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
(2546 previous messages)
- 04:07pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2547
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.
- 04:12pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2548
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
- 04:50pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2549
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
. . . .
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
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.
- 06:31pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2550
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.
- 06:40pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2551
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!
- 07:11pm Jun 15, 2002 EST (#2552
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
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
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.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science