Slashdot Mirror


Boeing Patents Star Wars Style Force Field Technology

An anonymous reader was one of many to point out that Boeing doesn't want to rely on a sad devotion to an ancient religion to protect aircraft and conjure up the stolen data tapes, but plans on using force fields instead. "Boeing's new patent may let the force be with you even in real life. The aircraft and defense company has taken a cue from science fiction with its plan to develop a Star Wars style force field that would use energy to deflect any potential damage. Just liking the luminescent shields seen in the film, Boeing's "Method and system for shock wave attenuation via electromagnetic arc" could provide a real-life layer of protection from nearby impacts to targets. The downside: It won't protect from direct hits."

126 comments

  1. You mean...? by T.E.D. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So really more like deflector shields.

    1. Re:You mean...? by halivar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, in Star Wars they are called deflector shields, after all.

    2. Re:You mean...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they don't deflect A-Wings. Ask the captain of the Executor.

    3. Re:You mean...? by grimmjeeper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be fair, the A-Wing only got through AFTER they brought down the bridge deflector screens and intensifying forward batteries so that nothing could get through didn't really work out for them.

    4. Re:You mean...? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, technically they didn't even have time to intensify the forward batteries fire before Arvel Crynyd came in for a visit.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:You mean...? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      good catch. more like deflector shields.

      But give them time and they'll get the plasma containment shielding working to get the light sabers up and running.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    6. Re: You mean...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some would call it fate...

      Years down the road, this will become a common word, like "to google".

      - Shit man, hope you have a Boeing!
      - What? Oh, sure!
      *boeing*

    7. Re:You mean...? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Seems like the dumbest design for a ship of war possible.

      Huge, nigh-unstoppably powered, armored, and defended ship. Let's put the bridge in a thin shell at the end of a pylon so everyone can have windows, I guess?

      I'd have buried it deep in the middle of the ship and used some of that magic future technology, or even normal today-technology HD video feeds from redundant points all over the hull.

    8. Re:You mean...? by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The device creates a plasma barrier which reduces the intensity of incoming shock waves. Basically, it prevents nearby explosions from damaging the vehicle from their shockwaves alone. I bet any shrapnel will sail right through the plasma, and I'm sure that the plasma barrier will only weaken the shock wave, not block it entirely.

      So basically it's a sound shield that blocks (or at least dampens) extremely high-energy sound waves, such as those coming from explosives.

  2. Wont protect from direct hits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YET

  3. Prototype by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't they need a working prototype to patent this? Oh well, I guess at least the patent will be expired before these devices actually exist.

    1. Re:Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This one's pretty simple. Use an electric arc to destroy the air between you and the approaching shockwave. This leaves no medium for the shockwave to propagate. I wouldn't assume too strongly don't have a working prototype.

    2. Re:Prototype by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      So... inappropriate for spacecraft, then. Oh well.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Prototype by museumpeace · · Score: 1

      they are just going to take tapes of Star Trek to the patent office , maybe.

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    4. Re:Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you "destroy" air, Mr "I read too much sci-fi"? You got some canisters of anti-air?

    5. Re:Prototype by robbyb20 · · Score: 2

      Ditto. I know I dont possess all the knowledge of the patent system but I have a strong feeling that one of the key pieces to patent something is to have a working prototype. I guess its not a requirement but it should be!

    6. Re:Prototype by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

      He just described it incorrectly. You don't have to be a douche about it. It ionizes a small area of the air, creating a 'plasma field' (their words) that disrupts the shock wave.

    7. Re:Prototype by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Seems like George Lucas can claim prior art maybe.

    8. Re:Prototype by museumpeace · · Score: 2

      good question. If you have a laser strong enough to instantly ionize a patch of air between you and an exploding munition [we are talking milliseconds for the whole show here!] that itself must create a shock wave as the super-heated air expands more or less into what we would perceive as an explosion. I am hoping the Boeing Boeing engineers have some proof the cure is better than the disease, so to speak.
      If you can shape the surface of the discontinuity in gas density by this method, you could cause a lensing effect that redirected the shock wave but you cannot get rid of energy by adding energy to it. If you manage to create an underpressure that coincides with the overpressure of the munition, that will happen at a certain point and will require an energy density on a par with the munition if you mean to protect by a cancellation of superimposed pressure waves. And watch out for your side lobes...the cancellation would be localized while elsewhere in the battle an addition would occur.

      --
      SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    9. Re: Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same George Lucas who grew up watching Star Trek?

    10. Re:Prototype by earthminion · · Score: 1

      No, not a spacecraft. The patent looks more like a very loud sound wave generator, so needs to be in air. It would take a lot of power (and sound) to defect the shockwave of an explosion. If it can stop an explosion shockwave, then the concussion wave (it would need to generate) would also kill anyone near it, but then sound proofing the vehicle enough (to protect it) would be a hard engineering task as well (although I guess achieveable). But then sound that powerful could also be used to destroy nearby buildings!

      Its certainly not however a stealth technology, because the RF it'll generate will be very easy to pickup from a long distance away.

      I'm waiting for rock bands to start using it for speakers! ;)

    11. Re: Prototype by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It looked a lot better in star wars.

    12. Re:Prototype by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its certainly not however a stealth technology,

      I'd assume you don't need stealth technology when you're at the point of deflecting enemy fire. They obviously already know where you are.

    13. Re: Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Star Wars (Holy Trilogy) has ZERO force field / deflector shield / ray shield effects.

      The ships have "deflector shields". The death star port is protected by a "ray shield". These terms all got various (and contradictory at times) meanings in the EU, but just in Holy Trilogy:

      - People talk about deflector shields.
      - Every laser/blaster hit does damage immediately
      - Fighters fly into capital ships for no damage to the cap ship, until the shield generator goes down and the A-Wing crashes.

      At no point do you see "bubble absorbs energy" as an effect as in Star Trek.

    14. Re:Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm waiting for rock bands to start using it for speakers! ;)

      So, can Douglass Adams' estate claim prior art via Disaster Zone?

    15. Re:Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Re: Cure better than the disease.

      I don't see it as being much different from the "Active Armour" they have on tanks. Given the choice between being deaf, or dead, I'll take deaf.

    16. Re:Prototype by MouseR · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the plume of molten copper of an RPG couldn't give a crap about a shockwave.

    17. Re:Prototype by bane2571 · · Score: 2

      I know when my stuff turns into plasma I consider it pretty destroyed,

    18. Re: Prototype by Wycliffe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sadly, the powers that be disagree.
      They would rather have you dead than wounded. It's the reason that there is an international ban on weapons that make you blind or deaf. Wounded soldiers are costly and make people see the real cost of war while dead soldiers are quickly forgotten.

    19. Re:Prototype by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the plume of molten copper of an RPG couldn't give a crap about a shockwave.

      Actually I believe it does. Thats the whole principle behind reactive armor. My understanding is that the detonation of the armor produces a counter shockwave that disrupts the precisely shaped detonation of the warhead and the plume ends up splashing rather than boring through.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    20. Re: Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not required. There are plenty of perpetual motion machine patents.

    21. Re: Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The object is not turned to plasma. Just the air around the plane. No air around the plane means bombs going off around the plane will have little effect on the plane. The reason is that there is no air for a shockwave to travel through. Which is also why this can't do anything about a direct hit. A missile can survive a few inches of plasma and detonate on the airplane past the plasma.

    22. Re: Prototype by Zordak · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't. (See part II, perpetual motion machines lack utility.) So you are partly wrong and partly right. You absolutely do not need a working prototype to get a patent. Many, many patents are issued without a prototype. But there is a specific basis for rejecting perpetual motion machines. (And yes, I am an actual, honest-to-goodness patent attorney, so I am not just making stuff up. I have filed many applications without a working prototype, and have turned away inventors when they have brought me what amounted to perpetual motion machines.)

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    23. Re: Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the powers that be disagree.
      They would rather have you dead than wounded after the war [ftfy].

      During the battles wounded enemy soldiers are much better than dead from the same reason you mention:

      Wounded soldiers are costly [...] dead soldiers are quickly forgotten.

    24. Re: Prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the powers that be disagree.
      They would rather have you dead than wounded after the war [ftfy].

      During the battles wounded enemy soldiers are much better than dead from the same reason you mention:

      Wounded soldiers are costly [...] dead soldiers are quickly forgotten.

      Actually, no. Wounded enemy soldiers are "preferred" because it removes several from the battle. The wounded one and the one or two able bodied removing/caring for the wounded one. Of course it is rather "luxurious" to be in a position where one can decide to only wound.

    25. Re:Prototype by alphazip · · Score: 1

      So... it's a portable Aurora Borealis?

    26. Re: Prototype by Cito · · Score: 1

      And if there is no air around plane it will crash to ground like a rock

    27. Re:Prototype by matfud · · Score: 1

      Explosives are fun. Reactive Armour can disrupt a shaped charge. Even simple grid armour can provide the separation needed to reduce the effect of a shaped charge. there are reasons why vehicles look like a chicken cadge. I works and is light and cheap.

    28. Re: Prototype by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      That makes it sound like the airplane might have issues with flying through this medium as well...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    29. Re: Prototype by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I recall laser beams being deflected by the deflector shields in the movies, but it was a long time ago (in a galaxy far far away?).

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re: Prototype by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you are actually incorrect. There are perpetual motion machines with patents even if you don't allow people to patent them through you.

      https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    31. Re: Prototype by billdale · · Score: 1

      Re: prototype requirement for patents: very early on, the Patent Office did require prototypes before issuing patents, but they found it was so cumbersome and complicated that the requirement was dropped before long... I tried to find the exact date, but I think it was in the early 19th century. If you give it some thought, you'll see the problem: dozens-- or even hundreds-- of models arriving each week at USPTO... how to handle fragile items, andxwho, is responsible when something is broken... patents with chemical components... glass parts... stuff that is perishable, such as patents relying on plants or substances that spoil quickly... where do you store all the models, can who wants to be responsible for properly repacking such one-of-a-kind items-- what happens if they are stolen from the postal service-- the probs are virtually endless. Yes, patents without models or prototypes is not a perfect way to deal with issues of perpetual motion machines and unobtainium formulae, but it is, after all, an imperfect world.

    32. Re:Prototype by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not only a counter shockwave and the splashing as you mention.

      Active armor produces an extremely high/strong electric field. And as the explosion consists of positive charged ions (does not matter what kind of "ammunition"), those get deflected.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. The downside: It won't protect from direct hits." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    direct hit: That's where everybody moves side to side in unison and then falls to the floor.

    Then some panel blows and sparks fly everywhere - why they stopped using fuses in the future is anyone's guess.

    And the guy in he red shirt will be dead. All others will be just unconscious.

    Shit! Wrong franchise!

  5. First Post.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Oooohh...deflected!

  6. Also: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patents dont mean they can make it work. There's a patent for a warp-drive as well...

    1. Re:Also: by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      You're right of course, but the jury is still out on warp drives. NASA has an entire team researching them now. Ever since Alcubierre showed it was theoretically possible (and later physicists significantly refined the theory) it moved from pure science fiction into bona-fide science. Whether or when it can move to ENGINEERING is uncertain -but clearly at least some good scientists and engineers are willing to bet quite a significant budget on sooner over later.

      And there is no doubt it was Star Trek that inspired the actual science here. Alcubierre wrote William Shatner an e-mail to thank him for Star Trek and openly stated that he it was seeing the idea in Star Trek that inspired him to do the research and work out if it could be done for real.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re:Also: by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Why would he have written to Shatner? Was it Shatner's idea, or Rodenberrys?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    3. Re: Also: by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Possibly because Roddenberry was dead ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  7. Read the Damn Articles by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    This isn't a force field it's a point defense system.

    The system can sense when a shock wave generating explosion occurs near a target. An arc generator then determines the small area where protection is needed from the shock waves.It then springs into action by by emitting laser pulses that ionize the air, providing a laser-induced plasma field of protection from the shock waves.

    1. Re:Read the Damn Articles by Platinumrat · · Score: 1

      This isn't a force field it's a point defense system.

      The system can sense when a shock wave generating explosion occurs near a target. An arc generator then determines the small area where protection is needed from the shock waves.It then springs into action by by emitting laser pulses that ionize the air, providing a laser-induced plasma field of protection from the shock waves.

      So it won't work in space then. Not much of a force field.

    2. Re:Read the Damn Articles by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So it only protects from shock waves? I was thinking of something that would help replace the expensive, heavy, and error prone reactive armor on tanks.

    3. Re:Read the Damn Articles by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of faith disturbing...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re:Read the Damn Articles by cavreader · · Score: 2

      The Israelis have actually deployed a point defense system on some of their troop carriers. It uses a direct hit munition to intercept the incoming projectile, a munition that explodes creating a shock wave to stop incoming projectiles in a wide area, and electronic counter measures to disrupt guided munitions.

    5. Re:Read the Damn Articles by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      At the moment most battles aren't fought in space.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    6. Re:Read the Damn Articles by matfud · · Score: 1

      Yep there are interesting things and Israel do manage to do them. Germany, UK and America also seem to do this.

    7. Re:Read the Damn Articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then the cloud of plasma will be propelled by the shockwave into the target. Huh?

      Somebody said it "destroys" the air so the shockwave can't propagate --- but I'm pretty sure that's crap.

  8. Best takeaway from Star Wars and Star Trek? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Apparently obsession with cell phones and fax machines is a condition particular to our time and place.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:Best takeaway from Star Wars and Star Trek? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small, unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly 92 million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea. -- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
  9. Hyped marketing by meustrus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is Sci-Fi because somebody in marketing thought they could get more buzz if they called it that. It deflects shockwaves, not projectiles. Then again who knows; maybe the blasters in Star Wars just make photon shockwaves? But this just looks like trademark infringement to me.

    The sad thing is their clickbait worked. But a shockwave deflector shield is pretty neat tech anyway.

    --
    I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
    1. Re:Hyped marketing by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Funny

      We urgently need a deflector that will shield us from click-bait. And look as good as Uhura in a miniskirt!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Hyped marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a sense, a considerably more powerful deflector would almost certainly defend against direct hits.

      The biggest issue, of course, is we simply don't have the power generation capability yet.
      We are basically speaking portable fusors. We barely have large fusion working yet.

      We might be lucky enough to live to see it. Unless you are in your 50s. Maybe.
      Or like me, turbo cripple to the extreme that I will explode in to bits by the time I am 30. Literally living Quake.

    3. Re:Hyped marketing by tool462 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Uhura in a miniskirt" is the ultimate click-bait, and it's not even a link!
      This was the most perfect, organic opportunity for a rick-roll in years.

      Geek card revoked, Ms. Thwacks. Geek card revoked.

    4. Re:Hyped marketing by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Rickrolling? You seem to be confusing "geeks" for "/b/tards"...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  10. Star Wars? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    The system can sense when a shock wave generating explosion occurs near a target. An arc generator then determines the small area where protection is needed from the shock waves.

    It then springs into action by by emitting laser pulses that ionize the air, providing a laser-induced plasma field of protection from the shock waves.

    Perhaps I've blocked out much of the new Star Wars movies, but I certainly don't recall force fields in Star Wars. That always seemed more Star Trek to me. Calling something an "arc generator" sounds closer to arc reactor from Iron man. But I guess everything in the defense department is "Star Wars".

    1. Re:Star Wars? by erice · · Score: 1

      Switch your deflector shields on -- double front!

      Deflector shields are mentioned often in Star Wars. I don't recall any visuals, though.

    2. Re:Star Wars? by aaronjp · · Score: 1

      The double radar domes on top of the Star Destroyers are their shield generators.

      https://www.google.com/search?...

    3. Re:Star Wars? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the prequels, we saw them on the Naboo fighter ships. Also, don't forget the destroyer droids with their bubble shields, and the Gungans with their animal-mounted battlefield shields, and even hand-held shields. There are plenty more examples from the next two movies as well.

      In the original trilogy, I don't recall seeing the shields themselves, but both the rebels (on Hoth) and the empire (on Endor) protected their assets with large, ground-based shield generators. There are also references in the dialogue as well ("Switch your deflectors on - double front!").

      You really blocked out a lot, didn't you...

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:Star Wars? by aaronjp · · Score: 1

      Droideka's had visible shields.

      http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki...

    5. Re:Star Wars? by aaronjp · · Score: 1

      The whole ground assault on Hoth in The Empire Strikes Back was to take out the shield generator. Which one of the AT-AT's finally accomplishes.

    6. Re:Star Wars? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      In the original trilogy, I don't recall seeing the shields themselves, but both the rebels (on Hoth) and the empire (on Endor) protected their assets with large, ground-based shield generators. There are also references in the dialogue as well ("Switch your deflectors on - double front!").

      It's been a while. But the shields really didn't appear to do a damn thing as far as I could tell. I remember the "double front" thing now that you mention it, but I'm not sure what those shields actually accomplished. Besides Luke, and the guy who Kamikazed the death star, was there a single rebel ship that didn't blow up instantly when it has hit?

      I forgot about the shiles on Hoth until you mentioned it. But, the shields on Hoth did what exactly? Other than be an excuse for a battle in the snow, and to make some more merchandise to be sold. The empire didn't bombard the planet/base once the shields were down. The Walkers were still able to land, so it didn't stop them from reaching the surface.

      So, no, I don't recall any shields in Star Wars. ;-) You're right about the prequels though.

    7. Re:Star Wars? by steveha · · Score: 1

      the shields really didn't appear to do a damn thing as far as I could tell. I remember the "double front" thing now that you mention it, but I'm not sure what those shields actually accomplished.

      I think the in-universe explanation is that the shields were double front to protect against fire from the laser turrets on the Death Star, but when Vader and his TIE fighters hit the fighters from behind, the front shields didn't do any good.

      This has always been fine with me. These are fighters, and it would be silly for the fighters to be invulnerable. They are small, and they have decent engines, decent weapons, and (at least X-Wings) even have a hyperdrive. It would be hard to believe they could have all that and also impenetrable shields. As with jet fighters in real life, their best defense is to blow up attackers before being attacked, or avoid the attack completely. If you can hit a modern jet with a missile you likely destroy that jet, and similarly if you can get a solid laser hit on a "snub fighter" you likely destroy it.

      If you accept the LucasArts video game as canon, "double front" disables all shields to the rear, using the full output of the shield generators toward the front.

      the shields on Hoth did what exactly?

      The in-universe explanation was that the base was secure inside its shield bubble; the ships in orbit couldn't breach the shield. So the Imperial Walkers were landed somewhere outside the perimeter of the shield, then walked up until they could attack the shield generator.

      I must admit I've never bought this. If you handwave a bit, maybe you can make it make sense: they Imperials know the rebels have multiple bases, and they want to capture people alive for interrogation to find other rebels; they could have swatted the base from orbit but it would leave a smoking crater, so they wanted to take the shield down and take prisoners. This seems inconsistent with the Empire that shot down escape pods in the first movie.

      Also, I have really never bought the idea that the ground base was able to protect the transports by firing some sort of weapon at the ships in space, from the ground. But never mind.

      I don't recall any shields in Star Wars. ;-)

      One more: spacecraft hangars didn't have airlocks; just force fields, and the spacecraft could simply fly through the force field while atmosphere didn't leak out. I've never understood how exactly that's supposed to work.

      And one more: a major plot point of Return of the Jedi was that the partially-completed new Death Star was protected by a shield generator on Endor. Until that shield was disabled, the rebels couldn't even attack the Death Star.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    8. Re:Star Wars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ERROR- They "stabilize rear deflectors". The double front is only for the approach. The script calls for flak. Maybe the shield blocked that.

      We never see a shield defend against ANY energy attack, at any point in the original three. We routinely see physical objects (sometimes entire ships) crash and explode versus shielded targets, doing no damage to the shielded objects. The one time a fighter crashing into a capital ship destroys it, they have just lost their shield generator... to incoming laser fire.

    9. Re:Star Wars? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      They appear often in the cartoon series on Disney XD. You can even hear the hum and see the shields go up. Kind of a Dune effect.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    10. Re:Star Wars? by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1
      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    11. Re:Star Wars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, you're not talking about "Star Wars," (aka "the film" from TFA), you're talking about the prequels.

    12. Re:Star Wars? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      I've always rationalized it like this: in the films, they always showed the last shot that blew up the ship, since that was more dramatic. In addition to the Y-Wing squad leader you mentioned, Porkins ship was damaged and ultimately destroyed by the turret fire from the Death Star's tower cannons (very similar to WW2 flak towers, btw).

      The shield on Hoth was explained via dialogue. Not only did it make for my favorite battle in the entire serious, it was specifically designed as protection against bombardment from space. By the time the shield went down, the base was nearly evacuated of personnel, and the imperial troops were already closing in. Obviously, a massed ground attack was NOT what Darth Vader had in mind as an optimal strategy, and as we saw, it gave the rebels just enough time to evacuate and scatter. I've always wondered what Vader would have done instead.

      Oh, and I forgot a huge shield-related plot point in the original Star Wars movie: "The shaft is ray-shielded so you'll have to use proton torpedoes".

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    13. Re:Star Wars? by aevan · · Score: 1

      Wedge.

      Wedge: "I'm hit! I can't stay with you."
      Luke: "Get clear, Wedge. You can't do any more good back there!"
      Wedge: "Sorry!"

    14. Re:Star Wars? by f3rret · · Score: 1

      ERROR- They "stabilize rear deflectors". The double front is only for the approach. The script calls for flak. Maybe the shield blocked that.

      We never see a shield defend against ANY energy attack, at any point in the original three. We routinely see physical objects (sometimes entire ships) crash and explode versus shielded targets, doing no damage to the shielded objects. The one time a fighter crashing into a capital ship destroys it, they have just lost their shield generator... to incoming laser fire.

      Well, given we can't actually *see* the shields, they are obviously transparent, and since the blasters in Star Wars obviously use visible lights (we can see them no screen), stands to reason that the deflector shields would be transparent to the blasters.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    15. Re:Star Wars? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You should play x-wing, tie fighter, x-wing vs tie fighter or x-wing alliance then. Deflector shield management was a very important gameplay element, one that's become a space combat genre staple.

  11. Such a bad summary by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

    Star Wars features force fields that can, for example, hold the air in a spacecraft hangar even while a spacecraft flies out.

    Boeing has developed a technology where lasers fire a burst of energy to turn air into plasma, causing a shock wave. When sensors detect an incoming pressure wave (from an explosion or whatever) this system creates a counter-wave.

    Even when I squint and wave my hands a lot, those two things don't look much alike.

    The prior art on this is not Star Wars, but reactive tank armor.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Such a bad summary by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      It is just another example of shoddy tech/science journalism, to use the latter term loosely. Sensationalism gets people to click.

    2. Re:Such a bad summary by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I think we first saw this in noise cancelling headphones actually....

    3. Re:Such a bad summary by Sibko · · Score: 2

      Actually, force fields that can hold back air from vacuum (or another atmosphere) while letting spacecraft (or other things, including light) fly out, are a real thing known as plasma windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      They take a lot of energy to produce, however.

    4. Re:Such a bad summary by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      fire a burst of energy to turn air into plasma, causing a shock wave.

      Except the aren't creating a shock wave to counter the incoming wave. They're changing the density, pressure or composition of the medium (air or water) the shock wave is going to pass through, attenuating it.

      Have a read of the summary in the patent.

      Countering a shock wave with a generated one would be horribly complex. You'd need to measure the wave first or risk amplifying it further. You'd need to generate it at in the exact same time and place you want to counter it, or your own shock wave is going to hit you with the same force as the one you're trying to stop. A tiny error in timing will see twice the damage inflicted on yourself - like the current humidity, air temperature and pressure - all things that contribute to the velocity of the shock wave.

    5. Re:Such a bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is, of course, already electro-reactive armor

    6. Re:Such a bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reactive armor? So the evil Russians again!

      Putin's fault!

    7. Re:Such a bad summary by steveha · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Mod parent up. Mod me down if you like.

      US patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8981261.PN.&OS=PN/8981261&RS=PN/8981261

      With each of the embodiments discussed, the system 10 is deployed to attenuate the energy of an advancing shockwave 24 form an explosion 22 by creating a second fluid medium 30 that differs from the first fluid medium 26, which may be ambient air, positioned so that it interacts with the shockwave. As shown in FIG. 10, as the shockwave contacts the interface 90 between the first fluid medium 26 and the second fluid medium 30, the difference in refractive index reflects a fraction of the incoming energy toward the explosion 22, as indicated by arrows A. This partial reflection occurs a second time as the shockwave passes through the second fluid medium 30 and contacts the interface 92 between the second medium and the ambient 26 as it exits the second medium. All gradients or discontinuities in the medium provide a reflection point for the incoming shockwave 24. For example, if the second medium 30 is non-uniform, reflection will occur at each of many places within the medium.

      As shown in FIG. 11, shockwaves 24 obey Fermat's theory of least time and therefore an effective refractive index for the shockwave can be defined that is inversely proportional to the shock speed. The properties or composition of the second medium 30 are chosen such that the effective refractive index of the second medium 30 differs from the first medium 26 in at least one of temperature, molecular weight and composition. As the shockwave passes into or out of the second medium 30, the difference in effective refractive index refracts the wave, as shown by lines B, diverting it and defocusing it away from the protected asset 18. In the disclosed embodiments, the second medium 30 is created such that the shockwave travels faster in the second medium 30 than in the first medium 26, so the refractive index of the second medium is less than that of the first medium. Further, the second medium is created to have a convex shape and therefore acts as a divergent lens, so that the energy of the shockwave 24 spreads out, as shown by lines C, so its intensity drops as it approaches the protected asset 18.

      In addition, the second medium 30 may absorb some shock energy as the shock travels through it. Factors contributing to the absorption of energy include energy retained in the molecules of the second medium itself (e.g., enhanced rotational energy, excited molecular bonds, excited electrons, molecular decomposition, and ionization) and shock energy converted to electromagnetic energy through blackbody emission from hot particles or photon emission from de-exciting various excited states.

      A further mechanism for attenuating the energy density of the shockwave 24 is momentum exchange. If the second medium 30 is moving relative to the first medium 26, then it will exchange momentum with the shockwave 24. The result is a combination of reflection, slowing, and redirection of the shockwave. Any or all of the foregoing mechanisms may operate in a given embodiment. The composition, temperature, speed and location of the second medium 30 may be chosen or created to create any one or all of the aforementioned mechanisms.

      So, it's not necessarily lasers that generate the plasma, and the protection comes mainly from the plasma having a different refractive index than the air through which the shock wave has propagated.

      My comment that this serves as a "counter-wave" is in the patent but only as a "it might also do this" thing, not as the main thing.

      Countering a shock wave with a generate

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  12. Re:The downside: It won't protect from direct hits by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    ...or the girl in the red miniskirt, if they need some extra emotive factor.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  13. I've been told the game has changed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why don't you cover the outside of the plane with 3D printers and repair any damage instantly in flight, like the Borg cube?

    1. Re:I've been told the game has changed? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Like an R2 unit?

  14. Anti-gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once they go public with their anti-gravity technology reverse engineered from Roswell, then they will be able to admit they also have anti-gravity shields that doesn't let anything come near the ship.

    1. Re:Anti-gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've already invented anti-gravity. Step 1: Eat at mcdonalds. Step 2: Apply musclular pressure to abdomen. Step 3:; Release anti-gravity gas via aft bunghole. Step 4 (optional): light gas.

  15. nc by Falos · · Score: 1

    Of course it's a point-defense system. Did you think it was a patent on an actual force-field generator? Don't be ridiculous.

    Because some patent squatter will have that already.

    1. Re:nc by Falos · · Score: 1

      Doublepost, but I had a compulsive urge to point out how weird it is to speak in future tense in reference to a past event.

  16. Seen in the film? by zamboni1138 · · Score: 1

    "Just liking the luminescent shields seen in the film..."

    Uh, when do "see" any shielding in Star Wars? Star Trek, sure, they are popping up all the time.

    But I can't remember one scene in Star Wars 4, 5 or 6 where shielding is displayed. Except for the briefing scene in 6 when discussing the attack plan on Death Star 2, and that's just a holographic projection.

    1. Re:Seen in the film? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just liking the luminescent shields seen in the film..."

      They are not bubbly, but follow the shape of the objects they are protecting.

    2. Re:Seen in the film? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      When the Millennium Falcon is being attacked by TIE fighters, the laser blasts don't actually seem to come in direct contact with the surface of the Falcon. I always assumed that this was the deflector shields. You don't actually *SEE* the shields, but you see the lack of laser blasts.

    3. Re:Seen in the film? by Meneth · · Score: 1

      The Gungans in Phantom Menace (depicted in TFA) have visible shields. I think those are the only ones in the series.

  17. Meh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would rather see Star Trek style force field technology.

    Now, if they had patented Star Wars style force - that would be another thing.

  18. Don't they mean... by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

    Don't they mean Star Trek?

    What 'reporter' says it's like "Star" anything? The claimed invention is dependent upon a shock wave traveling through air (by laser beam-induced plasma local heating). . . No one can hear you scream in space, y'know.

    Oh, I see, it's the same 'reporter' that can't tell the difference between a preposition and a gerund. FTA: "Just liking the luminescent shields seen in the film...

    1. Re:Don't they mean... by Sowelu · · Score: 2

      At this point I don't think it's a reference to how it operates, exactly. I think it's more a callback to the Star Wars missile defense project in the Reagan era, or at least that's how it would resonate with people who followed politics back then.

    2. Re:Don't they mean... by Nickpheas · · Score: 0

      You'd think that Star Trek would be the epitome of prior art.

  19. last I heard by neghvar1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Last time I heard about force fields and deflector shields, we created a wormhole, made the USS Eldridge disappear, and caused a bunch of navy personnel to get embedded in the bulkhead of the ship

    1. Re:last I heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I heard about force fields and deflector shields, we created a wormhole, made the USS Eldridge disappear, and caused a bunch of navy personnel to get embedded in the bulkhead of the ship

      I thought the so called Philadelphia experiment was supposed to create a cloaking device, not a force field.

    2. Re:last I heard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead we got the Chronosphere!

  20. shields holding at 100 percent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    said no one ever.

  21. Re:The downside: It won't protect from direct hits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuses nothing. Where are the damn seat belts?

  22. Not much use on a spaceship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it only works in the atmosphere.

  23. Laws of physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, where does the force come from? You know, to protect from the explosion's massive shockwave, projectiles and shrapnel? Is the air sufficiently ionized by lasers to somehow prevent massive rocks and metal accelerated toward the subject from getting through, maybe transferring that kinetic energy to the system? The term "shock wave attenuation" sounds suspiciously not as useful in combat.

    1. Re:Laws of physics by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      It attenuates the shock wave from an nearby explosion. There is no force involved. It absorbs the energy of the shock wave. That's the thing that turns your internal organs in to liquid. Suspiciously useful in combat. Like when you're driving down the road and an IED goes off. The vehicle armor stops most of the shrapnel but your people inside are dead anyway. If the armor doesn't have to be hit with the shock wave first, before being hit by shrapnel, it has a better chance of stopping it too.

  24. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can patent science fiction ideas? Unless they have a working prototype no patent should ever be awarded.

    1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can patent science fiction ideas?

      No, and nobody did. Moron.

  25. Re:The downside: It won't protect from direct hits by un1nsp1red · · Score: 1

    The series takes place in an alternate universe where Ralph Nader never existed.

  26. Re:The downside: It won't protect from direct hits by Aereus · · Score: 1

    You don't have time for seatbelts when you have to be able to instantly rush to cover a station after it blows out and kills the person manning it, duh.

  27. Re:The downside: It won't protect from direct hits by phorm · · Score: 2

    Yeah, in this case all the guys in the white plastic uniforms will die instead as the reactor core blows due to a direct hit on the one small weakness in the design...

  28. Re:The downside: It won't protect from direct hits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seat belts they dont need no damn seat belts - they got force fields on the windows !! Why not the chairs?

    Oh wait!! ... Stack overflow recursion error!

  29. There was 2 types of shields in Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ray Shields for energy attacks
    Particle Shields for kinetic weapons

    So Boeing created ray shields. Good for them,

  30. Mass Wave Arc by jwbales · · Score: 0

    So they came up with that awkward description just so they could call it a Mass Wave Arc?

  31. Patent or Patent Application? by Fnord666 · · Score: 1
    Is this an actual patent or just a patent application? TFA doesn't seem to be very clear about that point, although they do say

    While Boeing may been granted the patent, it's unclear how long it will be before the company deploys the real-life force fields.

    This makes me think that this is just a patent application.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    1. Re:Patent or Patent Application? by Zordak · · Score: 1

      It's U.S. Patent 8,981,261, issued Mar. 17, 2015. It is an "actual patent."

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  32. So what are they? by radtea · · Score: 1

    From the tortured summary the only thing that's clear is that this technology is nothing like anything in Star Wars or Star Trek, but some illiterate in PR has decided that whatever they actually do is so boring, obscure or useless that the only way to drum up any attention for them is to describe them in terms of something completely unrelated.

    Does anyone have any idea what they actually do and how they do it?

    --
    Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  33. me not likey by edittard · · Score: 1

    Just liking the luminescent shields seen in the film

    What if you is hating them?

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  34. Re:The downside: It won't protect from direct hits by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    The lack of seatbelts makes sense. If you're on a spaceship that can accelerate quickly enough to turn everyone into a fine paste and relies on inertial dampeners (adjustments of the artificial gravity) to prevent this, then there aren't many situations where you'll need a seatbelt: either the inertial dampeners are preventing you from needing them, or you're dead. The problem is that the drama needed the ship to seem to shake. It's the same issue as feeling the ship warm up as you get close to a star: it makes for good drama, but the difference between 'humans are comfortable' and 'humans are on fire' is tiny compared to the difference between 'humans are comfortable' and 'nuclear fusion is happening' - it's far more likely that the shields would work fine and no one would be discomforted right up until the point where much of the ship vaporised.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  35. boeing can't patent this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's just say one of my first jobs out of college I worked at a "think tank" . A force field was indeed being tested in 1985. Boeing should not get a patent. The idea existed long ago.. it's very easy to build an device that emits an ion field to repel small objects, same idea but more power to repel projectiles.

  36. so instead of a shockwave ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a shockwave full of plasma you just created slamming into your vehicle. all die. oh the embarrassment