RE: DS2/SG2 artillery/ortillery

This assumes that you are using shells for Ortillery. If you are using
very
large energy/particle weapons for the Ortillery system, the transit time
is
VERY short. Yes, you still need to deal with variations in the
atmosphere
(clouds, thermal levels, etc.), but that is why the Ortillery system is
so
massive (same as A beam in 2nd edition, 2x Class-1 beam and equal to
Class-2
beam with 3 arcs in FB). I pictured it as a Class-2 (FB) or A (2nd ed.)
beam
with dedicated sensors and FCS.

-----
Brian Bell
bkb@beol.net
http://members.xoom.com/rlyehable/	
-----

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Seidl [SMTP:seidl@vex.cs.colorado.edu]
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 11:53 AM
> To:	gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	Re: DS2/SG2 artillery 
> 
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 11:21:53 -0500 (EST), Roger Books writes:
> >On 29-Nov-99 at 11:19, Ryan M Gill (monty@arcadia.turner.com) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Los wrote:
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > I still don't get the assumption that something fired form 200
miles
> >> > (ortillery) up will be more accurate (or cost effective) than
> something
> >> > fired from 10 miles away (SP arty) from the ground. I can't make
that
> >> > leap of faith very easily since ground based fire technology
wion't
> be
> >> > moving forward just as well as space-based fire control.
> >> 
[snip]

> We've got a lot more atmosphere than that.  Planes routinely fly at
> 37,000 feet (~7 miles up).  Geo sync orbit is at 22,236 miles.  A lot
> higher than 200.
> 
> -=- Matthew L. Seidl		email: seidl@cs.colorado.edu
> =-=
> =-= Graduate Student			Project . . . What Project?
> -=-
> -=- http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/Home.html	   -Morrow
Quotes
> =-=
> =-= http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~seidl/lawsuit
> -=-