4 ms·

The article is very cool and informative, I actually enjoyed it. But since I didn't know the author, it took me to the last paragraph and his signature to noti

The article is very cool and informative, I actually enjoyed it. But since I didn't know the author, it took me to the last paragraph and his signature to notice he's actually trying to sell us on the idea of putting actual Death Ray satellites in space. That's kind of cool too, but I'm sure it's a very bad idea to combine worldwide surveillance and killer lasers in space.

asah 3y ago
this was my first thought too... could they be used for assassinations? p.s. there's a joke in there for Marjorie Taylor Greene...
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> he's actually trying to sell us on the idea of putting actual Death Ray satellites in space This is also an essential component of a planetary asteroid defence system. One could theoretically tune the power and wavelength of the beam such that it's highly destructive in space and the upper atmosphere, but mostly a nuisance on the ground.
- nradov 3y ago
  Doubt it. There's no way that lasers will be able to vaporize a huge asteroid. Realistic proposals for planetary defense call for intercepting asteroids very far from the planet and pushing them off course enough to barely miss us.
  - lucubratory 3y ago
    The point of the laser isn't to vaporise an entire asteroid. It's to push it off course enough to make it miss the Earth. The laser achieves that by pointing at a spot and turning that spot into an impromptu rocket engine.
    - nradov 3y ago
      An orbital laser won't have the range for that. The dispersion would be too high for any lens that we can practically launch into orbit. More realistic proposals for planetary defense call for focusing on long range detection and then using a gravity tractor or a rocket motor landed on the asteroid to slowly nudge it off course.
      - lucubratory 3y ago
        I just don't think that's true. We launched Hubble and JWST, as well as many spy satellites with similar mirror size. If we're talking about lasers that could feasibly intercept ICBMs or hypersonics, that amount of laser power and a large lens should be able to exert significant pressure at range.
Animats 3y ago
Well, ULA needs some big DoD contract to launch heavy objects. Military solid state lasers are finally getting powerful enough to be useful. Below 100KW, they weren't effective enough, and it took decades to get the power up. Northrop-Grumman delivered a 150KW laser to the Navy in 2021. Lockheed-Martin delivered a 300KW demo unit last year.[1] These are ground or sea based. Israel's Iron Beam system tried lasers, but below 100KW, and only useful against small rockets and drones. Since that's what their opposition shoots at them, it's useful. Space-based lasers have lots of problems, from cooling to being big targets themselves. But they're a much less silly idea than they were in the 1980s. We may be seeing the biggest reversal in war since late WWI - defense may be stronger than offense again. Historically, this has gone back and forth. In the era of castles, defense was stronger. Then came artillery. WWI started out with defense being stronger - nobody could advance against machine guns. Then came tanks and the beginnings of air power. Offense has usually been stronger since then. Now we're entering an era where nobody has air superiority. There's a mostly empty sky. If it flies, it dies. On the ground, tanks are now very vulnerable to man-portable weapons. When defense is stronger, wars lead to bloody stalemates, like Ukraine. Nobody can force a decision. Battles are long, bloody and destructive. The winning side gets to own the ruins. [1] https://newatlas.com/military/lockheed-martin-delivers-record-300-kw-laser-weapon-to-us-military https://newatlas.com/military/lockheed-martin-delivers-recor...
- mabbo 3y ago
  > Now we're entering an era where nobody has air superiority. There's a mostly empty sky. If it flies, it dies. The danger here is everyone filling space with satellites as a means of defense. When the war starts, Kessler Syndrome kicks in, and everyone loses their defenses in a few days. Ground based lasers may have less range, etc, but they can be hardened, protected, even hidden. Imho, we'll see a day where every major city on the planet has a set of anti missile lasers.
  - frumper 3y ago
    How about moon based lasers?
akira2501 3y ago
It's 2023 and to me this is just another new sales pitch for Reagan's old "Star Wars" system. It was a bad and unworkable idea then, and it still is today.
askvictor 3y ago
How is that different to existing targeted airborne assassination methods (i.e. drones)? Genuine question.
- falcor84 3y ago
  With a drone you need to plan and prepare in advance. With a space laser, I would assume it's O(seconds) to reorient and fire.
phkahler 3y ago
>> That's kind of cool too, but I'm sure it's a very bad idea to combine worldwide surveillance and killer lasers in space. See the movie "Real Genious" and have some popcorn.
Prickle 3y ago
The soviets already tried. The Polyus space craft was supposed to be a soviet space laser. It would have countered the US "StarWars" program. It failed to reach orbit due to a faulty gimbal or gyroscope.

asah 3y ago

this was my first thought too... could they be used for assassinations? p.s. there's a joke in there for Marjorie Taylor Greene...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> he's actually trying to sell us on the idea of putting actual Death Ray satellites in space This is also an essential component of a planetary asteroid defence system. One could theoretically tune the power and wavelength of the beam such that it's highly destructive in space and the upper atmosphere, but mostly a nuisance on the ground.

nradov 3y ago
Doubt it. There's no way that lasers will be able to vaporize a huge asteroid. Realistic proposals for planetary defense call for intercepting asteroids very far from the planet and pushing them off course enough to barely miss us.
- lucubratory 3y ago
  The point of the laser isn't to vaporise an entire asteroid. It's to push it off course enough to make it miss the Earth. The laser achieves that by pointing at a spot and turning that spot into an impromptu rocket engine.
  - nradov 3y ago
    An orbital laser won't have the range for that. The dispersion would be too high for any lens that we can practically launch into orbit. More realistic proposals for planetary defense call for focusing on long range detection and then using a gravity tractor or a rocket motor landed on the asteroid to slowly nudge it off course.
    - lucubratory 3y ago
      I just don't think that's true. We launched Hubble and JWST, as well as many spy satellites with similar mirror size. If we're talking about lasers that could feasibly intercept ICBMs or hypersonics, that amount of laser power and a large lens should be able to exert significant pressure at range.

Animats 3y ago

Well, ULA needs some big DoD contract to launch heavy objects. Military solid state lasers are finally getting powerful enough to be useful. Below 100KW, they weren't effective enough, and it took decades to get the power up. Northrop-Grumman delivered a 150KW laser to the Navy in 2021. Lockheed-Martin delivered a 300KW demo unit last year.[1] These are ground or sea based. Israel's Iron Beam system tried lasers, but below 100KW, and only useful against small rockets and drones. Since that's what their opposition shoots at them, it's useful. Space-based lasers have lots of problems, from cooling to being big targets themselves. But they're a much less silly idea than they were in the 1980s. We may be seeing the biggest reversal in war since late WWI - defense may be stronger than offense again. Historically, this has gone back and forth. In the era of castles, defense was stronger. Then came artillery. WWI started out with defense being stronger - nobody could advance against machine guns. Then came tanks and the beginnings of air power. Offense has usually been stronger since then. Now we're entering an era where nobody has air superiority. There's a mostly empty sky. If it flies, it dies. On the ground, tanks are now very vulnerable to man-portable weapons. When defense is stronger, wars lead to bloody stalemates, like Ukraine. Nobody can force a decision. Battles are long, bloody and destructive. The winning side gets to own the ruins. [1] https://newatlas.com/military/lockheed-martin-delivers-record-300-kw-laser-weapon-to-us-military https://newatlas.com/military/lockheed-martin-delivers-recor...

mabbo 3y ago
> Now we're entering an era where nobody has air superiority. There's a mostly empty sky. If it flies, it dies. The danger here is everyone filling space with satellites as a means of defense. When the war starts, Kessler Syndrome kicks in, and everyone loses their defenses in a few days. Ground based lasers may have less range, etc, but they can be hardened, protected, even hidden. Imho, we'll see a day where every major city on the planet has a set of anti missile lasers.
- frumper 3y ago
  How about moon based lasers?

akira2501 3y ago

It's 2023 and to me this is just another new sales pitch for Reagan's old "Star Wars" system. It was a bad and unworkable idea then, and it still is today.

askvictor 3y ago

How is that different to existing targeted airborne assassination methods (i.e. drones)? Genuine question.

falcor84 3y ago
With a drone you need to plan and prepare in advance. With a space laser, I would assume it's O(seconds) to reorient and fire.

phkahler 3y ago

>> That's kind of cool too, but I'm sure it's a very bad idea to combine worldwide surveillance and killer lasers in space. See the movie "Real Genious" and have some popcorn.

Prickle 3y ago

The soviets already tried. The Polyus space craft was supposed to be a soviet space laser. It would have countered the US "StarWars" program. It failed to reach orbit due to a faulty gimbal or gyroscope.