
-------- TML Message #1544 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1544
Date:         Mon, 10 Sep 90 11:11:26 GMT
From: Arthur Green <AJGREEN%IRLEARN@pucc.princeton.edu>
Subject:      Meson weapons and spinal mounts

As far as I can recall from High Guard, meson weapons were pretty
awesome in their size/weight and power consumption. I always assumed they
were some sort of accelerator weapon (I'm a retired civil engineer so what
do I know :-). The weapon has to be that long to accelerate the mesons or
whatever, so you sort of build the ship around the gun (hence spinal mount).
My image of a planetary meson site was a huge spherical cavern with a
grav-mounted meson gun in the middle so it could point in any direction
whatsoever. The cavern would be big enough to park a dreadnaught in.

 - Arthur Green
 - University College Dublin Computing Services -- AJGREEN@IRLEARN.BITNET --
                                                   AJGREEN@IRLEARN.UCD.IE
"Happiness is a warm low berth ..."

-------- TML Message #1545 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1545
Date:     Mon, 10 Sep 90 9:13:15 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  FIGHTING SHIPS(??)

I was just looking over FIGHTING SHIPS OF THE SHATTERED IMPERIUM again this
weekend.  I commented once in an earlier message that it had so disgusted me
that I didn't look too closely at it when I bought it.  

Well, that verdict stands.  If there is anyone out there who is thinking about 
buying this piece of trash, I would strongly recommend against it.  

Between the fact that the designers did not incorporate the errata that was
available into the designs (such as reduced gunnery crews, reduced power cost
of meson screens), the out and out typos that occurred presumably as a result
of copying and modifiying the files on a word processor (and I know...I've
made similar mistakes--but for a commercial product I don't think it is
excusable) such as the 30,000 ton tanker "battlerider"  (I think it gets
carried in a battlerider slot on a tender) that says it has 300,000 tons
of fuel available for distribution, or the number of flight crew on any
ship in the book (always identicle to the number of gunnery crew--obvious
error, but what should it be?  There is no way of reconstructing because
some ships carry thins like 100 or 200 or 1000 ton subsidiary craft whose 
designs are not included, and therefore whose crew requirements are unknown.)
The crew numbers never add up to the total on large ships, and the control 
sections are completely screwy.  Is there a rule that I missed somewhere that
says that you can't add special displays (HUD, etc.) without having an
equal number of conventional panels?  

Not to mention design problems.  First off, I know there is a rule of ambiguous
meaning in the narrative section of the vehicle design that says "added armor
may not be more than 5 times the tech level).  Now, I've always pretty much
ignored it, since it never says whether that means total armor, or armor
above 40 for a space craft but above 0 for a vehicle, or something else
entirely.  Assuming that the ">40 for a spacecraft" is correct, the armor
levels on most of the battleships are impossible.  In any case, if you read the
combat rules, they are excessive:

     Armor 52 (-4 on damage) is the level required to prevent large
     weapons from getting interior explosions on the surface damage
     table.

     Armor 82 (-14 on damage) is the level required to prevent any non-
     spinal mount from doing damage on the surface or radiation damage
     table. (Meson guns excepted)

     Armor 100 (-20 on damage) is the level required to prevent any
     spinal mount or nuclear missile form doing any damage on the
     the surface damage table.

It is certainly a matter of tradeoff as to what level of armor you elect, but
there is no purpose served in the game by going over 100.  Well, you say, armor
can be reduced as a result of critical hits.  Yes...but the only thing that
will cause crtitical hits on a vehicle with armor 100 are meson guns, and 
any hit by a large meson gun will put a ship out of action for the rest of
a battle, same as with the HIGH GUARD rules.

Since meson guns are the main ship killers (as before), there is almsot no point
in fielding a battleship without the maximum allowable meson screens, and even
that doesn't help a whole lot.  I played out *a lot* of combat with the HIGH
GUARD rules, and the new rules have not changed these points.

If a few of us got together, we could recreate the entire contents of the book
(FIGHTING SHIPS(?) that is) in a couple of weeks.  Any takers?

Rob Dean

-------- TML Message #1546 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1546
From: CHOINSKI@env.prime.COM
Date: 10 Sep 90 11:21:08 EDT

ITOM -- Interface Travel Operations Manual      A 2300ad ship rules enhancement
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. INTRODUCTION

   In the standard  rules of 2300ad all worlds and all ships are created equal.
The time for interface  operations and fuel  use are stated as constant for all
worlds  and ships, for ease and  speed of play.   However, with the current war
situation  along the French arm,  the lack of  detail precludes  many adventure
possibilities and denies the referee certain facets of play.

   This  document,  using  the basic  2300ad  rules,  Star Cruiser, and various
Challenge  articles,  is  an  attempt  to  bring  greater  flavor to  interface
operations.


2. ALL WORLDS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL

   On page 102 of the  Director's Guide,  interface  travel times are given for
the various types of  interface craft,  and it is presumed that these times are
valid for every world a PC might  wish to land on or  take off from.   However,
not every  world has  the same  mass and  size as Earth.   Why treat Crater the
same as King, if they are truely different?

   Using Earth as the standard, a reasonable assumption given the common use of
Earth masses,  Earth years  and Earth gravities,  each  world has an "Interface
Travel Time"  (ITT) modifier  based on it's  diameter and mass.   This modifier
is multiplied  by the base travel  time for the type of  craft to find the true
travel time (rounding to the nearest 5 minutes).  This formula is:

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   SQRT(mass x 2.1395) - (diameter/27582)                    |
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   If mass is not available, the folling formula will determine it:

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|           ((diameter x 5000)^2 x 980 x gravity) / (3.98653 E+20)            |
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Plugging Earth into the formula produces an ITT of 1.0, as expected.   Other
worlds have different values.  Using the given travel times as multipliers, the
per-hour rate is the time in minutes per "hour" of trip time.

     Name          Per/Hour Rate               Name          Per/Hour Rate
     Adlerhorst      75 minutes                Aurore          35 minutes
     Austin's World  75 minutes                Beowulf         65 minutes
     Beta Canum 4    55 minutes                Cold Mountain   42 minutes
     Crater          36 minutes                Daikoku         72 minutes
     Doris           54 minutes                Dukou          109 minutes
     Dunkelheim      20 minutes                Earth           60 minutes
     Ellis           57 minutes                Heidelsheimat   33 minutes
     Hermes          41 minutes                Joi             82 minutes
     Kie-Yuma       119 minutes                Kimanjano       81 minutes
     King           296 minutes                Kingsland       57 minutes
     Kormoran        32 minutes                Kwantung        45 minutes
     Montana         53 minutes                Nibelungen      26 minutes
     Nous Voila      71 minutes                Tirane          64 minutes

   As you can see,  it takes a spaceplane nearly 10 hours to reach  the 0.1 gee
discharge  gradient when launching  from King,  but only 72 minutes when taking
off from Crater.   The orbital facilities  of most worlds will be at this point
since  it is the  inside limit of  stutterwarp operation.   This time will also
limit the  response time of ground-based system defense craft.   The above list
is  not complete -- I have only  included those  worlds whose mass and diameter
statistics were either provided by the  Colonial Atlas or  calculated on my own
with my s2300 program.

   Note:  the above times  are for reaching  orbital docking.   A ship  that is
"scrambling"  (racing for stutterwarp)  will reach stutterwarp capacity in half
the given time.


3. BATTLESHIPS WITH OUTBOARD MOTORS

   In Star Cruiser,  "multiply the given travel time by the power output of the
MHD turbine to find the actual travel time" is stated as the means to determine
travel time for steamlined ships.  Taken at straight value, this statement says
that  if you want  rapid ascent, use a smaller drive.  This provokes  images of
ships the size of  Alpha-Class  battlecruisers  using Estes  rocket engines for
interface travel.

   Even assuming the intent was "smaller drives equals smaller ships", we still
have problems with large ships adding a small MHD turbine for interface travel.

   Given that  energy is related to mass by the  square of the velocity, we can
assume that  "Thruster Efficiency"  is calculated  similar to "Warp Efficiency"
but using the square root instead of the cube root.  Using a "generic" lander
given in Ships of the French Arm, this formula is taken to be:

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                          SQRT(output/mass) x 18.5                           |
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   With this formula,  the TE of any interface  capable craft can be found.   I
have calculated several ship's values,  as taken  from Ships of the French Arm:

     Name               Origin       Thrust    Lift   Notes
       Udet               German       3.17    Full
       Wespe              German       2.89    Part
       Mistral-IIIbis     French       2.31    Full   unloaded
       Wellington         British      2.16    Full
       Mistral-IIIbis     French       2.15    Full   w/Ritage-2 missile
       Bonapart           French       1.98    Part
       Riche              French       1.88    Full
       Faidi              Azanian      1.43    Full
       Merkur             German       1.36    Part
       Bufer              French       1.33    Full
       Exeter             British      1.10    Part
       Yinma              Manchurian   0.99    Part
       Hayabusa           Japanese     0.96    Full
       Thorez             Brazilian    0.94    Part   empty
       Cambaceres         French       0.84    Part
       Marseilles         French       0.77    Full
       Krupp 821          German       0.63    None   empty
       Thorez             Brazilian    0.34    None   fully loaded
       Krupp 821          German       0.16    None   fully loaded

   "Full" lift indicates  full streamlining -- the  ship is designed to operate
like a spaceplane.  "Part" indicates  partial streamlining, meaning it operates
like  a shuttle  (rocket plane/dead glider).   The Krupp 821  is designed to be
able to land on worlds with no atmospheres, and operates like a rocket.  I have
determined streamlining type from the picture in Ships of the French Arm.

   As for interstellar travel,  divide the average  travel time by the thruster
efficiency to find the actual time.  While it takes a Marseilles 156 minutes to
make a run to the discharge orbit,  an Udet needs only  38 minutes (and only 19
minutes if scrambling for stutterwarp capability).

   It should be  noted that while ships with Partial streamlining take half the
amount of time to get to orbit, they also use twice as much fuel.  As a rule of
thumb, with partial streamlining being the default lander configuration, assume
that no  streamling takes  50% more fuel  for interface  operations  while full
streamlining uses 50% less fuel.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                   NOTE:                                     |
|    At the present time, my Star Cruiser rules are not available to me.      |
|  If some kind soul could let me know how much fuel an interface operation   |
|   uses (both ways), so that I can formulate a reasonable per-MW/hour fuel   |
|                 consumption, I would be most appreciative.                  |
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4. CONCLUSION

   Well,  that ends this document.  I hope that the information given within is
useful to your running of 2300ad.  If you have any comments, additions or other
notes, please drop a line to CHOINSKI@ENV.PRIME.COM and let me know.

     -- Burton Choinski


-------- TML Message #1547 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1547
Subject: Mesons
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 7:55:49 PDT
From: Richard Johnson <richard@agora.UUCP>

In message 1543,  Stephen Tihor says:

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

I am not sure I would like to have a meson gun firing through another meson 
gun or the ships fusor for two.  Most of the ship should be transparent to
meson fire although one might expect some "minor" sideffects along the axis of
fire, particularly are the first few tech levels for meson weaponry.  
For a large enough weapon these "side effects", trivial fractions of the 
main weapons power, might belarger than one would like effecting your own ship,
although they may well be acceptable in a planetary defense mode.

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

I'd like to know what some of these "side-effects" are.  It seems the
concept of the meson cannon is the same as TL-8 radiation therapy:
you cut loose a sub-atomic particle of known energy and it gives up
most of its (stored) energy within a well-defined region.  (I don't know
why it happens like this, but it does.)  By knowing what our mesons
are passing through, we simply adjust the energy we put into them so that
they are `targeted' where we want them.

Of course, you'll NEVER find me walking the passageways during combat :-)

I'll hazard that firing mesons through gravitics, shields, or fusion
reactors would have all kinds of interesting and only marginally predictable
results.

It's too bad the rules make these such large weapons.  I'd have thought that
your jump drive would produce more than enough of these to do the dirty work.


Richard Johnson
	...and for people like me, who only hunt in desparation there is the

	Remington Arms "Sporter" meson shotgun
	TL-very, very high ++
	Brings down small game and waterfowl _already cooked_!


-------- TML Message #1548 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1548
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: A question about starship meson weapons
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 10:00:48 BST

grue@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes:
> 
> Since mesons are supposed to pass through matter without effect, why should
> ships be designed with external meson mounts? ...
>		Spinal mounts would not need anything external to the ship
> as they are not required to move (did anybody every notice the art-work
> in some of the traveller books that show large starships with things
> sticking out of them that are supposed to be meson guns???).

Spinal mounts are the single biggest thing on a ship.  They are so big that
they stick out at one end, probably both ends.  I have the old game
"Azhanti High Lightning", complete with deck plans for the cruiser; the
meson gun is shown on every deck, so it extends the entire length of the
ship.

What I want to know is, what prevents me from designing a battleship with
two meson guns mounted along the keel instead of just one?  That way, there
is a reason to build huge immense Star Destroyers!

> Along the same line is the question of meson batteries bearing:  since they
> can shoot through the ship itself, they should ALL be able to bear on an
> enemy ship.

Not necessarily.  The mountings may not be able to cover an entire sphere.
For that matter, I'd expect that a planet would need at least two buried
meson guns for total coverage.

> One objection to this concept is that firing through your own hull is
> very dangerous and is not considered a safe practice.

I don't think the mesons interact with anything on the way, unless someone
set the range wrongly!

There is also the matter of sensors.  Not the general sensors, which are
dealt with separately, but fire control sensors providing the exact targetting
data for the weapons.  A "weapon" result on the damage table may actually mean
that a fire control sensor has been hit.

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

-------- TML Message #1549 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1549
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 11:31:51 -0400
From: wrgate.wr.tek.com!tnc!m0068@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Ship Designs 1 of 4

To: UUCP!metrolius.wr.tek.com!traveller
From: m0068@tnc.UUCP (Stephen D Smith)
Subject: More MT ships (1 of 4)
Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge
 
Hello all,
      I've been quietly watching the TML for a while, and
been passing it along to members of my gaming group since
they have no net access. One of my group wanted me to post
the following information. Due to the length of this
posting, and the fact my local mailer cannot take long
messages this posting will be sent in 4 pieces. Please feel
free to reply either directly to him, or me. Thanks, and I
hope you find this of interest.
 
          Stephen D Smith   USENET: m0068@tnc.UUCP
                            BIX: sdsmith
 
****************** Begin Part 1 of 4 ********************
 
Howdy!
      Scott Kellogg is the name, Stephen Smith allowed me
to take a look at some of the MegaTrav discussion going on
and I was suitably impressed.  Neat designs you folks have
come up with.  So I decided to repay you all with a few of
my own.  I am afraid, I have no access to e-mail so you
will not be able to reach me very easily and there will be
long gaps between my having access to any comments to any
designs or ideas you might have but I would appreciate it
 
      Scott Kellogg
      1202 S. Washington St. #107
      Alexandria, VA, 22314
      (703)-836-8352
 
      Ok, are you ready for the question of the day?  What
is the rate of fire of missiles in COACC?  GDW's Air
Superiority allows ripple fire of 2 missiles per round of
the same type of missile.
      Well, that's against aircraft.  More than likely, an
aircraft would be destroyed by two.  OK, what about larger
targets?  If an aircraft went up against a larger target it
seems conceivable to me that systems would be convertible
to fire a larger number of missiles.  What specifically am
I talking about?  Fighter vs. Spacecraft.  Now anti-
spacecraft missiles weigh in at 50 kg for a normal missile
and 70 kg for a nuclear missile.  These missiles are
therefore capable of fitting on any hardpoint, on multiple
missile/bomb racks as a matter of fact, if you use all
available hard points plus two wing tip launch rails and
four fuselage launch rails (allowed for in the errata and
vindicated by the RAF Lightning and the A-7 Corsair II) a
total of sixty missiles are easily mounted externally,
(ignoring the bomb bay for the moment.)  That's two battery
rounds of a factor 6 battery, (TL-7) (at TL-13 it's factor
7).
      That makes an aircraft unbelievably deadly.  That's
the firepower mounted on a 1000 ton ship.
      Real life example:  in less than a minute the 'Six on
six test of the Phoenix missile system, six phoenix's
locked onto and fired on six targets in less than one
minute, by an F-14 Tomcat.  Since a starship combat round
lasts twenty minutes, I can easily see an aircraft firing
off a huge salvo of missiles in the time allowed.
      Game balance, you say?  Well... maybe, but you could
easily build a huge number of squadrons of cheap fighters
with Fusion rocket engines.  Also, with the enormous thrust
of the fusion rocket its very easy to build say a 12G
capable interceptor or even higher.
      More mundane question:  What are the penetration
values of the different air to air missiles?  Suppose my
players want to fire a radar homing AIM-7 Sparrow at a G
Carrier?
      Mundane question 2:  If the minimum size ship
thruster plates can be mounted on is 20 tons (Fighting
Shi*s of the Shattered Imperium), what about Anti-Grav
plates?  You can put grav modules on a 4 ton air/raft, Why
not grav plates?  The rules state that fractions of Grav
plates and thrusters can be built Personally, I think the
20 ton min is stupid.  It's torn apart a lot of my best
light fighters.
      If you ask me, I use
Book 2-Starships:  to design merchant ships,
Book 5-High Guard:  to design warships,
and Megatraveller to design headaches.
 
I hope you enjoy the designs,
                             Scott Kellogg
 
Focke-Wulf FW 190 TL=6 Fighter
 
CraftID:   Fighter/Attack Aircraft, TL=6, MCr.1389
Hull:      (16/40) Disp.=6 Weight Loaded=5.4
           Airframe=Subsonic,
Power:     0.015 Mw (Drawn from engine) Endurance=3 hrs
Loco:      4/10, High Performance Propeller,
           Thrust=6.4 tons Min=150 kph, Cruise=600 kph,
           Top=800 kph, Agility=6
Commo:     Radio=Regional-6
Off:       MMG*2 Fixed forward firing,
           20mm autocannon*2 Fixed forward firing,
           Fuselage hardpoint*1,
           Outboard hardpoint*4,
           Maximum external stores=1400 Kg
Control:   Simple
Accom:     Crew=1 (Pilot) Oxygen tank and mask,
Other:     Fuel=900 liters
Remarks:   Late war versions were used as fighters and
           attack aircraft.
 
 
Ju-87 Stuka TL=6 STOL Attack Aircraft
 
CraftID:   Attack Aircraft, TL=6, MCr.142050
Hull:      (15/37) Disp.=5.5 Weight Loaded=5.07
           Airframe=Subsonic, Armor Cockpit=8
Power:     0.015 Mw (Drawn from engine) Endurance=4 hrs
Loco:      4/10, Basic propeller, Thrust=2 tons
           Min=70 kph, Cruise Loaded=299, Top Load=399,
           Cruise Clean=450 kph, Top Clean=600 kph,
           Agility=2
Commo:     Radio=Regional-6
Off:       MMG*2 fixed forward firing,
           MMG*1 Flexible mount rearward firing,
           Fuselage hardpoint*1,
           Outboard hardpoint*4,
           Maximum external stores=1320 Kg
Control:   Simple
Accom:     Crew=2 (Pilot, Gunner) Armored cockpit, Oxygen
           tank and mask
Other:     Fuel=600 liters
Remarks:   Just wait till you tell your players, "Suddenly,
you hear a horrible blood curdling howl coming from above. 
You look up, a dive bomber is coming straight down at
you... My god!  They're Stukas!"
 
****************** End Part 1 of 4 ***********************
- --Name = STEPHEN SMITH  Mailbox # = 68

-------- TML Message #1550 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1550
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Lasers & Mesonguns.
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 17:47:41 MET DST

1: Lasers,
   My recollections regarding lasers was somewhat incorrect. For an x-ray laser
with a 2mm beam, the dot at 500 meters would be 3mm diameter, which will lead
to roughly half the effect per area, if one ignores all atmospheric effects.
   For UV, visible light, and IR, the dot will become progressively larger, and
the laser will this become less effective at long ranges.
   X-ray lasers thus seems to be the best choise.

   However, the probability of spontaneous (premature) emmission from the atom
in the lasing material rises with the cube of the frequency, and this means that
an X-ray laser is some orders of magnitude harder to get to work than a visible
light laser.(?)

2: Mesonguns,
   There is an example of mesonguns mounted completely inside large structures:
The Imperial Palace on Core has several internal meson guns according to a
cutaway drawing in an old Digest.

- -bertil-
- -- 

-------- TML Message #1551 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1551
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 1990 9:54:29 EDT
From: Stephen Tihor <TIHOR@acfcluster.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Meson guns

[This came to traveller-request by mistake, so I forwarded it and edited
the subject line to be more meaningful -- James]

As with most subatomic particles the Meson decay rates are governed
statistically.  With clever physics one can get the decay curve to be
very steep but there are undoubtedly a few particles that decay early
and a few that decay late.  For smaller weapons this might not matter
but for a main ships gun emitting 10**N somethings a fallover of
10**(N-10) might still be mode energy that a shipsuit can shield
against, especially if it appears inside you soft tissue.

Furthermore one of the things mesons interact with is mesons.  Point
defense technology against an energy beam weaopon may not be reasonable
but shooting through another beam as it leaves its apperture sounds
likely to stress the componenets of the system in question and possible
generate unintened aim perterbations to the smaller beam large enough to
be, undesirable.  ("Activate meson beam 13", Pzzzap, "What happened to
Lt.  Awkins?", "Probably those jokers in bay 5 shooting through us
again.")

Obvious more (pseudo)science can be applied to worsen or minimize the
effects but if meson weapons do have even minor side effects like these
I would expect a significant morale factor involved in a ship design
that shot through the crew a lot.

[A ships fusor is also likely to contain enough high energy particles to
generate an interaction with the meson beam whioch would probably pump
some energy back into the fusor which has a small but unpleasant chance
of an induced loss of containment event as the reports no doubt would
refer to it.]

-------- TML Message #1552 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1552
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 09:15:32 EDT
From: Fiver Toadflax <09nilles%cuavax.dnet@netcon.cua.edu>
Subject: Meson guns today....

[This also came to traveller-request by mistake, so I forwarded it for
everyone's enjoyment -- James]

To put in my two coins worth in.......
I don't know what the side affect are of shooting through your ships, or
why they aren't smaller or such things, but they do exist today.

They are used in treatment of non-operable tumors in the brain.
I have not seen one in real life, nor read about them in medical journals,
but I saw one on NOVA or Nat. Geographic special on medicine.  These machines
are huge, very power hungry and by traveller standards, weaker then pop guns.

                 Dave

+-----------------------------------------+
|          09nilles@cua.bitnet            |
|      09nilles@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu       |
| uunet!cua.bitnet!09nilles@uunet.UU.NET  |
| Fiver.Toadflax@f329.n109.z1.FIDONET.ORG |
+-----------------------------------------+
   Physics 101 Prof.
     "This course does not require any more
	math then Non-linear Partial
	Differential Equeations."

   Nuke 'um Till They Glow
       Then Shoot Them in the Dark

   Money Talks.
       Mine Only knows how to say bye.

   Peace through superior firepower

-------- TML Message #1553 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1553
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 13:14:47 -0400
From: wrgate.wr.tek.com!tnc!m0068@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Ship Designs 3 of 4

To: UUCP!metrolius.wr.tek.com!traveller
From: m0068@tnc.UUCP (Stephen D Smith)
Subject: More MT ships (3 of 4)
Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge
 
******************** Begin Part 3 of 4 ********************
 
Indianapolis (TL10) Orbital Interceptor
 
CraftID:   VTOL Orbital Interceptor, TL 10, MCr 13.804545
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=66 (22 with wings folded)
           Weight Unloaded=14.804 (Weight w/ standard load
           HE=17.972, nuclear=19.172) Airframe=Hypersonic
           VTOL
Power:     1.173275 Mw (drawn from engines), Endurance 48
hours
Loco:      (4/10), Fusion Rocket, Thrust 195 tons, NOE=140,
           Cruise=3750kph, Top=5000kph, Vacuum
           Cruise=4167kph, Vacuum Top=5556kph, Acceleration
           Unloaded=13G, (With standard HE load=10.5G with
           standard nuclear=10.2G) Agility=6
Commo:     Radio=System Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   All Weather RADAR=Far Orbit, Passive
           EMS=Interstellar, ActObjScan=Rout,
           ActObjPin=Rout, PasEngScan=Rout
Off:       Fuselage Hardpoint*1,
           Fuselage Launch Rails*4, Missiles=x06
           Inboard Hardpoints*4, Battery rounds=2
           Outboard Hardpoints*4,
           Wing Tip Launch Rails*2,
           (Standard load=60 Anti-Ship Missiles)
Def:       DefDM+12
Control:   Powered, 2 Maneuver Points, Computer=4
Accom:     Crew=(Pilot), Basic life support, sealed cockpit
           with vac suit backup, Inertial compensators,
           Complex cockpit with rocket escape pod*1
Other:     Fuel=240 liters liquid hydrogen
 
 
Indianapolis (TL11) Orbital Interceptor
 
CraftID:   VTOL Orbital Interceptor, TL 11, MCr 14.312545
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=66 (22 with wings folded)
           Weight Unloaded=14.784 (Weight w/ standard load
           HE=17.952, nuclear=19.152) Airframe=Hypersonic
           VTOL
Power:     1.024275 Mw (drawn from engines), Endurance 48
           hours
Loco:      (4/10), Fusion Rocket, Thrust 198.9 tons,
           NOE=150, Cruise=3750kph, Top=5000kph, Vacuum
           Cruise=4167kph, Vacuum Top=5556kph, Acceleration
           Unloaded=13.5G, (With standard HE load=11G,
           nuclear=10.4G) Agility=6
Commo:     Radio=System Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   All Weather RADAR=Far Orbit, Passive
           EMS=Interstellar, ActObjScan=Rout,
           ActObjPin=Rout, PasEngScan=Rout
Off:       Fuselage Hardpoint*1,
           Fuselage Launch Rails*4, Missiles=x06
           Inboard Hardpoints*4, Battery rounds=2
           Outboard Hardpoints*4,
           Wing Tip Launch Rails*2,
           (Standard load=60 Anti-Ship Missiles)
Def:       DefDM+13
Control:   Powered, 2 Maneuver Points, Computer=5
Accom:     Crew=(Pilot), Basic life support, sealed cockpit
           with vac suit backup, Inertial compensators,
           Complex cockpit with rocket escape pod*1
Other:     Fuel=240 liters liquid hydrogen
 
 
Indianapolis (TL12) Orbital Interceptor
 
CraftID:   VTOL Orbital Interceptor, TL 12, MCr 15.220545
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=66 (22 with wings folded)
           Weight Unloaded=15.322 (Weight with standard
           load HE=18.49, nuclear=19.69)
           Airframe=Hypersonic VTOL
Power:     0.893275 Mw (drawn from engines), Endurance
           48 hours
Loco:      (4/10), Fusion Rocket, Thrust 202.8 tons,
           NOE=160, Cruise=3750kph, Top=5000kph, Vacuum
           Cruise=4167kph, Vacuum Top=5556kph, Acceleration
           Unloaded=13G, (With standard HE load=11G
           nuclear=10.3G) Agility=6
Commo:     Radio=System Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   All Weather RADAR=Far Orbit, Passive
           EMS=Interstellar, ActObjScan=Rout,
           ActObjPin=Rout, PasEngScan=Rout
Off:       Fuselage Hardpoint*1,
           Fuselage Launch Rails*4, Missiles=x06
           Inboard Hardpoints*4, Battery rounds=2
           Outboard Hardpoints*4,
           Wing Tip Launch Rails*2,
           (Standard load=60 Anti-Ship Missiles)
Def:       DefDM+14
Control:   Powered, 2 Maneuver Points, Computer=6
Accom:     Crew=(Pilot), Basic life support, sealed cockpit
           with vac suit backup, Inertial compensators,
           Complex cockpit with rocket escape pod*1
Other:     Fuel=240 liters liquid hydrogen
 
 
Indianapolis (TL13) Orbital Interceptor
 
CraftID:   VTOL Orbital Interceptor, TL 13, MCr 20.228545
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=66 (22 with wings folded)
           Weight Unloaded=15.812 (Weight w/ standard load
           HE=18.98, nuclear=20.18) Airframe=Hypersonic
           VTOL
Power      0.854275 Mw (drawn from engines), Endurance
           48 hours
Loco:      (4/10), Fusion Rocket, Thrust 206.7 tons,
           NOE=170, Cruise=3750kph, Top=5000kph, Vacuum
           Cruise=4167kph, Vacuum Top=5556kph, Acceleration
           Unloaded=13G, (With standard HE load=11G
           nuclear=10.2G) Agility=6
Commo:     Radio=System Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   All Weather RADAR=Far Orbit, Passive
           EMS=Interstellar, ActObjScan=Rout,
           ActObjPin=Rout, PasEngScan=Rout
Off:       Fuselage Hardpoint*1,
           Fuselage Launch Rails*4, Missiles=x06
           Inboard Hardpoints*4, Battery rounds=2
           Outboard Hardpoints*4,
           Wing Tip Launch Rails*2,
           (Standard load=60 Anti-Ship Missiles)
Def:       DefDM+15
Control:   Powered, 2 Maneuver Points, Computer=7
Accom:     Crew=(Pilot), Basic life support, sealed cockpit
           with vac suit backup, Inertial compensators,
           Complex cockpit with rocket escape pod*1
Other:     Fuel=240 liters liquid hydrogen
 
******************** End Part 3 of 4 ********************
- --Name = STEPHEN SMITH  Mailbox # = 68

-------- TML Message #1554 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1554
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 13:14:49 -0400
From: wrgate.wr.tek.com!tnc!m0068@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Ship Designs 4 of 4

To: UUCP!metrolius.wr.tek.com!traveller
From: m0068@tnc.UUCP (Stephen D Smith)
Subject: More MT ships (4 of 4)
Organization: personal mailbox at The Next Challenge
 
******************** Begin Part 4 of 4 ********************
 
Indianapolis (TL14) Orbital Interceptor
 
CraftID:   VTOL Orbital Interceptor, TL 14, MCr 26.656545
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=66 (22 with wings folded)
           Weight Unloaded=15.534 (Weight w/ standard load
           HE=18.702, nuclear=19.902) Airframe=Hypersonic
           VTOL
Power:     0.207275 Mw (drawn from engines), Endurance
           48 hours
Loco:      (4/10), Fusion Rocket, Thrust 210.6 tons,
           NOE=180, Cruise=3750kph, Top=5000kph, Vacuum
           Cruise=4167kph, Vacuum Top=5556kph, Acceleration
           Unloaded=13.5G, (With standard HE load=11G,
           nuclear=10.6G) Agility=6
Commo:     Radio=System Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   Active EMS=Far Orbit, Passive EMS=Interstellar,
           ActObjScan=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout,
           PasEngScan=Rout,
Off:       Fuselage Hardpoint*1,
           Fuselage Launch Rails*4, Missiles=x06
           Inboard Hardpoints*4, Battery rounds=2
           Outboard Hardpoints*4,
           Wing Tip Launch Rails*2,
           (Standard load=60 Anti-Ship Missiles)
Def:       DefDM+16
Control:   Powered, 2 Maneuver Points, Computer=8
Accom:     Crew=(Pilot), Basic life support, sealed cockpit
           with vac suit backup, Inertial compensators,
           Complex cockpit with rocket escape pod*1
Other:     Fuel=240 liters liquid hydrogen
 
 
Indianapolis (TL15) Orbital Interceptor
 
CraftID:   VTOL Orbital Interceptor, TL 15, MCr 33.264545
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=66 (22 with wings folded)
           Weight Unloaded=16.336 (Weight w/ standard HE
           load=19.504, Nuclear=20.704) Airframe=Hypersonic
           VTOL
Power:     0.190275 Mw (drawn from engines), Endurance
           48 hours
Loco:      (4/10), Fusion Rocket, Thrust 214.5 tons,
           NOE=190, Cruise=3750kph, Top=5000kph, Vacuum
           Cruise=4167kph, Vacuum Top=5556kph, Acceleration
           Unloaded=13G, (With standard HE load=11G,
           nuclear=10.4) Agility=6
Commo:     Radio=System Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   Active EMS=Far Orbit, Passive EMS=Interstellar,
           ActObjScan=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout,
           PasEngScan=Rout,
Off:       Fuselage Hardpoint*1,
           Fuselage Launch Rails*4, Missiles=x06
           Inboard Hardpoints*4, Battery rounds=2
           Outboard Hardpoints*4,
           Wing Tip Launch Rails*2,
           (Standard load=60 Anti-Ship Missiles)
Def:       DefDM+17
Control:   Powered, 2 Maneuver Points, Computer=9
Accom:     Crew=(Pilot), Basic life support, sealed cockpit
           with vac suit backup, Inertial compensators,
           Complex cockpit with rocket escape pod*1
Other:     Fuel=240 liters liquid hydrogen
 
Remarks:  Well here it is.  COACC designs only require 1
computer so it is an extremely cheap fighter for it's
class.  Of course in space combat a single hit from any
space craft weapon will totally destroy it, but most
fighters will be blasted any way and with a DefDM of +12 at
TL10 to +17 at TL15 it can do a good job of staying out of
trouble.
 
 
Phobos (TL10) Mobile Artillery/Tank Destroyer
 
CraftID:   Mobile Artillery, TL 10, MCr 69.51593
Hull:      (60/150)  Displacement=20 Unloaded=334.4,
           Loaded=336.5, Config=6AF Armor=40D
Power:     (18/36) 289.4 Mw Fusion, Endurance=30/90
Loco:      (3/6), Maneuver=1G Antigrav Unit, NOE=140,
           Cruise=900kph, Top=1200kph, Agility=0
Commo:     Radio=System*2, Maser Comm=System
Sensors:   P-EMS=Interstellar, A-EMS=Far Orbit,
           Neutrino=Directional, Densitometer=Surface,
           Passive Audio, Active Audio, Synthetic Vision*3,
           Headlight*2 ActObjScn=Routine,
           ActObjPin=Routine, PasObjScn=Formidible,
           PasObjPin=Impossible,
           PasEngScn=Routine, PasEngPin=Impossible,
           PasAudScn=Formidible, PasAudPin=Formidible,
           ActAudScn=Formidible, ActAudPin=Formidible
Off:       Plasma Turret=x01,
           Batt=1
           Bear=1
                Pen/                     Auto Dng
                Attn  Dmg Range        Fire Spc  Sig Recoil
Plasma Turret   83/5  800 Planet(50000)   -  45    H      H
SandCaster      20/2   10 VLong(.5)       -  15*   L      L
0.05MW Beam
Laser            5/2    4 Dist(2.5)       2   -    H      L
 
Def:       DefDM+6, Scaster=x03, Smoke*6, Prismatic
           Aerosol*6
           Batt=1
           Bear=1
           All weapons=Point Defense Targeting
Control:   Computer=4/Fib*3, HUD*3, DynLink=3
           Env=Basic env, Basic Is, Extend Is, Grav Plates,
           Intert comp
Accom:     Crew=(Commander, Driver, Gunner),
Other:     Fuel=104.2 Kliters, Cargo=24.5 ObjSize=Average
           EMlevel=None
Remarks:  The Phobos Mobile Artillery unit operates
primarily just under the surface of the water.  The plasma
turret, sand caster and beam laser are all mounted on a
mast outside the main body of the tank.  The mast is
projected above the water surface to fire.  At TL 10, no
sensors have the capability to locate it effectively
underwater, at higher tech levels densitometers can
penetrate water, but even then the air foil combined with
the high thrust engines give it good speed underwater to
relocate before opening fire again.
      (Believe it or not, you've probably seen this one in
action:  The war machine in George Pal's `War of the
Worlds'.)
 
******************** End Part 4 of 4 ********************
- --Name = STEPHEN SMITH  Mailbox # = 68

-------- TML Message #1555 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1555
Subject: Re: (1540) Looking for a game... 
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 10:28:13 PDT
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.WR>


Hello Cristian,

[I copied this to the list for any others who may be interested in where
to find information about Traveller -- James]

I don't mind if English grammar is not your strong point.  You seem to
be able to communicate well enough.  As far as I know, you are the only
TML member in Chile, the only South American TMLer, that I know of,
anyway.  Now the only continent not reached by the TML is Antarctica!

I may not understand your question correctly, but I will try to clear up
some possible confusion...  There is a MegaTraveller computer game,
which is advertised in Traveller's Digest magazine, but primarily,
Traveller games are printed sets of rules and guidelines played among a
group of people, with paper, pencil, and dice, in a manner similar to
Dungeons and Dragons.

Here are the addresses of Game Designer's Workshop (publisher of
Traveller, Traveller 2300, and MegaTraveller) and Digest Group
Publications (publisher of many very high quality approved Traveller
materials).  If you ask in a letter, they would be happy to send you
product catalogs, and tell you how to subscribe to their magazines,
Challenge (by GDW), and Traveller's Digest (by DGP).  I recommend TD
highly, Challenge less so.  They would probably be interested to find
out how you learned about Traveller in Chile!

	Game Designer's Workshop
	P.O. Box 1646
	Bloomington, IL 61702-1646
	United States of America

	Digest Group Publications
	8979 Mandan Court
	Boise, ID 83709-5850
	United States of America

James
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Traveller Mailing List Administrator	     James T Perkins @ Tektronix, Inc
traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com	     Beaverton, Oregon, USA
uunet!metolius.wr.tek.com!traveller-request  "Load Auto/Evade, Beowulf!"

-------- End of TML Messages --------

