Wormhole Assault: MA Style

cthia wrote:I doubt any leak would be detected at even a kilometer unless onboard sensors are specifically tuned for it, which I don't think they would be. Remember, space is already filled with solar and cosmic radiation which would overpower and taint any readings from a leaking reactor unless you are right on top of it.

That's the kind of thing that if you could tune sensors for, you would. Filter the noise afterwards, correlating multiple detectors' output.

Quite a few astronomical discoveries were made by accident by weapons sensors. For example, the Vela satellites played a role in discovering gamm-ray bursts.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:I doubt any leak would be detected at even a kilometer unless onboard sensors are specifically tuned for it, which I don't think they would be. Remember, space is already filled with solar and cosmic radiation which would overpower and taint any readings from a leaking reactor unless you are right on top of it.

That's the kind of thing that if you could tune sensors for, you would. Filter the noise afterwards, correlating multiple detectors' output.

Quite a few astronomical discoveries were made by accident by weapons sensors. For example, the Vela satellites played a role in discovering gamm-ray bursts.

Oh definitely. I agree. But I don't think sensors would normally be tuned for that kind of sensitivity. They would be going off all of the time and annoying the hell out of otherwise busy officers. Think of the sensitivity of an ordinary motion detector at your home. You don't want the sensitivity to be dialed up so much that a dog, squirrel, or even smaller rodent will set it off.* Unless you are specifically looking for a rodent in a haystack. Or anything else that you already have reason to believe is out there. And I'd expect you'd have to have scans focused on a particular vector and section of space. Again, I doubt it can even be detected at greater than a kilometer, and at that range you'd expect the exercise to be moot. No?

*Make that a very small dog, because some dogs are as large as a small human.

cthia wrote:Oh definitely. I agree. But I don't think sensors would normally be tuned for that kind of sensitivity. They would be going off all of the time and annoying the hell out of otherwise busy officers. Think of the sensitivity of an ordinary motion detector at your home. You don't want the sensitivity to be dialed up so much that a dog, squirrel, or even smaller rodent will set it off.* Unless you are specifically looking for a rodent in a haystack. Or anything else that you already have reason to believe is out there. And I'd expect you'd have to have scans focused on a particular vector and section of space. Again, I doubt it can even be detected at greater than a kilometer, and at that range you'd expect the exercise to be moot. No?

*Make that a very small dog, because some dogs are as large as a small human.

That's what I meant when I said you could correlate multiple sensors. An astronomical phenomenon far away is going to hit multiple sensors, so if they all detect the same thing in the same patch of the sky with roughly the same energy leevl (within their noise thresholds), it's not something close by that will pose a danger. If it's close by, then either the parallax will show a different patch of the sky and/or the energy levels will be different due to non-negligible difference in travel distance.

That doesn't mean turning up the sensitivity that high is possible. You're right that if it needs to be turned up so high that it saturates the detector with just about everything else, then it's useless. Neutrino detectors, for example, need to be buried deep underground to avoid neutrino sources nearby (like someone eating a banana). The gravitational wave detectors we have were fine-tuned to account for heavy auto-mobile traffic. In space, it might be easier to account for stray energy sources, like that big plasma ball in the centre of the star system. Though I might be thinking with my 21st century cap on -- in the 41st century, there may be emissions all over the place from all the space-side industry going on.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:Oh definitely. I agree. But I don't think sensors would normally be tuned for that kind of sensitivity. They would be going off all of the time and annoying the hell out of otherwise busy officers. Think of the sensitivity of an ordinary motion detector at your home. You don't want the sensitivity to be dialed up so much that a dog, squirrel, or even smaller rodent will set it off.* Unless you are specifically looking for a rodent in a haystack. Or anything else that you already have reason to believe is out there. And I'd expect you'd have to have scans focused on a particular vector and section of space. Again, I doubt it can even be detected at greater than a kilometer, and at that range you'd expect the exercise to be moot. No?

*Make that a very small dog, because some dogs are as large as a small human.

That's what I meant when I said you could correlate multiple sensors. An astronomical phenomenon far away is going to hit multiple sensors, so if they all detect the same thing in the same patch of the sky with roughly the same energy leevl (within their noise thresholds), it's not something close by that will pose a danger. If it's close by, then either the parallax will show a different patch of the sky and/or the energy levels will be different due to non-negligible difference in travel distance.

That doesn't mean turning up the sensitivity that high is possible. You're right that if it needs to be turned up so high that it saturates the detector with just about everything else, then it's useless. Neutrino detectors, for example, need to be buried deep underground to avoid neutrino sources nearby (like someone eating a banana). The gravitational wave detectors we have were fine-tuned to account for heavy auto-mobile traffic. In space, it might be easier to account for stray energy sources, like that big plasma ball in the centre of the star system. Though I might be thinking with my 21st century cap on -- in the 41st century, there may be emissions all over the place from all the space-side industry going on.

I don't think you are giving enough weight to the parameters of the original discussion. First, we are talking about "leaking reactors" not the full up radiation that would be produced by said reactor. Also, correlating the sensor data from multiple sensors is a good idea. But in this application I think it would be next to useless. The warheads aboard missiles are moving objects, and their location, or existence, would not be known. We're talking about stealth launches. At any rate, correlating the data from several sensors might (considering the parameters) work fine on a stationary target whose general vicinity is known. Trying it with missiles moving at even the snail's pace of grasers on unknown paths would be next to impossible. IMO.

cthia wrote:I don't think you are giving enough weight to the parameters of the original discussion. First, we are talking about "leaking reactors" not the full up radiation that would be produced by said reactor. Also, correlating the sensor data from multiple sensors is a good idea. But in this application I think it would be next to useless. The warheads aboard missiles are moving objects, and their location, or existence, would not be known. We're talking about stealth launches. At any rate, correlating the data from several sensors might (considering the parameters) work fine on a stationary target whose general vicinity is known. Trying it with missiles moving at even the snail's pace of grasers on unknown paths would be next to impossible. IMO.

On the other hand, a warhead as a guided payload will have some betraying emissions. Unless it's as inert as a rock and therefore flying ballistically, it's going to emit something, eventually. We discussed stealth and heat sinks earlier in this thread for something as big as an LD. A warhead is much smaller and, though it'll generate less heat, it'll also have a much smaller heat sink.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:I don't think you are giving enough weight to the parameters of the original discussion. First, we are talking about "leaking reactors" not the full up radiation that would be produced by said reactor. Also, correlating the sensor data from multiple sensors is a good idea. But in this application I think it would be next to useless. The warheads aboard missiles are moving objects, and their location, or existence, would not be known. We're talking about stealth launches. At any rate, correlating the data from several sensors might (considering the parameters) work fine on a stationary target whose general vicinity is known. Trying it with missiles moving at even the snail's pace of grasers on unknown paths would be next to impossible. IMO.

On the other hand, a warhead as a guided payload will have some betraying emissions. Unless it's as inert as a rock and therefore flying ballistically, it's going to emit something, eventually. We discussed stealth and heat sinks earlier in this thread for something as big as an LD. A warhead is much smaller and, though it'll generate less heat, it'll also have a much smaller heat sink.

Perhaps it will have some betraying emissions, but what is the intensity of those emissions? Which brings us right back to the original argument. You are failing to understand the problem. Minimal emissions of any kind are not going to be detected, even by multiple sensors. Each sensor is going to detect the same thing, nothing. Correlation of data from sensors has the same limitations as that of taking a snapshot of the body to detect diseases (MRI). The target (body) must remain absolutely still while the magnet moves around the body taking pictures. These pictures will be overlayed atop each other enhancing the image, which is why the subject must remain painfully still during the process or the results will be useless. Think of the old encyclopedias that used clear plastic overlays of the body to show more and more detail. If those images are out of sync it'd be garbage. It is the same limitation of taking images with a slow shutter speed. You must hold the camera steady, but in our application the missile must be stationary as well. Plus, multiple sensors are not going to be equidistant from the (moving - can't stress enough) target that will further hamper the application. Plus, and again, you must know the exact location or vicinity of the target before there's even a snowball's chance in hell for the application to work.

Also you'd have to consider the limitation of the "field of view" of "tuned" sensors. You already risk false readings if you increase the sensitivity. If you widen the field of view as well it's most likely going to be a wash.

So, no, correlating the data from multiple sensors that are at non equidistant locations of a moving object trying to detect minimal emissions is a bust. If you are totally unaware of the objects existence in the first place and you depend on this method, you might as well go ahead and preorder your casket.

cthia wrote:So, no, correlating the data from multiple sensors that are at non equidistant locations of a moving object trying to detect minimal emissions is a bust. If you are totally unaware of the objects existence in the first place and you depend on this method, you might as well go ahead and preorder your casket.

You do realise we can do this now, right? We have a telescope on this planet that has the effective aperture the size of the planet and is composed of multiple sensors that are all moving relative to each other because the planet is rotating and they're imaging an object that is moving relative to our planet. Putting the information back together is just a matter of software and maths and we can do that.

Yes, the image of the supermassive blackhole at M87 is very blurry. But it's also over 50 million light-years away.

In any case, my problem is still the effectiveness of the stealth in a warhead. As I said, unless it's as inert as a rock, it will have quite a lot of betraying emissions. In the HV, warheads either have plasma capacitors (which means they're pretty hot) or they have a reactor that is running. We've never seen a shut down reactor being restarted and how long that takes, but I would expect that it both takes long and a lot of power. So there is no inert warhead; at beast, there are stealth warheads that are trying to sink their heat inside, which probably makes them big.

The other problem is manoeuvring. A rock is flying ballistically, so it can't get to 1 km of a moving object for this level of stealth to matter. The MAlign graser torpedoes needed to get to within 1 million km and they were also shooting at "fixed" targets in both Oyster Bay and in Fabius. A stealth warhead that is trying to get to within thousands of km will need to manoeuvre, which I guess means compressed, cold jet thrusters.

The redeeming factor here is that all the techniques for detection haven't been needed in the last thousand years so no navy has experience with them. And getting experience is kinda costly...

Anyway, why are we discussing getting to within 1 km when beam weapons can hit from a million km away?

At a range of light hours and a time scale of weeks you could use very low signature maneuvering. Ion thrusters ejecting krypton gas seems pretty unlikely to be detected at any significant range, and it and the passive guidance could be run by a small radio-isotope generator producing very small amounts of power.

Manticoran mini fusion reactors cannot be restarted per David. Since people can't see the super hot reactor in a recon drone at range of thousands of KM I think perhaps you are overestimating the probability of detection.

kzt wrote:Manticoran mini fusion reactors cannot be restarted per David. Since people can't see the super hot reactor in a recon drone at range of thousands of KM I think perhaps you are overestimating the probability of detection.

Ah, good point on the Ghost Riders.

But they and the Silver Bullets don't get closer than about 100,000 km. There's no need to get to 1 km.

The Silver Bullet is the biggest threat here, since it can last for weeks, it's very stealthy, and it is a weapons platform, unlike the GRs. Yes, it did take a long time to locate the Mycroft platforms, but the GA needs to worry about the next improvement on that when it doesn't need weeks to locate a target. And of course they have plenty of targets that can't evade and/or are pretty obvious.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

cthia wrote:So, no, correlating the data from multiple sensors that are at non equidistant locations of a moving object trying to detect minimal emissions is a bust. If you are totally unaware of the objects existence in the first place and you depend on this method, you might as well go ahead and preorder your casket.

You do realise we can do this now, right? We have a telescope on this planet that has the effective aperture the size of the planet and is composed of multiple sensors that are all moving relative to each other because the planet is rotating and they're imaging an object that is moving relative to our planet. Putting the information back together is just a matter of software and maths and we can do that.

Yes, the image of the supermassive blackhole at M87 is very blurry. But it's also over 50 million light-years away.

In any case, my problem is still the effectiveness of the stealth in a warhead. As I said, unless it's as inert as a rock, it will have quite a lot of betraying emissions. In the HV, warheads either have plasma capacitors (which means they're pretty hot) or they have a reactor that is running. We've never seen a shut down reactor being restarted and how long that takes, but I would expect that it both takes long and a lot of power. So there is no inert warhead; at beast, there are stealth warheads that are trying to sink their heat inside, which probably makes them big.

The other problem is manoeuvring. A rock is flying ballistically, so it can't get to 1 km of a moving object for this level of stealth to matter. The MAlign graser torpedoes needed to get to within 1 million km and they were also shooting at "fixed" targets in both Oyster Bay and in Fabius. A stealth warhead that is trying to get to within thousands of km will need to manoeuvre, which I guess means compressed, cold jet thrusters.

The redeeming factor here is that all the techniques for detection haven't been needed in the last thousand years so no navy has experience with them. And getting experience is kinda costly...

Anyway, why are we discussing getting to within 1 km when beam weapons can hit from a million km away?

You're still not understanding the problem. It is a piece of cake to keep multiple sensors pointed at a single target in the heavens whose coordinates and movements can be entered into and tracked by software. My cheap telescope can do that. Cheap telescopes could do that for years. Enter a celestial object and the time and date and the object will automatically be tracked for you. Movement from afar (very far) of an enormous object isn't that difficult to pinpoint in relation to yourself. A speeding train is easy to keep track of with your eyes from afar. When it passes right by you it is difficult to focus on a single point.

You are proposing that several different sensors can focus on a single unknown very small moving object whose movement is quite fast in relation to your location. And, you are proposing that multiple sensors can enhance an image from zero. Adding zero to itself and you still get zero.

"SENSOR ONE, what did you get?"
"Nothing."
"SENSOR TWO what did you get?
"Nothing."
"THREE?"
"Nothing."
"Well, let's add 'em up anyway."

Seeing a supermassive black hole against the backdrop of an entire galaxy should be child's play vs detecting a grain of emissions from an unknown leaking reactor at an undisclosed location moving on unknown paths. Emissions which are too far away to be detected anyway.

Do you think the readings of several Geiger Counters could detect radiation if you correlate their data, if each of them is out of range of the radioactive source?

Correlating data only works when you get a hit. You've got to have something to work with. It is better to take multiple snapshots then correlate the data from a single sensor which is close enough to pick up a reading. Which is what we do manually with a Geiger Counter. We swing the GC until we get a click. Then we swing it back and forth until we localize that single click. But you have got to get that single click first. You can't count on several other GCs which are too far away from the source to be of use.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:Anyway, why are we discussing getting to within 1 km when beam weapons can hit from a million km away?

Because I'm positing that 1 kilometer is the detection range of a single sensor trying to detect a leaking reactor. Jonathan was more optimistic with his tens of kilometers. One kilometer (and only if sensors are tuned and directed). And I agree when considering the range of beam weapons, which is why I said at that range the exercise is moot.

Passive parallel detectors can't operate in series to increase their detection range.