[HN Gopher] Finding the B-21's hanger location from the stars in... ___________________________________________________________________ Finding the B-21's hanger location from the stars in its press image Author : johnmcelhone Score : 278 points Date : 2022-12-08 19:53 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | sp332 wrote: | *Hangar | rob74 wrote: | It's "hangar", not "hanger", dammit! | saraton1n wrote: | This reminds me of the Elon plane tracking dude. Such a neat use | of technology and know-how. | darknavi wrote: | Note to self: Always, always, ALWAYS strip exif data. | lortrq wrote: | I would like to know what else is embedded in digital pictures, | similar to the printer yellow dots, except it will be | undetectable. | colechristensen wrote: | Sensor noise has been used to successfully identify the | camera used to take a picture. No embedded features just the | physical characteristics of sensors being individual enough | to identify. | Kiboneu wrote: | You've confused the data with the metadata. | riffic wrote: | metadata is actually a form of data, believe it or not. | pjot wrote: | The data's data! | quickthrower2 wrote: | Metadata is data, but without legs | bfgoodrich wrote: | a1369209993 wrote: | I assumed that was the joke? If they're finding the location | based on the stars in the image, you'd need to strip out the | actual image data (not matadata) to prevent that. | Denvercoder9 wrote: | Exif data is the metadata of the image. | lmm wrote: | Exactly, whereas stars shown in the image are just data, | you don't need the exif data to see them. | insane_dreamer wrote: | But the time the photo was taken was extracted from the | exif which is what OP was referring to stripping | nomel wrote: | Couldn't the same conclusion be reached, without? That plane | flying overhead, center, would probably make things much | easier. | NikolaNovak wrote: | Related unrelated question : how come this is public? | | F117 was a dark skunk project shown years after being | operational. That made sense to me for a super secret project | with wildly new technologies and capabilities. | | I don't understand the announcements of such projects from the | vision stage, with the details of capability, purpose, strategy, | photos,etc. | | Is it commoditized sufficiently? Is it deterrence? Is there | enough misinformation? | dragonwriter wrote: | > Related unrelated question : how come this is public? | | Because trying to hide the existence of strategic bombers is | expensive, ineffective, and not particularly helpful to keeping | the actually secret technology they use secret. | | > F117 was a dark skunk project shown years after being | operational | | With the F-117, the shape was part of the secret sauce. The | B-21 doesn't seem to be a big departure that way. | | > I don't understand the announcements of such projects from | the vision stage, | | This wasn't announced in the vision stage, except that a new | strategic bomber was being developed. The unveiling was well | past vision, and competition, stages. | | > Is it commoditized sufficiently? Is it deterrence? Is there | enough misinformation? | | Deterrence is a big consideration, | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | > With the F-117, the shape was part of the secret sauce. The | B-21 doesn't seem to be a big departure that way. | | The world has also changed substantially. When the F-117 was | developed, being able to simulate the RF interactions with | faceted geometry was ground breaking stuff. Now anyone that | can afford an ANSYS license can simulate that with far, far, | greater fidelity against much more complex shapes. | [deleted] | dotnet00 wrote: | There's of course the slightly conspiratorial idea that they | made this public because it's obsolete compared to whatever | their newest toys are and so revealing this as a show of | technological superiority is fine. | [deleted] | ForHackernews wrote: | I've read some things that suggest the B-21 may not offer | radical new capabilities (over say, the B-2) but it will be way | way cheaper to build and operate. | | There were only 21 B-2s ever built. The Air Force has already | ordered 100 B-21s. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | That number will shrink. There were supposed to be 100+ B2s | and no B1Bs. | dragonwriter wrote: | > There were only 21 B-2s ever built. The Air Force has | already ordered 100 B-21s. | | Planned, not ordered. Just like they initially planned 130+ | B-2s, which Congress eventually cut to 21. | influx wrote: | Kirk: Bones, did you ever hear of a doomsday machine? | McCoy: No. I'm a doctor, not a mechanic. Kirk: It's | a weapon built primarily as a bluff. It's never meant to be | used. So strong, it could destroy both sides in a war. | Something like the old H-Bomb was supposed to be. That's | what I think this is. A doomsday machine that somebody used in | a war uncounted years ago. They don't exist anymore, but | the machine is still destroying. -- Star Trek: The | Original Series, "The Doomsday Machine" Dr. | Strangelove: Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine | is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell | the world, eh?!! Russian Ambassador Sadesky: It was | to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you | know, the Premier loves surprises. -- Dr. | Strangelove | Rebelgecko wrote: | The secretary of defense mentioned "deterrence" as part of the | reasoning. Maybe not-so-coincidentally, the aircraft (at least | as they showed it) skips the old school black paint job for one | that looks more like anti-flash white[0]. | | Part of it is probably also that this is a refinement of an | existing aircraft and not anything with drastically different | capabilities-- if you're planning on war with the US, you're | probably already thinking about B-2s, and if you're worried | about B-2s then a B-21 isn't _that_ different. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-flash_white | chasd00 wrote: | it may be its operational capabilities are more important to | keep secret. It has an unmanned mode which is very interesting | to me. Does it need to be piloted by a guy in an office cube | like the Predator drone or is it more autonomous? | dragonwriter wrote: | > It has an unmanned mode | | Maybe. "Designed to accommodate unmannef operations" is... | fairly vague as a description. | mgarfias wrote: | I mean, cool and all. But I didnt have to do that to know where | it was. I stood outside that hanger (with a B-2 inside) in 1989 | at Northrop's 50th anniversary airshow. | | If I can remember that, from 30+ years ago, I'm pretty sure the | russians/chinese/whateverese also know. | pifm_guy wrote: | It's worth noting that stars can be seen even in daylight with | the right software. | | That's because, while no individual star is visible, the exact | angles between all stars is fixed, so you can do a brute force | search of all possible orientations of the sky to find a matching | one. In a 6 megapixel image of half blue sky, you effectively get | an oversampling ratio of 3 million:1, so even with very bright | sunlight obscuring the stars to the naked eye, your algorithm | will pick them out. | skykooler wrote: | How long does this take? Could this be run on, say, a | smartphone to calculate its rough position from a photo of the | sky? | folli wrote: | Very interesting! Any links for further reading? | pifm_guy wrote: | Nope - years ago I accidentally discovered this while trying | to align star images for stacking. Some of my images were | taken in daylight, and I was surprised to find my rudimentary | image aligner still worked just fine. Never wrote it up into | a blog post. | 4gotunameagain wrote: | Do you mind expanding a bit more ? Because I don't | understand. Even if you have oversampling, as you say, it | would be after you know the locations of the stars, and | also, how can you brute force every possible right | ascension/declination/rotation ? Without a calibrated | camera how do you account for the distortions ? Thanks | pifm_guy wrote: | In my case, I had nighttime images from the same camera, | so all the calibration was already done... I was just | looking for a rotated version of the nighttime image in | the daytime image. | | But even in the general case, smallish image patches | don't have enough distortion to matter, while still | having plenty of oversampling, and only have 3 unknowns. | You can probably do some kind of fft trickery to reduce | it to 1 unknown. And you can probably use some kind of | hill-climbing to further reduce the search effort. | 4gotunameagain wrote: | What does an optimization algorithm have to do with a | brute force search? | | Even if your image patch is small, without previous | images to compare, you need to brute force the entire | sky? | | And how can "fft trickery" reduce the attitude state to 1 | unknown ? 1 unknown with what units ? | | Sorry but I suspect you are making all these up. | dekhn wrote: | I don't understand what they are saying but it's | definitely true if you are careful, you can take images | of the locations of the top magnitude stars, point your | camera at that, take a long exposure (~15 seconds, so you | need a way to keep the moving star at exactly the same | pixel over the whole exposure), do some contrast scaling, | and you will see point pixels lit up in the right | locations. | | If you don't already know a star location, I'm sure you | could construct a very sensitive camera and some noise | reduction and do this with short exposures without any | rotation. | boardwaalk wrote: | I mean, they livestreamed the rollout on YouTube on the Edward's | AFB YouTube channel and said it was at NG's Palmdale facility | (paraphrasing). I'm not sure any of this was a secret... | bri3d wrote: | This is acknowledged by the author: | https://twitter.com/johnmcelhone8/status/1600683636029652993 | | Which I think is also why the thread is so X-marks-the-spot / | parallel-reconstruction-y. I think it's more of a "here's the | kind of thing we can do with these star-matching tools, applied | to an interesting image as an example" than an expose. | bee_rider wrote: | Also the Airforce and Northrop Grumman must be familiar with | the idea of celestial navigation. And the shot was clearly | taken in the evening on purpose (I assume, at least, that a PR | shot has to justify being taken outside of maximum daylight). | | They probably want it to feel vaguely spacey for the sci-fi | vibes. | | They've got at least as good star charts as the rest of us, so | if they really wanted to be jokers they could photoshop some | stars in, make it look like it is flying over an adversary's | country... | avalys wrote: | Not only that, they had three bombers (B1, B2, and B52) fly | over during the live stream of the unveiling that could be | tracked live on commercial flight tracking websites. This | simply wasn't a secret at all. | 4gotunameagain wrote: | This livestream is the best caricature of American culture | I've seen, thank you. | | It is the unveiling of a bomber, with the national anthem | sung by an employee of the company who built it, as in a | proper performance, while more bombers fly ahead so loudly he | has to stop. Then it proceeds to have the CEO read an | engineered speech from a teleprompter, completely devoid of | her own existence. Followed by a hollywood action movie style | reveal, with the attendees going wild, clapping and shouting | for the new, shiny bomber. It is a gift that keeps on giving. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chJlJgrvfBY | rootusrootus wrote: | With the casual change from "34-35 degrees" to "lets draw a line | at 34 degrees" followed by the "and this is where the press | release was" I got the vibe that this was parallel construction. | Still some good sleuthing, don't get me wrong, but still. | dsfyu404ed wrote: | Also goes to show you the danger of tunnel vision. | | If they flew one to some air base outside DC for the roll out | the author would be shooting from the hip and who knows what | facility he'd have zero'd in on. Sure it might have been the | same one because "the same facility as the B2" is an easy just- | so story but you don't really know with any certainty. | johnmcelhone wrote: | You're right, it wasn't too difficult to guess the location | without the stars. The base did happen to be right in-between | the 34 and 35 degree lines (34.6 lat), and you can estimate | pretty well with only one line | cossatot wrote: | Little Rock AFB is a few tens of km north (34.9 deg lat) for | what it's worth. There may be some others as well. The | chances of getting a picture of the stars that clear in | Arkansas is way lower than in the Mojave however... | lilyball wrote: | "let's draw a line at 34 degrees" makes for a nice display, but | presumably the actual filtering for matching bases spanned | 34-35 degrees. | lambdasquirrel wrote: | I don't know if I entirely buy the line on "34-35 degrees off | the horizon." Unless we knew the focal length of the lens it | was taken with, and which camera it was taken from, you don't | actually know that. A wide-angle lens is going to have a much | larger field of view than, say, a 100mm macro. And different | camera systems have different angle of view for the same focal | length. | 4gotunameagain wrote: | both the focal length and the field of view are irrelevant, | you know the angles between the stars so you can infer | everything. | vilhelm_s wrote: | You know what the angle between the stars in the | constellation are, you don't need to know the field of view | of the camera. | johnmcelhone wrote: | You don't actually need the focal length, it doesn't help | accuracy that much but can help you line up the sky to the | photo a bit quicker. Anyway, if we did, all that info was in | the metadata anyway: | | Camera: Nikon D5 F-stop: f/2.8 Exposure time: 5 sec. Focal | length: 28mm Max aperture: 3 | supergirl wrote: | misleading. was more like: | | * he got the approximate latitude from the stars (34 or 35) | | * independently, he found the most plausible airbase based on | other information and then noticed that the base is indeed around | that latitude | johnmcelhone wrote: | The process can still be done using entirely the star pattern | and no Google Maps. There wasn't any reason to exclude other | information I could use, so I didn't. | calvinmorrison wrote: | This has only been bested by the 4chan takedown of the Shia | LaBeouf's anti-trump flag, which was put up in a random location | with a live stream. | | "On March 8, the artists, abandoning the idea of a public webcam, | raised a white flag, emblazoned with the words "He Will Not | Divide Us," in an "unknown location." The livestream showed only | the flag and the expanse of sky behind it. 4Chan and 8Chan (the | forum where discussions that are banned from 4Chan go) snapped | into action.... They used the star patterns visible behind the | flag at night and the paths of planes flying overhead to confirm | the location. A troll who lived nearby drove around honking until | the noise was audible on the livestream. On the night of March | 10, a group raided the site, took down the flag, and replaced it | with a Pepe the Frog T-shirt and a "Make America Great Again" | hat. The stream soon went dark again." | rr888 wrote: | Its pretty amazing some of the stories coming out of Ukraine. | People posting on social media then getting blown up soon after. | https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-news-exposed-mortar-c... | [deleted] | NotYourLawyer wrote: | Wait, this didn't even rely on the constellations though. Get the | latitude from the North Star and then look for matching air | bases. | httpz wrote: | I thought so too but I think you need to know the | constellations first to identify the North Star in the photo. | johnmcelhone wrote: | This is correct. The brightness of the stars made them a bit | difficult to identify by eye, I'm sure someone more familiar | with sky charts could have done it. The constellations helped | me align the sky on Stellarium (from their angles) and the | north star helped me find the approximate latitude by using | the angle from the horizon. | Victerius wrote: | Impressive. | | Now do it without using a computer, the old fashioned way, with | books, paper maps, star charts, slide rulers, sextants, | compasses, and pens. I'm sure _some_ people would be able to. | mberning wrote: | I wonder how long this thing has existed. Or if it is even | "current gen". The existence of the f117 and b2 were not | acknowledged for a long time. | kevmoo1 wrote: | This is peek internet. Amazing! | CalRobert wrote: | That's not how you spell... Nevermind. Well done. | dboreham wrote: | Perhaps parent crafted a subtle pun? | [deleted] | omnibrain wrote: | In my opinion peek internet was either the shoes in salad guy | or the flagpole with only sky visible. | teekert wrote: | Omg I opened a Twitter thread and when that dreaded moment came | where that black takes over the screen and I can't even scroll | back anymore... now I was able to just tap an X and keep reading! | Hooray for Elon? | daveslash wrote: | This is very cool sleuthing. Really enjoyed the walkthrough. | | Though, if you would have asked me, I would have _guessed_ | Lancaster /Palmdale, because I know (a) That's where the | unveiling was (b) I have _seen_ B-1 's fly over me while driving | in Palmdale and (c) I know Edwards and a bunch of other spacey | stuff is there. I feel like Captain Kirk looking for whales and | saying " _I think we 'll find what we're looking for at the | Cetacean Institute in Sausalito_" - a far less methodical or | impressive approach. | mrexroad wrote: | Ahem, not to be that person... but I think you mean Admiral | Kirk :) Either way, it's a perfect reference. | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | I believe it's exactly how 4chan would keep finding Shia | LeBeouf's flags shown on webcam he was was hiding at remote | locations. | Traubenfuchs wrote: | With added train sounds and honking I believe. Excellent work! | mc32 wrote: | Sounds like an old Hawai'i 5-0 plot. | nomel wrote: | This was downvoted probably from lack of context. They used | the sound of honking to find the exact location of the | webcam. | mk_stjames wrote: | I feel like the entire thread should have led off with "This is | in fact a publicly known hangar in Palmdale and this was known as | public information as soon as the unveiling event occurred, and | thus this is just an exercise to show how locating the spot could | have been possible from just this photo as a technical | demonstration." | | Because I guarantee there are going to be a hundred clickbait | articles by various 'news' sites now in the next few days about | the MASSIVE SECURITY BREACH of the USAF and how US SECRETS have | been EXPOSED so and and so forth. When nothing about this is | actually the case. | _dain_ wrote: | This trick happened for real with the HWNDU stunt back in 2017. | 4channers found the flag based on the stars in the livestream, | along with matching aircraft contrails to flight radar maps. | | https://youtu.be/vw9zyxm860Q | chasd00 wrote: | remember when 4chan figured out the location of a terrorist | training camp from one of their PR photos and called in a | literal airstrike? I like how 4chan is sometimes described as | weaponized autism. | | https://imgur.com/N7DwWP1?r | bauruine wrote: | Remember when imgur was marketed as an imagehost that | doesn't suck? Now i can't read 2/3 of the text because it's | just a blurry mess if I'm not manually changing url | parameters. I'm using Firefox on Android and I can't find | another method to get the full image. Am I missing some | button to show the full res image? | IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: | I feel like when you diss journalists, it should generally be | for something they actually did wrong, not preemptively based | on your imagination. | | If they are so terrible, there should be no need to invent | stuff. | | When people read something like this post, and they are | predisposed to the idea, it'll reinforce their skepticism of | ,,the mainstream media". If you want to test yourself, make a | bet of how many media outlets will run with the story in the | manner outlined above, then check in a few days. My prediction: | you won't see it in the NYT, WSJ, BBC, or on CNN. | mk_stjames wrote: | I put 'news' in quotes for this reason. I wasn't as much | implying that this would be actual news, but instead would be | used in clickbait articles on lesser publications. I admit I | am being hypothetical, but this does reflect observation on | how these kinds of discussions has been get picked up and | spread and thus has made me want to avoid such writing style. | leoh wrote: | Right. It should be my responsibility to guard everything I say | or write from lazy morons. | runjake wrote: | It's pretty clearly an exercise in astronavigation. | | The livestream event itself mentioned it was taking place at | the Northrop facility in Palmdale. | | This author is not responsible for what clickbait farms do. | | Aside: I'm not even sure this plane will end up doing flight | testing somewhere secret in Nevada. They may just do it out of | Edwards South Base, which is an "interesting" location not many | in the public know about. | twelvechairs wrote: | Also all they do is cut it down to a wide band that covers 12 | or so states, then compare against known bases (not shown) to | narrow it down | tablespoon wrote: | > It's pretty clearly an exercise in astronavigation. | | Off topic, but it would be really cool if someone build a | hobbyist astronavigationsystem using a something like a | Raspberry Pi and a camera with a fisheye lens. Sort of an | amateur https://timeandnavigation.si.edu/multimedia- | asset/nortronics.... | johnmcelhone wrote: | I did mention this later in the thread - was just a fun | experiment to see if locating it was possible if we didn't know | Sporktacular wrote: | Sure, but the reason you didn't lead with that, and also the | reason you did this for a secretive aircraft and not a new | campervan is clicks, no? | yalogin wrote: | To be fair, a secretive aircraft would trigger thoughts | about security in a hacker's mind. A camper van does not | trigger any such thoughts. It may not be just clicks, with | a camper van the whole thread might not even exist. I am | not the original poster, so this is just my thought | stuff4ben wrote: | Even if he did do this for the clicks, so what? | godels_theorem wrote: | kyawzazaw wrote: | so interesting | mierle wrote: | Wow, it's cool to see astrometry.net get put to use! I worked on | astrometry.net back in undergrad and grad school. If you have | questions about how it works, I can answer them. | | How does it work? astrometry.net uses 4-star combinations to | define codes, then indexes the codes on the celestial sphere. The | particulars of each of these phases matter, but that's the basic | idea. | tetris11 wrote: | is A,B,C,D in the database the same as D,C,B,A? Or does order | infer orientation? | antognini wrote: | I used to be in astronomy and I always thought astrometry.net | was one of the coolest tools in the field. It feels about as | close to magic as you can get. | mpsprd wrote: | Heh. This makes me remember how the same technique was used in | the "he will not divide us" trolling campaign to locate a video | feed of a flag. Internet Historian has a video about IIRC. | [deleted] | paxys wrote: | The investigation breaks down halfway when you have to pull up a | public list of airbase locations and google where certain jets | are made. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-08 23:00 UTC)