Russia To Publish Catalog Disclosing US Military Satellites

Flyaway

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 January 2015
Messages
10,606
Reaction score
12,151
Reading the article and the reasoning behind this move soon becomes clear.

http://m.sputniknews.com/science/20160622/1041718824/russia-us-satellites.html
 
If we can publish theirs, then they can publish ours.
 
I'm scratching my head as to why this would be a problem.
 
sferrin said:
I'm scratching my head as to why this would be a problem.
They'll play it up on RT and Sputnik as a big deal and a poke in the eyes for the "Empire"
 
muttbutt said:
sferrin said:
I'm scratching my head as to why this would be a problem.
They'll play it up on RT and Sputnik as a big deal and a poke in the eyes for the "Empire"

Sure, but I'm not sure the message they're sending is the one they think. Basically all they're saying is, "we're gonna tell the US what the US has in space because, uhm. . .the US said it didn't want us to. We rule."
 
Of course the devil is in the details. If they release data that is even a few days old it isn't really useful for current tracking operations. And even if they release data in near-real-time (which I highly doubt) it also may not be very useful. It turns out that every tracking operation makes different assumptions about things like the shape of the Earth, gravity, and most importantly, the shape of the atmosphere (which is always changing because of day/night cycles). All those assumptions have to be rectified if you're going to merge one set of data into another set. That is a big computing and software task.

I suspect that they'll dump some historical or slightly old data and then use it to reap PR benefits, but this will not be a very useful database for people who actually fly satellites.
 
blackstar said:
Of course the devil is in the details. If they release data that is even a few days old it isn't really useful for current tracking operations. And even if they release data in near-real-time (which I highly doubt) it also may not be very useful. It turns out that every tracking operation makes different assumptions about things like the shape of the Earth, gravity, and most importantly, the shape of the atmosphere (which is always changing because of day/night cycles). All those assumptions have to be rectified if you're going to merge one set of data into another set. That is a big computing and software task.

I suspect that they'll dump some historical or slightly old data and then use it to reap PR benefits, but this will not be a very useful database for people who actually fly satellites.

Could backfire though. The US could just claim Russia is trying to help ISIS and North Korea by letting them know when satellites might be overhead.
 
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
Of course the devil is in the details. If they release data that is even a few days old it isn't really useful for current tracking operations. And even if they release data in near-real-time (which I highly doubt) it also may not be very useful. It turns out that every tracking operation makes different assumptions about things like the shape of the Earth, gravity, and most importantly, the shape of the atmosphere (which is always changing because of day/night cycles). All those assumptions have to be rectified if you're going to merge one set of data into another set. That is a big computing and software task.

I suspect that they'll dump some historical or slightly old data and then use it to reap PR benefits, but this will not be a very useful database for people who actually fly satellites.

Could backfire though. The US could just claim Russia is trying to help ISIS and North Korea by letting them know when satellites might be overhead.

And that will just lead to round of counter claims from the Russian side.
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
Of course the devil is in the details. If they release data that is even a few days old it isn't really useful for current tracking operations. And even if they release data in near-real-time (which I highly doubt) it also may not be very useful. It turns out that every tracking operation makes different assumptions about things like the shape of the Earth, gravity, and most importantly, the shape of the atmosphere (which is always changing because of day/night cycles). All those assumptions have to be rectified if you're going to merge one set of data into another set. That is a big computing and software task.

I suspect that they'll dump some historical or slightly old data and then use it to reap PR benefits, but this will not be a very useful database for people who actually fly satellites.

Could backfire though. The US could just claim Russia is trying to help ISIS and North Korea by letting them know when satellites might be overhead.

And that will just lead to round of counter claims from the Russian side.

Not very effective I'm afraid. Aside from, "screw the US" what possible justification could they have for publishing everything?
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
Of course the devil is in the details. If they release data that is even a few days old it isn't really useful for current tracking operations. And even if they release data in near-real-time (which I highly doubt) it also may not be very useful. It turns out that every tracking operation makes different assumptions about things like the shape of the Earth, gravity, and most importantly, the shape of the atmosphere (which is always changing because of day/night cycles). All those assumptions have to be rectified if you're going to merge one set of data into another set. That is a big computing and software task.

I suspect that they'll dump some historical or slightly old data and then use it to reap PR benefits, but this will not be a very useful database for people who actually fly satellites.

Could backfire though. The US could just claim Russia is trying to help ISIS and North Korea by letting them know when satellites might be overhead.

And that will just lead to round of counter claims from the Russian side.

Not very effective I'm afraid. Aside from, "screw the US" what possible justification could they have for publishing everything?

That the US publishes their military satellite orbits, and they would argue don't you think this might damage our fight against ISIS?
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
Of course the devil is in the details. If they release data that is even a few days old it isn't really useful for current tracking operations. And even if they release data in near-real-time (which I highly doubt) it also may not be very useful. It turns out that every tracking operation makes different assumptions about things like the shape of the Earth, gravity, and most importantly, the shape of the atmosphere (which is always changing because of day/night cycles). All those assumptions have to be rectified if you're going to merge one set of data into another set. That is a big computing and software task.

I suspect that they'll dump some historical or slightly old data and then use it to reap PR benefits, but this will not be a very useful database for people who actually fly satellites.

Could backfire though. The US could just claim Russia is trying to help ISIS and North Korea by letting them know when satellites might be overhead.

And that will just lead to round of counter claims from the Russian side.

Not very effective I'm afraid. Aside from, "screw the US" what possible justification could they have for publishing everything?

That the US publishes their military satellite orbits, and they would argue don't you think this might damage our fight against ISIS?

Russia is fighting ISIS? Since when?
 
Or you can just ask Ted Molczan if you want to know where a specific launch went and he'll tell you. Then you can enter the data into a sat tracking program.
 
sferrin said:
muttbutt said:
sferrin said:
I'm scratching my head as to why this would be a problem.
They'll play it up on RT and Sputnik as a big deal and a poke in the eyes for the "Empire"

Sure, but I'm not sure the message they're sending is the one they think. Basically all they're saying is, "we're gonna tell the US what the US has in space because, uhm. . .the US said it didn't want us to. We rule."
It doesn't have to make sense to us...just the muppets who eat up Kremlin agitprop already.
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
blackstar said:
Of course the devil is in the details. If they release data that is even a few days old it isn't really useful for current tracking operations. And even if they release data in near-real-time (which I highly doubt) it also may not be very useful. It turns out that every tracking operation makes different assumptions about things like the shape of the Earth, gravity, and most importantly, the shape of the atmosphere (which is always changing because of day/night cycles). All those assumptions have to be rectified if you're going to merge one set of data into another set. That is a big computing and software task.

I suspect that they'll dump some historical or slightly old data and then use it to reap PR benefits, but this will not be a very useful database for people who actually fly satellites.

Could backfire though. The US could just claim Russia is trying to help ISIS and North Korea by letting them know when satellites might be overhead.

And that will just lead to round of counter claims from the Russian side.

Not very effective I'm afraid. Aside from, "screw the US" what possible justification could they have for publishing everything?

That the US publishes their military satellite orbits, and they would argue don't you think this might damage our fight against ISIS?

Russia is fighting ISIS? Since when?

Since they entered Syria or did you miss that?
 
Boy, that got off-topic fast.

Anyway, apparently the Russians have been sharing at least some of this data with NASA and ESA for years. So the only real difference is making it public.
 
Flyaway said:
Since they entered Syria or did you miss that?

Last I heard they were there to prop up Assad and bombing those the US supports (you know, those fighting ISIS).
 
blackstar said:
Boy, that got off-topic fast.

Anyway, apparently the Russians have been sharing at least some of this data with NASA and ESA for years. So the only real difference is making it public.

Which is odd since I'd think that NASA would already know where US stuff is. Then again we're probably talking about a common "pot" tracking every piece of space crap possible and putting the info in a generally common pool. Which, again, begs the question: what is the point of Russia's babbling it's going to tell everybody where US stuff is?
 
blackstar said:
Boy, that got off-topic fast.

Even though Paul continually warns against this sort of thing on his site, it seems some really can't help themselves.
 
kaiserbill said:
blackstar said:
Boy, that got off-topic fast.

Even though Paul continually warns against this sort of thing on his site, it seems some really can't help themselves.

^---this is what irony looks like. Perhaps one could help a person out though. How is discussing the motivation of Russia disclosing US military satellites not on the topic of Russia disclosing US Military Satellites?
 
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
blackstar said:
Boy, that got off-topic fast.

Even though Paul continually warns against this sort of thing on his site, it seems some really can't help themselves.

^---this is what irony looks like. Perhaps one could help a person out though. How is discussing the motivation of Russia disclosing US military satellites not on the topic of Russia disclosing US Military Satellites?

Except that it isn't:

sferrin said:
Russia is fighting ISIS? Since when?

sferrin said:
Sure, but I'm not sure the message they're sending is the one they think. Basically all they're saying is, "we're gonna tell the US what the US has in space because, uhm. . .the US said it didn't want us to. We rule."

sferrin said:
The US could just claim Russia is trying to help ISIS and North Korea by letting them know when satellites might be overhead.

sferrin said:
Aside from, "screw the US" what possible justification could they have for publishing everything?

sferrin said:
Last I heard they were there to prop up Assad and bombing those the US supports (you know, those fighting ISIS).

muttbutt said:
It doesn't have to make sense to us...just the muppets who eat up Kremlin agitprop already.

muttbutt said:
They'll play it up on RT and Sputnik as a big deal and a poke in the eyes for the "Empire"

::)
It's the same old same old.
Paul runs a great site, with international participation. This distinguishes this site from a host of other rubbish sites that descend into nationality-based chest beating. Those rubbish sites are two-a-penny, and aren't worth the time nor the bandwidth.

This site is superior, based on international participation about a host of projects around the globe. It doesn't need to be hijacked and made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas.
 
kaiserbill said:
It doesn't need to be hijacked and made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas.

There's this little thing called, "context". Discussing why Russia might be doing it is hardly "made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas". Instead of losing your mind, how about contributing to the discussion? Why do YOU think Russia is doing this?
 
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
It doesn't need to be hijacked and made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas.

There's this little thing called, "context". Discussing why Russia might be doing it is hardly "made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas". Instead of losing your mind, how about contributing to the discussion? Why do YOU think Russia is doing this?

Ah, well technically Sferrin... you are raising a lot of issues regarding Russian foreign policy in general - not just the release of a single document.

But just for further context - in another thread you did advocate going to war against the countries of several forum members and killing their countrymen ...which is kindof off-topic for an international forum discussing technology.

Your posts also sometimes cast aspersions on the judgement or motives of other forum members (as a former moderator I know that any discussion of motives or intent can be tricky).

So - you know - I suppose people like you and value your contributions... but it isn't like you aren't one of the more politically aggressive and often off-topic forum members. Agreed?
 
Avimimus said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
It doesn't need to be hijacked and made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas.

There's this little thing called, "context". Discussing why Russia might be doing it is hardly "made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas". Instead of losing your mind, how about contributing to the discussion? Why do YOU think Russia is doing this?

Ah, well technically Sferrin... you are raising a lot of issues regarding Russian foreign policy in general - not just the release of a single document.

But just for further context - in another thread you did advocate going to war against the countries of several forum members and killing their countrymen ...which is kindof off-topic for an international forum discussing technology.

I don't recall ever calling for "going to war" specifically, however I'll grant I may have said we have to support our allies. If a consequence of that is war so be it. Do you disagree? Should we not support our allies? That said, I don't wish for the death of forum members, and am a bit offended that you would suggest that.

Avimimus said:
but it isn't like you aren't one of the more politically aggressive and often off-topic forum members. Agreed?

I'll admit, it is a slippery slope. When Russia says, "we're going to tell the world where US satellites are despite them asking us not to", how could one not wonder why or what they hope to accomplish? What other discussion on that topic COULD there be?
 
sferrin said:
Avimimus said:
sferrin said:
kaiserbill said:
It doesn't need to be hijacked and made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas.

There's this little thing called, "context". Discussing why Russia might be doing it is hardly "made into yet another mud-slinging site based on stereotypes and political/media driven agendas". Instead of losing your mind, how about contributing to the discussion? Why do YOU think Russia is doing this?

Ah, well technically Sferrin... you are raising a lot of issues regarding Russian foreign policy in general - not just the release of a single document.

But just for further context - in another thread you did advocate going to war against the countries of several forum members and killing their countrymen ...which is kindof off-topic for an international forum discussing technology.

I don't recall ever calling for "going to war" specifically, however I'll grant I may have said we have to support our allies. If a consequence of that is war so be it. Do you disagree? Should we not support our allies? That said, I don't wish for the death of forum members, and am a bit offended that you would suggest that.

Aha. If I misinterpreted your intent - I'd like to apologise immediately.

Misinterpretation is easy when statements are very short and authoritative (as they often are in these forums). Thanks for the clarification.
 
Can we get back on topic?

Mods, could you maybe take a look?
 
I consider the releasing of the space object catalog to be a good thing. Any unaknowledged orbital object put up their is a possible safety hazard to the continuing of space based activities, especially as more commercial and industrial concerns get involved with such eventual things as asteroid mining and satellite reclamation.
 
The claim for the release appears to be that Russia and China want transparency of US satellites for the reasons of 'safety' in the event of a deorbiting satellite, potential orbital collision, or to disclose weapons in space.

The US has balked at a treaty for not weaponizing space, in which Russia and China 'say' the would support, however nuclear treaties with Russia have not been binding (e.g. INF) and China is in a state of increased militarization.

Russia also is focused on a doctrine with a low threshold for nuclear first strikes. If engaged with the US, Russia's response would be to launch tactical nuclear strikes against Europe (e.g. 2009 Russian simulation exercises against Poland). Their tactical nuclear weapons currently may be 10 times that of the US.

IMHO its a PR stunt. On the eve of a new American presidency the effort may be to show the world America's dominance in space in order to proliferate their 'US evil empire' propaganda and to focus American voter attention on the demilitarization of space for the 'world's benefit.' All the while continuing their own development of space-based weapons and continue to grow a dominant tactical weapons capability over the US. A US counter would be to echo Russia's and China's latest efforts to expand their frontiers via military adventurism and the numbers of tactical nuclear weapons pointed at Europe.
 
Could backfire, some of their "evidence" about the MH17 shootdown involved lying about where various satellites were at the time.
 
gwiz said:
Could backfire, some of their "evidence" about the MH17 shootdown involved lying about where various satellites were at the time.

That's not really going to matter. Russian propaganda does not rely upon being plausible and checkable. The way they work is by flooding the market with alternative stories. When there are a dozen different narratives circulating, people pick the one that they like and don't go and research the one that stands up to checking.
 
Could this be a cost reduction measure, by outsourcing general surveillance to a general data pool, ostensibly maintained by OSINT participants? It isn't cheap to maintain full general surveillance, as the issues with the current space fence radar can attest. Like treaty observation orgs, a general data pool, tweaked and monitored by people with more time on their hands effectively make a third party space surveillance group, though at the risk of disinformation campaigns.
 
ouroboros said:
Could this be a cost reduction measure, by outsourcing general surveillance to a general data pool, ostensibly maintained by OSINT participants? It isn't cheap to maintain full general surveillance, as the issues with the current space fence radar can attest. Like treaty observation orgs, a general data pool, tweaked and monitored by people with more time on their hands effectively make a third party space surveillance group, though at the risk of disinformation campaigns.

Doubtful, since it would be all too easy to subvert or otherwise comprise the data & related analysis from such a system.
 
The US already did the same thing to France when they launched their first space surveillance satellites (and even though France is an ally and also a member of NATO). Go figure... The NRO must be jealous and thinks only they should have space based surveillance toys... (France retaliated by saying they "might" disclose the position of US spy satellites. They should not have worried, all you have to do to find the position of US spy satellites is to consult on of the several online websites run by sat watchers who use ordinary Celestron amateur astronomy telesctopes and publish their results online, including for the so-called "Stealth" US spy satellite (you know, the one that tried to hide its actual position and status by trying to look like it blew up, liberating some debris in orbit, and then changing its position in orbit to a new one).

Website: http://www.picturetrail.com/stratospheremodels
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom