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?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 10:12am Jun 17, 2003 EST (# 12567 of 12573)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Those Taxing Layovers By HENRY FOUNTAIN http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/science/17OBSE.html includes this section:

Fuel Cells' Flip Side

Proponents of a hydrogen economy talk of a day when fuel cells are the dominant energy source and the nitrogen oxides and sulfur pollution of fossil fuels are a thing of the past.

Fuel cells are a clean energy source, oxidizing hydrogen in a controlled way and creating only water as a waste product. But if fuel cells proliferate, a system for producing, storing and distributing hydrogen will need to be developed as well. And that could affect the environment, according to a study in the journal Science by researchers from the California Institute of Technology.

The scientists worked under the assumption that any hydrogen distribution system would involve some losses to the atmosphere, which has been the experience with other gases. The researchers estimated these losses — from leaks or during transfer, for example — at 10 to 20 percent, which in a completely hydrogen economy could mean up to an eightfold increase in the amount of the gas entering the atmosphere.

To gauge the effect of all that hydrogen, the scientists modeled the atmosphere. For one thing, when it reached the stratosphere, some of the hydrogen would be oxidized, producing water. That would make the stratosphere cooler and cloudier. And that, according to the model, would indirectly affect the ozone layer, making it larger and more persistent.

The researchers acknowledge that there are a lot of unknowns in their study, particularly the amount of hydrogen that might be taken up by soils.

- - - - - -

Fountain is exactly right that

"a system for producing, storing and distributing hydrogen will need to be developed "

I think that would be easy to do from where we are - if technical concerns were the only ones. Problems of fairness are among the most interesting and problematic barriers - the unfairness by which railroad nets got laid down in the 19th century is now outlawed - with nothing to take its place when large scale technical changes that are simple and homogeneous have to be implemented on a large scale.

Many of the problems "the average reader of the New York Times" cares most about need such simple and homogeneous solution - implemented on a large scale. They are now either in hand - or only a short way from being in hand. I was assigned to find some of them - and find procedures for finding optimal solutions. I've got them, good enough for staffs to refine and use.

Could that be done in a fair ways that the "average reader of the New York Times" would approve of where the New York Times company made a great deal of money ( even a small piece of solving a multitrillion dollar problem would be real money) ? Could that be done openly ?

I think it ought to be possible - not hypothetically, but practically. Though Mel Brooks might have something to say about it (he could help, too.)

I was inspired by an ad in Science Times today - thanking the Pfizer foundation for supporting an effort - in the NYT's interest - that the NYT couldn't reasonably fund alone. There are other similar cases - for the TIMES and for other media companies, as well.

A foundation might be able to help a lot in sorting out the mess between me and the NYT - in the interest of all concerned. ( Impossible? - Maybe not.)

A foundation might also be able to get some questions of fact sorted to closure - where the NYT can't do that job alone - and shouldn't. Facts on wh

rshow55 - 10:15am Jun 17, 2003 EST (# 12568 of 12573)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

A foundation might also be able to get some questions of fact sorted to closure on a number of big issues where the NYT can't do that job alone - and shouldn't.

Facts on which the welfare of the world partly depends.

I think it could be done in ways that "the average reader of the New York Times" would applaud - the the Pulitzer committee would respect - and that the average staffer in the House or Senate would applaud.

That almarst would like, too.

Ways that were effective and fair.

jorian319 - 10:47am Jun 17, 2003 EST (# 12569 of 12573)

Rshow, your futile speculations on the identity of other posters sometimes verges on the humorous.

IIRC Kalter was banned at one point over a vitriolic exchange where he was not even at fault.

(4 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense