Re: [FT] SOF Insertion

Tony spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
> >I think you'd find 
> >1. They are randomly distributed with little pattern
> 
> Not exactly. The term meteor shower is usually reserved for above 
> background levels of meteor activity. This is usually caused by 
> the Earth's orbit intersecting regions of interplanetary debris. 
> The debris is most commonly attributable to comets, which are 
> quite localized.

Sure but your background level of activity is probably randomly 
distributed and so a shower is not an impossibility. 
 
> >2. They are inherently unpredicatable in density
> 
> This may be true for a first observation of a meteor shower. Over 
> time density predictions improve in accuracy. I would say that 
> meteor activity is more predictable than say, seasonal weather
> patterns.

But is that good enough to justify investigating every meteor 
incursion? Especially on a non-core world?
 
> >3. Monitoring every small object in nearspace is prohibitive
> 
> Agreed. The ability to predict does not imply that someone 
> will spend the time and money to actually make any.

yes. 
 
> >4. You'd tend to have your monitors (even if you could watch for 
> >them) only pay attention to things that are either big enough to be a

> >problem wherever they hit or any sized object aimed at a population 
> >centre. Well your SOF knows this, and they insert into the water (for

> >cushioning and dissipation of heat from the drop).
> 
> This would depend on the target of your monitoring operations. You 
> may only be interested in objects within a very narrow size
restriction.
> For example, it isn't possible to fit a PA trooper in a meteor less
than 
> 3m, and it isn't necessary to put one in a pod that's 10m across. 
> Also, you may further limit your search to objects that should burn up

> in the atmosphere, but don't.

Ah but I'm betting that isn't that easy to tell. Can you tell  a 
meteors type/density as it enters the atmosphere? Maybe. I don't 
think I'd say so in 2183. 

 Of course, any such monitoring project 
> would be expensive in terms of satellite production and maintenance, 
> computer hardware and software development as well as personnel to 
> keep it running.

I'll bet NASA and the NSA have one running for NAC on Earth, but 
probably nowhere beyond Earth, Albion and other Inner colonies. 

 This aside, it may be that colony ships deploy such 
> sensors as part of their SOP. 

Depends on colonization model. If big, gov't funded, well to do 
colony expidition, yes. If economics is a limiting factor, maybe one 
or two satellites to watch your main camp area. Otherwise... other 
areas uncovered (too expensive to protect bush). 

Also, things may be made simpler if you 
> just destroy every meteor bigger than some threshold size out of hand.

Even more expensive in some ways than monitoring and a high risk of 
accidental failure....

"Mrs. Platt, His Majesty's Government Regrets To Inform You That Your 
Son, Mathias, Was Killed When His Single Person AirStream 
Interface Glider Was Mistaken For A Meteor By The Automated Defence 
Systems...."

> >(Except for the suspicious presence of slogans like "Remember the 
> >White House" scrawled on bits of the rubble). (And an apology note, 
> >unsigned but polite and using real English spelling, left to the 
> >workers). 
> 
> "We are terribly sorry that you must be punished for crimes against 
> humanity. Real beer must have a darker colour, and be drinkable 
> without being toxic."

ROTFL!!!! (And must contain more than 4% alcahol... preferably 
5-10%).  
 
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/