NationStates Jolt Archive

Modern Tech guide, to space based weapons

Many modern tech nations wish to have, or claim to have, weapon platforms based in space, however, they do not always know how they work, and many claim godmod the second they state their claim. This guide will sort this mess out.

Space based weapons and defenses are a common sight for future tech nations, however, when a modern tech nation claims to have such a system, the ever popular IGNORE is placed upon them, this guide is here to clear up the misconceptions, and limitations placed upon these type of weapon. From lasers, to missiles.

Contents:

1: Space Based Lasers (Offensive)
A: Research Costs
B: Construction
C: Launch
D: Control
E: Uses
F: Limitations

2: Space Based Lasers (Defensive)
A: Research Costs
B: Construction
C: Launch
D: Control
E: Uses
F: Limitations

3: Space Based Rail Cannon
A: Research
B: Construction
C: Limitations

4: Space Based Missile Platform (Both Offensive and Defensive)
A: Research
B: Construction
C: Launch
D: Control
E: Uses
F: Limitations


=== End Contents ===


1: Offensive Space Based Laser Satellites

Offensive Space Based Laser Satellites (OSBLS) have been considered the mainstay of modern tech technologies. Some consider the OSBLS the final step before future tech. This however, is wrong. Weapons such as these are feasible with today’s RL technology, however inefficient.

A: Research

Modern tech nations should begin preparations for space-based weaponry from the moment they can launch satellites in orbit. The research for these devices ranges in three categories. Launch Vehicles that will bring the satellite, or the pieces for said satellite into orbit. Platforms that will safely contain the weapon, giving enough space for the device, but protecting it from the debris that rushes around earth at 7 Kilometers per second, and Laser technology itself, which must have an efficiency of about 30%+ in the amount of energy absorbed by materials.

The materials the laser should be specifically designed to destroy are Steel and Aluminum. Targets are commonly made of this, but for safety, the laser should also be able to destroy Titanium.

Costs for the research for such devices, range in the billions. A simple calculation for this research is the following…
OSBLS Development Cost = X kg * $100,000/kg + [.1(X * $100,000/kg)]
X = Weight of Satellite
700,000 KG is a base weight for a laser satellite, which will easily cost $77,000,000,000 for a relatively inefficient (30% Efficiency), small satellite program.
For every 1% of efficiency, you must add 10,000 kg to the total weight of the satellite, effectively adding $1,100,000,000 per % of efficiency.

The cost may be great, but a space based laser program is an extremely effective, and deterring weapon.

Chemicals, such as Hydrogen Fluoride could be used to increase the weapons effectiveness in less than favorable weather, such as overcast or fog.


B: Construction

After Research, the costs are already high, but the satellite then has to be built. To cover a sufficient amount of the planet, the nation must put up a minimum of 30 satellites, each satellite having a sufficient size footprint, and the processing power to assess two risks at a time.

Construction for a satellite will be highly variable, and creating an equation for this is not feasible, however, a base price per satellite is $50,000,000.

The satellite’s cost will rise along with the percentage of efficiency of the laser itself, because the satellite’s construction, both material and quality, must be higher. A simple way to figure the rising cost is the following.
$50,000,000 Base with an efficiency of 30%
$1,000,000 per %


C: Launch

Launching a military satellite is no small feat. Light Weight satellites may be launched in one piece, but this is expensive, and larger satellites may be launched in pieces, this is even more expensive.

The nation must have invested in a large launch vehicle, along the lines of the Saturn V Rocket, or be hiring another nation to launch the satellite for it, in order for their satellites to reach a low earth orbit (LEO).

An easy equation to find the launch cost is:
X kg * $5,650/kg


D: Control

Controlling a satellite is not an easy process. It must have a very efficient command input system; a special communication satellite array is especially adept in this, to effectively take targets before they leave the range of the satellite.

Many nations will insist on a specially built command center, probably hidden in a remote area from the public. This command center will require even more information retrieving satellites to operate. The costs continue to rise for this program.

The command center will have to be placed under the control of one of the branches of the military, or a specific branch for missile control must be created.


E: Uses

Offensive laser satellites have many uses. From destroying an enemy’s missile silos and power stations, to illuminating enemy targets at night. It is up to the discretion of the controlling nation to decide the use.

Lasers may be used to disrupt light sensitive electronic equipment.


F: Limitations

A laser, to be effective as a weapon, must have it’s energy absorbed by the target. If the target is made of a heat dispersing, or heat repellant metal, it will not be useful.

The laser must not be used to blind enemy soldiers. Although this is possible in Real Life, it is an especially cheap and honor-less tactic, and should be considered along the lines of a nuclear weapon, because it does not distinguish between friend, foe, and civilian. Both Role-players must agree upon the use of such a tactic.

These satellites are not usually able to penetrate thick cloud cover, or a particularly moist patch of air.




2: Defensive Space Based Laser Satellites

Defensive Space Based Laser Satellites are the highest quality of all defenses against missiles and planes, before shields may be created. They operate among similar lines as an offensive satellite, only they are created for the sole purpose of defending the homeland.

Many people think that a defensive satellite would be in a Geosynchronous orbit over the defending position, this is a misconception. The satellite would attain a Low Earth Orbit, with a footprint over troubled areas.

A: Research

Modern tech nations should begin preparations for space-based defenses from the moment they can launch satellites in orbit. The research for these devices ranges in three categories. Launch Vehicles that will bring the satellite or the pieces of said satellite into orbit. Platforms that will safely contain the laser, giving enough space for the device, but protecting it from the debris that rushes around earth at 7 Kilometers per second, and Laser technology itself, which must have an efficiency of about 30%+ in the amount of energy absorbed by materials.

The materials the laser should be specifically designed to destroy are Steel and Aluminum. Targets are commonly made of this, but for safety, the laser should also be able to destroy Titanium.

Costs for the research for such devices, range in the billions. A simple calculation for this research is the following…
OSBLS Development Cost = X kg * $100,000/kg + [.1(X * $100,000/kg)]
X = Weight of Satellite
700,000 KG is a base weight for a laser satellite, which will easily cost $77,000,000,000 for a relatively inefficient (30% Efficiency), small satellite program.
For every 1% of efficiency, you must add 10,000 kg to the total weight of the satellite, effectively adding $1,100,000,000 per % of efficiency.

The cost may be great, but a space based laser program is an extremely effective, and deterring defense against enemy planes and missiles.


B: Construction

After Research, the costs are already high, but the satellite then has to be built. To cover a sufficient amount of the planet, the nation must put up a minimum of 50 satellites, each satellite having a sufficient size footprint, and the processing power to assess two risks at a time.

Construction for a satellite will be highly variable, and creating an equation for this is not feasible, however, a base price per satellite is $50,000,000.

The satellite’s cost will rise along with the percentage of efficiency of the laser itself, because the satellite’s construction, both material and quality, must be higher. A simple way to figure the rising cost is the following.
$50,000,000 Base with an efficiency of 30%
$1,000,000 per %


C: Launch

Launching a military satellite is no small feat. Light Weight satellites may be launched in one piece, but this is expensive, and larger satellites may be launched in pieces, this is even more expensive.

The nation must have invested in a large launch vehicle, along the lines of the Saturn V Rocket, or be hiring another nation to launch the satellite for it, in order for their satellites to reach a low earth orbit (LEO).

An easy equation to find the launch cost is:
X kg * $5,650/kg


D: Control

Controlling a satellite is not an easy process. It must have a very efficient command input system; a special communication satellite array is especially adept in this, to effectively take targets before they leave the range of the satellite.

Many nations will insist on a specially built command center, probably hidden in a remote area from the public. This command center will require even more information retrieving satellites to operate. The costs continue to rise for this program.

The command center will have to be placed under the control of one of the branches of the military, or a specific branch for missile control must be created, a model of this is NORAD.

E: Uses

Defensive satellites are used to destroy incoming missiles and planes. Missiles are taken out in their Boost phase, before they have left their own country. They are heated by the laser until it’s liquid engines rupture, causing the chemicals to mix, creating a chain reaction. Fire in the sky.

Destroying enemy planes is easier, as the beam has more time to hit the target. If the plane is flying at an extremely high height, extreme depressurization may occur, if the fuel reserves were not hit.

F: Limitations

These satellites are not usually able to penetrate thick cloud cover, or a particularly moist patch of air.

A laser, to be effective as a weapon, must have its energy absorbed by the target. If the target is made of a heat dispersing, or heat repellant metal, it will not be useful.



3: Space Based Rail Gun

Rail guns in space are not feasible for Modern tech nations, and will only be briefly mentioned as a Semi Future Tech device.

A: Research

Research for a Space Based Rail Gun would be expensive, and unfeasible. With technology the way it is, the cannon would take up as much room as a small warehouse, and consume the power required of 2 nuclear reactors. Prices would be in hundreds of trillions of dollars, and there would be a huge possibility of damage via space debris.

Research in itself would cost approximately 500 Trillion. Research would not be complete for many years.

B: Construction

Construction would be in the hundreds of Trillions per station.

C: Limitations

If a modern tech nation is able to prove that he has completed the extremely expensive steps listed above, he may still find himself ignored.

The Rail cannon will probably only have a single shot before it is exhausted of power, and has to recharge.

Power Overloads are common.



4: Space Based Missile Platform

Space based missile platforms are basically missile silos, orbiting the earth. They would carry ballistic missiles that would be missing their boost stage, effectively creating a cost effective missile program.


A: Research

The station would be a bit larger than the International Space Station, not including solar panels, and would use much of the same technology. Since the missile takes no energy to fire, it does not require massive amount of energy to operate.

Research costs about $10,000,000,000 base price.

It takes about 10 years to finish research, but the rewards are great.


B: Construction

Because it is up to the nation to decide how many modules and silos go on the Station, there is no real set price. A reasonable range is about 20 – 40 Trillion for a 20 Silo Station.


C: Launch

Getting the station into a High Earth Orbit is the tricky part. It requires a heavy payload lifting craft, much like the Saturn V. And it would take a further few years to complete, all under the scrutiny of the international community.

Launch costs are: X kg * $5,650/kg


D: Control

The station would be manned, creating a fail safe should communication be jammed with the station. Upon confirmation of an order, the station commander will order the strike with the missiles. It is the operating nation’s responsibility should the crew mutiny, and action may be taken against a captured station.

Self destruct should be only available to the leader of the country, and the station commander.


E: Use

The Station would create a viable way to launch missiles onto an enemy, while eliminating the boost phase, which leaves the missile open to interception via anti-missile missile, or laser.

The Station would also be a proving ground, for the time when the nation begins to strive for higher levels of technologies, such as interplanetary travel. Or anything else considered Future, or Semi Future.

F: Limitations

The station is open to interception via anti satellite missile.

Station may be taken by hostile forces.


This guide was created by Siesatia, and is open to interpretation. It is flexible, and freeform, just like the Nationstates system. It is meant to clear up the confusion towards modern tech space technologies.

tag: nice work!

Thanks

Good guide(*tags*).
Anyway,
I found this site awhile back (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3x.html); it has some more weapon systems that could be used for NS purposes.

OOC:Space based lasers can't even penetrate the Earth's atmosphere let alone cause any damage to ground targets. Such was the problem with that laser-armed 747 program that got dumped for that exact reason.

Nice.
However some of use have other uses for "space based weapons" systems.
Like dropping troops onto a ground target from orbit. (Who caresb if it wastes an expensive reentry vehicle?)

Still, tagger.

OOC:Space based lasers can't even penetrate the Earth's atmosphere let alone cause any damage to ground targets. Such was the problem with that laser-armed 747 program that got dumped for that exact reason.

Wrong on both counts.

The Airborne Laser program is still active, and continually creeping toward sucess. Its problem is attaining the power needed to use the weapon.

Space based lasers can penetrate the earths atmosphere, it is just a matter of how much of it was disrupted in the water vapor. A spy plane or bomber flies at a high alititude to avoid anti aircraft missiles and sensors, at this altitude, it is extremely suseptable to laser attacks from space. ICBMs can be destroyed in the boost phase, either after launch, or during the ejection of its 1st stage booster engine.

Bump!

Tag! Good work.

Good, but...

"The laser must not be used to blind enemy soldiers. Although this is possible in Real Life, it is an especially cheap and honor-less tactic, and should be considered along the lines of a nuclear weapon, because it does not distinguish between friend, foe, and civilian. Both Role-players must agree upon the use of such a tactic."

Let me get this straight. You believe it is 'honorable' to bombard people from orbit, yet because of their 'dishonorable' tactics, blinding people is just as bad as nuking them?. Last time I checked, a class III laser pointer that can blind someone does not irradiate them, set them on fire, kill them, destroy their homes, or cause their skin to peel like a snake.

I guess RL China must be really bad to have Type 98s with laser blinders. So if they ever use them, we can nuke them.

Seriously... I don't see how a system that is used by Police for non-lethal engagement of suspects is equivalent to nuking them. And there is no such thing as honorable warfare, nor has any nation won a war with it.

You forgot one weapon I came up with... I call it 'Falling Star', think Kamikaze Sattelites loaded with TNT. Would work great against specific and large targets, such as Super-Dreadnoughts or Super-Carriers. It would also be effective against bunker complexes, although the TNT would have to have a delay timer(the kinetic energy of impact would propel them underground)

Good, but...

"The laser must not be used to blind enemy soldiers. Although this is possible in Real Life, it is an especially cheap and honor-less tactic, and should be considered along the lines of a nuclear weapon, because it does not distinguish between friend, foe, and civilian. Both Role-players must agree upon the use of such a tactic."

Let me get this straight. You believe it is 'honorable' to bombard people from orbit, yet because of their 'dishonorable' tactics, blinding people is just as bad as nuking them?. Last time I checked, a class III laser pointer that can blind someone does not irradiate them, set them on fire, kill them, destroy their homes, or cause their skin to peel like a snake.

I guess RL China must be really bad to have Type 98s with laser blinders. So if they ever use them, we can nuke them.

Seriously... I don't see how a system that is used by Police for non-lethal engagement of suspects is equivalent to nuking them. And there is no such thing as honorable warfare, nor has any nation won a war with it.

This weapon presents a similar tactic to,
OMG< I LASER YOUR MENZ EYEZ OUT< NOW WE GO KILL DEM!!!! IT NOT GODMOD!!!!! I WINZOR!!!
It is there to control that, just like we control nukes. Although the Science is RL, I am referring to NS Politics, therefor, your RL arguement means nothing in this situation.

And, just so you know, there is a Real Life treaty outlawing the use of lasers to purposely blind enemy troops.

You forgot one weapon I came up with... I call it 'Falling Star', think Kamikaze Sattelites loaded with TNT. Would work great against specific and large targets, such as Super-Dreadnoughts or Super-Carriers. It would also be effective against bunker complexes, although the TNT would have to have a delay timer(the kinetic energy of impact would propel them underground)

Frankly, I would prefer using just a plain old missile to do that job, instead of using so much money on a thing that will travel at the exact same speed to the target. You see, when falling, they both reach terminal velocity, and will hit at the exact same force.

and Laser technology itself, which must have an efficiency of about 30%+ in the amount of energy absorbed by materials.What exactly do you mean by this? If I interpret this right (Energy of the laser absorbed by the target), this is kinda pointless... What reaches a suitable target (See below) is absorbed.

The materials the laser should be specifically designed to destroy are Steel and Aluminum. Targets are commonly made of this, but for safety, the laser should also be able to destroy Titanium.Uhhh. AFAIK, the damage a laser does is depending on various material coefficients (Melting point, heat of fusion, thermal conductivity etc.). But so long as the target material absorbs electromagnetic radiation of the laser's wavelength (Which is to say, you can't see through it), energy is absorbed, and damage is done. No need for specialisation.

Costs for the research for such devices, range in the billions. A simple calculation for this research is the following…
OSBLS Development Cost = X kg * $100,000/kg + [.1(X * $100,000/kg)]
X = Weight of Satellite
700,000 KG is a base weight for a laser satellite, which will easily cost $77,000,000,000 for a relatively inefficient (30% Efficiency), small satellite program.
For every 1% of efficiency, you must add 10,000 kg to the total weight of the satellite, effectively adding $1,100,000,000 per % of efficiency.You base this on... What?

Chemicals, such as Hydrogen Fluoride could be used to increase the weapons effectiveness in less than favorable weather, such as overcast or fog.Seeing as lasers are, well... Beams of photons... How exactly does this work?

The cost may be great, but a space based laser program is an extremely effective, and deterring weapon.I doubt this, but I will come back to it at 'uses'.

After Research, the costs are already high, but the satellite then has to be built. To cover a sufficient amount of the planet, the nation must put up a minimum of 30 satellites, each satellite having a sufficient size footprint, and the processing power to assess two risks at a time.This wouldn't be enough for the real world. You're dealing with NS.

Construction for a satellite will be highly variable, and creating an equation for this is not feasible, however, a base price per satellite is $50,000,000.

The satellite’s cost will rise along with the percentage of efficiency of the laser itself, because the satellite’s construction, both material and quality, must be higher. A simple way to figure the rising cost is the following.
$50,000,000 Base with an efficiency of 30%
$1,000,000 per %Again, you base this on... What?

Offensive laser satellites have many uses. From destroying an enemy’s missile silos and power stations, to illuminating enemy targets at night. It is up to the discretion of the controlling nation to decide the use.Nope. The Raylight range (Distance over which a laser 'keeps together' before spreading out, again) is Pi W^2/ wavelength, with W = D(iameter aperture)/ (cubic root 2). The wavelength of visible light is roughly between 10^-7 and 10^-6 meters. To achive sufficient range (And by that I mean a range above the Raylight Range, where the brightness of the beam is still sufficient to achive damage (Farfield)) and damage, you need excessively huge apertures and a powersource to allow for sufficient beam energy (Short of fusion (Decidedly post-modern) and blowing up the satellite with a nuke in order to create a microsecond pulse before the satellite is vaporised, I can't think of anything to provide the necessary energy).

Which makes the project, as a whole, unfeasible. Even for NS nations.

Aside from that, there is the targeting problem. First of all, lasers aren't all weather. Not only do clouds, rain and the likes fuck them up (As you mentioned), but thermal blooming (Heating the atmosphere) results in the supposedly pointpoint accuracy ending up barely, if at all, reaching the accuracy of a kinetic projectile.

A laser, to be effective as a weapon, must have it’s energy absorbed by the target. If the target is made of a heat dispersing, or heat repellant metal, it will not be useful.For once, something positive: A pulse length of, say, below a second (IIRC, 1/1000000 of a second is easily possible) manages it with pretty much every material.

Now, since the next points have already been addressed...

Defensive satellites are used to destroy incoming missiles and planes. Missiles are taken out in their Boost phase, before they have left their own country. They are heated by the laser until it’s liquid engines rupture, causing the chemicals to mix, creating a chain reaction. Fire in the sky.

Destroying enemy planes is easier, as the beam has more time to hit the target. If the plane is flying at an extremely high height, extreme depressurization may occur, if the fuel reserves were not hit.
Planes are kinda hard to do (See above. Range/ Energy/ accuracy limitations), so they are harder to kill from orbit. An ICBM outside the atmosphere, while doubtlessly being fast, has a defined flightpath (It is, after all, ballistic), and easier to kill. Also, until you're pouring excessive amounts of energy in (Amounts you don't have), you wont explode their engines. You might fry their electronics, thus prevent detonation/ proper reentry, though.

Research for a Space Based Rail Gun would be expensive, and unfeasible. With technology the way it is, the cannon would take up as much room as a small warehouse, and consume the power required of 2 nuclear reactors. Prices would be in hundreds of trillions of dollars, and there would be a huge possibility of damage via space debris.I might note that I find it amusing that you're recognising energy resource problems with railguns, but not with lasers, though... A railgun would achive vastly more damage with less energy requirements than an orbital laser (I was given to understand that the energy efficiency of a laser would be in the... 5%, if you#re lucky. Railguns should manage over 50%).

Just, well, the rails would be destroyed with the first shot, but meh.

Construction would be in the hundreds of Trillions per station.Unlikely. Try the costs of the ISS, times 10 or something.

The Station would create a viable way to launch missiles onto an enemy, while eliminating the boost phase, which leaves the missile open to interception via anti-missile missile, or laser.So does dropping it back to earth...

This guide was created by Siesatia, and is open to interpretation. It is flexible, and freeform, just like the Nationstates system.It most certainly isn't, seeing as you're giving defined costs and other such things... You might have intended it to be, but for that, you used the wrong language.

That depends on the type of missile your talking about. If you mean a cruise or regular missile, then no, they wont hit with the same force. A ballistic missile would come down with the same speed and force. But they will probably cause your oppenents to go ballistic(pun not intended) and launch nukes at you(its kinda hard to tell the difference between a non-nuclear and nuclear missile). A sattelite is also heavier than a ballistic missile, (especially when filled with TNT) meaning that the kinetic impact would be greater. And if its a secret your enemies wont know whose sattelite it is until it is to late!

1: The energy absorbtion is a good thing weaponwise, the laser causes the metal to heat up to the melting point, the more is absorbed, the more damage is done, and the faster the effect.

2: Certain materials are more resistant to specific wavelengths, and absorb less of the energy than other materials.

3: Figures from William A. Possel, and William C. Martel, experts in the field. I believe Possel has a paper on the web, I havnt looked at it yet, but plan to.

4: The HF laser uses atomic fluorine and molecular hydrogen to produce excited hydrogen fluorine molecules producing several simultaneous wavelengths in the range of 2.7 - 2.9 microns.

5:The cost is great, in the order of trillions or so... and if you knew your enemy could shoot down any missile, or high flying bomber you sent at him, you might think twice before attacking him with either. Hence, Deterence.

6: actually, if you were to make 8 seperate orbits, with 4 sattalites evenly spaced, you could easily cover the entire world, even the oceans with a footprint. Only 32 satellites.
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y4/Siesatia/OrbitPath.bmp

7: See 3

8:Which is one of the reasons I am working on an addition to solve this problem. You have to remember, if I could solve that problem, we wouldnt be worrying about an enemy missile strike would we? Its feasable for a Real Life nation, expensive, and for the first few years, unrealiable, yes. Unfeasable, no.

9: n/a

10:Actually, a plane is easier. A plane is traveling at loads slower speeds than a missile, and thus, more lockon time. Also, many military and spy planes are carrying excessive loads of explosives, for military planes, they are bombs and missiles, for spy planes, it is an excessive ammount of fuel.

11: Railguns require exessive ammounts of energy, however, my main point is, that the railgun would require a massive sattalite to contain and protect the devices inside from solar contamination, and strike from debris. Also, the railgun shot has an actual mass, it would obviously have more efficiency than a laser, as it is excellerated, and its power comes from the kinetic energy.
Also, damage occurs from the ammount of energy absorbed, the more wavelengths the laser occupies, the more energy will be absorbed, hence more damage. I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

12:Constructing a massive sattelite in orbit, that is along the size of a large warehouse, would be extremely expensive, it could very well reach a couple hundred trillion dollars.

13: And that would solve... what? This is an orbital launch platform, would you ram a perfectly good Aircraft carrier into a battleship, when you could even easier launch fighters at it?

14: The guide is fairly flexible, the prices, are not set in stone, they are what it would take for a country like the United States, with current technology, to build with. I defined costs, because otherwise people would be claiming they researched and built them for a couple dollars. If you want to build one for cheaper, fine, go ahead, but it probobly wont be as effective at one another built, and spent more on design and construction.

That depends on the type of missile your talking about. If you mean a cruise or regular missile, then no, they wont hit with the same force. A ballistic missile would come down with the same speed and force. But they will probably cause your oppenents to go ballistic(pun not intended) and launch nukes at you(its kinda hard to tell the difference between a non-nuclear and nuclear missile). A sattelite is also heavier than a ballistic missile, (especially when filled with TNT) meaning that the kinetic impact would be greater. And if its a secret your enemies wont know whose sattelite it is until it is to late!

A satellite does not nescisarily weigh more, much of a satellites size comes from its solar panels.

Also, why would you load a satellite with TNT in the first place? Why not use Semtex, or even a nuclear device?

I'd just like to point out that no matter what type of stuff you put on your tanks, a powerful enough laser will still be able to burn through. All you can do is migitate the effects somewhat-- and rest assured, any laser powerful enough to hit a ground target from orbit is unlikely to be seriously impeded by a mirror.

1: The energy absorbtion is a good thing weaponwise, the laser causes the metal to heat up to the melting point, the more is absorbed, the more damage is done, and the faster the effect.

2: Certain materials are more resistant to specific wavelengths, and absorb less of the energy than other materials.Technically true, bu for all practical purposes, target thickness should result in (almost) full absorbation, simply because there are more than enough atoms in the way.

3: Figures from William A. Possel, and William C. Martel, experts in the field. I believe Possel has a paper on the web, I havnt looked at it yet, but plan to.Ah, good, this settles that, then. For the next time, I would suggest mentioning the source, though, to prevent confusion. More often than not, people just pull numbers out of their ass, so one might get the wrong impression.

4: The HF laser uses atomic fluorine and molecular hydrogen to produce excited hydrogen fluorine molecules producing several simultaneous wavelengths in the range of 2.7 - 2.9 microns.So *just* a source material for the beam. Sorry, but it *really* sounded as if you fired the molecules. I suspect that this particular wavelengths propagate somewhat etter through... Obstacles like clouds than others, yes?

5:The cost is great, in the order of trillions or so... and if you knew your enemy could shoot down any missile, or high flying bomber you sent at him, you might think twice before attacking him with either. Hence, Deterence.I didn't really doubt the costs, but the efficienc/ deterrence effect... The problem is that in NS with its many nations of comparatively equal capacities, you will have to assume that your opponent has the same defence capacities. And this triggers the development of orbit to orbit weapons, thus removing deterrence and replacing it with an almost Douhetian strategy of 'Kill their sats first'.

6: actually, if you were to make 8 seperate orbits, with 4 sattalites evenly spaced, you could easily cover the entire world, even the oceans with a footprint. Only 32 satellites.Covering the, uh... geographgy, yes. Your problem is that you're not dealing with a few dozen missiles/ bombers. You're dealing with tens of thousand of them, for every nation.

And for that, you need more.

8:Which is one of the reasons I am working on an addition to solve this problem. You have to remember, if I could solve that problem, we wouldnt be worrying about an enemy missile strike would we? Its feasable for a Real Life nation, expensive, and for the first few years, unrealiable, yes. Unfeasable, no.To ask more explicitly... What is your energy source to achive this? So onyl option I can think of with modern technology capacities are, well, nukes (This increasing the necessary amount of satellites to a few thousand), Edward Teller style. So it is unfeasible. And indeed, if we cannot theoretically (I.e. we know how, it is just too expensive) solve the problem IRL (And we can't), it simply doesn't work for 'modern'. You have to go post-modern.

Or single-use nuclear.

10:Actually, a plane is easier. A plane is traveling at loads slower speeds than a missile, and thus, more lockon time. Also, many military and spy planes are carrying excessive loads of explosives, for military planes, they are bombs and missiles, for spy planes, it is an excessive ammount of fuel.
Personally, I doubt it, but then, I don't have any explicit evidence, either, so you might be right. I shall leave it at that (I should note that you can calculate the flightpath of a ballistic projectile, though. And if you#re capable of shooting lasers into orbit, you really should have the necessary computing power to do it).

11: Railguns require exessive ammounts of energy, however, my main point is, that the railgun would require a massive sattalite to contain and protect the devices inside from solar contamination, and strike from debris. Also, the railgun shot has an actual mass, it would obviously have more efficiency than a laser, as it is excellerated, and its power comes from the kinetic energy.
Also, damage occurs from the ammount of energy absorbed, the more wavelengths the laser occupies, the more energy will be absorbed, hence more damage. I'm pretty sure you already knew that.1. Less than a laser.

2. So does the laser. Recoil's a problem, though, so the whole thing requires a fuckton of fuel to get into a proper orbit, again. Together with the time-on-target thing, that's pretty much the only two advantages the laser has...

3. Again, so does the laser.

4. Where did this come up? o.O But anyway, AFAIK, this is incorrect. One wavelength that is absorbed by the material in question should be enough, since it will be, well, absorbed. For exoatmospheric use, one would simply choose the shortest possible wavelength, due to range issues (And penetration issues, if you go down to ultraviolet/ X rays). For endoatmospheric use, one would choose a wavelength that doesn't ionise the air (Can be tricky.) Going multiple wavelengths... I don't see the point, but then, I'm not all-knowing (You have a link to this? It *is* new to me, so I wont immediately disregard it).

12:Constructing a massive sattelite in orbit, that is along the size of a large warehouse, would be extremely expensive, it could very well reach a couple hundred trillion dollars.personally, I doubt it. But then, i am indeed lacking moe detailed knowledge in this regard. Still, I would think it should be in the price range of the laser, since both need pretty much the same precautions. Just, the railgun would be a simpler construction than the laser (Although it might need vastly more maintenance, thus balancing this).

13: And that would solve... what? This is an orbital launch platform, would you ram a perfectly good Aircraft carrier into a battleship, when you could even easier launch fighters at it?Grave misunderstanding. I meant the missiles, which would be vulnerable upon reentry just as they are in the boost phase.

14: The guide is fairly flexible, the prices, are not set in stone, they are what it would take for a country like the United States, with current technology, to build with. I defined costs, because otherwise people would be claiming they researched and built them for a couple dollars. If you want to build one for cheaper, fine, go ahead, but it probobly wont be as effective at one another built, and spent more on design and construction.I did actually mean the language you used, which results in the entire post sounding pretty much like a commandment. It doesn't sound flexible.

I'd just like to point out that no matter what type of stuff you put on your tanks, a powerful enough laser will still be able to burn through. All you can do is migitate the effects somewhat-- and rest assured, any laser powerful enough to hit a ground target from orbit is unlikely to be seriously impeded by a mirror.Doublepost, rawr!

Ahem. Anyway. Seeing as a laser needs some time to burn through a tank, and seeing as the energy requirements are ludicrous (You don't have your personal nuclear power plant with you, do you?), I would suggest common projectiles... Lasers are not a good weapon for 'normal' warfare. You might get acceptable results without spending the energy of entire powerplants on them when you try to shoot at 'thin' targets (Missiles, planes, see MTHEL), but a tank? The armour's a problem...

(And it is equally sucky for anti- infantry use, since the wounds you receive from a laser are comparatively minor, when compared to the effects of 7.62mm or 5.56mm ammunition)

Doublepost, rawr!

Ahem. Anyway. Seeing as a laser needs some time to burn through a tank, and seeing as the energy requirements are ludicrous (You don't have your personal nuclear power plant with you, do you?), I would suggest common projectiles... Lasers are not a good weapon for 'normal' warfare. You might get acceptable results without spending the energy of entire powerplants on them when you try to shoot at 'thin' targets (Missiles, planes, see MTHEL), but a tank? The armour's a problem...

(And it is equally sucky for ant- infantry use, since the wounds you receive froma laser are comparatively minor, when compared to the effects of 7.62mm or 5.56mm ammunition)

Not to mention the rather unpleasent effects the atmosphere has on lasers... and the fact that when the laser hits the tank, it will vaporize the top layer of armour, creating a cloud ot metalic particles that act remarkably like an anti-laser aerosol

As for space based weaponry, lasers fired from space simply don't have the energy to affect targets in the thicker portions of the atmosphere. Airplanes do not make good targets because the atmosphere sheilds them from the laser's effects... on the ohter hand, if the laser is powerfull enough, you might be able to ionize the air around the aircraft and cause electrical damage.

For iusing lasers againstICBMs, you really want to catch them in the boost phase, not so much because of the difficulties of damaging the target (though you really do want to hit the fuel tank so the thermal shock will chop through the tank) but because once they are in space, the missiles will begin deploying decoys... and since all of them are traveling ballistically on simiar courses and non are actively radiating... you'll have a terrible time determining which ones are real. Considering my former country had 1000 ICBMs, each with 8 independantly targetted warheads and 20 decoys, you're looking at 28000 targets... and I wasn't particularly large, by NS standards. And that, my friends, is the real problem with ABM systems. Simply too easy to saturate.

Railguns, meh, they have their uses. IMHO, their use is not for popping nuclear missiles... simply takes too miuch effort to get them into space in the first place.

Hate to tell you this, Jack, but railguns are a staple weapon in NS to MT, so the "space based is unfeasable to MT nations" is inaccurate. We could show sites which state that railguns have existed at least since the 80's, possibly the 50's, but that's irrelevant to NS.

You're also considering throwing a HUGE rock at someone. Feh. We have the equivalent of slingers in space, using railguns. Remember the equation

KE = (1/2)m*v^2

I'm not shooting at a tank - I'm shooting at a satellite. An unarmored, very fragile, satellite. So throwing a 1 kilogram brick at mach 6 at a target (relatively easy) gives you

KE = 1/2 (1 kg) * (1989 m/s)(1989 m/s)

KE = 1,978,060.5 joules of impact energy.

One ton of TNT does 4,184,000 joules.

A hit by nearly the equivalent of half a ton of TNT will obliterate the satellite at best - at worst it will shatter portions and shove it out of orbit, forcing it to use up fuel to get back into position, if it can.

Further, the brick has no IR signature, no sensors to jam, is cheap ammo, and as you can see, very effective.

You might consider mach 6 excessive. Ok, how about mach 1? A brick can probably be accellerated in space to at least the speed of sound.

KE = 1/2 * (1 kg) * (331.5 m/s)(331.5 m/s) = 54,946 joules (1.3% of a ton of TNT, or about 2.6 kg TNT)

More then enough to do significant KE damage to the innards of a satellite through impact damage alone: realisticly, it should blow through it like a bullet through a glass window. Even an armored satellite has to deal with the impact, which will translate into a change in direction - which forces fuel usage.

11: Railguns require exessive ammounts of energy, however, my main point is, that the railgun would require a massive sattalite to contain and protect the devices inside from solar contamination, and strike from debris. Also, the railgun shot has an actual mass, it would obviously have more efficiency than a laser, as it is excellerated, and its power comes from the kinetic energy.
Also, damage occurs from the ammount of energy absorbed, the more wavelengths the laser occupies, the more energy will be absorbed, hence more damage. I'm pretty sure you already knew that.

a. Excessive energy? nope. Besides, ever hear of solar collectors?

b. "Massive satellite" - hardly. A touch more then a laser perhaps, but not that much more.

c. You have more ways to defend from a laser then a brick. Bricks are cheaper, can be retargeted easier, and require less maintenance then a laser. As you create a laser hit, you create its own "anti laser aerosol", in the form of molten debris.

Finally, a sheering hit by a laser does little to no damage. A sheering hit by a brick causes up to catastrophic damage.

A satellite does not nescisarily weigh more, much of a satellites size comes from its solar panels.

Also, why would you load a satellite with TNT in the first place? Why not use Semtex, or even a nuclear device?

If you're going to drop it - make it a rock. The KE damage will dwarf whatever you can add with explosives anyway.

If you're going to get close to another satellite and explode, the better explosive would be a nuclear device - though you'll note there isn't any EMP pulse from such an explosion (no atmosphere to generate it) and your range is less then a kilometer.

<railguns/ snip>In orbit, your rock will automatically have a rather nice velocity (between 4- 7km/s, I think, And I suggest not using 'Mach' in a space environment, since there is no 'mach' :P), so no problem there. For satellites, you would generally use smaller stuff, though. Think projectiles in the doubledigit grams.

Your problem is, of course, that targeting is quite complex (Since the projectiles follow an orbital flightpath, just as the target does), and it can take ages (Up to several minutes) to actually reach the target.

Furthermore, the type of kinetic damage changes a little at hypervelocities (Several km/s), but that is secondary, damage is damage.

And finally, you really don't need a railgun for this. You just pop it out of your carrier satellite.

Of course, you will have a tiny problem in so far as you're 'poisoning' earth orbit with lots of debris... But in NS, this is pretty much ignored, otherwise we would have a debriscloud making any and all satellites... Impossible, since they would be insta- shredded...

In orbit, your rock will automatically have a rather nice velocity (between 4- 7km/s, I think, And I suggest not using 'Mach' in a space environment, since there is no 'mach' :P), so no problem there. For satellites, you would generally use smaller stuff, though. Think projectiles in the doubledigit grams.

Your problem is, of course, that targeting is quite complex (Since the projectiles follow an orbital flightpath, just as the target does), and it can take ages (Up to several minutes) to actually reach the target.

Furthermore, the type of kinetic damage changes a little at hypervelocities (Several km/s), but that is secondary, damage is damage.

And finally, you really don't need a railgun for this. You just pop it out of your carrier satellite.

Of course, you will have a tiny problem in so far as you're 'poisoning' earth orbit with lots of debris... But in NS, this is pretty much ignored, otherwise we would have a debriscloud making any and all satellites... Impossible, since they would be insta- shredded...

We like our railguns on our orbiting platform, thank you. It's massive, can resist the recoil of the weapons, and makes for a lovely base of operations.

And if we want to use large rocks, lovely - actually, I did it because it makes the math easier, and I discounted that it's the relative velocity of both objects, not the velocity of the shell alone that causes the sum of damage: higher math in the morning gives me nightmares.

It also makes impact easier to use shotgun-shells full of small rocks rather then one big rock (shotgun pattern of impact spreads out the damage all over the satellite, instead of one location).

Yes, you could just accellerate and toss something "out the window", at which point it would continue on the same trajectory because of Newton's blah blah blah. However, assuming you don't want to move in that direction, railguns give an option.

...heck, if I could accellerate a cone of tin foil to 0.9 C I could put a hole in the Earth...

...heck, if I could accellerate a cone of tin foil to 0.9 C I could put a hole in the Earth...You couldn't, since it would vaporise upon contact with the atmosphere :P

It's massive, can resist the recoil of the weaponsDoubt it, seeing as only the bit of gravity remaining up there works against the thing moving out of position. So you will need to expend some fuel in order to keep position...

OR use a recoilless system.

Yes, you could just accellerate and toss something "out the window", at which point it would continue on the same trajectory because of Newton's blah blah blah. However, assuming you don't want to move in that direction, railguns give an option.No need to expend power on a railgun when you can just dump it out while either already being on the right flightpath or expending vastly less energy (A bit of reaction mass) to get it on target.

For a modern/ postmodern scenario, orbital railguns for missile defence sound like overkill. Well, they would have the advantage of a faster time on target... But still.

This weapon presents a similar tactic to,
OMG< I LASER YOUR MENZ EYEZ OUT< NOW WE GO KILL DEM!!!! IT NOT GODMOD!!!!! I WINZOR!!!
It is there to control that, just like we control nukes. Although the Science is RL, I am referring to NS Politics, therefor, your RL arguement means nothing in this situation.

And, just so you know, there is a Real Life treaty outlawing the use of lasers to purposely blind enemy troops.
You can't blind soldiers on the ground below using a space based laser, as a space based laser is by definition a top-down weapon. I also dispute the ability of any MT laser to penetrate the atmosphere and hit the earth's surface with sufficient power to cause any noticeable damage. I would greatly appreciate any figures you could give to back up your claims of this being MT at all.

This weapon presents a similar tactic to,
OMG< I LASER YOUR MENZ EYEZ OUT< NOW WE GO KILL DEM!!!! IT NOT GODMOD!!!!! I WINZOR!!!
It is there to control that, just like we control nukes. Although the Science is RL, I am referring to NS Politics, therefor, your RL arguement means nothing in this situation.

And, just so you know, there is a Real Life treaty outlawing the use of lasers to purposely blind enemy troops.
If China cared about said resolution, it wouldn't have put them on in the first place. There are a lot of RL treaties that people on NS don't, and shouldn't, follow. Such as not using deforming bullets.

However, the fact that using a laser blinder from space is a completely useless application is another thing.

Let's say there's an enemy division on the ground, about 8,000 men or so. And you have your 12 laser satellites. Now, if you wanted to blind them, you have to solve some targeting problems. Firstly, you need to actually be able to find the eye from several hundred/thousand kilometers in space. It's difficult enough to do this from two kilometers with a sniper scope. You'll need a huge camera to actually locate it. And even then, that's 12 guys. Does that matter? Not really. There would likely be more pressing matters for them, such as losing those same 12 guys much faster to something like artillery. And if your enemy is competent, before most of them are dead he'll be shooting every ASAT he has at those satellites. And that's assuming he doesn't have something like an auto-polarizing visor, which is designed to darken if a dangerous level of light is emitted.

I'm not going to be here today, will answer questions later.

A satellite does not nescisarily weigh more, much of a satellites size comes from its solar panels.

Also, why would you load a satellite with TNT in the first place? Why not use Semtex, or even a nuclear device?

Question, What is Semtex? Anyways a nuclear device IS a good idea(as a matter of fact thats what the original 'Falling Star' idea was going to be). But I find that if you want to fire some nukes... place them on nuclear missiles based on reloadable sattelites... that way you can use the sattelite again, and again, and again.

As for the sattelite does not weigh more... I am thinking about swapping the solar panels with explosive laced similar things. The sattelite would be proppeled over its target by boosters attached to its side, then used a booster attached to its back to throw it out of orbit and into the atmosphere, shielding similar to the what they use on the space shuttle would prevent it from burning up. From there on its a simple wait as the sattelite comes through the atmosphere at mach 15+

Errh... I may not know a damn thing about space stations, but I do know this:

My station grid is going to be horribly expensive, yet it is within MT bounds! You people put too much into this...

Errh...

(installs rail gun on the stations)

Now a real question, is this feasible:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403799

Note: Lasers don't actively destroy an object like a shell does. It gives the target the ammount of energy, and the heat causes flammable componets to spontaneously combust. Meaning, yeah your laser can have the power of 10 sticks of dynamite, but that don't mean jack if the enemy has a setup that can shrug off most of the heat (like an ultra-reflective surface on the missile). Also, you have to keep in mind that the laser also transfers energy to the atmosphere when it hits it. So, you can either track a target, and have to cut a path through the atmosphere constantly (lowering inflicted damage) or fire on a (relatively) stationary target, causing the air around the beam to heat up, distorting it, and lowering both accuracy and power. If you want to be accurate and ultra-powerful, HALO-esqe gauss cannons may be the best bet lol, although orbital shrapnel cannons can be pretty spectacular.

...heck, if I could accellerate a cone of tin foil to 0.9 C I could put a hole in the Earth...

You couldn't, since it would vaporise upon contact with the atmosphere :P


Actually, I could because all the energy inherent in the weapon would have to go somewhere - straight down would be easiest and the result would make Tunguska look like a mild breeze. "Vaporization" is irrelevant with that much power.


It's massive, can resist the recoil of the weapons

Doubt it, seeing as only the bit of gravity remaining up there works against the thing moving out of position. So you will need to expend some fuel in order to keep position...

Basic physics. Conservation of Momentum. However, the motion of the station already present is more then enough to cancel it out.


OR use a recoilless system.

No such animal in space, when you're talking about moving an object. You have to account for recoil.



Yes, you could just accellerate and toss something "out the window", at which point it would continue on the same trajectory because of Newton's blah blah blah. However, assuming you don't want to move in that direction, railguns give an option.

No need to expend power on a railgun when you can just dump it out while either already being on the right flightpath or expending vastly less energy (A bit of reaction mass) to get it on target.

For a modern/ postmodern scenario, orbital railguns for missile defence sound like overkill. Well, they would have the advantage of a faster time on target... But still.

Power from solar collectors (and other sources) is plentiful in space - power isn't a problem. As you have to take into account the motion of your own firing platform when firing, a railgun solves your problem. And neatly too.

Note: Lasers don't actively destroy an object like a shell does. It gives the target the ammount of energy, and the heat causes flammable componets to spontaneously combust. Meaning, yeah your laser can have the power of 10 sticks of dynamite, but that don't mean jack if the enemy has a setup that can shrug off most of the heat (like an ultra-reflective surface on the missile). Also, you have to keep in mind that the laser also transfers energy to the atmosphere when it hits it. So, you can either track a target, and have to cut a path through the atmosphere constantly (lowering inflicted damage) or fire on a (relatively) stationary target, causing the air around the beam to heat up, distorting it, and lowering both accuracy and power. If you want to be accurate and ultra-powerful, HALO-esqe gauss cannons may be the best bet lol, although orbital shrapnel cannons can be pretty spectacular.Depends entirely on the laser, really... It takes roughly 10 kilojoules over a minimal timeframe (Say, a second, so kilowatt) to vaporise a cubic centrimetre of... Most things. Give the laser the necessary energy density, and your target is pretty much DEAT.

Oh, and if you choose the correct wavelength (A wavelength not interacting with the molecules in the atmosphere), energy loss in an atmosphere is minimal.

And the thermal blooming effect can be countered by used somewhat complex pulse structures. Sort of burning a way through the atmosphere for the main beam.

Actually, I could because all the energy inherent in the weapon would have to go somewhere - straight down would be easiest and the result would make Tunguska look like a mild breeze. "Vaporization" is irrelevant with that much power.Tunguska had an impact. In your scenario, the energy would go into every direction, and the blast would occur in an altitude of... Between 50 and 500 kilometers, I guess.

And, well... For a 100 gram cone of tinfoil, at .9c, your KE is still only ~ 2.78 megatons. Damage over the distance in question would be... Mild.

Basic physics. Conservation of Momentum. However, the motion of the station already present is more then enough to cancel it out.Ummm... You have a motion and a defined orbit... You add energy... You have to compensate for it. Where am I going wrong?

No such animal in space, when you're talking about moving an object. You have to account for recoil.Pretty much the opposite of what you said before :P 'Sides, I mean something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle) (Suiting magnetic acceleration, not chemical propellants, of course). Of course, for all intends and purposes, simply using the battlestation's maneuvering thrusters would be vastly easier.

Power from solar collectors (and other sources) is plentiful in space - power isn't a problem. As you have to take into account the motion of your own firing platform when firing, a railgun solves your problem. And neatly too.Solar collectors are not sufficient to power a railgun (Or do you intend to have less firepower than you would have with conventional, chemical propellants?). 'cept you're going an actual modern tech approach (That is, you need to replace the rails for every new shot). The time you need to replace the rails, you should be able to collect enough power... But otherwise, quite simply, No.

Oh, and I don't really get your second point... So... Eh? What does it do that more conventional approaches (I.e. chemical propellants) can't do?

<snip>Why wouldn't it? Although I would point out that 1. neutron bombs are nuclear and 2. long range MIRVs is space are pointless, seeing as all you need is a bit of propellant to ensure that they enter the atmosphere where they are supposed to enter it... Accuracy might lack a little, but that's why they're MIRVs... Go with more on one target...

Actually, I could because all the energy inherent in the weapon would have to go somewhere - straight down would be easiest and the result would make Tunguska look like a mild breeze. "Vaporization" is irrelevant with that much power.

Tunguska had an impact. In your scenario, the energy would go into every direction, and the blast would occur in an altitude of... Between 50 and 500 kilometers, I guess.

Guess again.


And, well... For a 100 gram cone of tinfoil, at .9c, your KE is still only ~ 2.78 megatons. Damage over the distance in question would be... Mild.

Damage would include rocks the size of houses being moved, chief. Recheck your math, particularly where the impact would occur.




Basic physics. Conservation of Momentum. However, the motion of the station already present is more then enough to cancel it out.

Ummm... You have a motion and a defined orbit... You add energy... You have to compensate for it. Where am I going wrong?

You only have to compensate for it if the energy imparted is sufficient to cause a significant vector change. If not, there's no need to compensate. As this is a platform, not a satellite, it does not have to remain in place to be effective.




No such animal in space, when you're talking about moving an object. You have to account for recoil.

Pretty much the opposite of what you said before :P 'Sides, I mean something like this (Suiting magnetic acceleration, not chemical propellants, of course). Of course, for all intends and purposes, simply using the battlestation's maneuvering thrusters would be vastly easier.

Do show me where I said I don't have to account for recoil - I said the station is massive enough to discount a single shot by one of its railguns.

A "Recoilless Rifle" isn't btw. There is still recoil to be accounted for - usually by the weight of the firer, the resistance of the tripod, etc. All of this is against the weight of the planet, which effectively neutralizes the calculation. However, in space, you remove that part. You have to account for all the recoil.



Power from solar collectors (and other sources) is plentiful in space - power isn't a problem. As you have to take into account the motion of your own firing platform when firing, a railgun solves your problem. And neatly too.

Solar collectors are not sufficient to power a railgun (Or do you intend to have less firepower than you would have with conventional, chemical propellants?).

You are aware of all the power sources in space? Apparently not.



'cept you're going an actual modern tech approach (That is, you need to replace the rails for every new shot). The time you need to replace the rails, you should be able to collect enough power... But otherwise, quite simply, No.


You'll have to show why you need to replace after each shot - as there's too many who don't need to do so to make that have any sense. Again, we're talking NS MT - I doubt the US Army is going to show how its railgun can be repeatedly fired.



Oh, and I don't really get your second point... So... Eh? What does it do that more conventional approaches (I.e. chemical propellants) can't do?

Mass. And reusability.

Guess again.I dunno, could you provide something more than two words to back yourself up?

You know, like having actual arguments.

Damage would include rocks the size of houses being moved, chief. Recheck your math, particularly where the impact would occur.
See above. And no. 2.78 megatons would not be enough to do such damage over the distance in question.

You only have to compensate for it if the energy imparted is sufficient to cause a significant vector change. If not, there's no need to compensate. As this is a platform, not a satellite, it does not have to remain in place to be effective.'Tis is space. There is so little in the way of resistance, basically everything is sufficient to cause said significant change.

And the annoying retargeting process is a fairly good reason to stay in place.

You are aware of all the power sources in space? Apparently not.Give me examples. The ideal case would be examples that don't weight as much as, say, a nuclear reactor.

You'll have to show why you need to replace after each shot - as there's too many who don't need to do so to make that have any sense. Again, we're talking NS MT - I doubt the US Army is going to show how its railgun can be repeatedly fired.Definition of modern tech: Within the technological capacities of nations actually existing in this time and place. Everything else is postmodern.

And arguing that information is not available is not acceptable, either. I recall someone arguing that death rays crossing the earth were build ~ 1900, it's just that the knowledge was lost. Needless to say, the argument is not acceptable. I will grant you that we are highly unlikely to know everything that is actually possible. Unfortunately, we do not know what is bullshit and what isn't. And seeing as (almost) everything we don't know about is rather clearly not cheap/ effective enough to be used as standard, the argument stands.

So either you can provide a definite example of a railgun not suffering from 'magnetic bursting forces warping the rails' (You know, for example in a link to an actually existing gun), or modern tech doesn't have reusable railguns.

Mass. And reusability.Conventional guns weight less and can be reused (Unlike the railgun). So... That's two times in their favour.

the thermal blooming effect can be countered by used somewhat complex pulse structures. Sort of burning a way through the atmosphere for the main beam

Ah. That's interesting.

Semtex is a general-purpose plastic explosive. First made by the Semtin Glassworks in the former Czechoslovakia. Used in commercial blasting and demolition and in certain military applications. Its notoriety is due to its popularity with terrorists because it was, until recently, extremely difficult to detect, easily obtained, and as little as 250 g could down an airliner (312 g in the case of Pan Am flight 103).

BTW, I added this thread to my Emporium of Helpful Threads.

And the thermal blooming effect can be countered by used somewhat complex pulse structures. Sort of burning a way through the atmosphere for the main beam.

I thought of that, from what I heard, the 'burning through the atmosphere' creates ozone or some such similar chemical, which further disrupts the weapon, and by the time it has cleared, the hole has patched.

I thought of that, from what I heard, the 'burning through the atmosphere' creates ozone or some such similar chemical, which further disrupts the weapon, and by the time it has cleared, the hole has patched.IIRC, for the timeframes in question, the expanding air clears the path, a little.

Although yes, ozone should be created... Hummm... Might have to reread, could be that this only worked for particle weapons (Read: Atomic laser. Of sorts).

So I wont bet on it. Not yet, anyway.

*Claps at Rezo/Der Angst's arguementive abilities*

I have to admit, I'm much more prepared to listen to the man prepared to provide examples for his arguement then the man who simply states "You are wrong!" and leave it at that.

Siesatia, you're doing pretty good at defending your case though, so partial credit. However I agree that given that power requirements for the kind of lasers we are talking about most people agree that you need a single use nuclear weapon to produce the effect your looking for in a modern technology situation.

Personally I would rather that people claiming "modern technology" would stick to technology which is actually available today and not "theoretically" possible today as it just results in a ton of post modern crap like scramjet bullets being claimed as MT.

Not that it matters to me, most of my nations are Post Modern technology for reasons of simplicity (less arguements about viability if you admit your nation is a little advanced). When RPing with modern technology nations with an advanced nation, you keep it simple.

Anyways, for my favorite thread on space physics and modern technology conciderations is this one by TEO (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278778), who by the way, rules.

Well, at least it's popular... BUMP!

Pandora's Box is automated and controlled from Ground Control cause it was cheaper to build that way. And if it is attacked, no one will die.

tag

I didn't see it while skimming through the replies so I'll throw this in the mix:

For your satellite coverage you only really need one SBL. The USAF has been researching relay mirror satellites for quite some time so you only need one SBL and then (I think someone said 32) how ever many relay mirrors you need to cover the earth.

Another idea to throw in the mix:

I've heard of the AF working on what's called the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL). I beleive they plan on attaching it to jet fighters and possibly tanks and helicopters. I don't know what its CW power is supposed to be (def. less than ABL) but does anyone think it would be possible to use it as a satellite killer (provided clear skies)?

I didn't see it while skimming through the replies so I'll throw this in the mix:

For your satellite coverage you only really need one SBL. The USAF has been researching relay mirror satellites for quite some time so you only need one SBL and then (I think someone said 32) how ever many relay mirrors you need to cover the earth.

Another idea to throw in the mix:

I've heard of the AF working on what's called the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL). I beleive they plan on attaching it to jet fighters and possibly tanks and helicopters. I don't know what its CW power is supposed to be (def. less than ABL) but does anyone think it would be possible to use it as a satellite killer (provided clear skies)?
It could. At least in theory. Also, with lasers, you probably wouldn't have to worry about if the skies are clear since they go through pretty much anything.

Also, with lasers, you probably wouldn't have to worry about if the skies are clear since they go through pretty much anything.

Actually, clouds will attenuate the laser power. I've done some laser glass design work and you cannot use glasses with very much water content since the glass will absorb the laser energy at laser weapon wavelengths (1310 nm.)

And I thought this thread was dead...

I've heard of the AF working on what's called the Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL). I beleive they plan on attaching it to jet fighters and possibly tanks and helicopters. I don't know what its CW power is supposed to be (def. less than ABL) but does anyone think it would be possible to use it as a satellite killer (provided clear skies)?

It wouldn't be on a heli, heli's are pressed for weight as it is, the impact of putting a full laser system on one would be catastrophic. Even a single burn system, besides being non cost effective, would weigh a literal ton. This same theory applies to Jets.

Actually, clouds will attenuate the laser power. I've done some laser glass design work and you cannot use glasses with very much water content since the glass will absorb the laser energy at laser weapon wavelengths (1310 nm.)
In that case, lasers aren't very practical as weapons are they?

It wouldn't be on a heli, heli's are pressed for weight as it is, the impact of putting a full laser system on one would be catastrophic. Even a single burn system, besides being non cost effective, would weigh a literal ton. This same theory applies to Jets.

OK, yup, you're correct. ATL is a chemical laser like ABL.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020305-laser01.htm

The fighter and heli lasers would require much lighter weapons (obviously). Most likely they will be solid state lasers or free electron lasers. I've heard that the naval research labs have made major power breakthroughs within the past year. Here it is:

http://www.onr.navy.mil/media/article.asp?ID=72

In that case, lasers aren't very practical as weapons are they?

Check out my second link in my last post. The FEL is tunable so I think it's possible to get around some of the absorption issues. Plus it's a young field so there's plenty engineers can still do and more for scientists to discover.

Is gigantic 24 point font really neccesary?

Is gigantic 24 point font really neccesary?

Yes... Yes it was!

I am a vivid fan of Games like striker and such and will place some help to making plane portable lasers

PPL (Plane Portable Lasers) are basically lasers mounted to an aircraft to attack enemy installations, while this is nothing fancy, the main part of interest is how they have some sort of mega cannon when a bomb is activated, basically the bomb is a generally combustable and violatile material used to increase power of lasers for a momentary period of time. Now when using this type of weapon you have to watch for the following

1) Distortion fields, Nothing messes a giant beam of death up worse then a distortion field, this little electromagnetic storm will create a counter reaction that well reduce your laser to nothing. How do they do that? Simple, when electrons and protons react with the disortion fields light magnetic waves the concentrated energy structure collaspes and the laser will be generally non existent.

2) Beam Coat, another property of science. The beam coat can be used on warships and land frigates to reduce damage towards energy weapons and sometimes be used to repair the tank by creating another chemical reaction

REAL SCIENCE! Not what is vaguely possible but we don't quite know how to do it yet! We don't have lasers powerful enough to obliterate buildings, or distortion fields... heck, its easier to stop a laser with a fan in the middle of a desert, so it blows sand in the way of the beam, thereby disrupting it. Problem solved for only 22 USD at your local wal mart.