Negative Matter Drive and Stealth in Space

Will Oestreich

unread,

Mar 24, 2021, 2:47:05 PM3/24/21

to

Hi all,
I know the stealth in space argument has been done to death and conclusively has come down on the side of "there is no stealth in space." However, I was designing a spacecraft for a short story and it struck me that this ship, to my dismay, may in fact be stealthy. It uses a Negative Matter Drive (see here on the Atomic Rockets website for details http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/antigravity.php#id--Paragravity--Carrot_On_A_Stick--Negative_Matter_Drive) which is an actual plausible reactionless drive. The craft is small and has a low surface temperature. It lacks radiators because it uses a Visser Wormhole to transfer heat to a heat sink/radiator system located thousands of lightyears away. Using the equation provided on Atomic Rockets for the maximum detection range of a craft with no active drive using current technology [Rd = 13.4 * sqrt(A) * T2, where: Rd = detection range (km), A = spacecraft projected area (m2 ), T = surface temperature (K)], I came to a detection range of about .3 AU. While this may not seem like a stealthy craft, the detection range I was hoping for is closer to 30 AU. Is there any plausible way to increase the detection range without raising the surface temperature or size? I was thinking that I could make it travel at relativistic speed, so the particle impacts off of a magnetic shield might be a giveaway. Would that be plausible?

Will Oestreich

unread,

Mar 24, 2021, 2:59:33 PM3/24/21

to

On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 11:47:05 AM UTC-7, Will Oestreich wrote:
> Hi all,
> I know the stealth in space argument has been done to death and conclusively has come down on the side of "there is no stealth in space." However, I was designing a spacecraft for a short story and it struck me that this ship, to my dismay, may in fact be stealthy. It uses a Negative Matter Drive (see here on the Atomic Rockets website for details http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/antigravity.php#id--Paragravity--Carrot_On_A_Stick--Negative_Matter_Drive) which is an actual plausible reactionless drive. The craft is small and has a low surface temperature. It lacks radiators because it uses a Visser Wormhole to transfer heat to a heat sink/radiator system located thousands of lightyears away. Using the equation provided on Atomic Rockets for the maximum detection range of a craft with no active drive using current technology [Rd = 13.4 * sqrt(A) * T2, where: Rd = detection range (km), A = spacecraft projected area (m2 ), T = surface temperature (K)], I came to a detection range of about .3 AU. While this may not seem like a stealthy craft, the detection range I was hoping for is closer to 30 AU. Is there any plausible way to increase the detection range without raising the surface temperature or size? I was thinking that I could make it travel at relativistic speed, so the particle impacts off of a magnetic shield might be a giveaway. Would that be plausible?

Quick correction on my math. The actual detection range was close to .003 AU

eripe

unread,

Mar 26, 2021, 8:52:12 PM3/26/21

to

On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 1:47:05 AM UTC+7, Will Oestreich wrote:
> Hi all,

> I know the stealth in space argument has been done to death and conclusively has come down on the side of "there is no stealth in space." However, I was designing a spacecraft for a short story and it struck me that this ship, to my dismay, may in fact be stealthy. It uses a Negative Matter Drive (see here on the Atomic Rockets website for details http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/antigravity.php#id--Paragravity--Carrot_On_A_Stick--Negative_Matter_Drive) which is an actual plausible reactionless drive. The craft is small and has a low surface temperature. It lacks radiators because it uses a Visser Wormhole to transfer heat to a heat sink/radiator system located thousands of lightyears away. Using the equation provided on Atomic Rockets for the maximum detection range of a craft with no active drive using current technology [Rd = 13.4 * sqrt(A) * T2, where: Rd = detection range (km), A = spacecraft projected area (m2 ), T = surface temperature (K)], I came to a detection range of about 0.003 AU. While this may not seem like a stealthy craft, the detection range I was hoping for is closer to 30 AU. Is there any plausible way to increase the detection range without raising the surface temperature or size? I was thinking that I could make it travel at relativistic speed, so the particle impacts off of a magnetic shield might be a giveaway. Would that be plausible?

One wonders what kind of machinations is needed to open and maintain a wormhole, and if that would not be like waving, singing and dancing for anyone able to peak inside wormspace?

That said, particle impact on a magnetic field will give of a little radiation as the change direction. It should correlate to an increase in temperature for the whole magnetic field which must be large, but I dont know how much.
The other thing is to look at how 13,4 factor is derived, probably its the size of the detector, so maybe cover Mercury in sensors?
Or a network of satellites spread throughout the solar system, able to detect magnetic fields.
Someone might notice a neutrino source.
Last thing is star occlusion. If anyone happens to be looking that way when the ship passes.

Will Oestreich

unread,

Mar 27, 2021, 12:37:38 PM3/27/21

to

Why would someone notice a neutrino source?

eripe

unread,

Mar 27, 2021, 9:46:00 PM3/27/21

to

Because we have neutrino detectors, looking everywhere, even through the planets.. They are not very sensitive, but they might just pick up a source crossing the sky.

https://www.colorado.edu/today/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/article-image/sun_neutrinos_0.jpg?itok=4mqzCeB6
https://www.wired.com/story/neutrino-detectors-could-be-used-to-spot-nuclear-rogues/

Then again, if you have negative mass and wormholes, you probably have some tinfoil that neutrinos cant penetrate.

Will Oestreich

unread,

Mar 27, 2021, 10:51:18 PM3/27/21

to

Sorry, I phrased the question badly. I meant what would be producing neutrinos enough to be noticed above the background noise on the ship?

eripe

unread,

Mar 28, 2021, 4:47:06 AM3/28/21

to

A nuclear reactor. I don't know the detection range...

Will Oestreich

unread,

Mar 28, 2021, 10:56:04 PM3/28/21

to

Alright. You mentioned covering Mercury in sensors, do you think quantity of sensors could help the problem?

eripe

unread,

Mar 30, 2021, 12:45:44 AM3/30/21

to

Yes, the bigger the sensor, the more light you can collect. One needs to find out how the 13,4 factor was derived, and then work on those factors.