Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 349
Date:	95-07-16 23:40:38 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com

From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)
			    TRAVELLER Digest 349

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 348
	by Michael Llaneza <mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu>
  2) Re: How Nasty Nukes Are (Td#346)
	by Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 347
	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  4) Nuclear Damper Weapons
	by lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
  5) Why not microjump?
	by lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
  6) Re: Walkers
	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

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

Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 19:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Llaneza <mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 348
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950715195410.19037A-100000@orion>

Harold> but slightly smaller walkers like the Star Wars AT-ST could have 
some tactical uses.
Harold> >
Harold> > --Harold

Not least of which is the psychological impact of something four meters 
tall and CHASING you...

Michael Carter Llaneza		 To Hell With Senator Exxon !!
Conceptual Design Services       The Worse it gets,
Duty Now For The Future          The more I get used to it
Veteran of the Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force 1990-1951


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

Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 01:02:01 -0400
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: How Nasty Nukes Are (Td#346)
Message-ID: <9507160502.AA19183@qrc.com>

> Les wrote:
> I took a 1 MT weapon, which according to the sci.astro FAQ is 4.2*10^9 MJ,
> and assumed that all of that energy would be available in an attack.
> I calculated that flux in MJ/cm^2 at various ranges, and took that as the
> intensity in the formula for laser DV.
> 
> Range  (m)       DV
>   1              457
>  10               45
>  50                9
> 100                4

While I agree with your general approach (spread 4.2*10^9MJ over spheres
of various sizes), I'm not sure it's reasonable to model it as a single
laser beam.  IF you assume that the laser model is appropriate for a nuke
(and it may well be - the bulk of the energy emitted is as soft X-rays,
approximately equivalent to a TL-15 tunable laser), the penetration factor
should also be figured as well.  

In addition, the nuclear explosion attackes the entire exposed surface
area of the ship - some provision for this should be made, because all
exposed weapons and equipment will be affected.

Here's some suggested rules to play with (enjoy!):


Nuclear Weapon Damage

Range   100MT Weapon -------    1MT Weapon ---------    10KT Weapon --------
 <m>    Pen             Area    Pen             Area    Pen             Area
   0    1/259229-810092 33753H  1/25923-81009  3375H    1/2592-8101     338H
   1    1/1462-4570     190H    1/146-457        19H    1/14-46           2H
   2    1/731-2285       95H    1/73-229         10H    1/7-23            1H
   5    1/293-914        38H    1/29-91           4H    1/3-9             1h
  10    1/146-457        19H    1/14-46           2H    1-5               1h
  25    1/59-183          8H    1/6-18            2h    1-2               --
  50    1/29-91           4H    1/3-9             1h    ---
 100    1/14-46           2H    1-5               1h
 250    1/6-18            2h    1-2               --
 500    1/3-9             1h    ---
1000    1-5               1h
more    ---               --

Rad Hit 10km                    1km                     100m

Damage Effects:

A nuclear explosion within the "Rad Hit" range of a spacecraft will
produce a radiation hit, resetting computers (just as if the ship were
hit with a particle beam weapon).  Explosions beyond this range have
no effect on a spacecraft.

Ground Zero: Determine the hull surface location nearest the detonation
(use the hull surface locations diagram from T:TNE or BL), and the distance
from the hull of the ship to the nuclear device.  This location is attacked
with the penetration and damage value listed in the table above, exactly as
if it were hit with a TL-15 laser.  In addition, all systems which appear in
the Surface Hits damage tables for that location are damaged with the number
of hits indicated in the "Area" column.  In some cases, there will be excess
damage (any "Area" hits above 5H are automatically excess damage); this is
resolved normally. 

Primary Damage: All hull surface locations which share an edge with the one
nearest the detonation are also attacked.  The penetration, damage, and area
damage effects depend on the relative length of the ship and the distance
to the nuclear explosion.  If the overall length of the ship is smaller 
than the range to the explosion, then the primary damage range is the
same as thr ground zero range; due to the angle of the hull to the radiation
of the explosion, use one half (but never less that 1-1 or 1h) of the
penetration, damage, and area damage values that were used at Ground Zero. 
If the overall length of the ship is larger than the range to the explosion,
move down one row from the ground zero range on the chart; this is the
primary damage range.  Use the penetration, damage, and area damage values
from the chart for this new range.  Apply primary damage exactly like Ground
Zero damage (except that the range is larger, and therefore the damage is
less); note that this may affect systems which already recieved damage
atground zero (this is allowed).

Secondary Damage: All hull surface locations which share an edge with
one of the primary damage locations are also attacked.  The secondary
damage range depends on the primary damage range and the length of the
ship.  If the overall length of the ship is smaller than the priary damage
range (determined above), then the secondary damage range is the same
as the primary damage range; due to the angle of the hull to the radiation
of the explosion, use one half (but never less than 1-1 or 1h) of the
penetration, damage, and area damage values that were used in the primary
damage.  If the overall length of the ship is larger than the primary damage
range, move down one row from the primary damage range on the chart; this is
the secondary damage range.  Use the penetration, damage, and area damage
values for this new range.  Apply secondary damage exactly like Primary
Damage (except that the range is larger, and therefore the damage is less);
note that this may affect systems which already recieved damage at ground
zero or in the primary damage area (this is allowed).


Examples:

1) A 1MT weapon explodes about a shiplength (25 meters) astern of a
Broadsword-class mercenary cruiser.  Ground Zero is location 20, and it
is attacked with 1/6-18, of which 13 points (2 minor hits) penetrates
the ship's hull armor.  There are no systems exposed to a surface explosion
in this area, so no additional damage is done.  

The Broadsword is longer (at 28 meters) than the distance to the explosion,
so the primary damage area (locations 16, 17, 18, and 19) is treated as
if it were 50 meters away.  These locations are attacked at 1/3-9 (which
does not penetrate).  However, the airlocks, cargo hatches, antennas, and
docking ports in these areas all recieve minor hits anyway.

The primary damage range, 50m, is larger than the length of the ship (28m),
so the secondary damage area (locations 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15) recieves
half the damage that the primary area does.  Unfortinately, 1/3-4 damage
doesn't penetrate anything.  However the 1h (half of 1h, but never less
than 1h) surface damage now affects more systems: airlocks and antennas
in these areas, for a total of 6 more 1h results on each (and pretty
effectively destroying the antennas and airlocks on the aft hemisphere
of thie ship.

2) A 10KT contact nuclear mine detonates 1 meter (the length of it's contact
sensing elements) from the hull of Midu Agashaam-class Destroyer, in hull
location 7.  41 points of damage penetrate the hull, for 2 major hits.  In
addition, the antenna in that location recieves an additional 2H.  The ship
is much longer than a meter, so the adjacent primary damage area locations
(3, 9, 10, and 13) are attacked at 1/7-23, of whih 14 points of damage
penetrates, for 2 minor hits in each location, plus two major hits on both
the antenna in location 10, and the airlock in 13).  The ship is also
longer than two meters, so the secondary damage area (locations 1, 2, 5, 6,
11, 12, 15, 16, and 16) are attacked with 1/3-9 (which doesn't penetrate),
however, antennas, airlocks, and EMM radiators in these areas recieve 1h
each time they appear in the damage table.  


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

Actually, no.  Without an atmosphere around the blast, nearly all the
energy should come out as either high-speed neutron radiation or "soft"
X-rays.  The bulk of the energy will be in the form of the latter.

In an atmosphere, these "soft" X-rays are absorbed by the surrounding
air, heating it to very high temperaturs (and thereby creating the
fireball and blast effects).  The fireball re-radiates a considerable
amount of energy, spreading it over a broader range of lower frequencies.
These effects don't happen in space.

> 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).

Actually, no.  At detonation, the majority of a nuclear weapon's energy
output is "soft" X-rays (yes, these are photons, folks).  Just about
any type of matter absorbs this radiation efficently, and since FF&S
assumes that TL-15 tunable lasers would operate in these ranges, it's
a safe assumption that starship hull will be just as easily damaged
by nuclear-explosion-generated soft X-rays as it is by a laser weapon.

wildstar@quark.qrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   "A shining New Era is tiptoeing nearer
..."
                                                "... and where do we
feature?"

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

Date: Sun, 16 Jul 95 16:05 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 347
Message-ID: <memo.618663@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199507150135.VAA20261@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk> To:
  > Subject: Re: Radiation Decontamination & Nukes 

  [Using nuclear dampers to detonate enemy missile magazines]
  
  > 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. 

This was one of the suggestions I sent to Challenge a few months ago,
(another related one was using NDs to overload/shut down reactors) - if
nothing appears in #77 (RSN?) I'll post the list here.


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

Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 15:43:56 -0300
From: lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Nuclear Damper Weapons
Message-ID: <9507161849.AA27924@lrmi.com>

"Brendan O'Donovan" wrote
>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.
>

The writeup on dampers in FF&S suggest that you could use them to bring
down, not just a warhead, but an active fusion reactor.  This would be quite
effective, but the possibility seems to have been passed over in other rules.

Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
Atlantic LRMI


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

Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 17:53:20 -0300
From: lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Why not microjump?
Message-ID: <9507162101.AA28851@lrmi.com>

While greasing up my ship design spreadsheet, I ran some numbers on fuel
consumption for sub-parsec jumps, and got some very interesting results.
For example, for a 1000 D-Ton Jump 4 ship, the fuel consumed per light
second is only .00085 litres.  To put that in perspective, the average jump
from jupiter orbit to earth orbit (2500 ls if the TNE travel distance tables
are accepted) is only 2.13 l of fuel.  This is probably less volume than the
milk which the Captain will take in his tea during the week in J-Space.  And
what's a week?  A 9 g hour burn from the table still gives a 5 week travel
time -- for most ships you probably get dry tanks long before you get under
a week.

Microjumps restore the reasons for capturing a Gas giant.  You arrive on
target with full tanks, and instead of being out in the open like a blazing
torch that says "here I come, calculate my ETA", the target cannot tell if
you are after the homeworld, or on to the next system.

I think I will use them in my own campaign.  It only needs a table of
relative orbital velocities to show the vector which must be dealt with to
match velocities between the two orbits.

Sorry if I am kicking around an old idea.


Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
Atlantic LRMI


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

Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 17:19:42 -0400
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Walkers
Message-ID: <s0094a4a.077@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

Hans-Christian Prytz writes regarding walkers:

>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....

   This technology becomes available at TL 12 I believe.  I have a great
deal of difficulty with the concept of a battlemech, however.  Arms
may have some utility on a walker in that they would allow it to better
manipulate its environment (like say piling up boulders to use as a
defensive position), but would be practically useless as melee weapons,
as it would be highly unlikely that a battlemech would get that close
to the enemy.  I'm not sure what kind of weapons arms large enough
to be on a battlemech could hold, but they would probably be less
powerful than those you could mount in a turret, and have less of a
arc of fire.  As for a head--why?  Aesthetics perhaps?  You'd
probably be much better off with a turret and no arms and no head,
IMHO.


--Harold




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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 349
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Sun Jul 16 23:39:47 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail03.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA149812387; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 23:39:47 -0400
Return-Path: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id WAA05629; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 22:06:54 -0400
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 22:06:54 -0400
Message-Id: <199507170206.WAA05629@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: traveller@mpgn.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 349
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

