Re[2]: Re[2]: coupla Full Thrust questions inspire some tactics

On [Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:13:07 +0100] Adam Delafield
<A.Delafield@bolton.ac.uk> wrote:

>    I've seen this kind of argument before. If this were true, an
aircraft
>    could never hit another aircraft with guns, but they can. Why?
because
>    you aim where you plot the target to be rather than where it was.
And
>    fire multiple rounds in that area in case it maneuvers. Just
because
>    the speed of your weapons has increased does not mean that you
can't
>    plot offset.
Firing guns by eye is a lot different than firing a laser over 1000's of
KM of course but the reasoning is correct - and I did mention it. You
can hit your target *IF* you can accurately predict where it is going to
be so you can make sure your projectile/pulse can intercept it.
Therefore
the problem is not actually detecting the other craft, but detecting
it's velocity etc accurately enough to hit it a VERY large distance.. 
   
>    The same thing applies in space. With computerised targeting
solutions,
>    a ship with a relative 'speed' of 10kms-1 is as easy to hit as a
stationary
>    target. Now if it were accelerating at 10kms-2, it would still be
an easy
>    target. It would have to be accelerating by random amounts between
>    +- 10kms-2 before the figures quoted are accurate. (And I'd like to
see the 
>    crew survive a 10kms-2 acceleration.(about 1000G)).
The point is that the calculations and the measurements have to be
accurate
to the point of stupidity - in fact to the point where Heizenburg's
Uncertainty principle gets involved. By how much of degree of arc does
your laser pointing system have to be out for you to miss a ship sized
target many kilometers away? Your example is valid if and only if the
object is unable to change it's KM/S*S sufficiently in the time, but it
doesn't need to be anywhere near the figure you are quoting - all it
needs to do is change it enough so that no bit of it is in the place it
would have been, if you see what I mean. Say for a ship that's
approximately
a 200m sphere, it would have to change it's acceleration enough to be
100m from it's predicted point in the period between the targetting
pulse arriving and the energy beam - in that case it's moved 100m
differently
in .2 of a second. It's a hard G move (and I can't work out exactly how
hard now as I have the flu and that sort of thing is VERY complicated)
but I doubt it's anywhere near 1000G. All it would have to do is
slightly
alter it's course so that in .2 seconds it's 100m to the left, right up
or down (or any two combined) of it's previous course position. That
means that the best way to do hit it is not to give it that .2 of a
second,
and the best way to do that is passive targetting - it won't know it's
being shot at until the beam arrives..

I've always considered this an interesting subject actually. There are
lots of possibilities apart from hard movement - quick blooming
aerosols, anti-
battery fire (well if you're going to shout 'here I am' it serves you
right..)

			TTFN
				Jon  
----------------------------------------------
'And I love what we are but I hate what I am
 And I wanna be like you but I hate when you're like them'
		   Maria McKee 'What Else you Wanna Know'
BWFC Fans List Home Page - 
	    http://www.sar.bolton.ac.uk/bwfclist/home.html