L.A.S.E.R Based propulsion technology, Jet engine alternative.

Here is a none ATS web page which covers the topic at a professional level and say's pretty much what I am conjecturing here,

www.wired.com...

First this is not a new subject to the ATS forum's and second I am not above making the odd (Pretty big mistake once I convince myself I am right so at least you know I am not an alien _javascript:icon('') ),
The other two thread's that stand out are the following.
www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=9357050#pid9357050
The referenced video has been deleted but here is one that may be the same.
www.youtube.com...

There are quite a few more on this YouTube page,
www.google.co.uk... urceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=laser+based+rocket+propulsion&tbm=vid

Now the second ATS thread is here,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

These threads are worth reading for the information that some replies present.


Now why am I bringing this up, well as you know there has been a lot of UFO disinformation released over the years to cover for many covert operations and also to hide the presence of top secret aerospace technology's.
It is my belief that this technology has already been developed to a very high degree by the military for there own use, imagine a stealth drone with only a air intake and a high intensity laser based propulsion system that could fly as long as it could generate electricity from an on-board reactor/power plant.

Where and is it possible the Gulf Breeze sighting's real and was the reality a military test project or actual system deployment.

How the technology work's, All propulsion systems need a propellant even laser based,
There are two type's.

Laser Drive, this uses the inherent kinetic energy of a laser source to drive an object through a slow but relatively constant acceleration and this thread is not about this technology that would likely be best used for extra orbital space deployment.

Laser Jet Engine propulsion, Instead of an air craft carrying a heavy and large amount of rocket or aviation fuel the system uses the atmosphere itself with a set of variable aperture ducts at the leading edge of the engine system, the atmospheric gas is ducted into a set of tubes were it is compressed under the generated pressure and fed through some U bend exit apertures into a mirrored combustion shaped chamber and a high energy pulsed laser is used to excite the atom's in the gas causing the gas to explosively expand and push out of the rocket nozzle producing positives thrust to intake pressure, this in turn then expands and cools behind the craft and may leave a Doughnut on a rope contrail of water vapor due to the compression of both the gas and any water vapor present in said gas and it's concurrent expansion and cooling, this may already have been witnessed in operational flight from the ground in the form of the AURORA project.
The down side is that a high energy laser need's a high energy reactor or energy source and it is possible in the interests of military and black operational needs that the normal Moratorium on the use of NUCLEAR powered aerospace technology may have been illegally contravened by these self governing body's endangering civilians on the ground.

Benefits aside from this are,
Craft may be able to achieve hyper-sonic or greater velocity even to the point of space plane operational technology being in use with this system.
Drone's systems may be able to stay on station for extremely prolonged periods and it may even be that a GPS back up system has been prepared in the scenario were the normal GPS systems are targeted by anti satellite system's, these would likely use a terrain topography mapping to achieve there desired locality's and maintain a station once on site.
Refueling would not be necessary if these systems are based on compact reactor technology or long duration fuel cell's.
Low noise at sub sonic speed's they would likely produce a feint buzzing sound or popping noise while active and there light source need not be visible as a ducted nozzle may be used to direct the gas out from the expansion/combustion chamber, current stealth models for cooling the engine output could be used.

Like I say this is merely a hypothetical possibility but since the civilian use of this relatively non polluting propulsion has not been pursued one can only wonder why, OIL conglomerates sitting on the patents perhaps or military aerospace vendors,.

I would like you to discuss this among yourselves as I have little or nothing more to bring to this except to say this is currently within our capabilities and considering the damage current aviation technology does to the atmosphere is it not a crime against humanity and the earth that it is not currently in widespread development and deployment.


One after thought there is no reason why a variant on this technology would not be used in a submersible variation, now think about that a craft that could fly atmospherically and hydro-spherically.

Peace.

I wonder if they will be getting said craft ready to be deployed over Syria some time soon?

Well I say that if they give the CIA a 52 Billion $ Black Budget merely for spying, they may be very well capable of doing the same for research projects such as the one you speak of.

reply to post by andy06shake


You know with current third generation stealth technology I would not be too surprised though it is more likely that they are not actively flying any such drones there at the moment but I should not be too surprised over North Korea and Iran, still there would be a downside and that being the possibility of said technology falling into the wrong hand's (assuming it is not there now).
While the use of spy satellites makes such deployment unnecessary, it would nevertheless be likely to sit as a back up contingency in the event of a satellite black.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
Like I say this is merely a hypothetical possibility but since the civilian use of this relatively non polluting propulsion has not been pursued one can only wonder why, OIL conglomerates sitting on the patents perhaps or military aerospace vendors.

We can make gold in particle accelerators, but we don't do that either. Why? Because it's not economical or efficient to do so.

You've really don't nothing to demonstrate anything about a jet engine alternative using lasers. You seemed to repeat something Aussie Mick said in the other thread you referenced, but he provided no evidence for his claims either, and besides what he said about it being a jet with no fuel is wrong. It would take some kind of fuel or other energy source to power the laser, maybe 10 times as much fuel, would be my guess unless you can find reference to a specific technology with different efficiency figures.

Why does it take more fuel? Because the expansion which results from burning jet fuel is a fairly direct source of thrust. There are a lot more steps in the middle with lasers, and each step is always less than 100% efficient. The laser may only deliver half as much energy out as energy in, and the energy in is reduced from the energy in the fuel due to losses in power generation.

So even if you could get this laser propulsion idea to work, if you end up burning 10 times as much fuel to go the same distance, you're not saving the planet, you're destroying it ten times faster. Not exactly a win.

Electromagnetic propulsion may be useful on spacecraft, but with current technologies you'd be lucky to get thrust equal to the weight of a paper clip, which isn't enough to achieve orbit, but once in a relatively zero-G environment, you don't need much thrust to propel the spacecraft, which can utilize solar power from the sun as a fuel source.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well as you know LASER is only one way to excite the atoms and cause the necessary explosive expansion and there are other methods such as tuned high energy radio frequency emissions similar to microwaves that if tuned to the necessary resonant frequency of the atmospheric gases used would cause the outer valency orbitals electron fields to expand and cause the nuclei to oscillate at higher frequency's thus causing the gas to turn to a plasma-tic state and explosively expand but then energy efficient laser technology is advancing all the time in the civil arena and can you tell us how far it has in the military arena as I certainly can not but then also the energy generating technology and micro reactors are also available at some development stages in the military as well as some suppressed tech so your argument is neither here nor there on that point but good point nevertheless and as you noted I referenced those other thread's.

You might want to take stock of the fact I am referencing atmospheric gas expansion not space propulsion technology as I actually think a laser based system for that is not a truly effective method but there is already propulsion experimentation on this subject being carried out using ground based lasers to propel through atmospheric gas explosion using laser technology a device that looks like an old orange squeezer, so are the aeronautical researchers at NASA all wrong.
I propose taking the laser and energy source along for the ride though and yes it would require a level of laser tech that is currently only available to the military.

Note the radio frequency method was developed into an anti aircraft and missile technology by the soviet's just from the 1970's to the 1980's and required a nuclear reactor, they took a large multiple frequency radar array and analysed the return radio spectrum of the test aircraft then created a multiple frequency signal based on the inverse complex conjugate of the most absorbed frequency's and beamed this very highly amplified multiple frequency signal at the aircraft which then disintegrated/exploded as the constituent atoms of the materials from which it was constructed experience radio frequency oscillation's in sympathetic resonance to there natural frequency's and thus broke apart from there molecular bond's.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
You might want to take stock of the fact I am referencing atmospheric gas expansion not space propulsion technology as I actually think a laser based system for that is not a truly effective method but there is already propulsion experimentation on this subject being carried out using ground based lasers to propel through atmospheric gas explosion using laser technology a device that looks like an old orange squeezer, so are the aeronautical researchers at NASA all wrong.
I propose taking the laser and energy source along for the ride though and yes it would require a level of laser tech that is currently only available to the military.

First, it would be helpful if you provided source information that explains what you're talking about when you ask if NASA aeronautical researchers are wrong.

Second, I didn't say it would be impossible, just inefficient. So if improvements in military and other technologies make it use only 5 times as much fuel as a jet engine instead of 10 times as much fuel, sure they've made efficiency improvements, but for the reasons explained in my earlier post it seems unlikely it can be made as efficient as a jet engine, and if you understand my explanation for the reason why, you'll understand that I don't need to know military secrets to say that.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by andy06shake

 

You know with current third generation stealth technology I would not be too surprised though it is more likely that they are not actively flying any such drones there at the moment but I should not be too surprised over North Korea and Iran, still there would be a downside and that being the possibility of said technology falling into the wrong hand's (assuming it is not there now).
While the use of spy satellites makes such deployment unnecessary, it would nevertheless be likely to sit as a back up contingency in the event of a satellite black.

Over NK and Iran really?

What happens if something goes wrong, the drone/craft crashes somewhat still intact and a foreign power gets there hands on tech 50-100 years ahead of their current state of technology.

How do you think we got said technology in the first place?

I do believe "They" are in possession of antigravity over unity devices I just don't think TPTB will ever field such technology openly unless there power base is challenged. They simply have to much to lose and the world to much to gain.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


There is one important plus point for beam propulsion though. You don't have to carry the fuel, which can make up 25-50% of an aircraft mass.

Imho this is much more interesting as rocket replacement though. I think they Lightcraft guys want to be able to lift 1kg with 1MW laser into low orbit. I'd rather see them focus on that.

Placing the emitter into orbit might be interesting too, to power aircraft when it reaches its flight height, less atmosphere to deal with... I think to remember that the Russians played with the idea of putting a microwave beam sat into orbit to power "stuff" (could be wrong though).

Laser propulsion could be practical for interstellar travel, due the fact that it would produce a small amount of thrust but for many years duration. It would not be practical for getting around the solar system, let alone around the planet. The trouble is, it must obey conservation of energy and momentum. The momentum of the beam times the speed of light is the energy. Force is momentum per second, and power is energy per second. So, if a laser produces a Newton of recoil force, it's power must be at least 300,000,000 Watts.

An F4 Phantom jet's engines produce about 72 kN of thrust with afterburners. To get that much thrust from a laser, you would need to supply at least 21,600 gigaWatt to the laser, and that's assuming 100% efficiency. That's about 6,500 times more power than the most powerful nuke plant on Earth. If you tip your nose up, that laser will slice the Earth open to a considerable depth, perhaps kilometers deep.

reply to post by Phractal Phil

The Pak method.
A light sail on the ship with a really (really) big laser pushing it to get you up to Bussard ramjet speed.

reply to post by moebius

reply to post by Phractal Phil

reply to post by Phage


The OP said this thread was not about that technology (or something very similar to it), so I didn't discuss it here. I'm not sure why that was off topic, since it's a far more practical technology than the one the OP wanted to discuss.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
Laser Drive, this uses the inherent kinetic energy of a laser source to drive an object through a slow but relatively constant acceleration and this thread is not about this technology that would likely be best used for extra orbital space deployment.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Oops. Sorry for going OT.
I couldn't help it. Light sails and lasers...oh my!

reply to post by Arbitrageur


We are talking about laser heating air (or some other medium) to accelerate vehicle, aren't we?

reply to post by moebius

I'll have to let the OP decide if it's what he wanted to talk about, since he defined the parameters in the OP. Lightcraft is primarily talking about launching mini-satellites and I got the impression OP wanted to exclude such space applications.

However it does raise an interesting question. The SR-71 has a service ceiling of 16 miles. I had a flight sim of it and I could get it a little above that but it kept stalling at higher altitudes. I think the air was too thin, and I never got it over 19 miles high.

I think lightcraft might have similar problems trying to use air propulsion at higher altitudes when the air gets thinner, since it's still a long way from 20 miles high to low Earth orbit. For comparison, the shuttle's solid rocket boosters kept accelerating until 31 miles, and the main tank kept accelerating until somewhere around 75 miles, and of course neither of those required any air.

Maybe Lightcraft plans to reach low earth orbit velocity already at 20 miles? But if so, the air is still thinning so they would have to exceed it significantly to overcome the friction. I'd be interested to see the velocity versus altitude profile used in their simulations, to see at what altitude they expect to actually reach the velocity needed for low Earth orbit.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I did want to exclude the space application as I was interested in the none polluting property's of potential aviation application's but will waver that request as the subject is interesting anyway so I leave it to yourself to decide as you all wish to proceed as the space application also offers a none polluting launch system that we really should be developing (if the energy comes from sustainable sources of course).

So long as it is to do with laser propulsion or a similar method such as beamed energy then OK by me.
Thanks for the courtesy though

And hey Phage no problem at all. honored to have you on this thread.