Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (33199)	6/27/2002 8:30:38 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Suffice it to say that there are plenty of residential districts in this country where the image of a 747 taking off fills the sky, and would be hard to miss with even an unguided rocket. Bilow, if you re-read my posts, you'll find that THIS has been my point exactly.. Low-Flying aircraft ARE INDEED in danger from such rockets. However, I've been understanding you to be arguing that the technology is such that AT HEIGHT an amateur built rocket could reasonably be expected to intercept an airliner using either heat-seeking, or occluded light sensors. My point was that looking at a plane flying AT HEIGHT, while standing on the ground, a low-flying bird represents a bigger "light occlusive target" than would the airliner. And AT HEIGHT, the amount of discernible heat presented by an airliner would be lost amongst all the other heat generating sources which would inevitably distract the infrared sensing. I mean, if it was so easy, and so inexpensive, it seems to me that it would have already been done by defense contractors looking to gain the upper hand on their competition. Hawk