Slashdot Mirror


US Navy Breaks Laser Record

ectotherm writes "The US Navy has broken the existing record for the power of a laser. Their new free-electron laser can burn through 20 feet of steel per second. 'Next up for the tech: additional weaponization. The Navy just awarded Boeing a contract worth up to $163 million to take that technology and package it as a 100 kW weapons system, one that the Navy hopes to use not only to destroy things but for on-ship communications, tracking and detection, too — using a fraction of the energy such applications use now, plus with more accuracy.' Now all we need to do is upgrade the sharks..."

15 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. They want 2000 though by Woogiemonger · · Score: 4, Informative

    Who needs to burn through 20 feet of steel? Or even 2 feet of steel?

    What's even more crazy is that their ultimate goal is to reach a megawatt of power and burn through *2000* feet of steel per second. I'd imagine seeing a phalanx of tanks, and with one 3 second FWOOOONG! from the laser, our military crosscuts through them all in one sweep. Here's the Wired article I'm referring to: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/02/unexpectedly-navys-superlaser-blasts-away-a-record

    1. Re:They want 2000 though by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Informative

      I interned in the instrumentation and control group of the Jefferson Lab FEL the summer I graduated from high school. My main project was working with the optics guys to write some spot-size detection software in C. Until my current job, it was definitely the most fun I've ever had in my life that didn't involve rafting. Of course, back in 2002, they had just started the 10kW upgarde project from 1kW, so a little over 10 years to get it working at 10x that capacity is pretty sweet.

      the project website for all the real, nerdy, details is here if anyone is interested.

  2. 20 feeet, not 200 by SpinyNorman · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article said it can burn thru 20 feet of steel per second, not 200 per the slashdot version.

    Even the 20 feet is likely misleading since I doubt it can sustain that power output for more than a fraction of a second, and anyways if you really were borign thru multiple feet of steel then all your vaporized steel in the borehole you were creating would get in the way of the laser.

    Still very impressive though. I'd love to see the face of the first crackpot dictator whose ICBMs are shot down by one of these.

    1. Re:20 feeet, not 200 by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is very interesting and I think the point is not to shoot down ICBMs but to shoot down anti-ship missiles. Right now, there are simply no way to stop a recent missile before it gets to the ship. Aircraft carriers are currently little more than overpriced targets. This kind of research is vital to the navy.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  3. Not lasing yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This 500kV test was of just the accelerator (i.e. the bit the produces the electron beam part of a Free Electron Beam laser), not the FEL itself. It's this electron beam that is purported to do the extraordinary steel-cutting, not the laser beam. There is no mention of whether this was a momentary or sustained electron beam output. A 500kV accelerator on it's own isn't all that impressive, but once they package it into a small volume (room rather than building), and actually use it to lase, then that will be very impressive indeed.

  4. Re:ouch by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    yea right.

    What planet do you live on? But the humans of earth are a jealous lot, full of hate and mistrust, and belief that their way is the only way to live, and that all other ways must be eliminated.

    Before you go spouting off stupid again why don't you take a look at the shear number of fanatics in the world(christian, muslim, jewish, whale watcher, environmentalist, whatever) and decide if your small army will work againist people who don't believe in reason and are willing to fight to the death for their illogic.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  5. Re:Serious range disadvantage for naval warfare. by SpinyNorman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who needs range when your "missile" is travelling at the speed of light?

    Anyways, for a laser mounted on a Navy warship, say 10m above sea level, the horizon is over 10km away, so even an incoming sea skipping exocet missile coming in at 300 m/s is over 30 sec away.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon

  6. Re:Serious range disadvantage for naval warfare. by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These laser systems are being developed to shoot down incoming artillery and missiles. That's why the US Navy is commissioning companies to develop small enough systems to be fit in destroyers. That way, the US carrier group employs these destroyers to protect the carrier group from airborne threats while the carrier, with their fighters and bombers, occupy themselves with attacking stuff over the horizon.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  7. Re:TFA has no clue what it's talking about by ulski · · Score: 4, Informative

    There some more information to be found here: http://www.jlab.org/FEL/ You could also watch the video http://www.jlab.org/FEL/Movie28.mov , but that was a bit disappointing (no KABOOM).

  8. Re:20 feet of steel, not 200. by arielCo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, you may drive at 60 miles/hour and not mean to drive for 60 miles. In this case, it could cut through 1/2" steel plating in 1/2 inch / (20 ft/second) = 2 milliseconds. Does that make sense?

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  9. WTF? by syncrotic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, that was one of the worst articles I've ever read.

    "To create incredible power requires incredible energy. After all, the more power one puts into a laser accelerator, the more powerful and precise the light beam that comes out on the other end."

    So to "create power" requires energy. Uh, ok... I'm with you, sort of.

    "Scientists there, in coordination with the Office of Naval Research (ONR), injected a sustained 500 kilovolts (KV) of juice into a prototype accelerator where the existing limit had been 320 kV..."

    OK, so they "injected" 500kV of "juice." Fuck you, fox news.

    "According to ONR officials, that laser beam will eventually perform at a staggering âoemegawatt class,â a measure of the laser's strength. Right now, the accelerator at Jefferson Lab is performing at just 14 Kilowatts."

    So wait, the power output of this thing is actually 14kW, and the goal of the program is to reach 1MW. But apparently they were at 10kW four years ago... so what's this article actually about? The fact that they increased the voltage to 500kV from the previous 320kV? Why does that matter?

    "Today, Neil and others have shown that they have the ability to harness super-conducting electron power."

    Oh ok, I guess the big development here is that they're using superconductors... or something. It's tough to tell, because "super-conducting electron power" is a series of words that, when strung together, don't mean a fucking thing.

    "Clearly, the day's events were a feather in everyoneâ(TM)s cap."

    Clearly.

  10. Re:Serious range disadvantage for naval warfare. by fish+waffle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...impossible to counter?

    Umm, what if the enemy launched 1000 fake missiles at the same time---how many simultaneous targets can it destroy? What if they launched a series of missiles from beyond the horizon, how long can you keep using your laser? What if they launched torpedos instead, or at the same time, does your laser also work underwater? What if they launched highly reflective chaff with their missiles, would your laser be able to find the target and would it have full energy? What if they launched a whole lot of small missiles rather than one big one? What if their missiles incorporated radar invisibility, so you don't see it with the auto-aiming mechanism? What if they just launched chunks of metal that didn't care if they had a pin-sized hole in them? What if they made missiles that looked like missiles, but actually had the explosive part offset somehow, so your super-accurate laser kept burning holes in irrelevant areas?

  11. Re:volume by Dr.+Grabow · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mach 1 is about 340 m/s. At that speed the Navy could send up a fighter and throw a rope around it. ICBM reentry speeds are usually over 4,000 m/s, with in-flight speeds of over 6,000 m/s. Or about Mach 16. A different magnitude of problem...

  12. Re:Real Genius by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's hard to believe that peace lovers would be opposed to the very kind of weapon that would reduce the bloodshed and put pressure on the very causes of wars...

    That's because it isn't. If you start assassinating the enemy's leadership (whether it be with baseball bats or orbiting laser projectors), you're going to start World War III. And, because you've killed off all the people who had the power to say "stop", it will continue until we're all dead.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  13. Re:Serious range disadvantage for naval warfare. by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mirrors don't work against extremely high power lasers. The electric field strength at the focal point is such that electrons are ripped directly out of the atoms. This forms a plasma which is an efficient absorber regardless of how shiny the surface originally was.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.