2018-03-26
Mondragon - Rubik (Original Mix)
you know, i'll always be here, to straighten out all those twists and kinks and curves, just like, "Rubik", (Hungarian sculptor and professor of architecture ErnΕ Rubik, creator of the Rubik's Cube, Rubik's Cube is a 3-D combination puzzle invented in 1974), when he straightened it all out, and care up with the rubik snake, Onward's to the summit as, standardz, hahahahaha, :) #edio
π☮️♻️ππ»♻️π✌️
https://ello.co/edio1
www.ediobangers.blogspot.co.uk/
https://plus.google.com/+ediobangerz
www.facebook.com/ruffneckbase/
https://www.facebook.com/ruffneckbass01/
www.ediovision.blogspot.com/
www.facebook.com/ediovision/
www.facebook.com/thematrixhasyouwakeup/
www.facebook.com/peelingbacktheveil/
https://www.facebook.com/RealtimehdEarthviewingexperiment/
also i have a YouTube page, it has a copy of all my latest tracks,5000+ and if you keep going back, pretty much every track I've ever posted, just go to liked video's, and hit play all, and then you won't have to keep pressing play, but unfortunately you wont get to read, what i write, but you will get access, to a constant stream of tracks, for over a 2 years solid play time, but you know, ya can't have it all looolz ;)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-jBy5vUUUTItELLXQbcE9w
π☮️♻️ππ»♻️π✌️
NFEREE - Lexicon (Original Mix)
ammmmm back mo fo's, for another epic journey, in the unknown realms of rhythm and bass!!, and you know, it's time to begin to test my, "Lexicon", (the vocabulary of a person, language, or branch of knowledge), and see what interesting facts i can enlighten you with today, on our daily ascent to the summit, So sit back, plug in, turn up, do whatever it is, you have to do!!, to enjoy the music!, that much more!, Control this is, flight 420 requesting, go no/go!, on primary?, this is control, permission to get, L.A.F, and go for, full blaze!!, you better, strap yourself in, quick time!, because we, have a launch in progress, in t - minus 10 seconds and counting down, hope your ready!,........ 5.......4.......3.......2.......1.......0 power to all drive's, crank up the phonic reactor, engage harmonic reinforcement, increase the warp, bubble, charge barium crystal capacitor's, activate inertial dampening field, navigation on-line, and retract the umbilical, mirror, signal, manoeuvre, and we, are away!, standardz, hahahahahaha, :) #edio
DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEWs): A BIBLIOGRAPHY
DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEWs):
A BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.8616&rep=rep1&type=pdf
A BIBLIOGRAPHY
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.371.8616&rep=rep1&type=pdf
PARrICLE BEAM WEAPONS By: Liao Xianwng
PARrICLE BEAM WEAPONS
By: Liao Xianwng
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a114383.pdf
By: Liao Xianwng
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a114383.pdf
Particle beam weapons are actually miniaturized particle
accelerators used for military purposes. They possess
advantages over other antimissile devices even including
laser weapons. To avert the danger of falling behind, both
the Soviet Union and the United States have stepped up
development in their efforts to turn particle beam weapons
into both strategic defense weapons and in-space offensive
weapons.
One day in November 1975 an American reconnaissance satellite carrying all
kinds of reconnaissance equipment was quietly watching the world turn. Suddenly,
overhead Semipalatinsk in the Central Asian part of the Soviet Union, it
detected fission products of a suspected nuclear explosion. Actually, the
Soviet Union had not carried out an underground nuclear test that day, and nor
had they carried out a nuclear test in the atmosphere either. Continued
reconnaissance detected more than seven or eight repetitions of this unusual
phenomenon. It was not quite the coincidence it seemed. At that time US
military intelligence experts were seriously concerned. Subsequently, after
further intense and close reconnaissance, they came to the conclusion, after
repeated deliberations, that this appearance of nuclear explosion protons could
be evidence that the Soviet Union was carrying out research into the use of
particle beam weapons. They also discovered that the Soviets were carrying
out various experimental activities all associated with particle beam weapons.
In recent years, news reports in the Western press on the subject of this
kind of particle beam weapon have been of two different opinions. One opinion
considers them to be a type of mysterious weapon that destroys targets at the
1
speed of light, an unrivalled defensive weapon device with fast response time,
great accuracy and a thousand times better precision than the present antimissile
systems. This opinion also considers that the Soviet Union has made
breakthroughs in the field of particle beam technology which will allow them
to be well ahead of the United States in deploying particle beam weapons in
the early 1980s. This would therefore obsolete US strategic weapons. This is
casting a cloud over the US development of strategic weapons and has spurred
the US into stepping up the pace of developing particle beam weapons. An ,
alternative view considers the technologies indispensible to particle beam
weapons to be many. These technologies are complicated and for the time being
are presenting a number of problems that are proving difficult to overcome.
There is no chance of either the Soviet Union or the United States developing
a viable weapon system from particle beam technology in the near future.
accelerators used for military purposes. They possess
advantages over other antimissile devices even including
laser weapons. To avert the danger of falling behind, both
the Soviet Union and the United States have stepped up
development in their efforts to turn particle beam weapons
into both strategic defense weapons and in-space offensive
weapons.
One day in November 1975 an American reconnaissance satellite carrying all
kinds of reconnaissance equipment was quietly watching the world turn. Suddenly,
overhead Semipalatinsk in the Central Asian part of the Soviet Union, it
detected fission products of a suspected nuclear explosion. Actually, the
Soviet Union had not carried out an underground nuclear test that day, and nor
had they carried out a nuclear test in the atmosphere either. Continued
reconnaissance detected more than seven or eight repetitions of this unusual
phenomenon. It was not quite the coincidence it seemed. At that time US
military intelligence experts were seriously concerned. Subsequently, after
further intense and close reconnaissance, they came to the conclusion, after
repeated deliberations, that this appearance of nuclear explosion protons could
be evidence that the Soviet Union was carrying out research into the use of
particle beam weapons. They also discovered that the Soviets were carrying
out various experimental activities all associated with particle beam weapons.
In recent years, news reports in the Western press on the subject of this
kind of particle beam weapon have been of two different opinions. One opinion
considers them to be a type of mysterious weapon that destroys targets at the
1
speed of light, an unrivalled defensive weapon device with fast response time,
great accuracy and a thousand times better precision than the present antimissile
systems. This opinion also considers that the Soviet Union has made
breakthroughs in the field of particle beam technology which will allow them
to be well ahead of the United States in deploying particle beam weapons in
the early 1980s. This would therefore obsolete US strategic weapons. This is
casting a cloud over the US development of strategic weapons and has spurred
the US into stepping up the pace of developing particle beam weapons. An ,
alternative view considers the technologies indispensible to particle beam
weapons to be many. These technologies are complicated and for the time being
are presenting a number of problems that are proving difficult to overcome.
There is no chance of either the Soviet Union or the United States developing
a viable weapon system from particle beam technology in the near future.
Information on Directed Energy Programs for Fiscal Years 1985 Through 1993
since 1985 sdi has been developing technologies for directed energy weapons-lasers and particle
beams. (On May 13,1993, the Secretary of Defense changed the name of
the Strategic Defense Initiative program and office to Ballistic Missile
Defense.) Prior to 1986, other Department of Defense agencies and
services had been developing the technologies. It was believed they could
be the most effective means of defeating the evolving Soviet
intercontinental ballistic missile threat that included thousands of nuclear
warheads and decoys. The priority of SDIO'S directed energy weapon
research and development programs decreased following the breakup of
the former Soviet Union in 1990 and the 1991 refocusing of the Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI) by President Bush, In 1992, the Congress directed
that far-term technology programs (such as directed energy) be
transferred from SDIO to the Advanced Research Projects Agency or the
appropriate military department unless national security interests dictated
their retention.
The Chairman, Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, House
Committee on Government Operations, asked GAO to assist the Congress in
evaluating the Department of Defense’s recommendations for transferring
or retaining management responsibility for directed energy technologies in
SD10 and in determining the future direction of directed energy
development. GAO was asked to provide information on the funding of the
directed energy programs to date, the development status of the
technologies, and the additional funding that would be needed for further
development of the technologies.
beams. (On May 13,1993, the Secretary of Defense changed the name of
the Strategic Defense Initiative program and office to Ballistic Missile
Defense.) Prior to 1986, other Department of Defense agencies and
services had been developing the technologies. It was believed they could
be the most effective means of defeating the evolving Soviet
intercontinental ballistic missile threat that included thousands of nuclear
warheads and decoys. The priority of SDIO'S directed energy weapon
research and development programs decreased following the breakup of
the former Soviet Union in 1990 and the 1991 refocusing of the Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI) by President Bush, In 1992, the Congress directed
that far-term technology programs (such as directed energy) be
transferred from SDIO to the Advanced Research Projects Agency or the
appropriate military department unless national security interests dictated
their retention.
The Chairman, Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, House
Committee on Government Operations, asked GAO to assist the Congress in
evaluating the Department of Defense’s recommendations for transferring
or retaining management responsibility for directed energy technologies in
SD10 and in determining the future direction of directed energy
development. GAO was asked to provide information on the funding of the
directed energy programs to date, the development status of the
technologies, and the additional funding that would be needed for further
development of the technologies.
Production of Neutral Beams from Negative Ion Beam Systems in the USSR
Production of Neutral Beams from Negative Ion Beam Systems in the USSR
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2008/R2909.1.pdf
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2008/R2909.1.pdf
Neutral Particle Beam [NPB]
Neutral Particle Beam [NPB]
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/npb.htm
Contrasted to charged particle beams, neutral particle beams have several inherent properties that make them very attractive for space based applications. In particular, high energy neutral particles propagate in straight lines unaffected by the earth's magnetic field and have a very brief flight time to targets even at extended ranges. In addition, the neutral particles become high energy charged particles upon interaction with the surface of a target and penetrate deeply into the vehicle, thus making shielding relatively ineffective. In the case of a nuclear warhead, these particles are capable of heating the nuclear material by fission processes, neutron generation and ionization. For non-nuclear material, heating is produced by ionization, possibly producing kill by thermal initation of the weapon's high explosive.
Thus, interest in space based systems was revitalized when experiments, at the Los Alamos Clinton P. Anderson Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF), on the proton linear accelerator showed several orders of magnitude improvement in accelerator performance. Extensive measurements of beam properties at energies of 211 and 500 MeV showed that the energy spread of the beam was better than 0.5% and the emittance of the beam was better than 0.66pcm-mrad. In addition, the LAMPF accelerator was used to accelerate H - ions to energies above 100 MeV and, as expected, their behavior is similar to that of protons. These achievements prompted Knapp and NcNally to write a LASL report titled SIPAPU Rpt. LA-5642-MS, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, July 1974, in which they proposed a satellite-based high energy neutral hydrogen weapon. An intense, high quality beam of H - ions is generated and accelerated to an energy of approximately 250 MeV. After acceleration the beam is expanded, and passed through final focusing and steering magnets. The beam is subsequently neutralized by stripping the weakly bound electron from the H - ion and the resulting hydrogen beam propagates toward the target unaffected by the earth's magnetic fields. Both the system and the target must remain above approximately 250 kilometers in order to minimize the beam degradation by collisions with residual gases.
Improvements in the state of the art for producing intense high quality ion beams, for lightweight efficient accelerators, for high current negative ion beams stripper techniques without excessive scattering, and for compact lightweight power systems are necessary before this device can be considered viable. Methods for neutral beam detection, signatures for closed loop tracking and kill assessment, and techniques for rapidly steering the beam over large angles are also needed.
Although, there are many of these practicle issues to be considered, there did not appear, in principle, to be any inherent limitations that deem the device inviable. But the solutions for the neutralization of the H - ion beams all had serious adverse systems implications. Once the H - beam has been accelerated, aimed, and focused on the target it can be neutralized. This can be accomplished by a number of techniques. For example, photo detachment, a plasma or gas stripping have been considered. Photo detachment causes less degradation in beam quality and can result in the largest friction of the ion beam being converted to a neutral beam. Unfortunately, extremely high energy cw lasers at wavelengths that are not currently available are required for this purpose, and, even if they become available, they would probably be as large and as expensive as the rest of the system. Since open-ended plasma strippers with quiescent plasmas cause less beam degradation than a gas stripper they have also been considered; but, because of the necessity of allowing the plasma to escape, the power requirement for the plasma stripper alone in equal to or greater than that for the rest of the system. Also, it is problematical that a sufficiently quiescent plasma could be produced. Therefore, considerable work both theoretical and experimental has been devoted to the development of a gas stripper. The fractions of the initial beam which survives as H - , which is stripped to H o , and which is stripped to H + is given as a function of the stripper thickness. As a result of this work a gas stripper was included in the SIPAPU system.
Sipapu was named after a Native American word said to mean "sacred fire", but then altered to protect ethnic sensibilities. Sipapu is the place of emergence from the underworld (where the spirits and ancestors of the Hopi live). The passage between the World Below and the earth is the sipapu. The Grand Canyon, which is the Hopi Sipapu or Emergence Hole, and it is where legend says the Hopi came up from the under world. In Hopi mythology, Sipapu is the entryway through which all souls must enter and exit the spirit world. The circular kivas found in Anasazi ruins are said to be symbolic of this emergence, i.e. underground ceremonial chambers with a roof entrance/exit, called the sipapu. The tepali, the ritual hole covered by a stone disc at the center of the tuki, is a variant of the sipapu (Hopi sipaapuni), the mythical place of emergence of the Pueblo peoples, which is architecturally represented as a hole in the center of the kiva. For the Army, Sipapu was a neutral beam, space-based weapon, ranked second in priority to Chair Heritage and is receiving in excess of $10 million in 1980. This Army program, being conducted at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico, is based on advanced Soviet technology demonstrated in a Russian-designed plasma generating device. The US version was tested to determine compatibility with a Meson Physics Accelerator, located at Los Alamos. The two devices were coupled to form a test apparatus for follow-on experiments on beam propagation and lethality. The Sipapu program reached a stage where weapons packaging designs could be initiated. If Sipapu were developed in a less sophisticated, antisatellite configuration, it could be launched in three to five years with adequate funding.
In its 1984 directed energy plan, SDIO planned to build a space-based neutral particle beam (NPB) and test it on the ground by the end of fiscal year 1992 at an estimated cost of $747 million through fiscal year 1989. Through fiscal year 1993, SDIO allocated $794 million to this program and it had not completed all of the ground and space tests included in the 1984 plan. SDIO estimated in 1993 that it would take 4 more years and $421 million to complete the ground and space testing and the development of a lightweight power source for NPB (power source for NPB was initially to be developed under another program). These actions would exceed the objectives included in the 1984 plan. At that point, SD10 could decide whether to propose entering the demonstration and validation phase of development and doing an integrated system level demonstration.
According to SDIO's 1984 plan, NPB development was to have advanced by 1992 to a point enabling a decision on whether to fund an integrated system level demonstration in space. As a basis for this decision, SDIO planned to have demonstrated beam generation/conditioning feasibility and scalability with an accelerator, lightweight magnetic optics for steering the beam, concepts for sensing the beam and boresighting it, propagation of a beam from a spacecraft into a space environment, feasibility of growth technology that could provide higher brightness beams, and integration on the ground of key subsystems of a space-based NPB weapon.
The plan specified that about $747 million would be required from fiscal years 1986 through 1989 to achieve these objectives. The power system and the ATP system for NPB were to be developed under separate programs. Four of the 1984 program plan's eight major objectives for NPB had been completed by 1993. SDIO said that significant progress had been made on completing the other four. Through fiscal year 1993, SD10 spent about $794 million to develop NPB, or $47 million more than it estimated was needed for fiscal years 1986 through 1989 to do the planned research.
SDIO'S 1984 program goals were to generate a particle beam in the burst mode with a power of 50-million electron volts and a beam in the continuous mode with a power of 5 million electron volts. The 50-million electron volt goal was replaced in 1987 by a 24 million electron volt goal. SD10 said the change was prompted by concept studies that indicated the 24 million electron volt experiment would demonstrate the requisite weapon relevant objectives. SDIO said that considerable progress has been made toward achieving these goals. Final completion of the 1984 goals will occur with operation of the beamline components that are now fabricated and being installed on the Ground Test Accelerator and the continuous wave deuterium demonstrator.
The Ground Test Accelerator at Los Alamos National Laboratory produced a 3.2~million electron volt beam in the burst mode by 1993. Additional components to increase the accelerator's beam energy to 24 million electron volts were added to the accelerator. 1, SDIO plans to perform the 24 million electron volt demonstration during fiscal year 1994, which accomplished the first objective. According to SDIO, the results of this demonstration were scalable to higher levels.
The continuous wave deuterium demonstrator, located at Argonne National Laboratory, was used to demonstrate the continuous operation of a particle beam accelerator to produce a beam with an energy of up to 7 million electron volts. This demonstration will address not only issues related to the continuous operation of an accelerator such as cryogenic operation and thermal management but also the use of deuterium particles to enhance lethality. Over 90 percent of the hardware needed for this accelerator had been fabricated by 1993. SDIO completed this demonstration during fiscal year 1994.
SD10 developed lightweight foil neutralizers for stripping the electrons from hydrogen or deuterium ions to produce a beam of neutral atoms. Neutral atoms are unaffected by magnetic fields, so once accelerated and pointed at a target, they will proceed in a straight line. Foil neutralizers are lightweight, have no power requirements, and have been fabricated to weapon-level size.
A lightweight magnetic beam-expander telescope has been developed to focus and control the size of the beam at the target, In addition, a weapon level beam sensing technology has been developed and tested to sense the direction in which the neutral beam is pointed. The beam sensor can detect the direction of the beam at a very precise level and make corrections to ensure the beam is properly directed at the target.
SDIO reported that NPB'S primary mission, interactive discrimination, requires that detectors be developed and placed on a separate space platform to detect the emissions induced when the beam penetrates targets. This data is needed so NPB cm determine the mass of the target or assess the extent of damage to the target if NPB is used to destroy missiles. SD10 has investigated several different detector technologies such as multiwire proportional counter detectors, scintillating fiber optics, advanced ionization chambers, and solid state silicon detectors. The multiwire proportional counter detector and the scintillating fiber optics are the preferred concepts because of their proven operational capabilities and low sensitivity to gamma rays. Detector modules based on these technologies have been developed and are scalable to weapon level specifications.
The 1984 program plan objectives for resolving issues related to operating an NPB in space have been partially completed by three experiments. In 1989, SDIO completed a suborbital NPB space experiment, called Beam Experiment Aboard Rocket, at a cost of about $60 million at the White Sands Missile Range. This experiment achieved its primary objective of generating an NPB in space and its secondary objective of resolving a number of space physics issues that were potential obstacles to operating an NPB in space. The second experiment, the Army Background Experiment, successfully measured the natural neutron background of the earth with a neutron detector module developed for NPB applications. The third experiment consisted of three separate shuttle-based space experiments of neutralizer material interactions with atomic oxygen and the space environment. SDIO said the neutralizer material was not adversely affected by the space environment.
SDI0 also spent about $78 million planning another space experiment, called the integrated space experiment, which was to be a shuttle launched experiment to demonstrate NPB technologies on-orbit. This experiment, however, was canceled in 1988 because it was too expensive and the NPB technology was not mature enough to support the specified performance.
A complete NPB system must be demonstrated in space to resolve the space-related technology problems, The space demonstration is to determine the system's ability to propagate a beam to distant targets and is to also resolve other issues such as spacecraft charging, atomic oxygen effects, and control of effluents. By 1993 SDIO was considering two options for the space experiment: an experiment called far-field optics experiment and a larger experiment called Lunar Resource Mapper. The far-field optics experiment would cost about $260 million and could be launched on a Delta II vehicle and completed in 4 years. According to SDIO, the Lunar Resource Mapper experiment was of greater interest to the scientific community due to its ability to identify mineral resources on celestial bodies at much higher geographic resolution than possible with passive means.
SDIO developed a lightweight system to provide the power needed for the space platform. Such a power system must be capable of providing 20 kilowatts of housekeeping power on a long-term basis as well as megawatt levels of burst power to operate the NPB during a battle. SDI0 estimates in 1993 that it would cost $40 million to complete this program.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/npb.htm
Contrasted to charged particle beams, neutral particle beams have several inherent properties that make them very attractive for space based applications. In particular, high energy neutral particles propagate in straight lines unaffected by the earth's magnetic field and have a very brief flight time to targets even at extended ranges. In addition, the neutral particles become high energy charged particles upon interaction with the surface of a target and penetrate deeply into the vehicle, thus making shielding relatively ineffective. In the case of a nuclear warhead, these particles are capable of heating the nuclear material by fission processes, neutron generation and ionization. For non-nuclear material, heating is produced by ionization, possibly producing kill by thermal initation of the weapon's high explosive.
Thus, interest in space based systems was revitalized when experiments, at the Los Alamos Clinton P. Anderson Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF), on the proton linear accelerator showed several orders of magnitude improvement in accelerator performance. Extensive measurements of beam properties at energies of 211 and 500 MeV showed that the energy spread of the beam was better than 0.5% and the emittance of the beam was better than 0.66pcm-mrad. In addition, the LAMPF accelerator was used to accelerate H - ions to energies above 100 MeV and, as expected, their behavior is similar to that of protons. These achievements prompted Knapp and NcNally to write a LASL report titled SIPAPU Rpt. LA-5642-MS, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, July 1974, in which they proposed a satellite-based high energy neutral hydrogen weapon. An intense, high quality beam of H - ions is generated and accelerated to an energy of approximately 250 MeV. After acceleration the beam is expanded, and passed through final focusing and steering magnets. The beam is subsequently neutralized by stripping the weakly bound electron from the H - ion and the resulting hydrogen beam propagates toward the target unaffected by the earth's magnetic fields. Both the system and the target must remain above approximately 250 kilometers in order to minimize the beam degradation by collisions with residual gases.
Improvements in the state of the art for producing intense high quality ion beams, for lightweight efficient accelerators, for high current negative ion beams stripper techniques without excessive scattering, and for compact lightweight power systems are necessary before this device can be considered viable. Methods for neutral beam detection, signatures for closed loop tracking and kill assessment, and techniques for rapidly steering the beam over large angles are also needed.
Although, there are many of these practicle issues to be considered, there did not appear, in principle, to be any inherent limitations that deem the device inviable. But the solutions for the neutralization of the H - ion beams all had serious adverse systems implications. Once the H - beam has been accelerated, aimed, and focused on the target it can be neutralized. This can be accomplished by a number of techniques. For example, photo detachment, a plasma or gas stripping have been considered. Photo detachment causes less degradation in beam quality and can result in the largest friction of the ion beam being converted to a neutral beam. Unfortunately, extremely high energy cw lasers at wavelengths that are not currently available are required for this purpose, and, even if they become available, they would probably be as large and as expensive as the rest of the system. Since open-ended plasma strippers with quiescent plasmas cause less beam degradation than a gas stripper they have also been considered; but, because of the necessity of allowing the plasma to escape, the power requirement for the plasma stripper alone in equal to or greater than that for the rest of the system. Also, it is problematical that a sufficiently quiescent plasma could be produced. Therefore, considerable work both theoretical and experimental has been devoted to the development of a gas stripper. The fractions of the initial beam which survives as H - , which is stripped to H o , and which is stripped to H + is given as a function of the stripper thickness. As a result of this work a gas stripper was included in the SIPAPU system.
Sipapu was named after a Native American word said to mean "sacred fire", but then altered to protect ethnic sensibilities. Sipapu is the place of emergence from the underworld (where the spirits and ancestors of the Hopi live). The passage between the World Below and the earth is the sipapu. The Grand Canyon, which is the Hopi Sipapu or Emergence Hole, and it is where legend says the Hopi came up from the under world. In Hopi mythology, Sipapu is the entryway through which all souls must enter and exit the spirit world. The circular kivas found in Anasazi ruins are said to be symbolic of this emergence, i.e. underground ceremonial chambers with a roof entrance/exit, called the sipapu. The tepali, the ritual hole covered by a stone disc at the center of the tuki, is a variant of the sipapu (Hopi sipaapuni), the mythical place of emergence of the Pueblo peoples, which is architecturally represented as a hole in the center of the kiva. For the Army, Sipapu was a neutral beam, space-based weapon, ranked second in priority to Chair Heritage and is receiving in excess of $10 million in 1980. This Army program, being conducted at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory in New Mexico, is based on advanced Soviet technology demonstrated in a Russian-designed plasma generating device. The US version was tested to determine compatibility with a Meson Physics Accelerator, located at Los Alamos. The two devices were coupled to form a test apparatus for follow-on experiments on beam propagation and lethality. The Sipapu program reached a stage where weapons packaging designs could be initiated. If Sipapu were developed in a less sophisticated, antisatellite configuration, it could be launched in three to five years with adequate funding.
In its 1984 directed energy plan, SDIO planned to build a space-based neutral particle beam (NPB) and test it on the ground by the end of fiscal year 1992 at an estimated cost of $747 million through fiscal year 1989. Through fiscal year 1993, SDIO allocated $794 million to this program and it had not completed all of the ground and space tests included in the 1984 plan. SDIO estimated in 1993 that it would take 4 more years and $421 million to complete the ground and space testing and the development of a lightweight power source for NPB (power source for NPB was initially to be developed under another program). These actions would exceed the objectives included in the 1984 plan. At that point, SD10 could decide whether to propose entering the demonstration and validation phase of development and doing an integrated system level demonstration.
According to SDIO's 1984 plan, NPB development was to have advanced by 1992 to a point enabling a decision on whether to fund an integrated system level demonstration in space. As a basis for this decision, SDIO planned to have demonstrated beam generation/conditioning feasibility and scalability with an accelerator, lightweight magnetic optics for steering the beam, concepts for sensing the beam and boresighting it, propagation of a beam from a spacecraft into a space environment, feasibility of growth technology that could provide higher brightness beams, and integration on the ground of key subsystems of a space-based NPB weapon.
The plan specified that about $747 million would be required from fiscal years 1986 through 1989 to achieve these objectives. The power system and the ATP system for NPB were to be developed under separate programs. Four of the 1984 program plan's eight major objectives for NPB had been completed by 1993. SDIO said that significant progress had been made on completing the other four. Through fiscal year 1993, SD10 spent about $794 million to develop NPB, or $47 million more than it estimated was needed for fiscal years 1986 through 1989 to do the planned research.
SDIO'S 1984 program goals were to generate a particle beam in the burst mode with a power of 50-million electron volts and a beam in the continuous mode with a power of 5 million electron volts. The 50-million electron volt goal was replaced in 1987 by a 24 million electron volt goal. SD10 said the change was prompted by concept studies that indicated the 24 million electron volt experiment would demonstrate the requisite weapon relevant objectives. SDIO said that considerable progress has been made toward achieving these goals. Final completion of the 1984 goals will occur with operation of the beamline components that are now fabricated and being installed on the Ground Test Accelerator and the continuous wave deuterium demonstrator.
The Ground Test Accelerator at Los Alamos National Laboratory produced a 3.2~million electron volt beam in the burst mode by 1993. Additional components to increase the accelerator's beam energy to 24 million electron volts were added to the accelerator. 1, SDIO plans to perform the 24 million electron volt demonstration during fiscal year 1994, which accomplished the first objective. According to SDIO, the results of this demonstration were scalable to higher levels.
The continuous wave deuterium demonstrator, located at Argonne National Laboratory, was used to demonstrate the continuous operation of a particle beam accelerator to produce a beam with an energy of up to 7 million electron volts. This demonstration will address not only issues related to the continuous operation of an accelerator such as cryogenic operation and thermal management but also the use of deuterium particles to enhance lethality. Over 90 percent of the hardware needed for this accelerator had been fabricated by 1993. SDIO completed this demonstration during fiscal year 1994.
SD10 developed lightweight foil neutralizers for stripping the electrons from hydrogen or deuterium ions to produce a beam of neutral atoms. Neutral atoms are unaffected by magnetic fields, so once accelerated and pointed at a target, they will proceed in a straight line. Foil neutralizers are lightweight, have no power requirements, and have been fabricated to weapon-level size.
A lightweight magnetic beam-expander telescope has been developed to focus and control the size of the beam at the target, In addition, a weapon level beam sensing technology has been developed and tested to sense the direction in which the neutral beam is pointed. The beam sensor can detect the direction of the beam at a very precise level and make corrections to ensure the beam is properly directed at the target.
SDIO reported that NPB'S primary mission, interactive discrimination, requires that detectors be developed and placed on a separate space platform to detect the emissions induced when the beam penetrates targets. This data is needed so NPB cm determine the mass of the target or assess the extent of damage to the target if NPB is used to destroy missiles. SD10 has investigated several different detector technologies such as multiwire proportional counter detectors, scintillating fiber optics, advanced ionization chambers, and solid state silicon detectors. The multiwire proportional counter detector and the scintillating fiber optics are the preferred concepts because of their proven operational capabilities and low sensitivity to gamma rays. Detector modules based on these technologies have been developed and are scalable to weapon level specifications.
The 1984 program plan objectives for resolving issues related to operating an NPB in space have been partially completed by three experiments. In 1989, SDIO completed a suborbital NPB space experiment, called Beam Experiment Aboard Rocket, at a cost of about $60 million at the White Sands Missile Range. This experiment achieved its primary objective of generating an NPB in space and its secondary objective of resolving a number of space physics issues that were potential obstacles to operating an NPB in space. The second experiment, the Army Background Experiment, successfully measured the natural neutron background of the earth with a neutron detector module developed for NPB applications. The third experiment consisted of three separate shuttle-based space experiments of neutralizer material interactions with atomic oxygen and the space environment. SDIO said the neutralizer material was not adversely affected by the space environment.
SDI0 also spent about $78 million planning another space experiment, called the integrated space experiment, which was to be a shuttle launched experiment to demonstrate NPB technologies on-orbit. This experiment, however, was canceled in 1988 because it was too expensive and the NPB technology was not mature enough to support the specified performance.
A complete NPB system must be demonstrated in space to resolve the space-related technology problems, The space demonstration is to determine the system's ability to propagate a beam to distant targets and is to also resolve other issues such as spacecraft charging, atomic oxygen effects, and control of effluents. By 1993 SDIO was considering two options for the space experiment: an experiment called far-field optics experiment and a larger experiment called Lunar Resource Mapper. The far-field optics experiment would cost about $260 million and could be launched on a Delta II vehicle and completed in 4 years. According to SDIO, the Lunar Resource Mapper experiment was of greater interest to the scientific community due to its ability to identify mineral resources on celestial bodies at much higher geographic resolution than possible with passive means.
SDIO developed a lightweight system to provide the power needed for the space platform. Such a power system must be capable of providing 20 kilowatts of housekeeping power on a long-term basis as well as megawatt levels of burst power to operate the NPB during a battle. SDI0 estimates in 1993 that it would cost $40 million to complete this program.
AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES ON THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES (MOON AGREEMENT)
AGREEMENT GOVERNING THE ACTIVITIES OF STATES ON THE MOON AND OTHER CELESTIAL BODIES (MOON AGREEMENT)
http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/agreement-governing-activities-states-moon-and-other-celestial-bodies-moon-agreement/ Overview
Opened for signature: 18 December 1979
Entered into force: 11 July 1984
Signatories: 5 States — France, Guatemala, India, Peru & Romania
Depositary: UN Secretary-General
10 Member States — (including) Australia, Austria, Chile, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines and Uruguay.
Treaty Text
The Moon Agreement was signed in December 1979 following an initiative by the Soviet Union. On 5 December 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Agreement in resolution 34/68.
Treaty Obligations
The Moon Agreement supplements the Outer Space Treaty and confirmed the demilitarization of the Moon and other celestial bodies as provided for in that treaty. The Agreement also prohibits the use or threat of use of force, or any other hostile action or threat of hostile action on the Moon, which is reserved exclusively for peaceful activities. It prohibits the use of the Moon in order to commit any hostile act or to engage in any such threat in relation to the Earth, the Moon, spacecraft, the personnel of spacecraft, or man-made space objects. States Parties shall not place in orbit around or other trajectory to or around the Moon objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or place or use such weapons on or in the Moon.
The agreement forbids the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications on the Moon and, the testing of any type of weapons, and the conduct of military maneuvers on the Moon. But the use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes is not prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration and use of the Moon is not prohibited.
States Parties are committed to inform the UN Secretary-General as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of their activities concerned with the exploration and use of the Moon. Information on the time, purposes, locations, orbital parameters, and duration is to be given in respect of each mission to the Moon as soon as possible after launching, while information on the results of each mission, including scientific results, shall be furnished upon completion of the mission. In the case of a mission lasting more than 60 days, information on conduct of the mission, including any scientific results, is to be given periodically, at 30-day intervals. For missions lasting more than six months, only significant additions to such information need be reported thereafter.
As reflected in the provisions of this Agreement the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind. The Moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or its natural resources, can become the property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity, or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the Moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the Moon or any areas thereof.
Verification and Compliance
Verification
Each State Party may assure itself that the activities of other States Parties in the exploration and use of the Moon are compatible with the provisions of this Agreement. To this end, all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations, and installations on the Moon shall be open to other States Parties. Such States Parties shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, so that appropriate consultations may be held and maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited. Any State Party may act on its own behalf or with the full or partial assistance of any other State Party or through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with the UN Charter.
Compliance
A State Party which has reason to believe that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement or that another State Party is interfering with the rights which the former State Party has under this Agreement may request consultations with that State Party. A State Party receiving such a request shall enter into such consultations without delay. Any other State Party that requests to do so shall be entitled to take part in the consultations. Each State Party participating in such consultations shall seek a mutually acceptable resolution of any controversy and shall bear in mind the rights and interests of all States Parties. The UN Secretary-General shall be informed of the results of the consultations and shall transmit the information received to all States Parties concerned.
http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/agreement-governing-activities-states-moon-and-other-celestial-bodies-moon-agreement/ Overview
Opened for signature: 18 December 1979
Entered into force: 11 July 1984
Signatories: 5 States — France, Guatemala, India, Peru & Romania
Depositary: UN Secretary-General
10 Member States — (including) Australia, Austria, Chile, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines and Uruguay.
Treaty Text
The Moon Agreement was signed in December 1979 following an initiative by the Soviet Union. On 5 December 1979, the UN General Assembly adopted the Agreement in resolution 34/68.
Treaty Obligations
The Moon Agreement supplements the Outer Space Treaty and confirmed the demilitarization of the Moon and other celestial bodies as provided for in that treaty. The Agreement also prohibits the use or threat of use of force, or any other hostile action or threat of hostile action on the Moon, which is reserved exclusively for peaceful activities. It prohibits the use of the Moon in order to commit any hostile act or to engage in any such threat in relation to the Earth, the Moon, spacecraft, the personnel of spacecraft, or man-made space objects. States Parties shall not place in orbit around or other trajectory to or around the Moon objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or place or use such weapons on or in the Moon.
The agreement forbids the establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications on the Moon and, the testing of any type of weapons, and the conduct of military maneuvers on the Moon. But the use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes is not prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration and use of the Moon is not prohibited.
States Parties are committed to inform the UN Secretary-General as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable, of their activities concerned with the exploration and use of the Moon. Information on the time, purposes, locations, orbital parameters, and duration is to be given in respect of each mission to the Moon as soon as possible after launching, while information on the results of each mission, including scientific results, shall be furnished upon completion of the mission. In the case of a mission lasting more than 60 days, information on conduct of the mission, including any scientific results, is to be given periodically, at 30-day intervals. For missions lasting more than six months, only significant additions to such information need be reported thereafter.
As reflected in the provisions of this Agreement the Moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind. The Moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon, nor any part thereof or its natural resources, can become the property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity, or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the Moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the Moon or any areas thereof.
Verification and Compliance
Verification
Each State Party may assure itself that the activities of other States Parties in the exploration and use of the Moon are compatible with the provisions of this Agreement. To this end, all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations, and installations on the Moon shall be open to other States Parties. Such States Parties shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, so that appropriate consultations may be held and maximum precautions may be taken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited. Any State Party may act on its own behalf or with the full or partial assistance of any other State Party or through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with the UN Charter.
Compliance
A State Party which has reason to believe that another State Party is not fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement or that another State Party is interfering with the rights which the former State Party has under this Agreement may request consultations with that State Party. A State Party receiving such a request shall enter into such consultations without delay. Any other State Party that requests to do so shall be entitled to take part in the consultations. Each State Party participating in such consultations shall seek a mutually acceptable resolution of any controversy and shall bear in mind the rights and interests of all States Parties. The UN Secretary-General shall be informed of the results of the consultations and shall transmit the information received to all States Parties concerned.
Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities.
Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities.
https://unoda-web.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/studyseries/en/SS-34.pdf
This print publication has been issued in implementation of the United Nations
Disarmament Information Programme as a reference tool containing the report of the
Secretary-General on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities.
This publication contains the report of the Secretary-General and additional material
related to the publication of the report. The views expressed in the experts’ papers, published
in unedited form, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United
Nations.
https://unoda-web.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/assets/publications/studyseries/en/SS-34.pdf
This print publication has been issued in implementation of the United Nations
Disarmament Information Programme as a reference tool containing the report of the
Secretary-General on transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space activities.
This publication contains the report of the Secretary-General and additional material
related to the publication of the report. The views expressed in the experts’ papers, published
in unedited form, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the United
Nations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
