like SCUDS. It isn't and never has been intended for ICMB use. You all pooh poohed the Patriot missile because they SCUDs still hit something, even if it wasn't the intended target. This was developed so that the SRBMs wouldn't even get out of the country of launch.
Again it is not intended for nuclear ICBMs.
Furthermore, to the Irans and North Koreas of the world, it is very costly to come up with many missiles, enough to get through the ABL system. If they are spending tons of cash trying to overwelm the ABL with multiple launches (which have relatively low military utility) they are not likely going to win any conflict.
Theater high energy laser. It was/is a joint US/Isreali project to destroy smaller missile of the type that frequenly come over from Lebenon (Katyusha rockets I think). It uses a HF/DF (helium flouride/dueterium floride) laser. Not on a tank, but on a couple of trailers that are not quite so mobile. Worked pretty well in testing, was able to hit multiple rockets in quick succession. They never deployed it, but decided to start working on a more mobile version instead.
One aircraft can shoot down several missiles in succession (multiple launch scenario). Additionally it is going after ballistic missiles. In order to get the accuracy it needs, predictive filters are in place to intelligently guess the kinetic position of the missile as it flies. The filter use models that are based on what a ballistic missile does. Deviate too much from that and the accuracy goes to pot. Couple that with the fact the the lasers don't go off untile the target is above the cloudline and the only mistakes that are likely are if North Korea decides to send a man in orbit during a war. (Wasn't there a cartoon about that)
The ABL program has been anything but secret. While I was in the AFRL supporting this there were several conferences that I attended that openly discussed the physics and engineering behind it and ways to improve it. Try looking for the ABL technologies conference at the SPIE website. Held during the Aerosense conference in Orlando. It was never classified while I was there, there was much university involvement (it's a damn sexy problem), and often foreigners attended the conferences.
I repeat, this isn't secret stuff, just stuff generally ignored by the public.
would be a problemsince high reflectivity mirrors are usually kept really clean and protected, which would be tough with one flying through the air at high speeds. Also, the atmospheric compensation and targeting subsystems utilize the reflectivity of the target to get the information to do the compensation. Having more light coming back to you improves the results of the process, which would result in a better focused, better targeted laser. I don't think it would help all that much.
isn't necessarily the size of the laser, but hitting the target. The ABL is designed to shoot from 100s of kilometers away, so it doesn't have to be all that maneuverable.
Hitting the target is the problem. A missile has a nice bright plume to acquire it optically, a nice pointy nose to provide an excellent reference for the rest of the body, and a fairly low frequency (spatially) flight path (meaning it doesn't juke and jive). All you have to do then is compensate for atmospheric turbulence and it's an easy kill. Other targets aren't so nice. Remember the goal is to hit a spicific part of the missile (the high internal pressure areas).
I'm not saying it's impossible, good image recognition techniques can do what is necessary, but the problem is usually speed. The missile tracking algithms are fast beacause they are pretty simple. The more advanced can't be done at the necessary rate (we're talking around 10k times per second) or latency for this application.
The Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) does require a large amount of chemicals, however the current design allows for an adaquate number of shots before it needs to be reloaded. I've usually heard numbers in the range of 20-50. Keep in mind that it is inteded to melt/fatigue the missile in the boost phase, when it is under a lot of internal pressure, to cause it to blow itself up. Depending on range, atmospheric turbulence, transmission, and other factors, each shot will take different legths of time to cause this to happen.
Especially when you consider that you can often get a car in your local classifieds for less than a new computer. The people that "tinker" around on computers have the same personality traits as those that tinker around on cars, motorcycles, etc. A lot of us (meaning the average slashdot user) has bought a computer virtually for the express purpose of playing around with it. If we did that with cars we could have some serious influence on two of the biggest industries in the country.
But then we have to fend off family members and friends from asking us questions about their cars as well as their computers. Doesn't leave much time for world domination.
I'm not entirely sure of the numbers, and I'm currently too busy (read lazy) to do the research, but I recall that linux/apache accounts for a large percentage of web servers. I would like to see a comparison between all the different web server platforms v. the defacement statistics. I would be willing to bet that there would be no statistically significant difference between any of the OS/web server program combos.
The statement "despite the First Amendment being a Federal law" is not strictly correct. The First Amendment is a restriction on what Federal laws can do. That is why it says "Congress shall make no law..."
Other than the relative lack of water, there's not much here to worry about. And even then, it's not that much of a big deal. We'll just get our food and drink from the saps dealing with the tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes leaving enough for all the rest of the stuff we need it for like water skiing, chip manufacturing, and watering the golf course.
would constitute a single molecule. Applying electricity to it, as pointed out in the article, they were able to produce light (1.5 micron). An LED, tungsten wire, or burning lump of coal are not made up of a single molecule, no more so than an ice cube is a single molecule of water. What this constitutes is an engineering first. What is left to be seen is if they can find useful applications and mass produce it.
have been in common practice for years. Now it seems all you need for a "legitimate" patent is that the "masses" don't know that other people are already doing some of it. Its actually not that different than what the other "bad guys" are doing.
Their patenting the use of a lens in conjunction with post processing. Although the application may be new, the pieces are older. It would be the equivelent of patenting a computer chip in a shoe that keeps track of the number of steps you take.
Actually they never checked it. The mirrors were ground and polished better than any of the equipment of the time could measure it (the defects would have been immeasurable) and in their arrogance they didn't do any full aperture tests on it. Unfortunately the mirror was ground to the WRONG specification (focal length I beleive). A simple test would have identified this.
This comes from a guy I worked with who helped grind the alternate primary. (They actually made two primary mirror, obviously flying only one, and I think both were bad in the same way.)
Just a comment on your sig. There is no comma between "nation" and "under". It should read "one nation under God". The difference is subtle but important.
The problem would still exist. Instead of disrupting the pointing of the transmitter, it would disrupt the the pointing of the receiver. The FOV (field of view) of the receiver MAY be suffeciently small (due to the fact that now you have to have a high gain receiver, ie. a telescope) that the temperature gradient would move the image of the LED. However, the problem would be easier to fix, since a FSM (fast steering mirror) could be used on the receiving end to ensure the image of the object is in the FOV.
The same technique could be used with the laser example by placing some sort of beacon on the receiver that the transmitting end would use as a reference to point the laser. Assuming both sides have both transmitters and receivers, this seems like the option that would provide the best results. The optical system to do this would be fairly cheap (it could be benched for a few thousand dollars per site).
Incidentally, lasers are not really beams of parallel light. Due to the finite aperature, the beam experiences diffraction causing the beam to spread. To counteract this, it would be desirable to focus the transmitter at the target. The spot size at the receiver would be a function of transmitter diameter and wavelength (on the order of lambda/D). Again, the optics to do this sort of thing are pretty cheap, and well worth it considering the benefits that would be received (pun intended).
and put in the public/pirated/ms directory. Maybe the files can be filled with repeat copies of the US Constitution and the GPL. Add links from your website. Put out advertisements for it on Kazaa.
The trick for fast MATLAB execution is using their vector routines properly. The general rule is that if you ever use a for loop in MATLAB, you're wrong. If you do things right, you can get extremely good performance improvements (much closer to compiled code performance). In fact, most of the time when I use the MATLAB compiler and compare it to the native MATLAB performance, they are nearly the same.
It may mean using n-dimensional arrays and such, but it's worth the effort. Not to mention it can be a fun challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
We could also call it the "American Idol Effect".
That's the one. A little wierd (all the new age prayer stuff), but the launch scene was cool.
like SCUDS. It isn't and never has been intended for ICMB use. You all pooh poohed the Patriot missile because they SCUDs still hit something, even if it wasn't the intended target. This was developed so that the SRBMs wouldn't even get out of the country of launch.
Again it is not intended for nuclear ICBMs.
Furthermore, to the Irans and North Koreas of the world, it is very costly to come up with many missiles, enough to get through the ABL system. If they are spending tons of cash trying to overwelm the ABL with multiple launches (which have relatively low military utility) they are not likely going to win any conflict.
Next time do a little research on the subject.
Theater high energy laser. It was/is a joint US/Isreali project to destroy smaller missile of the type that frequenly come over from Lebenon (Katyusha rockets I think). It uses a HF/DF (helium flouride/dueterium floride) laser. Not on a tank, but on a couple of trailers that are not quite so mobile. Worked pretty well in testing, was able to hit multiple rockets in quick succession. They never deployed it, but decided to start working on a more mobile version instead.
One aircraft can shoot down several missiles in succession (multiple launch scenario). Additionally it is going after ballistic missiles. In order to get the accuracy it needs, predictive filters are in place to intelligently guess the kinetic position of the missile as it flies. The filter use models that are based on what a ballistic missile does. Deviate too much from that and the accuracy goes to pot. Couple that with the fact the the lasers don't go off untile the target is above the cloudline and the only mistakes that are likely are if North Korea decides to send a man in orbit during a war. (Wasn't there a cartoon about that)
The ABL program has been anything but secret. While I was in the AFRL supporting this there were several conferences that I attended that openly discussed the physics and engineering behind it and ways to improve it. Try looking for the ABL technologies conference at the SPIE website. Held during the Aerosense conference in Orlando. It was never classified while I was there, there was much university involvement (it's a damn sexy problem), and often foreigners attended the conferences.
I repeat, this isn't secret stuff, just stuff generally ignored by the public.
would be a problemsince high reflectivity mirrors are usually kept really clean and protected, which would be tough with one flying through the air at high speeds. Also, the atmospheric compensation and targeting subsystems utilize the reflectivity of the target to get the information to do the compensation. Having more light coming back to you improves the results of the process, which would result in a better focused, better targeted laser. I don't think it would help all that much.
which is at 1.315um. Happens to be a nice transmission gap there.
isn't necessarily the size of the laser, but hitting the target. The ABL is designed to shoot from 100s of kilometers away, so it doesn't have to be all that maneuverable.
Hitting the target is the problem. A missile has a nice bright plume to acquire it optically, a nice pointy nose to provide an excellent reference for the rest of the body, and a fairly low frequency (spatially) flight path (meaning it doesn't juke and jive). All you have to do then is compensate for atmospheric turbulence and it's an easy kill. Other targets aren't so nice. Remember the goal is to hit a spicific part of the missile (the high internal pressure areas).
I'm not saying it's impossible, good image recognition techniques can do what is necessary, but the problem is usually speed. The missile tracking algithms are fast beacause they are pretty simple. The more advanced can't be done at the necessary rate (we're talking around 10k times per second) or latency for this application.
The Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser (COIL) does require a large amount of chemicals, however the current design allows for an adaquate number of shots before it needs to be reloaded. I've usually heard numbers in the range of 20-50. Keep in mind that it is inteded to melt/fatigue the missile in the boost phase, when it is under a lot of internal pressure, to cause it to blow itself up. Depending on range, atmospheric turbulence, transmission, and other factors, each shot will take different legths of time to cause this to happen.
Especially when you consider that you can often get a car in your local classifieds for less than a new computer. The people that "tinker" around on computers have the same personality traits as those that tinker around on cars, motorcycles, etc. A lot of us (meaning the average slashdot user) has bought a computer virtually for the express purpose of playing around with it. If we did that with cars we could have some serious influence on two of the biggest industries in the country.
But then we have to fend off family members and friends from asking us questions about their cars as well as their computers. Doesn't leave much time for world domination.
I'm not entirely sure of the numbers, and I'm currently too busy (read lazy) to do the research, but I recall that linux/apache accounts for a large percentage of web servers. I would like to see a comparison between all the different web server platforms v. the defacement statistics. I would be willing to bet that there would be no statistically significant difference between any of the OS/web server program combos.
The statement "despite the First Amendment being a Federal law" is not strictly correct. The First Amendment is a restriction on what Federal laws can do. That is why it says "Congress shall make no law..."
Other than the relative lack of water, there's not much here to worry about. And even then, it's not that much of a big deal. We'll just get our food and drink from the saps dealing with the tornados, hurricanes, and earthquakes leaving enough for all the rest of the stuff we need it for like water skiing, chip manufacturing, and watering the golf course.
would constitute a single molecule. Applying electricity to it, as pointed out in the article, they were able to produce light (1.5 micron). An LED, tungsten wire, or burning lump of coal are not made up of a single molecule, no more so than an ice cube is a single molecule of water. What this constitutes is an engineering first. What is left to be seen is if they can find useful applications and mass produce it.
Is your sig a quote from the Jawa(sp?)'s response to Uncle Owen when question about the R2's bad motivator in the original Star Wars? If so, nice.
have been in common practice for years. Now it seems all you need for a "legitimate" patent is that the "masses" don't know that other people are already doing some of it. Its actually not that different than what the other "bad guys" are doing.
Their patenting the use of a lens in conjunction with post processing. Although the application may be new, the pieces are older. It would be the equivelent of patenting a computer chip in a shoe that keeps track of the number of steps you take.
This comes from a guy I worked with who helped grind the alternate primary. (They actually made two primary mirror, obviously flying only one, and I think both were bad in the same way.)
Just a comment on your sig. There is no comma between "nation" and "under". It should read "one nation under God". The difference is subtle but important.
The same technique could be used with the laser example by placing some sort of beacon on the receiver that the transmitting end would use as a reference to point the laser. Assuming both sides have both transmitters and receivers, this seems like the option that would provide the best results. The optical system to do this would be fairly cheap (it could be benched for a few thousand dollars per site).
Incidentally, lasers are not really beams of parallel light. Due to the finite aperature, the beam experiences diffraction causing the beam to spread. To counteract this, it would be desirable to focus the transmitter at the target. The spot size at the receiver would be a function of transmitter diameter and wavelength (on the order of lambda/D). Again, the optics to do this sort of thing are pretty cheap, and well worth it considering the benefits that would be received (pun intended).
ISS not IIS
In order to prosecute this, the laws had to be written to allow it. No such law exists for distributing software that "appears" to be pirated.
and put in the public/pirated/ms directory. Maybe the files can be filled with repeat copies of the US Constitution and the GPL. Add links from your website. Put out advertisements for it on Kazaa.
It may mean using n-dimensional arrays and such, but it's worth the effort. Not to mention it can be a fun challenge.