In sci.space.policy wrote:
See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...-of-their-own/

Is this a good idea? Or would it be better to invest
the money in more (and better) UAV's?

I suspect this quote:

As with other small satellites, the key is to make it
cheap. Kestrel Eye is supposed to cost around $1 million per
satellite. That's a bargain, considering a Predator drone is about
$5 million. Even a constellation of thirty of Kestrel Eyes will
cost a fraction of a large satellite.

Does not include the launch costs, but then something in LEO is
probably rather more difficult to "reach out and touch with extreme
predjudice" than say a Predator. Not impossible of course, but the
bar is higher so fewer folks could do it.

The drone can circle one point, but consumes fuel and so there is a
question of endurance I suppose. The satellite cannot circle but will
orbit more or less indefinitely - modulo the height of its orbit and
how much propellant it consumes for orientation and whatnot.
Continuous coverage with the satellite is then aproximated by having
the 30 or so mentioned. Although I suspect the proponents may have
been a bit optimistic about how good that coverage would be?

I wonder just what would be used to launch a Kestrel Eye - perhaps it
would be something that could be tossed-up there from a
WhiteKnightTwo. Having invested in Scaled Composites, I suspect that
Northrup would like to find a bit more to do with the technology than
just send the rich and (in)famous on sub-orbital trips. Or I guess
toss a couple up at a time with a Falcon 1 or the like - perhaps
Taurus XL if Orbital can get that working reliably?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...