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.

gisterme - 08:56pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11548 of 11552)

rshow55 2/14/02 4:33pm

"...200,000$, though it seems a piddling sum, might, in my judgement, buy a lot of countermeasure development, and deployment..."

How much does a man-year of engineering cost, Robert? Do you have any idea? By the time you pay the salary, provide the place to work and all the needed tools, that's probably well over $100,000. That's for one guy working alone.

What about building prototypes? Let's say that somebody decided that the 3M material we talked about earlier (the 98% reflectivity stuff) was the answer to defending against the ABL. And let's suppose the one guy we're paying was also a skilled enough technician to build a prototype to test the material on. Even if all the materials needed to build the test prototype were free, how much would it cost to get a laser of the correct wavelength and power output to test the prototype? I'll guarantee you that wouldn't be free. What about a facility to put that test-setup in? Do you suppose you could just set up as a squatter on some vacant lot? Not likely...(ching, ching), the $$$ are flowing...the $200k is a distant memory already.

Now suppose you do manage to do all that and find that the reflective material doesn't work on the first test. It just bursts into flames. What then? Obviously, you'd need to determine why it didn't work. Did it fail because it was reflecting at the wrong wavelenth? Did it fail because its reflective properties changed with temperature leading to a catastrophic breakdown within the material? Did it fail for some other reason? Did it fail for a combination of reasons? Not cheap to find out, but you'd have to. That would need lots of instrumentation and many more tests. (Ching, ching...$$$) This one guy is really busy!

Now suppose that this guy does reach an idea of what went wrong. Let's say the problem turned out to be that the plastic material could not maintain it's reflective properties at high temperatures. How much would the research cost to re-design the product such that it would be able to maintain its reflective properites over temperature? Would this same guy do that too? He'd need to be really good. (Cha-ching, ching, ching $$$...) :-). Then he'd need to get all the exact updated process information to the manufacturer of the material, re-tool their plant for the new process (ching, ching, chaching...$$$).

So now you've got your new stuff. You test it again. (cha ching$$) It doesn't work for some other reason...(chaching$$$). You find out why (ching, ching$$$) you repeat the process...until it works (CHACHACHING$$$). Now you decide you need to see how this material behaves in vacuum. You buy a large vacuum chamber to put your test setup in (chaching$$$)...you find out that even microscopic bubbles within and under the material cause huge bubbles in vacuum...so the decal's material must be re-engineered again so that no bubbles at all are allowed and that the decals must be applied in vacuum (ChaChaChaChiiiiing$$$$)...and that the ICBM skin must be made 1000x smoother to assure that there is perfect adhesion between it and the decal, so you have to re-design your ICBMS (CHaCHa Chiiiiin$$$$$$$)...and...and...and...

...This could go on for a very long time, Robert. You see the point. Only talk is cheap. Your judgement in this case doesn't seem to have a very solid basis in reality, and certainly not in experience.

By underestimating cost and overestimating performance of the hypothetical countermeasure you base your arguement on, you're doing exactly the same thing that you accuse defense contractors of doing. We both know that accusation is not evidence of guilt; but you say it's fraud and corruption when you accuse them. What do you call it when you do

lchic - 08:57pm Feb 14, 2002 EST (#11549 of 11552)

The most talked about weapon of 2001 cost less than 10c.

gisterme - 12:42am Feb 15, 2002 EST (#11550 of 11552)

gisterme 2/14/02 8:56pm

continued...

By underestimating cost and overestimating performance of the hypothetical "cheap" countermeasure you base your arguement on, you're doing exactly the same thing that you accuse defense contractors of doing. We both know that accusation is not evidence of guilt; but you say it's fraud and corruption when you accuse them. What do you call it when you do the same yourself?

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense