From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:19:56 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > Le vendredi 22 juillet 2016 19:44:53 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   > écrit :   
   >>   
   >> Here's your problem, you don't actually understand the core problems   
   >> with stealth in space.   
   >   
   > Actually, I do. You don't understand that we are already faced with the   
   > same problems.   
   >   
   >> There is no horizon.  On a planet you only have to be able to keep from   
   >> being detected by sensors that are really close to you.   
   >   
   > Have you noticed that there are camera EVERYWHERE?   
      
   No, there aren't.   
      
   Sure, cities are covered well.  Go to Algonquin Park and get 100m from a   
   road and there aren't going to be any cameras you didn't bring with you.   
      
   > That does not even   
   > take into account where cameras COULD be. Ever hear of aerial drones?   
   > You can put a camera in the air for less then $100. For the cost of the   
   > Zimwalt programme, you can have cheap drones covering every square km of   
   > the Earth.   
      
   That gets you better coverage, but you are still going to need one of   
   those drones about every 20km, (terrain in some places will require   
   greater density).  That includes the places where they are going to be   
   spending 90% of their time getting out to their station and returning to   
   refuel/recharge.   
      
   > If we REALLY wanted, there would be no place to hide.   
   > Horizon is only an issue when there are places you can not, or do not,   
   > go. satellites made horizons irrelevant long ago.   
      
   Satellites have other problems, (and horizons are still a problem for   
   them, they just do better than the 15km or so you get).  The biggest one   
   being the need to look through a nice thick atmosphere.   
      
   >> Space gives a very uncluttered background.  On a planet you have   
   >> everything from mountains to shifts in atmospheric conditions causing   
   >> sensor clutter.   
   >>   
   > And all of this sensor clutter can be fairly easily "blue-screened" out.   
      
   Not that easily, plus sometimes that clutter completely blocks any actual   
   signal.   
      
   > We only care about what moves, and we have had the software to clear   
   > such clutter for decades.   
      
   A lot of that noise isn't stationary.  Worse, a lot of that noise   
   involves the very signals you are trying to detect taking multiple paths   
   to reach you.   
      
   > The problem is it takes time to analyse.   
   > Space, OTOH, is NOT uncluttered. Not at all. Especially when you bring   
   > in sensitive observation instruments. CBR is EVERYWHERE. Then you have   
   > all the stars you can't see with the naked eye... but sensitive   
   > instruments CAN. Then you have all the nebulae, galaxies, etc. Then   
   > there is all the particulate dust in space, and all the charged   
   > particles. Why don't care about these because we can't see them.   
   > Sensitive observation platforms CAN. There is also a HELL of a lot more   
   > space to sift through. On Earth, there is only about half a trillion   
   > square meters to sift through. You really don't have to be concerned   
   > about anything smaller, so resolution is not so much an issue.   
      
   And a functional spacecraft is incredibly bright compared to the 'noise'   
   of space.   
      
   >> Space really is a different sensor environment.   
   >   
   > Yes it is. On Earth, you are only limited by the technical capabilities   
   > of your sensors.   
      
   And an environment that both adds all kinds of noise and also absorbs and   
   distorts the very signals you are tying to detect.   
      
   > In space, you are limited by hard absolutes. On Earth,   
   > there are people, with cameras, litterally everywhere.   
      
   No, not everywhere.   
      
   > In space, there are great swathes where there is no one.   
      
   And sensor ranges such that you can 'stand' on the edge of those swathes   
   and see the whole thing.   
      
   > On Earth, off the shelf, hand held optics, even the poorest quality,   
   > will give you usable information.   
      
   Provided you happen to be right next to what you want to see.  More than   
   20-30km or so and you can't see a thing.   
      
   > In space, you need oversized optics, and the most minute deformations   
   > will destroy the image.   
      
   Yes, a military-grade sensor net will involve larger and more capable   
   systems than hobbyist gear.  Just like how a DEW station is better at   
   spotting aircraft than a couple guys with cameras.   
      
   --   
   Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)