Re: Active vs Passive

Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
> 
> From: "Brian Quirt" <baqrt@mta.ca>
> 
> > Most of this post I can agree with, but I'm not sure about faster
> > information. I would think that BY DEFINITION passive sensors HAVE
to
> > give more recent information
> 
> It's the difference between trying to aim a rifle at a target about 60
> metres
> away via a TV camera with a 4/10 second time delay, and aiming it via
> listening
>  to the noise the target makes while wearing a blindfold.
> The data from the TV is twice as old as the sound (which takes 2/10 of
a
> second
> to travel the distance), but considerably better for targetting
purposes.

	I would simply note that both of the above examples relied on
passive
sensors. I also think that stealth to the point that "we don't know if
anything's there" is essentially impossible, because you simply CAN'T
hide your waste heat (except by running your ship at a 3K ambient
temperature, but that would probably degrade your combat effectiveness).
I simply don't think that it's possible to hide yourself effectively in
a space battlefield. Sure, if you're far enough away it's essentially
impossible to HIT you, but it's still going to be obvious that you're
THERE. As to what distance is far enough, it depends on your
maneuverability, your cross-sectional area, and the speed of weapons
fire (sensors are assumed to be speed-of-light, if faster sensors exist
things will change).

-Brian