Break out the pocket book and pay Planet Labs to do it. You could do it with much less frequent visits than this probably the search area for it every 2 hours isn't very large and image recognition systems are pretty good. The big threat is cloud cover.
Note that that article is from 2020. Nowadays the frequency is actually down to 90 minutes/1.5hr. The resolution is up as well and they can do massive image capture (~500km^2) and video (120sec stream) from their passes.
Also nowadays they provide multi-spectal capture as well which can mostly see through cloud cover even if it takes a bit more bandwidth and postprocessing.
The problem then is the black out zones themselves reveal a lot as well if adversaries can find their bounds. That narrows the search area for their own observation satellites immensely even if it's too large to respond to IRL.
Well in that case congratulations. You've just made it easier. Now you don't even have to track them. You just have to look for the blacked out box, the "error we can't show you this", reused imagery from their long running historical imagery dataset, or improperly fused/healed imagery after alteration.
So now you don't have to do the tracking, just find the hole.
And then you can use a non-US provider to get direct imagery now that you know exactly where to look.
If the restricted area is large, a carrier is regionally disabling for an imagery provider. If it's smaller (and therefore must move over time to follow the carrier group) as soon as the imagery provider starts refusing sales in an area, any customer can test and learn its perimeter with trial purchases, find a coarse center, and learn its course and speed. You don't care about anything else until there's actual hostilities.
...literally yes (to the latter)? Is that not exactly why modern warships have to implement things like measures to reduce their radar cross section? If you could actually just rely on "ocean too big" then there would be no need for that.
It is in part for small crafts (frigates and corvettes) but for pretty much anything larger there's no concealing those ships.
The primary reason however for minimizing radar cross section and increasing radar scatter is to harden protections against radar based weapon systems during a conflict.
Even if the ship is still visible in peacetime operations, once electronic countermeasures/ECM are engaged, it gets an order of magnitude harder for guided missiles to still "see" the ship.
Depending on the kit, once missiles are in the air the ship and all of their friends in their strike group/squadron is going to start jamming radar, popping decoys, and trying to dazzle the missiles effectively enough for RIM-174/SM-6, RIM-66/SM-1, and RIM-67/SM-2s to intercept it without the missiles evading. And should the missile make it to close-in range then it's just praying that the phalanx/CIWS takes care of it.
And if everything fails then all that jamming and dazzling + the reduced radar cross section is going to hopefully result in the missiles being slightly off target/not a complete kill on the vessel.
So they still serve a purpose. Just not for stealth. Instead serving as compounding increases to survival odds in engagement scenarios.
But what you're describing is stealth. "Stealth" doesn't mean "invisible". Humans wearing combat fatigues aren't literally invisible either especially when moving, they're just harder to track/get a visual lock on to aim at.
The point still stands that you cannot rely on "ocean is too big for anyone to find me" because it very much is not.
I think you are sim-interpreting what I was saying (and if you see what I've posted elsewhere in the discussion thread I'm very much in agreement with you).
I was just saying that stealth is a component of ship design for small crafts (i.e. those that would generally stay close to the coast) but that it's not the case for larger ships and even for those smaller ships it's just not the primary purpose for radar optimized hulls.
Close to the coast, non-coastal radar won't be able to detect ships nearly as well as out at sea where they stand out like a sore thumb. And of course coastal radar will still light up any ship so stealth there is of little value on foreign shores.
But really outside of some niche cases for small crafts, radar "stealth" is all about survivability and not the traditional view of stealth.
I recently upgraded my 4a to a 10 two months ago. Besides getting security updates again, it feels like a downgrade in every way that matters to me.
Can't lie flat due to camera bulge. No headphone jack. Fingerprint sensor on the front that screen protectors interfere with. No sim slot. Ai bullshit triggers if i keep my thumb to close to where you touch to switch apps. Ai bullshit also replaces the old power menu, which now requires a combo button press.
Not sure this is the reason but: it is generally not easy to get a satellite over the poles. You launch close to the equator in the direction of Earth's spin to take advantage of the (very substantial!) speed you already have due to the rotation of the planet. Getting from an equatorial orbit to a polar one requires a huge amount of fuel / energy. You can't just sort of "drive it over".
There’s enough satellites in Sun-synchronous orbit (97-ish degree inclination) that polar coverage should be pretty good by now, I’d imagine. The gap from the big guns (GEO and MEO) is more than made up by LEO.
From a practical standpoint, would you consider "Google Germany GmbH" to essentially be just a reference to Google, beholden to everything that matters to Alphabet headquartered in the United States?
If so, Nebius is just a fancy name for Yandex, beholden to everything that matters to Yandex LLC headquartered in Russia. They just chose a distinctly different name, presumably to avoid the association. When we were doing a deep-dive into cloud GPU providers, legal counsel veto'd them for this reason.
I don't know and can't speak for the team, but I suspect the "launching new products" is not a significant factor in the delays. It sounds to me like the delays are as a result of hardware manufacturing things (which maybe could/should have been planned for, but optimistically weren't), and that basically the alternative for the hardware folks would be a series of "sit on your hands for a couple weeks, then respond to the thing that came up" events, with the resulting delay for the PT2 being roughly equivalent whether they spend the intervening time designing new products or just waiting.
I considered that possibility, and if they were just adding in the PTR launch I could understand. But expanding into a totally different product line seems like it would take up a lot of time, and is surely slowing things down.
Given that the Chinese holiday is falling right in the middle of production and delaying things by over a month, it seems like they could have focused more on the PT2 and gotten it out the door sooner.
My guess is that once they realized they couldn't finish the run before the holiday, they gave up on trying to even start mass production before then. But like you, I'm just speculating from the outside.
Not so surprising. In the interim, Apple watch became a thing, and Apple has since locked down the ability for third-party smart-watches to do things in the iOS ecosystem.
At its core LLM / agent systems such as this consists of a weights file (essentially a long list of numbers) and a reasonably straightforward algorithm that you could, given enough time, operate with a pen and paper.
There's a lot of seeing faces on toast going on, here.
Data centers in space make perfect sense, in exactly the same way as a jetpack made perfect sense. It is an excellent vehicle to ride out some juicy government contracts for as long as you can keep the grift going.
I fly next week, I will have to decide whether having this conversation is worth not trying to get out of the opt-out procedure. The difficulty will be keeping a straight face.
So I expect your solution would fix all of it, as a second order effect, in that running one would stop being a viable business model.
reply