Slashdot Mirror


Tsunami Warning From Space?

Peter bayley writes "Tell me I'm crazy or tell me someone has already done it — but wouldn't a satellite equipped with a laser be a great way to warn people of tsunamis? I was pondering how to warn people in remote coastal areas once evidence of a seismic incident has been received by the monitoring stations that have now been set up following the large Boxing Day tsunami. The idea is to illuminate the areas that are likely to be at risk with a bright (but not dangerous) light. People would be told to head to higher ground if such a light appears in the sky. Put the satellite in a geosynchronous orbit. Make it tunable so that different colors can convey different meanings. You would be able to warn anyone, anywhere they can see the sky. The laser could be directed to illuminate only those areas at risk, skipping unnecessary areas to save power. Power could be varied so that it is visible day and night and through cloud (raise the power where the satellite detects cloud cover). I emailed some people at NOAA about it but they said it would stand on too many toes by circumventing local emergency service organizations in the various countries. I replied that countries could easily opt out, in which case the laser would be turned off for those countries — but received no further reply. Anyway, I thought the massed minds of Slashdot would relish the chance to demolish my idea."

351 comments

  1. Satellite? by dov_0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Better a shark with a fricken laser - they're right where the action is!!!

    --
    sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    1. Re:Satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Satellite? by Rayzed · · Score: 1

      I specifically came to this thread to search for the word shark. I appreciate that you did not disappoint me!

  2. I don't think so by tsa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not an expert on tsunamis but I understood that tsunamis start as very low waves that roll over the face of the ocean for many many miles before reching land. Only where the sea gets less deep they turn into the ferocious waves that destroy everything. So even if you could see them then with a satellite you would still be warned late.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:I don't think so by jaxxa · · Score: 1

      I think that the idea is to use the satellite as a Warning after an earthquake has been detected by seismic sensors, as they do now. Not actually finding a Tsunami. But yes I think you are right in that they could not be used to detect the wave.

    2. Re:I don't think so by tsa · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're right, I only read the first sentence of the question before replying, so my reply was totally off topic. That will probably cost me some karma.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I was thinking the exact same thing.

      But isn't the other problem that this warning could be easily be overseen? Like when people sleep or when there is a really sunny/cloudy day?

      Just some seismic sensors in the sea with some kind of network connection and sirens on the other end should do just fine.

    4. Re:I don't think so by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be a little cheaper, and a bit more sure way to communicate with the locals if they just issued sat phones to the local government?

    5. Re:I don't think so by OrangeCatholic · · Score: 1

      Well the issue is that beachgoers in particular are disconnected from the net, so sending out a text warning isn't going to work. You can have the lifeguards call everyone in, but lifeguards only watch the swimming area - not the whole beach - and I don't think a country like Bangladesh (notoriously wet) has lifeguards on every streetcorner.

      Tsunamis may take hours to reach their destination, but given the vagaries of the decision-making process, the actual warning might be just a half-hour. And in that time, you may have to move several miles inland to be safe.

    6. Re:I don't think so by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      No technology can remove the need for a good disaster plan. Any person on /. should know this like the back of their hand.

      A simple emergency plan for such cases would alleviate most if not all of those concerns. You will always have remote people that can't be reached in an emergency, but any beaches that are popular with the local population would be easily targeted by such plans. After all, they only have to worry about coastlines in such cases.

      Notifying the local government first would be the correct course. The local government could then implement whatever emergency plan that may be, whether it's sirens which can be heard from a very far distance, flashing lights/flares, local notices via local communications net, or whatever is needed.

    7. Re:I don't think so by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

      Well the issue is that beachgoers in particular are disconnected from the net

      Have you been to a beach recently? :)

      Does anyone know if the GSM broadcast message ability is ever used for emergencies like this? It's possible to push messages directly to all GSM phones in a region.

    8. Re:I don't think so by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      It would be a lot simpler and cost effective just to set off a loud siren like an air raid siren. Thats how they do it now: simple, and everyone can hear it day or night and knows what it means.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    9. Re:I don't think so by jc42 · · Score: 1

      ... just to set off a loud siren like an air raid siren. Thats how they do it now: simple, and everyone can hear it day or night and knows what it means.

      Well, now; I wouldn't make that claim. Just a month ago, for example, I was driving around in a city about 1200 miles from home, in the middle of the day, and a loud siren went off. I had no clue as to what it might mean. It wasn't near a shore; there was no threatening weather anywhere nearby; there were no large planes flying overhead. And the few hundred people I could see, who were probably mostly locals, were obviously ignoring it. So either they didn't know either, or they knew and were ignoring it. I did stop and ask one person, who just shrugged, said something like "Dunno; it goes off every day at around this time and we all just ignore it."

      A century or more back, loud bells and/or sirens were fairly commonly used to publicly announce things like the time of day. This made sense when watches were fairly expensive, and helped organize things in factories and the like. But these days, that's not common, because watches and clocks are cheap (and it's getting hard to be out of sight of one).

      So it might take quite a bit of publicity to get a population aware of the meaning of a siren. It would be especially difficult in the vicinity of a good beach, where much of the population could be vacationers and tourists. And standardizing such things would be difficult in much of the world.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    10. Re:I don't think so by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      So it might take quite a bit of publicity to get a population aware of the meaning of a siren. It would be especially difficult in the vicinity of a good beach, where much of the population could be vacationers and tourists. And standardizing such things would be difficult in much of the world.

      How about:

      Civil defense sirens blared in each county of Hawaii starting at 6 a.m. Hawaiian time as residents and tourists calmly began leaving their coastline homes and resorts and moving to higher ground. It was the first widespread evacuation for a tsunami in 16 years. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Chile_Earthquake/tsunami-warning-hawaii-islands-brace-waves-hit/story?id=9964404

      Seems like most everyone knew what it meant..

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    11. Re:I don't think so by LandGator · · Score: 1

      If former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin, a former telecom exec, could not figure out his satphones needed to be charged to work in the days before Katrina, well, what are the odds you'd get satphones charged in the 3rd world?

      Instead, until http://www.jpaerospace.com/ perfects the aerostat station, build a series of Sky Pup-based http://skypup.wikispaces.com/ really cheap drones with Arduino-type autopilots http://diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844:BlogPost:35640 and huge honkin' loudspeakers.

      The Hawaii wing of the Civil Air Patrol uses manually-piloted Cessna 172s for the same mission, but Cessnas and pilot training are both spendy, whereas Sky Pups can be locally produced with minimal tools.

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  3. Wave height by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was under the impression tsunami waves are not that high until they pile up at shallow depths, out at sea a ship can pass right over one without noticing.

    I could be wrong though.

    PS: I'd use radar instead of a laser, the former goes through clouds.

    1. Re:Wave height by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFS. Not detection. Notification.

    2. Re:Wave height by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  4. Cheaper solution by mhajicek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to hand out emergency radios that wait in a low power standby mode until a certain signal is received?

    1. Re:Cheaper solution by will_die · · Score: 2, Informative

      And easy in training people in what to do or what a laser from space would look like.
      Just going with the old Communist fixed frequency radios or similar to the ones the US dropped during Korea or Vietnam would be cheaper and provide more and better information.

    2. Re:Cheaper solution by ipquickly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just give them cell-phones that can do that instead.
      Make each cell phone have an emergency receiver.

      The phone is more likely to be close to the person.
      It has a greater chance of being charged.
      People will not ignore it.

      And the best part is that cellphones are spreading even in poorer countries.
      Implementation costs would be minimal, just make sure every cellphone receives an emergency band.

      (and being waterproof with a solar charger on the back would be nice too)

    3. Re:Cheaper solution by the_womble · · Score: 5, Informative

      Living in one of the countries affected by the Boxing Day Asian Tsunnami, the problem was not lack of a way to reach people, but the lack of a mechanism to pass the message along. IN particular the people who had the warning, said they did not know how to contact the governments of some countries (which shows a worrying lack of resourcefulness, but that is another subject).

      As you say, mobile phone penetration is easily high enough to work, but you will need to guard against hoax calls. A designated number of warnings would have to be well publicised.

      Radio will work, but you hardly need to distribute them specially: just ask all radio and TV broadcasters to broadcast an emergency message. It may not work that well late in the night. For times like that vehicles with big speakers on them driving through towns with loud warnings should work well.

      The laser idea is stupid: there are all kinds of lights in the sky to confuse people: I remember a huge number of people seeing "UFOs" in London in 1990 or 91 because someone said there was one on a popular radio station, so people started looking up and seeing all kinds of things they normally never noticed.

    4. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I reviewed a prototype for a mobile phone four days ago that would be perfect for this.

      With mobile devices still pretty big and requiring something to stow them in, this company is trying to fill a niche market with a mobile device that's completely voice driven and pretty small as far as phones go. You don't actually stuff it in a purse or pocket, but rather pin it on your shirt like military insignia. They are offering integration with the audio system in your house for advanced features that require a computer. If your in the house you simple call up the system by saying a keyword (default is "Computer", which I think is too common a word, but hey, I'm no Vulcan). If you're not in the house you simply touch the phone on your chest and call up people by name.

      I think this would be perfect since you would be wearing it the whole time. And somehow when I wear it I feel.... complete.

    5. Re:Cheaper solution by infalliable · · Score: 1

      Yes, the cell phone based solutions are much better.

      The dedicated satellite solutions will never happen. They're way too expensive, high technical risk, have a single point of failure, and are politically more tenuous (primarily, who will pay the billions for it?). The use of a high powered flashlight would also REALLY be hard to pass through (not to mention the size of it makes it impractical even if the international political entities could get behind it).

      A much more feasible solution is bouys connected to a radio or cell phone communications system. You can put a man in the middle (such as local emergency services) if wanted as well. It can easily be done for less money and is many times more robust.

    6. Re:Cheaper solution by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Even cheaper than that, using existing cell phones and a "broadcast" message from the towers. No need to make new hardware for that.

      Heck you could just send a mass SMS to everyone along the coast.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    7. Re:Cheaper solution by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      low power standby mode until a certain signal is received?

      In other words switched on.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    8. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just have sharks with frikkin' laser beams on their heads!

    9. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... just make sure every cellphone receives an emergency band.

      How long until the idle time of the emergency band is used for advertisements?

    10. Re:Cheaper solution by itoledo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here in Chile, everyone rushed to call their relatives when the earthquake came. The three main provides of GSM telephony collapsed, because of the huge number of people calling, oversaturating all the base stations. Also, the lights went off, and most towers shut down. Almost no one could place a call, and certainly not at the epicenter.

      So I think that sat phones are a better idea for tsunami warnings.

    11. Re:Cheaper solution by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Of course the laser idea is stupid! How is the shark going to swim in space? I'm pretty sure they need water to breathe, too!

      --
      Be relentless!
    12. Re:Cheaper solution by socsoc · · Score: 1, Troll

      Obviously the lights went out because the cell towers were saturated. I didn't realize AT&T served Chile...

    13. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The laser idea is most deifinitely *not* stupid; Most of the time it will be inactive sitting up there. I want to know who is going to be the first to hack into it, Since that will be the best Disco Beach Party *EVER*. Or, with a directional speaker, this could be used as a MESSAGE FROM GOD prank. WIth the right focal adustment, the military might vaporize targets from space.... Maybe this is already in orbit and just needs to be retasked.

    14. Re:Cheaper solution by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't it be cheaper to hand out emergency radios that wait in a low power standby mode until a certain signal is received?

      Not to mention more effective. The people who were affected by the Boxing Day Tsunami didn't know what it meant when the ocean suddenly receded. How will they know what a blinking light from space means?

      With a radio, you greatly reduce the chances of the message being misinterpreted. I fear this satellite may become worshiped by some isolated people as the great God of the sea.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    15. Re:Cheaper solution by natehoy · · Score: 1

      No worries. We'll use a land shark.

      "Candygram!"

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    16. Re:Cheaper solution by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I want a Star Trek communicator

      Summarised that for you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the way to finance the free phones, actually..

    18. Re:Cheaper solution by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Even if you have a good warning system, people are stupid. We had a tsunami warning for the east coast of Australia after the recent earthquake in Chile and every idiot with a surfboard headed to the beach.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    19. Re:Cheaper solution by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Hey it could be a once in a lifetime wave ;).

      --
    20. Re:Cheaper solution by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the laser idea is stupid. What if I'm sleeping?

      Here in Chicagoland we use sirens for dangerous natural events. Sirens are cheap, work day and night, and are hard to misinterpret. In a worst case scenario, you know to turn on the TV or radio and find out what's wrong. Also, I'd expect they're particularly useful in a place where everyone lives in a tin hut or plywood shack.

      Sometimes old tech just makes more sense.

    21. Re:Cheaper solution by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      How about a big loud sound like a siren? Been working that way for years.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    22. Re:Cheaper solution by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Even cheaper than that is a SIREN.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    23. Re:Cheaper solution by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Just give them cell-phones that can do that instead.
      Make each cell phone have an emergency receiver.

      The phone is more likely to be close to the person.
      It has a greater chance of being charged.
      People will not ignore it.

      And the best part is that cellphones are spreading even in poorer countries.
      Implementation costs would be minimal, just make sure every cellphone receives an emergency band.

      (and being waterproof with a solar charger on the back would be nice too)

      Ob XKCD

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    24. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      zomg! g2g tsunami is

    25. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is indeed extremely impractical, bordering on stupid.

      The power required exceeds a large city's output and that's neglecting the power required for penetrating clouds during a bright tropical afternoon.... it's just completely inane.

    26. Re:Cheaper solution by kheldan · · Score: 1

      Since all cellphones are now digital, why can't their firmware be written to accept an emergency broadcast call from the carrier's network? Granted it would creep the hell out of most people to have everyone's cellphones ringing simultaneously, but it sure would get everyone's attention. There are enough people will cellphones that people without them (or had them turned off at the time) would hear from everyone else about the impending emergency.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    27. Re:Cheaper solution by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Living in Coastal Alaska where tsunamis are a constant concern, authorities have come up with a magical, hi tech solution: sirens. Ear splitting sirens stationed along the shore line. They are triggered by local authorities who get information from the National Tsunami Center in Hawaii.

      They get your attention. Bonus points for use in alien invasions.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    28. Re:Cheaper solution by DiegoBravo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly the same happened in Perú in our last big earthquake (2008). The epicenter was about 200 km south of the capital (Lima), but nobody in all the region could make a call after several hours (afterward there was a government investiagtion to the carriers, pure blah, blah..) Cell phones are useless at least in standard commercial installations or configurations.

      Interestingly, the DSL services remained operative (at least in the capital) and it was the only way to communicate with peers.

    29. Re:Cheaper solution by bobs666 · · Score: 1

      First the FCC needs to find some channels that it has not all ready sold. Then it would be nice of them to give the bandwidth to the people.

      No point in buying cellphones unless there is a way to use them.

      The roof top routers that make the short range of cell phones work can have an emergency over ride, much like the old TV bands use to allow. You know the test that are run from time to time.

    30. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pony Express. Optical Telegraph. Electrical Telegraph. Phone. Fax. Cellphone. Wireless. GPS.

      Geocentric. LEO. High-altitude Baloons. High-altitude UAVs.

      Direct Terrain Radar. Side Scanning Terrain Radar. Densitometers. Spectrum Terrain Imaging. (Land or sea).

      Commercial aviation.

      Waves are rather continuous entities.
      Buoys can cover an ~11Km radius line-of-sight. 22Km diameter. Radar ? Horizon sensors? IR lasers? Plus accelerometers and inclinometers, of course.
      Placing 1 every 100Km means 10 to the 100Km. And, you could still make them balloon anchoring buoys, increasing LOS radius to 20Km or 40Km. With only 30m to 60m of height. Recognition software ought to be feasible.

    31. Re:Cheaper solution by LandGator · · Score: 1
      Cellphones *are* radio receivers. Instead, use the hardware better; require implementation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_Broadcast Cell Broadcast, which worked well for this purpose in the past:

      Cell Broadcast messaging has a number of features that make it particularly appropriate for emergency purposes:
      It is not as affected by traffic load; therefore, it may be usable during a disaster when load spikes tend to crash networks, as the 7 July 2005 London bombings showed. Another example was during the Tsunami catastrophe in Asia. Dialog GSM, an operator in Sri Lanka was able to provide ongoing emergency information to its subscribers, to warn of incoming waves, to give news updates, to direct people to supply and distribution centres, and even to arrange donation collections using Celltick's Cell Broadcast Center, based on Cell Broadcast Technology.
      Cell broadcast is widely deployed since year 2008. In Europe, most handsets do have cell broadcast capability, and the major European operators have deployed the technology in their networks.
      Cell Broadcast is a mobile technology that allows messages (up to 15 pages of up to 93 characters) to be broadcast to all mobile handsets and similar devices within a designated geographical area. The broadcast range can be varied, from a single cell to the entire network.

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
    32. Re:Cheaper solution by LandGator · · Score: 1

      Such firmware is used already by most cellphone manufacturers. See Cell Broadcast in WIkipedia. It's a matter of will on the part of telecom agencies to require it and on the part of emergency authorities to implement it.

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
  5. Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, because the amount of energy, in the form of light, would be immense. You're talking at least 10 watts per square meter, much more during the daytime. Tsunamis can affect hundreds of miles of coastline.

    By my impromptu math, you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area. So a medium-size nuclear reactor in the sky.

    How about, instead, we just use these devices that transmit sound and vision via lower-frequency light, aka radio and television? Cheap transistor radios are much, MUCH cheaper than launching a reactor into the sky.

    1. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by burisch_research · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct.

      This idea will never fly. Ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    2. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So a medium-size nuclear reactor in the sky.

      Why hasn't anybody done this yet?

    3. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Leperous · · Score: 1

      Right, and if we could launch a powerful enough laser into space, I think some people (i.e. the Chinese, Russians, in fact anyone in the world) would be very unhappy about the potential for this thing to be turned into a weapon. I'm trying to remember what program/website has a satirical idea about using such a device to shoot the homeless.

    4. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by j35ter · · Score: 1

      Actually, they would happily send their own high power laser "Tsunami Warning Systems" into orbit, aimed at Washington...a friendly gesture towards their U.S. friends ... to warn them of a possible tsunami, of course!

      --
      Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
    5. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by fractoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about instead of assuming that we need to simultaneously light up hundreds of square miles of land, we assume that we only need to make the land 'blink'? Using your figure of 10 watts per square meter, and assume a 0.1 second flash every 3 seconds. That would require 1/30th the power, and it would only be necessary to transmit the warning for maybe 15 minutes at a time. A 10kWh battery pack should do the trick, and can trickle-charge from solar panels between tsunamis. In fact, the figures are even better because the tsunami would hit different pieces of coastline at different times.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by pspahn · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'll have my laser, Chris, and you'll have it by mid-May.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    7. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by WORMSS · · Score: 1

      You are not allowed to have nuclear devices in space by international law.
      Its why we don't already have them on ISS.

    8. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Zumbs · · Score: 4, Funny

      you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area.

      You are sure it is not 1.21 GigaWatts? If we just could find a way to pump a lighthing bolt into space, we would be able to go back to the ... no, wait, wrong movie ...

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    9. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by pspahn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does the laser have to be in the sky? Is ground-basing and bouncing it around okay? A laser cage would probably also help in asteroid defense someday.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    10. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by WORMSS · · Score: 1

      If we could also slow the satellite down to 88 miles then maybe the Tsunami would never happen.

    11. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By my impromptu math, you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area. So a medium-size nuclear reactor in the sky.

      someone please tag this "1.21 jiggawatts"

    12. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by dattaway · · Score: 1

      Don't many satellites have isotope powered batteries?

    13. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Informative

      no.
      The testing of nuclear weapons in space is banned.
      Nuclear reactors are fine.

      The reason we don't see them on the ISS is the people who too terrified of anything with the word nuclear attached to think rationally.

    14. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by EdZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A nuclear battery is not a nuclear reactor. And nuclear reactors are not prohibited: they're just deemed to risky to launch (and need to be parked in a long term high orbit, or risk raining down reactor bit that don't burn up), and generally are too large and heavy to be cost effective. It's nuclear weapons that are prohibited in space.

    15. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by burisch_research · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd still need enormously powerful lasers, and sufficient power generation on the ground. We're talking about space-based weapon class power here, and honestly politicians would be far more excited about the offensive capabilities of such a system than 'merely' saving civilian lives.

      A slightly more realistic approach would be to use massive space-based tinted mirrors to reflect sunlight toward the ground. You'd still need truly enormous mirrors for this to work at all -- $$$$$$$. It's not gonna fly.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    16. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by r00t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope.

      The USSR launched plenty of full-blown reactors, and RTGs are still popular.

      You're not supposed to park ground-attack devices (like ICBMs) in space. Of course, if you imagine that Russia hasn't done that for decades, you're pretty gullible.

    17. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by xous · · Score: 1

      The Russian's have several nuclear devices in space: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf82.html

    18. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by xous · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure someone is screwing up the math. Aren't you forgetting all the crap in the atmosphere that's going to diffuse the light?

    19. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      *also for the ISS a full scale nuclear reactor would be utterly OTT.
      Some kind of RTG makes much more sense for small scale stuff like that.

    20. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was going to mod this up but i couldn't find +1 nerdy in the dropdown

    21. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1

      I think that the treaty in question bans Nuclear WEAPONS in space. Both the US and USSR have launched satellites, etc that have used nuclear power sources.

    22. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1

      In fact, it is the Outer Space Treaty, and it bans nuclear weapons installed in Earth orbit or on the Moon, but it does not ban nuclear weapons in space entirely.

    23. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by msauve · · Score: 1

      Leave it to an AC. It's spelled "giga," it's pronounced "jigga."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    24. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not true, the only reason why you're not able to have small nuclear reactors in space is that it's a logistical nightmare. Most of the scenarios that keep people up at night just don't apply to satellites. A nuclear reactor so small as to be capable of being launched into orbit is going to have so little in the way of nuclear material that it's questionable if even a direct hit to an urban area would be anymore dangerous than for any of our current satellites doing so.

      Remember the fuel and materials we already use are toxic meaning that we already have to be mindful of a satellite coming back and dumping fuel over a populated areas. Not to mention the debris. Which is why it's just a ban on nuclear weapons in space, not nuclear devices in general.

    25. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by mpe · · Score: 1

      And nuclear reactors are not prohibited: they're just deemed to risky to launch (and need to be parked in a long term high orbit, or risk raining down reactor bit that don't burn up)

      If such a reactor does "burn up" all you've done is to distribute pollution throughout the atmosphere.

    26. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if you have a laser this powerful, why the fuck are you using it for a tsunami warning system? Go demonstrate fusion or take over the world instead.

    27. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          My impromptu came up with a similar number.

          The sun is awful bright, so the laser would have to be (awful bright + some) * the area covered. :)

          The more practical answer is to have warning sirens in populated areas, so they would know to go to higher ground quick. Sirens are an awful lot cheaper than a network of specialized satellites, and hoping people noticing that the ground is lit up by a funny light *and* hoping people don't look up and blind themselves before they get a chance to evacuate.

       

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    28. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          If I recall correctly, there's already added "background" radiation all over the planet from a satellite or space station reentering in the 1970's. We've already (kinda) learned from that mistake.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    29. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by cnaumann · · Score: 1

      At 10W / m^2 it would light up the sand! You don't need anywhere near that amount just to see a "light in the sky". You can see stars, they don't put out 10W/m^s.

      That said, your basic ground-based siren is the way to go.

    30. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by socsoc · · Score: 1

      OTT? RTG? My BFF Jill doesn't even know what those mean OMG.

    31. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by tibit · · Score: 1

      It's not about average power. Most of your design must be scaled for peak power, because that will be the actual operating power. Average power comes into play only in sustained heat removal. You still don't wan't anything to locally melt, mind you!

        A "10kWh" battery pack would be hard pressed to deliver gigawatts of peak power. Maybe a 1MWh battery pack, configured for high voltage output, could do that...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    32. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by socsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to remember what program/website has a satirical idea about using such a device to shoot the homeless.

      Was it MS Office?

    33. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by fractoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right about average vs. peak power, but you've got the wrong end of the stick. Specifically with semiconductor light sources (my particular experience was with high-intensity LEDs but should apply to diode lasers too) you overdrive them by ridiculous amounts as long as the average power stays the same. I've put half an amp through a 30mA LED for 50 microseconds without causing any damage.

      Anyway the bulk of my argument was that you wouldn't need jigger-ma-whats of power because you wouldn't need to constantly illuminate the whole target area. Instead, you'd have a 100m x 100m illuminated spot scanning around the target area at 1km/sec. By my calculations, assuming that the original estimate of 1GW was accurate, a 100ms pulse every 3 seconds over the whole area gives a 1/30 duty cycle, or about 30kW sustained. That's well within the limits of LiPoly batteries. A 10kW battery pack can output 40kW for 15 minutes without too much trouble, most modern lithium batteries are designed for 10C or higher discharge rates.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    34. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily think the idea is a good idea, but your criticism needs criticism. :-)

      You do not need a gigawatt of laser light to light up the area. You are presuming that the entire area is lit up at once. You could cut that by 90% by only lighting up any given square foot for 100 milliseconds out of every second. 100 megawatts is certainly still a whole ton of power. But it's a lot less than 1 gigawatt.

    35. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fail it. "giga" (10^9) is in fact pronounced giga.

    36. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You can see stars, they don't put out 10W/m^s.

      I'll probably get modded down (or at least [citation needed]ed) for going against the hive consensus but here goes. There's this thing called daylight...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Be careful though, that little standard pink hoverboard won't work for surfing the Tsunami. If you want to run on water, you need power.

    38. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't. Those things are built so tough they deorbit completely intact.

    39. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by bradbury · · Score: 1

      One doesn't need to illuminate every single coastline. One would get most of the benefit by illuminating high population density regions, regions likely to generate larger waves due to offshore slopes, etc. The calculations could be done in advance based on historical records, known likely origination sources for the quakes, etc. The laser beam steering technology exists (due to research in targeted laser beam weapons).

      One also doesn't need a nuclear reactor. The Japanese are planning to launch a solar power satellite in the next decade or two (the general technology for SPS has been around for decades). Alternatively one could simply use a moderately large array of solar cells and dump the energy into a capacitor bank (or a high temperature or gas pressure vessel that could dump the energy into a turbine on demand). It is worth noting that for highly redundant solid state components, they could be launched using the recently proposed undersea "rail-gun" (est. cost $1-2B?) on an ongoing basis and assembled in-orbit (presumably using robots). No need for human involvement in space, human rated space vehicles, etc.

      However, for this to be a "serious" proposal, one would want to cost-out a comparison with a semi-permanent high altitude solar powered UAV (50-100,000 ft). Since they could remain above critical areas and would involve extremely intermittent signals (perhaps using both radio and "light" [1]) and could receive signals faster than satellites at higher altitudes. There has to be a tradeoff between satellites, balloons and UAVs but I've never seen an analysis.

      1. Note that these would also be a good alternate solution to Telco/3G/4G cell/Cable/Fiber/WiMax Internet access (the more competition the lower the prices are likely to be) but the power demands are greater due to the "always on" requirements.

    40. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1

      Leave it to an AC. It's spelled "giga," it's pronounced "jigga."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLorean_time_machine#Fuel

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    41. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      You're vastly overestimating the necessary brightness of the warning. 10W per square meter is way in excess of what's necessary.

      We can see satellites just fine and they're only a dozen or so square meters and they're just reflecting the sun.

      At the very least we could power a laser for a a few minutes blinking as bright as the sun reflecting off of a satellite.

    42. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by KangKong · · Score: 1

      Better yet, a network of swallows flying around the globe with different colored cloth, or perhaps even text messages!

    43. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Xeno+man · · Score: 1

      And your vastly underestimating both the size of the planet and what a warning system requires. For a warning system to work you don't need to see it, you need to notice it. There is enough crap in the sky as it is with planes, balloons, meteorites, northern and southern lights, planets and maybe some ufo's. How often do you stop to look at a jumbo jet flying overhead. Sure you can see it but if your busy you probably don't notice it most of the time. A proper warning system needs you to stop in your tracks, drop what your doing and to go to safety.

    44. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by hankwang · · Score: 1

      You're talking at least 10 watts per square meter, much more during the daytime.

      I am reading this 10 W/m2 all the time in this discussion. It might be a reasonable estimate if the idea is that you visible illuminate the surface. However, with a clear sky, such a light source would look like someone was shining a laser pointer into your eye (e.g. 1 mW laser beam through your 0.25 cm2 pupil = 40 W/m2). You need much less power to make a very noticeable blinking star on the sky in the middle of the day, e.g. 10 mW/m2. Of course, if you flash that light with a 1:10 duty cycle over a 10x1000 km area, yous still need a couple of megawatts of power, but at least it is less infeasible than it may have seemed at first.

      Of course, it won't help against tsunamis during a clouded sky.

    45. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Unless you're an actor unfamiliar with the metric system who decides it's cooler to mispronounce things for artistic effect in a bad 1980s movie!

    46. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      From the quantity of material in those RTG's I can't imagine it measurably increasing the background radiation over the whole planet even if one broke up into a fine mist.

      Some of them have come down but they built them amazingly tough with a lot of shielding- to the point that the pellets can survive reentry without burning up or breaking apart.

    47. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          So you want me to find it for you, huh?

          Look up Cosmos 954 (or Kosmos 954 or 954). It had 110 lbs of Uranium and other byproducts of the fission reaction onboard. It reentered improperly in January 1978.

          Skylab reentered improperly in July 1979, with a nuclear payload.

          Cosmos 1402 almost suffered the same fate, but was able to eject it's reactor core to a safe altitude so it would completely burn up on reentry.
         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    48. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And yet all the deep space probes are nuclear powered, as were the Lunar Rovers and some of the science stations on the Moon. Oh and Viking 1 and 2. Oh and the next Mars rover. Not sure of how many the Soviets put up, at least some of the "tanks on the Moon" had RTGs.

    49. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      OTT = over the top...I don't get RTG though.

    50. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      NASA claims 28 U.S. space missions have safely flown radioisotope energy sources since 1961

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Space

      Here is the re-entering mission, Kosmos 954, yes it added some background, but to part of Canada, not to the whole planet.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

      Some of the newer Kosmos have nuclear reactors
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_1818
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor

    51. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      And if you think they don't have missiles waiting to put FOBS up on a moments notice...

    52. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by blair1q · · Score: 1

      The idea of "10 W/m^2" is utterly naff. The walls, floor, and ceiling of my office are about 60 m^2 total, and they're lit to near daylight by about 50 W of fluorescent tubes. Way more light than is necessary for this effect, at a small power expense.

      To see a blinking light you need to paint a pupil with a few dozen photons. Sirius, one of the brightest stars in the sky, hits the Earth in about 0.1 microwatt/m^2, and a square meter is about 10^4 pupils in size. A laser can direct its entire beam into a smaller area, meaning you can light up a single pupil with a 10^-11 Watt beam. Diffuse it slightly to make it easier to scan, say, to a 1 m^2 incident beam, and your laser needs again a total output power of 0.1 microwatt; then it's as bright as Sirius.

      If you want it to be showy, ramp it up to 10 watts. You can get that from solar panels continuously.

      There are lots of reasons the light-in-space idea doesn't fly, but power consumption isn't one of them.

    53. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      10 watts per square metre is ridiculous. Can you see an exposed lightbulb from 10 metres away in daylight? According to your estimate that means that the bulb is emitting 10 watts per square metre, over an area of 1,256 square metres. This would imply the bulb is a 12 kilowatt bulb (i.e. no waaaaay dude).

      I give up on trying to figure out how many watts per square metre are necessary. However it looks like a mirror might do the job.

      Of course, all bets are off if the sky is cloudy.

    54. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by LandGator · · Score: 1

      Put a reflector lens on an aerostat at 140,000' a la http://www.jpaerospace.com/ and add a control system to the laser so it first sends a pilot beam at low power. The pilot beam is reflected back, and when the returned pilot beam is detected, only then can the laser go to full power. If the pilot beam is lost, chop the power, and start seeking where the aerostat went.

      Power required is much less, the laser's on the ground so all you have to loft is the reflector/diffuser lens assembly, and solar cells with batteries on the aerostat allow it to keep station. An exclusion zone is required for aircraft so you don't blind pilots, but exclusion zones are a well accepted concept and pilots understand that already.

      You could also put Arduino-controlled drones with variable-geometry wings on the aerostat. Drop them when the alert is given; wings unfold at optimum altitude, which uncover Stuka-like sirens powered by airflow. Use solid-fuel turbofans to propel them so the drones will have a long 'shelf life' and can loiter for hours as needed, and add a parachute for soft landing, recovery and reuse. Might as well turn cruise missiles into something useful...

      --
      There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
    55. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Peter+bayley · · Score: 1

      No, because the amount of energy, in the form of light, would be immense. You're talking at least 10 watts per square meter, much more during the daytime. Tsunamis can affect hundreds of miles of coastline.

      By my impromptu math, you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area. So a medium-size nuclear reactor in the sky.

      How about, instead, we just use these devices that transmit sound and vision via lower-frequency light, aka radio and television? Cheap transistor radios are much, MUCH cheaper than launching a reactor into the sky.

      Hi people - didn't think there would be so many responses to my original posting - I especially like the Shark idea as there are probably many unemployed examples of the Wall St variety that could be pressed into service. I understand the power issues about illuminating a large area - but my idea was to scan only the 100m or so of coastal shoreline that would be directly affected by the tsunami. Also the scanning means you are only illuminating a very small area at once - the perception would be of a bright (but not blinding!) colored flash - say 200mS repeating every 15sec or so. So power would be reduced considerably. Now if the power is STILL a problem, then all we need is a ground-based light source and a steerable parabolic mirror in space - very little power-requirements up there. Also, I'm really targeting this idea at places that don't have cell-phone coverage - or any technical infrastructure to speak of. The idea is that people can be communicated to without ANY requirement (except having to see the sky) on their part. Anyway, thanks for the feedback

  6. How much energy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you basically want to be able to illuminate half the planet from your satellite. Have you any idea how much energy this would take ? A hint: The sun is quite big.

    1. Re:How much energy ? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If half the planet is at risk from a single tsunami, we've got bigger problems than just 'how do we power this satellite?'.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:How much energy ? by nunojsilva · · Score: 1

      On one hand, as it may save lives, we shouldn't worry that much about the cost, but, on the other hand, if it just drains all the energy from the planet, that's another (big) problem to solve...

      So, before deploying such a system, ideas on a less expensive way to power it, and discussions on that, are really important.

    3. Re:How much energy ? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      True, but my point was that it wouldn't drain much power at all, unless the scale of the disaster is so huge that warning won't help anyway. With a few simple modifications (chiefly, the assumption that instead of constant illumination, it's better to make the light blink) the power requirements are easy to fulfill with a solar panel and a modest sized battery pack - say, one smaller than that used by the GM Volt.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:How much energy ? by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

      you seriously think that the battery used to power an electric car has enough energy to illuminate 100s of miles of coastline from orbit? I don't think you have a clear sense of how much energy it takes to get a beam of light to travel such a large distance.

      And even if you had a satellite with enough energy, what is your warning system going to do when it is cloudy in the area where the tsunami is going to hit?

      and even if you solved that problem too somehow, what if the people you are warning are asleep because it is night time? how are they going to see your warning system? what if they are awake but inside a building?

      vastly more effective would be the systems that are already in place: a siren so loud that it is essentially impossible for people not to hear it unless they are deaf.

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
    5. Re:How much energy ? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Although I don't really think it's a good idea given how much of my life I spend indoors, who is actually saying the satellite needs to illuminate 100's of miles of coastline all at once? Wouldn't it be more logical to pan the laser back and forward along the danger areas?

      You don't need a huge amount of energy for a pencil beam to be visible, particularly at night, though obviously in the day time it'd require 11 on the dial.

    6. Re:How much energy ? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Do it on the ground first. When you're satisfied with the optical output and visibility, multiply the power demand by a factor of 10 and start designing your, um, satellite. Good luck.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    7. Re:How much energy ? by tibit · · Score: 1

      This is all a fantasy, then you do the math, and the math shows it's -- well, still a fantasy. The numbers just don't work out.

      A decent laser pointer may have say 0.5mRad beam divergence. Assume we have better optics and improve the divergence by a factor of 500 to say 1uRad. That may be a long shot, I'd think 10uRad may be more practical without using a Hubble-sized mirror.

      The nice thing about radians is that the length of the arc -- or, as it were, the diameter of our "pencil" beam -- is simply the angle times radius of the arc. The radius of the arc is the distance from source to Earth.

      Geostationary orbit for Earth is 35.8 M meters. 35.8M*10u = 358. So our "pencil" beam is almost half a kilometer wide, and that's assuming it's all done in vacuum.

      No we have atmosphere to cope with. Assume a red beam, that's around 700nm. At sea level, the optical transmission of the atmosphere at that wavelength is around 5*10^-2, or a factor of 50m.

      So let's say we have a decently powerful 10kW laser up there. By the time we reach ground, it's 10kW*50m = 0.5W, illuminating an area of a quarter of a square kilometer. That's like looking at a 0.5W LED (bright sucker, mind you), with say 60 degree divergence -- that's 1 radian -- from ~400m away. That's an easy enough experiment to do. It looks rather unimpressive unless it's very, very dark out there.

      So you'll definitely *see something*, but it'll look like a faint star, and that's about it. You won't see it if there is any sort of a cloud cover, and whether you'd see it during daytime is debatable at best. Maybe someone else can look up the brightness of equatorial sky mid-day and figure it out.

      Now obviously, the beam has to be swept. Suppose it'll be swept along 1000km of coastline. Suppose that you want the pulse to last something reasonable - maybe 0.5s? So you have 500m per 0.5s, 1000m/s pan speed. It'll take only about a thousand seconds to pan your coastline, or about 20 minutes.

      There goes your pencil beam. Still don't believe me? Well, assume you've ramped up your optical power output to 1MW (factor of 100), and got a better mirror -- 1MW laser and its power source will be big, so you may as well slap a big mirror. So assume we've improved power density by a factor of 1000 total -- 1MW laser + 1uRad divergence. Say you presume that you can then have 1000x shorter blips (0.5ms) still visible to the naked eye due to the integrator that our retina is. Your pan speed has made the blinks happen roughly once per second. And that's perhaps something that is still fantastically impractical -- it can be seen, at night and under clear skies.

      So there goes the fantasy, full of glory and all.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    8. Re:How much energy ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You don't need a huge amount of energy for a pencil beam to be visible

      You just need to be looking right at it (or rather along it), the odds of which are vanishingly small.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:How much energy ? by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

      exactly, if it is a pencil beam the chance that anyone will see it, assuming it is bright enough to be seen at all, is essentially zero. Which would make it the most expensive and most ineffective early warning system ever.

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
    10. Re:How much energy ? by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

      i was saying that because any other way of implementing would render the thing so inneffictive that it would end up warning fewer people than a 16th centery town crier. Moving a pencil beam across a 1000+ square mile area (100 miles of coast line up to 10 miles inland) slow enough for people to see it means the tsunami is going to hit land before you even had time to sweep once across the entire area. Moving it fast enough that it can sweep across the whole of the effected area in short enough time and it will be flipping by in front of people so fast that their conscious mind, even if they were looking right at it, wouldn't register that it had even occurred.

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
    11. Re:How much energy ? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      I wasn't implying 'pencil width' in a literal sense, but rather an illumination footprint several meters across. Perhaps I used a bad choice of words. My background is in satellite communications - pencil beam obviously doesn't mean quite the same thing in the optical world I guess.

    12. Re:How much energy ? by Klintus+Fang · · Score: 1

      even several meters across, let's say 10 for simplicity, is 100 square feet of area illuminated at a time. If you had a 1000 square foot area to send the warning to, that means if you want to get the warning out in say 5 minutes, you would be able to send your signal to each location in your danger zone for 120 seconds. That is slow enough to give everyone a chance to see it, assuming that everyone in the warning zone has the habit of looking up at the sky in the direction of the satellite at least once every 120 seconds (not bloody likely).

      In reality though 1000 square feet is actually a rather small. The way Tsunami's propogate out in a circular pattern from the point of the shock, 10000 square feet of area is more likely, in which case to get the warning out in 5 minutes to the entire area with a 100 square foot beam, you would be able to illuminate each area for only 0.5 seconds. That obviously isn't going to work.

      That all sets aside the fact that it won't work when the weather is poor since visual light doesn't penetrate cloud cover, and also sets aside the other point that a warning system that relies on visual queues is utterly useless if people are indoors or asleep.

      --
      In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. -T.S. Eliot
  7. Opt out? by impaledsunset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This should be opt-in, not opt-out. As cool as the idea is, someone messing with your emergency services by lighting emergency signals from space on your country just isn't cool. The countries should sign that they agree to have such emergency warnings issued above their territory. And maybe should otherwise participate in the system. Such deals are much better done with opt in, not opt out.

    Also, who runs the system? It should be multinational, otherwise someone might decide to run false warnings during a war, or to otherwise hurt an enemy nation through it. Also, how long before someone launches an amateur satellite that makes fake warnings as a prank? The last one is not a big deal, but also worth spending a second thinking about.

    1. Re:Opt out? by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about rogue pringles cans with tv aerials sticking out of them?!? How about a pair of sneakers tied together and thrown over a power line? OMG P0n13$!!!

      I'd say that right about now you should check your tinfoil hat dude.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Opt out? by irtza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could you imagine a nation whose citizens are not informed about this? They will develop new fears. "Billy, don't look at the sky you might go blind". and then after Billy goes blind from looking at the laser beam, the island gets hit with a tsunami at which point they will accuse Billy of being a prophet of doom.

      Well, in conclusion, I think opt-in with formal education about not looking in a particular direction in the sky would be a good thing.

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    3. Re:Opt out? by tibit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess there's some misconception about what such a "light" would look like.

      Everyone seems to react like this was going to be a streetlight type of a thing. You'd need a rather big nuclear powerplant to get that sort of power density on the ground. Assume we want 1W/m^2 on the ground, and a "square" area 5,000km on the side. That's 2.5E10 m^2, so you'd 25GW of optical power output for your illumination. How anyone sees that much power being generated in orbit using current technology -- I don't know. Even getting a 1MW generator in the orbit would be a big feat. You can't exactly put a chiller tower up there. Dissipating all the waste heat would be a huge fucking problem, no kidding.

      For what's achievable with current technology, we're talking about a faint star that say can be red, green or blue. So beam forming to a point where "a country could opt-in" etc. is a fantasy at this point. How hard is it *not* to look up?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:Opt out? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Agreed. This is just science fiction. Regardless of available power, the size of light required on orbit to generate the required intensity simple does not exist. The only way to do this would be to create a large mirror to redirect the suns light to the required spot. However studies done with this idea as a replacement for city street lighting did not make economic sense. So it certainly wouldn't make economic sense for a warning system especially when far cheaper alternative exists (like sound horns).

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    5. Re:Opt out? by tyldis · · Score: 1

      The idea is good, but the suggested implementation is very bad.
      We do oil spill detection in near realtime using satellites, and adopting it to detect a tsunami might be feasable. We detect and alert authorities usually in less than 1 hour from the oil spill is detected.
      It can possibly be advanced futher by using floating sensors and AIS.

      Organisation is not the hard part, it is already in place for oil spill detection and working great.

    6. Re:Opt out? by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...I think opt-in with formal education about not looking in a particular direction in the sky...

      With the remaining eye?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    7. Re:Opt out? by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Formal education would remove some of the need for tsunami warnings in themselves. For example, the American tourists who saw the water recede sharply before the Indian Ocean tsunami (an obvious warning sign), and took that time to explore the newly uncovered beach rather than getting to higher ground. Then we can just skip the laser satellite, and focus on education and audible warning systems (which do not depend on people looking the right direction)

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    8. Re:Opt out? by Rasperin · · Score: 1

      How about solar panels? They run at ~100% efficiency in space and you would only need a small sail (If china says they need a solar sail the size of a football field to power all of china you'd need one the size of a nickle to power 25GW). (Yes, I am exaggerating, but you get my point)

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    9. Re:Opt out? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      However studies done with this idea as a replacement for city street lighting did not make economic sense

      Someone seriously studied that idea??? Forget about economic sense, that idea doesn't make sense period unless you want your city to do away with nighttime altogether.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:Opt out? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      100% efficiency in space? Really? What do you think is so special about space that would make panels perfectly efficient?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    11. Re:Opt out? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Try reading the paragraph at the top of the page before you reply to it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    12. Re:Opt out? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      That was the point. All streets are lit (similar to dusk, not bright but not dark) in the cities. No paying for electric lights. Cities would never get dark.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    13. Re:Opt out? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      No. Wrong. Infeasible. Space is not magic. Same rules apply there as here. A light that big is a myth, just like infinite power from solar sails, space elevators, and Hubble is strong enough to see the Apollo landing craft and satellites in orbit around Mars.

      Pure science fiction.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    14. Re:Opt out? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      What a terrible idea. I'm glad the bean-counters nixed it. Some people actually like having dark nights.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    15. Re:Opt out? by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      The sun casts 1200W/m2 on objects in space. That's about 20% more than on the surface.

      It's not magic sauce, it's just 20% more efficient. Whoever said that about China was an ignorant tool.

      To get 25GW, you would need ten thousand square km of solar panels. Solar wind isn't a substitute for reality. :-)

    16. Re:Opt out? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      And try understanding what he said before jumping on your high horse.

      He was explaining that warning from orbit was a terrible implementation of a satellite based system for tsunamis and went on to explain a good way of doing it.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    17. Re:Opt out? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      I think he's mistaking the fact that the atmosphere doesn't absorb any energy when you're in space for efficiency.

    18. Re:Opt out? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I only have a remaining eye, you insensitive clod!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    19. Re:Opt out? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      ."So it certainly wouldn't make economic sense for a warning system especially when far cheaper alternative exists (like sound horns)."

      Not only that, but the areas where tsunami's usually hit are not wealthy areas and probably wouldn't want to be launching billion dollar satellites into space.

      Here in the US we have tornados and hurricanes and we can't even save ourselves. Our 50 year old technology tornado sirens are failing constantly so if one of the richest countries in the world can't warn it's own citizens what hope is there for Indonsia and Sri Lanka where the 2004 Tsunami that killed 200,000 people hit?

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    20. Re:Opt out? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      He went on to describe a good way to detect tsunamis with a satellite. This is not a solution to the problem that the original idea hoped to fix. We already have ocean based systems that quickly notify authorities of impending tsunamis, notifying people in the path of the tsunamis is the problem.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    21. Re:Opt out? by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Ahh, possibly. I don't know how much energy is lost by the atmosphere but I imagine it's pretty small compared to the 70-80% loss from the panels themselves.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    22. Re:Opt out? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 1

      What, so we're not allowed to point out the way things should be done just because they don't fall into a narrow definition of a question posed. Nice rigid and frozen world you live in.

      If this had been a discussion around a dinner table or water cooler, you'd be trying to rein it in and stop people from brainstorming just because it has strayed away from the original premise. Welcome to real life my friend.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    23. Re:Opt out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dibs on the dark glasses / sunglasses franchises!

    24. Re:Opt out? by CTalkobt · · Score: 1
      I assume your figures are for full coverage... the nice thing about lasers and lights etc is that they can go blinky and shine in another direction during their off cycle. Multiplexed enough... say 128 times you'd still be able to get enough spots covered with sufficient intensity I imagine ... </guess>

      Also your assumption that it's 5,000 km squared sounds a bit extreme as I don't think you'd want to "light" the whole area. Sufficient maps could be provided to the satellite to only send it where it's reasonable needed (eg: avoid > 4 miles inland; avoid >0.25 out to sea).

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
  8. So... it's a super hi-tech siren? by chefmayhem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They used to use warning sirens for that sort of thing. Far more low tech, but quite cheap, and a single siren can be heard for quite a distance. Just put them near the shore. Now, it's not nearly as cool as the satellite, but it would work if people are indoors and not looking out the window.

    1. Re:So... it's a super hi-tech siren? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      There are two problems with that solution:

      1) Its already been done (at least in Sri Lanka), so there is no point suggesting it
      2) Its too low tech and non-geeky, and does not user lasers.

    2. Re:So... it's a super hi-tech siren? by RobVB · · Score: 1

      3) It does not work well with sharks.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    3. Re:So... it's a super hi-tech siren? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used to use warning sirens for that sort of thing.

      That's it! Just put a big one on a satellite and ... err, wait a sec ...

  9. Crazy by mseeger · · Score: 1
    Already tried to produce a laser capable of illuminating an area of several hundred square miles in broad daylight? Even if such a laser would already be feasible, the power supply would require a nuclear reactor.

    if you need just 1W per square meter (very low for a visible light), 100 square miles (a tsunami danger zone would probably be bigger) would require >200MW.

    I think we are currently 2-5 magnitudes away from feasability.

    CU, Martin

    1. Re:Crazy by Kittoa · · Score: 1

      A 200MW laser would probably violate the Outer Space weapons ban in some way.

    2. Re:Crazy by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      Lasers can move around you know.

    3. Re:Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The parent might want to consider replacing street lamps too. Those things cost a lot and use a lot of power. (For example, more than 100kWh per night and road kilometer in Belgium, which illuminates its highways.)

    4. Re:Crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if such a laser would already be feasible, the power supply would require a nuclear reactor.

      Well, there is a big nuclear reactor at the center of the solar system. But if you're going to go that route you might as well just use a really big mirror that can be rotated into position (e.g. have some big gyroscopes on your satellite).

    5. Re:Crazy by blai · · Score: 1

      Sharks can't live in space you know.

      --
      In soviet Russia, God creates you!
  10. Laser Power... by GrpA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Getting a laser from a sattelite to one place on earth so it could be seen would require a LOT of power, even at night. Illuminating an entire part of the earth would take more power than you could imagine...

    Even measuring the ocean's height with a satellite would be challenging.

    However, I think you've uncovered the real problem. It's not warning people that's the issue ( you could easily broadcast radio and pick it up with a small receiver ) it's that there's no desire to create such a system.

    Usually, the authorities would prefer to be the only ones to know. Then they can make the decisions... Do they tell people in all areas? How do they handle the evacuations? etc.

    Your heart is in the right place, but your idea itself presents a lot of problems... If you really want to help, then spend a few years teaching yourself world politics. Speak to experts in the field of emergency services and become one yourself. Don't wait for others to pick up your idea, make it work yourself and become an expert. Most experts are simply people who were driven for one reason or another to keep on learning about a particular field.

    As a suggestion? The easiest way to address tsunami's might be without sattelites and high-tech... Perhaps just keep an eye on the situation by following the websites that publish that kind of information, then set up your own website to co-ordinate redistribution of it - Then people who are worried about it, such as yourself, can subscribe - perhaps you could even use SMS to notify them?

    Big ideas are easy to implement and opt-in is the best system.

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    1. Re:Laser Power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually one of the big problems is that a seismic sensor is quite expensive (the must be very precise) and you need quite a few of them, because the earthquake that create those tsunami waves can be really far away.

      I worked on a project with a different approach where you use crappy sensors but then a lot of them. This is for earthquake (early) warning. But last fall one of the leading scientists for tsunami warning meet us at a talk and wanted our project to be extended for tsunamis too. (This hasn't happen jet because of funding)
      See: brief project description

    2. Re:Laser Power... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if the laser was intense enough to be visible on the ground in the day, how intense would it be at 40,000 feet? would we be frying pilots eyeballs?

      disregarding the impossibility of generating that much energy in space. and the lack of Pink Floyd to go with the laser light show.

    3. Re:Laser Power... by thewiz · · Score: 1

      Getting a laser from a sattelite to one place on earth so it could be seen would require a LOT of power, even at night. Illuminating an entire part of the earth would take more power than you could imagine...

      Watched Star Wars a few too many times?

      Of course, the Death Star would get everyones attention.

      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    4. Re:Laser Power... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, if the beam is dispersed from a central point towards a large area on the ground, then the energy per unit area will be proportional to the inverse square of the distance. That generally holds whether the laser is diffused over a large area or scanned over a large area, although in the one case it will be more energy for a shorter time vs less for longer.

      So, if you half the distance you'll have four times the brightness.

      So, if the satellite was at 80k feet, then the plane at 40k feet would have 4x the brightness. On the other hand, in the more likely scenario where the satellite is at 500k feet then the light would be 1.18x as strong. If the satellite is in geosync or something like that then the difference would be vanishingly small - like the difference between the brightness of the moon at those altitudes vs the ground.

    5. Re:Laser Power... by sirlatrom · · Score: 1

      ... Illuminating an entire part of the earth would take more power than you could imagine...

      Better call Obi-Wan Kenobi then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjCyZ2P9bCA :)

    6. Re:Laser Power... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      if the laser was intense enough to be visible on the ground in the day, how intense would it be at 40,000 feet? would we be frying pilots eyeballs?

      The difference in distance to the laser between the ground and 40,000 feet is only a couple of percent. So no, it would likely not be noticeably brighter and insufficient to damage anyone's eyes.

    7. Re:Laser Power... by madpansy · · Score: 1

      I worked on a project with a different approach where you use crappy sensors but then a lot of them.

      I heard on NPR that a group from UC Riverside and Stanford started Quake Catchers to take advantage of the accelerometers included in most new laptops. A sort of "quake@home." They distribute their sensor software to anyone who volunteers and then receive relevant quake data. They also have more accurate USB sensors that they sell, and provide at a discount to K-12 schools. If schools are willing to participate, it should create a geographically distributed source of data. And it doesn't hurt that kids get to learn a bit more about earthquakes too.

      The guest on NPR also talked about the USGS testing early warning systems for earthquakes, using several forms of mass communication(sans the summary's laser-in-the-sky). XKCD is always relevant.

    8. Re:Laser Power... by mako1138 · · Score: 1

      They do measure sea levels with satellites, just not with lasers.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6922312.stm

    9. Re:Laser Power... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      I can just see it now.

      "Right guys, at 7:43AM precisely, start shaking your laptop. Stop after five minutes. Then switch on the radio and wait for the news to tell us not to go to school."

      That's what I'd've done at that age, anyway....

      HAL

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
  11. Problems by jaxxa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think that this is a practical solution. Lasers are very focused and don't spread out like normal lights, if they were to spread out the power requirements would be huge. Also It would be walking a very fine line between delivering enough light to be noticed and too little to cause eye damage to people looking up. Lastly You would have to check the wording on the agreements banning weapons in space, even though it is not the intention this could be viewed as one. While this is an interesting idea I don't think it is very practical and there could be better solutions.

    1. Re:Problems by tibit · · Score: 1

      Lasers "spread out" like everything else out there. There's no magic to it.

      Lasers just happen to be fairly monochromatic light sources. We suck at making optics for
      wideband light, but making optics for monochromatic light is kid's play, in comparison.
      The only reason laser light doesn't "spread out" is that we can rather easily make
      optics to keep it from spreading out. Those optics can be a part of the laser's resonator
      cavity -- like in a He-Ne laser, or the laser source can be highly divergent (like a laser
      diode) and you can then slap an external lens to collimate the beam. Such lens would
      absolutely suck if you tried to use them to collimate visible light, simply because for
      every color (wavelength) you'd require a different setting of your lens. So you can have
      the lens focus, say, red light rather well, but it won't do well at all for any other color.

      When a laser is powerful enough *and* it shines in a medium of some sort (not in vacuum!),
      you can get self-focusing effect, but that only works for as long as your medium is optically
      saturated IIRC. Once your power density drops enough, the self-focusing stops.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  12. Nice idea ... needs work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mainly you need to figure out how to make other people some money with this. As soon as you can show the government how they can get more tax money or how they can line their pockets, they will be beating down your doors to get this up and running.

  13. Clouds? by DeadRat4life · · Score: 1

    Planes? what if its night and everyone is asleep? Perhaps putting alarm systems in these areas that are run off solar power and get warnings via radio or satellite (the regular kind, not laser) would be better.

  14. Genius... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    A warning system that requires GW of power (we are talking about making light visible over several km, right?) and people have to be looking at it (and having an unobstructed view to the sky)...
    I suspect the power requirement would only be sort of manageable during night time, but that is when people sleep and a laser would not go far in waking them. Now, if it was SHARKS with lasers...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Genius... by karuna · · Score: 1

      Is it really required to illuminate the area? Maybe it would work better as short pulses of strobing light with the interval of about 1 sec. Would such flickering be easily noticeable during bright daylight?

      It seems that audible sirens would work better for tsunami warnings in either case but the idea is so cool that it would a shame to let waste it. Could it be used for more local emergencies gas leaks or big fires? Let say, if there is a big crash on the highway that blocks the traffic for several hours all drivers in the vicinity could be warned to seek detour or at least turn on the radio to listen for emergency warnings.

  15. square km by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    The superscript "2" that was next to km was "eaten" by the slashdot comment engine, I was talking about the surface to be covered, although the distance is also a factor of the power requirement.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  16. Unmanned Warning System by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

    My concern is with something like this is not everyone will see the warning light as a reason to leave. It would get many people out, but not all. Some would stay just for the sake of looting and something like this would only help. Telling people they need to leave with a big group behind you when your telling is one thing. Doing it alone (or unmanned) is worse. Think of all the looting that happened during the Hurricane Katrina. Now think about what people will due when they are left alone and have knowledge something bad is happening. A tsunami would literally 'wash' away the evidence. And looting might not be the only thing that could happen. People act crazy when mass danger is about to happen. The idea is a good one, but not everyone will use good ideas in positive ways.

    --
    Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
    1. Re:Unmanned Warning System by Igmuth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wait a damn second here. You are against warning people about tsunamis because some might use it as a chance for looting? Personally, if there is a giant wall of watery death heading my way, I'd like to know about it. If some moron decides to stay behind to grab my stuff, I'll the aforementioned wall of watery death deal with him, wash away all evidence, including the moron himself.

    2. Re:Unmanned Warning System by jargon82 · · Score: 1

      Wash away the evidence? Yeah, so they are stealing stuff that is about to be destroyed... Worry about the looting AFTER the event.

    3. Re:Unmanned Warning System by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Dude, insurance companies are a nightmare to deal with. Your standard flood insurance doesn't cover looting. You'd need to file a claim for stolen goods, which means filing a police report. Good luck proving that you had the appropriate locks and security in place (if you can find it). And if said looter gets smashed by watery death while inside your store, his next of kin could come back and sue you for negligently failing to tsunami-proof your place of business (you had warning didn't you?).

      Seems easier to just stick around to defend your store, then miraculously survive a wall of watery death.

    4. Re:Unmanned Warning System by Kitkoan · · Score: 1

      Wait a damn second here. You are against warning people about tsunamis because some might use it as a chance for looting? Personally, if there is a giant wall of watery death heading my way, I'd like to know about it. If some moron decides to stay behind to grab my stuff, I'll the aforementioned wall of watery death deal with him, wash away all evidence, including the moron himself.

      No, I'm worried about warning people about a tsunami and people doing crazy things. Like murder. The water will wash away the bodies. Not just looting. Thats just one thing. Like I said, people act crazy when mass danger is about to happen. Look at all the looting, murder and other crimes that happened after Katrina when they evidence wasn't as likely to be washed away. Now see what happens when they know it will be.

      --
      Attention... all grammer nazi"s! Is they're anything; wrong with: my post,
  17. Coupla problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Energy: If you wanted to illuminate a single city with the equivalent of, say, a 15W lightbulb every 100 square meters (possible to detect during the day if you were REALLY looking for it, maybe), your satellite would have to output a TON of energy. For example, the city I'm in right now is only about 25 square miles, and it would take 10 Megawatts to light it all up even very dimly. You're proposing to light up way more than that. Unless you're going to ship a few dozen power plants into space, that's impossible for any period of time.

    Being bad for peoples' eyes: *Oh noes my eyes.*

    People wouldn't know what it meant: Unless you spent lots of money - money that could be better spent - telling them.

  18. Illuminating areas from space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A ballpark calculation.

    According to Wikipedia, about 700-1000 watts per square meter reach the surface of the Earth at noon for most populated latitudes.
    I don' know how much power a satellite would need to put out to make a visible difference, but let's be optimistic and assume 10% of that for strongly colored light, so about 70 watts.
    Let's assume you want to light up the coast of California, without any of the islands for simplicity's sake - this is about 1300 kilometers. Let's light up a strip with a width of about 500 Meters (in practice the danger zone can probably be several kilometers, depending on tsunami size and topography of the area).
    This is 650 square kilometers, or 650 million square meters; so we end up with 45500 MW (or 45.5 GW) of power. A typical nuclear generating station has an output of 800 MW (0.8 GW), so good luck generating that much power on a sattelite sustained for several hours, and good luck having an optical system that can distribute it without evaporating...

  19. Dumbest. Idea. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why not just get Superman to fly backwards around the world really fast thereby (somehow) turning back time? He could then fly under the country in danger and lift it up until the tsunami passed safely underneath.

    Seriously - why is this crap get on the front page?

  20. Kewl by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Connect them satellites to Google Maps and draw arrows on the streets in the safe directions.
    Zap everybody that isn't listening.

    While we're at it. If there is no water, there is no wave.
    Use the lasers to evaporate the wave part of the sea before it hits the shore.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  21. And how many people... by warGod3 · · Score: 1

    ...get killed when that thing fires off and people forget about a "Tsunami Warning System" and think that they are either 1) under attack from little green men from outer space OR 2) that the gods are angry with them?

    --
    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
  22. This reminds me of something that we hear about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the military spending tons of money on only to realize how fucking stupid it is. I bet we have already spent billions developing this, and the teabaggers bitch about free healthcare, fucking twats.

  23. Please... stop... by mad+flyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, now brainfarts... directly on slashdot... the only thing more stupid than anything following "Hey y'all watch this" are usually exposee introduced by a falsely humble "crazy idea" which in 90% of the case is totally retarded and in the 10% remaining already more common than water but the bragging genius was to dull to understand how it worked in the first place.

    Seriously, keep this for april first or Digg...

    1. Re:Please... stop... by celibate+for+life · · Score: 1

      Very good point.

      Slashdot resembles 4chan more and more.

    2. Re:Please... stop... by mathx314 · · Score: 1

      You clearly have never been to 4chan.

    3. Re:Please... stop... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The corporate overlords seek a wider audience. They have to dumb it down so as not to appear "elitist"

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Please... stop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel bad for the poor guy at NOAA who had to waste his time explaining one of a dozen reason it was a bad idea, only to get another e-mail arguing a way around that one reason.

  24. Here's the condensed Slashdot answer. by Jimbookis · · Score: 1

    You stupid twat!

  25. How the system will work by drmofe · · Score: 1

    I envisage this system as working something like in Wall-E when he follows the red light from the approaching spaceship. That would be cool - a little guide light showing you which way to run in an emergency. Or you could like shine it on some landmark that was a set height above the estmated wave and say "Try and get to this!". Or like a laser sight, shine it on someone running really fast in the right direction and say "Try and keep up". Man, look at those little ants scurry!

  26. What a lame-brained idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the kind of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that comes from a populace with no math or science education. A geo-synchronous orbit is 24,000 miles above the earth. It can see half the globe, but a beam coming from such a platform would reach the earth through an oblique path cutting through hundreds of miles of atmosphere - like the sun at sunset. This would erode the intensity of any beam tremendously. Even without atmospheric attenuation, the tsunami covers thousands of miles of coastlines. You would need a signal strength of about 100 lumens per foot to be visible in the daytime. That is going to require about 10,000 watts of power per thousand feet or about 50,000 watts per mile. Say 5,000 miles to cover the impact area of the wave - you need a power budget of about 250 megawatts BEFORE accounting for atmospheric attentuation. You're talking a power plant on the order of the anti-matter engines of the Starship Enterprise. Not to mention a laser a couple of orders of magnitude more powerful than anything ever attempted before. This reminds me of the gubernatorial candidate in the Maryland elections who suggested that the earth's garbage problem could be solved by vaporizing the garbage with lasers. Complete drivel.

  27. Satellite Base laser Show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG...First LHC and now Satellite Based laser show...need to leave this planet for good.

  28. Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build in a protocol in all mobile devices that can be used in an emergency to broadcast a warning. Done.

  29. Danger vs. Visibility by ralfmuschall · · Score: 1

    IMHO, this cannot work. Sunlight comes with approx. 1kW/m^2, the human eye detect changes in brightness if they exceed 30%, i.e. we'd need 300W/m^2 to be visible at daytime. OTOH, looking directly at the sun is harmful even with the sun having a diameter of 0.5 degrees. A light source with a third of the sun's brightness, but point-like would probably burn a hole right through the retina before the blink reflex can kick in.
    Even the discussed 10W/m^2 (absolutely invisible unless one looks directly at the right point in the sky) would be dangerous (the eye's resolution is one angular minute, i.e. light from a point source would cover 1/900 of the sun's image's area, giving a retina burning power density of 9 suns).

    Short wording: you can't see it unless it makes you blind.

    1. Re:Danger vs. Visibility by ralfmuschall · · Score: 1

      A purely unrealistic idea came after submitting: Instead of illuminating the whole area, illuminate a mm-sized milliwatt-powered spot every meter. Such a spot is visible on the ground even in daylight (laser pointers to exactly that). Unfortunately, the laws of optics get in the way: To get meter-resolution on the ground, we need meter-sized optics in orbit (that's what spy satellites do (to get resolutions in the decimeter range, they fly very low and crash down all the time due to aerobraking)). For mm-resolution, we'd need kilometer-sized satellites.

  30. You're a little late to the party... by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    April Fools was a few days ago...

  31. Mwah - Hah Hah Hah by mac1235 · · Score: 1

    Sounds great! Yes do it! No, I have no intention of focusing a laser that can be visible from tens of thousands of square kilometres onto a single city. None at all. Why do you ask dear?

  32. Clouds by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Oops. Did i just break the stupid concept in another way?

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:Clouds by itsthebin · · Score: 1

      yes - this is just your classical theoretical discussion

      please leave real world realities out of it

      --
      ...I obey the laws of physics....
  33. Astronomers will love you by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Especially the idea of a continuous light.

  34. Not enough power by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    There is no practical way to generate enough light to alert people on the ground of an approaching disaster. At best they would see a bright light if they looked in the right direction.

    But.

    Solar sails in orbit could be used to illuminate the surface of the Earth and I have seen proposals to use them to illuminate disaster areas where infrastructure has been destroyed. The idea was to give people light to work by until the sun comes up but I suppose you could illuminate the location of an anticipated disaster in advance and give people a warning of sorts.

    But these days mobile phones are all over the place and can be used to warn people. If you want to predict the part of the tsunami then something which can get the Doppler shift from water a metre or so under the surface would be invaluable. Maybe a long wave radar, in orbit and pointing down.

  35. guys, it's kdawson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no surprise then :(

  36. Email Ad Agencies - They May Be Intrigued. by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 1

    The article poster may get a better reception emailing advertising agencies - using orbiting lasers to beam down advertising to millions.

    From a technical standpoint, as another poster on here already mentioned, the power consumption could be greatly reduced by illuminating only sections of area at a time instead of all at once in a strobe like fashion.

    Or a more practical way, which is likely already feasible now, is to illuminate the sky instead of the ground.

    As far as detecting tsunamis from space, while not what the article poster is suggesting, would be a better use of orbiting lasers - detection of small rise in sea-level over a large area would, presumably, be a phenomena easily spotted from space.

    Ron

    1. Re:Email Ad Agencies - They May Be Intrigued. by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

      As far as detecting tsunamis from space, while not what the article poster is suggesting, would be a better use of orbiting lasers - detection of small rise in sea-level over a large area would, presumably, be a phenomena easily spotted from space.

      ...although more sensible than the article's idea, this one also won't work. The ocean isn't anywhere close to smooth -- follow the links on the difficulties of calibrating satellites from this 2007 article for an intro, then look up info on calculating the geoid -- and tsunamis are very, very small in open ocean.

      But that's alright, since the science on predicting where the waves will go and when they'll arrive is incredibly good. The science on how big they'll be when they get there... now, that's an interesting problem worthy of more research & innovation!

  37. easier way to get the power by r00t · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look, we just need a bright flash of light. It doesn't have to be a laser.

    Put up a large number of satellites, much like GPS or Iridium. Each one holds a 30 megaton nuke. When an area is affected by a tsunami, we set off all the nukes that would be visible above the horizon.

    Tsunamis are rare enough that we can normally launch a replacement system fast enough, assuming we don't put spares in different orbits. Have replacements ready to launch.

    1. Re:easier way to get the power by number11 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Look, we just need a bright flash of light. It doesn't have to be a laser.

      Put up a large number of satellites, much like GPS or Iridium. Each one holds a 30 megaton nuke. When an area is affected by a tsunami, we set off all the nukes that would be visible above the horizon.

      Take out their power grid, their radios and computers, their cell phones, and their vehicles with the EMP. And, of course, the power grids of everybody else who can see those satellites above the horizon. Then while they're going "WTF???" hit 'em with the tsunami.

    2. Re:easier way to get the power by FlexAgain · · Score: 1

      Not to mention you'd also destroy pretty much every non-military (ie very seriously rad-hardened) satellite which didn't have the Earth between it and the nuclear device.

      So, a large area of Earth based elecronics destroyed, and even if you've managed to avoid that, no communications or Earth observation satellites to aid in recovery.

      (...and yes, most satellites are built with rad-hard components, but they're not designed to withstand an EMP, which requires substantially more shielding).

      --
      Actually it is rocket science...
    3. Re:easier way to get the power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good old nuclear engineering, 50s style: When there's a need for a boom, when there is a need for a flash, just use the nukes my friends for that little extra cash! But have you considered what happens when they duck and cover?

    4. Re:easier way to get the power by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Iran,
      This is a test of the Emergency Tsunami Warning System. Had this been an actual emergency these EMP pulses would have been followed by a tsunami. This concludes this test of the Emergency Tsunami Warning System.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:easier way to get the power by tibit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even the rad-hardened stuff will be taken out in short order. They won't take a short burst of radiation (that's what they're designed for!) -- there'll be bazillions of particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, pounding incessantly on everything up there. Remember that it's all in vacuum.

      Rad-hardening works for short bursts of radiation coming *from Earth* -- from a ground or airborne nuclear explosion.

      There's no rad-hardening for space-based explosions. We're several orders of magnitude away from being anywhere close to that.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    6. Re:easier way to get the power by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Take out their power grid, their radios and computers, their cell phones, and their vehicles with the EMP. And, of course, the power grids of everybody else who can see those satellites above the horizon. Then while they're going "WTF???" hit 'em with the tsunami.

      Fuck yah!

      Wait... was this solution supposed to *help* victims? I forgot.

    7. Re:easier way to get the power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nuclear blast in space leads to a large amount of energy moving rapidly in all directions, unrestrained from friction and atmosphere to slow it down. The last time (that I am aware of) someone tested this, it caused an EMP pulse that knocked out power from Hawaii to South America. Indeed, a nuclear explosion in space would create a bright light, provided visiblity, however it also punches a hole into the atmosphere.

      Along the same idea, any sattelite that is going to give a visual warning is going to need HUGE surface to illuminate itself. A flash of light is just going to be a speck from the ground. Take the International space station, for example. We recently had that thing pass overhead in the night, and it was illuminated by the sun on the other side of the earth. It was just a little bigger than a standard star, only a little off color, and moving fast across the night sky.

    8. Re:easier way to get the power by r00t · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing Earth isn't constantly bathed in the light of a fusion reaction, hmmm?

    9. Re:easier way to get the power by r00t · · Score: 1

      there'll be bazillions of particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, pounding incessantly on everything up there

      just like we have today, thanks to the fusion reaction which we orbit around

      FYI, the area where particles tend to get trapped is mostly avoided. LEO is below it most of the time.

  38. Radar not laser by orbitalia · · Score: 1

    Typically a better solution is to use radar or infrared, laser tends to have problems penetrating cloud cover and the like. Space based radar altimeters are nothing new, and yes you could theoretically set up a tsunami warning system in space. Radar technology has come a long way in terms of power and range. I work in the radar altimeter industry so maybe I am biased.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-Based_Radar

  39. Back of the envelope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's get some rough estimate of the order of magnitude involved.
    The sensitivity of the human eye (from quick and dirty Googling) is cited around 1.5..2.9 mW/m^2.
    To cover an area of say 100Kmx100Km, and to *just reach this threshold*, you'd have to output
    (10^5)^2 mW == 10^7 W == 10 gigawatt of power.

    The power of the sun hitting us is around 1KW per square meter. Of that, not much falls in the visible spectrum, but still it will be a couple of orders of magnitude greater that the above.

    Of course you'd just need very short pulses and all that -- but still you are moving at the limit of what seems feasible.

    I'd say radios (or adapted mobile phones or whatever) seem to offer a better price/performance ratio.

    (Captcha was "tradeoff" -- how appropriate. Is Slashdot becoming sentient?)

  40. and.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you can put such a laser on a satellite, make me a smaller version, my sharks are waiting.

  41. Power requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you ever considered how much power you would need for that? You have to illuminate large areas for a considerable time at power levels not too much below that of the sun (about 1kW/m^2). TV sattelites (with outputs in the 100W range) don't need that much power since you have large receiver dishes and very, very sensitive receivers, finely tuned to a very small frequency band, so extremely small power levels are sufficient to detect the signal. But with light you have just the eye (small iris diameter and not tuned to a single frequency), and all that with the high background level of the sun light. Thus such a sattelite would need many, many orders of magnitude more power then your typical TV sattelite. Just to illuminate a single square kilometer with a power density of just 1W/m^2 you would need a MW-laser - and that's probably nothing the eye would be able to notice. And while on a dark, moonless night the power requirements would be much lower, how many people would be watching at 3AM?

  42. My tags for this story by cheesethegreat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is obviously absurd, as pointed out by plenty of the above posters. What I'm more concerned about, is why this got posted to the Slashdot front page. We have the Digital Economy Bill about to be passed without debate in the UK, various stories on the LHC's full power experiments, all sorts of lunacy in the US with patents, and we get a "hey guys, what about this idea" from a random slashdotter.

    If this were coming from a noted astronomer, a major figure in disaster relief, or GWB, then it would be Slashdot-worthy. But seriously, what value did this Ask Slashdot add?

    Also, the previous story on the sun-chandelier was such a non-story as to be shocking.

    I've now started tagging stories: ohnoitskdawson

  43. Reactor/Laser on Ground, MIRROR in sky by wisebabo · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I was going to post something to the effect that I agree with the parent post (energy requirements would be obscene) but there *might* be a way around this.

    Put a not too big (optical experts please weigh in) lightweight mirror in geosync orbit. Aim a very very powerful visible light laser at it and Voila! Instant early warning system!

    Of course you'd be making the energy requirements even more obscene but it should still be a lot cheaper than lifting a giga-watt (tera-watt?) class reactor and laser into high orbit. Since you're not trying to use this for missile defense, the pointing requirements should be a lot less. Maybe even a giant sphere like Echo-star 1 could be used or a giant disco ball! ;)

    In any case I don't think you'll get much more than a bright point of light in the sky (hopefully visible in daylight), but that might be enough. If the mirror is large enough and the beam tight enough you might not lose too much energy so it might be conceivably possibly practical. If you modulate the beam you could even send a message ("go to higher ground" or "earthquake, stay outdoors"). Too bad morse code isn't being used anymore.

    Of course, if you had a couple of well placed reflectors in orbit, you could make it so that people would only need to "follow" the beacon (from the appropriate reflector) to safety. Sort of like the light of Bethlehem huh?

    1. Re:Reactor/Laser on Ground, MIRROR in sky by tibit · · Score: 1

      The trip upwards can be assumed to have a very different attenuation from the downward trip. You can force the atmosphere to be optically nonlinear simply by making the beam powerful enough. It will then self-focus the beam. This effect is normally unwanted when you do laser experimentation, but here it could be perhaps used to minimize the losses. The high power beam can optically saturate the atmosphere, such that absorption will drop by a factor of magnitude or two. What I wonder about, though, is how one is supposed to defocus such a beam once it reaches the satellite "mirror" -- without vaporizing the said mirror.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  44. Cheaper solution! by Mirar · · Score: 1

    Why not just have a GSM/3g/4g signal that can be transmitted from the base stations? Either SMS or make all cell phones in the cell wake up and loudly tell the message.

    1. Re:Cheaper solution! by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Because here in south central Alaska you don't get a GSM/3G/4G signal everywhere. Hell I lose my connection on the highway between Anchorage and Girdwood (where the ski resort is), which is along the coast.

  45. Almost as crazy as... by EpsCylonB · · Score: 1

    Wow this story is almost as crazy as my idea to build a giant water tower in the ocean to lower sea levels, see http://izit.org/content/all-water-earth for more details.

    In all seriousness the poster seems to be interested in using the laser to communicate, is that such a big problem ?. The world is a much smaller place than it used be, I suspect that simply activating the laser would take some time, possibly calling the local officials would be almost as effective.

    1. Re:Almost as crazy as... by d1r3lnd · · Score: 1

      How about the the next time there's a tsunami, you and Peter announce your next big idea to the world, and the collective sound of anyone with more than three braincells slapping their palms to their faces will create a sonic boom - thereby warning coastal villagers?

  46. Tsunami Warning System by Vhaldera · · Score: 1

    I don't think its such a bad idea. I have to ask, would people really assume they are "under attack from little green men from outer space"? or "the gods are angry with them"? It's not first thing that would come to mind when I think of seeing the local area light up with bright light. That seems very 1950s, and extremely unreasonable.

    Having the local area brighten suddenly, I would look around and then look up to search for the reason behind the sudden increase in luminance. what may be the reason for it before making assumptions like that. Measuring a tsunami is certainly feasible, even with low wavelengths, a tsunami is still a tsunami a excessively large mass of moving water in a series of waves. Instead of interfering with local emergency systems, a tsunami warning system as this could be used to complement local emergency systems by serving as primary warning.

    Using different colours for the warning system would be pointless because until each you advertised each of the specific meanings to literally everyone, it would waste time for people to try to figure out what it meant. The biggest problem is powering such a system. (Perhaps you should get N.A.S.A.'s ideas for that part?)

    On a point made by GrpA, if a person stopped to check a website to figure out if their area is about to be hit by a tsunami and one were on its way, then by the time they got outside, they'd be as good as dead.

    "Do not go to look for a tsunami - if you are close enough to see one, you are too close to escape it unless above its level." (Wiseman, J (2004). SAS Survival Guide)

  47. Someone lacks a sense of scale by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The idea that you can outshine the sun with a man made satellite is so absurd, you have to question the intelligence of the person asking this question. At night it would be easier, but still require an insane amount of power and be totally useless when there are clouds.

    At first I thought the question might be about measuring the oceans for tsunami waves, but this kid wants to put up some kind of disco lights.

    You already need binoculars to see the ISS and then you can only spot it if the light reflects of it in the right way. The idea that a man made satellite could light up the skies, that is the domain of 5 year olds.

    But this is the reason most governments don't listen all that much to the voter. Because this is the kind of letters they get. Hard to take the voter serious when this is what they come up with.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Someone lacks a sense of scale by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      You already need binoculars to see the ISS and then you can only spot it if the light reflects of it in the right way.

      Patently false. Every overhead pass of the ISS results in a very bright, fast-moving display. In fact, the ISS is one of the brightest objects in the night sky. Most passes are magnitude -3.4 (very bright) to -3.0 (bright) - recall that stellar magnitudes are brighter the smaller the number, and are logarithmic. For reference, the brightest star is Sirius at magnitude -1.46. Venus is as bright as the maximum brightness of the ISS at magnitude -4.6, and Jupiter and Mars are only as bright as the dimmest overhead ISS passes at magnitude -2.9.

      If you've never seen a bright ISS pass, it's worth seeing, especially if you can see the Space Shuttle flying in formation with it (it just launched this morning, so you're in luck). Check www.heavens-above.com or www.spaceweather.com for visibility predictions.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  48. Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hazee · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's funny, in the recent "How Smart Are You" poll, only 5% of slashdotters rated themselves below average, yet there are some really fucking stupid answers to this post. Read the damn posting people (yeah, I know, this is Slashdot...).

    For starters, there are those saying that it would be better to use radar than a laser. You can't see radar, the article's about using the laser for warning people, not measuring the height of the ocean surface.

    Then there seem to be a ton of replies along the lines of "it would take gigawatts to illuminate the entire Earth! Sharks with friggin' lasers, etc...".

    Who said this thing had to illuminate the entire damn planet in one go? Jeez, ever heard of raster scanning people?

    So, it has to warn people in at-risk sections of coastline. That alone cuts the area to be illuminated by orders of magnitude. Then, it doesn't need to illuminate all of these areas simultaneously and permanently - it could sweep them repeatedly. Imagine that the laser was spread out along a line, say 20Km wide, and that then scanned the affected coastlines. So the people underneath might only see a bright flash lasting for say, 10th of a second every ten seconds. Brief, but maybe enough - better than nothing if you're out of range of a siren.

    On top of that, you could limit your illumination area so that, at any one time, you're only lighting up sections of coast that are likely to be hit by the approaching tsunami within the next 3 hours, say. Obviously you needn't illuminate any areas which the tsunami has already hit - it's too late for them, sadly.

    Come on slashdotters, how about actually engaging the intellect that I'm sure is actually present, and then discussing how this idea *could* be made to work (even if there are better ways), instead of idiotic "terrible idea" comments.

    1. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by geoskd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Who said this thing had to illuminate the entire damn planet in one go? Jeez, ever heard of raster scanning people?

      Ok, as the post above stated above, it takes ~10 watts / m^2 to illuminate. Raster scanning does not fix the problem. if you only have a signal in a given place for say 1/1000th of the time, then the signal needs to be 1000 times stronger to be noticed by the naked eye. You have to remember that we are not talking about a transmission to dedicated hardware. The end result is that your power level required is the same no matter how fancy you get with your scanning system. Unless you are proposing that we attempt to shoot just the people with the laser, and skip everywhere else to save power, but I humbly suggest that this is impracticable...

      So, it has to warn people in at-risk sections of coastline. That alone cuts the area to be illuminated by orders of magnitude. Then, it doesn't need to illuminate all of these areas simultaneously and permanently - it could sweep them repeatedly. Imagine that the laser was spread out along a line, say 20Km wide, and that then scanned the affected coastlines. So the people underneath might only see a bright flash lasting for say, 10th of a second every ten seconds. Brief, but maybe enough - better than nothing if you're out of range of a siren.

      Say for the sake of argument that this was just 1 square mile of coastline. That is around 2.5 Million square meters, so again for just one square mile of coastline you need 25 Megawatts. This is roughly the power consumption of a small town. Good luck with that.

      The whole idea is thoroughly unworkable, not necessarily because we cant build the tech, but because the cost would be prohibitive, and there are far cheaper and more effective solutions. The process you have witnessed here, is one I have seen countless times in engineering:

      Step1: Clueless moron (usually management), says hay, lets build x to solve problem y.
      Step: Engineer looks at solution x, and cringes at the raw stupidity of it, then looks at problem y, and realizes that there is a far cheaper solution, possibly even already in place.
      Step 3: if this is government, the moron pushes ahead with solution x anyway because it is politically valuable, even though it has no practical value.

      This whole thread has been an exercise in those who understand good engineering trying to pass some knowledge to those who are quite clearly ignorant and should stop trying to solve engineering problems with frikkin lasers

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    2. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by JordanL · · Score: 1

      The problem is that this idea could NOT be made to work. Geostationary orbit is over 22,000 miles above the surface. Even highly precise lasers, (which themselves would be unsuitable for launching), spread out so that by the time they reach the moon (one order of magnitude further) they are approximately 2.5 miles wide.

      What this means is that to visibly illuminate an area, not only are you dealing with the idea that you need to outshine local light sources, but you ALSO need to compensate for the fact that your energy is being spread out over an area of a quarter mile or so.

      If you are talking about 10W/m^2, which is ludicrously low, you're talking over 1.6 MW per laser pulse just to make the light visible over a sixteenth of a square mile (a square one quarter mile on each side). This assumes NO efficiency problems and no loss due to interference, cloud cover or the atmosphere.

      Why do you expect people to give an idea that is literally impossible with current technology, (even current LAB technology), a serious shake? This idea is good for a laugh, and nothing else.

    3. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hazee · · Score: 1

      Ok, as the post above stated above, it takes ~10 watts / m^2 to illuminate. Raster scanning does not fix the problem. if you only have a signal in a given place for say 1/1000th of the time, then the signal needs to be 1000 times stronger to be noticed by the naked eye.

      I'd dispute that. If the signal is, say, on for one second, then off for the next, does that make it less visible? You've just halved the average power requirement, and I'd argue the flashing makes it more visible if anything. I think you'd only need a very brief flash to make it visible, particularly if that flash was repeating periodically, so the average power requirement would fall correspondingly.

      Say for the sake of argument that this was just 1 square mile of coastline. That is around 2.5 Million square meters, so again for just one square mile of coastline you need 25 Megawatts. This is roughly the power consumption of a small town. Good luck with that.

      I had in mind a thin line, 20km long, but only 1 metre wide - one end of the strip at the beach, the other end inland (exact distance depending on gradient of coastline at that point). So that's 20,000 square metres, and I believe that 200kW is achievable with (really big) solar panels.

    4. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hazee · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about 10W/m^2, which is ludicrously low, you're talking over 1.6 MW per laser pulse just to make the light visible over a sixteenth of a square mile (a square one quarter mile on each side). This assumes NO efficiency problems and no loss due to interference, cloud cover or the atmosphere.

      I'm not sure about this 10W/m^2 figure. Maybe I just have a different concept to the rest of Slashdot, who seem to be imagining a system that would light up the ground and everything around you. I was imagining a really bright flashing "star". Given that you can easily see satellites with a really small telescope, and that's just using the sunlight reflecting off their panels (say, 1kW per square metre, maybe 1-10 square metres), that I think the power requirements could be way lower than discussed, and still produce an easily visible light. Granted someone in the village would have to be looking up, but I think there's a fair chance of that?

    5. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Come on slashdotters, how about actually engaging the intellect that I'm sure is actually present, and then discussing how this idea *could* be made to work

      Spending effort to make monumentally stupid ideas work is a waste of time.

      How bout this: Install sirens instead, as has already been done in places like Hawaii. Cheap, effective, and doesn't cost all that much since the range of the sirens is pretty good.

    6. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by geoskd · · Score: 1

      I'd dispute that. If the signal is, say, on for one second, then off for the next, does that make it less visible? You've just halved the average power requirement, and I'd argue the flashing makes it more visible if anything. I think you'd only need a very brief flash to make it visible, particularly if that flash was repeating periodically, so the average power requirement would fall correspondingly.

      What was discussed was using rastering to reduce the power need, but to reduce the power need to something manageable would require several orders of magnitude less on-time. You would be looking at 1 second on, 1 millions seconds off (scanning somewhere else). This would mean roughly two weeks between one second pulses. ?Or, you could have it on for only 1 ms out of every 1000 seconds (14 minutes), but a 1 ms pulse at 10 watts is too little to be seen against the daylight sky, so the power would have to be several kw to be seen, and once again you are back to unmanageable power again. The solution is unworkable plain and simple, there is just no real way to compete with the sun in this respect, unless your entire target is sufficiently small (a few tens of square meters at most).

      I had in mind a thin line, 20km long, but only 1 meter wide - one end of the strip at the beach, the other end inland (exact distance depending on gradient of coastline at that point). So that's 20,000 square meters, and I believe that 200kW is achievable with (really big) solar panels.

      Still no go, 10 watts / square meter is only bright enough to be seen as a light in the sky, reflected light will be non-existent, so it will be invisible for all intents and purposes. To "light up the sand" above daylight, you would need kws/square meter, and again it would be unworkable for anything larger than a few tens of square meters. Once again, you are failing to understand the truly colossal amount of power being output by the sun on a regular basis. The amount of power hitting the earth on Hawaii, in the form of sunlight, is greater than all of mankind's power consumption combined. You are simply not going to compete on any real meaningful basis.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    7. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hazee · · Score: 1

      How bout this: Install sirens instead, as has already been done in places like Hawaii. Cheap, effective, and doesn't cost all that much since the range of the sirens is pretty good.

      I'm presuming this scheme was aimed at places like Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, rather than places like Hawaii, which are already well covered. How do you power these sirens in the absence of mains electricity? Would solar-panel-charged batteries still be able to keep a charge after say, 10 years?

    8. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hazee · · Score: 1

      10 watts / square meter is only bright enough to be seen as a light in the sky, reflected light will be non-existent.

      So how is it then, then when you have something like the lights on a fire truck, these are clearly visible reflected off the walls of all the surrounding structures, even during broad daylight, even though there isn't anything close to 10W/sq metre incident on those surfaces? I don't envision competing with the sun - like you say, that would take ridiculous amounts of power. But to produce a bright flashing light in the sky? I think that can be done for a lot less power than people here assume.

    9. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are proposing that we attempt to shoot just the people with the laser,

      2.3 million dead in the latest Hawaiian tsunami this week. Thanks to our early alert system, not one death was due to drowning!

      <jingle> when the folks on the beach start dropping like flies, hide yourself away from the wave or you'll die</jingle>

    10. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hackerjoe · · Score: 1

      Why do you think a rotating light won't put 10W/square meter on the wall? Those lights focus their light into a very narrow beam, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the spot they projected was in the neighbourhood of 10W/square meter. Say a 1/2 square meter patch from a 50W light at 10% efficiency?

    11. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, whoa, whoa, just because an idea is stupid does not mean we should stop trying to solve the problem with lasers. Any solution with lasers is going to be way cooler than sirens or radios, even if it is ignorant. Clearly you are overrating ignorance and underrating coolness.

    12. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      *slaps forehead*

      You're an idiot.

      In order to make the "flashing light" appear as anything, it has to be several orders of magnitude brighter than whatever else it is around. If the sun is overhead, then it has to be brighter than the sun.

      Go tell your local fire department to park their truck in a parking lot in broad daylight and tell me if the lights flash off the walls. They don't. Trust me.

      In order to make it visible from the area affected by a tsunami (several thousand km of coastline, at least)....

      my god this whole discussion is inane. You've OBVIOUSLY never done any experimental work with daytime lighting, or photography.

      As a former professional photographer, in order to adequately light up an area (brighter than direct sunlight) with a flash in broad daylight, we're looking at a flash strong enough to have physical concussion on your hand. My bigger flash heads can give you an instant flash-burn if you were to stand directly in front of it, but will only give me about 20-30 feet of range in broad sunlight.

      The absolute power of sunlight is profoundly stronger than most people realize. The amount of light in a shaded area in daylight is 8-10 times less than in direct sun. The amount of light during twilight is 20-30 times less than in broad daylight.

      The efficiacy of illumination also follows the inverse square rule, where moving away from the source reduces the light in an exponential manner, not a linear one (obviously, this isn't quite the same for a laser, but regardless)...

      Go take a pen laser outside and shine it on the sidewalk where the sun shining.

      Try taking a maglight (which can be visible from hundreds of feet at night) and stand 40 feet away from someone who is not looking, and try to use it to get their attention. It simply won't work. The daytime is too bright.

      And frankly, a warning system that requires people to notice a faint, flickering star in the sky that wasn't there the previous night might be problematic, especially many areas of the tropics (where tsunamis are most common) are cloudy almost 80% of some seasons.

      This whole topic is just idiotic.

    13. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Are you assuming this would only work on cloudless nights?

      How does a "warning system" that only works 15% of the time in some areas sound like a good idea to you?

      Even providing you could produce enough power to make a "bright star" (which you can't), have you considered daytime (when you DO have to outshine the sun, indirectly at least) AND local weather.... during the monsoon season in some areas (or in places like British Columbia in winter), people don't see the open sky for weeks at a time.

      It doesn't even seem worth thinking about, let alone expending significant effort on.

    14. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      It's cloudy 80% of half the year in Indonesia (monsoon).

      What about this system is remotely practical enough to even consider?

    15. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Considering they'll almost never be discharged, solar-charged lead-acid batteries should do just fine for a very, very, very, very, very long time.

      Likewise, cloud cover shouldn't hurt because the batteries will almost never be discharged.

    16. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hazee · · Score: 1

      In order to make the "flashing light" appear as anything, it has to be several orders of magnitude brighter than whatever else it is around. If the sun is overhead, then it has to be brighter than the sun.

      So how is is that people have been able to use mirrors as a means of signaling?

      My bigger flash heads can give you an instant flash-burn if you were to stand directly in front of it, but will only give me about 20-30 feet of range in broad sunlight.

      Irrelevant. Not trying to take a flash photo of the land here. How far away is that flash visible from (and bright enough to attract attention) from in front of the camera? I bet it's a hell of a lot further than 30 feet.

    17. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      A mirror uses the power of the sun 100w/m2 to signal over a small area (maybe a few feet).

      You're talking about matching that power over a hundred thousand square miles?

      Wow.

      You're just not understanding the scale, I think. My flash will burn your eyes out from 5 feet away, but from the upper level of a stadium, wouldn't even make the slightest dent in the illumination. From a mile away, I don't know if it would be bright enough to get someone's attention who wasn't already staring in the right direction.

      From 30,000km, it wouldn't even be close to visible.

      Understanding the power of the sun, the scale of distance and the scale of the target area... Go try some experiments with lasers. They're cool, but they're not that cool. 1Kw is a lot of output for a satellite. I would wager that even a fine-beam focus from a 1kW laser on just a few hundred meters of surface would have trouble penetrating the atmosphere and being strong enough to capture someone's attention in daylight from 30,000km.

      How is this something that can be replicated over.. say... 10,000 square km? You're talking terawatts of power....

      As someone pointed out earlier, the island of Hawaii receives more sunlight energy than the entire output of all human power production combined... How do you even remotely close to match this?

    18. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      To follow up with this, i did some research.

      The full moon is quite visible during the day, but only if it's in the dark part of the sky. It has a stellar luminance of about -12 on the scale. I would figure you would need about -18 or so to have a "bright light" that would capture people's attention in broad daylight.

      The approximate power required would be about 20 lux (lumens per square meter) incident on the surface, which is about 100mW per square meter.

      The total coastline of places like Indonesia is hard to estimate, but it is somewhere around 60,000km. Assume 1/4 would be affected by a large non-localized tsunami and you're signaling to an area of coastline around 15,000km.

      Presuming you can paint the coastline with a precise beam, say... all area within 500 meters from the water. Lets also say you're using a flashing with a 25% duty cycle (it's only on about 1/4 of the time), you're looking at 15000/8= 1800 square km or about 1.8 billion square meters "painted" at any given time.

      With laser efficiency around 65% (in the best high output research lasers) and the power required around 100mW per meter incident on the surface and atmospheric losses around 40% (60% efficiency)...

      ((1.8b * .1) / (.65)) / .6 = 461.7 MegaWatts

      Lets limit this to populated areas, say 10% of the coast. We're down to 46.2 MW.

      Since the sun in space hits with about 1200W/m2, and given about 40% cell efficiency, we need about 96 square kilometers of solar cells, or about 100 4-ton steam turbines in a reactor (whether nuclear or otherwise).

      Keep in mind, we're just looking at the coast of Indonesia....

      Lets assume only 5% of the coast is occupied, that will reduce our power need to 23mW (only a few square KM of solar cells). But considering all the populated coastline in the Atlantic for an event like the proposed Azores landslide tsunami, lets multiply by 20.

      Regardless, we're in the "entire power output of multiple massive reactors" sort of range, not the "strap it to a rocket and shoot it into orbit" sort of size.

      To quote Mr Scott.

      "WE SIMPLA DONT HAVE THE POWER KEPTIN"

    19. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Aside from this not working when it's cloudy, this also doesn't work when the sun is high in the sky. This is system is totally borked from 10am-6pm when the sun is up high in the sky and you won't see a flashing light against that backdrop, no matter how bright it is...

      Oye...

    20. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      To better address your question and lay a bit more clarity to it...

      If a person were... say... flying... and they were up in the sky right next to the sun. Do you think a mirror in their hand would make them visible?

      A mirror signaling is effective because it's done against the backdrop of the ground, which is not quite so bright as the sky, especially the sky immediately surrounding the sun.

      How, dare say, do you propose to move the sattellite around when it happens to be directly in line with the sun, so as to be completely invisible.

      Oye, there's so many parts of this that are just stupid.

      I'm done... moving on...

      good luck with your idea there, sparky.

    21. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by hazee · · Score: 1

      Interesting analysis - in particular that you've come up with a figure of 100mW per square meter, which is two orders of magnitude less than most of the other postings assume. You don't make any mention of moving the beam around - surely that would cut power requirements? Signal one 1,000Km stretch of coast for a few seconds, then the next, etc, then return. Maybe enough to knock another order of magnitude off the sums? Which brings your final figure down to 2.3MW (for the Indonesia case, admittedly). Too high for direct power from (reasonable sized) solar panels, but surely the satellite would have some sort of stored energy system; flywheels or capacitors. Would reduce the allowable duty cycle further, but really only need a bright flash every few seconds. To answer your other point: if the satellite happens to be in front of the sun's disc (or even close) you obviously won't see it. But you're going to need a few of these things for coverage anyhow, even in geostationary orbit.

    22. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making assumptions regarding the duty cycle necessary to be both detectable and understandable. The brute force approach is raw light everywhere. The next step is flashing the signal (Like SOS morse?). Next would be doing a sliding window raster scan over the the regions to be covered, so you are raster scanning a percentage of the overall coastline for any given signal window.

      Power is still a significant issue. There was a recent paper on using a nuclear reactor directly, putting a lasing chamber in the reactor and using the neutron flux to pump it, skipping the electric conversion stages. In theory, it would operate more like an RTG. So instead of a reactor that is something like 3x GWth for GWe to 0.8 GW photonic, you can potentially do something like GWth to 0.8 or 0.9 GW photonic. Still have to dump a lot of heat though.

      The alternative is to launch to MEO and have many satellites, and run electrodynamic tethers. When it's time to fire the laser, run the tether as a generator and extract orbital energy for power. When the crisis is over, take your time with solar power to recover the orbital energy by using the tether for propulsion. Though people might get antsy that that is the same operating profile as any energy based orbital weapon...

    23. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      I was already assuming a 25% duty cycle (flashing aka moving the laser). I don't think you can trim it more than that without increasing the power required to make it noticeable to the naked eye. But we're still talking about a faint flashing in the sky... Not anything that demands attention.. just something subtly noticeable.

      The 100mW figure was based on the brightness of the moon in the daytime sky. Surely not bright, but at least visible. Maybe 10x more would be better for people to stop and notice it...

      But 1kw lasers are considered pretty high power, so we're still off by a factor of 100 or 1,000...

      I dunno... Just for indonesia...

    24. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      What if we put the lasers on sharks? Would that help?

  49. Too expensive, and impractical by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Good old fashioned air raid sirens would be much cheaper and a hell of a lot more effective at getting the information to the people most likely to be in harm's way during a tsunami. The people who are most likely to be affected are the poor and uneducated, or tourists. The poor and uneducated are not likely to know what the "different colors in the sky" mean, no matter how hard you try to educate them. Tourists won't understand either unless they're from a place where such things are also a likelihood. People don't see colors in the sky as warnings (unless it's black when it's supposed to be daylight) because they'll just think it's some sort of plane or more likely a UFO. Furthermore, lasers are focused light, so it's not like it's going to illuminate the whole sky, just a specific spot. If people don't happen to be looking at the right angle to see the laser, or they're inside, or whatever, they're not going to see the laser.

    Air raid sirens, on the other hand, have been used all over the world for decades and people already know what they mean. They can be understood without actively paying attention to searching for the sign, and while deaf people are not helped as much, they have a good track record of warning people of impending danger, of all types. They can also be complimented with some local lights for those who are deaf or for more specific suggestions of what to do in case of specific different types of emergencies.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    1. Re:Too expensive, and impractical by Animats · · Score: 1

      Good old fashioned air raid sirens would be much cheaper and a hell of a lot more effective at getting the information to the people most likely to be in harm's way during a tsunami.

      Which, in fact, is what's used in some areas. Sirens today are usually loudspeakers, so they can broadcast messages too. Here's a test.

      There is one deployed laser beam warning system. This is deployed around Washington, and aims laser at intruding aircraft, flashing red-red-green. This is intended to warn off lost VFR pilots, after two incidents where the Capitol was evacuated because someone in a light plane wandered into the Washington area. It won't work through clouds, but it's the VFR pilots on clear days who create these problems. IFR pilots are in contact with air traffic control at all times, have better nav gear, and tend not to wander into restricted airspace.

  50. Captain Scarlet by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

    This. is the voice. of the Mysterons...

  51. Hancock tower was old school by paiute · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a space-age version of the weather lights on top of the old Hancock building in Boston:

    Steady blue, clear view.
    Flashing blue, clouds due.
    Steady red, rain ahead.
    Flashing red, snow instead.

    (During baseball season, flashing red means the Boston Red Sox game has been called off on account of weather.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Building

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  52. After 500 years, all that will be left would be by govt-serpent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "And when the unblinking star starts to blink.. Beware o evildoers... And when the star starts blinking red, Knoweth that thy doom is at hand Saints and sinners alike For the sea will come And seek you out of your lowly abode"

  53. Re:Plastic shopping bags by Kentari · · Score: 1

    Could be pretty soon then... You don't get free bags here (Belgium) anymore in super markets. You can get 1c bags made of corn, which are fully biodegradable. The process starts often before you get home... 10c will get you a proper reusable bag. Needless to say that you aren't inclined to throw those away. When this started I ended up forgetting my bags often, so now I have a stash of 20+ bags lying in my car...

  54. technological problems by eexaa · · Score: 1

    1] I can't imagine the power source that would supply this amount of power. Maybe something with capacitators.

    2] what about clouds? also, there's sometimes a sun-lightened atmosphere that you really can't see through (we call it 'day')

  55. You must be joking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the world still believes in Invisible Gods in the sky who punish them with natural disasters!

    They already call the U.S. the Great Satan!

    Now you want us to supply them with a strobe light in the sky to tell them of impending Disaster?

  56. Just use Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But be sure to retweet before seeking shelter!

  57. Still think it is an awful idea by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    I still think it is an awful idea.

    Either the laser light gets absorbed by the air, resulting in some non-focused emissions of non-laser light, but the problem is that the emissions start far away up in space, which means losing all energy before the beam hits the ground, or you somehow(I don't know how) use a laser which doesn't get disspelled as much, in which case the laser will not really illuminate an area, but just some spots or a line on the ground. And the coastline to be painted by such a laser might be really long, resulting in the laser passing by only every minute or so, so it would not be very noticeable.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
    1. Re:Still think it is an awful idea by hazee · · Score: 1

      I was envisioning not so much an area illumination system, but a "holy crap, that's a bright star, and it's flashing" sort of system - which I think could lower the power requirements massively over actually trying to light up the ground.

  58. Sharks with frickin' laser beams by eatvegetables · · Score: 1

    Screw satellites. Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their head! ...Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here!

  59. And how about daytime? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How you gonna get enough power to make daytime *brighter*?

    Was the idea to cook people and see who notices?

    How about bad stormy weather which the (visible light) laser can't penetrate?

    You going to have geostationary satellites so far away as to multiply the power required and the tremendous power losses?

    Or were you going to have low level satellites, and need thousands to make sure every inch of ground was within a few seconds of any satellite coming into position?

    How about topography blocking line of sight?

    There are so many FAILs all over this idea.

    It's a comic book idea, should never have gotten past the hangover stage.

    1. Re:And how about daytime? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I was starting to wonder if anyone was thinking this through. Good job,

    2. Re:And how about daytime? by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      I think this has everything it needs to be deemed one of the worst ideas I have ever heard... Unless the poster is looking for some upper management style cred by posting this.. Ideas this bad only seem to come from people that have made it to upper Management.

      The first thing that came to my mind.. Where does this person live that they have never experienced a cloudy day/week. Just how would people see this light during the day? Or how would they not think its a UFO when they do see it?

      Then comes a more rational question.. If They could be detected from Space.. why wouldn't someone be monitoring and contact Emergency Services in affected areas or at least start to make calls to start the domino effect to warn people. But its my understanding detection of them is the hardest as its too late to warn anyone once they have been detected. Right now they can guess using seismic activity.

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
  60. And rightly so by killmenow · · Score: 1

    It's nuclear weapons that are prohibited in space.

    As well they should be. I mean, the detonation of a nuclear weapon in space might accidentally release General Zod and his minions from their eternal phantom zone prison.

    1. Re:And rightly so by Asclepius99 · · Score: 1

      Hell, the detonation of an elevator in space could do that.

  61. Not nuclear by killmenow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I actually think people aren't afraid of the word nuclear. It's nucular that scares them. Mostly because they don't know nuclear is a real word and think nucular means big bad bomb go boom.

    1. Re:Not nuclear by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Actually the reason the word " nucular " is so terrifying is that it shows that our leaders, who potentially could lunch a nuclear strike, are idiots.


      And don't these people have weather radios?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  62. energy issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if we're talking about warning underdeveloped countries isn't possible that they may not have cell phones or further more a decent source of power with which to charge them or any electronic device? Don't get me wrong some of these seem to be great ideas but it would seem to me that some people are forgetting that please correct me if i am wrong.

  63. I can see the headlines... by Last_Available_Usern · · Score: 1

    "Thousands killed from partly cloudy skies"

  64. Warning, no. Detection, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I initially thought the idea was to use a laser attached to a satellite to _detect_ a tsunami. That would make sense to me; the laser would measure its distance to the oceans surface, scanning giant surfaces while compensating for the tides and calculating the speed, height and size of any potential tsunami.

    Can a laser measure its distance from a water surface?

    1. Re:Warning, no. Detection, yes by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      Radar is used for this purpose. It also penetrates clouds.

      Using a laser from orbit for anything other than curiosity experiments is just inane.

    2. Re:Warning, no. Detection, yes by decula03 · · Score: 1

      Yes. RADAR is already being used, wonder if a Tsunami already is visible from space: http://www.osd.noaa.gov/ostm/

  65. Do you smoke by any chance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    see related slashdot story

  66. Please do not have any other great ideas by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    Or at least keep them to yourself.

  67. No that how they set them off and it's a good way by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    No that how they set them off and it's a good way to be able to have a under cover way of ......

  68. Which came first? by xded · · Score: 1
  69. We need fewer warning and more dead humans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The earth's population has exceeded its ability to sustain itself.

    The only way to redress it is to (let/ cause) the humans to die off.

    We need to disable, not enable more early warnings.

    Down with early warnings.

    - signed, earth's other inhabitatnts

    1. Re:We need fewer warning and more dead humans. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Just think; The idiots who have all the money hire idiots like this idiot to implement such idiocy.

      You're the reason behind Katrina and Haiti. I hope you get flattened in the next test run.

      Idiot.

      -FL

  70. Neat idea, but.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A laser in the sky would be too passive an alarm, and sight is an active, directional sense. It would require people (who are outdoors, first of all) to look up and notice. How often do you go about your evening without consciously looking at the sky? Alarms, however, are loud and invasive. Everyone (who aren't deaf) will be forced to notice whether they want to or not.

  71. Familiar... by S-4'N3 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this the plot of at least 2 James Bond films?

  72. What if it's cloudy? by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

    You'd need a frakkin powerful laser to punch through clouds from geosynchronous orbit (about 36,000 km above the Earth).
    What if it's a sunny day? How bright would the laser need to be to be noticeable in bright tropical sunlight?

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
    1. Re:What if it's cloudy? by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      What if it's a cloudy daytime. That would be like multi-terawatt lasers... To penetrate daytime clouds and still produce a bright light over an area of several thousand Km.

      This is just ROFL.

  73. Too Dangerous by TooLazyToLogon · · Score: 1

    If Dr Evil got control of a satellite with a "big frick'n laser"...

  74. smoke another doob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good idea, Mr Lebowski.

  75. Billboards in space by rwa2 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like similar technology with similar issues raised:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_advertising
    http://www.jhhuebert.com/articles/In%20Defense%20of%20Advertising%20in%20Space.pdf

    I'm not entirely opposed to this kind of thing, as long as it is turned off most of the time :P But there has already been plenty of movement to ban sending visible messages from space since 1993.

    It would be neat to be able to send text messages in the sky, even if it was just a little icon indicating that you really ought to turn on a radio to check for a news flash.

  76. Are they ill tempered satellites? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why put lasers on satellites when we already have sharks in the water?

  77. Use Current Global System by n2hightech · · Score: 1

    We already have a system that constantly covers the earth with multiple data streams. The GPS system. Many Cell phones are capable of receiving GPS signals. Seems like mostly a software issue to add a code that could provide localized warnings of many types of natural disasters. Your GPS personal navigator system could even respond by directing you to the nearest evacuation route. This would be an opt in system that you could use to protect yourself no mater what the local political issues may be.

  78. Re:Plastic shopping bags by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    When this started I ended up forgetting my bags often, so now I have a stash of 20+ bags lying in my car...

    I have 2-5 polystyrene bags full of these bags 300-400+ - I use them for everything as many times as I can, one day here they won't be free and I can start using all the cloth bags I've bought. I think Belgium is further ahead of the curve than many western countries like my own. A proper re-usable bag here costs a few dollars.

    That said, I'm not dissing the idea of a Tsunamis warning from space, just pointing out how difficult it seems to be to get international agreement on anything. For my 2 cents I'd suggest it probably is a good idea - but instead of being a visual hey look up in the sky kinda Tsunami warning, it would carry data that powered alert systems would be able to detect and issue a simple alert, Tsunami intensity and eta.

    This would allow local manufacture for local languages and conditions and reduce the cost of the satellite and education required to interpret the message.

    One of the most telling stories of the Indian ocean Tsunami was that at a popular tourist resort only a 8 year old girl knew what it meant when all of the water from the beach went out to sea, she yelled and screamed at people to get to high ground immediately and was credited with saving tens of lives. If people don't know what it means when they are confronted with the most imminent warning of a Tsunami when it is in their face how are they going to know what that yellow and red flashing light in the sky means?

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  79. Nutty idea by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    A light in the sky is not going to do any good when people are asleep.

    A light in the sky is not going to attract any attention during the day unless it's a goodly fraction of the sun's brightness.

  80. Deathstars are unpopular.... by stonewolf · · Score: 1

    Let's see, how to put this... You want to build a laser that is powerful enough to be seen through cloud cover even when the beam is dispersed over hundreds, or even thousands of square kilometers of land area? OK, You know, President Reagan wanted to do that too... You see, if you just focus that puppy down into a nice tight beam you warning laser would be one of the nicest weapons systems ever built. When you were not using it to warn people about tsunamis you could use it to hold them hostage. You could could...

    Well you get the picture. The sarcastic Dr. Evil posts are actually right on target. But, a reference to Star Wars is more accurate. IIRC the direct nuclear pumped laser was the design of choice. The reactor is the laser.

    As far as I know such a device could be legally placed in orbit. But, most nations would rather their people die in a Tsunami that face having a nuclear battle star hanging over their heads.

    Other than that, not a bad idea.

    You could get about the same effect by installing a system of sirens and warning flares along coastal areas. They would cost much less and be much safer.

    Stonewolf

  81. Laser satellites... by durrr · · Score: 1

    ...Is all fun and games until someone turns it up to 11 and pokes out a billion eyes.

  82. The religious implications are humorously immense by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    You are facing West.
    > Look.
    A Giant beam of light descends from the sky. You:

    1. Pray
    2. Run screaming
    3. Assume Aliens are attacking and notify the authorities while arming yourself.
    4. You realize that this is a Tsunami early warning beacon and promptly gather your things from the beach and head to higher ground helping old people on the way.

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  83. Don't feel bad peter... by dhudson0001 · · Score: 1

    The same thing happened to me once when I was eight yrs old with respect to an idea i had involving magnets and trains. Don't let them tell you that you are insane...your simply ahead of your time! Now, get out there and raise some capital! hehe...

  84. the problem is detection by fusiongyro · · Score: 1

    The main problem with tsunamis today is not how to warn people, it's how to detect them correctly at all. Seismic activity is correlated with them, but it's not a perfect correlation; a fair number of them are not caused by earthquakes at all, and a fair number of sizable earthquakes do not lead to tsunamis. There's both a fairly high false positive rate, and a fairly high false negative rate.

    The situation is best in the pacific, where they have a network of deep sea buoys and alarm systems. I think the power necessary to illuminate vast areas of the world from space is much larger than a traditional RF signal, which is (I believe) the way this system works today. A factor in the devastation that occurred in Sumatra in 2004 was that there simply isn't any kind of tsunami detection network in the Indian ocean at all.

    The cost of installing alarm systems at beaches is probably lower than the cost of installing the requisite sea buoys, and it's probably lower still than developing this kind of satellite too.

  85. Basic physics FAIL? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Do you even know how much energy a laser would need, to become a bright light for a whole area, coming from *space*??
    Please, do the calculations, and tell some scientists of what you came up with.
    Also, if you do the calculations for the price, you already got something to pitch to country leaders. Maybe they see it as useful. If not, you can always tell that to their population. ^^

    I replied that countries could easily opt out

    I’m sorry, but you have to be pretty arrogant and egocentric, to make this opt OUT instead of opt IN like it should be.
    Opt OUT, just like imperialism, am I right?
    (Yes, I know your good intentions. It’s just very far from being polite. Be polite and humble, and you achieve more.)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  86. is the problem notification or detection? by UID30 · · Score: 1

    If the root of the problem is notification of the event, then the solution can be had much more cheaply than launching a dedicated satellite, can't it? What about simply renting the transponder space on an existing satellite and installing simple receiving stations in coastal areas that are hooked to early warning alarms/sirens? Build the ground stations as passive listeners and you might even be able to run the thing from solar power alone.

    I don't think the problem is technical, however ... there are 12 different ways of skinning that cat. I think the real question is "who is going to pay for it?" Sat/transponder space/ground stations/engineering aren't free. I could see an international organization footing the bill for the NOC which transmits warnings and the specs for protocol ... that would make most sense I guess. Then leave it up to the central government or individual communities to buy receivers from 3rd party vendors? Is this an untapped business opportunity?

    --
    "Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever." - Napoleon Bonaparte
  87. Oblig. by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    This was invented by Shampoo.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  88. People Indoors? by pavera · · Score: 1

    I guess my concern would be, Earthquake at 2am? Everyone is indoors and asleep? How does some laser shining on their house wake them up? Seems like that is a pretty big gaping hole in the universality of the warning, and would create large doubts as to the efficacy and therefore need to spend probably billions of dollars developing and deploying such a system.

    (Assuming it is practical and feasible to illuminate large swaths of the planet from space)

    1. Re:People Indoors? by Peter+bayley · · Score: 1

      I don't remember mentioning earthquakes at all. You detect earthquakes by noticing the room moving. Now if you really meant Tsunami (i.e. a catastrophic event that can be detected early enough for action to be taken) then you're right, the "final mile" will still need some one person who sees the warning running around and warning the sleepers.

  89. Tsunami Warning From Space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The laser has problems for sure. I like the opt in thing. There would be a need for some scientific and multinational organization or business to run it.
    It also strikes me that maybe using a communication satellite to transmit messages to radios and/or high altitude signs/scoreboards held aloft with dirigible type craft could be another sort of steam-punk sort of solution that might have real world applications if we could all get along.

  90. You joke-holes. This was a morality test! by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    You've all just been turned into lab rats in a social experiment.

    Everybody who pulled out their small man-parts to jump into the blood-bath crucifixion of this brave fellow, (who, on the surface, committed the ultimate crime of trying to start an interesting conversation on a slow news day), FAILED.

    Jeez, people.

    Are you all still strutting around in kindergarten trying to explain why everybody else's Lego creations are inferior? Still trying to "win" all the authority-figure love?

    Grow Up. Think beyond the moment. A little pattern recognition please!

    -FL

  91. Clarification by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

    The amount of water affected by the wave is the same, and steadily diminishes over time. But over the open ocean, that effect is spread out horizontally (amount calculated by the inverse square law) and also vertically, from sea level to ocean floor. This vertical spread results in a wave that isn't very high at all and often passes unnoticed by ships at sea. Then, when the wave reaches the continental shelf, it cannot be spread out so far vertically. (Same amount of water affected by the event that caused the wave, or less, due to entropy, but less vertical room.) Having nowhere else to go but up, it rises up. So it doesn't actually grow in strength. Rather, it just gets taller in shallow water.

    To detect a 1-meter rise in sea level by the timing of its laser light reflection would require detecting a 1/1,500,000 second difference in the round trip. That's 1/3,000,000 second sooner contact with the water on the down beam, plus 1/3,000,000 second sooner arrival by the reflection. That's a pretty small difference compared to the roughly 1/3 of a second it takes light to make that same round trip normally from geosynchronous orbit. Even if you can do it accurately enough, you would detect only position, not direction. (On the macroscopic level, that sort of Heisenberg-like uncertainty is very dissatisfying.)

    That's why they use buoys instead. Not only is the change in sea level detected more accurately in the sea, where it happens, you can have lots of them, because they don't have to be launched into geosynchronous orbit. With lots of them, you can both detect position and infer direction.

    To the original poster: It wasn't a bad idea, per se. It's good that you're thinking outside the box like that. It was just pretty impractical when you get down to the details.

  92. google death ray by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    maybe the google engineers can use the google death ray for this in the 20% time. ;)

  93. Sweet jesus, man, don't go to the authorities... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweet jesus, man, don't go to the authorities with good ideas!!!! The ninkumpoops will botch it no doubt! Best start a venture of your own!

  94. So, how do we detect tsunamis from space, exactly? by reillymj · · Score: 2, Informative

    how is detecting a tsunami from space better than our current method? 1. seismometers detect earthquake, computers & scientists quickly determine possibility of tsunami generation and issue a warning. 2. buoys in the ocean and pressure sensors on the ocean floor detect passing tsunami energy wave, allowing warnings to be updated. This system works well in about 90% of cases where it's installed; it still isn't fully operational in the Indian Ocean(the Pacific system worked very well after the Chile quake in February), but should be soon. The only major gap that leaves is the places where time from wave generation to impact is only a few minutes -- that is, a city like Padang, Indonesia, or Seattle, which sit just a few miles from a huge fault. What do we do then? A satellite might be useful, but only if it can detect the formation and size of a tsunami and issue a warning *instantly*. Fortunately, those cities have a natural warning system in place: the earthquake itself. They're so close to the fault that inhabitants will certainly feel any tsunami-generating quake. So, spending tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars on a satellite or satellites to monitor tsunamis probably isn't the best course when you can educated people about how to get out of harm's way for a tiny fraction of the cost.

  95. Re:Arr! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need an electron microscope for this one . . .

  96. What the goddamn fuck is wrong with you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An apostrophe does NOT mean "look out, here comes an S!"

    I hate you and I hope you die.

  97. I know how to do this! by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    It's easy, you fire the lazers at a ground based "difuser". NO I'm Serious.... but not in that literal translation. You know how you shine a green lazer on a plane and you go to jail right? You can't start infilltrating the earth with light that, to be visible in daylight would have to overcome the power than the sun. You would have an illuminated beacon, similar to a traffic light, that could get it's data via sattelite. It'd basically be a "recieving tower" on the ground which can then illuminate to whatever color you want. It's not a good idea to try and light up the sand. That won't work.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  98. Storm Cloud Issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would think that the most immediate problem with this is that hurricanes tend to cover the sky in clouds and rain.

  99. MESSAGE FROM GOD by BierGuzzl · · Score: 1

    That sounds like a great way to deal with religious radicals. Right up there with projecting a whisper right next to their ears, except this can be implemented on a mass scale.

  100. He's stupid. You're stupid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both of you should be executed for the good of the human race. You are disgusting.

  101. It will work great. by Yaos · · Score: 1

    You'll just have to figure out how to make the light brighter than the sun, or are you under the impression bad things only happen at night?

  102. Re:Dumbest. Idea. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not simply make a website, like www.tsunamiwarningwebsite.com

    Then, tell everyone who is within a few minutes of the coastline to stay at their computers and watch this website all the time.

    For the really advanced, you could have a RSS feed, or maybe even a couple facebook accounts.

  103. Calling Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, maybe Apple can use that system to advertise when their next gadget is available in your local stores!

  104. Re:So, how do we detect tsunamis from space, exact by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

    Lighting up the daytime sky across the entirety of a major ocean coastline would cost a lot more than hundreds of millions of dollars. :-)

  105. A ground based laser to write on the moon? by Fjan11 · · Score: 1

    Now that the lasers from space idea has been suitably demolished, perhaps we can consider the other way around: Ground based lasers to write a warning on the moon! It will only work during new moon of course so lets forget about tsunami warning, lets put up commercial messages. I'm betting there a few companies willing to part with a few million dollars to have their logo written on the moon for a day. Great business plan. Publicity is instantaneous global and free. Endless debates in the press, Greenpeace is going to freak out. Technically feasible?

    --
    This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
  106. Already exists\being developed. by Zotdogg · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, as with most, this idea is not new:

    A google search for "satellite early warning tsunami":
    http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=satellite+early+warning+tsunami&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&safe=active
    Comes up with the following results:
    http://ec.europa.eu/world/tsunami/other-measures/early_warning.htm
    http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiRWarningSystem.html
    http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bulletin124/bul124h_martin_neira.pdf

    I'm not picking apart your idea. Just you googleing (How the hell do you spell Googleing? Googling?) skills, I guess.

    And, didn't I see a /. story about this a few months ago? Maybe around the time of the last big Tsunami?

    - Zotdogg

    1. Re:Already exists\being developed. by Zotdogg · · Score: 1

      Ya, I completely missed the point of the argument. I thought this was suggesting using a satellite for detecting Tsunamis not direct citizen notification. That's just dumb. However, it is a more novel idea that just using satellites to FIND Tsunamis.

      My bad. Still though, kdawson, maybe a good idea but, one that will never happen for a lot of different reasons.

  107. Better idea? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Instead of trying to put such powerful lasers in orbit and dealing with the nightmare of servicing them, why not do the obvious: Transmit the data to the ground, and put the warnings on a group of web sites that can be checked by anyone.

    Of course, most people in the world wouldn't be routinely checking that web site, especially when it goes for weeks without any tsunami warnings at all. Just as they wouldn't be routinely going outside every few minutes to check for a light in the sky that never seems to be there. What you'd also have to do is publicize your site with the relevant emergency and news agencies. If you could supply data accurate to the minute and danger estimates for various islands and coasts, I'd expect that the emergency and news people there would be interested, and would be happy to install software that pops up warnings on their screen when their coordinates appear on your site.

    That way, you'd get the information widespread in a matter of seconds, and response wouldn't depend on people noticing a little light up in the sky. And the local emergency people wouldn't consider you competition. You'd just be a good source of information that would make them look like heroes to their local population.

    You might also consider things like an RSS feed, a twitter account, and so on.

    As I recall, there has been some research on the use of orbiting lasers to accurately measure sea-surface height. You might want to find what's been written about the topic. A quick google search for "orbiting lasers sea-surface height" gets about 84,000 hits right now.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    1. Re:Better idea? by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      So, were you trying to describe every existing big news site (eg CNN) in your post?

    2. Re:Better idea? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Hey, if the Faux News Network would send out suggestions that people get the hell away from the beach area, I'd certainly encourage them. ;-)

      Of course, they'd probably be the ones that also respond to the occasional false alarm by ridiculing the "government scientists" who gave them the unnecessary warning. We've seen the effect this has had on, for example, geologists whose models said that a big quake was imminent. The widespread denunciation by most of the mass media, not just the "conservative", effectively got across the news that it's better to keep quiet about such things, while being prepared to collect lots of data during the event.

      OTOH, the proposed measurement of tsunami waves from space is potentially more reliable than earthquake warnings. So if it were implemented, it might have a lower false-positive rate, and make the (conservative ;-) public more accepting of the occasional false warning.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  108. raster blaster by Fubari · · Score: 1

    Why does it need to be continuous light?
    What would a 10m x 10m "point" look like
    raster scanning a swath of coastline?

    How bright would it have to be to be noticeable
    when everything around you briefly flashed red
    from reflectance? And wouldn't the beam itself
    be pretty visible from atmospheric backscatter?

    Instead of a 5,000km x 5,000km area,
    what about something that better matches
    a coastline? Maybe 5,000km x 10km ?

    And why orbit a gigawatt reactor?
    It isn't like this would need to be switched
    on continuously for days and days. Put up enough
    batteries to run it for 15 minutes at a time.
    After a few hours, the wave would hit and
    at that point it doesn't really matter.

    I don't know lighting well enough to
    say whether 1w/m^2 "on the ground"
    would be noticeable. The down side
    there is you'd want enough of a flash
    to get attention, but not enough to
    blind / interfere w/evacuation.

    Plenty of other problems, though.

    As for the people writing "this is just
    science fiction", lighten up.
    Computer vision was science fiction not
    that long ago.

    *shrug*
    This is an interesting idea; perhaps not
    practical, but still interesting.

    Some followup questions for the original poster:
    what %ge of tsunamis would this actually be helpful?
    (e.g. if it is too close, there won't be enough time
    to get evacuate, and if it is coming from across the
    pacific then there is enough time to save most people
    with conventional tech).
    How much would it cost?
    Would that money be better invested in saving some
    people from some tsunamis, or in saving all costal
    area people from rising sea-levels / global warning?
    My gut feeling is the global-warming thing would be
    a better "net-good" for the planet.

    But this is still an interesting idea :-)

    1. Re:raster blaster by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      The realities of using a laser for this is just stupid.

      The reality of "computer vision" for example was "wow, that's impossible with current technology, but it sure would be cool if we could figure out how".

      This whole laser bit runs into issues of physics. We know how much light is lost in the atmosphere and how much power is lost in a laser ocilator and how much energy is output by the sun.

      Even given 100% perfect efficiency on all of those, you're talking about 100 square kilometers of solar panels.

      or... 10GW hours worth of batteries... yes. *chuckles* Unless we're talking about an antimatter reactor, that's still outside our capabilities. our best lithium polymer batteries get about 10 watts per pound. So... 1 billion pounds of batteries *chuckles*. Or 900 million tons of hydrogen fuel cells.... We would only need a few ounces of antimatter, given a perfect conversion. Or a couple of hydrogen bombs perfectly harnessed all at once.... right.

      The idea of wide ranging signalling for tsunamis is interesting. The idea of using a geostationary laser is not. It's kinda funny actually.

  109. Notification Systems by SpaceMika · · Score: 1

    If you want to take the parent's suggestion of studying this stuff seriously, some pointers:
    - Check out U of Colorado's Natural Hazards Center. They have info on the major disaster research mailing lists, and put out a very good bulletin on the latest and greatest of ideas.
    - A tsunami notification system (via email or SMS) already exists; it has the same inherent flaws as any other automated tsunami warning in that it only activates for earthquakes (not landslides) and lacks in expert judgment on if an event is likely to occur.

    As for the easiest, cheapest, and most effective means of reducing tsunami danger: let the mangroves regrow. Mangroves act as an absorbing buffer; the areas with the least destruction and deaths from the Boxing Day Tsunami were all where the mangroves were intact. Tourist destinations tend to pluck the mangroves (huge beaches are so much more attractive for hotels), removing that protection. For the ugliest enactment of this risk-increasing policy, check out the mudflats of Cairns, Australia.

  110. Cloud is a factor use W.E.R.A and sonar instead by stoicio · · Score: 1

    What use is a laser if the average cloud coverage of the earth is 80 percent?

    Remote sensing is not instantaneous or frequent enough to detect waves except after the fact
    with a great deal of post processing. This is why a grid of in-situ sonar sensors and W.E.R.A.
    radar are far more useful.

  111. Why such a contraption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can easily see Iridium satellites reflecting light from the sun on their solar panels when they happen to be at the right angle. It happens some seconds every week.

    In an emergency there can be *tents* of satellites to be coordinated to wave their solar panels and send light to a certain area.
    And there is no need to use dedicated satellites for this.

    If you see a bunch of bright orange lights pulsating in the sky run uphill (or change drug dealer).

  112. Re:So, how do we detect tsunamis from space, exact by Zotdogg · · Score: 1

    The benefit to Satellite-based early detection\warning systems would be the speed and dependability of the system (hopefully, one that would be able penetrate weather to always be able to see the sea). I think you are correct in assuming that it may be more expensive than some other alternatives though. However, when you talk about training civilians you have consider the recurring costs. I suppose the parents could teach the children who could teach theirs and so on but, it won't be something that just happens automatically. If you had a satellite always watching for abnormal changes in the oceans' surface topography\height it would be able to trigger alerts in seconds instead of minutes. Those alerts could be a combination of warning sirens, emails, Texts, Tweets or any other communication. That would allow an automated alert to be sent to all effected entities possibly under a minute after the tsunami has formed. As well, as alerting citizens, it would also give emergency responders an extra couple of minutes. A couple of minutes being a significant benefit in an emergency scenario.

  113. The math is pretty simple.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The math is pretty simple. To view something from a distance a minimum amount of energy is required per square meter.

    For example, if the amount of light is equivalent of what reaches earth from the reflection of Venus is clearly not enough. First of all because Venus isn't visible during the day. You can't assume tsunamis to strike at night can you?

    The amount of energy required is very likely much much more than is available on a satelite.

    For comparison, the US defense is experimenting with a 40MW laser aboard a Boeing 474. Clearly "out the league" of a satelite. Probably not enough to warn a 100x100km square.

    It's not my project. I don't have the figures handy. You do the research, you do the math. Not possible....

  114. Waste of time and money... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with satellite television? Any area that can receive a laser beam from a geosynch orbiting satellite can receive the Weather Channel, CNN or their non-corporate equivalents. And if it's not geosynchronous, you'll need a cluster of satellites to cover the appropriate areas like at the poles (Tsunami warnings for the Arctic Ocean?). If the satellite network isn't geosynchronous, you also get the mystery of "which satellite is currently visible, so where do I look"?

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  115. Not Enough Time to Build an Arc by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    I can only imagine the potential for religious experiences from a giant light from the sky occurring for those who had no foreknowledge of the system. Is it possible Moses & the Jews were just out of the loop on the existing pharaoh/reptilian overlords communications technology?

  116. somewhat already happens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    isn't there already various networks of seismic sensors that send radio signals when they detect an earthquake? Sure I've already read about (e.g.) nukkular power stations shutting-down automatically when the earthquake shockwave hits a seismic sensor 100 miles away, before the effects are felt.

  117. Re:He's stupid. You're stupid. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    Both of you should be executed for the good of the human race. You are disgusting.

    Disgusting? That's an interesting word choice. Am I to understand that my being annoyed with cruel, mean-spirited people is disgusting to you?

    Can you explain why that was your reaction, (that and your desire to see me exterminated)? Or if I'm reading you incorrectly, then can please explain what I'm mis-reading?

    I'm not trying to hurt you, so don't worry. I'm really just curious.

    -FL

  118. Not good to save lives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest problem with this is that it would save lots of lives.

    This planet has too many people. We do not need more ways to circumvent the planet's own techniques for reducing human populations and getting things back to normal.

    It's better to leave things the way they are, with several links in the chain, so that accidental delays can still happen.

  119. Egalitarian Slashdot by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    > If this were coming from a noted astronomer, a major figure in disaster relief, or GWB, then it would be Slashdot-worthy. But seriously, what value did this Ask Slashdot add?

    No, then it might be newsworthy, at least in some news quarters. But one of the nice things about slashdot is that it's a bit more egalitarian. You get modded up or down based on your insights, not your credentials. Sometimes that results in sillyness, but we value it because we're nerds.

    We can respect the work that goes into a Ph.D., but we'll never respect someone only because they have a Ph.D. In a community of nerds, an appeal to authority isn't required to make an argument valid.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  120. why stop with antimatter? by Fubari · · Score: 1

    You considered some "interesting" power sources:
          100 km^2 solar panels - pretty expensive, check
          4.5*10^8 kg of batteries - too heavy, check
          8.2*10^11 kg of fuel cells - also too heavy, check
          several hydrogen bombs - difficult, check
          antimatter reactors - not invented yet, check

    But why stop with antimatter?
          Why not: a naquada reactor?
          Why not: a deathstar full of gerbil wheels?
          Why not: unobtanium batteries?
    Are we having fun yet? :-)

    So yeah, lighting up large land areas with
    a space laser is a non-starter. I get that.

    And there are more effective ways to solve
    the advanced-warning problems that don't
    involve space lasers. I get that, too.

    Still, space lasers are kind of cool. It is
    interesting to ponder, even if it is wildly
    impractical.

    *shrug*

    By the way...
    You missed my points about:
    1) lighting up a single spot & scanning
    that back and forth across the ground.
    That drops the illumination requirements
    a lot: from 25GW to 100W (using a 10m^2
    "spot" at 1w/m).

    How many "tons of hydrogen fuel cells"
    would that require?

    (I also wonder whether 1 W/m would even be
    noticeable, but *shrug* it was just the
    example Tibit used.)

    And 2) Tibit's example assumes continuous operation.
    I pointed out it wouldn't need to stay on for years
    at a time - just a few hours at most. Does that trim
    anything off the number of required batteries?

    Anyway, thanks for coming out to play. :-)

    p.s. I know you were just having fun with it.
    My goal was wondering is there any possible way
    to make it work at all, even if it isn't cost
    effective. Out of all your ideas, the solar
    array seemed least implausible.
    Along those lines, shrinking the illumination
    area and limiting the activation time seem to
    make it a few notches even less implausible.
    But that is, of course, still many many steps
    away from practical.

  121. Feeding the Nomenklatura by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the buzzwords are here.

    http://tris.trb.org/view.aspx?type=CO&id=903182

    http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CA0QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fadsabs.harvard.edu%2Fabs%2F1986rada.conf..208G&rct=j&q=radar+terrain+mapping&ei=TV27S4izCcy5uAevsP23CA&usg=AFQjCNEz83juaJfOvQf7EZva7mJjNPAL8A

    Google for "AIRBORNE LASER TERRAIN MAPPING" OR "radar terrain mapping".

    The sharks can be trained to body-surf. ;->

  122. Mod parent up by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

    Down with the herd mind.

  123. Ooops. Cloudy day - you die. by Ceres54 · · Score: 1

    All of the posts calculating wattage per m*m and the weight of a nuclear reactor were impressive. But it seems to me there is a simpler reason why this will never work.

  124. We are not too far away by jrbuilta · · Score: 1

    We are pretty much doing this already with the OSTM Jason 2 weather satellite, which measures the height of the ocean surface to an accuracy of 1 inch.

    http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ostm.html

    Of course, this is not being being done with a laser, but rather radar.

  125. Re:Ooops. Cloudy day - you die. by Peter+bayley · · Score: 1

    You're probably right that clouds will interfere with the direct light beam. Also, I understand the power issues but feel they might be soluble using a ground-based light source and a space-based mirror. But if we can get enough light in pointing the right direction, wouldn't it illuminate the clouds which would act as a diffuser - a bit like a whole cloud lighting up when lighting occurs internally. I'm not saying we need the power of a lightning bolt - just that the light illuminating the cloud might still be sufficiently noticeable.