Magical Traveller starship heat sinks discovered?

[rancke]

The reason I think that realism is often a mask for one's game preferences is because there are always ways around any realism problem. Replaceable high tech heat sinks, a la the type used by Kim Stanley Robinson in the Red/Green/Blue Mars trilogy, prevent cooking the interior and put the ship's signature at whatever the captain wants it to be. And yet, folks who talk about realism don't consider this. It can't be because such heat sinks don't currently exist. This is Traveller, after all.

In my case, it's the exact reverse. My problem is that Traveller tries to have it both ways. It has heat issues that can only be explained by the existence of 'magical'[*] heat sinks, yet it refuses to acknowledge this by as much as a line of text.

[*] Magical as in contrary to real life physics not as in fantasy; since Traveller is science fiction, "real" magic is not an acceptable explanation. Personally I suggest 'subspace heat sinks'; there's nothing magical about subspace! ​

When I argue against handwaving real physics heat problems without a heat sink, it's because I want that heat sink acknowledged, not because I want to change the Traveller detection ranges.

(Ideally, I'd like those heat sinks used to make military vessels more expensive than civilian vessels, but that would involve some number crushing and rules writing that I'm not prtepared to do myself.)


Hans

 

[Darkwing]

I just go with the TL 12 MT passive sensor range of ~100,000 A.U. rather than the top of line model which has a detection range of 2 parsecs...

So, 800,000 minutes after I arrive, you can detect my ship, or 6.52 years out if you went for the better model.

 

[Darkwing]

In my case, it's the exact reverse. My problem is that Traveller tries to have it both ways. It has heat issues that can only be explained by the existence of 'magical'[*] heat sinks, yet it refuses to acknowledge this by as much as a line of text.

Let alone an item of ship's equipement with it's own table?

When I argue against handwaving real physics heat problems without a heat sink, it's because I want that heat sink acknowledged, not because I want to change the Traveller detection ranges.

OK, but then we'd need to write the rules on what that does to change it.

(Ideally, I'd like those heat sinks used to make military vessels more expensive than civilian vessels, but that would involve some number crushing and rules writing that I'm not prtepared to do myself.)
Hans

The problem is, ships are going to need heat sinks, then those heat sinks will improve over TLs, and better, more expensive models will be made at the same TLs. That is quite a bit to develop, especially since we still need to define exactly what game benefits they'll have.

I make military ships more expensive by assuming more and/or better armor and better weapons than civilians get. My PCs still only have a civilian-grade weapons license and weapons-suite on their tramp freighter. They keep asking for better weapons, but haven't even applied for the upgraded license.
Part of that is that I haven't yet actually made new tables for the better versions; I just fudge it when they run into military ships. I want them scared of the military! Like the old advice, never fight a cop; they have too much back up and the system is in their favor, with the added benefit of extra muscle.

 

[Darkwing]

From what I gather, you don't have any real-world experience with detecting objects in space from space. Nor do you have any experience with reducing the signature of spacecraft. Not even using TL7 sensor technology, much less using TL15 sensor technology.

All you have is a faith in your opinion strong enough to dismiss any evidence that doesn't conform to that opinion. I'm afraid that isn't very convincing.


Hans

What I see is people convinced the overly-optimistic Popular Science articles are all 100% true, and arrogantly saying : "you just don't understand". That is no way to convince me. I stated my background, which translates fairly well to the real problems, as opposed to the problems perceived in a think tank.
I have seen no evidence. I have seen assertions and appeals to authority.
When I advance an idea that doesn't conform to your prejudices and shows a plausible way to evade the means you propose, you then make the ad hominem attack that I "dismiss evidence".

Interesting to see how much this topic blew up while I was AFK!
And thanks for the support, Greylond!

 

[Darkwing]

And, you say it like someone who thinks that the ONLY & 1st thing one does is shoot at something...

My experience is more along the lines of recommending national policy vis-a-vis Defense.

No, Greylond says it like someone who thinks that one of the things we might need to do is shoot at it. One of the more serious ones.
And if the way you argue here is indicative of your advice on defense, I'm beginning to see why so many of us in uniform wonder at the stuff that comes down from on high.

 

[Darkwing]

Space is empty. You won't get "false positives" around the parameters we are discussing.

Last I heard, interstellar space was expected to have about 10 atoms per cubic meter. In0-system, there's a lot of rocks, and we don't know how many nor where they all are; we're still finding them. It's not the endo fo history yet.

 

[robject]

This is a Proxy War

By now we should all understand that this discussion is essentially a proxy war for operational rules in Traveller.

There are no operational rules. Thus every solution seen on COTI is IMTU. Your solution will not satisfy others. Embrace the variety and be content.

 

[Darkwing]

In a system with controls, they will already be ID'd with transponders. Otherwise, it isn't controlled. "Objects floating around" are not near ship temps either and will have been previously plotted and exact locations already known.

Someone that jumps in will be requested to ID themselves, destination, etc. Pretty simple.

Back to laboratory conditions. You've obviously never done Maritime Interception Ops, Freedom of Navigation, or dealt with entering/exiting ports.
Airports have had plenty of hairy incidents where unidentified aircraft appeared out of nowhere, despite all those radars, transponders, etc.

Ship temps also will NOT be homogenous, and can be controlled somewhat with heat sinks (not magitech), because different materials will radiate at different rates. Starships should not have the inner bulkheads as the outside hull, and that heat has to conduct through the inner bulkhead, the fuel tanks and voids, and then through the outer hull. Add in the other ideas I've posted, and your hypothetical system WILL see a lot more junk, and will miss a lot more than you think it will.

 

[Darkwing]

And those who claim that, due to the heat and movement issues, you can't disguise a spaceship as anything other than a spaceship. Stealth by pretending to be an innocuous object is impossible if you can't disguise yourself as an innocuous object.


Hans

Circular reasoning is not logic.

 

[Darkwing]

Hi,

I've been reluctant to comment on these type threads, due in part to the strong emotions they seem to conjure, but one thing I've noticed so far is that there doesn't seem to be much discussion of jamming or spoofing (as far as I can see).

Yeah, but I'm discussing stealth - sneaking in. Jamming is obvious and tells the other side someone IS there.

It is my understanding in modern/semi-modern naval and air warfare overpowering an enemies sensors, preventing them from clearly ID'ing anything is an effective means of causing confusion, and preventing the enemy from detecting objects, and/or determining friend from foe, etc.

As such, the use of jamming drones, decoy vessels emitting false signals and/or signatures and other such activities would all seem likely potential Traveller era tactics.

Yes, but that'd mean a military operation - NOT necessarily an attack - but an op of some kind. And when the Iranians buzz across our course just in front of our ships, that is an op.

Stealth, in the sense of sneaking past without being detected or without being identified as a vessel to look at, is not restricted to military ops. Smugglers, Scouts checking on worlds on the verge of space, spies being inserted, and pirates would all have a legit need for the sort of stealth we've been shouting past each other about.

 

[Greylond]

Back to laboratory conditions. You've obviously never done Maritime Interception Ops, Freedom of Navigation, or dealt with entering/exiting ports.
Airports have had plenty of hairy incidents where unidentified aircraft appeared out of nowhere, despite all those radars, transponders, etc.

Interesting item of note, most civilian airports(at least in the USA) do their primary tracking via tracking transponders. They don't actually use RADAR to track most aircraft.

 

[Darkwing]

I refer you to a previous post where I pointed out that you can't make a spaceship appear to be anything other than a spaceship.

Camouflage doesn't work? Still don't concede that saying it can't be done is the same as it not being possible.

Beyond that, if the intruder bribed the junior sensor operator to ignore his signal, would that be stealth too, as you define it? What if the enemy snuck a virus into the computer programmed to ignore enemy vessels? Would that be stealth too?

Because if it is, you're both right and wrong. Right by your definition of stealth, wrong by my definition.

Achieves similar ends, but not the same means, and requires inside help.


Hans[/QUOTE]

 

[rancke]

I have seen no evidence. I have seen assertions and appeals to authority.

That's rich, coming from someone whose 'evidence' is "Trust me, I've been to sea, I know how things work in space." If that isn't an appeal to authority, I don't know what is. And to a largely irrelevant authority to boot.

When I advance an idea that doesn't conform to your prejudices and shows a plausible way to evade the means you propose, you then make the ad hominem attack that I "dismiss evidence".

Untrue. HG_B provided you with a link to a site full of evidence that claimed your proposal wasn't plausible. You didn't refute that evidence. You simply said (paraphrased) "The people who wrote that don't know what they're talking about. Trust me, I know." A clear case of dismissing evidence instead of refuting it.


Hans

 

[Darkwing]

Sure. Unless you are jumping in days worth of insystem travel away, "eventually" is REALLY quickly.

says you. Having seen the way radar operators stand their watch, you may not be noticed at all for a long time.

A crew is stupid enough to jump out of a system with a broken radio? A starships comms is as likely to break while in jump as I am to get hit by lightening, twice) is going to get a LOT of attention.

Hardly. It'll be doctrine to that effect, and at first, it'll get treated that way. But when you see it all the time, and it's never serious, you start telling the new guys "Yeah, the books says go defcon 4 on these situations, but these merchies, they just never do their maintenance. Ya can't go all hyper on civvies every time they were too damn lazy to keep their gear working. It'll be alright". BTW, we hear all the time at training how the enemy is always probing our defenses and looking for the soft target, so we need to be a hard target - much of the advice on that for security watches and for radar watches is standing at attention and being a jackhole to people trying to be friendly, not really practical advice. Or, in a foreign port, trying to detain a foreign national on their own soil, outside the gate for taking photos of our ships - as if we had any right to stop them. Yes, it's a bad thing to allow, but it's not like we actually have the authority to tell a host nation to enforce our restrictions.

A single ship acting normally, taking standard routes is likely to not eyeballed until very close. Depending on how paranoid the defenders. I've seen very detailed radar images of small asteroids (looks like a good b&w photo) taken from 600,000 miles with present day tech. Add 6 or 7 TL's and we're easily talking millions of miles away getting visual ID of ship type.

1. If the ship isn't camouflaged
2. If the sensors are in good shape, maintenance up to date, and not lowest bidder.
3. If the scope can be kept on it long enough
4. If the operator bothers and is competent enough

 

[Darkwing]

What false signal? There is no object in space that emits a stronger signal than a spacecraft.


Hans

The flux tube over Jupiter for one. Eruptions from certain moons. Colliding asteroids - which can be prepared in advance.

 

[Darkwing]

Well, no. What we've been arguing is that there is no way to not be detected.

Reality has never conformed to such an opinion, so I don't expect it to in the game, either.

But, yes, once you are detected as a spacecraft, everything is pretty simple for the defender. There are ways to overcome the defender's advantage (mostly bribery and corruption), but none of them depends on stealth[*].

Hans

Except that it's not so simple, as we've demonstrated from real life.

 

[Darkwing]

This will probably get lost in the shuffle of the present discussion. However, I’m going to throw this out there since it came up in another thread about Fusion reactors.

Gravitronics plays an important part in the power generation of a Traveller Starship. It compresses the Fusionable material to the point where it becomes a micro star within the reactor chamber. Nuclear Dampers control the reaction during the power plant’s operating cycle. I bring this up because it is one way of explaining why there is no excess heat escaping the reactor.

Now, if I remember my high school physics, Absolute Zero is where all molecular activity ceases. Therefore one must assume Nuclear Dampers can bring about the same result. I state this because if you take the literal meaning of Nuclear Damper, it means to limit or deter nuclear reaction. This solves the need for coolant in Traveller Power Plants because the heat is being deterred by the damping field inside the reactor.

If you take this explanation for how a power plant control the heat produced inside the reactor you can make two deductions. The first is you can make the outside of the reactor whatever temperature you want. And the second is, Nuclear Dampers are not only projectors but fields as well. Under this model, we know the Nuclear Damping Field allows for power generation within the reactor chamber. It wouldn’t be hard to produce such a field around a starship if this technology exists in Traveller.

Another thing which hasn’t been brought up in this discussion is Black Globes. My only information on the subject comes from Larry Niven’s Mote in the Eye of God. They absorb energy from attacker’s weapons. If they absorb energy then they would also act like a cloaking device. They would also be invisible to most sensing devices since any active detection system would be absorbed by the globe and not reflected back to the receiver.

Good points, but non-military characters shouldn't have a black globe, so would have to try it the way I postulate.

 

[Greylond]

Part of the problem that I don't think that the "No Stealth In Space" folks aren't considering is something that I find lacking in Traveller and that is information on what a star system's daily traffic looks like. Sure, I can accept that given enough time and dedicated/skilled operators that we can detect just about anything in fairly empty space but consider a RL sea based problem.

We have sensors that can detect just about any sea borne craft in existence when out on the open sea, but take that same technology and put it on a ship or shore station monitoring a port like Norfolk, Virginia(USA) and see how well you can positively ID each and every craft. And there's a LOT of boats transiting Norfolk. Then the question is, how many customs/patrol craft are there in a typical system policing that traffic.

For example, take OTU Regina. It is described as a very busy system, how much traffic is actually transiting the system at any one time? 10 Ships at any one time? 100 Ships? Thousands? How many patrol craft are there and is there enough to actually make contact, not to mention actual customs inspection with all craft entering/exiting the system. Or does the system not worry about customs until a ship docks at the Highport and then how many incoming/outgoing ships actually are inspected. Again, take a look at real world stats on how many shipping containers are actually inspected and you might find some surprising/scary stats on it.

Without answers to those questions, then yes I agree the whole argument is moot because both sides "know" what they see in their heads and assume that the other side agrees with it...

 

[Darkwing]

Ok, as this is a Traveller forum, I am going to chime in with a Traveller answer.

First, when a ship comes out of jump, its at the 100D limit. For an Earth sized world this is a mere 800 000 Miles away. According to game mechanics, it gives off a LOT of energy, energy which can be used to pinpoint its size and location. It is spotted. If it does not respond with its transponder codes, according to all that I have read, patrol craft are dispatched to see whats wrong, as if it doesn't respond, it is either a foe or a ship in trouble and in need of help. Also, secondary sensor readings will be made, including visual, and if its a warship, appropriate measures WILL be taken at that time. What those measure are depends upon the world in question, and can range from run and hide in a cave, to surrender, to launch a fleet to stop it, as well as anything in between.

Standard procedure, as far as it goes. The idea is how to get around it.

Should the jump signature happen outside of the 100D limit and within sensor ranges ( 2 AU, AU being astronomical units, or 291 195 742 km or 185 811 614.4 miles ), then they will take a close look at the appearing object, and attempt to make contact. Should attempts to make contact fail, then a patrol craft will be dispatched if one is available to see if the ship is an enemy or in need of help.

Similar, although less routine, so the chances of people staying frosty is slightly better.

Should the ship jump in outside of sensor range, and try to make itself look like ...whatever... and coast in, its sudden appearance in sensor range (when it arrives) will be noted, its trajectory logged and it will be studied, as it could be an extinction level event for the world in question. That self same patrol ship will probably also be launched to go check it out as well.

If it is detected, traced, and identified properly. Enough effort can prevent detection or ID. If an apparent asteroid appears on a course tangential to anything of interest, then it gets forgotten.

Now before you say something about "operator error" or such, this is all automated, with multiple redundancies, and with calls going out to those who DO care if anything new shows up. Anything at all.

In theory. You can get close to that with a well-supervised custom build one-off. Once it hits mass-production, lowest bid prevails, and you start getting cheap crap that doesn't meet the specs desired. NASA and the USAF used to be a lot better about getting around the bidding rules to get these one-off wonders.

Every nation on this planet tracks anything larger than a bolt that is anywhere near our planet as a matter of course (and yes, we even track a glove that was left in orbit too). any object regardless of its apparent size will be checked out, studied, analysed and charted.

Much of that is not real-time, and the results are only kicked up if they're really interesting.

This is just how things are done, and I do not expect them to lighten up the way things are done, ever. ALso as a former member of SAC, MAC, AMC, and ATOCs, I know for what I am talking about.

On paper, no. But in practice, yes. Put enough brass with sticks up their chimneys in the watchroom, and you can cut down on (never eliminate) the gabbing, daydreaming, and general lack of focus. But you can only do that in the big installations. Tracking Station 17 is going to have a junior officer in charge, who doesn;'t stand watch, and a bunch of enlisted peons who don't care, don't think anything can happen HERE, and aren't worried, until something happens. Then they'll be on their toes for a while until normal routine reasserts itself. Meantime, Tracking Station 18 has a JO that thinks he's Napoleon reincarnated, and his crew will spend a lot more effort LOOKING like they're serious, and hating his guts, but still not standing any better watch.

 

[rancke]

For example, take OTU Regina. It is described as a very busy system, how much traffic is actually transiting the system at any one time? 10 Ships at any one time? 100 Ships? Thousands?

Hard to say. Far Trader provides rules for determining the amount of goods and passengers between any pair of worlds, but the sum total is a lot of work to estimate. And once you have a figure, you still have to decide on the size of the ships carrying the goods and passengers.

We do know that there are five (or is it six?) downports on Regina, but not the traffic flow to each one.


Hans