3 ms·

For the same reason it's difficult to hide an ICBM launch, it's difficult to hide a spy satellite launch. Such launches are routinely mentioned in the press bef

For the same reason it's difficult to hide an ICBM launch, it's difficult to hide a spy satellite launch. Such launches are routinely mentioned in the press before they even occur. We know when new satellites go up, we just don't know their exact orbital characteristics until somebody actually spots them. They are then routinely lost again, either because their orbit was modified, or whoever spotted it didn't get its orbital characteristics quite right. They're also a heck of a lot bigger than tactical warheads. You don't really have to shift the orbital plane of the warhead at all, just raise or lower the orbit a hair so that after a while, the warhead's location has little if any discernible link to the host vehicle's location. Even if you did go for a plane change, it's really not "quite a bit", it's a question of how long you're willing to wait. The blackout period is overblown. Look up TDRSS -- the Shuttle didn't have a blackout period at all for most of its operational life, thanks to the mind-blowing strategy of... not trying to broadcast downward through the ionization layer. Soyuz is also a lot bigger than a tactical warhead. The comparison is off by probably 2+ orders of magnitude.

dalke 12y ago
Doesn't the press know about rocket launches, including spy satellite launches, because policy is to announce all rocket launches to minimize the chance that any foreign observers might think it's a preemptive nuclear missile strike? And "we know" about orbital elements because of hobbyists. I assume that major nation states - those who have satellites in orbit which can detect ICBM and SLBM launches - also have their own space tracking systems. Eg, the Russian SKKP. TDRSS - sweet! Yes, my primary interest in space flight was during the early shuttle years, back when there was a 30 minute blackout. Still, can that hole be enough to provide accurate position targeting data? It doesn't seem like there's enough for triangulation, only communication. Your point about size is completely apropos. There are too many things I don't know for me to guess how to scale down. Oh! What about using a Genesis comparison? http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/mission/history.htm http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/mission/history.htm shows a reentry diagram, with STRATCOM (Strategic Air Command) able to detect the incoming probe at 32,000 km (and potentially up to 60,000 km). http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/192937main_genesis_reentry.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/192937main_genesis_reentry.pdf says: > This experiment demonstrated that a simple forward scatter radar system utilizing TV transmitters as the illumination source could detect the ionization trail left by the Genesis spacecraft as well as the ionization around the spacecraft itself—the “head echo” in meteor radar parlance. What it's saying is that the ionization trail is easy enough that amateurs do it often, using a reflected signal from regular TV broadcasts. What I can't find is how long it took to get from a visible plasma trail to when it crash landed. That would be roughly the same time it would take for a re-entering warhead to get to its target. (It came in faster than LEO speed, but its tumble would have slowed it down more than a designed warhead.) My point stands that it's easier to test SLBMs than anything in LEO.

dalke 12y ago

Doesn't the press know about rocket launches, including spy satellite launches, because policy is to announce all rocket launches to minimize the chance that any foreign observers might think it's a preemptive nuclear missile strike? And "we know" about orbital elements because of hobbyists. I assume that major nation states - those who have satellites in orbit which can detect ICBM and SLBM launches - also have their own space tracking systems. Eg, the Russian SKKP. TDRSS - sweet! Yes, my primary interest in space flight was during the early shuttle years, back when there was a 30 minute blackout. Still, can that hole be enough to provide accurate position targeting data? It doesn't seem like there's enough for triangulation, only communication. Your point about size is completely apropos. There are too many things I don't know for me to guess how to scale down. Oh! What about using a Genesis comparison? http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/mission/history.htm http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/mission/history.htm shows a reentry diagram, with STRATCOM (Strategic Air Command) able to detect the incoming probe at 32,000 km (and potentially up to 60,000 km). http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/192937main_genesis_reentry.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/192937main_genesis_reentry.pdf says: > This experiment demonstrated that a simple forward scatter radar system utilizing TV transmitters as the illumination source could detect the ionization trail left by the Genesis spacecraft as well as the ionization around the spacecraft itself—the “head echo” in meteor radar parlance. What it's saying is that the ionization trail is easy enough that amateurs do it often, using a reflected signal from regular TV broadcasts. What I can't find is how long it took to get from a visible plasma trail to when it crash landed. That would be roughly the same time it would take for a re-entering warhead to get to its target. (It came in faster than LEO speed, but its tumble would have slowed it down more than a designed warhead.) My point stands that it's easier to test SLBMs than anything in LEO.