NRO sat reportedly in trouble

[If this is in fact the object launched on 14 December, USA 193, there
has been some speculation based on its observed characteristics that it
might be a prototype or other kind of precursor to the FIA radar
satellites. If so, Boeing would seem to be two for two on FIA
performance.]



EXCLUSIVE - Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working - sources
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
January 12, 2007
[EXCERPT]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials are unable to communicate with an
expensive experimental U.S. spy satellite launched last year by the
U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), a defense official and
another source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday.

Efforts are continuing to reestablish communication with the classified
satellite, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but "the
prognosis is not great at this point," said the defense official, who
asked not to be identified.

U.S. officials are unable to communicate with an expensive experimental
U.S. spy satellite launched last year by the U.S. National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO), sources said.

"They have not yet declared it a total loss. There are still some
additional steps that can be taken to restore communication," the
official added, noting some satellites had been recovered in similar
situations in the past.

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.

The National Reconnaissance Office, which designs, builds and operates
reconnaissance satellites for the U.S. military and intelligence
communities, had no comment.

Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer with the Harvard- Smithsonian Center
For Astrophysics, said the satellite in question could be a classified
NRO satellite launched into space on Dec. 14 from Vandenberg Air Force
Base in California, which did not appear to be part of any "existing
pattern."

The NRO satellite identified only as L-21 was the first ever launched
by the newly merged rocket launch units of Boeing Co. and Lockheed
Martin Corp.

The new joint venture announced the successful launch of the satellite,
but neither the company nor the NRO gave any details about the
satellite's mission.

McDowell said the satellite was mysterious to satellite watchers
because it was in a low orbit of about 220 miles, or 350 kilometers,
above the Earth and had not made any move to change its orbital
position.

"This is definitely a setback for the NRO, which has had an aggressive
technology development program over the past few years," McDowell said.
"It adds to the problems that the NRO is having transitioning to its
next generation of satellites."

Can one expect the time of day out of this administration? Also, one can
expect to be told by mainscream media that s/he doesn't know what time of
day it is.


"Allen Thomson" wrote in message
ups.com...

[If this is in fact the object launched on 14 December, USA 193, there
has been some speculation based on its observed characteristics that it
might be a prototype or other kind of precursor to the FIA radar
satellites. If so, Boeing would seem to be two for two on FIA
performance.]



EXCLUSIVE - Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working - sources
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
January 12, 2007
[EXCERPT]

Allen Thomson wrote:

EXCLUSIVE - Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working - sources
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
January 12, 2007
[EXCERPT]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials are unable to communicate with an
expensive experimental U.S. spy satellite launched last year by the
U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), a defense official and
another source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday.

What's the law on space salvage?

Sylvia.

In article ,
Sylvia Else wrote:
EXCLUSIVE - Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working ...

What's the law on space salvage?

There is no provision for salvage in space law -- none. Sea law doesn't
automatically read across. (Salvage rules comparable to those in sea law
will probably come to exist eventually, but it'll take a while.)

Oh, and even in sea law, government property is off-limits to commercial
salvage unless you get that government's permission first.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Sylvia Else wrote:
EXCLUSIVE - Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working ...


Oh, and even in sea law, government property is off-limits to commercial
salvage unless you get that government's permission first.


OTOH, the government owner of the salvaged object would need to figure
out how to protest a salvage accompli. Particularly if the salvager
weren't a commercial entity and didn't own up to having done the
salvage in the first place.

In article .com,
Allen Thomson wrote:
Oh, and even in sea law, government property is off-limits to commercial
salvage unless you get that government's permission first.

OTOH, the government owner of the salvaged object would need to figure
out how to protest a salvage accompli. Particularly if the salvager
weren't a commercial entity and didn't own up to having done the
salvage in the first place.

If they can't trace who did it, fine. But if they can... appropriating
seagoing property without the owner's permission is legally piracy. Which
is a capital crime in most countries...
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article .com,
Allen Thomson wrote:
Oh, and even in sea law, government property is off-limits to commercial
salvage unless you get that government's permission first.

OTOH, the government owner of the salvaged object would need to figure
out how to protest a salvage accompli. Particularly if the salvager
weren't a commercial entity and didn't own up to having done the
salvage in the first place.

If they can't trace who did it, fine. But if they can... appropriating
seagoing property without the owner's permission is legally piracy. Which
is a capital crime in most countries...

I can't help but notice that none of the people involved with the
Glomar Explorer got executed, despite conspiring to appropriate
seagoing property without the owner's permission, and then proceeding
to do so.

Not to mention that we are always hearing that truly civilied countries
don't have the death penalty, which clearly does something to the
concept of "capital crime", although I admit to not being sure what.

-jake

In article . com,
Jake McGuire wrote:
If they can't trace who did it, fine. But if they can... appropriating
seagoing property without the owner's permission is legally piracy. Which
is a capital crime in most countries...

I can't help but notice that none of the people involved with the
Glomar Explorer got executed, despite conspiring to appropriate
seagoing property without the owner's permission, and then proceeding
to do so.

Uh, what part of "government contract" escaped your attention? Acting as
the agents of a government is a *very* different situation from normal
commercial activities. (Arguably I should have qualified my statement
with "unless you are acting for a government", but it didn't seem
necessary in the context.)

Not to mention that we are always hearing that truly civilied countries
don't have the death penalty, which clearly does something to the
concept of "capital crime", although I admit to not being sure what.

My understanding is that in a fair number of those countries, the death
penalty is gone for all normal purposes but technically remains an option
for certain now-rare situations and crimes... such as piracy. (Haven't
gone digging to check on this, though.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Allen Thomson a écrit :
[If this is in fact the object launched on 14 December, USA 193, there
has been some speculation based on its observed characteristics that it
might be a prototype or other kind of precursor to the FIA radar
satellites. If so, Boeing would seem to be two for two on FIA
performance.]



EXCLUSIVE - Expensive new U.S. spy satellite not working - sources
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
January 12, 2007
[EXCERPT]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials are unable to communicate with an
expensive experimental U.S. spy satellite launched last year by the
U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), a defense official and
another source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday.


This is the best thing that can happen for aerospace companies.

They will be asked to build a NEW ONE.

In article , Henry Spencer
wrote:

In article . com,
Jake McGuire wrote:
If they can't trace who did it, fine. But if they can... appropriating
seagoing property without the owner's permission is legally piracy. Which
is a capital crime in most countries...

I can't help but notice that none of the people involved with the
Glomar Explorer got executed, despite conspiring to appropriate
seagoing property without the owner's permission, and then proceeding
to do so.

Uh, what part of "government contract" escaped your attention? Acting as
the agents of a government is a *very* different situation from normal
commercial activities. (Arguably I should have qualified my statement
with "unless you are acting for a government", but it didn't seem
necessary in the context.)

Did they have an actual Letter of Marque?

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)