> Thanks Schoon! Here's some follow up work for you and the other space
As far as that goes, I'm actually more of a GROPO - I'm a geologist, not
an astronomer. My only problem is my field areas (Eros, Mars, Venus, Mercury,
etc.) have accessibility problems. However, I do play a vac-head in FT,
and have an opinion or two about defsats.
If your' defsats are in Low Orbit ( a couple hundred km from an earthsize
body), then for full, constant coverage downward (survellance, pinpoint
ortillery) you need a constellation not unlike the Irridium communications
setup today - that's on the order of 50 plus sats in polar orbit if I
recall.
IMO, given FT's granulariy, the best representation of an LEO configuration
pointing "up" is:
Defsat Constellation As Ship
Buy the entire constellation as a single immobile ship or base. The fixed
planet becomes the "body" and opponents attacking the defense net have to
target it specifically. The entire net has aggregate screens (if bought) and
hull (no armor, per say). Designate the 12 o clock poisiton as "forward", and
buy wepons in arcs as appropriate. The net can be either fixed or rotate at a
specific number of clock faces per turn (I'd stick with no more than a
rotation of 1 or 2).
Treat the whole DCAS like a ship and threshold it as appropriate.. Don't let
ortillery or dropships land unless the net is down to below 1/3 to 1/3
its original strength, or has 120 degree holes in its coverage.orbital decay
would be a factor, but in the 23rd century I'd say it's negligable. If you
want to play with ballance, make the damage rows uneven lengths. Examples say
you've got a net with 16 aggreagate hull Damage rows
2/3/5/6
make it easier to threshold the first couple times, but harder to kill the
net entirely. Or, Damage rows 6/5/3/2 make it hard to crack the net
initially, but it fails more quickluy once you so - say by killing off
command sats. Both require tweaking the DCAS cost, of course.
You could decide at the outset whether the DCAS is manned or not (unmanned
means that "crew units" are really auto-repair systems, and you can
penalize
Damage control rolls accordingly - say require 2 units to attempt any
one repair).
You need to be, as Schoon said, a thousand+ km above the surface to
minimize decay worries. But in the 23rd century, I'd think that that's really
a negligable worry for LEO sats.
The main drawback of DCAS in FT is that it's hard to represent with a single
mini or set of minis.
Middle orbit requires fewer numbers for downward coverage and may be
represented by discreete units a couple inces away from the planet.
You can get global coverage from a constellation of 4 high orbit/geosych
satellites or stations. (That's for 3-D. You only need 3 for overlapping
coverage in a 2D map). These could be more souped up stations on the order of
cruiser or cap ship in strngth depending.
I wouldn't go for ST:movie size bases that can house Battleships in internal
bays in the FT univers, however.
On the other hand, I _would_ consider planet-based missiles (MT) and
fighter groups as cost effective ways of defending colonies.
Planetary Defense Missiles (PFM): =Mass 2 Cost 6, includes ground launch
system. Fixed at one point on planet surface (pick one clock face as facing).
As MT missile, but must spend first turn after lauch traversing atmosphere. At
start of second turn, Missile can make up to 1 60 degree
turn, and move 24". Missile can either have a 6-12" reaction move to
burn it's last endurance factor (6" in any direction, 12" in forward 60
degrees), or may move next turn at 24" and another 60 degree turn. Larger
colonies should be able to manufacture enough of these on their own that only
a major task force would try to take one out from space. Inner colonies and
core worlds could mount a nearly impenetrable defense with < 2000 points of
PFM's.
Planet-Based Fighter Group (PBFG) - Same as regular fighter cost, but
+39
points per group for ground-based infrastructure and booster packs to
escape planetary gravity. Fighters require 1 turn to exit planet
atmosphere/gravity, then can maneuver freely. Return to planet costs 1
Endurance, or 0 Endurance for dead-stick re-entry. If the latter,
fighters cannot return to combat during the scenario.
Subject: [FT] Orbits/Defsats, Planetary defense.
Consider the following when designing your defsat's weapons:
"Captain, Nav reports we're about to enter orbit." *ZAP*ZAP*ZAP*ZAP* "DamCon
reports multiple needle beam hits. Drives are down." "Captain, Nav has a
revised report. We're about to crash."
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA32363;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:16:41 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4KAfr73472;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:10:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 12:10:39 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4KAbM73449
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:10:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:Ok/ojaPLUX3WNsOF8VcqJKxvJhAc58pD@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4KAaP73444
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:10:36
-0800 (PST)
Received: from c008.sfo.cp.net (c008-h003.c008.sfo.cp.net
[209.228.14.192])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eB4KAZf12870
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:10:35 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from agoodall@canada.com)
Received: (cpmta 9942 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2000 12:10:23 -0800
Date: 4 Dec 2000 12:10:23 -0800
Message-ID: <20001204201023.9941.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
X-Sent: 4 Dec 2000 20:10:23 GMT
Received: from [192.206.151.130] by mail.canada.com with HTTP; 04 Dec 2000
12:10:23 PST
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: agoodall@canada.com
X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.8.1.2
Subject: Re: New Planet in Solar System
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006e4
> On Mon, 04 December 2000, John Fox wrote:
> Hello Everyone:
Actually, the article doesn't list it as a planet, but a
"trans-Neptunian objec
t". There are a lot of them out there, things like comets and asteroids. They
a ren't planets.
Now, I'm not sure how you figure out if it IS a planet. This thing seems
pretty big, about half the diameter of Pluto. I'm not sure what the criteria
is for a planet. I'm guessing there's a composition criterion and a size
criterion.
The article carefully does not refer to the object as a planet, and there is
st ill the issue of the object's diameter. It may be a while before we know if
we have 10 planets (that we know of) or still only 9.
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:11 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA32322;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:16:25 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4KDxe73544;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:13:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 12:13:58 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4KDvD73523
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:d9A/Rzr9df86d3GiK6pjHydnXsGD6QRf@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4KDtP73518
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:13:55
-0800 (PST)
Received: from c008.sfo.cp.net (c008-h015.c008.sfo.cp.net
[209.228.14.204])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id
eB4KDtf13419
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:13:55 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from agoodall@canada.com)
Received: (cpmta 22254 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2000 12:13:49 -0800
Date: 4 Dec 2000 12:13:49 -0800
Message-ID: <20001204201349.22253.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
X-Sent: 4 Dec 2000 20:13:49 GMT
Received: from [192.206.151.130] by mail.canada.com with HTTP; 04 Dec 2000
12:13:49 PST
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
From: agoodall@canada.com
X-Mailer: Web Mail 3.8.1.2
Subject: Re: Sensor Technology
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006e5
> On Mon, 04 December 2000, John Fox wrote:
> Is there a write up that is not too out of date that give stuff like
> resolution, scan time, power needs, problems sensors have, limitations
I'm a little confused. Are you after real life sensors, or are you after
sci-fi
sensors? This sentence seems to indicate real life sensors, which I would imag
ine are limited to radar, optical telescopes and radio-wave telescopes.
If you're talking sci-fi telescopes, I'm sure there's a Traveller/GURPS
module with that info.
Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________
Get your FREE personalized e-mail at http://www.canada.com
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA00797;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:22:30 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4KLhD73683;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:21:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 12:21:42 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4KLec73662
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:21:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:QU21fvwshEQPfswciP72+3u5zYfxXpbm@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4KLdP73657
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:21:39
-0800 (PST)
Received: from piro.coqui.net (piro.coqui.net [206.99.218.243])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB4KLcf15076
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:21:38 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from rmako@coqui.net)
Received: from c800 (ppp-196-42-28-150.coqui.net [196.42.28.150])
by piro.coqui.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA03593
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 19:22:47 GMT
Message-ID: <002f01c05e2f$cfea8160$0501a8c0@c800>
From: "Bob Makowsky" <rmako@coqui.net>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
References: <F107QWrBSXaD8z9tTx70000cdb3@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fire Actions in Stargrunt or FMA
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:21:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006e6
What is the current feeling of fire actions in FMA (or Stargrunt for that
matter), one fire action per activation or one per action?
Thanks,
Bob Makowsky
From - Wed Dec 06 17:41:12 2000
Return-Path: <owner-gzg-l@scotch.csua.berkeley.edu>
Received: from scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (scotch.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.51])
by lilac.propagation.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA04035;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:35:34 -0600
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id
eB4KYRS73855;
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 4 Dec
2000 12:34:26 -0800
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eB4KYOB73833
for gzg-l-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from soda.csua.berkeley.edu
(IDENT:QcZ2cyQuMRK7mblAnYWqISJG/gCbcnv4@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
[128.32.43.52])
by scotch.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id
eB4KYNP73828
for <gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:23
-0800 (PST)
Received: from beta.verity.com (beta.verity.com [192.187.143.12])
by soda.csua.berkeley.edu (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id
eB4KYMf17607
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:23 -0800
(PST)
(envelope-from jfox@superfine.verity.com)
Received: from mx-rr.verity.com ([10.3.100.59])
by beta.verity.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA02822
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:17 -0800
(PST)
Received: from mx-rr.verity.com (mx-rr.verity.com [10.3.100.59])
by mx-rr.verity.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA08085
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:17 -0800
(PST)
Received: from superfine.verity.com (superfine.verity.com [10.3.100.10])
by mx-rr.verity.com with SMTP (MailShield v1.5); Mon, 04 Dec 2000
12:34:17 -0800
Received: from mainsheet.verity.com (mainsheet.verity.com [10.4.10.109])
by superfine.verity.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA03393
for <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:16 -0800
(PST)
Received: from mainsheet by mainsheet.verity.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id MAA17559; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:16 -0800
Message-Id: <200012042034.MAA17559@mainsheet.verity.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:34:15 -0800 (PST)
From: John Fox <jfox@verity.com>
Subject: Re: Sensor Technology
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-MD5: 3lmaDIBceYcMeAt6jPHkFg==
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.1 CDE Version 1.2.1 SunOS 5.6 sun4m sparc
Sender: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Delivered-To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Status:
X-Mozilla-Status: 0000
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: 39d245de000006e7
Dear Allan: Lets start with present day technology. In particular I am
interested in the
following
IR detection
UV detection
radar
Passive detection of radio sources optical (passive and active)
I would like to know stuff like A) Resolution probably dependent on appeture,
distance between multiple sensors etc B) Power requirements For a normal set
of detectors, large set C) Scan ability How much area (of sky, air, water) can
I cover with decent res in a given amount of time D) Limitations I obviously
need filters if I look at the sun using optics E) What each is best at
detecting. F) Any other stuff I should know
Thanks
John W. Fox
> On Mon, 04 December 2000, John Fox wrote: