On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Tim <xxxxxx@little-possums.net> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:02:31PM +0100, Knapp wrote:
> Yes, I was thinking of having the sensors all over a few parsecs. A
> lot like hunting for wrecks nowadays. They don't expect to find a
> lot or often and it does take some luck and a lot of investment
> before hand. Bruce, I am not sure if you were pro or anti idea with
> your Webb statement.

The main argument against is the canonical price for sensor systems vs
salvage value of starships, which would make it wildly uneconomical.

However, perhaps canonical prices only apply to starships, and
zero-gee installations can do it at similar cost for 1000x the
performance.  That's not entirely unreasonable, since starship sensors
have to be extremely rugged and compact by comparison.  At that price
range for deep space installations, it starts to become feasible.


- Tim

I think you could also make an argument for a higher salvage value of starships. Assuming the ships are quite old before you detect the jump flash across a big enough section of space to triangulate then the ships might have treasures of old or historical value not just junk value plus what is a tigress worth with all the crew dead and a jump engine that can be repaired in drydock?

--
Douglas E Knapp, MSAOM, LAc.