Article View: sci.space
Article #7496Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
From: Gary Coffman
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:03
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:03
49 lines
3193 bytes
3193 bytes
In article <ewright.726514832@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: >In <1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: > >>It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them >>quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine. > >Microsats are incapable of replacing photorecon satellites. The >laws of physics prevent it. To get adequate resolution, you need >a large mirror (or large radar). Black programs use the same laws >of physics as everybody else. Yes they do, and synthetic aperture arrays at optical frequencies are discussed in the open literature. Electro-optics is one of the most sensitive technologies that the US government regulates. A technique has to be fairly old hat before researchers can talk about it openly. One way of generating a synthetic aperture is to rapidly move a single sensor. LEO satellites come ready made for this technique, and the computer power to put the image together is getting cheaper and cheaper. >>Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons >>against allied forces in Desert Storm? > >Not because he was afraid someone would say something bad about >him at a UN cocktail party. > >Hint: the people who planned the initial airstrikes were not >complete idiots. In fact they were very good, but they still couldn't silence the SCUD launchers, and large stocks of chemical weapons were discovered and ordered destroyed by UN teams *after* the war. I think Saddam would have used gas if he thought he could get away with it. After all, he used it against the Kurds. I think he didn't use gas for the same reason no nation would voluntarily escalate to nuclear warfare against a nuclear armed foe. If he'd used gas on Israel, Israel would have used some of her atomic weapons on Iraq. Using gas on US troops would have been slightly less risky, since the US probably wouldn't have answered with gas or nukes, but the US had enough conventional firepower to level Iraq without resorting to those weapons, and could have done so if sufficiently provoked. Saddam was reduced to using the gas as a bluff that failed when it was called. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan10.170329.24852@ke4zv.uucp>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!kd4nc!ke4zv!garyReferences:
<1992Dec17.1 <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov> <1992Dec24.022440.27944@ke4zv.u <1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu> <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> <1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu> <ewright.726514832@convex.convex.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.space Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use) Message-ID: <1993Jan10.170329.24852@ke4zv.uucp> Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) Organization: Destructive Testing Systems References: <1992Dec17.1 <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov> <1992Dec24.022440.27944@ke4zv.u <1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu> <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> <1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu> <ewright.726514832@convex.convex.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:03:29 GMT Lines: 49