Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

the chinese ASAT test means that the large recon birds are
not going to be useful asssets come a war.

The NRO also lost a major bird a few months back.

Posted by anonymous at February 8, 2007 07:54 AM

NORAD's Defense Support Program satellites can detect missile launches, including China's ICBM-derived ASAT. NRO's Keyhole satellites can make minor adjustments to their orbit. Those two capabilities taken together could prevent some ASAT assaults.

Posted by John Kavanagh at February 8, 2007 08:37 AM

It is a government agency.

Posted by Leland at February 8, 2007 09:51 AM

The article is slightly misleading and you have to look at the original article that generated it.

The original article, written by the NRO's Inspector General's office, does not claim that fraud at the NRO has _increased._ What it says is that fraud _reporting_ has increased because the IG implemented changes.

The article claims that prior to their recent actions, it was very difficult for them to get contractors to comply with fraud investigations even if the contractor was required to do so by federal statute. The reason is that for a contractor, the be all and end all is the contract, and unless the contract requires it, they don't see a reason to comply--even if federal law requires it.

So what the IG did was put a clause into all NRO contracts that requires compliance with IG requests or the contractor will possibly take a financial hit in their contract--i.e. "comply or we will not give you your award fee and we might even cancel the contract." Once that happened, contractors became much more open.

The article that you link to mentions things like the Future Imagery Architecture boondoggle. But so far nobody has alleged _fraud_ in the FIA contract. It may simply be poor management, or over-promising on risky technology.

As far as ORS vs. battlestar galacticas, that's a different issue. There is a legitimate argument that it is simply impossible to do many of the things that you want to do with a smaller satellite. For instance, high resolution requires large apertures, which requires large satellites, which requires large rockets, which are not terribly responsive. Then the question becomes whether the requirement is justified or not.

ORS also has its limitations. The USAF recently announced that it declared a DMSP weather satellite operational. The satellite had been launched in early November. In other words, it took three months to declare a legacy weather satellite fully operational. That's relatively simple technology on a system they have a lot of experience with. It is probably not possible to launch a responsive satellite and get it operational in a very short period of time and have it do sophisticated stuff, at least where optics are concerned. Even when you get it on orbit, you have to tweak its systems and fine tune them for the mission. At best that will take days or weeks, not hours.

Posted by Franklin Wright at February 8, 2007 01:02 PM

> There is a legitimate argument that it is simply impossible to do many
> of the things that you want to do with a smaller satellite. For instance,
> high resolution requires large apertures, which requires large satellites,

Not any more. The development of optical interferometry changes all that. You can get huge apertures with small satellites flying in formation.

Even without such high-tech tricks, military intelligence doesn't always need the highest possible resolution. It's often better to have pretty good resolution when you need than ultimate resolution when a satellite happens to be available. The 90/10 rule says that getting the last 10% capability often accounts for 90% of the cost. If it's possible to field a system that will provide commanders with 90% of the capability for 10% the cost (or with 10 times the availability), that would be a win.

Note that the design of Keyhole satellites was driven primarily by Cold War arms-control verification, not warfighting requirements.

> It is probably not possible to launch a responsive satellite and
> get it operational in a very short period of time and have it do
> sophisticated stuff, at least where optics are concerned.

Then @#%& the satellite. The military flies air recon missions every day, with very capable optical systems. Activating those systems in the air takes minutes, not months. If the satellite boys can't do the same, that's another nail in the coffin of unmanned space. Given a highly operational spaceplane that can overfly any place on Earth within 60 minutes, you can leave the satellite at home and load up the payload bay with the same sort of systems the Air Force uses right now.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 8, 2007 03:46 PM

The Wright brothers! Wow!

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at February 8, 2007 06:35 PM

**************

While this is true today, there are operational changes that can be made to reduce this time. When we were talking about this subjec in Colorado Springs a few weeks ago, it was said that congress does not allow the on orbit storage of national assets. That is one thing that can be changed. There are other things that can be done to reduce the time to operations from launch that we are investigating now.

You simply don't know what you are talking about with optical interferometry from dispersed assets. It requires a knowledge of the relative position of the multiple spacecraft to a fraction of a wavelength, which with today's technology is not feasible to accomplish. We are working a DARPA contract now addressing this issue with much longer radio waves.

The air assets take longer to deploy than what your optimistic appraisal would suggest.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 8, 2007 10:30 PM

> The air assets take longer to deploy than what your optimistic appraisal would suggest.

Thanks for setting me straight, Dennis. I guess all those air-to-ground photos are fake.

Like the lunar landings, since it would have taken months for astronauts to make those optical systems operational, right? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at February 9, 2007 12:04 AM

I can agree with Dennis on the technology of using multiple assets to replace the strategic function of satellites. The higher ground still provides a better overall picture. However, once (if) the first NRO satellite is taken out by an ASAT, the war is technically on (though how it manifests itself may not be obvious). At that point, technical assets are critical.

It may take some time to initially deploy the assets, but once staged properly, I agree with Ed that they will be of greater value to the commander in the field than satellite systems. When the war is over, we can replace the satellite system, but immediate loss of such systems will not come close to rendering the military impotent.

Then again, this thread began with "waste, fraud, and abuse" in a government organization, not really with the specific merits. As much as I believe that bureaucracies are inherently inefficient, I do believe the NRO is a valuable resource that is still best performed in the realm of the government.

Posted by Leland at February 9, 2007 06:55 AM

Thanks for setting me straight, Dennis.

*********

Ed, setting you straight is a frequent occurance, but don't fret, I will always be here to help you.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at February 9, 2007 08:20 AM

yeah, great idea Rand. Scrap our entire space-based intel advantage so we can save a few billion...hmmm, wait a minute, maybe a good percentage of those billions give us intelligence that is literally priceless for the security of our country and the continuation of our way of life.

Like it or not, this storm is a squall that will blow over quickly for the secret agencies, especially with this administration. The article raises good concerns, but also makes some stupid points, like the existence of the "slush fund" in 1995 --from before the NRO was declassified.

Posted by tom at February 9, 2007 09:05 AM

Oops: At that point, technical assets are critical. technical should be tactical...

Tom said: yeah, great idea Rand. Scrap our entire space-based intel advantage so we can save a few billion... which doesn't seem to be what Rand said.

Posted by Leland at February 9, 2007 11:02 AM

"Not any more. The development of optical interferometry changes all that. You can get huge apertures with small satellites flying in formation."

Citation? Name a satellite system that currently does this, Mr. Expert.

Posted by Franklin Wright at February 9, 2007 11:17 AM

> Citation? Name a satellite system that currently does this, Mr. Expert.

I see. Another person who believes we can never do anything in the future that wasn't done in the past. :-)

I never claimed to be an expert. Making stuff up does not help your case.

JPL and ESA are working on it right now for the Terrestrial Planet Finder and Darwin missions.

Optical interferometry is used by many of the new large ground-based telescopes, including Keck and Chile's Very Large Telescope.

You and Dennis should look up Clarke's Law sometime.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 9, 2007 12:36 PM

For a guy with such arrogant confidence, you seem to have few facts to back up your claims. Have you ever worked in national reconnaissance?

Posted by Franklin Wright at February 9, 2007 01:09 PM

Franklin, I have presented quite a few facts.

You and Dennis clearly do not care about facts, and you do not offer any facts. Just insults and your own version of the "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

Plonk!

Posted by Edward Wright at February 9, 2007 01:40 PM

Then @#%& the satellite. The military flies air recon missions every day, with very capable optical systems. Activating those systems in the air takes minutes, not months.

I think you're forgetting about some critical non-technical issues. First of all, to get to what you want to image from the atmosphere you may need some tricky overflight permissions, and even if you get them it can take days of delicate negotiations at a high level. Secondly, you're forgetting that with existing systems you need a pilot, and that puts you in a potential Francis Gary Powers situation. Risking that for a few helpful photos is a decision no commander wants to have to make.

I think the main reason we've relied on satellites is neither cost nor resolution not convenience. It's because they're unmanned and politically uncomplicated (no one claims airspace rights up that high). So you're going to get nowhere arguing that other technologies are cheaper or have better resolution -- those aren't the key issues.

Now, maybe a really fast, high-flying UAV could replace some theater satellite imaging, where airspace issues aren't important (e.g. Iraq). I suspect they already have. There were a lot of them at the Edwards air show this year. But I doubt very much they can totally replace them, especially for strategic purposes (e.g. routinely monitoring developments around NoKo nuclear facilities).

I also think Rand is wrong. "Starting from scratch" is something you can afford to do when you're merely risking the bankruptcy of your private company. National security has to be approached a lot more conservatively, because you just can't make a mistake. His opposition to battlestars in this context smells a bit reflexive, and that's equally as silly as a reflexive preference for battlestars. Sometimes a battlestar is what you want, sometimes not. A rigid preference for either approach is unwise.

Additionally, a battlestar and a cheapy replacement are equally vulnerable to ASAT weapons, and the biggest problem with ASAT vulnerability is not the cost of the satellite, but the possibility of an enemy taking one out just when you need it (e.g. when he's about to do something you really need to know about). Without question, it would be better to have more reliable launch-on-demand access (which I believe the Pentagon is hot for), but it doesn't really matter whether it's to quickly launch a battlestar or a cheap camera -- the point is to get your eyes back open fast. Maybe that's Rand's main point, in which case I definitely agree.

I also think the best "defense" against ASAT weapons is no Maginot line around individual birds, but a very credible threat of retaliation here on Earth. The Chinese are not going to take out US satellites if they know the response would be the same as if they bombed USAF radar facilities in the CONUS. You never win battles against the barbarians by building really stout walls. The Romans in their decline tried that. You need to make your enemy shiver in his horsehide tent at night, in his own village, from worrying about whether you might be there, right now, getting ready to transfix his wives and children on your spear.

Posted by Carl Pham at February 9, 2007 03:52 PM

> I think you're forgetting about some critical non-technical issues. First
> of all, to get to what you want to image from the atmosphere you may need
> some tricky overflight permissions,

Spaceplanes would operate above the atmosphere and don't need overflight permission. This was established in international law long ago.

> Secondly, you're forgetting that with existing systems you need a pilot, and
> that puts you in a potential Francis Gary Powers situation. Risking that
> for a few helpful photos is a decision no commander wants to have to make.

It's done all the time. The military wouldn't have recce pods for airplanes if they didn't use them. And a spaceplane would be much less vulnerable than most aircraft.

And where did I say "existing systems"? Franklin may think we can never develop anything new. I don't.

> a cheapy replacement are equally vulnerable to ASAT weapons,

A battlestar is vulnerable because its orbit can be predicted far in advance. A spaceplane could launch without notice, overfly a target at a wide variety of altitudes from a wide variety of azimuths, change its orbit either propulsively or aerodynamically, and reenter without warning. It would be almost completely unpredictable. A spaceplane could also carry a variety of defensive weapons and electronic countermeasures to defeat any ASAT weapon.

> The Chinese are not going to take out US satellites if they know the
> response would be the same as if they bombed USAF radar facilities in the CONUS.

For "US satellites," substitute an EP-3 naval reconnaissance plane over the straits of Taiwan. The Chinese know what the US response would be in that case -- negotiations and an expression of "regret" from the United States.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 9, 2007 05:00 PM

Post a comment