From: mikkelhaaheim@gmail.com   
      
   Le mercredi 16 novembre 2016 04:41:49 UTC+1, Rick Pikul/Chakat Firepaw a   
   écrit :   
      
   >    
   > As I said:  At best, cutting the area you can be spotted from in half    
   > will more than double how easy you are to spot in that half.   
      
   Not much of a concern if 1)there are no detectors (or infrequent detectors) in   
   that emitting half, and 2)any dectector that might be present is not   
   sufficiently sensitive to detect the emissions at a given range.   
      
      
   > Processing work that is trivial to do now.  (And no, the difficulty in    
   > teasing out the exact sources in a signal cluster hundreds, if not    
   > thousands, of light years away are not relevant.)   
      
   It REALY isn't.   
      
   The distance of a light source is not what matters. The magnitude and density   
   of light sources matter. When you are trying to find sources that are   
   magnitude 30 or dimmer, and you have background sources that are not only much   
   brighter but are also    
   densely packed, being able to separate individual ources are crucial...   
   especially when that background varies over time.   
      
   >    
   > You continue to ignore that the sensor platforms don't have to work from    
   > a single model of what they should expect to see loaded in once and    
   > expected to work for a few decades.  They get to work from having looked    
   > at the solar system several times a day.   
      
   Your source for this estimated has already admitteded an error of a factor of   
   12. So, NO, you DON'T get to see it several times a day. You also fail to   
   grasp how different the data sources actually are over a span of time... even   
   in a single day.   
      
   > That equilibrium has to be reached is basic physics.     
      
   Actually, not only does equilibrium NOT have to be reached, it frequently IS   
   NOT reached. That there is a tendancy TOWARD equilibrium is basic physics.   
   Insulation means that it can take quite a lot of time to actually get there.   
      
      
   > To get that control, you have to cool the surfaces pointing in other    
   > directions.   
   >    
      
   Yes. We have already established that. Well, assuming that the other surfaces   
   are heated above the desired threshold already. This is all part of the waste   
   heat budget to be absorbed.   
      
      
   > >    
   > > Only in the past few hundred years.   
   >    
   > Nope, always.  Just what you you think being "over the horizon" means?     
   > Or, for that matter, being on the other side of a hill?   
      
   Over a few hundred years ago, virtually all combat was face to face. Over the   
   horizon (about 5km or so) combat did not exist. Tactical engagements NEVER had   
   the benefit of "over the horizon" (even sea-going conflict was limited, with   
   over-the-horizon    
   only available for strategic deployment... and often not even for that).   
   Strategic OTH benefits were also largely limited, as these were frequently   
   monitored by scouts and spy networks... and were generally unnecessary in the   
   predominant context of seige    
   warfare.   
      
      
   > Most of those techniques rely on physical obstruction and nigh-limitless    
   > cooling fluids.   
      
   No. They really on emission patterning that matches the background as much as   
   possible, absorbing or redirecting return signal emissions, limiting native   
   emissions, masking numbers, masking individual manoeuvres, misidenitification,   
   delayed    
   identification, misdirection (making the enemy think you are doing something   
   that you aren't), distance obscurity (not receiving a sufficient amount of a   
   reliable signal), etc.   
      
   > Low temperatures means low specific impulse.   
      
   Yes it does... in relative terms. It does NOT necessarily mean that thrust is   
   low (same thrust, but you need a much greater percentage of propellant). Nor   
   does it mean that Isp is necessarily low in absolute terms.   
      
   >    
   > Low Isp means either large mass expenditures or little thrust.     
      
   Correct.   
      
      
   >    
   > Just look at the US to see how easy it is to get people to support    
   > massive military spending.   
      
   Just look at the US to see how much the military can't get because the public   
   WONT'T suuport that spending. How many seawolf class subs were originally   
   planned? How many actually got built? How many Zumwalt's were planned? How   
   many of those survived    
   budget cuts? How many times had the military announced that B-52s were going   
   to be relegated to the scrapyard once and for all, only to have them start   
   flying missions again? How many times had other older aircraft types been   
   slated for removal from    
   service, only to be refitted and put back into service because their intended   
   replacements cost too much to build? How many aircraft and vessels are in   
   operation now, long past their original retirement age? How many are retired,   
   but still maintained    
   enough to re-enter service if required (for example: how many times have the   
   Iowas been removed from service and put back in service)?   
      
   >    
   > And yet the US military spends billions on long range detection systems.   
      
   Or on a single destroyer.   
   That is assuming your above statement is true. I'll give you the benefit of   
   the doubt.   
      
   >    
   > Wrong.  You don't use aircraft because aircraft can't carry the kinds of    
   > radar needed, (you do know that a PAVE PAWS or SSPARS radar array is    
   > about six stories tall, right?), you don't use ships because they don't    
   > give as stable of a platform.   
      
   And YOU know that these giant platforms are not capable of detecting low   
   vector targets at mid to long range? They are good for tracking missiles and   
   high flying aircraft, or other aircraft well above the horion, but that is it.   
   E8s are MUCH superior    
   performers, but it is difficult to get them to operate continuously over the   
   arctic.   
   I will admit that they are, in principle, superior to ship mounted radar   
   systems... except the ship mounted systems can get where you actually need   
   them (like near the littoral waters of a hostile country). They have the   
   benefit of being mobile.   
   They also have the benefit of being armed to the teeth.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)