First:
> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1991 14:58 -0500
> From: [email removed]
> Subject: (2543) Planetary invasions and other things
>
> This is in response to several notes on a lot of topics:
>
> First Scott Kellog's sub is a great idea. And I will grant him that
> very few starships have sonar. But generally a sonar will not be
> needed. A meson armed submarine could be detected by several armored
> drones carrying densitometers and a maser, even at 5km depth. Which
> incidently is very rare. Most modern subs have problems getting a mile
> deep and part of the problem is that there are just not that many places
> that are even close to being that deep.
The statement that modern subs have problems getting a mile deep is correct.
But, the problem is _far_ from having no place a mile deep to go! Look at
any ocean chart and you'll find plenty of places (most of the ocean) has
numbers over "2000". That "2000" is fathoms at 6ft per fathom or most of the
oceans over 12,000 ft or greater than 2 miles deep.
The biggest problem for submarines is getting material that is strong enough
to handle the forces at those extreme depths. Given the materials at the
higher tech levels, this could be done for a military machine though.
But if a world was at a higher tech level with those advanced materials, why
would they need submarines? I suppose one idea would be that a world was
advanced in tech level with respect to materials but not starship technology
or jump technology.
And as far as these submarines that are being talked about, what powers them?
As far as I can tell, a densitometer wouldn't be the optimal detector. How
about a neutrino detector. Any good submarine will have a self-sufficient
power source, i.e. nuclear plant or fusion plant.
> Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 16:38:43 EDT
> From: "Robert S. Dean" [email removed]
> Subject: (2545) Origins and Things
>
> I am afraid I fell down on the job slightly and missed the Saturday
> Traveller seminar at Origins. If anyone who was there would like to upload
> a brief discussion of what went on, please do. Marc Miller said afterwards
> that there wasn't much of importance discussed...
Someone on GEnie posted a summary of the seminar and had some other info.
I'll try to put it on the TML tonight. I thought it interesting.
> I went ahead and handed out our email information in various places, telling
> the Traveller 'pros' that we would be all too happy to help them avoid these
> sorts of problems in the future, and otherwise volunteering the use of our
> compiled expertise.
>
> Is there anyone out there with a very capable computer who could port the
> daily list to GEnie email to send to the DGP and GDW people? I could theor-
> etically do it, but it would involve downloads and uploads with a 300 baud
> modem and transfer through a capture buffer of only 18K, which is a problem
> for the bigger mailings. Wilson?
I might be willing to post the TML to GEnie. To avoid large expense I might
post whole bundles in the file library rather than a nightly TML download and
subsequent upload to the message area. For one, they (GEnie) might get
irritated at the _very_large_ message some of the latest TMLs would create!
I would like further input from people on the list prior to this undertaking.
Specifically, the administrator. {HEY JAMES, YOU OUT THERE??? :-)
Bundle uploads would also save me money since message posts are not free.
- - --
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| *-=Carl=-* INTERNET - [email removed] | Time is nature's way to keep |
| DELPHI - WULFGAR | everything from happening |
| Carl Fago Portland, OR | all at once. -anon. |
+---------------------------------------------+------------------------------+