1 Do the lasers come with sharks?

2 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

3 Drones with frickin' laserbeams attached to their heads!

4 Next stop: Warp engines. And then, FINALLY, Arcturian poontang.

5 Just think of what this will mean for the dildo industry!

6 Lockheed didn't build that... a good teacher did.

7 The Fithp had this ages ago.

8 Nice but you have to have line of sight to the drone for it to work.  I wonder if this laser could eventually be put on a solar powered satellite.  Orbital battlestation?  No, Mr Putin, that's just a green-power generation device.

9

Neat, but this seems to add another layer of tech that MUST WORK if we are planning to make it part of operational planning.  More complexity is not good.  It is often the price we must pay for cool toys, but I hope they factor in that it would be fairly easy to have drones get lost due to laser failure.

 

I hope those drones only fly on clear days...

10 "Do the lasers come with sharks?"

 

GODDAMMIT I wanted to get that in first.

 

Sooooo, that's what's fueling the time machine you don't have and won't let anyone use, lasers. 

 

Stupid question time:  won't the laser zap the fuck out of anything in it's path?  Kind of like how Gore's we'll just beam solar energy back from space idea would have made a death ray?

 

Here.  I give you this in recompense for the stupid question. 

http://bit.ly/Mv9JZj

11 No, Mr Putin, that's just a green-power generation device. Posted by: Zharkov at July 19, 2012 03:07 PM (sE++z) It's not a moon either...

12 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

13 So now we don't need roads?

14 I've tried to recharge my wife's cat with a lazer for years. That's what I tell her anyways.

15 You didn't build those......

16 >>Don't get all excited. You didn't build that.

Damn.  Because I was really excited.

17 Stupid question time: won't the laser zap the fuck out of anything in it's path? Kind of like how Gore's we'll just beam solar energy back from space idea would have made a death ray?

That's been the problem with "wireless energy" for quite some time.  I'm not sure how LM and Co. are addressing that.  Also, as someone mentioned above, there's the line-of-sight problem, since lasers don't bend.

18 Kind of sucks when the Jumbo Jets crash on a foggy day.

19 The drones are the hand-held kind.  Not the mondo-sized ones General Atomics and Lockheed make.

Still a start.

20 I look forward to powering my Chevy Volt with a laser mounted to the roof of my house.

21 All I want to know is what kind of power plant they had to use and how much energy is lost in the transfer.

22 Stupid question time: won't the laser zap the fuck out of anything in it's path? Don't cross the streams!

23 Great.  More battery powered shit.  What are we going to do when we've raped the Earth of all the nickel?

24 I bend lasers. With my mind.

25 Good. Now put the put the fucking drones on patrol in Afghanistan so our people stop getting blown up by IEDs.

26 Will a low flying planes laser chop our heads off?

27 Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 19, 2012 03:10 PM (8y9MW) And atmosphere... the biggest one.

28 Tinfoil helmet futures just went way up.

29 >>>Don't get all excited. You didn't build that. I WILL get excited, because you didn't just say that.

30 Better yet, mount the laser on a real plane and tell the liberals we were 'recharging' the Al  Queda base that we blasted into a crater.

31 Don't forget to duck.

32 Helloooo...Amazon wish list! Huzzah! Also, muah-ha-ha-ha-ha!

33 directed at a receiving plate on the aircraft Which, I hope, doesn't become a mirror when it gets wet.

34 I'm guessing that this is sort of solar panel based, just enhanced to require and utilize the high powered light of a laser.

Still cool, but I'm not a fan of battery powered anything on a large scale.

35 Umm. When exactly does Skynet go self-aware then? I wouldn't cheerlead this so much just yet. The EPA has already admitted to using drones to monitor farmers out here in flyover country. Not cool. Also, there is no telling where this technology ends up or how it is used.

36 The laser-launch thing has been workable (except the lack of adequate lasers) for a while. Same idea as the Orion drive (nuclear bombs) ship only without having to carry all those bombs aloft. You still need reaction mass but I think the idea is it works by heating the atmosphere so you'll have thrust until the air gets too thin. That's a pretty good deal if you want to get to orbit. Save a lot of fuel. I think I've seen a video of a small scale laser launch demonstration. Pop, pop, pop, pop and and the little capsule kept zooming up! You could probably use many plane-power lasers to target one incoming ICBM. Heh heh heh.

37 In forty years, we could have a National Laser Power Grid extending across the US. Planes might fly from node-to-node getting juiced.

Until the batteries burst into flames.

On a little drone with a small electric motor?  Sure, it could work.  On a jet plane?  Not seeing it.

38

Stupid question time: won't the laser zap the fuck out of anything in it's path? Kind of like how Gore's we'll just beam solar energy back from space idea would have made a death ray?

Shhh, that's the secret surprise...

39 Oh, look! Somali pirates are approaching for refueling...

40 In the future when lasers are more efficient, great.  Today with the laser efficiencies we have now, not so much.

41 34 This.

42 You know this technology was saved or created with my administration's stimulus money.

43 Remember that old video game Missile Command?  Sky's gunna look like that.

44 The Moties will be sending a ship into our system with a laser-fuelled engine Real Soon Now.

45 It's a trap!

46 There goes my leg again!

47 Not quite 0.00 lbs.  The lasers charge up the onboard batteries which are quite heavy.  Still a pretty cool idea.  No need for aerial refueling.

48 EMP baby, EMP.

49 >>>Still cool, but I'm not a fan of battery powered anything on a large scale. well in my futuristic scenario, you wouldn't be storing most of hte power, at least not on take-off. Such huge amounts of power are required to get airborne it would be ridiculous to just pump it into huge, huge batteries. You'd have to find a way to almost instaneously use the received power for propulsion, using it as you go, not storing it.

50 34 I'm guessing that this is sort of solar panel based, just enhanced to require and utilize the high powered light of a laser.

Still cool, but I'm not a fan of battery powered anything on a large scale.

Posted by: © Sponge at July 19, 2012 03:14 PM (UK9cE)

Do you really need lasers for that , just focusing light on the drones panels would work.

51 I'm more worried about the Consu or possibly the Rrhae.

52 OT:   You don't suppose Fred Willard was watching that Obama movie at the Tiki theatre.......

53 One step closer to that flying car we were all promised.

54 Photoelectric cell?  Naw too hot.  Prolly a Stirling engine. 

55 Laser eye protection will be required when gazing out the windows.

56 Do we need to buy the rare earth metals from China for this or are we allowed to mine our own?

Never mind, I know the answer.

57 Do you really need lasers for that , just focusing light on the drones panels would work.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at July 19, 2012 03:17 PM (AWmfW)

A laser IS focused light.

58 bill stanley • 11 minutes ago • parent − Way cool...and thus it starts. The challenge is made, the gauntlet is cast down. OH!! And extra EXTRA points for landing one into the front door of the local police station with TV crews standing by. DARE YA' !!! From the article... I may have to frequent that place again some time...

59

"Planes might fly from node-to-node getting juiced."

 

A lot of pilots already do that.

60 well in my futuristic scenario, you wouldn't be storing most of hte power, at least not on take-off. Such huge amounts of power are required to get airborne it would be ridiculous to just pump it into huge, huge batteries. You'd have to find a way to almost instaneously use the received power for propulsion, using it as you go, not storing it.

Posted by: ace at July 19, 2012 03:17 PM (115KO)

Why not launch with JATO bottles (or the equivalent) and then charge the batteries?

61 Do you really need lasers for that , just focusing light on the drones panels would work.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at July 19, 2012 03:17 PM (AWmfW)

I would imagine that the laser light would provide a much faster charge coefficient than standard solar panels.

Like I really know anything about this.  Just pure speculation.

62 So, how big of an IR signature does this add to a stealth device. With the correct gadget could you see the laser beams up to the drone or how about back down to the controllers...ah, ignore that...

63 By the way, what is a laser, and will it fit on a dirigible?

64 Why can't they build a giant vacuum tube across the country and you can just get in a pod and be sucked all the way to California?   (there's a lob for one of you morons to smash).

65 LSWR


Large Scale Water Rockets.

66 This technology will be helpful when the Kzin show up.

67 Why don't we just beam the fuel up with the transporter?

68 This new development is obviously racist! I mean, I clearly heard them say Koonce, several times.

69 OT more asininine celebrity Obama worship. Via Politico Click: Singer Alicia Keys explained why she supports President Obama at a summit in Philadelphia on Monday, PoliticsPA reports: “President Obama cares about the issues we care about… That’s something I know deep in my core and I think we all relate to. You see him speak, whether it’s on TV or if you get a chance to see him in person, you know that there’s a really genuine spirit that comes from him, it’s a really human spirit. That’s the spirit of a person that I’d like to see run the country – someone that’s human. Thank you! Give me someone human!”

70 You're still stuck with the weight of the battery (which, among other things, means you don't have to be "line of sight" to the laser all the time), but it is a step forward.

IIRC, there are IR wavelengths that go right through clouds, so if we use one of those the jet is safe on a cloudy day.

Even if you only used this for take-offs, I'm pretty sure that's where a large chunk of the fuel is used, and by definition that's happening pretty close to an airport.

Have the plane take off w/ enough fuel to make it to the destination once it's at 35,000 feet, then have a laser powered by a nice clean nuclear reactor provide the power to get to 35,000 feet.

Could be a fuel / price win, at least if your airport is in a state that gets its power from nukes, not solar panels or windmills.

71 Why not launch with JATO bottles (or the equivalent) and then charge the batteries?

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at July 19, 2012 03:18 PM (RD7QR)

This makes a flight seem like that bouncing babies game, where the laser tries to catch all the planes before they hit the ground and re-juice them.

72 brb.  charging the anti-Higgs field generator.

73 A laser IS focused light.

Posted by: Oldcat at July 19, 2012 03:18 PM (z1N6a)

No , laser is coherent light.

74 So, instead of being able to drive three or four hundred miles on a tank of gas, I have to stay within twenty miles of my Volt's special electrical outlet. Is it like that?

75 That's not a laser, that's a tax.

76 Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good laser at your side.

77 Ace - drones are relatively light with a lot of lift on those big wings..  Keeping a drone aloft is a big difference than taking off.. and an even bigger deal powering big jets, much less space craft.  Not possible on batteries.. just not enough lift power.

But, have your little sci-fi dream anyway..

78

"Planes might fly from node-to-node getting juiced."

 

Dunno about planes, but around here we call that a pub-crawl... 

79 My other idea: why can't us dudes with cars make use of the rail lines?  Like you pull up to a starting point on a railroad in Boston, they put your car on some small railcar contraption that's powered by your car's engine, then you just put your car on cruise control while you sleep all the way to Chicago.

80 >>> This is a technological advance I've had my eyes on for a couple of years now

Smart. Military. Blog.

81

55 Laser eye protection will be required when gazing out the windows.

 

I wondered about this too.

 

And also.....couldn't this 'Laser Grid' be disrupted by other lasers being aimed at it?

82 I would imagine that the laser light would provide a much faster charge coefficient than standard solar panels.

Like I really know anything about this. Just pure speculation.

Posted by: © Sponge at July 19, 2012 03:19 PM (UK9cE)

Coherent light scatters far less than any other kind.  More efficient.  Not efficient enough, probably, but better than a big spotlight.

83 Nuclear powered drones is what we need.

Charging their lasers.

84 Omg check out drudge headline, morons.

85 Lasers.Bitches.

86 George Washington had it easy. Via magic, the Treasury was flush with cash. All Washington had to do was dole out money to white folks so they could get rich... and make others poor. -- American History According to Obama

87 What ever became of the blimp-to-orbit concept? Has it gotten off the ground yet?

88 No , laser is coherent light.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at July 19, 2012 03:21 PM (AWmfW)

which is more focused by its nature.

89 can you hijack the drone with the same laser?

90 40 In the future when lasers are more efficient, great. Today with the laser efficiencies we have now, not so much.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at July 19, 2012 03:15 PM (SDkq3)

This is what I'm wondering... what is the efficiency/loss here.  If we use say 100 gallons of fuel to make electricity to run the laser to send the energy to get 2 gallons of fuel equivalent, sorry just carry the damn fuel.

If however it's quite efficient (or we get a Nuclear power plant at every airport or something) then maybe it's worth going this route.

But I somehow suspect your power requirements for "real" aircraft is going to be high enough to require the airport to have it's own power plant to even give this a try.

Cutting fuel by 60%, but using 3,000% more fuel isn't really gaining much from a cost perspective is it?

91 Set phasers on "refuel".

92 Meh.  Call me when the tractor beam and  teleporter are  up and running.

93 OT - Just remember, if the government makes people successful and you're not, it's because Obama is keeping you down.

94 I saw that movie; it was Real Genius.  It even had popcorn.

95 Nothing new here. For years, the government has been secretly recharging druids by laser.

96 You're unemployed? You didn't do that, Obama did that.

97 What ever became of the blimp-to-orbit concept? Has it gotten off the ground yet?

Oh no you din nit.

98 Thank you! Give me someone human!”

Give me (1) someone human who (2) doesn't have his head up his ass.

99 Smart military blog!

100
"Planes might fly from node-to-node getting juiced."

A lot of pilots already do that.

Posted by: gebrauchshund at July 19, 2012 03:18 PM (iYwUw)

You've flown Aeroflot too?

The old joke was that American pilots have a rule about 24 hours from bottle to throttle, Aeroflot pilots have a rule about not drinking within 24 feet of the aircraft.

101 6 Lockheed didn't build that... a good public school district diversity coordinator teacher did.

Posted by: scofflawx at July 19, 2012 03:07 PM (dJges)

And now you know... the rest of the story

102 Omg check out drudge headline, morons.

Posted by: Truman North, iPhone snob at July 19, 2012 03:22 PM (eed5l)

Yeah, that's fucking brilliant.

Come on over the boarder for some FREE SHIT!!!!

I'm so sick of this.  Can we have the election NOW please?

103 wierd science

104 I would be more excited about this, if I were more confident the targets in question weren't us.

105 Here is a blurb from the article that Drudge is headlining (US Partners With Mexico to Boost Food Stamp Rolls)-- Some of the materials the USDA encourages the Mexican government to use to educate and promote the benefit programs are available free online for order and download. A partial list of materials include English and Spanish brochures titled “Five Easy Steps To Snap Benefits,” “How To Get Food Help — A Consumer’s Guide to FNCS Programs,” “Ending Hunger Improving Nutrition Combating Obesity,” and posters with slogans like “Food Stamps Make America Stronger.” Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda- partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/#ixzz2169WePq6

106 87 What ever became of the blimp-to-orbit concept? Has it gotten off the ground yet?

Posted by: toby928© at July 19, 2012 03:23 PM (evdj2)

I look forward to the tests putting Megan Mccain in a trebuchet.

107 Did y'all see the puny quadricoptor the guy is holding in the linked article.

This is basically for tiny surveillance drones used domestically.. and the laser recharging feature means they don't have to break off surveillance when they are tracking Ace in a midnight hobo hunt.

108 Nuclear powered drones is what we need.

Charging their lasers.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at July 19, 2012 03:22 PM (AWmfW)

 

 

 

Well, for a while there in the 60's we were working on nuke powered ramjets for SLAM cruise missiles.  The radiation was a big problem, though.  As far as public records go, it reached full development.  They did, however, prove out the theory.

 

 

109 this morning on cnbc: Oil Up On Positive US Earnings this afternoon on cnbc: Oil Up on Mideast Tensions Just Run With It media

110
President Obama cares about the issues we care aboutÂ…

Sounds like Alicia has some serious side betting action going on over his golf scores.

111 You don't need the laser to power takeoff.

Just a bottle of coke and a menthos...

112 I would be more excited about this, if I were more confident the targets in question weren't us.

We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.

And by us I mean you.

113

84 Omg check out drudge headline, morons.

 

Yeah, Truman....I mentioned something about that Obamanation, in another thread.

I'm glad to see it getting some mention.

 

"Food Stamps going to Mexico" <---- We should be screaming about this.

114 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ds0wYpc1eM&feature=player_detailpage#t=29s I pray they are not remaking this

115 Great idea until the first cloudy day.  Won't be much drone service in the fall,  winter, and spring months.

116 A partial list of materials include English and Spanish brochures titled “Five Easy Steps To Snap Benefits,” “How To Get Food Help — A Consumer’s Guide to FNCS Programs,” “Ending Hunger Improving Nutrition Combating Obesity,” and posters with slogans like “Food Stamps Make America Stronger.”

"Food Stamps Make America Stronger."

Okay.  I'm done.

117 The Drudge Report lies. "US Partners With Mexico To Boost Food Stamp Rolls" Here's really what the US said: "We're partnering with Mexico to boost food stamp rolls" Drudge: he'll say anything to get readers.

118 On the Drudge SNAP story, note that the policy was instituted in 2004.

119 Have the plane take off w/ enough fuel to make it to the destination once it's at 35,000 feet, then have a laser powered by a nice clean nuclear reactor provide the power to get to 35,000 feet.

Could be a fuel / price win, at least if your airport is in a state that gets its power from nukes, not solar panels or windmills.

That still means adding two large, heavy electric motors in addition to the jet engines.

I suppose you could design some kind of hybrid electric engine that used combustion to generate electricity which in turn powers the main engines, but again- a massive weight increase.

There's also the issue of power- such a laser would have to be immensely powerful.  What happens if the laser misses the charging panel by a couple of feet?

120 97 You're unemployed? You didn't do that, Obama did that.

Posted by: robtr at July 19, 2012 03:25 PM (MtwBb)

Wasteful "investment" in Solyndra? You didn't do that , Obama did.

121 Omg check out drudge headline, morons.

Posted by: Truman North, iPhone snob at July 19, 2012 03:22 PM (eed5l)

And can we file this under "Obama will say/do anything to get re-elected?"

122

So long as we have an FAA, anything is possible. 

 

 

123 and another solar panel scam company bites the dust

124 Do you all know that when Marty McFly went Back to the Future in the film of the same name, that he went to June of 2012? I remember looking at that date and thinking "wow". A lot of the cool things depicted have not come to pass though.

125 You know what else would be kind of neat.  If only we could find a clean power source that produces no smog or carbon dioxide and that requires very little mass to produce an almost infinite supply of energy. 

126 Besides, this is just a way for your government to monitor you 24x7 since the drones never have to land to refuel.

Welcome to The United Soviet States of America.

127 and another solar panel scam company bites the dust

Greendoggle.

128 Lasers pointed at aircraft could reintroduce hot meals to commercial aircraft.

129 Flying. Mother 'effin. Cars. Finally.

Oh, and gimme on of them hover boards for BTTF too.

130 So, are these Blu-Ray lasers we're talkin' 'bout?  Cause I love the hi-def, man...

131 A lot of the cool things depicted have not come to pass though. Posted by: Truck Monkey
......
We got iPads!  What the fuck more do you want????

132 Via Daily Caller: The Mexican government has been working with the United States Department of Agriculture to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps. USDA has an agreement with Mexico to promote American food assistance programs, including food stamps, among Mexican Americans, Mexican nationals and migrant communities in America. “USDA and the government of Mexico have entered into a partnership to help educate eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States about available nutrition assistance,” the USDA explains in a brief paragraph on their “Reaching Low-Income Hispanics With Nutrition Assistance” web page. “Mexico will help disseminate this information through its embassy and network of approximately 50 consular offices.”

133

 another solar panel scam company bites the dust

 

and, yet,  the march of pretendustry goes on

134 he went to 2012? I though he went back and forth in 30 year increments (to 2015, then).

135 123 So long as we have an FAA, anything is possible.

Fat Ass American?

136

 Ordinary, full-size aircraft can't possibly be powered by this system. The remote recharge is for little tiny drones designed to spy on the U.S. public.

 

It's just the thing if you want to build a permanent surveilance grid. So given the context, this is a Bad Thing.

 

By the way, if the laser is powerful enough to quickly charge a battery, it could put someone's eye out in an instant.  I think there could be serious eyeball-destroying liability issues, requiring the signing of an Executive Branch waiver to tell all the blinded people that they're SOL.

137
That's nothing.
I've got millions of drones that are rechargeable using other people's success.

138 And with a Nice but,

Any laser powerful enough to fly the plane is powerful enough to blow the plane and all our dicks right outta the sky.

139 You know what else would be kind of neat. If only we could find a clean power source that produces no smog or carbon dioxide and that requires very little mass to produce an almost infinite supply of energy.

Posted by: SH at July 19, 2012 03:32 PM (gmeXX)

 

 

 

Now you're just talking crazy, you big dreamer... 

 

 

It's infuriating that nobody among Joe Public knows about the advances that have been made in reactor technology.  The pebble bed design is, based on what I've read so far, meltdown proof.  The old dangers of the past are no longer anything to worry about with the new tech.  We have the tools to replace a major portion of our fossile fuel consumption very easily, yet we shun it in ignorant fear.

140 I think Ace is just bitter that the flying cars he was promised never showed up.

141 Isn't "las@r" one of those words that lands you on the homeland security watch list?

142 Cutting fuel by 60%, but using 3,000% more fuel isn't really gaining much from a cost perspective is it?

Posted by: gekkobear at July 19, 2012 03:23 PM (X0NX1)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

It's kind of a law of physics.  It always takes the same amount of energy to get whatever sized mass from  point A to point B.  It doesn't matter what form that energy takes, it's always the same.

143 TM, If I had a hover-skateboard I'd still be shreddin' the pipes! (Not really, but I do have a 41 year old friend who still thinks he's Tony Hawk.)

144 This is the kind of good news that makes you really stand at attention!

145 If only we could find a clean power source that produces no smog or carbon dioxide and that requires very little mass to produce an almost infinite supply of energy. It would have to be pretty concentrated though, something on the order of the nuclear binding force.

146 It's an entirely different kind of flying altogether.

147 Could be a fuel / price win, at least if your airport is in a state that gets its power from nukes, not solar panels or windmills. Fuel up a conventional plane to fly 3000 miles, or circle for twelve hours as you soak up enough energy to fly 80,000 lbs of batteries another forty miles?

148 noodle

149

127Besides, this is just a way for your government to monitor you 24x7 since the drones never have to land to refuel.

 

Welcome to The United Soviet States of America.

 

Posted by: © Sponge at July 19, 2012 03:32 PM (UK9cE)

 

--------------

 

Exactly.

I'm in favor of new technologies.

But this one.....is one that can be used to snoop on us, even more than they already are.

 

150 and, yet, the march of pretendustry goes on So very nice that.

151 It's kind of a law of physics. It always takes the same amount of energy to get whatever sized mass from point A to point B. It doesn't matter what form that energy takes, it's always the same. Posted by: Soona at July 19, 2012 03:37 PM (CE/55) That's the same kind of tired thinking that George Bush and the Republicans used to get us in this ditch. If you don't have any new ideas, go back to drinking your Slurpee.

152 So, instead of being able to drive three or four hundred miles on a tank of gas, I have to stay within twenty miles of my Volt's special electrical outlet. Is it like that?

The Volt does have a gas tank good for three or four hundred miles, if it doesn't explode first.  It's just like a Prius in that regard, it's not electric-only.

153

Winning the future. Where we're going, there are no roads.

 

Just ruined former roads.

 

There's no food or shelter there either.

154 Yeah, the efficiency and power density just aren't there for large passenger or cargo aircraft.

Tiny drones, barely.

And there's really a better solution already out there. There's a company pushing their infinite endurance drone -- it carries charged batteries and drops them when out of juice. A smaller drone then flies up and drops in a replacement battery.

We could also just do automated fuel refuelings.

Liquid fuel is much more energy rich than anything else we have (excluding nuclear).

Liquid fossil fuels are pretty amazing. We take them for granted.

155 We have the tools to replace a major portion of our fossile fuel consumption very easily, yet we shun it in ignorant fear. Posted by: Reactionary
.......
And not only that.. some of them can use existing "spent" fuel from conventional reactors.

I hope Romney's people are up on this shit.. because you know this drought is going to bring the greenies out and Obama will embrace global warming bullshit.. much of which can be countered with "Ok.. just in case, let's build tons of nuke plants.  We'll eliminate dirty coal plants for decades!"

156

Couple points of order, in case they  haven't been covered yet.

 

The  real-world application of this would have a battery-operated drone that was recharged by laser.  Essentially by using a special type of "solar cell" that  is tailored to work off of light from the laser instead of sunlight.  Much more efficient, and much quicker.

 

So the drone would be out in the patrol, and then either return home and  loiter and get a recharge, or meet up with a remote crew and get recharged from  them.

 

Pretty cool, but I am still  trying to determine how this is so much better than simply landing and getting a fresh battery put in.

 

If you're using a drone, then I assume you're using it to go places that aren't exactly safe for human troops.  If it isn't safe for human troops, then you aren't going to want to send in a Laser Refuelling Team.  So the drone has to break from whatever mission it is doing, come home anyway, but instead of landing and having hands-on maintenance, it gets a laser recharge.

 

How long does a recharge take by laser?  Faster than the drone landing, getting a new,  pre-charged battery swapped in, and relaunching?

 

Human-carrying applications are dubious in my opinion.  A small battery is quick to charge and can run an R/C car  for an hour, maybe two.  That battery isn't going to get you very  far if you  hook it to your Prius.  Will the batteries necessary to power a full-fledged aircraft still weigh  less than the equivalent mass of fuel?  Fuel  tanks empty as you go along your way, which lightens the aircraft.  You're carrying the full mass of batteries the entire trip, regardless of how "full" or "empty" they are.

 

I'm not saying this isn't awesome.  It is.  It's a really nifty new idea.

 

But in the esteemed words of Amelia Wolfhart, let's not start powering one another's jets quite yet, gentlemen...

157 Reactionary - worse is we want to shut down all other forms of hydrocarbon energy because they are destroying the environment or something and we will all die soon.  But because nuclear energy may or may not harm 10-20 people in the case of a meltdown that has never really occurred other than in Soviet Russia, we have to abandon it in the hope that we can cover our desserts and line our coasts (except near the Kennedy compound) for this magic energy supply.  Nice plan. 

158 Everything else aside ... Obama is a SCOAMF. That is all.

159 And on the lasers.

Someday, somebody nasty is gonna unleash the eyeball frying lasers.

We don't do it now out of gentlemen's agreement that it's just too cruel, even in war.

But eyeball frying lasers are easy and cheap. Gonna be really hard to prevent the bad guys from using them.

160 Liquid fuel is much more energy rich than anything else we have (excluding nuclear).

Liquid fossil fuels are pretty amazing. We take them for granted.

Posted by: FlatBush Joe at July 19, 2012 03:40 PM (ZPrif)

I've been saying it for years.  If you come up with something better than what the best is now, great.  Until then, don't force me onto your pipe dream shit that will fail and end up costing me a shitload more money.

161 It's kind of a law of physics. It always takes the same amount of energy to get whatever sized mass from point A to point B. It doesn't matter what form that energy takes, it's always the same. Posted by: Soona
.......
True.. but how efficiently that energy is generated makes a big difference in cost.  As mentioned above, fossil fuels are highly efficient.  Beaming laser energy, with cost of generation and loss in the atmosphere almost sounds ridiculous in comparison.

162

There is a great alternative.  We choose to ignore it out of irrational fear in the hope of finding an energy supply that could never harm a soul - birds not included. 

 

Frankly, we really don't have an energy crisis.  The fuel and tehnology are there.  We just don't have the political power to use them until the laws of economics win out - like now.

163 And not only that.. some of them can use existing "spent" fuel from conventional reactors.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 19, 2012 03:41 PM (f9c2L)

 

 

True - and indeed, this could even have been done with the old reactors after reprocessing spent nuclear "waste" but thanks to dumbass Jimmy Carter we banned fuel reprocessing.;

 

 

Reactionary - worse is we want to shut down all other forms of hydrocarbon energy because they are destroying the environment or something and we will all die soon.

Posted by: SH at July 19, 2012 03:42 PM (gmeXX)

 

 

 

Also a great point.  We have to destroy the beauty of our nation in the name of "renewables" that take more energy to make than they will ever produce.  It's crap piled on top of more crap. 

 

 

 

This is why I hate Libtards with a hot hot hate.  May each one die in a fire.

 

164

"And there's really a better solution already out there. There's a company pushing their infinite endurance drone -- it carries charged batteries and drops them when out of juice. A smaller drone then flies up and drops in a replacement battery."

 

If we're doing THIS, then why not just fit the primary drone with the laser receiver, and the refuel drone with the laser?  Transfer the power, and go on your ways.

 

Or...if we're having to  launch a second drone ANYWAY, just send up another  surveilance drone that can take over the mission while the first one returns home?

165 Fossil Fuels are magic because time and physics have already stored up all the energy for us.

It's like somebody rolled a bunch of boulders up a hill for us and all we have to do is give them  a little push down the hill.

Or kinda like some ancient civilizations left trillions of little nano-batteries in the form of coal and oil.

Sure, we could spend our time building our own batteries. But why not use the trillions of free magic batteries the Ancients left us buried in the ground.

166

Oh my...

It's so cute how you think you have a safe, efficient means of transmitting energy via laser.

Right...  You know what you really have?  An aviary holocaust.

You think we'll allow this to be put into place?

Think again.

We shut down the windmills over this issue.  Wind...the dream energy of the greens. 

But a few birds got chopped up by the blades, and blammo!  Wind power was as dead as the dodo.

No pun intended.

167

Holy crap!  Tesla's dream becoming reality...

 

That being said, the various energy conversions are undoubtedly extremely inefficient (it's probably not so different from solar power), you would need line-of-sight, and even a laser spreads out over distance, so you probably couldn't "refuel" very far away.

 

Cool idea, though. Worth playing with; you never know when some sort of breaktrough will occur, or if it will be useful in some niche application (like "drones").

168 All this great technology and yet the ability to only pay for the cable channels that I actually want to watch eludes us to this day.

169 Someday, somebody nasty is gonna unleash the eyeball frying lasers.

We don't do it now out of gentlemen's agreement that it's just too cruel, even in war.

But eyeball frying lasers are easy and cheap. Gonna be really hard to prevent the bad guys from using them.

Posted by: FlatBush Joe at July 19, 2012 03:43 PM (ZPrif)

 

 

---------------------------------------------------

 

 

We already have that in the form of high intensity light weapons.  The high-intensity light used to down the Japanese AWACS planes in Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor" are real.

170 OK now, we've gotten our laser-fueled aerial vehicle up there.  Now I want it to forward the laser back to me on the ground.  Run my car (receiving pad on the roof).  Power my house.  My goodness that would be a lot of lasers crisscrossing the sky.

171 @166

The idea is you use a large ultra-efficient, ultra-endurance spy drone as the main drone. Large ultra-lightweight wings.

The little drones that carry the battery replacements just fly up quick to replace the battery.

The idea is to be flying as little mass as possible. So the big drone ejects spent batteries to conserve energy.

The big ultra-endurance drone will be expensive. The little drones cheap and disposable.

It stays up 24/7. No landings except at the start and end of a mission.

And the reason to use batteries instead of more efficient liquid fuel is to keep the drone silent. It's a spy drone. Combustion engines are inherently noisy.

172 No, silly earth Creatures, you do not want to build these... and you especialy do not want to make it so you can focus 10's of thousands of these onto a single orbital target....

173 @173.  Correct.  When the American skies are filled with ahem "public-safety" drones, you don't want the citizenry to know when you have a drone looking down on them.

174

OK... so now for the big question...

 

If'n we build this, it only flys over the US... because that will be the only place with Ground Power Stations within our control...

 

So.... just why are we building a SURVEILANCE Drone which can only fly over the US????

 

DHS? NSA? FBI?

175 If I can't have a Moon base, with solar powered laser-railguns ready to chuck rocks down on our enemies, then I quit! (I did stay on topic! I used the word "laser"!) Spreading would be a function of power. So, hook this usage pattern together with the recent announcement of that phenomenal laser output blast of a few days ago and wa-la, you've got yer' basic space elevator system, I hope!

176 @109 is this what you're talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

177

OMG you inhuman bastards,Look at all those poor helpless birds getting fried by that laser.The HUMANITY!!!

Thats what it will sound like in court when the WWF gets the suit rolling to block this idea.

178

I see what Ace is talking about. Once upon a time I needed to look into it, and learned that only about 5% of the mass of a rocket actually makes it into space. The other 95% is fuel, plus some of the containment for the fuel, and a lot of the fuel is used to lift the rest of the fuel (for use at higher altitudes).

 

So for lanching a rocket into space, it's a BIG savings if you don't have to carry the weight of the fuel part way up, AND don't have to carry the fuel tanks for it, either. You might win big, even if the energy conversion efficiency sucks.

 

In THAT application, you wouldn't worry so much about your "Death Ray" zapping the wrong stuff (except maybe some astronauts!), because it's pointing skyward. You also don't have to worry about line-of-sight.

 

And yes, as somebody said, since your laser will have a specific frequency (vs the solar spectrum), you can probably pick one that works especially well with specialized "solar panels", and maybe even shoots right through clouds.

 

179

On a related point, I always wondered by astronauts said it was such a wild ride, being launched into space, when it looks downright pokey in the video.

 

Well, F=ma. If your force is 1.05 times your original "m" (mass), you will initially accelerate at 0.05*g (since you must overcome the 1.00 g due to gravity).

 

But after you burn off half your fuel, your force is now 2.10 times your new "m". You acceleration becomes 2.10 - 1.00 = 1.10*g, which is about the acceleration of falling, only upwards. You would feel like somebody your own weight was sitting on you.

 

As still more fuel gets burned off, it would only get more "exciting", although the engines on later stages undoubtedly produce decreasing levels of thrust.

 

So the exciting part happens once it's high enough up that the observers on the ground can't see it.

 

180

"But just using a laser to get a plane up to altitude on take-off would cut fuel use by, I don't know, 60-80% on any medium to long trip?"

 

Um, I think it's the other way around, Ace.  You want to use a regularly-fueled engine when you are trundling down the runway and for climbing out and sprinting to get above the bad guys asap.  Then you use the laser as a sustaining power source, and of course you make sure you have a few gallons of gas left in the tank for landing, and maybe a missed-approach or two.

181 Maybe we could also do an experiment to see if the spittle (or...) on Chris Mattthews' chin could be dried up by a laser, maybe the one they took out of that 747 designed to shoot down ICBMs?  Open wide!

182

125..debunked. Marty McFly did NOT go to 2012. He went to 2015. October 21, 2015, to be exact.

 

Yes, I'm a pedantic asshole.

 

I just got sick of people bombarding me with that crap last week. I think some of them did it on purpose.

183 So, we still have 2 1/2  years for flying cars to be developed, and for the Cubs to win the World Series.

184 Laser-rechargeable drones? Sounds like birtherism to us.

185 It's kind of a law of physics. It always takes the same amount of energy to get whatever sized mass from point A to point B. It doesn't matter what form that energy takes, it's always the same.

Posted by: Soona at July 19, 2012 03:37 PM (CE/55)

Except for losses, friction, wind drag, heat loss, transference loss, and various other losses you skip in high school physics because they complicate the math.

But in the real world you need complicated math... and efficiency of your energy source or energy transfer method is VERY important.

Solar cells today get about 3 times the electricity they did a decade ago; that isn't because the sun got 3 times as hot; but because they got three times as efficient at the energy conversion.

If your laser loses 20% in atmospheric reflections, 15% in heat transference, and another 30% in transforming it back to something the plane can use... you don't really get 100% at the other side... you get 35%.  So you need 3 times the energy you'll need the plane to have.

If the efficiency ratings are different this can go up or down.

But lets not pretend there isn't friction, heat loss, or other losses of energy in transference; we're not in the frictionless vacuum that high school physics pretends everything happens in.