Re: [GZG] Re: Mines

I would tend to think that a mine could do a passive sensor shot, and if
it 
detects something that doesn't match IFF it simply blows up with a bomb 
pumped laser directed towards the target or perhaps fires off as an 
autonomous missile in a wait mode.  It would only need to draw enough
power 
to run a computer core and the passive sensor array, which probably
could be 
done with a small enough power source that masking the emissions from
enemy 
sensors wouldn't be nearly as difficult as doing so for a full scale 
interstellar vessel.

If it had even a small drive on it, it would probably be a lot more 
effective, yes, but it would also be a lot easier to detect while it's 
moving, so it'd probably have to do small bursts of thrust.

E

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "john tailby" <John_Tailby@xtra.co.nz>
To: <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 11:17 PM
Subject: [GZG] Re: Mines

> When you talk about minefields are you talking about the mines as 
> something like the mines from Galaxy Quest? Or something else?
>
> For the mines to be effective they would have to have a reasonably
large 
> engagement range to attack the enemy ship otherwise you would need 
> millions of the things to cover any decent kind of area with any
density.
>
> I could imagine a planetary defence grid of something like the
Centauri 
> blockade mines from B5. Those looked like they could move to engage
the 
> targets and had a reasonable engagement range.
>
> I could also imagine a stealthy hunter killer robotic vessel that sits

> plugged into a widespread sensor net, possibly even in hyper space and

> when an intruder is detected it powers up and attacks. This kind of
thing 
> would be much more cost effective than millions of mines.
>
> If the enemy can detect the sensor net emissions then you could use
this 
> to your advantage steering the prey further into the field before 
> attacking. This would depend on how smart the defence grid programming

> would be.
>
> The effectiveness of static defences depends on things that are not 
> described in the FT universe. For example if the hyperspace emergence 
> points are restricted to specific points, say above or below the poles
of 
> the star then those points could be defended by mines. If you could
emerge 
> from hyperspace anywhere then how do you try and defend and area the
size 
> of the Solar system with mines.
>
> For battery power why would you not look to make the mines able to
absorb 
> solar radiation or cosmic rays or tap into hyperspace or something so
that 
> they don't need large batteries?
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <Beth.Fulton@csiro.au>
> To: <gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu>
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 11:21 AM
> Subject: RE: [GZG] Stuart Murray's Games at GZG ECC IX
>
>
>> G'day,
>>
>>> Unfortunately networking doesn't change the main problem with space
>>> minefields at all: unless you can emplace them in a position
>>> the enemy....
>>
>> Given its a game with FTL and large-scale biological material that
can 
>> withstand vacuum I'm quite happy to brush that one under the rug ;)
>>
>> Beth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gzg-l mailing list
>> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
>> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gzg-l mailing list
> Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
> http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
> 

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l