rgm79
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by rgm79 on Jun 6, 2018 4:40:42 GMT
It is not "easy" or "just use more computers". No. Any chance of falspositives will be exploited by enemy EW to create as many false-positives as necessary to DDoS your observaton systems. It is sound strange, but false-negatives for militaries is better because typicaly one shoot does not lead to kill even with giuded missels and there are more then one unit in battlefield. Rotation. As I can see from description, this subforum is about reality, not CoaDE where fluorine can by produced in space in significant amounts. Cost of telescope is, cost of mirror and CCD production. When SpaceX build BFR with $ 5-7M per launch price we will can build and launch spaceship similar to CDE for several hundreed million dollars, nothing will happen with cost of large optic and precision CCDs production. Lol, here "no stealth in space" adepts "proof" that instruments available for surface bound civilisation are enough to detect object with surface area 250 square meters at 38,800,000 kilometers, and when they meet with reality where more than 300 m2 in transverse section asteroid was invisible for this civilisation untill enter Earth atmosphere they hide into future with expectation about progress in detection. There is only one way to proof that stealth in space is impossible with current physic - proof that it is impossible even against our surface bound civilisation. Because all expectations about future abilities of detection is just speculations - to go to space we need cheap mass-produced rockets, not cheap mass-produced WISEs and Hubbles. Please don't tell me fairy tails - I work with remote sensing data. You will not have a curve - only N bytes per pixel where N is number of chanels. Pover-frequency curves are result of long time object monitoring with specific equipment.
Really? Earth atmosphere is predictable enough to weather forecasts. In Solar system we are simply not catalogued all natural rocks yet. And even after catalogued, to predict position of all of them we need to solve "million-bopdies problem" in real time. And that is only for natural rocks. And in ISIS-controled regions atmosphere usualy transparent and allow militaryes to spot all ISIS in real time by constellation of satellites or/and swarms of drones. But militaries don't even try to controll everything in Middle East because after this attempt they will simply have no money for war.
I think there is something else between "nominal peace time" and "total war". And even it WWII tactic "we a merchants" was worked. Until we not go into deep gravity wells COADE technologies more than enough to build you own Gundam-like niverse at least in Cislunar space - see dV map. Years for interplanetary trafic is only problem for personel managment - you can build vessel with millions tons of payload. Space colonyes by definition sould have countermeasures against asteroids.But sometimes with reducing quality.Help only to increase scaning time and spatial resolution by cost of enourmos number of sensors per each object.This should work for stealth technologues too.Heat sinks or radiator placed to light into Sun nadir.It means only that we need multilayer cloack.Real militaries don't think like you and use any kinds of avoiding detection.Stealth does not mean "invisible in all distances". And to protect colonyes from collisions radars/lidars and detection renge up to 10 000 km will be enough. And I calculated how many sensor drones you will need to trak "classical" mirror-stealth ship. Mirror-stealth means that we use mirror to reflect sunlight into direction where enemy should not have eyes. Minimum angle of divergence of reflected sunlight near Earth should be 32 arcminutes (Sun's angular diameter). But let it be 1 degree. Simple calculations show as that to track this mirror in real time you need 360*360 = 129 600 drones. Why do you need to whole sphere? Because when enemy know by spyes or somehow else about gaps in sensor network - all network become a space garbage befor you close this gap. But in case with even inner-planet space scan and with COADE technologies you will need at least severel month for it.
|
|
|
Post by Anon1 on Jun 6, 2018 6:15:39 GMT
And NASA has not thousands of planes, helicopters, ground vessels, hundreds of ships and more than 1 million of military personel. Please google top 500 and don't post this crap about "military-grade supercomputers". Real situation is completely oposite.You have problmes with understanding words "chalenges" and "surrounding air" in your qoutes from wiki? But there is no one optical interferometer based on separated spacecrafts.
I think that I'll take the Department of Defense's National Security Agency's computers.
Speaking of the Top 500 supercomputers:
You see how many of the unclassified computers on that list belong to the US nuclear weapons complex aka the various "national laboratories"? I will say again that NASA can only dream of the resources available for national defense priorities.
You apparently have a problem understanding the word "small" in that wiki on metamaterials. You also don't understand the word "narrow" as it pertains to the frequency bandwidth that any particular metamaterial is effective on. There is no such thing as a broadband metamaterial.
--------------------
Networking of sensors between multiple craft is something that the military is already doing. Just because NASA has not done it, does not mean that it is impossible. The Very Large Array operates on the same principle, it is just not mobile. All you have to do is use a laser beam bouncing between ships to calculate their relative position precisely.
|
|
rgm79
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by rgm79 on Jun 6, 2018 13:43:01 GMT
And what? Supercomputers are computers - not electric heaters.
I see that you inadequate. This is Department of Energy supercomputers. Beters DoD supercomputer in this list is only 55th while NASA's is 17th.
|
|
|
Post by lucubratory on Jun 8, 2018 2:42:23 GMT
And what? Supercomputers are computers - not electric heaters. I see that you inadequate. This is Department of Energy supercomputers. Beters DoD supercomputer in this list is only 55th while NASA's is 17th. I'm Irish and even I know the US department of energy is fundamentally military. They control the US nuclear schema, and those supercomputers are specifically used for defense purposes, modelling nuclear blasts. You sound Eastern European or Eurasian, you should know this as it is critical part of US nuclear strategy.
|
|
|
Post by Anon1 on Jun 9, 2018 20:09:43 GMT
And what? Supercomputers are computers - not electric heaters. I see that you inadequate. This is Department of Energy supercomputers. Beters DoD supercomputer in this list is only 55th while NASA's is 17th. It takes power to perform calculations. The more power a computer draws per second, the more calculations per second that it is performing.
The US Department of Energy runs the US nuclear weapons complex. It owns all US nuclear weapons. The DOD owns the delivery vehicles. The entire US nuclear weapons complex is run by the Department of Energy. Those "national laboratories" are apart of the DOE's nuclear weapons complex and primarily handle the design of nuclear weapons. In their spare time they might work on designing new fission reactors or even do some "fusion" energy research, which is also useful in the design of thermonuclear warheads.
The computing power that NASA has on that list is trivial compared to what is used for military purposes.
|
|
|
Post by AtomHeartDragon on Jun 10, 2018 13:49:46 GMT
It is not "easy" or "just use more computers". It is exactly the kind of problem that goes easier as you add more computers. In order to exploit anything you need physical assets there. In order for your FP signal to be persistent enough to not be discarded on subsequent observations, you need more substantial assets than just to create a brief blip. In short, if you're exploiting this you automatically provide a good approximation of your actual location and trajectory. You might want to rethink your stealth scheme. Since practical stealth in space is only possible at long ranges (if at all), false negative means that enemy has ships/fleets where you thought they have none. That may easily become a total loss scenario. Besides, evolution provides larger sample size than military history and pareidolia is still a thing. False negatives considered harmful. The number of observations still increase sensitivity and cancel out noise and now you have to implement omnidirectional stealth. CoaDE was made to simulate reality, even if it doesn't always succeed. CoaDE is also rather conservative when it comes to its assumptions on space technology and available resources - it is likely that any sensible space military won't be able to significantly dip below CoaDE asset expenditures and still be called a space military. Besides, fluorine is rare for its atomic mass but it's not some sort of super rare element. Fluorine is not technetium. You can find more of it than copper (or much beloved selenium for that matter). Besides, nothing in CoaDE is predicated on abundance of fluorine. It's not like oxygen is much worse as an oxidizer so pretty much everything that works in CoaDE would generally still work without fluorine. Yes and any space military is going to find ways to reduce this cost as much as possible and then just soak it. Without good sensors in space you are functionally blind and functionally blind means functionally (if you're lucky) dead. That modern military can do without as sophisticated sensors is about as relevant to space military as the fact that ancient military could do without firearms, aircraft or fighting vehicles is relevant to a modern one. Surface bound civilization is hobbled by the fact that it needs to peer through thick layer of turbulent, warm gass carrying condensation and assorted garbage. Besdies "can in principle" != "will do so reliably all the time", not if it requires serious funds to keep ground based infrastructure, even more funds to put anything in orbit while quite a few decisionmakers look as if deep down they are still incredulous that rocks can fall from the sky. When you meet one of those reliable weather forecasts, send them my way. The best I've seen are vast numerical simulations with resolution of several km tops that fall apart after few days max. Anything planetside is utter chaos compared to near total emptiness of space. That's still going to be much easier and more reliable for much longer timeframes than any of your weather forecasts. Because surely the atmosphere is the only problem here. "only". Asteroids can't suddenly accelerate and rarely come at very high velocities and very close intercepts. All the traffic does just that simply to go from A to B. Heat sinks only store heat. So now all your other layers scatter, reflect or absorb all but narrow bands they are meant to handle. Real life militaries are planetside so far. So you predicate your stealth on perfect knowledge of what the enemy does (in other words - complete lack of stealth). Can I roll my eyes now?
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jun 12, 2018 0:22:12 GMT
But there is no one optical interferometer based on separated spacecrafts. Spektr-R communicates with ground-based radio telescopes to make a large synthetic aperture, using very-long-baseline interferometry. HALCA did the same. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometryThere will soon be a telescope for detection of gravitational waves, separated into 3 spacecraft, that use laser interferometry to determine their relative positions to an accuracy of picometers (despite being 2.5 Gm apart). It's called LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna), and scheduled for 2034. The 3 spacecraft together will make one absolutely giant aperture:
Using a combination of these techniques, a multi-spacecraft telescope at optical or even ultraviolet frequencies can be made.
|
|
Prancer
Junior Member
Jousting in space. We're all Knights of the Stars.
Posts: 57
|
Post by Prancer on Jul 3, 2018 20:52:04 GMT
But there is no one optical interferometer based on separated spacecrafts. Spektr-R communicates with ground-based radio telescopes to make a large synthetic aperture, using very-long-baseline interferometry. HALCA did the same. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometryThere will soon be a telescope for detection of gravitational waves, separated into 3 spacecraft, that use laser interferometry to determine their relative positions to an accuracy of picometers (despite being 2.5 Gm apart). It's called LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna), and scheduled for 2034. The 3 spacecraft together will make one absolutely giant aperture:
Using a combination of these techniques, a multi-spacecraft telescope at optical or even ultraviolet frequencies can be made.
Wow I gotta look into this.
|
|
|
Post by ironclad6 on Jul 8, 2018 14:01:23 GMT
This argument always comes down to two positions. One one side you have 1) Sensors are becoming incredibly discerning, sensor fusion is coming on in leaps and bounds and processing power is cheaper than tap water these days also there is no horizon to hide behind. Thus stealth in space is totally impossible.
The counter argument runs 1) Space is really uncomfortably big. Like seriously, so huge! Also the noise floor is very high and the miniscule radiant intensity of a vessel from size hundred thousand km means that stealth is essentially ubiquitous.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
Post by EshaNas on Jul 8, 2018 17:36:40 GMT
This argument always comes down to two positions. One one side you have 1) Sensors are becoming incredibly discerning, sensor fusion is coming on in leaps and bounds and processing power is cheaper than tap water these days also there is no horizon to hide behind. Thus stealth in space is totally impossible. The counter argument runs 1) Space is really uncomfortably big. Like seriously, so huge! Also the noise floor is very high and the miniscule radiant intensity of a vessel from size hundred thousand km means that stealth is essentially ubiquitous. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Stealth in space is de-facto possible, by not being seen - due to extreme distances. As in, light-year distances, maybe a bit less but - nothing interplanetary for the most part? That's the balance as far as can be generally discerned, there are probably a lot of smaller variables than can affect this, but generally interplanetary stealth of nuclear and plus spacecraft is thus generally impossible. Either it radiates too much or a civilized system has so many information satellites, trackers, stations and personnel to look at everything that only the stuff inside of another rock can be hidden, and even then to an extent? Movement and numbers running around, however, would again, generally always be known. This opens up something new, however: the ever-present light-speed lag. If travel is fast, and combat is fast, you can still have surgical and precise strikes that, in a few hours, can change the whole scale of the war. Generally this requires torch ships of an antimatter variety, but I am optimistic about some of our capabilities. Speed is the key for the application of hard power which is the foundation of any polity, after all. If we have antimatter ships shooting each other and have a relatively developed system then a few actions out in the gas giants can tip the scales of any war, especially if the gas giants are important exporters of Helium and Hydrogen. I digress from stealth outright and just emphasizes speed, warfare, raiding, quick actions that take hours to report back to the inner sphere (of course, mobilization and the like will be noted but if the relative space around and above a gas giant is relatively full then it becomes mundane, normal, and trite). That might present a more fulfilling and realistic alternative to stealth outright.
|
|
Prancer
Junior Member
Jousting in space. We're all Knights of the Stars.
Posts: 57
|
Post by Prancer on Jul 16, 2018 23:32:30 GMT
I think a common misconception surrounding stealth is that it is a cloak with an on/off switch. That's not what stealth is.
Stealth's job is to make it harder for the enemy to observe you, in order for you to gain an advantage. I think it is more properly termed Low Observability.
Stealth to the degree that we imagine it in mainstream SF, as an invisible ship, I think is an unrealistic expectation or goal. But stealth to the degree that it makes your ships detectable at a lower range than you could detect your enemy? That is probably somewhat doable and possibly even worthwhile. I think we can all agree that we see a wide range of possibilities, with no actual answer to the question.
A stealth ship might thus not be a ghost. But neither would it be "just another ship". Probably significant technology would be invested into the design to reduce its thermal signature, turning it into a valuable asset.
So if stealth ships were to exist, I imagine that they would be a small class of 1-3 capital ships where the investment makes these large and powerful warships more survivable and thus more worthwhile, or possibly a limited flight within a class of smaller destroyer-like ships where the investment of stealth can be utilized to its greatest potential.
|
|
|
Post by Rocket Witch on Jul 17, 2018 19:09:29 GMT
Thought I'd try a quick visual exercise in dazzle camouflage. To my knowledge the discerning of an asteroid's shape and features is largely based on the albedo of certain spots and the way these change as it rotates, and for a ship this should also be true since they're both essentially lumps of metal to an observer (protip: spin your ship to look more like a rock). This is more complex with modern detection systems, since you'd need materials that contrast greatly across a wide range of the EM spectrum, but I think enough of these do exist for it to be effective. Remaining unseen will be impossible at a point, but remaining unidentified and relatively difficult to target could go on afterward, which shifts the focus of stealth from disruptive to distractive, making a pattern like this possibly the most costeffective measure at all ranges (so even if the benefit is small the cost is basically nothing anyway). It's a lot more 'digital' looking and lacks definition due to game limitations, but oddly fascinating to look at. Ideally weapons would be painted according to their hull segment's colouration. Radiators appear to be totally impossible to break up (even the non-glowing ones for crew would show up on thermal), but you could attach extension panels to mess with their apparent shape, like this:
|
|
Prancer
Junior Member
Jousting in space. We're all Knights of the Stars.
Posts: 57
|
Post by Prancer on Jul 18, 2018 17:03:00 GMT
Thought I'd try a quick visual exercise in dazzle camouflage. To my knowledge the discerning of an asteroid's shape and features is largely based on the albedo of certain spots and the way these change as it rotates, and for a ship this should also be true since they're both essentially lumps of metal to an observer (protip: spin your ship to look more like a rock). This is more complex with modern detection systems, since you'd need materials that contrast greatly across a wide range of the EM spectrum, but I think enough of these do exist for it to be effective. Remaining unseen will be impossible at a point, but remaining unidentified could go on afterward, which shifts the focus of stealth from disruptive to distractive, making a pattern like this possibly the most costeffective measure at all ranges (so even if the benefit is small the cost is basically nothing anyway). It's a lot more 'digital' looking and lacks definition due to game limitations, but oddly fascinating to look at. Ideally weapons would be painted according to their hull segment's colouration. Radiators appear to be totally impossible to break up (even the non-glowing ones for crew would show up on thermal), but you could attach extension panels to mess with their apparent shape, like this:
That's very interesting, but I don't believe the albedo of a spacecraft would be the primary means of detecting and identifying warships. The radiators, thermal signature coming from the interior of the hull, and the plume signature would be much more significant factors. One would have to address these issues in addition to the scheme you've outlined above.
|
|
|
Post by wardaft on Jul 21, 2018 1:57:44 GMT
Stealth in space is simple. Increase your area.
Given a high reflectivity solar sail like emissive surface, you can cool down to extremely low temperatures - there are places on the moon in permanent shadow that are only 34.8 kelvin. This is higher than what a non-absorbing surface would have to deal with at Earth orbit radius, because of thermal conductivity from the rest of the moon, but still gives us something like a functional ambient temperature for space in our vicinity.
For a 60 square kilometer sheath, a 1 MW craft in a 34.8 kelvin medium will only be 36.5 kelvin. It's radiation will peak in the 0.1 millimeter range, and be a whopping 16 milliwatts per square meter - only a few percent of what pluto emits. Going up to a 10 MW craft with the same sheath only bumps you up to 45.8 degrees, because thermal radiation is a power of four of the temperature, and you're still almost an order of magnitude below pluto. Really though, you could get within spitting distance of the interstellar medium temperature, and be functionally invisible aside from the critical angle at which you're reflecting sunlight. The specifics would depend on the material you had for a sail.
|
|
|
Post by apophys on Jul 21, 2018 3:04:41 GMT
For a 60 square kilometer sheath, a 1 MW craft 60 km2 is large enough that I worry it will visibly occlude stars and be seen that way.
I also worry that transporting heat 4.4 km to the edge will be problematic, resulting in a central hot spot where the craft is.
Active scanning with long-range lasers will still find it if it happens to come near combat range, and it can't really afford any serious defenses.
All I see that it could do usefully (if heat transport is somehow solved) is be a missile silo, mirror drone for a laser network, or sensor platform. Good stuff, surely, but limited.
Having hidden sensor platforms also opens a large can of worms - how good can they be at hiding from each other (particularly when transmitting data)? And what can they achieve that large, dedicated sensor platforms at home base cannot?
|
|