From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 07:24:59 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   You "show it can be done" example is one that isn't remotely viable.  If   
   you wanted to show it can be done, you should have used something that   
   could actually be done.   
      
   You will notice that what I suggested as a reasonable method was pretty   
   much a description of attack submarines.   
      
   >> >> > 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.   
      
   You are missing the point.  That was about the ability to meaningfully   
   claim anything more than extremely limited volumes of space around   
   planets or stations.  There is no advantage in being the nation that   
   holds the superior planets in being able to say what gets put out at your   
   orbital altitude, in fact it can be a disadvantage.   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   Most of them don't, (at least not at a speed that is relevant).  The ones   
   that do are also the exact same things that get a closer look.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Known variation ranges in known locations.   
      
   > Nor have I been talking about knowing what the background objects are.   
   > When I am talking about star and asteroid catalogues of "known" sources,   
      
   So your bringing up efforts to identify things in old astronomy   
   photographs was nothing but a red herring.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Remember, we are looking at that background multiple times an hour.  You   
   don't get to move very far between scans.   
      
   >> > 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.   
      
   It's less "sorting through" and more "talking to" that generates the   
   labour needs.   
      
   > 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 US currently has ~14k air traffic controllers handling about 87k   
   flights a day.  These are almost all complete flights with two periods in   
   tightly controlled airspace, (takeoff and landing), possibly with   
   transits through other areas where close control is required.   
      
   Interplanetary flights involve months, if not years, of floating out   
   where the only control required is watching for course deviations.   
   Computers are really good at spotting such deviations.   
      
   You _might_ have a single live communication each day or so, but even   
   that is likely to be largely automated.   
      
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)