Re: sensors in space

hiya,
	Sorry about the previous message, it escaped be accident and
the configuration we suffer under here, doesn't allow us to stop wayward
messages (anymore).

[That's okay Paul - I fixed it before it got out to the list at large --
James]

Back to the topic itself...

>	 Best dice roll:  12
>	 Computer model: + 9
>	 -------------------
>			  21
>	Number required: - 3
>	 -------------------
>	  Maximum range:  18 x 25000 = 450000 km
>	   (in squares)
>
>That seems totally unreasonable to me, especially when some of the
>sensor packages have a Interstellar range.

After some thought about this problem, I've come up with a possible solution...
The tasks given in the space combat section of the ref's guide are for COMBAT
only.  They represent getting a usefull fix on the target.  At the range of
18 squares = 450000000 m = 4.5 * 10^8, it will take 1.5 seconds for light
to travel the distance (c = 3 * 10^8 approx).  So for a passive sensor, you
wait 1.5 seconds to detect something and and least 1.5 for your response to
get back (for lasers it is 1.5, for most other things it will be longer).
This is a totaly round trip time of 3+ seconds!!  In a combat situation this
is a VERY long time and the target will have maneuvered somewhat before your
response hits it.  For an active sensor things are even worse and the figures
come out at about 3 seconds to detect and 1.5 (min) response.  I agree that
a range of 18 is a but long even for space combat, but going down to a range
of 6 squares, you still have one second response time (which is still quite
large).

Basically, I'd say that the tasks given in the refs guide are for combat
purposes only and that they represent the getting of useful information.
For non-combat sensor scans, a new suite of tasks will have to be devised
which work out to a much longer range.  I haven't defined any such tasks
(yet :-), but I'd be interested in the TML's comments about the idea.


>Notice that any planet size 5+ can't even detect ships out to its 100
>diameter radius (without the help of navigation satellites, etc). That
>seems really bizarre.

This would have to be repaired, a ship that comes out of jump with its
transponder blasting away would have to be detected (it might take a while
for the detection to occur, but it would be known to be present).




							Pauli
seeya

Paul Dale               | Internet/CSnet:            [email removed]
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet:       [email removed]
Uni of Qld              | JANET:           [email removed]
Australia, 4072         | EAN:                          [email removed]
                        | UUCP:           [email removed]
f4e6g4Qh4++             | JUNET:                     [email removed]