Pratique du Shadowing: Something is jamming GPS over Europe. Here's what we found - Apprendre l'anglais à l'oral avec la vidéo
Choisissez un mode d'entraînement
Chaque mode ouvre une salle d'entraînement en plein écran.
396 phrases
Si les phrases sont trop courtes ou trop longues, cliquez sur Edit pour les ajuster.
1
In November 2024, Professor Todd Humphries, a GPS expert at the University of Texas at Austin, got a mysterious tip -off.
2
Look at two specific days at exact times in a data set collected years earlier by a network of GPS monitoring stations.
3
These stations continuously record signals from satellite navigation systems measuring how strong they are relative to background noise.
4
It didn't seem promising.
5
The data was from 2021 and it was publicly available online.
6
So surely if something unusual was in there, someone would have already found it.
7
But Professor Humphreys and his student Zach Clements looked into the data at the two specific times suggested
8
and they discovered something surprising.
9
At one precise moment, receivers across the network all reported the same thing, a sudden drop in signal to noise ratio.
10
In effect, In fact, the navigation signals had been overwhelmed.
11
The measured signal to noise dropped by roughly a factor of 10.
12
But when they started looking back through the data, they found 75 days since 2019 where these strong disruptions had taken place.
13
And again and again, the pattern was the same.
14
All these receivers recorded the same drop at the same time.
15
This effect was being felt all the way across Europe, all the way to the north, to Svalbard, to the south to Spain, all the way to Canada in the west,
16
as far east as eastern Poland.
17
And in fact it had a distinct pattern across Europe to where it looked like the blast center
18
was in Poland or Kaliningrad in that area.
19
So they wondered what could cause this?
20
At first they thought perhaps it's interference, something on the ground broadcasting a much stronger signal, drowning out the ones coming from the satellites,
21
which made Kaliningrad an interesting candidate it's a heavily militarized russian exclave on the baltic sea wedged between poland
22
and lithuania and in recent years it's become a hot spot for this kind of electronic warfare
23
so maybe that was it a side effect of the conflict in the region
24
but they realized that explanation didn't work even the highest tower in clean ground only affects aviation as far as say Denmark.
25
So we had ourselves a mystery on our hands.
26
We were experienced with interference that you could call local.
27
Something on a tower, something on a plane, that might cover hundreds of kilometers.
28
But this was different.
29
This was continental scale.
30
The researchers mapped out all the stations that were affected and asked a simple question.
31
What kind of source could have affected all of them at once.
32
A source on the ground just wouldn't work.
33
The curvature of the Earth would block the signal over these distances.
34
The only way to affect such a wide area simultaneously is from high above the Earth.
35
And even using the most conservative assumptions, that the source only has to just clear the horizon from the perspective of every station,
36
the geometry shows it had to be at least 1 ,200 kilometers up.
37
That's way higher than the International Space Station.
38
So what was causing this?
39
Well, there is one known source of radio interference from space, which is the sun.
40
In November 2025, a major solar storm disrupted GPS positioning globally for several hours.
41
So could these interference events be caused by the sun?
42
There were certainly question marks.
43
Solar interference typically builds up and fades over tens to hundreds of seconds, but these events were abrupt, short bursts of only 3 to 5 seconds.
44
Another important clue was the frequencies that were disrupted.
45
Solar interference typically spans a wide range of radio frequencies, whereas this interference was confined to a very narrow slice,
46
just 5 MHz wide, centered at 1 ,577 .5 MHz.
47
That's right in the part of the spectrum used by GPS.
48
And the final nail in the coffin is that solar radio bursts affect the entire sunlit side of the Earth.
49
But what the researchers were seeing here was much more concentrated, consistently centered over Europe.
50
So Todd and Zach realized the only thing that could be causing this was a satellite, which left them with just one question.
51
Is it intentional or is it accidental?
52
Both my student and I looked at this and said, unprecedented.
53
We've never seen this before.
54
The world has never seen this before.
55
This satellite seemed to be targeting GPS.
56
Or rather, what most of us call GPS, that is just a shorthand.
57
GPS is the American system, but there are others, including a Russian one, a European one, and a Chinese one.
58
And your phone is actually using a mix of these satellites to try and tell you where you are.
59
These systems are known as Global Navigation Satellite Systems, or GNSS.
60
And when the US military first.. developed the system in the 1970s, they wanted to prove how well it really worked.
61
So the GPS program office set itself an ambitious goal to
62
use GPS to drop five bombs in a row into the same hole from a moving plane.
63
They set up a chair next to the site that the bombs are going to be going into.
64
Wait, what?
65
If anyone doubts that we can drop the bombs in the same hole, you're welcome to go and stand right there and watch it happen.
66
So, how does GPS work?
67
Well, think about what your phone is actually trying to do to tell you where you are.
68
It's listening to signals from satellites.
69
And those signals can tell it two things.
70
First, the position of the satellite in space.
71
And second, the exact time the signal was sent.
72
And then the receiver can compare that to when the signal arrives, and you can use that time difference, multiply it by the speed of light, and you get the distance.
73
So if it took the signal 0 .07 seconds, that must mean you're around 21 ,000 kilometers away from the satellite.
74
If you're only using a single satellite, that puts you somewhere on a huge sphere around it.
75
Now, you can add a second one, and that will narrow your position down to the circle where the two spheres intersect.
76
If you add a third, you will narrow it down to only two possible points, and only one of these is actually on Earth's surface.
77
So you might think three satellites is all you need.
78
We have three equations, one for each satellite, and three unknowns that are my position, X, Y, and Z.
79
So, on the left side, I have the geometric distance between me and each of the three satellites.
80
And on the right side, I have the measured signal time, all multiplied by the speed of light.
81
Now, satellites have atomic clocks, so their timing drifts by only three seconds every million years.
82
But my phone does not contain an atomic clock, so its clock can drift by that much in just a couple of days.
83
And a timing error of just 100 nanoseconds throws off your position by 30 meters.
84
So in reality, each distance is slightly wrong, which means the position you calculate is slightly off too.
85
So now, instead of just solving for position, I also have to solve for the clock error.
86
So let's call that B.
87
But now I have three equations and four unknowns, which is unsolvable, so I can fix that by adding a fourth equation or a fourth satellite.
88
Four equations, four unknowns, that makes the system solvable.
89
Okay, but we've made one key assumption that when I'm calculating my position, I know where the satellite is.
90
And sure, it can tell me where it is, but its position around the Earth and its speed are constantly changing.
91
So how does the satellite actually know where it is in the first place?
92
The GPS satellites need to be told where they are
93
and they're told where they are with ground stations that monitor them
94
and the ground stations have to know where they are to tell the satellites where they are.
95
But the earth itself is constantly shifting as the continents move.
96
So how do we work out where the ground stations are?
97
You work out using quasars where the ground stations are.
98
Because they're billions of light years away, quasars appear almost perfectly fixed in the night sky, which means we can use them as reference points,
99
much like early explorers navigating by the stars.
100
A small fraction of quasars are extremely bright radio sources.
101
When those radio waves reach Earth, telescopes around the world detect them at slightly different times.
102
From those tiny differences in arrival time, you can precisely determine the relative position of the telescopes, and by making lots of those measurements over time,
103
you can build a precise map of how the Earth itself moves, continents included.
104
GPS ground stations are tied into that same map.
105
The ground stations tell the satellites where they are, and then that's how you work out where you are.
106
You just blew my mind.
107
So we're always navigating by the stars, just via GPS.
108
And in reality, your phone isn't connected to just four satellites.
109
It's usually far more than that but mine right now is using, it's like over 20 satellites.
110
That's because the system is doing much more than just solving for four equations.
111
Say you're on this little street in Paris and you open maps and you try to figure out where you are.
112
Turns out, there are a lot of things that can throw this off.
113
There's the relatively simple ones, like taking into account special and general relativity.
114
If you didn't correct for that, your position would drift about 11 kilometers per day, and you could be anywhere within this entire area.
115
So, the satellites are constantly being monitored and updated, and they send down timing corrections that your phone applies in real time.
116
Now, on top of that, in the fraction of a second that it takes for the signal to reach you, the Earth has actually rotated slightly.
117
So, when your phone figures out where you are, it also has to account for the fact where Paris was when the signal was sent, not where it is now.
118
If you don't correct for that, that adds about 20 meters of error, enough that you're not even on the same block.
119
And of course, the signal has to pass through Earth's atmosphere.
120
Now, the ionosphere will add between 5 and 15 meters of error to your position, and the lower levels of the atmosphere, with weather and pressure and humidity,
121
will add another meter or two.
122
So if you don't account for that, you'll still be on the wrong side of the street.
123
And that's where the extra satellites come in handy.
124
They give your phone extra measurements to separate out the errors and give you a better fix of your position.
125
So ultimately, it can be accurate down to 3 to 5 meters, which is pretty incredible if you think about what it takes to solve this.
126
And with the most advanced GNSS tech, you can push this even further to a few centimeters,
127
but at this point you actually have to start accounting for stuff like how gravity bends spacetime and delays the signal.
128
But all of this only works if you're actually able to hear those signals.
129
When the signal arrives from space, it's traveled 20 ,000 kilometers to get here, and it was only transmitted with about 50 watts of power.
130
So it's like an old -school light bulb and two earth diameters away.
131
And because that power spreads out over such a vast distance, the received GPS signal at your phone is only about a tenth of a quadrillionth of a watt,
132
or 10 to the negative 16 watts.
133
It's insanely quiet.
134
Which means it doesn't take much to drown it out.
135
If you broadcast enough noise at the same frequency, you can overwhelm the signal until it becomes indistinguishable from the background.
136
This is called jamming, and a lot of these navigation systems use the same slice of the radio spectrum,
137
roughly between 1 .1 and 1 .6 gigahertz.
138
Lower frequencies travel well through the atmosphere, but they require much larger antennas.
139
Higher frequencies allow for smaller antennas, but the signals are much more easily absorbed and scattered, especially in bad weather.
140
So this band is a kind of sweet spot that navigation systems rely on, which means if something interferes with it, it can affect multiple systems at once.
141
That's why this part of a spectrum is tightly protected.
142
Nothing else is supposed to be transmitting here, and deliberately interfering with these signals is illegal in most countries.
143
But something was, something powerful enough to overwhelm satellite navigation across an entire continent, Which brings us back to the question facing Professor Todd Humphreys.
144
Was this accidental or was someone flooding this band on purpose?
145
It's, you know, a mystery novel here where you're trying to figure out whether it was the butler in the kitchen with the crowbar, right?
146
And we have to put all of the clues together.
147
If it had been random, occurring because of some failure in a satellite, maybe some amplifier gets too hot and misbehaves,
148
then you'd expect it to happen equally likely on a Monday and a Friday, right?
149
But when they went back through the data, something strange emerged.
150
The interference events were happening mostly on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, during business hours in Europe.
151
So tell me what amplifier tends to fail during business hours in Europe on Wednesdays.
152
So now we know this probably isn't random.
153
There's likely human input.
154
But that doesn't necessarily mean it's intentional or malicious.
155
So the hunt was on to track down the actual source.
156
But that turned out to be harder than you might think.
157
Because there were still so many unknowns.
158
In situations like this, uncertainty can quickly turn into competing narratives.
159
We've seen it before, when the EU chief's plane was allegedly hit by GPS interference last year, over 150 news outlets reported on it.
160
But depending on where you saw the story, your perception could be completely different.
161
If you saw Le Monde first, you might have come away thinking it might be Russia's fault.
162
If you saw Newsweek first, you would definitely think it was Russia.
163
And if you saw this headline, well, you might question the veracity of the story altogether.
164
Three headlines, three entirely different conclusions.
165
That's why we use today's sponsor Ground News.
166
They're a website and app designed to make reading the news easier and more data -driven.
167
Every day they pull in thousands of stories from around the world and each story comes with visual breakdowns of political leaning, factuality rating, and ownership.
168
This is all backed by ratings from three independent media monitoring organizations.
169
Let's go back to that story to see it in action.
170
Right away, you can see that over 150 news outlets reported on the story.
171
Below that, you can see that coverage was split relatively evenly across the political spectrum.
172
And below that, you can check the overall factuality and ownership.
173
Even see who broke the news.
174
They even have a biased comparison feature that highlights specific differences in the contents of the articles.
175
One of my favorite things is their blind spot feed, which shows you stories that are underreported by one side of the political spectrum or the other.
176
Staying informed with accurate information has become a full -time job, but that's what makes Ground News so valuable.
177
Their data -driven approach helps make information accessible and digestible for.. everyone in minutes rather than hours.
178
So if you, like us, care about getting to the truth, go to ground .news slash ve or scan this QR code.
179
Our link gets you 40 % off their vantage plan.
180
So I want to thank Ground News for sponsoring this part of the video.
181
And now back to the hunt for the source.
182
To do this, we have to set up a kind of elaborate estimation problem, but there are many unknowns.
183
A jammer works by broadcasting a stronger signal in the same frequency band.
184
It's kind of like yelling over someone whispering.
185
So if this were a jammer on the ground, you could track it down by looking at signal strength.
186
The closer you are, the stronger the signal will get.
187
But once you're dealing with something in space, that intuition breaks down.
188
To work backwards from signal strength, you'd need to know how much power the satellite was transmitting
189
and the exact shape and direction of its beam even how each receiver's antenna responds to signals arriving from different angles.
190
And at 1 ,200 kilometers above the Earth, very different satellite positions can produce almost identical patterns on the ground.
191
So instead of trying to pinpoint the transmitter directly, the researchers used a simpler filter.
192
If a satellite caused interference at all these stations at the same time, then it had to be above the horizon for all of them at once.
193
Right now, there are over 15 ,000 active satellites in orbit, but that one constraint lets you eliminate over 98 % of them.
194
That still leaves around 200 possibilities.
195
What's left are satellites in very high orbits, many of them in or near the geostationary belt, where they move at the same rate as the Earth rotates,
196
so they stay fixed over one point.
197
From about 36 ,000 kilometers up, a single one can see a huge portion of the Earth at once.
198
However, if the same satellite caused multiple events on different days then it has to satisfy
199
that condition every single time which narrows it down to just 14 possible suspects
200
so what kind of satellites
201
and countries were in these 14 well there were there were
202
several interesting candidates one was a satellite operated by algeria
203
and it even had on public documentation a transmitter in the same frequency band we were seeing interference on.
204
So they took a closer look and on paper it fit.
205
It was visible to all of the reference stations and it could transmit in exactly the band they were seeing.
206
This looked like it could be the answer, but they had a nagging doubt that some of the most distant stations in Svalbard and Western Greenland,
207
this satellite was barely above the horizon, which meant if it was the source the signal would have to be skimming across the earth
208
and just barely glancing into the antenna of these receivers.
209
Now that's not impossible.
210
Low angle signals can be picked up
211
but the more researchers looked the less certain they became that this satellite was actually the source.
212
So they examined data from GNSS receivers that were tracking this satellite during the interference events.
213
It looked just like all of the other ordinary GPS signals
214
that were getting hammered by this interference
215
so the ratio of the signal power to the background noise also dropped
216
and dropped in the same proportion
217
that the other dps signals were dropping at the same time
218
this was not the attacker this was just another legitimate signal in the l -band
219
that had been interfered with the algerian satellite wasn't the source it was another victim but what about the other 13.
220
Any one of them could have been visible to all the stations at once.
221
So geometrically, they could all be the culprit.
222
But that's where the trail started to go cold.
223
I mean, none of them had clear public documentation showing they could transmit and jam the right frequencies.
224
And some of them had barely any public information at all.
225
We couldn't narrow it down further because of all of these things we didn't know about about the signals they were broadcasting,
226
how intense they were, what their pattern was.
227
So there we were stuck for about four months.
228
And there was an even more fundamental problem.
229
Everything they'd done so far relied on one idea, that all of these interference events were coming from a single satellite.
230
It was under a really controversial assumption.
231
Controversial in that my student and I just couldn't come to fully embrace this assumption.
232
If we broke our assumption, then that would relieve the focus on geostationary satellites.
233
Then we could open up the focus on many other satellites.
234
But now instead of 13 remaining on our list, it would expand to, you know, maybe 100 or more satellites.
235
And suddenly, instead of closing in on an answer, it felt like they were back at square one.
236
So they needed a completely different approach.
237
All the data they had was from GNSS receivers that process everything internally.
238
They lock onto satellites, track signal strength, and then output a clean, simplified measurement how strong that signal is compared to the background noise.
239
And they do that just once per second.
240
But these interference bursts only lasted three to five seconds, which means each event is captured in just a handful of samples.
241
You can see that the signal dropped, but not precisely when it dropped.
242
Not with enough timing resolution to compare one receiver to another, to see which one was hit first, or how the interference moved across the network.
243
What they needed was the raw radio signal itself.
244
So they started designing specialized receivers that could capture the data in much higher temporal resolution.
245
The plan was to deploy them all across Europe, but building them, installing them and waiting for new events to happen would take months, maybe years.
246
So in September, 2025, they took their investigation public at the Institute of Navigation conference in Baltimore.
247
And the response was immediate.
248
The room was packed.
249
Everyone wanted to know the same thing.
250
What was this satellite and who was responsible?
251
Honestly, it was one of the most fun meetings I've been part of.
252
It was almost like we had been brought together for a big brainstorming session to see
253
if we could crack this problem as a community that my student and I had not been able to crack by ourselves.
254
The question of a mystery satellite propagated throughout the research community.
255
The German Aerospace Center came up with an ambitious plan to take a large tracking dish, point it at candidate satellites, and try to catch the interference in real time.
256
But remember, we're trying to catch a needle in a haystack
257
that only shows up over a short interval and only happens once, maybe once or twice a month.
258
They tracked satellite after satellite and nothing.
259
No signal, no anomaly, no breakthrough.
260
Yet again, the trail went cold.
261
Weeks passed, then months, until an email arrived.
262
I looked at the email and then I had to reread it
263
because it was almost like it had come right out of
264
my dreams you know this this can't possibly be true he
265
had beautiful raw data from two different stations at last they
266
had what they'd been missing the raw radio signal itself samples
267
of the raw voltage off the antenna capturing the actual digitized
268
radio waves millions of times per second from two stations one in amsterdam in the netherlands
269
and one in trondheim in northern norway they captured these interference events on February 11th, 2026.
270
And now rather than asking how strong is the signal, they could ask when did it arrive?
271
With this raw data, they isolated a 2 .3 second window where both stations recorded the same event.
272
And because they were sampling at tens of megahertz, they could align the two data sets to pinpoint the exact moment the jamming signal arrived at both stations.
273
This meant they could measure the tiny difference in when the signal reached each station.
274
Imagine the signal reaches Trondheim roughly 139 microseconds before it reaches Amsterdam.
275
Well, that tells you that the source must be slightly closer to Trondheim than it is to Amsterdam.
276
And that constraint gives you a shape, a curve in space of all the possible locations of the source where that exact timing difference would be observed.
277
In three dimensions, that becomes a kind of warped surface, a hyperboloid.
278
Whatever transmitted the signal had to lie somewhere on that surface
279
and because the raw data was
280
so incredibly high resolution the margin of error the thickness of
281
that shape stretching tens of thousands of kilometers into space was only about five meters
282
and because we were so interested in avoiding errors we just determined
283
that we were not going to talk to each other for
284
a week we would do our separate thing for a week
285
and then we would come back together compare notes
286
and we would hopefully have not made the same mistakes
287
and I presented my findings to Zach and he presented his to me
288
and they were not the same and I have to admit
289
that because I'm the professor I was pretty much insistent that
290
that my finding was correct
291
but then he pointed out a couple of other things other checks
292
that he'd run and then I realized
293
that uh I had an error in my code and once I fixed that error
294
I ended up getting exactly the same time difference of arrival that he did.
295
And now they had a way to test every possible satellite, not just the 14 from their earlier predictions.
296
For each satellite, they took its known orbit and asked, if the signal came from here, what timing difference would we expect between Amsterdam and Trondheim?
297
Then they compared that prediction to the real data.
298
If it didn't match, the satellite was ruled out.
299
And since they had a continuous two and a half second recording, they could take this a step further.
300
As the satellite moved, that hyperboloid would shift slightly through space.
301
So the real source had to stay aligned with it the entire time, which made this test incredibly strict.
302
And only one satellite was anywhere near this time difference of arrival measurement.
303
And in fact, it wasn't just near, it was dead on.
304
The only possible culprit was a Russian satellite, Cosmos 2546.
305
It remained perfectly on the hyperboloid, aligning with their data to within 200 meters, which is well within the uncertainty of the satellite's publicly available orbital data.
306
Now it's worth saying here, this work is still new and it hasn't undergone peer review, but independent teams in Europe have verified aspects of these findings.
307
There was only one slight issue.
308
Cosmos -2546 was launched on the 22nd of May 2020.
309
So it couldn't explain events going back to 2019.
310
But then they discovered that Cosmos -2546 is part of a constellation of six satellites.
311
This constellation is part of Russia's early missile warning system.
312
It's basically part of their golden dome.
313
If you've heard of the US golden dome, This is part of the sensory apparatus for the Russian missile detection system.
314
They sit in what's called a Molnia orbit, a highly elliptical path that carries them high over the northern hemisphere where they can slow down and linger.
315
It's the way that high -latitude countries like Russia can get the benefits of something like geostationary orbit across multiple satellites.
316
But this also means this constellation covers large parts of the globe, So they have the capability to jam GNSS across a far wider region than we've seen,
317
including over the United States.
318
The pattern already told us this wasn't random.
319
The frequency told us it wasn't natural.
320
And now we know it's coming from a military system in orbit.
321
But in tension?
322
Well, that's harder to prove.
323
What is already being broadcast is enormously powerful.
324
It's like hundreds of times more powerful than the GPS signals themselves.
325
But it's slightly offset from the GPS frequency, which seems odd.
326
Because surely, if you want to jam GPS properly, you would put your jamming signal directly on top of it.
327
Well, Todd actually has a theory about this.
328
If you're going to test this capability, then you test it in the neighborhood of the signal you intend to jam, but not right on that signal.
329
And you test it only briefly, just to make sure everything's still working and then in the eventual future where there is a hot conflict,
330
they go ahead and tune their transmitter down to the GPS band, but it's much more damaging now that it lies right on that band.
331
So one possibility is this.
332
What we've been seeing are tests, a system being exercised without fully revealing what it can do.
333
And while just a theory at this point, there is another hint this might be the case.
334
The raw data also revealed a second interference burst, aimed at a lower frequency,
335
1558 .5 MHz, which overlaps with signals from the Chinese Beidou navigation system.
336
I'll say it in the most conservative way possible.
337
I can no longer say this is accidental with confidence.
338
I'm leaning toward this being a periodic test of a capability that would be very damaging if it was deployed in anger.
339
But when we spoke to a team that had independently traced the signals back to satellites in Russia's missile warning system, they had another idea.
340
So that'd be very odd behavior to be continually testing something.
341
So our alternative theory is that those might actually be very short, very brief, very specific comms messages coming from those satellites.
342
And if that were true, transmitting messages on these frequencies would provide a layer of protection,
343
because the enemy wouldn't want to jam them and risk disrupting their own navigation systems.
344
I'm not saying it's not the jamming.
345
That's still a very strong possibility.
346
I think the point is there are some odd things about that and there is clearly here an alternative explanation.
347
But whether these signals were covert messages or tests of a space -based jamming system, the events themselves were incredibly brief.
348
And that might explain something else, why this went unnoticed for years.
349
But if this system were ever fully switched on, the impact could be enormous.
350
When we see maps of massive GPS interference today, you are almost entirely looking at reports from commercial aircraft affected by ground -based jammers.
351
Typical airliners cruise at altitudes between 30 ,000 and 42 ,000 feet, which is high enough to remain in direct line of sight of jamming signals across vast distances.
352
But at ground level, buildings and terrain shield much of our infrastructure from that interference.
353
But everything is line of sight from space, yeah.
354
It's an invisible utility that supports virtually every technology,
355
and it's essential to the way we live every day.
356
The United States made GPS its gift to the world, and clever engineers took this free thing that works really well and very precise and incorporated into all kinds of
357
of systems it's one of those wicked problems you really don't know what all the dependencies are
358
and where all the interconnections are
359
because it's just proliferated throughout the world global satellite navigation systems underpin aviation
360
and global shipping it synchronizes financial systems keeps cell towers on
361
time it is crucial for logistics networks ride -hailing apps delivery
362
systems even dating apps a disruption of these systems across an
363
area as large as what these satellites are capable of could affect hundreds of millions of people.
364
It would send shockwaves of fear through the world,
365
not just through Europe, because an entirely new weapon from space would have been revealed
366
and people would know that at any time of their choosing,
367
Russia could deploy this over their country or over their continent.
368
I do think that this is a massive escalation in the electronic warfare background conflict that's going on right now.
369
Now, this sounds scary, but the truth is we should have been worried about this fragile system already.
370
The threat has always been there.
371
Severe solar events could ionize the atmosphere and keep all kinds of signals from space from coming in, or it could destroy satellites.
372
We could have a version of the Kessler effect in medium Earth orbit and satellites be destroyed by debris.
373
So everybody should have already been concerned, they should continue to be concerned, and this is just another example of why.
374
But the good news is, we already know exactly how to fix the problem.
375
It involves building a future system that doesn't rely entirely on weak satellite signals.
376
We suggest that a resilient national P &T architecture would be signals from space,
377
terrestrial broadcast, and fiber because those are three completely different phenomenologies and a vector that would impact one would not impact the other two.
378
Some countries are already doing this.
379
Places like South Korea, China, and the UK are building out backup networks that don't rely on signals from space.
380
They're using fiber optic cables to securely share time from atomic clocks here on Earth.
381
And for navigation, they're turning to systems like ELORAN, huge high -powered radio towers that are much harder to overwhelm.
382
Other solutions are even being developed using magnetic and quantum systems
383
that use subtle variations in the Earth's magnetic field to work out position, so you don't need any external But despite all of this,
384
most countries, including the United States, still remain highly dependent on GPS and other satellite navigation systems.
385
In this video, we've been talking about jamming, but there's another kind of GNSS interference, one that swaps your real signal for a fake one,
386
quietly feeding you a location that looks completely real, so if you trust it, it can guide you somewhere else entirely.
387
This is known as GPS spoofing.
388
It's affecting over 1 ,500 flights per day.
389
And at sea, we're seeing the same thing.
390
Ships are jumping implausible distances, briefly disappearing or reappearing in impossible locations, even on land.
391
It's a systematic, geographically clustered distortion of reality, both in the air and at sea.
392
If you wanna know more about that, let us know in the comments.
393
This story was based on research by Professor Todd Humphries and his student, Zach Clements, at the University of Texas at Austin.
394
There's a link to their work down in the description.
395
I want to thank them for all their help and for sharing their findings with us.
396
And of course, I want to thank you for watching.
Télécharger l'application
Tout pour parler couramment
Prononciation IAChaque phrase notée
Phonétique (IPA)Maîtrisez chaque son
VocabulaireEnrichissez votre lexique
Jeu de vocabulaireApprenez en jouant
Même chaîne
1
White holes and wormholes are probably real. Here's why.
C11
Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
You've (Likely) Been Playing The Game Of Life Wrong
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
We're trying something new...
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
C120
How does light 'know' the shortest path?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
Why does every mammal get 1 billion heartbeats in their life?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
Why Cold Drinks Were Deadly Before 1914
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
Exposing The Flaw In Our Phone System
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
Our Greatest Delusion
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
The Most Controversial Problem in Philosophy
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
We've Been Using The Wrong Science In Court For 50 years
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B24
Explaining Pi With Pizza
University Students
B214
5 Fun Physics Phenomena
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
The Absurd Engineering Behind the Internet
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
The Most Misunderstood Concept in Physics
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B11
Falling ladders - why does this happen?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepHigh School Students
C110
How a slinky falls in slow motion #shorts
University StudentsWorking Adults
C13
We're 99.9% sure this pattern is true, but no one can prove it
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B23
What is the secret of a good life? Lessons from the longest study on happiness
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C18
How An Infinite Hotel Ran Out Of Room
University Students
FOR YOU
Vidéo recommandée
C11
54 phrases
Traceroute: You're Probably Reading the Results Wrong
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
514 phrases
Why Ukraine Is Doomed | Episode 6
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
169 phrases
Yorkshire Is Hiding Something Nobody Talks About
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C18
156 phrases
How Quantum Batteries Break Every Rule of Charging
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
271 phrases
Everyone's Reckless Mistakes Got 8 Tourists Killed!
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
169 phrases
12 Things That Could Destroy Earth
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
232 phrases
Why Europe's GDP Growth Is Crippling Its Economy
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
83 phrases
How living abroad rewires your brain.
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1291 phrases
Why did white men conquer the world?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
75 phrases
The Predictable Shield: Deconstructing Sensory Over-Responsivity
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
224 phrases
20% Speed of Light!! NEW Light Engine is INSANE!
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
102 phrases
War Expert Reveals BRUTAL Truth About Iran’s Power Grab
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
Vocabulaire et conseils d’expression pour cette leçon
Cette leçon d’expression orale de niveau C1 s’appuie sur la vidéo « Something is jamming GPS over Europe. Here's what we found ». Les mots qui reviennent le plus souvent : satellite, signal, Gps. Cette vidéo contient 396 phrases et 5678 mots à répéter en shadowing. La partie parlée dure 34:04. Le locuteur parle à un rythme naturel d’environ 167 mots par minute, proche d’une conversation courante. 82 % des mots font partie des 3 000 mots les plus courants en anglais ; le reste mérite d’être vu avant de commencer.
Vocabulaire clé de cette vidéo
Les 15 mots les plus avancés de la vidéo, avec leur prononciation et leur sens :
| Mot | Prononciation | Sens |
|---|---|---|
| interference nom | /ˌɪntəɹˈfɪɹɪns/ | ingérence |
| navigation nom | /nævɪˈɡeɪʃən/ | navigation |
| receiver nom | /ɹəˈsi.vɚ/ | destinataire |
| orbit nom | /ˈɔɹ.bɪt/ | orbite |
| meter nom | /ˈmitəɹ/ | mètre, compteur |
| antenna nom | /ænˈtɛn.ə/ | antenne |
| researcher nom | /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/ | chercheur, chercheuse |
| equation nom | /ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/ | équation |
| measurement nom | /ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/ | mesure |
| continent nom | /ˈkɑntɪnənt/ | continent |
| assumption nom | /əˈsʌm(p).ʃ(ə)n/ | assomption |
| constellation nom | /ˌkɑn.stəˈleɪ.ʃən/ | constellation |
| geostationary adjectif | géostationnaire | |
| hyperboloid nom | hyperboloïde, hyperboloïde à une nappe | |
| overwhelm verbe | /ˌoʊ.vɚˈwɛlm/ | abreuver |
Les verbes à particule que vous entendrez
| Mot | Prononciation | Sens |
|---|---|---|
| work out verbe | /ˌwɝk ˈaʊt/ | calculer |
| figure out verbe | cerner | |
| set up verbe | /ˌsɛt ˈʌp/ | mettre en place, installer |
| break down verbe | tomber en panne | |
| build up verbe | s'accumuler, s'entasser | |
| close in on verbe | enserrer | |
| come back verbe | revenir | |
| come up with verbe | inventer, imaginer |
Des phrases à répéter
Des phrases courtes et complètes de la vidéo, à réutiliser dans la conversation de tous les jours :
- We've never seen this before.
- The pattern already told us this wasn't random.
- The frequency told us it wasn't natural.
- I'll say it in the most conservative way possible.
- I'm not saying it's not the jamming.
La grammaire de cette vidéo
Les structures que le locuteur utilise le plus, avec les mots exacts de la vidéo :
| Structure | Dans la vidéo |
|---|---|
| Phrases conditionnelles if + proposition, will/would + verbe — une condition et son résultat | If you add a third, you will narrow · if you don't account for that, you'll still · If you saw Newsweek first, you would definitely |
| Present perfect continu have/has been + -ing — une action commencée avant et toujours en cours | we've been seeing · we've been talking |
| Present perfect have/has + participe passé — une action passée qui compte encore maintenant | We've never seen · has never seen · we've made |
| Voix passive be + participe passé — l’accent est mis sur ce qui arrive, pas sur qui le fait | had been overwhelmed · being felt · were affected |
Prononciation à surveiller
Le locuteur utilise 64 contractions et formes réduites, comme you're, we've, didn't. Prononcez-les sous leur forme courte, telles que vous les entendez.
- Les sons « sh » et « zh »: navigation /nævɪˈɡeɪʃən/, equation /ɪˈkweɪ.ʒən/, measurement /ˈmɛʒ.ə.mənt/, assumption /əˈsʌm(p).ʃ(ə)n/, constellation /ˌkɑn.stəˈleɪ.ʃən/
- Mots longs — placez bien l’accent: interference /ˌɪntəɹˈfɪɹɪns/, navigation /nævɪˈɡeɪʃən/, constellation /ˌkɑn.stəˈleɪ.ʃən/, capability /ˌkeɪ.pəˈbɪl.ɪ.ti/, amplifier /ˈæm.plə.faɪ.ə/
Les sons difficiles pour les francophones :
- /tʃ/ et /dʒ/ — à ne pas adoucir en « ch » et « j »: researcher /ˈɹiˌsɝ.t͡ʃɚ/, jammer /ˈd͡ʒæmɚ/
- /r/ anglais — langue recourbée, sans frotter la gorge: interference /ˌɪntəɹˈfɪɹɪns/, receiver /ɹəˈsi.vɚ/, transmit /tɹænsˈmɪt/, orbit /ˈɔɹ.bɪt/, meter /ˈmitəɹ/
Comment s’entraîner avec cette vidéo
- Écoutez la vidéo en entier une fois sans parler et notez les mots que vous ne connaissez pas.
- Commencez à la vitesse 0,75×, répétez phrase par phrase, puis revenez à la vitesse normale quand cela devient facile.
- Enregistrez-vous et comparez avec l’original, en faisant attention à des mots comme interference, navigation, receiver.
Qu'est-ce que la technique du Shadowing ?
Le Shadowing est une technique d'apprentissage des langues fondée sur la science, développée à l'origine pour la formation des interprètes professionnels. Le principe est simple mais puissant : vous écoutez de l'anglais natif et le répétez immédiatement à voix haute — comme une ombre suivant le locuteur avec un décalage de 1 à 2 secondes. Les recherches montrent une amélioration significative de la précision de la prononciation, de l'intonation, du rythme, des liaisons, de la compréhension orale et de la fluidité.