# OK, So if TRW has made a laser that can blow stuff out of the sky, then why... **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 8, 2002, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899 "2002-11-08T16:44:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Janx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Janx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Janx)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/1 "2002-11-08T16:44:51Z")
I was reading [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=142970) and it brought up some related but off the subject questions. **Tranquilis** wrote > [@](#): > > Any Directed Energy System that can aquire, track, engage, and cause to prematurely detonate an artillery shell, is a seriously impressive system. I agree, there were skeptics in the thread as well, but my thought is if we have this why is it that we don’t make a smaller version and put it in the hands of our soldiers. After all, the “aquire, track, engage,” steps of an attack are something that humans are fairly good at. If this thing can fry a speeding missal out of the sky imagine what it could to an enemy soldier, chopper, personnel carrier etc. etc. So that’s it, why no hand held lasers, I know some gun scopes use them but they don’t fry the target. Thanx, Janx ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/2 "2002-11-08T17:48:41Z")
It took a long time to build the large version. It’ll take a while to miniaturize this technology, and you’d lose power as a result. It may be that, after this is done, you’d still get better results with small arms or conventional artillery. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/3 "2002-11-08T18:28:49Z")
The fact that a laser has been used to blow artillery shells out of the sky doesn’t mean that a cheap, low-maintenance, high-power blaster straight out of Buck Rogers is remotely possible. We’ve got miniturized conventional artillery in the form of mortars, but no one seriously thinks of them as replacing the rifle. I’ve listed a number of problems with the idea below. And Mr. Moto, one thing that the laser can’t do that artillery can is indirect fire - being able to hit the enemy without line of sight is absolutely vital to modern artillery. Bulkier power source than gunpowder - the lasers used for the test were not exactly powered by D-cells. Less able to penetrate obstructions (being behind a cloud of smoke will provide much more protection from a laser than from a bullet). Requires tighter aim (the laser has to be held on target for longer to cut through) Doesn’t gain accuracy (the laser in the test was more of an artillery setup than a rifle setup, you can get a lot more accuracy out of a howitzer than a rifle despite humans’ natural aiming ability). Requires more maintenance (it’s an electronic gadget, not a basic mechanical device like a rifle) More expensive. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/4 "2002-11-08T18:42:47Z")
I have heard that the lasers involved in these high-powered tests aren’t electric powered, but operating directly off chemical fuel combustion - basically, a rocket engine that emits a laser beam. Anyone know anything about this? ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/5 "2002-11-08T18:43:23Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Riboflavin \* > Requires more maintenance (it’s an electronic gadget, not a basic mechanical device like a rifle)_\* Most electronic equipment requires less maintenance than mechanical devices. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/6 "2002-11-08T18:47:45Z")
Amen to all of that. **Janx** , I worked with Navy weapons systems for years. I can tell you that there’s still a lot that can be done with high explosives. ---
**Author:** ![gonzoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a6a055/32.png) [@gonzoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzoron)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/7 "2002-11-08T19:02:12Z")
Another thing to consider is the way the shell was brought down. The article wasn’t clear, but most articles I’ve read on the subject say that the laser doesn’t just zap it to atoms. They usually heat up the side of the fuel tank enough to cause a rupture and then explosion. That tactic wouldn’t work on humans. You’d get a lot of burns, or burnt clothing, and a whole lot of blind people\* but probably not a lot of fatalities. (I read recently that weapons made specifically to blind are prohibited by the Geneva convention or some similar pact. But unintentional blinding is apparently a loophole. Came up during talk of a ground-based anti-tank laser or something like that.) ---
**Author:** ![starfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/87869e/32.png) [@starfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/starfish)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/8 "2002-11-08T19:02:43Z")
Look at the pictures that were in the article and related sites. This thing was huge and had several support buildings. Tht’s the penalty for putting out the power needed. Even the air borne anti-missle laser needs a 747 to carry it. The laser sights for guns are small because they have very little power. Lasers work best when it is clear. The high power lasers will just boil water in the rain. 🙂 This reduces their effective range. If your first few shell are smoke shells, it will help you if they hit them and disperse the smoke in the air. ---
**Author:** ![AndrewL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@AndrewL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AndrewL)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/9 "2002-11-08T19:10:16Z")
Here’s a page on an earlier version of the same technology. [http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm](http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/asat/miracl.htm) It’s powered by some pretty exotic chemical fuels, and sounds a bit much to shrink down to something hand-held. ---
**Author:** ![Poloin99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/eb9ed0/32.png) [@Poloin99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poloin99)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/10 "2002-11-08T19:16:35Z")
drachillix " Most electronic equipment requires less maintenance than mechanical devices." But do lasers with lenses that must stay aligned and clean work well in a combat environment? ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/11 "2002-11-08T19:26:38Z")
Early tests on laser weapons came up with a couple of important snags: 1. It’s much easier to heat metal and destroy circuitry than it is to boil enough water to kill a human (that 98 percent water thing rears its ugly head). Long before you burn a hole through somebody, he’s going to say “ouch!” and duck, unless the laser is really, really, really powerful, which leads to… 2. If the laser is powerful enough to kill a human, the reflected light is bright enough to permanently blind anybody looking at it, _out to the effective range of the weapon._ This means that if a dozen soldiers shoot at a dozen targets, and one of them hits some metal, everybody in the killzone (including the guys with laser weapons) is permanently blinded unless they’re wearing the right color goggles. So, everybody on that side wears red goggles. Along comes the other side, with green lasers… with the first shot fired, they’re all blind. Game over. Side note: the anti-personnel blinding device, the Dazer, was developed based off of the laser targeting sight used on the main gun for the M1. ---
**Author:** ![armedmonkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@armedmonkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/armedmonkey)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2002, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/12 "2002-11-08T19:36:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by AndrewL \* > \*\*I have heard that the lasers involved in these high-powered tests aren’t electric powered, but operating directly off chemical fuel combustion - basically, a rocket engine that emits a laser beam. Anyone know anything about this? \*\* It is almost certainly a chemical laser, and probably an all gas phase laser rather than an aqueous one. There are several types of chemical lasers and it is usually easier to get high power out of one of these babies than it is with solid state lasers. Solid state lasers are good for aiming, pointing, measuring, etc., but if you really want to toast something, you need a chemical laser. The way the things work is simple to grasp, yet hard to do. A rocket engine was a good comparison. The chemical reaction in a rocket engine produces two types of energy: heat (that’s the force that makes it go up - expanding gasses) and light. There are different chemical mixtures you can try to maximize the heat, and thus the thrust, but you really don’t care how bright the flame is. A chemical laser is just the opposite. The combustion is still going to produce two types of energy, but here you want to maximize the light given off and minimize the heat. Optics then focus and polarize all that light into a laser beam. The power is all in the chemical mix so electronics are theoretically unnecessary. I doubt TRW is going to come out and say exactly what they used, but you usually need some nasty stuff to do this (like molecular fluorine). Because these things use such mean fuel, don’t expect them to be carried by the average foot soldier any time soon. [Here](http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Mar02/DE0106.html) is a decent site to learn more. ---
**Author:** ![Riboflavin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Riboflavin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riboflavin)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/13 "2002-11-09T06:58:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by drachillix \* > Most electronic equipment requires less maintenance than mechanical devices. \*\* Even when it’s sitting out in the rain or dipping into a river, exposed to lots of mud, dirt, dust, and sand, constantly banged around, and has field maintenance done by someone with a few hours of training during basic training, not an engineering degree? ---
**Author:** ![hammerbach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hammerbach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hammerbach)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/14 "2002-11-09T07:03:30Z")
If I had to rely on a 40 year old rifle or a forty year old electronic device, I’d put my money on the rifle every time. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/15 "2002-11-09T11:16:42Z")
Whilst you can cause chemicals to explode with an intense beam of laser, all it does to a human body is to create a neatly sealed tiny hole. Big whoppie. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/16 "2002-11-09T11:21:46Z")
I got a better question: If TRW can build a device that blows artillery out of the sky, why can’t they get a bogus ding off my credit report after being asked five times?😛 ---
**Author:** ![glilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@glilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glilly)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/17 "2002-11-09T19:03:05Z")
A weapon like this has a high potential for “friendly fire” accidents, so the brass probably would want to use it only when connected to the battlefield tracking networks so that GI Joe doesn’t take down an allied aircraft or civilian jetliner or the like by mistake. At least for awhile. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/18 "2002-11-09T19:06:17Z")
Y’know if the laser beam misses, it just keeps going and 500 yerars from now when it destroys a building on Mendinar II (a planet 500 light-years away), they’re going to be pissed. ---
**Author:** ![Janx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Janx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Janx)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/19 "2002-11-09T21:07:38Z")
Yep, Whenever I feel like I’m getting just a tad to smart, I head on down the SDMB. Some of the more enlightening and lucid points were… From \*\* Riboflavin \*\* > [@](#): > > [ul] Bulkier power source than gunpowder - the lasers used for the test were not exactly powered > by D-cells. > Less able to penetrate obstructions (being behind a cloud of smoke will provide much more > protection from a laser than from a bullet). > Requires tighter aim (the laser has to be held on target for longer to cut through) > Doesn’t gain accuracy (the laser in the test was more of an artillery setup than a rifle setup, > you can get a lot more accuracy out of a howitzer than a rifle despite humans’ natural aiming ability). > Requires more maintenance (it’s an electronic gadget, not a basic mechanical device like a rifle) > More expensive. > [/ul] First, the power issue. Obviously the things are not powered by D-cells. But that does NOT tell me what kind of power a mini version would take, I realize there is some fundamental difference between my pocket laser, that I use when giving a presentation, (or when I want to annoy my dog) and a laser that actually burns things, but what is that difference, MY laser uses watch batteries, so why not D-Cells? Well, I really whiffed it there on the smoke point hadn’t thought about it. More expensive, Bah, If enough of the right people wanted it, it would certainly be researched. From \*\* Mr. Moto\*\* > [@](#): > > Janx, I worked with Navy weapons systems for years. I can tell you that there’s still a lot that can be done with high explosives. No doubt, I still like the direct approach myself, nothing like a nice satisfying **KERBLEWEY!** that lets you know it’s Miller time. From **gonzoron** > [@](#): > > Another thing to consider is the way the shell was brought down. The article wasn’t clear, but most articles I’ve read on the subject say that the laser doesn’t just zap it to atoms. They usually heat up the side of the fuel tank enough to cause a rupture and then explosion. That tactic wouldn’t work on humans. You’d get a lot of burns, or burnt clothing, and a whole lot of blind people\* but probably not a lot of fatalities. And a related observation… From \*\* \*\* > [@](#): > > 1. It’s much easier to heat metal and destroy circuitry than it is to boil enough water to kill a human (that 98 percent water thing rears its ugly head). Long before you burn a hole through somebody, he’s going to say “ouch!” and duck, unless the laser is really, really, really powerful… So I see, the laser needs time to work, It doesn’t just melt a hole straight through whatever is in its path, you have to hold your laser on target for some time, (Oh yeah, that’s real efficient, while your trying to burn a hole in your enemy he just pulls out a rifle and shoots you. POP.) This whole laser thing is beginning to remind me of frying cock roaches with a magnifying glass, they have to hold still or it doesn’t work. From **Beeblebrox** > [@](#): > > The power is all in the chemical mix so electronics are theoretically unnecessary. I doubt TRW is going to come out and say exactly what they used, but you usually need some nasty stuff to do this (like molecular fluorine). Because these things use such mean fuel, don’t expect them to be carried by the average foot soldier any time soon. I’m getting the idea. From **hammerbach** > [@](#): > > If I had to rely on a 40 year old rifle or a forty year old electronic device, I’d put my money on the rifle every time. I just could not agree more! From **Urban Ranger** > [@](#): > > Whilst you can cause chemicals to explode with an intense beam of laser, all it does to a humanbody is to create a neatly sealed tiny hole. > > Big whoppie. Uhnhhh, I don’t know about you but, I think having my left ventricle, or my brain for that matter, play host to neatly cauterized little hole would be one hell of a “whoopee”! ---
**Author:** ![Janx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Janx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Janx)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2002, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899/20 "2002-11-09T21:17:36Z")
Yep, Whenever I feel like I’m getting just a tad to smart, I head on down the SDMB. Some of the more enlightening and lucid points were… From \*\* Riboflavin \*\* > [@](#): > > [ul] Bulkier power source than gunpowder - the lasers used for the test were not exactly powered > by D-cells. > Less able to penetrate obstructions (being behind a cloud of smoke will provide much more > protection from a laser than from a bullet). > Requires tighter aim (the laser has to be held on target for longer to cut through) > Doesn’t gain accuracy (the laser in the test was more of an artillery setup than a rifle setup, > you can get a lot more accuracy out of a howitzer than a rifle despite humans’ natural aiming ability). > Requires more maintenance (it’s an electronic gadget, not a basic mechanical device like a rifle) > More expensive. > [/ul] First, the power issue. Obviously the things are not powered by D-cells. But that does NOT tell me what kind of power a mini version would take, I realize there is some fundamental difference between my pocket laser, that I use when giving a presentation, (or when I want to annoy my dog) and a laser that actually burns things, but what is that difference, MY laser uses watch batteries, so why not D-Cells? Well, I really whiffed it there on the smoke point hadn’t thought about it. More expensive, Bah, If enough of the right people wanted it, it would certainly be researched. From \*\* Mr. Moto\*\* > [@](#): > > Janx, I worked with Navy weapons systems for years. I can tell you that there’s still a lot that can be done with high explosives. No doubt, I still like the direct approach myself, nothing like a nice satisfying **KERBLEWEY!** that lets you know it’s Miller time. From **gonzoron** > [@](#): > > Another thing to consider is the way the shell was brought down. The article wasn’t clear, but most articles I’ve read on the subject say that the laser doesn’t just zap it to atoms. They usually heat up the side of the fuel tank enough to cause a rupture and then explosion. That tactic wouldn’t work on humans. You’d get a lot of burns, or burnt clothing, and a whole lot of blind people\* but probably not a lot of fatalities. And a related observation… From \*\* \*\* > [@](#): > > 1. It’s much easier to heat metal and destroy circuitry than it is to boil enough water to kill a human (that 98 percent water thing rears its ugly head). Long before you burn a hole through somebody, he’s going to say “ouch!” and duck, unless the laser is really, really, really powerful… So I see, the laser needs time to work, It doesn’t just melt a hole straight through whatever is in its path, you have to hold your laser on target for some time, (Oh yeah, that’s real efficient, while your trying to burn a hole in your enemy he just pulls out a rifle and shoots you. POP.) This whole laser thing is beginning to remind me of frying cock roaches with a magnifying glass, they have to hold still or it doesn’t work. From **Beeblebrox** > [@](#): > > The power is all in the chemical mix so electronics are theoretically unnecessary. I doubt TRW is going to come out and say exactly what they used, but you usually need some nasty stuff to do this (like molecular fluorine). Because these things use such mean fuel, don’t expect them to be carried by the average foot soldier any time soon. I’m getting the idea. From **hammerbach** > [@](#): > > If I had to rely on a 40 year old rifle or a forty year old electronic device, I’d put my money on the rifle every time. I just could not agree more! From **Urban Ranger** > [@](#): > > Whilst you can cause chemicals to explode with an intense beam of laser, all it does to a humanbody is to create a neatly sealed tiny hole. > > Big whoppie. Uhnhhh, I don’t know about you but, I think having my left ventricle, or my brain for that matter, play host to neatly cauterized little hole would be one hell of a “whoopee”! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-so-if-trw-has-made-a-laser-that-can-blow-stuff-out-of-the-sky-then-why/135899.md?page=2)