From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:48 AM To: 'blue_planet@lists.ient.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Reply to lots of stuff > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Wills [mailto:andywills@stormsurge.org] > Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Reply to lots of stuff > Chinooks. However, the Harriers seemed way outclassed in speed by the > Argentine's second-rate jets. So maybe they wouldn't be such > a great idea in a real conflict, but in the skirmishes that > are probably the max that will be found in BP, what's the problem? > Speed is only one of many considerations for the military value of an aircraft. True, the Harrier isn't very fast. However it's main role is considered to be close air support. VSTOL capabilities enable it to operate from unimproved airstrips. A large payload capacity and moderately long linger time allow it to remain on station for a more useful period of time. The fact that it is also moderately effective in an Air Superiority role (in certain situations) is a bonus. And pilot skills is *much* more important than any aircraft capabilities. If you read Chuck Yeager's autobiography he tells a story about an incident which happen in Hawaii during or shortly after the Korean War. He was part of a team investigating the capabilities of a captured MiG-15. Some other team member was touting the F-86's prowess and how there was no way the MiG could beat it. Well he got in the F-86 and this Major in the MiG. Predictably Yeager won handily. Then they switched places. Yeager, again, won handily. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: thazar@globalnet.co.uk Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:04 AM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: RE: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Reply to lots of stuff > However, the Harriers seemed way outclassed in speed by the > Argentine's second-rate jets >In a dogfight maneuverability and turning radius are what really >counts. And if I recall correctly, the Argentinians were using mainly >Mirages. What really made the difference was the following.... 1) The Brits had staged the Worlds longest ever combat bombing run from the UK onto the airfields on the islands....although not 100% succsessful from then on only STOL ground support aircraft were based on the Islands. The Argentine Air Force therefore was operating from bases at the very edge of their range...this gave them a very short loiter time on target. 2) Missiles. In this conflict no one was using sophisticated long/medium range radar guided air-air missiles.....it was all down to sidewinders. Now the Argentine Airforce had a older model that had to fired at a VERY strong heat source (ie at the jet engine exhaust).....this is tricky normally and damn near impossible against a Harrier unless you catch it by surprise. Gun's would more practical.....I'm not sure if the mirages even HAD guns...but anyway thats tricky as well! The Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm (The Air Force Harrier were mostly there in ground support mode) had raided NATO warstocks however and had the latest version (M I think but it might have been the LIMA...I'm no-where near my text books) which was 'any aspect' capable...ie could home in on the friction of flight surfaces etc In other words they could engage head on whereas the poor Argintines had to try and survive the closing engagement (using superior speed and terrain) and then turn and engage agile harriers.....as a result they focused on attacking shipping and had to take the pain for doing so. Very Brave. Given these circumstances they did very well indeed. Too well if you were on a ship that got hit by a exocet. However loss rates in the Argentine air force were huge. This is a little off topic for BP....but the Falklands conflict is probably the best model for conventional war on Posiden we have..... Do people want to continue the thread about the possible future of conflict on Poisden...its likely to get somewhat technical...or would people rather take it off-digest and report results later? DomT ------------------------------------------------ Global WebMail - Delivered by Global Internet www.global.net.uk ------------------------------------------------ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:04 AM To: 'blue_planet@lists.ient.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Gustavel [mailto:troy_nevermore@yahoo.com] > Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > > Jim, in you previous post you comment on the inefficiency of airships. > In what way? with your background I assume you know what your talking > about, but everything I have ever read about zepplins has indicated > that they were and still are, extremely efficient aircraft, just slow > and somewhat fragile. from where do you know otherwise? and how did > zepplins and dirigibles handle storms in the 30's? Poseiden > has fiercer storms, but also more advanced materials technolgy. > Most of my impression of the *future* (or lack thereof) of LTA airships is based on a Discovery channel special I watched about their history. Granted that the use of hydrogen was discontinued after the Hindenburg disaster in 1936, their use actually continued. The U.S. Navy used them extensively during WWII as antiaircraft obstacles on ships (mainly convoys) and shore installations (mainly in the Atlantic theater). Following the war they conducted extensive tests in their use for anti-submarine warfare platforms. They had three relatively large (not as big as the pre WWII German airships but considerably larger than the ones they had previously used) ones build. All three succumbed to problems, with the last sinking off the California coast with consider loss of life (only the crew however). And no one has worked in the field much since then despite *considerable* advances in materials technology. This isn't conclusive by any means but given the number of whacky other things people are experimenting with (like flying cars) it would seem to me that if the idea were even *moderately* feasible, some crazy American would have picked it up and run with it. As an aside, it seems from modern investigations that the Hindenburg didn't burn because of the hydrogen, but rather because of the materials used to dope the covering fabric (based on this documentary and an article in Smithsonian Air & Space a few years ago). Jim From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:04 AM To: 'blue_planet@lists.ient.com' Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Gustavel [mailto:troy_nevermore@yahoo.com] > Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > > Jim, in you previous post you comment on the inefficiency of airships. > In what way? with your background I assume you know what your talking > about, but everything I have ever read about zepplins has indicated > that they were and still are, extremely efficient aircraft, just slow > and somewhat fragile. from where do you know otherwise? and how did > zepplins and dirigibles handle storms in the 30's? Poseiden > has fiercer storms, but also more advanced materials technolgy. > Most of my impression of the *future* (or lack thereof) of LTA airships is based on a Discovery channel special I watched about their history. Granted that the use of hydrogen was discontinued after the Hindenburg disaster in 1936, their use actually continued. The U.S. Navy used them extensively during WWII as antiaircraft obstacles on ships (mainly convoys) and shore installations (mainly in the Atlantic theater). Following the war they conducted extensive tests in their use for anti-submarine warfare platforms. They had three relatively large (not as big as the pre WWII German airships but considerably larger than the ones they had previously used) ones build. All three succumbed to problems, with the last sinking off the California coast with consider loss of life (only the crew however). And no one has worked in the field much since then despite *considerable* advances in materials technology. This isn't conclusive by any means but given the number of whacky other things people are experimenting with (like flying cars) it would seem to me that if the idea were even *moderately* feasible, some crazy American would have picked it up and run with it. As an aside, it seems from modern investigations that the Hindenburg didn't burn because of the hydrogen, but rather because of the materials used to dope the covering fabric (based on this documentary and an article in Smithsonian Air & Space a few years ago). Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:12 AM To: 'blue_planet@lists.ient.com' Subject: RE: RE: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Deckplans > -----Original Message----- > From: Chad Chirhart [mailto:seahawk@visi.com] > Subject: RE: RE: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Deckplans > On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Heivilin, Jim wrote: > > What do you suppose would happen to your airship during a > > cyclone? Or a Noah? > Wouldn't it be possible to use materials to lift it up above most > non-extreme weather systems? I remember seeing those articles about > people trying to float around the globe and being up so high > they'd need to pump in oxygen from tanks. > Possible I suppose, although I don't have enough background in Meteorology to know how tall a storm system like that could get. And yes, the high altitude ballooning record you're remembering was only recently (with the last two or three years) accomplished by a Swiss man named Picard. He and a Frenchman (whose name I can't recall at the moment) sailed a balloon around the world. ... Ah, I found it ============== To fly non-stop around the world in a balloon was one of aviation's last great challenges - a challenge that was finally met on March 20, 1999 by Bertran Piccard of Switzerland and Brian Jones of Britain. On this site, you can delve into the history of science and ballooning, follow the attempts of earlier balloonists to make the round-the-world flight, and more. ============== http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/balloon/ > Course it'd still be easier having an aircraft that could > just land and get the hell out of the way, but maybe you > could sell tickets to all the Poseidon rich. > Except that you wouldn't normally deflate an airship for anything other than major structural repairs. Historically when the docked them they would put them into huge hangers. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Troy Gustavel [troy_nevermore@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:05 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships --- "Heivilin, Jim" wrote: >And no one has worked in the field much since then despite considerable > advances in materials technology. This isn't conclusive by any means > but given the number of whacky other things people are experimenting > with (like flying cars) it would seem to me that if the idea were even > *moderately* feasible, some crazy American would have picked it up > and run with it. Interesting. I read an article in wired magazine a few months ago that a wacky german is trying to revive the airship. He has started a company for long distance hauling of bulk materials, stuff that is very heavy and not prority cargo, because of the efficiency of LTA vessels. He has built a construction hanger and is building,... I think it's supposed to be the largest LTA vessel ever, a really big semi-rigid airship. I live in Akron, OH, right by the big godyear airship dock so I am kinda interested in airship history and potential. Related to another recent thread, someone has mentioned recently experiments in submarine aircraft carriers, the US experimented with LTA airship aircraft carriers before WW 2, the Akron and the Macon. They both carried some number of biplane fighter that could be launched but not recovered. with the increased range and VTOL capability of BP aircraft, such a concept might be revived as a mobile support platform, staying well away from the combat zone, but refueling and rearming fighter planes. Mabey ===== Troy Gustavel 5825 Bolender Rd. Akron, OH 44319 (330)882 5468 Troy_Nevermore@Yahoo.com "Once upon a midnight dreary..." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Stephen Mutka [stevemutka@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:14 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships "Heivilin, Jim" wrote: > > And no one has worked in the field much since then despite > *considerable* advances in materials technology. This isn't > conclusive by any means but given the number of whacky other things > people are experimenting with (like flying cars) it would seem to me > that if the idea were even *moderately* feasible, some crazy American > would have picked it up and run with it. Actually, some crazy German is running with it. An article in Wired called "The Baron's Big Balloon" talked about it last year, and while Wired tends to be pretty optimistic about technology, there's usually something something to back up their claims... The article's online now: For the record, I don't think blimps would be terribly practical on Poseidon, but on Earth? We'll have to wait and see. Take care, Steve *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Heivilin, Jim [banzai@missouri.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:14 PM To: 'blue_planet@lists.ient.com' Subject: [FWD] Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > -----Original Message----- > Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:01:16 -0500 > From: Guy Wilson > To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com > Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > > Post-Hindenburg disaster uses of airships: > > 1. The USN's Akron and Macon in the late 1930s- rigid > dirigibles carried > small biplane fighters that were launched and recovered by a trapeze > apparatus. (This was somewhat similar to the B-36/Goblin combination > used for recce against the Soviet Union in the 1950's. I > can't remember > who wrote it, but a novel in the late 1970's postulated a > nuclear-powered airship carrying helicopters and Harriers.) > > 2. As late as about 1960, radar-equipped blimps were used as > part of the > US early-warning system. > > 3. Blimps equipped with dipping sonar or sonobuoys and depth charges > were long used for anti-submarine patrols. > > 4. The new Zeppelin NT is due to undergo commercial > certification this > year (I think it may already have done so). It is being built by > Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH (see: http://www.zeppelin- > nt.com/index_uk.html). It's internal structure is quite radically > different from the old ships and makes extensive use of composites. > > Guy Wilson > wilsong@missouri.edu > > On Wednesday, May 2, 2001, at 09:03 AM, Heivilin, Jim wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Troy Gustavel [mailto:troy_nevermore@yahoo.com] > >> Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > >> > >> Jim, in you previous post you comment on the inefficiency > of airships. > >> In what way? with your background I assume you know what > your talking > >> about, but everything I have ever read about zepplins has indicated > >> that they were and still are, extremely efficient > aircraft, just slow > >> and somewhat fragile. from where do you know otherwise? and how did > >> zepplins and dirigibles handle storms in the 30's? Poseiden > >> has fiercer storms, but also more advanced materials technolgy. > >> > > Most of my impression of the *future* (or lack thereof) of > LTA airships > > is > > based on a Discovery channel special I watched about their > history. > > Granted > > that the use of hydrogen was discontinued after the > Hindenburg disaster > > in > > 1936, their use actually continued. The U.S. Navy used > them extensively > > during WWII as antiaircraft obstacles on ships (mainly convoys) and > > shore > > installations (mainly in the Atlantic theater). > > > > Following the war they conducted extensive tests in their use for > > anti-submarine warfare platforms. They had three > relatively large (not > > as > > big as the pre WWII German airships but considerably larger > than the > > ones > > they had previously used) ones build. All three succumbed > to problems, > > with > > the last sinking off the California coast with consider > loss of life > > (only > > the crew however). > > > > And no one has worked in the field much since then despite > > *considerable* > > advances in materials technology. This isn't conclusive by > any means > > but > > given the number of whacky other things people are > experimenting with > > (like > > flying cars) it would seem to me that if the idea were even > *moderately* > > feasible, some crazy American would have picked it up and > run with it. > > > > As an aside, it seems from modern investigations that the > Hindenburg > > didn't > > burn because of the hydrogen, but rather because of the > materials used > > to > > dope the covering fabric (based on this documentary and an > article in > > Smithsonian Air & Space a few years ago). > > > > Jim > > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Machiavelli132@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:22 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships Well, the post-WW2 airships the US tested all eventually succumbed to Storms. With Poseidon's Cyclonics, they'd have to be high-altitude ships to avoid getting shredded. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: necrobob [necrobob@mail.compfxnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:27 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Troy Gustavel Reply-To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:05:23 -0700 (PDT) >carriers before WW 2, the Akron and the Macon. They both carried some >number of biplane fighter that could be launched but not recovered. Actually, they could be recovered. }-> They had a trapeze-like arrangement that the planes (Curtis Sparrowhawks?) could be retrieved with. The planes didn't even have landing gear- no need for them. Totally off-topic, but if you love zeps in a pulp-fiction way, check out Crimson Skies- the minis game or the video game. Excellent setting. Nothing to do with BP, however. }-> -Necromancer Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Ml10@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 2:46 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships Given the relative simpleness of a LTA ship, I am guessing that their use on Poseidon would increase. If they could be made such that it would be easy to inflate and deflate them, they would make very good emergecy vehicles if a settlement had to be evacuated due to a tide wave, earthquake,volcanic activity, or flooding. On the scientific front, they would make good observation platforms as they generate little noise to disturb the wildlife and they would be cheaper to keep aloft than a jumpcraft. Mike Z *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Sean Michael Whipkey [highway@cstone.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:46 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships necrobob wrote: > Totally off-topic, but if you love zeps in a pulp-fiction way, check out Crimson Skies- the minis game or the video game. Excellent setting. Nothing to do with BP, however. }-> Though if you combined Crimson Skies with Blue Planet, and made more animal-type creatures (I'm blanking here, dammit, must be my headache) you'd end up with the Disney cartoon series "Tail Spin". :) SeanMike *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: necrobob [necrobob@mail.compfxnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 4:40 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Sean Michael Whipkey Reply-To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 16:46:22 -0400 >necrobob wrote: >> Totally off-topic, but if you love zeps in a pulp-fiction way, check out Crimson Skies- the minis game or the video game. Excellent setting. Nothing to do with BP, however. }-> > >Though if you combined Crimson Skies with Blue Planet, and made more >animal-type creatures (I'm blanking here, dammit, must be my headache) >you'd end up with the Disney cartoon series "Tail Spin". :) Holy shit...you're right. That was such an excellent show. -Necromancer Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jeb Boyt [jeboyt@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:17 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Crimson Skies of Hurt (Was: LTA airships) ----Original Message Follows---- From: "necrobob" Totally off-topic, but if you love zeps in a pulp-fiction way, check out Crimson Skies- the minis game or the video game. Excellent setting. Nothing to do with BP, however. }-> ================================ But why not? BP's North America would make a much more plausible setting for Crimson Skies than its alternative Pulp history. Jeb _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Troy Gustavel [troy_nevermore@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:39 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships --- necrobob wrote: > Actually, they could be recovered. }-> They had a trapeze-like > arrangement that the planes (Curtis Sparrowhawks?) could be retrieved > with. The planes didn't even have landing gear- no need for them. > > Totally off-topic, but if you love zeps in a pulp-fiction way, check > out Crimson Skies- the minis game or the video game. Excellent > setting. Nothing to do with BP, however. }-> OK, sounds like you know alot more about the subject than I do. Cool game, very interesting mechanic. Essentially dead now that FASA is gone. ===== Troy Gustavel 5825 Bolender Rd. Akron, OH 44319 (330)882 5468 Troy_Nevermore@Yahoo.com "Once upon a midnight dreary..." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Gareth Hanrahan [hanrahag@iol.ie] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:51 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Vaguely amusing rpg.net thread http://trio.rpg.net/pf/read.php?f=5&i=77433&t=77433 Synopsis: Mike Gentry asks "can someone please say something bad about BP, 'cos otherwise i'm going to have to buy it". Twenty people shrug their shoulders and go "no, can't think of anything really." Gar http://www.mytholder.f2s.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Megan C. Robertson [mcrobertson@phoenix.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:07 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships Greetings dear hearts. If you mix CRIMSON SKIES with BLUE PLANET you probably end up with mauve clouds :-) Hugs and kisses, Mexal. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: David R. Crowell [gpfarm-dave@northnet.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:30 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships > As an aside, it seems from modern investigations that the Hindenburg didn't > burn because of the hydrogen, but rather because of the materials used to > dope the covering fabric (based on this documentary and an article in > Smithsonian Air & Space a few years ago). The dope they used to coat the skin actually underwent the Thermite reaction when it burned. Check out the pictures of the Hindenburg crash, that is not a hydrogen fire. Interesting article in Popular mechanichs a year or two back on the subject. I'll see if I can dig it out of my Castle Falkenstein file. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Jason Werner [wernerj@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:40 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: OT: Oceanspace Folks: Okay, just to keep myself from getting in trouble, what follows is my poorly-informed opinion only (read: not a flame) I thought Oceanspace was awful. I suppose that, for pure setting it was okay. But there were definitely places where I felt like Steele was trying to create a mood, and it fell flat. I thought the plot was either needlessly complex for a simple storyline, or not remotely complex enough for a big novel. I thought his characters were more like caricatures than anything else. The Dominican Ph.D. was almost offensive in his stereotype-ness. Frankly, guys, I've seen BP fan fiction that had better character development, more point, and a much higher coolness factor than this. Example: Steele makes a big deal out of the super-secret combat sub, and then never really uses it. What does this sub do that makes it unique in the story? Nothing. Example: Steele provides himself with the opportunity to do something creative with the sea serpent. Instead, we get a creature of awesome power that disappears at random, meaningless points in the story, that nobody appears to have even a reasonable interest in, and appears to have a developed sense of morality. And it does this without introducing a feeling of impending doom, ominous respect for the unknowable ocean, awe at the natural world, etc. Example: Steele sets his story on a perfectly plausible research facility, staffs it with perfectly plausible researchers, and then has to rely on a Wesley Crusher - saves - the - Universe teenager to work the cameras of the most advanced research submarine in the world. You'll forgive me, but...Riiiiiight. My final take on it? If you've got an afternoon with nothing to do, go read Oceanspace. But get it from the library. -Jason Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 5:31 PM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: OT: Oceanspace > Hey All; > I wrote " I just finished the paparback version of > "Oceanspace" by Allen Steele. An excellent book, all > contents apply very well to BP. It seems very well > researched with a bibliography in the final pages. I > heartily reccomend this book to the entire list." > > C wrote "What kind of book is it? Is it a biography, > science novel, scifi, *punk, science near-fiction, technothriller...?" > > Whoops. Lets call it a near-future science thriller. > > Ray > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com > with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. > *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Necromancer Bob [necrobob@compfxnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:24 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - Crimson Skies of Hurt (Was: LTA airships) At 10:16 PM 5/2/2001 -0000, you wrote: > >----Original Message Follows---- >From: "necrobob" > >Totally off-topic, but if you love zeps in a pulp-fiction way, check out >Crimson Skies- the minis game or the video game. Excellent setting. Nothing >to do with BP, however. }-> >================================ > >But why not? BP's North America would make a much more plausible setting >for Crimson Skies than its alternative Pulp history. Who cares about plausibility? It's got cool factor. ____________________ Necromancer Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Necromancer Bob [necrobob@compfxnet.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 11:27 PM To: blue_planet@lists.ient.com Subject: RE: [BLUE PLANET] - LTA airships At 03:39 PM 5/2/2001 -0700, you wrote: > >--- necrobob wrote: >> Actually, they could be recovered. }-> They had a trapeze-like >> arrangement that the planes (Curtis Sparrowhawks?) could be retrieved >> with. The planes didn't even have landing gear- no need for them. >> >> Totally off-topic, but if you love zeps in a pulp-fiction way, check >> out Crimson Skies- the minis game or the video game. Excellent >> setting. Nothing to do with BP, however. }-> > >OK, sounds like you know alot more about the subject than I do. Marginally. }-> I caught an article on the Macon in National Geographic a few years ago. I'm sure there are better resources on the web. Personally, I'm gonna just BS it from my Crimson Skies stuff. Forget scientifically accurate, I want the cool factor. >Cool game, very interesting mechanic. Essentially dead now that FASA is gone. Dunno. May not be so dead. Microsoft (yes, Microsoft) owns the name, since they bought Fasa's computer division a couple of years ago. I assume that WizKids picked up the CS minis license along with Battletech and Shadowrun. ____________________ Necromancer Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.