Stealth in Space

[dmjalund]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Of course if we have FTL, the vehicle is going to beat it's heat signature anyway, and every movement will be stealthy.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Of course if we have FTL' date=' the vehicle is going to beat it's heat signature anyway, and every movement will be stealthy.[/quote']

Except if they have FTL sensors. But I think we're restricting ourselves to "hard sci-fi", otherwise known as "the spearman trying to theorize a jet fighter".

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Planets tend to not be emitting radiation in every direction by default. That makes them fairly stealthy. Ones that are emitting radiation in all directions shouldn't be that hard.

 

Planets can also reflect radiation. They can have intense magnetic fields. Those that are active geologically can emit a respectable amount of IR.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Planets can also reflect radiation. They can have intense magnetic fields. Those that are active geologically can emit a respectable amount of IR.

Those with civilizations on them can, on certain frequencies, be brighter than a star.

[amanojaku]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Gold is far from useless. As a corrosion-free coating' date=' as an electrical conductor, as both at the same time, it's really technologically valuable, and will be for quite some time, even absent bling use.[/quote']

 

Not to mention damn god microwave shielding and a great IR reflector, as it's use on some building windows and firefighters visors shows.

[The Weapon]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Planets can also reflect radiation. They can have intense magnetic fields. Those that are active geologically can emit a respectable amount of IR.

 

Plus of course they block out the stars.

[The Weapon]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Actually, IIRC, he wrote about ships using photon sails propelled by giant laser cannon mounted on the moon.

 

As for myself, I've found you get the best stealth effect in space if you can get the sound guy to turn off your theme music when ever you're on-screen.

 

The Kzinti Lesson (if I recall the title correctly) had a specifically onboard-laser-propelled ship.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Plus of course they block out the stars.

 

True, but this would only be detectable if you are fairly close to said planet and/or looking in EXACTLY the right direction when it happens.

 

Determining distance of a sensor reading can also be a major factor. A good example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_bursts - for some time, astronomers could not be sure if they were humungous events a long way off, closer lesser events or minor events right next door. Occurs to me that scanning for a spacecraft that is trying to spoof your readings anyhow could have similar effects.

[Susano]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

The Kzinti Lesson (if I recall the title correctly) had a specifically onboard-laser-propelled ship.

 

I think that's The Soft Weapon.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

True, but this would only be detectable if you are fairly close to said planet and/or looking in EXACTLY the right direction when it happens.

 

Determining distance of a sensor reading can also be a major factor. A good example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_bursts - for some time, astronomers could not be sure if they were humungous events a long way off, closer lesser events or minor events right next door. Occurs to me that scanning for a spacecraft that is trying to spoof your readings anyhow could have similar effects.

ECM is certainly possible. But ECM means they know you're out there - It's not stealth.

[austenandrews]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

It's an interesting question. If I can hover a helicoptor right over a battlefield and make it look like it was five thousand feet in the air, would that be considered stealth technology? Or camouflage? Or something else entirely? I think Ian's idea has merit - if you know an enemy spaceship is out there, but you're not sure if he's a hundred miles away or a hundred thousand, that's a pretty big advantage.

[Narf the Mouse]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

It's an interesting question. If I can hover a helicoptor right over a battlefield and make it look like it was five thousand feet in the air' date=' would that be considered stealth technology? Or camouflage? Or something else entirely? I think Ian's idea has merit - if you know an enemy spaceship is out there, but you're not sure if he's a hundred miles away or a hundred thousand, that's a pretty big advantage.[/quote']

It falls under "Countermeasures", probably ECM - "Electronic Counter-Measures". Stealth is not being noticed in the first place. Camouflage is both stealth and a countermeasure; it hopefully makes you harder to notice and also harder to aim at properly.

[amanojaku]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

I think that's The Soft Weapon.

No, the warriors is the first contact between humans and kzinti where the unarmed human vessel destroys the kzin warship with it's photon drive.

 

The soft weapon is where some kzin "renegades" *KOFF*agents working under the kzin government's secret blessing*KOFF* ambush a ship with a couple of humans and a puppeteer that had a stasis box from the slaver empire onboard, which contained an incredibly advanced weapon that 'morphed' into various things, including a total conversion beam weapon and a sentient computer.

 

It was also the story where the fact a puppeteer could deliver a fairly effective kick attack with his hind leg was revealed.

[Susano]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

No, the warriors is the first contact between humans and kzinti where the unarmed human vessel destroys the kzin warship with it's photon drive.

 

The soft weapon is where some kzin "renegades" *KOFF*agents working under the kzin government's secret blessing*KOFF* ambush a ship with a couple of humans and a puppeteer that had a stasis box from the slaver empire onboard, which contained an incredibly advanced weapon that 'morphed' into various things, including a total conversion beam weapon and a sentient computer.

 

It was also the story where the fact a puppeteer could deliver a fairly effective kick attack with his hind leg was revealed.

 

You need to capitalize or otherwise indicate story titles in your messages. I didn't realize "the warriors" was a story title. Also, I clearly recall The Soft Weapon as having no puppeteers. The scene with the kick would be Ringworld.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Seems to me that some people think in terms of 'Stealth = Invisibility', which I question; and 'It Isn't REAL Stealth, It's Camouflage / ECM...' which seems to be over-simplifying (IMO, all three overlap) A LOT.

 

Certainly, perfect invisibility is the ideal of what Stealth (and ECM, and camouflage) is trying for.

 

But, the practicality is that Stealth (at least for now) is not really about being invisible as we tend to think of it. It is about reducing very specific aspects of an aircraft's or ship's signature (sonar, IR, certain radars, etc.) to the point that attempts to detect it using that particular medium tend to get lost in the surroundings. A plane may be invisible to certain kinds of radar, but not necessarily to all of them - Australia's Jindalee system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jindalee_over-the-horizon_radar ) supposedly works against current Stealth designs, for example, despite pre-dating them by a generation. Heck, even Mark One Eyeball still works (IF close enough), despite the low-visibility paint used these days.

 

Could be wrong, but I don't see the equation changing radically anytime soon. It's much like the entire offensive weapon versus armour thing that has been going on basically forever. The scales may shift somewhat one way or another for a while, but eventually a new balance is attained. Could well remain the case in the far future as well.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

The soft weapon is where some kzin "renegades" *KOFF*agents working under the kzin government's secret blessing*KOFF* ambush a ship with a couple of humans and a puppeteer that had a stasis box from the slaver empire onboard, which contained an incredibly advanced weapon that 'morphed' into various things, including a total conversion beam weapon and a sentient computer.

 

It was also the story where the fact a puppeteer could deliver a fairly effective kick attack with his hind leg was revealed.

 

Later re-written as an episode of the animated 'Star Trek' series ('The Slaver Weapon').

[Markdoc]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

Seems to me that some people think in terms of 'Stealth = Invisibility'' date=' which I question; and '[i']It Isn't REAL Stealth, It's Camouflage / ECM...[/i]' which seems to be over-simplifying (IMO, all three overlap) A LOT.

 

Actually, it's pretty straightforward. Stealth does equal invisibility, or pretty close to. It lets you (for example) sneak into a system to spy on events, to drop off a package or let you launch an attack before your enemy knows he's being attacked - and therefore isn't taking countermeasures.

 

ECM is when they know you are there, but you are trying to confuse their aim, by hiding precisely where "there" is. It doesn't allow any of the scenarios listed above: by definition it's a fightin' situation and your enemy - even if he doesn't know exactly where you are, knows that you are somewhere, so isn't going to be caught with his countermeasures around his ankles.

 

Camoflage is something else again, where they know you are there but not necessarily what you are - a warship trying to look like a freighter, for example.

 

But' date=' the practicality is that Stealth (at least for now) is not really about being invisible as we tend to think of it. It is about reducing very specific aspects of an aircraft's or ship's signature (sonar, IR, certain radars, etc.) to the point that attempts to detect it using that particular medium tend to get lost in the surroundings. [/quote']

 

Right - which is why what works for a sub or a plane in atmosphere doesn't work in space - the surroundings are very, very attenuated, so that essentially there's almost nothing to lose your signal in. That was the whole starting point of the discussion - that even without a drive, the instruments we have today can pick up the heat given off by a few humans in a life support box at interplanetary distances.

 

Could be wrong' date=' but I don't see the equation changing radically anytime soon. It's much like the entire offensive weapon versus armour thing that has been going on basically forever. The scales may shift somewhat one way or another for a while, but eventually a new balance is attained. Could well remain the case in the far future as well.[/quote']

 

But it isn't necessarily the case when you move to a new medium - where there's almost nothing to hide behind and where transit time is measured in weeks to months. It's also why decoys are likely to be of limited use:

"Hey Floyd, you've got a supicious signal. You wanna check it out? He'll be in missile range in a little over a fortnight."

If they can see you at all, odds are good they'll have plenty of time to react, even if they are not sure what you are.

 

cheers, Mark

[austenandrews]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

But it isn't necessarily the case when you move to a new medium - where there's almost nothing to hide behind and where transit time is measured in weeks to months.

In such a scenario, it could be useful to create your own environmental conditions around your enemy. When you're at war with someone, fill their skies with decoys, redirected asteroids, dust clouds, false signals, jamming signals, etc. Give them enough to chew on that when you slip in the real thing, the alarm bells don't ring as loud.

 

Of course the real answer may be to use ordnance that doesn't care if you detect it at the edge of the solar system.

"Hey Floyd, is that a ten-mile-wide comet heading straight for the Earth?"

"Yep. It'll get here in six months."

"What can we do?"

"We have no chance to survive make your time.""

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

I have only this to say about asymmetric warfare.

 

 

If you have a knife, and they come at you with a truck, you're in trouble. If you have a knife, and they come at you with a comet, they're wasting money.

 

But if it's symmetric warfare, this strategy makes zero sense.

 

Earth Alliance: "Alpha Centauri shot a comet at us!"

 

Ambassador for 82 Eridani: "What did you do?"

 

Earth Alliance: "Redirected it, duh. But it's the thought that counts, so we're still shooting back."

 

Ambassador for 82 Eridani: "With a comet?"

 

Earth Alliance: "Duh."

 

Ambassador 82 Eridani: "Fortunately, in my species, the part of me that wants to pound itself in the forehead can do that while the part that wants to sell you comet-moving motors can rub its hands together."

[amanojaku]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

You need to capitalize or otherwise indicate story titles in your messages. I didn't realize "the warriors" was a story title. Also' date=' I clearly recall [i']The Soft Weapon[/i] as having no puppeteers. The scene with the kick would be Ringworld.

 

No, in 'the soft weapon' nessus the puppeteer kicked chuft-captain, the kzin leader.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

It's conceivable a puppeteer kicked someone in more than one story. Louis Wu theorized in Ringworld that puppeteers were pretty well adapted for it, with one big kicking leg in the back and the wide angle, triangulating eyes.

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

But it isn't necessarily the case when you move to a new medium - where there's almost nothing to hide behind and where transit time is measured in weeks to months. It's also why decoys are likely to be of limited use:

"Hey Floyd, you've got a supicious signal. You wanna check it out? He'll be in missile range in a little over a fortnight."

If they can see you at all, odds are good they'll have plenty of time to react, even if they are not sure what you are.

 

Not much to hide behind, sure, but there is a huge range of stuff to potentially hide IN FRONT OF. Stars, galaxies, nebulae, pulsars, burstars, etc., etc., etc. all providing a nice noisy backdrop on various wavelengths. So I submit that losing (or, at least, de-emphasizing) your signal in this way may be a possibility.

 

Plus, something that also occurred to me, you may not be able to hide your signal completely, but you could alter it to some extent. It's an old trick in early sub warfare - shutting down one propellor and maybe some machinery to sound like a smaller or slower ship. In a futuristic spacecraft, there might be active emitters that alter its emissions one way or another (give them a Blue or Red shift maybe, so the speed is misestimated?), or maybe some extra shielding in a few odd extra places on the power plant(s), so those emissions that are unavoidable from there look "different".

[Susano]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

It's conceivable a puppeteer kicked someone in more than one story. Louis Wu theorized in Ringworld that puppeteers were pretty well adapted for it' date=' with one big kicking leg in the back and the wide angle, triangulating eyes.[/quote']

 

It's been a long time since I ready and Niven short stories. I own mostly Niven novels now.

[Jhamin]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

There's a large error in one certain area, though: They're assuming that the heavy material needed to make a drone isn't significantly cheaper than the expensive, high-tech material needed to make a spaceship. A drone just needs a hull, an engine and to be filled with garbage to the same weight as the spaceship it's imitating. Any stellar nation would produce significant quantities of garbage, such as gold, which is semi-useless and very heavy.

 

Of course, you still have to pay for the engine.

 

The problem isn't just the mass. It is the heat. Any ship with a crew will be radiating heat from the life support system (the temp you have to heat the ship up to in order to keep the crew alive will shine like a beacon in the cold of space). Just engine heat=drone. Engine heat + Life Support heat = ship.

 

And anyway, if these drones are so cheap why are you using them as a distraction? If they can move fast enough to fool an enemy, they are moving fast enough to act as missiles. Just slam them into the target.

 

I've seen threads like this before. Basically, everything we know about detection in a vacuum says that both sides of a conflict will have semi-perfect knowledge of where the other is and where they are going. After that it all comes down to targeting.

 

Any attempt to make space combat work like navel combat (like star trek) or air combat (like Battlestar Galactica) is doomed to failure because the tactics used on the sea and in the air take advantage of the quirks of fighting in that environment. Trying to use civil war line formations in a dogfight is just silly, and trying to use aircraft stealth tactics in space is *just* as silly.

[austenandrews]

Re: Stealth in Space

 

The problem isn't just the mass. It is the heat. Any ship with a crew will be radiating heat from the life support system (the temp you have to heat the ship up to in order to keep the crew alive will shine like a beacon in the cold of space). Just engine heat=drone. Engine heat + Life Support heat = ship.

 

And anyway, if these drones are so cheap why are you using them as a distraction? If they can move fast enough to fool an enemy, they are moving fast enough to act as missiles. Just slam them into the target.

These types of arguments truly baffle me. Does it really have to be specified that a drone disguised as a ship would be designed to generate the heat of a ship? Can you honestly not think of a reason drones might be used as decoys instead of missiles? Maybe I'm expecting too much, but dismissals like these read to me like you're not really thinking about the situation.