Slashdot Mirror
Satellite Spotters Make Government Uneasy
An anonymous reader found an interesting little story about satellite spotters and how, not surprisingly, their painstakingly methodical hobby doesn't exactly make gazillion dollar government agencies all that excited. Of course the article raises the very obvious point that if a guy with a pair of binoculars in his back yard can spot a satellite, so can the Chinese government.
If they are spotted, they failed. I think they should thank the spotters for the free bugtesting.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
...but the sky is pretty much Public Domain. Or are you going to outlaw looking up?
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/05/1734208
Of course the article raises the very obvious point that if a guy with a pair of binoculars in his back yard can spot a satellite, so can the Chinese government.
Just think what the Chinese government would be capable of if they were to stand in this guy's backyard with his binoculars!
Seriously, two articles in the same day scaremongering about China. Slashdot is turning into The New York Times in the lead-up to the Iraq War.
If the Chinese can develop tiny robots good for them. If the Chinese can spot satellites, good for them. Why the summary decided to single out China, I don't know. I'm sure if a guy with binoculars can do it, so can just about every government in the world, including the United States government. Remember, you guys aren't the only with satellites up these days.
First of all we aren't all American here so we don't all quite understand this paranoia about the Chinese. Secondly, I highly doubt the average Slashdotter, who is generally well educated, has the kind of irrational paranoia that Slashdot seems to be provoking in these articles.
Hey! Hold on! Hold on! Lay off the Chinese! I thought they were our friends I mean they ARE hosting the Olympics. Nobody who hosted the Olympics ever turned out to be bad. Am I right folks? Am I right?
So what if they can see all the satellites the Yanks ever launched? It's not like they'd be developing some means to shoot them down. It's pretty obvious they're working on a weather control machine at the moment.
I have nothing compelling to say
The people charged with our defense and national security are *supposed* to be uneasy, ...lay awake nights, ... constantly wonder if all they've done is enough. That way, the rest of us don't have to.
Many LEO satellites are visible to the naked eye, and certainly with only a little optical assistance. Spotting one and speculating what it's doing are two different things. But maybe it's time to employ a little stealth for satellites too.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Isn't this a dupe? I could've sworn there was an article about this just a week or two ago.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
... a revolutionary new way of cloaking secret, spacebased facilities.
The new method is called black, dull color.
The US government isn't worried about China or vice versa. We both know where each other's satellites are; both public and "secret". You don't put two billion dollar objects in orbit on a potential crash course. It just doesn't happen. That's why they know, we know they know, they know we know they know, and we're all comfortable with that.
Next question?
All the government folks are saying is that they would rather not have folks doing the work for the Chinese government.
That's not what the article said. The article said that if hobbyists could do it, so could the Chinese government. I doubt very much that the Chinese government is relying upon hobbyists to spot our satellites, given how easy it can be done.
Talk about a Straw Man argument. Sheesh.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Do NOT look through binoculars at secret government laser satellite with remaining eye.
Actually, we are, which neatly demolishes that argument.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
What makes this even worse/funnier is that most satellites run properietary, closed source operating systems like Windows, reducing security and making them very easy to hack. Even leaving out the hardcore Linux hackers (to whom hacking even the most secure Windows system is a breeze), all you need to do is have some Joe Sixpack in the Canadian Alps browse porn via his satellite internet connection, and the satellite's Windows software gets infected with malware as it transmits the HTML to the user. Then you need some astronaut to go up and fix the registry, something that just does not need to be done with an Open Source operating system, like Ubuntu.
Combine this with the difficulties in running Windows update on the satellites (let alone keeping the virus checking software up to date - which is often closed source, proprietary software itself, and therefore demonstrably inferior) and you end up with satellites running software that is months or even years out of date.
When governments start putting up satellites that run Open Source Software, they will be much more secure. The elegant, secure-from-the-ground-up design of OSS means that these satellites would be virtually unhackable. And the best part is, wether these are used for good or bad, is ultimately up to the users, as they can check the source code and fix any problems or malware that the government tries to slip in.
Let's just restrict the access to that guy's backyard, and forbid he let any chinese people use his binoculars.
____
nico
Nico-Live
Good news about our increased chocolate rations, though!
You can't take the sky from me...
Of course the Chinese can track these satellites, the Chinese have a multi-trillion dollar economy. With that you can afford the education, staff and equipment to track satellites with far more accuracy than these hobbyists since they can use things like Radar and large telescopes. The Chinese got these things by being a stable and peaceful (albeit repressive) state. The Chinese know where the satellites but they're not the ones who anyone's worried about. Smaller groups such as certain terrorist organisations possibly do not have the organisation or patience to find out this information themselves, but they do have the ability to look up web pages.
Despite their benign intentions, there are consequences for exposing any information of this nature. Information has always been one of the most important weapons in any human conflicts. Whether you believe you have a nationalistic duty to protect the secrets of your nation and its allies or not, one must consider that by publishing data of this nature, despite it just being numbers one can calculate in one's backyard can result in bad things happening to good people. One must consider that just because one is fairly safe from terrorism in most of the developed world, it is a way of life in Northern India, Pakistan, Israel, Iraq where it claims life on a steady basis, if public satellite data prevents the governments of these regions from suppressing those who attack civilians, then those deaths are a consequence of the publishing of the information. This isn't about protection of the revenue model of some fat record labels, this isn't about exposing government lies or software patents. This is information who's revelation could lead to death and it should be treated with serious discretion.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Actually, no: anyone making notes about who is going in and out of a government building is likely to be arrested as a terrorist (see, for example, here).
The government would stop you looking at satellites too, if they could. At the moment, they can't. But if I lived in the US, I would think twice about publishing that sort of stuff on a web site.
The fact that you can spot the satellite with binoculars proves my argument.
The fact that you can spot a spy satellite with binoculars proves that the government it belongs to isn't trying to hide it? Is that really what you're trying to say?
Here's some more reading for you.
And from an intel standpoint, this is one piece of a puzzle to knowing what the satellites are sued for but I'd rather have the Chinese or whoever have to pay for it themselves.
Um, I already exposed your contention that the Chinese are relying on American hobbyists with binoculars to locate spy satellites as a Straw Man argument. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
But go ahead, go report to your communist friends. It's your right.
Honestly...if you can't even be bothered to accept the most elementary facts of the situation, you're not worth responding to.
Good day, sir.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
According to the PBS special on the MOL project, the very first spy satellites had a resolution of 3 inches. That was in the 70's. I don't think they've gotten any worse over time.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Is the whole rest of the world enemy to the US now?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
First of all we aren't all American here so we don't all quite understand this paranoia about the Chinese.
... Then there is also the little detail that they have militarily attacked us, they entered the Korean War to save the North Koreans when they were on the verge of defeat.
... They seem well poised to need a diversion and a scapegoat. We seem to be their number one candidate. The cold war only ended in the west, in the east the same people are still running things. Only their strategy has changed.
Well they are number one with respect to industrial and military espionage directed at us. They attempt to manipulate our electoral system with illegal campaign contributions. Their military is a bit aggressive with us, recall their ramming of our surveillance aircraft and the games played with the aircraft on the ground. Their currency manipulation to remain an extremely inexpensive exporter. The blind eye turned towards piracy and counterfeiting. Their involvement in the drug trade (precursor chemicals and opium exports, and money laundering). Their transfer of ballistic missile and nuclear technologies.
Now look at how they treat their own citizens. The growing unrest of these citizens. The unavoidable crisis coming as the countryside becomes even poorer, and the population becomes older overall,
It's also there because high-tech secrecy is something that only matters if you've got a high-tech enemy, and Russia's really not that relevant a threat these days. So if you're in the business of high-tech paranoia, the Chinese are the only other superpower around.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
To be effective, a space-based platform must be out there, visible by all and vulnerable to all.
In space nobody can hear you whine like a little girl.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Planespotting seems to be more of a European obsession than an American one; perhaps it's a leftover from WWII and the Cold War. But recently it's been a problem for the US government - planespotters tracked a bunch of those CIA "extraordinary rendition" kidnapping flights that the US pretended weren't happening.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
There is supposed to be an international registry of known satellites, although not all countries use it consistently, especially for military satellites.
Pretending that a spy satellite is a different kind of satellite probably wouldn't work too well. First, different kinds of satellites use different orbits. Even more importantly, non-military US satellites have lots of publicly available information. Non-military satellites are usually either scientific instruments or commercial assets. The paper trail on a "real" non-military satellite would be hard to reproduce in a convincing way.
LOL, where the hell did you get that "fact"? You do realise China's been nuclear-capable since the late '60s, right?
How many nukes China does or does not have is one of the world's most closely guarded secrets and frankly, unless you're some top level NSA operative, you have no fucking idea.
The *only* credible information about the Chinese nuclear arsenal was the HK leak which emerged in 1996, which indicated China had in excess of 2,300 warheads. Look it up. That was close to an order of magnitude above any prior western media report - I somehow doubt they have given up making them since then.
They have ICBMs easily capable of reaching anywhere in the US. Accuracy doesn't really matter with nukes. If you think 2,300 nuclear warheads - and that was over *10 years ago* - isn't a significant deterrent to the US, you're out of your god damn mind.
I do not claim to have any special knowledge but I do take an interest in geopolitics and have a few friends in (Australian) intelligence circles who would laugh in your face if you tried to claim the USA would automatically win in an all out war with China. They would say, and I'm inclined to agree, that the USA is more likely to automatically *lose* anything other than for-real "all out war" with China - by default - because the US government cannot take any action which leads to nuclear retaliation by China, but the Chinese Govt couldn't give a shit. You think the US is going to risk getting nuked to save Taiwan? LOL!
If you would like to see the previous discussion of the exact same article published on the same day(although published through a slightly different outlet), please see the discussion here.
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Any sort of free intellectual activity, following what interests you to see where it leads, makes authoritarians uneasy. Bad governments seek to exercise power by restricting information. Anyone who's just naturally curious and follows their bliss for the sheer joy of finding things out represents a danger to authoritarians.
It's not just political speech that's dangerous, it's anything that seeks truth that might not always align with propaganda.
That's why the freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution are so precious.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
How high an orbit do you propose to send these (low orbit) satellites into? ;-)
Seriously, the distance between the earth and the satellite is *tiny* compared to the distance of the earth from the sun. Thus, the satellite is practically always going to be in the earth shadow when on the "night side".
Only when it's in the sunrise or sunset part of its orbit will it be exposed to the sun - and only from an oblique angle, so unless you're planning to place the satellite in a geosynchronous orbit above the Lalamatine district of Ursa Minor Beta, you shouldn't have a problem.
.... satellites spy YOU!!! oh, wait..... nevermind.
I'd rather have the Chinese or whoever have to pay for it themselves.
Yeah, binoculars being so expensive and all. Oh, and manpower! I hear that comes at a premium in China!
You're being ridiculous. The fact is that China would have already found all of these satellites some time ago; they're a big country with a big intelligence agency just like ours, they can launch satellites so if they have any interest in finding satellites -- and they certainly do -- then they would have funded their own discovery effort. No hobbiest is discovering anything that China didn't already know.
The enemies of Democracy are
"The US military seems to think otherwise"
The US military is a whore for funding. I'd bet my first born child, my kidneys, and my soul that they would claim inferiority to the Girl Scouts if it got them a budget increase.
Double whoosh!
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Maybe, just maybe, the CIA shouldn't be placing big honking satellites they want to keep secret in very predictable, visible orbits.
Do human spies walk in the middle of a great big plaza in full sunshine on a predictable rotation if they want to stay hidden? Of course not-- they stick to the shadows, and they vary their route.
Spy satellites are going to be a relic of the past pretty soon anyway, as radar-invisible high-altitude drone planes are becoming the norm. A drone does not have a set flight path like an orbit, so the enemy can't predict where it's going to go even if it is spotted. It flies in the atmosphere, so the IR contrast with the rest of space is not there, and it's made of radar-absorbing materials that make it all but invisible. Add in some visual camouflage (like painting the underside the same color as the sky) and reduce the engine noise with cleverly shaped nozzles, and the enemy will never even know it's there. As the technology to fly these things gets better and the drones themselves get longer range, we might not even need spy satellites anymore.
Satellites with cameras will always be useful for Earth Science and other pursuits. But they might not be the best vector for obtaining covert high-altitude images of enemy territory anymore.
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Welcome to slashdot
Satellites are classified by orbits, and orbital maneuvering, more than by anything else (assuming you don't have direct knowledge of their mission). Different satellites have different orbits for a reason, to support their mission, and their orbits thus provide information about their missions. GPS satellites are in high 12 hour orbits, comm sats are in even higher, 24 hour, orbits, weather satellites are in sun-synchronous polar orbits, etc.
An example : if you have an orbit that passes over Baghdad, big deal, they all will do that sooner or later. If you have one that passes over Baghdad early to mid-morning, when the shadows are nice and long (generally regarded as the best time for surface photography), you may have something. If you have an object whose orbit is continually tweaked to keep passing over Baghdad during mid-morning every few days, and that also happens to be at the perigee of the orbit, then you almost certainly have something. If you look at where it passes over during later-afternoon on other orbits, you may start to gain insight into what other targets are of interest.
You can bet that every serious intelligence service on the planet does this. Amateurs have been doing it since the 1950's, so this is old, old news.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.