Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pentagon Wants Disposable War Satellites

Posted by Soulskill on from the i-thought-we-were-past-the-disposable-camera-fad dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has invited manufacturers to propose squads of disposable mini-satellites costing about $500,000 each, capable of providing reconnaissance to soldiers at the press of a button. 'We envision a constellation of small satellites, at a fraction of the cost of airborne systems, that would allow deployed warfighters to hit "see me" on existing handheld devices and in less than 90 minutes receive a satellite image of their precise location to aid in mission planning,' says the agency. The U.S. Army already has access to drone aircraft to provide intelligence from the skies, and last year they announced that new helicopter-style machines equipped with 1.8 gigapixel cameras will soon go into service in Afghanistan. However, DARPA says such unmanned aircraft cannot cover extended territory without frequent refuelling. The SeeMe constellation will consist of some two-dozen satellites, each lasting 60-90 days in a very low-earth orbit before de-orbiting and completely burning up, leaving no space debris and causing no re-entry hazard. 'With a SeeMe constellation, we hope to directly support warfighters in multiple deployed overseas locations simultaneously with no logistics or maintenance costs beyond the warfighters' handhelds,' says program manager Dave Barnhart."

6 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Expensive by SJHillman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    $500,000 per satellite with a 2-3 month life? Pretty expensive. Does that include the cost of launching it too?

    1. Re:Expensive by shortscruffydave · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at how much it costs to drop a Tomahawk missile onto a target then this could start to look more cost effective. If good satellite imagery/intel can point you more accurately onto where the bad guys are, then maybe you only need one missile instead of two or three if you're not so sure where your target is. Still not small beer, but it's all relative.

    2. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How much can that satellite save is the question. It doesn't have to save much in the way of life and materials to offset its own costs.

    3. Re:Expensive by fredrated · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We don't even know who the 'bad guys' are when they are sitting next to us, how the hell are we going to tell them from low earth orbit?
      Besides, what good does it do when we are the bad guys? Do we start shooting ourselves? (Might actually be a good idea).

    4. Re:Expensive by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No problem, cut the education and health care budgets to finance this. Things that matter should go first!

      Actually, this is a pretty good choice. These programs typically have negative value, harming the US by driving up the cost of education and health care. The military has a lot of things to cut as well. And health care and military spending covers two of the biggest items in the federal budget.

  2. Re:Expense Reduction by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How about this one: stop invading other countries just for the hell of it. I bet that would reduce the expenses.