Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

futurism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#71

Post by unchocked »

Note that these 50cm image resolutions are limited by law, not technology. The US military of course has superior technology, and its resolution is unlikely to be limited by statute.

The NRO Topaz satellites are the successful radar development of the two prong Future Imaging Architecture (the optical component failed, which was to be the successor to Keyhole [of which the Hubble Space Telescope is derived]) should be assumed to have capabilities far beyond those of this company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Imagery_Architecture

https://www.space.com/23871-air-force-spy-satellite-launch-n...

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washington/11satellite.ht...

^ A very well put together long read from the Times on black world contracting chaos, exemplified by these satellites.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#72

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

giantg2 wrote: post #68
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought tanks and infantry were already basically done against equiv-tech opponents. They are not sufficiently mobile to dodge the various smart weaponry we have available today.

As those offesive technologies advanced, so too have the countermeasures. Another part is that you have equal-weight matchups occurring at each level. Your expensive and highly capable platforms will be busy targeting the adversarial platforms that pose the most threat to them (usually expensive systems as well), leaving less time/resources to commit to the lower weight targets. For example, you're not going to get a…

Maybe? I feel like most of the countries at the top present tech levels could not really absorb the kinds of infantry and mechanized losses that would ensue if they tried to have an actual ground war. Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable. This is to say nothing of the losses that could be inflicted with strategic weaponry (either nuclear or non-nuclear) in a total war. This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#73

Post by dylan604 »

motohagiography wrote: post #9

In the 9ghz range, does that mean a sub-1mm wire mesh could mitigate this? Asking for a hypothetical house renovator friend. Thompson's adage of when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro suggests that the tinfoil hat crowd could be able to corner the emerging domestic Faraday cage market.

Mike: "Hey Bob, what's up with this one house in this neighborhood? We aren't able to get a look in side."

Bob: "Hmmm, anyone preventing us from getting a look means they are subversive. Get a no-knock warrant to investigate that location. Only illicit activities can be taking place there."

In this case, being "invisible" actually makes you more suspicious which only brings their attention upon you that much more intense.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#74

Post by capekwasright »

SoapSeller wrote: post #45
capekwasright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is likely the best recent example (from last year): https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29634/trump-tweets-int...

It doesn't looks like SAR to me(there are shadows, for example). More like standard optical image(the resolution and details are amazing, if it's a satellite, which is doubtful given the angle).

Correct; optical, not SAR. Should have made that clear in my original post.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#75

Post by giantg2 »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #72
giantg2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As those offesive technologies advanced, so too have the countermeasures. Another part is that you have equal-weight matchups occurring at each level. Your expensive and highly capable platforms will be busy targeting the adversarial platforms that pose the most threat to them (usually expensive systems as well), leaving less time/resources to commit to the lower weight targets. For example, you're not going to get a…

Maybe? I feel like most of the countries at the top present tech levels could not really absorb the kinds of infantry and mechanized losses that would ensue if they tried to have an actual ground war. Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable. This is to say nothing of the losses that could be inflicted with strategi…

"Guided rocket artillery, cruise missiles, airstrikes, etc. seem capable of killing infantry in numbers that would not be politically acceptable."

Even infantry to infantry conflicts against a peer-like adversary would result in unacceptable losses for today's society.

"This is part of why I don't expect any future direct wars between world powers."

I somewhat agree with that. I think it could be possible in a scenario similar to that video game (Solid Snake?) where countries fight each other in highly mechanized/autonomous fashion - limited loss of life, but high economic costs until one collapses. But yeah, probably more likely to be a cyber war or cold war scenario. Technically we are in a loose proxy war with Russia based on what's going on in Syria.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#76

Post by parsimo2010 »

infoseek12 wrote: post #57

I’ve often wondered why no commercial satellite provider provides any kind of RF platform. I believe you could tell which power plants and factories are active and at what level from the amount of RF emissions. It seems like you could get lots of valuable information without even decoding any of the signals. Does anyone know why this service has never been offered?

What you’re asking about is essentially why hasn’t anyone started a civilian SIGINT/MASINT company. The main reason is cost and governments. Most civilian devices are compliant to some country’s emission standard, and don’t have a lot of spurious emissions outside of their fundamental frequency, and only use the power necessary to complete their function. Detecting these things from space is crazy hard. When your field of view is wide, you have a ton of similar signals stepping on each other. When your field of view is narrow it takes a lot of time to look at everything. Overcoming these basic problems is why the major powers of the world have to spend billions of dollars to do it. And even if you managed to fund and develop a civilian capability, you have to get permission from a major world power to launch and operate. They don’t like competition- this is why civilian space imagery has limited resolution and why Capella has to limit their resolution. Civilian SIGINT would have to be limited to the point where it has no commercial use. If civilian SIGINT were able to measure activity at factories it could measure activity at military bases and track military movements.

While it would be cool to have the capability, it won’t happen soon. Not because there aren’t people smart enough to solve the technical problems, but because nobody has navigated the political issues. The people with the resources to do so are happy enough with the money they are receiving from the governments of the world.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#77

Post by baybal2 »

aerostable_slug wrote: post #70
geomark wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also used to track submerged submarines by detecting ocean surface disturbances caused by the underwater wake of the submarine. Same benefits: works at night and through cloud cover.

Tracking submerged boats from space is the holy grail of ASW, and as best as I can tell it doesn't work outside littoral zones (where sometimes you can optically detect the sub) and contrived tests. It has been tried with SAR, blue/green lasers, IR, all kinds of stuff, and luckily it doesn't work in the real world. When it does, it will be massively destabilizing as it places the "invulnerable" second strike capabili…

> When it does, it will be massively destabilizing as it places the "invulnerable" second strike capability that guarantees deterrence against peer states at risk.

It never been such to begin width, at least by the late cold war, some portion of missile subs were reliably tailed by adversaries without any high tech trickery.

North Korea, Russia, and China each already have more submarines than USA, and would have no problem to put 10 subs to tail each Ohio.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#78

Post by baybal2 »

roywiggins wrote: post #35
inakarmacoma wrote: post #29

Can you build one of these in a non-satellite form? Like, looking inside my computer or similar, or my closed closet?

Yes, and law enforcement buys these things. They can see through walls. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Radar-T...

Those things operate completely unlike a SAR imaging satellite.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#79

Post by baybal2 »

unchocked wrote: post #71

Note that these 50cm image resolutions are limited by law, not technology. The US military of course has superior technology, and its resolution is unlikely to be limited by statute. The NRO Topaz satellites are the successful radar development of the two prong Future Imaging Architecture (the optical component failed, which was to be the successor to Keyhole [of which the Hubble Space Telescope is derived]) should b…

> Note that these 50cm image resolutions are limited by law, not technology.

By physics, and computing power.

For any stable circular orbit, a satellite can only fly that fast, and the radio window would only pass so much of radio spectrum.

Re: A New Satellite Can Peer Inside Buildings, Day or Night

#80

Post by jolmg »

wlll wrote: post #49
motohagiography wrote: post #9

In the 9ghz range, does that mean a sub-1mm wire mesh could mitigate this? Asking for a hypothetical house renovator friend. Thompson's adage of when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro suggests that the tinfoil hat crowd could be able to corner the emerging domestic Faraday cage market.

I think this is a balance. Being the only house in the area that can't be seen into might get you more attention someone being able to see you in your underwear at a 50cm x 50cm resolution.

Unless you live underground, then you'll just look like the rest of the ground.

EDIT: On a more general case, I wonder how expensive and feasible it would be to cover the roof/ceiling and walls with an array of 9ghz emitting "pixels" with the wire mesh behind that. Then show the satellites whatever image you want. Make it look like funny stuff is going on inside for their own amusement.

Wouldn't be able to account for the different angles the satellite might take pictures from, though. Unless you track it.

Post reply on HN