It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Exuberant1
There you go again, scurrying off in a different direction. SBLs and ATLs are two entirely different, unrelated concepts.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by JimOberg
One way around this is to have a hundred satellites in different orbits --
.....Or Twenty
Maybe even twelve....
It is estimated that a constellation consisting of only 12 satellites can negate 94% of all missile threats in most theater threat scenarios. Thus a system consisting of 20 satellites is expected by BMDO to provide nearly full threat negation.
www.fas.org...
[edit on 20-9-2009 by Exuberant1]
You proposed a ground attack system, which requires a fairly steep downwards beam path -- hence a much smaller effective radius. If you plan to attack targets rising into in space, once they clear the atmosphere they can be hit at much greater ranges than when they are still on the ground (think of the slant range through thick atmosphere).
So you are changing fundamental parameters of the operating requirements -- and it's normal for the constellation size to vary under such differences.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The inverse square law applies to diminished intensity resulting from a spherical emission of electromagnetic radiation, right? A laser is highly directional and thus does not obey the inverse square law. With a "perfect" laser, the intensity would only be diminished by dust, atmospheric distortion, etc, but of course there's no such thing as a perfect laser. Still a laser should maintain intensity far greater than an inverse square calculation would suggest.
If we were to put an electromagnetic emission weapon in space with a spherical emission pattern, that would in fact follow the inverse square law as you suggest. I'm confident we could come up with more directional designs than a spherical emission pattern.
Originally posted by JimOberg
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
The inverse square law applies to diminished intensity resulting from a spherical emission of electromagnetic radiation, right? A laser is highly directional and thus does not obey the inverse square law. With a "perfect" laser, the intensity would only be diminished by dust, atmospheric distortion, etc, but of course there's no such thing as a perfect laser. Still a laser should maintain intensity far greater than an inverse square calculation would suggest.
If we were to put an electromagnetic emission weapon in space with a spherical emission pattern, that would in fact follow the inverse square law as you suggest. I'm confident we could come up with more directional designs than a spherical emission pattern.
All beams diverge to some extent. Imagine the circular beam at a certain range. At twice the range, the beam will have twice the diameter... and four times the area. Do the math.
A situation where the inverse square law does not apply is in the case of a laser beam.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I'd personally like to thank Jeremy V, Jeff R, and Wes O for the great podcast on Paratopia, and for following up here with more interesting information. Some people like me really appreciate all of your efforts to bring some credibility to the UFO and paranormal fields.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Here's what the textbook says (but I don't believe the textbook either):
1. Introduction
The development of the Beam Transmission
Optical System (BTOS) is a portion of a larger
project entitled SpacE Laser Electric ENErgy
(SE1.ENE). The SELENE project utilizes a high
energy, free electron laser to transfer energy from
the ground to orbiting spacecraft or other space targets such as a lunar base .1 BTOS is the systcm
that delivers the beam energy from the laser to the
target,
The primary mission objective of SELENE is to
provide energy for operation of geosynchronous
satellites including steady-state power for operations,
periodic low power for station keeping, periodic high
power during eclipses, and high power for transfer
orbit apogee burn.2 SELENE will also provide
energy for operation at middle and high earth orbits
(ME()) of 3000+ kilometers, Another possible
usage for SELENE will be to provide energy to a
laser-augmented solar-electric orbit transfer vehicle
wherein a low earth orbit (LEO) vehicle transfers to
geosynchronous orbit (GEO) through a spiral trajectory path.
Finally, SELENE will provide continuous steady-state energy for operation of a lunar base.3
Functional design requirements for BTOS arc
drawn from the most taxing case from each intended
mission, The aperture size was determined from power requirements of the lunar mission and is - currently set at 12 meters, The optical design is an”
on-axis Cassegrain system with a baseline f-number
of 1.25.4 Slew rates and accelerations will be set by
MEO missions, To provide for the necessary power
requirements at the target, which include an overall
Strehl ratio greater than 0.5, it is necessary for the
beam path to correct for atmospheric disturbances.s’6
Atmospheric disturbances include natural wind
driven thermal gradients and thermal blooming
effects caused by the beam itself.7
Atmospheric correction for the BTOS project is
accomplished through the usage of an active,
segmented primary mirror. ‘The diagram in Figure I
illustrates how the system works.4 For the current
site location (White Sands, New Mexico) the r. is
estimated to be three centimeters (3 cm). The initial
design for the primary mirror requires the usage of
over 150,000 hexagonal, 3 cm flat-to-flat mirror
segments, each of which is capable of being
commanded in tip, tilt, and piston by utilizing three
voice coil actuators,8’9 These commands will bc
made by a control system with a 300 hertz
bandwidth.
Originally posted by jritzmann
One man's (Wes') opinion of the reality of the Secret Space program doesn't make it so.
However, it does garner a little more weight in certain aspects than that of the average Zorgon...I mean...Joe.
but my personal outlook is it's irrelevant to the UFO issue, at least for me personally. But, at least we have NASA specialists on the program rather than the same kooks with blurry, fuzzy logic "evidence" or no evidence at all.
You seem to have a constant need to boost your self esteem by constantly throwing insults out at everyone that doesn't agree with you... yet you are a hypocrite...
The very title of your podcast that is supposedly on "NASA UFO issues" is "Paratopia Episode 23 - Wes Owsley Challenges the Secret Space Program"
Now secret weapons platforms certainly DO go under secret space program DUH!!! but perhaps you don't want to understand that.
Then we get this arrogant statement at your site...
"Wes has long heard talk of the “Secret Space Program”, and is here to educate the UFO and conspiracy communities about the notion."
EDUCATE us? Yet his disclaimer says he knows nothing about the topic What a joke... nay INSULT this is to ATS users intelligence...
You can call me what you like, I can just laugh it off, because once the opposition resorts to nasty insults and innuendos, you just strengthen my case... you won't be able to drag me into a long feud like you did with another member... but give it your best shot. If such derogatory comments is all you have for the majority of posters here at ATS, I am surprised they still let you run amuck around here...
But what the hell do I know?
Well that is the first thing you have said that makes sense
It's not my primary focus on this subject.
Then perhaps a wiser choice of titles might have been in order... something more UFO related
The bigger issue is that few here seem to value educated opinion, or be willing to hear from the very mouth of some who've been inside an agency like NASA that actually entertains this subject.
I will quote you a section of a letter from someone who has a Ph.D., has worked with NASA and holds secret clearance and secret patents...
I know you will most likely not get the message. I don't care really, because I know many of the silent watchers will...
My Good Man...there comes a time when the 'student becomes the Master...and no longer needs the hand of Mentor. The Mentor provides the foundation from which the student builds and springs to new levels of discovery not contemplated by the Mentor: This is the natural order of things (time, life and learning)'
Originally posted by jritzmann
I can tell you one thing, I certainly won't be directing any more of our guests here to answer questions. I think more of our guests than to expose them to the vitriolic patients that seem to be running the asylum in this forum. I'm very sorry for the rest of you.
Unfortunately it seems what I said would happen, happened exactly as I described.
Originally posted by Phage
Providing power through a ground based laser is a far cry from using a space based laser to kill targets on the surface.
Originally posted by Phage
Providing power through a ground based laser is a far cry from using a space based laser to kill targets on the surface.
June 5, 2007: Picture this: A spaceship swoops in from the void, plunging toward a cloudy planet about the size of Earth. A laser beam lances out from the ship; it probes the planet's clouds, striving to reach the hidden surface below. Meanwhile, back on the craft's home world, scientists perch on the edge of their seats waiting to see what happens.
Sounds like science fiction? This is real, and it's happening today.
Not all 'Secret' spaceships require hydrogen in the fuel. That is a mistaken assumption, and I am not even talking exotic things like anti gravity drives, something John Lear's dad was working on in 1952 with the DoD and TT Brown roject Winterhaven" and Buzz Aldrin is senior science adviser and partner in Gravwave LLC, a company working withe the CHINESE on anti gravity
But the one stage to orbit mini shuttles don't need hydrogen. Those are dropped from the bottom of an airplane
Originally posted by wesowsley Also, I whole heartedly agree with Jim Oberg about waste and abuse with the budgets for ISS in NASA...I saw it with my own eyes.
"In a surprising and potentially troubling request, the new space station robot known as Dextre demanded that astronauts refer to it in the future at "Dextre the Magnificent." Brandishing power tools that would make any handyperson blush, the mobile servicing system thanked humans for creating it and promised a glorious future where humans would retain an important role in the new robot order...."
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Zorgon, have you got a link for that external quote?