|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
04-12-2017, 05:11 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vermont, USA
|
Re: [Spaceships] The value and realism of +24 if Silhouetted Against Deep Space . . .
How large does the size-to-distance ratio have to be before the obscuring or lensing of background stars are useful ways to detect objects?
|
04-12-2017, 11:23 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: [Spaceships] The value and realism of +24 if Silhouetted Against Deep Space . . .
Quote:
One could figure out how big it has to be before it usually will obscure some, but I'm not going to try that now.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
|
04-14-2017, 03:23 AM | #23 |
Join Date: Jul 2013
|
Re: [Spaceships] The value and realism of +24 if Silhouetted Against Deep Space . . .
Echoing myself from Discord, we can use the WISE mission and 2016 WF9 as calibration.
WISE is a 660kg spacecraft, which we can approximate as 1t (and therefore SM+2), mounting a 10-system-sized telescope (effectively normal-sized for SM+4, therefore TL-5, therefore +3 bonus). If we assume maximum time spent (30 minutes, +5), that WISE instead of scanning the whole sky 'zooms in' despite lack of an actual target (another +3), we get another +8. Distance to target is at least 0.341AU (-63), size is at most a kilometre (+16). Therefore, the total modifier is +16 (SM) +5 (time) -63 (range) +3 (sensor) + 3 (zoom) +24 (in space) +10 (in plain sight), for a final modifier of -2 [1], which does sound like a reasonable order of magnitude. [1] And potentially a bit worse, since I'm assuming maximum size and minimum distance. Then again, you're probably dealing with skill levels of ~14-15. |
Tags |
cmbr, detection, plain sight, sensors, silhouette, space, spaceships, stealth |
|
|