[HN Gopher] UK launches its first Earth-imaging military satellite
___________________________________________________________________
UK launches its first Earth-imaging military satellite
Author : giuliomagnifico
Score : 138 points
Date : 2024-08-18 09:17 UTC (1 days 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)
| throwaway290 wrote:
| military topic could be a fair exception on occasion I
| suppose.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Zircon passim, the UK security services have a specific
| track record of secrecy about satellites.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > And we parallel China in various ways. Are you
| British/lived in UK most of your life?
|
| I'm British, although I've spent only about a third of my
| life there, and the rest in Asia, Africa, North America,
| and the Middle East.
|
| Comparing the UK to China is _prima facie_ ridiculous
| 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
| throwaway290 wrote:
| Pop culture is certainly a good source of trustworthy
| information. Let's quote sex pistols next.
| sitkack wrote:
| Don't be told what you want Don't be told what
| you need
|
| God Save The Queen - Sex Pistols
| toyg wrote:
| Actually, I think the opposite is likely true: the track
| record has been exemplary _compared to previous periods_
| , precisely because now we get to see through lies almost
| instantly.
|
| Until the mass-internet made this possible, governments
| actually _got away with it pretty much all the time_. In
| some cases we got to know decades later, as documents
| were declassified or people confessed on their deathbeds.
| In most cases, we likely never got the truth. That 's
| really not possible now, as long the internet stays up.
|
| (Also, big shout out to FOIA laws. With all their
| limitations and imperfections, they were a massive step
| forward towards transparency in government. They would
| arguably have become a historical necessity at some
| point, but the anglosphere - Clinton, Blair - was
| definitely at the forefront of that shift.)
| Sirizarry wrote:
| It's a fair point that the internet and in particular
| civilian watchdogs on said internet have given us great
| tools in the fight for transparency but it can also be
| argued that the internet and its anonymous nature has
| created a whole new kind of misinformation/propaganda
| problem which governments are exploiting other (and many
| times their own) citizenry. This lessens the impact of
| the previously mentioned transparency boons and imo
| strengthens the idea that you can never trust government.
| 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_ ">>
| pjc50 wrote:
| It's difficult to imagine the era when lying to the
| public and misleading Parliament were considered serious
| matters. But yes, Clark was next-level BS in all matters.
|
| Wikipedia:
|
| When Clark was Minister for Trade, responsible for
| overseeing arms sales to foreign governments, he was
| interviewed by journalist John Pilger who asked him:[31]
| JP "Did it bother you personally that this British
| equipment was causing such mayhem and human suffering (by
| supplying arms for Indonesia's war in East Timor)?"
| AC "No, not in the slightest, it never entered my head.
| You tell me that this was happening, I didn't hear about
| it or know about it." JP "Well, even if I hadn't
| told you it was happening, the fact that we supply highly
| effective equipment to a regime like that is not a
| consideration, as far as you're concerned. It's not a
| personal consideration. I ask the question because I read
| you are a vegetarian and you are quite seriously
| concerned about the way animals are killed." AC
| "Yeah." JP "Doesn't that concern extend to the
| way humans, albeit foreigners, are killed?" AC
| "Curiously not. No."
|
| Also Wikipedia:
|
| While involved in the Matrix Churchill trial he was cited
| in a divorce case in South Africa, in which it was
| revealed he had had affairs with Valerie Harkess, the
| wife of a South African barrister, and her daughters,
| Josephine and Alison.
| WrongAssumption wrote:
| Correct, why would the uk government ever lie?
|
| https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Post-Office-
| Horizon-s...
|
| "The Post Office was determined to keep a lid on the
| Horizon problems. To do this, it instructed staff in its
| call centre, which was the first contact point for
| subpostmasters having problems, to tell callers they were
| the only ones experiencing problems.
|
| It went further than this by using its legal teams and deep
| pockets to defend itself against accusations, in court if
| necessary. It bragged about stopping subpostmasters from
| "jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon" when it silenced
| them. It also lied to journalists, politicians and anybody
| else who questioned the robustness of the Horizon system."
| throwaway290 wrote:
| The best way to tell a government is lying is to NOT find
| news about its lies. In a country with government that is
| pathologically lying more than 50% of the time those
| would simply be suppressed, newspapers closed,
| journalists jailed.
|
| Russia where I'm from is a great example of that because
| I witnessed it and I personally know some journalists
| currently rotting in jail.
| somat wrote:
| "Government lies, and newspapers lie, but in a democracy
| they are different lies."
|
| Found in the fortune database, I have my doubts about
| it's universal validity, But I am a sucker for a good
| quote.
|
| For free, another quote I found while looking for this
| one.
|
| "The advertisement is the most truthful part of a
| newspaper" -- -- Thomas Jefferson
| ChrisKnott wrote:
| The Post Office is not the government.
| noplacelikehome wrote:
| It is wholly owned by and accountable to the UK
| Government, so this is at best a partial truth.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > You got it backwards. This is not China
|
| Ah yes, like when China illegally invaded Irak and
| justified it by totally not lying about weapons of mass
| destruction... oh wait
| puszczyk wrote:
| What about Irak!
| 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.
| krisoft wrote:
| > If anything, having only 90cm when could be better is the
| odd thing.
|
| Seems you found the answer to your own question: it would
| be odd for it to be not better.
|
| The other reason why it might be a lie is because the exact
| specs of spy gear is often kept secret. It is very hard to
| disguise the fact that you have launched a satelite, but
| comparatively easy to keep it secret what exactly is on it.
| lonelyasacloud wrote:
| With peacetime military and government procurement cycles
| what would be odd would be that it was close to current
| best in class, not other way around.
| causi wrote:
| Anybody remember what the estimated resolution was on those
| undoctored satellite images Trump leaked a few years ago?
| 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.
| spyder wrote:
| from: https://www.inflatechdecoy.com/features/
|
| _" 01_OPTICAL SIGNATURE - LIFE SIZE, PERFECT SHAPE AND
| LIGHTWEIGHT
|
| 02_RADAR SIGNATURE - ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS UNPACK THE
| DECOY AND TURN ON THE ENGINE. 90 SECONDS LATER THE DECOY
| GENERATES YOUR DESIRED RCS.
|
| 03_INFRARED SIGNATURE - INFLATECH DECOYS CONTAIN
| INTEGRATED THERMAL SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WE
| GUARANTEE 100% MULTISPECTRAL COPY OF THE DESIRED
| SIGNATURE."_
| lm28469 wrote:
| > This was not an issue for camera that only capture
| visible light such as what was available in WWII
|
| It wasn't as common as today but we already had IR aerial
| photography in the 40s
| 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.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| I know, my point was that this can't really be anything
| else than a commercial off the shelf model with minor
| modifications. Still useful but I wouldn't expect magical
| resolutions from it.
|
| People expect a lot these days because Google maps
| "satellite view" but the highest zoom levels are
| generally aerial.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| What exactly is NATO without the US?
|
| Funding reference:
| https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/14636.jpeg
| Nexxxeh wrote:
| >What exactly is NATO without the US?
|
| For starters, it's still a lot bigger than Ukraine. Ukraine
| have successfully resisted Russian invasion for a couple of
| years, initially without the modern Western weaponry they now
| have (limited) access to. And they've recently pulled a
| switcharoo and actually invaded Russia a bit.
|
| Even if the US decided to pull out of NATO, should Russia
| invade a NATO country then Russia is getting bounced out on
| its collective ear.
|
| Would the US leaving vastly weaken NATO? For sure.
|
| But is NATO still fit for purpose without the US for the
| remaining states? Yes.
|
| A worse scenario would be if the US and its contractors
| pulled out of everything, like the F-series plane agreements,
| the shared nuclear arsenal with the UK, Five Eyes etc. That
| would be catastrophic. But those left behind would still have
| enough to defend itself against Russia.
| rhcom2 wrote:
| A much smaller but still consequential military alliance.
| 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
| mr_toad wrote:
| The UK nuclear arsenal has always been a strategic
| deterrent. The weapons in the UK arsenal (trident
| missiles with MIRV warheads) are designed to destroy
| cities, so unless the Russians have managed to conceal
| the locations of their major cities, targeting shouldn't
| be an issue.
| jolj wrote:
| Presumably part of the nuclear doctrine is to take out
| your enemies nuclear launch sites before they launch
|
| Also, even large cities have places which are better to
| target
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >Presumably part of the nuclear doctrine is to take out
| your enemies nuclear launch sites before they launch
|
| It is not. The UK, like most nuclear armed states, has a
| "No first use" doctrine, meaning its nukes exist only to
| retaliate, to turn cities to ash.
|
| Whoever is nuking you, to the point that you use those
| retaliatory nukes, might be targeting your weapons, but
| they are on submarines in friendly waters, so not likely
| to be destroyed before they can launch.
| graemep wrote:
| Your link says:
|
| "The UK's membership of the European Space Agency (ESA) is
| not affected by leaving the EU as ESA is not an EU
| organisation."
|
| I think you meant the EU Space programme, but that does not
| seem related to military imaging satellites.
| dwayne_dibley wrote:
| Ah, another excellent benefit.
| 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.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| No but the latter only works if you're already in
| proximity. With the speed these things come down you have
| to be already in the right vicinity to catch it.
|
| This is where GPS+track prediction could help a lot. And
| why I think it's so impressive.
| krisoft wrote:
| I was 15 years old in 2004 when I have guessed the
| existence of that program :)
|
| I was reading a scientific magazine article about the
| planed return of the Genesis spacecraft's samples. They
| were writing about how the probe will float back to Earth
| under a parachute and a helicopter will catch it mid--
| air. That plan sounded absolutely bonkers crazy to me and
| I would have assumed they needed a long process of trial
| drops to practice this stunt, but the documented evidence
| shown that they were quite non-chalant about it. Almost
| as if they have done such things previously. But since
| there were no public evidence of prior art I assumed some
| classified spy stuff was what gave them the experience
| needed to be confident about the skill. (This was 7 years
| before the declassification of the existence of the KH-9
| program)
| itslennysfault wrote:
| Elementary, My Dear Watson!
|
| (yes, I know it's not a real quote)
| krisoft wrote:
| You should see how often I was wrong about stuff though!
| :D
|
| I only wrote about this because later it become clear
| that I was right.
|
| I would never tell you about how much time I spent
| thinking about how a submarine could use laser back-
| scatter to track the slightly warmer wake of an enemy
| submarine. :P Not until they declassify that too.
| toyg wrote:
| Probably a combination of Trump and Brexit. The Tory
| governments made a big song and dance of investing to replace
| the access to European space programs that they lost, I
| wouldn't be surprised if this project sat in the folds of one
| of those efforts - even just financially.
|
| On the other hand - this was actually delivered, so maybe not a
| Tory thing at all... /S
| 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.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| It's not a particularly advanced capability, and as far as the
| opponents are concerned, the UK can request imagery from its
| allies, some of whom do possess imaging satellites capable
| enough that their exact specifications are a secret.
| 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.
| asadhaider wrote:
| From the spaceport guide- Orbex Prime is a microlauncher
| planned for flight next year with a 180kg payload capacity,
| this satelite was 150kg.
|
| https://orbex.space/launch-vehicle
| 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
| ffhhj wrote:
| How many years until we have high enery lasers shot on people's
| heads?
| ben_w wrote:
| It's already just about possible on paper, but directed energy
| weapons are poorly characterised even on the ground so nobody's
| going to be in a hurry to mount them on a very expensive easily
| identifiable platform that covers a very narrow ground path on
| a very predictable schedule while being extremely vulnerable to
| counterattack.
|
| Kinda the same reason we _could_ have RFGs but don 't.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MVs37rxJL0
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I may well be utterly wrong, but this seems a bit Maginot Line.
|
| Single large satellites are I think going to be sitting ducks for
| anti-satellite missiles. Be destroyed first five minutes of a
| war.
|
| What you need is something like Starlink - bazillions of tiny
| satellites.
| lioeters wrote:
| Reminds me of this map of Starlink satellites covering the
| globe.
|
| https://www.starlinkmap.org/
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I was in Grand Teton national Park last week and was looking at
| the sky to view the Perseids meteor shower, and I just saw
| chains of these Starlink satellites constantly moving across
| the sky. They look like tiny little stars, moving smoothly in
| an equally spaced out line.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Also turns out they destroy the ozone layer. Great. That
| problem again.
| jeswin wrote:
| Surveillance is just as important. In the months and years
| before a war begins, you need preparation and deterrence.
|
| And as a NATO member and nuclear weapon state, UK's wars are
| not likely to escalate to satellite shooting. I mean, if it
| does escalate to that point it's going to be with Russia or
| China and there'll be bigger problems to worry about than
| losing a satellite.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I would put it to you that with bigger problems to worry
| about, you'd really rather not have _other_ problems to worry
| about as well, such as the complete loss of space-borne
| surveillance capability, which likely would prove very useful
| with regard to the bigger problems.
| sgt101 wrote:
| The UK gov is a shareholder in the oneweb satellite
| constellation.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| I can't with a quick search find any info on the OneWeb
| satellites, but they're internet access, right? not equipped
| with high-resolution telescopes.
| sgt101 wrote:
| no - high resolution target-able telescopes on taskable
| satellites don't go on low cost microsats.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| Bit of a story here, given in the 'pedia page.
|
| Brits had a launch, 36 satellites, ready to go from Russia,
| days before the invasion.
|
| Putin's Russia says (having just invaded Ukraine!) : we will
| only launch if guarantee not to use satellites for military
| purposes, and UK Gov divests shares (it was the large
| majority shareholder).
|
| UK Gov oddly enough says no. Russia refuses to launch.
|
| Russia then also refuses to return satellites, and they were
| in the end written off.
|
| Like dealing with stroppy children with guns.
| 123pie123 wrote:
| I wonder what the implications would have been if the UK
| had just said "of course not" to the question of using them
| for miltary
|
| Would Russia ever know or not on the usage?
| maxwell wrote:
| The perceived enemy isn't without but within.
| anovikov wrote:
| What's even the point of such an awful one?
| somat wrote:
| A couple of related video essays
|
| This Satellite does not exist: The Story of Zircon(lazerpig)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1CKnFqeXkg
|
| Black Arrow. And why Britain doesn't have a space
| program(alexander the ok)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0FLy2nI13E
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-19 23:01 UTC)