US Space Fleet

a reply to: JadeStar

I mean, let's be serious, your iPhone camera might even suffice.

Actually your phone might work rather well...I have a Galaxy S4 and have tried a few sky images just to see how well it might work...

It won't produce any "OMG images" but, it appears that photometry might be reasonable...I've been using this to get images for software development...the only issue I have is that the phone produces a "JPG" or 24 bit color...I would prefer 48 bit (PNG) as it would be better for transit events. What is needed and unfortunately I don't have yet is a tripod mount for the phone, and perhaps a lens of some sort.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: JadeStar

I don't agree there's like Star Trek Style Ships but I do agree that there is a Space Force in the form of Secret Orbital Laser Cannons that haven't been revealed yet. I know its sounds Sci Fi but I believe its possible.

This is most likely true as per my above post.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stormbringer1701

They've also had aircraft flying for 30 years that very few people have even heard of, let alone seen. The very few pictures of them were quickly quashed and disappeared.

This true and it's actually pretty cool. but it's not like aviation enthusiasts are completely in the dark. there are peridoic articles on this sort of stuff so it's no completely hidden thing.

a reply to: JadeStar

i am pretty sure they had at least a couple of prototype SBL's in orbit due to both that dumb congressman and other leaks. i once saw a briefing board on layered missile defense at a military facility i worked at and i am pretty sure it was out in the open by mistake. it had the SBL on it and at that point i figure it was classified. unfortunately the briefing board was displayed in an unclassified area of the building by accident. That's what i figure anyway because similar slide had been published and withdrawn hastily prior to me seeing that misplaced briefing board. also occasionally the same slide was published later and withdrawn quickly and without comment in later articles. and like i said no spy satellite would "start an arms race in space." the idiot congress-critter also said it had been in three previous budgetary cycles and that "he couldn't talk about it because it was classified."

they had enough on board fuel for at least 50 shots each. Hubble sized would be about right. maybe a little less or a little more. it's not the optics that make it big. The optical developments for lasers we see now in public sources were no doubt available even back in black circles then and they are very compact now. its the fuel. these things cannot be solar powered, RTG powered or reactor powered.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Depends on which one we're talking about. There have been a few that only people with extremely good contacts have had knowledge of.

Not that I'm saying that we have a fleet that goes way out, or there's a space war, etc, but there's a lot more out there than we're going to be aware of for awhile.

MAYBE BLACK OPS IS REAL... Or is the No such Agency

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Ya know...given the apparent field of view...those "objects" were either several kilometers in size, or, no where near the moon...just sayin'

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Ya know...given the apparent field of view...those "objects" were either several kilometers in size, or, no where near the moon...just sayin'

Give this man a star. I did.

originally posted by: tanka418
a reply to: JadeStar

I mean, let's be serious, your iPhone camera might even suffice.

------------

STARGATESG7:

Actually your phone might work rather well...I have a Galaxy S4 and have tried a few sky images just to see how well it might work...

It won't produce any "OMG images" but, it appears that photometry might be reasonable...I've been using this to get images for software development...the only issue I have is that the phone produces a "JPG" or 24 bit color...I would prefer 48 bit (PNG) as it would be better for transit events. What is needed and unfortunately I don't have yet is a tripod mount for the phone, and perhaps a lens of some sort.

As a bit of technical help, if you want high gain,
Good sharpness and excellent noise reduction
The two best cameras for the money are the
Canon 5D Mark 3 and the Sony A7s.

Both are over $2500 but the low light performance on both cameras is incredible.
We've got four Much higher end Canon 1Dc
Cameras in addition to the 5D's but the higher
resolution of the 1Dc actually lowers the low light
performance!

If you want awesome 60 fps video for low light
Then the Canon C300 Mark 2 is the one to go
For. If you want the best of the best Canon does
Offer a $30,000.00 ultra high end 4,000,000 ISO
Camera but that is stratosphere gear.

For pc processing horsepower you can put
In some AMD Firepro 7100 GPU cards for
cheap (get two of them) just two two firepro
7100 cards are enough to do some serious
Image search and recognition.

If you can afford it, get 4 AMD Firepro 9100 cards
For truly serious astronomy work. There is lots
Of open source astro software to take advantage of all that gpu horsepower!

edit on 2015/9/11 by StargateSG7 because: sp

edit on 2015/9/11 by StargateSG7 because: sp

edit on 2015/9/11 by StargateSG7 because: sp

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: MystikMushroom

One of the arguments against the US secret space fleet would be that China and Russia would have exposed it. In your opinion how do you argue against that?

Plus what about the astronomers from around the world?

Now I do agree there is a Secret Space Force but its limited to Orbital Laser Cannons.

They're either in on it, or have competing programs. Exposing ours could lead to theirs being exposed, sort of a mutual agreement to secrecy. When it come to something on that level, the politics of Earth are left below.

a reply to: JadeStar

It's really not that hard to believe Russia would be in on it. We like to think that all of our countries are rivals, but it's really just political posturing and a game to keep economies going. The Cold War was good for both Russia and the USA until we decided to end it by outspending them.

If you go to enough high-end bars after 5pm, you'll see supposed bitter political rivals slapping backs and buying each other drinks. They just pretend to be enimies in public. Prosecutors and defense attorneys all drink together too. The same is with high ranking offiicals in the military, theres a mutual respect for the position and job they do -- as those other men from other countries are some of the few people that actually understand the lives of their counterparts.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

So does it mean the Russians and the Chinese might have Secret Moon bases? According to some people the US has Secret moon bases. If they do does it mean the Russians and the Chinese have them to? I doubt that because Russia and China are technologically behind the US in terms of military.

An example of the AMS members operating all sky cameras and their locations.

originally posted by: StargateSG7
As a bit of technical help, if you want high gain,
Good sharpness and excellent noise reduction
The two best cameras for the money are the
Canon 5D Mark 3 and the Sony A7s.

Both are over $2500 but the low light performance on both cameras is incredible.
We've got four Much higher end Canon 1Dc
Cameras in addition to the 5D's but the higher
resolution of the 1Dc actually lowers the low light
performance!

Actually, for software development, my phone will do quite nicely for now. For the "Bot" I'm not so much interested in "cameras" as I am interested in CCD sensor arrays.


I tried to find specs on your suggestions, but could only find hype...so, if you happen to have a datasheet...

You see the problem is that in order to connect a camera to a telescope one needs a mount that will work with both. What I'm planning on using is a device specifically intended to mount to the telescope I'm buying. The actual CCD array is a Kodak kai-10100. this sensor is capable of scaling its resolution (pixels) from 0.67MP (very light sensitive) to 10.7MP. through a process called "Binning". What this allows the device to do is effectively increase the size, and therefore the sensitivity of it's pixels. This in turn allows me to provide a real-time low light experience that few other systems can. It also allows me to scale up the pixel count and obtain high resolution images when desired.

If you want awesome 60 fps video for low light
Then the Canon C300 Mark 2 is the one to go
For. If you want the best of the best Canon does
Offer a $30,000.00 ultra high end 4,000,000 ISO
Camera but that is stratosphere gear.

60 fps is kind of impractical...firstly because we can't "see" anything beyond abut 30 fps, so the extra is kind of wasted. Additionally, this is a telescope, not an animation, so in reality anything faster than say 15 fps is unnecessary...

ISO?!?? Care to be a bit more specific? In my world "ISO" is "International Standards Organization"...

$30,000.00 is way too much for a CCD! Regardless of it specifications.

For pc processing horsepower you can put
In some AMD Firepro 7100 GPU cards for
cheap (get two of them) just two two firepro
7100 cards are enough to do some serious
Image search and recognition.

If you can afford it, get 4 AMD Firepro 9100 cards
For truly serious astronomy work. There is lots
Of open source astro software to take advantage of all that gpu horsepower!

Well what can I say...firstly using One's graphic adapter is not a very good way to increase computational horse power. Adding the capability to support more independent processes (threads) is. Modern super computers achieve their high performance by breaking down a task into many smaller jobs and executing them in parallel...as opposed to the "serial" nature of the typical PC. Most PC's can't handle more than 6 - 8 independent processes.

I am very aware of the serious lack of open-source astronomical software! What I have found and am using is a computer vision package called "AFORGE", there is also an excellent library from ASCOM that includes the USNAVY astrometric library. And then of course my own code to make it all work...

The telescope will probably not have a very advanced graphics adapter, though one of the computers (there will be several) will likely have an NVIDIA Tesla card...I'm not a fan of AMD...never have been.

Perhaps you should also know that my system is not about image search and recognition; it is about data acquisition, management, and analysis/reporting. This is all that I feel a robotic telescope should do...

Look, to detect something that is 50 to 100 years more advanced in optical, radar, EM stealth -- you are going to need sensing devices and "cameras" that are also 50 to 100 years more advanced. If your competitor is using a GPS and mapping software and you have a sextant and an out dated map -- youre going to always be behind.

The best and brightest, the top 1% get picked up by the defense industry and the military. Smarter scientists are working on these projects than the people out there peering up looking at the sky.

"I have a camera pointed at the sky, why can't I see anything?" Well, because the technology you are using to look isn't advanced enough. Those black triangles are using really exotic technology that current top civilian scientists can only theoriize exists.

And yes, if you somehow are able to get the most advanced generation of night vision ... I hear you do sometimes see quite a few interesting things. The geneal pubic doesn't have access to that tech right now though, even research scientists. This is one of the reasons we know the F-117 had a companion aircraft during Desert Storm (well, that and some radio com chatter referencing an unknown plane).

originally posted by: JadeStar
An example of the AMS members operating all sky cameras and their locations.

Ya my two sky Cam are listed
Now I send this to a few people and they said it not a meteor to low
I look at at our weather station for that night and we had cloud cover at 6500 feet
So what is it


Have the 273 Mb avi file in a google drive to download if anybody is interested in analyzing it u2u message me and will send you the google drive linky to download it

This was my first fireBall

If you're using a Fischer Price "my first microscope" -- and think that is the most advanced microscope you can buy, you are going to swear up and down that something called a "virus" doesn't exist.

And remember, even when people use their gear to look, they are looking for things technologically superior that don't want to be found.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Look, to detect something that is 50 to 100 years more advanced in optical, radar, EM stealth -- you are going to need sensing devices and "cameras" that are also 50 to 100 years more advanced. If your competitor is using a GPS and mapping software and you have a sextant and an out dated map -- youre going to always be behind.

And IF I have devised way to automate my sextant, increase it's accuracy 100x, and have it relate to a map in some automatic way; them what? How much of an advantage will the GPS have then?

I think you are failing to understand that this 50 - 100 year "gap" can be compensated for with relative ease, and, many amateur astronomers have,

The best and brightest, the top 1% get picked up by the defense industry and the military. Smarter scientists are working on these projects than the people out there peering up looking at the sky.

Well, I've worked with military scientists, and with civilian scientists, and I have to say that the civilian beats the military guy every time! Hands down...just take a look at those guys at Intel...the military does not have better, more sophisticated microprocessors...the use the same stuff as everybody else.

"I have a camera pointed at the sky, why can't I see anything?" Well, because the technology you are using to look isn't advanced enough. Those black triangles are using really exotic technology that current top civilian scientists can only theoriize exists.

Perhaps you aren't seeing anything because you are not using the device correctly! While devices over the next 100 years will get smaller, less expensive, they won't be significantly "better" than what we have today, not that it won't evolve, nor that there won't be "breakthroughs", just that probability strongly suggests that technology won't be all that much different than it is now...history notwithstanding.

And, just how exotic do you think Black Triangle technology is? I can almost guarantee that the computational elements are all but identical to existing systems that we all know quite well...and, that the design and choices of component are equally as inappropriate as anything we know about.

As for the "drive" systems...they don't have anything more exotic than an EM drive, and while shape and coating may provide a measure of stealth, it certainly doesn't work well at all wavelengths thus providing an opportunity for detection. Not to mention that these craft would be primarily a spacecraft, thus color and texture will play into the stealth, these are easily defeated with existing technology.


The use of "night vision" is strongly contraindicated. This kind of signal amplification often leads to false indications...kind of like what we saw with all the SOHO images a while back. Besides, many CCD arrays used in astronomy, whether it be professional or amateur are far more sensitive than One might think, many capable of providing reasonably well exposed, albeit slower, video.

My point is that the technology we have today is completely "up to the task" of searching for, detecting, and collecting parametric data on these "black triangles"...should the operator be so foolish as to stray into our detection area. And the only hope a "black triangle" would have; stay out of range...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
If you're using a Fischer Price "my first microscope" -- and think that is the most advanced microscope you can buy, you are going to swear up and down that something called a "virus" doesn't exist.

And remember, even when people use their gear to look, they are looking for things technologically superior that don't want to be found.

On the other hand; If One sets out to design a system specifically optimized to find (deep)space anomalies, then they are very likely to catalog a wide variety of interesting phenomena, from exoplanets, wormholes, to black triangles...probability would suggest a virtual "zoo" of phenomena...

a reply to: tanka418

It's not just signal amplification that the NGV's use. They also allow other spectrums to be seen (among other tweaks).

Basically, what I'm saying is that the gear being used now is trying to look for something that is known. You can't find something that you don't know exists. It's like trying to use a radio to watch TV. You can fiddle with a radio all day, but you won't "see" moving pictures through a speaker. It's like trying to put a CD on an old turntable. If you have no idea that the data is 1s an 0s, burnt onto the reflective part in little pits, you'll just stare at and claim that there's no music there because the best technology you have doesn't show it to you.

This is why I don't believe in alien tech being reverse engineered. If you went back in time and handed DaVinci an iPhone and told him to duplicate some of its features, do you honestly think he could? If we're like ants to aliens, it would be like a dog trying to master the remote control for the TV.

I guess a simple, short answer is: We only see and detect what we are capable of seeing and detecting. The military is really good at keeping things they don't want seen a secret, and they know the technological capabilities of civlilian technology. If they don't want to be seen, they will make sure they aren't.

You cant drive where there isn't a road, and you can't sense something if you don't have the senses to detect it. You wont know something has an odor if you don't have an olofactory organ or some way to detect odor molecules. We exist and percieve the things we CAN sense, but there is much more going on in the reality we exist in that we are aware of.

Our eyes for example only see a fraction of the spectrum. We have tools now that can see in IR and UV -- but before those were invented and the spectrums discovered, no one had a clue there was anything there.

Telepathy may be real, but we could simply lack the ability to percieve it. It doesn't mean it can't be real -- we just haven't figured out how it works or how to do it.