Every Satellite Tracked In Realtime Via Google Earth 196
Matt Amato writes "With the recent discussion of the ISS having to dodge some space junk, many people's attention has once again focused on the amount of stuff in orbit around our planet. What many people don't know is that USSTRATCOM tracks and publishes a list of over 13,000 objects that they currently monitor, including active/retired satellites and debris. This data is meaningless to most people, but thanks to Analytical Graphics, it has now been made accessible free of charge to anyone with a copy of Google Earth. By grabbing the KMZ, you can not only view all objects tracked in real-time, but you can also click on them to get more information on the specific satellite, including viewing its orbit trajectory. It's an excellent educational tool for the space-curious. Disclaimer: I not only work for Analytical Graphics, but I'm the one that wrote this tool as a demo."
Re:Confused (Score:5, Informative)
Err, not just Google Earth. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the Wikipedia article on Keyhole Markup Language, the following apps can read and understand it:
* ArcGIS Explorer .NET and Java
* Feature Manipulation Engine (FME)
* Flickr
* Google Earth
* Google Maps
* Google Mobile
* Live Search Maps
* Microsoft Virtual Earth
* Map My Ancestors
* Mapufacture
* Marble (KDE)
* OpenLayers
* Platial
* RouteBuddy for Mac
* WikiMapia
* World Wind
* Yahoo Pipes
* SuperMap iServer (SuperMap IS)
* OpenLAPI, an LGPL implementation of the Location API for Java ME
So, for those of you who don't have, or don't want to use, or can't use Google Earth, there are plenty of other options available.
But yes, it's pretty cool what you can do hey.
Re:Confused (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing is 100% black, so it would still be visible. Besides, it would become too hot.
Re:xplanet? (Score:3, Informative)
Since it's not the first result in Google (or the second, or even the first page):
http://xplanet.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Indeed, it seems it only makes a static picture, versus being a data exploration tool like Google Earth.
Re:xplanet? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm looking at Hanna, Ike, that splotch that may become something, and Josephine right now, and can see Gustav's remains in Canada. Pretty cool.
Re:Spy Satellites (Score:5, Informative)
I think you'll find that your information is a little out of date and mainly applies to older military satellites.
Anything "critical" wold be done with a better satellite or a cloud of smaller satellites that are impossible to "avoid". For instance, GPS demands that at least four satellites are in view at all times from every part of the globe to get an accurate fix. Satellites which are, on the whole, run, controlled or have interests from the US Government. I'm not saying that the GPS system is for primarily military "spying" purposes, but it shows that even the public satellite orbits are enough to basically see anything, anywhere, given the most basic of manoeuvring capability.
What makes you think that all of the "unheard of" satellites are any different, or in fewer numbers, or not able to move to look at anything interesting within a reasonable timeframe? It would be quite pointless, after all, to launch a modern multi-billion dollar military satellite if all that was required was public information / academic data gathered from worldwide telescopes to render them completely useless.
Even easier would be to, oh, I don't know, do things at night (yes, IR-capable satellites exist but it makes things harder straight away)? Or do things in large warehouses with a roof?
Re:Confused (Score:1, Informative)
We can safely say that there are objects that are not disclosed. The French have detected 20-30 of them (http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive07/graves_0611.html). My understanding is that the catalog is actually a legal document in the sense that if the catalog associates an observed object with a known e.g. satellite, then that asociation is taken as fact in international courts. As a result, I expect that objects are not released unless there is a clear association.
Re:Spy Satellites (Score:5, Informative)
GPS satellites orbit at around 20200km., Spy satellites (of the take pictures variety - some other types are in geosynchronous orbit, SBIRS and Rhyolite for example) orbit at around 200km (sometime under 100km, sometimes 600km - there's the obvious detail/area trade off).
GSP just requires line of sight. Spy satellite cameras point in some direction.
Claiming there is any relationship at all between having 4 GPS sats in view at any time and what spy satellites are capable of is ridiculous.
Re:Confused (Score:3, Informative)
Just strikes me as a very virus vs anti-virus type argument, they keep building them, amateurs keep detecting them - somewhere along the line some genius is going to work it out...
Right? They do have genius' there... oh god...
Re:j-track 3d (Score:5, Informative)
The subject sums it up, but I'm getting a little pissed at technology that is developed at NASA (World Wind) is just getting co-opted by Google (Google Earth) with no respect paid to the initial innovators.
Google Earth originated with Keyhole, Inc. (who was bought by Google), not NASA. Keyhole's Earth Viewer (which is now Google Earth) seems to have been first released in 2001; Worldwind's first release was in 2004.
Re:Confused (Score:1, Informative)
There is software out there for amateur astronomers to easily track these satellites. Do a google search for "SatelliteTracker". Its a free program and easy to use.
The trick is, you can only view satellites when the angle of the sun is just right to reflect off its panels - sunrise or sunset.
Re:Confused (Score:4, Informative)
Then there would be a black hole with the mass of a sattelite on/inside/passing straight through the Earth. Can you stand beside a satellite without being "sucked in" by gravity? It's the same mass, just in a really small space. Its gravity gets no stronger as a black hole than the gravity as a satellite.
Re:Not as fantastic as it seems (Score:3, Informative)
The usual format is NASA 2-line format [celestrak.com]. People (including me) have been using it to track satellites for years.
The orbital models have been refined over the years. The latest version I've seen is this one [celestrak.com].
...laura
Re:Confused (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Confused (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Confused (Score:5, Informative)
Mass trys NOT to collapse into a black hole... that's why things that aren't big enough (like our sun) won't be black holes. You have to get FREAKISHLY high amounts of mass and insane amounts of gravity to get a baby black hole. It wouldn't orbit earth, we'd orbiit the black hole.
The mass is try to strech back out like a squashed sponge, the gravity tries to squash it. Normally the mass wins because gravity is a very very weak force... it takes a huge mass to create a real black hole... the stuff the LHC is planning are black holes because the mass is compressed enough to count them as black holes, not because they are huge gravity wells. They squash 2 atoms or whatever (probably smaller then atoms) together, and for a billionth of a billionth of a second, it's squashed enough to call a black hole, and then matter expands back out (like 2 rubber balls hitting eachother and then bouncing back). What is interesting is how they bounce off of eachother and what that tells them.
Also, this is why we laugh at people who think man made black holes from the LHC will kill us all... they really have no idea what they are talking about. Once we start taking masses the size of jupitor and the sun and running them thru the LHC, I'd be worried. I'd also be confused as to how we fit them in the LHC...
tl;dr - Gravity is very weak, matter wants to have room to strech out. It takes a lot of matter to make a black hole, more then our sun. There are not tiny black holes that last more then theoretical times because they can't stay squashed.
Disclaimer? (Score:2, Informative)
"Disclaimer: I not only work for Analytical Graphics, but I'm the one that wrote this tool as a demo."
That's not a disclaimer, that's a disclosure.
A disclaimer would be saying "I am not responsible" or "my employer may not agree with me".