Traveller-digest      Friday, August 27 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1024



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Jump flash
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
RE: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
List Civility (was Re: Insulting Leonard)
Re: slightly OT: Looking to locate...
Re: Apologies for mulitple messages
Re: Thrust effects
Re: Thrust effects
Re: Streamlining
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust Effects
Re: OT Book Help!
Re: slightly OT: Looking to locate...
Re: 101 Starships
Re: Starship Materials

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:57:58 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jump flash

In mail you write:

> Can anyone who has a copy of (say) the Starship Operator's Manual
> confirm the existence of "jump flash" -- that is, the release of visible 
> light and/or other forms of energy when a starship leaves jumpspace?
>
> I seem to remember the idea as being canonical but I can't find a reference
> in the materials at hand.  It's relevant to the GT Solomani Rim book, oddly
> enough.

Well, one thing that seems virtually certain is that the sudden
"appearance" of many tons of mass where there was empty space is going
to generate a quite noticeable gravity pulse.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 18:59:26 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

> 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.

Please re-read my post. 15 degrees per second gives a 24 second time to
revolve 360 degrees. That makes the "period of revolution" 24 seconds.
*That* is the "period of rotation" I'm talking about. 

>> 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.

Huh? Where did you get *that* figure?

a=4pi*2r/t^2

.96g=8pi*r/t^2
9.408=8*pi*10/t^2
9.408*t^2=80*pi
t^2=80*pi/9.408
t^2=~26.7
t=~5.2

So a turn is 5 seconds? 


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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:03:17 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

>> > Instinctively, I have to agree with you.  If a vessel isn't designed for
>> > atmosphere, it shouldn't be able to handle atmosphere.  But I want to 
> know
>> > _why_.  I'm really looking for specific problems the ship would
>> > experience.  I don't think that internal bracing is an issue, as it's
>> > already in place to survive the multi-G thrust of the ship.  (a ship 
> rated
>> > for .01G OTOH, _would_ get torn apart by a planet....)
>>
>>Aerodynamic forces occur in locations and directions that result in
>>*different* stresses than engine thrust does. That's *the* most basic
>>difference.
>
> I don't see that.  IMHO, with the standard equipment on any spaceship this 
> can be avoided.

Thrust forces can only happen in a few *specific* directions. The
forces from the main drive are *always* in the same direction. The
forces from thrusters are much weakers, and in a limited number of directions.

But when moving thru an atmosphere, wind gusts can come from *any*
direction, and thus exert forces in any direction. And (given that the
ship is *by definition* not intended to deal with an atmsphere), these
forces can and *will* occur in directions that those *parts* of the
ship weren't intended to incur stress.

Heck, just consider the forces the air exerts on a jet fighter. Then
notice how many parts they have to mark "not a step". Those projections
are designed to resist a *lot* of force, but not in *that* direction.
Thus the warning signs. 

Mach 5 won't tear them off, but a little bit of *sideways* force will. 

Same thing with an USL ship. 


The equipment *can't* avoid these stresses. Even if the thrusters keep
the ship pointed in the right direction, the wind forces wuill be
coming from *multiple* directions. And hull irregularities will result
in *weird* eddies, that may well exert forces in their ownn odd
directions. 

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:05:52 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

>>And the only time vectored thrust is "needed" is for landing these
>>silly ships with decks parallel to the thrust axis
>
> I allows you to trust bring a weapon to bear (or protecting damaged areas
> of a ship, keeping sensors pointed in a certain direction, etc.) while
> still thrusting in another direction.

No, it does NOT. "Vectored" thrust from a "gimbaled" engine *turns* the
shiip. It won't push it at an angle. Not unless the engine is mounted
at the CG (center of gravity, aka center of mass) of the ship. 

A thrust vector that *doesn't* pass thru the CG causes the ship to
*spin*. It does NOT move it at an angle. That's because it (in effect)
decomposes into a pair of vectors. One thru the CG, and the other at
right angles, applied at the location of the drive.

To *make* it move the ship at an angle would require manuevering
thrusters strong enough to counter the turning vector imposed by the
main drive. And if they are *that* strong, it's much simpler to just
use *them* to to hold the ship at an angle, rather than waste all that
space, massd and money on making the main engine "steerable".

You can pull this sort of stunt in aircraft and watercraft, because
they've got a dense medium (water or air) to generate stabilizing forces.


> Also, being able to change course on
> the time scale of a few seconds is useful since that is the
> timescale between targetting info and return fire.  Loosing
> even half a second can make a difference.

You can change *facing* on that sort of time scale, even with *weak*
manuevering thrusters. You can't change *course* that fast, because
your course is determined by adding your new thrust *vector* to your
old velocity vector.

If the ship maintains it's current acceleration (magnitude and
direction), its position in "a few seconds" is easily known. Ditto for
if it maintains *velocity* (no acceleration). 


The position of the ship (actually, the ship's CG) will be somewhere
inside a sphere centered on the position you'd have if you cut thrust,
with a radius determined by your max thrust and the time you have to
apply it.

For example, if you are moving at 100 km/s, and have a 6g drive, your
position will be inside the following spheres:

time	center	radius
- ----	-------	------
0	0       0
1 sec	100 km  30 *meters*
2 sec	200 km	120 meters
3 sec	300 km	270 meters
4 sec	400 km	480 meters
5 sec	500 km	750 meters


That is, one second later, the center of your "possible position"
sphere is 100 km away in the direction you were traveling, but it's
only 30 *meters* across. That's because that's the maximum *distance*
change 6 g of acceleration can produce in that time period. 

Now you can see why *course* changes aren't all that important, but
*facing* changes can be. At least for the first couple of seconds.

Here's the "radius" table for 1 thru 5 g. The "center" depends on your
starting velocity, not your acceleration.

time	1g	2g	3g	4g	5g
- ----	----	----	----	----	----
1	  5m	 10m	 15m	 20m	 25m
2	 20m	 40m	 60m	 80m	100m
3	 45m	 90m	135m	180m	225m
4	 80m	160m	240m	320m	400m
5	125m	250m	375m	500m	625m


BTW, *I* was shocked when I first found out just how predictably
positions where. I'd been expected the "possible position" to be some
really *weird* shape. But thanks to relativity (all inertial frames are
equal) You can just pick the "frame" in which the ship was at rest when
last observed. Which makes the future positions spheres centered on
that position. Of course, since the frame is actually moving, so is the
position. But that's easily corrected for. With the results above. 

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:48:45 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

>>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)
>
> This is where I have the problem - It seems to me that the normal 
> maneuvering capacity of the ship is more than enough to deal with these 
> issues.

Well, you have to realize that even if the ship's manuevering thrusters
*are* up to the job (not a given), the "programming" to *enable* them
to do so isn't that simple. 

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:50:45 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

> At 01:56 AM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>The equivalent of a bunch of wind tunnel tests, and control loop
>>calculations. Or detailed info on aerodynamics, the shape of the ship
>>(down to the millimeter level) and some really *massive* numerical
>>intergration.
> err. we don't need to do that anymore even today.  The Boeing 777 was 
> designed entirely on the computer with virtual "wind tunnels".  A TL10-15 
> shipboard computer should be able to do that very fast.

Why would it have the required programs? They are *very* specialized
simulation software.

And since you are modeling a real object, you need *detailed* info on
the "shape" of the ship and on the internal mass distribution. I can
see the ship having the mass distribution info, as it's need for cargo
loading to balnce the ship. But the aerodynamic info about the hull? I
don't think so. 

Remember, the whole *point* here is that the ship *wasn't* intended to
enter an atmosphere when it was built. 

>>Producing such a program is gonna get *expernsive*, and it'll be one of
>>the things involved in the cost of producing "streamlined" ships.
>
> no, the program will be cheap.  All you need is detailed blueprints 
> (already available) and a _lot_ of computing power.  Fortunately, at least 
> in GT, there's plenty of that.  It's only expensive now because a lot of 
> number crunching is involved.

Maybe. I'm still not so sure that the blueprints will have the right
*kind* of details. Why would they include info about the drag
coefficients of the various materials on the surface of the ship? And
even if they did, what makes you think that info is still correct after
however many years of micrometeorite pitting, and "repairs" (paint?
sanding?) to same.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:23:29 -0400
From: "Paul Schirf" <Paul@Schirf.com>
Subject: RE: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> Remember, the whole *point* here is that the ship 
> *wasn't* intended to enter an atmosphere when it 
> was built. 

Well, that seems to be your point... but it's not
the one others are making.  Many people are saying 
that *some* /unstreamlined/ ships were *designed* 
to enter the atmosphere, just not at high velocity.

Paul@Schirf.com

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:32:30 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

At 12:32 AM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>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).

But there doesn't have to be a strong *side* force.  After all, all the 
forces acting on the ship will add up to one force vector and one torque 
vector (yes, that's a bit oversimplified.  But I think it's close 
enough...).  You use the main drive to cancel the overall force vector, and 
the attitude jets to counter the torque.  So again, it comes down to: how 
strong are those jets.

           -- 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: Thu, 26 Aug 99 22:26:10 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: List Civility (was Re: Insulting Leonard)

On 08/24/99 at 07:32 PM,  AveNelso@aol.com said:

>    I just wanted to   interject about how well behaved and enjoyable
>this  list is.    I siigned up for the new D&D list recently and I
>feel like I've  been "Clifed" all over again.

I'll refrain from asking "why in the world you'd want to do that!" and just say, that I agree that the TML is a pretty civil list.  Yes, we have our disagreements, but even at their worse they are more polite than most online forums.

Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 99 22:23:15 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: slightly OT: Looking to locate...

On 08/24/99 at 07:07 PM,  "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net> said:

>>Probably an incompatibility issue with ftp in passive mode.  Try
>standard ftp instead of a browser, that seems to work fine.

>	Just the opposite: Netscrape was at least able to pull up a
>directory listing for the base directory given above, and read files
>in it. But no subdirectories, which is where all the goodies seem to
>be. My FTP client won't even get a directory.

This is my experience with it too, except I couldn't get Netscape to even give
a directory listing of pub.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:52:38 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Apologies for mulitple messages

At 07:14 PM 8/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
>You regretting Netscape 4.6 too?  Before that version, I was so sold on
>Netscape over IE that I would gladly have still paid for Netscape.
>
>However, 4.6 is the most dismal release yet.  It's quite apparent that
>Netscape is going down the tubes now.
>
>Anyway, it's 4.6's fault I am now using IE 5.0.  And I don't regret the
>move.

well, I originally emailed this directly to the original poster, but it 
seems it's worth repeating on the list:

consider getting 4.61  They fixed a _lot_ of bugs from 4.6 to 4.61, 
including some nasty memory leaks.  Better yet, use Eudora for mail :)

Personally, I prefer Netscape 4.61 and Eudora Pro 4.2 for their respective 
tasks.  IMHO, Netscape is an excellent browser, and a lousy anything else.

           -- 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: Thu, 26 Aug 99 22:53:46 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects

On 08/24/99 at 06:07 PM,  "Benyamene' ZeAbe' Akella" <xrp@sierratel.com> said:

>> I *like* the picture of *huge* battleships slowly drifting down
>> through the atmosphere on their CG's, occasional puffs of flame from
>> their maneuvering thrusters keeping her in balance. Pilots having to
>> keep an eye out for sudden downdrafts and wind gusts that might
>> unbalance the waddling ship and snap her into.  And heaven help them
>> all if their CG goes out...

>However the tone of your post seems to imply this is not a routine
>occurance?

Not for the big ships, no. I wouldn't want it to be a routine occurance, but
*possible* with proper precautions.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 99 22:55:47 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects

On 08/24/99 at 06:32 PM,  shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson) said:

>>From: Eris reddoch <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
>>Subject: Re: Thrust effects
>...
>>There was a story a few years ago with that very image. A
>>multi-million ton ship suddenly losing CG at a few thousand meters,
>>breaking up, and plunging into the ocean. I can't remember the story,
>>but the image has stuck with me.

>  It sounds somewhat like the ending to the main story in one of
>Stewart  Cowley's spaceship-art books from the early `80's (?) -
>perhaps "Great  Space Battles"?

That wasn't what I was remembering. It was in a book by David Drake, I think, but I can't quite place it.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:57:36 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Streamlining

At 03:45 PM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Ok, try this on for size. At 20 mph, it's going to take your ship 5-10
>hours *each way* to go from the top of the atmosphere to the ground.
>That *alone* is expensive.
>
>Also, at 20 mph weather, such as storms, moves a *lot* faster than your
>ship can dodge. Since weather is a chaotic system, the Imperium won't
>be able to predict it any better than we can. So you could easily start
>a descent (or a takeoff) and a couple of hours later find yourself in
>the path of a squall line that was "supposed" to be nowhere near you.
>Or trying to dodge a jetstream.

Ok, this I like.  That's finally an argument that makes sense to me.  Thus, 
USL landings are possible, but pretty damn dangerous, and thus only used 
for emergencies.  Perfect.  Thank you very much.

           -- 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: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:13:13 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

> Juliean Galak writes:
>
>> Right.  The question is, can the tumble be prevented...
>
> At a minimum, it can be prevented with a cheap and fairly fast retrofit.  
> Take a superdense bar 10x the length of the ship.  Point it towards the 
> ground, outside of your contragrav envelope.  Add a weight at the end -- 
> should be at least 0.1% of the ship's mass, which shouldn't be too hard.
>
> That will provide enough torque to keep any moderate size ship from flipping 
> over, though it could probably wind up with a 45 degree tilt at times.

But it won't keep the ship from *spinning* abou the axis of the bar. :-)

>> Dunno, it depends on just how powerful the maneuvering thrusters are...  If
>>  they are on the order of .1G or higher, than this would seem to be an
>> easy,  routine maneuver.  If they are on the order of .01G, then yes, it's 
> a
>> risky  but doable feat.  At anything less than that, it's nigh-impossible.
>
> Unfortunately, to allow _evasion_ (which High Guard allows, dunno about 
> other rule systems) you need manuevering thrusters in the 1G 
> range...otherwise you simply can't turn fast enough to be relevant while 
> using lightspeed weapons.

Actually, the required thrust for manuevering is nowhere *near* that
high. "Evasion" in the sense we normally think of it is IMPOSSIBLE for
spacecraft that obey Newtonian phsyics. You can't change your *vector*
fast enough. 

What you *can* do is spin the ship around an axis lined up with the
line of sight between you and your attacker. That makes it hard to hit
the extremities of the ship. But the *center* of the ship doesn't move
much in a few seconds. Not relative to your starting vector.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:36:22 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust Effects

In mail you write:

> Here's a thought:
>
> What if a ship with a sufficiently strong hull passes through an atmosphere
> at such a speed that windspeed due to crosswinds is inconsequential
> compared to windspeed due to the craft's velocity relative to the
> air it is passing through? Say the ship is travelling so fast that
> the air it passes through is, comparatively speaking, at rest?

In *that* case, the forces from the craft's velocity relative to the
atmosphere will tear it up unless it's at least a *little* streamlined.

Remember, the forces exerted by the "wind" go up as the *square* of the
velocity.

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 20:39:12 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: OT Book Help!

In mail you write:

> I need a bit of help tracking down a book I had, but lost.  It dealt with a 
> group of people, both military and civilian historians, going from the 
> present day back in time to December of 1941.  The current president is 
> suffering from cancer and is in critical condition when an archivist 
> discovers some log books that show that an American researcher in the 
> Philippines seems to have discovered the cure for cancer.  Two small 
> problems...the rest of the notes are lost and the researcher himself 
> disappeared during the Japanese invasion of the islands.  The heros use a 
> modified 737 to travel back in time.

I've got the book. But it may be in storage....

<later>

Must be in storage. I can tell you that it *isn't* "The Proteus
Operation" by Hogan. I stuill suspect that it might be a Hogan book
though. Or maybe something by Dean Ing.

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:10:57 -0400
From: Michael Peters <travelleri@home.com>
Subject: Re: slightly OT: Looking to locate...

Well, I haven't been able to get anything but the subdirectory headers
with a browser. My FTP program wouldn't register at all. Thankfully
Keven sent me, what I beleive are complete copies of the files. I'm in
the process of converting them to Word 97 format so that I can "scan"
them. 

I've turned up a lot of information on the Aoreriyya Project already,
including a complete outline of the project. Added this to the Player's
data text.

I've been in touch with Guy Garnette. It appears that he was one of the
major motivators behind this project. In principla he's agreed that the
source book, or as much of it as can be re-surfaced should be web
published. I'll be attempting to contact any of the others involved as
well... In that respect if anyone has a strong objection to this being
published let me know, also I'll be sending a list that I found to the
TML in hopes of varifying the members of the project so that I can give
them proper credit. 

For those interested in the TNE era (personally it's not my favorite,
but this material is too good just to let die) this is the basics for a
complete setting in the Reaver's Deep sector. It contained a complete
"mini-campaign". 

Mike

Eris Reddoch wrote:
> 
> On 08/24/99 at 07:07 PM,  "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net> said:
> 
> >>Probably an incompatibility issue with ftp in passive mode.  Try
> >standard ftp instead of a browser, that seems to work fine.
> 
> >       Just the opposite: Netscrape was at least able to pull up a
> >directory listing for the base directory given above, and read files
> >in it. But no subdirectories, which is where all the goodies seem to
> >be. My FTP client won't even get a directory.
> 
> This is my experience with it too, except I couldn't get Netscape to even give a directory listing of pub.
> 
> Eris
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245
> -----------------------------------------------------------

- -- 
Mike Peters
travelleri@home.com

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:11:32 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: 101 Starships

At 09:25 PM 8/26/99 -0400, you wrote:

>Not that big. I didn't think it would be economical. Would it? I'll whip up
>the Galak class for you and post it later. This is what is currently in 101
>Starships:
<stats snipped>

Well, I'm flattered :)  I just looked at the info on the Majesta, and I 
pretty much agree with the author, It's the Mega-ships that are the 
lifeblood of the Imperium.  Although I've never seen an explicit reference, 
I've always assumed that most "real" freight traffic happens on ships in 
the 50kdt-500kdt range.  A reference in "Fighting Ships" seems to indicate 
that 1,000kdt is the largest military vessel ever, and civilian ships that 
big don't exist.  Hence, I figure these monsters top out at 500kdt...

           -- 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: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:14:57 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Starship Materials

At 09:25 PM 8/26/99 -0400, you wrote:
>John Buston raised a good point: there's a contradiction between the GT
>rulebook sidebar that says you can use different materials from GURPS
>Vehicles when designing ships, and the fact that all GT ships published to
>date have just used the standard 'expensive metal' option.
>
>Practically, I think this is because most of the ship designers just used
>the standard system, possibly designing a few more modules, without
>examining the hulls.

I'm not sure how much I'm allowed to say here, so I'll say very little... 
This is a topic that was seriously discussed by the editors, authors, and 
contributors of GT Starships and GT Imperial Navy, and is still not quite 
settled.  All I can advise is that you wait for the release of those two 
books before making final judgments.  I realize this isn't helpful, but I 
feel that I can't disclose any further details at this time.  Perhaps Chris 
or John can give more of a sneak preview.

           -- 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/                

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1024
***********************************

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
