Surface-mounted sensors

[dalthor]

I was messing around with my small ship database recovery project yesterday, and got to thinking about T5 sensor systems.

The sensor section (T5.09, pages 352-363) describes the various types of sensor systems, and gives some information about mounts. Turrets and antennae are somewhat obvious as to form, but surface mounts are essentially up to the referee to describe. They do not take up any volume, and apparently are built right into (or onto?) the hull.

In most cases, I see surface mounts as "spots" on the hull, so to speak. I decided they are generally small disk-shaped receptors or transmitters, and that there is one "spot" per 10 tons of hull size [EDIT: and possibly per sensor type]. The sensor console(s) coordinate the I/O with those systems.

[hmmmm...in meatspace look at all the new "radar" tech built into our cars - blind spot monitoring and all that new stuff. I see a LOT of car bumpers with "spots" for sensors. This is kinda how I see surface mounts IMTU. ]

This gives redundancy, and also allows full 3-dimensional broadcast, reception and/or detection capability when maneuvering radically, for example during combat. It also makes it MUCH harder to fully blind a ship with surface mounts, although I do reduce sensor capability due to damage or other logical considerations.

How do you, as referee, handle surface mounts? Is there an OTU definition out there?

I'm kinda looking for other ideas, especially since there are so many shipyards out there, Hooman and otherwise.

 

[Timerover51]

I figure that all sensor mounts retract into the hull when landing on a planet with atmosphere. Radar antennas for long range are not going to be small, and for full 360 degree coverage, you will need at least two. For a reasonable detection range, you might want two antenna mounted back to back on each search vector.

Passive antenna can be smaller.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Nifty!

I tend to pick spots on the ship and run with sensors being like phased array radar and yeah it's this cool bump on the ship pic is Sensor X if it gets down to that level. Since MajorB is refitting the ISV Something Cool he has several sensors that need assignments so this topic was on my mind.

 

[kilemall]

Ever since I got back into this 3-4 years ago, I settled on the entire ship surface essentially being a big VLA grid with miniaturized sensor clusters. This gives greater aperture then any possible single sensor, and more importantly builds in massive redundancy.


Any such system should factor in the size of the hull for determining range and sensitivity.


For CT/HG I assume the computer model determines the power, range, and numbers of long range and short range systems (to correspond roughly with the midrange detection, long range tracking and short range doggo detection of the classic sensor rules). Each computer hit knocks off one LR and one SR sensor set.

 

[coliver988]

Ever since I got back into this 3-4 years ago, I settled on the entire ship surface essentially being a big VLA grid with miniaturized sensor clusters. This gives greater aperture then any possible single sensor, and more importantly builds in massive redundancy.


Any such system should factor in the size of the hull for determining range and sensitivity.


For CT/HG I assume the computer model determines the power, range, and numbers of long range and short range systems (to correspond roughly with the midrange detection, long range tracking and short range doggo detection). Each computer hit knocks off one LR and one SR sensor set.

I like that and will be using that. That whole giant radar dish on the Falcon always seemed off to me, even the newer square one. Lots of little things add up to more than 1 big quite often. (in the IT world, horizontal vs vertical scaling, or microservices vs monolthic. Sorry - having major "discussions" on our future architecture at work. and the sensor thing is oddly parallel)

 

[kilemall]

I like that and will be using that. That whole giant radar dish on the Falcon always seemed off to me, even the newer square one. Lots of little things add up to more than 1 big quite often. (in the IT world, horizontal vs vertical scaling, or microservices vs monolthic. Sorry - having major "discussions" on our future architecture at work. and the sensor thing is oddly parallel)

RW side note, at one point I suggested a 'client interfacing standard' instead of a centralized HL7-type interface engine, but no one went for it. This was 2004 or so.


I'm sure some people are pushing blockchain, may be a way forward for secure DR-less HIE, but it's got a horrid scaling backend which I suspect can only be solved by 'blockchain pointers to blockchains'.


Ironically, it was that distributed computer from 2300 that got me thinking that way, and the LBB8 Robots was my intro to parallel computing. I'm still waiting on the synaptic processor.

 

[dalthor]

I tend to pick spots on the ship and run with sensors being like phased array radar and yeah it's this cool bump on the ship pic is Sensor X if it gets down to that level. Since MajorB is refitting the ISV Something Cool he has several sensors that need assignments so this topic was on my mind.

It does make for a good array setup, and with proper sensor software it is easier to triangulate. Each pad IMTU has a microprocessor coordinating with the sensor console; I reduce efficiency by a "percentage" of damaged sensors - for example 1 damaged sensor on a 100 ton hull degrades performance by 10%.

One of my pet peeves as I hit high school in the late 70's was that the Enterprise had one big antenna that always seemed to work, and our rabbit ears never seemed to be sufficient. That is what originally got me on the multiple antenna/sensor kick.

Thanks to all for the feedback to date, and the RW-related stuff that followed Magnus' post.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Nice.

It does make for a good array setup, and with proper sensor software it is easier to triangulate. Each pad IMTU has a microprocessor coordinating with the sensor console; I reduce efficiency by a "percentage" of damaged sensors - for example 1 damaged sensor on a 100 ton hull degrades performance by 10%.

One of my pet peeves as I hit high school in the late 70's was that the Enterprise had one big antenna that always seemed to work, and our rabbit ears never seemed to be sufficient. That is what originally got me on the multiple antenna/sensor kick.

Thanks to all for the feedback to date, and the RW-related stuff that followed Magnus' post.

I dig your landing pad/sensor link and the penalty for damaged sensors. Nice idea.

 

[Maksim-Smelchak]

I was messing around with my small ship database recovery project yesterday, and got to thinking about T5 sensor systems.

Agent of the Imperium describes sensors and damaged sensors several times.

Shalom,
M.