Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 391
Date:	95-08-26 08:39:34 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)

			    TRAVELLER Digest 391

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Mertactor and Colonization
	by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
  2) GDW, Quality, & Errata
	by Ted7@world.std.com (Mitchell K Schwartz)
  3) Ship Type Definitions
	by Ted7@world.std.com (Mitchell K Schwartz)
  4) RE: GDW, Quality, & Errata 
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  5) Re: TRAVELLER digest 388
	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  6) RICE papers...
	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  7) Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles, and Relativity
	by jlockett@hanszen.rice.edu (Joseph L Lockett)
  8) Re: Relativity and its effects on navigation.
	by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 08:32:27 -0500
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Mertactor and Colonization
Message-ID: <199508251332.IAA11315@dino.itlabs.umn.edu>

I don't want to get all tangled up in this, but here's some thoughts:

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> wrote:
>Christopher Griffen writes:
[...]
>>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... 
>
>Exactly. If the Morans owned the original ships (First type of scenario)
>then they would most propably have been dismantled to form the first
>settlement (would have been designed to be thus dismantled); if they didn't
>then the ships would have returned to the original world (Deneb, wasn't it?)

The Imperial Ministry of Colonization might get involved.  This might not
help one-shot expenses, but they would be interested in possession of the
big colony ships, even old ones, over the long term.  The transports might
also have value to the Imperial armed forces in wartime.  The rest of the
time, somebody could probably find a use for them.  So one option may be 
that the planetary government can lease/charter the starships from the 
Imperial government.  Building a ship just to dismantle it at the far end 
of the trip seems awfully wasteful, in the Traveller universe.

There's a precedent for colonization from Mora to District 268; Tarsus was
supposedly colonized from Fornice/Mora in the 450s.  According to the maps
in Traveller Adventure, it was one of the nearest worlds outside the 
settled region at the time.  The situation as presented is that Fornice,
an early colony, was feeling population pressure.  Certain early colonists
on Fornice with large landholdings were convinced to sell the land to the
government for development, and in exchange the government would transport
them to found a new colony on Tarsus, which had a better atmosphere for
agriculture.  It was supposed to be a desperation move.  It took them 12
years to move all the colonists.  I suppose they could have colonized a
nearer world, but it would have already had settlers there.

How economical is this?  Well, I grabbed a tech-14 jump-4 Tukera freighter
from WTH; it's a bit advanced for the era, but it'll do.  Rip out all the
passenger staterooms and low berths, and install a fuel purification unit.
Payload is 1057 displacement-tons of cargo.  Replace the steward with a
second doctor.  The ship is streamlined, so it can ocean refuel if needed.
The ship will jump as close as it can to the best fuel source, and jump
as soon as it can get fuel and get back to a jump point.

Fornice charters the ship, at standard TNE rates, doesn't matter from who
yet.  Charter price is Cr 900 per ton cargo or low berth per two weeks.
They must pay Cr 951300 to the owner every two weeks to charter the ship.
Assume that they have to pay the charter fee to bring the empty ship back,
although everything in between is settled and it might be able to trade.
Let's say it takes eighteen weeks for the ship to make fourteen jumps,
stopping only to wilderness refuel and unload at the colony.  Charter cost 
is MCr 8.5.

You'd have to design the colony to find out for sure, but lets say that
each colonist needs six tons of cargo in startup supplies, at a value
of about kCr 20.  We can then ship 150 colonists in low berths.  Cost of
transport and supplies per colonist is about kCr 76700, to get from 
Fornice to Tarsus and bring the ship back.  Not much worse than high 
passage for the same trip.  This would need to be tweaked a bit to get 
the right number of doctors on the crew for the low passengers, but it's 
pretty close.   

How does the ship owner do?  Wilderness fuel and berthing are free.  
Maintenance is kCr 271.  Life support is kCr 576 + Cr 100 per low berth.
Salaries are probably kCr 180 to 360.  The 480-month mortgage is a 
2080-week mortgage, and would be kCr 6720 or so for this period.  The 
charter company will earn over kCr 620 in eighteen weeks of operation,
which isn't bad.  

If you wanted to do something like the Forboldn Project from the old
Kinunir library data, and send colonists from the Core, you'd be best
off shipping the colonists in low berths on the jump-4 trade routes 
most of the way, and obtaining the equipment as close to the colony 
as possible to cut shipping costs.  There's no point in bringing things 
from the Core that you can as easily make in the Marches.  But that 
sort of project would be *very* pricey in any case, as Hans points 
out.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@gold.tc.umn.edu>


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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:01:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted7@world.std.com (Mitchell K Schwartz)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Traveller:TNE mailing list)
Subject: GDW, Quality, & Errata
Message-ID: <199508251601.AA22437@world.std.com>

Darkstar writes (about GDW's errata):
>When was the last time you saw
>another game company admit that they made a mistake?

Steve Jackson Games.  For ANY thing they ever published,
they produce errata (if necessary).  And they send it to
you on request.  Free.  No SASE necessary.  I think their
errata is available through their BBS, but I'm not sure.

SJG's material also seem to have a lot lower density of errors
than GDW's material in the last 5 years, sorry to say.  GDW's
errors are more content-related than SJG's (from what I have 
seen).  A lot GDW's FF&S errata seems to have been caused by 
testing done AFTER material is published.  That is shoddy 
workmanship that I would rather not have to pay for. 

A lot of the writing itself is rather well-done.  I hate the 
Virus AND the RC campaign (for different reasons), but "Path 
of Tears" was a good (borrowed) read.  But when they write
"black" on one page and a few pages later declare that "white"
is and always has been standard, they detract from the value of 
their work.

					Ted7

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ted7@world.std.com (Mitchell K Schwartz)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Traveller:TNE mailing list)
Subject: Ship Type Definitions
Message-ID: <199508251602.AA23110@world.std.com>

Dave Elrick writes:
>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.

These are fine definitions for late 20th century warship design.  They 
are not
accurate to describe mid-century (WWII) ship design, early 20thC ship design,
19thC ship design etc.  

Also note that the Russian recent practice has been to specialize 
destroyers for
AA or ASW work.

>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).

This is recent English practice only. US Naval practice usually has these 
facilities aboard a cruiser, aircraft carrier, assault ship, or command ship.
French practice runs to command facilities on cruisers or a/c carriers...
The Russians go for command facilities on cruisers or helicarriers...

"(Line of ) Battleship," "Frigate," and "Corvette" or "Sloop" used to be 
based 
on weight and the number of gun decks its guns were mounted on. "Frigate" 
& 
"Cruiser" used to be equivalent.

The point is that while accurate for this point in time, yours (or any 
other 
specific definitions) need not be the guiding influence used at any specific
point in time - though the "relative" sizes will probabaly not change.

					Ted7


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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:05:53 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: GDW, Quality, & Errata 
Message-ID: <199508251705.NAA28257@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Fri, 25 Aug 1995 12: 02:18 EDT
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:05:53 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Darkstar writes (about GDW's errata):
: >When was the last time you saw
: >another game company admit that they made a mistake?
: 
: Steve Jackson Games.  For ANY thing they ever published,
: they produce errata (if necessary).  And they send it to
: you on request.  Free.  No SASE necessary.  I think their
: errata is available through their BBS, but I'm not sure.
: 
: SJG's material also seem to have a lot lower density of errors
: than GDW's material in the last 5 years, sorry to say.  GDW's
: errors are more content-related than SJG's (from what I have 
: seen).  A lot GDW's FF&S errata seems to have been caused by 
: testing done AFTER material is published.  That is shoddy 
: workmanship that I would rather not have to pay for. 

But that's just one other company.  What about WEG, TSR, White Wolf?
I'm not saying that they are the only ones that do it, I'm saying that
they are one of the few that do it.  I give millions of kudos to SJG
for being the penultimate gamer's company.

: A lot of the writing itself is rather well-done.  I hate the 
: Virus AND the RC campaign (for different reasons), but "Path 
: of Tears" was a good (borrowed) read.  But when they write
: "black" on one page and a few pages later declare that "white"
: is and always has been standard, they detract from the value of 
: their work.

See, that's what I'm saying.  It's not that the products aren't good,
it's that the stories aren't what we want.

Granted, there were some problems with their initial design.  But GDW
thought that they were doing it right by doing it their way (lower
powered plasma and fusion weapons come to mind).  But, they did change
it when they realized that they may have made a boo-boo.  Likewise,
they did include the alternative techs for people that wanted to create
devices outside the scopy of The New Era (for example, all of us that
wanted to stick to original CT and MT stuff like thruster plates, etc).
How many other companies give you that kind of option (no, GURPS
doesn't count).

       --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: Fri, 25 Aug 95 18:05 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 388
Message-ID: <memo.491426@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199508241329.JAA01588@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: mhclark@iastate.edu 
  > Subject: Re: Challenge 77 
  >  
  > Well, I can't wait until I see my copy of Challenge 77.  
  
I don't believe it - it seems to have got to me before most of the US
readers have seen it!

  > From: lhowie@lrmi.com (Les Howie) 
  > Subject: Re: Ship Type Definitions 
  >  
  > David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk> wrote 
  > > I went home last night and looked it up in volume 1 of the Admiralty
  > > Manual of Seamanship 
  >  
  > Now that is a book I wish that I could afford, or my local library
  > had. 
  >  
  > Would you do me the favour of looking up the admiralty definition of
  > a cruiser (and light, heavy, etc flavours)? That is another term that
  > has shifted its meaning all over the place in the last 50 years. Les

AIUI, a cruiser is halfway between a DD and a BB - more guns & armour than
a destroyer, but lighter and faster than a battleship.

  > From: John Muir Macpherson <muirmac@uclink.berkeley.edu> To: Traveller
  > Subject: Fusion/HEPLAR Drives 
  > 
  > Wow!  Thanks for the technical detail.  What this means in game terms
  > I think is that ships will be able to spot bogies from a long way
  > off.  They might not be able to get a targeting lock, but they will
  > know someone is out there, maybe even system-wide.  This might not
  > matter much if most combats take place within the 100d limit of the
  > mainworld, but it also means that there will be little chance of
  > hiding elsewhere in the system if you ever turn on your drive.
  
This makes hi-g drives more useful: you can do all the thrusting quickly,
a long way out, then just cruise with the drives off until you're right
on top of them. 
 
  > From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk> To:
  > Subject: HEPlaR drive plumes 
  >  
  > Assume all that the energy from the drive went into heating the
  > reaction mass. For the free trader this gives the mass 100MJ of energy
  > each second. These MJ are distributed through the volume of exhaust
  > produced in this time. This gives an energy density of about 300J/m^3
  > (at 4hex/turn, 1G). If you want a drive plume 10,000 km long, then
  > the energy of the exhaust will be given up in 150 seconds. Very
  > roughly, if we pretend that energy is lost at a uniform rate, this
  > gives an output of 2W/m^3. This can be visualised as a 100W lightbulb
  > every 10m along the exhaust trail. This seems really dim for the
  > ranges involved, but I don't know how easy this would be to detect
  > using sensors. Perhaps someone who has more knowledge of real world
  > sensor operations could finish this off. 

I think that should be detectable, but I'll let our resident
radio-astronomer confirm it...

  > From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk> 
  > Subject: RE: Selling Up 
  >  
  > Traveller@hmlrly.demon.co.uk (Traveller) [Arthur] said: 
  >  
  > > I've got a load of old Traveller stuff: 
  > <snip> 
  > > I'm thinking of selling up, whats it all worth? 
  >  
  > If you want to email me directly (on Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk) with a list
  > of items I'll be happy to discuss with you their value and the best
  > course of action. 

You could always contact BITS...

  > From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi> 
  > Subject: M41A 
  >  
  > What kind of ammunition that canister round was supposed to be? A
  > chemical warhead? 

Canister rounds are basically ****ing enormous shotgun shells - devastating
against lightly-armoured targets.

---===---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 10:31:41 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RICE papers...
Message-ID: <03e09010@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     Answering David Elrick's question:
     
     > Hmmm... perhaps we've been arguing at cross-purposes. I thought that 
     these RICE papers were supposed to describe things as they might be in 
     the GDW universe.
     
     >>Can we have a decision on this please?
     
     That's what I, and I believe every other RICE paper writer, have done. 
     I don't think anyone would undertake this chore if they didn't think 
     they were acurately portraying, to the best of their ability, how a 
     world would be in the established GDW universe.
     
     No one ever said, "It's on the TML; therefore it's cast in iron."  If 
     you like a RICE paper and think it can be of use in your campaign, by 
     all means use it.  If you don't, then don't.  At least, this is the 
     philosophy I use.
     
     I've adopted several of the papers from other writers as "reality" in 
     my own campaign, including the Jewell, Menorb and Glisten papers.  
     Some of the others I have either edited for my own purposes or decided 
     not to use in favor of my own creations.  I recommend the same to any 
     Traveller referee.
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:48:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: jlockett@hanszen.rice.edu (Joseph L Lockett)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles, and Relativity
Message-ID: <199508251848.NAA17225@harry-clay.hanszen.rice.edu>

>   8) Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles, and Relativity
> 	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
>
> > I suspect this, along with thermal radiation from those huge fusion
> > plants, is exactly what is used in the "lock-on" from Brilliant Lances
> > et alia.  This doesn't help for contact missiles (which it sounds like
> > some people are re-proposing), since Traveller lasers are such awesome
> > point-defense weapons in interplanetary space. 
> 
> Huh?  This would *help* KE missiles.  They can use passive homing, and
since
> they're small, you might not ever know you're locked on.  Remember that 
> missiles (for the most part) don't use fusion drives of any sort, they're
> chemical rockets.  And lasers aren't very good since using the sensor rules

> you'd never even see them :) (in BL, anyway)

There is _no_way_, at canonical Traveller distances and speeds, that missiles
will be able to use normal, impact-capable chemical rockets, unless they're
the size of Saturn V's.  The speeds and vectors involved, the precise
targeting adjustments needed to reach and strike a ship, are horrendous.
Try the math involved: you'll find the same result GDW did.  When they made
space combat ranges as long as they "ought" to be, they simultaneously forced
themselves into invoking "gravitic focussing" to make lasers practical, and
sounded the death-knell for conventional impact missiles.  Instead, missiles
should be more like 2300 AD's unmanned drones, built and equipped exactly
like
small craft except for the lack of crew.

Note that I've never designed a Traveller missile.  Looking up the relevant 
info, I find that FFS, on p. 146, confirms that "most space missiles use
EAPlaC solid-fuel thrusters", defined on FFS p. 70 defined as "Electrothermal

Augmented Plasma Combustion" (as opposed to HEPlaR's "High-Efficiency Plasma
Recombustion", which we know does not "combust" using oxygen -- a misnomer?)
I'd warrant that EAPlaC's are closer to fusion rockets (which share their
tech
level) or HEPlaR's than the earlier, pure chemical rockets: they'd use a
high-
energy power source (fission or fusion) to heat and expel reaction mass,
something like the Nerva rockets the US experimented with briefly.

Whatever the propulsion method, if it involves "plasma" then your exhaust
is going to have the same problems as those we've discussed for larger craft.
Given the grotesque ranges and efficiencies given to lasers, the target has
plenty of time to shoot a contact missile full of holes before it reaches
him.  The far more practical solution is to use the same advantage against
him, and design a missile to sneak up to within a BL hex or more (a far
simpler task than nosing right up to the hull!) and destroy itself to pump
a detonation laser: as the canonical TNE material describes.

Impact missiles are dead, dead, dead.  :-) 


----------------------------*-------------------------*-----------------------
Joseph L. "Chepe" Lockett   | "Nullum magnum ingenium | GURPS fan, Amiga
user,
jlockett@hanszen.rice.edu   |  sine mixtura dementiae | Shakespearean
scholar,
http://www.io.com/~jlockett |  fuit." -- Seneca       | actor and director.

----------------------------*-------------------------*-----------------------

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

Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 18:47:20 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Relativity and its effects on navigation.
Message-ID: <69@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

:From the message dated Thursday 24, August 1995 :

> Given that everything in the universe is moving (quickly!) how do you
> calculate where things are in space?  The light you see from a distant star
> system may or may not really give you a clue as to its location.

Looking at a star 5 light years away, you know where it was relative to you
five 
years ago (determining range is tricky, but I think it can be done with some 
degree of accuracy using methods like parallax). Next you record the position
of 
the star a while later relative to your position. Now by comparing the
positions 
of the star at two points you can work out its velocity relative to you, five

years ago. Unless the star moves near another massive body in five years,
then 
it's direction won't change much, so you can extrapolate the position from
its 
known position and velocity in the past. Even if it does move near other
bodies, 
you can work out its path if you know the masses and motions of the others. 
There are lots of things that can make this even harder, like light bending 
around masses, but it should be possible to get fairly close.

> So what is a navigator to do?  This makes navigating in space REAL
> interesting...
>    

Any sort of drive that will get humanity any real distance in space would 
probably have enough excess range that you could 'miss' a bit anyway.
Traveller 
Jumpdrive doesn't let you correct in midflight though, so it is possible to 
miss, if this kind of information isn't available, such as for a rift fuel
cache 
from before the final war.

> 
>           
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>         _/ Peter L. Berghold                Voice: (718) 355-2722

_/
>       _/   Teleport Communications Group    UUCP: uunet!tcgny!berghold
_/
>     _/     MIS Dept.; Sr Unix Specialist    INTERNET: peterb@cnct.com
_/
>   _/  "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it"
_/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> 
> 

-- 
Brendan 

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 391
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com  Sat Aug 26 08:40:22 1995
Return-Path: traveller@mpgn.com
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM (Ambassador.MPGN.COM [149.109.1.5]) by
emin04.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id IAA27861; Sat, 26 Aug 1995
08:40:18 -0400
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id IAA18349; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 08:32:44 -0400
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 08:32:44 -0400
Message-Id: <199508261232.IAA18349@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 391
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

