From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le mercredi 5 octobre 2016 19:51:29 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   écrit :   
      
   >    
   > > It appears that not only have you grossly underestimated the value of   
   > > H2O for a heat sink, but you have completely failed to take good old   
   > > insulation into account. Habitation decks can be maintained at a nice   
   > > 20°C. A central core can be allowed to exceed 100°C. The shell, however,   
   > > will be maintained at 3°K, with the help of an active He cooling loop   
   > > (to soak up solar radiation), probably chilled with a reserve of LH.   
   >    
   > So more energy generating yet more heat.   
      
   Part of the budget. Yes.   
      
      
      
   > > Small ones, no. Larger ones, yes. Don't forget about reflected sunlight   
   > > and solar surface heating. This is what allows WISE to pick out its   
   > > NEAs.   
   >    
   > You mean all the known signals that I can ignore?   
      
   You can't really ignore them, no. Keep in mind that their relative positions   
   are constantly changing... even the relatively stationary stars (because of   
   the motion of the platform). In many cases, their actual orbits are frequently   
   changing, due to the    
   gravitational influence of large planetary bodies. There is also the fact that   
   their emission levels are often highly variable, and that they have a nasty   
   habit of overlapping one another in 2D projection. Also, it has been   
   discovered that some asteroids    
   can transition into comets, meaning their mass and orbits are going to begin   
   to vary.   
   You can't ignore the signals until a LOT of processing work has been done.   
      
      
   >    
   > Insulation doesn't actually help, your heat generation and emission will    
   > quickly match.  Your heat sinks are based on severe underestimates of how    
   > much heat you need to deal with and overestimates of how much you can    
   > absorb.   
      
   The insulation retains the heat o the coolant has time to ansorb it.   
   Support your claims with numbers.   
      
   >    
   > >> You assume that the trivial efforts we currently engage in represent   
   > >> what would be done when watching for hostile military operations.   
   > >    
   > > I am taking into account over 2000 years of military precedence.   
   >    
   > Except for the stuff I keep pointing out that you are ignoring.   
      
   And what do you think THAT is? I do not recall you mentioning anything   
   specific.   
      
      
   >    
   > > The   
   > > observation capabilities of WISE and Hubble are FAR more advanced than   
   > > anything the military has to offer.   
   >    
   > Um, I take it you missed the news from a few years ago when the NRO    
   > transferred two of its satellites to NASA.  NASA themselves has said that    
   > the optics are better than Hubble's.   
      
   You do realise that the NRO is only rather lossely affiliated with the   
   military (it answers to the secretary of defense, and military personnel are   
   sometimes assigned to projects)? You realise also that it relies heavily on   
   civilian contract? part of its    
   budget does come from military funds, but part also comes from intelligence   
   agency funds.   
   I would be interesting in reading the report. However, keep in mind that the   
   Hubble was built for a very different mission than recon sats.   
      
      
   > > Not exactly, although this remains an option. No. Although it is not   
   > > possible to prevent some emission leakage, in all directions, it is   
   > > possible to manage how much is leaking in which directions through   
   > > careful architecture, orientation, and angling.   
   >    
   > If you don't actively cool, they will heat up and become emissions    
   > sources, (well, more of an emissions source).   
      
   I am not saying they don't become emission sources. I am saying you can   
   control, somewhat, where the bulk of those emissions goes.   
      
      
      
   > > True. You need more radiator area. That means a risk of detection.   
   > > However, ships have been engaging in stealth behaviour through managing   
   > > the aspect area they present for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.   
   > > That is what is required, here.   
   >    
   > They have been doing it in a different environment.  Remember, on Earth    
   > you get to hide from most potential observers by putting a planet between    
   > you and them.  That isn't so easy in space.   
      
   Only in the past few hundred years.    
   Yes, space is a different environment. The scales of distance have increased   
   vigourously over the past couple centuries. However, many of the techniques   
   used are still valid, although they must continously be refined.   
      
      
   >    
   > > However, you are ignoring the factor of heat sinks and   
   > > insulation.  Yes, eventually, you are gong to have to dump the heat, but   
   > > you can control when and how... and put it to a good advantage, such as   
   > > additional manoeuvering thrust.   
   >    
   > Thrust = being detected.   
      
   Not necessarily. Depends on the temperature and mass of the exhaust producing   
   the thrust.   
      
      
      
      
   > That was specifically in response to public outcry over the expense.  The    
   > public isn't going to see the expense.  Strategic detection systems    
   > aren't sexy like big ships and jet fighters.   
      
   The public is not going to see the expense of specific programmes, but it WILL   
   be able to see the overall budget, how much they are being taxed, and how much   
   is or is not going into other programmes that they consider important.   
      
   >    
   > Think, how often do you hear about the costs of the F-35 program?   
      
   As a rule, only when it is going way over budget, again.   
      
   >    
   > Now, how often do you hear about the cost of a long range radar station?     
   > (Or given below, how often do you even hear of them at all?)   
      
   I think you are failing to understand what I am saying. The public will   
   largely determines how much funding is going to be available for military   
   budgets over all. The military leadership then has to decide which of its   
   programmes are going to receive    
   exactly how much of the share. The military is going to want the items that   
   project the power... everything else is useless if you can't project power.   
      
      
   > > And yet the cost benefit analyses will still interfere with the   
   > > development and deployment of such systems, because even peanuts can   
   > > prevent the warships from being built. The warships are required because   
   > > militaries rely on projection of power. Warships provide projection of   
   > > power. Detector arrays do not.   
   > > The DEW line and its successor were approved and established because it   
   > > is very difficult to deploy ships and aircraft in the area these lines   
   > > were intended to cover.   
   >    
   > Um, no.   
   >    
   > There were built because ground stations were, and are, better at the job.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)