![[F]](../_images/site.gif) 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.
leveut
- 05:17pm May 25, 2000 EST (#1
of 11858)
"I eliminate my individualism as an autumn gale
sweeps away fallen leaves." Progressive Proverb
To protect ballplayers from things thrown by "fans."
brer_rabbit
- 01:28am May 26, 2000 EST (#2
of 11858)
We'll shoot 'em down with lasers. Piece of cake.
sonofnils
- 08:40am May 26, 2000 EST (#3
of 11858)
Cogito Ergo Addendum
At last, an easy question.
Missiles: expensive to operate, incredibly polluting, dangerous
to friendly territory, vulnerable to lasers and microwaves,
politically destabilizing from the get-go, and generally the
wrong-headed savage expression of the primitive brute's penile power
fantasy.
Convert the casings into people-tubes, as seen in Futurama.
taleehohhhh
- 04:20pm May 26, 2000 EST (#4
of 11858)
rain
To discern or not to discern, that is the question.
sonofnils
- 09:48pm May 26, 2000 EST (#5
of 11858)
Cogito Ergo Addendum
What does that mean, Talee? Discern what? Are you
disagreeing?
taleehohhhh
- 02:32am May 27, 2000 EST (#6
of 11858)
rain
At one portion of its flight toward target, a warhead sheds its
mortal coil to travel ghostlike, surrounded by false angels, and so
masked by them. Which bright burning star falling to Earth is the
ineffable terror?
brer_rabbit
- 03:11am May 27, 2000 EST (#7
of 11858)
So like Scientific American had a thing about how we can now use
ground based telescopes to obsolete Hubble and it's successors.
The basic idea is that hubble is a rinky-dink telescope. It's
just that it doesn't have to deal with the distortion of the
atmosphere.
The new trick is that you have computer controlled individual
sections of the main reflector. They been doin' this for a while
since you can't built the reflector that big that will hold it's
shape. It seems that if you look through the same point in the sky
at a fixed stars, from different angles/telescopes, you can use that
info with computers to control the individual mirrors to focus the
telescope despite the atmospheric distortion.
Hey guys and gals, If you can do it with a telescope, you can do
it with a laser and more. Hugely powerful ground based laser type
weapons. Precisely focused, incredible energy through the
atmosphere. Specially tuned mirror reflecting satellites. Anything
anywhere in the skies or on the ground destroyed at the speed of
light. No warning. Ballistic missles were figured out by Kepler and
Newton. No mystery there. Sitting ducks. Expensive too. Oh my
goodness yes. Compared to a quick burst of light.
kalter.rauch
- 03:34am May 27, 2000 EST (#8
of 11858)
Earth vs <^> <^> <^>
brer_rabbit
5/27/00 3:11am
......hubble is a rinky-dink telescope.
Is that so?...Is...that...so......
Don't forget that the LASER "artificial star" only has its
desired effect "on-axis". That means best focus is always obtained
in the center of the field-of-view. I suppose software could
attermpt to extrapolate corrections for more peripheral stars, but
the demands on CPU time would skyrocket because fractal algorithms
are the best, but very time consuming. Also the atmosphere blocks a
lot more of the spectrum than IR and far UV. So in these two
important respects, the Hubble is better.
The Hubble would REALLY be better if NASA retrieved it from orbit
and installed the Kodak back-up primary mirror. Unlike the current
flawed figure, the Kodak mirror has no such defects. It's still in a
warehouse......
brer_rabbit
- 03:59am May 27, 2000 EST (#9
of 11858)
kalter.rauch - 03:34am May 27, 2000 EDT (#8 of 8)
Don't forget that the LASER "artificial star"
Heck, I never even heard of it.
only has its desired effect "on-axis". That means best focus
is always obtained in the center of the field-of-view.
Uhhh...am I missing something. Of course a laser is strongest in
the center of the "field of view." In fact, you often focus it to
help achieve the effect.
I suppose software could attermpt to extrapolate corrections
for more peripheral stars, but the demands on CPU time would
skyrocket
CPU time is gettin' pretty easy to get these days.
because fractal algorithms are the best, but very time
consuming.
Well, I can't say it ain't so, but....
Also the atmosphere blocks a lot more of the spectrum than IR
and far UV. So in these two important respects, the Hubble is
better.
All things being equal. Which they aren't.
The Hubble would REALLY be better if NASA retrieved it from
orbit and installed the Kodak back-up primary mirror. Unlike the
current flawed figure, the Kodak mirror has no such defects. It's
still in a warehouse......
No kiddin'. Seems like they come back empty a lot. Aren't they
about to send up a new better replacement telescope in a couple
years anyway. Of course what this country really needs is a good
solar cell battery...
brer_rabbit
- 04:08am May 27, 2000 EST (#10
of 11858)
I mean, as I understand it, your laser sends out light that is
slightly diverging. The "laze" helps keep it together, but it is
still slowly spreading apart. Barring some problem such as
atmospheric distortion, you can focus it to a precise point at a
particular distance, but it is at the cost of more divergence down
the line.
We of course, want to focus it on a ballistic object at a
particular distance. We alter our focus just exactly the same way
the new telescope does.
The ICBM is obsolete. Like the battleship. Like the horse
soldier. It's time has passed, (almost.) The morons in North Korea
are throwing money down a rat hole.
 
(11848 following messages)
   
New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Missile Defense
| 
