The AI used in track management is closely related to the AI used to track distant space based objects
the sensor technology for some deep space track management is legacy to military systems
Plasma Stealth
- Thread starter AlfaSigma
- Start date
The AI used in track management is closely related to the AI used to track distant space based objects
the sensor technology for some deep space track management is legacy to military systems
PhysicsMan
Member
What you're referring to is a very small part of astrophysics studies. Vast majority of space exploration has nothing to do with object tracking as you know it. Mostly, its a study of hydrodynamics, tracking very high energy radiation patterns. Many space objects being discovered and studied are actually never imaged or directly seen and don't produce any measurable signal at all.
There are similar aspects. Definitely not the same thing.
Eg SETI is a project where they are mostly looking for signal patterns across the entire spectrum continuously. Vaguely similar to some sigint done in the military. Tracking space debris is similar to tracking space to log all spy sats, etc. Probe sensors used for everything where ever they are. Being able to find, clear up, identify and locate a signal is shared among numerous projects civilian and military.
There are some common problems between some aspects of science and the military. No they aren't the same, but sometime they require the same or similar tools. Given what is known that can be done with small research budget for civilian projects one can only imagine what is possible with a much larger military budget often working on simpler problems (ie earth based) and part of an on going development.
Eg SETI is a project where they are mostly looking for signal patterns across the entire spectrum continuously. Vaguely similar to some sigint done in the military. Tracking space debris is similar to tracking space to log all spy sats, etc. Probe sensors used for everything where ever they are. Being able to find, clear up, identify and locate a signal is shared among numerous projects civilian and military.
There are some common problems between some aspects of science and the military. No they aren't the same, but sometime they require the same or similar tools. Given what is known that can be done with small research budget for civilian projects one can only imagine what is possible with a much larger military budget often working on simpler problems (ie earth based) and part of an on going development.
No. you're making some assumptions here. I've actually worked in a track management environment. Including OTHR and space based detection capabilities.
tracking radiation emissions is only a very very small subset of the capability
PhysicsMan
Member
I think that's what I was trying to say as well. That the military capabilities/goals are more centered on tracking objects within Earth's orbital space and, to a lesser degree, within Solar system. Whereas the general astrophysics studies go well beyond that for the most part, and that's where the science is mostly based on radiation studies. Yes, there are people studying Solar system, of course, but that is also not so much a study of "tracking things" (it's hard nowadays to generate "wtf is that?" within Solar system of significant scientific interest).
any unknown demonstrating controlled or managed behaviour (eg under influence or predictive behaviour) will generate a "wtf is that?"
it still happens. GIS/INT is not just about watching once something has been detected over space of interest, but it's also about the cross correlation and forensics of anything that draws an association or can be linked (even remotely) to that event.
PhysicsMan
Member
Maybe you're right on the SETI thing. But tracking debris is in no way similar to what they look for in space. The Universe is almost entirely a gas (a plasma, actually), and that is one of the reasons why, in general, there's little overlap in military and astrophysics. Military focuses on very narrow and specific aspects of space exploration, and that's where the money goes (generating the capabilities). Science concerns itself with a huge array of phenomena in space, with the money spread accordingly. BTW, the overall amount of money in science of space is huge compared to military space science budgets, but as I said, the narrow focus that military has allows it to develop stuff that can probably leave some outsiders wide eyed, I can believe that.
PhysicsMan
Member
I understand that it happens (and it sounds to me like a fascinating thing to be doing), but not much of it can possibly find use in science, that was my point.
actually, quite a bit crosses over into both track management environments
foreign bodies in space still get subjected to the same analysis re controlled and predictive pattern matching
whatever or however that object is identified still results in an analyst of some discipline making a determination as to whether it is a controlled or uncontrolled object demonstrating particular behavioural or determined traits
whether that artifact was picked up using emissions detection, IR, doppler pinging, background comparison overlays etc... the end result and requirement is the same.
ie is that artifact demonstrating managed or uncontrolled but predictive behaviour?
eg look at Space Fence. There's a reason why orgs such as Space Command exist, and how they play in the space (no pun intended)
Last edited:
In an open configuration, like the one I proposed with an aircraft flying over a carpet of lasers generated plasma, the tradeoff of increased thermal and visible light signature for reduced radar trackability seems to me still an advantageous one given that light sensors are much shorter range than radar and are affected by atmospheric conditions between sensor and target.
Also given the attacker chooses time and attack vector he could optimize these for weather and others. Before you object that the defender can overcome the threat by deploying multiple integrated sensors, I would point out that such a structure would cost more than the attacker's capability and be subject to disruption. The attacker has obtained a strategic advantage.
And the point is that while you are thinking of hyper effective solutions requiring unavailable technologies and focusing on the technical level, a relatively simple implementation can have exceptional implications when considering the larger picture.
Also given the attacker chooses time and attack vector he could optimize these for weather and others. Before you object that the defender can overcome the threat by deploying multiple integrated sensors, I would point out that such a structure would cost more than the attacker's capability and be subject to disruption. The attacker has obtained a strategic advantage.
And the point is that while you are thinking of hyper effective solutions requiring unavailable technologies and focusing on the technical level, a relatively simple implementation can have exceptional implications when considering the larger picture.
I'm guessing you are completely unfamiliar with how track management is done in real life.
they are not systems dependant on single tech solutions, and they feed and consume services from a whole raft of GIS and INT sources
Last edited:
1. Wait until after sunset
2. Go outdoors
3. Tilt head towards the sky
4. Open eyes
:idea2
Unjustified assumptions for insinuations.
my assumptions are based on your theories as outlined below
real world track management doesn't work like you say.
speak to anyone who does it for a job
you do realise that any number of countries conduct blue flag type exercises on track management - and the vignettes cover the very things that you postulate..
an enemy prosecuting at a time and place of their favour and/or advantage is what people plan for - including inclement weather.
what do you think all those falconview and arcgis overlays contain?
I addressed that twice already.