NRO Declassifies KH-9 Satellite

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NRO Declassifies KH-9 Satellite

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday September 17, 2011 @05:01AM from the eye-on-the-eye-in-the-sky dept.

schwit1 writes "The Big Bird, formally known as the KH-9 Hexagon satellite, was first placed in orbit in 1971 after its development by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), making it one of the most advanced spy satellites of its time. It is believed to have produced images of the Soviet Union, China and other countries that held strategic importance for the U.S. government through the Cold War. But it was never seen outside the intelligence community. This weekend, it will be available for all in the Washington area to see, but only for one day. To celebrate its 50-year anniversary, the NRO, along with the Smithsonian Institution, is for the first time publicly displaying the newly declassified relic at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Va. In doing so, the intelligence agency is prompting more than just a little bit of excitement among reconnaissance experts and technical hobbyists."

74 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Act now! Supplies are limited! by adolf · 2011-09-17 05:10 · Score: 1

It will be on display for another 4 hours and 2 minutes. Better hurry.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
1. Re:Act now! Supplies are limited! by game+kid · 2011-09-17 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  ...before it goes back into the Disney Vault!
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
2. Re:Act now! Supplies are limited! by hedwards · 2011-09-17 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  It tends to piss me off how these sorts of things are pretty much always on the East Coast. I'd love to see the satellite, but flying clear across country isn't in my budget.
3. Re:Act now! Supplies are limited! by Divebus · 2011-09-17 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Just ran out and looked at it today. Jeez - its the size of a school bus. Half of it is returnable film capsules the size of a Volkswagen [Beetle]. The underside looks like a gas furnace, which may well be a gigantic bellows camera.
  
  --
  
  Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
4. Re:Act now! Supplies are limited! by leenks · 2011-09-17 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. Because it isn't like the people on the East Coast get pissed off at the stuff that's only on the West Coast, is it? Let alone people like me from the UK that can't get to see any of it...
5. Re:Act now! Supplies are limited! by rwa2 · 2011-09-17 14:42 · Score: 1
  
  FUCK! Something awesome finally happens across town today, and I just find out about it now?! My day has been WASTED... like all those people who were at the UMCP game today causing all that traffic.
  At least I was around the last time something awesome happened in this area, when a fully outfitted DeLorean from Back to the Future complete with a Mr. Fusion passed me on the I-270 spur...
6. Re:Act now! Supplies are limited! by hedwards · 2011-09-17 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  Like what specifically. The only things I can think of are funded solely or in large part by the various governments out here.Other things like Disney Land are out east as well.
  What's more, this was funded by federal tax dollars, I personally see no reason why it should be restricted to a one day viewing on the East Coast.
Resolution by maxwell+demon · 2011-09-17 05:10 · Score: 1

What I didn't find in either article: What resolution did those satellites have?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. Re:Resolution by chill · 2011-09-17 05:13 · Score: 2
  
  The satellite allowed the intelligence community to capture the highest-quality imagery it had ever gotten with low-resolution camera, Vick said. It also allowed analysts to get a look at huge swathes of territory with fewer pictures â" a single frame covered about 370 nautical miles, roughly the equivalent of the distance from Cincinnati to Washington.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
2. Re:Resolution by maxwell+demon · 2011-09-17 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  The satellite allowed the intelligence community to capture the highest-quality imagery it had ever gotten with low-resolution camera, Vick said. It also allowed analysts to get a look at huge swathes of territory with fewer pictures â" a single frame covered about 370 nautical miles, roughly the equivalent of the distance from Cincinnati to Washington.
  That says nothing about the resolution. That is, whatz detail could you see.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
3. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  It is analog film. You measure resolution by the level of detail and the smallest objects you can make out.
4. Re:Resolution by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-09-17 05:25 · Score: 2
  
  What resolution did those satellites have?
  
  We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.
5. Re:Resolution by maeka · 2011-09-17 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  It is analog film. You measure resolution by the level of detail and the smallest objects you can make out.
  No, you measure film resolution in lp/mm.
6. Re:Resolution by Hadlock · 2011-09-17 05:56 · Score: 2
  
  Something like 20 ft. You could pick out a row of houses, new factory construction, new warship construction, tank battalion movements, etc; but if you wanted to say, take a picture of Brezhnev's motorcade every tuesday from his house at 6am, that might be difficult (depending on the size of the motorcade). But if he moved, you wouldn't know until the next batch of film was dropped and developed.
  
  --
  moox. for a new generation.
7. Re:Resolution by camperslo · 2011-09-17 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  For security, no one is allowed to see the captured imagery. You can digitize and store at as high of a resolution as you like, limited only by how much memory you allocate. Special memory is needed.
  http://www.national.com/rap/files/datasheet.pdf
8. Re:Resolution by Surt · 2011-09-17 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  That must have been inconvenient to develop.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
9. Re:Resolution by maxwell+demon · 2011-09-17 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  It is analog film. You measure resolution by the level of detail and the smallest objects you can make out.
  The resolution may have been limited by the film, or by the optics. And I didn't ask for how it is measured, but what it was. And yes, what interest me is what size of object could be seen.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
10. Re:Resolution by davester666 · 2011-09-17 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  And we could kill you, but then we'd have to tell...
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
11. Re:Resolution by maxwell+demon · 2011-09-17 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. Now I've got an idea what these satellites were able to do.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
12. Re:Resolution by chill · 2011-09-17 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  That is funny. I hadn't seen that before. Subtle, but funny.
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
13. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  More likely better than 20ft. According to wikipedia, mapping camera that some KH-9s carried had that resolution, with the insinuation that the normal cameras did better. The previous generation (Corona) had at worst a 7.5m resolution which is only slightly worse than that 20ft mapping camera, and some of the later Coronas had resolution as low as 1.8m (again this is from wikipedia) with some help from a lower orbit. Given the KH-9s had as low of an orbit as those Coronas (200km on the lower side) and that the KH-9 were more or less a next generation effort at the same task, I would guesstimate they had a resolution of at most 1-2m on the primary cameras (if not much lower).
14. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  I've seen a picture taken from street corner in Berlin (East Germany) 1971. There were ordinary traffic, cars, people walking etc. and a gentleman standing wearing whitish coat and some dark stick hanging on his arm, possibly umbrella. He was reading or reviewing newspaper facing towards the road. The picture was black and white, grainy and fuzzy because it was zoomed in so much and developed very sharp contrast. You couldn't ofcourse read the headlines nor the text, but you could possibly find what date it was taken by comparing the rough page layout, which parts were darker (pictures) and which lighter (text) etc. I was about 11 and the picture was shown by my farther one day. Can't tell you more about the event, as he did not explain more. He said, "son this is how good pictures satellites get today." Later, I've thought that many times over, but didn't find the picture from my fathers goods as he passed away 10 years after that. Very likely got it from work and returned it there too. Though I have no idea why he had picture like that and why did he bring that picture at home. AFAIK he did not work for intelligence community, but who knows those days who was working for what etc.
15. Re:Resolution by Doc+Ruby · 2011-09-17 08:08 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Consumer-grade 35mm film has about 3000 grains per inch average, so each frame has a granularity of about 4000x3000. However, the photochemical process by which grains are exposed and fixed does not happen on a regular grid (like pixels do), and favors clustering of grains especially at edges. There is a nominally (except for texture of the backing medium) infinite degree of subgrain positions exposed grains can get fixed to when developed.
  So while a 370NM distance might be covered by 4000 grains, about 171 meters per grain, the shapes defined by grains around features in the subject could possibly represent much finer sizes, perhaps down to several dozen feet.
  Another factor is the nature of the subject. If you can tell from a fuzzy zoom simply whether or not a shape is dark or light, you might be able to tell whether a garage door (or missile silo) is open or closed, or empty or full. You might be able to tell that a light is on in an office at night. You might be able to tell that a line of tanks is arrayed, not a chainlink fence. A big part is the human eye and mind's ability to recognize shapes in fuzzy analog blotches, especially from a short list of possible answers. Which is what the majority of intelligence relies on: getting context, not just the target data, and making reasonable inferences.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
16. Re:Resolution by Baloroth · 2011-09-17 08:49 · Score: 2
  
  I believe they actually dropped the film in capsules back to earth to be developed. Inconvenience really doesn't bother the intelligence community.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
17. Re:Resolution by hedwards · 2011-09-17 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  370 nautical miles are long, but not that long. Perhaps it might be pointed out to those not living on the East Coast, that they mean Washington D.C. the one with a population and area a fraction of the one of Washington.
18. Re:Resolution by hedwards · 2011-09-17 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  No. lp/mm is just related to scanning, if you scan at 1600 SPI it's the same whether there is increased detail or not. And the answer is going to depend a great deal on the size of the particular frames. For some purposes I'm sure it was quite useful, I'm sure that the generals would have killed for that information in WWII when tracking troop movements and placement of various infrastructure.
19. Re:Resolution by ckthorp · 2011-09-17 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the linked Washington Post article, they mention that the 370 NM camera is for the the low-resolution camera. In the article, they brag that it was the then widest angle reconnaissance camera. The high-resolution, and therefore narrow field, camera had a resolution of 2' 6". There is also a description of a counter-rotating optic system, which would indicate to me that they were using a scanning-style panoramic camera yielding a much larger film area than 24mm x 36mm. If I had to guess (with no particular expertise on the subject), I bet they were using something more like extra long rolls of 120 (6cm wide) roll film.
20. Re:Resolution by woolpert · 2011-09-18 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Simply wrong.
  One measures film's resolving power in lp/mm (or lines, but many in line pairs).
  If you don't believe the wikipedia entry on photographic film perhaps Ilford's?
21. Re:Resolution by craigminah · 2011-09-18 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Being able to read a newspaper from space is a Cold-War era urban legend. Commercial space-based imagers (e.g. Quickbird) have ~60cm resolution, one can argue they are several generations behind what the US Intelligence agencies have but even if one were to get 6cm resolution they still couldn't read a newspaper. You say you could se blocks of colors on a newspaper in 1971 seems to me to be incredible...that would imply a resolution of less than a few centimeters which I doubt anyone has in space. I'd bet the image you saw was either from an air-breathing imager (e.g. U-2 or another plane) or from a guy on an adjacent rooftop.
22. Re:Resolution by Coren22 · 2011-09-19 05:42 · Score: 1
  
  There isn't quite that much difference as to be considered a fraction. Washington DC is more than just Washington DC (600k) it includes Arlington and a few other burbs (MSA 5.5M) whereas Washington state (6.6M) is just huge, the pop isn't terribly larger, and actually when you compare sizes it is practically empty.
  Sources:
  https://encrypted.google.com/search?rlz=1C1AFAB_enUS443US443&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=population+of+washington+state (nice graph at top of search)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metropolitan_Area
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
23. Re:Resolution by NikeHerc · 2011-09-19 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  RAP data sheet
  
  Man, I miss Robert A. Pease. RIP, sir. You have earned it.
  
  --
  Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Reconnaissance expert by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 05:13 · Score: 1

I'm not a stalker, I'm a reconnaissance expert! Yeah.. that's the ticket...
1. Re:Reconnaissance expert by hedwards · 2011-09-17 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  If somebody's questioning you, then you're not an expert.
2. Re:Reconnaissance expert by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 13:03 · Score: 0
  
  ...in their eyes.
3. Re:Reconnaissance expert by hedwards · 2011-09-17 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  In anybody's eyes. The point of reconnaissance is to do it without anybody realizing that you're doing it. If they know then they will adjust to it in some way.
pictures by kqc7011 · 2011-09-17 05:13 · Score: 1

It would be a better display if the pictures that it took were there to see. Wonder what the real resolution of the cameras was/is.

--
Passionately Indifferent
1. Re:pictures by KenSeymour · 2011-09-17 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  I found this link showing photos from the lowest resolution camera on the bottom half of the page.
  They only had access to further reduced resolution images.
  http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/hid-imagery.htm
  
  --
  "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
50 Year Anniversary? by mlawrence · 2011-09-17 05:24 · Score: 1

1971 to present is 40 years, not 50.
1. Re:50 Year Anniversary? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-09-17 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To celebrate its 50-year anniversary, the NRO...
  
  NOT the KH-9
2. Re:50 Year Anniversary? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  What is a 50 year anniversary anyways? 50 is a cardinal number and anniversaries take Ordinal numbers so it is either 50 years or 50th anniversary not both.
3. Re:50 Year Anniversary? by Doc+Ruby · 2011-09-17 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  "50 year" is an adjectival phrase. It's an anniversary. The kind of anniversary: "50 year". AKA "50th anniversary".
  If you're going to be pedantic, be correct.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
4. Re:50 Year Anniversary? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-18 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  WHOOSH!
5. Re:50 Year Anniversary? by Estanislao+Mart�nez · 2011-09-18 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  "50 year" is an adjectival phrase. It's an anniversary. The kind of anniversary: "50 year". AKA "50th anniversary".
  If you're going to be pedantic, be correct.
  ...no, it's not an adjective phrase. If it was, you'd expect to be able to use it as a predicate. You can say both "a very large house" and "The house is very large." You can say "the 50-year anniversary" but not "*the anniversary is 50-year."
  "50-year anniversary" is just a noun-noun compound, like "systems engineer" (where, likewise, you can't say "*That engineer is systems").
  
  --
  Are you adequate?
6. Re:50 Year Anniversary? by Doc+Ruby · 2011-09-18 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  You can say "the anniversary is 50 years". Just like I can say "the three storey house is three storeys".
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
The NRO's 50th anniversary, not the satellite's. by pavon · 2011-09-17 05:26 · Score: 1

Yeah, the working is misleading.
The obvious question: why is there one to see? by mbkennel · 2011-09-17 06:19 · Score: 2

Is this one which was paid for and not launched due to some bureaucratic/political SNAFU?
Is this a dummy test article?
Was it retrieved by the shuttle in the 80's in a classified mission? (if it were launched in 71 it was designed prior to the shuttle era and there's no obvious reason it would be compatible---unless the shuttle was designed to be compatible with HEXAGON's hardware).
1. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by rossdee · 2011-09-17 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  I'd guess a newer version came out and they launched that instead. (I have never heard of KH9 but I have heared of KH11 )
2. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by modecx · 2011-09-17 06:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It was probably the last one on the production lineup, and got the launch got scrubbed because something better came out, and instead of wasting a Titan launch on something obsolete, they changed plans. TFA didn't say this particular bird was launched in 1971, or at all, just that the first one flew in 1971.
  
  --
  Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
3. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by mattus · 2011-09-17 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Usually you build at least two. One will be space qualified and the other sits in a lab. Any changes you make to the flight software are tested on the lab version first to prevent expensive/embarrassing mistakes.
4. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by Baloroth · 2011-09-17 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or it might not have met quality control specifications, or maybe it was a demo prototype, or maybe someone hooked up power wrong and blew out the circuitry (I mention it because a relative who works on satellites actually had a client do that). Wikipedia also says there was one failed launch attempt, depending on how catastrophic the failure was they might have recovered the satellite itself.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
5. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by Truth+is+life · 2011-09-17 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  That was very catastrophic. This is what it looked like, so no, I don't think they got it back. The one they're putting on display is "probably" a model that was never supposed to fly in the first place, just a test article.
6. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by jhobbs · 2011-09-17 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  FTFA: "In total there were 20 Hexagons put into orbit over the years. The one on display this weekend â" which was not among them â" has had portholes cut into the sides so that the internal camera machinery will be visible, according to Rick Oborn, an NRO spokesman."
7. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by soren.harward · 2011-09-17 11:36 · Score: 2
  
  I went to the exhibit with the same question. One of the docents said that it was an engineering platform built for ground-based testing. There was an immense amount of ground-based testing and re-testing; failure of one of these satellites in orbit would have been a national security emergency.
8. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by modecx · 2011-09-18 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Could be those things, but I'd seriously steer towards the idea that it didn't fly because it was probably way outdated at that point. The one which was destroyed along with its rocket was launched in 1986, and this one was probably scheduled to go up after that. In the middle of the digital revolution.
  If I were to guess, launching a new film-based spy satellite after 1980 probably didn't make a heck of a lot of sense in the first place, from the perspective of manning the systems, and mid-air retrieval of the film canisters alone--and that spy-quality remote digital imaging was well matured at that point, so it would have been stupid to launch yet another film-camera and commit to maintaining yet another dinosaur.
  Lockheed had a contract to build so many, and that's the last of 'em.
  
  --
  Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
9. Re:The obvious question: why is there one to see? by tsotha · 2011-09-18 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Which, of course, opens up the possibility what's on display isn't actually what went into space, and any analyst trying to divine useful information has to consider the possibility he's being played.
Spare or Recreation? by Nivardus · 2011-09-17 06:38 · Score: 1

Am I wrong in presuming the satellite on display is either a spare or a recreation? Unless the NRO has some reason to safely capture and return satellites instead of allowing them to burn up in the atmosphere. (Were it a spare it's interesting to ponder how many backup clandestine satellites may be lying around.)
1. Re:Spare or Recreation? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2011-09-17 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  From the quasi-dupe from the other day, it's probably a flight qualification model.
2. Re:Spare or Recreation? by V!NCENT · 2011-09-17 20:44 · Score: 1
  
  Considder this:
  If it runs on film, and it drops the film back down from orbit, and with that technology; how the hell could they get new film back in?
  Errr... They couldn't, so that means either sending a shitload of these things into space on a regular basis, or have them land back in america. But if they could do that then why would they have the tape been dropped back onto earth? And no; it can't be a time thing, because they could have anticipated and adjusted the tape length and the orbit accordingly.
  So there were probably hundreds of these things...
  
  --
  Here be signatures
Wiki by Charliemopps · 2011-09-17 06:39 · Score: 1

If you want more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon
Which is also part of the reason they are out now by Sycraft-fu · 2011-09-17 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Declassification is partially just time, the government keeps things classified for a large number of years to make it more likely that the information is no longer useful. However they do look and see even for older stuff if it is still sensitive. It is not automatic after a certain period, just possible.
Well for these satellites, the answer is no. Commercial satellites can get about a half meter these days (the GeoEye-1 is the one I know of that can). As such revealing that the US has a sat that could do 6 meters isn't revealing anything sensitive. That there are commercial half-meter satellites means you know the government has imagery at least that good (as they could simply buy one if they lacked better technology of their own).
Specs? by Doc+Ruby · 2011-09-17 07:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's declassified. What's interesting is not so much an arbitrarily short public exhibition, but a public release of its specs. I'd like to know what the NRO was using under Nixon to spy on the Soviets and Chinese, during the height of the Vietnam War. Where are the specs?

--
--
make install -not war
1. Re:Specs? by john.r.strohm · 2011-09-17 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Recalling that Nixon was elected President in 1968, took office in 1969, was re-elected in 1972, and resigned in '74 or so, noting that these birds first flew in '71, I'd say you're probably looking at it.
  And then there was the SR-71 "Blackbird". According to the Wikipedia article, "The SR-71 served with the U.S. Air Force from 1964 to 1998." It flew over both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.
2. Re:Specs? by Doc+Ruby · 2011-09-17 16:19 · Score: 1
  
  I know - that's why I want the specs.
  
  --
  --
  make install -not war
Re:Which is also part of the reason they are out n by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 08:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

As such revealing that the US has a sat that could do 6 meters isn't revealing anything sensitive.

That's not necessarily true.
It's true that revealing our capabilities 40 years ago doesn't provide our adversaries with any technical advantage to use against us today. "Film! How quaint!"
But it might reveal things from 40 years ago that do have impact on present-day policy. Somewhere in the KGB/FSB, someone might have made a decision about whether or we knew about $FOO in the 70s because we had a highly-detailed pictures of it from space, because we had a mole onsite working on the $FOO project, or because we just made a lucky guess.
Suppose they believed that we had half-meter resolution on Specific Date, 1971 and ascribed the leak to spy satellites. But today, they know that our 1971 satellites couldn't have compromised $FOO to the degree that they did because they just weren't good enough. Time to dig open those dusty file folders and re-evaluate who had access to $FOO, because if any of those people are working on the brand-new super-secret $BAR project, and after a 40-year career, probably have access to $BAR today than they did to $FOO in the 70s.
Also consider the answer to "Why did country X do something 35 years ago" might be very useful if you knew what we might have been sharing with country X's leaders. The people running country X might still be in power, and the answer to those sorts of questions has diplomatic repercussions today.
Those are just two of the reasons why declassification takes decades.
Anyhow, thanks, grey-haired spy nerds (and grey-haired balls-out crazy pilots!), for showing us some really cool stuff, like trying to catch a parachuting capsule in mid-air, which was something I hadn't heard of until Genesis and Stardust projects. Now we know where the science teams got the idea (and after the crash of Genesis, we also know which direction to install the accelerometer, and the importance of never skipping testing procedures...)
Time Warp by Dutchmaan · 2011-09-17 08:32 · Score: 1

This is actually quite surreal for me as an adult. This is the equivalent of WW2 technology that I saw as a teenager in the 80's.
1. Re:Time Warp by FishOuttaWater · 2011-09-18 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't it amazing to compare how old stuff is to our kids to how old stuff was to us? "Why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it?"
Pictures by prehistoricman5 · 2011-09-17 08:47 · Score: 1

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1568 The guts of the reentry capsules is neat. I really wish I could be there but sadly I'm on the opposite coast.

--
Fuck Beta
Re:Which is also part of the reason they are out n by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 09:05 · Score: 0

Adding to what you said, while most classified material has a date at which point it is reviewed for declassification, there are some classifications, such as what the US uses for nuclear secrets that have no date built in to declassify on.
Old Friend by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 13:41 · Score: 1

Many years ago I counted on the "Platform" KH-9 to provide the "information" that I needed to fulfill the US and NATO operations requirements for support of global planning and country specific tactical operations. And all this is unknown to virtually every USA citizen, and if I go public, fully, then I will be silently rendered to Demascus, tortured and killed, in the name of National Security for the sake of the President of the United States of America. Yes, on the day of my employment to the Department of Defense, I signed, and with that gave away all rights, to Local laws, to State laws, to Federal laws, to International Laws regarding Prisoners of War, and enen my Citizenship in the United States of America at the hands of the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice, and for what?
A fist full of dollars.
--
1. Re:Old Friend by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-17 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  I think you meant "dollars."
  By the way, if in the end all that it meant to you was nothing more than having got out of it a certain amount of dollars, then you probably did made a bad career decision.
Re:Which is also part of the reason they are out n by Kjella · 2011-09-17 23:37 · Score: 1

Adding to what you said, while most classified material has a date at which point it is reviewed for declassification, there are some classifications, such as what the US uses for nuclear secrets that have no date built in to declassify on.
From what I gather some documents are automatically declassified, the rest are regularly reviewed to see if they should be kept classified or not. I don't think anything is permanently classified and will never be reviewed again.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
HEXAGON ELINT ferret satellites by nsaspook · 2011-09-18 05:13 · Score: 1

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1360/1
Ferret ELINT operations in Iran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Dark_Gene#Project_Ibex

--
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
Re:Which is also part of the reason they are out n by Coren22 · 2011-09-19 06:13 · Score: 1

Except aliens... :)

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?