Talk:Lightcraft

Untitled

This idea is essentially dead now isn't it? It was a neat trick, but I suspect it was very litle more than that. Page needs an update.--Deglr6328 06:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened to this project? It's 7 years since their homepage was updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersFeder (talk • contribs) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not dead.... Disruptive!

I don't think any new idea for a potentially useful technology can ever be "essentially dead". It's not the way these things work. Check out the theme behind James Burke's Connections. Things like Lightcraft can't be done at the time of conception because key technologies, market factors, and confidence are lacking. As time goes on 1) needed technologies come into existence, 2) unforeseen new market needs develop parts of the original idea as solution to a need unrelated to the original idea, and 3) Historic events occur that change mindsets and cause the public and engineers (and investors!) to realize "Ah!, Of course it can be done! It's not crazy after all!" (as happened in the wake of Spaceship One). Lightcraft sits in the gestation period. The first two things are indeed happening for Lightcraft.

You might have said in Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's time, that since his rocket ideas didn't come to fruition over a 25-year span, rockets were "essentially dead". I'm not saying that Lightcraft as conceived now are in the near future, but we can't say something is dead simply because presently it is "just a neat trick". Electricity was just a neat trick in the early 1800's. The article should not present lightcraft as defunct, but rather as a disruptive technology with potential to do interesting things as yet not thought of! :-)

--Gummer85 (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes to try to "smooth out" what I saw as a nay-saying (unencyclopedic) point of view in a few sentences. I tried to write essentially the same thing, but with a neutral framing. I made a one (minor) substantive change: I implied that the "bottom up" laser-supported detonation form of LP described was only one form of LP used on one type of lightcraft. I know there are other conceptual forms of LP (top-down, etc.) and other conceptual craft using combinations of these that would also be called "lightcraft", that's why I made the change.

Although, I think now that the changes I made in the opening sentence may be over-broad. I was thinking of an "expansive" definition including things like laser powered photovoltaic electric propeller airplanes. I now think this is too expansive a definition for "lightcraft". I just wanted to get away from the idea of a Lightcraft as a vehicle under development (as if there is some sort of ship being built somewhere) and try to put it in terms of a vehicle with a type of propulsion... with the type of propulsion being in the early (fits and starts) stage of development and not in some kind of official, active, well-funded development program with schedules and operational requitements and so on.

--Gummer85 (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the problem I created (over-broad definition). It's better, but imperfect. Help anyone? :-)

--Gummer85 (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lightcraft/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

What happend since 2000 ?

Last edited at 15:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lightcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000823062304/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/04.white.sands/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/04.white.sands/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lightcraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]