TRAVELLER Digest 492

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 491 by Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
  2) Re: TL H Mizutani-class Diplomatic Cutter by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  3) Re: TL D Ugvarran-class Vargr Assault Ship by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  4) Renting drop tanks by Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
  5) drop tanks, refuling j-1 ships, etc... by cmdrx@magicnet.net (Commander X)
  6) Re: TRAVELLER digest 490 by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  7) List of detailed worlds? by lewis@chara.gsu.edu
  8) Planetoid Configurations by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  9) Re: Terraforming Mars by "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
 10) Re: TRAVELLER digest 491 by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
 11) "minimum law levels" by "Glenn M. Goffin" <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
 12) Re: Multiverse by broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)
 13) Archive Page by broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)
 14) Deep Space Refuling by broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)

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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:25:39 +0200 (EET)
From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 491
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9511221245.A18987-0100000@evitech.evitech.fi>

I admit that nanotech and biotech stuff sound like cyberpunk, but I like
cyberpunk genre. I also think that stuff should be available in Imperium.
But I think that the reason it is not included is because Traveller (and
Imperium) are based on tehnological realities of 70's, not 90's. For
example even the computers are enormously bulky compared to what it can
be assumed to be true in that distant future.

But I really think that above mentioned things don't play any important
part in Imperial campaign and if you want to include those things, you
should use alternate universe. Of course, many things would be different
from Imperial campaign.

If you have ideas for nanotech/biotech in TNE, I'd like to hear (see).


"I'll be bag"
-Arnie the Alligator

Joni Virolainen
jonimv@evitech.fi



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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 08:16:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
Cc: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TL H Mizutani-class Diplomatic Cutter
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.951122080838.23602B-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

On Fri, 10 Nov 1995, David J. Golden wrote:

> At 07:58 PM 10/12/95 -0400, I wrote:
> >
> >Does any member of the Naval Review Board care to select the best Diplo
> >craft created?  Any prizes?
> >
> >Also, will the original poster tell us which craft he chose, and why
> >(after there all in, of course... )
> >
> >TL H Mizutani-class Diplomatic Cutter
>
> /* snip */
> >Defensive     Sandcaster (Loc: 18-19, Arcs 2,3,4,5, Crew 1, TL H,
> >                                3D6 * 5 per hit: 65 cann, 1 Mw each)
>
>         I'm assuming there are two sandcasters, even though it's not
> specified. Let me know if otherwise ...
>

Sorry, but there's only one sandcaster, and 3 MFD's (TL H, 10 hex,
laser/missile, 1.18 Mw each)

 Crew breakdown:

Maneuver = 2  Flight Crew = 2   Command = 3      Psg = 18
Gunner = 7    Elect =1          Stewards = 3        - 14 Diplomats
Engineer = 4  Ship's Troops = 4 Medical = 1         - 5 staffers
                                                    - 1 valet for senior dip.
                                                    - 8 elite troops

Note: the Electrical crewman is strictly unnecessary, but still nice to have:
      Inteligence operations is important in cutting-edge diplomacy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 22 Nov 1995 08:43:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
Cc: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TL D Ugvarran-class Vargr Assault Ship
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.951122081739.23602D-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

On Fri, 10 Nov 1995, David J. Golden wrote:

> At 03:23 PM 10/10/95 -0400, you wrote:
> >Another Rebellion-era Vargr ship...
> >
> >TL D Ugvarran-class Vargr Assault Ship
>
>         And I'm finally getting around to formatting it so I can post it. I
> have few questions
>
> >EMM Masking    (28Mw/Hit)
>
>         You don't give the total power requirement for EMM, and there's also
> no damage rating for it down further, either for the radiators or the
> electronics.

Total power needed is 280, 28H for controller, (280) for rad's

>
> >
> >MFDs           Beam only * 110 , 3000 km (Long range in same hex)
> >                                 (Diff -4, .81 Mw)
> >               Beam/Missile * 50, 60 000 km (Diff -4, 1.46 Mw)
>
>         I assume the crew requirements for these are 1 each?
>
> >50-ton, 1000 Mj Meson bay * 10 (Long range in same hex, Arcs 2, 3,4
> >                Loc 10, 11, -2 Diff)
>
>         No crew requirement given ... do you have it handy?
>

Total gunnery crew = 183.

Weapons on the Ugvarran includes:

   1000Mj Meson * 10
   150 Mj Laser T * 150
   Sandcasters * 100
   Missile Barbettes * 50
also:
   PV 671 Meson Screen ("gunnery" crew = 23)

Subtracting the Meson requirement room the Gunnery crew leaves 160
crewmembers, just enough to man the 160 MFD's (50 missile only, 110
missile/beam).  All these weapons have workstations (one each) and can be
manned if the MFD's go down.

Note that the number of weapons + sandcasters clearly outnumber the
number of MFD's to go around.  Often, the missiles, sandcasters and 50 of
the lasers are manned by ship's troops: the 10 meson guns are also
manned, in case the MFD's gop down.

Note also that the "Ship's Troop's" are NOT included in the calculation
of the number of commanders, but are treated as passengers.  Largely
because the troops have there own command structure, of course.

> >                [No energy cost: each bay is self-sufficent in energy,
> >                Oxygen tanks for 20 hours, active EMS sensor (3000 km)
> >                286 Mw of power in private power plant, year-long fuel
> >                supply]
>
>         Why oxygen in here? No other life support for the crew?

Whoops! need to include basic life support here... hopefully, there will
be a revision by next week.  It's unlikely to change the figures much,
though...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 22 Nov 1995 13:41:21 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Renting drop tanks
Message-ID: <199511221241.NAA26270@ask.diku.dk>

Franklin Cain writes:
>I never thought of the idea of *renting* drop tanks.  Have you considered
>the means of recovering the drop tanks (must be economical) and the amount
>of "security deposit" required (must be large enough to replace the drop
>tanks, yet be low enough to be affordable by your customers)?

Not in the sense that I've made a detailed economic analysis of it, no. So
maybe I'm wrong. But the mechanics would be quite simple: The owner of the
drop tanks would have a shuttle designed to collect the drop tanks after
use. The amount of actual maneuvering would be extremely low; the merchant
flies to a spot just outside the jump limit where the drop tanks floats
in orbit; they attach the tanks; they drop them again in practically the
same spot; the tanks are collected and refueled. The feasibility would
depend on the number of merchants who want to use the tanks. If the traffic
can bear the cost of establishing a fuel depot in deep space and pay for a
jump-capable fuel shuttle to keep it topped off, then it can certainly
support a near-space fuel depot with a non-jump fuel shuttle and a small
shuttle plus a selection of drop tanks.


      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

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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:53:18 -0500
From: cmdrx@magicnet.net (Commander X)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: drop tanks, refuling j-1 ships, etc...
Message-ID: <199511221753.MAA06319@magicnet.magicnet.net>

Commander X here

Seeing all the posts on making J-1 ships go that little extra parsec got me
a little woried about a rule I use in my game.

I figured the fuel tanks on a starship were one large unit, comprising of
both the reaction mass and the J-drive fuel.  Once a J-1 ship makes a Jump
to a point in deep space 1pc away from its destination(assuming a J-2 is
needed), that ship can shunt fuel from the fuel tanks into the J-drive for
another jump.

Yes, using the manuever reaction mass is risky, you might not have enough
fuel to stop and get into a parking orbit when you get to the Mainworld.  I
usualy recommend to the PC's that they should only do it for ONE extra jump.
But you know how PC's are.

But my Question to the TML is this.  Have I misread the rules?  Are Jump
fuel and Maneuver fuel separate? Or is the rule above OK?

My players and I have had this debate before, but I would like to know what
the current concensus is on this.

Thanx

>From the RQS Fortune and Glory
Commander X out...
Keep the Flame, now and forever...
(Norris Aella Alledon  First Regent 1068-1157)

**>END TRANSMISSION<**


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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 18:01 GMT
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 490
Message-ID: <memo.634588@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199511210909.EAA24580@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca> To:
  > Subject: Comment on Tirem
  >
  > From: "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
  > > > According to the most common theory, the Belt is the result of
  > > > the destruction of a small (size 22?) planet
  > >
  > > I do hope you meant size 2.  Size 22 is hardly what I'd call small!
  >
  > Nah, I meant a small gas giant: it's a big belt, after all...

Trouble is, gas giants are mostly, well, gas. The rocky cores are
relatively small.

  > From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au> To: tml
  > Subject: Sector maps
  >
  > aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton) writes:
  >
  > ------------------------------
  > TNE seems to have broken the tradition of including a big sector map
  > - Deluxe CT had one, MT boxed set had one, even the computeer games
  > had one!
  > ------------------------------
  >
  > And Deluxe TNE has one too! At least the copy I bought had one. If
  > you bought Deluxe TNE and it DIDN'T contain a sector map then it looks
  > like you got a faulty copy.

As usual, I remembered this after posting the message. I haven't seen the
map (I couldn't wait for Deluxe TNE to arrive, so I bought the books
separately), but isn't it the same as the one in Astrogators Guide to
Diaspora? If so, the data is out of date, and it doesn't include tho whole
RC Area of Operations. In other words, unlike the earlier maps, this one
is pretty useless.

  > From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  > To: traveller@MPGN.COM
  > Subject: Re: Nilsen leaves... then what?
  > >
  > Why not just continue as we are now? Some people _like_ the RC. Some
  > people _like_ the Regency. Some people _like_ the Rebellion. Some
  > people _like_ the Unshattered Imperium. And some people _like_ their
  > own home-rolled campaign. Everybody just continues developing the
  > parts they like, and people can pick and choose the best ideas from
  > each.

This is the only option that works, 'cos you won't get everyone to agree
with any other suggestion.

  > From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  > Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 489
  >
  > 2. GDW AND THE FUTURE
  >
  > a. What price a multiverse?
  >
  > I think that one of the strengths of T$R (in comparision) is that it
  > created different worlds to put settings on. When you are tired of
  > the Monty-Haul comedy relief (Greyhawk), you can venture into the
  > Realms. If you want "Dark AD&D", run a Planescape or Dark Sun
  > campaign. If you want mega-battles, try Battlesystem; for smaller
  > fights, use the Skirmish rules.

Nonononono!
The big advantage of games like Traveller (and RuneQuest) is the background
- rather than having basic sourcebooks on a selection of backgrounds, they
concentrate on a single, extremely detailed background. I, and many other
people on this list, probably know as much about Traveller history as
about *real* history, and that makes refereeing and playing much easier.
It also makes this list work - If someone mentions the Rape of Trin, for
example, we all know what he's talking about, which wouldn't be true if we
were all playing in different universes.

  > However, by limiting their "story" to one basic history, I think that
  > GDW failed to win market share. What happens when people get sick
  > of the standard history? Can they jump into something else for a
  > while, and return to the old campaign later? I know people *talked*
  > about historical adventures, for example (eg. J. Andrew Keith's
  > "Exploration", JTAS 18) - but no official scenarios were published.

On top of everything else, GDW simply don't have the manpower (even before
Dave left) to cover too many things at once.


---===---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 14:18:46 -0500
From: lewis@chara.gsu.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: List of detailed worlds?
Message-ID: <9511221918.AA28583@chara.gsu.edu>

Ethan Henry asked about a list of worlds that have been described already in 
part.
I was exploring the various ftp sites on the net, and I found a list of worlds.
It doesn't have any Spinward Marches or Somani Rim worlds.  But it has
most of the others.  It would be a decent starting point.
It was at:
ftp.engrg.uwo.ca /pub/traveller/HIWG/Lib/world_names.Z

There are also several alien write ups, that were really well done.


Also, I was at the MegaTraveller Web Page and tried to ftp to
 ftp.nau.edu
and it wouldn't let me on, does anyone know the status of this site.

I also tried to get to deneb.cc.missouri.edu and it said:
>Connected to helpdesk.cc.missouri.edu.
>220 helpdesk.cc.missouri.edu FTP server (Version 4.1 Sat Aug 27
17:18:21 CDT >1994) ready.
>Name (deneb.cc.missouri.edu:lewis): ftp
>331 Guest login ok, send ident as password.
>Password:
>550 Can't set guest privileges.
>Login failed.

Does anyone understand this.



Lewis

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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:41:48 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: gdw-beta@qrc.com, traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Planetoid Configurations
Message-ID: <199511222341.AA14757@ns-1.csn.net>

        You know, I've always wondered what happened to them in FF&S, but
never got around to asking. Anybody know? Did somebody figure out a big
hunk-o-rock just couldn't withstand the stresses, or what?
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www2.csn.net/~goldendj/index.html

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine


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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 16:47:19 -0800
From: "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Terraforming Mars
Message-ID: <199511230047.QAA08656@PEAK.ORG>


"M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk> asks why the canon Traveller
  universe has little or no mention of technologies like nanotech,
  biotech, cybernetics, etc etc.  (A related issue, often brought up
  here, is why Traveller computers lag behind even present ones.)

The answer to this is fairly simple:  Classic Traveller, aka the
  little black books, is a product of the late 1970s and early 80s.
  At that time, concepts such as nanotech, cyberpunk, etc had not
  yet appeared in SF and personal computers were just starting to
  enter the home; the exponential growth in computing power (doubling
  every year and a half, or so I'm told) had not yet become apparent.

Since then, attempts have been made to retrofit more recent tech into
  Traveller, but in relatively superficial ways (since the background,
  which can't be radically changed, doesn't include them in its
  assumptions).

This is a good example of the difficulties in seeing even 20 years
  into the future, let alone 3,700 (give or take a Long Night or
  two)... Speaking of which, we all remember T:2000, right?  *grin*


------------------------
Kelly St.Clair
kstclair@kira.peak.org


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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 15:40:54 -0600
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 491
Message-ID: <199511240138.PAA11407@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

Re:     DROP TANKS

In degest 491, Franklin said:
>I have never liked the idea of using drop tanks on starships.  They just
>aren't economically feasible.

I have always believed that drop tanks are only feasible on well-travelled
routes. A breed of people exist who make their money on hanging aroung jump
points in spaceships, salvaging the drop tanks cast off from ships. This idea
is not mine, it actually comes from Isaac Asimov in _The Martian Way_. In his
novel, the Martians were actually salvaging fusion drive fuel tanks, but the
principle remains the same. These folk are looked down on by most traders,
being seen as scavengers (almost pirates). They grab the empty tanks and ship
them back to the system's refuelling depot. The depot refuels the tanks and
charges the next merchant in line for the privilege.

BTW, the novel uses fuelled reaction drives, and a lot is made of the delta-v
required to catch a wayward tank that some snotty starship captain has
deliberately shot off at a tangent. This should fit very well with TNE's use
of fuel.

- Hyphen
(David Jaques-Watson)



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

Date:          Wed, 22 Nov 1995 20:37:51 +0000
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: "minimum law levels"
Message-ID: <199511230443.UAA06967@igc3.igc.apc.org>

> From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)

> I was looking at the issue from the Imperial standpoint,
> I guess. I *never* assumed that the planetary authority
> would be involved, just the Imperial authorities.

No, that is exactly what your question assumed:

> Do this premise and conclusion sound reasonable: Even a
> law level 0 world must adhere to Imperial law in terms of
> trade. Therefore, this means that _even law-0 worlds
> will have customs checks_ for nukes, illegal drugs etc.
(emphasis added)

> I asked the question based on the assumption that
> "Imperial Law" is sort-of law level 1. Things like
> murder, possession of nukes by private individuals or
> companies, possession of psi drugs (pre-Regency) and
> K'kree highleaf, etc would be illegal in imperial
> space.

I don't think that this is a reasonable assumption.  Law
level is a measure of (1) the likelihood of governmental
intrusion into a traveller's affairs and (2) the
government's level of corruption.  The law level is then
attached to a statement about local laws on carrying
weapons.  A single number for these concepts grossly
oversimplifies even a single world's government, let alone
that of the Imperium.  Law level is simply not a useful
analytical tool for interactions with enormous,
heterogenous entities like the Imperium, the Aslan
Hierate, or the Vargr Extents.  (I am dubious of its virtue
when dealing with the Zhodani, Hivers, or K'kree, for that
matter, for the same reason.)

When considering the likelihood of intrusion by the
Imperial government into the affairs of travellers, and the
Imperium's level of corruption in that context, I look
primarily to the identity of the person administering
Imperial law.  More often than not, it is an official of
the world's government, empowered to enforce Imperial law
(e.g., a starport authority officer).  In that case, I
look to the local law level for guidance.  The rare
encounters with an actual Imperial official (usually an
officer of a uniformed service) I usually generate in
advance.

Your question

> Note that it is not really law level 1....Perhaps an
> expanded law profile is required for space?

really goes to "what do the criminal law provisions of the
Imperial Legal Code proscribe?"  I think that they only
proscribe the following:  Acts malum in se; acts that
threaten Imperial security; violations of Imperial
regulations.  None of these prohibit possessions of weapons
or drugs.

Acts malum in se are crimes that are easily identified as
such by the majority of humans living in the Imperium:
Murder, rape, battery, etc.  The Imperial Legal Code
proscribes these crimes to cover locations where they may
occur but be beyond the reach of a local law prohibiting
them.  (E.g., on a world without a population.)
Possession of drugs and weapons is not an act malum in se.

Acts that threaten Imperial security are for the most part
enumerated, but I am sure that there is a provision
prohibiting "any other act that tends to destroy the peace
and security of the realm."  Importing Six Eyes Nest
warbots is the one enumerated crime of which I am aware,
but I assume that at least the following are also Imperial
high justice crimes: interstellar financial fraud,
interstellar slave trading, interstellar environmental
crimes (like breaching quarantine), and interstellar war
crimes.  Possession of drugs and weapons doesn't rise to
the level of threatening Imperial security unless the
weapons are nuclear or otherwise capable of mass
destruction, not just of life, but of productive real
estate.

The big advantage of making these Imperial crimes, rather
than merely leaving them to the member worlds, is the
availability of Imperial punishment.  For a noble,
Imperial punishment includes divestiture of title (for
several generations, or permanently).  For a corporation,
its Limited Imperial Charter can be suspended or revoked,
as can that of its controlling parents (and their parents,
as far as the prosecutor can prove control). Ordinary
people convicted of Imperial crimes just get jail time (as
do nobles or corporate executives found culpable).

Violations of Imperial regulations include unauthorized
entry into Red Zones, failure to meet starship safety and
operating standards, and the like.  Imperial regulations
don't address possession of weapons or drugs, but do
regulate how weapons, at least, must be carried aboard
starships in Imperial space.

copyright Glenn M. Goffin 22 November 1995
Glenn M. Goffin Attorney-at-Law
1958 Marin Avenue/Berkeley, California 94707
voice (510) 527-3963; data/fax (510) 527-9797
voice mail (415) 266-8297
ggoffin@igc.apc.org; sudet@well.com

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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 23:02:28 -0600
From: broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Multiverse
Message-ID: <9511230502.AA24423@ConnectI.com>


>From: Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
>> 2.GDW AND THE FUTURE
>>
>> a.What price a multiverse?
>>
[snipped stuff about T$R multiverse]
>I think when TNE was orignally written, that was the idea. I think GDW
>wanted to write other Sci-Fi settings, based on whatever successes they
>had with the TNE setting. Unfortunately the flow of sourcebooks/modules
>was a little too slow, and so TNE wasnt the big success it should have been.
>
This is exactly correct.  I have been waiting for the 2300AD rewrite to come
out using the new house rules.  Supposedly, there should be very little
conversion.  GDW also wants to release Armor 21 the rewrite of T2K2.2.  One
can use the TNE rules to play almost any game system.  They include rules
for stutterwarp for example.  Now is it easy to play a 2300AD game with TNE
rules, I don't think so.  The GM has to do a lot of work to carry out the
conversion.  I know I am doing it now.  I do like the TNE rules (with the
exception of combat), so I push forward.

David C. Broussard (broussa@connecti.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions represented herein are the sole responsibility of
the proclaimer, and should not be interpreted as dogma, doctrine
philosophy, or anything else other than blabber.  However, if you
REALLY like it, then gimme a dollar!
-----------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 23:05:48 -0600
From: broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Archive Page
Message-ID: <9511230505.AA24472@ConnectI.com>

For those of you who have already checked out the New and Improved Traveller
Mailing List Archive Page, Thank You for you kind comments and helpful
suggestions.  I have made a few changes that I think will make the page
better, and I have linked in a couple of other Traveller Pages.  Please
E-Mail any Traveller WWW Pages you don;t see on the page, and I will happily
add them.

Once again, this page is supposed to be a resource for the Traveller
Internet community.
David C. Broussard (broussa@connecti.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions represented herein are the sole responsibility of
the proclaimer, and should not be interpreted as dogma, doctrine
philosophy, or anything else other than blabber.  However, if you
REALLY like it, then gimme a dollar!
-----------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 00:23:19 -0600
From: broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Deep Space Refuling
Message-ID: <9511230623.AA25922@ConnectI.com>

I am coming into this discussion late, but I will throw in my $0.02.

Deep space refuling is VERY expensive.  If you are trying to link 2 worlds 3
parsecs away, then as a rule of thumb you will need to carry enough fuel to
accomodate another jump 1.

The nubmers for fules usage look like this
Jump 1  10% of total Volume
Jump 2  15% of total Volume
Jump 3  19% of total Volume
Jump 4  25% of total Volume
Jump 5  30% of total Volume
Jump 6  35% of total Volume

So a Ship with Jump 2 would then have to carry 30% of displacement to get
there and back assuming two parsecs each side only 22.5% if jumping 2 then
1, then allot more m^3 to fuel for the other ships to follow.  What you need
is REALLY large ships.  The Imperium could do this with a 500Kton tanker
with Jump 1-3 and about 80% of the ship fuel tankage. (this means of course
that it becomes barely feasible to have Jump 6 tankers as the ship would
only have 10% volume left for tankage jump 6 then 6 (worst case)).

   I think I worked out once that it takes about 20% of a ship minimum to
provide for M Drives, JDrives Life Support Etc (this may have changed a bit
as have the J Fuel requirements).  So in that example the Jump 2 Tanker
could jump out 2 parsecs using 15% of its fuel, then reserving 7.5% for the
next jump 1 it could drop off @ 50% of its m^3 into waiting ships.  For a
500Kton ship this would be 250Ktons of fuel, this would enable about
2500Ktons of Jump 1 (better with longer legged J drives.

Now, lets look at a smaller ship say a 2500 ton ship in the RC cutter class.
If it carried only fuel modules 1000 tons (2X400 and 1X200) plus fuel from
the Manta, it has a total of 15,194m^3 of fuel.  It must use 4368 for one
Jump 2 to the drop off point leaving 10826.  Now after dropping the Fuel
Modules, it has a new displacement of under 1080 allowing Jump 5.  It will
need only 65m^3 to make the next Jump 1 allowing it to drop off about
10000m^3 of Jump Fuel.  This would allow for about 9500tons of Jump 2 ships
(47 Far Traders) to refuel and make it to the next stop.


Hey thats not all that bad.  I last ried this under MT CT rules and it got
REALLY expensive back in the old 10% per parsec days.  AS you can see for
this instance it will work OK, however if you are going to try to link 2
worlds 4 parsecs away, you only get 4700 tons of ship through (that is only
23 Far traders BTW).  It has to be seen as an opportunity cost.  AS to how
much to charge, the real cost is not the Fuel, but the operation of the
tanker.  Not to mention that the tanks have to be left behind or you cut out
2184m^3 for the jump 1 at full tonnage.  This means that you only get about
7500m^3 left at the drop point or only 35 far traders.  If you do the 2-2
link, then it is going to be 5632m^3 left for only 13 far traders making the
second jump.

Costwide, each drop off will cost 2X 26.16 + 13.1 (2X400 modules 1X 200)
meaning costs of about 65MCr each drop off (assuming no recovery of tanks).
So that the 47 refuels would have to split the cost for 1.38Mcr each.  The
only other cost is the loss of the use of a RC Cutter for the time a 750MCr
ship.  Now it would be possible to design a purpose built tanker, and I
personally think the RC would do it, but they would also have to absorb the
cost.  I mean from the Far Traders point of view, to make that run, takes an
extra week (more if you do maintainance).  You will have to pay the crew for
another week, and only get 1 load of cargo to pay for it.  You will have to
charge more.

Oh well, hope this helps, and does not bore everyone to death.

DCB
David C. Broussard (broussa@connecti.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions represented herein are the sole responsibility of
the proclaimer, and should not be interpreted as dogma, doctrine
philosophy, or anything else other than blabber.  However, if you
REALLY like it, then gimme a dollar!
-----------------------------------------------------------------


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 492
***************************
