruce Johnson" <JOHNSON@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu> writes:

 -----------------------------
In vaccum, only radiatation damage can occur.  The
localized plasma around the blast will be extremely hot, but quite
thin by atmospheric standards. thus the amount of energy it can
transmit will be much smaller.

        Of course, the radiation effects will be greater in a vaccum (all
that energy's gotta go <somewhere>) so there will be a LOT of very
high energy radiation in all directions, spread all across the
spectrum.  So a shiny or white surface
will be able reflect a lot of the energy back, and the armor should
easily handle the rest, it had better...your average solar flare is
going to put out energy on the order of a nuke going off nearby, and
do it for days to a week at a time.  I don't think that nukes put out
the high energy particles like solar flares, it's mostly photons
(very high energy photons, to be sure, but photons nonetheless).
 -----------------------------

I read somewhere that the nukes designed for transatmospheric ABM use in the 
60's were intended to kill incoming ICBM's by means of "X-ray flux". These 
would presumably penetrate any reasonable amount of protection and scramble 
the ICBM's guidance and detonation hardware.

 -----------------------------
        Meanwhile, a nuke driven laser is going to channel a fair amount of
that energy at a single (or very small number) wavelength, at a
single spot...the main aim of weapons since Grog picked up that first
rock and threw it at something.

        My question is: why not have multiple independently aimed lasers
from each blast...this, after all, was the real life design that was
proposed with the nuke pumped lasers that they were talking about in
the Star Wars program (no not the movie, but that giant Reagan era
cash sucker program)
 ------------------------------

Thats what I thought the detonation lasers of TNE (and 2300) DID do!

Django.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 16:44:08 -0500
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 346
Message-ID: <9507142345.AA24654@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

In TRAVELLER Digest 346, Andy commented:

>CONTRAGRAV - TO BE OR NOT TO BE...
>The easiest way to play this to maintain rough consistency with 'canon' is
>to say that gravitic devices at TL9 are huge and power hungry... most 
>expensive... more hazardous [etc]

One major factor is cost of vehicle. I don't have TNE handy, but I do
remember when an air/raft (the SIMPLEST/CHEAPEST c-v vehicle) cost
Cr 400,000!

This is more than a Mac truck! - and way out of range of Airhead and
Noballs' pocket (fortunately) - unless Daddy buys them a floating BMW.

- Hyphen
  (David Jaques-Watson)



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

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 10:18:31 +0200
From: Hans-Christian.Prytz@ffi.no
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Non Receipt Notification Requested)
Subject: Re: Walkers
Message-ID: <"248 95/07/14 10:18*/G=Hans-Christian/S=Prytz/O=ffi/PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/"@MHS>

 
> >4)  How much would walker vehicles benefit from advances in
> >the field of Cybernetics?  Would including cybernetic devices allow a
> >walker to move more naturally and efficiently?

This would produce something similar to the system used in Battletech (from FASA I 
think..) There you use a neural helmet which gives you feedback on the mech's (that's 
walker in Battletech) position and balance (where the arms/legs etc are in space). 
This makes the mech feel like an extension of the pilot's body (albeit quite a bit larger :-)
so he has much better control.

Hmmm, might be interesting to design a walker like this....

Hilsen (Regards)
Hans-Christian Prytz
**************************************************
PGP public key availible on request.
**************************************************
X.400 : G=Hans-Christian;S=Prytz;O=FFI;P=UNINETT;C=NO;
RFC   : Hans-Christian.Prytz@FFI.NO (hap@ffi.no)
 
Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt - FFI
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment - NDRE
Postbox 25, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway

Tlf(Phone) :+47-63 80 72 53    Telefax : +47-63 80 72 12

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 08:35:54 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Einstein I'm not...
Message-ID: <0068ef70@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

>>     Maybe, but this doesn't seem to be the case with robots.  Using 
     VAMPIRE FLEETS' robot design section, it seems that gravitic-propelled 
     robots have a lot more difficulty with recoil than robots with legs or 
     other types of locomotion do.

     I've just started a design for a robot armed with a mounted VRF Gauss 
     weapon and discovered that I'd be better off putting legs on it if I 
     don't want to spend ridiculous amounts on recoil compensation.<<

Whoops.  A more comprehensive look at the VF design rules shows me that 
gravitic suspensions are actually _more_ effective that legs, wheels or 
tracks.  Never was strong at math! <g>

--Chris

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 19:51:39 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: Re: Radiation Decontamination & Nukes
Message-ID: <45@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

:From the message dated Thursday 13, July 1995 :

> Question -- do we assume TL 12 decontam capabilities are substantially
> better than ours, or could you render a target long-term hot with an
> appropriate weapon?
> 

Probably, nuclear dampers are normally used to make atomic nuclei more stable, 
but this would be no good for decontamination (It would make for good radiation 
shielding for personnel and vehicles though). In the FFS description of nuclear 
dampers though, it says they can also make nuclei more unstable. Using a damper, 
the decay period could be cut down to a few days (not too fast, or the whole 
area would resemble a nuclear reactor core). I assume that the damper can't 
affect stable nuclei, otherwise it would be used as a weapon to disintegrate 
enemy hulls, so they would be unaffected by the decontamination.

As contact nuclear explosions are extremely nasty, and it is very difficult to 
get your missiles to hit your opponent, why not use a high powered (long range) 
nuclear damper to detonate their own missiles while they are inside their ships? 
The problems with this are significant, but not insurmountable.

- At range, hitting a missile warhead, an even smaller target than the missile 
would be very hard. The effective target size for attacks would be determined by 
the number of missiles carried by the target.
 
- Nuclear dampers as designed in FFS are pulse shot weapons, not constant beams, 
as the striker rules additions show. This means that the target ship would find 
it very difficult to protect against damper attacks by using dampers to store 
their missiles. Maybe 'freezer' boxes for warheads are still possible under FFS, 
despite Striker contradicting this. However, their volume and cost would make it 
extremely hard for low budget or tight designs to shield themselves. Even big 
battleships would be vulnerable as missiles moved from storage magazines to the 
barbettes, unless almost all of the ship was damped, at great expense. 

This could make an interesting new weapon for TNE ships. It would be effective 
only against some ships, but potentially as damaging as an 8000MJ Meson gun (the 
explosion would be internal), harder to hit with, but harder to shield against. 
The dampers would need to be very large to have the range necessary, and would 
probably need to be heavily overpowered to have any chance at all of hitting, 
making them even larger and more expensive, but it could be interesting. I'll 
work out some rules and post them next week sometime.

> Les Howie
> Senior Software Developer
> Atlantic LRMI
> 

-- 
Brendan

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

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 18:41:20 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Combat walkers
Message-ID: <s006ba6b.070@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

John Bogan says:

>Harold, you might want to lift an idea from GURPS Robots and 
>envision some walkers as "robots with a human (or other  sapient 
>being) command/control system".  For one thing this would help 
>bridge the gap between battledress and walking vehicles.  Compare 
>large robots made from VAMPIRE FLEETS with small walker vehicles. 
>I haven't done it myself yet, so I  couldn't tell you what you might 
>find, but it's worth checking.

   I#ll definately look into it.  I see potential on the battlefield for one 
man walkers capable of short duration flight and armed with nasty
weapons.  They could go places that grav vehicles couldn#t (like 
densely forested areas).  Picture a platoon of them (say 6 total) 
attached to a battledress equipped Marine company.  Now that#s
support....

>> 1)  Would improved walker suspensions and transmissions be  
>> developed beyond those currently available in FF&S?
>
>Inevitably.  Check for a trend in developement that could 
>continue after the "end" after CG.

   I have done so and have a preminary chart. I#ll post it next time.

>> How much damage would be done to the vehicle? 
>
>There's no falling/collision damage rules anyplace? Hmmm...

   Actually now that you mention it, I think there is--I#ll check.


Andy Lilly writes:

>>1)  Would improved walker suspensions and transmissions be  
>>developed beyond those currently available in FF&S?
>
>You betcha. Better lubricants, mechanical design, harder-wearing 
>materials, etc. 

   Once again, I agree.

>>2)  What would the effects of installing a contragrav unit 
>>into a walker be?
>
>Makes it almost as dangerous as a grav vehicle.

   Only a truly skilled pilot could do much more with it than
make it walk where you want to go and make simple hops.  There
is a scene from Robotech where one of the main characters tries
to pilot a mech for the first time.  He gets pretty good,
but demolishes a couple of city blocks in the process....

>>3)  Would installing contragrav improve the speed of the vehicle
>>(after all, with contragrav on, it doesn't weigh nearly as much)?
>
>I don't think so. By definition I would assume a walker requires 
>friction with the ground to push itself forward. Turn on contragrav 
>and you might find that pushing against the ground causes the 
>walker to tumble rather than staying upright.

   The assumption is that you would turn the contragrav on at
a lower setting--say 50 percent of full power, thus decreasing
the weight of the vehicle by 50 percent (or close anyway).

>>4)  How much would walker vehicles benefit from advances in
>>the field of Cybernetics?  Would including cybernetic devices 
>>allow a walker to move more naturally and efficiently?
>
>I would assume yes, since cyber devices must adapt to their host and 
>control muscles, etc. efficiently given feedback on the limb status 
>and a training session of how to walk, etc. The same technology
>(upsized for walkers) would be applicable and would probably be
>standard on higher tech walkers.

   I definately believe this to be the case.  By TL 16 or so, it would be
possible to build a walker that was indistinguishable from an animal
in its movements and behavior (that is until someone opened a hatch
and got out).

>Wibble.
>
>(and you can quote me on that).

   Don#t worry I will--verbatim.


Chris Griffen says:
     
>Maybe, but this doesn't seem to be the case with robots.  Using 
>VAMPIRE FLEETS' robot design section, it seems that gravitic-propelled 
>robots have a lot more difficulty with recoil than robots with legs or 
>other types of locomotion do.
     
   Combat walkers would tend to be 3 tons displacement and higher from
what I#ve worked with so far (that#s 42 kl).  Recoil is less of a
problem once things get to be this size, as most vehicles are.


Andrew Boulton says:

>   Don't forget economics -not everyone may be able to afford a grav
car,
>since they cost at least an order of magnitude more than ground cars. 

   True, which is why wheeled vehicles still hang around for a while.
Legged vehicle development, however, appears to stop dead in its
tracks. Certainly the fact that there is but one example of a legged
vehicle that I#ve ever seen designed for Traveller (the Strider which
appeared in DGP#s 101 Vehicles) says something both in design and
storyline terms.

>I think it's stated somewhere that Terra was unusually late in 
>developing antigrav technology.

   In several publications this is mentioned. Perhaps this was a cover
for the fact that in original Traveller grav vehicles appear at TL 8.
I haven#t seen any lately, have you?  :)

>You've either been playing Battletech or watching too much anime...

   Never played the former but have been guilty on occasion of the
later.  While my objective here isn#t to develop a cross over line, 
is would sure make finding miniatures easier.

   If I have to plead guilty to something though, I'd have to say that I
have seen Stars Wars (all three movies) a bit too often....


--Harold

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 347
***************************
