Slashdot Mirror
Army To Launch Spy Blimp Over Maryland
FarnsworthG writes: A multi-billion-dollar Army project will soon be able to track nearly everything within 340 miles when an 80-yard-long blimp is hoisted into the air over Maryland. Way to be subtle, guys. From the article: "Technically considered aerostats, since they are tethered to mooring stations, these lighter-than-air vehicles will hover at a height of 10,000 feet just off Interstate 95, about 45 miles northeast of Washington, D.C., and about 20 miles from Baltimore. That means they can watch what’s happening from North Carolina to Boston, or an area the size of Texas."
You can't tell me that thing doesn't look like it has a scrotum.
I guess 1984 is no longer fiction
It carries gas.
Ever read Boneshaker?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Nothing new, I saw one of these flying over one of the Florida Keys when I was down there a few years ago.
Weird article. On the one hand, it presents the blimps as the "last gasp" of a white elephant, defense contract gone-wrong project. On the other hand it plays up fears about privacy that are probably a bit overblown (the blimps don't have cameras, and even if they are installed, the range drops from a 340 mile radius to "dozens" of miles).
Even so, radar can track hundreds of square miles of traffic, and the real question is what the Army will do with that data.
Hopefully they will let transportation analysts have a look at it? Could be really helpful in infrastructure planning.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
How is the army allowed to do this on american soil...?
System test perhaps? One has to test these things someplace.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You're about 26,000 feet off the mark my friend.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Aerostat -- a lighter than air craft that gains its lift through the use of a buoyant gas
Balloon -- an unpowered aerostat, which remains aloft or floats due to its buoyancy
Moored/Tethered Balloon -- a balloon that is restrained by a cable attached to the ground or a vehicle and so cannot float freely
Airship or Dirigible -- a type of aerostat or lighter-than-air aircraft which can navigate through the air under its own power
Blimp -- an airship without an internal structural framework or a keel
Rigid Airship -- a type of airship (or dirigible) in which the envelope is supported by an internal framework
Zeppelin -- a type of rigid airship named after the German Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin
I am sick and tired of people using improper terminology to refer to aerostats. The proper term for the subject of this article is a "moored balloon" or "tethered balloon." All definitions above are from Wikipedia. You're welcome. Now get off my lawn, because a zeppelin will be landing on it shortly.
Technically considered aerostats, since they are tethered to mooring stations, these lighter-than-air vehicles will hover at a height of 10,000 feet
What do you make a 10,000ft tether out of, and what are the dangers? Presumably it's going to limit air traffic in the area, and will the angle and direction of the tether will vary depending on wind strength and direction?
What would happen if the tension provided by the balloon's lift was removed, for whatever reason?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
...for news of this coastal radar surveillance system to find its way onto /.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
Blimps like this were used with some success during WWII.
They are excellent at providing a low observablility obstacle capable of ripping the wings off unsuspecting aircraft.
I for one am excited by this important new program that will enable to government to more successfully spy on itself, and see no possibility for mass carnage when an unsuspecting A380 crashing into downtown Baltimore. And besides, in that edge case it will help Boeing sales - an important national agenda item. Played with proper plausible deniability it might even lead to baggage-less, nude flying. This will greatly reduce aircraft gate times, and increase TSA worker morale.
Win-Win-Win. Yeah, I'm liking this plan more and more!
Isn't the army supposed to protect us from foreign threats? This seems like a job for domestic law enforcement.
How convenient, right at flight level of commercial jets.
This is the very bottom of the airspace used by commercial jets so it's not a problem. Below 10,000 feet you have possible uncontrolled aircraft operating VFR without communications equipment to talk to ATC. Above 10,000, you have to have a minimum set of equipment and be talking to ATC.
Commercial jets won't be bothered at all. Civil aviation likely won't either, except that there will be a new bit of restricted airspace they will now need to avoid or fly around, from the ground to 10,000 feet. Likely this airspace is already restricted as a MOA, so it won't be anything new.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Maryland State Police arrested the Army for filming them - no film at 11.
(I'd list some reference articles (including ones on /.) about how Maryland Police keeps arresting people for filming them, even though it's not unlawful, but, you know - Google)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I share your outrage and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
There will be no danger of privacy violations because they said so.
No one in those fields has ever lied to the public before.
husband: I wonder what my wife wants for christmas
booming ominous sky voice: SHE WANTS YOU TO DECRYPT YOUR HAAAARD DRIVE.
Good people go to bed earlier.
How is the army allowed to do this on american soil...?
How do you provide military radar coverage of domestic airspace without putting military radar installations in domestic territory.
If I throw the word NORAD up in the air will it stick to anything in your general vicinity?
(Seriously, are Americans really that clueless?)
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Soon Big Brother will have these everywhere.
This will get abused. This will get expanded in scope. This will be used by the spy agencies to do massive, warrantless surveillance. The government will claim they're allowed to monitor everything because terrorists, kiddie fiddlers, and copyright. Despite what they say, I assume this has as much capability as they can cram into it.
This is just more crap in the ever growing ubiquitous surveillance state, and yet more ways they'll find to make sure Big Brother has his boot firmly on our necks.
*sigh* There isn't enough tinfoil in the world for this to be spun in a way that isn't terrifying.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Please please please paint it like a big red eye. Then dangle a black "tower" from it.
That would be 10000 meters.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
How long until someone flies a sharp tipped drone right into it?
Yeah, I'm fairly certain APG's airspace is ALREADY restricted.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
MH370 might be interested.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
You mean commercial jets fly at 16,000 feet below sea level? Isn't that reeeally dangerous?!?
Data needed to compute the life expectancy of this aerostat:
- What kind of riffle is needed for a bullet to reach this high and how many persons arond that area own such a riffle ?
- What is the gas flow trough a bullet hole caused by the above riffle ?
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
We had these in Afghanistan. A technician I worked with had previously worked on these. He obviously couldn't talk about the details of the capabilities, but was pretty emphatic that you really would not want to live anywhere near one if you valued your privacy at all. Apparently they are really damn cool, as long as you stay behind the camera.
Do *not* stare directly at the Freedom Blimps, as you will be targeted by the Freedom Drones.
Radar looks at planes and objects, and provides only the most basic details about an object (rough size, speed, direction, rough altitude maybe). Gyro stabilized camera with mind blowing resolution being downloaded into massive data centers should give you real pause. Even compared to the military satellites watching us that likely have 2-3' resolution, these are a major departure.
These cameras are side viewing into household windows and will be able to take peeping tom pictures/video that will be more risque than what the TSA was doing with their body scanners. It is only a matter of time before the perverts working at the pentagon contractors get caught doing this.
Given the very recent court ruling that cops cannot do video surveillance indefinitely without a warrant, this smacks of huge overreach.
Will it have lasers? And will they call it Skyholm?
Commercial jets typically cruise at 33000 to 40000 feet.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
Yeah, I didn't realize we were under martial law...
Oh, wait....
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I know the Army's getting tired of losing to Navy every year, but launching a spy blimp on the Naval Academy is just getting ridiculous...
Have gnu, will travel.
Satellites can see more (top down not angled view) and stream video to a ground station for viewing at a later date.
Watch demo of civilian tech here: http://www.skyboximaging.com/
Interesting no?
As for inclement weather, the balloon would be possibly more useful but it's so limited, that's a debatable point.
Imagine what the military has, so this balloon is little more than a joke.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
This is an military proving ground. It is used to test new equipment including radars and targeting equipment. These tests include endurance tests to see how long the aerostat can be kept aloft. The fact that it can see long distances is a good thing in a battle area. I bet they tested JSTARS somewhere over the US. JSTARS has most of the capability of the aerostat if at shorter ranges. Where would you have them test prototypes? They can't test a military surveillance device because it might see too much?
"Common law" is a state system. The common law was a synonym for the king's legal system. It was a power play by the English king to take control away from local feudal lords, as the citizens were given the right to choose the king's common England-wide law in any disputes, as opposed to the local law.
As for insurance companies having agreements to avoid court fees... well... yes. But if there were no courts, there would be no fees, and no fees means no fees to avoid. Without a government there is no-one to enforce the decisions of the court, except mercenaries. How does that do anything but support the entrenched interests of the elites? And as for having a court without state... sorry, once you have a court, you have a territorial jurisdiction with its own laws and norms... and that sounds like a state to me.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
It bears responsibility for helping turn the '80s into the "Cocaine Decade" in the U.S. because it became much more difficult to import the the heavy and bulky drug marijuana into the U.S. through Florida...
BS... THC is more psychoactive, by weight, than cocaine. By this logic, why didn't hash win out, or for that matter, heroin, or synthetic opiates active in the lower microgram range? People love coke, simple as that.
You know very little about the English court systems. They were actually several courts in competition with one another, and common law was used because it was least influenced by the special interests and even incorporated (gasp!) professional jurors. That's why it had to be taken over by the government. The Scots lived for 1000 years with no central government. The 'wild west' of the U.S. was essentially stateless and was actually one of the most peaceful regions in the history of the U.S. All of the core assumptions in your argument are wrong, and of particular note is your unwillingness to address how common law applied in the U. S. worked very strongly to protect individuals from pollution while the government pollution laws have worked to protect polluters from individuals.
The ever present bogey man justification. No need to have off shore monitoring of the actual potential threats (which would be massive ass container ships which are easy to track), put everything locally and monitor locally. That should let you know where the real problems are, and it's not really the bogey man.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As long as some entities have a higher capacity to absorb temporary setbacks than others, they can trade on this ability like any other good. But I suppose that doesn't make as good a soundbite.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Air Traffic Control has some procedures for keeping airplanes from colliding with stationary objects. They've had practice on, y'know, mountains.
I'm sorry, that isn't an approved measurement. Can someone give it to me in football fields?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You know very little about the English court systems.
More than you do, apparently.
They were actually several courts in competition with one another, and common law was used because it was least influenced by the special interests and even incorporated (gasp!) professional jurors. That's why it had to be taken over by the government.
It was created by the government, or at least the king. The professionals of the court were employed by the king (Henry II started this off). I'm sorry if this doesn't fit the liberal anarchist narrative you've built for yourself, but history is clear on this. The Wikipedia entry seems to match pretty closely what the book I was using when teaching the subject in university says....
The Scots lived for 1000 years with no central government.
Erm... the entire history of Scotland up to the union with England was one of a hereditary monarchy. If you mean no democratic government, that's a different thing entirely and irrelevant to your point. Even though the king held sovereign power, like most medieaval monarchs, he held parliament in his court, from the 13th century at the latest. If the Lordship of the Isles sometimes went against the king, that doesn't imply there was no central government, just that it wasn't 100% effective. Some consider the Lordship of the Isles as effectively a second "kingdom" within Scotland -- a second state with its own effective government under the "Mòd" (parliament) that MacDonald of the Isles would call with the lesser clan chiefs.
The 'wild west' of the U.S. was essentially stateless and was actually one of the most peaceful regions in the history of the U.S.
And what is the biggest hangover of frontier law in modern US law today? Plea bargaining. Buying testimony with a "get out of jail free" card.
Besides, there was law in the "wild west". There was a state. There were sheriffs, and judges, and marshals. I fail to see your point.
All of the core assumptions in your argument are wrong, and of particular note is your unwillingness to address how common law applied in the U. S. worked very strongly to protect individuals from pollution while the government pollution laws have worked to protect polluters from individuals.
Well, before restating that you'll have to actually present some facts to support your ridiculous notion of a "government-less" Scotland, and to deny the accepted wisdom of the Platagenet kings' common law courts.
As for pollution... well, all that proves is the system is corrupt. All systems can be corrupt, stated or stateless.
Now, tell me this: without a state, how would a legal system work?
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
that thing sounds like a tripwire for airliners. hit that tether line, drop 250 passengers in beautiful downtown Baltimore. better have strobe lights all the way down at 20 foot intervals.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
How far you can see depends on how high you are. At 10,000 feet the distance to the horizon is 122 miles, so 380 miles is over 2.5 the distance to the horizon. As for the word ''everything'' - what does that mean ? When they are that far away what they can see will be limited.
I think that someone is trying to bamboozle the senators who will be voting the funding for this.
Texas is a lot bigger than 240 miles across which is the distance that you can see at 10,000 if you define 'see' very loosely. It's pretty hard to resolve much after you have looked through 120 miles of atmosphere.
That whoosh sound is a jet flying 49,000 to 56,000 feet below its normal cruising altitude.
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
What I would like to know is how a "Tethered Balloon" costs multi-billion dollars?
Perhaps it *is* a technological marvel, as how else can they conceivably get a balloon made out of pure gold to float?
It sounds more like a line item on a ledger to hide money.
Guess I did miss it the first time. I read it as the AC trying to defend 10k somehow. Been a rough week.
A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
This is the very bottom of the airspace used by commercial jets so it's not a problem. Below 10,000 feet you have possible uncontrolled aircraft operating VFR without communications equipment to talk to ATC. Above 10,000, you have to have a minimum set of equipment and be talking to ATC.
More importantly, if you RTFA, this spy balloon is being stationed at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, which is already restricted airspace.
The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 by creating a new restricted area, designated R-4001C, within a part of existing restricted areas R-4001A and R-4001B at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. R-4001C is a rectangular area, approximately 4.5 nautical miles (NM) by 2 NM in size, that extends from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL. The time of designation for R-4001C is "continuous." Because the moored balloons contained in the area will be airborne 24 hours per day (except for periods when maintenance is required, or the winds exceed 60 knots), R-4001C is not a joint-use restricted area. R-4001A and R-4001B continue to be joint-use areas, meaning that they may be released, in whole or in part, to the FAA controlling agency when the airspace is not needed by the using agency. During times when the airspace is released to the controlling agency, air traffic may be cleared through R-4001A and/or R-4001B. In addition, an editorial change is made to the using agency name for R-4001A and R-4001B by adding "U.S. Army" at the beginning of the agency name for format standardization purposes.
TLDR: The airspace will be marked on aviation charts as restricted airspace for the duration of the balloon's deployment.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Nothing survives. Not even bacteria.
What, bugging every cell phone, landline and internet connection isn't enough ?
Does anyone remember the surveillence airships from the introduction to Syndicate?
Show me in any article where it says it even has a camera.
It's a fricking radar.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
With the protests going on every other day here in Oakland, CA and the authorities apparent need to keep an eye on them with three helicopters in the air, hovering in place, I've been thinking a lot lately about how much fuel they'd save if they got a clue about lighter-than air vehicles.
Marfa, TX has an aerostat: http://wikimapia.org/1798438/Marfa-Tethered-Aerostat-Radar-Site
I've driven by it many times - when I first encountered it, it seemed kinda neat and led me to learn about the site and aerostats.
And Spain formed a government that was overthrown by a fascist military coup. A few years later, the rest of Europe celebrated the defeat of fascism in Europe, while refusing to do a thing to restore democracy in Spain... because Spain voted for socialism.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Assuming an Earth of radius R= 6371km, that means a range to horizon (as seen from the blimp) of :
range^2 = (R+Alt)^2 -R^2 = 2*R*Alt +Alt^2 = 38846 km.sq
So the range is a smidgin under 200 km.
Anyone within 200km of this blimp can take a pot-shot at it. I don't know how much of a gun you would need to hit it, but enough people firing intermittently from ranges of a few miles should be able to perforate it faster than they can patch it. Load a few drones with thermite and crash them into the top surface. It shouldn't last long.
Seeing anything within "340 miles" (~550km) though implies considerable over the horizon capability. [Reads TFA. Heresy, I know.] OK, they're talking about radar surveillance, so 340 miles implies a "ping" emitted around every 4 milliseconds (one constraint) or particular amplifiers/ transmitters paired to give that range. BUT - outside that (approx.) 200km range, they're not going to be seeing anything taller than a person. At 210km, they'll probably only just see a truck on the horizon. Beyond 230km, most (steel-framed) buildings will be "under the radar" ... and further out the radar sees higher above the ground. further, a tower at (say) 200km range will cast a "shadow" hundreds of km long behind it into the sky. Unless the US Army have discovered some marvellous new physics that allows them to bend radar waves in free air. (There is a minor refraction with changes in air pressure/ temperature/ moisture, and some ground interaction effects, that allow for "OTH" capabilities. And those physics results are probably pretty highly classified, to keep foreigners unsure about the capabilities of USian radar. But generally, the geometry wins.)
I'm not saying this is a good thing. But it is a more limited thing than the PR puff implies.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"