Why aircraft carriers won't make sense in space

[the_tyrant]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/28/aircraft_carriers_in_space

Pretty much the idea is, air craft carriers make sense, becuase it "bridges" the divide between sea and air. It doesn't make sense in space, since its all "space"

[Sailor Steve]

Excellent article. Thanks for the heads-up.

One of my favorite science-fiction short stories was by Larry Niven, and was written back in the '70s. Sorry I don't remember the name.

In the story one guy is being chased by an enemy, both in ships that use a collection field of some sort to gather loose hydrogen from space, which is then fed into a sort of ramjet. The guy being chased realizes that if he can drop a large enough mass he might collapse the other guy's field, possibly even wrecking his ship. So he figures out a way to do this, and drops a part of his ship behind him. He starts watching his rear with a digital telescope. Six months later he sees a flash of light billions of miles behind that tells him it worked.

Now that was original, and probably realistic.

[Gilead Abyss]

I liked the article/interview, and I agree with you that the key factor of two media (sea/air) is missing in space.

It would then seem to depend on the tactics of short- vs. long-range engagements. e.g. are small "fighters" more effective weapons platforms than "capital" ships. At this point, the whole discussion falls into the rabbit hole of fictional technology (offensive, defensive, and propulsion).

CW does a good job of sidestepping this to avoid meaningless comparisons by focusing on the wet-navy analogies used as storytelling platforms more than on coherent self-consistent logistical structure. When readers have at least some familiarity with a military structure, referencing that background saves all the writing effort of describing a different one.

Bottom line: if a carrier (or carrier group) is about mobile force-projection from sea through air, how well does that analogy hold up from space through space?
About the only example I can think of here would be deploying atmospheric attack units from orbit, which could be considered a two-medium scenario.

Thoughts?

[CCIP]

Awesome analysis! I always love it when the sci-fi world is brought back to its' "sci-" roots. Some people whine and moan that it's ruining escapist fantasy, but I think the greatest value of science fiction as entertainment is that we learn something about the real world and "real future" from it too.

Very smart thoughts :yep:

[Gargamel]

Well, unless micheal bay has a say, aircraft carriers won't work because they're, ummm, boats, and tend not to fly in space well.

And aircraft usually require 'air', hence the name.

[Gargamel]

Having read the article, I don't feel most of us, who are sci-fi fans and appreciate science, would not have figured this out on our own during our daily commutes to work.

He basically says, well we don't know what's going to happen, so any future planning may be moot, as those technologies that deliminate strategy have yet to be developed.

That said, it was a good article, and he does bring up a few points that take more time than a drive to work. In particular, the logistical end.

[Cybermat47]

OK, now science is ruining all my fun.


DAMN!

[August]

About the only example I can think of here would be deploying atmospheric attack units from orbit, which could be considered a two-medium scenario.

Kind of like an Amphibious assault ship which is a form of carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_assault_ship

[Falkirion]

Good article. Still prefer unrealistic sci fi to realism though. We can't know what realism is until the tech is in place to dictate the needs of space warfare.

[CaptainHaplo]

Excellent article. Thanks for the heads-up.

One of my favorite science-fiction short stories was by Larry Niven, and was written back in the '70s. Sorry I don't remember the name.

In the story one guy is being chased by an enemy, both in ships that use a collection field of some sort to gather loose hydrogen from space, which is then fed into a sort of ramjet. The guy being chased realizes that if he can drop a large enough mass he might collapse the other guy's field, possibly even wrecking his ship. So he figures out a way to do this, and drops a part of his ship behind him. He starts watching his rear with a digital telescope. Six months later he sees a flash of light billions of miles behind that tells him it worked.

Now that was original, and probably realistic.

I believe that was one of the Man Kzin War series - I don't remember which one though.

[Respenus]

Let us also not forget Haldeman's excellent "The Forever War", which does follow the laws of physics as far as space travel and space battle are concerned (in addition to being an analysis of the Vietnam war).

[CaptainMattJ.]

assuming that ships are even necessary, carriers are very likely to be present.

Carriers will still be using the principle of carrying smaller attack craft. The tactical value of multiple, small, fast, heavy hitting spacecraft seems valid even in the possible future. Strike craft to pinpoint target and transport land troops is still obviously viable.

I like Halo. The Human technology is, in my opinion, the most realistic view of the future ive yet seen. Humans still use ballistics. We still have reliable guns and ammo. it is of course much more advanced guns and targeting systems than we have now, but still basic and believable. The warships carry essentially a very massive, very powerful rail gun, and while the speeds of the 2000-ton tungsten core shell are a bit unrealistic (half the speed of light), it is science that we have even today, though in its VERY early stages. The most advanced technology in the Halo series (for humans) is the warp drive, saying that it rips a wormhole into a made-up realm of space called slipstream that carries them faster than light, and thats how they travel. We have scientists working on warp drives right now. Warp drives have the potential to travel faster than light without breaking the rule of E=MC^2 because you simply push space out of your way much like a propeller pushes water out of the way of a speedboat and thats how it accelerates. Warp drives are the most sensible way to travel to distant systems. All we need is an immense power source or some way to do so. (yes, ive read the halo books. Assuming you dont associate Halo with the games the books are simply great science fiction books. disassociate the negative connotation of Halo games and the stereotype of people who play them and you get a very interesting series of books)

Anyway, in military universe of Halo, you have prowler spacecrafts, very small ships using stealth to recon and place nuclear mines. You have frigates, destroyers, Carriers, and battleships, shaped not like any kind of ship wed find on earth, kind of like a layered flat rectangle when viewing it from the side. Their armament include the MAC (magnetic accelerator cannon, the rail gun), high-payload Nuclear missiles, Shiva anti-ship missiles, multiple automated point defense cannons to eliminate attack craft, and nuclear mines. Its armor is high-tech, super-strong honeycombed titanium. Its propulsion is highly refined nuclear reactors.

All of this is obtainable technology even today, although much of the science is in its very early infancy. Thats why i like it. it is very easily plausible and the science isnt unheard of or completely theoretical. Unless of course the battles of the future dont even need ships (at least very large spaceships) at all.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

NOVEMBER 6TH!
I CAN'T BLOODY WAIT!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Penguin]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

NOVEMBER 6TH!
I CAN'T BLOODY WAIT!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Thank you for your profound contribution. Have you told your hairdresser about it?
I would like to refer to a post by JU88, a guy who is much more polite than me: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1948226&postcount=16 Sorry that your attention span prevented you from looking back into a topic where you posted.

[the_tyrant]

assuming that ships are even necessary, carriers are very likely to be present.

Carriers will still be using the principle of carrying smaller attack craft. The tactical value of multiple, small, fast, heavy hitting spacecraft seems valid even in the possible future. Strike craft to pinpoint target and transport land troops is still obviously viable.

I like Halo. The Human technology is, in my opinion, the most realistic view of the future ive yet seen. Humans still use ballistics. We still have reliable guns and ammo. it is of course much more advanced guns and targeting systems than we have now, but still basic and believable. The warships carry essentially a very massive, very powerful rail gun, and while the speeds of the 2000-ton tungsten core shell are a bit unrealistic (half the speed of light), it is science that we have even today, though in its VERY early stages. The most advanced technology in the Halo series (for humans) is the warp drive, saying that it rips a wormhole into a made-up realm of space called slipstream that carries them faster than light, and thats how they travel. We have scientists working on warp drives right now. Warp drives have the potential to travel faster than light without breaking the rule of E=MC^2 because you simply push space out of your way much like a propeller pushes water out of the way of a speedboat and thats how it accelerates. Warp drives are the most sensible way to travel to distant systems. All we need is an immense power source or some way to do so. (yes, ive read the halo books. Assuming you dont associate Halo with the games the books are simply great science fiction books. disassociate the negative connotation of Halo games and the stereotype of people who play them and you get a very interesting series of books)

Anyway, in military universe of Halo, you have prowler spacecrafts, very small ships using stealth to recon and place nuclear mines. You have frigates, destroyers, Carriers, and battleships, shaped not like any kind of ship wed find on earth, kind of like a layered flat rectangle when viewing it from the side. Their armament include the MAC (magnetic accelerator cannon, the rail gun), high-payload Nuclear missiles, Shiva anti-ship missiles, multiple automated point defense cannons to eliminate attack craft, and nuclear mines. Its armor is high-tech, super-strong honeycombed titanium. Its propulsion is highly refined nuclear reactors.

All of this is obtainable technology even today, although much of the science is in its very early infancy. Thats why i like it. it is very easily plausible and the science isnt unheard of or completely theoretical. Unless of course the battles of the future dont even need ships (at least very large spaceships) at all.

You know, this does raise a really good question. Usually when we think of assaulting planets, we think of either sending down the troops (Star wars attack of the clones, Avatar, Halo, etc). I mean, it is simply more dramatic to see massed infantry marching in a 19th century style.

It is also much more dramatic to see the use of a death star like superweapons. you get lasers shot from space, nuclear weapons from space, etc.


However, wouldn't the most efficient method for bombarding a planet be simply dragging an asteroid over, and "throw rocks down"?

[Raptor1]

Carriers in space can make sense, it's just that realistic 'space fighters' would be much better analogues to Age of Sail gunboats or modern missile boats than actual aircraft. While they wouldn't have significantly better maneuverability because they operate in the same medium, a space fighter/gunboat could dispense with things like extended life support, heavy protection or high delta-V in favour of better acceleration and more firepower compared to ships which have to have more endurance. There's a few hard (or relatively hard) science fiction universes that make use of ships like that, such as C. J. Cherryh's Alliance-Union universe and David Weber's Honorverse.

You know, this does raise a really good question. Usually when we think of assaulting planets, we think of either sending down the troops (Star wars attack of the clones, Avatar, Halo, etc). I mean, it is simply more dramatic to see massed infantry marching in a 19th century style.

It is also much more dramatic to see the use of a death star like superweapons. you get lasers shot from space, nuclear weapons from space, etc.


However, wouldn't the most efficient method for bombarding a planet be simply dragging an asteroid over, and "throw rocks down"?

The problem with threatening a planet with orbital bombardment or asteroid strikes is that if you're actually forced to follow up on those threats in the end you will do some very serious damage to the planet that you are (presumably) trying to take. If the planet refuses to surrender when you control the orbitals and you want both it and its infrastructure intact, you'll have to land troops in order to take control of it.

[joea]

I love this thread, Space Battleship Yamato forever!! :rock:

http://www.shipschematics.net/yamato/images/title.jpg

I think Raptor's comment is spot on-the most realistic space combat story I read is one by Arthur C . Clarke called "Earthlight."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthlight

[August]

This is the type of carrier role better analogous to what would be required in a space carrier.

http://www.public.navy.mil/usff/ba12/PublishingImages/waspclass.jpg

[tater]

Carriers in space won't work because of physics. It's not any more complicated than that. If you can get a high-thrust engine in a fighter, you can put XXXXX of them on a larger craft, and it will go just as fast (or change velocity just as much (delta-v)).

The only possible benefit of small craft is angular acceleration. Large ships cannot rotate quickly or the forces on the outside parts become severe, not to mention the loads on the crew. A ting fighter with the pilot at the CM has less of a problem. Course a tiny fighter carries no propellant, so it is useless.

Frankly, manned fighters are becoming anachronistic on earth, and they will never exist in space. Make a "fighter" that intercepts the target. A drone/missile. Done. Now it only needs the delta-v to get to the target, not get there, then return.

[Sailor Steve]

The only possible benefit of small craft is angular acceleration.
I think weapons management might be a factor. A lot of small craft with potent weapons could be sent against a distant enemy while the much-more-expensive and valuable mother ship could stay safely out of range.

Of course it didn't work for Jefferson's 'Gunboat Navy', but this might be different.

Or not.

[Buddahaid]

Interesting article and he knows his stuff. I just object to the use of science fiction to describe the media referenced. There is little science involved in any of these space battles so the shows are just fantasy. True science fiction does not even need to be futuristic, just deal with real, or projected scientific subjects or discovery.

[tater]

At the range of directed energy weapons, such weapons cannot miss, basically. A small craft can't get into range. Nothing can hide, either. All power is radiated to space.

[Rilder]

I think space battles in general would be a lot different then what games and such imagine them to be, probably more about predicting a targets orbital trajectory and throwing ordinance out into an intersecting orbital path that coincides with that target. Probably be quite boring actually.

[TLAM Strike]

Excellent article. Thanks for the heads-up.

One of my favorite science-fiction short stories was by Larry Niven, and was written back in the '70s. Sorry I don't remember the name.

In the story one guy is being chased by an enemy, both in ships that use a collection field of some sort to gather loose hydrogen from space, which is then fed into a sort of ramjet. The guy being chased realizes that if he can drop a large enough mass he might collapse the other guy's field, possibly even wrecking his ship. So he figures out a way to do this, and drops a part of his ship behind him. He starts watching his rear with a digital telescope. Six months later he sees a flash of light billions of miles behind that tells him it worked.

Now that was original, and probably realistic.

It was called The Warriors.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v215/Mosati/TheKzintiLesson.jpg

This is the type of carrier role better analogous to what would be required in a space carrier.
<snip>

If you have never watched Space: Above and Beyond you should check it out. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

I was called The Warriors.
If that's the one in which the Kzin are a attacking an "unarmed" ship and only a human would think of turning his drive into a weapon, then it's not the one I was thinking of. The story I'm remembering happened as I described. No reaction drive, no real maneuverability. Just a big piece of metal dropped behind, and a flash of light months later. Very tame, very believable.

[edit] It might have been 'The Ethics of Madness', but if so my memory in this case is quiet faulty.

[Oberon]

It was called The Warriors.

If you have never watched Space: Above and Beyond you should check it out. ;)

Chiggy Von Richtofen!


Ugh, the Kzinti...are they Pact or Fleet now? :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

If that's the one in which the Kzin are a attacking an "unarmed" ship and only a human would think of turning his drive into a weapon, then it's not the one I was thinking of. The story I'm remembering happened as I described. No reaction drive, no real maneuverability. Just a big piece of metal dropped behind, and a flash of light months later. Very tame, very believable.

[edit] It might have been 'The Ethics of Madness', but if so my memory in this case is quiet faulty.

Actually the Bussard Ramjet you described is a form of reaction drive.

Never read 'The Ethics of Madness', but the incident you described sounded a lot like 'The Warriors'. Probably just Niven copying himself.

[tater]

Protector was the Niven novel.

[Cybermat47]

Thank you for your profound contribution. Have you told your hairdresser about it?
I would like to refer to a post by JU88, a guy who is much more polite than me: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1948226&postcount=16 Sorry that your attention span prevented you from looking back into a topic where you posted.

Sorry.
I'll only put these silly posts in unimportant topics, like the American Election, health care, overpopulation, not topics that everyone's talking about: What will the military hardware be 300 years from now when I'm dead?

[Raptor1]

The Ethics of Madness does have a ramscoop chase but it ends with both ships colliding at the end (the pursuer has his life support system fried and sets to autopilot to collide with his opponent's ship). It is probably Protector that Steve is thinking about...

[Sailor Steve]

Protector was the Niven novel.

It is probably Protector that Steve is thinking about...
Does an incident like that happen in Protector? It's only been thirty years since I read them. I probably still have them all in my collection, but I still have a bunch of boxes to unpack, and I've run out of shelf space.

[August]

Carriers in space won't work because of physics. It's not any more complicated than that. If you can get a high-thrust engine in a fighter, you can put XXXXX of them on a larger craft, and it will go just as fast (or change velocity just as much (delta-v)).

The only possible benefit of small craft is angular acceleration. Large ships cannot rotate quickly or the forces on the outside parts become severe, not to mention the loads on the crew. A ting fighter with the pilot at the CM has less of a problem. Course a tiny fighter carries no propellant, so it is useless.

Frankly, manned fighters are becoming anachronistic on earth, and they will never exist in space. Make a "fighter" that intercepts the target. A drone/missile. Done. Now it only needs the delta-v to get to the target, not get there, then return.

Again a platform for launching fighter planes is just one single role for a carrier, but there are others. The primary one is as a mobile base from which to mount expeditions or provide support to new or existing colonies. A role that I think would serve well in space given the distances involved.

[Cybermat47]

Again a platform for launching fighter planes is just one single role for a carrier, but there are others. The primary one is as a mobile base from which to mount expeditions or provide support to new or existing colonies. A role that I think would serve well in space given the distances involved.

That makes sense. Also, in space, Aircraft carriers might be able to play an effective anti-ship role?

Also, we would need small, heavily armed stealth ships for attacking commerce!

[Oberon]

Personally I think the role of aircraft carrier would be rolled (pardon the pun) into the role of battleship, cruiser and destroyer. Since manoeuvrability is taken out of the equation then you'd want something that is capable of doing everything needed for a long cruise. Putting down 'Marines' on a hostile planet, check, protecting cargo vessels, check, providing a gunboat for diplomacy, check, humanitarian crisis, check.
Furthermore, since communications will be sporadic, these vessels will become their own nations in a sea of isolation, the captain/admiral/commodore/Legate will make decisions that will affect the homeworld without being able to check with them first. Perhaps that will require a group of diplomats or representatives of the homeworld to be on board? Likewise you'll need scientists and medical staff. So it's going to be a big ship, but if you're not needing to do the Kessel run then why worry about the size? Heck, you could go really crazy and just use a planet or a Dyson sphere.

[TLAM Strike]

Also, we would need small, heavily armed stealth ships for attacking commerce!

Far more problematic than you might imagine... (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain't_No_Stealth_In_Space)

Personally I think the role of aircraft carrier would be rolled (pardon the pun) into the role of battleship, cruiser and destroyer. Since manoeuvrability is taken out of the equation then you'd want something that is capable of doing everything needed for a long cruise. Putting down 'Marines' on a hostile planet, check, protecting cargo vessels, check, providing a gunboat for diplomacy, check, humanitarian crisis, check.
Furthermore, since communications will be sporadic, these vessels will become their own nations in a sea of isolation, the captain/admiral/commodore/Legate will make decisions that will affect the homeworld without being able to check with them first. Perhaps that will require a group of diplomats or representatives of the homeworld to be on board? Likewise you'll need scientists and medical staff. So it's going to be a big ship, but if you're not needing to do the Kessel run then why worry about the size?

In other words:
http://imageshack.us/a/img405/8233/ussenterprisedthesearet.jpg

[tater]

A carrier for craft that can enter an atmosphere makes sense, but they would not be needed as combat craft. FO selects target, weapon is deorbited to precise coords. Boom.

Fighters in space are silly, sadly. Fun, but silly.

[August]

I'll bet he's thinking more like:
http://www.fanboy.com/archive-images/Space1999_Year1_Title.jpg

[Raptor1]

Does an incident like that happen in Protector? It's only been thirty years since I read them. I probably still have them all in my collection, but I still have a bunch of boxes to unpack, and I've run out of shelf space.

I'm a bit fuzzy on Protector, since it's been quite a while since I read it (though not thirty years, obviously), but IIRC it had a battle between the protagonists and pursuing Pak ships which includes the use of tactics similar to what you mention.

That makes sense. Also, in space, Aircraft carriers might be able to play an effective anti-ship role?

Also, we would need small, heavily armed stealth ships for attacking commerce!

Aircraft carriers in space would be about as good as cargo freighters, unless they're the sort that can conduct trans-Atmospheric operations like the AeroSpace Fighters in BattleTech. As for 'stealth ships', those seem to be out of the realm of realistic physics at this point.

[Oberon]

As for 'stealth ships', those seem to be out of the realm of realistic physics at this point.

I'm not quite so sure, we already have radar reduction materials, sound isn't going to be a problem, and heat dampeners would be simple enough to fit, and to escape visual detection, well you could probably just paint the thing black, or use refraction to bend light around the ship.
The primary problem comes with the reduction of the radar reductive material through collisions with micro-meteors and other small debris which nullifies its usefulness, but if a way is found around that then certainly stealth space vessels are a practical possibility, of course they would be primarily ambush vessels since their drive systems would be detectable in use, a bit like the 'tail-pipe' of Changs Bird of Prey. I think that any stealth technology though would find a better use in mines, depending on the level of defence that ships of the future have against micro-meteors and space debris it wouldn't even need to contain explosives, just enough mass to cause damage when the fast moving vessel collides with it.

Of course there is the possibility of sensor systems which are under development at the moment making things like radar obsolete, but whenever a detection system is developed, it is likely that a counter to it will be under development, from Window to ECM to Stealth.

[TLAM Strike]

I'm not quite so sure, we already have radar reduction materials, sound isn't going to be a problem, and heat dampeners would be simple enough to fit, and to escape visual detection, well you could probably just paint the thing black, or use refraction to bend light around the ship.
The primary problem comes with the reduction of the radar reductive material through collisions with micro-meteors and other small debris which nullifies its usefulness, but if a way is found around that then certainly stealth space vessels are a practical possibility, of course they would be primarily ambush vessels since their drive systems would be detectable in use, a bit like the 'tail-pipe' of Changs Bird of Prey. I think that any stealth technology though would find a better use in mines, depending on the level of defence that ships of the future have against micro-meteors and space debris it wouldn't even need to contain explosives, just enough mass to cause damage when the fast moving vessel collides with it.

Of course there is the possibility of sensor systems which are under development at the moment making things like radar obsolete, but whenever a detection system is developed, it is likely that a counter to it will be under development, from Window to ECM to Stealth.

Oberon you should read the link I posted in my last post:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain***39;t_No_Stealth_In_Space

[Oberon]

Oberon you should read the link I posted in my last post:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain***39;t_No_Stealth_In_Space

Aha, I did ponder, but I didn't realise that drive engines had that much of a heat signature. Makes sense though, but would the same problems occur for mines? :hmmm:

[Raptor1]

I'm not quite so sure, we already have radar reduction materials, sound isn't going to be a problem, and heat dampeners would be simple enough to fit, and to escape visual detection, well you could probably just paint the thing black, or use refraction to bend light around the ship.
The primary problem comes with the reduction of the radar reductive material through collisions with micro-meteors and other small debris which nullifies its usefulness, but if a way is found around that then certainly stealth space vessels are a practical possibility, of course they would be primarily ambush vessels since their drive systems would be detectable in use, a bit like the 'tail-pipe' of Changs Bird of Prey. I think that any stealth technology though would find a better use in mines, depending on the level of defence that ships of the future have against micro-meteors and space debris it wouldn't even need to contain explosives, just enough mass to cause damage when the fast moving vessel collides with it.

Of course there is the possibility of sensor systems which are under development at the moment making things like radar obsolete, but whenever a detection system is developed, it is likely that a counter to it will be under development, from Window to ECM to Stealth.

The problem with stealth ships in space is waste heat and propulsion. If you have humans living on this ship, you are going to generate tons of waste heat, the only way to dispose of which is to radiate it outside the ship, which could be easily detected by anyone casually looking. Then you have the problem that, even if you shut down your engines while trying to be stealthy, you are going to have to burn them in order to actually get anywhere, which would of course be seen by everyone in the system. TLAM Strike's Project Rho link has a nice detailed explanation of the problems with stealth in space.

Stealth mines might work. I can see something like disguising inactive missiles as space junk in orbit, waiting to be activated when an enemy ship wanders too close as a workable tactic. But without a way around these problems "small, heavily armed stealth ships" would not work.

EDIT: Damn ninjas!

[tater]

Forget radar, think simple IR telescopes. If the crew compartment is habitable, then it's a reasonable IR source. If the ship makes sci fi amounts of power (powerful drives, or directed energy weapons), then it's a bright IR source.

[August]

How well does IR and radar work against an object that is light years away and moving very fast? Would any data they produce arrive in time to do any good?

Also within a solar system, where the speeds and distance are relatively less, there are plenty of planets, moons, asteroids and other stuff to hide the biggest of ships behind.

[Oberon]

How well does IR and radar work against an object that is light years away and moving very fast? Would any data they produce arrive in time to do any good?

Unless the ship was travelling faster than the speed of light then IR and Radar, and other means of electromagnetic detection would provide weeks or months worth of warning.

Also within a solar system, where the speeds and distance are relatively less, there are plenty of planets, moons, asteroids and other stuff to hide the biggest of ships behind.The element of surprise would probably only work if the system was outside of the detection range of the vessel you intend to attack, or if you were able to approach the vessel keeping a planet between you and it at all times, which would be difficult and easily countered by the enemy having more than one unit with sensors, for example a capital ship with smaller scouting vessels around it, arranged in a manner that their radar and IR systems cover a maximum range would mean that even if the capital ship doesn't detect the vessel entering the system, the scouts would and relay that message to the capital ship, thus eliminating the element of surprise.

Hiding near objects that emit electromagnetic interference and product a larger amount of heat than your vessel might work...or might just get you killed. Stars perhaps, but again, you'd be detected moving into position.


EDIT: Also, I didn't see TLAMs post at #35 (hence my blunder on IR detector a few posts later) but yes, a Galaxy class is a good all rounder vessel for long range space exploration/flag planting/diplomacy. Although in TNG, it's rare that they actually go out of communications range of Starfleet Command, so the element of the captain of the vessel being a joint military/diplomatic officer/scientist is a bit lost...BUT, it is a core principle of training for Starfleet officers, so it is at least acknowledged in the Trekverse. Kirk on the other hand, had a more primitive comms setup, and when Archer went into the Expanse he was pretty much on his own...but then his Enterprise was, well, mostly outmatched by anything it faced.

[tater]

How well does IR and radar work against an object that is light years away and moving very fast? Would any data they produce arrive in time to do any good?

Also within a solar system, where the speeds and distance are relatively less, there are plenty of planets, moons, asteroids and other stuff to hide the biggest of ships behind.

Already answered, but if moving fast, their future position is already very predictable. They'd have to thrust constantly to make any significant change, which would be visible. Put a rock in front of them. Boom.

[Raptor1]

How well does IR and radar work against an object that is light years away and moving very fast? Would any data they produce arrive in time to do any good?

It would arrive before the ship does, usually by a very large margin, and if you know where the ship was, where it was going and how fast it's not terribly difficult to figure out where it actually is by the time the information gets there and how to blow it up.


Also within a solar system, where the speeds and distance are relatively less, there are plenty of planets, moons, asteroids and other stuff to hide the biggest of ships behind.

You could hide a ship behind a planet, but a close enough orbit would expose it to whatever you're hiding from every few hours. You can avoid that by applying thrust, but then your exhaust will be detected and they'll know you're there. That's of course assuming your enemy is only looking at you from a single point, and that your ship was at that location to begin with...

[Cybermat47]

Far more problematic than you might imagine... (http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--There_Ain't_No_Stealth_In_Space)

Thanks! Ruined my ideas, but it was really interesting!
Looks like space warfare is going to be a lot different to naval warfare!

[CaptainMattJ.]

The truth is we cant possibly know what we will have available and therefore cant say for certain about ANYTHING

But assuming the Halo series is anywhere near the mark its going to take quite a large engine to propel yourself faster than light through any means, except maybe wormholes assuming they even exist. That means carriers with smaller craft still do make sense. A ship of smaller design is not going to have trans-system capabilities, requiring a larger craft to carry and maintain them.

Also, Stealth is even easier to obtain in space. If you can hide heat and radiation signatures youll be invisible, absolutely. the vastness of space is the ultimate assistance to what would be the submarines of the future.

Also, stealth ships only need be in-system with advanced scanners to gain extremely valuable intel. number of enemy vessels, possible trajectories, all this valuable intelligence. The funniest thing is, Halo's stealth ships, named prowlers, are amazingly similar to submarines. Anyone vigorously scanning has a good chance of detecting the spacecraft. The best mode of movement would be to "run silent" with very minimal engine power. The prowlers of the future might indeed rely on not obtaining total invisibility to scanners but the severe dampening of its ability to be detected, like a stealth fighter. But given the amount of asteroids that are so abundant in our solar system and presumably others, and the immense distances of space, any object below a certain level of activity and/or mass would be nearly impossible to isolate and identify. For all they know its another asteroid or dead object.

[Cybermat47]

And, once more, my idea is possible.
Thank you!

[Oberon]

There may, indeed, be ways around the hard physics problems facing us in these questions that we simply haven't discovered yet. In regards to actual space travel, there's the possibility of bending space and making the journey distance smaller, punching through the bends...which is pretty much what wormholes are all about. That would also get past the nasty problem of coming back from a mission and greeting your great-great-great-great-great-great-great granddaughter/son as your only living relation, or coming back and finding nothing at all.
Science is always in motion, so there could be answers out there, or there might not be.

[razark]

Also, Stealth is even easier to obtain in space. If you can hide heat and radiation signatures youll be invisible, absolutely.
How do you propose to hide the heat signature? There's not a whole lot of things you can do with heat. You can either radiate it into space, or you can keep it in the ship, which means you're going to cook your crew, while slowly radiating the heat to space anyway. Heat is one of the main problems with sci-fi style spacecraft.

[Cybermat47]

Science will find a way!

[August]

You could hide a ship behind a planet, but a close enough orbit would expose it to whatever you're hiding from every few hours. You can avoid that by applying thrust, but then your exhaust will be detected and they'll know you're there. That's of course assuming your enemy is only looking at you from a single point, and that your ship was at that location to begin with...

Wouldn't that depend on your altitude and velocity? Communications satellites in a Clarke belt orbit can maintain a geostationary position over a part of the Earth without having to apply thrust so it's seems to me that if you reverse the direction of travel one could stay on one side of a planet (orbit-stationary?) without that much effort at all.

[TLAM Strike]

Aha, I did ponder, but I didn't realise that drive engines had that much of a heat signature. Makes sense though, but would the same problems occur for mines? :hmmm:

Depends if you want to keep the mines stationary or not. If you want to keep them stationary you need some kind of low power drive:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.php#id--Jump_Points--Defending_Points

if you want the weapons to just drift you are going to run in to the problem of having to fill space with the damn things because they are all off on their own orbits.

[Oberon]

Here's one for the hard science dudes...it's probably easily proven wrong because I'm tired and was just about to get into bed when I thought of this...but couldn't we take a leaf from submarines and use a double hull?

The internal hull would radiate heat from the crew and power source, but the external hull (connected to the internal by non-conductive materials) would have a vacuum buffer between it and the internal hull, and since space is a good insulator, the heat radiated by the internal hull wouldn't reach the external hull which (in theory) would stay the same temperature as the vacuum around it.

Of course, that doesn't get rid of the problem with the heat generated by the drive system, but the radiant hull temperature problem might be solved.

Also, since infrared is an electromagnetic radiation we can also bend that, like we can bend light, with metamaterials, heck, we can even bend gamma radiation now, but whether you'd be able to bend the exhaust radiation enough that it would become undetectable is another matter...

Hard science dudes, over to you, I'm off to bed now I've gotten this out of my head...if I'd have left it till tomorrow morning I'd have forgotten it...really must start leaving a notepad on my bedside table...

[tater]

Every single watt generated must be radiated to space.

the problem in space is cooling, not heating. The whole universe is a thermos, and only radiative transfer is meaningful.

Double hull? Heat radiates to external hull, which then glows white after a while.

Saying "we don't know what they will have" is not a real point, we DO know thermodynamics. Unless you postulate some way to convert waste heat into "hyperspace" or something, your stuck with breaking as little reality as possible (course if you can dump heat, you can likely measure hyperspace "waves" or something, then you have a new detector.

[Cybermat47]

Hang on, would a propeller work in space? I mean, sure there's no air or water, but might it still produce propulsion?
If stealth craft used propellers, they would only be detectable visually or by using pinging, as the propeller wouldn't generate any noise, because for sound you need air, and there is no air in space.

Perhaps they could use a nuclear generator for long range travel, and only use the propeller for attack?

Just speculating. Probably wouldn't work anyway.

[razark]

Hang on, would a propeller work in space? I mean, sure there's no air or water, but might it still produce propulsion?
No. If there's nothing for the propeller to push, it does no good.

And even if it did work, you'd still need to spin the propeller, which would generate heat. There is no stealth in space.

[Sailor Steve]

Hang on, would a propeller work in space? I mean, sure there's no air or water, but might it still produce propulsion?
If stealth craft used propellers, they would only be detectable visually or by using pinging, as the propeller wouldn't generate any noise, because for sound you need air, and there is no air in space.
No, for the same reason it makes no sound. The propeller has to push against something to work. No air, no water, no push.

[Cybermat47]

No, for the same reason it makes no sound. The propeller has to push against something to work. No air, no water, no push.

Knew it was to good to be true.
Back to step 1!

[Raptor1]

Also, Stealth is even easier to obtain in space. If you can hide heat and radiation signatures youll be invisible, absolutely. the vastness of space is the ultimate assistance to what would be the submarines of the future.


But you can't hide your heat and radiation signature; the heat will (excepting any major discovery that can violate the Laws of Thermodynamics) have to go somewhere, and when it does, everyone can see you.

Wouldn't that depend on your altitude and velocity? Communications satellites in a Clarke belt orbit can maintain a geostationary position over a part of the Earth without having to apply thrust so it's seems to me that if you reverse the direction of travel one could stay on one side of a planet (orbit-stationary?) without that much effort at all.

No, if you go into geostationary orbit in the other direction you're still going to make the trip all the way around the planet in 24 hours. The only difference is that the surface will rotate in the other direction from you.

There are only two ways I can think of where you can stay motionless relative to a planet: Either using a Solar Lagrange point, in which case you are way, way too far away from the planet hide behind it, or not actually being in orbit (that is, being above a planet with null horizontal velocity), meaning you have to constantly apply thrust to counter the gravity pulling you down. In either case, that still assumes you're at that position to begin with and the enemy isn't looking from multiple directions, otherwise you are toast.

Here's one for the hard science dudes...it's probably easily proven wrong because I'm tired and was just about to get into bed when I thought of this...but couldn't we take a leaf from submarines and use a double hull?

The internal hull would radiate heat from the crew and power source, but the external hull (connected to the internal by non-conductive materials) would have a vacuum buffer between it and the internal hull, and since space is a good insulator, the heat radiated by the internal hull wouldn't reach the external hull which (in theory) would stay the same temperature as the vacuum around it.

Of course, that doesn't get rid of the problem with the heat generated by the drive system, but the radiant hull temperature problem might be solved.

Vacuum is a good insulator from convection, not from radiation, which is why you're using that method to get rid of heat in the first place. So the outer hull will absorb the radiation from the inner hull and will radiate it into outer space just the same.


Also, since infrared is an electromagnetic radiation we can also bend that, like we can bend light, with metamaterials, heck, we can even bend gamma radiation now, but whether you'd be able to bend the exhaust radiation enough that it would become undetectable is another matter...

Hard science dudes, over to you, I'm off to bed now I've gotten this out of my head...if I'd have left it till tomorrow morning I'd have forgotten it...really must start leaving a notepad on my bedside table...

Wouldn't that only work if you have this metamaterial right between your exhaust and the target? I don't think that's very practical, even assuming it is possible. Of course, that will still only relocate the problem somewhere else...

[Oberon]

Ah, of course, hence why we can pick up the radiation from pulsars, I didn't think of that. I had a hunch that there would be hard science reasons why it wouldn't work, hence why I brought you guys in. :03:

[August]

No, if you go into geostationary orbit in the other direction you're still going to make the trip all the way around the planet in 24 hours. The only difference is that the surface will rotate in the other direction from you.

Exactly, the planet rotates and your position over a piece of it moves but your position on, say the side facing away from the sun, will not change. Hence to anyone looking from that direction they will not see a ship parked on the opposite side.

[Sailor Steve]

No, if you go into geostationary orbit in the other direction you're still going to make the trip all the way around the planet in 24 hours. The only difference is that the surface will rotate in the other direction from you.
There has to be another name for it, though. "Geostationary" literally means "staying in the same place above the planet".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Exactly, the planet rotates and your position over a piece of it moves but your position on, say the side facing away from the sun, will not change. Hence to anyone looking from that direction they will not see a ship parked on the opposite side.
That's incorrect. A geostationary orbit turns with the planet, thus experiencing the same day/night shift. Heading in the opposite direction at the same speed you will still orbit the Earth once every 24 hours, and experience the same shift.

To remain on the day or night side of the planet you would have to be standing still, not orbiting at all.

[Raptor1]

There has to be another name for it, though. "Geostationary" literally means "staying in the same place above the planet".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

'Retrograde geosynchronous orbit' is the most accurate description I can think of. I don't know if this sort of orbit has a proper name, or, indeed, if anybody actually uses it enough to justify one...

[August]

There has to be another name for it, though. "Geostationary" literally means "staying in the same place above the planet".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit


That's incorrect. A geostationary orbit turns with the planet, thus experiencing the same day/night shift. Heading in the opposite direction at the same speed you will still orbit the Earth once every 24 hours, and experience the same shift.

To remain on the day or night side of the planet you would have to be standing still, not orbiting at all.

I see what you mean. So if I want to stay on the night side of a planet I guess all I have to do is counteract the pull of gravity. Since centrifugal force won't help as you point out then you'd have to maintain a constant thrust against it which would also be hidden by the planet.

[tater]

Why would you want to be on the night side? So that the incredible heat of you spacecraft is even more obvious in the shadow of the planet?

A bunch of us (traveller rpg geeks who happened to be astonmers) did the math decades ago. A small spacecraft would be near "naked eye" magnitude in the IR at the distance of earth to moon. (a traveller scout ship for traveller geeks). That's just waste heat from keeping the inside a shirtsleeves environment, computers, life support, etc.

[August]

Why would you want to be on the night side? So that the incredible heat of you spacecraft is even more obvious in the shadow of the planet?

A bunch of us (traveller rpg geeks who happened to be astonmers) did the math decades ago. A small spacecraft would be near "naked eye" magnitude in the IR at the distance of earth to moon. (a traveller scout ship for traveller geeks). That's just waste heat from keeping the inside a shirtsleeves environment, computers, life support, etc.

I only said the night side to indicate that the craft would be hidden behind the planet from an observer located somewhere along a line running from the planet to the sun.

Bottom line I guess is how could a spacecraft keep the bulk of a planet or moon between them and an observer?

[Sailor Steve]

'Retrograde geosynchronous orbit' is the most accurate description I can think of.
That's as good a name as any, I guess. It gets the point across.

I don't know if this sort of orbit has a proper name, or, indeed, if anybody actually uses it enough to justify one...
Well, since the whole idea of a geosynchronous orbit is to stay in the same spot above the Earth, I'm not sure what would be the point of picking that exact altitude and speed to go in any other direction.

[Sailor Steve]

I see what you mean. So if I want to stay on the night side of a planet I guess all I have to do is counteract the pull of gravity. Since centrifugal force won't help as you point out then you'd have to maintain a constant thrust against it which would also be hidden by the planet.

Bottom line I guess is how could a spacecraft keep the bulk of a planet or moon between them and an observer?
I would guess that far enough from the planet the amount of thrust required would be minimal. The biggest problem I can see is not staying in one place, but knowing what the guy you're hiding from is doing. You can't see him either, so you can't know exactly when he's going to pop into view, or even from which side.

It reminds me of a book I've just been reading on sailing ship combat. You can see the enemy coming hours before you're close enough to fight, and if you should go behind an island you can't tell what he's doing any more than he can tell what you're doing.

Captain Isaac Hull of USS Constution found a way to make that work for him while being chased by a British squadron in July 1812. After more than a day of towing the ships in a dead calm the wind picked up. As Constitution approached a light squall with a four-mile lead, Hull had his crew shorten sail as if preparing for a major storm. Seeing this from a distance, the British did the same. As soon as Constitution was on the other side of the squall, not able to see the enemy and knowing they couldn't see him, Hull put on full sail and ran away while the British ships were still on short sail, waiting for the "storm" to arrive.

[tater]

Hiding behind a planet, or alternate ideas like radiating waste heat directionally require knowing what the enemy is doing so you can point away from them. Holding still above a planet makes you visible to everywhere on the planet as it rotates under you. Another spacecraft will be in orbit and will move to your side. If far away your craft must be in very low or it to be masked, might as well land.

[Betonov]

Reading this thread, I have the idea that space battles are going to be more a game of cat and mouse than the battle for the Atlantic :hmmm:

And I can't get the final battle in Wrath of Khan out of my head

[tater]

How could you come to that conclusion? There is no cat and mouse. All are easily visible to passive sensors. No hiding.

[August]

How could you come to that conclusion? There is no cat and mouse. All are easily visible to passive sensors. No hiding.

I would hazard to guess that anyone with the ability to travel between the stars will also know how to mask their heat signature.

[Betonov]

How could you come to that conclusion? There is no cat and mouse. All are easily visible to passive sensors. No hiding.

The manouvering behind the planets, using every dirty trick in the book to stay hidden...

And the fact August brought forward. Warp drive warps space. If you warp space just right your heat won't leave the bubble, so no signature.

[Sailor Steve]

I would hazard to guess that anyone with the ability to travel between the stars will also know how to mask their heat signature.
:rotfl2::rotfl2:

Not at you; you just made me think of something funny. Of course the idea of the Romulan cloaking device in the original Star Trek episode was to mask the ship against long-range sensors, not to make it invisible to the Mk 1 eyeball. By the time they used it in a movie it made the ship disappear altogether, so the poor schlub jogging in the park conked his head.

What just occured to me is this: The cloaking device makes the ship invisible. Sulu says "Captain! It's gone off the screen! We can't see it!" Kirk walks around the console and up to the big view screen. He then points to a part of the screen and says "Mr Sulu, do see - right here - where the stars appear to be distorted, like...I don't know...like the distortion in the air just above the street where the hot air is rising? It seems to be moving this way, and I'll bet if we aimed our phasers right here...


But you're probably right. Anybody with faster-than-light drives and artificial gravity generators would likely figure that part out as well.

[Betonov]

Steve, it was a Klingon ship in the movie :O:

[Oberon]

Steve, it was a Klingon ship in the movie :O:

Only because they got the cloaking devices from the Romulans :03: And the Klingons flogged them a load of old D7s in response. The Romulans got the raw deal IMHO. :nope:

[Sailor Steve]

Steve, it was a Klingon ship in the movie :O:
I know. I didn't figure it was worth mentioning.

Only because they got the cloaking devices from the Romulans :03: And the Klingons flogged them a load of old D7s in response. The Romulans got the raw deal IMHO. :nope:
Only because the people who made the movie didn't do their homework. The rest was scrambling for an explanation for the egg on their faces.

[Betonov]

Damn, I thougt Romulans wouldn't trade with anyone :hmmm:

[CaptainMattJ.]

Youre forgetting that heat energy doesnt have to be dumped anywhere. it can stay inside the ship indefinitely or at least be trickled out to space in very low quantities. The heat could most certainly be used to power things.

But again, technology limits theories into nothing but speculation as to future technology.

[Raptor1]

Youre forgetting that heat energy doesnt have to be dumped anywhere. it can stay inside the ship indefinitely or at least be trickled out to space in very low quantities.

Even if you don't radiate heat into space (an action that will generate even more waste heat), or radiate amounts small enough to be undetected, eventually you are going to accumulate enough that your spacecraft's hull heats up and starts radiating anyway. Either that or the crew dies. Or both.

And that doesn't avoid the whole issue with your engine exhaust being seen from light years away.


The heat could most certainly be used to power things.

And how would you go about committing this violation of the second law of thermodynamics, exactly?

[tater]

Youre forgetting that heat energy doesnt have to be dumped anywhere. it can stay inside the ship indefinitely or at least be trickled out to space in very low quantities. The heat could most certainly be used to power things.

But again, technology limits theories into nothing but speculation as to future technology.

What?

LOL.

Um, no. The heat has to be constantly dumped, and in fact as fast as possible. The Shuttle had radiators, and deploying them was a first order of business. Failing to do so would mean almost immediate return to earth. That's for a craft using barely any power by "sci fi" standards.

Every single watt of power generated in the craft needs to be radiated to space. Every watt. If you have a warship, then we have to assume large power requirements. The subject is carriers and fighters, so we have to assume some sort of weaponry they'd carry. KE weapons would require mass-drivers or missiles. The latter uses little power. Directed energy weapons need to use megawatts. Any energy not fired off as the actual laser or particle weapon is waste and must be radiated to space or pretty soon the ship is not habitable. With radiators covering less than the whole ship you can expect them to be white hot on a ship making decent amounts of power.

Future technology will not negate thermodynamics.

If you want to postulate somehow putting waste heat into "hyperspace" or something, that's fine, but the ship will be covered with a cooling system that will then have to drive a generator or something to put it in a form that will allow for dumping in hyperspace. In such a universe surface damage would be nasty I guess, cause it will make the cooling stop working...

[razark]

In such a universe surface damage would be nasty I guess, cause it will make the cooling stop working...
Which means that every space battle will begin with the words:
"Enemy coming into range, sir! Targeting their radiators."

[tater]

The whole ship would be radiators, or absorbers, to then put into hyperspace "radiators." There is of course no reason to suppose that the hyperspace part is "outside," it might be in the center as hyperspace is not in our usual dimensions anyway.

Still, that is massively breaking physics. In general, I like space combat ideas where you pick a few things to break, and try to hold them to those as much as possible (say FTL drives).

In fantasy "SF" like star trek, they can radiate via "subspace" radio, presumably. Of course if you can broadcast in hyperspace/subspace, you can likely receive in that same space. So you stop radiating IR to a point, and replace it with detectable "subspace" radiation---which might be detectable at vastly greater distances, BTW, if it is the space used for FTL. So as a work around, it's a bad one.

Also, even if you collect "excess" radiation for mitigating using some made up tech, the hull is still shirtsleeve temp for the crew. A small ship is easily detectable at the distance of our moon with current, small, IR telescopes that could automatically scan the complete volume of space around the ship in a short time frame.

You cannot cool the hull to be equal to background if people are inside.

[August]

Well if stealth is out there is always brute force. Let the enemy see us coming, they'll only have a few extra hours to contemplate their doom.

:yeah:

[razark]

Well if stealth is out there is always brute force. Let the enemy see us coming, they'll only have a few extra hours to contemplate their doom.
Lack of surprise, overwhelming force, the only defense is deterrence, and the only response is to do the same to them? :hmmm:


Yup, MAD is back.

[tater]

Age of sail.

"Put us at pistol shot, and double-shot the guns!"

[TLAM Strike]

Well if stealth is out there is always brute force. Let the enemy see us coming, they'll only have a few extra hours to contemplate their doom.

:yeah:

Due to the distances involved its possible they would have years to prepare. :03:

[August]

Due to the distances involved its possible they would have years to prepare. :03:

I guess depending on their level of technology it might. After all there's a difference between detecting a heat source in far off space and having a clue what it means.

[Oberon]

Due to the distances involved its possible they would have years to prepare. :03:

If it was this planet it would take that long just to agree who should prepare. :03:

[TLAM Strike]

I guess depending on their level of technology it might. After all there's a difference between detecting a heat source in far off space and having a clue what it means.

Well if the other side has achieved the level of telescopes and spectrographs they would be able to spot a spacecraft, determine its its closing or not using its blueshift/redshift, determine if its accelerating (by increase in shift), and determine what its emitting as exhaust (by what appears in the spectrograph).

So late 1800s in equivalent technology they would have the possibility of detection and classification.

[August]

Well if the other side has achieved the level of telescopes and spectrographs they would be able to spot a spacecraft, determine its its closing or not using its blueshift/redshift, determine if its accelerating (by increase in shift), and determine what its emitting as exhaust (by what appears in the spectrograph).

So late 1800s in equivalent technology they would have the possibility of detection and classification.

Well technically it might be possible but it's a very big sky. What do you think are the odds of such an object being discovered in the late 1800's or even now?

[TLAM Strike]

Well technically it might be possible but it's a very big sky. What do you think are the odds of such an object being discovered in the late 1800's or even now?

For today check out what Ken Burnside wrote on project rho:

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewardetect.php#id--Why_Not?--Heat_Signatures

For the past Burnside mentions a drive system of a spaceborne warship at a decent distance would be about an Apparent Magnitude of 12, which would put it just below the Apparent Magnitude of Iapetus (which was discovered in 1671). In the early and mid 1700s they were finding asteroids with apparent magnitudes in that region (ex: 3 Juno, and 5 Astraea).

[Sailor Steve]

OMG! That thread has a picture that makes me look silly. My joke about Kirk pointing at the screen apparently really happened in ST3: The Search For Spock, and I forgot about it! :oops: :damn: :rotfl2:

[edit] That whole article is great! :rock:

[tater]

You take the spectrum of the source. telling what it means is obvious. It's either a star, or a spacecraft.