From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 08:26:57 -0700, emmett.obrian wrote:   
      
   > On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 5:04:00 PM UTC-4, Rick Pikul/Chakat   
   > Firepaw wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:03:31 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
   >>   
   > A KKV doesn't have to be powered, and can be quite fast. Yes it's going   
   > to take months for them to arrive but they also could be far cheaper   
   > than your sensors, as in slugs of iron or asteroid regolith.   
      
   Which means one tiny orbital jink and you miss.   
      
   > The problem with your "you can't find my sensors" argument is that it   
   > contravenes the existence of the "no stealth" argument. If the principle   
   > is true then I know where all your sensors are.   
      
   You're attacking the wrong counterargument to finding a way to make   
   stealth work.   
      
   I wasn't using the "any stealth technique you can use to try and hide   
   your ships will work better for the sensor platforms," counter.  I was   
   using "taking out the sensor platforms isn't as easy or effective as is   
   being assumed."   
      
   Remember, knowing the location and orbit of something now only places   
   constraints on where it will be in a year.   
      
   > The other loophole to your argument is you've ignored a technical   
   > attack. A sensor net requires communication, which requires   
   > co-ordination. By necessity then there is a system that collects and   
   > processes the inputs of these sensors. A computer virus could leave the   
   > network working until I don't want it to, or could ignore targets I   
   > specify and leave the impression that it's still up and running. Viola!   
   > instant stealth and I don't even have to worry about heat.   
      
   And all you have to do is assume that you can undetectably compromise   
   multiple high-security computer systems that are going to be operated in   
   a way that reflects that such intrusion must be avoided at all costs.   
      
   > But to prove that this no stealth argument is total and utter rubbish, I   
   > give you this article.   
   > http://www.gizmag.com/nasa-asteroid-hunting-algorithm/36601/   
   >   
   > If the idea of finding objects in space is as easy as stated, there   
   > would be no need for NASA to release it's asteroid hunting software and   
   > offer a $55,000 reward for improvements. We would already have total   
   > knowledge of every near earth asteroid in existence.   
      
   Congratulations, you have noticed that looking for unpowered objects that   
   aren't thrusting using effectively no resources is hard.   
      
   --   
   Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)