Weaponization Of Space

[wade]

Here, read about it yourself:

Another “really challenging area” is the so-called close-loop control of the laser, McCasland said. The beam has to project across hundreds of miles of space and focus on a small spot, less than 2 feet in diameter, for several seconds. “That much precision is a demanding thing,” he said.

...

According to McCasland, the SBL potentially could attack aircraft flying in the higher levels of the stratosphere. “We think the laser will penetrate into the very highest levels of the atmosphere,” he said.

That may or may not happen, said Wildt. The SBL laser wavelength is 2.7 microns, a wavelength that would be absorbed by water vapor in the atmosphere. “This laser does not penetrate the atmosphere well,” he said. “It’ll all be absorbed by the time you get to about 30,000 to 40,000 feet.”

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=513

As you can see, this system is not going to take out enemy missiles as they launch - they will be well above 40,000 feet and must be within a few hundred miles of the SBL platform.

These chemical reaction lasers produce megawatt power levels. For the kind of thing you are talking about, we need GIGAWATTS! This can only be provided by a large power station or a nuke.

Notice also that the test platform is to be 40,000 lbs, 33% bigger than the hubble, and the first space tests are at least 6 years away - which means likely deployment of such a system would start at least 12 years from now, best case. And the function of the unit is such that it can probably only fire a few times before using up its chemical store. This would depend on the durability of the lense/mirror system, and the amount of chemical fuel you put on the platform. IIRC the test laser on the Boeing jet can only fire a few times times per flight, and a 747 has a 500,000 lbs payload capacity.

Also see info on the Air Force Airborne Laser at:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

This application is much more in line with what you are talking about, but of course the plane must be in the right spot at the right time to kill a missile. And once the missile gets moving fast, it would be very hard to kill.

Wade.

 

[ajwps]

you work at the pentagon?

SATIRE DK.......

 

[ajwps]

Here, read about it yourself: As you can see, this system is not going to take out enemy missiles as they launch - they will be well above 40,000 feet and must be within a few hundred miles of the SBL platform. These chemical reaction lasers produce megawatt power levels. For the kind of thing you are talking about, we need GIGAWATTS! This can only be provided by a large power station or a nuke. Notice also that the test platform is to be 40,000 lbs, 33% bigger than the hubble, and the first space tests are at least 6 years away - which means likely deployment of such a system would start at least 12 years from now, best case. And the function of the unit is such that it can probably only fire a few times before using up its chemical store. This would depend on the durability of the lense/mirror system, and the amount of chemical fuel you put on the platform. IIRC the test laser on the Boeing jet can only fire a few times times per flight, and a 747 has a 500,000 lbs payload capacity.

Also see info on the Air Force Airborne Laser at:

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

This application is much more in line with what you are talking about, but of course the plane must be in the right spot at the right time to kill a missile. And once the missile gets moving fast, it would be very hard to kill.
Wade.

Wade do you really believe that highly classified US technology information is being disseminated to the public over the Internet? Even the little information I was able to overhear about a year or so ago was significantly different than what you have posted for public consumption.

For some reason I got the impression that some of the greatest physicists and scientists have been gathered together and given a carte blanch checkbook to develop these highly specialized weapon systems.

I can only relate it to the security surrounding the Los Alamos project during WW2. There is no way that I can personally guarantee that what I overheard is real but I was told by these scientists (I met in Los Angeles) that they could not advise me of anything.

The following is a sample of some old Internet information that hint about such G.O.D. technology.

The most powerful weapons utilized by the Earthforce are the Earthforce Arsenals AEGIS Heavy Particle G.O.D. cannons.

G.O.D. is the acronymous for Global Orbital Defence, because the first incarnations of this weapon, the Mk II and Mk III were conceived for the Global Orbital Defence Satellites, a powerful network of heavy satellites, placed around the Earth, and conceived early after the end of the Earth-Minbari War; the Mk I was an experimental model for the cannons of the satellites, while the MkIV, developed for the "battlemaster project", was the workbench for the shipborne family, that saw the service with the Warlock Heavy Destroyers.

http://efni.org/weapon.htm#WARLOCK

We can only hope that we are ready for any contigency.

 

[DKSuddeth]

SATIRE DK.......

I know, mine was a play on the FBI probe at the pentagon, Israeli spy, get it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hmmm.. in the 20th century we came to the brink of nuclear anihilation 3 times during the cold war with the Soviets. Now you think it is acceptable to enter a 3-way or 4-way arms race as we go into the 21st century?

Wade.

I wish it were up to me. The race will go on. What do you want us to do, all just accept the liberal bullcrap world order of the U.N. immediately?

You seeem so smart, but now you just sound like a lib on crack.

 

[ajwps]

I know, mine was a play on the FBI probe at the pentagon, Israeli spy, get it?

Yep I got it as well....

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Witness the weaponization of my asscrack. :nine:

 

[wade]

Wade do you really believe that highly classified US technology information is being disseminated to the public over the Internet? Even the little information I was able to overhear about a year or so ago was significantly different than what you have posted for public consumption.

For some reason I got the impression that some of the greatest physicists and scientists have been gathered together and given a carte blanch checkbook to develop these highly specialized weapon systems.

I can only relate it to the security surrounding the Los Alamos project during WW2. There is no way that I can personally guarantee that what I overheard is real but I was told by these scientists (I met in Los Angeles) that they could not advise me of anything.

The following is a sample of some old Internet information that hint about such G.O.D. technology.

http://efni.org/weapon.htm#WARLOCK

We can only hope that we are ready for any contigency.

Physics is Physics. No I do not think lasers beyond what are described in the sources I provided are being developed, or even can be developed. There are wavelength issues involved and there is a real power issue. I worked with some very powerful lasers for medical purposes, and in so doing had to become knowelgable about lasers and consult with several real experts. The only way a laser system could be made to reach further down through the atmosphere from space would be through a quantum leap in power generation technology, and if there was such a leap it would be used in many places other than obital laser systems first.

I have discussed these technologies with physicsts who have worked for defense contractors and one of my immeadiate co workers (my immeadiate superior) who'd been a head engineer at SLAC lab (Stanfords Hi E Accelerator). I had a need for targeting of similar accuracy to what you describe, though on a different scale (the cellular level), and it turned out they didn't have anything close because there is no technology that can actually utilize such targeting. For my purposes, range and diffusion were not a problem, but scanning time and target aquisition were.

Wade.

 

[wade]

I wish it were up to me. The race will go on. What do you want us to do, all just accept the liberal bullcrap world order of the U.N. immediately?

You seeem so smart, but now you just sound like a lib on crack.

If I'm in favor of exploring all options, not just the military option, I must be a "lib on crack" huh?

I think if we can keep offensive weapons out of space we should do so. Why? Because once such weapons move to space, it provides a short cut for the Chineese and others to gain some level of parity. Working from terrestrial platforms only is harder, so we can more easily maintain superiority.

We have a treaty in place banning both offensive and ABM systems in space. We should think very carefully before being the ones to break that treaty.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wade, you strike me as a well educated appeaser, but an appeaser nonetheless. Is this true?

 

[wade]

I don't believe so RWA. However, I believe sometimes there is a place for diplomacy and negotiation, as long as you get what you need out of it, and do not give up what you cannot give up.

You strike me as a right-wing hawk who believes the military solution is the only solution. Is this true?

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't believe so RWA. However, I believe sometimes there is a place for diplomacy and negotiation, as long as you get what you need out of it, and do not give up what you cannot give up.

You strike me as a right-wing hawk who believes the military solution is the only solution. Is this true?

Wade.

Diplomacy doesn't work on liars, and murderers. It just seems your many and varied points on why space based defense won't work are just a cover for an ideological, as opposed to technical, opposition.

You do seem to know a lot of stuff though. I'll give you that.

 

[ajwps]

You know Wade you surprise me. You have made a very remarkable absolute statement: "No I do not think lasers beyond what are described in the sources I provided are being developed, or even can be developed."

I love people using words like never, forever, or even can be and always. You have effectively said what the ancients said prior to the invention of the wheel or modern man said before knowledge of the energy within a simple atom. Do you really believe that no covert governmental program exists which is working on your seemingly impossible quantum leap in power generation technology? Do you think that the defense contractor physicists you talked with knew everything that is being developed as we speak?

Yes there would be many more practical applications to such power creation and generation technology but that does not preclude the fact that such solutions are being developed now. You might be surprised to learn that scanning time and target aquisition are not as unsolvable as you might think.

Is there really a limit to anything that exists now?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

If I'm in favor of exploring all options, not just the military option, I must be a "lib on crack" huh?

I think if we can keep offensive weapons out of space we should do so. Why? Because once such weapons move to space, it provides a short cut for the Chineese and others to gain some level of parity.

How, because they'll be able to study our stations with high powered telescopes and satellites. We'll wrap them in some sort of cloaking and jamming stuff I'm sure. I don't have the schematics, but give me a minute.

Working from terrestrial platforms only is harder, so we can more easily maintain superiority.

For both of us, right? Still parity.

We have a treaty in place banning both offensive and ABM systems in space. We should think very carefully before being the ones to break that treaty.

Wade.

No. We should break it now. The future of our world depends on it.

 

[wade]

You know Wade you surprise me. You have made a very remarkable absolute statement: "No I do not think lasers beyond what are described in the sources I provided are being developed, or even can be developed."

I love people using words like never, forever, or even can be and always. You have effectively said what the ancients said prior to the invention of the wheel or modern man said before knowledge of the energy within a simple atom. Do you really believe that no covert governmental program exists which is working on your seemingly impossible quantum leap in power generation technology? Do you think that the defense contractor physicists you talked with knew everything that is being developed as we speak?

Yes there would be many more practical applications to such power creation and generation technology but that does not preclude the fact that such solutions are being developed now. You might be surprised to learn that scanning time and target aquisition are not as unsolvable as you might think.

Is there really a limit to anything that exists now?

Read the articles I posted earlier. One of them explains the issues involved in creating coherant beams of light, and why at a given power level it is impossible to go beyond a certain point. Many things can be done, but the nature of light cannot be changed. The only way to get longer ranges than discussed would be to increase the power level by many orders of magnitude. It's physics, and it's well known physics.

Wade.

 

[ajwps]

Read the articles I posted earlier. One of them explains the issues involved in creating coherant beams of light, and why at a given power level it is impossible to go beyond a certain point. Many things can be done, but the nature of light cannot be changed. The only way to get longer ranges than discussed would be to increase the power level by many orders of magnitude. It's physics, and it's well known physics.

Wade.

Nice articles you posted. You use another one of my favorite words in the world of physics (IMPOSSIBLE).

Actually the nature of light can and has being experimentally changed. The Einstein-Poldalsky-Rosen Experiment (the EPR Experiment) has been described by several authors.

Herbert describes the situation of two quantum particles which are once together flying apart and being measured at two distant locations. There exists a connection between the particles such that the fact of an observation of particle A is relayed to the distant particle B, it such a manner that the communication, “does not diminish with distance, cannot be shielded, and travels faster than light.” The fact of the two particles once being together is sufficient to mingle the particles’ phases (“quantum phase entanglement”). This results in the effect being “non-local” (whereas all ordinary light-speed-limited forces are referred to as “local”).

Subsequently, Irish physicist John Stewart Bell showed that “all conceivable models of Reality must incorporate this instant connection.” Bell’s Theorem is a mathematical proof that reality must be non-local. This result is fundamentally important! Connective Physics, and the Mathematical Theory (i.e. the “proof”) behind The Fifth Element all point to the same conclusion: local reality cannot be isolated from the universe.

Another view of the EPR concept is to conceive of a pair of two particles traveling in opposite directions, and required by the Pauli Exclusion Principle to have opposite spins. (The Pauli Exclusion Principle may be considered to be absolutely essential to any viable theory of quantum mechanics, and in fact was the key link in which Einstein, et al hoped to disprove the quantum theory. It just didn’t work out too well -- the EPR Experiment has become a major supporting milestone for Quantum Physics.

When the spin of one particle is unilaterally changed, an astounding experimental result is that the second particle’s spin “immediately” flips of its own accord (and thus maintains the validity of the Pauli Exclusion Principle). Furthermore, the means by which the information of the first spin flip is transferred to the second particle (so that it too can flip) is information which is required to travel faster than the speed of light.

Your well known physics are being understood in ways never imagined before.

 

[ajwps]

Wade the following article is a declassified site detailing a mobile laser designed for the same purposes as you previously described. I suspect the technology that you find impossible is progressing somewhere.

Mobile / Tactical High Energy Laser
(M-THEL) Technology Demonstration Program
Developer: Northrop Grumman Corp.

The fixed-site version Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) THEL, was developed by TRW Inc. under a $89 million contract. During several tests in the USA, the system has shot down 25 Katyusha rockets, but has not been deployed.

The system also known as Nautilus, has not progressed much since the end of the demonstration program, since the lack of mobility and the fixed base limitations of the system made in insufficient to counter long range rockets currently employed by Hezbulla at the Israeli northern border with Lebanon. While Katyusha rockets had a range of 20 kilometers, and could hit only a few urban targets, the long range rockets have a range of 70 kilometers and can hit strategic facilities and large urban areas in the Haifa bay. A laser-based defense against such weapons must rely on more systems, which could be rapidly mobilized to protect a much larger area. Such design is currently being implemented under the MTHEL program. Similar threats could face US contingencies in other parts of the world. This requirement is driving the need for an air-mobile version of the beam weapon.

Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL)
A study completed in 2001 concluded that the rocket interceptor has "lots of promise" and further development should be pursued, primarily in enabling system's mobility. Mobility considerations for the future mobile systems include system mobility (road and off road capabilities) and air transportability, including the type of transport aircraft it should fit on (C-130, C-17 or C-5). Conclusions of these studies will define the necessary size- reduction technologies required for the future version.

Further studies of the system include the use of such laser beam weapons to provide "hard kill" defenses against artillery projectiles, UAVs and cruise missiles.

During a recent test conducted on Aug. 24, 2004 the system shot down multiple mortar rounds, demonstrating potential its battlefield application for to protection against common threats. The test represented actual mortar threat scenarios. Targets were intercepted by the THEL testbed and destroyed; both single mortar rounds and salvo were tested.





Above: Sequence of a rocket intercept demonstration by e THEL laser, September 2000. In these photos, THEL/ACTD laser spot focus on the warhead (top) of the 5 inch diameter rocket, and detonate it (center), thus effectively "neutralizing" the rocket. The gases emitted by the explosion create excessive drag which tears the fragmentation casing into several parts which continue on their ballistic trajectory. (bottom of image series) Inside right: THEL Radar and fire control system

THEL / MTHEL Operational Scenario
The Tactical High Energy Laser uses a high-energy, deuterium fluoride chemical laser to protect against attack by short range unguided (ballistic flying) rockets.

In a typical engagement scenario, a rocket is launched toward the defended area. Upon detection by the THEL fire control radar (image on right), the radar establishes trajectory information about the incoming rocket, then "hands off" the target to the pointer-tracker subsystem, which includes the beam director (top of page above). The PTS tracks the target optically, then begins a "fine tracking" process for THEL's beam director, which then places THEL's high-energy laser on target. The energy of the laser causes intense heating of the target, which causes its warhead to explode. The debris from the target falls quickly to the ground, far short of the defended area.

The purpose of the MTHEL program is to develop and test the first mobile Directed Energy weapon system capable of detecting, tracking, engaging, and defeating Rockets/Artillery/Mortars (RAM), cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles.

 

[Zhukov]

No because there is no coasting time required.

Once a typical ICBM ends it's powered ascent phase and begins to coast, it is traveling 15,000 mph, is 50 miles above the surface of the earth, and is about 25 minutes away from impact. No realistic amount of additional acceleration is going to propel a platform interceptor 35,000 more miles in the next half hour that it would take the standard ICBM to reach it's target. It would instantly have to be going 70,000 mph.

Cassini was cruising a few k below 70,000 mph. It took a 45 minute burn to reach that speed once it was already in orbit and going over 4,000 mph.

Smuggling bombs into the country is not an easy trick, there are lots of ways these can be seen by our equipment, and hiding them from that equipment requires large, conspicuous containers.

Diplomatic pouches would solve that problem nicely.

Yes, you pretty much do. That's the whole point of the design.

Individual missile silo operators do not have independent authority to fire. Without clearance they cannot fire at all.

But the contention was these could somehow destroy our nuclear subs, and that is incorrect.

Why? Are our bigger, slower, and louder ballistic missile submarines somehow impervious to the torpedos of smaller, faster, quieter boats?

If we made this the number one national priority, at the expense of everything else, we might be able to get such a thing going within 15 years. And then it would be another 10 after that before anything usable would come out of the setup.

You're just wrong. I've worked we these guys. I've read their papers. There are already organizations that have worked out the logistics to minute detail. It is in their estimation that a lunar base could be constructed with the first lunar crew arriving at an operational base eight years after funding was approved.

http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/koelle/lbq/LBQ2-01.pdf

No, it requires two fission reactions at oposing elipitical foci on either side of the fusable component, or it requires putting the fusable material inside a hollow dome of plutonium,

All thermonuclear weapons existing in the world today appear to be based on a scheme usually called the Teller-Ulam design

The Teller-Ulam fusion bomb described so far is called a two stage bomb. The fission trigger (the first stage) compresses the fusion capsule (the second stage). As powerful as the trigger is, there is a limit to how large a capsule it can compress in the brief time available. If a still bigger bomb is desired, then the explosion of the fusion secondary can be used to compress and explode a larger third stage. Each stage can be 10-100 times the size of the previous stage. The 50 Mt bomb mentioned above was a three stage weapon.

http://www.geocities.com/atlas_missile/warhead.html

The additional uranium needn't have a high density to be fissile. The neutrons created from the fusion explosion induce fission absent critical mass.

I was trying to state the minimum so I listed a uranium trigger because that would require the least weight of fissionable material.

A fusion warhead is a more devastating weapon than a fission warhead of the same weight. A pure fission warhead of equal power to any fusion warhead would be a heavier and larger warhead would it not? A pure fission warhead would have more plutonium in it than a fusion warhead of comparable power. Do you deny this? Or was I right when I said:

By using smaller but more powerful fusion devices with only fission triggers instead of pure fission devices, we can further reduce the amount of dangerous material that must be initially launched from Earth.

Thats all well and good, except there are no pure-fusion devices.

Not that we know of.

That'd require either a lot of orbital platforms containing a lot of nukes, or some very very huge nukes. Besides the idea is absurd. Any thrermonuclear war on that scale would end up killing us too

Are you reading anything I write? It's called a deterrent. The original statement I made was: even after we were destroyed we could fire back, and therefore the fear to attack would be too great. Of course it would destroy us, if there still was an us. In the worst case scenario that would require it's use, there would not be. The whole point is to demonstrate that there is no gain to attacking us.

or if you're willing to accept some return loss, bio-genetic weapons tailored to the population you wish to eliminate (I think these are doable but I'm not sure).

That, I would imagine, we already have at least plans for.

Umm... the space shuttle does not have any kind of ejection system. Too costly and deemed not likely to be effective anyway.

You know, this perplexes me. I was certain when I was watching the Challenger explode someone made a comment about possibly recovering the ejected cockpit module. After looking this up and finding we don't in fact have an ejectable cockpit, as you pointed out, I can't for the life of me fathom what the hell that man must have been talking about. Perhaps it was just ignorant wishful thinking. You learn something new everyday.

 

[Zhukov]

The main arguments against a space based weapons systems posited seem to be:

it's too hard.

it's too expensive.

it would take to long.

then they'd do it too.



Nothing is too hard to attempt.
Our safety has no price limit.
If it would take a long time, that is more an argument for haste than delay.
Let them try, we thrive on competition. It's what made this country great.

That's what all you libs said during the cold war.

Precisely what I was thinking. I swear it sounds as if he dragged that bit out of a 20 year-old protest pamphlet against Reagan putting Pershing missiles in West Germany. I can almost see that inflatable whale with the slogan "Save the Humans".

 

[wade]

Nice articles you posted. You use another one of my favorite words in the world of physics (IMPOSSIBLE).

Actually the nature of light can and has being experimentally changed. The Einstein-Poldalsky-Rosen Experiment (the EPR Experiment) has been described by several authors.

Herbert describes the situation of two quantum particles which are once together flying apart and being measured at two distant locations. There exists a connection between the particles such that the fact of an observation of particle A is relayed to the distant particle B, it such a manner that the communication, “does not diminish with distance, cannot be shielded, and travels faster than light.” The fact of the two particles once being together is sufficient to mingle the particles’ phases (“quantum phase entanglement”). This results in the effect being “non-local” (whereas all ordinary light-speed-limited forces are referred to as “local”).

Subsequently, Irish physicist John Stewart Bell showed that “all conceivable models of Reality must incorporate this instant connection.” Bell’s Theorem is a mathematical proof that reality must be non-local. This result is fundamentally important! Connective Physics, and the Mathematical Theory (i.e. the “proof”) behind The Fifth Element all point to the same conclusion: local reality cannot be isolated from the universe.

Another view of the EPR concept is to conceive of a pair of two particles traveling in opposite directions, and required by the Pauli Exclusion Principle to have opposite spins. (The Pauli Exclusion Principle may be considered to be absolutely essential to any viable theory of quantum mechanics, and in fact was the key link in which Einstein, et al hoped to disprove the quantum theory. It just didn’t work out too well -- the EPR Experiment has become a major supporting milestone for Quantum Physics.

When the spin of one particle is unilaterally changed, an astounding experimental result is that the second particle’s spin “immediately” flips of its own accord (and thus maintains the validity of the Pauli Exclusion Principle). Furthermore, the means by which the information of the first spin flip is transferred to the second particle (so that it too can flip) is information which is required to travel faster than the speed of light.

Your well known physics are being understood in ways never imagined before.

Yes I know the polarization connection theory, which I believe implies that there is only one particle of light. And this is still a theory, the experiment is quite possibly flawed. This is actually part of my theory of the universe and God, but that's another topic. If you want to get off topic into physics, I will explain why I believe there is only one particle in the universe, how I believe gravity works (there is only one force of gravity, and it pushes things away from one another rather than attracting them together), why there is no "dark matter" and the current "super-string" theory is bunk.

But, that is Quantum physics, and outside the realm of practical application. The fact is that under todays practical science, light has a wavelength and it is not possible to create truely coherant beams of light, and this is a limiting factor in lasers. Maybe some day things will change, but we are talking the probably talking the distant future. And if such change does take place in the near future the ramifications are so big that none of these issues we are discussing are meaningful anyway.

Wade.