Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Stars)

On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, John M. Atkinson wrote:
> Thomas Anderson wrote:
> > and no open vehicles - try driving a jeep in a space suit. oh, hang
on,
> > that's been done: it's a lunar rover. still, not exactly a
combat-capable
> > vehicle. reduced movement if an open vehicle?
> Excuse me?  What makes you think that spacesuits will be as
encumbering
> in 200 years as they were 30 years ago?

maybe. bear in mind that today's suit holds a low-pressure environment,
provides a little thermal insulation, does nothing against radiation,
gives  virtually no protection against micrometeorites and provides no
armour. a suit that does that will, in 2185, be something like
clingfilm,
i'm sure. however, i think that experience shows that, given the choice
between making the infantryman's burden less and just giving him more of
the lighter stuff, planners will opt for the latter ("what's that? full 
neutron screening? okay, five kilos doesn't sound too much ...").

that said, it does of course depend on how *you* see space-suits
developing in the future. dirtside is a broad church (it hs to be, to
get
those size fives down the aisle ...).

>  I'd think that these would not
> be that much more encumbering than, say, NSL Full body armor.  And
even
> in sealed vehicles, you ought to be wearing a suit of some
> kind--otherwise when the hull is breached, you're screwed.

'of some kind' being the operative word. a tank-suit is going to be like
a
shuttle ascent suit; it's there to help you survive in a minor disaster
(tank explosions are nonsurvivable, even with the biggest suit) and not
get in the way. a moonsuit is a different kettle of fish altogether; it
has to allow the wearer to survive in vacuum for several hours. it's
basically powered armour without the power or the armour. forget i said
that.

>  Most vehicle
> crews survive the destruction of their vehicle--we had a looong thread
> on US M1s in Desert Storm being rendered combat ineffective, but the
> comment was made over and over that no crewman was actually killed (at
> least that I can find reference to).

i don't know that us vs iraq is a good model; how many iraquis survived
their tanks being blown up? take the average of coalition and iraqui
rates
and you have a figure for equals engaging. but yes, you are right to say
that the crew are worth preserving; in developed nations, good soldiers
are hard to find - tanks are just machines.

> > engagements there. laser weapons are out; DFFGs would have shorter
ranges
> Blue-green lasers aren't out.  I'd be using submersibles with torpedos
> and Blue-green lasers.  

blue-green goes through water better than, say, red, but it is still 
massively worse than in air. lasers underwater aren't much use. of
course,
if this is a hydrocarbon sea, the situation is different; anyone have
any
experience with petrooptics?

Tom