Could ghost imaging spy satellite be a game changer for Chinese military?
China is developing a new type of spy satellite using ghost imaging technology that could change the game of military cat and mouse within a decade, according to scientists involved in the project.
Existing camouflage techniques – from simple smoke bombs used to hide tanks or soldiers on battlefields to the hi-tech radar absorption materials on a stealth aircraft or warship – would be of no use against ghost imaging, physics experts said.
Quantum ghost imaging can achieve unprecedented sensitivity by detecting not just the extremely small amount of light straying off a dim target, but also its interactions with other light in the surrounding environment to obtain more information than traditional methods.
A satellite equipped with the new quantum sensor would be able to identify and track targets that are currently invisible from space, such as stealth bombers taking off at night, according to researchers.
The U.S. Air Force and NASA have also researched this technology.
Related Stories
Quantum Satellite Links Extend More Than 1,000 Kilometers
A space-based, virtually unhackable quantum Internet may be one step closer to reality due to satellite experiments that linked ground stations more than 1,000 kilometers apart, a new study finds.
[...] In 2017, scientists in China used the satellite nicknamed Micius, which is dedicated to quantum science experiments, to connect sites on Earth separated by up to roughly 1,200 kilometers via entanglement. Although those experiments generated about 5.9 million entangled pairs of photons every second, the researchers were able to detect only one pair per second, an efficiency rate far too low for useful entanglement-based quantum cryptography.
Now, the same researchers have achieved their goal of entanglement-based quantum cryptography using the Micius satellite. The scientists, who detailed their findings [DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2401-y] [DX] online in the 15 June edition of the journal Nature, say they again connected two observatories separated by 1,120 kilometers. But this time, the collection efficiency of the links was improved by up to four-fold, which resulted in data rates of about 0.12 bits per second.
The scientists employed two ground stations, in Delingha and Nanshan, in China. Each site had a newly built telescope 1.2 meters wide that was specifically designed for the quantum experiments.
To boost the efficiency of the quantum cryptography links, the researchers focused on improving the systems used to acquire, orient toward and track targets at both the satellite and ground stations. They also made sure to improve the receiving and collection efficiencies of the lenses and other optical equipment on the ground.
Also at New Scientist and NYT.
Previously: China's "Quantum-Enabled Satellite" Launches
China's Quantum Communications Satellite Beats Record
Unbreakable: China Doubles Down On Quantum Internet
Quantum Video Chat Links Scientists on Two Different Continents
Why This Intercontinental Quantum-Encrypted Video Hangout is a Big Deal
Related: Quantum Ghost Imaging Spy Satellites
(Score: 5, Touché) by mhajicek on Tuesday November 28 2017, @10:50PM (7 children)
Boy am I glad we sunk all that money into stealth tech! Now we'll have planes that can't fight, can't run, and can't even stealth.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday November 28 2017, @10:56PM
And can't [theaviationist.com] breathe [theregister.co.uk].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Freeman on Tuesday November 28 2017, @10:57PM
within a decade
https://xkcd.com/678/ [xkcd.com]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @12:55AM (3 children)
What you can do varies with your platform:
* a large array of cryogenic sensors
* an affordable sensor in the seeker of a small-diameter air-to-air missile
* a supercomputer and with antennas spread from horizon to horizon
* a guided artillery shell
Your success could be:
* a brief detection
* continuous accurate tracking
* anything inbetween
Your effort to detect stealth vehicles may be:
* very obvious, revealing yourself fully
* covert
Stealth will thus always be important. Even if the enemy somehow equips well enough to detect you perfectly in every way, probably violating the laws of physics, at least you made them spend the money on that instead of on more ammo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:11AM
> Even if the enemy somehow equips well enough to detect you perfectly in every way, probably violating the laws of physics, at least you made them spend the money on that instead of on more ammo.
Of course you've also inflicted a similarly resource-wasting cost upon yourself in order to develop and deploy the stealth technology. Whether it's money at all well spent depends on the relative opportunity costs you've inflicted on yourself and your opponent.
Regardless though, it's generally going to be a lose-lose proposition unless you're engaged in an active conflict where the lag between measure and counter-measure can yield a substantial strategic advantage.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday November 29 2017, @07:18AM (1 child)
It was made out of wood, with the leading edges of the wings made out of graphite.
I never heard about it until after the US stealth fighter was public knowledge. I figure the US kept that wooden fighter jet a secret so as to maintain their tastes great less filling government tit.
Look man wood worked just fine for Howard Hughes why not the US Air Force?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @07:56AM
Only three were made and the only recovered version was incomplete.
The US actually had a flying wing design developed before it, and in fact it was the predecessor of the B-2 bomber and was proven in the past 5-10 years to have had a radar cross section that would have been essentially invisible against 40s era radar technology, even given its props.
Sadly neither got used and analysis of either design was never seriously put forth.
There are apparently a number of people creating models or clone aircraft of the Ho 229 today.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday November 29 2017, @10:46AM
It's OK, we have anti-quantum voodoo vampire technology that deals with the Chinese quantum ghost imaging. However, it's the Russian neo-quantum zombie ghoul sensors that I'm worried about. That and the fact that the Chinese may put silver garlic-coated crosses on their gear.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday November 28 2017, @11:11PM (10 children)
back around 2009 or so, a Chinese sub crept into the middle of a US carrier group, approached a vessel within torpedo range, ascended to periscope depth than snapped a Pulitzer Prize-winning closeup shot of that vessel as well as other ships farther away.
It then descended, crept back to China then blasted that picture all over the entire planet's news websites. I remember it very clearly.
A couple years later I gleefully wrote about that photo in Solving the Software Problem [warplife.com]. When I was done writing I googled for the photo.
Google yielded no joy.
I made extensive searches only to go away empty handed.
To me, it was just like a Soviet Communist falling out of favor with Stalin.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday November 29 2017, @12:31AM (4 children)
I didn't read your whole warplife piece, but I searched the page for some relevant keywords ("sub", "periscope", "china", "chinese") and none of them were in the text.
After some googling, I think you might be conflating two or more events. It seems like Chinese subs have snuck up on US carriers in 2006 and 2015, but I didn't read anything about a photo from a periscope being released. There was a Soviet sub that took a photo of a US carrier in 1974. That photo is available. More likely, you're combining memories of the 2006 Chinese sub with memories of a Canadian sub, Corner Brook, which took a photo of a US carrier from a periscope during a training exercise in 2007. That photo was released by the Canadian government, and I'm seeing people claim that this is it. [quotulatiousness.ca]
Sorry to doubt your memory, but it is made out of water.
(Score: 3, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday November 29 2017, @01:47AM (2 children)
And I'm dead certain it was a Chinese sub. The Communist Party was quite proud to describe its underwater force projection efforts to the press.
I don't have all of Solving the Software Problem online. I lost the original domain because I was in an insane asylum. It's now hosted at warplane.com but I haven't uploaded all the chapters yet.
Most of the chapters that are on the new site retain the original site's web design template. I've been slowly working towards redesigning them so they use warplane.com's - damn Autocorrect! - template. There's also lots of invalid HTML.
I wrote quite a lot more than is presently available online. There's also some chapters that are online but aren't linked from anywhere.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday November 29 2017, @02:36AM (1 child)
From The Washington Free Beacon: [freebeacon.com]
The Free Beacon could be lying, the unnamed defense officials could be lying or mistaken, the ~2009 incident you remember (which four people have now independently failed to google) could have been further away than the 2006 and 2015 incidents, or the 2006 incident could be the one with the periscope photo and the government could have successfully scrubbed it from the interwebz. Or, your memory could be wrong.
The more certain somebody is of a memory, the more certain I am that they aren't very good at recognising how flawed human memories are. The more time that has passed since an event, the less I trust my memories of it. In lieu of other evidence, this explanation should warrant serious consideration. Our gut feelings about the trustworthiness of a given memory should be discarded offhand, as false memories definitionally seem real. Modelling reality is hard. Much love, MDC.
(Score: 3, Funny) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday November 29 2017, @07:16AM
I don't clearly remember when I saw that photo. But I did see it at an online news site.
The wayback machine would have it but then I'd need to know the original URL of one of that articles that included the photo.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:58PM
and watch out for those super stealth fishing boats/freighters too.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday November 29 2017, @12:54AM (1 child)
This might be the incident your remembering only the Chinese sub did not take a picture of the US carrier, it just surfaced inside the carrier group and more embarrassingly for the USA, well inside torpedo range of the carrier. None of the advanced and expensive sub detection tech that was supposed to be protecting the carrier so much as twitched at the subs presence.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/chinese-submarine-appeared-in-the-middle-of-a-carrier-battle-group.html [warhistoryonline.com]
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday November 29 2017, @01:49AM
The position of the camera was obviously quite close to the water.
Also the photo had fiduciary marks in it. Fiduciary marks are only used when it's important to make a measurement of what you're looking at. That's one of the differences between a gun sight and a spotting telescope.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1) by Sabriel on Wednesday November 29 2017, @12:57AM (2 children)
As far as I can determine the incident happened in October 2006, and none of the many articles I've found even mention such a photo.
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/chinese-submarine-appeared-in-the-middle-of-a-carrier-battle-group.html [warhistoryonline.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday November 29 2017, @01:50AM (1 child)
The US Navy was unaware that the Chinese sub had been there until the photo showed up in the evening newspaper.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Wednesday November 29 2017, @08:40AM
If you know the approx date and it was in the newspaper (presumably you know _which_ newspaper) then it, or the redacted pages, should be findable by searching newspaper archives. A lot of these are now digital but timeframe for switchover may be after the date you want.
So the bad thing is, you may need to go fishing in microfilms in the library, good thing is the men in black may not have done that (yet... but now we have this thread...)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 29 2017, @01:37AM (3 children)
I did RTFA (sorry), but I don't' get how they get to claim to see everything through everything, in front of everything or against everything.
If they do, great. But if it's really impossible to defeat, and they know they opponents know about it, then they should be a bit more precise about why it works.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Prune on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:27AM (2 children)
How it works is described at the most obvious place, had you bothered to check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_imaging [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday November 29 2017, @01:15PM
"A simple example clarifies the basic principle of origami. Imagine making a small gondola using a single sheet of paper."
Sturgeon was right.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday November 29 2017, @05:35PM
Two problems:
- "Hey this great tech will be so much better than everything else, but let's not explain to you how it works" journalism is bad. I don't expect a journalist to define a car before using the word. But if they are talking about a new tech, they should describe it.
- Wiki and other sources describe the "split the entangled photons beam and measure the difference" technique, which requires a detector behind the object, and seemingly identical paths for both beams. What happens to entangled photons through hundreds of kilometers of atmosphere, and bouncing off target black objects, maybe to come back up hundreds of km to receptors? Why does that work at all?