sensors and ops (was berthing) Grimmund (24 Jun 2015 21:30 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Greg Chalik (24 Jun 2015 22:13 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Grimmund (24 Jun 2015 22:44 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Tim (25 Jun 2015 04:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) William Ewing (25 Jun 2015 05:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) shadow@xxxxxx (25 Jun 2015 06:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) William Ewing (25 Jun 2015 07:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Tim (25 Jun 2015 07:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) William Ewing (25 Jun 2015 07:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Ethan McKinney (28 Jun 2015 02:29 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) William Ewing (30 Jun 2015 01:31 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Grimmund (30 Jun 2015 12:58 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Evyn MacDude (30 Jun 2015 18:10 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Grimmund (30 Jun 2015 18:21 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Evyn MacDude (30 Jun 2015 18:45 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Craig Berry (30 Jun 2015 19:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) William Ewing (01 Jul 2015 05:46 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Knapp (30 Jun 2015 19:59 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Richard Aiken (01 Jul 2015 05:07 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Grimmund (01 Jul 2015 12:47 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Tim (01 Jul 2015 22:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) Grimmund (25 Jun 2015 12:54 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) shadow@xxxxxx (25 Jun 2015 06:58 UTC)

Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) shadow@xxxxxx 25 Jun 2015 06:58 UTC

On 25 Jun 2015 at 14:50, Tim wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 04:30:14PM -0500, Grimmund wrote:
> > A little light goes off on the sensor panel, says a ship (or
> > several) has exited jump space, and gives an approximate range and
> > bearing?
>
> More likely a fairly precise range and an extremely precise bearing.
> What's more, anything coming in from jump that isn't broadcasting
> identity codes (with sensor data matching the ship's registration) is
> definitely very suspect.
>
>
> > Presumably, one of the main jobs of system traffic control is to be on
> > the lookout for any ships breaking traffic control patterns.
>
> Yes, especially given that even a small starship moving at typical
> speeds achieved during transfer between 100D and orbit would hit with
> the energy of a large nuclear weapon.  Traffic control near any
> populated world will be taken *very* seriously.

Yep, as I've stated many times in the past, you *will* make contact
with STC (Space Traffic Control) upon exiting jump near anything
important, or before approaching within X distance in normal space.

Failure to do so will have you getting "painted" by the targetting
sensor of the local defense forces. And not by the "stealthy" ones.
They'll use the most obnoxious and hard to ignore active sensors to
get the point across.

After contacing STC, you'll get assigned a flight path. They will
likely take into account whatever you request, but if they don't like
it, you'll take the one they assign you and like it.

Deviation from your assigned course will get nasty questions. And if
they aren't answered *quickly*, we are back to those obnoxious
targetting sensors.

And if your unapproved course (or course change) has your flight path
intersecting anything important, those targetting sensors will be
followed by actualy weapons fire.

Heck, some systems may even require that your course be such that it
won't intersect anything important if you have a drive failure at any
point.

Only on "final approach" will that get ignored.

Now mind you, if the "intersecting something important" won't happen
for hours, they'll be a bit more willing to talk to you before
shooting.

And given those same "typical velocities" STC will be tracking
everything bigger than a BB in their control zone. Because a BB can
ruin youir day if you ship hits it at 30 kn/sec relative velocity. At
100 km/sec (or higher) it'll ruin your ship.

Remember the rule of thumb: at 3 km/sec the energy released by an
impactor is equivalent to the same mass of TNT.

The enegy release goes up linearly with the mass. But with the
*square* of the velocity.

So a 1 gram BB at 30 km/sec has the energy of a tenth of a kilo of
TNT. At 100 km/sec that 1.1 kilos. At 300 km/sec it's 10 kilos.

Can you say "Ouch"?

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com