Slashdot Mirror


Radio Telescope Has Military Uses?

schnippy writes "A joint Mexico-U.S. effort to build a monster radio telescope in Mexico is causing concerns because the project, the Large Millimeter Telescope, is part of a U.S. Defense Department effort to develop the target acquisition and directed-energy technology needed for anti-satellite warfare." From the article: " Supporters said links between science and the military are nothing new and emphasized the telescope being assembled on the 15,000-foot Sierra Negra in the state of Puebla wont be some kind of Star Wars defense outpost."

41 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. The Force! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Surely the USA can just use The Force to disable enemy satellites? I mean this is the Star Wars project after all...

    1. Re:The Force! by NixieBunny · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tee hee... I'll bite. A millimeter is 300 Gigahertz. A large millimeter is the Imperial equivalent, roughly equal to 265 Gigahertz. [Disclaimer - I work on the Submillimeter Telescope on Mt. Graham in Arizona.]

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    2. Re:The Force! by srhill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Large means "size of telescope", millimeter means "wavelength". Wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional to each other. So big wavelength = small frequency, and big frequency = small wavelength. See: 1 mm in GHz

  2. I know what you're all thinking... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I am inVINcible!"

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:I know what you're all thinking... by ettlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know that several people around here are currently looking for a "Score:5, Funny" way to work the words "foil", "hat" and "tin" into a comment.

  3. Darn by antikarma · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the telescope being assembled on the 15,000-foot Sierra Negra in the state of Puebla wont be some kind of Star Wars defense outpost.
    That's a shame. Puebla does look remarkably similar to Tatooine...

  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. Nice opening line... by Chaffar · · Score: 5, Funny
    A joint Mexico-U.S. effort to build a monster telescope atop a dormant volcano...

    Why does this sound to me like a "bad idea"? This would be a great start for a thriller/action movie ...

    [Dramatic Voice]Atop dormant volcano in Mexico... containing an ancient Aztec burial ground... the construction of an American military complex awakens undead souls... Disturbed from their sleep, they thirst for revenge... Only one man... can hope to defeat them...
    1. Re:Nice opening line... by StressedEd · · Score: 3, Funny
      And the question on everyone's lips:


      Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis?

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
    2. Re:Nice opening line... by n54 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Definitely Bruce Willis but he has to wear really big cokebottle-style nerd glasses with big black frames!

      Oh! And a pocket protector!

      And the movie needs lots of really big sci-fi guns shooting electriciy or plasma and there should be tons of absolutely gorgeous bigboobed ladies! Some of which could be beautiful Astec ghosts...

      *insert huge grin here*

      Seriously who wouldn't pay to watch that? Think "Falling Down" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0106856/ combined with "Doom" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0419706/, "Poltergeist" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0084516/, "Ghost Busters" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/ and any big boobs porn flick (without the porn).

      Hmm I think I need to listen to Deadbolt now... Deadbolt and Man or Astroman? should obviously both be major contributors to the soundtrack :)

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    3. Re:Nice opening line... by mkw87 · · Score: 2
      Tom Cruise or Bruce Willis?

      1st, Clearly its Vin Diesel.
      2nd, it can't be Tom Cruise b/c if you had seen south park he is 'in the closet' and won't come out.

      --
      Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
  6. and what if it is? by OffTheLip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the link between science and the technology of war or peace, depending on your perspective, are entwined why can't it be used for alternative purpose? The fact my microwave oven had it's roots in defense does not stop me from using it.

  7. Quote by jlebrech · · Score: 4, Funny

    This Battlestation is FULLY operational, mwuhuhahaha

  8. Offensive weapon by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "The design could greatly improve capabilities for acquisition and recognition of targets in space, as well as demonstrate the feasibility of long-range energy directed devices," states a document from the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1997, the year construction began.


    Since the article doesn't explicitly state it, what the Mexicans are worried about is that the U.S. of A. will try and use that gigantic dish to fry satellites.

    Methinks they doth protest to much in the article.

    Anyways:
    I found two sites, one saying it's designed to pick up 'wavelengths of 1 to 3 millimeters' and the other saying "to operate between 100 and 300 gigahertz (GHz)"

    If they really have military uses in mind (even as a backup) then I'm guessing we won't find out how many watts it can transmit. I did a decent google search and came up empty.

    And to make a long post longer, I'm going to bring up an old post I read before (slightly modified)
    Whenever a controversial law/telescope is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law/telescope would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law/telescope that way as early and as often as possible.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Offensive weapon by Mr_Dyqik · · Score: 4, Informative

      1 mm = 300 GHz, 3 mm = 100 GHz

      The last thing you want within miles of a sensitive radio telescope is any kind of powerful transmitting equipment, as it would probably fry the detectors, and prevent any kind of astronomical observation. Since many other countries are involved in the telescope, at least at the advisory level, I can't imagine any kind of actual military testing at the site. In any case, there are very few powerful compact sources in the 100-300 GHz range (which is one of the reasons why astronomy in this band is difficult)

      The most likely military application is the optics control required to get a telescope of this size and surface accuracy to work efficiently. That wouldn't involve any transmissions from the site.

    2. Re:Offensive weapon by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The weapon itself would obviously be located on U.S. territory or on a ship, depending on size. As the document you quoted states, "The design could greatly improve capabilities for acquisition and recognition of targets in space" i.e. the telescope would be used to find the targets, not to shoot them down.

      IMO this is a bad thing, as now a telescope that should only be used for peaceful research will also become a military target during times of war.

  9. Let me get this straight... by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...people are surprised that a project getting multi-million dollar funding is going to be also be occasionally used by the DoD because it has some military utility? Really people, there is an easy way out if you don't like the idea of the DoD getting a utility out of this dish in exchanger for millions of tax payer dollars: Raise the money yourself.

    What is happening is just common sense. There is an expensive project that will benefit scientists. At the same time, the DoD is undergoing a project that will need that exact same piece of equipment. We can either build two of these things and set tax payers back a small hunk of change, or we can build one. Take government money, and take the strings attached.

    Now while making government funded facilities duel use makes perfect sense, you can easily argue that this whole Star Wars thing is a big waste of time and money. I personally wouldn't mind a nice big cozy shield of lasers or what not to knock the unlikely ballistic nuke out of the sky. That said, there is a cost benefit analysis that goes along with this. If an impenetrable shield of d00m could be erected for the cost of one month worth of operations in Iraq, I would say go for it. If instead it is going to cost enough bankrupt the nation, obviously it isn't worth spending money on such a remote danger.

    Summary:
    Duel use facilities when getting government funding to save tax payers: Good.
    Star Wars in general: Maybe not so good.

  10. Tinfoil hat by tenfoot · · Score: 2, Informative

    memo to self - must make a thicker tinfoil hat. I can feel the waves penetrating my brain

  11. Silly. by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was thinking about the revolutionary war. The brits came here hoping to quell the revolution but ultimately were not successfull because they were fighting old wars and old enemies. The brits were used to fighting in ranks, they marched in ranks, set up in ranks, fired in ranks. These tactics were very successfull in europe but ended up being futile against the americans who had learned to fight a new way from the indians. The americans jettisoned both the tactics of fighting in ranks and any "honor" from warfare. Instead of facing their enemy honorably and firing they hid behind trees and used guerrilla and ambush tactics to defeat the brits.

    For the last two hundred years those tactics have served the US well. We have continually hit the enemy when they are sleeping, weak, and "blinded" by radar jamming etc.

    Now the US military is fighting a war that is as queer to them as the american tactics were on the brits. People with no honor exploding bombs in cities, beheading, hostage taking etc. I often wonder if the US military will meet the same fate as the brits. When I look at a project like this I think they will. They are still fighting the russians and the chinese while the russians have been castrated and the chinese are buying us out.

    Time will tell I guess.

    --
    evil is as evil does
    1. Re:Silly. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting
      People with no honor exploding bombs in cities, beheading, hostage taking etc. I often wonder if the US military will meet the same fate as the brits

      The US will hold out for a technical win in Iraq, but when they leave Iraq will still be the same as it was under Saddam.

      So yes, they will effectively lose to an enemy who fights dirty because they have less to lose.

    2. Re:Silly. by George+Tirebuyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When the Revolution broke out about 25% favored war for independence, 50 % were indifferent and 25% were pro British. The rebels wanted it more. They won over the 50 percent because of the way the British treated them. In the end Washington won by carefully choosing fights he could win and costing the British too much money. When the French entered the war The Brits had enough. They lost because of a 3000 mile supply line. The War of Between the States is another exception. The vast majority in the Confederacy wanted out of the US. They had the best Generals. They won a lot of battles but in the end the Yankee blockade strangled them and they lost because they ran out of bullets. The war in Iraq is already over. The US has won. Saddam is in prison. The Iraqis are forming a representative democracy. The war against terror goes on. The US is not going to make Iraq the 51st state. Jihadist from all over the world have come to Iraq to kill infidels. That just makes it easier for us to find them. By your thinking the Confederacy is alive and well because the KKK burns a cross from time to time.

    3. Re:Silly. by Mr.+Competence · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the BBC
      ...poll by Oxford Research International was commissioned by the BBC, ABC News and other international media organisations.
      Interviewers found that 71% of those questioned said things were currently very or quite good in their personal lives, while 29% found their lives very or quite bad.
      The BBC News website's World Affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the survey shows a degree of optimism at variance with the usual depiction of the country as one in total chaos.
      The findings are more in line with the kind of arguments currently being deployed by US President George W Bush, he says.

      --
      Those who open their minds too far often let their brains fall out.
    4. Re:Silly. by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please don't take this as a flame - it's not meant as such at all.

      1) The Continental Army fought much the same way as the British army. The idea that the Americans 'hid behind rocks and trees' while the British fought in lines is a tired old chestnut with no basis in fact. Both sides used skirmishers, light troops who fought from cover, to great effect. The Brits were unhappily surprised by the lethality and range of the American rifles, but in general the US Army was beaten in almost every engagement except for the critical battles of Saratoga and Cowpens.

      http://theamericanrevolution.org/battles.asp

      2) to suggest that the Americans have somehow routinely relied on deception and ambush thereafter is simply misreading the facts. Until recently, American militaries were NOT known for their subtlety - the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and even the failed efforts in Vietnam were almost entirely about a standup, face-to-face battle where the US won more by its overwhelming resources than by its surprise attacks or deception.

      Again, this isn't meant as a flame, I simply think your interpretation is entirely wrong. Your parallel of "the US abandoned honor in war = Iraqi terrorists abandoning honor" thereby implies very dangerously some sort of 'moral equivalency' between the American revolutionaries and the Iraqi jihadis. While I recognize that no doubt SOME Iraqis are fighting for purely nationalist reasons, it's not their main motivation.

      I would argue that the Shiite uprisings against Saddam that we failed to support (to our shame) were a far closer parallel to the American revolution.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:Silly. by Liam+Slider · · Score: 2, Informative
      1) The Continental Army fought much the same way as the British army. The idea that the Americans 'hid behind rocks and trees' while the British fought in lines is a tired old chestnut with no basis in fact. Both sides used skirmishers, light troops who fought from cover, to great effect. The Brits were unhappily surprised by the lethality and range of the American rifles, but in general the US Army was beaten in almost every engagement except for the critical battles of Saratoga and Cowpens.
      You're looking at the Army of the Continental Congress of the United States. The militia was much more sucessful. Take for example, George Rogers Clark of the Virginia Regulars. He lead a major campaign in the west (in what is now Illinois and Indiana, but what was then just part of frontier Virginia), winning the Battle at Fort Kaskaskia and again at the Battle of Vincennes, securing the region from the British and ensuring the future US claim on the region. He did this with few men, short supplies, surprise, a lot of luck, brilliant strategy, and out and out balls against heavily fortified and well supplied British positions.
  12. "Large Millimetre Telescope"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What is a "Large Millimetre Telescope"? A Centimetre Telescope, perhaps?

    1. Re:"Large Millimetre Telescope"? by metamatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stuff is larger in South America. Look at the Giant Otter of the Amazon, for example. It's not surprising their millimeters are larger too.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  13. construction progress by mxpengin · · Score: 5, Informative

    here is a site with pictures of the constructio progress and a link to a coral cache of the page.

    --
    "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." -- Linus
  14. Dr Evil's base is nearly complete muhahaha by Jafar00 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes! Disguised as a radio telescope, Dr Evil's secret base deep inside an extinct volcano is almost complete. Just a few finishing touches including delivery of the tank full of frikkin sharks with frikkin laser beams on their heads and the world will tremble at the foot of Dr Evil! Muhahahahahaha!

    --
    RebateFX.com - Spread rebates for Forex traders
  15. the article by siddesu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    seems to focus on the worries of a Mexican senator about the source of funding of the project - mostly DARPA (according to the senator). The question is not what prompts this interest at this particular moment -- because I am sure funding data was available for years to the interested parties. Could the reason for this stunt be the general election in Mexico next year?

  16. Is it even a weapon? by krunk4ever · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "It is a very high-powered, focused radar beam that could be used to find an enemy object out in space and, having found it, zero in on it," Coyle said.


    It sounds exactly like what it is, a telescope using radio waves to detect objects with higher precision and farther range. The submitter made it sound like it was some sort of weaponry able to use the radio waves to distort, defend, or even attack (read the star wars defense post comment). This is like calling a binoculars, radars, or sonars weapons. They are tools used for detection and has no real defense or offense capability, besides aiding in defense efforts.
  17. The Stanford Dish: Nuclear Explosions in Space by dexamyl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The radio telescope in the Stanford foothills, now generally regarded as a benign feature of the landscape, pretty at sunset, and occasionally used for research, was originally commissioned to study nuclear explosions in space. I don't know very much about the history of the project, except that its true purpose was almost certainly kept secret. That was military S.O.P. for weapons research, and there had been massive protests against Stanford Research Institute, the owner of the dish, for its involvement in "evil" military research. Even today few people are uneasy about the origins of the dish, because few people know.

  18. It's certainly not a weapon by Pius+II. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, sticking your head directly in front of an active (sending) radar antenna will be quite unpleasant. Being hit over the head with one would be, too. That doesn't mean it's sensible to use a radar antenna as a weapon, much less passive antennas like in this here telescope.
    Is anybody seriously thinking these things work anything like a simple ship's radar? Yes, you could make them into weapons. By scrapping them, then building new, emitting antennas in their place. These things are receivers. They don't send. If we would try deep space astronomy by sending stuff at stuff billions of lightyears away, we would take 2*billions of years to get any results. The pace of space science may seem slow, but it's certainly faster than that.

  19. Note the use of the term "laser metrology" by Doug+Jensen · · Score: 3, Informative
    From http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/bud get/fy2003/dod-peds/0603762E.pdf:

    "The Large Millimeter Wave Telescope (LMT) program is the U.S.-complement to a coordinated U.S.-Mexico project. The DARPA program is providing technology assessments for design, systems integration and technology-leading metrology for a 50-meter aperture, fully steerable millimeter wave radio telescope. The fully developed telescope features a sophisticated laser metrology system to maintain precise alignment of the optics, and real-time closed loop adaptive control to maintain a near-perfect parabolic surface at all pointing angles and under most environmental conditions."

    Metrology: the science that deals with measurement.

    --
    Doug Jensen
  20. Calm Down (Or get more paranoide) Crazy Hippies. by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You know the military has interests in almost every sector, and they view every sector as something they may possibly use. If you could jam, or hack a satellite from your opponent vs. dropping bombs or sending in forces then how many lives did you save? Defense is not always about killing defense is protection. And people in charge of National Defense need to think of different ways we could defend out nation, It it doesn't require violence all the better.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  21. A Mexico-U.S. effort to build a monster joint by zentara · · Score: 2, Informative

    US College students have been working on that for years. :-)

  22. Usable telescope for scientists... by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

    This project is pretty obviously targeted at simply constructing a usable radio telescope for scientists, but the reason the military is funding it is because the research and development done in designing various facets of the telescope have military applications. The military then takes the results of that research and applies it to their own terrestrial or satellite-based devices for actual weaponization.

    The military does this all the time. They fund a huge array of projects, many of which don't directly have a production-level deliverable, but which extend science and engineering so that the next funded project can come up with a military-use prototype.

  23. imaginary lines are meant to be crossed by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "There is a line, an imaginary line, and we have to be careful not to cross that line," she said of the proximity of science to military purposes.

    Because, we all know that scientists would NEVER cross that line, right?

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  24. Ironic by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2, Interesting


    The link between science and military goes back to the dawn of science.

    Galileo based his design for a telescope on that of a military field glass (used for seeing enemies from afar). He used it to study the motion of the stars, the first one to do so, and helped to usher in the age of enlightenment.

  25. A little concerned by mexfogel · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was born in Mexico City and lived in Puebla for 23 years, now I've been in the US for 6. Since I just found out about this I had to read a few more articles on the web. I'm going to say that I'm somewhat concerned. The media in Mexico have concentrated mostly on the scientific aspects of the telescope and also talked about the benefits it will bring to the community. Examples of these are:

    1) In the search of the ideal place to build the telescope it was required to do meteorological studies which can be used to know with detail the water distribution underground of regions such as the state of Puebla. These can have positive repercussions in the use of water in the future.

    2)It will be necessary to build a rode or highway that will reach the peak of Sierra Negra, one that will be useful for the population of communities like Texmalaquilla.

    3)The construction of the telescope will provide of new jobs, many of them to people who live in close communities to Sierra Negra.

    4)The need of high tech communications for the LMT (Large Millimeter Telescope) may lead to the result that close by communities will benefit of a modern phone system, maybe based on fiber optics with access to the Internet.

    5)Besides local impact, the LMT has already began the development of microwave laboratories and other type of technologies such as the measurement and production of high precision surfaces.

    The high altitude is strong point of Sierra Negra for astronomical purposes but at the same time is a weak point since human work is affected because of the lack of oxygen. It is a sure thing that dorms will be installed at lower altitudes such as it occurs in Mauna Kea, Hawaii. It is probable that the telescope can be remotely operated without the astronomers need to climb higher than 3,000 -3,500 meters.

    The media talks about this project as the most important achievement in the scientific history of Latin America and internationally as the biggest instrument of its kind. Last time I've hear a sales pitch like this one I was in high school and they were talking how great NAFTA was going to be. Sold as the first step into becoming a first world country. Now 13 years later we've got a disappearing middle class.

    The main source I'm quoting is originally in Spanish http://www.inaoep.mx/~rincon/sierra_negra.html written in 1997. I did a fast translation of it. As of now 90% of the construction has been completed and should be operational by the first quarter of 2006. I will now try to research what has actually happened and if this telescope has helped Puebla or not. I have relatives still living there and I will ask them what they have heard. I will post any significant findings for those that are interested in any type of followup.

  26. That part of the movie was based on fact by dlleigh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The local Puerto Ricans were worried that the Arecibo radiotelescope had a military purpose, and they did indeed call it "el radar". That part of the movie "Contact" was based on real events.

    Some thought that it was designed to steer Soviet bombers away from the U.S. and fool them into dropping their bombs on "less valuable" real estate, i.e. Puerto Rico. The observatory had to put up a big security gate to discourage possible vandalism.

  27. A hell of a lot of basic research is DoD funded by Archimboldo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Geophysics? Largely funded by DoD. They want a basic understanding of earthquakes and an ability to distinguish them from underground nuclear tests.

    Solar physics? Largely funded by the Air Force. They want to predict solar flares that may interfere with communication.

    Astrophysics? Not by a majority percentage, but at least some funding will piggy back on laboratory duplication of the high temperatures and pressures that occur in nuclear weapons.

    Internet? No further remarks necessary.

    I will agree that it's a shame, but companies (and sadly to a growing degree universities) these days don't seem to want to invest in high risk long term research. Few things provide the motivation for these big and basic projects that war does. If people are all that concerned, they should put their money where their mouths are instead of rewarding companies that look good to Wall Street.

    An interesting aside: a significant amount of university research in the U.S. is funded by foreign countries - Japan being one of the bigger contributers.