Thread: Re: Lost in Space

9 posts.

It's probably all those damn 3d printed spare parts...

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPhone...

> On Apr 7, 2014, at 14:40, DEREK STANLEY <> wrote:
>
> Having been following the search for the missing jet for the past while I can't help but wonder just how daunting looking for a missing starship would be. Even if you knew the system it was in if it'd well and truly gone dark finding it would be ... Next to impossible.
>
> And if you'd misjumped and precip'd out somewhere in the outer solar system. Yuck... Makes you wonder how many ships have simple gone into the well and never been heard from again.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>
Re: MH370, the thing that strikes me is the popular supposition that it is
2014 and everything39;s supposed to be easy and we have all these things
worked out so "Why is it taking so long?" Sure, apparently the Malaysians
are having a hard time getting their story straight, but it's still a big
world. It's good to be reminded every once in a while that things are hard
and you can't just turn to the hacker who hacks into the database in 10
seconds and finds chapter and verse on everything you need.

Re: Starships, in Traveller there must be a greater acceptance that things
go bye-bye. Between residual vectors, jumps, coming out of jump at not
quite the spot you planned, true mis-jumps, and all the gas giant
refueling there's lots of ways to go missing. And there are lots of ships
that went into J-space and never came out.

Didn't someone once write a "Flying Dutchman" sort of Traveller folk-tale?
What's the future-space-SF word for "folk tale?" Could be a cognate of
"sea story." "Tales of the spacelanes." "Old spacer's tales." "Scout
stories," maybe.

> Having been following the search for the missing jet for the past while I
> can't help but wonder just how daunting looking for a missing starship
> would be. Even if you knew the system it was in if it'd well and truly
> gone dark finding it would be ... Next to impossible.
>
> And if you'd misjumped and precip'd out somewhere in the outer solar
> system. Yuck... Makes you wonder how many ships have simple gone into
> the well and never been heard from again.
>
> Derek Stanley
> Sent from my iPhone...
>

DEREK STANLEY wrote:

>>Having been following the search for the missing jet for the past
while I can't help but wonder just how daunting looking for a missing
starship would be. Even if you knew the system it was in if it'd well
and truly gone dark finding it would be ... Next to impossible.

And if you'd misjumped and precip'd out somewhere in the outer solar
system. Yuck... Makes you wonder how many ships have simple gone into
the well and never been heard from again.

Derek Stanley<<

I'm not so sure about the first case.

First off, there's the transponder. You'd have to intentionally turn it
off (like the missing jet), which I don't believe free traders are going
to do unless something was up.

Secondly, you're using TL-12 (or better) sensors versus what we've got
today.

Thirdly, how long before the IR signature of the starship blends in with
background crap.

Fourthly, space versus ocean. The ocean is a chaotic mix of currents and
eddies, not to mention it's a difficult medium to penetrate and resolve.
It's why nuclear submarines are such a popular choice to sneak nukes
around on a planet.

Space? Nada. There are no currents, unless you want to count the solar
wind and that only blows in one direction: away from the star. And
there's gravity, but that's somewhat predictable and far less chaotic
than ocean currents. If you know the ship's last heading, you're off to
a good start.

The only thing that obscures your sensors are other "things", unless the
star's EM output is that bad (but we compensate for that now). We're
finding planets around other stars, right now. Amateur astronomers are
finding asteroids in our own solar system. On a really clear night where
the light pollution isn't so bad, I'll bet you can spot a satellite with
just your eyes--and that's through an atmosphere.

A big, shiny refined metal spacecraft out in the emptiness of space is
going to be easier to find with TL-12 gear than that plane.

A misjump is a whole nother matter, however.

\_/
DED
TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
DED is correct in his analysis. I was originally going to say something
along the lines of, "maybe not as hard as you think, depending on where it
happens," but then I started thinking of difficult cases involving what
happened to you on the other end of a jump and people don't necessarily
know where you were going to, if you had a minor misjump that brought you
out in an unusual spot with a heavy vector sending you out of the ecliptic
and you were without power. Depends on how you define it, "Normal case" in
developed area vs. "Hard case" in undeveloped area. You should be able to
pick up the reflected signature of a ship pretty easily (spectrum of hull
material, regular rather than irregular lines), and our recent talk about
Longbow, VLBI, and aperture synthesis indicates that most reasonable
systems have existing "skywatch&quot; programs watching for space junk, hazards
to navigation, asteroids. You'll pick up something of a ship under the
right conditions even parsecs away, but it's signal won't reach you for a
long time, so that's not helpful for rescue, just for tracking down
"whatever happened to Marie Celeste?"

To put some scale on what DED said, if you know where and when to look,
you can see satellites in LEO (200-400 mi/320-640 km) with the naked eye
as fast-moving bright dots. I used to watch Skylab and Echo satellites
when I was younger, I've watched ISS and Shuttle, and you can see Hubble.
Skylab and ISS are usually pretty close on 200 miles, Hubble is out
between 350 and 400 (560-640 km), and that's just sunlight reflecting off
them. In the scale of Brilliant Lances hexes (30,000 km), LEO is spitting
distance. Geosynch/Geostationary orbit is 22,236 miles (35,786 km), or
just over one BL hex, about 1/10 of the way to the Moon (I don't think
anyone has seen those with the naked eye). So you know if you light up
your active EMS you're finding it. HOWEVER, space is still pretty big. The
diameter of Earth's orbit is about 10,000 BL hexes, diameter of Moon's
orbit around Earth is about 26 BL hexes. Diameter of Mars' orbit is over
15,000 BL hexes, which gives you an idea of how rapidly things grow apart
from each other. One last observation, to return to Neil Tyson, LEO is
actually still within our atmosphere (tenuous outer atmosphere), because
drag from outer atmosphere molecules is what eventually brings them down.

The real issue is getting to such a derelict. I imagine that microjumps
could be what you want to use there, although as Evyn pointed out, your
big SDBs could thrust for days out and days back in. Presumably there are
organizations like the Coast Guard or UK's Royal National Lifeboat
Institution in systems with good starports (C+?) equipped with small craft
or old, demilitarized SDBs (bigger = better able to dock with and brake a
runaway derelict), or even old demilitarized starships (Jump drives cut
down to J1, adequate for near-system microjumps, leaving more room for
fuel) painted bright yellow and red who go out after ships in distress, or
to intercept and identify derelicts. Or in systems that to have large SDB
flotillas they'd be detailed to do that stuff.

> DEREK STANLEY wrote:
>
> >>Having been following the search for the missing jet for the past
> while I can't help but wonder just how daunting looking for a missing
> starship would be. Even if you knew the system it was in if it'd well
> and truly gone dark finding it would be ... Next to impossible.
>
> And if you'd misjumped and precip'd out somewhere in the outer solar
> system. Yuck... Makes you wonder how many ships have simple gone into
> the well and never been heard from again.
>
> Derek Stanley<<
>
> I'm not so sure about the first case.
>
> First off, there's the transponder. You'd have to intentionally turn it
> off (like the missing jet), which I don't believe free traders are going
> to do unless something was up.
>
> Secondly, you're using TL-12 (or better) sensors versus what we've got
> today.
>
> Thirdly, how long before the IR signature of the starship blends in with
> background crap.
>
> Fourthly, space versus ocean. The ocean is a chaotic mix of currents and
> eddies, not to mention it's a difficult medium to penetrate and resolve.
> It's why nuclear submarines are such a popular choice to sneak nukes
> around on a planet.
>
> Space? Nada. There are no currents, unless you want to count the solar
> wind and that only blows in one direction: away from the star. And
> there's gravity, but that's somewhat predictable and far less chaotic
> than ocean currents. If you know the ship's last heading, you're off to
> a good start.
>
> The only thing that obscures your sensors are other "things", unless the
> star's EM output is that bad (but we compensate for that now). We're
> finding planets around other stars, right now. Amateur astronomers are
> finding asteroids in our own solar system. On a really clear night where
> the light pollution isn't so bad, I'll bet you can spot a satellite with
> just your eyes--and that's through an atmosphere.
>
> A big, shiny refined metal spacecraft out in the emptiness of space is
> going to be easier to find with TL-12 gear than that plane.
>
> A misjump is a whole nother matter, however.
>
> \_/
> DED
> TNE @ Yahoo ml Admin
>

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 8:43 PM, <> wrote:

>
>
> Longbow, VLBI, and aperture synthesis indicates that most reasonable
> systems have existing "skywatch&quot; programs watching for space junk, hazards
> to navigation, asteroids. You'll pick up something of a ship under the
> right conditions even parsecs away, but it's signal won't reach you for a
> long time, so that's not helpful for rescue, just for tracking down
> "whatever happened to Marie Celeste?"
>
Also consider the system, Remember the average system is a Pop5, How much
money can they afford to spend on a "Space Watch" that pays more than
cursory attention to off post flight paths space on a regular basis. This
always a question of cash not technological ability. And in this case the
major expense is the Manpower and training not the tech.

>
> The real issue is getting to such a derelict. I imagine that microjumps
> could be what you want to use there, although as Evyn pointed out, your
> big SDBs could thrust for days out and days back in. Presumably there are
> organizations like the Coast Guard or UK's Royal National Lifeboat
> Institution in systems with good starports (C+?) equipped with small craft
> or old, demilitarized SDBs (bigger = better able to dock with and brake a
> runaway derelict), or even old demilitarized starships (Jump drives cut
> down to J1, adequate for near-system microjumps, leaving more room for
> fuel) painted bright yellow and red who go out after ships in distress, or
> to intercept and identify derelicts. Or in systems that to have large SDB
> flotillas they'd be detailed to do that stuff.
>
As per my earlier comment, I can see a volunteer organisation doing this. I
also can see Savage ships pulling down old archival systems scans from a
number of systems around the last known generally location of a "Treasure
Ship" and cross referencing them for clues to said ship's final location
and vector.
--
Evyn
On 7 Apr 2014 at 21:30, DED wrote:

> First off, there's the transponder. You'd have to intentionally turn
> it off (like the missing jet), which I don't believe free traders are
> going to do unless something was up.
>
> Secondly, you're using TL-12 (or better) sensors versus what we've
> got today.

Actually, for EM spectrum you can't actually *get* much better than
sensors we have right now. When you can detect individual photons at
most wavelengths from near IR on up, there's not really any room for
improvement. They'd be cheaper and more rugged, maybe, but not any
more sensitive.

> Thirdly, how long before the IR signature of the starship blends in
> with background crap.

No so much "how long" as "how far away is it?"

Though if the ship is powered down (and no survivors, then it's a
matter of how fast it cools to really hard to detect temperatures.

> The only thing that obscures your sensors are other "things", unless
> the star's EM output is that bad (but we compensate for that now).
> We're finding planets around other stars, right now. Amateur
> astronomers are finding asteroids in our own solar system. On a
> really clear night where the light pollution isn't so bad, I'll bet
> you can spot a satellite with just your eyes--and that's through an
> atmosphere.
>
> A big, shiny refined metal spacecraft out in the emptiness of space
> is going to be easier to find with TL-12 gear than that plane.

It doesn't have to *stay* shiny.

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


> Also consider the system, Remember the average system is a Pop5, How much
> money can they afford to spend on a "Space Watch" that pays more than
> cursory attention to off post flight paths space on a regular basis. This
> always a question of cash not technological ability. And in this case the
> major expense is the Manpower and training not the tech.

You could do a certain amount of it just "borrowing&quot; time on ships
coasting in and out to your starport. The entire length of their vector is
the baseline, you get them to record PEMS signal from all directions with
some level of synchronization (in-system LORAN beacons), they dump it to
you, you synchronize it, run it through the algorithmator and you build up
a track of what's going on around you. You could "reimburse&quot; good citizens
for doing that with a nice berth at the starport or credits against the
next time they have to be rescued. When the ambulance comes to your house
to take you to the hospital, that's a paid gig. So would be the lifeboat
service. And if it is united across multiple systems like the NLBI your
membership is good anywhere. Probably works better in the Regency than the
RC, though.

>> The real issue is getting to such a derelict. I imagine that microjumps
>> could be what you want to use there, although as Evyn pointed out, your
>> big SDBs could thrust for days out and days back in. Presumably there
>> are
>> organizations like the Coast Guard or UK's Royal National Lifeboat
>> Institution in systems with good starports (C+?) equipped with small
>> craft
>> or old, demilitarized SDBs (bigger = better able to dock with and brake
>> a
>> runaway derelict), or even old demilitarized starships (Jump drives cut
>> down to J1, adequate for near-system microjumps, leaving more room for
>> fuel) painted bright yellow and red who go out after ships in distress,
>> or
>> to intercept and identify derelicts. Or in systems that to have large
>> SDB
>> flotillas they'd be detailed to do that stuff.
>>
> As per my earlier comment, I can see a volunteer organisation doing this.
> I
> also can see Savage ships pulling down old archival systems scans from a
> number of systems around the last known generally location of a "Treasure
> Ship" and cross referencing them for clues to said ship's final location
> and vector.
> --
> Evyn
>

hmmm, there are also those odd space shanties 8-)
".... and we were drunker than lords by the time we got home!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaX3U1w2Kjg&list=PL8EE58786867F49E3

--
"Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for
it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want and their
kids pay for it."
That's pretty awesome. My favourite song to insert into games is Home For a Rest. Its one of those song that I think can be found in a bar anywhere in space...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0GffvBzVI8&sns=em

Derek Stanley
Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 8, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Another Carpenter <> wrote:
>
> hmmm, there are also those odd space shanties 8-)
> ".... and we were drunker than lords by the time we got home!"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaX3U1w2Kjg&list=PL8EE58786867F49E3
>
> --
> "Christmas is a time when kids tell Santa what they want and adults pay for it. Deficits are when adults tell the government what they want and their kids pay for it."
>