Thank-you for the quick reply and additional information.

-----Original Message-----
From: Derek Wildstar
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 6:25 PM
To: xxxxxx@simplelists.com
Subject: Re: [TML] T4 QSDS Question: Sensors

On May 3, 2015, at 11:52 AM, xxxxxx@comcast.net wrote:
>> At first glance I thought the Min Length was based on antenna area, then
>> I thought that the min hull was based on passive sensor antenna diameter.
>> Now I am simply confused.  How is Min Length determined in the QSDS 1.5e
>> Standard Sensor Table?

> That is a very good question.

I'm very good at asking questions, of course they probably are not good ones
a majority of the time.

> I don't have a good answer for you.

Any answer is good in my book, of course the best answer is what moves a
project along.

> In the spreadsheet, I don't list a min length - the spreadsheet lists
> "MinHull", which is the smallest hull (in displacement tons) that can
> mount the
> sensor package.  It is listed as 100 tons for Basic and Improved, 300 tons
> for Small Military, and 2000 tons for Medium Military.

The spreadsheet above matches the Standard Hull Configuration Table in the
soft and hard cover copies of Marc Miller's Traveller Book 1 I have.

> The Word document has the same data table, but instead of Min Hull it
> lists Min Length.

TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 only reference to minimum hull length is for the HRT and
PEMS antenna diameter which is found by cross referencing the antenna
diameter with the last column of the Hull Size Table, p. 11, and then
looking up the hull rate.

> I don't know how any of these values (MinHull or Min Length) were
> calculated - in both cases, they appear to have been entered from another
> source.  I suspect that the (missing) sensors spreadsheet might be the
> source.

Darn those time gremlins for stealing the table.

> In any case, I suggest treating these numbers as suspect.

Until we figure out how to test the Min Hull or Min Length I've defaulted to
the TNE FF&S Mk I Mod 0 requirements found on p. 53 for the HRT and PEMS
sensors. "If antenna diameter greater than the hull length (unmodified by
configuration), the antenna must be a folding array." The "unmodified by
configuration" I take to mean that the hull length is the one listed on the
Hull Size Table without being modified by the hull form length modifier.

> I believe my original intent was to list a Minimum Hull size for the
> sensor package that incorporated both the length and area.  The minimum
> hull
> would be the hull that was both long enough to be longer than the largest
> diameter sensor included in the package, and had enough area to
> accommodate all of the sensors in the package.

> In other words: MinHull = MAX(LengthHull,AreaHull) where LengthHull = Hull
> size in dtons where every hull of that displacement and larger has length
> >= MAX(Length) of each sensor included in the package; and AreaHull = Hull
> >size in dtons where every hull of that displacement and larger has
> available area > SUM(Area) of each sensor included in the package.

Is the hull length the unmodified length from the Hull Size Table on TNE
FF&S Mk I Mod 0 p. 11 or the modified length using the equation Hull Size
Table length x the Hull Form Length Modifier?

> I don't recall the logic behind the switch from minimum hull size to
> minimum length, or how the lengths in the table were arrived at. This
> might have
> been something that was made up out of whole cloth just before QSDS went
> to press.

This may not be logic but the switch from the hull displacement tons to hull
length may be due to the HRT/PEMS criteria of antenna diameter being greater
than the hull length being a folding array.

> Personally, I'd support re-instating MinHull as defined above in errata.

I can go with either the hull displacement tons or the hull length defined
on the TNE FF&S Hull Size Table or the base length modified by the hull
form/shape length. Either option requires correcting the entire column.

> ---Guy "wildstar" Garnett
> xxxxxx@prismnet.com

Tom Rux