現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争２３ > 457.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争２３ > 457.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
●スペースシャトルがレーザー兵器で撃ち落とされたのではないか、という臆測に関しては、“興味深い話だ”という印象しか今のところ持ちようがないわけですが、本日たまたま米国空軍が“マイクロ波砲”を航空機に搭載すべく開発中だという情報を知ったので、それを紹介するつもりでおりました。ところが意外な事実を発見したので、以下に報告しておきます。
●「米国空軍が強力マイクロ波（HPM）兵器の無人機や巡航ミサイルへの搭載をめざしている」という記事は、コロンビア号が打ち上げられて数日後の先月21日に英国BBCが報じたものでした。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
BBCニュース
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2679835.stm
Tuesday, 21 January, 2003, 12:10 GMT
US working on lightning weapon
【米国で“稲妻”兵器を開発中】
［写真キャプション：Weapon could be tested on an unmanned aircraft (US Department of Defense）］
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38720000/jpg/_38720339_unmanned300.jpg
［無人航空機に搭載した強力マイクロ波兵器の実験が行なわれる可能性がある（アメリカ国防総省）］
The US Air Force is working on developing a man-made bolt of lightning powerful enough to fry sophisticated computer and electronic components in weapons.
Researchers are looking at ways of putting so-called High-Powered Microwave (HPM) beams on aircraft and cruise missiles.
【米国空軍は、兵器に搭載されている精巧なコンピュータや電子部品を焼き壊してしまうほど強烈な“人造稲妻”を目下開発中である。研究者たちはこの所謂「強力マイクロ波（HPM）」ビームを航空機やミサイルに搭載する方法を模索しているところだ。】
The short, intense burst of energy is intended to be lethal to electronics but have no effect on people.
【強力だが瞬間的なエネルギーの爆発は、電子機器を破壊するのに利用できるが、ヒトには無害である。】
Aerospace experts have suggested an experimental version of the weapon could be used in a war against Iraq, carried on a cruise missile or unmanned aircraft.
【航空宇宙工学の専門家たちは、いまだ実験段階にあるこの兵器を巡航ミサイルや無人航空機に積んで、対イラク戦争で使えるであろうと仄[ほの]めかしてきた。】
But the secrecy surrounding the use of these weapons would mean it could be some time before details are released to the public.
【もっとも、こうした兵器の使用をめぐっては機密事項が多いので詳細が公表されるのは当分先になりそうだ。】
●Millions of watts
【数百万ワットの出力】
"The low-collateral damage aspect of the technology makes high-power microwave weapons useful in a wide variety of missions where avoiding civilian casualties is a major concern," says the US Air Force on its website.
【米国空軍はウェブサイトで「強力マイクロ波兵器は付帯的な損害が小さいという技術的特徴があるので、市民の犠牲者を出さないことが重要懸案となるような広範多様な戦闘任務に利用できる」と宣伝している。】
----------------------------------------------------------------
●写真キャプション
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38720000/jpg/_38720395_cruise150.jpg
Cruise missiles could be used for HPM weapons
These weapons are particularly attractive as they could be used against suspected chemical or biological facilities in Iraq, without the danger of releasing dangerous toxins into the air.
【強力マイクロ波兵器の運搬手段として巡航ミサイルが使われる可能性がある。こうした兵器は、イラクの生物化学兵器施設とおぼしき対象物に使用しても、危険な毒物を外気に放散させることがないので、魅力的だ。】
----------------------------------------------------------------
On its website, the US Air Force says research in HPM weapons is "considerably advanced". But it added that scientists are conducting "critical experiments still needed to assess the feasibility of the technology for operational systems".
【米国空軍のウェブサイトには、強力マイクロ波兵器は「かなり先進的」だと書かれている。だが、科学者たちが「作戦体系に採用できる技術かどうかを評価するために決定的に重要な実験」を目下進めている、とも書かれている。】
Much of the work into developing this next-generation weapon is being done at the High Energy Research and Technology Facility.
【この次世代兵器の開発作業は、主に「高エネルギー研究テクノロジー施設」という場所で行なわれている。】
The $9m lab is located in a canyon in the Manzano Mountains and is part of the Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.
【この施設はニューメキシコ州のマンザノ山地の渓谷に900万ドルかけて造った研究所に置かれているが、研究所自体は同州のカークランド空軍基地に属している。】
●Targeted microwaves
【標的に向けられるマイクロ波】
The technology behind HPM is based on that used in household microwave ovens.
【強力マイクロ波兵器の基本となっているのは、家庭用の電子レンジに用いられている技術だ。】
But whereas a typical microwave generates less than 1,500 watts of power, the Air Force researchers are working with equipment that can generate millions of watts of power.
【通常のマイクロ波は出力が1500ワットを超えることなどない。だが空軍の研究者たちは出力数百万ワットのマイクロ波発生装置を開発中だ。】
An HPM weapon would unleash a powerful electrical pulse that would burn up any electrical equipment, such as computers and communications systems.
【強力マイクロ波兵器は、コンピュータや通信システムなどあらゆる電子機器を焼き壊してしまう強力な電子的パルスを放出する。】
"Scientists are exploring equipment and methodologies for generating high-power microwave energy and accurately propagating that energy to a target," says the US Air Force.
【空軍の宣伝によれば、「科学者たちは強力なマイクロ波のエネルギーを作り出しそのエネルギーを目標物に正確に撃ち込む装置と方法論を開発しつつある」という。】
"Work is also ongoing on the feasibility and utility of placing compact high-power microwave systems aboard various Air Force platforms."
【さらに「各種の空軍航空兵器に搭載して用いることができる小型の強力マイクロ波兵器システムの実用化をめざして研究中である」とも書かれている。】
Aerospace experts say the research is well advanced and an experimental system could be placed on an unmanned drone or a cruise missile.
【航空宇宙分野の専門家たちは、この研究はきわめて先進的だが実験段階の兵器システムを無線操縦機や巡航ミサイルに搭載するのは可能だと語っている。】
And US officials have hinted that new developmental weapons technology could be used in an attack on Iraq.
【しかも米国政府の役人たちは、この開発段階の兵器技術がイラク攻撃に使えると、すでに仄めかしている。】
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●なお、上記のBBC記事には関連リンクとして米国空軍の次のサイトが紹介されていました。
【1】US Air Force High- Powered Microwave factsheet
http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/Factsheets/HPM.html
【2】Kirtland Air Force Base
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/
ところがこれらを見ようとしたところ「ネットワークに問題があって閲覧できない」とのことで接続不可になっています。BBCが上記記事を書いた時点では、おそらく接続できたのでしょう。しかしその後、先月21日にこの記事が世に出たことで、部外者のアクセスを断つために接続できなくしたと推測されます。あるいは海外からのアクセスを切っているのかも知れませんが。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●ところで私は、先日、次のような記事を紹介しました
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.asyura.com/2003/bd24/msg/167.html
S24 167 2003/2/04 06:11:27
題 名: イスラエルの日刊紙『マアリヴ』が地球周回中のコロンビア機の破損した翼の写真を公表
【『マアリヴ』ウェブサイト・英語版の関連記事】
Daily MAARIVE in Israel http://www.maarivenglish.com/
スペースシャトルの窓から撮影された写真には、コロンビアの左翼が写り込んでいる。この写真はイスラエルテレビのニュース番組「エレヴ・ハダシュ」の放送中に撮影されたもの。http://www.maarivenglish.com/Columbia%20Comp.jpg
2003年２月３日――イラン・ラモン飛行士は宇宙に飛び立って５日目にアリエル・シャロン首相と動画中継回線を通じて会見を行なった。ラモン飛行士は、コロンビア機の窓から見える眺めを首相にも見せたのだが、その際に撮影された画像にコロンビア機の左翼が写り込んでいた。ごらんになればわかるように、翼の表面に長い亀裂とへこんだ跡が見える。それから11日後、まさにこの翼がシャトル本体からちぎれ落ち、シャトルは空中分解に至ったのだ。たとえNASAがこの損傷を、できた瞬間から知っていたとしても、祈るほかには為すすべがなかったであろう。
イスラエルの著名な航空専門家であるアハロン・ラピドット氏によれば、この“左翼破損”説がスペースシャトル空中分解の原因を説明する最も無理のない仮説だという。
●『マアリヴ』ヘブライ語版に載っていた写真。
（翼の２ヵ所の亀裂がはっきりと指摘されている写真）
http://images.maariv.co.il/images//news2/columbia0302034.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
●このように事故直後は「断熱タイル破損説」が喧伝され、イスラエルからはその“証拠”だという写真までが提出されたわけです。（この写真については翼でなく格納庫ではないか、という指摘が出ました。私もそのように思います。しかしイスラエルでは「左翼」として報じられたし、それをシンガポールのメディアが伝えたことも事実なのです。）
●その後、カリフォルニア州のアマチュア天体観測家が“紫色に輝く光を放ちながら大気圏に再突入するコロンビア号”の写真を撮ったと報じられていますが、肝心の写真はいまだ一般には公表されていません。
（コロンビア号は“宇宙ボタル”とでも呼ぶべき小さな火の玉を軌道上で作ってその飛びかたを調べる実験をしていました。そこで、再突入時にそうした実験をしていたのではないか、という臆測が出されていましたし、アマチュア観測家が用いたニコンカメラがフレアを取り込みやすい機種なので、シャトルが奇妙な光を放っていたのではなく、カメラそのものに問題があって“実在しない幽霊”を撮ってしまった、という説も語られています。）
●しかしとにかくNASAは「断熱タイル破損説」をうち消す方向に態度を変え、下記のような情報を出してきました。いまごろ（事故から１週間後）になって「打ち上げ時の機体撮影画像がピンぼけ」だと発表するのも不自然な話です。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
CNN・Japan
http://cnn.co.jp/top/K2003020702362.html
打ち上げ時の機体撮影画像がピンぼけ シャトル事故
2003.02.07
Web posted at: 21:34 JST
CNN/AP
米スペースシャトル「コロンビア」の空中分解事故で、打ち上げ時の機体の状況などを克明に撮影していたはずの米航 空宇宙局（ＮＡＳＡ）の高精度ビデオカメラの焦点がぶれて画像がいずれも不鮮明となり、事故原因の解明作業に使用するデータが入手出来なかったことが６日分かった。
スペースシャトル計画の責任者ロン・ディテモア氏が会見で述べた。原因調査の長期化が必至となる中で、貴重な手掛かりとなったかもしれない画像データを失ったＮＡＳＡの不手際に新たな批判が起こりそうだ。
このビデオは、シャトル打ち上げ時に異常発生の有無などを監視するためのもので、撮影の角度などから最も重要視されていた。外部燃料タンクから断熱材の破片が脱落して、シャトル本体に衝突した可能性を立証する解析で、画像がピンぼけだったことが判明、使い物にならないことが分かった。
ディテモア氏は、「焦点が合っていなかったことには失望した。別のカメラの画像を調べているが、最良の画像を得るこ とは出来ないと思う」と失態を認めた。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
●そして、やはり２月７日に、米国空軍が空中分解直前のコロンビア号を地上から撮影していたと発表されました。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
CNN・Japan
http://cnn.co.jp/science/K2003020800056.html
シャトル左翼前部にギザギザの損傷 航空専門誌報道
2003.02.08
Web posted at: 07:17 JST （CNN）
ワシントン（ＣＮＮ） 米スペースシャトル・コロンビアが空中分解する直前の姿を米空軍が撮影していたことが７日、航空専門誌の報道でわかった。その写真によると、シャトル左翼にかなり損傷があったことがわかったという。
「アビエーション・ウィーク・アンド・スペース・テクノロジー」が報じた。写真は空中分解の１分前に撮影されたものとされ、胴体から左翼前部が分かれる部分にギザギザの損傷があった。しかし右翼は無傷のように写っている。
記事によると、左翼の損傷は、小さな割れ目かあるいは表 面の脱落とみられている。米航空宇宙局（ＮＡＳＡ）のジョンソン宇宙センターの係官がこの写真を調べているという。
ＮＡＳＡ幹部は７日、写真そのものは見ていないとしつつ、この写真は空軍の地上の施設が撮影したもので、ＮＡＳＡの 係官が調べていることを認めた。
ＮＡＳＡのコステルニク副長官によると、テキサス州などでシャトル破片の捜索を続けている人たちが、シャトルの翼の一部を発見した。同副長官は「左右のどちらの翼の破片なの かはわかっていないが、これは大変重要だ」と話している。
一方、フロリダ州のケネディ宇宙センターでは７日、死亡した７人の飛行士の追悼式典が開かれた。
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
●上記のCNNの記事よりもかなり詳しい状況説明が、下記の記事に書かれています。この記事には『Aviation Week and Space Technology』が報じた地上から撮った空中分解直前のコロンビア号の写真が載っています。
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/TECH/space/02/07/sprj.colu.wrap/story.shuttle.ap.jpg
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/02/07/sprj.colu.wrap/index.html
NASA not convinced photos reveal Columbia's problem
Air Force pictures among several leads, agency says
Friday, February 7, 2003 Posted: 7:26 PM EST (0026 GMT)
JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, Texas (CNN) -- NASA officials said Friday that they were examining photographs taken by an Air Force tracking camera shortly before the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated but were not yet convinced that they held the secrets to the final moments of the fatal flight.
An aviation magazine reported Friday that the images, captured about a minute before the shuttle broke apart, show a jagged edge near where the left wing intersects with the fuselage.
The damage to the left wing indicated either a small structural breach, such as a crack, or that a small piece of the wing's leading edge fell off, according to the report in "Aviation Week & Space Technology." Columbia's right wing and fuselage appear normal in the photos, the magazine said.
But in a NASA briefing Friday afternoon, space shuttle program manager Ron Dittemore showed one of the photographs and said that the choppiness seen on the left wing was due to the camera's resolution. He also said that experts had yet to establish if the distortion of Columbia's shape seen in the photographs indicated a fault or was the result of the angle from which the images were taken.
"The nature of the photograph [because of the resolution] shows some choppiness to the wing leading edge. ... It is not clear to me that it reveals anything significant at the moment," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------
●写真キャプション
Dittemore said experts were analyzing the photographs but emphasized that many pieces of evidence were being examined.
【スペースシャトル計画管理主任のディットモア氏は、専門家たちが目下この問題の写真を解析していると語ったが、多くの断片的な証拠を検討している最中であると力説した。】
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/TECH/space/02/07/sprj.colu.wrap/story.shuttle.ap.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
The orbiter, with seven astronauts onboard, broke up Saturday over Texas during re-entry shortly after experiencing intense heat and air resistance on its left wing.
●Wing section found
Recovery crews found a "leading edge" of one of the shuttle's wings, but it was not yet clear which one, Mike Kostelnik, a deputy associate NASA administrator, said Friday.
"We do have a large piece of one of the wings," he said. "It is not clear which wing this is, but obviously, given the anomalies that we have on the descent coming through the left wing, obviously this structure is very important."
In Texas, hundreds of people resumed the search Friday for pieces of shuttle debris, strewn mostly across the eastern part of the state.
Meanwhile, an amnesty for the return of shuttle pieces expired at 5 p.m. local time (6 p.m. EST) on Friday. Taking shuttle debris, which is federal property, carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. (Full story)
In Florida, thousands of shuttle workers gathered at the Kennedy Space Center for a memorial service to honor the Columbia crew: commander Rick Husband; pilot William McCool; payload specialist Michael Anderson; mission specialists David Brown, Laurel Clark and Kalpana Chawla; and Israel's first astronaut, Ilan Ramon.
"We know the pride you have in our astronauts and our entire NASA family," NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said at the memorial service. "And to honor the legacy of Columbia's astronauts, and as a commitment to the families, you can be assured that we will find the cause of the accident, correct the problems and return to safe flight."
●Key launch pictures out of focus
NASA said Thursday that launch photos that could have shed light on the Columbia disaster are too blurry to help the investigation.
"It's a disappointment that the camera with the very best [launch] view turned out to be out of focus," Dittemore said Thursday. "We've tried to look at alternate camera views, but we know we're not going to get the best view that we could have."
The possibility that a piece of external fuel tank foam struck and damaged heat-insulation tiles on the shuttle's left wing during launch was an early suspect in the disaster.
Dittemore played down the scenario Wednesday but said Thursday that no explanation had been ruled out and that foam debris would be studied vigorously.
"The analysis is starting anew," he told reporters at Johnson Space Center. "We're still planning to conduct testing to better understand the foam and its potential impact."
Other suspects include a calamitous impact with a tiny meteorite and a blowout of the landing gear. Moreover, agency experts will review the flight history of Columbia, which was the oldest shuttle in the agency's fleet.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
●スペースシャトル事故については、ケープケネディ基地の地元フロリダのメディアが最もバラエティに富んだ記事を提供しています。
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
FLORIDA TODAY
http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia/020703satimages.htm
Feb 7, 2003
Military images show damage on left wing before breakup
【軍が撮った写真は、空中分解前に左翼が損傷していたことを示している】
By Kelly Young and John Kelly
FLORIDA TODAY
HOUSTON ー Pictures snapped by a military telescope moments before shuttle Columbia broke apart Saturday show the front edge of its left wing is damaged near the spot where NASA says a chunk of foam may have hit the shuttle during launch.
----------------------------------------------------------------
●写真キャプション
In this image released by NASA on Friday, a chart that was displayed during a media briefing in Houston, illustrates the sensors in the left wing of the space shuttle Columbia. The green being good sensor; red off nominal sensor; and black an offline sensor or one that has failed. （Image copyright c 2003, AP ）
【コロンビア号の左翼の構造。緑は正常値を報じていたセンサー、赤は異常値を報じていたセンサー、黒はデータを送ってこなかったセンサー。】
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/newsgraphics/020803badwing.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------
NASA confirmed this morning investigators are looking closely at the U.S. Air Force image, which is not being made public yet.
When combined with telemetry readings from the final minutes of the ill-fated flight, it is becoming increasingly clear that the left wing was somehow exposed to a wave of heat that crippled critical system after critical system. The flight control system wrestled the vehicle back to the right as the left wing failed but it was fighting a losing battle that ended with Columbia breaking apart and disintegrating, killing the crew.
Search teams found the front piece, or leading edge, of one of the shuttle’s wings in the Fort Worth area.
"It is not clear which wing this is," said Gen. Mike Kostelnik, NASA's deputy associate administrator for space flight.
They will probably know later today. Some of the heat- shielding tiles on the large piece of debris are intact. The tiles have codes, like serial numbers, printed on them that will very quickly tell NASA engineers exactly which wing they’ve got. The wing was taken to nearby Carswell Air Force Base.
If it is the left wing, when combined with photos and other evidence already in hand, the debris is a momentous clue for investigators inside and outside the space agency.
No one can know for sure what damaged the left wing. Regardless, any crack or breached thermal protection system in the wing would precipitate exactly the scenario NASA has said unfolded as the spacecraft flew over the southwestern United States on Saturday morning.
Sensors aboard Columbia indicated temperatures rising faster than normal on and near the left wing and left landing gear wheel well. There were no such readings coming from the right side of the vehicle. Other instrumentation on the left wing quit working just before Houston lost Columbia’s data signals.
Florida Today reported today that engineering experts said even the tiniest breach in the heat-shielding material, anywhere on the wing, would cause catastrophe within seconds. The aluminum wing and many of the metal parts inside would conduct heat quickly, allowing temperatures to rise throughout. The series of mechanical and thermal failures that would follow would doom a ship that must maintain an almost perfect position as re-enters the atmosphere.
"It's just coming like water through a cracked dam. It's like you open the floodgate," said Florida Institute of Technology’s Pei-feng Hsu, an associate professor in the mechanical and aerospace engineering department. Current and former NASA engineers and outside experts have made similar analogies.
The questions then become how and when was the leading edge of the left wing damaged.
Photography could become a key player in the investigation, as NASA continues to receive thousands of pictures taken by all caliber of cameras. The latest one, from the U.S. Air Force’s 3.5-meter telescope at Albuquerque, N.M.
【NASAにはあらゆる種類のカメラで撮られた何千枚もの写真が続々と寄せられており、写真が捜査の決め手になる可能性が出てきた。ニューメキシコ州アルバカーキにある空軍の3.5メートル大口径望遠鏡で撮った写真もNASAに寄せられたばかりである。】
"We cannot comment on it at all," said Terry Walker, spokesman for Kirtland Air Force Base outside of Albuquerque, N.M. "They (NASA) have control of all of the images."
Air Force Research Laboratory spokesman Rich Garcia said that he could not reveal which telescope took the picture, but that it’s part of the Starfire Optical Range. It's located at Kirtland Air Force Base near Albuquerque.
【「この件については何もコメントできない」と語るのは、ニューメキシコ州アルバカーキ郊外にあるカークランド空軍基地のテリー・ウォーカー広報官。「連中（NASA）がすべての画像について統制しているからね」とのこと。空軍研究所のリッチ・ガルシア広報官は、どの望遠鏡で撮影したかは明かせないと答えたが、カークランド空軍基地にある「スターファイア・オプティカル・レインジ」の望遠鏡だということは教えてくれた。】
The range's "celebrity" facility is a 3.5-meter telescope with very precise capabilities. It stands 35 feet high and weighs about 275,000 pounds. In that facility, light the telescope captures can be directed to four different laboratories. The glass sheet that covers the telescope is polished so that it has a precision 3,000 thinner than the width of a human hair.
Kostelnik said the image is not high resolution but was taken during the time period when NASA started getting troublesome telemetry readings from Columbia and the time when it broke apart. Kostelnik said he knows of no high resolution images of the re-entry.
The picture has not been made public, but the respected trade publication Aviation Week & Space Technology said it was a high resolution image snapped about 60 seconds before Columbia was lost. The magazine reporter wrote that the image shows a jagged edge along the front edge of the wing near where it intersects with the fuselage.
Beginning the day after Columbia’s launch, engineering reports were issued daily detailing the post-launch analysis of that chunk of foam debris falling from the orange external tank and striking the left wing.
The report issued on Jan. 18 says the light-colored piece of debris is seen “striking the leading edge of the left wing. The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the wing glove near the orbiter fuselage.” A cloud of particles from the pulverized debris, which NASA has said is foam but others have suggested could be ice, flows outward from there beneath the orbiter and is last seen near the left solid rocket booster plume.
Two days later, the engineering summary says, “The resolution on the films and videos is insufficient to see individual tiles. However, no indications of large scale damage were noted as indicated by the lack of changes in the brightness of the port (left) lower wing surface.”
On Jan. 28, a final decision is noted: “analyses indicate possible localized structural damage but no burn-through, and no safety of flight issue.”
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
● ……つまり、航空機搭載型の強力マイクロ波兵器を開発しているカークランド空軍基地が、空中分解直前のコロンビア号を追跡して写真を撮っていたわけです。次に紹介する『ラスヴェガス・サン』の記事では、上記記事で登場した「空軍研究所のリッチ・ガルシア広報官」について、さらに詳しいプロフィールが出てきます――
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
Las Vegas Sun
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/news/2003/feb/07/020706997.html
Today: February 07, 2003 at 9:45:35 PST
NASA Probing Air Force Photos of Shuttle
By PAUL RECER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) -
NASA confirmed Friday that the agency has received photos taken by a powerful military ground camera of the disintegrating space shuttle Columbia as it streaked across the western United States.
Mike Kostelnik, a deputy associate NASA administrator, refused to identify where the ground camera was located, but he said it did take pictures at the time Columbia was experiencing a breakup of the left wing.
Kostelnik also said that ground searchers had recovered a large piece of one of Columbia's wings that includes the wing's leading edge.
"It is not clear which wing this is," he said. "Obviously the structure is very important."
Although Kostelnik confirmed that NASA had received the military photos, he said it would be speculation to comment on what the photos show.
Aviation Week & Space Technology reported Friday that an Air Force tracking camera in the Southwest took photos of Columbia just a minute before the craft broke apart and that the images showed serious structural damage to the left wing near the fuselage. The publication quoted sources familiar with the shuttle investigation.
Rich Garcia, a spokesman for the Directed Energy Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory at Kirtland Air Force Base, said high-resolution images were taken by military cameras in Hawaii and New Mexico.
【カークランド空軍基地の空軍研究所・指向性エネルギー管理局のリッチ・ガルシア報道官は、ハワイとニューメキシコにある軍のカメラを使えば高解像度の写真を撮れると語った。】
"We took multiple images of Columbia from our facilities here and in Hawaii. The one in Hawaii took images of earlier passes," Garcia said.
【「我々はこことハワイの施設からコロンビア号のさまざまな写真を撮影しました・これより以前に上空を通過したときの写真はハワイで撮られています。】
The directorate, which oversees the Starfire telescope, has turned over all its information to NASA, he said. The Starfire telescope, which photographs satellites orbiting earth, can recognize features as small as 1 foot in length on a satellite 600 miles away, base officials said.
Kostelnik said the military ground photos taken of the distressed Columbia were of "very poor resolution" and he declined to describe what they showed.
"You can draw a lot of observations," from seeing the photos, which he said were taken "during the time that we were getting (data showing) the anomalies on the ground."
Kostelnik said the investigation was moving into a new phase with the probe being formally turned over to an independent board selected by NASA.
"The new, formal investigation is about to commence," he said.
The Columbia investigation board is headed by Adm. Hal Gehman, who led the probe into the 2000 terrorist bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen. The other seven members include four military officers, safety experts from the Department of Transportation and the director of NASA's Ames research center
On Thursday, Ron Dittemore, shuttle program manager, hailed the arrival at the Johnson Space Center of the investigation board and said "it is with relief I welcome Admiral Gehman here. We need his expertise."
In an effort to blunt congressional criticism of the NASA-appointed investigation board, space agency administrator Sean O'Keefe said Thursday that the board's charter had been modified to give the group more independence.
O'Keefe said the move was based on the "hard, hard legacy" of lessons learned from the 1986 Challenger accident that killed seven astronauts. A commission named by President Reagan to find the causes of that accident released a report that was sharply critical of NASA management and safety practices.
At Kennedy Space Center early Friday, thousands of workers who had launched Columbia on Jan. 16 gathered at the landing strip where the shuttle was supposed to have landed to remember the seven Columbia astronauts, who died minutes from the end of their mission.
O'Keefe, speaking from a stage carrying a large logo for the mission, STS-107, said Columbia "carried as wonderful a group of human beings as you could ever hope to assemble. ... We miss them more than words can describe."
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
● ……というわけで、リッチ・ガルシア広報官は「指向性エネルギー管理局」の宣伝マンだということが判明しました。「指向性エネルギー管理局」というからには、各種の“ビーム兵器”を研究開発しているわけでしょうが、そういう部署の広報官がなぜスペースシャトルの写真について“説明”をしているのか、ちょっと理解に苦しみますね。 （￣＿￣）ニヤリ
なお、下記はこの“空軍が撮影していた空中分解直前のコロンビア号の写真”の件を簡単に報じた『Aviation Week and Space Technology』の記事です。この記事には、どこの基地で撮影したかなどの詳しい情報はいっさい書かれていません――
▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼
Aviation Week & Space Technology
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/shuttle2_news.xml
USAF Imagery Confirms Columbia Wing Damaged
【米国空軍の写真はコロンビア号の翼の破損を裏付けている】
By Craig Covault
High-resolution images taken from a ground- based Air Force tracking camera in the southwestern U.S. show serious structural damage to the inboard leading edge of Columbia's left wing, as the crippled orbiter flew overhead about 60 sec. before the vehicle broke up over Texas killing the seven astronauts on board Feb. 1.
According to sources close to the investigation, the images, under analysis at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, show a jagged edge on the left inboard wing structure near where the wing begins to intersect the fuselage. They also show the orbiter's right aft yaw thrusters firing, trying to correct the vehicle's attitude that was being adversely affected by the left wing damage. Columbia's fuselage and right wing appear normal. Unlike the damaged and jagged left wing section, the right wing appears smooth along its entire length. The imagery is consistent with telemetry.
The ragged edge on the left leading edge, indicates that either a small structural breach--such as a crack--occurred, allowing the 2,500F reentry heating to erode additional structure there, or that a small portion of the leading edge fell off at that location.
Either way, the damage affected the vehicle's flying qualities as well as allowed hot gases to flow into critical wing structure--a fatal combination.
It is possible, but yet not confirmed, that the impact of foam debris from the shuttle's external tank during launch could have played a role in damage to the wing leading edge, where the deformity appears in USAF imagery.
If that is confirmed by the independent investigation team, it would mean that, contrary to initial shuttle program analysis, the tank debris event at launch played a key role in the root cause of the accident.
Another key factor is that the leading edge of the shuttle wing, where the jagged shape was photographed, transitions from black thermal protection tiles to a much different mechanical system made of reinforced carbon-carbon material that is bolted on, rather than glued on as the tiles are.
This means that in addition to the possible failure of black tile at the point where the wing joins the fuselage, a failure involving the attachment mechanisms for the leading edge sections could also be a factor, either related or not to the debris impact. The actual front structure of a shuttle wing is flat. To provide aerodynamic shape and heat protection, each wing is fitted with 22 U-shaped reinforced carbon- carbon (RCC) leading-edge structures. The carbon material in the leading edge, as well as the orbiter nose cap, is designed to protect the shuttle from temperatures above 2,300F during reentry. Any breach of this leading-edge material would have catastrophic consequences.
The U-shaped RCC sections are attached to the wing "with a series of floating joints to reduce loading on the panels due to wing deflections," according to Boeing data on the attachment mechanism.
"The [critical heat protection] seal between each wing leading-edge panel is referred to as a 'tee' seal," according to Boeing, and is also made of a carbon material.
The tee seals allow lateral motion and thermal expansion differences between the carbon sections and sections of the orbiter wing that remain much cooler during reentry.
In addition to debris impact issues, investigators will likely examine whether any structural bending between the cooler wing structure and the more-than-2,000F leading edge sections could have played a role in the accident. There is insulation packed between the cooler wing structure and the bowl-shaped cavity formed by the carbon leading- edge sections.
The RCC leading-edge structures are bolted to the wing using Inconel fittings that attach to aluminum flanges on the front of the wing.
The initial NASA Mission Management Team (MMT) assessment of the debris impact--made on Jan. 18, two days after launch--noted "The strike appears to have occurred on or relatively close to the "wing glove" near the orbiter fuselage.
The term "wing glove" generally refers to the area where the RCC bolt- on material is closest to the fuselage. This is also the general area where USAF imagery shows structural damage.
The second MMT summary analyzing the debris hit was made on Jan. 20 and had no mention of the leading-edge wing glove area. That report was more focused on orbiter black tiles on the vehicle's belly. The third and final summary issued on Jan. 27 discusses the black tiles again, but also specifically says "Damage to the RCC [wing leading edge] should be limited to [its] coating only and have no mission impact." Investigators in Houston are trying to match the location of the debris impact with the jagged edge shown in the Air Force imagery.
Columbia reentry accident investigators are also trying to determine if, as in the case of Challenger's accident 17 years ago, an undesirable materials characteristic noted on previous flights--in this case the STS- 112 separation of external tank insulation foam debris--was misjudged by engineers as to its potential for harm, possibly by using analytical tools and information inadequate to truly identify and quantify the threat to the shuttle. As of late last week, NASA strongly asserted this was not the case, but intense analysis on that possibility continues.
The shuttle is now grounded indefinitely and the impact on major crew resupply and assembly flights to the International Space Station remains under intense review.
Killed in the accident were STS-107 mission commander USAF Col. Rick Husband; copilot Navy Cdr. William McCool; flight engineer Kalpana Chawla; payload commander USAF Lt. Col. Michael Anderson; mission specialist physician astronauts Navy Capt. Laurel Clark and Navy Capt. David Brown; and Israel Air Force Col. Ilan Ramon.
"We continue to recover crew remains and we are handling that process with the utmost care, the utmost respect and dignity," said Ronald Dittemore, shuttle program manager.
No matter what the investigations show, there are no apparent credible crew survival options for the failure Columbia experienced. With the ISS out of reach in a far different orbit, there were no credible rescue options even if wing damage had been apparent before reentry--which it was not.
If, in the midst of its 16-day flight, wing damage had been found to be dire, the only potential--but still unlikely--option would have been the formulation over several days by Mission Control of a profile that could have, perhaps, reduced heating on the damaged wing at the expense of the other wing for an unguided reentry, with scant hope the vehicle would remain controllable to about 40,000 ft., allowing for crew bailout over an ocean.
Reentry is a starkly unforgiving environment where three out of the four fatal manned space flight accidents during the last 35 years have occurred.
These include the Soyuz 1 reentry accident that killed cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov in 1967 and the 1971 Soyuz 11 reentry accident that killed three cosmonauts returning after the first long-duration stay on the Salyut 1 space station.
The only fatal launch accident has been Challenger in 1986, although Apollo astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee were killed when fire developed in their spacecraft during a launch pad test not involving launch.
No other accident in aviation history has been seen by so many eyewitnesses than the loss of Columbia--visible in five states.
Telemetry and photographic analysis indicate the breakup of the historic orbiter took place as she slowed from Mach 20-to-18 across California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico with the loss of structural integrity 205,000 ft. over north-central Texas where most of the debris fell.
The science-driven STS-107 crew was completing 16 days of complex work in their Spacehab Research Double module and were 16 min. from landing at Kennedy when lost. Landing was scheduled for 8:16 a.m. CST.
Abnormal telemetry events in the reentry began at 7:52 a.m. CST as the vehicle was crossing the coast north of San Francisco at 43 mi. alt., about Mach 20.
The orbiter at this time was in a 43-deg. right bank completing its initial bank maneuver to the south for initial energy dissipation and ranging toward the Kennedy runway still nearly 3,000 mi. away.
That initial bank had been as steep as about 80 deg. between Hawaii and the California coast, a normal flight path angle for the early part of the reentry. The abnormal events seen on orbiter telemetry in Houston indicate a slow penetration of reentry heat into the orbiter and damage on the wing, overpowering the flight control system. Key events were:
* 7:52 a.m. CST: Three left main landing gear brakeline temperatures show an unusual rise. "This was the first occurrence of a significant thermal event in the left wheel well," Dittemore said. Engineers do not believe the left wheel well was breached, but rather that hot gases were somehow finding a flow path within the wing to reach the wheel well.
* 7:53 a.m. CST: A fourth left brakeline strut temperature measurement rose significantly--about 30-40 deg. in 5 min.
* 7:54 a.m. CST: With the orbiter over eastern California and western Nevada, the mid-fuselage mold line where the left wing meets the fuselage showed an unusual temperature rise. The 60F rise over 5 min. was not dramatic, but showed that something was heating the wing fuselage interface area at this time. Wing leading edge and belly temperatures were over 2,000F. While the outside fuselage wall was heating, the inside wall remained cool as normal.
* 7:55 a.m. CST: A fifth left main gear temperature sensor showed an unusual rise.
* 7:57 a.m. CST: As Columbia was passing over Arizona and New Mexico, the orbiter's upper and lower left wing temperature sensors failed, probably indicating their lines had been cut. The orbiter was also rolling back to the left into about a 75-deg. left bank angle, again to dissipate energy and for navigation and guidance toward Runway 33 at Kennedy, then about 1,800 mi. away.
* 7:58 a.m. CST: Still over New Mexico, the elevons began to move to adjust orbiter roll axis trim, indicating an increase in drag on the left side of the vehicle. That could be indicative of "rough tile or missing tile but we are not sure," Dittemore said. At the same time, the elevons were reacting to increased drag on the left side of the vehicle, the left main landing gear tire pressures and wheel temperature measurements failed. This was indicative of a loss of the sensor, not the explosion or failure of the left main gear tires, Dittemore believes. The sensors were lost in a staggered fashion.
* 7:59 a.m. CST: Additional elevon motion is commanded by the flight control system to counteract left side drag. The drag was trying to roll the vehicle to the left, while the flight control system was commanding the elevons to roll it back to the right.
But the rate of left roll was beginning to overpower the elevons, so the control system fired two 870-lb.-thrust right yaw thrusters to help maintain the proper flight path angle. The firing lasted 1.5 sec. and, along with the tire pressure data and elevon data, would have been noted by the pilots.
At about this time, the pilots made a short transmission that was clipped and essentially unintelligible.
In Mission Control, astronaut Marine Lt. Col. Charles Hobaugh, the spacecraft communicator on reentry flight director Leroy Cain's team, radioed "Columbia, we see your tire pressure [telemetry] messages and we did not copy your last transmission."
One of the pilots then radioed "Roger," but appeared to be cut off in mid-transmission by static. For a moment there were additional static and sounds similar to an open microphone on Columbia but no transmissions from the crew.
All data from the orbiter then stopped and the position plot display in Mission Control froze over Texas, although an additional 30 sec. of poor data may have been captured.
Controllers in Mission Control thought they were experiencing an unusual but non-critical data drop-out. But they had also taken notice of the unusual buildup of sensor telemetry in the preceding few minutes.
About 3 min. after all data flow stopped, Hobaugh in Mission Control began transmitting in the blind to Columbia on the UHF backup radio system. "Columbia, Houston, UHF comm. check" he repeated every 15- 30 sec., but to no avail. In central Texas, thousands of people at that moment were observing the orbiter break up at Mach 18.3 and 207,000 ft.
Milt Heflin, chief of the flight director's office, said he looked at the frozen data plots. "I and others stared at that for a long time because the tracking ended over Texas. It just stopped. It was then that I reflected back on what I saw [in Mission Control] with Challenger."
The loss of Challenger occurred 17 years and four days before the loss of Columbia.
"Our landscape has changed," Heflin said. "The space flight business today is going to be much different than yesterday.
"It was different after the Apollo fire, it was different after Challenger."
Columbia, the first winged reusable manned spacecraft first launched in April 1981, was lost on her 28th mission on the 113th shuttle flight.
▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲▲
●以下に、参考のためにHPM兵器についての概説を紹介しておきます。ちなみに日本では「電子戦争」といえばもっぱら通信妨害とその防御を指す言葉として定着していますが、これは言葉の定義ばかりでなく、現状にもそぐわない用法だと言わざるをえません。米国の国防総省では、レーザー砲やマイクロ波砲のような電磁波を用いた破壊兵器も「電子戦争」の範疇に含めています。
こうした指向性の高エネルギー兵器は、20年間まえに提唱されたSDI計画のなかでミサイル撃墜の光線砲として登場しましたが、そうした強力なエネルギー兵器は実現が難しかったものの、対人無能力化兵器としては90年代に実用化されて問題になってきました。つまり敵兵の目つぶしを行なうレーザー銃です。
10年まえに「非殺傷兵器」構想が本格化して、この分野の兵器開発が本格化しましたが、高エネルギーパルス爆弾や強力マイクロ波兵器も、米国海軍が実用化したレーザー砲も、「対人殺戮を目的としていない」という欺瞞的な美辞麗句をひけらかしていることに要注意です。
じっさいには対人危害を生み出す能力があるにもかかわらず、そうした側面を隠蔽し、「非殺傷」という大義名分で研究予算をぶんどり、いっぽう政治的には「非殺傷」兵器体系を宣伝しながら他国の兵器体系を「大量殺戮兵器」とレッテル貼りして武装解除を強いようというわけですから……。（自分はNBC兵器を大量に生産・貯蔵し、“きたない核兵器”である劣化ウラン弾や残虐な気化燃料爆弾などを使っているくせにね。）
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hpm.htm.
High-power microwave (HPM) / E-Bomb
High-power microwave (HPM) sources have been under investigation for several years as potential weapons for a variety of combat, sabotage, and terrorist applications. Due to classification restrictions, details of this work are relatively unknown outside the military community and its contractors. A key point to recognize is the insidious nature of HPM. Due to the gigahertz-band frequencies (4 to 20 GHz) involved, HPM has the capability to penetrate not only radio front-ends, but also the most minute shielding penetrations throughout the equipment. At sufficiently high levels, as discussed, the potential exists for significant damage to devices and circuits. For these reasons, HPM should be of interest to the broad spectrum of EMC practitioners.
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and High Powered Microwave (HMP) Weapons offer a significant capability against electronic equipment susceptible to damage by transient power surges. This weapon generates a very short, intense energy pulse producing a transient surge of thousands of volts that kills semiconductor devices. The conventional EMP and HMP weapons can disable non-shielded electronic devices including practically any modern electronic device within the effective range of the weapon.
The effectiveness of an EMP device is determined by the power generated and the characteristic of the pulse. The shorter pulse wave forms, such as microwaves, are far more effective against electronic equipment and more difficult to harden against. Current efforts focus on converting the energy from an explosive munitions to supply the electromagnetic pulse. This method produces significant levels of directionally focused electromagnetic energy.
Future advances may provide the compactness needed to weaponize the capability in a bomb or missile warhead. Currently, the radius of the weapon is not as great as nuclear EMP effects. Open literature sources indicate that effective radii of “hundreds of meters or more” are possible. EMP and HPM devices can disable a large variety of military or infrastructure equipment over a relatively broad area. This can be useful for dispersed targets.
A difficulty is determining the appropriate level of energy to achieve the desired effects. This will require detailed knowledge of the target equipment and the environment (walls, buildings). The obvious counter-measure is the shielding or hardening of electronic equipment. Currently, only critical military equipment is hardened e.g., strategic command and control systems. Hardening of existing equipment is difficult and adds significant weight and expense. As a result, a large variety of commercial and military equipment will be susceptible to this type of attack.
The US Navy reportedly used a new class of highly secret, non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse warheads during the opening hours of the Persian Gulf War to disrupt and destroy Iraqi electronics systems. The warheads converted the energy of a conventional explosion into a pulse of radio energy. The effect of the microwave attacks on Iraqi air defense and headquarters was difficult to determine because the effects of the HPM blasts were obscured by continuous jamming, the use of stealthy F-117 aircraft, and the destruction of Iraq's electrical grid. The warheads used during the Gulf War were experimental warheads, not standard weapons deployed with fielded forces.
Col. William G. Heckathorn, commander of the Phillips Research Site and the deputy director of the Directed Energy Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory, was presented the Legion of Merit medal during special retirement ceremonies in May 1998. In a citation accompanying the medal, Col. Heckathorn was praised for having provided superior vision, leadership, and direct guidance that resulted in the first high-power microwave weapon prototypes delivered to the warfighter. The citation noted that "Col. Heckathorn united all directed energy development within Army, Navy and Air Force, which resulted in an efficient, focused, warfighter-oriented tri-service research program." In December of 1994 he came to Kirtland to become the director of the Advanced Weapons and Survivability Directorate at the Phillips Laboratory. Last year he became the commander of the Phillips Laboratory while still acting as the director of the Advanced Weapons and Survivability Directorate.
As with a conventional munition, a microwave munition is a "single shot" munition that has a similar blast and fragmentation radius. However, while the explosion produces a blast, the primary mission is to generate the energy that powers the microwave device. Thus, for a microwave munition, the primary kill mechanism is the microwave energy, which greatly increases the radius and the footprint by, in some cases, several orders of magnitude. For example, a 2000-pound microwave munition will have a minimum radius of approximately 200 meters, or footprint of approximately 126,000 square meters.
Studies have examined the incorporation of a high power microwave weapon into the weapons bay of a conceptual uninhabited combat aerial vehicle. The CONOPS, electromagnetic compatibility and hardening (to avoid a self-kill), power requirements and potential power supplies, and antenna characteristics have been analyzed. Extensive simulations of potential antennas have been performed. The simulations examined the influence of the aircraft structure on the antenna patterns and the levels of leakage through apertures in the weapons bay. Other investigations examined issues concerning the electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of composite aircraft structures.
----------------------------------------------------------------
References
【1】High Power Microwaves：Strategic and Operational Implications for Warfare By Eileen M. Walling, February 2000 [Occasional Paper No. 11, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2000/occppr11.htm
【2】Holzman, Robert, and Neil Munro. "Microwave Weapon Stuns Iraqis." Defense News 7 (13 April 1992): 1, 52.
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
●「US Air Force High Powered Microwave」で検索してみたら、こういう本（↓）が出ているそうです。
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
http://www.bestbookdeal.com/book/0780360060
High-Power Microwave Sources and Technologies
Author:Robert J. Barker (Editor), Edl Schamiloglu (Editor)
Amazon Sales Rank: 821,526
Bn.com Sales Rank: 225,823
Publisher:IEEE
Pub. Date: June 2001
Edition:1st ed.
Format:Hardcover, 528 pages
ISBN:0780360060
List Price:129.95 USD
----------------------------------------------------------------
●●Editorial Reviews (Curtosy of Amazon.com)
●From Book News, Inc.
The book's focus is on the history, state-of-the-art, and possible futures of high-power microwave (HPM) sources and technologies, which are of interest to the Department of Defense for military applications. Editor Barker is with the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and Edl Schamiloglu is in the electrical and computer engineering department at the U. of New Mexico, Albuquerque; the 12 chapters are written by high-powered contributors, mainly from military laboratories and universities in the U.S. They cover gigawatt-class sources, pulse shortening, relativistic Cerenkov devices, and gyrotron oscillators and amplifiers, among other topics. A glossary of abbreviations and acronyms fills five pages.Book News, Inc.R, Portland, OR
●Book Description
Electrical Engineering High-Power Microwave Sources and Technologies A volume in the IEEE Press Series on RF and Microwave Technology Roger D. Pollard and Richard Booton, Series Editors Written by a prolific group of leading researchers, High-Power Microwave Sources and Technologies focuses primarily on the high-power microwave (HPM) technology most appropriate for military applications. It highlights the advances achieved from 1995 to 2000 as the result of a US Department of Defense (DoD) funded, $15 million Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program. The grant created a synergy between researchers in the DoD laboratories and the academic community, and established links with the microwave vacuum electronics industry, which has led to unprecedented collaborations that transcend laboratory and disciplinary boundaries. This essential reference provides the history, state-of- the-art, and possible future of HPM source research and technologies. The first alternative to the multiplicity of detailed applications-based HPM books and journal articles, this book familiarizes the reader with recent advances in this rapidly changing field. It presents a compendium of valuable information on HPM sources, representing significant enabling technologies, including beam and rf control, cathodes, windows, and computational techniques. The era of utilizing computational techniques to electronically design an HPM source prior to actually building the hardware has arrived. Gain insight into proven techniques and solutions that will enhance your source design. High-Power Microwave Sources and Technologies is an invaluable resource to researchers active in the field, faculty, graduate and post- graduate students. Special Note: All royalties realized from the sale of this book will fund the future research and publications activities of graduate students in the HPM field.
●About the Author
About the Editors Robert J. Barker is the program manager for plasma physics at the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) in Arlington, VA. His prior career as a computational plasma physicist took him from the US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, to the Mission Research Corporation, Washington, DC, where he worked on improvements to and applications of both the 2D Magic and 3D SOS plasma simulation codes. His current interests include microwave/millimeter-wave generation, pulsed power, medical/biological effects, electromagnetic/electrothermal launchers, air plasmas, charged particle beam generation & propagation, explosive power generation, and computational physics. Dr. Barker serves as a colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, assigned to the Directed Energy Directorate of the US Air Force Research Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM. In 1998 he was elected a Fellow of the Air Force Research Laboratory, Dr. Barker is a Fellow of the IEEE and a member of the American Physical Society.
Edl Schamiloglu is the Gardner-Zemke Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, where he also directs the Pulsed Power and Plasma Science Laboratory. He performs extensive work in the physics and technology of charged particle beam generation and propagation, high-power narrow band and ultra-wideband microwave sources, plasma physics and diagnostics, and electromagnetic wave propagation. Dr. Schamiloglu is the associate editor of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. He is a senior member of the IEEE and an elected member of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society’s Administrative Committee (NPSS AdCom). Also, in 1991 Dr. Schamiloglu was a member of the Delphi/Minerva team that received the Sandia National Laboratories Research Excellence Award. Furthermore, he received the 1992 School of Engineering Research Excellence Award, and was recently awarded the title of Regents’ Lecturer (1996?1999).
----------------------------------------------------------------
●Table of Contents (Curtosy of Barnes&Noble)
Foreword
Preface
Acknowledgments
List of Contributors
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Ch. 1：Introduction 1
Ch. 2：HPM Sources: the DoD Perspective 7
Ch. 3：Gigawatt-Class Sources 38
Ch. 4：Pulse Shortening 77
Ch. 5：Relativistic Cerenkov Devices 116
Ch. 6：Gyrotron Oscillators and Amplifiers 155
Ch. 7：Active Plasma Loading of HPM Devices 199
Ch. 8：Beam Transport and RF Control 250
Ch. 9：Cathodes and Electron Guns 284
Ch. 10：Windows and RF Breakdown 325
Ch. 11：Computational Techniques 376
Ch. 12：Alternative Approaches and Future Challenges 438
Index 477
About the Editors 485
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。
