Boeing's Airborne Laser Defense Fails the Test

No progress in nuclear-powered satellite technology from 1965 to 2007

Nuclear Power In Space
by Yury Zaitsev
Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Aug 15, 2007
...
The U.S. only once tested a nuclear reactor like the Soviet Topaz unit. It was in 1965. The reactor lasted 43 days, although the satellite on which it was installed is still in orbit as part of space junk. Russia has launched about 40 spacecraft with nuclear plants aboard. Most of them were used for spying purposes and, once activated, stayed in low near-Earth orbits for several months on end.

The Topaz-II had a capacity of about 10 kW. This compares with 120 watts that can be collected from one square meter of solar cells, which are the main source of power for space vehicles. Moreover, the farther from the sun, the lower the efficiency of the battery.

Russian engineers have designed a series of conceptual nuclear plants with an initial capacity of 25 kW. A spacecraft incorporating such a plant and meant for Earth observations will mark a new stage in providing information for civilian and military users. Nuclear power plants are more compact than solar ones, making it easier to direct and orient spacecraft especially when increased accuracy is required.
...
In the past, research and development on space-based nuclear plants was halted both in Russia and in America for considerations of radiation safety. Today nuclear energy is more reliable and is having a rebirth. It is facing ambitious and energy-consuming objectives both in near-Earth orbits and in deep space. Given proper funding, the humankind will not only send a manned mission to Mars soon, but also start using space for commercial purposes by establishing a habitable base on the Moon.

Click to expand...

In 1965, the U.S. tested a nuclear-powered satellite that was "like the Soviet Topaz unit" (e.g. 5 kW). Since there has been no further tests, it can be inferred that the U.S. has abandoned this technology. Why? The most likely explanation is technological limitations.

The Russians have managed to develop a Topaz-II unit with 10 kW of power. After 42 years (e.g. 1965 to 2007) of experience, the Russians are considering "conceptual nuclear plants with an initial capacity of 25 kW." In other words, there has been no progress in overcoming the technological problems for 42 years. The current Russian technology is still limited to 10 kW.

In 1965, the world's best technology was a 10 kW nuclear-powered satellite. In 2007, the world's best technology was still a 10 kW nuclear-powered satellite. In the discussion for this thread, the power requirement is a minimum of 1 Megawatts (e.g. ABL-class laser).

Let's do the math. 1 Megawatts is 100 times larger than 10 kW. After 42 years, taking the giant step from 10 kW to 25 kW is still "conceptual." How soon do you think we can expect to see a 1 Megawatt nuclear-powered satellite?

Feel free to make your own reasonable extrapolation. When you're done, decide for yourself whether you agree with my assessment that nuclear-powered satellites for space-based lasers are science fiction.

Russians "rained a mess of radioactive debris over Canada."



"Old Nuclear-Powered Soviet Satellite Acts Up
By Leonard David
SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
posted: 15 January 2009
02:45 pm ET



Spinning around the Earth for more than two decades, an old Soviet satellite, replete with a nuclear reactor, has acted up.

Launched by the former Soviet Union in February 1987, Cosmos 1818 was the first of two vehicles designed to evaluate an advanced nuclear power supply in low Earth orbit.

But ground-watching surveillance gear has picked up dozens of small particles spewing into space from the 21-year-old satellite. Why the unexpected debris cloud? It's still what industry types call an unexplained debris generation event.

Information on the event, first spotted in July 2008, has been highlighted in the January issue of the Orbital Debris Quarterly News - produced by the NASA Orbital Debris Program Office at the space agency's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

Interesting history

The newsletter notes that Cosmos 1818 and its sister spacecraft, Cosmos 1867 both toted into orbit a thermionic nuclear power supply. That nuclear power gear was more advanced than earlier thermoelectric nuclear devices that energized the well-known Radar Ocean Reconnaissance Satellites (RORSATs) during the 1970s and 1980s.

The most infamous RORSAT was Cosmos 954. It made an out-of-control nose dive in 1978, raining a mess of radioactive debris over Canada.

Unlike their RORSAT cousins that operated in very low orbits, Cosmos 1818 and Cosmos 1867 were directly inserted into much higher orbits, thereby eliminating any threat of premature reentry, the Orbital Debris Quarterly News notes.

Russian space authorities have said in the past that the nuclear reactors onboard Cosmos 1818 and Cosmos 1867 functioned for roughly five and 11 months, respectively. For the next two decades, the two inactive spacecraft orbited the Earth without significant incident.

Special observations

But on or about July 4, 2008, the dormant Cosmos 1818 satellite seemed to be involved in its own Independence Day fireworks. The U.S. Space Surveillance Network spotted debris of various sizes being shed from the spacecraft.

"Special observations" of a few of the debris revealed characteristics generally indicative of metallic spheres – perhaps bubbles of sodium potassium reactor coolant, according to the space debris newsletter.

One idea floating around is that a coolant tube on Cosmos 1818 became thermally stressed and breached after coasting between sunlight and dark temperatures over the two decades.

"Alternatively, the hyper-velocity impact of a small particle might have generated sufficient heat to melt some of the NaK, which then would have formed spheres with metallic properties," the newsletter explained.

Trail of droplets

This is not the first case of former Soviet satellites casting off a trail of droplets in Earth orbit – dendrites of a dangerous kind to other spacecraft.

Back in March of 2004 I reported on the case of the leaking RORSATs – and whether or not the drips of NaK were, indeed, still radioactive.

Meanwhile, according to the space debris newsletter, more analysis of the Cosmos 1818 debris is underway in hopes of pinning down the nature of the debris and the possible cause of their origin. "To date, no similar debris generation by Cosmos 1867 has been observed," the newsletter advised.

Collision space

"I can only guess for now what may be going on with RORSATs," said Don Kessler, a former NASA expert on orbital debris and now an orbital debris and meteoroid consultant in Asheville, North Carolina.

These RORSATs were placed at an altitude above 500 miles (800 kilometers), he added, in the hope that their orbit would not decay until after their radioactivity had decayed hundreds of years from now. However, this also placed the RORSATs in a region of space that has the highest collision probability with other debris.

"Most of the small debris in this region is NaK droplets, released from the RORSATs prior to 1990. Consequently, as a result of collisions with other debris, RORSATs are not likely to remain intact before they reenter," Kessler told SPACE.com. The most frequent type of collision would be with the older NaK droplets, impacting with very high velocities, he said.

"These smaller impacts would penetrate the RORSAT radiators, and release some of the remaining NaK. Impacts with larger debris would cause the entire RORSAT satellite to fragment," Kessler advised.

As for the wandering droplets of reactor coolant being radioactive, Kessler said. "I have never resolved the issue of whether these droplets are radioactive or not....they were certainly exposed to the RORSAT radiation. A specialist in radioactive would best answer the question as to how long NaK would remain radioactive."
...
Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than four decades. He is past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines and has written for SPACE.com since 1999."

----------

1. Russian nuclear-powered satellite has "rained a mess of radioactive debris over Canada." I suggest that you pray that the Russians do not send any more nuclear-powered satellites into space. Next time, "radioactive debris" may fall over your head.

2. Russian nuclear reactors for satellites function for 5 to 11 months. The nuclear reactors have very limited lifetimes. The Russians have not solved the problem of extracting nuclear waste and replacing the nuclear fuel with astronauts in bulky space suits with limited spacewalk time and who are not experts in nuclear reactor maintenance.

3. Russian nuclear reactors for satellites experience frequent coolant leak problems and they're leaking radioactive coolant all over lower earth orbit.

In conclusion, the Russians have not solved any of the significant problems that I have previously enumerated regarding nuclear reactors in space.

Engineering problems do not magically go away. If you can't answer a question regarding an engineering problem then it means that your technology is insufficient. The Russians just rain nuclear waste over Canada, lower earth orbit, or wherever they feel like without regard for safety or solving engineering problems.

A few points to make about the issue on nuclear reactors.

1. Russia hasn't exactly been investing much in nuclear technology since the USSR fell apart. Hence, their current nuclear technology is unlikely to be an accurate gauge of what is technologically feasible.

2. The power requirements for current (non-weaponised) satellites are not exactly particularly high. Which is why they are powered by solar panels. Hence, low output nuclear reactors are sufficient to meet the energy requirements. No sense building 1 MW reactor when the satellite only requires 10kW.

3. For refuelling requirements, check out this link:

With a high enrichment of 93 per cent, capable of reaching 97.3 percent in U235, naval reactors are designed for a refueling after 10 or more years over their 20-30 years lifetime, whereas land based reactors use fuel enriched to 3-5 per cent in U235, and need to be refueled every 1 - 1 1/2 years period. New cores are designed to last 50 years in carriers and 30-40 years in submarines, which is the design goal of the Virginia class of submarines.

Click to expand...

4. Whilst the size of the reactors are not mentioned explicitly, the above link also states that carriers used multiple reactors. This is an indication that the reactors are not particularly big.

In the A3W reactor design used on the USS John F. Kennedy a 4 reactor design is used. In the A4W design with a life span of 23 years on the Nimitz class carriers only 2 reactors per ship are used with each providing 104MWth of power or 140,000 shaft HP. The A1B is also a 2 reactor design for the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers.

Click to expand...

--- EDIT ---

A bit more info on small reactors on the last para of pg 6 of the above link:

A considerably small size thermal reactor can be built using beryllium oxide as a moderator.

Click to expand...

Reality check

There are four further worthwhile points.

1. Since 1965, the current state-of-the-art nuclear-powered satellite technology is 10 kW and it has spewed radioactive debris all over Canada and into low earth orbit. 10 kW is equivalent to 100 light bulbs. A typical incandescent light bulb is 100 Watts.

Hence, after 45 years, nuclear power can only provide enough energy to operate 100 light bulbs in space (e.g. 100 light bulbs x 100 Watts = 10,000 Watts = 10 kW). This is ridiculously primitive technology.

2. A submarine reactor is not that much different from a normal nuclear reactor. While the core itself may not need refueling for 20 or 30 years, all of the other parts of the nuclear reactor require maintenance, repair, and replacement of parts.

Analogously, it's like saying that I don't need to replace my car's engine block for 20 years. It's pointless. Your car can't function unless you maintain, repair, and replace all of the other parts.

3. Here is the reality check. A nuclear reactor has a gazillion parts. You can tell by simply looking at the number of gauges in a nuclear reactor control room. A nuclear reactor is one of the most complex machinery on Earth. The temperature, pressure, radiation, and corrosion problems are all extreme.

For an analogy, look at the relatively simple Space Shuttle. After 30 years of experience, the United States is still encountering serious problems in being able to reliably maintain it on Earth for operation in space.

It is silly to believe that we'll see a Megawatt-class nuclear-powered satellite in our lifetime. I would be happy if they can reliably maintain the toilet on the International Space Station or fix the leaks on the Space Shuttle.

4. The argument that has been presented is backwards. Well...space-based nuclear reactors are not advanced because the Americans didn't spend a lot of research dollars on it. The reality is that the United States refuses to spend money on space-based nuclear reactors because no serious scientist or engineer has the faintest idea of solving the difficult engineering problems of extreme temperature, pressure, radiation, shielding, corrosion, containment, coolant leaks, reliability, maintenance, and repair issues in space for a nuclear reactor that are beyond current and foreseeable technology. There has been no real progress for 45 years.

In the 1960s, people believed that we would just build spaceships and travel to other planets in our Solar System. Just like Spartan, they poohed-poohed the engineering problems and envisioned space hotels in Jupiter orbit. Films, such as "2001: A Space Odyssey," were made that reflected this layman's delusion.

It's 2010 and we'll be lucky if one astronaut makes it to Mars by 2050. No attempt has been made to travel to Mars, because no one knows how to prevent serious bone-and-muscle-loss during the trip. For example, will the astronauts become too physically weak to leave their spaceship after landing on Mars? Also, how do you build a spaceship that is not ridiculously heavy and yet, it can reliably protect the astronauts from dangerous space radiation during the Mars trip?

I am an optimist, but also a realist. Extreme engineering challenges cannot be wished away.



"More Leaks Plague Space Shuttle, Delaying Launch
Published October 29, 2010 | Space.com


NASA/Troy Cryder

Space shuttle Discovery is prepared for its final launch into space, which is scheduled for Nov. 1, 2010 from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla.

The space shuttle Discovery is leaking again, delaying its planned launch by at least one day -- to Nov. 2 -- as engineers work to fix the spacecraft in time for its last space voyage, NASA officials say.

Discovery was slated to launch on its final mission on Nov. 1, but two leaks in one of its twin aft-mounted engine pods forced the delay. The leaks are in helium and nitrogen seals used to pressurized fuel line plumbing in one of Discovery's orbital maneuvering system pods. They are unrelated to a fuel leak on Discovery that NASA repaired last week, NASA officials said.

"The leaks must be fixed before launch and the decision was made to delay picking up the launch countdown by at least a day," NASA officials said in a statement.

That means Discovery's earliest chance to launch is now Tuesday, Nov. 2 at 4:14 p.m. EDT (2014 GMT).

Discovery is launching on an 11-day mission to the International Space Station to deliver a new storage module and a humanoid robot called Robonaut 2. The mission is Discovery's 39th and last trip to space before it is retired for good. Discovery is NASA's oldest flying shuttle and has flown the most missions of any orbiter in the fleet. [Video: Legacy of Shuttle Discovery]

NASA is retiring its entire shuttle fleet -- Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour -- next year to make way for a new plan aimed at sending astronauts to visit an asteroid and Mars. Discovery is the oldest of NASA's space shuttles and has made more spaceflights than any other orbiter fleet.

Discovery's flight will be NASA's 133rd shuttle mission since the orbiters first began flying in April 1981."

Current state of space technology

Without introducing the extreme complexities of nuclear technological problems into space, it is important to remember that space is an extreme environment by itself. One notable error and it's all over. Your expensive satellite is dead.



"Brand New Satellite Declared Dead After Launch
By Peter B. de Selding
Space News
posted: 29 October 2010
11:08 am ET


An artist's depiction of the Eutelsat W3B satellite. Credit: Eutelsat

PARIS — A communications satellite launched Thursday (Oct. 28) has been declared a total loss following the discovery of a sizable leak in its fuel reservoir, and ground teams are now scrambling to determine whether they can raise the satellite into a graveyard orbit or must guide it into the atmosphere to be destroyed, the satellite's owner and builder said.

Europe's Ariane 5 ECA rocket, in what appeared to be a smooth flight, placed the 5,370-kilogram satellite – the Eutelsat W3B – into a transfer orbit with a perigee of 249.2 kilometers and an apogee of 35,907 kilometers, which was the satellite's intended destination.

From this transfer position, spacecraft use their own power to circularize their orbit in the days following launch to reach final geostationary position about 36,000 kilometers over the equator.

Whether it will be possible, or advisable, to conduct the series of firings of the satellite's on-board engine needed to raise the spacecraft into a graveyard orbit at least 250 kilometers above the geostationary arc, out of the way of most working satellites, remained unclear in the early morning hours following the launch at the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana, said Emmanuel Grave, executive vice president for telecommunications satellites at Thales Alenia Space, which built the satellite.

In an interview, Grave said the leak in the oxidizer tank is too large to have escaped notice as the satellite was being prepared for integration into the Ariane 5 rocket alongside Japan's BSat-3b satellite, which was launched at the same time and is reported in good health.

Teams from Thales Alenia Space and Paris-based Eutelsat tracking the satellite after its separation from the Ariane 5 upper stage from a control center in Rambouillet, France, duly noted that it sent the expected signals once in orbit. But soon after, the satellite's telemetry also disclosed a leak in the propellant system that is so large that there is no hope of squeezing even a limited commercial life from W3B.

Grave said the priority now is to determine how best to dispose of W3B. From transfer orbit, the spacecraft is not within radio contact of ground teams for long periods. Decisions must be made as to how much fuel life is available, and whether that fuel should be used to raise W3B's perigee to provide a more-stable orbit, or guide it into a controlled destructive atmospheric reentry, perhaps over the South Pacific Ocean.

Thales Alenia Space officials have experience in this type of maneuver, having been forced to send their Astra 1K satellite, owned by SES of Luxembourg, into the atmosphere after the malfunction of a Proton rocket upper stage in November 1995.

Grave declined to speculate on what caused the leak beyond saying it must have occurred after the launch. He said the components used are not new, and that nothing in the satellite's month-long preparation at the French Guiana spaceport suggested an issue with the propellant reservoir.

An official with the Arianespace launch consortium said the company will be reviewing launch telemetry in detail but that, after a first view, the launch did not appear to encounter any special stresses as the rocket climbed through the atmosphere and sustained the usual period of maximum dynamic pressure on the vehicle.

In an Oct. 29 statement, Eutelsat said it will immediately order a new satellite, to be called W3D, as a result of the loss of W3B. The company will also keep at their current location at 16 degrees west the three satellites that W3B was intended to replace.

A nearly identical satellite, called W3C, is under construction at Thales Alenia Space and scheduled for launch, aboard a Chinese Long March rocket, in mid-2011.

W3B was insured as part of a $2.5 billion, seven-satellite package secured by Eutelsat in 2008. It is the second satellite in this group to suffer a major anomaly, following the W2M spacecraft, which had a solar array problem and is operating at reduced capacity.

Pending the results of the W3B failure investigation, the smooth countdown for the 39th consecutive Ariane 5 success makes it more likely that Evry, France-based Arianespace will be able to conduct the two next Ariane 5 missions as scheduled in late November and late December. Completing six flights before it closes its 2010 accounts is important for the company, whose financial equilibrium has been upset by launch delays of flights that have placed a seven-launch year beyond its reach.

W3B, a Spacebus 4000C3 satellite frame, carries 53 Ku- and three Ka-band transponders and was designed to produce more than 12 kilowatts of power at the end of its 15-year life. It was to have replaced the Eurobird 16, W2M and Sesat 1 satellites at the 16 degrees east slot. These three satellites then would have been redeployed to other locations.

In addition to serving Eutelsat's 11.2 million television homes in Central Europe, W3B's beams were to focus on Mauritius and Reunion islands in the Indian Ocean, and on sub-Saharan Africa. The African coverage was to provide cellular-telephone backhaul and Internet access.

W3B initially was intended for launch aboard a Chinese Long March vehicle. Eutelsat switched to Ariane, and transferred its Chinese launch reservation to another Eutelsat satellite, when a temporary shortage of certain made-in-Europe components raised questions about whether W3B as launched would be "ITAR-free," meaning devoid of U.S. parts prohibited for export to China.

The BSat-3b satellite, built by Lockheed Martin Space Systems, uses Lockheed Martin's A2100 satellite skeletal structure and an example of how light this satellite frame can get. BSat-3b weighed just 2,060 kilograms at launch and caries 12 130-watt Ku-band transponders. It will be added to BSat's fleet for direct-to-home television and operate at 110 degrees east."

rhino123 said:

... First off, these aircraft as of today is quite big and it would take a longer time to get them prep and ready to operate. Unless you already know that a ballistic missile is being launched or are about to be launched, then it would be quite useless... because by the time the aircraft took off and reach the area that the ballistic missile was to strike, it will be too late to actually knock it off.

And unless you have the intel to launch an first strike by getting these systems into the airspace of opponents, and knock off the missiles just as they launch, it will also be useless.

Click to expand...

Obviously, as you opint out, those assets would have to be on station to be of any use. That means in time of crises, if you have enough assets, you have keep at least one airborne in a CAP under fighter cover, out of your opponents reach. Ones a launch is detected, you push with your own fighters to get opposing defenses out of the way and bring your ABL into reach.
Or, if your going to strike anyway, you just bring the ABL with you to render the opponents counter-strike capability less effective.
Quite extensive steps to take, but to have at least a posibility to intercept S/MRBMs that carry who knows what, may be worth the effort.

Martian said:

Exactly what weight problem are you referring to?

Click to expand...

If I understood it correct these silicia tiles have a density of 144kg/m³, wich is indeed really light. However, to cover a Shahab-3 or Nodong-1 in one inch of these tiles adds about 180 & 230kg of weight respectively. That's one fifths of the missiles warhead. On the shuttle, up to five inch are used in certain areas. Applying that to said missiles would mean they'd have to leave without their warhead to be so protected.
On the other hand, they may retain the warhead, and have to cope with a significant reduction in range. Now I actually don't know what the correlation is between a missiles range and it's weight, so I can't quantify how much a certain weight add reduces the range. If you have a source that explains that, I'd be happy to have a look.
In the end, both issues represent a problem in my view.
It's also said that these Silicia tiles are used in places with temperatures up to 1260°C. Above that, carbon reenforced carbon with a higher density is used. I also don't know, however, what temperatures such a laser can produce on a missile surface.

U.S. is searching for method to attack Chinese ICBMs in boost phase

I have already stated that the ABL is not necessary against small fries like North Korea and Iran. The Shahab-3 and Nodong-1 are both MRBMs. The U.S. can already shoot them down with Aegis SM-3 missiles.

The problem occurs when China launches a counterstrike with ICBMs. The U.S. is searching for a method to attack Chinese ICBMs in their boost phase. Once the Chinese thermonuclear warheads have been released, along with likely decoys, there is little confidence that the United States can intercept them at an incoming speed of Mach 10.

There are many measures that China can select to counteract a currently unimaginable 3,000 Km laser. Building a bigger missile with lighter and more expensive materials (e.g. more titanium, composites, etc.) and equipped with countermeasures against a laser is already within China's current technological capabilities.

In conclusion, it doesn't make any sense to spend decades of research in the hope of finding a chemical fuel and/or storage method with a density that is twenty to thirty times greater than currently known. It is almost impossible. It is also futile. China can already install countermeasures to minimize or defeat an ABL.

Here is a post that I had previously made regarding the choices for a laser-resistant missile:

1) The casing may be built from expensive, but lightweight, titanium. "Layers of titanium and other metals" provide excellent heat-resistance.

"HOT TILE - Example of a new type of heat-resistant tile, composed of layers of titanium and other metals, which might eventually replace tiles now on the space shuttles."

2) Use "pyrolytic graphite or carbon composites." This makes sense. Diamonds are a form of carbon. Diamonds are heat resistant.

"Laser hardened missile casing
United States Patent 4686128

A thermally protective covering for a structure includes a thermally ablating layer comprising a nonporous ablative material comprising pyrolytic graphite or carbon composites bonded to a rigid, nonporous insulating layer comprising composites having high strength fibers in an insulating matrix. The insulating layer is bonded to the casing of the structural element to be protected. More preferably, the thermally ablating layer comprises pyrolytic graphite and the rigid, nonporous insulating member comprises silica phenolic. The ablating layer is bonded to the insulating layer with a high temperature graphite cement having adhesive properties to at least 3000° K. In a preferred embodiment, means are provided for venting pyrolysis gas produced during exposure of the ablating layer to a high energy laser."

3) Expand the use of proven materials, which are used to contain the high-temperatures near the rocket motor, to the rest of the missile.

"Thermoplastic para-polyphenylene sulfide, high temperature-resistant rocket motor cases
United States Patent 5380570

Para-polyphenylene sulfide, a non-composite, ultrahigh-temperature-resist, thermoplastic resin, is employed for the manufacture of interceptor motor cases. The thermoplastic resin, para-polyphenylene sulfide, has a combination of properties which are of particular interest in the fabrication of interceptor rocket motor cases. Para-polyphenylene sulfide in ribbonized forth is wound directly onto the required mandrel and then fused into a solid mass. The fused, solid mass has the properties which enables it to serve as both insulator and motor case material. The manufacture of a combination insulated motor case is achieved by the following method: The equipment, first, involves the fabrication of a breakout mandrel by one of several methods. The para-polyphenylene sulfide is ribbonized by extrusion and wound down on the breakout mandrel to the required thickness and fused into a solid mass by heating to its melt temperature of about 285° C. The breakout mandrel is removed to release the interceptor rocket motor case which functions as both insulator and interceptor rocket motor case material."

4) Use new lightweight and heat-resistant Aerogel material in a layer within the missile casing.

"JPL's newest version of Aerogel is 99.8 percent air and is a stiff foam made from silicon dioxide and sand. Its density is just 3 milligrams per cubic centimeter and it pressure thousands of times greater than its own mass. Its melting point is 2,200 degrees Fahrenheit (1,200 degrees Centigrade)."

A laser-resistant missile may include a mixture of the aforementioned ideas. Heat resistance is important because the airborne laser only has a limited amount of chemical fuel for the laser. Instead of two minutes, if it requires 20 minutes, there may not be sufficient time or chemical fuel on the airplane to destroy the missile before warhead release.

Re: U.S. is searching for method to attack Chinese ICBMs in boost phase

Martian said:

I have already stated that the ABL is not necessary against small fries like North Korea and Iran. The Shahab-3 and Nodong-1 are both MRBMs. The U.S. can already shoot them down with Aegis SM-3 missiles.

Click to expand...

And that is the point were we actually disagree. I don't want to argue your point that a some hundred km range laser on a large, conventional airplane will not be helpfull against a large scale ICBM attack by China. The ABL would have to penetrate into China's wast interior to take down many ICBMs there. I don't think that's viable and I never did. Other means will be more usefull here. And I'm quite sure people in the USAF have similar thoughts.
I, however, actually do believe that the main point of the ABL is indeed to defend against medium states like the aforementioned Iran or NK, wich is the main point I'm trying to make. While thechnology exists to intercept said missiles in the termianal phase, I do believe that it's better not to wait until the missiles are already over your head when their warheads carry who knows what.
I also think the R&D aspect is a lot more important than just the BMD part. It is a general investigation into the aspects of laser deployments on airplanes. Maybe it leads to a laser system on strategic bombers that can intercept SAMs / AAMs. Or maybe UCAVs on a CAP can at some point intercept CMs with a laser.
So, I believe in the merit of the program as a whole. Apparently, we disagree.

Re: U.S. is searching for method to attack Chinese ICBMs in boost phase

Scratch said:

And that is the point were we actually disagree. I don't want to argue your point that a some hundred km range laser on a large, conventional airplane will not be helpfull against a large scale ICBM attack by China. The ABL would have to penetrate into China's wast interior to take down many ICBMs there. I don't think that's viable and I never did. Other means will be more usefull here. And I'm quite sure people in the USAF have similar thoughts.
I, however, actually do believe that the main point of the ABL is indeed to defend against medium states like the aforementioned Iran or NK, wich is the main point I'm trying to make. While thechnology exists to intercept said missiles in the termianal phase, I do believe that it's better not to wait until the missiles are already over your head when their warheads carry who knows what.
I also think the R&D aspect is a lot more important than just the BMD part. It is a general investigation into the aspects of laser deployments on airplanes. Maybe it leads to a laser system on strategic bombers that can intercept SAMs / AAMs. Or maybe UCAVs on a CAP can at some point intercept CMs with a laser.
So, I believe in the merit of the program as a whole. Apparently, we disagree.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think we do agree. I believe that the ABL will have little strategic significance for the foreseeable future because it is very unlikely that the technology exists to scale up the laser by "twenty to thirty times" in power.

I do not disagree that a laser may be useful tactically for point-defense. Just make sure it isn't raining, foggy, cloudy, or snowing when it's used.

Stability of ABL platform is also an issue




The Airborne Laser Test Bed Missile Defense Agency

dyoung1167
10/26/10 at 9:29 pm

it seems to me to be a wasteful attempt from the beginning. what happens if at the crucial moment of firing the laser they hit turbulence? i find it hard to believe the system would be able to correct itself quickly enough.

Click to expand...

The stability of the ABL platform is also an issue. For anyone that has flown in a plane, we all know that a plane can encounter unexpected turbulence. Additionally, the ABL platform could be flying through a storm (e.g. tropical storm, hurricane, dust storm, etc.) that may limit its usefulness.