Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 19:58:59

I don't think using a laser would be a reasonable way to destroy a planet. However, there are other technologies that we should be very cautious about developing, such as black hole generation or grey goo.

I recently wondered if you could create a primordial black hole by causing an inward shockwave from an anti matter explosion. The primordial black hole would decay really quickly and should convert all the mass inside the shock wave to energy. However if you created a primordial black hole big enough and placed it in the center of the earth maybe it would suck in more mass then it would give off in Halking radiation.

P.S. what is gray goo.

Euler · 2004-11-11 20:10:35

I recently wondered if you could create a primordial black hole by causing an inward shockwave from an anti matter explosion. The primordial black hole would decay really quickly and should convert all the mass inside the shock wave to energy. However if you created a primordial black hole big enough and placed it in the center of the earth maybe it would suck in more mass then it would give off in Halking radiation.

I have read that if some theories of quantum mechanics are correct, partial accelerators should be able to create miniature black hole within a year or two. They would be microscopic and would evaporate within a fraction of a second, but it seems to me that all you need to do to go from a small black hole to a big one is find a way to feed it properly.

P.S. what is gray goo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo]Grey goo

BWhite · 2004-11-11 20:13:22

First, I support Euler's views. In part because we US-ians are not as far ahead of the rest of the world as we think we are. And there are some nasty low tech weapons that can ruin life in the good old US of A whilst our scram-jet bombers are ruining life elsewhere.

Second, kudos for Rick Tumlinson from the Space Frontier Foundation. Today, at SpaceVision 2004 in Boston (at MIT) he interjected himself into a forum about "value added" for space exploration. He said that expanding the human biosphere (meaning we live and work, are born and eventually die "out there") is the only reason to go. Period.

Boo-rah! Or to quote my good friend Cobra, "effing-A"

Third, I fear our Pentagon will not appreciate the value of #2 because it will be something they cannot control. And if they cannot control it, they will be against it.

Finally - - its off to the hotel pool. I hope they have a pool side bar. Later I might start a "Bloggin' from Boston thread"

Palomar · 2004-11-11 20:16:35

P.S. what is gray goo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo]Grey goo

*Give us this day our daily Happy Thought. :-\

Not.

But thanks for posting the link...I was curious too.

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-11-11 20:22:45

Yeah Grey goo bad. Hopfully it takes too much energy to creat a stable black hole in the earths crust. Though for efficient mass energy conversions black holes are the way to go. Just feed them fast enough to keep them the same size and giving off lots of halking radiation.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-11 20:38:02

Can you say timing is every thing...
RUSSIA CALLS ON ALL STATES TO FOLLOW ITS EXAMPLE OF NOT BEING THE FIRST TO DEP0LOY WEAPONS IN OUTER SPACE

Grypd · 2004-11-12 06:14:16

P.S. what is gray goo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo]Grey goo

Gray goo is certainly one of the nastiest threats we are possibly facing from the use of uncontrolled Nanobots is it not? ??? Of course maybe we will never make as Bova described gobblers, but then again we probably will

Of course you do know that one of the main reasons for the creation of the moon race was that both sides knew a base on the Moon would be very hard to destroy and would likely have plenty of warning of any launch of weapons from earth. And as it would have great advantages in being able to finish off the enemy even if they won a first strike scenario. As missiles from the Moon would be a lot harder to see or even to think of stopping. Just another paranoid MAD scenario but the US airforce took it very seriously.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-12 06:18:23

As missiles from the Moon would be a lot harder to see or even to think of stopping. Just another paranoid MAD scenario but the US airforce took it very seriously.

Which if followed through would have left us now with a large lunar base, craft for transport to and from that base, and decades of experience living and working on the moon.

John Creighton · 2004-11-12 09:07:36

What if both countries had nukes on a moon. Then conceivably once country could take out the others lunar nukes on a first strike.

Cobra Commander · 2004-11-12 09:15:32

What if both countries had nukes on a moon. Then conceivably once country could take out the others lunar nukes on a first strike.

Then we need a Martian missile base! And big honkin' space dreadnoughts with nuclear bombs on 'em! We can't allow a space-dreadnought gap!

SpaceNut · 2005-09-02 08:55:17

With this coming from China urges action against threat of militarization of outer space we are getting closer everyday to not ever seeing weapons in space.

srmeaney · 2005-09-02 18:03:54

"Outer space is the common wealth of mankind but, at present, the danger of weaponization of outer space is growing with each passing day," it said.

right word, wrong conclusion. We need space commonwealth.

reddragon · 2005-09-03 08:43:43

With this coming from China urges action against threat of militarization of outer space we are getting closer everyday to not ever seeing weapons in space.

It seems that there is serious public and international opposition to militarization of space. This may allow us to proceed for a while with exploration without weapons, although I doubt that we can keep weapons out of space forever. A threat of space militarization at this time that will decrease with increased space presence and settlement is that fighting in space could destroy all our space-based infrastructure and sattelites and basically force us to start over again, thus setting us back even farther. I think that if our chief goal is space exploration, we should try to keep weapons out of space as long as possible but make sure no one else has them either.

A related issue is if we ever begin to explore outside the solar system, should we bring weapons with us in case we meet other hostile species? I think that we should definitely try to make peace with any extraterrestrials that we meet, but having some weapons onboard may not be a bad idea. However, you should make sure that the crew doesn't have access to them if there is any danger of fighting amongst themselves.

srmeaney · 2005-09-04 18:36:55

Just Surrender control to the Space commonwealth now, save you the hassle of conforming later.

Stormrage · 2005-09-07 06:36:10

Build a scramjet bomber, put a terawatt laser in orbit, build the friggin' Death Star if you can, it all adds up to increased space presence and technological capability for our species.
I am generally in favor of improving technology, including military technology, but I draw the line at Death Stars. Anything that can annihilate the human species with a single attack is simply too dangerous to build unless there is no other choice.

I find weapons(e.g. nukes) that kill people without the killer seeing the horror he just did disturbing.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-04 19:20:58

Somewhere back in the recesses of some general must be an Iceburg from the cold war.
NFIRE Proposal May Spark Hill Debate On Space Weapons

U.S. Senate appropriators have approved language that could reignite a debate over developing and fielding space-based weapons.
The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC), which recently finished its version of the fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill, has proposed reviving the Missile Defense Agency's canceled plans for adding a kill vehicle to the Near Field InfraRed (NFIRE) satellite. The NFIRE satellite is designed to track launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles to increase understanding about how hostile missiles perform early in flight.

John Creighton · 2005-10-04 19:35:27

Somewhere back in the recesses of some general must be an Iceburg from the cold war.
NFIRE Proposal May Spark Hill Debate On Space Weapons
U.S. Senate appropriators have approved language that could reignite a debate over developing and fielding space-based weapons.
The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC), which recently finished its version of the fiscal 2006 defense appropriations bill, has proposed reviving the Missile Defense Agency's canceled plans for adding a kill vehicle to the Near Field InfraRed (NFIRE) satellite. The NFIRE satellite is designed to track launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles to increase understanding about how hostile missiles perform early in flight.

I'm not sure what the kill vehicle is.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-06 07:11:16

Cost overruns seem to be the norm and now it is time to strike back it would seem to keep them in check.

[url=http://www.flatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051005/BREAKINGNEWS/51005002/1007/NEWS02]Military space projects on budget block
Congress plans $1 billion in cuts for overruns[/url]

Not all that bad but if the following is true shame shame shame...

FLORIDA TODAY reported last year that almost every Pentagon space project is over budget and behind schedule. Last fall, the newspaper tallied $20 billion in cost overruns, not counting top-secret spy satellites for which the government does not have to account.
Just one year later, the same group of projects is now almost $24 billion over budget and counting. The chief reasons include a fleet of satellites designed to form a missile warning system. The project is years behind schedule, growing in cost from $4 billion to almost $10 billion. The other is the Air Force's investment in two new rockets developed by Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. The government's price for this has almost doubled, to slightly less than $32 billion. Many in Congress are not happy.

If the big space companies can not control costs for there product then why are we buying still from them?

SpaceNut · 2005-10-06 07:15:14

Putting this article Delta 4 grounding shuffles Vandenberg launch schedule
here since the trajectory passes over

SpaceNut · 2006-01-25 07:19:30

USAF produces new rocket telescope

U.S. Air Force scientists have developed a deployable optical telescope to fit into a typical rocket body.
Their efforts will eventually produce significantly improved tactical imagery supporting the joint warfighter on the battlefield, the Air Force said Tuesday.
Positioning three delicate, circular mirrors to one one-thousandth of the width of a human hair consistently challenged scientists at the Space Vehicles Directorate at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M, the USAF said. For five years they have studied the deployable optical telescope, a 1.5 meter (approximately 4.9 feet) in size demonstrator, which represents the future of foldable, larger aperture optics housed in existing launch vehicles.
Serving as the experiment's model, NASA's Hubble Telescope, launched in April 1990 from the Space Shuttle Discovery, measured 2.4 meters (8 feet) in diameter

There are just as many things that a telescope that is pointed at Earth can do with images that are this good besides wage war.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-03 21:32:41

US seeks laser weapon to shoot down enemy satellites: report

The US government is conducting research into building a ground-based laser weapon that could destroy enemy satellites in orbit, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

NYTimes source

laser.600.jpg

An aerial view of Starfire, a government observatory in New Mexico where laser work is being done

SpaceNut · 2006-05-12 06:59:13

The military is always seeking the high ground and while this will last for a while it will not be forever. Pentagon endorses space missile plan; ‘Test bed’ would expand the frontier of missile defense Gee another star wars defensive system...

Saw recently on the cover of a magazine a jet fighter but rather than firing missile it was firing high powered lasers at the would be enemy. ok if it hits the target but what happens when it missed and the beam does not deminish in strength and hit a non military target...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-11-11 19:58:59

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#27 2004-11-11 20:10:35

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#28 2004-11-11 20:13:22

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#29 2004-11-11 20:16:35

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#30 2004-11-11 20:22:45

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#31 2004-11-11 20:38:02

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#32 2004-11-12 06:14:16

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#33 2004-11-12 06:18:23

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#34 2004-11-12 09:07:36

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#35 2004-11-12 09:15:32

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#36 2005-09-02 08:55:17

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#37 2005-09-02 18:03:54

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#38 2005-09-03 08:43:43

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#39 2005-09-04 18:36:55

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#40 2005-09-07 06:36:10

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#41 2005-10-04 19:20:58

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#42 2005-10-04 19:35:27

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#43 2005-10-06 07:11:16

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#44 2005-10-06 07:15:14

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#45 2006-01-25 07:19:30

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#46 2006-05-03 21:32:41

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

#47 2006-05-12 06:59:13

Re: Space the next Battlefield - Can we avoid with a new space Race

Board footer