Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: "J.W.Thomas" <cm5323@***.AC.UK>
Subject: Lasers
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 12:57:53 +0100
as a joke a while back, i mentioned firing lasers thru an
'invisable' wall , as an ambush...

I started thinking about this properly, and realised it would
work!
as R. Hayden pointed out, the high energy coherent light the
laser emits would be defracted by the spell, but i think it'd
only reduce the lasers power, not stop it...

SO.
The trick can only be done with PHYSICAL invisability spells, as
it has to actually BEND the light, not just make you think it
does...

The Lasers POWER is reduced to EQUAL to the invisabilitys FORCE.
(as a better spell causes less obvioius refraction)

CHOPPER
hehehehehehh!! more power
MORE POWER!!
Message no. 2
From: Kyle Monroe <mk0648@*********.EDU>
Subject: Lasers
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 20:33:19 -0600
Another thing that tends to cut down on the effectiveness of lasers:
Drop a bunch of smoke grenades. Problem solved.

Kyle Monroe
>>>Glitch<<<
Message no. 3
From: Adam Getchell <acgetche@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lasers
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 08:43:04 -0800
On Sun, 30 Oct 1994, Kyle Monroe wrote:

> Another thing that tends to cut down on the effectiveness of lasers:
> Drop a bunch of smoke grenades. Problem solved.

In a word: no.
The first lasers the U.S. Army tested was, I believe, the 10
kilowatt Alpha, mounted in an M-113. They quickly discovered one hangup
about battlefield lasers.
When the beam strikes the target, the energy tends to immediately
vaporize the surface it strikes. On armored vehicles, this is usually
some sort of metal or armor. This vaporized metallic armor is converted
by the laser into a high reflectance plasma, which then scatters the rest
of the beam. So no armor penetration.
The way this was solved was by using a low power IR laser, which
would then range and determine beam path irregularities and estimate
thermal bloom. The weapons laser would then be focussed to the necessary
target point, getting past the armor plasma and incidentally, reducing
dispersion and diffusion. This was a continous process, so active
focussing had to be developed.
Smoke and such things would be "focussed past" in a battlefield
laser, and only a specifically tailored aerosol with particles on the
order of the laser wavelength would be able to significantly interfere
with a battlefield laser. As to why FASA doesn't know this, well they
didn't work on lasers.

> Kyle Monroe

+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|Adam Getchell|acgetche@****.engr.ucdavis.edu | ez000270@*******.ucdavis.edu |
| acgetchell |"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent"|
+-------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Message no. 4
From: SCN User <bd042@***.ORG>
Subject: Lasers
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 23:53:08 -0700
BTW, did anyone come up with a ruling on the Imp.Inviz. vs.
Lasers question?
--(Stefan Hahn/A Student account is a terrible thing to lose)
(esp. when it's free)
Message no. 5
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Lasers
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 1995 20:34:17 +1000
SCN User writes:

> BTW, did anyone come up with a ruling on the Imp.Inviz. vs. Lasers
> question?

We decided that you were not immune to lasers, on the basis that an Improved
Invisibility spell did not "bend" light around you - since if it did, you
would be blind. Improved Invisibility must work on some MAGIC (undefined,
unknown) process, which effects vision/perception, but which would not
effect a laser weapon.

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 6
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: lasers
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:35:13 +0000
I watched Equinox on Channel 4 (UK) yesterday and it had a special
about lasers in combat. I there is going to be a second part next
week, if you can watch it is check it out, it's very interesting.

This time they payed most attention to airborne anti-missile lasers,
as in things that can really stop a scud missile, and in a stage
where the remains drop back on the launcher, which I found to have a
certain poetic justice. They are going to build them into 7 747-400
jets, so no fighters with lasers yet. The estimated effective range
of these lasers is pretty long, they intend to stay in friendly
airspace while zapping down those missiles (forgot exactly how far
it was).

Now the best part was that the have this special trick to bypass
athmospheric disturbance by using a flexible mirror that distorts in
a way to counteract those disturbances, therefore the long range of
the laser. A low power laser is used as a way to measure air
disturbance and feed the info into a computer that controls hundreds
of little motors that in their turn flex the mirror. The techology
was first used in a telescope and worked so well that the militairy
thought of another way to use it.

for more info check out:
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/abl/

don't you just love it when real life catches up with SR tech? :)

Martin,
(The Trivia Buff <strikes again!/ha:ha:ha>)
Message no. 7
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 13:50:14 +0100
And verily, did Martin Steffens hastily scribble thusly...
|
|I watched Equinox on Channel 4 (UK) yesterday and it had a special
|about lasers in combat. I there is going to be a second part next
|week, if you can watch it is check it out, it's very interesting.

Yup. Recorded it last night, watched it this morning.
Not a bad programme, but not as good as the equinoxes from the early years.
(The '80s).

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 8
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1998 20:49:10 -0700
>This time they payed most attention to airborne anti-missile lasers,
>as in things that can really stop a scud missile, and in a stage
>where the remains drop back on the launcher, which I found to have a
>certain poetic justice. They are going to build them into 7 747-400
>jets, so no fighters with lasers yet. The estimated effective range
>of these lasers is pretty long, they intend to stay in friendly
>airspace while zapping down those missiles (forgot exactly how far
>it was).

The problem is that it takes about 2 megajoules per square centimeter to
vaporize steel. This means that there are two simple tricks to disable a
laser's effectiveness:

1. Spin the missile
2. Give it a reflective surface

The current highest efficiency laser is C02 (other lasers typically have
less than 1% efficiency) which has a well-known output at 540 nm.

"Long range" is a relative term. Regardless of the use of adaptive optics,
you are still subject to the inverse square law of radiation which means
you need a lot of wattage to put those megajoules on that missile's
surface. Also, your focussing optics mean that you've dispersed the beam by
a good half meter or so at distances of hundreds of kilometers, which kills
your energy density.

There's a lot of work to do, trust me. Kinetic energy still remains the
best way to hard-kill a missile.

>Martin,



************************
* Adam Getchell
* Human Resources Information Systems
* acgetchell@*******.edu
* http://hr.ucdavis.edu/
* (530)752-1584 FAX (530)752-1289
***********************
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 9
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 10:44:47 +0000
and thus did Adam Getchell speak on 8 Aug 98 at 20:49:

> The problem is that it takes about 2 megajoules per square centimeter to
> vaporize steel. This means that there are two simple tricks to disable a
> laser's effectiveness:
>
> 1. Spin the missile
> 2. Give it a reflective surface

So basically what you're saying is that US militairy research is
waisting tens of years to create something that can be countered with
ease? I'm not slagging you or something, but it seems to me a bit
weird that they might have overlooked something as simple as that.

> The current highest efficiency laser is C02 (other lasers typically have
> less than 1% efficiency) which has a well-known output at 540 nm.

According to their website the laser used is oxygen iodine. Trying to
find any hard numbers is kinda difficult since it's classified data
:).
The laser used in the previous airborne laser unit was deuterium
fluoride.

> "Long range" is a relative term. Regardless of the use of adaptive optics,
> you are still subject to the inverse square law of radiation which means
> you need a lot of wattage to put those megajoules on that missile's
> surface. Also, your focussing optics mean that you've dispersed the beam by
> a good half meter or so at distances of hundreds of kilometers, which kills
> your energy density.

The effective range in test has been 50km, and AFAIK that's going to
be the operative range too.

> There's a lot of work to do, trust me. Kinetic energy still remains the
> best way to hard-kill a missile.

Yeah well, I didn't say it was finished and ready to go, 2007 is the
date for the first 747-400 to be outfitted with this system.
And kinetic energy doesn't seem to be doing such a good job,
according to the militairy guys, that's one of the reasons why this
project got its funding.
And TRW is already in the testing stages with a vehicle-mounted anti-
missile laser.

Karina & Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie
Message no. 10
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 13:35:56 +0100
And verily, did Adam Getchell hastily scribble thusly...
|The current highest efficiency laser is C02 (other lasers typically have
|less than 1% efficiency) which has a well-known output at 540 nm.

I think you're wrong there...
There was a programme on Channel 4 called equinox last week about military
lasers, and instead of relying on a purely electo-magnetic reaction (shining
light into the tube to stimulate coherent photon emission), or electrical
reaction (stimulating the gas electrically like in flourescent bulbs), this
one used a really violent chemical reaction to generate the radiant energy.
(Iodine and Hydrogen, I think).

Added to that the new bendy mirrir technology to compensate for atmospheric
distortion of the beam, and they think they'll be able to destroy missiles
just after launch from over 100 miles away.

(And as the pulse is VERY short, causing the missile to spin wouldn't help
to distribute the energy safely. I doubt they'd be able to put on a good
enough reflective surface either.)

|"Long range" is a relative term. Regardless of the use of adaptive optics,
|you are still subject to the inverse square law of radiation which means
|you need a lot of wattage to put those megajoules on that missile's
|surface. Also, your focussing optics mean that you've dispersed the beam by
|a good half meter or so at distances of hundreds of kilometers, which kills
|your energy density.

Not any more, apparently.

|There's a lot of work to do, trust me. Kinetic energy still remains the
|best way to hard-kill a missile.

At the moment, possible, but the "death ray" would appear to be very close.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 11
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 13:48:25 +0100
And verily, did Spike hastily scribble thusly...
|reaction (stimulating the gas electrically like in flourescent bulbs), this
|one used a really violent chemical reaction to generate the radiant energy.
|(Iodine and Hydrogen, I think).

Or Oxygen... It might have been oxygen, but from what I remember from
Chemistry at school, the halogens like Hydrogen a *lot* more than oxygen.
(Just look at the Hyrogen/chlorine reaction)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 12
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 07:24:41 -0700
>So basically what you're saying is that US militairy research is
>waisting tens of years to create something that can be countered with
>ease? I'm not slagging you or something, but it seems to me a bit
>weird that they might have overlooked something as simple as that.

Ah, welcome to the wild world of defense funding. Notice that they said the
current system has passed "previous milestones". This usually means that
the system has proven capable of passing certain, limited tests and is
ready for further development. The ABL project is probably at the point
where it can target a missile and perhaps even mission-kill it. These
further considerations will be given later.

If they've managed to solve the pulse problem, then can eliminate the spin
issue. The reflective surface may be more problematic. Of course, no one
has deployed Scuds with reflective surfaces, so they're in the clear so far.

>According to their website the laser used is oxygen iodine. Trying to
>find any hard numbers is kinda difficult since it's classified data
>:).

It's probably a chemical laser, meaning they're generating it with
something akin to jet fuel.

>The laser used in the previous airborne laser unit was deuterium
>fluoride.

Ah ... which would not be.

>The effective range in test has been 50km, and AFAIK that's going to
>be the operative range too.

Ah, well 50 km is not terribly long range in today's environment. An
AIM-54C Phoenix missile has an effective range of over 100 miles, and it's
carried on an F-14.

>And kinetic energy doesn't seem to be doing such a good job,
>according to the militairy guys, that's one of the reasons why this
>project got its funding.

I wouldn't bet on that. It's probably just a competing program. I worked
with Aerojet on the rocket nozzles for an exoatmospheric interceptor in
1995.

>And TRW is already in the testing stages with a vehicle-mounted anti-
>missile laser.

A much easier problem than the ballistic missile problem. ATGM's are much
slower.

>Karina & Martin Steffens
>chimerae@***.ie

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 13
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 07:36:19 -0700
>And verily, did Adam Getchell hastily scribble thusly...

>I think you're wrong there...
>There was a programme on Channel 4 called equinox last week about military
>lasers, and instead of relying on a purely electo-magnetic reaction (shining
>light into the tube to stimulate coherent photon emission), or electrical
>reaction (stimulating the gas electrically like in flourescent bulbs), this
>one used a really violent chemical reaction to generate the radiant energy.
>(Iodine and Hydrogen, I think).

That doesn't make it high efficiency. A good CO2 laser can convert 20-35%
of its input energy into emitted light. The chemical lasers (which I
mentioned in my last post) simply have more energy to waste.

>Added to that the new bendy mirrir technology to compensate for atmospheric
>distortion of the beam, and they think they'll be able to destroy missiles
>just after launch from over 100 miles away.

They're working on 50 km right now. A laser with triple that range will
need 9 times the power.

>(And as the pulse is VERY short, causing the missile to spin wouldn't help
>to distribute the energy safely. I doubt they'd be able to put on a good
>enough reflective surface either.)

I mentioned that too. The pulse problem comes from the fact that as a laser
encounters a metallic surface, it vaporizes the metal thus creating a
plasma. This plasma is extremely absorbtive and usually absorbs the
remaining incoming energy, unfortunately dispersing it away from the
target. This effect is extremely rapid, and simply increasing the energy
density ups the rate of plasma creation.

A "good" reflective surface will reflect 95% of the incoming light. That
drastically reduces the energy flux on the target. Even an "average"
reflective surface (brightened and polished steel, for example) will
reflect 50% of incident radiation. This simple countermeasure forces the
laser to quadruple its input to get the necessary 2 Mj/cm2 onto the target.
In military terms, it cuts your effective range by a factor of 4.

>At the moment, possible, but the "death ray" would appear to be very close.

Well, it would be definitely doable by 2060. Lasers and other energy
weapons would probably be fairly common, in the military, and may have
trickled down to the civilian market by then.

>|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 14
From: Pete Wilson <piatro@**********.COM>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 09:04:34 -0600
Karina & (or) Martin Steffens responded:

>and thus did Adam Getchell speak on 8 Aug 98 at 20:49:
>
>> The problem is that it takes about 2 megajoules per square centimeter to
>> vaporize steel. This means that there are two simple tricks to disable a
>> laser's effectiveness:
>>
>> 1. Spin the missile
>> 2. Give it a reflective surface
>
>So basically what you're saying is that US militairy research is
>waisting tens of years to create something that can be countered with
>ease? I'm not slagging you or something, but it seems to me a bit
>weird that they might have overlooked something as simple as that.
>

Spinning rockets are much harder to controll. Sure bullets are given a
spin to aid in stability and accuracy, but they don't have an built in
guidance system.

>>> There's a lot of work to do, trust me. Kinetic energy still remains the
>> best way to hard-kill a missile.
>
>Yeah well, I didn't say it was finished and ready to go, 2007 is the
>date for the first 747-400 to be outfitted with this system.
>And kinetic energy doesn't seem to be doing such a good job,
>according to the militairy guys, that's one of the reasons why this
>project got its funding.

The problem with a kinetic solution is time. Both types of systems have to
detect an incoming missile analyze its path and target it. At this point a
laser hits the target at the speed of light. The kinetic energy system has
to get something physically into the flight path of the missile. If the
missile is detected far enough away then yes a kinetic energy system would
be more efficient, but this is not always the case so the military needs
defenses that are quicker and more flexible.

Piatro
Message no. 15
From: Robert Watkins <robert.watkins@******.COM>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:57:42 +1000
Spike writes:
> Added to that the new bendy mirrir technology to compensate for
> atmospheric
> distortion of the beam, and they think they'll be able to destroy missiles
> just after launch from over 100 miles away.
>
> (And as the pulse is VERY short, causing the missile to spin wouldn't help
> to distribute the energy safely. I doubt they'd be able to put on a good
> enough reflective surface either.)

What's to stop them coating the missile surface with the same reflective
material used by the adaptive optics mirrors? If it's good enough to focus
the beam in the first place, it'll be good enough to scatter it...

(The cost, I guess... but surely an adequate substitute could be found.
After all, few things are more expensive than something that doesn't work)

And as for that 50km range... isn't that kind of short? Heck, even if I
couldn't protect the missile to avoid being shot down, I'd just lob it in a
trajectory (or program in a path for cruise missiles) that avoided your
100km wide circle of death.

--
.sig deleted to conserve electrons. robert.watkins@******.com
Message no. 16
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:24:04 +0100
And verily, did Robert Watkins hastily scribble thusly...
|What's to stop them coating the missile surface with the same reflective
|material used by the adaptive optics mirrors? If it's good enough to focus
|the beam in the first place, it'll be good enough to scatter it...

Well, for one thing, from the way I understand it, mirrors used to reflect
the laser light have to be as near to perfect as is absolutely possible.
single scratch on the mirror could absorbe enough energy from the laser to
seriously damage the mirror.

The part of the missile being targetted by these lasers is the bottom end
near the rocket engine casing, and keeping that bit perfectly mirrored
during launch would be impossible.

|(The cost, I guess... but surely an adequate substitute could be found.
|After all, few things are more expensive than something that doesn't work)
|
|And as for that 50km range... isn't that kind of short? Heck, even if I
|couldn't protect the missile to avoid being shot down, I'd just lob it in a
|trajectory (or program in a path for cruise missiles) that avoided your
|100km wide circle of death.

Not all that easy. The laser is going to be mounted in a 747 400 at high
altitude, and the plane is going to be flying a few 100 miles away.
50km is only the prototype range. When (if) that works, they'll be given the
go-ahead for the real thing with a few 100 miles range.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| Finalist in:- |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
Message no. 17
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 08:42:24 -0700
>The part of the missile being targetted by these lasers is the bottom end
>near the rocket engine casing, and keeping that bit perfectly mirrored
>during launch would be impossible.

It doesn't have to be perfectly mirrored. Even a 50% mirror is going to
reduce the energy input by 50% ... you can do that with a good polish.
Remember, the critical number is 2 megajoules per square centimeter if you
want to vaporize steel. Some rocket nozzles are titanium or carbon
composites, which would actually be much tougher ...

Also, given the advent of Ring Laser Gyroscopes spinning a rocket will have
negligible effect on accuracy. It is a simple matter of adjusting the
venturi on the nozzles.

>Not all that easy. The laser is going to be mounted in a 747 400 at high
>altitude, and the plane is going to be flying a few 100 miles away.
>50km is only the prototype range. When (if) that works, they'll be given the
>go-ahead for the real thing with a few 100 miles range.

If you quadruple the range you need to multiply the power input by 16; then
I don't think it will fit on a 747-400 anymore. If it does, you won't have
as many shots (since the laser will be expending fuel, being a chemical
laser).

It is worth pursuing, but it is not going to be reliable for quite awhile yet.

>|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
]
--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 18
From: Adam Getchell <acgetchell@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:05:27 -0700
>Karina & (or) Martin Steffens responded:
>Spinning rockets are much harder to controll. Sure bullets are given a
>spin to aid in stability and accuracy, but they don't have an built in
>guidance system.

Not really. Ring Laser Gyros would compensate fine.

An example 1980's technology IRBM, the Soviet SS-18, has a range of about
1250 miles. Held back in silos behind, a system with a laser range of 50 or
even 150 kilometers is not going to be able to target the missile during
boost phase.

With a RLG, GPS, and inertial sensors there won't be a midcourse correction
phase. In ballistic phase, when the missile is homing on target it can be
spun without regard to loss of accuracy as it's already ballistically on
course. This is the time when an airborn 747 laser system has a chance at
targetting.

Even SCUD missiles can be modified to have ranges of 500 miles or more,
keeping them safe from boost phase interception (unless you want to go back
to using Star Wars).

>The problem with a kinetic solution is time. Both types of systems have to
>detect an incoming missile analyze its path and target it. At this point a
>laser hits the target at the speed of light. The kinetic energy system has
>to get something physically into the flight path of the missile. If the
>missile is detected far enough away then yes a kinetic energy system would
>be more efficient, but this is not always the case so the military needs
>defenses that are quicker and more flexible.

Certainly. At this point, however, a kinetic kill weapon offers a higher
kill probability.

>Piatro

--Adam

acgetchell@*******.edu
"Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability in the opponent." --Sun Tzu
Message no. 19
From: Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject: Re: lasers
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:01:39 +0000
and thus did Adam Getchell speak on 10 Aug 98 at 9:05:

> >Karina & (or) Martin Steffens responded:
> >Spinning rockets are much harder to controll. Sure bullets are given a
> >spin to aid in stability and accuracy, but they don't have an built in
> >guidance system.

Heh? That wasn't me who said that. I pulled out of the discussion
when it turned the way of the solar cel.

I'm more interested in applying some of those prototype ideas in a SR
anti-missile laser system. And beefing up lasers in general by
allowing concentrated fire, extending the range quite a bit and
lessening the athmospheric effect. When I finally get R2 that is....


Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about lasers, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!