Slashdot Mirror

After reading the article, I did a quick google search for info on directed-energy technology use in the military, and came across this document. It gives some good background on how the Navy is using LASERs, MASERS, and RF devices. (my first slashdot post! woo-hoo!)

Ummm.....wouldn't NORAD be a little nervous about this?

According to the USAF:

• 43,000 pounds of thrust in each of it's GE TF-39 engines (172,000 pounds total)
• 222.9 foot wingspan
• 247.1 feet long
• 270,000 pounds of cargo
• 769,000 pound max takeoff weight
• 518 mph top speed
• Cost: $152.8 - $179 million

Seeing a boom mike in frame is not a "projectionist error." Think about it--if the man caught the boom mike in frame, it's going to be in the shot, and the film editors either catch it and fix it, or they don't. They're just like proofreaders.

If you spent 8 figures on making a movie, would you really leave the content of each scene to the projectionist? That's like saying that because I'm viewing slashdot in 600x800, I'm not going to see your typos, but if I load it in 640x480, I'll be able to see them at the edge of the screen...

By the way, the nukes are much less likely to be used today. I work at a place that keeps track of those things, and you're as safe as you ever were from missiles. The idea that a terrorist group would (or even could!) go to the lengths required to purchase, calibrate, aim, and fire a nuclear missile, and not be noticed, is absurd. It's a lot simpler to attack assymetrically with conventinal bombs (a la USS Cole). Just because it's not on the news doesn't mean we're not keeping tabs on it. Sleep well, JonKatz--I may abhor your writing, but I'll risk my life every day for your right to keep spewing it out.

Add to that the fact that 747 are 'commercially available' and it even becomes financially feasible... and you could use commercially trained pilots - rather than expensive fighter pilots.

Hell, the Air Force already has a handful of pilots checked out on the VC-25A who are already familiar with the aircraft.

The airframe is a Boeing 747-400F, a standard commercial freighter, with modifications to house the laser.

Testing is slated to begin as early as 2003, with a seven-plane operational fleet in service as early as 2009.

The laser is to be a multi-megawatt oxygen-iodine system. A multi-hundred-kilowatt system was successfully flight-tested in 1998.

The system uses "adaptive optics," mirrors which can be deformed to correct for atmospheric effects such as "thermal bloom," the heating of air by the laser, causing distortion (like looking down a hot road).

The project is run by the Air Force Research Labs Directed Energy Directorate, based at Kirtland AFB, NM, and has been around in some form or other for at least 20 years.

Contractors include Boeing, TRW Space and Electronics Group (developing laser), and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (developing beam- and fire-control systems).

Boeing and Rockwell competed for a $22 million concept-definition contract, with Boeing winning that contract, and the $1.3 billion Airborne Laser Program Definition and Risk Reduction contract.

The program calls for destruction of a boosting theater ballistic missile by the fall of 2002.

A follow-on contract of about $4.5 billion to complete engineering, manufacturing, development and production efforts of a seven aircraft fleet will be awarded following successful completion of the initial contract.

There were some really neat pictures of the airplane on the USAF website www.af.mil, as well as a couple of stories, but they've been relegated to the archives. One of those stories, from which most of this information is taken, can be found at http://www.af.mil/news/Jan2000/n20000124_000101.ht ml. Incidentally, the best description I've ever found of the optical technology can be found in Tom Clancy's The Cardinal of the Kremlin.

An additional note: there was mention that a computer would fire the laser, not a person. This is true, at least after a fashion. Yes, the computer actually fires the laser--this is necessary, as there is no human out there who has the timing to hit an object moving at 12,000 miles an hour. The system must first be armed, though, and this is done by a human. While I do understand the concern about a computer controlling the weapon, in this case, there is still a man in the loop.

The airframe is a Boeing 747-400F, a standard commercial freighter, with modifications to house the laser.

Testing is slated to begin as early as 2003, with a seven-plane operational fleet in service as early as 2009.

The laser is to be a multi-megawatt oxygen-iodine system. A multi-hundred-kilowatt system was successfully flight-tested in 1998.

The system uses "adaptive optics," mirrors which can be deformed to correct for atmospheric effects such as "thermal bloom," the heating of air by the laser, causing distortion (like looking down a hot road).

The project is run by the Air Force Research Labs Directed Energy Directorate, based at Kirtland AFB, NM, and has been around in some form or other for at least 20 years.

Contractors include Boeing, TRW Space and Electronics Group (developing laser), and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space (developing beam- and fire-control systems).

Boeing and Rockwell competed for a $22 million concept-definition contract, with Boeing winning that contract, and the $1.3 billion Airborne Laser Program Definition and Risk Reduction contract.

The program calls for destruction of a boosting theater ballistic missile by the fall of 2002.

A follow-on contract of about $4.5 billion to complete engineering, manufacturing, development and production efforts of a seven aircraft fleet will be awarded following successful completion of the initial contract.

There were some really neat pictures of the airplane on the USAF website www.af.mil, as well as a couple of stories, but they've been relegated to the archives. One of those stories, from which most of this information is taken, can be found at http://www.af.mil/news/Jan2000/n20000124_000101.ht ml. Incidentally, the best description I've ever found of the optical technology can be found in Tom Clancy's The Cardinal of the Kremlin.

An additional note: there was mention that a computer would fire the laser, not a person. This is true, at least after a fashion. Yes, the computer actually fires the laser--this is necessary, as there is no human out there who has the timing to hit an object moving at 12,000 miles an hour. The system must first be armed, though, and this is done by a human. While I do understand the concern about a computer controlling the weapon, in this case, there is still a man in the loop.

If you look at the B-2, you'll see that the insignia are there. Not to mention that you don't fly in anything like that to fly home and see grandma for the holidays. ;)
Check these links for more info:
http://www.andrews.af.mil/89aw/jag/LOAC%20Points%2 0to%20Remember.html
http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html

There are even a few Canadian officers routinely posted to the NORAD facility in Cheyenne Mountain

1. The DoD (and the Air Force in particular) bought into the Iridium concept early on. Ever since the Gulf War, the pressure has been on to use Commercial Of the Shelf (COTS) means when possible to reduce operating costs. Iridium gives the DoD global voice/fax/data for a fraction of the cost of deploying a pure military system.

2. As part of the deal with Iridium, the DoD built an access site that connects the Iridium system into Defense phone and data networks.

3. Per this press release, Iridium forms part of a critical link between AF leadership and foward deployed forces.

4. For other missions, such as Search and Rescue, Iridium phones have become backups for regular systems and in some instances the primary means for emergency communications.

These are all capabilities that the DoD won't want to easily give up. $72 Million over two years is a drop in the bucket compared to cost of developing and deploying a new constellation, as well as the back-end costs of converting over the missions listed above.

From the paper: President Bill Clinton made history as the first US president to use the line-item veto, targeting three ASAT programs with his pen, including the Army's Kinetic Energy Antisatellite Program. According to Robert Bell, special assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and arms control on the National Security Council (NSC), although the administration recognizes the need for space control, it "doesn't necessarily believe at this time that the Army program is the appropriate solution." The White House would rather forgo attacking the satellites themselves, and instead find ways to destroy or disrupt the information downlinked by the satellites.

I think that pretty much sums up the conspiracy. It makes sense though - why waste time and money making anti-satellite weapons when you can shut down their control centres here on the ground through some veil of 'national defence interests' by employing a handful of federal agents or whatever.

The Defense Department's Space Command keeps track of all the objects orbiting the earth. The early warning system can tell the difference between a missile launch and junk reentering the atmosphere. It is very difficult to bring a satellite down on a specific location. Even if you could, the damage would be minimal.

"OTOH there is one huge disadvantage to a UCAV: in a dog-fight, or whenever human perception is needed to reduce the decision tree to something manageable, they will always (well, for the next few decades anyway) be outmanned"

Fighter pilots may be chomping at the bit to get in on this one but the fact does remain...

If one can pull 10G+, use it to get on the tail of a bogey, and while still pulling 10G+, stay there and deliver a knockout blow then you have ALL the advantages. A human cannot maneuver beyond that, or out of the robot range, as they will blackout.

That is all the "decision tree" these things need in close combat (guns or heatseeking missiles).

In the BVR (Beyond Visual Range) shot using the AMRAAM or Sparrow (whatever they may be armed with) they are going to be a bigger handful for any anti-US force than the current primary manned US air-to-air vehicle (F-15) is... why?

The reason is they can shoot and select a new target and then maneuver beyond any threat response (piling on those G's while deploying chaff and flares (if they are onboard) to evade a return missile) better than any human can.

cheers

front

There's also a picture of him "stepping out" at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/ eag les/kitt-3.jpg

What a view!!!!

A similar jump was done in 1960 by the Air Force. Project Excelsior was a pre-NASA experiment to see if it was possible for pilots and astronauts to eject from these kinds of altitudes (102,800 feet to be exact, which took 4 minutes and 36 seconds). They solved the spinning problem by deploying a small stabilizing chute first to slow him down. This site says Captain Kittinger almost died on the first attempt when the stabilizing chute tangled and he blacked out. Luckily, the main chute was set to deploy automatically. Apparently his landing words of wisdom were "Thank you, God, thank you."

A similar jump was done in 1960 by the Air Force. Project Excelsior was a pre-NASA experiment to see if it was possible for pilots and astronauts to eject from these kinds of altitudes (102,800 feet to be exact, which took 4 minutes and 36 seconds). They solved the spinning problem by deploying a small stabilizing chute first to slow him down. This site says Captain Kittinger almost died on the first attempt when the stabilizing chute tangled and he blacked out. Luckily, the main chute was set to deploy automatically. Apparently his landing words of wisdom were "Thank you, God, thank you."

This would be an amazin accomplishment, but it should be noted that this would not be the first dive from an altitude high enough to require a pressure suit. Forty years ago Joseph Kittinger made a succesfull jump from 103,000'. A quick google search turned up some sites with info on him and his jump. Check some of them out:

Here
and

Hereand
HereDan

I love the part where one of the simulator pilots says "'After doing this for a while, pushing a button seems so laborious,' said Calhoun. 'It's very addictive--you get lazy and comfortable.'"

Check it out: http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0296/look.htm

Bugs per line of code (LOC).

See Emphasizing Software Test Process Improvement... in it, they say:

...as an industry in the United States, we deliver, on average, between four and six defects per 1,000 LOC.

So, If Windows 2000 was 30 million LOC, you can expect there to be, on average, between 120,000 and 180,000 bugs in the shipping code.

Let's be generous to MS, and say that they have an outstanding development process as decribed in the above paper. Because of this, they manage to reduce the number of bugs by a factor of 50%; so they're only shipping with 60,000 - 90,000 bugs.

Now, let's be even more generous, and assume that only 10% of the bugs actually present in a system is actually ever noticed and reported (BTW, a ridiculously low estimate, IMHO...) This means that W2K should have on the order of 6,000 to 9,000 reported bugs.

Now, contrast that with the latest Red Hat release; buggy as all git out, you know. 2000 reported bugs. You'd have to go back and compare LOC to get a comparable estimate, but I'm guessing that if you count all the various and sundry packages, Red Hat ships at least 30 million LOC in a distro... which would mean that their code, buggy as all sin and scorned by open source hackers everywhere, would contain about one-third of the bugs that W2K contains.

That's why you're buying Linux.

...in each category.

Low: Everybody needs more memory. Or you can help save a species.
Mid: Put this in your hand, or this under your desk. Either would please.
If you have to ask: One of these would be nice, particularly for Quake, but I NEED one of these. Really. It could solve a fair number of problems.

We have a skywatch, operated by the USAF's 21st Space Wing, called GEODSS. GEODSS constantly scans the sky with fully-automated 1-meter computer-controlled telescopes at multiple sites around the world. This system finds satellites, space junk, and anything else that isn't in the catalog of known objects. It's tied to NORAD, in case it detects an ICBM. This system has been operational since the 1980s. With the end of the Cold War, there are fewer hostile satellites to find, so some of the GEODSS sites have been turned over to civilian control and are now working on asteroid detection.

GEODSS is an impressive system. Among other things, it can detect dark objects when they obscure a star. It's even possible to use one of the telescopes with a laser to illuminate a low-orbit satellite so it can be photographed with a second telescope. Anything bigger than a basketball that hangs around Earth orbit for long will be picked up.

The Hawaii GEODSS site is now used for asteroid detection, as the Near Earth Asteroid Tracking program. Visit their site to see what they're picking up.

I'd like to install AMRAAM on my PC. Any advise?

A unique USAF space vehicle is the ASAT (Air-Launched Anti-Satellite Missile). Unlike the other vehicles on display here, this device can be used to destroy orbiting satellites that threaten the U.S.

The Space Test Program spacecraft P78-1 was launched on February 24, 1979 and continued operating until September 13, 1985, when it was shot down in orbit during an Air Force ASAT test.

The Forces and Means Employed by the Allies in the Bombing of Dresden:

23. In the Dresden bombing attacks of 14-15 February 1945 the American Eighth Air Force and the RAF Bomber Command together employed a total of 1299 bomber aircraft (527 from the Eighth Air Force, 722 from the RAF Bomber Command) for a total weight, on targets, of 3906.9 tons. Of this tonnage, 1247.6 tons were expanded by the Eighth Air Force, 2659.3 tons by the RAF Bomber Command. The Americans employed 953.3 tons of high explosive bombs and 294.3 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed at the Dresden Marshalling Yards. The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs--all aimed against the Dresden city area.42 The American aircraft used H2X (radar) bombing method, with visual assists, and the British used the marker and visual method.43

The tracking of space debris is performed by the U.S. Space Command's Space Surveillance Network, not NASA.

The tracking of space debris is performed by the U.S. Space Command's Space Surveillance Network, not NASA.

The current NORAD boxscore is only 8,754.

Playing the "what it's worth" game, not only is it fairly expensive for a 200 mile trip (at $100000/mi), but you could also get one of these SUVs for the same price. Kinda makes you wonder... (and, as a pilot, i'd have to go for #2).
-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

Over at one of the military gps status sites (over here) they mention the mission being global nav, time, and nuclear detection.

Nuclear detection?

Anyone have any other info on this? I'm mostly just curious, I didn't think those satellites also had that feature. Or are they simply the standard relays for another detection facility?

Just wondering,
Jason

But "Ivy League schools" are not the best option for everyone. And I'm not refering to those who couldn't get in anyway, I'm refering to the high schooler who is trying to decide between engineering at Berkeley, Cal Tech, MIT, and Stanford. (Yes, I'm from California. Bit of a bias, but I am also looking at the U.S. News ranking of the best undergraduate engineering schools with Ph.D. programs. Sometimes 'best' needs to be defined in terms of what you want. If you want an education which emphasizes practical, hands-on, do it yourself, go out to the shop and weld yourself a bike, you might not get as much as you want at an Ivy League school as you would at others.

I know, I go to a great school. Cal Poly was ranked 4th in the nation for the best undergraduate engineering schools without Ph.D. programs, ie. we concentrate on teaching undergraduate engineering. To compare, the US service academies (West Point, Annapolis, and US Air Force Academy) all rank below us, and they are considered world-class. Our graduates are known for being good engineers the first week on the job, quality contributors, intelligent people.

Basically, you don't need Ivy to be great.

Louis Wu

Thinking is one of hardest types of work.

For everyone who can't/won't do a google search themselves. ;-)

Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL)
www.google.com/search?q =Air+Force+MOL+&num=10&lc=www
www.airspacemag.com/ ASM/Mag/Index/1998/JJ/Contents.html
www.farhills.org/s/lees/space/air force.htm


Dyna Soar
www.google.com/search?q=dynasoar&lc= www
www.google.com/search?q=dyna+soar+%2Bsmithsonian&n um=10&lc=www&btnG=Google+Search BR> www.arnold.af.mil/aedc/systems/60- 933.htm
www.nasm.edu/galle ries/gal114/SpaceRace/sec500/sec540.htm
www.hq.nasa.gov/offi ce/pao/History/Timeline/1961-4.html

Blue Gemini
www.google.com/search?q=Bl ue+Gemini&num=10&lc=www
student.uq.edu.au/~s373901/land /coldwar.htm
www.hq.nasa.gov/office/ pao/History/SP-4203/ch6-2.htm

LK Lander
www.google.com/search? q=%2BLK+%2BLander&num=10&lc=www
www.interaxs.net/pub/spacey/lk1.htm
www.ninfinger.org/~sven/mode ls/sovietsp/lk.html

Spiral
www.google.com /search?q=%2BSpiral+%2Bspacecraft&num=10&lc=www
www.mcs.net/~rusaerog/spiral/spiral .html

General Spacecraft info
www.rocketry.com/mwade/spaceflt.htm Encyclopedia Astronautica

"In short, there will be no escaping the oncoming SHMAC."

I'm glad to see that the people working on this had some sense of humor. I'd like to see anyone talk about SHAAFT dropping a SHMAC on the enemy and keep a straight face.

"In short, there will be no escaping the oncoming SHMAC."

I'm glad to see that the people working on this had some sense of humor. I'd like to see anyone talk about SHAAFT dropping a SHMAC on the enemy and keep a straight face.

After a review of the alternatives for a global space-strike system in 2025, the optimum solution appears to be combining a prompt response capability with a complementary flexible response capability. The prompt response capability is best provided by a system of Continental United States(CONUS)-based laser devices that bounce high power directed energy beams off a constellation of space-based mirrors. Inherently precise, megawatt-class, light-speed weapons can potentially act within seconds or minutes to resolve the rapidly developing crises of 2025. Flexible response is best provided with a small CONUS-based fleet of TAVs [Trans-Atmospheric Vehicles - Neutron] equipped with a variety of payloads, including kinetic-energy weapons, compact laser weapons, and special forces squads. Responding within a few hours of notification, a TAV can precisely deliver force and/or adaptable human judgment to crisis locations anywhere on earth.

So it looks like a combination of space-based energy weapons and a "space plane" based in the US that can strike anywhere on the earth in a matter of a few hours. This would be a serious improvement over the current state of the force. Given that the US doesn't have an aircraft carrier cruising near the area of interest, the best the Air Force could do is a 24-hour response to a crisis. That's the very optimistic minimum time it would take to plan and execute a B-2 "Stealth" mission from a base in the US to an arbitrary point on the globe. This would require coordination with a large number of airborne tankers. Deploying a force of any considerable size would take much longer, on the order of a week or so. Again, that's an optimistic estimate.

The TAV would take off from the US, boost itself into space (single-stage), overfly its target in a few hours, deliver its payload and then return to base. This obviates the need for a big logistics tail - tankers, maintenance, airfields close to the target, etc. The lasers could respond even faster but probably would be limited to relatively large, fixed targets. With such a system you could probably save money on carrier battle groups, but that would definitely piss the Navy off.

Neutron

I just want to point out that the "last modified" date at the end of this page is "Wed Dec 11 09:55:15 1996"... Now I don't always update my last-modifieds (well, yes, I do) but this seems like a while ago to me... The executive summary, etc. also has a similar date ("Last updated: 1996 September 15").

How likely is it that this document is still relevant? I am thinking it probably still reflects what the AF is thinking about the future, but is this the most current document they have on-line? Just asking....

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex /an10a.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex /an10a.htm

I have a fond memories of the F-4G having spent a handfull of years working on and/or around the aircraft (Electronic Warfare - specifically the AN/APR-47 RHAW system, AN/ALE-40 Flar/Chaff, and AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM Pods).

Interesting mission. There's a few bits of lore that aren't mentioned by the above resources that might be applied to this discussion (decoy / defensive hosts).

Wild Weasel aircraft didn't need a drone to be usefull. Quite often they flew in hunter/killer pairs with other airframes (the last teams to fly were F-16 and F-4G teams). This meant the Wild Weasel aircraft themselves were often the target for ground weapons systems. The first Electronic Warfare Officer who was approuched during Vietnam with the mission replied (forgive me if I murder the quote):

"You want me to sit behind a stick jockey who thinks he's invincible, flying in an aircraft to hunt weapons systems designed to shoot down aircraft? You've GOT to be shitting me!"

This quote seems to fit in with the question of how wise it is to deploy decoys in your environment.

However, there's also another interesting tidbit out of Wild Weasel history. At the beginning of hostilities during the Gulf War, Wild Weasel aircraft escorted most missions and decimated Iraqi air defence systems. This defense lead to a high demand for Wild Weasel escorts - more demand than available aircraft.

Commanders took a gamble. It was noted that enemy SAM and AAA sites would shut down immediately on discovering F-4 radar signitures in the area. So some missions got F-4C (unarmed reconnaissance aircraft) escorts. Since the F-4Cs were indistinguishable from their deadly F-4G cousins, F-4Cs were able to effectively supress enemy weapons systems by their mere pressence.

I suppose you could propose the question - if enough decoy systems show up in the environment, would it make potential attackers a bit jumpy if they couldn't tell the real from the decoys?

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex /an10a.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/annex /an10a.htm

I have a fond memories of the F-4G having spent a handfull of years working on and/or around the aircraft (Electronic Warfare - specifically the AN/APR-47 RHAW system, AN/ALE-40 Flar/Chaff, and AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM Pods).

Interesting mission. There's a few bits of lore that aren't mentioned by the above resources that might be applied to this discussion (decoy / defensive hosts).

Wild Weasel aircraft didn't need a drone to be usefull. Quite often they flew in hunter/killer pairs with other airframes (the last teams to fly were F-16 and F-4G teams). This meant the Wild Weasel aircraft themselves were often the target for ground weapons systems. The first Electronic Warfare Officer who was approuched during Vietnam with the mission replied (forgive me if I murder the quote):

"You want me to sit behind a stick jockey who thinks he's invincible, flying in an aircraft to hunt weapons systems designed to shoot down aircraft? You've GOT to be shitting me!"

This quote seems to fit in with the question of how wise it is to deploy decoys in your environment.

However, there's also another interesting tidbit out of Wild Weasel history. At the beginning of hostilities during the Gulf War, Wild Weasel aircraft escorted most missions and decimated Iraqi air defence systems. This defense lead to a high demand for Wild Weasel escorts - more demand than available aircraft.

Commanders took a gamble. It was noted that enemy SAM and AAA sites would shut down immediately on discovering F-4 radar signitures in the area. So some missions got F-4C (unarmed reconnaissance aircraft) escorts. Since the F-4Cs were indistinguishable from their deadly F-4G cousins, F-4Cs were able to effectively supress enemy weapons systems by their mere pressence.

I suppose you could propose the question - if enough decoy systems show up in the environment, would it make potential attackers a bit jumpy if they couldn't tell the real from the decoys?

According to the Deutsches Museum Enigma Page (in English), between 100,000 and 200,000 Enigma machines were built during World War II.
The Polish were breaking Enigma ciphers as early as December 1932 and January 1933, as mentioned in passing here - in fact it was Polish dissidents that delivered an Enigma to Bletchley Park.
This page has some recent Enigma selling prices in case you want to start saving up for one (prices start around $15000).
I wonder what's so special about the stolen one, and why there's only three of that type remaining...

One problem for NASA is the current demand for it to launch satellites. It's rocket science, which makes it a difficult and expensive mission. Currently NASA's manned vehicle program includes the Space Shuttle. For interplanetary space travel, NASA needs a new vehicle. Unfortunately this just isn't included in the current budgets. The demand for NASA to assist in sattelite launches and other earth bound tasks with the Space Shuttle is big. This costs NASA money, movey that could be spent elsewhere.

Hopefully some of the other companies that have been mentioned(Cerulean, Pioneer, Kistler) will help lift this burden. The other company mentioned, Kelly, is one that I think has the greatest chance for success. Their website demonstrates their towing concept. This has many great advantages over traditional launch methods. For one, the craft can carry a payload approximately 7 times greater than one carried in a rocket. The cost to get that same payload up in the air with the 747 isn't that expensive either. Kelly has realistic goals to be flying their first craft in a few years.(There are three crafts, each becoming progressivly larger.) I only glanced at the website, but I believe it fails to mention that this is a proven concept. They successfully modeled a test and then actually had several test flights. A C-141 towed an F-106. I was fortunate enough to see a video of this. It was pretty impressive.

Wigs
--Why do you press harder on a remote-control when you know the battery is dead?

Check Here

Guess it isn't happening now...

--Ben

According to Vandenberg AFB, there are still Iridium launches scheduled. Or is that something else?


--

Granted, this is nothing close to the technology that modern spy satellites have (probably greater than 10 centimeter resolution). Who knows, maybe much greater.

Still, it's only a matter of time before this is used in some way that endangers the national security of some country. I mean, is this company going to be informed by every country that creates a 'classified' area? Will there be formal no-spy-zones announced by every country on Earth? What happens the first time that it accidentally photographs something that gets a team of DEA agents slaughtered or worse, tips the hand of something far more serious and causes the deaths of thousands of ethnic minorities or something?

As for real-time satellite observation, the 25-year old Keyhole satellite program was able to monitor evens on the ground in near real time, I hate to think of what they are capable of doing now. I recently saw an interview with a former CIA employee who was commenting on SR-71 photographs and said something to the effect of 'The images we used to view from the Blackbird were so detailed that no only could you look down on a golf course and see who was putting, but you could tell what brand of gold ball they were using. And that was 30 years ago.'

Should this interfere with or threaten a US military (or intelligence) op, I don't doubt for one moment that this baby would somehow, uhm, vanish...we've had ASAT missiles since '85. :)

Military hardware with night vision, when they don't work so well, and admission that they do cause mishaps in some instances.

Now we'll know what sheets floating across the road are.

Get them while they last, goggles for Y2K. So when you drive around in your caddy on Jan 1, you'll know where to swerve in order to hit those nuts running around in the dark.

Finally, some (real?) statistics about how night vision in cars increases safety.

1. The new F-117's I've seen are charcoal grey, not black.
2. How long do you think the bomb bay door needs to be open for the bomb to drop? Game not over.

On a Related Note, Am I just imagining things, or did Dr. Stapp recently pass away?

Depending on who is telling the story, He is either an inspiration or the inspiration for Murphy's Law

On a Related Note, Am I just imagining things, or did Dr. Stapp recently pass away?

Depending on who is telling the story, He is either an inspiration or the inspiration for Murphy's Law

Actually, the Airborne Laser (ABL) is designed to defend against Theater Ballistic Missiles (TBMs), which are by definition not intercontinental. The SCUD is an example of a TBM. So a few (maybe one) ABLs would cruise at altitude above an area with a known TBM threat. This is a lot cheaper than having a whole fleet of them trying to defend against ICBMs, which are now a lot less likely than a TBM launch against deployed forces.

ABL's laser module recently completed testing, see this Air Force News article.

Neutron

I know I am going to try out the cross-band ham repeater. The launch schedule is located here.

--dej

2025 Spacecast 2020 WARNING: these are pretty long and very involved. For the serious minded person only.

These offer many different scenerios, and possible outcomes and consequences.

Cold fusion within 30 years when we aren't even CLOSE to hot fusion? I don't think so. And I can tell you right now: even if the technology exhists for Aero-Space planes by 2020, they will certainly not be in general use because of cost.