As an astrophysicist I have to OF COURSE side with the telescopes. I have read a lot of misconceptions. These lasers are low powered (some ~ 25 W) they are not going to blow up satellites. All they can do is blind the cameras for less than a sec. over the USA. Also they are not used in every telescope. Only a few telescopes in the USA (Hawaii, AZ and in PR) have laser guided stars. A bigger problem is planes flying by but this is already taken care of by having direct communications with nearby airports and a person dedicated to staying outside the telescopes with a big red button that shuts down the laser when a plane gets close to it. We need these laser AO systems because without them we could not point at anything that is small or faint in the sky due to atmospheric turbulence. In conclusion "suck on it AirForce".
How hard is it for the Pentagon to look at a computer and see if there are any satellites in the area at a given time when the astronomers call and say yay or nay?
This is incredibly stupid. It's not like the Air Force can stop observatories in other countries from using lasers. Also, if the satellites are that easily blinded (something I'm skeptical of), they're now making sure that everyone is aware of that via the Streisand effect.
If the American taxpayer made the observatories pay for a new mission-critical, multi-million dollar satellite every time they damaged one, I don't think observatories would be too eager to randomly fire lasers at the heavens.
@ACoBildo: Is it really that hard to coordinate with them? I mean come on. It seems the military just likes to make the most menial task complicated. There must be a 5 page manual on how to properly wipe one's ass.
Honestly, if our technology is capable of shooting a satellite out of orbit WITH A MISSILE, then I'm sure that lasers can't be all that hard to navigate.
@ACoBildo: If the American taxpayer made the Air Force accept the responsibility for the risk of putting expensive hardware into secret orbits, I don't think they would be stonewalling when observatories give them the courtesy of letting them know they're going to be firing a laser into space at such-and-such location at such-and-such time.
@DH405: Actually they're pretty frakin huge odds, considering how often a laser would be shot up. These things cost millions of dollars, and you just wanna go PEW PEW and hope you miss? Not happenin. Point 2, These things are so incredibly important do you really wanna risk anything possibly messing up the optics? Consider how detailed a military satellite probably is. You don't wanna mess with that.
@Coulterboy: hmmm... if that is true, then it is a good thing that only law-abiding US citizens concerned with our military's well-being have access to low power lasers.
@ripfire: but that's just it.... "keeping it steady" is 95% of actually aiming any weapon.. especially one that's 3 miles away mounted to a large vibrating aircract moving at 200mph, and keepingit aimed over that period of time to a tolerance of a few inches... pretty impressive.
try keeping your later pointer aimed at a 12" box from a fotoball field away from a moving car and how easy it is to aim with any accuracy, then imagine it being 17 times further
That video looks like it was fast forwarded. How long does it really take to fry a truck? It seems like a huge plane following some small vehicle for 15 minutes, slowly heating it with a laser, would be the most awkward battle ever.
@switchblade saints: agreed. If that laser were hot enough to burn through the steel truck hood, you'd think we would have heard and seem some loud stuff going on there, because the power involved would force something to crack, or warp signficantly.
The accuracy is probably more impressive than the power though. (Then again a stationary target with a high contrast black box painted on it, and it didn't even hit the middle of the box... if we're picky)
You have that kind of aiming system, probably better off firing a rail gun at it or something.
@dcartist: Aiming is actually easier than it looks. Try it for yourself: take a laser pointer and aim it somewhere really far away. It's not that hard. Only thing you have to worry about is keeping it steady.
@weatherman: I think you're confusing the Airborne Laser (ABL), the multi-billion dollar missile defense project, with the Airborne Tactical Laser, which this is.
@icelight: yes, the two are very closely tied. In my mind the ATL is really just an attempt to spin off another use for the same technology in order to justify spending the eight billion dollars on the ABL.
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
$3 laser holder:
[www.rainydaymagazine.com]
Laser in use, no planes down:
[www.rainydaymagazine.com]
10/14/09
(Yes, I'm in the U.S. Air Force)
10/14/09
(Yes, I'm a civilian...)
10/14/09
Honestly, if our technology is capable of shooting a satellite out of orbit WITH A MISSILE, then I'm sure that lasers can't be all that hard to navigate.
10/14/09
(Yes, I am an American taxpayer)
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/14/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
If Luke Skywalker was there, he would have been all like vermmm vermmmm whooooaaammm and totally block that laser with his lightsaber.
10/02/09
try keeping your later pointer aimed at a 12" box from a fotoball field away from a moving car and how easy it is to aim with any accuracy, then imagine it being 17 times further
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
The accuracy is probably more impressive than the power though. (Then again a stationary target with a high contrast black box painted on it, and it didn't even hit the middle of the box... if we're picky)
You have that kind of aiming system, probably better off firing a rail gun at it or something.
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
I'll take 7000 cruise missiles, 300 Reapers and 15,000 Hellfire Missiles instead, please.
10/02/09
10/02/09
Yeah, but then you'll be shooting cruise missiles and I'll be like "I"M FIRIN' MAH LAHZER!!"
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
10/02/09
They can shoot people with sound, that shouldn't be beating lasers dammit.