[GZG] RE: Space minefields

3 posts ยท Mar 23 2006 to Mar 25 2006

From: Hugh Fisher <laranzu@o...>

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:06:41 +1100

Subject: [GZG] RE: Space minefields

> Now after rambling on so long, basically my question boils down to. For

From attending a couple of talks, the big thing with the sensor node
communication links is saving the batteries. Makes sense when you're working
with the budgets given to university science departments, but I'm not so sure
about minefields.

Not only do the military get to spend more money, but a mine has to carry a
huge energy source on board to
be able to damage enemy ships. With the thrusters/
fragmentation explosives/nuclear pumped lasers already
present, there seems to me less need to save on communications traffic.

Stealth would be a good reason though. Were you thinking of just activation,
or some kind of emergent behaviour?

On a related matter, I've been jotting down notes for a computer program
tentatively named "FT Swarm" which would have a human player with one warship
against a horde of tiny (mass 2 to 5) robotic USVs. Would anyone else find
this occasionally interesting, either as the human captain swatting the
metallic swarms, or would be Skynet programmers designing new algorithms to
end the biological nuisance?

cheers,

From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 10:19:43 +1100

Subject: RE: [GZG] RE: Space minefields

G'day,

> Stealth would be a good reason though. Were you

Both, but Oerjan always canes me over the emergent behaviour stuff as he says
that would require too much communication (which wood give the field away).

Cheers

From: Hugh Fisher <laranzu@o...>

Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:23:13 +1100

Subject: RE: [GZG] RE: Space minefields

> G'day,

If it's a deterrent minefield, you want it to be visible or marked in some way
so that your friends don't sail into it by mistake. So the communications
chatter would be OK.

If it's an ambush minefield placed in hostile territory, hmmm... Suppose the
passive sensors can pick up the comm signal at three times the useful
communication range. If that passive sensor range is still less than the
effective attack range of the mines, it won't matter.

So if you have mines with a beam-2 for attack range of
24 MU, they should be spaced 8 MU apart. You probably want them more closely
packed anyway for multiple shots at a single target.

I was going to suggest tight beam lasers for comms links, but if a stealthy
mine drifts out of position, how would
the others find it again to aim the laser? :-(

cheers,