Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

NASA Building Network of Smart Cameras Across US

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-spy-with-my-digital-eye dept.

NASA 117

kkleiner writes "A major government agency is looking to blanket the US with cameras that will never stop their surveillance. But don't worry, privacy pundits, those cameras will be spying on the sky, not civilians. NASA's All-sky Fireball Network is a series of cameras that track meteorites as they enter the atmosphere. With careful triangulation, NASA can not only know where the meteorites will land, they can determine where they came from as well. One of the coolest parts of the All-sky Fireball Network is that it's fully automated. Meteors are detected by a computer which sends images, video clips, and data analysis to William Cooke, head of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office. Now you can get the same information as Cooke, too – the All-sky Fireball Network's website publicly records all the data for you to peruse."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

On the sky. Right. (0)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496040)

How long will that last, once the tech and infrastructure is in place? But it'll be to stop the terrorists, really.

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496056)

If it's pointing up and is a fixed camera who is it going to be spying on?

Re:On the sky. Right. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496130)

If it's pointing up and is a fixed camera who is it going to be spying on?

Alien terrorists, obviously. They're the most dangerous kind, of course.

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496154)

MacAndrew...but don' tell him. We want all his secretes because he is such an interesting guy.

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496338)

Given that MacAndrew appears to be some species of Moonbat, fixed cameras pointing up are probably the best way to spy on him.

Re:On the sky. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497054)

No, sadly, they won't be bothering with me. I'm not even slightly interesting. :-(

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496408)

Mile high club inductees, obviously!

Re:On the sky. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497300)

We took our own pictures!

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

MacAndrew (463832) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496480)

You miss my point! I was playing paranoid and mostly grumpy about the expansion of security cameras and hidden cameras "gotcha" stings. There will be little difficulty getting coverage, it's mostly there already, and then there are the little remote control airplanes etc. No NASA needed (and the project does sound cool).

So smile. :)

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496626)

You miss my point! I was playing paranoid and mostly grumpy about the expansion of security cameras and hidden cameras "gotcha" stings. There will be little difficulty getting coverage, it's mostly there already, and then there are the little remote control airplanes etc. No NASA needed (and the project does sound cool).

So smile. :)

The exact name of the law eludes me, but there does exist one of those Internet Laws(tm) that posits that the more extreme and crazy a viewpoint (in this case, that of the paranoids), the more likely an attempt at making a parody or satire of said viewpoint will be indistinguishable from the viewpoint's legitimate views.

Or in other words, the tinfoil hat brigade quite seriously would say that, so the irony was lost and everyone assumes you to be one of them. Better luck next time!

Re:On the sky. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497226)

Good attempt at trying to appear normal. You don't fool us however!

It's rather surprising that a luddite would sign up to slashdot so early, what with being a technology site for nerds, and you being against technology and progress and all.

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498792)

There will be little difficulty getting coverage, it's mostly there already, and then there are the little remote control airplanes etc.

Interesting, I think this might (ultimately?) be to catch the citizens who want their own UAVs.

Re:On the sky. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496712)

Superman is the obvious candidate. We do need proof that he is an illegal alien.

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496872)

pointing up doesn't mean crap if its on the ground

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496910)

They are invading my privacy now.

Signed,
Superman

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497080)

All those airplanes, of course.

Re:On the sky. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497498)

It depends how they position the mirrors in phase two.

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

atisss (1661313) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497622)

whoops, there was bug in the control mechanism leading to some of cameras accidentally following black car

Re:On the sky. Right. (2)

northernfrights (1653323) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496418)

This isn't a concern at all. All you have to do is attach some infrared LED's to your tinfoil hat, and you'll be safe from CCD based cameras along with malicious electromagnetic signals. But seriously, the 'tech infrastructure' (a bunch of cameras?) needed to watch the whole sky would be completely different than what would be needed to watch the whole country. One camera pointed upwards with a wide angle lens would effectively cover many, many square miles of sky area if all you need to do is make out streaks of light. And they would all be spaced out evenly across the country, meaning the vast majority of them would be located in the middle of nowhere. Not even the most evil government regime in history would have any desire for this.

Re:On the sky. Right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496930)

Meant to be mildly sarcastic, as I noted elsewhere. But really, infrared lights? WIll that stop the voices, too? :)

Re:On the sky. Right. (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497402)

But if you have IR LEDs, you need a power source for them. The use of this creates an electromagnetic signature that could be identifiable through the unique interference pattern of your body and possibly radiated by the foil hat, thus enabling easier tracking from EM sensors monitoring passing objects.

what are the aims of this exercise? (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496074)

What are the scientific/"practical" aims of this exercise, if any in particular? What is the type of camera used?

Re:what are the aims of this exercise? (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496190)

Scientific research doesn't have to be practical. Scientific knowledge is desirable for the sake of being knowledge.

Re:what are the aims of this exercise? (1)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496362)

and sometimes it's marketing rubbish, useless for advancing scientific knowledge but great for making people with e.g. crappy focal length, low resolution webcams feel attached to science.

Re:what are the aims of this exercise? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496448)

well, if you can find meteorites more easily you have a piece of space, delivered to your door.
i am pretty sure that the difference in costs will be huge compared to go picking it up yourself.

many things can be found in meteorites, they may prove very useful.

Re:what are the aims of this exercise? (-1, Troll)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496630)

Spending billions duh. Who cares about the homeless or poor, we got fucking meteors to track!

Re:what are the aims of this exercise? (2)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497272)

Who cares about the homeless or poor, we got fucking meteors to track!

Hypocrite. Do you have any idea how much food your computer could purchase for a starving homeless person? You obviously don't give a shit about anyone except yourself.

Re:what are the aims of this exercise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497106)

The aim is to track the "fireballs", triangulate where they land^H^H^H^Himpact, then quickly retrieve the extra-terrestrial object(s).

WIll it send instant emails / texts ? (1, Interesting)

bobjr94 (1120555) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496092)

So what happens when hundred of meteorite hunters and wanna be's jump in their cars with in minutes and race to an area all wanting to find it ? Most likely going onto private properties hoping to get lucky looking for a 6ft tall rock and trampling the little pebble into the ground.

Re:WIll it send instant emails / texts ? (2)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496188)

Oh no, it's a member of the I'll-make-up-ridiculous-worst-case-scenarios-to-show-how-bad-this-idea-really-is crowd!

Seriously, is that the only objection you can think of? There might be a traffic jam?

Re:WIll it send instant emails / texts ? (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496280)

So what happens when hundred of meteorite hunters and wanna be's jump in their cars with in minutes and race to an area all wanting to find it?

I don't know what will happen, but I do know wouldn't want to be Claire Danes right now. And they say there are no privacy concerns.

Re:WIll it send instant emails / texts ? (2)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497430)

Stardust was a good flick. Everything a movie should be - comedy, drama, action, mystery, character growth. And babes.

Re:WIll it send instant emails / texts ? (2)

LearnToSpell (694184) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496326)

It'll probably shift the balance of weight of the Earth, subtly changing our orbit, and sending us PLUNGING INTO THE SUN!

Sorry.

Re:WIll it send instant emails / texts ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497286)

Too late, didn't you hear the japquake already did that?

ITS A VANGEANCE FOR HEROSHMA AND NAGUSAKE!! GOD(ZILLA) NEVER FORGETS! NOW THE WHOLE ERATH IS A KAMAKAZY MISSION TOO KILL ALL THE AMERACANS!

(Dumb-ass filter. Of course my caps are like YELLING -- how do you propose to parody these morons without yelling? Is this enough lower-case text yet?)

Re:WIll it send instant emails / texts ? (3, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496528)

If a 6 foot tall rock drops anywhere I can "race" to in minutes, I'm sure I'll hear it without the cameras.

Is the Funding Safe? (4, Insightful)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496112)

Considering the cuts that are being pushed through the House, especially for research of earth/space science stuff like tsunami warnings, I can't help but wonder whether it'll just get defunded in a few months. I hope not. This looks interesting, but no amount of federal funding for scientific research is safe from the politicians right now.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496282)

"This looks interesting" is not a good reason to fund something in this economy.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496352)

"This looks interesting" is a lot more legitimate a reason than some of the random tax breaks we've pissed our money away on.

It's big, it's heavy, it's wood? (2, Insightful)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496556)

"This looks interesting" is a lot more legitimate a reason than some of the random tax breaks we've pissed our money away on.

So it's "better than bad" and therefore "good"?

Re:It's big, it's heavy, it's wood? (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497000)

Better than bad is good is a time honored rationalization.

From the Log Song of Season One Ren and Stimpy.

http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~fatwa/ren/songs.html [redbrick.dcu.ie]

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1, Troll)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496402)

"This looks interesting" is not a good reason to fund something in this economy.

Agreed, crooked bankers and campaign contributors deserve all our money.

A buck spent on this is a buck that can't go to a crook, sounds good to me.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496444)

A buck spent on this CAN go to a crook, provided the crook is good at stealing cameras!

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496576)

A buck spent on this CAN go to a crook, provided the crook is good at stealing cameras!

Or selling them.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (0)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496450)

In this economy, the last thing we want to do is cut government funding to anything. Maybe we could wait until unemployment has dropped back down to reasonable levels before we start cutting everything to the bone. Or we could bump the highest tax bracket back up to fifty percent or so, still on the right side of the Laffer curve so government funding goes up, and we could stop worrying about this manufactured debt crisis.

Seriously, who thinks "Hmm, recession, unemployment, you know what will fix this? Fewer jobs." Don't Republicans get it? The deficit can wait. There is no real funding crisis. Social security is fine until 2035. People are out of work and starving. Fix that first! But if you really, really want to cut something, how about military spending?

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496558)

Did you just use the "oh the rich people can pay for it all" argument?

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (2)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496594)

Of course he did; he's likely not rich, so what's the problem? Besides, it's not like that higher tax rate for the wealthy might affect hiring or anything.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496726)

Of course it won't affect hiring. The rich invest all their money overseas, because no one here has any money to buy anything. We had closer to full employment back when the top marginal tax rate was near ninety percent. Wall Street is tipping back the Champagne in celebration of their full recovery, funded by us, meanwhile, Americans are having to choose between food and medicine. Like the group of German millionaires who demanded that the highest tax rate in Germany be raised, I would be happy to pay more in taxes if society rewarded me at that level. It's a fair bargain.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498198)

I am rich, and yes, we can pay for it all. You're likely not rich, so what's the problem?

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498866)

Yeah, I mean look at the surplus of jobs around now that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have created. If only we had the people to fill them!

In case you hadn't noticed, fur coats and diamonds rarely "trickle down".

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496680)

The rich get more from society, they should give more back. They are engaged in class warfare against us, they have taken all the gains in GDP over the last forty years for themselves. All they did was "risk" their money, while workers risked their lives and livelihoods. Workers produce all value in society, yet money-lenders take all the profits. I say we fight back, or we will go back to the gilded age and be nothing more than serfs in our own country.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497042)

It is the rich that provide jobs for the poor. Take a dollar away from a rich man and you take a job away from a poor one.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (2)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497254)

Take a dollar away from the rich man and use it to actually fund jobs in the US, instead of letting him invest it overseas. If the rich weren't rich, everyone would have money to provide jobs for the less fortunate. You act as though taking a dollar away from the wealthy means the dollar disappears. It doesn't work that way. Most of our resources are owned and controlled by a very small percentage of people, and those people do have more in common with Saudi Arabian sheiks than they do with you or I. The rich won't invest in the Us because nearly everyone here is poor and we can't afford to buy anything. We are rapidly becoming a banana republic, in fact, our levels of wealth inequality and income disparity have far surpassed most banana republics.

This helpful graph illustrates the problem of soaring inequality: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph [motherjones.com]

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (2)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497358)

The rich won't invest in the Us because nearly everyone here is poor and we can't afford to buy anything

You're really living in your own little world, aren't you? I mean, the rest of the stuff you wrote is fairly silly, too, but this part here is just downright ridiculous.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497646)

They already took all our wealth, why would they invest in the place they just robbed? People invest money into businesses when those businesses need to expand. We're in a recession. Businesses are laying people off, not hiring more people. And yet, somehow, Wall Street has rebounded back to pre-depression levels. Yet unemployment is still soaring. So what's your explanation?

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498618)

Just out of curiosity, how are you able to watch fox news when you are not in America? You certainly seem to have their particular line of corporate whoring down pat.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497178)

They do pay more. You may have noticed that our tax rate scales higher as you gain more money. Significantly higher. In the end, though, the middle class feels it the most, as people like you waging your own form of class warfare keep deciding that the barrier to 'rich and evil' needs to get lower and lower.

I can't deal with this kind of argument anymore. The term 'rich' gets thrown around and people like you assume that every single person described by that term is an evil white titan of industry hell bent on keeping you poor (you probably do that yourself). It's as if this kind of self-serving logic is set up as a shield from reality to protect the ego, and it prevents any kind of rational discussion from taking place.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497324)

Of course they do, but they should pay far, far more than they do. I have nothing against the rich in general, but I do have something against then owning class ultra wealthy elite that own ninety percent of the wealth in this country. If you aren't an evil white titan, I have no problem with you. But the elites DO want to keep you poor, there's even a term for it "cheap labor conservative." Every single policy of the cheap labor conservative is aimed at making you poor and desperate, so that you will gratefully accept the crappiest jobs for the lowest pay. The ruling class elites have been waging this kind of class warfare against the rest of us for eternity. We did not start this war, but we will finish it.

Wealth inequality is killing our country: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph [motherjones.com]

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497526)

I don't disagree (completely). There is a significant wealth gap. But I disagree that a blanket increase in taxes is any kind of solution under that kind of justification. It's like carpet bombing a city to get at your enemy; you will hurt them, but a lot of others are hurt in the process.

I would be happier to see the barrier to becoming rich lowered; there are a lot of people in the upper-middle class who could become rich should we stop taxing them at nearly a 50% rate (I'm talking total taxes here, not just income tax). The more people become rich, the less influence a small group of elites can wield.

Wealth inequality is killing our country: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph [motherjones.com]

Technically, wealth inequality built this country. The internet just makes it easier for the rest of us to rage about it.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497702)

Wealth inequality did not build this country. I'm pretty sure the constitution says nothing about your right to screw over your fellow man in order to accumulate the most wampum. What built this country is the hard work of the poor and middle class, not wealthy investors who never lifted a finger or broke a sweat. The idea that a man will work harder for a billion than for ten million is just absurd. If you aren't working your hardest for that ten million, you hardly deserve a billion. You don't need inequality to spur development, in fact, just the opposite is true: when everyone feels as if their hard work will be rewarded fairly, they work hard. When they see parasites living off of their hard work, they will not work hard.

I did not say a blanket increase in taxes, I said, TAX THE RICH! I would be happy to see the barrier to becoming reasonably wealthy lowered, and the only way to do that is to TAX THE RICH! You see, they have stolen all our wealth and they are not about to reinvest it back into the place they just ripped off. The ultra wealthy elites already own most of the resources, THAT is the barrier to becoming like them. They don't want the competition.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498336)

couple of things:
1) You need to tax where the money is.
2) Costs to run the country are 'fixed'*. The don't change based on a percentage.

This means the more concentrated the wealth, the higher the percentage for that group must be.

Your sig reveals your ignorance and myopic view of taxes.

*for the intent of this post I am well aware its more complicated in that but the bulk of money is going to programs that aren't going anywhere

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498286)

How about kill tax deductible donations?
Or tax all trades on Wall Street at .005%

well, that should just about take of that.
See, I can balance the bduger in 2 sentenses.

Oh, you want to fix SSN? raise min. wage 1 dollar, and bump up the max taxed to 180K.
Bam, done. Or, hell bump Min wage up 2 dollars.

SS problem? SOLVED!

I'm Geekoid, and I hate politics and want to adjust the budget. Vote for me, and I can fix the financial crisis in 3 sentences.

I approve of this message.
Vote for me in 2012.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

Unkyjar (1148699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497188)

That's right! How DARE those NASA people spend their budgeted money on researching space.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496330)

Well, if they do manage to do it, I hope they have the sense to coordinate with other sensor net projects -- if they are going to go through all the trouble to site, power, and accurately position a big array of cameras, there's no reason they shouldn't also put at least the cheaper seismic/meteorological instrumentation alongside them.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497414)

Tell it is to safeguard the earth from a big bad meteor or that it can be used to detect a trrorist backyard missile. You'll get funds.

Re:Is the Funding Safe? (1)

lasinge (1009929) | more than 3 years ago | (#35499220)

Tell it is to safeguard the earth from a big bad meteor or that it can be used to detect a trrorist backyard missile. You'll get funds.

What makes you think they didn't?

I'm not a pundit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496170)

I'm not a pundit because I care about privacy.. should I call the you've-got-nothing-to-hide people panopticon peeping toms?

Similar to USArray for seismology (3, Interesting)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496172)

I had just been visiting the USArray site [iris.edu] to watch the animations associated with the Japan Earthquake right before I read this article. It's a similar idea.

Gateway camera? (2)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496198)

Once a few of these cameras are vandalized, we'll need cameras that point down to protect them.

UFO tracking (1)

SteveX (5640) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496238)

This should be great for tracking UFOs!

If these meteorites have nothing to hide (2, Funny)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496258)

then they have nothing to fear.

Damn good name! (2)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496268)

I just want to give props to the guy or gal who came up with "All-sky Fireball Network" that name is so full of win I can't stand it. To bad it'll likely be referred to as the ASFN. Maybe we can get scientists to name our legislation packages for us!

Re:Damn good name! (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496616)

Yeah, that's clearly a much better name than my idea, which was "Sky Network" or "SkyNet" for short.

Re:Damn good name! (1)

lebjoot (560242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497658)

mod parent up.

Cleaning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496292)

Is NASA going to pay people to clean them? Cameras aiming at the ground with rain shields are hard enough to keep the lenses clean & clear of debris, nevermind looking up.

Re:Cleaning? (1)

snookerhog (1835110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496434)

No kidding.

In South Jersey they have been installing lots of solar panels on telephone poles, each one about 1/4 square meter or so. They did not count on the fact that telephone poles and wires are a favorite hang out for birds. I've seen some that are totally covered.
These cameras will be smaller targets, but the bird problem remains.

Re:Cleaning? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496478)

I'm thinking weatherproof housings with windshield wipers over the window, but that's just me. Yes, somebody is going to have to visit these on a regular basis for cleaning and maintenance.

Re:Cleaning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496640)

New York will send out an army of squeegee guys. The camera can dispense coins, or a Mars Bar when it "thinks" it's clean enough. They can live over at the nearest truck stop, make a little on the side. They'll have to carry beepers though and be on call 24/7

Re:Cleaning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496658)

Edit - After visiting the site and RTFA, it looks much more like a grassroots effort than a massive corporate project. It makes me want to host a cam. To answer my own question, no, they won't pay you to clean it but if you're hosting one you should voluntarily maintain your site and the cam's view.

Bi-Directional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496440)

<tinfoil>Yes... Cameras pointed at the sky... Just make sure there's not a second camera in the opposite end pointing down.</tinfoil>

Re:Bi-Directional (1)

isorox (205688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496500)

<tinfoil>Yes... Cameras pointed at the sky... Just make sure there's not a second camera in the opposite end pointing down.</tinfoil>

What, at the ants?

Re:Bi-Directional (1)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496596)

<tinfoil>Yes... Cameras pointed at the sky... Just make sure there's not a second camera in the opposite end pointing down.</tinfoil>

Or even a giant mirror!

It's a trick! (1)

rubmytummy (677080) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496462)

They're actually setting up to track us all everywhere we go in our flying cars.

15, in total (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496512)

"The network currently consists of 3 cameras placed in locations in north Alabama, northwest Georgia, and southern Tennessee. The network is growing all the time, with plans to place a total of 15 cameras..." http://fireballs.ndc.nasa.gov/

Hmmm (1)

JackSpratts (660957) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496602)

Someone should ask the meteorites how they feel about that.

cameras improve homeland security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35496738)

when terrorist strike from above...

Only a Matter of Time (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35496878)

Only a matter of time before DHS builds stereoscopic aerial drone mirrors to fly over them cameras so they can turn them on the populace and get images in micro HD of everyone for thousands of miles. Given the resolution current optical and digital devices are capable of, it's conceivable this is a kaliedoscopic effort to capture all human activity at once.

This is all just part of their plan to find the stash of freeze dried ice cream I lifted from the Air and Space Museum in 1983. That stuff is still buried out in the desert somewhere and no one is going to get it. That's all that's going to be left after civilization crumbles, you know.

Re:Only a Matter of Time (1)

ormondotvos (936952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35500452)

You haven't been following the official DHS and military nervousness about private drones with cameras. This is the perfect way to scan the sky for odd objects. Time to program in a flight path randomizer...

lol (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497028)

and how soon after they get finished building this will they be visited by the NSA with a "request" to install some minor software patches the public need not know about?

Re:lol (1)

not-my-real-name (193518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498024)

and how soon after they get finished building this will they be visited by the NSA with a "request" to install some minor software patches the public need not know about?

You're talking about SCORPION STARE, aren't you?

Tracking of 'secret satellites' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35497512)

What happens when the data from these cameras is used to locate/track 'secret satellites' such as the X37-B, which are visible at dawn/dusk?

This sounds a lot like my SETINE idea (1)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 3 years ago | (#35497572)

This sounds a lot like my SETINE idea, "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence Near Earth" http://www.setine.com/ [setine.com]

For this I was thinking of having 2 camera, wide angle high res still , and a Servo controlled 1080i HD camera with 35x Zoom like they use in high end CCTV systems.

The idea is the one camera would spot objects in the sky that don't follow expected patterns. The second on would zoom in and track it, and record it.
These could then be collected on the Internet and use crowd sourcing to ID objects and improve image processing algorithms for object identification.

 

Re:This sounds a lot like my SETINE idea (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498014)

We desperately need to fund STIOE. ("Search Terrestrial Intelligence On Earth")

Re:This sounds a lot like my SETINE idea (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35498220)

I propose instead that SETI@Home add camera functionality, and that whatever cameras people are willing to connect are used to create an optical array, using their computing power.

Re:This sounds a lot like my SETINE idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35499330)

[...] Servo controlled [...]

Tom Servo-controlled?

Re:This sounds a lot like my SETINE idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35499470)

Servos to control positioning. Like. PTZ control but faster, more accurate and responsive.

Air Traffic Control Applications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35498726)

Not as pie in the sky [qut.edu.au] as you might think.

Also good for space object tracking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35499380)

This could also potentially be great for people who want to track satellites in low earth orbit (like the X-37 or space station). Having constant access to the entire sky would make it easy to command an image be taken at approximate times/locations for the satellite in its orbit without having to get in your car and go to that location.

Its also possible this could be used for aircraft (if the cameras are close enough together) augmenting radar tracking.

what I've read ... (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35499950)

just depresses me beyond words ....

--

Marvin (with the pain in all the diodes down the left-hand side).

They point UP (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35500064)

... you dumbfucks!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?