6 ms·

> with cameras and transmission capabilities I think the "transmission" part here is the real story for military applications. To get real time video further o

> with cameras and transmission capabilities I think the "transmission" part here is the real story for military applications. To get real time video further out than a few kilometers, not many nations have satellite datalink capabilities. Those that don't will be at the whim of commercial providers (Starlink for now). Otherwise, the long duration drone flight discussed here could be most valuable for aerial, orbiting, microwave transponders.

semi-extrinsic 4y ago
> To get real time video further out than a few kilometers, not many nations have satellite datalink capabilities. Suppose you capture video at 4k resolution and 2 frames per second, and you compress it with h.265 at reasonable quality. Most of your image will be the same from frame to frame, so encoding will be really efficient. Then you're looking at ballpark 70 kilobytes per frame, or 1120 kbit/s. If you transmit that over 1.3 GHz and the receiving station has a good antenna, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to reach 100-200 km range?
nine_k 4y ago
Fly a larger re-translator drone 50-100 km away from the area of interest, which can relay the signal over a higher-power microwave link to a ground station another 100-200 km away. It could relay signals from many front-line drones.
nradov 4y ago
In future high end conflicts, satellite communications will be unreliable due to heavy use of anti-satellite weapons and electronic attacks. In order to maintain communications, military forces will need relays in the air and on the ground, plus agile orbital launch capabilities to quickly replace satellite attrition losses.
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago
  > satellite communications will be unreliable due to heavy use of anti-satellite weapons > agile orbital launch capabilities to quickly replace satellite attrition losses. Once you reach Kessler syndrome / collisional cascading, the problem is no longer anti-satellite weapons, it's just lots of damaging space pollution in orbit - at this point, launching more satellites won't help anymore. EDIT: on another note, this also reflects the Mutual Assured Destruction/ICBM situation - you don't destroy my things, I don't destroy your things - it only works if both parties have things to loose. Anti-satellite weapons are the most dangerous in the hands of countries with low amounts of spacecraft.
  - nradov 4y ago
    Concerns about Kessler syndrome won't stop combatants from using anti-satellite weapons. When national (or regime) survival is at stake, they will shoot down adversary satellites and worry about cleaning up the mess later. Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway. In lower orbits there's enough atmospheric drag that anything not periodically boosted will re-enter within a few years. Combatants will have to consider satellites to be expendable anyway so they'll go ahead and launch replacements even if expected lifetime is very short. Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit. This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time, and that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure. In fact, I predict that if the USA gets into a major shooting war with China or Russia, satellites will be among the first targets on both sides.
    - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
      > Concerns about Kessler syndrome won't stop combatants from using anti-satellite weapons. When national (or regime) survival is at stake, they will shoot down adversary satellites and worry about cleaning up the mess later. This is a sad truth, people will shot first, and then when their own satellites get mass destroyed by the remnants of "the enemy satellites" they will notice something had gone terribly wrong. And once such condition is reached up, clearing up the mess is nearly impossible without international coordination on a very expensive project. > Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway. LEO satellites (most of them, specifically most military satellites) are very vulnerable to Kessler syndrome. > Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit. If it takes a while for it to get hit, then you haven't reached Kessler syndrome yet. > This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time Until they all suddenly turn collectively into space junk, because too much space junk is floating in space. > that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure. I think that the very expensive satellites humans put in orbit is considered part of the national infrastructure.
dredmorbius 4y ago
Drones themselves could provide mesh networks, possibly / probably with narrow-band communications (laser or tight-beam microwave) between units. Even a few hundred metres of elevation gives a highly extended transmission range, and dedicated high-altitude comms drones (FL40 -- FL60 or better) could communicate to distances of 100s of km. These themselves would still be cheap, would be difficult to spot, let alone target, and would require high-altitude-capable missiles to reach, though beam weapons (e.g., lasers) are another option. Balloons (think weather balloons) would be another option, operating even higher. Again, cheap and easily replaced, but costing $100ks or $1ms to destroy. Think Google's Project Loon.

semi-extrinsic 4y ago

> To get real time video further out than a few kilometers, not many nations have satellite datalink capabilities. Suppose you capture video at 4k resolution and 2 frames per second, and you compress it with h.265 at reasonable quality. Most of your image will be the same from frame to frame, so encoding will be really efficient. Then you're looking at ballpark 70 kilobytes per frame, or 1120 kbit/s. If you transmit that over 1.3 GHz and the receiving station has a good antenna, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to reach 100-200 km range?

nine_k 4y ago

Fly a larger re-translator drone 50-100 km away from the area of interest, which can relay the signal over a higher-power microwave link to a ground station another 100-200 km away. It could relay signals from many front-line drones.

nradov 4y ago

In future high end conflicts, satellite communications will be unreliable due to heavy use of anti-satellite weapons and electronic attacks. In order to maintain communications, military forces will need relays in the air and on the ground, plus agile orbital launch capabilities to quickly replace satellite attrition losses.

ElectricalUnion 4y ago
> satellite communications will be unreliable due to heavy use of anti-satellite weapons > agile orbital launch capabilities to quickly replace satellite attrition losses. Once you reach Kessler syndrome / collisional cascading, the problem is no longer anti-satellite weapons, it's just lots of damaging space pollution in orbit - at this point, launching more satellites won't help anymore. EDIT: on another note, this also reflects the Mutual Assured Destruction/ICBM situation - you don't destroy my things, I don't destroy your things - it only works if both parties have things to loose. Anti-satellite weapons are the most dangerous in the hands of countries with low amounts of spacecraft.
- nradov 4y ago
  Concerns about Kessler syndrome won't stop combatants from using anti-satellite weapons. When national (or regime) survival is at stake, they will shoot down adversary satellites and worry about cleaning up the mess later. Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway. In lower orbits there's enough atmospheric drag that anything not periodically boosted will re-enter within a few years. Combatants will have to consider satellites to be expendable anyway so they'll go ahead and launch replacements even if expected lifetime is very short. Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit. This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time, and that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure. In fact, I predict that if the USA gets into a major shooting war with China or Russia, satellites will be among the first targets on both sides.
  - ElectricalUnion 4y ago
    > Concerns about Kessler syndrome won't stop combatants from using anti-satellite weapons. When national (or regime) survival is at stake, they will shoot down adversary satellites and worry about cleaning up the mess later. This is a sad truth, people will shot first, and then when their own satellites get mass destroyed by the remnants of "the enemy satellites" they will notice something had gone terribly wrong. And once such condition is reached up, clearing up the mess is nearly impossible without international coordination on a very expensive project. > Kessler syndrome is mainly only a concern in higher orbits anyway. LEO satellites (most of them, specifically most military satellites) are very vulnerable to Kessler syndrome. > Even in if there's a lot of debris in orbit, it will take a while on average for any individual satellite to get hit. If it takes a while for it to get hit, then you haven't reached Kessler syndrome yet. > This is absolutely nothing like MAD. Satellites have to be destroyed one at a time Until they all suddenly turn collectively into space junk, because too much space junk is floating in space. > that involves little or no loss of human life or national infrastructure. I think that the very expensive satellites humans put in orbit is considered part of the national infrastructure.

dredmorbius 4y ago

Drones themselves could provide mesh networks, possibly / probably with narrow-band communications (laser or tight-beam microwave) between units. Even a few hundred metres of elevation gives a highly extended transmission range, and dedicated high-altitude comms drones (FL40 -- FL60 or better) could communicate to distances of 100s of km. These themselves would still be cheap, would be difficult to spot, let alone target, and would require high-altitude-capable missiles to reach, though beam weapons (e.g., lasers) are another option. Balloons (think weather balloons) would be another option, operating even higher. Again, cheap and easily replaced, but costing $100ks or $1ms to destroy. Think Google's Project Loon.