Slashdot Mirror


Tracking Satellites That Aren't There

stacybro writes "Wired is running an interesting article about amateur astronomers tracking "black" satellites." From the article: "The observers, who congregate on a Web site called Heavens-Above and a mailing list called SeeSat-L, have amassed an impressive collection of information and expertise. For two decades, they have played a high tech game of hide-and-seek with the US's National Reconnaissance Office, a secretive satellite agency. By coordinating their efforts, amateur observers in Europe, North America, and South Africa monitor satellites at different phases of their journeys and extrapolate the precise dimensions of their orbits." This is in addition to the ones we know about and even the ones we think we know about.

24 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. Security Through Obscurity Fails Yet Again by vmcto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although in my gut I don't particularly like the fact that our military satellite orbits are known to all who care to look on the Internet, the article gets the moral of the story right.

    If these guys can do it in their spare time with binoculars and phone calls, so can anyone else.

    Time and time again security through obscurity has proven to be a fallacy.

    And if this group has increased the awareness of that fact to the US military then they are indeed performing a valuable service.

    The apparent fact that they forced a step-function change in satellite stealth technology (Misty, Misty2) offers convincing proof.

    1. Re:Security Through Obscurity Fails Yet Again by pvt_medic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      hopefully, but the problem is looking at their track record they often try to respond to such challenges by silencing them.

      --
      30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
      Score:5, Troll
    2. Re:Security Through Obscurity Fails Yet Again by dhakbar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Time and time again security through obscurity has proven to be a fallacy."

      Well, it did slow the process down by a pretty long time. For the military, that's often a very important advantage.

    3. Re:Security Through Obscurity Fails Yet Again by Fnordulicious · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You don't appear to have read the article.

      Knowing where spy satellites are is vital if you're trying to hide something. Since even the US doesn't have and can't afford a globe covering spy satellite system a la Iridium, the eye in the sky can't be watching you every minute of the day. Thus if you know the orbits of the spy satellites you can time things to keep your unpleasant business a secret. Even if you don't know where *all* of the satellites are, knowing where some of them are is better than nothing.

      Consider the situation where you want to move a pile of refined weapon-grade plutonium out of your nuclear power station reactor. It's not something you're supposed to be doing, since that reactor is ostensibly for power generation, not for armament production. You don't exactly want to do this when people are watching because it's rather obvious when you park a big shielded truck outside your reactor and load the plutonium onto it. So you want to pick a time that the bird's eye won't be watching, or at least when it won't get a good view of what's going on. This will keep you from having to answer to the IAEA or the UN or any other nuclear busybodies. This worked pretty well for India.

    4. Re:Security Through Obscurity Fails Yet Again by Forbman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Although in my gut I don't particularly like the fact that our military satellite orbits are known to all who care to look on the Internet, the article gets the moral of the story right.


      Well...most satellites have limited propellant onboard to do anything more except adjust their orbit to maintain its intended design, whether it is a geostationary orbit or a "normal" orbiting orbit. They do not carry sufficient propellant to move from a polar orbit to a less inclined orbit, a high apogee orbit to low apogee orbit, etc. Orbital mechanics are pretty straight forward, and it only takes a few observations of some object to figure out its orbit. If they do, they have a very finite amount, and any large scale manouvering is not undertaken lightly, as it directly affects the lifetime of the satellite.

      the obscurity required in this case isn't information about the orbit, nor should anyone really care, but on the use and purpose of the satellite. Is that "black" satellite a RORSAT? LIDAR? SIGINT? Keyhole? VESTA? THAT part about the satellite and its mission is the real secret. Orbital information has been published in astronomy magazines for some time anyways.

      If you've read any tom clancy novels, you would understand that most of the baddies already know when the intelligence satellites are going to be overhead, and adjust their activities accordingly if they don't want to be directly observed.

      If they are observed, either they don't know (hardly likely these days) or they DO want us to know.

      Even the civilian LANDSAT and other geo-observational satellites could be determined to be "spy" satellites. Want to see how Iran's economy is doing? Use LANDSAT to monitor over time their agricultural lands. If the measured land isn't "right", then their crops have failed, which means more instabilit.

    5. Re:Security Through Obscurity Fails Yet Again by nonetheless · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The defense that because anyone can do this (or rather, here, any other large group of obsessed, well-coordinated individuals working doggedly for over a decade could do this), it is therefore ethical to do so strikes me as nonsense. That is true of lots of other activities everyone would agree are improper. To offer up a silly example: just about anyone *can* buy a sniper rifle, climb to a clocktower, and plunk down civilians. Anyone *can* monitor your cell phone traffic and sell it to a jealous ex. Etc.

      From the article, there appears to be evidence people whom most folks would agree are "Bad" use info about satellite patterns to go about their doing their Bad things. Why have your hobby be making their life easier? Why not make them go through the effort of watching the sky with high powered binoculars every night for decades? Can't there be hobbies just as fun that don't (at least tangentially) help Bad folks?

    6. Re:Security Through Obscurity Fails Yet Again by vmcto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't appear to have read the article.

      You don't appear to understand the point I made.

      Knowing where spy satellites are is vital if you're trying to hide something.

      Yes. You are correct about that. I understand that.

      So my question to you is: How does stopping the amateurs mentioned in the article prevent any of that from ocurring?

      Bzzzzt. Time's up.

      It doesn't. Which was my whole point. If friendly smiley people can do it, then not-so-friendly-crazed-dictators-with-nuclear-ambi tions (and India) can do it. And anyone whom suffers under the illusion that the technology is actually being effective at catching people doing what they shouldn't be, is a fool.

  2. Nothing There by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Nothing to see here, please move along".

    Never has it been so relevant.

  3. Heavens-Above by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 5, Informative

    For the record, Heavens-Above.com isn't just devoted to tracking spy sats, although I would have gotten that impression from the blurb. The site tracks all kinds of satellites -- including ISS, the shuttle (if it were up), and the Iridium constellation. It's not just for people with a specific interest in spy sats and it is in fact very handy if you want to see what you might be able to see on a given night before going out to observe. (Showing friends or students the shuttles, the space station, or Iridium flares is pretty neat, so I always take a look before observing.)

  4. Misunderestimated? by warmgun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I sometimes wonder, when I read stories like this, if the government is smarter than think. What if these "holes" in national security are just bones the government is throwing to the public to make them seem like they can't hide anything? Just a wacky conspiracy theory for a boring Wednesday afternoon.

    1. Re:Misunderestimated? by mslinux · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a red herring... they're trying to keep us from noticing the satellites going the other way (against the rotation of the earth)... they're up there, you just don't expect them to be going backwards. So when someone sees one, they think it was a fluke.

      "Hey, Bob, did you see that? It looked like a satellite going the wrong way. Have you been drinking hard cider again Henry? You know they always travel over the shed in the backyard toward the school house... that's the only way they can go! I've been drinking beer and tracking these things for damn near 20 years and I ain't once seen one come from that direction..."

    2. Re:Misunderestimated? by cnflctd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      israeli Ofeq spy satellites are launced into retrograde orbits to avoid dropping into unfriendly countries.

      --
      I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
  5. If people are not careful they might go blind by TheLink · · Score: 3, Funny

    The last bit on "How to Track a Black Bird" doesn't seem to say anything about making sure to avoid looking at the sun especially with binoculars.

    --
    1. Re:If people are not careful they might go blind by PFI_Optix · · Score: 2, Funny

      Crap. You figured out ou...umm...the Feds' backup plan. Back to the drawing board, I guess.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    2. Re:If people are not careful they might go blind by FTL · · Score: 2, Interesting
      > A similar-to-geosynchronous orbit (equatorial, same distance)
      > in the opposite direction should keep you close to permanent
      > daylight if the satellite starts in the proper position, yes?

      What you describe won't work. Your satellite would orbit Earth once a day, backwards.

      What you are looking for is to position your satellite at the Earth-Sun Lagrange point (hard-core space geeks will gripe that it should be orbiting L1, but let's keep it simple). That's much further away than geo-sync, so you won't get very good views of specific targets on Earth.

      However you'll get one heck of a good view of the whole Earth. That's what Triana was suposed to do. A webcam for our planet, streaming live 24h/day. Unfortunately Triana was Al Gore's pet project. The spacecraft was designed, built and tested when the Democrats were in power. Then George Bush 'won' the election. Out of spite, Triana was ordered removed from the launch schedule. Due to politics, it is quietly rusting in a storage container.

      BTW, the launch which Triana was scheduled to ride was STS 107, Columbia's final flight.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
  6. Define "Bad", please! by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful
    there appears to be evidence people whom most folks would agree are "Bad" use info about satellite patterns to go about their doing their Bad things. Why have your hobby be making their life easier?


    Because there is evidence that the same organizations whose purpose is going after what you call "bad" people are increasingly turning their weapons against us. When agents from a bureau whose self-stated mission is "to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States" come to believe they have the right to collect any data at all about you, even library cards, without any valid search warrant, you should better start worrying. In my dictionary, an officer of the government who feels no need to respect the Constitution is as "Bad" as it gets.


    Amassing as much data as we can about the methods and equipment those secret agencies have that they could use against us is an act of collective self-defense. It goes in the same spirit as the freedom to "keep and bear arms" against an opressive government.

  7. How to see a black satellite... by Finnegar · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...against a black background?

    It's on fire?

  8. Feel like Rummy by hob42 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The public satellites are the ones that we know that we know, and these are the ones we know we don't know.

    What about the ones that we don't know that we don't know?

  9. Locations of All US Spy Satellites and Names by Ximok · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here are the names, locations, and frequencies of all the US Spy Satellites:

    Freq Az Dir Velocity Alt
    [Edited by NSA]
    [Edited by NSA]
    [Edited by NSA]
    [Edited by NSA]
    [Edited by NSA]
    [Edited by NSA]

    Maybe it's one thing to find this stuff out for yourself, but posting it online?
    Thats just giving away information. Of course, there are some 8,000 man made objects in orbit right now that are tracked by our government... most of it is just trash though.
    http://www.stratcom.mil/fact_sheets/fact_spc.html

  10. Propellant not the only way of moving a satellite by johnthorensen · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ever heard of a reaction wheel? Basically, it's a spinning gyroscope, with a servo on the end of the axis. By turning against the force axis, a satellite (or the space station, or any other body) can reorient itself. With enough surplus solar power budget for this sort of thing, a satellite could rotate at will without burning a limited resource like propellant.

    -JT

  11. The "bad guys" use radar. by gmiller123456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A government agency of any size will be able to afford radar to track our sattelites. These provide much more accurate and instantaneous data than what individual video observations can provide.
    Here's a report on the NOSS sattelites with a wealth of information about the sats that no amateur could ever get.

    While individual terrorists probably don't have the resources (beyond heavens-above) to track sattelites, they probably aren't moving things obvious enough to matter anyway.

  12. Re:Propellant not the only way of moving a satelli by Elrond,+Duke+of+URL · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, I've heard of them... even saw them being manufactured once at a Honeywell plant. But the poster did not say that propellant was the *only* way to move a satellite. The discussion was about hiding satellites and changing their orbits to avoid detection. That's not something you're going to do without propellant (and a lot of it).

    Reaction wheels are great, but they only have a few real uses. One is to orient the satellite for communicating with Earth, or aiming a telescope at a star, etc. Another is to orient the satellite before igniting the engine, but, as the poster mentioned, most sats contain little additional fuel after they have been placed in their intended orbits.

    --
    Elrond, Duke of URL
    "This is the most fun I've had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"-Sam&Max
  13. An extra iridium or two by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's an extra iridium sat or two up there. I went out to view a flare, and saw it.... but it was brighter than I was expecting. Less than a minute later I saw the real flare.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  14. Re:Propellant not the only way of moving a satelli by Mishra2002 · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can't change an orbit with a reaction wheel. Reaction wheels are for pointing and positioning. the delta V required for even a degree of plane change is enormous.