Other than a way to control missiles, which we know by definition, what is it, how does it work?
Is it Ladar, radar, or something else? Why is it limited to a few 'channels' and why does it take up hull space on a ship?
Topic Actions
Topic Search
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 46 guests
Missile Telemetry
| Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
by Lord Skimper
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:30 am
|
|
|
Lord Skimper
Posts: 1736
|
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars. |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Taurus2
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:52 am
|
|
|
Taurus2
Posts: 77
|
Well, it involves sensors, computers, and signal transmission/reception equipment, all of which have mass and volume.
As for why they can only control a certain number of missiles, think of it like your internet bandwidth; it can only handle so much data being transferred at a time. The limit on controllable missiles is determined by the total amount of bandwidth available, divided by the amount of bandwidth to control each missile. |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Silverwall
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:17 am
|
|
|
Silverwall
Posts: 388
|
Well we can make some logical assumptions as to what takes the space and resources.
1) All coms are encrypted 7 ways to sunday so the opposition can't issue bad orders. This requires resources in both the transmitter and reciever but is not a major resource hog. 2) Each missile in the salvo needs a unique ID or address so that it knows what instructions are for it and which to ignore. 3) Processing power in the host ship must be assigned to each channel so that the appropriate manouvers can be calculated and sent to the missile. however it would mainly be: 4) New instructions and blacklists of enemy e-w tricks must be uploaded on the fly. This is going to be the real bottleneck as these are much larger and data intensive than a simple instuction such as in x seconds execute a delta-v change of y gravities and change heading to XXXX.YYYY.ZZZZ heading for ^ seconds. |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Star Knight
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:19 am
|
|
|
Star Knight
Posts: 843
|
@Taurus2
Yes that made sense. Then came Apollo, controlling 8 missiles through 1 Mark-23E. Seemingly no volume or bandwidth constraints... |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Duckk
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:33 am
|
|
|
Duckk
Posts: 4200
|
I don't see what's so confusing about it. Before, the firing ship controlled each missile. With Apollo, the firing ship controls each Apollo control missile. The control missile in turn takes the orders it receives, decides the best way to implement those orders, then passes it on to the 8 missiles under its control. Hence Apollo effectively multiplying the numbers of missiles it can control by 8.
And yes, there is a volume constraint. Remember how David said that KH2 is bigger than KH1? -------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Star Knight
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:49 am
|
|
|
Star Knight
Posts: 843
|
Before the firing ship controlled each missile. With Apollo, the Apollo missile controls 8 other missiles.
The comparatively tiny Mark-23E has the necessary hardware / bandwith / energy budget to control 8 other missiles. And uses a ninth link to get instructions from the waller. How is it possible to get a control missile to send instructions and stuff to 8 other missiles, when a full sized SD(P) maxes out at about 400 control links? Hell, you can just cut out the control missile, install the Apollo control unit on board of the waller itself and control 3.200 missiles at sublight speeds. |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by cthia
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:52 am
|
|
|
cthia
Posts: 14951
|
The Apollo concept effectively increases the amount of bandwidth by reducing the amount of bandwidth needed - by acting as a middle man and pre-programmed with what was previously responsibilities of the mother ship. Bandwidth is increased with the Apollo concept by many factors. Offloading of the mother ship's programming responsibilities. Object-oriented programming. And the ability to program more with abstractions. All benefits of a pre-processor, which is what Apollo effectively is. Apollo accomplishes part of what switchboards did for the telephone industry. Then automated switchboards. . Last edited by cthia on Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:56 am, edited 3 times in total.
Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Duckk
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:52 am
|
|
|
Duckk
Posts: 4200
|
Because the Apollo missile doesn't need to talk to a missile 3+ light minutes away. It doesn't need a honking big transmitter any more than my wi-fi router needs to talk to the Mars rovers. -------------------------
Shields at 50%, taunting at 100%! - Tom Pope |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Weird Harold
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:24 am
|
|
|
Weird Harold
Posts: 4478
|
The Apollo ACM never gets any real distance, comparatively speaking, from its brood. It therefore doesn't need the size and power of control links that a ship-board control link requires. That's one reason that Apollo salvos tend to "clump" into groups of eight (nine, but the ACM is generally masked by its brood.) In answer to Skimpy's question, light-speed control links are some frequency of Electro-magnetic radiation and are apparently highly directional as well as coded; That suggests a whisker laser or MASER. Whatever the specifics, it requires one computer-process and one highly directional transmitter, receiver, and antenna/emitter for each missile. FTL control links would appear to be fairly similar but use individual Gravitic R/T sets instead of electro-magnetic radiation. They also appear to be more flexible in that KH II units are described as having only one KHII relay active for an entire squadron's missiles for each update, switching to another KHII in the squadron for the next update, and so on... In many ways, the Honorverse control link technology is very much like "beam-rider" radar guided air-to-air missiles -- Like early versions of the Aim-7 Sparrow. "Beam-Rider" missiles follow a radar beam by comparing the reflection from the target and a coded signal from the launch aircraft. In other ways, they are like TOW missiles that depend on guidance commands from the launcher only with intangible "wires" guiding them. .
. . Answers! I got lots of answers! (Now if I could just find the right questions.) |
| Top | |
| Re: Missile Telemetry | |
|---|---|
|
by Somtaaw
» Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:30 am
|
|
|
Somtaaw
Posts: 1204
|
The Apollo Control Missile is as large as two Mark 23's combined, thats why the pods went from 10 missiles per pod, to 8 plus the ACM. That's not comparatively tiny, when MDM's start at the 100 ton range, and go upwards from there, I would estimate Mark 23's at being somewhere between 130 tons and 150 tons per missile. And that would place an ACM at 240 to 300 tons, of which is the two-way FTL comms, the three-drives, and the entire rest of the missile is computers. By contrast, the average MDM is three drives, the laser head crystals, the warhead itself (40 tons for the Mk 16-G remember, and capital size Mark 23's are gonna be even bigger), plus computers and then sensors, not counting the really fiddly bits such as RCS for the laser head crystals, gryos to orient the missile before detonation, etc. And the MDM has to pack all that into a much, much smaller missile than the ACM does. But the point, is that ACM's are almost purely drive, FTL comms, and then computers which are specifically purposed for talking to it's 8 brothers and sisters, and figuring out how to use them the best & most efficient way.
Don't think of Apollo as another missile, think of them more as how Admiral Luis Rozsak planned his cruisers to have plugs of extra fire control for his unarmored freighters. You keep the freighters back, send the cruisers in close to the target, freighters launch MDM's and the cruisers guide them in. Well in the case of Apollo, it's almost the same thing, just change the freighters to SDP's, and the forward fire control cruisers become Apollo. It's not a perfect analogy, but if you take the Apollo stuff out of the control missile and put it back on the ship you've put your max fire control back to pre-Apollo limits, and you've reintroduced slower-than-light control of your missiles at MDM ranges. |
| Top | |