We are currently in Asteroids, people. Don't you get that? E.T. is next.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

It was a slight exaggeration, trying to show the difference between communications lasers and weapons class lasers. According to the OP, in multiple threads, all you have to do is mount a communications laser on something and you have a weapon mounted.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jedi_hamster

It was a slight exaggeration, trying to show the difference between communications lasers and weapons class lasers. According to the OP, in multiple threads, all you have to do is mount a communications laser on something and you have a weapon mounted.

does the class of the laser change the danger-to-beam-power ratio somehow?

as i've said, half watt customer lasers (continuous beam, kinda overpowered laser pointer) can be (slightly, but still) dangerous. so one would expect that the beam power is all that matters.

on the other hand, i have a feeling that weapon class lasers may have a more focused beam in the short range to be dangerous, at the price of less focused beam at longer distances, while communications laser may be the exact opposite to deliver fairly focused beam at longer distance (but with bigger beam radius at the source, compared to smaller radius at the source for military class lasers - so more focused beam power - but with greater divergence). still, with high enough power (and that wouldn't even have to be in the megawatt range i think) it should be dangerous. of course, low power lasers on satellites are out of the question in such case, i'm just wondering about the differences here. it's all just a guess though, correct me if i'm wrong.

Were still in the rogue nation and terrorism part of the list. Just look at the msm CNN and Foxnews, ISIS is both rogue and terrorists and how many countries have been reported to have raised the terror alert?

I thought Von Braun reportedly stated a threat from space that included asteroids, comets and solar storms? When these threats are on the main pages of the msm, then you know we have arrived at that point of the list.

Then the alien threat will come after, a fake alien attack? Using drones? Or do we really have a real space fleet of ships?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

No, you're pretty much right on. It's one of the reasons that lasers don't work well as antimissile systems for long range. You have to keep the beam on target much longer the farther away you are from the target, to get penetration. At short range however, a couple of seconds and you get burn through. That's why they work well as terminal phase or short range missile defense systems, like the THEL system.

Communications lasers on the other hand, generally don't use as much power, as they're designed for fairly short range (in atmosphere at any rate). They would work wonders as a datalink system between fighters, because unless you were in the way of the beam itself, you'd never even know it was there. For longer ranges, you flip the system, so you're more focused on the other end where the receiver is. You still don't need as much power as you do for a weapon, but a laser is a laser, and it would still hurt you. But a communications laser is far less likely to hurt you than a weapons laser would. If you took it to the eye, or a soft tissue area, it would do a good bit of damage, but to the general skin, you probably wouldn't even notice unless you stood in it for a couple of minutes (1-3 minutes or so).

a reply to: Zaphod58

and what would a communications laser do to a solar panel?
or anything designed to capture a light that sits on a satellite (and that's not a communications laser receiver itself)?

now, i'm not talking about a direct damage, i rather mean some sort of 'operating outside of the designed input values' situation. not trying to follow the OP here either, just gathering up the facts to clear up this thread, because i honestly don't know.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

It would have to be held on the same spot for several minutes, or even longer. Communications lasers are not going to cause problems for just about anything non-organic. You can put so much data into a laser that they're burst transmissions usually, which means that they're in the microsecond range depending on what's being sent. They're so fast that the solar panel wouldn't even notice it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

what if one is set to continuous beam mode, or is that impossible by hardware design?
could it cause some sort of increased voltage at the output of the solar panel/optical sensor/whatever?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

Theoretically a carrier beam could be set and left on. The only thing that might notice is a geosynchronous satellite. The others would be in and out of the beam too fast to notice. The chances are though that even the solar panel wouldn't notice it. It might see a slight voltage increase, but it would filter it out and not pay attention to it. Non-organic materials aren't going to notice a comms laser most likely.

a reply to: Zaphod58

and in a scenario like discussed here earlier, despite being unlikely (or borderline silly) - one satellite aiming its communications laser at another satellite, lets say it is lucky enough so it can hit its lens designed to take photos of the moon for example. would it be able to do any - minor, obviously - damage to the sensors? is it possible that it would cause some electrical malfunction/force the system to reboot/whatever? or are such things pretty much isolated electrically from the crucial parts like navigation and communication systems?

not that i think it's possible - my guess is no, but it's just a guess. just trying to leave no doubt for the readers of this thread.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

IMO, not a snowball's chance in hell. You'd have to follow it for days, hitting the same spot with the laser continuously to do anything. You might get a quick flash of light in the lens, but most spacecraft are designed with that in mind and would filter it out, thinking that it was a sun flare. The chances of being able to mirror another satellite so perfectly, that you could hit the same spot that long, without any error, and cause it damage are microscopic. So on paper, yes it's theoretically possible, but in the real world, no chance in hell.

a reply to: Zaphod58

perhaps i'll play a devil's advocate here, but how can they hit a receiver hundreds of thousands of kilometers away, and at the same time it's so hard to hit a lens of a satellite on similar orbit?

i know that with all the rotational movements and so on this is most probably downright wrong comparison, i'm just wondering how are they hitting the receiver at such a long distance at all. what's the margin of error for such communications? (or - how big the receiver is? still, it's a hell of a distance)

or is it because the relative movement is so slow?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

Because the receiver is in a fixed location. It's just a matter of aiming at a certain point, a certain distance away. A satellite in orbit is constantly moving at a high rate of speed. An orbit is not a fixed circle either, it's constantly going up and down, and side to side. You have to know EXACTLY what that movement is going to be, and when it's going to happen, to keep the beam constantly on the same spot. If you're off, then you have to start all over again.

so what do you mean by asteroids? are there that many closeto our orbit/planet? are ther going to be a lot of them in succession? sorry if i sound dumb, but i was just curious about what this "asteroid" phase is,

thanks...great topic by the way!

a reply to: neomaximus10

Supposedly there was a list made of contrived events or something, and an asteroid impact was the first to the last one. After that, it would be aliens showing up. There was only one person who ever heard this list, or anything about it though, so it's pretty suspicious.

a reply to: jedi_hamster

A laser is really a crappy weapon to try to damage a craft and frankly easily defeated by reflective surfaces. trying todamage a craft with a laser is about the least effective way imaginable when you could use rockets or bullets even. Your only hope of damaging a spacecraft with a laser is hoping to overheat its components but they are built to prevent this.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: jedi_hamster

Because the receiver is in a fixed location. It's just a matter of aiming at a certain point, a certain distance away. A satellite in orbit is constantly moving at a high rate of speed. An orbit is not a fixed circle either, it's constantly going up and down, and side to side. You have to know EXACTLY what that movement is going to be, and when it's going to happen, to keep the beam constantly on the same spot. If you're off, then you have to start all over again.

i wouldn't call a moon, or LRO for that matter, a fixed location. moon is moving across the sky, slowly but still. i guess i'm too lazy to check the distance a laser spot would travel on moon's surface during one second when the laser beam would be sent from earth, pointing in one fixed direction. it would also depend on the current moon's location on its orbit, but i guess such distance could be pretty big.

they did send a mona lisa to the LRO with a laser, though.
www.nasa.gov...

they mention 300bps data rate. i wonder if the actual rate wasn't much much higher and 300bps is just an average, caused by the fact that most of the time was used to track the receiver. such laser has a pretty high speed limit after all. it's just a guess though. am i right again?

a reply to: jedi_hamster

When compared to a satellite that is moving up and down and side to side, the receiver is about as fixed as you can get to be sending a beam to. Yes, you're still moving, but it's a lot easier to plot a location to a receiver on the ground, than it is to a camera lens that is a few inches in diameter, that's moving much more.

The figure I heard was 622 Mbps down, and 20 Mbps up at its peak, with the LADEE probe.

My position is that a low power communications laser could disable a star sensor on an enemy spacecraft, rendering the enemy spacecraft useless. Also, the Chelyabinsk meteor was a wake up call and the United Nations is involved with it.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
My position is that a low power communications laser could disable a star sensor on an enemy spacecraft,

Assuming it could hit it, then hit it at the correct angle, then hit it at the correct angle and hold the sensor in its beam...

So in fact it would not work, just another silly claim.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
We are currently in Asteroids

NASA: Asteroid Will Pass ‘Very Close’ To Earth On Sunday

How did you know.... once again your well respected research has been vindicated...