What is Digg?104 Comments
- habu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14far more then 6 months old. Have been reading about it for over three years now (thanks to Aviation Week & Space Tech.). Student worker of mine is now working on it. He got there just before the first light of the main laser. Cool stuff.
- Reddog_x2000, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20Can we test this out on Jack Thompson?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14And there are 747's with friggin' laser beams on their friggin' heads
/obscure - Radiantwave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8not until 2008... read here... http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/mh/dti0406/index.php
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Most mirrors are only about 95% reflective. The other 5% of the laser enrgy is transmitted through the mirror and absorbed (either by the mirror itself or the backing). Really good mirrors are about 99% reflective.
Now, let's assume that somehow you manage to "chrome" a missile such that it's 99% reflective (not bloody likely in real life, but we're talking theory here). Someone targets a 100 kW laser at you. The mirror reflects/scatters 99 kW of the energy, while 1 kW is absorbed by the missile itself.
It takes 216 kWs to heat 11 kg of steel by 10 deg C. Certainly you're not going to be able to keep the laser on the mirror for 216 seconds. But, that's ok, that's not the point. All you have to do is melt the mirror at contact point, degrading its reflectance so you can effect the missile itself. So how long does it take to boil the mirror into vapor? Probably a couple seconds. After which you have no effective defense and the 100 kW beam will boil off enough of the missile to render it ineffective. After all, you don't have to destroy it -- just alter the aerodynamics enough so it's incapable of targeting correctly.
You could spin the missile to reduce spot heating, but that's going to complicate guidance considerably. And, frankly, I doubt that you'll get more than 80% reflectance on this sucker, which changes the equation drastically. And, of course, your maintainance crew didn't leave any oil, grease, or fingerprints on the missile casing right? Uh huh. - Jams, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, this news is about 3years old. I gather they are using some form of solid state laser to save space; however there were problems cooling it.
- CoffeeCup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I knew about this in 1985 when I first saw Real Geius :)
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Heh. I Digg, but only cuz It's cool.
This is old news... my neighbor (not a cracka' type) has been working on this for at least 10 years now...
FYI, the laser takes up the entire cabin... so you gotta be a pilot, copilot or the laser technician to catch a flight on one of these. Sorry, No "Welcome to Delta Flight number 1337 with direct service between Beijing and Seoul... We will be flying near a hostile country, but dont worry... we've got a frickin laser! In the event of a missile launch..." - BSpolice, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12weap·on
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
It is a weapon. - whiskeyclone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm sick of people claiming 'old news' to on going and developing technology posted on Digg.
I can understand it if the article is 3 years old, and the tech discussed has either turned into vapour or just been left with no further development - but in a case like this where the technology is still evolving, changing and thowing up new chalenges for the team involved, and will continue to do so, I can see no point in trolling 'old news' time and time again, other that to show off that you knew about it in passing 3 years ago. So everyone bitching that this is 3+ years old news simply needs to shut up.
3 years is a long time in the tech world, if you haven't noticed. Since you've heard about it they've made 3 years worth of progress. Stop trying to show off and admire the technoloy, the inovation and implimention.
x86 architecture is 28 years old - no one goes around trolling every thread regarding processors with 'x86?old, I read about that in '78 - no digg'. Try to understand that as time passes, and people are working, usually this thing called 'progress' is made. Usually time passed is directly related to progress made and effort put in (except maybe where Vista is concerned).
If you guys are so on top of everything, I suggest using that knowledge to post some articles and some interesting front pages - put up or shut up. - Godric, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7OK, what happens when you destroy a missile right after it launches? Its payload rains down on enemy territory. If it was carrying a WMD, they are screwed. Plus the enemy now has one less missile to use. In fact, he may be detered from using missiles entirely. I would hardly characterize these results as defensive.
Semantic discussions are pretty worthless. Bickering about language usually adds nothing to a discussion. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Why do I get the feeling one of these lasers will accidentally hit Michael Moore.
- quasipalm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword."
Ok, so body armor is a weapon? I don't want to argue over semantics, but this is different than the conventional notion of what a weapon is. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They've been working on this at Edwards Air Force Base for years. I used to drive past it almost every day. They have 2 747's, one with and one without wings. The one without is stuck through the wall of a building, like it was on its way out of the building and crashed the nose through a brick wall. That's where they test things before they put them on the plane that still HAS wings. There's also a massive chemical holding tank next to it.
http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=edwards+afb&ll=34.900363,-117.875705&spn=0.001958,0.005407&t=h - Deuterium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It would have been pretty useful against frogs and scuds.
- whiskeyclone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Having installed it is progress.
The problems they were having wasn't getting the thing to work, but implementing it. solid state cooling issues, calibration, mounting with the ability to rotate, aerodynamics, and stable optical systems are all advances. Google-ing for articles on this topic show clearly that this was really only proof of concept and a couple of mock ups 3 years ago. It only achieved first flight 18months ago [http://www.engadget.com/2004/11/16/first-light-for-the-new-boeing-anti-missile-airborne-laser/] and first live ground tests were Q4 2005. [tp://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/q4/051212b_nr.html]
In 1996 when it was first discussed until 2002 they were working on a chemical laser. So I'd say getting a solid state version working in 3 years is some major new development.
As far as I can tell they are still planning for a live flight test - though I could be wrong.
- graemee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The laser is the 747. It's not like there room for any sharks.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Funny thing is most of this "wasted" money filters down to civilian technology that you will enjoy without complaint or giving credit to where it came from.
- drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8I want 747s. With frickin' lasers on their heads.
- whiskeyclone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@sfacets: Sounds like you see the world like a great big RTS, read this and thought 'The US is upping its base defence even though the other side are still mining'.
This is an interesting application of bleeding edge (I hate using terms like that) technology in the real world for a practical use - which is really what Digg is about.
Things have to progress - once they've perfected this it would prossibly see application on fighter jets, helecopter and be used to protect milarty cargo ships and air bases, as well as provide protection for comercial transport over problem areas where you have people firing RPGs at passenger craft. Sure, its a way off, but this shows that it can and is being done with some success. - Unicyclelarry, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4The fact that a 747 can't catch a missile is the very reason this technology is being put into place: It's very hard for a weapon to intercept a missile. Laser light, on the other hand, can travel very very quickly.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2aeiri - Note that he said "generally." Pearl Harbor was the exception, not the rule. And nobody's saying we're invincible. If we believed that, why would we be spending taxpayer dollars on developing new defensive systems? Your statement on velcro had to be your weakest argument though. Velcro is used for a lot of purposes by a huge number of people. The fact that you personally don't use it isn't relevant in the slightest.
- etip21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1OK, Please tell me how the math is going to work on this. Your flying along you detect a launch you computer project the trajectory of the missile calculates your air speed, compensates for wind speed and direction, and then fires the laser before the missile is out of range, which I'm guessing is going to be in less than 30 seconds. We can't hit a freaking missile from the ground with a laser and we are to try doing it from the air. Please government take my money and flush down the drain! And a far a civilian applications let the civilians do it cheaper and faster. We have enough inventors out there. The reason industries (like the Airlines) haven't researched this is because it won't work.
- yahoofrom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Always for weaponry. No no.
I don't want pentagon. I want octagon. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Work on the ABL Beam Control/Fire Control subsystem is taking place at Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale, Calif. Here, a space systems engineer inspects the Turret Ball Conformal Window through which the laser beams will pass. Amazing all i can say
- delong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not only can we hit missiles, we can hit MORTAR ROUNDS.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-04r.html
The mathematics of hitting inbound projectiles is well established. The Patriot missile batteries have been effective for nearly two decades. Similarly, anti-artillery technology is used to trace back artillery and mortar rounds to their point of launch. It is basic physics. - interval, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You have much longer then 30 seconds to hit the missile, considering the range of this laser (which as a previous poster noted, can cover all of N. Korea). But even if it was 30 seconds, considering the laser moves at the speed of light, you can try shooting it hundred of times in that 30 second window. A laser is much more accurate and precise then ground based kinetic interceptors.
Also, the US has successfully (on many occasions) hit missiles from the ground with a laser. Check out: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-00g.html and http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm
Finally, this is being built by civilians. The aircraft is by Boeing, the laser is by Northrop Grumman (formerly TRW) and the integration is Lockheed Martin. - tower31, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If this is true then how will our government attack the pentagon again successfully? Does this take out cruise missiles too?...........................................................
- socket, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No it's not. Air Force One has plenty of other anti-missile counter measures though. This is highly experimental technology for airborne use. It was only perfected on the ground a few year ago.
- tower31, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, we would need these lasers on cargo planes just to make sure....
- GooeyMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1747s with fricken laser beams.
sweet. - BlindIrishman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The sharks got lose after the hurricanes last season, remember?
- DanBa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This is really old News I agree Diggenerate, I was reading about this a year or more ago and watching Discovery channel show about it a year ago.
- cadpo76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm sorry spyyder, Austin Powers is in no way whatsoever obscure. I'm sorry, but thanks for playing.
Also, quasipalm, why would a WMD be shot at an airplane? It would be like shooting an anthill with a RPG. - interval, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The ABL program was started when a democrat was in office. Stop assuming republicans are responsible for all weapon programs.
- thewise1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Didn't I read about this in popular science in like.... 1985?
- Justice101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I wonder what would happen if a high intensity energy laser from the sky hit a person on the ground? Patriot Act part 2. Joe: Why are so many people disappearing from the democratic national convention?
Tod: I don't know.
Joe: Poof!!! - interval, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2No, the laser is so powerful it instantly incinerates any surface it hits (including mirrors, etc.)
- justin22290, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah this has been on the Discovery channel for moe than 3 years.. Was on a show called "Future Weapons" or something, which shwed the new taser guns police get know, too. But, i also know that they have these over Iraq because i saw it on the new.. I remember that because i was sayin "ZOMG i saw that on teh discovery channel 3 yrs ago!"
- sumgi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think the idea of lasers on planes goes back a ways...maybe five seconds after lasers were invented, or at least after the dept. of defense heard about them. Probably because it's really cool.
Boeing's page doesn't say much but it does mention that the contract was awarded in 1996.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/history.html
This guy has no credentials at all but he's Russian and his site's nifty.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/abl/overview.htm - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Don't ask, he might answer.
- Pentarix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I was waiting for that one.
- CorpusD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This has been out for at least 5 years. I had a briefing on this by a major at a science fiction convention. The biggest problem at that time was dealing with the waste byproduct of the chemical lasers they are using. Turns out its extremely toxic.
- telegraham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not solid state...COIL.
- boybunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Schwit. You have thought this through. We some of it. To have an effective kill you would need time to target ALL the missiles and decoy missiles. 747s are not agile. The power supply would be drained after a small number of launches, and if you launched from enough positions at the same time the 747 would have no chance. You forget the cooling you get when traveling at high altitude at high speed. Spin the rockets and you would have a LOT of trouble destroying any mirroring.
Now to the KILLER point. I personally will never fly in a Boeing plane ever again. Airbus for me only. You see, any launch of any missiles from either side and ALL 747s in within any range will be 100% military targets. Now not every one of these 747s will be shot out of the sky, but they will be shot at and the only 747s with military defense will be military "missile killers". The military 747's may not be shot out of the sky because of the defenses, but they become completely useless if they are "worried" enough by enemy planes and missiles. Fly directly toward a launching missile, which Americas enemy knows the "exact" location of, for long enough to get some sort of lock on the missile for a kill, and you are a sitting duck, in fact they could almost preprogram their SAMs or air to air missiles if they could do that on the fly.
The reality is that Boeing has made a pact with the devil and passengers on Boeing planes are now completely expendable. All for a bit of chest beating on Americas part, because in the REAL WORLD where real wars are fought, the system is critically flawed. - jksoccer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OK, so I didn't read into it far enough to notice that. But I wonder if they every figured out how they are going to get the laser at the right spot in time to explode the missile.
- JustMatt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3So did the last four guys who made that joke.
- diggenerate, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2this is really old news
- ntrsfrml, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1lol, thats true..this thing has been goin on for a long time now.. Anybody who watches Discovery Channel knows about these.. If you wanna know, Google Discovery Channel Top 10 Military Machines.
No digg, cus Poster lives in past. - smithfly114, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2This has been in development for about 10 years.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is