Information I'd love to know

cthia wrote:Is there a maximum range of communication between an ACM and the other eight missiles?

Presumably, otherwise the 'clumping' pattern would be silly.

drothgery wrote:

cthia wrote:Is there a maximum range of communication between an ACM and the other eight missiles?

Presumably, otherwise the 'clumping' pattern would be silly.

Agreed. The clumping pattern suggests that the ACM needs to be fairly close to the missiles to maintain laser communication with them. That also ensures that the ACM can aim it's lasers out its own throat and down the kilt of the attack missiles, to prevent the missile wedges from cutting communication.

SWM wrote:

drothgery wrote:Presumably, otherwise the 'clumping' pattern would be silly.

Agreed. The clumping pattern suggests that the ACM needs to be fairly close to the missiles to maintain laser communication with them. That also ensures that the ACM can aim it's lasers out its own throat and down the kilt of the attack missiles, to prevent the missile wedges from cutting communication.

Also:
1) since the entire point of Apollo is closing or minimizing the OOD loop, you would want to limit the distance between the Apollo missile and it's Sensors (in the missiles themsleves), having the missiles spread 1 light second from the ACM (for example) would add a 2 sec window in the OOD loop, where 2 way communication between the ACM and launching ship is >9 sec.

2) A secondary role of the missiles is to play defensive line for the ACM, protecting it until the last second from the Defender's sensors AND defensive weapons. Too much of a gap could make the ACM visible AND interceptible by a properly structured defensive wall.

SWM wrote:

drothgery wrote:Presumably, otherwise the 'clumping' pattern would be silly.

Agreed. The clumping pattern suggests that the ACM needs to be fairly close to the missiles to maintain laser communication with them. That also ensures that the ACM can aim it's lasers out its own throat and down the kilt of the attack missiles, to prevent the missile wedges from cutting communication.

Theemile wrote:Also:
1) since the entire point of Apollo is closing or minimizing the OOD loop, you would want to limit the distance between the Apollo missile and it's Sensors (in the missiles themsleves), having the missiles spread 1 light second from the ACM (for example) would add a 2 sec window in the OOD loop, where 2 way communication between the ACM and launching ship is >9 sec.

2) A secondary role of the missiles is to play defensive line for the ACM, protecting it until the last second from the Defender's sensors AND defensive weapons. Too much of a gap could make the ACM visible AND interceptible by a properly structured defensive wall.

Thanks for the info everyone.

drothgery wrote:

cthia wrote:Is there a maximum range of communication between an ACM and the other eight missiles?

Presumably, otherwise the 'clumping' pattern would be silly.

SWM wrote:Agreed. The clumping pattern suggests that the ACM needs to be fairly close to the missiles to maintain laser communication with them. That also ensures that the ACM can aim it's lasers out its own throat and down the kilt of the attack missiles, to prevent the missile wedges from cutting communication.

Is it actually stated somewhere that the "light speed" communications between the missiles and the ACM is done via laser? Its just that in my mind it would seem tedious keeping a laser oriented/pointed in the correct direction through all the maneuvering that a pod launch of missiles would go through. Wouldn't something as crude as AM radio also be considered "light speed" communications? With some sort of low powered "radio" you wouldn't have to worry about keeping your lasers pointed it the correct direction.

Secondly, are the Mk23 missiles/ACMs the only missiles that do 2 way communication? My concept of older missiles like the Mk16 is that they are receivers of information only. With Mk16 missiles the controlling ship uses information from recon drones to get the "up link" of information and then the ship "down links" commands to the missiles. The Mk23s "up link" their sensor info to the Mk23-e which uses FTL to "up link" data to the ship. Then the ship can of course use FTL to "down link" commands to the Mk23-e which "down links" commands to the Mk23s. Then also with the Mk16's, would you be using lasers to try to communicate with potentially wildly maneuvering missiles?

StealthSeeker wrote:Secondly, are the Mk23 missiles/ACMs the only missiles that do 2 way communication? My concept of older missiles like the Mk16 is that they are receivers of information only. With Mk16 missiles the controlling ship uses information from recon drones to get the "up link" of information and then the ship "down links" commands to the missiles. The Mk23s "up link" their sensor info to the Mk23-e which uses FTL to "up link" data to the ship. Then the ship can of course use FTL to "down link" commands to the Mk23-e which "down links" commands to the Mk23s. Then also with the Mk16's, would you be using lasers to try to communicate with potentially wildly maneuvering missiles?

Pretty sure all missiles have a two way link back to the controlling ship. Now, with an MDM out over 3 lightminutes the return data from the end of the run is very stale and of minimal use by the time you finally get that lightspeed signal (especially if you've manage to put a FTL equipped recon drone out that way to give you timelier data) but AFAIK you still get it.

But even there there's probably something to be said for logging the missiles' sensor view as well as the recon drone's take, for post-battle comparison and analysis.

Jonathan_S wrote:

StealthSeeker wrote:Secondly, are the Mk23 missiles/ACMs the only missiles that do 2 way communication? My concept of older missiles like the Mk16 is that they are receivers of information only. With Mk16 missiles the controlling ship uses information from recon drones to get the "up link" of information and then the ship "down links" commands to the missiles. The Mk23s "up link" their sensor info to the Mk23-e which uses FTL to "up link" data to the ship. Then the ship can of course use FTL to "down link" commands to the Mk23-e which "down links" commands to the Mk23s. Then also with the Mk16's, would you be using lasers to try to communicate with potentially wildly maneuvering missiles?

Pretty sure all missiles have a two way link back to the controlling ship. Now, with an MDM out over 3 lightminutes the return data from the end of the run is very stale and of minimal use by the time you finally get that lightspeed signal (especially if you've manage to put a FTL equipped recon drone out that way to give you timelier data) but AFAIK you still get it.

But even there there's probably something to be said for logging the missiles' sensor view as well as the recon drone's take, for post-battle comparison and analysis.

I can't remember reading a single instance where data from a Mk16 or older missile sent back even telemetry data. I am almost (almost!) certain that all the data came from recon drones.

Can you find any instance where it show and older missile sending back data?

StealthSeeker wrote:

SWM wrote:Agreed. The clumping pattern suggests that the ACM needs to be fairly close to the missiles to maintain laser communication with them. That also ensures that the ACM can aim it's lasers out its own throat and down the kilt of the attack missiles, to prevent the missile wedges from cutting communication.

Is it actually stated somewhere that the "light speed" communications between the missiles and the ACM is done via laser? Its just that in my mind it would seem tedious keeping a laser oriented/pointed in the correct direction through all the maneuvering that a pod launch of missiles would go through. Wouldn't something as crude as AM radio also be considered "light speed" communications? With some sort of low powered "radio" you wouldn't have to worry about keeping your lasers pointed it the correct direction.

Yes, they use laser communications. All communications ship-to-ship or between ships and missiles are done by lasers. This is from early in the books.

Secondly, are the Mk23 missiles/ACMs the only missiles that do 2 way communication? My concept of older missiles like the Mk16 is that they are receivers of information only. With Mk16 missiles the controlling ship uses information from recon drones to get the "up link" of information and then the ship "down links" commands to the missiles. The Mk23s "up link" their sensor info to the Mk23-e which uses FTL to "up link" data to the ship. Then the ship can of course use FTL to "down link" commands to the Mk23-e which "down links" commands to the Mk23s. Then also with the Mk16's, would you be using lasers to try to communicate with potentially wildly maneuvering missiles?

All missiles do 2-way communications.

StealthSeeker wrote:Secondly, are the Mk23 missiles/ACMs the only missiles that do 2 way communication? My concept of older missiles like the Mk16 is that they are receivers of information only. With Mk16 missiles the controlling ship uses information from recon drones to get the "up link" of information and then the ship "down links" commands to the missiles. The Mk23s "up link" their sensor info to the Mk23-e which uses FTL to "up link" data to the ship. Then the ship can of course use FTL to "down link" commands to the Mk23-e which "down links" commands to the Mk23s. Then also with the Mk16's, would you be using lasers to try to communicate with potentially wildly maneuvering missiles?

Here's a quote from RFC about two-way missile communications (in http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/320/1):

runsforcelery wrote:Mutual wedge interference cuts big holes in the ability of individual missiles to talk to each other, but all the missiles report back what they "see" to the ship which launched them. That data is usually out of date for light-speed telemetry by the time the ship receives it, but it uses it to build a predictive model for the target's position, which is then passed on to the missiles still in the firing queue.

SWM wrote:Here's a quote from RFC about two-way missile communications (in http://infodump.thefifthimperium.com/en ... gton/320/1):

Thanks for the pointer.

I did go and do a word search of OBS for telementry and the only hits I got were for recon drones. I'll have to do more searches on other books and see what I find.