OK. . .
98% of what I'm going to say here is completely removed from the purview of
any of the game systems and is soley for flavor and to start some thought in
the minds of those who are considering home-brewing a
campaign ruleset for Dirtside II or Stargrunt.
What exactally does it mean to use grav vehicles? I presume from the term that
it means your vehicles have
a contra-gravitic suspension, and probably a
reactionless thrust mechanism (as spacecraft do). They are powered by a fusion
engine. This means you have effectively unlimited endurance (a few gallons of
hydrogen being enough to fuel the vehicle for a month of combat operations).
You are also capable of flying
at any altitude--including into space, limited only by
your life support.
> From a design perspective, this creates some
What are the implications of this militarily speaking?
First, there is complete freedom from the fuel logistical tail. Instead of
convoys of tanker trucks hauling distilled petroleum products (which require a
source of petroleum, and a chemical industry in place to refine them), an
attacking force need only bring one or two hydrogen crackers per batallion,
which can refine the fuel from any given water source in a single afternoon,
fuel up the task force in a few
hours (probably through in-flight refuelling) and then
go take a nap for a couple weeks until they are needed again.
Second, there is freedom from terrain. While grav
tanks/trucks can be held up by bad terrain when
operating "tactically", at extremely low level, hopping up 100' or so makes
any terrain easy. Of course they are more vulnerable to attack at this height,
but when you have a whole planet to maneuver on and tiny forces opposing you
(many colony world would be hard pressed to come up with a brigade or two
of really first-rate troops) that still leaves a lot
of options. In fact, grav vehicles operating in this
mode most resemble early air assault operations--they
have to escorted by dedicated air combat vehicles
(VTOLs and/or aerospace fighters) and the transported
troops are hideously vulnerable until they touch down. They could not operate
in an intense enemy air defense environment, and take heavy casualties if air
assaulted directly into contact. However those early air assault troops were
light infantry, supported by manpacked mortars and light towed artillery and
with
limited sustainability. A fully grav-mounted
batallion task force can put companies of heavy armor or mechanized infantry
behind enemy positions with all the logistical assets to support them. The
possibilities are endless.
There's also the issue of self-deployability. A
properly sealed and insulated grav tank could easily conduct an assault from
orbit without requiring a
lander. It might take a little work--possibly a
bolt-on ablative heat shield on the underside. But
the sealing needed is already present as a countermeasure against chemical
weapons.
Once you are on the same planet as the enemy, grav vehicles have a gross
advantage in deployability as well. While they don't have the life support
facilities to fly around the world with their crews and passengers inside,
they could be easily flown on automatic pilot (escorted, of course) to a
nearby base, with their crews brought in more conventionally. And again,
neither mountains nor rivers nor oceans are a significant obstacle. Meanwhile
GEVs, tracked
vehicles, and wheels are stuck aboard a slow-moving
ship or being hauled a handful at a time aboard aircraft.
In fact, these factors, taken together suggest that in
event of a conflict between conventionally-propelled
units and an all-grav force, the conventional force
would be at such a disadvantage as to render it meaningless.
I had the same train of thought a while back as I took a good hard look at the
Traveller universe. The largest constraint on operations is food distribution
and crew rest. Dispersion during movement and concentration for action are the
rule of the day. All operations take on the aspects of Deep Battle, and
non-orbital fire support can become almost meaningless. If I can move
100 kph in VTOL mode and have decent communications the operational envelope
becomes so huge that only key points (strategic objectives) are defended. All
other points can and will be bypassed. Take a good look at Attack helicopter
operations and then give them the ability to hold ground.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
G'day,
OK just to play devil's advocate, be contrary etc....;)
> What exactally does it mean to use grav vehicles? I
At exactly what rate does fusion burn up the hydrogen (sorry its been way too
long since my astronomy classes to remember)? This may actually end up being a
very stiff assumption. You could probably still extract the hydrogen from
atmosphere etc, but just assuming a few gallons will keep you going months
seems a little too giving to me.
> From a design perspective, this creates some
OK dumb question, but why have different designs at all? If they've broken
with the effect of gravity to a large extent then does it really matter if
they're streamlined or not? Why not just use exactly the same kit for
everything from shuttle to tank?
> First, there is complete freedom from the fuel
Assuming you're on a world with free standing water;)
May be a tad more difficult if you've got to mine for it, get it from the
atmosphere, go to the poles and lug some back etc etc. Think Mars under its
current climate for one, while there may be stores of ice etc underground,
you're best bet is the poles... now if you don't happen to be in control of
them...
> Second, there is freedom from terrain. While grav
Assuming you've got a pilots licence too - which is pretty safe bet if
they've been "flown down" from a space ship in the first place. I was just
imagining a whole group of tanks flying over the Himalayas....
> They could not operate in an intense enemy air
Do you think the grav vehicles would also suffer from this, or would they
armoured nature make them more immune?
> While they don't have the life support
Why, if they're sealed and have such a good energy plant? On top of that
advances in algal scrubbers etc could see even biologically based life support
units being tiny in the not too distant future.
> In fact, these factors, taken together suggest that in
Assuming the gee-whiz gizmo that keeps the thingimee going on the do-dat
of the grav tank isn't impossibly hard to get in the boon docks and can't be
easily replaced with a bullet casing or some such. The one thing growing up on
a farm taught me was that the more "techo" stuff got the more it was likely to
be%^&@# useless if something went wrong in the bush. E.g. I accidentally put
our aged truck in a dam once, but it was very easy to get myself out (roll
down window and exit), but when the guy up the road did the same with his
flashy new one he ended up having to smash a window... he's exact comment went
something along the lines "$^%@! electronic window control wouldn't $%^! work
would it?!!";)
In a message dated 11/14/01 7:32:48 PM Central Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@yahoo.com writes:
> In fact, these factors, taken together suggest that in
Grav vehicles are a total quandry. I play them that their grav fields inhibit
flight over 100 meters or so high. Why not use a liftijng body technology to
allow them to "fly" a little higher or faster using vectored thrust or
turbines? This is a can of worms to look at as a military doctrine matter,
don't you think?
In a message dated 11/14/01 11:01:22 PM Central Standard Time,
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au writes:
> The one thing growing up
Too true! Also the advantage horses and such have is that you can always them
to breed more - bet that won't work with grav tanks.
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@veriomail.com> wrote:
The largest constraint on > operations is food distribution > and crew rest.
Dispersion during
Modifying food to all CLI supplies, yes. Water will be a bigger problem than
food. You can feed a tank crew for several days off of one case of MREs.
movement and > concentration for action are the
> rule of the day. All operations take on the aspects
I'd argue with that--since you have to drop down to a
managable speed and a deck-hugging altitude to
maneuver tactically, then if your arty can keep up they can contribute, most
especially to digging out
dug-in troops.
If I can move 100 kph > in VTOL mode and have decent communications the >
operational envelope becomes so
Yeah, the commo is the sine qua non of this sort of operation. Presumably
disposable commo drones and satellites will keep messages going. And with
modern Situational Awareness tools like FBCB2 (presumably with another 200
years of development they might get it to work under field conditions) with
expert systems (or even full AIs) as the digital "fourth crewman"[1] it will
just be that much easier for every vehicle to
have a complete up-to-date picture of the battlefield.
> huge that only key points (strategic objectives) are
And without the severe range limitations. This also plays off of the other
reality of colonial warfare which is that generally only small forces are
involved. Tiny, high tech professional forces will be
the deciding factor--mass armies won't be able to
train the specialists needed. Afterall, to manhandle a grav tank will take
practically as much expertise as driving a space fighter.
On or about Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:26:32AM -0500, Popeyesays@aol.com
typed:
> Too true! Also the advantage horses and such have is that you can
Only the Sa'Vasku ones.
("Sorry, we can't fight you today, it's that time of year when the tanks get
frisky...")
Slightly more seriously: Ammo becomes important, so I think we have to assume
energy weapons in order to dump the logistic tail. Given that, and presumably
given a restricted number of vehicles, I'd be inclined to
build an "all-in-one" vehicle - basically something that acts like an
attack helo, but can push its envelope to be a tank or an attack plane
at need. (Not that it'll do this _well_ - but if you have a fixed hold
space for vehicles, flexibility is good.)
Grav is gee-whiz tech, so you can model it in quite a few ways.
I like the idea of limiting the armor. Maxing it out at 1 less than size
(but all can cary at least Armor/1) would be a good way to indicate that
the armor was spread over the underside of the vehicle as well.
Grav units may be subject to the same air-hocky-puck effect that GEVs
face (i.e. if the energy of a shell impact exceeds the inertia (standing or
moving) of the GEV, the GEV is "pushed" by the impact).
But the biggest drawback to them may be (depending on PSB) the extended
maintenance required to keep them operational. I would think that spaceships
have redundant systems and the ones off-line are in a constant state of
maintainence (except in battle) to keep them functioning properly. Grav
vehicles probably face the same effect of some of our high tech planes do
today. That is for every hour of operation, they spend 2 hours in
maintainence.
On Fusion Power, fusion provides a lot of power. However, Grav units use a LOT
of power. And they use it all the time they are operational. They use it
hovering, moving and firing. Also, many of the weapons (HELs, MDC) use a HUGE
amount of power (hence the powerplant limitations). It is reasonable to assume
that a Grav unit would need fresh fuel packs as often as a chemical tank would
need fuel.
On the Grav suspension, itself, it may be VERY different from a starship.
Starship grav drives may be "Pull" oriented (easier to amplify gravity than to
reverse gravity). They may line up the engines to a stellar object in the
correct direction and amplify the pull of that oject as if it were only miles
away rather than billions of miles (pulling the ship toward the much more
massive star). Grav deckplates do roughly the same thing amplifying the
gravity between objects above them and the deck plates themselves (every other
deck may be upside down to avoid having to develop unidirectional gravity).
Grav suspension of vehicles may be entirely different. Creating antigravity
may be much more inefficient. It may also lessen with distance, so as the grav
tank rises, it has to use more and more power. But, you say, couldn't the grav
tank also latch onto stars to pull it upward? Yes, but it would require a much
more sophisticated drive computer
(files would have to be updated for each planet and date/time) and
precise timekeeping. A momentary loss of power could put the grav tank out of
sync with the stars, making its drive system inefficient or unusable until it
could be recalibrated. Also, interveining terrain (mountains, etc.) would make
it more difficult to "pull" on stars just above the horizon. Also, "pull" type
propulsion may have unwanted effects on the atmosphere of planets (every time
the tank moves, atmosphere equal to the mass of the vehicle is pulled into
space toward the star). For these reason, I prefer the less efficient "push"
grav drive for grav tanks.
---
> --- Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
> Grav vehicles are a total quandry. I play them that
Of course, which is what makes it worth looking at. I'm going to say that the
needs of full armor protection and the requirement to be controllable at
the 2-3' altitude require slower speeds overall.
YMMV. The problem with vectored thrust or turbines is that it reintroduces a
requirement for fuel (reaction mass, actually) and that's what we're trying to
avoid by going to grav in the first place.
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> At exactly what rate does fusion burn up the
Not sure. I was running off the old Traveller numbers, which are probably far
too cheerful. I'm not sure anyone actually knows since we don't have a
self-sustaining controllable fusion reaction to check
the gas mileage off of.
> OK dumb question, but why have different designs at
Because a specialized vehicle will beat a
non-specialized vehicle in that vehicle's specialty.
A dedicated fighter would be a better dogfighter than a generic vehicle in the
upper atmosphere, while a dedicated tank would beat a generic vehicle down on
the ground. Over-generalization is a curse which
allows one vehicle to be mediocre at everything and excell at nothing.
> Assuming you're on a world with free standing water
If you're not, what's there to fight over? You have to have water supplies to
have a population, and if you have water supplies available and tanks to take
it with, you don't have a problem.
> Assuming you've got a pilots licence too - which is
Possible.
> > They could not operate in an intense enemy air
It gets pretty heavy to armor just the frontal arc and put lighter armor on
the sides. If you try to armor up the entire vehicle evenly, you end up with
something that's just too heavy to work.
> Why, if they're sealed and have such a good energy
Two reasons. First is water supplies. Second is crew comfort. I've spent too
much time in the back of an armored vehicle to have any desire to ride in one
for
12-24 hours. And self-deployment around a planet may
take 3-4 days for certain regions.
> Assuming the gee-whiz gizmo that keeps the thingimee
That's what your PLL stocks are for. You take spares.
> The one thing growing up > on a farm taught me was
It's a matter of technology maturity. Take a look at how long it took tracked
vehicles to mature from useless experiments to conquering Poland. Then
consider we've had almost 3 times that long to develop grav vehicles by 2183.
I probably should wait until I have more reasons but...
Caveats: I was an Air Force Medic (7 years, 3 month 12 days all but 5 months
in Sacramento, CA) with buddies in Communications and flight line positions.
No personal experience except a ride in a Chinook as to
repair/maintenance of military vehicles. Followed by 3 years in Seattle
USAR Basic Training unit (104th Division) that was category 15 (out of 15) in
priority for readiness. All the rest is based on 'war stories' from USMC
Uncles, USCG Dad, plus whatever I can read.
Okay, I have given this some minor thought and derived some possible
limitations (and some of these are why Grav vehicles are uncommon in my
games):
0. Game Balance - I keep the Grav stuff for the most advanced group
(NEA)
which suffers from population size (small) and the fact that they are a
semi-autonomous group of the NAC and the Grav stuff technically is on
loan from the NAC while the GEV stuff is "theirs' to abuse... I mean use. It
lets me use all that Modern and WW2 stuff I have no rules to use anymore also.
Tempted to get some WW1 (but that's OT...)
1. Cost - I think the Grav drives in DS2 are way under priced (IMO) for
even 2100-2200+ but this is just MNSHO... Have been tempted to double
the cost (or something closer to 150%.) Unless time and technological
development stand still then GRAV, even Mark XXI with all the bells and
whistles is going to *cost* big time. Less so then the 'older' technology of
GEV, IMO.
2. Maintenance - If an F-15 takes so much more time (or replacement pull
out and push in 'black boxes' for modules that test not "acceptable")
then a simpler (relatively) F-16 there will be a need for each AFV to
have a 'maintenance crew' as each aircraft has a 'ground crew' - ready
to
reflect this is in your TO&E/costs? Maybe 50% of the cost of the unit
is added on when balancing forces by points (I try for estimated force and
effectiveness balances then calculate costs but others may do it different.)
3. Maintenance costs (see above) This might be why there still are NAC HMW and
Tracked vehicles as has been suggested before. Plus if you just
pull and replace black boxes then that 'repair/replace' supply tail
becomes vitally important and increasingly vulnerable. That's part of
the rational for my armed (primarily APSW's but some GMS/L and size 1
turrets depends on leftover capacity after all multiples of "four" are used)
and armored supply vehicles (ammo, spare parts, on site repair) for
at least one of the forces I have on paper/in lead.
4. Cultural/Technical limits. Is the third rate power going to spend
it's 'human resources' on warriors or technicians? Not everybody is the
NAC/ESU/NSL/FSE or even the UNSC. And a lack of technicians means
failure rates *before* the scenario starts (Look at Iran's/Iraq's Navy
*before * the war started between them and then look how fast maintenance
woes made things a joke. What naval battles?) F-14's (When they could
fly!) engaging with Mark 1 eyeballs and guns fer gosh sake! Maintenance
is something DS2 *assumes* is done - *assumes*... why does that make me
nervous? And if you use highly paid 'contract maintenance' workers, who goes
out on the battlefield in their place? And what if they have clauses in their
contracts that lets them out from being in combat?
5. I limit Grav vehicles to 'just above ground' or at best (and with
armor -1 on the bottom) Low altitude. My perception of Grav, but
strictly my personal read on Grav.
Gracias,
> --- Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
> Slightly more seriously: Ammo becomes important, so
True, but MDCs are almost as good--their ammunition is
compact (an MDC/5 may be a 40-50mm system with high
muzzle velocities) and insensitive (read easy to
handle--not much danger of explosion for a DU slug
with steel bands).
Hi Folks,
As another listee said, Grav vehicles that can do surface to orbit open a
*huge* can of worms from a doctrine point of view.
My take on it is that the success of grav comes down to several important
factors, the main one being the air defense vs. vehicle defense balance.
If the air defense systems can *always* shoot them down, then grav vehicles
don't have much advantage in tactical use over other more mundane vehicles.
They'll still have to hug the earth for cover. The best example of this (in
fiction) is the Hammers' Slammers stories, where the tank main guns can be
used to fight spacecraft, shoot down satelites, etc.
If the vehicle defense is more effective, then why not, as Beth said, have
one-size-fits-all vehicles that act as troop transports and their own
fire support?
I think the answer to that one is going to be economics. A small tactical
vehicle (say, a recce afv or a "jeep" or a tank) will cost a lot less than a
vehicle designed to drop a platoon, or a company, into battle. If your force
is made up of just a few vastly capable but enormously expensive
multi-purpose vehicles, then losing just ONE is a *big deal*. And the
roles they have to undertake are quite different. Direct fire support in a
tactical environment calls for one set of features. Dropping a platoon from
orbit calls for different features. Combining the two gives you one helluva
expensive fire support vehicle. Be *much* less expensive, I
imagine, to have large-ish transport-type vehicles to get the fighting
stuff to the surface, and then smaller stuff for tactical use ON the surface.
Maybe your APCs and tanks can get to orbit if they need to in an emergency,
but will there be enough for everyone on the ground? If you drop your APCs and
Tanks from orbit, assuming that the air defenses are not going to shoot them
all down, then you need pretty capable vehicles, and certainly need really
well trained crews. Your tank drivers would have to
be trained equivalent to our attack helocopter or fighter pilots -
unless there are dramatic increases in training systems and methods AND smart
systems onboard to make the vehicles easier to pilot (which is probable
-
but the silliest extension of this idea is seen in that show "Space Above and
Beyond" where all the members of an elite infantry unit were also all trained
fighter pilots... or maybe it was all the pilots in a squadron also happened
to be elite infantry...). Anyway, my point to all of this is that yeah, high
tech will lead to some interesting stuff, but I'm getting a sense of "too many
eggs in one basket".
OR, the nature of ground warfare changes *completely*. If you have survivable
vehicles that can fly ground to orbit, do tactical manoevering
at surface level at 100 - 300 kph (or faster) for thousands of km
without needing to fuel, etc etc., then we probably going to be talking about
*completely different* battle doctrine. Again, it comes down to the
effectiveness of air defenses. If I can fly from orbit right to your door,
kick it in with big guns, and then drop off a few troops to clean up the mess,
then I'm going to need a very different force structure than if I have to
fight you cross country to get there first.
And as to communications - that'll be determined by who controls the
space above the planet. If you control space, you can use your fleet to relay
comms, set out relay satellites, etc etc. If you don't, then you're limited
largely to what we use now. Maybe boosted with UAV relays or whatever, but a
radio is a radio is a radio...
My own personal taste toward all this stuff is to limit grav tech both in
it's expense (it's *expensive* so is only for high-value units...) and
have the air defense vs. vehicle defense balance such that the vehicles *are*
vulnerable, but not overwhelmingly so. Not to the extent of Hammers'
Slammers - so you can use grav assault vehicles to get to the surface
and grav apc's and tanks when you're there, but effective enough that tanks
don't want to fly over the terrain if they can avoid it.
Otherwise the game changes rather a lot...
But then again, I mostly play Stargrunt, and when it comes right down to it,
the battles I play are going to be set *after* the troops have got out of
their fancy grav vehicles anyway.
> OK just to play devil's advocate, be contrary etc.... ;)
Ah, so you're doing something different today then?;)
> OK dumb question, but why have different designs at all? If they've
Cost and role. I imagine that a shuttle is going to cost a lot more, and not
be expected to have to put up with the punishment that a tank will take.
You'll need more tanks (and so cheaper, or really deep pockets) 'cuz you'll
expect to lose more, 'cuz they're doing the fighting.
Of course, besides the effectiveness of air defense issue, there is the cost
of grav tech. If it is *cheap* then why not have lots and lots of
one-size-fits-all vehicles...?
I tend to think that the military mind won't be that much different from now,
though, and you're still going to try to get the most out of limited
interstellar carrying capacity. If you have X space in your transport
spaceships, you'll want the maximum combat effectiveness in that space.
That might mean having surface-to-orbit capable vehicles of all types
(APCs, Tanks), but they might be really, really expensive (thereby limiting
how many you can afford to carry, and afford to lose). If the fighting is
likely to be heavy, it might be more effective to have grav transports (big
ones) and higher numbers of slightly less effective but much less expensive
APCs and Tanks, that are perhaps limited to how high they can fly, etc. Maybe
you need really big and effective grav generators to get something as heavy as
a tank into orbit? Maybe for effective use in space, you need big vehicles, so
while grav tech allows you huge mobility improvements on the surface, you are
limited to the 100 meter altitude someone else mentioned...
> Assuming the gee-whiz gizmo that keeps the thingimee going on the
he's
> exact comment went something along the lines "$^%@! electronic window
Yeah, that's a really good point.
If the grav tech is zoomie and wonderful, but breaks a lot, and you're out
in the arse-end back of nowhere at the end of a really, really long
supply
chain, maybe you want to have some easy-to-fix stuff along too...
Like I said, my personal taste is toward limiting grav tech. That way I can
keep a good lid on the worms...
</ramble>
> --- adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> My own personal taste toward all this stuff is to
To a certain extent so do I.
have > the air defense vs. vehicle defense balance such
> that the vehicles *are* > vulnerable, but not
Exactally my point. I figure air defenses can knock down tanks so they can
only 'fly' over relatively undefended terrain. Which explains why they have
heavy frontal armor and ability to fight at the 3' altitude. That's what they
have to do to stay under air defense envelope.
> --- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:
> 1. Cost - I think the Grav drives in DS2 are way
True. But... I don't like to fiddle with published point systems. I'm already
using an incompatible background to most of y'all. I don't want to also be
using incompatible rules.
> 2. Maintenance - If an F-15 takes so much more time
Now that's possible. I'm assuming a fairly robust system. But even then,
mechanics will be more plentiful than present.
> 3. Maintenance costs (see above) This might be why
You're going to have to have some up-front capability
for electronics repair. Otherwise it just doesn't make much sense. Of course,
you'd probably be
surprised how little ground-pounders actually repair
and how much is "wait until it breaks and deadlines the vehicle, then order a
new one."
> 4. Cultural/Technical limits. Is the third rate
That's why third-rate powers stay third-rate.
> gosh sake! Maintenance > is something DS2 *assumes*
Because otherwise it's a boring game. Maintinence management is not fun,
exciting, or entertaining. And a game that makes me manage PLL would have me
slitting my wrists in a week.
And if you use highly paid 'contract > maintenance' workers, who > goes out on
the battlefield in their place? And > what if they have > clauses in their
contracts that lets them out from > being in combat?
Why are we using contract workers below depot level?
G'day,
> I'm not sure anyone actually knows since we don't have a
I thought they'd had some recent break throughs on that? Finally got one that
produced more energy than it used to get started... just.
> If you're not, what's there to fight over? You have
I'm pretty sure there are some desert nations sitting on crap loads of oil who
may disagree with this point;)
Seriously, humans have made quite a pasttime out of going to ridiculously
harsh places because there were resources (minerals etc) there that were
valuable/required. For instance there's a proposal to "vacuum up" the
manganese nodules off the bottom of the Pacific... you don't get much more
remote and non-human friendly than that!
> It gets pretty heavy to armor just the frontal arc and
But if fusion and grav is that efficient, why would it be too heavy to work?
I'm sure the Wright Brothers (or however you spell that name!) would've been
horrified at the flying bricks we climb aboard these days.
> Two reasons. First is water supplies.
For the crew?
> Second is crew comfort. I've spent too much time
They may not want to, but its doable and tolerable... otherwise the
submersibles used for deep sea science these days would be useless.
> And self-deployment around a planet may take 3-4 days for certain
Assuming they can't go orbital and get there in 45mins...
> That's what your PLL stocks are for. You take spares.
And so aren't quite as free from the logistical train as hoped;)
Cheers
The following messages were received blank:
Beth:
Message-ID: <576A86EC05E22742A26B1D742DE752922577D5@molly.tas.csiro.au>
Derek:
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20011116095008.0224bac0@mail.bigpond.com>
Tomb:
Message-ID: <000001c16e37$c3151540$4200a8c0@garibaldi>
Message-ID: <000001c16e34$918b3a20$4200a8c0@garibaldi>
Brian B.:
Message-ID: <F11674vLmtRAxCtuTRj0000a253@hotmail.com>
Full Metal:
Message-ID: <20011115215555.55802.qmail@web12302.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <91CD8D22B204D311AA1D0080AD3867199035B0@atlas>
Oerjan the prophet:
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.1.20011115224248.00a0e800@m1.853.telia.com>
Is this happening only on my end or is this systemic?
Did anyone get this and could you read it?
Gracias,
"I say again- you're transmission is garbled, you're breaking up..."
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:48:17 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
Things have been coming through clear on this terminus.
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
> "I say again- you're transmission is garbled, you're breaking up..."
> "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)" wrote:
> Grav is gee-whiz tech, so you can model it in quite a few ways.On
This is the real problem with a grav unit. One of the curious aspects of the
Universe is Reciprocity: All interactions except globally increasing entropy
are reversible. Given that gravity affects light (EM fields), EM fields must
be able to affect gravity. Everyone jump for joy, grav units are not outside
the bounds of psb. Unfortunately, given that the coupling between gravity
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Seriously, humans have made quite a pasttime out of going to
G'day,
> [OT, but amusing]
Well what started as truly bizarre has become more so as they're seriously
planning it now!! The sediment outfall problems and its effect on the
surrounding ecosystems is something we've actually got to consider (the deep
ocean sediment grains around the nodules are very fine and could really make a
mess of things unless treated carefully). The whole operation isn't quite
economically viable yet, but within the decade they reckon it'll get the nod
as a once off strip mining operation (these things take millennia to grow so
there won't be another big harvest for quite some time!). Its one of the
issues really testing the UN agreements on oceans and their use/access.
On the upside looking into all the deep sea benthos involved has given me some
REALLY cool ideas for what some alien could look like;)
The Glomar incident was covered in some detail in "Blind Man's Bluff".
> Richard and Emily Bell wrote:
> Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> > Two reasons. First is water supplies.
Yup.
> > Second is crew comfort. I've spent too much time
Sorry, but no. I've spent enough time in the back of a loaded M113A3 to say
that more than a couple hours is not doable. For one thing, claustrophobia
sets in. For another, the way engineer units load those things you get so
cramped we have people falling out with muscle spasms and cramps.
G'day,
> > They may not want to, but its doable and
Obviously us marine scientists are superior to you softie engineers
then...
;P
Submersibles of MBT* size and smaller CRAMMED with equipment and stuff are
used on a regular basis for periods of over 12 hours at a time when
investigating deep sea phenomena.... damn good way of losing weight fast
though given how much you perspire when in one!!! And yes cramp is one thing
you have to worry about, so you do a very intensive "how to get cramp out of
your legs, back and arms while only moving about 10cm" course;)
It is doable, it is tolerable (even if just) at least by us wacko scientists
;)
Beth,
Hopefully no one is shooting at you, it is more a psychological than comfort
thing. It is very human to wish to leave the bigger target for the safety of a
well placed ditch at times, I think that factors into it. Also Scientists are
a driven lot, who frequently forget to do such mundane things as eating and
sleeping when they are on to something lol.
> > Sorry, but no. I've spent enough time in the back of
> Obviously us marine scientists are superior to you softie engineers
Two situations, different thus: a) marine scientist is not going to be
bouncing over the countryside trying to keep up with the tanks, so is
(presumably) not going to have a rough ride once under water. b) marine
scientist doesn't have to worry about being combat effective immediately on
debarking c) marine scientist is, I assume, not going to be making this trip
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Obviously us marine scientists are superior to you
As well as being far better paid...
> Submersibles of MBT* size and smaller CRAMMED with
Congrats. Now load up that submersible with
everything you need to survive for 2-3 weeks, scads of
ammunition, demolition kit, mines, etc. Then drive it
at 35mph cross-country while loaded down with LBE,
Mask, wearing a Kevlar, and holding a rifle or machine gun. Then live out of
the back of that submersible with 6 other guys. I doubt the experiences are
comprable.
G'day,
Don said:
> Hopefully no one is shooting at you,
That would be a no for bullets, but a yes for large pieces of wildlife,
volcanic activity, internal standing waves and a good deal many other things.
These things don't have a smooth ride.
> Also Scientists are a driven lot, who frequently
OK you may have a point there;)
Laserlight pointed out:
> Two situations, different thus:
They're riding turbulence trying to keep up with what they're measuring or the
automated hydro buoys. Coming back with bruises, scratches, fractures etc from
getting bounced into a point instrument panel is standard practice, because no
one thought it possible you could get thrown in THAT direction.
> b) marine scientist doesn't have to
That depends. If you do decomp stops down there you are expected to be able to
haul ass and stow stuff on immediate exit from the sub. If you don't do decomp
stops then you've got to be prepared to get into a baro chamber
within 2 minutes of resurfacing or being one VERY sick/dead duck. The
atmospheric pressure changes going down under water are WAY bigger than
anything involved in going land to space and even the pressurised subs can't
protect you from all of it.
> c) marine scientist is, I assume, not
For the length of the cruise (which can be upto a month at least) they may
be doing it daily, though tag teaming usually means you could get a 36 -
48
hour break rather than only 12 - 20 hrs (while another team is down).
John A joins in:
> As well as being far better paid. . .
Man have you got that oh so wrong!!;)
> Congrats. Now load up that submersible with
Given all the science kit, food, supplies, backup, lifesupport in case the
worst happens you have in these things I'd say it is comparable based on the
"fully kitted out vehicles" I've seen at Lavarack (Aussie base in Townsville)
or in pics of guys on deployment. As for living out of them with 6 other guys,
you admittedly don't have to do that, but you get the equivalent on the small
dive research boats where you have to hot bunk (there is only one bed and you
have to slide into that) and even though they're a different shape, space wise
they'd also be comparable to the kind of tanks we're talking about.
I don't claim that the military don't get it tough, but I wouldn't just write
off so easily what civilians have been doing for a while now. I think if you
looked into it there is stuff that could be learnt on both sides and that the
experiences are a lot more comparable than you think. For instance, long term
cruise scientists and Antarctic overwinterers suffer an extreme form of the
same psychological syndromes found in returning prisoners of war and highly
stressed military personnel returning from the bloodiest of
warzones... as result "on site councillors" are invariably ex-military
as they are the only ones qualified to deal with these problems.
Cheers
Actually, an interesting thing popped up like this in the Isaac Asimov story
"The Billiard Ball". An engineer built a device creating a perfect
no-gravity field in a small circle in the middle of a pool table. The
engineer assumed that that it would only counteract the earth's pull (think
'rubber-sheet universe' model). But he didn't take into effect the fact
that the earth is moving too, as well as the solar system, and the galaxy, and
the entire universe...
I think that grav vechiles would operate by creating a psudogravity field in
the opposite direction to the nearest source, probably co-ordinated by a
computer. However, this means that a grav vechile would be unable to work in
microgravity (space, high orbit) as its fields would be too weak to move the
vechile and overcome its intertia. Hence, this limits the vechile to an
atmospheric envelope for any serious operations.
Hydrogen is easy to obtain, however. Equip the vechile with solar panels and
an elecrolyser, and the crew can refuel during movement or breaks in combat.
Maybe the vechiles need better internal structuaral support to hold the grav
generators in the hull. Don't forget what happened to the SDF-1 in the
first ep of Robotech... turned on the drives, and the drive units ripped
themselves out of the hull and went up in the air...
--------------------------------------------
You received this from Alister Crowe
URL: http://www.users.bigpond.com/croweall/
ICQ: 77614478 AIM: Zeruelofmecha
--------------------------------------------
[quoted original message omitted]