From traveller@mpgn.com  Wed Aug 23 09:41:37 1995
Return-Path: traveller@mpgn.com
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM (Ambassador.MPGN.COM [149.109.1.5]) by emin06.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id JAA14513; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:41:33 -0400
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA23738; Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:37:15 -0400
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 09:37:15 -0400
Message-Id: <303B8F05@pc136>
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 387
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

			    TRAVELLER Digest 387

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 386	by mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu (Michael Carter Llaneza)
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 381	by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  3) More Laser Goodies	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  4) Challenge 77	by scharlto@RTD.COM (Steve Charlton)
  5) Re: More Laser Goodies	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  6) Zho 16,000MJ MG	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  7) FFS caseless ammo design	by Lahtinen Antti Jussi <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
  8) RE: low tech starships and fusion drives in gas giants	by Neil Taylor <neil@owl.uk.gdscorp.com>
  9) HEPlaR & Fusion Drives again [science]	by Duncan Law-Green <dlg@jb.man.ac.uk>
 10) FYI>NetRPG - RolePlaying ov	by "KMCCARTHY" <KMCCARTHY@QMGATE.OSC.HQ.NASA.GOV>
 11) RE: TRAVELLER digest 382 (Destroyers/Frigates)	by David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 20:49:38 -0700
From: mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu (Michael Carter Llaneza)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 386
Message-ID: <v01510102ac60555b8f1d@[190.0.2.1]>

Muir>         Two related notes:  How big would the reaction mass "flame"
Muir> behind a Heplar or fusion equipped ship be.  Since the reaction mass IIRC
Muir> is around 10^6 C, shouldn't it be visible from a great distanc, like
Muir> multiple AU?  And second, would using a fusion drive in the region
from the
Muir> upper atmosphere to LEO  generate an EMP?
Muir>         Thanks. 


Good point. I recall a sequence in Larry Niven's World of Ptaavs which
distinctly mentions fusion drives being visible at astronomical distances.

Any real numbers for this ? How many candlepower to the megawatt of drive
power ?



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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 14:06:20 -0500
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 381
Message-ID: <199508232107.OAA01635@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

In digest 379-381, there has been some discussion on the Mertactor RICE
Paper presented by Christopher Griffen. I would like to add to this
with the points below.

1. Cost of Transportation

Transporting people is always costly. However, it is often done with
more than one agenda in mind. The transportation of British convicts to
Australia had two main purposes: it rid Britain of "criminals" (no matter
that they might only have stolen a loaf of bread to feed their family)
but also allowed Britain to claim Australia as a colony. The original
convicts, by creating some basic infrastructure, paved the way for later
colonists to move to Australia.

Perhaps the Moran initiative could be seen in the same way, killing two
birds with one stone. It allowed Mora to establish a distant Imperial
presence, a base from which to expand/refuel/explore etc. The cost of
transporting people could be seen to be recouped in other ways.

2. Re: Cost-benefits

>>Just ask Kevin Costner.
>That one went right by me. Didn't even see it.

A Waterworld reference?

3. Re: "free and easy Spinward Marches"

I believe that the original reference to the Marches went something like
this:
        "We'll be working in the lunatic fringe... I mean, Imperial Rim".
(Book 0: Intro to Traveller)

If you look at the Marches ITO the Imperial Core, the ENTIRE area would
be seen to be "the wilds" ("here be dragons", etc). Being posted to the
Marches back in the 300-500's could be likened to being posted by an
imperial power to an African colony last century. I have never thought of
the Marches as "free and easy", unless this means "you can do what you want
and it is too far away for anyone to care". The latter applies to
governments just as much as individuals.

4. Aslan ihatei

I must admit that I agree here. I have never believed that the Aslan could
ever get as far as Glisten. OK, the Imperium would probably lose its
toe-hold in Pax Rulin and so on (how embarrassing, I have forgotten the
sector name!), especially given the poor admiral as noted by DGP. But
Glisten? It is a major naval base, shipyard, etc. as well as being
Hi Pop - plenty of defenders, all at TL 15. Oh well, we shall see.

5. The purpose of RICE Papers

I believe that the purpose of posting ANYTHING to this list can be
split into the following major categories:

        a. Asking for help OR for replies to specific questions;
        b. Sharing useful information/designs/rules with others
           on the list;
        c. Posting ideas so that the list can be used as a "sounding-
           board" to test theories/speculations etc., especially before
           publishing them.

For my money, the RICE Papers fall into category (c) above. They are
posted to INVITE comment and constructive criticism. I believe that
anyone who posts to this list would be open to receive genuine,
positive critiques of their work.

.. And apart from Olga, these are the only type of responses I have
seen. We are all fanatical about Traveller (or we wouldn't subscribe to
this list), and I believe all of us want to see well-presented, positive,
believable [and _canonical_ ;-)] products produced to enhance the game.

- Hyphen
  (David Jaques-Watson)


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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:28:31 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: More Laser Goodies
Message-ID: <199508230428.AAA03590@chopin.udel.edu>


Thanks to everyone that had some input as to my question about lasers
and workstations.  Checking over the crew part of the laser design
sequence, it does say that a laser may be ``uncrewed'' if it is tied
into an external MFD.  So, my own question answered in print.  Maybe
next time I should try reading the book!  8)

Anyway, here are two laser sequences that I came up with.  Could
another laser guru out there check them out and tell me if they're
correct.

TL-15 200Mj Tunable Laser Turret
Vol: 42kl    Mass: 75    MW: 5.6    MCr: 1.05
Short: 10:1/14-35    Med: 20:1/14-35    Long: 40:1/14-35    Ext: 80:1/14-35

Design Notes:
    FA=3.6    IE=1000    F=4666    R=156

TL-15 750Mj Non-Gravitic Focusing X-Ray Laser Turret
Vol: 42kl    Mass: 61.74    MW: 4.9    MCr: 1.01
Short: 10:1/22-68    Med: 20:1/13-41    Long: 40:1/7-21    Ext: 80:1/3-10

Design Notes:
    FA=3.6    IE=882    F=3.6    R=12

So, assuming that my designs are correct, which is the better laser to
use?  They both will need an external MFD (and are thus uncrewed).  But
I was wondering, what is the range that most effective ship combat
takes place.  In my opinion, the x-ray laser would be better,
especially for merchants because they could really screw up the day of
a corsair that gets too close (think of this turret as a nasty
suprise).  However, this is only as long as the starship combat takes
place at short and medium ranges.

Now, since I'm not the BL expert, I was wondering how accurate and
effective is combat at long and extreme ranges.  Whenever I've played,
it wasn't until medium range that players even started to hit with some
regularity, but that may just be us.

Any opinions (Chris, Andrew, Merrick, et al) flames or just questions?

Thanks in advance...

        --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8 
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 23:04:01 -0700
From: scharlto@RTD.COM (Steve Charlton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Challenge 77
Message-ID: <199508230604.XAA23768@seagull.rtd.com>

Got home from work this evening, checked my mail, and Behold!  Challenge 77 
had arrived.  I was very impressed with this issue; it seemed thicker, and 
was chock-full of Traveller, 2300AD and TW2000 goodies.  

In the Traveller area, there was a fairly good adventure, a corporate female 
NPC, and Mark Gelinas' notes on collapsing pre-Virus UPPs.  The adventure 
was fairly good, but has one of the WORST damned drawings I've ever seen in 
Challenge.  There was also an expansion of the Technical Database info for 
the Intrepid/Trepida Grav Tank (nice details on variants), Commodore Bwana, 
and a very long rebuttal/reply/rant from Dave Nilsen regarding all of the 
negative reaction to Hivers & Ithlkur.  Well, it starts that way, but 
quickly develops into a defense of the Virus, the Collapse and TNE in general.

I was not all that disappointed with H&I, but it is defintely my least 
favorite "Aliens" sourcebook from either GDW or DGP.  Dave seemed to be 
trying to address the folks that are really ticked over the whole Traveller 
direction, rather than the mildly annoyed people like myself.  He makes some 
pretty good points about focus and detail levels, but his editorial sort of 
falls apart in confusion.  Its apparent to me that Dave defintely gives a 
damn about what he does and what he writes, and wants people to understand 
that he and GDW are not just trying to randomly piss people off.  For what 
its worth Dave, I'm still on the GDW Traveller bandwagon, and I think lots 
of other people are too.

Some interesting advertisement oddities:  A full-page add from RAFM with a 
bunch of new Traveller starships, including several Regency designs.   An 
add for the Regency Sourcebook (August release, drool, drool), an add for 
The Guilded Lilly (the first Virus Redux adventure, also listed for August), 
and a couple of TW2000 items; The Vistual Epic and Armor 21 (now scheduled 
for October).

Definitely one of the better issues from the past couple of years.

PS - GW Herbert's TW2000 adventure finally showed up.  Neat!
Steven T. Charlton
I don't recall installing this 
"General Protection Fault" Screen Saver
scharlto@avalon.com (work)  scharlto@rtd.com (home)


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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 00:55:57 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: More Laser Goodies
Message-ID: <9508230655.AA23549@Rt66.com>

Hi,

Here are some comments, and a laser of my own :) 
 
BTW, I'll snip a bunch of good stuff 
			  ^^^^^^^^^^<=first comment

> TL-15 200Mj Tunable Laser Turret
> Vol: 42kl    Mass: 75    MW: 5.6    MCr: 1.05
> Short: 10:1/14-35    Med: 20:1/14-35    Long: 40:1/14-35    Ext: 80:1/14-35
> 
> TL-15 750Mj Non-Gravitic Focusing X-Ray Laser Turret
> Vol: 42kl    Mass: 61.74    MW: 4.9    MCr: 1.01
> Short: 10:1/22-68    Med: 20:1/13-41    Long: 40:1/7-21    Ext: 80:1/3-10
> 
> So, assuming that my designs are correct, which is the better laser to
> use?  They both will need an external MFD (and are thus uncrewed).  But
> I was wondering, what is the range that most effective ship combat
> takes place.  In my opinion, the x-ray laser would be better,

The xray will critical a small ship at short range.  This is a _good thing_(tm).
Other than that, I like the tunable one better in the 20-40 range which is where
your first chance to hit a small ship will be (and lasers like this won't do too
much to a bigger ship).  This means the other guy can pick the range.  I'd put
one of each on the trader :)  Just shoot the tunable until he gets a god shot 
off, then stop shooting it to spoof him in, then critical him... unless you can
get close without getting shot first.  I'd go for high ROF in either case.  I
don't make weapons at less than max ROF unless they're for anti-missile use or
the like.

Now for a Zhodani laser.

Zho TL14 200Mj Tunable/xray Laser Turret
Vol: 56kl	Mass: 86.22	MW: 5.56 (ROF=10)	MCr: 1.404

This turret has one HPG and *two* focal arrays.  One is an xray laser for space
use, the other is tunable.  Both are beefed up for a ROF of 800, all you have
to add is the juice.

xray:  		10:1/11-35 (same at all ranges)
BR stats:	L[-5]10:1 ([] indicate beefed, but not powered)

Tunable:	4:1/11-35	8:1/7-21	16:1/3-11	32:1/2-5
BR stats:	L[-5]4:1-1-0-0

Design notes:  The Zhodani standardized on a larger turret size than the 
Imperium due to their technological lag.  Combat experience had shown them the 
need for their smaller ships to be able to strike at ranges of light-seconds
---otherwise their Imperial counterparts would choose the range and kill them.

The choice of 2 focal arrays allows a flexibility of operations desirable in
small ships which are more likely to find themselves in an atmosphere.
> 
-Merrick

> 


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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 01:22:43 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Zho 16,000MJ MG
Message-ID: <9508230722.AA24143@Rt66.com>

Zhodani TL14 16,000MJ Meson Gun

Bore Diameter: 14.28m		Area: 160m^2
Length: 250m
DE: 16,000MJ	IE: 80,000MJ

Tunnel Volume: 40,000kl		HPG Volume: 3200kl


ROF	Volume	   Mass	    Price	Power		Crew
	(kl)	 (tonnes)   (MCr)	(MW)	
---	------	   ------   -------	------		--------
100	43,918	   30,441   4,045.1	4446.2		100


Stats:

BL:	10:633	20:316	40:158	80:79

BR:	M(-2)10:10-8-4-2


This includes all workstations for the crew (FFS crew) as well as an MFD.  In 
tons it's 3137... not too bad.  This is the spinal mount in a 60kton CL I'm
doing to give my Impys something to shoot at...

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 10:33:40 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Lahtinen Antti Jussi <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
To: traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: FFS caseless ammo design
Message-ID: <199508230733.KAA28643@korppi2.cs.tut.fi>

>    As far as I can see in FFS, there is no weight modifier for caseless 
>    ammo, but I was under the impression that real-world caseless ammo is 
>    lighter (and you can get more in a magazine because it tends to be 
>    square in cross section) than comparable cased ammo.
>     
>    *Is this true?
>    *Has anyone worked out house rules for caseless ammo?


	Caseless ammunition design in FFS

	In page 92 FFS states that "all non-ETC cartridges at TL 9+ are
	caseless". However, there is no design rules for caseless ammunition.

	Caseless cartridges have a block of solid propellant instead of metal
	shell casing and loose propellant. Because of this, caseless ammo
	is lighter and has more propellant than cased ammo with same external
	dimensions.
	Reliable caseless ammo becomes available at TL 8. Note that weapons
	that are designed to use cased ammo can not use caseless ammo even
	if both ammo types were externally identical. In normal firearms the
	shell casing forms a gas seal at the breech end of the barrel, and
	a caseless round may cause a gas leak. (The same situation may happen
	if an worn-out shell is reloaded, and the shell ruptures when fired.)


	Straight caseless ammo have a block of propellant fixed to the base
	of large bullet. (Example: .22 Daisy V/L)

	Necked caseless ammo have a small bullet fixed to the end of larger
	block of propellant. The propellant block has a hollow core, with
	bullet in one end and the primer in the other end.
	(Example: .223 Usel)

	Telescoped ammo is similar to necked ammo, but the bullet is placed
	inside the hollow propellant core, next to the primer. The explosion
	of primer pushes the bullet away from the core. (Example 4.93x33 H&K)


	FFS: Ammunition Design additions

	Length formula:		Used for:
	Lasg = Lcc		Shotgun ammunition
	Las = Lcc + d		Straight cased or caseless ammunition
	Lan = Lcc + 2d		Necked cased or caseless ammunition
	Lat = Lcc		Telescoped caseless ammunition

	(Example: 4.93x33 telescoped ammunition is 33mm long)


	Weight of ammo: caseless ammo is lighter than corresponding cased
	ammo. This table shows Ammunition Weight Multipliers for caseless
	ammunition.

	Ammo Type		Awm
	Shotgun shell		0.003
	Straight caseless	0.007
	Necked caseless		0.008	(also telescoped caseless)
	Straight		0.008
	Necked			0.010

	(Example: 4.93x33 telescoped caseless weighs 5 grams)


	Average Muzzle Energy: caseless ammunition has more propellant than
	corresponding cased ammunition. This table shows Cartridge modifiers
	for caseless ammunition.

	Cartridge Type		Cm
	Shotgun			0.2
	Shotgun ETC		0.3
	Straight		0.4
	Straight Caseless	0.5
	Straight ETC		0.8
	Necked			1.6
	Necked Caseless		2.0	(also telescoped caseless)
	Necked ETC		3.2

	(Example: TL-8 4.93x33 Telescoped caseless has 1386 joules Average
	Muzzle Energy)


	Reality Check: Modern 4.93x33 H&K round weighs 5.2 grams, and
	the 3.3 gram bullet is fired at a muzzle velocity of 930 m/s.
	The Muzzle Energy is 1427 joules.

	According to FFS, the Average Barrel Length for 1386j, 4.93mm
	bullet is 57cm. If the barrel length is increased to 61.94cm,
	the Actual Muzzle Energy is 1427j.

	---

	Note that necked or telescoped caseless ammo may have square
	cross section. This means that there is less packing losses
	(empty volume between ammo) when square ammo is stacked into
	a magazine. In FFS terms this is significant only with pistol
	grip magazines.
	Medium-sized grip magazine has the volume of 60 cm3, and magazine
	with cylinderical ammo has twice the volume of carried ammo.
	If magazine is filled with compacts square ammo, the total volume
	of magazine is 1.5 times the volume of carried ammo.

>    Also, what material is the magazine assumed to be made of?  Steel (in 
>    which case I could replace it with composite)?

	I think that the FFS magazines are made of Hard Steel, and it
	should be possible to use other materials.
	The magazines used in new Kalashnicov, Sako, Sig and Steyer rifles
	can be considered to be made of composite materials.


-- 
        Antti Lahtinen    :     Justice is Only a Wish of a Weak
        al76188@cs.tut.fi :


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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 08:43:20 EDT
From: Neil Taylor <neil@owl.uk.gdscorp.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: low tech starships and fusion drives in gas giants
Message-ID: <009954BC.F7064B20.23@arc.uk.gdscorp.com>

From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>  writes:

>However, flying a fusion rocket powered craft through a gas giant creates 
>another problem, as the plasma exhaust will cause secondary fusion reactions in 
>the hydrogen behind the craft.

I don't believe there's any likelihood it would do that... Atoms are not 
naturally fusionable, they have to be "persuaded" by unusual conditions - they 
do not "burn" with a fusion reaction like they burn chemically. The opposing 
positive charges on hydrogen nucleii (and other nucleii) provide a very high 
repulsion as the nucleii approach - they have to start out clsoe and fast to 
overcome that and get close enough for the nucleic fields (strong force) to 
overlap and allow the nucleii to fuse.

There are two ways to trigger fusion:

1) *very* high temperatures, moderate-to-high pressure, and confinement, as 
naturally found inside a star, and as forced inside a hot-fusion reactor (by 
pumping lasers and confining mag-fields)
2) <SF> use <strong-force> field manipulators (reverse dampers) or whatever, to 
catalyze the reaction.

RE 1): The exhaust of even a fusion drive is bulked up by extra gas, heated by 
the reactor core, so as to generate extra thrust - that plus the expansion as it 
leaves the confines of the drive, plus the radiative loss from glowing bright, 
all mean that the drive plasma is going to cool down rapidly (to white hot or 
so) and no longer fuse,
(the confinement requirement for reactors is so that the gas doesn't escape and 
expand (cool down) before it has time to fuse)

RE 2) only works inside the catalytic field of the reversed dampers, and has no 
effect in the world outside.

If there were oxidant in the gas-giant atmosphere, there'd be a flame (chemical) 
reaction triggered by the heat of the tail, but any oxidants would have been 
rapidly soaked up by the vast sea of reducing gasses long before the ship got 
there.

>:From orbit the sight of fuel shuttles refuelling is truly impressive. On 
>entering the atmosphere an initial fireball speads out slowly from the point of 
>impact with the atmosphere. From one edge of the expanding fireball a point of 
>fire reaches out, an inferno spreading out like the wake of a speedboat from 
>the speeding shuttle.

even without adding fusion, this is true!  In order to boost out again from the 
gravity well, refueling botas seem to make parabolic dives at high speed, and, 
yes, the fusion trail will be incandescent and will form a fireball in dense 
gas, just from the heat alone.
The fireball of nukes etc are not <burning> its just the effect of dumping 
unreasonable amounts of heat into a volume of gas! 

As far as display from a distance, remember that gas giants are *huge* - the 
cloud spots seen from earth, when the comet hit jupiter, were "the size of the 
planet earth", and triggered by impacts equivalent to several Million Megatons! 
The starship fireball may look huge from the ship, and be thousands of miles 
long, but will be very thin  relative to its length.  From outside the gas 
gaint, looking at the whole planet, it'll be no more than a hair thin bright 
line flashing across the planet and extinguishing behind itself.

>I suggest the following thruster as a TL9 solution for planetary landings
>
>TL Type             Th   MCr    MaxT    FC     FT     Airframe
>9  HeatJet          8    0.5    -       2.00   Lhyd   Hyper
>
>The heat jet passes liquid hydrogen around a fusion reactor, heating it and 
>boiling it, expelling it as a gas. This is a precursor to the HEPlaR drive, but 
>the hydrogen does not reach a plasma state. Although considerably inferior to 
>the fusion rocket which becomes available at the same time, it is a cleaner 
>alternative, and can be used within planetary atmospheres.

this is almost how the fusion drive works anyway. I think the Trav version has 
the Lhyd dumped into the fusion core; but all realistic proposals (eg from NASA) 
have in fact used your plasma drive, fueled by the reactor heat.


>Under normal conditions the fusion wake in gas giant atmospheres will die down, 
>as the atmosphere is not dense enough to support the fusion reaction. However, 
>a brown dwarf, a gas giant which is almost a star, could possibly be triggered 
>by a fusion rocket into igniting into a full star, making the vicinity 
>decidedly uncomfortable for any lifeforms.

still doesn't work under Physics - the reason the brown dwarf doesn't turn into 
a star on its own is nothing to do with conditions in the thin upper atmosphere 
(0-10 Atms) that a spaceship might plummet through, but to the conditions 
thousands of miles deeper down, in the core of the gas giant, in the metallic 
hydrogen layers.   In the gas giant the heat and pressure are *very* high, but 
not high enough to start a fusion reaction -- in a star, the core does fuse ( 
and sufficient extra matter falls onto the star to ensure it stays compressed 
and doesn't heat up and blow away its outer layers and stop  fusing after the 
initial burst.)  

Adventure seeds:
>2/Sentient aliens encountered living within the atmosphere of the gas giant.

this is a good one, and has been seen before.  Remember that the hypersonic 
flight of the shuttle plus the blast of the expanding (and collpsing) firetrail 
will cause a broad swathe of devastation in the upper atmosphere.
Cloud creatures will be killed by the million...
(See one of the early JTAS - I think they were the Jag'd I'l Jag'd or such - 
giant Zeppelin sized balloon creatures)
--------------------------------------------------+
-- Neil Taylor              neil@uk.gdscorp.com --|
-- Graphic Data Systems Ltd,                    --| 
-- Wellington House, East Rd, Cambridge CB1 1BH --|
--------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 1995 12:42:01 +0100 (BST)
From: Duncan Law-Green <dlg@jb.man.ac.uk>
To: TML <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Cc: Stewart Eyres <spe@jb.man.ac.uk>
Subject: HEPlaR & Fusion Drives again [science]
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950823123522.14266A-100000@jbss3>

 
Health warning: I'm an observational astronomer by trade, not a
nuclear or plasma physicist, so please don't take this as gospel :-)

>> Two related notes:  How big would the reaction mass "flame" 
>> behind a Heplar or fusion equipped ship be.  Since the reaction mass IIRC 
>> is around 10^6 C, shouldn't it be visible from a great distanc, like 
>> multiple AU? 
>
>The flame would be very hot, but when travelling at a speed of 67 km/s (4hexes 
>per turn) or a similar order of magnitude, the reaction mass expended would be 
>spread out across such a large area that it would not be easily visible. The 
>exhaust near the ship would be hotter, but the greatest signiture would come 
>from the end of the ship heating up, which would accumulate heat, rather than 
>the exhaust itself.

This is something which has bothered me about TNE for some time. Any
ship with an operating fusion drive will create a clearly defined
'drive plume' visible across a wide spectrum (soft X-ray to radio) and
likely to be tens of thousands of km long. In effect: I'm here ---
shoot me! :)

To achieve the kinds of specific impulse described for TNE
drives, the reaction mass emitted by the ship would have to be
travelling "backwards" at a healthy fraction of the speed of light. If
it was otherwise unconfined, the plasma trail would expand "sideways"
at its internal sound speed, which would be considerably less than the
exhaust velocity...giving a narrow "drive plume". Magnetic effects may
make the plume even narrower (an effect called "flux-freezing" would
drag magnetic field from the drive's magnetic confinement 'bottle' out
into the plume and wrap the field around it).

If I was looking for a fusion drive plume, I'd look at UV wavelengths
(free-free emission from the ultra-hot plasma), optical (line emission
from recombining hydrogen and helium), and radio (synchrotron emission
from charged particles in the magnetic fields of the plume). Radio
interferometry especially would be able to pinpoint the ship very
nicely (fractional-arcsecond accuracy) :)

I'd have to do some guesstimating, but I reckon that high-tech
passive EMS sensors could _image_ (not just detect) a drive plume as
far out as the orbit of Jupiter.

>> And second, would using a fusion drive in the region from the 
>> upper atmosphere to LEO  generate an EMP? 
>HEPlaR is not radioactive, so it wouldn't. Fusion rockets would 
>certainly emit a lot of electromagnetic radiation, but it probably wouldn't 
>be an EMP. The energy from the fusion rocket is output more gradually than 
>from a nuclear explosion, so there would be a constant wash of radiation 
>rather than a pulse. This radiation might be enough to disrupt electronics 
>depending on the size of the rocket and the range involved.

*Blink*...so far as I'm aware, radioactivity isn't a prerequisite for
an EMP. An EMP as I understand it arises from a large mass of ionised
material moving very rapidly (moving charges radiate EM radiation). If
the HEPlaR produces an ionised exhaust, then it should produce
EMP-like effects (but probably only a fairly weak, continuous effect,
as stated above). More dangerous would be flying _through_ the magnetic
"drive plume" of another ship...if you were moving quickly enough that
could well blow all your electronics :-)

Oh well, just my Cr0.02...

Duncan
=-=-=-

dlg@jb.man.ac.uk ------------------------------ NRAL Jodrell Bank, UK
dlg@ryouko.demon.co.uk ------------------------------- No Fixed Abode





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

Date: 23 Aug 1995 08:05:05 U
From: "KMCCARTHY" <KMCCARTHY@QMGATE.OSC.HQ.NASA.GOV>
To: "New TML Broadcast" <traveller@MPGN.COM>, macrocosm@wri.com
Subject: FYI>NetRPG - RolePlaying ov
Message-ID: <n1402957182.63089@QMGATE.OSC.HQ.NASA.GOV>

                       Subject:                               Time:8:02 AM
  OFFICE MEMO          FYI>NetRPG - RolePlaying over the...     Date:8/23/95

Folks,

FYI.  This looks interesting but I have not FTPed it.

============================================================
From: erich@kagi.com (Erich Bratton)
Newsgroups:
rec.games.frp.announce,comp.sys.mac.games.adventure,comp.sys.mac.games.announce
Subject: [software] NetRPG 2.4 - roleplaying over the net!
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 1995 21:51:12 -0500
Organization: Protocol Communications, Inc.

[note followup line - mod]

NetRPG - RolePlaying over the Internet
C1995 by Erich G Bratton erich@kagi.com

"Did you used to play Role Playing Games in the old days, but can't
anymore because your fellow gamers have moved off to jobs or grad schools
in other cities?  Well, you're in luck!  You can still play RPG's (like
D&D, copyright by TSR) with NetRPG!"

NetRPG is an expansion on Chat 2.0.6, with many added features that make
it suitable for playing RPG's over the internet.

Version 2.4 adds buffered TCP connections for (hopefully!) better speed
and reliability, along with numerous other improvements which are listed
in the What's New file included with this package.

Thanks!

--Erich

---

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:     
BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT NET-RPG

Table of contents for this page:
0) Who wrote NetRPG?
1) What is NetRPG?
2) What machines does NetRPG run on?
3) Does it cost anything?
4) What do you really do with it?
5) How do I find someone to play games with?
6) Where do I get a copy of NetRPG?


0) Who wrote NetRPG?
    NetRPG was written by me, Erich G Bratton (erich@kagi.com), in order
    to keep playing games once everyone I gamed with in college moved
    on to other cities.
    
1) What is NetRPG?
    NetRPG is an internet server which lets a group of friends role-play
    over the net.  NetRPG allows players to talk with one another using a
    mud-like interface, ready weapons, set an armor class, have hit
    points, store online character sheets, calculate and run combats
    using initiative rolls, resolve attacks and distribute damage between
    players and monsters, store and retrieve ASCII maps to facilitate
    showing exactly where the action is occuring, roll dice either in the
    open or privately shown to only the player and DM, and allows the
    DM to fudge attack rolls when a plot line necessitates a critical hit
    or miss or whatever.

    All of these features combine in NetRPG to make live internet
    role-playing not only possible, but very enjoyable!

2) What machines does NetRPG run on?
    The NetRPG server runs on any Macintosh which has MacTCP.  Once the
    server is running, the players can connect to the server using their
    favorite MUD client from any type of machine.  (ie, they could run
    tinyfugue on a unix box, or Muddweller on a mac, or a telnet program
    on a PC)
    NOTE: a unix/DOS version is currently being worked on by another
programmer...
    
    So, as long as you have one person who has a mac someplace, you can
    play using NetRPG.  You don't even have to be sitting at the Mac to
    play, you can just leave NetRPG running on a mac in an office
    someplace.
    
3) Does it cost anything?
    NetRPG is free.  All I ask is that you send me email telling me what
    you're doing with it, and whether or not you like it. 
    (erich@kagi.com)
    
4) What do you really do with it?
    Well, once you have played for a while and start getting into more
    complex adventures, you can add on Maven or other audio-conferencing
    tools (assuming everyone has a fast connection) or an electronic
    whiteboarding program such as "wb" for XWindows or NCSA's Collage. 
But, now that NetRPG supports movable icons on the maps, you can get some
serious gaming done with just text connections!
    
5) How do I find someone to play games with?
    The difficulty with NetRPG is that you never see/hear the other
    people.  For this reason, it seems to help to know the people you are
    playing with. However, if you don't have anyone who'd like to play,
    I think that advertising on rec.games.frp.dnd for a group to play
    on a regular basis (once a week works for my group) should turn up
    more than a few responses.

6) Where do I get a copy of NetRPG?
    NetRPG is available on the info-mac and umich archives.  Either pick
    your favorite archive and go into the comm/tcp directory, or use
    the following URL:
    
    ftp://mirror.aol.com/pub/info-mac/comm/tcp/
    
    Look for net-rpg-#.hqx, where # is the version number.  If you don't
    understand how FTP works, or how to unpack a file, please try to
    have someone around you help you out.  If not, email me and I'll
    help you.

================================================================

Regards,
Kevin Mc Carthy
"Don't get even, escalate!"
kmccarthy@qmgate.osc.hq.nasa.gov
kevinm4654@aol.com
Portions (c) 1995 Kevin Mc Carthy
The Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
manner!


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

Date: Wed, 23 Aug 95 13:25:00 PDT
From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
To: "traveller%mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: RE: TRAVELLER digest 382 (Destroyers/Frigates)
Message-ID: <303B8F05@pc136>



HA281PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Lynx) [Paul Radford] asked:

> Does anyone know what the definition of a destroyer, and a frigate is?

I went home last night and looked it up in volume 1 of the Admiralty Manual 
of Seamanship a Destroyer is a large multi-purpose ship with the ability to 
fight air, surface and subsurface threats equally well. A frigate is a 
smaller ship designed with one primary role (anti-air, anti-surface, or 
anti-subsurface) and a much reduced ability to perform in another role.

Also, Destroyers tend to have extra command and control facilities allowing 
them to be used as flagships (HMS Glamorgan was used as the flagship of the 
Falklands task force until the carriers arrived in the South Atlantic).

> 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?

See above.

The Admiralty Manual of Seamanship comes in three volumes and covers all 
aspects of living and working aboard ship. Over the years I have found it 
invaluable for ship-based Traveller campaigns.
I don't know of an American equivalent, although I'm sure there must be one. 
The Admiralty Manual of Seamanship is available in the UK through the HMSO 
and HMSO-approved booksellers. I don't have current prices.

Kind Regards

Dave Elrick


 --------------------------------------------------------------------
"Help me, Over-Done Salami. You're my only hope. Otherwise my career is 
doomed with this crummy movie."

     Out-take from Star Wars (1978)

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

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 387
***************************
