Factory Testing of Airborne Laser Cannon Completed 568
Acid-F1ux writes "Lockheed Martin has completed factory testing of the optical benches for the Airborne Laser's Beam Control/Fire Control (BC/FC) system. The Airborne Laser (ABL) is the first megawatt-class laser weapon system to be carried on a specially configured 747-400F aircraft, designed to autonomously detect, track and destroy hostile ballistic missiles."
747-400F (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Funny)
Besides... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, I dunno...
Frickin' Sharks.
Size you muppet. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Informative)
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Informative)
I imagine they would combine the laser with surveillance and detection functions such as AWACS or Joint STARS. In those cases it would not be such a strange idea to have one on CAP (Continuous Air Presence) over certain theatres of operation. But to defend all of the US with these would be a bit impractical.
Which leads to the question: what other stuff could they zap with this? Ground-based launchers? Enemy fighter aircraft? SAMs? Or is this thing only good against ballistic weapons?
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Interesting)
Enemy fuel supplies.
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Funny)
Re:747-400F (Score:2)
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Insightful)
And something we have habitually done. Look into the Strategic Air Command, or just watch Dr. Strangelove.
KFG
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Informative)
Re:747-400F (Score:4, Informative)
You mean like the height of the Cold War when bombers with hydrogen bombs where kept airborne around the clock?
"Throughout the Cold War there were times when tension nearly escalated to nuclear war. The most dramatic was in June 1962 when a U-2 spy plane photographed Soviet missile bases being built on Cuba, 90 miles (145 kilometers) off the coast of Florida. For 14 tense days, the world feared nuclear war would begin. Finally, in the words of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, "the Soviets blinked" and removed the missiles. Khrushchev noted that the nuclear threat, especially the fact that "20 percent of all Strategic Air Command planes, carrying atomic and hydrogen bombs, were kept aloft around the clock," had been a major part of the withdrawal decision." more [centennialofflight.gov]
Re:747-400F (Score:4, Informative)
In this case the lasers are multiple megawatt and last time I checked the military was using chemical lasers to yield that kind of output. So it's likely a limited number of shots, and an entire 747 is taken over for the purpose.
The laser probably wouldn't work from space, the more atmosphere you have to send it through, the weaker your laser is going to be when it gets where it's going. I'd guess the plane is going to be relatively close to the target.
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Interesting)
To protect a plane, you don't need to destroy the missle. It just has to miss. When the missle is detected, a relatively low power laser can disable the seeker head on an IR missle.
Remember the two El Al jets that were fired upon in Kenya? They were both equipped with this system. There is consideration that this system might be installed in American jets. It's automatic, and the pilot doesn't need to know if it's decoyed missl
Re:747-400F (Score:4, Informative)
The reason the 747 even has that bubble, is because the 747 was orginally going to be a cargo-only plane and the nose-cone [boeing.com] on freighter versions of 747's flip up so you can slide big cargo straight onboard.
My understanding is that the "Laser" (insert Dr. Evil reference) is big enough that there wouldn't be much room for people. The hatch for the beam is on top just behind the bubble. This is a great angle to hit inbound ICBM comming from above the aircraft, but a lousy angle to catch SAM rockets from below it.
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Informative)
Er, no. The beam exit is from a steerable turret on the nose of the aircraft, and can cover almost the entire hemisphere in front. Note the nifty animation on it's home page [airbornelaser.com]. ;-)
Also, it is not designed to destroy "inbound ICBMs", it is designed to go after boost phase missiles just after launch. They are easiest to see then, moving relatively slowly, under stress, can't launch decoys AND the debris (including warheads) falls on the launching party's territory. That's the theory anyhow...
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhmm... NO. In this case, they are working towards the next war, the rogue nation with a highly limited number of fairly crude ballistic missiles. Our experience during the cold war proved that while the consequences of major nuclear war are very high, the probability is rather low. The exact opposite is true of the rogue nation/terrorist group scenario.
Re:747-400F (Score:4, Insightful)
So, should we continue down the path of no missle defense system at all? No.
It seems to me that this system is the most versatile & effective thing anyone has come up with so far. Since the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction requires a proactive approach (defense & offense) we had better get on the horse and start developing defenses such as this.
One of governments primary responsibilities is protection of the people. Even if spending 500 billion on this only saves one city, it's worth it. Plus, there is a deterrent factor there for those nations with only a couple of shots. With a system in place, they can't be sure if they will successfully strike or not. If they don't, they're doubly screwed.
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Eventually rogue nations will begin acquiring (either by purchasing or developing) ballistic missles capable of hitting the U.S. or our allies. Eventually someone will try to use them.
Yeah, because rogue nations are suicidal.
My major concern is that some terror group (you know, those guys that hate us and are willing to die for their cause) gets ahold of a warhead and drives it someplace interesting. Not sure how a missile defense shield would help that.
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not that they sucidial - it's that the leaders are not rational. It is very difficult to reason with someone that doesn't not percieve the world in the same way that you do. North Korea is a very good example of this at work.
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually leaders of nation-states usually are rational even if they want you think otherwise. The leader has something to lose -- the terrorist has nothing to lose. For all of North Korea's bluster have they launched any ICBMs at the South, Japan, or Hawaii? Kim knows if he doe
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's not an obsolete notion. What nation with 100 warheads are we going to war with
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Funny)
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Informative)
I call bullshit. Here's why.
Missiles are expensive. Missiles that can hit a target across thousands of miles are even more expensive. Those aren't expensive because they're costly to manufacture, they are expensive because they are costly to develop. Consequently any state that has ICBMs capable of striking the United States is likely to have a lot of them. Similarly the warhead on an ICBM is a fair bit more advanced than your rudimentary WOMD, largely because it has been miniaturized to allow it to fit in an area about the size of a four drawer filing cabinet.
If anyone is going to attack the US with missiles, they are going to do it with a lot of missiles, not a few that they purchased. It is easier to deploy a small number of warheads with stealth than with missiles. Large numbers of warheads require missiles.
So what is the system for then? If it can't knock down a large volley of missiles and we can't expect these "rogue nations" we keep hearing about to attack with ballistic missiles what is the system for?
The answer is simple really; it defends against a second strike. It is an order of magnitude more expensive to make weapons designed for second-strike capability: that is to say, weapons that will survive the first portion of a nuclear exchange. These second strike weapons are what creates the concept of deterrence. If China launches on us today, the nuclear subs and some of the hardened silos will survive, which will be enough to reduce China to a smoking crater. Thus China doesn't launch.
Now take this from the Chinese perspective. Much like the former Soviet Union, China's nuclear weapons follow a first strike doctrine. China's weapons are, for the most part, un-hardened, land based, fixed sites. The result is that China's nuclear doctrine is fixated on striking first (which is fairly destabilizing). If someone else strikes China first, China has very few missiles left with which to retaliate. And this system is designed to stop a very few missiles.
In other words, missile defense systems are now, and have always been designed to prevent the United States from suffering the consequences of escalating a conventional conflict to a nuclear one.
This in turn made a lot of sense in the cold war. Since nuclear deterrence is based on the infamous 3 Cs (Capability, Credibility, and Communication) and the ABM programs made our Credibility stronger (with these systems we were more likely to use nukes when we said we would) the ABM system would have made our bargaining position with the Soviets stronger.
However, today there is no Cold War. China has, for the most part, decided that we're not worth pissing off, and no other antagonistic force has a sufficient quantity of nuclear weapons to bother challenging the US in a conflict in which ballistic missiles are likely to be used. ABM today is little more than graft, and ill-conceived graft at that. The system makes the US less likely to consider the horrific consequences of using a nuclear weapon in a tactical situation (much like the proposals by the Bush administration to use nukes in the caves of Afghanistan).
In short, every argument you make above is incorrect. Aircraft mounted ABM is ineffective because you can only hit during launch, and that requires being over a country pissed enough to launch nuclear weapons at you. Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction does not imply the proliferation of the technology necessary to make those weapons strategically deployable. And 500 billion, while a bargain to save a city, won't do so because anyone with 20 or fewer weapons is far more likely to put a bomb on a boat and sail it to NYC than they are to put it on a missile at about a thousand times the price.
Finally, the deterrent factor doesn't exist. Until someone works out a way to eliminate (or hell, even FIND) Ohio class (or the soon to be deployed Virginia class) ballistic missile subs at sea, our deterrent is very, very, very safe.
ABM is a bad idea. It makes a nuclear exchange more likely, and that is bad for everyone.
Re:747-400F (Score:5, Insightful)
The consequences for a so-called rogue nation are actually higher than they would be for a classic cold war confrontation. There would be no reason for the US to not respond in full force because the "rogue nation" will have shot its wad with the first salvo.
The scenario you posit requires a leader of a nation to be so completely irrational as to initiate an action that guarantees the complete and total destruction of their entire country. There is absolutely no evidence that any leader in the world is this irrational. Individuals like Hussein, Qaddafi, Il Jong or Castro may be vicious, sociopathic, megalomaniacal killers but they have never shown an indifference to their personal self-preservation.
Backtracking a ballistic missile launch to its source is now a trivial exercise. The US response would be overwhelming and final. Nothing would remain of the "rogue country" except blast glass.
On the other hand, smuggling a nuclear bomb into the US in a shipping container, for example, leaves no mathematically certain way to track it to its source. It's also much cheaper and simpler. This is the real threat from terrorists or "rogue nations." And it is a threat for which we are woefully unprepared.
One of the many reasons I think the Bush Administration is dangerous is the continued insistence on missile defense at the expense of defending the sort of threats that have already killed thousands of Americans. A few tens of millions of dollars could allow the installation of radiation detectors for every point of entry for Manhattan (it's sometimes good to be an island) and most of New York City. Instead we'll waste billions defending a threat that doesn't exist. This is irrational. Faith-based defensed is insane.
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, so here's what someone does. They take their homemade Nuclear Fission Bomb, goto the radioation detectors (assuming it isn't shielded enough and is actually detected), wait till they set the alarms off and blow the bomb. GOOD BYE a chunk of New York New York. HELLO blast crater. You'd have to setup the detectors at a distance far enough to intercept the bombs without endange
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were a rogue nation or terrorist group, why the hell would I go through all the trouble of developing balistic missiles when I would probably stand a better chance of developing a more covert weapon delivery system.
Balistic missile tests get noticed, much like nuclear tests get noticed. If I were planning to attack the US or Europe with WMD, I'd imagine I'd have a muc
Re:747-400F (Score:2)
Re:747-400F (Score:2)
Then when a little cessna flew into the white house - everyone realized how dangerous such assumptions are...
It's well publicized that AF1 has the same anti-missile defense systems as an older fighter plane, but AF1 is old. It's upgraded occasionally, but I wouldn't bet on assuming that there is any large scale new technology on board.
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Funny)
Works for me!
Re:747-400F (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmmm - coincidence? I think not... (Score:5, Funny)
and in other news..
Reuters reports that the gyroscope that keeps the international space station stable and in the right position stopped working, just hours after a new two-man crew moved in for a half-year stay.
Someone in Lockheed Martin's Black Ops department is rubbing their hands together gleefully right now!
Re:Hmmmm - coincidence? I think not... (Score:2, Funny)
Child:"What's this button do Daddy??"
Dad:"NOOOO!!!!!"
Child: Oooh pretty lights!!!
Spacestation: Houston, we have a problem.
Re:Hmmmm - coincidence? I think not... (Score:5, Funny)
"Well it's finished...now what."
"Well, we need a target to test it on, something small and hard to hit."
"Hey - bet you couldn't hit the ISS from here..."
Kent... this is Jesus (Score:5, Funny)
Hmmm... I thought they were going to use a five megawatt system on a B-1B [imdb.com].
Not that impressive really .... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Not that impressive really .... (Score:2, Funny)
> Call me when they manage to strap the fricking thing to a shark
You could strap a shark to the bottom of the airplane...
Early problems (Score:3, Funny)
Real Genius (Score:2, Funny)
Real Genius? (Score:2)
Hmmm.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:2, Funny)
Autonomous? (Score:3, Interesting)
Either way, brace yourselves for a thousand Terminator/Robotic master references.
It is REALLY just for communications (Score:2)
More Info? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone know whther this is the same thing?
It seems kind of useless if you need that much raw material, you'd only get one shot per plane.
Re:More Info? (Score:3, Informative)
I guess it's a chemical laser, and probably uses things like flourine gas (nasty nasty nasty, but very energetic). You can read some info about these kinds of things here [fas.org]
This [spie.org] old report from 1999 actually suggests it uses some other strong oxidisers like hydrogen peroxide and halogens - chlorine and iodine.
Basically you don't want to be breathing these things in, but you there's a lot of energy available in their reactions.
I seen this in Popular Science (Score:5, Interesting)
So, will this technology make the fighter jet obsolete? I mean, you can't very well out-maneuver a laser. Which means that bombers will have laser weapons on the front, back, top, bottom and sides. Kind of like back in WWII when bombers had machine guns all over the place.
This certainly changes everything.
Re:I seen this in Popular Science (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably useless (Score:2)
I suspect that the range must be short (few hundred milles at most).So it may be used only for targeting stuff in small countries (as flying a 747 over an hostile country is a recipe for disaster).
You also need to have a 747 fly for 24hrs a day (this can be managed with several plane but it will surely cost a bundle) Now how many planes will you nee
Re:Probably useless (Score:3, Informative)
I work in the optics field and there was a feature on the ABL in a recent magazine that I get (Optics and Laser Europe).
There are actually a number of lasers involved in the whole system:
CO_2 lasers are usually operated at 10.6m wavelength, which is absorbed fairly strongly by water in the atmosph
Re:Probably useless (Score:3)
Subsequent press release (Score:4, Funny)
Lockheed's shares closed at one hundred million dollars...
Do they have "friendly missile detectors"? (Score:2, Insightful)
does it leave the friendly ballistic missiles alone?
Has anyone contacted Alan Parsons about this? (Score:2)
(hey, minime, stop humping the laser!)
Just an idea (Score:4, Funny)
1541 Glenfidditch Avenue, Apt 101
Montreal, Quebec
Lat: 45.5092
Long: -73.5539
Mr. Jason Baumgarinagger
He plays his stereo too loud at inappropriate times.
Mirrors? (Score:4, Interesting)
That shouldn't be too difficult to do... heck, I was silvering mirrors in highschool chemistry class.
Re:Mirrors? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mirrors? (Score:5, Informative)
That shouldn't be too difficult to do... heck, I was silvering mirrors in highschool chemistry class.
Well this laser is probably a COIL (chemical oxygen iodine laser), the military's favorite for laser weapons systems these days... COILs operate at a frequency of 1.315 micrometers... which is in the mid infrared band, for those that don't know... most mirrors (and substances) are opaque at this frequency; most of the light on this band is from blackbody radiation... here's an excellent primer on infrared transparency and absorbency... [rumford.com]
You can make a dichroic mirror that reflects that wavelength, but the expense of coating a missle with it may be a couple orders of magnitude greater than the cost of the missle itself.
Here [cuaerospace.com] is a study of cutting different aerospace materials with a COIL. With a 6kW laser, they acheived a cut rate of
So if you added a mirror to a missile, and this laser is 1MW with comparable focusing capabilities as that used in the above study, assume that it's pulse duration is somewhere in the neighborhood of a tenth of a second, and that the missile is covered with quarter-inch thick stainless steel (unlikely due to weight), and that you have to cut through 10 centimeters of the missile before you affect it's circuitry enough to guarantee non-operation, your mirror would have to be 96.5% efficient in order to work. Mirrors in the near infrared band are typically 80% - 90% efficient using exotic glass chemistries and aluminum front surfaces... this mirror in the mid infrared band would have to be significantly more efficient with far more difficult manufacturing techniques...
Re:Mirrors? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mirrors? (Score:3, Interesting)
And, at 1 MW, this thing will punch a hole in a cloud without blinking...
Reading between the lines . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Reading between the lines: This could imply that:
A less than megawatt laser system may already be mounted and in use on the 747-400F.
A megawatt laser system may already be mounted on other (than the 747-400F) type(s) of aircraft.
A megawatt laser system may already be in use in the military for purposes other than the destruction of ballistic missles.
Call me a tinfoil hat guy, but when the military talks about its secret stuff, often what they don't say is more informative than what they do say.
Re:Reading between the lines . . . (Score:5, Funny)
So, what your saying is that the military may already have sharks with megawatt lasers on their heads.
Project Website (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.airbornelaser.com/ [airbornelaser.com]
The offical project website with pics progress reports et al.
Autonomous? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone else have the willies that the thing is autonomous? Last I heard this thing had some serious range and could heat up stuff pretty hot. What if it misses? As it is there is nobody to blame, just a plane doing all the work. Its kind of hard to court marial an aeroplane.
Maybe it would be b
Re:Autonomous? (Score:5, Funny)
If G.I. Joe Has Taught Us Anything (Score:5, Funny)
Can it be used to fry people on the ground ?? (Score:2)
This could be a bad thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Would you call that... (Score:3, Funny)
Back to planes constantly in the air? (Score:4, Insightful)
A better use of this would be as a battlefield deployment. Something like the first Gulf War and defense against SCUDs. Not sure what the range is on this laser, so you might have to be pretty close to the source which might make this impractical.
Re:Back to planes constantly in the air? (Score:3, Informative)
Second, the ABL is not used for homeland defense, but for theatre defense:
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/
Theatre-wide blinder system? (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone said "green lasers burn out your eye..." This may or may not be true of green lasers but I understand that their wavelength is much more subject to diffusion by microabrasions in such materials as glass. If they're shone at car windows, supposedly the effects vary from a large blinding spot on the window to turning the entire window into a brilliant green sheet.
I understand that blinding lasers are against some Geneva accord. They're so different from blinding grenades, and blinding napalm, and blinding shell fragments, don't you know... Whether or not we respect the Geneva convention at all anymore, or whether such a ruling might just be trampled on by us if we ever got into extremis such as a fight with another technological power, I can easily see us using a theatre-wide laser this way. The benefits would be huge.
Till Bill, Part 1 (Score:3, Interesting)
ABL Facts: (Score:3, Informative)
For people that think it's too slow/big/whatever. Take a look here [airbornelaser.com] on the abl page. It fly's a ways away. Basically, if fighters were scrambled toward it first, the US would know a war had begun. If missile are launched first, it can take a few down before it has to run from the fighters.
For people that say it has no use because ICBMs are cheap and so many would be launched: China and Russia have lots of ICBMs. Not many others do. It costs a LOT of money. Because the first time you have to use it it HAS to work, you have not only the missiles, but the silos, the staff, the training (continuious), the fuel care, etc, etc, etc. Maintaining a stockpile of ICBMS is a LOT of money. And not easy as russia showed by boinking 2 sub launched ICBMs during Putin's dog and pony show before the election.
Also, remember, it's limited shots because it's chemical. This isn't some type of perfect solution to fighting in the sky.
also remember that this is focused on exploding the fuel tank on a ballistic missile, nothing else.
Also, the Kenetic Interceptor contract has been awarded for development of a boost phase hit to kill interceptor which will provide layered defense with the ABL. These things create a launch area denied, not blanket coverage that means no missile will ever be launched.
Fun Stuff! (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, I had to laugh out loud at this:
http://www.airbornelaser.com/fun/
"Fun stuff: This section has been removed at the request of AirborneLaser".
What do you mean, the Pentagon has no sense of humor?
Nice, but boost phase missile defense doesnt work (Score:3, Insightful)
You can get the American Physical Society's report on boost phase missile defense here [aps.org] - its in lots of pdfs.
There is a lot of cool stuff in here. Airborne lasers are covered on pages 293 - 342.
Here are their conclusions from the executive summary
"Our main conclusions are the following:
1.Boost-phase defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) hinges on the burn time of the attacking missile and the speed of the defending interceptor rocket. Defense of the entire United States against liquid-propellant ICBMs, such as those deployed early by the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China (China), launched from countries such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Iran, may be technically feasible using terrestrial (land-, sea-, or air-based) interceptors. However, the interceptor rockets would have to be substantially faster (and therefore necessarily larger) than those usually proposed in order to reach the ICBMs in time from international waters or neighboring countries willing to host the interceptors. The system would also require the capability to cope with at least the simplest of countermeasures.
2.Boost-phase defense of the entire United States against solid-propellant ICBMs, which have shorter burn times than liquid-propellant ICBMs, is unlikely to be practical when all factors are considered, no matter where or how interceptors are based. Even with optimistic assumptions, a terrestrial-based system would require very large interceptors with extremely high speeds and accelerations to defeat a solid-propellant ICBM launched from even a small country such as North Korea. Even such high-performance interceptors could not defend against solid-propellant ICBMs launched from Iran, because they could not be based close enough to disable the missiles before they deployed their munitions.
3. If interceptor rockets were based in space, their coverage would not be constrained by geography, but they would confront the same time constraints and engagement uncertainties as terrestrial-based interceptors. Consequently, their kill vehicles (the final homing stage of the interceptors) would have to be similar in size to those of terrestrial-based interceptors. With the technology we judge could become available within the next 15 years, defending against a single ICBM would require a thousand or more interceptors for a system having the lowest possible mass and providing realistic decision time. Deploying such a system would require at least a five- to tenfold increase over current U.S. space-launch rates.
4. The Airborne Laser now under development could have some capability against liquid-propellant missiles, but it would be ineffective against solid-propellant ICBMs, which are more heat-resistant.
5.The existing U.S. Navy Aegis system, using an interceptor rocket similar to the Standard Missile 2, should be capable of defending against short- or medium-range missiles launched from ships, barges, or other platforms off U.S. coasts. However, interceptor rockets would have to be positioned within a few tens of kilometers of the launch location of the attacking missile.
6.A key problem inherent in boost-phase defense is munitions shortfall: although a successful intercept would prevent munitions from reaching their target, it could cause live nuclear, chemical, or biological munitions to fall on populated areas short of the target, in the United States or other countries. Timing intercepts accurately enough to avoid this problem would be difficult."
On your next flight (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:2, Funny)
You're eyes would be the least of you're worries if you look directly into this beam.
Now all we need is (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Don't look at laser with remaining eye.
I wonder where its positioned (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
I hear the green ones burn out your eye
Actually the laser beam will be invisible (unlike the the one in the movie Real Genius [zenspider.com]), as it is in the infrared range of light. This particular frequency of light also lends itself to good transmission through the atmosphere. More info here [af.mil]
Another interesting thing about the laser is that it's a chemical laser that genrates energy through the reaction of oxygen and iodine.
Which means that the plane will have a limited number of shots (I believe three or four) before it has to go and refuel.
The power of this laser would not heat up and pop the popcorn like in the movie, but would vaporize a nice hole right to the ground.
I hear the green ones burn out your eye
Looking into a laser or letting laser light into your eyes is a very bad idea, no matter how low the power may seem. Even for the pen lasers that are everywhere. You do not know what the consequences may be, and harm to your eyesight is not worth it.
Re:That is one POWERFUL laser pen! (Score:4, Informative)
Any laser powerful enough to modify your cornea, such as the ones used in lasik surgery that is referred to later, would also be powerful enough to ablate off pieces of skin if pointed at bare flesh.
There is a study out there where they took people who had eye cancers and were scheduled to have eyeballs removed soon anyway, and they focussed a common laser pointer at a single spot in the eye for something like 30 minutes straight. No lasting damage.
I don't know about the new green lasers. They look a hell of a lot brighter, but they don't have any more energy than a red laser. The increased visibility is purely due to the human eye's increased sensitivity to green light.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
I hear the green ones burn out your eyes.
It's already been said but let me repeat, any laser can burn out your eyes. Even low powered ones, when focused by the iris, can burn out portions of the retina.
This laser is infrared; that's actually WORSE than green. With a visible light laser, your eye sees the bright light and your pupil contracts to limit the exposure. With infrared, you can be in a pitch black room with pupil at full dilation and not even notice it. Until about six hours later when your vision slowly fades out.
So what is your idea? (Score:5, Funny)
So what is your idea? To point it at some spot in South Dakota for a couple of months in order to gather all of the cats in the country into one spot?
And then what? Attached buttered toast to the backs of the cats, drop them, and solve the energy problems of the world with the resulting perpetual motion machine [flippyscatpage.com]?
Re:Ballistic? (Score:2)
Yes, ballistic. (Score:2)
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Funny)
Dude, the U-2 had its first flight in 1955. So according to you, we first find out about it a year from now.
I think you can expect a knock on the door from some nice gentlemen from an obscure government agency
U2 invented in 1905 (Score:5, Funny)
I think what he meant to say was that the U2 was put into place in 1905, which is 50 years before we found out about in 1955. Of course, the 1905 model of the U2 spyplane was made of bamboo and oilcloth and flew a mere 9 metres above the landscape of the Russian Empire it was spying on. Stealth was achieved by a man with a megaphone yelling out "Don't look at me!" in Russian.
Re:It's about time (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps you are confusing this with "Aurora", which doesn't exist (yet)(maybe).
FYI, the basic U-2 airframe is still in use, now designated the TR-1. The airplane part isn't particuarly secret, it's the payload (cameras, radar, ECM, etc) that is secret.
Re:It's about time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:2)
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:2)
Re:Is this really necessary? (Score:3, Informative)
That's not the point. The idea is to cruise for a long time over the battlefield, and zab ballistic missiles during the boost phase, should any take off. Think of the first gulf war (not the iran-iraq one, the one with iraq vs the rest of the world), when a big concern was mobile launchers launching scuds out of nowhere.
The mi
As a patriotic American (Score:2, Funny)
As a patriotic American, I for one look forward to my duties punching missile remnants in the Arabian desert.
Re:Better The the Patriots Detection? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Better The the Patriots Detection? (Score:3, Informative)
Some people here on Slashdot just think it's as simple as a trigger-happy autonomous system. Think about what these systems (Patriot, ABL) have to do and realize that it's not easy.
Re:Waste of time and money (Score:2, Insightful)
We can combat this two ways: kill everyone who doesn't like America, or make America the good guy again by improving the lives of people. And not killing them in the process.
Re:Waste of time and money (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of Kim Jong Il, we probably can't do #2. He is not ready to accept anyone's assistance as far as improving the lives of his people.