Attacking out of the Sun

[Matt123]

Greetings,

Re thread on 'Space and sensor information'
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=4106

There is too much scientific know-how on this forum

Reading this thread it occured to me that it may be possible to evade sensor detection from a planet 'to a point' by exiting jump between the planet and star and the driving at max G toward the planet.

Obviously I'm ignoring the possibility of other sensors/vessels nearby which don't have me 'in the sun'. But assuming there are no other vessels/sensors or the PDF ignores them, how long before they would pick up my vessel/s.

I'm assuming the same tactic would have limited use vs other maneouvering vessels, staying in the sun would be difficult I suspect.

Thoughts?
Matt

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Oooo! Fun with Jump Masking.

Well, I was just discussing Black Globes with someone recently and we got into how to use them and that lead to the very concept you also have.

My thought was to Jump in (with exit plots at the ready) as you said behind a gas giant preferably, for refuel if possible or a star for the additional rad masking, pop on the BGs and coast in to the target, drop BG, fire missile and spinal barrage, BG back up heading for the Jump Point, get to Jump Point, use any charges absorbed by the BG to power the zuchai crystals, energize Jump Grid and away we go!

So, I too am curious what peeps with real math and science skills have to say about this, could be very important some day.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I think you'd be aiming at a pretty narrow window.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Oh yeah,.....

Your Starport/Planet is my primary target, don't know about Matt though, he might want to maneuverer and engage enemy fleets.

I just want to cause mass damage both military and if necessary collateral damage.

Fear boys and gals, Nicclo taught me well the use of fear upon the population, and if it has gone to shooting, well, "government ammo!"

 

[Matt123]

I think you'd be aiming at a pretty narrow window.

True but I'm curious on the potential for the sun to mask your position. It must be the Biggles in me

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Righty-o, old chap

True but I'm curious on the potential for the sun to mask your position. It must be the Biggles in me

:rofl: Biggles, huh, tell me we are not talking the same Biggles as I think we are?

Oh, and I take it Matt that you'll be hitting the Target from the other side using the same tactics then?

Defend Your System, Your Grace Boulton!

 

[CosmicGamer]

Obviously I'm ignoring the possibility of other sensors/vessels nearby which don't have me 'in the sun'. But assuming there are no other vessels/sensors or the PDF ignores them, how long before they would pick up my vessel/s.
Thoughts?

Ignore sensors/vessels nearby you? Why not just pretend there will be no defenses at all while your at it.... Matt, that may have sounded a little harsh but it wasn't meant to be. Read on...

So, I too am curious what peeps with real math and science skills have to say about this, could be very important some day.

Ok, these are just my opinions with no science or math behind it.

The "hide in the sun" strategy has been around for a long, long time. I think of stereotypical western movies. I believe that anyone who has taken combat 101 and is in charge of defense will be prepared for just such an event. The military draws upon thousands of years of experience when training its officers on tactics for offense and defense and the best of the best will be put in charge of putting any system or planetary defenses in place.

If there is no better offensive solution you may want to give it a try, who knows, maybe whoever is in charge of defenses never consulted with anyone with tactics skill. If your attacking some remote outpost they might soil their pants.

In conclusion, unless your tactics skill (remember, this is a roleplaying game and not a "this is what I'd do" game) is higher than your opponents, the GM should give a negative DM for the success of any tactic your PC tries.

 

[far-trader]

I agree it's likely that defenders have considered the possibility of striking out of the sun, and it's a pretty easy one to counter. You can't come out of jump any closer than 100d from the sun, but the defenders can have weapon satellites or fleets in closer than that to guard against it. And then who has the blinded sensors?

Not to mention you'd have a long run up on your target in most cases.

And in some cases your target may actually be within the 100d of the sun precluding the use of the tactic at all.

But there will be systems where it will work. Low TL with poorer class starport systems. Systems of little or no tactical value probably.

If you're striking a target in a system by jumping in your best bet is almost certainly jumping as close as possible to the target.

 

[ElHombre]

A lot of the details come down to the technology used. Given the prevelance of gravity tech in the Imperium, it's a safe bet that even the most 'frontier' spaceports will have the means to detect the reactionless drives most ships use. Not to mention the warping of space created when a ship drops out of jumpspace!

And, as always, the problem of space being really, really big and empty presents itself.

 

[Icosahedron]

If attacking out of the sun were an effective tactic, an effective defence would be created. Just one option might be a couple of (defended) sentinel stations at the Lagrange points to triangulate your position.

Black Globes are much more effective in defence. :smirk:

And never ever put the things on whilst attacking out of the sun - occultation is one sure-fire way to get yourself noticed.

 

[Matt123]

Ignore sensors/vessels nearby you? Why not just pretend there will be no defenses at all while your at it.... Matt, that may have sounded a little harsh but it wasn't meant to be.

There is more than one use for this sort of info, for example if sensors are overwhelmed or degraded by the sun as a backdrop it potentially becomes a classic PC trap as the vessel they were tracking enters the sun & reappears at short range after making a 4g burn directly toward them, lasers blazing...

Regardless of the use, the thread meantioned above was quite good on the topic of sensors & detection, getting into some very interesting (mostly over my head!) science. Nobody asked this question tho' which I thought was an obvious one, hence the curiosity.

To summarise the topic (& likely not very well) current real world sensors would easily (if applied) pick out a Scouts emmisions several AU away & do it in under 4 hours. However the assumption throughout the topic was against a 'empty space' background. Discussion on the effects of the local stars emissions on detection within its corona was absent.

 

[aramis]

that scoutship presents as a dark spot against the solar backdrop. Readily detected.

 

[far-trader]

The thing to remember is the historic and factual context of attacking out of the sun pretty much relied on the most basic of sensors, the Mk 1 I-ball

 

[ElHombre]

Discussion on the effects of the local stars emissions on detection within its corona was absent.

Because at the distances, speeds, and technology involved in space travel (especially in Traveller), a star isn't big enough to be a problem for any sensor other than an eyeball.

Hiding in space is where 'hard' scifi ends and space opera takes over.

 

[Matt123]

I agree with the last three posts. Perhaps imaging software (specialised passive light detection) to image the star & search for 'black spots' ?

The thrust of the last thread was that emissions radiation, heat, IR, etc, is used in advanced detection systems. Given a backdrop of the sun with argueably much greater emmisions, would the scout stand out & would you really want the instrument pointed at the sun for lengthy periods?

Using the classic mk1 eyeball for instance, the 'black spec' that is the scout ship is detectable. However operators of the mk1 eyeball are understandably reluctant (drilled from childhood) to use the instrument in this way due to the damaging effects of overloading the instrument.

One possible solution is to have two instruments (eg: the imaging software), but of course costs would go up & I have not seen any referances in canon or science (my knowledge of this level of science is limited tho') of passive sensors dedicated to saring at the sun to detect nearer objects.

Regardless this line of thought is mute if the sun does not affect passive emmisions sensors or there is another commonly available sensor that would pick the scout out regardless of backdrop (eg: active radar/ladar would be one.)

Forgive me if I appear to be making this up as I go, to a degree I am in that I am interested in getting views on the limitations (if any) of sensors in this application

 

[Ishmael]

It seems to me that the weak link is not the sensor systems, but the sensor operators....what if they're not paying attention or just don't quite understand what they're looking at?
All you gotta do is fool the operator somehow...
( duh duh duh...must be a sunspot...stupid machine and false alarms...
or
...system detects possible occlusion...98% probability that it is sunspot activity ...)

also, machines aren't foolproof
( neither are users )

perfect sensors mean perfect information...and thats no fun

 

[Renaissance Man]

I was reading this article, which is mentioned in the Space and sensor information thread cited earlier. It brings up pretty good points about the incredible difficulty of hiding a fusion reactor-powered ship (even "running silent") against the cold dark backdrop of 3 degrees kelvin space. However, it makes some assumptions about thrust that don't apply to Traveller tech -- specifically that thrust comes from an emitted reaction mass. Most Traveller vessels use thruster plates which use gravatic technology for locomotion. Thus there's no additional heat signature associated with maneuvering the ship -- just the typical thermal exhaust and radiation emissions associated with the power source (and maybe, depending on your understanding of superdense, the hull.)

Being stealthy in space is exceedingly difficult, no doubt about it. Just not QUITE as impossible as it sounds in this article (which I nevertheless recommend reading.) The sun trick wouldn't work though

 

[Matt123]

The sun trick wouldn't work though

Your teasing now! WHY wouldn't it work!

 

[ElHombre]

Your teasing now! WHY wouldn't [the sun trick] work!

First off, we are now well into Nicoll's law here: 'It is a truth universally acknowledged that any thread that begins by pointing out why stealth in space is impossible will rapidly turn into a thread focusing on schemes whereby stealth in space might be achieved.' :lol:

Those interested in a basic discussion of the infamous 'stealth in space' arguement should read the Atomic Rockets site listed above. The truly daring can read this usenet discussion about it in all its grotesque detail. Every thing we've thought of has already been hashed out there.

The hard scifi answer to your question, however, can be summed up pretty easily. Space is really, really big. A size 7 world is 7,000 miles wide. Its 100 diameter limit is 7 frickin' million miles away!!! That's 28 times the Earth-Moon distance. But even that distance is tiny compared to the distance to the local star. Even Mercury is 27 million miles away from the Sun. It would take no more than a simple orbiting sat to view a different angle of an incoming spacecraft, and that's just using viual sensors. Think about this, this kind of attack was spoiled as early as WW2 with the introduction of widely-spaced wingmen. "Red 3, you've got one diving at you out of the sun!"

The sensor limitations for a particular game are up to the GM. If you need a way to approach a planet undetected, make up whatever works for your particular game. Beware of nitpicking players, though. (although warning them ahead of time should help. 'Folks, this is going to take a little more suspension of belief than usual. Now, who's playing the uplifted wolf?')

Y'all know something? It's things like this that make me understand the Vilani 'we thought of that already' mentality.

 

[Vile]

:rofl: Biggles, huh, tell me we are not talking the same Biggles as I think we are?

There can be only one.