New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

mazza9 - 02:17pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10858 of 10882)
Louis Mazza

Just did some net surfing regarding Laser BMD systems.

Laser kills have been documented during the test phase of the Airborne Laser System. Sidewinder missiles were knocked out.

Boeing is proceeding with the Airborne Laser system and the technical infor, (the unclassified portion) is available.

Airborne BMD Defense

The system will be operational soon and maybe we can sleep better.

LouMazza

lchic - 03:20pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10859 of 10882)

Watch a movie before turning in?
Boeing (Chigago) are pushing their compressed cinema projection (via Satellite Communication).
Regular activities offer regular income - more positive than warring.

guy_catelli - 03:31pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10860 of 10882)
the trick of Mensa

have you seen: http://www.abeautifulmind.com/ ?

rshow55 - 03:51pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10861 of 10882)

http://airbornelaser.com/special/abl/ is certainly interesting.

Some fascinating engineering work. A great deal of team spirit, and serious achievement. An enormous amount of money. And the prospect that, with enough "luck" and "development" it will be possible, from a 747, to shoot down missiles in boost phase from as much as "several hundred miles away."

Is that a realistic prospect?

I don't know how far away the sidewinders were - but some people worked hard to hit them, I'm sure. And had reason to be proud of a long list of hard problems, triumphantly solved, that were required to make those hits. .

All the same, the difficulties show a good deal about what is not reasonably possible. There's a LONG way to go, from a system you can get on a 747, to a system that can work in space (where, as I recall, "it takes a bar of gold to put up a coke can." )

Even if countermeasures against the system weren't easy -- and FAR cheaper than the system itself.

rshow55 - 03:53pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10862 of 10882)

But it looks like countermeasures are trivially easy -- and so obvious they have to be anticipated. We have a very expensive, delicate project -- far from being operational. Money and manpower are scarce. It makes sense to ask:

" Can the whole thing be defeated by a few hundred bucks worth of reflective decal, that could be developed for somewhere between 5,000 and 100,000 dollars? (That is, if the decal couldn't just be ordered through ordinary suppliers, who'd employ ordinary engineering, as part of servicing a small sale.?

That's an entirely reasonable question, and the engineers involved have to know it. The Boeing web site includes "Team ABL Continues Making Progress with Delivery of Two Airborne Laser Steering Mirrors" http://airbornelaser.com/special/abl/news/2000/060100.html which includes this language:

"The mirror substrates will be coated to protect against heating from the high-energy laser and to reflect all other illuminator, infrared and alignment wavelengths in the beam control system. The coating and application processes were previously validated to satisfy all requirements by rigorous risk-reduction testing.

For a megawatt lasar system, that means reflectances, on a extraordianarily precise optical surface, greater than 99.99% - very impressive. The engineers have had to "immunize" their mirrors from damage and distortion from the lasar light. The engineers who did this will know how very easy it is to get 95% (or 99% - or 99.9%) in a decal. What does that do to the effectiveness of their system?

Note that the missiles involved are not especially likely to reside in silos.

This ABL system is so easy to defeat that it is not worth building as an operational MD system. The tremendous skills and resources behind it should be applied to systems that can WORK under real operational circumstances - - if such systems can be found. Failing that, the people should find something else productive to do.

lchic - 04:04pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10863 of 10882)

Take care reading The Times guy_catelli 1/18/02 3:31pm

he slouched into the common room at MIT with a copy of the New York Times, claiming that "abstract powers from outer space, or perhaps it was foreign governments, were communicating with him" through the newspaper. http://www.salon.com/books/sneaks/1998/06/29sneaks.html

rshow55 - 04:07pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10864 of 10882)

The system is also subject to very many other criticisms involving resolution and tracking.

For instance, they've had a helluva time compensating for the vibration of the airplane -- have they done the nearly perfect job that takes?

They are trying to do something VERY difficult -- even for lab equipment --- and put it into military operation. There are a long list of reasons to fight shy of this one.

Miracles, end to end, are required. A lot of impressive work can be done, and valuable manpower soaked up (that's happened already) on a project that has many weak points that could be, or are likely to be, fatal.

To control missiles, I'd suggest the military means we HAVE. And can arrange.

guy_catelli - 04:29pm Jan 18, 2002 EST (#10865 of 10882)
the trick of Mensa

Take care reading The Times guy_catelli 1/18/02 3:31pm

Mademoiselle de le Lune, are you *denying* being "abstract powers from outer space, or perhaps ... foreign governments..." ?!?

(17 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense