6 ms·

It seems so weird that they're still redacting things from the late 1960s. All of the technology they're talking about in those memos has been far surpassed by

It seems so weird that they're still redacting things from the late 1960s. All of the technology they're talking about in those memos has been far surpassed by even commercial enterprises, so who even cares anymore?

yepthatsreality 5y ago
To erase intent, blame, liability, and responsibility.
starwind 5y ago
There's basically no consequences for overclassification, but the penalty for underclassification could be a job loss (or in the extremely unlikely case, jail)
- edm0nd 5y ago
  It could also risk death if it exposed anyone in the field
ffhhj 5y ago
Just imagine what a time traveler could do with that information.
- takeda 5y ago
  Pretty much any information is much more valuable if you can go back in time.
madars 5y ago
I don't think we know that all tech has been eclipsed commercially. Recall that in 2012 NRO donated two unused, spare satellites to NASA that were superior to the Hubble telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O... and when President Trump tweeted out a, presumably NRO-sourced, picture it was at ~10cm resolution or better https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/trump-accidentally-revealed-the-amazing-resolution-of-u-s-spy-satellites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/t... . More to the point, there are sensors that are not commercially interesting but could be interesting for NRO's mission.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  One of the donated telescopes is being used as the basis for the Roman (neé WFIRST) telescope, launching some time around 2027. It'll also be interesting to see if using the donated hardware ends up actually saving any money.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    > saving any money. NASA does not understand these words in this order you have put them. By "saving" you mean tripling them, twice?
    - Rebelgecko 5y ago
      Yeah, it seems like there were 2 schools of thought. One saying "let's just build cheap and compact optics that meet our minimum requirements" Another saying "we have this badass hardware available, let's use it even though it goes well beyond our original design in terms of capabilities and also size/weight/complexity"
      - bradknowles 5y ago
        It’s not like they haven’t done this before. Take a look at the KH-11 and tell me that doesn’t look exactly like the Hubble, just pointed the other way. In fact, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Hubble was actually a cover for some KH-type mission, and the reason they had to go fix the optics to make it actually useful for space telescope purposes was because they had “accidentally” left the earth-viewing optics in place for the launch.
        dylan604 5y ago
        Um, have you run out of tinfoil? They don't need optics to read the thoughts from your brain from space man. That's the real cover. They just pay artists to create those "Hubble images" to add to the cover. /s
numpad0 5y ago
Maybe some direct successor to the technology is active or maybe there is something still have not been discovered by civilian competition?
largbae 5y ago
Maybe they promised some ally that they didn't have this tech back then and don't want to reveal the lie.
jacquesm 5y ago
Part of that is that 1960's tech was pretty good. It's not going to give you an advantage over the state of the art but it is still very useful and a whole lot better than nothing.

yepthatsreality 5y ago

To erase intent, blame, liability, and responsibility.

starwind 5y ago

There's basically no consequences for overclassification, but the penalty for underclassification could be a job loss (or in the extremely unlikely case, jail)

edm0nd 5y ago
It could also risk death if it exposed anyone in the field

ffhhj 5y ago

Just imagine what a time traveler could do with that information.

takeda 5y ago
Pretty much any information is much more valuable if you can go back in time.

madars 5y ago

I don't think we know that all tech has been eclipsed commercially. Recall that in 2012 NRO donated two unused, spare satellites to NASA that were superior to the Hubble telescope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O... and when President Trump tweeted out a, presumably NRO-sourced, picture it was at ~10cm resolution or better https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/trump-accidentally-revealed-the-amazing-resolution-of-u-s-spy-satellites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanocallaghan/2019/09/01/t... . More to the point, there are sensors that are not commercially interesting but could be interesting for NRO's mission.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
One of the donated telescopes is being used as the basis for the Roman (neé WFIRST) telescope, launching some time around 2027. It'll also be interesting to see if using the donated hardware ends up actually saving any money.
- dylan604 5y ago
  > saving any money. NASA does not understand these words in this order you have put them. By "saving" you mean tripling them, twice?
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    Yeah, it seems like there were 2 schools of thought. One saying "let's just build cheap and compact optics that meet our minimum requirements" Another saying "we have this badass hardware available, let's use it even though it goes well beyond our original design in terms of capabilities and also size/weight/complexity"
    - bradknowles 5y ago
      It’s not like they haven’t done this before. Take a look at the KH-11 and tell me that doesn’t look exactly like the Hubble, just pointed the other way. In fact, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Hubble was actually a cover for some KH-type mission, and the reason they had to go fix the optics to make it actually useful for space telescope purposes was because they had “accidentally” left the earth-viewing optics in place for the launch.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        Um, have you run out of tinfoil? They don't need optics to read the thoughts from your brain from space man. That's the real cover. They just pay artists to create those "Hubble images" to add to the cover. /s

numpad0 5y ago

Maybe some direct successor to the technology is active or maybe there is something still have not been discovered by civilian competition?

largbae 5y ago

Maybe they promised some ally that they didn't have this tech back then and don't want to reveal the lie.

jacquesm 5y ago

Part of that is that 1960's tech was pretty good. It's not going to give you an advantage over the state of the art but it is still very useful and a whole lot better than nothing.