[F] 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.

Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (2183 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:40am May 13, 2002 EST (#2184 of 2190) Delete Message

MD2156 rshow55 5/11/02 11:11am ... MD2161 rshow55 5/11/02 12:35pm

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.

MD759 rshow55 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.

MD1156 rshow55 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, with honor.

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.

rshow55 - 07:05am May 13, 2002 EST (#2185 of 2190) Delete Message

gisterme , you raised some questions where short answers work.

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
Than you are.

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.

lchic - 07:32am May 13, 2002 EST (#2186 of 2190)

ENRON overstated the value of its assets by up to $24 billion in the last year

mazza9 - 10:58am May 13, 2002 EST (#2187 of 2190)
Louis Mazza


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 produced."

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 "seacrete".

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 the sea.

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!


More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Email to Sysop  Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense

Home | Site Index | Site Search | Forums | Archives | Shopping

News | Business | International | National | New York Region | NYT Front Page | Obituaries | Politics | Quick News | Sports | Science | Technology/Internet | Weather
Editorial | Op-Ed

Features | Arts | Automobiles | Books | Cartoons | Crossword | Games | Job Market | Living | Magazine | Real Estate | Travel | Week in Review

Help/Feedback | Classifieds | Services | New York Today

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company