20 ms·

On Aug 2020, a US spy satellite moved close to a Chinese satellite, attempting to shadow it closely. It was caught by the Chinese and they maneuvered it to get

• b_emery 5y ago
  The intent, according to your link: "What we think is happening here is the development and experimentation and validation of what we call a tactic, technique and procedure, a TTP, to spoof an enemy’s network for SSA [space situational awareness]"
• judge2020 5y ago
  What could possibly be gained moving a satellite closer to another? Threatening to crash into it?
  • ddingus 5y ago
    About the only thing I can think of is potential access to narrow beam signals, and or leaking signals like snooping the satellite.
  • Eelongate 5y ago
    Getting a close look at it, and seeing what it can do. For instance, seeing if it's capable of precisely the evasive behavior that it apparently demonstrated.
  • jandrewrogers 5y ago
    Satellites have maneuvering thrusters with a very limited supply of fuel that will last just long enough for the designed mission-life of the satellite. Approaching the satellite will cause an unplanned maneuvering burn that effectively shortens the life of the satellite. For military satellites, proximity avoidance is fully autonomous. Therefore, you can design a satellite to chase other satellites to fuel exhaustion. I’ve been told this is an actual thing.
  • dhx 5y ago
    It could theoretically be many different things: - To assess what the satellite is capable of doing - To geolocate where signals from Earth are originating - To analyse patterns of multi-spot beam steering and bandwidth re-allocation - Test denial of service attacks - Test attacks where signals (or return signals) from Earth are manipulated (e.g. radar signatures faked) - Test attacks where signals (or return signals) from the satellite are manipulated - Eavesdrop on unprotected communications - To waste fuel on the target satellite as it maneuvers to avoid any of the above (even if nothing is attempted) - To make the other party second guess their technology for no good reason, lowering their confidence in its accuracy or usefulness I'm sure there are plenty of other possible explanations which could be added to this list.
• thrwaycnsznship 5y ago
  Your comment history is only comments defending the CCP.
  • 1_player 5y ago
    So? It's good that we have a "representative" of the CCP on this website then. It can't only be a US/NATO-aligned echo chamber. There's people from all over the world here. And more than two sides. Unless you are convinced that NATO are the good guys and CCP are the bad guys so they must be silenced, but I'd tell you that's the propaganda doing the thinking for you.
    • random314 5y ago
      TBF, there are no representatives of US/NATO on wechat.
      • 1_player 5y ago
        It's their loss. To be fair, they had to create a pretty massive and intrusive censorship system to prevent the widespread Western propaganda from entering their borders.
        • deleted 5y ago
          [deleted]
        • PoignardAzur 5y ago
          It's kind of creepy how you're implying that the fact the CCP created a massive and intrusive system for controlling what information has access to is a reaction to Western propaganda, and not, like, a textbook power grab that we've seen from every other totalitarian regime in the 20th century.
          • sudosysgen 5y ago
            You're seeing selection bias. The regimes that didn't implement strong censorship and the like invariably fell to hostile action. So of course it's going to become textbook, otherwise you end up like the CNT FAI, or Mossadegh, or Allende, or Sankara, etc... There is a pretty clear pattern that does who don't use censorship end up killed and those that do survive much longer.
• Terry_Roll 5y ago
  AFAIK, there is only one nation on this planet that has dropped a nuke on another country, that can put the rest of the world on edge. Besides you cant rush globalisation, cultural differences take time to evolve over generations, we haven't had the internet and other forms of communication for that many years in the scheme of things and there are still many people on this planet who have not even used or regularly use the internet. Whose culture is right? What is right in the eyes of the law? Are other satellites from other countries also coming under attack and they are not talking about it publicly, making the US seem a victim when many countries are victims but also aggressors? We are rarely in complete possession of the facts with any govt or big business or anyone else for that matter! C'est la vie On your point about something being unsustainable, when it comes to nukes, there is more to this than meets the eye, namely energy density. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#List_of_material_energy_densities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#List_of_materia... So whilst Project Fear keeps populations in awe and fear with a big dangerous firework aka a nuke, its nothing near, religions have been putting the fear of god into people claiming things like thunderstorms and lightening are acts of God! Sometimes its best to view the news as what are they trying to change here or get out of people. Still interesting none the less.
  • plandis 5y ago
    > Whose culture is right? What is right in the eyes of the law? Perhaps I’m the only one who feels this way based on the number of pro-China posts, but a Chinese hegemony would likely be a world of censorship and social credit. Compared to a flawed US democracy I’ll take the US democracy every time.
    • eunos 5y ago
      A Chinese hegemony world will be void of virtue signalling, moralizing and ideologization (esp in tech). Something that much preferable.
      • randomopining 5y ago
        Yeah only just the complete top down control over the people of the world. Us is imperfect and now we want an autocratic cabal to rule us with surveillance etc. What a joke.
• wolverine876 5y ago
  > This seems to constitute ill or malign intent. Why would you go and bother the property of another person? What is the intent behind this move? This question is hard to understand. You don't know why competing militaries would behave this way? The OP doesn't discuss trust; it informs you about such activity and the US militaries desire to counter it. Should they do nothing? Do you think China and Russia will stop if the US never acts in its own defense? Putin and Xi will suddenly decide we are all friends?
  • sudosysgen 5y ago
    Russia and China were willing to sign treaties with the US to prevent this. Historically they do abide by them. The US refused repeatedly because the US is fundamentally aiming for absolute dominance militarily.
    • wolverine876 5y ago
      Could you provide some evidence of this? I read a lot of foreign policy and have never heard of it. Russia and China behave the same way with many countries. Russia even controls parts of Ukraine and Georgia, and threatens Ukraine with invasion at the moment. China does it with Japan, the Philippines, and India, off the top of my head. The US never does it with their neighbors, and in fact many other countries welcome the US military to operate from their territory. The idea of Russia and China as innocent victims is quite a stretch!
      • sudosysgen 5y ago
        The US never does it with their neighbors because every single US neighbor is dominated and subservient, and the US already invaded more than it can use. The US absolutely did it to Cuba and various Latin American country and did it to Iraq, Syria, etc... The proposed treaty is called the PAROS treaty and was proposed by Russia in 2008 officially as a draft. The US never gave it any suit and was actively hostile to the subject. https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/proposed-prevention-arms-race-space-paros-treaty/ https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/pr... China is not threatening the invasion of India, the Philippines, or Japan. There are relatively small disputes of uninhabited territory, with the exception of Tawang with a population of 11 000 in India. You may as well say that the US is threatening to invade Canada because of disputes in the Arctic. I'm exaggerating, but only slightly. Yes, Russia is threatening Ukraine with invasion. But this is not coming in a vacuum. Russia, in a vacuum, has nothing to gain from invading Ukraine, far from it. The reason why Russia has designs for Russia is because: A) Ukraine has a border with Russia B) Ukraine discussed joining NATO C) NATO is attempting to encircle Russia D) Russia is very weak strategically on the Ukrainian and Georgian border E) NATO accession is impossible if there is a current conflict Therefore, Russia will be threatening Ukraine as long as Ukraine has ambitions of joining NATO. It's not because Russia wants Ukrainian resources, it's fundamentally because Russia is afraid of being flanked by a hostile foreign alliance. From their point of view this is perfectly rational, you see the US withdrawing from the ABM treaty and building dozens of weapons systems to try to disable nuclear deterrence, trying as much as possible to deny air defenses and gain the capability to strike deep within Russia, and setting up all these systems that threaten the balance of power right next to Russia, then trying to creep up to the most vulnerable positions of Russia. It's completely logical to seek a neutral buffer state, and if that's impossible, to create a natural obstacle. Throwing morals out of the window, it would be stupid to expect anything else. Russia never threatened Ukraine with invasion as long as Ukraine did not threaten to join NATO. If we want Russia to stop threatening Ukraine, then we have to stop the NATO threat of invading or blockading or otherwise crippling Russia militarily. The West would actually be pretty happy with more Russian adventures in Ukraine, it weakens their economy and scares off more countries into the EU camp, while giving excuses for sanctions and allows the US to take over some sectors. The point is, no one is an innocent victim. Russia and China are happy to de-escalate and avoid arms races, as is made evident by the low military spending in China and the efforts to pursue asymmetric competition in Russia. It's just that the United States doesn't want to avoid an arms race. The US wants an arms race in space, because Russia is poor and will struggle competing, and China is trying to avoid spending too much on their military right now. So this is a domain where the US is seeking to buildup a commanding lead, and because of this the US is very happy with an arms race. That is, so long as the Chinese and Russians do not exceed US expectations, which they have a nasty habit of doing right now, and that the US military budget is constantly increasing, which is the purpose of this headline. I think that the foreign policy you read is simply very biased towards the US and far from neutral. If you haven't heard about the 30 years of constant proposals by Russia to demilitarize space, I really don't know what to tell you. It's a massive oversight. The US loves arms races in space, always has, and this is not the first rodeo of the US avoiding armament treaties or withdrawing and trying to cause arms races. It's in the interest of the US so far.
• greeneggs 5y ago
  I don't see why looking at something closely is evidence of "malign intent." After all, the whole point of spy satellites is to look closely at other countries. You could say that it is risky, because there could be a collision, but that is quite different from malign intent, and this risk can be greatly mitigated.
  • sudosysgen 5y ago
    You can see very closely from a distance at satellites. If you're getting close it's probably to tamper or to signal the capability to do so.
    • bagels 5y ago
      They get close to take detailed pictures to understand capabilities.
      • throaway46546 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure satellites can take detailed photos from a distance.
        • bagels 5y ago
          It's certainly a lot more challenging when the relative velocities are high. You're precluded from using long exposures, and resolution will be limited. Getting close (similar orbits) is going to yield much better results, no?
  • GekkePrutser 5y ago
    Spying in itself is a military act. Sure everyone does it but that doesn't make it nicer.
    • nradov 5y ago
      The majority of spying including human intelligence, signals intelligence, and overhead imagery is performed by civilians not military.
• unobatbayar 5y ago
  Everything has two sides. Thanks to arms race, militarization; Human race advanced and will advance forward. Internet, computers, and so many other things we take for granted today are developed thanks to military ventures. Also, military technology is probably one of the coolest, tech-savvy things we will ever have.
  • rvense 5y ago
    There's absolutely nothing cool about the military. https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
    • deanCommie 5y ago
      When I was a kid I absolutely thought the military was cool. My kids books had fighter jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, and soldiers. And that was all awesome and badass. Now I have a toddler, and I think it's appalling that kids books include this machinery amongst the same pages as firetrucks, ambulances, passenger jets, and cruise ships. It's completely fucked up how we normalize weapons of war and indoctrinate our children into thinking they're cool. Look, I'm not naïve. There are parts of the world in active military conflict. If you are in Ukraine or South Korea, you have a very legitimate reason to be preparing to take up arms in a military conflict. But just because it might be "necessary", doesn't mean it's "cool". War means death. Unnecessary human death. Military technology are tools for maximizing unnecessary human death. As a secular humanist who believes we all have only one finite life to live, every unnecessary death is an unforgivable tragedy.
      • m0llusk 5y ago
        It is not completely fucked. You can only reliably retain that which you can defend. Fighting demands discipline and extremes of performance. Martial arts and dance play similar roles for children for good reason.
        • deanCommie 5y ago
• IncRnd 5y ago
  > This seems to constitute ill or malign intent. Why would you go and bother the property of another person? What is the intent behind this move? The people who make these decisions don't view these sorts of things from the same perspective as you do but from a geopolitical lense of military might. In the simplest case it could be information gathering or even just a distraction. One can say this is an immoral self-perpetuating cycle, but that is how it is today. This article, Space Command Hints at New Capabilities to Counter China, Russia, from Aug 21, 2020 may help shed light on that. [1] This article is from the same month but an Indian perspective [2] [1] https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/8/21/us-space-command-hints-at-new-capabilities-to-counter-china-russia https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/8/21/u... [2] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-attempting-to-militarise-space-as-it-seeks-to-modernise-its-military-power/articleshow/77851406.cms?from=mdr https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-atte... Edit: I have looked at your comment history, and you appear to be very defensive of CCP in every comment you make. I'm not sure your question here was asked in good faith.
  • DicIfTEx 5y ago
    > The people who make these decisions don't view these sorts of things from the same perspective as you do but from a geopolitical lense of military might. For an interesting read on this effect, I'd recommend Lionel Fatton's 2016 article “The impotence of conventional arms control: why do international regimes fail when they are most needed?”[0] (if you can access it). [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13523260.2016.1187952 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13523260.2016.11...
• wildoats 5y ago
  Space is like international waters and I predict similar hijinks in coming years unfortunately. Satellites harassing with close passes, blocking antennas, maybe even poking each other. "Damn ye Russian satellites!" The politicians bellow as they shake their fists at the cosmos.
• AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  I'm going to offer a lone hope: militarization of space may fund the practical colonization of space. I personally wouldn't mind the entirety of the surface navy fleet budget being redirected to space armaments and developments budgets. I would say off the top of my head that if the US had a well developed moon base, then it could effectively attack most satellites in earth orbit and rockets attempting to reach orbit. No other strategic point in near earth space can provide a base for manufacturing, storage, launch , refuelling, etc of earth orbit superiority. Right now the military has a rare window: if Starship enables a 10x payload advantage, that is a 10x throughput advantage for getting moon base up and running. Of course owning the moon would mean even more dominance of the rest of the solar system. You can launch Orion pulse nuclear craft from the Moon pretty easily for practical planetary ships of very very large size (1 million tons)
  • eesmith 5y ago
    Would militarization of the oceans fund the practical colonization of the oceans? What about the militarization of Antarctica? > then it could effectively attack most satellites in earth orbit and rockets attempting to reach orbit This is the High Ground thesis, dating back to the 1950s (see https://thespacereview.com/article/396/1 https://thespacereview.com/article/396/1 and http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/he-who-controls-moon-controls-earth-1958.html http://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2015/08/he-who-contro... ). It takes a couple of days to get from the Moon to the Earth. A Moon base could not prevent rockets from reaching orbit. I'm pretty sure the US, and likely also Russia, can already effectively attack most satellites in earth orbit, so if that's the goal, a Moon base seems needless.
    • AtlasBarfed 5y ago
      The naval analogy applies especially in space: any weapon you put on a ship you can build one 10x bigger on the shore. The shore in this case is the moon. In the case of rocket interception from the moon, you put a big laser on the moon, not complicated. Could you do that from the Earth? Atmosphere, etc. As for historical precedent for military dominance presaging development, it isn't really a good example, but it's the period of colonialism in Europe. Countries in europe raced to build economic exploitation empires elsewhere in the world, let by advanced militarization of the seas.
• mrjin 5y ago
  You want an enemy, you get an enemy, maybe enemies. For those warlords, no enemies not profits.
• stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Is it you job to defend the CCP? I sure sense a theme here.