Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Lockheed develops huge laser gun weapon


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#31    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Alien Abducter

  • Banned
  • 4,810 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 07 February 2014 - 07:04 PM

Why?


#32    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 7,002 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 08 February 2014 - 01:17 AM

power

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#33    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 February 2014 - 05:27 AM

View PostTheGreatBeliever, on 05 February 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

whats the aftermath like? does it go thru the target, melt it, explode it?

Depends on the target.  Porous materials like brick, ceramic, and concrete tend to crack explosively, fuels and explosives explode, although with less intensity, curiously enough, than normal (something about the laser evaporating the gas faster than the cascading ignition, or some such)and metals geth ot occasionally even drooping.

View PostF3SS, on 05 February 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

Couldn't a laser beam be concentrated and sustained on a target until it does practically vaporize it? It's not like a bullet or missile.

Not necessarily.  Most materials reach a state of equilibrium where the heat output matched the input and it doesn't affect it anymore.  Also, some things burn entirely and the ash is no longer reactive.  Remember that ideally, one is trying to limit the amount of burn time.


#34    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 February 2014 - 05:33 AM

View Postbadeskov, on 07 February 2014 - 12:39 AM, said:

One of the problems with laser, probably no it would not. The battle becomes between the finish of the mirror and how much energy the laser is able to deliver. Say you need x amount of Joule to negate a missile, if your mirror reflectivity is 50%, then your laser needs to double the energy output to enable a kill. If your mirror reflectivity it 90%, well, your required laser energy output goes up proportionally. And so the battle between cost, technology and probabilities ensues.

Cheers,
Badeskov

On a more practical level, even if a missile managed to get beyond the launch phase with its mirror shine intact, by the time it reaches cruising speed, its already going to have smashed into bugs, moisture, dust, and all those other things that have to be washed off of planes.  A mirror finish may just end up being a few extra milliseconds of protection.

View Postlightly, on 08 February 2014 - 01:17 AM, said:

power

Accuracy.  No laser is going to be more powerful than a missile.


#35    F3SS

F3SS

    FoT

  • Member
  • 9,837 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

  • Father of Twins
    3-16-16

Posted 08 February 2014 - 01:33 PM

Accuracy and speed. No other weapon could reach a target so fast.

View Postaquatus1, on 08 February 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:


Not necessarily.  Most materials reach a state of equilibrium where the heat output matched the input and it doesn't affect it anymore.  Also, some things burn entirely and the ash is no longer reactive.  Remember that ideally, one is trying to limit the amount of burn time.

It might not be practical in many cases but if it were possible wouldn't you want to reduce a target to the least amount of destructive debris if it were above a populated area? I'd rather have that ideally sustainable laser stop something dead in its tracks stopping its trajectory, even it's a melted pile of liquid metal, and fall straight down than simply explode it sending large chunks of heavy metal flying in every direction to crash down in the city below like we do now.
If we ever achieve satellite laser weapons you could potentially stop any missile or whatever the second it becomes active with light speed lasers.


#36    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 08 February 2014 - 01:40 PM

Lets stop the missile first and then worry about debris.


#37    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 February 2014 - 01:50 PM

View PostF3SS, on 08 February 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

It might not be practical in many cases but if it were possible wouldn't you want to reduce a target to the least amount of destructive debris if it were above a populated area? I'd rather have that ideally sustainable laser stop something dead in its tracks stopping its trajectory, even it's a melted pile of liquid metal, and fall straight down than simply explode it sending large chunks of heavy metal flying in every direction to crash down in the city below like we do now.

Ehh...depends...

Large chunks of heavy metal are going to cause less damage than a pool of molten metal.  The solid metal will break things, but the molten metal will not only break things, it will set them on fire.

A better option is to use the laser with a precise short burn, taking out the thrust system, and just having the missile land where it does, typically digging itself into the ground (or street).  Modern missile systems have fail-safes that deactivate them when something major goes wrong (such as the rocket motor blowing up), so there wouldn't be much danger of the missile detonating.

And if we are dealing with nuclear weapons, we have a bigger problem vaporizing the missile, because at that point we would have radioactive elements being vaporized, but not atomized, meaning they might well survive the laser strike, and we would have an insanely hot and radioactive cloud descending on the city.

Then again, I could be wrong about that, because I am extrapolating the behaviour of vaporized uranium in a lab, and not being vaporized in mid air with a massive laser.

Quote

If we ever achieve satellite laser weapons you could potentially stop any missile or whatever the second it becomes active with light speed lasers.

And that's when the legal storm begins.  And things are going to get really, really, tense.


#38    TheGreatBeliever

TheGreatBeliever

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In another dimension..

  • Nanotech!

Posted 23 April 2014 - 01:42 PM

View PostHobbit Feet, on 05 February 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

We need a weapon that vaporizes targets.  Then there won't be any debris.

View PostHobbit Feet, on 05 February 2014 - 02:01 PM, said:

We need a weapon that vaporizes targets.  Then there won't be any debris.

That be bad. When commercialised ppl be murdering everyone





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users