U.S. Withholding Satellite Data

plover writes "Because of Congressional legislation passed quietly in 2003, the Air Force Space Command will no longer distribute space surveillance data via NASA. There was supposed a three year transitional period where the data was to be made available via a NASA web site, but earlier this month their transitional server went down hard, and NASA has decided to not rebuild it. (It was scheduled to be shut down on 31 March 2005 anyway.) The only way to obtain satellite data now is by signing up with the official Space-Track website. Part of the agreement to obtaining data from their site is that you agree to not redistribute their data. Of course, amateurs are still free to redistribute their observations, including those of classified satellites."

Comments

Homeland Security?

[mOoZik]

What reasons are cited for this development? Security?

Re:Homeland Security?

[CPgrower]

Bush didn't want any satellite photos of him smoking a joint.

Re:Homeland Security?

[DingerX]

Yeah, there was some "Chatter" that OBL was aiming to take down a couple of spy satellites with a modified ICBM, so they took the information offline, forcing him back to "Plan B": firing that sucker at the US's Eastern Seaboard, where the vaunted US Missile Defense will interceive it with technology that Really Works(TM).

In a related development, Lockheed-Martin announced today it's new SatTrac(TM) feature, where your company can receive daily updates on the orbital patterns of nearly 1500 earth satellites for a modest starting subscription of $20,000/month. Specialized Hardware, Training seminars and Software customization can also be had for a modest fee.

Re:Homeland Security?

[PartyBoy!911]

Vaderland security! They don't want you to notice the Death Star..

Re:Homeland Security?

[blowdart]

The sight of the Goa'uld mothership would panic the normal population.

Oh sorry you said Air Force Space Command?

Re:Homeland Security?

[secretsquirel]

or as he used to call them, a freedom joint.

Re:Homeland Security?

[tarogue]

If nobody cared about him snorting coke and driving drunk, why the hell would anyone care about him smoking pot?

Re:Homeland Security?

[will_die]

Nothing about secuirty at all.
A server that was going down at the end of next month is crashing and they are not going to rebuilt it.
No loss of data, no loss of anything unless you were also going to loose it next month.
BTW satellite positions (past and present), along with military ships, and surfaced subs is all unclassified. Granted they would prefer it is not widely known, but if you broadcast it not much they can or will do about it.

Re:Homeland Security?

[MillionthMonkey]

Because he openly mocked Gore in 2000 for having admitted to smoking pot, when he had smoked it himself.

Re:Homeland Security?

[Mattcelt]

Right! He has been elected, and now we should all stand behind him, because Senator Kennedy is such a fine...

*listens to whisper in ear*

...as I was saying, President Bush is such a fine elected official!

(Pot, meet kettle. :-)

Quietly passed

[michaelhood]

Why isn't there some sort of community political watchdog site that informs us when things are "quietly passed"? Tell us about everything that's in the works, let us decide what we do and don't like.

Re:Quietly passed

[SFalcon]

The congressmen passing these bills barely skim the 1000+ page documents. You expect a non-paid volunteer to skim through each one? Count me out.

Re:Quietly passed

[luvirini]

That is definitely part of the problem. There are simply too many laws with too many things in each law. Usually laws also contain provisions that have nothing to do with the man law.

Unfortunately until enough people throw away the atitude of "well, politics are supposed to be corrupt" I do not see much change.

Re:Quietly passed

[MagicDude]

If there is some group out there looking out for these sort of things, they probably didn't have the means of getting the word out. They were probably derided as a bunch of kooks by the media or any kind of outlet they tried to talk to. Getting information out is hard if you don't have the infrastructure to get people to listen to you.

Here's an example of such a failure. In Hawaii, there is a tsunami monitering center, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, which moniters the west coast of the US, and pretty much all of the pacific basin for tsunami. I'll bet that after the massive seaquake, they knew what was coming. I'll also bet that there was no protocol for who they could contact to pass on this information. While they probably had a system for warning the continental US about dangers approaching the west coast, it doesn't seem like had a contact in the state department who could inform foreign governments about the information they had. With 2-3 hours notice, several thousand lives could have been saved in the affected regions. You can raise the point about not being able to help poor vilages who have no infrastructure and no ability to contact them, and that's a valid point. However, there were still thousands of casualities on resort beaches in tourist cities, places where communication infractructure wasn't a problem. The problem was that you had these group of people in Hawaii with lifesaving information who were likely shouting in the dark trying to get someone to listen to them, which is what likely happened to any watchdog group who may have known about this legislation.

Re:Quietly passed

[Nefarious Wheel]

That is definitely part of the problem. There are simply too many laws with too many things in each law

There should be three houses of Congress; The Senate, the House of Representatives and the Board of Editors. The third house would be comprised of disenfranchised magazine editors whose sole and entire purpose was to repeal legislation the other two houses dreamed up.

Re:Quietly passed

[xstonedogx]

I agree.

The simplest solution is to stop voting these folks into office. Unfortunately that requires people to actually give a crap and not just pick a party and stick to it like a religion.

It also requires people to realize there are issues other than abortion and gun control that are both important and likely to be seriously addressed.

These laws are "quietly passed" because everyone is focused on the media-friendly issues that are never resolved (because they are political suicide for any politician who addresses them seriously).

Re:Quietly passed

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You just dreamt a 2.500 year old system. It was called "democracy" and it worked. Even down to the "lottery" for public office.

I also see from your post that you are thinking of not voting any more. I see this more and more in my generation (I'm 31 years old) and I hate it more and more. Not voting is NOT a political statement. Find a party or if nothing out there stands for what you stand for MAKE a party, even if it only gets one vote, yours. Or if you don't want the trouble go to the polling station and vote blank. A blank vote is a vote against ALL parties and shows yor dissatisfaction with them AND with the system. The main problem is that nowadays we have left politics to the professionals, and we forget that it is our OBLIGATION rather than our right to participate in the commons.

I have absolutely no sympathy towards people who say "I don't vote". Apathy is not a valid political point of view.

Re:Quietly passed

[nuclear305]

"Why isn't there some sort of community political watchdog site that informs us when things are "quietly passed"? Tell us about everything that's in the works, let us decide what we do and don't like."

There are such watchdogs, however...to be frank, that's your job as a responsible voter to keep track of what your elected officials are doing since, you know, they are there to represent you.

Saying that the government should take the time to inform everyone of whats going on because people are too lazy--or don't care--to pay attention is akin to wanting to change the channel on your TV but you don't feel like getting up to either find the remote or switch it manually.

Re:Quietly passed

[smchris]

Ah, a man who has obviously worked with government!

Part of a job I had in the '70s required reviewing both our state and the federal legislative Registers. Be afraid. Be very afraid. If people only knew everything that gets proposed but doesn't pass committee, or if it passes committee, fails the vote (but isn't widely reported).

Doesn't help that Congress seems especially corrupt at this moment in history. It isn't so much that the system is broken. It's working just fine for the special interests the way they want it to work.

Re:Quietly passed

[HeghmoH]

I personally like Heinlein's idea for a bicameral legislature. One house only passes bills, and requires a 2/3rds majority. The other house only repeals bills, and requires only 1/3rds of the vote to do so. It seems to me that this would be a nice division of responsibility and would ensure that the legal system didn't get too complicated.

Re:Quietly passed

[plover]

I've always wanted a "three strikes" law for legislators. If you vote in favor of three laws that are later overturned by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional, you should be tried for treason.

There should be the severest consequences for the "criminal" legislation that the Congress emits. Putting fear into their hearts would be the best way to ensure they don't try taking rights away from the population.

Re:Quietly passed

[KevinIsOwn]

While the Congressmen themselves generally don't read the entire document, that's why Congressmen have staff. The staff read the entire thing and inform their boss of the contents. Most Congressmen will read a portion as well.
The only notable exception to this is when legislation like the Patriot act was rammed through and only one Senator had time to read the whole thing.

Re:Quietly passed

[Rocketship Underpant]

"it is our OBLIGATION rather than our right to participate in the commons."

If by commons, you mean the procedures of the majoritarian state, I respectfully disagree.

I have made a personal decision not to vote any longer. Why have I made this decision? Because I have come to the reasoned conclusion that majoritarianism ("democracy") is a corrupt system, and I cannot change it with the mechanisms it provides (i.e. voting).

In fact, because of what I believe, I feel it is immoral for me to support the system any longer. My only option then, is to opt out and not lend my country's corrupt procedures any moral support. I need neither the government nor the ballot box to defend my freedoms and the freedoms of my neighbours; I don't need them to live my daily life, to pursue my dreams, to help the less fortunate, or to do any of the other things that matter in life.

I've seen a lot of people rant about how if you don't vote, you have no right to complain. I believe the opposite is true. If you keep voting for the same corrupt system and the same corrupt politicians (there is rarely an honest candidate), you're the one who has no basis for complaint when the system fails you. I can complain, because I stand against the system and no longer participate in its corruption.

Before you flame me, please realize this is a difficult and considered position that has taken me many years to arrive at. Not voting does not mean one is apathetic. I believe the grandfather poster, whom you labeled "apathetic", has achieved a critical insight into the futility of the system he lives under.

Re:Quietly passed

[Dot.Com.CEO]

You are, in so many words, wrong.

The system provides a mechanism for demonstrating your dissatisfaction. It is called the null or blank vote. It shows that you are interested in what is happening in your political system but no political force expresses your beliefs or supports your interests.

Sitting on a couch on election day does not "break the system" and apatyh is not a valid criticism of the futility of the system.

Definition of fascism

[Doc Ruby]

Government, by and for corporations, of the people.

Before you flame me with narrowminded visions of brownshirts blotting out your vision, realize that this was Mussolini's definition, and it's what we've got in the USA. Then consider that the brownshirts aren't too far off, either in the future or in actual conditions today.

Fascism is the human face on the corporate body politic. And these days, the mask is off.

Re:Definition of fascism

[Xel'Naga]

...this was Mussolini's definition

Who has the right to make a definition? If he had thought he could have convinced anyone, Mussolini would have defined fascism as paradise. That doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.

Allow me to quote the definition found on Wikipedia (No link, it's currently out):
Definition
The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that
* exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
* uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
* engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
* engages in corporatism,[1] (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=219369 )
* implements or is a totalitarian regime.

In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad.... For the Fascist, everything is within the State and... neither individuals nor groups are outside the State.... For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative...."

Mussolini, in a speech delivered on October 28, 1925, stated the following maxim that encapsulates the fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato." ("Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".) Therefore, he reasoned, all individuals' business is the state's business, and the state's existence is the sole duty of the individual.

Historians should judge the leaders of the world - not themselves. And it appears historians consider corporatism a rather small part of fascism. It is later in that article described as more of a means than an end.

Historians often judge people and their deeds quite different from what they would do themselves. Consider this quote: (Translated from German to Danish to english - sorry)

"At this hour I feel, that it is my duty to my own conscience again to appeal to the common sense, both in Great Britain and elsewhere(...)
I can see no reason for this war to continue. Herr Churchill will probably disregard this statement by saying, that it is born of fear and doubt about our final victory. In that case I have relieved my conscience about the things that are to follow." Adolf Hitler - 19. july 1940.

Yet historians put the blame of the atrocities of the second world war on Hitler, rather than Churchill.
(Yes, I know about Godwin's law)

Re:Definition of fascism

[kir]

I'm a little confused how this event even remotely relates to fascism. The TLE data is still freely available on the Space Track website.

Everything isn't doom and gloom you know. It boggles the mind how you got from this story to fascism so quickly (5 minutes?). Or did you not actually read the links provided?

I smell stormtroopers!!! ;-)

Re:Definition of fascism

[XorNand]

Fascism has zero to do with corporations. This article has zero to do with Fascism OR corporations.

For before you mod me down for stating the obvious, I'm beginning to wonder if Slashcode parses and automatically mods up and comments containing "before you 'flame me|mod me down'".

Re:Definition of fascism

[Doc Ruby]

It's one thing to merely take a politician at their word, regarding their politics. And another to look at their actions - Mussolini's government was structured as an organization of corporations, so there's no quibbling that his corporatism was just propaganda. Fascism "has come to mean" many things to many people - mostly it has come to mean "like the Nazis", due to American propaganda, during and following WWII. Not only because America demonized the enemy to motivate our attack on it, but to distinguish America's own fascist similarities from Germany's. Since America isn't Nazi Germany, it's not fascist - even when patriotism and nationalism mask corporatism. Even when violence and its threat are the primary techniques of rule. Even when individual rights are sacrificed for the state, which hands more rights to corporations. The US is now fascist, but not quite like the Nazis - though in every category, the US merely deemphasizes some aspects, but doesn't oppose them. Because America has always been corporate (eg. it was pioneered by the Dutch East Indies Company), it doesn't have to do do as much to get Americans to support corporatism as did Germany, birthplace of (Marx's) communism. And it's pretty early in America's unbalanced execution of unencumbered fascism, so soon after "winning" the 50 year war against "communism". Even German fascism didn't look like what it's "come to mean" until Hitler and the Nazis had been running the country for many years.

BTW, Godwin's law is a crock. Some mediocre SF writer says we can't learn from Hitler, because his image is so polarizing? That's Godwin's problem - he can't take away the only benefit from that huge historical cost, learning from history so as not to repeat it. Unfortunately, Godwin is all too typical in his denial, and so we are repeating that history even now. Fascism is the only explanation that makes all of America's actions make "sense". We've got corporate government, and it's up to all its old tricks: rule by fear, distorted lying nationalism covering for state capitalism, invasion of other countries, racism to justify theft, destruction of individual rights, etc. We can call it fascism, we must call it fascism, if we are to learn from our past success is stopping it.

I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation....

[Silentnite]

The government never does anything wrong, or stupid, or um... God I can't stop laughing. This is worth a karma burn.

I really have nothing else to say, this is just plain crap.

Let's all wait for the chorus of "Now I'm moving to canada"

Re:I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation....

[Supernoma]

What nukes? Who wants to blow up Canada? We're too busy up here smoking our medical marijuana and drinking our Canadian beer to piss off other nations.

How difficult is it to build ?

[zymano]

How hard is it to build a spy/telescope satellite ?

I found this site about building a miniature

Miniature Space satellite

A canadian cheapy.
Canadian Satellite

I think it would be cool if someone could put a cheap one in space from off the shelf telescope parts . Don't you think these prices for these orbitting telescopes are a bit farfetched ?

Once again..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Once again knowledge resources are shut down for no reason at all. It seems the world in general is getting more and more shut out from Information.. how can ANY government claim this is healthy?

The dumber the people get the more they need help, the more help they need the more the 'powers that be' control them. The more they control them.. the closer to get to 1984.

I'm not into Space, but right now every day I hear more things are being hidden or shut down, yet we're still happy to waste money left right and centre on a war which was ment to be over 12 months ago, when we still have more armed forces there then any where.

Maybe we should stop thinking about how we're going to deal with the "next terrorists" and start thinking "how are we going to make life worth while so we have a reason to fight these terrorists?"

Re:Once again..

[kir]

Did you even read the links provide? No "knoweledge resource" is being shut down. The TLEs are available on Space Track. There is a convenient little "Create a New Account" link on the main page.

I'm not into Space

You may not be INTO space, but you're definitely IN space... Space Cadet!

Nasa has tons of servers.

[ABeowulfCluster]

Nasa has tons of servers...so, the "oh gee, the server went down, so lets throw our hands in the air and give up" thing doesn't compute. There are always backups of servers. I expect organized agencies to have backups. The 'Server went down so give up' thing only applies to AOL users.

Re:This is bullshit...No it's not

[scheme]

So, I'm back to using a commercial service to get the weather information my tax dollars already paid for. ...and they call the crap on 9/11 terrorism.

The surveillance data that was being provided was of orbital information of satellites that the Air Force was tracking including corrections and orbital decay information. This has nothing to do with weather information.

i'm doing my taxes today

[circletimessquare]

and i'm a us citizen

aren't i paying for this?

so what is the rationale to deny me what i have paid for?

the purpose of my government is to serve me, is it not?

Re:i'm doing my taxes today

[MagicDude]

Be careful with your generalization arguments. The wider the net you cast with your argument, the larger the holes are going to be.

By your argument, you would imply thatou are entitled to know where our covert spies are, or where our ships and armies are specifically deployed, since your tax dollars paid for all of that personel and equipment. Or that you are entitled to a free trip on Air Force One, since your taxes paid for it. I'm sure the secreat service would love to have the coordinates of Air Force One broadcast on the internet, because people feel they have a right to know everything all the time. The government does what they feel is in the best interest of their people. And if you feel that they are a bunch of buttmunchers who have more allegiance to the oil industry than to the american people, then vote them out. Otherwise, you have to understand that there's the possibility that there's more to governmental policy than they choose to let you know.

Re:i'm doing my taxes today

[k-zed]

The government does what they feel is in the best interest of their people.

...except it doesn't. In fact these days I'm not even sure it should. Anyway, revolutions need to remove/reform the people first, not the government..

I am sure the bug is fixed in next version

[luvirini]

Of course, amateurs are still free to redistribute their observations, including those of classified satellites.

I mean this should clearly be made illegal, I mean publishing information of existance of something secret. I am sure that the next version of the bill will correct this bug.

Re:I am sure the bug is fixed in next version

[DavidTC]

Uh, no it's not, unless you've got a security clearance. In fact, it's not actually 'illegal' at all, classified information is protect by a combination of executive order and just getting people to sign things before having access to it.

Anyway, despite what people think, if I stumble across documents marked CLASSIFIED on a seat on the bus, I can release them. Does no one study history anymore? We had a rather infamous court case called 'The Pentagon Papers' that decided just that...if you have classified information leaked to you, you can publish it. As long as you haven't agreed not to, aka, as long as you don't have a security clearance.

Of course, the publisher can be tried for teason, but only if, by releasing said documents, they intentionally harm the country, which 99.999% of classified information would not. The bar for treason is fairly high.

And no one has ever suggested that data that is classified that has independently been obtained through another source could be illegal to reveal. Like the satellites we're talking about. That's just absurd.

keplerian elements

[Anonymous Coward]

This is information about the precise orbits of satellites. This is what you would need if you want to shoot down a satellite.

They are not talking about weather photos.

Does anybody read the article? Like the article says, this info is available, more accurately, from a global collaboration of amateur observers.

Re:keplerian elements

[cl191]

"Does anybody read the article?" No, of course not, you think people read Playboy for the articles too?

Re:keplerian elements

[FredThompson]

Of course, the commenters aren't reading the articles. Then they'd have to acknowledge the U.S. government is ceasing a project and reducing spending. If they admitted the government is reducing spending by eliminating an unnecessary program, it wouldn't play into their paranoia. "Brown shirts", indeed! Now, if we can just get rid of that underground helium storage project which goes back to WWII...

Re:keplerian elements

[voisine]

Shooting down a satellite is pretty much impossible with current technology (as far as you know). It's much more likely the information would be used to decide when you should cover up your wmd's since a spy satellite is about to pass overhead. Don't you read Tom Clancy?

Re:keplerian elements

[mpe]

This is information about the precise orbits of satellites. This is what you would need if you want to shoot down a satellite.

If you were going to shoot down a satellite you would need a missile with an accurate guidance system anyway. Anyone who can build such a weapons system can most likely also build a radar system capable of accuratly tracking satellites. Especially given that minimising RCS is typically not a design requirement for a satellite.

Like the article says, this info is available, more accurately, from a global collaboration of amateur observers.

Which further negates any "someone could use this info for their A-Sat weapons system" claim.

Re:keplerian elements

[HeghmoH]

This is obviously false, as a US anti-satellite weapon destroyed an end-of-lifed science satellite in 1985 during a test.

Re: How did server go down?

[Black Parrot]

> They neglected to say how the origional server went down "hard". Did someone hack it?

Wikipedia was hosting it...

Privacy?

[Agret]

In the "Terms of Use" it states By continuing, you consent to your keystrokes and data content being monitored.

Withholding?

[gordgekko]

I'm a bit puzzled. If the U.S. is "withholding" satellite data, why is it still freely available via another web site? Less editorializing, more reporting.

Re:Spies.

[mbrother]

Hubble is no good for looking at the Earth because it's too bright. It would flood and destroy the detectors! We always have to do bright object checks and are restricted with how close we can look at bright objects. They made one exception to look at the moon once, but I believe they had to do some tricky things to manage that.

Some astronomers at the Space Telescope Science Institute told me about unidentified people from the government coming to see them in the early 1990s. Hubble was having problems with a wobble when moving between light and shadow, and they were making progress in reducing it. I was told these people answered no questions, only asked them. Sounded like they had their own version of Hubble, pointed Earthward. Duh. Don't know its capabilities, but I'm sure it's pretty good.

WTF

[jim_v2000]

Commercial site? You mean you pay for weather info? What about Weather.com? Wunderground.com? Or the govt website NOAA.gov? Or hell, turn on the radio at the top of the hour and listen to the weather.

This is going to help honestly...

[FidelCatsro]

""The only way to obtain satellite data now is by signing up with the official Space-Track website. Part of the agreement to obtaining data from their site is that you agree to not redistribute their data""

Am i the only one thinking that people likely to abuse this information ,are not likely to care about breaking a contract.

Re:This is bullshit...No it's not

[Billly Gates]

The data is still free.

Its the projections of the sattelites that are secret and should be. Why should we all care?

A powerfull land based laser could take out a satelite and a trajectory is needed.

Weather and other services are still available.

Open ended

[WillieT]

So I was reading through the "terms of use" and got to this line "... By continuing, you consent to your keystrokes and data content being monitored." The way it's stated is so ambiguous that it's scarry. Anyone else agree?

Re:Spies.

[fremsley471]

Hubble is no good for looking at the Earth because it's too bright. It would flood and destroy the detectors!

No. Hubble regularly looks at Earth for calibration purposes. See: http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/williams r.html

Re:Spies.

[FrostedWheat]

They made one exception to look at the moon once, but I believe they had to do some tricky things to manage that.

I didn't know about the Hubble Moon pictures, nice one! Found them here: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/ releases/1999/14/

Re:Spies.

[b00le]

I had always understood that Hubble itself was a derivative of the Keyhole KH-11 spy satellites - i.e. the satellite bus and basic telescope were an existing design (that's why it was so cheap...). The sensors would of course be quite different; Earth Observation satellites are more like scanners than cameras. Google KH-11 for more info., but don't blame me when your garden fills up with black helicopters.

Re:Spies.

[hcdejong]

The Keyhole series of satellites are similar to Hubble. The KH-12 has "a resolution approaching ten centimeters".

Re:How difficult is it to build ?

[hcdejong]

Hubble cost something like $2B (?). Spy satellites like the Keyhole 12 are similar to Hubble, and would cost at least that much. This gives you 10-cm resolution.
Sure, you could buy a simple telescope, duct tape a digital camera and a packet radio transmitter to it, and blast it into space.
But building optics that won't break during launch, and can handle the temperature changes is another matter. Building an attitude control system (a cluster of miniature rocket engines, plus control system) is nontrivial, too. You'll need energy (solar panels, fuel tanks), also built to last in space.
Off-the-shelf? No chance.

celestrak.com

[d_p]

For years, the satellite industry has relied on celestrak.com for easy and open access to TLE's. I have written several applications over the years for satellite ground operations that ftp'd or wget'd from celestrak's ftp site. There is no ftp or http access directly to the files on space-track. You have to log in to the web site, navigate through their cgi crap and copy/paste. Its going to be a major PitA to rework this stuff. I don't have as much of a problem with the restriction of access to this data as much as the poor design of the site.

And contrary to popular belief, I think just about any US citizen can get an account on space-track if you sign up for it. There is a lot more to the story than NASA's OIG server crashing. The Air Force has been warning that this was coming for a very long time.

d_p

No Real Story Here, Just Tinfoil Brigade Ravings

[reallocate]

Typical nonsense from the tinfoil brigade.

A server supporting a system scheduled to end goes down a few weeks before that and the government decides not to spend the money to repair it. What's the problem?

The same data remains available. What's the problem?

The government -- any government with satellites -- doesn't want you or anyone else to know the location of its secret satellites. Why enable the very people those satellites are targetting to find out where they are?

And, what is that crack about legislation that was "passed quietly" supposed to mean? Looks like deliberate paranoia-mongering to me: those sneaky people in Congress passed a bill and didn't ven bother to jump up and down on TV about it. Guess they forgot that the /. crowd won't pay attention unless you make a lot of loud noise.

No it's those annoying saucers

[Bender Unit 22]

We don't have the money to keep photoshopping them out of the pictures. Those pesky aliens keeps showing up all the time.

Re:Obligatory Response

[Jim_Callahan]

Democracy has not been successfully instituted on anything larger than a small (by modern standards) city or township. Any bigger, and the working model is a republic, not a democracy.

Means no more satellite forecast

[scattol]

No orbital information means that you can't make and especially share satellite observation forecasts with your friends

Site like Heavens Above will need alternate source to make their forecast. This is a shame, accurate forecasts were a bonus to amateur observers and essential to observe some satellites.

Those who haven't observed a -8 Iridium are missing something. They are spectacular

typical /. FUD

[argStyopa]

"NASA not distributing it the way it was done before" is NOT equivalent to "U.S. Withholding Satellite Data"

As CelesTrak says on their site, you can "...Register for a Space Track account today at http://www.space-track.org (only 4,000 users have done so to date) and use the application provided at http://celestrak.com/SpaceTrack/TLERetrieverHelp.a sp to automatically download and convert Space Track data into CelesTrak data sets to help you with the transition. This will ensure you get the very latest data in the formats you are currently accustomed to...." (emphasis added)

How is this "withholding" data, except in the "George-Bush-is-teh-debbil-therefore-the-governmen t-MUST be-fascist" fantasies of /.?

Re:typical /. FUD

[Jonathan McDowell]

Here's the problem: the new site not only forbids redistributing the keps (orbital parameters) to other people, which is a problem for /.-loved sites like http://www.heavens-above.com/ which tell you when things are coming overhead, but also forbids redistributing analysis based on the data. So if you have a business that's a subcontractor to a satellite operator, and your job is to analyse the orbital data and tell the satellite owner if they are drifting off station or something, then as of last week you are theoretically out of business. And even if you are using the data to provide very basic info on satellites that falls short of what you'd need to predict where the satellite is - like my newsletter at http://www.planet4589.org/ - it's not clear if you're even allowed to do that.

Now I suspect this is just a bureaucratic screwup, and the intent wasn't to be quite that restrictive. But there was way too little communication between the folks who wrote the law, the folks at USAF and NRO who understand which security concerns are real and which are bogus, and the different set of folks at USAF who run the orbital data service and had to interpret the law with very little guidance when writing up the new rules. In the absence of communication, things tend to be written to be so cover-your-ass that it gums up the works and that's what is happening.

satobs.org

[lecithin]

For a very good discussion on this topic and others dealing with observation of 'satellites', go to http://satobs.org/seesat/ and browse the messages on the topic.

You will get much more than the /. opinions.

Satellite tracking information available...

[Khyron42]

The only change here is that (a) they get to know who's accessing the data, and (b) those who access the data can't restribute it. This doesn't keep them from distributing the result of calculations based on the data, however.

Heavens-above.com has data regarding when satellites are visible from a given location on the earth's surface. I'm not sure if this gives any data on classified satellites. This site does currently still show orbital elements on the "orbit" page of each satellite's detail list - these are probably coming from non-Airforce tracking radars.

JTrack 3D is a great little java applet (warning, the applet loads in a separate window) that shows you a real-time view of near-earth space. You can even pull up description pages for each of the satellites shown. The "Launch/Orbital information" link on the detail page is broken, and seems to be the only part of this service affected. Again this is unlikely to ever have shown classified satellites.

Conspiracy theorists, take note. Every spacefaring nation on the planet knows where everything is in space including the orbital elements mentioned, to make sure thier expensive new pr0nosat won't crash into that random chunk of "damaged hardware that can't be de-orbited, oops" that's taking pictures of Osama's outhouse. This just keeps people from anonymously having the US Air Force do their orbit tracking for them.

Re:Third Scenario

[Dot.Com.CEO]

That is a very valid point. My answer is that if the loser gets nothing, i.e. if your minority vote gets "wasted", then there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.