Traveller-digest     Wednesday, August 25 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1013



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

RE: Streamlining
Re: Plankwell
RE: Streamlining
RE: Shirt Pictures 
RE: Plankwell
re: Streamlining
Re: I Need Some Radiation
re: Streamlining
Re: GT Weapons Question
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
The Generals  (was Re: Hudson-class Lander (GTL9))
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Orion Drive Modules
Re: GT Weapons Question
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Help Finding Back Issues of Challenge Mag
Re: Long Range Scouts
Re: Oops 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:37:05 +0100
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Streamlining

At 10:11 25/08/1999 -0400, Kurt Feltenberger wrote:

>I always figured that it could be done if enough time was allotted to the 
>process.  Even in Adv 7, Broadsword, it has the Broadsword "grounded" at 
>the starport.

Isn't Broadsword one of those partially streamlined designs that can skim
fuel from a gas giant?

Phil
- --
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 03:44:01 +1200
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
Subject: Re: Plankwell

On 24 Aug 99, at 23:18, Legate Legion wrote:

> From: Jesse DeGraff <fenris@slip.net>
> Subject: RE: Plankwell
> 
> 
> >I happen to have fighting ships :)  One thing that concerns me about the
> >design of the Plankwell is the VERY short tunnel for the spinal mount.
> >Would that work???  Anyway, it's a pretty simple design to model.  Maybe
> >when I've got a few spare minutes...
> >
> >Jesse
> 
> 
>     Well, Jesse, it is from High Guard, & you know what Kevin says, don't
> you?  "There is only one Traveller & High Guard is its product."

Does the Plankwell have a PAW, or a Meson gun? Up to FF&S1 a 
Meson Gun's performance was volume, not length dependant (I 
don't know about T4 or GT).

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:43:36 -0400
From: Kurt Feltenberger <kurt@blazenet.net>
Subject: RE: Streamlining

At 04:37 PM 08/25/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>At 10:11 25/08/1999 -0400, Kurt Feltenberger wrote:
>
> >I always figured that it could be done if enough time was allotted to the
> >process.  Even in Adv 7, Broadsword, it has the Broadsword "grounded" at
> >the starport.
>
>Isn't Broadsword one of those partially streamlined designs that can skim
>fuel from a gas giant?

It can skim, but according to the hull form (and book 2) it was unable to 
land on a planet.

Kurt Feltenberger

"To our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations,
    may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!"
      ~Stephen Decatur


mailto:kurt@blazenet.net

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:07:53 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: Shirt Pictures 

ROFL!!
Jesse



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Keven R.
> Pittsinger
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 9:52 PM
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: Re: Shirt Pictures 
> 
> 
> > > > I see her at 6 months burning ants with a magnifying glass that has
> > > > crosshairs and a gun-stock.
> > > 
> > > You didn't see the 10Mj puls laser she used to feed the 
> > > magnifying glass???
> > 
> > SSSSSSPPPPRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!
> > Ok, THERE went the beer!!!!
> > 
> > Yer killin' me Keven!
> 
> That's the plan.  Beatings will continue until morale improves.
> 
> Keven
> 
> -- 
> tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
>                                                      
> Science-Fiction Adventure
>                                                      In Reavers' Deep
> 
> 
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:08:24 -0700
From: "Jesse DeGraff" <fenris@slip.net>
Subject: RE: Plankwell

Yup.
Jesse




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Legate
> Legion
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 1999 11:18 PM
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
> Subject: Re: Plankwell
> 
> 
> From: Jesse DeGraff <fenris@slip.net>
> Subject: RE: Plankwell
> 
> 
> >I happen to have fighting ships :)  One thing that concerns me about the
> >design of the Plankwell is the VERY short tunnel for the spinal mount.
> >Would that work???  Anyway, it's a pretty simple design to model.  Maybe
> >when I've got a few spare minutes...
> >
> >Jesse
> 
> 
>     Well, Jesse, it is from High Guard, & you know what Kevin says, don't
> you?  "There is only one Traveller & High Guard is its product."
> 
> Legate Legion
> ICQ # 8973001
> legate@futureone.com
> http://www.futureone.com/~legate/index.htm
> 
> "A man may fight for many things; his country, his principles, 
> his friends,
> the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd
> mudwrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock, and 
> a stack of
> French porn." - Edmund Blackadder
> 
> 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 11:48:16 -0400
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU>
Subject: re: Streamlining

Kurt Feltenberger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>Isn't Broadsword one of those partially streamlined designs that can skim
>fuel from a gas giant?

It can skim, but according to the hull form (and book 2) it was unable to 
land on a planet.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Can't land *in atmosphere*. It's OK on any planet with atmosphere 0 (none)
or 1 (trace). Look at the ship plans in the Broadsword adventure, this ship 
has elevators in the legs and doors in the feet - this ship is made to land
on those airless rockball moons where corporations like to have their
armed trade disagreements.

Walt Smith

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:50:24 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: I Need Some Radiation

> From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>

>         This one is, I think, entirely your call ... at least until Glenn
> makes a better report on his sighting near Area 51 and we find out
> just what thruster plates are. Blue light, by itself, isn't a
> penetrating radiation hazard. It may be bright enough to burn through
> a faceplate, or even fry. What other radiation accompanies it is up
> to you.

We weren't carrying equipment to measure radiation, but none of us have
suffered any of the typical symptoms of radiation exposure (hair loss,
vomiting, burns).  The guy who got the closest to the unidentified items
was probably in the best health before, during, and after the trip (and
was also the youngest (24) and in best physical condition).

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:00:02 -0400
From: Kurt Feltenberger <kurt@blazenet.net>
Subject: re: Streamlining

At 11:48 AM 08/25/1999 -0400, you wrote:
>Kurt Feltenberger wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >Isn't Broadsword one of those partially streamlined designs that can skim
> >fuel from a gas giant?
>
>It can skim, but according to the hull form (and book 2) it was unable to
>land on a planet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>Can't land *in atmosphere*. It's OK on any planet with atmosphere 0 (none)
>or 1 (trace). Look at the ship plans in the Broadsword adventure, this ship
>has elevators in the legs and doors in the feet - this ship is made to land
>on those airless rockball moons where corporations like to have their
>armed trade disagreements.

As the illustration shows in Adv. 7.  But, Garda-Villis, IIRC, has a 
breathable atmosphere and Broadsword was mentioned to be grounded at the 
starport.

Kurt Feltenberger

"To our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations,
    may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!"
      ~Stephen Decatur


mailto:kurt@blazenet.net

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: GT Weapons Question

Phil Kitching writes:

> Um, kW is power, kJ is energy (equivalent to kWs).
> 
> HOLD ON!
> 
> J = Joules. That's a metric unit!
> 
> Shouldn't GURPS do this calculation in horsepower or therms?

Why should it?  Americans mix terms all the time.  Volts, Watts, and Amperes
are all metric units, and used in this country.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:25:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

Leonard Erickson writes:
> > No, its much too heavy for that.  Your average 200-ton unstreamlined ship
> >  has a terminal velocity in air of somewhere around 700 mph, a typical
> > heavy  wind (say, 35 mph) will accelerate it at .002 Gs or so.  Assuming
> > the ship  can turn moderately quickly, this is flatly ignorable.
> 
> Oh? I suggest you ask the skipper of a supertanker about how
> "ignorable" the way off center "sail" area of his superstructure is.
> Luckily, it's at the *tail* of the vessel, so it helps keep the ship
> pointed into the wind. It's a royal pain if you *don't* want the ship
> pointed into the wind. And this is with much of the ship immersed in a
> medium (water) that helps *damp* the effects.

That's ok.  The supertanker has only a few percent of the available power of a
starship.

> 
> Remember that a "200 ton" ship is 200 *displacement* tons. It doesn't
> *mass* 200 tons. 

Right, it typically masses 1-2 thousand tons, depending on design sequence.
> 
> The force exerted by the wind is:
> 
> P = 0.5 D V^2 cos^2 A,
> 
> P = Pressure, N/m^2 (multiply by 0.000146 for psi)
> D = Density, kg/m^3 (=1.225 for sea-level air on Earth)
> V = Velocity, m/s (multiply by 2.24 for miles per hour)
> A = Angle from perpendicular
> 
> So, let's try perpendicular impact at 35 mph, in sea-level air.
> 
> P = 0.5*1.225*2.24*35
> P =  48.02
> 
> That's 48 newtons per square meter. Assume the ship has 100 meters of
> cross sectional area in the plane of the wind (it likely has *more*).
> That gives 4800 newtons of thrust. 
> 
> Assuming the ship really *does* weigh 200 tons...
> 
> F = m*A
> 4800 = 200,000*A
> A = 0.024
> 
> That's 10 *times* the thrust you guessed. And if the ship has a cross
> sectional area of 1000 m^3, the thrust is 0.24.

Actually, its the same as the thrust I guessed.  I just assumed a 200 t ship
weight 2,000 tons.

> 
> And the important part is that the thrust is *off center*. It imparts a
> *turning* moment to the ship. 
> 
> >> Engine thrust is fixed with respect to the hull. And any "deflections"
> >> are figure with respect to the hull, not with respect to the outside
> >> world. 
> >
> > Given that ships can turn, this simply isn't true.  Manuevering thrusters
> >  are plenty to overcome wind effects.
> 
> No, it *is* true. Manuevering thrusters *can* turn the ship. But the
> main drive thrust is fixed. There's no real advantage in making the
> main drive "steerable" that way, and lots of disadvantages. 

If ships are capable of evasive action, there's a damn good point to making
the main thrusters steerable in exactly this way; even a 5 degree slew would
be enough.

> 
> And I *wouldn't* count on thrusters intended for changing heading in
> vacuum being able to overcome any sort of significant wind forces in an
> atmosphere. 
> 
> As I recall, we worked out some time ago that a ship didn't need to be
> able to use even .1 g for manuevering thrusters. They'd actually whip
> the ship around so fast that it could *cause* problems. 
> 
> But it won't take a lot of wind to generate more force than the
> manuevering thrusters. 
> 
> >> Heck, look at hot air ballons. They are streamlined (really!) and move
> >> slowly. And even then, sudden updrafts and downdrafts are a danger. 
> >
> > They're also 3 orders of magnitude lower density than a spaceship.
> 
> Your ship on CG is *just* as light as a hot air ballon. :-)

So?  Weight is irrelevant, momentum is what matters.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:18:03 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <gmgoffin@pacbell.net>
Subject: The Generals  (was Re: Hudson-class Lander (GTL9))

> From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>

I wrote:

> >und die Generale
> >na, gerade die!

you wrote:
 
> Hm, I was thinking of  the Oster Band's song:
> 
> The generals are born again

I think our references are both very obscure, at least to one another. 
Now I'm reminded of The Night of the Generals (by Hans Helmut Kirst, I
think), in which a German intelligence officer tries to figure out which
general raped, mutilated, and murdered a French woman during the
occupation.  Apparently three visited her on the same night.  The
intelligence officer is Inspector Grau, who has appeared as an NPC in my
Traveller universe from time to time.

- --Glenn

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:31:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

Leonard Erickson writes:
> > Actually, if a drive has an exhaust velocity of less than Isp*9.8 
> > meters/second, it violates conservation of momentum and is just as bad as
> > a  reactionless thruster.  My personal favorite is total conversion
> > thrusters,  where the majority of the energy is assumed to escape in some
> > invisible way. 
> 
> Actually, such a drive is flat out impossible because Isp is *defined*
> as exhaust velocity times 9.8 m/s^2. 

Well, its only impossible if its really a reaction drive.  Thus 'violates conservation of momentum'.
> 
> But I'm sure there are dodges that can be used. The one I'd look into
> is similar to the stunt they do with jet engines in some applications.
> "High bypass turbofans" for example. 
> 
> Have a "shroud" around the HEPlaR unit. The exhaust of the HEPlaR, even
> at *really* low power will create a partial vacuum behind the shroud.
> This wil suck air into the shroud and out the back. This provides a lot
> of extra thrust without increase full needs to much. And it provides a
> "sheath" of air around the HEPlaR exhaust. 

Actually, it will superheat the air, creating in effect a fusion-powered jet
effect.  That _would_ work, though it would require somewhat special design
for the drives.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:31:05 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Orion Drive Modules

Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>> An interesting description of an Orion drive was in "Footfall" and then one
>>> was shown in "Deep Impact".
>>
>>Or, for a less spectacular (non-nuclear) variant, there's the
>>explosive-shell craft in _King David's Spaceship_.
>
>Hm. Could one of our friendly neighbourhood physists provide some
>calculations for this, in terms of (say) kilos of TNT. Might be fun to whip
>up a few designs.

I haven't read KDS; if it tries to use explosives it carries
up with itself, then the specific impulse is lousy.  TNT has Isp(vacc)
of around 190 or so; good non-hydrogen (LOX/Kerosene, Tetroxide/Hydrazine)
liquid fuel engines get up to 340, good 'conventional' solids get up
to 310 or so, and hydrogen/oxygen burners get up to 460.

You can get a pretty good tankage fraction out of an explosive kick
vehicle as the explosives are solid and don't need a tank (just some
sort of aeroshell, mostly).  Getting to a mass ratio of 10 might be
practical, which would get you around 4,300 m/s.  I don't know what
orbital velocity was on the KDS world, but that's not enough for
most habitable planets...


- -george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:57:14 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: GT Weapons Question

At 10:11 AM 8/25/99 +0100, you wrote:
>At 02:23 25/08/1999 -0400, Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu> wrote:
> >IMHO, the way the formulas are presented in VE2 are a bit confusing.  Look
> >at it this way:  a 1000kJ laser has an EPS (energy per shot) of
> >1000*2.666=2666kJs.  Remember, kJ is power, but kJs is energy, which is
> >what a battery stores.  So, to fire this gun once, it takes 2666kJs.
>
>Um, kW is power, kJ is energy (equivalent to kWs).

Err... Oops... you are right... how embarrassing... the rest of it holds 
true though....


>HOLD ON!
>
>J = Joules. That's a metric unit!
>
>Shouldn't GURPS do this calculation in horsepower or therms?

That's always confused me, too....

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 13:02:23 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

At 12:44 AM 8/25/99 -0800, you wrote:
>In mail you write:
>
> > Leonard Erickson writes:
> >
> >> The problem is *wind*. USL is "unstable" in a wind. I won't go into
> >> details, just note that the wind forces act thru a point *other* than
> >> the center of mass. And where the point is depends on the angle. Thus,
> >> in the presence of even a *light* wind, the vehicle will tumble
> >> wildly.
> >
> > No, its much too heavy for that.  Your average 200-ton unstreamlined ship
> > has a terminal velocity in air of somewhere around 700 mph, a typical 
> heavy
> > wind (say, 35 mph) will accelerate it at .002 Gs or so.  Assuming the ship
> > can turn moderately quickly, this is flatly ignorable.
>
>Oh? I suggest you ask the skipper of a supertanker about how
>"ignorable" the way off center "sail" area of his superstructure is.
>Luckily, it's at the *tail* of the vessel, so it helps keep the ship
>pointed into the wind. It's a royal pain if you *don't* want the ship
>pointed into the wind. And this is with much of the ship immersed in a
>medium (water) that helps *damp* the effects.
>
>Remember that a "200 ton" ship is 200 *displacement* tons. It doesn't
>*mass* 200 tons.
>
>The force exerted by the wind is:
>
>P = 0.5 D V^2 cos^2 A,
>
>P = Pressure, N/m^2 (multiply by 0.000146 for psi)
>D = Density, kg/m^3 (=1.225 for sea-level air on Earth)
>V = Velocity, m/s (multiply by 2.24 for miles per hour)
>A = Angle from perpendicular
>
>So, let's try perpendicular impact at 35 mph, in sea-level air.
>
>P = 0.5*1.225*2.24*35
>P =  48.02
>
>That's 48 newtons per square meter. Assume the ship has 100 meters of
>cross sectional area in the plane of the wind (it likely has *more*).
>That gives 4800 newtons of thrust.
>
>Assuming the ship really *does* weigh 200 tons...

>F = m*A
>4800 = 200,000*A
>A = 0.024
>
>That's 10 *times* the thrust you guessed. And if the ship has a cross
>sectional area of 1000 m^3, the thrust is 0.24.

Err... the ship weighs a _lot_ more than a 200 tons.  so the acceleration 
is even less... but even if it did weight 200 tons, .024m/s2 is only .002G, 
nothing compared to the multi-G drives of Traveller ships.  Remember that 
the supertanker can do much, much less than a G of acceleration...

Again, it comes down to how strong the attitude jets are...



>And the important part is that the thrust is *off center*. It imparts a
>*turning* moment to the ship.
>
> >> Engine thrust is fixed with respect to the hull. And any "deflections"
> >> are figure with respect to the hull, not with respect to the outside
> >> world.
> >
> > Given that ships can turn, this simply isn't true.  Manuevering thrusters
> > are plenty to overcome wind effects.
>
>No, it *is* true. Manuevering thrusters *can* turn the ship. But the
>main drive thrust is fixed. There's no real advantage in making the
>main drive "steerable" that way, and lots of disadvantages.
>
>And I *wouldn't* count on thrusters intended for changing heading in
>vacuum being able to overcome any sort of significant wind forces in an
>atmosphere.
>
>As I recall, we worked out some time ago that a ship didn't need to be
>able to use even .1 g for manuevering thrusters. They'd actually whip
>the ship around so fast that it could *cause* problems.
>
>But it won't take a lot of wind to generate more force than the
>manuevering thrusters.
>
> >> Heck, look at hot air ballons. They are streamlined (really!) and move
> >> slowly. And even then, sudden updrafts and downdrafts are a danger.
> >
> > They're also 3 orders of magnitude lower density than a spaceship.
>
>Your ship on CG is *just* as light as a hot air ballon. :-)
>
>--
>Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
>  shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
>leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort


           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)

- --
jg42@cornell.edu        "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will
                          defend to the death your right to say it."
                                              -- Francois Marie Voltaire
#include <disclaimer.h> "Imagination is more important than knowledge"
                          			     -- Albert Einstein
for PGP public-key and
more quotes, finger: jg42@gerfalcon.tzo.com
WWW Page: http://www.cadif.cornell.edu/~falcon/                

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:08:58 -0900
From: Peter Newman <pnewman@gci.net>
Subject: Re: Help Finding Back Issues of Challenge Mag

Alex Ingram <ingram@airmail.net> wrote

> Does any one know the best places to go to buy back issues of Challenge
> Magazines or for that matter any MT, TNE and T4  books, adventures, etc.

The game store I work for, Bosco's, has most of the
later (50+) issues of Challenge in near mint at
original retail.  Send an email listing which issues
you are looking for to us at
	mailorders@boscos.com
and we will let you know.  We also have a fair selection
of other Traveller products, let us know what else you are
looking for.  We ship worldwide.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 17:56:07 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Long Range Scouts

"Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk> writes:
>>>I haven't seen a truly LONG range scout yet.  Jump-6 with a long endurance.
>>>The ones in CT are Jump-4.  The Book 2 rules allow for a Jump-6 100dT scout,
>>>but none of the later rules make it possible.  Perhaps one with a new
>>>silhouette?
>>It's doable under MT...
>It's also doable under FFS.

It's just doable with GT (ie you don't get scoops or a fuel processor
unless you slow it to 1G).

S-XL Class-class Long Range Scout (GTL12)
Designed by Dom Mooney

This starship was designed using the rules in GURPS Traveller
Ship Description
Crew: pilot

100-ton SL Hull, DR 100, PD 4, Basic stealth, Basic emission cloaking,
Hardened Bridge, Engineering, 4 Maneuver, 7 Jump, 60 Fuel, Stateroom, 1
Utility, 0.5 cargo

Communicators: Radio 3 million km, Laser 6 million km, Meson 0.01 million km
Sensors: PESA 48000 km, AESA 240000 km, Radscanner 3200 km

Statistics: EMass 160.4 tonnes, LMass 162.7 tonnes, Cost MCr 39.3, HP 15000
Performance:
Accel 2.2 G (2.3 G empty, 2.1 G overloaded), Jump 6, Air Speed 2771 km/h


Design Spreadsheet

STRUCTURE                         Spaces      Mass      Cost      Area
Crew
100-ton streamlined hull          (80.0)       4.5       1.2     929.0
0.0
Airtight sealing                     0.0       0.0       0.1       0.0
0.0
Armour: DR100, PD4                   0.0      18.1       0.2       0.0
0.0
Basic stealth                        0.0       2.3       0.8       0.0
0.0
Basic emission cloaking              0.0       2.3       0.8       0.0
0.0
DRIVE MODULES                     Spaces      Mass      Cost      Area
Crew
Engineering module                   1.0       3.4       0.2       0.0
0.0
Jump drive (6 parsecs)               7.0      25.4      21.4       0.0
0.1
Jump tanks                          60.0      70.7       9.6       0.0
0.0
Reactionless thruster (2.2G)         4.0      14.5       1.2       0.0
0.0
WORKSPACE MODULES                 Spaces      Mass      Cost      Area
Crew
Hardened Bridge                      2.5       7.0       3.7       0.0
1.0
1 utility module                     1.0      10.4       0.3       0.0
0.0
Hold                                 0.5       0.0       0.0       0.0
0.0
ACCOMMODATION MODULES             Spaces      Mass      Cost      Area
Crew
stateroom                            4.0       1.8       0.0       0.0
0.0
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS               Spaces      Mass      Cost      Area
Crew
Fuel                              (60.0)       0.0       0.0       0.0
0.0
Cargo                              (0.5)     (2.3)       0.0       0.0
0.0
TOTALS                            Spaces      Mass      Cost      Area
Crew
Fully loaded & fitted out           80.0     162.7      39.3     929.0
1.0
Unloaded with skeleton crew         80.0     160.4      39.3     929.0
1.0

(Designed with GT Shipyard: GURPS Traveller's Starship Design Software.
Copyright Robert Prior, 1998)


- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 18:03:55 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Oops 

"Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com> writes:

>> I apologize for the duplicate messages, my site just went from
>> an OpenVMS Mail server to a Microsoft Exchange mail server,
>> there appear to be a few bugs left to work out.
>That's what they get for using WindowsNT.
>And people wonder why we call it 'Windows *NOT TODAY*'!!!!!

And Windows 2000 will be Windows Oh-Oh! ;-)

Don't mention NT please - it gave me some specific problems writing/editing
101 Patrons...

Dom

- ----------Dom Mooney---dom@cybergoths.u-net.com------------
                       MiB - Marines in Battledress
   "Protecting the Imperium from the Scum of the Galaxy"
Rob Prior's Mac software @ http://www.bits.org.uk/ 

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1013
***********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.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".

Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
