Could a person fly a modified RC plane over Area 51 with cameras mounted

there are satellite images.

but you won't see a thing

they only take the dreamworks out at night

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are satellite images.

but you won't see a thing

they only take the dreamworks out at night

And what China's hardware can't see at night?

reply to post by brice


The satellites are not geosynchronous. Thus they move in a predictable manner. Thus you need to have your bird in the sky flying over the base at night while an asset is uncovered. So even if good night time satellite imagery is possible (I don't know the limitations), it is still a matter of timing. That is why I keep mentioning loiter time.

Take Iran for example. Lots of UFOs spotted there. They even recovered a UFO, but identified it to be a RQ-170, Now UAVs, at least military grade UAVs, can loiter. I suspect much UAV activity comes under the classification of "hurry up and wait."

If you are into spy satellite, check out
www.heavens-above.com...
Trevor Paglen's "Invisible" has a few photos of spy satellites making arcs in the sky near landmarks. There are also low light CCD camera videos of satellite trails on youtube.

reply to post by gariac


Great info and vids, thank you!
brice

I would bet that the military is very cognizant about amateur RC drones, and would jam 2.4ghz and 900mhz anywhere near the place, making it impossible to control anything you could buy in the hobby shop.

Building your own control systems using different frequencies is pro stuff, which would constitute espionage intent, and in under a minute you would be in the cross hairs of something you could not escape from.

it would have to be small enough to look like a bird on radar, with LONG range, you wouldn't want to be caught doing this, also where ever the video gets uploaded too you wouldn't want ANY connection.

its a good way to get yourself #ed over

POV flying with rc has been around for a little but and they do have some range

you're talking 20+ miles from the legal area where u can be to the actual base, with mountains

so no

an RC plane would not reach the base

Originally posted by tones
you're talking 20+ miles from the legal area where u can be to the actual base, with mountains

so no

an RC plane would not reach the base

First-person view (FPV) flight is a type of remote-control flying that has grown in popularity in recent years. It involves mounting a small video camera and analog television transmitter on an RC aircraft and flying by means of a live video down-link, commonly displayed on video goggles or a portable LCD screen. When flying FPV, the pilot sees from the aircraft's perspective, and does not even have to look at the model. As a result, FPV aircraft can be flown well beyond visual range, limited only by the range of the remote control and video transmitter. Video transmitters typically operate at a power level between 200 mW and 1500 mW. The most common frequencies used for video transmission are 900 MHz, 1.2 GHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz.[5] Specialized long-range UHF control systems operating at 433 MHz (for amateur radio licensees only) or 869 MHz[5] are commonly used to achieve greater control range, while the use of directional, high-gain antennas increases video range. Sophisticated setups are capable of achieving a range of 20–30 miles or more

Wiki

Originally posted by GuidedKill

Originally posted by tones
you're talking 20+ miles from the legal area where u can be to the actual base, with mountains

so no

an RC plane would not reach the base

First-person view (FPV) flight is a type of remote-control flying that has grown in popularity in recent years. It involves mounting a small video camera and analog television transmitter on an RC aircraft and flying by means of a live video down-link, commonly displayed on video goggles or a portable LCD screen. When flying FPV, the pilot sees from the aircraft's perspective, and does not even have to look at the model. As a result, FPV aircraft can be flown well beyond visual range, limited only by the range of the remote control and video transmitter. Video transmitters typically operate at a power level between 200 mW and 1500 mW. The most common frequencies used for video transmission are 900 MHz, 1.2 GHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz.[5] Specialized long-range UHF control systems operating at 433 MHz (for amateur radio licensees only) or 869 MHz[5] are commonly used to achieve greater control range, while the use of directional, high-gain antennas increases video range. Sophisticated setups are capable of achieving a range of 20–30 miles or more

Wiki

any radio signal that strong would be picked up in seconds

especially if you are at the closest you can get from the base, you would most likely be detected before even setting it off for flight

I don't know if any mentioned it but if you use your phone as the camera. You could use one of the "ustream" apps or any other video streaming site on your android or iPhone and stream the video live to the internet.

reply to post by SpacedOut85


Of course, that would require having cellular service. All you have in the desert is low speed CDMA, and that is at Rachel, which doesn't have a line of sight to Groom Lake. Oh, and how much do you want to bet the base would jam cellular service in a heartbeat if it felt it was in the national interest. Seriously, the DoD might be a bit lethargic due to bureaucracy, but these people aren't stupid.

These is another thread that should be made sticky. I've seen it a dozen times.

reply to post by gariac


Good point. Don't know why I didn't even think that it is in the middle of the dessert.

wait till the wind blows in the right direction and take a video camera tied to a balloon and send her over.... oh yeah your gonna need alot of kite string

reply to post by tones


No doubt about it. I think the whole idea is ridiculous. I was only setting the facts straight that it is more than possible.

reply to post by SpacedOut85


Cellular service used to end at Alamo. There was speculation for years that the USAF didn't want cellular service around the range because of a fear that the press would be alerted of an incident (crash, etc.) before the DoD could contain the area. The Verizon site popping up in Rachel was a bit of a shock. My theory is the contractors that worked out of Rachel wanted some secure comms, i.e. not having to use phones or the fax at the Little Aleinn. So a really crappy cell site showed up in Alamo. It isn't even a tower, but just an antenna on top of a small building. Without height, it doesn't go very far.

There is large multiuser comm site on Mt. Irish. Multiuser in the sense of military, state, county, and commercial telecom. Verizon could have easily put an antenna on Mt. Irish and served both Rachel and users on the ET highway. In fact, that would be normal operating procedure since Verizon Wireless is in business to make money and serve the public.

Verizon has a site on a hilltop above Alamo. However it barely works on Tikaboo. I suspect they use a directional antenna to keep service out of the area. AT&T pulled a license to put up GSM in the same area. However, that hasn't materialized yet. If you study the AT&T cell sites along route 93, they are your basic sector type facilities. But there is a catch. The towers only have 3 sector antenna on them instead of the usual 4. This is so there is no coverage in the Nellis range. Now it is totally possible AT&T didn't put the 4th sector up to save money since there are not going to be very many users on the range. This is the kind of situation where you will never get the real story.

At the northern edge of the range, i.e. well away from Groom, there are both GSM (EDGE) and CDMA facilities. The GSM signal makes it to the Monitor Peak area near the TTR. There is no blocking by the base as far as I can tell. That is, the distance is in line with the 35km range limit of GSM. The CDMA signal makes it a bit further, but still not even up to the TTR mancamp.

To finish off the coverage, there is GSM and CDMA all along route 95. This may reach into the west edge of the Nellis range a bit. There is no way to tell other than being there unless you can examine the cell site antennas to see if they are directional. Some of the CDMA and GSM sites are on the NTS hills, i.e. restricted territory.

Even with an extensive radio repeater system on the range, the NTS and probably the DoD use sat phones.

Auto jamming

the easiest way imo would be to fly an rc heli of some sort that u could fly over a janet plane while its in las vegas airport. if u could then land on a portion of the top of the plane and detach a device that would have multiple cameras for a 360 degree view that activates after ascending then descending to a certain altitude; say 500 feet above area 51's elevation; then u could easily record and save hours of footage with solid state storage. u then could sit outside las vegas airport and send a signal to the device to upload the data to whatever laptop u have once the plane arrives back at the airport giving u a great look of area 51 up close. the important thing is the device has to be very discrete. thats my best idea. imo not worth the trouble cause im sure u would see mostly mundane things and nothing of real importance

It would be easier to disguise a RC car like a rock and have it drive to certain GPS coordinates film and then RTB for your scheduled pickup

Originally posted by Mianeye
It might end up like this, but propably going to use different kind off ammunition.

www.liveleak.com...

edit on 5-3-2012 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

LOL! I wonder what the government would do to take a small craft like that out of the sky?