Laser knocks down test missile off Calif. coast

They did not say how much energy the laser beam had nor how long it needed to track the target. My guess is 100Kw and a couple of seconds. I think the megawatt level laser has only recently been developed, not ready for real tests yet.
Does anyone know if solid fuel rockets are more susceptible to laser damage than liquid fuel? On the face of it, it would seem liquid fuel would be more vulnerable to attack but maybe the insulation makes it less so. I would think even if it does not ignite the fuel, if the beam destroys the outer skin it would fly apart regardless of the fuel.

"Does anyone know if solid fuel rockets are more susceptible to laser damage than liquid fuel?"

From ABL wiki:

"The ABL does not burn through or disintegrate its target. It heats the missile skin, weakening it, causing failure from high speed flight stress."

"On February 11, 2010 in a test at Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range off the central California coast, the system successfully destroyed a liquid-fuel boosting ballistic missile. Less than one hour later, the system successfully engaged a solid-fuel short-range missile launched from San Nicolas Island, California. Test criteria were met and the second test was ended prior to target destruction since the system had destroyed an identical solid-fuel missile in flight eight days earlier."

So it works equally well on solid or liquid fueled missiles.

Wouldn't it be easier to throw a rock?

No, but maybe a rockhead would work.

Wouldn't it be easier to throw a rock?

Such 'rocks' are called kinetic warheads.
It would be easier if such rocks could be located near the launch site. Do you think if we ask nicely Iran would allow a THAAD battery next to their ballistic missiles?

"Big applause and fanfare!"

Now try the same, but with the missile painted WHITE instead of BLACK! ^^

And the next step could be a missile with a mirror-like polished stainless steel outer layer ;-)

How about one with a cat-eye design scaled to the frequency of the laser? Would throw the beam right back at 'em

"Big applause and fanfare!"

Now try the same, but with the missile painted WHITE instead of BLACK! ^^

And the next step could be a missile with a mirror-like polished stainless steel outer layer ;-)

That is one more design feature (expense)the missile factory has to add.

What would be the effects of a megawatt energy laser applied to, say, the human body? A crowd of human bodies? Wood? Occupied military or civilian vehicles?

Next up: dummy missiles with adjustable mirrors for beam reflection. Perhaps even equipped with an extra outer layer of hull with channels between which may transport liquid nitrogen. Or what the hell, how about just a regular missile with the same liquid nitrogen contraption? It could be triggered above a certain temperature to release instantly, allowing it to cool off for the required amount of time before it hits the target. That plus the mirror-like polished stainless steel which daywalk3r suggested. It would be fun to compete against these guys in parallel. As they build a more sophisticated laser, your team builds a more sophisticated anti-laser missile.

I bet it wasn't polished metal, nor spinning

This would complement the earlier article on killing mosquito's, micro lasers for close in defense, megawatts to take out the forest.
Ever get the feeling your tax dollars are being wasted?

Ever get the feeling your tax dollars are being wasted?

All the time. However, if my tax dollars are being spent to develop multi-purpose lasers, where do I sign up to give more?

Heh, I got censored by PhysOrg for saying "Wouldn't it be easier to throw a rock?" Reason: "POINTLESS VERBIAGE" (their capitals not mine). Luckily other readers were intelligent enough to discern the point: that the technology for laser-based knock downs is excessively expensive and energy intensive when other simpler technology would be just as effective.

Wouldn't it be easier to throw a rock?

Such 'rocks' are called kinetic warheads.
It would be easier if such rocks could be located near the launch site. Do you think if we ask nicely Iran would allow a THAAD battery next to their ballistic missiles?

Can't seem to get this. Wouldn't we need such 'kinetic warheads' at the target site? As soon as you something incoming, throw a rock!

Wouldn't it be easier to throw a rock?

Such 'rocks' are called kinetic warheads.
It would be easier if such rocks could be located near the launch site. Do you think if we ask nicely Iran would allow a THAAD battery next to their ballistic missiles?

Can't seem to get this. Wouldn't we need such 'kinetic warheads' at the target site? As soon as you something incoming, throw a rock!

Yep, just make absolutely, positively sure that that rock doesn't miss at a combined closing rate in excess of 18,000 mph (5 miles per second). I sincerely hope that you are not in the city being defended by that rock.

I bet it wasn't polished metal, nor spinning

Have you ever seen a missile that didn't spin?

Wouldn't it be easier to throw a rock?

Such 'rocks' are called kinetic warheads.
It would be easier if such rocks could be located near the launch site. Do you think if we ask nicely Iran would allow a THAAD battery next to their ballistic missiles?

Can't seem to get this. Wouldn't we need such 'kinetic warheads' at the target site? As soon as you something incoming, throw a rock!

It is better to knock down the missile closer to the launch site. Return to sender, so to speak.

Mirror-polished stainless steel wouldn't help, since the ABL works at the infrared end of the visible spectrum* where stainless steel is not a particularly good reflector. Same for aluminum, although I have worked with specially coated aluminum which is highly reflective down into the infrared. However, I'm not sure that such coatings could survive launch.

As for spinning, LN2 and other proposals here, remember what happened with the Patriot against SCUD variants. It turned out that disrupting the shock wave around a reentering SCUD was enough to knock it into self-destruction without physically hitting the missle or warhead. Some shock wave disruption occurs with the ABL. May not knock down a missle designed to handle it, but it certainly makes the designer's job much tougher.

* I can see deeper at the red end of the spectrum than most. But the COIL in ABL produces 1315 nm light which should be lower than what I can see.