The world is a very conservative place. They'd rather see nothing happen, than risk something Very Very Bad happening.
Then I want to be the one who chooses who does what! "I cut, you choose" seems simple but it isn't universally applicable.
I'll take the "build" piece, and I'll object if anyone else says THEY
have to have the "build" piece.
On 8/26/05, panamabob@...
The world is a very conservative place. They'd rather see nothing happen, than risk something Very Very Bad happening.
Then I want to be the one who chooses who does what! "I cut, you choose" seems simple but it isn't universally applicable.
I'll take the "build" piece, and I'll object if anyone else says THEY
have to have the "build" piece.
On 8/26/05, panamabob@...
>Behalf Of Fred
>
> The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
> diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system
>that
> can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
> reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
>
>Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong canard. The
>microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a weapon. For
>one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below
>the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one
>requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the
>rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the phased-array
>transmission possible.)
produce power?
With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a laser
unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
A laser unit shouldnt be very big I think.
All what you need is a power cable from the SPS to the laser unit.
That kind of weapon would strike with light speed - you wouldnt even
see it come.
The only solution I could see here would be to operate those kind of
craft through an organization which has the monopoly to use it in
space while countries/nations wouldnt be allowed to do so. Kind of UN
or so.
Frank
>
>>Behalf Of Fred
>>
>> The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
>> diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system
>>that
>> can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
>> reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
>>
>>Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong canard. The
>>microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a weapon. For
>>one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below
>>the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one
>>requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the
>>rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the phased-array
>>transmission possible.)
>
> Are you sure? Doesnt have an SPS large arrays of solar cells to
> produce power?
>
> With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a laser
> unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
> You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
>
> A laser unit shouldnt be very big I think.
>
> All what you need is a power cable from the SPS to the laser unit.
>
> That kind of weapon would strike with light speed - you wouldnt even
> see it come.
SEE them mounting a laser cannon long before the bad guy could fire the
silly thing.
>
> The only solution I could see here would be to operate those kind of
> craft through an organization which has the monopoly to use it in
> space while countries/nations wouldnt be allowed to do so. Kind of UN
> or so.
The solution is hinted by my comment above - don't allow a government of
any kind to operate the SPS but instead give it to a for-profit
enterprise. Business guys won't let their expensive capital be used as
a weapon - no profit in it.
Everything the company operating the SPS array does (or any vehicle in
orbit) is open to inspection by anyone with a good telescope on the
ground. This is your solution to the 'using X as a weapon' problem -
shenanigans like this will be seen and corrective action taken.
I'll got a step further - any enterprise in the space access industry
might be advised to open their internal business up to public inspection
as far as they are legally allowed to. You can't do anything without a
paper trail, and this would include shipping to, and operating an
illegal laser cannon. If the public can see this happening, things can
happen to prevent it.
No, I'm not so far gone as to imagine you'd find an invoice for "1) Acme
X-Ray Laser" but the bits to assemble such would be visible if anyone is
looking.
Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport
brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Wow...
The solution is hinted by my comment above - don't allow a government of
any kind to operate the SPS but instead give it to a for-profit
enterprise. Business guys won't let their expensive capital be used as
a weapon - no profit in it.
Please look up the history of the following for-profit enterprises. Each of them have engaged in heavy duty violence, up to and including invasion and genocide, for profit.
Association Internationale Africaine
Union Pacific Railroad
Your assertion that a corporation that operated a SPS would not engage in violence (or the threat of violence) because it would not be profitable rests upon the assumption that violence would not be profitable. I don't believe this is necessarily a valid assumption.
Everything the company operating the SPS array does (or any vehicle in
orbit) is open to inspection by anyone with a good telescope on the
ground. This is your solution to the 'using X as a weapon' problem -
shenanigans like this will be seen and corrective action taken.
Against whom? By the time it's up there, it's too late.
I'll got a step further - any enterprise in the space access industry
might be advised to open their internal business up to public inspection
as far as they are legally allowed to. You can't do anything without a
paper trail, and this would include shipping to, and operating an
illegal laser cannon. If the public can see this happening, things can
happen to prevent it.
The technological history of Iraq indicates that this is an unlikely circumstance.
No, I'm not so far gone as to imagine you'd find an invoice for "1) Acme
X-Ray Laser" but the bits to assemble such would be visible if anyone is
looking.
Would they? I'm not convinced, and I don't think your average national leader would be either. We're talking about power (in the political sense) on a level unheard of in human history.
>>
>>>Behalf Of Fred
>>>
>>> The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
>>> diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system
>>>that
>>> can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
>>> reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
>>>
>>>Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong canard. The
>>>microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a weapon. For
>>>one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below
>>>the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one
>>>requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the
>>>rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the phased-array
>>>transmission possible.)
>>
>> Are you sure? Doesnt have an SPS large arrays of solar cells to
>> produce power?
>>
>> With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a laser
>> unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
>> You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
>>
>> A laser unit shouldnt be very big I think.
>>
>> All what you need is a power cable from the SPS to the laser unit.
>>
>> That kind of weapon would strike with light speed - you wouldnt even
>> see it come.
>
>Any SPS array is going to be viewable by anyone with a telescope. You'd
>SEE them mounting a laser cannon long before the bad guy could fire the
>silly thing.
An SPS would be a large construction to hide something behind it.
Wouldnt we want to have SPSs at the Moon or asteroids also?
A telescope would not help much in this case I think.
Wouldnt we want to have mobile SPSs also?
>>
>> The only solution I could see here would be to operate those kind of
>> craft through an organization which has the monopoly to use it in
>> space while countries/nations wouldnt be allowed to do so. Kind of UN
>> or so.
>
>The solution is hinted by my comment above - don't allow a government of
>any kind to operate the SPS but instead give it to a for-profit
>enterprise. Business guys won't let their expensive capital be used as
>a weapon - no profit in it.
I would prefer an organization which would be committed to the best
for humanity and Earth. Not for single nations, not for enterprises.
As you said, business guys would look for profit and might go with the
nations which promise the most of it.
>I'll got a step further - any enterprise in the space access industry
>might be advised to open their internal business up to public inspection
>as far as they are legally allowed to. You can't do anything without a
>paper trail, and this would include shipping to, and operating an
>illegal laser cannon. If the public can see this happening, things can
>happen to prevent it.
If a nation decides not to give access for public inspection what can
you do?
Frank
> [mailto:ssi_list@... On
> Behalf Of Fred
>
> How hard is it to refocus a square-kilometer power
> beam into a
> ten-square-meter weapon beam?
>
> Harder than you apparently think. Please study the
> SPS proposal in a
> bit more detail. It almost seems as though you
> might be visualizing the
> "focusing" of this microwave beam as being somehow
> analogous to the
> focusing of a beam of light with lenses or mirrors,
> resulting in
> concentrations. The actual technology proposed
> involves a phased-array
> transmitting antenna about a mile across. The most
> that can be achieved
> in an ideal world is a beam which is imperfectly
> parallel.
>
while correct (and arthur laters explains this in much
better detail), you can in fact somewhat focus a
phased array into various spots beams whose phase and
amplitude can be changed on the fly. While not as
well versed in the physics as Arthur, I am currently
working on 2 commsats that do exactly that, Terrastar
and ICO. Albeit, these are on the order of between
12-18 meter phased-array antennae and the focus area
is something on the order of the state of New Jersey,
the physics of it all should scale upwards.
for a 100 meter unfurlable phased antennae that IIRC
is due for launch around 2011 or 2012. While not the
1 km wanted for SPS, they are moving closer...
Ryan Z
>
> >Behalf Of Fred
> >
> > The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
> > diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system
> >that
> > can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
> > reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
> >
> >Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong canard. The
> >microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a weapon. For
> >one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below
> >the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one
> >requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the
> >rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the phased-array
> >transmission possible.)
>
> Are you sure? Doesnt have an SPS large arrays of solar cells to
> produce power?
>
> With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a laser
> unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
> You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
>
> A laser unit shouldnt be very big I think.
>
> All what you need is a power cable from the SPS to the laser unit.
>
> That kind of weapon would strike with light speed - you wouldnt even
> see it come.
>
> Frank
>
That would apply to anything built in space. If you are that worried
about orbital weapons, don't allow anything up there.
> wanting to see all design blueprints etc. may be one consideration to
> approval by china/russia ...another is the old kindergarten system for
> dividing up a piece of cake... one of the parties cuts the pieces,
> the other choses which one to take. In this way the first person
> insures they 'cut ' the cake fairly, because the next person would
> decide to take the best piece if not truly equal.
>
> So...one country designs, another builds from that design, a third
> launches it , a forth operates it. The cross check insure to everyone
> that no "hidden" items are involved since they had a hand in checking
> in along the way.
>
> :-)
>
The design part is okay, but building the pieces in one country and then
sending them to another to launch ? Unless you could convince them to
build and launch in one neutral area the costs and delays would be enormous.
Brett
> > Are you sure? Doesnt have an SPS large arrays of solar cells to
> > produce power?
> >
> > With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a laser
> > unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
> > You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
> about orbital weapons, don't allow anything up there.
What do you think we've been doing for the last forty years? We
haven't allowed anything larger than a schoolbus to be launched unless
there's people in it.
>
> > > Are you sure? Doesnt have an SPS large arrays of solar cells to
> > > produce power?
> > >
> > > With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a
> laser
> > > unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
> > > You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
>
> > That would apply to anything built in space. If you are that worried
> > about orbital weapons, don't allow anything up there.
>
> What do you think we've been doing for the last forty years? We
> haven't allowed anything larger than a schoolbus to be launched unless
> there's people in it.
>
>
>> >Behalf Of Fred
>> >
>> > The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
>> > diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system
>> >that
>> > can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
>> > reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
>> >
>> >Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong canard. The
>> >microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a weapon. For
>> >one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below
>> >the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one
>> >requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the
>> >rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the phased-array
>> >transmission possible.)
>>
>> Are you sure? Doesnt have an SPS large arrays of solar cells to
>> produce power?
>>
>> With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a laser
>> unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
>> You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
>>
>> A laser unit shouldnt be very big I think.
>>
>> All what you need is a power cable from the SPS to the laser unit.
>>
>> That kind of weapon would strike with light speed - you wouldnt even
>> see it come.
>>
>> Frank
>>
>That would apply to anything built in space. If you are that worried
>about orbital weapons, don't allow anything up there.
I think not addressing those dangers and doing as if there werent any
will not help to avoid them.
Humanity has to find a way to restrict dangers while making progress
in space technology.
If that does not succeed we will fail.
Frank
at the bottom.
> >>
> >> >Behalf Of Fred
> >> >
> >> > The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
> >> > diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system
> >> >that
> >> > can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
> >> > reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
> >> >
> >> >Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong
> canard. The
> >> >microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a
> weapon. For
> >> >one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below
> >> >the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one
> >> >requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the
> >> >rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the
> phased-array
> >> >transmission possible.)
> >>
> >> Are you sure? Doesnt have an SPS large arrays of solar cells to
> >> produce power?
> >>
> >> With that kind of power available wouldnt it be easy to power a laser
> >> unit instead of the microwave part of the SPS with it?
> >> You dont have to use the power only for the rectenna.
> >>
> >> A laser unit shouldnt be very big I think.
> >>
> >> All what you need is a power cable from the SPS to the laser unit.
> >>
> >> That kind of weapon would strike with light speed - you wouldnt even
> >> see it come.
> >>
> >>
> >> Frank
> >>
> >That would apply to anything built in space. If you are that worried
> >about orbital weapons, don't allow anything up there.
>
> I agree, space has a large dangerous potential for Earth.
>
> I think not addressing those dangers and doing as if there werent any
> will not help to avoid them.
>
> Humanity has to find a way to restrict dangers while making progress
> in space technology.
>
> If that does not succeed we will fail.
>
> Frank
>
There is no way to stop weapons eventually being deployed in space,
unless you find a way to change the fundamental nature of the entire
human race.
If someone really wants to cause problems from up there to down here,
all they really need is a big damn rock.
Brett
It's been said, that sometimes you have to be a real
SOB in order to make your dreams come true.
> The problem isn't a would-be-world-conqueror; it's the leaders who
> think all the OTHER leaders are would-be-world-conquerors.
same problem: SSPS is a lousy weapon. And any
would-be-world-conqueror (from whatever nation) isn't going to give up
the world-conquering dream for lack of SSPS. And as there are easier
was to go about it anyway, SSPS is pretty errelevent from a
world-conquering point of view.
The real geopolitical concern is that SSPS would let nations who
already control so much control energy as well. For instance, the US
has the biggest millitary, but the European Union, Japan, and maybe a
couple of others can offset the US's economic pawer, and the Middle
East controls a lot of access to energy. If the US (to take the most
obvious example) should also control SSPS, then it would be like the
economic power of the US and the Middle East put together, with the US
millitary power thrown in, and the real Middle East practically hobbled.
Of course, there is nothing to prevent Middle Eastern countries (or
China or the European Union or Japan, for that matter) from investing
in powersats themselves, and maintaining their hands on the balance wheel.
> The problem isn't a would-be-world-conqueror; it's the leaders who
> think all the OTHER leaders are would-be-world-conquerors.
same problem: SSPS is a lousy weapon.
I keep hearing people say that.
And any
would-be-world-conqueror (from whatever nation) isn't going to give up
the world-conquering dream for lack of SSPS. And as there are easier
was to go about it anyway, SSPS is pretty errelevent from a
world-conquering point of view.
The real geopolitical concern is that SSPS would let nations who
already control so much control energy as well. For instance, the US
has the biggest millitary, but the European Union, Japan, and maybe a
couple of others can offset the US's economic pawer, and the Middle
East controls a lot of access to energy. If the US (to take the most
obvious example) should also control SSPS, then it would be like the
economic power of the US and the Middle East put together, with the US
millitary power thrown in, and the real Middle East practically hobbled.
Of course, there is nothing to prevent Middle Eastern countries (or
China or the European Union or Japan, for that matter) from investing
in powersats themselves, and maintaining their hands on the balance wheel.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/japan-meti-space-01a.html
http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/design/power.html
" There may also be international concerns of whether a laser system can be turned into a weapon and used for military purposes. Since any decision to use this system as a weapon will have to be deliberate and premeditated, these concerns can be somewhat remedied by making SPS subject to full disclosure and public, and even international, participation." (emphasis mine)
http://search.nap.edu/openbook/0309075971/html/56.html
(sign in to download the full PDF for free)
"... In addition, to assuage any fears that this technology could be reworked to be used as a weapon, the program should be international in structure, with full disclosure of information to all participating countries so that no strategic advantage can be gained by any one nation."
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/HAARPbg.html#SPSMI
"The SPS was also described as a psychological and anti-personnel weapon, which could be directed toward an enemy."
http://www.argee.net/Satellite-Hydrogen%20Energy/Satellite-Hydrogen%20Energy.htm
"Military considerations must also be reviewed. Although the SPS does not serve a direct military function, there are potential weapons capabilities which would accommodate SPS power output. The SPS could also be used to relay power to military installations (such as satellites, military aircraft and remote terrestrial stations), or it could function as an observation post for surveillance or some other manned military function. Even if it did not serve in such a capacity, it would make an attractive target and might require some defensive capability. An SPS with offensive or defensive capability would have a negative impact on international relations. Therefore, international agreements will be needed to minimize SPS vulnerability and to ensure the non-militarization of SPS (Bloomquist, l978; Bain, 1978; Ozeroff, 1978)." (emphasis mine)
I will admit that I'm not an expert on microwaves. But I do know that they ARE being used as weapons:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.600
http://tinyurl.com/6aonl
A lot of talk has come to "The SPS will be designed so that it cannot be used as a weapon."
Can you design a truck so that it cannot be used as a weapon, and still be a commercially viable truck?
I'm willing to accept that a satellite power beam, if directed at a crowd of people, would not harm the people. What if it were directed at a microwave communication center? How about a power generation or distribution center? How about large metal structures, like a bridge or block of high-rise buildings?
I've heard people say, "If the beam were aimed at anything but the receiving station, it would shut off." Why? What is special about the receiving station? I understand that the SPS, as designed, would do that automatically, but is that a design element that could be changed by altering the onboard computer's programming?
> Yes you can see the SPS front side. But what is with its backside?
> An SPS would be a large construction to hide something behind it.
The SPS is in GEO with the antenna always pointed towards the
Earth-based rectenna.
The solar cells must face the sun, so if at "noon" you are facing the
"front" of the SPS what side will you be facing at "midnight"?
TangoMan
The solar arrays will be pointed at the sun, and the antenna always
pointed at the earth. Anything you want to hide, you put BEHIND THE
ANTENNA.
> The solar arrays will be pointed at the sun, and the antenna always
> pointed at the earth. Anything you want to hide, you put BEHIND THE
> ANTENNA.
as the hidden goods are being continually moved from from one side to
the other over the course of a 24 hour day.
Hmmm. Were does the energy for the movement of the goods come from? If
there is some form of propulsion involved who do you hide the exhaust
from spectroscopic analysis?
TangoMan
>
> On 8/26/05, *Brian Dunbar* brian.dunbar@...
>
> The solution is hinted by my comment above - don't allow a
> government of
> any kind to operate the SPS but instead give it to a for-profit
> enterprise. Business guys won't let their expensive capital be used as
> a weapon - no profit in it.
>
> Please look up the history of the following for-profit enterprises.
> Each of them have engaged in heavy duty violence, up to and including
> invasion and genocide, for profit.
>
> East India Company
The British East India Company, sometimes referred to as "John Company",
was a joint-stock company of investors, which was granted a Royal
Charter by Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600, with the intent to favor
trade privileges in India.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company
> Association Internationale Africaine
The Association Internationale Africaine (French) was an organization
created by King Lopold II of Belgium for supposedly furthering
humanitarian projects in the area of Central Africa that was to become
the Congo Free State and subsequently today's Democratic Republic of the
Congo. From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_Internationale_Africaine
> Union Pacific Railroad
The Union Pacific Railroad was incorporated on July 1, 1862 in the wake
of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862. The first rails were laid in Omaha,
Nebraska. They were part of the railroads which came together at
Promontory Summit, Utah in 1869 as the first transcontinental railroad
in North America.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pacific_Railroad#History
>
> Your assertion that a corporation that operated a SPS would not engage
> in violence (or the threat of violence) because it would not be
> profitable rests upon the assumption that violence would not be
> profitable. I don't believe this is necessarily a valid assumption.
Where is the ROI in using a orbital weapon?
>
> Everything the company operating the SPS array does (or any vehicle in
> orbit) is open to inspection by anyone with a good telescope on the
> ground. This is your solution to the 'using X as a weapon' problem -
> shenanigans like this will be seen and corrective action taken.
>
> Against whom? By the time it's up there, it's too late.
File a court case in a friendly federal court against the company. The
country can seize the assets of the offending corporation. Without
money the company is not going to be finishing their weapon.
>
> I'll got a step further - any enterprise in the space access industry
> might be advised to open their internal business up to public
> inspection
> as far as they are legally allowed to. You can't do anything without a
> paper trail, and this would include shipping to, and operating an
> illegal laser cannon. If the public can see this happening, things can
> happen to prevent it.
>
> The technological history of Iraq indicates that this is an unlikely
> circumstance.
I do not understand the phrase 'technological history' in conjunction
with Iraq. Explain?
>
> No, I'm not so far gone as to imagine you'd find an invoice for "1)
> Acme
> X-Ray Laser" but the bits to assemble such would be visible if
> anyone is
> looking.
>
> Would they? I'm not convinced, and I don't think your average national
> leader would be either. We're talking about power (in the political
> sense) on a level unheard of in human history.
An army marches on it's stomach. A corporation slides along on
paperwork. If you're going to build a weapon there will be a paper
trail. If the paper trail is visible, it can be examined and many
eyeballs can ferret out the truth.
I'm still not convinced that merely having and operating 'stuff' in
orbit represents political power. Maybe you could expand on this?
Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport
brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
>
> > The solar arrays will be pointed at the sun, and the antenna always
> > pointed at the earth. Anything you want to hide, you put BEHIND THE
> > ANTENNA.
>
> So you're saying that you're counting on no observation taking place
> as the hidden goods are being continually moved from from one side to
> the other over the course of a 24 hour day.
to deploy and do its business.
> > Your assertion that a corporation that operated a SPS would not engage
> > in violence (or the threat of violence) because it would not be
> > profitable rests upon the assumption that violence would not be
> > profitable. I don't believe this is necessarily a valid assumption.
>
> Where is the ROI in using a orbital weapon?
states has gotten a HUGE return on its investments in nuclear weapons
since WWII, without ever having fired one in anger.
> >
> > Everything the company operating the SPS array does (or any vehicle
> in
> > orbit) is open to inspection by anyone with a good telescope on the
> > ground. This is your solution to the 'using X as a weapon' problem -
> > shenanigans like this will be seen and corrective action taken.
> >
> > Against whom? By the time it's up there, it's too late.
>
> File a court case in a friendly federal court against the company. The
> country can seize the assets of the offending corporation. Without
> money the company is not going to be finishing their weapon.
As I said, by the time it's up there (that is, finished) it's too late.
> >
> > ...you can't do anything without a
> > paper trail, and this would include shipping to, and operating an
> > illegal laser cannon. If the public can see this happening, things
> > can happen to prevent it.
> >
> > The technological history of Iraq indicates that this is an unlikely
> > circumstance.
>
> I do not understand the phrase 'technological history' in conjunction
> with Iraq. Explain?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/supergun.htm
"Iraq used the petrochemical complex two (PC-2) project as a front to
purchase components for Gerald Bull's super gun. Matrix Churchill was
a long established Midlands based machine tool manufacturer which was
purchased in 1987 by an Iraqi controlled company, TMG Engineering Ltd,
which was in turn controlled by another Iraqi controlled company,
Technology and Development Group Ltd (TDG)."
Just because records are kept, doesn't mean something is transparent.
If the transparency rules are known (that is, if the records are not
subject to unreasonable search and seizure) then the true purposes and
destinations of weapon parts can be concealed.
> If you're going to build a weapon there will be a paper
> trail. If the paper trail is visible, it can be examined and many
> eyeballs can ferret out the truth.
Just because you say so, doesn't make it true. Saddam Hussein was
able to engage in all kinds of weapons research, development, and
procurement, without his enemies being able to stitch the whole
picture together.
> I'm still not convinced that merely having and operating 'stuff' in
> orbit represents political power. Maybe you could expand on this?
Why does Iran want a nuclear weapon? Why does North Korea starve its
people while its nuclear program gets all the money it can get?
Answer those questions and you'll understand why having a weapon of
mass destruction outside the reach of any terrestrial weapon system
would be of use.
> What movement? It's behind the antenna. It stays put until it's time
> to deploy and do its business.
the files section.
Alternatively, you can model orbital motion. Place the sun on one side
of the diagram. Place the Earth in the middle. Draw a circle around
the Earth to represent Geosynchronous Orbit where the SPS will be.
The side of the Earth facing the Sun will have daylight. So the solar
cells will be facing the sun, but the antenna will be facing the Earth.
The side of the Earth facing *away* from the Sun will have nightfall.
So the solar cells *and* the antenna will be facing in the same
direction, towards the Sun and the Earth.
My point is that your usage of the word *behind* is relative, and not
fixed as it would be on Earth. Therefore, to move weapons to
continually stay behind the SPS will require some effort.
TangoMan