From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Sat Dec  7 20:59:56 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin03.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA02971; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:59:50 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA24180; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 21:00:08 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:59:35 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id UAA24107 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:59:34 -0500
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:59:34 -0500
Message-Id: <199612080159.UAA24107@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #727
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Saturday, December 7 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 727



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re Starter Traveller
[none]
Re: Grand Adventure posts
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
TL in starships
Re: 
Re: I can hear You knocking.
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: TL in starships
Musings
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: A suggestion concerning long/complicated messages.
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Carriers & Fighters
Starships has arrived!
Re: 
Re: A suggestion concerning long/complicated messages.
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: Carriers & Fighters
Foss Art
RE: Landing ships.
RE: Space 1889 gizmo (Was: RE: Vaccuum fluctuations and Zero-G)
Re: Foss Art
RE: Nuclear Dampers

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:37:36 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Re Starter Traveller

>Now my question is did anything come with Starter Traveller besides the two
>books?  Also I've got the first printing, and it has simple black covers,
>like the little books.  Was there also a version with picture covers?  Did
>it come in any kind of box or anything?  I found them a couple years ago
>sold separatly in a used games box at a store, and have been wondering.

Two 8x11 black books ("Rules" and "Charts and Tables")
one 8x11 double adventure (included "Shadows") which were reprints from
separate numbered DA's
Black 8.5x11.5" box
one response card
one GDW Catalogue

at least that is what WAS in mine.

William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:37:40 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: [none]

>> I'd like to suggest that certain messages which have appeared on the TML
>> lately are too long or complicated for the list.  The "house rules" and
>> "March Harrier" posts are recent examples.  Both of these included
>> excellent ideas and good writing -- but they also break the flow of the
>> mailing list, particularly when read as part of a digest.  Saving them
>> also presents logistical difficulties when in digest form.
>
>Sorry Craig, but I do not agree with you.  I've received too many
>e-mails complementing the things that I have been putting on the TML,
>which tells me that there are others out there who like seeing stuff
>like this.

Sorry Ken, but this "Backstory" is USELESS or at least USER-UNFRIENDLY to
me, and apparently Craig. Be considerate. Put it on a web page, and
announce it on the list; email it to those interested but without web
access...

In short, be considerate of the whole of the list constituency, not just
those who pat you on the back.

OTOH, I did like your House Rules posts... just not 12 screenfuls of
backstory that I have 0 (ZERO) use for.

William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:02:16 -0500
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Re: Grand Adventure posts

        Count me as being in favour of Kenneth's posts; ditto for alt
systems posts and other material of the sort.  Unless the posts contain
copyright material, I think that that sort of stuff is for what mailing
lists are for.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:01:38 -0800
From: "Peter J. Miller" <PeterMiller@youngmerlin.com>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

>> I will join all of you, however, in hoping that as T4 is developed 
>> through future supplements, adventures, JTAS, and other licensed 
>> products, all the things that we wish for and desire will be 
>> provided.   Maybe even to our mutual satisfaction.  Well, I can dream 
>> can't I?
>
>Yup - we'll just have to wait and see how Aliens, CSC, Milieu 0, First 
>Survey, and Emperor's Arsenal turn out.

Emperor's what Joe?  I haven't heard of this supplement.

Thanks

_______________________________Peter John Miller
"There's a new home run king in baseball...and his name is Henry Aaron..."
 - announcer, after Hank Aaron breaks Babe Ruth's career home run record
- ------------------------------------------------
Traveller, Prime Directive, AD&D, and the home of the Imperium Games FAQ!
       http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:15:48 -0500 (EST)
From: matth@homer.njit.edu (Matthew Harelick)
Subject: TL in starships

Hi: 

On the description of Starships and TL. Do you mean the highest TL for 
a predesigned ship is TL12 or the highest TL available in SSDS is TL12?



- -- 
Matthew Harelick  matth@homer.njit.edu	http://hertz.njit.edu/~msh9848
Real-Time Computing Lab		       http://rtlab12.njit.edu/welcome.html
New Jersey Institute of Technology     http://www.njit.edu

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:21:59 -0800
From: "Peter J. Miller" <PeterMiller@youngmerlin.com>
Subject: Re: 

>Sorry Ken, but this "Backstory" is USELESS or at least USER-UNFRIENDLY to
>me, and apparently Craig. Be considerate. Put it on a web page, and
>announce it on the list; email it to those interested but without web
>access...
>
>In short, be considerate of the whole of the list constituency, not just
>those who pat you on the back.

Not wanting to start a flame war or anything, but how do you two know that
you represent the majority of the list.  I for one enjoyed reading over the
bakcstories, and am looking forward to seeing more of the Grand Adventure.

I actually plan on utilizing some of the ideas presented in the backstories
in my Traveller campaign.

Thanks

_______________________________Peter John Miller
"There's a new home run king in baseball...and his name is Henry Aaron..."
 - announcer, after Hank Aaron breaks Babe Ruth's career home run record
- ------------------------------------------------
Traveller, Prime Directive, AD&D, and the home of the Imperium Games FAQ!
       http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:12:06 -0800
From: "Rich Ostorero" <stormhvn@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: I can hear You knocking.

> My pirates as well as my criminally inclined PCs use rocket backpacks
> instead. Remember to dodge when closing in on enemy ships this way, my
> players have been known to stand in an unlit airlock with buckshot loaded
> shotguns and in my campaign combat armour and battle dress is "never"
seen
> among civilians/pirates.

In my game, vaccsuited boarders use a smallcraft to get close enough to the
prize to see a crowd of shotgunners/gauss gunners/laser gunners/etc and
waste them first. In the _Antelope_ game, the characters are essentially
military, operating under a Letter of Marque. This gives them access to
harder armor.

- --Rich Ostorero
stormhvn@inreach.com

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 13:54:15 -0800
From: "Rich Ostorero" <stormhvn@inreach.com>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

.
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Anders Backman wrote:

I finally got a look at starships - at my FLGS - and it does use the same 
ships as in T4, plus others.  That is to say, it's got some of the same 
ship TYPES we've always had (scout/courier, patrol cruiser, free trader, 
etc.) but they are designed differently in appearance and of course also 
in detail since they're designed to TL12 at the most.

I got mine on Friday.

My quick take on the book:

SHIPS: Most of the same old-same old types. I liked the new Destroyer -- it
_will_ be in my game. The Royal-class liner won't, for a while (my M0 game
is a _dangerous_  place, and the inner worlds aren't really secure yet)
Sorry, Lewis.:) Joe' rest assured that the Secure Trader will be in my game
- -- thanks! What? No Carriers for the fighters? I guess I'll have to send my
5,000t carrier design to IG for the next book :)

SMALL CRAFT: I liked the fighters. My Sylean "space control groups" now
have the firepower to carry out their missions!

DECK PLANS: No Grid? YAAARRRGGGHHH!!!

EXTRAS: The Imperial calender is a waste of space . . . But the Holiday
List isn't. Now we know . . . . I'm a little peeved that the Imperium had
gone to a "Oneday Holiday" scheme like the US has for most national
holidays. The NPCs given are nice, but shouldn't they have been tied into
the ships more closely?

SSDS: My quick flash on SSDS is that it takes a lot of the detaily
decision-making out of the FF&S, and it looks pretty good. HOWEVER: the
5000t hull limit is annoying if your game needs larger ships (mine is
designed around a 5000t upper limit). I _really_ liked the line under
Automation Levels that "In the 'New Era,' . . . automation level is low due
to computer viruses," being "really into" the New Era and Reformation
Coalition.


The bad thing about the book, in my opinion, is its lack of traditional 
deckplans.  The deckplans don't have hex grids, so they're not all that 
useful for boarding (unless you draw your own hex grid on it, or pull out 
a ruler and use that to determine distance and movement during boarding 
actions).

I use squares, so the lack of a hexgrid isn't really a problem for me.

The color picture of what appeared to be a damaged "mech" bothered me, 
too (one of the Foss illos).  I've never associated mechs with 
Traveller.  

Well, the "mecha" might just be an Ancient artifact or something.

> Also those of us who have everything ever produced for Traveller (mor or
> less) it is boring to buy the same old deckplans all over again.

I don't have everything for CT or MT -- I _do_ have all the TNE stuff, so
_for me_, this book was worth it.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:40:27 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Peter J. Miller wrote:

> Emperor's what Joe?  I haven't heard of this supplement.

Oh, sorry.  It's that Greg Porter is working on right now.  CSC is heavy 
on vehicles and "other" equipment.  Emperor's Arsenal is the book that 
will have a huge selection of weapons and armor.

I don't have any further details other than a report that Greg is "about 
half finished" with it at this point (but that doesn't count editing, 
typsetting, layout, graphics, and printing), and that it is scheduled for 
"first quarter 1997."


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh      |  Atari 8-Bit User and Programmer Since 1982
ransom@iconnect.net  |  Classic Traveller Referee Since 1983
Stuck in the '80s    |  Microsoft-Free and Loving It! :)
       .....Official Reporter of Imperium Games Product Info.....

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:41:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: TL in starships

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Matthew Harelick wrote:

> On the description of Starships and TL. Do you mean the highest TL for 
> a predesigned ship is TL12 or the highest TL available in SSDS is TL12?

The TL 12 refers to the highest tech of the predesigned ships - they're 
for M0, in other words.  However, SSDS goes to TL 16...so you can make 
your own Milieu 1100, 1200, etc. ships. :)


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh      |  Atari 8-Bit User and Programmer Since 1982
ransom@iconnect.net  |  Classic Traveller Referee Since 1983
Stuck in the '80s    |  Microsoft-Free and Loving It! :)
       .....Official Reporter of Imperium Games Product Info.....

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:46:35 -0500
From: ImpGrAdmrl@aol.com
Subject: Musings

Just got "Starships."  After one general review of things, it looks nice and
has been well-written (and proof-read).  I hope IG gets onto a consistent
production schedule, because the game needs quality support like any other
good RPG to prosper.
   More feedback later... Happy Holidays everyone!

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:50:14 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Rich Ostorero wrote:


> SHIPS: Most of the same old-same old types. I liked the new Destroyer -- it
> _will_ be in my game. The Royal-class liner won't, for a while (my M0 game

Hmmm.  I didn't look closely enough at the Destroyer when I was looking 
at the book at my FLGS, obviously.  I'll have to take a closer look 
whenever the USPS finally gets my copy to me. [sigh]


> is a _dangerous_  place, and the inner worlds aren't really secure yet)
> Sorry, Lewis.:) Joe' rest assured that the Secure Trader will be in my game
> -- thanks!

Cool! :)  I designed that as something I know MY players would love for 
their characters to own (it compares well enough to the Corsair, and it 
does well against the other ships in its class).  I was hoping my 
campaign flavor wasn't that far out of line with that of others'. :)


> SMALL CRAFT: I liked the fighters. My Sylean "space control groups" now
> have the firepower to carry out their missions!

I like the inclusion of the ... life-ball, or whatever it's called.  


> DECK PLANS: No Grid? YAAARRRGGGHHH!!!

Yah. :(  BIG goof-up, there.


> I use squares, so the lack of a hexgrid isn't really a problem for me.

Ooop.  I meant "square grid," rather than "hex grid."  


> Well, the "mecha" might just be an Ancient artifact or something.

True.  We can always come up with rationalizations for the Foss art. :)


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh      |  Atari 8-Bit User and Programmer Since 1982
ransom@iconnect.net  |  Classic Traveller Referee Since 1983
Stuck in the '80s    |  Microsoft-Free and Loving It! :)
       .....Official Reporter of Imperium Games Product Info.....

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:12:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: A suggestion concerning long/complicated messages.

> Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 04:47:43 +0000
> From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>

> Sorry Craig, but I do not agree with you.  I've received too many 
> e-mails complementing the things that I have been putting on the TML, 
> which tells me that there are others out there who like seeing stuff 
> like this.
[snip]
> Craig, I respect the fact that you seem to not be getting anything more out
> of the TML than stimulating conversation.  If that is what you like,
> then I think that is great.  But don't hinder other's opportunities to
> get something different from the TML.  My suggestion would be:  if you
> don't want to read it, then delete it.

I think you've entirely misunderstood my intent.  I too highly value the
long and complex material you and others are making available to others
via the TML.  I get a *lot* more out of the TML than "stimulating
conversation."  My point is merely this:  A message containing three lines
of the form "I've developed house rules on XYZ, see <URL> for the
details." conveys *exactly as much* information as a 150-line post
containing the rules themselves.  For you compugeeks, I'm merely
advocating call-by-reference rather than call-by-value.

In the digest form of the TML, it's difficult to skip past a long message
which does not concern you.  Also, a Web-based version of a TML
contribution can be corrected or enhanced without requiring more than
minimal TML bandwidth for the relevant announcement.  These are my only
concerns; I'm *very* sorry if anyone got the impression I didn't like the
*contents* of the long/complex posts.  My sole suggestion concerns how
they should be *delivered*.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:26:20 -0500
From: BrianMays@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

In a message dated 96-12-07 15:29:50 EST, you write:

<< Oh and another thing. The design rules only go up to 5000 tons >>

That is REALLY lame!  What were they thinking?  How am I supposed to convert
the Fighting Ships of the Imperium, most of which are 100,000 tons and above?

Brian (bigger IS better!) Mays : )

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 10:26:36 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Carriers & Fighters

Something just hit me last night - the few carriers that we know of in
Traveller (Azhanti High Lightning etc.) are designed like Japanese WW2
Carriers rather than US ones!

What do I mean?

Well, the Japanese didn't spot their planes on the decks like the US did
*and* used the internal hangar space inefficiently, severely reducing the
actual number of aircraft that they could carry compared to similarly sized
US carriers.

In other words, why don't Imperial Carriers carry most of their fighters in
*external* racks rather than all internally. Also, with Thruster plates
(rather than HePlaR), which go to full speed and (as I understand it) don't
have accel (they do 6G as a *speed* rather than as an accel) and a zero-G
environment, there's no real need for a steam catapult equivalent, you can
launch directly from the hull with little adverse effect. Internal Hangar
space is for maintenance and repairs.

This means that carriers can have *far* larger complements of fighters than
are normally allowed for. It also makes them more vulnerable, as the
fighters are in place of offensive weapons. But Carriers operate as part of
a CVBG, and only have *defensive* weapons - the fighters are their offense!

Seems that we have more Vilani conservatism here!

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@.curie.dialix.oz.au
Have Game Designer, Will Travel

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

Date: Sat,  7 Dec 96 23:10:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Starships has arrived!

Well I have a copy of Starships in my hands right now!  A #2 on the spine and
just leafing through it I can see some really extensive tables in the back for
starship design.  I figure about a Third of the book is devoted to starship
design and stuff.  Haven't had the time to look at it any more and will not
until later tonight :~( having been yanked into doing family stuff tonight
rather against my will.  But Starships has arrived here in Washington DC!  More
later if someone else hasn't written anything else.

Stephen

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:35:51 -0500
From: BrianMays@aol.com
Subject: Re: 

In a message dated 96-12-07 17:24:34 EST, you write:

<< Be considerate. Put it on a web page, and
 >announce it on the list; email it to those interested but without web
 >access...
 >
 >In short, be considerate of the whole of the list constituency, not just
 >those who pat you on the back. >>

This same argument can be used for the whole Nuclear Damper line, the whole
"What if Virus never happened" line, the whole "designing alien critters"
line, etc. etc. etc.  It seems to me to be a simple matter of opinion.  Let's
not silence people just because what they have to say doesn't interest us
(God knows I'm getting nothing out of the Damper theory but a headache and a
glazed look, but I've learned to use my "Next" button and skip over it).

Brian

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 18:40:23 -0500
From: BrianMays@aol.com
Subject: Re: A suggestion concerning long/complicated messages.

In a message dated 96-12-07 18:16:39 EST, you write:

<< In the digest form of the TML, it's difficult to skip past a long message
 which does not concern you. >>

Oh.

I didn't know this.

Oops.  That is a problem.

Brian (not afraid to admit new evidence) Mays

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:10:35 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

>The color picture of what appeared to be a damaged "mech" bothered me,
>too (one of the Foss illos).  I've never associated mechs with
>Traveller.
>
>Well, the "mecha" might just be an Ancient artifact or something.

Since it's damaged, maybe it shows why the Traveller universe doens't have
mechs! :^)  They did't last long.

			Zane

| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 16:40:38 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters

At 10:26 AM 12/8/96 +1100, Phillip McGregor wrote:

>Well, the Japanese didn't spot their planes on the decks like the US did
>*and* used the internal hangar space inefficiently, severely reducing the
>actual number of aircraft that they could carry compared to similarly sized
>US carriers.
>
>In other words, why don't Imperial Carriers carry most of their fighters in
>*external* racks rather than all internally. Also, with Thruster plates
>(rather than HePlaR), which go to full speed and (as I understand it) don't
>have accel (they do 6G as a *speed* rather than as an accel) and a zero-G
>environment, there's no real need for a steam catapult equivalent, you can
>launch directly from the hull with little adverse effect. Internal Hangar
>space is for maintenance and repairs.
>
>This means that carriers can have *far* larger complements of fighters than
>are normally allowed for. It also makes them more vulnerable, as the
>fighters are in place of offensive weapons. But Carriers operate as part of
>a CVBG, and only have *defensive* weapons - the fighters are their offense!

One problem that leapt out at me as I read you post was you are making the
fighters' "roost" a very tempting target.  Since the majority of the
docking/pilot access gear is *outside* the CVs hull, it isn't defended by
armor, and, as any BL player will tell you, surface hits scour away things
like docking rings and external grapples like a sandblaster.

Picture the scene as the Approach Control Officer of the CV Boyington tries
to deal with returning fighters, telling them that the ship is fine, just
that 2/3rds of the "landing area" is gone!

It wouldn't even require a heavy effort... one CE/DE getting through and
blasting away with lasers from a decent range.  Of course, the Carrier could
hold some fighters back, but then you've lost the advantage of the increased
numbers anyway.

The reason that US Carriers tended to steam with planes on deck during WWII
was that we had far more planes than ships!  It's a lot easier to build a
F4-F Wildcat or F4-U Corsair than the ship to carry them.  We got used to
doing it that way, so now the Navy keeps most of the birds parked on deck
when possible.
>
>Seems that we have more Vilani conservatism here!

heh.  I was watching ITN the other night, British Parliment was discussing
copyright laws within the EU (great sleep aid BTW) when one crusty old MP
started rambling on about how if it was invented by the British, anyone
using it should have to pay Britain!  They're Heeeerrreeeeee!!!!!!

+----------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net  |
|     Professional Driver - Traveller Guru     |
|        http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/        |
|**********************************************|
| "Life's a journey, not a destination."       |
|                                   -Aerosmith |
+----------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 16:40:42 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Foss Art

Am I the only one here who really dislikes Mr. Foss' artwork?  Nevermind
that every piece in Traveller is a reprint, his bizarre take on perspective
and engineering have always reminded me more of pulp SF than the Hard SF the
Traveller has always drawn on.

If a new edition of Space Opera were to appear, Foss would be among my first
choices for cover artist, but not for Traveller.

Just my 0.43 CR (modified for Starport and Tech Level)

+----------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net  |
|     Professional Driver - Traveller Guru     |
|        http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/        |
|**********************************************|
| "Life's a journey, not a destination."       |
|                                   -Aerosmith |
+----------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 19:56:35 -0500
From: Eric Freitas <edf@atlantic.net>
Subject: RE: Landing ships.

On a related note, if you need to find a place to land in a heavily =
forested or jungle area, you can use a time tested technique.  You =
simply drop something equivalent to a 10,000 lb bomb onto a portion of =
that jungle, and you have an instant landing zone.  This was used during =
the vietnam era to make impromptu landing sites for helicopter =
transports.  The bomb (very large) would be rolled out of the cargo bay =
of a C130 at about 5000ft.  Pretty devastating to the local flora and =
fauna. =20

Eric Freitas
=20

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:15:39 -0500
From: Eric Freitas <edf@atlantic.net>
Subject: RE: Space 1889 gizmo (Was: RE: Vaccuum fluctuations and Zero-G)

Anders Backman

>Tongue firmly in cheek or I suppose?

The film at least is real enough,  I'd like to get a hold of it.  I once talked to someone
over the 'net who said that the Brown's patents are real and online somewhere called 
KealyNet (I think).  The Kealy site looked like a bunch of whacko stuff mostly, and
forgot about it until just now.  

I still have reason to believe that this invention was real.  I used to live in Nevada.  I'm not
talking about area54 either.  Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in little green men or
ufo's as depicted recently in "Dark Skies" (horrible show by the way). 

However, if I insisted that the killing you part of my post was true, nobody would believe
me because I'd insist on not telling you what I may know. So I won't insist  ;)

Eric Freitas

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 17:28:34 -0800
From: "Zane H. Healy" <healyzh@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Foss Art

>Am I the only one here who really dislikes Mr. Foss' artwork?  Nevermind

No you aren't, I think only one or two pictures in the first book that he
did even come close to belonging.

>that every piece in Traveller is a reprint, his bizarre take on perspective
>and engineering have always reminded me more of pulp SF than the Hard SF the
>Traveller has always drawn on.

That WEIRD "sky-train track" thing doesn't even rate as pulp SF art!  I
think Bizarre sums his work up nicely.

Actually some of it is quite nice, but you are right Traveller it is not!

				Zane


| Zane H. Healy                    | UNIX Systems Adminstrator |
| healyzh@ix.netcom.com (primary)  | Linux Enthusiast          |
| healyzh@holonet.net (alternate)  | Mac Programmer            |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------+
| For Empire of the Petal Throne, and Traveller Role Playing   |
| see http://www.dragonfire.net/~healyzh/                      |

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:58:04 -0500
From: Eric Freitas <edf@atlantic.net>
Subject: RE: Nuclear Dampers

- ----------
From: 	Leonard Erickson

To put it another way, you *can't* set off high explosives with a
match. They need a pretty fair explosion (M-80 equivalent or better) in
the for on a blasting cap or other detonator to set them off. Fusion
bombs require a *lot* of energy to set them off. Whether it comes from
a fission bomb, or from a modified fusion reactor, the energy
requirements are the same.


But we are talking about an advanced way of setting it off.  Youre modifying the binding
forces in the nucleus of the atom.  This takes only a small amount of energy.  It's an
improvement over an older, more energy intensive method.

For instance, the energy cost of sending a message to the other side of the world
depends upon the tech level you live in.  If you live in the 17th century, the energy cost
is astronomical, but today it's a few cents.  Heck, if you figure in my monthly charge for
internet access my charge for sending a ~100kbyte file across the world is about 
0.000565 cents (allowing for 1 minute of transmission time)!  In the 17th century it would
have cost very much more than that to send the same amount of data.

Indeed a closer analogy would be the size of a 100kw fission reactor.  Before the
Russians built a 100kw fission reactor utilizing Thermionic Diodes (TD) to convert the
heat given off directly to electricity, the reactors were much larger.  The size of the
reactor and its support systems dropped dramatically.

Oh, and remeber that it was once proven that man could not achieve powered flight, and
the premier scientific journal of the day refused to believe that it was possible up to 
two years after it had happened.  

Physicists to some degree refuse to believe that potentials (which make up the ZPF)
have any effect upon particles, even though it's been experimentally proven since 1958.
If some people refuse to believe that fusion enhancer devices can be used as 
a fusion initiator in a fusion bomb, that's fine.  Just because it's more advanced than
the systems being used elsewhere, doesn't imply that it cannot work.

Not allowing a technology to work in your universe is your prerogative, however other 
people may want to use the idea.  I think that it should be given as an alternative 
technology, much like is done in FFS, giving an explanation of what the pro's and
con's of using that tech in your universe.  Personally I like the idea (oh reeaallly..).
In my own universe, I have another power technology that appears after anti-matter
plants, in which a device pulls power straight out of the ZPF.  I don't know exactly 
how it works (if I did it wouldn't be SciFi), but it is a perfect power source.  It doesn't
require any fuel, and has no moving parts.  It can be shrunk to the size of a watch
battery, or made big enough to power a battlestar.  It does have certain disadvantages.
If it takes severe damage to it's regulation circuitry, it either explodes or causes a
random space-time fluctuation that can do almost anything to a small area immediately
around it.  A ship could be thrown foreward or backward in time, be instantaneously 
transported X lightyears away, or any number interesting things.

Eric Freitas

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #727
**********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@MPGN.COM".  If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".
