It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Skytrack System (idea)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
So I had this interesting little idea for the UFO buffs out there.

I have this idea for an intelligent sky-scanning system for night observation. All it consists of is a digital camera system connected to a computer.

What the system does is consistantly monitor the night sky. Each frame is compared to previous frames taken (at around 30 frames per second) and mathematically analyzed. Any object clearly moving in the frame is recorded. Frames without any movement are dumped. The process is continuous. The frame images are averaged and compared over time so the stars and celestial bodies moving through the night do not trigger the system.

The camera could consist of a high-end CCD and the system could be configured to use several cameras to cover large swaths of the sky. Night-vision could be utilized to better see stealth aircraft or aircraft running without lights. The cameras themselves could be configured to view a large swath or just focus on a small area, such as an airport or facility.

The big idea here is making the entire system - computer, camera, and software, costing less then $1000.




posted on Oct, 1 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
cool...seti around our own world. that could actually work...the problem is you would have to coordinate with norad, as they are the official trackers of all manmade objects in the sky. nasa coordinated with them on every launch to insure that they wouldnt hit any satellites or space junk that happen to be floating around out there (then again, good luck on trying to get norad to tell you whether or not what you are seeing is real....there's alot of classified crap up there that they wont say a word about.)



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I don't think coordination with NORAD would be completely necessary. The key thing we would be watching for are unusually fast-moving objects. The best configuration I can think of would use three cameras hooked up a few miles from each other and looking into the same area of sky. That way, if I am correct at this, the position and velocity of an object moving through the sky can be determined.

Objects moving slowly and lighted over standard aircraft corridors are recorded but given a green-flag status as just aircraft. Other moving objects are given a yellow-flag status, and objects moving erratically or at extremely high speeds are given a red-flag status indicating that the system has detected something really unusual.



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
i posted the same idea like last week. www.abovetopsecret.com...

i think it might be feasible but without having to buy a computer along with the cameras. a normal home pc would be used with it. does anyone know if this has been tried before?



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
skytracking system, dont we have one of those, ain't it called RADAR? We've had that since WW2. Points for tryin though



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
This would be a good idea, but not as easy as you might think. First of all it would take several cameras in order to get decent coverage. You would also have to take several frames per second in order to catch a fast mover. But to take pictures at night requires long exposures, so pictures of fast moving objects would wind up looking like a streak. Unless you found something off the shelf, the software to analyze the pictures would be difficult to write. My guess is it would be a lot more expensive than $1,000.

But let's say you do get it to work, and you do catch something with your skytracking system. Even if you verify it is not one of ours, how much can be learned from objects in the sky? We already know UFO's exist. There are plenty of pictures. What can be gained from all this hard work?

It is an excellent idea, but I don't see much value in it other than accumulating the frequency of sightings. You just won't get much new info from it.



posted on Oct, 4 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think that (along the lines of what HAL said) the first thing to investigate in developing something like this would be the current camera technology. I've seen quite a few night-vision cameras with decent resolution for around $100-$200, but again, quality is a question.

There are a lot of feasability issues here, it seems.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Many of the so-called 'night-vision' cameras do not have the range that would be required. The night-vision in the cameras rely on a small LED that sits at the front of the camera, near the mic.

The camera uses this LED to illuminate close up things, bringing the light levels up so the low-end NV optics can function - even then the camera's optics cant see beyond a few feet.

If you were looking to monitor the night skies, in the sizes you are talking about it might be worthwhile looking into a Night Vision scope, with a LUX value - This means that the scope is able to function without the aid of a LED - and somehow rig it to a camera.

Just a thought, anyone feel free to correct me on the LUX settings, I'm a bit rusty as it was over 5 years ago when I bought my NV hunting scope.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
well ive got lots of coder friends who could write such software for tracking the camera. the rotating bipods could be purchased from mead who makes telescopes that rotate. with a quick rotating camera and smart software you could capture good footage even if there are multiple objects in the sky at once



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join