It would be great if someone found a point to a $100 billion space station. Until then we will just see pointless articles like this. She must be totally bored. I wonder if at least she has a fast internet connection?
Wired is not a serious magazine. It is fun to read, but it is often total BS. This is an example. I am familiar with the technology described in this article. I think it is interesting research. But it will be a long time- if ever- this technology makes it into commericial devices.
If you are in technology, I think you long ago realized that the government- or other parties- is most probably monitoring your email, your phone records, your bank accounts, your snail mail, and any other data item they can get their hands on.
Either encrypt your information or have no expectation of privacy.
Quantum encryption is still vulnerable to the man-in-the-middle attack. Let's say Alice sends the single-photon signal to Bob. But Eve intercepts the photons. Then Eve can pretend to be Bob. She will contact Alice, and arrange a code. So now, when Alice sends out an encrypted signal, Eve will be able to read it.
OK maybe my statement about RED and BLUE states was invalid. I retract that. But I stand by my other statements. Read what Bob Parks, a respected UMD physicist, has said about the U.S. space program: http://www.bobpark.org/
SHUTTLE: THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOESN'T WORK IT NEVER DID WORK. Why is everyone afraid to say so? The real problem isn't foam falling off the fuel tank. The shuttle was sold to Congress as a way to launch things into space more cheaply. On the contrary, it's the most expensive way to reach space ever conceived. The problems we're facing now result from the refusal to acknowledge that reality. Initially, anything that went into space, including commercial and military satellites, was required to be launched from the shuttle. With the total cost of the shuttle program at about $150B, the average cost/flight is about $1.3B. The shuttle was strangling space development before the Challenger disaster. Then it was declared to be a science laboratory, but no field of science has been affected in any way by research that has been conducted on the shuttle or space station. The last scheduled research mission was the final flight of Columbia in 2003. The shuttle's only mission now is to supply the ISS.
The manned spaceprogram should be ended yesterday. Complete waste of money. Not one iota of useful has ever been done as a result of the manned space program. There is no reason to send people up to do pointless experiments on rats. Furthermore, the shuttle is an outdated piece of junk. It is a crime to risk astonaut's life with it. If you compare the good science that has been done with unmanned probes to the zilch that has been done on manned stations, you will see. The manned program is politics and job creations- mostly in RED states like Alabama, Florida, and Texas. Meanwhile they cut the real science- mostly in California which is BLUE.
Many posts have concerned the laser power,
and the reflectivity of the missile.
Another consideration is the necessary
aperture of the output laser.
According to
this reference, we will need to focus a 25W
laser to 100microns in order to burn through steel. This small spot size is necessary to
get the required energy density.
From Gaussian optics, the spot size of a laser will be given as:
s=(lamba)*f/d.
where s=spot size, lamba=wavelength of light,
and f=focal length of lens.
So d=(f*lamba)/S.
With f=1 mile=1609m, and lamda=1micron,
and lets take a spot size of 100microns.
Then d=1609m*1micron/100microns=16m.
So for this small spot size, we will need a physical lens size of 16m, which is quite big!
And this was for a distance of only 1 mile!
Probably aircraft typically will fight at 50miles
or more, which will make the required aperture
hundreds of meters!
This is a quite fundamental problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is pretty lame just to send up 1 lightsaber.
That is no fun at all.
Now if there were two lightsabers they could have some real battles!
It would be great if someone found a point to a $100 billion space station.
Until then we will just see pointless articles like this.
She must be totally bored.
I wonder if at least she has a fast internet connection?
Wired is not a serious magazine. It is fun to read, but it is often total BS.
This is an example.
I am familiar with the technology described in this article.
I think it is interesting research.
But it will be a long time- if ever- this technology makes it into commericial devices.
If you are in technology, I think you long ago realized that the government- or other parties- is most probably monitoring your email, your phone records, your bank accounts, your snail mail, and any other data item they can get their hands on.
Either encrypt your information or have no expectation of privacy.
Any attempt to measure the photon will change the photon state.
You can't use a beamsplitter to copy it either- because how can you split one photon.
Quantum encryption is still vulnerable to the man-in-the-middle attack.
Let's say Alice sends the single-photon signal to Bob. But Eve intercepts the photons.
Then Eve can pretend to be Bob. She will contact Alice, and arrange a code. So now, when Alice sends out an encrypted signal, Eve will be able to read it.
OK maybe my statement about RED and BLUE states was invalid. I retract that.
But I stand by my other statements.
Read what Bob Parks, a respected UMD physicist, has said about the U.S. space program: http://www.bobpark.org/
SHUTTLE: THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOESN'T WORK IT NEVER DID WORK.
Why is everyone afraid to say so? The real problem isn't foam falling off the fuel tank. The shuttle was sold to Congress as a way to launch things into space more cheaply. On the contrary, it's the most expensive way to reach space ever conceived. The problems we're facing now result from the refusal to acknowledge that reality. Initially, anything that went into space, including commercial and military satellites, was required to be launched from the shuttle. With the total cost of the shuttle program at about $150B, the average cost/flight is about $1.3B. The shuttle was strangling space development before the Challenger disaster. Then it was declared to be a science laboratory, but no field of science has been affected in any way by research that has been conducted on the shuttle or space station. The last scheduled research mission was the final flight of Columbia in 2003. The shuttle's only mission now is to supply the ISS.
The manned spaceprogram should be ended yesterday.
Complete waste of money.
Not one iota of useful has ever been done as a result of the manned space program. There is no reason to send people up to do pointless experiments on rats.
Furthermore, the shuttle is an outdated piece of junk. It is a crime to risk astonaut's life with it.
If you compare the good science that has been done with unmanned probes to the zilch that has been done on manned stations, you will see.
The manned program is politics and job creations- mostly in RED states like Alabama, Florida, and Texas.
Meanwhile they cut the real science- mostly in California which is BLUE.
Many posts have concerned the laser power, and the reflectivity of the missile. Another consideration is the necessary aperture of the output laser.
According to this reference, we will need to focus a 25W laser to 100microns in order to burn through steel. This small spot size is necessary to get the required energy density.
From Gaussian optics, the spot size of a laser will be given as:
s=(lamba)*f/d.
where s=spot size, lamba=wavelength of light, and f=focal length of lens.
So d=(f*lamba)/S. With f=1 mile=1609m, and lamda=1micron, and lets take a spot size of 100microns. Then d=1609m*1micron/100microns=16m.
So for this small spot size, we will need a physical lens size of 16m, which is quite big!
And this was for a distance of only 1 mile! Probably aircraft typically will fight at 50miles or more, which will make the required aperture hundreds of meters!
This is a quite fundamental problem.