Traveller-digest     Thursday, August 26 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1019



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: USL ships landing (was Thrust effects)
Re: X-TEK vs. X-tech Maximus
Starship Deckplans
Hawg-stupid mercenaries (Was: Ethically challenged merchants)
re: Hawg-stupid mercenaries
Re: Ethically challenged merchants
Re: X-TEK vs. X-tech Maximus
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
RE: Streamlining
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
Re: 101 Starships
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Oops 
Re: Will the real Strephon..... 
Re: [BITS] The Famille have arrived 
Re: 101 Starships
RE: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.
re Missing Fleets of the 
Re: 101 Starships

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 02:20:45 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: USL ships landing (was Thrust effects)

In mail you write:

> One of the things that came up last time we debated this topic (it was
> _mostly_ pretty civil :-) was that in CT it mentions somewhere that USL
> ships can land on worlds with no atmosphere.  They therefore must have the
> landing gear and bracing to do this.

Sure. It's the *atmosphere* that's the problem. :-)

BTW, I just realized another "yipes!" effect that I don't think has
been mentioned in this or any previous discussion.

The mere act of passing thru the air, even at a low speed, can cause
several interesting effects. One is that suspended, supercooled water
droplets deposit on the hull as ice. *Heavy* deposits can build up
rather quickly. Far *too* quickly for the "ease the ship down slowly"
folks. 

A 200 ton ship has a *minimum* surface area of 937 m^2. Call it 1000
m^2. 1000 m^2 of area with a 1 mm thick coating of ice is an extra
*ton* of mass.

But most ships *aren't* spheres. So they'll *easily* have 10-100 times
as much surface area. Which gives us 10-100 tons *mass* of extra load
for every mm of ice. 

Oh yeah, it will melt from the radiators. And maybe re-freeze
elsewhere? :-)

BTW, were the ship's radiators atmosphere rated? Or will they catch
fire upon exposure to high levels of oxygen? Remember, those puppies
are *hot*. :-)

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 06:48:13 -0500
From: "shadowcat" <meow@advancenet.net>
Subject: Re: X-TEK vs. X-tech Maximus

Check the X-Tek website
X-Tek and Maximus have actually joined forces on this venture
this took place months ago real time

Shadowcat AKA Kevin Walsh
Captain of the Free Trader Beowulf
ADD/ADHD Advocate
http://www.advancenet.net/~meow

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:12:29 -0400
From: "Clark, William" <Clark@bessemer.com>
Subject: Starship Deckplans

Hello all,

	I received this message from the Campaign Cartographer 2 mailing
list.  For people doing deck plans, it might be of interest, especially
number 5.

Bill Clark
- -------------
clark@bessemer.com



>This is a request for symbols wish lists. A few ideas so far:
>
>1) A new set of ancient map symbols based on John Speed's maps
>2) Modern furniture, floorpplan symbols
>3) Wargame symbols (standard NATO symbols and possibly silhouettes)
>4) Hex versions of existing symbols
>5) More detailed starship deckplans. Marc Miller has asked us to do a set
of
>symbols, so if anyone has source material for these, or suggestions, we'd
be
>grateful)
>6) Skirmish symbols including top-down views of monsters, humanoids,
>vehicles, trees, rocks, etc. for close ups of battle sites or explored
>areas.
>7) Front-on views of monsters etc which could also be used to create
>counters.
>
>Suggestions for other catalogs, or specific examples within these catalogs
>would be welcome.
>--
>Simon Rogers
>Managing Director, ProFantasy Software Ltd
>http://www.profantasy.com
>
>
>
>***************************************************************************
>Visit the CC2 authors: http://www.profantasy.com/
>For sample maps/macros/symbols, message archives and related software:
>http://vweb02.onramp.net/~mikew/dnd/cc-l-files/
>To unsubscribe email majordomo@onramp.net with message body of
>"unsubscribe cc-l" to signup for digest "subscribe cc-l-digest"
>***************************************************************************

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:26:51 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Hawg-stupid mercenaries (Was: Ethically challenged merchants)

Ah, well... I've been trying to stay out of this round of the discussion,
but surely one little posting won't harm me. I can quit whenever I want...

"Benyamene' ZeAbe' Akella" writes:

> ...I see piracy mainly as a crime of opportunity, not a career choice.
> 
>A mercenary company heads out to Jump point after completing their
>assignment on a TL8 world. Coming in is a Fartrader with light armament (to
>the Merc. POV), and somehow the Merc. Captain determines the cargo as
>valuable. Extremely. No Naval vessels nearby. Out of range of the sensors of
>the primary world.

IIRC being out of sensor range of the primary world is possible with some of
the various rules sets. Just not the realistic ones.

>Gee, Captain, I don't even see a moniter sat, can we take her? Please?

"You see any other ships around? You realize that the starport has a record
of us leaving just in time to intercept that ship out there? If we take it,
just how long do you think it's going to take the IN to figure out which
ship did it? And that's assuming we could prevent that ship from getting off
a message with our description before we capture it."



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:35:37 -0400
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU>
Subject: re: Hawg-stupid mercenaries

Hans Rancke-Madsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah, well... I've been trying to stay out of this round of the discussion,
but surely one little posting won't harm me. I can quit whenever I want...
>>>>>>>>>>>
I know. Tempting, isn't it?

Hans again:
>>>>>>>>>>>
<snip>
>Gee, Captain, I don't even see a moniter sat, can we take her? Please?

"You see any other ships around? You realize that the starport has a record
of us leaving just in time to intercept that ship out there? If we take it,
just how long do you think it's going to take the IN to figure out which
ship did it? And that's assuming we could prevent that ship from getting off
a message with our description before we capture it."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
A way I see this happening: the disgruntled mercs are leaving unpaid, and 
the incoming ship could be construed as property of the government
that just stiffed them. Only doable if the government in question has
just done some things themselves that will make them want Imperial
attention even less than a band of starmercs do.

Lets say the mercs didn't dare hang around the planet and blackmail the
government with what they know, but feel pretty safe getting a lick in on
the way out. The local gov't doesn't want Imperial agents asking 
questions, either locally or of that merc company, so they either
misrecord the data on the attacking ship, or cover up what happened
to the incoming merchant.

Not a common occurrance, but I think I see an adventure hook here.
The PC's are passengers on a ship that gets raided by pirates, and
the locals stonewall and coverup instead of investigating...

Walt Smith

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:45:28 +0200 (METDST)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Ethically challenged merchants

Daniel Phelps writes:

>I suspect that no criminal ever really expects to get caught.  We had a
>troopie back when the 3rd Armored Cav was in El Paso who robbed a
>convenience store at lunch one fine day.  He was very surpassed when they
>came and arrested him.  Should not have been, he robbed the store wearing
>his uniform.  We were the only unit on post wearing black berets and wide
>cav belts with big brass belt buckles.  Since his name tag was on his chest
>when he did the deed he was even easier to find.

One of the problems I have with "opportunity piracy" is that IMO using a
multi-million starship to catch another is very much akin to wearing a
highly identifiable uniform when robbing a convenience store. A 'uniform'
moreover that's worth considerably more than what you can expect to gain
from the crime.

You might answer that your example proves that some people are that stupid,
and I'll have to agree. But how many people owns a uniform? And how big a
perctentage of them are that stupid? How many people own a starship? And
how big a percentage of them are that stupid?




      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 08:54:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: William Prankard <cmdrx@magicnet.net>
Subject: Re: X-TEK vs. X-tech Maximus

From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net>

>shadowcat wrote:

><<snip>>
>> 
>> And the Staff at X-Tech/Maximus debating which designs need
>> a less subtle application of superior firepower....

>Given that the topic of discussion is *shudder* Famille Spofulam, I
>doubt that your firm can improve much on the firepower of the designs in
>question.
>> 
>> "When it comes to heavy firepower, come to X-Tech Maximus, We
>> Dont Kid Around"

>A recommendation, if I may?

>Change your firm's name, ASAP.  "X-Tech Maximus" is _far_ too close to
>the established firm of X-TEK Industries for _your_ comfort.  Trust me
>on this....  ;-)

Heh...

Actualy X-TEK/Maximus is the partnership between X-TEK Industries and
Maximus Interstellar Defence Industries.  There will be no disintigration
for copyright infringement, this time ;->

The two companies decided to join together to combat FS 'Ditziemania'.
With their own ad campaign using scantily clad females weilding weapons of
mass destruction.  (Hey it worked for beer commericals.<G>)

Unfortuneately much of the latest technologies from X-TEK were classified
by the Imperial Navy.  Any ship designs using that technology were also
classified.  Result was the suspension of the ad campaign for an
indetrminate amount of time.

(Real Life:  Some stuff I developed got submitted for G:T Starships.
Consequently I cannot post any of those modules or anything using them on
the website or the TML.  But after the books release, I should be able to
post some ship designs.)

Currnet Plans:

X-TEK/Maximus is planing a few new systems for development including the
Dragonfire Fusion Spinal,  remote gun-drones, rapid fire meson guns,
kamakaze robot fighters, and other insidious devices.

Rumors are that data has been found in the Commander's personal archives.
Thought lost after the civil war, the data details weapons used in a
future time, when machines turned against man.  It is believed that this
was a work of fiction, but some detailed design specs are included within
the "dark crystal"

(Found my old MT and TNE notes, I may be puting my old first gearhead
attempts on the web site)



\\  // Commander X
 \\//  CEO X-TEK Industries of Deneb, LIC
T E K  Starship Contractor & High Energy Weapons Research
 //\\  http://www.magicnet.net/~cmdrx/xtek/xtek.htm
//  \\ 0608 D557777-A kk- va+ so+ zh+ da+ A723

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:32:29 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

>>While the winds can be significantly faster than that, the high speed winds
> are also mostly at high altitudes and thus significantly lower pressure.  In
> any case, we're mostly talking about landing under contragravity, at quite
> low speeds.  Given the overall structural strength of a typical traveller
> starship, being torn apart is essentially a nonissue, if you can evade at 6
> Gs you're way too tough to worry about being damaged by wind.

Not really. This is true for an aircraft, because the aircraft
manuevers by generating aerodynamic forces against the hull. 

But for a spacecraft, changing "facing" and changing "direction of
travel" are uncoupled. You can change facing all day with *low* thrust
manuevering thrusters. To change *course*, you need the main drive. You
use the manuevering thrusters to change facing until the main drive is
pointed in the right direction, and then fire the main drive. 


But the acceleration required to rotate the (maximum) of 180
degreesisn't all that high.

	Acceleration on a cylinder (space colony, etc.) of radius r and
	    rotation period t:

	    a = 4 pi**2 r / t^2

Say that 30 seconds is enough time to rotate the ship 180 (which means
that 60 seconds is the rotation period), and the "radius" (distance
from the CG to the farthest point is 100 meters (*big* ship).

a = 4*pi*2*100/60^2
a = pi*800/3600
a = pi/4.5
a = ~.7 m/s^2

Or a bit over 7/100ths of a g. Lower the radius, and the acceleration
drops in direct proportion. Lower the period, and the accel increases
by the square of the difference. 

Let's see how fast we can whip it around to get 1 g at 100 meters.

9.8 = pi * 800/t^2
9.8*t^2 = pi*800
t^2 = pi*800/9.8
t^2 = ~256
t = ~16

So you can flip a 200 meter long ship end for end about it's long axis
in 8 seconds and only induce *one* g of accel.

I expect that most ships will do it a *lot* slower. More like the 30
second figure (which has the 0.07 g accel). 

> As we all seem to agree, the problem indeed isn't the risk of being torn
> apart by the winds. The winds just start the tumbling process which, unless
> the craft is stable (we're assuming not being stable is part of what makes
> it USL) or is actively stabilised by a system with sufficiently high thrust
> and low latency to compensate in real time (again, I'd assume this wouldn't
> normally be present on a USL ship although it *could* be installed in
> theory) can increase substantially - enough to tear a craft apart.  I've
> seen aircraft type-test simulations which illustrate this quite nicely.

Well, I think the wind force can exert stronger forces than the
manuevering thrusters can. In which case structural failure *is*
possible. 

> Modern fighters are capable of withstanding 7-9G evasive manoevring if the
> aerodynamic forces are carefully controlled (ie direct pull-up) but it's
> still possible for one to shred itself in flight in the event of a
> catastrophic control failure. Or, of course, to fall out of the sky
> altogether - equally catastrophic.

But see my notes above. Spaceships are not and *will not* be braced for
that sort of strong side force, simply because it *can't* occur in
normal operation (or even in most "emergency" situations). 

>>Nah, it requires a different kind of force.  It's true that a strangely
> shaped ship (close or open structure) will be subject to substantial torque,
> but many unstreamlined ships are basically shaped like large bricks, and
> aren't going to be terribly unstable.

Actually, if the ship *is* "shaped like a brick", then, baring some
*really* off center mass distribution, it *is* "streamlined" in the
minimal sense.

I think that's the source of the arguments. People are *assuming* that
certain shapes are "unstreamlined", when in actuality such shapes
*would* be "streamlined" (and thus incur the extra cost). 

Take a good look at a tractor-trailer rig (a "semi"). *That* is
"streamlined"! 

So the fact that the ships didn't have the "Streamlined" bonus means
that they do *not* have that nice smooth surface you are picturing.
Instead, the *outside* of the hull looks like space just below the
ceiling in most manufacturing plants, or onboard non-passenger seagoing
vessels (ie a maze of pipes and conduit). Stuff that needs insulation
or shielding will have it, but nobody will bother with "prettying it up
by putting in a smooth sheet of metal over it. 

*That* is what the "cannot enter atmosphere" ships look like. No smooth
surfaces. Lots of projections, not braced against wind forces. And
which may tend to get bent or even torn off during atmospheric flight.

> On a second point - a brick is not an aerodynamically stable shape. Compare
> a paper dart in flight with a brick in flight. If the nose of both is lifted
> slightly, the dart's nose will be flipped back down again by aerodynamic
> forces (it is stable in that configuration) whereas the brick's nose will
> not.

True enough. But the brick has "neutral stability". Which is sufficient
to avoid a lot of problems. 

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:01:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
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

Ah, we may be debating two different types of USL here. To convert from
GURPS Traveller to Classic Traveller:

GT	CT/MT
SL	Airframe/Streamlined
USL	Partially Streamlined
see note	Unstreamlined

Note: Open frame and planetoid hulls (which I've coded as OF and PL in 101
Starships) would be the CT USL hulls.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:01:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

>GT uses "expensive metal armor" as its normal armor.
>
>At TL10 and TL12 Standard Armor increases armor mass by 50 percent and reduces
>cost by two thirds.
>
>Using Standard Armor allows you to create slightly cheaper merchant craft. The
>saving isn't very large but it is enough to make economic sense.
>
>At TL10 and TL12 Advanced Armor costs three and a third times as much. At TL10
>it saves 40% of the armor mass. At TL12 it saves 37.5% of the armor mass.
>
>Advanced Armor is normally only available late in a TL, and is available
>to the
>military first. Using Advanced Armor bumps up the price. On large heavily
>armored ships it typcially saves enough mass to add an extra G or two to its
>performance, or you can have more armor for the same perfomance.

We had this debate over the battledress issue. I think there was a ruling
somewhere in there about how much area could be covered by the advanced
armours.

Remember that we're trying to model CT here, not min-max GURPS Vehicles.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 10:55:19 -0400
From: Kurt Feltenberger <kurt@blazenet.net>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

At 06:08 PM 08/26/1999 +1000, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Legate Legion <legate@futureone.com>
>To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com>
>Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 5:10 PM
>Subject: Re: 101 Starships
>
>
>I read this and read this tender thing, and liked the idea greatly.
>
>Benefits?
>
>1)  Ideal for convoys, all vessels in the convoy would be assured of
>reaching a given system at the same time.
>
>2)  A non-jump capable merchant would be easier to maintain and cheaper to
>purchase... however, the shared cost of the jump capability provided by the
>tender *should* be low enough to make it financially feasible (but no
>promises there! :)
>
>3)  If the tender had couplings that were universal, that could take on
>certain jump-capable vessels, then for a minor cost, a Type a, for example,
>could jump via tender, then continue onwards immediately to another system,
>thus extending it's capabilities/range?

I would add one other thing.  I would move the number of carried craft from 
5 to 6 and add two couplings capable of handling standard 30kt 
battleriders.  This would give the ship the potential to earn a subsidy 
from the system/subsector/sector/domain/or Imperial government as an armed 
auxiliary.  Instead of jumping a battle tender into a system just to drop 
off one or two riders for picket duty, you use one of these converted 
merchants.

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: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 09:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

Leonard Erickson writes:
> 15 degrees is 1/24th of a rotation. Therefore we get a 24 second period
> of rotation. Great. We now have a figure for the acell provided by the
> thrusters.

Uh...no.  You can generate a 15 degree/second rotation in _one_ second.

> So if the ship is 20 meters long, you need 0.04g of acceleration from
> your thrusters to meet the turning specs for dodging.

To do it in one turn, you need 0.96 Gs.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:49:33 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: Oops 

"Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com> writes:
>> Don't mention NT please - it gave me some specific problems writing/editing
>> 101 Patrons...
>Now you know why I'm happy they ported Word Perfect to Linux.  Just wish
>they'd get their fingers out and port Paradox over, too.

They're giving WP away for the Mac! Free (23 Mb) Download. Not as expensive
as the free 36Mb system upgrade. I pay per minute for the call in the UK -
Apple UK wanted to cover mount the disk on MacWorld UK, but Apple US said
'no'. <sigh>

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/ 

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

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:19:41 +0100
From: "Nick Bradbeer" <nickb@ndirect.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Will the real Strephon..... 

>There's 'nearly undefeatable' and there's 'nearly undefeatable'.  Somebody
>who's highly connected to the local politics and can get away with just
about
>anything is one thing.  An entity that takes the death of hudreds to
>thousands to defeat is another.


Okay Keven - guess which one of the above you guys are up against?

Nick
- ---
Here's a clue - it's not Option One.
<The Requisite Evil GM Grin>

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:59:54 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: [BITS] The Famille have arrived 

"Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com> writes:
>You think Ditzie's infamy hasn't grown beyond the TML???
>
><grin>

But Ditzie isn't in the 97 catalogue. She could be - to quote Roderick,
Hengabar's aide:

>>I may do another version (especially if the High Energy Weapons Division
>>are encouraged send me the
>>designs to do so) ;-)
>>
>>Dom
>Let me know if they come through.  I'd like to see what Hengie's
>favorite niece has been up to...

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/ 

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:11:33 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

"Legate Legion" <legate@futureone.com> writes:
>    "I say, my lord, Auric, did you see Baron Moony's wife last night in the
>arms of that young Count Legate?  I hear they spent the night together."

!!!!!!

>>Such a ship would, at least, be immune from the profit analysis required
>>of a purely civilian vessel.  I could see a government providing a
>>subsidy for a tender capable of providing wartime services.  However, I
>>doubt that such a ship could earn its keep in peacetime, as a merchant
>>vessel.
>
>    You never know, do you.  Think bulk cargos.  This should not be
>something a Character gets his hands on, but something in the Background.
>
>>I would gladly change my mind, if the economic numbers work out....
>    Then work it out.  They did in mine, but then I based it on the real
>world.  With Agro Planets selling their grain crop off & this type of ship
>transporting it.

You're talking a Guild Highliner here from Dune, but one where people can
meet. Bruce Johnson has one called the Majesta class on his website.

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/ 

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:59:16 -0500
From: "Smart, David J (David)" <dasmart@lucent.com>
Subject: RE: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.

Clifford N Linehan
>
>Does anyone know the reason why nine of the fleets are located in more
>than one subsector, with some of the locations being sectors apart.
>I am impressed by the 213th fleet being located in three seperate sectors
>at once.

So were the Vargr. ;-)

Actually, I've always that _elements_ of the duplicate fleets were assigned
different postings based on the way the Imperial Admiralty perceived the
need to cover varying hot spots.

I envision squadrons being shuffled about rather often along the Vargr
Extents borders.

David

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:07:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net>
Subject: re Missing Fleets of the 

>I was wondering if anyone knows the classic Traveller sector / subsector
>locations for the following numbered fleets of the Imperial navy.
>
>118th
>131st
>189th
>303rd

Well, they are NOT on the map in MT Rebelion SB, so they probably derive
from the solomani rim sectors of Magyar, Canopus, Aldebaran, Neworld, or
Alpha Crucis... or possibly from Reaver's deep.

One item I noted is that the 208th Fleet is not in imperial space (Spinward
Marches/SS M) but an imperial ally. In fact, the imperium is separated by
nearly a parsec.

William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-
533
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis http://www.alaska.net/~mhaa
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 13:14:44 -0500
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

Legate Legion wrote:
> 
> From: The Roc <roc@kewl.com.au>
> Subject: Re: 101 Starships
> 
> >I read this and read this tender thing, and liked the idea greatly.
> 
>     Thank you.
> 
> >Benefits?
> >
> >1)  Ideal for convoys, all vessels in the convoy would be assured of
> >reaching a given system at the same time.
> 
>     Correct.
> 
> >2)  A non-jump capable merchant would be easier to maintain and cheaper to
> >purchase... however, the shared cost of the jump capability provided by the
> >tender *should* be low enough to make it financially feasible (but no
> >promises there! :)
> 
>     Well, I tend to build a J-4 "Tender" & J-1 or J-2 "Riders".  So that the
> "Tender" can move along on the main route & the "Riders" can vist systems
> off the main route.

This is where the economic problem arises, IMHO.  The tender is having
to use jump capacity to move a number of ships, each of which _also_ has
jump capability.  This strikes me as more costly than simply building an
equivalent capacity of regular freightliners, per dton of cargo moved.

OTOH, I'm not an economist, so I could be wrong about this.
> 
> >3)  If the tender had couplings that were universal, that could take on
> >certain jump-capable vessels, then for a minor cost, a Type a, for example,
> >could jump via tender, then continue onwards immediately to another system,
> >thus extending it's capabilities/range?

I doubt that the same cradle designed for a 10,000 dton freightliner
could be used to carry a 200 dton free trader.  (At least, I wouldn't
want to try it with _my_ ships!)

While there are universal docking umbilicals, I don't think that they
are suitable for securing a ship during a jump.
> 
<<snip>>
> 
>     Correct, why not use the Battle-Rider & Battle-Tender idea for mechant
> shipping?  Heck I can even see building a J-1 Tender & several non-jump
> capaible Riders to go along with it.  Why not?  The Tender in this example
> could be an open structure & it could carry 6 riders & in war-time, one of
> those riders could be a true Battle-Rider.  Think about a commerce raider
> who runs into a Battle Rider.  *weg*

Here you're talking about a LASH configuration.  The economics for these
are discussed in _Far Trader_.

- -- 
AuricTech Shipyards Journeyman Gearhead
"Gold-Plated [tm] solutions for copper-plated problems!" (r)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1019
***********************************

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
