Say Hello to the RQ-180

i was under impression that US military have an all seeing / staring sensor called Gorgon Eyes , with the data taken from multiple sources combined into a unified display and also historically tracked everything ?

and the use of UAV entering an enemy border could be considered as an agression .. unless it was used as provocation as intended.

my opinion, in light of the hacking and capture of RQ-170 , if there's a need to have a 'spy plane' , why dont they use some kind of space plane that can be launched any time and maneuvered above the target area safely , without any chance of shootdown ? maybe like a mini space shuttle in low orbit

a reply to: buntalanlucu

Oh, you mean like THIS?

a reply to: buntalanlucu

And how does a space plane or shuttle change anything? They're still in orbit, which means they're still subject to the exact same limitations of a satellite.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Well, ideally your space plane could utilize an airborne launch platform, quietly attached to a launch vehicle within the confines of a closed hangar, negating the warning that time on the pad provides. Bureaucracies don't move fast enough to keep up with an unexpected launch. You get at least one pass with "pure" data. Maybe more if you have fuel enough to modify your orbit on the "dark side". You could optionally boost-glide for a single unexpected overflight (maybe a few depending on velocity/inclination), or, assuming a bit more fuel, establish a predictable but highly elliptical orbit for multiple passes before opting to de-orbit.
You might even be able to deploy a nanosat or series of nanosats small enough to be confused with debris from an upper stage, leaving them behind to gather data with the orbiting space junk while your closely monitored space plane has already reentered...

a reply to: _Del_

Theoretically. I'll put my money on the current formula every time personally. It's worked this long.

a reply to: buntalanlucu

That wasnt really a hacking it was just disruption of its systems by laser interferrence.and it crash landed in the desert of iran. it didnt land.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: buntalanlucu

That wasnt really a hacking it was just disruption of its systems by laser interferrence.and it crash landed in the desert of iran. it didnt land.

im not privy to the cause as it seems confidential and both side not talking the facts but only propaganda (as they correctly should do)

im just wondering, if ordinary satellite can be tracked / predicted , why not make a 'Low Observable' satellite that cannot be detected on radar ? i mean any spy aircraft will have certain risk of capture via malfunction or hostile act, and if they can put LO Shaping on an aircraft, why not use the famous 'Hopeless Diamond' Shaping for a satellite ?

just a thought ..

a reply to: buntalanlucu

gizmodo.com...

originally posted by: clay2 baraka
a reply to: buntalanlucu

gizmodo.com...

so it is already up there or still on drawing board ?

a reply to: buntalanlucu

Even if they don't detect it, you're ignoring the other limitations. If they get suspicious, and move what you are looking for to another area, you have to build another expensive satellite to put over THAT area now, because the first can't see that area.

a reply to: buntalanlucu

Even if a satellite can be hidden from radar and be non-reflective, there are other means to find and track them (star field occultation for one, many deep space asteroids can be tracked this using this method). Once they are found their orbital periods are well calculated. They must follow the laws of orbital mechanics.
This is why an ISR airframe is so versatile and has advantages satellites can't match.

if i recall correctly didnt the USAF launched some kind of spy plane that reached the height of space (unmanned).. i forgot the name, looked like a mini space shuttle..

that space plane should work better than any ordinary air breathing spy plane.

if i recall correctly didnt the USAF launched some kind of spy plane that reached the height of space (unmanned).. i forgot the name, looked like a mini space shuttle..

that space plane should work better than any ordinary air breathing spy plane.

a reply to: buntalanlucu

Wow you're good at ignoring the entire "orbital mechanics" thing. The X-37 in orbit is (keep up with me here) just another satellite .

That means predictable overflight times, limited maneuverability to change target areas, and only being able to overfly the target area every couple of hours. And depending on the orbit, it might not even go over the same area twice, except every few orbits.

Why is this so hard to understand?

originally posted by: Sammamishman
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Even if a satellite can be hidden from radar and be non-reflective, there are other means to find and track them (star field occultation for one, many deep space asteroids can be tracked this using this method). Once they are found their orbital periods are well calculated. They must follow the laws of orbital mechanics.
This is why an ISR airframe is so versatile and has advantages satellites can't match.

The big advantage to ISR is loiter time. You just can't depend on the cool stuff being in view when the bird flies over it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Wow you're good at ignoring the entire "orbital mechanics" thing. The X-37 in orbit is (keep up with me here) just another satellite .

That means predictable overflight times, limited maneuverability to change target areas, and only being able to overfly the target area every couple of hours. And depending on the orbit, it might not even go over the same area twice, except every few orbits.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Probably because of science fiction, IDK. When you grow up with low-orbit combat looking like in-atmosphere combat that probably shapes your idea of what's possible. If only there was a really accurate space combat simulator for us all to go lose our frame of reference in...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Wow you're good at ignoring the entire "orbital mechanics" thing. The X-37 in orbit is (keep up with me here) just another satellite .

That means predictable overflight times, limited maneuverability to change target areas, and only being able to overfly the target area every couple of hours. And depending on the orbit, it might not even go over the same area twice, except every few orbits.

Why is this so hard to understand?

but this X37 can be launched randomly and carry sufficient fuel to change orbits easily to confuse the prediction.. I know you are proponent of spy planes but their times are up , they are useless against nations that can stop them like russia or china. I find it strange that Lockmart keep persuading USAF to accept U2's derivative when it historically proven to be the most 'shotdown' spy-plane (russian , chinese, cuban all shot them down)

The time of spyplane is up, this is the time for orbital plane like X37. Why is this so hard to understand?

a reply to: buntalanlucu

It's the size of a pickup truck, where does it store the massive amounts of fuel it will need to repeatedly change its orbit over the course of the year plus that it's been in orbit? It's not like it can stop at the ISS to refuel. And orbit changes can be tracked.

originally posted by: buntalanlucu

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

Wow you're good at ignoring the entire "orbital mechanics" thing. The X-37 in orbit is (keep up with me here) just another satellite .

That means predictable overflight times, limited maneuverability to change target areas, and only being able to overfly the target area every couple of hours. And depending on the orbit, it might not even go over the same area twice, except every few orbits.

Why is this so hard to understand?

but this X37 can be launched randomly and carry sufficient fuel to change orbits easily to confuse the prediction.. I know you are proponent of spy planes but their times are up , they are useless against nations that can stop them like russia or china. I find it strange that Lockmart keep persuading USAF to accept U2's derivative when it historically proven to be the most 'shotdown' spy-plane (russian , chinese, cuban all shot them down)

The time of spyplane is up, this is the time for orbital plane like X37. Why is this so hard to understand?

Go ahead and shoot down a UAV. We have plenty.

You need to understand that surveillance means something very different to the DoD versus say the CIA. The DoD at times needs real time surveillance, so the only thing that will work is a platform that can loiter. Satellite imagery is good for observing changes over time for an particular area, i.e. watch what is being built. But a battlefield commander needs to know what is over that next ridge.

One of the reasons the DoD has the DIA is their intelligence requirements are different from the CIA. Oh, and having the DIA means they get more money to spend. ;-)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

It's the size of a pickup truck, where does it store the massive amounts of fuel it will need to repeatedly change its orbit over the course of the year plus that it's been in orbit? It's not like it can stop at the ISS to refuel. And orbit changes can be tracked.

A course correction is not like launching a rocket into space. Unless you have inside information, I don't believe you can make a definitive statement about the fuel requirements. Oh, and being a rocket scientist would also help.

I would make the claim that if the USAF wanted a satellite, they would have a satellite and not the X37. he X37 needs to land periodically, so it is safe to assume it has some consumable product onboard that needs to be replenished. It isn't like they need to pull film off the bugger like Ice Station Zebra. One has to assume the optics are electronic in the 21st century.