Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (25 Jun 2015 02:14 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (25 Jun 2015 05:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Joseph Paul (25 Jun 2015 14:35 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (26 Jun 2015 04:42 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (26 Jun 2015 07:20 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Nokes (26 Jun 2015 18:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (26 Jun 2015 21:01 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Joseph Paul (26 Jun 2015 05:57 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Andrew Long (26 Jun 2015 15:38 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (26 Jun 2015 20:50 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability shadow@xxxxxx (26 Jun 2015 16:11 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (26 Jun 2015 20:17 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Ethan McKinney (26 Jun 2015 20:03 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (26 Jun 2015 09:08 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Joseph Paul (29 Jun 2015 03:50 UTC)
USSR is gone but has doctrine changed wrt their successor/s? Phil Pugliese (29 Jun 2015 14:39 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Greg Chalik (01 Jul 2015 04:43 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability shadow@xxxxxx (29 Jun 2015 10:52 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Joseph Paul (30 Jun 2015 05:23 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability shadow@xxxxxx (30 Jun 2015 22:51 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Joseph Paul (01 Jul 2015 02:35 UTC)
Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability Kurt Feltenberger (01 Jul 2015 02:38 UTC)

Re: [TML] sensors and ops (was berthing) affordability shadow@xxxxxx 26 Jun 2015 16:11 UTC

On 26 Jun 2015 at 11:15, Knapp wrote:

> I would think predicted position would be a cone for a ship with a
> fast vector and a sphere for one sitting, "still". The cone might
> bend or even split (more like a hole in the cone), if it is
> interacting with a gravity well.

If it's not being affected by a gravity well, future posituion f it
*doesn't* accelerate is a straight line. But due to relativity (the
non-near-c version) you can treat the "not accelerating" path as a
*fixed* point.

It's just fixed in a reference frame that's moving at X km/sec onlong
vector Y. :-)

Once you realize *that* then the future position *in that frame* is a
sphere whose diameter is set by the max accel of the ship, and the
time in the future you are predicting for.

Limitations on how fast the ship can change "facing" (ie the
direction it is *pointing*, as opposed to the direction it is
*moving*) will distort the sphere. (the longer it takes to rotate to
a given facing, the smaller the radius of the "sphere" in that
direction).

--
Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
shadow at shadowgard dot com