Traveller-digest      Friday, August 27 1999      Volume 1999 : Number 1031



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: List Civility (OT)
Re: Will the real Strephon..... 
Re: Website down (again)
Re: Terraforming (Slightly OT)
Re: Terraforming (Slightly OT)
Re: Terraforming (Slightly OT)
re: what to order?
[BITS] Something which excites me!
Re: Large merchant vessels
Re: Will the real Strephon..... 
Re: Missing Fleets of the Imperial Navy.
Re: Apologies for mulitple messages
Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.
Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.
Re: [www] Freelance Traveller Announcement
Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)
Re: Thrust Effects
Re: Orion Drive Modules

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:07:38 -0400
From: John Macek <macek@erols.com>
Subject: Re: List Civility (OT)

> 
> Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 08:35:05 EDT
> From: AveNelso@aol.com
> Subject: Re: List Civility (was Re: Insulting Leonard)
> 
> In a message dated 8/26/99 11:54:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> eris@pcola.gulf.net writes:
> 
> <<
>  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.
>   >>
> 
>     Sorry, but I seem doomed to DM D&D, since that's what the players I find
> want ot play, and I got momentarily excited about the 3rd edition news about
> D&D.  One day I'll run Traveller again,  I bide my time with my new D&D
> players, but it will happen when they're ready.
> 
>         Dave Nelson
> 
> ------------------------------
> 

Awwww, it ain't that bad over there!  
I've been on this list for a few years and I've seen it turn ugly a few
times.
:)
John

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:04:31 -0400
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger" <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>
Subject: Re: Will the real Strephon..... 

> >> Okay Keven - guess which one of the above you guys are up against?
> >
> >#2 of course.  Somebody who's gonna cost us a few hundred lives or more to
> take out.  *IF* we can take them out...
> 
> Ahhh, such sweet naievety....

Heh.

Keven

- -- 
tc++ tm+ tn t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                     In Reavers' Deep

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:20:03 -0500
From: Ron Brown <ronnyq@nightowl.net>
Subject: Re: Website down (again)

- --------------636F7D297C1196EF03836E91
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I must say that I agree.  Downport.com would be an exceptional choice for
hosting your site.  Yup...

Sword Worlder wrote:

> [sound of throat clearing]  Well, in my not-so-humble opinion, Downport.com
> would be a great choice. :-)
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The TRAVELLER Domain
> http://www.downport.com
> Colin Michael, Webslinger
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance <a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
> > It would appear that my website is down yet again. Anybody got any
> > good reccommendations for an alternative host?

- --
Ron Brown 0309 C253A47-A S hi+ so zh da 733



- --------------636F7D297C1196EF03836E91
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I must say that I agree.&nbsp; Downport.com would be an exceptional choice
for hosting your site.&nbsp; Yup...
<p>Sword Worlder wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>[sound of throat clearing]&nbsp; Well, in my not-so-humble
opinion, Downport.com
<br>would be a great choice. :-)
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<br>The TRAVELLER Domain
<br><a href="http://www.downport.com">http://www.downport.com</a>
<br>Colin Michael, Webslinger
<p>----- Original Message -----
<br>From: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance &lt;a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
<br>> It would appear that my website is down yet again. Anybody got any
<br>> good reccommendations for an alternative host?</blockquote>

<pre>--&nbsp;
Ron Brown 0309 C253A47-A S hi+ so zh da 733</pre>
&nbsp;</html>

- --------------636F7D297C1196EF03836E91--

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:23:08 -0400
From: "Terry Carlino" <carlino@home.com>
Subject: Re: Terraforming (Slightly OT)

>Even a crash program on a relatively compatible world like Mars would
>take >300 years to provide an atmosphere such as that shown on Babylon 5,
>and the economic cost would be prohibitive, particulaly if the homesystem
>if trying to fight a major interstellar war at the time. (One of my
>personal niggles about Mars in B5.)

I guess I must have missed something. I thought B5's Mars was a habitat
environment.

Terry C

All that is Gold does not glitter
Not all who travel are lost

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Terraforming (Slightly OT)

Terry Carlino writes:

> I guess I must have missed something. I thought B5's Mars was a habitat
> environment.


It is.  However, it is still partially terraformed, with a much thicker
atmosphere than mars has now.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 16:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Terraforming (Slightly OT)

Terry Carlino writes:

> I guess I must have missed something. I thought B5's Mars was a habitat
> environment.


It is.  However, it is still partially terraformed, with a much thicker atmosphere than mars has now.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:31:15 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: re: what to order?

ehenry@newberlin.org (Eric Henry) writes:

>Hi.  If I were going to order products from Imperi Games so I could design
>and fight warships, what should I get?


FFS? Version 2

Get this. + Errata from web. Not as clear as the GDW version, but a superb
resource.

>Starships?

Don't buy. Lousy broken book. The designs are broken, the deckplans are
drawn by a 5 year old, and the colour plates damage the SSDS design system
by breaking it up. You can download the SSDS design rules from the Missouri
Archive for free as a pdf (I think QSDS is there too). The Missouri archive
is linked off BITS (see below).

>Emporer's Arsenal?

Personal and vehicle weapons. Has a few notes on converting between scales.
Not really a starship design source.

>Milieu:0?

Background for MO - get the _Milieu 0 Campaign_ version not the original
_Milieu_ 0 Softcover as it has 32 pages of extra material and First Survey
thrown in.

>Naval Architects Manual?

Deck plans, some of which break Traveller canon. An okay resource.

>Imperial Squadrons?

Roleplaying background plus Fifth Frontier War/TCS rewritten to link to
Pocket Empires. There is no tactical level combat system like TCS included,
just the scenario rules.

>something I haven't listed?

Pocket Empires if you are interested in modelling the background economics.

Combat System:
1) Download the free MayDay M4.1 version PDF from BITS - it works with FFS
and QSDS/SSDS.
Http://www.bits.org.uk/ on the archive page

2) Try the Role Playing Ship Combat System V0.9 from the Missouri archive.
This is good for player level stuff/

3) Have a look at MCS by Bruce Macintosh if you can find it.

4) Consider the HG to T4 conversion rules by Rob Eaglestone on my site
http://www.cybergoths.u-net.com/

BUT DON"T BUY THEM OFF IMPERIUM GAMES! They didn't pay the authors and they
are effectively out of business. Try Marc Miller directly (he has old
Traveller material - linked off BITS website jump site pages) or the retail
trade loop.

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: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:40:32 +0100
From: SD Mooney <dom@cybergoths.u-net.com>
Subject: [BITS] Something which excites me!

BITS - British Isles Traveller Support
http://www.bits.org.uk/

I've just seen something great - the cover for our new adventure 'SpaceDogs'.

It's been produced by the TML's very own Jesse DeGraffe
(http://www.vision-forge-graphics.com/) and has an Empress Marava Far
Trader in distress. It looks really nice! The book should be out on
Thursday next, but I'll try and get a small version up, along with the
cover for the Khiidkar Incident this weekend.


<obligatory plug>

"SPACEDOGS"
- ----------------
An adventure suitable for use with all forms of Traveller, in particular
Marc Miller's Traveller and Steve Jackson's GURPS Traveller.

Imperial Vargr . . .
. . . uplifted doggies who do the dirty jobs. They are the underclass,
doomed to live and die in the slums.

Little Heaven . . .
. . . a small colony in big trouble. Drug-crazed pirates besiege their
village.  The only help they can afford is canine. They don't care about
fur and fangs, as long as you can fight.

Spacedogs is no simple combat mission - if the team win on the ground the
struggle goes all the way to the Imperial Court.

A detailed Traveller adventure...
	...containing pregenerated Vargr characters, deckplans and
statistics for two starships, a description of the colony of Little Heaven,
non-player character details, guidance on playing Vargr and a generic task
system compatible with all versions of Traveller.

ISBN 1-901228-21-5, RRP 4.95 (4.50 to BITS members, incl. UK P&P). Due
for release September 99.

THE KHIIDKAR INCIDENT
- ----------------------------
An adventure suitable for use with all forms of Traveller,
in particular Marc Miller's Traveller and Steve Jackson's GURPS Traveller.

Captain Swing...
	...is an anarchist at the forefront of the Khiidkar Freedom Front,
whose cunning acts of piracy threaten the stable rule of the Imperial noble
houses.

Join the fight against terror...
	...Count Julian Talaton is the sworn enemy of Captain Swing. Join
this tale of noble intrigue, lost heirs, forbidden love, jealousy and
experience the dangers of noble life, from a reckless hunt to a dangerous
duel!

A detailed Traveller adventure...
	...containing pregenerated noble characters, deckplans and
statistics for two starships, a description of the world of Khiidkar and the
Marquis' island residence, detailed non-player characters and a generic task
system compatible with all versions of Traveller.

ISBN 1-901228-20-7, RRP 4.95 (4.50 to BITS members, incl. UK P&P). Due for
release September 99.

BITS products can be bought or ordered through all good role-playing shops.
Mail-order BITS products direct from BITS, Steve Jackson Games in the US
and Leisure Games.
BITS UK Limited, PO Box 4222, Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, CM21 0DP, England.

</obligatory plug>

We should have the books for GenCon UK.

Dom (BITS Webmaster)

- -------------Dom Mooney---webmaster@bits.org.uk----------------
                 BITS - British Isles Traveller Support.
 http://www.bits.org.uk/              mailto:bits@bits.org.uk
Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
GURPS is a registered trademark of Steve Jackson Games, Inc.
BITS and CORE are trademarks of BITS UK Limited.
All rights reserved.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:21:09 +0100
From: "Matthew Bond" <mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Large merchant vessels

- -----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Thrash <thrash@io.com>
>>
>>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...
>
>"[L]arge scale trade calls for large scale ships to carry it out. Such
>trading ships are generally huge bulk carriers with displacements in the
>multi-kiloton range." Traders and Gunboats, p. 18.
>
>Fighting ships mentions "10,000 or 20,000-ton bulk [cargo] carriers" (p.
>25), but says that "commercial ships of [50,000 dtons] are unknown in the
>Spinward Marches" in 1101-1107 (p. 44). Whether they exist later, or closer
>to the core, is a matter for speculation.


Speculation in both senses of the word.  Some merchant of Gatesian wealth
will build one.  If it turns a profit, others will be built.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:48:53 +0100
From: "Matthew Bond" <mgb@akira.swinternet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Will the real Strephon..... 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Keven R. Pittsinger <jamstar@accesstoledo.com>

>> >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?
>
>#2 of course.  Somebody who's gonna cost us a few hundred lives or more to
take out.  *IF* we can take them out...
>
>Keven


Cost *us*? Surely you mean "cost our cannon-fod^H^H^H Gallant
comrades-in-arms a few hundred lives"

<g>

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:35:25 -0300
From: Michel Vaillancourt <misha@empire.atlantic-online.ns.ca>
Subject: Re: Missing Fleets of the Imperial Navy.

At 12:15 AM 8/27/1999 EDT, you wrote:
>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

        <Translated Message from a Vargr named Goghueghz>

        And what, pray tell, did you think we were using those fleets for?

        Chew toys for Corsairs....

        You most likely don't want them back in thier current condition...
<grin>

        <end translation>

        --Michel
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-
	Michel R. Vaillancourt	misha@atlantic-online.ns.ca
				ICQ # 31172292
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-
	    NET-City Communications....
	         Providing "Solutions for the Common Company"
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-
	***REMEMBER - Always virus-check your emails ***
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:30:01 -0500
From: Richard Wilson <rtwilson@rollanet.org>
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.

I went back to Netscape 3.04. The 4.+ browser versions are just too bloated
for my machine to handle.


Richard Wilson

rtwilson@rollanet.org
rtwilson2@yahoo.com
ICQ# 33152095

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 21:42:14 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 19:43:09 +1200 From: "Andrew Moffatt-Vallance"
<a.vallance@netaccess.co.nz>
>> 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.
>
>In the middle Roman Empire, it was common practise to dispatch a portion
>of a legion (called a vexillion) off to trouble spots rather than the
entire legion.
>Now on some occassions, these vexillion's did not rejoin their parent
unit
>and evolved into a complete new unit retaining the parent units
designation.
>Perhaps this is the explaination.

Something to think about. But I still think it is an error.

>Another explaination is that during the Civil War different factions
raised
>fleets with the same designation and some of these survived. The
Spinward
>Campaign mentions that Imperial naval squadron maintain an existance
over
>time (to foster esprit de corp). Perhaps the same is true of fleets.

It is my understanding that each fleet has a reserve fleet at the same
location.
i.e.: The 212th at Regina also having the 1212th reserve fleet stationed
along side.
The main difference being the extra "1" at the begining.


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 21:59:39 EDT
From: Clifford N Linehan <cnl.rubicon@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Duplicate Fleets of The Imperium.

Date: 27 Aug 1999 07:04:40 -0700 From: draper@uswestmail.net
>IIRC, the germans at the end of WWII designated two SS divisisions with
the same number.  The book I was reading wrote it off to the >confusions
resulting from the collapsing state.

IIRC most of the higher ranks of the German military vanished, anyone
higher than a sargent was rarely found. Go figure.

>The pre-rebellion Imperium has no such excuse.  It is probably just
another example of a misprint which becomes canon which players have to
>justify with some dubious rationalization.

No excuses. I did hear that there are several new typing classes being
sponsored by the Navy. ;)

>I like the rationalizations people are coming up with though.

True, many good ideas flying about.
I do hope that it will be sorted out in G:T Imperial Navy.


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 22:08:23 -0400
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com>
Subject: Re: [www] Freelance Traveller Announcement

>David J. Golden wrote:
>
> >         Too bad. That's exactly why I ignore any and all sites hosted on
> > GeoCities. Sorry, folks, it may be free, but I can't abide those
> > popups.
>
>I agree with Dave.  Those popups are a real pain in the butt--especially
when
>you close them before they load and they just pop up again.


My site has no pop-ups and its on Geocities.  Go to the URL below here in my
sig and try it.
___________________________________________________________
 J-Man
 ICQ# 2843475
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.
 Email : j-man@iname.com
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/
___________________________________________________________

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:17:10 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust effects (was HEPlar lives!)

In mail you write:

> 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.

In which case they are missing the point. The debate starts every time
with someone asking "The rules say that USL ships can't land on planets
with atmospheres. Why can't they?"

So the from the start, it's a *given* that the USL ships *aren't*
designed to enter atmospheres. Otherwise the rules would say something
different.

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:24:06 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Thrust Effects

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I'm trying to see if some kind of crash landing situation for a CT
> "partially streamlined" ship on a planet with a breathable atmosphere
> were possible, either with some crew survival or at least with some
> salvage potential.

Ok, *partially* streamlined is not the "unstreamlined" that's been
discussed here.

> I was thinking of a ship with a major power problem, perhaps enough
> power left over for a few minutes of CG, intertial comp and thrust doing 
> a meteoric style reentry, followed by an emergency decel and a *really*
> big bump.

Actually, you'll want to keep the velocity as low as possible. Meteoric
re-entry tends to tear chunks off ships not designed for it. 

I'd suspect that it takes less power to *forget* the inertial
compensators, and decel at the max you are willing to subject the ship
& crew to. 

Ignoring losses, it's going to take the same amount of energy to brake
to a stop whether you do it at high accel in a few seconds, or at lower
accel over the course of several minutes. 

And at the lower accel, you cover *more* distance during the decel
phase, which may well be useful in getting rid of that excess altitude.


You might get a slight advantage from the "braking" effect of the air,
but if your speed is high enough for that to be a factor, then those
same aerodynamic forces are strong enough to rip chunks off the ship.
And the heating could be a problem too. 

Just keep in mind that the Space Shuttle makes it from ground to orbit
in a "few minuts" at only 3 g. So doing the reverse is easy too. 

In one minute, a 6 g drive can move you 108,000 km. And drop your
velocity by 3.6 km/sec. Since orbital velocity for Earth is about 8
km/sec, it should only take about two and a quarter minutes to kill
orbital velocity. It'll take 13 minutes at 1 g. Better have your CG
working. 

Something that can be done by airframe hulls is "skipping" off the
upper atmosphere. Hit the atmosphere at a shallow angle, and you'll
"bounce" like a stone being skipped across water. And the bounce will
absorb a fair amount of enery without *too* much heating. After several
skips, you'll be quite a ways around the planet from the first skip,
and at a velocity of only Mach 5 or so. Maybe as little as Mach 1. So
from that point you can "glide" in. 

This may account for the deck layout on Type S scouts and some small
merchants. It allows for a somewhat stealthy approach. The ride is
pretty bumpy, but it'll save a lot of fuel. 

BTW, "pretty bumpy" means it's worse than the nastiest rollercoaster
you've ever ridden.

Streamlined have to make "straight in" approach, but get down
faster. BTW "straight in" tends to be at some angle from the vertical,
to take advantage of the streamlining.

Partially streamlined have to make a slower approach, but still go
"straight in". Though they prefer more vertical aproaches.

Unstreamline hope that the weather is favorable. They then secure
themselve well to their seats, place their heads between their knees
and kiss their ass goodbye. :-)

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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 18:45:00 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Orion Drive Modules

In mail you write:

>>> 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?
>>
>>Against nuclear weapons, graphite _is_ really tough.  It requires an
> enormous quantity of energy and very high temperatures to vaporize (weight
> for weight, many times higher than steel), it mostly isn't bothered by
> neutrons, and it conducts heat extremely well.  Incidentally, against
> lasers, macrocrystalline graphite (with the planes aligned flat on the
> surface) would be wonderful armor, it's incredibly hard to vaporize, and
> would conduct heat away from the impact point very fast while conducting
> quite poorly through the armor.
>
> I meant tough in the engineering sense - as in "resistant to wear". My
> concerns were less of neutron or thermal absorption, and more of skin
> friction from rocket efflux. (I've seen the steel efflux deflector behind a
> Sea Dart launcher scoured to a mirror-finish by the exhaust from a missile
> launch.)
>
> I think, however, that we're talking at cross purposes, borne out of the
> spaceport-launchpad/Orion-pusher-pad misunderstanding. In space the skin
> friction problem is almost non-existant.

For "blast pits" at a spaceport, I'd run *lots* of water over something
strong but cheap. Concrete with some extra fire-resistance seems to do
well. 

I've speculated that for places that can't afford to use *huge* amounts
of water for this sort of thing, *sand* might be useful. You'd have the
same *huge* "pipes" to channel the exhaust off to someplace else. But
instead of spraying water tto keep the sides cool, you'd "spray" fine
sand. It'd absorb heat by melting, and maybe even vaporizing a little. 

Sure, you'd have more maintenance in "scraping" the slag deposits off
the sides of the "pipes" every so often. But it *might* protect them
more than damage them. 

Or maybe just using deep pits full of sand, and hauling out the slag
between uses would work?

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1031
***********************************

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
