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: Hawkmoon who wrote (33277)	6/28/2002 6:59:50 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Okay, you agree about low flying hazards. Re: "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." It doesn't seem like rocket science to me. (1) Don't fire until you see an aircraft. (2) Point the missile at the aircraft. (3) Make sure the missile acquires lock before you fire it. You really should drop the bird issue, it's silly. I've been flying enough to know that there are damn few birds at high altitude. When you see one, you point it out and go "whoa! look at how high he is!". Sky is mostly empty. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. But rather than argue the details of side issues like that, let me simply compare the status of civilian infrared and optical detection equipment in 2002 with what was available to the military in 1952. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Do I really have to prove this to you? Jesus weeps! The original antiaircraft missiles were built with imaging systems that had only 2x2 pixels. (One guesses that "friendly fire" was an issue.) More modern ones, like the Sidewinder, are up to 128x128. (By the way, I already showed how to modify a $5 chip to pull down 128x128 infrared images.) The original infrared equipment required cryogenic cooling (the Sidewinder required 90K), but the latest and greatest runs at room temp. The military is interested in this stuff, and yes, it is dual use: darpa.mil Re: "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." This is simply wrong. Jet engines (and their exhausts) are hot. Infrared is a form of light and it is easily brought to a focus, just like any other type of light. That's why amateurs can take infrared photographs of astronomical objects a zillion times less bright than an aircraft engine at 6 miles. Jesus weeps! If I can buy an infrared system that can spot a person at a half mile (with a 15 degree field of view), doesn't it seem reasonable that I can put together an infrared system that can track a 747 at 6 miles? How much more heat does a 747 engine put out than a perpetrator? And it's simply not possible to choose a better infrared background than the sky, except maybe the ocean, so the tracking is simple. Re: "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." The nature of the US military is always to go with the best. That means that US weapons show up before they are feasible in 3rd world countries. That also means that US weapons systems are better, but cost a lot more. An AK-47 costs a heck of a lot less than an M-16, but it gets the job done, and the existence of those cheap weapons changed history. The 3rd world always catches up with us eventually. By the way, on of the next big shocks to the US in land combat will be the first time we have to take on a military that is equipped with night vision equipment. -- Carl