7 ms·

Satellites have fixed orbits, which makes them relatively easy to hide from because you can figure out when they can see you. Drones are good for spying becaus

Satellites have fixed orbits, which makes them relatively easy to hide from because you can figure out when they can see you. Drones are good for spying because they're unpredictable, silent, and pretty much invisible, but their range isn't great. If you're not within range of a place where drones can be deployed, you're relatively safe from them. A mach 6 manned plane can be anyplace, anytime. They can sit in their base in Nevada (or wherever) and be deployed to investigate anyplace in the world within a matter of hours. Drones and satellites just don't compare to that. So, if you accept that the basic mission of these technologies is valid, then it makes sense to develop manned aircraft. It's just unfortunate that it takes so long for the technology that's developed to trickle out of the secret programs so everyone can get some benefit from it.

mikeash 13y ago
Drones can be anyplace in the world within a matter of hours too, if you keep a bunch of them on station all over the place. And while that sounds expensive, drones are so cheap (relatively) to build and operate that it's still going to be far more cost effective than a mach 6 anything.
- nickff 13y ago
  Drones are not as cheap as you would think (, and I used to believe). Global hawks cost as much as U2s to operate, and much more to acquire;[1] predators and reapers are not cheap either, once you include the whole control system.[2] [1] http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/307010011 http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/30701001... [2] http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-a-cost-benefit-analysis/ http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-...
jfoutz 13y ago
If the satellite imaging is good enough, it's probably cheaper to just have complete coverage. GPS was like 20 billion? a billion in ongoing costs? If i understand correctly, a new jet is a trillion dollars. Perhaps the imaging isn't good enough, cloud cover or whatever, but a whole bunch of satellites seems like a far simpler solution.
- FineSight 13y ago
  Or... You could monitor sub-atomic particles(WIMPs) in real-time.

mikeash 13y ago

Drones can be anyplace in the world within a matter of hours too, if you keep a bunch of them on station all over the place. And while that sounds expensive, drones are so cheap (relatively) to build and operate that it's still going to be far more cost effective than a mach 6 anything.

nickff 13y ago
Drones are not as cheap as you would think (, and I used to believe). Global hawks cost as much as U2s to operate, and much more to acquire;[1] predators and reapers are not cheap either, once you include the whole control system.[2] [1] http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/307010011 http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130624/C4ISR01/30701001... [2] http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-uavs-a-cost-benefit-analysis/ http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/the-us-and-its-...

jfoutz 13y ago

If the satellite imaging is good enough, it's probably cheaper to just have complete coverage. GPS was like 20 billion? a billion in ongoing costs? If i understand correctly, a new jet is a trillion dollars. Perhaps the imaging isn't good enough, cloud cover or whatever, but a whole bunch of satellites seems like a far simpler solution.

FineSight 13y ago
Or... You could monitor sub-atomic particles(WIMPs) in real-time.