Slashdot Mirror


Hypersonic Radio Black-Out Problem Solved

KentuckyFC writes "Russian physicists have come up with a new way to communicate with hypersonic vehicles surrounded by a sheath of plasma. Ordinarily, this plasma absorbs and reflects radio waves at communications frequencies, leading to a few tense minutes during the re-entry of manned vehicles such as the shuttle. However, the problem is even more acute for military vehicles such as ballistic missiles and hypersonic planes. Radio blackout prevents these vehicles from accessing GPS signals for navigation and does not allow them to be re-targeted or disarmed at the last minute. But a group of Russian physicists say they can get around this problem by turning the entire plasma sheath into a radio antenna. They point out that any incoming signal is both reflected and absorbed by the plasma. The reflected signal is lost but the absorbed energy sets up a resonating electric field at a certain depth within the plasma. In effect, this layer within the plasma acts like a radio antenna, receiving the signal. However, the signal cannot travel further through the plasma to the spacecraft."

14 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. The shuttle doesn't (currently) black out by by+(1706743) · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_blackout#Reentry_communications_blackouts

    Until the creation of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System, the Space Shuttle would, like Gemini, Mercury, Apollo, and others, endure a 30 minute long communications blackout before landing. However, the Shuttle can communicate with a Tracking and Data Relay Satellite during re-entry. This is because the shape of the Shuttle creates a "hole" in the ionized air envelope, at the tail end of the craft, through which it can communicate upwards to a satellite in orbit and thence to a ground station.

    1. Re:The shuttle doesn't (currently) black out by si3n4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      thanks for the comment - I realize this quickly devolved into a discussion about what was or wasn't said in the article but it is interesting that the shape of the vehicle can create a hole in this plasma and thus provide another solution to the issue . Maybe it's not always possible to design the object involved to create this hole and the plasma antenna is a useful alternative, but in any case it was interesting to me to know this other 'solution' exists....

    2. Re:The shuttle doesn't (currently) black out by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      It does actually black out, but for a much shorter period of time during a transition between flight attitudes. Its less than 30 seconds however it does still loose communications during the worst parts of reentry, even with a relay off its tail.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  2. Re:Your tax dollars at work by MrQuacker · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn Obama, wasting our taxe... oh? Whats that? Russian Scientists you say?

  3. Re:Your tax dollars at work by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 2

    The space program has been used for military research and military purposes. There's quite a bit of overlap between sending a man to orbit and sending a missile to orbit. That GPS satellite can be used to get you from point A to B or that ballistic missile to Moscow. Satellite cameras to search the stars aren't altogether different from spy satellites to search the ground. Maybe some of the experience they've gotten from, say, the Mars rovers was useful in building the various military drones they have now.

    I think it's fair to say that the military would find ways to use civilian technology in relevant fields, and space exploration has some pretty big overlaps.

    --
    SSC
  4. Not solved! by erroneus · · Score: 2

    I read the full summary. The last sentence that the signal cannot travel into the craft from the plasma. How is that solved?

    1. Re:Not solved! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2

      Sounds like all they need to do is hook something onto the ship that can read signals inside the plasma, some kind of antenna that can withstand the stresses associated.

      Essentially the signal doesn't travel all the way through the plasma, thats why theres a blackout.

      But we never thought about trying to receive from inside the plasma.

    2. Re:Not solved! by TopSpin · · Score: 3, Funny

      How is that solved?

      A stubby little plasma antenna lives in the plasma stream. It's made of hypereutectic unobtainium, a exotic form of unobtainium unique to Russian science.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  5. Re:No, they haven't. by bughunter · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFA:

    Korotkevich and co say the weakness of the transmission signal doesn't matter because ground-based receivers can be made hugely sensitive, certainly much more so than mobile ones.

    Considering we can communicate with interplanetary (and now some technically interstellar) probes with received signal strengths on the order of -200 dBm, and we can build arbitrarily large transmitters/receivers on the ground, and health and status telemetry doesn't require huge bandwidths (on the order of 10^2 bps), I'd say he's right.

    --
    I can see the fnords!
  6. Re:Your tax dollars at work by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're really limit in your thinking.

    Technology is constantly developed to make killing more precise; which means LESS killing.

    And there are a hell of a lot of spin-offs that are used in civilian markets. I don't see why you have created some sort of demarcation between killing tech and non killing tech. there is just tech that is used. The same tech is often used for killing as it used for non killing.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. Re:What about subspace? by adonoman · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure it would all work out if they just reversed the polarity of the tachyon emitter.

  8. TFA is revealed! by Protoslo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, I read the full introduction of the paper, and the conclusion, skipping only the detailed plasma physics models & calculations. They do mention the strategy of putting an antenna through the plasma which can last as long as one fuel tank before it ablates, but they instead propose that (more elegantly) a small commercially-available 3 kW high frequency klystron amplifier (a lot less power than the radar) be placed at the surface of the aircraft, where it will disrupt a very small region of the plasma in a manner that will scatter ~.7 - 2% of the original incoming signal (which will resonates in a layer of the plasma) back to the aircraft; that is enough power for a 5 m. antenna and a commercially-available high sensitivity GPS receiver to pick it up. There is an analogous explanation for outgoing signals. They account for quite a few confounding plasma effects, acknowledge that there are some others that can't be modeled so clearly (or maybe they didn't think of), but predict that getting the system to work would be a not-so-difficult engineering challenge.

    My first thought was, "Boy, I hope all the space opera authors read this preprint: no more signal attenuation from the plasma engines in the atmosphere!" Now there is one more area in which reality is exceeding a certain segment of--rather soft--science fiction (that I am only familiar with--AHEM--because of Baen's visionary no-DRM any-format ebook policy).

  9. Re:Or, you could just do it this way... by eggled · · Score: 2

    That's actually exactly what they're doing, but slightly different approaches.

    Patent:
    Uses adaptive impedance matching to allow signal propagation through the plasma.

    This project:
    Uses adaptive frequency matching to allow signal re-transmission through the plasma.

    Same net effect, exploiting the same properties (The patent changes the impedance of the transmission circuit to match the plasma, while TFA describes varying the frequency until we hit an impedance match with the plasma (changing the frequency changes the effective impedance of the plasma).

  10. Re:Your tax dollars at work by mrxak · · Score: 2

    The A-135 can only really defend Moscow against a single warhead, or just a handful at the most. The radar system itself is susceptible to suppression, seeing as how there's only one pillbox providing support for the interceptors. Only the first wave defense is likely to be effective, and there's only 32 of those missiles, which would hardly put much of a dent into a serious ballistic missile attack, considering the number of decoys and warheads implemented in modern missile systems. The second wave defenses, while more numerous, are non-nuclear now and probably wouldn't intercept much of anything. They were designed for nuclear warheads originally, something which of course would irradiate much of Moscow anyway. There may still be some nuclear warheads in the second wave, but stopping the enemy missiles from striking your city isn't all that great if your own missiles kill you anyway.

    This is all, of course, predicated on the idea that the A-135 is still operational. There's some evidence that it's not, really, and only used for "tests" whenever the US starts thinking about upgrading their own ABM systems.