this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
23 points (100.0% liked)

news

23464 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I wonder if the system can double as an orbital weapons platform with global strike capability. They are talking about eventually scaling to megawatts of laser energy being fired into orbit then relayed back down to a target on the ground.

It's kinda weird seeing US military commanders pushing for tech to eliminate their reliance on fossil fuels. They are careful to avoid mentioning that this system is to replace the need for diesel generators at forward operating bases or jet fuel for drones. I guess that's because US political leadership has a different opinion on being dependent on fossil fuel.

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] GinAndJuche@hexbear.net 13 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can’t wait for rolling blackouts because a nearby base needs to power the wunderwaffe it’s beaming energy to in the latest brushfire war.

[–] WayeeCool@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Can't wait for them to be off target and start actual bushfires. I keep thinking about all the claims that China was starting wildfires in the US using space lasers. Every accusation is a confession blah blah blah.

[–] GinAndJuche@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I genuinely have no clue if modern laser technology could do that, I’m sure they’ll try.

[–] WayeeCool@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Unfortunately it's already possible with commercially available lasers. Which is why the US military has been giving Lockheed and various commerical laser manufacturers money to convert existing 100KW - 1MW fiber lasers used in manufacturing to military weapon versions.

Few different people did the math after the US media stuff about Chinese space lasers and it is even possible with off the shelf commercial fiber lasers that easily fit within a medium sized satellite using photovoltaic solar power. Interesting watch if you can tolerate smug overeducated New Hampshire libertarian vibe: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-MVs37rxJL0

[–] gaycomputeruser@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago

I guess the real question then is whether or not it's easier for them to temporarily use a logistics asset or throw some gas and a lighter on a drone.

[–] HexReplyBot@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think it would be easier to do from the ground or low air than from space, since from space you have a whole atmosphere dilluting your beam

[–] sooper_dooper_roofer@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago

There is of course a drawback, and in this case it's the fact that you're throwing a fair amount of energy away to gain that flexibility. You lose some – maybe around 20% – when you convert electricity to light in your laser. You lose more – maybe 50% – when you convert that laser back to electricity at the receiver.

love 2 lose three-fourths of my total energy supply

and give away my receiver aircraft's position to anybody with a satellite

and accidentally a passenger plane that was in the path

[–] Dickey_Butts@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I'm not one of those "I fucking love science" nerds but didn't Nicola Tesla promise to build this back in the day?

Also it is very funny to see military boot heads come around to progressive positions simply because the alternative makes killing people more difficult.

[–] LesbianLiberty@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

This is different, Tesla wanted to transmit power wirelessly omnidirectionally, whereas my understanding of this is essentially an orbital platform which sends a concentrated energy beam to a platform on earth's surface

[–] WayeeCool@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
[–] gaycomputeruser@hexbear.net 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I expect they don't have any real plans to move away from fossil fuels. The magnitude of electricity is just not there to fully replace fuels. They're probably looking at this as a way to recharge elctronics and other battery powered stuff. Iirc they've been having issues with expanding electronic capabilites on infrantry units due to the weight requirement of batteries.

[–] WayeeCool@hexbear.net 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yup. Lots of new toys they have developed but can't make use of. The current proposals for new power systems for infantry seem mostly based around universally compatible lithium ion battery packs and photovoltaic cells to recharge them in the field but that creates the issue of not being able to recharge during poor weather or nighttime. Being able to put in a request to have your photovoltaic cells energized by an orbital laser would fix that reliability issue.

There are also the winged and airship drones they developed that are supposed to stay above the battlefield indefinitely using solar panels. Being able to energize their photovoltaic panels during night or bad weather might make them more viable.

Although they do seem serious about the plans to beam power to forward operating bases that currently need constant deliveries from vulnerable fuel trucks to refill their generators. Being able to eliminate the fuel powered generators and instead give them photovoltaic panels that can be energized rain or shine, day or night— would eliminate a supply line vulnerability. The proposed Abrams main battletank replacement is hybrid electric for the same reason, on top of silent mode it means less fuel trucks needed and the ability to not use any fuel when idling or making maneuvers of only a few miles.

[–] gaycomputeruser@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I misunderstood the meaning of forward operating base. That sounds doable, if anybody could it's the us military.

Being able to put in a request to have your photovoltaic cells energized by an orbital laser would fix that reliability issue.

Hate to admit it but it'd be sick as fuck.