Give me one fucking good reason why it wouldn't work.
>>30168271
I don't know but you own me two sides
>>30168275
owe* fuck
>>30168271
Idea submitted to FSB.
Thanks anon
>mfw russia will soon be testing disco-ball covered homosexual intercontinental homosexual missiles
It does work to an extent. Anti-laser armor on rockets has two components generally: a reflective coating, and a lightweight ablitave insulator. The refleflective coating will eventually burn away because refracted photons still deliver energy, so you need defense in depth.
>>30168271
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-VlVmBZGI4
>>30168271
How does your reflective layer survive the heat of re-entry?
ICBM's shoot their payload into the exosphere, they are coming down at immense speed and all warheads have heat shields to protect them
>>30169244
Not sure about how the Russians did it, but the Americans use this weird foam to dissipate heat during reentry.
I remember seeing a video where a guy put some on an egg, stuck a blow torch to it, then left it there for a few minutes before cracking it with no signs of it having heated up significantly.
>>30168325
>"mirror" clearly unpolished to the point of being no more reflective than a sheet of tin.
>>30169384
That foam is also 0% reflective, in fact, it's the opposite of reflective, it's painted black to radiate heat faster. This is good when you have medium heat levels across the entire profile, but awful against focused energy like lasers, because black means 100% of the laser energy gets absorbed into a tiny spot.
>>30168271
Because we're also using railguns and counter-missiles.
Also, war is dirty as fuck so the mirrors will be all smudged and dirty
>>30168271
What if you shot the laser with another laser?
>>30169464
So the foam burns away and then what? Mirrors motherfucker.
>>30169830
mirrors covered with burned shit that can't reflect
>>30169464
Unless the laser can heat that point up faster than it can dissipate the heat then it'd still be good.
Another possibility to counter lasers is to make the missiles spin so the laser can't heat one point as effectively.
>>30168313
>I won't ever nuke a coutnry with disco rockets while listening to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo0jE0oXITk
It hurts to live
Material which dissipates heat would be better than a reflective surface wouldn't it? But why not both.
>>30168271
>>30169407
you ever try to touch a mirror after it has been sitting out in the sun?
would you try to touch it with your balls?
>>30169244
>>How does your reflective layer survive the heat of re-entry?
Surely it doesn't?
Assuming we're dealing with a YAL-1 style laser here, it'd be shooting the missile fuselage instead of the warhead. The warheads would re-enter and the rocket itself [covered in disco-reflectors] would burn up.
>>30169818
Well since light behave like a particle and a wave, this could technically work if you sent out a beam of light exactly out of phase. Not sure if it would work on the particle side of things.
>one reason
Thermal shock.
>>30170728
Let me add onto this, since we cant know the exact speed AND exact position of a particle at any given time it would be incredibly difficult to actually get it to work.
>>30168271
mirrors aren't perfectly reflective.
Laser light would get a "foothold" on the imperfect reflectiveness.
This would cause the mirror to heat up.
Heating would warp the mirror, causing its reflectivity to drop more...
...causing it to absorb more laser light and heat more.
Causing it to warp more...
causing it to heat more...
etc etc ad infinitum until it burns through.
Best laser defense is thick ceramic that has a high tendency to ablate. Ablation causes more laser absorption problems than mirrors.
>>30170918
This, and thats with a good mirror.
Take in the fact that the mirror would be heavily degraded by flying though atmo at mach whatever and it will happen all the faster.
Ablative coatings are not too feasible either because they are heavy, and localized ablation will severly affect flight dynamics.
>>30168271
Mirrors do absorb some light, so it would eventually get burnt to fuck, and since they tend to have a slightly green tint a magenta laser would work best.
It probably would work to a point, current laser weapons basically suck ass and can barely take down a black painted drone so an extremely reflective device could probably take one of those lasers for at least a good 30 seconds.
>>30168313
>Russia
>homosexual
>>30170979
>localized ablation will severly affect flight dynamics.
I agree with your first point (that ablatives would be heavy...maybe not too heavy though -- the shuttle heat shield would probably suffice), but I believe the flight problems caused by local ablation wouldn't be too bad, all things considered...
...and those things we are to consider would be the results of radiation pressure from being hit by a fucking laser. Depending on the range of the craft being shot, it could be enough to require RCS thrusters to be on the device.
I don't think ICBMs have RCS though...but if we ever got to space lasers, I'm sure weapons design would evolve in turn.
>>30171005
>current laser weapons
the proposed "current" lasers to downing ICBMs are nuke-pumped x-ray lasers that very much can down a missle.
>>30171092
>if we ever get to space lasers
>if
Polyus would like a word with you.
>>30171114
polyus is a toy that wouldn't be useful for anything.
SDI had some fun proposals, but goddam detente era treaties mean no fun allowed in space...
>>30171008
>russia
>straight
Someone hasn't seen the leaked video of Putin admitting he's gay on camera
>>30171114
>Rotate 180 degrees and rocket away.
>>30169407
You must be a special kind of stupid. It's covered in that plastic that everything comes with to keep the surface spotless. Hell, the guy even peels back a corner for us to see. I'm not going into details, but basic physics? Mirrors don't reflect all the light coming at them, and still suck up enough that a laser can slice and dice.
>>30171114
Fucking this.
>>30168271
You see, when laser is of the shoost, missile does of the pop with discoball or no.
Mirrors aren't 100% reflective. Even if you assume 95% is reflected away, you'd still have to deal with thousands of watts of power being pumped into a (relatively) tiny area.
You're actually better off with a coating which ablates and puts a cloud of vapor in front of the target, most of the energy never makes it through.
