[Spaceships] Heat Signature, Cloaking Device, and Stealth Hull

[safisher]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

tut-tutting us for saying that stealth in space is impossible without putting an asterisk of "As far as we know"...You don't disagree that stealth in space is TL^, or that it's effectively impossible with current understandings of technology. You don't disagree that the various minor tactics that maybe sort of might kind of work are extremely limited and usually impractical for all the reasons someone on Atomic Rockets might cite.

This is what I have said. That seems to be a position that I have communicated, and you have understood. Good for us.

But let me note that the Atomic Rockets very limited stealth exceptions are the camel's nose under the tent -- they really are tactics and while the objectors at that site don't like them, they could in fact be useful under the right circumstances. If it helps it helps -- it's up to future spaceship captains to show how it might work. That knocks right out the blanket "NO STEALTH" argument. Now it becomes "well, okay, but that could hardly help in every situation...and how could that be total 100% stealth anyway?" which is a very bad standard, even for interpreting the way real world radar or sonar stealth is working on the battlefield today. It's a strawman argument on the face of it, basically.

So what are you trying to do? What are the point of your posts? If you're not arguing against our point, what point are you trying to make?

See above.

[Krinberry]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Looking over the definition of what In Plain Sight means in a Spaceships context:
I wonder if a stealth hull counts as camouflage. Dynamic camo definitely should.

For my 2 cents, I'd say stealth hulls probably wouldn't count as camo (I'd totally agree the dynamic one should, since that's its point). The 'stealth hull' is, as far as everything in the books suggests, just a 'realistic' design for minimizing signature as much as possible without actually being able to remove it entirely (since as lots of folks have rightly pointed out, there's no ACTUAL stealth in space, just tricks that you can use to help minimize your signature).

Since the stealth hull is more about optimization than actually outright camouflaging, I don't think it would qualify as camo for the purposes of determining plain sight.

[jason taylor]

From the narrative(I make no claims for the engineering POV) point of view total invisibility is unnecessary and not necessarily desirable. Better is a sort of limited stealth allowing the hunter and the hunted to parse numerous factors in calculating one another's whereabouts. If invisibility is possible fighting is impossible. If however limited stealth is possible we can have the pleasure of multi hour or even multi day fights like Star trek Balence of Terror, or the second episode of Andromeda.

To do this there are several ways that might come to might. One is a sort of thermal damper that is capable of concealing heat up to a certain point; this might require it to be flushed out every few hours to cool it and the flushing will reveal the ship. Far from being a bug, this is a feature; it allows the rival captains a factor to calculate.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Krinberry

For my 2 cents, I'd say stealth hulls probably wouldn't count as camo (I'd totally agree the dynamic one should, since that's its point). The 'stealth hull' is, as far as everything in the books suggests, just a 'realistic' design for minimizing signature as much as possible without actually being able to remove it entirely (since as lots of folks have rightly pointed out, there's no ACTUAL stealth in space, just tricks that you can use to help minimize your signature).

Since the stealth hull is more about optimization than actually outright camouflaging, I don't think it would qualify as camo for the purposes of determining plain sight.

Dynamic Chameleon hull probably should count as being not in plain when in use, yes (at least from adequate distances. But only against normal vision. It has no effect on the hyperspectral (mainly IR) passive sensors that are used to detect spaceships in space.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Dynamic Chameleon hull probably should count as being not in plain when in use, yes (at least from adequate distances. But only against normal vision. It has no effect on the hyperspectral (mainly IR) passive sensors that are used to detect spaceships in space.

Most fights will take place outside the range anyway?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Most fights will take place outside the range anyway?

Outside what range?

[Krinberry]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Dynamic Chameleon hull probably should count as being not in plain when in use, yes (at least from adequate distances. But only against normal vision. It has no effect on the hyperspectral (mainly IR) passive sensors that are used to detect spaceships in space.

Yeah, good point! I guess it'd be important to qualify the nature of the detection apparatus when making the call.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jason taylor

Most fights will take place outside the range anyway?

Beam combat, if it exists, will almost certainly occur at ranges vastly shorter than detection range. A 99% black hull has an apparent magnitude of 0 (trivially visible) at about 10,000 diameters, and you can increase that range by a factor of 1,000 with quite modest (TL 8 hobbyist) hardware.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Outside what range?

The range of the Mark I eyeball.

[jason taylor]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Beam combat, if it exists, will almost certainly occur at ranges vastly shorter than detection range. A 99% black hull has an apparent magnitude of 0 (trivially visible) at about 10,000 diameters, and you can increase that range by a factor of 1,000 with quite modest (TL 8 hobbyist) hardware.

Assuming that to be the case(which is dealing with weapons not stealth), the fight STARTS at detection not when shots are exchanged. The captains will have been seeking advantage long before.