Re: [FT] Sensors and Sensibility

On Jun 27, aebrain@austarmetro.com.au wrote:
> 
> Brian A Quirt wrote:
> 
> >	 They do indeed look easy enough for play. I don't like the 
> > passive detection rules for 'accuracy reasons' (they seem to
> > presume sensors will get worse by 2183, although that may be a
> > result of different scales). I would probably use the
> > identification rules (although I'd include the "maximum weapons
> > range" modification suggested), but not the passive detection. I
> > would also add mass to detection if it gives acceleration, but
> > that's a quibble.
> 
> Not so much different scales, as a high-ECM environment. If no-one's
> been using balloons, decoys, chaff, jammers any time in the last
> year and there's no debris around, you could boost the detection
> ranges dramatically (by at least 1000) at 1000km per inch. I'm sure
> the active detectors would have at least the capability of
> detecting a rock the size of a breadbox anywhere inside Jupiter's
> orbit otherwise. Tracking is another matter, track stores of
> several trillion would be needed. Tricky, but doable.

     Pretty much. My assumption is usually that 1) you will be 
detected, and LONG before you get inside any tactical range. By 
detected, I mean that a) a computer attached to a telescope array 
will note that an object exists at your approximate positiona and 
moving with your approximate velocity, b) said object has not yet 
been recorded in any previous survey, c) said object may be on a 
trajectory which would pose a risk of collision with one or more 
facilities in the system, and d) said object has an infrared 
signature which is not entirely compatible with a natural object at 
that location and in that orbit.
     How far from background you get in these categories is 
undetermined, as is whether or not the computer will report this 
detection to any humans (or AIs, but I don't want to get into THAT 
discussion again). In my GZGverse, the contact would be sent a 
transponder request and flightplan request. If no reply was received, 
the target would be placed under further observation to either tape 
its trajectory (if a rock) or find out that it's a ship (whereupon 
SAR and/or the military would be notified). Of course, if the hail 
got back a civilian transponder blip and a reasonable flightplan, the 
ETA might be entered in the records without a person ever being 
informed....

> ID is another matter. 

     Precisely, as I describe above. This is why I was specifying 
detection ranges. Now, if you start using a drive then I would tend 
to make the detection range VERY long, and you can take out the part 
above about it being a rock (and if it's using a military drive or 
showing too much thrust, maybe the part about it being a merchant 
too).

> For example, detecting a 2m x 2m x 10m GeoSynchronous Commsat in a
> Clarke Orbit ( 36" range essentially ) is easy with a simple
> telescope at night, if the Sun's in the right position so you get
> reflection from the solar panels. Doing so when it transits in
> front of the Sun during the middle of the day though is tricky via
> any means.

     Granted. My assumptions were mostly based on a 
reasonably 'mature' space economy. I figure that every ship would 
have at least one telescope, probably at least 1m optics, and SAR and 
military ships would have much better. I also figured that (for 
reasons of scale and efficiency) there would be 4-5 telescope arrays 
able to work together to do a sky survey (with reasonable redundancy) 
inside of 24 hours. This makes detection simpler, because you can 
probably assume that SOMEONE will be in the right position to find 
you. Again, detection is not identification, as you pointed out.

> And IDing a commsat as opposed to a Nuke of approximately the same
> mass sitting inside a flimsy box the same shape as a commsat,
> that's trickier still if they're both radiating similarly. Even at
> a range of 360 m, let alone 360,000 km.
> 
> But regardless of the B content in the PSB justification, it was a
> case of "never let reality stand in the way of a good game". There,
> I've confessed. Are you happy? :-) The justification came after the
> playtesting and distance tweaking so crippled merchants could hide
> amongst asteroids to avoid pirates, and so forth.

     Oh, I was happy before. My tendency would be to not bother with 
initial detection, just identification. Of course, it's quite 
possible that, in addition to the ship being represented by a bogey 
counter, so would an assortment of rocks and other things.

> > Good rules.
> 
> Merci beaucoup. The second-highest praise I've had for them, and
> it's appreciated.
> 
> (The highest being a comment I've read along the lines of "makes me
> wish there were more players of FT in my area..")