DARPA's 'Membrane Optics' Spy Satellite Could Capture Close-Up Video of Earth from Orbit

This would be even better if they made a couple of them and made it public like Google Satellite Map but most likely they wont

are you kidding? this won't be public until at least 20 years. unless Google decides to invest in it, then I'd call for 5 years...

to mars or bust!

@ghost,
true, i bet that this technology was invented 20 years ago by the military

"religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom"

-Killah Priest

Since when does Earth's atmosphere go out 22,000 miles?

yeah, the 22,000 mi. comment did make me think, who is the editor for these articles...
~22,000 mi. from geo to planet

Actually the upper boundary of Earth's atmosphere is the upper boundary of the exosphere, which in theory is in excess of 100,000 miles. The geocorona can be physically observed out to over 60,000 miles. While this tranisition zone from atmosphere to space is extremely thin it does exist and is part of the atmosphere.

We need an exceptionally big blanket in outer space and the next time someone goes to war with us, be put SHADE over their country and cause an ice age, no bullets necessary or anything nastier.

Once the war is over, remove the SHADED country and ice age and start again.

Twenty two COMMA Zero Miles is what is meant.
And no... This IS a wastebasket Idea yet again...

Why not use thousands of small satelites in close orbit. Each satelite trailing 1/50th of a second after the last. Each takes a picture of whatever takes your interest and the images are stitched together into video.

@GeeWillikers make an entire nation suffer? =/

FROM: jedimindset: "this technology was invented 20 years ago by the military

"religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom""

I think that quote is VERY accurate... the sad thing is you dont see that you are one of the most religious nuts out there. you unquestionably follow the religion of yourself and putting full undying faith into bull%%%% conspiracies.

make no mistake. I DO not think conspiercous are bull %%%%. I think many of them are probalby probably, many other might be valid. but anyone sain ratinal person person, know to have to doubt in all things. unless you have faith. then you 100% believe in something. That sounds exactly like jedi. he posts all his thoughts as 100% fact. never a possibility to be proven or disproven.

@inaka_rob

Excellent point. But for the record, most religions don't require 100% unquestioned faith. It is a psychological impossibility for any human with stable intelligence not to question.

Now (to topic), I do worry about it being pointed at the US…

I remember there was a test of a giant inflated mirror some years ago. Come to think of it, I think describing this as a "membrane" is a red herring. Telescopes use mirrors, so would this satellite. Maybe it wasn't 20 years ago, but I'll bet this has been operational for some years.

JediMindset,
I believe in spiritual influence in our life and they at times seem foreign and alien. I also see us humans so imperfect that as we store and keep this information, we can at times corrupt it. If someone has a truly spiritual impression, they may share it with others and write it down for posterity. Then it becomes religion and corrupted change by our human influence.

I believe wonderful spiritual things are around us every day, perhaps various different dimensional spirits, perhaps spirits that are close and cloaked. The cosmos is a wonderful place. Absorb life and the cosmos! Open your mind and learn!

Imagine what good will could be created with the $Trillion$ that will be burnt for programs such as this, used to make the U.S. energy independent. Could be one EASILY with today's technology, nothing to say for what our scientists and engineers could create with a fraction of that money.

We're all missing the point of this article and one's like it: MORE DISTRACTION to keep us all in a trance. Yeah, I agree, this is cool technology and could be a lot of fun. But I for one am getting really tired of the continuous media bombarding us intelligent beings with more crap to distract us from the much better future we could all have without this crap.

Peace.

Sorry, way off topic, but JediMindset and inaka_rob and Killah Priest need a correction on religion. Numerous people who have contributed significantly to the body of human knowledge--science, philosophy and so on--were devoutly religious people. Sir Isaac Newton comes to mind, as does James Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck (quantum mechanics), Philo T. Farnsworth (television), Harvey Fletcher (stereo sound). Apparently their religious devotion wasn't an impediment to seeking and gaining wisdom.

I think you are confusing religion with superstition. They are very different things. Most of the religions I'm aware of teach, among other things, moral conduct, which of course is generally recognized as a good thing. Superstition on the other hand has both religious and non-religious flavors. As far as I can tell it has no redeeming value and does indeed obstruct the pursuit of truth.

Until you take the time to be involved in a religion, seriously study it, question it, live by its precepts, and can differentiate between it and superstition, it might be better if you refrained from commenting on religion in order to not appear woefully uninformed.

@laurenra7,

i was raised as a cristian and force to go to church daily without a say so. i wasnt allowed to question the pastor because he was always right. the quote isnt 100% accurate because eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism teach one of "knowledge of self" and redemption. they focus solely on doing right and spiritualism.
while other religions tell you to be faithful to their crap and follow rules like go to church to repent. the quote is really about "abrahamic" religions like Christianity and western "popular" religions. Eastern philosophy is all about spirituality rather than religious dogma.

"religion is like a prison for the seekers of wisdom"

-Killah Priest

Laurenra7 and JediMindSet, I do agree with you. My parents are technically Catholic (though not practicing), most of us kids went to a baptist church because we could walk to it and my parents didn't have to drive us. I believe faith and religion are not entirely the same. Faith is when you believe in something with all your heart, whether its the bible or a mathematical fomula for string theory. FReligion forces you into a rigid believe system that does not allow for deviation. While I consider myself religious, it is very important to keep an open mind about everything and to understand that you're way may not be the right way. That is why I love science. Its about exploring. I do find it ironic that I believe in God, life on other worlds, multiple universes, and so on, but whose to say life on other worlds can't have religion either. Remember, God and aliens have one thing in common: neither has been proven or disproven yet.

Science always asks "can we," but doesn't seem to ask "should we."

One more thing, a story like this is right down Boka's alley, yet he's not here. Maybe he's still morning the death of his hero, Kim Jong Il....or maybe he was him! That reminds, me, I need to watch Team America again.

Science always asks "can we," but doesn't seem to ask "should we."

Sounds good until you start thinking about all the debris flying through space. That thing will be turned in to Swiss cheese unless its made of something extremely durable.

Don't take life to seriously! You'll never get out of it alive.
-Elbert Hubbard

isitcoldinhere,

"Science always asks "can we," but doesn't seem to ask 'should we.'"

Tell that to anyone that's passed their research proposal by an ethics board. Science constantly asks both "should" and "can." You just don't hear about the "should" part in the media, because the media doesn't much care about a full and balanced opinion.

laurena7,

"Numerous people who have contributed significantly to the body of human knowledge--science, philosophy and so on--were devoutly religious people. Sir Isaac Newton comes to mind, as does James Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Max Planck (quantum mechanics), Philo T. Farnsworth (television), Harvey Fletcher (stereo sound). Apparently their religious devotion wasn't an impediment to seeking and gaining wisdom.

They are very different things. Most of the religions I'm aware of teach, among other things, moral conduct, which of course is generally recognized as a good thing."

Scientists like these didn't create the scientific theories they did in tandem with their religious beliefs, but rather in spite of them. In some cases, the scientists had to "hide" their scientific findings by claiming they were merely thinking in "what-if" hypothetical discourse, but making no claim to reality. Should they have claimed, for example, a heliocentric model (the earth revolves around the sun), for most of history, they would have been killed for heresy.

Obviously, divisive thought like this was not advisable. So while, yes, it's possible for a person to be highly religious, religion itself has served as a significant bottleneck to scientific thought. Granted, I do not feel this is the case today to nearly the same extent, that's nevertheless the history we have to work with. And anyway, the only reason science has made ground over religion in this area is because science almost always proves to be *right.*

In fact, even as recent as the last few decades, the Pope himself stated he didn't mind science looking into the moment of creation -- just so long as it doesn't peer any deeper than that moment. Religion, and often the religious, are all too willing to stifle free inquiry when it risks raising questions about the validity of their beliefs.

Since religion (or aliens..) are often the toted explanation for everything not known, making a discovery almost assuredly will force some people to revise their religious views (the earth is the centre of everything; the universe was created solely for humans; etc.)

As for morality, yes -- religion does promote many positive moral beliefs. Unfortunately, mixed into religious morality are statements like the following: do not tolerate homosexuality; women should be subservient to their husbands; the earth is to be used for the benefit of humankind, regardless of environmental impacts; etc. Each of these statements are claims made by various religious organizations as "moral claims," and yet are morally dubious.

So while it's true to say tennants like "do not murder" are good moral values, to *only* look at these obvious statements -- true in all cultures -- is to ignore the whole picture.

Jedi,

The eastern philosphies are at least as dogmatic as the western ones. In 2008, for example, a Buddhist Monk attacked a Hindu temple for no better reason than it disagreed with his valued beliefs.

Ask yourself these questions: who is the ultimate deity? Vishnu, Brahmah or Siva? Was the Buddha a god, or a man? What values should be held as penultimate, taoist or confucianist?

Notice any parallels between these questions, and the religiously motivated wars in the west? (Was Mohammed divine, or not? Who should have been his true successor? Was Jesus the last prophet? Was he the son of God, God himself, or a man? Should you still follow the old testament?).

Here's a couple of my opinions: humans are naturally inclined to war; and, religion (dogma) provides a convenient justification for war (but is not the only justification).

What materials are the membrane made of? How can it withstand the strains of low-orbit and how does it work to capture video?

Sometimes I wish there's a "Read More" hyperlink for each popsci article that covers more in-depth details on how each tech actually functions so interested readers don't have to google it.