Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday March 06 2015, @08:08AM   Printer-friendly
from the sharks-with-lasers dept.

Lockheed Martin’s [NYSE: LMT] 30-kilowatt fiber laser weapon system successfully disabled the engine of a small truck during a recent field test, demonstrating the rapidly evolving precision capability to protect military forces and critical infrastructure.

Known as ATHENA, for Advanced Test High Energy Asset, the ground-based prototype system burned through the engine manifold in a matter of seconds from more than a mile away. The truck was mounted on a test platform with its engine and drive train running to simulate an operationally-relevant test scenario.

The demonstration marked the first field testing of an integrated 30-kilowatt, single-mode fiber laser weapon system prototype. Through a technique called spectral beam combining, multiple fiber laser modules form a single, powerful, high-quality beam that provides greater efficiency and lethality than multiple individual 10-kilowatt lasers used in other systems.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/march/ssc-space-athena-laser.html

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Friday March 06 2015, @08:21AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 06 2015, @08:21AM (#153753) Journal

    The military industrial complex may be spending our billions to fight the world, but I'll be damned if this isn't cool.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf [fas.org]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday March 06 2015, @08:36AM

      by davester666 (155) on Friday March 06 2015, @08:36AM (#153758)

      Just wait until it is put into service by your local police department to help catch speeders...

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Friday March 06 2015, @02:27PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday March 06 2015, @02:27PM (#153834) Journal

      At work we have an IPG YLS 4000, a 4kW single mode fiber laser similar to the one in this article. So I have direct experience playing with these lasers.

      Inside the cabinet there are five laser diode modules each rated at 1kW. The idea is all five fire at 80% or a little more (actual maximum output is 4.4kW) so you never push the machine to its limits lengthening the diode life. Plus it provides redundancy if one modules dies, the others can be pushed to 100% and still maintain rated output minimizing down time. Each of those modules contains I think at least 10 laser diodes, if not more. They combine to a fiber connector on the front of the module in which a bayonet type fiber connector plugs in, identical to an ST network fiber connector (they look more like network modules at first glance). The back of those modules have power and cooling water connections to a backplane. The power to each of the diode modules comes from dual redundant power supply modules fed from the 480V mains. From there, all five of the fibers from the diode modules go into a combiner module which features a back reflection monitor, and a pointer diode which is nothing more than a small visible red laser diode for visual alignment of the beam to a joint or starting point (we weld with it). From that module a thicker yellow fiber emerges that runs to the side of the machine to what is called the splice box where that fiber is welded to the final output fiber which goes to a fiber switch or directly coupled to the process fiber. It also has a monitor which checks that fiber weld for failure. We have a 2 way fiber switch so the one laser can be time shared between two workstations though presently we have only a single workstation. They have switched for up to 6 or maybe even 8 workstations.

      Before this laser we used pulsed Nd:YAG lasers which have a maximum average power of 550W after a tune up with fresh flash lamps (my tuning record was 570W). We still use them but this laser is quite impressive. First off, it is 30%+ wall power efficient vs 2-3% on a good day for a pulsed YAG. The diodes last thousands of hours and are closely monitored by the lasers computer. The power output is scary. I am our in house automation guy so it was my job to hook it up. The machinist and I wanted to have a little fun so we took a 1/4 inch (6.35mm) steel plate and clamped it under the head. We started at low power and worked out way up. At 4kW the laser punches through that steel plate in under a second. Amazing amount of power in one spot. What really is impressive is the process fiber is 300 microns (~0.012 inches) thick. The other unused process fiber is 100 microns, the average thickness of a human hair. And those fibers can handle 10+kW. Its amazing how much power is pushed through such a small piece of glass. If it were a piece of wire it would be close to a 30AWG which can handle about .86 amps. At 30kW you would need about 34kV to get the equivalent amount of power.

      Our process lenses are at most 300mm focal length (I think there might be a 400 or 500mm lens option). Then again we don't have to weld across the building. At the IPG headquarters they have a demo robot that welds car body parts at distance of 2 meters. Pretty neat stuff.

      • (Score: 2) by slash2phar on Friday March 06 2015, @03:01PM

        by slash2phar (623) on Friday March 06 2015, @03:01PM (#153842)
        There should be a ++Informative
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @03:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @03:54PM (#153860)

          I disagree it should be ++'that is freeking cool'!

          • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday March 06 2015, @04:21PM

            by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday March 06 2015, @04:21PM (#153866) Journal

            It's funny but I never thought I could say I get to play with fricken lasers!

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by ticho on Friday March 06 2015, @07:35PM

              by ticho (89) on Friday March 06 2015, @07:35PM (#153910) Homepage Journal

              Have you considered buying a shark? For...umm, underwater welding. Yeah, that's it, underwater welding!

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by isostatic on Friday March 06 2015, @08:37AM

    by isostatic (365) on Friday March 06 2015, @08:37AM (#153760) Journal

    combining, multiple fiber laser modules form a single, powerful, high-quality beam that provides greater efficiency and lethality than multiple individual 10-kilowatt lasers used in other systems.

    A video of the test was released. [youtube.com]

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Friday March 06 2015, @08:55AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday March 06 2015, @08:55AM (#153765) Journal

      Yes, this did sound strangely familiar. Was there something that wasn't a moon, too?

      • (Score: 2) by ticho on Friday March 06 2015, @07:39PM

        by ticho (89) on Friday March 06 2015, @07:39PM (#153912) Homepage Journal

        Well, a truck is definitely not a moon. Death Star confirmed!

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday March 07 2015, @01:19AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday March 07 2015, @01:19AM (#154019) Journal

          No, the truck is Aldebaran, a planet. Though how you can disable a planet by burning a hole in its manifold is beyond me. The "not a moon" is that thing with the laser light coming out of it.

          • (Score: 2) by ticho on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:23AM

            by ticho (89) on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:23AM (#154398) Homepage Journal
            Hah, I'm not the only one who makes nerd mistakes! It's Alderaan, not Aldebaran [wikipedia.org]! :)
            • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday March 08 2015, @06:59PM

              by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday March 08 2015, @06:59PM (#154559) Journal

              Yeah, guilty as charged. But it would be much more impressive to destroy a Red Giant than some dinky planet or truck.

              • (Score: 2) by ticho on Monday March 09 2015, @08:33AM

                by ticho (89) on Monday March 09 2015, @08:33AM (#154791) Homepage Journal

                I think destroying a whole star system is more from Stargate bag of tricks.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:49AM (#153762)

    "to simulate an operationally-relevant test scenario" so how many trucks are standing still and being a threat, a mile a away? How can anyone think this has anything to do with a realistic scenario? It's a nice basic test, but the truck needs to be moving and most likely it will not even go a straight path, so test that and then tell me the results.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 06 2015, @09:04AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 06 2015, @09:04AM (#153766) Journal
      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 06 2015, @09:11AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 06 2015, @09:11AM (#153768) Journal

      ...31 meaning page 35 of the PDF, labeled page 31.

      Appendix A. Laser Power Levels Required to
      Counter Targets

      https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41526.pdf [fas.org]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @09:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @09:48AM (#153781)

        What? In other words, the 30KW laser is not useful at stopping moving trucks. Or is the table wrong and stopping even a stand still truck with 30KW laser is something new? Still i repeat my question: how is this "Operationally-relevant test scenario "? Stopping a moving truck is relevant, disabling a stand still truck is not useful in real life and as such is only an intermediate test result.

        I'm am not saying it's not a good test and i guess a good result, but the wording is not right imho.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday March 06 2015, @10:02AM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 06 2015, @10:02AM (#153785) Journal

          It was a test. There will be more tests. But it could probably stop a moving vehicle at a distance of a mile. It's not like the laser has to rotate very much if the target is moving 60 mph a mile away. They called it "operationally-relevant" because they wanted to see what would happen to a vehicle with the engine running, that's all. What's more, 30 KW is not the end:

          http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/lockheed-30kw-combat-blasts-truck-from.html [nextbigfuture.com]

          In early 2014, the US Army has awarded Lockheed Martin a $25 million contract to design, build and test a “weapons-grade” 60 kilowatt fiber laser system. Under a contract managed by the US Army Space and Missile Defense Command’s Technical Center, the fiber laser will be integrated on the High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) - essentially an Army truck adapted to carry the laser and its accompanying cooling system.

          The Army’s High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL MD) will improve to a 60 kw system late in 2016. Today's technology will enable fiber lasers to scale to 300 kw. Near term improvement to the underlying technology will enable well beyond 500 kw lasers.

          http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/us-could-ramp-up-miliary-lasers-by-ten.html [nextbigfuture.com]

          In three years the US military could have a prototype 300 kilowatt laser weapon. This would be ten times the power of the 30 kilowatt laser being tested on the USS Ponce. Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. of Breaking Defense reports this from a Lockheed engineer.

          Solid state slab lasers (being developed by the Navy and Northrop) should be able to scale to a total power of 300 kW. This will not require any technological breakthroughs. Supporters of slab SSLs such as Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD) believe they could eventually be scaled up further, to perhaps 600 kW. Slab SSLs are not generally viewed as easily scalable to megawatt power levels.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 4, Offtopic) by K_benzoate on Friday March 06 2015, @09:24AM

    by K_benzoate (5036) on Friday March 06 2015, @09:24AM (#153774)

    Lockheed Martin is the producer of the single most expensive weapon system of all time--the F-35 Lightning II [wikipedia.org]. This thing is the definition of pork. It is the absolute height of the military industrial complex. It is absurdly expensive. It is ineffective, even compared to the aircraft we currently produce. It is a camel; the horse designed by committee. It can't do any of the jobs it's designed to do well, because it was required to do too much simultaneously. It's horrible for air superiority because the the stubby small wings can't turn like a Mig or a Sukhoi. It can't go slow enough or loiter long enough to be effective at close-air-support, and it can't hold enough weapons. It's not fast enough to be an effective interceptor. It's supposed to replace all of our aircraft and do all of this.

    It doesn't do ANYTHING well.

    --
    Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @04:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @04:09PM (#153864)

      It can't do any of the jobs it's designed to do well
      No it is doing its job perfectly. Which is This thing is the definition of pork.

      Our military has a long history of these sorts of aircraft/vehicles/weapons. Designed in committee and cost a fortune to build and get the higher ups sweet gigs as contractors after being in office. Its kind of silly that most of our most effective aircraft frames are well over 30 years old in design. The f-15, a-10, b-52, f-18, c-130, etc. There are a few exceptions here and there (such as the Apache). But they are rare. They have basically gutted them out and freshened them up a bit with new tech.

      The f-35 was not really designed for the US to use (look how few they are buying). It was designed for them to sell to other countries on the back of the US taxpayer to develop. With sweet 5-10 year maintenance agreements per plane and parts for 30+ years. It was obvious from the outset that they picked the weaker aircraft. The other designs were much stronger.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:48AM (#154016)

      It is a camel; the horse designed by committee

      Before anyone goes bad-mouthing camels, let's remember that the raid on Aqaba never would have succeeded if they had used horses.
      That part was well dramatized in the flick Lawrence of Arabia [wikipedia.org]
      ...though they did take considerable license with other parts. [wikipedia.org]

      Additionally, Roald Amundsen returned from the pole with all the members of his expedition alive, in no small part because they had used dogs. [wikipedia.org]
      Robert Scott used horses. [google.com]
      Scott got there 5 weeks late and he and all the men in his party perished on the return trip. [wikipedia.org]

      Horses are overrated.

      -- gewg_

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday March 06 2015, @09:25AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday March 06 2015, @09:25AM (#153775) Journal

    Alright now combine this with the Utah datacenter and location based services. Add some algorithms that finds any disturbances to the feudal power brokers and let the laser gun "delete" those people.

    Otoh, I guess they have a prime target south of Turkey to practice on..

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by TLA on Friday March 06 2015, @09:25AM

    by TLA (5128) on Friday March 06 2015, @09:25AM (#153776) Journal

    ...on a test bed. It's a truck with guns that are firing back at the big fucking generator on the horizon. How resiliant is this laser weapon system? Can it withstand a ricochet from a .22LR?

    --
    Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Friday March 06 2015, @09:37AM

      by sjames (2882) on Friday March 06 2015, @09:37AM (#153777) Journal

      BALDRICK: I loved the training. All we had to do was bayonet sacks full of straw. Even I could do that. I remember saying to my mum, "These sacks will be easy to outwit in a battle situation."

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Gravis on Friday March 06 2015, @11:49AM

      by Gravis (4596) on Friday March 06 2015, @11:49AM (#153803)

      It's a truck with guns that are firing back at the big fucking generator on the horizon. How resiliant is this laser weapon system? Can it withstand a ricochet from a .22LR?

      the target was hit from a over a mile away and the beam is invisible without a gamma ray detector. yes, it's blasting gamma radiation at you.

      how do you think you will fair with your little gun when you burst into flames after a drone hits you from several miles away somewhere in the sky?

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by TLA on Friday March 06 2015, @01:57PM

        by TLA (5128) on Friday March 06 2015, @01:57PM (#153830) Journal

        my little gun'll be functional after an EMP is deployed - the ultimate foil for the electronic battlefield.

        Then you're fucked, ain't ya?

        --
        Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by tibman on Friday March 06 2015, @03:42PM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 06 2015, @03:42PM (#153856)

          Military equipment has been EMP shielded since the invention of atomic warfare : /

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 2) by TLA on Saturday March 07 2015, @07:17AM

            by TLA (5128) on Saturday March 07 2015, @07:17AM (#154059) Journal

            uh, really?

            From the FAS Nuclear Weapons Primer:

            Nuclear Weapon EMP Effects

            A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth�s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.
            The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400�500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.

            The EMP produced by the Compton electrons typically lasts for about 1 microsecond, and this signal is called HEMP. In addition to the prompt EMP, scattered gammas and inelastic gammas produced by weapon neutrons produce an �intermediate time� signal from about 1 microsecond to 1 second. The energetic debris entering the ionosphere produces ionization and heating of the E-region. In turn, this causes the geomagnetic field to �heave,� producing a �late-time� magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) EMP generally called a heave signal.

            Initially, the plasma from the weapon is slightly conducting; the geomagnetic field cannot penetrate this volume and is displaced as a result. This impulsive distortion of the geomagnetic field was observed worldwide in the case of the STARFISH test. To be sure, the size of the signal from this process is not large, but systems connected to long lines (e.g., power lines, telephone wires, and tracking wire antennas) are at risk because of the large size of the induced current. The additive effects of the MHD-EMP can cause damage to unprotected civilian and military systems that depend on or use long-line cables. Small, isolated, systems tend to be unaffected.
            Military systems must survive all aspects of the EMP, from the rapid spike of the early time events to the longer duration heave signal. One of the principal problems in assuring such survival is the lack of test data from actual high-altitude nuclear explosions. Only a few such experiments were carried out before the LTBT took effect, and at that time the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon of HEMP was relatively poor. No high-altitude tests have been conducted by the United States since 1963. In addition to the more familiar high-yield tests mentioned above, three small devices were exploded in the Van Allen belts as part of Project Argus. That experiment was intended to explore the methods by which electrons were trapped and traveled along magnetic field lines.

            The �acid test� of the response of modern military systems to EMP is their performance in simulators, particularly where a large number of components are involved. So many cables, pins, connectors, and devices are to be found in real hardware that computation of the progress of the EMP signal cannot be predicted, even conceptually, after the field enters a real system. System failures or upsets will depend upon the most intricate details of current paths and interior electrical connections, and one cannot analyze these beforehand. Threat-level field illumination from simulators combined with pulsed-current injection are used to evaluate the survivability of a real system against an HEMP threat.
            The technology to build simulators with risetimes on the order of 10 ns is well known. This risetime is, however, longer than that of a real HEMP signal. Since 1986 the United States has used a new EMP standard which requires waveforms at threat levels having risetimes under a few nanoseconds. Threat-level simulators provide the best technique for establishing the hardness of systems against early-time HEMP. They are, however, limited to finite volumes (aircraft, tanks, communications nodes) and cannot encompass an extended system. For these systems current injection must be used.
            HEMP can pose a serious threat to military systems when even a single high-altitude nuclear explosion occurs. In principle, even a new nuclear proliferator could execute such a strike. In practice, however, it seems unlikely that such a state would use one of its scarce warheads to inflict damage which must be considered secondary to the primary effects of blast, shock, and thermal pulse. Furthermore, a HEMP attack must use a relatively large warhead to be effective (perhaps on the order of one mega-ton), and new proliferators are unlikely to be able to construct such a device, much less make it small enough to be lofted to high altitude by a ballistic missile or space launcher. Finally, in a tactical situation such as was encountered in the Gulf War, an attack by Iraq against Coalition forces would have also been an attack by Iraq against its own communications, radar, missile, and power systems. EMP cannot be confined to only one �side� of the burst.

            Source Region Electro-magnetic Pulse [SREMP] is produced by low-altitude nuclear bursts. An effective net vertical electron current is formed by the asymmetric deposition of electrons in the atmosphere and the ground, and the formation and decay of this current emits a pulse of electromagnetic radiation in directions perpendicular to the current. The asymmetry from a low-altitude explosion occurs because some electrons emitted downward are trapped in the upper millimeter of the Earth�s surface while others, moving upward and outward, can travel long distances in the atmosphere, producing ionization and charge separation. A weaker asymmetry can exist for higher altitude explosions due to the density gradient of the atmosphere.
            Within the source region, peak electric fields greater than 10 5 V/m and peak magnetic fields greater than 4,000 A/m can exist. These are much larger than those from HEMP and pose a considerable threat to military or civilian systems in the affected region. The ground is also a conductor of electricity and provides a return path for electrons at the outer part of the deposition region toward the burst point. Positive ions, which travel shorter distances than electrons and at lower velocities, remain behind and recombine with the electrons returning through the ground. Thus, strong magnetic fields are produced in the region of ground zero. When the nuclear detonation occurs near to the ground, the SREMP target may not be located in the electromagnetic far field but may instead lie within the electro-magnetic induction region. In this regime the electric and magnetic fields of the radiation are no longer perpendicular to one another, and many of the analytic tools with which we understand EM coupling in the simple plane-wave case no longer apply. The radiated EM field falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the deposition region (near to the currents the EMP does not appear to come from a point source).
            As a result, the region where the greatest damage can be produced is from about 3 to 8 km from ground zero. In this same region structures housing electrical equipment are also likely to be severely damaged by blast and shock. According to the third edition of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, by S. Glasstone and P. Dolan, �the threat to electrical and electronic systems from a surface-burst EMP may extend as far as the distance at which the peak overpressure from a 1-megaton burst is 2 pounds per square inch.�

            One of the unique features of SREMP is the high late-time voltage which can be produced on long lines in the first 0.1 second. This stress can produce large late-time currents on the exterior shields of systems, and shielding against the stress is very difficult. Components sensitive to magnetic fields may have to be specially hardened. SREMP effects are uniquely nuclear weapons effects.

            During the Cold War, SREMP was conceived primarily as a threat to the electronic and electrical systems within hardened targets such as missile launch facilities. Clearly, SREMP effects are only important if the targeted systems are expected to survive the primary damage-causing mechanisms of blast, shock, and thermal pulse. Because SREMP is uniquely associated with nuclear strikes, technology associated with SREMP generation has no commercial applications. However, technologies associated with SREMP measurement and mitigation are commercially interesting for lightning protection and electromagnetic compatibility applications. Basic physics models of SREMP generation and coupling to generic systems, as well as numerical calculation, use unclassified and generic weapon and target parameters. However, codes and coupling models which reveal the response and vulnerability of current or future military systems are militarily critical.

            - Basically, not enough is known about specific effects of the different types of EMP except that if there is a power cable or other electrically connected protuberence such as an antenna or probe sensor surrounding an electronic circuit, then no matter how thick or complete your Faraday cage that circuit IS VULNERABLE TO EMP.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Friday March 06 2015, @10:05AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday March 06 2015, @10:05AM (#153787) Homepage
    Nope, I'm not saying they're deceiving you about the technology. I'm just defending myself against it. Alternatively, or additionally, I'll spin on the spot, so that you can't get 2s in any one spot.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @10:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @10:24AM (#153791)

      Especially the effect of a retroreflector would be interesting. Can the laser system handle its own ray?

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Friday March 06 2015, @01:48PM

        by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday March 06 2015, @01:48PM (#153829) Journal

        We have an IPG fiber laser, basically the same laser that is in the article but only running at 4kW. There is a back reflection sensor that shuts the machine down after a certain percentage of the power is reflected back into the head. I assume the weapon is using an off the shelf IPG or similar fiber laser (between Trumpf and IPG they have the patent market on lockdown for fiber lasers) so back reflection is always monitored.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @04:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @04:27PM (#153868)

      Mirrors aren't significant protection against these sorts of weapons. No mirror is 100% reflective and reflective materials aren't very strong, so the energy that is not reflected damages the mirror making it even less reflective which quickly cascades into destroying it. Smoke's ability to absorb energy is nil, that will vaporize nearly instantly.

      The spinning thing, well, good luck spinning a truck.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Friday March 06 2015, @01:16PM

    by looorg (578) on Friday March 06 2015, @01:16PM (#153821)

    Didn't Lockheed Martin shoot down a Missile with lasers some year ago? How is stopping a truck progress over shooting down a missile? That was even at 1/3 the power of this one.

    http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/laser-shoots-down-missile-130511.htm [discovery.com]

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @04:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @04:33PM (#153871)

      Missiles are a lot more delicate than a truck. The ones with conventional warheads will blow themselves up if you put enough energy into them, and if you can't make them blow up, damaging the control surfaces or even just changing aerodynamics of the body is enough make them basically ineffective.

      • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Friday March 06 2015, @06:46PM

        by Alfred (4006) on Friday March 06 2015, @06:46PM (#153892) Journal
        Concerned Citizens: Oh noes! There is a nuke headed to New York City!!!
        Laser Guy: Don't worry citizens, I got this.
        Concerned Citizens: That's amazing! What did you do?
        Laser Guy: I zapped it enough so it can't stay on course. It will hit New Jersey instead.
        Concerned Citizens: Hurray!

        yeah. something like that.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @07:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @07:11PM (#153901)

          Actually, nukes are delivered via ICBM and by virtue of being ballistic, there isn't much you can do to send them off course after apogee and if you get them during ascent they aren't likely to get much of anywhere. But thanks for biting, I deliberately worded my post to bait a low-knowledge person like yourself to say something stupid because he thought he was clever. Mission accomplished.

        • (Score: 1) by takyon on Friday March 06 2015, @11:26PM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday March 06 2015, @11:26PM (#153997) Journal
          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @05:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @05:45PM (#153884)

    Also known as the intake manifold. Thin metal that merely diverts and may compress air intake. Some engines run fine without one connected at all. It is like hacking a computer by turning off the screen saver. This is not very impressive.

  • (Score: 1) by fermento on Friday March 06 2015, @11:28PM

    by fermento (1069) on Friday March 06 2015, @11:28PM (#153998)

    I remember seeing this footage, but as I recall Val Kilmer needed dry ice to make it work. Then the beam got redirected and filled a guys house with popcorn. ahref=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rthHSISkM7A/ [soylentnews.org]" rel="url2html-23628">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rthHSISkM7A/>

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:44AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:44AM (#154013)

      stop playing with yourself

  • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Saturday March 07 2015, @09:20AM

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Saturday March 07 2015, @09:20AM (#154082)

    how long it will be for the MIC to realize that a laser that can stop a truck at 1 mile can kill a person at much farther away?

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."