SpaceX Launches First Satellites For New US Spy Constellation (reuters.com) 36
fjo3 quotes a report from Reuters: SpaceX on Wednesday launched an inaugural batch of operational spy satellites it built as part of a new U.S. intelligence network designed to significantly upgrade the country's space-based surveillance powers, the first deployment of several more planned this year. The spy network was revealed in a pair of Reuters reports earlier this year showing SpaceX is building hundreds of satellites for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, an intelligence agency, for a vast system in orbit capable of rapidly spotting ground targets almost anywhere in the world.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in Southern California at 4 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, carrying into space what the NRO said was the "first launch of the NRO's proliferated systems featuring responsive collection and rapid data delivery." "Approximately half a dozen launches supporting NRO's proliferated architecture are planned for 2024, with additional launches expected through 2028," the agency said, without naming the number of satellites deployed.
SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from the Vandenberg Space Force Base in Southern California at 4 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, carrying into space what the NRO said was the "first launch of the NRO's proliferated systems featuring responsive collection and rapid data delivery." "Approximately half a dozen launches supporting NRO's proliferated architecture are planned for 2024, with additional launches expected through 2028," the agency said, without naming the number of satellites deployed.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the military sees it as a form of Mutually Assured Destruction. Put up so many satellites that the only way for an adversary to cripple its network is to create so much debris that nothing else can survive for long in LEO either.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone launching an attack on our satellites leaving us blind is much more likely to trigger Armageddon as a response than us sitting in the dark wondering what's next.
The safest planet is one where everyone knows what everyone else is doing. More information = less panic and fewer mistakes.
Only China and Russia could possibly do that. Neither is so irrational they would try unless they were serious about following up with a full scale nuclear launch.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't assume that only China and Russia have the capability of shooting down satellites.
As for Armageddon though, consider that ICBMs pass through LEO, so will be dodging debris. Realistically many will still get through, but it changes the calculations for survival a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Only Russia and China have proven capability. Who else are you concerned would attack US satellites en masse?
“Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.”
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Some random debris will not prevent the successful use of an all out nuclear strike.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone launching an attack on our satellites leaving us blind is much more likely to trigger Armageddon as a response than us sitting in the dark wondering what's next.
source: his arse
Re: (Score:2)
Having all your satellites be gone is somewhat different than having all your population be gone. However if they kill all the satellites of all the nations, they'll have half the globe lining up to kick their ass (and not enough money to compensate for the loss).
Re: (Score:2)
There's no grift like the grift of the libertarian "small government", "self-made" bootstrapped leech off the deep government pockets.
You're not a leech if you got the job as the lowest bidder - and by far. The leeches are LockMart and the other cost-plus contractors who have been bloating the defense budget for generations.
Re: Phoney Stark the grifter (Score:2)
You're a leech if you collect money without regards for the health of the host. Even the lowest bidder can charge an unsustainable fee, especially if they don't actually deliver and we have to pay someone else again for the same thing.
Why the hell is Musk being trusted with this tech? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you equally concerned about Chinese connections our companies have?
If not, why not?
If so, then is your home free of Chinese made goods?
Re: (Score:1)
Are you equally concerned about Chinese connections our companies have?
Yes!
If not, why not?
N/A, see previous answer, numbnuts!
If so, then is your home free of Chinese made goods?
As much as I have control over! And you realize my home isn't part of US spy infrastructure, right? Any other stupid questions, numbnuts?
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominem is so ugly.
It matters because you're supporting an evil government that spies on you every time you buy something from them. That should have been obvious. I shed a small tear every tine I have to explain the blatantly obvious to what are theoretically intelligent and informed adults.
Re: Why the hell is Musk being trusted with this t (Score:2)
You're going to die of dehydration then, because what you're referring to is basically meaningless identity politics. "Guise! Only buy from the Good Guy" suppliers okay? Best of luck to you, but you're not the Sampson you're fantasizing that you are.
Also, you know who feels it's necessary to call attention to their intelligence?
Stupid people. Because if you have to advertise it, it's almost certainly because your actions aren't showing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not calling attention to my intelligence. I have repeatedly and often stated I am dumber than a sack of wet bricks.
Yet my name is still correct. You may ponder from those 2 facts. Perhaps look up Dunning and Kruger.
Why would I die of dehydration? You're stoned or drunk or something.
Re: (Score:1)
Ad hominem is so ugly.
Oh boy, it's a good thing then that I didn't make an ad hominem attack. Have you ever considered that it's important to learn what words mean before using them?
It matters because you're supporting an evil government that spies on you every time you buy something from them.
Hence, why I said that my home is free of Chinese goods "As much as I have control over!" Basic reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling me stupid numb nuts isn't a personal attack?
Dude. I stopped right there. Delete your browser. Sell your phone. You don't belong on the net.
Re: (Score:1)
Calling me stupid numb nuts isn't a personal attack?
For a guy who dubbed himself " iAmWaySmarterThanYou", you're dumber than fuck. No, calling you "numbnuts" is not an ad hominem attack.
Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. Read the bold part again. Now read it again slower. One more time even slower since you're thick as shit, Now look at my comment.
See how when you asked "Are you
Re: (Score:2)
Were it not for Musk, Ukraine would be crippled by not having a reliable Internet infrastructure. Although the alliance is paying for it now, they weren't when the invasion started. Can you name another single private individual who has spent more private funds on helping Ukraine's defense? Maybe there is one or more out there but I bet you can't name them.
So much for being buddies with Putin.
Now tell us what you have done for Ukraine.
Re: Why the hell is Musk being trusted with this t (Score:2)
There's only one answer (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether it's a government, a corporation or a hacker, the point remains: they will get your data. Very few people will manage to prevent this. The only reasonable way for average people to fight back is to make that data worthless.
I'm not saying this will always be the answer, but the best one for right now is easy for everybody: poison the data pool. We're creative, dirty-minded primates who evolved to beat crap like this. Lie to these bastards every time you can. NEVER give them in
Re: (Score:3)
I saw a talk from a government spook in 2015 at Black Hat. He told us they already have access to all your data. The only problem was insufficient horse power to process all of it in real time enrich he promised their new data center would correct. That data center now exists.
Why did you freak out about some spam? My Gmail gets a dozen threats a week like that.
Anyway, sure use fake names but all your accounts and identities have already been tied back to you. I use various emails etc for spam reduction
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain I have a few secrets left. No interesting ones, perhaps, but still. I'm fortunate not to be an American, for one thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you from? If EU then some 5 Eyes agency likely has you.
spy (Score:1)
Aren't spy things supposed to be secret? Also, I hope they are deployed on a different orbit than the Russian weapon [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the point? It's not like the launch or the satellite itself can be hidden.
The only thing they can possibly hide are the exact capabilities of the satellite but one can safely assume they are "better than the old ones" which were already really amazing.
Go outside, look up, wave. They can see you wave. They can probably see the color of your eyes.
boycott Tesla (Score:1)
Musk is human garbage.
Russia's new nuclear ant-satellite weapon (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a reason Russia has supposedly developed a new nuclear-based anti-satellite weapon. SpaceX's unbelievably affordable Falcon launch system (which will be greatly superseded by Starship's launch capacity / affordability), coupled with the extreme miniaturization and power efficiency of modern electronics, has given rise to massive numbers of micro satellites - entire constellations like StarLink. This has broken parity with Russia's space capability. Back when satellites were big, massive things, incredibly expensive to manufacture and thus self-limiting in their quantity, Russia could do great damage to the US by taking out just a dozen or so of them.
Now, it's another game entirely. Using a very expensive and rare anti-satellite system to take out a single micro satellite is pointless. The cost balance is incredibly lopsided (the weapon would cost tremendously more than the satellite it took out), and because of the raw numbers, the loss of even dozens of micro satellites wouldn't be felt.
The only other option is for countries like Russia to develop and deploy their own new constellations of satellites, which they simply cannot do. They are riding the very last of the wave of technology produced almost half a century ago during the peak of the Soviet era, and have no ability to engineer neither satellites, nor the rockets to deliver them affordably into orbit.
I'm just pointing out that there are absolutely tremendous national security implications (for everyone but the USA) for SpaceX's reusable and affordable launch systems, coupled with the precedent for using relatively inexpensive satellites in mass quantities.
Re: (Score:2)
When alien archaeologists examine Earth, they will have all kinds of theories as to how we went extinct --meteor, super-volcano, pandemic virus etc.. The theory that everyone will laugh at as being preposterous is the one that states we offed ourselves. After all, no species could be that dumb -- especially not with such a large brain cavity. The poor PhD student who proposed such an offensive proposition will be drug-tested and have to redo his entire dissertation.
Re: Insert anti Musk snark /s (Score:3)
Shhhh get back into the space between the floorboards you crawled out from. I'll put on some Apprentice reruns if you can keep yourself quiet okay? The adults are attempting conversation, stop being silly.