[gurps] Military vs. Civilian TL

[midnightwind at comcast.net ()]

Hello all:

Has anyone looked at TLs in society from a military vs. civilian setting? Or do we feel this is already built-in by available equipment?

For example, is the relative technology the same for the Boeing 787 as it is for the F-22 Raptor? Comparing the same parts, of course. Engines, airframe, materials. Or is it more reasonable in creating a new society to say that Military likely has access to more advanced technology in certain areas? Certainly weapons/armor are available to civilians-- but it's rare, and illegal.

I'm especially looking at an advanced sci-fi society relative to (of course) starships. Is the Navy Destroyer really going to have the same M-Drive technology that the Luxury Liner is? Or is the Liner likely to use the cheaper version from the TL-1? In our society, one could argue that M-Drive 'technology' is the same, but one is for fuel economy and reliability and the other is for sheer thrust to weight and high performance. If there is going to be disparity, in what areas do you guys think it will be? How else can one address the differences one sees in RL examples of similar technology application?

I guess I wasn't thrilled with the Interstellar Wars treatment on this subject. I liked the 'Van Rijn' design concept from Space 3e better.

Thanks in advance,

-vk

--
"We are not permitted to choose
the frame of our destiny, but what
we put into it is ours." --Dag
Hammersjold

"When the rate of change outside
an organization exceeds the rate
of change inside it, then it is
not a matter of if, but when that
organization will fail." --Jack
Welch

"Just keep swimming/just keep
swimming/just keep swimming
swimming swimming..." --Dorie from
Finding Nemo

-------------- Original message ----------------------

Did anyone save a copy? I cannot find it anywhere.
Jay ~Meow!~
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

[Volker Bach]

I don't think that works. A societal TL reflects what that society is capable
of, not necessarily what is general practice. Thus, a society that has
reached TL8 on its own would be TL8 no matter whether it actually used TL7
engines in private cars or TL5 tin openers in its kitchens.

In any society where the government has significant control of technology, its
agents will be equipped with cutting edge tech. Imagine, on the other hand, a
Cyberpunk setting where the corporations give *their* agents the best gear.
Would you advocate a corporate/general TL split? I wouldn't.

Now, if for some reason the military, and only the military, had access to a
technology that was not just the most advanced, but based on breakthroughs
the rest of society is unaware of, you could justify a split TL. But unless
those UFOs at Area 51 and the HAARP orbital mind control rays are real, we
don't qualify IMO. The latest U-Boat design uses better fuel cells than the
local bus, but it's fuel cells. An F-22 uses jet engines that pack more power
into smaller space than an A 380, but they're jet engines. And I'm not at all
sold on the idea that the latest offerings of Boeing and Airbus are less
advanced than the latest warplanes. They just aim for different
specifications.

What I would do is allow for differences within a TL. Things can be built for
low price, ease of maintenance, ruggedness, energy efficiency, power,
compactness, emission standards, or a combination thereof, and that will be
reflected in the price and weight/size. I don't think anyone still builds TL6
or even early TL7 engines, anywhere.

Volker

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
Has anyone looked at TLs in society from a military vs. civilian setting?
Or do we feel this is already built-in by available equipment?
For example, is the relative technology the same for the Boeing 787 as it
is for the F-22 Raptor? Comparing the same parts, of course. Engines,
airframe, materials. Or is it more reasonable in creating a new society to
say that Military likely has access to more advanced technology in certain
areas? Certainly weapons/armor are available to civilians-- but it's rare,
and illegal.
I'm especially looking at an advanced sci-fi society relative to (of
course) starships. Is the Navy Destroyer really going to have the same
M-Drive technology that the Luxury Liner is? Or is the Liner likely to use
the cheaper version from the TL-1? In our society, one could argue that
M-Drive 'technology' is the same, but one is for fuel economy and
reliability and the other is for sheer thrust to weight and high
performance. If there is going to be disparity, in what areas do you guys
think it will be? How else can one address the differences one sees in RL
examples of similar technology application?
I guess I wasn't thrilled with the Interstellar Wars treatment on this
subject. I liked the 'Van Rijn' design concept from Space 3e better.
Thanks in advance,
-vk
--
"We are not permitted to choose
the frame of our destiny, but what
we put into it is ours." --Dag
Hammersjold
"When the rate of change outside
an organization exceeds the rate
of change inside it, then it is
not a matter of if, but when that
organization will fail." --Jack
Welch
"Just keep swimming/just keep
swimming/just keep swimming
swimming swimming..." --Dorie from
Finding Nemo
-------------- Original message ----------------------

Did anyone save a copy? I cannot find it anywhere.
Jay ~Meow!~
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

_______________________________________________
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

[midnightwind at comcast.net ()]

Volker:

Hey! Thanks for the response!
I'm pretty much in agreement, but within a G:Space framework, how does one reflect the differences in technological aims, as you call it? FrEx, looking at airliner engines vs. jet fighter engines. I can tell the difference, but how can that be represented in two starships using GURPS-like build rules?

Would you make a provision-- at a specific TL, an M-Drive can sacrifice thrust in exchange for decreased cost and/or improved reliability? And/or increases in thrust/unit M-Drive can be had at a given TL (up to 50%) for decreases in reliability, increases in cost?

-vk



-------------- Original message ----------------------

Post by Volker Bach
I don't think that works. A societal TL reflects what that society is capable
of, not necessarily what is general practice. Thus, a society that has
reached TL8 on its own would be TL8 no matter whether it actually used TL7
engines in private cars or TL5 tin openers in its kitchens.
In any society where the government has significant control of technology, its
agents will be equipped with cutting edge tech. Imagine, on the other hand, a
Cyberpunk setting where the corporations give *their* agents the best gear.
Would you advocate a corporate/general TL split? I wouldn't.
Now, if for some reason the military, and only the military, had access to a
technology that was not just the most advanced, but based on breakthroughs
the rest of society is unaware of, you could justify a split TL. But unless
those UFOs at Area 51 and the HAARP orbital mind control rays are real, we
don't qualify IMO. The latest U-Boat design uses better fuel cells than the
local bus, but it's fuel cells. An F-22 uses jet engines that pack more power
into smaller space than an A 380, but they're jet engines. And I'm not at all
sold on the idea that the latest offerings of Boeing and Airbus are less
advanced than the latest warplanes. They just aim for different
specifications.
What I would do is allow for differences within a TL. Things can be built for
low price, ease of maintenance, ruggedness, energy efficiency, power,
compactness, emission standards, or a combination thereof, and that will be
reflected in the price and weight/size. I don't think anyone still builds TL6
or even early TL7 engines, anywhere.
Volker

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
Has anyone looked at TLs in society from a military vs. civilian setting?
Or do we feel this is already built-in by available equipment?
For example, is the relative technology the same for the Boeing 787 as it
is for the F-22 Raptor? Comparing the same parts, of course. Engines,
airframe, materials. Or is it more reasonable in creating a new society to
say that Military likely has access to more advanced technology in certain
areas? Certainly weapons/armor are available to civilians-- but it's rare,
and illegal.
I'm especially looking at an advanced sci-fi society relative to (of
course) starships. Is the Navy Destroyer really going to have the same
M-Drive technology that the Luxury Liner is? Or is the Liner likely to use
the cheaper version from the TL-1? In our society, one could argue that
M-Drive 'technology' is the same, but one is for fuel economy and
reliability and the other is for sheer thrust to weight and high
performance. If there is going to be disparity, in what areas do you guys
think it will be? How else can one address the differences one sees in RL
examples of similar technology application?
I guess I wasn't thrilled with the Interstellar Wars treatment on this
subject. I liked the 'Van Rijn' design concept from Space 3e better.
Thanks in advance,
-vk
--
"We are not permitted to choose
the frame of our destiny, but what
we put into it is ours." --Dag
Hammersjold
"When the rate of change outside
an organization exceeds the rate
of change inside it, then it is
not a matter of if, but when that
organization will fail." --Jack
Welch
"Just keep swimming/just keep
swimming/just keep swimming
swimming swimming..." --Dorie from
Finding Nemo
-------------- Original message ----------------------

Did anyone save a copy? I cannot find it anywhere.
Jay ~Meow!~
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

_______________________________________________
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de
_______________________________________________
http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l

[Brandon Cope]

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
Hey! Thanks for the response!
I'm pretty much in agreement, but within a G:Space framework, how does one reflect the differences in technological aims, as you call it? FrEx, looking at airliner engines vs. jet fighter engines. I can tell the difference, but how can that be represented in two starships using GURPS-like build rules?

You could have the military engines 20% lighter but 50% more expensive.
--
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://www.geocities.com/copeab

[Michael Hopcroft]

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
Hey! Thanks for the response!
I'm pretty much in agreement, but within a G:Space framework, how does one reflect the differences in technological aims, as you call it? FrEx, looking at airliner engines vs. jet fighter engines. I can tell the difference, but how can that be represented in two starships using GURPS-like build rules?

You could have the military engines 20% lighter but 50% more expensive.

That rises an interesting point about the principle difference between
military and civilian gear.

In most cases, but especially in wartime, when the military asks for a
piece of technology to be built they will tell the designers what they
want it to do and only worry about the cost essentially after the fact.
Governments at war do not pinch pennies when it comes to weaponry when
their very survival is at stake.

Civilian technology (assuming any sort of market forces are at work) is
the exact opposite. The cost of production and distribution is one of
the MOST important consideration in technological development. Unlike
military applications, in the civilian world practicality and cost are
inextricably linked. something that does the job ten times better than
the last technology you used but is too expensive to use on a reasonable
scale is not doing the job at all. This is why the government can use
nuclear reactors for all kinds of purposes, but civilian uses of atomic
energy are much more difficult to justify. There are certainly practical
reasons why fission reactors are difficult to justify to generate
electricity, but the main reason we don't see nearly as many nuclear
power plants as previously is because they are so much more expensive to
operate than just about any other method of power generation.

Maybe that's why the people who want the nuclear power plants shut down
don't demand that the navy shut down all those submarines and aircraft
carriers that are powered essentially the same way. The Navy has no
reason to care how much it costs to operate the fleet if the alternative
is the government of the United States being destroyed....

[Volker Bach]

Post by Michael Hopcroft
Maybe that's why the people who want the nuclear power plants shut down
don't demand that the navy shut down all those submarines and aircraft
carriers that are powered essentially the same way. The Navy has no
reason to care how much it costs to operate the fleet if the alternative
is the government of the United States being destroyed....

As you pointed out, in military technology, cost is very much a secondary
factor, which is why I trust the US military to run its reactors properly. A
trust I am not exactly willing to extend to for-profit power companies.

Also, I know the USA have the financial resources to cover accident liability,
even for a big bang. But I doubt even companies like REW or E.on could cover
a Chernobyl-scale accident in, say, the Rhineland, Southern Britain or New
Jersey.

Volker






___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

[Volker Bach]

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
Hey! Thanks for the response!
I'm pretty much in agreement, but within a G:Space framework, how does one
reflect the differences in technological aims, as you call it? FrEx,
looking at airliner engines vs. jet fighter engines. I can tell the
difference, but how can that be represented in two starships using
GURPS-like build rules?
Would you make a provision-- at a specific TL, an M-Drive can sacrifice
thrust in exchange for decreased cost and/or improved reliability? And/or
increases in thrust/unit M-Drive can be had at a given TL (up to 50%) for
decreases in reliability, increases in cost?

I don't know the ruiles in G:Space, so I can't comment on those, but Iwould
allow for something along the lines of G:Vehicles 'ruggedised' - a cost and
weight multiplier that gives a certain effect. You could have such multiplier
sets for "cheap", "easy maintenance", "high power compact", "emission
controlled" and such.

That way, an F-22 engine would be "TL8 high power compact" while that of an A
380 would be "TL8 emission controlled fuel efficient" and an Antonov would be
"TL 7 ruggedised easy maintenance".

But for the hard numbers, you'll have to ask someone else.

Volker






___________________________________________________________
Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de

[Pauli Hakala]

Hey! Thanks for the response! I'm pretty much in agreement, but
within a G:Space framework, how does one reflect the differences in
technological aims, as you call it? FrEx, looking at airliner
engines vs. jet fighter engines. I can tell the difference, but how
can that be represented in two starships using GURPS-like build
rules?

Two words: Maintenance Space.

In a compact futuristic military design like an aerospace
(star)fighter, it is possible to pack more power into smaller
package simply by reducing or removing maintenance space from
the design. This is possible by making key components like
thrusters or reactors 'modular', as per the Module Slots rule
from Robots or Vehicles 2. In the hangar bay, it is possible to
simply take out the relevant component modules for maintenance
work or replacements.

A civilian design like a luxury liner is built for ongoing
maintenance and duration instead of high performance specs, and
has much less power density because more maintenance space is
needed. Basic propulsion technologies themselves being used by
civilian and military craft need not be any different for very
noticeable differences in performance.


-Pauli

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by Pauli Hakala
Two words: Maintenance Space.

Maintenance space has more to do with how something is intended to be
used than with military vs civilian. If you need something that can be
maintained while underway, you have long term access space. If you have
something that can be maintained back at a shop, you have short term.

[Pauli Hakala]

Post by Anthony Jackson

Post by Pauli Hakala
Two words: Maintenance Space.

Maintenance space has more to do with how something is intended to be
used than with military vs civilian. If you need something that can be
maintained while underway, you have long term access space. If you have
something that can be maintained back at a shop, you have short term.

Nonetheless, this is what brings about a large difference in
performance. Civilian shuttle the size of a military starfighter
most likely wont be built with so little maintenance space..

With the basic technological level staying the same, military
craft will still be built with entirely different design
specifications and concepts in mind as compared to civilian craft.


-Pauli

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by Pauli Hakala
Nonetheless, this is what brings about a large difference in
performance. Civilian shuttle the size of a military starfighter
most likely wont be built with so little maintenance space..

Actually, there's a good chance it will be. In any case, access space
doesn't really bring about a large difference in performance. It gives a
lot more performance at the same volume, but at the same mass the
performance isn't really changed, and outside of Traveller mass is what
mostly matters for spaceships.

[Pauli Hakala]

Post by Anthony Jackson

Post by Pauli Hakala
Nonetheless, this is what brings about a large difference in
performance. Civilian shuttle the size of a military starfighter
most likely wont be built with so little maintenance space..

Actually, there's a good chance it will be. In any case, access space
doesn't really bring about a large difference in performance. It gives a
lot more performance at the same volume, but at the same mass the
performance isn't really changed, and outside of Traveller mass is what
mostly matters for spaceships.

At the same mass performance is also changed, because a ship with
more volume due access space needs to put larger portion of it's
mass into hull, armor and surface features, and this slows it down
as compared to a ship with more compact design.

At the same volume removing access space can increase performance
by +200% or so. This is what I would call a large increase.

It is also possible to get some weight savings and performance
improvements by putting thrusters etc. into pods, but this is not
as radical increase in performance as making everything relevant
easily removable modules, since the pods increase the ships
surface area and thus increase the mass fraction of hull, armor
and surface features somewhat.

I know what I am writing about here, I have been making different
ship designs for a scifi-setting (3rd edition TL 10-11) of my own
for years, and the importance of access space has become very
obvious for ship performance specs. In practice, going modular
can give a starfighter 3G STL acceleration instead of just 1G
with full maintenance access space.


-Pauli

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by Pauli Hakala
At the same volume removing access space can increase performance
by +200% or so. This is what I would call a large increase.

Since you can't remove access space entirely for any vehicle which can
be maintained, this isn't a big deal. You should ignore the VE2 'pod'
rules, they're a design artifact which doesn't really reflect real-world
constraints.

Post by Pauli Hakala
I know what I am writing about here

I was talking about real constraints, not ones which are design system
artifacts.

[Kurt Feltenberger]

Has anyone done a Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B in Vehicles? I might have
need of one in a game and would hate to duplicate the wheel if
someone's already created one.

Thanks!

Kurt Feltenberger
***@blazenet.net
TEOTWAWKI Fiction And Discussion http://www.teotwawki.net

"To our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations,
may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!"
~Stephen Decatur

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Kurt Feltenberger
Has anyone done a Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B in Vehicles? I might have
need of one in a game and would hate to duplicate the wheel if
someone's already created one.

I've started work on it, but it's badly underweight right now. Also, I only
have a vague idea of the electronics suite it has.
--
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://www.geocities.com/copeab

[Kurt Feltenberger]

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Kurt Feltenberger
Has anyone done a Blackburn Buccaneer S.2B in Vehicles? I might have
need of one in a game and would hate to duplicate the wheel if
someone's already created one.

I've started work on it, but it's badly underweight right now. Also, I only
have a vague idea of the electronics suite it has.

This might help: http://www.blackburn-buccaneer.co.uk/ Andy, the
webmaster, is a font of knowledge and has answered all my questions
very quickly and completely.

Kurt Feltenberger
***@blazenet.net
TEOTWAWKI Fiction and Chat http://www.teotwawki.net

"To our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations,
may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong!"
~Stephen Decatur

[Pauli Hakala]

Post by Anthony Jackson

Post by Pauli Hakala
At the same volume removing access space can increase performance
by +200% or so. This is what I would call a large increase.

Since you can't remove access space entirely for any vehicle which can
be maintained, this isn't a big deal. You should ignore the VE2 'pod'
rules, they're a design artifact which doesn't really reflect real-world
constraints.

Pod construction rules are right there in the book. I've never
ignored them when I was writing up starfighter designs for GURPS,
and I really don't see why I should start ignoring them now..

Great many real world vehicle designs do use pods - if there was
no advantage at all to using pods, then why do so many real world
vehicles use them?

Post by Anthony Jackson

Post by Pauli Hakala
I know what I am writing about here

I was talking about real constraints, not ones which are design system
artifacts.

It would be unreasonable to just assume that everyone on this list
who uses Ve2 is an aircraft engineer. We ordinary gamers use the
system as is or patch it up with houserules if and when we see the
need to do so.. :)

Vaguely referring to 'real world constraints' or 'design system
artifacts' does not really convince me that something is wrong with
the Ve2 system. If you feel that there is an issue which needs to be
addressed, please do tell why something is wrong and how it can be
fixed?


-Pauli

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by Pauli Hakala
Great many real world vehicle designs do use pods - if there was
no advantage at all to using pods, then why do so many real world
vehicles use them?

Pods do have advantages with respect to access space. Those advantages
are just poorly represented by the way Vehicles handles them.

The basic point of access space is that maintenance crews need to be
able to reach the component they're working on, so the vehicle has
access space to make those components reachable. In general, a vehicle
with long term access space has spaces you can actually walk into, while
a vehicle with short term access space has spaces you can reach into or
possibly wiggle into, and a vehicle with no access space can only be
maintained by disassembling it. You basically need long term access
space for any component above a certain size (which depends on the
component, but one hullspace is fair).

Pods make the inside of a component easier to reach because they place
the guts of the component close to the surface. What this means is that
they only give you a benefit when the pod is small enough that the
insides can be reached from the outside.

You can get reasonable pods by saying pods have short term (not no)
access space, and then placing an upper limit on the size of a pod
(upper limit depends on what you're working on, but is generally less
than one hullspace in Space 3e terms).

[David Scheidt]

Post by Anthony Jackson

Post by Pauli Hakala
Great many real world vehicle designs do use pods - if there was
no advantage at all to using pods, then why do so many real world
vehicles use them?

Pods do have advantages with respect to access space. Those advantages
are just poorly represented by the way Vehicles handles them.
The basic point of access space is that maintenance crews need to be
able to reach the component they're working on, so the vehicle has
access space to make those components reachable. In general, a vehicle
with long term access space has spaces you can actually walk into, while
a vehicle with short term access space has spaces you can reach into or
possibly wiggle into, and a vehicle with no access space can only be
maintained by disassembling it. You basically need long term access
space for any component above a certain size (which depends on the
component, but one hullspace is fair).

A military might well consider it acceptable to have to completely
disassemble an engine to do maintance on it, if it meant the fighter
would be faster. At high enough tech, you can feed the removed
component into a automated repair machine, that disassembles, tests,
and reassembles, replacing anything that happens to need it.

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by David Scheidt
A military might well consider it acceptable to have to completely
disassemble an engine to do maintenance on it, if it meant the fighter
would be faster.

Not when you need to do maintenance every flight. It is, however,
generally considered acceptable on missiles and other expendable vehicles.

[Chris J. Whitcomb]

Post by David Scheidt

Post by Anthony Jackson

Post by Pauli Hakala
Great many real world vehicle designs do use pods - if there was
no advantage at all to using pods, then why do so many real world
vehicles use them?

Pods do have advantages with respect to access space. Those
advantages are just poorly represented by the way Vehicles handles
them. The basic point of access space is that maintenance crews need to
be
able to reach the component they're working on, so the vehicle has
access space to make those components reachable. In general, a
vehicle with long term access space has spaces you can actually walk
into, while a vehicle with short term access space has spaces you
can reach into or possibly wiggle into, and a vehicle with no access
space can only be maintained by disassembling it. You basically need
long term access space for any component above a certain size (which
depends on the component, but one hullspace is fair).

A military might well consider it acceptable to have to completely
disassemble an engine to do maintance on it, if it meant the fighter
would be faster. At high enough tech, you can feed the removed
component into a automated repair machine, that disassembles, tests,
and reassembles, replacing anything that happens to need it.

If going that route.... At a high enough tech, you can just spray on the
nanites and let them crawl around in the vehicle, repairing whatever isn't
in spec. Microscopic access space?

[Pauli Hakala]

Post by Anthony Jackson

Post by Pauli Hakala
Great many real world vehicle designs do use pods - if there was
no advantage at all to using pods, then why do so many real world
vehicles use them?

Pods do have advantages with respect to access space. Those advantages
are just poorly represented by the way Vehicles handles them.
The basic point of access space is that maintenance crews need to be
able to reach the component they're working on, so the vehicle has
access space to make those components reachable. In general, a vehicle
with long term access space has spaces you can actually walk into, while
a vehicle with short term access space has spaces you can reach into or
possibly wiggle into, and a vehicle with no access space can only be
maintained by disassembling it. You basically need long term access
space for any component above a certain size (which depends on the
component, but one hullspace is fair).
Pods make the inside of a component easier to reach because they place
the guts of the component close to the surface. What this means is that
they only give you a benefit when the pod is small enough that the
insides can be reached from the outside.
You can get reasonable pods by saying pods have short term (not no)
access space, and then placing an upper limit on the size of a pod
(upper limit depends on what you're working on, but is generally less
than one hullspace in Space 3e terms).

Short term access space is about equivalent to what one finds under
an average modern automobiles hood, right? (Roughly half of the engine
compartment is empty space for maintenance needs.)

I have seen some opened-up pictures of jet engine pods, and now
that I think of it, it seems fairly obvious that they do not
have nowhere near that much access space (+100%) in relation to
the engines overall volume - the empty space inside the jet
engine's tube is there for the airflow regardless of maintenance
needs, and so does not count as added maintenance access space..

(..I also have a hunch that Ve2 standard rules for jet engine pods
without the access space would provide fairly close +/-20% matches
with real world aircraft performance specs..)

Perhaps a case could be made that engines in the pods would not
require nearly as much access space as an internal short-occupancy
installation?

What if the engine stats in Ve2 already include the minimal
maintenance access space necessary for components built into pods?


-Pauli

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by Pauli Hakala
I have seen some opened-up pictures of jet engine pods, and now
that I think of it, it seems fairly obvious that they do not
have nowhere near that much access space (+100%) in relation to
the engines overall volume - the empty space inside the jet
engine's tube is there for the airflow regardless of maintenance
needs, and so does not count as added maintenance access space..

It acts as maintenance space, whether or not that's what it's intended
for. The +100% rule is only vaguely relevant to reality -- most cars
don't have that much access space either.

Post by Pauli Hakala
Perhaps a case could be made that engines in the pods would not
require nearly as much access space as an internal short-occupancy
installation?

They require less. It's nowhere near the difference seen in VE2, though.

[Onno Meyer]

Betreff: Re: [gurps] Military vs. Civilian TL
Datum: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:13 +0300
Perhaps a case could be made that engines in the pods would not
require nearly as much access space as an internal short-occupancy
installation?
What if the engine stats in Ve2 already include the minimal
maintenance access space necessary for components built into pods?
-Pauli

Pods place the access space (or at least most of it) outside the vehicle,
at a hefty penalty in surface area compared to a car engine, say.

Onno

[Pauli Hakala]

Post by Onno Meyer

Betreff: Re: [gurps] Military vs. Civilian TL
Datum: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:36:13 +0300
Perhaps a case could be made that engines in the pods would not
require nearly as much access space as an internal short-occupancy
installation?
What if the engine stats in Ve2 already include the minimal
maintenance access space necessary for components built into pods?
-Pauli

Pods place the access space (or at least most of it) outside the vehicle,
at a hefty penalty in surface area compared to a car engine, say.

Precisely.

I think the main question here is whether or not it is worth the
extra complexity to add a small volume fraction of access space
within the pods.. Based on a few jet engine pod pictures, it would
seem like about +20% to +25% volume or so.

As the pods are usually fairly small in relation to the vehicle
they are attached to, I don't think the +25% of access would
actually result in any noticeable differences in overall vehicle
performance.

Also, I would not be too certain about placing an upper limit of
500cf (one hullspace) on engine pod size.. Check this picture out;
<http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0046a.shtml>
This looks like a fairly new approximately 2 hull space volume
jet engine pod.

Seems that jet engine pods (not to mention the planes themselves)
have been growing in size as the technologies have improved..
I don't think a hard and fast fixed upper limit on pod size would
work well with Ve2, not with all of the TLs covered anyhow, and
not for all conceivable types of vehicles.

Some kind of an extra rule or guideline on how big a jet engine
pod can be in relation to the fuselage size could come in handy,
however. For one, it would seem ridiculous to design a pair of
jet engine pods with a total volume equal to the body size..


-Pauli

[Rupert Boleyn]

Post by Pauli Hakala
It is also possible to get some weight savings and performance
improvements by putting thrusters etc. into pods, but this is not
as radical increase in performance as making everything relevant
easily removable modules, since the pods increase the ships
surface area and thus increase the mass fraction of hull, armor
and surface features somewhat.
I know what I am writing about here, I have been making different
ship designs for a scifi-setting (3rd edition TL 10-11) of my own
for years, and the importance of access space has become very
obvious for ship performance specs. In practice, going modular
can give a starfighter 3G STL acceleration instead of just 1G
with full maintenance access space.

For modules to be easily removable you still need the components they
are part of in pods or surrounded by access spaces, unless you are
proposing half disassembling the craft to get the modules out, at which
point whether the components are modular or not isn't exactly relevant.

Besides, arguably modular construction is just as useful for civilain
designs as the same arguments about reduced hull and structure costs
apply, and being able to simply rip out a module and plug a new one in
will cut down on lost revenues due to repair times considerably, and
that's important ofr most civilian applications.

[Pauli Hakala]

Post by Rupert Boleyn

Post by Pauli Hakala
It is also possible to get some weight savings and performance
improvements by putting thrusters etc. into pods, but this is not
as radical increase in performance as making everything relevant
easily removable modules, since the pods increase the ships
surface area and thus increase the mass fraction of hull, armor
and surface features somewhat.
I know what I am writing about here, I have been making different
ship designs for a scifi-setting (3rd edition TL 10-11) of my own
for years, and the importance of access space has become very
obvious for ship performance specs. In practice, going modular
can give a starfighter 3G STL acceleration instead of just 1G
with full maintenance access space.

For modules to be easily removable you still need the components they
are part of in pods or surrounded by access spaces, unless you are
proposing half disassembling the craft to get the modules out, at which
point whether the components are modular or not isn't exactly relevant.

Ve2 rules do not require maintenance space within modules, and
components in a module do not need to be placed into a 'pod'.
A module is something that can be fairly easily taken out and
replaced with another compatible module. It is possible to design
the vehicle around the modules, so that the modules remain
accessible (through an armored hatch frex) without dismantling
the vehicle, in fact that seems to be the whole point of having
module slots in the first place.. Main drawback for using modules
is that easy removability of the module adds more complexity to
the components within, resulting in a +20% increase in cost - For
an expensive key component like thruster or reactor, this cost
increase can be quite substantial, so there's no such thing as
a free lunch here.

Think about it like this; a modular power plant is removed. When it
was installed in the vehicle, it had no maintenance access space
whatsoever, but after it is removed, it is possible to work all
around it doing maintenance work - there's a whole hangars worth
of access space around it when it is out, and if need be it can
even be taken apart and put back together all the while the
vehicle is out operating with a spare replacement module..

(Removal of a large module of course requires some maintenance
infrastructure, like cranes and winches, so it isn't possible
on smallest of the starports.)

Post by Rupert Boleyn
Besides, arguably modular construction is just as useful for civilain
designs as the same arguments about reduced hull and structure costs
apply, and being able to simply rip out a module and plug a new one in
will cut down on lost revenues due to repair times considerably, and
that's important ofr most civilian applications.

Craft designed for ongoing maintenance cannot depend on modular key
components (military or civilian alike). Civilian applications are
usually not as demanding on performance specs as military
applications are. Non-modular designs are also somewhat cheaper..
Even so, some short-occupancy civilian design concepts could benefit
from modular design, like small auxiliaries (lifeboats, small
shuttles) for a larger ship.. but concepts like a tramp freighter
most likely will go for endurance rather than high performance
specs. Civilian lifeboats and shuttles (modular or not) can in any
case easily get by with notably lower sAccel scores than military
starfighters, so pushing the envelope with maximum power density
is not really as necessary as cost-effectiveness is.

Also, civilian vehicles are usually off necessity cheaper than
military designs, simply because civilian buyers usually have much
less of a budget to spend on their fleet, and are concerned with
making a profit. Non-modular can be cheaper, if the lesser
performance is acceptable (for most civilian applications, it is).


-Pauli

[Eric Funk]

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
Has anyone looked at TLs in society from a military vs. civilian
setting? Or do we feel this is already built-in by available
equipment?
For example, is the relative technology the same for the Boeing 787
as it is for the F-22 Raptor? Comparing the same parts, of course.
Engines, airframe, materials. Or is it more reasonable in creating a
new society to say that Military likely has access to more advanced
technology in certain areas? Certainly weapons/armor are available
to civilians-- but it's rare, and illegal.

A civilian jet will use "Expensive" metal, while a fighter, "advanced"

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
I'm especially looking at an advanced sci-fi society relative to (of
course) starships. Is the Navy Destroyer really going to have the
same M-Drive technology that the Luxury Liner is? Or is the Liner
likely to use the cheaper version from the TL-1? In our society, one
could argue that M-Drive 'technology' is the same, but one is for
fuel economy and reliability and the other is for sheer thrust to
weight and high performance. If there is going to be disparity, in
what areas do you guys think it will be? How else can one address
the differences one sees in RL examples of similar technology
application?

GURPS has Thrusters versus Super Thrusters... the difference is energy
efficiency.

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
I guess I wasn't thrilled with the Interstellar Wars treatment on
this subject. I liked the 'Van Rijn' design concept from Space 3e
better.
Thanks in advance,
-vk

Traveller, the military uses TL12, while civilian, TL10.


Another option is "vehicle quality".

For +1 HT, and 1/4 the maintenance, double the price... (4 options in all.)

Military components are also likely to be Ruggedized, to resist damage and
keep operating when otherwise failing a HT roll.

[JL Hatlen Linnell]

Post by Eric Funk
A civilian jet will use "Expensive" metal, while a fighter, "advanced"

Oh no no no. A fighter jet will use "lowest bidder".

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
Has anyone looked at TLs in society from a military vs. civilian
setting? Or do we feel this is already built-in by available
equipment?

It is very rare for military and civilian equipment to be at different
TLs. The difference is that the technology is optimized for different
purposes. Typically, civilian equipment is optimized for cost, while
military equipment is optimized for performance. Generally speaking,
this means civilian equipment is cheaper and has lower maintenance
requirements (a supertanker has a crew of twenty. An aircraft carrier
has a crew of about three thousand. The supertanker is bigger), whereas
the military equipment has higher performance and is likely to withstand
abuse better.

Post by midnightwind at comcast.net ()
I'm especially looking at an advanced sci-fi society relative to (of
course) starships. Is the Navy Destroyer really going to have the
same M-Drive technology that the Luxury Liner is? Or is the Liner
likely to use the cheaper version from the TL-1?

The baseline tech will very likely be the same.

[Onno Meyer]

I generally agree with Volker, but there is one more point:

There are fields where the military design/testing/production/deployment
cycle cuts them off from the latest civilian, off-the-shelf technology.

Compare the components of a modern mobile phone and a current-issue
military radio. Sure, the radio is more rugged and more reliable,
but which is more modern?

Onno

[Anthony Jackson]

Post by Onno Meyer
Compare the components of a modern mobile phone and a current-issue
military radio. Sure, the radio is more rugged and more reliable,
but which is more modern?

I wouldn't necessarily bet on more reliable. It will handle abuse better
(more rugged), but when used as intended civilian stuff is often as or
more reliable than military.

[Eric Funk]

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb

Post by David Scheidt
A military might well consider it acceptable to have to completely
disassemble an engine to do maintance on it, if it meant the fighter
would be faster. At high enough tech, you can feed the removed
component into a automated repair machine, that disassembles, tests,
and reassembles, replacing anything that happens to need it.

If going that route.... At a high enough tech, you can just spray on
the nanites and let them crawl around in the vehicle, repairing
whatever isn't in spec. Microscopic access space?

Yes, TL13 "living metal" structures don't need access space for that reason.
VE 18.

[Pauli Hakala]

Post by Eric Funk

Post by Chris J. Whitcomb

Post by David Scheidt
A military might well consider it acceptable to have to completely
disassemble an engine to do maintance on it, if it meant the fighter
would be faster. At high enough tech, you can feed the removed
component into a automated repair machine, that disassembles, tests,
and reassembles, replacing anything that happens to need it.

If going that route.... At a high enough tech, you can just spray on
the nanites and let them crawl around in the vehicle, repairing
whatever isn't in spec. Microscopic access space?

Yes, TL13 "living metal" structures don't need access space for that
reason. VE 18.

And even at earlier TLs, 'Cyberswarms' (from GURPS Robots) can
perform some maintenance work with very minimal access space
(the microbots are about the size of small insects). Of course,
with their limited effective skill levels and tools they really
cannot effect any major repairs, but they should be able to do
routine maintenance within specific components.

Another thing to consider is that with sufficient skill level
several maintenance intervals can be fairly routinely skipped,
(at -3 penalty per each skipped interval). At higher TLs, neural
net skill programs running on military spacedock computers may
well have skill levels way above 20+ or so.. The thing is,
a large organization like a military only needs to get its hands
on just one high-skill neural net program - It can then be copied
and used everywhere within that organization.

Also, having automated hardware and droids disassemble and put
back together an engine is way, way cheaper than having a team
of human mechanics do it, so this might be a viable option for
a state-of-the-art starfighter.. It would be possible to have
several sets of modular components for each fighter in storage,
so that the fighters would be grounded for maintenance for
the minimum possible amount of time.


-Pauli

[Eric Funk]

Post by Pauli Hakala
Short term access space is about equivalent to what one finds under
an average modern automobiles hood, right? (Roughly half of the engine
compartment is empty space for maintenance needs.)

Compact cars might be defined as "no access space", a real pain to perform
full maintenance on.

I know many people have had to remove engines to perform the work.

Post by Pauli Hakala
I have seen some opened-up pictures of jet engine pods, and now
that I think of it, it seems fairly obvious that they do not
have nowhere near that much access space (+100%) in relation to
the engines overall volume - the empty space inside the jet
engine's tube is there for the airflow regardless of maintenance
needs, and so does not count as added maintenance access space..
(..I also have a hunch that Ve2 standard rules for jet engine pods
without the access space would provide fairly close +/-20% matches
with real world aircraft performance specs..)

Other problems:

being in pods reduces Body HP, reduces wing HP (IIRC, as it is due to Body
HP).

Lower Body HP means lower body HT.

Post by Pauli Hakala
Perhaps a case could be made that engines in the pods would not
require nearly as much access space as an internal short-occupancy
installation?

Perhaps they should be installed in a vehicle bay?

Post by Pauli Hakala
What if the engine stats in Ve2 already include the minimal
maintenance access space necessary for components built into pods?
From VE12, that is assumed. ST Access space is added after.

[Eric Funk]

Post by Pauli Hakala

Post by Eric Funk
Yes, TL13 "living metal" structures don't need access space for that
reason. VE 18.

And even at earlier TLs, 'Cyberswarms' (from GURPS Robots) can
perform some maintenance work with very minimal access space
(the microbots are about the size of small insects). Of course,
with their limited effective skill levels and tools they really
cannot effect any major repairs, but they should be able to do
routine maintenance within specific components.

that sounds right. Especially with Robotic hulls, where the control pathways
are included.

Post by Pauli Hakala
Another thing to consider is that with sufficient skill level
several maintenance intervals can be fairly routinely skipped,
(at -3 penalty per each skipped interval). At higher TLs, neural
net skill programs running on military spacedock computers may
well have skill levels way above 20+ or so.. The thing is,
a large organization like a military only needs to get its hands
on just one high-skill neural net program - It can then be copied
and used everywhere within that organization.

that does explain some kids Scifi shows where the vehicles are stored apart,
and they come together in an Action Sequence(tm)

This could also work with Traveller's "annual maintenance" plan, but is
inconvenient for most other universes to stop the ship for a week while it
is disassembled.

Post by Pauli Hakala
Also, having automated hardware and droids disassemble and put
back together an engine is way, way cheaper than having a team
of human mechanics do it, so this might be a viable option for
a state-of-the-art starfighter.. It would be possible to have
several sets of modular components for each fighter in storage,
so that the fighters would be grounded for maintenance for
the minimum possible amount of time.

Like in computer games where you buy "Mark III laser" unit, and can simply
swap it in a shop.

[Michael Layne]

This may sound like a foolish question, but what do the "+" suffixes on some
of the damage codes for firearms (in GURPS Firearms etc.) signify?

(For example, the SIG P-229 in .40 S&W does 2d+ damage...)

I don't recall this from my old edition of High-Tech.

Is this some 4th Edition thing (I don't yet have 4th Ed.) or have I
simply missed a footnote somewhere?

Michael Layne
***@hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

[Brandon Cope]

Post by Michael Layne
This may sound like a foolish question, but what do the "+" suffixes on some
of the damage codes for firearms (in GURPS Firearms etc.) signify?

It means that, after DR is subtracted from the damage roll, the result is
multiplied by 1.5. A "++" means the remaining damage is multiplied by 2. A "-"
means the remaining damage is halved.
--
A generous and sadistic GM,
Brandon Cope

http://www.geocities.com/copeab

[Onno Meyer]

Post by Brandon Cope

Post by Michael Layne
This may sound like a foolish question, but what do the "+" suffixes on

some

Post by Michael Layne
of the damage codes for firearms (in GURPS Firearms etc.) signify?

It means that, after DR is subtracted from the damage roll, the result is
multiplied by 1.5. A "++" means the remaining damage is multiplied by 2. A "-"
means the remaining damage is halved.

A sidebar, not a footnote :-)

IIRC you can find it in Compendium II, and possibly others as well.