IOW, a press release that says how good it works - which the makers of every product claim. Yet when we really use it, it doesn't always work as advertised, nor does every operator handle it with the same skill. If it's translated by the computer, and my ship is colder than most, it's an anomaly the software may not recognize and know how to categorize. This may make the operator think it's buggy and cause them to reboot or exclude the anomalous datapoint. I've seen small boats reported by lookouts while the radar operator was dismissing them as sea return. I've also seen actual vessels by eyeball that radar never saw.
Magical Traveller starship heat sinks discovered?
- Thread starter navanod
- Start date
I will if we know this is part of what we have to do to have a chance to sneak past. No, I am not suggesting that the crew live like that permanently. It's a reasonable enough hardship to be acceptable in those circumstances.
Again, suit up and evacuate atmo for a day, yes. Not from takeoff, through jump to landing.
Again, who's operating it, how good are they, how good is the installed system? A team at JPL using an array are not the same as a junior enlisted using milspec junk on a ship, bored off his rocker.
Then you still have a ship basically at ~270°K, and still too hot to hide.
It's going to take several weeks to radiate down to anything less than near IR. So, the other option is flushing tons of boiling helium to cool it. Also producing a different, and much larger but cooler, cloud at the point you did it. And you're still going to be above background, because you're not going to stably cool the ship below what it's getting in from the star.
So I have a ship a lot cooler than a normal one, a young, junior enlisted guy not taking his job seriously, using lousy miltech, and with no reason to expect I'm there. He's going to look at his screen, look away to talk, daydream, etc, and only look back over any record (assuming the system does that) if someone makes an issue of it. My chances are not bad!
You're postulating top of the line gear run by scientists who can scan and review, who are expecting to look over a lot of space, hoping to find something. They record every byte, and replay however often needed to be sure they've seen everything. Motivation, gear, and time factors change a lot.
At the TL's we're talking about the task will be automated and a computer will just set off an alarm when an object that isn't supposed to be there appears.
So, if you NEED to have all the officers in that section be insanely incompetent in order for your ship to survive, you need a better plan.
aramis said:
Yeah - Voyager RTGs and instrument heaters aren't thermally shielded from earth.
One can detect the thermal anomalies of the Voyager probes if you know very closely where and what you are looking for (or just pick up the x-band transmissions, of course) and have a large enough detector or baselines. The same could be said of the many other anomalies in our system - WISE detected over 150,000 objects in our system...
Ditto asteroids. WISE cataloged a small faction of them in its 10 month survey (cut short when hydrogen coolant ran out and non-cryo cooled senor noise rose past acceptable limits).
This past decade of dedicated IR detection (~150-200K temps) has resulted in estimates of 0.7 to 1.7 million km+ bodies. Note the huge range there not to mention the 1 km+ size and that we know were to look - in a belt that is a mere fraction of the total spherical sky of a system. So yeah, coverage is a big problem.
As to resolving power - we don't have any current tech that can actually image the Voyager probes (which are some 100+ AU out by now). Hubble can't even image the volcanoes on IO (just the larger plumes as pixel blobs). The fact that its volcanoes can exceed something like 1800 K (hottest other than the sun, I think) doesn't help distinguishing them - and some of those volcanoes have rings the size of California!
So saying a sensor can 'detect' something at great distance is pretty meaningless in and of itself re stealth. Our naked eyes can 'detect' stars thousands of ly away (4,000?) - but our best tech today is incapable of seeing much of Pluto but a round blur (till New Horizons arrives!).
Given today's tech, an alien equivalent of a Voyager probe (traveling at 3+ AUs) would likely go completely undetected. Even if it was detected, it would likely not be identified, unless it was broadcasting something other than an IR signature, till it was real close in - and not usefully if it was intentionally radiating with foreknowledge of earth and our orbital platforms and had a military intent...
Then you assume the software is perfect, which it never is.
Real life isn't Star Trek. Most crew aren't officers, and many are quite capable when they WANT to be, but a watch like that, or standing guard, leads to boredom and complacency. That's just the way it is. Assuming that guards or sensor operators are fresh, alert, and interested in what they're doing is unrealistic.
I'm with Darkwing on this, for a preplanned attempt a ship could be cooled prior to making the attempt.
It's not about preventing detection, it's about appearing to be something that is not of intrest, if the surface temperature profile of the ship matches that of the other asteroids around in that area, the detection event is recorded and catalogued for later detections to determine the newly detected asteroid's orbit. There would not be an alarm raised until days, or weeks later when they fail to obtain further detections.
Active measures could be used, for example you could radiate sunlight back but with a false red shift indicating the asteroid is moving away. The radiation is just going to make it appear to be a larger roid. And the ship's surface temp could be lowered by an amount calcalculated to match the false red shift.
You're saying to all viewers "I'm an asteroid and I'm moving away from you".
But you're actually a ship and getting closer.
It's not about preventing detection, it's about appearing to be something that is not of intrest, if the surface temperature profile of the ship matches that of the other asteroids around in that area, the detection event is recorded and catalogued for later detections to determine the newly detected asteroid's orbit. There would not be an alarm raised until days, or weeks later when they fail to obtain further detections.
Active measures could be used, for example you could radiate sunlight back but with a false red shift indicating the asteroid is moving away. The radiation is just going to make it appear to be a larger roid. And the ship's surface temp could be lowered by an amount calcalculated to match the false red shift.
You're saying to all viewers "I'm an asteroid and I'm moving away from you".
But you're actually a ship and getting closer.
Do you realize that at those EXTREMELY slow speeds, you'll be drifting for many months to get within range of anything? That is if you are trying to appear to be an asteroid...
Probes and drones can take months. Another avenue is riding a comet. That gets you further in before needing to evacuate atmosphere and engage other sneakiness.
And as for how long it takes, that really depends on where you start and where you're going. A cache on a moon or asteroid further out, say? Not nearly as long as trying to slip down to the inhabited world.
And as for how long it takes, that really depends on where you start and where you're going. A cache on a moon or asteroid further out, say? Not nearly as long as trying to slip down to the inhabited world.
Rigel Stardin
SOC-13
Let’s look at this from another perspective. How would you go about detecting a starship in the system?
First and foremost, how did the ship get there? Did it Jump, did it enter by crossing interstellar space or is it native to the system.
Jumping into a system would be the most noticeable since coming out of hyperspace would react with normal space in some fashion (In MTU, there is a gamma ray pulse). A vessel crossing Interstellar space would be the least noticeable because there is nothing to indicate its arrival. A ship native to the system would be tracked by traffic control stations.
How good is your detection array? Class A Starport is going to be better than a Class C and a military base is going to be the best out there. You also have to look at how much the government is going to devote to maintaining the system.
Ground base or space base detection system? Depending on the number of stations in the relay there are, there could be gaps. Again funding is going to play a role as well.
So far we have defined three elements: Type of Entry, Detection Array and location of detection system.
Modifiers to this would be; Funding, DEFCON level, Tech Level, Range and Personal Morale.
Funding: Does the local government have a desire to defend the entire system or use the detection system for only traffic control purposes? Is it willing to maintain the system at peak efficiency or does it just want a system that performs the job need of it?
DEFCON Level: Is the Planet on a war footing or is it at peace with its neighbors?
Tech Level: A Lower Tech Level may not be able to detect a Higher Tech level craft in its system.
Range: How far is the ship from the detection array, since real time information could be delayed getting into the system and what is the response time from the control station to combat forces.
Personal Morale: Peacetime monitoring personal are going to react differently than those on a war footing. Bored traffic controllers are going to react differently than those on their toes.
Just using these factors alone, you could see how a starship might evade detection for several hours or possibly days…
First and foremost, how did the ship get there? Did it Jump, did it enter by crossing interstellar space or is it native to the system.
Jumping into a system would be the most noticeable since coming out of hyperspace would react with normal space in some fashion (In MTU, there is a gamma ray pulse). A vessel crossing Interstellar space would be the least noticeable because there is nothing to indicate its arrival. A ship native to the system would be tracked by traffic control stations.
How good is your detection array? Class A Starport is going to be better than a Class C and a military base is going to be the best out there. You also have to look at how much the government is going to devote to maintaining the system.
Ground base or space base detection system? Depending on the number of stations in the relay there are, there could be gaps. Again funding is going to play a role as well.
So far we have defined three elements: Type of Entry, Detection Array and location of detection system.
Modifiers to this would be; Funding, DEFCON level, Tech Level, Range and Personal Morale.
Funding: Does the local government have a desire to defend the entire system or use the detection system for only traffic control purposes? Is it willing to maintain the system at peak efficiency or does it just want a system that performs the job need of it?
DEFCON Level: Is the Planet on a war footing or is it at peace with its neighbors?
Tech Level: A Lower Tech Level may not be able to detect a Higher Tech level craft in its system.
Range: How far is the ship from the detection array, since real time information could be delayed getting into the system and what is the response time from the control station to combat forces.
Personal Morale: Peacetime monitoring personal are going to react differently than those on a war footing. Bored traffic controllers are going to react differently than those on their toes.
Just using these factors alone, you could see how a starship might evade detection for several hours or possibly days…
That is what the red shift spoofing is for, I'm not actually going as slow as my red shift says I am.
Won't work. Even if you are coming head on to the only sensor, your size will increase to the optical sensor. If you are going at a right angle to the sensors, your real speed will become apparent due triangulation.
Fritz_Brown
Super Moderator
Two points:
Ah, a gaming approach! Well done.
I don't think it would be a case of competing TLs, so much as a higher TL ship might have capabilities that are able to defeat or discourage a lower TL detection system. Generally speaking, not so much, though. This is a minor quibble - semantics, really.
I'm thinking of survey scans where the image is developed after some fairly long exposure (hrs) where all they have is a spot of light and a spectrum, ( they are outside the distance where the optical image can resolve to more than one pixel) after all we've been talking about sensors in earth orbit detecting ships in the asteroid belt and further out. By the time they take a second image the ship is not where they expected it to be and it's just another roid somewhere else. It might take them several days to sort out if the detection is the same object. Once somebody's intrest gets aroused they take a good look at the spectrum and find the real red shift down in the noise and now know they have a man made object deliberatley trying to hide, and start reviewing all the other recent scans and reviewing the spectra looking for the spoofing fingerprint.
But we're already looking at time scales in weeks, the intruder could have deployed sensor drones and exited the area, and the natives really have no idea who it was or what they did. and that sensor drone... well let's just say it will have a small enough signal to be effectively undetectible unless it starts using rockets instead of it's ion drive.
So, what sorts of tech would you envision for the purpose?
1) for hrs of exposure needed you are talking about a ship ~1 light year out.
2) it isn't film that is used. It is CCD stuff. It is real time continuous.
So, unless you are slowly sneaking in from WAY outside a solar system. No go.
Yeah, but not monitored in real time. Real time monitoring will be done by peons, if at all.
Darkwing. As a fellow gamemaster and player, I am having a tough time reading this thread, especially as you are shooting down EVERY answer anyone posts, despite whether their answer is based in real world science and practice, or based theoretical ideas.
May I ask what it is exactly you are looking to hear? Especially as you don't seem to like any of the answers your getting?
I am suspecting you need to restate your question.
May I ask what it is exactly you are looking to hear? Especially as you don't seem to like any of the answers your getting?
I am suspecting you need to restate your question.
Cryton,
It's about the oppsition not accepting or admitting that there is any chance of sneaking. I have some knowledge of ECM systems, and that is where Darkwing and I agree, you cannot prevent the emissions but it does not automatically mean that they are seen (coverage) or that you can emit stronger emissions that will make them think that it's something else (Spoofing), or that the sensor recognizes the contact for what it is (crew issues or S/W filter settings).
It is our contention that there is no 100% all the time in every situation exact identification of a sensor target yielding mass and vector, and to let these guys have it their way... get a hull map and read the ship's name off the hull. (sorry yes that is an reach but that is the feel I get from this side of the discussion)
The basic sensor problem is one of sensor sensitivity vs signal strength and sensor resoloution vs target size.
Far enough out that the target resolves to one pixel or grain of silver in the photographic plate, and all you know is that the target is in THAT direction and it's no closer/larger than the resolving power of your sensor. If you can manage to get a spectrum off of the target (there is NOT a guarentee that with a faint sourse that this will be possiable) then you can know a bit more like the object's black body radiation temperature and the red shift from reflected sunlight. multiple spectrums over time can give you rotational period of the proported asteroid. and repeated observations (at least three) will give you the orbit.
So we have a faint sourse (either far out or very weak), and the sensor is only capturing 10 photons an hour from the sourse, you need long observation times to capture enough photons to develop a reasonable spectrum, each photon is only one specific frequency and you have to capture several thousand photons to develop a good spectrum from it. If this is a spoofed spectrum and the real spectrum is being captured at rate of an order of magnitude less, the real spectrum may never get enough data points to be recognizable.
So what has the ECM gained? The true blackbody radiation from the hull is obscured by the ECM's spoofing, instead of a hot starship hull only a few 10's of meters across, the sensor thinks it's a cold asteroid a few KM across, and there is no alert, no urgency, and nobody sends a scout to investigate till perhaps years in the future.
This is the same problem you have with a hot ship parked on an asteroid, your asteroid provides a larger signal than the ship and you have to collect enough photons to see the hotter signature of the ship. ( the hot ship will radiate at higher frequencies than the roid) If the ship gets DM's against being seen for parking on a roid, the same DM's would be available for a ship deploying ECM of = or higher T/L.
It's about the oppsition not accepting or admitting that there is any chance of sneaking. I have some knowledge of ECM systems, and that is where Darkwing and I agree, you cannot prevent the emissions but it does not automatically mean that they are seen (coverage) or that you can emit stronger emissions that will make them think that it's something else (Spoofing), or that the sensor recognizes the contact for what it is (crew issues or S/W filter settings).
It is our contention that there is no 100% all the time in every situation exact identification of a sensor target yielding mass and vector, and to let these guys have it their way... get a hull map and read the ship's name off the hull. (sorry yes that is an reach but that is the feel I get from this side of the discussion)
The basic sensor problem is one of sensor sensitivity vs signal strength and sensor resoloution vs target size.
Far enough out that the target resolves to one pixel or grain of silver in the photographic plate, and all you know is that the target is in THAT direction and it's no closer/larger than the resolving power of your sensor. If you can manage to get a spectrum off of the target (there is NOT a guarentee that with a faint sourse that this will be possiable) then you can know a bit more like the object's black body radiation temperature and the red shift from reflected sunlight. multiple spectrums over time can give you rotational period of the proported asteroid. and repeated observations (at least three) will give you the orbit.
So we have a faint sourse (either far out or very weak), and the sensor is only capturing 10 photons an hour from the sourse, you need long observation times to capture enough photons to develop a reasonable spectrum, each photon is only one specific frequency and you have to capture several thousand photons to develop a good spectrum from it. If this is a spoofed spectrum and the real spectrum is being captured at rate of an order of magnitude less, the real spectrum may never get enough data points to be recognizable.
So what has the ECM gained? The true blackbody radiation from the hull is obscured by the ECM's spoofing, instead of a hot starship hull only a few 10's of meters across, the sensor thinks it's a cold asteroid a few KM across, and there is no alert, no urgency, and nobody sends a scout to investigate till perhaps years in the future.
This is the same problem you have with a hot ship parked on an asteroid, your asteroid provides a larger signal than the ship and you have to collect enough photons to see the hotter signature of the ship. ( the hot ship will radiate at higher frequencies than the roid) If the ship gets DM's against being seen for parking on a roid, the same DM's would be available for a ship deploying ECM of = or higher T/L.
