Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not spam. Yeah, the Air Force and Army have several energy weapons systems both in development and in use. Here is the Air Force's Airborne Laser:http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/abl7.htmlIt doesn't look very cool, but it has an enormous laser that shoots through the mirror mounted on the front of the plane. But it's a chemical laser, it uses chemicals to generate the beam, so it requires an entire plane for the fuel. It's referred to as a chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL). I think the exact specs are probably classified, but I know it's a megawatt-class laser, I think it's up to somewhere around 25 megawatts. For comparison, the lasers in a pen or laser pointer are around 5 milliwatts. So the COIL is around 50 billion times more powerful. I've seen videos of these things in development, I saw one video of a laser shooting a steel 50-gallon drum. You couldn't see the beam, but the surface of the drum looked like a really big blowtorch was hitting it, with fire all over the place, then it ruptured and exploded. Pretty sweet.The military is also developing microwave weapons and other energy systems like a rail gun to mount on a destroyer. The Navy is developing a ship called the DD(X) Destroyer that will have energy weapons like rail guns and microwaves arming it. Here's a page that talks a little about rail guns, and there's a mockup of the DD(X) a little down the page:http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,1463...ilGuns,,00.htmlIt will be several years before you see that on the water though. We also have lasers that can be mounted on tanks or humvees, but the problem with mounting an energy weapon on a vehicle that size is the power source. You can't use a chemical laser on a vehicle light that, so it would need to be a solid-state laser powered with electricity, and for that you would probably need a nuclear reactor to power it. So, until we can fit a nuke reactor on a tank, you'll probably see energy weapons limited to planes and ships.More about the DD(X) class:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lasers have been around for a really long time, just not as weapons.A rail gun would be as accurate as you could make it. If you had a good fire control system then you could get as close as crosswinds would let you. A projectile travelling at Mach 5 (2,500 km/h) would be pretty accurate from any range. But, even if the ballistics weren't that good, don't worry, the projectiles are self-guided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, they've even tested a system that can shoot down tank shells. It works, it can track and destroy incoming tank and artillery shells. Problem is, they can't get a power supply for it small enough to fit on a vehicle. But imagine that, a tank rolling out on the battlefield blowing up the other tanks, and shooting down the bullets that are coming at it. It's pretty hard to argue with something like that. But I guess that's the next development ... stealth bullets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that the government is extremely far behind on rail guns? The guy who invented them discovered it in the 1880s I think. Yeah, he was trying to create an on/off switch for a power plant, but when he tried it a large arc of electric went towards him, blew him 20 feet away.. Yeah. He noticed though that when he did it a few metal objects got sucked into a coil really really quickly, and turned it off they got shot out. So like 2 months later he had a rail gun and presented it to the British government. It could shoot 250 miles but they didn't accept it. tsk tsk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But.. It was. Thats what im saying, Britain had a great chance and blew it off. He shot some 40 pound bullet really far.. Thats alot if you arent American. A normal pistol bullet weighs about .1 pounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well, the topic kind of died! I will try to revive it. I didnt realize every full moon was at almost the exact same position... Here is a 20 full moon chart:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070103.htmlWow, this picture is amazing:http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070101.htmlMore evidence of water!http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061231.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
I didnt realize every full moon was at almost the exact same position... Here is a 20 full moon chart:
Ahh, yeah. We only ever see one side of the moon. The other side remains hidden from us.From the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
The Moon is in synchronous rotation, meaning that it keeps nearly the same face turned toward Earth at all times. Early in the Moon's history, its rotation slowed and became locked in this configuration as a result of frictional effects associated with tidal deformations caused by the Earth. Nevertheless, small variations resulting from the finite eccentricity of the lunar orbit, termed optical librations, allow up to about 59% of the lunar surface to be visible from Earth.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the moon ( :) ), I didn't know, until I watched a show about the dinosaurs on the Discovery channel a few days ago, that there is a theory about the Moon's creation that involves a massive impact with the "proto-Earth" of an object the size of Mars which forced this "proto-Earth" to separate and form Earth and Moon.That same Wikipedia article talks about this:

In [the Giant Impact Hypothesis] theory, the impact of a Mars-sized body (which has been referred to as Theia or Orpheus) into the proto-Earth is postulated to have put enough material into circumterrestrial orbit to form the Moon. Given that planetary bodies are believed to have formed by the hierarchical accretion of smaller to larger sized bodies, it is now recognized that giant impact events such as this should be expected to have occurred for some planets. Computer simulations modeling this impact can account for the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system, as well as the small size of the lunar core. Unresolved questions concerning this theory are the relative sizes of the proto-Earth and impactor, and the proportion of material from the proto-Earth and impactor that contribute to making the Moon. The formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred at 4.527 ± 0.01 billion years, about 30 to 50 million years after the origin of the solar system.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Err, they already have? Mars is like earth.. they have days. Do you happen to mean the moon? They already have..Ive always known about that moon thing. Some asteroid hit the earth and made it bigger, but also knocked off a big blob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In high school I was convinced that since the moon was in synchronous rotation, and we would only ever see 1 side of it, that it was purposeful and was to conceal an alien observation base on the other side. Obviously. But that's just the way physics works, it's part of the centripetal force that holds the moon there. If you tie a string to a ball and swing it around in a circle, you'll notice that the same side always faces you. But it's more fun to think it's an alien conspiracy..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha, I hope you really didn't think that.. :)Nice quote, but right now in school I have exams *yay!!* but we were talking about stars and space a bit. Wait, no.. light, waves, etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...