Traveller-digest      Friday, December 27 1996      Volume 1996 : Number 793



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Marine skills and duties
Grass Root Uprising.
That viewer
Re: Complaint about CSC
50s retro look tech
Jump Drives & Redundancy
Re: Why the Vilani Lost
Martial Arts in T4?
Psionic Knights
Re: Water on Starships
Re: Water on Starships
Multi-Jumps
Price of Game Stuff
Laundry
German?
Mail from IG
Gas Giant refuelling
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #790
Re: Water on Starships (long)

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:10:04 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Marine skills and duties

First off, might I say that the explanation for why Marines in the 1100s
have Gunnery while the M:0 ones don't was an excellent bit of improvised
history writing.. good job!

The one change I've made in the Marine career is that instead of learning to
use a Cutless, all Marines learn BattleDress-1.  I have tried to justify why
a force that fights in powered armor with high-energy plasma weapons would
bother training it's recruits swordplay; and I just can't.  I asked a former
member of the USMC Silent drill Team if he knew how to use a sword in
combat, and he replied that it was all for show, though some members did
take up saber as a hobby.

As for Marines on Navy ships.. I think that their battlestations would be as
damage control parties and in the missle magazines.  Both are jobs that call
for brute strength under Naval guidance.  A typical damage control team
might be a Navy CPO leading some Marines to do quicky patches on systems so
the ship can continue fighting.  Also, Marines in BattleDress make excellent
SAR workers in areas that have sustained heavy structural damage.

In the magazine, Marine move the missles from their racks to the
elevator/loading queue/arming room.  Once again, experience with augmented
exoskeletons will be a plus.

+-----------------------------------------------------+
|     Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net     |
|        Professional Driver - Traveller Guru         |
|           http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/            |
|*****************************************************|
|         Keep on dancing through to daylight,        |
|            Greet the morning Sun in song            |
|  No one noticed that the band's all packed and gone |
|  Was it ever here at all?  But we kept on dancing.. |
+-----------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:14:24 -0600
From: "J.D. Burdick" <twolf@tfs.net>
Subject: Grass Root Uprising.

I step onto a soap box and clear my throat...huh-hum.

My fellow gamers,

There comes a time when one must stand up and be counted.  This is one of
those times.  I walked into 5 stores looking for CSC and Aliens today.  Not
only did none of the stores have them, but 2 of them didn't know that
Traveller had been re-released by IG.

This is the sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in.  You might ask
why I am concerned about this.  I am concerned because every one of us that
loves the game of Traveller should be concerned.  In a time that the gaming
industry is waivering, and the future of our game is in question; someone
must take steps to ensure our game of Traveller survives.

What can we do you ask?  You are thinking that you are only one gamer or a
small group that meets once a week.  What can you do?  The answer is simple.

A grass root uprising in support of our game.  Marc might own the copywrit,
IG owns the publishing rights; but it is our game...yours and mine.  We play
it.  It is our hobby, we have helped make it into what it is today.

You are thinking what can we do? I'll tell you.

Tell people about T4.  Show one new person per week the game.  Go to every
store that should carry the game and ask them for it.  If you are running a
game, invite a new person to it.  If you are not running a game start one.
Why you ask?

Because without new players the future of the game is ....(You thought Virus
was bad.)  You are probably wondering about IG about now.  To tell you the
truth so am I.  They should be leading the way in this fight.  Don't be
fooled, there is a war on and our game hangs in the balance.  IG should be
in the lead in this campaign but they are not.  They are AWOL.  So what do
we do?  Do we let them ruin our game by their lack of leadership?  I say
no..NO..NO!

Join the movement to save the game.  Don't worry about IG, let Marc fight
the battle with them about why they are not advertising.  Again, I challenge
each one of you (500+) to show the game to one new person each week...invite
a new player to your game...visit your local game store and talk up the game
to the owner.  

It is a dark time, it may be our last chance.  Travellers what will it be?
Do you love the game enough to work to save it?  Only time will tell.

I step down from my soap box.  I break the box into small pieces.  I
shoulder my sign "Traveller is Back" and look behind me to see who is
following....

JD
Twolf

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:36:45 +0000
From: "Tim Reynolds" <tim@premier1.premier.net>
Subject: That viewer

J.D.

I tried to fine that viwer you asked me to get but I could not find 
it anywere on the net.  I am thinking I may have copied it wrong so 
can you email me it to me at 

tim@valhalla.gpasf.com this is my work address I will look for it on 
my lunch break.

home address tim@premier.net

Thanks
 Tim 
AKA Grayman

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 23:54:46 -0800
From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: Complaint about CSC

On 23 Dec 96 at 18:58, Neil Simpson spewed:

> > I am also very unhappy about its limitation at TL12.Speaking as a
> > ref who is not interested at all in the founding of "the third 
> attempt to make an unworkable concept work"(AKA the 3rd Imperium)it
> looks like the csc is,like starships,is of no use to me or my
> group.Which to be honest is sad.                                    
>                           
>  When,if ever,will we get soucebooks and kit(especially kit)for
>  modern(ie 
> circa 1110`s)campaigns?                                             

Not for a few years, IIRC.

Why would you want them this desperately?  I assume you have most 
of the old material?  Why not just convert the stuff?

Who says you can't use old background material with new rules?  Or 
vice versa, for that matter.  I for one, am looking forward to seeing 
the development of other spots on the timeline, not just the same old 
game I've known for years.

Stu
Stuart L. Dollar               sdollar@goodnet.com
Traveller referee since 1978, Official USENet 
spokesperson for Imperium Games
- ---------------------------------------------------
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." 
- -Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:33:26 +1300 (NZDT)
From: Richard Fields <rfields@actrix.gen.nz>
Subject: 50s retro look tech

While I have no extreem preference for, or against Chris Foss's art 
style, I find the discussion on personal taste a little closed in outlook.
I suggest that we remember a few details:
1/  It's a big Regency, it was a bigger Imperium. There are many ship yards, 
many naval archatects.
IMHO The designs in "Starships" are significant designs, not exclusive 
designs.  
2/  I recall a 15mm APC, by Martian Metals with optional Wheels,Tracks, or 
Grav propultion. 
IMHO The Grav system was very 50s retro hood ornament.I do not feel it 
compulsory that I own sereral because it's cannon.

Richard Fields
aka The Wisefool
When I ask questions I must challenge my perception of what I heard,
Not your perception of what you said.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 18:44:05 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Jump Drives & Redundancy

Some comments have been made to the effect that Starships would never want
to carry out yearly maintenance at a type B Starport because said Starport
cannot make J-Drives ... and that any *major* problem with said ship's
J-drives would immobilise the vessel until a new drive could be brought in
from outside.

A couple of perceptive replies have pointed out the obvious -- any Engineer
worth his salt will have detected the warning signs of such a major problem
well before maintenance was due and would have made arrangements to do
*this* maintenance stop at a Class A Port.

However, the problem set me to thinking.

It brought to mind something I read a while ago about a particular model US
groundcar with EFI and how, unlike *earlier* models (lower tech?) black box
controllers which, when dying, took the whole engine down with them (as I
can attest from personal, and recent, experience!), immobilising the car
until replaced, these new controllers actually had at least one level of
"default" setting that was absolutely rock-bottom simple ... maximised
chances of operating (to 100%, in fact) at the cost of running *very*
"rich" (and guzzling fuel). According to the article, Mechanics often had
real trouble convincing the owners that there was anything wrong -- a
common comment was evidently "Its never run better, but the fuel
consumption has gone up."

So, what's the relevance of this? Well, with something as vital as a
J-Drive, surely there would be more than one level of circuitry built in?
Surely there would be redundant levels that would allow full functionality
when the primary levels die? Almost certainly at least one level on
Civilian Starships and more than one on Military vessels.

Beyond these initial levels of redundancy, what is there likely to be?
Well, I would suggest that each level of "failure" beyond the main backups
would simply be set to allow the vessel to do something like what the EFI
blackbox did ... in other words, each level of failure simply drops the
J-Rating of the Drive one level. Since a considerable number of vessels
have a J-Drive greater than J1, this also allows backup. So a J3 vessel
which loses both its main circuitry *and* its secondaries then falls back
to J2 - and if this level fails, it drops back to J1 -- perhaps with the
catch that *fuel* consumption remains *unchanged*. In other words, the
vessel makes a J2 at the fuel cost of a J3!

Since such problems are assumed (so it seems) *never* to happen in
Traveller, there may not be a *huge* need for this sort of suggestion, but
it *does* make some sort of sense, so I'm offering it for your
consideration.

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 18:54:49 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Why the Vilani Lost

> From: Andrew Boulton <aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> To: aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au
> Cc: traveller-digest@NS.MPGN.COM; aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Why the Vilani Lost
> Date: Friday, December 27, 1996 5:00 AM
> 
> In-Reply-To: <199612250429.PAA20937@curie.dialix.com.au>
> 
> << > One problem: if your theory is correct, once the Ziru Sirka reached
a 
> > certain size (and so a long travel time to/from the frontier), the
first 
> > race to seriously fight back would destroy it. I suppose the Terrans 
> > could have been the first to do so, but it seems unlikely.
> 
> I don't see why size should be a factor in my argument - perhaps I'm just
> dense :-{ >>
> 
> Flexibility and reaction times. Local commanders had to keep checking
with 
> their bosses, which could take months. Given time, the Vilani could have 
> adapted to the Terran tactics, but by the time the leaders had got the 
> orders to the front, the war was already over.

Aha, I see what you're getting at. However, on that basis, the Vilani
Empire would have been too large to manage hundreds, if not thousands, of
years before. I suspect that you haven't considered the likelihood that the
command and control was regionalised under the various Megacorps. Like in
"Imperium" - the "Imperial Governor" can appeal to the "emperor" (which
probably just means higher command) for anything in excess of what he has
on hand or can build locally.

And don't forget the problem that the leaders *at* the front would have had
convincing the leaders in the *rear* that they needed new tactics - the
time delay there would have been just as significant!

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 96 11:52:00 GMT 
From: s.johnson107@genie.com
Subject: Martial Arts in T4?

    I'm waaaaay behind on the list mail but has anyone put any thought into
Martial Arts and how they should be handled in the T4 system?

Stephen

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 16:43:09 +0100
From: "Mark Seemann" <mark@dk-online.dk>
Subject: Psionic Knights

27/12-96 Del Jones wrote:

> I'm currently ref'ing the a campaign which had its roots in
> William Connors' Psionic Knights scenario, (Travellers' Digest #14-#17).
> I wonder if any of you have done this (or are doing) because I would
> like to exchange some ideas.

Yeah, I'm still playing the campaign, although the actual adventures from
TD are far behind. It's probably the most satisfying Traveller campaign
I've ever run. It's great fun! I grabbed the hooks at the end of the
mini-adventure and made Count Draco Sylas the main enemy, and I've really
been able to make the PCs hate him.

Currently, the campaing centers on the PCs trying to reach Mora, where
they'll try to get an audience with Norris, who will be passing by at that
time. Meanwhile, Sylas is doing lots of unpleasant stuff to stop the PCs,
as well as plotting to be the new archduke. Somewhere, the Sword Worlds are
playing the game, too, and there's lots of old clues from the time of the
Psionic Suppressions.

Should I get more specific?

Mark Seemann
mark@dk-online.dk
http://www2.dk-online.dk/users/Mark_Seemann/

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:22:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Water on Starships

On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Peter  H. Brenton wrote:

> Oxygen is not actually carried in any significant quantity.  The existing
> oxygen/nitrogen atmosphese in the ship is 'scrubbed' of CO2 by the life
> support system.  I imagine that a reserve of atmospheric gasses already
> mixed (i.e. Nitrogen/oxygen - can't breathe pure O2 after all) is also
> kept.  Certainly not a big enough reserve to be making H2O out of.

I totally disagree with you on this.  If you are not carrying a 100%
breathables reserve, you are begging for trouble!  What's the FIRST thing
you do when you enter ship-to-ship combat?  Dump the pressure!  And while
that is scavenged, what about the ship that gets jumped (first you are
aware of the other ship is the decompression alarm!), or a ship that gets
hit by a meteor?  If you are not carrying a breathable reserve, you may
save the ship, but die of asphyxiation.

Vacc suit technology describes the advances in personal air supplies, I
imagine a similar line of advance for ship storage tanks, and air pumps.
I agree that air purifiers and recyclers ARE used, but I strongly feel
that there is a significant reserve kept back for emergencies, and to
replace pressure lost in the normal course of ship's operation.

Once we have agreed that this type of reserve exists, it is not too
difficult to imagine the O2 reserve expanded to included reconstitution of
H20.

While I tend to believe that water usage is more limited aboard a ship, I
do not believe it is so limited as to require some of the more extreme
methods of conservation that have been suggested.  As everything that is
consumed, and eventually excreted, aboard the ship is available for
recycling, only losses into space (and the big spaceport-down party when
the ship hits port) need be replaced.

- --------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 10:59:53 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov>
Subject: Re: Water on Starships

In a chemical sense, humans don't consume water.  They give off more
water than they take in.  This is because they combust sugars (etc.)
and oxygen into CO2 and water.  If you just collect all that water
you would have enough for drinking and making oxygen.  Water for
washing just needs to be purified for reuse.

Similarly, carbon dioxide can be pulled out of the air and
reduced to liberate the oxygen.  Assuming that, at the TL
where you make starhips, you have a wide choice of reactions
you might either reduce it to elemental carbon (for easy
disposal/storage) or back to sugars (etc.) to be eaten
(though I think, even at Traveller starship TL's, you
aren't going to be albe to make "real food").

On Mon, 23 Dec 1996, Douglas wrote:
> Hydrogen for fuel - usually carried in massive quanities (tons I believe
> is the unit of measurement).
> Oxygen for lifesupport - not measured per se, but inferred by the
> biochemistry of most of the charactors.
> Put 'em together, in appropriate proportions - H2O (water).  Useable for
> cooking, cleaning, drinking AND recycling.  BTW, you also get electricity.

You already get a lot more power from the fusion plant and
there is no real reason to carry all that oxygen around (see above).

>and heat and light, is ther any way to combine Oxygen and Hydrogen to make
>water without creating an explosion?

Sure, you just burn it (like you burn natural gas in a water heater),
or you use a fuel cell, or you use any number of catalysts.

____________________________
(Disclaimer: Would NASA have ME speak for them?)
DSummers@Mail.ARC.NASA.gov

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

Date: 27 Dec 96 15:44:19 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Multi-Jumps

>> the PCs were   crew on a Broadsword [...] the 
Broadsword's Jump   drive was damaged, leaving it capable 
of only Jump1, with the nearest   system 2 parsecs away.   
Now, the players reckoned that as the ship had plenty of 
fuel, it   could still make 2 Jump1 jumps and reach another 
star. I ruled against this   on the basis that if the ship 
jumped into interstellar space they   wouldn't be able to 
plot its coordinates accurately enough for its   next jump 
to take it anywhere near the right planet - they'd probably 
  arrive outside the orbit of that system's outermost 
planets and face a long,   long trip. Ergo they had to land 
the ship and repair the J-drive,   allowing me to run an 
adventure I had planned.   Was I right? If jumps to and 
from interstellar space are possible,   what's to stop any 
Jump1 ship doing this? Even if it couldn't carry   enough 
fuel, presumably it could use an interstellar depot, and 
these   would be standard between inhabited systems (though 
 in TNE they'd be   mostly stripped bare). <<

First of all, the question "was I right" is answered by the 
simplest answer. "You're the ref". If a plot tweak like 
this was required to get your planned adventure to work 
properly then "make it so". Off the top of my head, you 
could have included damage to the navicomputer in with the 
jump drive damage, such that "normally you can but with 
your damage it might not be a good idea..."

In "fact" it is perfectly possible. You don't have to be in 
a system to get a fix; it's just easier. The navicomputer 
matches the pattern of visible stars against a 3d library 
and assuming you're in known space, works out your position 
from that. If you have enough fuel, there's nothing to stop 
you jumping again from the middle of nowhere. Of course, if 
something goes wrong, you'll be stuck there!

The technique you describe is in fact essential for Rift 
Cruisers, travelling across vast expanses of bugger-all. 

Returning to Starships (cries of "Oh, no!"), I have a 
question. All of them seem to have far too few staterooms. 
The 200-ton traders, in particular, seem to have exactly 
enough SR for the passengers and none for the poor old crew. 

Is there a difference in T4 staterooms? Do the Noble Pax 
double up with Scruffy the Engineer ? Or were the designs 
simply knocked together far too quickly?

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who can    |
| do neither, write manuals. (after George Bernard Shaw)       |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 27 Dec 96 15:44:37 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Price of Game Stuff

>> Sorry folks, but the days of $6 supplements and $15 
hardbacks are long  gone in the gaming market <<

Except, strangely enough, for That Game Company, whose DMG 
was still popping at about 15 pounds last time I looked, 
which is around what I paid for it in c. 1983. Hmn.

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all       |
| possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true.       |
| (James Branch Cabell)                                        |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 27 Dec 96 15:44:38 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Laundry

>> >Some people have mentioned the lack of toilets and 
showers on some of  >the deck plans, although the DGP plans 
do have them and call them  >freshers.    I thought that my 
players would by now have thrown everything at me, but I've 
never   thought about this in nearly 20 years of 
Travelling.     <<

I was paging through my deckplan files, drawn with a nice 
little utility called Floorplans Plus which has lotsa 
domestic symbols provided, and presto! There, in the galley 
of the Gazelle Close Escort, I found I'd installed a 
dishwasher. Therefore I claim my "sad bastard who thought 
of everything" prize.

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| Live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse.       |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 27 Dec 96 15:44:30 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: German?

>> "Die Gedanken Sind Frei" <<

I'm not an expert, but isn't it something like "Gratitude 
costs nothing"? 

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in     |
| it.                                                          |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 27 Dec 96 15:44:24 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Mail from IG

Joseph E. Walsh:

>> Subject: RE: The IG Web Site    Hi guys,    I just got 
the message below from Courtney Solomon regarding the 
status   of IG's web site.  The message says it all, so I'm 
just forwarding it for   your perusal.   <<

After posting my rant on Starships to IG, this dude (or dudette;
does anybody know?) Courtney Solomon came straight back in about
24 hours - at the weekend! - to acknowledge and sketch out what
IG propose to to to improve things. Impressive. If this typifies
the new California approach then I'm much cheered!

>> > > MT's Fighting Ships. (Poor, IMHO, use Sup 9)    None 
of the complaints about this supplement I have seen have 
mentioned   its main problem.  The ships are_unnamed_! <<

Ah! Yes, I thought that was very poor too. If you say 
Tigress, people know what you mean. Saying CA-15 isn't the same. 

Myself, I went through the entire book, redesigned each 
vessel with my own software (the originals are very 
flawed!) and gave 'em all names.

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| If at first you don't succeed, you may be at your level of   |
| incompetence already.                                        |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 27 Dec 96 15:44:34 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Gas Giant refuelling

>> Ergo, out of Marc Miller's own mouth (so to speak), GG 
refuelling is almost  never going to happen - and, for the 
purposes of the SDB argument, *never*  will happen in any 
system with an inhabited mainworld !!! <<

Leaving aside the fact that our group likes the idea and 
sticks with it because it's always been part of the way 
things work, an upshot of your logic - which I cannot fault 
in the least, no flame war here! - to my mind might well be 
a Bespin-like trade centre orbiting the GG. In extreme 
cases the system might have no other starport! 

As a side issue, what happens if the mainworld is a 
satellite of the GG itself? The travel times (which I have 
to admit I'm too lazy to work out) might be less, yeah ?

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]
| Hugh Foster                                 100326,446       |
|   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster     |
| History is littered with wars that everybody knew would      |
| never happen. (Enoch Powell)                                 |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 13:14:41 -0800
From: Brad Urwiller <ravyn@ptw.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #790

Anyone notice that the TL13 2cm LP from TNE doesn't conform to the 
stats given in the book when designed in FFS?

Any thoughts?

Brad Urwiller
Ravyn@ptw.com

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

Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 16:03:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Water on Starships (long)

Look out! Pete's gotten long-winded in a discussion about shit!

On Fri, 27 Dec 1996, Douglas wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Peter  H. Brenton wrote:
> 
> > Oxygen is not actually carried in any significant quantity.  The existing
> > oxygen/nitrogen atmosphese in the ship is 'scrubbed' of CO2 by the life
> > support system.  I imagine that a reserve of atmospheric gasses already
> > mixed (i.e. Nitrogen/oxygen - can't breathe pure O2 after all) is also
> > kept.  Certainly not a big enough reserve to be making H2O out of.
> 
> I totally disagree with you on this.  If you are not carrying a 100%
> breathables reserve, you are begging for trouble!  What's the FIRST thing
> you do when you enter ship-to-ship combat?  Dump the pressure!  And while

By saying that O2 is not carried "in any significant quantity" above I did
not intend to imply that there was not any carried.  It seems likely to me
that a starship can probably replace it's atmosphere 4-5 times. 

> 
> Once we have agreed that this type of reserve exists, it is not too
> difficult to imagine the O2 reserve expanded to included reconstitution of
> H20.

Take a 400 ton ship.  That's about 5400 cubic meters.  Let's say 20%
devoted to fuel (down to 4320 cu m.) another 40% for machinery, drives,
hull material, etc. ( down to 2160) [I think I'm being conservative
here]

So we need 2,160 cubic meters of air.  Checking the WWW (don't you love
the 'net) I find a single dive tank at TL8 that holds 120 cu f. or
(convert from another web page) 3.399 cubic meters per tank.  Lets double
that once for TL12 and round to about 7 cu. m per tank.  Wow! we need
about 300 dive tanks for just *one* atmospheric replacement!  Each tank
(scribble scribble) is about 0.023 cu m giving a compression ratio
(ratio of space taken up per cu m of air held) of 304; that is, 1 cu m of
tank space holds 304 cu m of replacement atmosphere.  That means
(scribble) we need 7.1 cu m of space for each atmospheric replacement.
This will be spread throughout the ship in nooks and crannies, but still
will take up significant space; 4 replacements is 28.4 cu m or about 2
tons.  

So you want to eat into this to make water?  remember that only 20% of
what is in these tanks is oxygen.  What I cannot find on the web is a
ratio of gaseous oxygen to liquid water made.  I would guess that if you
are right,  we'd do better to carry LOX and Liquid Nitrogen to make air,
and water as needed.  I have only a partial basis for making assumptions
above, but I feel that the amount of space required to make a significant
amount of water from these materials is extreme; like maybe you could get
a 100:1 ratio (not accounting for the L-hyd) so that you could have 100
tons of water making stuff in 1 ton of space.  I think I'm off by an order
of magnitude (that is 10:1 ratio) but for the sake of argument lets leave
it at 100:1.

How many gallons a day do you want to use?  There are 12 crew on a 400 ton
Close Escort, each drinks 8 liters of water (some as soup, beer, etc) and
bathes in 30 (including shaving, washing hands, etc), Cooking accounts for
another 2 per person.  These are all assumptions and subject to argument.
Thats 40 liters per day times 12 crew times 28 days duration (MT standard;
I'd want more in usual designs) is about 13,500 liters of water : That
converts to (I think!) 13.5 cubic meters (1000 liters=1m^3 right?) or one
ton   

Not as much as I thought. But I always thought there was a storage tank on
board with water, not chemicals, and also - a ton is a ton.  If it can be
freed up (partially) then why not do so.  Removing the cleaning
requirement leaves just 3100 liters, or 1/4 ton.  This is a more ignorable
number.
 
> While I tend to believe that water usage is more limited aboard a ship, I
> do not believe it is so limited as to require some of the more extreme
> methods of conservation that have been suggested.  As everything that is
> consumed, and eventually excreted, aboard the ship is available for
> recycling, only losses into space (and the big spaceport-down party when
> the ship hits port) need be replaced.

The measures mentioned for conserving water do not seem to me to
be too extreme.  The sonic showers I suggested are simple, effective
substitutes for running water showers which, in fact, can use 20-30
gallons of water at a sitting (or standing) - yes! it can be cleaned and
reused, but there is bound to be some inevitable waste (water left on the
bather's body, liberated into the cabin air, etc.) and a reasonable and
water-less (and waste processing free) method is available which conserves
that most precious commodity aboard a starship in the Imperium; space.
Also reprocessing the water is not as trivial as some think (see below)
although the quality needed for washing is not the same as that needed for
drinking.

Greg Porter's CSC and T4 aside, I think that the means of
reprocessing all waste in a starship is probably more complicated than
people here think. Our best 20th century technology requires at a minimum  
space and time, and in large quantities of each.  It also requires
bacteria and other microorganisms to break down the solids, and plants and
animals to reprocess those solids into edible materials (ok, plants will
do this alone). I don't think Traveller technology (TL 12) is very far
from ours, and even with another 50 years (a guess of what will get us
from TL8-9 to 12) of technological advancement there will still be a need
for lots of space and time to do this job.

***Flame Retardant Section***

I don't mean to imply that anyone else's way of doing things is wrong or
that they should stop their way and do it my way.  I'm just trying to get
some help thinking these things through for my own campaign and have found
that everyone else seems to have a different set of assumptions than I do.
I hope to get my arguments filled with holes so I can work towards a
scientifically sound and logical system to use based on near-future tech
developments.

Well, I think I've gone on long enough about this subject.

Pete       

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #793
**********************************
