[AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:33:13 -0500, Taki Kogoma <quirk DeleteThis @swcp.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
> <mnahkola DeleteThis @trein.ntc.nokia.com>
> allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>> Don Sample wrote:
>>And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
>> in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
>
> Graser == Gamma Ray Laser.
>
> Nothing gravitic about it at all.
>

Well, to nitpick, it is lensed gravitically...

I _did_ say it was a nitpick, didn't I?

Andrew L.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
<mnahkola.TakeThisOut@trein.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:


>And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
>in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
>
>It is portrayed as a range-limited weapon though, so I understand the
>implications to mean that it'll be quite useless for long range
>communications due to power fall-off over distance - whereas a laser can
>be used over any distance on stationary targets, and the range limit for
>laser weapons is due to the photons being too slow and thus inaccurate...

grasers are gamma ray lasers.

the range limit for lasers is determined by the rate at which the beam
spreads. at some point probably surprisingly close the beam density
falls below useful levels.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

In article <v74ri2trn7tk6k72ar0cjdeo5avdlecokd.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
forkliftramp.com <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
> <mnahkola.RemoveThis@trein.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>
>
> >And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
> >in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
> >
> >It is portrayed as a range-limited weapon though, so I understand the
> >implications to mean that it'll be quite useless for long range
> >communications due to power fall-off over distance - whereas a laser can
> >be used over any distance on stationary targets, and the range limit for
> >laser weapons is due to the photons being too slow and thus inaccurate...
>
> grasers are gamma ray lasers.
>
> the range limit for lasers is determined by the rate at which the beam
> spreads. at some point probably surprisingly close the beam density
> falls below useful levels.

Also, there is the matter of not being able to hit anything if it's too
far away. By the time you get the return signal from your targeting
radar, and your laser/graser or whatever lightspeed weapon you've fired
reaches that point, your target won't be there any more.

I'm not aware of DW saying anywhere how quickly a ship can change its
acceleration, but if it can instantaneously go from 0 to 500g, and back
to 0 again, at max energy range (a million kilometres, or 3 light
seconds) your target may be as much as 90 kms away from where you think
it is. Even if you can fix its location using gravtic sensors, it may
have moved by over 20 kms before your shot reaches it.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

Okay, so I'm late and catching up, but Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote on Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:23:25 -0700
in alt.books.david-weber :
>On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:49:40 GMT, "gS49" <gersmith00 RemoveThis @verizon.net>
>wrote:
>
>>60c isn't "nearly instantaneous"? It's also a question of distance. If
>>you're within a lightyear of the source--in the same star-system for
>>example--60c is functionally instantaneous--faster than a human can react to
>>the data. If you're a few dozen lightyears away, there's a noticable but
>>deal-with-able lag, as will lightspeed communication with our Moon. At
>>several hundred lightyears, if the gravity waves are detecable at all, the
>>delay becomes significant.
>
>????
>
>Star systems are normally light hours across. 60c means light-hours
>become minutes. Thus it takes several minutes for a FTL signal to
>cross a star system. Instant??

Many moons ago, BPC (Before PCs), Apple computers came out with 128k of
memory. We were saying "What are you going to do with all that memory?" It
was not to many years later I was bitching because it was taking "Forever"
to load a 250k program over the network.

When the first FTL systems came online, they were "instantaneous", and
incredible, even if they could only send a three character message in Morse
code.
Now, "we" are annoyed at the whole second lag it takes to communicate
across a star system. Until the treecats demonstrate that they can
communicate by telepathy over stellar distances, we're all going to have to
learn patience.

Compared to radio communication, grav pulses are fast. Compared to a
courier ship under a standard wedge, they are very fast. Compared to a pre
grav tech reaction powered ship, communications is "instantaneous".

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:50:32 GMT, forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
><mnahkola.RemoveThis@trein.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
>>in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
>>
>>It is portrayed as a range-limited weapon though, so I understand the
>>implications to mean that it'll be quite useless for long range
>>communications due to power fall-off over distance - whereas a laser can
>>be used over any distance on stationary targets, and the range limit for
>>laser weapons is due to the photons being too slow and thus inaccurate...
>
>grasers are gamma ray lasers.
>
>the range limit for lasers is determined by the rate at which the beam
>spreads. at some point probably surprisingly close the beam density
>falls below useful levels.

There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:10 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:50:32 GMT, forkliftramp.com
><Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
>><mnahkola RemoveThis @trein.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
>>>in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
>>>
>>>It is portrayed as a range-limited weapon though, so I understand the
>>>implications to mean that it'll be quite useless for long range
>>>communications due to power fall-off over distance - whereas a laser can
>>>be used over any distance on stationary targets, and the range limit for
>>>laser weapons is due to the photons being too slow and thus inaccurate...
>>
>>grasers are gamma ray lasers.
>>
>>the range limit for lasers is determined by the rate at which the beam
>>spreads. at some point probably surprisingly close the beam density
>>falls below useful levels.
>
>There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
>where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.

max range for lasers is 3 seconds in the weberverse at the current
state of the art.

assuming ftl sensors like radar are used it's 3 seconds out to the
target and 3 seconds back with the data about the target.

a fairly tiny bit of time to compute the shot and fiddle the grav
lenses accordingly.

then it's 3 seconds to the target for the hit and 3 seconds to observe
the hit by the firing ship.

of all this time only 6 and a tiny bit seconds would actually matter
in determining whether there was a hit. the time the initial sensor
pulse takes to reach the target is irrelevant in how far the target
can move as is the 3 seconds it takes for the confirmation of the hit
or miss returning to the firing ship.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

In article <mesti2tu6bjcu6il6opfi4ossus2m2mu7s RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
forkliftramp.com <Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:10 -0700, Loren Pechtel
> <lorenpechtel RemoveThis @hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:50:32 GMT, forkliftramp.com
> ><Brian_knowspam.McDonald RemoveThis @shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
> >><mnahkola RemoveThis @trein.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
> >>>in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
> >>>
> >>>It is portrayed as a range-limited weapon though, so I understand the
> >>>implications to mean that it'll be quite useless for long range
> >>>communications due to power fall-off over distance - whereas a laser can
> >>>be used over any distance on stationary targets, and the range limit for
> >>>laser weapons is due to the photons being too slow and thus inaccurate...
> >>
> >>grasers are gamma ray lasers.
> >>
> >>the range limit for lasers is determined by the rate at which the beam
> >>spreads. at some point probably surprisingly close the beam density
> >>falls below useful levels.
> >
> >There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
> >where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.
>
> max range for lasers is 3 seconds in the weberverse at the current
> state of the art.
>
> assuming ftl sensors like radar are used it's 3 seconds out to the
> target and 3 seconds back with the data about the target.
>
> a fairly tiny bit of time to compute the shot and fiddle the grav
> lenses accordingly.
>
> then it's 3 seconds to the target for the hit and 3 seconds to observe
> the hit by the firing ship.
>
> of all this time only 6 and a tiny bit seconds would actually matter
> in determining whether there was a hit. the time the initial sensor
> pulse takes to reach the target is irrelevant in how far the target
> can move as is the 3 seconds it takes for the confirmation of the hit
> or miss returning to the firing ship.

Still, you're talking about six seconds. At 500 gs, your target could
have moved 90 kilometres in that time.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:59:31 GMT, forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald DeleteThis @shaw.ca> wrote:

>>There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
>>where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.
>
>max range for lasers is 3 seconds in the weberverse at the current
>state of the art.
>
>assuming ftl sensors like radar are used it's 3 seconds out to the
>target and 3 seconds back with the data about the target.

Oops--I pulled a NASA--wrong units.

Radar isn't FTL. The only FTL sensors they have are grav and I don't
get the impression they tell you fine detail.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

In article <452fb85c$0$30801$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel.DeleteThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:59:31 GMT, forkliftramp.com
> <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >>There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
> >>where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.
> >
> >max range for lasers is 3 seconds in the weberverse at the current
> >state of the art.
> >
> >assuming ftl sensors like radar are used it's 3 seconds out to the
> >target and 3 seconds back with the data about the target.
>
> Oops--I pulled a NASA--wrong units.
>
> Radar isn't FTL. The only FTL sensors they have are grav and I don't
> get the impression they tell you fine detail.

Actually, can any sort of sensor give you fine detail? You shouldn't be
able to get a radar pulse past the sidewalls. Same goes for what the
mark 1 eyeball can see, if you get in that close. Sidewalls are built
to deflect military grade laser fire. The amount of em radiation used
for visual or radar imaging is a drop in the ocean compared to what a
military grade laser puts out. The only thing that anyone should see of
a ship with a wedge and sidewalls up are the wedge and the sidewalls.

--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:47:06 -0400, Don Sample <dsample.RemoveThis@synapse.net>
wrote:

>In article <452fb85c$0$30801$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
> Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel.RemoveThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:59:31 GMT, forkliftramp.com
>> <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.RemoveThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >>There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
>> >>where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.
>> >
>> >max range for lasers is 3 seconds in the weberverse at the current
>> >state of the art.
>> >
>> >assuming ftl sensors like radar are used it's 3 seconds out to the
>> >target and 3 seconds back with the data about the target.
>>
>> Oops--I pulled a NASA--wrong units.
>>
>> Radar isn't FTL. The only FTL sensors they have are grav and I don't
>> get the impression they tell you fine detail.
>
>Actually, can any sort of sensor give you fine detail? You shouldn't be
>able to get a radar pulse past the sidewalls. Same goes for what the
>mark 1 eyeball can see, if you get in that close. Sidewalls are built
>to deflect military grade laser fire. The amount of em radiation used
>for visual or radar imaging is a drop in the ocean compared to what a
>military grade laser puts out. The only thing that anyone should see of
>a ship with a wedge and sidewalls up are the wedge and the sidewalls.

Good point. The gravitic sensors are probably as good as radar.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

"Don Sample" <dsample.DeleteThis@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-D16F2A.21303611102006@news.giganews.com...
> In article <v74ri2trn7tk6k72ar0cjdeo5avdlecokd.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> forkliftramp.com <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
>> <mnahkola.DeleteThis@trein.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
>> >in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
>> >
>> >It is portrayed as a range-limited weapon though, so I understand the
>> >implications to mean that it'll be quite useless for long range
>> >communications due to power fall-off over distance - whereas a laser can
>> >be used over any distance on stationary targets, and the range limit for
>> >laser weapons is due to the photons being too slow and thus
>> >inaccurate...
>>
>> grasers are gamma ray lasers.
>>
>> the range limit for lasers is determined by the rate at which the beam
>> spreads. at some point probably surprisingly close the beam density
>> falls below useful levels.
>
> Also, there is the matter of not being able to hit anything if it's too
> far away. By the time you get the return signal from your targeting
> radar, and your laser/graser or whatever lightspeed weapon you've fired
> reaches that point, your target won't be there any more.
>
> I'm not aware of DW saying anywhere how quickly a ship can change its
> acceleration, but if it can instantaneously go from 0 to 500g, and back
> to 0 again, at max energy range (a million kilometres, or 3 light
> seconds) your target may be as much as 90 kms away from where you think
> it is. Even if you can fix its location using gravtic sensors, it may
> have moved by over 20 kms before your shot reaches it.

Buildings on planets or moons don't move much.

>
> --
> Quando omni flunkus moritati
> Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

"Don Sample" <dsample.DeleteThis@synapse.net> wrote in message
news:dsample-616087.22204112102006@news.giganews.com...
> In article <mesti2tu6bjcu6il6opfi4ossus2m2mu7s.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> forkliftramp.com <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:23:10 -0700, Loren Pechtel
>> <lorenpechtel.DeleteThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:50:32 GMT, forkliftramp.com
>> ><Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:49:45 GMT, Mikko Nahkola
>> >><mnahkola.DeleteThis@trein.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>And the graser does exist already too. This would be closer to a laser
>> >>>in nature than the grav lance, I understand.
>> >>>
>> >>>It is portrayed as a range-limited weapon though, so I understand the
>> >>>implications to mean that it'll be quite useless for long range
>> >>>communications due to power fall-off over distance - whereas a laser
>> >>>can
>> >>>be used over any distance on stationary targets, and the range limit
>> >>>for
>> >>>laser weapons is due to the photons being too slow and thus
>> >>>inaccurate...
>> >>
>> >>grasers are gamma ray lasers.
>> >>
>> >>the range limit for lasers is determined by the rate at which the beam
>> >>spreads. at some point probably surprisingly close the beam density
>> >>falls below useful levels.
>> >
>> >There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
>> >where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.
>>
>> max range for lasers is 3 seconds in the weberverse at the current
>> state of the art.
>>
>> assuming ftl sensors like radar are used it's 3 seconds out to the
>> target and 3 seconds back with the data about the target.
>>
>> a fairly tiny bit of time to compute the shot and fiddle the grav
>> lenses accordingly.
>>
>> then it's 3 seconds to the target for the hit and 3 seconds to observe
>> the hit by the firing ship.
>>
>> of all this time only 6 and a tiny bit seconds would actually matter
>> in determining whether there was a hit. the time the initial sensor
>> pulse takes to reach the target is irrelevant in how far the target
>> can move as is the 3 seconds it takes for the confirmation of the hit
>> or miss returning to the firing ship.
>
> Still, you're talking about six seconds. At 500 gs, your target could
> have moved 90 kilometres in that time.


From its original trajectory. In fact the power used to alter course may be
a fraction of the drive power though you might be able to pull all sorts of
tricks. It all depends on how the drives really work. You might have a 180
kilometer sphere as a target.


>
> --
> Quando omni flunkus moritati
> Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse 

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:56:14 -0700, Loren Pechtel
<lorenpechtel.DeleteThis@hotmail.invalid.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:59:31 GMT, forkliftramp.com
><Brian_knowspam.McDonald.DeleteThis@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>>There's also the issue of moving targets. You're aiming based on
>>>where it was 12 seconds ago at max combat range.
>>
>>max range for lasers is 3 seconds in the weberverse at the current
>>state of the art.
>>
>>assuming ftl sensors like radar are used it's 3 seconds out to the
>>target and 3 seconds back with the data about the target.
>
>Oops--I pulled a NASA--wrong units.
>
>Radar isn't FTL. The only FTL sensors they have are grav and I don't
>get the impression they tell you fine detail.


my bad dunno what i was thinking there.
 >> Stay informed about: [AAC] Speed of "FTL-communication" in the Honorverse