From tim at little-possums.net  Thu May  1 00:13:30 2008
From: tim at little-possums.net (Timothy Little)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:13:30 +1000
Subject: [TML] Freelance Traveller Contest 2008-01: Lead to some other
	thoughts, questions and inventions about gravity generators.
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50804302128o557106aidbb1155734596ff0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f495db580804231054t480b1087we80b5ce6d7d023bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<C4354BD3.136E8%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<5aca9be50804232120x1fdd9c0dgb5e13d6d6ae3a72@mail.gmail.com>
	<4815F0B1.11714.98CB418@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<5aca9be50804302128o557106aidbb1155734596ff0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080501061330.GA6636@soprano.little-possums.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:28:20AM -0400, Richard Aiken wrote:
> Okay.  And the drive exhaust is a blow torch.

That's rather an understatement, I think.  "Satan's own nuclear
supercharged megatorch from Hell" would be closer.

The power output could be measured in watts - at 100 tons thrust,
about 6*10^12 of them - but I think "Hiroshimas per minute" is more
evocative.


- Tim

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 00:40:26 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 02:40:26 -0400
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50804302229m4d40548ey5d210f9062e961ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4815F0B0.9547.98CB2EC@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<f495db580804281547n27680e08ya7c23743cee62762@mail.gmail.com>
	<48173235.13506.28650A84@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<5b0a00340804291504w3e7f37b0qb80b1ed1b054b418@mail.gmail.com>
	<dc8544280804300817g12e5b621o6eb9978f5eb1f42d@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804300842n886ec42v96adc18a769e6a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5aca9be50804302229m4d40548ey5d210f9062e961ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b50d33430804302340u27d28089kd6b673706122d7fa@mail.gmail.com>

>  deployed in the Middle East.  In fact, he gleefully steals some
>  current military slang (such as "battle rattle," for the noise
>  ceramic-plate-armor makes when you're hustling), for use in his second
>  book.

Tangent:

I'll bet you a Roman Legionaire in full panoply would rattle about the same.

When I wore green and snuck through bushes armed, my biggest bugaboo
was canteens. A full canteen doesn't make much noise. But a half-empty
one sloshes like a sonofagun. I'd have infinitely preferred one of
today's camel-back systems integral to my pack. That would have gotten
rid of some of the worst of the sloshing. Of course, the forestock on
the FN made a good clatter if you happened to whack it too (used to
good effect in drill, not so useful in the field).

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 00:57:10 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 02:57:10 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <20080501022721.GD5975@soprano.little-possums.net>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20080430142919.0527ae70@po10.mit.edu>
	<C43E53F3.13898%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<f495db580804301433n45c8e002i707fa4b172505328@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080501022721.GD5975@soprano.little-possums.net>
Message-ID: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Timothy Little <tim at little-possums.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:33:27PM +0200, Knapp wrote:
>  > First, at what point is a ship to big to land on the surface?
>
>  With internal contragrav, probably the limit would be dictated by how
>  much room you have to land and how much you want to avoid tidal
>  effects from its mass.

What does a ship mass? Even a type S? How many metric tons mass? And
what about a really decent sized ship (say a 5000 ton destroyer)?

Now, the type S has three landing pads. Anyone care to take a ballpark
calculation for the surface pressure those exert in psi or some other
unit? I recall Striker used to force you to calculate the ground
pressure of units to determine some aspects of their mobility. Well,
I'm just guessing but a 100 dton scout may weigh enough (without
contra grav factored in) to sink like a stone into anything that isn't
really solid (like landing pads). Makes the whole 'landing in the
wild' thing seem sort of unlikely if you consider it too much (if you
don't count water landings, which could work fine).

I'd guess that the scout doesn't have more than 3 at 3ft x 3ft. That's
27 square feet. I use feet because I determined a 4" concrete pad
should load bear about 4000 lbs/square foot (call it two metric tons).
So that's 54 metric tons borne by 27 square feet. Is a scout more than
54 tons? possibly... (I don't know).

Figures I found for bedrock seem to suggest up to about 6 mtons per
square foot and as low as about 1 ton for clay based soil.

So, you'd still have to be pretty careful where you landed, if your
ship weighed any amount. And if it weighs more than the trapped air
inside, it won't be bouyant in water either.

T.

From tom.cusworth at googlemail.com  Thu May  1 01:17:49 2008
From: tom.cusworth at googlemail.com (Tom Cusworth)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 08:17:49 +0100
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <4819192A.1010302@gmail.com>
References: <f495db580804282242m1e602c5s67dac7f2fd8cde4b@mail.gmail.com>
	<C43C3302.13845%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<4b5cc71a0804300435h289209fco7db40e9f45c601d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<f495db580804300450l24fef9c9h3775dbdabd156521@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804300833u1273c84aq649173a724201fec@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080501010632.GA5975@soprano.little-possums.net>
	<4819192A.1010302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4b5cc71a0805010017y87e0a87jd028b5f4ed3633a@mail.gmail.com>

On 01/05/2008, Ross Winn <ross.winn at gmail.com> wrote:

> For your perusal and amusement, an advance look at next weeks Close to
> the Edit, my review of Mongoose Traveller.


Ross,

Having just picked up Rikki-Tikki Travvi yesterday (freshly in stock in my
FLGS here in Glasgow, Scotland), your review confirms my suspicion that I
was right to buy yet another version of Traveller.

The consensus from the people I spoke to was (from the previews that
Mongoose released) very positive. Maybe it WILL trigger a resurgence of
players and I can finally get a group together and go Travellin'

BTW, it was positively flying out the door - of the eight people in the
(very small) FLGS, seven of those bought a copy. The eighth had just come in
to ask for directions...

Looking forward to reading the rules and getting down to the crunchy bits.

Thanks for the review,

-Tom


-- 
> Blessed are the cheapskates, for they shall see god and still have change
> of a fiver - Tom Holt, Valhalla.
>
> Want Googlemail? Ask me & I'll invite you!

From skaran at bordernet.com.au  Thu May  1 01:22:04 2008
From: skaran at bordernet.com.au (Antony Farrell)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:22:04 +0800
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>

TNE lists the actual loaded mass of a TL15 Scout as 697.9 metric tons with a
volume of 1,400 cubic meters so this vessel will float in water. Earlier TL
version way more due to less efficient hull materials being used. A TL11
scout I did massed at at over 1,000 metric tons. Of course since TNE
construction is not the same as earlier versions it gives only a rough
guide. But at least it uses both mass and volume and surface area.

Antony

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 - Release Date: 29/04/2008
6:27 PM
 


From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 02:28:46 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 01:28:46 -0700
Subject: [TML] Subsidized Merchant Prince
In-Reply-To: <4818FA42.7090908@gmail.com>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20080430022422.01b7c4c0@pop.efn.org>,
	<4042F6B8-3D94-42B9-A784-C8BBB4518E90@mac.com>,
	<4818FA42.7090908@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <48191CCE.17497.1096BA1@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 30 Apr 2008 at 19:01, Ross Winn wrote:

> Andrew Long wrote:
> > Try replacing Jeeves and Bertie with Bunter and Lord Peter Wimsey
> > (especially after he'd met his Harriet...) A MUCH more formidable set  
> > of NPCs
> >
> > Regards, Andy
> >   
> Well I can be Nick Charles, you can be Nora, and Reddoch can be Asta...
> 
> of we could all be the friends of Mr. Cairo.
> 
> That's formidable.

Dr. Clark Savage, Jr; Monk Mayfair and the rest of that crew come to 
mind...


--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From jzeitlin at spamcop.net  Thu May  1 02:55:28 2008
From: jzeitlin at spamcop.net (Jeff Zeitlin)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 04:55:28 -0400
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <4819192A.1010302@gmail.com>
References: <f495db580804282242m1e602c5s67dac7f2fd8cde4b@mail.gmail.com>	<C43C3302.13845%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>	<4b5cc71a0804300435h289209fco7db40e9f45c601d3@mail.gmail.com>	<f495db580804300450l24fef9c9h3775dbdabd156521@mail.gmail.com>	<b50d33430804300833u1273c84aq649173a724201fec@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080501010632.GA5975@soprano.little-possums.net>
	<4819192A.1010302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e71j14hr49curl54iccnfbfcv6okoqqpht@4ax.com>

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:13:14 -0400, you wrote:

>For your perusal and amusement, an advance look at next weeks Close to 
>the Edit, my review of Mongoose Traveller.

Ross, may I print this in Freelance Traveller as well?  I'm willing to
honor any reasonable time embargo to give it a chance to appear at
rpg.net first, if necessary.

From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Thu May  1 07:33:10 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 09:33:10 -0400
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50804302229m4d40548ey5d210f9062e961ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C43F3ED6.138D1%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/1/08 1:29 AM, "Richard Aiken" <raikenclw at gmail.com> wrote:

> Buettner has an afterword in the re-print of this first book where he
> admits to being caught out by the pace of technical advances.  The
> tech which he assumed to be ~40 years out has since been mostly
> deployed in the Middle East.  In fact, he gleefully steals some
> current military slang (such as "battle rattle," for the noise
> ceramic-plate-armor makes when you're hustling), for use in his second
> book.

Current?  The term has been in use since at least '95 (not to mention a WWII
use meaning combat fatigue or jitters).


From johnson at pharmacy.arizona.edu  Thu May  1 07:53:59 2008
From: johnson at pharmacy.arizona.edu (Bruce Johnson)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 06:53:59 -0700
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <f495db580804301737n50dc95c3h51a2a27fc07f68f3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20080430142919.0527ae70@po10.mit.edu>
	<C43E53F3.13898%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<f495db580804301433n45c8e002i707fa4b172505328@mail.gmail.com>
	<8E668639-F76F-4C60-8D19-507E5F07CEDE@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
	<f495db580804301737n50dc95c3h51a2a27fc07f68f3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F40DDEC3-C92C-40D4-8362-6B31909469F1@pharmacy.arizona.edu>


On Apr 30, 2008, at 5:37 PM, Knapp wrote:
>>
>> Get the T4 sourcebook "Milieu 0", read up on the Zhunastu School of
>> Contact (yes, named after Cleon I, the founder of the Third Imperium)
>> and marvel at the sheer unadulterated sociopathy displayed as  
>> official
>> policy of the 3I.
>
> I would love to but I use CT and don't have the extra money at this
> point (poor immigrant at this time) for more books. Can you sum it up?

Ground rules: These are lower tech worlds, balkanized, that have been  
homes to TL6+ civilizations for millenia. They're mined out...any  
easily convertible valuables (gems, precious metals, etc) backing  
local currencies are in circulation.

This started as the Zhunastu Industries School of Contact, then became  
Imperial doctrine when the then Senator Cleon Zhunastu crowned himself  
Emperor.

Step one: Start by offering the wealthy and powerful fabulous stuff at  
prices that will make their wallets hurt, and them look around for  
other sources of income. Your aim here is to strip the economy of  
anything the locals can use to trade with any other starfaring polity:  
gems, precious metals, whatever is the basis of their currency, and  
make them look around for more.

Step two: find several of the most promising, and offer to sell them  
weapons, so they can expand their holdings to get more money to buy  
your cool stuff. If you want to be extraordinarily cruel, offer them  
on credit. This makes them much more compliant later.

Rinse and repeat until one or two powerful autocrats are ruling.

Step three: now that you've reduced the sides, offer even higher-tech  
weaponry, but only in 'licensed and trained hands', ie: your own hand- 
picked mercs. (See: Blackwater, 21st century)

Step four: You have a single world government, but the continuous  
warring has depleted the economy. Now bring in modular automated  
factories; in direct competition with local industry. Your production  
costs are much lower, when the competition falters, offer to become  
their partner. (See: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, etc, 19th century)

Ultimately, you want your off-world interests to own a significant  
chunk of the world economy.

Step five: in /. parlance "Profit!"

You now have a word with a single base of political power beholden to  
the Imperium (whom you can now repay by making the local Imperial  
Noble) with an economy largely controlled by your own off-world  
interests.

You can make or bring in all sorts of shiny consumer stuff, sold at  
prices guaranteed to keep the citizenry working hard for your  
companies  to afford.

--
Bruce Johnson

"No matter where you go, there you are", B. Banzai


From johnson at pharmacy.arizona.edu  Thu May  1 07:58:49 2008
From: johnson at pharmacy.arizona.edu (Bruce Johnson)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 06:58:49 -0700
Subject: [TML] Subsidized Merchant Picture
In-Reply-To: <C43EAD52.138BC%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
References: <C43EAD52.138BC%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F785A27C-CBA7-45AA-9606-5D1006B9262F@pharmacy.arizona.edu>


On Apr 30, 2008, at 8:12 PM, Jerry W Barrington wrote:
> On 4/30/08 8:43 AM, "Joseph Paul" <josephnjody at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> His rich Daddy. Surely there are some scions of the board members  
>> of Ling
>> Standard Products that need to be given a bright shining toy to  
>> keep them
>> out of trouble. Then again they could be cat's paws for  
>> manipulating things.
>
> Wait... you're suggesting that wander all over the Imperium in your  
> own
> Subsidized Merchant ship is going to keep you *out* of trouble?!?   
> If so,
> Traveller players has *definitely been doing something wrong for 30  
> years...

Keeping "out of trouble" on the Imperium-wide LSP scale is vastly  
different from keeping out of trouble on the PC "Send Lawyers, Guns  
and Money!" scale...

--
Bruce Johnson

"No matter where you go, there you are", B. Banzai


From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 07:59:45 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:59:45 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>

Well, to comfortably bear 700 metric tons on concrete would take 118
square feet or so of landing pad area on bedrock. Divided by 3, that's
roughly 40 square feet per landing pad. That's 6 x 7 feet or
thereabouts (2m x 2.5m would do it). So it is doable on bedrock for a
scout. In Sandy soil, 2.5 metric tons per square foot should be
feasible. So you're looking at 280 square feet of landing pad area.
Divided by 3, that's about 93 square feet per pad, or 10 ft x 9 ft
pads (3m x 3m). Landing in clay, multiply that by 2 (6m x 6m).

But I assume for weight vs. volume a scout is pretty median and light
compared to any military ship.

And the scout is not armoured. I imagine many armoured cruisers or
other ships would NOT float.

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Antony Farrell <skaran at bordernet.com.au> wrote:
> TNE lists the actual loaded mass of a TL15 Scout as 697.9 metric tons with a
>  volume of 1,400 cubic meters so this vessel will float in water. Earlier TL
>  version way more due to less efficient hull materials being used. A TL11
>  scout I did massed at at over 1,000 metric tons. Of course since TNE
>  construction is not the same as earlier versions it gives only a rough
>  guide. But at least it uses both mass and volume and surface area.
>
>  Antony
>
>
>  No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  Checked by AVG.
>  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 - Release Date: 29/04/2008
>  6:27 PM
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  TML mailing list
>  TML at travellercentral.com
>  http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>



-- 
"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
 Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

 Thomas Paine

From garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  1 08:23:53 2008
From: garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net (Garry Ward)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:23:53 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com><000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
	<b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com>
To: "The Traveller Mailing List" <tml at travellercentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:59 AM
Subject: Re: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.


> Well, to comfortably bear 700 metric tons on concrete would take 118
> square feet or so of landing pad area on bedrock. Divided by 3, that's
> roughly 40 square feet per landing pad. That's 6 x 7 feet or
> thereabouts (2m x 2.5m would do it). So it is doable on bedrock for a
> scout. In Sandy soil, 2.5 metric tons per square foot should be
> feasible. So you're looking at 280 square feet of landing pad area.
> Divided by 3, that's about 93 square feet per pad, or 10 ft x 9 ft
> pads (3m x 3m). Landing in clay, multiply that by 2 (6m x 6m).
>
> But I assume for weight vs. volume a scout is pretty median and light
> compared to any military ship.
>
> And the scout is not armoured. I imagine many armoured cruisers or
> other ships would NOT float.

According to the info in BL, a loaded Gazelle Close Essort averages 1,000 
Kg/M^3  while the loaded Subsidized Merchant comes out to 697 Kg/m^3.

A fully loaded scout comes in at 494 Kg/m^3.

A Midu Agashaam Destroyer with a volume of 4,200 m^3and a loaded mass of 
28,839.61 tonnes comes in at 686.66 Kg/m^3, less than the Subsidized 
merchant.

Garry
>
> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Antony Farrell <skaran at bordernet.com.au> 
> wrote:
>> TNE lists the actual loaded mass of a TL15 Scout as 697.9 metric tons 
>> with a
>>  volume of 1,400 cubic meters so this vessel will float in water. Earlier 
>> TL
>>  version way more due to less efficient hull materials being used. A TL11
>>  scout I did massed at at over 1,000 metric tons. Of course since TNE
>>  construction is not the same as earlier versions it gives only a rough
>>  guide. But at least it uses both mass and volume and surface area.
>>
>>  Antony
>>
>>
>>  No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>  Checked by AVG.
>>  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 - Release Date: 
>> 29/04/2008
>>  6:27 PM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  TML mailing list
>>  TML at travellercentral.com
>>  http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> "Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
> terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
> Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I
>
> "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
> administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine
>
> Thomas Paine
> _______________________________________________
> TML mailing list
> TML at travellercentral.com
> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
> 



From garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  1 08:38:00 2008
From: garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net (Garry Ward)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:38:00 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com><000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran><b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
Message-ID: <001301c8ab98$f7419c30$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garry Ward" <garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net>
To: "The Traveller Mailing List" <tml at travellercentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com>
> To: "The Traveller Mailing List" <tml at travellercentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 9:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
>
>
>> Well, to comfortably bear 700 metric tons on concrete would take 118
>> square feet or so of landing pad area on bedrock. Divided by 3, that's
>> roughly 40 square feet per landing pad. That's 6 x 7 feet or
>> thereabouts (2m x 2.5m would do it). So it is doable on bedrock for a
>> scout. In Sandy soil, 2.5 metric tons per square foot should be
>> feasible. So you're looking at 280 square feet of landing pad area.
>> Divided by 3, that's about 93 square feet per pad, or 10 ft x 9 ft
>> pads (3m x 3m). Landing in clay, multiply that by 2 (6m x 6m).
>>
>> But I assume for weight vs. volume a scout is pretty median and light
>> compared to any military ship.
>>
>> And the scout is not armoured. I imagine many armoured cruisers or
>> other ships would NOT float.
>
> According to the info in BL, a loaded Gazelle Close Essort averages 1,000
> Kg/M^3  while the loaded Subsidized Merchant comes out to 697 Kg/m^3.
>
> A fully loaded scout comes in at 494 Kg/m^3.
>
> A Midu Agashaam Destroyer with a volume of 4,200 m^3and a loaded mass of
Whoops, left off a zero - that should be 42,000 m^3 - Garry
> 28,839.61 tonnes comes in at 686.66 Kg/m^3, less than the Subsidized
> merchant.
>
> Garry
>>
>> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Antony Farrell <skaran at bordernet.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>> TNE lists the actual loaded mass of a TL15 Scout as 697.9 metric tons
>>> with a
>>>  volume of 1,400 cubic meters so this vessel will float in water. 
>>> Earlier
>>> TL
>>>  version way more due to less efficient hull materials being used. A 
>>> TL11
>>>  scout I did massed at at over 1,000 metric tons. Of course since TNE
>>>  construction is not the same as earlier versions it gives only a rough
>>>  guide. But at least it uses both mass and volume and surface area.
>>>
>>>  Antony
>>>
>>>
>>>  No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>  Checked by AVG.
>>>  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 - Release Date:
>>> 29/04/2008
>>>  6:27 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  TML mailing list
>>>  TML at travellercentral.com
>>>  http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> "Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
>> terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
>> Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I
>>
>> "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
>> administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine
>>
>> Thomas Paine
>> _______________________________________________
>> TML mailing list
>> TML at travellercentral.com
>> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TML mailing list
> TML at travellercentral.com
> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
> 



From andrew.long at mac.com  Thu May  1 09:52:04 2008
From: andrew.long at mac.com (Andrew Long)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 16:52:04 +0100
Subject: [TML] Subsidized Merchant Prince
In-Reply-To: <4818FA42.7090908@gmail.com>
References: <6.1.2.0.2.20080430022422.01b7c4c0@pop.efn.org>
	<PBELIEMAEKFJADHMKFLLKEBEGLAA.josephnjody@sbcglobal.net>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080430145104.01bae350@pop.efn.org>
	<270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F0C9FC5A2@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>
	<4042F6B8-3D94-42B9-A784-C8BBB4518E90@mac.com>
	<4818FA42.7090908@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <18228204-286E-4072-8F9D-74DD2C57CF3D@mac.com>

On 1 May 2008, at 00:01, Ross Winn wrote:

> Andrew Long wrote:
>> Try replacing Jeeves and Bertie with Bunter and Lord Peter Wimsey
>> (especially after he'd met his Harriet...) A MUCH more formidable set
>> of NPCs
>>
>> Regards, Andy
>>
> Well I can be Nick Charles, you can be Nora, and Reddoch can be  
> Asta...
>
> of we could all be the friends of Mr. Cairo.
>
Whoever floats your boat. I always thought that the archetypal Hammet
hero was the Continental Op. Nick, Charles, Sam Spade only appeared in a
few stories while the Op was all over the place. I really have a thing
for old detective fiction of that class. Chandler, Hammet, Sayers (I've
already mentioned). More modern stuff I like is Sarah Paretsky (VI.
Warshawsky), Lyndsay Davies (Falco).

Regards, Andy
-- 
Andrew Long
andrew dot long at mac dot com


From ajackson at iii.com  Thu May  1 10:40:48 2008
From: ajackson at iii.com (Anthony Jackson)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 09:40:48 -0700
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4819F290.8060909@iii.com>

Jerry W Barrington wrote:

> I'm sure that with even current top-line technology, an autonomous jet
> fighter could be built that would beat any human pilot.  As has been pointed
> out, social issues severely limit the chance of it happening soon.  Also, I
> don't think it would be as simple as a bunch of geeks interviewer and
> watching human pilots and writing a program to do the same stuff.  I expect
> it would be an "expert system" and have to be trained in much the same way a
> human pilot is: practice, practice, practice!

I suspect that it would be based on what human pilots are taught to do, 
not what human pilots actually do. The big problem with an autonomous 
combat vehicle is that computers are still pretty bad at target 
recognition; for the actual job of flying the airplane, a lot of that is 
already handled by computer, and having a computer handle the remaining 
controls wouldn't be that challenging.

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 10:24:04 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:24:04 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
	<b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>

>  According to the info in BL, a loaded Gazelle Close Essort averages 1,000
>  Kg/M^3  while the loaded Subsidized Merchant comes out to 697 Kg/m^3.
>
>  A fully loaded scout comes in at 494 Kg/m^3.
>
>  A Midu Agashaam Destroyer with a volume of 4,200 m^3and a loaded mass of
>  28,839.61 tonnes comes in at 686.66 Kg/m^3, less than the Subsidized
>  merchant.

Okay, they'll float.

But you'll need some hellacious landing gear to put that mass down on
anything other than bedrock or a technologically created equivalent.
If the scout needs 93 square feet to land on bedrock, 280 on sandy
soil, and possibly twice that on clay, then you can add 50% to those
numbers for the subsidized merchant (loaded) and the Midu Agashaam and
about 100% for the Gazelle.

To put it another way:

Gazelle would need about 186 square feet of landing pad on bedrock,
560 square feet on sandy soil, and as much as 1100 square feet on
clay. That's some pretty humongous landing gear/pads.

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 10:27:52 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:27:52 -0400
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <4819F290.8060909@iii.com>
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<4819F290.8060909@iii.com>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805010927h1beaa735r25552bec3a7c0f65@mail.gmail.com>

>  > I'm sure that with even current top-line technology, an autonomous jet
>  > fighter could be built that would beat any human pilot.  As has been pointed
>  > out, social issues severely limit the chance of it happening soon.  Also, I
>  > don't think it would be as simple as a bunch of geeks interviewer and
>  > watching human pilots and writing a program to do the same stuff.  I expect
>  > it would be an "expert system" and have to be trained in much the same way a
>  > human pilot is: practice, practice, practice!
>
>  I suspect that it would be based on what human pilots are taught to do,
>  not what human pilots actually do. The big problem with an autonomous
>  combat vehicle is that computers are still pretty bad at target
>  recognition; for the actual job of flying the airplane, a lot of that is
>  already handled by computer, and having a computer handle the remaining
>  controls wouldn't be that challenging.

Hmmm. A friend of mine in the late 80s was doing his PhD on training
neural nets to identify air vehicles at different ranges and
resolution. With enough time and training, they produced some pretty
good results. I'm betting 20 years has helped a lot. I'm not thinking
this is a very long term obstacle.

Keep in mind human pilots often make mistakes (Blackhawk = Hind,
Scimitar = BMP, PPCLI = Taliban, etc). All you have to do is manage to
be at least as good. And computers can do a lot with optical image
recognition now (they don't have to JUST rely on other data like EM
sigs, radar returns, etc).

>
> _______________________________________________
>  TML mailing list
>  TML at travellercentral.com
>  http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>



-- 
"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
 Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

 Thomas Paine

From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 10:43:07 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 09:43:07 -0700
Subject: [TML] Freelance Traveller Contest 2008-01: Lead to some other
	thoughts, questions and inventions about gravity generators.
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50804302128o557106aidbb1155734596ff0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f495db580804231054t480b1087we80b5ce6d7d023bd@mail.gmail.com>,
	<4815F0B1.11714.98CB418@shadow.shadowgard.com>,
	<5aca9be50804302128o557106aidbb1155734596ff0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481990AB.9258.2CFC78C@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 0:28, Richard Aiken wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:43 PM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
> > On 24 Apr 2008 at 0:20, Richard Aiken wrote:
> >
> > So a ton of fuel at 100 tons thrust would last for 6000 seconds or
> > 1.67 hours.
> 
> Okay.  And the drive exhaust is a blow torch.  Real good reason to
> have Star-Wars-type docking bays.

A blowtorch the same way that Hiroshima was a firecracker.

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  1 11:03:44 2008
From: garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net (Garry Ward)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 13:03:44 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com><000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran><b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com><000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
	<b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000301c8abad$550d3540$b82c4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com>
To: "The Traveller Mailing List" <tml at travellercentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.


>>  According to the info in BL, a loaded Gazelle Close Essort averages 
>> 1,000
>>  Kg/M^3  while the loaded Subsidized Merchant comes out to 697 Kg/m^3.
>>
>>  A fully loaded scout comes in at 494 Kg/m^3.
>>
>>  A Midu Agashaam Destroyer with a volume of 4,200 m^3and a loaded mass of
>>  28,839.61 tonnes comes in at 686.66 Kg/m^3, less than the Subsidized
>>  merchant.
>
> Okay, they'll float.
>
> But you'll need some hellacious landing gear to put that mass down on
> anything other than bedrock or a technologically created equivalent.
> If the scout needs 93 square feet to land on bedrock, 280 on sandy
> soil, and possibly twice that on clay, then you can add 50% to those
> numbers for the subsidized merchant (loaded) and the Midu Agashaam and
> about 100% for the Gazelle.
>
> To put it another way:
>
> Gazelle would need about 186 square feet of landing pad on bedrock,
> 560 square feet on sandy soil, and as much as 1100 square feet on
> clay. That's some pretty humongous landing gear/pads.

hmm, they'll float but they take a huge foot print to set on dry ground....

perhaps the proper model for a star port is a vast lake or network of lakes 
where the ships float rather than an expanse of concrete where they sit.

Didn't Hienlien do that for his ships in Time for the Stars?

Seems to handle the issue of take off exhaust as well; vaporized water just 
comes back down as rain, vaporized concrete would be nastier.

Garry

> _______________________________________________
> TML mailing list
> TML at travellercentral.com
> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
> 



From booksfleamarket at yahoo.com  Thu May  1 11:31:47 2008
From: booksfleamarket at yahoo.com (Ken & Juliane Murphy)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 10:31:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)
Message-ID: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

   Well, the various sizes of landing strut assumes plain concrete. What happens if at soem point in its construction, the pad has had a layer of Crystal Iron (TL 10, IIRC) or something even better sandwiched into the mix. AUghta reudce the wear n tear somewhat.
   
    -Ken-

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

From garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  1 12:52:52 2008
From: garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net (Garry Ward)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 14:52:52 -0400
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)
References: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000301c8abbc$92106b10$ed2c4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken & Juliane Murphy" <booksfleamarket at yahoo.com>
To: "Traveller Mailing List" <tml at travellercentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 1:31 PM
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)


>   Well, the various sizes of landing strut assumes plain concrete. What 
> happens if at soem point in its construction, the pad has had a layer of 
> Crystal Iron (TL 10, IIRC) or something even better sandwiched into the 
> mix. AUghta reudce the wear n tear somewhat.
>
Reduce the wear and tear, yes, but the critical issue is how much weight per 
square meter in placed on the surface the ship is resting on. Too much 
Kg/m^2 and ship sinks into the surface producing various problems. Pad size 
vs total ship mass is somewhat more important than what the pad/leg is made 
from (given, of course, that what is made from can also take the pressure).

Garry
>    -Ken-
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it 
> now.
> _______________________________________________
> TML mailing list
> TML at travellercentral.com
> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
> 



From james.ramsay at gmail.com  Thu May  1 13:17:00 2008
From: james.ramsay at gmail.com (James Ramsay)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 05:17:00 +1000
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
References: <f495db580804301417r298d2801v8eff1a7c395674ff@mail.gmail.com>
	<C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dc8544280805011217o19066ceh56c083be25c71218@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jerry W Barrington <
jerry.barrington at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/30/08 5:17 PM, "Knapp" <magick.crow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>  And no one has insisted that only humans can fly planes...what we HAVE
> >>  said is that the demonstrated autonomous flights have been confined to
> >>  controlled conditions, and what is unknown is how to handle dogfights,
> >>  adverse conditions, or things like manned aircraft following VFR.
> >
> > So lets look at this from a totally different view point. Given the
> > robot can take off, fly and land by itself. Ok, then all we have left
> > is combat. The best combat AI that we can see without Mil clearance
> > would be video games. Flight sims with AI combat. The ones that I have
> > played are not so good but can be very good in a basic sort of way. SO
> > then lets take that to a new lever and say the mil is only 5 years
> > ahead. What could they do and what can they not do?
> >
> > What is the very best Air combat game that is against computer AI? I
> > have not played this sort of game in 10 years but they used to suck. I
> > bet they are better now.
>
> Actually, from what I've seen they haven't gotten much better.  Not that
> they *couldn't* be better, but after all, ultimately the goal of the video
> game is for the player to win.


Try something like Lock On: Modern Air Combat. I have played a lot of
air combat simulators, but on the harder settings the AI was very
challenging.
LO:MAC and the preceding game Flanker taught me a lot about realistic air
combat (and that nothing is as sweet as using the SU-30's electro-optical
system to kill F-14's before they know you are there).

The real advantage of AI pilots would be that they can track things down to
the millisecond. They will be able to gauge in an eye blink what manuever
an enemy is pulling, and the enemies probable position based on the handling

characteristic's of the enemy craft, and exactly what the AI's options are
to put
him back in the kill box. That is the kind of stuff that they dumb down in
game AI's
because no one but a professional military pilot would have a chance.

-- 
James Ramsay aka the_raptor

From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 13:24:47 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 12:24:47 -0700
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805010927h1beaa735r25552bec3a7c0f65@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>,
	<4819F290.8060909@iii.com>,
	<b50d33430805010927h1beaa735r25552bec3a7c0f65@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4819B68F.32410.3645E9C@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 12:27, Tom B wrote:

> Hmmm. A friend of mine in the late 80s was doing his PhD on training
> neural nets to identify air vehicles at different ranges and
> resolution. With enough time and training, they produced some pretty
> good results. I'm betting 20 years has helped a lot. I'm not thinking
> this is a very long term obstacle.
> 
> Keep in mind human pilots often make mistakes (Blackhawk = Hind,
> Scimitar = BMP, PPCLI = Taliban, etc). All you have to do is manage to
> be at least as good. And computers can do a lot with optical image
> recognition now (they don't have to JUST rely on other data like EM
> sigs, radar returns, etc).

No, humans being humans, an error rate that's acceptable for a human 
pilot will be totally unacceptable for a robot pilot.


--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From infojunky at ceecom.net  Thu May  1 14:10:39 2008
From: infojunky at ceecom.net (Evyn MacDude)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 13:10:39 -0700
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)
In-Reply-To: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2742D11E-DB4E-4E40-AAE9-2CA871F754D4@ceecom.net>


On  May01 08, at 10:31, Ken & Juliane Murphy wrote:

>    Well, the various sizes of landing strut assumes plain concrete.

Well, No. It is probably rated for Ground pressure exerted. No the  
material the pad is constructed out of. And I as a designer am going  
to assume unless told otherwise that the lowest ground pressure that  
is cost-effective is the one I would pick.

> What happens if at soem point in its construction, the pad has had  
> a layer of Crystal Iron (TL 10, IIRC) or something even better  
> sandwiched into the mix.

We do that today it's called reinforced concrete, lots of roads and  
runways are built out of it.

> AUghta reudce the wear n tear somewhat.

Yes it does.

Evyn MacDude
infojunky at ceecom.net

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House  
Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but  
neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that  
of any other participant, may be revealed"






From skaran at bordernet.com.au  Thu May  1 14:16:40 2008
From: skaran at bordernet.com.au (Antony Farrell)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 04:16:40 +0800
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000001c8abc8$48644980$0300a8c0@skaran>

Since it appears that most Traveller ships will float. Land them in large
tanks of water or other fluid. This will evenly support the hulls and also
give Traveller starports an appearance different to starports from other
games.

It probably also means that vessels with a displacement of greater than say
1,000dt do not land except in emergencies. I suppose these could land in
actual "sea" type ports and tie up at piers. This would have an interesting
effect on merchant ships, hatches would end up on the upper surfaces for
example. Normal container loading techniques could be used or for bulk cargo
just poured into the open hatches on the top, like current bulk carriers.

Antony

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
6:10 PM
 


From ajackson at iii.com  Thu May  1 15:01:56 2008
From: ajackson at iii.com (Anthony Jackson)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 14:01:56 -0700
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <4819B68F.32410.3645E9C@shadow.shadowgard.com>
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>,
	<4819F290.8060909@iii.com>,
	<b50d33430805010927h1beaa735r25552bec3a7c0f65@mail.gmail.com>
	<4819B68F.32410.3645E9C@shadow.shadowgard.com>
Message-ID: <481A2FC4.4020605@iii.com>

shadow at shadowgard.com wrote:

> No, humans being humans, an error rate that's acceptable for a human 
> pilot will be totally unacceptable for a robot pilot.

Depends on the error. As long as the victim of any errors is the robot 
itself, elevated error rates are fine.

From ajackson at iii.com  Thu May  1 15:04:53 2008
From: ajackson at iii.com (Anthony Jackson)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 14:04:53 -0700
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)
In-Reply-To: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <481A3075.9090104@iii.com>

Ken & Juliane Murphy wrote:
> Well, the various sizes of landing strut assumes plain concrete. What
> happens if at soem point in its construction, the pad has had a layer
> of Crystal Iron (TL 10, IIRC) or something even better sandwiched
> into the mix. 

It becomes a lot more expensive. We don't use concrete because it has 
the best material properties, we use it because it has adequate material 
properties and doesn't cost too much.

From garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net  Thu May  1 15:18:57 2008
From: garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net (Garry Ward)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:18:57 -0400
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>,
	<4819F290.8060909@iii.com>,
	<b50d33430805010927h1beaa735r25552bec3a7c0f65@mail.gmail.com><4819B68F.32410.3645E9C@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<481A2FC4.4020605@iii.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c8abd0$fa72bd70$88294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Jackson" <ajackson at iii.com>
To: "The Traveller Mailing List" <tml at travellercentral.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.


> shadow at shadowgard.com wrote:
>
>> No, humans being humans, an error rate that's acceptable for a human
>> pilot will be totally unacceptable for a robot pilot.
>
> Depends on the error. As long as the victim of any errors is the robot
> itself, elevated error rates are fine.

Until tax payers start getting pissed off at the replacement cost of robotic 
fighters that do more damage to themselves than the opposition.

Of course, if the error the robot is guilty of is blowing up non combatants, 
then there are folks who'll get pissed off at that.

So, we're back to the robot having to be better than human before it can be 
deployed.

Garry
> _______________________________________________
> TML mailing list
> TML at travellercentral.com
> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
> 



From ajackson at iii.com  Thu May  1 16:01:04 2008
From: ajackson at iii.com (Anthony Jackson)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 15:01:04 -0700
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <001b01c8abd0$fa72bd70$88294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>,
	<4819F290.8060909@iii.com>,
	<b50d33430805010927h1beaa735r25552bec3a7c0f65@mail.gmail.com><4819B68F.32410.3645E9C@shadow.shadowgard.com>	<481A2FC4.4020605@iii.com>
	<001b01c8abd0$fa72bd70$88294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
Message-ID: <481A3DA0.80409@iii.com>

Garry Ward wrote:
> 
> Until tax payers start getting pissed off at the replacement cost of robotic 
> fighters that do more damage to themselves than the opposition.

Your original requirement was "better than human", not just "does more 
damage to the enemy than to themselves". Politicians are a lot more 
sensitive to people getting killed in accidents than they are to money 
being lost in accidents.

If 1% of your robot fighters crash every year, that's just a moderate 
increase in cost and you budget for it. If 1% of your manned fighters 
crash every year, killing everyone in side, that's enough to kill a program.

From kellys at efn.org  Thu May  1 15:57:59 2008
From: kellys at efn.org (Kelly St.Clair)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 14:57:59 -0700
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re:  Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430804302340u27d28089kd6b673706122d7fa@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4815F0B0.9547.98CB2EC@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<f495db580804281547n27680e08ya7c23743cee62762@mail.gmail.com>
	<48173235.13506.28650A84@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<5b0a00340804291504w3e7f37b0qb80b1ed1b054b418@mail.gmail.com>
	<dc8544280804300817g12e5b621o6eb9978f5eb1f42d@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804300842n886ec42v96adc18a769e6a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5aca9be50804302229m4d40548ey5d210f9062e961ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804302340u27d28089kd6b673706122d7fa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>

At 11:40 PM 4/30/2008, "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >  deployed in the Middle East.  In fact, he gleefully steals some
> >  current military slang (such as "battle rattle," for the noise
> >  ceramic-plate-armor makes when you're hustling), for use in his second
> >  book.
>
>Tangent:
>
>I'll bet you a Roman Legionaire in full panoply would rattle about the same.

One of the interesting little details of my time in the SCA, which added to 
my experience as a gamer, was finding out what chainmail feels like (to the 
touch, and on your body) and sounds like.  A person walking in a chain 
hauberk and articulated-plate leg armor makes a very distinctive 
"shing-shing-shing" noise with each step, on top of the clatter of the leg 
pieces.

ObTrav (ob war, even):  low sensor signature, mobility, protection: pick two?


--------------
Kelly St.Clair     Official sponsor of the Galactic Frungy League
kellys at efn.org             "FRUNGY:  The Sport of KINGS!"


From raikenclw at gmail.com  Thu May  1 16:03:20 2008
From: raikenclw at gmail.com (Richard Aiken)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:03:20 -0400
Subject: [TML] Freelance Traveller Contest 2008-01: Lead to some other
	thoughts, questions and inventions about gravity generators.
In-Reply-To: <481990AB.9258.2CFC78C@shadow.shadowgard.com>
References: <f495db580804231054t480b1087we80b5ce6d7d023bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<4815F0B1.11714.98CB418@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<5aca9be50804302128o557106aidbb1155734596ff0@mail.gmail.com>
	<481990AB.9258.2CFC78C@shadow.shadowgard.com>
Message-ID: <5aca9be50805011503k1ea9422ej6efd92b1171c6f47@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
> On 1 May 2008 at 0:28, Richard Aiken wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:43 PM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
> > > On 24 Apr 2008 at 0:20, Richard Aiken wrote:
> > >
> > > So a ton of fuel at 100 tons thrust would last for 6000 seconds or
> > > 1.67 hours.
> >
> > Okay.  And the drive exhaust is a blow torch.  Real good reason to
> > have Star-Wars-type docking bays.
>
> A blowtorch the same way that Hiroshima was a firecracker.

"Going to full burn in atmo?  Are you CRAZY?"

-- 
Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident." Robert A. Heinlein

From raikenclw at gmail.com  Thu May  1 16:25:52 2008
From: raikenclw at gmail.com (Richard Aiken)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:25:52 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <F40DDEC3-C92C-40D4-8362-6B31909469F1@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
References: <6.2.3.4.2.20080430142919.0527ae70@po10.mit.edu>
	<C43E53F3.13898%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<f495db580804301433n45c8e002i707fa4b172505328@mail.gmail.com>
	<8E668639-F76F-4C60-8D19-507E5F07CEDE@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
	<f495db580804301737n50dc95c3h51a2a27fc07f68f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<F40DDEC3-C92C-40D4-8362-6B31909469F1@pharmacy.arizona.edu>
Message-ID: <5aca9be50805011525x6dbcacfdu4be63550d722a810@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Bruce Johnson
<johnson at pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:
> Step four: You have a single world government

So . . . you'd need to come up with a reason why there are balkinized
worlds still around.  Either 1) the power/profit motive works
differently among those populations or 2) the Imperial
politico/econimic culture has since changed radically.

-- 
Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident." Robert A. Heinlein

From raikenclw at gmail.com  Thu May  1 16:44:07 2008
From: raikenclw at gmail.com (Richard Aiken)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:44:07 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4815F0B0.9547.98CB2EC@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<f495db580804281547n27680e08ya7c23743cee62762@mail.gmail.com>
	<48173235.13506.28650A84@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<5b0a00340804291504w3e7f37b0qb80b1ed1b054b418@mail.gmail.com>
	<dc8544280804300817g12e5b621o6eb9978f5eb1f42d@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804300842n886ec42v96adc18a769e6a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5aca9be50804302229m4d40548ey5d210f9062e961ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804302340u27d28089kd6b673706122d7fa@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>
Message-ID: <5aca9be50805011544w19404571meca283a97d261daa@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Kelly St.Clair <kellys at efn.org> wrote:

> A person walking in a chain
> hauberk and articulated-plate leg armor makes a very distinctive
> "shing-shing-shing" noise with each step, on top of the clatter of the leg
> pieces.

I'm wondering if something like a spray-on rubber coating (like that
stuff you can spray onto the undercarriage of cars to deaden road
noise) might reduce that?

Ob Trav: The effects of even very minor off-world aid can be decisive.

Native sepoy whispering to worried PC: "Dinna fret, sor!  We'll 'ear
the lawrd's men comin' right enough!  Nothin' makes noise like tha . .
."

Sudden screams from the darkness, as the lord's armored knights - in
their newly LSP-synth-coated chain mail - hit the right flank of the
position with complete surprise.

-- 
Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident." Robert A. Heinlein

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 17:13:50 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 19:13:50 -0400
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)
In-Reply-To: <481A3075.9090104@iii.com>
References: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<481A3075.9090104@iii.com>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805011613k62943811jd0c70feff4ab94ce@mail.gmail.com>

I see from my travels on the Internet that there are all sorts of
additives for soil to give it better bearing strength. Some sort of
polymer goop you mix in is one example. These all increase soil
strength. Increasing the strength of concrete, etc. matters insofar as
the pad won't crack, but you still need the underlying soil to stand
the pressure. Now, if your pad doesn't crack, your PAD distributes
load over its entire surface. So in a roundabout way, it does matter
about pad strength/reinforcement.

But what about all those D/E/F/X star/space ports? Many of them
probably don't have much (some may even be barely compacted dirt)...
X's may be total wild landings. So, the question is how many of the
canonical ship designs, as we envision them, actually can land on
those sorts of ground conditions? How many appear in the images we
think of as representing them to have enough square footage of landing
pads? I'm not even sure the default triangular Scout does. (now, one
possibility is that the struts come down and a landing foot splays out
from around the jack pillar, with 4 segments forming a cross folding
down and locking by secondary hydraulics. That might let the scout
still appear to have small struts and still let it get the large
surface area it needs to land in the wilds on land.

Of course, a loaded Subsidized Merchant is a whole other kettle of
fish. It needs huuuuuge pads. I don't think it should *ever* land in
the wilds without getting stuck.

This is just the sort of engineering minutia that ship designers
should pay attention to when drawing up or laying out plans for ships
(in a hard sci fi game).

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Anthony Jackson <ajackson at iii.com> wrote:
> Ken & Juliane Murphy wrote:
>  > Well, the various sizes of landing strut assumes plain concrete. What
>  > happens if at soem point in its construction, the pad has had a layer
>  > of Crystal Iron (TL 10, IIRC) or something even better sandwiched
>  > into the mix.
>
>  It becomes a lot more expensive. We don't use concrete because it has
>  the best material properties, we use it because it has adequate material
>  properties and doesn't cost too much.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  TML mailing list
>  TML at travellercentral.com
>  http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>



-- 
"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
 Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

 Thomas Paine

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 17:19:30 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 19:19:30 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <000001c8abc8$48644980$0300a8c0@skaran>
References: <b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c8abc8$48644980$0300a8c0@skaran>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805011619u43b793eap73e401a562b57932@mail.gmail.com>

The Imperium is large. It has room for high tech ports with contra
grav berths, mid tech ports with heavy duty concrete or bedrock pads,
and cool water berths in lakes or canal systems. All of them may make
sense on one or other sort of world. Landing on thrusters on desert
may *create* a suitable pad (glassy as it may be and you may have to
lift out of it with a snap/crackle/tinkle).

I do like your idea about ships aimed primarily at water landing and
at the sorts of ways you'd load them and design them. Time for someone
like Freelance Traveller to host a ship design/deckplan event to get a
top loading water landing freighter (say something of 1000-5000 tons
range). See if we can get some interesting deck plans out of this
idea.

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Antony Farrell <skaran at bordernet.com.au> wrote:
> Since it appears that most Traveller ships will float. Land them in large
>  tanks of water or other fluid. This will evenly support the hulls and also
>  give Traveller starports an appearance different to starports from other
>  games.
>
>  It probably also means that vessels with a displacement of greater than say
>  1,000dt do not land except in emergencies. I suppose these could land in
>  actual "sea" type ports and tie up at piers. This would have an interesting
>  effect on merchant ships, hatches would end up on the upper surfaces for
>  example. Normal container loading techniques could be used or for bulk cargo
>  just poured into the open hatches on the top, like current bulk carriers.
>
>
>  Antony
>
>  No virus found in this outgoing message.
>  Checked by AVG.
>  Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
>  6:10 PM
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  TML mailing list
>  TML at travellercentral.com
>  http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
>



-- 
"Now, I go to spread happiness to the rest of the station. It is a
terrible responsibility but I have learned to live with it."
 Londo, A Voice in the Wilderness, Part I

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

 Thomas Paine

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 17:27:15 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 19:27:15 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4815F0B0.9547.98CB2EC@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<f495db580804281547n27680e08ya7c23743cee62762@mail.gmail.com>
	<48173235.13506.28650A84@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<5b0a00340804291504w3e7f37b0qb80b1ed1b054b418@mail.gmail.com>
	<dc8544280804300817g12e5b621o6eb9978f5eb1f42d@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804300842n886ec42v96adc18a769e6a5@mail.gmail.com>
	<5aca9be50804302229m4d40548ey5d210f9062e961ea@mail.gmail.com>
	<b50d33430804302340u27d28089kd6b673706122d7fa@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805011627x4be17c5p15ed68dcd5e06d1f@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Kelly St.Clair <kellys at efn.org> wrote:
>  One of the interesting little details of my time in the SCA, which added to
>  my experience as a gamer, was finding out what chainmail feels like

When I went to GenCon in 1987, I got to try on chainmail (full
length). My observations were:

1) Hard to get into on your own (there is a lesson for combat armour
and battle dress lurking herein)
2) Be bald or else have a cloth cap. The links grab and pull out hair. Ouch.
3) The weight sits on the shoulders (40 lbs on the shoulders....
argh). You can do some neat tricks though, like gather up a 'chainmail
potbelly' and then tighten a wide belt around your waist which the
potbelly overhangs. This helps distribute some portion of the weight
to the hips.

I've worn chemical warfare suits and trained to fight in them, being
drenched in sweat within 10 minutes. I'm not sure what CES is like,
but sealed up it might really be just about this bad. I'm sure battle
dress and combat armour are only moderately more comfy than plate mail
or the like.

A pal in US 4th ID (a ginger-beer) once quipped to me:

"People always ask why the insurgents get away. Ask yourself what's
faster: A healthy North American with a rifle, full ammo load,
canteens, camelback, pack, grenades, first aid supplies, sidearm, LBE,
and 35-40 pounds of armour or some local in a cloth robe and sandals
with an AK and a mag or two. And who is more agile at scaling fences,
ducking into basement windows, fitting through narrow spaces, etc."

Another pal retired from US 5th SFG commented on Bravo Two Zero (when
the SAS guys went in carrying something like 120 pounds each): "They
went in overloaded and didn't do their homework on the comms front.
Carrying that much gear, they were asking for problems." (Even the
pros sometimes make less than optimal decisions about encumberance...
just like PCs....)

From tomnaro at yahoo.com  Thu May  1 17:49:54 2008
From: tomnaro at yahoo.com (Tom Naro)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 16:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
Message-ID: <917486.84837.qm@web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Antony Farrell skaran at bordernet.com.au wrote:

>Since it appears that most Traveller ships will float. Land them in large
>tanks of water or other fluid. This will evenly support the hulls and also
>give Traveller starports an appearance different to starports from other
>games.
><snip>
>This would have an interesting effect on merchant ships, hatches would 
>end up on the upper surfaces for example. Normal container loading 
>techniques could be used or for bulk cargo just poured into the open 
>hatches on the top, like current bulk carriers.
?
We don't really need water cradle landings to promote top hatches.
?
Almost all the ships I design already have top loading hatches in addition
to several top mounted maintenance hatches.?The air/raft for the Type S 
scout doubles as a grav-lift crane.? (It has attachment lugs at all four 
corners.)? The seeker variant is almost always shown with top 
hatches.
?
Even 1000dt freighters might be loaded in a similar way as current 
container ships.? They might have large "shuttle-type" doors that give 
access to a large portion of the cargo bay.? Gantry cranes (or gravitic 
lifters) would be used to load the ships.? (BTW: You can easily put a 
gantry crane in a dry area.? That would also make a Traveller starport 
distinctive versus other games.)
?
The real bulk goods freighters would also have bottom hatches for a gravity
assisted unloading.? (Of course any ship with contra-grav could just hover 
upside down.)
?
Most likely,?starports will be of all types, matching the local conditions 
and capabilities.? Merchant ships that want to use all of the ports would?
have to be able?to land at any of them.


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 17:58:11 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 19:58:11 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <917486.84837.qm@web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <917486.84837.qm@web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805011658j4b6fd7e9na5afbdf3b2400a1e@mail.gmail.com>

>  The real bulk goods freighters would also have bottom hatches for a gravity
>  assisted unloading.  (Of course any ship with contra-grav could just hover
>  upside down.)

Sure. Why not have the whole cargo bay floor lower? Or land the ship,
run down the landing jacks, disengage the floor release, jack the ship
back up on the landing jacks - cargo delivered.

I'm not sure the contra gav idea is wise. For many cargos, you'd want
to harmonize ship grav with planetary grav to avoid destabilization.
In your case, you're talkng about lifting things out the ceiling
against the pull of grav plates and then having it take a 2G change to
being pulled towards the real ground when you exit the field. Not so
good for live cargo or wines or... well, you name it.

>  Most likely, starports will be of all types, matching the local conditions
>  and capabilities.  Merchant ships that want to use all of the ports would
>  have to be able to land at any of them.

This justifies a very large number of variants of standard imperial
designs - some tailored to water landings, some to mult-environment,
some to wilds landings, etc. It justifies the odd variety of ship
shapes you see in ports too.

From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Thu May  1 18:37:51 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 20:37:51 -0400
Subject: [TML] Freelance Traveller Contest 2008-01: Lead to some
	other	thoughts, questions and inventions about gravity generators.
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50805011503k1ea9422ej6efd92b1171c6f47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C43FDA9F.138FC%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/1/08 6:03 PM, "Richard Aiken" <raikenclw at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
>> On 1 May 2008 at 0:28, Richard Aiken wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:43 PM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
>>>> On 24 Apr 2008 at 0:20, Richard Aiken wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> So a ton of fuel at 100 tons thrust would last for 6000 seconds or
>>>> 1.67 hours.
>>> 
>>> Okay.  And the drive exhaust is a blow torch.  Real good reason to
>>> have Star-Wars-type docking bays.
>> 
>> A blowtorch the same way that Hiroshima was a firecracker.
> 
> "Going to full burn in atmo?  Are you CRAZY?"

Heh.  In David Drake's RCN series, the ships use a plasma drive to reach
orbit and out a bit, then switch to antimatter drive.  Using the antimatter
drive in atmosphere is *possible*, but rapidly destroys your engines (a few
antimatter particles escape reaction *inside*, and erode the rocket
nozzles).  If you're that desperate, might as well just kiss your @$$
goodbye.  :)


From tim at little-possums.net  Thu May  1 18:41:05 2008
From: tim at little-possums.net (Timothy Little)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:41:05 +1000
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
	<b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
	<b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080502004105.GA10413@soprano.little-possums.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:24:04PM -0400, Tom B wrote:
> If the scout needs 93 square feet to land on bedrock, 280 on sandy
> soil, and possibly twice that on clay, then you can add 50% to those
> numbers for the subsidized merchant (loaded) and the Midu Agashaam
> and about 100% for the Gazelle.

Much, much more than that.  The Midu Agashaam needs about 40 times the
landing area as the scout - about 3900 sq ft of rock.  It's directly
proportional to mass, not to density.

Though I have to say that those ground area figures seems to be rather
large.  A had a table of permissible ground pressure for cranes lying
around, and even sand is listed as supporting 200 kPa.  Hard rock is
listed as 2 MPa.  These figures for the scout on bedrock would give a
foot area of 3.5 m^2, which is about 37 sq ft.

And of course these figures have quite a generous safety margin built
in, are applied in a case with highly variable loads, and where even a
rather small shift could lead to the crane toppling.  For a craft with
a much lower center of gravity, that won't matter nearly so much and I
would not be surprised if the maximum loads for the sort of short-term
static support needed by a starship were a factor of ten greater.  And
that's assuming that the craft does not use contragrav to reduce
ground pressure.


One interesting thing I found while looking up this sort of thing was
that the Empire State Building is probably pretty similar to the size
and mass of some of the larger Traveller starships: 70k dtons and mass
of about 350k tonnes.


- Tim

From tim at little-possums.net  Thu May  1 18:44:13 2008
From: tim at little-possums.net (Timothy Little)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:44:13 +1000
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <917486.84837.qm@web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <917486.84837.qm@web53709.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20080502004413.GB10413@soprano.little-possums.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:49:54PM -0700, Tom Naro wrote:
> Of course any ship with contra-grav could just hover upside down.

What a completely bizarre image.  But given the prevalence of internal
gravity control, not at all unreasonable.


- Tim

From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Thu May  1 19:14:43 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 21:14:43 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
Message-ID: <C43FE343.13907%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/1/08 3:22 AM, "Antony Farrell" <skaran at bordernet.com.au> wrote:

> TNE lists the actual loaded mass of a TL15 Scout as 697.9 metric tons with a
> volume of 1,400 cubic meters so this vessel will float in water. Earlier TL
> version way more due to less efficient hull materials being used. A TL11
> scout I did massed at at over 1,000 metric tons. Of course since TNE
> construction is not the same as earlier versions it gives only a rough
> guide. But at least it uses both mass and volume and surface area.

Hmm...  Call it 700 tons in 1400 cm... Basically the waterline would be the
outer edge line (assuming good center of gravity).


From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Thu May  1 19:14:48 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 21:14:48 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <000301c8abad$550d3540$b82c4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
Message-ID: <C43FE348.13907%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/1/08 1:03 PM, "Garry Ward" <garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com>
> To: "The Traveller Mailing List" <tml at travellercentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 12:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
> 
> 
>>>  According to the info in BL, a loaded Gazelle Close Essort averages
>>> 1,000
>>>  Kg/M^3  while the loaded Subsidized Merchant comes out to 697 Kg/m^3.
>>> 
>>>  A fully loaded scout comes in at 494 Kg/m^3.
>>> 
>>>  A Midu Agashaam Destroyer with a volume of 4,200 m^3and a loaded mass of
>>>  28,839.61 tonnes comes in at 686.66 Kg/m^3, less than the Subsidized
>>>  merchant.
>> 
>> Okay, they'll float.
>> 
>> But you'll need some hellacious landing gear to put that mass down on
>> anything other than bedrock or a technologically created equivalent.
>> If the scout needs 93 square feet to land on bedrock, 280 on sandy
>> soil, and possibly twice that on clay, then you can add 50% to those
>> numbers for the subsidized merchant (loaded) and the Midu Agashaam and
>> about 100% for the Gazelle.
>> 
>> To put it another way:
>> 
>> Gazelle would need about 186 square feet of landing pad on bedrock,
>> 560 square feet on sandy soil, and as much as 1100 square feet on
>> clay. That's some pretty humongous landing gear/pads.
> 
> hmm, they'll float but they take a huge foot print to set on dry ground....
> 
> perhaps the proper model for a star port is a vast lake or network of lakes
> where the ships float rather than an expanse of concrete where they sit.
> 
> Didn't Hienlien do that for his ships in Time for the Stars?
> 
> Seems to handle the issue of take off exhaust as well; vaporized water just
> comes back down as rain, vaporized concrete would be nastier.

I take this as good justification for Drake's use of water landing as
standard.  Not only does it avoid the problem of good landing gear, the
water absorbs most of the heat of the plasma exhaust.

Of course, his ships have huge pontoons.  This is for stability, and to keep
the rocket nozzles on the bottom of the hull up out of the water.  From his
descriptions, I imagine something looking a bit like a scaled down
Battlestar Galactica, only pontoons on the sides instead of Viper launch
bays.  Well, a *lot* bigger pontoons.  :)  The harbor usually *is* a harbor.
Or part of one anyway.  Lets small craft make deliveries & such, plus most
planets will already have a harbor anyway.  Then you don't have to move
stuff from the sea harbor to the space harbor to tranship.

In a pinch, the pontoons are also a large surface on which to land on the
ground, but this is prone to damaging them.  They're built in partitioned
cells, so you can lose a few cells without sinking, but too much damage can
cause "issues".


From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Thu May  1 19:21:47 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 21:21:47 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50805011525x6dbcacfdu4be63550d722a810@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C43FE4EB.13909%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/1/08 6:25 PM, "Richard Aiken" <raikenclw at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Bruce Johnson
> <johnson at pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> Step four: You have a single world government
> 
> So . . . you'd need to come up with a reason why there are balkinized
> worlds still around.  Either 1) the power/profit motive works
> differently among those populations or 2) the Imperial
> politico/econimic culture has since changed radically.

It was set near the end of the Long Night.  Most people assume that when the
planets fall back to lower tech, they balkanize naturally.  Lack of long
distance comms, lack of need for a world government, stuff like that.


From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 19:59:17 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 18:59:17 -0700
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50805011544w19404571meca283a97d261daa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>,
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>,
	<5aca9be50805011544w19404571meca283a97d261daa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481A1305.908.4CEFF60@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 18:44, Richard Aiken wrote:

> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Kelly St.Clair <kellys at efn.org> wrote:
> 
> > A person walking in a chain
> > hauberk and articulated-plate leg armor makes a very distinctive
> > "shing-shing-shing" noise with each step, on top of the clatter of the leg
> > pieces.
> 
> I'm wondering if something like a spray-on rubber coating (like that
> stuff you can spray onto the undercarriage of cars to deaden road
> noise) might reduce that?

It'd wear off *very* quickly. And it'd interfere with the flexibility 
of the mail.
 

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 19:59:15 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 18:59:15 -0700
Subject: [TML] Freelance Traveller Contest 2008-01: Lead to some other
	thoughts, questions and inventions about gravity generators.
In-Reply-To: <5aca9be50805011503k1ea9422ej6efd92b1171c6f47@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f495db580804231054t480b1087we80b5ce6d7d023bd@mail.gmail.com>,
	<481990AB.9258.2CFC78C@shadow.shadowgard.com>,
	<5aca9be50805011503k1ea9422ej6efd92b1171c6f47@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481A1303.23176.4CEF82C@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 18:03, Richard Aiken wrote:

> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:43 PM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
> > On 1 May 2008 at 0:28, Richard Aiken wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:43 PM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
> > > > On 24 Apr 2008 at 0:20, Richard Aiken wrote:
> > > >
> > > > So a ton of fuel at 100 tons thrust would last for 6000 seconds or
> > > > 1.67 hours.
> > >
> > > Okay.  And the drive exhaust is a blow torch.  Real good reason to
> > > have Star-Wars-type docking bays.
> >
> > A blowtorch the same way that Hiroshima was a firecracker.
> 
> "Going to full burn in atmo?  Are you CRAZY?"

That's where what some books in the 50s called "ram-rockets" become 
useful.

You have the rocket "inside" a enclosure that can be opened at the 
front. The rocket exhaust creates a partial vacuum, which sucks air 
in the front, creating extra thrust. 

It'd also help tone down the nastiness of the exhaust a bit.


--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 19:59:20 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 18:59:20 -0700
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805011627x4be17c5p15ed68dcd5e06d1f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>,
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>,
	<b50d33430805011627x4be17c5p15ed68dcd5e06d1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481A1308.29637.4CF0B66@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 19:27, Tom B wrote:

> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Kelly St.Clair <kellys at efn.org> wrote:
> >  One of the interesting little details of my time in the SCA, which added to
> >  my experience as a gamer, was finding out what chainmail feels like
> 
> When I went to GenCon in 1987, I got to try on chainmail (full
> length). My observations were:
> 
> 1) Hard to get into on your own (there is a lesson for combat armour
> and battle dress lurking herein)

Not that bad. And there are tricks to make it easier.

> 2) Be bald or else have a cloth cap. The links grab and pull out hair. Ouch.

The "arming cap" is usually part of the padding that goes on under 
the mail.

> 3) The weight sits on the shoulders (40 lbs on the shoulders....
> argh). You can do some neat tricks though, like gather up a 'chainmail
> potbelly' and then tighten a wide belt around your waist which the
> potbelly overhangs. This helps distribute some portion of the weight
> to the hips.

I found it much easier to deal with than a much lighter pack.
 

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 19:59:24 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 18:59:24 -0700
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805011613k62943811jd0c70feff4ab94ce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>,
	<481A3075.9090104@iii.com>,
	<b50d33430805011613k62943811jd0c70feff4ab94ce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481A130C.24050.4CF1A5A@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 19:13, Tom B wrote:

> I see from my travels on the Internet that there are all sorts of
> additives for soil to give it better bearing strength. Some sort of
> polymer goop you mix in is one example. These all increase soil
> strength. Increasing the strength of concrete, etc. matters insofar as
> the pad won't crack, but you still need the underlying soil to stand
> the pressure. Now, if your pad doesn't crack, your PAD distributes
> load over its entire surface. So in a roundabout way, it does matter
> about pad strength/reinforcement.
> 
> But what about all those D/E/F/X star/space ports? Many of them
> probably don't have much (some may even be barely compacted dirt)...
> X's may be total wild landings. So, the question is how many of the
> canonical ship designs, as we envision them, actually can land on
> those sorts of ground conditions? How many appear in the images we
> think of as representing them to have enough square footage of landing
> pads? I'm not even sure the default triangular Scout does. (now, one
> possibility is that the struts come down and a landing foot splays out
> from around the jack pillar, with 4 segments forming a cross folding
> down and locking by secondary hydraulics. That might let the scout
> still appear to have small struts and still let it get the large
> surface area it needs to land in the wilds on land.

There's a reason some of those port types were described as "a 
cleared spot of bedrock".


--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From shadow at shadowgard.com  Thu May  1 19:59:15 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 18:59:15 -0700
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <481A2FC4.4020605@iii.com>
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>,
	<4819B68F.32410.3645E9C@shadow.shadowgard.com>,
	<481A2FC4.4020605@iii.com>
Message-ID: <481A1303.3074.4CEF53E@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 14:01, Anthony Jackson wrote:

> shadow at shadowgard.com wrote:
> 
> > No, humans being humans, an error rate that's acceptable for a human 
> > pilot will be totally unacceptable for a robot pilot.
> 
> Depends on the error. As long as the victim of any errors is the robot 
> itself, elevated error rates are fine.

But they are far more likely to be "blue-on-blue" incidents at the 
time you start introducing robot fighter planes or ground attack 
planes. Or at least those will be the ones that the public will 
scream about.
--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com



From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 20:25:02 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 22:25:02 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <481A1308.29637.4CF0B66@shadow.shadowgard.com>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>
	<b50d33430805011627x4be17c5p15ed68dcd5e06d1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<481A1308.29637.4CF0B66@shadow.shadowgard.com>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805011925x16aec1e2w31359b9e54fb61c1@mail.gmail.com>

>  > 1) Hard to get into on your own (there is a lesson for combat armour
>  > and battle dress lurking herein)
>
>  Not that bad. And there are tricks to make it easier.

I would not be trying to get into it while someone was stabbing me.
It's not that quick. It's quicker than the multi-part armours you have
to don, but it still takes a goodly wiggle to get in. And while you're
wiggling, someone could do just about anything to you.

>  > 2) Be bald or else have a cloth cap. The links grab and pull out hair. Ouch.
>
>  The "arming cap" is usually part of the padding that goes on under
>  the mail.

Yes, but it isn't just an optional accessory! :0)

>  > 3) The weight sits on the shoulders (40 lbs on the shoulders....
>  > argh). You can do some neat tricks though, like gather up a 'chainmail
>  > potbelly' and then tighten a wide belt around your waist which the
>  > potbelly overhangs. This helps distribute some portion of the weight
>  > to the hips.
>
>  I found it much easier to deal with than a much lighter pack.

Whereas I've carried 40 pound backpacks and found them easier to bear
than the chainmail. After five to ten minutes, my shoulders were
aching. The packs, for whatever reason, didn't seem to feel the same
pressure along the tops of the shoulders. YMMV (and apparently does).
I'd take my old backpack (or one of the even better newer ones) over
the chainmail at any point.

On the other hand, with proper underpadding, I'll bet it makes a fair
mockery of many bludgeoning weapons and most slashing weapons.

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Thu May  1 20:29:42 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 22:29:42 -0400
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <20080502004105.GA10413@soprano.little-possums.net>
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
	<b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
	<b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080502004105.GA10413@soprano.little-possums.net>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805011929u368e79dagda280974d1f6048e@mail.gmail.com>

> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 12:24:04PM -0400, Tom B wrote:
>  > If the scout needs 93 square feet to land on bedrock, 280 on sandy
>  > soil, and possibly twice that on clay, then you can add 50% to those
>  > numbers for the subsidized merchant (loaded) and the Midu Agashaam
>  > and about 100% for the Gazelle.
>
>  Much, much more than that.  The Midu Agashaam needs about 40 times the
>  landing area as the scout - about 3900 sq ft of rock.  It's directly
>  proportional to mass, not to density.

Sorry, my brain had momentarily checked out. OF COURSE IT IS! <slaps
self with a Tigress>

>  Though I have to say that those ground area figures seems to be rather
>  large.  A had a table of permissible ground pressure for cranes lying
>  around, and even sand is listed as supporting 200 kPa.  Hard rock is
>  listed as 2 MPa.  These figures for the scout on bedrock would give a
>  foot area of 3.5 m^2, which is about 37 sq ft.
>
5000 lds/sq ft was what I saw for sand. I got it from building
footings/foundation stuff, but they have the same constraint - can't
sink into the ground.
12000 lbs/sq ft was for bedrock.

>  And of course these figures have quite a generous safety margin built
>  in, are applied in a case with highly variable loads, and where even a
>  rather small shift could lead to the crane toppling.  For a craft with
>  a much lower center of gravity, that won't matter nearly so much and I
>  would not be surprised if the maximum loads for the sort of short-term
>  static support needed by a starship were a factor of ten greater.  And
>  that's assuming that the craft does not use contragrav to reduce
>  ground pressure.

I'm assuming it can fail or be turned off (accidentally or purposely)
and thus you can't depend on it.

>  One interesting thing I found while looking up this sort of thing was
>  that the Empire State Building is probably pretty similar to the size
>  and mass of some of the larger Traveller starships: 70k dtons and mass
>  of about 350k tonnes.

Well, that makes some sense I think.

From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Thu May  1 20:46:52 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 22:46:52 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805011925x16aec1e2w31359b9e54fb61c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C43FF8DC.13913%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/1/08 10:25 PM, "Tom B" <kaladorn at gmail.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, with proper underpadding, I'll bet it makes a fair
> mockery of many bludgeoning weapons and most slashing weapons.

Mainly the slashing ones.  For bludgeoning, it's so flexible that it
transmits almost all the blow straight through.  Padding would help some,
but for, say, a club blow that's going to break ribs, it would take a *lot*
of padding.


From GDWGAMES at aol.com  Thu May  1 21:34:58 2008
From: GDWGAMES at aol.com (GDWGAMES at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 23:34:58 EDT
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
Message-ID: <c78.2f81ea9b.354be5e2@aol.com>

>> personally I don't see why most Traveller ships aren't spheres.

The main reason is that their illos all look the same, and most artists can't 
draw a spherical ship that doesn't look dumb. 


The rest of the review had much food for thought.

LKW
 www.lorenwiseman.com
 www.ibw.com
 www.lorenwiseman.com/egbtsite.html



**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.
      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

From Leon.Wu at newswire.ca  Thu May  1 23:21:41 2008
From: Leon.Wu at newswire.ca (Leon Wu)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 01:21:41 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com><6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org><b50d33430805011627x4be17c5p15ed68dcd5e06d1f@mail.gmail.com><481A1308.29637.4CF0B66@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<b50d33430805011925x16aec1e2w31359b9e54fb61c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F038B6B6F@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com on behalf of Tom B
> Sent: Thu 01/05/2008 10:25 PM
> To: The Traveller Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
>
>>  > 2) Be bald or else have a cloth cap. The links grab and pull out hair. Ouch.
>>
>>  The "arming cap" is usually part of the padding that goes on under
>>  the mail.
>
>Yes, but it isn't just an optional accessory! :0)

You'd have to wear an arming cap or else any blow will result in a concussion. The mail will stop you from being cut but won't absorb the force of the blow. Same for a mail shirt, anyone wearing one would wear a heavy padded jerkin underneath. These would be worn by the less wealthy as their sole form of armour.

From darvedd at gmail.com  Thu May  1 23:32:43 2008
From: darvedd at gmail.com (Michael Jenkins)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:32:43 +0800
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <c78.2f81ea9b.354be5e2@aol.com>
References: <c78.2f81ea9b.354be5e2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <1832b5750805012232r5b96609fx10499760a8a35cbf@mail.gmail.com>

2008/5/2  <GDWGAMES at aol.com>:
> >> personally I don't see why most Traveller ships aren't spheres.
>
>  The main reason is that their illos all look the same, and most artists can't
>  draw a spherical ship that doesn't look dumb.

Another likely reason is that a sphere *minimises* surface area, but
surface area is desirable because that's valuable real estate for
mount points, airlocks and all sorts of other useful stuff.

An elongated form will also let you have a bigger spinal weapon.

-- 
Regards,
Michael Jenkins
--
You cannot deny the humanity of another human being
Without also denying humanity in yourself
--

From skaran at bordernet.com.au  Thu May  1 23:47:11 2008
From: skaran at bordernet.com.au (Antony Farrell)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 13:47:11 +0800
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805011658j4b6fd7e9na5afbdf3b2400a1e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c8ac17$fbfbd630$0300a8c0@skaran>

Incidently TNE ships can not hover on contra-grav (one of the technologies
that diverged). According to FF&S1 this just neutralises 99% of the planets
gravity vector. A seperate thrust agency is required. 

One advantage of water landing freighters is that with less expense being
incurred a normal sea port could be used as a starport. The sea port will
already have the infrastrucure in place to get the goods and passengers to
and from the ships at the port.

Antony

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
6:10 PM
 


From stuart at frew.net.nz  Fri May  2 00:33:26 2008
From: stuart at frew.net.nz (Stuart Frew)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 18:33:26 +1200
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <000a01c8ac17$fbfbd630$0300a8c0@skaran>
References: <b50d33430805011658j4b6fd7e9na5afbdf3b2400a1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<000a01c8ac17$fbfbd630$0300a8c0@skaran>
Message-ID: <a1c92a9d0805012333v5a1ec594h14a48f893582df3c@mail.gmail.com>

>
> One advantage of water landing freighters is that with less expense being
> incurred a normal sea port could be used as a starport. The sea port will
> already have the infrastrucure in place to get the goods and passengers to
> and from the ships at the port.


Except for all those vacuum or low hydro planets.

To me this argues for high ports and the use of cargo freighters that can
land on custom cradles.
On high to medium traffic planets at least.

From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Fri May  2 01:00:59 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 03:00:59 -0400
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <1832b5750805012232r5b96609fx10499760a8a35cbf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/2/08 1:32 AM, "Michael Jenkins" <darvedd at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2008/5/2  <GDWGAMES at aol.com>:
>>>> personally I don't see why most Traveller ships aren't spheres.
>> 
>>  The main reason is that their illos all look the same, and most artists
>> can't
>>  draw a spherical ship that doesn't look dumb.
> 
> Another likely reason is that a sphere *minimises* surface area, but
> surface area is desirable because that's valuable real estate for
> mount points, airlocks and all sorts of other useful stuff.
> 
> An elongated form will also let you have a bigger spinal weapon.

So... civies should be spheres and warships long and thin?


From editor at freelancetraveller.com  Fri May  2 01:02:16 2008
From: editor at freelancetraveller.com (Freelance Traveller)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 03:02:16 -0400
Subject: [TML] Freelance Traveller Contest #2008-02: Jump Destination
References: <1hic1450ubi8jt0gaomgdp7d8uqaad2jap@4ax.com>
	<fvdumt$le9$1@pyramid.sjgames.com>
Message-ID: <boel14hhpvkt3hcs8ritp6cjt1gh4sb6gs@4ax.com>

On Fri, 2 May 2008 02:36:13 +0000 (UTC), ldegroff at ix.netcom.com (Leslie
DeGroff) wrote:

>Could you translate the UPP,   I am having confusion even as I look at
>one of the old classic books,  what is first Letter and the three
>extended digits.  Thanks 


>> A6369A5-D 304

The first letter is the Starport type - Class A is the best, ranging
downward to Class E, which is basically cleared bedrock with a beacon,
and then Class X, which is no port at all, or an interdicted world.

The three extended digits come from MegaTraveller, and represent the
population multiplier, number of planetoid belts in the system, and
number of Gas Giant planets in the system.

The population digit in the main UWP is the exponent; an exponent of 9
means 'billions of inhabitants'; the multiplier fines that down, and
represents the mantissa: 3, in this case, means that the world's
population is three billion (or about half of what Earth's population is
today).

?Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2006. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

-- 
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller? Resource
editor at freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com
http://come.to/freelancetraveller
http://freelancetraveller.downport.com/
editor-at-freelancetraveller-dot-com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

CyberNET Web Hosting (http://www.cyberwebhosting.net)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)

From tim at little-possums.net  Fri May  2 01:17:37 2008
From: tim at little-possums.net (Timothy Little)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 17:17:37 +1000
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805011929u368e79dagda280974d1f6048e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
	<b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
	<b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080502004105.GA10413@soprano.little-possums.net>
	<b50d33430805011929u368e79dagda280974d1f6048e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20080502071737.GG3663@soprano.little-possums.net>

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 10:29:42PM -0400, Tom B wrote:
> 5000 lds/sq ft was what I saw for sand. I got it from building
> footings/foundation stuff, but they have the same constraint - can't
> sink into the ground.  12000 lbs/sq ft was for bedrock.

That's what I looked for at first, but then realised that foundations
have the very much more stringent requirement that they not deform by
more than a few millimetres over a timespan of decades.

I don't think it would matter very much to a starship if their
supports shifted a hundred times as much, and a thousand times faster.


> I'm assuming it can fail or be turned off (accidentally or
> purposely) and thus you can't depend on it.

Likely a safe assumption.


- Tim

From kellys at efn.org  Fri May  2 01:59:53 2008
From: kellys at efn.org (Kelly St.Clair)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 00:59:53 -0700
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F038B6B6F@YTO1VEXC001.ibmca
	hostedmail.net>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org>
	<b50d33430805011627x4be17c5p15ed68dcd5e06d1f@mail.gmail.com>
	<481A1308.29637.4CF0B66@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<b50d33430805011925x16aec1e2w31359b9e54fb61c1@mail.gmail.com>
	<270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F038B6B6F@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>
Message-ID: <6.1.2.0.2.20080502005805.01b6d5f0@pop.efn.org>

At 10:21 PM 5/1/2008, you wrote:
>You'd have to wear an arming cap or else any blow will result in a 
>concussion. The mail will stop you from being cut but won't absorb the 
>force of the blow. Same for a mail shirt, anyone wearing one would wear a 
>heavy padded jerkin underneath. These would be worn by the less wealthy as 
>their sole form of armour.

... and is, in fact, exactly what Traveller calls "cloth". :)


--------------
Kelly St.Clair     Official sponsor of the Galactic Frungy League
kellys at efn.org             "FRUNGY:  The Sport of KINGS!"


From ross.winn at gmail.com  Fri May  2 02:03:34 2008
From: ross.winn at gmail.com (Ross Winn)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 04:03:34 -0400
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
References: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>

Jerry W Barrington wrote:
> So... civies should be spheres and warships long and thin?
I think having a unified design philosophy after some three thousand 
years is not out of the realm of possibility.

Ross

From tom.cusworth at googlemail.com  Fri May  2 03:37:53 2008
From: tom.cusworth at googlemail.com (Tom Cusworth)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:37:53 +0100
Subject: [TML] Return of an Old Friend... (Was: The Song Remains the Same)
Message-ID: <4b5cc71a0805020237w48ebab8euc8279db1543a6dc5@mail.gmail.com>

Hello.

Reading through the chargen in the new Mong Trav, I came across the familiar
Alexander Lascelles Jamison and it occurred to me, having read of his
character generation in many versions of Traveller ove rthe years, "Whose
character was he, originally?"

Loren?

-Tom

-- 
Blessed are the cheapskates, for they shall see god and still have change of
a fiver - Tom Holt, Valhalla.

Want Googlemail? Ask me & I'll invite you!

From magick.crow at gmail.com  Fri May  2 07:19:23 2008
From: magick.crow at gmail.com (Knapp)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:19:23 +0200
Subject: [TML] Firefly, wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
In-Reply-To: <20080502071737.GG3663@soprano.little-possums.net>
References: <b50d33430804302357l5ab1105dj38887397772bb50a@mail.gmail.com>
	<000001c8ab5c$15e88500$0400a8c0@skaran>
	<b50d33430805010659v41a591e1m894224a3c9b414f3@mail.gmail.com>
	<000301c8ab97$0293c830$5f2b4b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
	<b50d33430805010924s7de07cd2n44973ca042119eec@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080502004105.GA10413@soprano.little-possums.net>
	<b50d33430805011929u368e79dagda280974d1f6048e@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080502071737.GG3663@soprano.little-possums.net>
Message-ID: <f495db580805020619g2e4180f1w20a527b8301bbd39@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Timothy Little <tim at little-possums.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 10:29:42PM -0400, Tom B wrote:
>  > 5000 lds/sq ft was what I saw for sand. I got it from building
>  > footings/foundation stuff, but they have the same constraint - can't
>  > sink into the ground.  12000 lbs/sq ft was for bedrock.
>
>  That's what I looked for at first, but then realised that foundations
>  have the very much more stringent requirement that they not deform by
>  more than a few millimetres over a timespan of decades.
>
>  I don't think it would matter very much to a starship if their
>  supports shifted a hundred times as much, and a thousand times faster.

I would go with that except at a starport. You don't want to have to
rebuild them all the time. You would want a flat surface that lasted
for a long while.


-- 
Douglas E Knapp
http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page

From josephnjody at sbcglobal.net  Fri May  2 07:39:44 2008
From: josephnjody at sbcglobal.net (Joseph Paul)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:39:44 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F038B6B6F@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>
Message-ID: <PBELIEMAEKFJADHMKFLLGEDBGLAA.josephnjody@sbcglobal.net>


 >>
 >>>  > 2) Be bald or else have a cloth cap. The links grab and
 >pull out hair. Ouch.
 >>>
 >>>  The "arming cap" is usually part of the padding that goes on under
 >>>  the mail.
 >>
 >>Yes, but it isn't just an optional accessory! :0)
 >
 >You'd have to wear an arming cap or else any blow will result in
 >a concussion. The mail will stop you from being cut but won't
 >absorb the force of the blow. Same for a mail shirt, anyone
 >wearing one would wear a heavy padded jerkin underneath. These
 >would be worn by the less wealthy as their sole form of armour.
 >

Actually that is overly simplistic. There is plenty of evidence indicating
that maille was often worn with no under padding. Padding is not mentioned
in sagas, inventories, or the language itself for a long time. As long as
the mail itself is rather loose on the person it does have some
energy-absorption ability. The weapon has to move the maille into contact
with the body. It will end up dragging maille from well outside the area
being struck and that changes the amount of energy that is applied to the
target.

It says something about the cultures that used maille with no padding and it
addresses the force of blows that are being employed. Very forceful blows
would have rendered the maille useless, therefore some restraint in
commitment or delivery must have been evident. This is actually consistent
when viewed through the lens of available choices and consequences available
to most of those that fought. Maille was a premium defense, highly valued,
and worn by few. The great mass of the rest of the combatants wore little to
no armor and relied on a shield to protect them. Making a mistake by
over-committing to an attack that does not immediately cripple or kill the
foe may leave a very naked hide exposed to counter-attack. Blows are
therefore very conservative and are not necessarily as forceful as they
could be.


From magick.crow at gmail.com  Fri May  2 07:45:49 2008
From: magick.crow at gmail.com (Knapp)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 15:45:49 +0200
Subject: [TML] Movement of skills and knowledge. Re:  Firefly,
	wait no it is a Subsidized Merchant ship.
Message-ID: <f495db580805020645x310dc56bt7672aa47092e3ed6@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:28 AM, Jerry W Barrington
<jerry.barrington at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/30/08 8:58 PM, "Knapp" <magick.crow at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > The biggest on Earth now is 15,200 containers at a size of 6 ? 2.6 ?
>  > 2.6 metres. (wikipedia) with a future size of 18,000 being the max so
>  > far. The limits seem to be engines and props for the ships.
>
>  Actually, from what I read the max is primarily determined by the size ship
>  that will fit through the Strait of Malacca, the busiest shipping lane on
>  Earth.
>
>
>  > That would translate into something really big in space for trips
>  > between really big pop planets in high tech areas, provided there is a
>  > reason for trade. Maybe the reasons could be about special learnings
>  > and plants to make special types of products.

>  And as for special learning...  it only takes a book or 1 person to carry
>  knowledge from world to world.  :)  And with Tech level 12+, I can't really
>  se any plant products being un-synthesizable.

Books are not so good for bringing knowledge from place to place, if
they were that good we would not have Universities or for that matter
grade schools.

One person might be better but still there are not that many high tech
products that I can think of where one person can make the whole
thing. You mostly need teams of well trained people to do the job.
Then there are trade secretes, great artist, brand names/reputations.
Given two cars to pick from, how many are going to pick the Toyota
over the Lamborghini, even if it had better specs?

Then you have the play of a great group of engineres and artists that
work well together with the backing of a great company. Hard to beat.

To keep this going you need to have a vast pool of teacher that have
this knowledge and even more important the skills to use it well. You
can't build this sort of team with ease. If you could, why would China
be sending it's people to MIT to learn, why not just buy the books or
bring over one person?

I only way I can see you catching me in this is that knowledge in the
imperium is old, and I would guess, easy to get.

-- 
Douglas E Knapp
http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page

From magick.crow at gmail.com  Fri May  2 08:15:57 2008
From: magick.crow at gmail.com (Knapp)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:15:57 +0200
Subject: [TML] Current USAF fleet was Re: CT Sup 7, Crews room sizes.
In-Reply-To: <481A1303.3074.4CEF53E@shadow.shadowgard.com>
References: <C43EAC0F.138BB%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<4819B68F.32410.3645E9C@shadow.shadowgard.com>
	<481A2FC4.4020605@iii.com>
	<481A1303.3074.4CEF53E@shadow.shadowgard.com>
Message-ID: <f495db580805020715qc8221e5w8c41130b5b2b9440@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:59 AM,  <shadow at shadowgard.com> wrote:
> On 1 May 2008 at 14:01, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>
>  > shadow at shadowgard.com wrote:
>  >
>  > > No, humans being humans, an error rate that's acceptable for a human
>  > > pilot will be totally unacceptable for a robot pilot.
>  >
>  > Depends on the error. As long as the victim of any errors is the robot
>  > itself, elevated error rates are fine.
>
>  But they are far more likely to be "blue-on-blue" incidents at the
>  time you start introducing robot fighter planes or ground attack
>  planes. Or at least those will be the ones that the public will
>  scream about.
>
> --
>  Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
>  shadow at shadowgard dot com

You can start off by sending the robots in first before the manned
ships. Then when they have softened up the place send in the men for
the glory. After some time the robots will get better and can "help"
the men.

-- 
Douglas E Knapp
http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page

From tgrav at mac.com  Fri May  2 08:19:43 2008
From: tgrav at mac.com (Tommy Grav)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:19:43 -0400
Subject: [TML] Ship shapes
In-Reply-To: <481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>
References: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E7F37CD1-F0BB-4212-B82D-424FF87F6048@mac.com>

On May 2, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Ross Winn wrote:

> Jerry W Barrington wrote:
>> So... civies should be spheres and warships long and thin?
> I think having a unified design philosophy after some three thousand
> years is not out of the realm of possibility.

I would actually argue that civies, especially merchants will opt for a
box configuration. A box is easier to fill, making use of all available
internal space for cargo. A would also think that a box is much easier
to build than a sphere. No need for bending hull plates and the internal
support structure is much simpler.

I must have missed something on why spheres are to be prefered???

Cheers
   Tommy

From magick.crow at gmail.com  Fri May  2 08:20:06 2008
From: magick.crow at gmail.com (Knapp)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:20:06 +0200
Subject: [TML] Landing Pads (was something else)
In-Reply-To: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <676166.10246.qm@web42104.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <f495db580805020720oa6e8caak7acaa1a6815cffcf@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Ken & Juliane Murphy
<booksfleamarket at yahoo.com> wrote:
>    Well, the various sizes of landing strut assumes plain concrete. What happens if at soem point in its construction, the pad has had a layer of Crystal Iron (TL 10, IIRC) or something even better sandwiched into the mix. AUghta reudce the wear n tear somewhat.
>
>     -Ken-

Given enough pressure most everything starts to act like water or mud.

-- 
Douglas E Knapp
http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page

From garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net  Fri May  2 08:26:28 2008
From: garry.e.ward at worldnet.att.net (Garry Ward)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:26:28 -0400
Subject: [TML] Ship shapes
References: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com><481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>
	<E7F37CD1-F0BB-4212-B82D-424FF87F6048@mac.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c8ac60$87eccc60$52294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tommy Grav" <tgrav at mac.com>
To: <ross.winn at gmail.com>; "The Traveller Mailing List" 
<tml at travellercentral.com>
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:19 AM
Subject: [TML] Ship shapes


> On May 2, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Ross Winn wrote:
>
>> Jerry W Barrington wrote:
>>> So... civies should be spheres and warships long and thin?
>> I think having a unified design philosophy after some three thousand
>> years is not out of the realm of possibility.
>
> I would actually argue that civies, especially merchants will opt for a
> box configuration. A box is easier to fill, making use of all available
> internal space for cargo. A would also think that a box is much easier
> to build than a sphere. No need for bending hull plates and the internal
> support structure is much simpler.
>
> I must have missed something on why spheres are to be prefered???
Internal volume vs surface area. You can get more in a sphere than in a box 
relative to the surface area.

Granted, filling something with nice angles and corners is easier (from our 
perception). Perhaps the actual design structure is a box inside a sphere.

Cargo area is a box embedded in the sphere with the fuel, water and air 
tankage filling in the space between the outside of the box and inner 
surface of the sphere. Lhyd, water and air confrom to the spherical inner 
suface easily and the more rigid shipping containers are safely stowed 
inside box where they can be stacked tightly using every m^3 effectively.

Garry
>
> Cheers
>   Tommy
> _______________________________________________
> TML mailing list
> TML at travellercentral.com
> http://lists.travellercentral.com/mailman/listinfo/tml
> 



From jerry.barrington at gmail.com  Fri May  2 08:31:40 2008
From: jerry.barrington at gmail.com (Jerry W Barrington)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 10:31:40 -0400
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C4409E0C.13937%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>

On 5/2/08 4:03 AM, "Ross Winn" <ross.winn at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jerry W Barrington wrote:
>> So... civies should be spheres and warships long and thin?
> I think having a unified design philosophy after some three thousand
> years is not out of the realm of possibility.

That's kind of like saying after 3000 years we won't have forks or spoons,
just sporks.  Design serves function.


From bjmurray.halfjack at gmail.com  Fri May  2 08:36:19 2008
From: bjmurray.halfjack at gmail.com (Brad Murray)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 07:36:19 -0700
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <1832b5750805012232r5b96609fx10499760a8a35cbf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c78.2f81ea9b.354be5e2@aol.com>
	<1832b5750805012232r5b96609fx10499760a8a35cbf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <889263490805020736i65b06930vd973611a81931391@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Michael Jenkins <darvedd at gmail.com> wrote:
>  Another likely reason is that a sphere *minimises* surface area, but
>  surface area is desirable because that's valuable real estate for
>  mount points, airlocks and all sorts of other useful stuff.

But you don't choose a sphere *because* it minimizes surface area --
it just happens to. So you can always increase the surface area in
detail and still be a sphere for all other purposes -- say you want to
increase your ability to radiate heat so you add heat sinks all over
the thing and now your surface area is huge but you're still a sphere.

You can also rotate a sphere very rapidly on any axis with minimum
stressing on the structure, which would be an essential feature in an
agile vessel.

-- 
Brad Murray (halfjack)

From tgrav at mac.com  Fri May  2 08:39:17 2008
From: tgrav at mac.com (Tommy Grav)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 10:39:17 -0400
Subject: [TML] Ship shapes
In-Reply-To: <000b01c8ac60$87eccc60$52294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
References: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>
	<E7F37CD1-F0BB-4212-B82D-424FF87F6048@mac.com>
	<000b01c8ac60$87eccc60$52294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
Message-ID: <F628E138-5822-49EE-81B6-DAE3B027AB91@mac.com>


On May 2, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Garry Ward wrote:

> From: "Tommy Grav" <tgrav at mac.com>
>> On May 2, 2008, at 4:03 AM, Ross Winn wrote:
>>
>>> Jerry W Barrington wrote:
>>>> So... civies should be spheres and warships long and thin?
>>> I think having a unified design philosophy after some three thousand
>>> years is not out of the realm of possibility.
>>
>> I would actually argue that civies, especially merchants will opt  
>> for a
>> box configuration. A box is easier to fill, making use of all  
>> available
>> internal space for cargo. A would also think that a box is much  
>> easier
>> to build than a sphere. No need for bending hull plates and the  
>> internal
>> support structure is much simpler.
>>
>> I must have missed something on why spheres are to be prefered???
> Internal volume vs surface area. You can get more in a sphere than  
> in a box
> relative to the surface area.

But for a starship you want maximum surface area as well to went heat,  
to
avoid frying your crew and cargo. I see no reason why a merchant would  
be
overly worried about surface area being minimal. Am I missing some  
argument
here?

> Granted, filling something with nice angles and corners is easier  
> (from our
> perception). Perhaps the actual design structure is a box inside a  
> sphere.

The problem with this is that it limits the access to you cargo hold.  
A nice box
structure (with cylinders, spheres tacked on for water, fuel and so  
on) can have
numerous cargo doors to allow access to parts of the cargo hold. That  
makes
is easier to unload the part of the cargo that is due at destination,  
while avoiding
the need to shift around cargo going to a future destination. Numerous  
access
points to the cargo also speeds up loading and unloading, which to  
merchants
in the Traveller universe is the only portion of their itinerary that  
they have any
control over.

> Cargo area is a box embedded in the sphere with the fuel, water and  
> air
> tankage filling in the space between the outside of the box and inner
> surface of the sphere. Lhyd, water and air confrom to the spherical  
> inner
> suface easily and the more rigid shipping containers are safely stowed
> inside box where they can be stacked tightly using every m^3  
> effectively.

But you would then have unusable space between the cargo hold sides and
the sphere. You can't have anything between the cargo doors and the
outside.

Cheers
   Tommy

From kaladorn at gmail.com  Fri May  2 09:17:39 2008
From: kaladorn at gmail.com (Tom B)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:17:39 -0400
Subject: [TML] Ship shapes
In-Reply-To: <F628E138-5822-49EE-81B6-DAE3B027AB91@mac.com>
References: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>
	<E7F37CD1-F0BB-4212-B82D-424FF87F6048@mac.com>
	<000b01c8ac60$87eccc60$52294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
	<F628E138-5822-49EE-81B6-DAE3B027AB91@mac.com>
Message-ID: <b50d33430805020817i7bd4479o28300ef3500b9b12@mail.gmail.com>

Sphere:

Bad atmospheric landing configuration (Broadsword, I'm looking at
you...). Bad for the flight through atmo and bad for the 'how do I
land without legs of wonderous length?'.

Also bad for tight packing in a highport. Box freighters fit into
berths much more space efficiently if your highport is very busy.

I imagine most equipment is square. Even if you try to pack the fuel
in around the edges, it makes for a *very* oddly shaped fuel
container. And you'd think any sort of micrometeor puncture or
anything would cause fuel loss as a certainty. And any form of hostile
fire would become not just a bit risky if your outer hull's first
inner layer was fuel in almost all locations.

I'm not sure the heat radiation issue is valid in the empty space
between worlds. As I understand it, you pretty much need to vent
refrigerant mass to take the heat away. (Perhaps I'm mistaken here,
but without atmosphere around it, the radiation of heat would be
severely curtailed, not so?)

I think (for non planetoid hulls), the box or open structure would be
the answer. The latter because you can easily make a spine with key
components and then just attach the cargo boxes directly to the spine
for easy attach/remove options (LASH operations). The former because
it fits well in interior docking bays (for worlds where it isn't a
good idea to leave a ship outside) and in crowded highports. (Of
couse, depending on your high port design, pie shaped wedges may be
also a very good choice for maximum space usage).

Just some extra thoughts.

From infojunky at ceecom.net  Fri May  2 09:21:17 2008
From: infojunky at ceecom.net (Evyn MacDude)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 08:21:17 -0700
Subject: [TML] Eating utensils of Traveller
In-Reply-To: <C4409E0C.13937%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
References: <C4409E0C.13937%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <440E4B21-FB56-46A8-81BD-6852371C1A23@ceecom.net>


On  May02 08, at 07:31, Jerry W Barrington wrote:

> That's kind of like saying after 3000 years we won't have forks or  
> spoons,
> just sporks.  Design serves function.

How about a pair of long handled mini Sporks, used like chop sticks.

Vilaini? Aslan? Ethnically Aslan Humans? Some weird off-shoot of  
Asian&Southern cultural fusion in the confederation?


Evyn MacDude
infojunky at ceecom.net

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House  
Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but  
neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that  
of any other participant, may be revealed"






From infojunky at ceecom.net  Fri May  2 09:23:33 2008
From: infojunky at ceecom.net (Evyn MacDude)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 08:23:33 -0700
Subject: [TML] Close to the Edit #46, The Song Remains The Same
In-Reply-To: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
References: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C83C0D8C-D801-4056-8DA0-39B9CB4EE5F3@ceecom.net>


On  May02 08, at 00:00, Jerry W Barrington wrote:

> On 5/2/08 1:32 AM, "Michael Jenkins" <darvedd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Another likely reason is that a sphere *minimises* surface area, but
>> surface area is desirable because that's valuable real estate for
>> mount points, airlocks and all sorts of other useful stuff.
>>
>> An elongated form will also let you have a bigger spinal weapon.
>
> So... civies should be spheres and warships long and thin?

Sounds like a good rule of thumb by me.....

Evyn MacDude
infojunky at ceecom.net

"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House  
Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but  
neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that  
of any other participant, may be revealed"






From Leon.Wu at newswire.ca  Fri May  2 09:26:50 2008
From: Leon.Wu at newswire.ca (Leon Wu)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:26:50 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.2.20080502005805.01b6d5f0@pop.efn.org>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com><6.1.2.0.2.20080501145208.01b72580@pop.efn.org><b50d33430805011627x4be17c5p15ed68dcd5e06d1f@mail.gmail.com><481A1308.29637.4CF0B66@shadow.shadowgard.com><b50d33430805011925x16aec1e2w31359b9e54fb61c1@mail.gmail.com><270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F038B6B6F@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20080502005805.01b6d5f0@pop.efn.org>
Message-ID: <270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F0CB036A2@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com 
> [mailto:tml-bounces at travellercentral.com] On Behalf Of Kelly St.Clair
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 4:00 AM
> To: The Traveller Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
> 
> At 10:21 PM 5/1/2008, you wrote:
> >You'd have to wear an arming cap or else any blow will result in a 
> >concussion. The mail will stop you from being cut but won't 
> absorb the 
> >force of the blow. Same for a mail shirt, anyone wearing one 
> would wear 
> >a heavy padded jerkin underneath. These would be worn by the less 
> >wealthy as their sole form of armour.
> 
> ... and is, in fact, exactly what Traveller calls "cloth". :)

Um, I thought "cloth" in Traveller is a kevlar-ish type of ballistic
weave? If we're talking ancient or medieval under-armour it would have
been composed of (I think) stiffened wool and later felt. I believe
there were descriptions from the crusades where men-at-arms wearing a
felt mail shirts over a felt under-garment would be riddled with arrows
like hedghehogs and suffer no injury. I think this type of cloth
wouldn't provide much protection against firearms.

From Leon.Wu at newswire.ca  Fri May  2 09:47:00 2008
From: Leon.Wu at newswire.ca (Leon Wu)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 11:47:00 -0400
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <PBELIEMAEKFJADHMKFLLGEDBGLAA.josephnjody@sbcglobal.net>
References: <270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F038B6B6F@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>
	<PBELIEMAEKFJADHMKFLLGEDBGLAA.josephnjody@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <270030C754582B458D8E7BF9EBDE7A4F0CB0374F@YTO1VEXC001.ibmcahostedmail.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tml-bounces at travellercentral.com 
> [mailto:tml-bounces at travellercentral.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Paul
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 9:40 AM
> To: The Traveller Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
> 
> Actually that is overly simplistic. There is plenty of 
> evidence indicating that maille was often worn with no under 
> padding. Padding is not mentioned in sagas, inventories, or 
> the language itself for a long time. As long as the mail 
> itself is rather loose on the person it does have some 
> energy-absorption ability. The weapon has to move the maille 
> into contact with the body. It will end up dragging maille 
> from well outside the area being struck and that changes the 
> amount of energy that is applied to the target.
> 
> It says something about the cultures that used maille with no 
> padding and it addresses the force of blows that are being 
> employed. Very forceful blows would have rendered the maille 
> useless, therefore some restraint in commitment or delivery 
> must have been evident. This is actually consistent when 
> viewed through the lens of available choices and consequences 
> available to most of those that fought. Maille was a premium 
> defense, highly valued, and worn by few. The great mass of 
> the rest of the combatants wore little to no armor and relied 
> on a shield to protect them. Making a mistake by 
> over-committing to an attack that does not immediately 
> cripple or kill the foe may leave a very naked hide exposed 
> to counter-attack. Blows are therefore very conservative and 
> are not necessarily as forceful as they could be.

Hm, I may disagree with you on that. I think mail would have to be worn
with an under-armour. I'm wondering if some authors may not have
considered an under-garment as "armour". And yes for the majority of
history the vast bulk of soldiers wore no armour and depended on a
shield. Hollywood has lead us to believe mail shirts were sold at the
local wal-mart for 2 eggs... I read an interesting book on the late
republican/early imperial roman army where the author developed a theory
on battle. It was to address who armies could "fight" for hours and how
winning armies had very few casualties considering the amount of time
spent hacking at each other. He proposed that when two sides charged
each other one of which would happen:
a) one side lost nerve at the last second and fled, other pursues
b) both sides charge in and proceed to hack merrily at each other
c) both sides shamble to a halt a safe psychological distance away when
they realize they're about to run into hundreds of men with sharp
objects
He thinks that most battles went to either a or c. With option c, both
sides would try to build up enough morale to cross that final stretch,
they'd yell, curse, insult, etc... Eventually the most aggressive (in
his model most likely the centurions of each cohort) soldiers would move
forward, the soldiers on their sides would have to come along to protect
their comrades flanks. The aggressor would move up and actively try to
kill his opponent(s) while the less aggressive soldiers would do the
more cautious fighting. Eventually the aggressor would tire and they'd
pull back to their lines to rest. Rinse and repeat until one side
finally looses nerve and runs.

From tgrav at mac.com  Fri May  2 10:13:02 2008
From: tgrav at mac.com (Tommy Grav)
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 12:13:02 -0400
Subject: [TML] Ship shapes
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805020817i7bd4479o28300ef3500b9b12@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C440346B.1391D%jerry.barrington@gmail.com>
	<481ACAD6.5010606@gmail.com>
	<E7F37CD1-F0BB-4212-B82D-424FF87F6048@mac.com>
	<000b01c8ac60$87eccc60$52294b0c@YOURFEDDA97C02>
	<F628E138-5822-49EE-81B6-DAE3B027AB91@mac.com>
	<b50d33430805020817i7bd4479o28300ef3500b9b12@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D3842E9D-8C0B-4DB7-A764-4C1B86162F2F@mac.com>

On May 2, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Tom B wrote:
> I think (for non planetoid hulls), the box or open structure would be
> the answer. The latter because you can easily make a spine with key
> components and then just attach the cargo boxes directly to the spine
> for easy attach/remove options (LASH operations). The former because
> it fits well in interior docking bays (for worlds where it isn't a
> good idea to leave a ship outside) and in crowded highports. (Of
> couse, depending on your high port design, pie shaped wedges may be
> also a very good choice for maximum space usage).

I always liked the small cargo ships from Babylon 5.

http://library.galciv2.com/mvlib/ss/Fullview_Freighter.jpg


Cheers
   Tommy


From shadow at shadowgard.com  Fri May  2 10:16:47 2008
From: shadow at shadowgard.com (shadow at shadowgard.com)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 09:16:47 -0700
Subject: [TML] Personal Armor Noise was Re: Current USAF fleet
In-Reply-To: <b50d33430805011925x16aec1e2w31359b9e54fb61c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5aca9be50804232037l2e6f37f9m3ff0bc7c6640a1e@mail.gmail.com>,
	<481A1308.29637.4CF0B66@shadow.shadowgard.com>,
	<b50d33430805011925x16aec1e2w31359b9e54fb61c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <481ADBFF.15740.7E31CC2@shadow.shadowgard.com>

On 1 May 2008 at 22:25, Tom B wrote:

> >  > 1) Hard to get into on your own (there is a lesson for combat armour
> >  > and battle dress lurking herein)
> >
> >  Not that bad. And there are tricks to make it easier.
> 
> I would not be trying to get into it while someone was stabbing me.
> It's not that quick. It's quicker than the multi-part armours you have
> to don, but it still takes a goodly wiggle to get in. And while you're
> wiggling, someone could do just about anything to you.

If someone is already attacking, you waited too long to gear up. :-)
 
> >  > 2) Be bald or else have a cloth cap. The links grab and pull out hair. Ouch.
> >
> >  The "arming cap" is usually part of the padding that goes on under
> >  the mail.
> 
> Yes, but it isn't just an optional accessory! :0)

Neither is the arming coat. The mail makes it harder to cut you, and 
the sheer mass helps absorb the blows (as was learned the hard way 
when some SCA folks tried aluminum and titanium). But without padded, 
you'll get broken bones.
 
> >  > 3) The weight sits on the shoulders (40 lbs on the shoulders....
> >  > argh). You can do some neat tricks though, like gather up a 'chainmail
> >  > potbelly' and the