Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sundowner on September 28, 2006, 05:37:03 PM
-
Hmmm, interesting...they are probing our capabilities and their own.
Regards
Sun
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america
China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources.
It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
But the combination of China’s efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources............
-
At least they weren't attached to frikkin' sharks.
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
...U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory...
lol, what do you expect, sending welcome messages to this kind of satellites? ;)
What would you do?
-
good thing lasers only work at one wavelength
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
Hmmm, interesting...they are probing our capabilities and their own.
Regards
Sun
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2121111&C=america
China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources.
It remains unclear how many times the ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful.
But the combination of China’s efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources............
don't be such an alarmist, it's a superwok that's run amok is all that and some dimsum fueled flatulence. no worries here.
-
Just in case I'm drawing another Mohammed cartoon and writing the caption in Chinese this time .
-
That's just downright unfriendly. If they don't watch out we just might have to boycott Walmart. ;)
-
We ought to send a laser back at their station, only difference is that their station will be destroyed
-
China is a big monster thats going to eat the U.S. economically, and possibly militarily one day. We don't have a numerical advantage over China, and we are losing our technological edge.
At least we have sports and rap music!
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
China is a big monster thats going to eat the U.S. economically, and possibly militarily one day. We don't have a numerical advantage over China, and we are losing our technological edge.
thats what they said about the USSR.
-
They don't need to fire a shot. They already have us in an economically compromised position, and the US doesn't have the military might to negate it. Its like a bad game of "Civilization."
Edit: and BTW, Russia was NEVER considered an*economic* threat.
-
China has some hot babes.
-
Originally posted by john9001
thats what they said about the USSR.
When you buy something, what does it say on the back, Made in China or Made in USSR?
-
Nations have always been sensitive about things flying over their airspace, e.g., various aircraft shot down during the Cold War.
But satellites have always flown too high to be reached by existing antiaircraft weapons. Lasers are the inevitable next step.
Whether existing overflight treaties extend to spacecraft or whether the most technologically advanced nations just use space as they please,
since many satellites are used for commercial as well as or instead of military uses, space overflight is a generally accepted okay thing.
You can spy on me if I can spy on you, we can each verify we're not doing provocative things, all that good stuff.
Space weaponry presumably is still a no-no, and any messing with another nation's peaceful (including non-weapon military) satellites also can be assumed to be unacceptable.
Laser tracking is one thing, but anything used to interfere with or degrade any satellite is hostile.
Stay tuned (as long as satellites are allowed to still function enough to do that).
Meanwhile, assume that in any conflict, any entitites with the ability to attack or use their adversaries' satellites will do just that.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
We ought to send a laser back at their station, only difference is that their station will be destroyed
just bounce it back at them
(http://www.physics.lsa.umich.edu/demolab/graphics/6a10_15b.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
China has some hot babes.
then why do they use the same ugley monkey eared chick in every movie they make?
-
There are no nukes in space by treaty, but treaties dont mean anything anymore.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
There are no nukes in space by treaty, but treaties dont mean anything anymore.
waddaya mean anymore?
-
This laserfire against the satellites is a good thing. It gives the amreekans a chanse to look into that problem (if there is one). Alot worse if they kept their attempts a secret if hostilities ever break out (they never will tho).
They have showed their hands and what they are looking into.
When we tested electroinc gadgets that are developed here (a suprising amount of them) we didnt sail up to the russian border and point it at whatever it was that the gadgets were supposed to work against unless it was passive systems.
-
The laser's just for ranging and aiming. ;)
-
Originally posted by Pongo
There are no nukes in space by treaty, but treaties dont mean anything anymore.
Anymore?? Yeah, ask Native Americans about treaties with the US government.
Just put a frikkin' mirror on the satellite.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Nations have always been sensitive about things flying over their airspace, e.g., various aircraft shot down during the Cold War.
Space is international territory i thinks, and space weapons are illegal, i thinks again.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Anymore?? Yeah, ask Native Americans about treaties with the US government.
Just put a frikkin' mirror on the satellite.
I dont believe a mirror over the optics apertures (which is the intended target of a blinding laser, after all) would be feasible.
However, an optical filter with a band-pass/band-block capability might offer some protection from the lazer frequency while allowing the camera to recieve the visable wavelengths for reconnaissance.
Regards
Sun
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Space is international territory i thinks, and space weapons are illegal, i thinks again.
Yeah, but I thinks I want one before you.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Space is international territory i thinks, and space weapons are illegal, i thinks again.
Nukes and other WMDs in space are illegal by treaty. The deployment of conventoinal weapons in space, while not illegal, was restricted somewhat by the now defunct anti ballistic missile treaty.
The deployment of an ABM defence system in space by the US (which seems like a logical next step to ground based systems) has the potential to start an arms race in space.
-
Finally!
I told all my friends that Star Wars was for real.
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
I dont believe a mirror over the optics apertures (which is the intended target of a blinding laser, after all) would be feasible.
However, an optical filter with a band-pass/band-block capability might offer some protection from the lazer frequency while allowing the camera to recieve the visable wavelengths for reconnaissance.
Regards
Sun
Like I said, put a frikkin' mirror on it! Full power to the shields Scotty!!
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
China is a big monster thats going to eat the U.S. economically, and possibly militarily one day. We don't have a numerical advantage over China, and we are losing our technological edge.
At least we have sports and rap music!
Agreed!!! So much for opening up world trade.....the politicians that ok'ed this should be shot!! now I see why when the world trade commision comes to the states there are riots!!
-
It is a dark time for the rebellion...
World trade is a given, so deal with it. Anti-social behavior is not, so again deal with it.
China does NOT want to open up a space war with us...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
just bounce it back at them
(http://www.physics.lsa.umich.edu/demolab/graphics/6a10_15b.jpg)
LOL what i was thinking.
you could put a stop to their cunning plan with a well placed mirror.
that would piss them off.
-
Provided the laser doesn't have enough power to destroy a mirror there is still the problem of modifiying existing satellites. I hope that when these satellites were built countermeasures were considered.
-
Satellites have a shelf-life. You don't worry about upgrading existing ones, so much as build newer, better models.
Lasers aren't all that particularly great either because you lose so much power to the atmosphere, especially firing from groudn to space. If they equipped another satellite with a laser, it would have potential, but again, would be severely restricted in available power. Think about how big the I.S.S. solar panels are for the limited amount of power they generate.
On top of that, we've already tested the technology for kinetic kills in space. I'd say we're quite a few steps ahead.
-
Presumably the most valuable satellites to disable are the optical reconnaissance ones. They have very sensitive CCDs, so the laser doesn't need to be able to knock missiles out of orbit to be effective against them.
It's possible that China isn't so much "attacking" (with intent to destroy, an act of war) as much as they are experimenting with the ability to temporarily blind satelites when they pass over their countries. It'd be a fine line to walk, but potentially safe from international censure.
The tactical and strategic uses of the ability to deny recon are obvious, especially if you can make it a "normal" event. After 5 years of being unable to pierce the "inscrutable curtain", nobody would blink if the jamming was continuing, meanwhile troops are being deployed along a border...
-
Originally posted by lukster
Provided the laser doesn't have enough power to destroy a mirror there is still the problem of modifiying existing satellites. I hope that when these satellites were built countermeasures were considered.
build a bigger mirror.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's possible that China isn't so much "attacking" (with intent to destroy, an act of war) as much as they are experimenting with the ability to temporarily blind satelites when they pass over their countries. It'd be a fine line to walk, but potentially safe from international censure.
I concur. To use a laser to destroy a satellite would be a huge waste of money and energy. An old 1960's era killer satellite would do the job just fine.
Originally posted by indy007
On top of that, we've already tested the technology for kinetic kills in space. I'd say we're quite a few steps ahead.
The Soviets were "a few steps ahead" in the '60s. I think it is safe to say that the rest of the world is "a few steps behind". If the Chinese want to destroy our satellites I think they will borrow some old Soviet tech (like they always do) instead of waving a big flashlight at them.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html
-
Originally posted by Furball
build a bigger mirror.
If you put a mirror capable of reflecting a high energy laser in front of of a satellite camera how will the camera see through or around the mirror blocking it's view?
-
Originally posted by Viking
I concur. To use a laser to destroy a satellite would be a huge waste of money and energy. An old 1960's era killer satellite would do the job just fine.
The Soviets were "a few steps ahead" in the '60s. I think it is safe to say that the rest of the world is "a few steps behind". If the Chinese want to destroy our satellites I think they will borrow some old Soviet tech (like they always do) instead of waving a big flashlight at them.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html
First, I won't agree that the Soviets have been ahead of the US in technology since 1969. We've come a long ways since then while the Soviets have just gone away.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If you put a mirror capable of reflecting a high energy laser in front of of a satellite camera how will the camera see through or around the mirror blocking it's view?
make it a one way mirror.
-
Originally posted by Furball
make it a one way mirror.
One way mirrors aren't as reflective but if the laser wasn't of sufficient power it might work. I suspect the US was testing their own satellites against this type of attack long before the Chinese started.
-
make the mirror bigger until it is reflective.
-
Originally posted by lukster
First, I won't agree that the Soviets have been ahead of the US in technology since 1969. We've come a long ways since then while the Soviets have just gone away.
Yet the US does not have a working anti-satellite system, while they do. Go figure. ;)
In 1987 the Soviets even launched a battle station prototype. They were mind-bogglingly far ahead of the west in the militarization of space. We're still catching up, and mostly because we're buying their technology. :)
-
Originally posted by storch
waddaya mean anymore?
Since the Decider said so.
-
launch a missile at the damn satilite and be done with it.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yet the US does not have a working anti-satellite system, while they do. Go figure. ;)
In 1987 the Soviets even launched a battle station prototype. They were mind-bogglingly far ahead of the west in the militarization of space. We're still catching up, and mostly because we're buying their technology. :)
Maybe we're just much better at keeping our secrets? I don't know about the now defunct USSR but I'm certain we are good at keeping secrets.
-
Yet you don't have one of these. People WOULD notice. ;)
The Polyus space battle-station:
This is how far ahead the Soviets were. A battle-station armed with nuclear mines, anti-satellite systems, cannon for defense and a laser.
(http://www.espacial.org/images/jpg/polyus.jpg)
(http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/p/polyus1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Viking
This is how far ahead the Soviets were. A battle-station armed with nuclear mines, anti-satellite systems, cannon for defense and a laser.
its all well and good saying they have that, but its russian so i bet none of it works.
pretty paperweight tho!
-
Originally posted by Furball
its all well and good saying they have that, but its russian so i bet none of it works.
pretty paperweight tho!
Then why are US astronauts being transported to the ISS on Russian Soviet-era spacecraft? ;)
Because your spacecraft seem to come down in pieces, or simply blow up on launch.
Which space agency has killed more people in accidents, NASA or the RKA? Yeah it's NASA. Which agency has launched more vehicles into space? Yeah it's the Russians.
-
excuse me... *MY* spacecraft?
-
I'm sorry. I meant the spacecraft belonging to the space agency of your government. Assuming you’re an American.
-
im not american.
cant you tell by my coherent sentences? :D
-
Furball's "soviet tech = teh suck" seems connected with something other than reality. The fact is, their Soyuz design, while not as sexy as the shuttle, has a better safety record than the shuttle, and works juuuust fine.
-
No I'm afraid not Furball. Many Americans can form coherent sentences. And you misspelled "I'm", "American" and "can't", so I can't make a distinction there either.
Sorry. ;)
-
hehehe :)
perkele.
-
I will agree that the Soviets were better at keeping their failures secret. ;)
Was tough keeping that nuclear meltdown secret but I give 'em a B+ for effort. ;)
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
China is a big monster thats going to eat the U.S. economically, and possibly militarily one day. We don't have a numerical advantage over China, and we are losing our technological edge.
At least we have sports and rap music!
have you ever heard Chinese Rap? Help me jeebus!
-
Originally posted by Sundowner
But the combination of China�s efforts and advances in Russian satellite jamming capabilities illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are at the core of U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources............
So we can sell more secrets to em, great.
-
Satellites are too vulnerable. What we really need is a big airplane that can fly really fast over hostile territory. Paint it black, put some cameras on it. Voila.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Satellites are too vulnerable. What we really need is a big airplane that can fly really fast over hostile territory. Paint it black, put some cameras on it. Voila.
Supposedly we retired the SR-71 from that duty though U2s are still at it. Not sure if that was a sound decision. I don't think an SR-71 can be shot down. Perhaps they are being kept ready if ever needed.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I will agree that the Soviets were better at keeping their failures secret. ;)
Was tough keeping that nuclear meltdown secret but I give 'em a B+ for effort. ;)
What nuclear meltdown would that be, Chernobyl? Contrary to common belief Chernobyl's 4th reactor did not melt down; it exploded (steam overpressure). The only known reactor meltdown happened at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979.
:)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Contrary to common belief Chernobyl's 4th reactor did not melt down;
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg/300px-Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg)
A photograph of one of the lava-flows formed by corium Fuel containing mass in the basement of the Chernobyl plant. 1 is the lava flow, 2 is concrete, 3 is a steam pipe and 4 is some electrical equipment
Something melted to allow "Fuel containing mass" to flow thru this piping...
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Satellites are too vulnerable. What we really need is a big airplane that can fly really fast over hostile territory. Paint it black, put some cameras on it. Voila.
Or one of the many super-stealthy UAVs with long range that are under development.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/65/Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg/300px-Pictureofchernobyllavaflow.jpg)
A photograph of one of the lava-flows formed by corium Fuel containing mass in the basement of the Chernobyl plant. 1 is the lava flow, 2 is concrete, 3 is a steam pipe and 4 is some electrical equipment
Something melted to allow "Fuel containing mass" to flow thru this piping...
Ok, but does that constitute a "nuclear meltdown"?
-
Originally posted by Viking
What nuclear meltdown would that be, Chernobyl? Contrary to common belief Chernobyl's 4th reactor did not melt down; it exploded (steam overpressure). The only known reactor meltdown happened at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979.
:)
I guess the Soviet's efforts at coverup weren't so fruitless as I thought.
Three mile island was only a bit of unwanted venting. Are you seriously comparing the two?
-
If you want to compare the two nuclear power plant accidents here's a pretty good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island
"Aftermath
The full damage to the reactor core was not known for many years after the accident.
"The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/31/Radioactive_fallout_caesium137_after_Chernobyl.jpg/200px-Radioactive_fallout_caesium137_after_Chernobyl.jpg)
-
The Three Mile Island accident was a proper meltdown. The reactor core was destroyed and the plant was decommissioned. A mild radiation leak radiated an area of 10 miles from the plant, but no one was seriously hurt.
Chernobyl's reactor exploded with horrible radioactive pollution as the result. Obviously there is no comparing the damage.
-
I think both cores melted at least partially, one was contained the other wasn't. I didn't realize how much of a threat Chernobyl still presents to that region if not the entire earth until I read that article.
-
Yeah, it's one of humanity's greatest screw-ups.
-
Some suspected sabatoge at Three Mile Island but it really doesn't matter either way. One technology proved capable of averting a disaster resulting in many lives lost while the other didn't. We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior were we not?
From what I've read about modern Chinese they are a hard working industrious people. If they decide to subjugate the rest of us it will be no mean threat.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Some suspected sabatoge at Three Mile Island but it really doesn't matter either way. One technology proved capable of averting a disaster resulting in many lives lost while the other didn't.
Yes, but it's only you talking about that. The question is whether Chernobyl melted down or not. It exploded (which is worse I admit).
Originally posted by lukster
We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior were we not?
Eh … care to rephrase that? Preferably into something understandable. ;)
Edit: Oh now I get it! "We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior, were we not?"
And now for the answer: Yes.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes, but it's only you talking about that. The question is whether Chernobyl melted down or not. It exploded (which is worse I admit).
Eh … care to rephrase that? Preferably into something understandable. ;)
Edit: Oh now I get it! "We were talking about technologies and which were/are superior, were we not?"
And now for the answer: Yes.
The link I gave specifically cites it as a meltdown.
"On Saturday April 26, 1986 at 1:23:58 a.m. reactor 4 suffered a catastrophic steam explosion that resulted in a fire, a series of additional explosions, and a nuclear meltdown."
Call it whatever you want except for proof of superior Soviet technology.
-
I don't call it anything; you brought it up. And whatever you think Chernobyl has got to do with space technology I fail to see.
Edit: Talk backwards I do. Yoda I must be.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I don't call it anything; you brought it up. And whatever you think Chernobyl has got to do with space technology I fail to see.
You brought the Soviets into it proclaiming their supposed advanced technology. I was just pointing out some of that advanced Soviet technology in action. No need to get defensive, there are no Soviets anymore.
-
You guys should try something like this:
Dear Mr Chinese Ambassador,
Our satellittes have nooks in them. We would advise shooting at them as they overfly your country.
regards
El Presedenti
-
Originally posted by lukster
You brought the Soviets into it proclaiming their supposed advanced technology. I was just pointing out some of that advanced Soviet technology in action. No need to get defensive, there are no Soviets anymore.
Problem with the Soviets wasn't technology, but build quality. In space US astronauts still have to fly on Russian rockets. And they fly to and from a mostly Russian space station. No need to get defensive.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Problem with the Soviets wasn't technology, but build quality. In space US astronauts still have to fly on Russian rockets. And they fly to and from a mostly Russian space station. No need to get defensive.
It's ironic, because you imply that the Russian build quality is so inferior, yet immediately afterwards mention how the US astronauts have had to fly in Russian spacecraft without mentioning that it was because of a fatal Shuttle accident. Russians haven't had a fatal space accident since the early 1970s, and have a total of 4 dead, 5 if you count the Cosmonaut who burnt to death in a pure O2 acident a few months before Apollo 1. The US manned space program has 14 dead, 17 if you count Apollo 1 if you were really trying to make a point.
The Russian spacecraft might be simple, but I don't see evidence that it's poorly constructed. Mir was up for 15 years, if you want to use that as an example, and wasn't really having big probs until near the end. That's why the same design was re-used for the International Space Station.
Oh, didn't know that? Yeah, the ISS's primary module, the one with life support, maneuvering thrusters and more is an updated version of the Mir space station's core.
-
The US manned space program has 14 dead, 17 if you count Apollo 1 if you were really trying to make a point.
I know that several astronauts were lost flying jets. Thats what got Yuri Gurgarin too.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Russians haven't had a fatal space accident since the early 1970s, and have a total of 4 dead, 5 if you count the Cosmonaut who burnt to death in a pure O2 acident a few months before Apollo 1. The US manned space program has 14 dead, 17 if you count Apollo 1 if you were really trying to make a point.
But 2 soyuz inflight accidents, two shuttle accidents... all four killed all the crew aboard.
A launch expolsion in Plesetsk, Oct 2002 killed 1
A launch expolsion in Plesetsk, Mar 1980 killed 48
Space is a dangerous business.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It's ironic, because you imply that the Russian build quality is so inferior, yet immediately afterwards mention how the US astronauts have had to fly in Russian spacecraft without mentioning that it was because of a fatal Shuttle accident. Russians haven't had a fatal space accident since the early 1970s, and have a total of 4 dead, 5 if you count the Cosmonaut who burnt to death in a pure O2 acident a few months before Apollo 1. The US manned space program has 14 dead, 17 if you count Apollo 1 if you were really trying to make a point.
I think you missed my point, or I wasn't making it clear enough. Yes, the Russians had build quality problems, but their engineers engineered their way around it. That's why Russian equipment that actually works is so reliable and though. However, once in a while there is a lemon, be it a spacecraft or a nuclear power plant. There were many Chernobyl type power plants built, and all except Chernobyl have worked perfectly.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But 2 soyuz inflight accidents, two shuttle accidents... all four killed all the crew aboard.
As of August 9, 2005 there have been a total of 114 Space Shuttle launches. The Soyuz spacecraft has made more than 1500 launches.
-
Soyuz 1 thru 40 = 40
Soyuz T2 - T15 = 14
Soyuz TM2 - TM34 = 33
Soyuz TMA 1- TMA 9 = 9
40 + 14 + 33 + 9 = jeeze I'm coming up with less than 1500....
-
Does the total number include sattellite launches?
Anyway, who put men on the moon ;)?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Does the total number include sattellite launches?
It's tough to kill the crew on an unmanned launch.
-
The disconnect, Holden, is that he's also counting all the unmanned Soyuz launches. It's confusing, there are both the Soyuz capsule (which is the spacecraft itself) that carries crew, and also the Soyuz rocket (which carries the capsule but it also used on its own to launch cargo). His figure is the total number of Soyuz rocket launches, manned and unmanned.
-
At some point the "soviet technology" ceases to be soviet and will have to be called Russian or European or named for whoever advances it.
As to the number of deaths suffered by the Soviets in their space exploration efforts I think one is naive to believe the Soviets forth coming with the real numbers. Afterall, they even tried to hide Chernobyl.
-
Here is an update:
"US claims that China has used lasers to attack satellites
China has used high-energy lasers to interfere with US satellites, according to a US Army space-warfare specialist. Tests have been reported previously but it is now confirmed that the laser attacks were at least partially effective.
Command Sergeant Major David Lady of the Joint Functional Combat Command for Integrated Missile Defense, said at the Strategic Space & Defense conference in Omaha on 12 October that the attacks were detected after US satellite operators - most likely users of the National Reconnaissance Office's secret imaging satellites - observed that the satellites occasionally failed to perform over China.
"There had been times when we wondered at the sudden decline in effectiveness as the satellites passed over China," CSM Lady said. Sensors at the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein atoll in the South Pacific were tasked with tracking the satellites and observing any unusual phenomena. "We sensed the projection of beams against the spacecraft and could identify the streams of photons," CSM Lady said.
The Kwajalein data confirmed that the Chinese appeared to have "some level of confidence" in their laser countermeasures system, according to CSM Lady."
Source: http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw061016_1_n.shtml