Sensors in starship combat

[ochd]

Yes, all sensors have Visual, Thermal, and Radar/Lidar.

Advanced Sensors add Densitometer, Very Advanced Sensors add NAS.

Oddly, though, EM sensors is omitted from that list on page 151. I was thinking that EM sensors are part of Military, Improved or Advanced sensor packages (using the classifications in High Guard page 19). But it's not clear to me.

By the way, paltrysum, another thing you might want to consider is that the Harrier's densitometer and NAS scanners can ruin any surprises you might have waiting; if I understand the function of those sensors correctly, the Travellers can read a ship's internal structure and the location and type of any sentient species on board (assuming they get within range, of course).

Thus far in my Traveller refereeing experience, most of the questions that have arisen for me have been around communication and sensor tech and ability. I could do with a Referee's Briefing just on that subject.

Dan.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Yes, all sensors have Visual, Thermal, and Radar/Lidar.
...

Oddly, though, EM sensors is omitted from that list on page 151. I was thinking that EM sensors are part of Military, Improved or Advanced sensor packages (using the classifications in High Guard page 19). But it's not clear to me.

Visual, Thermal, Radar, and Lidar are all electromagnetic sensors?

 

[ochd]

The way I read the two tables at the bottom of page 150, EM is a different category to Visual, Thermal and Radar/Lidar.

 

[arcador]

It seems we suck at physics

I, at least, got confused since on the details table the EM has a separate column.

But after some reading, I see what "EM" is and how it works.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The way I read the two tables at the bottom of page 150, EM is a different category to Visual, Thermal and Radar/Lidar.

I forgot about that...

The way I read the Sensor Detail table is that EM detects EM emissions from e.g. Radars and Lidars. We already have sensors that basically do that and that is the passive part of Radar and Lidar. So I would argue that EM is just a way of using the existing sensors in a different way. EM is a way of using Visual, Thermal, Radar, and Lidar, so can be used with any sensor.

 

[Sigtrygg]

EM spectrum:

gamma...x-ray...UV...visible...IR...microwave...radiowave

Here in the UK that is key stage 3 physics.

 

[baithammer]

EM in this case refers to detection of powered systems outside of the thermal activity.

 

[Condottiere]

We're not Drow, whose visual range is greater than human default.

It's mostly what sensors detect and the computers interpret to the crew, unless for dramatic effect a sensor technician looks at the raw data.

 

[ochd]

Here in the UK that is key stage 3 physics.

Had I played more Traveller as a kid, I probably would've done better in the sciences at school.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

The way I read the two tables at the bottom of page 150, EM is a different category to Visual, Thermal and Radar/Lidar.

I forgot about that...

The way I read the Sensor Detail table is that EM detects EM emissions from e.g. Radars and Lidars. We already have sensors that basically do that and that is the passive part of Radar and Lidar. So I would argue that EM is just a way of using the existing sensors in a different way. EM is a way of using Visual, Thermal, Radar, and Lidar, so can be used with any sensor.

That’s more or less how I’ve understood it. Minimal EM translates to “is the power even on in the target?” While limited detail can see power plant, active sensors and weapons (perhaps not able to tell what they are, just that something is active) while full detail can almost provide a map of the target, based on lights, active systems and chicken soup dispensers being used at the time of scanning.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

I do have a question while on the subject of sensors: what good is active radar? Going strictly by the table on p.150 of the rulebook, it gives the same info as visual sensors, plus it makes you more visible, which can be a good thing for traffic safety, but bad if you’re a pirate...

Perhaps radar is better to actually find stuff, since it sends waves that propagate in every direction, while a telescope has a more limited view, kinda like how it’s easier for a human to hear that another person is nearby (assuming they make noise) than to spot them by vision alone (you’d need to look in the right direction)

I have three ideas I’d like opinions on:

1) active sensors are (more or less need) necessary in order to provide info such as size, distance, speed and heading of a target.

2) acquiring a target lock requires active sensors.

3) using active sensors gives a boon to sensor checks.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Active sensors are useless as written.

Active sensors should provide more information and better false echo rejection:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar


Note that the power requirement for very long range radars are prohibitive since iirc power requirement goes up by Range⁴.

 

[Condottiere]

Presumably, sensor efficiency increases as you go up the tech tree.

Aramis disagreed that it would work, but I would sweep an area with a beam laser, a slightly more robust version of lidar.