unanswered questions

[deowll]

One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had stores of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.

What this means is that somewhere in the SK there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

Sidimore and other locations should have the resources to make missiles.
Erowhon does and is making two stage, I think, missiles to sell to Maya. I
think it is known to the good guys that Mesa has, at the least, two stage
missiles. While nothing has been said about it the Republic should have
been supplying at least that level of tech to any friendly star nations and
there should have been at least a few somewhere at some point.

The Talbot _system_ should be able to make at least two stage missiles
because at one time it was a major ship yard.

That means two stage missiles aren't that much of a secret even if the SLN
doesn't seem to be making them yet. That being the case the normal reaction
to having _all_ missile production knocked out would have been to give
those systems with manufacturing facilities the go ahead to make two stage
or better system defense missiles using the locals and some help not because
anyone thinks this is what they want to use but because this beats no
missiles so you do it _just in case_. Based on every thing I've ever read in
a history book any other course of action is _extremely_ abnormal. The fear
of imminate death is a great motivator. It has a fantastic ability to clear
the head and focus ones thoughts on doing what ever you can do that might
allow you and yours to see tomorrow.


However as a navel base of long standing Sidimore may also be one of those
locations with an ungodly amount of previous generation missiles stashed.
The missiles would have been shipped in when they were current manufacturing
or slightly obsolete to support SK forces in Salisia and what ever hasn't
been used is most likely still there drifting in the void in a hulk. They
could certainly be used to make system defense pods and many/most of them
may already be in pods.

After the Republic and the SKM become friends I suppose that it should be
possible to purchase in some manner including tech trade about all the older
system defense pods one could wish from the Republic which does limit the
need to make the things yourself. Sure you might need to stick a translation
box in between the SKM tech and the Republican tech but that shouldn't be a
big deal. The foundations of both techs were the same just a few generations
back and nothing DW has said suggests they are radically differnt.

==================================================================================================================

By the way while I was able to buy the idea that preventing much trade by
the SLN with the Republic by Manticore by blocking worm hole traffic when
the Republic was a year or so travel time from the SLN seems reasonible
enough, the idea that Manticore, or anyone else, could have actually kept
agents from the Republic from purchasing science knowledge and better
hardware when there was absolutely nothing even remotely resembling a border
is ludicruse. We have American Companies still dealing with Iran. All the
Republic would have needed to do is hire a third party to buy scraped out
second tier tech/collect scientific publications and ship it to some verge
world to be reloaded and shipped elsewhere even deeper into the verge before
taking delivery.

The only people with an interest in preventing this sort of thing would have
been the SKM and the odds that they would have been able to stop this sort
of one of a kind deals or people buying _text book/sceince publications/tech
manuals_ approximates 0.

The Peeps should have even been able to purchase advanced computer systems
plus spare parts doing this and sent those to their research centers. Think
of what a really sharp ultra gifted science wiz who was used to an Apple II
could have done with a blade server loaded down with six core processers,
loads of ram and huge hard drives. Sure they might need to write their own
software or do a little rewiring but smart people can do stuff like that.
That which would have once seemed not worth even trying to do could now be
done in an hour once you got the software done and redone as often as
needed.

Some of the best small university owned super computers now being built run
linux on chips from video cards or did the last time I checked.

You most likely could have gotten engineering/draftsman software for the
factory built hardware.

Local implementation of the better designs on the other hand would
have/could have still been a bleep.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by deowll
One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had stores of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.
What this means is that somewhere in the SK  there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

The problem with stored missiles is that, unlike 100+ year-old black
powder rifles, they need frequent maintenance. Maintenance costs
money and money spent maintaining stockpiles of obsolescent weapons is
not spent maintaining in-service weapons. Making things worse, once
the production lines for a particular missile shut down, all of the
suppliers retool and no new parts are available.

Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

Complicating things for obsolete systems is that the shelf life of the
spare parts is no longer than the shelf life of the equipment, unless
they are stored under friendlier conditions (as most US military
systems are not deployed in space, they are already suffering from
this as stored replacement parts are no likelier to function than
stored systems [why there was a push for a new generation of nuclear
deterrence systems]).

Given these difficult and expensive problems, it is conceivable that
there is no store of obsolete missiles. Missiles returning from a
deployment are dissassembled and any serviceable components are are
streamed to the manufacture of new missiles, and all permanent naval
bases have the facilities to manufacture missiles. The tricky
business with that scheme is arranging the necessary surge capacity to
handle returning ships with empty magazines. The circumstantial
evidence supporting my hypothesis is the fact that I cannot recall any
missile failures, yet duds should be rather endemic.

[Don Sample]

In article

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by deowll
One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had stores of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.
What this means is that somewhere in the SK  there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

The problem with stored missiles is that, unlike 100+ year-old black
powder rifles, they need frequent maintenance. Maintenance costs
money and money spent maintaining stockpiles of obsolescent weapons is
not spent maintaining in-service weapons. Making things worse, once
the production lines for a particular missile shut down, all of the
suppliers retool and no new parts are available.

Before the war with Haven forced them to start building new missiles,
with new capabilities, centuries had gone by without anyone doing much
to update missile capabilities.

The Mantie war planners have seen the conflict with Haven coming for a
century or more; which means that they've had to be stockpiling more
weapons than they needed for live fire exercises, or killing pirates in
Silesia; which means that the missiles they have been building have a
shelf life measured in decades, without any sort of maintenance.

Post by r***@gmail.com
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

I expect that the cosmic ray problem was solved round about year 0 PD.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by r***@gmail.com
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high.  Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage.  The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

I expect that the cosmic ray problem was solved round about year 0 PD.

Given that even photons at the relatively low levels (to cosmic rays)
of a few hundred thousand electron volts can blow through a
superdreadnaut's sidewalls as if they aren't there, we can be fairly
certain that cosmic ray problem is an ongoing issue.

[deowll]

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by r***@gmail.com
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

I expect that the cosmic ray problem was solved round about year 0 PD.

Given that even photons at the relatively low levels (to cosmic rays)
of a few hundred thousand electron volts can blow through a
superdreadnaut's sidewalls as if they aren't there, we can be fairly
certain that cosmic ray problem is an ongoing issue.

A heavy grazer can blow through those side walls. A stray cosmic ray has
about the chance of mouse attacking ten feet of battle steel.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by r***@gmail.com
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

I expect that the cosmic ray problem was solved round about year 0 PD.

Given that even photons at the relatively low levels (to cosmic rays)
of a few hundred thousand electron volts can blow through a
superdreadnaut's sidewalls as if they aren't there, we can be fairly
certain that cosmic ray problem is an ongoing issue.
A heavy grazer can blow through those side walls. A stray cosmic ray has
about the chance of  mouse attacking ten feet of battle steel.

If a grazer is like the concentrated fire of several thousand M61
Vulcans, then the cosmic ray is a single 120mm long rod penetrator.

While heavy grazers do fire off huge amounts of energetic photons,
each photon has the relatively low energy, compared to cosmic rays, of
several hundred thousand electron volts (assuming they are low gamma
ray lasers). Cosmic rays have energies of several billion electron
volts. The only reason cosmic rays do not totally prevent manned
space flight is that they are quite rare; although still common enough
that one of the Apollo astronauts could close his eyes and use his
vitreous humor as a cloud chamber to observe them. For relatively
radiation hardened things like people, this is not a problem, as they
are self repairing. For molecular scale microcircuitry, catching a
cosmic ray is death. That is why space based hardware uses less
miniaturization than ground based stuff, larger sized features can
handle the major dislocations caused by catching a cosmic ray.

[Don Sample]

In article
<5d72486b-75d5-4813-b982-***@t17g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

That is why space based hardware uses less

Post by r***@gmail.com
miniaturization than ground based stuff, larger sized features can
handle the major dislocations caused by catching a cosmic ray.

So maybe their molecular microcircuitry has lots of built in redundancy,
and is self repairing.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Don Sample
In article
That is why space based hardware uses less

Post by r***@gmail.com
miniaturization than ground based stuff, larger sized features can
handle the major dislocations caused by catching a cosmic ray.

So maybe their molecular microcircuitry has lots of built in redundancy,
and is self repairing.

Redundancy is a definite. Self-repairing is an absolute non-starter.
Whatever does the repair has to have its entire codebase reside in the
subset of all possible programs for which the halting problem is
solvable. Otherwise, there is no way to guess how many bugs there are
in the code, let alone fix them. To understand the scope of the
problem, a text editor that can create and edit files of sizes not
fixed at compile time is already too complicated to prove that it is
bug free (it might not have any bugs, but you cannot prove it).

[Don Sample]

In article

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Don Sample
In article
That is why space based hardware uses less

Post by r***@gmail.com
miniaturization than ground based stuff, larger sized features can
handle the major dislocations caused by catching a cosmic ray.

So maybe their molecular microcircuitry has lots of built in redundancy,
and is self repairing.

Redundancy is a definite. Self-repairing is an absolute non-starter.
Whatever does the repair has to have its entire codebase reside in the
subset of all possible programs for which the halting problem is
solvable. Otherwise, there is no way to guess how many bugs there are
in the code, let alone fix them. To understand the scope of the
problem, a text editor that can create and edit files of sizes not
fixed at compile time is already too complicated to prove that it is
bug free (it might not have any bugs, but you cannot prove it).

It doesn't have to be bug free. It just needs to be good enough to get
the job done. The human body is self repairing, for the minor stuff,
and its system works pretty well.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by Don Sample
In article
That is why space based hardware uses less

Post by r***@gmail.com
miniaturization than ground based stuff, larger sized features can
handle the major dislocations caused by catching a cosmic ray.

So maybe their molecular microcircuitry has lots of built in redundancy,
and is self repairing.

Redundancy is a definite.  Self-repairing is an absolute non-starter.
Whatever does the repair has to have its entire codebase reside in the
subset of all possible programs for which the halting problem is
solvable.  Otherwise, there is no way to guess how many bugs there are
in the code, let alone fix them.  To understand the scope of the
problem, a text editor that can create and edit files of sizes not
fixed at compile time is already too complicated to prove that it is
bug free (it might not have any bugs, but you cannot prove it).

It doesn't have to be bug free.  It just needs to be good enough to get
the job done.  The human body is self repairing, for the minor stuff,
and its system works pretty well.

Tell that to the crews of vessels lost to molycirc cancers. The self
repairing ability of humans is not yet a good example. Not just
because it is buggy, but also because it still defeats our attempts to
reverse engineer it, or even fully describe it.

A computer subsystem that is capable of turning the shipnet to gray
goo, but cannot be proven that it won't do it, nor can it be predicted
when it might do it, is precisely the sort of computer subsystem that
is dropped at the proposal stage.

[Loren Pechtel]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Don Sample
In article
That is why space based hardware uses less

Post by r***@gmail.com
miniaturization than ground based stuff, larger sized features can
handle the major dislocations caused by catching a cosmic ray.

So maybe their molecular microcircuitry has lots of built in redundancy,
and is self repairing.

Redundancy is a definite. Self-repairing is an absolute non-starter.
Whatever does the repair has to have its entire codebase reside in the
subset of all possible programs for which the halting problem is
solvable. Otherwise, there is no way to guess how many bugs there are
in the code, let alone fix them. To understand the scope of the
problem, a text editor that can create and edit files of sizes not
fixed at compile time is already too complicated to prove that it is
bug free (it might not have any bugs, but you cannot prove it).

If the self-repair goes astray it just doesn't repair.

[deowll]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by r***@gmail.com
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

I expect that the cosmic ray problem was solved round about year 0 PD.

Given that even photons at the relatively low levels (to cosmic rays)
of a few hundred thousand electron volts can blow through a
superdreadnaut's sidewalls as if they aren't there, we can be fairly
certain that cosmic ray problem is an ongoing issue.
A heavy grazer can blow through those side walls. A stray cosmic ray has
about the chance of mouse attacking ten feet of battle steel.

If a grazer is like the concentrated fire of several thousand M61
Vulcans, then the cosmic ray is a single 120mm long rod penetrator.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seriously if the particle shield which is vastly weaker than a side wall
didn't work these people could not travel at high speeds. The particle
shielding is much weaker than sidewalls. Sidewalls can stop a grazer unless
it is truly robust.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
While heavy grazers do fire off huge amounts of energetic photons,
each photon has the relatively low energy, compared to cosmic rays, of
several hundred thousand electron volts (assuming they are low gamma
ray lasers). Cosmic rays have energies of several billion electron
volts. The only reason cosmic rays do not totally prevent manned
space flight is that they are quite rare; although still common enough
that one of the Apollo astronauts could close his eyes and use his
vitreous humor as a cloud chamber to observe them. For relatively
radiation hardened things like people, this is not a problem, as they
are self repairing. For molecular scale microcircuitry, catching a
cosmic ray is death. That is why space based hardware uses less
miniaturization than ground based stuff, larger sized features can
handle the major dislocations caused by catching a cosmic ray.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
I know that. DW doesn't so don't confuse him.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by r***@gmail.com
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

I expect that the cosmic ray problem was solved round about year 0 PD.

Given that even photons at the relatively low levels (to cosmic rays)
of a few hundred thousand electron volts can blow through a
superdreadnaut's sidewalls as if they aren't there, we can be fairly
certain that cosmic ray problem is an ongoing issue.
A heavy grazer can blow through those side walls. A stray cosmic ray has
about the chance of mouse attacking ten feet of battle steel.

If a grazer is like the concentrated fire of several thousand M61
Vulcans, then the cosmic ray is a single 120mm long rod penetrator.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seriously if the particle shield which is vastly weaker than a side wall
didn't work these people could not travel at high speeds. The particle
shielding is much weaker than sidewalls. Sidewalls can stop a grazer unless
it is truly robust.

The particle shields are a different beast entirely. Cosmic rays do
not care how fast a ship is travelling, they are high energy photons.
The only time the vessel's velocity matters is when it severely red-
or blue shifts incoming photons, but cosmic rays are still as
penetrating as a grazer when they come up the kilt of a vessel fleeing
away from them at 0.999c. Like I said, while common enough to be a
problem for microelectronics, they are rare enough for people to
ignore. The particle shields stop **DUST** particles, which are many
things, but not high energy photons. Given the lack of specifics,
save a special mention that they were definitely not sidewalls, I
would have assumed that were some variation of Whipple shield (a multi-
layered physical barrier), except that they are very low tech and make
mounting chase armament problematic.

Particle shields are basically a kludge to enable warships to emulate
the bow and stern rakes of the age of sail, without forcing dust
collisions to destroy a vessel. The bow and stern walls reflect a
change in the naval architecture of wooden sailing vessels that made
bow and stern as stout as the rest of the hull. The particle shield
damages the apparent realism of the novels by not being explainable
within the novels in an internally consisten fashion.

[deowll]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by r***@gmail.com
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is
accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

I expect that the cosmic ray problem was solved round about year 0 PD.

Given that even photons at the relatively low levels (to cosmic rays)
of a few hundred thousand electron volts can blow through a
superdreadnaut's sidewalls as if they aren't there, we can be fairly
certain that cosmic ray problem is an ongoing issue.
A heavy grazer can blow through those side walls. A stray cosmic ray has
about the chance of mouse attacking ten feet of battle steel.

If a grazer is like the concentrated fire of several thousand M61
Vulcans, then the cosmic ray is a single 120mm long rod penetrator.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Seriously if the particle shield which is vastly weaker than a side wall
didn't work these people could not travel at high speeds. The particle
shielding is much weaker than sidewalls. Sidewalls can stop a grazer unless
it is truly robust.

The particle shields are a different beast entirely. Cosmic rays do
not care how fast a ship is travelling, they are high energy photons.
The only time the vessel's velocity matters is when it severely red-
or blue shifts incoming photons, but cosmic rays are still as
penetrating as a grazer when they come up the kilt of a vessel fleeing
away from them at 0.999c. Like I said, while common enough to be a
problem for microelectronics, they are rare enough for people to
ignore. The particle shields stop **DUST** particles, which are many
things, but not high energy photons. Given the lack of specifics,
save a special mention that they were definitely not sidewalls, I
would have assumed that were some variation of Whipple shield (a multi-
layered physical barrier), except that they are very low tech and make
mounting chase armament problematic.

Particle shields are basically a kludge to enable warships to emulate
the bow and stern rakes of the age of sail, without forcing dust
collisions to destroy a vessel. The bow and stern walls reflect a
change in the naval architecture of wooden sailing vessels that made
bow and stern as stout as the rest of the hull. The particle shield
damages the apparent realism of the novels by not being explainable
within the novels in an internally consisten fashion.

You think humans can take long term exposure to cosmic rays better than
computers? No.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by deowll
You think humans can take long term exposure to cosmic rays better than
computers? No.

It really depends on the computer. The amount of damage a computer
takes from a single ionizing event varies inversely with feature
size. The smaller the feature the more damage dislocating several
hundred atoms causes. Molecular circuitry takes the feature size down
to the extreme, where dislocating several hundred atoms goes from
possibly destroying a single transistor on the chip to wrecking whole
gate arrays.

Humans are complex, with some features the size of molecules, and most
being the size of cells. While a single ionizing event could
theoretically trigger a cancer, it is not immediately fatal to the
body as a whole, and the usual result of genetic damage is a cell that
dies for lack of the protein made by the damaged gene.

There is mounting evidence that the linear-no-threshold model for
radiation effects fails at really low levels and that really low
levels of radiation cause death of only defective cells. If radiation
hormesis is proven, there are levels of ionizing radiation that slowly
destroy molycircs, while improving the general health of the humans
aboard the same ship.

Molycircs are damaged by each and every ionizing interaction that
happens to them. Humans can live for decades at exposure levels
equivalent to catching a cosmic ray with the energy of a billion
electron volts each second, per kilogram of body mass (two rems per
year).

Humans fare much better in the presence of longterm, ionising
radiation, than molycircs.

[deowll]

Post by deowll
You think humans can take long term exposure to cosmic rays better than
computers? No.

It really depends on the computer. The amount of damage a computer
takes from a single ionizing event varies inversely with feature
size. The smaller the feature the more damage dislocating several
hundred atoms causes. Molecular circuitry takes the feature size down
to the extreme, where dislocating several hundred atoms goes from
possibly destroying a single transistor on the chip to wrecking whole
gate arrays.

Humans are complex, with some features the size of molecules, and most
being the size of cells. While a single ionizing event could
theoretically trigger a cancer, it is not immediately fatal to the
body as a whole, and the usual result of genetic damage is a cell that
dies for lack of the protein made by the damaged gene.

There is mounting evidence that the linear-no-threshold model for
radiation effects fails at really low levels and that really low
levels of radiation cause death of only defective cells. If radiation
hormesis is proven, there are levels of ionizing radiation that slowly
destroy molycircs, while improving the general health of the humans
aboard the same ship.

Molycircs are damaged by each and every ionizing interaction that
happens to them. Humans can live for decades at exposure levels
equivalent to catching a cosmic ray with the energy of a billion
electron volts each second, per kilogram of body mass (two rems per
year).

Humans fare much better in the presence of longterm, ionising
radiation, than molycircs.

==================================================

Considering some of the limits of DWs molycircs when applied to his missiles
he might as well use the same chips once used in an Apple II in his
missiles. Those should be highly resistant to cosmic rays. ?8^)

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that "deowll" <***@gmail.com> on or about Fri,
26 Mar 2010 22:44:11 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll
Considering some of the limits of DWs molycircs when applied to his missiles
he might as well use the same chips once used in an Apple II in his
missiles. Those should be highly resistant to cosmic rays. ?8^)

That explains the massive power requirements - they use Vacuum
Tubes! They're Robust - well, electronically anyway ...
--
pyotr filipivich
Rock is Dead! --- Long live Paper & Scissors!

[deowll]

Post by pyotr filipivich
26 Mar 2010 22:44:11 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll
Considering some of the limits of DWs molycircs when applied to his missiles
he might as well use the same chips once used in an Apple II in his
missiles. Those should be highly resistant to cosmic rays. ?8^)

That explains the massive power requirements - they use Vacuum
Tubes! They're Robust - well, electronically anyway ...

I was actually wondering about that just a few minutes ago. Maybe you've
found the answer to a mystery that has puzzled many. DW uses litttle vacuum
tubes!

Post by pyotr filipivich
--
pyotr filipivich
Rock is Dead! --- Long live Paper & Scissors!

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that "deowll" <***@gmail.com> on or about Sat,
27 Mar 2010 16:39:46 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll

Post by pyotr filipivich
26 Mar 2010 22:44:11 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll
Considering some of the limits of DWs molycircs when applied to his missiles
he might as well use the same chips once used in an Apple II in his
missiles. Those should be highly resistant to cosmic rays. ?8^)

That explains the massive power requirements - they use Vacuum
Tubes! They're Robust - well, electronically anyway ...

I was actually wondering about that just a few minutes ago. Maybe you've
found the answer to a mystery that has puzzled many. DW uses litttle vacuum
tubes!

OMG - The Honorverse is really Steampunk! Steam powered Sailing
Ships in Space! Gaslights! (Illumination and Warmth) And now we
know what really causes the ships to explode - the boilers blow up!

Just thick about it: the SKM is obviously a pre/early Queen
Victoria era Great Britain, just on the brink of expansion into a
second Imperial phase. Aristocrats, bleeding edge technology, ships
of the line ... of course! Pinky!, are you pondering what I'm
pondering?

(I think so, Admiral Hemphill, but where are we going to find a
suit of armor and fifty pounds of limburger cheese?)


tschus
pyotr



--
pyotr filipivich
Rock is Dead! --- Long live Paper & Scissors!

[deowll]

Post by pyotr filipivich
27 Mar 2010 16:39:46 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll

Post by pyotr filipivich
26 Mar 2010 22:44:11 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll
Considering some of the limits of DWs molycircs when applied to his missiles
he might as well use the same chips once used in an Apple II in his
missiles. Those should be highly resistant to cosmic rays. ?8^)

That explains the massive power requirements - they use Vacuum
Tubes! They're Robust - well, electronically anyway ...

I was actually wondering about that just a few minutes ago. Maybe you've
found the answer to a mystery that has puzzled many. DW uses litttle vacuum
tubes!

OMG - The Honorverse is really Steampunk! Steam powered Sailing
Ships in Space! Gaslights! (Illumination and Warmth) And now we
know what really causes the ships to explode - the boilers blow up!
Just thick about it: the SKM is obviously a pre/early Queen
Victoria era Great Britain, just on the brink of expansion into a
second Imperial phase. Aristocrats, bleeding edge technology, ships
of the line ... of course! Pinky!, are you pondering what I'm
pondering?
(I think so, Admiral Hemphill, but where are we going to find a
suit of armor and fifty pounds of limburger cheese?)

Which pretty much exactly describes what DW sat out to produce for Baen
books all those years ago at the publishers request!

Post by pyotr filipivich
tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr filipivich
Rock is Dead! --- Long live Paper & Scissors!

[Don Sample]

In article

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by deowll
You think humans can take long term exposure to cosmic rays better than
computers? No.

It really depends on the computer. The amount of damage a computer
takes from a single ionizing event varies inversely with feature
size. The smaller the feature the more damage dislocating several
hundred atoms causes. Molecular circuitry takes the feature size down
to the extreme, where dislocating several hundred atoms goes from
possibly destroying a single transistor on the chip to wrecking whole
gate arrays.
Humans are complex, with some features the size of molecules, and most
being the size of cells. While a single ionizing event could
theoretically trigger a cancer, it is not immediately fatal to the
body as a whole, and the usual result of genetic damage is a cell that
dies for lack of the protein made by the damaged gene.
There is mounting evidence that the linear-no-threshold model for
radiation effects fails at really low levels and that really low
levels of radiation cause death of only defective cells. If radiation
hormesis is proven, there are levels of ionizing radiation that slowly
destroy molycircs, while improving the general health of the humans
aboard the same ship.
Molycircs are damaged by each and every ionizing interaction that
happens to them. Humans can live for decades at exposure levels
equivalent to catching a cosmic ray with the energy of a billion
electron volts each second, per kilogram of body mass (two rems per
year).
Humans fare much better in the presence of longterm, ionising
radiation, than molycircs.

You can't really say that, since you have no idea how molycircs work, or
how they're made. You seem to be assuming that they are just smaller
versions of modern integrated circuits, but we don't know that. They
may follow more of a "cellular" model, with lots of tiny CPUs working in
parallel, and talking with all of their neighbours. Any damage to one
CPU will have little to no effect on the general operation of the whole
system, just as killing one brain cell doesn't really affect how well
you can think.

[deowll]

Post by Don Sample
In article

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by deowll
You think humans can take long term exposure to cosmic rays better than
computers? No.

It really depends on the computer. The amount of damage a computer
takes from a single ionizing event varies inversely with feature
size. The smaller the feature the more damage dislocating several
hundred atoms causes. Molecular circuitry takes the feature size down
to the extreme, where dislocating several hundred atoms goes from
possibly destroying a single transistor on the chip to wrecking whole
gate arrays.
Humans are complex, with some features the size of molecules, and most
being the size of cells. While a single ionizing event could
theoretically trigger a cancer, it is not immediately fatal to the
body as a whole, and the usual result of genetic damage is a cell that
dies for lack of the protein made by the damaged gene.
There is mounting evidence that the linear-no-threshold model for
radiation effects fails at really low levels and that really low
levels of radiation cause death of only defective cells. If radiation
hormesis is proven, there are levels of ionizing radiation that slowly
destroy molycircs, while improving the general health of the humans
aboard the same ship.
Molycircs are damaged by each and every ionizing interaction that
happens to them. Humans can live for decades at exposure levels
equivalent to catching a cosmic ray with the energy of a billion
electron volts each second, per kilogram of body mass (two rems per
year).
Humans fare much better in the presence of longterm, ionising
radiation, than molycircs.

You can't really say that, since you have no idea how molycircs work, or
how they're made. You seem to be assuming that they are just smaller
versions of modern integrated circuits, but we don't know that. They
may follow more of a "cellular" model, with lots of tiny CPUs working in
parallel, and talking with all of their neighbours. Any damage to one
CPU will have little to no effect on the general operation of the whole
system, just as killing one brain cell doesn't really affect how well
you can think.

There is a serious kicker in here. A physical circuit can't be smaller than
one atom wide and we could easily be as small as you can get by the end of
this century. At that point you have to protect them or have redundant
circuits. Of course if you start playing quantum games...

My vote is they are robust enough to work after moderate exposure and they
are routinely protected just like the humans by the use of at the very least
some sort of particle shielding otherwise you will have issues with the
humans.

It is highly likely that all missiles are made in space and and stored
there. Further be it noted since missiles haven't changed much for centuries
in most of the League/human space they pretty much have to be
impervious/protected. Governments are not into spending billions to replace
parts unless they need to replace parts and this is a problem with a simple
solution: shielding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_threat_from_cosmic_rays


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_cosmic_ray

Post by Don Sample
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that "deowll" <***@gmail.com> on or about Sat,
27 Mar 2010 16:37:27 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll

Post by Don Sample
You can't really say that, since you have no idea how molycircs work, or
how they're made. You seem to be assuming that they are just smaller
versions of modern integrated circuits, but we don't know that. They
may follow more of a "cellular" model, with lots of tiny CPUs working in
parallel, and talking with all of their neighbours. Any damage to one
CPU will have little to no effect on the general operation of the whole
system, just as killing one brain cell doesn't really affect how well
you can think.

There is a serious kicker in here. A physical circuit can't be smaller than
one atom wide and we could easily be as small as you can get by the end of
this century.

My understanding of the technobable is that "moly circs" are
molecular circuits. I keep thinking in terms of a room temperature
superconductor in/on a polymer based substrate. There is a physical
limit to how small you can make them (the one atom thick thing) but
there is also the maintenance issue. How small can something be and
still be "usable" by humans? Compare to cell phones - back when they
were tube powered, they were big. As transistors took over they got
smaller, and smaller - but there comes a point where the case for the
electronics would be smaller, but the keypad has to be large enough to
be used by Finger, Human, one Each. So, while I might be able to make
a molycircuit one atom wide - I have to put it somewhere - or lose it.
So, it gets encased in a "carrier" - which is a real fine thread of
Artificial Spyder Sylk that can carry the mechanical stresses and
maintain circuit integrity.

Post by deowll
At that point you have to protect them or have redundant
circuits. Of course if you start playing quantum games...
My vote is they are robust enough to work after moderate exposure and they
are routinely protected just like the humans by the use of at the very least
some sort of particle shielding otherwise you will have issues with the
humans.
It is highly likely that all missiles are made in space and and stored
there. Further be it noted since missiles haven't changed much for centuries
in most of the League/human space they pretty much have to be
impervious/protected. Governments are not into spending billions to replace
parts unless they need to replace parts and this is a problem with a simple
solution: shielding.

Tubes, B-) But shielding is a first, and replacement parts are
also important. Justifies all sorts of expenditures. Downside,
createx a large installed inventory, which will further drag on any
efforts to upgrade.equipment. The story is that in the late 1920s
early 1930s, the US Army Ordnance Corp came up with a Better Rifle,
firing a .270 round. Only one, problem - the US Army had 'tons' of
30-06 ammo left over from The Great War. Congress was not going to
buy a new rifle (and ammo) when it had all these perfectly good rifles
in storage.
Of course, I also heard of the administrator who held off
purchasing the second network card, until after they saw how well the
first one did.
--
pyotr filipivich
Rock is Dead! --- Long live Paper & Scissors!

[deowll]

Post by pyotr filipivich
27 Mar 2010 16:37:27 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll

Post by Don Sample
You can't really say that, since you have no idea how molycircs work, or
how they're made. You seem to be assuming that they are just smaller
versions of modern integrated circuits, but we don't know that. They
may follow more of a "cellular" model, with lots of tiny CPUs working in
parallel, and talking with all of their neighbours. Any damage to one
CPU will have little to no effect on the general operation of the whole
system, just as killing one brain cell doesn't really affect how well
you can think.

There is a serious kicker in here. A physical circuit can't be smaller than
one atom wide and we could easily be as small as you can get by the end of
this century.

My understanding of the technobable is that "moly circs" are
molecular circuits. I keep thinking in terms of a room temperature
superconductor in/on a polymer based substrate. There is a physical
limit to how small you can make them (the one atom thick thing) but
there is also the maintenance issue. How small can something be and
still be "usable" by humans? Compare to cell phones - back when they
were tube powered, they were big. As transistors took over they got
smaller, and smaller - but there comes a point where the case for the
electronics would be smaller, but the keypad has to be large enough to
be used by Finger, Human, one Each. So, while I might be able to make
a molycircuit one atom wide - I have to put it somewhere - or lose it.
So, it gets encased in a "carrier" - which is a real fine thread of
Artificial Spyder Sylk that can carry the mechanical stresses and
maintain circuit integrity.

Post by deowll
At that point you have to protect them or have redundant
circuits. Of course if you start playing quantum games...
My vote is they are robust enough to work after moderate exposure and they
are routinely protected just like the humans by the use of at the very least
some sort of particle shielding otherwise you will have issues with the
humans.
It is highly likely that all missiles are made in space and and stored
there. Further be it noted since missiles haven't changed much for centuries
in most of the League/human space they pretty much have to be
impervious/protected. Governments are not into spending billions to replace
parts unless they need to replace parts and this is a problem with a simple
solution: shielding.

Tubes, B-) But shielding is a first, and replacement parts are
also important. Justifies all sorts of expenditures. Downside,
createx a large installed inventory, which will further drag on any
efforts to upgrade.equipment. The story is that in the late 1920s
early 1930s, the US Army Ordnance Corp came up with a Better Rifle,
firing a .270 round. Only one, problem - the US Army had 'tons' of
30-06 ammo left over from The Great War. Congress was not going to
buy a new rifle (and ammo) when it had all these perfectly good rifles
in storage.
Of course, I also heard of the administrator who held off
purchasing the second network card, until after they saw how well the
first one did.
--
pyotr filipivich
Rock is Dead! --- Long live Paper & Scissors!

Basically you have described the SLN. With huge inventories of old hardware
the last thing they wanted was for something new to come along and cause
them to need to replace it so no research budget. Then somebody else,
Manticore/Haven, came along with a big need and they did the research and
now the SLN finds out it has full inventories of equipment that is just
about good enough to justify killing them but not good enough to prevent
someone from killing them.

What I'm seeing show up so far outside Manticore/Haven and their allies
present and past is longer range system defense missiles in the League by
Technodyne and two stage missiles by various others even if they aren't the
best two stage missiles ever made plus pod ships of one sort or another. The
cataphrat is certainly going to show up with Alignment conventional forces
is a nice little two stage missile.

[Spinner]

Post by pyotr filipivich
27 Mar 2010 16:37:27 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll

Post by Don Sample
You can't really say that, since you have no idea how molycircs work, or
how they're made. You seem to be assuming that they are just smaller
versions of modern integrated circuits, but we don't know that. They
may follow more of a "cellular" model, with lots of tiny CPUs working in
parallel, and talking with all of their neighbours. Any damage to one
CPU will have little to no effect on the general operation of the whole
system, just as killing one brain cell doesn't really affect how well
you can think.

There is a serious kicker in here. A physical circuit can't be smaller than
one atom wide and we could easily be as small as you can get by the end of
this century.

My understanding of the technobable is that "moly circs" are
molecular circuits. I keep thinking in terms of a room temperature
superconductor in/on a polymer based substrate. There is a physical
limit to how small you can make them (the one atom thick thing) but
there is also the maintenance issue. How small can something be and
still be "usable" by humans? Compare to cell phones - back when they
were tube powered, they were big. As transistors took over they got
smaller, and smaller - but there comes a point where the case for the
electronics would be smaller, but the keypad has to be large enough to
be used by Finger, Human, one Each. So, while I might be able to make
a molycircuit one atom wide - I have to put it somewhere - or lose it.
So, it gets encased in a "carrier" - which is a real fine thread of
Artificial Spyder Sylk that can carry the mechanical stresses and
maintain circuit integrity.

Isaac Asimov described computers that use electron spins as elements.
Taking it to modern levels, there are 3 quarks in an electron, each
with 3 possible characteristics.

All leads to VERY tiny computers (lead has a few hundred electrons to
play with) - not including playing with isotopes and all the rest. So
far, Moore's law is still holding. A computer operating on electron
spins is inherently rad-hard - it's DAMN hard to hit an electron wth
another atom, even in a collider with illumination densities way above
anything an explosion can generate at any distance.

Keep in mind this is a technology that plays with gravity the way we
play with electronics... that gives a VERY poweful indication that
they also can play with quantum effects associated therewith.

Before anybody hand waves this away - if you took an integrated
circuit to a scientist 100 years ago, it would analyze as silicon,
gold and 'some other stuff' and nothing else. 200 years ago it would
analyze as silicon.

Oh and re the other comment about steampunk. A nuclear propulsion
reactor *IS* a steam engine. A fancy one, but a steam engine
nonetheless.
--
2+2!=5 even for extremely large values of 2

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by Spinner
All leads to VERY tiny computers (lead has a few hundred electrons to
play with) - not including playing with isotopes and all the rest. So
far, Moore's law is still holding.  A computer operating on electron
spins is inherently rad-hard - it's DAMN hard to hit an electron wth
another atom, even in a collider with illumination densities way above
anything an explosion can generate at any distance.

I find the claim that it is inherently rad-hard to be suspiscious. If
you cannot affect the information storage element with a collider, how
does the computer change its state?

This leaves out the problem of reading all of these information
elements. Once you add the read/write elements, qbits balloon to much
larger structures and the inherently rad-hard nature disappears
(radiation destroys the read/write structure of the element, even if
the electron is unaffected).

Remember, Asimov was a biologist who wrote SF about cybernetics

[deowll]

Post by Spinner

Post by pyotr filipivich
27 Mar 2010 16:37:27 -0500 did write/type or cause to appear in

Post by deowll

Post by Don Sample
You can't really say that, since you have no idea how molycircs work, or
how they're made. You seem to be assuming that they are just smaller
versions of modern integrated circuits, but we don't know that. They
may follow more of a "cellular" model, with lots of tiny CPUs working in
parallel, and talking with all of their neighbours. Any damage to one
CPU will have little to no effect on the general operation of the whole
system, just as killing one brain cell doesn't really affect how well
you can think.

There is a serious kicker in here. A physical circuit can't be smaller than
one atom wide and we could easily be as small as you can get by the end of
this century.

My understanding of the technobable is that "moly circs" are
molecular circuits. I keep thinking in terms of a room temperature
superconductor in/on a polymer based substrate. There is a physical
limit to how small you can make them (the one atom thick thing) but
there is also the maintenance issue. How small can something be and
still be "usable" by humans? Compare to cell phones - back when they
were tube powered, they were big. As transistors took over they got
smaller, and smaller - but there comes a point where the case for the
electronics would be smaller, but the keypad has to be large enough to
be used by Finger, Human, one Each. So, while I might be able to make
a molycircuit one atom wide - I have to put it somewhere - or lose it.
So, it gets encased in a "carrier" - which is a real fine thread of
Artificial Spyder Sylk that can carry the mechanical stresses and
maintain circuit integrity.

Isaac Asimov described computers that use electron spins as elements.
Taking it to modern levels, there are 3 quarks in an electron, each
with 3 possible characteristics.
All leads to VERY tiny computers (lead has a few hundred electrons to
play with) - not including playing with isotopes and all the rest. So
far, Moore's law is still holding. A computer operating on electron
spins is inherently rad-hard - it's DAMN hard to hit an electron wth
another atom, even in a collider with illumination densities way above
anything an explosion can generate at any distance.
Keep in mind this is a technology that plays with gravity the way we
play with electronics... that gives a VERY poweful indication that
they also can play with quantum effects associated therewith.
Before anybody hand waves this away - if you took an integrated
circuit to a scientist 100 years ago, it would analyze as silicon,
gold and 'some other stuff' and nothing else. 200 years ago it would
analyze as silicon.
Oh and re the other comment about steampunk. A nuclear propulsion
reactor *IS* a steam engine. A fancy one, but a steam engine
nonetheless.

True enough for our reactors but they seem to be getting a lot of power out
of very little space which is kind of awkward if you are using a steam
turban.

Post by Spinner
--
2+2!=5 even for extremely large values of 2

[deowll]

Post by deowll
One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had stores of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.
What this means is that somewhere in the SK there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

The problem with stored missiles is that, unlike 100+ year-old black
powder rifles, they need frequent maintenance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm pretty sure that these things were tested to make sure that they _would_
remain useful after a long period in storage. We do that with a lot of our
hardware. Once you remove them from their shipping containers things might
change but until you break the packaging....
deowll

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Maintenance costs
money and money spent maintaining stockpiles of obsolescent weapons is
not spent maintaining in-service weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This stuff amounts to ammo. To be blunt if you can't store it for a long
time in the container with no maintenance even under hostile conditions with
out needing to work on it the military doesn't want it.

deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Making things worse, once
the production lines for a particular missile shut down, all of the
suppliers retool and no new parts are available.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When the line shuts down mass production stops. Unless they are total
nitwits they would have a spare parts inventory. They could also most likely
make any part they needed though production speed would be limited. deowll

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
If they couldn't handle it they would be storing the things planet side.
_Stick a particle shield around it._ Geeze.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Complicating things for obsolete systems is that the shelf life of the
spare parts is no longer than the shelf life of the equipment, unless
they are stored under friendlier conditions (as most US military
systems are not deployed in space, they are already suffering from
this as stored replacement parts are no likelier to function than
stored systems [why there was a push for a new generation of nuclear
deterrence systems]).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++======
Do we use particle shields? deowll


+++++++++++++++++++++===
Given these difficult and expensive problems, it is conceivable that
there is no store of obsolete missiles. Missiles returning from a
deployment are dissassembled and any serviceable components are are
streamed to the manufacture of new missiles, and all permanent naval
bases have the facilities to manufacture missiles. The tricky
business with that scheme is arranging the necessary surge capacity to
handle returning ships with empty magazines. The circumstantial
evidence supporting my hypothesis is the fact that I cannot recall any
missile failures, yet duds should be rather endemic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
You shot off 10,000 and who cares if one or two went crazy? Anything is
conceivable but not everything is likely. Up until last year I knew where
there were two Apple IIs still in use. They worked fine.

Deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Doug Jones]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by deowll
One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had stores of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.
What this means is that somewhere in the SK there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

The problem with stored missiles is that, unlike 100+ year-old black
powder rifles, they need frequent maintenance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm pretty sure that these things were tested to make sure that they _would_
remain useful after a long period in storage. We do that with a lot of our
hardware. Once you remove them from their shipping containers things might
change but until you break the packaging....
deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a difference between what you're thinking of, and nuclear
weaponry. One of the the problems is that the warheads are
radioactive, and you have to deal with radioactive decay over time. In
addition, the radiation damage to the physical structure of the bomb
and the electronic components from the warhead itself builds over
time.

Post by r***@gmail.com
Maintenance costs
money and money spent maintaining stockpiles of obsolescent weapons is
not spent maintaining in-service weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This stuff amounts to ammo. To be blunt if you can't store it for a long
time in the container with no maintenance even under hostile conditions with
out needing to work on it the military doesn't want it.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Um, not quite. Even normal ammo has problems if not stored
*properly*, which is not "hostile" conditions. The military actually
has people doing maintenance on its "stored" weapons systems. You
can't just leave a tank "sit" in a warehouse for long periods of time.
You have to go in, move things around to keep seals functional, fire
up the engines, change the oil, regrease fittings, and so on. Just
letting it sit there means you have to do a virtual rebuild of it
before you can send it out to battle.

Post by r***@gmail.com
Making things worse, once
the production lines for a particular missile shut down, all of the
suppliers retool and no new parts are available.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When the line shuts down mass production stops. Unless they are total
nitwits they would have a spare parts inventory. They could also most likely
make any part they needed though production speed would be limited. deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
If they couldn't handle it they would be storing the things planet side.
_Stick a particle shield around it._ Geeze.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Complicating things for obsolete systems is that the shelf life of the
spare parts is no longer than the shelf life of the equipment, unless
they are stored under friendlier conditions (as most US military
systems are not deployed in space, they are already suffering from
this as stored replacement parts are no likelier to function than
stored systems [why there was a push for a new generation of nuclear
deterrence systems]).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++======
Do we use particle shields? deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++===
Given these difficult and expensive problems, it is conceivable that
there is no store of obsolete missiles. Missiles returning from a
deployment are dissassembled and any serviceable components are are
streamed to the manufacture of new missiles, and all permanent naval
bases have the facilities to manufacture missiles. The tricky
business with that scheme is arranging the necessary surge capacity to
handle returning ships with empty magazines. The circumstantial
evidence supporting my hypothesis is the fact that I cannot recall any
missile failures, yet duds should be rather endemic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
You shot off 10,000 and who cares if one or two went crazy? Anything is
conceivable but not everything is likely. Up until last year I knew where
there were two Apple IIs still in use. They worked fine.
Deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's much more believable to have them take the obsolete missles,
reprocess the warhead material to make the new warheads. You're
apparently comparing these missles to relatively simple, mostly inert
ammunition, not highly complex weaponry.

[Grashtel]

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:35:32 -0400, Doug Jones

Post by Doug Jones

Post by deowll
I'm pretty sure that these things were tested to make sure that they _would_
remain useful after a long period in storage. We do that with a lot of our
hardware. Once you remove them from their shipping containers things might
change but until you break the packaging....
deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a difference between what you're thinking of, and nuclear
weaponry. One of the the problems is that the warheads are
radioactive, and you have to deal with radioactive decay over time. In
addition, the radiation damage to the physical structure of the bomb
and the electronic components from the warhead itself builds over
time.

You are assuming that Honorverse missiles use fission-fusion warheads
like current nuclear weapons. The lack of knowladge of fission
reactors other than by the Greysons suggests that this is not the
case. Certainly the gravitic technology, non-nuclear warheads with
yield's comparable to small nukes, and compact fusion reactors, it
would be possible to build pure fusion warheads avoiding the need for
any fissionables.

[deowll]

Post by Doug Jones

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by deowll
One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had
stores
of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.
What this means is that somewhere in the SK there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

The problem with stored missiles is that, unlike 100+ year-old black
powder rifles, they need frequent maintenance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm pretty sure that these things were tested to make sure that they _would_
remain useful after a long period in storage. We do that with a lot of our
hardware. Once you remove them from their shipping containers things might
change but until you break the packaging....
deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There's a difference between what you're thinking of, and nuclear
weaponry. One of the the problems is that the warheads are
radioactive, and you have to deal with radioactive decay over time. In
addition, the radiation damage to the physical structure of the bomb
and the electronic components from the warhead itself builds over
time.

Post by r***@gmail.com
Maintenance costs
money and money spent maintaining stockpiles of obsolescent weapons is
not spent maintaining in-service weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This stuff amounts to ammo. To be blunt if you can't store it for a long
time in the container with no maintenance even under hostile conditions with
out needing to work on it the military doesn't want it.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Um, not quite. Even normal ammo has problems if not stored
*properly*, which is not "hostile" conditions. The military actually
has people doing maintenance on its "stored" weapons systems. You
can't just leave a tank "sit" in a warehouse for long periods of time.
You have to go in, move things around to keep seals functional, fire
up the engines, change the oil, regrease fittings, and so on. Just
letting it sit there means you have to do a virtual rebuild of it
before you can send it out to battle.

They videos I saw showed the military testing mobile missiles and big gun
ammo for long term storage and usability under hostile conditions. Extremes
of heat and cold that would never be approved in the work place. In other
words they were making sure their "ammo" did exactly what you are claiming
it doesn't do: remain useful after being stored for long periods of time in
excessively hot, cold, damp, or humid conditions without anyone wasting any
time taking care of it at least _as long as the shipping container is
intact_. It pretty much has to just to arrive in usable condition after
normal shipping. You might also want to look up how long a modern nuclear
missile sub can be at sea under water and the fact that nobody on the ship
can service those missiles until they return to port. You can get to the
missile tubes on _some_ of them though I doubt if you could get inside or do
much if you did but "Typhoon class submarines are not designed this way; the
missile silos are between the two pressure hulls and are inaccessible to
personnel". Fuel supply is good for about 25 years which computes because
you would more or less have to tear the thing apart to refuel it.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The missile would be in many respects a
vastly simpler device with fewer moving parts none of which are expected to
last in use for more than minutes. I further suspect that they don't use
either oil or grease at least as we would define them nor would they have
many moving parts. You are confusing a one use consumable with a long term
use non consumable meant to last for decades and they aren't made to the
same standards nor can the military afford to treat the consumables like
non consumables.

Post by Doug Jones

Post by r***@gmail.com
Making things worse, once
the production lines for a particular missile shut down, all of the
suppliers retool and no new parts are available.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When the line shuts down mass production stops. Unless they are total
nitwits they would have a spare parts inventory. They could also most likely
make any part they needed though production speed would be limited. deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
If they couldn't handle it they would be storing the things planet side.
_Stick a particle shield around it._ Geeze.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Complicating things for obsolete systems is that the shelf life of the
spare parts is no longer than the shelf life of the equipment, unless
they are stored under friendlier conditions (as most US military
systems are not deployed in space, they are already suffering from
this as stored replacement parts are no likelier to function than
stored systems [why there was a push for a new generation of nuclear
deterrence systems]).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++======
Do we use particle shields? deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++===
Given these difficult and expensive problems, it is conceivable that
there is no store of obsolete missiles. Missiles returning from a
deployment are dissassembled and any serviceable components are are
streamed to the manufacture of new missiles, and all permanent naval
bases have the facilities to manufacture missiles. The tricky
business with that scheme is arranging the necessary surge capacity to
handle returning ships with empty magazines. The circumstantial
evidence supporting my hypothesis is the fact that I cannot recall any
missile failures, yet duds should be rather endemic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
You shot off 10,000 and who cares if one or two went crazy? Anything is
conceivable but not everything is likely. Up until last year I knew where
there were two Apple IIs still in use. They worked fine.
Deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's much more believable to have them take the obsolete missles,
reprocess the warhead material to make the new warheads. You're
apparently comparing these missles to relatively simple, mostly inert
ammunition, not highly complex weaponry.

To you. You are confusing a one use expendable item with a long term use
item. A missile that needs to function for at most a few minutes with a
space ship that may need to function for decades.

[r***@gmail.com]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by deowll
One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had stores of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.
What this means is that somewhere in the SK there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

The problem with stored missiles is that, unlike 100+ year-old black
powder rifles, they need frequent maintenance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm pretty sure that these things were tested to make sure that they _would_
remain useful after a long period in storage. We do that with a lot of our
hardware. Once you remove them from their shipping containers things might
change but until you break the packaging....
deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maintenance costs
money and money spent maintaining stockpiles of obsolescent weapons is
not spent maintaining in-service weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This stuff amounts to ammo. To be blunt if you can't store it for a long
time in the container with no maintenance even under hostile conditions with
out needing to work on it the military doesn't want it.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Making things worse, once
the production lines for a particular missile shut down, all of the
suppliers retool and no new parts are available.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When the line shuts down mass production stops. Unless they are total
nitwits they would have a spare parts inventory. They could also most likely
make any part they needed though production speed would be limited. deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high.  Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage.  The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
If they couldn't handle it they would be storing the things planet side.
_Stick a particle shield around it._ Geeze.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Complicating things for obsolete systems is that the shelf life of the
spare parts is no longer than the shelf life of the equipment, unless
they are stored under friendlier conditions (as most US military
systems are not deployed in space, they are already suffering from
this as stored replacement parts are no likelier to function than
stored systems [why there was a push for a new generation of nuclear
deterrence systems]).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++======
Do we use particle shields? deowll

Yes, and it works really, really, well, too.

Its called the Earth's atmosphere.

Post by r***@gmail.com
+++++++++++++++++++++===
Given these difficult and expensive problems, it is conceivable that
there is no store of obsolete missiles.  Missiles returning from a
deployment are dissassembled and any serviceable components are are
streamed to the manufacture of new missiles, and all permanent naval
bases have the facilities to manufacture missiles.  The tricky
business with that scheme is arranging the necessary surge capacity to
handle returning ships with empty magazines.  The circumstantial
evidence supporting my hypothesis is the fact that I cannot recall any
missile failures, yet duds should be rather endemic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
You shot off 10,000 and who cares if one or two went crazy? Anything is
conceivable but not everything is likely. Up until last year I knew where
there were two Apple IIs still in use. They worked fine.

The dud rate for dumb, iron bombs was about two percent in the Viet
Nam War, and there is no reason to believe that they have improved
any, since. To assume that something much more sophisticated than an
impact fuse is going to have a hundredth the dud rate of a simple
impact fuse is to believe in fairies. The USN was confidant that if
forced into a surprise war with what was afloat, the dud rate for
missiles would be less than thirty percent.

[deowll]

Post by r***@gmail.com

Post by deowll
One of the facts that seem to be true of all militaries is that they are
pack rats. They tend to squirrel away large amounts of equipment from the
last war just in case it might prove useful in the next war. An example of
this is as late as WW II some US national guard armories still had
stores
of
trap door black power springfields stashed. Do not even begin to think for
one second that we are the only ones or that this isn't absolutely normal.
I'm aware of examples of the same behavior dating back to the Romans and
Carthiagens and I'm sure if I looked I could find many earlier examples.
What this means is that somewhere in the SK there should have been
staggering numbers of previous generation missiles stashed "just in case".
Unless this was taken out during OB then you should be able to make about
all the missile pods anyone could use using these obsolete two and three
stage missiles. If they exist this limits the need to do the next
observation.

The problem with stored missiles is that, unlike 100+ year-old black
powder rifles, they need frequent maintenance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm pretty sure that these things were tested to make sure that they _would_
remain useful after a long period in storage. We do that with a lot of our
hardware. Once you remove them from their shipping containers things might
change but until you break the packaging....
deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maintenance costs
money and money spent maintaining stockpiles of obsolescent weapons is
not spent maintaining in-service weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This stuff amounts to ammo. To be blunt if you can't store it for a long
time in the container with no maintenance even under hostile conditions with
out needing to work on it the military doesn't want it.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Making things worse, once
the production lines for a particular missile shut down, all of the
suppliers retool and no new parts are available.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When the line shuts down mass production stops. Unless they are total
nitwits they would have a spare parts inventory. They could also most likely
make any part they needed though production speed would be limited. deowll
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adding to the problem is that many, if not most, of these missiles
spent a long time collecting cosmic ray damage in warship magazines,
so the dud rate will be high. Of course, as these missiles are likely
to be stored in orbital facilities, not planetside, they are still
collecting cosmic ray damage. The heavy preponderance of molecular
circuitry (molycircs) means that cosmic ray hardening is accomplished
by redundancy, as a single ionising interaction destroys the circuit.
Space is not a friendly place for highly miniaturised electronics.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
If they couldn't handle it they would be storing the things planet side.
_Stick a particle shield around it._ Geeze.
deowll
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Complicating things for obsolete systems is that the shelf life of the
spare parts is no longer than the shelf life of the equipment, unless
they are stored under friendlier conditions (as most US military
systems are not deployed in space, they are already suffering from
this as stored replacement parts are no likelier to function than
stored systems [why there was a push for a new generation of nuclear
deterrence systems]).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++======
Do we use particle shields? deowll

Yes, and it works really, really, well, too.

Its called the Earth's atmosphere.

Post by r***@gmail.com
+++++++++++++++++++++===
Given these difficult and expensive problems, it is conceivable that
there is no store of obsolete missiles. Missiles returning from a
deployment are dissassembled and any serviceable components are are
streamed to the manufacture of new missiles, and all permanent naval
bases have the facilities to manufacture missiles. The tricky
business with that scheme is arranging the necessary surge capacity to
handle returning ships with empty magazines. The circumstantial
evidence supporting my hypothesis is the fact that I cannot recall any
missile failures, yet duds should be rather endemic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
You shot off 10,000 and who cares if one or two went crazy? Anything is
conceivable but not everything is likely. Up until last year I knew where
there were two Apple IIs still in use. They worked fine.

The dud rate for dumb, iron bombs was about two percent in the Viet
Nam War, and there is no reason to believe that they have improved
any, since. To assume that something much more sophisticated than an
impact fuse is going to have a hundredth the dud rate of a simple
impact fuse is to believe in fairies. The USN was confidant that if
forced into a surprise war with what was afloat, the dud rate for
missiles would be less than thirty percent.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay we basicly agree. The missiles are consumables and while you would like
them to be as reliable as bullets, guns are still made in such a way as to
allow the user to quickly clear a jam. That is about the way I see missiles.
You would like a 0 dude rate but you design your systems and plan your
attacks allowing for a few failures. Unless the failures start to cause
serious problems you live with it.