It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by sardion2000
Money makes the world go round. Launching satellites is expensive and believe it or not DARPA doesn't have a cheaper method to do it. Less mass = much cheaper launch costs and the more money you save to more stuff you can do. Plus the smaller it is enables DARPA to send up swarms of these things up at one time, so even though the failure rate may be higher since you can send more up the chances of a catastrophic failure is minimalized.
Through redundancy you get dependability. Just imagine, you could send up one rocket with say 10-20 of these Nanosatellites that would position themselves geosyncronisly above the target location and create 3d images of the terrain.
They would be alot hard to shoot down as well.
Are other things, such as orbital stability sacrificed with large decreases in size?
Are other things, such as orbital stability sacrificed with large decreases in size? What about power? How much power is required to do the things that satellites need to accomplish?
but how much smaller can imaging equipment get and still obtain 3m resolution from space?
This is an interesting point. Pardon my ignorance again, but are we currently able to shoot down satellites?
on the Mars rovers its camera is one of the most advances to even send images back from another world(we're talking gigapixles not mega) and its not that big. It's kinda tiny to tell you the truth.
Are other things, such as orbital stability sacrificed with large decreases in size?
No I do not believe so, Google up MEMs Gyroscopes in relation to satellites. I'm pretty sure that an even smaller satellite is gonna be launch for scientific purposes next year(its supposed to test a number of Einstiens predictions)
but how much smaller can imaging equipment get and still obtain 3m resolution from space?
3m is what DARPA acknoleges? HAH! Don't make me laugh, they are terrible liars I would say 3ft resolution is more accurate and as for how big it would have to be, I have no Idea but you could make composite images through a Swarm of Sattelites that are all identicle, cheap to produce and launch and the best part of all expendable.
You ever heard about that new space telescope NASA is building? It's based around a constellation of telescopes flying in tight formation to increase resoloution by an extreme amount, enought to theoretically detect earth sized planets outside our solar system. I do not see why the same principal cannot be utilized for spying on earth, or even to observe the earth for scientific purposes.
Right now satellites are big, bulky, expensive and impossible to maintain. They can also prove to be hazordous if they re-enter as a number of them has reactors onboard and are fairly big so they could also survive reentry.
Hope this helps.
mattison0922
Certainly there may be cost considerations in terms of launching large satellites, but I find it hard to believe that�s the DoD�s interest� saving money.
mattison0922
This is an interesting point. Pardon my ignorance again, but are we currently able to shoot down satellites?
Sardion2000
One Nuke armed ICBM should do the trick.
Sardion2000
You ever heard about that new space telescope NASA is building? It's based around a constellation of telescopes flying in tight formation to increase resoloution by an extreme amount, enought to theoretically detect earth sized planets outside our solar system. I do not see why the same principal cannot be utilized for spying on earth, or even to observe the earth for scientific purposes.
mattison0922
How far up in the atmosphere do ICBM's travel?
Originally posted by sardion2000
I pretty much make it my business to keep up to date on the cutting edge of technology and the catchphrase for electronics is smaller, better and cheaper. Satellites are no exception, on the Mars rovers its camera is one of the most advances to even send images back from another world(we're talking gigapixles not mega) and its not that big. It's kinda tiny to tell you the truth.
Originally posted by E_T
Missile is ASAT, its carried in F-15's centerline store and first and only test fire was 85.
The first ASAT launch from an F-15 took place early in 1984 and was directed merely to a predetermined point in space, as a test of the missile's propulsion system.
Tomcat doesn't have same kind centerline store for very big&heavy stuff.
Originally posted by ChrisRT
I assume with software upgrades the F-14 could have easily done the same.
Tomcat doesn't have same kind centerline store for very big&heavy stuff.