I .. ···-+ ~ ij • UNAN OUNC'ED {fd.., "''''I o ,,,,.,.,., J)t)H·-('.(•· ~·· ,,._, ,-;··-·-- .. - . ·' • ji{,"'-'J'-)

STUDY S-307 ·•: -·~otrtrol llo•. W 8 -$'~t___ l Copy / ot f 0111

I PROJECT SEESAW U)

·"~

I ""\ :J Huold W. Lewis, Chairm 1n .. -.·.... '.:" Robert E. LeLevier I Arnold Nordsieck .....<:":') Andrew M. Sessler c ~ I Kenneth M. Watson I Steven We in berg I I -- February 1968 • >-a_ Cistribution Umi~ed toJJ, ~vernmenf 0 ~~~ On·Y-fi~------I C) c·: er reql·~.st; f~- i};:') ,·,-:;u!r.eit ml!~t !l: ft rerrtrrTo t.nP~ I~ ,lj, l'ovO Wilson Bl¥d. LJ...J __, 9 I -L.L.. INSTITUTE FOR DEFENs\lin~,Avlv~r~ f.rO,"'CR~~ JASON .· . .

CIJ.SSIFIED BY~ .. · - DECLASSIFY Oli': -v-~-4'-..l.--/--- :> II!VIEI Ctr::·~·-'(Z~f=l::f;~= l SE~RET '1 1. ' .. STUDY S-307

RECEIVED PROJECT SEESAW (U) j

_Harold W. lewis, Chairman Robert ~. Lelevier _Arnold Nordsieck Andrew M. Sessler Kenneth M. Warson

Febn~ ary 1968 )

-~ RECEIVED ..'i IDA .: - ! 2 ~ 1969 INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSE ANALYSES 'LASSIFilD DOCUMENT CONTROL· JASON 'nELl£ CQlUM~~S L~BOR~ I)~ vJ I ~P' /I c. 400 Army-N1vy Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202 Contract OAHC15 67 C 00\ I I .. ~-- 1 l SEGRET I I

OONTENTS

r. Purview 1 II. Outlook 1 III. Theoretical and Experimental Situation 2 rv. Relevant Experimental Facilities 3 v. Observations and Recommendations 3

ii SEGRET SEe RET

·I 1 i I. PURVIEW l

II· l ~~The panel* took as its domain the present· state of theory and experiment on physical problems relevant to the program and paid I no attention to matters of engineering or systems design. These I latter problems have been dealt with by other panels and may indeed be the most difficult questions in an analysis of the potential of I the program. The panel considered only the question of whether one I can, on scientific grounds, exclude the possibility of developin~ weapons system based on the SEESAW concept, and then analyzing the· I scientific program in these terms. It will be seen that the answers. are incomplete. I I II. OUTLOOK i i ~ In this program the theoretical achievements have long been. I ahead of the experimental achievements. The main uncertainties are i~ I the areas of ~ingle-pulse survivabilit¥, hole-boring, and~nstabiliti:s·j In the latter the streaming and hose instabilities have received the , . I most attention, though the sausage instability may also be relevant. I ' Only in the case of the hose instability for a continuous beam has I l there been any quantitative experimental verification of the theory I I I and there are still unexplained discrepancies in this simplest situa·-! J tion. Some semiquantitative information on the onset of the streaming !\ instability has also been obtained. Since t~e proposed system config~ 1 uration is so much more complicated than even the theory has been abl~ )

. ~ I

~'t In the fall of 1967, the Acting Director of ARPA asked JASON to convene a panel to make comments and recommendations about the progress of Project SEESAW. I 1 SE8RET SEGRET

to treat well, and a fortiori beyond existing experimental verification, we cannot with confidence say anything about the possible ultimate utility of the system as a weapon. We are sorry that the experimenta~· program is now at a standstill, due to the extensive modifications of; the Astron accelerator now in progress at Livermore, and our recommen­ dation will be in the direction of reactivating it.

III. THEORETICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL SITUATION

~ The theories of single-pulse survivability and of the hole;·

boring process~have been carried rather far for an unmodulated beam, though problems associated with the structure of the plasma channel still remain unsolved; The experimental equipment currently availabl~ to this program does not have sufficient power to permit an explora­ tion of any of these questions.

~ The theories. of the hose, streaming, and sausage instabilities have been carried to a high degree of sophistication, both for the modulated and unmodulated beam, though the structure _of the plasma channel assumed in these calculations is somewhat idealized. Experi­ ments at Livermore have demonstrated the existence of the hose insta­ bility for an unmodulated beam, and have produced semiquantitative agreement between theory and experiment for this case. The experiments I have probably also demonstrated the existence of the streaming insta-' bility, though nothing quantitative is known here. Such other matters as mode mixing, nonlinearily, and the interplay among the various insta­ bilities (as, for example, when the streaming instability induces the' I ionized plasma channel within which the hose instability is developed~ as in the Livenmore experiments) have received only minor theoretical attention and no experimental attention. Computer modeling efforts to bring these matters together, primarily by Brueckner, are still in an early stage of development.

2 &EGRET SEGRET

rJ. RELEVANT EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES

-t@7- The major experimental facility associated with this program has been from the beginning the electron injector for the Astron machtne at Livermore, developed for the AEC for other reasons. The SEESAW experiments have been riding on this facility, which has saved money for both parties. The facility is not now active, though preparations for its reactivation are in progress.

~ We have also recently become. aware of a class of higher cur­ rent machines (of which we have had the most detailed contact with those made by Physics International) which produce electron beams of . approximately the same energy as the Astron beam, at currents up t~ 100 times as large. fhese machines are relatively inexpensive, but probably do not have_the same beam quality, although the latter is not entirely clear. These machines were also developed for other reasons, and there is not associated with any of them experimental diagnostic equipment of the quality and diversity of that associated with the Livermore facility. As sources of high current relativistic electron beams, however, we believe this class of machines to have considerable potential for expansion of the SEESAW experimental program.

V. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

~- 1. We believe that the program should be continued. This recommendation is based on the current state of scientific uncertainty which does not permit us to confidently rule out the ultimate feasi·- . bility of the weapon system.

~ 2. We recommend that Livermore be pressured to enlarge the theoretical and analytical support to the SEESAW experimental program; which has functioned in the past almost entirely independently of the: very considerable theoretical competence available at the Laboratory. We are aware of some of the reasons for this condition, but find it ironic that in this most over-theorized pro]ect.the experimental

3 SE8RET SE8RET program exists almost entirely disjoint from the relevant theoretical\ community. '

~ 3. As has been urged by other panels convened in the mists of antiquity, we also urge that the continued development of a rele­ vant experimental program be given the highest priority. We recommend particularly the development of an experimental program based on the type of machine currently available from Physics Intern~tional, whether the program is based at Physics International or elsewhere. These machines produce electron beams in the right domain, and it remains only to bring diagnostics to them, or them to diagnostics. We recognize that if ARPA decides to fund a program at Physics Inter- · national itself, such a program will suffer from lack of previous in-: volvement. In this event, one might consider asking the Stanford Research Institute to monitor such a program, since it has been the seat of much of the theoretical work in the past.

~ 4. we have not considered, and cannot comment upon, the detailed experimental program proposed by the Livermore Laboratory. Because of the time factor, we have not judged this to be the most pressing question before us, but will be happy to undertake such an evaluation separately, if desired.

4 SE8RET RADAR PERFORMANCE NOTES FROM LARRY BRENNAN AND JOHN MALLETT

In radars designed for precise tracking and position measurement,

range accuracy is generally better than angular accuracy. An angular

accuracy of 10-4 radians is roughly the best that can be expected at

large signal-to-noise ratios (due to gear train or other mechanical

errors in dish-type antennas or component tolerances in phased arrays)

and at a range of 150 km this corresponds to a 15 meter position error.

When accuracy is limited by signal-to-noise ratios, the r.m.s. error

in angular position is approximately:

ox • eR ~

where e is beamwidth and R slant range. For a beamwidth of 1° and R

of 150 kl!l, ox :. 2000/ SIN meters. Range accuracy is proportional to

pulse length and is given roughly by

6R :. c'l" 2~

where c is the speed of light and T the pulse length. For a T of 1/10

microsecond oR :. 15/~meters. Using pulse compression, pulse

l£ngths of 1/10 microsecond or shorter can be obtained without

unreasonable peak power requirements. A slant range accuracy of 1 meter

or better can be obtained, neglecting errors due to propagation effects.

A system consisting of three (or more) widely spaced radars could

be used for trilateration, each radar measuring slant range to - 1 meter.

The resulting position accuracy can then be computed from the geometry

of the problem, and would be roughly 1 meter for spacings such that

the three radar lines of sight are orthogonal. If more than one object

is present in the radar measurement volume, there i·s an association or

ghosting problem. DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR STUDY S-307 ODDR&E North American Aviation, Inc. Attn: Dr. Charles Cook, Director Dept. 846 Defense Research and Engineering 1700 E. Imperial Highway Attn: Dr. John S. Foster, Jr. El Segundo, California 90246 Washington, D. C. 20301 Atomic Energy Commission ARPA Director Director (4) Atomic Energy Commission Advanced Research Projects Agency Attn: Mr. Amasa Bishop, Attn: Lt.Col. R.M. Dowe, Jr. Asst. Dir. The Pentagon Controlled Thermo-Nuclear Res. Washington, D. C. 20301 Washington, D. c. 20545 Air Force u.s. Atomic Energy Commission . . Division of Research J-309 Office of Assistant Secretary Attn: Mr. Stephen Dean of the Air Force, R & D Washington, D. c. 20545 Attn: Mr. Harry Davis The Pentagon Washington, D. C. 20301 Battelle-Memorial Institute Wright-Patterson AFB (2) . . Attn: Battelle-DEFENDER Attn: Capt. Norman E. Featherston 505 King Avenue Col. John T. A. Ely Columbus, Ohio 43201 Foreign Technology Division (TDETN) Dayton, Ohio 45433 Lawrence Radiation Laboratory University of California Mr. H.S. Hoffman Attn: Dr. Andrew M. Sessler Wright-Patterson Air Force Base · Dr. Lloyd Smith · P.O. Box 9321 Dr. Kenneth Watson Dayton, Ohio 45433 Berkeley, California 94720. Navy Lawrence Radiation Laboratory (2) Chief (2) Attn: Mr. Nicholas Christofilos Office of Naval Research Dr. Attn: Code 402 (Dr. D.W. Padgett) P. o. Box 808 Code 422 (Cdr. C.W. Causey, Jr.) Livermore, Calif. 94550 Washington, D. C. 20360 Stanford Research Institute (7) Attn: Dr. Allen M. Peterson Army Dr. S. v. Yadavalli NIKE-X Systems Office Dr. Ram Yadavalli U.S. Army, Office Chief Research Mr. Howard Singhaus and Development Dr. Carson Flammer Attn: Dr. Charles Johnson SEESAW Library (3) 206 N. Washington Street Menlo Park, California 94025 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Dr. R. Mey erott Dr. Albert Petsche~ Lockheed Missiles & Space Company Research and Development Div. P. 0. Box 504 New Mexico Institute of Mining Sunnyvale, California 94088 & Tech. . l Socorro, New Mexico 87801 RAND Corporation I Attn: Dr. Robert LeLevier Cornell University I I 1700 Main Street Attn: Dr. Peter L. Auer I Santa Monica, California 90401 Graduate School of Aerospace Engr,. Grumman Hall I. Dr. Harold Lewis Ithaca, New York 14850 : P. o. Box 1042· I I Goleta, California 93017 Dr. Willard Bennett I I Dept. Of Physics, NCSU ! Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory P. 0. Box 5342 Attn: Dr. Conrad Longmire Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 P. 0. Box 1663 Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Dr. Donald L. Kerst Dept. of Physics, Sterling Hall General Motors Defense Systems Div. University of Wisconsin Attn: Dr. Arnold Nordsieck Madison, Wisconsin 53706 6767 Hollister Avenue Goleta, California 93017 University of California, San Diego Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Attn: Dr. Keith A. Brueckner Attn: Dr. w. K. H. Panofsky Dr. Norman Kroll P. 0. Box 4349 P. 0. Box 109 Stanford, California 94305 La Jolla, California 92737 General Atomic Division University of Illinois General Dynamics Corporation Attn: Dr. P. G. Kruger Attn: Dr. Department of Physics P. o. Box 1111 Urbana, Illino.is 61803 San Diego, California 92112 Dr. Frederick Mills Dr. Herbert C. Rothenberg Director P, 0. Box 1925 Midwestern Universities Main Station Research Assn. washington, D. c. 20013 P. 0. Box 6. General Research Corporation Stoughton, Wisconsin Attn: Dr. Robert D. Hill IDA P. 0. Box 3537 Santa Barbara, California 93105 Mr. William Bradley Dr. Steven Weinberg Aerospace Corporation San Bernardino Operations Mr. Fred A. Koether, ARPA, TIO Attn: Dr. Sidney W. Kash Dr. Eric Durand Dr. Brian D.' Henshall P. 0. Box 1308 San Bernardino, California 92402 UNCLASSIFIED Security Classification DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA - R & D (Sctcurlty cl•••llication ol tlllo. body ol abettaet and lndedn• ..,..ol•tlon mu•f be entered when the. oNtall report I• ci•••IIJed)_ I. ORIGINA.,.ING ACTIVITV (CorpOt•le author) 2.a. REPORT SEC.UR1TV CLAIS'F''CA.TIDN 8E!@M!! Institute for Defense Analyses 2b. GROUP 2 J. REPORT TITt..£

Project SEESAW (U)

•. D~SCRIPTIVE NOT£1 (Type Ofrepot'l end lnclu•IYe dete•J Study S-307 February 1968 $. AU THOACSJ (Fit.t n•me, fii'IJddle lnltlel, laet na•e) Harold W. Lewis, Robert E. LeLevier, Arnold Nordsieck, Andrew M. Sessler, Kenneth M. Watson, Steven Weinberg

ft. REPORT DATE 7•. TOTAL NO. t;)F PAGES NO. ~F REFO February 1968 5 I"'· Ia. CONTRACT OR t;AAN T NO. H. ORIGINATOR•S REPOAT NUMBEIIICSt DAHC15 c 67 0011 Study S-307 b. PROJECT NO.

c. lb. OTt-iER REPORT NOUU (.-,., ofll•ncaben IIYf may .. •••l,..d thJ• Npott) '

d. NA 10. olsTRIBUTION STA.TEt-4£NT In addition to security req~irements which aEply to this document and must be met, it may be further distributed y the !holder only with specific prior approval of ARPA/TIO. .

I f. SUPPL.£h4£N'TARV NOTE:S 12. SPONSOfUNG MIL.ITARY AC.TIVITY NA NA

13. A85TRAC:T (U) This study reports on a review of the status of theory and experiment relevant to Project SEESAW and makes observations and recommendations about continued work in these two areas.

I UNCLASSIFIED Security Ctualfication Security ClaasUicalion

' LINK A LINK 8 S..INK C .. K EV lllfORO& .. OL.E WT ROL.£ WT "OI..E WT

I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1

I I I I I i i ! ! i I I

lI

I!

Security Claaalfication