Traveller-digest            Friday, 19 July 1996        Volume 1996 : Number 272

(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

         1. Re[2]: Fighters in SPACE
         2. Magazine Name
         3. QSDS vs Book 2, High Guard and BL
         4. Space Craft vs Fighters
         5. Re: Fighters in SPACE
         6. Re: Name for E-Mag?
         7. Re: Name for E-Mag?
         8. Re: Fighters in SPACE
         9. Re: Long Night and Oxy/Nitro asteroids.
        10. Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #266
        11. RE: Culture. music, and other stuff
        12. Re: Fighters in SPACE
        13. Re: Realism
        14. Re: Realism
        15. Maximum Speed (was Re: Realism)
        16. Re: Realism
        17. Re: Fighters in SPACE

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

From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk (Liam McCauley)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 18:52:37 +0200
Subject: Re[2]: Fighters in SPACE

     Peter Brenton says:
     > Another possible advantage, non-canonical, which should/can be given 
     > to fighters and certain other small craft is a higher G limit.  I 
     > know, you say, 6G is the limit, but consider; Big vessels with large
     > crews have the need for their crew to walk around and work at full 
     > acceleration.  This means the (canonical) limit of 6G is a 
     > restriction of the inertial compensators, not the actual manuver 
     > drive (whatever that may be).  You know as well as I do that fighter 
     > pilots in atmosphere have been known to take as much as 9G for brief 
     > periods of time.   We also know that there should be no barrier to 
     > increased acceleration with an increased manuver drive size and 
     > power input.  I would therefore postulate that a Traveller fighter 
     > craft could routinely accelerate at about 9G, this being 6G of 
     > 'compensated' acceleration and 3G of 'uncompensated' acceleration. 
     
     You can already do this using FF&S.  I seem to remember designing a 9G 
     fighter some time back. The limit is the TL (for G-compensation).  
     IIRC, crew in workstations can take 3G over the compensated level 
     without suffering ill effects.  Of course in FF&S the G rate wasn't as 
     important - the number of G-turns of fuel you could carry was.  But 
     now that we have thruster plates back, there should be >6G fighters 
     (at suitable TLs).
     
     
     Cheers,
     Liam
     -- 
     Liam_McCauley@QSP.co.uk

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

From: anwfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:28:07 -0800
Subject: Magazine Name

>  So, it's time to come back to the lists, and ask for ideas.
>  So that's what I'm doing.  Let me know what you think, both of
>  my names, and of what you think a good name might be.
>

Electronic Imperial Information Exchange (EIIE)

Imperial Review

Imperial Wanderings

William F. Hostman

Aramis@AsylumBBS.com



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

From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc <Steve_Charlton@khan.Avalon.COM>
Date: 19 Jul 96  9:49:24 MS
Subject: QSDS vs Book 2, High Guard and BL

In response to some recent feedback on my QSDS translations of some Traveller 
Book starships, I decided to find the various alternates and incarnations of 
these ships.  This is what I discovered (Passengers inclues Low Berths):

Scout/Courier
In The Traveller Book - Jump 2, 2G, Crew 1, 3 Passengers, 3 tons cargo
In the TNE book and Brilliant Lances - Jump 2, 2G, Crew 3, 1 Passenger, 11 tons 
cargo
and in Traders & Gunboats, we had the Seeker variant - Jump 2, 2G 4 crew, 23 
tons cargo

Free Trader
In The Traveller Book - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 4, 26 Passengers, 82 tons cargo
In the TNE book - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 5, 17 Passengers, 54 tons cargo
In Brilliant Lances - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 6, 16 Passengers, 58 tons cargo

Far Trader
In Traders & Gunboats - Jump 2, 2G, Crew 4, 11 Passengers, 46 tons cargo
In the TNE book and Brilliant Lances - Jump 2, 1G, Crew 5, 10 Passengers, 53 
tons cargo
And the Jump 1 Far Trader in Traders & Gunboats - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 4, 11 
Passengers, 81 tons cargo

Subsidized Merchant
In The Traveller Book - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 5, 21 Passengers, 200 tons cargo
In the TNE book - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 9, 26 Passengers, 98 tons cargo
In Brilliant Lances - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 9, 26 Passengers, 93 tons cargo

Subsidized Liner
In The Traveller Book - Jump 3, 1G, Crew 9, 41 Passengers, 129 tons cargo
In the TNE book - Jump 3, 1G, Crew 12, 41 Passengers, 45 tons cargo
In Brilliant Lances - Jump 3, 1G, Crew 12, 41 Passengers, 30 tons cargo

Yacht
In The Traveller Book - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 4, 9 Passengers, 11 tons cargo
In the TNE book and Brilliant Lances - Jump 4, 4G, Crew 9, 11 Passengers, 8 
tons cargo

Mercenary Cruiser
In The Traveller Book - Jump 3, 3G, Crew 8, 42 Passengers, 80 tons cargo
In the TNE book - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 20, 31 Passengers, 46 tons cargo
In Brilliant Lances - Jump 3, 2G, Crew 41, 31 Passengers, 39 tons cargo

Patrol Cruiser
In The Traveller Book - Jump 3, 4G, Crew 10, 8 Passengers, 82 tons cargo
In the TNE book - Jump 3, 4G, Crew 15, 0 Passengers, 0 tons cargo
In Brilliant Lances - Jump 3, 4G, Crew 19, 0 Passengers, 0 tons cargo

Laboratory Ship
In The Traveller Book - Jump 2, 1G, Crew 5, 35 Passengers, 23 tons cargo
In the TNE book and Brilliant Lances - Jump 2, 1G, Crew 7, 10 Passengers, 18 
tons cargo

For purposes of comparison, the TL12 QSDS versions I cranked out were:
Scout/Courier - Jump 2, 2G, Crew 1, 3 Passengers, 15 tons cargo
Free Trader - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 4, 26 Passengers, 76 tons cargo
Far  Trader - Jump 2, 1G, Crew 4, 16 Passengers, 64 tons cargo
Subsidized Merchant - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 5, 20 Passengers, 207 tons cargo
Subsidized Liner - Jump 3, 1G, Crew 9, 50 Passengers, 76 tons cargo
Yacht - Jump 1, 1G, Crew 4, 10 Passengers, 20 tons cargo
Mercenary Cruiser - Jump 3, 2G, Crew 30, 44 Passengers, 32 tons cargo
Patrol Cruiser - Jump 3, 4G, Crew 17, 8 Passengers, 13 tons cargo
Laboratory Ship - Jump 2, 1G, Crew 15, 30 Passengers, 15 tons cargo

I need to rework these again based on the larger Big Table o' Hulls listing, as 
some of the hulls I had to work up myself and apparently I made some mistakes 
(none too large, though; mostly power requirements).

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

From: anwfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 09:42:17 -0800
Subject: Space Craft vs Fighters

>That may be true for water-going vessels, but the title of this thread
>includes the word "SPACE", as in outer space.  The point I made, that Mr.
>Broussard noted, was that many of the capital ships in Traveller could
>accelerate just as quickly as could fighters, negating their
>speed/maneuverability edge.  With the attention required to reaction mass
>(which limited just how much acceleration could be done), an edge for
>fighters over capital ships might be afforded in TNE/BL, but in earlier
>starship combat systems, there were many ships which, although being
>thousands of times larger than fighters, were just as nimble.  This
>problem will return along with thruster plates.

Whoa! Wait ONE DAMNED MINUTE!!! Surface area increases as 6*(r^2), whereas
volume is r^3... but thrust out (in Traveller, FF&S) is DIRECTLY
PROPORTIONAL TO SURFACE AREA; with some small scaling efficiencies. So,
thrust is limited to roughly 2*r^2 (due to facing problems) available for
thrust. (designed too many starships from decplans by component fitting).
So a Battleship runs into the problems of nowhere to mount it's 6G drive
AND it's weapons.

Remember: The highest ratio of Surface Area to Volume is the smaller object.

William F. Hostman

Aramis@AsylumBBS.com



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

From: Daniel Taylor <dante@polaris.solon.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:47:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Fighters in SPACE

There is one thing that makes fighters better than capitol ships
as far as maneuverability and such goes:
 A fighter only has one (or 2) crew member who is strapped into
place. Therefore the fighter can exceed it's G-compensation by
a greater amount than a capitol ship who's many crew need to
be able to move about to perform their duties in a fight.

 This is improved further by the ability to select only 
individuals capable of dealing with higher accelerations
for fighter duty, where the crew requirements for capitol ships may
not make this possible.

So there :^P. (of course most CT,MT, and TNE designs I've
seen ignore this advantage ~3G's worth)

Daniel Taylor

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

From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:59:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Name for E-Mag?

How about 'The Octagon Society' for all us Traveller
history buffs? :) Maybe 'Journal of the Octagon Society'...
was the TAS formed in Year 0?

The 'Free Trader X' names is OK, I think, but could be better...

How about 'Depot', like the Imperial Naval Depots?

Rambling,
Ethan

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

From: Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 16:33:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Name for E-Mag?

Intrepid Traveller
Free Traveller
Traveller Online
TravellerNet
Imperium Watch
IFNS (Imperial Freelance News Service)

etc...etc....etc....


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

From: Daniel Taylor <dante@polaris.solon.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:45:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Fighters in SPACE

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Peter H. Brenton wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Wes Payne narrated:
> > > On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, David C.. Broussard wrote:
> [lets snip some stuff here] 
> > > > That has not always been a requirement, but it has been the case for a
> > > > while.  Fighters and other aircraft are hard to hit because they usually
> > > > move so much faster.  Traveller's problem is just like Wes said, the
> > > > Capital Ships can often move just as fast as the fighters.  Oh well.
> > 
> > The point I made, that Mr. 
> > Broussard noted, was that many of the capital ships in Traveller could 
> > accelerate just as quickly as could fighters, negating their 
> > speed/maneuverability edge. With the attention required to reaction mass 
> > (which limited just how much acceleration could be done), an edge for 
> > fighters over capital ships might be afforded in TNE/BL, but in earlier 
> > starship combat systems, there were many ships which, although being 
> > thousands of times larger than fighters, were just as nimble.  This 
> > problem will return along with thruster plates.

Not really, the established 6g limit is for thruster plates.
You would need to use Rockets to exceed 6G's. (Yes, even for
0.1c rocks...) This was one of the things I liked when the MT
design rules came out. The limit also applies to gravitics,
hence the max 6G's compensation.
> > 
> > A possible fighter advantage, which many people, including Mr. Broussard, 
> > touched upon, was the lower sensor cross section...[snip]
> 
Especially with full masking. Plus Fighters are more likely to
be dedicated purpose ships (this one has lasers, that one delivers missiles,
the other one is a sensor platform, etc.), and more closely
designed to their purposes.

> The problem now is that this makes fighters and small craft too important.

I don't see how, you are still limited by the # of qualified
pilots. Of course we don't have game mechanics in place for this one...

> Fighters now make critical long-range sensor platforms ("The eyes and
> ears" of a fleet or ship).  Plus, no small vessel will ever be able to
> outrun a fighter equipped unit in a straight chase.
>
And?  See _Star_Wars_ again if this is a problem.
Of course that depends on "deflector" type shielding being commonly
available (maybe just better armor on rum-runners?).
Or maybe just Imperial engineers that should be, ahem, 
"downsized" for poor design decisions, and I understand that
that Imperium has one _heck_ of a retirement plan...
 
> Something to think about, anyway.

Definitely food for thought.

Daniel Taylor

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

From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 96 16:03:37 -0600
Subject: Re: Long Night and Oxy/Nitro asteroids.

On 07/18/96 at 07:17 PM,  shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
said:

>> BTW, Mars would qualify as an airless world in our system.  However,
>> there are *almost* surely enough volitiles locked in the soil to
>> support a good population..if they can mine it, crack out and captur
>> the gases.  Could you maintain a civilization on Mars without outsid
>> resource input (except solar of course)...if it is a matter of life 
>> death I'd guess you could.

>I suspect that the Belters would be able to trade an occasional
>"drop" of ice and other items for an occasional launch of seeds or
>other items easier to produce on a planet. It's not like you need a
>huge payload. :-)

If you've got Belters insystem with the folks on the Mars-like world,
then both groups benefit greatly!  Smallish planets would be very good
candidates for "walking-stick" type constructs radically increasing
the payloads you could get up into orbit.  If the Belters are already
up there, they are in a perfect position to 'bootstrap' the
walking-sticks too.

Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------




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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #266

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Darryl Adams wrote:

> And they say that Australians are a wierd mob. What the bl**dy hell is a
> Labbat Blue Girl???

Labatt's Blue is a fairly decent beer.  She musta been something akin to
Budweiser's Swedish Bikini Team.

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:49:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: Culture. music, and other stuff

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, ROWAN Iain wrote:

> Funny, and here was me thinking that Jazz and Blues owed their
> origins in turn to the work songs of the Africans brought over to the
> US, and the polyrhythmic drumming and percussion that crossed
> over from Africa to the US and to Central and South America.  So
> you could argue that the foundations of virtually every major
> musical movement of the 20th century originated in Africa folk
> music.  Just to be ethnomusicologically pedantic.

Not to mention that Punk is rooted in Reggae.

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:52:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fighters in SPACE

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Wes Payne wrote:

> A possible fighter advantage, which many people, including Mr. Broussard,
> touched upon, was the lower sensor cross section owing to the fact that
> fighters were simply so much smaller.  Fighters in Traveller, to be truly
> effective, would have to rely on the fact that they're more difficult to
> detect than larger ships, perhaps being able to deliver a missile 'sucker
> punch' before the opposing capital ships had time to react.

Also consider that for the price of a moderately sized cap ship, one can
build a veritable smorgasbord of fighters.  It changes the who combat
scenerio to a war of attrition when you have a bazillion fighters to throw
at the enemy.

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:57:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Realism

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Gerald S. Williams wrote:

> On Friday, July 19, shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:
> > 4. consider the *consequences* of the new laws. For instance, thruster
> >    plates lead to near c missiles, unless you can find a way around it.
>
> Now that they are gravitically-based, just dictate a speed limit
> of about 0.01c (still high, but not TOO high). I use that number
> because some HEPlaR craft (and things like Orion I) could get to
> around that speed anyway (but it's a one-way trip for them :-).

I still like the idea of letting the players go as fast as they want, then
"Now how much damage will that wing-nut do?"-ing them.   Interplanetary
flotsam will would be the most effective way of keeping speeds down (at
least for crewed ships).  I guarantee people would stop speeding now adays
if speed bumps got deadly when they exceeded the speed limit.

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Realism

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Peter  H. Brenton wrote:

> >When was the last time you heard of a bridge or building failing due to
> >improper design? When they do it makes nationwide news. Failing for
> >lack of maintenance, yes. Due to sabotage or natural conditions
> >exceeding design parameters (earthquake, flood, etc), yes.

Galloping Gertie.  The bridge across the Tacoma Narrows (in beautiful
Washington state) literally tore itself to shreds when the wind picked up
and hit its mumblemumbleharmonic frequencymumble, or some such nonsense.
The bridge worked just fine until the wind blew through it at 35 knots.
Of course, they fixed the design when they re-built it and it works pretty
well now (i.e. if you can get through the traffic).

And while we're talking about falling bridges, the I-90 floating bridge
across Lake Washington sunk a couple of years ago (now you know why the
five miles of I-90 from I-5 across Mercer Island is the most expensive
strip of road in the US).  You'd think that having 3 of the 5 floating
bridges in the world, the Washington DoT would put more brains into their
construction...

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 19:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Maximum Speed (was Re: Realism)

I generally assign a maximum speed based on the hull and armor.  This can
range from .02 to .1 C.  However, I take into account any collision
damage, so pilots best be careful, they do run the "wing nut" risk at high
relative velocities.

_______________________________________________________
Tom Ellis
tellis@telerama.lm.com
http://www.lm.com/~tellis/

"No! Do, or do not.  There is not try." Yoda
_______________________________________________________ 


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

From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <gpvll@hk.super.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 10:30:30 +0800 (HKT)
Subject: Re: Realism

        leonard Erickson wrote:

>> Actually, technology that has been in use for that long does that all 
>> the time now.  Things fail...things break down...  Granted, a cold 
>> sleep capsule has to have the same sort of things go wrong with it 
>> consistently...it won't discover new and interesting ways to fail 
>> that aren't consistent with its engineering...
>
>When was the last time you heard of a bridge or building failing due to
>improper design? When they do it makes nationwide news. Failing for
>lack of maintenance, yes. Due to sabotage or natural conditions
>exceeding design parameters (earthquake, flood, etc), yes.
>
>Last bridge failure I heard of was the Tacoma Narrows bridge(suspension
>bridges are only about 150 years old). Last buliding failure was that
>"skybridge" thingie in the hotel 10 or 15 years back (and that was
>technically not a design failure).

        Well, the principles may be well understood, but let's not forget
that implementation is critical to anything working properly.  And, in the
case of buildings and bridges, the existence of strict building codes backed
up with a good civil liability system help make sure that implementation works.

        Take Shenzen, a Special Economic Zone on the border between mainland
China and Hong Kong's New Territories.  No building codes, no rule of law
(although they're working on it).  Last month, this apartment complex just
went boom; gas leak blew it up.  Two days ago, there was this big hotel
fire, 29 guests died and lots more were hospitalized, and 9 firemen died.
Seems the builders didn't put sprinklers, emergency exits, emergency
lighting, fire escapes, and fire extinguishers into the place...  

        Point being that all these failures were quite predictable, but some
negligent greedhead builders cut corners, knowing full well that this could
happen, and people died.  Same would go for cold sleep capsules and the
like.  Relating this to Traveller, I'd think that Law Level on the planet of
origin ought to have some sort of effect on the reliability of gear...



+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         From the desk of either                       |
|                                                                       |
|    Roderick Darroch Elliott                   John Stephen Wishart    |
|                                                                       |
|                           gpvll@hk.super.net                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+


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

From: "Peter L. Berghold" <peterb@superlink.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 22:56:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Fighters in SPACE

At 02:52 PM 7/19/96 -0700, you wrote:
>
>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996, Wes Payne wrote:
>

>Also consider that for the price of a moderately sized cap ship, one can
>build a veritable smorgasbord of fighters.  It changes the who combat
>scenerio to a war of attrition when you have a bazillion fighters to throw
>at the enemy.
>


Just my Cr0.02 worth here... I look at fighters in space borne navys the
same way I do fighters in today's water borne navy.  The help a battle group
PROJECT power.

Besides the obvious advantages fighters have in terms of their being
difficult to detect, cheap and producable in large quantities, etc. etc.
etc. is the fact that a fighter can be "tailored" on the spot for all sorts
of missions and sorties.   Just look at the wide variety of missions that a
modern fighter can fill today.

Well... I won't get on my soapbox about what I think is wrong with the
concept of "multi role aircraft."  Fighters are supposed to be fighters and
bombers are supposed to be bombers, but never mind....

In a space borne situation I can see where a CAG would have his hands full
providing all sorts of mission mixes.  Let's see here... Screening patrols
to watch out for the other guy's fighters and maybe incoming mail... Recon
missions to find out where the other guys are...   ESM and ECM missions.
Alpha strike...  Strike CAP... AR missions... Close support for ground
troops (maybe)... 

And I wasn't stationed on a bird farm during my tour in the US Navy so I'm
only guessing based on what I *do* know.

As far as using fighters to attack enemy capital ships... I say *yes* that
would definitely happen.  Look at WWII.  It was very risky for pilots in
those days to go up against capital ships that were bristeling with AA.  A
lot of pilots that flew alpha strikes in WWII got shot down, but enough of
them were successfull to have quite an effect every Navy in the fight.

In today's context you have SAMS to keep fighter/bomber pilots from
collecting pensions, but pilots know how to get around that.  In fact SAM
suppression is one of the mission profiles flown by some of the aircraft
sent out on a strike.  SAMS (or their equivelant) will no doubt get better
by the time we send ships into space, but so will the counter measures for
them get better.

Dogfights in space?  I don't really think so.   Exchanges of fire between
fighters will happen at ranges where the eyeball doesn't even see who your
shooting at.  I could be wrong as everybody who has predicted the end of the
dogfight era has been wrong and our airforces have had to relearn the
lessons of the previous generations of fighter pilots.

Anyway... I'm going to let this one go...
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
- -=-=-
Peter L. Berghold -- Sr Unix Specialist, TCG, Staten Island NY
http://mars.superlink.net/~peterb               peterb@superlink.net 
VOX: (718) 355-2722                              -or- berghold@tcg.com
FAX: (718) 355-4282   "... once more into the breach..."


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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #272
**********************************
