From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:13:43 -0700, emmett.obrian wrote:   
      
   > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 3:13:12 PM UTC-4, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw   
   > wrote:   
   >> On Sat, 23 Jul 2016 09:02:54 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > Le vendredi 22 juillet 2016 19:30:24 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw   
   >> > a écrit :   
   >   
   > I've been busy, sorry for not jumping in and leaving Mikkel on his own.   
   >   
   >> >> The guy I initially responded to did.  Furthermore, you did notice   
   >> >> the context of that remark, right?  That was pointing out that   
   >> >> someone was arguing against the wrong thing in his response to me.   
   >> >   
   >> He flat out made the argument "you can't hide the sensor platforms   
   >> either."  It is 100% relevant to respond to that by pointing out that I   
   >> was not making an argument based on hiding the sensor platforms.   
   >   
   > I tend to make my comments in reply to the whole thread, there were   
   > arguments that "you won't know where my sensors are" so I was addressing   
   > that. I tend to try and comment as expediently as possible. Sorry about   
   > the confusion.   
      
   Sounds like you are used to the flat 'threading' of web forums.   
      
   > The point about regolith being used as a projectile is an economic one.   
   > If you have several thousand sensors constantly jinking with thrusters,   
   > they're going to run out of fuel eventually. This means you'd either   
   > have to have a resupply network constantly resupplying them or you'd   
   > have to replace them. If you want to talk about a huge effort, there you   
   > have it. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it does make it   
   > resource intensive.   
   >   
   > If the solar sail concept is indeed functional, the sensors still can't   
   > maneuver infinitely because they would fall out of position or out of   
   > their orbits.   
      
   As Sea Wasp pointed out, orbital mechanics don't work that way.  Nor do   
   solar sails, a common misunderstanding is that they can only be used to   
   push out from the star, (radial-out in a solar orbit).   
      
   Solar sails are only restricted in that they can't do radial-in burns,   
   they are just fine with pro/retrograde, (anti)normal and radial-out.  As   
   it so happens, any radial-out burn can be reversed by another radial-out   
   burn at the other point the initial and final orbits intersect.   
      
   > They also have to be autonomous at this point, because   
   > you're looking at a whole lot of motion. That means more computing power   
   > and more expense.   
   >   
   > If I then have ten to a hundred asteroid stations out in the belt (which   
   > one? depends on the scale the war its on), tracking your sensor net,   
   > each with multiple mass drivers, I can launch cheap rocks at your net. I   
   > can do this ad nauseam because my stations are relatively cheap (maybe   
   > they even pay for themselves because I'm using the mined rock as a   
   > resource) and my projectiles are cheap. If the two sides economies are   
   > relatively balanced, defeating a sensor net is cheaper than building it.   
      
   Not really, hitting the platforms involves firing shots that saturate a   
   target area at least one hundred _million_ square kilometres in size.   
   Cheap, unguided, shot means a minimum of about one 'pellet' per square   
   metre.  And remember, these shot clouds are going to be coming back   
   around to intersect with the orbit of whatever you fired it from.   
      
   > In a war, it doesn't matter that you know I'm shooting at your sensors.   
   > If we assume that you go after my astroids with your fleet, I can then   
   > maneuver wherever I want with mine. If you bombard my stations at a   
   > distance, I wait for you to expend a good amount of energy and resources   
   > doing so and then attack while your supplies are low. The sensor net is   
   > a tactical disadvantage in a hot war. The same could be said about my   
   > asteroid stations, but again, they're cheap to the point of disposable.   
      
   You think that the sensor net is only useful in spotting ships that are   
   tying to hide?   
      
   > I say all this to debunk that this has to be a surprise attack. In a air   
   > war on earth, the regular aircraft attack radar stations. The enemy   
   > knows this. They have missiles and aircraft defending those radar   
   > stations. But one hit on that station makes it harder to see. Not   
   > impossible, just harder. Then a stealth aircraft is used to hit the   
   > target the radar station is being used to defend. This isn't the opening   
   > attack, it's standard tactics that are followed through the whole war.   
      
   There is a critical difference:  In a space war you have to kill pretty   
   much _all_ of the 'radar stations', not just the ones around where you   
   want to act.  Imagine the difficulty involved if the sensor blinding for   
   an attack on Hawaii meant taking out radar stations in Alaska,   
   California, Massachusetts, Nunavut, Greenland, the UK and Diego Garcia.   
      
   > Now, to backtrack a little, my point about NASA looking for asteroids   
   > and having a very hard time of it is largely in response to earlier   
   > threads on this topic. There have been many that assert that any ship   
   > will be warmer than the CMB and therefore easily detectable. Even a cold   
   > running ship because it will absorb solar radiation.   
      
   Remember that 'cold-running' means turning everything off, including   
   things like life support and any computer systems.  If you have anything   
   running you will have waste heat to get rid of.   
      
   > If that were true,   
   > then asteroids would be as easy to detect. But in the real world,   
   > they're not. There is therefore a flaw in the idea that since there's no   
   > horizon in space and no air, all objects are easily detectable.   
   >   
   > Since all this is speculative, anchoring the conversation in real life   
   > astrophysics is hugely helpful. The fact of the matter is, that even   
   > though the sensor platforms to catalog every near earth asteroid already   
   > exist, the data processing capability does not.   
      
   Actually, those sensor platforms don't really exist.  At least not on the   
   scale we would be talking about in even a minimalist interplanetary war   
   scenario.  Putting a single satellite at the Earth-Sun L1 point was a big   
   deal.   
      
   This line of argument is like saying "oceanographers have a hard time   
   tracking whales using a couple ships trailing hydrophones, therefore NATO   
   can't build something to detect any ships crossing from the Greenland or   
   Norwegian Sea to the North Atlantic."  (FTR:  The G-I-UK SOSUS line can   
   pick up aircraft, never mind ships.)   
      
   > Most of the time those sonar nets are going to be   
   > pinging away and returning nothing. The whole time you're sitting there   
   > listening to that feed, you've effectively wasted your time. Yes, you   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)