Slashdot Mirror
Budget Issues Force Spy Satellites Into The Open
Korsair25 points out this article about a U.S. spy satellite program. "Quote: 'Over the decades, spying from space has always earned super-secret status. They are the black projects, fulfilling dark tasks and often bankrolled by blank check.' It also talks about some of the technology used to disguise or camouflage some of the operational satellites."
I've been wearing my tinfoil hat all these years, it's finally paid off!
Original poster used Yahoo's version of the article. It originally is from Space.com. Here is the original URL with pictures.
lexbaby
"Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce
Yea, those super secret spy satellites did us a whole lot of good in Iraq...a desert, no trees, little clouds. Yea, alot of good.
Sorry, just being cynical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the constituttion mandate that congress make publicly available a DETAILED ledger of expenses? Oh well, it's not like the US government cares about little things like their founding charter any more. After all, who needs a pretense of legitimacy?
Do NOT talk about Spy Satellites!
It seems to me that this is a replacement for a project we (The United States) used to have but ditched for parochial political reasons.
One of the major problems with satellites, as everyone knows, is that they're relatively predictable. An opponent with a minor degree of sophistication can figure out when the satellite is going to be overhead, and if his project is small enough that he can hide it at that time, he will. It wasn't such a problem when one was dealing with the Soviets, who liked to build big things that were difficult to hide, but now that the major opponents are organizations like al-Qaida or the various factions fighting the U.S. in Iraq it's not so easy; they don't build aircraft carriers or industrial complexes very often, to say the least.
Traditionally the solution to this problem has been to fly over with an airplane. It's not so easy to predict when an airplane is going to fly over, so you're more likely to see the things that the opposition would hide if they knew you were looking. Right now, we're using the U-2 and the Predator drone for this task, and it seems to be working pretty well.
Should the U.S. find itself up against a more sophisticated opponent, one who has the ability to shoot down a U-2 or a low-speed/altitude drone, we've got a problem. There is, theoretically, a weapons system in the U.S. inventory which would be much less vulnerable to even a sophisticated opponent, the SR-71, but that program was permenantly cancelled in 1998.
MISTY would be a way of compensating for this loss. A stealth spy satellite would provide an aerial intelligence capability against an opponent sophisticated to shoot down a U-2 or a predator.
(It should be noted that FAS seems to think we have a plane to replace the SR-17, and they have some pretty good evidence, especially about unexplained sonic booms, but their conclusions are by no means certain. http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm Besides, why would Uncle Sam want one system when he could have two for the price of two?)
Rule #3 is that governments lie about any and everything. Consider that it might not be a spy satellite at all, but that the "stealth" attributes described in the Yahoo News article might belong to some category of offensive orbital weapons system. That the Pentagon's Space Command has publicly stated its intention to deploy orbital nuclear powered weapons in the near future to "deny" space to other nations is public record. You can find links to lots of original documentation to this effect at http://www.space4peace.org/ For those who like audio, the director of that outfit is a guy named Bruce Gagnon, and you can find a number of interviews and speeches by him at http://www.radio4all.net, all downloadable free MP3 audio. My favorite one, a general discussion of the Space Command and our country's offensive military posture in space, is at http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=6827
This "We don't need spy satalites in the current climate so we shouldn't develop them" is EXACTLY the kind of "get what we need for right now" thinking that got us in trouble with 9/11 in the first place.
We can't just react to the situation we're in now. We need a broad base of capabilities to address needs we have now, AND needs we may have in the future, AND needs we have no idea we'll have in the future.
We got burned on 9/11 because our entire system was still moving from being extremely focused on fighting the cold war to being extremely focused on being able to fight two regional conflicts. So we got hit where we were vulnerable - global terrorist conflict.
Just as ignoring that threat was a mistake in the past, deciding to scrap any equipment related to threats not currently present would be just as grave of an error, one we should hopefully avoid discovering in hindsight.
paintball
...how useful they are/were? The US intelligence agencies are not likely to tell folks where they got what information if they don't have to. For example, if information concerning the locations and orientations of anti-aircraft weaponry was obtained via satellite, the information would likely be passed to on-scene commanders, but not to CNN or such, so the average person is not going to know how effective the satellites are.
Yes, especially if you happen to be a "defense" contractor...
"Thank you, Congressman, for your stauch advocacy of this worthy project. The $11 billion you allocated for the fiscal year will fund additional research in order to get this system fielded. Um, by the way, we noticed that you are retiring soon. Perhaps you would like to lend your national security expertise as a consultant to our "advisory board," in exchange for a modest stipend, of course." *wink*
"Why, I think that I might be able to set aside a few hours a week with your fine company. After all, it's a matter of national security." *wink*
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Interesting. Sen. Jay Rockefeller's comments were extraordinary. Why is the media now spinning this into a stealth-in-space story when the real story is a weapons-in-space story? I find it hard to believe that a stealth satellite program would be inherently dangerous to national security. A satellite that had weapons on board, however, would be a different story altogether. If true, this would be an obvious next step after BMD (ballistic missle defense).
There are resolution limits in classical optics, even before you include a turbulent atmosphere. These are limitations based on the appature of the optics and the wavelength of light. IIRC that gives you a minimal resolution of 6-12" for a Hubble-class telescope in a low polar orbit -- far too coarse to read your license plate, much less your watch.
Of course these aren't classical telescopes - if I were designing one I might focus a very narrow band onto a linear sensor and let the motion of the satellite provide the second axis. That would give you a 'stripe' but you couldn't maintain focus on a particular object of interest.
The other thing to remember is that too much detail can be as crippling as too little detail. Increase the resolution by an order of magnitude and you'll increase the amount of data you must search by two orders of magnitude. Either you toss more analysts on the problem or your turnaround time suffers. You'll still want high resolution when you're specifically looking at something, but if you're scanning the desert for tanks it may be sufficient to have relatively low resolution on multiple frequencies so you can distinguish tanks from decoys.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken