[FT] Sensors and Sensibility

> On Jun 27, aebrain@austarmetro.com.au wrote:

Pretty much. My assumption is usually that 1) you will be detected, and LONG
before you get inside any tactical range. By detected, I mean that a) a
computer attached to a telescope array will note that an object exists at your
approximate positiona and moving with your approximate velocity, b) said
object has not yet been recorded in any previous survey, c) said object may be
on a trajectory which would pose a risk of collision with one or more
facilities in the system, and d) said object has an infrared signature which
is not entirely compatible with a natural object at that location and in that
orbit. How far from background you get in these categories is undetermined, as
is whether or not the computer will report this detection to any humans (or
AIs, but I don't want to get into THAT discussion again). In my GZGverse, the
contact would be sent a transponder request and flightplan request. If no
reply was received, the target would be placed under further observation to
either tape its trajectory (if a rock) or find out that it's a ship (whereupon
SAR and/or the military would be notified). Of course, if the hail
got back a civilian transponder blip and a reasonable flightplan, the ETA
might be entered in the records without a person ever being informed....

> ID is another matter.

Precisely, as I describe above. This is why I was specifying detection ranges.
Now, if you start using a drive then I would tend to make the detection range
VERY long, and you can take out the part above about it being a rock (and if
it's using a military drive or showing too much thrust, maybe the part about
it being a merchant
too).

> For example, detecting a 2m x 2m x 10m GeoSynchronous Commsat in a

Granted. My assumptions were mostly based on a reasonably 'mature' space
economy. I figure that every ship would have at least one telescope, probably
at least 1m optics, and SAR and military ships would have much better. I also
figured that (for
reasons of scale and efficiency) there would be 4-5 telescope arrays
able to work together to do a sky survey (with reasonable redundancy) inside
of 24 hours. This makes detection simpler, because you can probably assume
that SOMEONE will be in the right position to find you. Again, detection is
not identification, as you pointed out.

> And IDing a commsat as opposed to a Nuke of approximately the same

Oh, I was happy before. My tendency would be to not bother with initial
detection, just identification. Of course, it's quite possible that, in
addition to the ship being represented by a bogey counter, so would an
assortment of rocks and other things.

> > Good rules.

> Brian A Quirt wrote:

> They do indeed look easy enough for play. I don't like the

Not so much different scales, as a high-ECM environment. If no-one's
been using balloons, decoys, chaff, jammers any time in the last year and
there's no debris around, you could boost the detection ranges dramatically (
by at least 1000) at 1000km per inch. I'm sure the active detectors would have
at least the capability of detecting a rock the size of a breadbox anywhere
inside Jupiter's orbit otherwise. Tracking is another matter, track stores of
several trillion would be needed. Tricky, but doable.

ID is another matter.

For example, detecting a 2m x 2m x 10m GeoSynchronous Commsat in a Clarke
Orbit ( 36" range essentially) is easy with a simple telescope at night, if
the Sun's in the right position so you get reflection from the solar panels.
Doing so when it transits in front of the Sun during the middle of the day
though is tricky via any means.

And IDing a commsat as opposed to a Nuke of approximately the same mass
sitting inside a flimsy box the same shape as a commsat, that's trickier still
if they're both radiating similarly. Even at a range of 360 m, let alone
360,000 km.

But regardless of the B content in the PSB justification, it was a case of
"never let reality stand in the way of a good game". There, I've confessed.
Are you happy? :-) The justification came after the playtesting and
distance tweaking so crippled merchants could hide amongst asteroids to avoid
pirates, and so forth.

> Good rules.

Merci beaucoup. The second-highest praise I've had for them, and it's
appreciated.

(The highest being a comment I've read along the lines of "makes me wish there
were more players of FT in my
area..")