Slashdot Mirror


Many Lasers Become One In Lockheed Martin's 30 kW Laser Weapon

Zothecula writes "In another step forward for laser weapons that brings to mind the Death Star's superlaser, Lockheed Martin has demonstrated a 30-kilowatt fiber laser produced by combining many lasers into a single beam of light. According to the company, this is the highest power laser yet that was still able to maintain beam quality and electrical efficiency, paving the way for a laser weapon system suitable, if not for a Death Star, for a wide range of air, land, and sea military platforms."

202 comments

  1. Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets keep them in one place, nice and tidy.

    1. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Mitchell314 · · Score: 0

      Laser weaponry would have been more fitting on Boeing's X-32.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    2. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Trogre · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Combing many lasers into one?

      This isn't sharks, this is a DEATH STAR.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    3. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 5, Funny

      With so many lasers combined, it will attract all the cats in the world!

    4. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we'll need to combine a shitload of sharks into a sharknado in order to operate it?

    5. Re: Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen enough movie to know that trying to keep sharks where you want them to be isn't going to work.

    6. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      What about combining many sharks into one?

      Imagine this:
      http://www.thebigflattop.com/M...

      But with sharks instead of teeth!

    7. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      One of the origins of the Shark Jokes (Certainly heard this rendered with lasers :D) http://greensboring.com/viewto...

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    8. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What about combining many sharks into one?

      Shhhh! Be quiet or else we'll have yet another quality Sci-Fi, er SyFy, Channel Friday night movie!

    9. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The insurgence will be surprised by this FULLY OPERATIONAL Lockheed Martin fiber laser! They will not be able to finish their shark fin soups before already ducking for orange sauce.

    10. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      'Death Shark?'

    11. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe you forgot "Mwah ha ha ha!"

    12. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already do have a super laser located in an underground super cooled location that can burn holes in rocks rather quickly.

      They already exist in mining as mining lasers. This one is just more portable.

    13. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Just one mirror ball and one laser becomes many.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    14. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Two sharks, one to carry a laser, one to carry a mirror ball.
      A third may be needed to change the music.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    15. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Didnt they do something like that toward the end of Buckaroo Bansai?
      I wouldnt suggest repeating it unless you want to open a portal to some garbage universe

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    16. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Death Blossom!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    17. Re: Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Sharks with sharks in their mouth. Terrifying.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    18. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Didnt they do something like that toward the end of Buckaroo Bansai?

      Was that before they crashed their spacecraft through a cinder block wall lit up by a bunch of laser pointers?

    19. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try Sharknado! But seriously, all we need is sharks with lasers in a death star configuration living inside their sharknado to usher in the sharkpocalypse.

    20. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by jitterman · · Score: 1

      I think we're going to need a bigger shark.

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    21. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      'Death Shark?'

      I'm thinking that somewhere in this thread we will stumble across the plot for Sharknado II.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    22. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we skip the shark jokes entirely? How many times can you laugh at the same joke? All shark jokes in laser stories should be automatically modded "redundant".

    23. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bring back the petition. Now the U.S.A. has to build the Death Star.

    24. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by AJH16 · · Score: 2

      What plot?

      --
      AJ Henderson
    25. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about combining many sharks into one?

      Sharks with combs? What? Sharks are mammals? I think you're confusing them with dolphins.

    26. Re: Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by operagost · · Score: 1

      Kind of like Alien.

      With a FRICKIN' LASER BEAM ON ITS HEAD

      Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    27. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I think a recent movie was created with just that concpet in mind; "Sharknado?"

    28. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by operagost · · Score: 1

      And I thought my wife and I were the only ones who dropped "The Last Starfighter" references.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    29. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by aliquis · · Score: 1

      l like how you're thinking.

      VNV Nation live @ SeaWorld (with sharks):
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... ?

    30. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by aliquis · · Score: 1
    31. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Two sharks, one to carry a laser, one to carry a mirror ball.

      and One Shark To Rule Them All.

      Hmmm... I think I'll open up a theme park called "AquaMordor."

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    32. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      'Death Shark?'

      With deep apologies to the author of a great autobiographical account of autism:

      " The Reason I Jump the [death] Shark"

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    33. Re:Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You are not the only ones who have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Ko-dan Armada!

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    34. Re: Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those damn video game machines were everywhere.

    35. Re: Please place all shark jokes in this thread. by douglas.w.goodall300 · · Score: 1

      It was really difficult to get them all out and in place before Christmas...

  2. Sharks with frickin lasers by gridzilla · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know where I would attach that - to a shark's head! Imagine that - sharks with frickin lasers strapped to their heads, and hookers too! In fact forget the sharks.

    1. Re:Sharks with frickin lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know where I would attach that - to a shark's head! Imagine that - sharks with frickin lasers strapped to their heads, and hookers too! In fact forget the sharks.

      If we forget the sharks, does that mean that we will have the hookers with the lasers attached to their heads? And I thought guns used as prosthetic legs were a terrifying concept.

    2. Re:Sharks with frickin lasers by davester666 · · Score: 1

      This means the sharks would have to work together, so they can go from individually being able to sink canoes, to thousands of them getting together to sink a battleship, to get to the tasty meat snacks inside.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re: Sharks with frickin lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hookers? Seems like there would a lot of Johns without their little Johnny's after just one visit. No reoccurring revenue for the hookers will put their profession at odds!

  3. Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

    Can we get this on that fighter? Seems only fitting...

    --
    I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    1. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it retired years ago.

    2. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by geogob · · Score: 2

      every one knows that powerfull lasers' place is on board a B-1

    3. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      I know, but it is one of the nicest looking fighter. Besides, it was retired only 6 years ago, I'm pretty sure getting them back in service wouldn't be that hard since some of them were spotted flying near Groom lake in 2013.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    4. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by daem0n1x · · Score: 0

      Because that's exactly what we all need, brand new toys of war. God forbids generals getting bored!

    5. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by rossdee · · Score: 1

      The F117 was not acually a fighter. It was designed to drop precision bombs. I don't think it has a (air) tracking radar.

    6. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      The 1990s called, they want their cool plane back.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would the F-22. You mean the '70s.

    8. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by sjbe · · Score: 1

      I know, but it is one of the nicest looking fighter.

      Despite the name it wasn't a fighter. It was a bomber. And personally I think it isn't a great looking plane. Interesting but not pretty. My personal favorite was the YF-23 which I think is just a badass looking plane.

    9. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here we are in the 21st century lacking a functional, cool plane.

    10. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by bberens · · Score: 2

      SR-71, still the coolest.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    11. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually... it was a F-series fighter-bomber. It had the capacity for air-air. It just wasn't used because it's not the sharpest spear for the job, and it IS expensive.

    12. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 117 as deployed never carried AA weapons. Lockheed experimented with AA capable aircraft, but proposals to the Air Force and Navy were denied. It's purely a strategic strike craft, and should have earned the A designation.

    13. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by Decker-Mage · · Score: 1

      That's one bad-ass plane although my favorite in that category is the Grumman X-29.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    14. Re:Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk by sjbe · · Score: 1

      Actually... it was a F-series fighter-bomber

      The F designation does not make it a fighter. The air force has inconsistently used the F- designation on several aircraft that were actually attack aircraft including the F-111 and the F-105. The F-117 was strictly a ground attack aircraft and as far as we know was never used for any other role.

  4. Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 0

    Nobody has figured out how to stop laser beams that have missed their target, have they? Nope, didn't think so. Examine a missed 30kw laser beam and try to let us know if any dispersion effects will happen before a whole lot of collateral damage is done. Here's an easier challenge: show us a real, living unicorn.

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    1. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When has that been a problem with weapons, really? It's not like we have any way to stop any of those billions of bullets shot every year..

    2. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably starts with just one laser on to show where it is aimed, then when you press the fire button the rest of the lasers turn on and go full power.

    3. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      Here's an example of what can go wrong with beam weaponry: a fighter plane with a big-ass laser has an enemy fighter in its sights, but at the moment of truth the beam not only blasts the prey but also continues firing long enough for the coherent beam of destructive light energy to go onwards to strike a school in the metropolis below, causing a fire. Think of the children!!!

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    4. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      That doesn't respond to the issue of what happens to the killer beam(s) after the target is either missed or destroyed.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    5. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      Lasers might be safer than bullets, since bullets always land somewhere, while lasers disperse in space if you take care in what direction you fire them in.

    6. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      Lasers, as most weapons, are directional. War, as most confrontations, is positional.
      Thus, collateral damage does not damage the shooter.

      Collateral damage to "not the shooter" hasn't stopped a weapon from being constructed ever in the history of mankind.

    7. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by abies · · Score: 1

      You can aim laser quite well - you don't event need that much of lead on moving target... Regarding misses - it is not like it will go around earth looking for first person to kill. Good chances is that everything around the target you are aiming at is hostile anyway. In most cases they will be aimed either down (from airplanes) or up (as anti-rocket/mortar weapon), so there will be either ground or empty sky near the target. And diffraction/scattering will make sure that laser is harmless for sattelites if it missed that plane/rocket (http://panoptesv.com/SciFi/LaserDeathRay/DeathRay.html - look at 'Range' section)

      Generally, I would expect collateral damage being orders of magnitude smaller than with conventional weapons.

      Even for sidearms (which is not possible at this moment), it would be a lot safer due to no ricochets. Just don't get into shooting fight in hall of mirrors ;)

    8. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes into the ground when fired from above, into space when fired from below, and may cause collateral damage if fired parallel to the ground. Collateral damage may include starting fires, killing civilians, etc. None of that seems to be an "issue" in a weapon of war.

      Does that answer your question?

    9. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The same fighter fires a stream of lead at another fighter, missing and the lead raining down on a school below. How does the laser do any more/worse damage?

    10. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      If you think that the beam of light is a problem, think of the many tons of burning fuel, explosives and scrap metal that are gonna fall out of the sky after the prey got blasted! Think of the children!

    11. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that any different from conventional weaponry? And how is that even a problem for surface to air lasers? Only things a missed air defense laser beam might harm are flying unicorns.

    12. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      If a fighter plane is blown up over Kentucky, a family in Oregon or South Carolina need not worry about the debris falling on them. An errant 30kw beam of coherent light would be dangerous even in far away places.

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    13. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diffraction/scattering of a 30kw laser beam to make it harmless to satellites... nope, I don't think so.

      I can't speak to the laser strength required to shoot a satellite out of orbit, however; The U.S. Military had a mega-watt laser back in the 90's that they were going to test against satellites. But then that's quite a lot more powerful than this new "highest power yet" laser from Lockheed...

      http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970922&slug=2561893

    14. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      Bullets fall, lasers don't

      If you shoot a gun, even a high powered rifle, it isn't going to blind someone 20 miles away like a laser would

    15. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by abies · · Score: 5, Informative

      Too many unknowns to get exact numbers, but assuming visible light and 10cm aperture, we are probably talking about few mm per each km of distance. Geostationary satellites are completely out of range, but lets take ISS as example - 400km. This means that 30kW would be spread over circle with 2m or so. ISS has a speed of 7-8km/s (as all low orbit satellites, otherwise they would fall down). This means that each part of station would be in the beam 'focus' for 0.005 seconds. Given radius of the beam and speed, there would be no localized damage - just total energy transferred to station. Assuming it goes in most unfavorable way, it can probably get around 100m of length through the beam, giving a total of 0.013s exposure. So, in most unfortunate situation, we are talking about 390 joules of energy being transferred to the ENTIRE station. For comparison, light shining on _earth_ hits with 1000 joules per second for each square meter (a probably a lot more in space). So, we are talking about effect being few hundred times smaller than sun radiation station received each second.

      Please note that we are talking about _collateral_ damage due to missed shots, not active tracking of satellites. But even with perfect tracking and a lot more powerful lasers, it would be very hard to do lasting damage. Current anti-satellite laser developments are about _blinding_ satellites, not blowing them up.

      If you think that collateral, non-tracked shot from realistic laser with 30kW of power can do any damage to any satellite, please provide your calculations. Otherwise, too much watching StarWars, not enough science.

    16. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but the curvature of the earth would definitely prevent a laser beam from an aircraft in Kentucky from hitting a building in South Carolina, to say nothing of Oregon.

    17. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Threni · · Score: 1

      Serious question: Would this be a useful way of clearing up all the junk that's floating around in orbit? Surely if you sliced each one up a few times it'd fall out of orbit sooner rather than later, and be more likely to burn up than intact satellites. (I mean, I've seen Dark Star - as long as you don't put any AI on the laser we should be fine)

    18. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Cutting things up isn't useful. In space you need to impart delta-V - lasers have been proposed as a way to trigger outgasing on orbital debris from the ground. Add enough upwards delta-V away from the earth and you could shift the orbit enough for a deep-dive into the atmosphere (space, the only place where thrusting away from the ground sends you straight into it).

    19. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missed? How? It's speed of light. It can't be dodged at all.
      Also, nobody cares. This thing was designed with the sole purposed of FUCKING SHIT UP.

      "Science isn't about why, it's about why not. Why is so much of our science dangerous? Why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. Yes, you. Box your stuff. Out the front door. Parking lot. Car. Goodbye." -Cave Johnson

    20. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      It goes into the ground when fired from above, into space when fired from below,

      Will someone think of ET?

    21. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's some 3000km. I know that some people consider round earth as "just a theory", but I would still take it seriously. Also there is not much left of beam power or collimation after even few hundred kilometers in atmosphere. Beam power density also falls with square of radius. So seriously, errant laser beams - not a a problem.

    22. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Nobody has figured out how to stop laser beams that have missed their target, have they?

      Water.

    23. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by peragrin · · Score: 4, Funny

      shh the Earth is flat. Kentucky schools told him so.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    24. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by peragrin · · Score: 1

      ah another one.

      The world is round. unless the beam hit the planet it is being pointed out into space.

      think about it.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    25. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reflexes. The pilot could think it's on target, and in the milliseconds during the action of pulling the trigger, the alignment changes.

    26. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

      Laser weapons as they are being developed just don't work that way. The pulse is actually quite short when applied, and the target goes boom. You've watched way too many science fiction movies.

      They are also far more accurate than kinetic energy delivery weapons (big bullets).

    27. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Depends what you are trying to damage. A CCD doesn't need nearly as much energy to destroy as sheet metal.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like missiles, the pilot does not get to aim this thing. It locks on, it's all computer controlled. There is no manual mode. And it fires pulses measured in double digit femtoseconds.
      I swear you guys act like this is an always on light saber that is just going to be slashed around. As if the lens wouldn't burst from the heat.

    29. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Could be, actually. Cut them up and you're looking at a higher cross-section to mass ratio, which hastens the process of very, very slowly falling down from wispy atmospheric drag. But you couldn't do it from the ground - too far, too much air in the way. Perhaps a 'junk hunter' sat could work.

    30. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      An errant 30kw beam of coherent light would be dangerous even in far away places.

      No, it wouldn't. A laser beam *defocuses* over long distances and becomes harmless. In an atmosphere it'll also suffer severe energy loss to the atoms it travels through.

    31. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      They dissipate due to defocusing and interaction with the atmosphere. It's not a problem.

    32. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by necro81 · · Score: 1

      In how many circumstances do you have a clear 20-mile line of sight to a (potential) collateral victim? From where you stand right now, how far can you go on a horizontal plane before running into something (like a building, forest, mountain) that would stop a laser? Bullets do have limited range, especially compared to a laser, but in most battle zones, a bullet or laser will both probably run into something before it has a chance to run into an unintended victim.

      There are obviously many uses for this technology, but a lot has been focused on anti-missile (ballistic, surface-to-surface, etc.), in which case the beam is going to be pointingup, above the horizontal. It's not likely to be blinding anyone up in the sky.

    33. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't get into shooting fight in hall of mirrors ;)

      Mirrors? Really? You must be joking. This kind of power would destroy even a perfect mirror. There would be no reflection.

    34. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      What would be great is if there were, say, 30 lasers mounted in a circle 1-2 meters in diameter. That way, in order to hit their target, they will focus on it, with all the lasers pointing inwards. The point the meet in the air being their intended target. Constructive interference, focused bean and all that jazz makes them effective. If they miss, then they are just 30 smaller beams scattering off being 'mostly harmless'.

      It's like, if you 'miss' with a magnifying glass, you don't burn the ants so much.

    35. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by John_Yossarian · · Score: 1

      This is not an issue at all for 2 reasons:

      1) Lasers have a focal length. This is where all the light converges to a point and becomes powerful enough to cut steel in industrial applications or do damage in military applications. Go much beyond the focal length and the laser beam becomes practically useless.

      2) The Earth has an atmosphere, not a vacuum. At any significant range, there will be energy losses.

      If anything, a missed laser shot would cause far less collateral damage than conventional armaments. If you are 100 feet behind the target and take a hit, you *might* have to worry about a sunburn or some minor retinal damage (similar to looking at a welding torch or directly at the sun). Might.

      Source: I worked at the world's largest producer of laser optics

    36. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Well... it depends on how high up over Kentucky that [s]air[/s]craft happens to be.

      In an unrelated note, is there any way to do strikethrough text on slashdot?

    37. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Bullets fall, lasers don't

      Einstein is rolling in his grave right now....

    38. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Well it isn't going to be "slashed around", but laser weapons are always on. A pulsed laser has an enormous energy output (far far higher than 30kW), but it really doesn't have much in the way of energy output. You're not looking to ablate away a few micrometers on the surface of the target. You're not even looking to burn a hole through it. You're looking to slowly heat it up over several seconds until structural failure of some vital component, like a fuel tank or wing spar.

    39. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      A pulsed laser has an enormous POWER output (far far higher than 30kW), but it really doesn't have much in the way of energy output.

      Fixed that for me.

    40. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      If ET is in range, they he probably has some way of announcing his presence. Say for example by taking over Channel 4, or possibly FOX News.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    41. Re: Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of rampant stupid here is astounding.

    42. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by abies · · Score: 1

      Mirrors? Really? You must be joking. This kind of power would destroy even a perfect mirror. There would be no reflection.

      It is not obvious. First - _perfect_ mirror is perfect, so it would reflect it. Question is, could
      1) Best mirror we have currently
      2) Normal 'shop' mirror
      reflect it without melting?

      Really good mirrors (one used to focus lasers in physics) absorb maybe 0.2% of energy. Assuming 1cm radius of laser, we would have 60W of power focused on roughly 1cm of metal. There is no magic in laser - it would just need to melt metal behind the mirror. Even assuming no termal conductivity and no special cooling of that 'almost perfect' mirror, we are talking about 60 joules of energy getting there per second. Assuming thin layer of metal in that section, weight maybe 1g, it would heat up by 100-200 C per second. This means you would need to aim in exactly same spot for 5-10 seconds to melt it (well, probably mirror would become less perfect by then - but at same time, there would be a termal conductivity, which can increase time by orders of magnitude)

      For the normal shop mirror - yes, it would break fast if you use continous beam. But not before deflecting a LOT more energy around. If you would stand on reflection path from the mirror, you would get fried a lot faster than even shop mirror would break.

    43. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's an easy solution for that: assume any kid killed by it is a terrorist, any hospital or school is an Al-Qaeda HQ.

    44. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by abies · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they mention 'cripple' rather than destory. It might be same variation on the 'blinding spy satellites'. Only data I can find about anti-satellite lasers which reached production stage are about ones used for blinding optics (for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...).

    45. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... it depends on how high up over Kentucky that [s]air[/s]craft happens to be.

      In an unrelated note, is there any way to do strikethrough text on slashdot?

      You woefully overestimate how thick the atmosphere is.

    46. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lasers, as most weapons, are directional. War, as most confrontations, is positional.
      Thus, collateral damage does not damage the shooter.

      Collateral damage to "not the shooter" hasn't stopped a weapon from being constructed ever in the history of mankind.

      Unless you are within the blast radius of an explosive weapon.

    47. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      Hence the failed strike through on the "air" part of "aircraft". It's hard to make a joke when you cannot format your text suitably.

    48. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, the first to harness your stupidity as a weapon would rule the universe.

    49. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, with lasers that aim up, you don't really have to worry about them falling back down. Maybe the Martians will have something to worry about, but that's not our problem.

    50. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Also - in other news - war is dangerous. Details at 11.

    51. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      A few mm per km of distance, this is theoretical colimation limits you are talking about? Do 30kW lasers even approach that level of coherence in practical implementations?

      I was doing good to keep a spot size under 2m at a distance of roughly 300m when trying to collimate a foot long HeNe tube laser with a pair of lenses.

    52. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (space, the only place where thrusting away from the ground sends you straight into it)

      It seems appropriate, given that it's also the only place where flying involves throwing yourself at the ground and missing.

    53. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I work on high energy lasers. You're pretty damn wrong. Like, amazingly wrong. The reason for the whole ABL project is that you have to be moving pretty fast to avoid blooming.

    54. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      it get's even harder as the power goes up if your medium is atmospheric. There are multiple effects when pushing a shit ton of energy through air that disrupt the coherence of the bream.

    55. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      The most popular application for laser defense currently is to have the laser mounted in an aircraft of some sort, which means that it will be fired horizontal, or even slightly downward.

    56. Re:Excuse me... Excuse me?!!! by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      Ok, lasers do technically still follow the laws of gravity, but because light has such little mass compared to it's velocity the gravitational effect doesn't really apply in the kind of scale we are dealing with (20 miles or less)

  5. Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by vikingpower · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does it not seem most unfitting for a state which, though pridening itself in its alleged openness and democratic nature, can only keep itself afloat by a debt-raising mechanism, and by printing money, as well as for a state where a substantial portion of its citizens live in deepest poverty ( not to speak of their virtual illiteracy ) to develop weapons no one ever asked for ?

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I too am believening that the weapon of laser gun is most expensive for the state with expenses greater than anti-expenses. Glorious Leader is only leader that can afford the great laser gun weapon for shooting in the sea and sky and on ground.

    2. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Despite your hatefulness, the US will still be one the first responders to any emergency/disaster you and your countrymen suffer.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    3. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Because Freedom, that's why! Commie.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with hate. That has everything to do with the US not being, anymore, the state that came to Europe's rescue more than half a century ago. Things change, get over it.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    5. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? "

      The same thing applies to helping others out as a does to criticism. Too bad they in the US could not seem to give a shit about their own countrymen suffering on a daily basis. The world would be a better place if the US stops spreading it's imperialistic 'Good Will' even in the eventuality of disaster. It might force the others to learn to take care of themselves and not go crying to the US when they have a problem.

      The Red US States have the same issue. They like to bitch a moan about Federal spending, however it is they who are the biggest suckers of the tit of the Washington pig while contributing the least in tax revenue. It would be better if they learn to take care of themselves before they bitch about the failures of Federalism.

    6. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by operagost · · Score: 1

      deepest poverty

      I don't think you know what that really means. If you have housing, electricity, heat, indoor plumbing, refrigerator, stove, and ample food and clothing, you aren't in "deepest poverty"-- and there are very, very few who don't have those things in the USA.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by operagost · · Score: 1

      The USA of WWII was the father of the state we have today. The policies the left put in place resulted in this overpowered interventionist state.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by wiggles · · Score: 1

      This is why you're seeing this laser today. This is your "use case."

      Only an extremely powerful and fast laser can defend against a hypersonic missile. This laser is a defensive weapon, created to counter the Chinese hypersonic threat, although no one is saying it specifically.

    9. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      FUD

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    10. Re:Unfitting. No use case. ROI = 0. by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone who's never been there or maybe is part of the 1%. Get outside your gated community and go and look around pretty much any big American city, you'll find plenty of people there who don't have heating, electricity adequate food or clothing and all those other things. People living on the absolute breadline, sleeping on the streets or in missions, eating out of dumpsters or getting food from soup kitchens. Just above them millions more living on slave wages, just clinging on, at the very edges. Heathcare that comes in clinics given one day a month -given by volunteer doctors.. Poor in America, its just like the third world. (I once spent 3 months stranded and homeless in LA and saw it with my own eyes.)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  6. Beam or pulse? by skandalfo · · Score: 2

    Let me know when they get to the 30 MW mining laser. Then I can go harvesting some asteroids.

    1. Re:Beam or pulse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know as well as I do that the 20MW beam laser is more cost-effective.

      See you on the E:D alpha. :)

    2. Re:Beam or pulse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't tell me you are one of those religious fanatics from Van Maneens Star.

    3. Re:Beam or pulse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you do that? I'd be curious what the rationale behind that would be, besides the "gee-whiz" space cadet factor.

  7. The Russians have been doing lasers for decades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Course they would publish all the technical details on the Internet for Lockheed to compare with and claim superiority.

  8. What we all want to know is... by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...does it go.... pew! pew!... pew! pew!... pew! pew! pew!

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:What we all want to know is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be on to something - after all, they did elect Obama president. The populace Must be brain dead!

    2. Re:What we all want to know is... by schlachter · · Score: 1

      It will be BYOSE, bring your own sound effects

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  9. Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 0

    Seriously? Bullets and other such projectiles are subject to gravity and Newtonian physics. They will find a place and time of energy release or simple rest. Thus, a howitzer will send a shell in a predictable arc based on the well-understood science of ballistics. Thus, shells can be aimed to land on target, short of target, or long of target but only to a certain extent. OTOH, a coherent 30kw beam of light that misses or bypasses its target will continue on its merry way to scorch holes in anything it contacts long its line of fire, with no helpful ballistics to predict what it will or will not hit.

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    1. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Light is subject to the physics of electromagnetism. A laser will send a beam in a predictable path based on well understood science of photonics.

    2. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Informative

      The physics of electromagnetism and photonics will somehow stop an errant beam from destroying anything else as it travels onwards? Nope, of course not.

      Okay so you clearly have no idea how lasers work, or the physics of electromagnetism.

      For one thing, they defocus over long distances. At sufficiently high energies they lose energy because they turn the air to plasma and bleed off intensity as heat. It's been a struggle to make ranged laser weapons work, because you can't exceed a couple of kw/cm2 before the air turns to plasma and your beam blooms out of existence.

      And for the example given, lasers are much less likely to cause collateral damage - they can "unfired" instantly, and they will travel at a tangent to the Earth meaning that once headed any amount above the horizon they will never fall below it. Bullets, missiles, bombs - well those always come down and they are lethal when they do.

    3. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by PC_THE_GREAT · · Score: 1

      Photons are affected by gravity.

    4. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So your example of a nice, predictable weapon is a stream of bullets subject to gravity and wind, or a self-guided package of explosives, while your idea of unpredictability is a collimated beam of photons.

      Sweet deus.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      What stops an errant stream of bullets or an incorrectly guided air-to-air missile from doing the same thing? Magic?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    6. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      You're either trolling or an absolute idiot. Lasers are an order of magnitude more accurate than any projectile weapon. I really do hope you're just blissfully ignorant and not a troll.

    7. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I see your point. Computing what's on the end of a straight line is so much harder than computing what's on the end of a parabola modified by air friction, wind, Coriolis effect, lift from shape of missiles and gazillion other things.

    8. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And for the example given, lasers are much less likely to cause collateral damage

      Except for causing permanent eye damage to anyone who so much as looks at a reflection of the beam?

    9. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      Except for causing permanent eye damage to anyone who so much as looks at a reflection of the beam?

      Are you trying to fight Medusa? Walking around a battlefield while looking at a mirror is going to get you killed in soo many other ways.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
    10. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, too bad we can't compute these effects ahead of time. Thank god the atmosphere doesn't attenuate or scatter light, eh? I think you need to adjust your expectations a bit away from sci-fi...

    11. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      With a beam that powerful, it won't take a direct hit to the cornea to cause eye damage. Catching a glint off of the windshield of the target (car, plane, tank, building) might be enough.

      Forget walking around with mirrors, battlefield dress of the future might include welding goggles or a helmet mounted HUD to protect a soldiers eyes behind a video feed.

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    12. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walking around a battlefield while looking at a mirror is going to get you killed in soo many other ways.

      With a laser that powerful, the reflection doesn't even have to be specular. Catching a glimpse of a diffuse reflection of the beam is enough to cause permanent eye damage. In other words: If you look at anything while the laser hits it and you're not wearing adequate eye protection, your eyesight is toast. Quite literally.

      And always remember the second rule of laser safety: Do not look at laser with remaining eye.

    13. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      As opposed to having your eyesight damaged by fragments of the thing that was just hit by a bomb... This is a weapon we're talking about, damaging people isn't an unfortunate side effect, it's the desired effect.

    14. Re:Newtonian physics and ballistics don't apply! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You've asserted that a laser is less predictable than balllistics. When you are in ship to ship and your fighter fires on one at a higher altitude, what will the ballistics do? Fall. Possibly on someone. We could theoretically calculate exactly where, but we can't because we don't know all the variables at the moment of release. But the laser will go up, forever, endangering nobody, except a near-zero chance of an unintentional hit on the space station. In that case, the laser is infinitely more safe than ballistics. Even when firing down, the spread of destruction will be lower with the laser. I can't see how someone could have the stance that a laser is more dangerous to bystanders than sprayed high rate of fire lead, or even better uranium (or is that mainly tank shells).

  10. But of course! by srussia · · Score: 1

    What else would they mount on Akula-class submarines?

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  11. Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the bandwidth of the combined beam is? You need a pretty decent amount of power to provide laser data connections to really distant objects in space (e.g. a Jupitor orbiter), so if fibre lasers make this more efficient they could take over from LADEEs LLST diode laser based comm system.

    1. Re:Bandwidth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jupitor? What's that? Is it like Lipitor?

  12. Multiple bandwidths by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    I don't know the physics of it, could someone tell me whether it would be both feasible and helpful to combine various lasers of differing bandwidths into one beam?

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Multiple bandwidths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all you care about is power, then you don't even need to keep the spatial and temporal coherency that a LASER gives you. You just beam-merge all the LASER beams you want into a small very concentrated beam of light (this would be just regular light, most LASER properties that scientific applications require would be lost).

    2. Re:Multiple bandwidths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. The desired property of laser is the narrow bandwith, not a wide one. You also want to keep it to a single frequency since that is what makes it easy to focus the beam.
      While laser technically is about the way the light is emitted one would probably not call a beam of multiple bandwidths for a laser beam.

    3. Re:Multiple bandwidths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what LM did,(different wavelengths not bandwidths). You can combine various wavelength lasers(gaining power, losing other laser beam properties), you can't combine same wavelength lasers.

    4. Re:Multiple bandwidths by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      If you can control the optical phases (tricky but doable) you can combine same-frequency lasers into a single beam. If you direc two phase-matched lasers at a 50% beam splitter, all of the combined power will go in one direction because the beams will interfere and cancel in the other. What makes this tricky is that you need all of your mechanical tolerances to be a wavelength. Usually this is done with some sort of active feedback.

      Combining different wavelengths (which Lockheed did) is easier, and probably better for brute-force military applications.

    5. Re:Multiple bandwidths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC who is employed building lasers of various types:

      This is one of those: well, it depends, as far as bandwidth goes. In theory, lasers emit only one wavelength, but this is not physics experiment land, so depending on the physical/chemical properties of the lasing medium, you may get stray emission of other wavelengths from time to time. You get a given wavelength because an electron drops from energy level Nx to Ny, but what if the electron can get to excitation states other than Nx and Ny? Nothing real is perfect, and if it can happen, sometimes it is going to happen, and when it does, you are going to get a different wavelength emitted as the electron transitions from one energy level to another.

      From the summary, I'd guess that they are firing multiple IR lasers (probably of the same wavelength) that fire in very short pulses (like femto-seconds), sort of like a gatling gun, into a common (used by all the beams) second harmonic generator, and then the rest of the optical path. If you time the pulses just right, you could get nearly continuous output with very high beam quality. Cooling that SHG would be a bitch.

  13. Shark-Mount by Britz · · Score: 0

    Wake me up when they are shark mountable.

  14. Is this the right thread for Beowulf clusters? by Toast+or+Rice · · Score: 2

    Could you even imagine a Beowulf cluster of those?

    1. Re:Is this the right thread for Beowulf clusters? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Could you even imagine a Beowulf cluster of those?

      I don't know. Let's ask Junis.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  15. Don't cross the beams by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1

    "There's something very important I forgot to tell you. Don't cross the laser beams. It would be bad. Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously."

    1. Re:Don't cross the beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously."

      That happened when the legalized gay marriage

  16. I can't believe nobody has said it yet.... by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 3, Funny

    E Pluribus Unum!!!!!!

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  17. Dubious by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    I'm highly dubious as to the real world applications of this system. Every other laser "weapon" has turned out to be highly ineffective, prone to failure & unable to meet any of its design goals. Just look at the ABL (Airborne Laser), they burnt over $5 Billion and were well on their way to burning more until some in the military hierarchy noticed that you would need dozens of them positioned inside even a small enemies airspace to be effective.

    1. Re:Dubious by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real-world application of this system is to siphon taxpayer dollars into the pockets of Lockheed Martin shareholders, and it seems to be working fine so far, thank you very much!

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    2. Re:Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because we shouldn't ever research new weapons unless we *know* they are going to work before we start.

    3. Re:Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ABL might be dubious, but for example Reihnmetall has a pretty good 50kW laser mortar defense system. Not cheap, but better than hoping to reach a bunker on time.

    4. Re:Dubious by 2phar · · Score: 1

      Robert Higgs would even use the F word

    5. Re:Dubious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, someone who gets it. While the more childish get into debates over which sci-fi informs their world-view, adults see what is really happening.

    6. Re:Dubious by DougF · · Score: 1

      Ah, Slashdot, where the commenters never RTFA... "internally-funded research and development program" [/facepalm]

      --
      Impetuous! Homeric!
  18. Bring out the sharks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > paving the way for a laser weapon system suitable, if not for a Death Star, for a wide range of air, land, and sea military platforms.

    Sea military platforms, you say?

    Yes, bring out the sharks!

    1. Re:Bring out the sharks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least we won't be surprised when they introduce the next generation attack sub.

  19. Don't infringe my 2nd amendment rights! by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

    Oh, no ... I can hear it now: "I have a right to carry one of these if I want to!"

    Considering that a "gun" is defined in a stereotypical law as something that has a muzzle and fires a projectile, it probably is legal to carry one ... if you can lift the silly thing!

    The sporting goods store will announce it to their customers .... as the only gun that cooks its target so you don't have to!

    Oh, this one's going to be ugly.

    1. Re:Don't infringe my 2nd amendment rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are already lots of places with laws restricting high power laser pointers. Granted that is mostly because of idiots who use them to shine airplanes. Just like guns, a very small percentage of owners who will ever misuse them but because not everybody understands/appreciates them there are a small very vocal crowd who think they should be banned.

    2. Re:Don't infringe my 2nd amendment rights! by operagost · · Score: 1

      The second amendment actually says "arms"... so anything that can be used to arm oneself is protected.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    3. Re:Don't infringe my 2nd amendment rights! by American+Patent+Guy · · Score: 1

      I just love that argument. It makes it okay to put canisters of nerve agent in the back of my pickup...

      I also makes it okay to park a trailer full of manure in front of my ex's house. After all, I'm only arming myself with it; I'm not using it...

  20. Outlet? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    What happens when they take the wall wart away? How are they going to power this stuff in the field? And will that power system be hardened enough for combat while still being transportable?

  21. More importantly... by GReaToaK_2000 · · Score: 1

    Can it pop a giant bowl of popcorn in a house from a plane?

    1. Re:More importantly... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I saw that movie! One of Val Kilmer's better ones I thought.

    2. Re:More importantly... by operagost · · Score: 1

      That would be a work of real genius.

      Kudos on the second 1980s movie reference.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  22. What about one for my Tesla Roadster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody will ever suspect a drag racing millionaire playboy

    1. Re:What about one for my Tesla Roadster by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Nobody will ever suspect a drag racing millionaire playboy

      Is that you Justin Beiber?

  23. I am reminded of Dr. Strangelove by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 1

    "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!"

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
  24. The Death Star beam was a laser! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Death Star beam was a laser, it would cut a hole in a planet, not blast it to bits. I figure it was "pure anti-proton" like the planet killer in the original Star Trek series episode, "The Doomday Machine".

    1. Re:The Death Star beam was a laser! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      In the Star Wars technical books they describe the Death Stars weapon as a "giant hyper-matter laser". Hyper-matter is what they use to go faster than light but I would guess that its not completely totally different to an anti-proton beam.
      If the physics works a certain way an FTL beam might just be able to disrupt a planets gravity field. That would allow it to destroy a planet with far less energy because the gravity field compresses the planet like an enormous spring and releasing it .... would make the planet tear itself apart. Exotic matter would be a much better bet to do the same thing..

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  25. What do you mean, "theoretically"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrific. I'm about to get killed a million miles from nowhere with a gung-ho iguana who tells me to relax.

  26. Better Austin Powers reference by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    Gentlemen, phase three. We place a giant "laser" on the moon. Let me demonstrate. ... The laser is powerful enough to destroy every city on the planet at will. We'll turn the moon into what I like to call a "Death Star". ... Since my "Death Star" laser was invented by the noted Cambridge physicist, Dr. Parsons. I thought we'd name it in his honor - the Alan Parsons Project.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  27. Clouds, fog, rain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone tested how this laser weapon works when it's foggy or rainy?

  28. Not "Real Genius" level yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5 MW / 30 kW = approximately 166 times weaker than what Mitch and Chris made in 1985.

  29. Beam launched spacecraft? by oquigley · · Score: 1

    Anybody know if that old dream of powering a vehicle into orbit using ground-based lasers is still alive? And if so, how powerful a laser would be required? That might be a worthwhile spinoff of this R&D..

  30. Well the freakin sharks will love it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mount them on them freakin sharks... I'll be impressed.

  31. From many...? by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    e pluribus... burnem?

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  32. Just waiting for mine. by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    Now as soon as I get all those darn laser pointers I ordered, and then get them to point at the same spot ...

    Sweet!

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.