When they were considering awarding the Missouri to Pearl Harbor as a museum ship, a lot of people were, understandably, quite concerned that it might overshadow the Arizona memorial, and that some of the events that would inevitably be hosted aboard in such close proximity and in view of the memorial were not in keeping with the solemnity of the memorial. I've always thought that the solution they came up with was extremely thoughtful and respectful. The ship was moored so that the aft end of the ship was shielded from view of the memorial and that is where parties and dinners and other events are hosted. But, even more poignant, her forward main batteries are angled directly over the memorial, making her final duty to stand forever guard over the Arizona's grave.

 

When they were considering awarding the Missouri to Pearl Harbor as a museum ship, a lot of people were, understandably, quite concerned that it might overshadow the Arizona memorial, and that some of the events that would inevitably be hosted aboard in such close proximity and in view of the memorial were not in keeping with the solemnity of the memorial. I've always thought that the solution they came up with was extremely thoughtful and respectful. The ship was moored so that the aft end of the ship was shielded from view of the memorial and that is where parties and dinners and other events are hosted. But, even more poignant, her forward main batteries are angled directly over the memorial, making her final duty to stand forever guard over the Arizona's grave.

Yes, the perfect bookends to that point in history. Our ship tour was great and is highly recommended if you visit the island.

Every Westpac, we would honor those that served and died when entering and leaving Pearl.

 

Maybe cool, maybe scary as all get-go

 

Maybe cool, maybe scary as all get-go

One of the engineers worked the wind turbines in Texas. He was a gas turbine tech in the Navy and that was his first job after getting out.
He said,
Don't look up and don't look down when climbing inside.

We would see similar twisting inside the ship in rough seas.

 

Just saw this. Way cool idea!

 

Just saw this. Way cool idea!

Cool, yes, but also theft. They are stealing power from the utility, which means the utility's customers.

 

Proud to admit I worked on this weapon. Back in 2006 when it was in development.

 

Proud to admit I worked on this weapon. Back in 2006 when it was in development.

Neat but the power out of the laser (60KW) is a fraction of the total input power of the system (likely more than 100KW). The energy on target ratio to ships power is likely much less that than of a kinetic projectile because that energy (the shell/bullet) is from a chemical reaction, not the ships electrical supply. With drones and other lightweight it might be effective but with incoming boats and heavier weapons they will need a hell of a lot more power.

This is what a CIWS will do to you.

 

Cool, yes, but also theft.

Honestly, I hadn’t considered that. I doubt it’d significantly drain the system. If one drone charges and the cost is shared among many households, it shouldn’t affect my bill much, if at all noticeable.

Neat but the power out of the laser (60KW) is a fraction of the total input power of the system (likely more than 100KW).

True, the laser’s power isn’t the only support. A sailor in a turret aiming the laser would need less power. However, ships’ computers and slewing motors can move quickly and more accurately, so there will be a bigger power drain.

The Navy acknowledges the need for better gas turbine generators to meet the demand, but I can’t discuss it due to confidentiality concerns. But in development (back in 2018) I've seen some really impressive advances. By now - who knows?!

 

This makes me jealous. Some guys have all the fun.

Even looks like fun when they come back.

 

Honestly, I hadn’t considered that. I doubt it’d significantly drain the system. If one drone charges and the cost is shared among many households, it shouldn’t affect my bill much, if at all noticeable.

But that's assuming that *one* drone is the only thief.

Imagine if the vision we are constantly being pushed of drones delivering your medicine, your groceries, your dinner, your pet supplies, and everything else that drones are supposed to be the future of comes to pass and they all siphon energy from the power grid. You would notice it then.

 

You would notice it then.

True, but there would likely be some legislation to govern how much energy can be tapped from the grid. But I don't know.

 

Honestly, I hadn’t considered that. I doubt it’d significantly drain the system. If one drone charges and the cost is shared among many households, it shouldn’t affect my bill much, if at all noticeable.

True, the laser’s power isn’t the only support. A sailor in a turret aiming the laser would need less power. However, ships’ computers and slewing motors can move quickly and more accurately, so there will be a bigger power drain.

The Navy acknowledges the need for better gas turbine generators to meet the demand, but I can’t discuss it due to confidentiality concerns. But in development (back in 2018) I've seen some really impressive advances. By now - who knows?!

The efficiency relative to power provided of 35 percent for the AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System. The HELIOS system should be in the same range as"
"HELIOS will be similar to a scaled-up version of the 30 kilowatt (kW) AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System (LaWS) the Navy tested on the USS Ponce (AFSB-15) several years ago"
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/july/now-arriving-high-power-laser-competition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Energy_Laser_with_Integrated_Optical-dazzler_and_Surveillance

This is the power range were energy on target gets comparable to kinetic rounds on target to be effective on things like anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) threats.
https://www.navalnews.com/event-new...0-kw-helcap-laser-system-for-intercept-tests/

The US Navy initiated HELCAP in 2019 following the end of the Ruggedized High Energy Laser’s (RHEL) Phase I. The main goal of HELCAP is to serve as a building block for future programs by tackling technical challenges that have plagued laser weapons, such as advanced laser beam control, effects of atmospheric turbulence, precision tracking in high clutter environments, and automatic target identification and aimpoint selection.
...
At the core of the Laser Weapon Testbed will be a 300+ kW class sourced from the Office Secretary of Defense’s High Energy Laser Scaling Initiative (HELSI), which has funded industry teams to deliver several 300+ kW class lasers.
This laser source will be combined with a prototype beam control testbed developed by the Navy and alongside a prototype control system, will all be integrated into an auxiliary prime power and cooling system.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/R46925.pdf
Department of Defense Directed Energy Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress

Weapons Characteristics
Although DE weapons may offer a lower cost per shot than traditional weapons such as missiles,
DE weapons are subject to limitations. For example, atmospheric conditions (e.g., rain, fog,
obscurants) and SWaP and cooling requirements can limit the range and beam quality of DE
weapons, in turn reducing their effectiveness. Traditional weapons, in contrast, are less affected
by these factors.92 Furthermore, DE weapons may be more difficult to maintain than traditional
weapons. As the Government Accountability Office notes, “the internal mechanisms for DE
weapons are sensitive, and typically require a specialized clean room for repairs.” Such
challenges could impact their sustainability in the field. How, if at all, might the limitations of
DE weapons be mitigated by technological developments such as adaptive optics, concepts of
operation, or other methods? What impact might a failure to mitigate these limitations have on
future military operations?
...
Potential Advantages of HEL Weapons
In addition to deeper magazines, lower logistics requirements, and lower costs per shot, potential
advantages of HEL weapons include the following:
• Fast engagement times. Light from a laser beam can reach a target almost
instantly, thereby eliminating the need to calculate an intercept course, as
interceptor missiles must do. By remaining focused on a particular spot on the
target, a laser can cause disabling damage to the target within seconds, depending
on the laser power. After disabling one target, a laser can be redirected to another
target in several seconds.
• Ability to counter radically maneuvering missiles. HEL weapons can follow
and maintain their beam on radically maneuvering missiles that might stress the
maneuvering capabilities of kinetic interceptors.
• Precision engagements. HEL weapons are precision-engagement weapons—the
area irradiated by the laser, which might be several millimeters to several inches
in diameter, affects what it hits, while generally not affecting (at least not
directly) separate nearby objects.
• Graduated responses. HEL weapons can perform functions other than
destroying targets, including detecting and monitoring targets and producing
nonlethal effects, including reversible jamming of electro-optic (EO) sensors.
HELs offer the potential for graduated responses that range from warning targets
to reversibly jamming their systems, to causing limited but not disabling damage
(as a further warning), and then finally causing disabling damage.

Potential limitations of HEL weapons include the following:
• Line of sight. Since laser light passes through the atmosphere on an essentially
straight path, HEL weapons would be limited to line-of-sight engagements, and
consequently could not counter over-the-horizon targets or targets obscured by
intervening objects. As a result, potential engagement ranges against certain
targets (e.g., low-flying targets) would be limited.
• Atmospheric absorption, scattering, and turbulence. Substances in the
atmosphere—particularly water vapor, but also sand, dust, salt particles, smoke,
and other air pollution—absorb and scatter light, and atmospheric turbulence can
defocus a laser beam. These effects can reduce the effective range of an HEL
weapon. Absorption by water vapor is a particular consideration for shipboard
lasers because marine environments feature substantial amounts of water vapor in
the air. There are certain wavelengths of light (i.e., “sweet spots” in the
electromagnetic spectrum) where atmospheric absorption by water vapor is
markedly reduced. Lasers can be designed to emit light at or near those sweet
spots, so as to maximize their potential effectiveness. Absorption generally grows
with distance to target, making it in general less of a potential problem for short
range operations than for longer-range operations. Adaptive optics, which make
rapid, fine adjustments to a laser beam on a continuous basis in response to
observed turbulence, can counteract the effects of atmospheric turbulence. Even
so, lasers might not work well, or at all, in rain or fog, preventing lasers from
being an all-weather solution.
• Thermal blooming. A laser that continues firing in the same exact direction for a
certain amount of time can heat up the air it is passing through, which in turn can
defocus the laser beam, reducing its ability to disable the intended target. This
effect, called thermal blooming, can make lasers less effective for countering
targets that are coming straight at them, on a constant bearing (i.e., “down-the
throat” shots). Most tests of laser systems have been against crossing targets
rather than “down-the-throat” shots. In general, thermal blooming becomes more
of a concern as the power of the laser beam increases.
• Saturation attacks. Since a HEL weapon can attack only one target at a time,
requires several seconds to disable the target, and requires several more to be
redirected to the next one, a HEL weapon can disable only so many targets within
a given period of time. This places an upper limit on the ability of an individual
laser to deal with saturation attacks—attacks by multiple weapons that approach
the platform simultaneously or within a few seconds of one another. This
limitation can be mitigated by installing more than one laser on the platform, up
to space and energy availability.
• Hardened targets and countermeasures. Less powerful lasers—that is, lasers
with beam powers measured in kilowatts (kW) rather than megawatts (MW)—
can be less effective against targets that incorporate shielding, ablative material,
or highly reflective surfaces, or that tumble or rotate rapidly (so that the laser
spot does not remain continuously on a single location on the target’s surface).
Smoke or other obscurants can reduce the susceptibility of a target platform to
laser attack. Such measures, however, can increase the cost and/or weight of the
target platform.

 

True, but there would likely be some legislation to govern how much energy can be tapped from the grid. But I don't know.

The answer is easy, ZERO for free.

 

True, but there would likely be some legislation to govern how much energy can be tapped from the grid. But I don't know.

Some obvious problems with that. First, the legislation would be saying that you can steal as long as you don't steal more than some amount. Second, how would you enforce it? How would you determine that my drone is stealing too much? And would it be if I stole more than so much on a given tap? If so, then what if I steal just below the limit, disconnect, come back five minutes later, and do it again? And again? Or would it be that I get to steal only so much per month? Do I have to report how much I steal every month? And then there's the really tricky issue -- it's the cumulative theft that is the real issue, so a million drones each steal a small amount each day. Which drones are the ones that are allowed to steal and which ones aren't?

Imagine you have people coming onto your property and getting a gallon of water or so from your outdoor water spigot, but you don't have just one or two a month, you have a thousand people a day lined up, each taking a gallon or so. So the city passes legislation limiting people to stealing no more than half a gallon from you, Is that going to solve your problem when it comes time to pay your water bill?

 

@WBahn You're a moderator? I feel like you're being hostile toward me.

I'm not a law maker. Drones of a specific design could be required to be licensed. That licensing could include averages that may cover common energy consumption. Some may abuse the privilege, others might not. While I get your point about being limited to half a gallon, I just don't see many people owning drones like these. And of those who DO own one I don't see many of them abusing the privilege of "free electricity". Besides - it's not like they're going to be stealing hundreds of thousands of watts to bring back to their homes or electric vehicles. Sure, someone WILL abuse it. But I have faith in humanity, albeit that beholding has recently been challenged in the political realm. A neighbor had their water interrupted. For that period they asked if they could run a hose from my bib to theirs. They didn't use much, and it only occurred once. But I suppose in a post apocalyptic scenario people will be taking as much as they can get. We're not there yet.

I own a business making custom cabinets & other wood products. I could easily hide some income, but I value my continued freedom. I also respect the rule of law. There have been plenty of opportunities to take an unfair or illegal advantage with very low chances of getting caught but honesty and integrity on my part causes me to believe others are of similar disposition. I lost a wallet with substantial cash. The wallet made it home in tact and not a dollar was missing. The person who returned it chose to remain anonymous, so I guess I have faith in people. I would hope you have a similar faith in humanity.

 

This case reminds me of the court battles between the OTA subscription TV providers and the pirates who were selling boxes to decode the signals.

One side claimed thief and the other side made the case that energy that entered the home was the property of the homeowner.

I'm not really sure where the verdict ended up because Philly finally made a deal with Comcast to provide cable and OTA subscription TV bit the dust.

Depending on how the courts ruled on those cases a case may be made that if energy enters your drone...it's yours, but of course the power company can make the case that they own the immediate space around the lines.

Just some food for thought, I have no opinion one way or another except that hanging on the power lines is a big NO NO.

 

I have near zero faith in humanity as a whole. Just live near Portland to see how few humans it takes to destroy the social fabric when we look the other way at people sleeping on the sidewalks from drugs. It goes from a few, to the critical mass to destroy so quickly.

The power line tap is simply stealing energy that's been generated for delivery elsewhere.

 

We live in a meta-stable society...

 

see how few humans it takes to destroy the social fabric when we look the other way at people sleeping on the sidewalks from drugs.

I've known people on the streets NOT due to drugs. Such a blanket statement seems socially biased and somewhat unfair to the homeless. It also paints a negative picture of all who are homeless. I was homeless once. For six weeks. And it wasn't due to drugs. [edit] And no - I didn't live in a hotel or other sort of arrangement. We sheltered for those six weeks. The church helped us get back up and going. And getting a job at Little Caesars helped. [end edit]

Granted, it's been a while since I've visited Yosemite but the stench of human urine does seem to bely the fact that there are some pigs of people out there.

I do agree, stealing power from the power company is wrong. I just thought it was a cool idea for recharging a drone in flight. I can imagine the power company using such drones to inspect their transmission lines with a drone spending several hours airborne while humans remain safe on the ground monitoring the inspection. That may be the first most practical use for such a drone. Another potential use could be by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) to patrol borders. A quick in-flight recharge and the coverage continues. I'd be in favor of that. And I'm sure the military would pay a premium for the privilage of charging on the go.

While there are those who take advantage of the situation when they can - there are far more who wouldn't.