Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Spy Satellites? What Spy Satellites? 372

Posted by michael from the no-see-ums dept.
mutantcamel writes: "This story at Yahoo says that the actual orbits of US spy satellites are not the same as the ones that the UN thinks that they are. The errors include a launch of a satellite that was never registered, and only two of the last ten satellites have been correctly registered. The errors are bound to cast doubts on what will really happen with the Son of Star Wars programme." Heh, "errors".
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spy Satellites? What Spy Satellites? More

Spy Satellites? What Spy Satellites?

Comments Filter:
  • what will really happen with the Son of Star Wars programme

    Shouldn't that be Star Wars II: Attack of the Clones? Thanks to George Lucas for blowing the whistle on what Dubya is really up to -- building a army of clones.
  • Clueless America bashers. Did you read the article? Did anyone bother to actually read the convention?

    From the article:
    "Unfortunately, the UN registry relies on a treaty that allows long delays in providing data, and does not require nations to give final orbits. "In fact, they mostly provide only the initial orbit," said Petr Lala, research chief for the UN office, which is aware of McDowell's findings."

    There is no deadline for registering orbits, and no stipulation that FINAL orbits (or CHANGED orbits, as spy sats CHANGE orbits) must be reported.

    Now, go read the Convention:
    http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SORegister/registxt .h tm

    The Convention states that each launching State will maintain its own register of orbits, and "The contents of each registry and the conditions under which it is maintained shall be determined by the State of registry concerned." That information is then communicated to the UN Register. In other words, when and what gets registered is at the DISCRETION OF THE LAUNCHING STATE.

    This treaty is meant to determine responsibility in the event of a space collision. NOT as a means to track objects in space for safety of orbits.

    The ignorance and disinformation that gets spewed on Slashdot can get burdensome, I swear.

    Derek

  • Was this a error or not? (Score:3, Funny)

    by roxytheman ( 463262 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @06:42AM (#2115757) Homepage
    Well, spy satellites are spottable by amateur astronomers... so we should count on that the rest of the world have calculated their orbits themselves.
    The danger as I see it is the spy satellites crashing into important scientific satellites or even commercial ones like TV satellites. I would be really pissed of if I couldn't watch TV because of the stupid US government! The NSA,FBI and CIA reading my mail I don't care about, but when they start interfering with what TV channels I can watch, I get mad!
    Well, perhaps they do already through sensorship already? Through sensoring sensorship, sensorship can be hold secret.
    The USA think they can do whatever they want - and they can. They got most nukes, even though I bet Russia and China got enough aswell.
    • No worrys about it hitting a commercial TV sat, almost all TV birds are in geo, a spy sat with the exception of a few are all in very low leo orbits. (easier to spy if you are right overhead, not 22,000 miles out!) Remote sensing sats will be the most at risk, many of which are private. So, here is the question, if a remote sensing sat slams into a secret spy bird, will the US government claim responsibility or will it be dismissed as a chance encounter with space debris?

  • The article's obvious bias is funny. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unitrcn ( 472455 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @08:54AM (#2115792)
    No matter which side of the missile-defense debate you're on, you really have to laugh at the way it is written. Look: First paragraph: 1-sentence summary. Second paragraph:
    The errors will add to concerns over George W. Bush's plans to place weapons in space. If today's satellite orbits cannot be trusted, opponents reason, how will we verify the numbers of future space-based anti-missile lasers and anti-satellite weapons?
    And that quote comes unattributed, apparently the product of the author of the story at New Scientist. WTF happened to objectivity in journalism?

    On the other hand, since it lets us know its bias straight-off, we can dismiss it without having to wade through the crap that follows.

    Look Mr Harvard-Liberal-Academic-Kennedy-Wannabe, we all know you hate Bush. But are you really that naive to think that any nation capable of putting a satellite in space wouldn't be able to make the same kinds of observations you did? I have a feeling most nations understand that spy satellites are, well, for spying, and that unless they want to start a war they'll let us have ours and we let them have theirs. The U.S. Space Command is more than capable of keeping track of all man-made satellites in earth-orbit, so arguments about collisions are irrelevant. And the fact is that the treaty says that contents of each country's satellite registry is comnpletely up to that country, so the U.S. is not in violation of the treaty.

    The only way I can explain this article is that this "respected space analyst" is either extremely arrogant and naive, or (more likely) an anti-Bush liberal democrat. The other thing to remember is that New Scientist is based in Europe (in G.B. I believe), and to fill a weekly magazine with "cutting-edge scientific journalism" they have to choose a few dodgy topics as filler, the more controversial, the better.

    • I'm a Harvard-Liberal-Academic-Kennedy-Wannabe, and I take offense to this comment. I would prefer not to be linked to useless journalists in this manner.

      Truth is, the AC is right. You're shouting bias too early. And I think the bias is different. He's probably not a liberal democrat. He's probably a pinko-limey. Get your slurs straight.

      Thirdly, I can hate Bush and still be correct when I diss star wars. I guarantee I would have attacked star wars if Clinton tried it. Not that he really tried anything...
    • It's clear then that you've never written anything approaching a news story, and it's doubly clear that you've never done it for a publication with limited space.

      I expect in everyday speech, and in each email, you make sure to append a name, title, chapter and verse to every concept you get from someone else. Your slashdot post doesnt, though, and is in fact filled with unfounded flamebait that makes anything written New Scientist global-perspective journalist look like a Presbyterian sermon. As for your crusade for objective journalism, you get off on a great foot by starting off by name-calling the author.

      This got a 4? Wtf. Things like this almost make me wish I hadn't given up mods.
  • Does this really come as that big of a shock? They are spy satellites. I, for one, would be more alarmed if they were being honest about it.

    On the other hand, it really does say something about our country. Not only do we not trust our government, apparantly they don't trust us.
    • Blockquoth the poster:
      Not only do we not trust our government, apparantly they don't trust us.
      A reasonable argument can be made that the latter caused the former.
  • Just because the rest of the world doesn't know where they are doesn't mean the US doesn't know. All of you people saying "ooh, oh no, there's gonna be a collision..." no there won't be one. The US knows damn well where its expensive satellites are and it'd be damned if it let one collide with a commercial satellite. If it's headed right for one, it'll change orbit, simple as that.

  • accidentally on purpose (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beanerspace ( 443710 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @07:12AM (#2118683) Homepage
    Yeah, I can see it now. A small, fast Chinese satellite of questionable commercial value is "struck" by a slow moving and very expensive U.S. Spy satellite. The Chinese demand an apology for our malicious act.

    What's next, a slow moving propeller driven spy plane taking down a faster, more maneuverable fighter jet ?

    What happens when such "accidents" occur just while some hostile nation is amassing large amounts of troops and tanks on neighbor's border ?

    Using the 'an accident might happen' line of reasoning, wouldn't the U.S. also then be compelled to disclose the locations of submarines, ships, armored vehicles and planes so they also don't collide with commercial vessels ?

    Other nations hate it, but then they're inclined to hold disdain for any super power. It's the nature of power politics and warfare to be suspicious of the guy with the big gun. It's their purgative to try and get the information, just at it is the U.S.'s to say NUTS [militaryhi...online.com].

    • Any satellite moving slower than 18,000 miles per hour isn't going to be up there for long. Any satellite moving faster than 25,000 miles per hour isn't going to be in the vicinity of Earth for long. Within that range of orbital speeds, it really does not matter how small and maneuverable your satellite is. Evasive action is not possible. By the time you notice a collision might be imminent, it has happened.
  • You lookes al so afraid of spy sattelites and that it's illigal... In Europe (I live in the Netherlands) there is a lot of tolking about Euchalon wich probarly as you all know a spionage centre in Scotland which belong to the USA and the United Kingdom. Which listents to phone calls picks ups e-mails and stuff like this if i put in the word terrorist. The latest rumours are that the USA is using Euchalon to improve the American economics... there where several cases where the American industrie taked orders in Europe through information which they maybe through Euchalon pickud up which can affect the negotiations between the other parties... I don't care I'm watched. I'm doing that important things I should be watched... I'm sorry for my crappy English I hope you understand what I'm trying to write down.

  • "star wars eh?" (Score:4, Funny)

    by Vector Inspector ( 35504 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @08:57AM (#2123367) Homepage Journal
    These aren't the satellites you're looking for. Move along.

  • Spy Satellites uses Pentium I (Score:3, Funny)

    by droyad ( 412569 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @07:48AM (#2125306)
    The Spy satellites orbits were computed using an array of pentium I's, which were then submitted to the UN. Ofcourse due to the high accuracy required they used Floating Point numbers.....

  • antisatellite weapons (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 4thAce ( 456825 )

    If today's satellite orbits cannot be trusted, opponents reason, how will we verify the numbers of future space-based anti-missile lasers and anti-satellite weapons?

    I don't get it. If we start having weapons in space, the only way the other countries plan to verify the numbers will be based on the information the owner of those weapons plans to give out? What happened to "trust, but verify?"

    I think the Pentagon is thinking that as long as it is the only one putting up antisat weapons, they can program them with the correct orbital elements for their own classified satellites, not the erroneous UN-registered elements. It's like a business keeping double ledgers.

    I wonder what would happen if some state the US has antagonistic relations with were to put up a satellite in the exact same orbit as the unregistered 1989-72A, saying "that wasn't supposed to be there!"

  • Losers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vacamike ( 248725 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @06:35AM (#2130409) Homepage
    Why is it that political or foreign-relations stories get all the responses with Bush-bashing and America-bashing?

    I would like to have an accurate poll as to how many of these 'informed' slashdot posters actually voted. After all, I have found that the ones who complain the most do so since they didn't voice their opinion at the appropriate place and time; i.e. the polls.

    p.s. 'i didnt like either candidate' is not a valid excuse; try again.
    • All these threads turn quickly into bashing because we deserve it. I'd like to see that poll, too, but it would show that 34% of us voted for Cowboy Neal.

      We get all this bashing, from ourselves, too, because the government is, thank God, very active in pursuing our interests everywhere. Unfortunately, as Hart said, the requirements of strategy are directly opposed to those of morality. So we don't like it. Hate it, in fact. And don't do anything about it- because while most of us vehemently hate an aspect or two about what the government does for us, we know that we need the wole package.

      Conflict is a part of the human condition. We can't avoid it, but we can work hard to adjust it. As long as there is going to be fighting in the streets somewhere, I would rather it be somewhere else. I'm sorry, but I'll stick to that. It's a lot cheaper to maintain the most capable military machine we can than it would be to rebuild just one of our cities.

    • How about "voting merely encourages the outdated two-party system, unless of course you don't vote democrat or republican, in which case you might as well have stayed home"? "If you're fucking dumb enough to vote, you're dumb enough to believe 'em" - propagandhi's "Showdown"
    • Why is it that political or foreign-relations stories get all the responses with Bush-bashing and America-bashing?

      You're right, we should have that in all the stories!
    • This is a U.S. centric post. I apologize to international readers.

      People in the US have a right not to vote. The pre-glastnost Soviet Union may have had %100 voter turnout, but that doesn't mean people were pleased with their political system.

      Some people believe that the political system in this country is a farce. In particular, I have heard a lot of people complain about the two-party system. If those people choose not to vote, I don't blame them and I feel that their refusal to vote is a valid and highly visible form of protest. For example, imagine if only 10% of eligible voters voted. That would, in effect, be a huge vote of no-confidence in the political system, and might even percipitate a crisis. But if people vote without conviction, then they are effectively propping-up a regime they don't support.

      Also, all those pro-Gore people who blame Nader for "stealing" just enough votes away from Gore to let Bush win, I think you need to serisously consider what you are saying. First of all, Nader's campaign (like Perot's) ammounted to a form of dissent. By garnering votes, he showed that a significant portion of people are sick of the two-party system and would like to see other agendas discussed. By suggesting that people who believed in Nader's agenda should not vote for Nader or that Nader should have stepped down, you are essentially arguing that dissenters should keep their mouths shut. That is not really consistent with the American ideal (seldom realized) of tolerating dissent.

      By the way, vacamike, I realize that the you are not proposing mandatory voting or anything of that nature. You just get tired of hearing lazy people complain in a totally unconstructive fashion. I feel that way too, so don't think I am giving you a hard time. I just saw an opportunity to express a viewpoint which I think has value.

      Oh, and, personally, I vote. In fact, I voted for Gore, although if I had it to do over again, I probably would have voted for someone else. Maybe Perot.

      MM
      --
    • Why is it that political or foreign-relations stories get all the responses with Bush-bashing and America-bashing?

      I would like to have an accurate poll as to how many of these 'informed' slashdot posters actually voted. After all, I have found that the ones who complain the most do so since they didn't voice their opinion at the appropriate place and time; i.e. the polls.

      p.s. 'i didnt like either candidate' is not a valid excuse; try again.

      Is "I'm not American" a valid excuse?

    • I would like to have an accurate poll as to how many of these 'informed' slashdot posters actually voted.

      If you think America is a democracy, think again.

      In WA State alone:
      1) We voted NO on building a 3rd runway. Somehow the Port of Seattle decided to build one anyway (oh ya, the Port of Seattle has a TON of money).
      2) We voted NO on a 500million dollar stadium (Taxes funding a PRIVATE BUSINESS!!!) - now we have two (and are paying for it).

      And let's not even talk about the electoral college, "soft money" and lobbying, and the whole Florida fiasco. America's "democratic republic" only applys to those with deep pockets in many cases.
      • Those are state issues, not Federal issues, BIG difference.

        Now I'm from Portland, and I remeber clearly that the Seattle Metro area voted Yes on the new Seahawks stadium in...98 was it?

        Now here in Portland when we vote yes on things like North-South Light Rail, stupid Tri-Met makes us vote again so that they don't get the money.

        And don't forget how many times doctor assisted suicide or anti-gay rights bills get on the ballot.

      • Re:Losers (Score:2)

        by SEE ( 7681 )
        If you think America is a democracy, think again.

        Of course not. We never were supposed to be one and we've never been one, either, despite the brainwashing that you got as a child.
  • Erwin (http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20010812 ) [userfriendly.org] can make a good use of those satellites... :)

  • But who will do something? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ConsumedByTV ( 243497 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @06:04AM (#2134204) Homepage
    America is the rouge nuclear state it is trying to "protect" it self from. The irony is that no one can force it to do anything it doesnt want to. The UN might have power, but the US will use its power in ways that wont even be directly tied to it other then a bennifit.
    See about the cia and the killing sprees they have had. America had a great ideal, but its time has passed because it can no longer be held true with out money. I am an american.
    • See about the cia and the killing sprees they have had.

      The reason Americans can have the opportunity to live happy lives is thanks to those CIA killing sprees. The whole concept of "civilized" society only exists with a external containment of vicious, natural aggression. If you don't have a stick, your neighbor will come over with his stick and take your food and women.

      I don't care what the military does. as long as it maintains my country and stays away from the citizens of my country. Killing people is part of war. I'd much rather have some people running around killing a few dangerous individuals before they raise a army and get themselves and lots of my fellow citizens killed.

      And I'm not saything this from necessarily an American standpoint - I fully respect the rights of all other countries to do the same thing. At the same time, I hope the US is better at it than everybody else. I'm not afraid to say that, when the shit hits the fan, I hope my family and friends survive and the other side loses. *AFTER* my family is safe, then I'll hope that the other side is okay as well.

      War is hell - people die. And all countries are at war with all other countries. It's just that we don't fire shots all that often at the ones we get along with right now. Korea and Viet Nam are two good examples of what happens when we're not so happy with another country - neither was quote, unquote "War".

      We're doing a hell of a lot better than two thousand years ago, when the accepted practice was genocide, sometimes combined with rendering the land infertile, to destroy your neighbor utterly. But don't even begin to think that we're not more than a month away from a fully armed, global war. And *that's* why those CIA assassinations occur... along with why the satellites are hidden as much as they can be.

      --
      Evan

      • Re:But who will do something? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "And I'm not saything this from necessarily an American standpoint - I fully respect the rights of all other countries to do the same thing."

        Uh huh. So you wouldn't mind if some country assasinated Bush and supported a puppet dicator... Or maybe funded the Canadians to terrorize and wage a guerrila war against the US... Just because they don't like our method of government.

        I mean, sure you'd be sad if your side lost, but you fully respect their right to do that sort of thing, eh?

      • Re:But who will do something? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The reason Americans can have the opportunity to live happy lives is thanks to those CIA killing sprees.
        What is a happy life to you, boy? Prozac? Sony? Warner Brothers? Nike? The very companies battling not for your purchase, but your dependence, fighting from lower moral ground than "controlled" substance vendors?
        If you don't have a stick, your neighbor will come over with his stick and take your food and women.
        Women can protect themselves just fine anyway. Those who can't deserve whatever they get -- especially when the jingoist right-wing takes their reproductive choice away in the name of Mammon and Country. Pull your head out of your browser and grow some perspective.
        I don't care what the military does. as long as it maintains my country and stays away from the citizens of my country.
        You know so little about current affairs and the structure of government that it ought to be a felony (and you ought to lose your right to vote as a result). 1) The CIA is the foreign espionage and sabotage unit of the United States. It has effectively no oversight from Congress nor accountability to elected officials. It is not a branch of the Armed Forces. 2) The CIA tortured, raped, and killed civilians in Latin America to keep US toadies in power and derail justifiable civilian revolutions. 3) The CIA has been involved in testing chemical agents (such as LSD) and biological agents on US citizens. 4) The CIA deliberately manipulated foreign policy and public opinion to bring the US to the brink of war, again without public oversight.

        Are you awake yet? This has not a thing to do with war, nothing to do with pointing fingers or guns at whoever the media conspires to call the bad guy this week. This has to do with you being a willing, gullible toady of a patriot and failing to rub two brain cells together to check facts, read between lines, or think critically about what they're saying and why they're saying it.

        And *that's* why those CIA assassinations occur... along with why the satellites are hidden as much as they can be.
        Fact check: the satellites aren't hidden at all. From a few weeks of observation or perhaps even less, you can calculate the orbital elements and track the movement for as long as you like or until the orbit changes again. The orbital elements of these satellites are public knowledge anyway, so why is the US lying? From recent experience, it's because that's all it does well.

        You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Shut up and listen for a change.

        • The man is not ignorant. The truth of the matter is that what he was saying WAS TRUE. WE AS A SOCIETY CAN'T SIT AROUND AND EXPECT THAT OUR VERY NECESSARY AGENTS THAT SIT IN A DEN OF VIPERS WILL ACT LIKE ANYTHING BUT THE DANGEROUS MONGOOSE THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. The CIA has cfossed the line many times. It has killed innocents, perhaps hundreds of thousands in its history. But the truth is, there are civilians that harbor terrorists, and that in itself IS JUST AS BAD AS terrorism. I wish the world was as black and white as you see it. Then they could focus on the paramilitaries only, but that is not the truth. The truth is scarier. Many are civilians that kill you when your back is turned. Many would kidnap and kill you JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE AN AMERICAN. Keep in mind that these people kill their own countries citizens too, and they would be twice as to kill you. Many terrorist groups tell themselves hourly that their opinions are GOD'S WILL, so that they can sleep well with themselves for murdering children. The only way to keep a dangerous group at bay is to be more ferocious than them... convince them that you're more dangerous, and willing to do what they can't. Keep in mind that the espionage game is expensive, but it is pennies on the dollar in terms of human life compared to the horrible aspects of war. Wars bankrupt nations, bring warriors into power (even into peacful nations, (like Eisenhower)), and obliterate ethnic groups and make more terrorists.
        • From recent experience, it's because that's all it does well.

          That's not exactly true at all. The US Government is a lot like Microsoft. Neither one of them do things out of some sinister plot, or megalomaniac agenda. In reality, both of them are just terribly, horribly, inexcusably incompetent.

          American Libertarian. I love my country, I fear my government! We should have all voted for Harry Browne [harrybrowne.com]!
          • The US Government is a lot like Microsoft. Neither one of them do things out of some sinister plot, or megalomaniac agenda. In reality, both of them are just terribly, horribly, inexcusably incompetent.

            Unbelievably, incedibly, beyond the pale WRONG. Neither the US Gov nor Microsoft is incompentent. Indeed, both are VERY efficient at what they do.

            And that's precisely WHY you should be concerned.

      • Cool. So it's OK for the US to go out and kill ppl who support causes the US doesn't agree with. But if it's OK for the US to do that, it's also OK for other countries to do it. Afghanistan, maybe? Or would you say it was perfectly legitimate if North Korea or Cuba landed a missile on the centre of Washington?

        "Korea and Viet Nam are two good examples of what happens when we're not so happy with another country."

        The good example being, the US gets its ass kicked when it tries to act as "world policeman"? Try a better example... ;-)

        Grab.

    • Actually, since the USA sits on the UN Security Council as one of five permanent members, the US has the right to do whatever it wants with atomic weapons, first and foremost.

      Any nation that has atomic weapons and doesn't have one of the five spots...is a "rogue nation."
    • A 'Rouge' nuclear state?! Since rouge is a variant on the color red, are you inferring that the U.S.A. is a secretly disguised Communist country?
      Quick! Inform the presses! America is becoming Communist!

      **You heard it first on /. **

  • Clueless Journalists... (Score:4, Flamebait)

    by Temkin ( 112574 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @09:33AM (#2137932)

    And clueless slashdot posters... Spy sats change their orbits from time to time. These changes are obviously made to support a particular observational project. It would be foolish to routinely publish this information, as it can give away the goal or target the change was made for. This is called operational data, and its classified, hence not released to the public.

    Let's use an example... Say we're monitoring Iraq's ballistic missile development. They've bought orbital intel from the Chinese or Russians or whomever, on American and British spy-sats. They know when they're overhead, and can plan their activities accordingly. When the spy-sats are overhead, they park mobile launchers in hangars, keep everyone indoors, and generally try and make a place look uninteresting. So, in order to avoid this rouse a subtle change in the orbit of a spy-sat might be made, to invalidate their intel over a period of time and increase the odds of catching them off gaurd. A larger change might be made to bring a close pass in range of the cameras/radars within an orbit or two, in order to catch some interesting event.

    The end result is, whatever orbit data is available on the spy-sats, it's virtually always out of date. It's intentional, and actually a requirement for the spy-sats to get their job done. Get over it.

    To be honest, I'm really shocked at the amount of Euro "anti-american" crap flying around here. We share much of this data with your countries. The people in the UN complaining about this are the third-world represenatives who's countries can't track the spy-sats themselves, and are sick of having their own imperialist tendancies thwarted by the bigger more advanced nations. Much of the world didn't learn the lessons of WW1 and WW2. This is one of those cases where they can't be allowed to learn them the hard way, no matter how much they complain.

    Temkin

    • Ugh... You're kidding, right?

      Spy sats change their orbits from time to time.

      Do you have any appreciation for how valuable the fuel in those satellites is? Satellite orbits decay. The cost of fuel for re orbiting a satellite is tens of millions of dollars since it is going to shorten the service life of the satellite by years, and the other side is going to notice. Moving the sat will give you a couple days at most of adjusted intel. If they're paying enough, they'll get the updated orbits within hours.

      Now let's look at some alternative mechanisms:

      • Re-task the satellite to look in from the side. Your pictures aren't as a clear as the overhead ones, but all you have to do is adjust the satellite's stabilization gyro to rotate the camera facing and you're done, the power for this is provided by the solar panels.
      • Do it the old fashioned way... Use a spy plane. It can fly in at any time and is 5 times closer to what's being photographed than the satellite. You can't use a spy plane over just anywhere (unless they have really good stealth ones these days), but certainly over an adversary such as Iraq you can.

      However, what this completely misses is that this notion of amateur astronomers being able to track the sats is nonsense. Wouldn't it make sense for the intel sats to be difficult to spot? Say by making sure that any surface which might reflect sunshine to earth was painted a matte black? I'm sure there are many intelligence sats that are easy to spot, but I am also sure there is a whole constellation of them which are stealthy.

    • Re:Clueless Moderators (Score:2, Insightful)

      by trurl3 ( 112621 )
      Ok, who modded that stinking piece of pro-American b.s. up to five? Go out, check your IQ, and verify that it is indeed smaller than your shoe size.

      While I agree with the technical parts of the argument (after all, how useful is a spy sat if they (the opponents) know where it is), there's a great deal to be said about the rest of the nonsense.

      Let's use an example... Say we're monitoring Iraq's ballistic missile development. They've bought orbital intel from the Chinese or Russians or whomever, on American and British spy-sats.

      Let's start with the automatic assumption that China and Russia are the fountainheads of evil, and that America and Britain are the epitomies of good. Britain and American....let's see...these are the same countries that have done their best to divest their citizens of any thin shred of privacy, right? These are the oh-so-respectful of human rights more advanced nations that routinely exploit those third-world [countries]...with imperialist tendencies economically? (And if you think paying someone $10 a month for work that your own country's citizens wouldn't do for $10/hour *isn't* economic imperialism, you need to read a few econ books.) These are the same countries that have shuffled off all of their environmentally dirty industries to the same third-world countries, right?

      To be honest, I'm shoked that you have the gall to complain about third world countries....with imperialist tendencies. Does Philippines, Panama, Hawaii, California mean anything to you? Study your own history first, before mouthing off about imperialism. Or is what Americans did in those territories ok because it was so long ago?

      You're wrong about the other thing, too. Much of the world DID learn alot from WWI and WWII. It was America that DIDN'T.

      This is one of those cases where they can't be allowed to learn them the hard way, no matter how much they complain.

      And, I suppose, you think that America is just the country to do that, don't you? The good-old world-policeman ruse. And, naturally, to do your job well, you need good equipment, like....oh I don't know....lots of spy satellites? Echelon maybe? Need I go on?

      Any country with the puritanical self-righteousness to assume that they know exactly what to do to solve all of the world's problems, will inevitably, and in short order, be proven wrong. This is known as a system controlled by positive reinforcement. The only possible outcome for such a system, is a disbalance that destroyes it. And next time, kindly keep your pro-American nonsense off the threads, or at least temper it to whatever meager extent you are able with intelligence and facts.

      • "Much of the world DID learn alot from WWI and WWII. It was America that DIDN'T. "

        No it was Europeans that didn't.
        Just as persuasive and as much supported by facts as your statement.

        "Does Philippines, Panama, Hawaii, California mean anything to you?"

        Most of these places are heaven , even to natives, as compared to Haiti and other "independent" 3rd world countries.

    • I don't know what the idiot who modded this as flamebait was smoking, or the generally clueless posts underneath it. This (parent) is the most insightful post in the whole article.

  • Hiding spy satellites is hardly evil... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bjarke Roune ( 107212 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @07:34AM (#2141719) Homepage
    Using the words of George Carlin: "how can it be a spy satellite, when on the news they say it's a spy satellite?" The point being, of course, that spy satellites naturally are supposed to spy on people, and it's not very productive to spy on people if they know exactly where you are and what you are seeing. So, of course the owner of a spy satellite will try to conceal it's whereabouts. In case of war, shooting down a satellite you know where is is also a hell of alot easier than if you didn't know.

    If you still think the US are evil here, think about how successfull a real, human spy would be if he walked around with a big sign saying "I'm a spy!" That wouldn't work very well, now would it? In fact, it would simply be silly, not to say stupid, right? It's the same thing with satellites (of course not completely, but the analogy is sound).

    If anyone is worried about bias, I'm Danish, not American.

    • Re:Hiding spy satellites is hardly evil... (Score:5, Funny)

      by nehril ( 115874 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @08:37AM (#2125630)
      I can imagine the super-secret Pentagon meeting now:

      Satellite nerd: OK sir, we're ready to register the exact position of this here spy satellite with the UN.

      Colonel Korn: (twirls moustache) That's top secret info. Classify it and "spill coffee" all over the UN paperwork.

      Satellite Nerd: But you realize that any third grader with binoculars will instantly find out? How can we keep the brightest thing in the sky secret?

      Colonel Korn: Hmf. Well, it'll at least be secret from all the second graders, and thats enough for me! Make it so!

  • Wouldnt you ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12, 2001 @06:23AM (#2142886)
    Umm

    Call me strange but if i was going to spend billions of dollars on a network or spy sattelites and then put them in orbit would i then wilingly tell the world just where they really are ?

    Hey saddam theres a spy sattelite that passes over this point of Iraq at this time of the day so dont put that bio weapons plant there.

    Isnt the point of having these tools that no-one knows where they are ?

    Just a thought

    (im not commenting on the US govt and its spying - thats not something i can do as i dont live in the US)
    • Does that make it right though to lie about the very existence of the satellites?

      What would be so bad about just "yes we launched some spy satellites but their location is secret"?

      Even if the presence and location of the satellites could be detected, it doesn't matter - other countries who know they will be spied on, e.g. Iraq, will look for them anyway (assuming that someone there also reads Yahoo news).

      Why does the government seem to think it should keep everything they do secret from the people they "serve"?

  • Now that is stupid... (Score:3, Informative)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @06:24AM (#2142888) Homepage
    The reason you want _everybody_ to tell where their satellites are is of course that you don't want any accidents. Having a satellite 'hidden' by placing it in a secret orbit defeats that. Sooner otr later some commercial or scientific satellite is going to get too close, and we will have a _very_ expensive incident - and if my memory doesn't fail me, according to international law, US would be solely responsible and would be obliged to pick up the tab.

    Worse, if one state feels they can do this with impunity, other states will do so as well. If two reconnaisance satellites from different countries where to destroy each other, it would lead to a lot of tension as both sides would try to determine whether the incident was an accident or deliberate on either part. Having misunderstandings over this kind of thing is not good...

    /Janne
    • Sooner otr later some commercial or scientific satellite is going to get too close, and we will have a _very_ expensive incident

      Tell you what - you get in a plane, and I'll get in a plane. We'll ground all other planes and birds for, say, ten years. You take off from somewhere on the planet, and I'll take off from somewhere else on the planet. We'll fly around randomly and see how long it takes to collide.

      Or maybe we'll do a much more realistic example - we'll get two marbles, and stand at two random points around a cricket field. We'll both toss them in a random direction across the field at the same time and see if they hit. Of course, it's *much* more likely that the marbles would collide than two satellites...

      --
      Evan

      • Now, to get a more realistic experiment repeat the whole thing with 10,000 marbles thrown around randomly and see whether any two of them collide. The UN tracks about that amount of objects in the closer orbits of Earth. Anything from sattelites, bigger chunks of debris left from rocket launches and other garbage that civilization has literally blasted into orbit. And that only counts objects above a certain size! Scientists (and Lawyers) are getting seriously worried about the amount of debris flying around in the lower orbits.

      • Re:Now that is stupid... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @07:37AM (#2117567) Homepage
        First, the choice of orbit isn't random; some orbits are better than others (land or sea coverage springs to mind). These orbits will tend to crowd faster than others (there is a real shortage of geostationary orbits by now, for example). Second, they'd be circling in similar orbits for years.

        OK, let's stand on random point on a cricket field (though I'd prefer an icehockey rink, but whatever :-) ), and toss marbles. This time, however, we toss them in similar directions. Also, we do another toss about every fifty minutes for the next ten years (or around 100.000 times).

        /Janne
        • (there is a real shortage of geostationary orbits by now, for example).
          Er... There is only **ONE** (1) geostationary orbit... It's only a real shortage of good spots on that orbit that there is... (Satellites have to be spaced 1 or 2 degrees apart so not to interfere with each other.
        • Yes, but spy sats aren't in geostationary orbits. They occupy orbits that almost no other spacecraft would want. They tend to have very low orbits, which results in a lower spacecraft lifetime due to drag. They also tend to have sun synchronous orbits so that they can image the same spot under the same lighting conditions repeatedly. So, maybe it is more like tossing all the other marbles* around on the north side of the cricket field, then tossing one along the south side and expecting that odd one to hit the one of the rest. Oh, and before you toss your "spy" marble, you also get to look at your huge radar network that tracks every other marble and tells you where they will all be.

          Besides, it isn't like we are the only country doing this; we are just the only country people are bitching about (big surprise). If you read the article, Petr Lala (of the UN office) is quoted as saying that they mostly are only given the initial orbit of spacecraft. If that is true, then the registry is a bunch of useless crap anyway. I checked the treaty ( http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SORegister/regist.htm for those of you who like going to the original sources ) and sure enough it says in article IV section 2 that each State "may, from time to time, provide the ...United Nations with additional information." "May provide" does not mean "Must provide." The U.S. is within the letter of the treaty (not that I would be upset if we weren't), and is not endangering anyone recklessly. Considering all the socialist, paternalist B.S. that finds its way into U.N. reports and the outright corruption of many U.N. relief and "peacekeeping" efforts, why is it that errors in the space objects registry are what is considered newsworthy?

          * A little math will may be illustrative here (all sizes are approximate):
          Vol. of a marble = 3.8E-5 cu. ft.
          Vol. of a cricket field (up to 50 ft) = 5.5E6 cu. ft.
          Vol. of a Kehole Spy Sat (size of a bus) = 6E3 cu. ft.
          Vol. of available space in LEO (200 to 1000 km) = 1.5E20 cu. ft.

          The marble is 1.4E11 times smaller than the cricket field. The Spy Sat is 2.5E16 times smaller than space in LEO. Therefore the Marble is more than 175,000 times more likely to be a navigation hazard to its fellows than the satellite is in space. Perhaps "you stand somewhere in the city and throw a marble and I'll stand somewhere in the city and throw another one" would be more like it. Oh, and don't forget I still get to call up NORAD ahead of time and see where your marble is going to be.
      • Even unlikely events happen from time to time.

        I remember quite well that a few years ago a German an an US plane collided west of Namibia over the south atlantic because the German plane flew at the wrong altitude.

        Imagine that: They were probably the only two planes in an area of 1000s of square miles - and they collided.
        • I would bet money that's the only time that has ever happened (aside from collisions during takeoff and landing, when the plane's location is very constrained) in 100 years of aerospace technology and hundreds of millions of flights.

          (Of course, evidence of more midair collisions is welcome...)

      • Of course, it's *much* more likely that the marbles would collide than two satellites...

        Actually, to properly simulate things, we get 100 people to each throw a bag of marbles continuously for a few years. Sure, the odds of any 2 colliding on any given throw are miniscule, but as more people join the game and throw more marbles, the odds of an eventual collision rise considerably.

      • Tell you what - you get in a plane, and I'll get in a plane. We'll ground all other planes and birds for, say, ten years. You take off from somewhere on the planet, and I'll take off from somewhere else on the planet. We'll fly around randomly and see how long it takes to collide.
        At the start of the (last) century, in Ohio, there was 1 (one) automobile. Two weeks after there was a second one, the first automobile collision was recorded.

        "The need for (railroad) signalling arises the very second that the railroad gets it's second locomotive"... - Cuthbert Hamilton Ellis

      • Yeah, wonderful, apart from the bad analogy part, let's play with this one: I have a cheap piece of junk as a plane, your's is quite expensive, also i know where your plane is because i have enough people with binoculars scattered around the world. To make things complete let's limit maneuverability a little, maybe i always know where you'll have to land next to refuel (you know, those sats have limited fuel, your choices of orbits and orbitchanges is thus rather limited.

        Now comes the interesting part: Let's say i think i can get away with ramming your plane since you didn't register your course with the correct authorities (neither did i, so it'll all be christened an "accident" later), and i have a grudge against you, because of what you said about my mother.

        Now just remember the political chaos that ensued after the US-Spyplane was hit before the chinese coast.
  • By not being compliant.. the US seems to have all moral authority to enforce various test ban treaties. Pathetic.
    • The Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, or CTBT, wasn't ratified by the US, who, incidentally were the first signatories, because the Republicans were so consumed with their hatred of Clinton that they couldn't see straight to give in to even the slightest notion of a 'victory' to him. Partisan and short-sighted politics thereby diminished the US in the eyes of the world (once again), and severely reduced the level of security in the world. Realize that the US stands to benefit greatly from the CTBT; having already tested its weapons to a great degree, they would only become more secure when Pakistan, India, et al voluntarily gave up the ability to test (and thereby develop) their own deadly creations.

      Between that, the Kyoto protocol, NMD, and now this discovery that we have been 'in error' on our satellite orbits (is Russia truthful about thiers?), our prestige in the world is reduced to that of a big bully with an attitude problem, rather than the shining beacon of democratic promise and economic prosperity through principled administration of a higher ideal. Plus the fact that W is arrogantly and defiantly ignorant of the issues, and needs Condo Rice to tell him that Mexico is part of North America...

      slightly ot, but it puts it all in perspective, ya think?

      • What's the point of having a global treaty like Kyoto, if several countries are exempted from it because they are classified as 'developing'? All that is going to do is encourage heavy industries that produce a lot of pollution to move to those nations. Kyoto needs to be changed to apply to all nations.

  • The brightest objects in the sky, yeeaah right. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by buglord ( 455997 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @06:18AM (#2144996)
    "It's silly. These things are among the brightest objects in the sky," says John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based policy group. He says the Pentagon has grown arrogant, believing "we won the cold war, we can do whatever we want".

    The brightest objects in the sky, even with all the light pollution [slashdot.org]? Seriously, I've never seen a satellite other than SkyLab. And then, only because everybody in the neighborhood knew when it was to fly by!
    Those things don't need navigation lights or bright colors. I'm afraid, Mr. Pike, that the Pentagon can do anything they want in this matter.
    • This site [heavensabove.com] will tell you where to look. It's really quite easy to spot them but you do need to know the window of visibility.

      Oh, and the Iridium satellites are the brightest objects in the sky, if you happen to catch a flare.

    • You normally do not see satelites in the sky. But when you lie outside in the gras for some hours at night, you start seeing more and more. We did this a few times and we could see satelites almost all 10 minutes. they do not blink or something, they are just very dimm stars moving a constant high speed from ost to west.

    • Look harder (Score:5, Interesting)

      by superid ( 46543 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @09:55AM (#2130787) Homepage
      I have *very* poor vision and I live in the light polluted southern New England. I have no problem picking out satellites. In fact, its a rare (cloudless) evening that I don't see one. Granted, they are dim and they move pretty fast. Sometimes it helps if you don't quite stare right at them, look away a few degrees.

      Maybe you'll get lucky and see the NOSS satellites [eu.org], there are 3 flying in formation. I've only seen them twice.

      SuperID

      • Re:Look harder (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Bluesee ( 173416 )
        Looking away a few degrees is the best way to view stars because the fovea, a concentrated bundle of cones, is located right at the center of the field of view. Whilst its great for seeing color, it isn't as good for seeing dim objects; you need more rods for that. So the best way to look at stars is to look slightly askance at them.

  • The UN (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CharlieG ( 34950 ) on Sunday August 12, 2001 @09:54AM (#2145153) Homepage
    As others have pointed out, the US is deliberately not telling the UN the right orbits.

    Hate to sound like a right wing wacko, but where does it say in the Constitution that the US listens to the UN? We can (not saying we should) tell the UN to pound sand. A significant number of Americans believe we should. Guess what, they vote that way, too.
    • Then why is the US still part of the UN? The US has memership of the UN voluntarily, it hasn't been forced into it. Either they're in and should abide by policy or they're not an can tell the UN to go get fscked.

      This however is just pure hypocrisy.

  • Errors? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Shame on the US! But then again.. if they are all registered they wouldn't be "spy" satellites.. would they?

Slashdot Top Deals

Kiss your keyboard goodbye!

Close