Army To Launch Spy Blimp Over Maryland 177
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."
Balls (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
You think scrotum, I think udder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The funny thing is people seeing the words "spy" and "watch" and totally miss that this a radar ship that is watching the airspace for incoming missiles. The thing can't even see the ground for very far. People are spouting nonsense like "maybe they will look at cars with it," but from 10,000ft you can only actually track cars that are really close, even though you can see a long ways.
Terrain at ground level is very bumpy. You can see a long ways from the top of 10,000 ft mountain, but even with a telescope
Re: (Score:2)
Once it is up there and accepted, mission change is no problem at all. So you could run a betting pool, how many days after is is launched just with radar will high resolution, deep focus, multiple frequency video and cameras be added, so that 'er' 'um' planes identified by radar can be visually identified and recorded, just planes of course and not people's back yards. But, hey, don't worry, that information with be classified under national security so you need not worry about it ;D.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be totally missing the fact that this is not a very useful platform for spying on people.
A satellite has less atmosphere to distort the signal. It is very specifically useful to radar to have something at that altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
got a 10,000 foot high aviation warning light? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, that sounds scary. I propose to establish traffic lanes for airplanes, and a system of civilian radar so air traffic controllers can warn aircraft if they're going off course near something dangerous.
Good thing the aerostat has active military radar so they can see and establish radio contact with anybody flying towards it...
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what it would be like if we had mountains 14,000 feet high.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Captain America...
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 monarch
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How would a stateless society handle such tech? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]
1984 (Score:1)
I guess 1984 is no longer fiction
Re:1984 (Score:5, Informative)
I guess you missed 1980, when the first one went into service in the Florida Keys. Today they're all along the southern border and the Caribbean...this is just the first time one has been stationed farther north.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Fat Albert was used for drug interdiction. 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. Instead, those involved in boot-legging drugs into the country switched to a lighter, more compact drug -- cocaine. This quickly led to the development of crack cocaine and the rest is history. As a kid growing up in the Keys back then, the cultural change this brought with it was immensely obvious.
I remember when Fat Albert, tethered in Cudjoe Key, broke free from its mooring. Jets were scrambled and shot it down [google.com].
It is also recently responsible for a deadly general aviation accident, when a Cessna 182 hit its mooring line [aero-news.net].
Fat Albert is also used for US propaganda directed at the Cuban population (TV Marti [wikipedia.org]). It was supposed to be decommissioned last year. I don't know if it is still there. You could see it from pretty much anywhere in the lower Florida Keys.
Re: (Score:2)
Fat Albert is also used for US propaganda directed at the Cuban population (TV Marti [wikipedia.org]).
Oh no! How dare we call evil dictatorship a bad thing?
Re: (Score:3)
why didn't hash win out, or for that matter, heroin, or synthetic opiates active in the lower microgram range?
Economics. Cocaine was available in the U.S. for a long time and never had the market share that it had until the 1980s. It wasn't until the cost of marijuana became too high to transport and purchase that the switch to cocaine happened. Hash and heroin were equally expensive. Hash also requires marijuana to produce. At the same time Fat Albert was flying, the DEA was busy spraying marijuana fields, reducing crop yields and driving up the price of hash.
I am no expert, but my sense is that people gravit
Re: (Score:2)
But not by volume.
Not a spy blimp (Score:1)
It carries gas.
Ever read Boneshaker?
Re: (Score:2)
It carries gas.
I'd imagine it carries several gasses, its a blimp.
Re: (Score:2)
It may carry any number of gases, but only one carries it. And, just guessing here, that one's helium.
There's one flying over the Florida Keys (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird article (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 if they had absurdly powerful telescopic cameras, at that angle all they would see in most areas is the tops of trees.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because it doesn't have cameras doesn't necessarily mean that it has no privacy implications. I have seen LiDAR demonstrations that can give scary accurate depictions of an area showing the locations of bolts in a bridge structure. I don't know if this "high resolution" radar can do anything like that but even if it can only provide basic sizes since it is up 24/7 (except for bad weather & maintenance) it could provide a disturbingly complete picture of peoples movements by simply tracking where
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it as its intended to track flying things. This data is already available from multiple sources.
The article mentions several times that it can be used to track cars, trucks, and boats. Obviously we have data from lots of interstate monitoring stations, as well as devices to measure the amount of traffic passing specific points, but I'm not so sure we have such detailed data across such a wide swath of territory (multiple states) that could actually track object movements (rather than, say, just a count of vehicles passing a point). Maybe someone who knows better can chime in.
Re:Weird article (Score:5, Insightful)
What has to be remembered here is whatever they publicly tell us it does, secretly it does a shit load more, and will be used in ways they claim it won't be.
Mark my words, before long it will come out that they can track your car from the moment you leave your house. And it will be able to simultaneously do it with a lot of cars. And this information will abused by spy agencies. And some government lawyer in front of a secret court will argue that they need this and that it needs to remain a secret.
What they'll be able to tell about you incidentally and with just "the metadata" will scare the shit out of you. What they can do when they're specifically looking for you will make Enemy of the State look like amateur hour.
There is simply no way they wouldn't at this point, because this stuff has developed its own intertia.
Now, where the hell did I put my Guy Fawkes mask?
Re: (Score:2)
What has to be remembered here is whatever they publicly tell us it does, secretly it does a shit load more, and will be used in ways they claim it won't be.
Mark my words, before long it will come out that they can track your car from the moment you leave your house. And it will be able to simultaneously do it with a lot of cars.
That day passed awhile ago. They will likely have a record of all visible travel [washingtonpost.com] in their coverage area (during pleasant weather). The commercial version of this tech collects 192M pixel time-lapse images. It will be an incredibly useful dataset.
Re: (Score:2)
Also note, one of the reasons the project got canned was supposedly its inadequacy at friend vs. foe identification.
Privacy advocates are freaking out about a system that apparently can't even reliably tell the difference between "friendly" and "hostile" let alone "that vehicle belongs to John Doe! FOLLOW IT!!!!"
Also, tracking ground targets over terrain (land) is likely feasible at FAR shorter ranges than the 340 miles given in the article.
Re: (Score:2)
The Friend vs Foe stuff is not going to be substantially different from what is in jet fighters. It does seem to work well enough for what it is used for. But we can safely say that there is nothing related to that system involved in this craft and its usefulness. That part of the system is just not any different here, and so is not part of this issue.
It isn't for tracking vehicles, it is for tracking aircraft. That is why there is a disconnect between the 340 mile range, which is the actual range, and the
Aerostat definitions (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Aerostat definitions (Score:5, Funny)
I share your outrage and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to move all of those tables and chairs, I am trying to land...
Re: (Score:2)
Adjust your spectacles, old man. That's a dog taking a dump. Oh, the humanity!!
Re: (Score:2)
Tethered Balloon (Score:2)
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.
A 10,000ft tether? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The balloon would crash. The tether would come down with the balloon, doing rather less damage than the balloon does.
If you're unlucky, you might have some of the tether draped over your house.
What I'm curious about is why anyone cares - the Army is always testing some new way to get away from needing the Air Force. That's all this is. Once they determine that it'll perform its design function reasonably
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Presumably the answer includes a high-tension cable strung across all 8 or whatever lanes of I-95 at the height of the barriers that run along the side of the road (about windshield height I imagine). What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
A: nothing that the people who did it will ever be held accountable or liable for....but then again they could probably strafe 95 during rush hour and that would still be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you want to know? That sounds like the kind of question a terrorist might ask, sonny...
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have the foggiest idea what kind of firearm it takes to hit an object two miles overhead?
It took 24 years... (Score:5, Informative)
...for news of this coastal radar surveillance system to find its way onto /.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
We found TARS!
Battle of Britian (Score:1)
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 plaus
Army? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the army supposed to protect us from foreign threats? This seems like a job for domestic law enforcement.
System testing perhaps? I'm sure the Army is well aware of the domestic nature of the data they are collecting and the fact that the Army is NOT allowed to do law enforcement work.
So, my guess is that they are doing systems testing and validation work. Which happens all the time within our borders.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the army supposed to protect us from foreign threats? This seems like a job for domestic law enforcement.
How do you protect yourselves from foreign threats without a radar system?
Someone is confused and I don't think it's me.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is invading?
Foreign threats capable of reaching the east coast would already be detected, being launched from across the Atlantic. Threats being launched from under water, close to shore, I'm pretty sure this would mostly be useless (sonar would be better suited).
No, this is about controlling the people of the United States. There is no other legitimate purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh golly, what if somebody invented a vehicle, like a horseless-carriage, but that could swim under-water! Crazy, I know. But what if they did, and they figured out how to make it drive to (or even just near!) the surface of the water, and launch missiles?! z0mg! Science fiction, right? right? Then the missiles would only have to fly ~ 0% of the distance you claim. I guess at that point you'd need to be watching for them.
Actually, I guess even if they launched it from France... if you weren't watching for i
In related news ... (Score:2)
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)
Don't worry, no cameras (Score:5, Funny)
There will be no danger of privacy violations because they said so.
No one in those fields has ever lied to the public before.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Here we go ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem there is the 10th amendment. If the constitution doesn't say they're allowed, they aren't. It's for the States to decide. The 10th amendment has been ignored for about a century which means legal precedent and existing decisions hold more weight than the actual law. So they made sure any case that would be in OUR favor was shot down a long time ago when the Feds decided to tighten their chokehold before, during and after the civil war. Unfortunately racism pushed by the rich slave owners fu
Sauron (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, focus groups will say that the logo for the surveillance state should look all happy and stuff. They want the public to see it as a benevolent force, become accustomed to it, and feel scared when they can't see it because the bad men could get them.
The eye of Sauron would work against that.
I'm beginning to think Reg the Blank from Max Headroom was a very prophetic character.
I hope someone figures out how to take one of these down.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it work over water? (Score:2)
Redneck shooting target :-) (Score:2)
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 ?
Do not (Score:2)
Orion Shall Rise (Score:2)
Will it have lasers? And will they call it Skyholm?
Re: (Score:2)
Beat Navy! (Score:4, Funny)
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...
The local weather reports ... (Score:2)
Proving Ground? (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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?
Re: (Score:2)
Where would you have them test prototypes?
How about an unpopulated (or minimally populated) area? Maybe even do something useful for its test like tracking wildlife instead of humans?
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the area covered by the aerostat that kind of area does not exist in the continental US. Sorry by testing only in Alaska is very inconvenient and invalid since the weather is very different. Yeah lets open up a new proving ground due to "privacy concerns" caused by testing one system. What a waste of funds. Another issue is getting people to move to the middle of nowhere to run those proving grounds.
An area the size of Texas? (Score:2)
I'm sorry, that isn't an approved measurement. Can someone give it to me in football fields?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not high enough to see 340 miles (Score:2)
How far you can see depends on how high you are [ringbell.co.uk]. 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.
Size of Texas? (Score:2)
The size of Texas? (Score:2)
Nothing survives. Not even bacteria.
Total information awareness ? (Score:2)
Could use these in Oakland (Score:2)
At 10,000ft ... that's going to be visible for ... (Score:2)
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 the
Re: (Score:2)
How is the army allowed to do this on american soil...?
System test perhaps? One has to test these things someplace.
Re: (Score:2)
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?)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ris
Re: (Score:2)
Show me in any article where it says it even has a camera.
It's a fricking radar.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ahh yes (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
You're about 26,000 feet off the mark my friend.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That whoosh sound is a jet flying 49,000 to 56,000 feet below its normal cruising altitude.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm fairly certain APG's airspace is ALREADY restricted.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Air Traffic Control has some procedures for keeping airplanes from colliding with stationary objects. They've had practice on, y'know, mountains.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I didn't realize we were under martial law...
Oh, wait....