4 ms·

I would argue this is obsolete technology (extremely high-res satellite cameras, low altitude drones) primarily intended for poaching of public funds. Is there

by Garvi 3y ago

I would argue this is obsolete technology (extremely high-res satellite cameras, low altitude drones) primarily intended for poaching of public funds. Is there any indication this thing will be able to do anything current methods cannot for a fraction of a fraction of the cost?

jghn 3y ago
What makes you sure this isn’t a drone? And while satellites have obsoleted spy planes for many purposes for a while now, one thing they can’t do is go on demand to any arbitrary location
- Garvi 3y ago
  I understand it is a drone. You have a point there, but only marginally, as current rocket tech is making rapid deployment of satellites a breeze. I'm not talking about Musks or the Chinese reusable rockets - the military doesn't care as much about economics and had the ability to rapidly launch satellites from planes for a long time.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    Any satellite they can launch from a plane won't be much good for earth observation. They're not big enough.
  - jghn 3y ago
    If you want eyes on something in the next 2 hours, why bother launching a satellite
- sgt101 3y ago
  Challenging to control a drone at hypersonic speeds & low altitudes (sub orbital) I think, the behavior of the air as a plasma around the craft will mean that it will probably have to be fully autonomous, which if armed could be quite a challenge ethically.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hylaride 3y ago
Satellites don't collect electronic radio waves, among other things, the same way a plane can. And despite all the advances in tech, lower flying aircraft will always have better resolution, which can matter. There's a reason a lot of online maps (google, etc) still use planes to capture the "satellite view". This is also almost certainly unmanned.
- sgt101 3y ago
  I am curious as to how a hypersonic aircraft can collect radio signals - the air does strange things around such a craft
  - hylaride 3y ago
    It's not necessarily listening or intercepting radio systems for eavesdropping, but getting locations for radar sites, etc.
- bradknowles 3y ago
  KH-11s were optical telescopes aimed at planet earth. To my eyes, they look exactly like the Hubble telescope, just pointed the other way. But there have also been lines of satellites created for doing radio captures, also pointed down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquacade_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquacade_(satellite)
Thrieo4849 3y ago
US needs supersonic cruise missile/glider platform. China and Russia worked on this stuff for a few decades, US is behind. Dressing it up as a SR-71 replacement is supercool, working on new nuclear missile would not be very sexy!
- sgt101 3y ago
  Why? what's the benefit of a supersonic missile system vs a high subsonic missile platform, what are the drawbacks, cost, availability, size, handling. Also what are the drawbacks - operationally - like increased visibility, decreased range, decreased payload?
thunderbird120 3y ago
Satellites have essentially fixed and predictable orbits, are hard limited in how close they can get to targets, and soft limited by realistic payload limitations of satellite constellations. You can have an extremely high end satellite in LEO but it may only pass over the desired target once per day. You can put it in GEO and have it see the whole area but it's going to be so far away it's going to be limited in what it can see. You can build more satellites so that one of them passes over areas of interest more frequently but you can't make a Starlink sized reconnaissance satellite constellation if you're putting super high end hardware in each one. Those sensors cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each. Reconnaissance aircraft are a dramatically more economical way of finding mobile targets than massive LEO constellations of super high end sensors. Instead you just put the high end sensor in an aircraft and have it overfly the area you're trying to surveil. This is why many countries are dramatically increasing investment in them. Actually knowing where things are is critical to destroying them.
- Garvi 3y ago
  > Reconnaissance aircraft are a dramatically more economical I really don't see how they could be reality. Do you have any specific arguments or sources for this claim? > Those sensors cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each. What sensors are you talking about that cost hundreds of millions and requires multiple?
  - computerfriend 3y ago
    Very high resolution cameras.
  - thunderbird120 3y ago
    I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is about use case. A SR-71 successor would not be snapping pictures of static known sites where nothing is changing. That can happen at a leisurely pace which means that satellites do that fine. Satellites and reconnaissance aircraft do different things. There are many cases where you need to go look at a specific area RIGHT NOW, not in 7 hours. You can't wait for your high end LEO satellite's orbit to pass over the correct spot of the earth. Reconnaissance aircraft can actually maneuver and fly over specific places making them dramatically more flexible when you need to find something that may be in a completely different place 1 hour from now. >What sensors are you talking about that cost hundreds of millions and requires multiple? Nearly all sensors worth putting on a satellite in a military context are going to cost at least $10 million and those would be pretty low quality and of limited usefulness. The NRO regularly launches individual satellites with sensors which cost >$1 billion dollars. Their yearly budget is >$6 billion despite having almost no personnel. High end sensors are very very expensive. You need multiple because, as previously stated, if you only have 1 you might be waiting an entire day for it to orbit over the correct place on the earth. You can build 1,000 of those and get near real time tracking but it's going to be absurdly expensive. Much cheaper to just fly a single aircraft over the correct part of the earth you're interested in. The sensor payloads that RQ-4s carry still cost >$100 million but you can just fly them exclusively over areas of interest meaning you don't need nearly so many of them. They're also a lot closer to the ground meaning that an equivalent quality sensor can see a lot more than it would be able to from LEO.

by Garvi 3y ago

jghn 3y ago

What makes you sure this isn’t a drone? And while satellites have obsoleted spy planes for many purposes for a while now, one thing they can’t do is go on demand to any arbitrary location

Garvi 3y ago
I understand it is a drone. You have a point there, but only marginally, as current rocket tech is making rapid deployment of satellites a breeze. I'm not talking about Musks or the Chinese reusable rockets - the military doesn't care as much about economics and had the ability to rapidly launch satellites from planes for a long time.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  Any satellite they can launch from a plane won't be much good for earth observation. They're not big enough.
- jghn 3y ago
  If you want eyes on something in the next 2 hours, why bother launching a satellite
sgt101 3y ago
Challenging to control a drone at hypersonic speeds & low altitudes (sub orbital) I think, the behavior of the air as a plasma around the craft will mean that it will probably have to be fully autonomous, which if armed could be quite a challenge ethically.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hylaride 3y ago

Satellites don't collect electronic radio waves, among other things, the same way a plane can. And despite all the advances in tech, lower flying aircraft will always have better resolution, which can matter. There's a reason a lot of online maps (google, etc) still use planes to capture the "satellite view". This is also almost certainly unmanned.

sgt101 3y ago
I am curious as to how a hypersonic aircraft can collect radio signals - the air does strange things around such a craft
- hylaride 3y ago
  It's not necessarily listening or intercepting radio systems for eavesdropping, but getting locations for radar sites, etc.
bradknowles 3y ago
KH-11s were optical telescopes aimed at planet earth. To my eyes, they look exactly like the Hubble telescope, just pointed the other way. But there have also been lines of satellites created for doing radio captures, also pointed down. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_KENNEN and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquacade_(satellite) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquacade_(satellite)

Thrieo4849 3y ago

US needs supersonic cruise missile/glider platform. China and Russia worked on this stuff for a few decades, US is behind. Dressing it up as a SR-71 replacement is supercool, working on new nuclear missile would not be very sexy!

sgt101 3y ago
Why? what's the benefit of a supersonic missile system vs a high subsonic missile platform, what are the drawbacks, cost, availability, size, handling. Also what are the drawbacks - operationally - like increased visibility, decreased range, decreased payload?

thunderbird120 3y ago

Satellites have essentially fixed and predictable orbits, are hard limited in how close they can get to targets, and soft limited by realistic payload limitations of satellite constellations. You can have an extremely high end satellite in LEO but it may only pass over the desired target once per day. You can put it in GEO and have it see the whole area but it's going to be so far away it's going to be limited in what it can see. You can build more satellites so that one of them passes over areas of interest more frequently but you can't make a Starlink sized reconnaissance satellite constellation if you're putting super high end hardware in each one. Those sensors cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each. Reconnaissance aircraft are a dramatically more economical way of finding mobile targets than massive LEO constellations of super high end sensors. Instead you just put the high end sensor in an aircraft and have it overfly the area you're trying to surveil. This is why many countries are dramatically increasing investment in them. Actually knowing where things are is critical to destroying them.

Garvi 3y ago
> Reconnaissance aircraft are a dramatically more economical I really don't see how they could be reality. Do you have any specific arguments or sources for this claim? > Those sensors cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each. What sensors are you talking about that cost hundreds of millions and requires multiple?
- computerfriend 3y ago
  Very high resolution cameras.
- thunderbird120 3y ago
  I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is about use case. A SR-71 successor would not be snapping pictures of static known sites where nothing is changing. That can happen at a leisurely pace which means that satellites do that fine. Satellites and reconnaissance aircraft do different things. There are many cases where you need to go look at a specific area RIGHT NOW, not in 7 hours. You can't wait for your high end LEO satellite's orbit to pass over the correct spot of the earth. Reconnaissance aircraft can actually maneuver and fly over specific places making them dramatically more flexible when you need to find something that may be in a completely different place 1 hour from now. >What sensors are you talking about that cost hundreds of millions and requires multiple? Nearly all sensors worth putting on a satellite in a military context are going to cost at least $10 million and those would be pretty low quality and of limited usefulness. The NRO regularly launches individual satellites with sensors which cost >$1 billion dollars. Their yearly budget is >$6 billion despite having almost no personnel. High end sensors are very very expensive. You need multiple because, as previously stated, if you only have 1 you might be waiting an entire day for it to orbit over the correct place on the earth. You can build 1,000 of those and get near real time tracking but it's going to be absurdly expensive. Much cheaper to just fly a single aircraft over the correct part of the earth you're interested in. The sensor payloads that RQ-4s carry still cost >$100 million but you can just fly them exclusively over areas of interest meaning you don't need nearly so many of them. They're also a lot closer to the ground meaning that an equivalent quality sensor can see a lot more than it would be able to from LEO.