
-------- TML Message #1898 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1898
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 10:58:20 PST
From: Vote For NoneOfTheAbove Write In Candidate 30-Nov-1990 1258 <baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM>
Subject: RE: Shipping

This is a response to Robert Dean's response to me...

He suggests that caravans made a better model for star trading then water
shipping.  He mentioned that sea shipping was quite a bit cheaper then
caravans, especially in bulk.  I agree with him mostly, but I am wondering why
expensive cargos were shipping in caravans then ships?  Why wasn't all shipping
(where possible) done by sea; was there any advantages to shipping by caravans.
Was it substantially quicker, so that expensive cargos could have a quick
turnaround?

Will space trading have a similiar dichotomy?  I can see that in a system
economy, bulk cargos may be shipped on long minimum energy orbits in unmanned
freighters taking years to reach their destination at certain TL.  More
important cargos will be sent on faster conventional ships.  Is a similiar
scenario possible with interstellar trade?  Will this happen regardless of TL?

Rob mentions that population is a big factor in self sufficiency.  I agree that
the important factor is the size of the economy involved, and population is
probably a good measure of this.  I touched on this in mentioning the amount
that a system was developed mattered.  

The population will determine how high a TL a planet can support, and the
amount of trade per population can determine how much TL can be imported.  Can
we put this in the rules?  This way we can describe how well equiped a high
tech, but only just planted colony is; and where the native TL meets the
imported TL on what economic level.

I in general agree that a planet ecology can't literally be summed up in one
word.  non-industrial planets will still export *some* things that only are
made there (for whatever reasons).  An Argicultural world, I would imagine
could  exist only if there is an special argicrop (ie spice) which is only
grown there.  (or else the planet has for some reason decided to stay at a low
TL world where the majority economics is providing for their own *basic* needs
such as food)  The same thing for 'mining' worlds, etc.  Bulk products will be
shipped only if there is something special about the product.

In shipping between planets/systems of different TL, think about shipping
between the US and SA or AF.  There is *very* little technology in some parts
of AF and SA.  This would be even worse in space trade because I don't think
we'd have the massive trading of stuff *to* the US that we have now: bannannas,
coffee, oil, etc.

Let's see... you say that Narsil a 10 billion pop world (or am I off a place?)
had 300 100Kton battleships, etc?  this sounds *very* high to me.  We have,
what, 5 billion on earth here, and we have a couple of orbiters.  granted the
difference in TL is substantial, and I may be off a digit of pop, but I still
think it's high for a planet, even for an entire developed system.  and these
are just militery ships.

I can't imagine how this is economically possible.  what do you suppose is the
maximum population of an earth-like planet, anyway?  surely it goes up with TL.
You can synthesize food, and recycle metals.  How long before you have to
recycle water and air in the same fashion, and the planet becomes a large space
ship???  (wow, what a concept!)

I have a hard time relating to such megatonnage shipping between the stars as a
matter of course.  I more likely expect that the average 5 billion pop planet
is likely to have 1000 1000 ton ships...  maybe a good guideline would be ship
tons equal to the pop for military & commercial ships owned & operated there?
With a variance from nothing to double for some planets?

I remember thinking that there was a lot of usefull economc stuff in TCS, but I
don't remember how realistic it was.

Jim Baranski
Norwich CT

-------- TML Message #1899 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1899
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 15:59:20 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Minimum Structural Strength

I discussed the matter of minimal structural strength with a science fiction
reading mechnical engineer who also subscribes to Aviation Week here at work.

Upon consideration of the factors involved in construction of an actual 
spacecraft, such as pressurization of the interior, probably multiple layers
of external wall, interior bracing provided by floors, exterior bracing
necessary to maintain the separation of the multiple wall layers, potential 
effect of inertial compensators on the whole mess, and so on, I realized that
there would be no simple way to calculate any sort of answer.  However, the
Armor 40 equivalent would appear to be way too high, and something like an 
armor 8 minimum might be more "verisimilitudinous".  (Feel more realistic)

Judging by bits and pieces of things I've run across about the Long Duration
Exposure Facility hauled back from orbit earlier this year, I'd expect that
even a minimally armored structure would last for many years in normal space--
which could probably be ignored for normal gaming purposes.  Now if someone w
wants to suggest that we should put a minimum thickness on starship hulls to
account for resistance to whatever wierd stresses one might experience in
hyperspace, I'll go along with the idea.

Rob Dean

-------- TML Message #1900 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1900
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: New TDR SIG members
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 12:53:07 PST

I'm pleased to announce that we've got 2 new members for the TDR SIGs.
They are:

        Adrian Hurt  <adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk>
        Andy Coombes <andyc@minster.york.ac.uk>

Andy will be joining the Character Generation SIG.  Adrian will be working
on both the Combat and Weapon SIGs.

Welcome aboard!  It's good to have both of you!

        - Mark F. Cook (TDR Archivist)

-------- TML Message #1901 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1901
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: More new SIG members!
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 14:10:56 PST

Boy, I guess I'd better start waiting until the end of the day to announce
new TDR SIG members, if they're going to keep rolling in like this!

Jerry Williams (gsw@moss.att.com) and Bill Morrison(wbm@hpuerca.atl.hp.com)
have also joined TDR SIGs.  Jerry and Bill now comprise the entire Task
Rules SIG.  Bill has also joined the Character Skills, Medical, and World
Building SIGs.  If you're a member of one or more of those, remember to
add his address to your group.  BTW, a big "Welcome back!" to Bill, after
his extended absence from the TML.  We're glad you're back!

IMPORTANT: Don't wait for a starting gun from me, or Metlay, or anybody
else.  I'll keep announcing new SIG members to the TML, but it's up to
people that have already joined to get the ball rolling.  Send letters
to the other members of your SIG.  Start arguments.  Pitch out new, radical
ideas.  Get the creative juices flowing.  If you joined a SIG, but don't
know who the other members are, let me know and I'll forward a list of
SIG members.

Let the games begin!!

Later,

        - Mark F. Cook (TDR Archivist)

-------- TML Message #1902 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1902
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 21:21:24 PST
From: Orcinus orca <jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu>
Subject:  Minimum Starship Armor

Here's a possible reason why the minimum ship armor should
be 40 instead of 8 as Robert Dean came up with after glancing
at how LDEF did in five years in orbit.

In the Traveller universe, space is dirtier.  There are
a lot of ships moving around.  There is debris from past
battles.  You didn't think all that sand you threw out
to protect yourself from lasers just disappeared?  There's
bound to be lots of paint, metal, sand, and on and on
floating around just waiting to punch a hole in your hull.

True, your chances of running into a grain of sand or chunk
of metal are still remote, but the probability will be higher
(esp. if you consider a spacecraft lifetime of 50+ years)
and the average damage from a collision will be greater due
to larger particle size.  Minimum design standards would
reflect this.
- - --
John H. Kim
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu
uunet!jarthur!jokim

-------- TML Message #1903 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1903
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: Recoil in zero-G: Part 1
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 12:42:47 PST

Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk> writes:

> Mark F. Cook <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM> writes:
> > 
> > Yes AND no, Paul.  You're right that gyros don't absorb any recoil (you'll
> > still get kicked in the shoulder just as hard).  But that's not the point.
> > >From both a real-life military standpoint AND a RPG standpoint, the
> > detrimental effect recoil has on accuracy is barrel climb.  Virtually
> > nothing else matters.
> 
> I have to disagree again, Mark! :-)
> 
> One of the reasons Traveller classes weapons as low, medium and high recoil
> is that some people fight in zero-G.  A low recoil weapon (e.g. snub pistol)
> is better for use in zero-G than a high-recoil weapon (e.g. PGMP) because
> it doesn't send you backwards at great speed into the wall behind you.
> There's also the matter of the strength of the person holding the gun, and
> the effect the recoil will have on someone who isn't holding it properly.

You're right, recoil does have a VERY strong effect on a combatant in
zero-G.  My comments (above) were strictly addressing combatants on
a planetary surface, or some other "gravitized" location.  Within
that limitation, I still stand by those statements.  And I still maintain
that gyros do nothing to reduce recoil; they only damp the rotational
effect it has on a weapon.  A weapon that isn't already "Low Recoil"
won't be helped by gyros, if used in zero-G.  The combatant will still
get thrown all over the place.

As for a weak person holding the weapon, or someone holding it improperly,
I doubt that gyros would help either of those folks, either.  A weak
person needs gravitics to reduce the weight of the weapon AND it's
recoil (ala PGMPs).  A person holding the weapon improperly deserves
the broken fingers and/or shoulder-blade. :-)  Again, I suppose
gravitics would help there also.

        Mark F. Cook

USMail: User Interface Technical Support
        Hewlett-Packard - Interface Technology Operation
        1000 NE Circle Blvd.  Corvallis, OR 97330

INTERNET: markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com
          markc%hpcvss.cv.hp.com@relay.hp.com

-------- TML Message #1904 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1904
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: Recoil in zero-G: Part 2
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 12:43:11 PST

In Subject 1891, Robert S. Dean <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil> writes:

> I have been watching all of the discussion lately over whether or not gauss
> weapons are considered "low recoil".  Now, correct me if I am wrong, but last
> time I looked, the only thing that low recoil meant IN THE GAME RULES was that
> use of the weapon was less likely to destabilize the user in a zero-gee
> environment than a medium recoil wepoan.  The recoil category has nothing
> to do with accuracy, and is carried over from Striker, where it had to do
> with whether or not a unit could fire and move in the same turn.   So I am 
> forced to suggest that maybe it really doesn't matter, unless we want to 
> have recoil factored in to the TDR combat rules as something that DOES affect
> accuracy.

In fact, that's EXACTLY what Iain and I are doing.  For the initial pass
of the TDR combat rules, we are not considering the recoil effect of a
weapon on a person in zero-G.  It should be an easy thing to tack on
after the more weighty problems get resolved (like cover and auto-fire,
right, Iain?). :-)  However, in our combat system, recoil has a very
definite effect on ROFs for single shot weapons and on accuracy of
auto-fire weapons.

I'm sure you're right that the recoil factors are given just as reference
for the Ref. in zero-G combat, since they don't appear to have any effect
on the "to hit" or "damage" rolls in current MT combat.

        Mark F. Cook

USMail: User Interface Technical Support
        Hewlett-Packard - Interface Technology Operation
        1000 NE Circle Blvd.  Corvallis, OR 97330

INTERNET: markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.com
          markc%hpcvss.cv.hp.com@relay.hp.com

-------- TML Message #1905 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1905
From: "Mark F. Cook" <markc@hpcvss.cv.hp.COM>
Subject: TDR vs. TML
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 12:56:14 PST

In Subject 1895, <baranski@meridn.enet.dec.COM> writes:

> Mark Cook, has devised TDR mailing lists.  Does this mean that all the TDR
> work is going to be done seperate from TML?  Heck, shouldn't everyone in TML
> be interested in TDR?  If we take the TDR out of TML, the volume of both will
> shrink, and there's a chance one will fall below critical mass.  It's happened
> before.

Yes, Jim.  TDR work IS going to be done separate from TML.  That's the
whole idea.

We've already seen a fair amount of evidence that not every TML reader
IS interested in TDR.  Also, while lots of interesting ideas get thrown
out on the TML, nothing very concrete every seems to come of it.  With
SIGS, on the other hand, you've got a group of people who are dedicated
to a very specific goal.  You also have a lot less background noise.
By way of example, working separate from the TML, Iain Fogg and I are
almost finished with a first draft of a personal combat system for TDR.
Folks have been bitching about MT combat on the TML for as long as I
can remember, but what rule changes have you seen generated as a result?
(BTW, for the rest of you TDR combat SIG members, it's only a first draft.
Iain and I are going to circulate it in the SIG about the middle of next
week, just as soon as I enter the changes from our last debate.  Then
you all can rip it to shreds.) :-)

Every government and large commercial organization does exactly the
same thing.  You create special committees to work on specific problems.
Then, when they produce a potential solution, you offer it to the
larger group (TML, in this case) for comments and a vote.  That's
exactly what we're doing here.

> I'd rather see the majority of mail stay in TML.  Sure, I won't save
> much of it, but I'll read, reply to anything I feel like, and delete.

This is my point.  I wouldn't mind following the vehicle design debates,
or the trade & commerce discussions.  But I rarely would expect to have
any worthwhile input, and I'd probably only save the final result.  Why
give a lot of people the opportunity to frequently interrupt a group of
focused individuals when those interruptions might seriously slow down
the production of something useful?  If an individual is interested
enough to offer SIGNIFICANT input to a SIG, then they should join it,
not just kibitz.

> PS failing that, put me one all the TDR mailing list.

I won't do that, Jim, and here's why:

They're not mailing lists, per se, since no one is responsible for
making a broadcast (like James does for TML).  It's just to let
each member of a SIG know who else to send to, so as to solicit
feedback (LOTS of feedback).  If you are particularly interested
in one or more of the areas, and feel you have something useful to
contribute, then join a SIG (or SIGs), by all means.  But if you
just want to listen in and occasionally kick out an idea, you're
better off waiting for a draft from the SIG to come out.  The
members of the SIG are better off too.

If it sounds like I'm trying to discourage you, you're partially
right.  We want dedicated, involved people in the SIGs, who plan
to devote an obscene amount of time to producing new rules for TDR.
We're not expecting complete new rule sets overnight, but we would
like to see some tangible results during this presidental administration. :-)

If you'd like to get involved, send me a list of the SIGs you
want to join (not all of them, for heavens sake!) and I'll add
you to them.  I'll also make sure that all the other SIG members
know you've joined.

BTW, for the TML at large, I'm no longer going to announce new
SIG members to the entire readership, since only the current
members of a given SIG need to be advised.  If anyone is interested
in the current membership of a particular TDR SIG, send me a letter
and I'll let you know.

Later,

        - Mark F. Cook (TDR Archivist)

-------- TML Message #1906 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1906
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 17:51:55 -0500
Subject: DEsigns from Scott Kellogg 12/1/90
From: Stephen D Smith <wrgate.wr.tek.com!tnc!m0068@uunet.uu.net>


Sorry to dump 2 of Scott's designs in the same TML, but my local
BBS access had problems. The sysop left town and the trailblazer
decided to have a Murphy's Law attack, so nothing got in or out for
5 days. When it was fixed my backlog was sent at once. Here's the
next one.
 
*********************************************************
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      (703)-836-8352
      1202 S. Washington St. #107
      Alexandria, VA, 22314
*********************************************************
 
System Defence Drone TL 15 "Watcher" Class
CraftID:  Drone Type SDD, TL 15, MCr 4.151275
Hull:     (1/2) Disp=.69 Config=1AF, Armor=40G, Unload=10.1926,
          Load=11.40739
Power:    (2/2) 8.5236Mw Fusion, Dur=10/30
Loco:     (2/2) StdGrav=79.8518, NOE=190, MaxAccel=6,
          Cruise=2835kph, Top=3780kph
Commo:    Radio=System*2, Maser=System, RadioJam=System
Sensors:  EMM, P-EMS=Interstel, A-EMS=FarOrb, Densitom=250m,
          Neutrino=10kw, EMS-JAM=FarOrb, ActiveAud, PassiveAud*10,
          Neural=Vlong, HoloRecorder
          ActObjScn=Rout    ActObjPin=Rout
          PasObjScn=Rout    PasObjPin=Rout
          PasEngScn=Simp    PasEngPin=Rout
          ActAudScn=Form    ActAudPin=Form
          PasAudScn=Form    PasAudPin=Form
 
Off:      Internal Bomb Bay, Max=1t or 10 anti-ship missiles
          Fixed Mt. Laser Rifle
          Missile=x02
          Batt        1
Def:      DefDM=+2
 
Control:  Robot Brain, Extensive ECM, Electronic Circuit Protect
Other:    Fuel=3.068Kl, Fuel Scoops, ObjSize=Sm, EMlevel=None
UPP:      xFx66x  (Sufficient intelligence for non expert
           operation)
Skills:   High Data, Full Command
          Ship Tactics-4
          Grav Vehicle-4
          Gunnery-4
          Recon-4
          Communication-4
          Foward Observer-4
          Navigation-2
 
Remarks:  Used by Imperial Navy and Scout forces the 'Watcher'
series is usually deployed from an Air/Raft bay.  Four 'Watcher's
can be stored in a bay.  With its fuel scoops it can spend up to
a year inside a gas giant's atmosphere or submerged in an ocean
before requiring maintenance.
 
    It can operate autonomously or under direction by other forces
in system using its extensive communications and encryption
software as well as its extensive electronic counter measures to
prevent it's being detected or reprogrammed by enemy forces.
 
    The most frightening thing about the 'Watcher' is its patience. 
It can be dropped into an enemy held gas giant and just sit there. 
Its small size makes it extremely difficult to find, making a gas
giant very dangerous to refuel from.  The drone will not attack
until it has either a clear advantage or a high value target in a
bad position, like a battleship in the act of fuel skimming.
 
Scott Kellogg
 
 
Reconnaissance Drone TL 15 "Lurker" Class
 
CraftID:  Recon Drone Type RD, TL 15, MCr 2.213581
Hull:     (1/2) Disp=.5325 Config=1AF, Armor=40G, Unload=8.31612,
          Load=9.494906
Power:    (2/2) 7.0944Mw Fusion, Dur=10/30
Loco:     (2/2) StdGrav=66.465, NOE=190, MaxAccel=6,
          Cruise=2835kph, Top=3780kph
Commo:    Radio=System*2, Maser=System, RadioJam=Cont
Sensors:  EMM, P-EMS=Cont, A-EMS=Cont, Densitom=250m,
          Neutrino=10kw, EMS-JAM=Cont, ActiveAud, PassiveAud*10,
          Neural=Vlong, HoloRecorder
          ActObjScn=Diff    ActObjPin=Diff
          PasObjScn=Rout    PasObjPin=Rout
          PasEngScn=Diff    PasEngPin=Rout
          ActAudScn=Form    ActAudPin=Form
          PasAudScn=Form    PasAudPin=Form
 
Off:      Internal Bomb Bay, Max=1t or 10 anti-ship missiles
          Fixed Mt. Laser Rifle
          Missile=x02
          Batt        1
Def:      DefDM=+2
 
Control:  Robot Brain, Extensive ECM, Electronic Circuit Protect
Other:    Fuel=2.55Kl, Fuel Scoops, ObjSize=Sm, EMlevel=None
UPP:      xFx62x  (Sufficient intelligence for non expert
            operation)
Skills:   High Data, Full Command
          Tactics-1
          Grav Vehicle-1
          Gunnery-1
          Recon-1
          Communication-1
          Foward Observer-1
          Navigation-1
 
Remarks:  A TL 15 smart weapon.  The 'Lurker' is used primarily by
Imperial ground forces.  The Army and Marines use it for patrols,
guard duty, harassment raids as well as systematic search and
destroy missions.  The 'Lurker' never tires.  All it uses is
ordinance.  It emerged late in the Fifth Frontier War were its
tactics were honed.  Typically, the Marines would set one up with
four HEAP cluster bombs and send it to seek out battle dress
troops.
 
    The drone's fuel scoops allow it to remain on patrol for
extended periods provided it has access to water.  Because of it's
endurance, the 'Lurker' inflicted casualties on Zhodani morale and
severely damaged the Vargr offensives.  They could arrive at any
moment with a special delivery package.  Psychologically, it is one
of the worst situations to be hunted by a machine.  It has no
sympathy, no pride, no worries, no hate, no mercy; it sees you only
as a target to be killed.
 
Scott Kellogg
 
          Stephen D Smith   USENET: m0068@tnc.UUCP
                            BIX: sdsmith
- - --Name = STEPHEN SMITH  Mailbox # = 68

-------- TML Message #1907 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1907
Subject: Views from the Ground
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 23:06:21 CST
From: Wally Hartshorn <wally@athenanet.COM>

     Here's a problem for y'all to tackle:  Does anyone know of a program
(or at least the necessary formulae for writing such a program) to
determine what the view looks like of an arbitrary solar system from the
surface of one of the bodies within that solar system at a given time?
     For instance, consider the Regina system.  It consists, first of all,
of a trinary star system.  One star is the primary, one star is a brown
dwarf orbiting the primary at close range, and the third is a far companion
orbiting the primary at a range beyond the orbit of the outermost planet.
     In orbit about the primary (and its brown dwarf companion) are 5
planets, including 2 gas giants.  In orbit about the far companion are 4
planets, including 1 gas giant.  Two of the planets orbiting the primary
have satellites, one with 3, the other with 5.  Similarly, two of the
planets orbiting the far companion have satellites, again, one with 3 and
the other with 5.
     Regina is one of the satellites orbiting a large gas giant that orbits
the primary.  So, if you were standing on Regina, looking up into the sky,
what would you see?
     Presumably the other planets wouldn't be visible, at least not as
anything other than points of light.  But what about the other 4 satellites
orbiting the same gas giant which Regina orbits?  How well would they be
visible during the day?  During the night?  What about the gas giant
itself?  How large would it appear from the surface of Regina?  What
about the primary star?  What would it look like at that distance?  Would
it merely be an exceptionally bright star, or would it look more like Sol
does from Terra?  The brown dwarf would presumably be invisible in the
glare of the primary, but what about the far companion?  Furthermore, how
much light does Regina receive during the day?  When the primary disappears
behind the gas giant, as it probably will every Reginan month, the primary
is eclipsed.  How long does that eclipse last?  Presumably far longer than
the eclipses we have here on Terra.  That could be a VERY significant
feature of Reginan life (and covert actions).  And when it is night and the
gas giant is in the sky as a "full planet", how much light is reflected
onto Regina?  Is it a "false day"?  If so, that too would have a
significant effect upon how covert actions are conducted, as there would be
a period of each month in which the cover of darkness doesn't exist.

     I know that there are programs that show the positions of the planets
in our solar system or how the night sky appears at various times, but I
haven't seen anything which allows the user to enter data about an entirely
fictional solar system and then pick a location from which to see the view.
Having a picture of the view would be nice, of course, but all I would
really need would be a text description of the situation.  Any suggestions?

P.S. By the way, I think I'd be interested in helping with any MT GM aid
program writing.  My only problem would be finding enough time to do it,
but count me in for now.

-------- TML Message #1908 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1908
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 15:04:23 -0700
From: FELLOWS STEVEN B -5 CR <sfellows@slate.mines.colorado.edu>
Subject: Shipping: Interstellar Trade: Why?

Dean talks about caravans being a good model for space travel and there has
been some conjecture to this.  Also, people have been wondering what would
prompt shipping of goods from other systems.

A few reasons why I think people will be dispersed throughout space, receiving
goods from other planets.  

1)Overpopulation.   The population on planets exceeds whatever TL exists in
the food industry.  Either population control is instituted or people are
forced into space.  One other way would be to import extra food from other
planets.  As we are seeing today, large corporate farms are an extremely
profitable method of food production.  A high scale of automation combined
with a huge amount of working area can provide food for many people at
relatively low cost (which translates to profitable business).

Finding a large amount of land in one area would be easy of the planet had
a low population, or low population in select areas.  Either way, the
number of people on the planet do not exist to make business profitable .

2)The necessary support industry is not available and would be too costly
to transplant.
  Unless you are providing a very basic good you will need support
industries to provide you with your raw materials.  In the same light, the
people who manufacture raw materials need the other industry as customers.
Today, we have an extensively integrated industry, but this has grown from
smaller and smaller manufacturing facilities as the demand increased.
  Raw materials plants today are being constructed to produce a huge amount
of material.  One example is maleic anhydride which is used in a number of
petroleum products (lubricants, paints , etc).  Maleic anhydride is
manufactured from benzene and usually using a vanadium oxide catalyst, but
it always goes to be made in other products.  I read a report about a plant
being contructed to produce a 100 Million tons per year, which will cost
investors about 120 million dollars in three years.
  A plant like this could not be easily built on a remote planet unless the
buyers were already there, or the source (in this case : benzene) could be
easily provided and there were buyers elsewhere.


  One thing I am assuming is that space transport will be a cheap industry.
In the Traveller universe we can see this: there is extensive mining and
manufacturing in space to make the construction of space vessels relatively
cheap.

  Land caravans were used instead of sea transport because of the danger
and thus relatively costly expense of sea transport.  Improved navigation
techniques allowed for faster and relatively safer (less chance of getting
lost) routes.  Also, there were many areas that could not be easily reached
by sea, and would need a land caravan anyway.  People who already had the
resources of a land caravan were used from certain cities, as opposed to
going to theoretically closest city and hoping to get transport.  Improved
transportation techniques and the development of roads changed this too.

  Additionally, once you get a space faring population why would there be
interest in transplanting a whole society and making it self sufficient?
This would be extremely costly and unattractive to everone but the
extremely wealthy (individuals and organizations).

  In conclusion, I think that as a society on a planet gets older and more
populated it will become more and more self-sufficient, but because of its
initial integration with off planet business it will always have trade with
off-planet interests.

Steven B. Fellows
sfellows@sfellows.mines.colorado.edu




-------- TML Message #1909 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1909
Date: 02 Dec 90 17:17:22 EST
From: Leonard Erickson <70465.203@compuserve.COM>
Subject: Maneuver drives

Jim Baranski writes:
>Subject: (1866) TDR reviewers, drives, etc

RE: TDR drives

>I don't like having to have three drives, but they seem to be
>necessary. Assuming that the maneuver drive is a reaction drive, you
>need some other sort of drive to land without destroying the place.
>Are there other ways to land ships?  Are there reaction drives that
>are not destructive?  Some scenarios have space ports have gravitic
>landing platforms, and scorched earth wilderness landings.  I kind of
>like that.

Well, a fusion drive flame will be *very* concentrated. Check any of
the Med Ship stories by Leinster. When landing or taking off
unassisted, the drive flame will cheerfully burn holes in the ground. 
But they'll be *small* holes, compared with the size of the ship.

>I like the idea of maneuver drives being reaction drives.
>Traditionally spacecraft have always had some kind of jets or
>exhaust, even the highest TL, and I don't want to change that.
>However, it seems that the physics doesn't work, if I'm following the
>TML discussion correctly.

No, reaction drives will work just fine. It's just that some people
hear "reaction drive" and think of our current *chemical* rockets. A
fusion rocket uses 1/1500 of the fuel. So they *do have reasonable fuel
requirements, and endurance. I checked the original rules, and a type-S
scout would *still* be able to run it's manuever drive at full throttle
for a week if you assume it is a fusion rocket! Or ships should have
similar endurances.

>There are other possibilities for maneuver drives other then a
>reaction drive or a 'rabbit out of a hat' drive, and I hope we can
>decide on one that fits for TDR maneuver drives...

Excuse me? I know of *no* other alternatives.

Anyway, here are some figures that should put this in perspective.

Using the "standard" figure of 600,000 for the specific impulse of a
fusion drive, a 1000 ton *mass* ship (not 1000 tons displacement, which
is what Traveller uses) would need 864 tons of fuel to run it's drive
at 6 gs for an entire day. Or only 144 tons at 1g. 

Re: unrefined fuel

Please note that since the Pioneer and Voyager missions, the outer
planet are now considered to have atmospheres of impure hydrogen. Ie
hydrogen with methane, ammonia, etc present as *impurities*. The reason
we used to think they were *mostly* methane and ammonia, is that those
are the only components that show up easily on a spectrogram of the
planet taken from Earth.

There's just enough *non* hydrogen in Jupiter's atmosphere to be a
nuisance. I think Neptune and Uranus may actually have moderate
percentages of compounds as atmospheric components at high altitudes, 
but even there, you are still dealing mostly with hydrogen.

Leonard Erickson			70465.203@compuserve.com



-------- TML Message #1910 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1910
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 16:21:58 PST
From: Flame Bait <joshua@atherton.COM>
Subject: RPG Table Routines in C


I've just finished some routines to handle tables, such as RPGs use.
I'm going to post them to alt.sources soon, but I'd like a little
"pre testing" just to make sure they come out of the shar files OK.

The routines are designed to write character generation programs, but
should be useful for lots of other RPG type applications.  There are
routines to read in tables, print them, free them, and use them in
several different ways.  In addition there are some dice rolling routines
which take text strings like "2d4+2" or "1d100" and roll them.  The
table routines are designed to be object oriented, so you can add new
types of tables, and new operations on tables fairly easily.
Finally, there are two simple applications, a computer buzzphase generator
and a cyberpunk style name generator.

If you find these routines interesting, then please grab them from my 
archive server and play with them a little in the next week.  Send me email
if there are any problems.  To get the files you must send two seperate 
message to the server.  Both should contain a path command, one should 
have a ``send programs table03a.shar'', and the other ``send programs 
table03b.shar''.  For example, if Saddam Hussen wanted them, his two
email messages would look like this:

path saddam@army.iraq.middle-east.earth
send programs table03a.shar

path saddam@army.iraq.middle-east.earth
send programs table03b.shar

Or something like that.

Joshua Levy (joshua@atherton.com)  (408) 734-9822


-------- TML Message #1911 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1911
Date:     Sun, 2 Dec 90 22:22:23 PST
From: Orcinus orca <jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu>
Subject:  Re:  (1907) Views from the Ground

To generate the position of each star/planet/moon requires
six orbital elements for each object of interest, including
the object you're viewing from.  Furthermore, the formulae
involved, while not horribly complicated, are a pain to solve.
I know, I've done it before.  You'd also need other information
like mass, luminosity/albedo, and on and on to cover the other
points you mentioned.

All this is waaaaaay out of the scope of the Traveller rules.
If you're still seriously considering this and there is no
commercial software currently available, I'd recommend you
get a good book on astrophysics (a background in higher
calculus as about all you need, although more is helpful)
and devote at least a month of your evenings to the problem.

Figuring the size of an object viewed is much much easier.
A little trig and:

                          D
  theta = 2 * ArcTan ( ------- )
                        2 * X
X = distance to object
D = Diameter of object
theta = angular size of disc

And for reference, our sun and moon have a disc about half
a degree or 30 arc minutes across.  You can use this formula
on your car, house, dog, or whatever is convenient to get
an idea of other sizes.
- - --
John H. Kim
jokim@jarthur.claremont.edu
uunet!jarthur!jokim

-------- TML Message #1912 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1912
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Vacuum (and other) resistance
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 10:41:26 GMT

Robert S. Dean <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil> writes:
>	A 100ft diameter cylinder (ship sized) would require a wall thickness
> of 0.44 inches, about Traveller armor value, between Traveller armor values 3
> and 4.  50,000psi mild steel would be the equivalent of armor type A (soft
> steel).
> 
> The result of this little investigation would suggest that vacuum resistance is 
> not a valid reason to retain an Armor 40 minimum for spacecraft.  Is anyone out
> there capable of figuring out how thick a cylinder has to be to support its
> own weight at up to 6Gs?

There's another reason for armouring the ship.   Let's take a ship and
accelerate it at 1G for one day.  At the end of the day, its speed is
9.8 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 846720 m/s.  Now let's assume that a small bit of
rock hits it.  Unless it's fairly well armoured, the small bit of rock
will pass through it and its occupants with somewhat greater ease than
a gauss rifle needle would pass through a piece of paper.

- - -- 
 "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 #1913 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1913
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Interstellar Trade
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 11:05:30 GMT

Perhaps using a brief trade classification doesn't describe a planet's
economy fully, but it does indicate its tendencies.  Take, for example,
"Industrial" and "Agricultural" worlds.  Agricultural worlds must have
good conditions for whatever food is being grown there - good atmosphere,
sufficient water, for example.  These places produce "real food - not the
stuff you get out of tubes".  Industrial worlds are quite the reverse -
stuff the environment, make things cheaply, and who cares if the result
is pollution on a major scale.  That's why all Industrial worlds have
atmospheres which are at least Tainted, if not outright poisonous.

One thing I haven't seen in Traveller is any equivalent to the old clippers.
Their function was to get tea from China to Britain as fast as possible, to
get the best prices.

- - -- 
 "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 #1914 --------

Archive-Message-Number: 1914
Date:     Mon, 3 Dec 90 11:00:48 EST
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Nuclear Fuel Consumption

This topic has been touched on breifly before.  I sat down this morning with
Mark's Handbook of Mechanical Engineering (remember that I am a chemical ^H
engineer by training) and read carefully through the section on nuclear power.
Since I have commented on usage rates of nuclear fission fuel in the past, I
felt that I should look things up to see what was really what.  If I am reading
the numbers correctly, and using the density of fuel as given in the referee's
manual, and assuming that we are using this fission pile to generate electricity
by steam turbine, and assuming that we are using fuel enriched to 5% fissionable
material, burning it dwon to 1% fissionable material, and that you achieve a
30% efficiency on conversion of heat released to electrical energy (reasonable),
it would appear that your fuel consumption should be about .0013 kl/year/MW.
My first guess, to make things come out right, was to assume that the number
given, .003 kl/MW was per year, which looks like it wasn't a bad guess.  

This means that in order to keep fusion competitive, we really need to increase
its fuel efficiency by a couple of orders of magnitude.

I was reminded of this when the latest issue of Challenge (#47) came this 
weekend, with two short adventures using low tech level spacecraft designed
per the rules in Challenge #45, and the nuclear fuel outweighed the ion
reaction mass in the ion drive module by a factor of 30 or 40 to 1.

Rob Dean

(So apart from the Armor 40 argument, and the fusion rocket argument, the
ships I have uploaded using Charles Gannon's low-TL space design sequence
have been reasonable.)


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

