Small, cheap spy satellites mean there’s no hiding place
economist.com
economist.com
What a fascinating reply.
The small sat revolution is a big deal, but much mystery & magic remains.
If magic and mystery is the good thing, then simply feeling like there's no place you can get to which hasn't been mapped might be enough to choke off that feeling, regardless of the resolution of the map.
The idea that the world has been mapped to the point of killing all mystery is ludicrous. The Map Is Not The Territory[1].
There are mysteries lurking in your own neighborhood that you won't notice until you traverse it in a new way. Go for a walk with a child or dog. Take a bike instead of a car. Use a wheelchair. Volunteer with local advocacy groups.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
― Albert Einstein
With a little creativity we should never get bored.
> Take a bike
I do this... and then I map my discoveries in OpenStreetMap. I recently discovered OpenInfraMap [0] and that inspired me to go find infrastructure that wasn't mapped and add it too.
It works a little in reverse for me; I find a random thing that isn't mapped well and use it as a motivator to go explore it on bike or foot and then map it. I did this for a bunch of local creeks... ran along it, fixed up the errors, and then added all the individual ways to a relation. A lot of places that are accessible by foot only often aren't mapped, so I'll go explore a suburb and find the unmapped paths that shorten foot routes. Making the map better match the territory.
That is dangerous belief to those caught-out by the edge-cases, especially seeing how actual humans lazily defer to, and others defend "the (application) system": see any HN thread on AI bias and/or Tesla Autopilots deficiencies.
"Whether it’s Dragonfly going to Titan, Clipper going to Europa, hopefully a lander going to Europa, hopefully a mission that’ll fly through the plumes of Enceladus, exo-planets going gangbusters, SETI hopefully taking on a broader and broader search and surveying those exo-planets. Within the next few decades we could potentially answer this primordial, age old question of, “Are we alone?” And that’s gonna revolutionize biology. It’s gonna revolutionize how we think about our place in the universe. And so for all of the pains and agony of trying to operate on these time scales, we do live in a beautiful time where we might transform the universe in which we live into a biological universe."
Along with the commercialization of space travel, I'd say there is a sufficiently large part of this universe we are yet to "touch" but soon will be able to.
I for one am tremendously excited about the future.
[0] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/04/13/92-k...
That's a lot of real estate!
Forgive me.
Sat launch is at best an Engineering issue at this point. More satellites open up avenues for more data collection by well heeled interests, additional burdens on municipalities when the bloody things deorbit, or worse, if they don't. It already obstructs or complicates ground based observation and launch/mission planning/tracking, and adds excessive risk from debris based on current propulsion methods.
It does nothing to advance the State of the Art in manned spaceflight (one of the species more pressing challenges), and it'll become costlier and costlier to get common fuels for rocketry as demand spins down for fossil fuels elsewhere.
I just guess I don't see the point in throwing more autonomous junk into space beyond the minimum necessary to get the job done, or to hyperfocus on any endeavor that doesn't eventually culminate in people in space self-sustainably.
Maybe I've spent too much time mired in Cost-Benefit Analyses recently and it's killed my ability to dream and imagine, but I just don't sea more passive satellites doing what everything else up there already does, but better and with a queue fixing anything; it'd be a boon for launch companies I guess, but do you really need to be in orbitt to solve half the problems people generally throw mini-sats at? I'm not sure the answer is yes.
Love to hear your viewpoint though.
For starters, let's address some of small-sat applications. In you comment you said "I don't see the point... beyond the minimum necessary to get the job done". What job specifically are you referring to? Navigation aids? Communications? Because "the job" that can be handled by small-sats has near unlimited scope. I'm sure you've already heard about LEO communication constellations (such as Starlink) that are bringing world-wide communication infrastructure. Communications infrastructure is a pre-requisite for industrialization, and can greatly assist with providing education to remote areas. Both of these have the potential to lift many of the global poor out of extreme poverty. Communications infrastructure is something that is very easy to take for granted living in a developed first world nation, but the net benefit it provides to society cannot be understated.
People like to focus on the big extravagant projects popularized by eccentric billionaires, but the CubeSat space is filled with other valuable applications as well. Here are some other industry applications that don’t get as much time in the spotlight:
- Resource management / surveying (logging, fishing, mining etc)
- Poaching / illegal fishing detection and monitoring
- Data collection for weather / climate models
- Extreme weather forecasting / detection
- Forest fire monitoring / detection
- Space-based astronomy
- Agriculture monitoring
The above list won't directly impact your day-to-day like the smart-phone revolution did, but that list indirectly touches many aspects of our lives. So again, which “job” are you referring to “getting the job done”? The list above alone (even excluding the comms constellations) could easily require 1000s of CubeSats. The interesting thing about the CubeSat revolution is that because it’s so cheap to send something into space, every possible niche is being explored as industry scrambles to carve out their slice. This comment “but I just don't see more passive satellites doing what everything else up there already does” is not one at all shared within the industry. The CubeSat revolution is doing things that have never been done before. And is doing the things that had been done previously cheaper, faster, and better.
Now let’s talk about the downsides. The space junk and Kessler Syndrome problem is typically brought up in the context of the CubeSat revolution, but it is largely misplaced. CubeSat applications typically require low-earth orbit. In low-earth orbit, atmospheric drag is sufficiently high that junked satellites de-orbit naturally in reasonable time-frames. In addition, placing these satellites into such a low orbit does not create large amounts of junk during launch/insertion. In addition, with space now accessible to more than just government agencies, the appropriate regulatory frameworks for managing space traffic / space junk are being drawn up. The commercial benefits of open, accessible space create huge incentives for governments to manage these issues.
I also see you are disappointed that the CubeSat revolution does nothing to advance manned space-flight. I assure you; this is far from true. In the early days of space exploration, space was very expensive. People focus on launch costs, but it’s much more than that. Supply chains didn’t exist. Nothing was mass manufactured. Everything was custom made. This is changing. The space economy of scale is ramping up, and government-led “for the good of mankind” projects are directly benefiting.
Will we still be able to operate society when we rely so much on all the services provided by These smaller satellites and there is a solar flare. Indeed, what if some event does trigger the Kessler Syndrome. Just like see radiation from Fukushima show at the us west coast in fish.
Will it be too late to do something with all the knowledge we have gained?
I don't really understand the argument that coming to rely on CubeSats puts us at risk because they could be damaged by a solar flare. And therefore we shouldn't reap the benefits of this new technology? That line of thinking is like rejecting the advancement of electricity because we will be worse-off in the event of a power outage. Sure, black-out incidents occur, and sometimes (like the recent Texas outage) people are ill-prepared. But how is choosing not to pursue electricity because of black-out risk the better alternative? Surely benefiting from the technology in the far more common scenario of normal operation is better than not having it at all.
There's no place to "discover". Anywhere you go, tons of others have been there before you. You can easily look up pictures on Instagram or wherever.
Plenty of truly "unexplored" territory in e.g. the Amazon. You can go off the beaten path if you choose.
In a nutshell, you can intentionally choose to prevent others’ perception of a place from spoiling your own. One step further, you can even use their perception to enhance your own experience.
You’re standing in a place that your extremely distant ancestors and cousins once stood, in a place where your nieces and nephews and children might one day stand. You’re connected to the narrative of humanity.
The concept of “first” is a red herring in the narrative of humanity. It carries a lot less meaning than our current culture leads us to believe.
- Hazelton Collegian, 1955
- Thomas a Kempis, 1400 AD
https://panewsarchive.psu.edu/lccn/2018264052/1955-03-04/ed-...
Few people are capable of *real* exploring anyway. Going where no human has been before. Shackleton, Amundsen, Mallory, Harrer, Bonatti, to name a few Euro-centric ones, did so. To do what they did at that time was extraordinary and way beyond any if our capabilities.
And what Insta calls an “Adventure” is merely a tightly controlled and carefully crafted theme park visit. It’s a joke.
That said, any place is there for you to discover. Nobody fucking cares if you visited the Grand Canyon or some fiery hole in Iceland. And even less so if it has been trodden on by humans yet.
All that matters is having a jolly time in an alien place, detached from anybody’s expectations. Don’t chase the next Insta spot.
Go early in the morning. Go in bad weather. Go off-season. Take your time and the rest will reveal itself.
It’s not that hard.
hm. Here's a story: on our second visit to China, one of the main targets was Mount Emei, which is a well-known tourist hotspot. On the top, because of the buses and cable cars, there were probably thousands of people - we couldn't see due to the ridiculously thick fog.
And then we started to walk down. The shortest path down on foot is ~50km stairs. We met roughly 10 people, including the monks in the monastery we had to sleep midway.
Had there been people there before? Yes. Is it secluded? Yes. Did it feel like a discovery? Yes. And I'd even count it as a spiritual experience, despite the fact that we never really left the civilization.
Another story: when we were in Uppsala, Sweden, we visited a place called Norra Lunsen. The young lady in the ticket office literally asked as why do we want to go to the middle of nowhere - and indeed, we met a single person there.
The point to "discover" at our current stage of evolution - in the sense of we can't yet travel across star systems or galaxies - is not to go to places where no human has been before, but to find places that give YOU a new experience.
As I explored this incredible University town I discovered the most special treasure..
The “Silver Bible”, not a Christian bible but a collection of “all the knowledge of the day” encased in a silver cover. It had been lost for 500 years and discovered again under some floorboards. To this day one of the most amazing world treasures I’ve seen with my own eyes.
There’s much to discover in this world.
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/f...
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.8139424,-78.7400188,3a,75y,1...
I like to go to places and rent an apartment for a few weeks. Then discover your neighborhood. It's fun when you move, and it's also fun when you vacation this way.
That said, I'm not out trying to discover a previously undiscovered waterfall.
But to remark on those people as "ordinary middle class" is a bit misleading. I'd probably lean more towards "extraordinary, and possibly middle class." Otherwise, I think the appropriate label for any normal person doing cave diving explorations is "dead."
(Not serious criticism, hopefully you read in a playful tone)
With every day bringing more and more construction. Tearing down of historically important buildings for new contemporary condos and gentrification - cities have lost their soul to me. Its not there's nothing new to discover, for me, its the replacement of places people once wanted to go to.
I actively seek out abandoned places now. I try and think about what it was like when it was new, people bustling about. Or that abandoned mansion. How did those people live? Can I imagine what it was like to live in a huge house like that?
We have such a disposable culture now - architecture included, it has prompted me with a sense of nostalgia to seek out what has been left behind and why.
Vice did an incredible job in their series "Abandoned": https://vimeo.com/182703618
On the other hand I mostly dislike SF's old houses that have 1 bathroom for 4 bedrooms, creaky warped floors, paper tin walls, single pane glass, bad insulation, and are missing many modern conveniences. And I hate that the city doesn't build up ⬆
Tokyo is cheap because Japan treats houses like used cars - it's actually cheaper to sell the house if you tear it all down first.
To hell with The Golden Temple. ;-)
IE: I'm watching The Crown right now. I've been "spoiled" on the outcome of the show through simple history and cultural knowledge (I'm Canadian). It doesn't make the show any less enjoyable when I know that Diana is going to die, or that Mountbatten was killed by the IRA.
J. Michael Straczinski (Babylon 5) said he likes to tell people what's going to happen, but he doesn't tell you the context. This lets him put in prophecy as a story element.
Other times the story is really about discovery. You can guess that Harry Potter will bring about Voldemort's demise in book one, but the series is about the process of Harry becoming Harry, so it's not really possible to give away any spoilers because you have to explain too much.
I always wanted to write a story about a bunch of people in a lab, playing god. In this universe there would be no rings of hell, the reader would also know there wasn't, but I think it would still grip the reader. Like an inverse hero's journey.
Proliferation is huge. I can buy a high-resolution satellite photo of my neighbor's property every day if I feel like spending the money. That's something that wouldn't have been available at any cost a decade or two ago.
This is a false statement.
Without getting into things that aren't talked about online, I assure you that commercial imagery is regularly used in .gov/.mil settings for a variety of purposes. This includes gap-filling (both geographically and historically), the ability to disseminate product widely without sanitization, etc. There's nothing insignificant about its use.
For MDA specifically, though, we cracked that nut and can downgrade to the point we're just giving out pngs with no evidence of where they came from.
Be more worried about your local police operating airborne camera systems. Drones hovering over cities are far far cheaper than any space-based surveillance scheme.
It seemed a bit extreme that the single satellite RF detection and localization technique referenced in the article would get classified by the U.S. government -- it's presumably a beamformed angle & doppler measurement going into a detection algorithm which is aware of the motion of the satellite platform, which is cute but not groundbreaking -- but at the same time it's probably a very inexpensive technology for space-based surveillance of RF emitters, which has obvious national security ramifications.
smallsat = cheap
cheap = affordable for smaller nation states
RF emitters = many military assets
The US downgraded moon photos to prevent Russians getting an idea of the quality, Russian subs were analysed with one photo and a scratch on the titanium plating. It would be great to see that playing out - technology, analysis and politics shown together.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/07/31/336847318...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=minuteman+missi...
One thing he got a kick of before he passed away, was using google earth to check out the old base. He was surprised at how much you could see.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/28/fitness-tracki...
Scott Manley does great, approachable space videos and has done a few on spy satellites.
For a long time I was under the impression that diesel subs stand out like a sore thumb on sat photos and nation states watch them all like hawks, but apparently not and drug cartels can just roll around as they please in them.
Watched countries argue a bit over diesel vs nuclear submarines and this is where I've been imprinted with the idea that nuclear subs are the only actual true stealth subs you can build. I may be wrong here, but the evidence seems overwhelming based on usage. Diesel subs are for homeland defense purposes and don't worry about the enemy knowing their whereabouts, nuclear subs go silent for months and everyone is completely clueless as to where they actually are.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a281849...
AIP technology means non-nuclear subs still have lots of uses. They can get closer in shore to gather signals intelligence or drop off/pick up SF.
After 200 meters the ocean is practically opaque. Objects much deeper than that are reflecting a handful of photons. Below 500-1000 meters you're talking about photons per second at the surface.
Water is one of a quite small number of general radiation absorbers. To block alpha/beta/gamma radiation you need pure density- more mass per volume to slow down high energy particles. You can use heavy atoms like lead or uranium, or very densely packed lighter atoms. Neutron radiation is different- the actual number of atoms per volume is critical to maximizing the number of scattering events. That means you use things like polymers- hydrocarbons, so you have as many small atoms (hydrogen) in a volume as possible. Water is one of the denser liquids, while still being 11% hydrogen by mass, vs 14% for pure polyethylene. That makes it quite good.
Even sound isn't great underwater, relatively speaking- being a fluid in motion, there's a constantly-changing distortion on everything. The thermal conductivity also means thermal signatures spread out quickly.
[0] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a197847...
I am fairly sure, no one is taking pictures of the whole earth, in 20 minutes intervals in a sufficiently high resolution to pick out an airplane. Specially one, flying over water.
For reference, ISS at its height ~400km, can see roughly 3% of the Earth's surface. This is without any kind of lens.
If someone has any kind of evidence, showing it otherwise, it would be great to see.
The bottom line is that nobody is imaging the entire surface of the Earth at any useful resolution daily (aside from low resolution meteorological satellites, but they can’t find a plane). If you want to track a plane you have to start with other means to point a camera and take an image.
There is a huge difference between a company that has enough satellites in orbit to be able to take an image of any requested area within 20 minutes, and a company that can take an image of all areas on Earth every 20 minutes. MH370 is very unlikely to be captured in an image by coincidence. If there is imagery of it during its last flight then it would be because someone knew in advance that something was going to happen (it seems unlikely that anyone would have known).
Take that 500 Trillion Square Meters and divide it up by 1000 satellites (or whatever Starlink plans) and take images sequentially rather than all at once and it becomes rapidly much more manageable.
You don't need a single mult-terapixel image. You just need lots of much smaller images covering more territory on a continuous basis.
if you wanted pictures of the entire earth every 20 minutes, you'd need to figure out how many satellites would give you that coverage, the amount of resolution per image, and the bandwidth requirements transportation of those images in parallel.
Realistically, to get whole-earth coverage every 20 minutes would require a very large constellation of satellites. It's much more reasonable to get some less-than-100% coverage of the earth on a less-than-every-20-minute schedule and scale up from there.
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-twe...
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/satellites/g2728/best...
Has Hacker News ever flirted with a "commenter did not read the linked story / page but is pretending they did" vote feature? There's obviously room for abuse even if it were limited to "reputable" users but I would use it on some comments on this item.
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
In this case, it looks like the discussion in the comments flies to a subject that people feel they have familiarity with (satellite imagery) instead of what is actually contained in the article (satellite RF detection) and thus the conversation on the article strongly suggests that the community is _not_ assimilating any information from the article.
I suppose I should be the "candle" and just talk about RF detection rather than "cursing the darkness".
2x/day revisit for most of the world is probably sufficient for the majority of use cases, but that assumes good weather (for images). On the other hand, LAX for example sees hundreds of takeoffs and landings each day, so if you were interested in modeling retail foot traffic by parking lot volume, pace of urban development, rate of containers moving in and out of port, etc. you could get a massive boost in temporal resolution using aircraft and far cheaper than launching + maintaining a satellite constellation.
Take a look at some youtube videos of a Nikon P1000 at maximum zoom looking through ordinary atmosphere at some distance away for an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhQlwKX3LQA
This is unbelievable.
CubeSats and other small satellites can capture useful imagery but they're not spy satellites. There's optical limits to their capabilities because of their size.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christianstork/spy-plan..., but at scale.
It's also only the bottom few miles of atmosphere that is really thick.
Looking vertically from 400km up, there actually isn't too much distortion. The limiting factor is making high enough quality lenses and getting enough light onto your sensor without too much diffraction.
Look at this image that is probably from a spy satellite. It's almost at 45 degree angle. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29634/trump-tweets-int...
[1] https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/ci...
[1]https://hypertelescope.org/project/hypertelescope-space/
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_synthesis
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_masking_interferometr...
[1]: https://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-drivers-licenses-what-are-they
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/30/755994591/president-trump-twe...
How is your foreign social credit score anyway?
This could lead to greater transparency, openness, and accountability, or it can be abused by a small group of people for their own power and profit. Nothing hypothetical about it either, both cases are already true.
What enables bulk, civil harm is that we lack the data about those in power, that they have about us.
Israel is VERY uptight about its airspace and the drones here are basically sharks with lasers.
Good luck, comrad.
(You can spot it, because the site initially loaded and then paywalled itself)
----------
In the middle of last year, Ecuadorians watched with concern as 340 foreign boats, most of them Chinese, fished just outside the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around their country’s westernmost province, the Galapagos Islands. The law of the sea requires such vessels to carry GPS-based automatic identification systems (AIS) that broadcast where they are, and to keep those systems switched on. Some boats, however, failed to comply. There were more than 550 instances of vessels not transmitting their locations for over a day. This regular radio silence stoked fears that the boats concerned were sneaking into Ecuador’s waters to plunder its fish.
Both local officials and China’s ambassador to Ecuador denied this, and said all the boats were sticking to the rules. In October, however, HawkEye 360, a satellite operator based in Virginia, announced it had detected vessels inside Ecuador’s EEZ on 14 occasions when the boats in question were not transmitting AIS (see map). HawkEye’s satellites could pinpoint these renegades by listening for faint signals emanating from their navigation radars and radio communications.
HawkEye’s satellites are so-called smallsats, about the size of a large microwave oven. They are therefore cheap to build and launch. HawkEye deployed its first cluster, of three of them, in 2018. They are now in an orbit that takes them over both of Earth’s poles. This means that, as the planet revolves beneath them, every point on its surface can be monitored at regular intervals.
Initially, the data the satellites collected were downloaded to a tracking station on Svalbard, a Norwegian island in the Arctic Ocean. But business has since boomed. HawkEye now counts a dozen governments among its customers, as well as private clients. The firm has therefore recruited the services of a second ground station, in Antarctica, and it put a second cluster into orbit on January 24th. It plans three more such launches this year, and also intends to widen its network of ground stations yet further.
Given this success, it is hardly surprising that at least six other companies are operating or developing similar systems. Quilty Analytics, a research firm in Florida, expects the number of radio-frequency (RF) intelligence satellites of this sort in orbit to multiply from a dozen at the beginning of January to more than 60 by the end of next year.
Unmixed signals
RF-intelligence satellites detect where a transmission is coming from in two ways. One, trilateration, relies on measuring minute differences in a signal’s arrival time at each member of a cluster. The other uses the Doppler effect—the shift in a signal’s frequency if the transmitter is moving relative to the receiver. Together, according to HawkEye, these can pinpoint a signal’s source to within 500 metres of its true origin. Kleos Space, a Luxembourgeois company that launched its first cluster in November and hopes to put two more up later this year, says its accuracy ranges between 3,000 and 200 metres.
A cluster sweeps a band of territory 2,000km wide so, circling the planet every 90 minutes or so, it can revisit many areas several times a day. Moreover, unlike spy satellites fitted with optical cameras, RF satellites can see through clouds. Their receivers are not sensitive enough to detect standard mobile phones. But they can pick up satellite phones, walkie-talkies and all manner of radar. And, while vessels can and do illicitly disable their ais, switching off their communications gear and the radar they use for navigation and collision-avoidance is another matter entirely. “Even pirates don’t turn those things off,” says John Beckner, boss of Horizon Technologies, a British firm that plans its first launch in August.
RF data are also cheap to collect. Satellites fitted with robotic high-resolution cameras are costly. Flying microwave ovens that capture and timestamp radio signals are not. Horizon says that building, insuring and launching its August mission should cost no more than about $1.4m.
America’s National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), one of that country’s numerous spying operations, is a big user of RF intelligence. It employs HawkEye’s data to find guerrilla camps and mobile missile-launchers, and to track both conventional warships and unconventional ones, like the weaponised speedboats sometimes deployed by Iran. Robert Cardillo, a former director of the agency who now advises HawkEye, says dozens of navies, Russia’s included, spoof AIS signals to make warships appear to be in places which they are not. RF intelligence is not fooled by this. Mr Cardillo says, too, that the tininess of RF satellites makes them hard for an enemy to destroy.
Beside matters military, the NGA also uses RF data to unearth illicit economic activity—of which unauthorised fishing is merely one instance. Outright piracy is another. And the technique also works on land. In 2019, for example, it led to the discovery of an illegal gold mine being run by a Chinese company in a jungle in Gabon. And in 2020 the managers of Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo began using HawkEye data to spot elephant poachers and dispatch rangers to deal with them.
There are commercial uses, too. Andy Bowyer, Kleos’s boss, reports interest among telecoms firms keen to locate rogue transmitters, such as unlicensed ham radios, that are operating within their domains. Regulators, meanwhile, would like the firm to create “heat maps” of shifting patterns of legitimate transmissions. These would help them select sites for mobile-phone towers and also give them a better idea of the value in particular places of licences to use parts of the radio spectrum that are going up for auction. Some charities, too, have an interest in Kleos’s data. RF information can, for example, flag up routes taken by migrants likely to need food and other aid.
Declustering
Using satellite clusters to gather RF intelligence is clever. But engineers at Unseenlabs, a firm in Rennes, France, reckon it is already outdated. At the moment, Unseen has three satellites in orbit and sells data to about ten navies, including France’s, as well as to maritime insurers and a handful of big defence contractors. But its satellites operate independently, rather than as a cluster, for Unseenlabs’ engineers have devised a detection system, which they claim is accurate to within 5,000 metres, that requires but a single satellite.
How this system works remains a secret—and one that, according to Clément Galic, Unseenlabs’ boss, is protected by the French state. After several attempts were made to steal it, he says, the defence ministry’s Directorate General of Armaments offered its assistance in defending the details from cybertheft.
Secret or not, though, Unseenlabs may soon have competitors in the single-satellite-RF-intelligence market, for Horizon, too, says that it has worked out how to perform the trick—a claim backed up by the fact that its launch in August will loft but a single device. Shortly after it filed an application for a patent in America on the wizardry involved, the government there classified it. Even so, Mr Beckner drops a hint. The method involves assessing differences in the angles at which a target’s signals arrive during the satellite’s arc across the sky. Horizon says its system will be accurate to within 3,000 metres. By the middle of next year, it, too, plans to operate three satellites in different orbits—enough to scan most of the planet every two hours or so.
Horizon also plans to compile a library of unique radar-pulse “fingerprints” of the world’s vessels, for the tiny differences in componentry that exist even between examples of the same make and model of equipment mean that signals can often be linked to a specific device. It will thus be able to determine not merely that a vessel of some sort is in a certain place, but which vessel it is, and where else it has been.
Unseenlabs, for its part, has already catalogued the radar fingerprints of many thousands of vessels, several hundred of which have, subsequent to the events of last summer, spent time in the Galapagos EEZ with their AIS beacons switched off. It remains to be seen what Ecuador’s authorities will do with that information. But no one can say they weren’t told.
Learn more about them here: https://www.economist.com/news/2020/06/19/frequently-asked-q...
The current members of the board of directors of The Economist Group are: Rupert Pennant-Rea (Chairman), Zanny Minton Beddoes (editor-in-chief of The Economist), Lady Suzanne Heywood, Brent Hoberman, David Bell, John Elkann, Alex Karp, Sir Simon Robertson, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Chris Stibbs and Baroness Jowell.
And?
The thing is that after connecting all those databases, an AI can quickly figure out where everyone has been and what they’re up to. And as the Five Eyes shares info, you can ask friendly countries to spy on your own citizens.
It’s the tragedy of the unmanaged commons! People don’t care about exponential growth issues until it’s a few seconds to midnight. Except in the case of Kessler syndrome, it’s even worse because it grows AFTER you stopped.
Bitcoin mining electricity use is another big example.
For this one thing, spy satellites in low Earth orbit, I am not so worried. Without active re-boosts, these orbits tend to degrade quickly, and the junk gets dragged out on a relatively quick timescale.
Medium orbits, however, can last a super long time, and junk up there is a very serious concern.
BTW, as the average global temperature rises, the atmosphere expands, which will degrade the orbits of the lower satellites even quicker!
https://spacenews.com/decommissioned-noaa-weather-satellite-...