From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Tue Dec 10 12:50:58 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin05.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id MAA14008; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:50:38 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA08487; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:50:29 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:47:49 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id MAA08341 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:47:48 -0500
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:47:48 -0500
Message-Id: <199612101747.MAA08341@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #737
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Tuesday, December 10 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 737



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Carriers & Fighters
Re: Landing ships.
Re: Carriers & Fighters
Re: Foss Art
Dulinor dissing
Re: Carriers & Fighters
Explosives in vacuum
Electronic Hex Paper
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #736
Re: GA5:  Daeus Jacks (long)
Re: Foss Art
Re: Carriers & Fighters
Psionic time travel
Starships Review
Re: WE NEED RUMOR FOR A NEW TRAVELLER PRODUCT
Re: Mechs in Traveller
RE: Mechs in Traveller
The mechs.....the mechs....
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #736
RE: Mechs in Traveller
5000 ton limit on Hulls
Re: Grenades and concussion
Re: Re: Carriers & Fighters
Re: Carriers & Fighters
Re: Carriers & Fighters -- and Jump Space

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:11:08 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters

> From:          "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> At 10:26 AM 12/8/96 +1100, Phillip McGregor wrote:
...
> >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.

> 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.

The thing that leapt immediately to my mind was the logistics of 
manning the fighters in a crisis.  On a wet navy carrier, the pilots 
run out on deck and jump in their planes.  That doesn't work in a 
space navy.  10,000 externally mounted fighters means to me that you
have 10,000 pilots running down 10,000 corridors to get to the 
10,000 hatches which lead to them.  How many and how long would the 
corridors have to be in order to give access to all those fighters?  
How much internal volume would have to be didicated to those 
corridors?  What provision would you make for recovering damaged fighters 
when you have 10,000 different docking locations?

External mounting is a great idea for small numbers of large(relative 
to the carrier) riders, it is IMHO unworkable for large numbers of 
small riders.

WKH

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:11:08 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Landing ships.

> > >I wouldn't want a FAE on MY ship!
> >
> > Well, if you store the compenents safely and put them together just before you're going
> > to use it, you should be all right.  Maybe the fuel should have two parts that won't
> > combust until they've mixed together for a while.  What do the chemists think of this
> > solution?
> 
> Still requires a fairly large bomb casing, which eats cargo cubage.

Actually, IMHO, a Fuel-Air Explosive device would probably be one of the 
easiest and safest types of (non-nuclear) explosives to carry.  The 
components are, strangely enough, fuel and air.  The fuel can be 
carried in liquid form and would be safe enough until vaporized. (If 
you drop a match into a bucket of gasoline, it will go out.  Don't 
try this on a hot day when gas vapor is present.)  The size of the 
bomb casing would be whatever is necessary to hold the volume of fuel 
desired. It would not be necessary to provide the air, unless you 
wanted to use it outside an atmosphere---Hey!  this ties right in to 
the explosives in vacuum thread---a FAE is a pure concussion device, 
but it could do a lot of damage in a vacuum because the explosion 
would take place throughout a large volume of space. 
Q-How much damage do you take from concussion in a vacuum if
 you are _surrounded_ by the explosive?  A- _Lots!_


WKH

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:11:08 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters

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

> >.... 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.

I don't understand this.  Six Gravities is a measurement of accelleration just as 
six miles is a measurement of distance and six kilos is a measurement 
of mass.

The steam catapult was needed to quickly get the airplane to a speed 
where the wings would generate sufficient lift for it to fly.  This 
is not a problem in space.

WKH

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

Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 23:25:03 -0500
From: Constant Hazard <hazard@potomac.net>
Subject: Re: Foss Art

Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
> 
> How much of the foss art we're seeing is actually new
> made-for-Traveller, and how much is recycled from old book covers?  

All of the color illustrations are recycled works.  I'm not sure about
the black+white stuff though.

> A few of the pictures in the T4 rulebook look pretty familiar to me...
> I get the impression that only the T4 cover is new, the rest is just
> whatever Foss had lying around that looked even vaguely appropriate.

Nope... the cover isn't new either.

> And, btw, count me in the category of people who think it's ugly and
> not very Traveller.

OTOH, I really like his work... Although, you're right that it doesn't
seem very Travellerish.  Most of the ships he draws are way to big for
Traveller, IMHO.  Also, I have seen much better b+w works by him...  All
the b+w works in T4 and T4:Starships look like quick, rough sketches.

- -- 
                          David  Kent  
                             -aka-
                        Constant Hazard
                    \----------------------/
                     \ hazard@potomac.net /
                      \------------------/

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

Date: 09 Dec 96 23:58:26 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Dulinor dissing

>> In 1986, I found myself face to  face with VP Bush, with a loaded M-16A1 in
my hands.  So since *I* thought  it was "right", I would have been justified in
shooting him? <<

Only if, by dint of that act, you could _legally_ take over his job _and do it
better yourself_. Now be honest. You know he/they were bad; so do I. I know,
deep in my heart, that given a job like VP of the USA I'd probably make a hash
of it. I'm not trained or talented for it. Dulinor thought he could _improve_
things by taking over - and had tried everything else first.

BTW, for years my wife kept asking me to go to London and run over Margaret
Thatcher...

But I agree with your analysis of his later actions. Craig? Never thought of
him. Y'know, the quiet little guy...:)

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------] | Hugh Foster
100326,446       | |   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster
| | Money can't buy friends, but you can get a better class of   | | enemy.
| [------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 22:13:27 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters

 
> *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

No ship in traveller has ever had a drive that works this way.  gs
are acceleration.  T-plates are just reactionless rockets (kind of
an oxymoron, but you know what I mean).

You accelerate with t-plates as you would with any drive, that's why
there is so much talk about planet-killing lifeboats linked to
t-plates---they can accelerate as long as you can make electricity
to power the drive.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:19:32 -0500
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Explosives in vacuum

Mused wrote:

>Stewart Eyres wrote:
>>
>> Hi there
>>
>> Anyone any idea how effective high explosive (and related ammo types)
>> would be in a vacuum - ie. what fraction of the effect is due to the
>> shock wave of the air expanding from the explosion, and what fraction
>> due to the actual explosive device?  This is important as many of the
>> more destructive weapons rely on explosive ammo.
>
>effect of HE in vacuum: Zip, zero, nada, nil, none, nothing
>Fragmentation on the other hand: faster, deadlier, longer ranged, more
>fatal due to ripping of
>pressurized suits
>HOWEVER...if you are touching the explosive as it goes off, 100% transfer
>of explosive
>power

        I'd disagree to an extent; the shock wave of an explosion is due to
the very rapid expansion of the combustion gases due to the extremely high
pressure caused by the combustion being transmitted through the atmosphere,
no?  So up close to an explosion in a vacuum, you'd have a lot of gas
expanding away to dissipate: there'd be no shock wave per se since there's
no atmosphere, but I'd argue that there'd be some sort of pressure effect,
decreasing with the inverse square law (???), that would be felt...  A lot
of hot gas expanding away at high speed is surely not going to be a good
thing to be near regardless of atmosphereic pressure.

        Reminds me of that IMAX flick Destiny in Space, where after
replacing a Hubble solar panel, the shuttle crew knocked the discarded
panel away by hitting it with bursts from an attitude jet...i.e. more
expanding gases;  you just see the panel floating there, and all of a
sudden it jerks and billows like it just got hit by a gust of wind; which
in a sense it did...

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:19:36 -0500
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Electronic Hex Paper

Dateline: Transylvania.


        Igor and I are pleased to announce that we have created LIFE!  YES!
LIFE ITSELF!  Well, actually, no; just hex paper.  And it's not ugly, in
fact quite the contrary, and it's guaranteed not to kill village children
and bring those damn peasants mobbing up the mountain with torches and
pitchforks to burn down your laboratory.

        Took less than an hour to do, too, and that's doing three different
sizes of hex, with a little vacc-suited dude in one corner to give an idea
of scale...

        To Eris and anyone else requiring hex paper in electronic form,
just tell me the size of paper (8-1/2"*11, A4) and the size of hex (1cm, 4
feet, whatever) you'd like, and I can email it to you in EPSF (Encapsulated
PostScript File) format, either black hexes with white lines, or white
hexes with black lines.  I can also tweak the scale pretty much any way you
need, so if you want 1-meter hexes for a 1:5,000 scale deckplan for an
Imperial BigAssed Motherhuge Dreadnought From Hades drawn onto a single
sheet of paper (you'd need a magnifying glass to see the hexes, I think)
and ask me nicely, I could probably be persuaded to do a custom job for
you.  Especially if you promise to send me the completed deckplan.

        If this gets too popular, I could also be persuaded to do a few
standard sizes and put them on a web page somewhere.

        Now back to the regularly scheduled wierdness...

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:25:34 -0500
From: Marska3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #736

unsubscribe - Traveller
unsubscribe - Traveller-digest

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:23:58 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: GA5:  Daeus Jacks (long)

On  9 Dec 96 at 20:37, Mused wrote:

> Can always say one thing about Kenneth, he is, bar none, the most prolific typist on this list

Well, quantity does not always mean quality.

I'm passionate about Traveller, and I like to be creative.  When I 
get the inititaive to write, I look at Traveller, something I know 
and am passionate about, and I write.  It serves a dual purpose for 
me because I also look at it like a writing exercise.  I try to 
experiment and approach things in different way.  You may have 
noticed that I've tried to give each of the character intros to the 
GA a different tone.

It's a learning experience for me.  Call it my Traveller notebook.

Kenneth. 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 00:23:58 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Foss Art

On  9 Dec 96 at 18:20, Christopher Weuve wrote:

> Bruce Alan Macintosh said:
> > I get the impression that only the T4 cover is new 
> 
> 
> Nope -- it's in _Diary of a Space Person_ by Chris Foss, 1990, p.146.


So, that's not a Beowulf class free trader.  I guess they were lucky 
that they found something close.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 07:30:45 +0100 (MET)
From: Bertil Jonell <d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se>
Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters

> > *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
> 
> No ship in traveller has ever had a drive that works this way.

  Originally ships in MegaT had a listing for "max speed in vacuum." :)

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 01:36:03 -0500
From: HDHale@aol.com
Subject: Psionic time travel

Michael Barry writes:

>     I like the concept, but not the name. The phrase "time travel" seems 
>     inappropriate, for two reasons: 
>     1. Time travel just doesn't fit the hard SF setting of Traveller! 

   I think it does in the context presented, at least as much as any other
psionic talent.  To me, Psionics and truly Hard Science-Fiction are mutually
exclusive concepts.  Frankly, I like my sci-fi a little soft around the
edges....

>     2. It ain't actually time travel anyway! There isn't any actual 
>     "travel", just perception through time. I think a term like 
>     "Precognition" or "Deep Sensing" would be better. 

   Because you can see things in the past, present and future and at the
highest level of success feel like your standing next to King John as he
signs the Magna Carta, or as though you are on the deck of the U.S.S.
Constitution as it sends another hapless British frigate to a watery grave
(btw, did you know that the U.S.S. Constitution is still a commissioned U.S.
Navy vessel?), it acts in very much the same way as physical time
travel--without all the paradoxes, dilemmas, and other standard plot devices
that cause headaches and periodic reader's anxiety.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 23:20:43 -0800 (PST)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Starships Review

Well, I got it today and on a 1 (wretched) to 5 (near perfect) scale
I rate the book thusly:

Art:        1  (I wonder just how much money those horrid color plates added 
               to the cost of this book.)

Deckplans:  1 (These are the *Worst* deck plans *ever* in any Traveller
              product.  The CT ones were good, the MT ones by DGP even 
              better, these are just lame.)

New Ships   3.5 (A few too many military ships for my taste, but I liked 
                the secure trader a good bit.)

SSDS:       4.7 (Easier to use the FF&S, very well done and with no obvious 
                errors.)

I'd have much preferred a $11.00 book with the SSDS alone or even a color 
plate free version with worthwhile deck plans.

I'm glad to have the SSDS in print form, but I certainly hope the rest of the
upcoming T4 books are better.


- -John jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:03:06 -0800
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Re: WE NEED RUMOR FOR A NEW TRAVELLER PRODUCT

Tony Lee wrote:
> 
> >Dear Fans,
> >
> >We need some imput for a future Traveller product.  So what do we need?
> >We need generic rumors (adventure hooks), hundreds of them!  They need to

I plan to put a huge ancient space ship in one of my next adventures.
Of course, no one really knows IF it IS a space ship, as long as they 
don't enter it.

The rumour comes from media.
"Channel ???? News: A big artifact, probably of ancient origin, is 
floating at the boarders of Sylean space..."

You can imagine, how many prospecters, luck-seekers, pirates and other 
people you will meet there, no one willing to let anybody set foot on the 
ship.

And you can Imagine, that the ship is FILLED to the top with ancient 
tech (more or less usable as it's been out of business for quite a 
while)!

Hope this gives you the same kick as me ;-)

CyA
Buddy
- -- 
# Disclaimer: All opinions stated are only MY OWN.
# Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at 
# ADV - Anwendungsentwicklung
# Graphisch Technischer Bereich

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 12:47:29 +0200
From: Antti Lahtinen <lahtinen@ee.tut.fi>
Subject: Re: Mechs in Traveller

Lewis Roberts wrote:
> Well in 101 Vehicles the Dynchia are shown to use a combat walker. 
> 
> I was thinking about making up a planet where the nobles used combat
> mechs in ritual duels, and occasionally formed up mercenary bands.

        Hmm. Something like in the "Robojox" movie?

Daniel Poulin wrote:
> Giant Robots, while technically feasible in Traveller terms, they are
> useless militarily.

        I toyed around with some FFS -based mech designs, but I also
        reached the above conclusion. Mechs were generally too large,
        slow and heavy, and fell too easily to prey of any decent
        helicopter gunship, grav tank, or assault speeder.

        Landmate armor (large powered armor, or "micro mech") had some
        tactical niche (urban warfare, boarding parties), but large
        mechs just appeared to be large and slow targets.


        Antti Lahtinen     :     Justice is Only a Wish of a Weak
        lahtinen@ee.tut.fi :

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:42:20 -0500
From: Clint Fishback <C-Fishback@mail.dec.com>
Subject: RE: Mechs in Traveller

But the thing about the original question that I think everyone has 
strayed from is what the purpose the mechs were designed for.

Not large scale warfare.  As people have pointed out, they would be 
handicapped.  The purpose was for duelling or grudge matches.  Mech 
against mech.  Like in Robojox.  A champion from the contesting worlds 
brought their mechs to an arena to battle.  In this form, the mechs 
would be feasible.

"Let's see.  We can spend millions of MCr on an army to settle our 
desputes or we could spend a couple of hundred on a champion to fight 
their champion."

Which makes more sense economically and humanly?

- ----------
From: 	Antti Lahtinen[SMTP:lahtinen@ee.tut.fi]
Sent: 	Tuesday, December 10, 1996 5:47 AM
To: 	traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
Subject: 	Re: Mechs in Traveller

Lewis Roberts wrote:
> Well in 101 Vehicles the Dynchia are shown to use a combat walker.
>
> I was thinking about making up a planet where the nobles used 
combat
> mechs in ritual duels, and occasionally formed up mercenary bands.

        Hmm. Something like in the "Robojox" movie?

Daniel Poulin wrote:
> Giant Robots, while technically feasible in Traveller terms, they 
are
> useless militarily.

        I toyed around with some FFS -based mech designs, but I also
        reached the above conclusion. Mechs were generally too large,
        slow and heavy, and fell too easily to prey of any decent
        helicopter gunship, grav tank, or assault speeder.

        Landmate armor (large powered armor, or "micro mech") had 
some
        tactical niche (urban warfare, boarding parties), but large
        mechs just appeared to be large and slow targets.


        Antti Lahtinen     :     Justice is Only a Wish of a Weak
        lahtinen@ee.tut.fi :

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 01:05:46 -0800
From: Harry <paharris@postoffice.newnham.utas.edu.au>
Subject: The mechs.....the mechs....

Daniel Wrote:
>Once more, while building mechs
>is a fun thing to do using the traveller rules (even FF&S), any decent
>general would prefer to donate them to his enemies in the hope that they
>would use them.  

Wow, the Trojun Mech

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:32:34 MET
From: "Volker A. Greimann" <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #736

Zhodani agents report that Traveller-digest wrote:
Some corrections as to the correct meanings of the words!
- -> 
- -> "Die Weltbund" - "The World Union", but probably translates to "The
- -> Confederaton of Worlds".
Should be DER Weltbund (bund is male), translation o.k.!
- -> 
- -> Liebeskinder - "Child's Love" (or should that be "young love"?)
Nope- Rather Children OF love (As in: The result of Love)
- -> Quatsch - "Rubbish" ("Trash" to you Yanks)
Nonsense!
- -> Abwehr - "Protection"
Defence!
- -> Beinbruch - "Broken Bone" (what, a high-G world??)
instead of bone, insert LEG
- -> Bundestag - something like "Confederation Cornerstone" but probably means
- -> "Seat of Power" (yes, it's the capital of the die Weltbund confederation)
In fact, the German parliament is called the Bundestag, so most 
probably it refers to the "federal legislative"
- -> Oberprasidenten - "Highest Capital" (this is the subsector capital)
If existant it would mean supreme President (the one above the 
actual)
- -> Ewig Weibliche - "Eternally Female" (or is this "Forever a Woman"? ;-)
The first is closer!

- -> In Liberty Hall, there are:

- -> Nervenheilanstalt - "Nerve Healing Place" (??? well, maybe. Maybe just
- -> "Nerve Centre")
In fact, it means Nerve Clinic (Where you send the crazy folk!)

- -> Perhaps one of our German friends can help us out. 
Hope i was of assistance!

V.A.G.       
- ------ Volker A. Greimann............Grei5001@uni-trier.de ----
- ------ Gamer, Student of Law, Secret Master, Bane of DOS ---- 

- -"Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!"

FNORD!

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:28:48 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: RE: Mechs in Traveller

At 08:42 AM 12/10/96 -0500, you wrote:
>But the thing about the original question that I think everyone has 
>strayed from is what the purpose the mechs were designed for.
>
>Not large scale warfare.  As people have pointed out, they would be 
>handicapped.  The purpose was for duelling or grudge matches.  Mech 
>against mech.  Like in Robojox.  A champion from the contesting worlds 
>brought their mechs to an arena to battle.  In this form, the mechs 
>would be feasible.
>
>"Let's see.  We can spend millions of MCr on an army to settle our 
>desputes or we could spend a couple of hundred on a champion to fight 
>their champion."
>
>Which makes more sense economically and humanly?

What would be the appropriate T4 skill to use when fighting with a Mech?
Would you make up a new vehicle skill?

 James Garriss                   http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss   
 Systems Engineer, MITRE                  jpg@langley.mitre.org
      "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be
      seriously considered as a means of communication.  
      The device is inherently of no value to us."  
                      Western Union internal memo, 1876

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 96 10:35:30 -0500
From: lewis@slipher.chara.gsu.edu.chara.gsu.edu (Lewis Roberts)
Subject: 5000 ton limit on Hulls

Several people have written about the 5000 ton limit in Starships
> 
> << 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?

It was done to limit the size of the tables in SSDS, if the tables went
all the way up to 1 million tons, it would make the book huge.  It was
also pointed out, that if someone was into making giant warships, that
they would probably want the full design system and be able to tweak
every part.  (Personally I don't know if that is actually true, but I
do agree there needed to be some limit to keep the size managble.) 

If you have FFS you can use it to build hulls of any size and then
stick in SSDS components. If you don't have FFS, you will have to wait
until Naval Architect Handbook comes out, with the full design rules. 
I have no idea when this is planned for.  


Lewis Roberts
- - - -----------------------------------------------------------------
Q:What did Noah use to light up the Ark? 
A:Floodlights!        
       
lewis@chara.gsu.edu
http://www.chara.gsu.edu/~lewis/roberts.html
- - - ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 07:56:20 -0800
From: Douglas McCorison <douglas@camax.com>
Subject: Re: Grenades and concussion

Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au wrote:
>[..snip..]
>      I suggest that concussive (NOT fragmentation) damage go as follows:
>[..snip..]
>      Standard           Normal damage
>      Dense              Double damage
>      Very Dense *       Triple damage       *Usually exotic or insidious
>      Superdense **      Quadruple damage    ** fluid environment eg water

I'm a little unsure about this.... but it seems to me that the area of effect
of this concussive damage ought to be smaller in these denser atmospheres.  
It takes energy to push the concussion through a dense medium.  Has anyone
studied gasses or fluid dynamics?

Douglas

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 08:49:14 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
Subject: Re: Re: Carriers & Fighters

>[suggestion: carry fighters on external racks rather than inside the hanger]

If you think this would work, you should try the design yourself. I suspect
it won't make a huge difference:
- -externally carried fighters will still need grapples (relatively heavy)
- -you'll still need a fair amount of internal hanger space for rearming,
repairing and maintaining
- -large ships that try to carry weapons (as opposed to dedicated carriers)
will run out of surface area
- -most important of all, since empty hanger space doesn't way anything, it
doesn't save you any weight, which is what really matters for starship
performance. Hull volume does cost you some weight - since it makes your
hull plating mass bigger - but not much, for large, lightly armed carrier.
Manuever drive performance should really only be based on weight...I suppose
the main saving will be because jump drive performance is based on volume
rather than weight, but even there, the saving won't turn out to be huge except
for very high jump-performance carriers.

Bruce

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:04:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters

[snip]
> -most important of all, since empty hanger space doesn't way anything, it
> doesn't save you any weight, which is what really matters for starship
> performance. Hull volume does cost you some weight - since it makes your
> hull plating mass bigger - but not much, for large, lightly armed carrier.
> Manuever drive performance should really only be based on weight...I suppose
> the main saving will be because jump drive performance is based on volume
> rather than weight, but even there, the saving won't turn out to be huge except
> for very high jump-performance carriers.

Actually, my question would be, how do you propose to jump this beastie
with all the fighters hanging off the hull?  Cover each fighter with a
lanthium grid?

IMHO, while covering multi Kton battle-riders with a lanthium net to
facilitate a jump IS cost effective, putting lanthium on 10-50 ton
fighters and integrating it into the jump net is not.

- --------------------------------------------
Never anger a dragon, for you are crunchy and go well with Brie!

Douglas@Teleport.Com
http:\\www.teleport.com\~douglas\

MSPS: Windows95, Windows NT 3.51 Server, Windows NT 3.51 Workstation,
Networking
- --------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 09:46:13 -0800
From: Douglas McCorison <douglas@camax.com>
Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters -- and Jump Space

Douglas wrote:
>
> Actually, my question would be, how do you propose to jump this beastie
> with all the fighters hanging off the hull?  Cover each fighter with a
> lanthium grid?

Two comments:

How do you jump with any externally grappled ship?  The Traveller 
Adventure's March Harrier subsidized merchant carries a launch
externally...  How does this jibe with the rest of "canon"?

OR:

I get a picture of a great ball with thin lanthanum grid around
everything with 1000's of pop open doors.  Would be terribly 
vulnerable but that's what covering fighters are for.

Actually this goes to a deeper problem.  Let's take a ship into
combat:  If the lanthanum grid has to be outside everything, then
a couple of surface hits would disrupt the jump capability of the 
ship.  If the lanthanum grid is inside the armor, how does this 
jibe with something I believe I've read which impied that anything
NOT in the lanthanum grid would be jumpspace affected?  What about
externally mounted items like: sensor receptors, turrets, and of
course your grappled ships?

Comments jump space gurus?

- --douglas
    the OTHER douglas

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #737
**********************************

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".
