"Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

Phobos · 2002-10-19 18:46:53

It's really pathetic that so much life, potential, and diversity is WASTED on such levels of hatred. I wonder, if there are other planets with intelligent life "out there," if they have the same level of warfare and hatred as this pretty little blue planet has faced all these millenia. I've always thought, when looking at photos of the Earth, or during video shots of the Earth "passing by" underneath space-walking astronauts during shuttle missions, that you'd never suspect there was such animosity and brutal hatred and atrocities here, just by looking at those serene and placid planetscapes of silver, blue, green, and white.

I don't remember where I read it, but there's a theory that the reason we're so prone to wage war and kill other people is that, unlike a lot of predators, we never developed an instinct against killing our own kind. I don't really subscribe wholesale to that theory though. I think war is inevitable when there's people out there who despise your way of life and/or want something you have whether it be resources or the people themselves. And quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other civilizations out there that exhibit hatred and the propensity toward war that we do. As much as I hate to admit it, we wouldn't be nearly as technically advanced as we are now without war since war is often the incentive that drives technological change.

Palomar · 2002-10-19 21:24:15

It's really pathetic that so much life, potential, and diversity is WASTED on such levels of hatred. I wonder, if there are other planets with intelligent life "out there," if they have the same level of warfare and hatred as this pretty little blue planet has faced all these millenia. I've always thought, when looking at photos of the Earth, or during video shots of the Earth "passing by" underneath space-walking astronauts during shuttle missions, that you'd never suspect there was such animosity and brutal hatred and atrocities here, just by looking at those serene and placid planetscapes of silver, blue, green, and white.
I don't remember where I read it, but there's a theory that the reason we're so prone to wage war and kill other people is that, unlike a lot of predators, we never developed an instinct against killing our own kind. I don't really subscribe wholesale to that theory though. I think war is inevitable when there's people out there who despise your way of life and/or want something you have whether it be resources or the people themselves. And quite honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there are other civilizations out there that exhibit hatred and the propensity toward war that we do. As much as I hate to admit it, we wouldn't be nearly as technically advanced as we are now without war since war is often the incentive that drives technological change.

*Yeah, I know. ???

I never realized how much of our technology has been driven by war and war-related matters until I began reading the posts [at another forum] of a VERY intelligent and knowledgeable guy named Craig, about 3 years my junior, who is a **whiz** at military, war, etc., matters. After reading his posts [just factual, and not biased toward any particular political stance]...well...I realized some things I wish I didn't have to realize.

I also know Craig is "on the level" because I've had close acquaintances who know him personally, and I've corresponded with him briefly in the past. Very honest, forthright, and "on the up-and-up."

Bye for now, folks...[adjusts lavish and abundant folds of silk dress, dots rose water behind delicate ears, straightens powdered wig on head]...I'm going back to the 18th century; this current one is too depressing!

:::hits time-machine button:::

{{{{{whooooooosh!!!}}}}

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-20 02:28:54

I've got a suspicion that the 18th century was probably quite depressing too, if you couldn't afford rose water, powdered wigs, and silk dresses with "lavish and abundant folds"!!

But that's not the real point, I know. And I think it's great that you have such an absorbing hobby. I don't mean to be in the least bit critical ... actually, I envy you your obvious fascination with that time period!
My mother (no longer with us, I'm sorry to say) had a similar consuming passion for the Tudor period in England. There was nothing that woman didn't know about every aspect of life in those days, and the main 'players' of the time.
This is way off topic, and a little bit zany, but I've always had a sneaking regard for the idea of reincarnation. It makes at least as much sense to me as any other religious belief. And I've wondered whether people like my mother (and maybe you, Cindy! ) might have actually lived in the era they find so interesting.

Then again, maybe I need to get out more!!

Bill White · 2002-10-20 11:03:02

Here's something to consider. The threat that the US faces regarding a potential nuclear attack comes not from advanced countries (with the exception of China, which itself has limited capability), but primarily from small, under-developed nations with extremely limited nuclear capability. From a practical standpoint missile defense can be made to work against such a threat because they simply do not have the capability to overwhelm the system. If it can hit two or three missiles that's probably enough, considering the nations that are likely to try to launch something at us.

I agree with this, except to the extent the presence of missile defense causes Americans to underestimate or disregard the possibility of a nuclear bomb being shipped into the US via a commercial shipping container. The Maginot Line actually would have been invulnerable had the Nazis not gone around it by going through Belgium.

I used to be opposed to national missile defense. Not any more. But please, lets not pretend it will make us SAFE. Somewhat safer, maybe, but not SAFE.

The US needs to fund missile defense AND increase funding to secure Russian nuclear material.

Palomar · 2002-10-20 11:20:37

I've got a suspicion that the 18th century was probably quite depressing too, if you couldn't afford rose water, powdered wigs, and silk dresses with "lavish and abundant folds"!!
But that's not the real point, I know. And I think it's great that you have such an absorbing hobby. I don't mean to be in the least bit critical ... actually, I envy you your obvious fascination with that time period!
My mother (no longer with us, I'm sorry to say) had a similar consuming passion for the Tudor period in England. There was nothing that woman didn't know about every aspect of life in those days, and the main 'players' of the time.
This is way off topic, and a little bit zany, but I've always had a sneaking regard for the idea of reincarnation. It makes at least as much sense to me as any other religious belief. And I've wondered whether people like my mother (and maybe you, Cindy! ) might have actually lived in the era they find so interesting.
Then again, maybe I need to get out more!!

*I had a maaaaarvelous time last evening! A dapper, bright-eyed young gentleman taught me the graceful art of the minuet, and afterwards we sipped hot rum punch while the string orchestra bewitched us with lilting and soulful tunes...the air was warm with hundreds of flickering candles...

Yes, I hear you Shaun. It's easy to romanticize a period which still knew -- in most European nations -- censorship, torture and slow, painful deaths for [many times UNproven] crimes, smallpox epidemics; heck, the early part of the 18th century still knew the bubonic plague in some areas. It finally swept south, toward Italy, in the 1730s and then died out mysteriously. Famine was another hardship to contend with, particularly for the peasants...and most people were peasants then. Illiteracy and ignorance were rampant, religious intolerance and persecution, etc.

As for reincarnation, I used to believe in it. Then I realized I'd done an unconscious "exchange" of sorts with it after rejecting my parents' religion as a teenager, i.e. I couldn't NOT believe in an afterlife of sorts, and after rejecting eternal Heaven & Hell I kind of automatically opted for reincarnation [if this makes any sense at all]...and, of course, now I'm agnostic about the matter. Part of me would like my consciousness to continue in a future life...another part of me is pretty well convinced once you bite the dust that's it, and you only get one shot at life.

Getting off topic...sorry, Adrian.

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-10-20 11:21:22

The US needs to fund missile defense AND increase funding to secure Russian nuclear material.

Agreed. The first step consists of buying Russian weapons-grade plutonium and reprocessing it into reactor fuel. And bilateral disarmament, as agreed to by Presidents Bush and Putin, is a step in the right direction.

Unemployed Russian nuclear engineers are seen as "free agents" in the post Cold War world. We would be wise to hire them, preferably to work on space reactors and nuclear propulsion before terrorists hire their services to build bombs.

Yes, the country is still open to attack by nuclear bombs belivered by cargo ships and trucks. That's why tightening nuclear controls is so important, and why "Sum of All Fears" should be required reading for all government officials.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-20 11:40:00

On of my problems with the missile defense system, is that it might actually compel nations to attack. I think there could be a lot less on the conscious of larger countries if they attacked. For one, there's basically a 50/50 chance it will work. And if it didn't, there would be no nuclear retaliation. But this sitatuion does remind me somewhat about how close Castro came to blowing the crap out of the US (and Cuba, and Russia, and the rest of the world). He was actually urging the Russians to attack. One of their recently declassified papers claimed that he had no clue what the ramifications of thermonuclear war really were.

And... though the latest missile defense tests were ?successful,? I would take them with a grain of salt. The last few tests have all been shams since they weren't real world tests, where we know nothing about an incoming missile. And I still bet it could be circumvented relatively easy.

Phobos,

[...] but there's a theory that the reason we're so prone to wage war and kill other people is that, unlike a lot of predators, we never developed an instinct against killing our own kind.

Hmm, interesting theory. Totally flawed, though. Since species still have various cultural, and even physical differences within them. When we kill another human, psychologically, we aren't killing our ?own kind.? Look at ants. You have big ants, littls ants, fast ants, slow ants. Ants that gather. Ants that kill. Ants that live underground and grow their own food. Ants that live above ground in the heat of a desert. They're all ants, they're just different from one another in some way or another. Like different packs of the same species of wolf. And like various human cultures around the world.

The main cause of war, dare I say it, is economy. Religion and other things of that nature are a factor, undoubtedly, but it's still about who gets to own what resource and why. The conclusion is usually met at the end of a barrel.

As much as I hate to admit it, we wouldn't be nearly as technically advanced as we are now without war since war is often the incentive that drives technological change.

I disagree with that sentiment. I mean, war may drive production, but ingenuity has nothing to do with war. The Wright Brothers, Ford, and Boole, the guy who made velcro, the inventor of the TV; they were just normal citizens.

In some ways, war actually prohibits technological change, since we're often in a position to use old technology due to costs. If there was no need for a huge military complex (of which half of the US's GDP goes a year), just imagine where that wealth could go.

Mark S · 2002-10-20 13:24:15

For one, there's basically a 50/50 chance it will work. And if it didn't, there would be no nuclear retaliation.

Assuming that each interceptor had a 50% chance of hitting warhead, it still would not be fair to say that the system only has a 50% chance of success. Several interceptors can (and will) be fired, you could conceivably have 100 chances to hit the warhead.

An rest assured that if the warhead did break through the interceptors, the country that fired it would become a green, smoking crater. The nuclear stockpile, as exorbitant as it may seem, grew to its current size because we needed to have enough weapons to retaliate after a Soviet first-strike destroyed the primary strategic weapons.

GMD gives us a second line of defense should mutually assured destruction fail. And it also protects us in the event that a missile should be fired accidentally, which nearly happened during a Russian training exercise in 1995.

Phobos · 2002-10-20 13:34:51

I disagree with that sentiment. I mean, war may drive production, but ingenuity has nothing to do with war. The Wright Brothers, Ford, and Boole, the guy who made velcro, the inventor of the TV; they were just normal citizens.
In some ways, war actually prohibits technological change, since we're often in a position to use old technology due to costs. If there was no need for a huge military complex (of which half of the US's GDP goes a year), just imagine where that wealth could go.

But war is often the economic incentive that drives the development of these technologies. I'm not defending war here, I'm just saying that historically speaking war has provided the economic incentives to develop technology to their most mature states. Competition in consumer markets (i.e. TVs, computers, etc) is another driver of technology, but it doesn't usually lead to things like jet engines and remote sensing technology. Those things are usually first created with military applications in mind even if they were thought of independently of military applications.

Josh Cryer · 2002-10-20 16:18:23

Mark S,

Assuming that each interceptor had a 50% chance of hitting warhead, it still would not be fair to say that the system only has a 50% chance of success. Several interceptors can (and will) be fired, you could conceivably have 100 chances to hit the warhead.

Ack, I meant that the chance of retalation would be 50/50, since I think that you either have a hit, or you don't. But since you disagree with me here... I guess correcting myself is irrelevant.

An rest assured that if the warhead did break through the interceptors, the country that fired it would become a green, smoking crater.

If a rouge, third world state launched a missile (which the whole system is intending to protect us from), and it was thwarted by the missile defense system, there would be absolutely no justification to nuke them back. They are a powerless, third world country, for gods sake. How do we even know it's a nuke?

Phobos,

I'm just saying that historically speaking war has provided the economic incentives to develop technology to their most mature states.

Ahh, I can agree with that, but doesn't it also stifle innovation by focusing technology in one, single minded, direction? Consider this: Had the internet been designed with major expandablity in mind (and not simply indestructablity), it might have not had the ridiculous 4 billion IP problem we're currently seeing. An extensible protocol like IPv6 would have been the whole basis of the internet.

Mark S · 2002-10-20 18:48:05

If a rouge, third world state launched a missile (which the whole system is intending to protect us from), and it was thwarted by the missile defense system, there would be absolutely no justification to nuke them back. They are a powerless, third world country, for gods sake. How do we even know it's a nuke?

I never urged retaliation if we successfully intercepted an enemy missile--I would only condone a counterstrike in the event that our homeland was attacked. IF the missile defenses were breached, we can be absolutely certain whether the incoming missile was a nuke (becauase thousands of people will be dead), and the offending country will be promptly flattened.

Phobos · 2002-10-21 13:21:30

I never urged retaliation if we successfully intercepted an enemy missile--I would only condone a counterstrike in the event that our homeland was attacked. IF the missile defenses were breached, we can be absolutely certain whether the incoming missile was a nuke (becauase thousands of people will be dead), and the offending country will be promptly flattened.

I think what bothers me most about Starwars is not so much that it could provoke other countries into attacking, but rather its very high pricetag. I'm just not convinced the threat is high enough to justify it, but I guess it only takes one nuke to ruin your day, and like you said, if we did successfully intercept a nuclear warhead and prevented nuclear retaliation as a result (if a policy like that is adopted) then the price of the thing will have been more than justified, at least in my opinion. But just imagine all of the other uses that money could be funneled into. We could probably build a space elevator, put a base on the Moon, and feed everyone around the world fifty times for the cost of that thing.

Mark S · 2002-10-21 14:40:14

I'm sympathetic to your argument, Phobos. But there are many people who would say the same thing, but substitute "space exploration" for "missile defense."

In a society where people are accustomed to government handouts from cradle to grave, there are too many who say, "Why are we shooting money into space when people are living in rat-infested apartments in the slums?" The same people who make these claims forget that money spent on developing the technologies to explore space has a huge return in the form of spinoffs. Investing in development projects is probably the wisest investment any government can make.

I have the feeling that there will be plenty of "missile defense" spinoffs as well. For instance, my opthamologist was trying to sell me on the idea of getting laser eye surgery. I was amazed to learn that the eye-movement tracking system in the vision-correction machine was a direct spinoff of the original SDI. Still, my sense of techno-philia wasn't enough to convince me to get the surgery.

Phobos · 2002-10-22 01:07:53

In a society where people are accustomed to government handouts from cradle to grave, there are too many who say, "Why are we shooting money into space when people are living in rat-infested apartments in the slums?" The same people who make these claims forget that money spent on developing the technologies to explore space has a huge return in the form of spinoffs. Investing in development projects is probably the wisest investment any government can make.
I have the feeling that there will be plenty of "missile defense" spinoffs as well. For instance, my opthamologist was trying to sell me on the idea of getting laser eye surgery. I was amazed to learn that the eye-movement tracking system in the vision-correction machine was a direct spinoff of the original SDI. Still, my sense of techno-philia wasn't enough to convince me to get the surgery.

I don't disagree for a second that there would be significant technological spinoffs from a Starwars program that could be used for peaceful purposes, particularly in fields like lasers, optics, sensing, etc. One of the reasons I mentioned funneling the money instead into ambitious projects like space elevators and moon bases was precisely because I believe in developing higher technology that would help civilization and create new economic opportunities. I just wanted to go in a more peaceful route and potentially less expensive one as well. And of course I don't believe that just throwing money at social problems is always the best answer either even though my post made it look that way. Often it's political rather than economic problems that are the root of social problems around the world. Anyways I know what you mean about laser eye surgery. There's some parts of my body that I don't want hacked on regardless of how good the technology is.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-01 12:35:35

If I've said it once, I've said it 10,000 times. The SDI will HELP the space program because of its innovations.

The military will need to develop faster, cheaper, and better missiles (NASA goal), which will help the space program's technology. With all of the new probes becoming smaller and more efficient, and the rockets becoming cheaper because of the program, it will be much easier to persuade a congressman to approve a new mission (i.e. pluto, uranus, neptune, asteroid belt, mercury, the list goes on...). Not to mention what the research in communication and navigation between satellite and NORAD will do for private and research satellites (oceanography, telecommunications, etc.)

As far as I can see, the SDI will create a demand for space products, which will make it easier for the space program to get its missions into orbit faster, cheaper, and better (NASA initative again).

Have a great weekend!

PS-- Who wants to go to the moon? IN AN ELEVATOR!!! I would get stuck next to the fat lady and the man reading his New York Times... and we could all look forward to a dusty glass of moon ice when we get there! We could have Armstrong Coctails! Just think of what that will do for humanity... Higher technology implemented into low-gravity martini glasses!

Mark S · 2002-12-01 13:29:48

If I've said it once, I've said it 10,000 times. The SDI will HELP the space program because of its innovations.

TRUE THAT!

That's why SDIO funded the Delta Clipper (and why it was allowed to die after coming under civilian control with NASA.)

Any comprehensive defense (lasers or Brilliant Pebbles) will require frequent launches and possibly on-orbit servicing. I'm starting to think that a space arms race is the only impetus we have left (besides space tourism, which nobody wants to fund) to build an RLV.

John_Frazer · 2002-12-06 16:44:38

Lots of hysteria and mis-disinformation here.

First: Who says $200 billion? Let me guess, the program's detractors!

Second, and by far the bigger question, Exactly what are we talking about?
The term "Star Wars" was coined by detractors specifically to throw ridicule on something they didn't like.
Go ahead and let your preconceptions show, if you want, but you're only hurting your own credibility about being capable of a rational discussion of the subject.

Go back to Reagan-era SDI porposal and what were they talking about? Terminal phase and theater AA missiles on steroids. (THAAD and the Navy's cancelled SM2ER-block 4 for example.)

Nobody seriously talked about "thousands of nuclear powered armed laser space fortresses" except the detrators (Where the $200 billion and higher price estimates came from -and that only if using the flying cost-overrun Shuttle to lift everything).

Read Freeman Dyson on ABM. Entirely rational discussion sheds much light. (not the hysterical, nearly conspiracy theorist detractions we hear which are unquestioningly accepted by the mass media).
(I think this was from the book From Eros to Gaia)

If, as SDI and NMD talk about, Theater/Terminal defenses are looked at (T/T ABM), the entire menagerie of phantom bogeymen thrown up against ABM dissapears.

It does not require space assets, except for more of the standard EW satellites and redundant C3I capabilities we already have.
Don't worry about boost phase, because that's not likely: It requires space-based weapons, which do threaten your potential opponents. An orbiting weapon capable of hitting a rising ICBM could also hit the politburo members while they're on vacation at a beach on the Black Sea. It necessarily requires C3I capabilities which can reach out over the enemy territory, and the fog of war makes this highly unlikely.
You're always advantaged, and the enemy is disadvantaged if the battle is being fought over your terrain.

Hence T/T ABM. Deal with the threat after the missile busses have deployed, and the decoys are out -all the cards on the table, no deception. Hit them all, or discern the real threats, which ever works.
BTW, even fielding an ABM works, even before a single shot is fired. Decoys, you say? A missile lifts so much. Add more mass, and the missile doesn't lift as well. Add decoys, and you must lose either warheads or range. Right there, your defenses have cut the attacking force down, eh? Even before that, you force them to do R&D on their countrerss to your defenses, adding more time and causing them to build fewer missiles. Again, you've stopped an attack from getting through before a shot is fired.

T/T ABM doesn't threaten the enemy. It only applies defensive force over your terrain.
It doesn't require nuclear weapons, it doesn't require energy beam "Death Rays".

Note that the Russians were in favor of multilateral ABM in the early days of NMD.
For decades, they've fielded early generation ABM in their SA-5 SAM system. They were entirely enthusiastic about bidding on the contracts for multilateral ABM.
Doesn't sound too destabilising -quite the reverse, and I wonder why people didn't see the hyypocrisy of the detractors when they didn't seize on this: It removes some fear of the good ol' boys spending too much money among themselves, by spreading the contracts out around the globe. It fosters stability, by easing up on secrets among unsteady partners, making them more steady friends. It defends everybody against small-scale attacks, and accidental launches.
The detractors screamed all the louder. They don't care about workable answers, they only want to force their world view on everybody (the impossibility of unilateral disarmament is all they offer. "Sit around in a circle and hold hands and sing! That's the answer for peace!")

As for hurting the Chinese delicate sensibilities by fielding ABM and de-fanging their nuclear threat and the deterrance of their weapons, I don't care a bit. They can cry into their tea.
They want to threaten our cities with nuclear fire. I'm all the more happy to remove the threat. Not that I believe ABM is a "Shield"; only the detractors use that term, to make it sound more impossible. A good defense doesn't need to be 100%. Just cast enough doubt in the enemy's mind to cause him to hesitate or forestall attacking, and your defense is 100% effective.
It makes me sick to hear anti-war people talking in favor of MAD! Insane! Totally morally & intellectually bankrupt, to speak as if the "method of preserving peace for the last 50 years" is the best answer! (Until we can convince the Pentagon to turn all their weapons into prayer wheels, anyway.)

I don't consider the Chinese or N.Koreans to be much of a threat. They know full well that we wouldn't hesitate a moment to eradicate every military base, rail head, deep-water port, and large city of theirs if we detected a launch. They would cease to be a civilised power of the 21st century if they tried it, and everybody (but media outlets) knows it. A dozen or so old-fashioned liquid-fueled boosters? Don't make me laugh.

As for the Pu239 from all those decomissioned missiles, I say we make it into thousands of identical small yeild bombs. Multilateral effort to account for and dispose of tons of weapons-grade stuff, by doing a large-scale multinational space mission. Send 20 people to Mars, with the seeds of a colony among the moons and a permanent exploration outpost.
Use the same technology of a city-killer bomb to get humanity out into the stars! After we use up all the warheads, build breeder reactors to make more Pu239 for more spaceships! Build more nuclear power plants on Earth to make more Pu, to get us out there, so we can eventually remove all the heavy polluting industry from the face of the planet and get out into the solar system permanently (Nice circle of answers to a lot of our problems, huh?)

2 articles about this "plowshares" idea.
Note that the CDI is most definitely not "hawkish" on defense. You should agree with them, and they are a necessary tool for understanding the military spending. Knowledge of the Defense Monitor is the first credential I look for in anybody talking out against war.
Orion will rise! - CDI - Part I
Orion can rise! - CDI - Part II

Phobos · 2002-12-06 18:47:24

As for the Pu239 from all those decomissioned missiles, I say we make it into thousands of identical small yeild bombs. Multilateral effort to account for and dispose of tons of weapons-grade stuff, by doing a large-scale multinational space mission. Send 20 people to Mars, with the seeds of a colony among the moons and a permanent exploration outpost.
Use the same technology of a city-killer bomb to get humanity out into the stars! After we use up all the warheads, build breeder reactors to make more Pu239 for more spaceships! Build more nuclear power plants on Earth to make more Pu, to get us out there, so we can eventually remove all the heavy polluting industry from the face of the planet and get out into the solar system permanently (Nice circle of answers to a lot of our problems, huh?)

I can't see there being any kind of political support for using nuclear explosives in space even if they're being used for peaceful purposes. We'll certainly never leave the Solar System though until we get over our fears of radioisotopes or discover some other means of generating comparable energy and it definately won't be solar cells or liquid hydrogen.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-06 22:11:25

Breeder reactor? I thought only France and Germany still believed in those. We learned about how they work in physics, and I admit that if we want to get a breeder reactor to work in the US, we have some big obstacles to overcome.

And as for leaving the solar system, where would you go? I like our little planet, orbiting around our nice, warm star. Alpha Centauri? Mmm... reading by the light of a twin star. Romantic, but being ripped into space as your planet tears apart due to the pull of two stars... not so romantic.

Leaving the GALAXY? Maybe you can catch Chewy and Han Solo at Tatooine before they make the jump to light speed.

Just joking, man. We will need to leave the solar system at some point later, but right now we need to worry about a Russian or Chinese nuclear missile interceptor to insure that we're still here when we need to leave (wow! That was yet another convenient chain!)

Phobos · 2002-12-06 23:44:13

And as for leaving the solar system, where would you go? I like our little planet, orbiting around our nice, warm star. Alpha Centauri? Mmm... reading by the light of a twin star. Romantic, but being ripped into space as your planet tears apart due to the pull of two stars... not so romantic.

I've seen concepts (anti-matter sails) that could potentially get an unmanned probe to neighboring stars within our lifetime using a combination of uranium and a small amount of anti-matter. Anyhow if we ever decide that we do want to leave the Solar System for some reason (there are other planets out there even though we haven't detected Earth-like ones yet) it would be nice to have the power to get to another such system in time before your circuits are dust. Sometime in the distant future our lifespans might be increased so much that population pressures could force us to consider things like this. I also believe that eventually technology will reach a point where we'll be able to do "brain downloading" and basically transfer a copy of our consciousness into a machine that would simulate our brain functions but only faster and better. Such beings wouldn't have the same inconvenient life-support issues that biological organisms do and would survive better and it's quite possible these people will simply choose to leave the Solar System so they can explore other locales. They could just "sleep" until they arrive. So maybe today we have no reason for proposing interstellar trips but who knows about tomorrow.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-07 00:28:26

I would like to have my consciousness downloaded into a computer...

As for the unmanned probe, wouldn't it take 4.3 years for the signal to get back to us? What if something went wrong with the probe along the way? Engineers would have to work with a 4.3 year offset of commands!

And those solar sails? I hear you'd have to make them less than 3 microns thick (?)

John_Frazer · 2002-12-08 16:03:02

I like thinking & reading about interstellar travel -I like mental masturbation almost as much as the real thing.
But that's all it is.
I don't care about interstellar. Get some of us off this planet, making a living, and expanding the livable area/volume available to life out off this one rockball.
Interplanetary is quite enough challenge for us, locked up down here at the bottom of a hole 8km/sec deep.

Another aspect of it, goes back the Fermi's question about ETs ("Where are they") and Dyson's belief that we, ourselves or whatever we evolve into, should be able to live on past the death of the Sun, and on to the end of the universe. We just have to expand off-planet! No new inventions needed to start.
With techniques we can think of now, and no new fundamental discoveries in theoretical or applied science, we can foresee ways to get to all the nearest stars within a thousand years. Ten-fold greater time, and we're on our way across this entire galactic arm. Another ten-fold jump in timescale, and we're across the galaxy and on the way to others.

What ever particular you want to debate about -life support, engine & power supply, biomedical, or what, if we don't know the best way, we do know several ways which will work.
Don't hold up the first steps into the solar system, becuase we don't know for sure how to go to the stars.

Anyway, all I mentioned in my earlier post, was using this particular effective technique we've got -nuclear pulse rockets- to go into the solar system. Not it nor anything else close to moving off the drawing board into a laboratory curiosity helps much with interstellar travel.

We'll certainly never leave the Solar System though until we get over our fears of radioisotopes or discover some other means of generating comparable energy and it definately won't be solar cells or liquid hydrogen.

hear, hear. You make my point.

I can't see there being any kind of political support for using nuclear explosives in space even if they're being used for peaceful purposes.

I choose not to argue for the ignorant hysterical view that anything relating to or containing the words "radioactive" or "isotope" or "nuclear" is evil.
Nuclear pulse is the best tool we've got, and I'm not going to forget about it because of their irrational fears about a certain class of technical innovation.

Read those CDI articles about a multinational effort to use discarded weapons to fuel a spaceship.
All it takes is what the Mars Society is doing. Get something hoepful going, get some notoriety, and some following. Get the general public to see what's going on, and get more & more support.
By the time you need an intitial mass in LEO of several hundred tons (like many mission proposals out there), and want a few hundred tons of cargo delivered to Phobos for the Mars base, then you start educating people on the realities on nuclear pulse:
1) There is no possible way -at all in this universe- that our use of nuclear pulse engines will hurt anything in interplanetary space. (Yeah, yeah, we could ram the ship into an asteroid, but does that really hurt anything?)
2) the Pu is there. We're glad the warheads are dismantled, but the job's not over yet. The stuff is worth more than gold or just about anything else inorganic, and the only other proposals being floated to get rid of it, involves polluting it past the point of being useful for making a bang, and burying it, where we'll have to guard it for 100,000 years until it decays so it can't be re-refined.
3) We have an incentive to get a large, robust ship & payload to Mars -quickly and cheaply.
4) the Pu and NPR is the best way to do it -and get rid of the Pu.
5) Oh, yeah. It helps foster greater international cooperation in dealing with nuclear materials and energy, and it helps foster disarmament in an atmosphere of doing something large-scale, long term hopeful for the future, and which brings us closer together as it gets us Out There.

You do the math.

Phobos · 2002-12-08 18:07:48

2) the Pu is there. We're glad the warheads are dismantled, but the job's not over yet. The stuff is worth more than gold or just about anything else inorganic, and the only other proposals being floated to get rid of it, involves polluting it past the point of being useful for making a bang, and burying it, where we'll have to guard it for 100,000 years until it decays so it can't be re-refined.

I think you might start running into problems though when you have to start actively producing plutonium once the existing stockpiles are used up. Don't get the idea I'm being anti-nuclear here, but if the purpose of building an orion-style ship is to use up all of our weapons grade plutonium then it would defeat the purpose since we'd just have to keep producing he plutonium in the first place unless the ship is a one-shot deal. I guess we could use the plutonium for a first mission to Mars or something similiar and then never build ships which require weapons grade pu again. I'm not necessarily against using plutonium in the way you mentioned but I'm not sure it should be done in the name of "disarmament." I think it should be done more as a demonstration of the peaceful uses nuclear power can be put to use. If we decide to build such ships I certainly don't want it to be a one time wonder.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-17 16:03:46

Looks like our debate will be ending! Bush plans to start launching a limited defense system by 2004. Here's the link to the Yahoo! story.

SDI Story on Yahoo!

clark · 2002-12-17 16:57:46

It makes sense to do this. What else can be said?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-10-19 18:46:53

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#27 2002-10-19 21:24:15

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#28 2002-10-20 02:28:54

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#29 2002-10-20 11:03:02

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#30 2002-10-20 11:20:37

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#31 2002-10-20 11:21:22

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#32 2002-10-20 11:40:00

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#33 2002-10-20 13:24:15

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#34 2002-10-20 13:34:51

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#35 2002-10-20 16:18:23

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#36 2002-10-20 18:48:05

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#37 2002-10-21 13:21:30

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#38 2002-10-21 14:40:14

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#39 2002-10-22 01:07:53

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#40 2002-12-01 12:35:35

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#41 2002-12-01 13:29:48

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#42 2002-12-06 16:44:38

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#43 2002-12-06 18:47:24

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#44 2002-12-06 22:11:25

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#45 2002-12-06 23:44:13

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#46 2002-12-07 00:28:26

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#47 2002-12-08 16:03:02

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#48 2002-12-08 18:07:48

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#49 2002-12-17 16:03:46

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

#50 2002-12-17 16:57:46

Re: "Star Wars" missile defense - practicle?

Board footer