New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

rshow55 - 10:21am Jan 10, 2002 EST (#10722 of 10727)

Mazza, if geometrical optics, and standard physics of absorbtion, transmission and reflection works, reflective coatings and mirror surface reflection angles, have effects on detection.

(I'd say effects so strong that one wonders about the competence and good faith of some government discussions about "decoys" -- convenient to build decoys invisible to lasar illumination, so only the target is seen during homing phase. )

Could this be an accident? If it is, it says a great deal. If it isn't, that's interesting, too. I don't see how the engineers involved can possibly avoid knowing what they've done here, with the spherical mirror coated "decoys" that are (or could easily be made to be) invisible to lasar weapons that are supposed to depend on illuminated targets.

And the reflective coatings can reduce thermal radiation from targets by 1000 fold, or more -- with detection extremely marginal now.

rshow55 - 10:26am Jan 10, 2002 EST (#10723 of 10727)

HOW DIFFICULT WOULD IT BE TO PUT THE WARHEAD ITSELF INSIDE A RELECTIVE BALLOON, WITH GOOD REFLECTION PROPERTIES IN THE LASAR WAVELENTH RANGE?

That's been suggested before, but I'm not sure the implications have been worked out.

The balloon would be invisible to the sensors. Both because its thermal radiation would be tiny, and because reflection of illumination diffuses so much that a lasar illuminated curved target, in space, would reflect practically nothing back to be seen from the position of the illumination (for realistic distances.) The decoys, on the other hand, could be made easy to see.

(How many tests, at $100 million a piece, and how much time, would it take contractors and the government to deal with this problem -- one of many such "show stopper problems?)

rshow55 - 10:27am Jan 10, 2002 EST (#10724 of 10727)

We need approaches to missile defense, which is a real and urgent problem, that can WORK.

lchic - 06:39pm Jan 10, 2002 EST (#10725 of 10727)

Things are moving to ORDER http://www.dawn.com/2002/01/10/

rshow55 - 07:07pm Jan 10, 2002 EST (#10726 of 10727)

Enron fell apart because assumptions were not checked and ideas that were wrong were deferred to. Even though there were "accounting checks" that SHOULD have been applied -- they weren't.

A whole body of "Buck Rogers" planning hinges on the idea that lasar weapons are effective. . See The Next Battlefield May Be in Outer Space by JACK HITT http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/05/magazine/05SPACEWARS.html

And the idea that lasar weapons (and other star-wars schemes) are effective is not subject to reasonable accounting.

It needs to be. Too much money, and too much human risk is involved to "just let things slide."

The last four months have been terrible, and tragic, but good things are happening, too -- because so many more people are able to imagine risk -- and confront serious consequences. So some sensible decisions, long overdue, are being made. But not enough of them, yet.

It makes no sense to squander US resources and prestige on systems that cannot possibly work.

If the US is acting foolishly, it is safer, for the US and the whole world, to have that widely known.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense