French Threat To ID Secret US Satellites 355
SkiifGeek brings to our attention a story that ran on space.com a few months back but didn't get much wider notice at the time. "The French have identified numerous objects in orbit that do not appear in the ephemeris data reported by the US Space Surveillance Network. Now, the US claims that if it doesn't appear in the ephemeris data, then it doesn't exist. The French insist that at least some of the objects they have found boast solar arrays. Therefore it seems that the French have found secret US satellites. While they don't plan to release the information publicly, they do intend to use it as leverage to get the US to suppress reporting of sensitive French satellites in their published ephemeris."
US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no the French are mad (Score:2, Insightful)
let 'em (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US? (Score:4, Insightful)
a little distraction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh no the French are mad (Score:2, Insightful)
You wouldn't win over France
Re:oh god... (Score:1, Insightful)
lol wat? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Tor like oatmeals! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:For Sale -- Cheap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:let 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For Sale -- Cheap! (Score:1, Insightful)
People, stop already with the French surrender dumbness. We haven't fought a 'fair' war since the Civil War, and that we fought against ourselves. Even in WWi and WWII we waited until others had worn out the enemy...
Re:For Sale -- Cheap! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For Sale -- Cheap! (Score:2, Insightful)
Spy vs Spy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'Lost' satellites (Score:3, Insightful)
They tend to fall out of orbit and burn up in re-entry and/or are placed in geosynchronous orbit, not the globe-spanning polar LEO's favored by the spook community.
Also, for the kind of money involved in launching, using and maintaining one, you do not lose one casually.
"Others may be a secret alien monitoring network..."
"What, haven't the hairless apes wiped themselves out yet?" Alien monitoring requires that we actually be, y'know, interesting and worth monitoring. Feels too much like a descendant of the ol' Ptolemaic geocentricism.
Re:For Sale -- Cheap! (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAHA!
The current crop of jingoists are a bunch of cowards who think war is fine and dandy, as long as it's other people doing the dying. Damn near every top pro-war politician and commentator who was of age to serve during Vietnam found some way to stay out of uniform, and their kids aren't in any hurry to sign up for Iraq either. Oh, how "honest and straightforward" of them!
It's this new, smug, "I'm ashamed of my country" kind of American that I cannot stand
When your country does something wrong -- and when your country is a democracy, in which the leaders are theoretically responsible to the people -- it is good and right to be ashamed. Being ashamed isn't enough, of course; you should also do something to change it. Which, in the civilized world, includes bitching loudly and publicly. The idea that we should keep our mouths shut except to parrot platitudes of support for our Glorious Leaders is repulsive.
I'd hate to know how you'd feel if you were French and actually had to live with the knowledge that not only did your country surrender to Germany without a fight
If you really think France surrendered "without a fight" I'd recommend reading some more history. They were beaten, on the battlefield, by an army which could easily have done the same thing to any other country -- yes, including both the US and Australia -- that had the misfortune to be right next door to Germany at the time. And, in fact, did. The Wehrmacht in its heyday was unstoppable, and it took the Allies years (and a whole hell of a lot of lives) to swamp it in a war of attrition.
BTW, if your country was invaded, you would be cowering behind those "jingoist jerks", you hypocrite.
I served for ten years (two years reserve, eight years active duty, including Desert Storm) and I'm pretty sure that even as a fat old guy with a bum leg, I could still step up and defend US soil if I had to. The "rah rah USA" crowd would be screaming, crying, and pissing their pants.
Re:The actual situation is rather more complicated (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, changes in the telemetry will tell the 'bad guys' when the US is interested in something and hence they will have a better sense if their activities have aroused US suspicion.
I'd wager that even the Taliban could muster the internet access and math skills to figure this out given up to date telemetry.
]{
When will the World War Propaganda End? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please help stop it. Humans could put persons on Mars, yet we still quibble about dumb things.
Brittan created America because they were bitchy.
France helped America become independent.
Americans came to be tired.
Americans think we should all work out our differences. Americans think we should just work it out. Americans think we should not fight unless necessary.
America does not agree with leader.
Re:US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But you don't get it, they "don't" exist! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But you don't get it, they "don't" exist! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy to replicate (Score:3, Insightful)
And my point is that it wasn't "the whole time." An individual satellite only has scant seconds to photograph an area on a pass and won't be able to do it again for at least a day (probably longer). Multiple satellites give you a few more handfuls of seconds to observe during the course of any given day, but the odds are strongly in favor that no satellite will be making a pass at the random time you decide to move the bomb.
This isn't a Hollywood movie, satellites don't have hang time. Satellite reconnaissance is done by comparing two still photographs and looking for differences. Unless you actually have a satellite passing by as they move the bomb (you'd have a better chance of winning the lottery), all the NRO has to go on is "The A-Bombs R Us truck is parked in a different spot today than it was last Tuesday, it probably went somewhere. I wonder if they moved the bomb..." Park said truck in exactly the same place after you move the bomb, and there's no reason to suspect anything from the two photos.
Re:let 'em (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to know when the streak was made, preferably to the nearest second (at least). From the ground, LEO satellites move through the sky faster than a passenger jet at cruising altitudes (especially the "interesting" satellites in polar orbits). You'd also have to know in what direction it moved.
"Enough cameras to cover the horizon."
An object reflecting sunlight while overhead need not still be catching sunlight near the horizon. On top of that, at the horizon you have more light pollution obscuring the faint light and more atmosphere to absorb it and/or throw off your orbital calculations.
"and correlate them against your database of known targets."
Said databases need to be continually updated due to atmospheric drag on the satellites and the attitude adjustments needed to correct it. Which brings me to another point: you need to catch two or three passes to really get a fix on an object's orbit. These subsequent passes won't all happen at night (let alone near dusk or dawn), and not all nights are cloudless.
It doesn't matter how good your math skills are, you can't get a fix on them without decent data collection, and you can't get decent data without a second-by-second picture of most (if not all) of the visible sky.
Re:But you don't get it, they "don't" exist! (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing happened in space today as a non-existent satellite collided with another non-existent satellite. The respective non-owners of the non-satellites both deny responsibility, stating that on specific inquiry, the respective orbits of both non-satellites were reported to be free for use by a non-existent object.
Details may or may not be available at 11.
Re:Easy to replicate (Score:3, Insightful)
In the specific examples of the surprise tests of India and Pakistan in 1998, none of that was hidden. India set off its first nuclear device in the 1970's and Pakistan finished building the required infrastructure in the 1980's. India already had a testing range set aside for its first blast and Pakistan picked and cordoned off a testing site soon afterwards. The only thing left to both countries was actually building and testing the bombs. The United States used diplomatic pressure to dissuade both countries from doing just that, and satellites successfully caught a pending test in India in 1995, which the US successfully pressured them into stopping.
All the Indians did different in 1998 was use more camouflage, do most of their work at night, and make sure all the earth-moving equipment was back where it belonged come daylight.
If you're looking for "Country X has the infrastructure to build Teh Bomb!" as you'd want to find out with Iran and DPRK, then the satellites are impossible to hide from, but the only question the world was still asking in 1998 for both countries was "When are they going to test Teh Bomb?" and, due to careful planning, satellites weren't very helpful, and the surveilled party didn't need knowledge of satellites trajectories to do it.
Re:For Sale -- Cheap! (Score:3, Insightful)
you talk about ANZUS, our top politicians (Howard and Downer) don't even have a clear idea of what our obligations are towards that treaty. But then, that was probably just Downer being Downer.
I believe when the GP said "bullying allies" he didn't mean bullying every single person in the allied country. You being a single case doesn't count, and you being safely in some backwater country town probably precludes you from facing that anyway.
Did you see the news where Australia spent some $240 million on this little conference in Sydney, and Bush wasn't even sure what country he was in and which conference he was attending? That's how much he cares about his best international ally.
If you have ever spent just a little time outside of Australia, you will know that Howard has pretty much used up all of the goodwill non-US foreigners used to have towards Australians. Now, Australians are treated as if we are second-class US citizens.
Re:Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
"French discover secret US sattelites, but will not disclose the information, unlike the US does."
It's even in the summary: "While they don't plan to release the information publicly, they do intend to use it as leverage to get the US to suppress reporting of sensitive French satellites in their published ephemeris."
And I was thinking reading the article was difficult for some. Apparently just reading the summary is to hard for some people here. Yeah, i'm looking at you kdawson...
Re:Oh no the French are mad (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Did you RTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice strategy....
Re:For Sale -- Cheap! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spy vs Spy (Score:5, Insightful)
We did, and it was. The difference is that the missiles could hurt us, even if the Russians had no idea that we knew about them. If we made an attempt to attack them, there was a great chance we would miss some that may well then be launched. Similarly, they might see us coming to attack the missiles and launch. The only way to resolve that safely for the US was to get the missiles out, and we accomplished that with worldwide political pressure (and some backroom deals).
The only way a spy satellite hurts you is if it sees something it isn't supposed to. If we know where it is and can track it, we can ensure that it never does. We may even be able to ensure that it sees the opposite of what we're actually doing if we do want to get up to something. It may even help us directly; if the Chinese think they have a secret satellite to help get the drop on us and it turns out they don't, that is our advantage.
Telling them not only removes that advantage, it puts us at a disadvantage. Almost certainly, they would move the satellite and we would have to locate it again. The game loops again and again. In that sense it's the same as breaking an enemy's cipher; you don't want them to know because you want them to use a code you can read instead of developing a code you can't.
Blow them up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:let 'em (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true. But even larger governments do not have unlimited military resources.
If you make them spend those resources finding something you didn't tell them for free, they can't use those resources for some other purpose.
Always make it more expensive for the other guy. Don't give them something for free needlessly.