RE: Further thoughts on hitting with lasers

>
>Taking one MU = 1000km (the official unoffical MU scale) then an A
battery
>goes out to 36,000 km, futher than 200 miles but still near instant for
light.
>
>I'd always thought that a 1000 metre ships going to be a very small
>target at 36,000 km. Even a very small movement of the laser barrel
>will transfer to several Km the other end,  it was this slack in the
>targeting system and weaponary mechanics that gave us the possibility
>of missing the taget. Also offensive particle beams will probably be
>a fraction slower than C (speed of light) and will probably loose
>power over distance as they de-focus (attenuate?).

De-focus. Attenuation would not be a problem in space.

>Our most accurate current similar pointy targetting devices *now*
>I suppose are telescopes. I don't know how long it takes to lock onto a
small
>fast moving target in earth orbit such as a satellite or MIR but
suspect
>its not
>that easy?

Radar is far more accurate for targetting/tracking than a telescope. The
narrow
field of vision inherent in telescope design make them unsuitable for
this sort
of application. Coupling the targetting/tracking system to the weapon is
the more difficult task.

>sincerely
>tim jones
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>-
>Reality is for those who can't cope with Science Fiction.

Tony Christney
acc@uvic.ca
/************************************************
*     "Good, Bad, I'm the one with the gun"	*
*				- Ash		*
*************************************************/