Comments on: Solar sails gone bad

By: Steve Mickler

Steve Mickler — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 18:02:12 +0000

Regarding Charlene Anderson’s comment that solar sails could reach 100,000 mph… is not quite as inane as it sounds at first blush. I beleive she was merely conflating two seperate ideas and I would guess she knows the difference between them quite well. The 100,000 refers to current or near term capability, and the latter part to what can be developed from this tech. Actually, with trajectories that closely approach the Sun, the velocity possible can reach more than ten times the 100,000 she mentions. Laser light sails are very similar and do hold the promise of fast trips to the stars at least in theory.
The idea that orbiting mirrors, like those proposed in the 80’s for missle defense, could be used as weapons is obviously accurate, but of course, the solar sail architecture is useless for this purpose as a practical matter, because it is not a concentrator mirror and even if it was, it would lack the structural rigidity needed to focus a laser effectively on any surface target.
Steve

By: alex b

alex b — Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:32:39 +0000

Nice read. Keep it going. Spiderfriend333

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:24:41 +0000

You should be libertarian enough not to worry too much about the government “suffering” at the hands of privately owned newspapers. If a report about a crazy research program like “Rods from God” embarrasses the Pentagon, then the Pentagon should wipe that program from the face of Washington, instead of criticizing newspapers for taking it seriously.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:29:15 +0000

The Pentagon were unprepared to counter the unfounded speculation in that article; they suffered for it and the White House suffered for it. Next the State Department will be suffering for it in the UN.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:20:25 +0000

Fair enough. It is true that the space weapons in that old New York Times article are completely unrealistic. However, it is less clear who is ultimately responsible for that unrealism, the New York Times, or the Pentagon.

By: Kevin Parkin

Kevin Parkin — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:29:03 +0000

Greg has the wrong idea. I wasn’t criticizing the New York Times in general, I was indirectly poking fun at their previous space weapons article circa when Star Wars came out.

I think most people agree that article fell far from the mark where reality is concerned.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:12:14 +0000

As conservative journals go, I’ve always rather like The Economist. They have a sense of humor — one of the funniest things I ever read was their translation of “Newtspeak” into real English — and they are willing to go against the party line. They are even willing to admit they were wrong, as when they endorsed Mr. Bush during his first Presidential election.

Interestingly, their views of human spaceflight are about where the NYT’s were two decades ago — and just as wrong.

— Donald

By: billg

billg — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:36:16 +0000

Indymedia: Propaganda from people who believe they have a lock on the truth and are quite happy to lie to foster their ideological agenda. The mirror image of Rush and friends, in many regards.

The NYT: It is quite possible for the NYT to be the best newspaper in the counry and slant leftwards. Or rightwards, for that matter. Quality journalism and reporting don’t require neutering the journalists and the reporters. “Balance”, at least as that word is used in the FOX/AM radio/theocon universe, doesn’t exist in the real world and, therefore, has no reason to exist in journals reporting on it. Let’s worry about our imbalanced politicians first.

(And, sure, many news outlet follow the lead of the NYT and a few other big papers. That’s because only a very newspapers can afford to hire enough staff to break and report stories of national scope. I mean, there’s no reason to follow the lead of the Skunksville Gazette, is there?)

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:52:59 +0000

Greg, on this one you and I are in complete agreement.

Although many conservatives hate it, I believe the New York Times is by far the best paper in the nation, and possibly in the world. The fact that many of my liberal friends also hate the paper for being too conservative reinforces my opinion. They publish a lot of stuff that conservatives and liberals alike do not want to hear, but that alone defines them as “good.” As I’ve said here before, the last thing I want to read is a paper that I always agree with.

The NYT is hardly a “liberal rag.” It’s current politics, in these outlandishly conservative times, are probably about where Nixon’s were in a more civilized age. Although I rarely have time any more to read the paper in detail, I continue to subscribe because I believe such an institution should continue to exist. Otherwise, I’d have to get that oh-so-unbiassed source, The Wall Street Journal.

— Donald

By: Matthew Corey Brown

Matthew Corey Brown — Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:33:35 +0000

slightly OT, but reports are that the first stage of the VOLNA craft stoped 83 seconds after liftoff, i have not found a nominal firing time of a first stage of a volna. (total flight is 6 minutes 17 seconds)

There is evidence it made orbit but depending how you spin what the planetary society has said it also could have been slighlty sub orbital. (ie no confirmation that a second pass signal detection occured)

so anyone know the nominal firing time of stage one?