Space Spotters Track Secret Satellites 110
Ponca City, We Love You writes "When government officials announced last month that a top-secret spy satellite would come falling out of the sky they said little about the satellite itself. They didn't need to. Spotters equipped with little more than a pair of binoculars, a stop watch and star charts, had already uncovered some of the deepest of the government's expensive secrets and shared them on the Internet. Thousands of people form the spotter community. Many look for historical relics of the early space age, working from publicly available orbital information. Still others are drawn to the secretive world of spy satellites, with about a dozen hobbyists doing most of the observing. When a new spy satellite is launched the hobbyists will collaborate on sightings around the world to determine its orbit, and even guess at its function. They often share their information on their web site, satobs.org."
New features to block observation. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:New features to block observation. (Score:5, Informative)
I recall a dustup between the US & France where the US has been publishing orbits of foreign military satellites and French spotted a whole bunch of satellites that the USA was pretending didn't exist. The French said "take our satellites out of the catalog or we'll publish what we've found". Here's one article discussing the matter [space.com]
I only bring this up to support my assertion that any government with time and money can track satellites.
Re:New features to block observation. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:New features to block observation. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
"Where is it now, Yasir?"
"I give you three guesses, Rashid!"
Re: (Score:2)
It would also be hard to hit with ASATs in one sense - you'd need a big rocket to get a weapon up there. For LEO an ASAT really can be suborbital - but if you want to get up to geosync even a ballistic shot is going to need a lot more fu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The civilians benefit from the "many eyes" factor of open collaboration. A complete program to track satellites requires many trained observers, in many locations, who can stand outside all night, every night. Also some math boffins. I wouldn't be surprised to find that even G8 nations with active space programs find the satobs.org info of value.
What one seeks to hide, another can uncover (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What one seeks to hide, another can uncover (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What one seeks to hide, another can uncover (Score:5, Interesting)
And not all the tumble would need to be removed--just set it into a tumble that would allow the cameras or other instruments on board to record properly, on an axis around the camera lens, say.
Hell, I'm surprised they haven't done something like that already.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! That is very surprising guys. Right? Oh yeah, completely surprising.
But to take it seriously for a moment. It would be very hard to keep it in orbit. Even though it is in 'space' there is still a bit of drag. You would then need very complex algorithms to perform station keeping. It would require a lot of energy to maintain such an orbit, and still take pictures.
But again, we would ignore the 'curiosity' factor that governments
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's a lot of junk up there in pretty regular orbits. Most of it's not low enough for a standard spy satellite but it's not like space is a pristine clean area where only designated satellites are flying around and there's nothing else up there...
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think they haven't?
The satellite spotters brag about the ones they find, but they have no idea how many are up there that they've never detected.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
How Not To Be Seen (Score:2)
Unless we teach these satellites how not to be seen [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
This is news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone checked on the health of the sat-watchin' dozen? Perhaps they have been dispatched, CIA-style. You know, to keep terrorists from getting their hands on the info, and to protect the children.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If someone were conducting a war against you, and you knew they used satellite imaging to track your movements, and you knew the timing of the satellites over your turf, I think you could come up with some effective strategies for creating disinformation, or avoiding detection.
You know, so you could aim your AKs at ground targets with less risk to you and greater harm to the target.
And, g
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I like that term, "dispatched CIA-style." Does that mean their facial hair has been removed, or maybe their lawns defoliated?
I would say... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, I'm sure the other big powers can track satellites as good as anyone, so these people determining orbits really isn't special and as so far as "Guessing at their function. I can do that from my cube. I guess spy satellites are there to spy on things. Gee that hard. Now if they could determine the nature of the remote sensing done that would be impressive. Like is it visible light or what is it's resolution etc. All in all it se
Government for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
And:"If Ted can track all these satellites," Mr. Pike said, "so can the Chinese."
That's damn straight. WTF is it with Government when they say shit like this? What, they think the rest of the World is too stupid to do this? Or photos in the airports by security. I got news for the Government: there are folks out there that have great memories and can draw. Go through security, look around, and then draw what you saw when you sit down and no one will no any different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Government for you. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, maybe they're hoping all the hostile foreign government agents have plans for Friday night.
Re: (Score:2)
So it seems that SOMEBODY in the administration has the "Top Secret Terrorists Procedural Manual" and has found where it states:
1: Terrorists may only open one front at a time, so if Iraq is busy there will be no attacks on the US.
2: Terrorists either can't or won't track US spy satellites themselves, so if US hobbyists don't do it, it won't get done.
I'm sure the administration has the rest of the rules, but of cours
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Government for you. (Score:4, Interesting)
(I just wanted to know about the object size one can track and found some interesting paper:
http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet109/chapter16_bul109.pdf [esa.int])
Also consider the Chinese anti missile test some months ago, the Chinese should also be able to track their
space junk if this experiment was to be meaningful.
The problem is though that even lesser developed Nations without their own space program have the need to protect
their defense installations. Even though their means might be limited they certainly can do damage to an attacker
within range of their defenses. So even they want to detect the prying eyes in the sky.
What they probably don't have is the same number of guys with a telescope, spare time, and the education to hunt
for satellites and even guess their purpose. Combined with a distribution medium like the internet for collaboration
and collection of information that a bunch of amateurs would have come up with easily, this would become a valuable
source of information to those lesser developed nations. This would only cost you an internet connection and an OLPC.
they're trying to save you money (Score:2)
What they're trying to hide it from is some cheapass Taliban group in the hinterlands of Pakistan, who may, as someone else pointed out, have access to the Internet and be able, once given a satellite's orbit, be able
Re: (Score:2)
What they're trying to hide it from is some cheapass Taliban group in the hinterlands of Pakistan, who may, as someone else pointed out, have access to the Internet and be able, once given a satellite's orbit, be able to know when it's over their neck of the woods, and plan operations accordingly.
This is nonsense. First of all, "THE TERRORISTS" can use the same techniques to track satellites. They're pretty good at math in that part of the world. Second, it's a good thing for anyone "FIGHTING TERROR" (cough cough) if THE TERRORISTS are hiding when the satellites are going overhead, even if that means you can't spot them on satellite, because it's just that much less time they have for operations. Then you fly some of those backpack drones around (must make being a soldier more fun if you can take
Re: (Score:2)
They might even have access to (*gasp!*) binoculars.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
real time tracking data on USA-193 (Score:5, Informative)
here [n2yo.com] that does real time sat tracking (ooh, animated over google maps).
I looked there last week and they didn't have enough data to show the orbit but it seems they have some elements now.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:real time tracking data on USA-193 (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're really enthusiastic, you can build your own laser [fbrtech.com] to point to the correct spot in the sky!
And if you want to be up to date all the time, why not download the OSX Iridium Flare Dashboard widget [dashboardwidgets.com]?
Happy flare spotting!
Re: (Score:2)
I was on an astronomy trip once and one of the people there was a satellite geek who came equipped with info about the flares. The coolest part was that he could predict it so accurately that he could do a countdown of "3... 2... 1..." then *fwoosh* it appeared in the sky -- no laser needed to point out where it was. It was near dusk, not a bright sky but still light enough that Venus wasn't visible. The flare sure as hell was visib
Too late......I think we hit a nerve, guys...... (Score:1)
I'd also like to point out that in the time it took me to read down this far, then refresh my screen, at least 4 posts have been REMOVED FROM THIS THREAD. WTF!???
I REPEAT! WTF!??
Big machines in space, you bet. (Score:1, Informative)
Two Words: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
In soviet russia... (Score:2)
Good Web Site (Score:2, Informative)
Obligatory (Score:1, Funny)
*yawn* (Score:2)
That's OK with me, I'm new here. (Score:1)
Maybe if those "secret" satellites (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just launching a canon elph with a wifi card.
c'mon ppl - parent is BS (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no mystery because there are no machines.
I can't believe the parent got modded up on
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In addition to discovering and refining his optical telescope videotaping technique, John has also discovered how to actually hear and record the sounds in real time coming from the particular craft he is videotaping. By carefully aligning a satellite dish receiver with his telescope, he has been able to record some very unusual and intriguing sound from the different spacecraft...
How can you call these fakes?? He has even recorded sounds from them! Sound! From these space .. crafts.. which is .. in space.. which is famous for its inability to lead sounds.. clearly he is a misunderstood genius that have all these incredible new technologies which he stole from the aliens he is taking pictures of. Right.
:)
It's good entertainment tho
Re: (Score:1)
1) Raving fakes, or
2) Darth Vader is our God, and Lucas is his Prophet.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx2.htm [rense.com]
The Black Ops boys must have money to burn if they can send a gdam CHINOOK to photograph him
Re: (Score:2)
Those are obviously Xenu's soul catchers.
Re: (Score:1)
Nuke Fallout (Score:2)
Re:Nuke Fallout (Score:5, Funny)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://bp1.blogger.com/_BYX14125JUQ/RpVqASyl-cI/AAAAAAAADU8/R2ettoJs-Z8/s400/Nuclear_Warning_Symbol.gif&imgrefurl=http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/2007_07_08_archive.html&h=225&w=225&sz=8&tbnid=Ov10iqjDEvf1QM:&tbnh=108&tbnw=108&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnuclear%2Bsymbol%26um%3D1&start=3&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=3 [google.com]
take the above for example. They print them HUGE on the satellite to make sure the aliens and astronauts don't go messing with the satellites for fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox 2.0.0.11
Baloney. Re:Nuke Fallout (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. Be rational. There are solid engineering and budgetary reasons at work here. No "secrecy" can hide those issues, no matter the classification fo the satellite. Physics, like mathematics, sooner or later breaks attempts at classifying it. And there are limits on the money spent, even in a "black" budget project. If things go bad, you can bet overspending will leak out. Google SBIRS-High for a good example - look at the globalsecurity.org entry (pic is taken looking S from Buckley AFB - I used to live to the west of that hill full of houses in Aurora CO).
The weight and expense to power ratio for plutonium or other decay based power systems is too high compared to solar arrays and batteries when in low earth orbit. The stuff that uses nukes is generally interplanetary in nature and cannot depend on solar. This is especially true with US launched stuff. Plus, nuclear power units have too high a heat signature to be used for "stealthy" sats, and are heavy and too expensive to launch if there is a cost-worthy alternative. Which there is: good ol' solar arrays, nice and thin.
The intelligence agencies would much rather have more gizmos if given the choice. Solar arrays provide them with better weight tradeoffs, and more power as well -- meaning they can add more stuff and use more power hungry stuff. And they are cheaper to deploy, and less likely to run afoul of regulatory issues i.e. try dragging a nuc design for LOE (low earth orbit) in front of an Engineering Design Review board - they'll laugh you out of the room for being politically stupid.
And if you are talking about the voiced concerns that the satellite in question (US-193, NROL-21) has hazardous material, well that hazmat is rocket fuel for orbital manuvering - the full load of it given that the sat never deployed the solar arrays, nor attemted to manuver to a more stable higher orbit. Chemicals. Not nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Be rational. There are solid engineering and budgetary reasons at work here. No "secrecy" can hide those issues, no matter the classification fo the satellite. Physics, like mathematics, sooner or later breaks attempts at classifying it. And there are limits on the money spent, even in a "black" budget project. If things go bad, you can bet overspending will leak out. Google SBIRS-High for a good example - look at the globalsecurity.org entry (pic is taken looking S from Buckley AFB - I used to live to the west of that hill full of houses in Aurora CO).
I always wondered what those were.
Re: (Score:2)
What about a satellite that doesn't want to depend on solar power, like a satellite killer, or just one immune to that kind of satellite attack?
Oh yeah, there have already been nukes have already powered satellites [wikipedia.org], and the same physics and engineering requirements would make them appropriate again.
And I don't think that the spooks with the nukes are afraid of having to pass regulatory boards when they don't want to.
Re: (Score:1)
At least he presented his reasoning. You just present your own self-serving conclusions as if they are self-evident.
Re: (Score:2)
So I showed not only cases where nukes would be used because solar isn't good enough, but actual examples of nuke satellites already used.
So what if you nuke fetishists cannot even bother to read the simple reasons that debunk your absolute assertions. You're incurable. But at least you are quickly and easily
Re: (Score:1)
"Their 'reasoning' consists of calling me paranoid, and denying that nuke powered satellites would ever be launched because of physics and engineering problems, and the superiority of solar alternatives."
No, wrong. Again. He was illustrating why there are a LOT of costs involved with nukes. He didn't "deny that nuke powered satellites
Re: (Score:2)
So I responded in kind with "blah blah blah". So what? That's the level of respect they invoked, so they got it. What matters is that I completely countered their argument denying nuke satellites with facts and logic.
And if their argument wasn't that there are no nuke satellites, so what? What are they saying? It doesn't mat
Re: (Score:1)
Again: He wasn't making an air tight case against nuke satellites existing. His point was clear, and he stated it explicitly, "You seem to start with the pre-judeged assumption that some sort of comic-book conspiracy of evil overlords runs the US Intelligence agencies and will irrationally choose evil nukes over enginee
Re: (Score:2)
Given the nature and quantity of these materials and the price of these satellites, the probability that the risk posed to the populace is anything other than "negligible" is small.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brain Fallout (Score:1)
Unfortunately, many people reflexively twitch when they hear the word "plutonium". You know
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Feds need to use teathers. (Score:2)
Whose teats? (Score:2)
a label of treason for topic? (Score:2)
Space Spotters Stalk Secret Satellites (Score:3, Funny)
Paint it black? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The difference between a "still not as black as a night sky" and "reflecting the sun like nobody's business" is big enough that you have to move up a class in telescope.
Which means that it is harder for folks with a 6" telescope or binoculars to spot the things.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Because black paint absorbs heat. Satellites need to be temperature controlled, since certain electronics work quite a bit better when they're cold.
Re:Paint it black? / RF downlinks. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA: Re:Paint it black? (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Ding! (Score:2)
Spy Satellites and Space Shuttle Crossrange (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Take that, CIA! (Score:2)
Hah! Your pathetic plan to down the site using the old "Slashdotting" DDoS attack has failed. Now your secrets are available to the whole world!
Bwahahahahahahahaha!
HAL.
You're no fun anymore. (Score:2)
- Aren't you, in fact, a satellite trainspotter?
You're no fun anymore.
- Now look here, if anybody else pinches my phrase, I'll blast them in a suborbital trajectory under a camel.
- If you can spot one (snickers).