Slashdot Mirror
The Shadow Space Race
vm writes "NOVA's recent documentary, "Astrospies," was written and co-produced by journalist and NSA expert, James Bamford. It details the U.S. Air Force's orbiting spy station program begun in the 1960s, the Manned Orbital Laboratory. Designed from a heavily modified Gemini 2 capsule and launched from a Titan III booster rocket, MOL was basically intended to be a Hubble telescope pointed at Earth with the sole intention of collecting photo intelligence on the Soviets using an impressive array of optics and gyro balanced cameras operated onboard by specially trained astronauts. The lab was never launched, however, due to the competing Corona unmanned spy satellite program funded by NASA and the National Reconnaissance Office.
Partly spurred by the success of the Apollo missions, the Soviets, meanwhile, sent cosmonauts to its own succesfully launched spy platform, the Almaz. In addition to an onboard film lab and a space-to-ground image relay system, it included an alarming first in manned space exploration; a 23mm aircraft cannon — which is rather ironic in light of Russia and China's recent attempts to ban space weaponry. At a time when we're still unearthing details about the post 9/11 domestic spying debacle, it's a fascinating look at the history of technology used to look over our neighbors' fences."
There is
more to the story but what these sorts of stories always make me wonder, is since this was the 60s, what are they doing NOW!
It does actually, because it shouldnt be a Race... it should be a team effort...
If you think about it manned space stations are rather unpractical (especially today). Photographic surveillance can be done just fine now with remote controlled, or even robotic systems. The US government has tracking stations all over the world, so that at no time is a satellite out of contact with America. I would be surprised if the US had any weapons on ships today. Weapons, ammo, and a remote firing mechanism take up precious space that could be used for better spying. Theres no threat of a Moonraker-esque space battle in the future, so having short range weapons seems kinda pointless.
Why not drop a couple of listening devices on the other countries spy sat recievers, monitor their communications, steal their passwords, then secretly control what they think they are controlling when they are looking at us looking at them while they are pretending that they are not looking at us when we are looking at them looking at us looking at them. Then we could send their pictures of us to them from someone else with a note about us not liking them.
their currrent stance because.
1. The US can do it so much better
2. They will do it anyway and hope to hamper the US's ability to do it.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
a Hubble telescope pointed at Earth with the sole intention of collecting photo intelligence on the Soviets using an impressive array of optics and gyro balanced cameras operated onboard by specially trained astronauts. The lab was never launched, however, due to the competing Corona unmanned spy satellite
First, I doubt the summary. Hubble was launched thirty years after the discussed satellite. I'm supposed to believe that the technology for optics, electronics, gyroscopes, etc didn't improve between 1965 and 1995? It could hardly have been a "Hubble pointed at Earth".
If it wasn't launched because of a "competing" telescope, you can bet your ass the one they launched produced clearer pictures or some other, better capability.
I held a clearance in the USAF (1971-1975) and saw stuff that is still classified. I wouldn't doubt for a minute that today, decades after the Carona, they can point a satellite at your house and count the fleas on your dog while looking through your roof.
-mcgrew
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Well, it's good for humanity that you'll never make it out of your mom's basement and have any real impact on the world. If you can't see value in knowing what other countries are up to, then there is no reasoning with your childish mind.
If they have good enough optics they could listen to enemies from space. All they would need was for the enemy to be in a room with a window. They could measure the vibrations of the window and turn the measurements into a reproduction of the sounds inside the room.
Speaking of which, how is it they found Saddam Hussein in a couple of months but they can't find Osama seven years later? I'm starting to suspect they don't WANT to find him. How many spy satellites do they have now? Haven't they known where Bin Laden was in the past? Isn't he supposed to be hiding in Pakistan, and isn't that particular dictatorship sopposed to be our friend?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
More fortune cookie wisdom from slashdot's biggest douchebag.
__
|_
| agMaster Monkey
There, fixed that for ya..
My first grammar Nazi post.. I'm SO proud!
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
Form: NRO-10977/A
From: Nasal Reconnaissance Office
What are we doing? Nothing. Nope. Nothing going on here. Move along. But I do have a request from the folks down in Monitoring Division: Please stop sneezing. It really shakes up the cameras. And for pete's sake, ask your girl friend to shave that thing.
Sincerely,
Your Friendly Government
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
...forcing the Soviets to cancel construction of "F" and "K"-shaped buildings of their new large space complex, leaving only buildings "U", "C", "Y", "O", and "U" for use.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Ummmm ok, so the satellite fires the cannon and the explosion blasts the satellite into outer space where we never again see the Russian probe. Did they consider in space firing off a cannon will accelerate the satellite in the opposite direction with the bullet not going very fast towards Earth? I guess if they had some counter thrust at the exact time they fired they wouldn't fly away
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
I actually watched the show (Nova). Between the time that Francis Gary Powers got shot down and the advent of DIGITAL technology, there was a time window where all kinds of crazy stuff was tried, like satellites shooting film and parachuting the canisters back to earth, to be snatched from the sky by military planes. But without a preview available, lots of very very expensive pictures of cloud tops got taken instead. The MOL and Almaz were both efforts to put intelligent eyes behind the shutter button. But by the time they got built, technology had marched on. Almaz actually was radioing video images of the on-board developed film back to earth within hours of the pictures being taken. But by then, MOL had been canceled in favor of the NRO's satellite program.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
These sorts of stories always make me wonder, is since this was the 60s, what are they doing NOW!
That's not a Moon...
I think the biggest change since the 60's is that back then there seemed to be a well defined set of people and places (spies, diplomats, embassies etc) which would be monitored. Now, with the advent of technology and increased paranoia governments are moving to a situation where everyone is surveilled and intelligence is gathered through mass analysis of the data that is gathered.
They had heat sig cameras as far back as the 80's. They could take a picture of a parking lot an hour after everyone left, and read the license tag off any car that was there an hour before, from the heat signature it left.
There's other stuff...
but yea, I saw the show on PBS, its worth a watch. I felt bad for the guys who went through all that training and never made it to space.
#include bier;
I thought the issue was the NSA listening to people making phone calls to remote regions of Ohio.
In response to CmdrTaco:
We don't even KNOW what they are doing NOW!
we've don't nothing, monopoly stifles innovation, since the end of the cold war (actually since it was clear the US was winning ) spy technology stoped advancing and just stagnated.
The only thing that has happened is gadgets getting smaller but that's because of the electronics market
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Because he's dead and they know it.
"So many ways we could be utilizing space for the benefit of the human race...and this is what we come up with?"
Yeah, I can't believe we dared to try and develop high end optics, image correction software, gyroscopes, or any of the other myriad technologies that are required for a satellite like this. THE HORROR!
I wonder how many weather satellites have benefited from this "waste"...
...details an interesting conversation with Robert Morris at about this time, iirc.
It has long been rumored that since the US started the Shuttle program, the Soviet recon sats were equipped with a small self-destruct explosive charge. The idea was that the charge would be a deterrent in case NASA attempted to grab one of the Soviet birds.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
Prior art, dude: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
http://xkcd.com/313/
I don't think they in fact can do that. I think the length of an exposure and the necessary digital post-processing would pretty much knock it out. As far as I know we can't do that reliably with a terrestrial video camera today, because you need a long-range reflection to get adequate travel out of the signal. You need to use a laser.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Uh huh...and I suppose none of these advances would be realized from a project other than a spy satellite?
We could be developing new medications, formulating new exotic alloys, growing large, perfect crystals, metal whiskers, carbon nanotubes, and thin films in industrially significant quantities, tapping the sun's power to end our dependence on fossil fuels, etc., etc., etc....and what are we doing?
Spying.
Sure, I realize that warfare is the spur that traditionally drives technological development, but if all you're going to use the development for is more warfare, what exactly is the point?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Im certainly not a physics-ninja, but would Hubble even being able to take pictures of Earth, at this close range? I was under the impression that it had a minimum view distance.. And that it doesnt work like a set of gigantic binoculars! This would really destroy the summary's conspiracy theory. *Puts on his tinfoil hat, and places himself under a large umbrella - Just to be sure*
So many ways we could be utilizing space for the benefit of the human race
You never heard of the ISS?
We're not going to make it,
I never thought I'd reach 40. The world is now a far safer place than it was when I was young. For instance, kids today don't have "duck and cover" drills to prepare for Armagheddon like we did. Of course, you never had to go through a metal detector to get your license plates renewed, either, but that's just government officials' cowardice.
and we don't deserve to
Speak for yourself. I say we do, but if you say you don't I'll take your word for it.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You missed the best part:
From TFA:
Almaz was finally successfully launched into space as Salyut 3 in June 1974. [...] The Nudelman cannon inherited from the Soyuz VI was retained as an active defence system in the event of an attack by an Apollo spacecraft. The cannon was supplemented with space-to-space missiles.Now that is a juicy bit! They were probably aircraft-type ait-to-air missiles just like on a MiG fighter, not ballistic types.
So, while the Muppets were showing us their "Pigs in Space" segments, the Soviets were busy with their own "MiGs in Space"... (ducks)
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
Oh bullshit. It will be a race as long as there are differing national ideologies and goals.. which means for the foreseeable future. The world isn't nice and cuddly.. deal with it.
I personally never do anything outdoors that I wouldn't want to be caught doing. Paranoid? Perhaps. Unrealistic? Definitely not.
My dad was an electrical engineer with advanced degrees from places like MIT. Back in the 60's he had a top secret security clearance and worked for Mitre, where he worked on projects that as few as six people (including President Kennedy) knew the full details of. He's spoken a few times about a series of photos he once saw, taken from a spy plane something like 10-15 miles up. It started out with a photo of the continental United States. The next one in the series was of a region within the US. The next one was of one particular state (I forget which). The next one was a town within that state. In the next one you could clearly make out a golf course. The next one was one of the holes of the golf course. The next one was the green on the golf course where you could see the flag (pin) in the hole. The last photo in the series showed a golf ball on the green and you could clearly read the name on the golf ball.
If that had that level of sophistication back in the 60's you can be sure they can do even better than that today, which most likely means the same or better level of detail from orbiting satellites.
That reminds me- in jr. high, we had a bonus question on a science test: "What will be the first country to land on Mars?" The teacher warned us it was a trick question. The correct answer was, of course "Multiple countries will have to work together."
However, one very special girl answered "Countries can't move." She never lived it down.
I wonder what the theoretical maximum resolution is for a bird in LEO. The number of photons leaving a given surface area that reach an object 400 mi above is not infinite and therefore resolution is not unlimited. I suppose it is a function of: 1. the brightness of the object, 2. the distance, 3. The size of the optics in space, 4. The shutter exposure time (limited by the stability of the platform) and 5. the distortion caused by the atmosphere.
Considering that modern spy satellites are the size of a small bus, the resolution can't have improved by as much as an order of magnitude (perhaps doubled?)
"Uh huh...and I suppose none of these advances would be realized from a project other than a spy satellite?"
Can you prove otherwise? And the fact is, they were developed from a spy satellite and WERE NOT a waste, so your attempt to argue that they were is empty.
"Sure, I realize that warfare is the spur that traditionally drives technological development, but if all you're going to use the development for is more warfare, what exactly is the point?"
Is Hubble "warfare"? And you're conveniently ignoring my weather satellite example because it disproves your argument completely.
I just found my 2nd wife ;-)
a) Hubble was mothballed for many years because of the challanger disaster. It was perfectly finished in the 80s
b) They made 5meter mirrors before that.
c) They had bigger lauch vehicles available (anybody know what a saturn 2, or even 5, could lift to a polar LEO?)
d) They could use film. Earth is plenty bright to that low quantum efficiency doesnt hurt, and they would have a person up there to handle it. Hubble is using a decade-old ccd technology (the original before the retrofit operation was a technology now a quarter century out of date). Because they had to (observing dim objects, need for fully electonic path even though the tech was still immature).
There are spysats around that are bigger than hubble, today, too. Just because we dont hear about them doesnt mean they dont exist. Hell, even the shuttle as we know was made to be as big as it is in order to lauch those spysats.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
My "argument" is that we could (and should) be doing a lot more than we are...nothing more. Your weather satellite example disproves nothing.
If you want to discuss this further, I'd be happy to. If, however, all you're interested in is picking a fight, then look elsewhere. It's too early for that sort of nonsense. I haven't even had a chance to drink my coffee yet.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
There is speculation that the US had a military space program called Blackstar, that used a high-speed bomber to launch small orbital vehicles similar to the National Aerospace Plane -- although this would be considered two-stage-to-orbit.
What Aviation Week & Space Tech has to say about it, claiming an modified XB-70 was used as the launch vehicle.
Another, more whackjob, account.
I submitted this as a story when AW&ST originally broke the story but it as rejected. I was/am fascinated by the idea that we might've had an entire space program, with astronauts working out there on a regular basis, that is basically unknown to the public. It seems pretty unlikely but there's a lot of material to support the idea.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Also known as "bucket dropping", this was the method used from the early 60's (Corona/KH-4) through the mid-70's (Big Bird/KH-9), when the digital KH-11 came online.
Best Slashdot Co
"My "argument" is that we could (and should) be doing a lot more than we are...nothing more."
You said "what a waste". That is in no way equivalent to "we should be doing more". Your own failure to elucidate your "argument" notwithstanding, the satellite was not a "waste", so your statement was false.
Why say "what a waste" when you weren't making that point?
You were trolling and got called. Now you're just backpedaling because you know you were wrong.
"Your weather satellite example disproves nothing."
Are weather satellites a waste? If not, your argument (the one you really made, not the one you're trying to change it into because I disproved the first one) is worthless. Saying "no it isn't" doesn't make you right, it makes you stubborn and reticent.
"If you want to discuss this further, I'd be happy to"
What's to discuss, you were wrong. I've demonstrated it it twice. The only thing left to discuss is why you can't admit you're wrong.
"It's too early for that sort of nonsense"
Funny, I thought the same thing when I read your "argument".
That's assuming you can neglect refraction due to air. I don't know how clean a signal you can get through the entire atmosphere.
By 'land on mars', did the teacher mean people or objects? Because the Soviets landed on Mars in 1971 though of the two probes one crashed and the other ceased transmission within moments of landing. The US made the first successful landing in 1982, and has since put several rovers on the surface, two of which are still operating.
I don't know how clean a signal you can get through the entire atmosphere.
Newer ground based telescopes can take as good a picture as the Hubble.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
They'll 'find' him, but not until a few weeks before the US presidential election.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
He's old you insesitive clod!
Whatever man. You made a dumb statement and got called on it.
You were trolling and got caught.
Nothing really left to discuss.
"I don't know why I expected better of someone who goes by the moniker of "FUCK-U-MODS"..."
OOOH an ad hominem. You might as well have written "you were right and I know it" and gotten this over with.
I never said its NOT a Race, I said It SHOULD NOT be a Race, at least not the way they are, or have been "racing" in the past, where the loser might cause nuclear warfare or something... but compition for who makes what parts, and so forth, is almost a must if you want the best products and tools to get the job done...
Really, it's not. Hypocritical, a change of policy, call it what you will, just not ironic.
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
http://www.space4peace.org/
"To stop the terrorists."
That reminds me of this girl who in 10th grade math class had to be explained that it is not the light bulb in the microwave that cooks the food. She did not accept the truth very easily. She will forever be associated with that moment in my mind.
Sadly, as I've grown older, I've discovered this is a common belief in my country (USA). Science, damnit!
Move all sig!
Only if the speaker was in a very unmodern location. The laser bounce trick only works (reliably) on single paned windows. Double paned windows, which include pretty much all modern windows, provide a buffer zone that tends to distort the vibrations that make it to the outside pane.
I never thought I'd reach 40. The world is now a far safer place than it was when I was young.
You got me thinking. The biggest difference that I can identify is the removal (or perhaps reduction) of threat to the US from the former Soviet Union.
However, is the world really a much safer place? How do we measure safety, by life expetancy? The threat of global annihilation? Do we consider it to be safer when nuclear threat is reduced? How about atrocities in places like Kenya, Darfur, Rwanda, and so on... Or the epidemic of AIDS in countries where a large percentage of the population does not reach 40.
I live in Canada, and while it's a safe place to be, I am not so sure that the world as a whole has become a safer place. The threat to one's life has taken many different shapes.
Both Viking landers (US) landed in 1976, not 1982.
davejenkins.com |
Are you sure that wasn't actually the Brownstar program? The one that uses volatile compressed organic compounds to launch giant gas bombs?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Mea culpa. I was reading the 'termination' column, not the 'arrival' column.
She was right. It's called an EZ-Bake Oven.
I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
The threat of nuclear anhialation is less, we've outlawed CFCs worldwide and are starting to get a grip on carbon emmissions and we didn't even know about these dangers to the planet a few decades ago.
How about atrocities in places like Kenya, Darfur, Rwanda, and so on? How about earlier times when such atrocities were far more common?
The AIDS epidemic can't hold a candle to heart disease and cancer, let alone diseases of the past like the "Black Death" Almost one in four people died from Bubonic plague in the quoted time.
But safe? No, we're all going to die, it's just far less likely now that we'll all die at once than a few decades ago.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Whatever floats your boat my friend.
New toothbrushes can always be had. You'll never live down the photos of you having voluntarily placed a toothbrush up your butt.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That would be the inversed square of the distance, no?
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
You need to use a laser.
And Sharks. Dont forget the Sharks.
The cold war is over, while the USA and Russia are not strategic allies by any means they are in a very steady peace right now (mainly because terrorism has taken America's mind off it and the demise of communist identity has given Russia one less thing to prove). Russia and China have made up after the Sino Soviet split, the US has recognised the People's Republic of China as legitimate, Europe is on side with anyone who wants to be friends, India is chumming up to Russia and splitting the cost of their space program, every nation who has the technology to get into space have amiable diplomatic relationships and sometimes even mutual dependence.
And it is KILLING any hope of progress.
The US and Soviet Union were locked into the greatest war humanity has ever seen. It was a great war because for most of its forty years, the bulk of the combatants were creating, rather than destroying. Two immense industrial machines competing day and night to create the best technology, the best culture, the best athletes and yes, the best weapons who's developments lead to huge leaps in civilian rocketry, computer science, material science, aerospace engineering, nuclear power, theoretical physics, chemistry and biology and many other advances. Now they've all but stopped, the United State's industrial capability has become unneeded, the Soviet Union plunged into a collapse that lasted a decade and its successors have only partially recovered from.
What are people doing instead, now national pride is not a valued commodity people are producing goods with less useful byproducts. The resources had to go somewhere and I'd conjecture they've gone into services, people eat out more, people can afford more consumer gadgets with prices undreamed of in recent years (I can't really talk since I own and love my PS3). Until fairly recent tax cuts the government used to take that excess money from the people and shoot it off into space and explore new planets to piss off the Soviets, it used to dump craploads into domestic public infrastructure and foreign aid in order to impress potential allies, all the while ironically extolling the virtues of capitalism.
The cold war was a lie, after Stalin's death there was nothing all that evil about the Soviet Union, and nothing all that evil about the US but since they believed it, they were willing to pour billions into a gigantic pissing contest that put humans on the moon. It couldn't have happened any other way. Humans are by nature lazy and self interested, they only work hard when they are threatened and they only cooperate when you can separate "us" and "them" and they can see that their interests don't lie that far comparatively from those immediately around them as compared to those far away that they hopefully won't get a chance to squabble with. Nationalistic fervour creates as much peace and harmony as it does anger provided that the parties are being enemies but not being dicks about it (killing should be wholly avoided in any war to be considered awesome for humanity).
The only way a human will ever step out onto the surface of Mars is if two huge countries enter another pointless pissing competition (hopefully with less nuclear build up this time). How about USA verses China?
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Without ever looking at what frequency a microwave operates at (I didn't know, do you?) and only the understanding of physics that light = EM radiation, lightbulbs gives off heat as IR = invisible EM radiation, microwaves = invisible EM radiation, it hardly seems that implausible. They simply Think it's some sort of special lightbulb like UV lamps or whatever that gives off EM in a different band, which happens to show some visible light. Sure, it's probably something you could learn in science sclass but I'd hardly consider anyone stupid for not knowing it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
It's "Oh woe is us!" attitudes like yours that make *me* misanthropic.
What are these wondrous other things we could be doing in space? Ever consider that if they were really practical and provided the return you thought they did, someone would be doing them? I work in the space industry, and most people have no damned idea was a pain in the arse it is to do anything.
I try to avoid making judgments of one's intellectual capacity (since it's so subjective and amorphous)...
But in a developed nation, never inquiring about how a microwave works is, just plain ignorant.
Move all sig!
The Soviet Almuz space spy stations, which were disguised as the Salyut research stations the USSR was also launching at the time, had a much smaller primary objective than the Hubble. There is no way they could have matched the Hubble's angular resolution. That's just journalists looking for some handy example of another telescope in space.
Resolution is limited by distance from the object, objective or mirror size, and wavelength. At visible wavelengths, for a satellite in a 500 km orbit with a 2.4 m diameter primary mirror like the Hubble, the best resolution possible is about 6 inches. Diffraction prevents you from doing any better (consider the famous single-slit experiment for a simple example). This optical limit has been established and understood for over a century, and the same physics apply for NASA, the Russians, the Air Force, and even consumer digital cameras.
Because of this, even though the Air Force is extremely protective of all details about their spy satellites, even about what orbit they're in (although some nerdy spotters have done a good job of tracking them), we still can get a pretty good idea of their capabilities. Both the Hubble and the Keyhole spy satellites were built by Lockheed and transported from assembly to launch facilities in similar containers. That constrains their size to be pretty close to that of the Hubble. In fact, there's some decent speculation that the basic geometry of the Hubble was copied from the Keyholes, meaning they would also have 2.4 m diameter mirrors.
So we know they can't count fleas on your dog, since they can only distinguish between objects 6 inches apart. This isn't the same as actually identifying objects 6 inches across (no, they can't read license plates). Supposedly it's good enough to distinguish between men and women based on proportion (is that Pamela Anderson?). It might be possible to do very slightly better using computers to compare multiple images of the same target, but the practicallity would be limited.
They also can't look through your roof. Visible light doesn't go through roofs. I believe some far infrared does, but because of the longer wavelength, the resolution is probably somewhere on the order of the size of the house itself, and the signal would no doubt be lost amidst the heat of the house.
The 6" resolution is also only under ideal conditions. That means calm, clear skies (incidentally, the Soviets liked to build smokey factories next to their submarine and strategic bomber bases...go figure) and filming straight down. Because changing the orbit to go directly over a target means burning precious fuel, a lot of shots are made obliquely, increasing the effective distance to the target.
Incidentally, most of the imagery from the 60's and early 70's was declassified in 2002. This confirmed that the early satellites had a resolution of about 20 feet (enough to spot airplanes, perhaps identify ships) and later versions of Corona could resolve at about 7 feet (spot the movements of military units, mobile nuclear missile launchers, identify planes). The first satellites with 6 inch resolution or close to that probably launched in the late 70's with improvements since mainly in guidance, manueverability, and low light sensitivity rather than resolution. Being already able to resolve people, it's not cost effective to go bigger from space on those rare occassions that you need to, when typically you can send in a Predator drone or a special forces team for a fraction of the price.
By the way, the Federation of American Scientists has an online primer on reconnaissance imagery. It's pretty interesting and shows samples of photos at differing resolutions. It really illustrates just how good 6" is from a strategic analysis viewpoint. At that scale, a good analyst can even tell what kind of missiles are hanging from a parked fighter jet (The plane in the sample pictures is MiG-25. The missiles are probably AA-6 Acrids).
because they already did that to us.
If there's ever another large conflict.. not only will so many people die, but we're so dependent on technology and satellites, and they'll be so easy to take out. Look at the undersea cables, then a couple missiles into space.. byebye international communications.
Tech/Reviews blog
Thats poor. The teacher did say "it was a trick question", and literally speaking, she was right - it satisfies the criteria.
Its like, a car crashed somewhere between LA and NY, where do they bury the survivors?
Man, the guys at Illuminati Headquarters must have the most [i]awsome[/i] conversations.
"So, this Bin Laden fellow doesn't actually exist, you say?"
"That's right. All a propaganda fiction, I'm afraid."
"Won't that make us look like incompetent douchebags when we fail to find him?"
"Don't worry! We'll just [i]pretend[/i] we've found him--more of that propaganda fiction, you know--and look slightly less like incompetent douchebags."
". . . "
"And it gets even better! The longer we wait to 'find' him, [i]the more we'll look like incompetent douchebags[/i]!"
"Truly, the mind boggles at our devious cleverness."
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Space weapons ban you!
If you don't support our distorted view of corporate law you are a terr'ist. Its gotten so bad many countries have implemented laws regarding copyright and IP so they don't have to put up with the stupidity thats damaging global trade being pushed by the US.
I thought the Soviets and the USA were still racing around the Solar system in hovertanks fighting over lumps of biometal?
Um, No...you're thinking about someone else, I don't wear tin foil hats, just cling-film gloves
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Yes, instead of encouraging creative thinking the teacher crushed it by humiliating the student - SNAFU.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't know why; it sounds like a perfectly reasonable answer to a very poorly worded question. It sounds like the sort of thing I might have answered to be a smartass.
Unless you have one space unit that has multiple mirrors that are folded up during launch, and expand to form one large one in orbit. The other option is to send up two space units and have them join together in orbit to form a binocular telescope.
That is probably the cleverest response.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Really? And in the same spectrum ranges? Could you name one of these telescopes for me?
What are these wondrous other things we could be doing in space?
I mentioned just a few examples here.
Ever consider that if they were really practical and provided the return you thought they did, someone would be doing them?
Ever consider that the projects require a substantial NRE? Ever consider that the only entities capable of footing such a bill are either a) too rich to care, b) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, or c) both a & b?
I work in the space industry, and most people have no damned idea was a pain in the arse it is to do anything.
Well, with that attitude, I'm glad you didn't work in the space industry in the 60s...
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I hate that question, when I was first asked the question I remember thinking, "Not enough information." By saying, 'where do you bury', you're implying that the survivors of the car crash died (probably elsewhere, definitely due to a different cause).
Only the US and the USSR had enough nukes to destroy all life except cockroaches. Now only the US does, and IINM its stockpiles are slowly being drawn down as well.
You can't destroy the world with a handful of nukes. The US and USSR had thousands of them each.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
What I am curious about is why we let "skylab" fall into earth's atmosphere -- or just about any satellite for that matter.
I know things break, wear-out, past their lifetime, etc. But getting things up into orbit costs huge sums of money and takes alot of "energy" resources.
Would it be possible or practical, that instead of just letting every retired space object fall to earth, couldn't they be given a nudge to a higher, fixed orbit that wouldn't decay? Say we reserve some "band" in earth's orbit -- considerably farther out than the current space station, where we could "park" all the old things we've shot up but no longer use? *Eventually*, we may have the ability to re-use space-junk. Initially, maybe parts, but possibly for recycling the metal for inclusion in distant future space platform plans?
Could it ever become cheaper to retool junk in space than to shoot up replacement satellites? If it's a possibility, and if it's not of major cost, is it possible to save more "junk" and sorta store it in a common orbit -- heck -- even collected in one mass -- like a giant junkyard floating in permanent orbit around the planet. If no other use is needed, maybe shells of the satellites could be used as increased "inert" shielding against space radiation or reflective material for solar collection?
Maybe we'll eventually get a space elevator up and running and getting things into space won't cost as much, but right now, just seems short-sighted to send End-of-Life'd satellites into the atmosphere to be burnt up.
With adaptive optics ,interferometry, and 5x the diameter, I'm pretty sure the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_telescopes/%7CKecks can get pictures at least as good as the Hubble, at least in visible light, while the Spitzer can exceed the Hubble in infrared.
Sorry: With adaptive optics, interferometry, and 5x the diameter, I'm pretty sure the Kecks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keck_telescopes) can get pictures at least as good as the Hubble, at least in visible light, while the Spitzer can exceed the Hubble in infrared.
Thanks for the reply, it's certainly impressive. I wonder how for we can push the next space based telescope. Onwards to the past!