Hacking 2000 years from now...

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:In summation. The Honorverse algorithms necessary to pull off the handling of tens of thousands of missiles at Honorverse speeds require huge amounts of memory atop an assuredly resource hungry OS that is staggering for even Honorverse computers. It does not surprise me that programmers have to save memory where logically necessary, causing a SLN programmer coding for a threat environment of 10,000 missiles to simply not be a given.

Very true. And then you get into the joy of government contracts where even if your programmers figured out a brilliant way to handling 10 times as many missile tracks on the contract specified hardware you're more likely to get penalized for deviation from the RFP than rewarded for delivering excess capacity.

The Request for Proposal would be based on things like the threat environment the Navy expected to face (and therefore wanted to defend against) - and should specify acceptance criteria for number of simultanious contacts and target velocity.
I'd pulled the example of 1,000 missiles out of thin air, but thinking about it that's nearly equivalent to 4 squadrons of the wall (32 SDs) worth of fire from Scientist-class SDs. Still, given safety factors and possibilities of 3-4 squadrons going to concentration fire against a single squadron it seems more likely that they'd specify that ability to track salvos of 2-3,000 missiles.

But that's still grossly insufficient for the hellacious missiles swarms SD(P)s, or pod based system defenses, now routinely throw around.

If the SLN had realized it might face that environment I have every confidence that it's military contractors are capable of producing hardware and software that's up to the task of tracking and managing the defensive engagement. But they're not going to do so when the customer isn't asking for it and almost nobody realizes the threat scope has changed.

Absolutely. Producing the more capable systems is going to greatly increase the cost per system, times the many SLN ships. Which translates into less pocketed monies. Especially if memory is at a premium in the Honorverse. And when I say memory, I do mean the more expensive equivalent to the fastest available system ram, which would be the memory used in ECM systems and in defensive capacities throughout the system.

Which significantly increases the cost per system, to design a more capable system -- for a threat environment that would be considered insane.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:In summation. The Honorverse algorithms necessary to pull off the handling of tens of thousands of missiles at Honorverse speeds require huge amounts of memory atop an assuredly resource hungry OS that is staggering for even Honorverse computers. It does not surprise me that programmers have to save memory where logically necessary, causing a SLN programmer coding for a threat environment of 10,000 missiles to simply not be a given.

Very true. And then you get into the joy of government contracts where even if your programmers figured out a brilliant way to handling 10 times as many missile tracks on the contract specified hardware you're more likely to get penalized for deviation from the RFP than rewarded for delivering excess capacity.

The Request for Proposal would be based on things like the threat environment the Navy expected to face (and therefore wanted to defend against) - and should specify acceptance criteria for number of simultanious contacts and target velocity.
I'd pulled the example of 1,000 missiles out of thin air, but thinking about it that's nearly equivalent to 4 squadrons of the wall (32 SDs) worth of fire from Scientist-class SDs. Still, given safety factors and possibilities of 3-4 squadrons going to concentration fire against a single squadron it seems more likely that they'd specify that ability to track salvos of 2-3,000 missiles.

But that's still grossly insufficient for the hellacious missiles swarms SD(P)s, or pod based system defenses, now routinely throw around.

If the SLN had realized it might face that environment I have every confidence that it's military contractors are capable of producing hardware and software that's up to the task of tracking and managing the defensive engagement. But they're not going to do so when the customer isn't asking for it and almost nobody realizes the threat scope has changed.

cthia wrote:Absolutely. Producing the more capable systems is going to greatly increase the cost per system, times the many SLN ships. Which translates into less pocketed monies. Especially if memory is at a premium in the Honorverse. And when I say memory, I do mean the more expensive equivalent to the fastest available system ram, which would be the memory used in ECM systems and in defensive capacities throughout the system.*

Which significantly increases the cost per system, to design a more capable system -- for a threat environment that would be considered insane.

* Which is certainly unimaginably faster than our presently available L1 (level 1) cache and just as equally expensive. L1 cache is typically only around 2KB. It is very fast and equally very expensive, which is why there is so little of it.

... I think the interesting point about the maximum missile velocity example was that it probably made excellent sense at the time. The single-drive missile range (and velocity) limitation had been in place for decades, if not centuries. That simple heuristic probably greatly simplified the problem of identifying decoys and/or EW and was extremely reasonable for the time.

Once again, formal methods couldn't have caught a problem like that.

Also, the computers on a warship will be massively distributed.
That has to have some impact.

drinksmuchcoffee wrote:... I think the interesting point about the maximum missile velocity example was that it probably made excellent sense at the time. The single-drive missile range (and velocity) limitation had been in place for decades, if not centuries. That simple heuristic probably greatly simplified the problem of identifying decoys and/or EW and was extremely reasonable for the time.

Once again, formal methods couldn't have caught a problem like that.

Actually that's the one that is some ways didn't make sense to me. Yes, a single-drive impeller missile, from rest, burns out at under 0.3c. But combat isn't always performed at relative rest, and we know that there's concern about frac-c bombardment.

Specifying that the system not be required to handle missiles above 0.5c or whatever (I don't think we know the exact limit; just that 0.69c was too fast) is a tacit admission that your navy has no interest in even trying to block a frac-c bombardment. (Yes such a defense is extremely difficult, and unlikely to be very successful. But for, presumably, cost reasons you just said we don't care to have systems that can even try)

CombatInformationCenter

Annachie wrote:Also, the computers on a warship will be massively distributed.
That has to have some impact.

No doubt Annachie. Actually, the idea is quite amusing. Certainly in the Honorverse, some form of distributed computing is used. Text even infers it.

However, CIC (Combat Information Center) would undoubtedly be less distributed -- utilizing the very fastest specialized number crunching monsters. The CIC undoubtedly receives all of the data from all over the ship in a massively distributed way, but crunching that data internally with dedicated, very centralized, very expensive monsters.

In fact, I wonder just how much the theory of programming has progressed in the Honorverse and whether parallel programming has made any leaps and bounds -- afforded by technical breakthroughs. Keeping in mind the inherent limitations of parallel computing, currently, of course.

Also, do note that there are advantages and disadvantages of distributed computing that varies with the application...

Advantages of distributed operating systems:-
-Give more performance than single system
-If one pc in distributed system malfunction or corrupts then other node or pc will take care of
-More resources can be added easily
-Resources like printers can be shared on multiple pc’s

Disadvantages of distributed operating systems:-
-Security problem due to sharing
-Some messages can be lost in the network system
-Bandwidth is another problem if there is large data then all network wires to be replaced which tends to become expensive
-Overloading is another problem in distributed operating systems
-If there is a database connected on local system and many users accessing that database through remote or distributed way then performance become slow
-The databases in network operating is difficult to administrate then single user system


It certainly would be interesting, reading the entire specs on the ship's computing environment. And the whys and whats of the overall design. E.g., what areas better lends itself to parallel computing and/or distributed computing.


How is Shannon sitting at tactical tied in to CIC?

Very interesting and thought provoking Annachie. Would you be willing to be a part of the very exciting, fun filled, migraine inducing design team?

Jonathan_S wrote:

drinksmuchcoffee wrote:... I think the interesting point about the maximum missile velocity example was that it probably made excellent sense at the time. The single-drive missile range (and velocity) limitation had been in place for decades, if not centuries. That simple heuristic probably greatly simplified the problem of identifying decoys and/or EW and was extremely reasonable for the time.

Once again, formal methods couldn't have caught a problem like that.

Actually that's the one that is some ways didn't make sense to me. Yes, a single-drive impeller missile, from rest, burns out at under 0.3c. But combat isn't always performed at relative rest, and we know that there's concern about frac-c bombardment.

Specifying that the system not be required to handle missiles above 0.5c or whatever (I don't think we know the exact limit; just that 0.69c was too fast) is a tacit admission that your navy has no interest in even trying to block a frac-c bombardment. (Yes such a defense is extremely difficult, and unlikely to be very successful. But for, presumably, cost reasons you just said we don't care to have systems that can even try)

Playing with some rough #, a .5c cap does make sense.

Follow my logic...

Most translations are ~0c, yes some energy does come along with you, but the more velocity, the harder it is on individuals, so the max velocity you are going to be carrying over the wall is probably >.05C.

Most planets are ~10 light minutes from the hyperlimit. the furthest ~20. Unless you are doing a high speed flyby (which will require you to overfly, stop then return, traveling 3x the distance from the hyperlimit.), the max distance you can build up velocity is ~10 Light Minutes.

The fastest real opposition you will face will have an acceleration of ~500Gs, Yes, a Destroyer or CL might push the comp to 100% and max out at ~520-520G, but usually, 500gs is pretty much an unobtainable max.

.05c initial velocity over the limit and 500gs acceleration with a 10 LM turnover is right on .2C. So in 99% of Scenarios, the max velocity a single drive missile will go is .5c. (as observed from a static observer on the system primary while wearing asbestos shoes).

Of course then, if 2 opposing fleets interdict each other at turnover, the ship observed (non-relativistic) velocity of the opposing missiles at interdiction will be ~.7c at missile burnout.

Theemile wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Actually that's the one that is some ways didn't make sense to me. Yes, a single-drive impeller missile, from rest, burns out at under 0.3c. But combat isn't always performed at relative rest, and we know that there's concern about frac-c bombardment.

Specifying that the system not be required to handle missiles above 0.5c or whatever (I don't think we know the exact limit; just that 0.69c was too fast) is a tacit admission that your navy has no interest in even trying to block a frac-c bombardment. (Yes such a defense is extremely difficult, and unlikely to be very successful. But for, presumably, cost reasons you just said we don't care to have systems that can even try)

Playing with some rough #, a .5c cap does make sense.

Follow my logic...

Most translations are ~0c, yes some energy does come along with you, but the more velocity, the harder it is on individuals, so the max velocity you are going to be carrying over the wall is probably >.05C.

Actually the max is just 0.048c. A warship's max velocity in the Alpha bands is 0.6c and dropping across the Alpha wall to normal space costs you 92% of your velocity (according to the 'speed by hyper band' chart).

Theemile wrote:Most planets are ~10 light minutes from the hyperlimit. the furthest ~20. Unless you are doing a high speed flyby (which will require you to overfly, stop then return, traveling 3x the distance from the hyperlimit.), the max distance you can build up velocity is ~10 Light Minutes.

The fastest real opposition you will face will have an acceleration of ~500Gs, Yes, a Destroyer or CL might push the comp to 100% and max out at ~520-520G, but usually, 500gs is pretty much an unobtainable max.

.05c initial velocity over the limit and 500gs acceleration with a 10 LM turnover is right on .2C. So in 99% of Scenarios, the max velocity a single drive missile will go is .5c. (as observed from a static observer on the system primary while wearing asbestos shoes).

Of course then, if 2 opposing fleets interdict each other at turnover, the ship observed (non-relativistic) velocity of the opposing missiles at interdiction will be ~.7c at missile burnout.

Also, with 0.048c starting velocity I make it 11.73 LM, and 2.57 hours, to build up to 0.2c at 500 gees - and of course it'll take longer to stop after turnover because you also have to cancel out that starting velocity.

Anyway, it's obviously true that on a normal approach path there isn't room within the hyper limit to work up to the 0.23c a ship would need to push the terminal velocity of their SDM past 0.5c. (This is also why the 0.3c speed limit for entering hyper is rarely a problem - there just isn't room for most ships to build up that kind of velocity before they reach the nearest point on the hyper limit)

But if an enemy was going from a frac-c bombardment they'd drop out of hyper much further out so they'd have room for the multi hours run it would take to build up to even that 0.23c. OTOH they're so far out that you wouldn't have any ships out there to stop them.

I realize that in normal combat you just don't face missiles moving that fast, but by specifying (or at least accepting) computers that can't handle targets of that velocity you are refusing to even try to stop the rare frac-c attack.



Though I guess to be fair the SLN pretty much has to accept that most of the time they won't have assets in place to even attempt a defense; too many worlds and even their navy isn't big enough to place a credible defense around each. Their whole strategy is based around retaliatory unilaterally assured destruction. "Yes you could hurt a member world, but we'll respond by sending an unstoppable horde directly to your homeworld to capture your government and smash anything that tries to interfere"

... about Frac-C bombardments.

How would you stop one in the first place? A reasonable course of action if you were murderous enough to do so would be to: (1) translate a light-month or two out from the primary; (2) accelerate up to the maximum speed that particle shielding will allow (around 0.7c); (3) shut down the wedge and have the crew bail out (presumably to be rescued later); (4) wait; (5) boom.

Planets can't dodge. And we know where a planet will be. That means you won't need any terminal guidance or even need the wedge up when you impact. A million-ton freighter at 0.7c would easily produce a petaton-range impact which would make it very tough for any occupants of said planet.

It is kind of surprising given how many liberation movement in the verge the League has cruelly stomped on that nobody took out Earth. Yes, supposedly the Eridani Edict keeps people from doing that, but if you are already facing the firing squad from the League why not take them down with you?

drinksmuchcoffee wrote:... about Frac-C bombardments.

How would you stop one in the first place? A reasonable course of action if you were murderous enough to do so would be to: (1) translate a light-month or two out from the primary; (2) accelerate up to the maximum speed that particle shielding will allow (around 0.7c); (3) shut down the wedge and have the crew bail out (presumably to be rescued later); (4) wait; (5) boom.

Planets can't dodge. And we know where a planet will be. That means you won't need any terminal guidance or even need the wedge up when you impact. A million-ton freighter at 0.7c would easily produce a petaton-range impact which would make it very tough for any occupants of said planet.

It is kind of surprising given how many liberation movement in the verge the League has cruelly stomped on that nobody took out Earth. Yes, supposedly the Eridani Edict keeps people from doing that, but if you are already facing the firing squad from the League why not take them down with you?

The degree of accuracy you'd need to hit the planet if you cut power nearly a lightmonth out would be kind of crazy. And this would only work against a planet that lacked the deep space sensors to see you making your many hour slog up to 0.7c before cutting the drive - because if they saw you pretty much any impeller drive ship could go out and play roadblock - you slam into their wedge and you're not continuing on to hit the planet.

And if you're trying to stay out of sensor range, remember that the crew that bailed out, even if they want to escape into hyper in another ship, have to get their velocity down to under 0.3c - so that's even longer with a wedge at full power canceling out the velocity built up on the first ship.

But most people don't want to frag whole planets, so frac-c bombardment of planets doesn't really happen. Instead on the rare cases the tactic is used it's to try to take out orbital forts, yards, or stations when they aren't backstopped by the planet -- in situations where they're too tough a target to close with and take out with missiles still under drive.