A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Reusable Laser Launcher



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 1st 17, 01:31 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Reusable Laser Launcher

Here we see why Fred lies so much. He looks at thing, and clearly, being of substandard intelligence, he is confused and it looks complicated and dangerous to HIM. lol. So, he concludes, "it is not a simple exercise" and vents his general hatred onto anyone who tries to tell him he's a freaking idiot.



On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 6:19:22 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
================================================= ==========
...
So let's count up the ships with sufficient spare electrical capacity
to start sticking weapon grade lasers on them. We have ONE ZUMWALT
class (and one more building, which is the end of the class). We have
NO FORD class carriers yet. One is undergoing trials, one is under
contruction, and another is planned for delivery out in the 2020's. So
by the mid-2020's we'll have a whopping FIVE ships with sufficient
spare electrical power to load a bunch of combat lasers on them. For
everyone else, you're going to have to turn off half a megawatt worth
of existing systems to get the power to run a laser.
...
================================================= ==========

This article discusses the problem of the power level requirements:

US Navy will fire 150 kilowatt laser on a test ship in 2018 and then from
carriers and destroyers in 2019.
brian wang | January 26, 2017 |
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01...-laser-on.html

It may very well be that only the very largest ships will be able to field
the high power 150 kW lasers.

Still, I wonder if you can instead just combine three of the truck-carried
60 kW laser systems the Army wants to field:


That's essentially what's being done. They're combining two 75 kW
units that are technically very similar to the Army units. Combining
them is not a simple exercise, though, so you can't just stick several
of them on a ship and magically 'combine' them. And you still have to
power them.


US Army gets world record-setting 60-kW laser.
By: Jen Judson, March 16, 2017 (Photo Credit: Courtesy of Lockheed Martin)
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...ing-60kw-laser


Note that they don't say how they're powering it or how many shots
it's good for before you need to 'recharge'. Given the cited power
levels and efficiency, you'd need around 150 kW to run it. You can
get that out of a dedicated generator, which will weigh around 4
tonnes plus fuel (which may explain why it's installed on a HEMTT and
not some other vehicle).


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw


Ads
  #22  
Old June 1st 17, 01:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Reusable Laser Launcher

Quite right! Besides, Lasers as they're presently constituted, are CLOSE IN WEAPONS. You don't withdraw the use of sidearms because you can't sink a ship with them! lol. You use them WHERE APPROPRIATE. Only a damn fool would say LASERS are not superior close in weapons for use in a wide range of applications. Only a liar would try to convince you of the lie they're not.


On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:19:18 AM UTC+12, Robert Clark wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news ==================================================

The U.S. Navy is testing ...

That's "has tested", not "is testing".

... a 30 kilowatt laser ...

Like I said, A laser at power levels too low to be deployed.

... on the USS Ponce that can take out small boats and small drones.

Very small boats and drones.

The plan is to install a more powerful 150
kW laser that can take out larger ships and aircraft:

That's at least three years out. And any ship that gets one will need
at least half a megawatt of spare electrical capacity. That's quite a
stretch, given that big ships like the ARLEIGH BURKE class only have
7.5 MW total and there is already concern whether they can power
potential radar upgrades.
--
================================================== =

The USS Ponce is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf and is authorized to
use its laser to repel attacks from small boats of the type that have been
used to mount terrorist attacks on U.S. ships.

I think you put the decimal point in the wrong place with "7.5 MW total".
The largest nuclear powered ships such as aircraft carriers can have up to
500 megawatt (thermal), 165 megawatt (electric), power plants, more than
enough extra capacity for a half megawatt laser system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...s#Power_plants

And the new Zumwalt-class destroyers will have ca. 75 megawatt power plants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwal...d_power_system

Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  #23  
Old June 1st 17, 11:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,545
Default Reusable Laser Launcher

William Mook wrote:


Fred's a freaking liar who doesn't give one crap about the truth or reality. Lasers are deployed as close in weapons systems on naval vessels today. Their use and size are being expanded. If you believe Fred, side arms aren't real weapons because they can't sink a destroyer! lol. Fact is, LASERS are one of many close in weapons system that are IN USE by the US Navy, and other armed forces.


Nonsense.


www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA557757


Doesn't support your claim.

Get some treatment, Mookie. You've gone right 'round the bend again.



On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:34:45 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 12:10:09 PM UTC-4, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news ================================================= =

The U.S. Navy is testing ...

That's "has tested", not "is testing".

... a 30 kilowatt laser ...

Like I said, A laser at power levels too low to be deployed.

... on the USS Ponce that can take out small boats and small drones.

Very small boats and drones.

The plan is to install a more powerful 150
kW laser that can take out larger ships and aircraft:

That's at least three years out. And any ship that gets one will need
at least half a megawatt of spare electrical capacity. That's quite a
stretch, given that big ships like the ARLEIGH BURKE class only have
7.5 MW total and there is already concern whether they can power
potential radar upgrades.
--
================================================= ==

The USS Ponce is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf and is authorized to
use its laser to repel attacks from small boats of the type that have been
used to mount terrorist attacks on U.S. ships.


In other words, the testing period is over. That laser isn't big
enough to take down boats that big. When they say 'small boats' they
mean something the size of a destroyer's motor whaleboat with an
exposed gascan.

Hint: USS Ponce is an amphibious ship.


I think you put the decimal point in the wrong place with "7.5 MW total".


Unfortunately for you, reality doesn't seem to much care what you
think. The number is correct for the destroyer class I cited, which
was the ARLEIGH BURKE class. The only ship smaller than an aircraft
carrier with any sort of spare electrical capability is the ZUMWALT
class (and that only because it uses electric propulsion and can swap
power around). The reason USS PONCE was used for the low power laser
testing is because it's an amphibious ship, which means it doesn't
have the sorts of electrically hungry combat systems that surface
combatant ships have.


The largest nuclear powered ships such as aircraft carriers can have up to
500 megawatt (thermal), 165 megawatt (electric), power plants, more than
enough extra capacity for a half megawatt laser system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...s#Power_plants


NIMITZ class and previous don't have any SPARE electrical capability.
The 200 MW the NIMITZ can produce is all being used by existing load.
That's why the FORD class has reactors that can move the ship and
still produce three times the electrical power of the NIMITZ class.


And the new Zumwalt-class destroyers will have ca. 75 megawatt power plants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwal...d_power_system


So let's count up the ships with sufficient spare electrical capacity
to start sticking weapon grade lasers on them. We have ONE ZUMWALT
class (and one more building, which is the end of the class). We have
NO FORD class carriers yet. One is undergoing trials, one is under
contruction, and another is planned for delivery out in the 2020's. So
by the mid-2020's we'll have a whopping FIVE ships with sufficient
spare electrical power to load a bunch of combat lasers on them. For
everyone else, you're going to have to turn off half a megawatt worth
of existing systems to get the power to run a laser.


fred just take a chill pill for a moment.


bobbert just take two valium and don't call me in the morning.


for combat a laser weapon doesnt need continious power..


But it does need continuously available power. Or do you just shut
down other combat systems like radars in 'pulses'?


a pulse weapon, perhaps powered by banks of capacitors can do the job.


Pulse it sufficiently infrequently and it doesn't do the job. It's
all about the total energy you can get onto the target, Bobbert. No
magic and you still have to charge those capacitor banks. And when
you need the laser right now, 'charging' is not what you want to see
on your status panel.


after all bang bang bang works for firearms


If it only shoots as infrequently as a gun, why not just stay with the
gun?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

  #24  
Old June 1st 17, 11:21 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,545
Default Reusable Laser Launcher

William Mook wrote:


Here we see why Fred lies so much. He looks at thing, and clearly, being of substandard intelligence, he is confused and it looks complicated and dangerous to HIM. lol. So, he concludes, "it is not a simple exercise" and vents his general hatred onto anyone who tries to tell him he's a freaking idiot.


Mookie, blot before you short out your keyboard with all the flying
spittle. I note your inability to point to any "lies" in the
following and the total absense of ANYTHING other than lunatic raving
in what you have written.

Seek treatment.



On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 6:19:22 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Robert Clark" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
================================================= ==========
...
So let's count up the ships with sufficient spare electrical capacity
to start sticking weapon grade lasers on them. We have ONE ZUMWALT
class (and one more building, which is the end of the class). We have
NO FORD class carriers yet. One is undergoing trials, one is under
contruction, and another is planned for delivery out in the 2020's. So
by the mid-2020's we'll have a whopping FIVE ships with sufficient
spare electrical power to load a bunch of combat lasers on them. For
everyone else, you're going to have to turn off half a megawatt worth
of existing systems to get the power to run a laser.
...
================================================= ==========

This article discusses the problem of the power level requirements:

US Navy will fire 150 kilowatt laser on a test ship in 2018 and then from
carriers and destroyers in 2019.
brian wang | January 26, 2017 |
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01...-laser-on.html

It may very well be that only the very largest ships will be able to field
the high power 150 kW lasers.

Still, I wonder if you can instead just combine three of the truck-carried
60 kW laser systems the Army wants to field:


That's essentially what's being done. They're combining two 75 kW
units that are technically very similar to the Army units. Combining
them is not a simple exercise, though, so you can't just stick several
of them on a ship and magically 'combine' them. And you still have to
power them.


US Army gets world record-setting 60-kW laser.
By: Jen Judson, March 16, 2017 (Photo Credit: Courtesy of Lockheed Martin)
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...ing-60kw-laser


Note that they don't say how they're powering it or how many shots
it's good for before you need to 'recharge'. Given the cited power
levels and efficiency, you'd need around 150 kW to run it. You can
get that out of a dedicated generator, which will weigh around 4
tonnes plus fuel (which may explain why it's installed on a HEMTT and
not some other vehicle).


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

  #25  
Old June 1st 17, 11:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,545
Default Reusable Laser Launcher

William Mook wrote:


Quite right! Besides, Lasers as they're presently constituted, are CLOSE IN WEAPONS. You don't withdraw the use of sidearms because you can't sink a ship with them! lol. You use them WHERE APPROPRIATE. Only a damn fool would say LASERS are not superior close in weapons for use in a wide range of applications. Only a liar would try to convince you of the lie they're not.


Only someone who is aware of what is actually being done will post
facts as I have done. Only someone who is an absolute nutter who has
once again gone right 'round the bend will post fact free rants, like
Mookie does.

Get some help, Mookie. You need treatment (again).


On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:19:18 AM UTC+12, Robert Clark wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news ==================================================

The U.S. Navy is testing ...

That's "has tested", not "is testing".

... a 30 kilowatt laser ...

Like I said, A laser at power levels too low to be deployed.

... on the USS Ponce that can take out small boats and small drones.

Very small boats and drones.

The plan is to install a more powerful 150
kW laser that can take out larger ships and aircraft:

That's at least three years out. And any ship that gets one will need
at least half a megawatt of spare electrical capacity. That's quite a
stretch, given that big ships like the ARLEIGH BURKE class only have
7.5 MW total and there is already concern whether they can power
potential radar upgrades.
--
================================================== =

The USS Ponce is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf and is authorized to
use its laser to repel attacks from small boats of the type that have been
used to mount terrorist attacks on U.S. ships.

I think you put the decimal point in the wrong place with "7.5 MW total".
The largest nuclear powered ships such as aircraft carriers can have up to
500 megawatt (thermal), 165 megawatt (electric), power plants, more than
enough extra capacity for a half megawatt laser system:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...s#Power_plants

And the new Zumwalt-class destroyers will have ca. 75 megawatt power plants:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwal...d_power_system

Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  #26  
Old June 1st 17, 07:16 PM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.optics,sci.physics,sci.military.naval
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 238
Default Reusable Laser Launcher

"Robert Clark" wrote in message news ================================================== ==========
We now have the capability to do laser launch. The problem is the initial
cost outlay for the lasers is still prohibitive to launch a sizable payload.

But is it possible to do it without using lasers, just high intensity
noncoherent light focused by mirrors or lenses?

I wondered about this because of two reports I saw doing a web search
actually on optical communication:

InfiniLED MicroLEDs achieve 300 W/cm2 output density from tiny source.
The MicroLEDs semiconductor manufacturing process includes construction of a
parabolic reflector to enable optimal light control and high efficiency from
micro-meter-sized LEDs.
Published on:Jan 29, 2013
By Maury Wright
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles...ny-source.html

and:

Optical communications using coherent and non-coherent light.
http://modulatedlight.org/optical_co...cal_about.html

The first report discusses micro-scale LED's whose light output scales up to
300 W per square centimeter, 3 megawatts per meter. From the appearance of
these micro-scale LED's, they should permit simple automated production to
produce many copies to cover a macro-scale area to generate light even at
gigawatt power levels.

The second report discusses experimentation that suggests atmospheric
dispersion is actually worse for lasers than for noncoherent light generated
by LED's. See for instance the video in Fig. 2 on this page.

The advantage of the lasers however is that generating a parallel beam, you
can use a parabolic mirror to focus the light at the focal point (more
precisely at the Airy disk). Still, nevertheless a parabolic mirror will
still focus a large portion of the light at the focal point even for
noncoherent light.

So the question is if the beam is noncoherent, how much of the light can
still be focused at the focal point (Airy disk)?


Bob Clark
================================================== ==========

On another discussion forum it was pointed out I missed a key fact in that
article on the InfiniLED MicroLEDs:

InfiniLED MicroLEDs achieve 300 W/cm2 output density from tiny source.
Quote:
The MicroLED is built using an LED semiconductor structure and can be
driven like standard LEDs. But the manufacturing process, which includes
etching of a parabolic reflector at the semiconductor level, delivers a
collimated beam like a laser (see the parabolic structure in the nearby
photo). The result is both high-intensity light and high efficiency.
"This device can be seen as a cross-over between the power and collimation
of a laser and the simplicity of an LED. The unique devices enable a range
of applications," said chief commercial officer of InfiniLED, Bill Henry.
"InfiniLED are proud to have achieved the landmark performance of optical
density greater than 300 W/cm2. This was achieved without the need for
external optics indicating the potential for further improvement of the
performance."
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles...ny-source.html

The key fact I missed is that the light produced by the MicroLED is
*collimated*. This means the light rays are parallel. But this is what is
needed for the light to be focused to a point (Airy disk) using a parabolic
mirror. It doesn't really need to be coherent like a laser. Not actually
having to make a laser inherently makes it a simpler and cheaper system.

So this may mean the question is moot about how much a parabolic mirror can
focus when using incoherent light. However, we will need to array many
copies of the MicroLED's to create a large beam. But when the pattern is
repeated, likely the degree of collimation will be degraded somewhat over
the entire size of the array. That needs to be determined.

Still, even if there is a lack of collimation over a large array, we can
produce a collimated beam from it from optical elements called collimators:

Collimated light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimated_light

Another possible advantage of just using LED's rather than going for a laser
is that LED's can have high efficiency, as much as 80%, though the
efficiency of the InfiniLED's isn't specified.


Bob Clark

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize
21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital
launchers, to 'flying cars'.
This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

Nanotech: from air to space.
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  #27  
Old June 2nd 17, 12:09 AM posted to rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.optics,sci.physics,sci.military.naval
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,545
Default Reusable Laser Launcher

"Robert Clark" wrote:

"Robert Clark" wrote in message news ================================================= ===========
We now have the capability to do laser launch. The problem is the initial
cost outlay for the lasers is still prohibitive to launch a sizable payload.

But is it possible to do it without using lasers, just high intensity
noncoherent light focused by mirrors or lenses?


No, it isn't.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Airbus - reusable space launcher Alain Fournier[_3_] Technology 6 June 11th 15 11:42 AM
SpaceX fully reusable launcher byblow Technology 12 November 22nd 11 06:18 AM
Super-heavy lift reusable launcher [email protected] Policy 68 August 24th 08 03:46 AM
Edge-cutting Laser Pointer Plus Laser Presenter Boosts User Ability TomFred Amateur Astronomy 0 February 28th 08 11:33 AM
Small, cheap, reusable rocket launcher Andrew Nowicki Technology 20 September 3rd 06 12:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.