Live data from Hacker News

Close encounters of the classified kind

thespacereview.com

41–44 of 44 posts

Re: Close encounters of the classified kind

#41
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people need to watch this. It reformatted much of my belief system in a disruptive way. That guy is something else.

Can you summarise this for those of us who haven't watched the video?

Summarize how it changed my belief system (or gave it a dent)? Or summarize the video? Ok, here's a summary: the video is just one of the most watchable things I've come across.

Re: Close encounters of the classified kind

#42
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's impossible to hide anything in leo from Russians or Chinese. They have their own radar and telescope surveillance networks. They always notice.

Stealth satellites aren't impossible given that all the tech has already been developed for Earthbound use, and unlike aircraft you only have to make the Earth-facing side stealthy.

What about the solar arrays? You are always going to be reflecting sunlight somewhere.

Re: Close encounters of the classified kind

#43
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you summarise this for those of us who haven't watched the video?

Summarize how it changed my belief system (or gave it a dent)? Or summarize the video? Ok, here's a summary: the video is just one of the most watchable things I've come across.

The changes to your belief system.

Re: Close encounters of the classified kind

#44
post #20
post #3

Allow me to don a shiny new cap of quality Reynolds aluminum foil and say this. If it was meant to be observed, and if it was intentional, and if it was nearly "danger close", couldn't this suggest that USA 276 is a platform in development not just to deploy sensors for observation but perhaps to, in the future host systems for engaging and destroying satellites.

Would there be a necessity to get close to a satellite to destroy it? Some sort of rocket could be launched from quite far away without needing much fuel if it was already in a similar orbit.

To have plausible deniability, yes. Maybe they don't wish to destroy it as much as damage it using a laser or they have some way of pushing it out of its orbit or causing it to go out of control. Say the US attack satellite was 20km away and could attack and damage another satellite. Blame could not then be attributed back to the US, right?
Post reply on HN