RE: [FT]SML question

On Tue, 19 June 2001, David Griffin wrote:

> Humans are predictable in the LARGE not the SMALL.

They are more predictable than they think. It's how so-called "psychics"
work. But, yes, there are a lot of variations in individuals based on
stimulus. In combat, however, there are only a few "right" moves.
Fighter pilots drill and drill in order to react quickly. Reaction time
on a fighter is often more important than doing the unpredictable. It's
usually unpredictable for a reason.

> In other words,
> the inertial damper might be perfectly capable of
> maintaining the pilot in comfort long past the time
> the fighter disintegrates from making a 100g turn.

Doesn't work that way. If the ship is falling apart, it's due to forces
exerted on it. Force = mass x acceleration. Given two vessels with the
same gees, for the same force exerted on it you'd need to have both
vessels at the same mass. However, humans require more mass (due to life
support systems, ejection systems, a bigger cockpit, etc.) in their
fighter than an unmanned fighter.

In other words, if the human vessel is going to break up at 100 gees,
the unmanned vessel might not break up until 101 gees, which still gives
it an advantage. 

This doesn't even assume that the unmanned fighter requires less
dampening of inertia so could probably get away with a smaller (i.e.
less massive) inertial dampening system...

So, I'm still going to contend that the human-less fighter will win...

> Regardless of what really happens though, I like
> the romantic notion of the fighter pilot (possibly
> with a silk scarf) flying his viper/x-wing/
> whatever through space;

Well, the very first time I started an AI thread on this list, that was
the consensus. It certainly makes for more engaging stories. And I have
no problem with that. 

It's just that it also introduces a slippery slope. I've seen lots of
posts with people trying to come up with something "realistic" based on
what is, at heart, an unrealistic notion. 

The Tuffleyverse is pretty darn unrealistic. On the other hand, it's
also a lot of fun. As such, I'm usually less interested in realism and
more interested in internal consistency. 

Allan Goodall - agoodall@canada.com
__________________________________________________________