Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Working On Arthur C. Clarke Weapon Idea
holy_calamity writes "DARPA is working on a weapon which is similar to one first described by Arthur C. Clarke in his 1955 novel Earthlight — firing jets of molten metal using strong electromagnetic fields. The Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition (MAHEM) will function on a smaller scale than Clarke's fictional blaster. DARPA's write-up says it could be 'packaged into a missile, projectile or other platform and delivered close to target for final engagement and kill.' Clarke is also widely credited with suggesting geostationary communications satellites — what other ideas of his will come to pass?"
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Isn't it DARPA's job to be working on every sci-fi weapon tech that might work?
You seem to be under the impression that they are referring to molten as in faucet hot metal.
My guess is that if you were hit by this stuff, you'd be dead almost before the nerves could send the signal to your brain telling you, "hey bub, I think you're about to die, so here's some pain for the road."
I'd have to say probably all of them. Even the far-fetched ones like the telekinesis you allude to.
My blog
But if this is done with taxpayers' money, won't the copyright/trademark belong to the taxpayers (i.e. public domain in US of A)?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Sounds sketchy to me. This is already how many types of armor penetrating munitions work. The jet of molten metal is created by a shaped charge. No need to carry around a few tons of foo-foo magnets, batteries, heaters, a vat of annoyingly hot molten metal and so on. While you are setting all that up I'll have blown off the target with a nice simple RPG and escaped.
and the reign of common sense over mindless militarism and arms races that don't even effectively stop known enemies and only exist so tht congress people can bring home the fat contracts to their districts ?
While this is cool, I really don't understand why DARPA is developing this. It doesn't seem to fill any current need. The enemies that we currently are facing or might reasonably expect to face are not using heavy armor. We, however, and our allies, are fielding lots of tanks and other armored units. So... DARPA is basically developing a weapon that would be most useful against the US, and not very useful for the US?
We've seen time and again weapons designed and built in the US being used against our forces. (Stinger missiles, anyone?) Does DARPA *really* need to be Al Qaida's R&D division?
It's about the politicians and the media convincing the people that it's worth it every month to put $15 billion into their friends' pockets. They're retiring the stealth F117 Blackbird. How much did that thing cost? What was it ever used for? Bombing Panama and Iraq? Are you kidding me?
gas is at 4.00 a gallon now, food prices are through the roof, and all they can think of is making MORE weapons, our so called 'leaders' need to be lined up for gunfire, hung from a tree, or decapitated for the treasons they have caused to our great country. I hate, despise, loathe them all.. may some foreign country drop a nuke directly on washington to save us from anymore damage; trust me, it is for the betterment of society.
signed,
pissed patriot
Would you people give it up on the flying car already? People have invented flying cars. Flying cars aren't the problem. The problem is that people are too stupid to navigate in 3D space, especially when you consider how "well" they seem to be coping with 2D space.
My blog
This seems to work on the SAME exact principle as the Depleted Uranium Penetrator. Regular missile with a core of DU, when it strikes, the regular projectile cannot penetrate, but the friction that is created as the DU core moves forward through weapon metal as well as armor metal, heats it up to the point where it doesn't just punch through armor, but ignites and melts its way through. Generally it is presumed that the poor bastards inside the tank or armored emplacement are usually quite unhappy with the results (for about half a second it takes for them to be converted into meat and blood vapors.)
Therefore, it seems DARPA in usual fashion is looking at the best way to help keep raising the national debt level. If anything, the military industrial complex has been the bankers best friend, it has managed to keep spending at insane levels, without really producing any new ways of killing people... not even those who are defenseless and easy to kill in the many innovative ways militaries and governments have devised for the last few centuries.
I mean hell, the missile, bullet, DU Penetrator, APFSDF rounds, all of it, its still the same principle of a hurled projectile, spear, sling stone or arrow. New methods of slinging shit, but still the same old idea. Pretty sad if you think of it. They keep reinventing the wheel, but the wars aren't even fought for land or gold anymore, they're fought so the idiot masses can feel good about themselves. That, there is the worst part of it, as far as I am concerned. Its one thing to fight evil bastards who want to take what is yours, whether it be, life liberty or property, but most of the wars today are fought merely to keep the cattle spending their hard earned income without asking questions. What is not as much sad as it is remarkable is the bovine imbecility present in the vast masses of humanity. THAT amazes me.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
I think its more a problem that people en-masse are too stupid to navigate flying cars.
If there are only a few of them, no problem (although the cost will be higher without that economy of scale), but once you get enough people using them, you need "roads" and people can't be counted on to learn enough to fly cars, or maintain them (if you have to pull over in a car, fine, if you have to pull over in a flying car, look out below?)
Without an "easy" control (semi-automated control/ATC?) and maintenance (outsourced rental?) system flying cars probably are not going to appear any time soon.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Nostradamus is also cited as having many of his predictions come true. The problem is, if you make enough predictions it is hard for some of them not to come true. Similarly it is hard to miss shooting a rabbit with a sawn-off shotgun...
Nothing to see here.
A really humane weapon is one that sits you down for a spot of tea, explains the situation to you, gives you a brief time to put your affairs in order, notifies your next of kin of your impending doom, and then kills you efficiently and painlessly.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Your flying car is delayed while awaiting an engine with higher power-density and higher reliability at lower cost, and a smart enough flight/navigation computer to operate the vehicle in the traffic densities that would be encountered after widespread adoption.
The bronze-age myths persist because religions are ideological rootkits, most of your brethren have been rooted, and the rootkits all include strong imperatives to infect one's offspring. You can't put a stop to the rootkits because society depends on them and hence is patterned to persecute any cleanup effort. Nor can you design a more infectious rational alternative rootkit because you can't rationally answer the universe's many sources of cognitive dissonance, chief among them "you will end", "they'll get away with it", and "religions are rootkits".
In the end you just have to search for and then surround yourself with those occasional outliers, those people who are honest enough to look the universe's uncaring meaninglessness squarely in the eye without reaching for a scripture to anaesthetize themselves with.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
No. Kill them and another set of evil bastards will simply use their deaths as a springboard into power and an excuse to commit more crimes. A change in our culture/society is the only thing that can stop this mess for real.
There's very little that's as bad as being hacked to death by a rusty foot of steel.
A few thousand more degrees, I'd reckon.
There's a phrase that's often bandied about on Slashdot by people with your viewpoint, that generals always prepare to fight the last war.
However, this really applies equally well to the arm chair generals on Slashdot that tend to bring the phrase out.
In the case of research into advanced weaponry, obviously we shouldn't just be doing research (such as this) that would only come in handy in the types of war we saw in the past (i.e. in the Cold War).
However, just as true is that we shouldn't be doing only research into advanced weaponry that is useful for "current needs" as you put. The enemy we currently are facing or might reasonably expect to face at the moment is not using heavy armor, therefore you argue we should discontinue research into weapons useful against heavy armor. That seems like a smart investment until an enemy that isn't exactly like the one we face now comes up.
Given the long development time behind advanced military hardware, and the fact that the US's time as the sole superpower in the world seems to be rapidly approaching its end, maybe it's not such a bad idea to be putting at least some of our research money into preparing for future, as well as current threats.
Nostramus said some extremely vague shit in code. It has been poorly translated and deciphered by people who either A) want to make a big name for themselves or B) have the aforementioned elsewhere in this thread religious rootkits installed and seem to have a vested interest in the world coming to an end just to prove that their religion is "right" and everyone else is "wrong."
Or both.
My blog
I don't get why people are so afraid of the universe being uncaring? It's not that shocking, nor does it affect your life to know this, since it's always been true and never been different. However, if people knew and accepted this they might actually behave more humane, because they'd realize that no deity or karmic force is going to do shit for them.
ACC's contribution was the idea of geostation *communication* satellites, not geostationary orbit.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
That's only one of the many reasons. Others would be legal and security issues. On the legal side, every time someone died because they ran out of gas, stalled the engine, or had a mid-air fender bender, someone would get sued. On the security side, how easy would it be for someone like Osama or Ted Kaczynski to load these up with home-made explosives and crash them into buildings? Even without explosives, think of the damage a dozen of these things could do smashing into a building at a few hundred miles per hour. It would be nearly impossible to stop them from doing it (even if you mounted AA guns on every sizable building in the US). Anyone could easily hit military bases, dams, bridges, nuclear power plants, and so on with these. They could even be rigged to fly by remote control so they wouldn't need to be suicide missions.
The only "safe" way to do it would be to make them all 100% computer controlled (i.e. humans would not be allowed to pilot them under any circumstance), and even then it would only safe until someone hacks the system (which is easy when you have direct access to the hardware).
I think Cessna has made a very popular flying car for at least the last forty years or so.
If you want more power you can buy a variety of assemble-yourself kit flying cars and put any powerplant you want in them. Apparently people have used everything from turbofans to liquid rockets.
Personally I prefer a sail powered flying car. It's purely for recreation, of course, because of the unreliability of the power source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#Usage_in_warfare
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I liked the Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter: Witch.
Only problem with hers was that you only figured out what the heck she meant after the fact. THEN it's obvious, but not before.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Yes, it's that, and not at all the fact that we're having trouble stabilizing the design (keeping it upright), or the fact that they're too noisy and fuel costly.
The problem you mentioned could easily be solved by incorporating an onboard computer so that it keeps a minimum distance from other dirvers and buildings. The driver could still actually drive the thing, but it would repel like a magnet from other vehicles thanks to the "3D radar" type equipment.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Whatever happened to "I don't know?" Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we have to make one up. Your answer "God did it" is just a placeholder - we've used that placeholder a lot in previous history and we've found the answer before. So you can have that one for now (after all you've lost disease, weather, gravity, the stars, evolution, the soul, dinosaurs, and pretty much everything else attributed to a diety or the supernatural).
There is stuff we don't know about the universe. There is probably more stuff we don't know about the universe than we do know about the universe. But we don't need to fill in the gaps with "God did it" to make ourselves feel better. We can admit we don't know something and try to find the answer rather than make something up and move on. That's the difference in believing in made up fairy tails and "believing in science".
Or perhaps they'd behave LESS humanely, since they'd realize that no deity or karmic force is going to do shit TO them.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Space might be big. That certainly doesn't mean there's infinite room around commuter destinations. Vehicles like this would likely be converging on a few locations, much like vehicles now do.
In the specific case of GP you may be correct to claim that "God did it" is a placeholder, but in general you wouldn't be. When theology and science are placed in opposition it's usually because one is being asked questions which are more suited to the other. The question of mechanisms is scientific: the question of root cause is theological / philosophical, so the choice isn't between believing in a god to explain something currently unexplained or believing that there's a scientific explanation yet to be discovered, but rather between believing in a god and believing in an anthropic principle.
Won't argue, but I'd rather see the ones who gave the orders get theirs.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
There's plenty of examples in history and today of people reckoning that the deity they subscribe to actually wants them to go out and kill innocent people. It works both ways: horrible things have been done in the name of atheistic _and_ religious ideologies.
And air-bursting artillery rounds have fragments that fly themselves around friendlies and civilians, and never leave amputee's.
Bullshit. Napalm is no worse then any other area of effect weapon. It just got a bad name in Vietnam because they dumped it on civilians so much.
The only AOE weapon you can begin to argue is inhumane is cluster bombs, simply because they leave so many unexploded bomblets around. Napalm doesn't sit around waiting for some civvie to come by and trigger it ten years later.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
Ever see how drivers react on a 2 or 3 lane road who enter a newly paved area where the lines haven't been painted yet?
Now imagine that - but flying
Best Free Utilities for Windows
Actually the chief problem as I see it is the organization that has made it so near impossible to develop personal aircraft in the first place. The FAA has tailored all regulations to suit Boeing and kin who have the fat wallets and their similarly financed customers. Most Cessna pilots use $10 stop watches mounted to their yoke. Why would anyone do something that sounds so stupid? Because the $400+ FAA certified flight clock found in Cessnas like the plane itself was developed in the 50's and 60's is off by minutes per day and the cheap, made in China stop watch will run for months and still keep near perfect time. There hasn't been any real innovation and development in personal aircraft outside of the FAA experimental category in nearly half a century. You still have to control your own air/fuel mix because there aren't any modern "FAA certified" fuel injection systems. It simply costs too much to jump through the hoops. If it wasn't for the FAA that new plane that typically costs as much as a house to purchase would be as cheap if not cheaper than the average passenger car.
I also don't buy the "people are too dumb for 3D" argument either. Most pilots will tell you that learning to fly a small plane is easier than driving a car.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The texts that religions are based on do not use the claim "God did it" as an end to a conversation or as the answer to a scientific question. Generally, people making that statement as a catch all for the unknown have been using religion to control people rather than to free them. Condemning all religions on this basis is like condemning all scientists because of "cold fusion."
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
There are many differences. For instance, the commandment is "thou shalt not kill", but most rational people believe it's ok to kill if necessary in self defense. (I do realize that earlier translations probably used the word murder rather than kill.) How about "You shall not commit adultery". The rational mind arrives at this only because marriage is a contract, and it would be wrong to break that contract, and this is because a society that enforces contracts is a stronger society.
But there's a deeper issue with your argument. You are assuming that the commandments were handed down by God, but it's actually quite likely that they were arrived at by one or more smart people (who, after all, would have to be smart if they could read and write at the time). So your argument is just begging the question (circular logic). The reason rational morality looks so much like the judeo-christian commandments is because it was created by rational people. Heck, even if it was created by God, are you saying He's not rational? If you happen to believe the judeo-christian mythos as fact, what's wrong with also trying to understand *why* God made those commandments?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Lewis' theory says:
A moderate objection to point one is that not everyone has altruistic urges.
A severe objection to point two is that altrui-social behavior is demonstrably beneficial to every member of a tribe, and therefore it will evolve in all social creatures.
An obvious objection to point three is that it's stupid. Of all the explanations for a seemingly inexplicable data point, saying "An invisible ghost in the sky did it!!!1!" is the least useful.
Lewis's theory is useless bunk. Its only function is to give religionists a feeling of rationality.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
A car is not a "self-propelled horse." A self-propelled horse is something I can keep at my house and ride to work without needing special infrastructure like roads. There's no point to a self-propelled horse if I have to ride to the road (on both ends of the trip, no less... I guess you'd have to rent a horse at the work end). Many people would end up riding their horse further to reach a road than they would just riding to work!
You're talking about an infrastructure problem. There ARE places where you park your plane (or helicopter) within walking distance of your home, and you can land it within walking distance of work. No, it hasn't caught on. Could it, minus the Joe-average-can't-be-trusted-with-an-aircraft problem? Certainly. And it would require a lot less infrastructure than the car currently does.
"Exactly what I was thinking actually is that like the proposed "futuristic" weapon, the DU penetrators have a fun tendency to liquefy the poor government worshippers inside the armored vehicle."
All battlefield anti-tank weapons tend to do nasty things to the crew because it's the best way of ensuring that the thing stops shooting at you.
"Now that I think about it, military wars, where militaries are fighting on both sides, rather than just one military butchering civilians, is a good thing, in a way."
Wars have to be fought somewhere, and it's usually a place where at least some people live, so civilians inevitably suffer irrespective of whether either side is actively trying to kill them or not.
"Its a whole bunch of government worshippers reducing their own numbers."
Forcing others to fill their ranks hasn't been a problem for governments in the past, and it won't be in the future.
"The Leviathan State is self destructive. Those who value freedom have to merely side step it and let it run off the cliff."
History teaches us that (a) Leviathan States can take a very long time to destroy themselves; (b) they take a lot of people with them, the majority of which did nothing to deserve their fate; and (c) that which arises from the aftermath is usually significantly worse than the old Leviathan.
"I seem to be under the impression from my reading of the available literature on tanks, that most modern military tanks (with the exception of Israeli tanks which are remarkably reliable) tend to use several parts per mile."
They don't approach the reliability figures for civilian vehicles, but it's by no means as bad as you suggest. The standard endurance test that Western main battle tanks (i.e. the big, heavy ones) have to pass before being accepted for military use is 11 hours without a major systems failure, but it should be noted that these tests are usually performed on prototypes, which are far less reliable than production versions.
"Without massive manufacturing support, most military units of non Israeli nationality would quickly be forced to cannibalize units."
They would indeed have to cannibalise vehicles, but it would be over periods of weeks rather than days. Most of the components that fail during normal use are non-critical systems that aren't required for normal operation, or things that can be repaired without the need for replacement parts. A far more critical logistical requirement is keeping them supplied with the huge amounts of fuel they consume and ammunition for their weapons systems, none of which can be reclaimed after use.
"Thus, insurgents with RPGs are probably aiming at the easily destroyed, hard to armor parts. You know... treads, etc?"
Treads have carried stand-off plates to protect them from RPGs since WWII, so the main threat to drive trains is anti-tank mines. Infantry armed with RPGs who know what they're doing will therefore tend to aim for the vehicle's rear (or if they have a suitable vantage point, its top), both of which are much more thinly armoured than the massively reinforced front or lesser but often still formidable side armour.
"I'm curious, has the US Army actually FOUGHT anything that actually was capable of putting up a fight with all that hardware they have? "
Yes. The Battle Of 73 Easting in the 1991 Gulf War had US and British armoured groups against the Iraqi Republican Guard, professional soldiers who knew how to use their tanks properly, and fought with determination and courage. There are plenty of details on the Web if you Google for them.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I assume you're absolutely correct on the economics. But I'm very uncertain that enough people are smart enough for 3D.
The hardest part about driving a car isn't operating the vehicle - it's avoiding all the yabbos on road who aren't paying attention. On an open, unoccupied road or a gentle off-road, driving is dead simple.
To steal a line from No Exit, "Driving is other people". But at least in 2D, I can track them all. In 3D, it's going to be a lot harder to monitor drivers where I can see 50 to 100 vehicles at a time. Which is not a lot of cars in my view on an 8 lane highway! The third dimension is going to exponentially add to the variables that other drivers can introduce into my drive.
Assuming that all the people that I can see on a multi-lane divided highway are in the air, all of them of course to different destinations. They're going to want to travel as the crow flies. Isn't that the significant advantage of flying? That means that instead of being protected from half of my fellow travellers and being parallel to the other half, I'm avoiding vectors from all directions.
There may be currently possible or technically imaginable solutions, but I very much believe that "people are too dumb for 3D". Not all people, and not inherently, but enough of them and by their willingness to be (or unwillingness to learn better). I think there are people to dumb for shoes! 3D adds significant complexity, and I've seen and met drivers who are clearly too unaware and stupid to drive well. I shudder to think of them all in the air. And although I haven't met many pilots, I haven't met many who are morons - I'm not surprised that they find it easier to drive than a car. I believe that point, too (on your authority), but I don't think it's the operation of the vehicle but maneuvering it among other drivers that is the challenge in either case. You can't take the sky from me, but for now, at least, it's fairly empty up there.