Re: [FT] Some thinking on sensor and operational level games

ref #1 below
Spacecraft Imaged At Long Range
Spacewatch imaged the Galileo Spacecraft on the night of November
28, 1992 as it made its second close flyby of Earth.  It was 8.06
million kilometers from Earth when the following images were
obtained - a record distance for an observation of a man-made
spacecraft.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/spacewatch/other.html
range: 26.87 lightseconds

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Barclay" <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca>
> Just thinking about sensors and a game at a
> higher level than the tabletop FT. By higher, I
> mean longer time and distance scale, with more
> hide and seek. Brian posted his ideas and I
> skimmed them, but I'm working on my own so I
> thought I'd quiz the list intelligentsia.
>
> Specifically:
> 1) At what range could one likely detect a
> starship with good passive sensors? By that, I
> mean optical (visible and not visible spectra)
> and other similar systems. Something that
> doesn't rely on "wazoo newtech".
>
> 2) How much does the answer to 1 depend on
> if the ship is thrusting?
>
> 3) How much does the answer to 1 depend on
> if the ship has activated some kind of active
> sweep sensors or firecontrols?
>
> 4) How much does the answer to 1 depend on
> mass of the vessel?
>
> 5) How much does the answer to 1 depend on
> EMCON levels employed? (is silent/black running
> of any use in space?)
>
> 6) I assume there are three phases to
> engaging an enemy:
>
> 1) gross detection - there's something out
> there, even if it is too far away to tell what or
> how many
> 2) fine detection - we can tell how many,
> perhaps what thrust, what mass, are any
> emitting
> 3) lock-on - we  have a fire control solution
>
> I assume passive sensors will generally take you
> through phase 1 and maybe phase 2, but you
> definitely need to "go active"
> (sensors/firecontrol) to get 3.
>
> 7) Does using active sensors increase your
> ranges for the first phase of detection? Or are
> they long enough that your pathetic amount of
> emitted energy just has no effect? I am sure
> active sensors would have some impact in the
> second stage, and obviously firecontrol is the
> third stage.
>
> 8) How feasible are recce fighters or stealthed
> drones or missiles with sensors and a link back
> to the ship to extend your active or passive
> detection radius? Would communications with
> such a drone or fighter not become
> problematic beyond <insert arbitrary range>?
> Or if you had to suddenly manouvre in combat,
> thus breaking  your hard to detect presumably
> direct laser link?
>
> 9) If I have ECM or an area jammer, I assume
> that I'm making detection level 1 easier and
> detection levels 2 and 3 harder. Turning on the
> jammer systems would mean people would
> quickly discover something was emitting out
> there, but exactly where (more than a general
> few mu area) might be significantly more
> difficult to pin down than without the jammer.
> So you'd never use ECM or Jammers until such
> time as you thought the enemy already knew
> you were there (otherwise why give up your
> invisibility). Is this right? Or don't I get how real
> EW jammers/ECM  work?
>
> This is just some starting points for my thinking.
> But any input from people with solid ideas or
> some sort of domain expertise (or a keen
> interest) would be worthwhile.
>
> Thomas.
>

NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!