Slashdot Mirror


The Skylab-Area 51 Incident

IZ Reloaded writes "The Space Review has an interesting story written by Dwayne Day about the 1974 incident when astronauts onboard Skylab took photos of a facility that did not exist in the US called Area 51. From The Space Review: What the memo indicates is that there was a difference between the way the civilian agencies of the US government and the military agencies looked at their roles. NASA had ties to the military, but it was clearly a civilian agency. And although the reasons why NASA officials felt that the photo should be released are unknown, the most likely explanation is that NASA officials did not feel that the civilian agency should conceal any of its activities. Many of NASA's relations with other organizations and foreign governments were based on the assumption that NASA did not engage in spying and did not conceal its activities."

24 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. A Closer Look by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Good story, but it would have been interesting to see the actual picture taken by the astronauts in 1974, rather than the Geological Survey pic taken in 1968.

    By the way, if you're interested in a higher-resolution look at Area 51, just point your Google Earth to 37 d 14' N, 115 d 49' W.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:A Closer Look by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA. The photo is still classified, even if the fact that it exists is not.

    2. Re:A Closer Look by JasonBee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well fie on them - Google doesn't own any satellites last I checked.

      If you want to buy sub 1-metre resolution satellite pics just go the SPOT consortium in
      France. Any interested parties will BUY their data at FAR greater resolution than what
      Google supplies.

      Meh

    3. Re:A Closer Look by skotte · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.pictometry.com/ does some neat stuff at 6 inches-per-pixel. the downsides are: access to the photos comes at a quite expensive price-tag, and the images are very oblique (which is actually not a downside at all, and in fFact extremely remarkably useful)

      in case you were wondering, 6 inches per pixel, covering about half of the US, requires about 2 petabytes of storage.

  2. Area 51 is not Unidentified by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Area 51 on google maps

    I watched a History Channel documentary on Area 51 recently titled 'History's Mysteries: Area 51: Beyond Top Secret,' it was very interesting.
    Link: http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id= 73034

    Interesting Area 51 facts:
    Area 51 has the longest runways in the world.
    Area 51 was the test site for the U2, SR-71, B2, and F-117 aircraft.
    Area 51 is heavily guarded, and can only be seen from a mountaintop 24 miles away with a high-powered telescope.
    You can scavenge aircraft wreckage from around its perimeter with a metal detector and sometimes are able to see the craft name and manufacturer on some of the pieces.
    Area 51 employees bury most of the wreckage of crashed aircraft on its site in order for them not to end up in public scrap yards.
    Area 51 has captured Russian Mig and other Russian aircraft which they flew and tested.
    Area 51 was first officially acknowledged to exist in 1995 due to lawsuit from some of its employees against the US government.
    Area 51 has the largest collection of fully-functional extra-terrestrial spacecraft in our Solar System (okay, I just made that last one up.)

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 5, Informative
      Area 51 has captured Russian Mig and other Russian aircraft which they flew and tested.

      One small quibble.
      Not necessarily 'captured'. We were given several MiG's and Sukoi's in 1990/91 by the German AF, after they merged with the former East German AF.

    2. Re:Area 51 is not Unidentified by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Informative

      >at once point (probably a while ago) we did "capture" a MiG or whatever

      Yes, there was a Russian pilot who defected by flying his jet to Japan.

      * On 6 September 1976, a Soviet pilot, Lieutenant Viktor Belenko, decided to defect to the West. He flew his aircraft, a Mikoyan "MiG-25" interceptor, from Siberia to Japan. The "Foxbat", as it was known in the West, was one of the most advanced aircraft fielded by the USSR to that time, and it had figured prominently in the nightmares of Western military officials.

      http://www.vectorsite.net/avmig25.html

      There was also this program that attempt to steal a combat-ready Russian MiG-15 Fighter for one hundred thousand dollars

      http://www.psywarrior.com/Moolah.html

      The canopy opened, and from the plane stepped a cocky young lieutenant in a blue flying suit. While the American pilots watched in open-mouthed wonder, the Red pilot tore up a photograph of North Korean dictator Kim il-Sung, and handed his pistol to a nearby F-86 pilot in a jeep on the way to the 4th Fighter Interceptor Wing Headquarters. Early reports were that he had torn up a picture of his girlfriend, but North Korean pilots were not allowed to have girlfriends during the war. They were warned that many girls were South Korean spies.

      After a few moments of shock, the defector was rushed to intelligence while his MiG Fighter was placed in a well-guarded hangar. The North Korean Lieutenant, No Kum-Sok, explained his motives to the officers assigned to interrogate him.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  3. A fun little theory by grasshoppa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody else think that the only reason the government still denies the existance of area 51 is to keep people looking at it? Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? /conspiracy theory

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:A fun little theory by njfuzzy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Area 51 is the site that publically "doesn't exist". Probably a good way to draw attention away from more classified places.

      --
      My Photography - http://ian-x.com
      The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    2. Re:A fun little theory by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anybody else think that the only reason the government still denies the existance of area 51 is to keep people looking at it? Makes you wonder why, doesn't it? /conspiracy theory

      They also argue that when the government fails to confirm the obvious, it both undermines governmental authority and legitimacy, and contributes to wild speculation, such as aliens and soundstages in underground hangars at Area 51.

      Part of inteligence is counter inteligence. If you make enough "noise", the truth will be hidden amongst so much wild speculation no one will be able to figure out what actually goes on there. It probably also serves as a nice decoy for other facilities.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:A fun little theory by Rob+Carr · · Score: 4, Funny

      It works! No one ever talks about Area 50!

      --
      This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
    4. Re:A fun little theory by oscartheduck · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's because they don't want you looking at Area 52, which is just up the road aways and is run by Centauri.

      --
      How to use coral cache: http://slashdot.org.nyud.net:8090/~oscartheduck
    5. Re:A fun little theory by b1t+r0t · · Score: 4, Funny
      Keeping Groom secret keeps everybody looking at that base while the really interesting stuff is going on at Dougway.

      What's Dougway? (about 250 pounds! *rimshot*)

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
  4. Move along by AkA+lexC · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing to see here

    --
    -AlexC
  5. Timely piece by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In our current environment of detainees, secret wiretaps, torture, and the like, I find this article quite timely. The closing paragraph seems rather foreboding:

    Nothing more is known of this Skylab photography incident than the fact that the photograph was not released. NASA and the State Department clearly lost the argument. But the opponents of releasing it preserved national security, as they defined it.

    It seems that similar discussions are happening around current issues, with leaks aplenty. I wonder who will win the argument now?

    1. Re:Timely piece by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's the argument? We're detaining people, tapping wires, and torturing people. (Of course, a Navy SEAL's definition of torture is different from Harvey Fierstein's, but there's no question we're doing more to suspected terrorists in captivity than feeding them ice cream.)

      If we weren't detaining people, tapping their phones, and beating information out of someone, I'd be pissed. I'm paying the government to protect me. Short of naming Kreskin to a newly-minted cabinet position of Secretery of The Psi-Corps, I'm not sure how else this would be best accomplished "in our current environment."

      Now, you can quibble that we're detaining, tapping, and beating the wrong guys, or not enough guys, and that's fine, we're an open society, get angry and discuss away, but I find it tough to argue against any of these procedures in toto.

    2. Re:Timely piece by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Informative
      Now, you can quibble that we're detaining, tapping, and beating the wrong guys, or not enough guys, and that's fine, we're an open society, get angry and discuss away, but I find it tough to argue against any of these procedures in toto.

      Under due process of law of a reasonable government, detention and eavesdropping are fine. We don't have due process of law or a reasonable government at the moment, but yes, that's not an arguement against detention and spying in toto.

      Torture, on the other hand, is not only illegal, immoral, a greate recruiting tool for the enemy, and , but it doesn't work as a reliable source of information. People will say anything to make it stop, tell you what they think you want to hear.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  6. Government Secrecy by ranton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do not see why people always assume that governments should not keep secrets from its citizens. Part of the government's job is to handle issues that the general public should not know about.

    There are numerous reasons why the general public has to be kept in the dark about certain issues. It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder. It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation. It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.

    While any powerful organization has the ability to abuse power, people have to understand that they cannot know everything. There is a reason why information about Area 51 has been kept secretive. It may very well be for the wrong reasons, but there is no proof of that. I for one will just sit back and be comforted that if there are facilities in this government that I cannot learn about, it must be pretty hard for other governments to learn about them too. If I wanted to know more I would join the Air Force and try to get into intelligence, and maybe excel enough to get clearance to these secret government projects.

    --

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    1. Re:Government Secrecy by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It could be so that your average uneducated person does not form irrational beliefs that could cause civil disorder.

      That's not a valid reason. Follow that path far enough and the government can keep you deliberately uneducated to prevent civil disorder. A government that does this is evil.

      It could be because the government themselves do not have all of the info yet, and do not want to spread disinformation.

      That's semi-valid, though in most cases it would be preferable for the government to release any information that only fell into this category couched in phrasing that makes it clear that the information is not reliable or incomplete.

      It could also be because the information has to be kept hidden from foreign governments.

      That's valid, though a well designed government should require that such information be reviewed regularly, so that it can be released as soon as it is stale.

      In general, the government should keep as few secrets from its people as possible, otherwise you're on your way to fascism.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Government Secrecy by bear_phillips · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not in keeping secrets from the general public. The problem is certain parts of the government keeping secrets from ELECTED officials. With the current administration a large number examples have popped up where elected officials where kept in the dark. When certain parts of the government hide information from elected officials, then the government looses any accountabilty. Without accountability then we don't have a democracy. The current administrations secret wiretaps, prisons etc.. is a huge example. I am not so much upset that the general public didn't know, but my elected official sure as hell should have known about it.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    3. Re:Government Secrecy by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trusting your government is not a good idea, at least not until they've earned it, and then only two years at a time.

      So, what... do we declassify everything every two years just to make sure it's all completely benign by everyone's standards, everywhere? The whole point of intelligence committees made up of your elected representatives is to regularly rotate in some people that can do a sanity check on the policies that are at work, here. Likewise, you can't operate a place like Area 51 without the bugetary approval of a lot of people. And it's not like they get one big bank transfer every year... their funds are approved/disapproved on a project-by-project basis.

      The whole point of being able to quietly work on things like the SR-71 (and its more recent offspring) is to have the ability to actually use it for a while before the people it's intended to help watch fully understand the capability. Don't you think it's helpful to know as much as possible about where North Korea and Iran are parking specific pieces of their nuke infrastructures? Sure, we're getting more of that from orbit than from things being flown out of the Nevada desert, but the principle is the same: operational details made public to every citizen are thus made public to every person in the world.

      I'm intensely curious about this sort of stuff, and know people in the intel line of work, but I'm very glad that I can't personally get all the details... because I don't want the guys running Taiwan-aimed Chinese missile batteries knowing them, either.

      That being said, I vote every chance I get, and think long and hard about each candidate's posture on intel, degrees of budget transparency, etc. It's a fine line to walk. I don't like wasting money, I don't like pointless power grabs... but I also like knowing that, when guys on the ground in northern Pakistan sieze a laptop from a local Al Queda franchise office, that we can be - in very short order - listening in on the calls to/from the phone numbers that were stored that same day in someone's cheesily encrypted ZIPped jihaddi speed-dial spreadsheet that includes Long Island zip codes. And park a drone over the little hut in the Afghani countryside (or Syrian suburb) that's handling the calls.

      Or, if you're not into that sort of thing, how about knowing that there are undercover cops infiltrating urban gangs? My city has a huge problem with central American gangs. Rapes, murder, robbery - the whole gambit. I do not want the general public knowing the names, faces, and addresses of the men and women who are tasked with breaking up those little fiefdoms. So, I trust my city and county governments with some somewhat more localized secret stuff. I have to. So, I vote for decent people to run the show. And I vote for decent people to have a hand in the legislative process that funds the executive people. It's not perfect, but it's necessary.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by TheCaptain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok...who the heck let Art Bell on here again? Who's turn was it to watch him again?

  8. Re:Not as big as some other projects tho... by Tony · · Score: 4, Informative

    . . . PLUS taxing corps up the wazoo . . .

    The hell they do.

    Corps do *not* get taxed out the wazoo. The tax burden has been shifting to the individual since the advent of federal income tax.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  9. Area 51? Been there. by Da3vid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Back in college, another guy and I went out on a road trip across the American southwest. We hit Carlsbad Caverns, White Sands, the Painted Desert, Grand Canyon, Las Vegas and... Area 51. It was a fun trip.

    We left Las Vegas early in the morning (late at night?) at about 8 am. By about 10 am, we found ourselves in the middle of a very bland highway, not quite large enough to pass a car but there was no need anyways. Nothing but low lying brush, and hills seen far in the distance. It was otherwise completely flat. Then, we hit our turn signal, at the black mailbox. Thats how you know when to turn... there is a mysterious, good sized, and seemingly random black mailbox sitting out there, so we turned. After going through miles of roads (with many intersections, mind you) through the desert, we eventually hit the hills in the distance, and found ourselves approaching a small valley leading into them.

    We pull up to a pair of sign groupings. One on the left, and one on the right. There were orange markers every 5 feet or so to mark a perimeter. We stopped right before the signs, staying safely on our side. As we pull up to the signs, we see about 250 feet away on top of a small hill, a large black truck pulls up and stops on the hill. True story.

    Now, my friend is a bit crazier than I. Mind you, these signs read things like "Use of Deadly Force Authorized" "Military Installation Restricted Access" "Photography Prohibited" and all sorts of other things that make you wary of them. So, he opens up the car door and kneels behind it and starts taking pictures of the signs. After photographing the photography prohibited sign that was right next to the use of deadly force authorized sign, he gets a real good idea. He wants to talk to the man in the truck.

    Mind you, the orange markers that mark the perimeter go about a quarter way up the hill that the truck is on. So, he hikes over there and is yelling up at this guy. Meanwhile, I'm watching the whole thing go down through the camera. I see my friend walking the line, yelling like a madman. I see the guy in the truck talking into his radio, reach into his backseat and pick up a shotgun. I'm thinking, "This is no good. I'm going to have to drive back to this guy's mother and tell her that I watched her son die." and that was the best case scenario I was thinking of, not the "Oh man, if I see them kill him, they'll kill me in the cover up, too" train of thought. Eventually, the man in the truck rolls down his window and yells something sufficiently threatening to make my friend decide its time to go. And we do. We drive away back to Las Vegas. All in all, the trip was long for such a short sight. Not that great of a trip really, but one hell of a story.

    -Da3vid-