Re: Solar powered lasers in space

On Sep 20, 12:07 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 20, 1:20 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Sep 19, 11:38 am, IsaacKuo <mech...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Contrast this with a gabor zone plate lens, combined with
a far away "seed laser" drone behind the lens. In this case,
the diffraction angle is very nearly zero. Thus, the lens
does not need to be very rigid in order to efficiently
function. (A gabor zone plate is a hologram.)

I agree with everything you say. But I'm talking about using
holographic techniquest and nonlinear optical media to construct a
laser that returns a conjugate beam to a target multiplied many
thousands of times in energy - in response to a weak pilot beam..

You are avoiding that subject altogether. Since you seem
knowledgeable, let me give you some references you might find useful
Then maybe you'll understand what i'm getting at.

I'm talking about creating a optical phase conjugation system - not a
holographic imaging system. So, lets be clear about this. We want to
project energy from a large solar pumped laser - safely and reliably
to a large number of moving targets simultaneously though intervening
media with some measure of control. Nothing you have said suggests
this is not possible.

Prime subject avoiding and/or banishment on behalf of their suggesting
that your SBLs are either too spendy or simply impossible is what this
anti-think-tank of mostly faith-based naysayism is all about. Folks
here as rabbi moderators/rusemasters in charge of their Usenet
naysayville are simply opposed to anything that's off-world, and much
worse if it's good for the environment or for those of us sequestered
upon their polluted planet that's getting spendier and more lethal by
the day.

BTW, how's your PC or MAC doing tese days against that gauntlet via
all of their spermware/fuckware?
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've had to switch computers twice in the last 3 days - my technical
people haven't gotten back to me yet as to the cause. We've scheduled
a short teleconference for Monday morning, LA time. haha.. I won't
know until then. It may be posting to usenet. I'll be leaving
Switzerland tomorrow and travelling to DC and then to LA. I like my
new Toshiba though! lol.

Your other stuff is I think over-wrought. Some people value being
right more than being happy. So, they don't want to play the gee-whiz
game. Or they are taking off-world development seriously, and want to
do things they are damned sure will work. These are honest reasons
for objecting.

As I mentioned before. Honest objections are the first step in the
selling cycle. Overcoming them is the responsibility of the person
selling the thing they're objecting about. Gratuitous objections may
be part of a more sinister game.

Finally, any powerful government has secrets to keep. The US
government, especially following 9/11, has legitimate reasons for
containing and directing public information related to missile, space
and nuclear technologies and capabilities. There are sound reasons
for doing this. Nevertheless, there are costs which are not
immediately apparent to any sort of restriction on an unmolested free
exchange of ideas - which may cost us the Republic every bit as much
as say nuclear attack.

The sooner we switch from failed containment policies which focus on
ineffective approachs (control of means) to more forward looking
containment policies which are more effective (control of intent) the
better off we'll all be.



.