Me:
>Hydrogen Fuel Leaks:
>Now consider: When we talk about fuel leaks in Trav, we are not
>talking about leaking gasoline in air. We are talking about leaking
>Liquid *HYDROGEN* into *VACCUM*.
Steve:
} Even hydrogen has a heat of vaporization. If kept cold enough,
}it won't instantly vaporize, even into vacuum. And hydrogen CAN be
}kept liquid at very close to vacuum pressure. So it may not VOOM!
}into vacuum.
At atmospheric pressures Liquid Hydrogen is somewhere around 7 degrees
Kelvin isn't it? (Don't have my CRC handy) To get down to a temperature
where it would remain liquid at say 10 to the minus 5 torr is gonna be
HORRENDOUSLY Low. I would say the storing it at such a low temperature
is gonna be impractical at any TL *I* care to work with. Remember, the only
time it would help would be in battle. At any other time it would mean
added weight and LOTS of additional maintainace.
There is also the question of the additional energy projected into the fuel
tank by whatever punched the hole in it. That's gonna stir up yer liquid
hydrogen pretty good!
} Note also that liquid ammonia stores more Hydrogen per kiloliter
}than liquid hydrogen does (120Kg per Kl, as opposed to 70.6 Kg per
}Kl). So warships may (should!) be carrying fuel in the form of
}ammonia, and processing it into H2 as needed. Then the problem tends
}to evaporate.
Not evaporate! *VAPORIZE!* (I know, I know, I couldn't resist the pun...)
Quite true. Liquid Ammonia has a greater atomic density of hydrogen than
pure liquid hydrogen. Maybe the Traveller TNE folks should take note?
>About Armor Maximums:
>max add-on armor is TL*5, but they never
>define add on armor. They have never explained weither we are to add
>that number to 40 or to 4. The table seems to indicate that it is
>added on to 4
}I always assumed 40. Be that as it may, the Apollo capsule is a silly
}example. The apollo capsule (about two MT tons) did NOT mass 25+ tons
}metric. It also did not have a hull stronger than that on most MBTs.
}Estimated armour value of an Apollo is only 10 (at MOST).
True, but it was just an example.
>If we are to say that max armor is TL*5+40 then a TL 3 ironclad could
>have Armor 55? That doesn't sound right to me.
}Nor to me. Though that is only 5 feet of soft steel. But then I
}don't believe that maximum armour that can be fabricated is an
}exponential function of TL, either. And +5 per TL is exponential
}(effective armour thickness increases by 57.3% per TL.
}maximum armour value at TL15 is 115 (maybe), which translates to about
}224 meters of hard steel. Sure it's using bonded superdense, and is
}thinner - (from Striker) it's actually only 16 meters thick. A
}hundred ton ship would have 100,000+ tons of armour, which SHOULD have
}a volume of 6690 Kl, or 495 displacement tons. Pretty amazing stuff,
}eh?
Yeah... I'm not sure what to use really. It seems to me that you should
be able to just slap thicker armor on there if the design will still float.
I dunno what to say. Max armor *I* know of at TL 6 was around 18 inches of
steel in the torpedo belts of battleships. I think that qualifies as
armor 46 (?) Not Armor=70!
Scott 2G Kellogg