From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 8:36 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) You know, I just want to point out that you started you message saying that you would keep the amount of math to a minimum for those who are mathematically challenged, then proceeded to use calculus ^_^. Just thought I would point that out. Also, your calculations for power output are based on what can be done on land. This is misleading because power plants have limitations that won't exist in space, for one thing, they have to put out little enough radiation to not leak and kill everyone around. In space, you put up a big lead shield between the engine and your ship and you can radiate all you want, nobody is going to care, with all the hard radiation in space, it'll make no difference, even to EVAs (should one be needed and possible) since the suits will already have an ungodly amount of shielding. For another, emissions don't have to be controlled. Finally, you have this neat void of space to help cool things down, so you can probably run it hotter (at least when a star isn't shining directly on you) as well, so the reaction can be done a good deal faster than it could be safely handled on Earth. I also have a question about the wormhole for all and sundry. As far as I know, although current astrophysics allows for such phenomina to exist, it would require something incredibly massive to keep the ends open and stable, which means that it should be perturbing the orbits of the planets pretty significantly. It should be pretty much like having a black hole (albiet a small one) and the edge of the solar system, which would probably end up making Earth uninhabitable by humans (then again, at the rate things are going in the game, it's already well in it's way there already ^_^). Anyone care to comment? Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y [leifmk@pvv.ntnu.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:38 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 BIOHZD@aol.com wrote: This message has been close-captioned for the mathematically-challenged, please bear with me (or skip it entirely if you're not interested). > How far away is the wormhole from prosperity station and the station from > Poseidon? > > >>>>Though closer to Poseidon than the other end is to Earth, it is still on > the edge of the solar system. Though it would vary depending upon on their > relative positions along their orbits, the wormhole would get no closser than > approximately 700 million kilometers. Hm, only 5 AU? That's rather a lot closer than on the other side.... > How fast do the spacecrafts travel in 2199? > > >>>>Well, with fusion drives, speeds are really only limited by time and > relativity. Even a very small amount of accelleration, sustained over a long > period of time, well make for increadible speeds. Well, this is true if taken literally, but not very precise. Let's take a closer look, with as few frightening numbers and formulae as possible: The useful speed of a reaction-drive ship is limited by two factors: Total delta-v (ability to change velocity), and acceleration. A very high delta-v would be of little practical use for a one-year mission (for instance) if the acceleration is so low that it takes *twenty* years to get up to the desired velocity, right? Now let's assume we have a thermal fusion drive, which is basically just a fusion reactor dedicated to heating up some kind of reaction mass (water, hydrogen, whatever) -- the hot reaction mass is then allowed to squirt out the back of the ship, pushing it forward in nice Newtonian fashion. Let's say that we know how much fuel it consumes per unit time (call it m-dot), and how fast the reaction mass is ejected (call it v_e); then we know the total force delivered (F) as well as the power requirement (P), namely F = m-dot * v_e P = 1/2 * m-dot * (v_e)^2 according to stuff I remember from high school and my first-year physics classes at college. (The power requirement neglects efficiency losses, but never mind that). Assuming we have a given reactor delivering constant power, we could vary the force and exhaust velocity by adjusting the amount of reaction mass -- lower m-dot means you can heat it to higher temperatures getting a higher v_e (that's all temperature is, after all -- kinetic energy of molecules) but at the cost of lower F (for instance, halving m-dot while keeping P constant will only increase v_e by a factor of sqrt(2) which is about 1.4, so F will be down to about 0.7 times its original value). Similarily, increasing m-dot will increase total force but at the cost of lower v_e. Now, what about delta-v and acceleration? According to Newton, a body with mass M pushed by force F will accelerate at a=F/M. This space ship of ours may have a constant force pushing it (for as long as the engines are burning), but it doesn't have a constant mass; since it's throwing out reaction mass all the time, its mass is decreasing, so its acceleration is increasing with time. Total change in velocity is the integral (wrt. time) of acceleration; anyone who's taken (and still remembers) basic calculus should be able to derive the equation delta-v = v_e * ln (M/m) where M is the mass of the ship before the burn (including reaction mass) and m is the mass of the ship after the burn (not including reaction mass, but including the mass of the drive and any empty fuel tanks you haven't thrown away during the burn, etc). The "ln" function, for the mathematically-challenged, is the natural logarithm; most calculators have a button for it these days. We now see that trying to get higher delta-v by simply adding more fuel gets pretty futile after a certain point since the amount of fuel neede rises exponentially with desired delta-v (we need the inverse of the logarithm when we turn this formula inside out, and that's the "e^x" button on the calculator). If your v_e is about 5 km/s, say (which is about what current chemical rockets can do), you can get a total delta-v of 5 km/s with only M/m = 2.7 which means 1.7 times as much fuel as everything else, but if you want to double delta-v you need M/m = e^2 = 7.4 -- and if you want to triple it you need M/m = e^3 = 20, and so on; if you want say 50 km/s delta-v, you end up needing over 22 *thousand* times as much fuel as everything else, and it just keeps on getting worse the more speed you want. Thermal fusion (or fission) rockets are a good idea because they can have way better exhaust velocities than chemical rockets can; all rockets are limited in this regard by the energy density of the fuel, which dictates how hot the reaction mass can get. In chemical rockets, the energy source and the reaction mass are one and the same (well, the reaction mass is the end product of the chemical reaction which releases the energy, to be precise), while most thermal rocket designs I've heard about use some kind of inert reaction mass which is simply heated by an outside power source -- hydrogen is a favorite for reaction mass (since it's plentiful, but mostly because it's got the lowest molecular weight around -- lower molecular weight means higher exhaust velocity for the same energy). In theory, though, you can use as little reaction mass as you want, all the way down to using *no* reaction mass other than the end products of the fusion process -- this would be just a reactor with a controlled leak in the core, and would have an exhaust velocity of about 5% of lightspeed. You can *not* go any higher than that and still call it a fusion rocket, because there isn't any more energy to be had from fusion; it's not entirely inconcievable that there might be some kind of even faster reaction drive (if you were able to manufacture and store antimatter in small enough containers, you might surpass 5% of lightspeed; similarily, some kind of direct conversion of matter to energy might work (neglecting one or two of the less well-known conservation laws), or maybe some other exotic physics like the GUT- drive from Stephen Baxter's Xeelee stories -- but that's not fusion. Maximal exhaust velocity of 5% of lightspeed means that in order to reach even 10% of lightspeed and then slow back down (which would require a total delta-v of 20% of lightspeed) you would need about 54 times your own mass in fuel -- and at 0.1 c, relativistic effects aren't really noticeable (except to finely-tuned instruments) yet. Going much beyond that wouldn't be practical (by the way, this calculation neglects the weight of the fuel *tanks*, which probably wouldn't be negligible and would effectively lower exhaust velocity *if* the tanks were thrown away piecemeal during the trip). Now consider the wormhole orbiting Sol at 783 AU. That's about 1.2*10^14 meters. If you want to get out there in six months, you need an *average* velocity of 7.7*10^6 m/s -- and you'd probably want to slow down to just about a relative stop by the time you reach the 'hole, so that's a delta-v of about 1.5*10^7 m/s -- which, incidentally, is just about 5% of lightspeed, the same as the maximum exhaust velocity of the best-case fusion rocket. So you'd need M/m = e^1 = 2.7, which comes down to 1.7 kg of reaction mass for each kg of everything else. For acceleration, we can find some limits if we know the power-to-mass ratio of the fusion reactor. If I recall correctly, state of the art reactors in Blue Planet get maybe a couple of kilowatts per kg? In that case, one kg of reactor could process maybe 2 * 10^-11 kg of reaction mass (which is also the fusion fuel) per second, so it would require all of 8.5*10^10 seconds to process 1.7 times its own mass -- which is just a bit under 2700 *years*. This is obviously no good, considering also that the entire ship is not going to be made up of drive. We need to increase efficiency by about four orders of magnitude to make this work, or else move the wormhole a lot closer. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Greg Benage [gbenage@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 3:42 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) -----Original Message----- From: Chris Sakal To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) > I also have a question about the wormhole for all and sundry. As far as >I know, although current astrophysics allows for such phenomina to exist, >it would require something incredibly massive to keep the ends open and >stable, which means that it should be perturbing the orbits of the planets >pretty significantly. The physical characteristics of the wormhole would be exotic, but it's true that it would be massive (not black-hole massive, but still impressive). That's why a) it's such a long way out there, and b) it was detected by its influence on comets inbound from the Oort cloud. Greg *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y [leifmk@pvv.ntnu.no] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 9:50 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, Chris Sakal wrote: > You know, I just want to point out that you started you message saying > that you would keep the amount of math to a minimum for those who are > mathematically challenged, then proceeded to use calculus ^_^. Just > thought I would point that out. Well, in all fairness, I only *referred* to calculus -- and it *was* necessary to derive the formula for delta-v, thus it was literally the minimum amount of math required. > Also, your calculations for power output are based on what can > be done on > land. This is misleading because power plants have limitations that won't > exist in space, for one thing, they have to put out little enough radiation > to not leak and kill everyone around. In space, you put up a big lead > shield between the engine and your ship and you can radiate all you want, > nobody is going to care, with all the hard radiation in space, it'll make > no difference, even to EVAs (should one be needed and possible) since the > suits will already have an ungodly amount of shielding. For another, > emissions don't have to be controlled. This is true, in so far as it goes: you can probably cut the mass of the reactor by some factor between 2 and 5 by skimping on the shielding. You'll still need shielding on the inhabited part of the ship, but you would need that anyway on anything going on a prolonged trip through deep space (Mir and other real life low-orbit joints are protected by Earth's magnetic field; most of the deadly radiation is charged particles from the sun). However, I'd be *very* surprised if this could gain you as much as a factor of 10, and we really need something like 10 *thousand*.... > Finally, you have this neat void of > space to help cool things down, so you can probably run it hotter (at least > when a star isn't shining directly on you) as well, so the reaction can be > done a good deal faster than it could be safely handled on Earth. This turns out not to be the case. In fact, space is a pretty darned good *insulator*; ground-based plants have a whole planet's worth of heat sink at hand (consider the cooling water which runs through today's nuclear plants), while a spaceship can (in the long run) *only* cool by radiation since there is pretty much nothing at all in the vicinity for heat to be conducted into. Blackbody radiation is \sigma * T^4 watts per square meter, real-life objects aren't perfect blackbody emitters but the approximation is usually close enough to at least give a ballpark idea of what happens. You've got to have enough exposed surface to keep the temperature down -- which might mean some pretty big cooling vanes, which *will* add to mass. Anyway, the optimized-for-exhaust-velocity fusion rocket *cannot* be run any hotter -- it's already letting "all" the energy from the fusion reaction stay as heat in the helium plasma (or whatever it is that results from the fusion process) which is used as reaction mass, there's simply no more heat to be had. For rockets which work by heating an inert reaction mass, you can trade-off between thrust and delta-v to your heart's content, although there will be a breakpoint where increasing the working temperature will require progressively more mass dedicated to handling the reaction mass (at low temperatures, you can just use ordinary pumps and nozzles like chemical rockets have, but at some point the temperature will exceed the highest melting point of any of the materials you have, so you'll need more cooling machinery and magnetic confinement bottles and so on and so forth). There's nothing *axiomatically* wrong with assuming you can indeed build fusion rockets much lighter than the ones I've described, *but* in that case you should in the name of consistency be able to build similarily smaller fusion power plants for use in other applications -- increase the power density of the rocket by a factor of ten thousand, and you'd better do the same for fusion power plants, which might quickly result in fusion-powered ground cars and whatnot (though engineering requirements might keep plants above a certain convenient minimum size, which might easily be too large to carry around or even to use as car engines). *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: wil liam hindmarch [hindmarc@stu.beloit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 10:26 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) >I know, although current astrophysics allows for such phenomina to exist, >it would require something incredibly massive to keep the ends open and >stable, which means that it should be perturbing the orbits of the planets >pretty significantly. It should be pretty much like having a black hole >(albiet a small one) and the edge of the solar system, which would probably >end up making Earth uninhabitable by humans (then again, at the rate things >are going in the game, it's already well in it's way there already ^_^). >Anyone care to comment? If one assumes that the wormhole has been in place for the whole of human history, then we can simply surmise that the gravitational behavior of both the Solar and Lambda Serpentis systems is already being affected by the wormhole. Everything is still peachy since we're used to it being this way. Likewise, I've once heard the extremely arguable theory that the extreme mass of a wormhole keeping it open (and stable) is within the wormholw at all times, in a constant state of motion, traveling back and forth along the wormcourse (if you will), so that the wormhole actually contains its own gravity. Although such a cute and convenient phenomena might well not exist in nature, who's to say these wormholes do either? Lastly, we don't actually know how gravity works, and we can only assume that a wormhole would react with planetary orbits and stellar gravity fields as any other mass would. What if this isn't true? Imagine gravity as a field energy like any other, so that it has many different varieties (such that a wood fire and a tar fire are not actually identical). We don't know that our model for standard planetary behavior near a stellar body is really standard. Perhaps the wormhole creates a "tide" or "eddy" of gravity itself, rather than just a regular pulling field. This might alter Sol's gravity and result in the stellar behavior we're accustomed to. Ditto for Serpentis. Mind you this is all off of theoretical physics books I've read but never purchased and a high-school level physics course. will *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Steven Sweeney [stevenrs@cybersurf.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 10:30 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! Hey, I just got BP on Friday... Bloody awesome (so-far)! I'm only two-thirds of the way through the "survival guide" at the beginning, so I can't make too much of an opinion, but one thing I really like is the fact that it apparently resembles a text book. I'm not sure how, but I was reading it last night when I should have been working (*L*) and my boss caught me. He looked at the book, said, "oh, you're studying already? Ok, come down when you're done." and left. I just about laughed out loud... Thanks folks. Steve S. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: wil liam hindmarch [hindmarc@stu.beloit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 10:49 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) The notion of starships containing running water, using space to cool them (I don't know how they work, but through an actual *external* water pumping system if I remember), is not a new one. The reacor can't be space-cooled due to shielding restrictions, but the water can. Running water piped through the reactor as part of the coolant system, follows a course along external pipes (designed to be hidden in the spacecraft's own shadow) which turns the water to ice, and is forced back through the reactor again. Add filtration systems and you also have part of a life-support system. All technology also needs a healthy amount of suspension of disbelief to operate effectively, not just in fiction but in reality. >There's nothing *axiomatically* wrong with assuming you can indeed build >fusion rockets much lighter than the ones I've described, *but* in that >case you should in the name of consistency be able to build similarily >smaller fusion power plants for use in other applications -- increase the >power density of the rocket by a factor of ten thousand, and you'd better >do the same for fusion power plants, which might quickly result in >fusion-powered ground cars and whatnot (though engineering requirements >might keep plants above a certain convenient minimum size, which might >easily be too large to carry around or even to use as car engines). Consistency when dealing with fusion reactors and high-end, presumably small-market technologies is irrelevant. Science, and so technology, do not exist in a truth vacuum. All science (as science is a construct of humans as much as time is -- see "perception") is modified by cultural and political acceptance. First, the financial freedom to allow such small fusion generators onto the open manufacturing market cannot exist in a human society. Humans are greedy, and patents are rampant. No one would just hand out that technology, especially not in an Incorporate-dominated economy. "Non-profit research" (such as the Gas Research Institute) is an anachronism. The use of such equipment would be tightly regulated to only the most necessary applications (all space-travel and, likely, the military). Likewise, even if the small reactors are possible, they would be tre expensive (mostly to keep them exclusive, I imagine). Lastly, there is a cultural bias against fusion and fission technologies in virtually all societies (excepting those which operate in tight, economic-political microcosms with minimal interaction with "common" life, like Inc. and military leaders, so: see above). Humans will fear having fusion reactors in their every day life (if they know about it), as it is too much power, arguably. Regardless of the truth, too many people will remember Nagasaki and images from Earth history, I don't think the public feelings towards casual applications of potentially dangerous technologies will change much following the Blight. Also, populating an area with fusion reactors makes precise tactical strikes very easy (individual craft could be targeted), which would stop the "excessive damage" deterrant in times of war, resulting in rampant Incorporate miniature strikes. In general, economies and societies like low to medium powered equipment, rather than high-end, expensive stuff. It supports home-repair and employment. I think we may talking past each other here, though. Some of us are arguing about scientific applications within the forseeable future, and some of us are talking specifically about scientific applications to the Blue Planet setting. Will *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Adam Lewis [adamswork@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 11:01 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! ---Steven Sweeney wrote: > > Hey, I just got BP on Friday... Bloody awesome (so-far)! I'm only > two-thirds of the way through the "survival guide" at the beginning, so > I can't make too much of an opinion *snip* After seeing how much backgound info there is on the setting, I actually started at the back. I read character creation and dice conventions first. These things usually make or break a game, so I wanted get an opinion on that before I spent the time reading the whole book. The only problem I see with the book, and it's very minor, is that there is a lot of info in the sidebars that I would rather players not know, things that they shouldn't know. How can I suprise my players with the fact that Prosperity Station has nukes, when they've already read it or about that crime family that started as a GEO covert project? There are plenty of great plots and adventure hooks in the book, but I think that info should be for the GM only. Since, I'll be putting my book in a binder I'll probably end up making a "players book" as well. As soon as I get some players that is. AdamL _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 11:45 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! Most of the stuff you might not want players to read is is the access denied sections anyway, so at least players are warned. If they would read those, then they would probably go into the GM section of the book (were it arranged that way) anyway. Besides, provided that your players are even moderately good at role-playing and you are aware of what they should and should not know it shouldn't be a problem. It's not hard preventing players from using out of game knowledge. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 11:56 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) > Lastly, there is a cultural bias against fusion and fission technologies >in virtually all societies (excepting those which operate in tight, >economic-political microcosms with minimal interaction with "common" life, I disagree with that. What there is in today's society (and we cannot assume that things will be the same after the blight, after Earth has spend almost a century trying to get enough food to survive with people starving in droves the prospect of radiation probably isn't that scary anymore compared to biological weapons) is a vast ignorance about nuclear power (and technology in general) that makes people afraid of it. Were the government to put it's mind and muscle into a massive public information campaign, people could be told the facts (even today nuclear power is cleaner, cheaper, and safer than petrochemical) and eventually would loose the fear of fission technology. Fusion is even easier, it's more efficient, cleaner, and safer than fission, so I can't imagine that many people wouldn't be in favor of it once they know what the facts are, and in this day and age it's pretty hard to stay ignorant of the major technological advances that drive society. Finally, yes, incorporate states would be eager to sell things for the most profit they can get, but they would use the cheapest, most efficient power they could get for themselves, and probably research it rather heavily. So there would be a huge drive towards small fusion units that can be more efficiently used. One incorporate state might discover how to do that, then sooner or later by industrial espionage or sale the others would as well. Also, it's probably an area that the GEO is interested in, given it's nature as primarily an enviornmental organization, and that would be "free" research for the public benefit. Finally, militarily, you want small, cheap power units. It's much better for each home or installation to have it's own power source than to have one large one, because if you have one huge fusion plant, one strike can take down your whole power grid. With smaller fusion units, that can't be done, each installation has multiple small power sources, so you deprive an enemy the chance to cripple a complex by taking out the power before an attack. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: David Chart [dc132@cam.ac.uk] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 12:24 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! --On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 12:45 pm -0400 Chris Sakal wrote: > Most of the stuff you might not want players to read is is the access > denied sections anyway, so at least players are warned. If they would > read those, then they would probably go into the GM section of the book > (were it arranged that way) anyway. This doesn't follow. It is very difficult *not* to read bits of text that are presented to you, even if you are trying not to. That's just the way the brain works. If they're in a separate section, you can deliberately not look. I think the "access denied" layout was a poor decision. David Chart *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Adam Lewis [adamswork@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 1:19 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! ---Chris Sakal wrote: > > Most of the stuff you might not want players to read is is the access > denied sections anyway, so at least players are warned. True. > If they would read those, then they would probably go into the GM section of the > book (were it arranged that way) anyway. Nope, I'd blank the Access Denied sections from the pLayers book > Besides, provided that your players are even moderately good at role-playing and > you are aware of what they should and should not know it shouldn't be a problem. > It's not hard preventing players from using out of game knowledge. > Well, I trust players to roleplay correctly, but I want to suprise them. I knew I was getting a stereo for my 12th birthday because I sneaked into my parents closet, but I still pretended to be suprised. Think how much more suprised I'd be if it was something I was totally not expecting. The game should be full of suprises for the players, not just the player characters. == AdamL "One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor." _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Ronald Johnson [ronjon@shore.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 1:34 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! On Tue, 25 Aug 1998, David Chart wrote: > --On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 12:45 pm -0400 Chris Sakal wrote: > > > Most of the stuff you might not want players to read is is the access > > denied sections anyway, so at least players are warned. If they would > > read those, then they would probably go into the GM section of the book > > (were it arranged that way) anyway. > > This doesn't follow. It is very difficult *not* to read bits of text that > are presented to you, even if you are trying not to. That's just the way > the brain works. If they're in a separate section, you can deliberately not > look. I think the "access denied" layout was a poor decision. I have to agree with David that it is very difficult not to read the Access Denied sections that are in the margins. If you see a section that is shaded differently and labeled DON'T LOOK HERE, you are going to look, especially if it is chock full of juicy tidbits! I think the Access Denied section covering the abos is much easier not to read. On the other hand, there is a difference on what the players know and what the characters know, and good role-players should be able to make the distinction. My .02 scrip, Ron --- Ron Johnson Surf Poseidon! *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 1:46 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. Hello Leif, You ask about the wormhole on the Serpentis side - yes, it is a lot closer. Ah...as far as the rest of your explaination...ah..I followed most of it...and ah...well sure. We need to increase reactor efficiency...? ; ). Jeff Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 1:46 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! Hey Adam, We realize that the Access Denied sections are tempting, but they would be just as tempting if they were in their own special section. The only real security is the choice of individual players not to read the sections. To that end I know a lot of players that have refrained from reading them. As a result, and as a general rule, when we talk about Access Denied's on the list we try to include a spoiler warning. Thanks, Jeff Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 2:02 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! Hey Folks, I'm glad some of you seem compelled to read BP, infact forced to but geesh...it ain't like a car wreck or a naked woman or something. The human brain has to be actively engaged to read anything but a huge headline or billboard. Pump up your Multiglands (BP 231) and make a Will roll or something ; ). Jeff "Access Denied" Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Adam Lewis [adamswork@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 2:13 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! ---BIOHZD@aol.com wrote: > > Hey Adam, > > We realize that the Access Denied sections are tempting, but they would be > just as tempting if they were in their own special section. Yeah I know. It wasn't me that suggested a seperate section. I was trying to give a heads up to the guy who said he just got the book and was only on the Survival Guide section. I wanted him to know there were spoiler sections and that players should maybe not read them. > As a result, and as a general rule, when we talk about Access Denied's on > the list we try to include a spoiler warning. Oops...my bad. I should've known that. == AdamL "One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor." _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: henry.koskela@mbnet.fi Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 3:36 PM To: blue_planet@lists.MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Eh Do like I do... Don't let the players read the book freely instead tell them about the world and what's going on. I did one session where I just described the Blue Planet world and politics. Players got the right feeling. Although they're completely unaware of secrets in Access denied. Things will surely come as a surprise to them.) Hmm... Undercurrents #4 coming soon? Henry Koskela "Who remembers the names of fallen heroes?" *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris L'Etoile [stormwaltz@ibm.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 2:39 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Just got it! Hey folks, I just joined the list last night - hi! - and thought I'd put my two cents in on this one. David Chart wrote: > --On Tue, Aug 25, 1998 12:45 pm -0400 Chris Sakal wrote: > > > Most of the stuff you might not want players to read is is the access > > denied sections anyway, so at least players are warned. If they would > > read those, then they would probably go into the GM section of the book > > (were it arranged that way) anyway. > > This doesn't follow. It is very difficult *not* to read bits of text that > are presented to you, even if you are trying not to. That's just the way > the brain works. If they're in a separate section, you can deliberately not > look. I think the "access denied" layout was a poor decision. Well, I managed to avoid reading the aborigine chapter until I was done everything else. Not that it was easy, mind. I actually stayed up until 5AM one morning to get to it. I just really wanted to preserve the "human perspective" on Poseidon until I'd finished reading all the background material. I didn't want to be going through and thinking, "Gee, THAT must really cheese the abos off!" I would agree, however, that putting the sensitive information in eye-catching sidebars is questionable. Sure, good roleplayers will have their characters be ignorant, but it's awfully hard for a poor GM to surprise his players with any of that material. I would have relegated all the AD material to its own chapter. It's just an extra level of nosy that the players must possess. The best option, of course, would have been to but it all in a separate book (like the game screen has done), but that's an expensive option just to preserve some suspense. If you guys were as rich as TSR or White Wolf, that would be the way to go. Just my opinion. And Jeff replied to all this: > I'm glad some of you seem compelled to read BP, infact forced to but > geesh...it ain't like a car wreck or a naked woman or something. The human > brain has to be actively engaged to read anything but a huge headline or > billboard. Pump up your Multiglands (BP 231) and make a Will roll or something > ; ). > Huh. Well, I THOUGHT I was pretty compelled to read it, but if the designer feels the need to go around making will rolls to avoid reading Access Denieds or snacking between meals, I guess I'm just a piker. And if you guys are selling Multi Glands, I want some! :) - Chris L -- /--------------------------------------------------------\ | "Excuse me, a doormat is good, honest work." | | - Kristen Hersh | |--------------------------------------------------------| | stormwaltz@ibm.net | e2aow@geocities.com | |--------------------------------------------------------| | The Empire II Archive: | | http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Labyrinth/6085/ | | | | Personal Homepage: | | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9499 | \--------------------------------------------------------/ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: wil liam hindmarch [hindmarc@stu.beloit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 2:38 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) > I disagree with that. What there is in today's society (and we cannot >assume that things will be the same after the blight, after Earth has spend >almost a century trying to get enough food to survive with people starving >in droves the prospect of radiation probably isn't that scary anymore >compared to biological weapons) is a vast ignorance about nuclear power >(and technology in general) that makes people afraid of it. Were the >government to put it's mind and muscle into a massive public information >campaign, people could be told the facts (even today nuclear power is >cleaner, cheaper, and safer than petrochemical) and eventually would loose >the fear of fission technology. I think, since the Blight was a man-made creation, that people would still fear mass technological applications. Do you know how long it took the microwave to catch on? When electrical outlets were first installed, people used to block them with heavy objects or tape over them when they could for fear the electricity would "fall out" and hurt someone. > Fusion is even easier, it's more efficient, cleaner, and safer than >fission, so I can't imagine that many people wouldn't be in favor of it >once they know what the facts are, and in this day and age it's pretty hard >to stay ignorant of the major technological advances that drive society. For you and I this is true, but the vast majority of our culture has no idea how any of the technology in their own homes works. If you doubt this, see how many college students (higher education, mind you) don't understand how their air conditioning, computers, or automobiles work. Granted, fusion is certainly a cleaner power source, but see below, in my final rant. > Finally, yes, incorporate states would be eager to sell things for the >most profit they can get, but they would use the cheapest, most efficient >power they could get for themselves, and probably research it rather >heavily. So there would be a huge drive towards small fusion units that >can be more efficiently used. One incorporate state might discover how to >do that, then sooner or later by industrial espionage or sale the others >would as well. An Incorporate state having access to something and the people within that state having access to it are different things, I contend. (I'm also fighting a losing battle here, I realize. See below.) > Finally, militarily, you want small, cheap power units. It's much better >for each home or installation to have it's own power source than to have >one large one, because if you have one huge fusion plant, one strike can >take down your whole power grid. With smaller fusion units, that can't be >done, each installation has multiple small power sources, so you deprive an >enemy the chance to cripple a complex by taking out the power before an >attack. For certain military outposts, individual generators are ideal. For independent, terrestrial vehicles, fusion is a mistake. Fusion would be ridiculously easy to spot with any of a dozen sensor techniques, and if it's easy to spot it makes a poor weapon. Lastly, here's my biggest point: I'm not arguing about how humans may or may not *actually* embrace fusion, what I'm trying to do is give possible explanations why fusion cars DON'T exist *in the BP setting.* Since someone used the argument that there can be no small fusion generators on spacecraft since there aren't any on automobiles, I'm attempting to suggest that one thing has nothing to do with the other. Necessity breeds invention, but that's all. Invention does not breed necessity or automatic desire. If you doubt me, order Sugar Ray's Slam-Man. will *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Adam Lewis [adamswork@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 3:12 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Eh ---Henry Koskela wrote: > > Do like I do... Don't let the players read the book freely instead tell them > about the world and what's going on Well, that's fine, but I don't want my book being loaned out everytime a player wants to make a PC. Besides, I get this blinding headache whenever I think of people NOT buying a BP book and I've been noticing more of those black helicopters near my house lately. == AdamL "One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor." _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 3:51 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) > I think, since the Blight was a man-made creation, that people would still >fear mass technological applications. Do you know how long it took the >microwave to catch on? When electrical outlets were first installed, people >used to block them with heavy objects or tape over them when they could for >fear the electricity would "fall out" and hurt someone. And look at the way people feel about electricity now that they possess some modicum of understanding about it. This seems to be more towards my point. >see how many college students (higher education, mind you) don't understand >how their air conditioning, computers, or automobiles work. Hey, I'm a college graduate, and I don't know how my airconditioner, computer or car (were I to have one) works. I have some idea, sure, but I truly doubt that anyone who isn't an engineer, mechanic, or technican does. You don't have to know about nuclear physics to understand that fusion power isn't harmful and that it in fact is the best way to get power given the tech level. > An Incorporate state having access to something and the people within that >state having access to it are different things, I contend. (I'm also >fighting a losing battle here, I realize. See below.) Well, it'll probably be the cheapest power after it gets optimized, so there's a good reason for the incorporate citizens to have access to fusion power as well. > For certain military outposts, individual generators are ideal. For >independent, terrestrial vehicles, fusion is a mistake. Fusion would be Well, sure, it's overkill. Your cadillac just doesn't need a 500 MegaWatt powerplant. Maybe a battleship. For anything smaller it would proabably be much more efficient to use a fuel cell of some kind. Just because fusion is available doesn't mean it's ALWAYS the way to go, but for situations when you need a lot of power, it would seem to be the only way to go. Chris Sakal csakal@erols.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: wil liam hindmarch [hindmarc@stu.beloit.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 4:35 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) > Well, sure, it's overkill. Your cadillac just doesn't need a 500 >MegaWatt powerplant. Maybe a battleship. For anything smaller it would >proabably be much more efficient to use a fuel cell of some kind. Just >because fusion is available doesn't mean it's ALWAYS the way to go, but for >situations when you need a lot of power, it would seem to be the only way >to go. I'm confused now. Are we agreeing? I agree completely with what you're saying above. It was said (I forget by who now) that one could not put small-model fusion generators on a spacecraft without putting them on cars and such to maintaining consistancy, and with that I disagree. Would towns and outposts get their power from fusion? Absolutely. Do people own towns and outposts? Not really. I don't think we'll be seeing fusion refrigerators or automobiles just because the reactors are small enough. There are some DAMN small fusion reactors now and, despite what some said in the 1950s, I still don't own one. I've gotten way off track, though, and I'm pretty sure I've contradicted myself more than once, so I'll be quiet now. will *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Adam Lewis [adamswork@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 11:28 AM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) ---wil liam hindmarch wrote: *snip* > I think we may talking past each other here, though. Some of us are > arguing about scientific applications within the forseeable future, and > some of us are talking specifically about scientific applications to the > Blue Planet setting. I agree. I don't think the BP setting is set up for adventures that involve intensive space travel. Not that you couldn't... _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Kevin Haro [harok@msoe.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 5:41 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Fusion drives etc. (LONG!) > I'm confused now. Are we agreeing? I agree completely with what you're > saying above. It was said (I forget by who now) that one could not put > small-model fusion generators on a spacecraft without putting them on cars > and such to maintaining consistancy, and with that I disagree. Would towns > and outposts get their power from fusion? Absolutely. Do people own towns > and outposts? Not really. I don't think we'll be seeing fusion > refrigerators or automobiles just because the reactors are small enough. > There are some DAMN small fusion reactors now and, despite what some said > in the 1950s, I still don't own one. Okay, last I checked the only fusion reactor I was aware of exsisting was taking up a very large lab over at MIT. And perhaps my engineering schooling has warped my mind over the last few years by why would you put a fusion power source anywhere near a refrigerator. Are we starting off with cold fusion now? And who said fusion was safe? Assuming all your safeguards work, than yes, I suppose it is, however, most things don't react well to plasma leaks. -Kevin Haro *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: BIOHZD@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 9:40 PM To: blue_planet@MPGN.COM Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Undercurrents #4 Hey All, Good timing Henry, asking about Undercurrents #4... I am pleased to announce that Undercurrents #4 should be posted on the Biohazard website (www.biohazardgames.com) by midnight tonight. It's full of lots of waterworld wonders including a scenario by Tun Kai Poh of Archipelago intro contest fame, and a unique NPC contribution by new list member Chris L'Etoile. I am excited about this issue, and hope you will be too... Speaking of Undercurrents and player contributions, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you all to make your own contributions to the newsletter. Anything and everything is welcome so let your creative genies out of their bottles and give them a shot at writing. Not to worry, we are happy to edit for content or fit, and are open to just about any kind of submission. I'll let you all in on a little secret. We hope that some day UC will become a player driven publication and that all we will really need to do is write a bit here and there, compile the rest, and post it all to the website. We really look forward to players making UC their creative access to the BP universe. Well...what are you waiting for...get writing! ; ). Jeff Barber Biohazard Games *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.