Traveller-digest      Friday, August 27 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1025



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Missing Fleets of the Imperial Navy.
Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.
Re: Missing Fleets of the Imperial Navy.
RE: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.
Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.
Astrina Class Highport
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Starship Materials
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft
Re: Will the real Strephon.....
Re: Starship Materials
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Orion Drive Modules
Re: Streamlining
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:15:45 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Missing Fleets of the Imperial Navy.

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:43:02 +1000 From: "Alan Bradley"
<alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au>
>> From: Clifford N Linehan <
>> 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
>
>If we ask the Vargr nicely, they might give them back!

How many chew toys for an Imperial fleet?  ;)

Clifford Linehan
cnl.rubicon@juno.com
One man's magic is another man's engineering.
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dlwww.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:15:45 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:25:27 -0700 From: "Benyamene' ZeAbe' Akella"
<xrp@sierratel.com>
>>>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. ;-)
>
>Which begs the question, how many of these reports are propaganda? ;)

All of them. Fnord.

>But seriously, could they be different times?

Nope, locations as of 1116.

Clifford Linehan
cnl.rubicon@juno.com
One man's magic is another man's engineering.
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:15:45 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Missing Fleets of the Imperial Navy.

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

Another thought is that the fleets listed as duplicates are really the
missing fleets, but there are ten duplicated fleets and only four missing
fleets. What ones get the missing fleet numbers and what ones get the new
numbers of 315th, 316th, 317th, 318th, 319th, 320th?

>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.

I noted that also; I would mark it up to being an area of "interest" to
the Imperium.

>William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click
interface!"

Clifford Linehan
cnl.rubicon@juno.com
One man's magic is another man's engineering.
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:15:45 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: RE: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 12:59:16 -0500 From: "Smart, David J (David)"
<dasmart@lucent.com>
>>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 [thought] 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.

With the 314th numbered fleet being the highest numbered fleet (correct
me if this is wrong), it would be odd that two separate fleets would be
given the same designation number.

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

I agree, but one could reassign a squadron from one fleet to another. The
squadron would jump to the next subsector and become part of that
numbered fleet. I would follow the example of the ScoutRon below.

ScoutRons (Scout Squadrons): Scout vessels; Rarely seen during peacetime,
ScoutRons are IISS vessels loaned to the navy as couriers, scouts and
intelligence vessels. Almost never deployed as ScoutRons, a scout courier
sent from the 10th BatRon with a dispatch to the 212st BatRon becomes
part of the 212th until it is sent elsewhere. ScoutRons generally consist
of ships waiting to be reassigned, repaired or resupplied.

>David


Clifford Linehan
cnl.rubicon@juno.com
One man's magic is another man's engineering.
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:15:45 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 09:54:45 +1000 From: "Alan Bradley"
<alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au>
>> From: 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.
>
>There are a couple of possibilities.  One, obviously, is that different
>elements of the fleets are in different areas.  

Or that some secratary at fleet HQ needs to take a typing class.

>The other one is that the IN's organisation is not entirely rational.  The
>IN has been around for centuries, with units being raised by various
>leaders, at various times, through civil wars, and in states that were
>subsequently absorbed by the Imperium.  Most of the effects of this would
>appear at the squadron level, where there are probably lots of "1st Battle
>Squadrons", and, no doubt, "101st Battle Squadrons" too.  It seems less
>likely that you would get multiple numbered fleets through this kind of
>process, but it could happen, I suppose.

One could easly absorb the local squadron into the new fleet.
i.e.: the 1st battle squadron of Regina becomes the 1st battle squadron
of the 212th Imperial Fleet

>A hybrid of the two cases could occur too, where the detachments from a
>parent fleet could themselves be reinforced so as to become as large as a
>normal subsector fleet.  This could well have happened centuries ago, and
>the task forces detached from the 213rd fleet could have been used as
>"real" fleets ever since.

I would say that this case would be normal for new sub-sectors at the
frontier areas. But once the reinforcements have been there long enough
and the sub-sector is secure and incorporated, the orders from sector
command arrive congratulating the new fleet.

>In other words, make up a story!

It had crossed my mind that the fleet numbers might have been "retired"
because all ships of that fleet sacrificed themselves for the Imperium by
"Holding the Line".

Clifford Linehan
cnl.rubicon@juno.com
One man's magic is another man's engineering.
IMTU tc+ tm+ ?tn- ?t4- tg++ ?tt to ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt au st+ ls pi+ ta he+
kk hi as va dr so zh+ vi da sy

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 14:08:04 +1000
From: dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au
Subject: Astrina Class Highport

I have sent my worksheet of the Astrina class highport to :

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/4713/astrina.html

Rob Pryor: Can you thrash this through the GT Shipyard? If possable, I
would like to see this is 101 Starships.

Flames to the usual place
Visit our Web Site : http://www.ParraCity.nsw.gov.au

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:23:40 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

At 07:50 PM 8/26/99 -0800, you wrote:
>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.

Sorry, I was unclear.  I didn't mean the crew would do this.  I mean that 
at GTL10-12 generating this software is so trivial, that I'd expect the 
finished program to be standard equipment on any ship, even an USL one, as 
a safety measure if nothing else.  And even if it wasn't standard, it still 
would be trivially cheap, so someone who wanted to routinely land their USL 
could go out and buy it.


> >>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.

again, see above - I meant that the factory had these details.  As for 
repairs, well, you'd better log them into the program, or 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: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:26:30 +1200
From: "Andrew Moffatt-Vallance" <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Starship Materials

Date sent:      	Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:25:18 -0400 (EDT)
From:           	Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca>

> 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.

[snip]

> OTOH, assuming that John is correct that you can get an extra G
> acceleration (or more armour) by using advanced materials (and his numbers
> look correct to me), that begs the question: what is the game reason that
> all the published military ships don't use advanced materials?

> I can see three choices here:

> 1) Errata the GT sidebar that allows advanced materials (ie. prohibit them).

I'd go with this option, adding that the Imperium is only at early to mid
GTL 12.

> 2) Handwave a reason why they aren't used for starships.

There is no really good reason I can think of, other than its not available

> 3) Redesign existing military ships to use advanced materials.

That's a major job and something I would definitely not want to see.


Andrew etc
http://users.netaccess.co.nz/amv/
    Listening to way too much Dave Brubeck

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:26:30 +1200
From: "Andrew Moffatt-Vallance" <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

Date sent:      	Thu, 26 Aug 1999 21:29:38 +0100
From:           	John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>

> I didn't participate in that discussion. 
> Looking back at the archives I see that someone made a handwave on this.
> It doesn't hold water though. GT sidebar p155 discusses creating non-standard
> hulls using the different armors available in G:Vehicles. In G:Vehicles there is
> an example scout ship with composite armor. In G:Space it makes reference to
> using different (unnamed) armor types as a mass/cost trade-off with no limit.

The problem is that GT is representation of Traveller, and should attempt
to do as little 'violence' to established Traveller canon as is possible. Now
GT does indeed say you can play with alternate armours, but I don't think
that was intended as carte blance to ignore established Traveller canon.

> >Remember that we're trying to model CT here, not min-max GURPS Vehicles.
> 
> We?
> 
> I thought this was a forum for discussing all aspects of all versions of
> traveller. I personally have no interest in the detailed mechanics of CT 
> or maintaining its "purity". 

But GT is intended to be a representation of CT in GURPS terms. As
such it should attempt to maintain CT "purity" as far as is possible.

> Are you saying that Gurps gearheads are not welcome on the list?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest such a thing.
However, it should be remembered that GT is an attempt to model
CT. GURPS is (as its name suggests) a generic system, an attempt
to cover all possible gaming universes with a single system. Traveller
is a particular universe with its own limits and restrictions. Somethings
from GURPS are just not appropriate in that universe, take for instance
FTL radio. Its part of GURPS, but has no place in Traveller. As with
everything, care needs to be exercised to avoid destroying the nature
of the Universe. Now in Traveller, the most advanced armour material
available at TL 15 is Bonded Superdense, which is best represented
as advanced metal, adding a better armour goes changes the nature
of the universe.

> Anyone else want to move over to the Gurps traveller mailing list?

I sincerely hope not. I don't play GURPS (just not my thing), but GT
has brought a lot of new players/ideas/etc to Traveller and added
greatly to it.


Andrew etc
http://users.netaccess.co.nz/amv/
    Listening to way too much Dave Brubeck

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:26:30 +1200
From: "Andrew Moffatt-Vallance" <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
Subject: Re: GT Armor - Cheaper Merchants, Faster Combat Craft

Date sent:      	Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:53:02 +0100
From:           	John Buston <John.Buston@tesco.net>

> >I would say that just as you wouldn't use Gurps:Supers to make (most)
> >Gurps:Cliffhangers characters, you wouldn't use every possible trick
> >in Gurps:Space, Gurps:UltraTech, and Gurps:Vehicles to make
> >Gurps:Traveller gear that is markedly different <snip>

> The difference is that:
> - GT invites you to do so (within the traveller framework) - it specifically
>   mentions armor as one area you might want to customize.
> - G:Vehicles provides an internal consistency, which I thought was one of
>   Travellers cornerstones.
> - It isn't that markedly different.

But it is markedly different. By adding advanced composite armour existing
designs are rendered obsolete. It was ACA that brought us the abomination
of Marine Battledress in StarMercs.

> Why is efficient GT design upsetting CTers?  I don't see complaints about
> efficient CT design.

Because anything in CT is by its very nature a part of the Traveller universe,
the same is not true for VE2.


Andrew etc
http://users.netaccess.co.nz/amv/
    Listening to way too much Dave Brubeck

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 99 23:25:16 -0500
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>
Subject: Re: Will the real Strephon.....

On 08/24/99 at 11:29 PM,  "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com> said:

>> 
>> That's pretty much my feeling on the matter. I find the collapse of HT more
>> believable than Virus; however, Virus does has some interesting ideas.

>My main complaint about Virus is, it leveled the field *too* well and
>implemented a nearly undefeatable enemy in the process.

Let me preface this by saying I *like* the TNE system, but...

...my main complaint was that Dave Neilson was telling *a* story
through the the TNE line.  The story was his, and GDW's, story...not
the individual GM's.  Secrets were kept, to be revealed over time,
the various games were to follow a script from event to event.  It
felt to *me* like a game of follow the leader, and I didn't want to
play.  Now, I'm *sure* others don't agree with me, but that was how
I saw it.

I'm going to make a suggestion that won't be universally popular,
some folks will consider it a call to mass heresy, but here it is
none the less.

Given that GDW is no more, and GT is off in a non-rebellion
universe, and Marc has no plans to come back to the rebellion any
time soon why don't all the folks that liked the universe that HT
was creating make it so?  Get together and create the framework for
the universe you wanted to play in. 

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:02:51 -0500
From: "Bont" <felix@felixcafe.com>
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.

Not tooting my own horn ... well, maybe I am a little bit, but GTS 
allows different materials factoring when entering a Hull into the 
Repository.  The Fudge Factor is the key.  If you will notice, there is 
a 50,000 and 20,000 value for the GTL10/12 hulls (and a really 
strange number for Asteroid Hulls ...).  This equates to a 2.5 times 
factor.  Looking at VE2 pg.22, you will see where those numbers 
come from (50,000 / 20,000 = 2.5 and 0.1 / 0.04 = 2.5).

With a little Multiplication and Division (on your part), you can have 
GTS generate the correct weight, cost, DR and HP required for just 
about any hull.  

Example:
Say we wanted a TL11 Hull:  First we calc all the necessary Hull 
numbers the old fashioned way (volume, hull cost and weight, etc.)

Now we want the armor factors so we can just choose the DR and 
have GTS do the calcs for us.  We see that the Weight Modifier for 
TL11 is 0.06 so  0.1 / 0.06 = 1.6667.  Now we take the 1.6667 and 
multiply it by the 20,000 (the GTL10 Fudge Factor) and we get 
33,333.  Do the same thing for Cost if moving between the different 
Armor Types.  

Now when we select this hull and say we want 100 points of armor, 
we get the correct the weight and cost.  There may be some round 
off error, but when dealing with MCr, a few Cr here and there 
"shouldn't" matter too much :)  Think of it as Creative Contracting.


- - - -
FELIX (Thomas L Bont)

- - Encrypt your messages!
  That way only the government knows what you wrote!

- - It is truly the wise man that knows what he doesn't!

- - With your shield or on it ... (Old Spartan Blessing)

- - Fidelitas super omnia, honore excepto

- - Help Stop Forest Fires.  Outlaw Matches.

Be sure to visit The FELIX Cafe at
     http://www.felixcafe.com/

- - - -

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 00:09:45 -0500
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

Leonard Erickson wrote:
> 
> 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.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, AuricTech ships would normally have
this information, as a safety feature.  I _also_ pointed out that our
customers would pay a premium for this programming, as AuricTech would
have to conduct all the wind-tunnel and other aerodynamic modeling
tests, in a variety of possible atmospheres.

Here's an interesting way to judge such matters:

Assume the following:

1.  Given that streamlined ships cost more than their unstreamlined
counterparts, assume that 75% of the cost of streamlining is the actual
structural cost (fairings over protrusions, protective coverings over
sensitive areas, etc.).  The other 25% of the cost pays for the various
aerodynamic modeling tests, over a variety of possible atmospheres.

2.  As a safety measure, many unstreamlined ships undergo aerodynamic
modeling, just in case they have to perform an unscheduled re-entry. 
This modeling costs 1/3 of the price of streamlining.  (The modeling has
a disproportional cost, due to the fact that modeling airflows over
rough non-aerodynamic surfaces is more difficult than modeling airflows
over smooth non-aerodynamic or true aerodynamic surfaces.  It's still
cheaper than full streamlining....)

3.  Unstreamlined ships, regardless of the presence or absence of
aerodynamic modeling software, will have _extreme_ difficulty in
launching from a world with any atmosphere denser than Trace.
> 
> 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.

I'd have to agree with Leonard on this one.  Only ships that come from
shipyards (such as AuricTech) that have crunched the numbers will be
able to cope with atmospheric conditions _in realtime_.
> 
> 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.

That should be equivalent to the M1 Abrams tank keeping track of such
matters as barrel wear and barrel droop.  Once the original values are
loaded, and the appropriate sensors mounted, keeping track of such
changes should be fairly simple.  As noted earlier, however, the naval
architect must design the ship in question to account for such matters. 
This costs extra....

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:13:28 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Orion Drive Modules

In mail you write:

>>>something I'd want to be shooting high speed rocket efflux over for any
>>> length of time. They're probably expensive to replace.
>>
>>Actually, graphite's most important properties in industry are
>>electrical conductivity, and *high* temperature resistance. It's solid
>>at some *really* outrageous temperatures.
>
> Sure, but wouldn't you want to coat it with something either a) tough, so it
> wouldn't wear as fast as soft graphite or b) ablative and cheap?

What's going to "wear"? It's getting hit by hot *gases*, not being
sandblasted or something. And graphite *is* cheap. We wouldn't use it
in pencils if it wasn't. 

Graphite is *brittle*. But fairly strong. 

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:15:54 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Streamlining

In mail you write:

>> > 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.
>> 
>> We can predict weather an hour ahead plenty accurately.

So? At 20 mph it takes *5* hours to get from 100 miles altitude (low
orbit) to ground. Not counting the tme it takes to reduce your speed
relative to the ground to zero.

>         I believe weather *control* is TL13, CT....

Then you'd better hope that the controllers care about your ship, and
that you aren't "in the way" of something they've spent all week
setting up. :-)

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:31:03 -0400
From: Juliean Galak <jg42@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

At 12:09 AM 8/27/99 -0500, you wrote:

>I'd have to agree with Leonard on this one.  Only ships that come from
>shipyards (such as AuricTech) that have crunched the numbers will be
>able to cope with atmospheric conditions _in realtime_.

See my note earlier today.  I meant that it was the shipyard, not crew that 
could do this.  However, I think that this would be a trivial task for 
GTL10-12 computers, and  would _always_ be included as part of the standard 
package, as a safety feature.

(This is all in GT stats.  I don't know the other systems well enough to do 
this.) Look at it this way:  The best computer possible today, at TL7, 
would be a Genius Mainframe, which is complexity 5.  Say this computer 
takes a year of actual number crunching to do an analysis like this (I 
suspect it's actually much lower, but I don't know how long Boeing took on 
the 777).  1yr=31e6 seconds.  That means that the program is complexity 11 
(5 for the comp, and then another one per order of magnitude).

A TL12 Genius Macroframe, which any decent Shipyard would own (it's only 
3,500,000 credits...) has complexity 10.  That means it would take it 
approximately 310 seconds to do the same computation.  A whopping 5 
minutes.....

I can't see this not being a standard safety feature...

           -- Juliean Galak (a.k.a. Falcon)
	     Gearhead-in-Training

- --
Gerfalcon Enterprises - GURPS Traveller Ironmongery for the 5th Millenium
IMTU tc  t4+ tg++ tt? ru ge++ 3i+ c+ jt au@ st+ ls+ pi-(+)
	ta- he+ kk-- hi+ as++ va++ dr+ so+ zh++ vi+ 0601
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/Traveller/              

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

Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:38:04 -0700
From: "David P. Summers" <summers@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 19:05:52 PST
>From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)

>> 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.

"Vectored thrust", as defined in GT, does allow you to thrust
in any direction.  It is also the term described for similar
effects such as in the Harrier jump jet.  But if you have
been using term differently in this thread then I'm sure you
will let me know.
______________________________
summers@alum.mit.edu
(This is the net.  My e-mail address may be in Boston, but I'm in California.)

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1025
***********************************

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
