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