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 - 09:21am Jun 30, 2003 EST (# 12759 of 12764)
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.

Thanks for posting gisterme's 2136-7 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.gubGb3E5lTT.1257008@.f28e622/2652 here, lchic . Gisterme raised great questions about the large scale equatorial ocean solar array proposal. And objections, and alternatives. I'll be writing up short answers this morning - and expect to get post them by 1:00 pm EST today, or sooner. Some of my "diplomatic" problems seem to be resolving, and I'm feeling optimistic. I appreciate gisterme's interest, and the chance to post on this board.

On alternatives. There are always different ways to do things. Each may be optimized in terms of specific assumptions - and with work - both the assumptions and the optimization can be very good. Then you pick the best alternatives - or try to.

I think that the equatorial proposal would work - and my guess is that it is likely to be the best alternative, considering everything. But the cost of simulation is now much, much lower than it has been - and it should make sense to evaluate a lot of basic approaches.

Optimization is "doing the best you can." It takes some work to find out what "the best you can" is.

lchic - 09:54am Jun 30, 2003 EST (# 12760 of 12764)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

science books | selection of the best of the past decade

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,1596,982570,00.html

fredmoore - 11:36am Jun 30, 2003 EST (# 12761 of 12764)

I'll put up some cash for rights in the video of the First Typhoon to hit the multi-billion dollar floating array.

What ever happened to connecting the dots? I guess its easier when you are not in the driver's seat. Try working the problem ... you too will come up with KAEP.

What were Eisenhower and Casey possibly thinking of?

rshow55 - 12:31pm Jun 30, 2003 EST (# 12762 of 12764)
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.

Typhoons are good things to avoid - that's true. If you could tow the arrays north and south enough so that they stayed in maximum alignment with the sun - the typhoon damage rate would be zero. Galapogas islands are on the equator - I don't think they have bad storms, ever.

"Try working the problem" is very good advice. Working problems is cheaper and more effective than it used to be. We should do more of it.

For instance, a team could look at geothermal energy production (teams have) and, after a lot of effort, come up with good estimates of best physically possible results - and probable costs. The proposal could then be evaluated.

I admit I haven't done the calculations on geothermal - because it looks hopeless to me - with rock thermal diffusivities as low as they are.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense