Scott Kellogg writes:
>
> :Design of TL11 Indianapolis Fighter Deleted:
>
> Robert Dean (who's designs are first rate by the way!)
> criticized the above saying it had insufficient protection in the
> way of armor. Well, I must point out that it is not intended for
> long durations outside the hull of it's mother ship. The flight
> controls are not linked with the computer (servos w/gymbaled thrust
> of fusion rocket for outside atmosphere) so computer damage would only
> affect targeting systems. (Be reminded that while Pioneer 10, 11,
> and Voyager 1 and 2 have been out for years only one computer,
> (Voyager 2's) has been damaged. Also, Challenge 45 includes rules for
> micrometeoroid damage P.37, 1/6 chance for a strike of penetration
> 8*1d6. This is patently stupid. Consider the LDEF Long Duration
> Exposure Facility, 2 meteor strikes in 2+ years! In Earth's junk
> filled orbit no less!
I don't really want to take exception to Scott's discussion of the
premises of the game. I agree that the rules for micrometeoroid damage
in Challenge 45 are silly, and I'd personally never use them. However,
the point I originally objected to in the Indianapolis series of designs
is not that they had insufficient armor in a "realistic" sense, but that
it is unbalancing to the game system to have different design standards
for atmospheric craft and spacecraft, and then to pit one against the other
in combat. Of course something designed under the not very restrictive
COACC system is going to be more cost effective than a ship designed
using the full rules, with an armor 40 hull and a triple computer
system.
> Recently Robert Dean (who's designs I very much admire and appreciate)
> sent in one not quite up to his normal standards. Repeated below.
>
> :Design of TL8 Spaceplane Deleted:
>
> Think about it. This thing weighs roughly two times as much as
> a B-52 long range strategic bomber, and has an airframe smaller than
> an F-4 Phantom II. I am reminded of what they used to say about the
> old B-26 Marauder: 'The Flying Prostitute' She has no visible means
> of support. Never get it off the ground. Even the Space Shuttle
> Orbiter only weighs 84.8 metric tons loaded. In COACC an aircraft may
> lift 35% of it's clean weight in cargo.
>
> If you want something to fly it comes out that the aircraft
> displacement volume is 3.3 (displacement tons) per metric ton. And
> that is a heavily loaded aircraft. An aircraft weighing 500metric
> tons, would displace at least 1600 displacement tons.
>
> I have checked out the displacement volume equations (against a
> few jet aircraft) The displacement figure calculated in COACC roughly
> approximates a box capable of enclosing the aircraft with wings
> unfolded. Obviously, an aircraft's hull is going to be smaller than
> this amount.
>
> If you want to design an space plane use COACC and build an
> orbital hanger to store it in for protection.
>
> Otherwise you will end up digging your nose right in the dirt.
> The above design probably has a stall speed somewhere around MACH 1 if
> that. I wouldn't care to try to land it. It would have the glide
> angle of a crowbar.
Well, I never claimed I was an airplane designer, and my only comment to
this is to repeat what I said above...It gets to be a problem when there
are two systems with massively incompatible design assumptions that are
expected to operate together in one game. Personally, I think all the
MT vehicles come out way too heavy, but it doesn't make much of a
difference as long as everything is done using the same system.
I vote for Gnu Traveller.
Rob Dean