 | Missile Defense #7638 - lunarchick
Jul 31, 2001 07:37 am
http://www.dromo.com/fusionanomaly/flow.gif http://www.dromo.com/fusionanomaly/alberteinstein.html "A human being is part of the Whole...He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest...a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... |
| | Missile Defense #7634 - rshowalter
Jul 31, 2001 06:31 am
For example, it is a fact that it is easy to make reflective coatings that take absorbtion of light from a lasar beam down by a factor of 1000 - - and easy to put these coatings on missiles and warhead - with something as simple as contact paper. The key fact is old, and the coating technologies involved are well known to the engineers working on lasar weaponry. They use multilayered tuned reflectie coatings... |
| | Missile Defense #7509 - rshowalter
Jul 27, 2001 05:31 pm
Digital Defense by THOMAS FRIEDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/27/opinion/27FRIE.html "With many dot-coms blowing up, it is now fashionable to dismiss the Internet as just another tulip mania. That Internet stocks were a classic bubble is without question. But the Internet isn't just tulips, and if you think it is, well, let's talk in five years... |
| | Missile Defense #7141 - rshowalter
Jul 17, 2001 04:26 pm
The lasar weapons programs are fatally flawed because reflective coatings are so effective (and can easily shed 999/1000ths of the energy that hits them
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm
) but even if that wasn't true, they require totally implausible optical resolution -- especially for a high power system. Perhaps the easiest, and most basic arguments against them depend on understanding what resolution is -- something nicely illustrated in nice links from Dawn on the Hubble Space Telescope http://www.astrophys.org/high_2001.html MD6690 rshowalter 7/6/01 1:46pm ...
MD6691 rshowalter 7/6/01 1:48pm
Gisterme cited examples that led a person to think that these Hubble resolution examples are somehow "pessimistic" -- that a lasar weapon could somehow maintain a better beam focus, on a powerful killer beam, than HST maintains... |
| | Missile Defense #7139 - rshowalter
Jul 17, 2001 04:24 pm
In MD7107 gisterme 7/16/01 9:24pm
.. gisterme cites a number of his posts that I’ve dealt with before. It seems worthwhile to review them - -- they show that the lasar weapons idea, which can seem so attractive in terms of words and a commercial artist’s rendering, falls apart when actual numbers are applied to the jobs to be done... |
| | Missile Defense #7136 - rshowalter
Jul 17, 2001 11:05 am
In MD7107 gisterme 7/16/01 9:24pm .. gisterme cites a number of references to dispute a statement of mine -- which was that the lasar programs, as weapons systems, don't work at all. They are lasars... |
| | Missile Defense #6827 - rshowalter
Jul 10, 2001 07:58 am
MD6788 rshowalter 7/9/01 10:33am " It is technically easy to make missiles and warheads immune to lasar weapons -- even if the lasar weapons did achieve a chain of miracles related to optical resolution and control. See: Reflective Coatings http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm "
"The engineers asking for money for the program, and promising to make a contribution to US defense have to know this. "I'm at a loss, myself, to understand how this cannot be treason... |
| | Missile Defense #6814 - rshowalter
Jul 9, 2001 08:11 pm
If all you have is Hubble Space Telescope optics - with real controls -- you can't make space based lasar anti missile systems work. With the thermal stresses in your chemical lasars, which also have mixing problems, you don't have any chance at all of getting to HST accuracy -- and you need much more. Resolving binary stars is nice to do, and useful --- but not relevant for middile defense targeting purposes... |
| | Missile Defense #6796 - rshowalter
Jul 9, 2001 12:13 pm
gisterme , there's something called the genetic fallacy in logic -- and I'm sure you know it. According to the fallacy, if someone of low credibility says something -- then that thing is wrong. Of course, that doesn't follow... |
| | Missile Defense #6789 - rshowalter
Jul 9, 2001 09:34 am
We may have some hope for closure and getting to the truth. There are some definite statements on the table. MD6773 rshowalter 7/8/01 6:55pm ... |
| | Missile Defense #6788 - rshowalter
Jul 9, 2001 09:33 am
MD6765 rshowalter 7/8/01 4:16pm "It is technically easy to make missiles and warheads immune to lasar weapons -- even if the lasar weapons did achieve a chain of miracles related to optical resolution and control. See: Reflective Coatings http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm
. ... |
| | Missile Defense #6774 - rshowalter
Jul 8, 2001 05:57 pm
Now, because reflective coatings invalidate the whole lasar weapon concept for NMD, the points below are mute in a sense -- but not insignificant -- since different logical patterns matter, and since the gross nature of the lasar weapons program frauds need to be set out - - because it is important to understand what has happened, and how corrupt the program is. MD6732 rshowalter 7/7/01 12:06pm ....
MD6730 rshowalter 7/7/01 12:01pm
MD6702 rshowalter 7/6/01 4:55pm gisterme - if you have any reason to think that the controls and optics for the "orbiting lasar weapon" proposals could do their job - either logically or based on tests -- could you share that with us ?.. |
| | Missile Defense #6773 - rshowalter
Jul 8, 2001 05:55 pm
In MD6741 gisterme 7/7/01 5:05pm gisterme made some very definite responses, and I was grateful for them. ( gisterme has paid much attention to this thread -- a search for
"gisterme"
gets 54 search pages)
Here MD6741 is: Robert Showalter: " ...Nobody who has ever shot a gun at a target, and experienced how hard the bullseye is to hit, compared to the outer circle, can possible believe that..." gisterme: " That's a baseless assumption about what folks can believe, Robert. Ever shoot a gun that has no recoil and whose masless bullet travels at 300,000km/Sec?.. |
| | Missile Defense #6765 - rshowalter
Jul 8, 2001 03:16 pm
It is technically easy to make missiles and warheads immune to lasar weapons -- even if the lasar weapons did achieve a chain of miracles related to optical resolution and control. See: Reflective Coatings http://www.phy.davidson.edu/jimn/Java/Coatings.htm " Utilizing the phenomena of constructive and destructive interference, engineers may create a multitude of thin-film coatings with different reflective properties. ... |
| | Missile Defense #6764 - smartalix
Jul 8, 2001 09:48 am
gisterme, Let's tackle your points one at a time. First, since neither Iraq nor Korea have, or will have, ICBM capability for the forseeable future, any discussion of their capability is moot. That is why I dismiss the "rogue state" hypothesis central to the missile defense argument of the dumya administration... |
![[F]](_images/site.gif){kind=small}
New York Times on the Web Forums 
Science 