From: chakatfirepaw@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:33:17 -0700, Mikkel Haaheim wrote:   
      
   > Le lundi 26 septembre 2016 01:19:13 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   > écrit :   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >> Guided projectiles will telegraph their approach.  The harder to spot   
   >> attack methods are the ones that either require massive amounts of   
   >> material or that will almost certainly miss.   
   >   
   > Not if it is small, properly configured, and propelled by ion engines.   
      
   And thus get caught with its first correction burn to stay on target.   
      
   (N.B.  There is a limit to how small you can make something with an   
   electric drive.  They get their high Isp at the cost of being power   
   hungry, meaning either a reactor or nice big solar panels.)   
      
   >> > "Massive" is quite relative when it comes to effort.   
   >>   
   >> I pointed out above just how massive we are talking:  Launching   
   >> trillions or even quadrillions of tonnes of material _per target_.   
   >>   
   >> Mind you, the facility for launching this will be rather large and will   
   >> generate quite a bit of heat while in operation.  It's also going to be   
   >> kind of hard to hide what sort of vector it's sending things on.   
   >   
   > It will likely be large and hot, yes... or the salvo will be fired from   
   > an array of launchers. Hiding the target vectors will be no difficulty   
   > whatoever.   
      
   You say that like you can suddenly turn them to disguise which way they   
   were pointing.  These aren't going to be able to simply pivot like a   
   battleship's turrets.   
      
   >> > Platforms are really easy targets because they tend to be cyclic.   
   >> > Random motions tend to get in the way of cooperative processing.   
   >>   
   >> No, it's unpredictable motions that are a problem.  The platforms know   
   >> about the manoeuvres as soon as they need to, the thing is that they   
   >> don't need to know months in advance the way an attacker does.   
   >   
   > Unpredictable motions tend to average out, over time.   
      
   Not necessarily as you have no way of knowing if I have chosen to have a   
   bias in those motions.  Yes there are restrictions, but only ones that   
   mean the platforms have to pass through a limited polar region with few   
   restrictions of when those passes occur.  The averaging would also not be   
   fast enough as you don't get a hundred orbits of small shifts but less   
   than half of one orbit, (unless you want to commit your children to a   
   shooting war).   
      
   Knowing that the average of 1d6 is 3.5 doesn't help you guess what the   
   very next roll will be.   
      
   > Careful   
   > observation will determine the degree of deviation from an average   
   > trajectory. This will determine how large a "carpet" is necessary, or   
   > hos much manoeuverability.   
      
   We've covered that, even a single arc second of uncertainty means you   
   have a target area up to 1,500km wide.   
      
   >> > The required platforms will also be large, as a function of physical   
   >> > law. Tech limitations will tend to make them larger. This makes them   
   >> > easy to see and to hit. There are numerous options for hitting:   
   >> > buckshot, sniper, small drone attack, automated (homing) missile   
   >> > attack, etc. Nothing prevents several methods from being used at   
   >> > once. Nothing prevents one method from being used to trap the target   
   >> > in a position optimal for another.   
   >>   
   >> And we're back to you giving months of warning before any of your   
   >> attacks connect.   
   >   
   > Perhaps. Not necessarily. Probably not, considering the effort that   
   > military organisations go through to hide "muzzle flash".   
      
   You aren't hiding energy use of this magnitude.  Remember that we are   
   talking about on the order of an EJ per target.   
      
   >> The effort to rendezvous with something in a highly inclined solar   
   >> orbit is going to be greater than simply sending something into a   
   >> similar orbit.  This is even more true if you want whatever you sent   
   >> out back.   
   >>   
   >> Unless you can do your maintenance using disposable ships that are much   
   >> smaller than the platforms, sending a new platform is going to be   
   >> cheaper and easier.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > Perhaps. in which case replacement will be part of the required   
   > infrastructure I was refering to. Another reason why initial deployment   
   > is going to be rather unlikely. It is difficult to get authorisation for   
   > a project that will require an abundance of resources, especially if the   
   > components have to be replaced every few years.   
      
   The military already scraps and replaces far more expensive things on a   
   similar schedule.  Look at the Flight I of the 688 class subs, in a   
   couple years there will only be three left in service, (only one of which   
   will ever leave port), having generally lasted about 30 years with access   
   to full servicing.   
      
   > Something to keep in mind: IR detectors, and other detecors as well,   
   > need to be cryogenicly cooled in order to maintain sensitivity to low   
   > signal levels. On line, this is performed with active cooling systems.   
      
   The NEOWISE extended mission of WISE was still finding asteroids after   
   the cryogen ran out.   
      
   > To a lesser degree, you can do this by having the platform go off line,   
   > and have it look into the darkest space it can find for several months   
   > or so. Even passive sensors require very active systems. Systems tend to   
   > break down.   
      
   Yes, that's why they have a MTBF.   
      
   --   
   Chakat Firepaw - Inventor and Scientist (mad)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)