From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le lundi 24 octobre 2016 02:54:00 UTC+2, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a écrit :   
      
   > 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.   
      
   You are missing the point that ANY claim to "nationality" is subject to being   
   able to attain and hold strategically valuable territories. I am not talking   
   about controlling an orbit. If there is, for example, a "belter" community, it   
   will be because    
   those individuals share similar lives, no matter their origins. Groups of such   
   individuals will likely "claim" immediately adjacent resources that they can   
   protect without too much difficulty. Adjacent groups will tend to reinforce   
   one another.   
      
      
      
   > > 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.   
      
   ALL of them DO, relative to the observer. Even if you mask out all the stars,   
   though, you have all the hundreds of millions of asteroids and billions more   
   meteoroids. All of which will reflect varying levels of sunlight, depending   
   upon distance from the    
   sun at any iven time, and their orientation (don't forget that they do not   
   have uniform shapes). The orbits of all of these are also subject to   
   gravitational influences from planets... or groups of planets in alignment.   
   They don't remain in fixed orbits.   
      
   >    
   > > 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.   
      
   The ranges are roughly known, but the given variance at a specific time is   
   not. The locations are not always known, either. They are approximated, and   
   further observations are required from time to time to detrmine deviations   
   from preceding orbits.   
      
      
      
   > So your bringing up efforts to identify things in old astronomy    
   > photographs was nothing but a red herring.   
      
   No. The point was that astronomers are still using the old plates to identify   
   what is a previously discovered source versus what might or might not be a new   
   source. It is not (always) about determining what a source actually is   
   (although this ALSO occurs)   
   , but about determining if two sources from two images are the same or   
   different. Because of the variations discussed, and the length of time that   
   sometimes passes between observations, the "blink" test is not always   
   sufficient.   
      
      
   >    
   > Remember, we are looking at that background multiple times an hour.  You    
   > don't get to move very far between scans.   
      
   Sorry. You really aren't. If you are lucky, you MIGHT be looking at them once   
   each day. Also, don't forget YOU (the platform) are moving, and therefore   
   everything is moving in relation TO you.   
      
      
   > It's less "sorting through" and more "talking to" that generates the    
   > labour needs.   
      
   Its both. However, if you prefer, the best that actual MILITARY resources are   
   able to track is in the range of 600 targets. IFF conditions are right (the   
   systems work best for land targets travelling across GPS/radar mapped   
   landscapes... it does not    
   track air targets anywhere near as well). These are the large tracking systems   
   that only fit on jumbo jets. Fighters are limited to tracking about one or two   
   dozen targets.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Take a look at your numbers more closely. This resolves to an average of one   
   controller tracking six aircraft per day (not necessarily simultaneously). IN   
   THEORY. In actuality, you DON'T have continuous coverage. You only have   
   continuous mapping of where    
   the aircraft SHOULD be, with confirmation when they pass through a controlled   
   airspace.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)