From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le mardi 1 novembre 2016 04:26:19 UTC+1, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a écrit :   
      
      
   >    
   > A 100km wide cloud is also trivial to avoid:  1 arc-second worth of    
   > normal thrust is a shift that maxes at 750km for a 1AU orbit.  1 arc-   
   > second out at 6AU is 4500km.   
      
   At 6 AU, you can pretty much ignore the platform if you are taking any kind of   
   stealth measures. Unless you are a torchship under full burn.   
      
   >   
      
   > If 'stealth shots' are even conceivable than isolated military platforms    
   > will be engaged in avoidance as a matter of course.   
      
   Another argument for not having the long range platforms. Better to invest in   
   a larger number of vessels with shorter observation range, but the ability to   
   manoeuvre, take care of themselves, and actually respond to the threats they   
   detect.   
      
      
   > Um, a triangular grid _is_ hexagonal packing.  They're just different    
   > ways of looking at the same arrangement, (one puts the points at cell    
   > corners, the other in the cell centres).     
      
   If you think of the triangular grid as elements in the centre of hexagonal   
   cells, those (imaginary/virtual) hexagons are at a much smaller scale. So, NO,   
   you are NOT looking at the same arrangement.   
   The difference, if you are using hexagonal frameworks in the same scale, is   
   that the hexagon spread puts elements in the (shared) corners of cells, while   
   the triangular spread puts elements ineach of the (shared) corners AS WELL AS   
   one additional element    
   in the (unshared) center of each cell.   
      
      
   > >>    
   > >> Your energy assumptions are, put simply, wrong.   
   > >    
   > > Present your numbers.   
   >    
   > Already done.   
      
   Actually, not. You have not provided any evidence that my energy assumptions   
   are wrong. At best, you have attempted to site the (admittedly miscalculated,   
   and possibly somewhat misinformed) evidence presented by another participant.   
      
   >   
   > I'll let you in on a little secret:  Sails can be furled, there are also    
   > light sail designs other than the "parachute" often seen in SF    
   > illustrations, ('wing' type sails also offer the option of simply turning    
   > the whole platform side-on).   
      
   True. However, this drasticly increases the mass you have to try to move.   
      
      
   > You are doing the equivalent of thinking you can usefully predict the    
   > result of 4d6 within 2 because you can predict 40d6 within 20 over 90% of    
   > the time.   
      
   No. That is your misinterpretation of what I am saying.   
      
      
      
   > You have no way of knowing what component of the past manoeuvres was    
   > random and what component was not random.  You are also confusing    
   > unpredictable for random.   
      
   Again, you are misinterpreting what I am saying.   
   True random is as unpredictable as you can get. Non random unpredictable   
   introduces biases that can reduce the option range.   
      
      
   > Which is spotted the first time it needs to make a course correction.   
      
   No. It really isn't. You don't need "atomic rockets" to make course   
   corrections. You don't even necessarily need hot gas.   
      
   > You misunderstand the main issue with the energy required:  It means that    
   > you are going to be spotted making your "stealth" attack on the sensor    
   > platforms.  Congratulations, you just started the war, triggered a change    
   > in future avoidance manoeuvres by your targets and caused your enemy to    
   > begin launching reserve sensor platforms while ramping up production of    
   > more.   
      
   Actually, YOU fail to understand that the energy required during launch will   
   be just another power surge during a routine day of business as usual. The   
   difference is that the load will not be going where it usually goes. Even that   
   will probably not be    
   unusual, as misfires are a natural consequence of the tech.   
      
   >    
   > Producing all of that energy in one place and using it in a short period    
   > of time is a secondary problem, but still a major problem.   
      
   Except I have already stated that it will not be in one place, nor all at a   
   single time. it will be a distributed salvo.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)