Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 383
Date:	95-08-19 17:16:40 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)

			    TRAVELLER Digest 383

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Deporting colonists	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  2) Regency Sourcebook	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  3) Ship Lenghts & Naming Conventions (Td#382)	by Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
  4) FYI: The "Stellarium" at NASM	by Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>

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

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 14:59:15 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Deporting colonists
Message-ID: <0350d590@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     Sven Andersen said on Aug. 18:
     
     >>Hans Rancke-Madsen made an interesting point about the financial 
     costs of
     shipping excess population off-world.  Indeed, it seems hard to see 
     why a government would spend so much, to send dissadents to a whole 
     new star system.
     
     Now, I don't know whether this is a solution, or whether it's 
     feasible, but -
     what about the colony ships used to settle Mora?  What happened to 
     them?  Could they have been moth-balled, and then refurbished and used 
     during this trnsfer?
     
     I know there were some moth-balling rules somewhere, and you might 
     have to
     have the government upgrading the Jump drive or something, and darned 
     if I know why whoever paid for the *Moran's* trip let them keep these 
     valuable pieces of hardware on ice... but how would this suggestion 
     affect the cost-worthiness of the proposal?<<
     
     
     This is exactly the type of imaginative thinking I was hoping to 
     inspire with the Mertactor paper.  How could it be done?  Where 
     there's a will, there's a way.
     
     That's what I do with other folks' RICE papers too.  Where the writer 
     has written something outlandish or strange, I just try to find a way 
     to explain or justify it in my own campaign.  I've seen enough strange 
     things and irrational ways of doing things that I believe people will 
     go to any length to get them done.  We're not all rational, logical 
     thinking beings.
     
     Our world and the universe is filled with hyperboles.  I think's its 
     quite possible for anything to happen out there.  In the realm of 
     roleplaying sci-fi universes, we just need to use our imaginations to 
     figure out how.
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 1995 15:06:43 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Regency Sourcebook
Message-ID: <0350f210@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     I spoke with a GDW rep just before they left their offices for GenCon 
     and he said that the Regency Sourcebook is due out in mid-September.  
     Of course, I've heard everything now from February to April to 
     mid-July, then mid-August and now mid-September.  They seem to be 
     hedging quite a bit.
     
     I guess they just don't have the personnel to get enough material out. 
     Traveller has very good name recognition in the RPG marketplace.  I 
     just don't understand why they can't capitalize on that to produce 
     _more_ products on a regular and timely basis.  Well, there's still 
     hope for the future.  One book every six months just doesn't cut it 
     for this rabid Trav fan.
     
     I was told there are still a few "design" issues, so I'm hoping 
     against all hope that there won't be another delay.  Especially since 
     my players are about to cross the border from Deneb to the Spinward 
     Marches!
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 95 00:12:11 -0400
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ship Lenghts & Naming Conventions (Td#382)
Message-ID: <9508190412.AA20817@qrc.com>

Someone asked for ship dimensions and crew complements?

BB (Battleships)
YEAR CLASS                   NATION       LENGTH  BEAM  DRAFT   DISPL  CREW
1860 Warrior                 UK           127.8  17.6   8.1    9,240   704
1879 Amiral Duperre          France        97.5  20.4   7.8   10,480   630[?]
1906 Dreadnought             UK           158.5  25.0   9.4   17,900   800
1913 Koneig                  Germany      175.4  29.5   9.2   28,148  1136
1917 New Mexico              USA          190.2  29.7   9.1   33,500  1084
1925 Nelson                  UK           216.4  32.3   9.1   38,000  1361
1931 Deutschland             Germany      186.0  20.6   7.2   15,900   951
1936 Scharnhorst             Germany      229.8  30.0   9.1   38,900  1840
1939 King George V           UK           227.1  31.4   9.7   44,460  1613
1939 Bismark                 Germany      248.0  36.0  10.2   50,900  2092
1940 North Carolina          USA          221.1  32.9  10.7   46,670  2339
1940 Yamato                  Japan        263.0  38.9  10.4   72,900  2500
1944 Missouri                USA          270.5  33.0  11.0   57,216  2753

CV (Aircraft Carriers)
YEAR CLASS                   NATION       LENGTH  BEAM  DRAFT   DISPL  CREW
1914 Ark Royal               UK           111.5   15.5   5.4    [?]    [?]
1916 Furious                 UK           239.6   26.3   6.5    19,513  880
1919 Hermes                  UK           183.2   21.3   5.7    10,950
664[?]
1920 Notoro                  Japan        143.4   17.6   8.1    14,050 [?]
1922 Langeley                USA          165.4   19.8   5.4    11,500
156[?]
1924 Glorious                UK           239.6   24.6   6.7    26,500 1100
1925 Akagi                   Japan        248.8   28.9   8.1    34,364
2000[?]
1935 Soryu                   Japan        227.5   21.3   7.6    18,000 1101
1936 Enterprise              USA          246.7   25.3   6,6    19,900 2919
1937 Ark Royal               UK           243.8   28.6   6.9    27,000 1575
1939 Graf Zeppelin           Germany      249.9   26.9   5.6    23,200 1760
1939 Zuikaku                 Japan        257.5   26.1   8.8    29,800 1660
1941 Long Island             USA          149.9   21.1   7.8    11,300  950
1942 Shoho                   Japan        217.0   18.0   6.6    13,950
785[?]
1944 Block Island            USA          169.7   22.8   9.3    24,275 1000
1944 Midway                  USA          295.0   34.4   9.8    60,000 3300
1944 Shinano                 Japan        265.8   36.2  10.2    71,890
2400[?]
1950 Ark Royal               UK           257.6   34.3  10.9    50,786 2345
1954 Forrestal               USA          316.7   38.5  11.3    75,900 4940
1960 Enterprise              USA          341.3   40.5  10.8    89,600 5500
1972 Nimitz                  USA          332.0   40.8  11.3    91,400 6100
1973 Hermes                  UK           226.8   27.4   8.8    28,700 1930

SS (Submarines)
YEAR CLASS                   NATION       LENGTH  BEAM  DRAFT   DISPL  CREW
1863 Hunley                  CSA[+]        12.1    1.1   1.2    [?]       9
1899 Holland H7              USA           16.4    3.1   2.5        75    7
1906 U-1                     Germany       42.3    3.7   3.1       400   12
1913 U-21                    Germany       64.1    6.1   3.5       837   35
1915 U-55                    Germany       65.2    6.4   3.6       903   36
1918 U-117                   Germany       81.5    7.4   4.2     1,513   40
1923 S-45                    USA           68.7    6.2   4.8     1,126   38
1933 Cuttlefish              USA           82.6    7.6   3.8     1,650   45
1936 U-25                    Germany       72.3    6.2   4.3       983   43
1937 Salmon                  USA           90.5    7.9   4.4     2,198   55
1939 Type VII                Germany       67.3    6.8   5.0     1,050   45
1942 Gato                    USA           93.3    8.2   4.2     2,425   74
1944 Type XXI                Germany       76.7    8.0   6.2     1,820   58
1954 Nautilus                USA           96.9    8.5   7.7     3,747  104
1960 George Washington       USA          116.1   10.0   8.8     6,888  112
1961 Type 205                Germany       43.9    4.6   4.3       450   22
1965 Benjamin Franklin       USA          129.5   10.1   9.6     7,250  168
1967 Sturgeon                USA           89.0    9.5   8.2     4,640  107
1972 Type 206                Germany       48.6    4.6   4.5       498   22
1976 Los Angeles             USA          109.7   10.1   9.9     6,900  127
1981 Ohio                    USA          170.7   12.8  10.8    18,700  133
1982 Rubis                   France        72.1    7.6   6.4     2,670   66

All dimensions in meters, and all displacments in tons.  
For aircraft carriers, full crew (including air wing) is listed.
For submarines, submerged displacent is given.
[?] Unknown value, estimated data, or believed inaccurate.
[+] Yes, I'm a sountherner, why do you ask?  ;-)
    CSA = Confederate States of America

Data from _Warships of the World_ (Galuppini, 1986)

There's data on all sorts of other warships in there, but I figured that
these would be of most general interest to the TML.


HA281PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Lynx) wrote:
> Does anyone know what the definition of a destroyer, and a frigate is?

The modern destroyer can trace it's heritage to the HMS Havock (commissioned
in 1893), the first of the Royal Navy's new "Torpedo-Boat Destroyers".  This
was a new class of ship specifically designed to protect the fleet against
torpedo boats.  This purpose dictated many of the design elements: high
speed, gun armament as it's primary weapon, and torpedo tubes as a secondary
weapon.

As torpedo boats learned to submerge, and eventually became the submarine,
the destroyer became a specialized submarine-hunting warship.  By WWII, the
destroyer's duties had expanded to include scouting, attacking, and
providing anti-submarine and anti-aircraft excort for warships and merchant
convoys.

The introduction of new weapon systems for many of the destroyer's jobs has
caused modern destroyers to blur the line between a destroyers and the size
and functionality that would traditionally be found in a cruiser.

Going hand-in-hand with these chages are the introduction of a new class,
the destroyer-escort, specifically for the escort of merchant convoys, and
the re-introduction of "frigate" and "corvette" to refer to escort ships
with a primarily anti-submarine role (this new terminology having nothing
at all to do with the use of "frigate" and "corvette" when used to describe
sailing ships).

As with the distinction between destroyers and cruisers, the distinction 
between destroyers and frigates has blurred with the introduction of modern
weapons systems.  In general, a corvette should be the smallest and most
specialized of the three types of vessels (probably specializing in
anti-submarine work), while the destroyer (should be) the largest and 
most multi-purpose of them, but these distinctions are not generally 
observed, even within a single navy.

> If a ship is designed in FF&S terms, is there any feature of it that would
> make it a destroyer rather than a frigate or visa versa?

Designer's whim?

In "Classic" Traveller, the frigate class didn't exist; escort vessels
smaller than destroyers, particularly those intended for convoy duty, were
designated "destroyer-escorts".  You could, therefore, re-introduce
the term to refer to any sort of ship you think appropriate.

> Is it all something to do with cultural history or is there a naming and
> design convention?

There's no convention, so in that sense there's no "wrong" way to do it.
If you'd like your game universe to be a little more consistent, you may
want to invent a convention for your Navy to follow.


wildstar@qrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                "Oh, you fools!  Dance to your heart's
content
                                 in that small world of yours.  Our world is
                                 the whole of space!"   --- Phantom F.
Harlock

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

Date: Sat, 19 Aug 95 09:11:33 -0400
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: FYI: The "Stellarium" at NASM
Message-ID: <9508191311.AA21746@qrc.com>

Just wanted to give you folks a "heads up" about something I saw yesterday.
At the National Air and Space museum, there's an exhibit called "Where Next,
Columbus?" (the whole museum is, of course highly recommended for TML/XBOAT
participatns, BUT:)

A part of this exhibit is the "Stellarium".

It's a large cylinder in a darkened room.  Inside the cylinder is an array of
lights (suspended in very tiny, black wires - the wires are practically
invisible).  The lights represent the Sun and all the stars within a 50-ly
radius of Earth.  The scale is 1ly = 25mm, and an attempt has been made to
represent both the brightness and color of all of the stars.  There is a
narration which identifies many of the more familiar stars in the
stellarium (and also points out that, if the brightness of the stars were
truly accurate, many of the dim, red stars would be invisible - and then
switches off those stars).

I'd love to have this display as a campaign map for 2300, but I don't think
it's practical.  :-)  If you're in the DC area, a side trip to visit this
is probably worthwhile.


wildstar@qrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                "Oh, you fools!  Dance to your heart's
content
                                 in that small world of yours.  Our world is
                                 the whole of space!"   --- Phantom F.
Harlock

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 383
***************************
