It is a truth universally acknowledged

[james_davis_nicoll]

That any thread that begins by pointing out why stealth in space is impossible will rapidly turn into a thread focusing on schemes whereby stealth in space might be achieved.

Comments

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

I have found the same with discussions of faster-than-light travel.

[timgueguen.livejournal.com]

Or space colonisation, to use last fall's thread on Charlie Stross's blog as an exmaple. "Waaah, you don't have a naive faith in space colonies so you're a horrible luddite who hates the human spirit!"

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

And the schemes will recapitulate points found here. (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth)

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Stealth in Space is the functional equivalent to Sealion Can Work.

There, I went there. Muwahahahahaha!

[nyrath.livejournal.com]

Thanks!
I get so much hate mail about stealth in space that I made an auxiliary web page.
The only thing that gets me more hate mail is the assertion that one-man fighter spacecraft make no sense scientifically, militarily, or economically.
The majority of SF readers get their ideas of what is cool from TV and movies, and will hold on to them like grim death.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

It's really very simple -- start out by positing distances and speeds where the things we know anything about aren't relevant (because the information won't get there in time to be tactically relevant), and then define the behavior of the *other* things you made up so that stealth is possible. What's the problem?

Even just in a single solar system, radar isn't much good at picking out drifting spaceships from among the asteroids. And all the terrestrial work on radar-stealthy aircraft should apply to spacecraft out there, too; just, there's the added advantage of millions of other targets to hide among.

Of course, an operating reaction drive of any power is another matter entirely. That's hard to hide (Smith's "flare baffles" had to have immensely underestimated how big the flare would be).

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Who said anything about radar?

It's heat. And not just an operating engine.

One thing I liked about the game Mass Effect was the background bit where the ship Normandy has a prototype stealth system, which works by temporarily storing the heat in sinks within the hull...but it can only operate for an hour or two before the crew starts to bake. Visible stealth is, of course, impossible.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

And the schemes will recapitulate points found here. (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3w.html#nostealth)

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

The thing I don't get is why everyone keeps talking about ship with humans in them. We're already sending armed drones into combat zones instead of some aircraft. Why in the far distant future would they be sending can o'man off to fight the wars instead of lots and lots of smarter than average missiles?

[carloshasanax.livejournal.com]

1. Obviously, the night is a time of secrets.

2. The people who want to read about stealth in space have little interest in technological limits.

3. profit!

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Also, spaceships are kind of like submarines, so.

[avram]

You're talking about SF with real science, right? No cloaking devices or hyperspace heat sinks?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Yes.

Corruption-proof

[montedavis.livejournal.com]

The good news is that these people rate outer space very highly.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Tell me about it. When writing SF games, I find it nifty and interesting that communications and sensors are both very fast and very long range, while actually being able to get to or affect some other ship takes a lot of effort and time. Similarly, I like the idea of having instantaneous communications and near perfect navigation on even the most newly settled colony world, but that actually getting (for example) a rescue party to someone in trouble can be a whole lot harder and more time consuming than talking to them. However, I've dealt with more than one RPG company who simply didn't want to hear this - they wanted unreliable planetary communications and submarine warfare in space...

[wakboth.livejournal.com]

The planetary communications thing I have to agree with you. Why would any sane group of voluntary colonists, as opposed to crash survivors, mutineers (or loyalists) dumped onto a semihabitable planet etc., *not* build a network of GPS, weather and communications satellites, as well as make a complete orbital survey of the world, before making the first landing?

[(Anonymous)]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that any thread that begins by pointing out why stealth in space is impossible will rapidly turn into a thread whereby the scientifically illiterate will propose physically impossible schemes by which they believe stealth in space will be achieved.

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Actually, the way these discussions typically run is that both parties agree that directive radiating is possible. The anti-stealth types point out that in that case you need an network of sensors that the radiative cones will slice through, and with a big enough sensor array this must happen. Then the pro-stealth people will say that they will simply radiate in a different direction. At which point the anti-stealth people will say that this is not possible because you have to know where the sensors are.

Game over then occurs when the pro-stealth types point out that in that case the anti-stealth people are assuming that their sensors can be stealthed, a contradiction.

There are other issues, like spatial and time resolution, but that's the gist of these types of threads.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Stealthing the sensors might be easier than stealthing a spaceship with live humans aboard. In fact, in the particular area of heat radiation, I'd think it had to be *much* easier.

[(Anonymous)]

As I said, it is a truth universally acknowledged that any thread that begins by pointing out why stealth in space is impossible will rapidly turn into a thread whereby the scientifically illiterate will propose physically impossible schemes by which they believe stealth in space will be achieved.

The math on directional heat rejection has been done. It's not workable in any practical sense for coasting and falls apart completely when a ship lights off an engine.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

At the cost of recapitulating points made here, John Schilling noted

Plus, there's the problem of how you know what a safe direction to radiate is in the first place. You seem to be simultaneously arguing for stealthy spaceships and complete knowledge of the position of enemy sensor platforms. If stealth works, you can't expect to know where the enemy has all of his sensors, so you can't know what is a safe direction to radiate. Which means you can't expect to achieve practical stealth using that mechanism in the first place.

So the pro-stealths are contradicting themselves, by arguing that the sensors can't be stealthed...

[traviswells.livejournal.com]

It's a problem like the Monty Hall problem or that whole airplane+treadmill mess.
Just difficult enough that people with a little to some scientific knowledge can see the "obvious" (and wrong) solution immediately, while it requires more in-depth study to reach the correct answer.

It's a devious mental trap, since people on both sides immediately start attempting to convert the other side, and usually fail.

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that the anti-stealth types don't have that much scientific knowledge? I'm thinking it's more a matter of committing to a position in a way that's difficult to undo without a severe perceived loss of face.

[j-larson.livejournal.com]

First-class minds are not deterred by mere impossibility.

[tsm-in-toronto.livejournal.com]

No, but they are constrained by them.

IMHO, good art only ever happens when the artist (in whatever medium) is stuck within limits, be it in materials, lack of time, too small a canvas (Gary Larson's greatness as a cartoonist is measured by what he was able to do with and within a single panel), whatever.

We dismiss work as 'formulaic' or derivative (e.g., http://www.google.ca/search?q=sword+of+shannara), when the artist recycles old, known solutions to the artistic problem.

But in the absence of constraints within which the artist must work, there is no problem. I think this is why a lot of people, especially in moments of candour, will admit they hate "modern art". And, those who like it, typically do so because they enjoy the vicarious thrill implicit in it, of pretending there are no constraints at all.

Or something (hope that made sense).

This is why

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

So, James, why'd you make this post?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

I asked for stories with non-stealthy ships over on rasfw and got stories about stealthy ships and a thread about whether stealth is possible in space.

[spikebrennan.livejournal.com]

You want this to be Nicoll's Law? (with Sealion and FTL threads being corollaries?)

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Unquestionably, Brooks's Law
"Any comment about how Sealion couldn't happen will immediately by followed by replies insisting it can, all repeating points that have been previously demonstrated as wrong, impossible, or requiring divine intervention to work."