[HN Gopher] UK launches its first Earth-imaging military satellite
___________________________________________________________________
UK launches its first Earth-imaging military satellite
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 64 points
Date : 2024-08-18 09:17 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| andsoitis wrote:
| > The first signals from Tyche were received a few hours after
| lift-off on Friday night, confirming the successful launch from
| Vandenberg space force base, in California, on a SpaceX Falcon 9
| rocket as part of the Transporter-11 mission.
|
| And this particular launch carried 116 satellites:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cvg495lr8pjo
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This is what it looks like:
|
| https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4D22AQGbFrotEJ8sDA/fee...
| Luc wrote:
| Tyche is the cube on the bottom left, facing away from the
| camera.
|
| The odd-looking satellite on the top right is blurred, I
| wonder what it is.
| buildbot wrote:
| In jest, the orange tank like thing attached to that
| satellite looks sorta like a stargate ZPM haha.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| Some folks at the NASA space flight forum have it pegged as
| Acadia-5.
|
| https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58043.msg
| 2...
|
| Acadia-5 is a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) earth
| observation satellite operated by Capella Space. The orange
| bundle would be the radar antenna all folded up (see render
| in link below).
|
| https://www.exolaunch.com/news_95.html
| Luc wrote:
| Thank you, that makes sense.
| dhx wrote:
| "It's designed to capture 5km-wide spot scenes on the ground and
| have a best resolution of 90cm."[1]
|
| Some sample ~90cm-ish imagery from Airbus Vision-1 (20km swath
| 87cm resolution) is available at [2].
|
| It looks like it'd be used for knowing when a warship is in port
| (but perhaps having to guess which one), or when a warship under
| construction has been floated, or when a large military
| construction project has started or completed, or when ground for
| a new military forward operating base has been cleared, etc. Then
| more expensive higher resolution imagery could be ordered if it
| were worthwhile to do so.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d77yq9zz2o
|
| [2] https://intelligence.airbus.com/newsroom/satellite-image-
| gal...
| mjburgess wrote:
| Do we have good reasons to suppose this isn't a lie?
|
| Absent that, I would expect the 2-3x on what's made public.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| > Do we have good reasons to suppose this isn't a lie?
|
| You got it backwards. This is not China. What are reason to
| suppose it is a lie?
|
| Edit: "it's defense related" could be a good reason I
| suppose.
| switch007 wrote:
| Haha! UK governments are masters of paternalism and
| misinformation. We are not starting from a base of
| centuries of trustworthy governments who trust their
| citizens with the truth.
|
| And we parallel China in various ways.
|
| Are you British/lived in UK most of your life?
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Let's be clear, you are saying they lie more than 50% of
| the time so whatever they say is a lie by default unless
| there is "good reason to suppose" it isn't? (I guess
| "they were elected" is not such reason)
|
| If yes then I give up, have fun in Q land. If not then I
| rest my case.
| Tostino wrote:
| About military satellites specifically? I'd say most
| governments are lying about something about them just
| about every time they mention them (possibly by omission)
| switch007 wrote:
| Sweet innocent child
| pjc50 wrote:
| Zircon passim, the UK security services have a specific
| track record of secrecy about satellites.
| Sirizarry wrote:
| You believe your government? The track record on
| transparency for most western governments has been so bad
| the last 25+ years that trusting them is kinda psychotic
| honestly
| hulitu wrote:
| "Mother, should i run for president ? Mother should i
| trust the government ?"
|
| Pink Floyd
| pjc50 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircon_affair
|
| TLDR: GCHQ spend 500million on a satellite, and decide that
| not only is it too secret for the BBC to talk about it's
| too secret for Parliament to know about. Huge row ensues.
|
| Matrix-Churchill:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report a number of
| people are given permission by the MOD to supply weapons to
| Iraq. These are stopped by UK customs. In the subsequent
| prosecution, those involved attempt to raise the permission
| they were given .. but the government signs a number of
| Public Interest Immunity Certificates, making it illegal to
| mention that, including at their own criminal trial in
| their defense.
|
| Important information is still redacted by the D-Notice
| system. The MOD have free reign to lie about things and
| have people prosecuted for revealing the truth. There are a
| few incidents where Americans and Brits on social media
| have _radically_ different views on what happened because
| of what is and is not legal to report.
|
| There is a very long history of critical information on
| weapons systems and capabilities being kept secret.
|
| (Despite that, their Ukraine war briefings to the public
| are pretty reliable)
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Wow I can imagine those people couldn't make that deal
| public but why wasn't the prosecution of their case
| simply blackholed? Weird.
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| Wow, this is some next-level bullshit:
|
| <<The Matrix-Churchill trial collapsed when former
| minister Alan Clark admitted he had been "economical with
| the _actualite_ ">>
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| The vendor tells us that Tyche is supposedly derived from
| their existing carbonite satellites.
|
| The carbonite product page broadly lines up with the claimed
| specs (~5km swath, ~1m resolution). At the claimed orbit
| (500km), a ~0.5m aperture (see "washing machine sized") is
| diffraction limited at about 0.7m, so there doesn't appear to
| be too too much wiggle room.
|
| Side note - carbonite doesn't just do imagery - it does video
| too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf_zd9MvW44).
|
| https://www.sstl.co.uk/space-portfolio/missions-in-
| build/202...
|
| https://www.sstl.co.uk/getmedia/b38389d7-cb07-4308-944a-a916.
| ..
| wkat4242 wrote:
| The effective resolution is limited by the atmosphere as far
| as I understand. Eddies etc.
|
| Also this satellite was very cheap at 22 million, the US
| cutting edge ones are rumoured to cost over a billion (and
| they're much bigger than washing machine size). So I wouldn't
| expect it to be a lot better than what's commercially
| available.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Why would you think it is a lie? Planet Labs' SkySat
| satellites have been flying for a decade and have 30cm
| resolution. The UK ones are based on existing Carbonite
| satellite that do 90cm.
|
| If anything, having only 90cm when could be better is the odd
| thing.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| 90cm resolution is more than enough to identify a ship. There
| arent manu military ships in this world. All appear in public
| regularly . 90cm is enough to get overall hull dimensions and
| thereby separate a ship from its neighbours in port. They dont
| need to be read license plates. Ships are very big.
| cma wrote:
| 90cm would maybe be more susceptible to decoys (like the WWII
| inflatable tanks but with ships?)
| Sayrus wrote:
| Decoys are harder to fake, for instance an inflatable tank
| doesn't emit much infrared compared to a real tank. This
| was not an issue for camera that only capture visible light
| such as what was available in WWII or the naked eye.
| cm2187 wrote:
| Plus the ship can't appear suddenly in the middle of the
| ocean. And where do you hide the original ship?
| m4rtink wrote:
| Well... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Abraham_Cri
| jnssen_(193...
| cm2187 wrote:
| But my point is that when you have a satellite tracking a
| slow moving ship every 3-4 hours, it's impossible to hide
| it.
| cma wrote:
| It's easier in space because of no air resistance, but
| stuff like mylar balloon/sheath decoys I think beats out
| basically all missile defense. Aside from the infrared
| stuff, inflatable ships not in port wouldn't leave an
| actual wake of the right size etc. and might not be
| viable.
| dhx wrote:
| Yes to 90cm being used for identifying the class of a ship.
| But probably no for 90cm being used for identifying a
| particular hull, which may only be determinable with higher
| resolution imagery to confirm a hull-specific feature such as
| an upgraded radar or gun.
| pjc50 wrote:
| > The washing machine-sized satellite, was designed and built in
| the UK under a PS22m contract awarded to Surrey Satellite
| Technology Ltd (SSTL) and is the first to be fully owned by the
| MoD.
|
| Win for the UK satellite industry here. Also a win for NATO
| capability that can operate independently of the US if needed.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| I dunno much bout satellites but 22m for a new satellite
| developed from scratch seem pretty cheap
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yes the US ones are supposedly over 1 billion each.
| ianburrell wrote:
| Vastly different kinds of satellites. The KH-11 satellites
| weigh 17,000 kg, these weight 150kg. KH-11 has 2.4m mirror
| and resolution of 6cm. The UK ones are resolution of 90cm.
|
| Both kinds are useful, cause the UK ones are small and
| cheap and good for general surveillance. While the big ones
| are useful for detail. My feeling is that the US should
| launch some small ones, but I think they buy that from
| Planet Labs and others.
| beardyw wrote:
| SSTL do amazingly good value space work.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Somewhat ironically, the BBC article illustrates the "similar
| capability" with a picture taken by a commercial British
| satellite launched in 2018 and built by the same private British
| company.
|
| So there is nothing ground breaking there in term of capability.
| The point is just that this is apparently the first
| reconnaissance satellite owned by the MoD, which probably means
| much faster reaction times and more independence.
|
| Interesting factoid:
|
| " _One interesting feature is its propulsion system which
| manoeuvres the satellite using water. The water goes through a
| thruster that heats it up to make superheated steam. That 's how
| we get thrust and do station-keeping," explained chief technology
| officer Andrew Haslehurst._" [1]
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d77yq9zz2o
| azornathogron wrote:
| I wonder what delta-v they get and what the expected lifetime
| of the satellite is.
| icegreentea2 wrote:
| The press release (as well as product sheet of the Carbonite
| line that this is based on) say 5-7 years.
|
| Resistor jet thrust and specific impulse is heavily
| influenced by how much electric power you supply.
|
| We don't know what performance specs for this satellite is,
| but we can estimate using modules from this other company as
| a stand in - their PBR-50 seems to be about the right size
| for Tyche (100-200kg class). https://pale-
| blue.co.jp/product/pbr-50/ and it claims 70s of specific
| impulse. Using the 160kg mass from the BBC article and 10kg
| of water as propellant, you'd get a delta-v of about 45.
| azornathogron wrote:
| Thank you!
|
| (And I clearly should have read more carefully)
| jolj wrote:
| It sounds like extremely late to the game, we are talking about
| 1960s tech.
|
| Very surprising for a country as large as the UK, I can only
| assume they used US satellites up until now, and started
| designing their own due to Trump
| 317070 wrote:
| As a Brit, I reckon Brexit, and the restricted access to ESA
| [0], are the far more reasonable explanations here...
|
| [0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-involvement-in-the-eu-
| space-p...
| jolj wrote:
| which one of these programs constitute of a military
| reconnaissance satellite?
| 317070 wrote:
| None that I'm aware off.
| jolj wrote:
| so I assume Britain received its imaging intelligence
| from the US as part of five eyes. or else I cannot
| explain how a nuclear armed country has skipped over one
| of the main prerequisite for missile targeting for 60
| years
| KineticLensman wrote:
| The British have had military satellites since Skynet 1A in
| 1969 [0], although these historically supported comms rather
| than ISR.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellite)
| jolj wrote:
| yes which only makes sense they were used to support five
| eyes sigint and used US satellites for visint
| detritus wrote:
| Didn't 1960s-era spy satellites use physical rolls of film that
| were dropped back to Earth and caught by planes or helicopters?
| acheron wrote:
| Yep! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite)
| wkat4242 wrote:
| Yeah it was pretty insane, catching it mid flight. Really
| cool. You can't make that stuff up.
|
| Imagine tracking and catching something falling from space
| using only 60s tracking tech. No GPS. Wow.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| There's no way GPS is more useful than a radio signal
| from the package.
| 317070 wrote:
| > It's designed to capture 5km-wide spot scenes on the ground and
| have a best resolution of 90cm.
|
| Does somebody here know the military logic behind making these
| specifications public? I would imagine you don't want your
| opponents to know how much you know?
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Nothing outstanding with this spec (can buy the same from
| commercial satellite imaging companies). So either they thought
| it did not harm to publicise or the actual capability is better
| than they tell us.
| datahack wrote:
| They can say whatever they want to my friend. It doesn't mean
| it's the real spec.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Public money paid for it and they have a right to know it does
| at least something useful. Also it 90% can do a lot more than
| that. It will probably have a higher resolution optic.
| mshockwave wrote:
| Because it's probably not the real number. The reason why they
| wanted to release at least _some_ specs is probably because
| congress / parliament
| knallfrosch wrote:
| There's no harm in making it public because the technical
| capabilities itself are outdated. As stated in the article, the
| news is that it's owned by the UK Ministry of Defense.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| The title is misleading. SpaceX launched it. The title had me
| wondering when the UK had suddenly developed a launcher.
| asadhaider wrote:
| We have one recently completed in the Shetland Islands, the
| SaxaVord Spaceport [0], which has been given approval to do up
| to 30 launches a year. The UK spaceport guide [2] has more
| details and a few more planned launch sites.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-
| she... [1]
| https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/643e6a4222ef3...
| _xerces_ wrote:
| That isn't a launcher, just a launchpad.
| mkl wrote:
| Virgin Orbit has unsuccessfully tried to launch satellites from
| the UK [1], so I thought it might have been that, but it turns
| out they went out of business a couple of months later [2].
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64218883
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-18 23:00 UTC)