Re: EW Question

I assume that the passive system gives you SOME information faster, but
that
the active system gives you a faster firing solution (not the same
thing,
really).

I too am of the "space warfare will probably be similar to sub warfare"
school of thought--though some may take that analogy too far-space
doesn't
have thermoclines after all!

Having said that, I prefer my space games to be a bit simpler (that's
why I
like FT/FB).  My PSB?  Power generators and anti-grav drives give off
way
too much signature to be masked--so everyone knows where you are (just
not
whatr you are, necessarily).

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Quirt <baqrt@mta.ca>
To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: EW Question

> "Thomas.Barclay" wrote:
> > Someone (Mr. Beast I believe) suggested that active sensors almost
always
> > outrange passive sensors. I have to question this. On Earth, passive
sensors
> > tend to have somewhat limited range partly due to the effects of
being
> > inside a noisy atmospheric envelope. And radars can bang signal out
to a
few
> > hundred miles without too much problem (just lots of juice).
> >
> > However, I question this comment as it pertains to space for several
> > reasons: our most sensitive instruments (such as those on Hubble or
other
> > similar sats) are probably passive, and can see far farther and far
more
> > minor changes than any active system I'm aware of. I'd suspect (no
> > gaurantees :) that in 2183, this translates to passive systems that
can
> > detect very discreet phenomena at long distances.
> >
> > Active systems would be limited by the fact that the density of
energy
> > (which is a contributor to reflected signal strength) will drop off
as
the
> > square of distance... so I think it'd be pretty imaginative to say
these
> > systems will be able to detect things 100,000 or more km away.... I
would
> > think active systems would be limited to a far more restricted
distance.
> > They'd offer you faster and more precise data than a passive system,
but
> > have a much more limited range.
>
> Most of this post I can agree with, but I'm not sure about faster
> information. I would think that BY DEFINITION passive sensors HAVE to
> give more recent information. Passive sensors obtain information from
> the target's emmissions, thus the information that they obtain has
> travelled one way (in space, at least, probably at the speed of
light).
> Active sensors, on the other hand, work by bouncing something off the
> target, thus making a round trip (again at the speed of light). I'm
> having some difficulty imagining that a round trip at a given speed is
> faster than a one-way trip at the same speed. Maybe someone else could
> explain this.
>
> -Brian Quirt
>