Expensive U.S. Spy Satellite Not Working 251
Penguinshit writes to mention a Reuters article about some trouble the U.S. is having communicating with a spy satellite. The sensor package was launched last year by the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. It has apparently hung in a low orbit for months now, and efforts to communicate with it have been unsuccessful. From the article: "The official said the problems were substantial and involved multiple systems, adding that U.S. officials were working to reestablish contact with the satellite because of the importance of the new technology it was meant to test and demonstrate. The other source said the satellite had been described to him as 'a comprehensive failure.' There was no suggestion by either of the sources that the satellite had been purposely damaged as part of a terrorist attack. Another government official said he had no information about any attacks on U.S. satellites."
The problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The problem... (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Re:The problem... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Opps... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:O0ps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. The old "tell them it doesn't really work" routine. Gotta give those spooks credit for creativity on this one.
Re:O0ps... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Dam conversions (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, they got the memo. Halfway through development in Imperial units. Whoops.
Terrorism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case it could conceivably be that a terrorist organization also sabotaged a military target, but that would not be an act of terrorism in and of itself. That's more like conventional espionage. The military knows that it is a target and is capable of responding, and so it's generally considered a valid target. The world gives a kind of grudging acceptance of your right to do it.
The third general requirement of terrorism, as compared to a valid military attack, is that the enemy hides itself. If the US takes out somebody's spy satellite, you know where the US is if you want to engage in a military response. Al Qaeda doesn't have such a place. This isn't just a playing semantics; it goes back to the civilian/military distinction. When a true terrorist organization attacks the US, civilians nominally on their own side die when the US counterattacks. By contrast, to attack the US there are valid targets.
(This gets a bit murky in espionage, where you do hide among the civilians, and that's the closest the US comes to true terrorism, at least for its avowed activities. We can discuss the various covert CIA activities later, but there's so much misinformation that it's hard to know what's real and what's paranoia.)
Terrorism comes much closer to Clausewitz's "total war". Why should any opponent restrict itself to "valid" military targets and make itself known to counterattacks? No reason, except that the end of "total war" is always the complete destruction of one side: if you engage in it you're putting lives at risk out of proportion to your goals. That will earn the world's opprobrium, and perhaps that opprobrium will increase the chance of your defeat, but beyond that it's your choice.
Re:Terrorism? (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorists = those who attack on civilians to induce terror (presumably to induce civilians some kind of change driven by the civilians).
Resistance, Insurgents, Freedom fighters = those who attack military and government units (not 5 year olds).
Nihilists = those who attack civilians really just because they like death and destruction and not because they have any particular goal of any kind in mind.
"Total War" is not really terrorism. You are not trying to induce a civilian population attitude change- you have decided to kill everyone on the other side.
Re:Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
My left butt cheek... (Score:5, Funny)
This has been a public service reminder. Remember, be afraid of terrorist, you need us, we keep you safe, you have nothing to fear from an oppressive government unless you are an enemy of the government.
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
9/11 into WTC- Terrorism with military aspects (damage economy of enemy)..
For example:
If they had flown a 9/11 plane into some random apartment building in NYC that would have been a purely terroristic attack.
9/11 into Pentegon- military attack with civilian casualties/terrorist elements.
9/11 into NSA- again a legitimate military target with the same elements.
Note: I thought this one was targeted for the capital building.
The US Cole- Purely military without even terrorist implications.
--
Re:Terrorism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Tell it to the people talking about the U.S.S. Cole.
Terrorism comes much closer to Clausewitz's "total war".
Beware of leaving your opponant without options.
KFG
OT:Terrorism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pakistan, the U.K., and even Canada may "grudgingly accept" attacks on "Valid US targets." The US does not have that option if it wishes to remain an intact, sovereign state.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well said.
This issue was illustrated nicely (and horribly) in the Vietnam war. When the Vietnamese resorted to "total war" tactics, like putting bombs in picnic baskets carried by young girls, it changed the necessary response from their enemy. Their enemy (the US) now had to consider all civilians as potential combatants -- eventually, as likely combatants. Voila, you get Mai Lai and other unpleasantness.
American civilians back home condemned the attacks on civilians, but only because they didn't unde
Re:Terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
I know that most US schools aren't big on teaching history any more unless it can somehow be related to a teacher's pet cause, but hopefully your comment is just a typo and you really meant something like Sherman's march to the sea.
Just in case it isn't clear, Lee led the Southern Armies in the Civil War, he didn't conquer the South.
Re:Terrorism? (Score:5, Informative)
Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre [wikipedia.org] for more details.
Re:Terrorism? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it is not only the former vietcong that regards 'vietnam' as a major defeat for the US, and thus a bloody victory for Vietnam, the whole world (minus the US-minority) does so. As for understanding for attacks on civilians: none is ever justified. Not then in Vietnam, not now in Iraq. Killing people is always wrong, but killing innocents is even worse. What part of 'thou shalt not kill' do you not understand?
What was the reason for vietname? (Score:2)
Remind me of who Walmart and most of america do trade with, and what their government is......
Right....
China is buying out as many important resource companies and partners it can find around the world, even in bad countries.
China wont care about any human rights, a deal is a deal, for any resource.
China buys a lot of US debts/T-Bills, they still consider that an investment, (or a massive IOU claim for US resources if it tanks)
so they wont sell it down and cause the US$ to fai
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the Union army didn't occupy all of the south doesn't mean they weren't conquered.
Insightful? (Score:2)
The underlying assumption is completely baseless. The US has never shot down another country's satellites. We did shoot down one or two of our own in the 80's to test an anti-satellite system that would be used in time of war, but right now multiple other countries operate a variety of spy satellites that fly over the US freely. Russia, China, Japan, Israel, the UK, and I think India, Italy, and France all have launched spy satellites.
And terroris
Obligatory. (Score:5, Funny)
If there was no suggestion of something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If there was no suggestion of something... (Score:4, Funny)
Exactly. I'm sure neither source mentioned that it had been deliberately damaged as part of an extra terrestrial alien attack either, but they didn't mention that.
Maybe someone should start listing all the other types of attacks that didn't damage the satellite. (Start off with laser wielding shark...)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately they got to him first [cnn.com].
Al Quaeda has won the War on Terror (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably intended as irony. Attacking military targets defies the very definition of terrorism.
Unless "terrorist" is now just a synonym for "enemy."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even when dealing with satellites??
When did Al-Qaeda get a freakin' space program??!
Re: (Score:2)
Dude.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to be kidding! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Huh. This turkey sandwich I got from the commissary is a little dry today..."
"Really? Do you think it could be some kind of terrorist attack on Lunchtime?!"
Absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a terrorist attack on your bowels! And rightly so. A turkey sandwich without delicious gravy is like a dry fart in the Sahara: not really pleasant.
Not if we jam it! (Score:2, Funny)
Who was their defense contractor on that idea? Lone Starr and a certain rotund guy with a tail named Barf?
Terrorists? Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is always terrorists that are the culprits when something goes wrong? The nations that used espionage before the "War On Terror" are still there, and still have vested interest in denying the US the ability to spy on them.
Re:Terrorists? Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, We have met the enemy and he is us.
Malice, incompetence or part of the plan (Score:2)
That's a good rule, but it seems odd that there's such a public announcement. Nobody intentionally 'outs' themselves when it comes to spy programs.
In other words, I'd like to know if it really is unusable. It is in plain sight, so the best approach would be to claim that it's dead. I have no idea if that situation is true here, but the tactic is ancient.
Additionally, if active,
Re: (Score:2)
That's because "We have always been at war with Oceania^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTerrorists".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love that movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101550/ [imdb.com]
terrorists??!? (Score:5, Insightful)
we must be living in the bizarro universe.
Re: (Score:2)
I also need to note that it is completely unremarkable that there has been a failure of a spacecraft. Space is an unforgiving environment, and there have been countless failures of missions, some due to freak happenstance and some due to human error and some due to equipment failure. It's generally dealt with by establishing the cause of the failure, correcting it, and launching a new spacecraft if it's necessary and/or possible.
- Mars Climate Orbiter: We now have other spacecraft at Mars
- Mars Polar La
Re: (Score:2)
It's like expecting a paper to run an article every time somebody talking on a cell phone rear-ends another driver.
I'm sure they'll survive. (Score:2)
Why do you think that? They've all been paid; it's the government's (read: your tax dollars) loss, not the manufacturers. The government doesn't generally go to outside insurers for this sort of thing; when an expensive piece of equipment goes on the fritz, they -- by which I mean us -- pretty much just have to eat the cost.
If anything, the contractor is probably decidin
Yes... (Score:2)
Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Space Shuttle, CEV, and Failed Sats (Score:5, Informative)
At "hundreds of millions of dollars", I'd say it's a toss-up given the Shuttle's current launch cost of $450 million [nasa.gov]. If the additional stop to check on the sat doesn't detract significantly from the original mission, then it might even be cost effective. In the Space Shuttle's more nominal cost per launch days, it would have been much cheaper to go have a looksee. (Like was done with the Hubble.) There's also the consideration of whether the expense to get the existing sat up and running NOW is worth the cost over waiting five years for a replacement to be launched.
The CEV's simpler design will almost certainly be cheaper than launching new spy sats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the platform is standardized. If it was specialized equipment, then there's a huge cost in pulling the team back together to develop, test, and deploy a new unit. Especially since they didn't know what caused it to fail the first time around. So the savings of making an N+1 copy may not be as significant as one might think.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not necessarily, because this time they have to make one that WORKS.
Maybe they are pretending it doesnt work.... (Score:2)
had two protocols and switched to the new one once it knew it was in orbit. So now you have the real NRO secret boys using it, going woooohoooo. While the official
NRO department goes, "wtf it doesnt work" and get some money back or more from the govt for some more secret black ops.
Maybe its using UV lasers as comms or even xray com
Re: (Score:2)
But knowing NASA the shuttle won't have enough maneuvering fuel to complete the task.
The Shuttle was designed to retrieve satellites, and conduct space based repairs. It's why the Shuttle is being used to build ISS and not progress style capsules. Russia can't
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, it just got stuck (Score:2)
NMCI (Score:3, Funny)
Space junk or meteorite? (Score:2)
-b.
Is a debug relay that hard to do? (Score:2)
ie. someone small and light 3-5kg like a laptop but sealed. Battery lasting a few weeks. Maybe a small camera for visuals, use slow bps comms thats not
ultra directional. Say something like 300bps HAM setup, if the sat fails you at least can download telemtry debug status data to find out whats wrong.
IS IT THAT HARD?????
All it needs to do is transmit in ascii every
It's a spy satellite (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really broken? (Score:2)
Michael Brown Again? (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing special here. (Score:2, Interesting)
If you're wondering why you've never heard of the NRO before, it's becau
NRO, NSA, CIA, DHS, etc. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And which one is capable of providing accurate information?
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, the CENTRAL intelligence agency was set up originally to unite intelligence work more or less in one place. Before that each branch of the military had it's own intelligence service.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's why I included DHS in that list, because I kinda thought they were supposed to coordinate all the intelligence agencies along with whatever other crap they do.
Re: (Score:2)
A better question may be how many INTELLIGENT agencies does the US have?
It's so under wraps (Score:2)
Complex Missions Cost Money - Period (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be said that of "Better, faster, cheaper," you could only have two out of three. As time goes on, I wonder if these expectations are too high.
Space missions have cost overruns for sure, but in my experience those overruns come from unrealistically low bids from major vendors and the fact that these dinosaur companies build spacecraft in pretty much the same way as they always have. They used to run of of money about a year before launch and they still run out of money a year before launch. IMHO, the only way to reduce the frequency of catatrophic failure is for early life cycle vendors to becore more efficient so there are funds for operations to shake out the bugs before it gets up on orbit.
Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of bullshit fear-mongering is this? There was no suggestion that it was caused by Martian attack or canabalism in the British Navy either. Why not mention that?
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
The ice cream scoop fell off my cone and landed in the dirt.
No terrorist organizations have yet claimed responsibility.
Re:Say what? (Score:4, Funny)
There are no cannibals in the British Navy. I ate the last one.
Error (Score:4, Funny)
Weapons and spy contracts can be mostly secret. (Score:4, Interesting)
Weapons and spy contracts can be mostly secret. In practice, that means there will be less supervision and much more opportunity to make and sell junk at very high profit. It is very common that an entire project is so poorly designed that it is useless; however, the politics is such that the failures are kept secret. The U.S. government has been corrupted by secrecy and dishonesty.
Here is my summary of U.S. government corruption: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy [futurepower.org]. I hope you will write your own summary and send it to friends and government leaders.
Son and mom (Score:2)
Tinkering son on the roof, growing up to become your average mad scientist: Mom, it's jamming, not "jam", and it's cool. I think it's actually working. Don't worry, I won't hurt myself on it. *Hehe, I can't wait until I can read about this in the papers. They might think a nuclear war is coming... I hope they start one! Muahaha!*
Usually works (Score:3, Funny)
.
just a *few* corrections: (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I doubt if NRO launches anything-- they probably sign a check to Martin-Marietta, who coordinates things and rents a pad at Vandenberg.
>and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Well, it probably cost hundreds of millions of $. What it's worth, especially in the light of it being unusable, is debatable. Back when CMOS sensor arrays were custom made for $70,000 each the technology was gee-whizzy. Nowdays your basic disposable camera isnt that far behind what's in the current sats.
>It has apparently hung in a low orbit for months now.
"Hung"? as in hanging from something? Or hung as in "windows hung on me"?
>and efforts to communicate with it have been unsuccessful. The official said the problems were substantial and involved multiple systems.
So it probably had several radio links and none of them seem to be working. That's bad. There's usually at least one last-ditch fail-safe really simple telemetry and command link that doesnt depend on the main power source or antenna aiming. If they can't talk to that thingy, things are mighty grim.
>adding that U.S. officials
"Officials"? More likely a bunch of hairy and now sweaty peons.
>Were working to reestablish contact with the satellite because of the importance of the new technology it was meant to test and demonstrate.
So they wouldnt bother if it had old technology but cost $200 million?
>The other source said the satellite had been described to him as 'a comprehensive failure.'
Well, if you can't talk to it, that's pretty comprehensive.
It's a Trap! (Score:2)
We all know how this one ends: "Now witness the firepower of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!"
terrorists!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Osama - "OK Zawawhatshisname, show me this big plan you have for taking out the satellites of the great satan?"
ZAWA - "ok, basically we strap a bomb to young Uday here..."
Osama - "ok, not bad so far, pretty standard, then what?"
Zawa - "then we have this big slingshot and...."
Osama - "whoa whoa waitasec.... are you serious??"
Zawa - "yeh, well he gets in then we tie the camels to the basket and..."
Osama - "what somebody cracks the whip and pulls a string c'mon man!! Is this what I pay you for?!?!"
Zawa - "well, I..."
Osama - "You're fired..."
Zawa - "but..."
Osama - "dude, just...leave...ok?!"
nah...my spidey sense tell me it was a launch damage f-up or micrometeorite, something normal like that. maybe even a bug, a software glitch like the poor MGS or polar lander (inches, meters, what being difference?!?!? haha!!)
spy satellite ! (Score:3, Funny)
Hundreds of Millions WASTED! (Score:2)
Suckers (Score:2, Funny)
Taxpayers paid for this? (Score:2)
Why report it in the first place (Score:2)
True, usually the Air Force or NASA will say something about carrying specialized military cargo or some such doublespeak, but if it is really doing something secret, how does the information get out that it's broken in the first place? Aside from being purposefully leaked...
"Oh gosh golly
Tinfoil hat time (Score:2)
Also, if I were the NRO and I discovered N. Korea, Iran, Luxemburg or the Southern Peoples Liberation Army of Tonga
had found a way to knock out US satellites I wouldn't run around advertising it either.
Malfunction my foot.
Like I said, tinfoil hat time....
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, I'd just infiltrate someone into the programming team and make sure that the satellite's antennas stay turned away from the Earth and the solar panels' angle isn't optimal. There are many ways to sabotage such a complex system...
-b.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Complexity itself is likely the biggest cause of the problem. No sabotage needed. Although complexity (somewhat) needs to be part of the normal operation, there should be non-complex survival modes that kick in when things start to go wrong, such as:
Re: (Score:2)
Moles have existed in the highest levels of government. What makes you think that something like that is (in theory) impossible. I'm not saying *I* would, BTW - I'm saying that it would be the easiest way for a terrorist organization to sabotage a satellite.
-b.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)