Re: SPS/Pulsars

Tomb wrote:
> 
> RBW said:
> 
> Who is going to put in beacons that will only be good
> after the signal gets across some large number of
> (light) years?
> 
> Tomb:
> 
> Good point! So presumably for us to erect a meaningful beacon, we'll
> need
> some FTL system (maybe something that works on that mated pair of
> subatomic
> particles where a change in one is a change in another no matter how
far
> away,
> or something hyperspacial).
> 
> Hadn't thought about the time lag. Makes building a galactic beacon a
> real long
> term project.

And astronomers everywhere are going to pick up on it (esp those who are
studying these sorts of things), chart it, catalog it, and could
possibly
figure out what it is/isn't. If it is determined to be close enough, a
science expedition *might* be sent out to investigate "a close-up
pulsar".
In reasonably short order it will be determined to be a beacon instead
of
a real pulsar (assuming your original intent was to fool the navigation
of another force) and word would get out. I really don't think beacons
are
going to be a viable way of nav-spoofing.