From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le lundi 26 septembre 2016 01:19:13 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   écrit :   
      
   I will not be having very much time available over the next few weeks. I will   
   add my replieswhen I can.   
      
   >    
   > That's still ridiculously low emissions, in reality you will be talking a    
   > couple orders of magnitude more than that.  Expect something like at    
   > least 10kW plus waste heat when running cold.   
      
   Which can be completely absorbed by 100 tonnes of H2O for 400 days, or 25   
   tonnes for 100 days. Alternatively, 1000 tonnes (10m x 10m x 10m) will absorb   
   100 kW waste heat over a duration of 400 days, or 400 kW over 100 days.   
   Sufficient insulation will    
   suppress radiation emission from heat leakage.   
      
   >    
   > You assume that the trivial efforts we currently engage in represent what    
   > would be done when watching for hostile military operations.   
      
   Not really. I am assuming the limits imposed by physical laws. Yes, there are   
   further limitations which make platforms such as WISE and Hubble even lesser   
   performers than the theoretical limits will allow, but there is room for   
   improvement in detector    
   sensitivity. There is NOT, however, room for improvement in the physical   
   limitations imposed. You can not detect even a single photon if no photons   
   strike the detector. Single photons (and lower range mulitple-photon counts)   
   are problematic because they    
   can not be distinguished from stray excitations from the detectors themselves,   
   various localised phenomena, etc.   
      
   >   
   >    
   > OK, you missed the point:  You need environmental heating because you are    
   > losing some of that heat as emissions.   
      
   Not so much as you might think. The shuttle and ISS already have had problems   
   with human bodies producing more energy than is "leaked".   
      
      
      
   > That is to say, not.   
      
   That is to say, absolutely falsifiable.   
      
      
   > Making an absolute statement that is then clarified with a caveat is a    
   > common rhetorical flourish.  Furthermore, saying that something "doesn't    
   > really exist," isn't actually an absolute statement of non-existence.   
      
   Rhetoric is often little more than politically convenient, socially acceptabe   
   lies. It is a tool for those who can not debate honestly.   
      
   >   
   > Leaving aside that this would just be part of the military budget and not    
   > something that the general populace would ever see broken out as its own    
   > line item....   
      
   Military budgets are not infinite. The military already makes tough choices   
   beteen the various systems they wish to deploy. They tend to favour systems   
   that allow them to project power over those systems that merely allow them to   
   detect.   
      
   >    
   > The costs of this sort of system is going to be peanuts next to the cost    
   > of the warships, (whatever form they end up taking).   
      
   I think that I have already mentioned that "peanuts" can prevent a warship   
   from receiving funding. Even if your analysis were true, warships are   
   systematically considered more important.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)