New York Times Forums
The New York Times

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (4531 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:38pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4532 of 17697)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

To play "dogfight" with model airplanes in the way I have in mind, you'd need some space and moderate equipment.

A small field - maybe a baseball or soccar field.

At least two radio controlled model airplanes.

At least 3 "chirper senders" for microwaves- sending pulses out in the air, at specific frequencies, with pulses timed to .1 nanosecond accuracy with respect to gps or some such reference. Say these "chirpers" -"chirp" every millisecond. 5-10 chirper senders, each with its own frequency, would be better.

One reciever, with bands tuned to each chirper frequency, capable of timing incoming signals to .1 nanosecond.

Antenna arrangements so that the "chirper" signals did not go from chirpers to the reciever directly, but only by reflection from a flying object.

Plus a small computer - - maybe two. Computers made before 1990 would make the competition slightly more interesting, but not by very much.

Nothing fancy or expensive.

Call the field an x-y plane, of altitude z=0 and say there are n chirpers, at points

C1 at (x1, y1, 0)
C2 at (x2, y2, 0)
C3 at (x3, y3, 0)
and so on to
Cn at (xn, yn, 0)

The reciever is at point R
R at (xr, yr, zr)
and only gets signals from the chirpers that are reflected from flying objects (z > 0 ).

Say that flying object (the metal motor of the radio controlled airplane) has position P.

Distances along the two sides of the triangle from Ci to P to R are known by timing. For .1 nanosecond resolution - these distances are known to within about 3 cm.

Positions of Ci and R are known - the x, y , z positions of point P are unknown. If triangles corresponding to 3 Ci's are available, with known distances, you can solve for x, y, z positions of point P. With more triangles, there are several ways to solve the relation - enough for crosschecking.

With this information, how far are we from achieving optimal dogfighting behavior, where the ability of the following model plane to track the target is limited only by the dynamic limitations of the model airplane propulsion and aerodynamic control - not by control logic?

Not very far. http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/pap2

rshow55 - 04:02pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4533 of 17697)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

So, for one model airplane, you could track x-y-z position, with respect to the reciever (or any other fixed point) - and plot that position, to ~3 cm uncertainty, every millisecond.

Plotting position against time, for 20 past points, using diffterms, you could have a very good running polynomial approximation of the motion - (and polynomial approximation of its differential equation, with boundary conditions).

A 10th degree polynomial approximation would leave enough points for noise subtraction (of "noise" in the sense of signal that didn't fit a 10th degree polynomial fit).

Integrating the differential equation "predicts that future" according to the de - a de that is continuously updated (say, every millisecond).

You could do the same for 2 airplanes, or 3 - though sorting out which triangles correspond to which points would require some logic. Getting running x,y,z positions, polynomial approximations of equations of motion, and easily integrable polynomial approximations of the de's of the motion of each airplane.

Getting these de's into handy frames of reference (for example, the frame of the individual model airplanes) isn't fancy.

Now, suppose there is a "lead" model airplane that is "flown" -- either by hand, or by machine - without information about how flight path changes going to to logic controlling the "follower" model airplane.

How well can the "follower" follow?

Can the "follower" follow a moving, jagging target?

That depends on how good the information processing is, and how good the maneuverability of the follower is, compared to the target.

Here's a game that competing teams of engineering undergraduates could play, and compete in.

rshow55 - 04:12pm Sep 25, 2002 EST (# 4534 of 17697)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Bats catch moths all the time. Even for trajectories that look very tricky.

That's because a bat can "guess" the future motions of both itself and the moth it is tracking (using a temporal ranging code), and makes "guesses" that get better and better - convergently - so that the bat catches the moth, rather than misses.

Though if a moth hears the bat, and evades, that moth sometimes escapes.

Moths that fly trajectories that the bat can follow become bat-dinner.

They are bat-dinner because the bat can predict flight paths with respect to itself, and "knows" how to adjust its own flight precisely - so that the curve of the target motion and the curve of the bat motion intersect.

To do this, the bat's "guessing" has to be very good - my own guess is so good that it has to be solving very good approximations of differential equations - in every way that matters for quantitative performance.

Something that the model airplanes can also do.

More Messages Recent Messages (13163 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Resource Area for Forum Hosts and Moderators  / Missile Defense