			    TRAVELLER Digest 449

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Transponders
	by Scott and Vivian Nolan <nolan@DGS.dgsys.com>
  2) Ramparts (Re: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!)
	by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
  3) Re: Ramparts (Re: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!)
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott and Vivian Nolan <nolan@DGS.dgsys.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Transponders
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951014003344.1184A-100000@DGS>



On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, David Elrick wrote:

> A question. What is the status of transponder use in TNE?  Are the same 
> chips and that still used, but completely isolated from the rest of the 
> ship-net?
> 
 [SNIP]
> Liam seems to be of the opinion that the transponders were always hooked 
> into the internal ships net (and now he comes to mention it, I think I've 
> seen mention somewhere in TNE of Virus passing from ship to ship via 
> transponders).

That IS how Virus was transmitted from ship to ship and from ship to 
planet.  Transponders are now isolated from any computers.

Scott

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

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 11:24:43 -0500
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ramparts (Re: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!)
Message-ID: <199510141624.LAA12916@natasha.itlabs.umn.edu>

Merrick Burkhardt ranted:  :)

>My previous comment about doing an 8 ton fighter was premature.  It's
>impossible to make it 6g.  Check out their Rampart design! It doesn't
>work!  Look at the masses, and the thrust.  The Rampart given to us in
>BL can do just less than 3g when it's empty.  [...]

I've noticed that GDW tends not to check the thrust-to-mass ratio in
their designs, too.  They seem to forget that armor is really going to
weigh down small craft.  Otherwise, the designs seem okay.

>So, any ideas on what to do for a fighter design? (using "canon" FFS)

The Rampart is salvagable.  The mass of the thing just needs to be 
cut down a little.  The heaviest optional components are armor and the
laser.  Here's my solution.  Change the following entries in the 
standard Rampart (RF-128) listing. 

Hull Armor:   56
Price:        MCr 23.04
Mass:         160.8/157.1 tons [with missiles, 188.8 tons]
Power Plant:  70 MW Fusion (70 MW/hit), 1 month duration
G-Rating:     6G (8.125 MW/G) [5G with missiles], CG Lifters (5 MW)
G-Turns:      52.3, 1.035 cubic meters ea. [43.5, 1.219 cu. m w/missls.]
Maint:        3
Offensive:    1 x TL15 72 MJ laser lance (Loc. 1; Arc 1; 2 MW; no crew)
                   10:(1/6)-21  20:(1/6)-21  40:(1/3)-11  80:(1/2)-5
              4 x USL grapples for standard missiles

Armor was lightened, the laser size halved, and a HEPlaR drive with
975 tons thrust installed in place of the old drive.  The damage table
only requires minor changes (and it had a minor bug or two to begin 
with).  Crew is still one, Maneuver/Gunner.

Here's something of my own.  The following additional changes result
in a conversion of the old RF-128-2 Rampart two-place missile fighter.

Price:      MCr 23.30
Mass:       157.1/120.3 tons [missile load included in loaded]
G-Rating:   6G (8.125 MW/G) [8G empty], CG Lifters (5MW)
G-Turns:    59.8, 1.035 cubic meters ea. [81.3, 0.762 cu. m ea. empty]
Commo:      5 x 1000 AU maser
Controls:   2 x workstation
Offensive:  4 x USL grapples for standard missiles
Crew:       2 (Maneuver, Commander/Gunner)
Airlocks:   2 hatches
 
A hatch is a 2 square meter surface area, MCr 0.002 excuse not to
install an airlock in a fighter.  :)  The original RF-128-2 was a
missile fighter that was also used as the squadron commander's
craft and as a trainer.  The laser has been deleted, a second
workstation and commo suite installed, and the space left is now
additional maneuver fuel.  It also turns out that removing the
laser gives up just as much mass as a full load of missiles needs,
so this craft suffers no acceleration penalty to carry missiles.

The damage tables only require minor tweaking.

BONUS INFORMATION:  Two TL-15 laser lances.  Both need remote crew.

144MJ  28.387 kL  53.59 tons  4 MW  MCr 0.59  1.31 sq. m.
   10:(1/10)-30  20:(1/10)-30  40:(1/4)-15  80:(1/2)-7; No crew.
 72MJ  15.787 kL  28.39 tons  2 MW  MCr 0.46  1.31 sq. m.
   10:(1/6)-21  20:(1/6)-21  40:(1/3)-11  80:(1/2)-5; No crew.
  
  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@tc.umn.edu>


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

Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:46:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ramparts (Re: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!)
Message-ID: <9510141946.AA24376@Rt66.com>


Cool stuff.  Unfortunately the fix you posted is illegal if you don't
trash the silly armor requirements.  I would be happy to ignore the
gs*10 armor requirement myself as it is just plain dumb (given the
bracing requirement of internal structure), but if I post designs that
ignore it no one else can use it (unless they trash the rule).

This is unlike the TL*50 limit since any designs that use it are still
legal for people that don't use it (even if they would be weak designs).

I actually like the fact that the sub 10 ton craft are hard to make with
lots of gs---a trade between hard to lock, or high g.

Any ideas on how to fudge the crew thing?

-merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 449
***************************
