Slashdot Mirror


Building the World's Most Powerful Laser

Bill writes "Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories is attempting to create the world's largest laser. The NIF's goal is to focus the laser on a pea-sized hydrogen pellet and result in fusion ignition."

354 comments

  1. Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Funny

    To produce Extremely Large Shark?

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by dsginter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Alternatively,

      We need to find an evil college professor and fill his house with popcorn!

      Hilarity will ensue!

      --
      More
    2. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by WAG24601G · · Score: 1

      I predict a significant lack of sharks (or anything else not equipped to withstand a few million degrees) will be available on Earth once this thing gets started. 3 words: runaway freight train.

      --
      Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    3. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old Man: Mr. Friggin, we named you head of the project.
      Boy: Whoa!

    4. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know, every time I make a reference to Real Genius around here, it goes right over everyone's heads. Which can mean only one of two things:

      1. Slashdot is infested with teenage wannabes who aren't old enough to have seen Real Genius.

      2. Slashdot is infested with people who *wish* they were cool enough to be geeks.

      Considering how much nonsense we see, plus the general Slashdot GroupThink(TM), I'm going for number 3: All of the above.

    5. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by slughead · · Score: 1

      To produce Extremely Large Shark?

      No, just a shark with an extremely large head.

    6. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by pocketfullofshells · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm still trying to restore my hallway from all the water damage.

      forgot the plastic....

    7. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Nos. · · Score: 2, Funny

      The ice went directly from solid to gas.. no water damage. Of course the idea that the gas might be explosive is another matter.

    8. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Brian+Esser · · Score: 1

      I bought it on dvd 6 months ago :o)

    9. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by oc255 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, ok. I totally got this reference right away. Which maybe dates me a bit (I'm under 30). But what makes that movie (and that scene) so special? Is it the fact that it was kinda weird and original way back when? I mean, you had the guy with the weird braces talking to god while popcorn while exploding all around him.

      Definitely stands out.

      Group think. Meh, original scenes make group think happen because the group remembers them.

      - Horse head in Godfather
      - Shark tank with Lasers on their heads
      - I know Kung Foo
      - I am your Father

      Most of these things were kinda catchy/shocking/surprising/rememberable in their originality, so does Group Think kinda feed of original ideas and then become cliche?

      Idea -> Reuse -> Cliche -> Rut -> Originality -> Idea

      I can't wait to get my first offtopic for this one, even though it's ontopic in a micro-scale.

    10. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ok, ok. I totally got this reference right away. Which maybe dates me a bit (I'm under 30).

      A few people will usually get it. But the majority will say something amazingly stupid.

      But what makes that movie (and that scene) so special?

      Oh, come on! That's the ultimate 80's party movie for geeks! They pulled off all sorts of geeky pranks (dry ice in the hall, disassembling/reassembling a car in the dorm, tuning a radio to braces), saved the world through some pretty creative hacking/espionage, and even pulled an awesome prank on the bad guy! What's not to like? :-)

      Group think. Meh, original scenes make group think happen because the group remembers them.

      Ummm... no. Group Think refers to the Slashdot mentality of accepting the story spin at face value without checking the facts. A perfect example was the Chase Mastercard story from a day or two ago. The poster said "wireless", "RFID", and "insecure", thus ensuring that 95% of the posts were "This sucks and is insecure wireless crap that I can hack like this RFID hack (some pointless link here)!" The truth of the matter was that the card was not wireless (induction), not RFID (smartcard), and was not insecure (crypto chip). It was actually a marked improvement over the current cards! And yet, the last response to my rebuttals of such nonsense still had someone calling it wireless and insecure! Enough to make me want to drop-kick a few people...

    11. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Wizy · · Score: 1

      But more importantly... Did we get a charge?

    12. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by GermanShorthair · · Score: 2, Informative

      I see we share the same taste in bunny slippers. OK, I don't know the exact wording but that's a funny one.

      --
      Karma: Bad
    13. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I see we share the same taste in bunny slippers.

      That's my wifes favorite line, too. :-) My favorite part is anything "In defiance to you Kent...". If you've ever read LaMothe's "Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus", he' constantly dropping Real Genius references. Such as, "Without correcting for the polar vs. cartesian coordinates, the projection looks warped. Or in defiance to you Kent, it's like looking through a fishbowl!" Half the reason why it was such an awesome book! ;-)

    14. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 2, Funny


      -or-

      3. Real Genius was gay and noone cares.

      --
      ymmv
    15. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Ah hah! We've found a faker! Get the feathers and tar! Drive him out! Let loose the dogs of war! ;-)

    16. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by PONA-Boy · · Score: 1

      oh, that's just Laslo...

      --
      +that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
    17. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by WaterBreath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me be the first to say that if they pull off this laser plan, the reward should be to surround them with a million women screaming and throwing tiny pickles at them.

    18. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to say that if they pull off this laser plan, the reward should be to surround them with a million [naked] women screaming and throwing tiny pickles at them.

      Why am I the only one who has that dream? ;-)

    19. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Zugok · · Score: 2, Funny

      well I am trying to figure out how my car appeared in my dorm room.

      --
      "I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
    20. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not wireless (induction)

      Wait, how is induction not wireless? We're not talking about a transformer here, right? It's an actual electronic signal transmitted between separate objects without wires?

      I'd go find the story, but I don't really care that much. It's just... WTF?

    21. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Ucero · · Score: 1

      Well actually this sounds more like some Star Wars evil engine aka Death Star. I guess the evil emperor who once said "If you are not with me, then you're against me" is forging new plans?

    22. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      I'm still trying to restore my hallway from all the water damage.

      This is what happens when someone gets too sexualy frustrated.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    23. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by jerde · · Score: 1

      What's with this using "gay" as a synonym for "bad" or "stupid"?

      I fail to see the connection.

      Why not say, "Real Genius was jewish and noone cares." or "Real Genius was black and noone cares." Oh wait... because that would be offensive.

      Yeah, only a minority of people are offended by that use of the word, but if you don't actually intend to offend people, why not choose a different way to say it?

      Just a thought. (and i'm not picking on you, just the trend these days for the misuse of the word)

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
    24. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by The+Creator · · Score: 1
      3. Real Genius was gay and noone cares.


      Yeah, gay as a fox!

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    25. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Wireless is an industry term that refers to using radio transmissions for communicating with devices. e.g. AT&T refers to their cell service as "wireless service". Induction is not wireless because it doesn't transmit radio transmissions. It works through interferance with an EM field extended out only a few centimeters. The card must be inside the field to function, and cannot be activated from a greater distance with "a more powerful device" as some idiots insisted upon. Such attempts would would either burn out the device (too much juice), stand everyone's hair on end instantly, fry your ass with arcing energy, or all of the above.

    26. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      What's with this using "gay" as a synonym for "bad" or "stupid"?

      Rather than pedantically pointing out that it's hardly new, I decided to look it up. Slow day. It would appear the meaning you prefer is actually the bastardisation by about 231 years.

      http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gay

      Two excerpts from the entry linked above:

      "Ayto ['20th Century Words'] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song 'The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store,' by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays."

      "The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1637."

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    27. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps the parent meant that the movie Real Genius was vaguely homo-eroctic? You know it was about geeks in college, and geeks in college like to experiment. But don't let that stop you're bleeding heart from being offended. Did you hear that in Qumar, "THEY BEAT THE WOMEN!"

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    28. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Just Great! Now I HAVE TO STAND IN LINE, just so I can pop my pop corn at work!

    29. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by InfoVore · · Score: 1

      My favorite part is anything "In defiance to you Kent..."

      Actually the line is "Put simply,in deference to you Kent...".

      One of the best throw away lines ever. Great movie. Lousy science, but great movie.

      -I.V.

      --
      "These laws they're passing won't even compile anymore, let alone execute." - anon
    30. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he was refering to the old meaning of being jovial.

    31. Re:Companion Cloning/Bio-Engineering Project? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Mmmmm, wow, just the thought of tiny pickles.

      ahhhhhhhhhh.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  2. I beg to differ by Yeldarb-7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is something for me to see here.

    1. Re:I beg to differ by Martin+Blank · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only with your remaining eye, though.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:I beg to differ by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't want to "see" a laser than can generate enough heat to start a fusion reaction.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    3. Re:I beg to differ by xv4n · · Score: 2, Funny
      I don't want to "see" a laser than can generate enough heat to start a fusion reaction.

      Well, just in case, it comes with a label that reads "WARNING: Don't look at laser with remaining eye".

    4. Re:I beg to differ by Detritus · · Score: 1

      What remaining eye? Just think of all of the water in your head being flashed to superheated steam or plasma.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  3. I call it... by djward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The "Alan Parsons Project"

    1. Re:I call it... by Joey+Patterson · · Score: 1, Funny

      The "Alan Parsons Project"

      Damn... you can read my mind!

    2. Re:I call it... by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Better than Preparation H.

    3. Re:I call it... by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 1

      it works better on the "hole"

    4. Re:I call it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I thought that was some sort of hovercraft.

    5. Re:I call it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are those frickin' sharks with fricken' laser beams attached to their frickin' heads?

    6. Re:I call it... by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 3, Funny

      The next logical step would be to put put them lasers on the moon and divide the moon into two units: Moon unit Alpha and Moon Unit Zappa

    7. Re:I call it... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Damn... you can read my mind!"

      "I never get first post, but I bet I can beat all these people to an Austin Powers joke!" x 50.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    8. Re:I call it... by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 1


      Wasn't that a hovercraft of some kind?

  4. Eh... by chriswaclawik · · Score: 5, Funny

    It may be powerful, but is it readily mountable on a shark's head?

    --
    A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.
    1. Re:Eh... by McCheese · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is not readily mountable on a shark's head.

    2. Re:Eh... by maotx · · Score: 1

      Maybe not a shark's head, but it definatly looks like something that would be on the death star.

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    3. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be a naked and petrified shark

    4. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you used a shark's head to spell, but definitely looks better when it's spelled properly.

    5. Re:Eh... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "It may be powerful, but is it readily mountable on a shark's head?"

      *Sigh* Yet another shark joke in a story about laser beams. Why can't we all race to come up with an original joke? Why not something like "Michael Jackson's doctor was quoted as saying 'we can rebuild him..'"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:Eh... by MrNixon · · Score: 1

      And that, friends, is the funniest comment/mod combo I've ever seen.

  5. Don't aim that at my 'pellets' by utahraptor · · Score: 0, Troll

    Unless its a medical procedure :P

  6. I prefer the MTHEL! by v3xt0r · · Score: 0
    --
    the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
  7. Yeah but... by WwWonka · · Score: 0

    ..can it blast holes through campus statues, point party goers to an all night swimming pool party with female beauty school students, and cook up a mean 20 ton jiffy pop in my dickhead science instructor's new house?

    1. Re:Yeah but... by medge_42 · · Score: 1

      The sixth comment before a Real Genius reference.
      May I first complement you on you choice of footwear!

  8. About time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They finally put in my order! I was about to go someplace else for my "Death Star".

  9. military research, again by cats-paw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA

    The NIF laser "is essential to assessing the potential performance of nuclear weapons," says Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

    Naturally I'm depressed that "civilian" research does not get the money which it needs to help solve many pressing problems, but on the other hand if this facility removes the need for live nuclear tests that would be a good thing.

    How long this self-imposed testband will last if China or India decide they need to start testing weapons using live tests ?

    --
    Absolute statements are never true
    1. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This thing has taken a long-ass time. I remember seeing some of the potassium glass something like eight years ago. Good to know they're getting close to finishing it.

    2. Re:military research, again by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      The NIF laser "is essential to assessing the potential performance of nuclear weapons," says Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.

      More like shooting down nuclear weapons from the ground. After all, the missile defense drones don't seem to be doing it. Why not just try the obvious.

      Of course, they'll have to station the test facility under an abandoned drive-in movie theater.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is actually nothing new. The NIF is something that is reported on about once a year, just to keep people interested in the Fusion project that will happen Real Soon Now(TM).

      These lasers are definitely cool, but not what one would traditionally think of. Each laser charges up to one terrajoule of energy, then outputs one terrawatt for one second. The theory is that if the pulse is timed correctly, there will be enough pressure from all sides to force fusion. Unfortunately, we won't know if it's actually going to work until the end of the decade.

      As for military uses, the military doesn't really need a laser this powerful. A gigawatt laser would do the job just as effectively, would charge much faster, and wouldn't strain the reactors in a combat situation. I'd provide more info if I could, but the Navy currently has the next generation ships listed as having "directed energy weapons". The only such weapon they've confirmed (for suitably shakey definitions of "confirmed") is the Rail Gun, which may allow destroyers to perform Battleship style land bombardments.

    4. Re:military research, again by birge · · Score: 1
      How long this self-imposed testband will last if China or India decide they need to start testing weapons using live tests ?

      My guess is seismographs worldwide will hear two booms, spaced a few seconds apart. The second one will be China or India.

    5. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, the military does need a laser this powerful. You see, it will allow them to remove a tiny sample from any one of our nuclear warheads and induce fusion in line with exactly what happens when the bomb is dropped.

      Got a better idea of how to make sure our cold-war aresnal is still functioning and capable of deployment without detonating a nuclear warhead every few years?

      And if you want to talk about expensive, just imagine scrapping every H-Bomb we have and making them all anew.

    6. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, the military does need a laser this powerful. You see, it will allow them to remove a tiny sample from any one of our nuclear warheads and induce fusion in line with exactly what happens when the bomb is dropped.

      Why would they want to do that? Right now the equipment for a fusion reactor is massive, has to be carefully calibrated, and wouldn't really be effective for a bomb. In short, we're a LONG way from a pure fusion bomb. I can imagine that the military has a passive interest at the moment, but it's doubtful they'll take any more of an interest until the equipment is operating, proven, and many of the other issues have been worked out.

      Honestly, this design would be far more useful for a Dadelus drive than it would be for a bomb.

    7. Re:military research, again by gomoX · · Score: 1

      Ok, now give up that Arnold Schwarzenegger ideology and think about it. Is it really as funny as you thought it would be?
      The fact that US's military can kick everyone else's ass is really not that cool. As a matter of fact, it's one among many reasons that provide terrorists with motivation.
      Although tempted to say "grow up", i'll refrain myself from doing so, just so that I don't become a childish ass and someone else can actually read what i wrote instead of flaming me.

      --
      My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
    8. Re:military research, again by norton_I · · Score: 2, Informative

      The grandparents point, which seems to have eluded you, is that the point is not to use this laser to detonate fusion bombs (since fission bombs do that very well already), but to simulate the ignition conditions and determine if our bombs are going to go off if we need them.

      This is being sold under the heading of "stockpile stewardship", not weapons development, much less to be part of an actual weapons system.

    9. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      That still doesn't make any sense. Why would you go through all the trouble of testing the dueterium/lithium samples in a reactor when they could just as easily do a purity test? And for that matter, why aren't they more concerned with the plutonium detonator, which *will* become useless?

      Maybe you have more info that would help, but I just can't fathom why anyone would attempt to test a fusion bomb in this manner.

    10. Re:military research, again by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Each laser charges up to one terrajoule of energy, then outputs one terrawatt for one second."

      Juuust slightly off...by a factor of a billion or so! :-) Actually the NIF will fire each of its 192 beams simultaneously with an energy of ~10kJ for a duration of 2-3 nanoseconds for a total of nearly 2 MJ on the target. The overall power of the laser will be somewhere near 500 Terawatts (trillion watts) and despite what the AP article says, that will never secure its stature as being the "worlds most powerful", that title is currently held by the Rutherford Appleton laboratory's Vulcan Petawatt laser, capable of achieving nearly 1 thousand trillion watts of power. The OMEGA EP laser, to be completed in 1-2 years will achieve over 2 Petawatts of power. These lasers only deliver few kJ total energy though.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    11. Re:military research, again by caswelmo · · Score: 4, Funny
      "Why would you go through all the trouble of testing the dueterium/lithium samples in a reactor when they could just as easily do a purity test?"

      Probably because the people who work on nuclear physics & nuclear weapons technology are really, really stupid. They're probably not nearly as smart as you.

      Note: Please see previous article on sarcasm detection for help with this post.

    12. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Riigghht. I'm not saying there isn't a reason for doing such a thing, I'm saying that the reasons stated make no sense. i.e. There's information missing somewhere here that would put the puzzle together. And you know what? I looked it up myself.

      From this page, they are not using lasers for fusion tests as the anon poster suggested. Instead, they're using microlasers to do Spryton trigger tests. So no, nuclear scientists are not really, really stupid. Someone just has their facts out of whack (which happens).

      If anyone *does* have a link to the military doing fusion testing with lasers, then by all means. Post a link!

    13. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You'd think by now I'd remember to double check my facts instead of using my oft-fautly memory. Yes, they are terawatt lasers, but as you say they only fire for nanoseconds. In my defense, my confusion is remembered from trying to sort out the previous story's "facts". :-)

    14. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what universe is a Farnsowrth-Hirsh fusor massive?

    15. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same universe where Farnsworth-Hirsch fusion is the same thing as laser confinement fusion. Or were you not paying attention?

    16. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Haha. Look:

      "Right now the equipment for a fusion reactor is massive"

      Nowhere is the type specified. If you're gonna make sweeping statements Batman, pay attention and check your shit first.

    17. Re:military research, again by stor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Got a better idea of how to make sure our cold-war aresnal is still functioning and capable of deployment without detonating a nuclear warhead every few years?

      Yes, kill yourselves and let the world go on without your crazy ass, evil, militarist asses.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    18. Re:military research, again by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the military doesn't need a laser that powerful for combat at all.

      The kind of laser you find in Real Genius is actually impossible, short of using cold fusion as the energy source. What you actually get from a laser of that size is a massive assembly and huge power source to work. All the portable ones take up a LOT of space, which is completely impractical (and they're not terribly useful, either). Tanks are much more effective.

      For close combat, bullets are as hard to dodge as lasers, take up a lot less space, and have good enough stopping power. From further away you can get a lot more stopping power from bombs and RPGs, or as you said, rail guns.

      However, to modify a quote from a movie:
      "All you'd need is a large spinning mirror and a tracking system, and you could vaporize a space target from earth." The only real advantage you don't get from non-lasers is the unlimited range and instantaneous hits (it should be noted that "instantaneous" is only an issue for things that are already moving quickly and erratically - such as missles. You have to be really lucky to dodge a bullet.)

      To me this seems like a fundamental property of the universe: you can almost always do more damage with a little matter than you can with a lot of energy. After all, matter is essentially condensed energy.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    19. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha, dolt. It was in reply to "Actually, the military does need a laser this powerful. You see, it will allow them to remove a tiny sample from any one of our nuclear warheads and induce fusion in line with exactly what happens when the bomb is dropped."

    20. Re:military research, again by stor · · Score: 1

      Yes, kill yourselves and let the world go on without your crazy ass, evil, militarist asses.


      Oh, btw, I'm not referring to just "Americans" here, I'm referring to any country that thinks nuclear weapons are a Good Idea.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    21. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You're overlooking advantages of laser weapons though:

      1. No ammo. As long as your reactors hold out, so can your weapons.

      2. Point defense. When the enemy is swamping your vessel with missiles, lasers can be used to quickly target and destroy the incoming bogeys.

      3. No magazine. There's no ammo, so there's nothing to make go "BOOM" in the case of a lucky shot.

      4. Reliability. Since the computer only has to control a targetting mirror and not swivel a large hunk of metal, the reliabiity of the entire weapon goes up while maintenence goes down.

      That being said, a gigawatt laser is probably not necessary, but it is doable for < 1 sec pulses of fire. No cold fusion required. :-)

      Note that the same advantages hold true of masers which may prove to be more effective weapons in the long run.

    22. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Oooo! Oooo! Oooo! I think hydrogen bombs are a good idea! Because we're all going to *wish* we had more Russian super-nukes if a large asteroid comes a-knocking...

    23. Re:military research, again by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      1) If it's a concern, fill the space the reactor takes up with ammo, and only shoot as fast as often as the reactor is capable of delivering enough power (which wouldn't be constant). Your ammo will hold out longer than the reactor would before you have to go back and refit.

      2) Maybe. I'm not sure that would be faster.

      3) True, but only marginally important. Remember that "it takes up less space" argument is wrong - or at least has been wrong so far.

      4) This is definitely not in favor of the laser, and probably the biggest reason why we're not using them now. You basically have to haul a power station with the laser whereever you go. A power station is much more difficult to keep up and running than a BFG, and the maintenence is a nightmare by comparison. Also, lasers have to be kept really, really clean. Dust is a problem.
      If you've already got a power station handy, it might be useful as an auxillary weapon.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    24. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      1) If it's a concern, fill the space the reactor takes up with ammo, and only shoot as fast as often as the reactor is capable of delivering enough power (which wouldn't be constant). Your ammo will hold out longer than the reactor would before you have to go back and refit.

      Large Naval vessels already have reactors capable of providing power for these weapons. The reactors can be ramped up to provide power to energy weapons at a rate exceeding that of conventional ammo. The limiting factor would be the energy weapon's duty cycle.

      2) Maybe. I'm not sure that would be faster.

      Far lot faster than lauching a point-defense missile. Besides, we've got super-fast mirrors from fiber-optics research that can squeeze off the shot before the machine guns can get off their first bullet. Keep in mind that a mirror can be kept spinning while a gun has to swivel with the target.

      3) True, but only marginally important. Remember that "it takes up less space" argument is wrong - or at least has been wrong so far.

      It's not about space. Well, except when we're talking missiles, but assume bullets and shells for the moment. In the case of a hit on a vessel, the magazine is a horribly vital area that can easily destroy the entire ship if hit. It's usually buried deep inside ships to prevent such damage, but secondary explosions and fires have been known to trigger such detonations.

      4) This is definitely not in favor of the laser, and probably the biggest reason why we're not using them now. You basically have to haul a power station with the laser whereever you go.

      This is NOT a problem on modern naval vessels. The Navy currently has the DD(X) and CVN(X) class ships up for energy weapon fittings. While the gas turbines of the DD(X) class might make it unsuitable (too much drain on the fuel supply), the CVN(X) class is perfect. It's already hauling around reactors that almost never run at 100% power, the new class decouples energy production from the drive shafts, and it carries around a ten year supply of fuel. What could be a more perfect setup?

      A power station is much more difficult to keep up and running than a BFG,

      Well, on carriers the power station has to be run one way or another. The BFG is usually kept on a separate boat all together (Battleships and Cruisers), the former of which has been fully retired.

      Also, lasers have to be kept really, really clean. Dust is a problem.

      Not having experience with high powered lasers (yeah, like anyone's going to let me near one with more than a few milliwatts of output), I can't really speak to this point. But my primary thought is: Wouldn't any dust particles get vaporized by the beam? How do the characteristics of this situation vary from lasers to masers?

      If you've already got a power station handy, it might be useful as an auxillary weapon.

      Point defense is probably the most useful situation for beam weapons, as they can't fire over the horizon. However, such weapons could also be useful for future space combat scenarios. i.e. Just like a battleship used to bombard land, a ship on the ocean could potentially bombard space targets. Retaliation would be the biggest concern (they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them), but the requirements that space ships be light (no reactor) works in the favor of Naval ships.

      And it wouldn't be so much of an auxillary weapon (technically, everything on a carrier other than planes is auxillary) as it would be another weapon that has particular uses. :-)

    25. Re:military research, again by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Retaliation would be the biggest concern (they can hit you just as easily as you can hit them), but the requirements that space ships be light (no reactor) works in the favor of Naval ships."

      They (in orbit) can hit you (floating on the surface of the ocean and not submersible) *way* more easily than you can hit them; all they have to do is drop a small rock *somewhere* near your carrier battlegroup and you can kiss it goodbye as the waves take every ship bar the subs to the ocean floor.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    26. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone *does* have a link to the military doing fusion testing with lasers, then by all means. Post a link!

      "Designing for Ignition"

      The link that you posted is for an entirely different program, all together.

    27. Re:military research, again by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Of course, "small" being defined as larger than a few hundred tons. For reference: 250kg objects (44 gallon drum-sized) can create a 50-100m wide crater if they impact dirt at 15km/sec. Lower-orbit velocities are in the order of 7-8km/second and you'd lose a fair proportion of that speed dropping a large (albeit heavy) object through 100km of atmosphere.

      And how are you going to lift all that tons of rock? There's not that many rocks conveniently floating about in nearby orbits.

      It'd be easier to just drop a nuke.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    28. Re:military research, again by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I am sure that appropriate kinetic energy projectiles could be developed. I'd love to give it a go, taking out an entire carrier battlegroup with a single, non-nuclear munition would be very cool indeed.

      Its just a pity it can't be done so easily on a budget...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    29. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh... so you're saying that because they're using "microlasers" to test the bomb triggers, they couldn't possibly be using lasers for anything else. Because at any given time, nuclear scientists can only be using lasers for one thing!

    30. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're wonderful, but only if they wipe out every last human on the planet (including, of course, you and I).

      But maybe that's just because humans everywhere are fucking stupid.

    31. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ah, the ad hominem. Batman, I expected better from you. Maybe by your 13th birthday you will have improved, at least in english skills.

      How can you jump from a powerful laser to a fusion reactor? You have to be more specific. Like I said, pay attention to your shit before making sweeping statements. By "shit", I mean your sentence. You should have said that the equipment for a laser confinement fusion reactor is massive.

    32. Re:military research, again by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      Actually there is a cheap solution to the carrier battlegroup. The formal name is Thor which is nothing more than a cannister in space with a bunch of welding rolds with fins, some type of seeker head (I'd go with dual IR/millimeter wave radar, perhaps with an optical backup) dropped from orbit. A few hundred to a few thousand of those could ruin your whole day. You'd have to be shooting durn fast, and durn accruately, to get them all, and as I said they are cheap to make and deploy. Old tech.

      In the future either you are totally stealthed, submerged, or dead. And this is from an ex-tincan sailor who still keeps up on this stuff.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    33. Re:military research, again by Foggerty · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm very fucking glad that kind of destructive power cannot be used at all right now, regardles of the budget.

    34. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      The formal name is Thor which is nothing more than a cannister in space with a bunch of welding rolds with fins, some type of seeker head (I'd go with dual IR/millimeter wave radar, perhaps with an optical backup) dropped from orbit. A few hundred to a few thousand of those could ruin your whole day.

      Orbital mechanics doesn't work like that. To hit anything, you'd have to deorbit the devices on a proper trajectory. Depending on your own orbit, such a trajectory could take a full orbit before it comes down. In that time, the battlegroup could have moved, thus making them a non-target. Compare this to the Naval mounted lasers which have a pure line of sight firing solution. (Well, almost. You do have to correct for atmospheric refraction.)

      Basically, Thor is far more useful for hitting stationary targets than it is for hitting ships, thus making Naval vessels just as potent as ever.

    35. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Hello? That's the NIF! You've managed to go in full circle away from "the military wants this too" back to "the NIF is doing these experiments"! We already know that. What we need proven is that the military wants to test their hydrogen bombs with such reactors. So far no evidence has come forth to support that assertion.

    36. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Ahh... so you're saying that because they're using "microlasers" to test the bomb triggers, they couldn't possibly be using lasers for anything else.

      Nope. I'm saying that the page I linked to is a full description of what the stockpile program is doing. Their only mention of lasers is the use of triggers for Sprytons. Until someone produces a link or hard reference to the method in question (using fusion reactors to test weapons), then we have no evidence to suggest that the military is doing or wants to do such a thing.

      Is that clear enough for you, or should I say it again?

    37. Re:military research, again by birge · · Score: 1
      The fact that US's military can kick everyone else's ass is really not that cool. As a matter of fact, it's one among many reasons that provide terrorists with motivation.

      You have no idea what you're talking about. We've been a military hegemon for half a century, and only a target of muslim extremists for a few decades. The reason the islamofascists want us dead has to do with our intervention in the middle east, for the most part.

      Although tempted to say "grow up", i'll refrain myself from doing so, just so that I don't become a childish ass and someone else can actually read what i wrote instead of flaming me.

      You didn't refrain from saying it. That was about the dumbest thing I've ever read on slashdot, and that's saying a lot. But I'll refrain from saying that.

    38. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is context. This is you taking things out of context. This is you looking like an ass for taking things out of context. Thank you, good day, and go find someone else to troll.

    39. Re:military research, again by theMightyE · · Score: 1
      But my primary thought is: Wouldn't any dust particles get vaporized by the beam? How do the characteristics of this situation vary from lasers to masers?

      I get to play with some reasonably high power lasers at work - dust is a problem but one that can be solved.

      The power densities that some lasers put out is greater than the power per unit area exiting the surface of the sun. This isn't a problem so long as nothing in the high power density region absorbs the wavelength of light that the laser is running at - as long as the optics are transparent the light goes in, gets bent around, and comes out the other side without causing any heating. If, however, a speck of dust lands on some part of the optics chain with a concentrated beam it can absorb the light and becomes a hot spot that damages optical coatings and scatters light out of the optical path.

      The main cure for this is hermetically sealing the optical path, or at least operating it in a very clean environment. At some point the laser has to exit the system to be useful, so tricks like flowing pure nitrogen boiled off from a liquid N2 source over the output lens are used. The pure gas contains essentially no dust and provides a buffer layer to the dirty outside air.

      I once ran a system like this in an area that was supposed to be a cleanroom, but the filtering system wasn't working properly. Every once in a while a bit of dust would pass through the beam and cause a bright flash as it scattered light and burnt to a crisp. Good times.

    40. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I get to play with some reasonably high power lasers at work

      Lucky you. Most people won't let me near the kitchen or power tools, much less a kilowatt or megawatt laser! ;-)

      The power densities that some lasers put out is greater than the power per unit area exiting the surface of the sun. This isn't a problem so long as nothing in the high power density region absorbs the wavelength of light that the laser is running at - as long as the optics are transparent the light goes in, gets bent around, and comes out the other side without causing any heating.

      So, if you were to make a laser weapon for the military, what do you think would be the best solution for such issues? For example, would placing the optics deep inside a barrel that is hermetically sealed while not is use provide sufficient respite? Or are more extreme measures necessary?

    41. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      Ok. You spend 200,000,000,000$ making a point defense laser system.

      I cover my missiles with a reflective substance for 200$.

      WOW sounds like a great idea for me.

      PS: You might be able to shoot down aircraft from several miles, but I can launch a missile while over the horizon and still hit you.

    42. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I cover my missiles with a reflective substance for 200$.

      It doesn't work that way. Reflective sheets can deflect some of the energy, but they will still heat up from the remainder. When we're talking a multi-megawatt pulse, your reflective surface is as good as chicken fried toast. The novel Footfall had an interesting defense system that involved active water cooling near the skin of the ship, but that wouldn't work very well for missiles. In the case of Footfall's Archangel, the ship was only able to carry such a system because it was a heavily overpowered Orion warship. (It carried several space shuttles up into space with it.) Missiles don't have that kind of thrust-to-weight ratio.

      Also, masers operate at wavelengths higher than visible light, so your reflective surfaces would be even less effective against those.

      PS: You might be able to shoot down aircraft from several miles, but I can launch a missile while over the horizon and still hit you.

      As I said in another post, lasers/masers would work best for point-defense and not long range fire. So we'll fire off a rail gun round over the horizon, it will destroy your pathetic ship, then the point defense lasers will take out your slow moving incoming missiles. Result? Total destruction to you and your offsensive capabilities, zero impact on our combat effectiveness. Game over, you lose.

    43. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      SCI-FI is fiction. Please say that again and again till it starts to sink in.

      Yes, Masers can use wavelengths higher than visible light but if your going to use some sort of mirror to target your system then clearly you can use that type of mirror to reflect that energy at 99+% efficiency. At this point in time your talking about a hypothetical system so feel free to pick any part of the EM Spectrum and you can find it's going to be a pain to use as either you need to rapidly swivel your laser system or you going to lose a lot of energy as it passes though the air or you can use the same substance used in your mirrors to make a missile immune to said system.

      You can't fire rail guns over the horizon as they a lose a lot of kinetic energy going tough the air and don't don't have ballistic trajectories unless there moving at slow speeds at which point you can just use gun powder to do that.

    44. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      SCI-FI is fiction. Please say that again and again till it starts to sink in.

      Except when it's not. The archangel's design is considered sound by scientists and has been discussed several times on nuclear science webboards. I've asked nuclear scientists outright if the archangel's defenses would work. The answer was a resounding 'yes', along with an explanation about the issue with reflective surfaces.


      Yes, Masers can use wavelengths higher than visible light but if your going to use some sort of mirror to target your system then clearly you can use that type of mirror to reflect that energy at 99+% efficiency. At this point in time your talking about a hypothetical system so feel free to pick any part of the EM Spectrum and you can find it's going to be a pain to use as either you need to rapidly swivel your laser system or you going to lose a lot of energy as it passes though the air or you can use the same substance used in your mirrors to make a missile immune to said system.


      We're discussing both systems, so it's only fair to mention both. Lasers have a faster targetting system than masers (due to the ability to reflect visible wavelengths), but masers are able to penetrate better due to higher wave lengths. Both have advantages/disadvantages that to be weighed in before deploying a system. A mirror on a high powered laser is doable, but has to be precision crafted to be able to take the load. Note that such a mirror is vastly different from a "reflective surface" on a missile. From here:

      The optical power levels inside the laser devices themselves are so horrendously high that the high-reflectivity laser mirrors operate just on the verge of self-destruction. Any flaw or blemish or dust particle on the mirror surface causes the mirror reflectivity to decrease or its absorption to increase. As the absorbing spot gets warmer, its absorption goes up, and the situation goes to pot in a runaway fashion. The result is near-instantaneous catastrophic runaway thermal damage which blows the surface off the mirror faster than you can possibly shut things down. The supersonic nozzles are
      extremely fragile and touchy also.


      While you can "use the same substance" as you suggest, it's doubtful that you could maintain the perfect mirror on the missile, or for that matter even acheive such a mirror.

      You can't fire rail guns over the horizon as they a lose a lot of kinetic energy going tough the air and don't don't have ballistic trajectories unless there moving at slow speeds at which point you can just use gun powder to do that.

      You obviously haven't seen the Raytheon specs on the new railguns. They fire a non-explosive, guided projectile straight up, then direct it to the target on the way down. Over the horizon is *EXACTLY* what it does, and it does it with a range of ~100 miles. (Or so the brochure says. :-)) Some links:

      http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php
      http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/articles/ddx_jane s_062403.pdf
      http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages /8-6263.asp

      I'd provide a link to the munition itself, but I can't find the article at the moment. If I find it, I'll add it in another post.

    45. Re:military research, again by gomoX · · Score: 1

      1) You're wrong. Read what i wrote again and find the logical mistake in your proposition.
      2) Heh, i guess you earned it now. Grow up dude.

      Have a nice day,

      --
      My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
    46. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Found it!

      Here's the previous Slashdot article. Note that I was pretty skeptical at the time, but many of the responses have since warmed me up to the idea a bit more:

      http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/22/183920 7&tid=126&tid=103

      Here's the guided munition data sheet. Plans are to deploy early versions in 5" deck guns, then use future versions in the rail guns. Future versions would supposedly remove the explosives package and acceleration motor in favor of the kinetic energy imparted by the rail gun:

      http://www.raytheon.com/products/ergm/ref_docs/erg m.pdf

    47. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      While you can "use the same substance" as you suggest, it's doubtful that you could maintain the perfect mirror on the missile, or for that matter even achieve such a mirror.

      I am not talking about a "perfect mirror" Let's say I can reflect 95% of incoming energy well you now need a system that's 20x as powerful. Can this be done? Well every part of your system now needs to take 20x the load including that targeting mirror. As to Masers you need to have 2 to 4 of them to cover each section of the ship. And they now need to swivel fast enough to take out 3 targets in under a second. And we are talking about moving 100's of Tuns of stuff at those speeds. Depending on the frequencies I can still reflect some of that energy but lets say they only need to be 5x as powerful.

      Now let's place these things on a battle ship. Well a dumb kinetic bomb that is filled with paint can take them all out. It's not explosive so hitting it wit a laser is not going to do much. And it's a kinetic weapon so shooting it is not going to do anything. A fine mist of pant on the outside glass of your Masers is going to break said system after a single fire. Yep, it adds a new arms race but not much of one at that and your spending BILLIONS to build something that a can of paint can break.

      This could still be done but we are a long way from any system that comes anywhere near this level. Lasers sound cool but a rail / coil gun is much more useful at point defense. And even still these systems are useless vs. the WWII method of shooting a few ton's of led out of a gun at your ship.

      As I said "unless there moving at slow speeds at which point you can just use gun powder to do that"

      http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php
      http://www.raytheon.com/newsroom/articles/ddx_jane s_062403.pdf
      http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages /8-6263.asp

      These are all low velocity rounds.
      Note: Mach 10 is slow when you're talking about rail guns.

      The idea behind rail guns is you can take a 1lb iron dart and fire though 10 feet of carbon steel so you can then keep 20 tunes of said darts in less space and with less danger than you could other types of ammo. These systems are based using more massage darts, which either use an explosive head to penetrate the target or the weight of the dart. But as I said these systems could use gun powder they are not the "rail gun weapons" your thinking of as they are no better off than normal guns.

      PS: Except when it's not.

      " the ship was only able to carry such a system because it was a heavily overpowered Orion warship. (It carried several space shuttles up into space with it.)"

      Your talking about sci-fi as if it real. It's not. You can't say look at what this fact sheet says because it's sci-fi. It's like saying "If you could take all the energy from the sun for 2-3 seconds you could cut a one inch hole though the earth" And then point at that and saying see you can cut a one inch hole though the earth. If you sit there and think about the logic you can see why saying "if I can do A then I can do B" does not mean you can do B.

    48. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      That's hardly rail gun ammo it's a 100lb missile. I guess they can make them a little smaller by not taking as much rocket fuel with them but you can't really shoot something like that out of a gun, as it can't take the acceleration.

      If there really using ERGM's then I guess they can call it a rail gun if all it's doing is tossing it up in the air a few hundred feet but it's not the rapid fire kinetic weapon people think of when they say rail gun.

    49. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I am not talking about a "perfect mirror" Let's say I can reflect 95% of incoming energy well you now need a system that's 20x as powerful. Can this be done?

      No. The issue is that once part of the mirror is compromised, the entire mirror face will be lost. ANY imperfections will result in the complete destruction of the reflective surface. It was part of what I quoted in my previous post.

      As to Masers you need to have 2 to 4 of them to cover each section of the ship.

      I wouldn't be surprised if far more of them were installed.

      Now let's place these things on a battle ship. Well a dumb kinetic bomb that is filled with paint can take them all out.

      For one, you'd need a lot of paint to cover an entire battleship. For another, the "dumb kinetic bomb" won't get close enough.

      It's not explosive so hitting it wit a laser is not going to do much.

      It's quite explosive. What do you think is going to happen when the paint is suddenly superheated? BOOM.

      Lasers sound cool but a rail / coil gun is much more useful at point defense

      Are you kidding? Rail guns would make for lousy point defense. At a paltry Mach 10, plus launch time, plus time for aim (which ain't gonna happen for something designed to fire straight up), and only minor course correction abilities, rail guns just aren't designed for close-in combat. That's precisely what lasers/masers excel at!

      As I said "unless there moving at slow speeds at which point you can just use gun powder to do that"

      You can use gunpowder to fire a shell as far as 250 miles at speeds of ~Mach 10, with future enhancements expected to significantly increase that velocity? You're kidding me, right?

      These are all low velocity rounds.
      Note: Mach 10 is slow when you're talking about rail guns.


      That really doesn't matter when you consider that rail guns are otherwise a non-functional weapon. Just because it is theoretically possible to launch these rounds faster doesn't mean that it's current feasible to do so. The "low velocity" you speak of is far in excess of any existing munitions. This link gives WWII muzzle velocities of around Mach 1.5.

      The idea behind rail guns is you can take a 1lb iron dart and fire though 10 feet of carbon steel so you can then keep 20 tunes of said darts in less space and with less danger than you could other types of ammo.

      Except that is not the type of rail gun that the Navy is deploying. They are deploying a more practical system that is different from the ideological concepts of the past. The Navy's design allows for greater range, lower duty cycle, longer rail life, and better combat effectivness. i.e. They're using rail technology to create more powerful battleship guns that take up less space, have a greater impact, and can be guided to their target.

      " the ship was only able to carry such a system because it was a heavily overpowered Orion warship. (It carried several space shuttles up into space with it.)"

      Your talking about sci-fi as if it real.


      No, I'm talking about a scenario that *could* be real because it was based on *real* science. According to *real* science, the largest Orion is 8,000,000 tons (yes, tons, not pounds) using 1960's building technology. The REAL Orion designs are powerful enough to carry a cooling system sufficient to absorb megawatts of energy from REAL laser weapons. A missile cannot carry such a cooling system, because it doesn't have a REAL thrust-to-weight ratio sufficient to carry such a system. Unless we start using REAL Nuclear Thermal Rockets on them, that is.

    50. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      If there really using ERGM's then I guess they can call it a rail gun if all it's doing is tossing it up in the air a few hundred feet but it's not the rapid fire kinetic weapon people think of when they say rail gun.

      A rapid fire kinetic weapon as you describe is a Needlegun. A Rail Gun is simply a gun that fires its projectile using Lorentz force. The concept does not define any particular projectile, or rate of fire.

    51. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      Going to split this into 3 post for each of the ideas 1st off rail guns.

      You can get some good info on rail guns from.
      http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/classes/2001Fa ll/Phyx135-2/19/railgun.htm
      Such as: Viable rail guns can now be constructed with rails only 1 meter long.
      The projectile should have an exit speed of approximately 12km/s in order to successfully intercept missiles. (mach 35.26 ~= 12km/s)

      They are working on 150 km/s rail guns which would work at around mach 300. So yea mach 10 is slow for a rail gun.

      PS: Granted coil guns seem to work much better and have can get close to C but that's with a single atom.

    52. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Again, you're describing something different than the military wants to deploy. The military wants a replacement for battleship guns. That's what they're designing. It's useless for point defense. What you're looking at is a design that might one day be miniturized into a portable weapon for tanks or close-in combat.

      They are working on 150 km/s rail guns which would work at around mach 300.

      And they also melt the rail on the way out. Why do you think the Navy isn't deploying these? They need distance and reliability, not light speed. :-)

    53. Re:military research, again by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      And would you also like to see the total, worldwide, international decomissioning of the carrier battlegroups (et.al.) and nukes as well?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    54. Re:military research, again by birge · · Score: 1
      You're wrong. Read what i wrote again and find the logical mistake in your proposition.

      Why don't you indulge me and just tell me what you think my logical mistake was. Obviously, I'm incapable of such an analysis, or I would've corrected it myself.

    55. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      3rd sci - fi
      No, I'm talking about a scenario that *could* be real because it was based on *real* science. According to *real* science, the largest Orion is 8,000,000 tons (yes, tons, not pounds) using 1960's building technology. The REAL Orion designs are powerful enough to carry a cooling system sufficient to absorb megawatts of energy from REAL laser weapons. A missile cannot carry such a cooling system, because it doesn't have a REAL thrust-to-weight ratio sufficient to carry such a system. Unless we start using REAL Nuclear Thermal Rockets on them, that is.

      Your still talking about sci-fi as if it is real.

      You can't build a cooling system for a closed system. So we you could heat up some parts of the ship to radiate into space some heat but those would be targets as they would already be "hot". You could shore up some cold say liquid Hydrogen but you don't really have any time to use it. When your fighting weapons that will say ionize 6 inches of steel in under a second keeping that steel at 100degF or -100degF makes little difference it's still going to take the same amount of energy to ionize it. Now if you had hot steel and you wanted to cool it with liquid Nitrogen your going to have problems with cracking and it's still not going to fix any of your holes in the ship as they have been ionized and that steel is now out in space. The simple fact is if any part of your ship was anywhere near the melting point of the material then it would be cooled by radiating to space about as fast as anything you could do with it. The only thing that would help would have a thicker or more reflective hull.

      And you would still be unable to defend vs. basic kinetic weapons. 1-ton worth of mass moving at mach 50 is going to do about as much damage if it's one big ball or 50 smaller balls in a tight cluster.

    56. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      Fine, you can call it a rail gun, but it is nothing like what a point defense rail gun. They basically modified and existing system so they could use the term "rail gun" and use some of the rail gun funding.

      Calling that system a rail gun is like calling an unmanned space shuttle an ICBM yea it's a missile but the connotation of ICBM is that it has one or more atomic bombs on board.

    57. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Fine, you can call it a rail gun, but it is nothing like what a point defense rail gun.

      What is it with you and point defense rail guns? Rail guns suck for point defense in comparison to beam weapons. The type of Rail Gun you want is only useful for things like tanks or anti-aircraft fire.

      And ICBMs and Shuttles are both Rockets. Just like the Navy's rail gun and your needlegun are both Rail Guns. So stop picking over nits that don't exist!

    58. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      What is it with you and point defense rail guns? Rail guns suck for point defense in comparison to beam weapons. The type of Rail Gun you want is only useful for things like tanks or anti-aircraft fire.

      Ok, this has gotten to be a fairly long discussion so I am going to recap my points to make sure we are on the same page.

      Ion weapons have a really short range. But are of little use over a few 100 feet in the atmosphere. (Don't know if we talked about them. But they clearly suck inside an atmosphere. )

      Lasers are not vary energy efferent, are easy to defend (up to a point) and are not well suited for combat situations.

      Needle gun / High velocity rail guns are well suited for short-range use as long as they have a good power supply to work from.

      Now when the navy wanted to build a catapult system to launch aircraft used a seam system, as it's extremely reliable and efferent. The point I am trying to make is Needle guns are more efferent and reliable than lasers. Yes the rails only last so long but they're easily replaced. Where a large laser with a minor problem is going to be hell to fix. Add to that the Worm up time of current high energy laser systems (they can't really sit at ready to fire for months at a time.) and it seems like rail guns are a much more reasonable solution for point defense systems. Yea they don't sound as sci-fi but they seem to be a much better solution for ships. Now I can see the advantage on aircraft where having firing ports that stay closed might be an advantage but aircraft use guns now anyway so I don't think it's a real problem.

      PS: It was my understanding that we even have working rail gun systems that are waiting for the next generation of aircraft carriers which will have more spare energy for these types of systems. They are not supposed to be huge deck guns but rather closer to the size of a large washer drier unit / small car with a connection to an ammo supply.

    59. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Lasers are not vary energy efferent, are easy to defend (up to a point) and are not well suited for combat situations.

      Quite a bit of my argument is that they are *not* as easy to defend against as it may seem. If you pump that much energy into a target, something is going to give. And as I pointed out in a previous post, the very mirrors that make these lasers work are just beyond the brink of destruction. There's no defense for an aircraft skin other than a cooling system capable of boiling off megajoules of energy. In all other cases, inperfections, dust, and grime will lead to a complete vaporization of the reflective surface. :-)

      Needle gun / High velocity rail guns are well suited for short-range use as long as they have a good power supply to work from.

      This is true.

      Now when the navy wanted to build a catapult system to launch aircraft used a seam system, as it's extremely reliable and efferent.

      You mean "steam" catapult? The next generation of aircraft carriers are slated to use electromagnetic catapults. Linky

      The point I am trying to make is Needle guns are more efferent and reliable than lasers. Yes the rails only last so long but they're easily replaced. Where a large laser with a minor problem is going to be hell to fix.

      Sadly, this is subjective for the moment. The military is working on laser weapons, but we don't know the details of their reliability. The situation is similar with rail guns where it's predicted that reliable devices can be designed with sufficient R&D. So far, no needlegun has had a proven track record of reliability. The rails almost always melt at very bad times. We'll call this point a toss up. :-)

      Yea they don't sound as sci-fi but they seem to be a much better solution for ships.

      Both solutions are currently sci-fi-ish. The only one we *know* is happening is the Navy's extended range munition rail guns. :-)

      PS: It was my understanding that we even have working rail gun systems that are waiting for the next generation of aircraft carriers which will have more spare energy for these types of systems.

      That's more or less true. Raytheon is currently firing the Navy's rail guns in tests to ensure the weapon system is ready. After the DD(X) class Destroyer (really, a cruiser) is deployed, it will be retrofitted with these weapons. (Stupid cost saving measure.) The CVN(X) class carrier is being designed with the same concept of supporting energy hardpoints, but will have the advantage of using nuclear power instead of gas turbines.

      Old Linky to Rail Gun tests

      They are not supposed to be huge deck guns but rather closer to the size of a large washer drier unit / small car with a connection to an ammo supply.

      The images have them looking something like a gun barrel jutting out at an 80 degree angle. If you follow some of the links I posted previously, you should find a few pictures. They may also replace one of the deck guns.
      Article w/Pictures of current DD(X) :-)

    60. Re:military research, again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello? That's the NIF!

      Why yes it is.

      You've managed to go in full circle away from "the military wants this too" back to "the NIF is doing these experiments"!

      To understand your confusion I was looking back at a post of yours in this thread in which you doubted that powerful lasers were to be used for nuclear stockpile stewardship:

      Why would you go through all the trouble of testing the dueterium/lithium samples in a reactor when they could just as easily do a purity test?

      and:

      Maybe you have more info that would help, but I just can't fathom why anyone would attempt to test a fusion bomb in this manner.

      Now, from the third paragraph of the article I linked:

      By achieving ignition, NIF will allow weapons scientists to perform several kinds of experiments for the Department of Energy's Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure that the U.S. nuclear arsenal remains safe and reliable.

      If you read the article, you will see that NIF has indeed been sold primarily as a method to test the effects of aging on nuclear weapons.

      But the idea is not to stick any part of an actual warhead in the middle of a room and blast it with lasers. It is to get better models for D-T fusion works.

      We know the half-life of tritium pretty darn well, but we don't necessarily know how the yield of a warhead is affected by the gradually increasing ratio of deuterium to tritium.

      As for the military.. some people may consider this a technical point, but the US military has not been in charge of the testing or development of nuclear weapons since 1946. This is a responsibility of the Department of Energy (a civilian agency), not the Department of Defense. The DOD helps out with tests and so on, but it is almost never in charge of any nuclear weapons work.

      So it is trivially true that the military does not plan to test hydrogen bombs themselves. But they are very interested in it nevertheless. Similarly, the microlaser program which you linked to belongs to Sandia Labs, not the military. Sandia is a DOE facility, and therefore is a civilian operation.

      HTH...

    61. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that. I searched the article for any mention of the military, but couldn't find it. The clarification is most appreciated. And now that we're down to the meat of what is actually going on (better fusion models for warheads), their interest now makes perfect sense.

      Sorry if I was a little snippy. The constant replies of "well, it COULD be true" get to me after awhile.

    62. Re:military research, again by stor · · Score: 1

      I understand the sentiment.

      It's a cop-out though man. It's too easy to just say "Ahh fuck it, wipe the planet of humans and start again". Problem with that is there's no guarantee the situation will end up any different: it could end up worse.

      We need to start honestly addressing our problems. At the moment though it seems there are powerful groups that benefit from our problems. You think the War On Drugs is perpetual for no reason?

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    63. Re:military research, again by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1
      I'm not the one who designed it but it does work and work well at least in design. The same seeker head designs are used elsewhere. As for it requiring a full orbit to de-orbit, whoever told you that doesn't understand orbital mechanics. All it requires is sufficient energy added (say to the cannister) to begin the deorbit cycle. The shuttle requires such a landing pattern but remember it is doing an dead-stick landing. Lastly, with respect to how far ships move, I've been out there when we've been dodging spy and radar sattellites. Just three is enough to drive us more than a little nuts ducking and weaving. Ships don't move that far in the thirty minutes or so for Thor to strike. Also remember you are "luanching" into a basket (area). Saturate the area, just as the SFW JSOW does on land, and you'll bag the lot.

      This is all off-the-shelf. The only reason it hasn't been deployed is that we haven't wanted to deploy it. The so-called "militarization of space" that throws the panty-waist brigade into a tizzy (as if it hadn't happened already).

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    64. Re:military research, again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      As for it requiring a full orbit to de-orbit, whoever told you that doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

      No, I understand orbital mechanics very well. You can only deorbit by decellerating. Thrusting something straight down won't work. And if the target is in front of you or directly beneath you, you're going to need to make one of two decisions:

      1. Deorbit the weapon now, taking a full orbit to do so.

      2. Wait until you're sufficiently beyond the target to launch and deorbit your missile.

      Point 1 guarantees a target that isn't there any more. Point 2 guaratees that you'll be dead from laser fire long before you can retaliate.

      All it requires is sufficient energy added (say to the cannister) to begin the deorbit cycle.

      It takes a LOT of propellent to deorbit that fast. The things would have to *heavy*. Most of that weight would then be lost in flight, leaving almost no (or perhaps none at all) propellant for atmosphereic manuvering. Which means that it will have to be guided by control surfaces. If the ship isn't close to within the flight path of the missile, the missile will miss.

      Also remember you are "luanching" into a basket (area). Saturate the area, just as the SFW JSOW does on land, and you'll bag the lot.

      You can't carry that much weight into orbit unless you have a superbooster. (Other than the shuttle, nobody's got 'em at the moment.) Even with a superbooster, you're talking about a lot of mass that will detract from the mission payload. Assuming that you do manage to carry a few of these, then you're a target that the carrier group will attempt to lase out of existence before you're in a position to fire. :-)

    65. Re:military research, again by Retric · · Score: 1

      Cool links. The first one had some good info like: "The solution consists of a number of four-cell PVLS situated round the perimeter of the deck, rather than the usual centrally located VLS"

      But the last part was so bad it's sick.

      While rail guns do not suffer from the traditional recoil forces associated with conventional expanding gas weapons, this repulsive effect can be equally destructive if not properly compensated for.

      Umm, No cool new guns still need to obey the laws of physics. Yea there is less recoil because you only accelerating the bullet not the bullet plus gas but it's still there.

      Thinking about this I released why you kept thinking real world has dust so making a useful mirror to deflect laser light would be hard. Anyway, I tried to write this without assuming you knew anything about optics it's a little longer than I was looking for but it gets my point across.

      First off no type of defense is total but if you can make one target 20x as hard to destroy you have made a vary effective defense. Anyway, in a laboratory situation you have thin high-energy lasers bouncing around and you need to make a lot of effort to keep the beams from destroying the mirrors. But what your missing is that these mirrors are vary different from normal mirrors. If you look at a pane of glass at a 45 degree angle it's going to reflect around 50% of incoming light and let the rest pass though it. Now when looking out a window most of the time this is not a big deal as the outside is vary bright and your looking straight at most of the time so it's not a big deal but if it's vary bright outside you can sometimes see windows that look like mirrors.

      But mirrors can be made out of things beside glass. Now as you have probably noticed many things can act as good mirrors when they're a polished surface. Now a simple hand mirror is actually both it's a thin film on the other side of glass so the glass surface can get scratched but the mirror still works well. However, if you wanted to use something like that to reflect a laser at a 45deg angle you end up with 2 beams that are close together (the glass is acting as a beam splitter and the silver coating is reflecting the rest of the beam. Now to prevent this laser mirrors put the reflective part on top of the glass so you can keep a single beam.

      Now let's think about a laser that's cutting though a block of steel with a hand mirror vs. a laser mirror. Well with the laser mirror your going to reflect a lot of light but that dust is going to heat up destroy the coating pass though the glass and burn though the steel but the mirror would still have defected a lot of incoming energy but it acts like X incoming energy - mirrors ability to reflect light. So up to a point the mirror is blocking all energy then it becomes useless. Anyway with a hand mirror you have 2 layers. If a particle of dust lands on the top layer then it's going to super heat the glass but superheated glass is still vary transparent and the bottom layer is only effected when the heat from the glass passes to that layer. Now depending on how thick the glass is that lower level coating could last a while. Remember it's the heat from the glass that needs to pass though not the light as all (ok 99.somthing) the light that hits that coating is sill being reflected.

      Note: This is a vary complex process as it depends on how high energy the laser is, how long it lasts, what frequency's it operates at, how thick the glass is ect but that simple hand mirror is going to block a lot of energy. You also have other effects going on but it's not like high-energy lasers will instantly destroy anything in its path. Yea if the numbers get high you can break just about anything but even though you could accelerate a single atom fast enough it's got the kinetic energy of a Mac truck doing 60 that does not mean it's relevant to think about a mole (6.02 * 10 ^23 atoms / ~107grams) of lead going that fast. Yea it would destroy just about anything but so would tossing a black hole at it does not mean it can be done.

  10. If we have to go to these lengths by Blue+the+Wild+Dog · · Score: 5, Funny

    then the pea-sized hydrogen pellets have already won.

    1. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by nanojath · · Score: 1

      My first question on reading this was what the hell is a pea-sized hydrogen pellet (being under the impression that hydrogen was a gas and did not come in pellet form) but then I RTFA and saw it was in fact a "pea-sized hydrogen fuel capsule." Which is not a lot more informative but at least makes sense. Usually I feel grumpy about the way people just paste text clearly copied right out of articles into their posts, but now I see that encouraging people write their own treatments of articles will just cause more problems. So cheers and command-C away, all.

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    2. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My first question on reading this was what the hell is a pea-sized hydrogen pellet (being under the impression that hydrogen was a gas and did not come in pellet form) but then I RTFA and saw it was in fact a "pea-sized hydrogen fuel capsule."
      It really is a pellet of hydrogen, frozen by extreme cooling. The capsule is primarily to improve absorbtion of laser light, increasing the peak implosion pressure.
    3. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by nanojath · · Score: 1

      Assuming this is true, in that case, I'm an idiot. NEXT!

      --

      It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

    4. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by ars · · Score: 1

      At the end of the article is mentions that they plan to use beryllium as the outer target of the capsule.

      Anyone have any issue with the fact that beryllium is extremly toxic? And they are evaporating it?

      They better have some really good containment chamber there, but it's hard to imagine that it's a goood long term choice of element. I mean fusion is very clean - why mess things up and add in a super toxic element?

      --
      -Ariel
    5. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by MochaMan · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey hey hey, let's not be so adversarial... give peas a chance.

    6. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by Detritus · · Score: 1

      It isn't hazardous if it's handled properly. See here for an article on target design. They need a low-Z material for the capsule.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    7. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by dustinc20 · · Score: 1

      thank you. that made my day :)

      --
      :: if you outlaw outlaws, only the.. no wait
    8. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Hey hey hey, let's not be so adversarial... give peas a chance."

      Hmm.. well, that was 2/3rds of a pun. P.U.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey hey hey, let's not be so adversarial... give peas a chance.

      Don't stop there. Just add a blender and you've got whirled peas.

    10. Re:If we have to go to these lengths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our pea-sized hydrogen pellet overlords!

  11. oblig... by spyder913 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."

  12. Direct Link by anzha · · Score: 1

    Huh. this story looks like its almost exactly what I have on my blog. Anyways, the direct link for the NIF is here.

    Just think: it's better than half way to a fusion drive if it all works in 2010.

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    1. Re:Direct Link by nickptar · · Score: 1

      Really? This is a major achievement in brute force, but reducing it from football-stadium-size and billions of dollars to house-size and millions of dollars is going to be at least as much work. Or so it looks to me.

    2. Re:Direct Link by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      I don't think this has anything to do with power generation, regardless of the blurb at the NIF. It's about researching better bombs.

      Laser ignition is not the path to a reactor.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:Direct Link by niteice · · Score: 1

      Think we can get it working in time for 2015 so Doc can buy a Mr. Fusion to upgrade the DeLorean?

      --
      ROMANES EUNT DOMUS
    4. Re:Direct Link by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, well now I'm doubly confused as LLNL already had the worlds most powerfull laser (SHIVA?) back in the late 70's or early 80's for the same type of fusion research NIF is ostensibly for. How does making it bigger change any of the principles involved?

    5. Re:Direct Link by nihilogos · · Score: 1

      I don't think this has anything to do with power generation, regardless of the blurb at the NIF. It's about researching better bombs.

      What a brilliant idea. Next time I apply for a grant, I'm going to call it "Z_2 gauge theories on spin lattices and applications to builiding a bigger bomb". I'll probably get millions.

      --
      :wq
    6. Re:Direct Link by anzha · · Score: 1
      I don't think this has anything to do with power generation, regardless of the blurb at the NIF. It's about researching better bombs.
      That's right. It has nothing to do with power generation. Neither does a fusion drive for a spacecraft. That's about throwing fuel in an expended form out the back of a 'rocket'. Project Daedalus is a good example. The NIF, if it produces fusion, will have the basic concept down. True, there's still a repetitive way of doing this is short times and all that (gun like feeds for propellant pellets, frex) and some impressive gains in reliability. But getting the fusion at all is more than half way there.

      Sorry this is so late. Work, babies, and all of that.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  13. Trouble is... by ross.w · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just when you get it finished, some rabbit comes and steals the Q36 Explosive Space Modulator, and there is no kaboom.

    --
    If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    1. Re:Trouble is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you have to be ready to shoot the varmint with your discombobulator.

      --

    2. Re:Trouble is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't it the PU-36 Space Modulator?

  14. Who's Financing This? by Michael_Burton · · Score: 3, Funny

    Funding, and vital tritium pellets, will be provided by a grant from OsCorp?

    --
    When all you have is an axe, everything looks like a grindstone.
    1. Re:Who's Financing This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, I caught the Real Genius reference, the Looney Tunes reference and the Spider-Man reference. I officially have no life :(

    2. Re:Who's Financing This? by Hugonz · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. They will be stolen from a group of Libyans

  15. Can't we use this in other ways? by solafide · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Like creating super-strong alloys? Demolition: melting the buildings instead of wrecking... Or in war: melting holes in enemy tanks. A lot more uses for that super-strong laser than fusion.

    1. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Some_Llama · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Or in war: melting holes in enemy tanks. A lot more uses for that super-strong laser than fusion."

      Laser typically aren't feasible for use in combat, how would you power such a thing?

      Building a mobile unit that could sustain enough power output to burn a hole in 16 inches of Tank armor would be analogous to the pencil and pen story of NASA... just use a bazooka.

    2. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you fucking retarded? "Hey, lets not use this to solve Earth's upcoming power crisis, lets use it to blow shit up!"

      FUCK YEAH!

      Dipshit.

    3. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by xv4n · · Score: 2, Funny
      Laser typically aren't feasible for use in combat, how would you power such a thing?

      Building a mobile unit that could sustain enough power output to burn a hole in 16 inches of Tank armor...

      Easy , just put it on low orbit. Then use maps.google.com for aiming. Muahahahahah!

    4. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got one mod point left. If you hadn't posted AC, you'd have my last "Insightful".

    5. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then open source it and make it a Wiki-style project. "What would you like to fry today, sir?"

    6. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by PayPaI · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you get a whole ton of laser tanks together you can pretty much just rush the enemy base. Two hits is all it really takes to blow up an enemy tank, and if you have a couple dozen of them, then the recharge time isn't an issue.
      Wait, we're talking about Red Alert 2 here, right?

    7. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its always easier to blow things up then to get things not to blow up and produce sustainable energy

    8. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Listen dude,you can drain a little milliwat LED laser diode in under a half hour of use. Unless you have a portable nuclear power plant, you're not going to do anything with that laser.

      Not to mention the fact it's the size of a football stadium.

      But this is only part of the problem. Atmosphere is another. Our atmosphere is notorious for absorbing massive amounts of energy. Even really strong lasers (such as the one they're trying to use to vaporize missles) don't have much of a range. And they're still big and require a lot of power.

      This laser would be impractical for demolition or making super alloys. The laser is only on for a brief fraction of a second and requires the precision focus of 192 beams.

      This laser is limited in what it can be used for. But it can do the things we can't right now.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    9. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by waferhead · · Score: 1

      "...just use a bazooka"

      It's called a JAVELIN, you insensitive clod...

    10. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      melting holes in enemy tanks.

      Sure. Just ask the tanks to park one at a time on the special platform in the middle of the four-acre laser complex.

      Oh, and tell them to be extra careful when driving in - the lasers are increadibly fragile and even the vibration of driving in will likely throw them out of alignment.

      Oh, and it will probably take hours or days to actually penetrate tank armor. The laser may be insanely intense, it also only lasts for an infintessimal fraction of a second. Each pulse will thoroughly vaporize a small pit in the surface. The laser then needs time to recharge for another pulse.

      Demolition: melting the buildings instead of wrecking

      That is left as an excercise for the reader.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      But you gotta make sure you have enough power generators cuz when you pump that extra tank out your whole base can go offline!!

      Was it Red alert 2 also? I thought they were unique to the C&C Generals series...

    12. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generals does have laser upgrades for the US side, but they are really only useful for shooting down the rockets that the Chinese planes shoot. RA2's "Prism tanks" (on the US side again) are a lot more powerful. -PP (drifting OT thus AC)

    13. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by jcuervo · · Score: 1
      Easy , just put it on low orbit. Then use maps.google.com for aiming. Muahahahahah!
      Done.
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    14. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      The size is something of a problem. I don't know how big this one is but the beamlines for Nova (the previous BIG laser) took up the whole of some aircraft hanger sized buildings.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    15. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      just use a bazooka.

      Actually, HEAT technology is easily defeated by spatial armor or just putting sandbags on your tank. The reason that you can pack such a small punch in a RPG (or any type of shaped charge warhead) is because of the directed blast into a plasma like cone which basically melts the armor.

      If the blast detonates prematurely outside of optimal melting point (like hitting thin spatial armor on the outside of the tank before it gets to the solid core) it will just dissipate before causing much damage.

      Bazooka's are mostly good for taking out lesser armored troop carriers and destroying tank tracks (but they you still have to deal with an angry immobile tank).

      It's why US tanks use SABOT rounds often tipped with Uranium as direct kinetic attack used to punch through any type of armor rather than the HEAT warheads of the Soviet style models.

      Or rather... Why in Desert Storm 1 and 2 that when a T-72 meets an M1Abrahms the M1Abrahms is the one that walks away.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_explosive_anti-t ank

      Personally, I believe that military use for lasers will more or less be anti-air weapons since aircraft is easier to get a line of sight to and you can't give aircraft massive amounts of armor like you can a ground vehicle.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    16. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah the prisim tanks were what I was reffering to, fun to storm their base with 25 or more of those suckers, very powerful en-masse.

      I also came up with a fun but labor intensive way to build death machines... on US side buy a humvee and load it up with 4 RL guys and one sniper (or 2), then for most of them select the repair option, and for 1 per 10 of them select the drone, when you have 15 or more you are virtually indestrucable (sp?).

      The snipers take out any foot soldiers and have greater range than the RL guys, so this means that the guys in the AA bunkers on GLA get wiped out before you even start detroying their nest, the speed of the humvees makes it easy to pull one or 2 back that get damaged and let the repair drones work on them while you move the others onto the next target.

      Pretty effective.

    17. Re:Can't we use this in other ways? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Wow. There's so much wrong here.

      While it's true that optimum penetration from a HEAT round depends upon optimum standoff distance, it's *not* true at all that defeating HEAT rounds is as easy to just putting sandbags on your tank. Current diameter HEAT rounds are capable of defeating simply absurd amounts of RHA, so much so that reducing their penetration even by a large percentage isn't likely to save you. Sure, detonate them further away than the optimum standoff distance, and it might only be able to penetrate 14" of steel plate instead of 24", but that's not going to be much of a consolation if you're only protected by 4" of armor.

      The PG-7VL RPG warhead can penetrate over 600mm of RHA, the tandem-warhead -7VR warhead can penetrate 750, *after* ERA. So you put those sandbags or that spaced armor out there (note that modern MBTs don't use spaced armor, 'cause it might as well not be there at all if you get hit with a kinetic penetrator.), the tandem warhead blows right through it, and the remaining warhead *still* punches through 24 inches of armor.

      And the warhead doesn't melt the armor. A HEAT warhead defeats armor by approximately the same method as a kinetic penetrator: it exerts insane pressures on a tiny surface area, causing the armor to undergo plastic deformation and eventually yield. The timescales we're talking about here are too short for anything to melt, but at the pressures we're talking about, solid metal still flows like a fluid. Heck, at the pressures we're talking about, the behavior of the metal approximates that of a dense gas.

      The sabot rounds we use aren't tipped with uranium, they *are* uranium. They're a solid metal depleted uranium alloy with a density of around 18g/cc.

      I do agree with you that using a laser as an anti-tank weapon is a silly idea.

  16. And in other news... by The_Minkis · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA has begun work on a replacement for the International Space Station. It is roughly spherical in shape, and resembles the AT&T logo...

    --
    #define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb))
    1. Re:And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    2. Re:And in other news... by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      That's no moon...

    3. Re:And in other news... by Kaffein · · Score: 1

      Its a, uh.... Deathstar! [ofn alert] http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm

    4. Re:And in other news... by stor · · Score: 1

      That blast came from the Death Star! That thing's operational!

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    5. Re:And in other news... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "NASA has begun work on a replacement for the International Space Station. It is roughly spherical in shape, and resembles the AT&T logo..."

      I just hope they don't litter the place with data ports that any old droid can fiddle with.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    6. Re:And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Rumor has it that this is all an attempt to circumvent new advertising laws, though both AT&T and NASA denies making such a deal.
      "I find your lack of faith disturbing," comments NASA spokesman when questioned.

    7. Re:And in other news... by The_Minkis · · Score: 1

      The NASA press release can be summed up in seven words:

      That's no space station, it's a moon.

      Apparently it is a top-secret project.

      --
      #define QUESTION ((bb) || !(bb))
    8. Re:And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It's too bad AT&T lost Vader to Verizon though.

  17. But can they turn it off? by quackPOT · · Score: 4, Funny

    "This is predicted to achieve self-sustaining nuclear fusion reactions, or ignition."

    Self-sustaining? Can they turn it off if it starts to get out of control? Amazing stuff, but to some degree a little scary.

    1. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Self-sustaining? Can they turn it off if it starts to get out of control? Amazing stuff, but to some degree a little scary.

      It's self-sustaining until it runs out of fuel. Just like a match.

    2. Re:But can they turn it off? by Kobun · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would expect that ceasing to feed it fuel would go a long way to stopping it. Barring that, once all the free form hydrogen in the atmosphere was consumed I would expect that things would stop then (a little sarcasm).

    3. Re:But can they turn it off? by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, it stops when it runs out of hydrogen... I mean, it's not exactly as if there are huge amounts of hydrogen floating freely all over the earth!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they mean self-sustaining in much the same way as a car engine: intake, compression, combustion, exhaust... Although gasoline is highly explosive under the right conditions, the self-sustaining chemical reaction inside the engine rarely causes a chain reaction that spreads to the fuel tank. The point is that the ignition of a fuel pellet may release enough energy to recharge the laser, with maybe some left over, before it burns out.

    5. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it only makes up about 98% of the universe.

    6. Re:But can they turn it off? by LMCBoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nah, it's not even a little scary. Fusion is quite unlike fission, in that it's really hard to get going and just as hard to keep going.

      With fission, all you have to do is put too much Uranium (or Plutonium or whatever nasty, radioactive stuff) in a closet, and it will spontaneously sustain itself in a "chain reaction". If you put way too much stuff in the closet, then the chain reaction runs away and explodes, spontaneously.

      With fusion, you take a tiny sphere of deuterium (or tritium) and blast it for a tiny fraction of a second with the World's Largest Laser Beam. If you are really, really lucky, the deuterium will fuse to helium and you'll get out a little bit more energy than you spent getting the thing to fuse. There's no possibility of a runaway here, because there's no chain reaction. You can simply choose not to fire the WLLB at any point.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    7. Re:But can they turn it off? by pocketfullofshells · · Score: 1

      "The result, the scientists hope, will be a fusing of atoms so that more energy is released than is generated by the laser beams, something scientists call fusion ignition. It is what happens when a hydrogen bomb explodes." I hope they remember to wear their paper bags on their heads.

    8. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Personally I think "WLLB" is too long for current attention spans.

      Call it the BFG.

    9. Re:But can they turn it off? by norton_I · · Score: 1

      Even fission is not so simple. If you put too much uranium in a room, you can generate a critical reaction that produces lethal doses of radiation and gets very hot, but assembling a super-critical mass neccesary for a bomb is somewhat hard, it tends to blow itself appart with only a tiny fission yield. Obviously, it is nothing like as hard as fusion, but you can't make a bomb by accident, especially if you are using something other than nearly pure U-235.

    10. Re:But can they turn it off? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      Back when they were developing "the super", the first thermonuclear bomb, they quickly found out that you couldn't just lash a fission bomb to a tank of hydrogen, deuterium or tritium, and expect it to work. Hot objects radiate energy. Really hot objects radiate energy very quickly. You couldn't produce a self-sustaining fusion reaction in a tank of hydrogen because it would radiate energy much faster than the fusion reaction could create it. They did eventually solve the problem, but it took some very clever physics and engineering to keep the fuel and energy confined long enough to consume most of the fuel.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    11. Re:But can they turn it off? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      All you have to do is put part A into slot B really fast :-).

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    12. Re:But can they turn it off? by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Great, not only are we taking out the Earth, but we're bringing down the Universe with it.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    13. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! It most certainly will NOT explode spontaneously. It will melt, that is all. Or do you think the Manhattan Project was just a bunch of retards wasting money? Oi, the ignorance in here sometimes...

    14. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fusion is quite unlike fission, in that it's really hard to get going and just as hard to keep going."

      Ya. Take the sun for example...

    15. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And 4/5ths of the surface of the Earth is covered with H20 ... the "H" of which is hydrogen (doh).

    16. Re:But can they turn it off? by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      Actually they're not necessarily aiming for over break even (i.e. more energy out than in) they are aiming for ignition. This is a very different thing - this is the hope that the reaction they create will have enough energy to sustain itself without the laser pumping it.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    17. Re:But can they turn it off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      d00ds, fire is self-sustaining? omfg! i learnd fier needz oxygen, but i also learnd the world has like a gazillion tons of the stuff!! i hope those cwazy SCientoligists don't wipe out teh planet, or teh universe!

  18. At Last! by jaymzter · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now we just need the world's largest shark!! Muha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!

    --
    If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
  19. all the laser is good for by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Funny

    is making so much popcorn the victorian house falls apart

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:all the laser is good for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      is making so much popcorn the victorian house falls apart

      I'll file your comment under "H" for "toy".

    2. Re:all the laser is good for by Random+Q.+Hacker · · Score: 1

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089886/

      Best movie ever!

  20. Warning on Laser by nxtr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do not stare directly at beam. Spontaneous fusion reactions of eyes may result. May also cause temporary blindness.

    1. Re:Warning on Laser by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd like eyes that could temporarily be a part of a fusion reacton, and then be back to normal. It'd beat having eyes that can't see without large amounts of bending of light.

    2. Re:Warning on Laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      caution: do not point amazin lazer at police.

    3. Re:Warning on Laser by Trogre · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not stare into laser with remaining eye.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    4. Re:Warning on Laser by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Or planes. This one may actually blind the pilots. Before it incinerates them.

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    5. Re:Warning on Laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the more accurate warning is: May cause cranium to lose structural integrity.

  21. Bias out the ass. by dayid · · Score: 4, Informative

    If NIF achieves fusion ignition, it will for the first time in a laboratory simulate the pressures and heat of a nuclear explosion, allowing nuclear weapons scientists to study the performance and readiness of the country's aging nuclear arsenal without actually detonating a nuclear device.
    Sounds good to me.

    "If Congress knew it would cost $5 billion up front, would they ever have funded it? No way," maintains Christopher Paine, who has monitored NIF's development for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environment advocacy group, and has been one of its sharpest critics.
    ...and his opinion matters why? Sounds like he's got a giant basis for bias. He continues...

    Paine, who in a critique once dubbed NIF "The Unlovable Laser," maintains that NIF should follow the same path. He says it isn't needed and poses a nuclear proliferation risk because it might make it easier in decades ahead to develop new nuclear weapons, not just maintain existing ones.
    Since, every American knows the only use of anything nuclear is to kill people. So now, we take a "reliable" newsource like CNN.com - and not only shred any chance of getting "unbiased" information and toss it in the can.

    Also, to contrast that idiots opinion, we get:
    The JASONs, a group of scientists frequently called upon to review complex defense or national security issues,
    that sounds a LITTLE more relevant, no?
    has concluded that NIF "does not represent a significant proliferation risk" and is "fully compatible" with U.S.

    I guess this is why I can't appreciate the news for telling me anything new now adays. Someone go develop a computer to report things without bias, then I'll be interested in reading the news.

    1. Re:Bias out the ass. by AndrewStephens · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation have a writeup on this facility.

      Quoting from the conclusion (my emphasis added):

      Livermore Lab is already on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Superfund" list of most contaminated sites in the country. NIF will generate toxic and radioactive wastes; even its 'routine' operation will create pollution for the surrounding communities. The situation could be exacerbated by newly-planned experiments and the addition of materials with long-lived isotopes like plutonium.
      Few scientists believe NIF will achieve its scientific objective of ignition, though it will reach energies, temperatures, and densities of interest to weapons designers. In essence, it's a machine to keep weapons designers busy at their deadly pursuits. NIF runs counter to the U.S.' disarmament obligation under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Many believe is violates Article 1 of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as well. From conducting laser fireball experiments, to providing detailed analyses of mix, to studying new fusion weapon concepts to creating a test bed for weapons effects, NIF will push the envelope of nuclear weapons physics - and demonstrate once again that the United States will not practice the disarmament it so sanctimoniously (and forcibly) prescribes for others.
      Who would have thought a giant laser could be used for war!
      --
      sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
    2. Re:Bias out the ass. by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Wait... why should *your* opinion matter *more* than theirs? At least they're talking about something they're have expertise in, not being cynical "out the ass".

    3. Re:Bias out the ass. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I guess this is why I can't appreciate the news for telling me anything new now adays. Someone go develop a computer to report things without bias, then I'll be interested in reading the news.

      HAL9000's voice is kind of dull. Does Skynet have an interesting voice?

    4. Re:Bias out the ass. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So now, we take a "reliable" newsource like CNN.com - and not only shred any chance of getting "unbiased" information and toss it in the can.

      Dude, it's CNN - they still can't help but add that Sandy Berger maintains that the papers stuffed in his underpants and socks were an honest mistake whenever they report that story. Progressive Journalism 101 - every position on a topic is equally valid.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Bias out the ass. by stor · · Score: 1

      If NIF achieves fusion ignition, it will for the first time in a laboratory simulate the pressures and heat of a nuclear explosion, allowing nuclear weapons scientists to study the performance and readiness of the country's aging nuclear arsenal without actually detonating a nuclear device.
      Sounds good to me.


      It would be better if people stopped producing nuclear weapons in the first place.

      Cheers
      Stor

      --
      "Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
    6. Re:Bias out the ass. by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Who would have thought a giant laser could be used for war!"

      Hell, a giant *turd* could be used for war.

      And it wouldn't cost half as much. Depending what you had for dinner.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  22. obvious mad scientist quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And they said I was mad. Pah! Who's mad now?

    Fools! I'll destroy them all!

    Red Onion

  23. No bomb for you! by Volvogga · · Score: 1

    "The NIF laser "is essential to assessing the potential performance of nuclear weapons," says Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. He says the experiments will help determine the effects of aging on warheads and help assure they will work as expected, should they be needed."


    Ok. So maybe a few don't work. It really won't matter at that point. As for indiviual performance, so what if the crater is 100 meters less than it should be. This must be one of thoes guys that can say "Surgical Nuclear Strick" with a straight face.

    --
    Vol~
    1. Re:No bomb for you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As for indiviual performance, so what if the crater is 100 meters less than it should be. This must be one of thoes guys that can say "Surgical Nuclear Strick" with a straight face.
      The nuclear chain reaction is an exponential process. Small changes in the rate constant produce major changes in the total energy yield.

      Also, there is interest in tiny nukes (yield equivalent to a few daisy cutters) for destroying hardened targets. To minimize fallout and collateral damage, the yield would be dialed in to the exact amount required without a big margin for error. That means device performance must be highly predictable.

    2. Re:No bomb for you! by pdabbadabba · · Score: 1

      I know I sure can't say "Surginal Nuclear Strick" with a straight face... ;)

    3. Re:No bomb for you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Also, there is interest in tiny nukes (yield equivalent to a few daisy cutters) for destroying hardened targets. To minimize fallout and collateral damage, the yield would be dialed in to the exact amount required without a big margin for error.

      Which happens to be one of the worst ideas that anybody has ever come up with. The prospect of all-out nuclear war is like a huge abyss. The last thing we need is a tempting new slippery slope leading down into it.

  24. I wonder.... by d474 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Didn't we just hear news that the US wants to move forward with space based weapons?

    Oh.My.God. Once the filibuster is abolished, Darth Bush will finally be able to finish his Death Star!!!

    --
    Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    1. Re:I wonder.... by brasten · · Score: 1

      The filibuster-busting would only affect judicial nominations, not the kind of Senate processes that would be required to develop space-based weaponry. Legislative filibustering is not being tampered with.

    2. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh.My.God. Once the filibuster is abolished, Darth Bush will finally be able to finish his Death Star!!!
      The judicial filibuster was not abolished; moderates from both parties got everyone else to pull their heads out of their asses. Now you first-year poli-sci wannabes can go back to jerking off to Teddy Kennedy posters and forgetting that when he's not making an ass of himself on the Senate floor, he's out drinking and driving and killing the occasional intern.
    3. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The filibuster isn't being eliminated; Congress reached a compromise today. There are more than enough ways to make fun of Bush, we don't need to rehash the same death star analogies in every article.

      http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050524/D8A97LBG0 .html

      (Posting anonymously because I voted for the bastard...hey, I *like* the way he's handled Iraq. Not all of Slashdot is militantly liberal...)

    4. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are more than enough ways to make fun of Bush, we don't need to rehash the same death star analogies in every article."

      yes, but for once it is possibly on topic, because the article is about the worlds biggest laser

  25. lasers and tanks by mickyflynn · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    i think most of what destroys a tank is the rapid decompression caused by the round piercing the armour. the round already on impact shoots a jet of white-hot metal. that hopefully will ignight the amunition inside, but the decompression will kill or damage the people inside. I am not sure that a laser would cause rapid decompression. But i'm not a scientist.

    1. Re:lasers and tanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think that you dont need to fear decompression inside a tank.. rather compression / shock damages is what would kill the tank crew, if not excessive heat or exploding ammo. decompression however would only take place in the vacuum of space (or g.w. bush's head)

    2. Re:lasers and tanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF are you talking about? Tanks, of which I'm guessing you're talking about tracked armoured fighting vehicles, and not the compressed oxygen type, are not compressed.

      HEAT rounds damage the tank mostly in the way you describe. They're designed to spray hot gasses thru a hole in the tanks armour. This causes hot gas and spalling armour to ricochet around inside the tank, vaporizing and generally doing bad things to the occupants inside.

      I'm also not a scientist, and I don't know if a high power laser would have the same effect. It sounds like it should.

    3. Re:lasers and tanks by galdur · · Score: 1

      A Sabot round would be preferable against a tank than a HEAT, whether a shaped-charge round or kinetic energy penetrator.

  26. nitpick: Not *A* laser by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 4, Informative
    I don't know how you could call "a network of 192 laser beams", 'the world's largest laser'....

    It might classify as the world's most intense laser target, but that's entirely different language.

    Fusion ignition is also not the goal (or, for that matter, even the primary goal) of the laser cluster.. The intent is apparently nuclear weapons testing and design. Civilian fusion research is simply a pleasand side effect.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:nitpick: Not *A* laser by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Ever since the 20 beam IR Shiva laser at LLNL was built in ~1978 all of the giant multibeam fusion lasers (in no particular order:NOVA, ARGUS, OMEGA, JANUS, LMJ, GEKKO XII, CICLOPS, NIF, ISKRA-5, VULCAN, ..... etc.) right or wrong, are simply referred to as being "a" laser. Also, the fact that NIF will be capable of ignition scale fusion is VERY important in nuclear weapons testing. H-bombs by definition DO achieve ignition.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:nitpick: Not *A* laser by Crazy+Eight · · Score: 1
      The intent is apparently nuclear weapons testing and design. Civilian fusion research is simply a pleasand side effect.

      This is the first time I've heard this notion and must confess that it makes sense. There is something Goldberg-esque about dropping deuterium pellets into a chamber and sniping them with lasers to make power. The other line of fusion reactor research I've heard of that uses magnetic bottles would be a more elegant solution -- like the difference between internal combustion and electric motors.

    3. Re:nitpick: Not *A* laser by Sentry21 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know how you could call "a network of 192 laser beams", 'the world's largest laser'....

      Maybe they got tired of all the posts about 'Imagine a beowulf cluster of these' and went out and built one.

    4. Re:nitpick: Not *A* laser by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      hahah :)

      i choose to accept this as reality.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    5. Re:nitpick: Not *A* laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your nitpick is silly, as another poster pointed out. So, throwing that aside, lasers like this have tons of peaceful uses.

      Consider the possibility of having a several kilometer particle accelerator on a desktop by creating ultra-energetic packets of particles in plasma waves from blasting the hell out of pellets. They have already done this some, STW. That'd make 5 billion look very cheap.

      Also, realize that what are you are reading is not the intended purpose, but the SALES PITCH. They are selling this idea . They'd be stupid to not focus on the uses that will be most likely to get them those precious funding dollars.

    6. Re:nitpick: Not *A* laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well.... at the beginning there's just ONE oscillator... that is splitted and amplified...
      but the oscillator IS the laser the other things are just flash lamps, spatial filters and so on...

      every laser is done in a such way.
      192 are called "arms" of the laser.

      it's a mono-core....

  27. Erm ... by Kobun · · Score: 3, Informative

    We're not really talking about a loss of efficiency in these things. The current stockpiles are based on high efficiency cores. We just don't make the "big hunk of uranium" bombs anymore. I would suggest a fascinating site for anyone looking for some good education. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/index.html (Be sure to check out the Castle Bravo test.)

    The cores on these things break down rather fast, and they aren't sure-fire to work correctly (or even behave themselves) after sitting on a shelf for decades. If we are going to keep them around, fine, but let's make sure we know what the things will do. Otherwise, get rid of them. There is no better way to cut yourself than working with a dull knife.

  28. It's a good thing that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The LASER will allow "assessing the potential performance of nuclear weapons" without having to 'test' them.

    On the bright side China and India might get cooking on controlled fusion development rather than admit they don't have the smarts to build a BFL (big fine LASER).

  29. ConFusion by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Why do they call it fusion "ignition"? Fusing hydrogen nuclei into heavier nuclei, releasing extra energy, bears little physical resemblance to combining oxygen and other atoms by covalent electron shells. Though I guess atomic fission reactions bear little physical resemblance to "chains".

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:ConFusion by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

      because they can use the extra energy to fuse other hydrogen nuclei?

    2. Re:ConFusion by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      But "fusion", no matter how many times it occurs, isn't "ignition", which means "fire", which means "oxidation", which isn't fusion, as I noted. You just justified calling it "chain fusion".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:ConFusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The term "ignition" refers to the point of intensity of a fusion reaction whereby the high (kinetic) energy He nuclei fusion product is sufficient in power to heat any remaining fuel to the point of fusing itself. ie. when the reaction is capable of sustaining itself provided you continue to feed it with fuel. It is called Q=1. The NIF should achieve >Q=10 on a full system DT shot and this is called thermonuclear ignition and burn with "high gain". NOTE! the NIF will almost certainly NOT achieve breakeven (total power in Nd:glass lasers are disgustingly inefficient (~1%). Diode pumped Nd:glass is another story however and if a power plant is ever to be constructed using laser fusion then that is likely what will be used. They are still too fantastically expensive today though.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:ConFusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      hey, my post got garbled!

      that line was meant to say:
      the NIF will almost certainly NOT achieve breakeven (total power in is equal to or less than total power out)because Nd:glass lasers are disgustingly inefficient (~1%).

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    5. Re:ConFusion by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      So they're using "ignition" figuratively, expanding the meaning to mean "emits more energy than it consumes", without necessarily referring to oxidiation. Since you're in the know, do you have any reference to the spectrum of energy emitted by the ignited hydrogen?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:ConFusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 4, Informative

      yes its just another definition of ignition. spectrum of energy emitted by the H? I'm not sure I understand what you're after. If it is the energy of the products of the DT reaction you're interested in then its H-3 + H-2--> He-4 (with a kinetic energy of 3.5 MeV) and a hot neutron with a KE of 14.1 MeV. If it is the actual electromagnetic radiation from the hot plasma you are talking about then it just radiates like a blackbody at ohhh say 100 million degrees :o) which happens to be mostly in hard X-rays.

      Incidentally, as long as I'm posting here I'd like to say that (no surprise really, its a science article) the AP article gets it a bit wrong. The NIF will never achieve the status of "most powerful" laser on earth. Highest energy laser on earth? At 2 MEGAjoules yes it will be the most energetic. But not the most powerful. The maximum power of the NIF is estimated at 500-750 Terawatts (trillion watts) (I'm approximating). However, the OMEGA EP laser which will be finished in 2007 (before NIF) will achieve a power of over 2 PETAwatts or 2 million billion watts. Several times that of the NIF.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    7. Re:ConFusion by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      This is great - a thread with an actual Slashdot expert is like hanging out with the article itself!

      While you're hot - do we have anything like the technology to capture the radiated energy while it's still photons, pumping a laser for transmission away from the reactor to where it can be consumed? Materials that aren't consumed, collectors with high (>90-99%) efficiency, lots of parallel fibers which can conduct, say, 0.001% the wattage without "going nonlinear" (melting/burning)? Once we've got this tiger by the tail, old tech like turbines aren't going to saddle it, and high-voltage transmission lines will waste 30-50% of its power.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    8. Re:ConFusion by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      I think you're getting too caught up on the "ignition = fire" comparison.

      The sun is often referred to as a "fireball" or "burning", yet it is just "chain fusion". Ignition is quite a suitable name for this intense reaction, regardless of whether it is chemical or nuclear.

    9. Re:ConFusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, the easiest fusion reaction to do is the Deuterium Tritium reaction (DT). That is, it is the reaction which requires the "lowest" temperature to ignite. Thing is, most of the energy released in this reaction is in the form of hot neutrons. The percentage of the fustion energy released in the reaction as neutrons is called the reaction's "neutronicity" and is something like 80% for DT. This really sucks because neutrons, as you may be aware, are absorbed into the nuclei of the surrounding structure material, transmuting its constituent atoms into radioactive isotopes (albeit with relatively short half-lives). Soooo, the best idea around these days is to create a vacuum target chamber with ...wait for it.... undulating "waterfalls" of hot liquid lithium or "filbe" (Lithium Fluoride Beryllium Fluoride mix). The Li absorbs the neutrons and is heated in the process, the heat is then sent to boil water/run turbines, and the usual. There is a bonus in this scheme though, the Li after absorbing a neutron is transmuted into more Tritium! More Fuel! This is called the HYLIFE II reactor design.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    10. Re:ConFusion by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Hm, all that mechanical (even at nuclear scales) action seems like a waste of energy. Which is why I was thinking of collecting the radiation, which transports itself without loss. Any idea on the total percentage of energy consumed by the Li chamber and turbine operation?

      I understand that we've got to take this a step at a time: first self-sustaining exothermic fusion (by any means necessary :), plugged into the rest of our grid tech. Then tweaks to upgrade inefficient links in the industrial grid. What kind of fusion reaction might we eventually invent, that emits mostly radiation, rather than energetic particles?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:ConFusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      There is one method (that I know of) which is capable of direct conversion of nearly all the energy of the fusion plasma into electricity. It is not possible in inertial confinement laser fusion though. It is the P + B-11 reaction. This involves the fusion of protons (normal hydrogen) and Boron 11 in a magnetically confined fusion reactor called a colliding beam fusion reactor. There is nearly zero neutronicity in this reaction (.001) and the product is 3 He atoms. In this scheme there is sort of a scrape off layer at an end of the reactor where the product He ions are directed into a magnetron cavity where they are decelerated and produce microwaves, the microwaves are collected with an antenna and rectified to DC power. Also they use something called an "inverse cyclotron" to do essentially the same thing at lower frequencies. It is estimated that a 90% fusion power to electricity output could be achieved using this scheme. Cool eh? What's the catch you ask? Well, its generally thought to be impossible (or VERY nearly so). This is because P-B11 fusion does not take place at the tepid 100 Mega Kelvins of DT fusion but instead at a blistering 1.4 BILLION K (123 KeV)!! This obviously complicates things immensely.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    12. Re:ConFusion by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Well, it's complicated. But it's only 10x the DT reactions, which we're on the verge of achieving. Such a device seems too powerful to safely deploy anywhere near (meddling/flammable) people. But maybe on the far side of the Moon...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:ConFusion by NCFlipper · · Score: 1

      Presumably the 1% figure you give for the laser is for a flash-lamp pumped laser? That's true enough, but NIF will not be using Nd:glass in the long term.

      LLNL has for a long time been looking at alternative materials for its next-generation laser (called Mercury), settling on Yb:S-FAP as the best candidate. Research with diode-pumped Yb:S-FAP has yielded slope efficiencies close to the quantum limit of about 80%. Wall-plug efficiencies (output power vs. electrical input power) are obviously much lower, but still around 50%. That's high for a laser. To my knowledge the Mercury laser has been working, at least in a prototype form, for almost 5 years.

    14. Re:ConFusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever friended someone that fast! :) One question though, how do they grow a flouroapatite crystal like this?! Incidentally, if you don't mind my asking, where do you work?

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    15. Re:ConFusion by NCFlipper · · Score: 1

      Good question. Growing such a large crystal would be quite a job. Fluorapatite crystals, like many laser crystals, are grown using the Czochralski process, in which a single crystal boule is gradually pulled out of a pool of melted crystal ingredients, at about the same rate at which new material condenses onto the initial seed. It's a slow and difficult process, and to my knowledge Yb:S-FAP boules have not exceeded a few centimetres in length. In order to make a sufficiently large crystal the boule is cut into several thin slabs, which are then "stitched" together by a process called diffusion bonding - again, a difficult process, and which I think only one company (located in Ireland, IIRC) can do well. Obviously, that's not going to get you much closer to the massive dimensions that you could reach with glass hosts. So you have to suffer higher laser intensities within the laser crystal, and pump with multiple stages. LLNL put their S-FAP slabs inside cells which are cooled with He (I think) to prevent the crystals from fracturing from thermal expansion. S-FAP also has the benefit of being slightly athermal (it doesn't start focusing when it gets heated by the laser), and having a high quantum efficiency such that it doesn't absorb much heat in the process of amplifying the incident laser pulse. Of course, the other step that can be taken is to have more, smaller lasers to compensate for a lower power in each individual beam.

      I don't work with lasers anymore, but previously I was doing a PhD at Oxford University on Yb:S-FAP lasers.

    16. Re:ConFusion by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Wall Plug efficiencys of 50% is not only high for a laser, but high for everything :)

      In fact that makes those diode lasers the most efficient light emitting decives in the world.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    17. Re:ConFusion by NCFlipper · · Score: 1

      Getting off-topic somewhat, but yes, laser diodes and their LED cousins are very efficient. Compare the lifetime of LED bike-lights to halogen bulbs to see just how much more efficient.

      For the purposes of pumping a laser the improvement in efficiency over flashlamp pumping is twofold. As well as producing more light per joule of electrical energy, the range of wavelengths emitted is much narrower - a few nanometers rather than spanning the ~200 nm visible spectrum plus well out into the infrared and ultraviolet. Laser crystals, particularly ytterbium, absorb over relatively narrow ranges of wavelengths (hence many crystals appear transparent to the eye), so careful selection of diode emission wavelength can mean that almost all the emitted light can be absorbed and used by the laser crystal.

      Even further off-topic, I recall (and this is probably from a very old /. post) that some people are considering switching to an all-LED home lighting system to dramatically reduce electricity bills.

    18. Re:ConFusion by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      oops! I misspoke! Q=1 actually referrs to the point of breakeven and ignition will occur somewhat above this point due to energy losses of the plasma....NIF will actually achieve high gain with a Q of >~50!!

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  30. Excellent by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 1, Redundant

    I think it is time we demonstrate the full power of this station

  31. Why wont they just... by FrankieBoy · · Score: 1

    ...synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix since its an excimer, frozen in its excited state, as soon as they apply a field, they couple to a state that is radiatively coupled to the ground state and voila! Popcorn for everyone!

  32. Do NOT look by Dorsai65 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    into 10.4 kJ UV laser with remaining eyeball.

    --
    --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
  33. Re:military research, again [OT] by GrassMunk · · Score: 1

    Just thought i ring in and say that that movie is fan-freaking-tastic!

  34. A lesson.... by OverflowingBitBucket · · Score: 5, Funny

    And let that be a lesson to any other pea-sized hydrogen capsules that plan to screw with us.

  35. ObRealGeniusRef by Fortyseven · · Score: 1

    The Crossbow Project. There's no defense like a good offense.

  36. Most powerful laser by sith+lord+518 · · Score: 4, Funny

    what if the sharks eat the pea?

    1. Re:Most powerful laser by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      They'll just pea it out later.

  37. Why? by JackAxe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why can't they just heat their peas in the microwave like the rest of us.. :(

  38. summary of my thoughts on this by doc+modulo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Which approach is better?

    I can remember first reading about this fusion concept in the "the two faces of tomorrow" from Dark Horse comics. At the time I thought this was just some ancient sci-fi writer's relic idea on how to achieve fusion, we had tokamak (donut) magnetic fusion reactors now. However, after I read about the real life version of it, I first thought WOW and after that I realized that it might be much simpler to ignite a fusion reaction and then back off to let it run wild than to try to contain a fusion reaction in a magnetic bubble. The concept sounds simpler. They're having trouble with manufacturing the hydrogen pellet however, so the tokamak reactor might have a steadier flow of energy coming out of it if they get the concept to work smoothly.

    old-energy corporations

    Oil, gas and coal companies might not want this to work. I remember the piece in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" about the corporate spy who told his own story. I think he came clean out of guilt over what he'd done in the past. Point I'm trying to make is, there might be a lot of opposition to this project and I hope that they have a lot of security on site. They probably have because this is mostly a military project.

    The need for fusion

    I do think earth will eventually need fusion reactors, at least the USA needs it. Earth can source it's current level of energy consumption from wind, wave and solar plants if we clad most of the planet with these kind of renewables but it would not be as efficient as a lot of fusion plants. The giant solar tower in Australia and the Sterling motor solar plants look promising but fusion reactors would need less room. A lot of countries just don't have the living space to fill with low producing plants like solar and wind farms. That's what I understand from reading a lot of articles. Fusion would also work on a windless cloudy day and a world filled with fusion reactors would give us a lot more energy to play with than a world filled with other kinds of plants. With oil supplies running out, there will be more wars. To think that politicians ares still fighting over where the ITER tokamak fusion reactor prototype is going to be built (Japan or France) is unbelievable. Every hour they waste could mean a human life they could have saved by preventing an energy war. The bastards responsible should be jailed.

    Ridicule of sci-fi

    The "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" comic made me realize that we need more science-fiction in our lives. It's weird that sci-fi isn't more popular because it can help us think up solutions to problems that absolutely need to be solved. Humankind would be dead meat if science stopped completely this second. Most people would die without even an animal skin or a house to protect themselves from weather. Fusion is just the continuation of the process that gave us bear skins.

    I think it can be explained psychologically. If you don't have knowledge of something like science, it's a good tactic for you personally to ridicule it. That way you can still keep some of your social status because the thing you don't know about is "not important anyway". I hear there are a lot of attacks on science in the USA, are these attackers also renouncing clothes? Ofcourse this phenomenon is everywhere but why is it so big in the US? Not as smart? More fundamentalist? Both? I want every smart person on earth to realize that they are more in the right than fundamentalists who oppose science or stupid people with more determination to make themselves heard. Don't cower, ridicule THEM instead.

    --
    - -- Truth addict for life.
    1. Re:summary of my thoughts on this by doc+modulo · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, the corporate spy story might have been from another movie: "The Corporation". Can't remember exactly.

      --
      - -- Truth addict for life.
    2. Re:summary of my thoughts on this by Shihar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Three points:

      First, there are no oil companies left in the world that are not state run. There are only energy companies. Energy companies buy and sell energy. They don't really care where it comes from. In fact, as far as energy companies are concerned, oil is a pain in the ass with far too much politics attached. If an energy haf fussion power in their hands, they would merrily use it to reap in as much profit as possible.

      Second: Most energy comes from coal. Oil is an easily replacable source of energy. Namely, coal is where most nations get their power. Coal is without a doubt cheaper and very abundent. The world is not going to hit an energy crunch because they can't make enough energy. The real issue is that coal is dirty... hence the move towards things like solar, wind power, and maybe even one day fussion. Energy is not the problem. It is making energy that doesn't dump toxic crap into the sky that is the problem.

      Third: I don't know why you think the US is anti-science. Sure, the US has its crazies and fundementalist whackos, but any places where you gather 200+ million plus people tends to find some crazies that crawl out of the wood work. Anticdotal evidence aside, the US is still takes in the largest number of foriegn students to study science and technology in the world simply because the US has some of the best schools for it in the world. In fact, when it comes to technophilia, I would say US easily ranks in the top 5, falling behind only to Japan a crazy North European nation or two where it is so damn cold and dark year round they don't have anything else to do but play with their cell phones (I am kidding... kind of).

      Claiming that the nation that is the home to Intel, Microsoft, Mac, the dot com boom (love them or hate them) is technophobic should set off a few alarm bells. My larger point is that before you bite down on a sterotype and take it as truth, think for a few moments about it. Anyone can find anticdotal evidence within a society to prove any point. Looking at a society at large requires more then a few anticdotes.

    3. Re:summary of my thoughts on this by doc+modulo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for replying, I have to admit that my post should have been better.

      - Didn't know that about oil companies.

      - About coal being plentiful enough for our energy needs, I suspect you're right but I hope we won't be needing it.

      - Third point, I'm aware that the US is a very science oriented country. However, I didn't really want to comment badly about the US in my post, I was pointing the finger more to illogical fundamentalists wherever they may be. However, I do want to defend my US comment a little bit. Science is mostly about logic and that is in very short supply at the moment in the US government. My perception is that the US is really sliding downhill. Illogical religious fanatics should never be in a position of power, no matter how many or how few there are. Make them heel to logic and punish them if they won't listen and do bad. That was my main point.

      --
      - -- Truth addict for life.
    4. Re:summary of my thoughts on this by Shihar · · Score: 1

      "...I was pointing the finger more to illogical fundamentalists wherever they may be. ...Illogical religious fanatics should never be in a position of power, no matter how many or how few there are. Make them heel to logic and punish them if they won't listen and do bad. That was my main point."

      Since World War II, the US has been run by fanatics. Really, I mean it. The difference is less in the US, and more in the rest of the world. Before, the world had a boogie man in the USSR. When the US acted as fanatics against the USSR, no one really minded.

      Think about it for a moment. What did the US do doing the cold war? It threatened to destroy the world to keep it from the communist. During the Cuban missile crises, the US told the USSR point blank that it was willing to enter a nuclear war where both nations (and sizable chunk of the rest of the world) would be destroyed over the symbolic threat of nuclear missiles in Cuba. To this day Americans consider that the finest point of JFKs (the president at the time) career. Looking back on a day when you almost vaporized the world with reverence is a little disturbing to most. The US poured lives and money into Korean and Vietnam even though neither place offered any sort of economic value. The US spent massive portions of its GNP maintaining a military and weapons so that they could defend Europe and, if worst came to worst, assure mutual destruction of their enemy.

      Now, the world is very changed place. There is not some monolithic force of Armageddon there to scare the piss out of everyone. The world is changed, but the thing that has not changed is the US. The US is still just as nuts as it always has been.

      It is like going to war and fighting shoulder to shoulder with another greater soldier who always charges the machine gun nests and is always eager to fight, defend, and attack the enemy. While you are fighting shoulder to shoulder, you think he is a greater guy and a great warrior to have on your side. Hell, you might even look up to the nut job. Well, the war is over now. That great friend who always seemed to be there guarding your ass hasn't changed though. He is still seeking out enemies and charges face first dangerous situations. He isn't an asset any more, he is more of a nut case. It isn't that he just became a nut case, it is more that being a nut case is not terribly useful in times of peace.

      The US is very similar. If anything American fanaticism has probably taken a backslide from the old Soviet days. The difference is that the world is a different place. The US still wants a bloody pit fight with anything that isn't a democracy, and 9/11 just drove them more nuts. Arab fundamentalist are not going to take over Europe. There is no life or death struggle. The Taliban, as horrible as it was, would never be able to attain any technology that could rival the US or Europe if for no other reason that it was so culturally backwards as to make science impossible. Despite this, the US jumped all over them and Iraq with the same glee as fighting Soviets. The US beat up their governments with the hope that they could make new governments in the image of American and prove to everyone that American way is still the best way.

      My point? My point is not that what the US is doing is right or wise. It probably isn't. My point is it isn't really the US that has changed. The US is the same old crazy nation of fanatics who are utterly convinced that their way is right. It is the same nation that if the Soviets were to appear tomorrow they would gleefully turn the world into a radioactive waste pit before giving an inch. The difference is that without the Big Evil Threat of the USSR to scare everyone, everyone now realizes just now nuts the Americans are.

  39. Google ads on this page are all shark related! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too funny.

    Great White Adventures
    Dive with great white sharks Trips depart from San Francisco CA

    Paul Shark Books
    Unique and affordable memorabilia. Search for Paul Shark now!

    Free Shark Screen Saver
    Realistic, 3D Animations. Download Your Free Shark Screensaver Today!

  40. Who you gonna call?! by Bifurcati · · Score: 1

    Don't worry - Spider-man will be along in time to save us! And he might even bring a cute girl with him ;) Hey - maybe that's their plan!

  41. the National Ignition Facility by Muhammar · · Score: 1

    I don't like the sound of this. And the picture in the article - it is not a moon, Luke.

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  42. Mirror? by msheppard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And I hear the Fermi labs are working on a mirror to aim this laser.
    M@

    --
    Krispy Cream is people
  43. With lasers like that, by cyber_rigger · · Score: 1

    Who needs nuclear weapons.

  44. Yup, that's it, what you said. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pea-sized hydrogen pellet and result in fusion ignition.

    The pea however is hidden deep within the caves which were suspected of being Osama's hiding place. Did we mention how powerful the resulting fusion would be? Bin Laden, meet Bin Lasered!

    Thanks, I'll be here all week!

  45. Awesome! by tedrlord · · Score: 1

    I know what I want next Christmas. Screw these new gaming consoles.

    --
    [insert witty quote here]
  46. No! by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

    The hydrogen pellet is peaceful! It has no weapons! I'LL TELL YOU WHERE THE REBEL BASE IS!!

  47. If only this were useful by Animats · · Score: 1
    The sad thing is that this has nothing to do with energy production. It's intended to substitute for nuclear weapons testing.

    Worse, if you need something this big for single-shot tests, pulsed fusion as a power source does not look promising. DoE was talking up pulsed fusion as a power source in the 1970s, and it turned out to be a scam. It was a cover story for a predecessor to this project.

  48. How much energy do we get again? by Mechcozmo · · Score: 1
    1.21 Gigawatts is the expected output of the fusion reaction.

    In unrelated news, a small, sub-division of the research group has created a new device called the Flux Capacitor which they claim will allow time travel.

  49. Fusion is done currently... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI folks, the whole Inertial Confinement Fusion thing is done everyday at the University of Rochester, splitting a massive beam into a Bucky Ball shape is how it's been done for a long time:

    http://www.lle.rochester.edu/index.html

    They are the scientists that invented it and use it today.

  50. MiniMe Quit Humping The Giant Laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Real Geneous sucked anyways.

    It reminded me more of the scene in the second Austin Powers movie where Dr. Evil had to yell at MiniMe to please quit humping the "Giant Laser"

  51. Extra Arms by NekoXP · · Score: 1


    Does it come with Doc Ock-style robot arms to control the fusion? :)

  52. ahhh what's left by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Austin powers joke -- check
    star wars joke -- check
    I guess that leaves this...

    Aha! 500 terrawatts pphbt you call that a laser? mine needs 1.21 gigawatts! (and it can send you into the past!)

  53. Reel Geeks by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    _Real Genius_ was a landmark movie, that made geeks look cool. Not just Val Kilmer (later playing Jim Morrison), but even the really geeky geeks were heroic, and even got laid. It was totally sympathetic to geek passions, and funny enough to get normals to like the movie geeks. It was the geek _Blackboard Jungle_.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Reel Geeks by hachete · · Score: 1

      Woooww...I was with you there - even though "Real Genius" is unknown to me - until you got to this part:

      "and even got laid."

      Is this some parallel universe you live in? The definition of geek means that "getting laid" is restricted to chicken eggs. Maybe you should hand in your geek card right now?

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    2. Re:Reel Geeks by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Is this some parallel universe you live in? The definition of geek means that "getting laid" is restricted to chicken eggs. Maybe you should hand in your geek card right now?

      You need to watch the movie. Knight takes them all to a pool where he managed to sneak in a bunch of girls from a nearby (girls only) beauty school. He told the guys something along the lines of "Gentlemen, here is your last chance to get laid!"

      In the end, the weird guy who has a lab in the closet gets the girl because he wins the lottery, and the kid gets a geek girl who's a hyperactive insomniac. Great movie. :-)

    3. Re:Reel Geeks by CaptMonkeyDLuffy · · Score: 1

      Actually, one nitpick... watched this recently, and the weird guy in the closet got the girl because he was the 'number one brain.' That girl had her own little subplot(she basically wanted to sleep with the supposed top brains(how such things are ranked in such a definitive way is... well, oversimplification for sake of the movie)), she appears first in the scene with the Val Kilmer character at the job interview at the opening, the second time when she comes onto the main character(who pushes her away), and finally snags the so-called smartest man at the end of the movie...

    4. Re:Reel Geeks by David+Gould · · Score: 1


      I'm probably not supposed to tell you this, but the joke's actually on you, and the four other people on /. who think the "geeks never get laid" jokes are still funny. The rest of us are getting laid all the time.

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    5. Re:Reel Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are my mod points when I need them!

  54. Or - If They Miss - by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    fry my balls here in San Francisco!

    Or maybe some guy in China...

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  55. On a more serious note... by Palal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Some of the people who are working on this have told me that eventually, if it works, it will be converted to a power plant. However, no funding exists for research for such use at this point. A few of the biggest tasks include cooling the environment around the laser (lasers tend to heat things up), as well as focusing the laser on the pea-sized target. From what they're saying, "we're at least twenty years away from having this working..."

    --
    -Palal
  56. Yeah, but... by Kagura · · Score: 0, Redundant

    When's the shark mod come out?

  57. Fantastic... by Kagura · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sharks everywhere rejoice upon reading Slashdot.

  58. Low-budget version... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a low-budget version of said project:

    http://www.solardeathray.com/

    Igniting toy soldiers is more fun than hydrogen, and more colorful too.

  59. My visit to a big laser (by Linker3000) by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

    I was once on a [Can't tell you] site debugging their Token Ring network (It turned out that EMPs from their various 'experiments' were getting into the optical fibre via the transceivers on the NICs, but that's another story!).

    While I was there I was invited to see a test firing of their laser "one of the biggest in Europe" - they were firing it at various polymers to see what flew off (OK, that's a bit simplified).

    I must have walked about 1 mile across this site and was taken into a 'clean room' where I donned a cap, white coat and had plastic bags put over my shoes. I was given a brief presentation from the gantry overlooking the test area (VERY 'James Bond', complete with red flashing lights and a countdown clock) - it must have been 50ft from end to end. Next, a quick look at the capacitor room (wow!).

    "Charging in 1 minute" came the voice over the loud speaker, followed by a 10 second countdown and lots of high pitched whistling as the capacitors were charged.

    By now I was back on the gantry overlooking the experiment. More lights, a siren and then..."FIRING in 10..9..8..7..6..5..4..3..2..1", followed by.......a large 'CLUNK' as some hefty relays shunted the charge from the capacitors into the laser.

    "Well, that's it for now", said my host, "It'll be about 6 hours before the optics cool down enough so we can do it again."

    I thanked my host for the wonderful tour as we headed back to the guard house and car park, but was really thinking it was all a bit of a trek and effort for a 'clunk'!

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
    1. Re:My visit to a big laser (by Linker3000) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoulda watched the viewscreen instead of the actual laser... then you would have seen Alderaan get blown to bits.

    2. Re:My visit to a big laser (by Linker3000) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the start of half-life, without all the aliens and crowbars.

    3. Re:My visit to a big laser (by Linker3000) by Cus · · Score: 1

      Warning: unwanted Dimensional rifts or interdimensional transportation may not always ensue when powerful lasers are fired.

      Bet you were wanting to put all your Black Mesa experience to real-world use :)

    4. Re:My visit to a big laser (by Linker3000) by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      "I was once on a [Can't tell you] site debugging their Token Ring network (It turned out that EMPs from their various 'experiments' were getting into the optical fibre via the transceivers on the NICs, but that's another story!)."

      My guess: you were at the CCLRC's CLF Vulcan laser.... am I right? :)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  60. pahh by binarybum · · Score: 1

    this is obviously a poor excuse to try to make a working model of a death star.

    I for one think they should indeed shift all efforts to getting that coin in the parking meter from 40miles away instead - that would be so cool.

    --
    ôó
  61. Am I the only person.... by flawedgeek · · Score: 1

    ....who, after reading the article, seems like it's more concentrated on producing a self-sustaining fusion reaction than just a huge laser?

    --
    My other Sig is .40 caliber.
  62. Sharks and LASERs? by renrutal · · Score: 0

    May I ask what's the in-joke between sharks and LASERs? I still don't get it.

    1. Re:Sharks and LASERs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the first (if not THE first) James Bond movie featured evil genius who had the friggin sharks...

  63. Similar european project : the MegaJoule laser by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    this looks much the LMJ (laser megajoule) we are going to get here in France. We also claim it will world's most powerful. I don't know which one is better, but we'll have 240 beams versus 192 beams on the US facility :D
    http://www-lmj.cea.fr/html/cea.htm

  64. Sub nuclear testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I am not mistaken, LLL is doing this as a way to develop new nuclear weapons, which in my mind is sick and wrong.

  65. Re:Similar european project : the MegaJoule laser by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    How far along IS the LMJ by the way....?

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  66. Re:Similar european project : the MegaJoule laser by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

    they have a working prototype, the LIL ("ligne d'intégration laser"), which amplifies and fire 8 beams. there will be 30 of them in the LMJ
    BTW there's some cooperation between NIF and LMJ, for the experience chambers, getting the materials and for I-don't-know-what.

  67. Do not look into beams... by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

    ...with remaining *head*! (shudders at thought of instant vaporizations...)

    --
    Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
  68. Building the World's Most Expensive Match... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...should the headline have been?

  69. Fusion power *is* the goal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody wants to admit it, though, because there's such a long history of unsuccessful fusion experiments. If they claim goal #1 is to achieve ignition with positive payback and it doesn't happen, there will be lots of "$5 billion wasted" headlines. Far safer to say "it will be useful for weapons research," because (1) it will and (2) that's hard to measure.

    I guarantee every scientist working on that project hopes to achieve fusion with positive payback. They're just being circumspect.

    1. Re:Fusion power *is* the goal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must live in a pretty sick society if that is so.

  70. Re:Similar european project : the MegaJoule laser by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

    Yes we very often see the CEA guys poking around here. Probably doing scaled implosions to verify LMJ's ignition capability... Do you know if the CEA is planning any large chirped pulse stuff?

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  71. I for one... by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 0

    Welcome our new Dark Overlords!

    --
    US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  72. Funny. by knigitz · · Score: 0

    Are there a lot of funny mods on today, or are large lasers and fusion reactions just extremely funny topics?

  73. TERA not terra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terra is the Latin name for Earth, tera is the SI name for 10^9. You don't say "jiggawatt" so please stop using terrajoule right away, thanks!

    1. Re:TERA not terra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A typo. On Slashdot. How shocking.

      Like, 1.21 JiggaWatts shocking! :-P

  74. Two faces of Tomorrow by kc01 · · Score: 1

    Dark Horse comics? Author Yukinobu Hoshino? 1997? What a ripoff.
    James P. Hogan wrote "The Two Faces of Tomorrow" in 1979. The plot line is the same as the one listed on the Dark Horse page.

    1. Re:Two faces of Tomorrow by doc+modulo · · Score: 1

      No, it's not a ripoff, just an adaptation. Yukinobu Hoshino is the artist and he has a lot of respect for James P. Hogan. I guess Dark Horse made a shorter credit line than they should.

      --
      - -- Truth addict for life.
  75. Dr. Ockt from Spiderman 2... by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

    Why does this idea sound disturbingly similar to Dr. Octavius' attempt at creating a fusion reaction?

    --
    In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  76. "nice slippers" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    ok already!

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  77. Back to the topic in question.... by name*censored* · · Score: 1

    I dont know if you kids know this *BUT* if they did successfully initiate hydrogen fusion, then this would result in next-to free power (from hydrogen obtained in electrolysis from the sea) But, the laser first has to heat the hydrogen pellet to greater-than-or-equal-to 100 MILLION degrees celsius (this is like 180 MILLION farenheit but im not entirely sure about that calculation) Yeah, but i read it in a book written circa 1983 hehe, old books are funny, especially with predictions about things we'd have by 2000...

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
  78. Why they need to test those warheards??? by jdoire · · Score: 1

    "the experiments will help determine the effects of aging on warheads and help assure they will work as expected, should they be needed"

    This is not the first time I read that "excuse" for building those huge lasers, building huge computers, and so on, but I can't understand why it is so difficult and so important to test them.

    First, is their aging so impredictable?

    Second, why not simply replace the "used" parts?

    Third, does it really matter if some are dud?

    I really wish someone can answers those "simple" question...

    1. Re:Why they need to test those warheards??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Does it matter if some are dud?"
      I was wrong. There are stupid questions.

    2. Re:Why they need to test those warheards??? by Magada · · Score: 1

      In short:
      1.Yes.
      2.Because there aren't any. You have to replace the
      whole core.
      3.Yes and no. Potential and existing nuclear-armed enemies of the US must be convinced that the US arsenal is intact, and capable of a response or first strike, (as the case may be) *in any circumstances whatsoever*.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    3. Re:Why they need to test those warheards??? by jdoire · · Score: 1

      One famous anti-nuclear activist was saying that there was enough nuclear bomb on the planet to kill each of its inhabitant many times!

      Now I'm asking you, how many time can you die?

      How many bomb do we need to make them an effective deterant? Two were enough to end the second war with Japan, and there were baby bombs compare to those we have now.

      So, how many bomb do we need? A Thousand? A Hundred? Or maybe just one?

      I think that even if 1% of them were working, it would be plenty to be effective. Furthermore, the world has the capability to build a lot more in short order.

      So again, does it matter is some are duds?

      I'm sure that money could be better spent.

    4. Re:Why they need to test those warheards??? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You must have at least enough such that any opponent knows their entire nation will be turned to glass (and more importantly still) the government of the enemy state knows that they will all personally die too.

      If you just had one or two, then someone else (such as North Korea, or Iran, or whoever) may decide that since you only have two weapons, they pre-emptively strike the US since losing just a couple of targets makes an acceptable loss when they can pretty much ruin the US economy. (Just a handful of high-altitude air bursts that does not destroy a single building on the ground could essentially destroy the US - what would the US be when every car, train, airplane, truck, power station and computer no longer functions? How long would the US population last before starvation with no distribution chain and no modern mechanised farming because it's all been disabled by the EMP attack?)

      The US being the wealthiest country in the world - even without its evil foreign policy - is a giant target simply due to envy. If the enemies of the US are convinced that any attack is suicide for their entire nation, they will be unwilling to attack. If the enemies of the US realised that the US could only inflict a couple of destroyed cities on them, they may decide it's an acceptable loss.

  79. I'd use this to make popcorn... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I just hope it doesn't explode my house :)

  80. Don't be too proud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The ability to ignite fusion in a pea-sized hydrogen pellet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

  81. Meh... by Yaotzin · · Score: 1

    ...these giant laser projects always seem to end with the sun exploding or something like that.

    --
    Error: No error occurred
  82. Great... by kmartshopper · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... can't wait until someone shines this thing at an airplane. Damn terrorists!

    1. Re:Great... by stienman · · Score: 1

      You don't need 197 lasers to annoy aircraft, you just need one automatic aircraft tracking laser

      -Adam

  83. the first step... by C0d1ngM0nk3y · · Score: 0

    ...in building the first DEATH STAR?

  84. I think the real important thing here is... by Emblem7 · · Score: 1

    1. Steal pea sized ball of hydrogen 2. Build $5,000,000,000.00 terawatt/second laser (aka DeathStar) 3. ??? 4. PROFIT!!!

  85. This is not news by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    As others have pointed out, this white elephant has been going on for years now. It's what, seven years late and 4 billion over budget so far? There were letters being written about it being only 350 million over and a year late in 1999, and asking serious questions about whether or not it _could_ work. That was five years ago.

    And to everyone who thinks it's a great idea that we build this thing for fusion power, consider this: rhe electical industry has already pretty much told the fusion researchers that they can't imagine ever building a fusion plant.

    No, really.

    While the researchers continue to support their budgets with "cheap unlimited clean power" mantras, the reality is that fusion plants are rediculously expensive, and show no signs that they won't always be so. Additionally they require a fuel infrastructure that does not currently exist, and as the Canadians learned with CANDU, going this route for long-term savings is fraught with peril.

    The industry also has the problem that these things only work if they're big. That's a problem because when you bring the plant online, supply-n-damand makes the price of electrity drop. That's one of the reasons no one builds nukes any more, you loose money when you turn them on.

    If you're worried about the enviornment, buy a hybrid. Fusion is not your saviour.

  86. Just can't believe... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    Nobody mentioned writing their name on the moon... ala:

    "So does the moon read 'CHA' yet?"

    or

    "Finally Chairface Chippendale has revealed his plot!"

    All anyone could think of was an 80s movie?

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  87. Obvious Name for Giant Laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the "Alan Parsons Project"

    woahahahahahah....

  88. one of three cold fusion methods works by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Since 1989 people have tried annodes, popping bubbles in liquids (sonoluminescene) and piezoelectric crystals with tritium. The third method gnerates neutrons in a repeatable fashion, a sign it is probably fusing the tritium. It does however, require more input energy than it produces. It may have apps as a controllable neutron source.

  89. Big laser? by lazlo · · Score: 2, Funny
    "lazlo-would-not-approve"


    Yes I would!

    --
    Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
  90. Phase conjugate mirror by SillySlashdotName · · Score: 1

    OK, so who is working on the phase conjugate mirror? Can't have a super secrete weapon without a phase conjugate mirror...

    --
    Acts of massive stupidity are almost never covered by warranty. --me.
  91. Stability questions by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    I've heard rumors over the years of cost overruns and missed performance milestones, both on NIF and NOVA, its predecessor. Knowing from being a laser jock in the realm of molecular spectroscopy that it's hard enough to make two YAG lasers with tens of megawatt peak power behave, how do they realisticlly expect to tame the timing, beamshape, and power issues associated with this beast?

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    1. Re:Stability questions by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Actually timing, beamshape, and power issues are all the easy bits to solve. Repeatability is very high from shot to shot on other big fusion lasers. If you want to know more about the history of lasers used for high energy density experiments go to the LLNL library do and search on "shiva" "argus" or "nova" lasers to find papers published on the experiments of these first systems. Most of the timing/power issues were solved over 20 years ago.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:Stability questions by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      Then what is holding them back?

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    3. Re:Stability questions by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean "holding them back from achieving ignition". Two things moslty, the ability to deliver a large enough amount of energy to the target in a short enough period of time and the ability to overcome hydrodynamic instabilities like Raliegh-Taylor instability. These problems are harder to solve than most people thought back in the 70's.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    4. Re:Stability questions by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info.

      By the way, Richard Rhodes mentions in "Dark Sun" that Taylor instability might prevent the Ivy Mike test from working. Someone (Bethe, maybe; I don't have my copy handy) showed the instability wouldn't be a problem.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    5. Re:Stability questions by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Weird! I'm reading that book right now! :) If you want more info on this stuff I suggest checking out the online version of the Lab for Laser Energetics Review publication. We have the past 10 years of it up for free viewing. Its pretty dense stuff (heh) but if you can handle dark sun I don't think you'll have a problem.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  92. typing too fast by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    "Dark Sun" that Taylor

    should be

    "Dark Sun" that Edward Teller thought Taylor

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton