Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [SeattleRobotics] Hoverbot

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Tedder
    My question is, what is the effective range of the lasers these things will carry? And, how high up will they be delivered? That ll give us an idea as to how
    Message 1 of 44 , Dec 11, 2008
      My question is, what is the effective range of the lasers these things will
      carry? And, how high up will they be delivered? That'll give us an idea as
      to how long they might be able to stay up there.

      The threat of war between the U.S. and Russia or China increases with better
      nuclear shield technology.

      Iran claims they have stealth missiles (although not ICBMs). I once asked
      someone at Raytheon, working on interceptor technology, what he thought of
      the potential of that. Him and his friend (at Starbucks) shook their heads
      and said, "Well.. No matter what technology they use it's going to produce
      heat." and other statements to that effect.

      But, personally, I doubt that. Other than the fact that most of our enemies
      have been idiots in the past, why couldn't the Iranians build an electric,
      prop-driven craft with a computer controlled cooling system to match the
      surrounding temperature, using chemicals or decompression? Why couldn't
      they build a high acceleration magnetic launcher that would just throw the
      thing at a U.S. carrier battle group and use a cool digital electronics to
      guide toward imaged ships in the vicinity? Perhaps either missile could use
      solid rocket fuel for the last-mile (so to speak).

      Waiver: I am not advocating for our enemies but rather against the naivety
      of our own defense contractors.

      Matthew

      On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 9:32 AM, dlc <dlc@...> wrote:

      > Hmm. So a delivery system will deposit hundreds of these things at some
      > point in the air and each of them will start looking for something to
      > shoot at? <skeptical eyebrow raise> It might work, test results will
      > be interesting.
      >
      > I think that I'd put my money on a laser "punch" system guided by
      > multiple targeting sources. Or an improved spy/saboteur system. :)
      >
      > Eventually something will work, but as the computer said in "Wargames";
      > "The only way to win is not to play".
      >
      > DLC
      >
      >
      > John Palmisano wrote:
      > > Thats because you don't see the large high speed rocket that will
      > > launch *multiple* MKVs in that *test* video. ;)
      > >
      > >
      > > 2008/12/12 dlc <dlc@... <dlc%40frii.com>>:
      > >> I guess that I'm thick. I sure don't see how this would do any of that.
      > >> It looks singularly ineffective against multiple fast moving targets.
      > >>
      > >> ???
      > >> DLC
      > >>
      > >> John Palmisano wrote:
      > >>> The MKV doesn't 'kill' anything. Its an anti-ballistic missile defense
      > >>> system. It says 'multiple' because missiles today release decoys to
      > >>> defend against missile destroyers . . . the logic is that the MKV will
      > >>> take out not just the decoys but the main missile as well.
      > >>>
      > >>> http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/mkv.htm
      > >>>
      > >>> John
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> 2008/12/11 dlc <dlc@... <dlc%40frii.com>>:
      > >>>> Rich Chandler wrote:
      > >>>>> Anyone who's done a 2-wheel balancer will know what a technological
      > >>>>> achievement this is. But considering it's a military piece... it's
      > >>>>> freaking scary.
      > >>>> It's way cool, for a few seconds the fuel lasts. But as a military
      > >>>> delivery vehicle, it'd be easier, cheaper and more effective to just
      > >>>> chuck a grenade into the room...
      > >>>>
      > >>>> DLC
      > >>>>
      > >>>>>
      > http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/08/the-hovering-multiple-kill-vehicle-is-simply-a-waking-nightmare/
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> The video is a must-watch.
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> ------------------------------------
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> Visit the SRS Website at http://www.seattlerobotics.orgYahoo! Groups
      > >>>>> Links
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>> --
      > >>>> -------------------------------------------------
      > >>>> Dennis Clark TTT Enterprises
      > >>>> www.techtoystoday.com
      > >>>> -------------------------------------------------
      > >>>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >> --
      > >> -------------------------------------------------
      > >> Dennis Clark TTT Enterprises
      > >> www.techtoystoday.com
      > >> -------------------------------------------------
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      > --
      > -------------------------------------------------
      > Dennis Clark TTT Enterprises
      > www.techtoystoday.com
      > -------------------------------------------------
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • elknise@gmail.com
      And the laser idea prevails :) I hope this message works, I just got a new phone and I m replying on it. ... -- Erik L. Knise Pacific Shipping Company 4707
      Message 44 of 44 , Jan 5, 2009
        And the laser idea prevails :) I hope this message works, I just got
        a new phone and I'm replying on it.

        On 12/19/08, Matthew Tedder <matthewct@...> wrote:
        > Ok,
        >
        > I consulted with a close friend who has a Ph.D in Solar Mechanics (and
        > an IQ of over 160, actually). He suggested an Earth mounted laser pushing
        > space junk upward would be a lower cost way of cleaning up the space junk.
        > He said it would cause a more accentric orbit, slowing down and causing it
        > to re-enter Earth's atmosphere sooner than otherwise.
        >
        > He's the guy who wrote and maintains, ORSA.. Currently on a NASA grant.
        >
        >
        > http://orsa.sourceforge.net/apps.html
        >
        > Matthew
        >
        > On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Matthew Tedder <matthewct@...> wrote:
        >
        >> more like apple sauce.. but yes.
        >>
        >>
        >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 7:25 AM, don clay <donclay@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>> Yeah but .....
        >>>
        >>> New York would finally make a deep impression on us all. I wonder if it
        >>> would look like a
        >>> .... a ..... Big Apple.
        >>>
        >>> > But what if it one day fell on New York, for example? Or, perhaps if
        >>> > aliens visit us one day and before they can make contact... ka-splat!
        >>> >
        >>> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:55 AM, don clay
        >>> > <donclay@...<donclay%40earthlink.net>
        >>> >
        >>> > wrote:
        >>> >
        >>> > > That's a cool idea. You'd have to move it around to find all the
        >>> > > shtuff.
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > > > I've often wondered about the possibility of floating a HUGE, I
        >>> > > > mean REALLY HUGE ball of Aerogel in orbit, so that all the tiny
        >>> > > > little bits of stuff zipping around up there would become
        >>> > > > embedded. Even if they punched through, they might lose enough
        >>> > > > energy to re-enter.
        >>> > > >
        >>> > > >
        >>> > > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> > >
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >>> >
        >>> >
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >


        --
        Erik L. Knise
        Pacific Shipping Company
        4707 Denver Ave S.
        Seattle WA, 98134
        Phone: 206-762-5007
        Fax: 206-762-7674
        Cell: 425-221-5078
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.