From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Thu Dec 12 17:07:40 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 RAA26754; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:07:26 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA23507; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:07:28 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:06:57 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id RAA23440 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:06:57 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:06:57 -0500
Message-Id: <199612122206.RAA23440@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #746
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Thursday, December 12 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 746



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Mechs in Traveller
Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: Starships Review and Rant
RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: ThrustPlates and such
Re: ThrustPlates and such 
RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: Mechs in Traveller
Re: Representation
QSDS on Joe Heck Page
RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products 
Re: ThrustPlates and such (longish rant)
Re: QSDS on Joe Heck Page
Re: ThrustPlates and such (longish rant) 

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:34:09 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Mechs in Traveller

At 08:45 AM 12/12/96 -0800, you wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Dec 1996, Mused wrote:
>
>> Big targets are big targets, now and forever. The surface area of a box
is less than that of a
>> human, and you do not need massive gears and joint protection. Sure some
of the barriers
>> will be solved, but which way would you go: bionic horses, or helicopters?
>
>EXACTLY the way MBTs (main battle tanks) were described when the shoulder
>fired LAWs and again when the hunter/killer helicopters, like the AH-64,
>were first being deployed.

Well, there isn't a shoulder fired missle in the world that will do much
more than ruin the paint job on a MBT.. with LAWs you shoot for the treads,
make it a mobility kill, and hose the crew when they bail out.

The point we are making is that something standing up in the middle of
combat will attract attention to itself.  Why do you think that the Infantry
spend so much time hugging mud?  It isn't because we like it, let me assure you.

I have seen M1A1s hiding behind 1.5m berms, with their guns so well cammoed
that it took a good look to tell what it was being aimed at.  MBTs can hide
in the woods, under tarps, even in haystacks!

Then there is ground pressure. Tracked vehicles do well in soft terain due
to their weight being spread out over the large surface of the tracks, we
sink into the mud because our weight is pressing directly down onto two
fairly small feet.  Scale this up a little, and you have a vehicle that will
balk at the slightest bad road or off road movement.  I know that grav units
have been mentioned as a cure for this, but do think if the Pentagon got
hold of a device which eliminated 99% of the Earth's effect on a item, they
wouldn't try staping jet engines to a M1?

>Firepower, armor, mobility, and sensors will offset a lot of the size
>disadvantage.

But I have those too..  and I have four target areas that come to mind
immediately that *can't* be well armored and are vital to your operation:
the hips and knees of you 'mech.  I posistion a platoon of infantry with
LAWs along your probable route of advance, have them impersonate bushes
(Army slang for hide), and wait for you to go past.  Then, Whammo!  20 or 30
anti-armor rockets all aiming for the vital leg joints.  If I get lucky, you
are out of the fight before it begins.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:41:32 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

Hi,

I've been talking to Courtney Solomon (the guy in charge of Imperium 
Games) regarding the fan reaction to Starships, as well as the previous 
reaction to T4 itself.  You see, Courtney realizes he doesn't know much 
about the RPG industry, so he's asked for our help to bring him up to 
speed on what Traveller fans want.

While we TMLers will never come to complete agreement on most issues 
<grin>, there are a few issues that emerged during our discussion which 
are clearly in need of attention.  I've outlined them below.  Before I 
send them to Courtney (with explanatory text, of course), do you have any 
other items to add?

I want to avoid the divisive issues, and only give him the things that 
are clearly important to the vast majority of customers.  Also, keep in mind 
that he's not promising to implement every suggested change - face it, 
it's impossible to make all of us happy about every aspect of T4! ;)

Anyway, here's my outline.  Feel free to add items to it.  I'll compile 
all the *reasonable* suggestions, and send it along to Courtney (again, 
with explanatory text).


I)  T4 Main Rulebook

    A)  Editing
        1) Grammar
        2) Typographical errors
        3) Errata - missing tables, incorrect values given, etc.

    B)  Task System
        1)  Number of dice rolled at each level (esp. upper end)
        2)  Figuring target numbers (overemphasis on attributes)
   
    C)  Art
        1)  Use original art.  It doesn't have to conform to previous
            editions of Traveller, but it should be original and 
            recognizably "Travelleresque."


II)  Starships

     A)  Editing
         1)  Grammar and sentence structure
         2)  Typos

     B)  Deck Plans
         1)  Blank space - all interior hull space should be used
         2)  Interior structures should be drawn according to the design
             system's specifications
         3)  Use grid lines

     C)  Ship Designs
         1)  Include a listing of the crew positions

     D)  Art
         1)  Use original art
         2)  Use less of it, or use smaller pictures

     E)  Background
         1)  Include more on the operation of starships

     F)  Personalities 
         1)  Include a small sketch of each individual
         2)  Write them at a higher level of education

     G)  Ship Design
         1)  Include provisions for ship hulls above 5,000 tons.
             A) Perhaps go by thousands between 1,000 and 10,000.
             B) Then go by ten thousands between 10,000 and 100,000.


III)  Shipping

     A)  Method
         1)  Within the U.S., use Priority Mail ($3.00 for 2 to 3 day srvc)
         2)  Outside the U.S., offer choice of 4th Class or Air Mail, 
             at the _actual cost_ of these services (plus packaging 
             costs).

     B)  Packaging
         1)  Use at least a bubble mailer, at best a box.


IV)  Charges

     A)  Don't charge anyone's credit card until the day the product is
         actually shipped to them.


V)   Future Products

     A)  Just show a little fore-thought.
         1)  Examine previous Traveller products that offer similar 
             design elements as the product you're designing.
         2)  Use original art.
         3)  Keep the useful content (i.e., not the art) high, sacrificing
             art if necessary.
         4)  Make absolutely certain to find as many typos, grammatical 
             errors, and rules errors as possible before printing the 
             product.


Thoughts?  Comments?  Flames?

- -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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:45:30 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Starships Review and Rant

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Robert Flammang wrote:

> Has anyone figured out how to tell which, if any, of these ships are
> streamlined? How many low passengers are carried in the areas marked
> "LOW?" Which ships can land on a planet, and which ships cannot?
>
> There is not much information given about many of these ships other than
> their USP's.


Nope.  And I know I for one sent along that information, as well as what 
the crew positions consisted of, when I gave Don my designs.  I included 
detailed text descriptions, as well as the USD and crew detail.  

Another item to add to my list of things to discus with Courtney.


- -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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:55:37 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <kc@mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

Joe Walsh wrote in a letter to IG:

>     D)  Art
>         1)  Use original art
>         2)  Use less of it, or use smaller pictures


>         3)  Keep the useful content (i.e., not the art) high, sacrificing
>             art if necessary.


I can't disagree with this more. I've stayed out of the whole Foss art 
debate (mostly cause Starships hasn't made it to Flin Flon), but TRAVELLER 
NEEDS ART!

	The days when CT could get by with no cover art, and very minimal (well, 
make that no) internal art are gone. IMHO, the very drab and colourless 
nature of many of the TNE products really hurt the game on the FNGS store 
shelves.

	Several games have now gone to 100% colour inside! While that's probably 
too expensive for Traveller, if T4 is ever going to get beyond this small 
group of fanatics, it needs art!

K.C. Komosky
note I didn't even begin to touch on what the content of the art should be)
kc@mb.sympatico.ca

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:04:14 -0500 (EST)
From: pawn@CAM.ORG (Glenn Grant)
Subject: Re: ThrustPlates and such

I can't accept the idea that T-plates only work within a 1000 diam. limit
of a planetary or stellar mass. It only makes sense when thrusting away
from the mass; I don't understand how T-plates "push against" a gravity
field when they are thrusting *towards* it. Can someone explain how this is
supposed to work?

Further, what's the big deal about fleets refueling in the Oort or Kuiper
belts during an invasion? Surely it's a very long way to the Kuiper belt -
and an awful lot farther to the Oort; won't the defenders have a lot of
warning that a fleet is invading? They'll pick up the invader's signatures
long before they arrive - especially since, for half that distance, the
invaders will have to decellerate into the inner system. Even a T-plate
drive is going to be obvious for quite a while. There'd be no chance of a
suprise attack. Or am I mistaken?

I'm leaning towards getting rid of T-Plates in my own campaign (a
non-Imperium future history), but have yet to make a final decision. I do
have a theory I'm kicking around, which might help explain away some of the
nagging problems without drifting too far away from Holy Canon; to wit:

We know that a ship generates an inertial damper field. Seems to me that
reducing an object's inertia would make it easier to move. Obviously the
field doesn't completely eliminate a ship's inertia, because any push would
then cause it to whoosh away at light speed. So we'll say that it simply
reduces the amount of thrust required to accellerate the ship. Thus we can
claim that the maneuver drive is a conventional reaction drive (either
fusion or some other rocket system) but it doesn't have to produce as much
thrust, or use as much fuel, as it would without the inertial damper field.

But objects on board the ship still behave normally: throwing a softball
down a corridor does not become easier when the damper field is on.
Obviously, the damper field only reduces the inertia of everything within
the field *relative to the rest of the universe*. Relative to each other,
objects within the field seem unaffected.

One problem with this theory is that it violates the law of preservation of
energy: the ship is getting something for (almost) nothing. But compared to
FTL travel, it's a minor violation. And we can always point to the Fusion+
plant and say "That's where the extra energy is coming from. (Mumble mumble
handwave handwave - ignore that man behind the curtain...)

We might suggest that the inertial damper field is a low-energy effect
related to the jump field and governed by closely-related physical laws -
perhaps it's even generated by the jump drive. I suggest this because the
jump drive also alters the relationship between the inside of the field and
the outside universe.

Comments or objections, anyone?

I like this theory mainly because it eliminates the need for reactionless
drives, and it doesn't require us to invent things like gravity generators.
I suppose I'm probably re-inventing the wheel, though. Has anyone suggested
something like this before?

Glenn G.

- -----------------------Glenn Grant-----------------------  
                      <pawn@cam.org>
Web: <http://helios.physics.utoronto.ca:8080/ggrant.html>
    "That which does not kill us makes us stranger."
                  -- Trevor Goodchild

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:37:35 -0500
From: Earl Wajenberg <earl@chrysalis.com>
Subject: Re: ThrustPlates and such 

Glen Grant writes:

 "We know that a ship generates an inertial damper field. Seems to me that
  reducing an object's inertia would make it easier to move. Obviously the
  field doesn't completely eliminate a ship's inertia, because any push would
  then cause it to whoosh away at light speed. So we'll say that it simply
  reduces the amount of thrust required to accellerate the ship. Thus we can
  claim that the maneuver drive is a conventional reaction drive (either
  fusion or some other rocket system) but it doesn't have to produce as much
  thrust, or use as much fuel, as it would without the inertial damper field.

 "Comments or objections, anyone?

 "I like this theory mainly because it eliminates the need for reactionless
  drives, and it doesn't require us to invent things like gravity generators.
  I suppose I'm probably re-inventing the wheel, though. Has anyone suggested
  something like this before?"

Well, yes, you have almost re-invented the Bergenholm drive, used by 
E. E. "Doc" Smith in his Lensman series, a founding work of the space-opera
sub-genre.  The Bergenholm *completely* neutralized inertia, and worked 
as a hyperdrive as well as a sub-light drive, since there was no longer 
a relativistic mass increase to get in the way of accelerating through 
the light barrier.  No jump-space, either.  You moved faster than light 
through ordinary space.  The only limiting factor on your speed was the 
density of the interstellar medium.  (This introduced interesting navigational
hazards and meant you could fly INTER galactic pretty well, since the 
gas between galaxies is so thin.)

The Bergenholm drive also affected life aboard ship. Your in-flight ball 
game would not work on a Bergenholm craft.  Ship-to-ship combat entailed 
grappling each other with tractor beams, since otherwise your target 
just got batted harmlessly aside by whatever you threw at it.

Earl Wajenberg

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:38:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, K.C. Komosky wrote:

> I can't disagree with this more. I've stayed out of the whole Foss art 
> debate (mostly cause Starships hasn't made it to Flin Flon), but TRAVELLER 
> NEEDS ART!

I figured there'd be some problems with posting the outline format. :)  
What I mean to say is, if it's a book like Starships that is 75% art 
(including deckplans), then it IS appropriate to reduce the size of the 
art, and yes even delete some of it, in order to bring more actual 
gaming content to the book - ie, stuff like you find in Starship 
Operator's Manual.

So, I'm not advocating going back to the little black book style of no 
art.  I just think most folks would rather the gaming supplements have 
more text than 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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12:43:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Mechs in Traveller

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Douglas E. Berry wrote:

> The point we are making is that something standing up in the middle of
> combat will attract attention to itself.  Why do you think that the Infantry
> spend so much time hugging mud?  It isn't because we like it, let me assure you.

Before we go to far into this, let be be really clear.  I don't think that
"mecha" ala Robojox, RoboTech or the like are very practical.  Attractive,
and they give the audience something 'humanoid' to bond to, but not
practical.  Walkers such as exhibited in 'Star Wars' and in William
Dietz's novells MAY have a place.

There has been a lot of experimentation with alternate forms of
transmission for vehicles, including 'legs' for rough country.  I see no
problem with a multi-legged vehicles in a variety of environments.

> I have seen M1A1s hiding behind 1.5m berms, with their guns so well cammoed
> that it took a good look to tell what it was being aimed at.  MBTs can hide
> in the woods, under tarps, even in haystacks!

This is where this thread consistantly gets hung up.  I really think that
a lot of us are only considering the 'star knight' mecha (yes, I know
that was what was pictured, but we are discussing the whole class,
right?).  No doubt, they stand tall, and would be difficult to hide on a
plain.  What about an urban setting tho' (crouching behind, or in an
office building?)   :)

Instead of the 'star knight', let's consider the 'star spider'.  Central
pod with multiple (let's say...8) legs, jointed at the pod and
approximately 1/2 way along the length.  Fairly easy to put a rocket
launcher on top of the pod, perhaps a gun or laser below (with appropriate
firing cutouts).  Various A/P and A/M defensive weaponry placed as
appropriate.

Normal cruising for the vehicle is with the "knee" joint bent aproximately
90 degrees, putting the 'body' about even with the joint (8-10' off
ground).  For maximum sensor capability, the knees can straighten, raising
the body another 8-10' (this can also be used for pop-up shots).  For
maximum protection and stealth, the knees can be bent more to lower the
body to 1' or so off the ground.  With the knees flexing as the
vehicle moved, platform stability should be high, improving
weapon accuracy.  Flexibility is the key.

>
> Then there is ground pressure. Tracked vehicles do well in soft terain due
> to their weight being spread out over the large surface of the tracks, we
> sink into the mud because our weight is pressing directly down onto two
> fairly small feet.  Scale this up a little, and you have a vehicle that will
> balk at the slightest bad road or off road movement.  I know that grav units
> have been mentioned as a cure for this, but do think if the Pentagon got
> hold of a device which eliminated 99% of the Earth's effect on a item, they
> wouldn't try staping jet engines to a M1?

Lets consider the M1.  Treads are about 2.5 feet across (as I remember)
and about 40 (?) feet long.  That gives a surface area (assuming I am
anywhere near correct on the length) of about 200 sqr feet (for both
treads) supporting the weight.  Now, on the 'star spider', say we use 5'
diameter foot pads on 8 legs...

>
> >Firepower, armor, mobility, and sensors will offset a lot of the size
> >disadvantage.
>
> But I have those too..  and I have four target areas that come to mind
> immediately that *can't* be well armored and are vital to your operation:
> the hips and knees of you 'mech.  I posistion a platoon of infantry with
> LAWs along your probable route of advance, have them impersonate bushes
> (Army slang for hide), and wait for you to go past.  Then, Whammo!  20 or 30
> anti-armor rockets all aiming for the vital leg joints.  If I get lucky, you
> are out of the fight before it begins.

Even MBTs face difficulty there, which is why we have things like infantry
screens.  The advantage the legged vehicles are supposed to have over
tracked vehicles is there are SO MANY MORE routes of advance.  Thus
causing you to diffuse your defensive strength.  Plus, we have, as I
already pointed out, infantry screens for armor (for just the reason you
describe), artillery barrages, and a whole slew of 'special' weaponry
designed just for infantry sitting out in the middle of nowhere waiting
for expensive weapons to come along!  :)

As for the legs, well...scr@w 'em!  They are cheap, easy to replace, and
you can afford to lose 4 of 'em before it becomes serious!

- --------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:05:58 -0600
From: "Talisman" <shimmer@utelco.tds.net>
Subject: Re: Representation

What exactly is the "Grand Adventure"?

- ----------
> From: Kenneth Bearden <dreamer@brokersys.com>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: Representation
> Date: Sunday, December 08, 1996 04:23 PM
> 
> On  8 Dec 96 at 0:34, William F. Hostman wrote:
> 
> > His own
> > recent post suggests it as better for a web page. 
> 
> No, I didn't say this.  I think the Grand Adventure has a place on a 
> web site, but it is also relevant here.
> 
> Kenneth.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:18:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: QSDS on Joe Heck Page

trav digest.

I read something about the QSDS being on the web at Joe Hecks's web site.  I
had it in my book marks but it was inactive.  Has the site moved or is it
down.  I really want to take a look at QSDS before I buy T4.  Any other
sites it is located at???  Please advise.

keep yer powder dry.

Jeff

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:36:12 -0500 (EST)
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
Subject: RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products 

In Reply to Your Message of Thu, 12 Dec 1996 12: 41:32 CST
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:36:12 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@brahms.udel.edu>

: Thoughts?  Comments?  Flames?

I think that we will all be torn on this issue.  I get the very distinct
feeling that lots of people are clamorring for Traveller of twenty years
ago.  If that wasn't the case, I wouldn't be seeing the arguments over
ships of Mileu 0 not looking like ships of Mileu 1100!

Honestly though, I think a lot of the problems with Starships was that
Don Perrin made the foolhardy mistake of giving us what we asked for.
It may not have been exactly how we wanted it, but it did fit the
original parameters (looking through digest I see things like "I want it
to be like the little black books," "no sidebars if you can help it,"
etc...).

I don't think Greg Porter or Tim Brown will make that same mistake.

Have Courtney check out DP9's Heavy Gear for what I consider the
"penultimate" game line.  It's tight, it's well laid out, and it's well
written.  The biggest complaints about it is that much of their original
art is recycled too much.

Likewise, anything that BTRC puts out is very utilitarian and well laid
out.  Have him look at CORPS 2ed and the latest version of 3G^3 (it's
still at the printers, but the hypertext version is now available).

As for things not to do.  Don't put middle-of-the-page-wrap-text-around
graphics the way White Wolf does.

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8 
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:24:57 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: ThrustPlates and such (longish rant)

Glenn Grant wrote:
> 
> I can't accept the idea that T-plates only work within a 1000 diam. limit
> of a planetary or stellar mass. It only makes sense when thrusting away
> from the mass; I don't understand how T-plates "push against" a gravity
> field when they are thrusting *towards* it. Can someone explain how this is
> supposed to work?

Well, I don't look at T-plates as "pushing". (See my previous posts) But
to answer your question, it's the gravitational potential lying around
that is important, not its direcitonal vector. If you buy the fact that
gravity is a property of space and is transmitted by gravitational
particles "Gravitons", then if there aren't many lying about, the
t-plates don't have anything to work with.

This of course messes with the conventional view of artificial gravity:
wouldn't everyone start floating around outside the 1000d limit if
T-plates and artificial gravity worked on similar principles? But why
not? I don't think it's a major canon heresy to say that artificial
gravity is greatly reduced or eliminated outside of the 1000d. limit. It
discourages people from hiding out there, in the depths of space, and
refuelling etc. It's rather uncomfortable to float around all the time.

I even thought of a way of explaining why artificial gravity works in
jumpspace <he says, smugly>. If the jump field contains a separate
normal space-time environment, then the mass of the ship takes up a
large percentage of the "mini-normalspace-universe" contained in the
jump bubble, therefore the gravitometric potential is rather high. To
put it another way, the particle density of the normal space in the jump
bubble is really high, so there's lots of gravity potential. Artificial
gravity works.

Physisists and Cosmologists: Is my assumption valid? As the universe
expands, does the force of gravity change, however slightly? If we use
the proverbial rubber sheet with a dimple on it analogy; if you stretch
the sheet, the dimple is reduced. If you compress the sheet, the dimple
is exaggerated.

> Further, what's the big deal about fleets refueling in the Oort or Kuiper
> belts during an invasion? Surely it's a very long way to the Kuiper belt -
> and an awful lot farther to the Oort; won't the defenders have a lot of
> warning that a fleet is invading? They'll pick up the invader's signatures
> long before they arrive - especially since, for half that distance, the
> invaders will have to decellerate into the inner system. Even a T-plate
> drive is going to be obvious for quite a while. There'd be no chance of a
> suprise attack. Or am I mistaken?

I agree. The K-belt is ~40 AU away. It takes a looong time to get to the
inner system. But the problem isn't surprise attacks, it's retconning
the strategy of protecting gas giants, and the importants of said GG's
for refueling. If T-plates worked in the K-belt, then everyone would
refuel there and not bother getting closer.

Also there's the little problem of relativistic objects...

"Sir, we have a problem... there's a lifeboat that's been accelerating
for 3 years approaching Terra..."
 
> I'm leaning towards getting rid of T-Plates in my own campaign (a
> non-Imperium future history), but have yet to make a final decision. I do
> have a theory I'm kicking around, which might help explain away some of the
> nagging problems without drifting too far away from Holy Canon; to wit:
>
> We know that a ship generates an inertial damper field. Seems to me that
> reducing an object's inertia would make it easier to move. Obviously the
> field doesn't completely eliminate a ship's inertia, because any push would
> then cause it to whoosh away at light speed. So we'll say that it simply
> reduces the amount of thrust required to accellerate the ship. Thus we can
> claim that the maneuver drive is a conventional reaction drive (either
> fusion or some other rocket system) but it doesn't have to produce as much
> thrust, or use as much fuel, as it would without the inertial damper field.

< snippage of excellent inertia discussion >

Here's a question I have for physics experts. Is inertia a property of
mass? (yes, I think) Do inertial dampeners basically reduce an objects
apparent mass? (if yes, then artifial gravity doesn't really need to be
as powerful as regular gravity, right?)

But whatabout rules for acceleration and fuel usage with HEPlaR drives?
They don't seem to take neglected or reduced mass into account...

So then, if inertia is a property of mass, and dampeners *don't* reduce
the mass of an object, then what the heck do they do? How do you dampen
inertia without affecting mass? I'm having trouble handwaving that one.

> We might suggest that the inertial damper field is a low-energy effect
> related to the jump field and governed by closely-related physical laws -
> perhaps it's even generated by the jump drive. I suggest this because the
> jump drive also alters the relationship between the inside of the field and
> the outside universe.

I don't buy this. But I have my own jumpspace assumptions as you well
know ;-) Non-starships without Jump Drives have inertial dampeners. I
think dampeners are more closely related to anti-grav devices which
partially negate mass. Also, you indicate that jump drives generate a
dampening field. This doesn't make sense, I've always assumed jump
drives only operate when they are ready to enter jumpspace.

IIRC, in TNE anti-grav was strict mass negation whilst in CT/MT
anti-grav was related to artificial grav and provided propulsion.

I think we, as traveller fans, need well thought out gravitational
"laws" and assumptions. I'm quite hazy now about how these
anti-grav/artificial grav/inertial dampener/thruster plates work. They
appear to all operate due to gravitic principles but seem (in my mind)
to follow divergent assumptions about how gravity works.

Whatever happened to the Grand Unified Theory?

> I like this theory mainly because it eliminates the need for reactionless
> drives, and it doesn't require us to invent things like gravity generators.
> I suppose I'm probably re-inventing the wheel, though. Has anyone suggested
> something like this before?

I've never seen a *need* for reactionless drives. One of the things I
liked about TNE is that it got rid of the pesky things. But since
they're back, I'd sure like a plausible explanation, pseudo-scientific
as it may be, of how they work.

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========
     Examine what is said, not him who speaks. - Arab Proverb

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:42:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Joseph Heck <ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu>
Subject: Re: QSDS on Joe Heck Page

Jeff Brawley said:
> I read something about the QSDS being on the web at Joe Hecks's web site.  I
> had it in my book marks but it was inactive.  Has the site moved or is it
> down.  I really want to take a look at QSDS before I buy T4.  Any other
> sites it is located at???  Please advise.

site's up and happenin'

http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/

QSDS file specifically:
  http://www.qrc.com/~wildstar/qsds/qsds14.htm 
    (160k HTML)
  http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/pdf/qsds1.4.pdf 
    (PDF 105k)

- -- 
 joe                          (573) 882-2000
 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu    http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe
 PGP Fingerprint: E3 3F DF 08 BE 3E 44 A0  EE A9 80 7E 22 99 CD DF
 "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and
 impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:05:29 -0500
From: Earl Wajenberg <earl@chrysalis.com>
Subject: Re: ThrustPlates and such (longish rant) 

Glenn Hoppe writes:

 "Physisists and Cosmologists: Is my assumption valid? As the universe
  expands, does the force of gravity change, however slightly? If we use
  the proverbial rubber sheet with a dimple on it analogy; if you stretch
  the sheet, the dimple is reduced. If you compress the sheet, the dimple
  is exaggerated."

There have been some speculations that the force of gravity changes over 
time, but none of these has yet panned out experimentally.  (Observing 
distant galaxies gives us a window on how gravity worked a long time ago.)
The depth of that "dimple" is determined by the amount of mass in it and 
the gravitational constant, G.  So far as we now know, that constant really 
is constant.

 "Here's a question I have for physics experts. Is inertia a property of
  mass? (yes, I think) Do inertial dampeners basically reduce an objects
  apparent mass? (if yes, then artifial gravity doesn't really need to be
  as powerful as regular gravity, right?)"

Inertia DEFINES mass, and vice versa.  They are essentially two words for 
the same concept.  What "inertial dampers" do is up to the joint imaginations
of the Traveler authors and your local GM, but the general idea, I gather, 
is that they protect the interior of a ship from the effects of acceleration.

To me, that implies they are a form of artificial gravity.  I would 
suppose they are so many acceelerometers, rigged to the cabin gravity 
system, cancelling acceleration effects before you can feel them.

The gravity field around a running starship would be a very twisty thing.

Earl Wajenberg

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #746
**********************************

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".
