Myanmar's satellite held by Japan on space station due to spying concern

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-politics-satellite-japan-excl-idUSKBN2B41O1

428 270 5 years ago

codezero• 5 years ago

The politics around a decision like this are fascinating. I assume they've already paid in part or in full for the launch, and regardless, they did R&D on a satellite which is itself an asset that is now difficult to return to the owner!

jaywalk• 5 years ago

Also, "the contract with MAEU did not specify that the satellite cannot be used for military purposes."

I completely understand why they're doing this, but it's tough to see how it's legal.

WJW• 5 years ago

Concepts like legality have much less meaning between countries. It's not like there is a court where Myanmar can sue if it wants their satellite back. At this level, the ultimate recourse is declaring war and reclaiming it by force but we all know how that would turn out.

bilbo0s• 5 years ago

Don't they say that the great secret of international law, is that there is no international law?

This situation is an example of what they mean by that.

ramphastidae• 5 years ago

According to what law? Tried in which court? And enforced by who? International law is basically: “Don’t like it? Well what ya gonna do about it?”

DigiDigiorno2• 5 years ago

Imagine you were contracted to release a satellite and then you realize you might be providing military equipment to a hostile nation.

Would you really think to yourself "Well the contract doesn't say I can't do this"?...

slg• 5 years ago

You used "they" a couple times in that comment and it is important to question who "they" is given the political environment in Myanmar. Is the "they" that paid for the satellite and did the R&D the same "they" that who would be controlling the satellite? If not, would the new "they" use the capabilities of this satellite in a nefarious way?

seniorgarcia3• 5 years ago

In context of this satellite, they is the MAEU (Myanmar Aerospace Engineering University) and the reason the satellite is being held is because apparently JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) can't reach the rector of the MAEU to make sure what the satellite would be used for.

The reason why they can't reach the rector of the MAEU is because he might have been arrested or is in hiding (https://www.myanmar-now.org/en/news/soldiers-raid-aerospace-...).

So, all in all, Japan is being careful and the situation in Myanmar is "undetermined". I think it is questionable where the "spying concern" is coming from, aside from being clickbait.

Officials at JAXA could not be reached for comment. MAEU did not respond to calls seeking comment, nor did a spokesman for Myanmar’s junta.

It could be used for spying, because it's a satellite with cameras. If it has the capabilities to be used for spying is unclear, all the data would go through Japan anyway. Japan does not want to comment on it, persons responsible at MAEU are in prison or in hiding and the junta would probably lie anyway.

rantwasp• 5 years ago

keep the satellite. shipping back is gonna be more than what we payed for it

drak0n1c2• 5 years ago

Something similar happened with the US and Iran. The Shah paid for military fighter jets, but then the Islamist theocracy took over. So the US froze the money and obviously wasn't going to deliver the jets to a USSR supported regime. The question of property legitimacy after a revolution is a recurring one throughout history.

https://time.com/4441046/400-million-iran-hostage-history/

selimthegrim• 5 years ago

Since when was Khomeini USSR supported? Tudeh and MeK got their butts handed to them pretty early on.

downrightmike3• 5 years ago

Oppsie! We dropped it and it burned up. Sorry lol

rusanu• 5 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENS_Gamal_Abdel_Nasser

Mistral class helicopter carrier, payed by Russia, built in France, delivered to Egypt instead due to the War in Donbass. France had to compensate Russia.

liquidify• 5 years ago

I'm curious about laws in this case. Is there 'jurisdiction' in space? Or is it just whoever is there can decide what they want to do.

mjevans• 5 years ago

I am not a lawyer; but the saying is something like... "possession is nine tenths of the law". This is much easier right now since currently JAXA possesses the un-deployed satellite.

vmception4• 5 years ago

I checked the article to reach that conclusion too, I was actually hoping it was more like space piracy where they captured the satellite and took it onboard. that would have been really fascinating!

Rapzid• 5 years ago

Myanmar: That's not your satellite.

Japan: That's not your government.

jandrese• 5 years ago

It's a diplomatic situation. The countries will have to negotiate the use of the equipment. I can completely understand the Japanese University not wanting the equipment to be used to further a genocide.

dylan6047• 5 years ago

What if they go ahead an launch it, but accidently miscalculate the orbit so it encounters a premature re-entry?

99_004• 5 years ago

The genocide started in 2017. The Junta sized power in 2021.

slim• 5 years ago

there are no juridictions outside (most) lands. these kind of issues are generally setteled by international treaties if possible, or else arbitration courts

thaeli• 5 years ago

The legal framework for space is primarily laid out in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Article VI is most relevant to your question; here's a law review article summarizing some of the issues: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

filereaper4• 5 years ago

I don't want to minimize the geopolitical issue here but wanted to ask about microsatellites and the ISS.

How do you put the satellite onto its intended orbit, like are only satellites intended with a polar orbit capable of this approach?

Do you need booster rockets to get in the right orbit?

Can we go the other way and use the ISS as like an orbital garage to capture and fix satellites?

This is the first I've heard if the ISS holding onto satellites, I thought satellites are deployed by the launch rocket and just put into orbit.

mcountryman• 5 years ago

I had to picture someone opening a window and throwing it into orbit haha

genera12• 5 years ago

It's not that far off from the truth

Steltek2• 5 years ago

It's actually pretty cool. They have a space torpedo launcher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoracks_CubeSat_Deployer#/me...

What I haven't figured out is how they get the sats far enough away from the ISS orbit with only one push.

dylan6047• 5 years ago

Great, so they're essentially littering. I hope the Space Force Police pull them over to issue a citation. At least, this will burn up in the atmo rather than in a water system, or do they turn themselves into microparticles ultimately landing in the oceans? They really are litter

ekimekim• 5 years ago

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/benefits...

Sounds like in most cases the satellites don't have any propulsion of their own, and are "ejected" onto their orbit from the ISS. Put simply, they get thrown out.

I'm sure some checks are done of the orbital mechanics to avoid any risk of a later collission, but keep in mind that the ISS makes frequent course corrections to stay in orbit, and at this low of an orbit drag is also a factor, so simply being a smaller craft will cause different forces to push you onto a different path.

Obviously this means you have very little choice in your orbit, but for many small satellites this isn't a concern.

EDIT: To answer your "use it as a garage" point, the answer is that it's way too impractical. In orbital mechanics, drifting apart from something is far easier than getting closer to it, and space is really, really big. Plus keep in mind that you need to not only be in the same place at the same time, but you also need to be moving at the same speed (relative velocities in LEO can quickly reach the order of kilometers per second).

filereaper4• 5 years ago

I imagined deploying a net of some sort to get close but not extremely close.

But I guess the high velocities mean you need a really strong and light net and the rapid deceleration might damage the satellite anyway.

baby• 5 years ago

Leo?

ryandrake• 5 years ago

Yea a few Kerbal Space Program sessions were enough to convince me that it's totally impractical to have a "collector" spacecraft that just goes around collecting old satellites and space trash in different orbits.

sailingparrot• 5 years ago

It's fairly common nowadays. Companies like Nanoracks [1] specialize in this. Obviously this can only be done for cubesats.

They are put into orbit simply by being ejected at the right angle and speed from the ISS.

[1] https://nanoracks.com/products/iss-deployment/

filereaper4• 5 years ago

Wow, this is super interesting.

I didn't realize launching satellites had become so turnkey now where you don't have all the friction of dealing with NASA or any large space agency.

Nanoracks has an interesting list of customers, like Adidas and Double-Tree by Hilton?!

resist_futility• 5 years ago

Looks like they are launched from a specialty module on the ISS with only a spring https://iss.jaxa.jp/en/kiboexp/jssod/

nickik2• 5 years ago

Now its done with the Nanoracks Airlock:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Ex...

stetrain• 5 years ago

This really only works if your satellite is very small and you are okay with being in roughly the same orbit as the ISS.

It is certainly not the norm for satellite launches, but if your mission meets the parameters and there is available space on a cargo supply that's already going to the ISS, you can potentially get a cheaper ride by going that route.

As far as I know the ISS doesn't have any facilities for "bringing in" a larger satellite or repairing it. NASA is pretty protective of the ISS and objects approaching it have to follow very particular procedures and be certified for the process (Dragon, Cygnus, etc.).

Also most satellites aren't in an orbit similar to the ISS. Things usually either get launched equitorially (east), polar (north/south), or are are much higher altitude in geostationary orbit. The ISS has a peculiar orbital inclination to make it more accessible to both US and Russian launch sites.

Animats• 5 years ago

This is the first I've heard if the ISS holding onto satellites, I thought satellites are deployed by the launch rocket and just put into orbit.

It's a commercial service, from Nanoracks.[1] They load cubesats into a container, have them shipped to the ISS, and the satellites are "launched" with a spring. So they're in roughly the same orbit as the ISS.

The price just went way up. NASA raised their price on transport to the Space Station from $3,000 per kilogram to $20,000 per kilogram. They also raised the astronaut labor rate to $130,000/hour. NASA was subsidizing the ISS launch scheme. So future cubesats will probably be launched from a Falcon 9 using one of Space-X's resellers.

[1] https://nanoracks.com/products/iss-deployment/

[2] http://parabolicarc.com/2021/03/05/nasa-jacks-up-iss-commerc...

Defenestresque• 5 years ago

Interesting article. As you mentioned, NASA is justifying the >6x price increase with:

In announcing the policy change, NASA said it had previously subsidized transportation to and from the station in order to foster the development of commercial space applications.
“Since making these opportunities available, there has been a growing demand for commercial and marketing activities from both traditional aerospace companies and from novel industries, demonstrating the benefits of the space station to help catalyze and expand space exploration markets and the low-Earth orbit economy,” the space agency said. “As a result, NASA has updated its pricing policy for commercial activities conducted on the station to reflect full reimbursement for the value of NASA resources.”

While I don't have any reason not to take this explanation at face value, I am curious about the timing. Did they just have too many potential customers to justify subsidizing the cost?

I was also surprised to see a "trash disposal" line item in the price catalog. It doesn't sound like ISS-generated waste. Does anyone know if this is literally people paying thousands of dollars per kg to transport cargo to space in order to dispose it by burning it up on re-entry? What could justify such a cost? Are there examples? What kind of restrictions on items are there?

(Perhaps I should just Google this myself! :)

outworlder• 5 years ago

They have to be 'roughly' in the same orbit as the ISS. You can go up or down. You would't really do any inclination changes (if you, say, wanted an equatorial orbit) as there's no way a microsat would have enough fuel. Better to launch in the correct inclination.

Can we go the other way and use the ISS as like an orbital garage to capture and fix satellites?

Moving the whole station doesn't really make sense. Even a vehicle would burn a lot of fuel, and would only really work, once again, in the same (or close to the same) inclination.

Inclination changes are so expensive that there was at least one case where an operator sent a satellite all the way to the Moon and back, because it cost less fuel that way.

shadowgovt• 5 years ago

Inclination changes are so expensive that there was at least one case where an operator sent a satellite all the way to the Moon and back, because it cost less fuel that way.

To get a good rule-of-thumb for this in your brain, you can think of it in terms of vector mathematics.

Consider a circular orbit. Now consider two vectors: one in the direction of that orbit, one perpendicular to it. A naive inclination change from 0 degrees to 90 degrees, with no other change to the orbit's dynamics (i.e. same eccentricity, same periapsis / apoapsis), require the velocity to change from parallel to the first vector to parallel to the second, at the same magnitude. That's a total change of SQRT(2 * starting_velocity^2) ~= 1.4 * starting velocity. If we consider a velocity that is LEO (about 7.8 km/s), our total velocity change would have to be about 10.92 km/s.

Putting a satellite into LEO from Earth's surface only costs between 9 and 10 km/s from gravity loss, steering, and wind resistance. Earth is a deceptively expensive gravity well to be doing inclination change maneuvers in.

rtkwe• 5 years ago

This is the first I've heard if the ISS holding onto satellites, I thought satellites are deployed by the launch rocket and just put into orbit.

Sometimes CubeSats will launch as ride-alongs on the rocket itself (it's more common on rockets not already going to the ISS) and others are designed to be launched from the ISS itself depending on how they're being paid for. In either case they'll wind up in the roughly 51 degree inclination of the ISS.

Can we go the other way and use the ISS as like an orbital garage to capture and fix satellites?

They can't really capture satellites because very few actually orbit at that level it's mostly the kind of short term cube sats that they launch out not larger satellites. Those live in higher orbits so getting to them to fix is not a small task. Another big hurdle is the orbital inclination changing that is extremely expensive to do, basically everything is placed into it's final orbital inclination at launch because of the fuel requirements to change it once you're in orbit. It's why the ISS is at such a high inclination to begin with, so that it's easier to get to from Baikonur where Russia launches it's vehicles from.

99_004• 5 years ago

Which is the government that committed the genocide? The one that sized power or the one that was thrown out, or some other one?

gostsamo• 5 years ago

It is complicated. Long decades Myanmar was a military dictatorship. A few years back the dictatorship allowed democratic elections under the condition that it will conserve key positions in the government and there was this brief period when the country was semi-democratic. The military part of the government initiated the genocide, but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way.

After the last elections, the military were supposed to loose some more of their positions and hence the coup.

vmception4• 5 years ago

and from my understanding, the military's unilateral action is also in line with their constitution, at least according to the military.

so where does that leave us to form an opinion and activism about it? just because we have a democracy-boner doesn't mean we can ignore a country's constitution, even if it is flawed, does it?

and if our democracy fervor is really so strong for us to actually do something about it, then its hypocritical because we don't do anything meaningful about it in country's that are more relevant, and it makes us picking on the little country.

ehsankia2• 5 years ago

but the democratic part was accused for not opposing in any visible way.

I definitely found that strange at the time, especially since said democratic part had previously gotten a peace nobel prize, but considering she was imprisoned by the military before and after this whole semi-democratic experiment, is it well accepted now that she was mostly under the control of the military and had very little choice in any of the matter? Or do people still think she was mostly complicit for not speaking up, at the risk of compromising the little bit of democracy they had.

simonh14• 5 years ago

It was done by the military, without reference to or oversight by any civilian government of the time, which had no say in it. The military in Myanmar was autonomous.

99_004• 5 years ago

Which is the government that committed genocide? The one that lost power, the one that sized power, or some other one?

elmomle• 5 years ago

It would seem from the language of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide, pp2) that the military (current group in power) bears chief responsibility--one thing I do know is that the military long existed as an independent power structure in the country. So it seems like they would only have driven the genocide its leaders had wanted to (given that this has been a deliberate, years-long operation). Perhaps someone with deeper knowledge could say more.

flavius296632• 5 years ago

on the first page of your link: The Burmese government dismissed these as "exaggerations"

It doesn't look like the government cared too much about the well-being of the genocided population. This is a hallmark in most genocides in history. The government doesn't have to order a massacre, most of the times it's just doing nothing.

flavius296632• 5 years ago

The one that lost power in the coup. They were in office since 2016. The genocide started in 2016. This seems to be a complicated situation, just like it was in Syria, and anyone who tries to simplify it and show a single sided story is trying to sell you.

kyawzazaw4• 5 years ago

That's not actually accurate. The genocide started way before 2016. It started with the 1962 law and the more brutal cleansing in 1980s.

There are a few books that I can recommend if you would like to read more.

colinmhayes3• 5 years ago

Even when Myanmar had a democratically elected government the military still had huge political power because the constitution had a clause that let them retake power whenever they wanted. The legitimate leader was always afraid of this happening, so it's quite hard to separate the two governments.

Rule354• 5 years ago

So it was a legal coup? What gives one side legitimacy?

garmaine5• 5 years ago

It was the military that was committing genocide, and the prior government was unable to control them.

naringas2• 5 years ago

"we can spy, but you can't" --"1st world" western powers

There must be a more modern term than "1st world", I just don't know it.

matheusmoreira• 5 years ago

FVEY. The Five Eyes. Five English-speaking countries that share military strength and intelligence. Somehow the world simply tolerates all the blatant espionage they perpetrate with zero diplomatic repercussions. The USA alone probably has more espionage satellites in space than every other nation combined.

jsty• 5 years ago

Somehow the world simply tolerates all the blatant espionage they perpetrate with zero diplomatic repercussions

Because pretty much every other country with a security service is either pursuing similar operations or wants to be. Sure when something becomes public a fuss gets made, but oddly enough no concrete repercussions ever follow.

xxpor2• 5 years ago

Because other European countries know they're screwed without the US's backing. In return, those countries don't have to spend nearly as much on defense as they would otherwise. You can see why this would be politically advantageous for the Europeans.

Outside of that, who could do anything diplomatically to the US that wouldn't just be laughed off?

downrightmike3• 5 years ago

USA learned it's lesson after being isolationist leading up to mass genocide and world wars. A league of nations didn't work, so things evolved into the USA being the guard dog for the world.

dylan6047• 5 years ago

You can spy too any time you want, right after you develop a launch platform. Until then, you develop anything you want to deploy to space, but if the launch agency you've contract with changes their mind, well, you've got a nice shiny museum exhibit.

naringas2• 5 years ago

so... might makes right?

samus3• 5 years ago

Why is any 1st world government supposed to help other governments spying? If Myanmar want a spy satellite up there, they should do it themselves. Or ask the Chinese. Can't imagine they wouldn't be interested in a launch platform closer to the equator...

simonh14• 5 years ago

Having a military advantage confers no moral obligation to share it.

Rule354• 5 years ago

Um yeah, I've got a gun and I'm not shooting you, but you - who have expressed displeasure with me - cannot get a gun because I believe you will shoot me.

Harm to you: Not having a gun. Harm to me: death.

Smart money is on maintaining a gap.

How do you feel we should update '1st' world? Change '2nd' to refer to allies and vassals of China instead of Russia? Add '4th world' to indicate some other relation other than allies/enemies/unrelated?

st3ve445678• 5 years ago

Begun, the space wars have.

jtdev• 5 years ago

Maybe a "Spaceforce" is actually a good idea?

__john• 5 years ago

I think it will be the thing he is most remembered for.

yabones• 5 years ago

Nope, still not a good idea.

The name alone suggests militarization of space which is a horrible idea. The only thing that kept us alive through the 20th century was mutually assured destruction, and more importantly, the capability to detect ICBM launches and retaliate within the 30 minutes before your continent is glassed. Space launched nukes don't give you any warning, you get at most 30 seconds to detect the shock heating in the high atmosphere before it's game over. It's an actual slippery slope, the very first payload containing weapons in orbit is a direct path towards space launched nuclear weapons.

downrightmike3• 5 years ago

lol, M4s won't do any good. Just let JPL solve this.

TeMPOraL9• 5 years ago

Sure it is. I love the show, can't wait for the second season.

Oh, you mean that other Space Force? That I'm not sure of, but I hear it was just a much-needed reorganization of who does what in the US military.

garmaine5• 5 years ago

Pretty much everyone in the space industry is in agreement that Space Force is a good idea. We have been in agreement on this for decades, and it was a bipartisan project that started under Obama. Not our problem that Trump took the existing plan and lazily stamped his brand on it...

627467• 5 years ago

As interesting as this situation is it also looks inconsequential. No one from burmese side has voiced anything (yet). Considering the political situation on the ground and how japan can't contact the burmese liaison it seems like this is just an (expensive) limbo situation.

aritmo2• 5 years ago

It looks like it is more about causing pain to Myanmar than actual spying concerns.

Xiaomi, the Chinese consumer electronics company, which definitely does only consumer products, is restricted from buying microchips. The excuse was an award that was granted by the CCP to the chairman of Xiaomi, a type of award that is given away to 100 people EVERY year.

lmilcin• 5 years ago

There is, almost by definition, no way to have business in China without cooperating with government. The award is inconsequential.

jessaustin4• 5 years ago

Every American consumer buys multiple products manufactured in China every week of her life. If this is the standard, we'll all be suspect. Perhaps that's the point...

DigiDigiorno2• 5 years ago

Cause Myanmar Pain?--That is not a reasonable take imo. It is a joint project with Japanese Universities involved. The Myanmar coup is very real, and it is prudent to review these things before making decisions anyway. After your unreasonable take, you segue to an unrelated China point; it feels shoehorned in.

lostlogin4• 5 years ago

The US government has designated Xiaomi as affiliated with the Chinese military. I know full well that the situation is complicated and there are multiple things going on. However it’s got to be a hair splitting exercise in a totalitarian state, as keeping onside with your overlords requires a degree of cooperation.

http://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/02/01/xiaomi-sues-us-to-overtur...

aritmo2• 5 years ago

Xiaomi is very competitive in the consumer electronics and in mobile phones. They are top in sales for mobile phones in many countries. There is an economic war with China that Trump started, and Biden continues.

The ban on Xiaomi is more of an attack as part of the economic war. The supposedly military ties due to a silly award were definitely shoehorned into this.

trasz• 5 years ago

Same thing as with Huawei - when USA can't compete technologically, they start competing in... other ways.

garmaine5• 5 years ago

This was an independent decision by Japan.

optimalsolver• 5 years ago

Not your satellite platform, not your satellite.

rafale• 5 years ago

Not your keys, not your bitcoin :P

dmos62• 5 years ago

Finders keepers

eunos• 5 years ago

Should have just went with Russia and Chinese then.

aaron6954• 5 years ago

monitor agriculture and fisheries.

Lol, are we going to bomb their corn fields next.

Exactly how could it be used by the military?

I don't know, but I feel like a satellite worth only $15 million and released from the space station wouldn't do much, but I might be pleasantly surprised tech has advanced enough.

I don't get how on such a low orbit if would be useful to one country? I think it's called the MMSATS-1 (Lawkanat-1)

https://www.global.hokudai.ac.jp/blog/collaborative-developm...

simonh14• 5 years ago

Cubes at imaging is really decent nowadays, this article shows images of a refugee camp.

https://www.ft.com/content/c7e00344-111a-11e8-940e-08320fc2a...

The concern is probably that satellite images could be used to identify and keep track of Rohingya and other ethnic minority settlements in jungle areas, and target them for attacks like the ones the military have been carrying out since 2017.

aaron6954• 5 years ago

I think it's a stretch the possible cameras are good enough to use by the military.

Here's photo's from Diwata-1 and Diwata-2 which is the same Japanese team and the Philippians. Similar costs, same project. https://www.goodnewspilipinas.com/diwata-1-2-view-from-space...

Diwata-1/Diwata-2 have a High Precision Telescope (HPT) which I see no mention of on the MMSATS-1, only a super multi-color imager (SMI). But I can't see the exact specs.

If you can find a photo of the underside of the MMSATS-1 you could see if it has a HTP by comparing it to this -

https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missio...

inetsee• 5 years ago

Can anybody tell me the resolution of the cameras on this satellite? Would it be better than the resolution of the images available from Google Maps? How much resolution is needed "to monitor agriculture and fisheries"?

gattilorenz• 5 years ago

No idea, but it's not necessarily "regular" cameras. For monitoring agriculture, infrared imagery is often used due to the difference reflective properties of vegetation (and other stuff) at different wavelengths; having multiple type of pictures, at different wavelengths, is useful to get better estimates of what you're looking at than what you would achieve with just visible light.

ngcc_hk• 5 years ago

Is there any general picture related to these and others. Old days most concern with geo sync etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_orbits

Not hundreds of floating around ... I only concern in the past how it affects by astro photo. But if it goes back to this low orbit floating how these ideas come around and how to choose one from others.

More important how it work across national boundary.

tjpnz• 5 years ago

With Soichi Noguchi up there now this headline can be read literally.

elliotec• 5 years ago

What? Can it not be read literally anyway? What's the context?

known• 5 years ago

https://www.speedcheck.org/wiki/bssid/ can be used to track your location

supernova87a• 5 years ago

Well, what's the point of holding on to one satellite if anyone can basically buy imagery from a dozen satellite companies right now?

Are any of those players restricting anyone from buying imagery of Myanmar? If no, then this is pretty much a pointless thought exercise for them to engage in?

waheoo• 5 years ago

You can stop those companies should you need to. Good luck taking out their satellite after the fact.

MartinWill• 5 years ago

break a contract in a short time, or maybe many lives. it's an easy choice.

Myanmar's satellite held by Japan on space station due to spying concern

Related Stories