4 ms·

Counter-example: the obsolete space telescopes NRO donated to NASA in 2012 were better than what NASA had despite being nearly two decades old by that point. >

Counter-example: the obsolete space telescopes NRO donated to NASA in 2012 were better than what NASA had despite being nearly two decades old by that point. > An unnamed space analyst stated that the instruments may be a part of the KH-11 Kennen line of satellites which have been launched since 1976, but which have now been largely superseded by newer telescopes with wider fields of view than the KH-11. The analyst stated, however, that the telescopes have "state-of-the art optics" despite their obsolescence for reconnaissance purposes. [1] Bureaucratic (in)efficiency and (in)competence is not evenly distributed throughout the government and its contractors. We just don't get to see the best in action because they're classified until they're almost pedestrian. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescope_donation_to_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_O...

nathancahill 3y ago
Absolutely the case. For example, the military requires all commercial satellite imagery to be scaled to 25 cm resolution (up until 2014 it was limited to 50 cm). The true resolution is classified.
- Seattle3503 3y ago
  Surely it isn't the military that requires this? I couldn't find anything on a 25 cm limit, but I don't the military is a regulatory agency.
  - avar 3y ago
    An overview of it: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sensitive-satellite-data/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sens...
- yetanotherloser 3y ago
  Classified, but inferrable from the size of launch vehicles and basic optical properties. Still incredibly impressive.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Those mirrors aren't exotic technology. They're undoubtedly very expensive and difficult to produce but at the end of the day they're as mundane as any other first surface mirror. They don't evidence the government having some sort of new paradigm of technology kept secret, like antigravity instead of normal airplanes or something like that.
- godelski 3y ago
  > they're as mundane as any other first surface mirror This is a huge understatement. Like calling GPT4 "as mundane as any other transformer." Just because things have a high abstraction similarity doesn't mean the details aren't critical. Very expensive and difficult to produce __is__ exotic technology. There's also a large range of "paradigm shifting" technologies between here and antigravity. Don't listen to YouTube, get your hands dirty and work on the stuff if you want to get the expertise to know why this stuff is so impressive.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > Very expensive and difficult to produce __is__ exotic technology. Not in the sense of antigravity. Enough money and time can buy you an arbitrarily nice mirror, it doesn't rely on presently unknown to the public attributes of the universe.
    - godelski 3y ago
      > Enough money and time can buy you an arbitrarily nice mirror Yes and no. But I'm going to go with mostly no. The yes is only because over thousands of years we have in fact improved mirror quality, but if we're talking about building a perfect mirror within a 5-10 year time-frame from now, it is definitely no. No matter how much money you spend. A lot of people like to make assumptions about our capacity to build and make things. The reason we don't live in a super futuristic society isn't just because we're not dumping enough money into such a goal (obviously that would help) but because even with infinite resources we don't have great paths towards those things right now. Nuance sucks, but is necessary. The truth is that there's no such thing as "simple" when we're talking about "arbitrary precision." Honestly, not even true long before that. There's a good reason you'll find books with thousands of pages dedicated to a seemingly simple thing e.gs: o-rings, screws, bolts, threading, and so on. Don't fall for the simplicity trap.
godelski 3y ago
> not evenly distributed throughout the government and its contractors Not only that, but that "the government" and "its contractors" are often impossible to distinguish and for all intents and purposes the same. Many times realistically a loophole to escape the GS pay.

nathancahill 3y ago

Absolutely the case. For example, the military requires all commercial satellite imagery to be scaled to 25 cm resolution (up until 2014 it was limited to 50 cm). The true resolution is classified.

Seattle3503 3y ago
Surely it isn't the military that requires this? I couldn't find anything on a 25 cm limit, but I don't the military is a regulatory agency.
- avar 3y ago
  An overview of it: https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sensitive-satellite-data/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-government-controls-sens...
yetanotherloser 3y ago
Classified, but inferrable from the size of launch vehicles and basic optical properties. Still incredibly impressive.

mcpackieh 3y ago

Those mirrors aren't exotic technology. They're undoubtedly very expensive and difficult to produce but at the end of the day they're as mundane as any other first surface mirror. They don't evidence the government having some sort of new paradigm of technology kept secret, like antigravity instead of normal airplanes or something like that.

godelski 3y ago
> they're as mundane as any other first surface mirror This is a huge understatement. Like calling GPT4 "as mundane as any other transformer." Just because things have a high abstraction similarity doesn't mean the details aren't critical. Very expensive and difficult to produce __is__ exotic technology. There's also a large range of "paradigm shifting" technologies between here and antigravity. Don't listen to YouTube, get your hands dirty and work on the stuff if you want to get the expertise to know why this stuff is so impressive.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > Very expensive and difficult to produce __is__ exotic technology. Not in the sense of antigravity. Enough money and time can buy you an arbitrarily nice mirror, it doesn't rely on presently unknown to the public attributes of the universe.
  - godelski 3y ago
    > Enough money and time can buy you an arbitrarily nice mirror Yes and no. But I'm going to go with mostly no. The yes is only because over thousands of years we have in fact improved mirror quality, but if we're talking about building a perfect mirror within a 5-10 year time-frame from now, it is definitely no. No matter how much money you spend. A lot of people like to make assumptions about our capacity to build and make things. The reason we don't live in a super futuristic society isn't just because we're not dumping enough money into such a goal (obviously that would help) but because even with infinite resources we don't have great paths towards those things right now. Nuance sucks, but is necessary. The truth is that there's no such thing as "simple" when we're talking about "arbitrary precision." Honestly, not even true long before that. There's a good reason you'll find books with thousands of pages dedicated to a seemingly simple thing e.gs: o-rings, screws, bolts, threading, and so on. Don't fall for the simplicity trap.

godelski 3y ago

> not evenly distributed throughout the government and its contractors Not only that, but that "the government" and "its contractors" are often impossible to distinguish and for all intents and purposes the same. Many times realistically a loophole to escape the GS pay.