Sci-Fi Weapons to Join US Arsenal? 601
marct22 writes to tell us CNet is reporting that the next weapons coming out of the US arsenal could be stepping right off the pages of science fiction to be there. From the article: "By the end of this year, the Air Force plans to conduct a first, fully loaded test flight of its Airborne Laser, a jumbo jet packed with gear designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light. The ABL also packs a megawatt-class punch--it's not exactly your garden-variety laser pointer."
Half a world away? (Score:5, Funny)
That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?
Re:Half a world away? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship (Score:5, Funny)
Does slashdot have a policy on censorship?
Yeah - any time anyone says "frickin'", it automatically converts it to "frickin'"
Re:Off topic: Slashdot's policy on censorship (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Half a world away? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Half a world away? (Score:2)
Or more likely, they could be floating mirrors up in space. Wouldn't be too hard to coordinate with a satellite to bounce off of them. I'd just be concerned about the laser transmission loss going through the atmosphere for that long of a distance.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:3, Funny)
So, just make your missles out of mirrors, easy.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Half a world away? (Score:5, Informative)
To coordinate with a satellite... easy. To worry about the transmission loss... irrelevant. To achieve the pointing requirements, both from the plane and the spacecraft, to hit the target (priceless... literally...). What happens when a little gust of wind hits the plane (they do bounce around a bit). Your beam will miss the target by many kilometers (and that's if you were lucky enough to hit your mirror-in-space?). GPS or something along those capabilities would not even come close to the resolution required for this type of thing, to say nothing of a moving target, a moving source, and a moving relay.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:2)
As for targeting - I'm no rocket scientist (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night) but assuming that the computers can compensate for the near lineal motion of the plane against the motion of the satellite then computers can calculate 1000 times a second the most accurate trajectory to point the laser at the satellite. A system like this is not impossible - everything
Re:Half a world away? (Score:3, Informative)
If you want to talk about practical problems let's get the obvious out.
Where I work we build spacecraft. Could we build this spacecraft to the "required" specs? YES I have great 'faith' in myself, my colleagues, and our system. We have been very successful in building spacecraft over the years that do the job.
this one doesn't seem unsolvable.
Your right, it's not. Now let's talk about the cost, you know, the pract
Re:Half a world away? (Score:2)
Considering there isn't any mention of it whatsoever; that it would in fact be "too hard"; and that there would, in that case, be no reason whatsoever to put the laser on board a plane in the first place, I'm thinking you don't know what you're talking about.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Half a world away? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Half a world away? (Score:2)
The net speed of the information transfer is less than the speed of light.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:2)
Yes; but it's operated by United, so what with the two-hour-late departure and sitting on the taxiway at your destination for another hour waiting for your arrival gate to open up, you still miss your connecting flight.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:2)
Re:Half a world away? (Score:5, Funny)
Overcoming countermeasures? (Score:3, Interesting)
What increases the protection of the missile most effectively? I realise this is probably all top secret, 'mums the word old chap' etc.
Re:Overcoming countermeasures? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKE
Re:Overcoming countermeasures? (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't have to take them into account - as they are strawmen, not countermeasures.
The laser deliver it's energy in a few milliseconds - it's simply impossible to spin the missile body fast enough to make
Re:Overcoming countermeasures? (Score:4, Funny)
I recall a General being asked this question in a news conference a while back. He said something to the effect that spinning the missile would make the missile immune to the laser to roughly the same degree that a spinning ballerina is immune to a machine gun.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:4, Funny)
The world is 70% covered with water y'know.
Re:Half a world away? (Score:4, Informative)
The Airborne Laser [missilethreat.com] is an in-theater weapon, designed to intercept ballistic missiles during the boost phase. It flies up at around 40,000 feet and can engage targets within range that appear above its horizon.
It doesn't bounce lasers off satellites or propagate a laser beam "halfway around the world", as TFA says. The author was being a bit grandiose but caused some confusion in the process. It is half-way around the world, if that is where the missiles are coming from. The plane is there with the missiles, though. So are the radars that help it target.
There has been a lot of research put into making this weapon functional (directed energy, targeting, adaptive optics), and the early results are promising. The upcoming tests should be very interesting indeed.
OK. Resume speculating.
Garden variety? (Score:5, Funny)
Wait, Laser pointers grow in gardens?? THAT, is a plant I would grow.
just like that other one....
Caution (Score:4, Funny)
Do not look directly at garden with remaining eye.
Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. (Score:2)
1.21 gigawatts (Score:2, Funny)
Re:1.21 gigawatts (Score:2, Funny)
Re:1.21 gigawatts (Score:5, Funny)
Jigga, watt?
Re:1.21 gigawatts (Score:5, Funny)
Jigga, please!
Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. (Score:3, Informative)
From the article:
It's like lasing a stick of dynamite... (Score:4, Funny)
Popcorn anyone?
Re:Mega Watts are easy, and misleading. (Score:3, Insightful)
When I think about it more it gets closer to 'paper, rock, scissors' rather then 100% accurate missle defense system.
Well, you'll be surprised, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
The laser pulse is so short and intense that the missile rotation does not matter. Same for mirroring. For all practical purposes, the rising edge of the pulse will destroy the surface layer of any mirror very quickly, and then the rest of the photons will be nicely absorbed.
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming your world is not larger than 600 kilometers across, that is. Or do they mean that the plane's going to be in the Middle East? In that case, an M-16 is able to kill enemy soldiers half a world away, too.
Re:Say what? (Score:3, Funny)
WOW!!!!!!!11one (Score:3, Funny)
Garden Variety laser? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Garden Variety laser? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Garden Variety laser? (Score:3, Informative)
You need to pay a licensing fee or purchase
an official Cat Chaser(tm) if you want to play
with your cat.
Warning (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Warning (Score:4, Interesting)
Then, they would go out to the boonies in New Jersey to test it. The Navy testing grounds is this large, flat, empty area in central Jersey. The thing was, birds (pelicans or gulls, I think) would swoop down right above the radar while it was being tested at full power. Needless to say, they made a rather disturbing sizzling sound as they dropped.
Re:Warning (Score:2)
laser pointers and planes (Score:2, Interesting)
Does Homeland Security (and FAA) know?
Hope they don't point at other pilots or ppl on the ground....(though don't think there's anything in the law that says that pilots can't use laser pointers and point them towards ppl on the ground...the vice versa is prohibited.)
It wil fail. (Score:3, Insightful)
ABL Systems are old (Score:5, Insightful)
Cut the funding, dump the project and reassign the personel to more useful projects like laser based fusion power, or robotics, or composite smart armor development.
Re:ABL Systems are old (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:ABL Systems are old (Score:2)
Re:ABL Systems are old (Score:2)
Well, nobody. That's the point - one less delivery vector to worry about. We're still going to have to worry about suitcase nukes either way, but with this deterrent in place, we can take the bandwidth we used to spend worrying about missiles and use that to worry more about suitcase bombs.
No, these weapons are already here (Score:2, Interesting)
http://tinyurl.com/r2t8q [tinyurl.com]
But on a more serious note, check out this video footage of new age technology
http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_
fantastic new weapons (Score:2, Insightful)
But we must not compare any contemporary politician to Hitler- that wouldn't be "responsible".
Yeah so what.... US probably had worst ideas (Score:2)
Lets look at the bat bomb:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb [wikipedia.org]
How about project pigeon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon [wikipedia.org]
The Japanese had their fire balloons that killed one person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon [wikipedia.org]
Re:fantastic new weapons (Score:4, Informative)
So basically you're wrong
Re:fantastic new weapons (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as your comment on comparing politicians to Hitler, personally, I think this really debases just about any debate since a) most people really don't fully grasp what Hitler did when he was in power, so any metaphor they make is incomplete and quite likely bears no resemblence to what happened under Hitler, and b) theres tons of more moderate and applicable examples than Hitler to be used as reference that do not carry a fuckload of emotional baggage like Hitler & the Nazis do. Its merely used since even the slowest kid in the class knows that Nazis = Bad, and as such, panders to the lowest common denominator. If you think your audience is stupid, sure use the Nazi's, since everyone knows they're bad, but otherwise, show your audience some respect and get a bit of nuanced thinking in there.
Um, actually (Score:2)
Hitler actually lost the war because he decided to split his attentions and attack the Soviet Union, who were perfectly willing to sit out the war on the sidelines till then.
If Germany had smashed Fortress Britain instead of being greedy and turning east, the US would not have had a launching point for D-Day (unless you count the idiotic idea of attacking up through Italy from North Africa), and the US would not have had the millions of Soviet
Re:fantastic new weapons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:fantastic new weapons (Score:4, Insightful)
Hitler lost because the West outproduced him. He also lost because he didn't adapt new technology - in 1944 he was still fighting largely with 1938 era equipment, while the West was fielding 1944 era equipment. (For various political and economic reasons the Nazi hierarchy a) wouldn't disturb existing production for new production and b) couldn't agree on what to produce in the first place.)
Hitler's much vaunted belief in 'wonderweapons' is an artifact of the last phases of the war, when the situation was starting to crumble.
Re:fantastic new weapons (Score:3, Interesting)
In the meantime Russia would be still be winning on the Eastern front and would eventually beat Germany and take over Europe at which point both
Oh come on already... (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, where's the giant bowl of popcorn?
-Ted
Re:Oh come on already... (Score:2)
test firing (Score:2)
Great, but that was last centuries' war (Score:4, Insightful)
And how does something like that help us fight an enemy that puts up a roadside bomb?
Troops need body armor and armored trucks. Not, useless debt building toys that are made to fight a cold war enemy, long gone.
Want more info http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/25 30001.html [popularmechanics.com]
Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war (Score:3, Insightful)
<cynicism>
Debt-building toys aren't useless to those who are making this program happen. They are helping this LANL research push a research and personal branding effort (what better way to promote his book about giant lasers?) They are also bringing $ and "jobs" to any number of contractors actually building this system, which brings votes to their respective congressmen.
So, while they may be useless to fight current
Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war (Score:3, Interesting)
If you can ionize air with that beam, you can pass it by a thundercloud on the way to the target and make it look like it was a normal lightning bolt, and thus an "act of God".
Even if the tech is not good enough to hit a fast moving missile, it should be able to easily hit someone walking about or even standing about in a public area - you could even aim it manually.
Perhaps this
Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, think about it. Have you ever asked yourself *why* people do things like that? Maybe it's just me, but it might have to do with the fact that we're constantly interfering with them - messing with their internal affairs, assassinating their politicians, selling chemical weapons to dictators, invading them, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents, abducting people, torturing them, stealing their oil (not to mention their archaeological treasures etc.), and so on.
What would you do when another country did that to the USA? Well, maybe most of us wouldn't put up roadside bombs if it happened to us, but would you think of those who fight the invaders as terrorists? You might not like what they do, but you'd probably cheer the attempt to get your country back, at least.
Responsible politics would take this into account and act accordingly. Treat people with respect, and they will treat you with respect as well - or at least, they won't blow you up (some still might, of course, but there's always going to be nutcases, and we certainly have our own share, too - just take the Unabomber, for example). It might take a while until they really trust you that you have changed, but ultimately, isn't it worth it? Defend yourself if you're attacked, but don't attack others, and don't mess with their internal affairs. As soon as you do that, things like roadside bombs will stop being a real problem.
Or, in other words... we've made our bed, so now we have to lie in it. We have nobody to blame for our problems but ourselves.
Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war (Score:4, Interesting)
But when a terrorist blows up some people, the finger is always pointed back at the evil western powers who obviously drove them to it.
"Treat people with respect and they will treat you with respect as well". Ask Neville "I have in my hand a piece of paper" Chamberlain about this. Sometimes, people are not reasonable, and you have to kick them in the ass.
Personally, I thought that the Iraq war would be a mistake, and sadly, I feel proven right. That said, what do you think the people blowing up US troops want? In your worldview, once the troops leave, there will be peace and the people doing this will stand down and get involved in a democratic, political proces. Because after all, they are victims of US aggression, and not aiming for a power-grab.
Re:Great, but that was last centuries' war (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th.
Secondly, we were responsible for Taliban being in power.
Do you remember the Afghan conflict? The one we sent Stinger missiles and butt loads of money and CIA advisors to Afghanistan? Did we help them rebuild after the Soviets left? No we left them to rot and didn't lift a finger leaving a power vacuu
I love that movie! (Score:2)
Dave
Question: (Score:2, Insightful)
Am I the only one here who looks at Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq and thinks our money would be better spent on a few crates of AK-47's, body armor, and more benefits for the troops?
Re:Question: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope.
As one who grew up in the shaddow of "Reagan's thumb" I will wish my governement had resulted in a more intelligent population. Once those missles go up, it's all a hope and a prayer, friend.
Back in the 80's, evern aithiests understood this.
Re:Question: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Jiffy Pop (Score:2, Funny)
Eh..? (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, if you just wanted to point out flowers, you'd normally use your finger.
Yes, but... (Score:2)
Oh my gosh (Score:5, Interesting)
I just hope this new weapon doesn't make it too easy to destroy wrong targets when your aim is kinda off, given the power and distancees we're talking about.
Not that I blame anyone. But I don't want a hole through my house (or me).
Re:Oh my gosh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh my gosh (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh my gosh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh my gosh (Score:3, Informative)
It is a lot more radioactive than background but a lot less radioactive than the other isotopes that have been removed. All Uranium is radioactive. Small amounts at a distance would be ignorable, as would exposure for a small amount of time. Small amounts of Uranium used as a ceramic glaze on some old bowls produces enough radiation that daily use would be stupid. Look up a Material Safety Datasheet for details - there's been copies online ev
1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser (Score:5, Interesting)
Liek Myrabo of http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/ [lightcraft...logies.com] has been developing beamed power launch technology for some years now. In my correspondence with him, he has estimated that a 1-ton payload can be launched into low earth orbit using a 1-Gigawatt class pulsed laser cannon.
This ground-based launcher is the ultimate tool, and if you build a ring of them around your country, you can be pretty well assured of having utter domination of not just the sky above you, but the skies above everywhere. The first to deploy the network wins the game!
There is almost no end of uses for this array of gigawatt laser cannons:
1) Beamed Laser launcher, with total cost to orbit of just cents per kilo.
2) Inbound missile melter, extraordinaire.
3) Extreme Bug-eyed alien tamer. Unfriendly invaders might think twice before tangling with a species capable of focusing better than 100 Gigawatts of energy at inbound bogies.
4) Surgical Strike weapon par excellence. Reflected back to earth via large space-based mirrors allows you to wave the thing in a decreasing spiral which will turn your neighbours house to molten slag, but barely singe your fence.
5) Galaxies' brightest Search and Rescue spotlight: defocused in orbit, and reflected to earth to illuminate areas currently under search and rescue operations.
6) Illuminate work sites on the moon during the long luna night. Defocused to make a nice night light back on earth.
7) Interplanetary messaging system: embed knowledge into the beam, and send it to likely looking planets. Long term payoff - unknown.
8) Asteroid deflection device: light pressure alone is enough to deflect an inbound near earth object. Just 2cm/s velocity change is enough to deflect most inbounds.
9) Interstallar probe launcher: lightsail driven robot craft accelerated to a decent %age of light speed in fairly short order.
I'm sure there are other uses too - but these would seem to be the obvious ones.
Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser (Score:4, Insightful)
Vastly superior to $x00/KG, and good enough to put the cost of reaching orbit within reach of the affluent (75Kg adult + 500Kg of vehicle -> $10000), but until power is too cheap to meter, the cost will never be pennies/KG.
Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not too sure about that. Any spacecraft can defend against a laser weapon by making the hull a very good reflector- the maximum power that could hit the craft without damage would just be limited by how perfect the reflectivity could be. In fact, if your spacecraft had a smart deformable concave mirror on the front of it, you
Re:1/1000th of the way towards a useful big laser (Score:3, Insightful)
With that said, the problem with trying to make a reflective surface that'll stop a laser of this power is that we simply don't know of anything that is 100% reflective at UV wavelengths and at those wavelengths absorbed photons have sufficient energy to instantly break molecular bonds. This isn't melting, where you have to heat atoms up e
oooo, popcorn...must be a genius or two here (Score:3, Interesting)
This Sci-Fi weapon was developed in 1980 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We Now Take for Granted, What Was Science Fiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Namely, the geostationary communications satellites that are the backbone of our military communications system (and not to mention the later GPS system). If you told a commander in the field in the early 1970s (in, say, Vietnam) that he'd be able to have maps with his location pinpointed by meters, or that he'd be able to guide a cruise missile air strike just by pointing a pencil-sized cylinder at a target, or that he could have a live, secure telephone call with anybody in the world from anywhere with open sky, he'd cream his pants.
They're such a part of our everyday world now that many people forget (or never learn) that the notion of communications satellites were invented by Science Fiction author Arthur C Clarke.
Yesterday's science fiction is taken for granted by tomorrow.
They have already been testing inflight operation. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep. I noticed this in the last month on a government website that maps NOTAMs [nifc.gov].
It is quite common for there at the national scale map, to see a purple dot. This purple dot indicates that there is scheduled laser activity in the area. Frequently a laser light show. The NOTAMs advise altitude and range for which precaution is advised.
Then suddenly broad sections (that can only be assumed to be flightlines) stretching from Texas, down the Gulf of Mexico (just off the Mexican coast) to the Yucatan penensula and over to Florida. These NOTAMS frequently advised precaution of several thousand feet "below the aircraft" and "above the aircraft" and for a range that makes the "light show" type NOTAM seem laughable.
safety for the masses, spare a few (Score:3, Funny)
I simply don't believe in 747 shark laser. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, high energy weapons projects for upcoming age of energy scarcity is a really challenging strategy. Water pistols in desert, anyone?
Re:Sci Fi (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sci Fi (Score:5, Insightful)
At this moment in time, PRACTICAL quantum computing is, yes.
> Is the space elevator sci-fi?
Again, at this moment in time, yes. Tests of a few thousand feet are a hell of a long way from geosyncronous orbit.
> Is nuclear fusion sci-fi?
No, it's a big bright ball in the sky. Now, if you're talking about humans initiating and controlling that reaction to extract more energy than they put into the reaction, then yes, it is in fact science fiction right now in 2006.
> Is a laser cannon sci-fi ? No.
Depends on your definition of cannon. If you mean something that can be effectively used as an offensive weapon against a hostile force, then this may be the first non-scifi example of such. If you mean a laser pointer, or something to cut out grills for your computer's fan in the shape of a nekkid chick, then no.
What a horrible idea (Score:2)
Re:wait a second here.... (Score:2)
There's certainly no question that the BDMS can never work as sold to the American people: you just can't hit missiles with other missiles in any reliable way. Not unless the target sends signals to say "shoot me".
Re:wait a second here.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans have such a poor sense of Geography.
One of these ABL's will have to fly within spitting distance of NK to have a hope of shooting down something coming from that country. With the other 3 ABL's we will have lots of opportunities to burst party balloons all o