			    TRAVELLER Digest 405

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 398
	by lhowie@lrmi.com (Les Howie)
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 402
	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  3) Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles
	by Robert Piper <rpiper@wri.com>
  4) RQS vs Regency Scouts vs Naval Reconnaisance
	by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  5) submission.
	by toad@ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Lane)
  6) Those pesky missiles again :)
	by myhre@oslonett.no (StarWolf)
  7) Phalanx CIWS stats
	by myhre@oslonett.no (StarWolf)
  8) TNE Fire Combat Question
	by SwrdKnght@aol.com
  9) Missiles, CIWS, and Integrated Fire Control
	by "Sinbad Sam" <sinbad@metronet.com>
 10) Re: Those pesky missiles again :)
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 11) RE: RQS vs Regency Scouts vs Naval Reconnaisance 
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
 12) Re: Design Concepts
	by George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
 13) A new power source.
	by toad@ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Lane)
 14) Re: Design Concepts
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 15) Re: submission.
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 14:44:44 -0300
From: lhowie@lrmi.com (Les Howie)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 398
Message-ID: <9509061742.AA05254@ lrmi.com>

Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au> wrote

>I'm currently designing a TL-5 multi-barreled mortar (8 x 80mm, carriage
>mounted), similar to the 'Nebelwerfer' used by the Germans during WWII. 

Minor detail, which probably will not answer your question - The nebelerfer
was a Multiple Rocket Launcher.  The name ("smkoe projector" more-or-less)
was a cover for its actual function.
Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
Atlantic LRMI


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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 95 18:57 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 402
Message-ID: <memo.731564@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199509051808.OAA11601@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK 
  > Subject: Re: Space Carriers 
  >  
  > 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.
  
I see this as being *much* slower than wet carriers (by at least an order
of magnitude). Space carriers also carry more fighters. Retrieval time is
therefore going to be a lot longer.

  > The Carrier would need to be accelerating at a constant rate, or for
  > an easy docking to not be accelerating at all.
  
But in a combat situation...?
  
  > 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.
  
Airlocks = slower, more expensive, and more to go wrong.

  > 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. 

But if it crashed into the landing area...

  > hangar itself as deep inside the ship as it could be, to avoid it
  > being depressurised by enemy fire. Maybe multiple hangars. Would it

But think of the damage if a damaged fighter exploded...

  > as an aside, have any UKers seen Challenge 77  on the shelves yet?

Got my sub copy ages ago, but no, not seen it on the shelves.

  > From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) 
  > Subject: Re: Space Carriers 
  >  
  > > 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.  
  >  
  > Possibly, and with grav catwalks around, you could still put your tools
  > down and not have 'em float away if they get nudged :-) 

Makes more sense.

  >  
  > As for offensive strength, what good are fighters anyway?  I think
  > they'd be mostly missile carriers themselves.  
  
They're more manoeuvrable, faster, harder to hit, and more flexible than
bigger craft.

  > From: Neil Taylor <neil@owl.uk.gdscorp.com> 
  > Subject: RE: space fighter-carriers 
  >  
  > 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

This is fine unless you're in a hurry and/or someone's shooting at you.

  > > 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... 
  
Do fighters have airlocks?

  > 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.

Exactly!

  > From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu> To:
  > Subject: RE: Robot Design... 
  >  
  > 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

You're out by a factor of 10. I'm about 80kg.

---===---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 13:46:51 -0500
From: Robert Piper <rpiper@wri.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Plasma Trails, Missiles
Message-ID: <199509061846.NAA16969@dragonfly.wri.com>

>Reality-check time: for comparison, someone want to look up the performance
>of the U.S. Navy's CIWS (Close-In Weapon System), aka Mk 15 Phalanx? It
>is an autonomous point-defense system that has a very, very high kill rate 
>(much higher than the 95% the TNE rules limit you to...) and
>is capable of tracking a great many targets (someone look up how many) very
>quickly. ONE (1) missile is breakfast food to CIWS!  And this is at many
 Key word here is ONE.  The CIWS system goes through ammo like I go through
 Pepsi.  It is a last ditch, brown streak in your pants, attempt to defeat
 a missile.  If you're down to your Phalanx system,  things are not good.

 It can track lots of targets,  but it cannot engage more than one at a
 time.  If multiple missiles are coming in on slightly different bearings,
 the system then has to traverse to engage the missiles.  As the ranges
 involved shorten,  this can cause the system to fail.  boom.

 It also has to be unmasked before it can even start shooting the target.
 What was the name of the ship in the gulf that took a single exocet in
 the hull because the Phalanx was masked?  The Phalanx would have made
 short work of the missile,  but it wasn't able to engage.  

 In space, a lot of these problems are easier to solve,  but they don't
 by any means go away.  The speeds involved are way up, lowering tracking
 and traverse response times.  You still have to detect the missile,
 then you have to hit.  A laser cycling at 800 shots/ 30 min. (~1 shot 
 every 2.2 secs) is going to have problems engaging large numbers of 
 KKM's.  If you assume that each missile is automatically tracked,
 and each missile is automatically hit,  all you need to do is fire
 801 missiles. 

 One added note:  at the high speeds hitting the missile isn't going to
 be enough.  You'd have to /vaporize/ it.  The debris left by the missile
 is just as deadly as the missile itself.  Since these missiles would be
 basically a chunk of metal strapped to a rocket booster,  you have
 to consider the amount of power required to vaporize the entire missile.

>factors
>closer range and shorter response time than the space combat you say "would
>tax the defensive capabilities of the target"  
>And that's at TL8, right now, Real World.  It's one of the things that 
>defends U.S. carriers from junk like Exocet missiles...
 Attempts to defend :).

>                                                      --Cynthia

 Bob.


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

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 14:47:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RQS vs Regency Scouts vs Naval Reconnaisance
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950906143744.12416C-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


OK now, I would like to know which functions, if any, the RQS is to take 
from the Scout Service.

I know that they have the hardware of the Scouts: I also know that they 
have left censuses and the xboat network to the Scouts.

I know that their primary mission is Quarrentine, and soundry antiViral 
activities.

Now that the regency is about to head back to the Wilds, I need to know 
if the RQS is also going to take on 
    Exploration
    (First) Contact
    managing the Wilds xboats
    Technological Aid
    Wilds census
    Propaganda/information
    Military reconnaisance
    Diplomatic activities
    Promoting Regency business and trader interests
    Managing colonialization

If not, who's going to do it? Or are these jobs going to be split up 
between the RQS, Scouts, Navy Reconnaisance, Regency Diplomatic Corps, 
the Regency Science Council, and various more agencies, subcontractors 
and suchlike?

Or willthe gates be just thrown open, with the merchants and free traders 
doing all the hard work?  (It's possible: the East Indian Company 
basically did this in India)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Plummer
"Preserve what we created, Norris, and remember what we stood for."
                               - Strephon, 179-1126

Reply to: alvin.plummer@SHERIDANC.ON.CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 12:09:07 -0700
From: toad@ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Lane)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: submission.
Message-ID: <199509061909.MAA27425@dice.ugcs.caltech.edu>


A word concerning the Zhodani; They went to War with, and defeated (!), the
Imperium 5 times before the collapse, every time with the goal of keeping
the Imperials away from Zho space. When the Imperium collapsed, it was no 
longer a threat, and thus relations thawed. Now people are talking about 
re-creating the Imperium, not only at TL17-18, but with psionics as well.
I think the Zhodani High Council might be interested in this development, 
not to mention critical of it. Perhaps they would be interested in a conflict
between the RC and the Regency? 

As for the discussion concerning CIWS and point defence - remember that a
modern antiship missile is closing at Mach 1-3 and the CIWS kicks in at ranges
below 1000m, which gives it about a second to do its thing. A KKM or detonation
laser will be travelling at perhaps 100 km/sec, so a decent laser will allow
the tracking system several seconds to target an incoming missile. 
However, there are two important points here - a) the CIWS is a 'last ditch'
defence, designed to defeat 1 or 2 incoming missiles that have survived the
air defences put up by Aegis cruisers and such. All you have is CIWS, you're 
in trouble. (Also, CIWS is pretty much useless against a nuke-carrying missle
that can detonate at 2 km range and fry you carrier. The same should apply
to a detonation laser - and don't try to tell me that a TL12 point defence 
system could locate a 10cm x 50cm cylindrical warhead travelling at 100 km/sec
at any range beyond a few hundred or thousand km. If it isn't radiating and
is in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic background (4 K, but doable - you 
store your warheads in liquid He), without a very good active EMS you will
be in trouble. If you go active, you have other problems. (that should be 2.3 K,above.. ) 
The conclusion I make is that missles are difficult to intercept and destroy.
Not impossible, but not easy, either. 
b) If, on the other hand, we decide that in fact a missle defence screen is 
good enough that you need a Tigress firing of a few thousand missles in 
short order to penetrate it, then we suddenly find that fighters are quite 
useless. they can't carry a hundred missles each, and being much larger targets
than missles (make no mistake - you can make a missle _very small_ and still
pack a nuke into it), they're sitting ducks for any worthwhile missle defence
screen. This is just as true for all the upgunned free traders that for some
reason ply the spacelanes filled with adventurers... 

The point I'm trying to make is that the balance of the game is very tricky
to get right - if the missles are useful only in swarms of 5000 then you're
in a situation where space combat is rather like 17th century naval combat
with ships of the line sitting and throwing hunks of metal at each other for 
hours. On the other hand, if any ballsy fighter-jock with a 10-ton fighter
can vaporize a 100,000-ton battleship ( a la Wing Commander 2), why build 
them? 
The best compromise seems actually to be something akin to modern day 
naval and air combat - to take out a carrier group, you need 60-odd Bison 
bombers carrying heavy, long range missles. And a Super Etenard with an Exocet
can occasionally get lucky against a frigate, but can also get very dead very fast..


cheers,
/ben

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:26:27 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no (StarWolf)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Those pesky missiles again :)
Message-ID: <199509061926.VAA25916@hasle.oslonett.no>

Merrick, to get a better understanding of your arguments I'll start to 
design a few more missiles. Until now I have been unable to produce 
something that will give "flight characterestics"m of an impact missile. 
yesterday I produced a missile with the smallest detlaser warhead (100 
liters large). A 3 hex active EMS, and finaly EaPLAC driven. I only got 8 
gee turns out of it. Far too little to get a workable KKM which needs a lot 
more to be successful. And the sensor range are too limited, unless you want 
all sensor and no boost.

I haven't tried with Helpar, but doesn't expect much more success.

And when I am on to it, why should the PEMS or AEMS be so large for 
missiles. As the missile sensor are only limited time to live, and won't be 
using all of the special functions a normal sensor suite would have, I would 
suggest that the volume to be at least halved.

And Merrick, I would like some pointers on designing missiles. You seem to 
have worked something out.


--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:26:24 +0200
From: myhre@oslonett.no (StarWolf)
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Phalanx CIWS stats
Message-ID: <199509061926.VAA25908@hasle.oslonett.no>

Here is stats for Phalanx CIWS:
20mm/76cal. MK15 (6 barrels)
In Service: 1980
Fire control: Local Radar
3000rpm. Fitted as "last-ditch" anti-missile weapon.
Source: Modern US Navy 
ISBN: 0-86101-151-1
Salamander Books

In another book I found stats for earlier version. Also note that my books 
aren't up to date.


--------------+-------------------+-----------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 16:53:49 -0400
From: SwrdKnght@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TNE Fire Combat Question
Message-ID: <950906165347_12522461@mail02.mail.aol.com>

I have a question about Fire Combat in TNE...

 Bob, slug pistol asset of 16, opens up with his custom gauss pistol
on his opponent at short range. Now firing single shots (recoil 1) he
could fire 5 shots (his str is 7) with a Difficult task, hitting on a
d20 roll of 16 or less with each bullet. OR he could fire a 5 round
burst (recoil 3) and those same 5 bullets would only hit on a roll of
4 or less on d20 roll. Is this correct? and if so, why?!?! It makes no
sense to me... 

Thanks!

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

Date:          Wed, 6 Sep 1995 16:24:49 +0000
From: "Sinbad Sam" <sinbad@metronet.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: sinbad@metronet.com
Subject: Missiles, CIWS, and Integrated Fire Control
Message-ID: <199509062123.AA29939@metronet.com>

I have been monitoring this discussion for some time, I feel that I 
have to cover some points. 

1. No matter what kind of missile type you use(ie, KKM, Nuke-Det, 
Nuke-Contact) your target will develope point defenses against such 
missiles.

2. If you favor nuke-det lasers consider this if a contact missile 
cannot resolve the fire control solution to reach the target do to
limited processing power with in itself or outside itself, not in 
itself a small fire control problem, A Nuke-Det laser must "track" 
the target decide at which point to bring out it folding laser tube 
array, align the laser tube array to within a thousandth of sec of 
arc at target possibly traveling at 10's of G's acceleration, while 
traveling at possible a greater speed that it's target. In fire 
control terms the contact missile is a far easier solution to resolve 
that the nuke-det laser. A contact missile has a simpler task track 
the target, bring itself into intercept zone, and hit/detonate. 

3. Missiles do not always travel in a straight line toward a target, 
just as target's do no travel in a straight line. Travelling in a 
straight line really makes the Fire Control solution so much easier. 
The path a missile takes depands on many factors such firing angle, 
target path, etc.

4. To hit a target that has point defenses you must saturate it with 
loads of missiles fired to arrive at petty much the same time 
interval. The better the targets point defenses the more missiles 
that must be used. A continous stream of missiles from single bearing 
is not as effective as a similtaneous swarm of missiles coming in 
from several bearings.

5. Todays CIWS tracks the target and bullets essentially separately. 
then CIWS brings the two tracks into one track. CIWS will keep firing 
at chunks of the target even after it has been destroyed. Todays CIWS 
effectiveness is limited by ready ammo "<1000 rnds", and barrel wear, 
in a sustained  conflict usage. In future CIWS using Lasers the 
efffectiveness will limited by the number of targets, the number of 
hits needed to kill the missile/target, and the power needs of the 
systems.

6. Point defenses for TNE ships should be layered ie Long, Medium and 
Short ranges. Long equals 4 to 6 hexes, medium equals 2 to 3 hexes 
and short 1 hex. This will simply fire control integration for the 
defending ship(s). Today we have Integrated Master Fire Control 
systems that manage which targets get shot at by what battery et al. 
These Integrated Master Fire Control systems are fairly automated 
needing minimal inpout from human operators. TNE has no such thing 
at least by the official rules.

7. The TNE rules for EW/ECM are best inadequate. Electronic Warfare 
effects can be summerized into three basic types. 

The first type is to deny the enemy sensors any information. This is 
the simplest fo the three methods, you just broadcast powerful enough 
noise to wash oput your signal.

The second type is misrepresent the information that the enemy 
sensors recieve about your target. This method is more complicated 
that the first, a good example would be a "blip enhancer" making the 
target appear larger than it really is.

The third method is give the enemy sensors information that does not 
exist. This the most sophisticated of the forms of EW. A good example 
would be a single ship fooling the enemy sensors into believing that 
a fleet of many kinds of ships is present.

Most modern day EW systems use a mixture of the above methods. 
Missiles have a limited ability to deal with EW so EW is more 
effective against missiles.

The Tech level of a EW jammer is more effective against sensors of a 
lesser Tech Level. The reverse is also true Sensor of higher Tech 
level are not as effected by EW jammers of lesser Tech level.

These EW/ECM could be incorporated into TNE fairly easily. Type one 
jamming raises the difficulty one level, Type two - increase two diff 
levels and type three - increase three diff levels. Tech levels 
differences between EW/ECM sensors could raise or lower the dif levels 
ie TL 14 jammer versus TL 10 ECM/sensor raise the diff levels by four 
levels. A TL 14 ECM/sesnor versus TL 10 Jammer drops the diff levels 
by four but never below the base diff chance.

Later then
Sinbad Sam
Sinbad@metronet.com
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.2

mQCNAi3tSRYAAAEEAJWWEBoq+Vsg3Bqf9sg+ONGuAIlETBIx1FNbvxJlNm1zZwKf
aNZE8BUrJ86ALkllWu+4JmsHmDPBZl5VBqWUgRDkhir1ZU6s/o0YJxe0UFEvwVoN
l7P1SVCKoBjl/lwHdxceo82MmpqL/cUklLMTLJILh+Pfr18vvWgJ5IDohLGVAAUT
tBlTYW0gRC4gVGhvbWFzIDxTdGhvbWFzMjM+
=E/HK
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 15:27:31 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Those pesky missiles again :)
Message-ID: <9509062127.AA19004@Rt66.com>

 
> And Merrick, I would like some pointers on designing missiles. You seem to 
> have worked something out.

I wish!

-Merrick

PS-the post regarding GDWs change of FC from .225 to .3 finally makes
them make sense to me (at least I can backwards engineer theirs now)

And you're right, 8g8 missiles are weak KKMs.  A side note:  the leading
number at high TLs will always be the gturns of the missile.  In reality
the TL15 12g12 missile can actually be 2500g12 (or more).  I plan on
recording missiles that can accelerate more than their gturns of fuel
with the real acceleration just to give players an isdea of how *fast*
they get to 12gturns velocity.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 17:41:51 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: RQS vs Regency Scouts vs Naval Reconnaisance 
Message-ID: <199509062141.RAA03071@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Wed, 06 Sep 1995 14: 48:12 EDT
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 17:41:50 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: 
: OK now, I would like to know which functions, if any, the RQS is to take 
: from the Scout Service.
: 
: I know that they have the hardware of the Scouts: I also know that they 
: have left censuses and the xboat network to the Scouts.
: 
: I know that their primary mission is Quarrentine, and soundry antiViral 
: activities.
: 
: Now that the regency is about to head back to the Wilds, I need to know 
: if the RQS is also going to take on 
:     Exploration
:     (First) Contact
:     managing the Wilds xboats
:     Technological Aid
:     Wilds census
:     Propaganda/information
:     Military reconnaisance
:     Diplomatic activities
:     Promoting Regency business and trader interests
:     Managing colonialization
: 
: If not, who's going to do it? Or are these jobs going to be split up 
: between the RQS, Scouts, Navy Reconnaisance, Regency Diplomatic Corps, 
: the Regency Science Council, and various more agencies, subcontractors 
: and suchlike?
: 
: Or willthe gates be just thrown open, with the merchants and free traders 
: doing all the hard work?  (It's possible: the East Indian Company 
: basically did this in India)

Hmm, this is something that's been on my mind for a while too.  I've
decided to wait (hopefully only another week or two) for The Regency
Sourcebook.  

I think that the RQS will probably work in conjunction with the RSS. 
Similar to the way that the Marines work on Navy ships.  After all, the
RQS is mostly meant to keep ships out, not explore new worlds.

       --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: Wed, 06 Sep 1995 13:43:29 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Re: Design Concepts
Message-ID: <199509062043.AA08900@mail.crl.com>


toad@ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Lane) writes:
>	I'm working on an idea for a TL-6 reuseable shuttle, and would
>appreciate any input or suggestions...
>	The design isn't finalized yet, but the preliminary calculations 
>show that using a combination of turbofan, ramjet and LF rocket, and allowing
>airborne refueling combined with drop tanks, it is possible to get about
>0.64 G-hours of thrust from a design that nominally can carry 15 metric tons
>into LEO. This is, according to FF&S (realistic thrusters, p. 71) enough to
>reach orbit. However, I recall an article being published some years ago in
>Challenge ( An article I would love to get a copy of, anyone? It was called
>'One Small Step', I think) which gave a much more precise set of rules for 
>determining orbital req's.

	Those rules are basically replicated in FF&S's "alternative"
rules section for thrust based propulsion.

>	The design is not unlike the old DynaSoar idea, and ends up being
>something of a combination of the X-15 and SR-71. It turns out that there
>is enough mass left over to use a STOL hypersonic airframe - which means 
>that if you have a runway long enough for the aerial tanker, you're set to
>get into orbit. Certainly a useful little thing for all those barely spacefaring worlds out there in the wilds. 
>	And now the problems; 1) Drop tanks. In order to get off the ground 
>using a rather small turbofan, the plane takes off with only enough fuel for 
>30 min on the turbofan, carrying empty drop tanks with a capacity of 45 tons.
>(I've had to bend the rule about a maximum weight in outboard sres of 35%)
>2) Airborne refueling. The refueling has to take place above 800 kph, since 
>the ramjet has to kick in as the plane gets heavier. ( current USAF ops are 
>done at a somewhat slower speed, I imagine? 
>3) The turbofan is used to augment thrust for the first 33% of the post-refueling burn. My argument is that this is the initial climb to high altitude ( 60-70
>000 feet) Again, anyone who knows if this is a valid assumption, please let me
>know.. 

Smart design.  Your assumption re: the turbofan is ok.
Btw, there is a real vehicle somewhat like this (the "Black Horse" concept
by Maj. Mitch Burnside-Clapp, USAF) using just rockets.  It takes off with
enough fuel to rendezvous for an airborne refueling, then loads up its 
tanks and zips off as a nearly-single-stage-to-orbit flight.

>Anyway, what do you think? Should I set up shop, or is it time to go back
>to the old drawing board?

Go for it 8-)

>On another set of topics; Having just bought FF&S yesterday, I sat down 
>and played with the very extensive rules for making guns.. not my normal 
>area of interest, but certainly useful. I managed to make a 12L70 ETC 
>Autocannon with a preposterous 25 Mj muzzle energy. using M1A2-style APFSDSDU
>rounds the penetration is a silly 307 at medium range (1500m) Either there
>is something I've missed, or the rule on page 109 of FF&S about multplying
>muzzle energy by 2.5 for all ETC weapons is excessive. Oh, a typo above, 
>that should be a 120L70, i.e. 12cm bore. If not, with a gun like this, why 
>bother with messy expensive stuff like meson guns?

You didn't miss anything.  You did it (from my memory of the #s, not having
the tables at work...) just right.  Largebore ETC, especially largebore
ETC autocannons, are by far the nastiest actual weapon possible to design
using the FF&S rules.  They haven't got the range that the (revised)
plasma/fusion weapons have, or lasers, but they have amazingly long
range (out past 7500 meters in some cases) and penetrations can easily
pass 300 at short range.  Another nasty-evil-trick which I picked up
from someone (thanks, Steve) is to get rid of the power plant input and
run the electrical input required off a Explosive Power Generator, with
the EPG's cartridge built into the cannon shell...

One general hint for armor designers... the vehicles depicted in Striker
are incredibly under-armored and under-armed.  It is possible to defeat
them very very easily with just a bit of work on the design.  It is possible
to build a TL 10 1-ton (14 m^3) tank which costs under MCr2 (and less in 
quantity) which can defeat a Trepidia and is invulnerable to return fire.



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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 16:29:41 -0700
From: toad@ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Lane)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: A new power source.
Message-ID: <199509062329.QAA23549@liquefy.ugcs.caltech.edu>


FF&S has been pretty good at mentioning possible ways to produce power - 
although I for one would have appreciated some more distinction bewteen 
various types of fusion. The reson for this is playability and possible 
plot ideas. For instance, there is a world of difference between a fusion
plant that uses a deuterium-tritium mixture, and one that uses plain light
nydrogen. Tech levels for one - the former we hope to have in 50 years, the 
latter is probably TL-14 or so.. The difference is in available fuel - some
thing that is even more noticeable if you use for instance lithium or He-3, 
both rather rare fuels that you can't just skim off a gas giant. And running
out of "gas", be it He-3 or Lithium-7, is certainly something to avoid..

At TL16 antimatter power systems become available, although it seems to me
that in order to produce enough antimatter to fuel them you'd need an 
enormous particle accellerator. THe advantage is of course, total conversion
of matter to energy. (Fusion is at best 0.7% effective in converting mass
to energy, the rest of the mass being in difficult-to-fuse He-4). However, 
there is another way to get total conversion of matter to energy, one that
I'm sure must have been used at least a few times in Imperial days.

What you need is a _small_ black hole massing about 10.000 tons. This minute
black hole will be about 10^-20 cm in radius... Because it is so small, it
will be 'evaporating' due to Hawking radiation at a prodigous rate. At 10,000
ton black hole with evaporate totally in about 10 seconds, most of the energy 
being released as gamma rays...  However, the rate of evaporation is inversely
proportional to the square of the mass - the more massive the black hole,
the slower it evaporates. Now, by injecting mass (not too hard, the black 
hole gobbles up almost everything) you can replenish the mass lost by radiation,as well as control the rate of radiation. The more you pump in, the less the
black hole evporates, and vice versa. Of course, this means that if you
interrupt mass injection for to long, the black hole will evaporate completely,
diappearing in a devastating flash of gamma rays... On the other hand, you can 
also quench it for a period of time, too. 
 
There are limitations to this idea - 1) you can only really use this when 
you want to produce _a lot_ of energy (10^20 watts or so, almost like a
standard battleship under MT rules. ;) ) 2) It's bloody dangerous. Sure you 
can use gravitics to control and suspend your black hole, but if you lets it
get too small the thing is going to blow up in your face.. Also, if you
lose containment of it it might well fall into the core of the nearest planet
or star. Although usually they evaporate before they start being fed by materialaccreted from the star... 
3) you need to find some easy way to make small black hole, because they don't exactly grow on trees these days. Perhaps a combination of gravitics and particleaccellerators could do the job. It's probably not even as difficult as making
tons of antimatter, which is just as likely to blow up in your face.

Advantages? Well, it will use whatevr fuel you care to give it, including
rocks, enemies, or the kitchen sink. It wil produce _lots_ of energy, since
it is in effect a total conversion device. It will also perform nicely as 
a planet- or star-buster.

Unclear areas? well, what effect will it have on a ship enetring jumspace
with one of these on board? tecnically speaking the entire ship is well
beyond the 100-diameter limit, but on the other hand, we are dealing with 
a singularity here. I'll leave that one up to all you j-space physicists out
there...

Finally, another idea/question; does the TNE universe permit magnetic 
monopoles? they would be a good way of explaining superdense materials 
(which are very hard to put into the science prt of sci-fi if you look
carefully) For a good explaination of the way they would work, do read
'Dragons Egg' by someone-who's-name-I-forget. A very readable story...

Cheers,
/ben

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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 17:34:20 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Design Concepts
Message-ID: <9509062334.AA27857@Rt66.com>

Hi,
 
> Smart design.  Your assumption re: the turbofan is ok.
> Btw, there is a real vehicle somewhat like this (the "Black Horse" concept
> by Maj. Mitch Burnside-Clapp, USAF) using just rockets.  It takes off with
> enough fuel to rendezvous for an airborne refueling, then loads up its 
> tanks and zips off as a nearly-single-stage-to-orbit flight.

My roommate is friends with Mitch, and Black Horse is really, really
neat.  I'll have to dig up the poop on this, from what I've heard it's
pretty interesting.

-Merrick


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

Date: Wed, 6 Sep 1995 17:56:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: submission.
Message-ID: <9509062356.AA29494@Rt66.com>


> b) If, on the other hand, we decide that in fact a missle defence screen is 
> good enough that you need a Tigress firing of a few thousand missles in 
> short order to penetrate it, then we suddenly find that fighters are quite 
>useless. they can't carry a hundred missles each, and being much larger targets
> than missles (make no mistake - you can make a missle _very small_ and still
> pack a nuke into it), they're sitting ducks for any worthwhile missle defence
> screen. This is just as true for all the upgunned free traders that for some
> reason ply the spacelanes filled with adventurers... 
> 
> The point I'm trying to make is that the balance of the game is very tricky
> to get right - if the missles are useful only in swarms of 5000 then you're
> in a situation where space combat is rather like 17th century naval combat
> with ships of the line sitting and throwing hunks of metal at each other for 
> hours. On the other hand, if any ballsy fighter-jock with a 10-ton fighter
> can vaporize a 100,000-ton battleship ( a la Wing Commander 2), why build 
> them? 
> The best compromise seems actually to be something akin to modern day 
> naval and air combat - to take out a carrier group, you need 60-odd Bison 
> bombers carrying heavy, long range missles. And a Super Etenard with an Exocet
> can occasionally get lucky against a frigate, but can also get very dead 
> very fast..

This is what the missile thread should be about.  Balance.  There are
three ways of looking at this as I see it.  There is the balance between
reality and fiction that SF always has.  There is "game balance".  And
there is the canon vs. TNE balance.

I've been trying to work out KKMs for the first and last reasons.

Regarding the canon, your comments on compromise are getting close to
the mark.  In the canon, really big ships are immune from instant
destruction by missiles of any sort (no critical hits), but missiles can
slowly wear them down.  

Using KKMs can really throw this out of whack, but FFS has provided us
with Electrostatic Armor (ESA).  This can mitigate a lot of the
nastiness of KKMs, and also serves to keep you ship from wearing down to
a nub just cruising around in star systems where the dust density is
(relatively speaking) high.  On the other hand, KKMs can give fighters a
punch that'll take out a big ship... which means you'll have to shoot
down the fighters.  And since close in defence isn't the best answer
for this, you'll have to have your own fighters (or DEs) to screen your
big ships (interesting way to justify fighters :-)

> cheers,
> /ben

-Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 405
***************************
