NPR: Hope for Fossett Fades, Even as Web Expands Search

Hope for Fossett Fades, Even as Web Expands Search

Hope is fading that aviator Steve Fossett is still alive. The Associated Press reports that the search for Fossett continues in the area of Nevada where he was believed to have flown his single-engine plane 10 days ago. But experts are now publicly expressing doubt that he is still alive.

"There's no news of him signaling for help and that's a problem," said David McMullen of Berkeley, Calif., a leader of the hiking group Desert Survivors, whose members frequently venture into some of the country's harshest terrain. "He's either so injured he can't signal or he's perished."

Dan Charles reported on Morning Edition today that thousands of Internet users have joined in the search. They're hunting for his missing airplane by looking at satellite photos of the area where Fossett disappeared. The Internet company Google contacted the two companies it relies on for photos for its Google Earth service, GeoEye and DigitalGlobe, and asked them to focus on the section of Nevada where the search has been centered.

Google passed those images along to Amazon.com, because Amazon has a way to let thousands of people share the job of searching for Steve Fossett.
Amazon's tool divides the whole search area — 6,000 square miles — into small squares about 300 feet across. It assigns each of those small squares to anyone who signs up to help.

If you're interested in helping to search for Fossett, Amazon is still looking for volunteers.

5:41 PM ET | 09-12-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

I have a hunch that Mr. Fossett might have crashed his plane into a lake that is why the plane is not transmiting a signal. There was a plane crash that happen in the 70's on a lake(reservoir) in the Santa Cruz mountains and after twenty plus years in the 90's the crash was located when the lake dried out during a dry year. For all those years the plane was lost. They found the skeletal remains of the victims still in the cabin. Just something to consider.

Sent by Abel Loredo | 1:35 AM ET | 09-13-2007

It would be better and faster to search for Mr. Fossett's plane by the "blink comparator" method. A blink comparator is a device used by astronomers to rapidly "blink" back and forth between two images of the same area of the sky searching for asteroids, comets, or meteors. If Google developed a program that allowed the searchers to "blink" rapidly back and forth between a recent photograph and the pre-crash Google imagery of the exact same area, then visual anomalies like those created by a plane crash would be much easier to identify. Looking at the photos in stereo (3D) would be even better; perhaps two images on the screen shifted so we could use the readily available blue/red 3D glasses to view the image on the screen in three dimensions. "Blinking" back and forth between 3D images of post and pre-crash images could make the search even more efficient.

Sent by Tim Duduit | 10:10 AM ET | 09-13-2007

Of course he is not alive. Well not he is hiding from all of us..just taking a break and looking at the stars.

Sent by alex the man | 12:26 PM ET | 09-13-2007

I've been participating in the search efforts during my free time over the last week. It's a fascinating system they've set up, though while doing it you can tell it was never designed for this kind of search-and-rescue effort. Each time you volunteer, Amazon assigns you a latitude/longitude and asks you to zoom in using Google Earth until you get to a particular altitude. In theory, when you get to that altitude, objects the size of small airplanes like Fossett's should be large enough on your computer screen to make them out.

Unfortunately, the imagery resolution varies from place to place, so sometimes when you zoom in, it looks too grainy to make out the level of detail required to spot a plane (or wreckage) easily. Meanwhile, there's the issue of screen size. I'm using a laptop, with a moderate screen size. So when I zoom in to the desired altitude, I'm able to see a certain number of acres. People with bigger screens would see more acreage, while those with smaller screens would see less. It makes me wonder how Amazon and Google are working it out to ensure that there's enough redundancy in the search efforts so no spots fall through the cracks just because some volunteer searcher's monitor is small.

Sent by andy carvin | 9:14 AM ET | 09-14-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.