Expensive U.S. Spy Satellite Not Working

Penguinshit writes to mention a Reuters article about some trouble the U.S. is having communicating with a spy satellite. The sensor package was launched last year by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It has apparently hung in a low orbit for months now, and efforts to communicate with it have been unsuccessful. From the article: "The official said the problems were substantial and involved multiple systems, adding that U.S. officials were working to reestablish contact with the satellite because of the importance of the new technology it was meant to test and demonstrate. The other source said the satellite had been described to him as 'a comprehensive failure.' There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack. Another government official said he had no information about any attacks on U.S. satellites."

Comments

The problem...

[It doesn't come easy]

"Windows has encountered an error from which it cannot recover and needs to restart. Please press any key to continue..."

Re:The problem...

[kfg]

An emergency shuttle mission is already being scheduled to deal with the problem. It will be a failure, however, when the astronaut discovers that he cannot find the Any key.

KFG

Re:The problem...

[vought]

They probably let Halliburton write the bootstrap code...

Re:The problem...

[ceoyoyo]

Wouldn't it be simpler just to go to Staples and buy an Easy button?

Opps...

[__aaclcg7560]

So that's what my DIY laser cannon shot down... I was worried that I built it wrong.

Dam conversions

[VEGETA_GT]

Bet ya this is a case of converting form Imperial to Metric again. Guess the military never got NASA's memo :P

Terrorism?

[despe666]

If another country launched a spy satellite and the US destroyed it, it wouldn't be terrorism, it would be self-defense. Why would it be any different the other way around?

Re:Terrorism?

[jfengel]

I'd be hard pressed to call it "terrorism" in either case. Most definitions of "terrorism" that I'm aware of describe attacks against civilian rather than military targets, whose goal is to cause more harm than the actual physical damage by provoking fear.

In this case it could conceivably be that a terrorist organization also sabotaged a military target, but that would not be an act of terrorism in and of itself. That's more like conventional espionage. The military knows that it is a target and is capable of responding, and so it's generally considered a valid target. The world gives a kind of grudging acceptance of your right to do it.

The third general requirement of terrorism, as compared to a valid military attack, is that the enemy hides itself. If the US takes out somebody's spy satellite, you know where the US is if you want to engage in a military response. Al Qaeda doesn't have such a place. This isn't just a playing semantics; it goes back to the civilian/military distinction. When a true terrorist organization attacks the US, civilians nominally on their own side die when the US counterattacks. By contrast, to attack the US there are valid targets.

(This gets a bit murky in espionage, where you do hide among the civilians, and that's the closest the US comes to true terrorism, at least for its avowed activities. We can discuss the various covert CIA activities later, but there's so much misinformation that it's hard to know what's real and what's paranoia.)

Terrorism comes much closer to Clausewitz's "total war". Why should any opponent restrict itself to "valid" military targets and make itself known to counterattacks? No reason, except that the end of "total war" is always the complete destruction of one side: if you engage in it you're putting lives at risk out of proportion to your goals. That will earn the world's opprobrium, and perhaps that opprobrium will increase the chance of your defeat, but beyond that it's your choice.

Re:Terrorism?

[Maxo-Texas]

I agree.

Terrorists = those who attack on civilians to induce terror (presumably to induce civilians some kind of change driven by the civilians).

Resistance, Insurgents, Freedom fighters = those who attack military and government units (not 5 year olds).

Nihilists = those who attack civilians really just because they like death and destruction and not because they have any particular goal of any kind in mind.

"Total War" is not really terrorism. You are not trying to induce a civilian population attitude change- you have decided to kill everyone on the other side.

Re:Terrorism?

[kfg]

The military knows that it is a target and is capable of responding, and so it's generally considered a valid target. The world gives a kind of grudging acceptance of your right to do it.

Tell it to the people talking about the U.S.S. Cole.

Terrorism comes much closer to Clausewitz's "total war".

Beware of leaving your opponant without options.

KFG

Re:Terrorism?

[inviolet]

Well said.

This issue was illustrated nicely (and horribly) in the Vietnam war. When the Vietnamese resorted to "total war" tactics, like putting bombs in picnic baskets carried by young girls, it changed the necessary response from their enemy. Their enemy (the US) now had to consider all civilians as potential combatants -- eventually, as likely combatants. Voila, you get Mai Lai and other unpleasantness.

American civilians back home condemned the attacks on civilians, but only because they didn't understand the aforementioned. They still don't.

Meanwhile, American soldiers suffered abnormal psychological harm because their survival required them to begin killing 'civilians', including women and children. It ended poorly for everyone, although I suppose the VC regard it as a triumphant "peoples' uprising" or some such euphemism.

al-Quaida and al-Aqsah and their ilk are skipping down the same path, by hiding in and among civilians. Normally this would necessitate flattening whole neighborhoods in which they've got their caches and arty hidden, so let us praise the US military for the expensive restraint it is showing in this situation. Historically, it is utterly unprecedented.

But only the affected civilians can stop it. There's a great quote from Gen. Robert E. Lee about this. While conquering the South, he burned many farms and homesteads as he went. An old woman appealed him to spare her farm. He replied (more or less) "Ma'am, I can't stop this war. Only you can. But you won't until you feel the real cost."

Re:Terrorism?

[_Sharp'r_]

Lee conquering the south?

I know that most US schools aren't big on teaching history any more unless it can somehow be related to a teacher's pet cause, but hopefully your comment is just a typo and you really meant something like Sherman's march to the sea.

Just in case it isn't clear, Lee led the Southern Armies in the Civil War, he didn't conquer the South.

Re:Terrorism?

[Brummund]

First of all, it is My Lai. Second, the massacre was in 1968. Third, the massacre was not done in a an attack on the village, it was done AFTER an initial attack on the village, where the US soldiers had full control of it.

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre for more details.

Re:Terrorism?

[colman77]

Why does this even mention terrorism? Go back and read that again. "There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack." Duh. Last time I checked, spy satellites were not exactly high-profile ordeals, making them less-than-desirable targets for any kind of terrorist. So then WHY include that sentence? Power of suggestion? Keep terrorism in our collective consciousness? Why is it there?

Re:Terrorism?

[nietsch]

American civilians back home condemned the attacks on civilians, but only because they didn't understand the aforementioned. They still don't.

Meanwhile, American soldiers suffered abnormal psychological harm because their survival required them to begin killing 'civilians', including women and children. It ended poorly for everyone, although I suppose the VC regard it as a triumphant "peoples' uprising" or some such euphemism.

Well, it is not only the former vietcong that regards 'vietnam' as a major defeat for the US, and thus a bloody victory for Vietnam, the whole world (minus the US-minority) does so. As for understanding for attacks on civilians: none is ever justified. Not then in Vietnam, not now in Iraq. Killing people is always wrong, but killing innocents is even worse. What part of 'thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?

Obligatory.

[Tackhead]

"Nothing to see here... at least not with your security clearance."

If there was no suggestion of something...

[Phil246]

why mention it? Why raise the 'boogeyman' of terrorism for something unrelated to it, other then to reinforce the culture of fear created.

Re:If there was no suggestion of something...

[Jonathan_S]

"There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack"

If there was no suggestion of something... why mention it? Why raise the 'boogeyman' of terrorism for something unrelated to it, other then to reinforce the culture of fear created

Exactly. I'm sure neither source mentioned that it had been deliberately damaged as part of an extra terrestrial alien attack either, but they didn't mention that.

Maybe someone should start listing all the other types of attacks that didn't damage the satellite. (Start off with laser wielding shark...)

You've got to be kidding!

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on now - a terrorist attack? I really think that any reporter or journalist that's gotten to the point of asking if terrorists are involved every time something goes wrong should be fired, or at least whacked with a Clue Stick and put on probation or something.

"Huh. This turkey sandwich I got from the commissary is a little dry today..."
"Really? Do you think it could be some kind of terrorist attack on Lunchtime?!"

Absurd.

Terrorists? Give me a break

[RelaxedTension]

If anyone actually did something to kill the satellite, there is a list of countries that I would suspect long before looking at terrorists. Countries like China, Russia, etc., have greater reason, not to mention resources, to damage an orbiting satellite.

Why is always terrorists that are the culprits when something goes wrong? The nations that used espionage before the "War On Terror" are still there, and still have vested interest in denying the US the ability to spy on them.

Re:Terrorists? Give me a break

[ColdWetDog]

Don't ascribe to malice that which can adequately explained by incompetence.

In other words, We have met the enemy and he is us.

terrorists??!?

[no reason to be here]

does anybody else feel that the mention of terrorists in this article is just absofuckinglutely retarded? that anyone, for even an instant, seriously entertained the notion that any terrorist group has both the capacity and wherewithal to take out something in LEO, UNDETECTED, is beyond idiotic.

we must be living in the bizarro universe.

Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats

[AKAImBatman]

Anyone remember the pioneering days when real men (and women) weren't afraid to light a giant roman candle under their posteriors? Back in those days, we would have retasked a spaceflight, go and check the sat out, and get it running again. What I woudln't give for that space capability again. ;)

Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats

[AKAImBatman]

it it almost certainly cheaper to build and launch a new satelite then it is to send someone up to fix this one.

At "hundreds of millions of dollars", I'd say it's a toss-up given the Shuttle's current launch cost of $450 million. If the additional stop to check on the sat doesn't detract significantly from the original mission, then it might even be cost effective. In the Space Shuttle's more nominal cost per launch days, it would have been much cheaper to go have a looksee. (Like was done with the Hubble.) There's also the consideration of whether the expense to get the existing sat up and running NOW is worth the cost over waiting five years for a replacement to be launched.

The CEV's simpler design will almost certainly be cheaper than launching new spy sats.

Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats

[BillX]

On the other hand, these *real* men and women had lofty goals of exploring strange new worlds and furthering the human base of scientific knowledge. They might be less than receptive to the idea of risking their asses to run up and hit the reset switch on a bricked piece of spy equipment. :-)

Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats

[Dunbal]

Making an n+1 copy of the satellite will be far cheaper.

      Not necessarily, because this time they have to make one that WORKS.

Re:WTF

[arootbeer]

You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorists with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

NMCI

[Chayak]

This is what happens when you outsource your communications to EDS and NMCI "What do you mean by 'I forgot to turn it on...'!?!"

Michael Brown Again?

[ortcutt]

They should have known it was a bad idea to appoint the President of the Arabian Horse Association to be the head of the National Reconnaissance Office.

Complex Missions Cost Money - Period

[starfire-1]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Building, launching and fly a spacecraft is complex and difficult. But ever since the mid 1990's the industry thinks that cutting costs (which inevitably means cutting late life cycle costs such as operations) can be overcome with automation and hand-waving. The launch vehicle gets the spacecraft off the ground, but then some silly operations error or engineering flaw not uncovered by operations results in a catastrophic failure (e.g. JPL/Mars English vs. Metric debacle). Back in the day - agencies fully funded operations personnel that shook out both procedural and engineering defects ahead of time. Just because an agency doesn't/can't pay for the same level of effort in today's fiscal environment does not mean that these types of defects magically disappear.

It used to be said that of "Better, faster, cheaper," you could only have two out of three. As time goes on, I wonder if these expectations are too high.

Space missions have cost overruns for sure, but in my experience those overruns come from unrealistically low bids from major vendors and the fact that these dinosaur companies build spacecraft in pretty much the same way as they always have. They used to run of of money about a year before launch and they still run out of money a year before launch. IMHO, the only way to reduce the frequency of catatrophic failure is for early life cycle vendors to becore more efficient so there are funds for operations to shake out the bugs before it gets up on orbit.

Not if we jam it!

[Kadin2048]

As an anti-satellite weapon. It would launch a special shell in space that would explode near the target satellite, covering it with sticky material and blinding it.

Who was their defense contractor on that idea? Lone Starr and a certain rotund guy with a tail named Barf?

Say what?

[nsayer]

There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack.

What kind of bullshit fear-mongering is this? There was no suggestion that it was caused by Martian attack or canabalism in the British Navy either. Why not mention that?

Re:Say what?

[evilviper]

There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack.

The ice cream scoop fell off my cone and landed in the dirt.

No terrorist organizations have yet claimed responsibility.

Re:Say what?

[Dunbal]

or canabalism in the British Navy either.

      There are no cannibals in the British Navy. I ate the last one.

Re:WTF

[denbesten]

There are many ways to sabotage such a complex system...

Complexity itself is likely the biggest cause of the problem. No sabotage needed. Although complexity (somewhat) needs to be part of the normal operation, there should be non-complex survival modes that kick in when things start to go wrong, such as:

• A low battery could trigger a spring loaded mechanism that opened one solar panel. Then move the panel around semi-randomly until charging begins. Once there is enough charge, smarter (i.e. more complex) aiming circuitry could be turned on.
• Loss of communications from mother earth for a few weeks could trigger a mechanism which points the antenna directly towards the strongest source of gravity, so that we could get a communication airplane under it.

There are likely these sorts of gizmos already, but one really needs to consider why they fail and how they could be made simpler to eliminate the failure cause.

Incidentally, this doesn't just apply to satellites. Lots of things have (or should have self-preservation built in). My camera, for example, retracts and covers its lens when the battery gets low, so that it does not get hurt when I throw it back in my pocket. All it requires is a bit of forethought and contingency planning on the part of the designers.

Error

[SnarfQuest]

Keyboard not detected. Press RETURN to continue...

Weapons and spy contracts can be mostly secret.

[Futurepower(R)]

Reading the comments posted above is chilling. Generally, people don't even begin to understand the issues.

Weapons and spy contracts can be mostly secret. In practice, that means there will be less supervision and much more opportunity to make and sell junk at very high profit. It is very common that an entire project is so poorly designed that it is useless; however, the politics is such that the failures are kept secret. The U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy and dishonesty.

Here is my summary of U.S. government corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy. I hope you will write your own summary and send it to friends and government leaders.

Usually works

[The Dobber]

A good slap on the side of the cabinet.

  .

just a *few* corrections:

[Ancient_Hacker]

An anonymous reader writes to mention a Reuters article about some trouble the U.S. is having communicating with a spy satellite. >The sensor package was launched last year by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office

Well, I doubt if NRO launches anything-- they probably sign a check to Martin-Marietta, who coordinates things and rents a pad at Vandenberg.

>and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Well, it probably cost hundreds of millions of $. What it's worth, especially in the light of it being unusable, is debatable. Back when CMOS sensor arrays were custom made for $70,000 each the technology was gee-whizzy. Nowdays your basic disposable camera isnt that far behind what's in the current sats.

>It has apparently hung in a low orbit for months now.

"Hung"? as in hanging from something? Or hung as in "windows hung on me"?

>and efforts to communicate with it have been unsuccessful. The official said the problems were substantial and involved multiple systems.

So it probably had several radio links and none of them seem to be working. That's bad. There's usually at least one last-ditch fail-safe really simple telemetry and command link that doesnt depend on the main power source or antenna aiming. If they can't talk to that thingy, things are mighty grim.

>adding that U.S. officials

"Officials"? More likely a bunch of hairy and now sweaty peons.

>Were working to reestablish contact with the satellite because of the importance of the new technology it was meant to test and demonstrate.

So they wouldnt bother if it had old technology but cost $200 million?

>The other source said the satellite had been described to him as 'a comprehensive failure.'

Well, if you can't talk to it, that's pretty comprehensive.

terrorists!!!

[buhatkj]

heh the very idea that terrorists could possibly do something to a satellite after launch makes me laugh. i mean did it go like this?

Osama - "OK Zawawhatshisname, show me this big plan you have for taking out the satellites of the great satan?"
ZAWA - "ok, basically we strap a bomb to young Uday here..."
Osama - "ok, not bad so far, pretty standard, then what?"
Zawa - "then we have this big slingshot and...."
Osama - "whoa whoa waitasec.... are you serious??"
Zawa - "yeh, well he gets in then we tie the camels to the basket and..."
Osama - "what somebody cracks the whip and pulls a string c'mon man!! Is this what I pay you for?!?!"
Zawa - "well, I..."
Osama - "You're fired..."
Zawa - "but..."
Osama - "dude, just...leave...ok?!"

nah...my spidey sense tell me it was a launch damage f-up or micrometeorite, something normal like that. maybe even a bug, a software glitch like the poor MGS or polar lander (inches, meters, what being difference?!?!? haha!!)

Suckers

[neoevans]

Everytime your government loses or mis-spends $450 Million, then tells you it was spent on some mythical "spy-sattelite" you go and believe them?

My left butt cheek...

[RingDev]

I just wanted to let everyone know that my left butt cheek is fine. Any damage that it may have sustained is not related to any terrorist attack or plot. We must be ever vigilant though, less the terrorist forces do manage to injure my left butt cheek.

This has been a public service reminder. Remember, be afraid of terrorist, you need us, we keep you safe, you have nothing to fear from an oppressive government unless you are an enemy of the government.

-Rick

Re:O0ps...

[PopeRatzo]

Not working. Sure. I believe that. It's up there and it's, ahem, NOT WORKING. See, we can't really see that there's a pot plant growing in the backyard of the house that's 3 from the corner of Halsted and Magnolia. And we can't see that brunette sunbathing nude at Latitude 39.518 Longitude -71.426.

Right. The old "tell them it doesn't really work" routine. Gotta give those spooks credit for creativity on this one.

Dude....

[plopez]

haven't you ever seen a James Bond movie?

Re:O0ps...

[wiggles]

Wait a minute! You tricked me! Those coordinates are about 120 miles off the coast of New Jersey in the middle of the atlantic!

OT:Terrorism?

[zippthorne]

Attacking a valid military target is still a de facto declaration of war. The question is: Who exactly declared war on us, and what are we going to do about it?

Pakistan, the U.K., and even Canada may "grudgingly accept" attacks on "Valid US targets." The US does not have that option if it wishes to remain an intact, sovereign state.

Re:Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror

[MightyYar]

While I agree that we are being to paranoid, I don't think that simply making us paranoid is what Al Quaeda is after. We are not speaking Arabic, converted to Islam, we have not spilled our liquor, and we are not paying a head tax - so no, I don't think that they've won.

spy satellite !

[DeadDarwin]

You trial period expired. Please register !!!

Re:O0ps...

[fotbr]

She was on a boat. It was a bit nipply out too.

Re:That would be the WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION

[AlHunt]

>Only a yankee would call it the civil war... Down in the south it is the War of Northern Aggression :)

I would point out that history is written by the victors, and we have chosen "Civil War".

We have also occupied Florida - ask any Florida native.