Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Science Technology

HAARP Ionospheric Research Program Set To Continue 112

Posted by samzenpus
from the tin-foil-hats dept.
cylonlover writes "Reports that the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) had been shut down permanently were apparently a bit premature. According to HAARP program manager James Keeney, the facility is only temporarily off the air while operating contractors are changed. So why does anyone care? Despite being associated with various natural disasters over the past two decades by the conspiracy fringe, HAARP is in reality a facility for studying the ionosphere. Gizmag takes a look at the goings on at HAARP – past, present, and future."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HAARP Ionospheric Research Program Set To Continue

Comments Filter:
  • They were supposed to burn the face off the earth. They were supposed to cause hallucinations. They were supposed to cause Global Worming!!! They were supposed to call Lucifer from the pit to rape innocent virgins who lead the damned in a war against Heaven, er no that's a porn flick.
    WE SHOULD BE DOOMED dammit.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Dude, conspirical contraversies aside...I SERIOUSLY hope nobody is responsible for global worming. Things are bad enough.

      • by Virtucon (127420)

        I SERIOUSLY hope nobody is responsible for global worming. Things are bad enough.

        My dog had worms so I took him to the vet. Is my vet responsible for global worming? But I'd say quite the opposite would be true if I didn't get rid of the worms.

        • Your dog with worms, becomes a feast for 30 people in Korea.

          More efficient and less damaging to the earth than cooking beef cattle which use tonnes of water, co2.

          • by Virtucon (127420)

            Yeah but like ourselves, the cow is biodegradable and I'd argue that we all contribute enough to Methane emissions ourselves. At least I do after a couple of Taco Bell burritos so leave the poor cow out of it.

      • Have you seen the documentary Tremors?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @08:33PM (#44376193)

    According to the paper in TFA they're actually doing some pretty neat experiments while they zap the ionosphere. They've got satellites up there that measure electromagnetic radiation from various events like earthquakes and they're using HAARP to essentially provide a control for those.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142) *
      What HAARP really doing is absorbing money in the hopes of producing some actually useful science, which they have failed to do so far. Ahh but government thinks that failure must be rewarded by throwing even more money at it, be it a bank or "scientific" research.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's not research if you can look it up on Wikipedia. It may fail to produce groundbreaking discoveries, but the data is still being collected, and even negative results will one day find a use, even if to prevent others from chasing the same failed path. Believe it or not, scientist usually want to work on things that are worth while, not chase dead ends. Can you not understand that your free market absolutist crap doesn't apply to everything? Science doesn't (read: basically nothing) agree with your delus
        • by khallow (566160) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:38PM (#44377553)
          Scientists when they're faced with limited resources, pick and choose [slashdot.org] what research they do. One doesn't have to be a free market capitalist to be interested in doing activities that not only yield more benefit (in however you decide benefit is defined) than they cost, but also more benefit than alternate uses for the money.

          All this pointless yacking about the strawman of immediate monetary return on investment ignores that funding of scientific research is just another economic problem subject to the same rules and constraints as any other human endeavor. To be so profoundly ignorant of economics IMHO makes you the delusional, anti-intellectual.
          • by sjames (1099)

            You haven't completed the chain of logic. Sure, researchers narrow their projects when funding is tight, but do those narrowed projects ultimately have the same ROI or do we just end up with a few inexpensive projects that provide low returns while missing out on the big win from left field?

            If you pick projects based on your estimate of their return, you necessarily pick projects where we already know a lot since you can't estimate the return on an unknown.

            So we get pills that grow peach fuzz on your head b

            • by khallow (566160)

              Sure, researchers narrow their projects when funding is tight, but do those narrowed projects ultimately have the same ROI or do we just end up with a few inexpensive projects that provide low returns while missing out on the big win from left field?

              My take is that they have a better ROI than when they enough funding that they don't narrow the scope of their projects.

              If you pick projects based on your estimate of their return, you necessarily pick projects where we already know a lot since you can't estimate the return on an unknown.

              Well, that's how we do all human endeavors. And I see no evidence that this approach is at all suboptimal. After all, you're just as likely to hit that unknown benefit with a conservative course of action as well as a more adventurous one.

              So we get pills that grow peach fuzz on your head but no blockbuster antibiotics for example.

              Experience has shown that the peach fuzz is harder than the blockbuster antibotics.

              That is an example of the saying "an accountant is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing".

              Except that we're speaking of scientists and knowledgeable laymen who

              • by sjames (1099)

                So what was the apparent ROI of the Crookes tube before the X-ray was discovered? Or all that goofing around with radium? All those loons who thought they could build a flying machine? I doubt very much that Volta could have suggested a likely ROI on his piles nor Ørsted for his research.

                If every research endeavor had to be measured against an expected ROI, we'd still be grunting in a cave.

                That's not to say that some research isn't throwing way too much money at nothing, but we want to be careful not

                • by khallow (566160)

                  So what was the apparent ROI of the Crookes tube before the X-ray was discovered?

                  A light source. The neon tube is derived from this angle on the research.

                  Or all that goofing around with radium?

                  Discovery of new elements often leads to a variety of new alloys with new properties. And once radium was discovered, it's luminescence turned out to be of considerable practical value, being used for instruments used in darkness such as watches, dials on submarines, etc.

                  All those loons who thought they could build a flying machine?

                  Easiest of the lot. Getting from point A to point B faster has considerable economic value. Flying also has game-changing military value for reconnaissance.

                  I doubt very much that Volta could have suggested a likely ROI on his piles nor Ãrsted for his research.

                  Did we ask

                  • by sjames (1099)

                    You are applying your hindsight. Look at the examples I mentioned again forgetting what they lead to or what came after that made them of obvious value.

                    For example, the Crookes tube gave off a tiny bit of greenish light. The neon light and fluorescent lighting were discovered LATER as a result of experimenting with the Crookes tube. At the time, nobody was sure what it might be good for if anything. Volta's pile was a primary battery and a handy source of DC current...if there had been any technology at the

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      You are applying your hindsight.

                      No, I'm applying what they knew at the time. Computers or the electric grid infrastructure are after all much stronger arguments for researching electromagnetism than glowing glass containers. But they didn't know about those things.

                      For example, the Crookes tube gave off a tiny bit of greenish light.

                      And? You're trying to tell me that they wouldn't be interested in a much brighter light source along those lines? There was already a great deal of research into electricity-based lighting by this point.

                      Volta's pile was a primary battery and a handy source of DC current...if there had been any technology at the time that used electricity that might have been really cool.

                      Handy source of DC current for ongoing experiments? Why that's useful!

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      And? You're trying to tell me that they wouldn't be interested in a much brighter light source along those lines?

                      And that's it. Neon hadn't been isolated yet. Several years later, the Moore tube was used for lighting (based on the Geissler tube, not the Crookes tube) but was quickly beaten in the market by tungsten incandescents.

                      It wasn't until several years later that Röntgen, with little expectation of a payoff, happened to notice a Crookes tube was emitting something that could cause a slight fluorescence in a barium platinocyanide screen.

                      It was all the sort of idle curiosity that would likely get the axe in

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      And that's it. Neon hadn't been isolated yet.

                      What's "it"? They couldn't be researching lighting because they hadn't discovered neon yet?

                      It was all the sort of idle curiosity that would likely get the axe in favor of working on more practical probklems like boosting the output of a steam engine.

                      I see no "idle" curiosity here. And the steam engine led directly to thermodynamics. Practical problems have always led to less mundane stuff.

                      As for the pile, An experiment that produced something that can be used for more experiments? Where's the ROI in that?

                      Significant resources go into these experiments. Enabling new experiments or making current experiments more effective is a return.

                      Surely the Wrights should have been working on something that stood a chance of success?/quote> And they did work on something that stood a chance of success, especially since it did succeed. It's worth noting that they applied the research technologies of the day, such as building a wind tunnel to reduce the cost of their experimentation.

                      There's a long history of idle experimentation for experimentation's sake.

                      All I see is a history of certain people mischaracterizing hard work and effort as "idle experimentation". And that mischaracterization seems to be solely intended to justify poorly thought out and dreadfully wasteful public funding of scientific research today.

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      The fact is, nobody considered the Crookes tube as a light source. I don't consider the types of experimentation I discussed as not a lot of work, but they are exactly the sorts of things that would get the axe in today's penny wise and pound foolish management style.

                      Today's boss would tell Einstein to quit daydreaming and get to rubber stamping that pile of patents NOW.

                      There is a such thing as over optimizing a system. A common result is that it becomes brittle and loses the opportunity to make a leap f

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      The fact is, nobody considered the Crookes tube as a light source. I don't consider the types of experimentation I discussed as not a lot of work, but they are exactly the sorts of things that would get the axe in today's penny wise and pound foolish management style.

                      I wouldn't characterize that as a fact, but rather as an opinion.

                      As to today's "foolish management style", why do you think that even gets traction? If there really is as big a payoff for R&D as supporters claim, then why don't business succeed more often at it? As you and others have mentioned, the myth is that research somehow doesn't have much of a payoff to the business world, something which was shown false in the industrial revolution. But since that isn't actually true, what can causing busine

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      The reason short term management has gained so much traction is simply because that is what creates the most profit for the CEO and his in group now and they don't really give a damn about the people whose retirement is in hedge funds anyway so long as they get theirs. That's why we have seen so many large and apparently stable for decades corporations flame out.

                      The corporate world has never been particularly good at basic research of the type that eventually pays off in huge ways. It's always been mostly i

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      The reason short term management has gained so much traction is simply because that is what creates the most profit for the CEO and his in group now and they don't really give a damn about the people whose retirement is in hedge funds anyway so long as they get theirs. That's why we have seen so many large and apparently stable for decades corporations flame out.

                      Why did large and apparently stable corporations start flaming out? Why is short term management so profitable now when it wasn't when those large and apparently stable corporations were created? Well, I think I got the reason why - moral hazard from society's mitigation of future risk.

                      The corporate world has never been particularly good at basic research of the type that eventually pays off in huge ways.

                      Compared to who? And all I can say is that when one actually looks at the history of research, business-side research has been very productive. And it's also funded some very productive non profit research as well.

                      Bell labs is sort-of an exception

                      I can think

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      If risk is where it's at, we should just hold a lottery. Loser gets stoned to death, Huzzah!

                      Corporations are all about limiting risk and liability. They allow the people in charge to make high value short term moves secure in the knowledge that they can deploy their golden parachute before it all comes crashing down. The old stable corporations started crashing when day trading became more interesting than long term holding and the rise or the corporate raider.

                      Give the CEO and the board some actual liabilit

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      Corporations are all about limiting risk and liability. They allow the people in charge to make high value short term moves secure in the knowledge that they can deploy their golden parachute before it all comes crashing down. The old stable corporations started crashing when day trading became more interesting than long term holding and the rise or the corporate raider.

                      You don't have correlation here, much less cause and effect. As to day trading and corporate raiders, they have value. Corporate raiders help break down businesses that have become stagnant and are worth more in pieces than they are whole. Day traders merely are small scale market makers, adding liquidity to markets.

                      Give the CEO and the board some actual liability and make holding stock more risky so that investors want to see a steady course and these problems will start to clear up.

                      CEO and the board do have actual liability so there's no point in complaining about its absence. And holding stock is risky. You're last in line for bankruptcies. Here, what I think is going on

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      You have a funny view of risk. Name a CEO that ended up in poverty (Actual poverty, not forced early retirement into an upper middle class lifestyle where they still don't have to give a damn what a gallon of milk costs) after running a corporation into the ground. Having to defer that second yacht is not liability. When Wall Street crashed the economy the banks used their bailout money to pay their CEOs a performance bonus. Even criminal liability is quite limited in the corporate world. If you think they

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      You have a funny view of risk. Name a CEO that ended up in poverty (Actual poverty, not forced early retirement into an upper middle class lifestyle where they still don't have to give a damn what a gallon of milk costs) after running a corporation into the ground.

                      Why would they be risking poverty after running a business into the ground? You mentioned earlier that doing so was actually profitable for the CEO in question. So why would a successful businessperson end up in poverty? I wasn't claiming that running a business into the ground was risky, but rather that society had created a bunch of incentives to ignore future risk.

                      As for the corporate raiders, mostly they pocketed the gains for themselves and left the stock holders (at least the ones who didn't get out before the music stopped) and the employees holding the bag. Remember the Wall street adoration of Chainsaw Al? Turns out he was a crook.

                      Chainsaw Al wasn't a corporate raider. He was brought in by the businesses to downsize them and aggressively cut the unprofitable parts of the

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      Why would they be risking poverty after running a business into the ground? You mentioned earlier that doing so was actually profitable for the CEO in question. So why would a successful businessperson end up in poverty? I wasn't claiming that running a business into the ground was risky, but rather that society had created a bunch of incentives to ignore future risk.

                      YOU argued that CEOs faced plenty of liability and so, risk. Now you argue the opposite. I argue they SHOULD face that level of risk/liability. You can't have it both ways. As for why, you yourself claimed that it's the risk that makes them behave in a responsible manner.

                      You're going to have to pick an argument and stick with it if there is to be discussion.

                    • by khallow (566160)

                      YOU argued that CEOs faced plenty of liability and so, risk. Now you argue the opposite.

                      The two statements require some explanation, but they're not contradictory. For example, tax evasion, sexual harassment, and Sabanes-Oxley compliance are all significant risks for a CEO. Running a company into the ground can be, if the CEO owns a significant piece of the company or committed illegal acts/violations of regulatory law, but it otherwise isn't.

                      A huge part of the problem here is CEOs who have incentives greatly disengaged from the long term future of the business. That in turn is driven by in

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      For example, tax evasion, sexual harassment, and Sabanes-Oxley compliance are all significant risks for a CEO.

                      So, can't cheat on the taxes, bang the secretary OR cook the books? How terrible for them! It's almost like they have to obey the same law the commoners do or something.

                      To summarize, my point here has been that the incentives (mostly in the form of "moral hazard" and "tragedy of the commons") in today's developed world societies are all wrong, if you want to reward foresight and long term planning.

                      And THAT is why the CEO should be risking poverty if he runs the corporation into the ground. If not actual poverty, he should need unemployment benefits to get by and find his retirement in jeopardy like the employees of the company find.

                      It's why it should be unprofitable to hold stock for a short term. If you need to hold a stock for a per

      • It sounds great to me. MWs of beamed energy. They only need to make a collector site with reasonable efficiency and they will have a neat power transmission system.

      • OK, He Didn’t Cause Hurricane Katrina. But He Is Guilty of Fraud. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/haarp-fraud/ [wired.com]
  • Good (Score:2, Redundant)

    by NIK282000 (737852)

    America can't be trusted to think for itself. Bring on the mind control rays!

  • by cold fjord (826450) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @08:46PM (#44376321)

    It is amazing that people think this is such a big deal of a conspiracy.

    From the article -

    How big is the actual power density in HAARP's ionospheric spot? The total irradiance of the Sun's electromagnetic radiation (everything from x-rays to extremely low frequency (ELF) radio signals) is 1,360 W/sq m, measured by satellite outside the bulk of the Earth's atmosphere. HAARP's power density is about 0.001 percent of the Sun's irradiance – a nearly negligible quantity. Further, while local heating of the ionosphere is caused by HAARP (indeed, that is HAARP's purpose), the overall effect is rather like focusing the Sun's light using a magnifying glass – impressive if one is an ant, but not very significant on larger size scales.

    • Given that, if there were to be some sort of vast, malevolent, conspiracy; Joe Average would fill a role somewhere between 'ant' and 'human resource, to be harvested at leisure', I suspect that's exactly the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists wouldn't find comforting...

      Rather like trying to convince somebody who thinks you are trying to poison them that, really, cyanide is statistically indistinguishable from the millions of tons of carbon/nitrogen mixtures in the food supply.

  • HAARP is in reality a facility for studying the ionosphere

    HAARP is in reality a nuclear-powered facility that alters the ionosphere.

    FTFY! :p

  • by Tyr07 (2300912) on Thursday July 25, 2013 @12:37AM (#44377799)

    We're actually in contact with alien species and they're assisting us avoid detection from more hostile species that consume resources of habitable words like us.
    The changes HAARP initiates in the ionosphere, although not affecting us on the planet or anything overall in the near distance, planetary detection systems that have the ability to detect atmospheres to a limited degree are thrown off, making the assumption that this is not a water world with a perfect (life sustaining) temperature.

    Naturally you can still tell by nearby areas like our solar system etc, but once you get a few thousand light years out we don't look so welcoming.

    I'd insert comment about a specific alien overlord at this time but I don't want his followers..or...people who are against him or whatever "targeting" me but uh, yea, we're nice and safe from that dude now!

    • by Zynder (2773551)
      WHAT?
    • by Raenex (947668)

      You could sell this story to Infowars, but you'll probably need to put an evil spin on it and work in references to Prison Planet.

      • by Tyr07 (2300912)

        Okay.

        W'e're in contact from evil aliens and letting them hide here. We use our cloaking / camouflage planet system to hide them from aliens who are good, against corruption and greed. They would free us and bring us to a utopian era, but the evil "The man" trying to keep us down with their fortress of HAARP will do
        their best from liberating us.

        HAARP prevents us from seeing what's really on the moon since it modifies the sky above us, so we can't see it properly. The moon is used as a place for interrogation

    • The changes HAARP initiates in the ionosphere, although not affecting us on the planet or anything overall in the near distance, planetary detection systems that have the ability to detect atmospheres to a limited degree are thrown off, making the assumption that this is not a water world with a perfect (life sustaining) temperature.

      It also makes you wonder what they're putting in our water supply:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s [youtube.com]

  • The ionospheric sounding has to continue, since the data is used for military short wave radio planning. As the ionosphere is always changing, the sounding work can never stop.

Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later. -- F. Brooks, "The Mythical Man-Month"

Working...