Columbia and Chinese Laser Conspiracy?

[john_316]

Its been a long time since I have been on here and hard to say how long I will be on but heres my question.<br /><br /><br />Since China has been testing lasers and they apparently have been trying to blind US satellites as they pass overhead, what about China trying to incapacitate the Columbia when she was flying on her last mission????<br /><br /><br />Just a gander at thoughts no matter how absurd....<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Is there anything that makes you think that occurred, or are you just floating wild theories without any reason? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Since China has been testing lasers and they apparently have been trying to blind US satellites as they pass overhead, what about China trying to incapacitate the Columbia when she was flying on her last mission????<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I doubt that any Chinese laser could incapacitate a space shuttle flying over China. For one thing, the shuttle windows probably wouldn't be facing towards the laser, and, even if they were, someone would have to be looking out them when the beam shone through the windows.

 

[bdewoody]

I think he was referring to the damage on the wing that ended up causing Columbia to break up on re-entry. I think it is well documented that the damage was done during the launch and not while in orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em><font size="2">Bob DeWoody</font></em> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Can't wait to see if he agrees with you <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

The real question that should be asked in these types of theories is <i>why</i>.<br /><br />Why would China target Columbia and risk war or a total chilling of relations with the US, China's largest consumer and the cornerstone of the Chinese economy?<br /><br />Just because something may be technically feasible doesn't mean that it is the answer. There always has to be a motive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

john_316<br /><br />It would be difficult to bore a hole in the Orbiter thermal tiles with heat because they are designed to get hot. They have a very low density, thus a given heat input gives a high delta T, which then radiates away. If you cut the density in half, and the temp goes up double, the radiated heat goes up by 16.<br /><br />What they are not good at is handling mechanical damage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think he was referring to the damage on the wing that ended up causing Columbia to break up on re-entry.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Maybe so, but his only basis for his question was China's reputed attempts to blind our satellites. I haven't read of anyone even attempting to break up orbiting objects via ground-based lasers. Blinding is only possible because the optics are sensitive.

 

[qso1]

The Columbia investigation pretty well supports the idea that Columbia sustained damage on an RCC panel on the left wing leading edge due to a suitcase sized peice of insulation shedding from the external fuel tank during launch.<br /><br />The launch video clearly shows the foam shedding and traveling towards and under the left wing leading edge. Impact tests later demonstrated that despite the low mass of the foam. At 500 mph plus, it was massive enough to blast a hole into the RCC.<br /><br />If U.S. intelligence services had reason to suspect foul play on Chinas part. They could see if Columbias trajectory allowed it to pass over any known Chinese laser facilities. But as mentioned here, what would be the motive? Why not blast the other orbiters that have flown since the Columbia disaster? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Since China has been testing lasers and they apparently have been trying to blind US satellites as they pass overhead, what about China trying to incapacitate the Columbia when she was flying on her last mission???? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No technology is currently available to do that, AFAIK, and it would be a stupid and pointless exercise for the Chinese to try to take Columbia down in that way.<br /><br />But as long as we're discussing thoughts, no matter how absurd, I stumbled upon a hilarious MST3K fanfic recently that tore apart an especially bizarre claim that STS-1 had been faked: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Hey All!<br /><br />Thanx for your posts.<br /><br />The answer is no for those who think I was thinking a conspiracy had occurred. I used the "conspiracy" word to catch a couple people off guard plus to generate some responses no matter how benign. <br /><br />I was just pondering the thought after reading several DOD papers regarding the incidents on them aka "China" attempting at various times to blind Keyhole satellites.<br /><br />I don't believe they have a powerful enough laser with capable battlefield computers let alone one that could cripple a shuttle orbiter but the thought had crossed my mind.<br /><br />That thought is in line that we aka "USA" are about to deploy several lasers to operational stages of combat ability. These megawatt class lasers are coming online in Low Initial Rate Production this coming year on several platforms; 2 air, 1 land, and several are in sea testing as well as others still in the R&D stages.<br /><br />Thanx Again<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[usn_skwerl]

there's a moron by the name of David Sereda that insists that we are in a war with aliens, or UFOs. he is adamant that a UFO show down Columbia on reentry with a laser.<br /><br />if you're interested in shaking your head for a few minutes out of sheer disbelief at such absurdity, copy/paste this, and prepare to look at this is utter awe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LaNNlSSGBY <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[samo]

... having been banished to Phenomena several times I wonder ... What is this doing here ?<br /><br />If you make a Conspiracy theory DO IT RIGHT.<br /><br /> There are 4 PROPER lines of attack:<br /><br /> ___ 1. "Did it work?"<br />also called Scientific method or "prediction test".<br /><br />e.g the Warren Commission.<br /> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -<br /> Their changes have stopped assassinations from being Fatal throughout this age of Terror. Their "everyone: jump on the nut" saved Ford, Reagan & even worked on the Shoe Bomber.<br /><br />-- contrast the failure of the "coddle the nice, misunderstood terrorists" idea:<br />e.g. on 9-11 when they were armed with, at most, razor blades & could ALL have been stopped.<br /><br /> ___ 2. A break in Unanimity of aggreement.<br /> Can be people ... or facts.<br /><br />When Rogers claimed the Challenger Panel had "Characterized the Accident"<br /><br />a) the Nobel Prize winner on the panel (Feynman) shouted him down with: "NO you didn't"<br />b)... YEARS later (on Larry King Live) the most respected member (Yeager) said he'd boycotted for months. Why?<br />- - the Challenger Panel VOTED, to stop NASA developing pictures of holes at OTHER places on the vehicle (e.g Ali Abu Taha, John Maxxon, & myself, all have theories<br /><br /> -- and ALL have "SMOKING GUNS"<br /> -- because there are at least 4 flame/smoke origins -- AT LEAST).<br /><br />Problem here is: ONE BIG POINT may kill ONE theory<br /> -- but it does NOT prove YOUR theory correct. You must fit ALL the data. Not just 1 part.<br /><br />That's why I like the idea: that the fuel was detonating in patches ... it explains Everyone else's Holes, too. Then too: I stole it from NASA's Solid Rocket Experts, who UNANIMOUSLY seceeded from the Shuttle program in 1967, saying the fuel was unstable.<br /><br /> -- I like being on the side with "ALL" the experts !<br /><br />... even in 1986 their Boycott held: NASA had to head the office with a Liquid Rocket expert (Mull

 

[askold]

While I agree with the other posters that shooting down the shuttle would make no sense - there does exist some pretty high power laser technology. The US has it.<br /><br />Just google: MIRACL laser. I worked on this system years ago. It was designed to melt a hole in an ICBM in its cruise phase = then it would tumble and burn up on re-entry. I don't know if these objectives were ever met.

 

[qso1]

samo:<br />the Chinese Laser could have holed the Elevon Actuator Tube. <br /><br />Me:<br />On Challenger, there were several ideas floating around as to cause and the usual concpiracy stuff among them. But for the engineering ideas such as failed ET struts. The Commission did the right thing IMO when it said the probable...note probable cause of the Challenger disaster was the SRB. In part because much of the evidence pointed to an SRB failure. Then NASA went on to go ahead and redesign many components not suspected of causing the accident even if they might not have believed other possible engineering causes.<br /><br />Now lets assume China shot Columbia down. What now? What was the point since several shuttle missions have since flown? The ISS is still in earth orbit? A really good conspiracy theory is one that can eventually be proven or in this case, a stronger motive be shown.<br /><br />We all hear how China wants to invade the U.S. or take over the world etc. Same was said about Russia twenty years ago. And while it should not be disregarded as a possibility, I would think if China has fired the first round of some new world war, they'd be prepared to do more than shoot down one shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

There have been no actual field tests that I'm aware in which an actual ICBM was launched from a test site such as VAFB and shot down from say, a laser based on Kwajalien which would be the logical fully operational capability type test of such a system.<br /><br />Having said that, the system would probably work, but is China anywhere near a MIRACL? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

samo<br />Did your dog just vomit on your keyboard? <br />Is he OK?<br />Could you please take that mess off of the message board?<br />Take all the the words apart, put the letters back in the proper boxes and get your money back.<br />Please try again in some orderly and readable format. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

qso1<br />Right now they have demonstrated, in the field, the ability to shoot down small things like mortar rounds and small rockets at distances of maybe a couple of kilometers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[hk8900]

you're so imaginative, haha<br />In fact, it is impossible that China will do something like shooting down a shuttle<br />The consequence will be much more serious than you can imagine, it may even spark off a world war<br />If you remember the history of US, sinking of Lusitania in 1915 caused the US entry into WWI<br />and destroying a shuttle can do the similar thing<br /><br />China is not ruled by a crazy man in fact, there's no reason China want to dominate the world or destroy humanity<br />you may just treat this as an interesting joke =)<br /><br />Besides, when it comes to the topic of space war (not the star wars type, but human vs human)<br />I think the Japanese are very imaginative on that<br />If you're interested, I suggest you to watch the anime "Gundam" with English subtitle<br />The whole story is about space colonization, colony independence and the independence war<br />You can even see an O'Neil cylinder drop onto the Earth as a weapon of mass destruction:shock:

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I haven't read of anyone even attempting to break up orbiting objects via ground-based lasers. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That'd be a cool way to deal with orbital debris problem <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />However, if you get to laser power range even remotely capable of doing stuff like that, call DOD, i hear they are highly interested.

 

[qso1]

billslugg:<br />Right now they have demonstrated, in the field, the ability to shoot down small things...<br /><br />Me<br />Us or the Chinese? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I haven't read of anyone even attempting to break up orbiting objects via ground-based lasers.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That'd be a cool way to deal with orbital debris problem<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Not quite. Breaking up debris results in a bunch of smaller debris. It is actually a bigger problem than before it was broken into pieces. That is one reason that space-fairing nations are upset at China for smashing a satellite to pieces with a missile. Now, we have just that much more space debris in orbit. <br /><br />However, lasers have been considered as a possible means of de-orbiting objects, using either photonic pressure or partial vaporization to slow objects down until they re-enter the atmosphere. <br /><br />LLNL: Space Debris De-Orbiting by Vaporization Impulse Using Short Pulse Laser

 

[john_316]

Our current Laser technology is being deployed on the ABL YAL-1 Boeing 747 for the BMD (aka COIL Laser), Another is being installed in a modified AC-131 Hercules Specter ( COIL spin-off )Gunship as a special weapons platform, another is about to be installed on a 5 ton truck chassis for the Army, one is in R&D for the next 20-40 ton tank (does not replace M-1) but supplements it.<br /><br />Most of these are Chemical Lasers.<br /><br />Navy Plans CIWS (Phalanx) variant in the next 5 years, Navy also planning employing a Megawatt class laser in the DD-21 ship as a replacement to the Gun system or added feature to different ship flights.<br /><br />Air Force is also looking into Jet Carried Lasers for F-22, B-1B, B-52, F-15E/F that would be mounted much like an extend fuel tank on a wing pylon and be able to fire a few shots at close to medium ranges.<br /><br />Same Laser could also be carried on F-35, F/A-18, F-16, P-3, P-8, and AWACS types of aircraft for defense.<br /><br /><br />MTHEL/THEL is being redeveloped for both air and ground applications.<br /><br /><br />Lasers are already on the battlefield as target designators but the next few years will see them in combat regularly killing enemy and destroying vehicles, tanks, and everything else.<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[no_way]

so, what about those frickin sharks ?

 

[JonClarke]

<i>Lasers are already on the battlefield as target designators but the next few years will see them in combat regularly killing enemy and destroying vehicles, tanks, and everything else.</i><br /><br />We were promised that 30 years ago. Still hasn't happened....<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>