Original-From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Star Wars Defense System
Message-Id: <1992Sep24.172951.4315@inel.gov>
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 92 17:29:51 GMT
Apparently-To: military@att.att.com
Status: RO

In article <Bv1IqG.2M4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, bphdarcy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
> 
> >               The little-known TRUTH is that the Russians started 
> >          deploying an OPERATIONAL "Star Wars" defense system in 
> >          September 1977, and it has greatly grown and improved since 
> >          that time.  It is a SPACE TRIAD built around CHARGED-PARTICLE 
> >          BEAM and NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM WEAPONS. 
> 
> Wow, now this seems just totally incredible.  The fact that the author 
> claims a BS in Physics and Astronomy is even more amazing.  Which Sci-fi to 
> base the weapon on I am not sure.  Could someone define exactly how these 
> weapons work?  Neutron collision could be an interesting concept, but then 
> why also develop a charged-particle beam weapon?  Of course if one excludes 
> Neutrons all the remaining basic particles are charged...
> 
  {good rebutal stuff deleted for space/subject consideration}
> 
> SJRD
> 
> 

Having a background in nuclear engineering in the area of fusion engineering,
I have looked up in acouple of textbooks their descriptions of similar devices.

Basically, a charged-particle beam weapon would be a large and powerful 
accelerator, much like the ones found at Stanford, MIT, Princeton, etc used
by countless physicist (sp?).  You strip an electron from the atoms making up
a gas (commonly hydrogen, but others have been used), put it between two
charged plates and accelerate them down a vacuum tube to a target.  Radio
Frequency waves (RF) have also been used to accelerate them while traveling
down the tube or duct or beam in order to reach higher energies.  NOTE: the
heavier the element, the more electrical power is needed to accelerate it to 
an equivalent speed for hydrogen.  NOTE: due to the nature of interaction,
a charged-particle beam has very very poor penetration in any material
including air.  SJRD also noted that the charged particles would be greatly
affected by the earth's magnetic field, so such a device in space is STUPID!

Now the original poster called the other weapon a "NEUTRON PARTICLE BEAM 
WEAPON".  This is another sign that the person is out to lunch since there has
never ever been any such a device.  In fusion development, _NEUTRAL_ beam
injectors have been develop to aid in overcoming any magnetic field effects 
when the fusion fuel is supplied to keep the device operating for any length 
of time.  To have neutrons any any energy to do immediate damage would 
require that a functioning fusion plant be almost right next to the target 
(fusion of Deuterium and Tritium produces 14 MeV neutron in all directions)
I believe that a neutral-beam weapon has been proposed in SDI for use in low 
earth orbit to overcome any magnetic field effects.  The basic system is the 
same as the charged-particle beam except before the beam finally exits the 
device, electrons must now be added back to the particles to make them 
electrically neutral.  This can be done by passing the charged-particle beam 
through a gas.  I guess the Russians have an infinite supply of the right
type of gas with these weapons also ;-).

Also keep in mind that such weapons could only be used very close to the 
target since the beam radius will increase with distance.  This essentially
limits the range of any such weapons (even lasers).  IMO kinetic kill weapons 
will be the best SDI-type weapons since they can have mid-course correction 
and are easier to get to lethal speeds.

>From further discussion with a co-worker who specializes in fusion, both such
devices ARE EXTREMELY DELICATE TO BUILD AND OPERATE REQUIRING CONSTANT HANDS-
ON MAINTENANCE!  No such device could be lifted to the moon and operated 100%
remotely and even work once it arrived due to the precise alignments needed
through out the device.

I hope this satisfies SJRD's question on what are the technical details of 
such "futuristic" weapons.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."




 
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military