10 ms·

As noted by others, a.) it really looks like a Draken, an old Swedish supersonic jet fighter used by contractors and the National Test Pilot School for a variet

As noted by others, a.) it really looks like a Draken, an old Swedish supersonic jet fighter used by contractors and the National Test Pilot School for a variety of roles, and b.) nothing like this ever gets "caught out" by a satellite unless it's the result of a crash (recall the panic over an F-117 going down decades ago because it 'pancaked' in a manner that could reveal its shape). I have had acquaintances and a grad school mentor that worked on projects out at the remote test site (among other facilities). They had very, very good situational awareness about what was overhead and when, and established & practiced procedures on sanitizing things before anything got to where it could image the site. We also have decades of lessons-learned on things like heat signatures where airplanes were parked, such that their shape could be divined even when the test article was safely ensconced in a hanger. We also practiced (and I would assume still practice) a variety of denial & deception activities to foil all manner of collectors and confuse the opposition, from RF to visual to various MASINT measures. One example is the Wet Site at China Lake, which was covertly built to assess the RCS of various maritime platforms (most famously Sea Shadow). When Soviet birds went overhead the radar dishes were pointed in a different direction and radiating on misleading frequences. The dirt spoil and vehicle tracks from the concealed construction of the test facility's saltwater pond was hidden like the tunnels in The Great Escape. Cool stuff.

birdyrooster 5y ago
divined ensconced
sjtindell 5y ago
Do we also have experience seeding forums with comments like yours after mistakes are made? Just kidding…sort of.
- jmnicolas 5y ago
  What would be the point? We (HN) could be tricked, but certainly not foreign state analysts. Whatever civilians believe isn't of great importance.
  - aaron695 5y ago
  - aa-jv 5y ago
    .. until the civilians demand their politicians' heads roll in the aisles for having funded something the citizens aren't cool with. We can't say, though, until the secrets are uncovered.
    - Tuna-Fish 5y ago
      I doubt any civilians would care that much for a 6th-gen demonstrator, so that point is moot in this case.
      - aa-jv 5y ago
        .. especially in light of the failing infrastructure and underfunded schools in their area ..
  - lostlogin 5y ago
    > We (HN) could be tricked, but certainly not foreign state analysts You have a high opinion of state analysts. There have been notable failures in the last few decades, and it’s hard to believe they were all intentional failures.
    - jmnicolas 5y ago
      They're professionals, they have been trained, they can access resources that we don't and they can brainstorm with other colleagues. Statistically they're much less likely to be wrong than us. Now, I also understand that nobody is perfect.
paulmd 5y ago
The general profile of the aircraft also resembles the F-16XL, which the USAF/NASA do periodically pull out for various reasons. It has that same sort of delta profile - which is of course shared with many other aircraft. (the F-16XL is a very interesting story and would have been an interesting airframe to explore! It's sort of like the relationship between the F-15E and the F-15, a heavier fighter-bomber airframe built on the F-16 airframe.)
- runjake 5y ago
  The F-16XL is mostly white and is housed at Edwards (last I knew) and there are detachment people there for testing. Can't think of a good reason that F-16XL would be at Groom. But people are over-thinking it here. There's not enough information in the photo to determine (other than the aircraft isn't white).
  - invalidator 5y ago
    > There's not enough information in the photo to determine There's enough that I can say it's not an F-16XL. The mystery aircraft is much larger - 20 meters long x 15 meters wingspan, vs the F-16XL at 16m x 10m.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> nothing like this ever gets "caught out" by a satellite unless it's the result of a crash (recall the panic over an F-117 going down decades ago because it 'pancaked' in a manner that could reveal its shape) With the proliferation of private imaging satellites in the last decade, this might be less doable than it used to be.
- Retric 5y ago
  Worst case the night is still going to be very effective here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mesh 5y ago
    Not really anymore. Synthetic-aperture radar is making the Earth’s surface watchable 24/7 https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/01/27/synthetic-aperture-radar-is-making-the-earths-surface-watchable-24/7 https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/01/27/sy...
    - Retric 5y ago
      I would assume stealth aircraft are rather hard to clearly image with a Synthetic-aperture radar satellite. But the point was more about cutting down on the number of satellites you need to worry about. You can’t exactly hide the fact a satellite is sending out radar for imaging.
      - __turbobrew__ 5y ago
        If the surrounding area where the plane is parked is coherent (which pavement and concrete usually is) then you will see an incoherent region in the SAR imagery where the plane resides which would be quite suspicious.
      - beerandt 5y ago
        None of that is true. Stealth for jets isn't primarily designed for plan view. (Referring to radar cross section isn't just a generic use of the term for "detectable area of return".) Even if it was stealthy from above, it would be easy to identify and defeat, especially on the ground: just look for the plane-shaped area without a ground return. Or separately, a pair of co-orbital following satellites would entirely defeat all (publicly known) radar stealth (with the transmitter offset from the receiver). The US admittedly has similar pairs of these for "scientific purposes". I assume the military/IC have access or have their own. And synthetic aperture radar can be disguised such that its nearly indistinguishable from background noise. It's one of the features that makes it superior to old school dish radar. That's not even a secret. It's currently deployed throughout the military: ground, sea, and air. Space based platforms probably had it first.
mike_d 5y ago
> We also practiced (and I would assume still practice) a variety of denial & deception activities At Nellis I saw one of these temporary shelters for sensitive aircraft with an overhead image of a different aircraft printed on the top. If the centerline didn't extend under the covering, I'd be sure that is what we are looking at in the enhanced photo.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > If the centerline didn't extend under the covering, I'd be sure that is what we are looking at in the enhanced photo. Why wouldn't they paint such a detail on it? If they went to the lengths of painting the aircraft (as opposed to just covering it) then presumably they want it to be credible. I'm no expert in this stuff but to me the shadow of the plane matches other shadows pretty well, and also the shadow off the side of the hangar is light and looks like the rib structure, rather than solid so the roof is probably not solid. That seems much harder to fake. You can also see the roof beams over the plane. Although that kind of detail could be painted on or come through the canvass if it wasn't perfectly tight.
  - mike_d 5y ago
    > Why wouldn't they paint such a detail on it? The shelters are mobile. It wouldn't be practical to paint the runway/taxiway lines on it, and I don't know how you'd get them to line up from different angles.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > I don't know how you'd get them to line up from different angles E-ink.
      - errcorrectcode 5y ago
        E-ink wouldn't line-up with anything without knowing there is only one observer and the coordinates of that observer. It would be better, cheaper, and simpler to have an inflatable replica of whatever it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank
aaron695 5y ago
bhawks 5y ago
While we may have evolved good practices to prevent satellite based espionage, it was just last September when a TikTok video revealed some secret aircraft tech while on base. https://warisboring.com/secret-military-aircraft-possibly-exposed-on-tiktok/ https://warisboring.com/secret-military-aircraft-possibly-ex...
- JKCalhoun 5y ago
  Allegedly.
- Maursault 5y ago
  That is probably not a functional aircraft but instead a mounted and scaled mockup for aerodynamic tests, and it is probably upside down.
tpmx 5y ago
Tangential, sorry. In the 70s/80s I grew up ~1.5 km from a Swedish Air Force Base's runway (located in the middle of nowhere, near our tiny "city" of 5k people) equipped first with Draken and later Viggen aircraft. Our kitchen was ideal for watching takeoffs. It was a very common thing to see a few them take off in the morning during breakfast just before going off to school. Especially Draken made such a glorious sound when taking off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7L7_3cwptk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7L7_3cwptk (remind yourself that this is a 1955-1959 aircraft when you see it taking off)
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It really needs those little wheels at the end of the fuselage to avoid a tailstrike.
  - tpmx 5y ago
    Looks like it has them. You can see them being "folded in" at 1m07s.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Yes, I was commenting on those. The fact that it has them and really needs them. Those things aren't optional, if you look at the take-off you can see them keep the tail safe.
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  In the early 00's when on holiday, something made me look up at the clear blue sky and I saw what can best be described as a control which looked like button mushrooms laid top to bottom one after the other. Fast forward to now and its likely I saw the contrail of an aircraft with a scramjet This is like what I saw but there was a gap between each button mushroom. https://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2712a44ce6c.jpg https://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2712a44ce6c.... Some call it doughnuts on ropes which might be something called pulse detonation?
berkut 5y ago
Assuming the size estimates are accurate in the article, the Draken is smaller than the mystery aircraft... Draken: 15.35 metres long, 9.42 metres wide. Mystery aircraft: 19.8 metres long, 15.2 metres wide.
- the_af 5y ago
  The shape is exactly a Draken though. Not similar, but equal. Google images of the Draken, there's no other possible match. I think in this case the size estimates must be wrong.
  - berkut 5y ago
    Given the low resolution and thus lack of detail, it's as close to an F16 Cranked Arrow shape as it is to a Draken IMO... And the size of an F-16 and Draken are very similar, so if the size estimates are wrong, it could as easily be an F-16 XL...
    - the_af 5y ago
      You are right. I wasn't familiar with the F-16 XL :)
lumost 5y ago
While the shape is somewhat similar to a draken or an f-16xl with a cranked delta wing. There doesn't appear to be a vertical stabilizer. It's possible that this is an existing aircraft modified to test alternate aerodynamic configurations similar to the F-15 STOL. Alternately it could be a flight-ready version of one of the tailless NGAD designs.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken
trhway 5y ago
> it really looks like a Draken proportions are different https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_SK_35C_Draken_(DragonKite)_SE-DXP810.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_SK_35C_Draken_(Drago... and if anything we have various candidates like this one https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42480/mysterious-stealthy-shape-that-resembles-future-fighter-concepts-spotted-at-radar-test-range https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42480/mysterious-steal... >nothing like this ever gets "caught out" by a satellite there is nothing secret in a 3m resolution image of a new gen fighter given that its shape looks in that resolution like any other modern aerial development platform.
markwkw 5y ago
As usual when attempting perfect op-sec, this probably works 364 days of the year and then someone does the equivalent of taking a selfie with a sensitive object in the background and shares it on instagram
krisoft 5y ago
> When Soviet birds went overhead the radar dishes were pointed in a different direction and radiating on misleading frequences. That kinda assumes that there are gaps in the coverage of surveilance. That might have been practically true, but what makes it so? Couldn’t an adversary in response to such measures park their surveilance satelites in a geostat or near-geostat orbit? Or step up the number of surveilance sats such that they barelly leave any gaps?
- skhr0680 5y ago
  https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ This is what the Earth looks like from a geostationary orbit
  - krisoft 5y ago
    Nice picture, but what are you saying with it? The image you linked were made by a weather monitoring satelite. It was optimised to capture a wide are of the globe. This is clearly not the type of lens you would use to surveil military activity. It is not even the right modality to capture radar signals.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      Geostationary orbit is ~36000 km above the surface. Optical surveillance satellites work at altitudes of 200-400 km and already need Hubble-like mirror sizes to achieve the needed resolution. A geostationary satellite with a similar resolution is simply not possible to build and launch in this age. Geostationary also means that half the time you're looking at darkness.
      - krisoft 5y ago
        Thank you very much for the answer. (both you and all the other people) > A geostationary satellite with a similar resolution is simply not possible to build and launch in this age. I think I will have to read up on that specifically more. I was aware how far GEO is, but I don't understand what makes the optics impossible. (Clearly it is as you say, all the sources agree with you.) Thank you!
varjag 5y ago
True. This is no mistake but a reveal event.
Sosh101 5y ago
Also a bit like the F16XL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL
traceroute66 5y ago
> They had very, very good situational awareness about what was overhead and when, and established & practiced procedures on sanitizing things before anything got to where it could image the site. Sure, but surely that was then and now is now. Surely in today's world, you are increasingly fighting a loosing battle if you think you can play whack-a-mole with things passing overhead ? With every day, week and year that passes, more and more things get launched into space by both friend and foe. If you continue operating on the premise that you think you can hide every time a non-national satellite passes overhead then surely you are only playing a loosing game where eventually you can't get any work done because you're hiding all the time from birds overhead ? A bit like checkmate in chess. Eventually the king is surrounded and can't go anywhere without being intercepted.
- rkangel 5y ago
  I think that is probably true, but if they are going to get caught out it's likely to be an LEO fast moving object from Russia that they've lost track of rather than a commercial imagery platform that isn't trying to hide.
- neodon 5y ago
  I agree, and even with the most sophisticated ways of tracking incoming overhead phenomena, worst case they'd still have only a small window of time to hide everything under the bed. And, you know, press the button that makes all the foundations flip to hide the buildings underground and reveal painted images of the desert and huge burning piles of alien corpses. Also, it's "lose" x2 (sorry, the wrong word makes it hard to read). I'll remove this line if you could fix please.
  - traceroute66 5y ago
    > Also, it's "lose" x2 (sorry, the wrong word makes it hard to read). I'll remove this line if you could fix please. I extend my profuse apologies for my keyboard fat fingers. Regrettably there seems to be a time-delay on edits on HN, I no longer have an edit link to use.

birdyrooster 5y ago

divined ensconced

sjtindell 5y ago

Do we also have experience seeding forums with comments like yours after mistakes are made? Just kidding…sort of.

jmnicolas 5y ago
What would be the point? We (HN) could be tricked, but certainly not foreign state analysts. Whatever civilians believe isn't of great importance.
- aaron695 5y ago
- aa-jv 5y ago
  .. until the civilians demand their politicians' heads roll in the aisles for having funded something the citizens aren't cool with. We can't say, though, until the secrets are uncovered.
  - Tuna-Fish 5y ago
    I doubt any civilians would care that much for a 6th-gen demonstrator, so that point is moot in this case.
    - aa-jv 5y ago
      .. especially in light of the failing infrastructure and underfunded schools in their area ..
- lostlogin 5y ago
  > We (HN) could be tricked, but certainly not foreign state analysts You have a high opinion of state analysts. There have been notable failures in the last few decades, and it’s hard to believe they were all intentional failures.
  - jmnicolas 5y ago
    They're professionals, they have been trained, they can access resources that we don't and they can brainstorm with other colleagues. Statistically they're much less likely to be wrong than us. Now, I also understand that nobody is perfect.

paulmd 5y ago

The general profile of the aircraft also resembles the F-16XL, which the USAF/NASA do periodically pull out for various reasons. It has that same sort of delta profile - which is of course shared with many other aircraft. (the F-16XL is a very interesting story and would have been an interesting airframe to explore! It's sort of like the relationship between the F-15E and the F-15, a heavier fighter-bomber airframe built on the F-16 airframe.)

runjake 5y ago
The F-16XL is mostly white and is housed at Edwards (last I knew) and there are detachment people there for testing. Can't think of a good reason that F-16XL would be at Groom. But people are over-thinking it here. There's not enough information in the photo to determine (other than the aircraft isn't white).
- invalidator 5y ago
  > There's not enough information in the photo to determine There's enough that I can say it's not an F-16XL. The mystery aircraft is much larger - 20 meters long x 15 meters wingspan, vs the F-16XL at 16m x 10m.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> nothing like this ever gets "caught out" by a satellite unless it's the result of a crash (recall the panic over an F-117 going down decades ago because it 'pancaked' in a manner that could reveal its shape) With the proliferation of private imaging satellites in the last decade, this might be less doable than it used to be.

Retric 5y ago
Worst case the night is still going to be very effective here.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mesh 5y ago
  Not really anymore. Synthetic-aperture radar is making the Earth’s surface watchable 24/7 https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/01/27/synthetic-aperture-radar-is-making-the-earths-surface-watchable-24/7 https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2022/01/27/sy...
  - Retric 5y ago
    I would assume stealth aircraft are rather hard to clearly image with a Synthetic-aperture radar satellite. But the point was more about cutting down on the number of satellites you need to worry about. You can’t exactly hide the fact a satellite is sending out radar for imaging.
    - __turbobrew__ 5y ago
      If the surrounding area where the plane is parked is coherent (which pavement and concrete usually is) then you will see an incoherent region in the SAR imagery where the plane resides which would be quite suspicious.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      None of that is true. Stealth for jets isn't primarily designed for plan view. (Referring to radar cross section isn't just a generic use of the term for "detectable area of return".) Even if it was stealthy from above, it would be easy to identify and defeat, especially on the ground: just look for the plane-shaped area without a ground return. Or separately, a pair of co-orbital following satellites would entirely defeat all (publicly known) radar stealth (with the transmitter offset from the receiver). The US admittedly has similar pairs of these for "scientific purposes". I assume the military/IC have access or have their own. And synthetic aperture radar can be disguised such that its nearly indistinguishable from background noise. It's one of the features that makes it superior to old school dish radar. That's not even a secret. It's currently deployed throughout the military: ground, sea, and air. Space based platforms probably had it first.

mike_d 5y ago

> We also practiced (and I would assume still practice) a variety of denial & deception activities At Nellis I saw one of these temporary shelters for sensitive aircraft with an overhead image of a different aircraft printed on the top. If the centerline didn't extend under the covering, I'd be sure that is what we are looking at in the enhanced photo.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> If the centerline didn't extend under the covering, I'd be sure that is what we are looking at in the enhanced photo. Why wouldn't they paint such a detail on it? If they went to the lengths of painting the aircraft (as opposed to just covering it) then presumably they want it to be credible. I'm no expert in this stuff but to me the shadow of the plane matches other shadows pretty well, and also the shadow off the side of the hangar is light and looks like the rib structure, rather than solid so the roof is probably not solid. That seems much harder to fake. You can also see the roof beams over the plane. Although that kind of detail could be painted on or come through the canvass if it wasn't perfectly tight.
- mike_d 5y ago
  > Why wouldn't they paint such a detail on it? The shelters are mobile. It wouldn't be practical to paint the runway/taxiway lines on it, and I don't know how you'd get them to line up from different angles.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > I don't know how you'd get them to line up from different angles E-ink.
    - errcorrectcode 5y ago
      E-ink wouldn't line-up with anything without knowing there is only one observer and the coordinates of that observer. It would be better, cheaper, and simpler to have an inflatable replica of whatever it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dummy_tank

aaron695 5y ago

bhawks 5y ago

While we may have evolved good practices to prevent satellite based espionage, it was just last September when a TikTok video revealed some secret aircraft tech while on base. https://warisboring.com/secret-military-aircraft-possibly-exposed-on-tiktok/ https://warisboring.com/secret-military-aircraft-possibly-ex...

JKCalhoun 5y ago
Allegedly.
Maursault 5y ago
That is probably not a functional aircraft but instead a mounted and scaled mockup for aerodynamic tests, and it is probably upside down.

tpmx 5y ago

Tangential, sorry. In the 70s/80s I grew up ~1.5 km from a Swedish Air Force Base's runway (located in the middle of nowhere, near our tiny "city" of 5k people) equipped first with Draken and later Viggen aircraft. Our kitchen was ideal for watching takeoffs. It was a very common thing to see a few them take off in the morning during breakfast just before going off to school. Especially Draken made such a glorious sound when taking off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7L7_3cwptk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7L7_3cwptk (remind yourself that this is a 1955-1959 aircraft when you see it taking off)

jacquesm 5y ago
It really needs those little wheels at the end of the fuselage to avoid a tailstrike.
- tpmx 5y ago
  Looks like it has them. You can see them being "folded in" at 1m07s.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Yes, I was commenting on those. The fact that it has them and really needs them. Those things aren't optional, if you look at the take-off you can see them keep the tail safe.
Terry_Roll 5y ago
In the early 00's when on holiday, something made me look up at the clear blue sky and I saw what can best be described as a control which looked like button mushrooms laid top to bottom one after the other. Fast forward to now and its likely I saw the contrail of an aircraft with a scramjet This is like what I saw but there was a gap between each button mushroom. https://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2712a44ce6c.jpg https://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a2712a44ce6c.... Some call it doughnuts on ropes which might be something called pulse detonation?

berkut 5y ago

Assuming the size estimates are accurate in the article, the Draken is smaller than the mystery aircraft... Draken: 15.35 metres long, 9.42 metres wide. Mystery aircraft: 19.8 metres long, 15.2 metres wide.

the_af 5y ago
The shape is exactly a Draken though. Not similar, but equal. Google images of the Draken, there's no other possible match. I think in this case the size estimates must be wrong.
- berkut 5y ago
  Given the low resolution and thus lack of detail, it's as close to an F16 Cranked Arrow shape as it is to a Draken IMO... And the size of an F-16 and Draken are very similar, so if the size estimates are wrong, it could as easily be an F-16 XL...
  - the_af 5y ago
    You are right. I wasn't familiar with the F-16 XL :)

lumost 5y ago

While the shape is somewhat similar to a draken or an f-16xl with a cranked delta wing. There doesn't appear to be a vertical stabilizer. It's possible that this is an existing aircraft modified to test alternate aerodynamic configurations similar to the F-15 STOL. Alternately it could be a flight-ready version of one of the tailless NGAD designs.

jjtheblunt 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_35_Draken

trhway 5y ago

> it really looks like a Draken proportions are different https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_SK_35C_Draken_(DragonKite)_SE-DXP810.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saab_SK_35C_Draken_(Drago... and if anything we have various candidates like this one https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42480/mysterious-stealthy-shape-that-resembles-future-fighter-concepts-spotted-at-radar-test-range https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42480/mysterious-steal... >nothing like this ever gets "caught out" by a satellite there is nothing secret in a 3m resolution image of a new gen fighter given that its shape looks in that resolution like any other modern aerial development platform.

markwkw 5y ago

As usual when attempting perfect op-sec, this probably works 364 days of the year and then someone does the equivalent of taking a selfie with a sensitive object in the background and shares it on instagram

krisoft 5y ago

> When Soviet birds went overhead the radar dishes were pointed in a different direction and radiating on misleading frequences. That kinda assumes that there are gaps in the coverage of surveilance. That might have been practically true, but what makes it so? Couldn’t an adversary in response to such measures park their surveilance satelites in a geostat or near-geostat orbit? Or step up the number of surveilance sats such that they barelly leave any gaps?

skhr0680 5y ago
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ This is what the Earth looks like from a geostationary orbit
- krisoft 5y ago
  Nice picture, but what are you saying with it? The image you linked were made by a weather monitoring satelite. It was optimised to capture a wide are of the globe. This is clearly not the type of lens you would use to surveil military activity. It is not even the right modality to capture radar signals.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    Geostationary orbit is ~36000 km above the surface. Optical surveillance satellites work at altitudes of 200-400 km and already need Hubble-like mirror sizes to achieve the needed resolution. A geostationary satellite with a similar resolution is simply not possible to build and launch in this age. Geostationary also means that half the time you're looking at darkness.
    - krisoft 5y ago
      Thank you very much for the answer. (both you and all the other people) > A geostationary satellite with a similar resolution is simply not possible to build and launch in this age. I think I will have to read up on that specifically more. I was aware how far GEO is, but I don't understand what makes the optics impossible. (Clearly it is as you say, all the sources agree with you.) Thank you!

varjag 5y ago

True. This is no mistake but a reveal event.

Sosh101 5y ago

Also a bit like the F16XL - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16XL

traceroute66 5y ago

> They had very, very good situational awareness about what was overhead and when, and established & practiced procedures on sanitizing things before anything got to where it could image the site. Sure, but surely that was then and now is now. Surely in today's world, you are increasingly fighting a loosing battle if you think you can play whack-a-mole with things passing overhead ? With every day, week and year that passes, more and more things get launched into space by both friend and foe. If you continue operating on the premise that you think you can hide every time a non-national satellite passes overhead then surely you are only playing a loosing game where eventually you can't get any work done because you're hiding all the time from birds overhead ? A bit like checkmate in chess. Eventually the king is surrounded and can't go anywhere without being intercepted.

rkangel 5y ago
I think that is probably true, but if they are going to get caught out it's likely to be an LEO fast moving object from Russia that they've lost track of rather than a commercial imagery platform that isn't trying to hide.
neodon 5y ago
I agree, and even with the most sophisticated ways of tracking incoming overhead phenomena, worst case they'd still have only a small window of time to hide everything under the bed. And, you know, press the button that makes all the foundations flip to hide the buildings underground and reveal painted images of the desert and huge burning piles of alien corpses. Also, it's "lose" x2 (sorry, the wrong word makes it hard to read). I'll remove this line if you could fix please.
- traceroute66 5y ago
  > Also, it's "lose" x2 (sorry, the wrong word makes it hard to read). I'll remove this line if you could fix please. I extend my profuse apologies for my keyboard fat fingers. Regrettably there seems to be a time-delay on edits on HN, I no longer have an edit link to use.