New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
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.
(6804 previous messages)
rshow55
- 04:35pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (#
6805 of 6822)
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.
wrcooper
12/17/02 3:40pm
"Or else a deliberate sop to the defense
contractors."
Sometimes, the objective is partly to spend money. That
isn't always entirely unjustified. The market for commercial
aircraft is very low, right now. What happens to Boeing, if it
doesn't have military contracts?
What happens to the rest of the military-industrial
complex?
These are serious questions. There are serious adjustments
that need to be made - and not everything being done is
stupid.
I feel like moving slowly.
A lot would change if the percieved and real threats from
N. Korea, Iraq, and Iran were much less.
How far are we from getting real changes there?
On the Korean peninsula - a lot is happening - and an
election is only a few days away.
wrcooper
- 04:51pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (#
6806 of 6822)
I'm not against the government's spending billions of
dollars on aerospace projects, civilian- or defense-related,
if they're warranted and justifiable.
I don't think that missile defense fits the bill at the
present time. We could handle the N. Korean threat in other
ways, principally diplomatically. We persuaded the Kim Il-sung
regime to back down before. We can do it again.
I can think of any number of worthwhile aerospace projects
that the U.S. should be investing heavily in. Bush's
priorities are skewed. He cancelled the X-33 because of
problems with its carbon composite fuel tanks. As the result,
the ISS will probably never fulfill its scientific potential
because it will be undermanned.
A recent Phase I study for NASA's Institute for Advanced
Concepts suggests that a space elevator may now be possible,
given the discovery and mass production of carbon nanotubes.
Such a structure would make possible the full
commercialization of space, ending the search for cheap access
to orbit. Current estimates suggest it could be made for
$20-30 billion within 12 years. Will we launch a massive
national effort to build it? I doubt it. We could also be
developing a SST that could link any two points on the globe
to a matter of a few hours of travel time. We won't do that
either.
But we will be developing missile interceptors to stop a
virtually nonexistent threat when there are other less
expensive and risky means to do the job. This is about defense
establishment economics and politics. It isn't about real
defense.
Doesn't make sense.
commondata
- 05:36pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (#
6807 of 6822)
wrcooper
12/17/02 4:51pm
The space
elevator is a breath taking idea. What would we do once
we'd shimmied off into the vacuum? Colonise the planets, mine
minerals, and just boldly go? Can an economic case be made for
doing it or is that not the point? Am I on the wrong thread?
wrcooper
- 05:48pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (#
6808 of 6822)
commondata
12/17/02 5:36pm
Indeed, the space elevator is a breath-taking idea.
We've been discussing it (in between the UFO rants) in the
Space Exploration forum.
IF you want to read Dr. Bradley Edwards's Phase I NIAC
report, click HERE,
then follow the link to "Phase I Final Report". Be advised
that it's a 15.3 Mb pdf download. (I hope you have a
high-speed connection.
Cheers
almarst2002
- 05:48pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (#
6809 of 6822)
Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and
Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein -
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=721&e=7&u=/ap/20021217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_nuclear
almarst2002
- 05:50pm Dec 17, 2002 EST (#
6810 of 6822)
almarst2002
12/17/02 5:48pm
Surprise, surprise! Its not N.K. after all;)
(12 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|