Re: [FT] Sensor range question

On Sun, 25 Apr 1999, Laserlight wrote:

> Apropos which, has anyone thought of using extra thrust to "evade"?

i rather like this idea. i think the physics behind it is a little
dodgy,
though, at least from the hard-sf perspective of lightsecond ranges.
from
the space opera perspective, though, i like it. i like it a lot.

in hard sf, high-thrust ships would be harder to hit anyway, as the
shooter has to aim at a wider envelope due to the fact that the target
*could* be doing a wide range of maneuvers, even if he's actually just
ploughing a straight line. i think.

> Therefore, I propose
> that one thruster point may be applied to increase the effective range
for
> energy beam (and similar weapons, PTs, needles, etc) by 3".

sounds good.

> This isn't totally satisfactory, because the effect would be less
important
> at close range than at long range.

i take it you mean: "This isn't totally satisfactory, because physics
suggests that the effect would be less important at close range than at
long range.". i misunderstood the first time i read that.

> Maybe instead of +3", make it +10% of
> actual range?  Suggestions?

that's a bit too complicated. why not +1 mu at 0-12, +2 mu at 12-24, +3
at
24-36, etc? that range refers to the real, physical range.

Tom