Space Planes and TL 6 Vac Suits

A thread of 3 messages, 22 January 1992 to 24 January 1992, in the order they were sent.

#3532 Space Planes and TL 6 Vac Suits

I just got Hard Times yesterday and have a few things to say.

As you might guess, the first thing I looked at was the new craft & the
construction stuff.

Question:  What use is a TL 4 resistojet when you
can't build a spacecraft power plant (batteries) till TL 5?

Did anyone even LOOK at the 'Little Renegade' TL 8 spaceplane before they
published it?  Take a good look!  Ok, Disp=20, that's a the size of a 4.5
ton aircraft with the wings unfolded.  Or the size of a 13.5 ton aircraft
with them folded.  Ok, this thing is about the size of an A-4 Skyhawk, or
a MiG-21.  Right?

Look at the weight.  Loaded=484 tons.  Ok, this thing weighs more than
twice the weight of FULLY LOADED B-52, and has wings the size of a Skyhawk!??
Ok, think about it this way.  The Space Shuttle, fully loaded weighs
about 80 tons.  This thing weighs 6 times that and could fit in the shuttle
bay!

This thing is supposed to FLY?  For one thing it is going to have the glide
angle of a crowbar, and a stall speed in the super sonic range.  To land this
beast you'd have to be flying at an absolutely horrendous rate of knots!
The Space Shuttle (the real one) requires a HUGE runway.  Why do you think
they land in the salt flats.  This design is going to require a runway of
much larger proportions.  It's a flying prostitute!  No visible means of
support!

Ok, in the adventure, they want you to land this thing on a planet that has
NO starport.  Not even a spaceport?  FORGET IT!  You would be dead. Dead. DEAD.

(It looks suspiciously like a design Rob Dean put up a LONG time ago, and it
was the ONLY design he's come up with where I said it will NOT work.)

Rob, was this one of your designs?

One other thing I noticed in here was the TL 6 vac suits.
They say they are related to TL 6 flight suits.  Presumably they are thinking
of the Mercury Project space suits.  Well, I once had the chance to buy an
old Mercury Project suit, (one of the ones used in training acutally) and did
a little research on that particular suit.  The Navy GS-1 (I think it was)
was NOT a good suit for dextrous operation.  (To put it mildly)  Oh, it was
just fine to walk around in and use when you're at atmospheric pressure, but
when pressurized, it becomes almost totally rigid.  Wearing one in vacuuum
would basically paralyze the wearer completely.  The problem is you are
wearing a huge man shaped rubber balloon.  There was no way to articulate the
joints against the pressure of the suit.

At 3PSI internal pressure, the amount of force required for the wearer to
touch his shoulder was the equivalent of bending a steel bar!
Dexterity -2 my eye!  All tasks while wearing the suit would be basically
impossible.  If the Mercury capsule had lost pressure, the capsule would have
had to be brought down by ground control COMPLETELY.  It would have basically
been impossible for the pilot to do ANYTHING.

Presumably the TL 5, and lower suits would have similar difficulties.

Scott Kellogg

#3534 Re: (3532) Space Planes and TL 6 Vac Suits

Scott Kellogg writes:
>Did anyone even LOOK at the 'Little Renegade' TL 8 spaceplane before
>they published it?  Take a good look!  Ok, Disp=20, that's a the size
>of a 4.5 ton aircraft with the wings unfolded.  Or the size of a 13.5
>ton aircraft with them folded.  Ok, this thing is about the size of an
>A-4 Skyhawk, or a MiG-21.  Right?

>Look at the weight.  Loaded=484 tons.  Ok, this thing weighs more than
>twice the weight of FULLY LOADED B-52, and has wings the size of a
>Skyhawk!??

Doesn't a Disp of 20 mean 20 cubic meters? (My books are buried)
If so, this puppy has a density of 484e6 grams/20e6 cc. Which works out
to 24.2 g/cc. This is *noticeacbly* denser than platinum, and in fact
denser than *any* know substance. (excluding things like "degenerate
materr, and neutronium).

So, it fails a class *Zero* reality check.


>One other thing I noticed in here was the TL 6 vac suits.
>They say they are related to TL 6 flight suits.  Presumably they are
>thinking of the Mercury Project space suits.  Well, I once had the
>chance to buy an old Mercury Project suit, (one of the ones used in
>training acutally) and did a little research on that particular suit.
>The Navy GS-1 (I think it was) was NOT a good suit for dextrous
>operation.  (To put it mildly)  Oh, it was just fine to walk around in
>and use when you're at atmospheric pressure, but when pressurized, it
>becomes almost totally rigid.  Wearing one in vacuuum would basically
>paralyze the wearer completely.  The problem is you are wearing a huge
>man shaped rubber balloon.  There was no way to articulate the joints
>against the pressure of the suit.

>At 3PSI internal pressure, the amount of force required for the wearer
>to touch his shoulder was the equivalent of bending a steel bar!

Well, in the 50's there was work on a *much* more flexible suit. It even
had a few tests in a vacuum chamber (with a person wearing it) before it
was cancelled. It was the basis for the "skinsuit" seenm in many SF
stories. We *could* have built it, we chose not too.

#3550 Re: (3534) Re: (3532) Space Planes and TL 6 Vac Suits

> Leonard Erickson [email removed] writes:
>
> Doesn't a Disp of 20 mean 20 cubic meters? (My books are buried)
> If so, this puppy has a density of 484e6 grams/20e6 cc. Which works out
> to 24.2 g/cc. This is *noticeacbly* denser than platinum, and in fact
> denser than *any* know substance. (excluding things like "degenerate
> materr, and neutronium).
>
> So, it fails a class *Zero* reality check.

Actually 1 displacement = 13.5 cubic meters, giving it a density of 24.2/13.5=
1.8 g/cc, which is better.  I might take this opportunity to point out that
fissionable fuel, according to the Referee's Manual, has a density of 25 g/cc,
which _is_ a problem as you note above.  Collapsium shielding on the fuel
rods, anyone?

Scott's original point, that a spaceplane designed using the the One Small Step
rules and meeting the minimum hull armor 40 requirement is going to be too
heavy to fly is quite true.

Scott wasn't a regular on the TML when the discussion over this point was going
on last year.  It was agreed by all the space science types on the list that
armor 40 was a good approximation of the real hull thickness that would be
required for long term radiation protection for a spacecraft crew (something to
do with cosmic ray cascades, as I recall.)  I suggest that anyone seriously
concerned about the matter adopt one of the following solutions:

Design the spaceplane strictly using COACC.
Design the spaceplane using COACC with an additional cost factor for a
     re-entry capable hull.  (Something like *5...)
Design the spaceplane using the Ref's Manual/One Small Step system, but allow
     an armor minimum of something smaller, like 8.

Since the craft is designed for landing and takeoff, not for deepspace ops, the
lower radiation resistance should be acceptable.  There are no rules for this,
apart from something in one of the later Traveller's Digests--it's just one of
those little bits of reality based explanation that you can toss at the players
if they ask questions, which they probably won't.

Somewhere in the archives, you can find Scott's Orion spaceplane (an example of
the first scheme) and my TL8 10 ton ship's boat (an example of the third).

In the event that combat occurred involving a craft with an armor value of less
than 40, I'd just use a +1 per 3 armor levels short damage modifier on the
combat tables.  So, a ship with an armor value of 10 (30 below 40) would be
subject to a DM of +10 on the damage tables.  Critical hits, interior
penetrations and the like would be almost guaranteed.

Rob Dean