TRAVELLER Digest 493

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 491 by A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
  2) Tirem comment by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  3) RE: Planetoid Configurations by David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
  4) Re: TRAVELLER digest 492 by Ethan Henry <ehenry@magmacom.com>
  5) Traveller tech... by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  6) Re: Planetoid Configurations by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  7) TRAVELLER digest 492 by Lee Hutchinson <100737.1412@compuserve.com>
  8) Re: [T491] RC RICE Papers by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  9) Re: Tirem comment by Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
 10) Jumping on Maneuver Fuel by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
 11) Drop Tanks -- the continuing saga by fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)

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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:18:32 +0000
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 491
Message-ID: <199511231043.FAA15959@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

GENEERING

Mark ("M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>) asked in TML491:
>While I'm (kind of) on the subject, what is the state of technology
>in the "Imperium?"
<snip>
>Genetic engineering...

There was a genetic engineering article in issue 8 of the Traveller
Chronicle. It explains how some historical events have limited geneering to
a degree. It seems to have received a number of good reviews...

DROP TANKS

Then Franklin (fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)) said (TML491):

>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)?

I would assume that 'rented' ones were typically used only by large corps or
well-established traders (whom the tank-suppliers could trust not to
default). They could use insurance to cover against losses.

On internal tanks, those players who just seem to think it's a matter of
putting a large plastic bag in the hold and filling it with liquid hydrogen
get a nasty shock when I tell them the amount of work that _actually_ has to
be done. A single pin-hole leak in the tank could be devastating...

STARPORTS AND THE LAW

David (library@dss.gov.au) said (TML491):
>Perhaps an expanded law profile is required for space?

What you need is the Travellers' Starport Guide, currently in production by
myself and due for release (given my current timescales) in December 2007.
Ah well... it will eventually contain:
Detailed (manual or random) starport facilities generation, how to map out a
starport, what you find in a starport (from administrators to travellers to
duty-free assistants to cleaners), what you do in a starport (in-system
navigation, landing, take-off, starlane laws, on-ground laws, cargo laws,
technical systems), what you shouldn't do in startown (all the nice places
you can find there that you _couldn't_ take your granny to visit) along with
plenty of example starports (including maps) and some interesting encounters...
Printing method: indeterminate; Price: indeterminate; Release date:
indeterminate; Sanity of writer: fast going downhill.

Andy Lilly. Cmdr, PITS (Political Intelligence Team, Scout)
PITS Team motto: "We are never outgunned."
* Nothing I say or do in any way reflects the views of my very kind
  and generous employers who have no interest in outgunning anyone. *


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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:28:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Tirem comment
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.951123082119.14570A-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
>
>   > 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.

Uggh! What's the largest possible "terrestrial" world?
Is there any way a world can be destroyed and leave massive, world-sized
chunks (up to size 8)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Plummer

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


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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 95 12:42:00 PST
From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
To: "traveller%mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: RE: Planetoid Configurations
Message-ID: <30B4DCEF@pc136>



David J. Golden <goldendj@whip.com> asked:

>        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?

I asked that very question when I interviewed Dave Neilson for RPI (a now
defunct British RPG magazine - most of the team, including me, went on to
write for Valkyrie which is a damn fine magazine and is available in the US
through 'On Military Matters' in New Jersey (I think) [plug, plug]).

I don't have my interview notes to hand (and it was more than two years
ago), but as I recall Dave said that they had trouble fitting everything
they wanted to put into FF&S into the one volume, so to make space they took
out all the things that wouldn't be immediately used by player characters,
or that were just too difficult to write up. At that time they were planning
a second volume of FF&S design sequences, which would include things like
Planetoid configurations and all the other things they couldn't fit in the
first volume. I wonder if we'll see that now.......

Kind Regards

Dave Elrick

 ----------------------------------------
If they abolish guns, how are we ever going to shoot the magic players?
 ----------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:42:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@magmacom.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 492
Message-ID: <199511231442.JAA30805@mag1.magmacom.com>

> 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.

 Hm. Will look. I started doing some of the work last night
and a LOT of worlds are detailed with 3 sentence descriptions
all over the place. Small, but just enough to force you to dig them
up if you want to really detail the world and not conflict with
published material (although caring so much about 3 sentences may
be construed as anal, but.)

> From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
> Subject: "minimum law levels"
>
> 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).

Well, nobles can lose their title, sure, although most
nobles would no doubt go to great lengths to stop this, even
if they're charged with some crime. As for LIC's being
suspended, I have my doubts, as no minor noble is going
to want to mess with a corporation that the Emperor holds
stock in and I doubt that the Emperor would suspend the
activities of one of his own investments... The only person
who would have the authority to suspend a LIC without fear
of Imperial reprisals is an Archduke probably, which would be
part of the reasons the Archdukes made into such figureheads
probably.

> 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.

No doubt it's illegal to book a flight plan taking you into
a red zone system, but actually going to a red zone is a
different matter. Drugs probably get the same bizzare treatment
they get today - they're illegal to sell, they may be illegal
possess, but they're not illegal to consume. Laws in the
Imperium are probably like modern laws - flexible.

Ethan

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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:45:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller tech...
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.951123083325.14570C-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

From: "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@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.)

I knew about the nanotech, but can anyone give me a brief demo on why/how
Traveller computers lag behind current ones?  (Excusing those famous
Classic Trav "Jump tapes"!)

>
>   The answer to this is fairly simple:  Classic Traveller, aka the
>   little black books, is a product of the late 1970s and early 80s.
>   every year and a half, or so I'm told) had not yet become apparent.

<snip>

> 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).

Any chance that we'll ever have a full Traveller refit regarding these
assumptions?  Or are we fated to stay in the bell bottom era forever,
where Star Wars: A New Hope remains the very cutting edge of what's
possible?

(Ooop's, make that Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back - can't forget
those cloud cities!)

The New Era would be an **Excellent** opportunity to do so.  Except that
the Reformation Colaition seems a bit too primitive for a real TL 12 culture.
(And God help the poor fool who's trying for a 'realistic' protrayal of
Regency societies.... :)

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

Incidentally, Glenn M. Goffin <ggoffin@igc.apc.org> has posted several
impressive articles on Imperial Law, both here and on the XTML list.
Going thru the archives would be beneficial for those interested...

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

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


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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:00:47 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Planetoid Configurations
Message-ID: <9511231700.AA19934@Rt66.com>


Hiya,

Planetoid hulls are on our list of things to do in the gdw-beta list.
Stay tuned!

-Merrick

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

Date: 23 Nov 95 14:16:49 EST
From: Lee Hutchinson <100737.1412@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:traveller@mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 492
Message-ID: <951123191649_100737.1412_EHV75-1@CompuServe.COM>

In TRAVELLER digest 492 Lewis wrote:

>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 sure do.  The archives located there have moved to elendor.sbs.nau.edu

Lee Hutchinson


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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 22:00:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: [T491] RC RICE Papers
Message-ID: <8B57528.010006221A.uuout@execnet.com>


Mark Fletcher writes...

T::>Did anybody ever write any RICE papers on the worlds of the RC? If so
 ::>drop me a liner.

 Given that RICE stands for "REGENCY Institute for Cultural
 Education", it would be a bit "off" to write a RICE Paper on a RC
 world.

 I suppose that a similar document _could_ be written for a RC
 world, but evidence indicates that GDW will be developing the RC
 in more detail than we have seen for the Regency to date, or for
 the vast majority of the worlds of Known Space previously.

 CIDER, anyone?  Coalition Infonet Data and Educational Resource?

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
  OLXWin 1.00a  640k = 4 Megs In Dog Bytes.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 10:15:42 +1100
From: Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Tirem comment
Message-ID: <15BBA045C5@teleng1.tait.co.nz>

> Alvin Plummer
>
> Uggh! What's the largest possible "terrestrial" world?
> Is there any way a world can be destroyed and leave massive, world-sized
> chunks (up to size 8)?

How about several largish planets?  Odds not worth thinking about,
but who cares, strange things happen anyway.

Bill
+--------------+-----------------------------------+
|Bill Currie   | "Watch that first step..."        |
|Christchurch  | Jump trooper motto.               |
|New Zealand   |                                   |
+--------------+-----------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:22:54 -0900
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Jumping on Maneuver Fuel
Message-ID: <v01530500acda94dedb87@[137.229.100.51]>

>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

I've always figured that the tanks are separated, but that the fuel filler
pumps can swap fuel around from tank to tank. (See
_Starship_Operator's_Manual_ ) So they could do it off their maneuver fuel,
if they pum maneuver fuel into the jump tankage. If you look at many of the
designs around, most have a little over J1 worth of maneuver fuel, some
more than that. Why?

Well, first off, if you misjump, you can txfr fuel into the jump tankage,
and have 1j1 to make it to a system, which gives yyou an infinitely greater
chance of survival than deep space.

Secondly, in my designs, all tanks are broken down into 1j1 sized tanks,
and the number of them equals at least (MaxJ+1) tanks. this makes the
accounting much easier.

Also, the cannon for firing a Sandcaster as a weapon on the personal scale
is <drumroll, please>, Clasic Traveller AND MegaTraveller. In MT, it's in
the Player's Manual, under the weapons listings.

-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ASWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html



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

Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 22:48:58 -0500 (EST)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Drop Tanks -- the continuing saga
Message-ID: <9511240348.AA24789@st6000.sct.edu>

As I understand the rules, using drop tanks works like this:

1) The navigator computes a jump at the ship's *current*
displacement value (i.e., a 200-ton J-2 far trader w/ 50-ton drop tanks
now has J-1 capability)

2) After the navigator successfully computes the desired jump, the
engineer activates the jump drive

3) Upon activation, the jump drive begins to consume fuel (to
include fuel from the drop tanks) while charging the hull grid and/or jump
coils (whichever... :-)

4) At the critical energy threshold, the jump field forms about
the ship, and the ship exits our universe for a week

At no time once the jump process has been initiated can the ship safely
discard the drop tanks (without aborting the jump in progress).  Thus, the
ship *must* jump with the drop tanks.  That means anyone trying to rent
drop tanks *must* have at least two outposts (one at point "A", another at
point "B", assuming the merchant is servicing the "A"-to-"B" route).
Furthermore, the tugboats are going to need more maneuver fuel than you
may realize.  Consider that a ship (in BL or BR) must burn a G-turn just
to close with another object IN THE SAME HEX!  (That's one G-turn *per
object*!)  Even if the tugboat could maneuver within the hex free of fuel
cost, it still needs to go from one hex to another to retrieve the drop
tanks.  Even if we grant extremely proficient navigators, your customers are
still going to usually arrive at "+/-10%" of the target distance to the target
world.  For the safe 100-diameter distance for a UWP Size 6 world, that
works out to plus-or-minus two hexes in any direction (6 * 1600km diameter *
100 / 30,000km per hex = 16 hexes; 16 / 10 = 1.6, round to 2).  Counting out
from the target hex, that gives us an area of 19 hexes to play in
(1+6+12).  Therefore, I still believe that drop tanks are useful only for
military ships...or para-military ones, at that (corsairs, anyone?).

Removable internal fuel tanks still make sense for merchants in
astrographically sparse regions (such as much of the RC).  However, they
are more economical for J-2 ships (such as far traders and scout/couriers)
than for J-1 ships (free traders and fat traders).  A J-1 ship uses 10% of
the ship's colume *per parsec*.  A J-2 vessel uses 15% for a two-parsec
jump, which works out to 7.5% *per parsec*.  A J-3 ship (a subsidized
liner) uses 20% total, or 6.667% *per parsec*.  Etc.  Thus, a far trader
with a 30-ton internal tank can make more efficient use of the extra fuel
than a free trader (the far trader gets an extra 2 parsecs, vs. the free
trader's extra 1.5 parsecs).

Thanks.--  Franklin W. Cain

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 493
***************************
