Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UAV Helicopter Flies 12 Hours Charged By Laser

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the shine-on-harvest-moon dept.

Power 83

garymortimer writes "LaserMotive (who last year won $900,000 in the NASA Power Beaming Challenge, one of the levels of the 'Space Elevator Games') have teamed up with Germany's Ascending Technologies to create an indoor flight record for electrically powered multicopters. The flight took place at the Future of Flight Aviation Center in Mukilteo, WA. LaserMotive is a Seattle-based company developing laser power beaming systems to transmit electricity without wires, for applications where wires are either cost prohibitive or physically impractical."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The ultimate weapon (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071176)

Giant robots powered by laser via solar satellites. That's it folks, that's the next generation of military tech.

The unstoppable weapon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071348)

Giant robots, with de-humidifiers, breaking water into HHO for combustion to generators. Solar Cells are fragile, light is only a moment, but HHO Water Electrolysis is forever.

Re:The unstoppable weapon (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071366)

You forgot about the shark, there has to be a shark involved for this to really work.

Re:The unstoppable weapon (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071552)

You forgot about the shark, there has to be a shark involved for this to really work.

There's only a shark involved when it's been jumped.

Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....

Re:The unstoppable weapon (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072412)

You forgot about the shark, there has to be a shark involved for this to really work.

There's only a shark involved when it's been jumped.

There will be plenty of sharks about after the first patent infringement suit gets filed.

Re:The unstoppable weapon (4, Funny)

Shark (78448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072414)

Okay... Now I'm involved, you happy?

Re:The ultimate weapon (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071828)

If you can direct enough power through laser from a satellite in orbit to power a giant robot, then you don't need the giant robot.

Re:The ultimate weapon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34072008)

How about a tiny robot?

Re:The ultimate weapon (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34072360)

You need the robot to trash mirrored bunkers.

Re:The ultimate weapon (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073422)

I would assume using the laser as a weapon would classify it as a WMD.

Re:The ultimate weapon (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34077176)

Right, whereas your own giant robot is just fucking sweet.

weight (1)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071180)

If you have ever played with RC helis you would realize that they have to be extremely light to even be maneuverable, let alone have any meaningful battery life. So what's interesting here is not just the rate of power transfer by laser, but that the receiving unit is light enough to support its own weight as payload in addition to keeping the heli in the air.

I'm not clear the significance of 12 hours. That's a far cry from "indefinitely" so I wonder if they just got tired of running the experiment or if there is some other limiting factor.

Re:weight (3, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071214)

I've a few remote controlled helis. In terms of tech, they're rather pathetic compared to a housefly - which can navigate by itself, manage slight breezes, find its own fuel, even reproduce. They can fly for quite a lot longer than most battery powered RC helis.

All in a very tiny package. Fruit flies are even tinier...

So we've certainly got a long way to go in terms of technology.

Re:weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071222)

But can they run linux?

Re:weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071250)

If a laser can supply an RC toy, just think what it could do to a fruit fly.

Re:weight (2, Insightful)

BrightSpark (1578977) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071266)

Of course, the payload would be tiny too, milligrams I would think. And you would have to hope there was no dung or fruit trees on the way. And you need to control what they think. Nothing insurmountable, but maybe but lets stick to what can do first :-)

Re:weight (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071336)

And you need to control what they think.

Spoken like a true government representative.

Re:weight (3, Informative)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071364)

What I find amazing is how much better RC helicopters have become in just a few short years. In the 1980's, they cost upwards of $1000 and were incredibly difficult to learn and fly. People would spend months just learning to hover a couple feet off the ground (no exaggeration). And the radios were so prone to interference, that could crash you at any time.

Now, for $30 you can buy one that's much smaller, much lighter, yet much easier to fly (which is surprising since tiny craft are normally unstable). But the really small cheap ones fly for around 30 seconds. To fly for 12 hours isn't just a little better, it's a drastic improvement, about 100 times longer than even a hobby-quality helicopter.

That said, the FAA tends to frown on shooting powerful lasers into the sky for fear of blinding pilots. Perhaps they wouldn't worry about that in a warzone; then again usually all the aircraft above a warzone are our own.

Re:weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071720)

then again usually all the aircraft above a warzone are our own.

Of course, like in Pearl Harbor or oceania battles.

Re:weight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34072524)

"they cost upwards of $1000 and were incredibly difficult to learn and fly."

Just like , you know, a REAL helicopter?

"Now, for $30 you can buy one that's much smaller, much lighter, yet much easier to fly (which is surprising since tiny craft are normally unstable)."

Uh, they're stable because they're not real helicopters. They're coaxial propeller airplanes pointing UP with a helicopter-style cowling and frame.

"To fly for 12 hours isn't just a little better, it's a drastic improvement, about 100 times longer than even a hobby-quality helicopter. "

That's stupid, because no hobby helicopter is being constantly re-fueled or recharged while in flight. How is this different from the "drastic improvement" of in-flight refueling for real aircraft? It's nothing new. Please stop with the hyperbole.

Re:weight (1)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071812)

On that day, I for one will welcome our reproducing, self-fueling heli overlords.

Re:weight (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072554)

No thanks, I'm actually hoping they wipe out blood-sucking mosquitoes/flies.

Re:weight (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073954)

All true, but houseflies are very bad at following orders. On the positive side, if we weaponize horseflies, given the way they like flying around the hindquarters they would be ideal for taking out troublesome government officials.

Wireless Power? (1)

alfaromeo (190210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071246)

Why can't this be used for wireless power in general? For example, beaming power to laptops, phones, and what-have-you...or Is it?

Re:Wireless Power? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071260)

Why can't this be used for wireless power in general? For example, beaming power to laptops, phones, and what-have-you...or Is it?

I wouldn't want to point those lasers at a person, particularly if it might hit somebody in the eye.

Re:Wireless Power? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071444)

In the world of industry, made by companies few of us know exist, there exist sensors and low power chips that are powered by light sent through optical fibers.
I know that's not the same thing as wireless, but I reckon for small devices, requiring small power, in environments incredibly hostile to wiring (fiber or wire), laser power+communication might be useful.

Because the laser would be all burninaty (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071462)

The max safe amount for a consumer laser pointer is in the 5-10mW range. Above that, serious and rather immediate damage can result from looking at it. Up in the range of 500mW they are dangerous to the point that reflected light can cause immediate eye damage. So you don't even have to look at the beam, just a specular refraction and still can get hurt. Also, this starts to get in to the "can set shit on fire" level.

Now consider that a laptop power adapter is generally in the 50-100watt range. In terms of lasers that would be "CO2 laser that blasts through steel as though it were butter."

To power anything more than a very trivial device, you'd have an unsafe level of laser power. Also it would be even worse than it sounds, because of course the receiver won't be 100% efficient.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071576)

What about multiple, simultaneous lasers in a lower power range focused on a target? Individually, the risk of harm is rather low (though I suppose there would be some area where all would come together and be dangerous), but if they're all hitting the same target...end result, I imagine (no scientist here), would be comparable at least.

It's not necessarily the most efficient solution, but where safety is concerned, it seems feasible on a basic level.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071708)

So 20,000 lasers (5mW each to generate 100watts) to power a laptop? Somehow I don't see that as at all feasible. Remember, max level for Class 3R is 5mW and that is the limit for stuff that doesn't require protective eyewear, key interlocks and so on.

Lasers are dangerous, just how it goes.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (4, Informative)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072904)

Incidentally, this problem has been solved. Simply de-focus the beam at the sending end, and re-focus it at the receiver side (and do it with a diameter lens that nobody except godzilla has in their eyes - easy enough).

The goal is to spread, say 100W, in a beam that has a surface area of, say 10cm2. Since the aperture of the eye has a surface area of about 10mm2, the power delivered into the retina if someone were to glue their eyeballs to the transmitter would be 100W * 10cm2 / 10mm2 = 1W (and the eye will immediately respond by lowering that surface area to less than 1mm2, making the total delivered power less than 0.1W, and obviously, even with your retina glued to the transmitter you won't get anywhere near 10% efficiency).

Directly looking into the sun delivers about 2W to your retina (and will destroy it, but not immediately).

This is a big problem for the "solar panel in space" technologies. But it's not much of a problem really. If you were to send down 100 GW over a square kilometer, anyone could walk over the receiver perfectly safely without any protection. The power from the satellite would be a factor 1 million less than the solar irradiation (so you could send it quite safely over 10 square meters as well if needed).

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074034)

1)sunlight is non-coherant
2) 5 mw = .005 W
3) 1W is 200x the limit for a "safe" laser beam, so you need at least 200x the surface area you listed
4) even .1W is 20x the safe limit, and is only reduced to that after the initial exposure of 200x, at which point the damage is already done.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074606)

Well I must admit I did the calculations rather quickly, but unless I'm radically wrong the sun's normal irradiation (that can't possibly be considered dangerous) is 1.3 kW/m2.

That means, I think, that when looking directly at the sun, at 14h noon, solar irradiation would create much more than 0.1W (about 0.2 actually). That may be uncomfortable, but we all get exposed 365 times a year.

For remote power that means that you could send 0.1W per 10 square millimeters safely. This means 100 kW per square meter. If one stays within this safety limit it'd still be 1 kW per square meter. I do think this quadcopter would have to violate the safety limit though, as it probably can't support more than 10cm2 panels and needs, say, 50W or something like that.

I still doubt it would be dangerous to look into the "unsafe" transmitter though. Perhaps if you did it for an hour it'd be dangerous, but not for a second or so.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075046)

The difference is the size of the spot on the back of your eye. Sunlight is spatially incoherent, and forms an image on the back of your eye, spreading out the light over that image. A laser is spatially coherent, so all of the light will get focused down to a very small spot, so a much higher irradiance. A (visible) 1-Watt laser will *immediately* burn a blind spot on your eye. Mid IR light is "eye safe" though, so you could withstand up to ~1 Watt (very ballpark, didn't look it up just now).

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075076)

That's the whole point of using a lens to spread out the image maximally. This power source's energy would actually be better spread out on your retina than the image of the sun, thus less dangerous.

Mid IR is a very usable frequency, as the athmosphere mostly leaves it alone, so you could probably bridge rather large distances with it. Eye safety would be a great bonus.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075110)

If the beam is defocused, it will spread out too rapidly to make efficient collection possible. If the beam is collimated, your eye will focus it (if its in the ~400-1200nm range). I agree that mid IR is very usable.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34082654)

Will an eye really focus any collimated beam ? What if the lens' focal length is different ?

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

kmac06 (608921) | more than 3 years ago | (#34084208)

It does not matter what lens was used to collimate the beam in the first place. The focal length of the lens system of the eye is such that a beam with a flat wavefront (i.e., collimated) will be focused at the back of the eye.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34109540)

Yes, but it will be "focused" on the entire back of the eye, not on a single spot, I hope ?

So that "focused" beam would have the same intensity on the retina as it has at the iris, no ? (or at least it would be related to aperture/retina size ratio, so unless I'm mistaken it would be weakened (as the retina is a lot bigger than the aperture, like in every camera that hopes to focus anything at all)

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

hcdejong (561314) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074708)

Using your figure of 1.3 kW/m2 for insolation, I get 1.3 GW/km2, ie insolation is 1/100 of your proposed 100 GW/km2.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074954)

Have you ever run a laser through a magnifying glass? Try it, you'll be surprised.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34078944)

Just for the record, I was just about to post this same opinion, maybe not as precise, but along the same line. You must be fantastic at "Home Jeopardy".

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34074134)

It could easily be done, but is not economically feasible.

The power needed for that would require a power plant of the size of a moon.

btw, I recommend green lasers for maximum destruction.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071852)

500mW is not dangerous. 500mW in a very small area is dangerous. For a laptop, the power receiving area could be quite large. Sunlight is approximately 1kW/m^2. Given a laptop area of about 0.05m^2 and a power consumption of 50W (100W is really high for a laptop, you'll be hard pressed to find one that uses more than 65W under full load and still counts as portable), that means that you'd need about the same amount of energy as sunlight to power it, with full efficiency.

I didn't TRFA, but last time I checked laser power systems had a transmission loss of close to 98%, which makes them somewhat impractical for laptop use. I would like wireless power, but I wouldn't like it enough to pay the electricity bill from a 2.5kW laptop.

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (1)

Stupid McStupidson (1660141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073812)

..phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range

Re:Because the laser would be all burninaty (0)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34074322)

Do you think that funny little dictator in North Korea could be suspended in air by lasers while he roasts like pig? Last night the Heat Magic basketball game seats at court side went for $25,000 per seat. I'll bet people would pay as much to watch that freak broil.

Laser Pointers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071278)

So... what happens if someone points a laser pointer at one of these? Will they still get in trouble, or can they say that they were trying to help power it?

just what the tax payer needed (0, Troll)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071284)

Wow, this is incredibly useful for any application where you need an indoor helicopter that you can keep in the air for hours and where you can also have a powerful laser beaming around dangerous laser beams.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071302)

fuck you

Re:just what the tax payer needed (1)

Entropius (188861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071334)

You must be new here ("here" meaning the USA).

Our military contracting industry is in the business of getting more and more contracts to do useless things. They are not in the business of making useful weapons and the people paying them are not in the business of serving America's best interests.

If real private industry, or science, wanted laser-powered helicopters we'd build them at a fraction of the cost that the taxpayers are paying for this shit.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071360)

Our military contracting industry is in the business of getting more and more contracts to do useless things. They are not in the business of making useful weapons (...)

You mean sort of like arpanet isn't a useful weapon?

Re:just what the tax payer needed (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071390)

More like Iraq and Afghanistan are not useful wars.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34072622)

More like Iraq and Afghanistan are not useful wars.

So, when's Baracky gonna end 'em like he promised?

Re:just what the tax payer needed (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34075458)

More like Iraq and Afghanistan are not useful wars.

So, when's Baracky gonna end 'em like he promised?

Rome wasn't burnt in a day you know.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (2)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071412)

like the internet? what seems pointless to you can end up changing the world.

Kind of like NASA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071508)

Who wanted or needed Tang anyway? All a bunch of crap. We should be spending that money on failing to solve existential problems with the very nature of humanity!

Paul H. Muad'dib - yes, an indoor helicopter is useless. Err, wait, except for the many massive, indoor stadiums that need security, for one thing. But ignoring that, in case you missed it:

THEY'RE POWERING SHIT WITH LASERS.

If you can't think of implications and potential applications of that technology outside of toy helicopters, well, you've no place snidely commenting on the matter.

Re:Kind of like NASA. (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071590)

THEY'RE POWERING SHIT WITH LASERS.

So...THEY CHARGIN' WIT' LAZ0RZ?

(Memes have to change with the times...)

Re:Kind of like NASA. (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071868)

Efficient laser power systems or room-temperature superconductors are required for building a space elevator. Nothing else looks feasible for powering the climbers (you really don't want them taking fuel with them, it would add a huge amount to the energy cost).

Re:Kind of like NASA. (2, Interesting)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072134)

yeah theres nothing else that could possibly power them. like nuclear batteries, small nuclear reactors, sending electricity along the carbon nanotube cable itself, etc etc. indeed, 7000km is the effective maximum range for *cost effective* electrical cable transmission. along regular metal.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071702)

If real private industry, or science, wanted laser-powered helicopters we'd build them at a fraction of the cost that the taxpayers are paying for this shit.

You'd better tell Alan Turing that. He thought he was employed (and ultimately driven to suicide) by the government that paid him to do the early research that led to a lot of modern computing.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071372)

You did not read the article then. Surprising, for a Slashdotter, I know.

If you had bothered to read the article, the Kingfisher LX-1 was designed for remote surveillance over the oceans. More impressively, power transfer is accomplished with the lasers attached to the heads of sharks. Now, if that is not an outside application, I don't know what it is........

--

This post brought you by Jack Daniels, makers of fine whiskey, and Coca-Cola, telling people to sit down with a Coke and shut the fuck up since 1886.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (1)

weicco (645927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071518)

They couldn't get any sharks so they had to settle with ill-tempered mutated sea bass.

Re:just what the tax payer needed (1)

Aeternitas827 (1256210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071596)

...Dr. Evil is with the DoD?

Re:just what the tax payer needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34073936)

So much makes sense now...

Re:just what the tax payer needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071458)

you can also have a powerful laser beaming around dangerous laser beams.

Yo dawg ...

breaking news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071448)

Just in people encouraged to shine their 200w+ lasers at all moving objects in the sky.

Do not stare at helicopter with remaining eye. (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071490)

n/t

Re:Do not stare at helicopter with remaining eye. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34071676)

Wouldn't it be "do not look down from helicopter at power supply with remaining eye"?
Assuming it wasn't a UAV, of course.

laser powered rocket (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071532)

what is really needed is a laser powered rocket. you shine the lasers on a heat exchanger on the rocket, through which hydrogen is pumped, and the superheated hydrogen is blasted out the back. i believe it has the specific impulse for a single stage to orbit vehicle

This is illegal (3, Funny)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34071604)

How do military pilots protect themselves? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072080)

So if these laser pointers can do so much damage/destruction to pilots/planes ... does this mean that a bunch of terrorists with cheap lasers can wreak havoc . . . ? Or did we just let the cat out of the bag . . . ?

Any military/commercial pilots out there? Are there any protective measures . . . ?

Any asshole pointing a laser at an airplane, should be tossed into a pool full of sharks.

Re:This is illegal (1)

teachknowlegy (1003477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072314)

You are using bureaucratic rule to limit the advancement of technology. You must work for the government.

Re:This is illegal (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072430)

You are using bureaucratic rule to limit the advancement of technology. You must work for the government.

No, he's not. Using technology to harm and potentially kill people will remain illegal no matter how advanced the technology gets. Those sort of rules don't limit technology itself, just how it is applied.

Re:This is illegal (1)

teachknowlegy (1003477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072972)

The law shouldn't say "don't point lasers at people", it should say "don't hurt people with lasers"

Re:This is illegal (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072444)

Sorry, thought you were replying directly to the news story about lasers. I really hate this new post display system since in this case, there was no indication that there was a post between the original post and yours.

Clarification needed! (4, Funny)

Paradyme (950782) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072040)

I understand the concept behind this, but how do they keep the sharks pointed at the helicopter?

Re:Clarification needed! (2, Funny)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072434)

I understand the concept behind this, but how do they keep the sharks pointed at the helicopter?

Look, chum.

I had to say it... (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072368)

I'mma chargin' by LAAAASEEEEERS!

Just trun off disasters and it's 100% safe power! (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34072408)

Just trun off disasters and it's 100% safe power!

Compared to Microwaves (2, Interesting)

Mapleperson (1316213) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073080)

How does this compare with microwave power transfer? Is there an advantage to using lasers?

Electric Rockets.... (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 3 years ago | (#34073952)

Could make it easier to make a Single Stage to Orbit Ion-Plasma rocket. Just have a power plant on the surface and then one in orbit and when the rocket gets 1/2 way into space switch to the space based power source. Smaller more powerful rockets and cheaper access to space.

Now witness... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34074108)

...the firepower of this fully armed and operational battle station!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?