Boeing's Airborne Laser Defense Fails the Test

I think there's a confusion here in regard to some sort of "light bending technology". No one has yet invented a machine that can bend light or laser once it's fired from the laser weapon and outside of it. What they are actually referring to is the aiming technology within the laser weapon itself, which, I believe, is also one of the biggest problems they are currently facing in relation to using laser as a weapon.

Quickie said:

I think there's a confusion here in regard to some sort of "light bending technology". No one has yet invented a machine that can bend light or laser once it's fired from the laser weapon and outside of it. What they are actually referring to is the aiming technology within the laser weapon itself, which, I believe, is also one of the biggest problems they are currently facing in relation to using laser as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Bending light is indeed possible (e.g. the light from stars are bent around large planets, and the earth's magnetic field does its job in deflecting and squeezing some radiation away). The problem is the massive amounts of energy involved. Take the particle accelerators. They bend the paths of a few particles and yet are gigantic in scale and suck up more energy than the average city.

Maggern said:

Bending light is indeed possible (e.g. the light from stars are bent around large planets, and the earth's magnetic field does its job in deflecting and squeezing some radiation away). The problem is the massive amounts of energy involved. Take the particle accelerators. They bend the paths of a few particles and yet are gigantic in scale and suck up more energy than the average city.

Click to expand...

A beam of light is very much different from a beam of charged particles. One is basically EM wave, the other is not. Anyway, let's go back on topic.

Boeing 747 is not analogous to a fighter jet: my top 9 differences

rhino123 said:

Well... I beg to disagree with that assessment. Sorry to point that out, with your logic... you shouldn't even place a fighter in the air, because there are successful test on SAM, AAA and whatsnot that could shoot your fighter down.

Click to expand...

Photograph of a Boeing 747 and a fighter jet flying near lower Manhattan by istolethetv on Flickr

Let's review my logic.

A Boeing 747 is far larger than a fighter jet. Since it is virtually impossible to mask the Boeing 747's radar and infrared signatures, the Boeing 747 is a sitting duck.

A fighter jet is not as vulnerable because:

1. It is a lot smaller (e.g. look at the picture above).

2. Far more maneuverable (e.g. can pull 8 Gs).

3. Can fly supersonically to evade (e.g. supercruise or afterburner; neither is available on Boeing 747).

4. Infrared flares are useful to allow escape via violent high-G maneuvers and/or attempted escape via supersonic speed.

5. Fighter jets may carry anti-radiation missiles. If a SAM unit turns on its radar, it becomes a contest to see whether the pilot or the ground-crew fires first.

6. Fighter jets may carry ECM pods. If the ECM measures are successful, the enemy SAM will veer away from the fighter jet.

7. "Fighter planes must be able to 'hug' the ground so that they can fly under enemy radar cover."

8. If all of the above are insufficient, rely on stealth of fighter (e.g. the whole point of building the F-22 and F-35). Stealth is not available for the Boeing 747.

9. A fighter pilot in trouble can always eject. This is not an option for the people onboard the Boeing 747.

In conclusion, fighter jets belong over the battlespace and Boeing 747s do not, which is what I had originally stated.

Quickie said:

A beam of light is very much different from a beam of charged particles. One is basically EM wave, the other is not. Anyway, let's go back on topic.

Click to expand...

Light is a form of EM wave, yes. However, it is known to have a wave/particle-dualistic nature. Sometimes it behaves like a wave, sometimes it behaves like a particle (quanta).

I still think this plane, except if they had it in great numbers, would, as Martian says, be a sitting duck.

1. Since there is no warning to a nuclear launch, the plane would have to patrol inside hostile territory to be able to respond immediately if there was a launch
2. The plane would suck up a large amount of conventional forces to protect it (much like AWACS-planes, but they actually contribute to the fighting)
3. The enemy would throw everything they had at the plane, as it is a close threat to its strategic assets

Re: Boeing 747 is not analogous to a fighter jet: my top 9 differences

Martian said:

Regarding the idea of placing nuclear-powered satellites in orbit, China has already demonstrated its ASAT technology to shoot them down. A laser-resistant and/or stealthy ASAT missile will destroy a nuclear-powered satellite and shower the Earth with radioactive debris.

Click to expand...

Martian said:

[qimg]http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/267/boeing747andfighterjet2.jpg[/qimg]
Photograph of a Boeing 747 and a fighter jet flying near lower Manhattan by istolethetv on Flickr

Let's review my logic.

A Boeing 747 is far larger than a fighter jet. Since it is virtually impossible to mask the Boeing 747's radar and infrared signatures, the Boeing 747 is a sitting duck.

A fighter jet is not as vulnerable because:

1. It is a lot smaller (e.g. look at the picture above).

2. Far more maneuverable (e.g. can pull 8 Gs).

3. Can fly supersonically to evade (e.g. supercruise or afterburner; neither is available on Boeing 747).

4. Infrared flares are useful to allow escape via violent high-G maneuvers and/or attempted escape via supersonic speed.

5. Fighter jets may carry anti-radiation missiles. If a SAM unit turns on its radar, it becomes a contest to see whether the pilot or the ground-crew fires first.

6. Fighter jets may carry ECM pods. If the ECM measures are successful, the enemy SAM will veer away from the fighter jet.

7. "Fighter planes must be able to 'hug' the ground so that they can fly under enemy radar cover."

8. If all of the above are insufficient, rely on stealth of fighter (e.g. the whole point of building the F-22 and F-35). Stealth is not available for the Boeing 747.

9. A fighter pilot in trouble can always eject. This is not an option for the people onboard the Boeing 747.

In conclusion, fighter jets belong over the battlespace and Boeing 747s do not, which is what I had originally stated.

Click to expand...

What I am rebuking is your statement that Chinese had demonstrate the capability of a ASAT and (although you didn't state that) but it gave me the impression that placing a nuclear powered satellite in space is not much use.

And so using your logic you shouldn't even place a fighter in the sky because SAM is quite effective against these fighters.

And now you are stating Boeing 747's vulnerbility as compared to a fighter... which I don't see any connection.

A satellite although follows to the orbit was really not that easy to be defeated with China's current technology... my reason, China's ASAT was actually launched from China's mainland. It is a ground launch version, and from the latest satellite launch from CCTV, I noticed that China do not have globe cover and so there are some blind spots in which China couldn't detect.

Thus when applying this to the satellites and China's limitation in detecting the satellite from all over the globe, it is not able to hit the satellite as long as the satellites are not above China.

Plus China didn't display (although it would not necessary mean that China do not have) the capability to launch Anti-Satellite missiles from ships or aircraft, which further made it quite difficult for China to intercept some satellites.

However the idea of arming the satellites with high power lasers (as I have previously suggested) was not as an offensive weapon but a defensive measure. These lasers are used against ballistic missiles that are launched against the countries operating these satellites.

Nuclear-powered laser satellite is science fiction

A nuclear-powered laser satellite is science fiction. It is difficult enough to operate a nuclear reactor on the ground. It is currently virtually-impossible to operate a nuclear reactor in the cold of space at −270 °C.





Look at the above diagrams for a nuclear reactor.

1. Where are you going to find gigantic cooling towers to quickly remove the heat from the reactor coolant in space?

2. For that matter, what coolant will you use? Water freezes at 32 °C. Space is −270 °C. The primary water supply exits the reactor core at 330 °C. How do you insulate the reactor at exactly the right temperature from −270 °C? If the insulation is insufficient, all of the heat escapes to space. If the insulation is excessive, heat builds up and the nuclear reactor will eventually start to melt.

3. There is no gravity. Compressors will be needed to pump the coolant every step of the way. Greater number of compressors increases the probability of a pump failure. Who's going to expeditiously diagnose failures of an orbiting nuclear reactor and make the repairs?

4. Experience has shown that they can't reliably fix the toilet on the International Space Station. What makes you think that they can reliably maintain and operate an extremely-complex nuclear reactor in space?


"Crisis in Orbit: Space-Station Toilet Breaks Down
Wednesday, May 28, 2008"

5. Nuclear reactors have thick containment buildings in the event of an accident. Are you proposing to place a nuclear reactor into space without extremely thick containment? How will you manage to launch all those unimaginable tons of containment into space?

6. How do you plan on removing the nuclear waste from the orbiting nuclear reactor? How do you plan on replacing the nuclear fuel rods?

7. Earth-based nuclear reactors have operators that monitor them constantly. Do you feel comfortable with only remote monitoring? In other words, whatever the instrument data tells you, that's all you've got. What if there is a malfunction among the gazillion sensors? Unlike Earth-based nuclear reactors, how will you handle routine maintenance and repairs?

8. Just exactly how do you proceed with a major overhaul of a nuclear reactor in space? How do you dismantle the numerous and critical parts and replace them with only two astronauts in bulky space suits with limited spacewalk time and who are not experts in nuclear reactor maintenance?

9. Near-Earth outer space pressure is 100 micro-Pascals. The primary water of the reactor core exits at 16 Mega-Pascals. How do you intend to resolve the pressure differences?

10. It takes days to fuel and power up a nuclear reactor. I will assume that you want the space-based nuclear reactor on standby to power a laser. Since the reactor is constantly in operation, how do you intend to get rid of the mega-watts of power that is generated?

11. There are constant coolant leaks from nuclear reactors. However, a coolant leak in a closed-system in space would be catastrophic. How do you intend to build a nuclear reactor with guaranteed "no coolant leaks"?


"Leaking Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant shutdown ordered as Obama pledges $50 billion for nuclear power
February 25, 2010"


"Coolant leak reported at Takahama nuclear power plant
Saturday 08th May, 05:03 AM JST

FUKUI — About 2.5 liters of primary coolant containing radioactive substances leaked in April in a facility housing the coolant tank for one of four reactors at the Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture, its operator Kansai Electric Power Co said Friday.

Kansai Electric said the coolant leakage at the No. 4 reactor did not affect the environment as the amount of radioactive leakage was small and below the level required for reactor operators to report to the central government. Company technicians confirmed the coolant leakage after an alarm went off at around 3:45 p.m. on April 16 while the reactor was undergoing regular checking, it said.

© 2010 Kyodo News. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission."

12. Can you cite an example of a nuclear reactor of any size that has been proven to reliably operate in space for years?

13. Can you cite an example of a compact nuclear reactor that has been proven to reliably operate on Earth for years?

14. There is no margin for error in a space-based closed-system nuclear reactor. How will you guarantee a no-defect and perfect system for many years of operation? Can you cite an example of an extremely complex system with innumerable parts that operate at extremely high temperatures and pressures without fail for years at a time?

15. An orbiting nuclear reactor will require heavy shielding. On Earth, heavy shielding protects human workers and nearby residents. In space, heavy shielding is necessary to prevent irradiation of other orbiting satellites. How do you plan on launching and installing unimaginable tons of heavy shielding into space?

16. What is your contingency plan in the event that the nuclear reactor de-orbits and is headed for a populated city? How do you plan on paying for the astronomical damages?

17. To serve an useful purpose, a space-based nuclear-powered satellite will have to pass over its intended targets in China. When the orbiting satellite passes over China, it is vulnerable to being shot down by ASAT.

18. In low earth orbit, at an altitude of roughly 500 km, the satellite will be traveling at 22,000 miles per hour. How do you intend on keeping a steady beam on an ICBM for two minutes from a platform that is moving at extreme speed?


"When a satellite circles close to Earth we say it's in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Satellites in LEO are just 200 - 500 miles (320 - 800 kilometers) high. Because they orbit so close to Earth, they must travel very fast so gravity won't pull them back into the atmosphere. Satellites in LEO speed along at 17,000 miles per hour (27,359 kilometers per hour)! They can circle Earth in about 90 minutes."

19. Hypothetically speaking, let's pretend that you've solved all of the unbelievable engineering problems. What is the point in building an unimaginably expensive space-based nuclear-powered laser satellite? How are you going to stop all of those expected Chinese killer-satellites?

Space favors the attacker. A destroyed satellite spews tens of thousands of high-speed fragments. China can easily send one of its satellites on an intercept trajectory and detonate it to create a cone of destruction headed for the nuclear-powered satellite.

My final verdict: Nuclear-powered laser satellite is science fiction.

Maggern said:

Light is a form of EM wave, yes. However, it is known to have a wave/particle-dualistic nature. Sometimes it behaves like a wave, sometimes it behaves like a particle (quanta).

Click to expand...

I know that but let's go back on track.

Re: Nuclear-powered laser satellite is science fiction

rhino123 said:

Actually I applaud the failure (in a good way). With failure, it would show what is missing and what went wrong, and only with this would improvement be done. When there is no failure, it would seemed that the technology is good enough for a go. But in mine field... many times, it seemed that what would go wrong (because everything is alright in the lab), would go wrong on field.

As many had stated in their replies, one source to overcome is the energy problem. I am wondering, it would be difficult to power such high-energy lasers and was a pain the in the arse to lug around massive generators (or nuclear generators - miniaturise) in an aircraft - what if we position our lasers in the satellites.

Satellites are in space, they receive direct solar radiation with minimal lost and these energy could be used to powered the lasers. Plus... ballistic missiles (tactical and ICBM) at a stage will be travelling in space, and so to intercept them before the final re-entry stage might be easier than to try to knock off the missiles at final re-entry stage which might very well means hitting a target travelling at around six times the speed of sound in atmosphere.

Click to expand...

Martian said:

A nuclear-powered laser satellite is science fiction.

Click to expand...

Okay. My bad. I shouldn't have use the nuclear power satellite in my rebuttal to your logic. And I might not have as much knowledge in physic and science as you do.

But if you read my post carefully, I have not mentioned anything about nuclear powered satellite in my first post (which I attached). I am saying "Satellites are in space, they receive direct solar radiation with minimal lost and these energy could be used to powered the lasers."

And I believe your rebuke to my initial post was saying that China can shoot down those satellites.

So I rebuke saying that the logic is flawed. And I give examples and explanation on why... I mean come on! For once, quit twisting around, your logic (not science) is flawed.

Going back to were such a weapon system might actually be used. I do think it would be especually places like Iran or NK.
There's no use to try to defend against large scale ICBM attacks out of Russia or China, the defence against these is having your on ICBMs wich will strike.
On the other hand, countries like the aforementioned with a smaller arsenal across the board represend a situation were hostile defenses might be degraded to a point were at least a window of opportunity exists for the ABL to move in. And if it only takes down two or three out of ten or twenty, that's two or three less left over for other systems.
And I don't believe that heat-resistent tiles are really an option here because of weight. The Shuttle has these because it's necessary, like in essential for the crews life. But putting those tiles all around a MRBM would degrate it's performance considerably.
In the end, I believe NCADE will be a much more efficient way to achieve the same goal, but the ABL is at least a great science work that will pay off later.