Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Please, no. (Score 1) 148

by DamnOregonian (#49754781) Attached to: The Body Cam Hacker Who Schooled the Police
There are a few. They're not the majority, and they tend to be pretty liberal on average and have very little actually in common with the national party they identify with. They're good folks... on average. This contrasts starkly with the average person of same affiliation I met while I lived in the midwest. I'd vote for the average Republican I know up here. No so much out of dixiecrat-turned-Republican land.

Comment: Re:What does that even mean (Score 1) 94

But if someone built a tower 384,000 km high, it would travel faster than the moon. And if you jumped off that tower, you'd also never reach the ground.

No, but you'd get a great view of the outer solar system... at a good clip of 27km/s or so if my math isn't too wrong.

Comment: Re:Is that even correct ? (Score 1) 185

by DamnOregonian (#49722597) Attached to: Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?
I think the Navy's primary long-term interest in this is a defensive measure against ASM tech, and it's frankly, a good application.

We're not going to be seeing gently-rolling guided cruise missiles any time soon (and certainly not for $10k) and we're not going to see long-range guided rolling rockets.

Anti-ship missiles are getting faster and faster, and CIWS is getting less and less likely to work. Aegis cruisers can already take out most ballistics that would threaten a carrier group. CIWS needs replacement- mounting lasers on support cruisers to train on a fast cruise missile is perfectly legitimate, and it increases the usefulness of having carrier groups to begin with.

I think the power-delivery capability is going to greatly outpace the defensive capabilities of ordnance. The kind of cooling necessary to stop that kind of energy is massive, and unlikely to work well on a cruise missile, and the only real defense- thicker armor is going to make it harder to keep the missiles as fast as they need to be to have any chance of success.
This isn't a waste of money, it's literally the only hope for keeping carrier groups relevant.
Mirrors will never be credible way to counter a high-power laser threat. Not even internally cooled. Mirrors are simply too easy to damage, and they're not a mirror after that happens.

They've been destroying 60mm mortar rounds from 500m out with 20kW lasers since 2006, what exactly is the basis for your disbelief in the usefulness of laser point-defense?

Comment: Re:cover everything with mirrors (Score 1) 185

by DamnOregonian (#49720925) Attached to: Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?
Small portions of thin layer of beryllium is destroyed in some small fraction of a second, copper is hit, copper heats up, it and beryllium turn into slag en masse. There's no realistic battlefield mirror scenario that defends against 50kW of light. That's not to say 50kW of light is guaranteed to kill whatever is flying at it, but a mirror just doesn't buy enough time to matter.

Comment: Re:cover everything with mirrors (Score 1) 185

by DamnOregonian (#49720839) Attached to: Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?
I don't even see it being pitched as ABM. The congressional briefings on the system even mention that many-MW-scale lasers would be required to injure an incoming ballistic RV. This may however be highly useful for carrier protection- especially if not located on the carrier. Cruisers in the carrier group, spaced properly, could very likely take out ASM projectiles, especially since they tend to be cruise-missiles, not rotating warheads, and being able to target the incoming weapon from the side as opposed to head-on would limit the atmospheres disruption of the beam.
Most potential enemies that have ballistic ASMs are using shitty enough ballistics that we can intercept them with standard issue ABM systems (Aegis cruisers).

Comment: Re:Is that even correct ? (Score 1) 185

by DamnOregonian (#49720745) Attached to: Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?
You're right- though at typical projectile velocities, the atmosphere makes a piss-poor coolant. Why pulse the laser in nanoseconds if you have a laser with sufficient cooling and available power as to hold the beam on the target? Obviously, we'll need MW lasers if we ever want to take truly well shielded and rotating/tumbling projectiles out, but for most things flying through the air, being able to hold 50kW on it for a reasonable amount of time is brutally devastating. Even coated in mirror.
Lockheed has demonstrated in-flight subsonic rocket destruction with 10kW lasers.

Comment: Re:Is that even correct ? (Score 2) 185

by DamnOregonian (#49720465) Attached to: Navy's New Laser Weapon: Hype Or Reality?
Oh, quite simple. Because 2.5kW in a that small of an area is more than enough to make that mirror no longer a mirror. You can try this at home, if you have sufficiently tough conductors. 10kJ is obscenely high for an estimate of what it takes to oblate a mirror surface. Usually a few J/cm^2 is enough to do the trick, and degradation (micropitting) starts happening at the 1J/cm^2 levels. ITER has some publicly available studies on this exact topic. Assuming a focal area of 126 cm^2 (roughly 5 inch diameter) and 2.5kW total absorbed energy, we're talking ~20J/cm^2- enough to turn the mirror into slag in fractions of a second. Now, in the case of a fast-rotating mirror object, this may be a lot more difficult to capitalize on, so ballistic RVs may be out of the question, but something like an anti-ship missile, or a cruise missile would be easy pickins'

Comment: Re:Great. Let's sit here and wait for the next wav (Score 1) 422

by DamnOregonian (#49676303) Attached to: Ice Loss In West Antarctica Is Speeding Up

They were willing to murder millions of people to achieve utopia and they still didn't get it.

LOL. Are you serious right now?
And that is why you fail.
So, some people that were smarter and more committed than us ended up being genocidal maniacs, and thus the economic theory they started out championing is bunk. Does anyone really need to blow holes in that logic?

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. -- Lazarus Long