4 ms·

You could also install cameras pointing back towards Earth and basically have 24/7 coverage of everyone's movements similar to what Darpa's ARGUS-IS[1](2013) do

by cronix 5y ago

You could also install cameras pointing back towards Earth and basically have 24/7 coverage of everyone's movements similar to what Darpa's ARGUS-IS[1](2013) does except using a global network of satellites instead of drones and build the greatest video surveillance platform on the planet. Instead of covering a city for a limited time with a drone stuffed with an array of off the shelf cell phone cameras, you could have "persistent stare" for the entire planet. I wonder if the NSA has thought about that. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGxNyaXfJsA

echelon 5y ago
I can't imagine that the NSA hasn't already had several talks with Musk.
Retric 5y ago
Starlink satellites are tiny which limits how much you can slip in undetected. You can’t get anything close to useful resolution from something like a cellphone camera at those altitudes. Maximum resolution really requires something the size of Hubble.
- Teever 5y ago
  I was under the impression that spy satellites are put into much higher orbits to increase their lifespan but necessitating larger optical systems. One of the advantages of a LEO based surveillance system is that the optics could be smaller at the cost of requiring more satellites with shorter life span.
  - Retric 5y ago
    ~500km is still a common NRO orbit, and presumably that’s to take the highest resolution images possible. The earliest spy satellites where under 150km and had extremely short lifespans. By comparison the commercial KOMPSAT-3 can provide 0.7m b/w images and 2.8m multispectral images from a 980kg satellite at 685 km and a multi year lifespan, I doubt classified satellites are that much better than that. Some NRO satellites are sent to geostationary orbit, presumably for other missions. So, it really depends on the goals as not all satellites are designed for ground imaging.
bberenberg 5y ago
You may be interested to know about Planet Labs https://www.planet.com/ https://www.planet.com/
staplers 5y ago
Wouldn't you basically already have that telemetry if you tracked wifi/cell signals. I imagine that tech is already installed on starlink sats. I haven't done much research on them though.
sockpuppet69 5y ago

by cronix 5y ago

echelon 5y ago

I can't imagine that the NSA hasn't already had several talks with Musk.

Retric 5y ago

Starlink satellites are tiny which limits how much you can slip in undetected. You can’t get anything close to useful resolution from something like a cellphone camera at those altitudes. Maximum resolution really requires something the size of Hubble.

Teever 5y ago
I was under the impression that spy satellites are put into much higher orbits to increase their lifespan but necessitating larger optical systems. One of the advantages of a LEO based surveillance system is that the optics could be smaller at the cost of requiring more satellites with shorter life span.
- Retric 5y ago
  ~500km is still a common NRO orbit, and presumably that’s to take the highest resolution images possible. The earliest spy satellites where under 150km and had extremely short lifespans. By comparison the commercial KOMPSAT-3 can provide 0.7m b/w images and 2.8m multispectral images from a 980kg satellite at 685 km and a multi year lifespan, I doubt classified satellites are that much better than that. Some NRO satellites are sent to geostationary orbit, presumably for other missions. So, it really depends on the goals as not all satellites are designed for ground imaging.

bberenberg 5y ago

You may be interested to know about Planet Labs https://www.planet.com/ https://www.planet.com/

staplers 5y ago

Wouldn't you basically already have that telemetry if you tracked wifi/cell signals. I imagine that tech is already installed on starlink sats. I haven't done much research on them though.

sockpuppet69 5y ago