From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 25 Oct 2016 08:07:15 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > Le lundi 26 septembre 2016 01:19:13 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   > écrit :   
   >   
   >   
   >> >> Combine an array, (let's say a 3x3), with faster CCDs and   
   >> >> processors, (let's say 5 FOV/s), and an out of plane sensor platform   
   >> >> that only looks at half of the sky, (because everything interesting   
   >> >> is either staying in the plane of the ecliptic or coming from it),   
   >> >> and you are down to one full scan every 12 minutes.   
   >> >   
   >> > Given the bulk of data (and poverty of input), faster CCDs and   
   >> > processors will be insufficient. You need more processors (or   
   >> > processors capable of much greater loads, or both), and more   
   >> > sensitive CCDs (if you run the CCD too fast, it will not accumulate   
   >> > enough energy to register).   
   >>   
   >> I'm not assuming a massive improvement here, less than 4X of what could   
   >> be done in the early 1990s.   
   >>   
   >> You know, when a high-end home computer was a 486DX2 running at 66MHz.   
   >> Covering the increased processing loads would be trivial.   
   >   
   > It REALLY isn't.   
   > You are picking and chosing platform abilities that are bleeding edge   
   > tech (for the time, at least), and assuming that all these abilities can   
   > be combined on a single platform.   
      
   Um, no.  That was for off the shelf tech, not bleeding edge stuff.   
   Further, the 'combination' is simply using the future versions of various   
   components we can already combine.   
      
      
   >> Again:  Scientific budgets are trivial compared to military ones.   
   >> Constantly harping about "we can't do it right now with almost no   
   >> resources" just highlights how weak your argument is.   
   >   
   > The scientific budgets are trivial, but are much more concentrated. The   
   > scientific institutions invest in hiring only the best and the   
   > brightest, and in using and creating the best hardware for most   
   > efficiently completing the tasks at hand.   
      
   Asked and answered.  Seriously, I don't want to have to keep responding   
   to the same points multiple times because you can't keep up with a   
   discussion pace slower than one with a Kiwi in 1993.   
      
   (If you're wondering:  Back then the Usenet feed to New Zealand was a   
   magtape shipped by mail plane once a day, two or three day turnarounds   
   were the norm.)   
      
   >> > Yes. You can reduce it all you want. But say goodbye to your notion   
   >> > of stealthless space.   
   >>   
   >> If you call it taking a couple minutes to detect your hour-long   
   >> correction burn 'saying goodbye to stealth being impossible.'   
   >   
   > A stealth craft would not be using single hour long burns. They will be   
   > using pulsed burns that are more difficult to detect and track.   
      
   You are trading detection over a given time in exchange for a longer time   
   to be spotted.  It's going to be a wash.   
      
   > Even   
   > assuming the plume would be detectable. To give you some idea of how   
   > hard it REALLY is to detect some plumes: instruments that measure the   
   > plume of ion rocket exhaust have to be placed directly in the stream of   
   > the exhaust itself. With the exception of a few easily shielded   
   > centimeters from the nozzle, there is virtually no detectable emission   
   > from the plume, even at ranges of less than a meter.   
      
   I take it you have never seen a photo of a VASIMR drive in operation   
   then.  Even the little 5N testbed has a visible plume several metres long.   
      
   >> > A fast scanner is not going to help you if it can't receive   
   >> > sufficient energy input.   
   >>   
   >> Fast is relative.  We're not talking about doing hemispherical scans   
   >> every 30s here.   
   >   
   > WISE has extremely sensitive IR detectors (limited to 4 emission bands,   
   > in order to provide that sensitivity). A minimum 10 second exposure is   
   > required for every single 0.8 °^2 frame. So, no, we definitely ARE NOT   
   > talking about 30s scans. For that matter, the minimum exposure is 10s   
   > per frame for each individual emission band. Multiple overlapping passes   
   > are also required for each image, but this is mostly for eliminating   
   > data errors. A little bit is the requirement for picking up fainter   
   > emissions that are not always detectable, but are nevertheless   
   > recurring. With the 10s exposure time, it should actually only take 28   
   > days for WISE to complete a scan, but the overlaps bring that scan time   
   > up to 6 months.   
      
   WISE was also looking for extremely hard to spot things, many of which   
   would have no bearing on interplanetary combat.  It was also in the   
   business of detecting and observing interstellar and intergalactic   
   objects.   
      
   >> Only if you continue to use your ludicrous assumptions about emissions.   
   >   
   > It's physics.   
      
   Your figures only work for tiny craft cooled to unreasonable temperatures   
   and not doing anything.   
      
   >> That you think that space warfare involves anything like patrols in the   
   >> wet navy sense just shows that you don't get how space works.   
   >   
   > Who said the patrols would be ones like the wet navy uses? A universal   
   > in military operations is the presence of patrols. Foot patrols,   
   > vehicular patrols, aircraft patrols, naval patrols... the details of how   
   > the patrols are organised and conducted are all very different, but you   
   > ALWAYS have patrols. Not just for militaries, BTW, but also for civilian   
   > police and security forces, as well.   
      
   Go play Kerbal Space Program or Children of a Dead Earth for a while, (KSP   
   is more polished and has a nicer interface, CoaDE uses N-body rather than   
   patched conics).  Space warfare does not have those kinds of patrols   
   because _YOU CAN'T DO IT!_  The closest thing you can have to a patrol in   
   this sense is having something sitting in an orbit around something, (the   
   orbital equivalent of anchoring outside of a harbour).   
      
   You keep demonstrating that you have no idea about orbital mechanics, you   
   really need to learn a bit more about it.   
      
   > For interplanetary travel, even port to port traffic will not always be   
   > so simple. Sometimes, the traffic will be time sensitive "UPS"   
   > deliveries, or private business traffic. Don't assume that everyone is   
   > going to use Hohlman orbits all the time.   
      
   What makes you think I'm assuming that only the low deltaV Hohmann and bi-   
   elliptic transfers would be used?   
      
   Impulse trajectories are going to be easier to track ships on, (they need   
   bigger burns).   
      
   Brachistochrone trajectories mean you are trivial to track, (and are also   
   probably a red flag).   
      
   >> We aren't talking simply possible failure, we're talking "Hail Mary"   
   >> plays here.  If you want an attack that isn't going to be detected en   
   >> route that doesn't involve a redonkulus amount of material you are   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)