One, the apparent technical mistakes that led to the failure, assuming these separate probes are correct.
Two, the apparent ethical failure and cowardice of top Northrop Grumman management, which has as far as I can tell has sat by silently letting SpaceX be blamed.
This was a month before the Falcon Heavy launch which had a reasonable chance of a spectacular failure. Priming the public to think of SpaceX as a satellite destroyer and then a high profile failure would have been fantastic for United Launch Alliance.
I think it was pretty clear that SpaceX's customers didn't believe it as a SpaceX problem. Subsequent launches were not delayed pending investigation as they were for legitimate failures.
Or maybe it was just sloppy reporting from some guy shooting off his mouth.
Not a great PR month for NG.
[0] http://spacenews.com/northrop-balks-at-agencys-request-to-in...
[1] http://spacenews.com/northrop-balks-at-agencys-request-to-in...
I really wonder what Zuma was capable of?
Is that seriously possible?
In a modern portable device the antenna is quite small and often close to other electronics, so the gain is not great. You can buy dedicated hardware that can receive over much greater distances.
Additionally device antennas are omnidirectional, so they pick up noise from every direction but the signal from only one. A directional antenna has much greater gain as it excludes most of the noise.
Personally I’m doubtful, unless the satellite was in geostationary orbit then it wouldn’t have that long over each location. I guess if it was in a Molniya-type orbit, but that would take it quite high. Guess we’ll never know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_twin_(wireless_networks)
and:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4392401-4G-LTE-attac...
It's not unreasonable to believe there would similarly be major flaws in the implementation of 3G/LTE security that could be exploited.
It isn't impossible, but 'Yep' is a bit of a shortcut, and if they pull this off it would be quite the technological feat.
It also would mean that if this is possible that you wouldn't need anything special to implement SpaceX's vision of ubiquitous internet using LEO satellites, the antenna tech for that is quite exotic and requires a roof mounted structure, something that almost no WiFi transmitter has.
So those WiFi distance records are not at all on the same level as picking up a single WiFi signal from space, the one requires cooperation on both sides, the other has to do everything on one end (but obviously with a larger budget and some really clever people behind it). If you've ever done such a long haul WiFi link then you'll know how hard it is to line up the dishes and how easy it is to lose the connection due to wind, vibration or water in the atmosphere.
I'd expect them to do substantially better than some dudes in the desert with glorified cookware. Especially when it comes to the steering loop, because if there's one thing phased arrays are really, really good at, that's it.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8qx54b/googles-sa...
Considering you can "legally" see "manholes and mailboxes" from orbit?
What could we see if not "limited" by laws?
Whats visible now considering that article was 2014...
Grab your tin-foil hats.
Note that satellite phones and so on (tv) work like this in reverse.
USG has been listening to EM signals from space (elint) since the space age began.
Deep space network video where they talk about the fact that Voyager I/II is NOT the toughest signal to grab (apparently Mars Exploration Rover is due to small antennas): https://youtu.be/1rCrfQUcXDI?t=188
That being said, I doubt you could pick up WiFi and dig it out of the noise at space distances.
However, you probably can relay signal intelligence from a drone or a human who is using a specific modulation known to the satellite.
Even so, if you're in a rural area and your next door neighbour is a mile away or so with the right antenna this might very well be possible. Keep in mind that antenna gain is the rough equivalent of increased transmitter power, so a very good antenna can offset a lack of power at the transmitter site.
While reading about the possible conspiracy that the failure did not happen and it was to cover the launch of a stealth satellite, this was basically the satellite payload I pictured. Based on its role as a high orbit SIGINT satellite it would have a huge antenna, huge antennas are fragile buggers to launch, thus the fancy custom payload adapter.
Lawyers don't just tell you what you can and cannot say. They also sometimes tell you what you should and should not say for PR purposes or to manipulate a situation.
There's plenty of room here to call this an ethical failure.
https://allthingsnuclear.org/lgrego/lost-in-space-the-zuma-s...
Look at Arianespace's last "Partial launch failure" -- upper stage was developed by a completely different company but it was still a launch failure.
I think Northrop just didn't want to get involved in the silliness.
Those 2 Soyuz launches that I edited on Wikipedia from success to failures, that must be Tesla/SpaceX's fault, too.