Apollo Redundancy

Captain Golding wrote:Thanks Guys,

So we think the chance of loosing an Apollo Control missile is too low to be concerned about.

So unless you are facing something like Harkness's Baracade we can leave it behind.

Still the Uplift in Attack & ECM Missiles for 16 per controll channels from a 4:2 mix would be a significant gain. Especially on for any BC(P) types that have limited space.

Mind you I don't think BC(P)'s have Keyhole II because it's too big so I would expect them to carry "pure" Mk23 pods or even the Mk16 DDM's as the RMN ones have taken to doing.

You are right, BC(p)s only have KH1, but their holds can hold Apollo pods - you just need to use light speed control links.

However, BY DOCTRINE, the RMN only uses Mk 16 based pods to maximize their throw #. The GSN will use Mk 23 pods in their BC(P)s though.

The Bluchers (Andermani BC(p)s) probably have the same issue as the Andermani's early Adler SD(p)s, in that they were designed to fire a pod of DDM Capacitor missiles. At best, they were upgraded to Mk41 pods, but beyond their name and that they exist, we have 0 information on them.

also

Barricade was a total plot device - the geometry of a missile salvo makes it virtually impossible for any counter missile (even an MDM) to intercept more than one missile per salvo, and virtually impossible for the counter missiles to engage other salvos or even the opposition forces without radical maneuvering that Missiles just are not built for.

Theemile wrote:You are right, BC(p)s only have KH1, but their holds can hold Apollo pods - you just need to use light speed control links.

However, BY DOCTRINE, the RMN only uses Mk 16 based pods to maximize their throw #. The GSN will use Mk 23 pods in their BC(P)s though.

Maybe the doctrine's changed, but HMS Artemis under Adm. Gold Peak carried flat pods of Mk23 during the engagement with Byng. She specifically chose to fire from pods and from a range where only two stages would be necessary to deny the SLN any intel on the RMN having 2-stage missiles that could be fired from tubes (so Artemis was a BC(L) not BC(P)) or 3-stage missies.

PS: Artemis I launch postponed to tomorrow, 24 hours from now.

Captain Golding wrote:So unless you are facing something like Harkness's Baracade we can leave it behind.

Well, any time some characters need to win because PLOT and the author can't be bothered he'll pull the mighty PLOT HAMMER out of his butt and beat them to death. Today it might be called Barricade, tomorrow it will be something else.

It's not impossible to intercept a ACM but my guess is that it will be more by mistake/error than a targeted shot. Not all (or perhaps even many) of CMs intercept the incoming missile it was aimed at in the initial instructions.....and they just keep going till they burn out (and presumably self destruct if they don't make an interception which is going to destroy both the CM and what it kills. So, if it was aimed at one of a single pod's missiles and did not make the interception then it would continue on ad MIGHT pass close enough to the ACM...at which point it would already be too late to cut that control link since the attack missiles are going to be about on final portion of their run.

tlb wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The text isn't wrong. But it is talking about an estimation before actual real-world (real-Galaxy?) data came about and any tweaks and improvements that they added.

The Battle of Beowulf would seem to contradict it, though there are about 2 T-years between the estimations and the battle. Those missiles were extremely effective at 220 million km / 12 light-minutes. It's possible that's only ~50% of what plain Mk23D would have done without the ACMs, because AFAIK no one had tried to fire missiles at that range before. But I don't think it is likely.

Alternatively, it's possible that the ACMs kept the performance from degrading (much) over that long flight, whereas Mk23D alone would have. That is to say, at 65 million km, the ACMs alone without the FTL link would only add 42%, but that number grows at longer distances because the baseline you're comparing to was going low. But the text says "terminal performance at extreme ranges" and I read "extreme ranges" as "more than the usual 3-stage range."

The Apollo missiles at Beowulf were operating autonomously, there was no control information transmitted after the initial launch instructions. There was no Ghostrider and no information being fed by Hermes bouys and yet the first flight destroyed over six tenths of the attacking fleet. So how does that contradict that the computers in the command missiles would improve the effectiveness of those missiles?

How can you think that the missiles without the Apollo command units would have done anything close to that result?

We've discussed this before. My objection is that a launch cannot proceed until and unless prior coordinates of the enemy fleet is input into the ACM. And of course, the launch has to be ejected into the general direction of the enemy. Textev says the missiles pass close to the ship after launch to ensure and to re-establish contact with the ship.

Pursuant to our previous discussion of the matter, I can accept that the ACM has some sort of compass / gimball combination that enables it to be self-aware of where it is in space. Even the worst of programmers should have a working knowledge of the basis of programming "direction" into an object. The onboard AI is very smart and it undoubtedly uses a more efficient program than turtle graphics. But the mechanics and limitations would be exactly the same without some sort of inherent ability of the ACM to magically know where it is in space. I argued in the past that an ACM would have to have some sort of galactic kinesthesia. Especially if it has any hopes of autonomy. I yielded to the masses about the possibility of some sort of compass / gimbal combination.

But, prior coordinates of the enemy must be input into the ACM. At what point is this knowledge input. If it is input inside the ship prior to launch, that would throw off the launch by quite a bit since a significant amount of time passes before launch; it is akin to the fact that the slightest jerk of the rifle of a sniper throws off his aim by quite a bit the longer the range. So, the ACM could receive the final launch instructions shortly into the launch X number of kms from the ship or even immediately after it passes close to the ship to re-establish contact. Which would be a window of vulnerability against a stealthy foe who has posted up a surprise near your ship / fleet.

Also, do consider the tactics Honor deployed against Galton. She stooged outside the hyper limit. Loitering isn't advised against a proper MAlign force, especially in a suitable and proper MAlign space like Darius. Loitering should serve to make the ACMs of an Alpha launch more vulnerable, possibly destroying them before the initial instructions are received.

cthia wrote:But, prior coordinates of the enemy must be input into the ACM. At what point is this knowledge input. If it is input inside the ship prior to launch, that would throw off the launch by quite a bit since a significant amount of time passes before launch; it is akin to the fact that the slightest jerk of the rifle of a sniper throws off his aim by quite a bit the longer the range. So, the ACM could receive the final launch instructions shortly into the launch X number of kms from the ship or even immediately after it passes close to the ship to re-establish contact. Which would be a window of vulnerability against a stealthy foe who has posted up a surprise near your ship / fleet.

I see no reason to distinguish between instructions received just before launch to those just after, since I do not believe the time required for the data transmission is significant. In the case of Beowulf, I would expect that it was input while the missiles were in the pods and that caused the pods to rotate to the proper direction (no ships involved).

Obviously with a ship able to fire off-bore (if I remembered that term correctly), it might be better to get the data after exiting the tube, but before the first stage ignites. If an invisible enemy ship is close enough to attack, then will not blow up the ship before launching the missiles?

cthia wrote:We've discussed this before. My objection is that a launch cannot proceed until and unless prior coordinates of the enemy fleet is input into the ACM. And of course, the launch has to be ejected into the general direction of the enemy. Textev says the missiles pass close to the ship after launch to ensure and to re-establish contact with the ship.

Pursuant to our previous discussion of the matter, I can accept that the ACM has some sort of compass / gimball combination that enables it to be self-aware of where it is in space. Even the worst of programmers should have a working knowledge of the basis of programming "direction" into an object. The onboard AI is very smart and it undoubtedly uses a more efficient program than turtle graphics. But the mechanics and limitations would be exactly the same without some sort of inherent ability of the ACM to magically know where it is in space. I argued in the past that an ACM would have to have some sort of galactic kinesthesia. Especially if it has any hopes of autonomy. I yielded to the masses about the possibility of some sort of compass / gimbal combination.

But, prior coordinates of the enemy must be input into the ACM. At what point is this knowledge input. If it is input inside the ship prior to launch, that would throw off the launch by quite a bit since a significant amount of time passes before launch; it is akin to the fact that the slightest jerk of the rifle of a sniper throws off his aim by quite a bit the longer the range. So, the ACM could receive the final launch instructions shortly into the launch X number of kms from the ship or even immediately after it passes close to the ship to re-establish contact. Which would be a window of vulnerability against a stealthy foe who has posted up a surprise near your ship / fleet.

They weren't Apollo -- but as a counter example, we know non-podlayers would tow missile pods outside themselves for long periods before launching them at the enemy. They were never inside to get pre-launch updates. But even from the moment they were placed under tractor it could be a couple hours of closing on an enemy, who maybe altering course in an attempt to control the closure rate or try to work around to a favorable position, between when the fleets start to close and when that pod launched initial salvo goes out.

Those missiles would have to receive their information about where to go, along with the launch order, while outside the ship and under tow. (And then of course they'd be under lightspeed firecontrol link for most of their flight; during which their destination could be updated or changed)

I see absolutely no reason that Apollo pods wouldn't have that same capability. Yeah, if you're going to be launching them right after you roll the pods you can probably update them with flight profiles while still on the pod rails. But there's no reason you can send a totally change to that once they're in tow (or even just free floating) behind you.


Also I'd nitpick that you can launch them at anything -- it doesn't have to be a detected enemy. You can launch them at an any arbitrary point in space. (See Michelle, in simulation, using a small Apollo launch as a high speed recon pass -- she launched at where the enemy might be to see if there was anything there).

Now that doesn't tell us how the missiles figure out how to go from here to there -- but they don't have to be launched at the coordinates "of the enemy fleet". They can be launched at any coordinates you want.

tlb wrote:I see no reason to distinguish between instructions received just before launch to those just after, since I do not believe the time required for the data transmission is significant. In the case of Beowulf, I would expect that it was input while the missiles were in the pods and that caused the pods to rotate to the proper direction (no ships involved).

Obviously with a ship able to fire off-bore (if I remembered that term correctly), it might be better to get the data after exiting the tube, but before the first stage ignites. If an invisible enemy ship is close enough to attack, then will not blow up the ship before launching the missiles?

The distinction I understood from cthia is that the act of launching, especially off-bore, imparts a significant deviation from an ideal course. The ship has sensors that can measure this and can therefore send back a set of corrections before the first stage lights up so they are on the proper base course, so the missiles' own navigation can assume control.

I imagine this has been done for a couple thousand years, so nothing there is new.

What happens for pod launches is similar: once the pod itself blows open, the missiles may tumble a little, so the ships sends corrections.

What happens then for distant, system-defence pods? Since we know those work, then something there is equal to the ship's sensors. That is, something that is there with the missile pods that can take a system navigation and provide the correction to the missiles. It may be the pod itself, because these are system defence ones, so they don't need to be inside a hold or limpeted on the hull, so they may be bigger. More likely, it's whatever gantry system that held those pods together so they wouldn't fly off in all directions due to drift.

And since system-defence pods existed before FTL, it must mean those were either sufficiently independent or sufficiently close. But before FTL, missiles were also single-stage, so limited to a range of less than 9 million km, meaning they couldn't be too far from possible objectives in the first place. I'd put them for example on a ring around my planet some 5 or 6 million km out (up to 20 light-seconds), allowing me to reach that much further from a command fort.

Jonathan_S wrote:

cthia wrote:We've discussed this before. My objection is that a launch cannot proceed until and unless prior coordinates of the enemy fleet is input into the ACM. And of course, the launch has to be ejected into the general direction of the enemy. Textev says the missiles pass close to the ship after launch to ensure and to re-establish contact with the ship.

Pursuant to our previous discussion of the matter, I can accept that the ACM has some sort of compass / gimball combination that enables it to be self-aware of where it is in space. Even the worst of programmers should have a working knowledge of the basis of programming "direction" into an object. The onboard AI is very smart and it undoubtedly uses a more efficient program than turtle graphics. But the mechanics and limitations would be exactly the same without some sort of inherent ability of the ACM to magically know where it is in space. I argued in the past that an ACM would have to have some sort of galactic kinesthesia. Especially if it has any hopes of autonomy. I yielded to the masses about the possibility of some sort of compass / gimbal combination.

But, prior coordinates of the enemy must be input into the ACM. At what point is this knowledge input. If it is input inside the ship prior to launch, that would throw off the launch by quite a bit since a significant amount of time passes before launch; it is akin to the fact that the slightest jerk of the rifle of a sniper throws off his aim by quite a bit the longer the range. So, the ACM could receive the final launch instructions shortly into the launch X number of kms from the ship or even immediately after it passes close to the ship to re-establish contact. Which would be a window of vulnerability against a stealthy foe who has posted up a surprise near your ship / fleet.

They weren't Apollo -- but as a counter example, we know non-podlayers would tow missile pods outside themselves for long periods before launching them at the enemy. They were never inside to get pre-launch updates. But even from the moment they were placed under tractor it could be a couple hours of closing on an enemy, who maybe altering course in an attempt to control the closure rate or try to work around to a favorable position, between when the fleets start to close and when that pod launched initial salvo goes out.

Those missiles would have to receive their information about where to go, along with the launch order, while outside the ship and under tow. (And then of course they'd be under lightspeed firecontrol link for most of their flight; during which their destination could be updated or changed)

I see absolutely no reason that Apollo pods wouldn't have that same capability. Yeah, if you're going to be launching them right after you roll the pods you can probably update them with flight profiles while still on the pod rails. But there's no reason you can send a totally change to that once they're in tow (or even just free floating) behind you.


Also I'd nitpick that you can launch them at anything -- it doesn't have to be a detected enemy. You can launch them at an any arbitrary point in space. (See Michelle, in simulation, using a small Apollo launch as a high speed recon pass -- she launched at where the enemy might be to see if there was anything there).

Now that doesn't tell us how the missiles figure out how to go from here to there -- but they don't have to be launched at the coordinates "of the enemy fleet". They can be launched at any coordinates you want.

About your nitpick. I agree. A launch can be made to go anywhere (reconnaissance) or fired against any object or thing. But my overarching point is that coordinates of the object or reconnaissance parameters must be input first. An ACM is not precognizant. On reconnaissance missions, the parameters are just as important; one wouldn't want to get too close to the enemy. Even the coordinates of an arbitrary point in space must be clearly defined first.

You certainly wouldn't want your very smart ACM to lead its brood right smack dab into your own allies who may be crippled and not broadcasting a friendly beacon. Or incidentally into a sea of escape pods, friend or foe, while on its way to settling down on its proper vector.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:What happens for pod launches is similar: once the pod itself blows open, the missiles may tumble a little, so the ships sends corrections.

What happens then for distant, system-defence pods? Since we know those work, then something there is equal to the ship's sensors. That is, something that is there with the missile pods that can take a system navigation and provide the correction to the missiles. It may be the pod itself, because these are system defence ones, so they don't need to be inside a hold or limpeted on the hull, so they may be bigger. More likely, it's whatever gantry system that held those pods together so they wouldn't fly off in all directions due to drift.

And since system-defence pods existed before FTL, it must mean those were either sufficiently independent or sufficiently close. But before FTL, missiles were also single-stage, so limited to a range of less than 9 million km, meaning they couldn't be too far from possible objectives in the first place. I'd put them for example on a ring around my planet some 5 or 6 million km out (up to 20 light-seconds), allowing me to reach that much further from a command fort.

Some of that must be in all new pods, because I do not believe that those fired during the Solarian attack on Beowulf were system defense pods (I believe that is specifically mentioned in UH); after the production lines were blown up in the Oyster Bay attack, the concentration was on regular Apollo. Perhaps the only modification needed was an attached fuel tank for the pod's nuclear reactor.