Invisibility in Space

[rust]

Since the question of remaining unseen in space has come up in some
recent threads, here are a few suggestions how a starship could avoid
detection:

- do not move in front of any background planets or stars, because
even someone using a simple visual sensor can become suspicious if
stars suddenly disappear and reappear,

- reduce the temperature of your ship to 2.725 Kelvin, because other-
wise a sensor could detect the difference between the ship's tempera-
ture and the cosmic microwave background radiation,

- avoid the use of all nuclear power plants which emit neutrinos, becau-
se otherwise any advanced neutrino detector will be able to locate your
ship,

- reduce the mass of your ship to zero, or at least almost zero, because
otherwise any densitometer will be able to locate your ship.

As you see, remaining unseen in space is not difficult at all ... :twisted:

 

[Ishmael]

perhaps the trick is not to be invisible, but to appear to be something different.
or to make sure that the picture they get of your ship is soooooo blurry and unfocused and just poor in as many ways as is possible that it'll be harder to get useful info from it ( like a targetting solution ).

 

[DFW]

perhaps the trick is not to be invisible, but to appear to be something different.
or to make sure that the picture they get of your ship is soooooo blurry and unfocused and just poor in as many ways as is possible that it'll be harder to get useful info from it ( like a targetting solution ).

Even if "blurry" you are targeted.

 

[far-trader]

perhaps the trick is not to be invisible, but to appear to be something different.
or to make sure that the picture they get of your ship is soooooo blurry and unfocused and just poor in as many ways as is possible that it'll be harder to get useful info from it ( like a targetting solution ).

Even if "blurry" you are targeted.

Could still be helpful though. If they think you are one type of threat and devote limited resources to attacking you based on that undervalued threat level you win

 

[DFW]

Could still be helpful though. If they think you are one type of threat and devote limited resources to attacking you based on that undervalued threat level you win

Sure. Lowering PP output, putting smallest aspect towards the enemy...

 

[Jeraa]

Since the question of remaining unseen in space has come up in some
recent threads, here are a few suggestions how a starship could avoid
detection:

- do not move in front of any background planets or stars, because
even someone using a simple visual sensor can become suspicious if
stars suddenly disappear and reappear,

- reduce the temperature of your ship to 2.725 Kelvin, because other-
wise a sensor could detect the difference between the ship's tempera-
ture and the cosmic microwave background radiation,

- avoid the use of all nuclear power plants which emit neutrinos, becau-
se otherwise any advanced neutrino detector will be able to locate your
ship,

- reduce the mass of your ship to zero, or at least almost zero, because
otherwise any densitometer will be able to locate your ship.

As you see, remaining unseen in space is not difficult at all ... :twisted:

Don't forget the neural sensors (NAS). Replace all your crew with robots, or make it a drone ship.

 

[GypsyComet]

I much prefer a reality check on fancy sensors:
-Neutrinos are detected in infinitesimal amounts from a nearby sun; your tiny little fusion reactor is not likely to produce enough to target you.
-NAS has incredibly short range in Traveller, and always has.
-Densitometers are horrible scanning sensors in the sizes used for ship sensors. Analysis of stationary targets is their forte.

Scanning segmentation and signal processing are your only chance of "stealth" in space without resorting to weird science even by Traveller standards. Is your opponent looking in the right direction at the right time to catch you passing in front of a star, and will he recognize that this is what has happened? If you are in the segment of sky being scrutinized, you will almost certainly be spotted. If they aren't in that sensor mode, you might get away unnoticed.

 

[locarno24]

Even if "blurry" you are targeted.

True. However "You can't hit me" stealth is different to "You can't see me" stealth - if you can prevent someone pinning down your position and/or vector to within the normal level of accuracy, targeting you becomes a much, much more difficult prospect.

Proper sneaky-beaky stealth is much, much harder. I suspect the David Webber quote applies - surprise in space is almost impossible to achieve and more normally consists of one side failing to understand what they see rather than not seeing the enemy at all.

If you want to be really, truly invisible in that sort of situation, you're into the realms of borrowing one of grandfather's pocket universes that you can hide in and use a moveable microscopic, one-way terminus as a sort of persicope

 

[rust]

-Densitometers are horrible scanning sensors in the sizes used for ship sensors. Analysis of stationary targets is their forte.

True, but this is one of the few cases where real world technology could
outrun science fiction technology, the real world gravimetric sensors (not
based upon any gravitics technology) are already used successfully on
submarines, and may well be developed to the point where they can be
used in space, where gravity sources would be much easier to detect. I
only did not mention these sensors because Traveller's authors did not
know about them and therefore did not include them in the game.

 

[DFW]

True. However "You can't hit me" stealth is different to "You can't see me" stealth -

No, even if "blurry", you're hit.

 

[rust]

I think it would depend a bit on the type of weapon used. For example, a
dumb missile might require a good sensor lock to hit, while a smart mass
seeking missile will find and hit even a "blurry" target easily.

 

[BFalcon]

True, but this is one of the few cases where real world technology could
outrun science fiction technology, the real world gravimetric sensors (not
based upon any gravitics technology) are already used successfully on
submarines, and may well be developed to the point where they can be
used in space, where gravity sources would be much easier to detect. I
only did not mention these sensors because Traveller's authors did not
know about them and therefore did not include them in the game.

Possibly the Grav-based drive systems can be used to project a zero-G field around any and all ships, rendering these sensors useless at anything beyond point-blank range? They have gravity manipulation, so maybe someone dreamed up a way to cancel the gravimetric sensors even before the artificial gravity was refined enough to use in ships' decking but has become so cheap now that all ships use it on their hulls as standard. A mild negative-G field would also be useful for slowing down or repelling space-dust and other minor damage-causing debris (all those sandcasters will be leaving particles everywhere and so will hits on ships - bits of molten-then-cooled hull, for a start). A Negative G field could be the equivilent of the Star Trek navigational shields.

 

[rust]

Possibly the Grav-based drive systems can be used to project a zero-G field around any and all ships, rendering these sensors useless at anything beyond point-blank range?

This would depend on the way you see gravity in your setting. If gravity
is a force transmitted by particles, the gravitons, a field preventing these
particles from being emitted by the ship could be possible. However, if
gravity is a property of spacetime and the mass of the ship creates some-
thing like a "gravity cone" in spacetime, such a field could not work, be-
cause it would have to bend spacetime itself.

Another problem would be that such a field would still have to be "trans-
parent" for incoming gravitons, because otherwise the entire navigation
in interplanetary space would have to change completely. For example,
a ship shielded from gravitons would no longer be able to stay in a stable
orbit around a planet or star, because the planet's or star's gravity would
no longer attract it.

All in all gravitics technology is a magic handwave, open to definition by
the referee, mostly because our real world scientists still do not under-
stand the basic nature of gravity well enough to enable us to use that
knowledge for a plausible science fiction technology.

 

[Ishmael]

No, even if "blurry", you're hit.

yay!!
no more senseless dice rolling 'to hit' in space combat
its automatic

ECM is a waste of time
and stealth coatings are made of snake-oil

 

[rust]

and stealth coatings are made of snake-oil

Real world stealth coatings at least include a considerable percentage of
snake oil, just remember the stealth plane shot down by a missile over
former Yugoslavia ... :wink:

 

[BFalcon]

All in all gravitics technology is a magic handwave, open to definition by
the referee, mostly because our real world scientists still do not under-
stand the basic nature of gravity well enough to enable us to use that
knowledge for a plausible science fiction technology.

LOL yeah, ultimately, it is...

I'd suggest that the avionics bay is intentionally left open to gravitons, but the reason there's a hatch is that there is shielding behind it maybe? I dunno - just trying to think of an explanation as to why a gravimetric sensor wouldn't be used...

Like you said - handwavium time... even the science we do "know" is often proven wrong in a few decades' time and, even if not, don't forget that a lot is theory and based on a very small sample of data when compared to the whole galaxy - even theories based on things in our own solar system are based on distant observation for the most part and just see how those theories have changed as soon as we made contact with those or got a closer look - how much different are those distant systems that we think we know about?

I mean... the ancient Greeks "knew" how their universe worked... and so did Galileo... science is always revising their theories. Who knows - one day we might decide that Eisenstein and Hawking were both lunatics who got it completely wrong... :wink:

 

[BFalcon]

and stealth coatings are made of snake-oil

Real world stealth coatings at least include a considerable percentage of
snake oil, just remember the stealth plane shot down by a missile over
former Yugoslavia ... :wink:

There's a reason why it's called a "stealth" coating and not a "RADAR-proof" or "invisibility" coating... :wink:

Anyone who's played one of the stealth jet simulators knows that it's all too easy to screw up and suddenly appear on every RADAR screen in the region... opening your weapon bays or banking too sharply suddenly makes you much more visible to your hunters...

 

[rust]

Anyone who's played one of the stealth jet simulators knows that it's all too easy to screw up and suddenly appear on every RADAR screen in the region... opening your weapon bays or banking too sharply suddenly makes you much more visible to your hunters...

Yep, and no known stealth coating is "semi-proof" against all wavelengths
of radar. For example, in the Serbian case the officer in command of the
missile battery modified his radar and changed the wavelength to a longer
one, which is normally not used by Russian built radar.

 

[locarno24]

For example, in the Serbian case the officer in command of the
missile battery modified his radar and changed the wavelength to a longer
one, which is normally not used by Russian built radar.

It didn't help that the 'stealth' aircraft in question was flying low, slow and above all, the same bloody route every day. Sheer bloody stupidity trumps every defensive aid going...

 

[barnest2]

opening your weapon bays or banking too sharply suddenly makes you much more visible to your hunters...

Never, ever try and attack something in an F-117. Their stealth coverage is poor as it is, particularly with that great big flat bottom. Also, never bank, use your rudders...

Also, fly something better, like an F-22...