textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Two questions:
1) There is (at least in spiral galaxies) some sort of plane you could
construe 'horizontally' through the spiral such that most systems would be
close to that plane. Is there any sort of commonly accepted definition of such
a plane and any sort of coordinates available wrt that plane that would locate
systems? (Thinking of the Milky Way)
2) Similarly, within systems, most orbits follow some sort of plane. Is
there data that lists how far on/off the plane of those orbits are that
known planets are? (I'm thinking something that identifies how many degrees
off that plane the orbital plane of a system world is)
Mostly I'm curious if a) most systems are flat with eccentric planets being
unusual (and what% of
planets are thus slightly or highly unusual/eccentric)
b) same sort of question with systems relative to the plane of a galaxy
(obviously highly galaxy shape dependent)
This came up in the context of detection of ships. I'm assuming detecting a
ship against 'dark space' is easier than against 'clutter'. So, a ship
sneaking into a system could try to use cover (from system bodies and maybe
any asteroid belts?) or just from staying within the plane of a system or the
plane of a galaxy to try to make picking it out versus the background harder.
(Assuming some levels of stealth as a ship without any should be identifiable
even vs. background clutter)
Would that sort of approach help? Does background clutter matter?
We thought about this when playing Traveller. Needing to get to 100 Diameters
before jump it seemed that getting above or below the plane was fastest way.
Michael Brown mwsaber6@msn.com
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom B" <kaladorn@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 1:15 PM
To: <gzg@firedrake.org>
Subject: Space Geography
> textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> would
Is
> there data that lists how far on/off the plane of those orbits are
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:15:48PM -0400, Tom B wrote:
> 2) Similarly, within systems, most orbits follow some sort of plane. Is
"Orbital inclination" is the term you're after here.
> Mostly I'm curious if
Inclination of orbital plane relative to the ecliptic, which is what you
described in 2), isn't the same thing as eccentricity. (The ecliptic is
arbitrarily defined as the plane of Earth's mean orbit about the sun. If you
do it as a momentum sum, it's closer to Jupiter's orbit, for obvious reasons.)
But all the planets' planes are within 7 degrees of Earth's orbit, and all
except Mercury within about 3.5 degrees. To a first approximation,
the smaller the body, the more inclined its orbit is likely to be -
Pluto's at 17 degrees, Pallas at 34, Eris at 44.
> b) same sort of question with systems relative to the plane of a galaxy
With realistic sensors, yes, but to a limited extent - remembering how
sparse real-life asteroid fields are, unless you're willing to bury your
ship in a comet and wait for several years, it _is_ going to be spotted.
R
Roger replied to me:
> "Orbital inclination" is the term you're after here.
TomB: Yes. I wasn't sure what that inclination was relative too so I avoided
the term.
> Inclination of orbital plane relative to the ecliptic, which is what
TomB: I meant eccentric in the sense of 'not conforming to the common way'
versus mathematically eccentric orbits. Sort of how you might describe an
eccentric Englishman.:0)
> But all the planets' planes are within 7 degrees of Earth's orbit, and
TomB: That gives me a reasonably idea for Earth's system. What I'm sort of
wondering is if this sort of data is readily available from an online catalog
of any sort. (By readily, I also mean 'without mind bending math tools to
apply to the data').
> >Would that sort of approach help? Does background clutter matter?
TomB: I'm not talking about hiding behind planets or comets, although those
sorts of things are valid. I'm talking about using background radiation from
the systems of your galaxy and perhaps from bodies in your system to make it
harder to pick you out.
TomB: Further assumptions: 1) FTL is Hyper 2) FTL system entry is 100D or some
other lengthy distance away at minimum 3) FTL exit can be detected reliably
close in, less reliable further out 4) FTL exit can preserve speed, but exit
vector direction can be chosen 5) Any stealth approach would preclude much
braking until you had gotten as
close as needed, therefore zero-zero intercepts with a body are not
required. You want near distance passes at reasonable speeds for engagement.
Or for recce with no engagement and a drift out. 6) Hull camouflage that can
replicate the pattern of what is behind you in some or all spectra is feasible
but perhaps subtly off perfect 7) Heat signature can be masked if not
thrusting or firing but only for a limited time (hours, days, maybe a week
max)
TomB: In assessing what a ship can pick out vs. the background, there would be
questions of: a) sensor transducer capability b) sensor array capability
(assume you are not just using one sensor) c) sensor system data synthesis
capacity d) rate the system can scan a volume of space (may not be all that
fast) e) computer processing power backing up the sensors f) how detection
changes if the crew are not on alert (are they running the full deep scan or
not) g) ship's own desire to remain hidden or not
TomB: How fast would you have to come in ballistic to close from 100D without
detection if your hull stealth and thermal masking only lasted several days?
Is it a practical speed? Does a masked hull stand a chance of not being picked
up by a sweep by a typical sensor array? Lots of assumptions to make, but
important to understand if you want to understand how a conflict would play
out. What is and is not possible will govern strategy and tactics.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roger replied to me:
Most basic astronomy books that cover the solar system have appendices in
the back that have much/all of the orbital information for the planets,
and probably now the dwarf planets. A bit of googling about should also dredge
up tables online as well.
For extra solar planets, try exoplanets.org or exoplanet.eu
> > >Would that sort of approach help? Does background clutter matter?
There are a whole slew of assumptions (which you the list) that would have to
be taken into account in order to answer this question. Given that you're
probably thinking near or medium future tech, you can probably safely PSB it
out yourself. :-) But note that in general the background radiation
is pretty low to begin with. On the flip side, contemporary technology has
challenges just detecting Earth-crossing asteroids. It's pretty much all
passive and optical.
On the flip-flip side, contemporary technology is on the cusp of imaging
planets (gas giants) in other solar systems. It wouldn't be much of a
stretch to have a two-layered detection system in place in a
starship-traveling future: one an area detector covering a chunk of sky
for
unknown objects moving in-system, and a second with powerful
detectors/sensors/telescopes to zoom in and look at said unknown objects
in detail. To stealth against optical detection, you'd have to have very black
ships. Near 75% of the known asteroids have albedos of 0.03 (which means they
reflect only 3% of the radiation that hits them; by comparison, Ceres is 0.11,
the Moon 0.12, and Earth is 0.35), which is pretty damned dark. But albedo is
also a function of the host star, so...
Mk
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:48:00AM -0400, Indy wrote:
Part of the problem when it comes to spaceship detection is that they
aren't relatively cool planets - in a world with realistic physics, a
ship with enough power plant to run a space-drive and weapons and so on
is seriously glowing, and will be obvious to anyone with an IR detector at
several AU range. (Ask Ken Burnside about this...)
R
Wouldn't the type of ftl be an important first step in determining if a threat
vessel could ghost its way into the system?
A fixed gate type of system (worm holes or giant man-made warp gates)
would probably imply a large active/passive sensor suite along with a
large government presence to conduct "safety inspections" or collect tarrafs
or protection of the gate.
> On 9/23/11, Roger Burton West <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't the type of ftl be an important first step in determining if
Crap -- meant spellcheck vs. send. Oh well.
If FTL speed isn't completely constant or controllable (as in one setting that
shall not be named) then it becomes more dangerous to plan deep system
emergence and the sentient types in that setting go out of their way to emerge
far from celestial bodies. The nutter types (green skins) will not worry about
this too much. Even in that setting the "fact of" arrival is generally
automatically and quickly known. Detection of the vessels in system can be hit
or miss depending on the needs of the particular author.
If the FTL system requires the building of a special "field" then you can bet
these will be detected especially if this build up is partnered with a visible
light show. I would assume that opposite is true also.
In systems where FTL has some hard limitation (such as Traveller:2300) major
trade routes will have outposts strung out along them. These will have some
sort of notional government presence and will also probably be littered with
sensors.
In systems where FTL is tied to the physical speed of the vessel there's going
to have to be some kind of breaking burn which will be detectable.
I guess what I'm trying to say (in a rather long winded fashion) is that in a
setting where space flight and FTL are readily available I can't think of a
situation where home systems won't be seeded with active and passive sensor
suites to detect the arrival and departure of vessels. The trick will be
emerging close enough to the target
system so that the defenders have no time to prepare/respond
appropriately.
Having said that I think it's more important to determine the type of FTL used
in the setting before you can determine the feasibility of a ship arriving in
system and ghosting its way towards the target planet. Though I guess one
could emerge out of "warp" outside of the local solar system and play a game
of lawn darts to then silently drift into the system but even that has issues
and assumes zero emissions, masking from optics, etc...
We haven't started talking about clandestine entry into the system ala attack
craft disguised as civilian traffic or civilian mother ships
hauling attack craft. Even with that I'd assume in-system traffic
controllers would say "Hey that bulk carrier just split into five
objects..."
D.
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:50:52 +0100, Roger Burton West
> <roger@firedrake.org> wrote:
Some suggestions for stealth involve trying to shed your heat in one
direction - e.g., you point a non-radiating side towards the enemy
sensors, and radiate all your heat back in the opposite direction.
Ignoring the difficulty in doing this, it is foiled by having multiple sensors
in the system, which makes it difficult to radiate in a
direction
which isn't being watched.
As far as coming in from the poles is concerned, if most civilian
traffic
tends to be on or near the ecliptic, then civilian sensors are probably going
to be focused there, so such a technique might work against soft targets.
Military sensors will undoubtedly scan the entire sky, despite the extra
expense of doing this.
Coming from a direction very close to the sun might make it hard to be
detected - which is another reason for a system to have lots of sensors
spread throughout the system. There may be regions which are less well scanned
than others though, so though you may not be able to avoid detection, you
might be able to delay it.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> [...]
Even if your sensors are limited in location and not spread across the solar
system in question(1), "coming from a direction very close to the sun" would
really have to be coming directly from the other side of the Sun, along the
invader-sun-defense detector axis. With our current technology, we can
(and are currently right now this very week(2)) in the process of
communication with spacecraft on the far side of the Sun, and angularly close
to it. Granted, it is an active comms connection, but this is meant to be
illustrative that our perceived notions of the impossible from 10, 20, 30
years ago have been overcome, or significantly addressed. If this sort of
trend continues...
(1) - one way around this is to set up a handful (3-4 minimum) of area
detectors in polar orbit around the Sun. Those could easily monitor the
ecliptic plane from 'above' or 'below' the Sun to see what is on the
'far'
side relative to the planet to be defended in question.
(2) - for those unaware, the MESSENGER spacecraft is currently in orbit
around Mercury. And Mercury is about to enter superior conjunction
(i.e., be
on the far side of the Sun from Earth) next week (specifically Day 272
+/- 1
day - for the non-DOY folks, Day 272 is Sept 29). The
Sun-spacecraft-Earth
angle is going to be <3 degrees (I don't have the exact number; the plot I
have doesn't have that level of detail in the scale, but eyeball judging
suggests ~1 or 2 degrees).
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [quoted text omitted]
[...]
> I guess what I'm trying to say (in a rather long winded fashion) is
Has anyone read "The Lost Fleet" series? The way he handles in-system
detections more or less addresses a lot of the concerns here (though this is
just one way to do it; there are, of coures, other views on FTL travel and
detection used in other genres that wouldn't be addressed here). Ships
appear in-system (a great many AU from the primary - too many AU away
IMO),
but are not detected until the light from the local sun reflects off of them
and is picked up at the planet(s) that would be looking for them, hours after
the fact. Meanwhile, they've moved. But they can be tracked and reacted to,
albeit with some delay. Ships also carry some kind of
high-tech
super telescope in which they can scan planetary surfaces from fair distances
out. He played it smart and does not go into the details of how these work,
though.
Mk
Another consideration to be accounted for is for the detection to be
communicated by the sensor arrays to sentient recipients, which is likely to
be at light speed. Unmanned sensor arrays are likely to be positioned such
that there aren't (m)any blind spots in system, with built in redundancy
(multiple sensor arrays with overlapping scan areas and communication lines to
the sentient presence).
Assuming you arrive in-system 6 light hours out from your final
target, and 1 light hour away from the nearest sensor array with a direct
"line of sight" communication to the sentient presence at your final target,
then the sensor array would detect you 1 hour after arrival and the sentient
presence would become aware of your presence at some point from 6 hours after
you arrive in system. It is unlikely that you will be travelling much faster
than 0.2 light speed
in-system, so it would take you a minimum of 30 hours to reach final
target, in which time they will have been tracking your movements (course,
speed, etc) giving them up to 24 hours to prepare their defences to meet you.
On arrival you would have a slight edge as you would be aware of
in-system dispositions at "point x" in time due to light which has
reached your arrival point. For instance, on arrival your sensors reveal that
6 hours ago, your final target was being circulated not by the single cruiser
squadron you had anticipated and there is in fact a full battle group within 1
light hour of the target. You could then opt to abort and exit the system
immediately before your presence has been registered by them (they will of
course become aware of your arrival, but after you have left).
As others have said, the chances are that you will be detected regardless of
where you "jump in". The real issue is how quickly the detection will occur.
Once in system both sides will be limited by
the speed of light in determining where your/their forces are - as
you approach your target the information on both sides will get closer to
"real time location".
For a good idea of what I'm talking about, try Jack Campbell's "Lost Fleet"
series.
Tamsin
> At 14:23 23/09/2011, Samuel Penn wrote:
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Tamsin Piper <
> Tamsin@tamsinpiper.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Another consideration to be accounted for is for the detection to be
This, of course, presumes you do not muddy the waters with FTL communications.
If the findings that were announced at CERN yesterday do indeed pan out (
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/faster-than-li
ght-travel-discovered-slow-down-folks/),
then you get to muck up future tech with FTL comms (not to mention FTL
travel - in system or no depends on genre and PSB). That can get messy
quickly.
Mk
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> This, of course, presumes you do not muddy the waters with FTL
Yup, didn't want to muddy the waters that much.
ps - there's a live webcast of the CERN conference right now:
<http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/>http://webcast.web.cern.ch/webcast/
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Tom B <kaladorn@gmail.com> wrote:
> TomB: That gives me a reasonably idea for Earth's system. What I'm
Hi, Long-Time Lurker here,
For this task might I suggest the free software Celestia (
http://www.shatters.net/celestia/).
It's a really nice astronomy software tool that lets you zoom around the
solar system, and a bunch of known exo-planets (although I'm not sure if
they're keeping up with the current bloom of exo-planet detections).
It's an excellent tool for realistic roleplaying games. You can also download
add-ons for all sorts of fictional settings.
I used it for a game and rewrote the constellations file so that it would make
a map of FTL routes. Then you could zoom way out and get a nice 3D sense of
your empire.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
> This, of course, presumes you do not muddy the waters with FTL
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/09/22/faster-than-li
ght-travel-discovered-slow-down-folks/
> ),
Yeah, I saw this yesterday.
Assuming there was no measurement error, one of the more "grounded"
explanations is that there's still a universal speed limit, but perhaps
neutrinos -- which have less interaction with matter than photos -- get
closer to that speed limit.
> On Friday 23 September 2011 14:30:28 Indy wrote:
wrote:
> > [...]
It's possible that this just improves the baseline. Some sensors will still be
better than others, and unless sensor tech improves to the point where perfect
coverage is possible with very cheap sensor
drones (i.e., stealth techniques don't improve at the same rate - which
isn't entirely improbable) some directions will be less well scanned than
others, especially where a small colony world is concerned which isn't
expecting trouble.
> (1) - one way around this is to set up a handful (3-4 minimum) of area
How about sticking them in the same orbit as the main world, at the 3 Lagrange
points (L3, L4, L5)? That would give similar coverage I would have thought.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 23 September 2011 14:30:28 Indy wrote:
It would be difficult to have a direct comms link with the L3 sensor since the
primary would be directly interposed. Either L4 or L5 would have to relay, and
if one (or both!) of them is down...
In a polar orbit, with 3 satellites, at least two of them will be out of the
ecliptic plane at any one time, and able to look 'down' (or 'up') to see the
entirety of the ecliptic plane (assuming one is concentrating toward the plane
for an invading force; elsewise the sensors should be basically
360).
Also, while above/below the ecliptic plane, the sensors could have
direct comms to the main world.
If one of the polar sats is offline for some reason, you still get some
pretty good coverage of the system as the crossing-the-ecliptic plane
satellite will only be there for a short bit. And can see any blind areas
the out-of-the-ecliptic plane satellite can't. If two of the polar sats
are offline, the primary will be the blind spot in the whole detection sweep,
but depending on the orbital parameters of the sensor satellites, any given
direction could be blind for a fairly minimal time (an invading fleet would
have to either be very lucky or VERY exacting in their arrival vector and
timing to be in the blind spot).
Mk
> On Friday 23 September 2011 15:52:30 Randy Wolfmeyer wrote:
+1 for Celestia.
> I used it for a game and rewrote the constellations file so that it
I dumped data for the Traveller core systems into it at one point:
http://www.glendale.org.uk/traveller/gallery.xml
> On Friday 23 September 2011 19:18:21 Indy wrote:
wrote:
> > On Friday 23 September 2011 14:30:28 Indy wrote:
Yeah, I was expecting the L3 one to relay via L4/L5.
> In a polar orbit, with 3 satellites, at least two of them will be out
to
> see the entirety of the ecliptic plane (assuming one is concentrating
True, and other bits I've snipped also true.
As I was saying, don't stick them in the Lagrange points, because that
would be a silly idea... :-)
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuel Penn <sam@glendale.org.uk> wrote:
> On Friday 23 September 2011 19:18:21 Indy wrote:
LOL
Mk
> --
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:18:21PM -0400, Indy wrote:
> It would be difficult to have a direct comms link with the L3 sensor
Venus Equilateral!
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:16 PM, Roger Burton West wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 02:18:21PM -0400, Indy wrote:
Damn right.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
Agree with some of the comments, have to question others.
In theory, we could map Earth down to sub-meter resolution and everyone
could have GPS in their cars. But it turns out this doesn't happen.
We could probably image much of near space to see asteroids, but this does not
happen.
Etc.
The issues in the real world tend to include:
a) Balkanization of the world and this does not go away in the GZGverse and
is probably very pronounced before the aliens show up - the concerns on
Earth or Inner colonies would be more 'watching the other guy' than 'watching
space'. (they aren't fully seperate) A Terra system detection
grid could be crappy just because it is administered by a half-assed UN
and the downstream delivery of data to national governments might take time
(sometimes intentionally).
b) Technical failures. In theory, we had the capacity to nuke the world tens
of times over and do sid the Russians in the Cold War. But failure rates were
never made very public and the technology never had a large scale test. And
both sides hid signs of failures in systems or poor engineering etc. I've
heard similar issues about Stealth technologies, for instance. I don't see why
detector technology or a large scale system grid would be immune.
c) How big a place it is? I presuppose: i) Earth: Grid, but many nations and
probably issues of scale with other traffic around and politics and maybe even
just limited expenditure on a global grid in Earth while nations are actively
warring in the outsystems (maybe resources go to those wars since people know
Earth is safe by treaty and no nation would want to cause issue here) ii)
Inner Colonies: Big ones likely are like smaller Earths iii) Outer Colonies:
Bigger ones probably have a scaled down system with more limited capability
but they may actually be less balkanized so they may
compensate a bit by looking harder - some places may not even have a
grid
iv) Outposts - No grid to speak of, maybe a cheap sat or two, but
nothing very potent except if it is a military base
d) System complexity. Complex computer systems can sometimes be their own
worst enemy. And half the battle in modern ESM is not hiding that something is
there, but making it confusing to identify exactly what it is
(encouraging mis-identification). Complex systems won't help that and
any form of spoofing might let you detect presence but not ID. That will
matter a lot in places like Earth or Inner Colonies given trade traffic
volumes may be high. Plus attacking a potential ally ship or neutral might not
be a good idea and calling out the fleet every time you misidentify something
might result in an ROE that limits reponse until smaller units have actual
eyes on close enough to verify identification. That gives an attacker one
route.
So you need to distinguish:
a) Does your FTL (I'm presupposing Hyper if you recall) have a signature? I
stipulated it would have some sort of gravitic signature, but a small one, and
that it would not have much of an other emission signature.
b) Presence detection and positive identification are two separate issues. One
is easier than the other but perhaps not as useful as you'd think.
c) Stealth: I'm thinking that a ship ought to be able (with a minimal PSB) to
be able sink heat locally for some time. This is why I proposed a short period
(12, 24, 48 hours) where a ship can have thermal stealth. For optical, I'm
assuming you don't appear 'black' all the time, just 'matching what is on the
other side'. Sneaking in 'six o'clock high' from the sun might be a challenge
just because of the effort of duplicating that bright object's emissions.
You'd be a black spot (slightly less bright). Besides, I'm assuming a 100D
rule here, so coming in from the sun is probably a no go.
d) Why do people assume a detection grid will be ubiquitous or of uniform
availability? They may be very expensive. They may be vulnerable to other
nations or accidents ("Admiral Burton-West, that ESU freighter just
clipped our L5 satellite and it's going to be out of commission for 3 weeks
while we get a replacement ready and manouvered into place."). Less of this in
less crowded or balkanized systems, but crappier detection arrays.
e) If detectors occupy known places in space, it may be reasonably cost
effective to attack them with ballistic projectiles perhaps with final phase
manouvering. Rocks with thrusters, missiles with long ballistic parts, etc.
Now, you say 'that will tell me they are coming!' but if a power engages in
this versus another over a long period as a generalized harassment and system
degradation tactic, the first power's systems of detection may be attrited in
quite a few systems and it may be unclear in any one that this is a preamble
to any particular attack. This is sort of the 'hit him in 1000 places'
strategy. Defender will tire himself out trying to be fully vigilant or will
cease to pay attention to attacks and live with degraded systems.
f) If FTL is detectable, people may make jump decoys and deploy them in
various places in a system or in various systems for both tactical and
strategic misdirection. To some extent or another, knowing something is
happening in 1000 places is only of marginally more utility than not knowing
it is going on at all - you can't respond to them all. So FTL detectors
may be a great way to mislead yourself as to what is actually going on.
Most military technologies boil down to a paper-scissors-rock game. And
most complex systems have the sorts of issues complex systems have. And
balkanization and heavy traffic volumes in inner areas may well compensate for
better grids.
Think of our DEW line or AWACS. They should spot everything in the air, but
they didn't and don't always for a variety of reasons. The system's
theoretical performance an actual get degraded for a variety of reasons
(logistical, technical, or otherwise).
Essentially, I'm trying to construct a not-unreasonable set of
assumptions for a GZGverse where some misdirection or stealth is possible
under some circumstances (it is not entirely rules out by instapot) and that
it is not
the best/only tactic (works every time is just as bad). I am trying to
see how this can be done with the minimal effrontry to known sensor
technologies.
If this can be done with reasonable assumptions about the influences of
complex systems, the laws of physics, reasonable defensive technologies, human
organization and balkanization, economics, etc, then I'd be happy with that.
The reason for poking at this is I'm not happy just handwaving it all away. I
don't find that satisfying. I would like to have something that feels a bit
feasible or likely. That's the nature of my investigation.
> On 25/09/2011, at 06:46 , Tom B wrote:
> c) Stealth: I'm thinking that a ship ought to be able (with a minimal
How exactly, without resorting to chanting-druids-in-the-engine-room
physics? If you're going to propose heat-sinks of some kind (ice
tanks?), just what mass are you going to ascribe to them, bearing in mind the
rather considerable energy they're going to have to absorb? What will be the
implications of that mass for propulsion, manoeuvre, etc. when compared with
ships that do not have to dedicate mass to
heat-sinks? Bear in mind also that your cold sinks will warm up as they
absorb energy, and once they're warmer than the space background, you
still have the IR-signature problem. And there is nothing very exotic or
expensive about an IR telescope.
> e) If detectors occupy known places in space, it may be reasonably
Bear in mind that you cannot really fix the position of anything in space, so
the most you could know would be the orbit. And if you're
going to allow stealth for nuclear-powered starships, you should allow
it for (probably unmanned) sensor platforms which would probably be smaller
and have fewer problems with energy management. Fair is fair, you know. Then
you could allow, say, a third of your sensor platforms to be hidden, while the
others are cooling down (see your proposal for
thermal stealth above), give them some cold-thruster (compressed air?)
orbital jiggle capacity to make plain ballistic attack unfeasible... Why
should the defending side be stupider than the attacking?
> At 2:49 PM +0100 9/23/11, Tamsin Piper wrote:
This is also used to good effect in the Daniel Leary series. FTL transition in
way out there and get a look at who's where and what's what. Then jump in
closer and do your worst.
> At 10:24 AM +1000 9/26/11, Robert N Bryett wrote:
Seems to me the best way to deal with this problem is to snooker the defenders
into committing to where you are not. You do this buy bringing in FTL drones
that are effectively decoys and look like something they're not.
If the defender can sit pat and cover a few bases he's good. If he has to try
to cover shipping, and more high value targets than he has task forces for,
it'll get interesting.
textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative
I am not a physicist - nor do I claim even the remote understanding of
things like this.
> From a personal perspective I always like the Honor Harrington take on
Fixed defenses are rather useless unless deployed in insane numbers because of
ballistic bombardment at factional cee speeds.
Tactical is more a matter of leader vs. leader (with the occasional tech bump)
since for the most part I know your basic tech and have adapted as you
have. If there are FTL weasel-style drones then I will have developed a
counter If there are IR dumping systems - then I have developed a
counter.
A tech bump may give me a edge to start, but after a few encounters the other
side's war college will have developed a counter.
This assumes relatively on-par tech.
Chip
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> At 10:24 AM +1000 9/26/11, Robert N Bryett wrote: