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.

lchic - 04:23pm Jun 27, 2003 EST (# 12716 of 12720)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

Hear Ye ... if ears reach out to listen ... why then not assume that minds reach out to Learn Ye ... 'learning' is key. (re fredmore above)

rshow55 - 06:06pm Jun 27, 2003 EST (# 12717 of 12720)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Gisterme raised some interesting points about global warming, and energy - and I've taken some time to block out a "briefing" that I'd like to give, not necessarily to gisterme , but to a real high-shot (say, the President, or the head of a movie studio).

There are some issues of scale and basic geometry that help define the job. A good deal clarifies if one asks some simple questions:

If you wanted to permanently solve the world's energy supply problem using a solar energy - hydrogen approach - what would it take? Could it be done from where we are - without any new research results - but with competent engineering? Are there jobs to do that ought to be started now, or soon? Would action now involve any significant loss in ability to accomodate opportunities from new photocell research?

If you wanted fully control the CO2 content of the earth's atmosphere - so combustion of hydrocarbon fuels could proceed unimpaired without global warming - and with effects of CO2 accumulation reversed - and you wanted to do this using carbon sequestration - with the fixing of carbon done by photosynthesis - what would it take? Could it be done from where we are - without any new research results - but with competent engineering? Are there jobs to do that ought to be started now, or soon? Would action now involve any significant loss in ability to accomodate opportunities from new photosynthesis-carbon sequestration research?

Some of the most basic answers to the questions above are clear - and essentially independent of additional scientific progress - though scientific progress can only help.

rshow55 - 06:11pm Jun 27, 2003 EST (# 12718 of 12720)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

We know enough now to solve these problems - the energy problem on a profitable basis - the carbon sequestration problem at a cost that ought to be satisfactory - far lower than alternatives I've seen - starting from where we are.

Some things are clear.

Both jobs need to be done at large scale - on equatorial oceans. That is where the sunlight is, where the calm conditions are - and where the area is.

Neither job requires breakthroughs - the solar energy job could be done with photovoltaic efficiencies of 3% - for very cheap solar cells - (efficiencies now held to be too low to be commercial) - rather than the higher efficiencies now thought to be necessary. High efficiencies are plainly better than lower ones - but most of the engineering tasks required for large scale solar hydrogen would remain unchanged if 30% efficiency collectors were available to substitute for 3% efficiency collectors.

The job of burying hydrocarbons made by photosynthesis is a straightforward one - and plants and equipment now available could be used, though improved plant selection, breeding, and harvesting machinery would reduce costs as experience accumulated.

Both jobs require an appreciation of scale - and involve scales that FDR or Eisenhower would have understood and been able to handle very well.

Big scales. Where essentially identical jobs are done - efficiently - many times. I'm taking a while trying preparing a better draft of the "briefing" I have in mind.

A main message is this. The DOE and other agencies are doing excellent work - worthy of support, and maybe more support than they are getting. But some large scale engineering decisions are already well defined by circumstances - and these circumstances - which aren't likely to change - ought to be understood.

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense