Slashdot Mirror

Educational in the sense that Google Earth is a perfect example of how people who don't know anything about geography shouldn't be doing geography?

NGA is the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (alternate Wikipedia source: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency). It should be noted that while NGA and Google both supplied funding for the satellite, NGA's contribution was approximately USD $248M, while Google's portion of the funding was remitted through GeoEye (which was later purchased by DigitalGlobe in 2013) under a contract for which the terms have not been publicly disclosed. While the exact amount of Google-supplied capital is unknown, it may be safely assumed to be a considerable percentage of the balance of the project cost and thereby a de facto partial ownership arrangement, given the obvious market benefits afforded to Google through the deal (see also "GeoEye Reports Record 2009 Third Quarter Results" for interesting numbers). In a more fiscally transparent demonstration of the company's high interest in this field, Google entered into an agreement to purchase Skybox Imaging outright for USD $500M on June 10, 2014.

It should also be noted that Google acquired exclusive rights to GeoEye-1 imaging data for online mapping purposes, which is not equivalent to a broader exclusive general purpose license. Other companies would have been free to contract with GeoEye for non-online-mapping use of the data. The arrangement has invited questions from some parties concerning the enforceability of copyright claims on the data, as it is produced with 50% funding from the United States federal government. While it is understood that down-sampled (50 cm resolution) images are provided directly to Google and other companies partially at taxpayer expense, it is important to understand the applicability of exceptions in law to copyright terms on work produced by or supported by the U.S. government.

Surely you mean Ft. Belvoir.

I suspect the data available there shares at least some common ancestry with the stuff used in the weapons systems you refer to. Fortunately for us, they recognize it also has value for academia and industry.

There is a fascinating deep area in the Indian ocean (-100M) and a high area near Iceland (+80M), proving conclusively that our world is not homogeneous in terms of density (or practically any other measure). Does anyone know whether these anomalies correspond to known geographic phenomena? Deposits of heavy metals perhaps, or hotspots where the mantle is thinner? I know little about geodetic stuff, but I'm curious about the reasons for wrinkles in the data set."

Something that is maybe not so clear from the discussion in TOA, this is an accelerometer mission, and thus reveals a high pass filtering (AKA high-harmonic geoid signatures) of the gravity field. I am not sure if the geoid map in the BBC article is entirely from GOCE data, or if it has other data filling in the low spatial frequencies - it looks pretty similar to older geoid maps.

You might want to read this paper, which points out that

"The interpretation of GOCE geoid and gravity anomaly maps in terms of structure and dynamics of the Earth is
neither simple nor straightforward."

You can see things like typography, sea-mounts (modern gravity data is very good at detecting these), mountain ranges (these are like icebergs, made of lighter material with deep roots, and so are typically actually geoid lows), subduction zones, etc. Since what's going on may be determined by mass / density changes in the deep mantle, figuring out what the observed structures mean can be tough.

However, the scientific interest in these gravity data largely centers around changes in gravity, and many of these are more straightforward. Among the signatures of interest are ocean current changes (might change the dynamic sea level by 10 cm), ice formation and melting (for example, of the Greenland ice sheet), and the global water balance on land (if it rains, it changes the mass loading of the ground, and thus the geoid). Data such as these, and the data from GRACE, are becoming more and more important in the study of global geodynamics. The literally show what's happening on the ground, in basically real time.

What you're solving is the inverse geodetic problem, a topic of study in the field of geodesy for centuries, literally. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesy#Second_.28inverse.29_geodetic_problem As several people have commented earlier, you need to be sure whether this is a new algorithm, a modification of earlier algorithms, or just an optimization. You can research this yourself, and I assume you already have. Possible sources include the National Geodetic Survey, http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLS/, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency https://www1.nga.mil/ProductsServices/GeodesyGeophysics/Pages/default.aspx You would want to submit a paper to conferences in geodesy or surveying. Possibilities include the American congress on Surveying and Mapping http://www.acsm.net/ Intl Assoc of Geodesy http://www.iag-aig.org/index.php . This would be an easy way to determine how revolutionary your algorithm is. These organizations also publish journals, so a conference paper could be a first step.

Although TIGER/ZIP does not contain information outside the US, the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency does maintain a database of place names which are available for search/download at http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/namefiles.htm. The USGS also publishes a database available for download for place names for the US. It is located at http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/download_data.htm. To create a format that would be meaningful to any viewer from any country, I believe you are faced with the "esperanto" concept. Esperanto was supposed to be a universal language that everyone would learn in addition to their native tongue so we could all communicate. However, objections arose when it was discovered that the language was heavily related to the romance language group and was written with the Roman alphabet. So it is mainly a curiosity now rather than useful. In a geospatial context, if you are Chinese, it would be hard to try to figure out the Pinyin equivalent of the whatever place name on the map so you could translate it back into the your native character set. The same for other scripts as well. So maybe a monster wiki is needed for each cultural/linguistic context, but it would never be authoritative in the classic sense of the word. And then there is the question of regional boundaries which can shift from time to time and how would you specify the time/historical parameters? I think a foundation should be built which can accomodate any context in terms of region/culture/language/historiography so that it can be useful to anyone who views it.

The US National Geospace data files have a variety of information for basically anywhere in the world. It includes some of the info you're after.

Let me preface this with the fact that I'm a pretty hardcore geek. I'm not quite the type to dress up in a Star Fleet uniform and go to a convention, but close. I was in the USAF for 8 years as a 3c0X1 (Computer Operations Specialist). I had two duty stations, the Pentagon and Langley AFB VA. I was an E-5 (Staff Sergeant) by the time I got out. I will say this, I was given the opportunity to excel or fall flat on my face.

My first year at the Pentagon I was a telephone operator. I had gone through 6 weeks of Basic and 3 months of non-stop technical training for Computer Operations (Sys Admin on the civilian side) and I was answering telephones from 11pm to 7am. Needless to say I was very disgruntled at my initial assignment and it showed. I fortunately got through my evaluations without a mark and never got into too much trouble but it was apparent I was a malcontent. Most of the 3c0x1's stationed at the Pentagon (used to) go through the switch first, it's all civilian now, thank God. From there they would evaluate you and put you in a different IT shop. My friend who put in a bit of effort now and again worked network security for 3 years. I got stuck working on a 30 year old mainframe, processing message traffic for the remainder of my time at the Pentagon.

Fortunately I was given an assignment to Langley where I did Sys Ad work for an Intel Squadron. I worked on all types of equipment with applications and systems that you don't see outside of government operations. I saw that if I showed up on time, uniform straight and put in some effort day in and day out I was rewarded accordingly. The Major I worked for (not directly he was 4 people higher in my chain) noticed my work, said it was appreciated and put me in charge of an even better network with MUCH higher visibility. I was in charge, I had 3 people that worked for me and if they screwed up, it was my screw up. We did everything from scripts to SAN to Email, UNIX, Linux, you name it. The only thing we didn't do was routers, switches and cables. Life was good, my job was great.

In 2006, when it was time for my second re-enlistment, I tested the waters with my resume and I was astounded that I got offers in the 6 figures with only 4 real years of experience (plus an AS in Information Systems and a TS/SCI clearence). I got out and took a job as a contractor for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Ironically, I stayed in Virginia for 8 years in the Air Force, minus the occasional training at Keesler AFB, MI. When I worked for the NGA, I went all over the place, Japan, UK, all over the US, etc. I attribute the success, I had, to the hard learning I had in the military.

Basically I would say that, at least in the AF, if you show up to work, look good, act professional and do your job, you will generally excel. There are of course exceptions to this, however overall, I think it compares very much to how you could, or could not, be treated in the civilian world.

From the linked list:Secrecy level: High. Two reporters from the local newspaper are the only media who've been inside the compound and written about it (See "Inside the World of Google"): Google treats any and all details as though they belong to the National Security Agency.

Well.... I know they were trying to be funny, but the authors could be more correct that they might have known given the history of Google (startup partially funded by CIA $$s) and how tight they are with NGIA (Google Earth projects), CIA etc..., it would not surprise me to see Google working intimately with NSA. After all, Google has been competing with NSA for PhD mathematicians for some time now (and winning) and it seems like a natural fit. Of course such a "hypothetical" collaboration would raise all sorts of ethical questions, but assuming one could appropriately compartmentalize those concerns, it could certainly be mutually beneficial.

Personally, I'd like to think that this little project (when complete) will certainly contribute to the creation of one or more of the Seven Wonders of the IT world. After all, we all have little wetware parallel supercomputers sitting in the backs of our eyes that can process massive amounts of data, pre-encode it, filter it and more all while dealing with a certain level of data corruption, particularly in disease.

Actually, that would be the NGA.

While you are there, check out their Kids Site. I can't make up my mind if this is funny, sad, or both.

NIMA changed their name to NGA when they realized that all the cool agencies have a Three Letter Acronym (TLA). Without a TLA, they weren't being invited to the best parties, so they changed their name to National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Using the dash to make a TLA out of four words is a great conversation starter at these kinds of parties.

While you are there, check out their Kids Site. I can't make up my mind if this is funny, sad, or both.

NIMA changed their name to NGA when they realized that all the cool agencies have a Three Letter Acronym (TLA). Without a TLA, they weren't being invited to the best parties, so they changed their name to National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Using the dash to make a TLA out of four words is a great conversation starter at these kinds of parties.

Not quite. No matter how good your measurements are, you still need an arbitrary line for dividing east and west. As for the distance offsets, because the earth isn't a perfect sphere, cartographers have used different spheroids, datums, and regions for different parts of the earth. The combination of the three is usually referred to simply as a datum, though the NGA sometimes uses spheroid. Some datums give more accurate results in some places than in others.

GPS uses WGS-84, which works pretty well everywhere. According to this, WGS-84 defines 0 longitude 102.5 meters different than the line traditionally used at Greenwich. That is because WGS-84 tried to preserve accurate longitudes with the older North American Datum at the expense of moving the prime meridian. Since WGS-84 was developed by the U.S. military, this makes sense.

The Busheviks have been doing this - not since 09/11/01 - but from the very first month they came into power after he was appointed to the presidency by his buds on the Supreme Court. And they are using satellite imaging in conjunction with the NSA spying (sort of like that stuff that went on in that movie "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith).

This will allow them to accumulate both strategic BUSINESS intelligence and blackmail intelligence on specific legistors and political opponents.

I know we don't have the previous satellite images from years gone by, but would it be practical to use some sort of image diffing program to look for changes in satellite imagery in the future? Yes, you'd get all the new building activity and whatnot, but we should also be able to tell when new craters hit (or other bigger changes happen) automatically. 'course, I've no idea how often global satellite images are updated, or how long it takes, so it might not be practical any time soon... Hundred years or so from now, it would be fun (if nothing else) to watch movies of how areas changed, both from direct human changes (buildings, etc) and from natural forces (coastal erosion and so on).

As for how long it would take to re-image the entire planet: a little more than a month, at minimum, but probably more like a year on average. The calculation is easy: it takes about 90 minutes to make one orbit of the Earth in low orbit. If we assume a conservative low orbit altitude of 100 miles and a conservative aperature for the orbital camera of 22 degrees, we get a ground track about 40 miles wide. The Earth's circumference is about 24,000 miles so it would take 600 orbits to get imagery strips covering the entire equator (assuming a polar or near-polar orbit). That would take at least 600*90 minutes = 5400 minutes / 60 minutes in an hour = 900 hours / 24 hours in a day = 37.5 days.

You can already get time-lapse movies and comaprison photos showing coastal erosion and human impact, the difference over only 10 years is quite noticable (heck, the difference from year to year for barrier islands is astonishing).

The interface is described in This thread in the Navicache forums. Just pass it the relevant information in the query and you get back an XML file with the data. When it first came out, I had to write a script to parse and import it, but it looks like the current GPSBabel understands the layout of the file natively, if you have space to dump the entire batch into your GPS unit. I grabbed the entire set some time ago, and now just periodically fetch "caches added or updated since" the last time I updated.

As for the GNIS reference data (the USGS-published database of populated places, natural features, radio towers, etc.), they can be downloaded state-by-state from here. For those living or just visiting outside of the US, another US agency also publishes a somewhat less comprehensive but still useful set of location data for various features downloadable from here, and, finally, if you want to play with street map data in the US, the US Census Bureau publishes the "TIGER/Line" data - at least when the census bureau site is accessible...

All of those latter data sources are in the public domain, being publications of the US Government, so they are Legally Free. (Perhaps an odd contrast for a government frequently accused of being bought-and-paid-for by wealthy corporations to the detriment of its citizens - whereas most countries thought of as less at the beck and call of businesses seem to all charge a fortune for this kind of data...) I find them handy for generating my own maps.

Think concealable. You may be able to get a VERY inexpensive GPS with no bells and whistles (and no map) that they would look at and not know what the hell it was. You may also find that a lot of uncharted villiages want to stay that way for (legitimate) security reasons, and you might have to take covert readings. (it's your life) To be honest though, I have something of a hard time believing that you can't find a position of a city in Geonet

... also worth mentioning, they are releasing the US DNC catalog to the public for us sailing geeks. Now we just need some navigation software available to the public or a DNC -> ENC converter.

see:

Here for a free viewer(linux version available).
Here for a nice looking piece of Government only navigation software.

National Map (National Map Viewer)

(and the somewhat related National Atlas)

But seriously, the (US) governments totally gets the mind-set of these people wrong. They don't download multi-gigabyte maps from the net before they attack, they simply and effectively pick so-called postcard targets, because they seek to attract media attention and these targets stand for what they resent.

Most terrorists are surprisingly low-tech, but that's actually why they can be difficult to track down: if you never use Web browsers, phones and credit cards you leave few traces.
If you read the recent intelligence 'success story' where they tracked some people because they used a Swiss pre-paid mobile phone SIM-card from somewhere in Pakistan, apparently swapping mobile phones and not SIM-cards instead of the other way round, this gives you an idea of what to expect.

What might that navigation system be?

• I can't make out the logo under the navigation display screen. A wave, followed by "ware"?
• ECDIS-N seems to be the Navy paperless navigation design. Electronic charts (maps) exist for navigation of federal vessels with ECDIS-N.
• Navy is using two navigation systems: USCG COMDAC INS and Litton Marine's (now Sperry Marine) IBS (VMS). The Swift seems to use a new IBS, thus it is using Litton's VMS.
• Sperry Marine makes Navy's ECDIS-N: In a separate effort to extend the open-architecture concept, PEO IWS in late 2003 awarded a contract to Northrop Grumman Sperry Marine in Charlottesville, Va., to act as the Navy's sole supplier of electronic charting, display, and information systems, called ECDIS-N, in a competition that rejected two Navy-developed systems. Confirmed.
• Search for ECDIS-N on Sperry Marine produces only the Military IBS page. Apparently ECDIS-N might be there. Sperry Marine products
• Apparently ECDIS-N systems must follow DII COE for the operating environment. POSIX is also involved.
• LynxOS might be involved in real time situations: LynxOS(R) was selected as the reference RTOS implementation for the DII COE configurable RT kernel.
• Thus there may be Unix influences in those designs for the navigation system.

The phrase Joint Interoperable Mission Planning and Rehearsal System is found by Google only in this document. There is a Joint En-route Mission Planning and Rehearsal System (JEMPRS), but no hints of its platform.

The COMBATSS site doesn't have much info. Another site mentions an HP Unix workstation with COMBATSS. And the COMBATSS Platform Equipment doesn't sound like a description of MS-Windows. Using Mozilla as an interface is mentioned in the original article, which doesn't reduce the possibilities much.