|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis wrote in
. 247.90: Pat Flannery wrote: Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once the taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched Discover satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform into recon sats during first stage burn. Are you sure *you* read "The Corona Project"? All CORONA missions were launched from Vandenberg, all were launched by the DoD, NASA had no connection. Besides, he's still missing Ed's point. The DoD is already running their own autonomous rendezvous/prox ops/docking program (XSS-11) openly. They have little interest in NASA's DART program (they're convinced that XSS-11 will work better than DART, anyway), so the idea that DART is some kind of "hide in plain sight" DoD program is pretty ludicrous. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Davis wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once the taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched Discover satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform into recon sats during first stage burn. Are you sure *you* read "The Corona Project"? All CORONA missions were launched from Vandenberg, all were launched by the DoD, NASA had no connection. Okay, major slip on my part (I'd had a few before I staggered over to the computer- note that interesting spelling on "sight" :-[ ); but the point still stands- very few of the people working on the Discoverer program knew it was a recon satellite- although I can't help thinking that a lot of them suspected that. The thing that hits me as odd about DART is the statements that this is designed to test some sort of autonomous rendezvous technology that will be used in future NASA flights to the Moon and Mars to allow the automatic assemble of component parts in space. Fine, good idea- we'd finally have gotten the same capability the Russians have had since 1965. But there is one big difference in our set up; the Russians used a system that required (and still requires) that both spacecraft signal each other to achieve rendezvous and docking, as this greatly simplifies the whole process in regards to getting the alignment and velocity right. Our DART was intended to approach a non-homing beacon equipped target. Considering that it would be pretty easy to equip any spacecraft that we intend something like DART to rendezvous with with some sort of homing beacon to simplify the process, why does it have the capability to do it on its own, sans any homing beacon? It's too small to deorbit spent rocket stages (plus it would generate at least one orbital stage of its own as it rode it to orbit), plus it is also too small to carry any worthwhile amount of cargo or equipment to something in orbit. But it's just the right size to carry an inspection camera and small explosive charge to non-U.S. satellite; and its Pegasus launch technique means that it is amiable to launch over the ocean to reach any orbital inclination it wants without the concern of its booster stages falling in populated areas (indeed, provided that you launch it off of an aircraft that takes off at night, and launches far from shore, you can keep the whole launch secret). If you didn't want to be as intrusive as physically damaging a foreign satellite via shooting it or detonating a fragmentation explosive charge near it, you could either jam it or knock it permanently out via the use of a small focused EMP device using conventional explosives from a distance, or some other means of destroying it. Indeed, if you brought the "DART/SAINT" into close proximity with the target satellite in such a way that it wouldn't interfere with either the target satellite's earthlink antennas or solar arrays, the microgravity between the two objects would slowly draw them together until the they come into physical contact, and the device could then be left attached to the target satellite like a limpet mine, ready to receive a coded command to activate it. Pat |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Jorge R. Frank wrote: Besides, he's still missing Ed's point. The DoD is already running their own autonomous rendezvous/prox ops/docking program (XSS-11) openly. They have little interest in NASA's DART program (they're convinced that XSS-11 will work better than DART, anyway), so the idea that DART is some kind of "hide in plain sight" DoD program is pretty ludicrous. It has the capability to do a ASAT mission, and being that it rides on a Pegasus, do it on a budget- and that shouldn't be overlooked. It's also odd that it doesn't require the target object to at least be equipped with a transponder to aid it in its rendezvous. Is it possibly a "Sheep Dip" program, to establish a civilian precedent for rendezvousing with spacecraft in orbit, so that everyone doesn't raise a ruckus when the DOD starts sending theirs up? It's got the same feel to it that the Soviet's Polyot 1 and 2 had. Pat |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote in
: Jorge R. Frank wrote: Besides, he's still missing Ed's point. The DoD is already running their own autonomous rendezvous/prox ops/docking program (XSS-11) openly. They have little interest in NASA's DART program (they're convinced that XSS-11 will work better than DART, anyway), so the idea that DART is some kind of "hide in plain sight" DoD program is pretty ludicrous. It has the capability to do a ASAT mission, and being that it rides on a Pegasus, do it on a budget- and that shouldn't be overlooked. DART can get away with a Pegasus because it's a test vehicle, with no operational objectives once it arrives at the target. Operational vehicles will undoubtedly require larger launchers. It's also odd that it doesn't require the target object to at least be equipped with a transponder to aid it in its rendezvous. It's not odd at all if you've been paying attention to the news. NASA is required to provide a safe deorbit for HST at the end of its service life. HST has no navaids to assist a rendezvousing spacecraft, so if the shuttle mission isn't reinstated, the spacecraft must be able to do without them. Thus NASA has a legitimate need for a capability like DART's. Is it possibly a "Sheep Dip" program, to establish a civilian precedent for rendezvousing with spacecraft in orbit, so that everyone doesn't raise a ruckus when the DOD starts sending theirs up? It's got the same feel to it that the Soviet's Polyot 1 and 2 had. I think you're just looking for a conspiracy where none exists. -- JRF Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail, check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and think one step ahead of IBM. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Pat Flannery
writes Jim Davis wrote: Pat Flannery wrote: Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once the taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched Discover satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform into recon sats during first stage burn. Are you sure *you* read "The Corona Project"? All CORONA missions were launched from Vandenberg, all were launched by the DoD, NASA had no connection. Our DART was intended to approach a non-homing beacon equipped target. Considering that it would be pretty easy to equip any spacecraft that we intend something like DART to rendezvous with with some sort of homing beacon to simplify the process, why does it have the capability to do it on its own, sans any homing beacon? It's too small to deorbit spent rocket stages (plus it would generate at least one orbital stage of its own as it rode it to orbit), Interesting point, especially as the US is presumably developing something to de-orbit HST when the time comes, as required by treaty (though IMO you shouldn't be wasting the money :-) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Apr 2005 19:25:16 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote: I think you're just looking for a conspiracy where none exists. ....Just because we're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Pat Flannery wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote: XSS-11, a similar DoD project that apparently hasn't failed, is more likely to be that step than DART, which is a NASA program. It would be amazingly hard, if not impossible, to hide a secret project via. NASA. Read "The Corona Project" sometime...hide in plain site. Once the taped-on craft paper comes off of the Canaveral launched Discover satellites camera aperture, they amazingly transform into recon sats during first stage burn. As others have pointed out, Discoverer was advertised as a Pentagon science program (as a cover for Corona). The rocket was an Air Force Thor-Agena. The launch pads were at Vandenberg AFB. NASA had nothing to do with it. Several other DoD science programs have been used as cover for classified satellite efforts, but I'm not aware of a NASA program ever having been used that way. There is probably a law or code that outlaws such activity. A scandal involving the discovery of such an effort could do serious harm to NASA. In theory, a NASA project could be a good cover for a secret space effort, but in practice it is very difficult for an open agency like NASA to keep the deepest secrets. (It is hard enough for the secret defense organizations to keep secrets. Remember that it was they who gave away our deepest cypto secrets with the capture of the Pueblo and the sale of info to the Soviets by John Walker. The Soviets read our most secret coded messages for years.) The Air Force hated having to launch some satellites on shuttle so much that it started planning a new Titan production run even before the Challenger accident. This was when national policy was to move everything to shuttle. - Ed Kyle |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Jorge R. Frank wrote: DART can get away with a Pegasus because it's a test vehicle, with no operational objectives once it arrives at the target. Operational vehicles will undoubtedly require larger launchers. What if their purpose is to be an ASAT? Pegasus is just fine for this type of mission as even a small explosive charge will destroy a target in close proximity. And note the way the gizmo approaches its target with no input from the ground; which is exactly what you want for a mission like this, so as not to leave fingerprints on what happened. What happened to the target satellite? Who knows? One day a meteor may have hit it or something. Also note what the target satellite was: MUBLCOM, a military communications test satellite built for the Space and Terrestrial Communications Directorate (S&TCD) of the Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) with the aid of DARPA which was outfitted to serve as a target vehicle for Dart with optical retroreflectors to make it easier for DART to detect. So though DART is theoretically civilian in nature, its target is a military satellite- a very small military satellite, like one would expect a test target to be. It's also odd that it doesn't require the target object to at least be equipped with a transponder to aid it in its rendezvous. It's not odd at all if you've been paying attention to the news. NASA is required to provide a safe deorbit for HST at the end of its service life. HST has no navaids to assist a rendezvousing spacecraft, so if the shuttle mission isn't reinstated, the spacecraft must be able to do without them. Thus NASA has a legitimate need for a capability like DART's. And so DART was designed and built after the decision to make no more flights to Hubble was arrived at? That's interesting, as MUBLCOM was launched in may of 1999, prior to the loss of the Columbia, and long before the decision was made to ditch Hubble- as well as before Bush's new space directive was born... that DART is supposed to be in support of. And yet MUBLCOM was equipped with the DART target optics. And although MUBLCOM was supposed to be the first of lots of small military satellites launched eight at a time on Pegasus boosters, the sky isn't yet acrawl with these minisats. Is it possibly a "Sheep Dip" program, to establish a civilian precedent for rendezvousing with spacecraft in orbit, so that everyone doesn't raise a ruckus when the DOD starts sending theirs up? It's got the same feel to it that the Soviet's Polyot 1 and 2 had. I think you're just looking for a conspiracy where none exists. If you were going to design a spacecraft to surreptitiously investigate and or disable foreign satellites, it would need several abilities to make it viable and effective: 1. It should be cheap and capable of fast response times if needed. DART/Pegasus meets those criteria. 2. It should be capable of being launched secretly into any inclination orbit. Dart/Pegasus makes that possible via air launch from anywhere in the world; which means launches can be performed well clear of inhabited regions where they would be detected (note how we air-launched a ABM target test missile from a C-17 over the Pacific on April 8th- when did the public know that had happened? After the launch had occurred and the Pentagon told them about it, that's when.) and planned in such a way that the booster stages fall into the sea. 3. It should be able to approach its target with stealth. DART comes in under internal control with no tell-tale control link to the ground. 4. It should rely on non-emmitting means of homing, so as to not be detected by its target. DART uses its optical homing system to lock itself onto the target, rather than radar. It's lasers work in concert with the MUBLCOM's retroreflectors, but the interest was in if they would also work without reflectors simply by illuminating the exterior of the target satellite's body. Any system capable of detecting low intensity laser illumination over the entire exterior of a satellite's body would also be prone to interference from the Sun; so you might well be able to approach your target from sunwards. 5. After its mission is over (be it inspection of or disabling the target spacecraft) the vehicle should leave the vicinity, so as not to arouse suspicion. DART did just that after its encounter with MUBLCOM. Now if the _whole_ spacecraft doesn't leave... say only most of it leaves, after emplacing a small remote-control explosive charge on the exterior of its target to be detonated at a later date, or even just a small rocket motor to be activated to cause the target to be spun out of control, or some sort of device that would damage the satellite's electronics in such a way that its owners would think that it had suffered a unexpected fault rather than tampering. Now that's real plausible deniability. Now I'm not saying that NASA is about to go into the stealth ASAT business, but a lot of what went into DART/Pegasus would be exactly the sort of things a stealth ASAT would need, and I find that intriguing. Pat |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
OM wrote: On 17 Apr 2005 19:25:16 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote: I think you're just looking for a conspiracy where none exists. ...Just because we're looking for a conspiracy that doesn't exist doesn't really mean it doesn't exist. "This 'OM' might know a little too much for his own...or rather our own... good." the cigarette-smoking man said, with a sly chuckle. Pat |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote: ...point still stands- very few of the people working on the Discoverer program knew it was a recon satellite... Yes, but they knew it was a military satellite whose exact purposes weren't discussed too much... and to judge by the pace it proceeded at despite a steady string of failures, it was clearly something important. This is very different from trying to hide a military program under a civilian guise, especially across agency boundaries. ...Our DART was intended to approach a non-homing beacon equipped target. Considering that it would be pretty easy to equip any spacecraft that we intend something like DART to rendezvous with with some sort of homing beacon to simplify the process, why does it have the capability to do it on its own, sans any homing beacon? Don't overlook the possibility that it's being done for some stupid, unimportant reason -- e.g., because somebody influential has a bee in his bonnet about some specific mission which can't conveniently accommodate multiply-redundant homing beacons etc. (I can even think of one: Mars sample return *really really really* wants to minimize the mass launched off the Martian surface.) These decisions aren't necessarily made for entirely rational reasons. It's too small to deorbit spent rocket stages... It's a technology test, not an operational system. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
$110 Million To Retire | Von Fourche | Misc | 0 | April 16th 05 06:59 PM |
cheap access to space - majority opinion | Cameron Dorrough | Technology | 15 | June 27th 04 03:35 AM |
Bechtel Nevada: Control of the World's Largest Nuclear Weapons Facilities | * | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 2nd 04 05:29 PM |
Heavy Lift launcher is allready here | serge | Policy | 27 | February 13th 04 07:03 PM |
Earth's birth date turned back: Formed earlier than believed (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 17th 03 11:28 PM |