I am sorry, I have not read the 1600+ posts in the archives, and so
if I am repeating a previously posted idea I apologize.
One technology that has been in development for some time is an
airborne laser for antiballistic missile defense. These lasers are,
I believe, chemical and very power hungry. Ideally, a laser weapon
would be put in orbit and solar powered.
Since most of the time (we hope) the solar arrays would not be needed
to charge the laser's capacitors, it seems to me combining SPS with
on orbit laser ABM systems presents a good opportunity to enhance
national security while generating a revenue stream. It actually
increases national security in another way by reducing dependence
upon imported oil.
Another obvious use for such a system would be blasting away space
debris. Maybe the Russians would like to jointly work on such a
system for attachment to the ISS for protection against space debris
with the dual purpose of jointly developing ABM defense. The solar
arrays on the ISS, I believe, generate about enough power for 200
average homes. Not enough for an ABM weapon, but perhaps enough to
vaporize sub cm space debris.
Regards,
Gary Fisher
> Another obvious use for such a system would be blasting away space
> debris. Maybe the Russians would like to jointly work on such a
> system for attachment to the ISS for protection against space debris
> with the dual purpose of jointly developing ABM defense. The solar
> arrays on the ISS, I believe, generate about enough power for 200
> average homes. Not enough for an ABM weapon, but perhaps enough to
> vaporize sub cm space debris.
>
> Regards,
> Gary Fisher
>
Russians currently are vehemently opposed to any sort of ABM deal, so
while tying SPS to ABM might win over some hearts in this country, it
would almost certainly get a chilly reception in Russia.
--Justin
Since most of the time (we hope) the solar arrays would not be needed
to charge the laser's capacitors, it seems to me combining SPS with
on orbit laser ABM systems presents a good opportunity to enhance
national security while generating a revenue stream. It's an interesting proposal, but you should know that theSSI charter forbids the study of weapon systems.
Mike Combs
>
> It's an interesting proposal, but you should know that the SSI
charter
> forbids the study of weapon systems.
>
of space debris will contain all the essential components of a cruise
phase ABM system. This cannot be helped, and it seems to me any
large space structure whether space colony or SPS will need such a
system. You can choose not to call it a weapon, but one man's tool
is another man's weapon. To choose not to study something because it
could be missused would stop most technology development. Better to
work against the missuse of technolgy than the forbidding of it.
Intentions matter. Do you not study how to defend against large
asteroids hitting the Earth because the same technology might be used
to direct asteroids towards the Earth?
Perhaps the charter should be revisited. If the goal of a technology
is defense against weapons (or things) of mass destruction, perhaps
its study should be permitted.
Gary Fisher
Thank you, exactly a good point. Being that I work for DoD, I can not go into that in more supporting detail.
From Ohio
Yes, I respect that, and I belive so does the DoD. It is an interesting balance in what we need to respect and what we need to continue to use to be a free country.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, interesting, point from both of you. Yes Justin that is original. Then again, do we also want to re open the cold war the Reagan Administration ended.
Great, thank you, this is what materail I am looking for to use in my report to the Adjutant Generals Office, May I sight you on this? It will be forwared to DoD.
Blasting space debris (to eliminate it) with lasers powered by SPS would
likely make more than it eliminates by destroying operational weathersats,
landsats, etc. One could know where the beam was going, and so not shoot
when it might hit something else beyond the target, but after the beam hit a
metal surface on the debris, the debris would reflect some of it to who
knows where. There is not that much orbiting debris anyway compared to what
nature has passing into the upper atmosphere, several tons every day.
Using the resources of Mars anywhere but on Mars also does not make
sense. Using the resources on Phobos and Deimos out that way could make
sense, but not in here, unless you like waiting 3 years between going after
it and getting delivery. Which companies can make a profit doing that when
competing with others who could get materials from the Moon in a week?
Work crews of ten thousand will not occur in space until they live there.
Space construction is ideal for robots, which will build most of the
structure of the O'Neill habitats. They may be controlled by workers on
Earth. When it is time to add the flowers, furniture and art, which may
take some artists being there, if the builders can afford that, the artists
can live inside the habitats and garden there for their food, breaking the
place in.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner at jhuebn@...
I think spending resources and money on Mars right now is premature.
> I think spending resources and money on Mars right now is premature.
>
CR.
> Blasting space debris (to eliminate it) with lasers powered by SPS would
> likely make more than it eliminates by destroying operational weathersats,
> landsats, etc. One could know where the beam was going, and so not shoot
> when it might hit something else beyond the target, but after the beam hit a
> metal surface on the debris, the debris would reflect some of it to who
> knows where.
mirrors- and only perfect mirrors can scatter the laser in any
harmful way. Plus, the debris rotates so won't point in any
particular direction for long at all.
> There is not that much orbiting debris anyway compared to what
> nature has passing into the upper atmosphere, several tons every day.
Do you have a citation for this claim? I believe that man-made
space junk is a huge problem because it is in orbit; and it self
amplifies due to a process called spalling. Very little natural
debris will be in orbit, because there's few mechanisms that can
put it there, and it decays in a few hundred years at most.
I thought that recent developments have resulted in us stating we will
reduce our cache of nukes by 2/3rds in exchange for Russia dropping its
objection to ABM.
TomM@...
To support my statement,
"> Blasting space debris (to eliminate it) with lasers powered by SPS
would
> likely make more than it eliminates by destroying operational weathersats,
> landsats, etc. One could know where the beam was going, and so not shoot
> when it might hit something else beyond the target, but after the beam hit
a
> metal surface on the debris, the debris would reflect some of it to who
> knows where."
I would remind you to eliminate space debris by laser beam evaporation
the beam will have to be bright enough to evaporate through structural
metal, which can be thick. There are lots of problems with this, as the
vapor coming off (evaporating) blocks the incoming beam, so lots of extra
energy is needed. And the vapor coming off will also function as a rocket
and move the metal away from the beam. There is even a program to make a
"rocket" using this, which spins the rocket to help keep it in the beam.
But anyway, to destroy the sensors on weathersats, landsats, spysats, etc.,
all one has to do is exceed their allowable light intensity, some of which
are designed to sense very dim light. One simply way this would happen is
to mar the optical surfaces, which could be accomplished by removing a few
atomic or molecular layers (the thickness of some optical coatings).
Scattered beams would do this.
"> There is not that much orbiting debris anyway compared to what
> nature has passing into the upper atmosphere, several tons every day." and
"Do you have a citation for this claim?",
Yes, one you can access from Google.com, "of one percent of the meteor
mass that has landed on ... to affect her orbit? This mass adds up to about
ten ... 40,000 metric tons per year. That total seems like ...
www.usatoday.com/news/science/wonderquest/2001-05-02-earth-debris.htm - 19k
- Cached - Similar pages" but there are lots of other citations in print
media, though not all agree, most give this range. How could this number be
known exactly? Still 40,000 tons per year is over 100 tons per day. I was
conservative with the term "several tons". With nearly 8,000 launches to
space in a half-a-century, "rocket scientists" have yet to get significantly
beyond one years worth of natural debris falling to Earth. The above
article counts only 5,000 launches and estimates their mass at 17,500 tons,
but I have seen a list of the nearly 8,000 launches, so I believe that.
Sincerely, Jay Huebner at jhuebn@...
Hmm... apparently I misremembered,
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/king.bush.putin/index.html
Relevant quote "President George W. Bush on Tuesday announced the United
States will slash its nuclear weapons stockpile by about two-thirds over the
next decade to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. "
however it sounds promising for ABM, in that Russias stance on ABM is much
less hard line with the proposed reduction in the nuclear arsenal.
Tom M.
TomM@...
I thought that recent developments have resulted in us stating we will
reduce our cache of nukes by 2/3rds in exchange for Russia dropping its
objection to ABM.
Tom Musgrove
TomM@...