DescentBB

Why? Because they can shoot down a nuke missile with ray gun biotches!!

Not making any kind of political statement here. All I'm saying is this is more proof that math nerds are teh baddest on the battlefield! So be nice and respect the nerd!!

Will Robinson wrote:Why? Because they can shoot down a nuke missile with ray gun biotches!!

Yea, 20+ years of development and you still have to be pretty close to that missile during boost phase in order to do that. How much money was spent on that ?

Edit: ah, about 3.75b+. For a weapon that is highly specialized and very costly to operate.

Was Chris Knight the project head?

Grendel wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Why? Because they can shoot down a nuke missile with ray gun biotches!!

Yea, 20+ years of development and you still have to be pretty close to that missile during boost phase in order to do that. How much money was spent on that ?

I don't know but consider how technology advances and remember we went from two guys flying a home built glider jumping off a sand dune in North Carolina to landing on the moon then flying back to earth in about 60 years....when you look at that 60 year span all the years previous to the glider flight don't seem like such a long waste of effort now do they?

If this is our laser weaponry 'glider flight' what will we see in ten years? Tanks on the battlefield being rendered useless...warships disabled floating aimlessly in the currents all from a satellite blasting a beam of light at them?

Updated my post above. In ten years we may see the practical version of that proto plane..

3.75 billion is a steal considering Congress just spent 20 times that on stimulus' and got nothing for it! well....they get something for it but the rest of us just got the freakin bill for it!
So put my money on the laser for the win!!

Will Robinson wrote:3.75 billion is a steal considering Congress just spent 20 times that on stimulus' and got nothing for it!

You forgot a zero in there somewhere, or is that some sort of new 'conservative' math?

---> http://www.recovery.gov/FAQ/Pages/ForCi ... ecoveryact

.

Ferno wrote:Was Chris Knight the project head?

Can it make popcorn?

That logic makes no sence, if Will wanted to give it a conservative twist he would have added zeros…no?

Flatlander....yes...lots of it.

Just gotta make sure it's retargeted.

Krom wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:3.75 billion is a steal considering Congress just spent 20 times that on stimulus' and got nothing for it!

You forgot a zero in there somewhere, or is that some sort of new 'conservative' math?

---> http://www.recovery.gov/FAQ/Pages/ForCi ... ecoveryact

I guess I have that conservative shell shock that reduces my willingness to accept the economic carnage by a factor of 10 or something.
Or maybe in a thread promoting math nerds I had a Freudian slip knowing I can barely help my kids with algebra homework

and don't worry Bet that your logic is bassackwards all that matters is you disparage conservatives right? Besides, having your facts wrong doesn't matter to your audience they just want you to carry the Koolaid canteen without spilling it..

Will Robinson wrote:and don't worry Bet that your logic is bassackwards all that matters is you disparage conservatives right? Besides, having your facts wrong doesn't matter to your audience they just want you to carry the Koolaid canteen without spilling it..

Will, she never uses facts

How about a video of the event.


Considering the laser was megawatt class, it's likely it was a chemical laser. Not solid-state.
Chemical lasers are bulky fuckers, and reliant on burning up their chemical \"fuel\" for each firing. They are not electric.
edit: confirmed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_o ... dine_laser

When Israel's military boffins were experimenting with shooting down airborne shells with chemical lasers a few years ago, the lasers don't even fit on a single truck.

roid wrote:...

When Israel's military boffins were experimenting with shooting down airborne shells with chemical lasers a few years ago, the lasers don't even fit on a single truck.

Yes, and when we were first flirting with manned flight we went 120 feet from the top of a hill to it's bottom...66 years later we went to the moon and back.

I'm encouraged what else can I say!

I actually think at some point in the not too distant future we are going to have to think seriously about weaponizing space. I have little doubt there are countries *cough*Chi*cough*na*cough* with plans to do so already, and the thought of falling behind in that field is most disconcerting.

Chemical lasers don't have the elegance of the good-ol' solid state lasers that we are all used to.
Solid state lasers are catching up, but it might take a few years :-/

i'm mostly interesting because of laser powered propulsion.
It would be much more convenient be reliant purely on electricity rather than on chemical fuels.
But what can one do, but wait for technology to catch up.

You still have to produce the electricity.

Each type has it’s place.

roid wrote:Considering the laser was megawatt class, it's likely it was a chemical laser. Not solid-state.

Grendel wrote: Yea

20 shots before refueling.

Krom wrote:I actually think at some point in the not too distant future we are going to have to think seriously about weaponizing space. I have little doubt there are countries *cough*Chi*cough*na*cough* with plans to do so already, and the thought of falling behind in that field is most disconcerting.

While i agree on the one hand, i wanna point out that weaponizing an area not fit for human life makes about as much sense as an ant picking up a crane, what point is there?

and before you cry space station let me point out that we're already in debt up to our eyeballs so fighting for being the first to colonize a place made out of things that can't grow mass ammounts of food will not carry long.

People have to have a planet on which to eat, breathe and breed, No man can change that.

Behemoth wrote:While i agree on the one hand, i wanna point out that weaponizing an area not fit for human life makes about as much sense as an ant picking up a crane, what point is there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye

I would question why we need to be the first ones up there. I would say we should be the first to be able to secure our skies even up into the upper atmosphere (or as far up as necessary to defend against enemy satellites). Lasers on the ground might be more effective for that, no? I'm not involved enough to know for sure, but I would think that would be a much better course than a M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) rush to weaponize the place.

It’s not about weaponizing a place that cannot be habitated…it’s about holding the high ground.

And in general I think we should leave space neutral, but the other guys prolly won’t…so what Krom said.

Behemoth wrote:People have to have a planet on which to eat, breathe and breed, No man can change that.

http://www.google.com/search?q=grow+food+in+space
http://www.google.com/search?q=produce+oxygen+in+space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S ... lonization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

The first country to truly weaponize space wins. period.

Being at the top of the gravity well is just to big of an advantage.

For example, put a good military base on the moon and you can drop rocks on earth all day long. Rocks that hit with the force of the Hiroshima bomb. It's easy and CHEAP to drop rocks. It's difficult and expensive to stop or deflect them.

The moon base could supply rocks to a few other orbiting platforms, just to keep worldwide coverage.

And defense is pretty easy. Kinetic weapons or missiles going up have a very large disadvantage when compared to kinetic weapons shooting down. Laser weapons based on earth would be a bit of a threat, but there are many defenses against a laser, and very few defenses against falling rocks.

ha! Yep.

Kilarin wrote:The first country to truly weaponize space wins. period.

Being at the top of the gravity well is just to big of an advantage.

For example, put a good military base on the moon and you can drop rocks on earth all day long. Rocks that hit with the force of the Hiroshima bomb. It's easy and CHEAP to drop rocks. It's difficult and expensive to stop or deflect them.

The moon base could supply rocks to a few other orbiting platforms, just to keep worldwide coverage.

And defense is pretty easy. Kinetic weapons or missiles going up have a very large disadvantage when compared to kinetic weapons shooting down. Laser weapons based on earth would be a bit of a threat, but there are many defenses against a laser, and very few defenses against falling rocks.

aka... "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"??

Duper wrote:aka... "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?

Exactamundo!

roid wrote:

Behemoth wrote:People have to have a planet on which to eat, breathe and breed, No man can change that.

http://www.google.com/search?q=grow+food+in+space
http://www.google.com/search?q=produce+oxygen+in+space
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:S ... lonization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_technology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

lol wikipedia robotics.
how cool.

You think that man needs a planet to survive on.
It's like you've never read a sci-fi book and/or exersized your imagination before, never heard of engineering, and completely missed the whole \"man landing on the moon\" thing.

Don't be so conservative.

I would say man does really need a planet to thrive. Otherwise it's just way too much work.

Maybe in ten thousand years…

Here's how you can tell whether your imagination is running away with you as usual or not, Roid. Has man colonized the extreme polar regions yet (or the oceans)? No?! Haven't they ever read too many sci-fi books or used their imaginations?!

There are permanent settlements in Antarctica.
but no it's not sustainable and self-sufficient, as AFAIK they don't grow their own food or produce their own heating fuel (or do they just use electricity for most of their heating?).

If we want to be self-sufficient in Space, it would indeed be be easier to practice on less-habitable parts of Earth such as Antarctica, Deserts, or Undersea.

Asteroid mining would likely be the most obvious reason to goto space. There are riches to be had up there. It would be easier to produce food and oxygen in space rather than have to ship it from Earth's gravity well all the time (which is rather hard).

Eventually we will be a space-faring species. It's just a matter of time really.

Considering there is a inexhaustible source of clean energy (the sun) in space, you'd think living in space would in some ways be easier than on earth. Biggest problem would be getting rid of excess heat tho.

Yea, right along with that inexhaustible source of deadly radiation.

Spidey wrote:Yea, right along with that inexhaustible source of deadly radiation.

x2, will cook you faster than any earthbound nuclear toaster ever could.

Your guys' problem is that you don't read nearly enough sci-fi.