They'll play it up on RT and Sputnik as a big deal and a poke in the eyes for the "Empire"sferrin said:I'm scratching my head as to why this would be a problem.
muttbutt said:They'll play it up on RT and Sputnik as a big deal and a poke in the eyes for the "Empire"sferrin said:I'm scratching my head as to why this would be a problem.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
It doesn't have to make sense to us...just the muppets who eat up Kremlin agitprop already.sferrin said:muttbutt said:They'll play it up on RT and Sputnik as a big deal and a poke in the eyes for the "Empire"sferrin said:I'm scratching my head as to why this would be a problem.
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: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?
Flyaway said:Since they entered Syria or did you miss that?
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.
blackstar said:Boy, that got off-topic fast.
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.
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?
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"
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.
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?
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.
Avimimus said:but it isn't like you aren't one of the more politically aggressive and often off-topic forum members. Agreed?
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.
gwiz said:Could backfire, some of their "evidence" about the MH17 shootdown involved lying about where various satellites were at the time.
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.