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 - 11:52am Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9258 of 9264)
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.

re 9256 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.0bmfavXZ4JM.2264463@.f28e622/10782

You are being idiotically stupid - if you think the definition of stagnation temperature is limited to pipe flow -- criminally stupid.

And the flow process that compressed the air into the stagnation point is very close to adiabatic.

You're being unbelievably stupid ! Shamefully stupid !

Or trusting people who are.

Diplomacy ought to have some limits. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, gisterme .

gisterme - 12:04pm Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9259 of 9264)

rshow55 - 01:46pm Feb 23, 2003 EST (#9235 of ...) http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.0bmfavXZ4JM.2264463@.f28e622/10761

"...For all their faults, deceptions, and self deceptions, people don't want to be monsters - and don't want to be stupid..."

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...didn't think they were monsters nor did they think they were stupid. Because they sincerely believed those things within their own frames of reference didn't make them so within the frames of reference of their victims. Likewise with Saddam.

No doubt Saddam feels that he's the victim. Because he feels that way doesn't make it so.

rshow55 - 12:09pm Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9260 of 9264)
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.

rshow55 - 10:13am Feb 22, 2003 EST (# 9205 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@28.0bmfavXZ4JM.2264463@.f28e622/10731 contains an argument that is entirely correct, and pretty simple - and uses the reference Relationship between temperature, stagnation temperature and Mach number http://www.optimal-systems.demon.co.uk/appendix-c.htm

The text in that reference does end with the three words "along the pipe" - but the rest the reference applies to flows in general - including flows into and around the shuttle.

Stagnation temperature is properly defined in the reference. And the flow into the leading edge of the shuttle ( a rather bluff, large area "leading edge") will be decellerated into the shuttle surface so quickly and uniformly that the adiabatic conditions that apply to the definition of stagnation temperature will apply rather well.

As so often on this thread, gisterme , you answer technical arguments with nonsense, and go on.

gisterme - 12:10pm Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9261 of 9264)

"...You are being idiotically stupid - if you think the definition of stagnation temperature is limited to pipe flow -- criminally stupid..."

No dear. Just that the equation you gave is limited to adibatic flow. The flow across the shuttle wing is not adibatic or even close. Do you think the air that flows across the shuttle wings is not heated???? Once again, what do you think creates all that plasma when an object moves through the atmospere at high mach numbers?

Better check the definition of adibatic, Robert.

gisterme - 12:12pm Feb 24, 2003 EST (# 9262 of 9264)

"...As so often on this thread, gisterme , you answer technical arguments with nonsense, and go on..."

That's your modus operandi, Robert, not mine. :-)

(2 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense