Slashdot Log In
First Artificial Aurora May Lead to Night Sky Ads
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Feb 02, 2005 09:12 PM
from the everything-is-for-sale dept.
from the everything-is-for-sale dept.
An anonymous reader writes "LiveScience is reporting that the military's HAARP project has had its first success generating artificial light displays in the ionosphere. They created little green speckles of manmade aurora within an existing auroral display. The work is designed primarily to 'enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes.' Next up: sky-high neon advertisements."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Who owns the sky? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who Steals the Sky? (Score:5, Informative)
It's about military-industrial applications:
* Detection and Imagine of Underground Structures Using ELF/VLF Radio Waves [fas.org]
* Angels Don't Play This Haarp [amazon.com]
-kgj
Parent
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:3, Informative)
There are quite legitimate reasons for producing an aurora. Amateur radio operators have used auroras to communicate over long distances for decades over decades. I don't blame the government for looking into this, although there certainly is a valid argument as to whether creating a large phenomenon
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:5, Informative)
A reasonable objection. However, the nature of these military purposes is not spelled out. The first link in the original post does lead to technical information about the project. But the second link in the original post leads to a lightwight story about the pretty lights, not much more. And nowhere in any of these sources do we read about the radical weapons possibilities, e.g. using HAARP to heat the ionosphere so that it bulges up into space in order to deflect incoming ICBM's.
Furthermore, when I made my post, most of the other posts were jokes about the pretty lights -- I figured those posters needed a clue.
Agreed, that book is a bit quackish. But not, I think, entirely quackish -- it raises serious issues, worth considering. In any case, there are numerous reviews from differing viewpoints on the Amazon page, which seems useful to me. I took care to provide the Amazon link, and not a link to some certifiably conspiratorial site such as rense.com, for precisely that reason.
There are quite legitimate reasons for producing an aurora. Amateur radio operators have used auroras to communicate over long distances for decades over decades.
Agreed. All good and fine -- I'm a man of science, I too want to figure out how things work by experimenting with the nature of things. But I wouldn't want to leave the impression that HAARP is pure science and nothing more, when it does appear to have profound military applications which, if misused, could seriously fuck up the world.
-kgj
Parent
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:4, Funny)
"What are you going to do? Make it SUNNY and WARM?!"
Parent
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit on this. I've been arguing with crackpots for over 10 years about this. It doesn't take much knowledge of plasma physics to understand what this is for and what it can and can't do. People either seem to think it is for a) manipulating the weather, or b) beaming thoughts into your head (I kid you not). Ok, the last one is by definition for the tin foil hat brigade. The weather modification stuff just doesn't make sense. It is bouncing very low frequency radio off the ionosphere ... those layers are way way up above the troposphere where the weather is for starters and if you beam energy using HAARP to somewhere else it will also pass right through the troposphere ... and anyway just think how much energy it would require to alter the atmosphere by inductive heating by a grossly inefficient method using a transmitter that is also very inefficient. Bahh. Silver iodide or just spreading a crop disease is just so much easier.
Parent
welcome (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like ion polution (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering that Freon is a wonderfully inert substance at ground level that gets changed into an ozone eating monster at altitude under high UV, one wonders whether hosing the atmosphere with highly charged particles is a good idea.
I have not RTFA, but I hopefully this is done over the US and not in in a far away place like was done by the nuclear testing bastards.
Parent
Re:It's more like ion polution (Score:5, Interesting)
Huh? How do you figure this? One thought doesn't follow from the other.
UV breaks the stable bonds in Freon, producing chlorine radicals among other things. This is bad because chlorine in that electronic state does not usually exist there and the chlorine catalyzes the breakdown of ozone.
This "HAARP" process sends radio pulses up into the ionosphere to excite the free electrons in the plasma that exist at that height. The exited electrons strike ordinary air molecules. This is nothing that doesn't happen already. Auroras occur every day. The only real difference here is the direction of the incoming radiation. Thunderstorms have a similar atmospheric chemistry.
Not that I support this development at all- while this may have been a technically brilliant experiment, it threatens to spawn a new form of advertising. This is going to become really annoying if it catches on. And the astronomers are going to hate it.
Parent
Re:It's more like ion polution (Score:3, Insightful)
Different radiation at different levels have different results. You would not want to expose your unprotected body to whats in the ionosphere.
Ignorance, arrogance and powerful toys == a bad recipe.
Re:It's more like ion polution (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's natural, it's less likely to cause problems.
If it's man made, it's more likely to cause problems.
Humans have a pretty piss poor track record when wielding large amounts of power.
In other news... Boy George really looks scary these days. Almost like something out of an anime. I just saw him on BBC America on the chat show The Kumars at Number 42.
Re:welcome (Score:3, Funny)
"Refinance you home, Call Earl at 555-Loan"
Wonderful.
Some astronomer gets the latest shot from his telescope and an incredible image is ruined by a add for Outback Steakhouse.
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
Laser paint logos on the moon? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Laser paint logos on the moon? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
adverts? (Score:5, Funny)
do we reall need. "En|@rge Ur PeNI5" 30 miles high in the sky?
what about a feed of the latest slashdot stories? would increase efficiency of nerds worldwide?
any other suggestions?
Yeah, we do (Score:5, Funny)
1) They light up the sky.
2) Track the source of the advertisement to a geographical region
3) Shoot the fuckers (for fun! no profit!)
It is a problem that will solve itself.
Parent
Re:Yeah, we do (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they have to be spammers, can't we just shoot anyone who floods the night sky with any form of light.
For example, Most of the street lights around my area will project light up to 40 degrees ABOVE horizontal. Not only is this a waste of energy but it makes the stars almost impossible to see.
On a better note, last night many parts of Sydney was in blackout because of some storms. Best night to see Saturn and Jupiter and for the first time my daughter found out why the milky way is called "milky".
Parent
Re:Yeah, we do (Score:4, Insightful)
Street light puts 1/4 of its light emitted energy in the sky (based on a worst case of 45% above horizontal). If they were designed to shine only below horizontal they would produce up to 25%* more light for the same energy consumption.
*Naturally some light energy would be converted to heat energy in heating the reflecting surface.
Parent
No country will allow that, except for fed use (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the sky will chance based on that terror warning system.
So get ready for yellow and orange nights!
Re:No country will allow that, except for fed use (Score:5, Informative)
No.
Military aircraft from the West Coast and mid west fly east, generally to Dover Delaware, then over the Atlantic and "stage" in Germany, sometimes touching down in Turkey before ending up in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We also have some heavy lift in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. But regardless of where they end up, it is extremely unlikely they flew over any poles. Nope, no, don't think so.
Parent
Re:No country will allow that, except for fed use (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, Russia concented to use of their airspace.
It's cheaper (less miles in the air), and quicker (just fly and drop, no layovers, delays, setting up staging areas).
The bases in Germany, Turkey, Kewait, etc. were setup for smaller aircraft (F-16, F/A-18 etc.)
Re:No country will allow that, except for fed use (Score:3, Informative)
Of course. Yes, without question. Most (but not all) came from stateside bases.
And yes, Russia concented to use of their airspace.
And these bombers crossed the Atlantic (refueling several times in the air), passed over parts of many counties including parts of the former Soviet Union, to reach their targets in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they did not fly over the poles.
The bases in Germany, Turkey, Kewait
Just like... (Score:4, Funny)
Did anyone else automatically think, "Just like Cowboy Bebop!"?
Yes, marketing within the most vulnerable demographic: space bounty hunters.
I, for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Energy inefficiency at its least useful? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Energy inefficiency at its least useful? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd rather they not completely kill off amateur astronomy.
High-energy particle "wind" (Score:5, Informative)
So what's the big deal with shooting a few billion particles at it from ground level? Well, those particles, if you've studied any physics at all, are highly charged and very high in energy. That means that as they travel through the ionosphere, they are blasting a hole (albeit on a tiny scale) through the atomsphere. These holes, unlike the Aurora activity caused by the Sun, are directed straight through. The Sun's rays travel perpendicular to the ionosphere, so although there is a lot of particle activity from the Sun, it is mostly absorbed and bent in to the shape of the Van Halen radiation belt. It's a good system, and produces some really beautiful natural artwork.
But poking holes in the ionosphere that lead directly out can lead to any number of consequences. The least among these is that the ionosphere somehow regains and replenishes itself with charged particles. The worst is that a "leak" in the ionosphere leads to a complete destruction of the radiation-blocking area that keeps us alive.
Put advertisments on the Moon, or fly giant reflective satellites around the Earth. Just don't be trying to put a hole in our ozone on purpose.
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:3, Funny)
Hehehe. Hot for teacher, are we? Will they see this over Panama? Jump for joy, if they do?
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:5, Informative)
surely you mean a Van Allen Radiation Belt [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:4, Funny)
You can turn a Van Allen Belt into a Van Halen belt with one of these [ebay.com]
Parent
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:3, Funny)
so? just switch her from suck to blow! [imdb.com]
Nikola Tesla (Score:5, Funny)
HAARP is a weapon? (Score:5, Interesting)
But if I remember correctly I believe that I read some articles about the true purpose of HAARP was conceived as a weather control device to be used in a military fashion. Can anyone correct me on this info?
Here is an interesting link - (which may or may not support my post...
http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp/
From the Article... (Score:4, Interesting)
Those seem like two completely different options there...help humanity by providing light to a city, or numb the mind of humanity a little more by advertising in the auroras in the night sky.
Really, we should just float huge space banners geosynchronously over all of the big cities. 24 hour exposure, plus in the daytime it could block harmful UV rays from reaching Earth. Argh...can't we have ANY physical space not filled with advertising?
Re:From the Article... (Score:3, Funny)
Fortunately, my ass is unlikely to become an advertising space any time soon...Wait a minute... Eddie Bauer jeans patch?
THAT WASN'T PART OF THE DEAL, EDDIE BAUER! Curse you and your comfortable denim!
Excellent (Score:5, Funny)
Watch Out! (Score:5, Funny)
Picture in mind of geeks staring at glowing screens while the 1 MW RF beam blasts the crap out of a 747 or worse.
One question (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying it wasn't an interesting experiment but I see _no_ benefits for us, the people, the end-user. Somebody, guide me to the light but not the one saying "Enlarge this Enlarge that" >_>
Tinfoil hat reference (Score:5, Informative)
Bad for animals? Good for war. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't expect to see any ads anytime soon. (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, did you notice the transmitter power. One megawatt. The frequency; HF. We're talking about some seriously expensive engineering in order to get a pattern of RF which will produce any kind of controlled image.
On a historical note: The Canadians had the HARP project which involved Gerald Bull shooting shells into the ionosphere. Because this was the world's leading ballistic technology at the time, the Canadian government cancelled it. Canadians hate being the best.
Not this stupid nonsense again. (Score:5, Interesting)
Last time I remember an attempt at something like this was 1989, when the French wanted to commemorate the centennial of the Eiffel Tower by launching into orbit a bunch of reflective balloons forming a glowing ring in the sky. More info here. [man.ac.uk]
~Philly
Re:Ugh. (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know if we need to be too worried just yet, according to the article they are not sure yet wether they are able to create this effect without an aurora already occuring, which would immediately limit where the technology can be used. Then they need acres of antennas, and a 1 megawatt generator, and only got green speckles - presumably only once every 7.5 seconds when the radio pulse was sent up. Since the system relies on radio waves it is probably not going to have decent enough focus to paint the
Re:Sky Piracy (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Doing this since the 50s (Score:5, Informative)
You see, I read this and I thought: "No way. We never set any nukes off in space. That'd be crazy".
10 minutes with our friend google.
We're crazy. From wikipedia - "On July 9, 1962, Thor missile 195 launched a Mk4 re-entry vehicle containing a W49 thermonuclear warhead to an altitude of 248 miles (400 km). The warhead detonated with a yield of 1.45 Mt. This was the Starfish-Prime event of nuclear test operation Dominic-Fishbowl". Ionosphere's ~80 to ~400 kilometres up by the way. Reading around about this test seemed to indicate that our madness did achieve a pretty badass light show (your patriotic tax dollars at work)- couldn't find a photo though. This wasn't the only high altitude test by any stretch of the imagination either. Another fun fact: In total the USA has carried out 1,030 nuke tests with 1,125 seperate devices.
It's things like this that make me marvel at the fact that we've made it this far without wiping ourselves off the face of the planet.
Parent
Re:Doing this since the 50s (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Doing this since the 50s (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.aracnet.com/~pdxavets/films1.htm [aracnet.com]
Several pictures of Starfish-Prime about half way down.
http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/
http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/
http://www.radiochemistry.org/history/nuke_tests/
Parent
Re:Ad Filter (Score:5, Funny)
http://jkidd.tripod.com/b/94.html [tripod.com]
Parent
Re:Ad Filter (Score:3)
Don't I feel like a dick - wrong link
Apologies all.