Grunts Get Spy Sats Of Their Own

"The Pentagon loves its giant satellites — the
bigger and more expensive, the better. The
culmination was Keyhole -12; at an estimated
twenty tons, it’s believed to be about as large
as the massive Hubble Space Telescope. But
these orbiting behemoths are increasingly
coming under criticism by those who believe
the job can be done better, faster, and cheaper
by constellations of small satellites. The new
catch-phrase is Operationally Responsive
Space Access. This is the source of the
Army’s Kestrel Eye spy satellite program,
which is exploring the possibilities offered by
smaller sats."

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?

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...

You're looking at two different missions. A little thought should tell
you what determined the size of the KH sats. Hint:
you wouldn't take a pair of opera glasses along on a hunt for mountain
goats.
Walt BJ

On Dec 1, 4:41*pm, wrote:
"The Pentagon loves its giant satellites — the
bigger and more expensive, the better. The
culmination was Keyhole -12; at an estimated
twenty tons, it’s believed to be about as large
as the massive Hubble Space Telescope. But
these orbiting behemoths are increasingly
coming under criticism by those who believe
the job can be done better, faster, and cheaper
by constellations of small satellites. The new
catch-phrase is Operationally Responsive
Space Access. This is the source of the
Army’s Kestrel Eye spy satellite program,
which is exploring the possibilities offered by
smaller sats."

See:

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

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

Well they do make tha argument that

"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."

Of course that begsthe question of whether they include launch costs
there. Maybe one rocket with a whole bunch of these, like a giant
shotgun pack style carrier bus? Or piggybacking on other launches?

Either way, not sure about the launch cost, but one edge they have
over a Predator is they are already up, and instead of waiting until
one gets flown to a position or worrying about fuel state, one can
just aim the camera to a certain location, and depending on orbit
patterns, have it on the point of interest quickly and for a good
duration of time. If you have enough, you can keep passing off to the
next one in line too.

WaltBJ wrote:
You're looking at two different missions. A little thought should tell
you what determined the size of the KH sats. Hint:
you wouldn't take a pair of opera glasses along on a hunt for mountain
goats.

There's some info on the various types he
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/
And mirror diameter is of course vital for resolution.

Pat

On Dec 2, 12:31 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
WaltBJ wrote:
You're looking at two different missions. A little thought should tell
you what determined the size of the KH sats. Hint:
you wouldn't take a pair of opera glasses along on a hunt for mountain
goats.

There's some info on the various types hehttp://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/
And mirror diameter is of course vital for resolution.
Pat

Pat et al.
In the 60's there was a near sci-fi theory on,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture_synthesis

It's becoming practical reality here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Binocular_Telescope

Those are demo'd unclassified civilian applications.

Going back to the future, classified military physical
applications can be 5-10 years advanced.
Ken