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?

mazza9 - 12:34am Jan 8, 2002 EST (#10699 of 10716)
Louis Mazza

eLchichen:

If Fools Gold was worth anything, you'd be a rich man. Why don't you mind your own business since this forum is for grownups!

LouMazza

lchic - 04:39am Jan 8, 2002 EST (#10700 of 10716)

eLMunchkinzza:

'mAW mAWd Tripe to gAWg from jAWg'

BE AWff to see the WizAWrd!

eLDot

[ http://www.google.com/search?num=20&newwindow=1&q=Nuclear+tripe&btnG=Google+Search ]

rshowalt - 09:07am Jan 8, 2002 EST (#10701 of 10716)

I think this forum has been useful, and that, for all the backing and forthing, and occasional irritation, it has helped focus things that have made the world safer. It has been built as a prototype for staffed organization (for long times, with search tools facilitating that).

Some of us have worked hoping to make the world safer. Maybe with some effect.

Lunarchick's contributions have been immense, indispensible, and distinguished.

It is easy to search this thread. Responses indicate that contributers (including almarst and gisterme) do search it.

Search this thread. Look at Lchic's and Lunarchick's contributions. There are very many, and you'd be hard pressed, at random, to find examples where her contributions are not either intellectually interesting, or stimulating, or constructive, or all three.

Now, search "Mazza" and affine pseudonyms. You'll be hard pressed to find any that are even honest, and few that are distinguished, in my opinion.

rshowalt - 09:08am Jan 8, 2002 EST (#10702 of 10716)

In Russia, last year, there was a meeting on militarization of space, involving something like 104 countries. The US did not attend. Concern for the effectiveness of lasar weapons, and related issues, were central to that meeting. The questions raised in rshowalt 1/7/02 10:44pm ought to be answered.

I think the Bush administation does some things wrong, but a number of things right, as well, and some things much righter since September 11.

It makes no sense for it to squander American resources and prestige on systems that cannot possibly work.

rshowalt - 08:00am Jan 9, 2002 EST (#10703 of 10716)

I think some progress is being made, and that the world is much safer, and has much more valid reasons for hope, since September 11. 9/11 was terrible, but much more terrible things could happen, and could happen still. We've been warned. And the US and the world are responding - sometimes well.

This administration is taking honest and direct approaches on significant things that were evaded before. That's good. Evasions make things go wrong in ugly, expensive, unjust, unpredictable, and dangerous ways. rshowalter 9/30/01 4:14pm

Recent military actions have reflected concerns set out in almarst-2001 9/30/01 5:59pm to a much greater degree than previous military actions did. That's progress.

Why not acknowledge mistakes that are easily understood, and did not originate on the current administrations's watch, and move toward a better future?

It makes no sense for this country to squander American resources and prestige on systems that cannot possibly work.

The questions I've raised above about the feasibility of lasar weapons ought to be answered -- because the US lives in a community of nations, and because the issues involved matter too much for botched decision making.

Aren't lasar weapons completely defeated by easily appled reflective coatings?

mazza9 - 01:50pm Jan 9, 2002 EST (#10704 of 10716)
Louis Mazza

Your question regarding "easily applied reflective coating" is interesting but...

I was stationed at Minot AFB and am familiar with missile operations. If you launch a Minuteman III from a silo the reflective coating will be compromised by the time the missile clears the silo. If you've ever seen a silo launch you'll appreciate the fact there is mucho smoke. If you maintain the missile outside then there are the elements to contend with.

Easily applied doesn't mean easily maintained and eventually effective when the missile is used.

LouMazza

rshow55 - 02:45pm Jan 9, 2002 EST (#10705 of 10716)

You have a point definitely worth considering about silo missiles - and one I hadn't thought of.

I'll deal with it.

For now, how many issues would be involved just in considering this issue (and other issues) involving reflectance? What would it cost to test them all? How could you know that you'd done so?

I'll talk about your point - - but for the cost of doing a full testing job on just that one issue you could probably fund a commando raid on any of the (fairly few) "rogue nations" that had a missile silo, and take it out.

And how many other issues are there on lasar based MD -- and the other MD programs? Are these sane bets?

Back on more technical things later. The reflective coating may be compromised some by smoke from a silo -- but may still make the lasar's job much harder in a technical situation where, even on optimistic assumptions, the lasar is marginal.

mazza9 - 03:54pm Jan 9, 2002 EST (#10706 of 10716)
Louis Mazza

In actuality the Minuteman missile had an ablative coating to fend off the hot exhaust gases generated in the silo. The Peacmaker missile was ejected from its silo like a SLBM missile by a gas generator which expels the missile. These have launch regimes have been tested.

There was an article in Aviation Week back in the 80s when they were testing a laser weapon against the second stage of a Titan missile. The stage is shown collapsing from the "blast" of energy. Light is both a "light wave and a photon. A high power energy laser delivers not just a bright light with heating which you would imagine would be reflected by a mirror, but there is also the kinetic energy of the photon impact.

This is what creates the "kill" mechanism not the heating from the laser light.

LouMazza

(10 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense