Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "Jason I. Gonding" <templar@****.NET>
Subject: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:03:19 -0500
Found this on the SJGames Web page. I find it rather disturbing that
we're building guns like this today when there are no guns like this one
in SR.

http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9809STMIP.html


Jason
Message no. 2
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:30:23 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 04:03 PM 1/28/99 -0500, Jason wrote:
>Found this on the SJGames Web page. I find it rather disturbing that
>we're building guns like this today when there are no guns like this
one
>in SR.
>
>http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9809STMIP.html

Oh, the OCIW again. This was the topic of a big discussion on the list
a few months back. Adam Getchell had done up some stats based off of
the assumption that the shells the OCIW fires are akin to assault
cannon rounds. Another school of thought saw this as more akin to a
rangefinder-linked grenade launcher firing air-timed mini grenades.

Either way, the ammount of firepower the OCIW represents is most
likely more than a corporation would want around it's facilities. A
bullet does less collateral damage than an air-burst shell. Corp
Security might use this sort of weapon for perimeter patrol of their
high security faclities, but you wouldn't see it around sensitve
equipment or personnel.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNrDW46PbvUVI86rNAQEaPwQAleBINRKNOtjyZRM4KcTdzUPc7EmZJQbx
54SvMLPa2J6zZTOHtt5Cxmo7GFQFZ6U6+V9SOhEDT4/7zrfzhoQMgPOYdwYO2bzW
S7QdrekPyUklmXeMzlf5/x6VtKRPs08P1D4KC+oH25RQztYbSui/cLBqUg1pOJjM
sGuaEKo5RHg=
=6Y/I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 3
From: nocturnal@*******.NET
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:47:05 -0600
Jason I. Gonding wrote:
>
> Found this on the SJGames Web page. I find it rather disturbing that
> we're building guns like this today when there are no guns like this one
> in SR.

Oh hell yeah. I have just been enlightened *drools*.. As soon as I
can, I'm gonna introduce this to my GM; doubtful that he'll approve
usage of it, but hey, it's 2060, and the worst he can say is No.

Nocturnal
Message no. 4
From: nocturnal@*******.NET
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:54:02 -0600
Paul Gettle wrote:
>
> Oh, the OCIW again. This was the topic of a big discussion on the list
> a few months back. Adam Getchell had done up some stats based off of
> the assumption that the shells the OCIW fires are akin to assault
> cannon rounds. Another school of thought saw this as more akin to a
> rangefinder-linked grenade launcher firing air-timed mini grenades.
>
> Either way, the ammount of firepower the OCIW represents is most
> likely more than a corporation would want around it's facilities. A
> bullet does less collateral damage than an air-burst shell. Corp
> Security might use this sort of weapon for perimeter patrol of their
> high security faclities, but you wouldn't see it around sensitve
> equipment or personnel.

It doesnt JUST fire the air-burst shells... it fires 5.56 mm rounds as
well (it's like one hell of an m16/m203)

Noc
Message no. 5
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 14:57:57 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, nocturnal@*******.NET wrote:
/
/ Jason I. Gonding wrote:
/ >
/ > Found this on the SJGames Web page. I find it rather disturbing that
/ > we're building guns like this today when there are no guns like this one
/ > in SR.
/
/ Oh hell yeah. I have just been enlightened *drools*.. As soon as I
/ can, I'm gonna introduce this to my GM; doubtful that he'll approve
/ usage of it, but hey, it's 2060, and the worst he can say is No.

You do realize of course that if your character walks around with a Big
Gun(TM) then it's quite likely that the NPCs will start carrying Big
Guns(TM). Not that there's anything wrong with that <EGMG>.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 6
From: "Davidson, Chris" <Christopher.Davidson@***.BOEING.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 13:55:10 -0800
> You do realize of course that if your character walks around with a Big
> Gun(TM) then it's quite likely that the NPCs will start carrying Big
> Guns(TM). Not that there's anything wrong with that <EGMG>.
>
Just faster combat scene's. :)

-Toffer
Message no. 7
From: nocturnal@*******.NET
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 16:01:52 -0600
David Buehrer wrote:

> You do realize of course that if your character walks around with a Big
> Gun(TM) then it's quite likely that the NPCs will start carrying Big
> Guns(TM). Not that there's anything wrong with that <EGMG>.
>
> -David B.
> --
> "Earn what you have been given."
> --
> email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
> http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm

Well... the campaign I run in has been pushed and pushed to the point
now where the average attribute is around 10. The GM modified the
rules for Vampires and such, so, I have one hell of a vampire (not
book made). It's necessary if I wanna survive the Fomori Troll's
attempts to rip me in half. (I think the campaign lacks a racial max).
The GM also modified it so the standard weapon of the SWAT team is the
Stoner M107. Everything is extreme; honestly, though, I would like to
go back to a normal street level campaign. There are too many combat
monsters playing to accomplish that... though the GM will start
limiting things in two months if they continue on the path they are
going.

Nocturnal
Message no. 8
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:17:59 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 03:54 PM 1/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
>> Oh, the OCIW again. This was the topic of a big discussion on the
list
>> a few months back. Adam Getchell had done up some stats based off
of
>> the assumption that the shells the OCIW fires are akin to assault
>> cannon rounds. Another school of thought saw this as more akin to a
>> rangefinder-linked grenade launcher firing air-timed mini grenades.
<<Snip: higher collateral damage as an in-game explanation why this
gun hasn't been seen in any of the sourcebooks yet>>

>It doesnt JUST fire the air-burst shells... it fires 5.56 mm rounds
as
>well (it's like one hell of an m16/m203)

Yes, but the 5.56 mm rounds are a secondary ordinance. In SR, for
example, the M-22 or the Ares Alpha can fire grenades, but people
think of them as assault rifles first. This however, is a bit
different. instead of an assault rifle with an underbarrel launcher,
this is an launcher with an underbarrel burst fire weapon.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNrDiBqPbvUVI86rNAQHS/AP+Pk7iMNbAthsrxw9FhELCvbulzOsppUS4
o3pXsMNnsQqVXoe2fSY6/yqGlRV9JzcL25cMZvNULh5acyF71l0kCh2ZI8HzyX5z
DxT846Sg+gS/Lk+UNPKfcKeMmHgjSMY+iFddU8gf+ldyJGoLsrytdmhVOyLb2eS3
TlGRs/wRiI0=
=STrH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 9
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:27:08 EST
In a message dated 1/28/1999 4:33:53 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
RunnerPaul@*****.COM writes:

>
> Either way, the ammount of firepower the OCIW represents is most
> likely more than a corporation would want around it's facilities. A
> bullet does less collateral damage than an air-burst shell. Corp
> Security might use this sort of weapon for perimeter patrol of their
> high security faclities, but you wouldn't see it around sensitve
> equipment or personnel.

I *completely* disagree here on the point of how much firepower a corporation
does and does NOT want around it's various facitilities. the OCIW, IMO,
represents what would be *our* first stage equivalent to the "controlled fire"
situations. Hell, the only thing that gun is missing IMO is FDDM.

-K
Message no. 10
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:31:29 EST
In a message dated 1/28/1999 5:19:03 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
RunnerPaul@*****.COM writes:

>
> Yes, but the 5.56 mm rounds are a secondary ordinance. In SR, for
> example, the M-22 or the Ares Alpha can fire grenades, but people
> think of them as assault rifles first. This however, is a bit
> different. instead of an assault rifle with an underbarrel launcher,
> this is an launcher with an underbarrel burst fire weapon.

VERY good noticing of this distinction to btw Paul. From a gun builder's POV,
that distinction can mean the world (and yes, this is a hint to two particular
people on this list).

-K
Message no. 11
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:10:15 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 05:27 PM 1/28/99 -0500, -K wrote:
>> Either way, the ammount of firepower the OCIW represents is most
>> likely more than a corporation would want around it's facilities.
A
>> bullet does less collateral damage than an air-burst shell. Corp
>> Security might use this sort of weapon for perimeter patrol of
their
>> high security faclities, but you wouldn't see it around sensitve
>> equipment or personnel.
>
>I *completely* disagree here on the point of how much firepower a
corporation
>does and does NOT want around it's various facitilities. the OCIW,
IMO,
>represents what would be *our* first stage equivalent to the
"controlled fire"
>situations. Hell, the only thing that gun is missing IMO is FDDM.

A poor choice of words on my part perhaps. I meant that it probably
wouldn't be seen inside a facility. Outside patrols, perhaps, where a
stray shot might only ruin landscaping or building facades. Inside?
Around expensive-to-replace computers/scientific research
equipment/the CEO's prized statue collection?

Even with its accuracy, a weapon like the OCIW will ocasionally miss.
Keeping intruding shadowrunners from stealing that expensive new
prototype that R&D spend months developing is one thing, but if the
prototype is destroyed by friendly fire in the process, it becomes
something of a Pyrrhic victory.

Then again, the "If I can't have it, no one will" mentality is a
reasonable attitude for some corps.

Just some points to consider.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNrDuRaPbvUVI86rNAQEbuQP/acFrKkdfHDqcsvzGp/gpgmmlkEdIfAd/
YDrBV4dxWsCm9VHKuxho7HoMPvvNvUqow+XQPTDH/Rj38eciGFQrqP8eHPA8k9FV
8p2G28umCzY6P43Komyg+pfOF3vuNIEd7add58HXpRiPF6koFPnD+khCgwygGiHQ
xtibt5gHZFM=
=XYlx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 12
From: Steve Collins <einan@*********.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:31:36 -0500
On 1/28/99 4:47 pm, nocturnal@*******.NET said:

>Jason I. Gonding wrote:
>>
>> Found this on the SJGames Web page. I find it rather disturbing that
>> we're building guns like this today when there are no guns like this one
>> in SR.
>
>Oh hell yeah. I have just been enlightened *drools*.. As soon as I
>can, I'm gonna introduce this to my GM; doubtful that he'll approve
>usage of it, but hey, it's 2060, and the worst he can say is No.
>
>Nocturnal
>

No he could say yes and then make you regret having and not let you get
rid of it <EGMG>

Steve
Message no. 13
From: nocturnal@*******.NET
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 17:21:35 -0600
Steve Collins wrote:
> No he could say yes and then make you regret having and not let you get
> rid of it <EGMG>
>
> Steve

Oh yeah. Good point.

Noc
Message no. 14
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:57:14 EST
In a message dated 1/28/99 1:56:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nocturnal@*******.NET writes:

> It doesnt JUST fire the air-burst shells... it fires 5.56 mm rounds as
> well (it's like one hell of an m16/m203)
or the Ares Alpha :-)
Of coourse it does seperate into 2 component systems
Message no. 15
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:01:21 EST
I'll just slip this in here, there is also a new rifle shotgun. Civilian mind
you (and not the first by any stretch)
It is a pump 12 gauge, with a .223 barrel that uses the same pump and
trigger assembly (so one or the other) and uses AR/M-16 mags. Sur eit is slow
firing (intended as a camp gun I believe) but still cool because its legal to
have right now.


Schizi (AKA VoceNoctum)
My Shadowrun webpage
http://members.aol.com/vocenoctum
Message no. 16
From: Tim Serpas <wretch@**.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:23:58 -0600
Oh, here's some more new gun tech I have heard of.
Saw it in Guns-n-Ammo or something like it. I like
to browse 'em at the Super Market.

It's a new pistol/SMG bullet called .224 BOZ.
Pretty sure it was BOZ. In any case, the
projectile itself is .224 inches across (duh),
but the cartridge - where the powder is - is
10mm across. So it's kind of a super magnum
light pistol round and really acts more like
a rifle round.

Pne of the stats the gave was that it main-
tained a velocity of like 2000 fps at the
same range where an M-16 would have the same
velocity and a typical pistol round - I think
they used 9mm here - would be down at 1200
or so.

The idea seemed to be to counter-act things
like those bank robbers with the body armor
who waded through police fire.

Peace, Love and Artichokes.
Tim Serpas
wretch@**.com
Message no. 17
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:34:01 -0600
From: nocturnal@*******.NET
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 3:47 PM

>Oh hell yeah. I have just been enlightened *drools*.. As soon
>as I can, I'm gonna introduce this to my GM; doubtful that he'll
>approve usage of it, but hey, it's 2060, and the worst he can
>say is No.

Actually, the worst he can say is, "No, you can't have it, but the corp
security weenies you're likely to meet sure as hell will be." This is
one of the things that can put the fear of God into a player is knowing
he's *seriously* out-matched....

Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 18
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:34:10 -0600
From: Davidson, Chris
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 3:55 PM

>> You do realize of course that if your character walks around
>> with a Big Gun(TM) then it's quite likely that the NPCs will
>> start carrying Big Guns(TM). Not that there's anything wrong
>> with that <EGMG>.
>
>Just faster combat scene's. :)

Much, much faster, if they use Adam Getchell's stats for the weapon.
That thing is certifiably deadly.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 19
From: Theo Karmdeth <theo@*****.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 02:44:17 GMT
>>It doesnt JUST fire the air-burst shells... it fires 5.56 mm rounds
>>well (it's like one hell of an m16/m203)
>Yes, but the 5.56 mm rounds are a secondary ordinance. In SR, for

Excuse me? a secondary ordinance? From the weapon design and stated
implimentation it is obvious that the air burst shell are the 'just in
case'. With only 6 rounds, and an expected use of terrorist/warlord
takeovers, it seems that the smaller round will be used the most.

I could be very wrong and im sure i will be told if i am :>

Also, one thing that always seems to happen. What the public are
told/shown is never the best america has. It has been proven with
their aircraft alone (stealth bombers were dreams of the paranoid).
If they are showing us this weapon, anyone want to guess at what they
REALLY have?

And to keep it SRish, anyone got the stats for this weapon?

Theo Karmdeth
www.qflow.com.au/~cullyn
Message no. 20
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:57:51 -0600
From: Steve Collins
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 5:32 PM

>>...the worst he can say is No.
>
>No he could say yes and then make you regret having and not let you get
>rid of it <EGMG>

Oh, that's even worse than the situation I came up with....

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 21
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:07:45 EST
In a message dated 1/28/1999 9:35:26 PM US Eastern Standard Time, remo@***.NET
writes:

>
> Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?
>
Actually, *I* would if you have 'em still Patrick.

-K
Message no. 22
From: Theo Karmdeth <theo@*****.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:13:09 GMT
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:07:45 EST, you wrote:

>In a message dated 1/28/1999 9:35:26 PM US Eastern Standard Time, =
remo@***.NET
>writes:
>
>>
>> Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?
>>
>Actually, *I* would if you have 'em still Patrick.
>
>-K
Yes please...

Theo
Message no. 23
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:17:52 -0500
At 02:44 AM 1/29/99 GMT, Theo Karmdeth wrote:
>
>Also, one thing that always seems to happen. What the public are
>told/shown is never the best america has. It has been proven with
>their aircraft alone (stealth bombers were dreams of the paranoid).
>If they are showing us this weapon, anyone want to guess at what they
>REALLY have?

As a rule of thumb, take the bleeding-edge SOTA available to the public and
advance it by 10 years, and that represents the capabilities open to the US
Gov't (or any other government with good access to high tech). One rumor
I've heard that there's no way to confirm is that US fighter planes use
biochemical-based microprocessors, because they're better than
silicon-based and because they will decompose if the plane is lost,
destroying the data and firmware encoded therein.


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 24
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:25:17 -0600
From: K in the Shadows
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:08 PM

>> Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?
>
>Actually, *I* would if you have 'em still Patrick.

Aw, hell, Keith, I hoold on to everything. Ask McCormick; he's seen my
place....

They're wafting their way to your private mail as we speak.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 25
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:35:42 -0600
From: Theo Karmdeth
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:13 PM

>>> Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?
>>
>>Actually, *I* would if you have 'em still Patrick.
>
>Yes please...

Hmmmmm. Multiple requests. If I get a few more, I'll just post it back
to the list, if that doesn't offend too many people.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 26
From: Dave Post <caelric@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:45:28 -0800
At 10:17 PM 1/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At 02:44 AM 1/29/99 GMT, Theo Karmdeth wrote:
>>
>>Also, one thing that always seems to happen. What the public are
>>told/shown is never the best america has. It has been proven with
>>their aircraft alone (stealth bombers were dreams of the paranoid).
>>If they are showing us this weapon, anyone want to guess at what they
>>REALLY have?
>
>As a rule of thumb, take the bleeding-edge SOTA available to the public and
>advance it by 10 years, and that represents the capabilities open to the US
>Gov't (or any other government with good access to high tech). One rumor
>I've heard that there's no way to confirm is that US fighter planes use
>biochemical-based microprocessors, because they're better than
>silicon-based and because they will decompose if the plane is lost,
>destroying the data and firmware encoded therein.
>

Wow....umm, you guys have seen too many episodes of X-Files. I hate to
disillusion you, but, umm, there really aren't all these secrets in the
gov't, or in the military. I've been in the Marines for nine years now.
Let me tell you where we get alot of the highest-tech things we use: a
program called COTS. Sounds secret, high tech, doesn't it? It means
commercial off-the-shelf. That means, since there isn't anything
comparable in the gov't inventory that compares, we buy it from Radio
Shack, or some such. Pretty cool, huh?

Now, admittedely, you can't buy something like stealth technology this way,
but neither does it compare to what you might see in the movies.

Another thing: there is no such thing as secret assassins that work for
NSA. Another rumour that sounds good. Oh well

Dave
Message no. 27
From: Adam J <adamj@*********.HTML.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:55:10 -0700
At 21:35 1/28/99 -0600, Patrick Goodman wrote:

>Hmmmmm. Multiple requests. If I get a few more, I'll just post it back
>to the list, if that doesn't offend too many people.

I wouldn't mind seeing it myself.

Post it -- I'll unsub any that complain ;-)

-Adam
Notice the smiley.
--
< http://shadowrun.html.com/tss / adamj@*********.html.com >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader / TSA Co-Admin / ICQ# 2350330 >
< FreeRPG & Shadowrun Webring Co-Admin / The Shadowrun Supplemental >
< ShadowFAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/shadowfaq >
< "I know one thing, it's about damn time I got new entrance music.">
< -Mankind, 01/10/99 RAW is WAR. >
Message no. 28
From: "Frank Pelletier (Trinity)" <fpelletier@******.USHERB.CA>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:56:42 -0500
Adam J <adamj@*********.HTML.COM> once wrote,

>>Hmmmmm. Multiple requests. If I get a few more, I'll just post it back
>>to the list, if that doesn't offend too many people.
>
>I wouldn't mind seeing it myself.

I don't want to see it...damn munchie guns again...

>Post it -- I'll unsub any that complain ;-)

Huh... never mind... I ain't saying shit... :)

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" -M. Gandhi

Trinity on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 29
From: Adam J <adamj@*********.HTML.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:01:59 -0700
At 19:45 1/28/99 -0800, Dave Post wrote:

>Another thing: there is no such thing as secret assassins that work for
>NSA. Another rumour that sounds good. Oh well

But.. errr.. if they're secret.. maybe they're a secret from you, too.

:)

-Adam J

--
< http://shadowrun.html.com/tss / adamj@*********.html.com >
< ShadowRN Assistant Fearless Leader / TSA Co-Admin / ICQ# 2350330 >
< FreeRPG & Shadowrun Webring Co-Admin / The Shadowrun Supplemental >
< ShadowFAQ: http://shadowrun.html.com/shadowfaq >
< "I know one thing, it's about damn time I got new entrance music.">
< -Mankind, 01/10/99 RAW is WAR. >
Message no. 30
From: Theo Karmdeth <theo@*****.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:56:46 GMT
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:45:28 -0800, you wrote:

>At 10:17 PM 1/28/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>At 02:44 AM 1/29/99 GMT, Theo Karmdeth wrote:
>>>Also, one thing that always seems to happen. What the public are
>>>told/shown is never the best america has. It has been proven with
>>>their aircraft alone (stealth bombers were dreams of the paranoid).
>>>If they are showing us this weapon, anyone want to guess at what they
>>>REALLY have?
>>As a rule of thumb, take the bleeding-edge SOTA available to the public=
and
>>advance it by 10 years, and that represents the capabilities open to =
the US
>>Gov't (or any other government with good access to high tech). One =
rumor
>>I've heard that there's no way to confirm is that US fighter planes use
>>biochemical-based microprocessors, because they're better than
>>silicon-based and because they will decompose if the plane is lost,
>>destroying the data and firmware encoded therein.
>Wow....umm, you guys have seen too many episodes of X-Files. I hate to
>disillusion you, but, umm, there really aren't all these secrets in the
>gov't, or in the military. I've been in the Marines for nine years now.
>Let me tell you where we get alot of the highest-tech things we use: a
>program called COTS. Sounds secret, high tech, doesn't it? It means
>commercial off-the-shelf. That means, since there isn't anything
>comparable in the gov't inventory that compares, we buy it from Radio
>Shack, or some such. Pretty cool, huh?
>Dave
Of course this will be the case for a few, maybe even many items. Why
should the govt spend money making something that is already
developed.

But i remember as well as anyone else, that 8-10 years ago when the
low budget TV programs were telling us of these new *radar
undetectable* planes that could get ontop of a target and blow it to
hell while no one was aware it was even there. And these people are
called paranoid, in need of treatment, and the government states they
are not even working on that sort of idea.
And now those planes are at airshows :>

Ive seen a couple of low budget TV programs recently on how the
Americans are testing new ultra-sonic planes that go at 8-15 Times the
speed of sound. Of course, the people making these programs are
paranoid, in need of help, and of course the American Govt is stating
that they are not even working on that sort of idea.

Does this sound like we are going round in a circle ?

Ohh.. and this is said just to bring up the fact that, the government
is not as friendly, and revealing as they would like us to believe.
They do work on things without telling us, they do test things they
dont tell us about, and the president is just a dragon waiting for a
bullet :>

-The slightly less than convinced citizen, Theo.
Message no. 31
From: Dave Post <caelric@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:16:34 -0800
At 03:56 AM 1/29/99 GMT, you wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:45:28 -0800, you wrote:
>But i remember as well as anyone else, that 8-10 years ago when the
>low budget TV programs were telling us of these new *radar
>undetectable* planes that could get ontop of a target and blow it to
>hell while no one was aware it was even there. And these people are
>called paranoid, in need of treatment, and the government states they
>are not even working on that sort of idea.
>And now those planes are at airshows :>
>
>Ive seen a couple of low budget TV programs recently on how the
>Americans are testing new ultra-sonic planes that go at 8-15 Times the
>speed of sound. Of course, the people making these programs are
>paranoid, in need of help, and of course the American Govt is stating
>that they are not even working on that sort of idea.
>
>Does this sound like we are going round in a circle ?
>
>Ohh.. and this is said just to bring up the fact that, the government
>is not as friendly, and revealing as they would like us to believe.
>They do work on things without telling us, they do test things they
>dont tell us about, and the president is just a dragon waiting for a
>bullet :>
>
>-The slightly less than convinced citizen, Theo.
>

Of course they work on things they don't tell us about. You think the
people that spy on America don't read the trade journals, go to air show,
etc...? Heck, WE do that...its one of the greatest sources of information .

But, really, it's NOT like the X-Files. There is no great conspiracy. Of
course, I work for the gov't myself, so I guess that makes me an unreliable
source. Oh well.

By the way, I belive I read an article about that plane you mentioned. I
think it was in Popular Science.

Dave
Message no. 32
From: "D. Ghost" <dghost@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:53:25 -0600
On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 20:34:01 -0600 Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET> writes:
<SNIP>
>Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?

Actually, I also came up with stats for the OICW that were less severe
than Adam's stats. If you want those too, I can send them.

--
D. Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, RuPixel)
"We called him Mother Superior because of the length of his habit" --
Trainspotting
"A magician is always 'touching' himself" --Page 123, Grimoire (2nd
Edition)

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Message no. 33
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:25:19 -0600
From: Adam J
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:55 PM

>>Hmmmmm. Multiple requests. If I get a few more, I'll just post
>>it back to the list, if that doesn't offend too many people.
>
>I wouldn't mind seeing it myself.
>
>Post it -- I'll unsub any that complain ;-)

Consider it done.

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 34
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 22:26:53 -0600
From: D. Ghost
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:53 PM

>>Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?
>
>Actually, I also came up with stats for the OICW that were less severe
>than Adam's stats. If you want those too, I can send them.

Personally, I like the severe stats myself. <eg>

--
(>) Texas 2-Step
El Paso: Never surrender. Never forget. Never forgive.
Message no. 35
From: K in the Shadows <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:48:25 EST
In a message dated 1/28/1999 11:21:20 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

>
> Actually, I also came up with stats for the OICW that were less severe
> than Adam's stats. If you want those too, I can send them.
>
Sure, send 'em to me as well D. Ghost. The Gear sections on HHH are the *one*
area needing to be filled out some more...

-K
Message no. 36
From: Michael vanHulst <Schizi@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:52:06 EST
In a message dated 1/28/99 6:24:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, wretch@**.COM
writes:

> It's a new pistol/SMG bullet called .224 BOZ.
> Pretty sure it was BOZ. In any case, the
> projectile itself is .224 inches across (duh),
> but the cartridge - where the powder is - is
> 10mm across. So it's kind of a super magnum
> light pistol round and really acts more like
> a rifle round.
yeah, the .224 Boz, a 5.56 bullet in a necked down 10mm case. They use a 6 or
7" barreled 1911 built by Briley I think (makers of the assorted color frames
for some reason)

Armor piercing and definalty over penetrating. If you are unarmored (and from
what they say even if you are armored) it will whiz through you, hopefully
(for the shooter) transfering enough through hydrostatic shock to slow you
down. It is designed and used for AP in hostage situations, and is definetly
mil-only stuff.


Schizi (AKA VoceNoctum)
My Shadowrun webpage
http://members.aol.com/vocenoctum
Message no. 37
From: Steven McCormick <stardust@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:08:31 -0600
At 09:25 PM 1/28/99 -0600, you wrote:
>From: K in the Shadows
>Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:08 PM
>
>>> Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?
>>
>>Actually, *I* would if you have 'em still Patrick.
>
>Aw, hell, Keith, I hoold on to everything. Ask McCormick; he's seen my
>place....
>

Scary, reeally scary. :)

BlueMule
Message no. 38
From: hivemind <hivemind@********.RR.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:28:19 -0600
From: Patrick Goodman <remo@***.NET>
To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET <SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium


>>>> Would you like a copy of Adam G's stats for the OICW Block 4?

I would also be interested, if you don't mind.

hivemind
Message no. 39
From: hivemind <hivemind@********.RR.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:32:00 -0600
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Post <caelric@****.COM>

>snip debunking
>
>Another thing: there is no such thing as secret assassins that work for
>NSA. Another rumour that sounds good. Oh well
>
>Dave

ROTFLMAO!!!

hivemind
Message no. 40
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:39:11 -0500
> Another thing: there is no such thing as secret assassins that work for
> NSA.

"Sorry, ma'am, but the secret assassins are no longer kept here. We moved
them over to the treasury department."
Message no. 41
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 00:43:05 -0500
> Found this on the SJGames Web page. I find it rather disturbing that
> we're building guns like this today when there are no guns like this one
> in SR.
>
> http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/sci/9809STMIP.html

The above article mentions this rifle as being a winner of a contest the
military held. Not being as much of a gun bunny as some of you, I seemed to
recall a contest the military held where one of the goals was that the rifle
had to hold at least 100 rounds. Am I hallucinating? Did this contest
exists? What happened to it?

Wordman
Message no. 42
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:36:02 -0500
At 08:16 PM 1/28/99 -0800, Dave Post wrote:
>
>Of course they work on things they don't tell us about. You think the
>people that spy on America don't read the trade journals, go to air show,
>etc...? Heck, WE do that...its one of the greatest sources of information .
>
>But, really, it's NOT like the X-Files. There is no great conspiracy. Of
>course, I work for the gov't myself, so I guess that makes me an unreliable
>source. Oh well.

Ummm... Just for the record, when I cited the 10-year advance on the SOTA,
I wasn't referring to Secret Government Conspiracies or anything like that.
I was referring to the Government pumping mega-bucks into advanced
technologies and developing high-end systems using cost-prohibitive
technologies. And yes, these programs would be classified, and your
average USMC foot-slogger won't be seeing these. Most of these kinds of
developments would be going into the intel side of the house. Stuff like
next-gen supercomputers for codebreaking, imaging technologies and
enhancement techniques for overhead imagery, advanced surveillance and
countersurveillance tech, and so forth.

FWIW, I agree with you on the conspiracy-minded folks out there. I mean,
how many folks spent years driving out to the edges of Area 51 to watch
lights in the sky making "impossible" maneuvers that we now know are
child's play for vectored thrust planes? (Gee, guess what they were
probably testing?) Occam's Razor, folks, the simplest possible explanation
is the one most likely to be true.

Oh, speaking of Area 51, you know that it's a giant government installation
out at Groom Lake, Nevada where they test experimental planes, right? The
one where the UFO nuts congregate and insist they're using alien tech and
ET advisors? The one with the "Government Installation -- Do Not Trespass"
signs all over? The US Gov't *still* insists that place doesn't exist.
Won't even acknowledge that there's a US Gov't installation at the site.
And, of course, in doing so has made it the most widely-known "secret" base
in human history. Geez.

>By the way, I belive I read an article about that plane you mentioned. I
>think it was in Popular Science.

As, yes, Aurora. In my mind, the jury's still out on this one. It's not
impossible, and it's the sort of thing that the Gov't would keep classified
right now, but I'll believe it when I see it in an airshow...


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 43
From: Theo Karmdeth <theo@*****.COM.AU>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 06:59:40 GMT
>>But, really, it's NOT like the X-Files. There is no great conspiracy. =
Of
>>course, I work for the gov't myself, so I guess that makes me an =
unreliable
>>source. Oh well.
>Ummm... Just for the record, when I cited the 10-year advance on the =
SOTA,
>I wasn't referring to Secret Government Conspiracies or anything like =
that.
> I was referring to the Government pumping mega-bucks into advanced
>technologies and developing high-end systems using cost-prohibitive
>technologies. And yes, these programs would be classified, and your
>Oh, speaking of Area 51, you know that it's a giant government =
installation
>out at Groom Lake, Nevada where they test experimental planes, right? =
The
>one where the UFO nuts congregate and insist they're using alien tech =
and
>ET advisors? The one with the "Government Installation -- Do Not =
Trespass"
>signs all over? The US Gov't *still* insists that place doesn't exist.
>Won't even acknowledge that there's a US Gov't installation at the site.
>And, of course, in doing so has made it the most widely-known "secret" =
base
>in human history. Geez.

Im not a nut, i just know there is more happening than we are told.
Dont right me off as a X Files nut. I watch the show for the humour
value :> But comments like yours (too much x files) are exactly what
the govt likes. There are not black and white people... and by
presuming our beliefs were extended as far as you said is naive. :>

i dont want to get into a 'big debate' (yes i know i should just shut
up then :> but i wanted to do what Starjammer did. plead innocence :>

Have a good day!

-Theo in the corner
Message no. 44
From: Dave Post <caelric@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:05:07 -0800
At 01:36 AM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Ummm... Just for the record, when I cited the 10-year advance on the SOTA,
>I wasn't referring to Secret Government Conspiracies or anything like that.
> I was referring to the Government pumping mega-bucks into advanced
>technologies and developing high-end systems using cost-prohibitive
>technologies. And yes, these programs would be classified, and your
>average USMC foot-slogger won't be seeing these. Most of these kinds of
>developments would be going into the intel side of the house. Stuff like
>next-gen supercomputers for codebreaking, imaging technologies and
>enhancement techniques for overhead imagery, advanced surveillance and
>countersurveillance tech, and so forth.

Heh. Did I mention I used to work for NSA? Not your average
foot-slogger...:)

By the way, read the book called 'The Puzzle Palace' Good read.

Dave
Message no. 45
From: Dave Post <caelric@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:12:23 -0800
At 06:59 AM 1/29/99 GMT, you wrote:
>
>Im not a nut, i just know there is more happening than we are told.
>Dont right me off as a X Files nut. I watch the show for the humour
>value :> But comments like yours (too much x files) are exactly what
>the govt likes. There are not black and white people... and by
>presuming our beliefs were extended as far as you said is naive. :>
>
>i dont want to get into a 'big debate' (yes i know i should just shut
>up then :> but i wanted to do what Starjammer did. plead innocence :>
>
>Have a good day!
>
>-Theo in the corner
>

Hey, I watch X-Files myself. Good show, though I would like to slap Scully
u'side the head sometimes. And ALWAYS, I want to slap Mulder!!! I have
met (many) people who religiously believe everything in that show has, or
will happen.

But, really, the last thing I would like to say about the whole
conspiracy/secrecy thing is this:

This is the US Gov't we are talking about here. They have difficult
keeping little secrets like whether Monica was 'with' Clinton or not, or
the whole Watergate thing. If they can't even keep secrets like that, do
you think they could keep something even bigger and harder to hide, like a
vast conspiracy secret? I mean, the agencies we are talking about (CIA,
FBI, NSA, etc...) couldn't even figure out they had a serious spy (Aldrich
Ames) in their midst.

Dave
Message no. 46
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 02:42:02 -0500
At 11:05 PM 1/28/99 -0800, Dave Post wrote:
>
>Heh. Did I mention I used to work for NSA? Not your average
>foot-slogger...:)

Heh. Then you should be thoroughly familiar with compartmentalized
clearances, and know damned well that you don't get told everything... :)

>By the way, read the book called 'The Puzzle Palace' Good read.

I've heard about it. I'll have to look it up sometime.

--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 47
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:01:12 +0100
According to nocturnal@*******.NET, at 15:54 on 28 Jan 99, the word on
the street was...

> It doesnt JUST fire the air-burst shells... it fires 5.56 mm rounds as
> well (it's like one hell of an m16/m203)

Oh, you mean like SR rifles-with-grenade-launcher?

Because SR grenade launchers typically hold 6 rounds (8 in the Ares Alpha)
and are often mounted underneath assault rifles, you get much the
combination as the one you're drooling over -- which is a weapon, BTW,
that is still more a concept than anything truly practical. It's also not
the only such prototype in existence. The French are building a similar
gun, that incidentally looks almost as ridiculous as its name sounds
(something like "FABAP" or close to that).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And that's as far as the conversation went.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 48
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:01:12 +0100
According to Wordman, at 0:43 on 29 Jan 99, the word on
the street was...

> The above article mentions this rifle as being a winner of a contest the
> military held. Not being as much of a gun bunny as some of you, I seemed to
> recall a contest the military held where one of the goals was that the rifle
> had to hold at least 100 rounds. Am I hallucinating? Did this contest
> exists? What happened to it?

I don't know if a contest like this ever happened, but I do know the
USmilitary has held several tests and contests over the past 25 years or
so to find a successor to the M16. Stuff like the Serial Bullet Rifle
(1970s?) and Advanced Combat Rifle trials (late 1980s) showed all kinds of
new technology that never got adopted -- instead, the M16A1 got reworked
to the A2 and that was about it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And that's as far as the conversation went.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+
PE Y PGP- t(+) 5++ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 49
From: Tim Kerby <drekhead@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 08:49:00 -0500
On 28 Jan 99, at 23:12, Dave Post wrote:

> This is the US Gov't we are talking about here. They have difficult
> keeping little secrets like whether Monica was 'with' Clinton or not, or
> the whole Watergate thing. If they can't even keep secrets like that, do
> you think they could keep something even bigger and harder to hide, like a
> vast conspiracy secret? I mean, the agencies we are talking about (CIA,
> FBI, NSA, etc...) couldn't even figure out they had a serious spy (Aldrich
> Ames) in their midst.

Aye, but there's the rub. They deliberately stage or allow to leak
those inconsequential events so that people will believe exactly as
you do.


:)

--

=================================================================
- Tim Kerby - |"Letter writing is the only
- drekhead@***.net - | device for combining
HTML to: drekhead@********.net | solitude and good company."
ICQ - UIN 2883757 | -Lord Byron
Message no. 50
From: ArcLight <arclight@**************.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:30:41 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadowrun Discussion [mailto:SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET]On
> Behalf Of Dave Post
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 5:17 AM
> To: SHADOWRN@********.ITRIBE.NET
> Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium

<snip>

> Of course they work on things they don't tell us about. You think the
> people that spy on America don't read the trade journals, go to air show,
> etc...? Heck, WE do that...its one of the greatest sources of
> information .

Every agency works this way; it is just the way they analyze the data
that gives them intel. That and the small percentage of "other sources"
they have.

ArcLight
ICQ 14322211
NO ONE IS SAFE FROM A MICROWAVE
Message no. 51
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 07:52:07 -0700
For the mere cost of a Thaum, Starjammer wrote:
/
/ >By the way, I belive I read an article about that plane you mentioned. I
/ >think it was in Popular Science.
/
/ As, yes, Aurora. In my mind, the jury's still out on this one. It's not
/ impossible, and it's the sort of thing that the Gov't would keep classified
/ right now, but I'll believe it when I see it in an airshow...

:) Here's an amusing story.

Geologists monitoring the San Andreas Fault in California started
picking up odd low level shockwaves on their instruments a few years
back. The They were mightely puzzled and spent quite some time working
it out. They figured out that it's something flying and that when
their instruments first detect the shockwaves that it's moving at Mach
5 or so. They also figured that it's coming in for a landing because
it's slowing down fairly quickly. The landing path is fairly regular
and points towards Area 51.

The current theory is that it's an Aurora prototype.

Also FWIW, I've seen several articles in aeronautics magazines
concerning wind tunnel and computer model tests of hypersonic "planes"
and can attest that they're working hard on it.

-David B.
--
"Earn what you have been given."
--
email: dbuehrer@******.carl.org
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 52
From: Paul Gettle <RunnerPaul@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:30:02 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 12:43 AM 1/29/99 -0500, Wordman wrote:
>The above article mentions this rifle as being a winner of a contest
the
>military held. Not being as much of a gun bunny as some of you, I
seemed to
>recall a contest the military held where one of the goals was that
the rifle
>had to hold at least 100 rounds. Am I hallucinating? Did this contest
>exists? What happened to it?

I don't know about 100 rounds, but there is a clip available for the
M-16 that will hold 90 rounds. You could even order it through
mail-order catalogs like U.S. Cavalry before the laws changed.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQCVAwUBNrHT8qPbvUVI86rNAQFneAP/ZJ81Hm7MA8YbCx24MtMCKgYB9G+J+1T4
ZQBiriWN+sG/WfdisMq7pXLWqEwNWBgZykObBQckljTPNRf59mzWmJN+9MJE8Ws9
IYGCWfJ9ONM79RK7pJ9z42hGWkxZvkgzOpYgNUb1xlSk6Ozl1zV3qcW7IUbgavHN
Al5AKGNWpOs=
=YZRu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-- Paul Gettle, #970 of 1000 (RunnerPaul@*****.com)
PGP Fingerprint, Key ID:0x48F3AACD (RSA 1024, created 98/06/26)
C260 94B3 6722 6A25 63F8 0690 9EA2 3344
Message no. 53
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:10:51 -0500
At 07:52 AM 1/29/99 -0700, David Buehrer wrote:
>
>Geologists monitoring the San Andreas Fault in California started
>picking up odd low level shockwaves on their instruments a few years
>back. The They were mightely puzzled and spent quite some time working
>it out. They figured out that it's something flying and that when
>their instruments first detect the shockwaves that it's moving at Mach
>5 or so. They also figured that it's coming in for a landing because
>it's slowing down fairly quickly. The landing path is fairly regular
>and points towards Area 51.
>
>The current theory is that it's an Aurora prototype.

Maybe. It's known that some SR-71 flights also stage out of Area 51, and
that's my first impression.


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 54
From: Mongoose <m0ng005e@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:00:12 -0600
:>Ive seen a couple of low budget TV programs recently on how the
:>Americans are testing new ultra-sonic planes that go at 8-15 Times the
:>speed of sound. Of course, the people making these programs are
:>paranoid, in need of help, and of course the American Govt is stating
:>that they are not even working on that sort of idea.

Considering that scramjet research was big about 6-8 years ago, and
then seemed to vanish from publicity- I'd be really disapointed if there
wasn't some workable prototype, if not a military aplication, already.
This is the same basic tech behind SR's (comercial application only?)
sub-orbital (non-balistic) intercontinental transports.

Mongoose
Message no. 55
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 22:13:47 -0500
David B wrote:
> The current theory is that it's an Aurora prototype.

I don't buy the Aurora spy-plane idea. With satellites being what they are,
the need for a spy-plane that much better than the SR-71 seems way to
marginal to justify the cost.

I will buy the hyper-sonic plane idea, though. Scientific American this
month (Feb 1999) has an article on the next gen of... well... concepts meant
to bring payload into low-earth orbit. Among the topics discussed are
scramjets. The military, at least economically speaking, can make a much
better case for investing in low-cost orbit-attaining tech than they can for
spy planes.

Wordman
Message no. 56
From: Dave Post <caelric@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 20:00:41 -0800
At 10:13 PM 2/1/99 -0500, you wrote:
>David B wrote:
>> The current theory is that it's an Aurora prototype.
>
>I don't buy the Aurora spy-plane idea. With satellites being what they are,
>the need for a spy-plane that much better than the SR-71 seems way to
>marginal to justify the cost.
>
>I will buy the hyper-sonic plane idea, though. Scientific American this
>month (Feb 1999) has an article on the next gen of... well... concepts meant
>to bring payload into low-earth orbit. Among the topics discussed are
>scramjets. The military, at least economically speaking, can make a much
>better case for investing in low-cost orbit-attaining tech than they can for
>spy planes.
>
>Wordman
>

Two things:

1. Cloud cover

2. Anti-sat missles


These are why a spy plane is needed. Also, it's easier to send a spy plane
to an area that has little satellite coverage, instead of manuevering
satellites that have limited, non replenishable delta-vee

Dave
Message no. 57
From: Starjammer <starjammer@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:21:02 -0500
At 10:13 PM 2/1/99 -0500, Wordman wrote:
>David B wrote:
>> The current theory is that it's an Aurora prototype.
>
>I don't buy the Aurora spy-plane idea. With satellites being what they are,
>the need for a spy-plane that much better than the SR-71 seems way to
>marginal to justify the cost.
>
>I will buy the hyper-sonic plane idea, though. Scientific American this
>month (Feb 1999) has an article on the next gen of... well... concepts meant
>to bring payload into low-earth orbit. Among the topics discussed are
>scramjets. The military, at least economically speaking, can make a much
>better case for investing in low-cost orbit-attaining tech than they can for
>spy planes.

Satellites aren't all they're cracked up to be. Well, let me rephrase
that... They actually are, but it's still not the be-all and end-all of
surveillance. The SR-71 is a venerable aircraft, but if the military can
build a better plane, they'll try.

And if you replace the words "spy plane" with the word "bomber"...
How
would you like to be able to get a nuke anywhere in the world undetected in
four hours without worrying about ABM defenses?


--
Starjammer - starjammer@**********.com - Marietta, GA

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death
that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it
to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn
the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be
nothing. Only I will remain."
-- Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear, Frank Herbert, Dune
Message no. 58
From: Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: A new gun for the New Millennium
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 08:43:18 -0500
At 10:13 PM 2/1/99 , you wrote:
>David B wrote:
>> The current theory is that it's an Aurora prototype.
>
>I don't buy the Aurora spy-plane idea. With satellites being what they are,
>the need for a spy-plane that much better than the SR-71 seems way to
>marginal to justify the cost.

1) Its easier to put a plane on target than it is a satellite. Unless your
bird happens to orbit that point, you burn a lot of fuel moving it around
all the time, and they're a lot harder to refuel than a plane.
2) You can spend more time covering a site with a plane that a satellite.
Depending on orbits and size of the target, you might only have a few
minutes to half an hour of coverage with a spy sat. Planes can turn around
and make several passes, giving you more time on target.
3) Details are still better if you get lower than up in orbit. No cloud cover.
4) There are ways to get the orbital plans of sats. They can be changed,
but not very well considering the cost in fuel. This makes them
predictable. Planes can be flown whenever needed.

>I will buy the hyper-sonic plane idea, though. Scientific American this
>month (Feb 1999) has an article on the next gen of... well... concepts meant
>to bring payload into low-earth orbit. Among the topics discussed are
>scramjets. The military, at least economically speaking, can make a much
>better case for investing in low-cost orbit-attaining tech than they can for
>spy planes.

A lot of the tech is there. I can believe that they have something similar
to the Aurora that is doing spy missions right now. Remember, there are
very few cases where the military has retired a weapon (SR-71) without
having another in place.

And while the military is supposed to be fiscally responsible and get the
most bang for the buck, they are also supposed to do their jobs. There are
certain things that spy sat does better than planes, and some things that
planes do better than spy sat. Of course, there has been a tendency to rely
too much on electronic intel, and not enough on personal intel....

Sommers
Homepage here now!
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~sommers/shadowrun.htm

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about A new gun for the New Millennium, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!