From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 02:34:28 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > Le vendredi 22 juillet 2016 19:30:23 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   > écrit :   
   >   
   >   
   >> Your fleets can't move until the sensor platforms are down or the whole   
   >> point of shooting them down is lost.  Any fleets that happen to be   
   >> under way when your KKVs are spotted get KKVs of their own launched at   
   >> them.   
   >   
   > Depends. Sure the fleets can move. You just have to be careful that the   
   > movement does not look like hostile manoeuvres. It helps if your   
   > warships do not look or act like warships.   
      
   It doesn't matter that your ships haven't looked like they've been   
   engaged in hostile manoeuvres:  You just started a war and I know where   
   your fleet is and where it is going.   
      
   What's more, your fleet has to stay in the relatively easy to reach parts   
   of the system.  They can't do things like slingshot themselves out of the   
   ecliptic.   
      
   >> He clarified to to be stuff like "chunks of regolith".   
   >   
   > I did not see this, but yes, it is an option, especially for the   
   > buckshot.   
      
   An options, not an effective option, but an option.   
      
   >> There are a limited number of places you can launch from, most of the   
   >> sensor platforms are going to require that kind of time in flight from   
   >> any of them.   
   >   
   > nonsense. There are literally hundreds of thousands of different   
   > astronomical bodies to launch from. Plus, you could easily launch from   
   > any vessel in transit. Get a simple mass driver, and there will be no   
   > way to detect such launches.   
      
   You get a long time in flight unless you are right next to the target.   
   Do you really think that these platforms are going to be in 'busy' parts   
   of the system?   
      
   >> New platforms means that you haven't gotten stealth by killing the   
   >> sensors.   
   >   
   > Wrong. You don't need to kill ALL the sensors. You only need to kill   
   > ENOUGH sensors.   
      
   Enough = all or almost all.   
      
   >> Yes completely different.   
   >   
   > Well, this is a matter of interpretation, and it is not really   
   > important.   
      
   Yes, "do this once or twice during the entire service life," and "do this   
   constantly," being different or the same is merely "a matter of   
   interpretation."   
      
   >> So now we're up to _trillions_ of evenly distributed pellets, all to   
   >> probably _fail_ at getting any kind of mission kill.  100Mm radius at 1   
   >> pellet/ha equals 3 trillion pellets, one pellet per hectare means you   
   >> probably do no more than a few micrometeorite holes in the sail.   
   >   
   > 400 trillion, to be exact (4 pellets/m^2, 10 000 km^2); which comes to   
   > (200m)^3 material (for 1 cm^3 pellets).   
      
   There goes your tens or hundreds of thousands of km.   
      
   And avoiding a 10,000 km^2 barrage is easy:  That's only 112 km across   
      
   > Let's try something more realistic: 1 pellet / 10 m^2, 1000 km^2 spread.   
   > This only requires (30 m)^3 of material. For that matter, with high   
   > kinetic energy, 5mm pellets would be sufficient, so you only need 1/8 of   
   > that material estimate.   
      
   Now we're down to a spread only 35km across.  There's a pretty good   
   chance you'll miss even without the target doing a course adjustment.   
      
   > If you went with the explosive route, you would have lateral saturation   
   > from the explosion, meaning that you don't need to have  even 1 pellet /   
   > platform cross section area (let alone 2 to 64). If a single larger   
   > pellet (remote detonation grenade, actually) approaches within 10m, the   
   > platform will be shredded. This would mean an areal density of 1 unit /   
   > 400 m^2 (this time, being conservative... it would actually be closer to   
   > 1 / 900 m^2)...I don't remember my suggested spread.   
      
   That doesn't really change things, (fewer shots, but bigger with even   
   distribution being more important).   
      
   > There is no hope of escape for any useful platform. I used hubble as a   
   > basis, and its 1 arcsecond maximum resolution is not even useful for the   
   > purpose.   
      
   Assuming your little spread can actually hit it.   
      
   >> If you want to have a good chance at a mission kill, you are going to   
   >> need something like one pellet per 10 m^2 or 1000 per hectare.   
   >   
   > Yes. I originally had 4 per m^2. For clarification, I was talking about   
   > a spread of 10 000 km, not a radius.   
      
   Then perhaps you should be using a measurement of _area_.  Furthermore,   
   that means your response to Sea Wasp was completely dishonest, given that   
   you dismissed his calculation of how far you would have to move to avoid   
   the shot, even though it was on the exact same scale as you are now   
   giving for your attack spread.   
      
   >> It doesn't take many platforms for there to be no holes.  This is   
   >> especially true if the platforms are on highly inclined solar orbits.   
   >   
   > Dead. Wrong.   
      
   Nope, you simply don't understand the tech.   
      
   > Unless you are talking about super-platforms with thousands of   
   > telescopes, each. Thousands of 10m+ telescopes, each. I am being   
   > generous... 10m telescopes are next to useless in terms of resolution...   
   > but if you have several such platforms (at least 4), you can link them   
   > up to provide a vrtual telescope. Prcoessing power is going to be a   
   > horror, though.   
   > Scanning takes time, and is easily defeated.   
   > Honestly, given the field of view involved, it is questionable that you   
   > would be able to pack the number of required telescopes to provide   
   > real-time coverage in a volume smaller than a small moon.   
      
   Oh, here's your confusion:  You think you need to do the whole thing with   
   a single kind of sensor.   
      
   You use a low-resolution, fast scan, wide angle system to find things to   
   look at.   
   You use a high-resolution, slow scan, narrow angle system to lock down   
   the exact locations and get things like heat and drive signatures.   
   You use things like a high-power optical telescope once you already know   
   you have something you want to look at and exactly where it is.   
      
   >> This discussion isn't about "how to fight a space war" in general, it's   
   >> about the standard Nicoll's law efforts to find a way to get stealth in   
   >> space.   
   >   
   > Which is meaningless without context.   
      
   No, it isn't.  It's simply about "how not to be seen", (before you go off   
   on some random tear, that's a reference).   
      
   > You have to understand how stealth   
   > works, and how it is used, in the context of fighting battles... in   
   > space, or on Earth. There is not a single argument that does not apply   
   > to the current state of warfare.   
      
   With interplanetary warfare everyone gets to put sensors of all kinds   
   just about anywhere they want.  On Earth, you are limited to your own   
   territory, where you can send vehicles, (for sensors that fit in said   
   vehicles), and what can fit in a satellite and use from orbit to look at   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)