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 - 06:24pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11170 of 11175)

Gisterme , you're making it easier for me to get things checked -- not alone -- that can't work -- but in ways with umpiring that can be made to stick. MD11158 rshow55 1/31/02 8:04pm

rshow55 - 06:27pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11171 of 11175)

There are plenty of other reasons, discussed before, why the ABL is far-fetched indeed -- and why the midcourse system, and the other systems, are, too.

Whatever the objectives of these MD programs may be, defending the United States can't be among them. Because the systems don't work, and are so full of flaws that they can't.

It is a situation where military expenditure is the objective , without much else mattering?

mazza9 - 07:03pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11172 of 11175)
Louis Mazza

Rshow55:

Yes, lets talk objective and subjective.

Objective: ABL laser can be measured in output and energy delivered at its target which may be a hundred miles away. You've got the links read the facts!

Subjective: Gold foil as a protective device. It has not been done so it's efficacy can only be opined! I belonged to a church that had gold leaf applied to its steeple. This art form goes back millennia and the foil is not very reflective since it was hammered on the surface it is to ehnance. This is called gilding and I don't believe, (my subjective opinion), that gilding an ICBM will do anything for it except raise the cost of the vehicle.

The mylar foil that you mention was to be used as a sun shield on the Skylab. One of the solar panels was peeled off during ascent and the whole panel and foil departed the The Skylab to be replaced later by a sunshade. If this is a possible outcome that an ICBM manufacturer must consider, than experience shows that attaching foil is not as easy as one would assume.

Pardon the pun but...."FOILED AGAIN!"

LouMazza

rshow55 - 07:25pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11173 of 11175)

Mazza, as I recall the record of the "facts" you cite - - I'm inclined to lose interest. But when you say:

" You've got the links read the facts! "

you act like you have some confidence in your links and facts. Please specify them.

The calculations in MD11151 rshow55 1/31/02 5:37pm for 98% reflection were based on an unreflected 20 watts/cm2 -- not necessarily a crippling flux. For 99.8% reflection, that would be 2 watts/cm2

And that was based, as I recall, on very optimistic assumptions about optics -- wouldn't the optics "hundreds of miles away" have to be be better than space telescope ? And aren't atmospheric absorbtions a problem on ABL?

- - -

And you're making trouble about an adhesive oversight, not repeated, as reason to think a two hundred billion dollar program can't be countered?

mazza9 - 09:29pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11174 of 11175)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

TRW has been in the radio frequency transmission since it invented the traveling wave tube which made the communications satellite systems function.

Today, they are the prime contractor for the laser weapon system of the ABL

The ABL Laser makes 110% of planned power

they are also working on a Space Based Laser. Pleae note that the fuel for these lasers are common chemicals to wit: chlorine, iodine, and hydrogen peroxide. To refuel you just stop at your nearest drug store!!!

A multi megawatt beam that is just 24" wide is going to deliver alot more than the the 20 watts per cm that you suppose.

I once saw a gilt cherub in a church. ABL would knock it down too.

LouMazza

rshow55 - 09:42pm Feb 1, 2002 EST (#11175 of 11175)

Call it 2 megawatts - and 24' diameter beam (at the source) -- that's 686 watts/cm2 at the source for 100% absorbtion.

That's 13.7 watts/cm2 for 2% absorbtion, or 1.37 watts/cm2 for .2% absorbtion at the source.

Now how small is the optical dispersion over a hundred miles?

A factor of 50 reduction of intensity, maybe, with pretty good optics, and pretty low absorbtion?

Not to mention problems with aiming, which are far from trivial.

The ABL is easy to counter with reflective coatings. And a reflective coating with 99.9% reflection is not hard to build.

. . .

Mazza, you're a fraud. I'm taking the evening off. OUT.

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense