Topic: Simple Satellite Flybys

[The Postman]

NEW--SIMPLE FLYBYS: Spaceweather.com has a new tool for US and Canadian readers: Simple Satellite Flybys. Just enter your zip code and it tells you about satellites due to fly over your area in the nights ahead. There are hundreds of spacecraft in Earth orbit; we cut through the confusion by narrowing the list to a half-dozen or so of the most interesting. At the moment we're monitoring Jules Verne, the International Space Station, space shuttle Endeavour and the Hubble Space Telescope. Please try it and, remember, it's a new tool with room for improvement. Feedback is welcomed.

http://spaceweather.com/flybys/

[NJAntman]

Nice. I got my nieces & nephews hooked on watching shuttle fly-overs, this site will definitely be appreciated.

Thanks for the link. 

[Just plain old Punisher]

A wonderfull tool for those third-world nations that want to avoid recon sat passes.

[knightstorm]

A wonderfull tool for those third-world nations that want to avoid recon sat passes.

They've been able to do that for a while, our advantage was until recently, other countries tended to underestimate the capabilities of those satellites, or our ability to piece together facts on the ground from the imagery.

[marstone]

A wonderfull tool for those third-world nations that want to avoid recon sat passes.

They've been able to do that for a while, our advantage was until recently, other countries tended to underestimate the capabilities of those satellites, or our ability to piece together facts on the ground from the imagery.

we can also change the speed of those satellites so it wouldn't be accurate, if it even shows those.  I will have to check, I want to see the soviet ones (names withheld) that pass over my local base (be nice to know when they cross).

[knightstorm]

A wonderfull tool for those third-world nations that want to avoid recon sat passes.

They've been able to do that for a while, our advantage was until recently, other countries tended to underestimate the capabilities of those satellites, or our ability to piece together facts on the ground from the imagery.

we can also change the speed of those satellites so it wouldn't be accurate, if it even shows those.  I will have to check, I want to see the soviet ones (names withheld) that pass over my local base (be nice to know when they cross).

As I understand it, changing the speed of the satellite uses fuel which reduces the operational liftime of the satellite, and is the sort of drastic move that is only done when there is reason to be especially suspicious, so it is normally accurate.  Also from looking at that site, I have come to the conclusion that it may be nothing more than advertising.  This is what came up for my area code.

 BRIGHTNESS: visual magnitude 3 (dim but visible)
Genesis 1 is a prototype space hotel room -- no kidding! Genesis was launched by Bigelow Aerospace as a test to see if inflatable satellites can be orbited and eventually connected together to create a sprawling space hotel. There are currently two modules in orbit: Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Both modules are faint, they shine like 4th magnitude stars, but they are easy to notice with the unaided eye because of their motion across the sky. For more information visit the Bigelow Aerospace web site.  I just searched Washington DC, the same thing came up.

Apparrently according to their site, aside from Genesis, the only other things they track are Hubble and the ISS

[marstone]

A wonderfull tool for those third-world nations that want to avoid recon sat passes.

They've been able to do that for a while, our advantage was until recently, other countries tended to underestimate the capabilities of those satellites, or our ability to piece together facts on the ground from the imagery.

we can also change the speed of those satellites so it wouldn't be accurate, if it even shows those.  I will have to check, I want to see the soviet ones (names withheld) that pass over my local base (be nice to know when they cross).

As I understand it, changing the speed of the satellite uses fuel which reduces the operational liftime of the satellite, and is the sort of drastic move that is only done when there is reason to be especially suspicious, so it is normally accurate.

That is true, changing speed shortens the life of the satellite, but for something worthwhile, it is done.  Only the true third world contries don't get satellite tracking data on all enemy satellites.  This is one reason I liked the SR-71, whenever whereever you want pictures taken (and nice pics too).  But in my opinion, if we needed to get a shot of something in a third world area, our satellites would do a good job, if not, we have the new unmaned recon vehicles, which are better for tactical anyway (you don't have to wait for a fly over time of a satellite) you can linger and view for a long time.

[knightstorm]

A wonderfull tool for those third-world nations that want to avoid recon sat passes.

They've been able to do that for a while, our advantage was until recently, other countries tended to underestimate the capabilities of those satellites, or our ability to piece together facts on the ground from the imagery.

we can also change the speed of those satellites so it wouldn't be accurate, if it even shows those.  I will have to check, I want to see the soviet ones (names withheld) that pass over my local base (be nice to know when they cross).

As I understand it, changing the speed of the satellite uses fuel which reduces the operational liftime of the satellite, and is the sort of drastic move that is only done when there is reason to be especially suspicious, so it is normally accurate.

That is true, changing speed shortens the life of the satellite, but for something worthwhile, it is done.  Only the true third world contries don't get satellite tracking data on all enemy satellites.  This is one reason I liked the SR-71, whenever whereever you want pictures taken (and nice pics too).  But in my opinion, if we needed to get a shot of something in a third world area, our satellites would do a good job, if not, we have the new unmaned recon vehicles, which are better for tactical anyway (you don't have to wait for a fly over time of a satellite) you can linger and view for a long time.

I would tend to agree with you, but the key term is "something worthwhile.  Meaning they have to already have an idea that something is happening in order to justify it.  What I am saying, is that third world countries might be aware of the satellite presence, but if they don't know what the satellites are capable of they might become complacent and get caught.  While I would prefer not to get into a political argument, one example is this satellite photo of Bin Laden's camp taken before the cruise missile strikes
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB13/7.jpg
Bin Laden easily had the resources to track the satellites if he chose there are amateur satellite tracking associations around the world that publish this kind of information, but the fact that satellite intelligence was used to plan an attack on his base camp indicates that he did not consider them a threat.  The failed strike tipped our hand to what our satellites were capable of finding, and bin Laden didn't slip up like that again.  This is evident by our failure to catch him since then.

[Dracho]

If you have one of the telescopes that you can electronically point at objects, check out a piece of software called Starry Night Pro (Canadian Company).  It does the same thing, but it'll point your telescope (via USB) at the object you designate.  Pretty cool.

[marstone]

I would tend to agree with you, but the key term is "something worthwhile.  Meaning they have to already have an idea that something is happening in order to justify it.  What I am saying, is that third world countries might be aware of the satellite presence, but if they don't know what the satellites are capable of they might become complacent and get caught.  While I would prefer not to get into a political argument, one example is this satellite photo of Bin Laden's camp taken before the cruise missile strikes
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB13/7.jpg
Bin Laden easily had the resources to track the satellites if he chose there are amateur satellite tracking associations around the world that publish this kind of information, but the fact that satellite intelligence was used to plan an attack on his base camp indicates that he did not consider them a threat.  The failed strike tipped our hand to what our satellites were capable of finding, and bin Laden didn't slip up like that again.  This is evident by our failure to catch him since then.

I fully agree with you on this.  If these sights started to report on our spy satellites I would be unhappy about it.  This was a part of the field I worked on in the service.  I didn't get to mess with the satellites directly, but got to use the data they collected.  The only good part of it all is that there are so many satellites buzzing past overhead that you can mostly assume that you are clear of the spy satellites most times.  That is where the slip ups happen, you can do something the same time everyday and only a few of them would get caught by the satellites.

But as I said you have to think something is worth while in the area first because the satellites do not normally just take a constant stream of pictures, they target areas and pick where they want them.  Thus, it is harder to find Bin Laudin now as you have to have a general idea where to focus your search.  And then he has to be out at the right time, and picking out a single person from an overhead shot is really hard.   Trust me, I am right up there when it concerns our security of our country.  Been there, served my time, have respect for those still at it.

[knightstorm]

I would tend to agree with you, but the key term is "something worthwhile.  Meaning they have to already have an idea that something is happening in order to justify it.  What I am saying, is that third world countries might be aware of the satellite presence, but if they don't know what the satellites are capable of they might become complacent and get caught.  While I would prefer not to get into a political argument, one example is this satellite photo of Bin Laden's camp taken before the cruise missile strikes
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB13/7.jpg
Bin Laden easily had the resources to track the satellites if he chose there are amateur satellite tracking associations around the world that publish this kind of information, but the fact that satellite intelligence was used to plan an attack on his base camp indicates that he did not consider them a threat.  The failed strike tipped our hand to what our satellites were capable of finding, and bin Laden didn't slip up like that again.  This is evident by our failure to catch him since then.

I fully agree with you on this.  If these sights started to report on our spy satellites I would be unhappy about it.  This was a part of the field I worked on in the service.  I didn't get to mess with the satellites directly, but got to use the data they collected.  The only good part of it all is that there are so many satellites buzzing past overhead that you can mostly assume that you are clear of the spy satellites most times.  That is where the slip ups happen, you can do something the same time everyday and only a few of them would get caught by the satellites.

But as I said you have to think something is worth while in the area first because the satellites do not normally just take a constant stream of pictures, they target areas and pick where they want them.  Thus, it is harder to find Bin Laudin now as you have to have a general idea where to focus your search.  And then he has to be out at the right time, and picking out a single person from an overhead shot is really hard.   Trust me, I am right up there when it concerns our security of our country.  Been there, served my time, have respect for those still at it.

I never said that we didn't need the satellites.  What I said was that anyone with access to modern communications can track them, and that the big danger is not revealing the location of the satellites to hostile third world countries, but the threats that they pose to those countries.  I admit that I am not as knowledgeable on this as you are, but after the missile attack Bin Laden will probably make a greater effort to avoid the satellites.

[marstone]

No, I understood what you meant.  When the ability to track them get out to the wrong people it makes the intel communities work harder.  As for now, I have not seen a sight that tracked anything but public satellites yet.

A nasty sight that you might not think about is Google earth.  With that sight you can get the gps location of almost anyplace, and scout an area before going to it.

[knightstorm]

I would agree, but the one saving grace is that the images used are years out of date.  I'm also fairly sure that if there aren't sites that publish the information, there are communities where you can get it easily enough.  I remember back when I was in highschool, I read an issue of either popular mechanics or popular science with an article on spy satellites.  They were able to provide some rather detailed estimates of what the satellites looked like.  They also mentioned groups that observe them.

[marstone]

oh I am sure that there are the equivalent to satellite hackers, that work at trying to predict the orbits of the spy satellites.  One thing that makes them easier to track is that they have to follow orbit patterns that have been set for years.  Mainly as a way to show that it is a satellite and not a nuke coming over at you.  Sort of like the airlines that have to follow set pathways and heights when they transit from airport to airport.   But with as much junk that is up there, it is tough to keep track of each object (tho it can be done, think of what early astronomers were able to do with just staring into the sky.