From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Dec 16 00:37:14 1991
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA02938) Mon, 16 Dec 91 00:36:47 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA21931@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 15 Dec 91 21:01:03 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA06964; Sun, 15 Dec 91 21:04:06 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA26099; Sun, 15 Dec 91 21:00:35 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA03001; Sun, 15 Dec 91 21:00:28 PST
Message-Id: <9112160500.AA03001@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        fantasci!traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (Joseph "Jo" E Poplawski),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #274: Msgs 3305-3317
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 21:00:27 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Dec 15 21:00:23 PST 1991
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #274: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3306  12-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Designer's Notes << The following information
3307  12-Dec-91 gsw@whservd.att.C Re: potential energy in the Traveller (and ot
3308  12-Dec-91 bart@cs.uoregon.e Fusion Neutrons (Re: (3282) ENERGY and Travel
3309  12-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    More Designs, what else? << I've been trying 
3310  12-Dec-91 Robert S. Dean    Operating Expenses << Mike Surman suggested i
3311  12-Dec-91 salamon@sdbio2.UC College << Hi Everyone! (And Happy Holidays, 
3312  12-Dec-91 "J.A.F.O."        general << Running a campaign set aboard a sm
3313  12-Dec-91 "J.A.F.O."        A query << with all this furore over post-reb
3314  13-Dec-91 bonnevil@stolaf.e Re: General Questions << Mike Surman <surman@
3315  13-Dec-91 givler@bermuda.ra Re: (3302) Re: 3295 << :bonnevil@stolaf.edu (
3316  13-Dec-91 givler@bermuda.ra Question about TDR. << Where can I get copies
3317  13-Dec-91 richard@agora.rai Re: Starship Passengers and... << ... and eve
3318  13-Dec-91 "C. Roald"        grav potential energy << >: What is the equat

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3306
Date:     Thu, 12 Dec 91 10:35:20 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Designer's Notes

The following information has been posted here before.  Old timers can skip
to the next message.  (-:

Rob Dean



Date:     Tue, 4 Sep 90 16:36:47 EDT
From: "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject: (1529)  Thoughts on Vehicle Design

I've been at the drawing boards again.  After thinking about it, there seemed 
to be a few useful(?) reminders to those who want to do a bunch of designs.

SO:

How to Design a Traveller Vehicle Quickly (Rob's Rules)
       (without using a computer)

Rule#1: If it doesn't matter, don't worry about it.  The most critical example 
of this is power consumption for electronics on most vehicles.  Unless a 
vehicle is extremely small, the total of these values is almost always negli-
ble.  Thus, you can size your power plant at the beginning of the process 
based on an estimate of power required for weapons, environmental controls 
(only if grav plates are being used), and grav/thruster use.  There are a 
couple of rules of thumb to remember.  "Full environment" (basic env, basic 
and extended life support, grav plates and inertial compensation) uses 
1MW/displacement ton.  If your vehicle is heavily armored, the three most 
massive components are likely to be the hull, the grav drive, and the power 
plant.  You can fuss with these numbers to get a good estimate of grav per-
formance.

Rule#2: Decide what is critical first, and set your hull size accordingly. For 
example, I wanted a TL12 small vehicle carrying a Plasma-B gun.  Energy on 
that is 13.5 MW, dictating a power plant of at least 6kl.  Usually I build 
vehicles around 1)the weapon 2) The accomodations (i.e., if you need roomy 
seats for 16 people, this will drive the rest of the design) or 3) The speed.

Rule#3: Decide what factor is being optimized, and ignore the rest--this 
usually means that in working on a combat vehicle I set the armor and weapon 
and let the speed come out to be whatever it will be, or in building an inex-
pensive vehicle I don't add any "chrome", or in building a fast vehicle I 
avoid as many massive add-ons as possible.  

Rule#4: Having one vehicle makes a variant very easy--something like the 4 
Tiger class vehicles I posted a while ago took 40 minutes to do the first, and 
maybe 10 minutes apiece for the others, even including the time to write 
everything down again, because 95% of each one was copied from the previous 
one.

Rule#5: Unless it really doesn't work, finish every design:  Real governments 
have put some dreadful designs in the field, based usually on a false concept 
of the conditions the vehicle would face, and there is no good reason that  
things should be any better in the future.  So unless the hull is too small to 
stuff everything into, or you've put so much armor on that it can't possibly 
fly, finish it.  (And assign it to that country/world you don't like...)

Rule#6: Governments don't care what it costs.  I have the dubious pleasure of 
working for the U.S. Army as a civilian engineer, and this is certainly true. 
So when I'm doing military vehicles, I pile in the sensors and other chrome. 
How much is 5% extra capability worth in combat???


SOME NOTES ON THE DEAN DESIGN COLLECTION

Since quite a few of my designs have accumulated by this time, I thought I had 
better assemble a few comments on the unofficial changes I have made to var-
ious elements of the design systems to allow people to reinterpret them to 
taste. 

These notes include interpretations, changes, presumed errata corrections and 
miscellaneous comments, and are keyed to the design system flowchart. 

Basic Hull Design:

I generally ignore the ambiguous maximum armor rule from the narrative, for 
two reasons- it makes no sense as there is really no limit to how thick a 
piece of steel can be, and increasing price and weight cause their own penal-
ties.

On many vehicles I ignore the turret rules if I can fit all my components into 
the base volume.  If the hull weight/cost tables were linear instead of dis-
continuous, there would be no difference between the cost and weight (the 
important factors) of a hull 10 +40% turret and a hull 14.  Power requirements 
to move the turret are almost always neglible in the overall design, unless 
you have a very large turret on a small vehicle with a tiny power 
supply--which has never come up in a "realistic" design.

Power Supply:

The incredible fuel consumption for fission plants given in the book has been 
discussed at some length on the list in the past.  Let it suffice to say that 
I usually use the .003 kl/year rule that I suggested, and anyone who disagrees 
may apply an appropriate fudge factor to the endurance of any of my fission 
designs.  Fuel cells are the best high tech power system for anything up to 
about 2 or 3 megawatts.  If you need more, go fusion--small fusion plants are 
useless except as technological curiosities. I generally have no problem with 
installing more energy consuming devices than the power plant can run at one 
time, so long as important limits are noted (e.g. no maneuver drive and energy 
weapons at the same time) and all important systems can be powered at the same 
time (maneuver and life support at a minimum). There has been discussion in 
Traveller's Digest and on the list regarding fractional use of power plants.  
I consider this to be reasonable, and recent designs list endurance at typical 
power settings as well as at maximum power.  Fuel usage is  considered to be 
proportional to energy output, an assumption which should possibly be modified 
for small vehicles whose lower energy levels are below the "economy of scale" 
factors.  Batteries should probably have their control point requirements 
ignored, and should also probably be rated in terms of hours at the expected 
output requirement.  Thus, if you have 1-MW/hr of batteries, you could figure 
a ground vehicles speed either on the basis of 1MW of output with a 1 hour 
endurance, or 0.5MW output with a two hour endurance, or some other reasonable 
combination.  My feeling is that there would probably be a  design limit to 
the speed with which the batteries could be discharged. Starship power re-
quirements can usually be estimated at the start of a design by figuring the 
desired life support (all goodies works out to 1MW per disp ton), the maneuver 
drive requirment, and any weapons and shields you want to be able to use at 
the same time as the maneuver drive.

Locomotion:

My recent designs have been listed with two sets of statistics for maneuver
drives, one being the straight Maneuver=3 or whatever, and the second being
(Thrusters=3250t) or the like.  Those numbers are calculated on the basis of
one thruster or anti-grav maneuver unit = 650t thrust, which corresponds to
equal energy consumption for anti-grav units.  In this rationalization  
thrusters require more energy to do whatever double talk allows them to oper-
ate beyond gravity wells at full efficiency.  Although I haven't done it, my 
extrapolation would permit thruster units to be placed in any size craft, so 
long as the unit is at least 0.4 "units" large. (5.4kl minimum). For most 
player-class craft, these rules result in approximately the same amount of 
total acceleration capability.  I have a disagreement with the rules over the 
agility question, which I have discussed at great length before.   In essence, 
I have always played that ships may have multiple devices which use the "same" 
power (but not at the same time), so that maneuver power can be fed to the 
weapons as long as you are willing to accept a reduced or zero acceleration as 
a result.  Between that habit, and some calculations about vectors, angles and 
so forth of space combat, I am firmly convinced that the most important factor 
in a ship's ability to avoid being hit in space combat is dependent on the 
gross effects of its maneuver drive, and that agility should therefore be 
equal to drive rating, provided that you are not "double dipping" the drive 
power for weapons.  I have always believed that this was the intent of High 
Guard, and I think it works well with the thruster tons suggestion above for 
acceleration, since it has the desired effect of making heavily armored ships 
slow and non-agile.  More comments on this under weapons.

In the thrust based suspensions for smaller vehicles, it should be noted that
the minimum thrust for standard grav is one ton, the minimum for low power
heavy grav is 0.4 tons, and the minimum for low power light grav is 0.1 tons.
Except at the very lowest thrusts and power levels, a tradeoff analysis will
always favor standard grav.  Example tanks in 101 Vehicles using LP-HGrav
could have their overall costs reduced by 50% by using std grav, even includ-
ing the need for additional fusion plant and higher thrust to maintain per-
formance.

In contact based suspension, the minimums for volume of wheels and tracks as
revised by the errata (1.5 and 2% respectively) are fairly generous.  Striker
heavily penalized high ground pressure vehicles (reasonably), and although
the complexity is probably not merited in MegaTraveller, I have always aimed
to keep my ground pressures around the 5-6 dividing line between high and
low off road performance in deference to reality.  The rules are also unclear
as to whether P/W should be figured using total power or power after all other
devices are powered.  Because of the method of calculating transmission size,
I have assumed the former, which means that the "power requirments" of the
wheels and tracks can pretty much be ignored.  If there is any doubt, the
power plant must supply at least enough to power the suspension, but I'd
figure that into the P/W.  Thus, it's only effect is to put a lower boundary
on a vehicles power plant size, which is unlikely to be a problem unless you
are trying to use batteries or some such.

Communications:

In almost all cases, except for very small vehicles and low tech level de-
vices, the only important factor for communicators in the final design is 
price.  I usually don't get too worked up over having .03MW of power used for 
electronics in a craft with 2MW of power, so I frequently ignore them when 
adding up power requirements. I also usually like to have a back-up communica-
tor on board all spacecraft. Just a matter of taste.  The credits saved by 
leaving out the  backup are usually negligible in a starship design.

Sensors and Electronics:

As with communicators, most of the time price is the only important factor.
Lower tech large EMS arrays may end up using enough power to worry about, and
military vehicles sensors may be important.  Don't forget that active and
passive EMS include all the smaller single purpose electromagnetic sensors.

Weapons:

The meson gun is the king of starship weapons.  Nothing else available at
Imperial tech levels will kill a ship with one shot.  Armor is irrelevant
to meson guns, and screen are really only effective against the smaller
ones.  Thus, no battleship needs to be bigger than necessary to carry and
serve the meson gun.  Since agility is one of the better defenses, and my
version of agility calculations places a premium on light armor, I'm finding
that there may be some limited utility in large particle accelerators to
damage and inhibit the construction of unamored meson gun carriers.
Lighter armor also gives fighter and SDBs something to do, though they had
better have large computers to be effective at TL15.

While the rules are clear about turrets taking up 13.5kl regardless of the
number of weapons installed, the TD example starship construction from
issue #14 incorrectly shows triple laser turrets taking up 40.5kl.  I also
usually figure that the turret weight about the same regardless of the 
number of weapons, which is probably not what is intended.  On most ships
the difference is not significant.  Any of my ships without specified missile
magazines need to load missiles in cargo space.

I have used turret mounted direct fire mortars in some designs of TL8 and 9
military vehicles.  These are not permitted by the rules, but exist in the
real world, so I extrapolated.

Cluster bomblets, tactical missiles, and rocket launcher artillery should be
put back into the game from Striker for use in military adventures.

Mass driver gun calculations should give rate of fire in rounds per second,
not round per minute.  (Error in Striker translation).  Without making this
change, MD guns are probably not cost effective.

Point Defense rules need to be put back in from Striker.

Screens:

All meson screen power consumptions should be divided by ten according to
Trav Digest#14. (e.g. UCP1=.015, UCP2=.03)  I have left specifics of 
obscuration devices off of recent military vehicle designs.  Their power,
weight and cost are negligible, and if needed I would specify a reasonable
number before combat (say 3 or 4 dozen maximum).  I don't like the little
sandcasters because I don't think the particles would stay airborne long 
enough to do much.  No rules for any of these gadgets are provided, either.

Bridge:

I usually go ahead and put in basic env, basic ls, ext ls, grav plates and
inertial compensators for the entire volume of a starship.  I haven't found
that it drives power requirments up too horribly for merchant ships.

To maintain consistency, I do calculate the control point requirements for the
hull, despite my difficulty with increased armor requiring more control.

For a military starship, there can be no excuse for not putting in the biggest
computer available at your tech level.

Based on the Starship Operator's Manual descriptions, I almost always use 
holographic linked panels when available, because I figure the using character
would want them.  I try not to install more add-ons than I have crew members
to use them. 101 Vehicles has an implied rule change allowing you to use 
linked panels without a computer, which I have never taken advantage of.

Accommodations:

Rule 3, reduced vehicle gunners, still looks bad after the errata: (C+S)/W,
since S is usually substantially larger than C, and I'd think that your
computer would have more to do with it.  What I use is X=C/(W/S) and some
common sense.

Rule 4, supplanted vehicle commander says X=(T-S)/C, which has the effect of
making it impossible to get rid of the vehicle commander if the total cost
of the vehicle apart from the sensors is greater than 100,000C/TL.  The best
value of C/TL is 8 at Comp 9, TL15, and Cr800,000 doesn't buy much of a
TL15 grav tank.  I think that X=(T/S)/C, plus some common sense works better.

In very light vehicles, I usually calculate the weight of seats at 0.1t rather
than 0.02t to allow for the weight of the passenger.  This is almost always
ignorable on large vehicles.

Starship command crews look awfully bloated to me, especially in cases where I
am carrying a 130 man marine company on a small vessel.  I usually reduce them
with the same formula as the bridge crew, which satisfies my prejudices.  If
the total was less than 10, there was no reduction.

Fuel:

If necessary, ships could jump as soon as the fuel processor had done enough
fuel for the jump, rather than waiting for the full load to be processed.
Fuel scoops and purifiers are almost always economically justified.

Design Evaluation:

For all of my vehicles unless otherwise noted, the prices *do not* include
a bulk discount.  Cost of small craft is included unless otherwise noted, or
a generic description (e.g. 1*4ton vehicle) is the only mention.
In grav vehicle speeds, I usually give them in terms of the "vacuum" speed,
so they should be multiplied by .9 for standard atmosphere, to taste.  I have
also interpolated values on occasion.  If you tried to use the rules as 
written, many airframe configuration craft could go faster in thin atmosphere
than in a vacuum, which doesn't look right.  Purists might wish to recalculate
lift requirements for grav vehicles based on local gravity. I don't usually
bother.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3307
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 11:01 EST
Subject: Re: potential energy in the Traveller (and other) universe

: From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
: Subject: Re: potential energy in the Traveller (and other) universe
: 
: What is the equation relating potential energy to distance, once you allow
: for the fact that gravitational attraction is itself dependent on distance?
: Specifically, does your potential energy increase or decrease as your distance
: from the attracting body increases?  I know the simple equation for potential
: energy assuming that gravity is constant, which is a reasonable approximation
: as long as you don't get too far from Earth, but which is useless at distances
: such as from Earth to the Moon.  I never did take Physics beyond high school,
: unfortunately!

I don't remember the formula either.  I think that there is a certain
amount of energy which is enough to overcome ALL of the gravitational
potential energy of the Earth.  If you assume that energy is kinetic
energy, then you can divide out mass from the equations and get an
escape velocity.  I would say that for a jump drive to land you 1/2
way between Sol and Alpha Centauri, it would have to expend more than
enough energy to bring the ship to escape velocity.

Also, I might have misled you by saying that both Sol and Alpha Centauri
dominate the equations.  This would be true perhaps if a ship jumped
directly from Sol to Alpha Centauri.  Jumping only half way, though...
Hmm...  I guess that you do lose potential energy over that 2 lightyear
span.  I don't know how much it would account for so far away from
Alpha Centauri, though.

I was thinking along the lines of Larry Niven style jump drives, I guess.
In that case, jumps are made between stars, not into open space.

: > True, but I don't think Traveller was THAT broken.  Some of the
: > stats might have to be altered or given further constraints.
: 
: Well, the fact that the computer rules are going to have to be rewritten will
: make ship designs obsolete.  Besides, most MT ships are designed at TL 15,
: and are therefore knocked out by this stupid virus.  The same probably goes
: for any TL 15 vehicle more advanced than an air/raft.  If the drive rules are
: changed, so that fuel and drives take up more or less volume, then old ships
: will be either illegal or sufficiently inferior to be useless.

OK, so maybe altering the stats won't be enough.  But Jump-4 and
Maneuver-3 should still be understandable under the new system.
Also, they should have at least the same range of weapons and
equipment.  If I have characters aboard a ship in the old system,
I want to be ABLE to convert to the new system.  And I don't want
to have to give up my repulsor bay because these are not included
in the new rules.

: > Actually, if you want realistic rolls, you should provide for
: > open-ended die rolls.  For example, use a d12 numbered from
: > 0-11, where 11 means roll again and add 10, and 0 on the first
: > roll only means roll again and subtract from 0.  This makes it
: > possible for anyone to succeed or fail tremendously at any
: > task.
: 
: Apart from the D12 (who needs yet another sort of die? :-) I'd agree
: with that.

You're right, and open-ended rolls can be made on d6's (6 means
roll again and add 5, 1 means roll again and subtract 5 -- once
you roll a 6 or 1, the other (1 or 6) loses its special meaning).

: > If GDW decides to use d20, however, they should NOT make the
: > low rolls mean success.  People naturally tend to think of
: > high rolls as success.
: 
: On the other hand, it means that all those loaded dice are going to be
: useless.  I quite like the idea of having some things be successful on
: high rolls, and some things be successful on low rolls.  Just watch
: for people who have two sets of dice.  :-)

Why not just load the dice to always roll 10's and load up on skills?
8-)

gsw

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3308
Subject: Fusion Neutrons
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 13:45:19 -0800
From: bart@cs.uoregon.edu


Jerry Williams (gsw@whservd.att.com) writes:
> For fusion, there is a problem with fuel -- ordinary
> hydrogen does not have enough (or any) neutrons to fuse
> into helium.  Thus, current fusion uses heavy hydrogen
> (deuterium or tritium) which is found in SMALL amounts
> along with normal hydrogen.  Refinement of fuel could
> then mean either selecting out all of the heavy hydrogen
> or better yet MAKING most of the hydrogen "heavy".  It
> could also be possible to burn normal hydrogen, but you
> would need to find a way to "donate" neutrons to the
> reaction.  Note that this would probably be harder and
> more damaging to the reactor than pre-treating the
> hydrogen in the first place.


I'm not sure exactly what the objection is here.  As you know,
the primary solar fusion reaction involves purely light
hydrogen.  The key observation is that a hydrogen *atom is* a
neutron -- QUESTION: what's the difference between a
proton-electron pair and a neutron?  ANSWER: a mass defect and
a bunch of empty space.  A free neutron will eventually decay
into a proton and electron, and release a tiny bit of energy.
If the objection is that the barrier potential to overcome to
squeeze a p-e pair into a neutron is very large, I'll concede
this, but I've always assumed they could just do it, at least
by TL14 or so...


Comments?


					Bart Massey
					bart@cs.uoregon.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3309
Date:     Thu, 12 Dec 91 16:52:58 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  More Designs, what else?

I've been trying to get back into a designing mood for the last couple of days
(for reasons best known to Mark Cook and Metlay), and came up with these two.
A comment or two on the rules:  It's been pointed out here that the rules 
state that a starship should have three computers.  They do not, however,
say that these three have to be of the same model.  I've used this dodge 
once or twice before, and when I do, I almost always calculate the control 
and crew requirements based on the worst computer, and the combat modifications
based on the best computer.  I made a small exception with the Starflare
shown below.  If the gunnery crew is figured on the basis of the Model 5 
computer, 19 gunners are needed to operate the four turrets and the damper.
This seemed a little excessive--1 per turret plus 15 for the damper?  After
all, these things are 'optimized' because by TL15 they are old and well
understood technology.  Using the Model 9 resulted in 5 gunners--one per
turret and one for the damper which seemed a little more reasonable.

Trying to shoehorn everything into the Starflare was a bit of a mess.  In
the process I decided that I had better give the detailed fuel use numbers,
in case anyone actually wanted to use one of these things.  (I think it
would work nicely as the main ship in the adventure from MTJ#2.)  I see
no reason why the maneuver drive should be running in Jump space, which
means that a detailed fuel use calculation should probably allow for 
power only for life support in Jump.


Good Gaming,

Rob Dean



Kontos class Fighter-Launch TL15

     The Kontos class is the result of a design project sponsored by the 
Planetary Navy of Mora in 1110.  The prototype was completed by the notorious 
Moran branch of TrinTechnics in late 1112, on time and slightly under budget.  
Flight testing was satisfactory, and the Moran Navy contracted with TrinTech-
nics for a full scale production run beginning in 1114.  Several hundred 
craft were completed when news of Emperor Strephon's assassination reached 
Mora.  The production line was expanded shortly thereafter, and sales were 
permitted to registered armed vessel operators (Starmercs).  By 1121, over 
two thousand had been produced.

     The Kontos is popular among small AVOs due to its clever multi-purpose 
design, which gives a great deal of operational flexibility without impairing 
the craft's usefulness as a fighter.  For most operations the relatively 
short endurance is not a problem.  Bunks are installed to provide a minimum 
level of long-term accommodation for the regular two man crew if a multi-day 
patrol is necessary.  The asymmetrical computer installation allows easy 
operation in routine conditions and good combat responsiveness at a low cost, 
with some loss of damage capacity. The Model 7 computer installation accounts 
for nearly 50% of the cost of the base model.  Some production models have 
also been sold with a down-sized battle computer installation--a Model 5 set 
up at a total cost of MCr27.58, and a Model 3 set up at a total cost of 
MCr21.69.
     
  CraftID: Kontos Class Fighter-Launch, TL15, MCr35.285
     Hull: 18/45, Disp=20, Conf=1AF, Armor=40G, Loaded=275t, 
           Unloaded=267t
    Power: 2/4, Fusion=522MW, Dur=5 days
     Loco: 3/6, Maneuver=6 (Thrusters=2210t), TrueAcc=8.03G,
           MaxSpeed=4500kph, Cruise=3375kph, NOE=190kph, Agility=8
     Comm: Radio=System, MaserComm=System
  Sensors: EMM,  EMS Active(Far Orbit), EMS Jammer(Far Orbit),
           EMS Passive(Interplanetary), ActObjScan=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout,
           PassEnScan=Rout
      Off: Hardpoints=1

               Missile=x02     BeamLaser=xx2
           Batteries     1                 1
           Bearing       1                 1

      Def: DefDM+17

              SandCaster=xx3
           Batteries       1
           Bearing         1

  Control: CompMod1*2, CompMod7*1, HeadsUpHoloDisplay*2, HoloLink*2
    Accom: Crew=2 (Pilot/Commander, Gunner), Passengers=8, 
           Seats=ExtOccRoomy*10, Bunks*2, Env=basic env, basic ls, extended 
           ls, grav plates, inertial comp, airlock
    Other: Fuel=31.32kl, Cargo=5.5kl, ObjSize=Avg, EmLevel=None, Missile 
           Magazine=20 missiles (20 b-r)

Starflare class Close Escort TL15

     The Starflare was designed and produced by the Mora branch of TrinTech-
nics.  The first test model was completed in early 1114.  The Starflare 
exhibits a number of typical TrinTechnics design features: the asymmetrical 
computer installation, short endurance, and general multi-task design in 
particular.  TrinTechnics designers attempted to wedge as many useful fea-
tures as possible into the Starflare, with the nuclear damper installation 
perhaps being the most unusual in a  vessel of this size.  This was prompted 
by a perceived need to defend against small Vargr vessels with easy access to 
nuclear weapons.  A small troop contingent, a slight surplus capacity in 
accommodations, and provision of cold sleep chambers for prisoners allows a 
Starflare to engage in boarding and capture operations.  As of 1120, no navy 
in the Domain of Deneb had ordered more than a few test examples of the Star-
flare, usually citing the low endurance as the cause of rejection.  However, 
23 of the vessels have been produced for private purchasers.
     
  CraftID: Starflare class Close Escort, TL15, MCr415.9 including fighters
     Hull: 360/900, Disp=400, Config=1AF, Armor=49G, Unloaded=4791t,
           Loaded=5577t
    Power: 24/48, Fusion=6480MW, Dur=13 days at full maneuver power (see 
           note)
     Loco: 18/36, Jump=4, 40/80, Maneuver=4 (Thrusters=28.6kt),
           TrueAcc=5.12G, Max=3400kph, Cruise=2550kph, NOE=190kph, Agility=5
     Comm: Radio=System*2, LaserComm=System*2, MaserComm=System*2
  Sensors: EMM, EMS Active(Far Orbit)*2, EMS Jammer(Far Orbit), EMS
           Passive(Interstellar)*2, High Pen Densitometer(1km), Neutrino
           Sensor(10kw), ActObjScan=Rout, ActObjPin=Rout, PassObjScan=Rout,
           PassObjPin=Rout, PassEnScan=Simp, PassEnPin=Rout
      Off: Hardpoints=4

            BeamLaser=xx4     Missiles=x03
           Batteries    2                2  
           Bearing      2                2

      Def: DefDm+15, Optimized Nuclear Damper-1
  Control: Computer Model 5*1, Computer Model 5fib*1, Computer Mod9*1,
           HeadsUpHoloDisplay*6, HoloLink*10
    Accom: Crew=26 (3 Command, 2 bridge, 2 engineer, 2 gunnery, 6 flight,
           6 troops, 2 medical), Passengers=4, Staterooms=15, Low Berths=10, 
           Env=basic env, basic ls, extended ls, grav plates, inertial comp
    Other: Fuel=3275kl, Cargo=65kl, Fuel Scoops, Fuel Purifier (24hrs), 
           Subcraft=2*Kontos class fighter-launches (20t), ObjSize=Large,
           EmLevel=Faint
     Note: Fuel usage is as follow: Jump-4=1350kl, Jump-3=1080kl, 
           Jump-2=810kl, Jump-1=540kl.  Full power=4.24kl/hr, full maneuver 
           power=1.75kl/hr, 1-G maneuver power=0.5kl/hr, Life support 
           only=0.2kl/hr.  Operating crew requirements figured on a Mod5 
           computer basis, gunnery crew figured on a Model 9 computer basis.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3310
Date:     Thu, 12 Dec 91 16:58:28 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Operating Expenses

Mike Surman suggested in his note the other day that we might consider revising
the cost of a starship ticket down, in some revision of the trade and commerce
system.  Along those lines, let me ask if anyone else thinks that Cr2000 per
person per jump seems to be a bit excessive as a life support cost.  In my
recent (hopefully soon to be restarted) game, the cash-poor players often
asked what they were getting for that money, since it was a large part of
what they were otherwise earning.  I couldn't answer...can anyone else?

What do you need to maintain life in space?  Food (cheap), air (cheaper),
water (cheap), power (lots of it on a ship), specialized equipment (already
included in the cost of the ship--extended life support isn't real cheap,
plus we pay annual maintenance on it.)

Rob Dean


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3311
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 15:48:56 PST
From: salamon@sdbio2.UCSD.EDU (Andrew Salamon)
Subject: College

Hi Everyone!
  (And Happy Holidays, etc.)

  I did write an extended Scientist Character generation system that included
a more detailed college system.  It should be in the TDR archives and I may
even have an extra copy around here somewhere, in case anyone wanted it.

Andrew "Hiding behind 7-bit ASCII" Salamon     | a.k.a  Bleydion op Rhys
salamon@sdbio2.ucsd.edu     <---Internet       | a.k.a  Jake "Sig Sauer" Hart
Bleyddyn ap Rhys, Bowman                       | a.k.a  Captain Etienne De Mer 
BaR@St-Artemas.Calafia.Caid.SCA                | a.k.a  T'nol of Tiglath Weyr 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3312
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 12:35 GMT
From: "J.A.F.O." <BSU646@vaxa.bangor.ac.uk>
Subject: general

 Running a campaign set aboard a small warship,  I am frequentlyin the position
 of having a PC do something that may or may not be an infraction of Naval regs
 eg. Rule 37.  What I am considering doing is to produce a handout with a list 
of some sample regs. for my players by way of added background.  Having no RL
experience of the military life (thank ifni) I was wondering just what the 
navy would let you get upto.... just how serious IS being drunk & disorderly in
a star port?  What is the penalty for insulting the ancestry of air traffic
controllers?  This is not an entirely serious list so any S prefix regulations 
 (spoofs) would also be appreciated! :)
eg. Reg S 12.2.2 No crewmember shall cause erroneous sensor readings to be input
to the astrogation computer so as to cause an alert or disturbance of the mental
balance of the navigator during a jump.
S 12.2.2a    The penalty for the imitation of Zhodani battlefleets is 1 weeks
 forfiture of chocolate rations.  
S 12.2.2b The furthur offense of not letting the crew in on the joke first is
 that the captain will sound general quarters and shout a lot.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3313
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 11:52 GMT
From: "J.A.F.O." <BSU646@vaxa.bangor.ac.uk>
Subject: A query

with all this furore over post-rebellion neo-trav'...what exactly is this
"Hard Times" MT supplement I see advertised in a games catalogue?  I haven't
heard anyone mention it before.
		Curious
			JAFO

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3314
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 09:16:35 CST
From: bonnevil@stolaf.edu (Steven Bonneville)
Subject: Re:  General Questions


Mike Surman <surman@zulu.lgs.lsu.edu> writes --

>I guess a card debit system would work but what about non-Imperials
>or non-megacorp employees? Or for that matter visitors from those
>small out of the way planets? My brain is rusty this morning, but is
>there a banking megacorp? And does it extend beyond the Imperium(i.e.
>into Vargr, Aslan, Solomani, etc. territory).

Hortalez et Cie is primarily involved in banking and such things, as is
Zirunkariish to a lesser degree.  That's one reason they appear so often
as part owners of large portions of other megacorps.  I'd suppose that
both they and the Imperial government's central banks would be involved
in the exchange of foreign currency -- including reputable foreign debit
card withdrawals.  Anyone with this JTAS able to help me here?

>Mike Surman
>
>"You haven't experienced Shakespeare until you've read it in the
>orginal Klingon."

Or Vargr.  Or Aslan.  :)  I've been toying with this adventure idea where a
travelling theater troupe, running out of cash, decides to try it's luck
bringing ancient Shakespeare plays into the Extents.  They might have to
be careful which plays they pick on some worlds, but it might go over well....

- --Steve Bonneville
<bonnevil@stolaf.edu>

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3315
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 10:48:22 EDT
From: givler@bermuda.rain.COM (Greg Givler)
Subject: Re: (3302) Re: 3295

:bonnevil@stolaf.edu (TML msg 3295) writes:
:
:> On Credit:  I don't think the Imperium operates on an interstellar
:> credit system like ours.Travel time would make collecting payments
:> . . .
:
:I guess a card debit system would work but what about non-Imperials
:or non-megacorp employees? Or for that matter visitors from those
:small out of the way planets? My brain is rusty this morning, but is
:there a banking megacorp? And does it extend beyond the Imperium(i.e.
:into Vargr, Aslan, Solomani, etc. territory).
:

Well Aslan males wouldn't worry about money, at least none of the
Aslan males that I have ever met worry about money.

:I would assume that each system used would be different from the 
:others. Each would have their own 'best' method of implementing
:the security features. 
:

Most of the time we as players and me as GM made sure that you put
your money in a BIG Bank, the First National Bank of Rushu, TL-4 is
not a BIG Bank. But a bank owned by one of the Mega-Corps is.

:On a similar note. How are identifications achieved? As in, how could
:anyone prove who they are? 
:

The way the debit flashes worked in my campaign is that you had an
electronic device, TL-9 that you placed your thumb on a pad. The
print was scanned and analysed. If it was you then whoever you were
paying would have there bank acount or there own DEBIT card credited
with the proper amount. If you don't want to use debit cards so that
that shipment of guns that you just bought is harder to trace, then
use cash. You can do one of two things in that case. You can have
them go through the exchange rate on world, or you can use Imperial
currency through out the Imperium. I have used both. The former is a
lot more work than the latter.

Otherwise you can always not worry about it. That is the easiest
solution of all. Money just gets transferred to and from accounts and
you never have to worry about how.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Givler                        | Q-Link: GregGivler
Analyst - Systems Evaluation Group | CompuServe: Greg Givler 76702,647
Commodore Product Assurance        | GEnie: G.Givler
215-431-9100                       | The NET: givler@cbmvax.commodore.com
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "By the way, don't eat the figs." - Livia to Tiberius after the death of
                        Augustus - I, Claudius PBS
===============================================================================


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3316
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 10:50:40 EDT
From: givler@bermuda.rain.COM (Greg Givler)
Subject: Question about TDR.

Where can I get copies of the TDR stuff. I would like to look it
over. Also since I am in the process of starting a new Traveller
campaign I would probably be working on stuff that could go into TDR.
So a second question is who do you contact with stuff that you have
to contribute to TDR.

Greg

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Givler                        | Q-Link: GregGivler
Analyst - Systems Evaluation Group | CompuServe: Greg Givler 76702,647
Commodore Product Assurance        | GEnie: G.Givler
215-431-9100                       | The NET: givler@cbmvax.commodore.com
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "By the way, don't eat the figs." - Livia to Tiberius after the death of
                        Augustus - I, Claudius PBS
===============================================================================


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3317
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Re: Starship Passengers and...
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 8:48:40 PST

.... and even more on trade and commerce.


Rob Dean asks about Mike Surman's observation that space flight costs so
damn much.

:What do you need to maintain life in space?  Food (cheap), air (cheaper),
:water (cheap), power (lots of it on a ship), specialized equipment (already
:included in the cost of the ship--extended life support isn't real cheap,
:plus we pay annual maintenance on it.)

Well, if I were running a little passenger line between say Efate and
Bounghe, or some such, I'd also throw in:

   salaries of people aboard
   dead-head space (passengers who won't be there for a return flight)
   routine bribes
   PROFIT  (double all yer expenses...)


I guess this is just another symptom of trade and commerce needing fixed
rather than just dusted under the rug.
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com
Sue Congress!

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3318
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 13:25 -0400
From: "C. Roald" <HOBBIT@AC.DAL.CA>
Subject: grav potential energy

>: What is the equation relating potential energy to distance, once you allow
>: for the fact that gravitational attraction is itself dependent on distance?

The standard form is GPE = - G m1 m2 / r, where r is the separation of 
the two bodies.

>: Specifically, does your potential energy increase or decrease as your distance
>: from the attracting body increases?  I know the simple equation for potential

The physics convention is that potential energy is NEGATIVE, so that it 
increases (gets less negative) as you increase the separation. At 
infinite separation, the PE rises to zero. (A common definition is that 
PE represents how much energy has to be added to bring two objects to 
infinite separation.

>I don't remember the formula either.  I think that there is a certain
>amount of energy which is enough to overcome ALL of the gravitational
>potential energy of the Earth.  If you assume that energy is kinetic

Yes, there is. If a ship's total energy ( KE + (-ve) PE ) is greater 
than zero, the ship is not bound by Earth (assuming PE is measured with 
respect to Earth).  The escape velocity is about 11 km/s--any ship 
moving this fast with respect to Earth has enough kinetic energy to 
escape to infinity--ie, it will never return.

>energy, then you can divide out mass from the equations and get an
>escape velocity.  I would say that for a jump drive to land you 1/2
>way between Sol and Alpha Centauri, it would have to expend more than
>enough energy to bring the ship to escape velocity.

Almost certainly. By that distance, the 1/r factor has made PE with 
respect to Earth so small that almost any kinetic energy will tip the
balance.

There are two other very important factors, Sol and Alpha Centauri, 
however.  At those distances, Earth is completely negligible. A fair
approximation is to assume 2 light-years is a sufficient approximation 
to infinity, and call the potential energy zero. The energy required
to make the jump is then 

	(final energy) - (initial energy) = 0 - (-GmM/r) = GmM/r,

where r is the initial separation. On the other hand, if you were to 
jump from a distance r from Sol to a distance r from AC, then the net
cost of the jump is

	G m M(AC)/r - G m M(Sol)/r = G m [M(AC)-M(Sol)]/r.

A first approximation calls M(Sol) about the same as M(AC), so the net
cost of the jump is ~= 0, plus the drive energy to make a jump of twice 
the distance. On the other hand, GmM/r is the escape energy of Sol, 
which is the kinetic energy required to produce a velocity of ~30 km/s.
For a ship weighing say, 1 T, that's 4.5e11 J, or 450 000 MJ. Not to
be sneezed at.

	roald

- --
Scientific progress goes 'BOINK'?	-- Hobbes

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

