3 ms·

Satellite will have to be turned off when it floats over the US

19 points by howard941 1y ago

perihelions 1y ago
> "“The primary frequency allocation in P band is for huge SOTR [single-object-tracking radars] Americans use to detect incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles. That was, of course, a problem for us,” Scipal says. To get an exemption from the ban on space-based P-band radars, ESA had to agree to several limitations, the most painful of which was turning the Biomass radar off over North America and Europe to avoid interfering with SOTR coverage." https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/04/18/1115388/esa-airbus-biomass-mission-measure-earths-forests-from-orbit/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/04/18/1115388/esa-airb... I guess that's referring to things such as these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS ("...The radar operates in the UHF band between 420 - 450 MHz...")
echoangle 1y ago
Maybe my non-native English is showing but I’m having difficulty reading the article. First, it describes how the satellite can’t be used over the US and Europe and then says: > Still, this isn't the worst setback. [… stuff how the satellite will be used over southern America …] I was waiting for the description of an even worse setback, which makes the satellite even more limited, but it seems like „this isn’t the worst setback“ was supposed to mean „it’s not too bad, we can still do other useful stuff“. Was that understandable for native speakers?
- imglorp 1y ago
  Yes it's a little awkward. I think they mean South America is still ok -- so they can collect data there -- but not North America.
- omneity 1y ago
  It's not just you. It feels like there's a missing sentence or paragraph somewhere connecting the two. Maybe there's a compounding effect making the impact of turning the satellite off worse?
- kd5bjo 1y ago
  This is one of the annoying constructions in English that has two common meanings which are the opposite of each other. It can either be referring to the worst possible/conceivable setback (as here) or to the worst encountered setback-- you have to use other clues like overall tone and the surrounding context to figure out which was meant.
  - vntok 1y ago
    Yeah, yeah.
- treetalker 1y ago
  You wrote: > I was waiting … I think your instinct and expectation were correct. The article reads: > The info provided by Biomass will be a critical step forward. I think it should read "The info provided by Biomass would be a critical step forward." ("Would" should be used because it's discussing a hypothetical situation contrary to fact — contrary to fact because the restrictions impede the collection of the desired data.) My guess is that it's either sloppy editing or LLM-generated text.
- casenmgreen 1y ago
  It can be read in two ways. The most natural way is as you have read it. However, it is also valid in the sense of "this is a setback, but it's not all that bad". (You might write, "Still, this isn't the worst setback ever.") You would need to read enough to realize by later lack of a description of the worst setback to realize the former, most natural way, is not in use.
- secondcoming 1y ago
  Interesting, I never noticed the ambiguity until you pointed it out. It's like the awful phrase 'I could care less' I suppose.
jasonlfunk 1y ago
Why does the title only mention the US? It can’t do it over Europe either.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- microsoftedging 1y ago
  Ragebait. Initially I thought it was something Trump did that resulted in this, and I'd assume others may as well.
secondcoming 1y ago
It's embarrassing that a satellite designed by the ESA can't be used over Europe. I've read other information about ICBM-detecting satellites being triggered by the sun glinting off lakes having the same signature as an ICBM launch. Surely the orbit of this satellite will be well known and so false positives alarms can be ruled out? I suppose it's possible that a bad actor could time a real ICBM launch to coincide with this satellite's orbit to defeat Early Warning Systems, but then again they could just launch submarine-based ICBMs from the southern equator.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  > Surely the orbit of this satellite will be well known and so false positives alarms can be ruled out? It's not the physical presence of the satellite over the US that messes up (or could) ICBM detection, it's the operation of the satellite's radar system. That's why they have to turn off the radar when it's over the US and Europe.
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Exactly. It's like shining your headlights onto a bunch of people looking at the nighttime sky for constellations.
fred_is_fred 1y ago
A better title would be "Recon satellite jammer launched by ESA".

19 points by howard941 1y ago

> "“The primary frequency allocation in P band is for huge SOTR [single-object-tracking radars] Americans use to detect incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles. That was, of course, a problem for us,” Scipal says. To get an exemption from the ban on space-based P-band radars, ESA had to agree to several limitations, the most painful of which was turning the Biomass radar off over North America and Europe to avoid interfering with SOTR coverage." https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/04/18/1115388/esa-airbus-biomass-mission-measure-earths-forests-from-orbit/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/04/18/1115388/esa-airb... I guess that's referring to things such as these? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS ("...The radar operates in the UHF band between 420 - 450 MHz...")

echoangle 1y ago

Maybe my non-native English is showing but I’m having difficulty reading the article. First, it describes how the satellite can’t be used over the US and Europe and then says: > Still, this isn't the worst setback. [… stuff how the satellite will be used over southern America …] I was waiting for the description of an even worse setback, which makes the satellite even more limited, but it seems like „this isn’t the worst setback“ was supposed to mean „it’s not too bad, we can still do other useful stuff“. Was that understandable for native speakers?

imglorp 1y ago
Yes it's a little awkward. I think they mean South America is still ok -- so they can collect data there -- but not North America.
omneity 1y ago
It's not just you. It feels like there's a missing sentence or paragraph somewhere connecting the two. Maybe there's a compounding effect making the impact of turning the satellite off worse?
kd5bjo 1y ago
This is one of the annoying constructions in English that has two common meanings which are the opposite of each other. It can either be referring to the worst possible/conceivable setback (as here) or to the worst encountered setback-- you have to use other clues like overall tone and the surrounding context to figure out which was meant.
- vntok 1y ago
  Yeah, yeah.
treetalker 1y ago
You wrote: > I was waiting … I think your instinct and expectation were correct. The article reads: > The info provided by Biomass will be a critical step forward. I think it should read "The info provided by Biomass would be a critical step forward." ("Would" should be used because it's discussing a hypothetical situation contrary to fact — contrary to fact because the restrictions impede the collection of the desired data.) My guess is that it's either sloppy editing or LLM-generated text.
casenmgreen 1y ago
It can be read in two ways. The most natural way is as you have read it. However, it is also valid in the sense of "this is a setback, but it's not all that bad". (You might write, "Still, this isn't the worst setback ever.") You would need to read enough to realize by later lack of a description of the worst setback to realize the former, most natural way, is not in use.
secondcoming 1y ago
Interesting, I never noticed the ambiguity until you pointed it out. It's like the awful phrase 'I could care less' I suppose.

jasonlfunk 1y ago

Why does the title only mention the US? It can’t do it over Europe either.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
microsoftedging 1y ago
Ragebait. Initially I thought it was something Trump did that resulted in this, and I'd assume others may as well.

secondcoming 1y ago

It's embarrassing that a satellite designed by the ESA can't be used over Europe. I've read other information about ICBM-detecting satellites being triggered by the sun glinting off lakes having the same signature as an ICBM launch. Surely the orbit of this satellite will be well known and so false positives alarms can be ruled out? I suppose it's possible that a bad actor could time a real ICBM launch to coincide with this satellite's orbit to defeat Early Warning Systems, but then again they could just launch submarine-based ICBMs from the southern equator.

Jtsummers 1y ago
> Surely the orbit of this satellite will be well known and so false positives alarms can be ruled out? It's not the physical presence of the satellite over the US that messes up (or could) ICBM detection, it's the operation of the satellite's radar system. That's why they have to turn off the radar when it's over the US and Europe.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Exactly. It's like shining your headlights onto a bunch of people looking at the nighttime sky for constellations.

fred_is_fred 1y ago

A better title would be "Recon satellite jammer launched by ESA".