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.

lchic - 04:28pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11215 of 11259)

simple (and not so simple) accounting mistakes (Enron)

rshow55 - 04:54pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11216 of 11259)

While I'm working, I'd like to point out references to these issues, on this thread. I'll be working through them, to see if I've made a mistake in them -- if not, I'll be using them. MD7139 rshowalter 7/17/01 4:24pm to MD7141 rshowalter 7/17/01 4:26pm cover many references.

There's an assumption sometimes made that "if you can see it, you can hit it." that needs to be considered, if we're talking about ABL, or space based laser weapons.

I adressed that assumption in

MD6410 rshowalter 7/2/01 3:35pm ... MD6411 rshowalter 7/2/01 3:42pm
MD6413 rshowalter 7/2/01 3:53pm ... MD6414 rshowalter 7/2/01 3:56pm
MD6415 rshowalter 7/2/01 4:05pm ... MD6416 rshowalter 7/2/01 4:15pm
MD6418 rshowalter 7/2/01 4:26pm ...

It just isn't true that "what you can see you can hit" , even in controls were perfect. Not for a lasar weapon, or any other possible killing means. Nor is the seeing easy.

And the controls aren't perfect.

MD6420 rshowalter 7/2/01 4:34pm ... ... MD6422 rshowalter 7/2/01 4:44pm
MD6423 rshowalter 7/2/01 4:46pm

I'll try to catch mistakes in these discussions, if I happen to notice them. If anybody else does, and wants to comment, I'd be grateful to be steered away from mistakes. We all make them.

When they matter, it is good to correct them.

rshow55 - 04:55pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11217 of 11259)

Pretty soon, I'll be knocking off for a while. Like a lot of people, I'll be watching the Super Bowl.

lchic - 04:58pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11218 of 11259)

careful with those pretzels!

mazza9 - 05:01pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11219 of 11259)
Louis Mazza

RShow55: The early studies in the SDI arena contemplated ground based lasers to "shoot down" ICBM warheads. One of the first technical issues to be addressed was the atmospheric turbulence which would "defocus" a laser beam. Energy impact would be effected and kill probablility reduced. Adaptive optics were developed to treat the laser beam with a deformable mirror which would "iron out" the turbulences by deforming the mirror.

The ground based laser was impractical in the 80's but the adaptive optics research was acclaimed by the astronomers who saw an opportunity to improve their viewing resolutions.

You might want to visit:

Let's get Focused!

Note the section on Advanced Adaptive Optics- MEMS subjects. This is the area where improved actuators improve the wavefront managment. I.E. More sustained power delivered to the aim point, (TARGET!). If you revisit the ABL site you will note that the ABL system has a multifunctional target acquisiton, tracking, turbulence measuring, aiming laser and weapons grade laser systems. The idea is that you can acquire and maintain focus on the target so that sufficent energy is brought to bear on the aim point. This is why the "jitter" control and tracking is so important. The B-747 will experience the normal flight transients, (bumps, accelerations and other platform movements) which must be measured and cancelled out so that the beam remains on target. these battle management issues are being addressed. I don't expect that the actual power densities, focus diameter and range are of an unclassified nature. I don't think you can foil this system with your calculations. But I know there are alot of people working to make this system work.

LouMazza

rshow55 - 05:11pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11220 of 11259)

Common ground: A lot of good people are working to make this system work.

Thomas Edison's guesses were usually wrong, not because he wasn't "good people" -- but because he did the best he could, but could do no better.

mazza9 - 05:16pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11221 of 11259)
Louis Mazza

RShow55:

Since you're curious about AO, Here is a Science Daily New Story from 1997 with more background on the scientist who developed the mathematics to solve the atmospheric turbulence issues.

I suspect that this optical analysis is also behind the new lasik surgeries to correct impaired vision. Ain't science sumptin'?

Wake Forest is the source:

Prof Plemmons'Prognostications!

Enjoy

LouMazza

lchic - 10:22pm Feb 3, 2002 EST (#11222 of 11259)

Do it once - do it right.

Do it wrong - try to put it right.

Additionally there's the Cost Effectiveness factor.

(37 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense