Prev: Re: Broken links in the FT Network, and missing people Next: Flying Saucers (was We're No. '1' :) )

Re: Active vs Passive

From: Popeyesays@a...
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:32:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Active vs Passive

In a message dated 4/13/00 12:01:42 PM Central Daylight Time, 
Brian_Bell@dscc.dla.mil writes:

<< 
 I do agree with your comment about range. Unless you or your opponenet
are
 moving a significant amount, it would be difficult to determine range
using
 passive sensors. This is why the closer you are to an object the easier
it
 should be to deterine details.
  >>

I think the best model available for sci-fi sensors (active and passive)
is 
modern day submarine warfare. No, the first detection by passive sensors

gives one a HUGE possible range reading, but the submarine can alter
course - 
triangulate the target's passive signature and work out a firing
solution 
over time. I think that is what would happen in space combat.


Prev: Re: Broken links in the FT Network, and missing people Next: Flying Saucers (was We're No. '1' :) )