4 ms·

When a Telescope Is a National-Security Risk

36 points by throw0101d 2y ago

throw0101d 2y ago
https://archive.is/jhMBD https://archive.is/jhMBD https://archive.today/jhMBD https://archive.today/jhMBD https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/12/vera-rubin-telescope-spy-satellite/680814/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archi...
Salmonfisher11 2y ago
There are enough space radars so that you can passively listen to the reflections of almost every satellite. Just pointing to the Graves Radar in France whose frequency and beam pattern is precisely known to the public.
blockedepistem 2y ago
And people sound incredulous when they hear the likes of Shellenberger’s Public substack asserting that Uncle Sam has been sequestering UAP imagery away from scientific study. We’re going to be learning what a joke the past century of government transparency has been, and it’s not going to be a pleasant feeling.
- esbranson 2y ago
  The notion that this policy is to hide spy satellites from world or even regional powers is laughable.
nradov 2y ago
Some of the language in this article is a bit odd, and appears to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of satellites and orbital mechanics. The orbits of spy satellites are hardly "irregular", nor can they "shift direction often". Orbits are exactly regular, by definition. Orbital parameter changes do happen but are rare. Even the largest spy satellites have only very limited ΔV capability. And there are no stealth satellites: it's impossible to hide any large object in orbit. Amateur astronomers have identified the orbital parameters of all spy satellites. The secret part about spy satellites is not their location but rather their payload. I suspect the reason the government wants to censor images is that a high-resolution picture could allow an adversary to infer a lot about payloads including imaging resolution, communications frequencies, power budget, and possibly even defensive systems.
- scrubs 2y ago
  Well put.
- uticus 2y ago
  > Orbits are exactly regular, by definition. Orbital parameter changes do happen but are rare. How does that match up with [0]? "... a satellite that stalks other satellites, started another relocation move on July 22, leaving its position near ASTRA 4A at longitude 4.8 E and drifting west at 0.9 degrees per day." Do they make this up, or do you and I have a vastly different understanding of "irregular"? [0] https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-russian-sigint-satellite-luch-olymp.html?m=1 https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-russian-sigint-...
  - nradov 2y ago
    It's not made up. The satellite made some minor orbital parameter changes but at all times it was in a regular orbit. It wasn't making irregular course changes in the way that an airplane might.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    That is interesting. I wonder how many stalking maneuvers it can do before it depletes it's propellant/reaction mass.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  So that’s part of the article is just wrong? It basically says the telescope can take high res pictures of secret satellites, but they have to wait 3 days to release them. It claims after 3 days, nobody will know where they are “now.” That seems to suggest the concern is location, not appearance. It also suggests the locations aren’t predictable.
  - nradov 2y ago
    I think that part of the article may be confused, the result of a misunderstanding or a translation error. We're getting secondhand information from an astronomer who isn't a native English speaker filtered through some random journalist.
sinuhe69 2y ago
A telescope that able to see billion light years away can also see satellites in close earth orbits? How incredible is that! How can it shift and change its focus so dramatically? Would not a flyby satellite cover the entire view field of the telescope?
- adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
  focus isn't an issue because they're both (basically) at infinity. fov isn't an issue because a satellite is much smaller than a galaxy

36 points by throw0101d 2y ago

https://archive.is/jhMBD https://archive.is/jhMBD https://archive.today/jhMBD https://archive.today/jhMBD https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/12/vera-rubin-telescope-spy-satellite/680814/ https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archi...

Salmonfisher11 2y ago

There are enough space radars so that you can passively listen to the reflections of almost every satellite. Just pointing to the Graves Radar in France whose frequency and beam pattern is precisely known to the public.

blockedepistem 2y ago

And people sound incredulous when they hear the likes of Shellenberger’s Public substack asserting that Uncle Sam has been sequestering UAP imagery away from scientific study. We’re going to be learning what a joke the past century of government transparency has been, and it’s not going to be a pleasant feeling.

esbranson 2y ago
The notion that this policy is to hide spy satellites from world or even regional powers is laughable.

nradov 2y ago

Some of the language in this article is a bit odd, and appears to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of satellites and orbital mechanics. The orbits of spy satellites are hardly "irregular", nor can they "shift direction often". Orbits are exactly regular, by definition. Orbital parameter changes do happen but are rare. Even the largest spy satellites have only very limited ΔV capability. And there are no stealth satellites: it's impossible to hide any large object in orbit. Amateur astronomers have identified the orbital parameters of all spy satellites. The secret part about spy satellites is not their location but rather their payload. I suspect the reason the government wants to censor images is that a high-resolution picture could allow an adversary to infer a lot about payloads including imaging resolution, communications frequencies, power budget, and possibly even defensive systems.

scrubs 2y ago
Well put.
uticus 2y ago
> Orbits are exactly regular, by definition. Orbital parameter changes do happen but are rare. How does that match up with [0]? "... a satellite that stalks other satellites, started another relocation move on July 22, leaving its position near ASTRA 4A at longitude 4.8 E and drifting west at 0.9 degrees per day." Do they make this up, or do you and I have a vastly different understanding of "irregular"? [0] https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-russian-sigint-satellite-luch-olymp.html?m=1 https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com/2024/07/the-russian-sigint-...
- nradov 2y ago
  It's not made up. The satellite made some minor orbital parameter changes but at all times it was in a regular orbit. It wasn't making irregular course changes in the way that an airplane might.
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  That is interesting. I wonder how many stalking maneuvers it can do before it depletes it's propellant/reaction mass.
pyuser583 2y ago
So that’s part of the article is just wrong? It basically says the telescope can take high res pictures of secret satellites, but they have to wait 3 days to release them. It claims after 3 days, nobody will know where they are “now.” That seems to suggest the concern is location, not appearance. It also suggests the locations aren’t predictable.
- nradov 2y ago
  I think that part of the article may be confused, the result of a misunderstanding or a translation error. We're getting secondhand information from an astronomer who isn't a native English speaker filtered through some random journalist.

sinuhe69 2y ago

A telescope that able to see billion light years away can also see satellites in close earth orbits? How incredible is that! How can it shift and change its focus so dramatically? Would not a flyby satellite cover the entire view field of the telescope?

adgjlsfhk1 2y ago
focus isn't an issue because they're both (basically) at infinity. fov isn't an issue because a satellite is much smaller than a galaxy