75e0c@flrjs>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Clark wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> Wrote:
>
> > Gee John, if that's the solution, why aren't IRVs already painted white?
>
> Because up to now nobody has been dumb enough to deploy a LASER
> system to shot down ICBM warheads, if somebody does the other side
> will have to visit the paint department of Home Depot. It's just physics,
> you need a much more powerful light to burn up white things than black
> things.
I suppose you can't follow my logic. If white paint is the solution to
energy dissipation, then IVR designers have been incredibly incompetent
to not use this paint on these reentry bodies to reduce the thickness
and risk of burn-through. Gee, John, why don't we just paint the
underbelly of the Space Shuttle white, we won't need all those pesky
silica tiles....
>
> >The first generation SBL (Space Based Laser) is designed to destroy a
> > missile in boost phase
>
> It's nuts! Space based Lasers are large expensive and delicate, I estimate their
> life expectancy in the next war to be about 4 minutes. All you need is a bucket
> of bolts or even sand launched in the same orbit but moving in the opposite direction.
> The sand would be coming at your Laser at about 11 miles a second, per mass that
> would provide 120 times the energy of the best anti tank canon in the US arsenal.
Are you so ignorant to think this is not already thought of? What would
give one country greater warning of an immenent attack than the
launching into retrograde orbits of 40 or more secret satellites? Get
real. Those satellites would be the first things to go.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:50 MDT