Traveller-digest     Tuesday, December 31 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 801



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: A merchant captain's view of showers
Re: Starship Construction
Re: Water on Starships (long)
Re: A merchant captain's view of showers
Re: SSDS Spreadsheet problems
Tuglikki Sector Data
re:"Q"
Re: SSDS Spreadsheet Problems
Re: Starship Construction
ATTN: Dave Golden :)
Starship Construction
Re: 21st Century History
Re: Starship Construction
Re: 21st Century History
Re: JTAS subscriptions (possible relationship)
Re: Why the Vilani lost
Re: Tuglikki Sector Data
tonight
Re: Tuglikki Sector Data
Re: Jumpspace/Refueling/Marines
Re: 21st Century History
Re: Starship Construction
gone
Re: Why the Vilani lost
Re: Tuglikki Sector Data

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

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:55:38 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: A merchant captain's view of showers

In mail you write:

> Water costs money. Oxygen and hydrogen cost money. Space in the hold IS
> money. Electricity costs less money.  The electrical power required to run a
> sonic fresher is minimal, even with the ion generator grid. The crew should
> be happy they have jobs.

Water is *free*. As I've noted many times before, a ship will end a
trip with *more* water than it started with because human (and Vargr,
K'kree, Hiver, etc) metabolism takes air and food and turns them into
water and CO2.

Heat (even *extreme* heat) is *free* from the fusion reactor. So
distilling water from waste is free. 

Electricity is cheap too. So electrolyzing things is cheap. Though it
may be easier to thermally crack both water and CO2. At temperatures
below p-p fusion temps, *all* molecular bonds break. 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 20:07:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Starship Construction

In mail you write:

> At 07:00 PM 12/30/96 +0000, you wrote:
> <snip>
>>The above times assume a shipyard working 8 hour days and 6 day weeks, that
>>is working on the vessel 48 hours out of every 168.  It also assumes that
>>the maximum number of workers allowed are working on the ship that entire
>>time.  Finally it assumes 52 weeks per year.
>>
> <snip>
>>
>
> I would tend to presume multiple shifts. Shutting down and restarting some
> types of equipment may be more complicated that what can be justified for
> only 8 hours of work. 

Many, many factory (and shipyard) type processes fit that description.
That's why 3 shifts is a common setup. That way you only have to shut
down things once a week.

Other processes proceed at their own pace and *can't* be stopped in the
middle (some phases of steel making, growing large single crystals for
semiconductor use, etc). For those you go to *four* shifts. And the
resulting schedules get a bit weird. For one thing, you *have* to go to
12 hour days or things get *way* too complicated. The shift schedules
for such will almost always be a two week cycle. But *which* days of
that cycle are work days and which are "off days" varies all over the
place. (I speak from experience!)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:25:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Water on Starships (long)

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Leonard Erickson wrote:

> In mail you write:
> 
> > Explain this please, in email - I think the list is probably tired of this
> > crappy subject matter.  It may be useful in my large habitat adventure
> > though.
> 
> I don't have details handy, but there are systems available *now* that
> partially reprocess sewage, and do it in a space small enough to make
> them practical inside a *house*. Do an article search on "composting
> toilets". 

I am familiar with common septic systems *and* composting toilets.  what
we are talking about here, however, is a system which has, as input, human
waste, and needs, as output, edible food, with *a minimum of space used
for a minimum amount of time*.  Were talking about keeping the space down
to no more than 6 cubic meters per person (guesstimate) to handle all
their waste disposal needs andprovide them with most if not all of their
food supply.

> > This is what I was kind of arguing for, but I like (and should have
> > thought of) the idea of making "Shit Bricks" out of the stuff, rather
> > than keeping it in semi-liquid form.
> 
> Anybody who has *ever* had to deal with a "honey tank" will go quite a
> bit out of their way to avoid having to deal with it again! And since
> heat is essentially "free" onboard ship, why not bake it dry? :-)

Because it is arguably easier to put a hose in the honey tank and suck it
out than it is to send someone in to pick up all those bricks and haul
them out.  Like I said, I like your way, but that's why.

Oh, and having gotten up to my chin in the (clogged) septic tank at the
Boy Scout summer camp I worked in for a few summers, I know what you mean.
We were always glad to hear the "Caca-sucker" (with a Boston accent that
rhymes) coming down the road (once a week-whether we need it or not).

Pete 

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:33:59 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: A merchant captain's view of showers

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 Neveron@aol.com wrote:

>  THIS IS NOT THE BLOODY LOVE BOAT! THERE IS NO LIDO DECK, THERE IS NO
> SHUFFLEBOARD, AND THERE ARE NO SHOWERS! USE THE BLOODY  FRESHER LIKE EVERYONE
> ELSE!

Don't shout dear.
It's impolite and scares the natives.


> shs*
> -Pete, Can I have a Light Saber?

You've been talking to 'Q'* again haven't you

Pete

*The 'Q' referred to here has no relationship, and in fact predates, the
character with a similar designation on Star Trek(tm).  Although there are
uncanny similarities.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 07:35:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: SSDS Spreadsheet problems

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, John R. Snead wrote:

> Dave Golden just listed the URL for a SSDS spreadsheet:
> 
>  http://www.usa.net/~goldendj/Traveller/Admiralty/NavalArchitect/SSDSSheets.zip
> 
> 
> I tried the URL, downloaded the spreadsheet and can't get it to unzip.  
> I'm using a recent zip program, so I'm wondering if there is a problem 
> with the file.  If anyone has been able to run the spreadsheet I'd 
> appreciate either tips on how to unzip it, or (if possible) a uuencoded, 
> zipped version emailed to me.

I had trouble too.  Dave? when you get a chance could you check the zip
file?

Thanks,

Pete

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:02:48 -0500
From: Dedly@aol.com
Subject: Tuglikki Sector Data

I'm looking for Sector Data for Tuglikki during the MT era. Is it availible
online anywhere? (I've already checked the Missouri Archive) Any info would
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
\_/
DED

Happy New Year!

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:23:22 -0800
From: Neil Simpson <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: re:"Q"

Though the Bond one is far better.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:34:48 -0500
From: J_Lambert <72300.2131@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: SSDS Spreadsheet Problems

I downloaded the SSDS spreadsheets from Dave Golden's site and had problems
as well. However, I ran PKZIPFIX on the zipped file and was able to recover
all but the last sheet.

Later, John Lambert

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:36:20 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Construction

Well, I've gotten a couple of replies, great, now IF I COULD GET MORE, I
WOULD BE VERY HAPPY!!!  (Sorry to shout, but I just wanted to be heard above
the noise of the JTAS ranters.)

OK, first Garry's comments, then you Peter

>>The above times assume a shipyard working 8 hour days and 6 day weeks, that
>>is working on the vessel 48 hours out of every 168.  It also assumes that
>>the maximum number of workers allowed are working on the ship that entire
>>time.  Finally it assumes 52 weeks per year.
><snip>
>
>I would tend to presume multiple shifts. Shutting down and restarting some
>types of equipment may be more complicated that what can be justified for
>only 8 hours of work. 

This is true, many (if not most) shipyards will work at least 1.5 shifts if
not 2 or 3 shifts.  Also, you are correct, there is some equipment that is
easier (read cheaper) to keep some equipment running rather than shut it off
and on.  The yard I worked at had some equipment like that, and most of that
type of equipment has an "idle" setting so that the machine can be kept idle
when not in use rather than being shut off.  We ran 1 regular shift, and a
second shift of painters and equipment maintenance crews only.  In times of
war or for rush jobs, I can immagine that a shipyard would run at least two
shifts if not three. I hope that makes sense.

Now on to Peter's comments...

>>I have been fine tuning my rules for calculating starship construction times
>>and I have some numbers to throw at you to see what you think.  Here are the
>>numbers for the ships in the main rulebook of T4.
>
>Great to see someone work out something that seems to be ignored greatly in
>SF games. Thanks very much.

Thank you, I enjoy it, and, since I worked at a shipyard, it is one way that
I can add some of my expertise to the game (I hope).

>However (the big BUT! <g>), I'm not sure I agree with your final figures.
>Not that your math is wrong or anything, but the times seem really long, I
>mean, 3 months for a Ship's Boat, 4 years for a Patrol Cruiser.  I
>understand these take long, but still.  I'd be interesed in seeing more of
>the precise calculations.  Could you give one example, and show each
>calculation that gave you the final result.

Well, the calculations are based on price and displacement tonnage.  I agree
that the Patrol Cruiser numbers don't sound right, but that is because the
price for the Patrol Cruiser is very high, that part of the formula needs
work.  The Ship's Boat (and other >100dt craft) are actually the main part
of my question.  I had to change the formula to get the numbers I did, and I
was really wanting to check the figures for the small craft more than
anything else.

Here are the formulae I used:

Construction:   D>99  use:   Tc = (0.208 * P)/(D^0.5)
                D<100 use:   Tc = (0.052 * P)/(D^0.5) 
                        Where:    Tc = Construction Time in Years
                                   P = Listed Price in MCr
                                   D = Displacement Tons

      Trials:   Jump  use:   Tt = ((P * 10)/D)/12
              Nonjump use:   Tt = ((P * 10)/D)/48
                        Where:    Tt = Trials Time in Years
                                   P = Listed Price in MCr
                                   D = Displacement Tons

      Design:   QSDS  use:   Td = 0.00
                SSDS  use:   Td = 0.02
                All Other:   Td = 0.08
                        Where:    Td = Development Time in Years

Total Time:   T = Td + Tc + Tt

There it is.  I just reviewed how I came to the 0.208 number and realized
that it should have been 0.196 instead and the 0.052 should be 0.049, this
will actually lower the construction times by a small amount.  The other
factor I forgot to include in the previous post that helped in coming to
these numbers was the average pay rate for the shipyard's hourly workers.  I
am assuming it to be 13Cr per hour, and unless someone has a cannonical
source for a different number, I will use that.  I also can post the method
that I used in arriving at the factors above if anyone is interested.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:36:24 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: ATTN: Dave Golden :)

>David J. Golden wrote:
>> 
>>         I was just verifying a couple of the links on my website, and
found some
>> that don't work--apparently some Traveller pages went off the air, moved,
>> or I just had the wrong URL. Can anybody give me hand? All of the following
>> apparently don't work.
>> 
>>         http://www.ifi.uio.no/~tommyg/Traveller/
>>         http://www.datasync.com/~tiger/trav/bard.htm
>>         http://eeyore.lv-hrc.nevada.edu/~indy/traveller.html

Well, I used to be at www.datasync.com, but I switched servers and am now at
www.goldinc.com

All the rest will stay the same, just change the datasync to goldinc

Sorry, I thought I posted a notice about this earlier.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 09:36:26 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: Starship Construction

Well, I have a plea for help from some of you out there.  Well, a couple of
pleas actually.

First, I would appreciate any comments anyone has on my previous post about
construction times.

Second, in an effort to get all the formulae necessary to compute
construction times for any vessel, I would like to ask that everyone please
send me some info on any large ships they have created.  When I say large, I
mean greater than 5000 disp tons.

The info I need is basically price, disp tons, what system was used to
construct it, and if it has a jump drive.

Thanks very much for your help. :)

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

Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 01:32:35 +0900
From: Armand Suarez <suarez@on.rim.or.jp>
Subject: Re: 21st Century History

Leonard Erickson wrote:

> Just where the heck were they *going*? 20% of c * 2000 years
> = 400 light years!

Constant Hazard wrote:

>Very true...  Any trip that is going to take that long has to have a
>definite destination.  Just where were these STL colonization missions
>going?


If I remember correctly, it was either the Islands Cluster (Trillion Credit 
Squadron) or the Sword Worlds (as detailed in a JTAS article), or both.

What I find hard to believe is why anyone would send thousands of people on 
such a long expensive trip so far away.  What could they see 400 ly (or 
however many ly) away that demanded they undertake such a vast colonization 
effort with such a high risk and cost?  Why not a target significantly 
closer?  Or did they just pack the colonists on the ship and spin the 
bottle, pointing them in a random direction and they decided to stop 400 ly 
away just for kicks?

Obviously, the trip was written into Traveller history to explain the 
cultures/histories of the Islands Cluster/Sword Worlds, and it makes sense 
from that angle, but not from the point of view of the ESA at the time of 
the launch.

Armand

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 11:30:47 -0500
From: jpb@miamisci.org (Joe Block)
Subject: Re: Starship Construction

In article <199612301900.NAA07365@longbeach.goldinc.com>, Paul Walker
<tiger@goldinc.com> wrote:

> Hiya everyone. :)
> 
> I have been fine tuning my rules for calculating starship construction times
> and I have some numbers to throw at you to see what you think.  Here are the
> numbers for the ships in the main rulebook of T4.
[table deleted]

Hmm.  Wasn't the record for a Liberty Ship in WWII under a week?  I can't
recall the exact tonnage, but since it was a freighter I'd assume its
towards 5000 tons.

Joe Block <jpb@miamisci.org>

Treat the media like any other watchdog.  Feed it, pet it occasionally, but
never turn your back on it.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 12:54:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: 21st Century History

Hi.

> From: Armand Suarez <suarez@on.rim.or.jp>

> What I find hard to believe is why anyone would send thousands of people on 
> such a long expensive trip so far away.  What could they see 400 ly (or 
> however many ly) away that demanded they undertake such a vast colonization 
> effort with such a high risk and cost?  Why not a target significantly 
> closer?  Or did they just pack the colonists on the ship and spin the 
> bottle, pointing them in a random direction and they decided to stop 400 ly 
> away just for kicks?

I seem to recall that these people were refugees, war criminals,
dispised minorities, or something. They were trying to go where no-one
would EVER follow. At least not for a long long time.

- -Rob

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 96 18:03 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: JTAS subscriptions (possible relationship)

In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.961229135040.26683B-100000@connect.iconnect.net>

<< I really don't think IG's on the ragged road to disaster.  They've had 
problems, and they have dealt with them.  They will undoubtedly continue 
to have problems; the key is in not making the same mistake twice.  As 
long as they continually improve their processes, I'll be upbeat about 
Traveller's future. >>

They're not on the road *yet*, but they're close. If they get back on 
schedule (or make it more realistic), and keep the typos out, and bring the 
prices down a little, and get someone who can draw to do the deckplans, and 
stop trying to screw extra money out of us, then they should be okay.

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 13:48:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Why the Vilani lost

Hi.

Over a week ago, I compared the Terran conquest of the Ziru Sirka to the
Spanish conquest of the Aztecs. Over a week ago, Phil responded:

> From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>

> Spanish and Aztecs are probably not as good an example because of the huge
> difference in tech levels. One culture simply destroyed the other because
> it was so much better.

I'm not so sure that tech-level made such a huge difference. Sure, the
Spanish had some pretty great armor, but they were outnumbered by
thousands to one; their armor wouldn't have amounted to squat if the
Aztec empire wasn't "ready" to fall. Their firearms were noisy and
scary, but not much more effective than bows for fighting unarmed men.
In fact, one could argue they were /less/ effective than bows because of
their much lower ROF. If the Aztecs had been less intimidated by
weirdos, these firearms would not have been so important.

At the risk of sounding very politically incorrect, I will agree with
you that one culture conquered (not "destroyed") another because it was
so much better, but I don't think it was the technology that made it
better. I think that the Aztecs simply prefered Spanish culture to their
own, in some cases at least. In those cases where the Spanish were
deemed inferior by the Aztecs (cooking, textiles, agriculture), the
Aztec culture has endured to this day. But in the case of politics, I
suspect most Aztecs prefered to be Spanish peasants than Aztec slaves.
In the case of religion, most Aztecs prefered to offer sacrifice than be
offered up as sacrifice. And in the case of language, most Aztecs
prefered the Spanish printing press to their own ideograms. (Those
Aztecs who were illiterate kept their old language to this day.) And of
course, the technology was nice too, but it didn't affect most people in
those days.

> Of course, the Aztecs didn't have a clue what sort of "war" the Spanish
> were fighting - they were more used to their own more or less ritual
> "flower wars" for sacrifices and didn't really cotton on till too late that
> the Spanish had a different aim completely.

That may be true of the Aztec nobility, but I suspect the huge army of
Aztec slaves who marched with the Spaniards had some idea of what was
going on.

I suspect the same of the Vilani. Their leaders where clearly clueless
and confused, as you have pointed out. Their lower castes where at best
indifferent as to who ruled over them; that indifference being a trait
bred into them by an overbearing nobility. Those that were not
indifferent were probably chasing their own interests, working for their
relative "freedom" with the Terrans, or collaborating with the corrupt
upper castes against their own neighbors. The Vilani lost, and I think
the loss was a case of one culture conquering another because it was
so much better.

The irony is, after a few centuries, the new culture stops looking so
much better to some people 8^).

And, of course, Cortez, the emperor of Mexico, ultimately submitted to
his own government. Estigaribia, the emperor of Vland, did not.

- -Rob

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:29:01 -0500
From: TPeterAZ@aol.com
Subject: Re: Tuglikki Sector Data

Sorry, I hate "me too" posts, but I have a similar question:  Where can I
find sector data for the Gvurrdon Sector (any era)?  I have library data for
it (I think from the MO Archive), but I'm looking for UWPs, especially for
Uthe, Firgr and subsectors K & L.  Just started playing the Traveller
Adventure, and was curious what that part of space "looked like".   Thanks in
advance.

Tim Peter
<TPeterAZ@aol.com>
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, Ignorance."--- Socrates

P.S.  Oh, and a very Happy New Year, everyone.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 19:34:06 -0800
From: Neil Simpson <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: tonight

Happy New Year!

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 14:32:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Joseph Heck <ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu>
Subject: Re: Tuglikki Sector Data

TPeterAZ@aol.com said:
> Sorry, I hate "me too" posts, but I have a similar question:  Where can I
> find sector data for the Gvurrdon Sector (any era)?  I have library data for
> it (I think from the MO Archive), but I'm looking for UWPs, especially for
> Uthe, Firgr and subsectors K & L.  Just started playing the Traveller
> Adventure, and was curious what that part of space "looked like".   Thanks in
> advance.

I don't have Gvurrdon sector data, but I did find a lot of my old
archives from the DGP stuff...

http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe/traveller/archive/General/sector.dgp/

- -- 
 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: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:45:27 -0500
From: James Garriss <jpg@langley.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace/Refueling/Marines

At 10:31 AM 12/26/96 -0600, you wrote:
>Brian Borich wrote:
>
>>       As an aside. Several old JTAS articles are now currently available on
>> my web site. And with some luck lots more should be appearing.
>
>The Marc Miller article is the famous exposition on jumpspace, so those of
>you who were asking all those questions about it in the last few weeks may
>want to have a look.  
>
>  http://members.aol.com/kagekiha/traveller/jumpspace.htm

I tried this URL and got a "not found." Got an updated URL?


 James Garriss                   http://www.cs.odu.edu/~garriss   
 Systems Engineer, MITRE                  jpg@langley.mitre.org
       "If someone with multiple personalities threatens to 
       kill himself, is it considered a hostage situation?"
                          Stephen Wright

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 15:28:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@cs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: 21st Century History

shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) wrote:

> > -2471  2050   ESA Longrange expedition leaves Solar system; begins to 
> >               accelerate to twenty percent of lightspeed.  Considered
> >               the most ambitious of several large STL colony missions 
> >               launched before the development of jump drive.  (Three
> >               ships, three hundred thousand colonists, and a projected
> >               2000 year flight.) 
>
> Just where the heck were they *going*? 20% of c * 2000 years = 400
> light years!

This is the other end of the Islands Cluster colonization mission; they
end up at New Home, Neubayern, and Amondiage in the Old Islands subsector
of Reft.  They actually take about 2500 years and go almost exactly 500
light years, at a bit higher speed.  The flight is about 50 years shorter
subjectively due to relativistic effects.  They arrive at about the same
time Cleon is preparing to declare the Third Imperium on Sylea.

I have no proof, but I think this was a hedge against human extinction on
the Terrans' part, in case of some disaster near Terra.  I suspect that
most Terran STL missions went to Alpha Centauri, due to the fact that they
found habitable worlds there immediately.  We know that none reached the
habitable worlds at Tau Ceti or Epsilon Eridani before 2099, or they would
have run into the Vilani in those systems.  The "2000 year" figure is 
directly from TCS; this might be silly rounding, or might be the ESA fibbing
a bit to hide the final destination of the Terran insurance policy, just
in case.  

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>

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

Date: 31 Dec 1996 21:46:58 -0000
From: "Paul Zumstein" <pzum@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Construction

Paul Walker wrote

>Hiya everyone. :)
>
>I have been fine tuning my rules for calculating starship construction times
>and I have some numbers to throw at you to see what you think.  Here are the
>numbers for the ships in the main rulebook of T4.
>
>     Ship          Disp Tons   Maximum Workers    Construction Time (Months)
>Ship's Boat           30           55               3.12
>Launch                20           45              10.56

The time for the launch seems high, misplaced decimal?

>Patrol Cruiser       200          141              53.40  (4 yrs, 5.40 mos)
>Scout                100          100               7.56
>Shuttle              100          100               4.92
>Free-Trader          200          141               6.29
>Merc Cruiser         800          283              28.80  (2 yrs, 4.80 mos)
>Safari Ship          200          141               7.68
>Far Trader           200          141               7.08
>Lab Ship             400          200              21.72  (1 yrs, 9.72 mos)
>Gig                   20           45               5.88
>
>OK, there are the figures.  Lemme clarify a few things first...
>
>The construction time listed includes the entire time from beginning
>construction to delivery, but it assumes the vessel has already been designed.
>
>Maximum Workers is the approximate maximum number of workers that can work
>on the vessel at one time.
>
>The above times assume a shipyard working 8 hour days and 6 day weeks, that
>is working on the vessel 48 hours out of every 168.  It also assumes that
>the maximum number of workers allowed are working on the ship that entire
>time.  Finally it assumes 52 weeks per year.
>
>OK, now, I'll return to lurk mode for a while and watch the responses to see
>how believable my system is. :)  Please let me know. :)
>
>

The military ships and lab ship have numbers that are a bit high.  What do
these ships have in common that is causing the increase?

PZ


- ---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
- ---------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:13:14 +0000
From: Mused <marz@hotstar.net>
Subject: gone

I was gone from Dec 27 to Dec 30, what did I miss?

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:23:28 +0000
From: Mused <marz@hotstar.net>
Subject: Re: Why the Vilani lost

Robert Flammang wrote:
> I'm not so sure that tech-level made such a huge difference. Sure, the
> Spanish had some pretty great armor, but they were outnumbered by
> thousands to one; their armor wouldn't have amounted to squat if the
> Aztec empire wasn't "ready" to fall. Their firearms were noisy and
> scary, but not much more effective than bows for fighting unarmed men.
> In fact, one could argue they were /less/ effective than bows because of
> their much lower ROF.

Actually, the Spanish preferred (and used) crossbows in the damp climate of the region
and the Aztecs (properly Mexica) preferred slings to bows. The spanish actually feared the 
aztec slingers

> > Of course, the Aztecs didn't have a clue what sort of "war" the Spanish
> > were fighting - they were more used to their own more or less ritual
> > "flower wars" for sacrifices and didn't really cotton on till too late that
> > the Spanish had a different aim completely.
> 
> That may be true of the Aztec nobility, but I suspect the huge army of
> Aztec slaves who marched with the Spaniards had some idea of what was
> going on.

Actually, the slaves were not used for war. Everyone in the military was a conscript who 
was promoted on the basis of prisoners captured. The aztecs had actually captured Cortes 
twice during one battle, but because they tried to drag him to the sacrificial altar, he was 
rescued. It was not til the final battles that the aztecs began to fight war european style (ie to 
the death, no prisoners unless necessary)
The "aztec prisoners" you speak of were more likely citizens of tlaxcalla (sp?) and other 
former vassal cities of the aztecs who had decided to change sides

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

Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:25:03 +0000
From: Mused <marz@hotstar.net>
Subject: Re: Tuglikki Sector Data

TPeterAZ@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I hate "me too" posts, but I have a similar question:  Where can I
> find sector data for the Gvurrdon Sector (any era)?  I have library data for
> it (I think from the MO Archive), but I'm looking for UWPs, especially for
> Uthe, Firgr and subsectors K & L.  Just started playing the Traveller
> Adventure, and was curious what that part of space "looked like".   Thanks in
> advance.

There is a major whack of stuff, but like a fool, I cannot remember where, but the whole 
sector's stats as well as high population worlds names, is in Alien Module 3, Vargr

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #801
**********************************
