BC(C) (Spoiler Within)

I admit to being a layman when it comes to sensor design, but wouldn't adding a hinge, or ability to fold, in the middle of a sensor add a bunch of complications because it would change the physics properties of the sensor?

Even a simple half-wave radio antenna wouldn't adding a few hinge points to it can fold up alter the electrical characteristics and therefore screw with how it works?

That seems, to my layman's mind, as more of an obstacle than 'just' correcting for natural wobble within that continuous sensor

Admittedly sub-optimal antennas can work okay for radios (depending); so maybe it's not a critical flaw. Or maybe I'm overthinking this and flexible connectors across the hinge sections will preserve the electromagnetic physics of the antenna despite the discontinuities

For optical you can obviously segment the mirror because the individual photons are bouncing off discrete points of it, so (assuming you get things to align) you just lose the photons that his the dividing lines between mirror segments. But I'm unclear whether the same logic applies to large apparently continuous sensors.

Honestly, why would anyone put the pivot point in the middle of a gravitic array? Put it at the base like any sane person would. Last I checked the object was to fold the sensor as tight as possible to the LAC, not leave it half length. From the drawings of different ship types throughout the books and Maxx's stuff, it appears to be multiple vanes so their fold angles would be a bit odd so as they would all fold lengthwise if needed or fold vertically depending on length. You can use a 4 bar linkage if that makes your life any easier(it does).

You're quite right: adding hinges to an antenna does change the electrical characteristics. In fact, switching from rigid to flexible construction makes a difference. You're also right to suspect that it doesn't much matter in many cases. In others, it would degrade the operation significantly - although in those designs the elements are small enough already that adding hinges would be a complete waste of time

AFAICT, much of the preceding discussion is predicated on a failure to distinguish between sensors and mounting structures. There are a great many sensors known to this particular man, for example, that _do_not_ fold and cannot be made to fold without destroying them. The piezoceramics used in medical ultrasound systems, for example - cut them to put in hinges and they no longer resonate at their designed operating frequency, making them useless for the application. And, while the _arrays_ of CCDs in an X-ray system could be made to fold, I would be very, very surprised if the individual CCD ever did - the materials used in their construction are too brittle. Both, however, can be mounted in folding, bending and even rotating structures. In fact, they often have to be in order for the system to work as designed.

Jonathan_S wrote:I admit to being a layman when it comes to sensor design, but wouldn't adding a hinge, or ability to fold, in the middle of a sensor add a bunch of complications because it would change the physics properties of the sensor?

Even a simple half-wave radio antenna wouldn't adding a few hinge points to it can fold up alter the electrical characteristics and therefore screw with how it works?

That seems, to my layman's mind, as more of an obstacle than 'just' correcting for natural wobble within that continuous sensor

Admittedly sub-optimal antennas can work okay for radios (depending); so maybe it's not a critical flaw. Or maybe I'm overthinking this and flexible connectors across the hinge sections will preserve the electromagnetic physics of the antenna despite the discontinuities

For optical you can obviously segment the mirror because the individual photons are bouncing off discrete points of it, so (assuming you get things to align) you just lose the photons that his the dividing lines between mirror segments. But I'm unclear whether the same logic applies to large apparently continuous sensors.

Louis R wrote:You're quite right: adding hinges to an antenna does change the electrical characteristics. In fact, switching from rigid to flexible construction makes a difference. You're also right to suspect that it doesn't much matter in many cases. In others, it would degrade the operation significantly - although in those designs the elements are small enough already that adding hinges would be a complete waste of time

AFAICT, much of the preceding discussion is predicated on a failure to distinguish between sensors and mounting structures. There are a great many sensors known to this particular man, for example, that _do_not_ fold and cannot be made to fold without destroying them. The piezoceramics used in medical ultrasound systems, for example - cut them to put in hinges and they no longer resonate at their designed operating frequency, making them useless for the application. And, while the _arrays_ of CCDs in an X-ray system could be made to fold, I would be very, very surprised if the individual CCD ever did - the materials used in their construction are too brittle. Both, however, can be mounted in folding, bending and even rotating structures. In fact, they often have to be in order for the system to work as designed.

Interesting. Thanks.

So even that far in the future some things are still labelled 'do not fold, spindle or mutilate'

Cheers, John

Louis R wrote:You're quite right: adding hinges to an antenna does change the electrical characteristics. In fact, switching from rigid to flexible construction makes a difference. You're also right to suspect that it doesn't much matter in many cases. In others, it would degrade the operation significantly - although in those designs the elements are small enough already that adding hinges would be a complete waste of time

AFAICT, much of the preceding discussion is predicated on a failure to distinguish between sensors and mounting structures. There are a great many sensors known to this particular man, for example, that _do_not_ fold and cannot be made to fold without destroying them. The piezoceramics used in medical ultrasound systems, for example - cut them to put in hinges and they no longer resonate at their designed operating frequency, making them useless for the application. And, while the _arrays_ of CCDs in an X-ray system could be made to fold, I would be very, very surprised if the individual CCD ever did - the materials used in their construction are too brittle. Both, however, can be mounted in folding, bending and even rotating structures. In fact, they often have to be in order for the system to work as designed.

Jonathan_S wrote:I admit to being a layman when it comes to sensor design, but wouldn't adding a hinge, or ability to fold, in the middle of a sensor add a bunch of complications because it would change the physics properties of the sensor?

Even a simple half-wave radio antenna wouldn't adding a few hinge points to it can fold up alter the electrical characteristics and therefore screw with how it works?

That seems, to my layman's mind, as more of an obstacle than 'just' correcting for natural wobble within that continuous sensor

Admittedly sub-optimal antennas can work okay for radios (depending); so maybe it's not a critical flaw. Or maybe I'm overthinking this and flexible connectors across the hinge sections will preserve the electromagnetic physics of the antenna despite the discontinuities

For optical you can obviously segment the mirror because the individual photons are bouncing off discrete points of it, so (assuming you get things to align) you just lose the photons that his the dividing lines between mirror segments. But I'm unclear whether the same logic applies to large apparently continuous sensors.

If they're dependent on the electrical or mechanical properties of normal matter, that would be a wise precaution, yes

John Prigent wrote:So even that far in the future some things are still labelled 'do not fold, spindle or mutilate'

Cheers, John

MaxxQ wrote:Just checked HoS again after a thought. The shortest LACs are 71m long. A Nike is 129m wide. With no armor, that means that a Nike-sized LAC carrier would be 13m too narrow for nose-to-nose LAC parking. You would need to widen a Nike - at a minimum - 50m to accomodate LACs in a similar manner to standard CLACs (that accounts for the extra 13m needed, plus room for armor and accessways between LACs on opposite broadsides from one another). Note that that's just a few meters less than the width of the Flight II Hydra.

I have to ask, why assume that you MUST "doublestack" the LACs?

I don´t agree with OP premise, but a SINGLE 70-ish meters long LAC would have no issue fitting the width of a 129m wide ship.
Allows plenty of room even, you just have to cut down the numbers.

And for a universe where hyperdrives are truly expensive or problematic, such a ship, maybe with 12-18 LACs, could make plenty good enough sense. Even if it only carried maybe even as little as 6 LACs, it might still be a useful unit then.

But in Honorverse, not so much.

In the B5 universe, it is not far from the norm because the base material needed for jumpdrives is horribly expensive and not easy enough to aquire in large amounts.
In the Btech universe, it IS the norm because jumpdrives are HUGE, but in return can piggyback lots of units without negative effects.
Etc...

Tenshinai wrote:

MaxxQ wrote:Just checked HoS again after a thought. The shortest LACs are 71m long. A Nike is 129m wide. With no armor, that means that a Nike-sized LAC carrier would be 13m too narrow for nose-to-nose LAC parking. You would need to widen a Nike - at a minimum - 50m to accomodate LACs in a similar manner to standard CLACs (that accounts for the extra 13m needed, plus room for armor and accessways between LACs on opposite broadsides from one another). Note that that's just a few meters less than the width of the Flight II Hydra.

I have to ask, why assume that you MUST "doublestack" the LACs?

I don´t agree with OP premise, but a SINGLE 70-ish meters long LAC would have no issue fitting the width of a 129m wide ship.
Allows plenty of room even, you just have to cut down the numbers.

If by "doublestack", you mean bays port and starboard, then the OP stated about 30 LACs on a BC-sized carrier (Nike was suggested by the OP as well). You're certainly not going to get that many on a single side of a carrier that size.

Most of my responses in this thread, prior to the "no folding of Grav sensors" debate, have been addressed with that requirement in mind. Any other numbers you have seen after that have been other people changing the OP to allow SOME LACs to be carried, but fewer than originally stated. Even YOU have reduced that number, and your last sentence reinforces that point. As I said, my objections were based on the original numbers posted by the OP.

Looking back through my posts, I never said it couldn't be done AT ALL, but that one couldn't get the numbers the OP was using into a ship that size. Sure, one could also eliminate much of the armor to allow more space, but then you run into the problem of figuring out what to do with the carrier: Do you have it hang back at the Hyperlimit? If so, it's going to take many hours for LACs to get back to them to rearm. Also, in an age of dual-drive and multi-drive missiles, distance isn't as safe as it used to be.

I don't know about you, but I would want a fast turnaround time, if necessary, which means having the carriers closer to the battle, which of course, makes them much more vulnerable to incoming fire. Therefore, armor.

Edit: The other issue (with having the LAC bays on one side only) goes back to another important component of any ship larger than a heavy cruiser - the core hull. The ALSO heavily-armored area that contains all the important stuff - bridge(s), reactors, life support, etc. I suppose there's no reason it can't be mounted off-center, but for me, I'd like it as deep as possible in the ship.

MaxxQ wrote:...

Thank you. With how it was being spoken about, it made it sound like some religious inevitability that you MUST have end to end LACs even if it was obviously not a good idea or even physically possible.

MaxxQ wrote:Even YOU have reduced that number

Of course. Like i said, i don´t really agree with the idea, as it mostly doesn´t work well in the Honorverse. There´s some niches where a "minicarrier" could work ok, but the pricetag is so close to building something better but without the restrictions that it´s just not likely to be worth it.

The one situation i could figure where it could be worth it is if you´re getting really in trouble with finding enough commanders and command level officers, as it´s easier to train people to handle an LAC than a BC, but it would still not be a great solution.

If by "doublestack", you mean bays port and starboard, then the OP stated about 30 LACs on a BC-sized carrier (Nike was suggested by the OP as well). You're certainly not going to get that many on a single side of a carrier that size.

Nope, but you should be able to get at least 12, which is plenty enough to be useful.

Recon drones have removed 1/3 of the reason for building light carriers, and the way hyperspace mechanics(and "finances") and acceleration rates works has removed at least as much.

kzt wrote:Ships in the honorverse are not going to fold up. Merchant vessels will run at 400g without a compensator for hours. Warships are much stronger. They are massively overbuilt. So they are essentially 747's where flying through skyscrapers without any damage was part of the design requirements.

I did NOT say fold up. I said RETRACT. And as we have already HAD one example of that in the Honorverse in On Basilisk Station where the PMSS Sirius's Nodes retracted into the hull because they were outsize it is not beyond the bounds of possibility.