From traveller@mpgn.com  Tue Sep  5 15:43:24 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 PAA16814; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 15:38:48 -0400
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA11700; Tue, 5 Sep 1995 14:24:18 -0400
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 14:24:18 -0400
Message-Id: <199509051824.OAA11700@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 402
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

			    TRAVELLER Digest 402

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Add: Indistinguishable from Magic
	by kirschj@kronos.informatik.uni-bonn.de
  2) RE: Vargr stats
	by myhre@oslonett.no (Roger Myhre)
  3) Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  4) Re: Retconning Reactionless Thrusters
	by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  5) Re: Space Carriers
	by E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
  6) Re: Space Carriers
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  7) Simple FIM guidelines
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  8) RE: space fighter-carriers
	by Neil Taylor <neil@owl.uk.gdscorp.com>
  9) Vargr Stats (Oops)
	by David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
 10) Caranda in the Regency...
	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 11) RE: Robot Design... 
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
 12) Mertactor colony
	by Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>

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

Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 20:02:29 MET_DST
From: kirschj@kronos.informatik.uni-bonn.de
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Add: Indistinguishable from Magic
Message-ID: <00995E89.D3D18EB2.100@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de>

Hello all,

I just read the message about Forwards book in Digest 400. What's much
more interesting to me than the Reactionless drive is the idea of "strange
matter", a matter created by fusing quarks into a very heavy particle.
It is interesting that this big particle can be used to generate energy
without any radioactivity. The short story "A Matter most Strange" gave
some ideas and troubles with this matter ...and thus some adventure ideas
*evil grin*. I recommend the book for everyone interested in science facts
at the borders of current scientificalknowledge.

Juergen Kirsch
kirsch@ifns.de
kirschj@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 20:34:54 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no (Roger Myhre)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Vargr stats
Message-ID: <199509041834.UAA26876@hasle.oslonett.no>

David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk> wrote:

>Well I wrote the article in March and I'm sure the source I used (the
>old CT Alien Module) stated that Vargr massed more than Humans, but
>I'll dig it out when I get home tonight and check for you.

You don't need to. AM3 states that the average weight is about 60 kilos. An 
average human is about 80.


--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
Roger Myhre   | myhre@oslonett.no | http://www.oslonett.no/home/myhre/
HIWGmember 142| Some people have one of those days, I got one of 
              | those lifes.
--------------+-------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 15:11:32 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles
Message-ID: <9509042111.AA11948@Rt66.com>

Howdy,
 
> >merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) Wrote:
> >I can buy about 5,000 impact missiles for the price of a Gazelle, you have
> >4 lasers and 30 minutes to get all of them :)  
> A single gazelle would be beaten. But using 5000 misslies are overkill. And 
> the ship carrying these are mighty big to. I'ld use a MG.

So would I, but that wasn't the point.  :-)
 
> >One of the previous posts said that any missile would be seen if it were
> >bigger than a grape and metal...  that'd make the sensor active, what if
> >the missile is a anti-radiation missile?  At the very least these would
> >force your enemy not to use their active sensors.  Considering how
> >crappy passives are, that's a good trade..
> I'ld go silent, or change frequency drastically on the sensors when I saw 
> the missiles, and then pop off some decoys.

Cool, and the decoy and jammer rules are extant in BL.  So far we're on
the road to usable (if inefficient) KKMs.
 
> >If you think they'd work at shorter ranges, give me some ideas.  We know
> >they'll work at hundreds of km for sure.  If they work within a couple
> >tenths of a light second then fighters have a reason to exist---they can
> >carry fully ind. KKMs to within a hex or two, then let 'em loose.
>
> What I feel is wrong with the rules are the scale. Missiles are not 
> dangerous when you got all the time in the world to react with 
> countermeasures. At smaller scales bot ranges and time, the ship commander 
> are under much higher pressure. This will make the a wrong command near 
> impossible to correct. When you got 30 minutes, you can revise the order and 
> change tactic 10 minutes after the order is given, and still have fairly 
> good time left. In space I think missiles will be more of a weapon than 
> energy weapons. But that is in the real-world(tm).

I'm confused about what you mean.  Are you saying in traveller missiles
(impact type) won't work, or in real life?

As for the reaction time arguement, I just don't get it.  You have all
the time in the world to react to them, but at those kind of ranges you
can't lock or kill very many missiles in a turn.  As a result, it
doesn't matter.  Remember that while a turn is 30 minutes, individual
events take place in a shorter period of time (a laser pulse is still
0.001 second or so, for example).  So while the missile is moving say 10
hexes in the turn it intercepts the target, the only time that matters
to the target is the minute or so when the missile is in the range of
close in defense systems (the point at which det-lasers get fired on at
the point of detonation).

At the ranges where killing the missiles gets easy, the missile is only .75 
minutes away and going *very* fast.  I don't see what difference the scale makes
in this regard since in the BL scale, any missile, regardless of type has to
close within a range that I think we would both agree taxes the defensive 
capabilities of the target in the way you describe above.


-Merrick




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

Date: Sun, 03 Sep 95 20:46:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Retconning Reactionless Thrusters
Message-ID: <8B064DE.01000566CF.uuout@execnet.com>


  My roommate is a physics kind of guy; if I have any kind of
  questions about it, he can usually give me an answer, or at the
  very least, an informed guess that's not inconsistent with
  reality.

  I was thinking about the CT/MT thruster plates recently, and came
  up with something that just might account for their "magic":

  1.  Grav modules apply energy to create lift.

  2.  Thrust plates effectively allow grav modules to work outside
      a gravity well.

  3.  Thrust plates therefore must convert grav energy into
      something else that doesn't require a gravity well to react
      against.

  4.  Neutrinos seem to ignore almost all mass that happens to get
      into their path.

  5.  Despite the fact that they don't have any detectable mass,
      they _do_ seem to possess that quality of mass known as
      momentum.

  6.  Momentum equals mass times velocity.

  7.  Momentum is a vector quantity.

  8.  The Universe is a closed system.

  9.  The total momentum of the Universe must therefore remain
      constant.

 10.  Therefore, creating neutrinos and imparting a momentum vector
      upon them must also impart a momentum vector on something
      else, with a reversed direction.

 11.  Recall that neutrinos seem to ignore everything in their
      path.

 12.  Thrust plates convert grav energy into neutrinos, with a
      specified momentum.

 13.  This requires a reverse vector to be applied to something.

 14.  That something is the ship to which the thrust plates are
      attached.

 15.  Since neutrinos don't seem to affect anything in their path,
      the appearance to the common person is that the ship simply
      moves, with the only apparent "reaction" being that the
      thrust plates are glowing this funny blue color.

 16.  So, the common person, who cannot be expected to know the
      details of physics, calls the grav-generator-plus-thrust-
      -plates arrangement "reactionless thrusters".

 17.  How the thrust plates convert grav energy to neutrinos is
      left as an exercise for the student.

 If we can generate neutrinos at will, why do we need this HePlAR
 stuff?

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com

cc: XBOAT@MPGN.COM
---
  OLXWin 1.00a  Here is my fist, please run towards it very fast.

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

Date: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 23:59:39 EDT
From: E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Space Carriers
Message-ID: <00995EAA.F564B700.19@v2.qub.ac.uk>


Regarding Andy Boulton's discussion on Space Carriers in Digest 401, I think
retreval of fighters could be easier than in wet navy carriers, as there is
is no gravity to pull the space fighter down. It could thrust up to an entry
port and either enter under it's own power, or be brought in by grapples ( a
better method, as the Carrier's internal gravity field could bring a fighter
down awkwardly. The Carrier would need to be accelerating at a constant rate,
or for an easy docking to not be accelerating at all.
As to the landing deck being in vacuum, use airlocks at the launch tubes and
retreval ports and everyone can be in shirtsleeves. Hangar would be a better
term than landing deck, as the fighters 'land' at the retreval ports. Wrecks
wouldn't need to be dumped off the ships, as in wet carriers this was necessary
to clear the flight deck for other planes coming in to land.

The way I see it, a  Space Carrier would need several launching tubes on the 
centerline and/or on either side of it, leading back to the hangar. The 
retreval ports would be on the side of the ship, and the hangar itself as
deep inside the ship as it could be, to avoid it being depressurised by 
enemy fire. Maybe multiple hangars. Would it be worth puting the hangar
in zero-g, so the fighters could be stored on the 'ceiling' and 'walls',
as fighter capacity is the measure of Carrier offensive strength.

as an aside, have any UKers seen Challenge 77  on the shelves yet?
I can't wait for the Regency Sourcebook, if all the rumors in the recent
digests are correct it's going to be a great read.

seeing that fighter capacity is the measure of a Carriers offensive 
power.

By the way, have any UKers seen Challenge 77 on the shelves yet?

Eamon Watters, CNG0016@v2.qub.ac.uk.

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 17:52:15 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Space Carriers
Message-ID: <9509042352.AA18979@Rt66.com>

 
> The way I see it, a  Space Carrier would need several launching tubes on the 
> centerline and/or on either side of it, leading back to the hangar. The 
> retreval ports would be on the side of the ship, and the hangar itself as
> deep inside the ship as it could be, to avoid it being depressurised by 
> enemy fire. Maybe multiple hangars. Would it be worth puting the hangar
> in zero-g, so the fighters could be stored on the 'ceiling' and 'walls',
> as fighter capacity is the measure of Carrier offensive strength.
> 
> Eamon Watters, CNG0016@v2.qub.ac.uk.

Possibly, and with grav catwalks around, you could still put your tools
down and not have 'em float away if they get nudged :-)

As for offensive strength, what good are fighters anyway?  I think
they'd be mostly missile carriers themselves.  Related to the missile
thread (well, at a real tangent to FIMs from KKMs) you'd need to have
fire and forget missiles for these guys.  Even if they are det laser
missiles FIMs will need to be carried kinda close since they won't
always have as many gturns.  

On the subject of missile design, anyone else get really odd results
designing missiles?  I have been giving my spreadsheet a go, and as far
as I can tell *all* published missiles have to be around 25gs (although
they have fewer gturns of delta v).  In addition, I get around 16 gturns
for the standard TL15 missile, not the 12 published.  *scratches head*

Odd, huh?  Anybody have better luck?

-Merrick

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

Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 19:31:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Simple FIM guidelines
Message-ID: <9509050132.AA24564@Rt66.com>


Some notes on using Fully Independent Missiles (FIMs):
 
FIMs are mentioned in BL, but we never get to see one.  The problem with
using them is how to have them behave like missiles, and not like they
are being controlled by a person.  The concentration on SIMs and
controlled missiles in BL is because the PC controlling it uses
his/her/its skill to avoid being spoofed by the target (a way to get the
players into it, IMHO).
 
Here are some guidelines for playing FIMs in BL using stuff you already
have. I need to design some FIMs from scratch, but I hate the missile
design rules :-)
 
What do they look/act like?
---------------------------
Fully independent missiles can be true "fire and forget" missiles or
they may require guidance in the form of designating the target with a
ship's own active sensors.  Regardless, at some point they achieve a
sensor lock on a target, then attempt to intercept it.  FIMs may have
sensor locks handed-off to them before or after they are launched
(depending on how they are designed). 
 
FIMs are active, passive, or, rarely, both.  Active FIMs are frequently
programmed to drift a short period of time before "pinging" their
targets.  Actives are also bigger and more expensive than passives.
Passive FIMs all home on active sensor radiation as well as the target's
EMS signature.  
 
Design:
-------
FIMs are designed as normal space missiles (what a pain :-), but they
must have some kind of a sensor installed.  A small passive sensor works
well, and in fact, many FIMs home on reflected active signals from the
firing ship since they can use the shortrange of the firing shipUs
active sensor (not double the range in this case, since their sensor
path length is not half).  
 
Sample types:
-------------
1.  PEMS FIM for ARM (anti-radiation missile) use.  Use the smallest
PEMS possible.  If it is used as an ARM then it will home on the active
signal of the target and calculate the difficulty level based on twice
the target active sensor's short range.  Once relatively close it can
home on the passive signature of the target even if it isn't active (in
this case it will use the seeker head's own passive short range). 
 
	*  Design your own, or just use the TL12 SIM in FFS.  The cost for a KKM
	version is 0.8MCr.
 
 
2.  In designated (semi-active) mode, an AEMS, Radar, or Ladar lock on
the target by the firing (or sometimes another ship or drone) is
detected by the missile, and it homes on that signal.  The Missile is
designed with a short range PEMS (or HRT) and when it attempts Lock-On
it uses the SR of the active "painting" sensor, but the range will be
the range to the designating ship, or missile---whichever is longer.  
 
	*  Design your own, or use the TL12 SIM in FFS.  The cost for a KKM
	version is 0.8MCr.
 
3.  Active Homing Missile.  This missile type has a AEMS  or RADAR
sensor.  It has a sensor lock passed off to it by the firing ship, then
goes active and homes on its target.  They are frequently used as SIMs
and controlled until near their targets so that passive locks may be
used until the point they have to go active (in an attempt to avoid
countermeasures, and to conserve fuel).  These will have to be designed
from scratch as active sensors require power and volume such that they
most likely won't be the standard 1/2ton missile size (think of the
Pheonix as an example).  These are most likely Det-Laser missiles since
their size and expense justifies improving the chance of a hit at all
costs.
 
	*  Design your own, or use the TL12 active passive drone as a
	model--you'll have to call this a det-laser or it'll never hit unless
	the target does nothing to stop it.  
 
I included notes for KKM versions in case you use them.  Remember that
KKMs will need the target's evasion gturns left over (+evasion success
DM) after the hex intercept to even have a chance of hitting, so an 8G8
missile will be easily dodged by most any military ship.
 
 
A homing missile would operate under the following rules:
---------------------------------------------------------
First premise:  Homing missiles *must* have a Lock-On to home in on a
target.
 
Second premise:  Homing missiles try to cross the present position of
their target using whatever fuel required (intercept).  (I use BR/Maydy
style movement here, BTW.  Ditch the heading wheel (except for facing)).
 
If they cannot, with a max burn, do this *this turn*, they will use the
minimum fuel required to put their future position (for the following
turn) as close to the future position of the target as possible (in any 
ambiguous situation try to put the future position of the missile *ahead* of 
the target's future position (it'd be flying a lead pursuit)).  
 
The "minimum fuel required" is further limited by the missiles
programming.  Missiles may be programmed to burn no more than say 1
gturn in the event that it cannot intercept *that turn*.  I use this all
the time to avoid problems.  A missile is normally noted, say, 12G12, in
the programmed case above it would be written 12G12 1D6 (discretionary).
The trailing 6 is the maximum number of 1gturn burns the missile can
make before it will just drift---leaving it with 6 gturns to kill a
target that drifts too close.
 
That's it for driving the missiles :-)
 
Getting a Lock and firing:
--------------------------
FIMs must have a Lock to home on their targets.  As a result, they are
usually launched with a handed off lock.  In the case of SIMs (any FIM
with commo installed is a SIM) the lock may be handed off at some point
on the missiles path after launch, or even change.  Unlike the SIM rules which 
use the crew or PCs skill as an asset, FIMs have their own assets.
 
FIMs have an Asset=(TL - 5).
 
All tasks attempted by the FIM (or SIM operating as a FIM) are done at
this asset.
 
This will make them easier to "spoof" than controlled missiles, a good
thing, I think.  To deal with this assume that if a Lock-On attempt by a
FIM fails, it may try again next turn (or even a different target this
turn).  If the Lock-On task is a Catastrophic Failure then the missile's
guidance system is totally spoofed and the missile goes ballistic (or
chases the decoy if one was used) and is useless.

-Merrick
 


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

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 09:13:51 EDT
From: Neil Taylor <neil@owl.uk.gdscorp.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: space fighter-carriers
Message-ID: <00995EF8.6182B570.29@arc.uk.gdscorp.com>

>I got to wondering how space (as
>opposed to wet) carriers worked. Launch is fine, you just need a tube
>slightly larger than the fighter, and squirt it out using some sort of
>catapult, mag-lev, or even the fighter's own drives. 

>Retreival, however,
>is a lot harder - for a start, the landing deck is almost certainly going
>to be *inside* the ship, enclosed on four, or even five, sides, rather than
>just two (including the tower), so landing's going to be much harder. 

Retrieval is simple in space - if you aren't accellerating  - you match 
velocities so you aren't moving relative to each other, mate with a docking arm 
and be pulled into the hangar bay.  Final approach to the docking arm can be at 
drift speeds (cm/sec).  This is basically how space craft dock even now; it's 
also the same principle as docking with a space station
(If you are accelerating linearly, you can match accellerations too, but you 
have to cut thrust as you are grabbed, making the task more difficult.)
  
>The
>deck's going to have to be in vacuum most of the time, so the ground crew
>and pilots will have to be in vac suits (clumsy). Also, you don't have the
>option of bulldozing wrecks over the side to clear the deck. 

No problem - you mate the fighter airlock to a docking tube (like the main 
spaceships use), and walk right in... If you're in a launch tube then this sort 
of mating is just part of the handling mechanism that loads you into the 
b/a/r/r/e/l tube.
[See (some of) the movies.  What you don't do is the Star Wars/Star Trek hangar 
bay which is pressurised while you walk over to your craft, then the whole 
volume pumped out and bay doors opened to let you out.]

>Also, you don't have the
>option of bulldozing wrecks over the side to clear the deck.

If a fighter is hit outside the mothership, then you need to collect the crew; 
you may want the wreckage if it is repairable(the mothership can manoeuvre to 
match an inert ship).  You probably do want a vacuum opening hangar to bring in 
repairs.

If you get a hit inside the hangar, you're stuffed.  The rules say that a launch 
tube hit destroys use of that tube; a hangar hit is likely to cause enough 
wreckage that you can't use the hangar even if you remove the junk.
--------------------------------------------------+
-- Neil Taylor              neil@uk.gdscorp.com --|
-- Graphic Data Systems Ltd,                    --| 
-- Wellington House, East Rd, Cambridge CB1 1BH --|
--------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 95 12:32:00 PDT
From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
To: TML <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Vargr Stats (Oops)
Message-ID: <304CA597@pc136>



myhre@oslonett.no (Roger Myhre) said:

> Sorry, but the Vargr generally weights less than a human. Use 60 as a base 

> for both sexes.

OK, it's humble pie time. I went home and had a look at my original sources 
and here's what I found:

Note: The following quotes are copyright to their respective authors. No 
challenge to the copyright is intended.

In Journal of the Traveller's Aid Society, issue 8, page 13, it states:

"The typical Vargr is about 1.6 meters in height and weighs approximately 
100 kilograms."

In Traveller Alien Module 3, page 2, it states:

"The typical Vargr is about 1.6 metres in height and weighs approximately 60 
kilograms."

Apparently I used the wrong source. Oops!

Unfortunately, I didn't have DGP's Vilani and Vargr available when I was 
drawing up the article, but it goes on to say (on page 40):

"The average male of our race stands 1.6 meters in height and weighs 
approximately 60 kilograms. The average female is slightly smaller in 
stature, standing 1.5 meters and weighing roughly 55 kilograms.
Thus, the height-to-weight ratios for Vargr approximate 37 kilograms per 
meter. For comparison, the average human masses slightly more kilograms per 
meter."

>From that statement, I would think that the formula should be: Male 
[4x(STR-AGL)]+60; Female [4x(STR-AGL)]+55. But do whatever you like - it's 
your campaign (in one campaign I saw there were Vargr geneered from 
Chihuahuas who were about two feet tall! This inevitably led to many 
comments concerning Ewoks and Hobbits.).

Kind Regards

Dave Elrick

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, let's lay one common myth to a long-overdue rest. After three 
hundred thousand years of evolution Vargr no longer stick their heads out of 
the window when they're driving.

Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk
 ---------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 09:20:30 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Caranda in the Regency...
Message-ID: <04c78d50@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     Steven Bonneville wrote:
     
     =====================================================================
     Caranda, probably. Caranda was the first Duke of Regina, elevated from
     baron by the first emperor of the Alkhalikoi dynasty, Grand Admiral of
     the Marches Arbellatra Alkhalikoi -- he gave great support to her move
     to become Regent of the Imperium, and later Empress.  If you have 
     World
     Builder's Handbook by DGP, you can see on the map that a large island 
     on Regina is named after him.  This would be a *very* nice touch, if 
     it's true too.
     ===============
     
     Ah, thank you for the spelling correction.  Yes, Caranda it is.  I 
     heard these rumors orally, not in written form, and I had never seen 
     the information about the first Duke of Regina.  Is this in The 
     Spinward Marches Campaign?
     
     Yeah, it is a nice touch.  Keeps the old continuity going.  
     
     You're correct about Darrian being outside the Regency and therefore 
     not counting among the TL-16 worlds within its boundaries.  I don't 
     know what I was thinking.  Of course, as we all know, since the Maghiz 
     the TL-16 stuff is only artifacts that somehow survived.  Is Tobia 
     outside the Regency as well?  Leroy's information listed it as TL-16 
     in the New Era and I'd heard that his information was semi-canonical.  
     
     I wasn't sure about Pashus because I haven't referenced it vs. the 
     Rebellion-era data for Deneb Sector.  Pleased to know it was already 
     TL-16.  My players, who are currently enroute to Catacomb/Deneb, are 
     already clamoring to go to Pashus.  They won't find what they think 
     they're going to find, however!  Heh heh!
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Tue, 5 Sep 1995 13:36:51 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
Cc: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Robot Design... 
Message-ID: <199509051736.NAA10089@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 05 Sep 1995 09: 41:02 PDT
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 1995 13:36:51 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

:      >>Okay, dumb question time.  I just wanted to know if someone out 
:      there could tell me how much volume a human being displaces.  I want 
:      to create a human-sized/shaped robot, but I don't know what kind of 
:      volume we displace.<<
:      
:      Howdy, Jerry.  Long time, no e-mail.  Just wanted to tell you I don't 
:      think this is a stupid question at all.  I've been considering a 
:      similar posting for a long time now and I'd be interested to know 
:      whether or not you've received any satisfactory answers.
:      
:      I've been wanting to create some anthropomorphic robots for awhile and 
:      I have no idea how much they displace.  I thought about using the 
:      battledress storage displacement for awhile, but that's a bit large.  
:      What've you heard? 

Chris, hope you don't mind, but I'm also cc'ing this to the list.

Here's what I've come up with for antropomorphic robots.  Merrick was
kind enough to reply that a human being (himself specifically) weighs
about 6kg.

The average human weighs somewhere between 6-8kg.  I chose 7.5 as my
average.  1000kg=>1tonne=>1kl.  So, I figured that .075 or so would be
the volume that we're aiming for.  Now, I settled for .1 figuring that
I could get a human looking 2 meter tall robot for@t value, and not
have it be to out of hand.

As for the volume of the limbs.  I used the armor table from the robot
design rules and broke those down as percentages of volume to allocate
to each body part.  Thus, the head is .1 or 10% of the total .1kl.  The
legs are 30% (or 15% each), etc...

Goofing around with it, I came up with what seemed to be correct
values.  I'll post my final design here when I'm done so everyone can
pick it apart.

Hope this helps.

       --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, 5 Sep 1995 19:00:20 +0100 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Mertactor colony
Message-ID: <199509051700.TAA04988@embla.diku.dk>

Michael Bailey writes:
>Regarding the discussion surounding the Mertactor RICE paper.  There's
>another perfectly good reason for shipping colonists all the way from Mora -
>Penal Transportation. I'm taking my example from the transport of convicts
>from England to 'New Holland' (Australia) in the 18th and 19th Centuries.
>The Crown cleaned it's prisons and rotting prison hulks of it's criminals,
>rebels and other undesirables (like poor people) and shipped them literally
>to the other end of the earth, for a limited term or for 'the term of their
>natural lives'.

Yes, a penal settlement is a pretty obvious possibility. Indeed, I believe 
that was the original suggestion. But we keep forgetting those settlement
pattern maps where Mertactor is shown as being settled before 300 (though
there's no way to know how much before) but not part of the Imperium until
much later. Remember what The Crown also did, in addition to shipping convicts
to Australia? That's right, it claimed sovereignity over the whole continent.
If Mertactor was settled under the auspices of any official Moran government
activity, one would expect them to claim the planet as a colony, thus making
it a part of the Imperium. IMO the possibilities are limited to two: 1)
Mertactor was colonized by private initiative and was never a colony of
Mora, or 2) Mertactor was originally a Moran colony, but achieved (or was
given) independence before 300.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 402
***************************
