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 - 04:07pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2547 of 2563)

Well, something along that line may be possible. Mark Heumann, a Phud classmate of mine, made some comments that I posted here about negotiation using the internet, and he's done more since. Maybe just a small job, working with Mark and others, seeing what can be salvaged from the Crusader technology, and for the Crusader engineering staff and corporate interests -- might be a way to proceed. Anyway, something to take a shot at. A little proposal for a movie might make some sense, too.

I must say that, because of the special nature of the relationship, that I WOULD like to not only apologize to, but renumerate, the AEA investors, if I could do so on a reasonable, practical basis - which I can only dream about doing now.

rshow55 - 04:12pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2548 of 2563)

Would like, very much, to get some math done that would be of practical value to real firms, as well. And do some neuro that might be of academic interest, but also of some interest for some drug companies. Now that I can see a chance of really being unshackled, I've got a lot of things to hope for. And some GOOD reasons to make sure that the unshackling happens in a way that is operational. Which looks possible.

I also care, quite a lot, about some matters of safety that some other people care about, too.

Getting the unshackling "locked down" has to be "job one" just now.

rshow55 - 04:50pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2549 of 2563)

Andersen Guilty of Shredding Files in Enron Scandal By KURT EICHENWALD http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/business/16AUDI.html

Soon after the verdict, Arthur Andersen said that it would cease auditing public companies soon, effectively ending the life of the 89-year-old accounting firm.

News Analysis: Little to Help Audit Reform by Floyd Norris http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/business/16IMPA.html

. . . .

In The Great Divide http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/29/opinion/29KRUG.html , Paul Krugman suggests that we're at "the ending of an era of laxity." To some extent, in ways that are a credit to the United States (and the New York Times) I think that's proving to be true. But we've got farther to go. MD1857 rshow55 4/28/02 7:59pm

If I can be unshackled - so that is clear I have title to my own stuff, without classification constraints -- maybe I can help with that. I'm hopeful, and the TIMES should be proud.

We could use some accounting, about both money and issues of technical reality, in the missile defense field, as well. An "engineer's court" establishing facts that ought to be clear from the open literature would be a contribution there. MD1076-1077 rshow55 4/4/02 1:20pm

lchic - 06:31pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2550 of 2563)

Arthur Anderson, a travel agent, an energy agency .... sevice-replication industries ... that need regulation.

A re-read of the Enron thread would have good pointers for Audit regulation (Swedish model where the Audit is done be a distinctly different entity to the 'creative accountants' who muscle into companies on the top deck for manipulative massage.

mazza9 - 06:40pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2551 of 2563)
Louis Mazza

Rshow55:

What's with the interest in the Crusader? That weapon might have been useful in stopping a massed Soviet attack at the Fulda but for 21st Century missions it's no good!

What's up?

LouMazza

rshow55 - 07:11pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2552 of 2563)

I think Rumsfeld, and other senior Bush advisors, were right on their decision to cancel Crusader.

The question is - what happens to the people and what happens to the technical capabilities that have been put together?

I'd like to talk about alternatives, for the people and the technical infrastructure - that redeploy human and technical assets in ways that are in the national and world interest.

I think that can be done on a completely unclassified basis.

What I have in mind isn't very fancy. For a long time, it has been possible, using savat (sp?) rounds, to get orbital velocities out of guns -- for relatively small payloads. Getting velocities needed to orbit the moon (or put mass into orbit around Mars, for that matter) isn't all that great a technical reach. How about doing it for significant masses? Say metric tons.

I'd think a design study on doing that, with a "gun" - ought to be justified. The gun barrell would have to be long - and the only practical support would be floating it in ocean where, averaged over every few meters of length, the assembly was of neutral bouyancy. Equatorial oceans would be most convenient. Some nuts and bolts issues about propellants (the propellant package, or most of it, would have to move with the projectile inside the barrel), accuracies, costs, rates of fire, and this and that - but worth a little talking, seems to me.

Could the cost of getting mass out of the earth's gravity well be taken way down? Maybe down by orders of magnitude? Years ago, when I walked through some calculations - it seemed that way.

The Crusader people and engineering organizations might, pretty quickly, find out what was practical. Might be worth some talking . . .

I intend to make a few phone calls, and see what responses happen to be.

It makes sense to redeploy, rather than throw away, human and organizational assets - when there are reasonable alternatives. So it might make sense to suggest an alternative.

(11 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense