Video: A New 'Smart Bullet' Deploys Fins and Guides Itself to a Laser-Designated Target

This is old news; Gene Simmons used these against Tom Selleck in the early Eighties!

PROPERLY pointless development...

#2 It isn't a bullet it is a missile
#3 It is slow by bullet means
#4 It is only as accurate as the laser beam, and at a mile a portable laser beam is pretty diffuse and large
#5 I can see the laser beam (because it would have to be quite intense) therefor rendering this a pointless 'bullet'

Can someone ask the Inventors If they would like to be shot with this? Then ask them why they developed it. Then tell them that inevitably, one day one of their great descendants will be shot with this. Then ask them if they wouldn't mind having killed themselves earlier, thinking of inventing something like this!

clever. of course, it's going to way more expensive than a regular bullet, but still pretty cool.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
why learn from your own mistakes, when you could learn from the mistakes of others?
“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible” -Albert Ein

PS: There mysteriously appear to not be any fins deployed. The video only shows parts falling off after firing and a steel round that could have been fired from an airgun, puncturing what looks like the metal sheets that were intended for being turned into soda cans.

Why keep making things that kill people? Why not use brains instead of brawn. Create things that help people. Sandia National Labs are scumbags.

-

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

- Stephen Roberts

C-- has a point. If you paint the target with a laser, you are making a target of yourself.
Better to put a few smarts in the projectile and, for example, home in on the guy with a beard holding a gun. You could fire this type of smart missile around corners, but it wouldn't be much use in a crowd.
If you find your AI thinks all foreigners look alike, take a photo and designate the target. Store the photo in the projectile and use this to guide the missile.

C--:
"2": It's a bullet, not a missile. Check the link provided in the post for a more detailed article that includes a clear picture of the bullet. Fins, yes...self propelled, no.
"3": Yes, but they were using cheap gunpowder and said it should reach full military specs when using the appropriate gunpowder.
"4": While true, the accuracy of the laser at 1 mile was stated. It's 8 inches. Compare this to the nearly 10 yard accuracy of a standard bullet at 1 mile.
"5": False. Laser designation systems use infrared. Infrared is not visible to the human eye. Short of walking around all the time with an IR camera, you'd never see it coming.

Boka: When we live in a perfect world, I'll agree. However, we dont. Until then it's better to have the bigger stick.

C--, look up "matchlock guns". I think that the invention of the matchlock gun was the correct time to register your complaint about people being killed.

As far as the laser, I don't see anything detailing if the laser is required to be in the visual spectrum. If not, you could easily use a laser that does not lead directly back to the shooter -- at least not visually (special radar would be able to pick it up).

Also, I highly doubt military grade mobile lasers such as this would use would be diffuse over such a small distance as a mile or two.

And as for the morality; this technology will continue to be invented regardless. If you want to stop weapons proliferation, then resolve -- and prevent -- the disputes that lead to their use. But until those situations are resolved, weapons will be used and they will be necessary.

It's not enough to give up weapons on your side of the line in the hopes the enemy will do the same; they will not, and you will be gunned down.

There are times where, regardless of what peaceful actions you take, you may be forced to take arms as a last resort. In these cases, would you rather have an accurate, one shot-one kill weapon, or a carpet bomb?

And would you rather have the technology, or your enemy? They won't stop researching weapons, so we can't either.

Consider this TED talk recently by Peter van Uhm, the Netherlands’ chief of defense: http://bit.ly/xZLSMK

Guns are not good, but they are necessary. And, like Peter, I dream of the day they will no longer be necessary. That day is not today.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Giving away your location wouldn't be an issue at night, either, as an unguided tracer gives it away just as much.

Bullets tend to fly straight, right.
But looking at the first picture, I get the
impression this bullet is more like a drunk
driver trying to find its way to the mark.
I mean, if bullets fly straight, why does
this bullet have so much spiral and veering
as it travels?
The first picture just does not make sense.

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

Actually, at long distances, bullets tend to travel anything but straight. Wind, gravity and even the curvature of the Earth can wildly affect where the bullet eventually lands and the path it takes to get there.

In this case, it's using a guiding system to correct and overcorrect the trajectory, so that it lands where it wants to. Hence the somewhat radical path it takes.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter how it gets to its target, so long as it does.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

@C--

How bout you get off the LSD come down from your fantasy plane of BS and catch a grip bro....you sir are an idiot...you are what is wrong with this world please do us all a favor and never speak again thank you...ALSO its first GEN nothing is all that amazing First GEN you douche.

#1 How well does the laser work through a smoke screen?
#2 By the time we see these as standard issue on the battlefield everyone will be walking around with Infrared/Multi-spectrum Helmet Visors.
#3 For the time being this is a expensive gadget providing someone with a job and cash.

@wm97ab You might as well look up: 'The beginning of life' and then discover that ever since a usable brain came along killing could have been reduced to a minimum....

@zechio A bigger stick doesn't beat a non-existent enemy... Us, we are our own enemy... because we're making the stick bigger, till it falls on our heads. Think about it, If there were Aliens out there looking at us, with intent to kill us would they even bother? It'd for them be like looking into the arena of a free for all dog fight, the dogs busy killing each other without the faintest idea what's going on outside. To be Honest, at times it appears the only solution to this Humanly 'self-destruction' is for humans to be rendered obsolete...
THE END :)

@Delkomatic Please kindly take back your remark on my Honest Oppinion and behave like a respectalbe adult. The age of which I am certain you are not.

No you can bend the bullet!!! yay!
Aim and set destination. then point the pistol somewhere else and shoot! the bullet will bend!

C--

1, Actually quite well. Infrared isn't affected by smoke.
2, it likely won't become standard issue - it's a specialized weapon. And even if so, switch the form of laser light or identify other ways of masking its source. For every new defense, there's a new offense (you're also depending on an enemy as technologically advanced as yourself).
3, The article made a specific point to state these bullets are cheap and easy to mass produce, not expensive.

I'm not sure why you're asking these questions when the answers are so easily googleable. You remind me of Bill O'Reily who proved the existence of God because "the Tide comes in, the tide comes out -- you can't explain that."

Just because you can't wrap your mind around something, doesn't mean the answer isn't right in front of you. Research first, then respond. Remember that.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Ok its definetly confirmed! Pop-Sci is a gathering ground for looney's the world over...
Does anyone here understand what I'm saying? Or have any way of giving less acidic, self priding responses?
Because If that is the name of the game, Igor Gunarovic shall not join in.

@C—“#1 How well does the laser work through a smoke screen?"

No one said it was perfect. Just better/easier than the current method.

@C—“#2 By the time we see these as standard issue on the battlefield everyone will be walking around with Infrared/Multi-spectrum Helmet Visors."

You would think that you would have learned from your first post that the way things work in your mind isn't the way things work in the real world.

That was really embarrising how @zechio picked apart your argument point by point.

@C—“Can someone ask the Inventors If they would like to be shot with this? Then ask them why they developed it. Then tell them that inevitably, one day one of their great descendants will be shot with this. Then ask them if they wouldn't mind having killed themselves earlier, thinking of inventing something like this!”

I’ve got a better idea. How about a face off at 2,000 meters. You with a traditional sniper rifle/scope/rangefinder at one end, and the Sandia Labs team with their laser guided bullet system at the other. They would aerate your skull before you even realize that you have no clue how to perform the required ballistic calculations.

D13, as always, come with facts, not opinion.

ThinkGeek is an online website with a class IIIa laser pointer available for 50 dollars (green laser in this case) and is completely available to the public.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/gadgets/lights/5a47/

If this kids toy can be effective at nearly 2 miles, I'm fairly confident the military's will too -- but why am I even bothering to argue this point? The article already clearly states as much (accurate to within 8 inches -- and that 8 inches is more likely to be due to the accuracy of the fins than the laser).

Was my term "military grade mobile lasers" too difficult for you? Let me break it down.

Military grade -- the military tends to require a higher standard of quality than the average public. Hence military-grade.

Mobile -- it can move. Shocking.

Laser -- it emites laser light. Also, shocking.

It's not like I'm saying they have a mobile laser array called the "MGML." I'm putting together a string of adjectives to form a coherent (and illustrative) sentence. Too much for you? Shocking...

I'll keep beating this dead horse, brah -- come at me with real evidence, not "trust me -- I know what I'm talking about" and we'll have something to discuss. Don't like my arguments? Then rationalize why you feel that way.

Otherwise you just come off as daft -- a fact I'm more than happy to point out, time after time..

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

By the way, you could at least attempt to be consistent with your spelling of Skeptic. I'm starting to wonder if you're even referring to me.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

There's a good deal of conflicting responses relating to the actual aspects of the weapon here. But there all part of a good argument and as a respectable Engineer(half psychologist) it's my responsibility to pick this Article apart, whether you like it or not. (I certainly do)

One aspect that wasn't mentioned yet though is the in-flight manueverability characteristics of this bullet.
I really want to know, what is the sensors field of view, how fast can the proccessing unit react to steer the fins, how large course adjustments can the fins allow and most importantly what caliber is this thing? Probably somewhere around .50 I'd guess.

@c--

lol once again lay of the drugs bro...responsibility? What have you done lately other thing troll on websites with pointless arguements thats what I though nothing....get off the internet and make something for yourself

C--, I'll admit, PopSci doesn't really elaborate on the details. Read this article on the bullet at PhysOrg, which is much more informative (and includes a video of the bullet).

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-self-guided-bullet-prototype-mile.html

Apparently, the bullet can adjust itself 30 times a second.

D13, you're talking to yourself. I don't mind debating with you when you have an argument for me to work with, but I won't engage in a verbal exchange of ad hominem attacks without reason.

If you want to illicit a further response from me, say something that doesn't amount to feces.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Boet! Skeptic, don't do that to yourself. You just said Army lasers are Infrared!(Far Infrared to be particular) Far Infrared light is of a far lower wavelength than green light and thus quite different in terms of range. I know you tried to pull out a top shelf example but you prolly outdid yourself a little with that, anyhow honest mistake getting ahead of yourself like that, remember research first then respond.

Anyway If both sides in a war were using these, would anyone have to aim? Their bullets would go straight for the infrared light emission from the laser on the enemies gun. Neat feature :)

From delkomatic and I Quote: "@c--

lol once again lay of the drugs bro...responsibility? What have you done lately other thing troll on websites with pointless arguements thats what I though nothing....get off the internet and make something for yourself"

Who's trolling? Compare your amount of posts to mine? Infact I've just come back from a presentation about Areva's new Desalination and Trekkopje mine in Namibia that's yet to turn a proper profit. Since so far its going just as bad as I told them it'd go If they didn't do a proper EIA study.

@D13

tell you what ill take my smart bullet hide behind a GIANT ROCK out of your Line of Sight...guess who just won?

Sorry C--, didn't mean to categorize all military lasers as one type. They do use Far Infrared, they also use many other types -- for example, the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) which operates at 3 micrometre wavelengths (putting it into the Near Infra Red spectrum).

(http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL-Analysis.html#Early)

I used a green laser as an informational piece, but very well, criticism noted -- I'll strive to be more specific in future.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

@D13"Democedes, I would love to take your bet. You would be dead before your bullet with fins ever got to the mark. There is a reason why that bullet is curving... well there are a few I can tell that not knowing where a bullet is coming from is useful. I can say that changing the pressure on the head of this bullet as it swivels will slow it down as will the fins. I can also say that the fastest distance between these two points is a straight line. Ill take a Barret and you can have this smart thing. Your bullet may hit me but if my bullet is on target you will be dead before I will you blithering coma patient with an eye-mouse. Blink once if you understand."

I could eat a sammich while you are taking readings and making (attempting) calculations, and then toss back a cold one while you are dialing it into your scope. And I would still win because you don't know your ass from the business end of a Barrett (let alone how to spell it).

I just have to say, I'm sorely disappointed the direction this thread took, so soon. A lot of relevent information and discussion could have been shared.

Heck anyone looking at this thread will surely try to figure out what all the fuss was about and certainly gain some knowledge along the way.
Enjoy the rest of the afternoon, I'm goning fishing, hopefully I'll catch a BIG one :D

@C--"Anyway If both sides in a war were using these, would anyone have to aim? Their bullets would go straight for the infrared light emission from the laser on the enemies gun. Neat feature :)"

You do realize that a laser is a beam right? Your laser would have to be pointed directly at the bullet's sensor for that to work.

Also, it would not be a good idea to mount the laser on the weapon firing the bullet. Recoil from firing the weapon would throw off your aim. Smoke/dust might be a problem too. You would have your spotter designate the target.

Demo, this is at least part conjecture on my part, but my understanding is that while it is a laser being beamed directly on the target, once it hits that target, it reflects off in all directions -- including at the bullet. So there's no actual laser pointed at the bullet, just at the target.

I'm really not sure how it would work to have a laser on the target pointed at the bullet, following its path.

Also, I imagine there's an upper limit to just how much a bullet can alter is trajectory mid-flight. I can't see this thing being used to shoot around corners or the like.

Most likely your spotter will shine the laser on the target, and you'll still have to mostly aim as accurately as possible; the bullet will take care of the rest.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

@democedes Go take you laser outside in the dark right now, place it far away so it doesn't point right at you, there is still enough light scattering occuring at the emmision source for you to see it.
Yeah and you're right this is pretty much a snipers only bullet who can afford to have a dedicated spotter/'targeter' (What? the Sniper now just has to hold the gun???) As fast as this bullet can adjust to directions I'm sure recoil is neglible and the bullet would likely be set to only start tracking once it is a certain time as in distance from the shooter already and his aim has resettled.
Anyhow, gone now, hook line and sinker (and ofcourse the rod 'n bait too).

@C--"@democedes Go take you laser outside in the dark right now, place it far away so it doesn't point right at you, there is still enough light scattering occuring at the emmision source for you to see it."

If the military used pen lasers, that would be relevant.

@C--"Yeah and you're right this is pretty much a snipers only bullet who can afford to have a dedicated spotter/'targeter' (What? the Sniper now just has to hold the gun???)"

Huh? Am not sure what you are saying there. Although I am detecting sarcasm. Perhaps some punctuation is missing?

@C--"As fast as this bullet can adjust to directions I'm sure recoil is neglible and the bullet would likely be set to only start tracking once it is a certain time as in distance from the shooter already and his aim has resettled."

What makes you think the recoil is negligible? You said it looked to be about .50 cal right? Have you ever fired a .50 cal before? I don’t know of a sniper rifle that kicks more than a .50. Do you? It would be difficult enough to hold the rifle steady exactly on target without firing the rifle. To reacquire and hold the rifle steady in a matter of seconds, good luck.

Plus, the bullet is going to be following that little dot everywhere you point the weapon while you are trying to reacquire the target. The more the bullet turns, the more it is going to slow down.

Also, the shockwave of the bullet can kick up dust in front of your weapon after you fire it. You cannot reacquire the target if you cannot see it.

Most (if not all) modern military snipers use a spotter. I don't know why you wouldn't use your spotter to designate the target.

@Canadian_Skeptic "Demo, this is at least part conjecture on my part, but my understanding is that while it is a laser being beamed directly on the target, once it hits that target, it reflects off in all directions -- including at the bullet. So there's no actual laser pointed at the bullet, just at the target."

Yes, that is how I understand it. I think you misunderstood.
Please re-read my and @C--'s post. @C-- was saying that if both sides had this technology, the enemy's bullet would home in on your laser.

My point is that the only way for this to happen would be if your laser was pointed directly at the enemy's guided bullet (which is impossible to maintain even if you wanted to).

Ah okay, I understand Demo. That's not how I understood C--'s post either, so naturally I didn't interpret that in yours.

My apologies.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

@D13 If you can't compete intellectually, use ridicule. You only proved that you have nothing interesting to say.

*yawn*

Troll unsucessful.

D13,

"it's like a retard convention" -- Forgot the apostrophe
"watchin'" -- If you're gonna use slang, use it right. Apostrophe.
"I'm" -- Apostrophe again.
"won't" -- Yeah. Apostrophe.
"your" -- When I was teaching English Language Arts, this was a particularly grevious sin. "Your" is possessive, you were looking for "you're."
"Youll" -- Apostrophe.
"BS Crusaders." -- Aside from odd capitalization (your judgement never was sound), keep the punctuation inside the quotation marks.

Quick aside from grammar school, "You can take off and fly to anywhere there is a serious discussion going on and screw it up right when a good point gets made!"

I couldn't have defined the word "irony" better myself. Thanks.

"Kool" -- Was cool in.. actually, kool was only used by nerds who tried to be cool.
"meet" -- You actually mispelled meet as meat? Really? Really?
"battlefield" -- One word, not two. Your math skills being what they are, I can understand the error.

Ah, but thank you for the stimulating response, D13. As always, intellectual sparring with a pile of slime has been illiminating.

You couldn't continue the conversation on black holes, so you gave up and began the ad hominem attacks. Ah, if only the schoolyard bullies that tormented you in grade school could see you now.

You truly lived up to all their expectations.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Since D13 apparently has OCD and likes to follow up responses with a secondary, shorter and ultimately more asinine response (Why? We'll never know...), I think I'll take up that habit, too.

I really do hope this trend kicks in, and thank you for your insight, D13. It's always nice to be vindicated for believing you have absolutely nothing positive to contribute.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

from C:
"#2 By the time we see these as standard issue on the battlefield everyone will be walking around with Infrared/Multi-spectrum Helmet Visors."

I guess that means we should just give up. even though the vast majority of the worlds miltaries use weaopons that are 50 years old or more. Even the USA. look at the c-130.

in 200 years you will still have ### holes with nothing more than an AK or rpg, and dead animal skins for clothes trying to kill Americas, with trained a US sniper aiming at his head. If this makes that kill even the smallest bit easier. then by all means it will be developed.

I think its funny someone even brought up a smoke screen. I mean if smoke was so effective, then doesn't it stop YOUR EYES from seeing a target. oh yeah it works both ways. somebody figured out that its eaiser to kill your target than permanently hide from them using your infinite supply of smoke grenades or magical smoke monster.

Could we all chill the hell out? Read the article, appreciate the information, and if you have an opinion varying from that of another person's, just move on. It is no good getting so worked up over the tines things on here, and i see it on every post!

D13, actually I'm attempting to get a reaction out of you. You responded, so I guess it worked. In fact, I guess you could say my bullet deployed its fins and found the mark, didnt it? (ah, such wit..).

And actually, I'm not criticizing people. I'm critizing you. You're neither plural nor human, so I guess I'm safe.

I can also take it at least as well as I dish it -- which is to say, pretty well.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

By the way, it's a good feeling to know I've had such an effect on you, you decided to create a list titled "Just who IS this guy?!"

It's nice I have such a strong affect on people. I do hope you haven't lost any sleep? (I haven't).

When you're done with it, could I get that list from you? I'll add it to my statue.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

It's good to see so many experts coming out of the wood work here. In particular, I found Hinto's comment about his roommate's aunt making money on her laptop the most insightful.

This has fallen from a pseudo-expert pissing contest to an all-out playground brawl faster than Bubbagump could make a new account for himself...

But seriously, like many military tech demos, this is probably still deep in the R&D domain, and likely nothing more than a demonstrator to illicit interest and funds from military stakeholders. Gaps in funding have been the primary reason for the death of similar programs in the past. No money, no improvement in maturity, no transition to acquisition.

And D13, (not jumping on the demo/skeptic bandwagon here, just an honest comment), I don't know that the Air Force's Barrel-Launched Adaptive Munition (BLAM) is a fitting comparison with this project. It wasn't exactly a small arms round at 37mm, was intended for AA applications, and never saw testing outside a wind tunnel (that we know of). There have been other attempts more suitable for comparison, such as DARPA's (gotta love 'em) EXtreme ACcuracy Tasked Ordnance (EXACTO), and other .50 cal attempts, though none of them left bench testing or wind tunnels (again, that we know of).

They weren't particularly unsuccessful, just lost funding and died for the most part.

As for some of the comments about the loops path, I'm not entirely sure it did that on purpose. Take a look at the larger version of the image from Sandia, it looks like the round skimmed a berm and was deflected further downrange.

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/images/2012/bullet1.jpg

Ah nice picture, iambronco. Good catch.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Not 100% sure, seems like the round is still making corrections after briefly being obscured by the berm (hard to believe if it took a hit)...

If it didn't impact, that was a hell of a close call.

Well, it's a little tough to say. The camera is making a long shot, which means the background gets kind of "squished" with the foreground -- flattening the image.

So it might be that the bullet comes extremely close to the berm or even makes contact, or it could be several metres past it.

It'd be really nice to have a video, without any such berms or obstructions, showing the bullet's trajectory. That's something I'd be interested in seeing.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

@skeptic and @Demo, your comments outside of responses to @D13 were reasonably intelligent and interesting. The most unintelligent thing either of you did was respond at all to him. And quite honestly the whole exchange was kind of entertaining but I wouldn't want to see this exchange on every article's comment section.

Both of you do us all a favor, including yourselves. Just ignore him. It will probably really piss him off even if you don't get the satisifaction of seeing it.

Everyone who matters can see each of us for what we are without our pointing it out to each other.

This was not a rebuke, merely a suggestion.

(Please forgive any typo's or grammatical errors as I don't have much time to devote to this right now.)

Oh by all means, em, I agree with you 100%. In my case, his and my history go back a few articles -- his animosity towards me has been leaching over into other articles I comment on. I agree I hope he doesn't try to engage this slap fest on every future article.

When I do respond to him, my only aim is to at least respond to the troll with humour. Humour at his expense, but humour nonetheless. I'm glad you felt the exchange was entertaining -- that's exactly what I was going for :)

And oh, don't worry about grammar. I actually don't care whether people use good grammar on the internet (it's such a silly thing to care about).

Thanks for the feedback, em. You're right on the mark.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

@emneumann

Of course you are right. I would hate to see Pop Sci become like the Fox News comments with 100 D13-like trolls per minute.

I will refrain from future feeding of trolls.

Actually, I wasn't going to respond. But D13 did raise one good point I meant to address earlier in this thread:

I was initially too hard on C--'s comments. Coming from a previous thread involving D13, I already had my alarm bells high.

So, I offer my apology to C-- for jumping the gun on that one. I feel we were able to come to a gentleman's agreement later in the thread, though.

Thanks for the feedback D13.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

my co-worker's step-aunt makes $81/hour on the laptop. She has been laid off for 5 months but last month her income was $8749 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here LazyCash4.com

There could be room for a tool of this type in the modern military mode. In Afghanistan, much of the counter insurgency is beingn eliminated by remote fire drones (Reapers) and sniper teams.

Drones are exspensive, snipers are as well (teams of multiple, highly trained, and gifted soldiers doing complex math with precision tools).

A laser guided system, out of the visable spectrem but visable to the user's optics could be kept on target at ranges of elite snipers and allow very long distance shots with muc less training (wind, drop, curvature, humidity, etc become non-factors as pointing on target becomes the only requirement).

I would like to see the system as a stable platform laser with computer guidance and remote optics joined to an indirect fire version of this. The goal being long range elite sniper fire from a covered position in a package portable by one or two infrantrymen with limited training.

Of course a really powerful machine gun works well. Just kill everything! The only aiming ability required is to hit the side of a barn.

@D13

just curious, but if you arent referring to BLAM with the comments about the nose-cone swivel steering, then what were you? I've only been able to find references to 5 programs investigating guided 'bullets', and that was the only project I saw running that approach to course correction. The remaining used some implementation of a fin to adjust trajectory.

And I agree with your comment about the dust. I noted some skepticism in my following post to whether or not the projectile impacted the ground, due to its apparent continued course correction further downrange.

More basic (or maybe not) than speculating about them drawing circles with the laser, this prototype is still in its early implementation. Reading between the lines in the linked article, they are basing some of their controls on the harmonics of the projectile (I believe they cited 30 Hz as the principle natural frequency excited). At this point they may not have refined the controls to the point of fine adjustment, as I think they state they tend to over-correct, or they don't yet have a solid fix on the dynamics of the shell itself. Also, slapping an LED on the back like they have done in this case (this wasnt a tracer round, they state as much in the linked article) would throw off weight distribution and likely interfere with the round's aerodynamics. Any number of these, or all of them, could but the round through a hell of a flight path.

Wow, D13. I'm impressed. How long did that take you? It's not exactly easy to quote-mine in PopSci (they don't make it easy on us).. given the time between my last post and this one I give it.. over 2 hours.

That's intense man. But kudos on your motivation. Wow.

First of all, ALH is your twin (actually, that's not totally fair to you. ALH is far worse, and thankfully, has kept quiet lately).

I'm pretty sure some of those unnamed quotes were aimed at you. So nice sneaking in there.

And my quote responding to Phoenix.. lol. Im not sure what you were trying to prove, there? I think I was actually quite civil in that comment. I also hold a lot of respect for Phoenix on these forums -- he's an incredibly intelligent guy (though I did calmly disagree with him on one particular topic).

Anyway, my apology was directed at C-- and I stand by that. The rest of the quotes -- if those folks (aka, you) are butthurt, they probably deserve it.

As for you, you seriously need to man-up for a bit, brah. This is really becoming the internet equivalent of a temper tantrum. Spanning weeks now.

Dry up those tears and suck it up princess.

I actually haven't been the one telling you to stop posting. Post away. I'll be there correcting you when you're wrong. And, yes, I fully expect and *want* you to do the same.

Challenge me.

But all these tirades, rants and exasperates screams of helplessness are getting old.

I get it. You think it's too difficult to back up your comments with sources, so you attack my person. I don't actually mind -- it's okay. Let it all out, brotha.

Em said it best here, "Everyone who matters can see each of us for what we are without our pointing it out to each other."

Even the people that originally wanted to help your side have forsaken you. You're really quite alone on this one, and becoming more alone by the minute.

You've spent your *entire* time on this particular page -- which is now becoming quite considerable -- tearing me down for apparently following YOU? Really?

Look bud, pick up a shiny piece of glass called a mirror and look in it.

You complain I'm a dick? Let's nitpick just your posts on this page (You're not worth quote-mining beyond that):

My comments in (parentheses.)

-------------------

"@retard-convention: I dont (<--no apostrophe on that) care. I dont come on here to interact with you. I come to comment and I will." (actually, you did come to interact with me, evidently)

"Here is my summation of your arrogance Septik, just you have a mirror to look in." (back at you)

"are you grading my paper or trying to find some wit in that in useless terd on your shoulders you call a brain?" (I don't try)

"wow, its like a retard convention. democedes and septic teamed up. Like watchin two people with 1/2 a brain cell create a full one." (By virtue of my currently breathing, I'm pretty sure I have at least 2 brain cells. Maybe more)

"HAHAHA! THank you. My point is made. What a truly drooling idiot you are." (That hurts)

"Skeptic, please stop the complete and total garbage analysis." (No thanks)

-------------------

This sure paints a pretty picture. Can you actually identify ONE positive contribution you've made to anything in this article, despite so many essays?

Even if every single thing I've said here was blatantly false, I still at least provided a link to PhysOrg (http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-self-guided-bullet-prototype-mile.html) which contains slightly more information than here, and addressed a question about how frequently the bullet could monitor and adapt its position, etc.

You think you're making a contribution by going to an article, searching for my name, and regailing everyone about just how fantastically butthurt you are?

By the way, if you really are interested in my auto biography, I am an atheist (not self-admitted as if I have aids or something -- I'm proud of it, but I also respect those who are religious. I care more for their reasons than their beliefs).

I did also take Religious Studies as a minor, correct (by the way, you never did respond to my post on that page, after I thoroughly rocked you).

Do you have any idea how many religious studies professors at secular universities are atheists? Quite a few, it turns out. Why is that, you may ask? Because Religious Studies is NOT theology; it's much closer to anthropology.

Why do people believe in religion? In god? In the supernatural? In aliens, bigfoot or the loch ness? These questions have a burning interest in me.

So did I go into those classrooms, creating a firestorm, dismissing every counter argument provided my way?

Hell no. I was interested in their reasons -- of which, many are valid. It turns out, people at University have a measure of intelligence I find satisfying, despite some beliefs.

So if you want to know why I treat you differently than them, it's because while they were intelligent, refined and highly cognizant of their belief structures, you're stupid, blunt and entirely ignorant of yours.

You can keep this up all you want man. As you've said, "I have plenty of fans without needing to bash my face against your wall."

I wouldn't have to keep bashing my face against your wall if you didn't keep getting all up in my space every 30 seconds. But since you can't seem to stop yourself, I guess I'll oblige.

So by the way, where exactly are all your fans? Gone with the wind?

Keep posting pal.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I almost forgot to follow up with a tertiary comment, as per my previous promise.

I'll admit folks, I'm getting tired of this, too. I'll keep it up -- but if anyone wants this whole conversation to end, please just report my comments and D13's, and hopefully the mods will delete the irrelevent crap that's not helpful to the conversation.

Thanks.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Go back to every source I've provided. I've provided only around half a dozen from Wiki. Several others from other news agencies like PhysOrg or BBC, and the rest I typically use Google Scholar, actually.

When possible, I'll also verify the credibility of a scholarly journal -- for example, I won't trust any medical information from the Huffington Post, because it's not credible anymore.

Your level of delusion is quite honestly fantastic. You'd make for a delicious lab experiment, which is convenient, for your most valuable state is disected.

And once again, your fact checking rings wrong. Hawkings and Einstein are both religious? Really? And you got that info from where?

Einstein believed in the god of Spinoza -- by which I mean he believed that all of creation, the material world itself, was so fantastical, so incredible, so worth the awe it inspired, that it itself was worth deifying. He did not believe in a god, certainly not a personal God.

He had a divine respect for all the world around us -- which is a value I share.

Hawkings, in perhaps the most widely read and acclaimed book on Physics, and indeed very nearly one of the best selling books of all time in any category, A Brief History of Time, he states the existence of God is unnecessary to explain the origin of the universe.

Please tell me you've actually read A Brief History of Time? Of all the books on physics, this is the one must-read out there, on par with Shakespeare in literature.

You have made precisely one accurate statement in your latest comment: "I guess if you studied the math you would realize that the patterns in it sometimes seem devinely inspired or "mathematically inprobable.""

You're right, they do sometimes seem divinely inspired. As once did the sun and the moon. They *seem* divinely inspired, yet they are entirely the product of this material world.

Yet that's more a philosophical (or theological) question at this point, and I'm happy to have a discussion of it with people more intelligent than you.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

I'm really starting to think your delusion has manifested as what's termed in psychology "projection."

But it's so incredibly overt -- every comment you make of me, every last one -- applies so directly to you, you *have* to be aware of it.

Aren't you?

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Don't hold your breath.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

@Oakspar77777 "I would like to see the system as a stable platform laser with computer guidance and remote optics joined to an indirect fire version of this."

Yes, there would be the possibility of using this weapon for indirect fire. I hadn't thought of that. You could place the weapon firing the L/G bullet on the opposite side of a (small) hill from your target. Then have someone designate from a flanking position. It would be impossible to tell where the fire was coming from. Sneaky. The team designating would be relatively safe as long as they maintained a concealed position (no rifle report to give away their position).

It is very difficult to locate a sniper by sound. You hear up to three distinct sounds: The snap of the bullet (shockwave), the report of the rifle, and (possibly) the sound from where the bullet hits something. All three are misleading.

A good sniper will take up a flanking position to his front lines and start killing soldiers at the rear of the enemy formation. The enemy soldiers will be looking forward, to where they were told their enemy is. They will not see the soldiers behind them being picked off one by one. They will mistake aimed fire for covering (harassing) fire. They will not realize that they have been flanked by a sniper until the sniper has already made many easy kills.

@D13

I do appreciate the patent reference, and it definitely laid the ground work for the early guided small arms rounds. I'm still curious as to what other implementation of the 'swivel' round you keep referring to. The patent lays the ground work for the BLAM by proposing piezoelectric bi-material flaps (which went on to be piezoelectric tendons in BLAM), but I see no reference to any swiveling action of either the body or nose of the round in the patent.

I've also seen some AoA (analysis of alternatives) presentations from Red Stone arsenal (I believe they are available online), with a section specifically on bent nose/body control techniques (that's what they call it), and though they cited a number of applicable patents to the technique, only one actually program was cited, and that was the BLAM.

I'm genuinely curious. Outside of numerous patents, there is very little reference to actual implementation of any of them. I should really like to see the pictures you mention.

Also an interesting reference:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA432910

Document states BLAM was the first program in the DoD (Again, that we know of).

Also, note that document is not related to the DoD, though it is housed on a DoD webpage.

(also, it's not a very well written document, but serves as a decent timeline)

Ah, my poor, deluded D13. Broken, but cute.

Can I keep it?

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

By the way, hello everyone I'm apparently meeting :)

All 4 of you still in the thread..

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

See that you do that D13.

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Guess Ill go check myself into the dumb@$$ facility" - D13 http://bit.ly/AoWh5x

I had a brilliant idea from one of the posts......

You can fire around corners but imagine firing straight up or at a steep angle. Paint the target with whatever laser system works and treat it more like a flachette round, that can auto correct on the way to the target. The enemy wouldn't even know where the shot came from.

They would think God is sniping them.

This mean I can legally purchase baby skull seeking bullets right??

mrroboto560,
If I understand you correctly sir, you want very tiny tiny baby skull, thats rolling about in search of bullets???
Why sir, that makes no sense at all!
Gasp, what Kool-aid are you drinking?

...................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

I wouldn't worry Robot. There's a significant physiological difference between robot babies and human babies, so I think robot babies should be perfectly safe from mrroboto560's skull bullets (is it inappropriate to coin the term "skullets?")

----------------
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

Cant a mirror defeat this weapon system?

- RELIGION AND SCIENCE GO HAND IN HAND, NEITHER CAN DISPROVE THE OTHER!-

Given that I have/do shoot .50 cal regularly the tracer appears to be following a trajectory of a laser that is mounted to the weapon system and it shows recoil and reacquisition of the target. That would explain the lack of dust near the berm. That is how it looks to me

- RELIGION AND SCIENCE GO HAND IN HAND, NEITHER CAN DISPROVE THE OTHER!-

@11Bravo "Cant a mirror defeat this weapon system?"

If they are using infrared lasers, a normal mirror wouldn't work. You would have to use a material that reflects light at the laser's frequency. But I don't think that a head to toe "mirror suit" is very practical for the average soldier.

You could also try to absorb rather than reflect the light. But a super-black suit would make you visible from a great distance.

There are existing L/G countermeasures that could help as well. But these are largish and probably not practical for extended use away from a generator/outlet.

Then of course there is always hard cover. It works against all flavors of small arms, guided or not. ;)

Even if this program is successful I don't see them being handed out to every soldier. Maybe 1 for every 200 soldiers. I don't think any army will go to great lengths to counter this weapon.

@11Bravo "Given that I have/do shoot .50 cal regularly the tracer appears to be following a trajectory of a laser that is mounted to the weapon system and it shows recoil and reacquisition of the target."

The picture is not a test of the laser. SNL describes the photo:

"A tiny light-emitting diode, or LED, attached to a self-guided bullet at Sandia National Laboratories shows a bright path during a nighttime field test that proved the battery and electronics could survive the bullet's launch."

Here is the high resolution version of the photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandialabs/6800909019/sizes/l/in/photostream/

The bullet looks like it hits the top of that berm and then arcs CW into the brush. If it is a test of the laser/guidance system, why would they intentionally fire it into the dirt/bushes with all of those man size targets to fire at?

Somebody unraveled a really long white ribbon and took a picture, then wrote an article. Perhaps soon we will hit 100 comments soon! Woopee!

.............................
Science sees no further than what it can sense.
Religion sees beyond the senses.

They could spend millions more on this or... They can just continue making lasers better. No wind, coriolis effect, etc... to worry about either. Lasers may be some years away from taking out large missles and aircraft but humans are a completely different issue.

my roomate's aunt makes $83/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $8682 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site...Nuttyrich . com

Why do people assume that a LASER designator must operate in visible wavelengths so that the person identifying the target becomes the target themslves? LASER emmitters do not have to paint the target all of the time, only when it matters - when the round reaches the target.

my roomate's aunt makes $83/hr on the laptop. She has been without work for 8 months but last month her pay was $8682 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site...Nuttyrich . com

Someone was wondering if the targeting laser would work in a very smokey environment. That depends on the output wavelength of the laser.