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 - 10:53am Jun 29, 2003 EST (# 12735 of 12746)
~~~~ It got understood and exposed ~~~~

error errata erasure

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/8382

rshow55 - 10:58am Jun 29, 2003 EST (# 12736 of 12746)
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.

She's brilliant!

rshow55 - 11:00am Jun 29, 2003 EST (# 12737 of 12746)
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.

I've been talking about large scale solutions to problems - problems that might be thought of as "Eisenhower scale" - for a long time. Two years ago I said this:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7a163/295 http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md6000s/md6400.htm http://www.mrshowalter.net/CaseyRel.html

"Here are things that I believe can be achieved --

Very large area solar cells on the equatorial oceans. It should be possible to generate enough hydrogen to serve all word energy needs, forever. Hydrogen would interface well with existing energy sources and capital installations, from early prototype stage to the largest possible scale. This would be a practical and permanent advance in the human condition, and would reduce some major and chronic causes of war and conflict between nations

The issue's been discussed on this board off and on since, including some very good discussion with Gisterme , and almarst , and now it seems sensible to get the idea more focused. On the 27th 12717 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Bh3xbQsflAZ.1092240@.f28e622/14385 I said I was working to block out a "briefing" that might be given to someone with real power. That effort continues, and I've been working with engineering details, getting more sure of my ground. I find I'm rusty using some presentation materials, but I'm confident of some KISS level answers to what I wrote in http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Bh3xbQsflAZ.1092240@.f28e622/14385 now:

If you wanted to permanently solve the world's energy supply problem using a solar energy - hydrogen approach - what would it take?

Say the "permanent solution" collects the electrical energy equivalent of current oil production (75 million barrels/day - or 127 gigawatt/hrs/day.)

It would take a lot of area. For 30% solar conversion efficiency near the equator - about half the area of Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Va - a square 230 km on a side. If collectors 1 km x 10 km were used - that would take 5,300 collectors. For 3% solar conversion efficiecy, ten times the area and ten times the number of such collectors would be needed. ( At 3%, - collector area would be about 75% the area of Texas.)

It would take a lot of money, but it seems likely that the cost could be justified. At a shadow price of 10$/barrel energy equivalent, at the collector, a 30% efficiency collector would generate $5.15/square meter/year - or 51.5 million dollars per "collector"/ year. For 3% collector efficiency, values are 10 times smaller ( $.052/square meter/year ). My guess, which is only an estimate, is that collectors with efficiencies well over 10% and working lives longer than 10 years could be built for between 2 and 3$/square meter.

Could this "permanent solution" to the world energy problem be done from where we are - without any new research results - but with competent engineering?

Yes. It seems likely that the job can be done on a highly profitable basis - given organization.

Are there jobs to do that ought to be started now, or soon?

Yes.

Would action now involve any significant loss in ability to accomodate opportunities from new photocell research?

No. Collection units could be built with the collector efficiencies available - and improvements incorporated as additional units were built.

http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.Bh3xbQsflAZ.1092240@.f28e622/13371 makes the point that jobs happen in stages:

There's one problem getting really sure of what needs to be done - and can actually work.

A second problem actually doing it at full scale.

With different costs. Different procedures that have to be applied. Different organizations needed. With interfaces that have to work.

Stages have different costs. If a permanent solution to the world energy problem was pretty certain after a few hundred thousand bucks, nearly certain after a million or two - and very certain a

(9 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense