<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1502</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	12/15/99 8:00:14 PM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
From:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Reply-to:	traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
To:	traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
Traveller-digest    Wednesday, December 15 1999    Volume 1999 : Number 1502<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.<BR>
All rights reserved.<BR>
<BR>
The following topics are covered in this digest:<BR>
<BR>
RE: Gun Control<BR>
RE: chicks with guns, and 3I porno<BR>
Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
Munchkins link wanted!<BR>
Re: Re the Gaming Industry<BR>
Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire<BR>
Re: independent Terran invention of jump drive? sure<BR>
Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire<BR>
Re: Re the Gaming Industry<BR>
Re: independent Terran invention of jump drive? sure<BR>
Re: technology advances<BR>
Re: Hack, Cough, Die and Imp Intelligence.<BR>
Re: Hack, Cough, Die and Imp Intelligence.<BR>
Re: Exploding suppressors...<BR>
RE: US Constitution [OT]<BR>
Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
Re: Exploding suppressors...<BR>
Re: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
Re: Traveller News Service<BR>
Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Mantras<BR>
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1500<BR>
Re: technology advances<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:19:54 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: Gun Control<BR>
<BR>
Re-opened a bit of a can of worms, didn't I?<BR>
<BR>
[Best Mel Gibson imitation]<BR>
Whoops....<BR>
[/Best Mel Gibson imitation]<BR>
<BR>
Jesse<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Ian Ferguson<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 7:14 AM<BR>
To: traveller@mpgn.com<BR>
Subject: RE: Gun Control<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Can we please avoid the gun control topic?  There are extremely divided<BR>
views on the subject here on the TML, as out there in the real world.<BR>
Can't we all just get along?  :)<BR>
<BR>
Peez<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:25:10 -0800<BR>
From: Jesse DeGraff <jdegraff@pacbell.net><BR>
Subject: RE: chicks with guns, and 3I porno<BR>
<BR>
Enthusiastic would be correct :)<BR>
<BR>
Understood on your POV.  Damn our cowboy heritage ;)<BR>
<BR>
Jesse<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- -----Original Message-----<BR>
From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
[mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Michel<BR>
Vaillancourt<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 8:54 AM<BR>
To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: RE: chicks with guns, and 3I porno<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
At 08:48 PM 12/14/99 -0800, you wrote:<BR>
>For an interesting statement on this, read Brian Puckett's statement that<BR>
he<BR>
>sent to the California Governer at<BR>
>http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/why_i_will_not_obey_california.htm,<BR>
>specifically the guns covered by the 2nd Amendment.  If we did things TO<BR>
THE<BR>
>LETTER AND INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION, then every *law abiding* gun owner<BR>
>would own fully automatic weapons.<BR>
><BR>
>Best,<BR>
>Jesse<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
        He's a bit.... enthusiastic about his POV, eh?<BR>
<BR>
        I personally don't understand the modern requirement for the US 2nd<BR>
Amendment, but then I am a Canuck.  That isn't flame-bait, its just me.<BR>
<BR>
        --Michel<BR>
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-<BR>
	Michel R. Vaillancourt	misha@atlantic-online.ns.ca<BR>
				ICQ # 31172292<BR>
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-<BR>
	    NET-City Communications....<BR>
	         Providing "Solutions for the Common Company"<BR>
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-<BR>
	***REMEMBER - Always virus-check your emails ***<BR>
	-+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+-<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:35:10 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
<BR>
>From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" <jimpeta@primus.com.au><BR>
<BR>
>    I apologise if this has been raised before but <BR>
>why do Marines get the Cutlass? <BR>
<BR>
Ah, the annual "use of blade weapons in Traveller"<BR>
thrash arrives just as people were starting to tire of<BR>
(or really warm up to) the "gun control/U.S.<BR>
Constitution" thrash.  No, wait, that isn't Jim's<BR>
question; he accepts blade weapons in the Far Future,<BR>
and wants to know, why the cutlass?<BR>
<BR>
>They never used them historically, Marines started <BR>
>out using Muskets and Bayonets and even the officers <BR>
>used a different sword.<BR>
<BR>
Well, what does "historically" mean in our context? <BR>
You are talking about the 1600s to 1800s.  To people<BR>
living in the Far Future, that's like you and me<BR>
discussing what weapons were used by which personnel<BR>
on the Pharoah's boats.  It has no bearing on<BR>
traditions that may only be several hundred years old.<BR>
<BR>
So why the Cutlass, as opposed to the broadsword, dai<BR>
katana, kukri, or other blade weapon?  In my Traveller<BR>
Universe, the Instellarms LIC engineers who submitted<BR>
the winning bid wanted to base the design on an old<BR>
Solomani weapon (the Solomani faction being then<BR>
ascendant) and thought the cutlass looked the coolest.<BR>
 They won the bid (coolness being a factor considered<BR>
by Imperial Marine Procurement, but strength,<BR>
durability, cost, and other factors also having been<BR>
considered) and the rest is history.<BR>
<BR>
>Enlisted Naval personnel were the main users of the <BR>
>Cutlass, they also used Boarding Axes and Boarding <BR>
>Pikes as well all though these don't seem to be an <BR>
>option.<BR>
<BR>
Axes are best for breaking through wooden doors and<BR>
walls, but there aren't many of these aboard<BR>
starships; breaching charges are used instead.<BR>
<BR>
Pikes are (1) for grabbing the other ship's gunwales<BR>
and (2) holding off charging enemy sailor coming over<BR>
your gunwales.  There aren't any gunwales on<BR>
starships, so these don't get used in the Far Future.<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 02:36:52 +0100<BR>
From: Volker Greimann <volker@greimann.de><BR>
Subject: Munchkins link wanted!<BR>
<BR>
Hi all,<BR>
could someone please repost the link with the munchkin references? I thought<BR>
I had saved the link, but cant find it anymore...<BR>
Volker<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:01:03 +0100<BR>
From: Volker Greimann <volker@greimann.de><BR>
Subject: Re: Re the Gaming Industry<BR>
<BR>
>Also, get ready for D&D3.  Each book will be priced very low, with the <BR>
>intent to destroy smaller companies that can't afford to compete with the <BR>
>price of the new version of D&D.  When you average gamer sees Seven Seas <BR>
>for $30, and D&D3 to ~$20, talk a wild guess what is going to be bought on <BR>
>average.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
This may be a good thing though: Many years now, rpgs have become more and <BR>
more expensive to get into. There has to be a cheap entry level RPG though, <BR>
else there will be no newer players. To keep the community healthy, we need <BR>
younger recruits, and they wont be able to afford to spend more than <BR>
70-100$ to even start playing. If D&D is going to cater to that market <BR>
again, ill welcome it... More young recruits means more sales for more <BR>
expensive games later on, so the industry will stay healthy in the years to <BR>
come. <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 03:15:25 +0100<BR>
From: Volker Greimann <volker@greimann.de><BR>
Subject: Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>Heck, now that I can afford to buy stuff again, I buy GURPS<BR>
>"worldbooks" in spite of the fact that I don't think I'll switch over<BR>
>to GURPS any time soon.<BR>
<BR>
Add to that that most of the Gurps Sourcebooks make an excellent READ, and <BR>
you have got a really interesting product, even if you dont play Gurps...<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 18:43:02 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: independent Terran invention of jump drive? sure<BR>
<BR>
>From: Garry Ward <Garry.E.Ward@worldnet.att.net><BR>
<BR>
>New Heresy: Grandfather and the Hivers are old <BR>
>enemies. The war wasn't between Grandfather and his <BR>
>children, it was between Grandfather and the Hivers. <BR>
>All of the Grandfather's children were destroyed, <BR>
>Grandfather hid and the Hivers were blasted back into<BR>
<BR>
>a pre technological society.<BR>
>And the trip switch to start the war was the Hiver's <BR>
>attempt to manipulate one of the most adaptable of <BR>
>Grandfathers slave worker races, the Humans.<BR>
<BR>
Have the Templars approved this guy?  What's his<BR>
security clearance?  He obviously knows too much.<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.<BR>
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:37:26 -0600<BR>
From: "Thomas Vickers" <redroach@flex.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
<BR>
I vote for axes.<BR>
They migh not break down doors, but beware the Zho swine who gets in my way.<BR>
Even better, How about Chainsaws?<BR>
<BR>
Imagine that, Battledress and chainsaws. That would HAVE to strike terror<BR>
Into the enemies of the Imperial Marines.<BR>
<BR>
Great big Fusion Powered Chainsaws :)<BR>
<BR>
TV<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:39:08 -0600<BR>
From: "Thomas Vickers" <redroach@flex.net><BR>
Subject: Re: The Rise and Supposed Decline of the RPG Empire<BR>
<BR>
I think one of the GURPS strengths is that they put out lots of<BR>
world type materials.  It is not necessarily GURPS dependent and it <BR>
makes a nice read. I don't play GURPS at all, being a Hero system fan, but<BR>
I own a few GURPS books for background and info.<BR>
<BR>
TV<BR>
<BR>
Born again Traveller fan, awaiting his reprints of CT<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:40:41 -0600<BR>
From: "Thomas Vickers" <redroach@flex.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Re the Gaming Industry<BR>
<BR>
Anyone remember the old days?<BR>
AD&D was EXPENSIVE and Traveller came in those nice, affordable<BR>
black books?<BR>
<BR>
By the time the Traveller Book (great big, black hard back with blue and<BR>
white cover) come out, you were more than willing to buy it :)<BR>
<BR>
TV<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:43:54 -0600<BR>
From: "Thomas Vickers" <redroach@flex.net><BR>
Subject: Re: independent Terran invention of jump drive? sure<BR>
<BR>
>Have the Templars approved this guy?  What's his<BR>
>security clearance?  He obviously knows too much.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
He's being dealt with.  Can you say recruit or die?<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:05:18 -0800<BR>
From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
Subject: Re: technology advances<BR>
<BR>
>From: Richard Wilson <rtwilson@rollanet.org><BR>
>Subject: Re: technology advances<BR>
...<BR>
>youngsters might want to look up the history of a little project called<BR>
>Viking. <BR>
><BR>
>My question is: Is NASA's recent history just a string of bad luck, the<BR>
>fruits of our "modern, improved" education system, or little gray dudes<BR>
>from Zeta Reticuli getting in some target practice before the big invasion?<BR>
<BR>
  I'd go with #1, unless it starts happening every damned time - then I'd<BR>
bet on a variant of #3 :>  If you want to pin it on "modern" education<BR>
then you probably have to go back to the `60's & `70's, and then ask why<BR>
other fields aren't equally conspicuously crippled by incompetence*.<BR>
<BR>
  * or are they? :)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:06:27 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Hack, Cough, Die and Imp Intelligence.<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Hi Folks<BR>
>  I am working up a new campaign scenario and I would like some opinions. <BR>
> At TL13/14 could you brew up a chemical toxin that would trigger only if <BR>
> an individual had an elevated level of some trace mineral in their body. <BR>
> A example would be a group using lead in their water supply <BR>
> infrastructure or another group exposed to some industrial byproduct <BR>
> unique to a particular type of industry.<BR>
<BR>
We'd need our resident MD to confirm it, but I'm fairly sure that we<BR>
can do that *now*. <BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:07:44 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Hack, Cough, Die and Imp Intelligence.<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Charlie writes:<BR>
>>  I am working up a new campaign scenario and I would like some<BR>
>> opinions. At TL13/14 could you brew up a chemical toxin that would<BR>
>> trigger only if an individual had an elevated level of some trace<BR>
>> mineral in their body. A example would be a group using lead in<BR>
>> their water supply infrastructure or another group exposed to some<BR>
> industrial byproduct unique to a particular type of industry.<BR>
<BR>
> Maybe.  It depends what the trace mineral is.  In general I'd consider it <BR>
> unlikely, however.  A biological agent which triggers on some trace material <BR>
> is probably easier.<BR>
<BR>
Actually, there are a *lot* of chemicals/drugs that in effect "increase<BR>
sensitivity" to various trace substances or the lack thereof. We may<BR>
not be able to *design* such, but browsing thru "failed drug" info at<BR>
drug development centers, and "interaction warnings" for successful<BR>
drugs would likely locate a suitable candidate from damn near anything!<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:12:50 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Exploding suppressors...<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>>ObTrav: Characters with minimal firearms training do something in a<BR>
>>similarly dumb vein.. like trying to load a .45 rifle with 9mm.  :P<BR>
><BR>
> Worth a read of Iain M Banks' "Consider Phlebas"<BR>
<BR>
I'd love to. But the book is "too old" to be in stock at the local<BR>
bookstores, and too popular to be in stock at the used bookstores (like<BR>
Powells) that I've checked. Ditto for the rest of his "Culture" books.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:10:36 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: RE: US Constitution [OT]<BR>
<BR>
On 15 Dec 99, at 15:31, Moody, Danny M. wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Absolutely untrue!  The Supreme Court itself, many, many times have stated<BR>
> that denying cert means nothing at all - except that they didn't want to<BR>
> deal with the issue.<BR>
<BR>
Maybe so, but by not hearing cases dealing with a particular issue, the <BR>
Supreme Court is allowing whatever it is that is being appealed against <BR>
to continue.<BR>
<BR>
In the case of gun control by refusing to hear 2nd amendment cases the <BR>
Supreme Court is allowing state and federal gun control laws to exist <BR>
and be enforced regardless of thier constitutional legality. <BR>
<BR>
It strikes me that this is a weakness in the US system - if the Supreme <BR>
Court won't hear cases the constitution can be ignored. How are Supreme <BR>
Court members selected?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:16:45 EST<BR>
From: GaryBartz@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/15/99 8:59:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>
owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< I apologise if this has been raised before but why do Marines get the<BR>
 Cutlass? They never used them historically, Marines started out using<BR>
 Muskets and Bayonets and even the officers used a different sword. Enlisted<BR>
 Naval personnel were the main users of the Cutlass, they also used Boarding<BR>
 Axes and Boarding Pikes as well all though these don't seem to be an option.<BR>
 >><BR>
<BR>
The US Marine Enlisted sword is the the former [US] Infantry Officer's Saber, <BR>
close enough to the cutlass for the modern untrained eye, eve if the blade is <BR>
not anywhere near wide enough.<BR>
The Officer's sword is an actual dress type sword, though.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:13:28 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
<BR>
On 15 Dec 99, at 20:37, Thomas Vickers wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> I vote for axes.<BR>
> They migh not break down doors, but beware the Zho swine who gets in my<BR>
> way. Even better, How about Chainsaws?<BR>
> <BR>
> Imagine that, Battledress and chainsaws. That would HAVE to strike terror<BR>
> Into the enemies of the Imperial Marines.<BR>
> <BR>
> Great big Fusion Powered Chainsaws :)<BR>
<BR>
The image of something out of GW's 40K striding across the Traveller <BR>
landscape certainly strikes terror into me.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:22:12 EST<BR>
From: KenRoney@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Subject: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
<BR>
I'm going right to the source on this question.  From Journal Number 4, 1979 <BR>
in a discussion of why blades get so much attention under the original rules:<BR>
"As far as the military goes, tradition adn esprit de corps can be justified <BR>
to justify the inclusion of some blade training.  Perhaps arbitrarily, <BR>
marines in Traveller receive training in cutalss as a service skill; it's <BR>
justified as a morale building effort, like bayonet training in the U,S. Army <BR>
(I received boyonet training, hell, I gave bayonet training, and the Army <BR>
hasn't used bayonets in any real action since 1918).  Officers in armies all <BR>
over the worlds were taught fencing long aftewr it ceased to have any <BR>
military significance.  Over and above all this, some training is still given <BR>
in the use of the knife because it is one of the more efficient ways to kill <BR>
silently, laways of use to commandos and the like."<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:17:57 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: Exploding suppressors...<BR>
<BR>
On 15 Dec 99, at 19:12, Leonard Erickson wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> I'd love to. But the book is "too old" to be in stock at the local<BR>
> bookstores, and too popular to be in stock at the used bookstores (like<BR>
> Powells) that I've checked. Ditto for the rest of his "Culture" books.<BR>
<BR>
Hah. There are some advantages to being part of the UK side of the <BR>
paperback industry - they've just reprinted them (again) and they're on <BR>
the shelves here. OTOH getting new Weber novels can be a nightmare, as <BR>
is getting anything, new or old, published by DAW. I suspect that DAW <BR>
doesn't have an overseas publication deal with anyone in the UK.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:35:51 +1100<BR>
From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" <jimpeta@primus.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: Marines & Cutlasses<BR>
<BR>
>The US Marine Enlisted sword is the the former [US] Infantry Officer's<BR>
Saber,<BR>
>close enough to the cutlass for the modern untrained eye, eve if the blade<BR>
is<BR>
>not anywhere near wide enough.<BR>
>The Officer's sword is an actual dress type sword, though.<BR>
<BR>
    (startled gasp!)<BR>
    There's my problem, I'm a sword fanatic. A Sabre and a Cutlass are as<BR>
different as a Hatchet and a Battle Axe (well, to me they are), I even<BR>
distinguish between the Cutlass and the Dusagge. (What's the definition of<BR>
"Anal Retentive"?)<BR>
    I was wrong in my earlier post, the US Marines used a Cutlass during<BR>
their operations around the Barbary Coast until 1859 when they adopted the<BR>
sword you mentioned. I actually own an early 20th century cutlass although<BR>
it is so light it's almost a different beastie entirely, so you have a good<BR>
point about the Cutlass/Sabre. By the time it is the Third Imperium the<BR>
weapon will probabl be unrecognisable, Mono-Molecular Blade etc. Still, by<BR>
far the most common user of the Cutlass were Naval Enlisted, is there a<BR>
CT/MT case for making them roll against "Naval Tradition"?<BR>
    Jim L.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:46:46 EST<BR>
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller News Service<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 12/13/99 7:38:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
david.d.jaques-watson@centrelink.gov.au writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< I think it was suggested somewhere that nobles are not allowed to use<BR>
 anagathics, but I think this is just a cop-out. Better - for flavour, if not <BR>
for<BR>
 stability of succession - to have the kids growing impatient and trying to <BR>
bump<BR>
 off the old man, or having abdication as a common method of succession. >><BR>
<BR>
Yeah, that was in TD and therefore verboten...:-(, but doesn't the Emperor's <BR>
list have shorter and shorter lived monarchs as the list gets current?<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:38:10 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED Mantras<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> OB Traveller; Would Belters or have something similar?<BR>
><BR>
> "If it's stony, extract it"<BR>
> "If it's ice, melt it"<BR>
> "If it's carbon, curse it"<BR>
<BR>
Actually, the carbonaceous chodrites are second only to the "ice"<BR>
bodies in value. For one thing, "ice" and "CHON" are the *only* sources<BR>
of critical life support chemicals like nitrogen in the belt. Ditto for<BR>
carbon (for plastics and life support), hydrogen (water and power),<BR>
etc. <BR>
<BR>
Also, in any belt you'll have ice *or* chondrites. Ice in the outer<BR>
system, where it is cold enough, chondrites in the inner system where<BR>
the volatiles got baked out of the ice at the same time UV was<BR>
converting surface compounds into complex organics.<BR>
<BR>
So the three types of asteroids are:<BR>
<BR>
1. nickel/iron<BR>
2. stony<BR>
3. icy *or* chondritic<BR>
<BR>
Nickel/iron is useful for structrul materials, and the "impurities" out<BR>
to be fairly useful too (any metals that prefer to go into solution in<BR>
iron rather than become part of the "stony" part of a body when a body<BR>
differentiates in the early history of a system). Stuff like Iridium,<BR>
and other platinum group metals.<BR>
<BR>
I've already covered icy & chondritic bodies.<BR>
<BR>
Which leaves stony bodies. Which are somewhat useful as a source of<BR>
oxygen, if you can't find anything better. And they've got *lots* of<BR>
silicon, aluminum and magnesium. And fair amounts of titanium. So<BR>
glass, steel, aluminum, magnesium, and titanium are the major<BR>
construction materials in belt habitats. <BR>
<BR>
Just keep in mind that *all* asteroid "rock" is igneous. No sedimentary<BR>
or metamorphic. And it's *really* unlikely that there will be any<BR>
"hydrothermal" deposits. Thus, no mineral "veins". Just lots and lots<BR>
of basalts, granites and the like. (any geologist want to help out<BR>
here?) <BR>
<BR>
So all the stuff we prospect for "ores" of on Earth isn't like to<BR>
*have* "ores" in the belt. You'll just have to extract the silica, then<BR>
the alumina, magnesia, and titania (oxides of the relevant elements).<BR>
the rest of the stuff will be a mish mash of all *sorts* of stuff. And<BR>
seperating it will be a pain.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 20:06:19 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1500<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
>>Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:05:11 PST<BR>
>>From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
>>Subject: Re: technology advances<BR>
><BR>
> <snip><BR>
><BR>
>>I'm told that due to the influence of th government contractor types<BR>
>>and NASA the regulations aren't real friendly to "small start up"<BR>
>>companies.<BR>
><BR>
> But if some company decided that space was a worthwhile<BR>
> investment those rules would change. All it would take is a few well<BR>
> chosen "campaign contributions" and congress would fall over itself<BR>
> backwards to change those regulations.<BR>
><BR>
> (gosub Monty Python<BR>
>   Are they foaming at the mouth to fall over backwards or<BR>
>   falling over backwards to foam at the mouth?<BR>
>   return)<BR>
<BR>
That's only true for *large* companies. Not the folks who are doing<BR>
most of the *innovative* designs.<BR>
<BR>
>>> The reasons "private enterprise" hasn't gotten into the space game<BR>
>>> on a free lance basis is that nobody can figure out how to do it<BR>
>>> less expensively than the "ineficient government bueraucracy."<BR>
>><BR>
>>Well, I hear that part of the reason for that is that you get required<BR>
>>to produce tons of paperwork to satisfy government types that you<BR>
>>aren't violating their rules.<BR>
><BR>
> I worked for a Textbook store that serves the local comunity college.<BR>
> one of the courses taught at that institution is ENG 100 - Technical<BR>
> Writing. Any largish corporation will be able to swamp "Los Federales"<BR>
> with more than enough paperwork to convince anybody willing to be<BR>
> convinced. (My impression of NASA funcionaries - they want to be<BR>
> convinced.)<BR>
<BR>
Again, you are talking about *large* companies. Which are mostly<BR>
already involved with sweetheart contracts with NASA, or aren't<BR>
interested in space.<BR>
<BR>
The *small* companies are the ones coming up with ideas like Pegasus,<BR>
and other new approaches. And they *don't* have that sort of staff. Nor<BR>
does what staff they *do* have have the experience to deal with los<BR>
diablos^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hfederales.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 19:15:08 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: technology advances<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Leonard Erickson writes:<BR>
>> > Space launch vehicles are much more likely to go up in a ball of<BR>
>> > vapour if something goes wrong than a 777. Most of the time if something<BR>
>> > goes wrong on an airplane you can continue the flight or land at the<BR>
>> > nearest airport whereas with a rocket something going wrong is<BR>
>> > extremely likely to result in catastrophic failure (ie fireball in the<BR>
>> > sky.) <BR>
>> <BR>
>> That's because NASA designs and runs the damn things like *racecars*.<BR>
>> Right at the ragged edge of performance. Which is way they have to<BR>
>> completely disassemble things after each flight. <BR>
><BR>
> Unfortunately, that's sort of a prerequisite for getting into orbit.  <BR>
<BR>
Not really. It's a requirement for getting the last possible ounce of<BR>
payload for a given amount of fuel. But I've read articles by folks<BR>
involved with several different "alternative launch systems" that say<BR>
much what I did. <BR>
<BR>
Several designs use deliberately "de-rated (ie operated at well below<BR>
the design range) engines specifically to reduce wear and allow longer<BR>
operation between *scheduled* maintenance. <BR>
<BR>
Rocket fuel is *not* the big expense. The fuel required to get you into<BR>
orbit might cost as much as a few hundred bucks. Probably a lot less. <BR>
<BR>
The costs are all expensive parts in the rocket, with their *short*<BR>
lifetimes, and the *millions* of man-hours involved in assembling and<BR>
maintaining things the NASA way. <BR>
 <BR>
>> We need something designed like a *truck*, or at least like an<BR>
>> airplane. Parts and vehicle designed so that the normal flight regime<BR>
>> is only 50-70 percent of design rating. And designed so they merely<BR>
>> need regular maintenance.<BR>
><BR>
> The problem is, if you have an engine with a specific impulse of 460<BR>
> seconds, and it takes 730 seconds of thrust to get into orbit plus an<BR>
> additional 120 seconds of thrust to keep from hitting the ground, 14%<BR>
> of your weight can be non-fuel mass.  If you reduce your specific<BR>
> impulse by 10%, only 11% of your weight can be non-fuel mass -- which<BR>
> means your parts need to be 30% stronger, weight for weight, which<BR>
> means that by running one system at _less_ than design rating, other<BR>
> systems need to run at _more_  than design rating.  Getting into<BR>
> space is _hard_.<BR>
<BR>
This is why multi-stage rockets were invented. They are *not*<BR>
inherently "one use". <BR>
<BR>
Also, just because the parts have to be 30% stronger, that *doesn't*<BR>
mean that they are running at more than their design rating. <BR>
<BR>
Please note that the DC-X was designed using "aircraft" design<BR>
practices, not "spacecraft" ones. <BR>
<BR>
>> I'm told that due to the influence of th government contractor types<BR>
>> and NASA the regulations aren't real friendly to "small start up"<BR>
>> companies. <BR>
><BR>
> Maybe.  In practice a small startup is flatly incapable of getting into <BR>
> orbit.  The cheapest way of doing it is buying a missile booster from the <BR>
> USSR, and that's still quite expensive.<BR>
<BR>
You are making unfounded assumptions. A "small startup" won't get into<BR>
orbit *at first*, anymore than a small startup computer firm will<BR>
get picked to be the computer supplier for all the computers in a<BR>
Fortune 500 company. <BR>
<BR>
Startups start out by designing and testing launchers for small<BR>
payloads. And for your information, it is possible for "high power"<BR>
model rockets to orbit payloads. Nobody has done it yet because not<BR>
only is it expensive, but getting the flight plan approved would be a<BR>
nightmare. <BR>
<BR>
Several of the suppliers of the larger model rocket engines have lines<BR>
the go from the "model rocket engines" on up to sounding rocket engines<BR>
without any sort of a break. Just a steady progression of<BR>
impulse/thrust ratings thoroughout the line.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, a startup either builds around "off the shelf" engines, or they<BR>
design their own and buy off the shelf for other things. They do tests<BR>
to prove their designs, and as the tests go well they get more<BR>
investors and scale things up. Or they fail (either tests or to attract<BR>
investors) and they vanish. <BR>
<BR>
But expecyting them to do the sort of reporting that someone like<BR>
Boeing does (where they can afford the staff to file foot thick<BR>
reports with the government) is just a bit unreasonable.<BR>
 <BR>
>> > The reasons "private enterprise" hasn't gotten into the space game<BR>
>> > on a free lance basis is that nobody can figure out how to do it<BR>
>> > less expensively than the "ineficient government bueraucracy."<BR>
>> <BR>
>> Well, I hear that part of the reason for that is that you get required<BR>
>> to produce tons of paperwork to satisfy government types that you<BR>
>> aren't violating their rules. <BR>
><BR>
> Well, truth is that there are a number of private groups which are doing <BR>
> work on commercial launchers; a number of groups think they _can_ make money <BR>
> at the private launch business, and most likely NASA would be happy to let <BR>
> them do so.<BR>
<BR>
Depends on who you ask. The rank and file at NASA, sure. Ask the admin<BR>
types, they may *say* yes, but their actions say something quite<BR>
different. <BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1502<BR>
***********************************<BR>
<BR>
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:<BR>
<BR>
unsubscribe traveller-digest<BR>
<BR>
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".<BR>
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is<BR>
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that<BR>
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe<BR>
"local-traveller":<BR>
<BR>
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net<BR>
<BR>
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to<BR>
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"<BR>
in the commands above with "traveller".<BR>
<BR>
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com<BR>
</XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" BACK="#fffffe" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Received: from  rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (rly-zc01.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.1]) by air-zc01.mail.aol.com (v67.6) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 23:00:14 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zc01.mx.aol.com (v67.6) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:59:53 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA98459;<BR>
	Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:58:37 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:58:07 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id WAA98380<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:58:07 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:58:07 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199912160358.WAA98380@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1502<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
