New York Times on the Web Forums Science
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?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(1616 previous messages)
- 07:46pm Apr 21, 2002 EST (#1617
rshowalter - 10:19am Aug 22, 2001 EST (#8000 of 8012)
...Robert Showalter firstname.lastname@example.org
lunarchick 8/22/01 9:44am .. is great stuff !
Getting things to fit in different people's heads --
getting things to work from different contexts - the
exposition has to have some diversity, too. Even if perfection is
attainable for a specific context, there are many contexts, and the
need for different patterns of exposition, different correllations
with argument and evidence, at different levels of detail.
At many stages, getting things checked matters -- because errors
can propogate. These are common problems, that human organizations
handle, in various ways, all the time.
The exposition job is a hard one. The problem of getting
credibility is a hard one. The problems involved with proceeding
with grace and fairness is a hard one. The problem of touching, not
just minds, but the emotions that necessarily connect to
consequential action is a hard one.
But with the internet, and its greatly expanded memory and
tolerance for complexity -- and with the accumulation of expository
power in organizations like the TIMES - more is possible than used
The analogies to litigation of technical matters are pretty
close. Procedures that work for "discovery" are fairly close to many
informally used on this thread. Procedures that work for TRIAL --
where "laymen" have to make judgements, and results have to be clear
at many levels -- are different -- and not yet done.
But there's hope of getting FACTS, on which so much depends,
clarified here -- and doing it in ways that work for a very wide
range of people, from a very wide range of different perspectives.
How we FEEL about facts may be very different. But some technical
issues -- once subject to examination, by fair rules, with fair
umpiring when needed -- aren't subject to substantial question.
Sometimes pictures really ARE worth a thousand words.
MD6689 lunarchick 7/6/01 1:38pm shows some beautiful pictures
from the Hubble Space Telescope
Dec-97- Hubble Butterfly http://www.astrophys.org/high_2001.html
MD6690 rshowalter 7/6/01 1:46pm
With these pictures, one can get a feel for what "resolution"
means. And get a sense of how wonderful the resolution of Hubble is.
But it isn't nearly good enough to make lasar space weapons
Combining facts, connected solidly to evidence, to arguments that
can be understood in context, points can be made clear.
For a number of reasons, involving issues like resolution --
issues of numbers and in details -- the overwhelming mass of what
the Bush administration wants to fund for Star Wars isn't workable.
It will take work to show that - - and may take some force,
formal or informal, to get key parties involved. But getting clarity
on key points, "beyond a reasonable doubt" - - and in ways all can
see -- is something that can be done.
- 07:49pm Apr 21, 2002 EST (#1618
mazza - "What is the cost of moving the world's population to
another class M solar system with an appropriate new home planet.
Moving heavy industry off-planet is a cheaper alternative."
You not only think outside the planet. I am afraid, you reached
quite far outside the coomon sense.
- 07:50pm Apr 21, 2002 EST (#1619
Numbers do matter.
Checking matters, too.
- 07:51pm Apr 21, 2002 EST (#1620
rshowalter - 01:19pm Aug 24, 2001 EST (#8107 of 8109) Robert
MD8100 wrcooper 8/24/01 10:11am says:
" Either they have darn good reasons for
deploying this thing--reasons we civvies sans security clearances
don't know about--or else it's just a bad hangover from the Cold
" And contrary to what you said, I don't think we
can find out from publicly available documents. You'd have to
demonstrate your prowess in that department if you want to
Let's consider what can , and cannot be discussed
in terms of the open literature (not only publically available
documents, but also public knowledge embodied in the ordinary
practice of engineers.) You cannot say that something is
"impossible in general" if "in general" is broadly enough
But you CAN say that a specific, well enough specified thing
is impossible. Some times, when you plug numbers, something just
Other times, with less specification, but still a clear
picture of what is being discussed, you can say that a job is very
far beyond what can be done, in terms of what is available in the
open literature. Engineers make this sort of decision all the time,
on subject matter that's clearly stated.
So in terms of specific things that are being proposed to
be done in specific ways -- you can say - - - - "to do
this would take a "miracle" -- a large advance over the state of the
art." And be clear about how large the advance has to be,
I believe that, on the missile defense projects that are being
proposed (for example, the one that is subject to the Coyle report)
-- getting to tactically sensible levels of performance takes one
miracle after another.
On the lasar weapons, which are key elements to proposed
weaponizations of space, the technical requirements can be set out
clearly -- whether the setting out is right or wrong - - and what is
said can be checked . I think I've done that, with respect to
points made by gisterme cited in MD7136 rshowalter 7/17/01
12:05pm in the case of the lasar weapons:
MD7137 rshowalter 7/17/01 12:08pm . . . MD7139 rshowalter 7/17/01
MD7140 rshowalter 7/17/01 5:25pm . . . MD7141 rshowalter
New York Times on the Web Forums Science