First Artificial Aurora May Lead to Night Sky Ads 337
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."
Ad Filter (Score:2, Funny)
Is it too early to consider Open Sky as an alternative?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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
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
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:2, Informative)
It's about military-industrial applications:
Precisely. It is about taking one more job (the weather) out of the hands of the Almighty and into the claws of the military-industrial complex. Above all, these devices are strategic weapons intended for the manipulation of weather systems over rival countries, with serious economic and humanitarian consequences. It's ingenious; is there a better way to surrupticiously wage war than to screw up some other country
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:4, Funny)
"What are you going to do? Make it SUNNY and WARM?!"
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:3, Insightful)
There will never be hearings. Americans enjoy their military too much.
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.
Re:Who Steals the Sky? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who owns the sky? (Score:2)
root # whois sky
No whois server is known for this kind of object.
Couldn't tell ya.
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.
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.
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:It's more like ion polution (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really and not always.
It's just that if it's natural, you shrug and say that you were powerless to do anything about it.
Look at the Asian Tsunami - nature wiped out thousands in the blink of an eye. Or for that matter hurricanes and what not.
We might cause a few problems, but unfortunately since _we_ cause the problems we tend to notice them and find a way to prevent them. That's not a bad thing, that's the way we are learning.
And more import
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.
Re:welcome (Score:2)
You're optimistic. That would be premium space. It'd be dominated by Coke-Cola, Nike, and the like.
Re:welcome (Score:2)
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can see it now (Score:2, Funny)
No Son, thats a belt from Walmart, Orions belt is covered by the Levitra ad over there.
Re:I can see it now (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I can see it now (Score:2)
Re:I can see it now (Score:3, Funny)
Nathan
Just what we need (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just what we need (Score:2)
and what do you do if you run out of bubble gum? and want to kick ass?!
Laser paint logos on the moon? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Laser paint logos on the moon? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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".
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.
Re:Yeah, we do (Score:3, Interesting)
Light pollution is as much a cultural problem as an environmental one, because it helps to sever our emotional ties to nature, and blunts our understanding that a rich universe exists outside the grey expanse of the city. If you're an urban kid and you never get a chance to see a sky that is relatively unblemished by artificial light, how likely
Re:All I have too say is... (Score:2)
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:2)
Re:No country will allow that, except for fed use (Score:2)
The north pole is used extensively by the US Military. It's the fastest flight path from the US to Afganistan for example. Long range bombers use it.
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.
Re:No country will allow that, except for fed use (Score:2)
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
Re:No country will allow that, except for fed use (Score:2)
Surely the Russians wouldn't be too impressed about that, since the path takes them right over their airspace...
Just like... (Score:4, Funny)
Did anyone else automatically think, "Just like Cowboy Bebop!"?
Yes, marketing within the most vulnerable demographic: space bounty hunters.
aside from the sci fi stuff (Score:2)
Something planet sized like a big heart with an "I love you Jenn" right in the middle?
Granted I don't know about the science behind it or if a general population comercial laser would have the power to do it...
But if I can write on my wall with my cat laser play toy, why can't I write on the moon?
Laser writing on the moon (Score:3, Informative)
Yes you can, but the moon is about 2100 miles across
Even the best laser will disperse to a spot a few miles across on the moon [usra.edu]. When it hits there, it needs to be bright enough to be visible here. and it needs to be much larger.
Imagine the moon as a circle 2100 pixels across. For the writing to be visible on earth, the illuminated line probably needs to be 25 to 50 miles across. And bright enough to shine back 235,0
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:2)
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:5, Informative)
surely you mean a Van Allen Radiation Belt [wikipedia.org]
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:2)
The best part is on track 9 when Van goes "AHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
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]
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:2)
The "somehow" is, IIRC, primarily ultraviolet light which can break the bonds between between atoms in O2, N2, etc. As long as you continue to have sunlight and O2/N2, you will have an ionosphere.
The worst is that a "leak" in the ionosphere leads to a complete destruction of the radiation-blocking area that keeps us alive.
SNGH (Simply Not Going to Happen). See above.
For a basic look at
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:2)
Wow, form AND function! Props to the system developers.... oh.
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:3, Funny)
so? just switch her from suck to blow! [imdb.com]
Re:High-energy particle "wind" (Score:3, Funny)
Well, looks like somebody is into classic rock =)
Nikola Tesla (Score:5, Funny)
Tesla saw it comming (Score:2)
God (Score:2, 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/
Re:HAARP is a weapon? (Score:2)
(cutnpaste), but i think this is more likely than anything else.
and it seems some ordinary people there will get somewhat pissed about enquiries about them destroying us all.
whoops: Can HAARP create an artificial aurora? [alaska.edu]. oh.
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!
Re:From the Article... (Score:3, Funny)
--
Get a Free Zen Micro Mp3 Player! [zens4free.com]
I can't tell if you're funny or not.
Excellent (Score:5, Funny)
Holy crap (Score:2)
Light pollution is bad enough ALREADY can you imagine if there was man-made super-energized particle signs in the sky, what would be left of the natural beauty of the stars?
Shouldn't something like this be illegal unless it was for good use? Ruining the night sky for me just about does it.
Oh no (Score:2)
Skypr0n? (Score:2, Insightful)
A sky ad promoting San Francisco's Gay Pride being seen by those in neighboring conservative New Mexico?
Or when I project my famous image of myself wearing my clear plastic wedding dress from an offshore projector and it's seen by the fine folks in South Carolina?
If these things catch on, they will go down in price.
In 10 years or so (just like the digital camera), you may start seeing
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" >_>
Re:One question (Score:2)
Yeah, Right... (Score:2)
As in: a sky-high neon sign saying:
"We're watching you..."
(And I don't mean the North Koreans or the Chinese, either...)
Tinfoil hat reference (Score:5, Informative)
Small potatoes... (Score:2)
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.
Open Source Hardware Solution? (Score:2)
Alright (Score:2)
First Night Sky Ads May Lead to (Score:2)
Perverse. (Score:2)
And so ads continue to push and push into places where they don't belong.
Ads originally had a good purpose. They were a great way to support a service that was free or very cheap. You got your free radio or network TV (cable TV at first was meant to be ad-free), or your newspaper for a couple of cents. For getting all that content very cheap or free, it was understood that there would be ads, and these ads kept the service going.
Now modern society is coated with advertisements everywhere in sight. Any s
Spam? (Score:2)
"The natural aurora is created when very high energy particles emitted by the sun, reach the Earth's vicinity, are swept toward the Earth's magnetic poles, and collide with gas molecules existing in the upper atmosphere. The energy involved in this process is enormous but is entirely natural and it has been a normal event throughout Earth's history."
"HAARP is so much weaker than these naturally occurring processes that it is completely incapable of producing any optical effects that can be seen without us
The Sky Above Chiba City.... (Score:2)
HAARP? (Score:2)
Real aurora is bad enough (usually) (Score:2)
Now, a *nice* aurora show is one of the most wonderful things around, and I will NEVER complain about that. Most of the time, however, it's not a nice show, just a general glow that just wrecks night sky viewing without being worth watching of its own merit.
Every few years someone drags up some form of sky advertising; lunar, satellite, now aurora. It never comes to pass, and I hope it never does.
Most peo
Noooo! (Score:2)
"Over there the Milky Way...and over there, next to the penis enlargement ad, is Orion."
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
Military Sign? (Score:3, Funny)
All your base are belong to us!
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.
Re:Doing this since the 50s (Score:5, Informative)
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/
Re:Doing this since the 50s (Score:3, Informative)
I'm glad to see somebody beat me to the punch. Perhaps a bit of additional info may shed light on the subject. Disclaimer: I'm a plasma physicist.
The initial 'deal' with detonating nuclear weapons in the ionosphere was to see whether we could create our own artificial radiation belts. Due to Earth's magnetic field, the plasma created by the nuclear detonation will remain trapped (for the most part) in a bananna-shaped orbit, bouncing from north to south pole. Over time, the radiation cloud is ejected into