Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject:	Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:36:47 -0800

Message no. 1 This was a good one. Lots of nice plot hooks, and it fleshes out a part
of the shadow economy I was quite interested in. The Kzinti Lesson
is applied to T-birds: *massive applause* and a gold star for the
writer! (For those who don't read Niven, the Kzinti Lesson is "a
reaction drive's utility as a weapon is in direct proportion to its
efficiency".) It was nice to see Yakut (Awakened Siberia) detailed.

I was hoping to see some more details on submersible drone designs and so
on-- any idea if rules will turn up in a near-future supplement?

One big question that T:SH still leaves unanswered: how is t-bird
smuggling economically viable? All example t-birds are military vehicles
costing millions of nuyen, flying bricks with stubby wings that should
have a huge IR plume and be audible half a mile away, with not very
much cargo space and an incredible cost in fuel. They're very fast and
maneuverable, which may make up for the running-a-jet-engine-at-NOE-altitude
blatancy, but how does a smuggler get set up with one? Anything that
expensive is going to have superb security on it, so it will be very
difficult to obtain. Are there "civilian" t-birds available that riggers
are retrofitting to carry the hideously expensive ECM and ED necessary for
one of these puppies to survive a border run? Do smuggler consortiums
get together and invest in these things? Is smuggling so profitable that
t-birds are affordable?

Steve, are there any books you'd recommend on voudoun and Santeria and
Candomble and all that fun stuff? I'd like to get some more background
on it. (Actually, I'd love to see your reading list for source material
on magical traditions...)

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 17:02:27 -0400

Message no. 2 At 09:36 AM 6/10/98 -0800, you wrote:

>I was hoping to see some more details on submersible drone designs and so
>on-- any idea if rules will turn up in a near-future supplement?

Probably cut with the rest of the ship design rules. I wouldn't look for
them anytime soon.

>One big question that T:SH still leaves unanswered: how is t-bird
>smuggling economically viable? All example t-birds are military vehicles

>one of these puppies to survive a border run? Do smuggler consortiums
>get together and invest in these things? Is smuggling so profitable that
>t-birds are affordable?

One thing I drew from T:SM was that the vast majority of smuggling is done
with far more common vehicles. Based on some earlier stuff, I was under
the impression t-birds did the bulk of the work, but reading the smuggling
routes, it seems that impression was wrong.

Another thing I drew from that same section is that there aren't a whole
lot of independent smuggler's around. Most are tied in with the Mafia in
North America. This would explain part of your question; for certain
cargos, the Mob needs the abilities of the t-bird so they have a few that
are run by their pet riggers.

As for civilian t-birds...I suppose something like that could be possible.
Extreme high-end stuff though, I would think. Hey, Keith/Mike/Jon, there's
a way to design something like this using the R2 rules, right? How
expensive would a "bare bones" t-bird cost? Would have to be a lot cheaper
than a Banshee or something. Take that bird and trick her out with
whatever the rigger could afford and wanted, and you've got a custom t-bird
for your rigger. Still would be awful expensive though I'd think.

But anyway, I come away thinking that t-birds used for smuggling would be
pretty darn rare.

>Steve, are there any books you'd recommend on voudoun and Santeria and
>Candomble and all that fun stuff? I'd like to get some more background
>on it. (Actually, I'd love to see your reading list for source material
>on magical traditions...)

Heh. Looks like Steve finally got to put some of the stuff on Voudou that
got axed from Awakenings into T:SH. The stuff on Santeria and such looked
like highly condensed version of a file he posted to AOL and Paolo's
Archives...I think it was called "That Voudou that you do" and it was
posted the same time as "The Many Masks of Magic." Both those files are
excellent reading (and relatively brief) and can give a lot more flavor to
magic in your game.

I'd be willing to bet that most of Steve's "magic" books come from places
like the local library and the local magic/occult shop. Hmmmm...I may have
to pop up to Amazon.com and see what sort of things pop up when you search
for magic and occult...

Erik J.

From:	John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:37:57 -0500

Message no. 3 >One big question that T:SH still leaves unanswered: how is t-bird
>smuggling economically viable? All example t-birds are military vehicles
>costing millions of nuyen, flying bricks with stubby wings that should
>have a huge IR plume and be audible half a mile away, with not very
>much cargo space and an incredible cost in fuel. They're very fast and
>maneuverable, which may make up for the running-a-jet-engine-at-NOE-altitude
>blatancy, but how does a smuggler get set up with one? Anything that
>expensive is going to have superb security on it, so it will be very
>difficult to obtain. Are there "civilian" t-birds available that riggers
>are retrofitting to carry the hideously expensive ECM and ED necessary for
>one of these puppies to survive a border run? Do smuggler consortiums
>get together and invest in these things? Is smuggling so profitable that
>t-birds are affordable?

My worldview has ownership of a t-bird as the identifying mark of a
professional smuggler. Only the best of the best have them. I sincerely
doubt most t-birds are "bought", more likely stolen or built from black
market parts. As for cargo space, a GMC Banshee has 30 CF and plenty of
Cargo. Thats about the same cargo space as a small van. And alot of stuff
(datachips, orichalcum, uranium, passengers, etc) is very valuable while
being very small. As for fuel efficiency, standard military t-birds for
whatever reason have shitty economy (.05). But if you refit the engine you
can boost it up to .3 which dramatically increases your range. From 230
miles to 1400 to be exact. Before you could fly from Seattle to Portland.
Now you can fly from Seattle to Denver. Hell, if you strip your weapons out
and slap in drop/extra fuel tanks in you can nearly double THAT. Anyway, I
do figure t-bird smuggling is a very specialized business. I figure anybody
that owns a t-bird probably only uses it for very special high-yield jobs.

Hope this helped a bit.
-Teeg

From:	Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:49:41 -0800

Message no. 4 At 17:02 6/10/98 -0400, Erik Jameson insinuated:
>One thing I drew from T:SM was that the vast majority of smuggling is done
>with far more common vehicles. Based on some earlier stuff, I was under
>the impression t-birds did the bulk of the work, but reading the smuggling
>routes, it seems that impression was wrong.

There was still a lot of material on t-birds, without any suggestions on
how anyone would go about *playing* a t-bird rigger. Unless there's
some tremendous amount of profit to be made off them, I can't see why
t-bird smuggling should even *exist*-- and if you can make enough off
smuggling to afford the acquisition and upkeep of a t-bird, you should
be able to rake it in hand over fist with the less expensive routes,
and retire quickly. If LAVs were as cheap as aerodynes in Cyberpunk 2020,
I could see it happening, but the combat effectiveness of the LAV jetwash
is enough that I could easily see them banned for civilian use.

At 16:37 6/10/98 -0500, John Dukes insinuated:
>My worldview has ownership of a t-bird as the identifying mark of a
>professional smuggler. Only the best of the best have them. I sincerely
>doubt most t-birds are "bought", more likely stolen or built from black
>market parts.

The main problem I have with that is that the difficulty should approach
that of acquiring a modern battle tank-- any military spending the millions
of nuyen on their T-birds will also spend a lot on the security on said
t-birds. If that *is* the way that smugglers get their LAVs, I could see
a lot of lucrative shadowruns built around stealing the things. (No way
you're going to just bribe a supply sergeant to just let one fall off
the back of a semi...)

> As for cargo space, a GMC Banshee has 30 CF and plenty of
>Cargo. Thats about the same cargo space as a small van. And alot of stuff
>(datachips, orichalcum, uranium, passengers, etc) is very valuable while
>being very small.

Uranium I'll grant you, and orichalcum if you assume an unfriendly
tax structure. The only reason I can see to smuggle datachips
is if the blanks are more expensive at your destination-- I expect that
most BTL smuggling is actually smuggling the blanks and some one-time
pads (which are a provably unbreakable form of encryption) and some units
for burning in the chips. You then set up shop somewhere, download the
latest BTL or California hot and burn it in, and start distributing.
Much easier than smuggling each print run. There must be *some*
component to the BTL blanks that is illegal, or some extreme difficulty
in manufacturing/assembly, or people would just get their datachips
delivered via UCAS Express or what have you. (The laundering operation
for that to make sure no one goes "Hey, this person ordered tons of
these chips, they must be burning BTLs!" is another interesting part of
the shadow economy...) What else would justify those huge profits?
Drugs, I suppose, if it's too difficult to set up a drug lab-- or,
for that matter, drug lab parts.

At 17:02 6/10/98 -0400, Erik Jameson insinuated:
>Heh. Looks like Steve finally got to put some of the stuff on Voudou that
>got axed from Awakenings into T:SH. The stuff on Santeria and such looked
>like highly condensed version of a file he posted to AOL and Paolo's
>Archives...I think it was called "That Voudou that you do" and it was
>posted the same time as "The Many Masks of Magic." Both those files are
>excellent reading (and relatively brief) and can give a lot more flavor to
>magic in your game.

All too brief for me-- I'm one of those nuts who will actually read all
the way through Frances Yates' books to pick up flavor for Hermetic magic.
(A habit I got into playing Ars Magica, where Aristotle and Pliny are
valid sourcebooks for the game...)

>I'd be willing to bet that most of Steve's "magic" books come from places
>like the local library and the local magic/occult shop. Hmmmm...I may have
>to pop up to Amazon.com and see what sort of things pop up when you search
>for magic and occult...

The trick is to find *good* books. The occult accumulates a lot of dross,
because you can make lots of money off something sensational but badly
researched.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:59:37 EDT

Message no. 5 In a message dated 6/10/98 4:08:09 PM US Eastern Standard Time, erikj@****.COM
writes:

> As for civilian t-birds...I suppose something like that could be possible.
> Extreme high-end stuff though, I would think. Hey, Keith/Mike/Jon, there's
> a way to design something like this using the R2 rules, right? How
> expensive would a "bare bones" t-bird cost? Would have to be a lot
cheaper
> than a Banshee or something. Take that bird and trick her out with
> whatever the rigger could afford and wanted, and you've got a custom t-bird
> for your rigger. Still would be awful expensive though I'd think.
>
> But anyway, I come away thinking that t-birds used for smuggling would be
> pretty darn rare.
>
Actually, yes to both paragraphs of questions. Mike has LONG time ago made up
a Vector Thrust -Car- for the higher price burbs in our games here. He's also
completely redid a bundle of power plants on different scales than just "Heavy
Military". I know they can be found through Hacker House.

I have for a LONG time thought that T-Bird smuggling would be rare, but would
be more "actively hostile". Whatever is inside a T-Bird and is being smuggled
is -worth- more hence, the need for that armor, those guns, that speed, that
threat...

-K

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:49:41 EDT

Message no. 6 In a message dated 6/10/98 9:08:07 PM !!!First Boot!!!, erikj@****.COM writes:

> As for civilian t-birds...I suppose something like that could be possible.
> Extreme high-end stuff though, I would think. Hey, Keith/Mike/Jon, there's
> a way to design something like this using the R2 rules, right? How
> expensive would a "bare bones" t-bird cost? Would have to be a lot
cheaper
> than a Banshee or something. Take that bird and trick her out with
> whatever the rigger could afford and wanted, and you've got a custom t-bird
> for your rigger. Still would be awful expensive though I'd think.

Any good rigger is going to have the fuel economy of a t-bird maxxed out to
0.3 km / liter, giving the t-bird a range of 2250 kilometers, and with the
addition of external fuel cells the range could be increased even further
(each additional 1000 liters adds on another 300 kilometers).

Price range would be from 3.25 million to 6.25 million nuyen ... and this was
also without increasing the CF of the T-bird (leaving it at 25 CF) ...

-Mike

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 1998 23:01:10 EDT

Message no. 7 In a message dated 6/10/98 9:22:24 PM !!!First Boot!!!, dukes@*******.NET
writes:

> But if you refit the engine you
> can boost it up to .3 which dramatically increases your range. From 230
> miles to 1400 to be exact. Before you could fly from Seattle to Portland.
> Now you can fly from Seattle to Denver. Hell, if you strip your weapons out
> and slap in drop/extra fuel tanks in you can nearly double THAT. Anyway, I
> do figure t-bird smuggling is a very specialized business. I figure anybody
> that owns a t-bird probably only uses it for very special high-yield jobs.

With a bare-bones t-bird, you could increase the CF inside by another 40 CF
and then dedicating it all towards fuel storage, which would make the total
fuel size 9500 liters, which would give a range of 2,850 kilometers. And then
tacking on a total of 6 external fuel pods would increase the fuel size to
15500 liters, which would give a range of 4,650 kilometers (roughly 2700
miles).

Which means that the Azores are a favorite refueling spot for most t-bird
smugglers, unless they do all of their refueling in mid-air, for the CONUS
(CONtinental United States) to Europe runs. And the same route in the Pacific
would include Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, and the Phillipines ...

-Mike

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:11:42 EDT

Message no. 8 In a message dated 6/10/98 10:04:02 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
Airwasp@***.com writes:

> And the same route in the Pacific
> would include Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, and the Phillipines ...
>
Ah yes, the Phillipines ... sun, fun, rain, bugs (both kinds), metas (only the
faves...), Japanacorps (FAR worse IMO than Japanime' ;), and of course,
US!!!!

yep, refueling has become a major mainstay in the chaos of things for our
group. I know that we've done literally everything from swiping fuel from a
mobile object (long tale there) to spending karma for a Free Spirits "Wealth"
Power (Binder shoves the Bird back into the Hat...).

I do remember what it took for us to take "Beauty" (the Teams Panzer) from the
NA Continent all the way to Europe (Britain) the first time. THAT was
absolutely no fun at all, and tapped out nearly every contact we had in all
points. AND that didn't count the fun of once we got there what we had to do
to keep things "hidden from prying eyes".

Ah yes, FOND memories those are.... NOT!!! :P

-K

From:	wafflemiester <evamarie@**********.NET>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 04:06:54 -0500

Message no. 9 > Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens (Mike Bobroff , Wed 22:01)

> With a bare-bones t-bird, you could increase the CF inside by another 40 CF
> and then dedicating it all towards fuel storage, which would make the total
> fuel size 9500 liters, which would give a range of 2,850 kilometers. And then
> tacking on a total of 6 external fuel pods would increase the fuel size to
> 15500 liters, which would give a range of 4,650 kilometers (roughly 2700
> miles).
>
> Which means that the Azores are a favorite refueling spot for most t-bird
> smugglers, unless they do all of their refueling in mid-air, for the CONUS
> (CONtinental United States) to Europe runs. And the same route in the Pacific
> would include Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, and the Phillipines ...
>
> -Mike

What fragging drekhead would bother smuggling with a cross-oceanic
t-bird? Isn't that why FASA gave us all that cool info on ships, ports,
pirates, and cargos?

-Mongoose

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 06:17:05 EDT

Message no. 10 In a message dated 6/11/98 8:36:32 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> > Which means that the Azores are a favorite refueling spot for most t-bird
> > smugglers, unless they do all of their refueling in mid-air, for the
CONUS
> > (CONtinental United States) to Europe runs. And the same route in the
> Pacific
> > would include Hawaii, Wake Island, Guam, and the Phillipines ...
> >
> > -Mike
>
> What fragging drekhead would bother smuggling with a cross-oceanic
> t-bird? Isn't that why FASA gave us all that cool info on ships, ports,
> pirates, and cargos?
>
No, but think of the rep a t-bird rigger would have for pulling off just such
a stunt as this ... an ocean crossing ... over open water ...

-Mike

From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:24:35 -0400

Message no. 11 Erik Jameson wrote:
>>One big question that T:SH still leaves unanswered: how is t-bird
>>smuggling economically viable? All example t-birds are military vehicles
[snip]
>As for civilian t-birds...I suppose something like that could be possible.
>Extreme high-end stuff though, I would think. Hey, Keith/Mike/Jon, there's
>a way to design something like this using the R2 rules, right? How

Uh huh.

>expensive would a "bare bones" t-bird cost? Would have to be a lot cheaper

1.25MY for a chassis and an engine. You could get it cheaper if you
buy one used...

>than a Banshee or something. Take that bird and trick her out with
>whatever the rigger could afford and wanted, and you've got a custom t-bird
>for your rigger. Still would be awful expensive though I'd think.

Yeah - giving a Tbird an economy of 0.3 km/L and fuel capacity of
12,300L will give you a range of 3.7Mm (with no CF free, but...),
costing 1.60MY.

>But anyway, I come away thinking that t-birds used for smuggling would be
>pretty darn rare.

Oh yeah. It's a very limited niche. If you want airborne access,
get a chopper. If you want subtlety, get a car. If you want capacity,
get an airliner. If you want speed, get anything and soup it up.
The only thing that the Tbird is hands-down best in is maximum load,
and I doubt you'll be doing much towing with that backwash... :-)

The Tbird is handy when you need several of the above. It's not cheap,
but it'll do the job when nothing else will.

James Ojaste

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:04:16 EDT

Message no. 12 In a message dated 6/11/98 1:25:21 PM !!!First Boot!!!, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
writes:

> >>One big question that T:SH still leaves unanswered: how is t-bird
> >>smuggling economically viable? All example t-birds are military vehicles
> [snip]
> >As for civilian t-birds...I suppose something like that could be possible.
> >Extreme high-end stuff though, I would think. Hey, Keith/Mike/Jon,
there's
> >a way to design something like this using the R2 rules, right? How
>
> Uh huh.
>
> >expensive would a "bare bones" t-bird cost? Would have to be a lot
cheaper
>
> 1.25MY for a chassis and an engine. You could get it cheaper if you
> buy one used...

Hey James, what did you use for the mark-up multiplier ... Luxury, security,
or military grade ... and which end of the spectrum on the multiplier ...

We always use the higher end of the spectrum for most of the vehicles we make
here ...

> >than a Banshee or something. Take that bird and trick her out with
> >whatever the rigger could afford and wanted, and you've got a custom t-
bird
> >for your rigger. Still would be awful expensive though I'd think.
>
> Yeah - giving a Tbird an economy of 0.3 km/L and fuel capacity of
> 12,300L will give you a range of 3.7Mm (with no CF free, but...),
> costing 1.60MY.
>
> >But anyway, I come away thinking that t-birds used for smuggling would be
> >pretty darn rare.
>
> Oh yeah. It's a very limited niche. If you want airborne access,
> get a chopper. If you want subtlety, get a car. If you want capacity,
> get an airliner. If you want speed, get anything and soup it up.
> The only thing that the Tbird is hands-down best in is maximum load,
> and I doubt you'll be doing much towing with that backwash... :-)

You are right, and I do agree with you on that ...

> The Tbird is handy when you need several of the above. It's not cheap,
> but it'll do the job when nothing else will.

True again ...

-Mike

From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:32:21 -0400

Message no. 13 Mike Bobroff wrote:
[snippity snippity]
>> >As for civilian t-birds...I suppose something like that could be
>>possible.
>> >Extreme high-end stuff though, I would think. Hey, Keith/Mike/Jon,
>there's
>> >a way to design something like this using the R2 rules, right? How
>> >expensive would a "bare bones" t-bird cost? Would have to be a
lot
>cheaper
>>
>> 1.25MY for a chassis and an engine. You could get it cheaper if you
>> buy one used...
>
>Hey James, what did you use for the mark-up multiplier ... Luxury, security,
>or military grade ... and which end of the spectrum on the multiplier ...
>
>We always use the higher end of the spectrum for most of the vehicles we make
>here ...

I didn't use a luxury, security or military markup - no chassis or
engine on its own has one. I did use the 2.5 markup for aircraft.
Well, actually, I used The Shop. No point in calculating everything
by hand when I've spent many hours writing a program to do it all for
me... :-)

James Ojaste
>

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:35:57 EDT

Message no. 14 In a message dated 6/11/98 2:33:23 PM !!!First Boot!!!, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
writes:

> >Hey James, what did you use for the mark-up multiplier ... Luxury,
security,
> >or military grade ... and which end of the spectrum on the multiplier ...
> >
> >We always use the higher end of the spectrum for most of the vehicles we
> make
> >here ...
>
> I didn't use a luxury, security or military markup - no chassis or
> engine on its own has one. I did use the 2.5 markup for aircraft.
> Well, actually, I used The Shop. No point in calculating everything
> by hand when I've spent many hours writing a program to do it all for
> me... :-)

Sorry James, but that multiplier has to be factored in, sorry ...

This multiplier also gives an indication of the quality of the material used
in the construction, and it also has to do with the type of vehicle involved
... and, IMHO, a t-bird is something that is definitely classified as a mil-
spec vehicle.

-Mike

From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:44:24 -0400

Message no. 15 Mike Bobroff wrote:
>> >Hey James, what did you use for the mark-up multiplier ... Luxury,
>security,
>> >or military grade ... and which end of the spectrum on the multiplier ...
>> >
>> >We always use the higher end of the spectrum for most of the vehicles we
>> make
>> >here ...
>>
>> I didn't use a luxury, security or military markup - no chassis or
>> engine on its own has one. I did use the 2.5 markup for aircraft.
>> Well, actually, I used The Shop. No point in calculating everything
>> by hand when I've spent many hours writing a program to do it all for
>> me... :-)
>
>Sorry James, but that multiplier has to be factored in, sorry ...

What? Luxury? It's not a luxury vehicle. Security? It's not armoured
or armed, it doesn't use any security-rated electronics. Military? If
it's not security, it's not military. Why should any of those markups
apply? I'm not basing it on the Banshee or anything, this is a fresh
design.

>This multiplier also gives an indication of the quality of the material used
>in the construction, and it also has to do with the type of vehicle involved
>... and, IMHO, a t-bird is something that is definitely classified as a mil-
>spec vehicle.

It's classified as an aircraft (Fixed Wing/Vector Thrust), according to
R2 pg171. According to page 114, the markup for a vector thrust craft
is 2.5. Now, it might qualify for the Specialized NCV or Unusual
markups, but those can be very small markups (and are up to the GM).

A vector-thrust UAV isn't milspec - it could be a child's toy. Just
think of a T-bird as a big VT-UAV...

James Ojaste

From:	Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:49:10 -0400

Message no. 16 At 10:04 AM 6/11/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 6/11/98 1:25:21 PM !!!First Boot!!!, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
>writes:
>
>> >>One big question that T:SH still leaves unanswered: how is t-bird
>> >>smuggling economically viable? All example t-birds are military
vehicles

[snipped]

>> 1.25MY for a chassis and an engine. You could get it cheaper if you
>> buy one used...

[snipped]

>> Oh yeah. It's a very limited niche. If you want airborne access,
>> get a chopper. If you want subtlety, get a car. If you want capacity,
>> get an airliner. If you want speed, get anything and soup it up.
>> The only thing that the Tbird is hands-down best in is maximum load,
>> and I doubt you'll be doing much towing with that backwash... :-)
>
[More snipped]

I think to do it at all, especially as a starting character, you have to
use a lot of those optional rules. You start out by designing a really
stripped down LAV. I did one on the Shop, putting in some more Cargo (to
40), better economy (.15km/l), an electronics port and some thermal baffles
(2 for the hell of it). Cam out to about 1.5 mil I think, with a 2.5
multiplier. Has a range of about 1200 kliks and a sig of 5.

Now use some of those modifiers that they put in the optional section to
take the multiplier down. An obvious one would be the hard to maintain
option (Milenium Falcon?), and maybe a used multiplier (make one if there
isn't one maybe?) so you 're not getting one right off the lot. Then what
you have is a military surplus LAV stripped of all the good stuff that they
sell for extra cash. Then the rigger starts putting time and money into
fixing it back up again to make it that smuggler's dream.

In Blood in the Boardroom one on the corps (Renraku maybe?) is decribed as
in part coming from a weapons manufacuring company out in Europe that
invented LAVs in the 20's or 30's. From the Eurowar and other shit that
went down out there, I'm sure there is a lot of military surplus to be had.
I see most of these tbirds as originally military surplus that is
eventually hacked to within an inch of its frame by every crazy mechanic
with a blowtorch that the owner can find.

Hell, the Banshee is described in 2051 originally. I'm sure by 57-58 new
versions are out, and govnmt's are going to want to unload that hardware.
Its too expensive to have sitting around. Rip out the sensitive
electronics, weapons (and maybe mounts) and sell at auction.

Your rigger is going to get SOTA right off the bat, and it'll take a lot of
nuyen, but that's what he's running for, right?

Sommers
"Who would definitley be a rigger, not one of those pansy elf mages!"

From:	Max Rible <slothman@*********.ORG>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:23:32 -0800

Message no. 17 At 10:44 6/11/98 -0400, Ojaste,James [NCR] insinuated:
>Mike Bobroff wrote:
>>> >Hey James, what did you use for the mark-up multiplier ...

>>> I didn't use a luxury, security or military markup - no chassis or
>>> engine on its own has one. I did use the 2.5 markup for aircraft.

>>Sorry James, but that multiplier has to be factored in, sorry ...

>What? Luxury? It's not a luxury vehicle. Security? It's not armoured
>or armed, it doesn't use any security-rated electronics. Military? If
>it's not security, it's not military. Why should any of those markups
>apply? I'm not basing it on the Banshee or anything, this is a fresh
>design.

That vectored thrust has a very impressive anti-personnel use.
If I were the UCAS, I wouldn't license people to use them for anything
less than security work and probably only for military applications.
You can do a *lot* more damage with an LAV than you can with a helicopter.

--
%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%

From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:32:25 -0400

Message no. 18 Max Rible wrote:
>>>> >Hey James, what did you use for the mark-up multiplier ...
>>>> I didn't use a luxury, security or military markup - no chassis or
>>>> engine on its own has one. I did use the 2.5 markup for aircraft.
>>>Sorry James, but that multiplier has to be factored in, sorry ...
>>What? Luxury? It's not a luxury vehicle. Security? It's not armoured
>>or armed, it doesn't use any security-rated electronics. Military? If
>>it's not security, it's not military. Why should any of those markups
>>apply? I'm not basing it on the Banshee or anything, this is a fresh
>>design.
>
>That vectored thrust has a very impressive anti-personnel use.

So do the rotors on a chopper or the props on a plane, or...

>If I were the UCAS, I wouldn't license people to use them for anything
>less than security work and probably only for military applications.

Well, there'd be restrictions on where they could legally be used (like
they have defined zones where airliners are allowed to fly). Why be so
draconian about VTVs?

>You can do a *lot* more damage with an LAV than you can with a helicopter.

Err, that largely depends. A VTV (we're not talking about general LAVs,
here) is more maneuverable than a chopper, and doesn't have those nasty
spinning blades o' death to worry about. If a VTV gets too close to a
tall building, it'll break some glass which will plummet on to the heads
of pedestrians below. If a chopper gets too close, it'll break the
glass
and then fall onto the street (if it doesn't spin further into the
building or out into another one).

As for combat load - I think the Apache would be a good enough reason
to restrict choppers to military use only (if you're going to restrict
VTVs, there's no point in half measures!).

James Ojaste

From:	Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:41:22 -0400

Message no. 19 At 10:23 AM 6/11/98 -0800, you wrote:

[Snip]
>That vectored thrust has a very impressive anti-personnel use.
>If I were the UCAS, I wouldn't license people to use them for anything
>less than security work and probably only for military applications.
>You can do a *lot* more damage with an LAV than you can with a helicopter.
>
>--
>%% Max Rible %% slothman@*****.com %% http://www.amurgsval.org/~slothman/ %%
>%% "Ham is good... Glowing *tattooed* ham is *bad*!" - the Tick %%

The anti-personnel factor comes from four turbines letting loose pointed
towards the ground. Not a lot of difference between that and regular jets
operating today. Watch at the airport, everyone has those big
ear-protectors on, like they mention in T:SH rules. And that's only when
they work around them idling. Notice there's no one around when they start
to rev up a little when they taxi? And no one is stupid enough to hang
around behind a jet when it take off. (In fact, I would probably use those
rules for a character stupid enough to do that).

It doesn't seem much reason to prevent the general public from getting
them, anymore than they do jets, helicopters, or any other such
contraption. As long as they get to lisence, tax and otherwise make money
from it.

By the way, when I lived in Pennsylvania, state law said that once a year
you had to get your car inspected by a liscenced mechanic. You paid the $25
and they put a little sticker on the windshield. A cop can pull you over if
you don't have one of those. Be a real pain if they still had that law.
Either the rigger has to bribe/steal/fake his way into one or explain to
the mechanic what those...unusual... modifications are for;)

Sommers
"No officer, I do have a permit for that autocannon."

From:	"Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:36:49 -0300

Message no. 20 Max Rible escreveu:
>
>
> That vectored thrust has a very impressive anti-personnel use.
> If I were the UCAS, I wouldn't license people to use them for anything
> less than security work and probably only for military applications.
> You can do a *lot* more damage with an LAV than you can with a helicopter.
>
>

Then why not using something as a "spinner"? A LAV that uses a
high-powered fan turbine
instead of jet engines? It's not as powerful or fast, and must be
smaller than a v-trust
vehicle. Would be perfect for civilian use (weaker versions, expensive),
security or DocWagon
vehicles.

Bira (yes, I am back!)

From:	Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:07:11 -0400

Message no. 21 At 10:49 AM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Now use some of those modifiers that they put in the optional section to
>take the multiplier down. An obvious one would be the hard to maintain
>option (Milenium Falcon?), and maybe a used multiplier (make one if there
>isn't one maybe?) so you 're not getting one right off the lot. Then what
>you have is a military surplus LAV stripped of all the good stuff that they
>sell for extra cash. Then the rigger starts putting time and money into
>fixing it back up again to make it that smuggler's dream.

Now this I can really see. A stripped down LAV, barely more than an engine
and a cockpit, that's a bitch to maintain and sucks fuel like a thirsty man
in the desert drinks water. A few "milk" runs to replenish the credstick,
then the rigger starts to add in things like armor and ECM and that pop-up
Vindicator they've always dreamt about as nuyen is made. The thing would
probably be not terribly attractive and might look like it's held together
by duct tape and a paint job.

This is about the only way I can see a totally independent rigger getting a
LAV.

>In Blood in the Boardroom one on the corps (Renraku maybe?) is decribed as
>in part coming from a weapons manufacuring company out in Europe that
>invented LAVs in the 20's or 30's. From the Eurowar and other shit that
>went down out there, I'm sure there is a lot of military surplus to be had.
>I see most of these tbirds as originally military surplus that is
>eventually hacked to within an inch of its frame by every crazy mechanic
>with a blowtorch that the owner can find.

I'm not totally sure that the whole frame would be left on the vast
majority of those old Eurowar LAVs. Most of them have probably been hacked
into pieces for parts. So you buy a 2031 Ares chassis, a 2034 SK engine,
old 2026 doors, and so on. Piece it all together and you've got your own
custom LAV.

>Hell, the Banshee is described in 2051 originally. I'm sure by 57-58 new
>versions are out, and govnmt's are going to want to unload that hardware.
>Its too expensive to have sitting around. Rip out the sensitive
>electronics, weapons (and maybe mounts) and sell at auction.

I think the FB Eagle, minus all the gear and electronics, can be had by the
public in SR. Hell, today certain wealthy people like Larry Ellison can
buy surplus fighter jets with the "fighter" stuff removed. Not sure the
2051 Banshees would be out of service yet (budgets are tight you know), but
stuff from 2041 could easily be publicly available.

Yeah, I like this!

Erik J.

"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>

From:	Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:14:59 -0400

Message no. 22 At 03:07 PM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 10:49 AM 6/11/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Now use some of those modifiers that they put in the optional section to
>>take the multiplier down. An obvious one would be the hard to maintain
>>option (Milenium Falcon?), and maybe a used multiplier (make one if there
>>isn't one maybe?) so you 're not getting one right off the lot. Then what
>>you have is a military surplus LAV stripped of all the good stuff that they
>>sell for extra cash. Then the rigger starts putting time and money into
>>fixing it back up again to make it that smuggler's dream.
>
>Now this I can really see. A stripped down LAV, barely more than an engine
>and a cockpit, that's a bitch to maintain and sucks fuel like a thirsty man
>in the desert drinks water. A few "milk" runs to replenish the credstick,
>then the rigger starts to add in things like armor and ECM and that pop-up
>Vindicator they've always dreamt about as nuyen is made. The thing would
>probably be not terribly attractive and might look like it's held together
>by duct tape and a paint job.
>
>This is about the only way I can see a totally independent rigger getting a
>LAV.

I just checked the Rigger 2 when I went home for lunch (gotta love working
a mile from home!) and checked a few things. First, the Prototype/Used
Option for Vehicles. Adds 1d6 hidden Stress points to the Vehicle. Reduce
the multiplier by .6 before any factors for Security/military et all. Now
assuming that they took out electronics and weapons bays, there is no big
reason to consider it security or military. Its a really big square
helicopter;) And that means a markup of 1.9. Now you're starting to get
down to a half-way decent cost for a used one.

I also did some calculating on that fuel. Base is .05 and 7500 l. Lets bump
up the econ to .15 and keep fule the same. Gives a range of about 1100 km,
or 800 miles. Speed min is 400, so about 3 hours give or take. That means
one nice long hop out of Seattle and across NAN, stop and refuel for an
hour, and then another hop down to the ole Miss. Notice how they gave a lot
of stops for riggers along the way? What do you think that they're there for?

>>In Blood in the Boardroom one on the corps (Renraku maybe?) is decribed as
>>in part coming from a weapons manufacuring company out in Europe that
>>invented LAVs in the 20's or 30's. From the Eurowar and other shit that
>>went down out there, I'm sure there is a lot of military surplus to be had.
>>I see most of these tbirds as originally military surplus that is
>>eventually hacked to within an inch of its frame by every crazy mechanic
>>with a blowtorch that the owner can find.
>

I checked on this too. It was the forerunner of Renraku, and it was a milco
from Yugoslvaia of all places. They were an early competitor to the
forerunners of Saeder Krupp back in 2011 and so on. So according to that
LAVs have been around with the military for the last 45-50 years.

>I'm not totally sure that the whole frame would be left on the vast
>majority of those old Eurowar LAVs. Most of them have probably been hacked
>into pieces for parts. So you buy a 2031 Ares chassis, a 2034 SK engine,
>old 2026 doors, and so on. Piece it all together and you've got your own
>custom LAV.

I'm sure that you could do that. But don't forget that the Eurowars took
what, almost 10 years? Then there was the Russian thing in Siberia,
constant fighting in China, SE Asia, Africa, Yucatan, the middle east
Islamic thing, etc. There have been a lot of wars in the last 20 years that
could have produced surplus vehicles. Know how many Huey choppers are in
Vietnam?

>>Hell, the Banshee is described in 2051 originally. I'm sure by 57-58 new
>>versions are out, and govnmt's are going to want to unload that hardware.
>>Its too expensive to have sitting around. Rip out the sensitive
>>electronics, weapons (and maybe mounts) and sell at auction.
>
>I think the FB Eagle, minus all the gear and electronics, can be had by the
>public in SR. Hell, today certain wealthy people like Larry Ellison can
>buy surplus fighter jets with the "fighter" stuff removed. Not sure the
>2051 Banshees would be out of service yet (budgets are tight you know), but
>stuff from 2041 could easily be publicly available.
>

True, budgets are tight. But I'm sure that several groups would be keeping
SOTA. How about Tir? The California thing was in 2045 I think (something
like that). You know those elves are going to use the best tech they can
get their hands on. Think that a few Telestrian LAVs are running the Denver
routes? I'm sure that they are.

Oh, and depending on who you buy fighters from today, the country might
forget to remove the weapons, let alone the mounting points. I saw it on a
Mig 17 that came in from China about 10 years ago. Opened up the shipping
crate and there it was: a little rusty, dinged up, and fully armed with
rocket pods! Customs had a fit!

>Yeah, I like this!
>
>Erik J.
>
>
>"Ladies & Gentleman, the newest member of the band, the one and only Spice
>Boy, GRUMPY SPICE!!!" <and the crowd goes wild!!!>
>

Sommers
"Wondering how many Spice Girls I could take out with LAV washout?"

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:28:21 -0700

Message no. 23 >One big question that T:SH still leaves unanswered: how is t-bird
>smuggling economically viable?

Hmm. Gold's high-value, but bulky. BTLs are, well, less so. Uranium?
Nah. No style there.

So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
minimum notice?

Two or three CF .. that's about the size of ..

.. a person!

And then, of course, there's always tiger-runs: Make a loud, noticeable
dash over the Aztlan border -- just to let you know you can do it. And
then, the *next* time you do it, they go after the decoy - instead of
the really sneaky, really quiet ATV team several dozen miles distant.
Nothing like psychological warfare.

- Matt

------------------------------------
In a dark time, the eye begins to see. - T. Roethke

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:03:03 -0500

Message no. 24 >So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
>two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
>minimum notice?
>Two or three CF .. that's about the size of ..
> .. a person!

A bucket seat takes up 6 CF. And 100 kg. :)
Although I suppose if the guy was really limber you could stick him in the
trunk. ;)
-Teeg

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 19:42:37 EDT

Message no. 25 In a message dated 6/11/98 3:36:33 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
evamarie@**********.net writes:

> What fragging drekhead would bother smuggling with a cross-oceanic
> t-bird? Isn't that why FASA gave us all that cool info on ships, ports,
> pirates, and cargos?
>
I completely agree with you Mongoose except for one thing. The information
Mike was giving is still influenced by people/forces that predate the
Cyberpirates and T:SH books. If someone is playing in a game where -those-
sourcebooks are either not allowed or not going to be allowed, then the
"older" methods are required.

-K

From:	K is the Symbol <Ereskanti@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 20:07:25 EDT

Message no. 26 In a message dated 6/11/98 9:45:06 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA writes:

> It's classified as an aircraft (Fixed Wing/Vector Thrust), according to
> R2 pg171. According to page 114, the markup for a vector thrust craft
> is 2.5. Now, it might qualify for the Specialized NCV or Unusual
> markups, but those can be very small markups (and are up to the GM).
>
> A vector-thrust UAV isn't milspec - it could be a child's toy. Just
> think of a T-bird as a big VT-UAV...
>
(sounds of incredible laughter and rolling body on the floor)

Oh yeah, let me have -THAT- remote. JUST for the fun of it, take it to the
next modeler meeting and kind of "buzz" the other remotes...

-=-=-

Seriously now though, there is ONE thing that is a problem that I see here in
this discussion between you too that both of you are neglecting.

The definition of "Security" and "Military" at least, does NOT come
from the
body design as much as it does from legal boundary. -We- as people simply add
these little markers.

Please note that it would take some -HELLISH- contacts to get the chassis and
power plant bare bones from a manufacturer at the costs that James is
suggesting. I am not saying it's not possible, I am also not saying that
either one of you are right or wrong.

BTB, with -ALL- factors involved, Mike is right. By the -PUREST- mathematics,
James most certainly is.

-K

From:	Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens)
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:22:06 -0500

Message no. 27 On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:17:49 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
>First of all, so it doesn't get lost in the post, would someone like
>Sommers, James, Mike or Keith mind creating a few examples of these bare
>bones LAVs? I'd really really like to see them personally, and while I
own
>R2, I have neither the time nor (honestly) the understanding of the
vehicle
>design rules to do it myself. Maybe something like a 40yr old Eurowars
>left-over, a modern "cobbled together" one and something about 20yrs
old.
>I'd guess it'd be used and need repairs often and wouldn't have the
optimal
>fuel economy. Thanks fellas. I think you could probably get away with
>posting them to the list.
<SNIP rest of post>

While I'm not amongst those mentioned, I'll step up and give it a shot
...
Ok ... here's one version:

Modified Used 2036 Pontiac Thunderbird :)
Handling Speed Accel Body Armor Sig
3 150/750 45 6 0 3

Autonav Pilot Sensor Cargo Load
- NA 3 16 10,000
Seating: 1e Entry Points:
Landing/Takeoff: VSTOL Fuel: Jet (11,500 liters)
Economy: .3 km/liter Point Value: 7,055
Cost: 776,000* Template: Thunderbird
*Cost includes the following vehicle Quality Factors:
Lemon level 1 -.15
Complex Chassis -.3
Custom built -.2
Used vehicle -.6
Passenger trap -.15

Features: enviroseal (gas)

Yes this is very heavy on the negative quality factors and not much
benefit but it has a range of 3,450 km (2,143.7 miles) ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:54:40 -0500

Message no. 28 On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:03:03 -0500 John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET> writes:
>>So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
>>two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
>>minimum notice?
>>Two or three CF .. that's about the size of ..
>> .. a person!
>
>A bucket seat takes up 6 CF. And 100 kg. :)
>Although I suppose if the guy was really limber you could stick him in
the
>trunk. ;)
>-Teeg

Actually a 100 kg person takes up approximately .132 cubic meters (i
think), a lttle more than 1 CF ... the 6 CF for a bucket seat represents
all the space a person needs to be comfortable ... also, remember you can
sqeeze an extra 1.5 CF per seat by encroaching on said comfort zone
(making a barebones bucket seat really take up 4.5 CF) ... and that still
leave you some room to brathe and get in and out of the seat ... so I
would say, yes you can fit a person into 2 or 3 CF of space ...

BTW, my calculation of the volume of a human is based on Rolemaster's
Companion I's system of calculating weight ... I can't find my copy ATM,
but have it almost memorized ... However if the number 47 doen't
represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above is
incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:02:30 EDT

Message no. 29 In a message dated 6/11/98 2:45:08 PM !!!First Boot!!!, James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA
writes:

> It's classified as an aircraft (Fixed Wing/Vector Thrust), according to
> R2 pg171. According to page 114, the markup for a vector thrust craft
> is 2.5. Now, it might qualify for the Specialized NCV or Unusual
> markups, but those can be very small markups (and are up to the GM).
>
> A vector-thrust UAV isn't milspec - it could be a child's toy. Just
> think of a T-bird as a big VT-UAV...

Okay, James, I like your train of thought, although this is something I
disagree with you on, but it is something that does not need to be argued as
it would cause a flame war.

-Mike

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:06:51 EDT

Message no. 30 In a message dated 6/11/98 6:43:54 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR writes:

> > That vectored thrust has a very impressive anti-personnel use.
> > If I were the UCAS, I wouldn't license people to use them for anything
> > less than security work and probably only for military applications.
> > You can do a *lot* more damage with an LAV than you can with a
helicopter.
> >
> >
>
> Then why not using something as a "spinner"? A LAV that uses a
> high-powered fan turbine
> instead of jet engines? It's not as powerful or fast, and must be
> smaller than a v-trust
> vehicle. Would be perfect for civilian use (weaker versions, expensive),
> security or DocWagon
> vehicles.
>
A question Bira, what's a "spinner?"

Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines ...

-Mike

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:58:15 -0700

Message no. 31 John Dukes wrote:

> >So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
> >two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
> >minimum notice?
> >Two or three CF .. that's about the size of ..
> > .. a person!
>
> A bucket seat takes up 6 CF. And 100 kg. :)
> Although I suppose if the guy was really limber you could stick him in the
> trunk. ;)

Such person does not always need to be comfortable, conscious, or, for
that matter, living.

(Thinking of Mel Odom's _Haedhunters_ on that last one.)

- Matt

------------------------------------
In a dark time, the eye begins to see. - T. Roethke

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens)
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:41:12 -0400

Message no. 32 >On Thu, 11 Jun 1998 18:17:49 -0400 Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> writes:
>>First of all, so it doesn't get lost in the post, would someone like
>>Sommers, James, Mike or Keith mind creating a few examples of these bare
>>bones LAVs?

I was re-reading NAN 2, Trans-polar section. Page 82 has a section on
"Alternative transport" indicating _passenger_ LAVs into T-PA. From a
decker comment: "They're not real T-Birds -- no armor or weapons or
firm/hardpoints to mount anything -- but they're LAVs just the same".

This would imply either manufacture of such LAVs, or a market in secondary
LAVs. I leave the creation of a passenger LAV's stats to someone who
actually likes Rigger 2.

Wordman

From:	Wordman <wordman@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 22:46:36 -0400

Message no. 33 Matt wrote:
>So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
>two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
>minimum notice?

Drugs. Pharmicutical, not recreational. Black Thunder, for example.

Nanites.

Foci.

Amber-gel.

From:	Matb <mbreton@**.NETCOM.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 21:00:20 -0700

Message no. 34 Wordman wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> >So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
> >two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
> >minimum notice?

Rhetorical question. :) Also, most of the items you mentioned stan a
fair chance of being manufactured (or at least manufactur*able*) in the
destination - or don't require the speed a t-bird can provide - so why
smuggle?

- Matt

Smuggle .. vegemite! That's it!

------------------------------------
In a dark time, the eye begins to see. - T. Roethke

GridSec: SRCard / Freedonian Research Assistant
Teen Poets FAQ: http://pw1.netcom.com/~mbreton/poetry/poetfaq.htm
SRTCG Website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/2189/ccgtop.htm

From:	John Dukes <dukes@*******.NET>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 1998 23:34:09 -0500

Message no. 35 >Actually a 100 kg person takes up approximately .132 cubic meters (i
>think), a lttle more than 1 CF ... the 6 CF for a bucket seat represents
>all the space a person needs to be comfortable ... also, remember you can
>sqeeze an extra 1.5 CF per seat by encroaching on said comfort zone
>(making a barebones bucket seat really take up 4.5 CF) ... and that still
>leave you some room to brathe and get in and out of the seat ... so I
>would say, yes you can fit a person into 2 or 3 CF of space ...

I tried to calculate some stuff in CF at one point. It gave me a damned
headache. I finally got to the point where I just thought of things in
terms of how many "bucket seats" it would take up. Jon, how about a hand?
How many CF does a normal trunk have? A glove compartment? A minivan? etc.

-Teeg

From:	Geoff Skellams <geoff.skellams@*********.COM.AU>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:32:18 +1000

Message no. 36 On Shadowrun Discussion, John Dukes[SMTP:dukes@*******.NET] wrote:
> >Actually a 100 kg person takes up approximately .132 cubic meters (i
> >think), a lttle more than 1 CF ... the 6 CF for a bucket seat
represents
> >all the space a person needs to be comfortable ... also, remember you
can
> >sqeeze an extra 1.5 CF per seat by encroaching on said comfort zone
> >(making a barebones bucket seat really take up 4.5 CF) ... and that
still
> >leave you some room to brathe and get in and out of the seat ... so I
> >would say, yes you can fit a person into 2 or 3 CF of space ...
>
>
> I tried to calculate some stuff in CF at one point. It gave me a
damned
> headache. I finally got to the point where I just thought of things in
> terms of how many "bucket seats" it would take up. Jon, how about a
hand?
> How many CF does a normal trunk have? A glove compartment? A minivan?
etc.

It's really not that hard. A CF is just a volume of 0.5m x 0.5m x 0.5m
(or 0.125m^3). For those of you who can't think in metres, half a metre
is approximately equal to 1.5 feet.
So to determine how many CFs are in a given volume, you just
need to work out the volume in question (preferably in cubic metres) and
then divide that figure by 0.125.

For example, let's say the area in the back of a van is 2 metres
long, 1.25 metres wide and 1.5 metres high. This gives a total volume of
3.75m^3. To calculate the number of CF, we divide this figure by 0.125
to give 30CF.
Here endeth the lesson :)

cheers
G

--
Geoff Skellams R&D - Tower Software
Email Address: geoff.skellams@*********.com.au
Homepage: http://www.towersoft.com.au/staff/geoff/
ICQ Number: 2815165

"That rates about a 9.5 on my weird-shit-o-meter"
- Will Smith in "Men in Black"

From:	"Ubiratan P. Alberton" <ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:45:08 -0300

Message no. 37 Alfredo B Alves escreveu:
>

>
> Actually a 100 kg person takes up approximately .132 cubic meters (i
> think), a lttle more than 1 CF ... the 6 CF for a bucket seat represents
> all the space a person needs to be comfortable ... also, remember you can
> sqeeze an extra 1.5 CF per seat by encroaching on said comfort zone
> (making a barebones bucket seat really take up 4.5 CF) ... and that still
> leave you some room to brathe and get in and out of the seat ... so I
> would say, yes you can fit a person into 2 or 3 CF of space ...
>
> BTW, my calculation of the volume of a human is based on Rolemaster's
> Companion I's system of calculating weight ... I can't find my copy ATM,
> but have it almost memorized ... However if the number 47 doen't
> represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above is
> incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)
>

I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
water
(we're mostly water, anyway). Use, say, 1.2x10^3 or 1.3x10^3
(International system kg/m^3),
give the guy a mass of 70 kg and you get volume in cubic meters. Then
you convert it to whatever system
Americans use :) .

Bira

From:	Nexx Many-Scars <Nexx3@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:43:47 EDT

Message no. 38 In a message dated 98-06-12 00:42:08 EDT, you write:

> I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
> water
> (we're mostly water, anyway)

<BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!

If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water, we'd
sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.

Bull, why don't you tell Bira what he didn't win?

From:	Alfredo B Alves <dghost@****.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 02:24:11 -0500

Message no. 39 On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:45:08 -0300 "Ubiratan P. Alberton"
<ubiratan@**.HOMESHOPPING.COM.BR> writes:
>Alfredo B Alves escreveu:
<SNIP>
>> BTW, my calculation of the volume of a human is based on Rolemaster's
>> Companion I's system of calculating weight ... I can't find my copy
ATM,
>> but have it almost memorized ... However if the number 47 doen't
>> represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above
is
>> incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)

> I would say the density of a person is a little over the density
ofwater
>(we're mostly water, anyway). Use, say, 1.2x10^3 or 1.3x10^3
>(International system kg/m^3),
>give the guy a mass of 70 kg and you get volume in cubic meters. Then
>you convert it to whatever system
>Americans use :) .
>
> Bira

no, I meant that I wanted someone with RM companion I to check to see if
the units were right ... I actually had to convert from English (Lbm) to
Metric (Kg) ... so if it had been in metric I wouldn't have had to do any
conversions at all ...
(btw, the system was ((HT)^3)*.00136*((.08898)^2)*47 where ht represents
the height of the individual in inches ... and the result is the wieght,
in pounds, of the person (which you then multiply by a number that
represents build to get the final weight)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

From:	roun <roun@***.NET>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:36:35 PDT

Message no. 40 ----------
| In a message dated 98-06-12 00:42:08 EDT, you write:
|
| > I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
| > water
| > (we're mostly water, anyway)
|
| <BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!
|
| If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water,
we'd
| sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.
|
| Bull, why don't you tell Bira what he didn't win?

actually, if you do not have any air in your lungs whatsoever (VERY hard to
do) we are a little denser than water (brain matter mostly!! j/k) and so
yes, we WILL sink. it is the air in your body cavities that keeps you
afloat.

hehe, he said cavities...uh heh huh

roun aka david
roun@***.net

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 12:40:20 +0100

Message no. 41 Mike Bobroff said on 21:06/11 Jun 98,...

> Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines ...

I think he means turboprops -- a turbine driving a propeller (or in
the case of an LAV, a rotor system, which IIRC would make them
turboshafts).

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mobiel telefoneren is een vorm van incontinentie.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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

From:	Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:38:38 +0000

Message no. 42 > In a message dated 98-06-12 00:42:08 EDT, you write:
>
> > I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
> > water
> > (we're mostly water, anyway)
>
> <BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!
>
> If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water, we'd
> sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.

Lie in water.

Breathe in.

You float.

Breathe out.

You sink lower.

Fill your lungs with water.

You sink.

Rot for a while, creating methane pockets.

You float again.

It's real easy. We're really close to water's weight. Depends on
fat etcetera exactly how we compare to water in weight.

--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost

From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:33:53 -0400

Message no. 43 Alfredo B Alves wrote:
>>>So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
>>>two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
>>>minimum notice?
>>>Two or three CF .. that's about the size of ..
>>> .. a person!
>>
>>A bucket seat takes up 6 CF. And 100 kg. :)
[snip]
>Actually a 100 kg person takes up approximately .132 cubic meters (i
>think), a lttle more than 1 CF ... the 6 CF for a bucket seat represents
>all the space a person needs to be comfortable ... also, remember you can
>sqeeze an extra 1.5 CF per seat by encroaching on said comfort zone
>(making a barebones bucket seat really take up 4.5 CF) ... and that still
>leave you some room to brathe and get in and out of the seat ... so I
>would say, yes you can fit a person into 2 or 3 CF of space ...
>
>BTW, my calculation of the volume of a human is based on Rolemaster's
>Companion I's system of calculating weight ... I can't find my copy ATM,
>but have it almost memorized ... However if the number 47 doen't
>represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above is
>incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)

OK, people are mostly water, so a 100kg person should have a volume of
approx 100L (if blended well). 1L will fill a 1dm side cube, so you can
fit 1kL in a 1m^3. So 0.1 m^3 is reasonable, again provided that
they're well blended. :-)

James Ojaste

From:	"Ojaste,James [NCR]" <James.Ojaste@**.GC.CA>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:37:05 -0400

Message no. 44 Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
>> I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
>> water
>> (we're mostly water, anyway)
>
><BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!
>
>If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water, we'd
>sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.

That depends on the person - some people sink naturally. I have
difficulty floating, for one. I always tend to sink unless I remember
to take large breaths and hold them...

James Ojaste

From:	Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:41:09 -0500

Message no. 45 >
> Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
> >> I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
> >> water
> >> (we're mostly water, anyway)
> >
> ><BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!
> >
> >If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water, we'd
> >sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.
>
> That depends on the person - some people sink naturally. I have
> difficulty floating, for one. I always tend to sink unless I remember
> to take large breaths and hold them...
>
I have a friend who has the same effect. It seems to be combination of
lung volume (She has small lungs) and body mass (She is mostly muscle. Muscle
sinks, fat floats. :))
Hmm..If there aren't edges in cyberpirates for this (I don't have my book
handy), there should be.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lehlan Decker (850)644-4534 Systems Development
decker@****.fsu.edu http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~decker
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Morality is moral only when it is voluntary.

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens)
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:41:14 EDT

Message no. 46 In a message dated 6/12/98 2:45:23 AM !!!First Boot!!!, wordman@*******.COM
writes:

> I was re-reading NAN 2, Trans-polar section. Page 82 has a section on
> "Alternative transport" indicating _passenger_ LAVs into T-PA. From a
> decker comment: "They're not real T-Birds -- no armor or weapons or
> firm/hardpoints to mount anything -- but they're LAVs just the same".
>
> This would imply either manufacture of such LAVs, or a market in secondary
> LAVs. I leave the creation of a passenger LAV's stats to someone who
> actually likes Rigger 2.

First, an LAV (Low-Altitude Vehicle) is defined as any vehicle with a maximum
altitude of 1500 meters (T:SH, pp. 107 for the Altitude table).

So, a passenger LAV .. this could be a no frills t-bird capable of carrying a
lot of people ... or a luxury version which can also carry a lot of people.
The only difference is in how comfortable the passengers are.

-Mike

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:42:29 EDT

Message no. 47 In a message dated 6/12/98 2:47:02 AM !!!First Boot!!!, wordman@*******.COM
writes:

> >So, what's worth (potentially) millions or billions and only takes up
> >two or three CF? What needs to be taken over national borders with
> >minimum notice?
>
> Drugs. Pharmicutical, not recreational. Black Thunder, for example.
>
> Nanites.
>
> Foci.
>
> Amber-gel.

And anything else which someone wants to pay a lot of cred for ...

Like several bottles of Dom Perignon Champagne from an exceptional year, which
are also very rare ...

-Mike

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:01:53 EDT

Message no. 48 In a message dated 6/12/98 10:41:24 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> > Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines ...
>
> I think he means turboprops -- a turbine driving a propeller (or in
> the case of an LAV, a rotor system, which IIRC would make them
> turboshafts).

Hmmm, if that is what he means then perhaps you could have a panzer with a
pair or even one turboprop, but it would not be capable of carrying as much as
a normal turbine t-bird.

And I am still waiting to see what he meant.

-Mike

From:	Sommers <sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:23:33 -0400

Message no. 49 At 11:01 AM 6/12/98 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 6/12/98 10:41:24 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
>writes:
>
>> > Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines
...
>>
>> I think he means turboprops -- a turbine driving a propeller (or in
>> the case of an LAV, a rotor system, which IIRC would make them
>> turboshafts).
>
>Hmmm, if that is what he means then perhaps you could have a panzer with a
>pair or even one turboprop, but it would not be capable of carrying as
much as
>a normal turbine t-bird.
>
>And I am still waiting to see what he meant.
>
>-Mike

<Professor mode on>
Nope, wouldn't work. A plane works by having an engine of X type push or
pull the plane in a direction Y forward. By doing this air is forced over
the wing, which is curved, meaning the air is moving faster over the top
than the bottom. This creates less pressure, or force, on top than on the
bottom ie lift. That sucks the wings, and the plane along with it, up.

A T-bird is shaped a little bit like a wing in cross section, so it gets a
little bit of lift. But that's nowhere near enough to keep it flying on its
own, and so it does it by pure thrust. A Pegasus engine, the kind on the
Harrier Jump Jet, puts out about 100,000lbs of force. So the plane can't
weigh anymore than 50 tons, or it wont take off. A LAV can't weigh much
more than, say, 90% of its powerplants thrust and still operate (giveing
some for ground effect and limited aerodynamics). Turbofans don't put out
that much thrust. You need a turbojet to make the thing work in the first
place.
</professor mode off>

By the way, to learn that took me a week and cost about $300 in class...

Sommers
"Who is thinking about taking up smuggling to pay off college loans"

From:	Mike Bobroff <Airwasp@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens
Date:	Fri, 12 Jun 1998 11:58:07 EDT

Message no. 50 In a message dated 6/12/98 3:23:52 PM !!!First Boot!!!,
sommers@*****.UMICH.EDU writes:

> >> > Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines
> ...
> >>
> >> I think he means turboprops -- a turbine driving a propeller (or in
> >> the case of an LAV, a rotor system, which IIRC would make them
> >> turboshafts).
> >
> >Hmmm, if that is what he means then perhaps you could have a panzer with a
> >pair or even one turboprop, but it would not be capable of carrying as
> much as
> >a normal turbine t-bird.
> >
> >And I am still waiting to see what he meant.
> >
> >-Mike
>
> <Professor mode on>
> Nope, wouldn't work. A plane works by having an engine of X type push or
> pull the plane in a direction Y forward. By doing this air is forced over
> the wing, which is curved, meaning the air is moving faster over the top
> than the bottom. This creates less pressure, or force, on top than on the
> bottom ie lift. That sucks the wings, and the plane along with it, up.
>
> A T-bird is shaped a little bit like a wing in cross section, so it gets a
> little bit of lift. But that's nowhere near enough to keep it flying on its
> own, and so it does it by pure thrust. A Pegasus engine, the kind on the
> Harrier Jump Jet, puts out about 100,000lbs of force. So the plane can't
> weigh anymore than 50 tons, or it wont take off. A LAV can't weigh much
> more than, say, 90% of its powerplants thrust and still operate (giveing
> some for ground effect and limited aerodynamics). Turbofans don't put out
> that much thrust. You need a turbojet to make the thing work in the first
> place.
> </professor mode off>
>
> By the way, to learn that took me a week and cost about $300 in class...
>
I agree with you completely, but, what if a t-bird were designed with a pair
of turboprops added onto it. The turboprops could create the Speed and Accel,
and the turbine could be applied to provided the necessary lift, which could
increase the maximum load of the t-bird.

-Mike

Message no. 51 At 11:58 AM 6/12/98 EDT, you wrote:

[Snip]

>I agree with you completely, but, what if a t-bird were designed with a pair
>of turboprops added onto it. The turboprops could create the Speed and
Accel,
>and the turbine could be applied to provided the necessary lift, which could
>increase the maximum load of the t-bird.
>
>-Mike

If you put a pair of turboprops on it, it could add to your speed and
acceleration, but probably not by much. But it wouldn't add to your load
rating at all. Any extra power applied in the forward direction would not
translate into more lift because there are very little aerodynamic lift
forces involved.

You could argue that by providing the thrust forward, the turbine could be
used to soley provide lift, which would mean that it could carry more. But
the amount of work that you would have to put into coordinating two sets of
powerplants wouldn't really make it worth it. You might as well put in a
bigger turbine with an extra set of vector thrust nozzles pointing straight
back.

Sommers
"Guess that edukaton is paying off, huh?"

Message no. 52 On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:41:09 -0500 Lehlan Decker <decker@****.FSU.EDU>
writes:
>> Nexx Many-Scars wrote:
>> >> I would say the density of a person is a little over the density
of
>> >> water (we're mostly water, anyway)

>> ><BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!
>> >
>> >If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of
water,
>> >we'd sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.

>> That depends on the person - some people sink naturally. I have
>> difficulty floating, for one. I always tend to sink unless I remember
>> to take large breaths and hold them...

>I have a friend who has the same effect. It seems to be combination of
>lung volume (She has small lungs) and body mass (She is mostly muscle.
Muscle
>sinks, fat floats. :))
>Hmm..If there aren't edges in cyberpirates for this (I don't have my
book
>handy), there should be.
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Lehlan Decker
<SNIP Sig>

While there aren't any edges for this that I can recall, the rules for
swimming /treading water do take this into account ...

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 53 In a message dated 98-06-12 10:37:52 EDT, you write:

> >If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water,
we'
> d
> >sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.
>
> That depends on the person - some people sink naturally. I have
> difficulty floating, for one. I always tend to sink unless I remember
> to take large breaths and hold them...

Okokok... _I_ don't sink in water.

Nexx

Message no. 54 In a message dated 98-06-12 10:41:39 EDT, you write:

> I have a friend who has the same effect. It seems to be combination of
> lung volume (She has small lungs) and body mass (She is mostly muscle.
> Muscle
> sinks, fat floats. :))
> Hmm..If there aren't edges in cyberpirates for this (I don't have my book
> handy), there should be.

What? Extra-Chunky, a 1 point point edge that adds 50% to your floating time,
but also adding +1 to all target numbers to attract a member of the opposite
sex?

Nexx

Message no. 55 > Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens (Mike Bobroff , Thu 9:04)

> Hey James, what did you use for the mark-up multiplier ... Luxury, security,
> or military grade ... and which end of the spectrum on the multiplier ...
>
> We always use the higher end of the spectrum for most of the vehicles we make
> here ...

To really getthe cost down, you need that "drone" multiplier. You can
always add seats and controlls (a built in hardwired deck) (and doors, I
guess) as customizations.... Its not without precident- R2 has that
bulldozer drone thing, with no manned bulldozers.

What sort of t-bird would reasaonably be a big drone? I could see a
"flying firetruck" for hi-rises, as it would have the size and capacity
for a lot of water, and faster response (not to mention better heat
resistance and stabilty near infirno's) than a blimp or helicopter.
Although a tethered baloon firmans elevator / evacuation platform is
already on the market.

I'd give this no engine improvement, maybe some handling help, lots of
weight and cargo (watertanks), no signature boost, minimal electronics,
maybe some armor (flame resistance) and a rollcage (it might go near
explosions). Maybe some arms, for opening widows / making water holes
(STR 36!) / doing rescues, and someway to hook to water (a "winch" with
a suply hose to lower to groung?) And, of course, a water cannon in a
turret. Maybe 2 more in the body, if they will fit.
Markup would be .275 - .5 : 2.5 for vector thrust, +.25 - 2.5 for
"specialized non-military", x.1 for "drone". I might add the
"custom
built" modifier- most fire engines today are, and this would be a "2 per
city max" kinda thing; that would make it slightly cheaper. It would
also make it expensive to bring up to "real" T-bird specs with later
customizations.
But what better possible runner vehicle than a FIRETRUCK? Once word
got around, the trick would fail, but with good decker support, it might
work 3 times.

-Mongoose

Message no. 56 > Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens (Alfredo B Alves , Thu 18:54)
> However if the number 47 doen't
> represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above is
> incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)

It does, IIRC. "Dragon" magazine, back in its useful days, had an
article on calculating the weihgt of giants and golems. It had a
formula for calculating cubic feet (which was pointlessly complex, if
you can use ratios and cubes at all, and know standard human volume),
and it had the mass of MANY materials in lbs / cubic foot. Flesh
(averaged for bone and all) was 47 (a number that stuck in my head and
is fun to raise at parties, when sombody mentions grinding up bodies and
wonders how small you can pack-em. What, that never happens to you?)
Myself, I prefer just to scale mass up by cubes and use relative
density to adjust for material, but, to each thier own. I chucked the
'zine at some point before college (moving out from home was a clean
break), with all my other D+D stuff. Unfortunate, but I've got no real
regrets.
-Mongoose

Message no. 57 > Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens (Mike Bobroff , Thu 20:06)

> > > That vectored thrust has a very impressive anti-personnel use.
> > > If I were the UCAS, I wouldn't license people to use them for anything
> > > less than security work and probably only for military applications.
> > > You can do a *lot* more damage with an LAV than you can with a
> helicopter.

> Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines ...

Just because they are jet turbines doesn't mean the exhaust has to be
blasting fast and hard. In fact,there would be a large incentive to
develope some way to increase flow volume and decrease velocity, because
that would increase economy at low speads (and lift capabilty). In fact
flow volume / velocity is the reason helicopters work better than vecort
thrust for lifting purposes- they push a lot of air down at lower
speeds, which is more effecient: The energy needed to accelerate the
air, ie fuel used, is 1/2 mv^2, but the momnetum it imparts, ie lift /
thrust, is MV.
In the best of all worlds, this would be adjustable, so that you could
crank exhaust speedup for really high top speed (and makeup the lift
with alittle wing action, fo a VT vehicle) Can this be done? Sure. Un
choppers, its donewith blade attack angle VS rpms. Its not done in jet
turbines now, becsause the turbines needed would be very complex (smart
materials might work, though).
However, it can be done WITHOUT turbines by using lamilar flow and the
Bernouli principal. In effect, jet engines can be made "adjustable" by
a fancy shrouding mechanism and an adjustable "plug". They are not
because the principles are poorly understood, underpublished, and the
early devlopers experiments lead to fires... Plus its not really needed
for planes.
Lamilar flow seems to be an idea that is again gaining popularity,
mostly because microdrones are strongly affacted (being small and slow,
these effects are more pronounced), so maybe it will be developed for
engines, peobably in vectrothrust drones.
At the other end of the spectrum, has any body seen the "Discover"
program with all the drones? (which one? F.I.I.K.) Did anybody see
that WACKY V-T drone that (IIRC) was for orbital use (basically, a
satlite killer that just rams like a smart shell), but was hovering,
yawing, pitching, and rolling ON EARTH by pulsing its set of 12
rockets? Loud as fuck, rocket flame everywhere, but MAN, that was SCARY
manuverabily-like anti-gravity, almost. The test engeneers seemd
giddy,and I would be too- it didn't even seem complex in structure, just
very well computer controlled. I'm not sure how such small looking
engines gave the needed thrust (I'm no rocket scientist) but otherwise
it was the kind of thing any MIT engeneering undergrad or DOD contactor
could do. HMM- kinda looked like a UFO, actually- pulsing lights,
sudden darting movement...

-Mongoose

Message no. 58 Mike Bobroff escreveu:
>
> In a message dated 6/12/98 10:41:24 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
> writes:
>
> > > Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines ...
> >
> > I think he means turboprops -- a turbine driving a propeller (or in
> > the case of an LAV, a rotor system, which IIRC would make them
> > turboshafts).
>
> Hmmm, if that is what he means then perhaps you could have a panzer with a
> pair or even one turboprop, but it would not be capable of carrying as much as
> a normal turbine t-bird.
>
> And I am still waiting to see what he meant.
>
> -Mike

It's a turboprop, alright. The propeller is "under" the LAV, where
the jet engine would stay.
And it's not meant to carry as much as a normal T-Bird, since it's more
for security and even civilian use,
instead of military.

Bira

Message no. 59 Sommers escreveu:
>
> At 11:01 AM 6/12/98 EDT, you wrote:
> >In a message dated 6/12/98 10:41:24 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
> >writes:
> >
> >> > Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines
> ...
> >>
> <Professor mode on>

> Nope, wouldn't work. A plane works by having an engine of X type push or
> pull the plane in a direction Y forward. By doing this air is forced over
> the wing, which is curved, meaning the air is moving faster over the top
> than the bottom. This creates less pressure, or force, on top than on the
> bottom ie lift. That sucks the wings, and the plane along with it, up.
>
> A T-bird is shaped a little bit like a wing in cross section, so it gets a
> little bit of lift. But that's nowhere near enough to keep it flying on its
> own, and so it does it by pure thrust. A Pegasus engine, the kind on the
> Harrier Jump Jet, puts out about 100,000lbs of force. So the plane can't
> weigh anymore than 50 tons, or it wont take off. A LAV can't weigh much
> more than, say, 90% of its powerplants thrust and still operate (giveing
> some for ground effect and limited aerodynamics). Turbofans don't put out
> that much thrust. You need a turbojet to make the thing work in the first
> place.
> </professor mode off>
>
> By the way, to learn that took me a week and cost about $300 in class...
>
>

I was thinking of turboprops for civilian vehicles, or things with
little armor.
Things light the Banshee or the Lobo do need a jet, because they'll be
packing high
tech sensor suites, lot'sa missiles and cannons, about 1 ton of armor,
etc. But a cililian
LAV won't be carrying this. You make it with light materials and no
armor, and I'd think a turbofan
could lift it and make it go at a decent speed (nowhere near a
jet-propelled LAV either).

Bira

Message no. 60 On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:48:11 -0500 wafflemiester
<evamarie@**********.net> writes:
>> Re: Target: Smuggler's Havens (Alfredo B Alves , Thu 18:54)
>> However if the number 47 doen't
>> represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above
is
>> incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)

> It does, IIRC. "Dragon" magazine, back in its useful days, had
an
>article on calculating the weihgt of giants and golems. It had a
>formula for calculating cubic feet (which was pointlessly complex, if
>you can use ratios and cubes at all, and know standard human volume),
>and it had the mass of MANY materials in lbs / cubic foot.
<SNIP>
>-Mongoose

Hmmm, I wonder if the stuff in RMC I is reprinted from from Dragon or
vice-versa ... the RMC I had a lot of materials listed ... IIRC balsa was
like 8, and Platinum was 1100 or something like that ...

Unfortunately, my copy of RMC I is split into 2 pieces right after the
new races section, and I can only find the first part ... oh well, I'll
find it sooner or later ... :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 61 Nexx Many-Scars escreveu:
>
> In a message dated 98-06-12 00:42:08 EDT, you write:
>
> > I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
> > water
> > (we're mostly water, anyway)
>
> <BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!
>
> If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water, we'd
> sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.
>
> Bull, why don't you tell Bira what he didn't win?

Then make the density somehting between 0.9 and 0.999 for the CF
calculation, or just put
1 anyway (all x10^3, in the International System...). I can't know
everything... Working on it tough :) .

Bira

Message no. 62 At 12-Jun-98 wrote Alfredo B Alves:

>> It does, IIRC. "Dragon" magazine, back in its useful days, had
>an
>>article on calculating the weihgt of giants and golems. It had a
>>formula for calculating cubic feet (which was pointlessly complex, if
>>you can use ratios and cubes at all, and know standard human volume),
>>and it had the mass of MANY materials in lbs / cubic foot.
><SNIP>
>>-Mongoose

>Hmmm, I wonder if the stuff in RMC I is reprinted from from Dragon or
>vice-versa ... the RMC I had a lot of materials listed ... IIRC balsa was
>like 8, and Platinum was 1100 or something like that ...

>Unfortunately, my copy of RMC I is split into 2 pieces right after the
>new races section, and I can only find the first part ... oh well, I'll
>find it sooner or later ... :)

No prob I have it memorized:

HT=height in inch result is lbs and the 47 is the mass factor here human flesh

HTx0.08898xHTx0.08898xHTx0.00136x47

--

-Barbie

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 63 In a message dated 6/12/98 5:41:23 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
gurth@******.NL writes:

> > Also, the engines for a t-bird and VT aircraft so far are Jet Turbines ...
>
> I think he means turboprops -- a turbine driving a propeller (or in
> the case of an LAV, a rotor system, which IIRC would make them
> turboshafts).
>
I guess the imagery here is severely lacking. I always believed they were a
variation on "Jet Turbines" myself. And the engines in R2 seem to coincide
with my fantastic fallacies... :)

-K

Message no. 64 On Sat, 13 Jun 1998 02:24:55 +0100 Barbie <barbie@**********.COM> writes:
>At 12-Jun-98 wrote Alfredo B Alves:
<SNIP>
>>Hmmm, I wonder if the stuff in RMC I is reprinted from from Dragon or
>>vice-versa ... the RMC I had a lot of materials listed ... IIRC balsa
was
>>like 8, and Platinum was 1100 or something like that ...

>>Unfortunately, my copy of RMC I is split into 2 pieces right after the
>>new races section, and I can only find the first part ... oh well, I'll
>>find it sooner or later ... :)

>No prob I have it memorized:
>
>HT=height in inch result is lbs and the 47 is the mass factor here
>human flesh
>
>HTx0.08898xHTx0.08898xHTx0.00136x47
>
>--
>
>-Barbie
<SNIP Sig>

Heh heh. thanks, but me too ... I just can't remember what all the
numbers mean ... I was wondering whether the 47 was the wieght of a cubic
*foot* or a cubic something else but someone already confirmed it for ...
hmmm... damn it, I've turned my room upside down and back again and I
can't find the other half of that segment ... btw, do you use that sys
for calculating wts for your chars? I do :)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 65 Mike Bobroff said on 11:01/12 Jun 98,...

> Hmmm, if that is what he means then perhaps you could have a panzer with a
> pair or even one turboprop, but it would not be capable of carrying as much as
> a normal turbine t-bird.

It would make sense for civilian models, where you don't want
the exhaust gases blowing down into the street. Rotor systems
would create a lot of wind, but at least it's not likely to boil the
asphalt off the road and fry pedestrians.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Mobiel telefoneren is een vorm van incontinentie.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-
-> 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. 66 In a message dated 6/13/98 11:27:06 AM !!!First Boot!!!, gurth@******.NL
writes:

> > Hmmm, if that is what he means then perhaps you could have a panzer with a
> > pair or even one turboprop, but it would not be capable of carrying as
> much as
> > a normal turbine t-bird.
>
> It would make sense for civilian models, where you don't want
> the exhaust gases blowing down into the street. Rotor systems
> would create a lot of wind, but at least it's not likely to boil the
> asphalt off the road and fry pedestrians.

Thanks, for the info, though I don't believe that I'll have to do any mods to
any of the VT cars and Bikes I've made so far.

-Mike

Message no. 67 In a message dated 6/11/98 7:12:38 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
dghost@****.COM writes:

> Lemon level 1 -.15
> Complex Chassis -.3
> Custom built -.2
> Used vehicle -.6
> Passenger trap -.15
>
> Features: enviroseal (gas)
>
> Yes this is very heavy on the negative quality factors and not much
> benefit but it has a range of 3,450 km (2,143.7 miles) ...
>
Okay, let's see what kind of a trip this would be...

Quite a tangy one, plenty of turbulence, probably has to make more than a few
pit stops (sounds like our Greyhound Bus lines in NA). Complex Chassis???
Okay, perhaps give the Greyhound an obstacle course for the passenger and
make's waiting to get your luggage at the end of the trip a -REAL- long time.
It's Custom, BSOTA (B= Behind) ensures that it's status in -any/all- of the
above areas remains that way for the rest of it's operating life (which is how
long again ??). And of course, it was previously used by the Carp
Transportation Department of the World (CaTDeW), so there should be a few
scraps around for any passengers and/or the pilot.

AND, last but-DEFINITELY- not least, this vehicle is something that will grow
on, quite literally. In fact, it requires your existence to stay alive. Ever
heard of a Venus Fly Trap??? Well, let's just say this "Pontiac Mancatcher"
frame is completely self-sufficient. Who needs fuel when you are running on
dead/decaying body parts of all those path...er, poor souls that just couldn't
find their way out.

Oh yeah, give this this a Free Spirit host who was conjured up by a Ghoul
Spider Shaman and I can see the list of neverending possibilities. No wonder
it makes so many pit stops....

-K (who has cleaned the stuff of his hands, making room for time now :)

Message no. 68 In a message dated 6/11/98 11:44:49 PM US Eastern Standard Time, Nexx3@***.COM
writes:

> > I would say the density of a person is a little over the density of
> > water
> > (we're mostly water, anyway)
>
> <BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ> Thank you for playing!
>
> If the density of a person were a little bit above the density of water,
we'
> d
> sink in water. Since we don't, that's wrong.
>
WAIT A SECOND HERE!!!

We are more dense than water, but our displacement level and internal balast
determines our ability to "float". That is the reason that we "move
through
water", instead of being stopped by it completely.

This is a LOT more complicated than mere density issues folks, so don't go
jumping Bira on just a single statement.

-K

Message no. 69 In a message dated 6/12/98 12:51:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time, Nexx3@***.COM
writes:

> What? Extra-Chunky, a 1 point point edge that adds 50% to your floating
time,
>
> but also adding +1 to all target numbers to attract a member of the
opposite
> sex?
>
Does this go with James "blended well" statements??? Extra Chunky, but
Blended Well... sounds like a salsa to me... (Riooooooooo, Rio Bravo.....)

-K

Message no. 70 At 13-Jun-98 wrote Alfredo B Alves:

>Heh heh. thanks, but me too ... I just can't remember what all the
>numbers mean ... I was wondering whether the 47 was the wieght of a cubic
>*foot* or a cubic something else but someone already confirmed it for ...
>hmmm... damn it, I've turned my room upside down and back again and I
>can't find the other half of that segment ... btw, do you use that sys
>for calculating wts for your chars? I do :)

Yes I do of course I do sice it is the best system :)

--

-Barbie

---------------------------------------------------------------
"Who needs horror movies when we have Microsoft?"
--Christine Comaford PC Week 27/9/95

http://www.amigaworld.com/barbie
FAQ keeper of SR_D, the german Shadowrun mailing list.
Amiga RC5 Team effort member.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Message no. 71 <snip>

> BTW, my calculation of the volume of a human is based on Rolemaster's
> Companion I's system of calculating weight ... I can't find my copy ATM,
> but have it almost memorized ... However if the number 47 doen't
> represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above is
> incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)
>
> D.Ghost

I don't know how you came up with that, but it sounds about right.... I'm
sure a certain Venetian Merchant would want ot know if that factor includes
blood and bone. :)

--
Stonebow
To know your enemy, you must become your enemy....
Keep your friends close and your enemys closer
-Sun Tzu
bodiam@**********.com
http://www.geocities.com/area51/corridor/8427

Message no. 72 On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 01:10:03 -0400 Geoff Morochnick
<bodiam@**********.COM> writes:
><snip>
>> BTW, my calculation of the volume of a human is based on Rolemaster's
>> Companion I's system of calculating weight ... I can't find my copy
ATM,
>> but have it almost memorized ... However if the number 47 doen't
>> represent the weight in pounds of a cubic *foot* of flesh, the above
is
>> incorrect and I would appreciate it if someone could correct me :)
>>
>> D.Ghost

>I don't know how you came up with that, but it sounds about right....
I'm
>sure a certain Venetian Merchant would want ot know if that factor
includes
>blood and bone. :)
>
>--
>Stonebow
<SNIP Sig>

I don't get the Venetian Merchant bit but yes, the number was based on
the aver density of all the components of the human body (in their
respective quantities) ... I didn't calculate it, though ... It was
printed in Rolemaster's Companion 1 (which I still can't find the last
half of ...). IMO, Math^H^H^H^HRolemaster (What? just because it's my
favorite game sys, doesn't mean I can't poke fun ionce in a while ... :)
was very good at realistic numbers when it wanted to be ... (Unless
you're a 7'6" elf in elven chainmail Dashing ... ;)

D.Ghost
(aka Pixel, Tantrum, and RuPixel)
"Let he who is without SIN cast the first stone"

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Message no. 73 Quoth Alfredo B Alves (2037 23-06-98 NZT):

<<SLICE>>
>>sure a certain Venetian Merchant would want ot know if that factor
>includes
>>blood and bone. :)
>>
>>--
>>Stonebow
><SNIP Sig>
>
>I don't get the Venetian Merchant bit but yes, the number was based on
>the aver density of all the components of the human body (in their
>respective quantities) ... I didn't calculate it, though ... It was

I think he's referring to one of Shakespeare's plays, called _The
Merchant of Venice_ or something like that. The titular merchant offers
collateral of 'a pound of flesh' on a loan, and when he defaults, the
other guy takes him literally. A judge only convinces the lender to
back off when he says that the bargain said nothing about getting any
blood with that pound of flesh...

Danyel Woods - 9604801@********.ac.nz
'God hates me, that's what it is.'
'Hate him back. It works for me.'

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer