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

[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.

[traviswells.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's a problem that happens to lie at a level of knowledge that ends up dividing much of the audience into "enough knowledge to automatically see X" and "enough knowledge to automatically see Y".
(I'm not saying either camp is very deficient in knowledge, I certainly don't have enough scientific knowledge to see either the "obviousness" of either stealth or anti-stealth positions)

But you're right about committing to a position. That's what turns these sort of arguments into big arguments. Since people immediately jump to the "obvious" solution, they don't consider the other position very much end up arguing endlessly because they don't want to admit they were wrong.

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Well, you don't have to know much science really, it's just that one side is uses an argument that assumes the existence of what it's trying to disprove. I'd say that this internal contradiction is indicative of who is right and who is wrong.

[keithmm.livejournal.com]

Only to the dim.

The argument is this: it is impossible to make a ship that maneuvers and/or is producing energy stealthy. That is not the same thing as saying "it's impossible to make something hard to detect."

A passive sensor has advantages the warship does not. One, it doesn't have to maneuver. Two, its energy use can (and likely will be) be orders of magnitude smaller. Three it doesn't need life support. Four, it can be really small in comparison to a ship.

All that makes it hard to detect. Not impossible, just very, very hard.

Given that it's harder to detect than the ship as a primary rule, than adding whatever "stealth" system on top of that magnifies the problem proportionally more for the ship detecting the sensor than it does the sensor detecting the ship.

That is what we're saying.

Real world example: it's provable that the shuttle main engines can be seen when firing from Pluto with off-the-shelf tech right now. However, that doesn't work in reverse. Mount the biggest-ass telescope and infrared sensors you want on the shuttle and it doesn't have a hope in hell of detecting a satellite in Earth orbit from Pluto. Or Uranus, Neptune, Saturn, Jupiter or Mars.

That's the situation being discussed, and that's with no attempt whatsoever to hide satellites.

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Some things are easier to stealth than others. And some setups are more one-sided than others. Uh-huh. Got any other nuggets?

I don't suppose, btw, from your tone, that you've even considered the possibility that it's not the ship itself doing the detecting of these sensors, as opposed to some other intelligence operation that is telling the ship how to move. Or that there may be an active campaign going on to take out each side's sensors, or that the sensor array might be localized enough that it would be geometrically impossible for it to detect those directed emissions.

Because, as we all know, none of that's ever happened in military history and never will.

So if that's the scenario you think you're offering up as a general disproof, after changing the definition of stealth, which, I notice, you again seem to think is hunky-dory with one class of objects but not another, well, I think you need to try a little harder, and actually do some reading on the subject.

Certainly you need to change your tone.

Although, I must say, you are an excellent example of people who commit themselves into a position in such a way that it must be extremely hard to back away from gracefully later.

[bricklovinfreak.livejournal.com]

Thank you for making me giggle.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

You seem like an excellent example yourself, apparently equally committed to the pro-stealth position, despite someone contradicting your statement that "everyone agrees that directive radiating is possible".

One can construct stealth-possible situations: for example, have no one bother looking in the first place, or attack some planet which doesn't have radar or telescopes yet. "stealth in space is impossible" is shorthand for "stealth in space, for ships and bases (the things doing the actual work), against intelligent opponents with realistic technology, is impossible". Intelligent opponents would note that sensors are a lot cheaper than ships, so you can make a lot of them, and scatter them around; there's no reason to *not* be trying to watch every activity or interesting object in the entire system, from multiple angles. Sensors *will* be harder to detect, and even if they aren't, the act of trying to take them out will be unstealthy. And sensors can be replaced.

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Sigh. No, I am not pro-stealth particularly. I am against the belligerence of the anti-stealth side. As for:

You seem like an excellent example yourself, apparently equally committed to the pro-stealth position, despite someone contradicting your statement that "everyone agrees that directive radiating is possible".

Do tell. Who is this person, and what are their qualifications for making this statement? I'm _fascinated_.

Sensors *will* be harder to detect, and even if they aren't, the act of trying to take them out will be unstealthy. And sensors can be replaced.

I don't think anyone has argued that they will be harder to detect. Insisting by fiat that they are undetectable, is, the however, the position a lot of anti-stealth people seem to take. Do you agree that this is an indefensible position?

Don't waffle and reiterate that they will be harder to detect; that's what makes the people who hold the anti-stealth position seem contemptible, given their repeated assertions that pro-stealth people 'just don't know basic physics'.

I would also note, that 'the act of taking out sensors' is unstealthy seems to fly in the face of a long tradition of doing just that to remain stealthy. It even gets movie treatment, e.g. tossing a bug in a circuit breaker to power down a critical security camera. Typically, fat guard #1 gets off his duff and investigates, then disgustedly makes some humorous observation(humorous to the fourth wall, that is) to guard #2 over the walkie-talkie, and flips the breaker back on, restoring power to the critical cam. Meanwhile, the ops team has run through the critical zone . . . In fact, that's why the anti-stealth people, poor losers, insisted why their detectors were by fiat unfindable.

Do you really not see this? Or is it that you've committed to a position that you can't comfortably back away from . . . presumably after telling pro-stealth types that "they don't know basic physics"?

What was the line from Brazil? 'Whose going to stop you from coming in? Well, do you have form dd-stroke-274?' 'Not . . . as such.'

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

You're using movies as your evidence?

And interrupting power to a camera and dashing through is *so* like attacking a deep space satellite and moving your ships in the meantime.

I agree that space cameras aren't magically undetectable. But the difference between an immobile low-power ambient temperature camera and a moving ship with life support is rather significant, not waffling. And they don't even have to be stealthed, just numerous and redundant. How are the stealthers going to knock out the sensor array and exploit the hole?

Do tell. Who is this person, and what are their qualifications for making this statement? I'm _fascinated_.

Who are you, for that matter, and what are your qualifications? A profileless LJ handle isn't much of a step up from an anonymous posting.

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Sigh. Thanks for admitting I'm right, finally, however gracelessly you do it. Next time, please think out what you're saying, and consider points other people have made, rather than automatically calling them scientific illiterates when they dare to disagree with you. That way you won't look so silly when you have to admit your mistakes.

Uh, you aren't by any chance a libertarian, are you? This sort of technique is usually their style.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Have you failed to notice that you're arguing with more than one person? I've made only a few posts to this thread. In none of them did I claim sensors were undetectable, nor have I called anyone a scientific illiterate. So your "finally" and "gracelessly" are hardly appropriate. Nor have I agreed that you're right about anything substantive.

Nor am I a libertarian. But that you think it's appropriate to ask such a question means you aren't worth arguing with. Bye!

[scentofviolets.livejournal.com]

Hmmm ... let me see, let's google on Damien Sullivan:

From one government to another? Some solution. The same or
similar problems would exist there; that is the definition of government.

You wrote this, did you not? But you're 'not a libertarian'. Uh-huh. I think we can stop right there, but I'll reiterate my point and say that if certain anti-stealth people hadn't argued like this group typically does, there really wouldn't be that big an issue, and the discussion would have quickly converged to a numbers game - everything from direction of resources to sensors vs industrialization in a new system, relative economic weights, spy vs spy (the sensor platforms just don't put themselves there by magic, they have to get there without violating the laws of physics), etc. But no, some people just can't resist sneering . . . even if (or especially if) it is to no good purpose.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Well, I did use to be libertarian. As for that quote, I don't remember writing it, and Google doesn't show it to me on the web, blogs, or groups, so I don't know where you found it.

As for stealth in space, you've failed to actually make a convincing case for it, just emitted some handwaving about alleged logical flaws. All the numbers and equations I've ever seen have come from the anti-stealth side. Like projectrho.