rkin
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 46
|
Post by rkin on Dec 3, 2022 10:24:11 GMT
I don't get why there is a need for spy satellites.They've had stealth aircraft for over 30 years including high altitude types.
Can a satellite fly under the weather? Can it move to any desired position on a moment's notice? Isn't a photo from 25000 feet better than one from 250 miles up? Doesn't stealth technology work?
Not to mention that the need for espionage in a world that is already controlled by a very small group is mostly fake anyway.
So, why do they need spy satellites?
|
|
|
|
Post by dentarthurdent on Dec 3, 2022 13:29:06 GMT
Aircraft get shot down, satellites not so much. That’s what we’re told, anyway.
|
|
meddy
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 1
|
Post by meddy on Dec 3, 2022 14:49:44 GMT
yes, my satellite radio cuts out in the exact same locations every day. not possible if the satellites are in constant motion.
|
|
lio
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 14
|
Post by lio on Dec 3, 2022 15:27:12 GMT
I don't think they have replaced the spy planes at all, the SR-71 was kept top secret for many years before the public knew about it. When they retired it, they surely had its successor in service already and it will probably be another decade before that is declassified. See: The Aurora project and amateur skywatchers tracking things moving > mach 10 in the atmosphere.
BUT, the need for spy satellites is not just called into question by the existence of spy planes, but since we all know every government and nation are all part of the same club and performance, just WHO are they supposed to be spying on? Us, of course. Permanent surveillance cameras of the populace that cannot be stolen or tampered with by us. All billed to us at enormous markup, of course.
See: The Electric Eye, from 1984 by Orwell
The first camera spy satellite was launched in 1946, at the creation of the CIA. Since the book came out after that, Orwell already knew about satellite imagery and was likely referring to it.
The band Judas Priest made a song about the Electric Eye in 1982 equating it to a spy satellite, backing this idea up.
|
|
rkin
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 46
|
Post by rkin on Dec 3, 2022 15:37:21 GMT
Aircraft get shot down, satellites not so much. That’s what we’re told, anyway. STEALTH aircraft are kinda hard to shoot down however. |
|
stephen
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 16
|
Post by stephen on Dec 8, 2022 20:12:36 GMT
Pilots and airplanes are more costly, I think. An NRO optical surveillance satellite is just expensive for the design, implementation and initial launch but once it's in orbit, lot cheaper. That's my theory. The fuel costs for just 1 training plane are already pretty ridiculous; for a fancy mach-10 spy plane plus elite pilots, even more.
My guess is there are coverage gaps (I used to support weather satellite research scientists) and special one-off cases and that's when they throw up a spy plane.
|
|
rkin
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 46
|
Post by rkin on Dec 8, 2022 20:49:07 GMT
Fuel is another issue. Sats need fuel too. That is how they make attitude & altitude corrections, etc. But, they are never re-fueled. Do they have bottomless fuel tanks? What about those little cube sats? Do they have tiny fuel tanks too? If not, how do they make corrections?
|
|
|
|
Post by dentarthurdent on Dec 8, 2022 21:02:36 GMT
Payroll is usually the largest expense of any business, so yeah; pilots are expensive. How else can they afford to buy those giant fancy wrist watches?  |
|
joey
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 36 
|
Post by joey on Dec 8, 2022 22:49:18 GMT
Fuel is another issue. Sats need fuel too. That is how they make attitude & altitude corrections, etc. But, they are never re-fueled. Do they have bottomless fuel tanks? What about those little cube sats? Do they have tiny fuel tanks too? If not, how do they make corrections? I feel dumb for not ever questioning this before. I think I just assumed they ran on solar power. |
|
rkin
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 46
|
Post by rkin on Dec 9, 2022 4:31:00 GMT
Pilots and airplanes are more costly, I think. An NRO optical surveillance satellite is just expensive for the design, implementation and initial launch but once it's in orbit, lot cheaper. That's my theory. The fuel costs for just 1 training plane are already pretty ridiculous; for a fancy mach-10 spy plane plus elite pilots, even more. My guess is there are coverage gaps (I used to support weather satellite research scientists) and special one-off cases and that's when they throw up a spy plane.
Sats cost more than you think and the cost is not just the initial launch which can run $10M to $400M by itself:
|
|
stephen
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 16
|
Post by stephen on Dec 9, 2022 4:56:10 GMT
Fuel is another issue. Sats need fuel too. That is how they make attitude & altitude corrections, etc. But, they are never re-fueled. Do they have bottomless fuel tanks? What about those little cube sats? Do they have tiny fuel tanks too? If not, how do they make corrections? Of course for the ones that do, require a little fuel but any airplane would burn off enough fuel to power many satellites simply by turning the engines on. We're talking orders of magnitude difference. The lifetime of most satellites isn't intended to be infinite and the very minor course corrections (mostly out away from the planet to adjust for gravity) required could easily be provided by a compressed form of anything that can produce the most thrust per density. |
|
rkin
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 46
|
Post by rkin on Dec 9, 2022 6:10:45 GMT
Fuel is another issue. Sats need fuel too. That is how they make attitude & altitude corrections, etc. But, they are never re-fueled. Do they have bottomless fuel tanks? What about those little cube sats? Do they have tiny fuel tanks too? If not, how do they make corrections? Of course for the ones that do, require a little fuel but any airplane would burn off enough fuel to power many satellites simply by turning the engines on. We're talking orders of magnitude difference. The lifetime of most satellites isn't intended to be infinite and the very minor course corrections (mostly out away from the planet to adjust for gravity) required could easily be provided by a compressed form of anything that can produce the most thrust per density. Please provide a reference for "a compressed form of anything" being used to correct satellite orbits. |
|
stephen
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 16
|
Post by stephen on Dec 22, 2022 5:05:02 GMT
Of course for the ones that do, require a little fuel but any airplane would burn off enough fuel to power many satellites simply by turning the engines on. We're talking orders of magnitude difference. The lifetime of most satellites isn't intended to be infinite and the very minor course corrections (mostly out away from the planet to adjust for gravity) required could easily be provided by a compressed form of anything that can produce the most thrust per density. Please provide a reference for "a compressed form of anything" being used to correct satellite orbits. Apologies; life happens. engineering.purdue.edu/~propulsi/propulsion/rockets/satellites.htmlwww.space-propulsion.com/spacecraft-propulsion/bipropellant-thrusters/index.htmlQuikSCAT, the satellite I was most familiar with and which was thrown up somewhat haphazardly, had similar bipropellant thrusters. Its peak achievement was catching Hurricane Katrina during its peak strength (the effects of which I personally witnessed along with multiple family and friends). The way that weather satellites with scatterometers work, they send microwave Ku-band signals down to earth and compare the diff on the bounceback for: Ocean surface winds approximately 10m above surface Sea surface temperatures a la WindSAT Ocean surface wind direction The European Space Agency threw up ASCAT to replace it. I worked with hurricane research scientists who routinely fly into the middle of hurricanes in NOAA P-3 Orion planes to compare the results of instrument measurements with what sats like QuikSCAT gather, mainly for calibration purposes. Some badass dudes. Frankly it's pretty fucking amazing to me. I also worked with a guy who used a FreeBSD-based platform to monitor the night sky for satellite tracking. They are not elaborate illusions. |
|
rkin
Bot till proven otherwise
Posts: 46
|
Post by rkin on Dec 23, 2022 22:05:27 GMT
I also worked with a guy who used a FreeBSD-based platform to monitor the night sky for satellite tracking. They are not elaborate illusions.
I didn't say they were illusions.
How do you know they are what we are told they are? How do you know they aren't simply dummies with the real work being done by conventional aircraft or some other means?
Because you "worked with a guy who used a FreeBSD-based platform to monitor the night sky for satellite tracking"? How does HE know what those objects up there really are?
The answer is he doesn't know and neither do you. You and he are taking somebody else's word for what they are. Just like all those NASA employees take somebody's word for the "Apollo moon landings" and practically everything else that space agencies say they do in space.
|
|
|
|
Post by doorman the 3rd on Dec 26, 2022 23:07:44 GMT
rkin, how would you know the freeBSD guy doesn't have knowledge? Also, if a NASA employee didn't take somebody's word, how could they continue to be an employee?
|
|
