
A Russian satellite appears to be shadowing an American spy satellite - gscott
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32031/a-russian-inspector-spacecraft-now-appears-to-be-shadowing-an-american-spy-satellite
======
shawnz
I don't understand what's surprising about this? The satellite they are spying
on is itself a spy satellite!

------
adaisadais
This sounds like the start of an Orson Scott Card or Isaac Asimov Novel.

It’s beyond bizarre to think that we all live in a time period in human
history where it is feasible for mere mortals to potentially venture (with
appropriate protection) into the vacuum.

Let’s hope our governments will keep it pleasant so that we may all have a
chance to experience the great void.

------
bitL
How much data can you get from 150-300km away?

~~~
zelon88
Considering USA 245 is gathering data on targets that are 42,000km away I'd be
willing to venture that they can gather a lot at 300km. Perhaps they can use
this for signals intelligence as well.

~~~
joshvm
USA 245 is an Earth observation satellite, its apogee is only about 1000 km.
42,000km would be for a geostationary satellite.

But yes, 300km is pretty close in space. Since you have no issue with
atmospheric distortion, the optics become a lot more simple.

This is quite a small satellite - "mini fridge" someone said, which does limit
what you can put in it. 300km is a fair distance away and you'd need an
enormous focal length to resolve small features on the other spacecraft. It's
possible they just want to test how well they can track another satellite. For
a Hubble class telescope (~50k mm focal length) you'd get around 20cm
resolution for a 4MP sensor.

A more general way, since we don't know what sensor is onboard, would be to
calculate the diffraction limit for the largest mirror you could put on the
satellite (sibling comment suggested 1 m, which is about 1 arcsecond at
540nm). That works out to 20cm at 300km, or about 1cm at 20km. Of course you
still need the focal length and sensor to make this useful.

I guess you could compare Trump's images of the Iranian launch site which were
taken at a similar distance, but with a much larger satellite.

------
HenryKissinger
Russia needs to tread very carefully here:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost)

~~~
Nicksil
Non-mobile:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Burnt_Frost)

------
throw7
Sounds like a job for the space force.

~~~
consumer451
This is going to be a bit of a rant, but I hope not too off-topic.

I am a huge fan of space exploration, however I was really disappointed by the
online space community’s lack of objections at the further militarization of
space.

Maybe it is still not entirely inevitable and there is a precedent of global
agreement on no weapons in space[0]. I know that most folks have industry ties
and maybe that is the cause of their acquiesce.

I have an argument which I believe to be an entirely non-political and
objective reason as to why we need to continue down the evolutionary path of
becoming a nearly non-violent species. We also need to do that in relatively
short order. I was really hoping that space exploration was going to be that
shiny leading example of non-violence. If anyone wants to talk about that
further, then please give a reply.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty)

~~~
pmoriarty
I am for non-violence and against the militarization of space, but I'm at a
loss as to how to convince others of this.

Most non-violent movements are religious at their core, and if people don't
already believe in non-violence and don't believe in a religion which tells
them not to be violent, they are not likely to be convinced to change their
ways and adopt non-violence.

It's possible, though currently unlikley, that leaders of religions who
interpret their scriptures as calling for non-violence as a core value become
more influential in society. Unfortunately, the world seems to be heading in
the opposite direction right now, and as we saw with the assassinations of
Gandhi and Martin Luther King, such leaders are vulnerable to being eliminated
by people who have no problems with violence.

To ultimately be successful there has to be a grassroots, widespread,
decentralized change in consciousness among the masses, and we are very far
from that.

The one distant ray of hope that I see is more widespread use of psychedelics,
which have the potential to increase empathy and a feeling of connection to
and unity with the world and others. This is a pretty long-term hope, however,
and it still has the potential to be squashed if there's another backlash from
the powers that be.

~~~
meowface
I'm also for non-violence and am against militarization, but, sadly, violence
and military conflict are inevitably not going to go away starting from 2020
onward.

[Insert rant about coordination problems / game theory / tragedy of the
commons / Moloch] means the US needs to be there to counter other nations that
are going to try to militarize it. In an ideal world, such a military force
would only act defensively, not offensively or imperially (e.g. colonizing
planets, moons, and rocks purely in the name of the United States), but I
guess that's not too likely in the long-term.

When cyberwarfare started to become a real possibility and not just sci-fi,
would you have argued that the US creating cyberwarfare divisions is wrong and
shouldn't be done, even as just about every other major country was doing the
same?

If you were president of the US right now, what would you do if you vetoed a
space force and then a few months later, Russia and China simultaneously
announced the creation of their own space forces? Given the current state of
the world, I believe adding additional military capabilities is just
necessary, even though I'm also an idealist who detests violence, war, and
death of all kinds, targeted at any being.

If we lived in the year 2520 and all militaries have been disbanded for
centuries and every country has been living in peace with one another for the
same length of time, then, yes, I'd agree that breaking that precedent with
the creation of a space force would be wrong. But unfortunately, we're not
there yet, and it's possible we may not be even in 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000
years from now. (Yes, I know there's a chicken-and-egg logic there, but I can
only refer back to the implied coordination problem rant.)

~~~
pmoriarty
There are actions we can take that lead to escalation or deescalation.

The US used to lead, at least in some ways, towards a more peaceful world.
Together with the Soviet Union, the US got rid of thousands of nuclear
weapons. Now we are headed back in the other direction. The US still leads,
but it's leading towards more conflict.

Over and over again you see countries following the US as it, for example,
starts to justify assassinations, wars, and torture in the name of fighting
terrorism. The US unilaterally withdraws from nuclear non-proliferation
agreements and nuclear proliferation heats up. As you yourself point out, the
US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Just today it was
announced that the US is reversing course on a ban against use of land mines.

A major nuclear conflict is likely to result in hundreds of millions if not
billions of deaths. We have to pull back from the brink rather than always
edging closer and closer to it, and this won't be achieved through more
militarization.. especially not in a more multi-polar world where the US is
daily losing more and more of its technological edge.

Achieving a non-violent world isn't going to happen overnight, and it likely
won't happen without setbacks, but the US could take the lead and steer
towards peace instead of towards war.

~~~
meowface
>As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations
follow suit.

Yes, but you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts
militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to
be the first one to do it.

The land mines, I agree with. The nuclear situation is a little more
complicated, since some believe nuclear MAD has actually (so far...) saved far
more lives in total than if it weren't there, but I agree cutting back is
probably a good idea.

I think these things are different from having a military presence in space. I
think it's like creating an air or cyber force. It's a vacuum that's
inevitably going to be filled with a host of entities, so you might as well be
first.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts
militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to
be the first one to do it."_

This argument would be more convincing if Russia was the first to escalate,
but they weren't. Yet again the US took the lead.

Even if Russia had been the first to escalate, the US could respond in all
sorts of non-military ways before resorting to a military solution.

This also ties back in to many other aggressive actions the US has taken,
arguably since WW2. If it didn't keep squandering its political and moral
capital, it would be much more persuasive to the world at large in leading the
way to peace. Instead, its self-serving aggression is resulting in ever more
polarization, paranoia, and enemy-making. It would be bad enough if the US was
simply digging its own grave, but it seems to be intent on digging a grave for
everyone.

This is truly madness, and I don't see it ending in anything but a global
fireball, especially if everyone keeps insisting on throwing more gasoline on
the fire.

~~~
meowface
I would bet a large percentage of my savings that a country other than the US
would've created such a military force within the next 20 years if the US
hadn't (probably the next 10). Creating a military presence in a new domain
doesn't necessarily imply any sort of aggression. It can be a buffer, an
incentive not to attack America, etc.

The world isn't currently in a state of peace and harmony, or anywhere near
it. If it were, then I'd agree that this would be a disgusting and peace-
threatening precedent set by America. But this is not the world we live in,
even though I hope it will be the world at some point within the next few
millennia.

To be clear, I'm not supporting or defending any other actions taken by the US
since WWII. I empathize with the citizens of countries that our government has
abused, exploited, and killed. I just see nothing wrong with creating a space
force. If we have an air force, why shouldn't we have an above-air force? If
your argument were "we shouldn't have an air force _or_ an above-air force",
then I'd be much more inclined to agree (though with caveats, given all the
game theory coordination stuff I alluded to).

If we're going to have a military, why would you half-ass it? I think you
should either have nothing but a token military like Switzerland, or one that
tries to be capable of engaging in combat in every domain. Having a "just
mostly pretty sort of capable" military doesn't make any sense. Shit or get
off the pot. Again, I'd love it if everyone in the world only had a token
military, or no military.

Actual peace-threatening, provocative actions are things like cancelling the
Iran deal, assassinating Soleimani, invading Iraq, Bay of Pigs; the list goes
on for pages. I don't see the parallel between those and this. Now, if the
government had announced our space force is going to colonize half of Mars in
the name of the US, then I'd fully agree with you. That's a thing that could
happen, and I certainly don't want it to. Trying to establish a true, fair one
world government might be the only way to create lasting peace, but, again,
sadly I don't think that'll be possible in our world for a very long time.

