If I recall the details correctly, there have been observations recently of another NRO satellite in a geostationary orbit above the middle east and west Asia, that apparently can maneuver and reposition itself.
And if I'm still not mistaken (may have been a different satellite) it was confirmed that this satellite had extraordinarily high communications bandwidth and was speculated to be used either for SIGINT or for operating UAVs.
Anyone interested in it, other classified satellites and classified things on the map in general should look up Trevor Paglen. He's a Geographer who's recently begun taking pretty spectacular shots of classified satellites.
Thank you (and GP) for the Paglen reference, I remember watching this talk but could not find it again afterward. Now bookmarked.
I especially like how the CCC crowd slowly realizes why a photographer/artist would be talking at this conf at all. There's definitely a "ho shit, that guy ain't playing" moment there.
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.
That is incorrect. He first mentions CIA fronts, but then goes on to discuss real companies that occasionally do business with the CIA 'on the side'. Two of these (Sportsflight and Richmor) sued each others on activities that happened to be tied to the CIA.
He did not make that claim out of thin air, but produced documents that were publicly available.
The New Yorker provided more details on this topic in a piece they did on Paglen:
"More than fifteen hundred documents were made public in the case: invoices, e-mails, cell-phone logs, receipts. These contained financial data—a typical rendition itinerary seems to have cost the government about three hundred thousand dollars—and structural details of the rendition program."
> it was confirmed that this satellite had extraordinarily high communications bandwidth and was speculated to be used either for SIGINT or for operating UAVs.
Given that the recently launched civillian satellite Viasat-2 has a bandwidth of 300Gb/s and a reported expected latency of about 25ms, its not hard to imagine that a classified satellite like this may have crazy high bandwidth and low latency, perfect for reconnaissance, SIGNINT or operating UAVs.
I’ll try to find the source. I guess it must have been mistaken given what you said.
EDIT: Haven’t found the source. I did find that the existing ViaSat-1 latency (on Exede, and actual ping times not satellite->ground latency) is 600 to 700ms, so that’s roughly in line with what you said. Exede do a bunch of latency compensation where they can so people often report lower latency, but for eg online games that obviously won’t work.
I also know that what I read before was specific to airplane in-flight internet, although I doubt commercial flight altitude make any difference to latency, so that’s likely an irrelevant point.
"Active SIGINT" really only applies to CNE and not the traditional COMINT where MITM is used for translation and interpretation. In which case latency does matter, but not on the order of ms.
unless you're doing sigint in something very fast, like a missile launch.
That's FISINT/ELINT/MASINT though and has a completely different PED chain. Almost 100% automated.
A test and demo of capabilities such that Russians and Chinese notice is the most plausible explanation I'd guess. Not sure if they cared if amateurs noticed or not.
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.
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.
If it was just demonstrating the capability, I would think they could always launch more into more appropriate orbits. I almost think they chose the ISS just to make sure all relevant parties were watching, since it is probably always being closely monitored.
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.
If you can get close to a satellite however, you can take photo's from up close or from arbitrary angles. Spy agencies might be very interested in this. You could conceivably also put in inside your cargo bay and bring it back to the surface for 'disassembly', though its owners would probably be unhappy about that.
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?
Hope it is not too late but the aluminum foil meme was a Department Psi op. Interestingly enough it was Russian (well Soviet) researchers that showed that aluminum in fact enhances susceptibility in the remote subjects.
If I recall the details correctly, there have been observations recently of another NRO satellite in a geostationary orbit above the middle east and west Asia, that apparently can maneuver and reposition itself.
And if I'm still not mistaken (may have been a different satellite) it was confirmed that this satellite had extraordinarily high communications bandwidth and was speculated to be used either for SIGINT or for operating UAVs.
Anyone interested in it, other classified satellites and classified things on the map in general should look up Trevor Paglen. He's a Geographer who's recently begun taking pretty spectacular shots of classified satellites.