Combat lasers: Can focused light protect Ships? Tanks? Airplanes? And ultimately countries? From enemy weapons? And Should Defensive Weapons Follow Humans into Space?

Me, "You don't have to be a genius to see the cost savings of using focused light to defend a country from attack. Where as a missile or bombs costs millions of dollars to use and you have to rebuild another, a laser is a weapon that just needs a good supply of energy to keep it shooting. It could be placed on a tank, an airplane, a large ship or out in space on a missile defense system. The problem has been can it be pumped up for combat and the latest from the UK is that they are officially awarding a contract to find out. A demonstration would come in 2019 and the first laser weapon would come into use in the 2020's. I don't see Laser weapons as a threat to the status quo because a lot of countries are testing all kinds of weapons that either don't pan out or are just used to ward off attack. Laser weapons will just be a new weapon in a country's defensive/offensive arsenal. 

As the movie Star Wars show, lasers can have a unique military use, and as Star Trek shows, even a ship of peace needs weapons for protection. 

Which is another reason why I believe Space will one day have weapons in it. 

I am not a warmonger. If done right, no one ever has to fear weapons in space. On a day to day operation, you probably would not even know they are there. 

They would be like nuclear missiles, hidden underground like on Earth but in a Moon or Mars base or inside a ship only, to be used for defense. How many people have seen Navy ships and Submarines and thought, eww... evil? Probably not because the ships do not tip over the line with an aggressive look, yet, they are floating weapons. The same can be done for space.

We put weapons on Land, in the Air, on the Sea, in the Sea, and Space is no different. We will need weapons in space to protect Earth from collision from asteroids; weapons in space to protect our future space colonies from one and other; weapons in space to protect countries here on Earth, because you never know what could institute trouble.  And, of course, however unlikely, weapons in space in case aliens ever attack. We are going to need something to stop them too. We humans are advanced thinking life, but we have our skirmishes. How do we know, if aliens exist, they aren't the same way?

The best offense is the best defense and Laser weapons are the most cost effective weapons for defense."     

From article, "UK building $38 million combat laser prototype by 2019 and field lasers in mid-2020s"
The UK Ministry of Defence has officially awarded a £30m (US$38 million) contract to produce a prototype laser weapon. The aim is to see whether "directed energy" technology could benefit the armed forces, and is to culminate in a demonstration of the system in 2019. If the demonstration is successful, the first laser weapons could come into service in the mid-2020s.

This would be a delay from previous targets of 2017 land based combat lasers and 2019 for the UK navy

The contract was picked up by a consortium of European defense firms.

The prototype will be assessed on how it picks up and tracks targets at different distances and in varied weather conditions over land and water.

The demonstrator was not being developed to counter any specific threat, but to assess whether such weaponry could be delivered as a capability for the armed forces.

But in general, directed energy weapons could potentially be used to destroy drone aircraft, missiles, mortars, roadside bombs and a host of other threats.

The US military has been experimenting with high energy lasers for decades. But, until recently, technical hurdles had prevented them from being used on the frontline.

However, the US Navy fielded a laser weapon system called Laws for testing on the USS Ponce during a deployment to the Gulf starting in 2014.)


Me, "Not only is the UK looking into Laser weapons but the U.S. Air Force is too."



Another article on Laser weapons, "Air Force getting bids for defensive lasers on fighter jets"

(The US Air Force (USAF) has issued a request for proposals (RFP) related to its efforts to field a laser-based self-protection system for its tactical combat aircraft.

The laser will be housed in a supersonic flight-capable pod to be developed under the Laser Pod Research and Development (LPRD) contract.

The RFP, posted by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Directed Energy Directorate, Laser Division (AFRL/RDL) on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website on 5 January, seeks research proposals for the service's Laser Advancements for Next-generation Compact Environments (LANCE) project, which is geared at integrating a defensive laser weapon aboard current and future fighter-sized aircraft.)

The Future of the Electric Flying Car Starts Here...

Me, "The future of the flying car is being innovated by the same technology that powers you or your friend's camera drone. The first test was a man sitting on a very small chair surrounded by twirling blades back in 2011. This new machine, which can carry two people, in a helicopter like pod, has just been tested back in April 2016. It is powered by batteries and driven by electric motors and more importantly has been deemed safe enough to be given a license to fly in Germany.
I could tell when camera drones were becoming popular that this was an avenue that should be explored for the flying car. The dilemma has always been safety but this vehicle shows it can take off, fly, and land safely.  This flying platform is much more stable than a helicopter, can maintain a height that feels like you are still on the ground, and is simple to use. The next steps would be to install an automatic pilot that can do everything a human pilot can do: take off, fly and land at predetermined coordinates. Also, built as big as a regular car, with a more condensed wing span or one that easily folds up for easier parking in very small city landing storage areas.
It seems Back to The Future almost got it right. It may not be 2015, and the flying car will look more like a flying camera drone than a conventional automobile but flying cars are coming.
Obviously, the price will be high at first. Its marketed at $340,000, but I am sure there will be a big field of flying car makers, who will mass produce them, bringing the cost down for regular people (Just like there is today with small budget, middle budget, and very costly camera drones). It may not be too far in the future, when you want to go to a far off place, you hop in your flying car and take to the skyway."  

Me, "The future flying car?"

Picture and quotes From article, "Is this the future of commuting? Watch the first manned flight of the Volocopter 'personal drone' with 18 rotors Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3528834/Watch-manned-flight-personal-drone-18-rotors-Volocopter-replace-car-flies-passenger-groundbreaking-test.html#ixzz4V7YRRAoI Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"

(Volocopter VC200 received permit-to-fly in February 2016, and has now been flown by a pilot for the first time

Took to the skies for a 3 minute flight  and traveled 20 to 25 meters in sky

It has automatic altitude control, and can hover without being controlled making it as easy to control as a car 

Several manufacturers are working on similar craft - some that can fly themselves to create 'air taxis

German firm has embarked on a new era in urban mobility with a manned flight in the world's first certified multicopter.

With passenger in tow, The Volocopter VC200 took to the skies for a three minute voyage using its 18 gently humming rotors and eco-friendly electric propulsion.

Not only does this offer more widespread use in conventional aircraft domains, but it brings us one step closer to air taxi services and full transportation systems in the third dimension, the firm says.

The Volocopter VC200 took to the skies using its 18 gently humming rotors and electric propulsion.

It is piloted one-handedly with a single joystick, which has shown to reduce the major reason behind fatal helicopter accidents: human error.

The initial two-seat design uses battery packs, with a flight-time duration of only about 20 to 30 minutes. 

Its inventors say it will be the most environmentally-friendly helicopter ever created.

They also claim it will be the world's safest because it is unlikely to crash if a rotor fails.

The initial two-seat design uses battery packs, with a flight-time duration of only about 20 to 30 minutes.

It will be certified for sport flying, Alexander Zosel told Wired , and he plans to sell the copters for about $340,000.)

Sensible Earmarks Need to be Brought Back So Legislation Can Get Passed Again.

Me, "The problem with Earmarks was that they were abused, but without them, it makes getting sensible legislation passed impossible. If a member of congress would go up to a representative, even from another party, and say 'look, I'll vote for your legislation, if you vote for my earmark,' was how things got done. With that process removed, we got congressional gridlock.
I agree there was some abuses, but instead of putting some reforms on it to make it less abused, and more beneficial, it was scrapped totally. It's kind of like going to the Dr. and saying your arm hurts and instead of giving you a painkiller, he cuts your arm off. Earmarks need to be brought back in a sensible way so legislation can get passed again."



From article, "Bring back bacon? Southern Illinois congressmen push for return of budget earmarks"


(For decades until the late 1980s, southern Illinois earned a generous share of federal earmarks that helped fund projects such as its interstate highway system, post offices and hospitals.

“Why wasn’t Obama like Johnson? One good reason was he didn’t have earmarks,” Jackson told The Southern Illinoisian. “There’s no more wheeling and dealing. Johnson would say to a Southern senator or House member, ‘I’d like your vote on the Civil Rights Act.’ They’d say, ‘No way. Not going to happen.’ And he’d say, ‘You know that lake or highway or dam or federal building you’ve wanted, I can make that happen, but I need your vote.’

“It’s called horse trading and people think it’s unseemly, but it was part of the legislative process."

Earmarks were scrapped about five years ago by former House Speaker John Boehner in the face of corruption charges and embarrassing projects like Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" that were funded by the practice.

Administrative funding decisions are intended to remove politics from the equation through need-based formulas, but Shimkus argued that does not always happen and that House and Senate members should have a say in prioritization of some projects in their districts.

"We have a couple of members in jail because of it," he said, acknowledging that congressional earmarks did get abused. "So not only was it abused, we had members who broke the law and did time. Now, we are trying to find a way to reclaim our constitutional authority and ensure the public trust through transparency."

Bost said by bringing earmarks back, certain "sensible" guidelines would be implemented to protect the process from corruption.

Shimkus said he would be in favor of limitation on earmarks, where the process only could be used to direct federal dollars to other government agencies and public infrastructure projects, not to businesses or individuals.)