twilight2000-digest Thursday, February 25 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 019 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Fw: Navigation. Sub vs. Sub Re: Sub vs. Sub Tank v. Destroyer Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: GPS/EMP Re: GPS/EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: Submarines -> Non-radio Infantry Re: GPS/EMP Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: GPS/EMP Re: GPS/EMP -> nuclear reactors in space Re: Submarines Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Re: T2K nuclear exchanges & Submarine -> Solution Re: Submarines Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: GPS/EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: GPS/EMP Re: GPS/EMP [none] Re: GPS/EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. Re: GPS/EMP Re: Fw: Navigation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 00:11:00 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges At 10:21 PM 2/24/99 EST, Grimace997@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 99-02-24 16:16:04 EST, you write: > > >If you get the Jane's Recognition Guides, rather than the > >full books, you get a book that has a publication date of one year only. > >There is a Jane's Naval Recognition guide that was published in 1996. > >However, the information in it is taken from the 1995-96 Jane's Naval Book. > > > >Trust me on this one, I've got them. > > I'm sure you do. However, when someone refers to a book as "_Jane's_" the > assumption is that the reference is to _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--indeed, > I've never heard the term used any other way, except of course as a > reference to the entire publisher. I doubt the author was even aware that > the recognition guides existed. > >Apologies for being "exceptionally rude". I work at a bookstore and when >someone refers to "Jane's", they could be referring to about 3 different >styles of Jane's books (Gem books, Recognition guides, and the full book), and >could be pertaining to half a dozen different topics (Tanks, Ships, Aircraft, >Small Arms, etc). Since your reference was to "Jane's" in general, and not >the more specific title that you mentioned in your last post, I thought I >should clear it up, so that YOU wouldn't go around telling people they were >wrong. > I'm aware that Jane's publishes a number of different books, as well as _Jane's_ _Defense_Weekly_. However, _JFS_ is the flagship publication, and the only one of the books that's commonly referred to as _Jane's_. The reference in the module is not in fact to "_Jane's_" in general, but rather the author implies that it's a particular book (it says that someone takes a copy of "_Jane's_" off the shelf--in that context, there's no other book that he could be referring to). >I will watch the way I word things in the future, as should YOU. Some of your >prior posts were rather on the condescending side. I realize that sometimes >people feel they know a lot more about certain subjects that others, but >that's no reason to rub their face in their error. I know, I did it on my >previous post. :/ > I try not to--what usually sets me off is not someone who's wrong, but someone who's wrong and yet insists on contesting every single point, repeatedly....It's not entirely fair of me, but it's when responding starts taking up a lot of time that I get upset. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:14:42 +1100 From: Damian Robinson Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. Scott David Orr wrote: > >Groton sure as hell would have been hit, even if they > >don't list it in the v2.2 rules, which is all i've got to go on) > > One would think. I don't remember which shipyard it is, but in the module > it definitely hasn't been hit. :) The russian nukes were described as being rather eratic in thier targetting. Maybe they just missed? > > Also most of the NATO countries had diesels pre-war, and I think > >France had SSNs, so all their facilities couldn't have been hit. you > >could probably find similar parts and materials somewhere in western > >europe... > > I'm not familiar with the module itself, so i don't know whether > >the whole thing starts off stateside or in europe, so i've just been > >trying to put facts together from all the other posts in this thread. > > > It starts off in the U.S., in either RI or CT, I don't remember which. Dragging out my copy of Last Sub, the SSN-705 CCC started off in New London, Connetticut, was stolen and taken to Nantuckett Island, it then went (with the PC's) to rumania, then to Norway for boomer. Cheers Damian > Scott Orr > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:37:33 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. I think there is also an assumed layover at USCG Station Cape May between the first and second modules, where she gets checked out and receives the rest of her crew complement before heading out across the Atlantic. ~Snake Eyes At 03:14 PM 2/25/99 +1100, Damian Robinson wrote: > >Dragging out my copy of Last Sub, the SSN-705 CCC started off in New >London, Connetticut, was stolen and taken to Nantuckett Island, it >then went (with the PC's) to rumania, then to Norway for boomer. > >Cheers >Damian *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:00:47 -0600 From: Mitch Berg Subject: Sub vs. Sub attacks against submerged submarines were rarest of all (I've heard of >> maybe one successful one, in WWI, though it's possible it happened once or >> twice in WWII). Close, but no cigar. The first successful kill of a submerged sub by another submerged sub was in early 1945. The HMS Vindictive sank submerged U-boat while itself submerged. In WWI, the Brits built a class of subs - the "R" class - which was the best-performing class of subs until the late '30s, capable of 8-9 knots on the surface but 15 submerged (most subs in WWII did 8-10 submerged), and equipped with the latest hydrophones for tracking subs underwater. It was the first attempt to build a sub to fight other subs underwater. And while the sub was an engineering marvel, it had no successin its designed role... Mitch Berg Humanware Design - http://www.humanwaredesign.com/ (651)644-4192 User Interface Design, Usability Analysis and Information Engineering. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:58:53 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Sub vs. Sub At 01:00 AM 2/25/99 -0600, Mitch Berg wrote: >attacks against submerged submarines were rarest of all (I've heard of >>> maybe one successful one, in WWI, though it's possible it happened once or >>> twice in WWII). > >Close, but no cigar. > >The first successful kill of a submerged sub by another submerged sub was >in early 1945. The HMS Vindictive sank submerged U-boat while itself >submerged. > That's the first _confirmed_ kill. There were a couple of unaccounted-for subs earlier in the war, and a couple of uncertain attacks, at least on the U.S. side.... Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:02:29 -0800 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Tank v. Destroyer Since we were almost on the topic anyway, does anybody have any solid information on a tank sinking a destroyer from shore during WWII? My military history teacher made reference to such an incident when I was in high school, but I don't know if he was shooting straight or full of crap. It's certainly possible (given that most DD's are armored only slightly better than a lunchbox), but it must have been one damn lucky shot. Maybe it hit a magazine? Anyone? ~Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:06:31 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > I'm sure you do. However, when someone refers to a book as "_Jane's_" the > assumption is that the reference is to _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--indeed, > I've never heard the term used any other way, except of course as a > reference to the entire publisher. I doubt the author was even aware that > the recognition guides existed. > > Scott Orr Seconded here. I deal with Jane's various pubs and when one just says 'Jane's', that means the full-size books. If one is talking about any of the other many series and books put out by Jane's, i.e. the recognition guides, then one should specify that. S2000 _________________________________________________________ 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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:10:27 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: GPS/EMP > you use orbital nuclear bombs (think of all the nuclear reactors > in satellites ... are you sure none of them are bombs?) lasers Nuclear reactors in sattelites?? I wasn't aware that a sattelite was large enough to carry such a thing. All sats I've seen (over many years of reading AW&ST) have been powered by a combination of solar arrays and internal batteries. S2000 _________________________________________________________ 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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:12:00 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: GPS/EMP > Well, if enough satellites survive, GPS will be working every > now and then. (whenever one passes overhead ... more or less). I seem to recall that GPS works by triangulating the signals of two or more GPS sats. If this is so, it would take being under the umbrella of more than just one sat to get a reading. S2000 _________________________________________________________ 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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:33:18 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. - ---Scott David Orr wrote: > On the one and only sub I've ever been on (an "Ohio"-class), the officers > seemed to be extremely impressed by the pilot--as I understand it it's not > a very bright idea to try to navigate a tricky channel yourself. Agreed...simply put: Captains trust pilots. Period. I'm not saying that some captains don't have a bit of an ego problem about it, but frankly, the dangers of entering a harbor with a larger ship are so high, and intense local knowledge of the lanes is so critical that there really isn't any choice but to trust a pilot. Even in the harbor where a ship homeports the captain still uses a pilot. Pilots are the only ones who day-to-day navigate the harbor, so are the only ones with the experience to do so safely. S2000 _________________________________________________________ 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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 22:13:32 +1100 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Submarines -> Non-radio Infantry > wrote: > >>Also, despite lots of references to W.W.II abilities of equipment, one >>of the drawbacks of modern soldiering is an increasing reliance on >>technology. I have just come back from an Infantry exercise and to be >>brutally honest, without radio comms between section commander and 2ic >>(etc) they would have be cut to shreds.Training and tactics (and the >>weapons systems) are built around the availability of the High tech >>warfighting kit. Some recent Australian Army trials of high tech kit gave the thumbs down to some gear, but a big thumbs up for radio comms between soldiers in a squad. Improved the command and control out of sight. > Interesting to note that some countries do train for non-radio situations. > Noteable, the old Soviets could conduct large scale infantry ops with >small wooden whistles, and armoured ops with semaphore style flags. > Also lots of 'less modern' armies still use WW2 Field Phone technology; >no electronics, just two phone boxes, a few C cells, and a lot of wire to >connect them together... does the US Army still use this technology, or is >everything radio now ? I don't know how the semaphore flags would have worked in practice, as tanks only have limited vision and the crew should be looking straight ahead. Unless they are heads out of turret. I thought all modern armies doctrine was to set up wire comms if not moving for any great length of time? Peter *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:51:03 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Cook Subject: Re: GPS/EMP some of them do carry very small ones. I remember a few months ago there was a big protest at Cape Canaveral over the launch of a sattelite (or space probe, can't remember which), the protestors were worried that the rocket might explode after launch and scatter radioactive material. And about a year ago, when that russian sattelite fell out of orbit and ended up somewhere in the south pacific, there were concerns about the nuclear material it had on board. Here's a question: did the soviets have any kind of sattelite navigation system? also, at present, do they make use of the GPS system at all? Michael Cook - ---Josh Baumgartner wrote: > Nuclear reactors in sattelites?? I wasn't aware that a sattelite was > large enough to carry such a thing. All sats I've seen (over many > years of reading AW&ST) have been powered by a combination of solar > arrays and internal batteries. > > S2000 > _________________________________________________________ > 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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. > _________________________________________________________ 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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 09:42:02 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, sdorr@ix.netcom.com produced: > The > reference in the module is not in fact to "_Jane's_" in general, but rather > the author implies that it's a particular book (it says that someone takes > a copy of "_Jane's_" off the shelf--in that context, there's no other book > that he could be referring to). The Module actually specifies Janes Fighting Ships, 1996's issue (note that the alternate timeline starts 1995) on page 5. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:05:28 -0800 (PST) From: Michael Curran Subject: Re: GPS/EMP - ---Josh Baumgartner wrote: > > > you use orbital nuclear bombs (think of all the nuclear reactors > > in satellites ... are you sure none of them are bombs?) lasers > > Nuclear reactors in sattelites?? I wasn't aware that a sattelite was > large enough to carry such a thing. All sats I've seen (over many > years of reading AW&ST) have been powered by a combination of solar > arrays and internal batteries. > > S2000 > Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear device in space would violate just about every treaty ever signed about satellites and space. - -MC _________________________________________________________ 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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:44:44 -0400 From: trustno1 Subject: Re: GPS/EMP -> nuclear reactors in space >> Nuclear reactors in sattelites?? I wasn't aware that a sattelite was >> large enough to carry such a thing. All sats I've seen (over many >> years of reading AW&ST) have been powered by a combination of solar >> arrays and internal batteries. > > Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear device in space >would violate just about every treaty ever signed about satellites and >space. From James F. Dunnigan's "How to Make War", 1988 The War in Space; Limits of Satellite Endurance; Power Supply " The power source is typically a combination of solar panels and batteries. Batteries are needed for those times when the satellite is in earth's shadow. Russia uses a special nuclear reactor (not the same type used in power plants) that generates a lot of energy in a few months and then runs down. " Fascinating book, btw... a must have for everyone, IMO. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:14:49 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Submarines Yes for acquisition, once they aquire the weapon takes over. Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com - -----Original Message----- From: Grimace997@aol.com To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Submarines >> >>>Aircraft drop a Torpedoe. The ASROC is Ship launched, SUBROC is sub >>>launched. Both just balistic weapons, a MK46 torp on a rocket, and I >think >>>the 46' is your best bet since we "could" have an abundant supply of the >>>older analog ones around. Even the Fire control to the biggest extent is >>>analog. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. >>> >>No, he's talking about the old WWII and post-WWII equipment. Most of the >>stuff you're talking about involves comptuers somwhere in the process >>doesn't it? > >Quick question: > >Do wire guided torps require a computer to operate? >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:16:33 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges I think we could all use a hug, :-) Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com - -----Original Message----- From: Grimace997@aol.com To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 10:46 PM Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges >In a message dated 99-02-24 16:16:04 EST, you write: > ><< > No, I was right. Even if I had been wrong, this would an exceptionally > rude way to go about telling me--certainly not the sort of behavior worthy > of an adult. > > >If you get the Jane's Recognition Guides, rather than the > >full books, you get a book that has a publication date of one year only. > >There is a Jane's Naval Recognition guide that was published in 1996. > >However, the information in it is taken from the 1995-96 Jane's Naval Book. > > > >Trust me on this one, I've got them. > > I'm sure you do. However, when someone refers to a book as "_Jane's_" the > assumption is that the reference is to _Jane's_Fighting_Ships_--indeed, > I've never heard the term used any other way, except of course as a > reference to the entire publisher. I doubt the author was even aware that > the recognition guides existed. > > Scott Orr >> > > >Apologies for being "exceptionally rude". I work at a bookstore and when >someone refers to "Jane's", they could be referring to about 3 different >styles of Jane's books (Gem books, Recognition guides, and the full book), and >could be pertaining to half a dozen different topics (Tanks, Ships, Aircraft, >Small Arms, etc). Since your reference was to "Jane's" in general, and not >the more specific title that you mentioned in your last post, I thought I >should clear it up, so that YOU wouldn't go around telling people they were >wrong. > >I will watch the way I word things in the future, as should YOU. Some of your >prior posts were rather on the condescending side. I realize that sometimes >people feel they know a lot more about certain subjects that others, but >that's no reason to rub their face in their error. I know, I did it on my >previous post. :/ > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:21:11 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges & Submarine -> Solution Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com - -----Original Message----- From: Peter Vieth To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 11:13 PM Subject: Re: T2K nuclear exchanges & Submarine -> Solution . > >We'll also call up A.C. Farley, the guy who did the cover for Boomer, and ask >him why the two good guys on the back side of the book are letting off a steady >stream of rounds from their m16s when everyone knows the m16 has a 3 round burst >governor, its even in infantry weapons of the world. And why does the Typhoon on >the cover have what looks like 5 periscopes? > For the record I love everyone. 5 Periscopes or 5 masts? 2+ Periscopes, 2+ antenna, electronic warfare equip, the radar mast etc. It is a cluttered mess. . *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:24:30 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Submarines - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM Date: Wednesday, February 24, 1999 11:31 PM Subject: Re: Submarines >At 08:26 PM 2/24/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >> >>From: Scott David Orr >> >>>No, he's talking about the old WWII and post-WWII equipment. Most of the >>>stuff you're talking about involves comptuers somwhere in the process >>>doesn't it? >>> >>Sure but what kind? Analog is mostly mechanical, servo's an such. Takes >>more to maintain but prob more reliable in this instance. Same for the 46'. >>I think the ambiguity is in the term "computer" , older ones 60-70's vintage >>didn't even use puter chips, and interfaces now adapt to that, since the 46 >>is still around. >>ASROC and SUBROC are ballistic, point in general direction set distance to >>shoot, depth at water entry, an BOOM away ya go. No chips no fuss. Weapon >>does all the work, an it's mostly analog also. >> >Maybe these would still work (the EMP may well destroy non-computer >circuitry), but they're not carried by subs (SUBROC was cancelled, as an >earlier poster pointed out), and at any rate the module posits the sub's >Mk48's working. After what we've discussed so far, they could (considering all the other slop in the story line). But I think a SUBROC back fit might be possible since it needs analog input, I'll ask around. Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:27:54 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >>From: Scott David Orr > >On the one and only sub I've ever been on (an "Ohio"-class), the officers >seemed to be extremely impressed by the pilot--as I understand it it's not >a very bright idea to try to navigate a tricky channel yourself. > And when the Pilot puts it up on shole water it's the skipper they haul away. It was not SOP. The Pilot is there to advise on the channel charachter, not drive. They got lucky. Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com >Scott Orr >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:34:57 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: GPS/EMP I've seen it in Popular Mechanics and other sources. Yup. Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com >> you use orbital nuclear bombs (think of all the nuclear reactors >> in satellites ... are you sure none of them are bombs?) lasers > >Nuclear reactors in sattelites?? I wasn't aware that a sattelite was >large enough to carry such a thing. All sats I've seen (over many >years of reading AW&ST) have been powered by a combination of solar >arrays and internal batteries. > > S2000 >_________________________________________________________ >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 twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:37:49 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >Agreed...simply put: Captains trust pilots. Period. I'm not saying >that some captains don't have a bit of an ego problem about it, but >frankly, the dangers of entering a harbor with a larger ship are so >high, and intense local knowledge of the lanes is so critical that >there really isn't any choice but to trust a pilot. Even in the >harbor where a ship homeports the captain still uses a pilot. Pilots >are the only ones who day-to-day navigate the harbor, so are the only >ones with the experience to do so safely. > That is inaccurate. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:09:24 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: GPS/EMP I know the Russians have used (still using?) nuclear reactors in satellites to power them. One of the scientific experiments that was going to the Moon aboard Apollo 13 carried such a device that did run off of a reactor or a nuclear battery, I'm a but unclear which. Some deep space probes that are designed to go beyond Jupiter run off of nuclear batteries. A nuclear battery is different than a reactor, I think they use a plutonium 238 oxide compound that is sealed in a cask that is designed to produce electricity directly from the decay of the plutonium I have to check if that's the exact compound, I'm running off of memory here. The Pioneer 10 and 11 along with the Voyager 1 and 2 deep space probes run off of such a system. Getting back to nuclear reactors in space, I remember back in 1978, a Russian Cosmos satellite fell to Earth and landed in the Canadian Northwest Territories and there was a mad dash to search for it using C-130's. Nuclear reactors have been proposed as far back as the 1950's to provide power for space stations and for manned deep space missions to Mars and beyond. Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. - -----Original Message----- From: Josh Baumgartner To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 4:18 AM Subject: Re: GPS/EMP >> you use orbital nuclear bombs (think of all the nuclear reactors >> in satellites ... are you sure none of them are bombs?) lasers > >Nuclear reactors in sattelites?? I wasn't aware that a sattelite was >large enough to carry such a thing. All sats I've seen (over many >years of reading AW&ST) have been powered by a combination of solar >arrays and internal batteries. > > S2000 *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:41:15 -0500 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: GPS/EMP >Here's a question: did the soviets have any kind of sattelite >navigation system? also, at present, do they make use of the GPS >system at all? The Russians do have such a system, I've received their signals on my scanners anywhere from 144.910 to 150.000 Mc. It helps to switch over to AM mode, the beeping signals come in much better. I can't remember the name, but the satellites do follow the standard "Cosmos" designation. BTW, the name of the recent space probe with a nuclear battery was the "Cassini" proble that will be used to study Saturn. Chuck DE KA3WRW "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:23:41 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: [none] All units in Tango this is Jestor I transmit in the blind; They're will be a unit commanders meeting On Saturday at 1700 EST (2200 Zulu). Location will be at Talk City which can be reached through coordinates; http://loonz857.home.mindspring.com/t2k/ http://t2k.findhere.com or http://www.angelfire.com/ms/bloodtalon/links.forum.html Though the Yahoo site seems secure we can discuss a rendezvous there at a later date. This meeting is on a not to interfere basis with RW Ops. Jestor Out loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:49:08 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: GPS/EMP At 11:05 AM 2/25/99 -0800, Michael Curran wrote: > Not to mention the fact that putting a nuclear device in space >would violate just about every treaty ever signed about satellites and >space. > I don't know of any treaties against it: the relevant treaty bans _weapons_ in space, not power plants. The Soviets have apparently done it a number of times, and the reason the U.S. didn't do it until recently was anti-nuclear sentiment within the U.S. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:25:00 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. At 05:27 PM 2/25/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: > >>>From: Scott David Orr >> > >>On the one and only sub I've ever been on (an "Ohio"-class), the officers >>seemed to be extremely impressed by the pilot--as I understand it it's not >>a very bright idea to try to navigate a tricky channel yourself. >> >And when the Pilot puts it up on shole water it's the skipper they haul >away. It was not SOP. The Pilot is there to advise on the channel >charachter, not drive. This is at variance with everything I've ever heard about pilots. It's true that the helmsman does the actual steering, but the pilot's the one who gives the directions. And while I respect your knowledge, I tend to put more faith in what real live sub drivers say about the subject. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:01:01 +0100 From: Wolfgang Weisselberg Subject: Re: GPS/EMP Hi! Trying to kill the keyboard, firestorm_2021@yahoo.com produced: > some of them do carry very small ones. I remember a few months ago > there was a big protest at Cape Canaveral over the launch of a > sattelite (or space probe, can't remember which), the protestors were > worried that the rocket might explode after launch and scatter > radioactive material. Which was *not* about a nuclear reactor, but about a nuclear battery ... radioactivity --> heat. Heat+cold --> a tiny bit of electric power can be generated by using 2 different metals with 2 contacts to each other, one warm, one cold use many many many of these --> quite some power (Voyager 2 had over 400 watts when launched, but retains only 300 odd watts ... just a bit more than neccessary for basic functions) > Here's a question: did the soviets have any kind of sattelite > navigation system? also, at present, do they make use of the GPS > system at all? They would be stupid *not* to use GPS, but I doubt they solely depend on it in military applications. - -Wolfgang - -- PGP 2 welcome: Mail me, subject "send PGP-key". Unsolicited Bulk E-Mails: *You* pay for ads you never wanted. How to dominate the Internet/WWW/etc? Destroy the protocols! See: http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 21:08:58 -0500 From: loonz857@mindspring.com Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. K Dwight loonz857@yahoo.com http://bookmark.findhere.com - -----Original Message----- From: Scott David Orr To: twilight2000@mpgn.com Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 7:26 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Navigation. >At 05:27 PM 2/25/99 -0500, loonz857@mindspring.com wrote: >> >>>>From: Scott David Orr >>> >> >>>On the one and only sub I've ever been on (an "Ohio"-class), the officers >>>seemed to be extremely impressed by the pilot--as I understand it it's not >>>a very bright idea to try to navigate a tricky channel yourself. >>> >>And when the Pilot puts it up on shole water it's the skipper they haul >>away. It was not SOP. The Pilot is there to advise on the channel >>charachter, not drive. > >This is at variance with everything I've ever heard about pilots. It's >true that the helmsman does the actual steering, but the pilot's the one >who gives the directions. And while I respect your knowledge, I tend to >put more faith in what real live sub drivers say about the subject. > >Scott Orr >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line >'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #19 ************************************