Masers or Lasers

[rgrove0172]

For purposes of tight-beam communcation, whats the difference. My understanding of a maser is that it lacks the punch of a laser, less power. Yet in a lot of fiction they are considered a step up in tech.

Can somebody fill me in?

I have laser communication essentially effective out to solar system wide distances (100AU etc.) so what benefit would a maser grant you, if any?

 

[atpollard]

It appears that there is less 'noise' in space in the microwave (radar) band widths, so a (Microwave)ASER would provide a clearer signal than a (visible Light)ASER system ... you can detect a weaker MASER signal than a LASER signal at the same distance.

From a strictly semantics perspective:
LASERS are a type of MASER and the two terms are commonly used interchangeably. The strict technical differences based on wavelength seem to have been largely dropped with a proposal to change the (M) in MASER from 'Microwave' to 'Molecular' (Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation).

In terms of game mechanics, I suggest (purely personal preference) that LASER communications refers to Optical Wavelengths and be the standard for commercial communications, while MASER (Molecular Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) communications involves wavelengths outside the optical spectrum, probably tunable, and is more common in encrypted military communications (since the signal can be weaker and requires detection in the right place AND at the right wavelength).

 

[BytePro]

In general - none.

In specific cases, related to noise and interference, one may or may not be better than the other due to the differences in wavelength (and thus frequency and power density).

Lasers were created, by man*, after masers. Technically it was difficult to make a working laser than a maser . However, creating room temp masers proved much more difficult than room temp lasers (IIRC, a recent discovery allowed for room temp maser - but depended on a laser).

Masers came first (around half a decade earlier I think) and around the time of the end of the 'Golden Era' of science fiction - thus their place in the genre was established.

*Natural masers and lasers exist - masers being detected long before lasers. I believe the first natural stellar laser was detected in the mid-90s... http://science.nasa.gov/missions/kao/. Astronomical masers were detected in the mid 60's - which created a bit of a stir (molecules were generally not expected to exist in space at the time).

 

[BytePro]

...
From a strictly semantics perspective:
LASERS are a type of MASER and the two terms are commonly used interchangeably. The strict technical differences based on wavelength seem to have been largely dropped with a proposal to change the (M) in MASER from 'Microwave' to 'Molecular' (Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation).

That never caught on.

Neither did grasers (gamma ray-) nor a whole range of other acronyms based on wavelength. Early marketing (for research and development dollars) meant heavy media influence (and hence sci-fi) - and laser won out over optical maser and the rest.

'Molecular' covers both (such as 'excimer' lasers) - ignoring wavelength and instead referring to source. It was probably promoted for primarily marketing reasons. Terminology in the field is much abused.

 

[atpollard]

Fire Fusion and Steel (for Traveller TNE) was written by the same people as 2300 at about the same time and includes detailed data on Radio, Laser and Maser communications.
Provided for quick reference and comparison:

3 km range
TL 10 Radio = 0.1 liter; 0.2 kg; 75 Credits; 100 watts; 10 sq.cm antenna
TL 10 Laser = 1 liter; 0.2 kg; 120,000 Credits; 5,000 watts; 1 sq.m antenna
TL 10 Maser = 2 liter; 0.4 kg; 120,000 Credits; 10,000 watts; 1 sq.m antenna

1000 AU range
TL 10 Radio = 150 liters, 300 kg, .150 MCredits, 20 MW, 10 sq.m antenna
TL 10 Laser = 70 liters, 140 kg, .180 MCredits, 0.3 MW, 1 sq.m antenna
TL 10 Maser = 100 liters, 200 kg, .180 MCredits, 0.6 MW, 1 sq.m antenna

Another note from FF&S is that the Microwave spectrum is generally not used for energy weapons (like UV, Gamma and X-ray 'lasers') so Microwave communications are often used since ECM/Jammers/Shields are less likely to affect them than comms using the other end of the EM spectrum.

[EDIT: Radio is omnidirectional and Maser Comms are tight beam.]

 

[atpollard]

One other thought occurs to me ... Microwaves (radio) will probably penetrate atmosphere better than visible Light, so a Microwave MASER might be better than a Visible Light LASER for communicating space to planet surface.

... of course you could still call them both a Microwave LASER and a Visible LASER (or even Microwave vs Optical MASER) if you wanted. BytePro is correct that the terms LASER and MASER have become synonymous through abuse and inconstant use.

 

[rgrove0172]

Thanks! So it might be acceptable to assume that at TL 10 in 2300 the two are probablly used interchangeably in whatever condition they are more suitable for? Ie. a ship's communication rig probably has both, as part of its tight beam suite, using one for typical space traffic, another for orbit to ground or coded/secure messages etc.

 

[BytePro]

Sounds reasonable.

Microwave (well, in certain wavelengths) has a technical advantage over lasers when it comes to natural atmo interference (water attenuation - weather effects), though the same could be said for lasers in specific wavelengths (at cost of greater power/safety). Practically there is the issue of interference with normal microwave transmission from satellites and terrestrial sources since they would be operating in same ranges and sidelobes are more significant.

MASERS require larger antennas for the same power (spreads more too). Hence require more power for same range - which FF&S seems to cover.

In the case of the 'interference' in combat, FF&S has it wrong, even slightly backwards, in fact.

[Note, masers are also used as amplifiers (low noise) of existing microwave signals - done for radio astronomy. This would create some confusion. Same can be done for lasers, but there has been little application for astronomy. Hence it was an airborne system that first detected natural laser emissions - space based platforms just weren't setup for the wavelength.]

 

[atpollard]

In the case of the 'interference' in combat, FF&S has it wrong, even slightly backwards, in fact.

Possibly a Traveller TL artifact where laser weapons progress steadily from IR at TL 7 ever upward to Extreme X-Ray at TL 15 to steadily increase effective range in space combat.

We live in a world where Radio and IR bands reign supreme, if x-ray became the band of choice for beam weapons, the anti-laser aerosols and 'magic sand' might be designed for optimal effect in the x-ray bands.

For 2300, your observation is probably more correct than FF&S (which was speaking more towards StarTrek shields in the MASER Comm observation).

 

[rgrove0172]

I have FF&S, Ive looked it over but may have to give it a closer read. With the only difference between the various comm equipment being cost and size for given performance, its kind of misleading.

 

[atpollard]

I have FF&S, Ive looked it over but may have to give it a closer read. With the only difference between the various comm equipment being cost and size for given performance, its kind of misleading.

FF&S is powerful, brilliant, full of errata ... and about as far from 'fun' as anything that I have ever read (and I am a gearhead).

Mine it for general ideas and quick trends ... don't go crazy getting bogged down in the details (which are almost impossible to follow and recreate any 'official' equipment).

 

[BytePro]

Possibly a Traveller TL artifact where laser weapons progress steadily from IR at TL 7 ever upward to Extreme X-Ray at TL 15 to steadily increase effective range in space combat.

We live in a world where Radio and IR bands reign supreme, if x-ray became the band of choice for beam weapons, the anti-laser aerosols and 'magic sand' might be designed for optimal effect in the x-ray bands.

For 2300, your observation is probably more correct than FF&S (which was speaking more towards StarTrek shields in the MASER Comm observation).

Good point!

Doh ! - I wrongly read ECM/Jammers/Shields as being explicit to comms rather than anti-energy weapons in general. MASERS would provide an advantage in requiring opponents to have dedicated systems just for anti-comms.

 

[aramis]

One other thought occurs to me ... Microwaves (radio) will probably penetrate atmosphere better than visible Light, so a Microwave MASER might be better than a Visible Light LASER for communicating space to planet surface.

... of course you could still call them both a Microwave LASER and a Visible LASER (or even Microwave vs Optical MASER) if you wanted. BytePro is correct that the terms LASER and MASER have become synonymous through abuse and inconstant use.

not true. Maser, for the most part, is unknown to most people, and "optical maser" is a non-sequitur. Maser is usually only microwave, while laser is the inclusive term.

 

[atpollard]

... and "optical maser" is a non-sequitur.

"In the early technical literature, especially at Bell Telephone Laboratories, the laser was called an optical maser; this term is now obsolete."
Obsolete, but not a non-sequitur.

[I have the finest 19th century education - Dickens, Emerson, Thoreau - money can buy, my logic is impeccable. ]

 

[aramis]

"In the early technical literature, especially at Bell Telephone Laboratories, the laser was called an optical maser; this term is now obsolete."
Obsolete, but not a non-sequitur.

[I have the finest 19th century education - Dickens, Emerson, Thoreau - money can buy, my logic is impeccable. ]

Since optical light isn't microwaves, it was then and still is a non-sequitur. Bell Labs use indicates some particularly odd thought processes at times; that's one of their more idiotic examples... that the more generic LASER caught on is a blessing, otherwise it would be lumped right up with Military Inteligence and Common Sense.