From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le lundi 26 septembre 2016 01:19:13 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   écrit :   
      
   >    
      
   > >> So you think trailing a 4km long cable to the bottom that can survive   
   > >> for years is the easy way to do it?   
   > >    
   > > No. There are even easier methods. Rather supports my point.   
   >    
   > That was literally the method you yourself proposed.   
      
   Yes I did... to show that it CAN be done. The fact that thereare easier means   
   to do so makes it all the more viable.   
      
   >    
   > >> > Until you have colonies claiming regions of space. The entire reason   
   > >> > for a space navy is to protect assets. Current space law will no   
   > >> > longer apply in such settings.   
   > >>    
   > >> Space does not work that way.  The only thing you could meaningfully   
   > >> claim is the orbital space around your own planets/moons, the oceanic   
   > >> equivalent would be things like the White Sea or the Gulf of St.   
   > >> Laurence.  Claiming solar orbits would be like claiming the Pacific   
   > >> Ocean.   
   > >    
   > > You are not thinking future. You can claim any territory you are willing   
   > > and able to defend. It will be much easier for established belt and   
   > > outer planet communities to enforce and develop outer planet territories   
   > > than for an Earth based organisation. While independent outer planet   
   > > communities might not be able to enforce territorial "ownership" outside   
   > > their immediate sphere of influence from each other, a united   
   > > organisation of developed outer planets communities would sure as hell   
   > > be able to block out any spy satellite development from Earth.   
   >    
   > Again:  Space does not work that way.   
   >    
   > Consider how the "Greek camp" and "Trojan camp" of Trojan asteroids are    
   > actually closer to Earth, (in terms of travel time, physical distance is    
   > about the same), than they are to Jupiter even though they are out in    
   > Jupiter's orbit.   
      
   Yes they are. But they are not closer to Earth than they are to each other. In   
   the 19th century, the Alamo was closer to the central mexican government than   
   to Washington. Yes, the mexicans took advantage of this fact, and took the   
   Alamo. But the    
   mexicans were not able to HOLD the Alamo, because they ignored the network of   
   support that can be called in from native and distributed local resources.   
   Trojan asteroids don't have to be supported directly from Jupiter. Jupiter   
   could be nothing more than a government seat that oversees the distribution of   
   resources required to hold the trojan asteroids, which will be supported by   
   their neighbr asteroids.   
      
   >    
   > >> Um, picking out new signals against a known background is _easy_.    
   > >> Heck, there is a good chance that your _car_ is doing the kind of   
   > >> filtering needed.   
   > >    
   > > Um, no... it really isn't, which is why astronomers are still pooring   
   > > over 50 year old (and older) photographic plates, along with all the   
   > > newer observation data, trying to locate and identify the rest of the   
   > > uncatalogues stars, asteroids, etc...   
   >    
   > Do you want to know how that background is known for a military space    
   > sensor platform?  It looked at the same area repeatedly.   
   >    
   > You are confusing "known background" with "knowing what everything that    
   > is in the background is."  I don't care what the source is so long as I    
   > know it's been there and hasn't moved for decades.   
   >    
   > I'm looking for things that have changed, not to identify whatever that    
   > particular astronomical object is.  This is something we have been doing    
   > for years, starting with blink comparators, (which work by switching back    
   > and forth between a pair of images and looking for the objects that    
   > 'blink' because they are only in one image/in different locations), and    
   > now with signal subtraction.   
      
   And now you are ignoring the fact that those sources actually move, especially   
   relative to moving platforms. You are also ignoring the fact that received   
   emissions from such sources are variable, dependent upon the physics   
   generating the sources (which    
   are largely consistent over long terms for stars, but less consistent for   
   objects reflecting energy generated from another source), as well as   
   environmental conditions that the emissions have to travel through.   
      
   Nor have I been talking about knowing what the background objects are. When I   
   am talking about star and asteroid catalogues of "known" sources, this is not   
   a reference to knowing whether that catalogued object is an asteroid, meteor,   
   comet, or chunk of    
   vessel debris; or if it is a star, quasar, galaxy, etc; I am talking about   
   cataloguing objects that follow known courses. I am talking about objects that   
   can be reliably LOCATED, based on predictions projected from previous   
   sightings.   
      
   >    
   > > Oh, yes... once you have actually found a legitimate target (a   
   > > spacecraft), you are then going to have to filter through all the other   
   > > spacecraft... ALL of which must be tracked.   
   >    
   > You say that like it is a hard task.   
      
   Think about how many air controllers are required at a single airport, just to   
   sort through the local air traffic. The overwhelming majority of this is   
   known, scheduled, traffic. We are not even talking about hundreds of craft,   
   let alone thousands. This    
   assumes technological assistance to help operators.   
   The best military software in existence allows a single operator to track   
   perhaps a dozen or so targets. Most systems will only track about half that   
   much, and some can only track two targets at a time. I am not even talking   
   about projecting courses,    
   here. I am talking about tracking the path they have already flown.   
   So, yes, it is a hard task.   
      
   >    
   > >> > Let's say that you have the means to filter out all this background.   
   > >>    
   > >> Yes, let's say we can do something that we could do before you were   
   > >> born.   
   > >    
   > > Again, no, this is simply not true. If it were anywhere near to being   
   > > true, we will already have filtered everything out in order to dentify   
   > > ALL of the projected 150 million 100m+ asteroids. We are nowhere near   
   > > completing this task, exactly because we do not have the means to filter   
   > > out all the background stars.   
   >    
   > Again, you are saying because you can't do a similar, but harder, task on    
   > a shoestring budget it is impossible to do a task with a military budget.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)