DARPA's Super-Resolution Vision System uses heatwaves to magnify targets

DARPA's Super-Resolution Vision System (SRVS) may not be as cool as the threat-sensing binoculars we saw a while back, but it may prove a little more practical. The prototype scope takes advantage of something called "atmospheric turbulence-generated micro-lensing" to provide three times the resolution of current diffraction-based scopes. In other words, if soldiers can see you more clearly, they can make an informed decision on whether or not to shoot you.

[Via The Future of Things]

[thor @ Sep 27th 2008 2:19PM]

...or they can feel confident enough to go for the headshot.

[MEAT! @ Sep 27th 2008 2:25PM]

I can't wait for this technology to be applied to something more constructive: the optics of telescopes, to improve the "seeing" conditions created by those atmospheric disturbances. Not for the purposes of magnification, but for creating sharper images from ground-based telescopes.

[cesium @ Sep 27th 2008 2:58PM]

How is shooting people not constructive?

[MEAT! @ Sep 27th 2008 3:08PM]

Because stuff comes out of them.

[Kizorblade @ Sep 27th 2008 3:19PM]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see your logic: What's more constructive than shooting some guy's head?

[A.C.E.R. @ Sep 27th 2008 3:28PM]

Actually I think they've already been doing this with telescopes for a while now.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/10/17/telescopes-deformabl.html

[Mike C @ Sep 27th 2008 3:48PM]

I get the feeling that since Ground based telescopes are not restricted by size/weight, this probably won't make it's way into observational telescopes. That and the Hubble and other orbiting telescopes produce far better images than things on the ground due to the lack of that atmosphere thing...

And besides, they already use gravitational lensing to discover most of what they don't know about.

[MEAT! @ Sep 27th 2008 4:13PM]

@Mike C

Yeah, you're right about that product and the size/weight of telescopes. Though we don't know the specifics of this DARPA program, I'm sure they're making something that is designed to be portable and more modular than a permanent installation. It could have technology that might be adapted to telescopes, however; this has happened in the past with the sensitivity of radio telescopes, where military technology _eventually_ trickled down into civilian-based tech. It gets tied up in those classified programs for so long, though.

Gravitational lensing is not a frequently-used observational technique--its use is very specialized. Also, resolution-improving technology would still be useful for ground-based observatories....Orbiting telescopes can produce far better data, but try booking time to use them. Plus you're much more limited in putting up satellites. Consider that Hubble's primary mirror is only 2.4 meters, but the Gran telescope in Spain is 10.4 meters--meaning it has _19_ _times_ the light-gathering ability. And slapping new equipment on orbiting telescopes is not so easy.

[dre @ Sep 27th 2008 5:44PM]

correcting for atmospheric distortions are commonplace now on major observatories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics

[dre @ Sep 27th 2008 5:50PM]

@ MEAT! and Mike C

gravitational lensing is not a observational technique in astronomy as it is a physical phenomenon of heavy objects in space that bends the light of objects behind it making them seem brighter, i.e. we can't control what get gravitationally lensed

[MEAT! @ Sep 28th 2008 2:05AM]

@dre

Gravitational lensing is certainly a physical phenomenon, but I argue that it can also be called an observational technique; an astronomer can use a gravitational lens to gain more information about the background objects. Since it is acting as a lens, background objects may tend to be brighter and larger. Consider that a gravitational lens was used to "discover the most distant known object in the universe as of 2004" (Wikipedia -- Abell 2218). That's an observational technique.

[collegekid13 @ Sep 27th 2008 2:26PM]

maybe now they won't bomb us canadians

[computer.dude.28 @ Sep 27th 2008 3:25PM]

Not in the winter, at least.

[Adrian @ Sep 27th 2008 3:20PM]

I'm guessing that this is like the wall hacks of professional sniping

[Smileypanda @ Sep 27th 2008 4:06PM]

Now there's a headline: Enemy Combatants Accuse US Soldiers of Wallhacking, Speedhacking, and Aimbotting

[slowburn @ Sep 27th 2008 4:22PM]

,enemy combatants do not report any Bunny Hopping though, which comes as a relief to those who havent mastered the "crouch-sidestep-crouch-jump" maneuver.

[OneLove @ Sep 29th 2008 11:49AM]

I think I've played you guys. Damn key binds.

[konshuss @ Sep 27th 2008 5:58PM]

super resolution? leave the guns alone, toshiba.

[fontendet24 @ Sep 27th 2008 10:00PM]

When US researching new kinds of weapons for better killing and mass destruction - all western humanitarian programms and aids like - "Save Africa", against poverty and etc. looks just silly and like some mockery at all mankind...

Enough already! Tell the whole world that United States needs only one aid & programm - "Free Coffins for the rest of the world".

We don't need to develop new weapons of killing devices - We need to develop just simple and really working peaceful policy.
Or this will be road to one end - dead end.

Saw debates - mccain is really mad oldman, but obama not better than him on the main problems as Iran and etc.
And guess who's start to tease big russian bear? You know - old american сonservatives from the times of cold war - i thought they died already, but they alive and wants to warm this up again.
Only young politicians who never saw the terror and fears of XX century - can really resolve many world conflicts and problems. We can't fighting with every civilization - nature is the variety of fauna - mankind is the variety of many cultures and races - and we must save them.

[fontendet24 @ Sep 27th 2008 10:10PM]

Remark:
By saving cultures i mean - stop fighting with them.
Stop the war. Peace for all.

[Wwhat @ Sep 28th 2008 6:12AM]

Where are you from? You seem so hopeful, and obviously english isn't your native language.
Just curious.

[jason @ Sep 27th 2008 10:32PM]

What good is magnifying a target if they're face is obscured by a tan brick floating in the air?

[Wwhat @ Sep 28th 2008 6:14AM]

Yeah a bit cowardly to sit sniping a mile away and then not even having the nerve to show your face eh.

[Artie Lange @ Sep 28th 2008 1:44PM]

@ Wwhat: Is that a joke? This is obviously a picture of a pair of SOF operators or scout snipers. The men who do those jobs are not cowards. PERSEC/OPSEC regs prevent revealing identities.

[Aaron @ Sep 27th 2008 11:54PM]

Just so we're clear, this picture is of US Marines, not soldiers. (if you don't know the difference, ask a Marine and brace yourself for the answers that come out). :-)

[Xer0 Ph0kus @ Sep 28th 2008 8:27AM]

Oh come now. The only people who get butt hurt over semantics like that is a Marine. You can't expect everything that comes to the benefit of the US Military to say "our nation Soldiers, Sailers, Marines, and Airman sure can use this. Soldiers is a broad statement for all men and women in the military, Just like when people use the term army to mean military.