Re: Active vs Passive

> Brian Quirt wrote:
> >	    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.
> 
>	There was a long thread on rec.arts.sf.science
>	which basically agreed with you.
>	There was a lot of high-powered math thrown around,
>	and heavy physics, but there it was.
> 
>	Go to Deja.com and look for a thread
>	called He Who Radiates is Lost

I actually went and looked this up a few days ago (remembering reading
the thread).  I had planned on posting the URL, but my connection was
so aweful that it made it painful to type.  Note: this is not the
same thread that Nyrath is talking about, his is probably better.

Here's the one I found:
http://x39.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/viewthread.xp?AN=313068792&search=thread&
svcclass=dnserver&ST=PS&CONTEXT=955733588.1856897036&HIT_CONTEXT=9557335
88.1856897036&HIT_NUM=2&recnum=%3c68rht9$6vv$1@spock.usc.edu%3e%231/1&gr
oup=rec.arts.sf.science&frpage=getdoc.xp&back=clarinet

It should be all one line.

In particular the messages posted by John Schilling tend to be
informative/math prone.  (Also IIRC, he was a rocket scientist).

Maybe someone will find it useful.

Daryl