From: Adrian Johnson <ajohnson@i...>
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 20:26:28 -0500
Subject: [GZG] Interesting?
Check out this piece: http://www.aviationweek.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03 0606p1.xml
[GZG] Interesting?
From: Beth Fulton <beth.fulton@m...>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 16:24:18 +1100
Subject: RE: [GZG] Interesting?
G'day, Would they really have shelved it for money reasons or because they've already got something better? Also on a similar topic. With UAVs now able to stay up so long are satellites losing their military relevance? (No idea myself that's why I'm asking!) Beth [quoted original message omitted]
From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:44:12 -0600
Subject: RE: [GZG] Interesting?
Beth wrote on 03/07/2006 11:24:18 PM: > G'day, Now, Beth, you know, given the way these things work, it could be far more complicated, and perhaps even just plain dumb. Some particular project manager falls out of favor, some particular state's representative loses the pork barrel power, some particular pentagon planner has a 'change of vision'... Some basic cost/benefit analysis chart dipped below a particular threshold; if the underlying data assumptions didn't tend to be too complicated to follow, they wouldn't have need the chart in the first place. ;->= See? Mundanes can speculate with the best of 'em. > Also on a similar topic. With UAVs now able to stay up so long are Certainly sounds like a probability for some missions, but I assumed there were still missions, such as large area, continuous monitoring, that the satellite was still the way to go. Does anyone know if this is a debate that's come up? I don't have access to a lot of literature, but what I do see doesn't mention it. Also, don't the UAV's need satellites for support, especially for GPS? This seems to support my contentions, as well as suggesting the satellites are necessary to handle the UAV bandwidth requirements: http://www.northernskyresearch.com/ISR-June2005.pdf I am now officially over my head. The_Beast
From: Inire <inire@y...>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 11:36:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [GZG] Interesting?
AvLeak does it again...very interesting! > --- Adrian <adrian@stargrunt.ca> wrote: > Check out this piece: http://www.aviationweek.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03 0606p1.xml > _______________________________________________ http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l > [quoted text omitted] Jeff "My dice hate me!" Fearnow Gaming to keep War out of RealTime! "'DESTROY THE WITNESSES!!. Chaffing aside, I have no answer: I Excrete Sour Cream!" www.wigu.com, 29 Jan 2003 DR650SM "Recon Viggie"/DOD#1890 Seen Serenity yet? http://www.serenitymovie.com
From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:20:49 -0600
Subject: Re: [GZG] Interesting?
Inrie wrote on 03/08/2006 01:36:18 PM:
> AvLeak does it again...very interesting!
*shrug* Dunno; the chum on the net seems pretty skeptical, assuming that isn't
a campaign of disinformation ("Talk about silly conspiracy
theories..." -Wayne Schlitt). ;->=
The_Beast
From: Mike Stanczyk <stanczyk@p...>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 13:37:38 -0700 (MST)
Subject: RE: [GZG] Interesting?
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006 Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote: > Also on a similar topic. With UAVs now able to stay up so long are It's mission dependent from what I've heard. As others have said on the list, satelliets are still better for long time monitoring and other missions. And can someone tell me how many UAV's have been shot down over Iraq and Afganastan? I've heard news reports of at least two but no idea on the latest number. No one has claimed responsibility for shooting down a satellite yet. ;-)