• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

WTF, NRO offers NASA two surplus spy satellites?

When taxpayers foot the bill for a satellite, they are doing it to line certain people's pockets in a long stinking unaccountable chain of payoffs, handouts, and all other forms of corruption. So it really doesnt matter what happens to the satellite. It's all about the money. We should be happy we have gotten a few good pics for the hundreds of billions we have handed out.
 
We've gotten more than "a few good pics" from orbital spy satellites. That still doesn't justify building billions of dollars of surplus hardware.
 
Most likely what happens was the NRO was tasked with providing a certain amount of coverage and up time on those satellites and their original estimated failure rate required them to have spares available to launch.

If their orbiting satellites failed less often than they assumed they probably never needed these two spare satellites.
 
Why wouldn't we have spare spy sats? I'm sure they don't take 24 hours to build. If we get into a war with someone that can take down our sats, wouldn't it be a good idea to have a spare or two around for when they do and we need one or two back up? I'd view this as a 'cost of doing business', not necessairly waste.
 
ichy said:
Part of me thinks this is extremely cool, although whatever genius decided to build two spy satellites for god knows how much money and then left them in a warehouse needs to be flogged. I hope NASA can scrape together the money to put them to good use.
Click to expand...
I think it's not just due to some idiot mistake that they have these. I read the article and in it, the NRO official refuses to say anything about why they even have the satellite. My guess is this. They have two of these suckers, not one, but two. Each is as big as hubble but shorter. I doubt that it was just idiocy that produced these. The most likely scenario I see is that they actually already have A LOT of these satellites already in service - at least 5-10 others. Having two extras hints that there are even more that were actually made and used. Hubble is an old design (20+ years) and it's just become so obsolete now (even the real Hubble was slated for decommissioning) that the national security agencies decided it was no longer a threat to give away these extra satellites they have.

The other possibility I see that that they were in the process of making these but then usage of drones skyrocketed in the last few years and they just don't need as many space based spy satellites anymore. Drones can take better pictures since they are closer to the target and there are so many drones how.
 
zephyrprime said:
I doubt that it was just idiocy that produced these.
Click to expand...

While I'm sure it's more complicated than just accidentally buying a few too many satellites, read up on the catastrophic FIA (Future Imaging Architecture) program if you want a great example of the NRO's capacity for idiocy.
 
Free? CNN is a joke. Hubble is already outdated and I hope that NASA will make major upgrades to those "reserve" telescopes before launching them (if its even worth it). If the money wouldn't been wasted this badly, NASA could have built the James Webb telescope sooner.
 
gevorg said:
Free? CNN is a joke. Hubble is already outdated and I hope that NASA will make major upgrades to those "reserve" telescopes before launching them (if its even worth it).
Click to expand...

Realistically it sounds like neither of those two satellites is going to get launched. NASA just gutted its planetary science program, it's not like they have a few hundred million dollars laying around.

From how they've been described the telescopes aren't outdated but NASA would still need to provide the actual cameras plus the money for launching (they'd probably need one of the larger versions of the Atlas V or a Delta IV Heavy) and operations. I don't know if they could recycle camera designs from the newest instruments on Hubble. This whole thing is a nice idea but I'll believe it when I see it.
 
gevorg said:
Free? CNN is a joke. Hubble is already outdated and I hope that NASA will make major upgrades to those "reserve" telescopes before launching them (if its even worth it). If the money wouldn't been wasted this badly, NASA could have built the James Webb telescope sooner.
Click to expand...

sell the spy scope chassis to russia out of spite :twisted:, use the cash to send up the webb telescope, which is practically finished.
 
PottedMeat said:
sell the spy scope chassis to russia out of spite :twisted:, use the cash to send up the webb telescope, which is practically finished.
Click to expand...

Russia have their own space telescopes, latest Radioastron and upcoming WSO-UV

although NASA can probably use Russia to send one of these Hubbles on the cheap, for like $50 mil a pop

they can also sell them to China/Japan

or place them in US museums for a low annual fee of $1 million, its free money :whiste:
 
I suspect that the NRO has assets far more advanced than the Webb.

Seems like a shame not to take advantage of these sats. For a fraction of new they can upgrade the components and get some serious observing done. Something which seems to be missed is that having one sat no matter how cutting edge is still one sat. The number of objects worthy of observation is always greater than that which can be studied. Put a chronograph on one of these and we have something the likes of which does not exist in scientific research, again for a fraction of the cost of building another. NASA may be gutted, but perhaps a private coalition can chip in to get 'er done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top