Quote:The US navy has demonstrated a shark-mounted laser weapon system.
This is the headline everyone really wants to see.
Laser Weapon Operational
|
Quote:The US navy has demonstrated a shark-mounted laser weapon system. This is the headline everyone really wants to see.
Specifically, frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams strapped to their frickin' heads.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould RE: Laser Weapon Operational
December 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2014 at 2:35 pm by vorlon13.)
I'm sure a cubical, retroreflector for returning enough of a laser beam to the source laser could not be machined precisely enough to do the job. Also, whatever is being attacked would need to be completely covered with the retroreflectors, and there would a prohibitive cost, either weight, performance or cost that could not be overcome, even if it would work.
Further, if a retroreflector did work well enough to do the job, the energy in the beam would double every interval of time it takes for the beam to go between the laser and the target and back. Either the laser or the retroreflector will fail first as the power increases, or, if used in the atmosphere, the beam energy will become high enough that interactions with the air will defocus the beam, and neither would be destroyed.
Somehow I suspect that in an actual attack they would simply blast the boat first and not worry about the occupants. We even have a term for it.
Collateral damage.
Well, the surest way to kill sailors at sea is to sink their vessel, yeah.
Environmental damage from, for instance, depleted uranium projectiles, would not occur with the laser. With a wind turbine or tidal power source, the environmental footprint is pretty small.
I'm looking at the first 'green' weapon.
How long has Rhythm been a mod. Who agreed to that administration? Don't y'all know better?
(December 11, 2014 at 3:16 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: How long has Rhythm been a mod. Who agreed to that administration? Don't y'all know better?Even if they didn't, the way he kept coughing and snickering when they were interviewing him should've been a tip-off.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould (December 11, 2014 at 1:29 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Could a reflector survive long enough to reflect a sufficient amount of light to damage the weapon? Or would it last long enough to deflect the beam? Since reflector is reflecting rather than absorbing most of the laser energy, I am sure it can survive a lot longer than a weapon which would end up absorbing the energy. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
US may launch strike if North Korea moves to test nuclear weapon | Aegon | 53 | 6264 |
April 18, 2017 at 3:19 pm Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama |