Message posted by JB737 on June 15, 2007 at 19:25:51 PST:
Chuck, First, as with Steve, I must first thank and congratulate you for all the pics, shows, and other fine contributions you have made over the years. I bought and enjoyed one of your $15 panorama sets at the Inn. Having just read Darlington's book, I felt like I was there at 30 below zero waiting for Aurora. The information you provide here about a similar setup in Rachel, is the first evidence I've seen that the installation in question is likely not a new/improved approach sensor control station. I hope this turns out to be true. Maybe some CalTech guy with a warped sense of humor decided to place one where it would seem to be an approach sensor! If so, he indeed fooled me. Maybe they just chose it because it is a named place on the USGS topo... who knows. Quite a coincidence, though, to pick the ideal approach sensor location for a seismic/blast sensor. There are still a few things to be careful of: 1. The same power/comms/computer infrastructure can be used for many purposes. Many implications: 2. Can we be sure that there aren't new approach sensors in the Rachel area which also needed a base station to report to? They could tell the guy anything, and it all looks the same. 3. CalTech must do government work in many different areas, and one could provide cover for another. 4. Will they actually remove them in 2 years? JB737
2-in-1 project?
2nd project piggybacks onto its infrastructure?
2nd project co-locates its own infrastructure
without being noticed?
Separate project copies same infrastrure?
Because it worked well?
Because it goes unnoticed or misinterpreted?
Common source of funding specifies infrastructure?
When done, it stays there for another purpose?
Etc.
It would only take new software, maybe an additional transceiver, and burying new sensors to convert it over, probably unnoticed, if it ends up abandoned in place.
In Reply to: Re: Another interesting find posted by Chuck Clark on June 15, 2007 at 17:41:09 PST:
Replies: