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
(2183 previous messages)
- 06:40am May 13, 2002 EST (#2184
5/11/02 11:11am ... MD2161 rshow55
MD2161 includes this:
I do not personally believe that there is a single
thing that I have ever written on this thread, or any guardian
thread, that ought to be considered classified or restricted by
classification laws in any way.
Now, if that were common ground, or if restrictions on me were
clear, and explainable to others, I feel reasonably confident that
the checking mechanics set out in the links of MD1076 rshow55
4/4/02 1:20pm could proceed.
3/22/02 1:09pm . .includes this:
I think (and I believe Thomas Edison might think)
that the administration might well be spending more on work that
has a realistic chance of reducing our risks from missile attack
(and from other risks from WMD.)
But Edison would, for reasons I've discussed
before, think that MOST of current project work should be stopped
-- because he was one of the great "quitters" of all time.
If he saw that something wasn't going to work --
he quit doing it -- and devoted attention to something that he
thought could work.
Reasons why Edison would have axed most if not all of what
is now funded for "missile defense" were discussed in detail on this
thread before March of this year.
4/6/02 7:31pm made a point that Rumsfeld may appreciate, too.
But I wonder -- how can you cancel CRUSADER .. which at
least works technically -- and continue to fund specific and BIG
missile defense projects that have no technical chance of working
at all for many specific reasons?
The fine engineers working on Crusader ought to be redeployed,
So should the people doing these hopeless missile defense
projects. And technical possibility should be checked for --
not obscured by the enronation that has characterized so much
of "missile defense" argument.
- 07:05am May 13, 2002 EST (#2185
gisterme , you raised some questions where short answers
Distillation is cheap - and yes, distilled water is what should
be separated - even on open sea. It would be a small cost - and face
to face with an engineering team - I could show why. I'd generate
the hydrogen in MANY small units.
On oxygen - unless it was economic to ship - I'd vent it. The
hydrogen would be burned, recombining with oxygen, soon enough - and
the amount of oxygen is SO much bigger than the amount of CO2 that
the ecological impact of such venting couldn't matter anyway.
The floating photocell units should be sized for convenience, and
with environmental issues in mind. I think widths not more than 1
km, lengths not more than 10 km, would make sense. Enough spacing
between units for servicing, for collection of hydrogen, and to keep
ecological issues manageable.
On hydrogen shipping -- yes, it is hard, but people do make
progress. I remember a ditty from Victorian physics.
Sir James Dewar
Is a better man
None of you asses.
Can liquify gases.
Well liquification is still a trick. Still trouble. Still
expensive. But a lot of progress has been made since Dewar's time,
and with enough economic incentive, more progress could be.
- 07:32am May 13, 2002 EST (#2186
ENRON overstated the value of its assets by up to $24
billion in the last year
- 10:58am May 13, 2002 EST (#2187
I referred you to "The Millennial Project" to focus your thoughts
on the first step to colonizing the galaxy. Savage proposes the
construction of sea colonies built around an OTEC, (ocean thermal
energy convertor). It is by far a more productive energy source than
your floating solar cells. Why?
"Most power generating facilities confrom to the zero sum rules.
They consume more energy than they produce...A typical nuclear power
plant consumes 3000 calories of energy for each 1000 calories
produced. An OTEC consumes only 700 calories for each 1000 calories
In addition to producing energy the OTEC will cause an upwelling
of nutrients so that plankton and the higher food chain animals will
increase in the area of the OTEC with attached colony. Plankton and
fish processing will employ the colonists not involved in energy
production. The colony will be constructed and expanded by the use
of the calcium extracted from the upwelling waters to produce
Net export of energy and food will fund the follow on steps to
space conquest. This is, by far, a more dynamic, synergistic use of
Sidebar. Learning to live and operate at the sea colony will also
allow the inhabitants to prepare for living in space and,
(surprise), in a more communal fashion. Maybe this form of
communalism can work where Oneida and Amana didn't!
New York Times on the Web Forums Science