Page 12 of 12   << first < 10 11 12
Bookmark this page: Add TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT to Yahoo MyWeb Add TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT to Google Bookmarks Add TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT to Windows Live Add TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT to Del.icio.us Digg TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT! Add TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT to Netscape
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Wayne R. on February 25, 2009, 9:44 am


On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:07:15 -0800, seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org
(Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t ) wrote (with clarity & insight):

>> A very good article on this is available at:
>> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1314/1
> The main limitation on how many satellites can be screened by the US
> military is trained personnel, with computational resources and sensor
> network capacity being secondary and tertiary limitations. The
> computers do all the heavy calculations, but it is up to the human
> analyst to determine if the answer makes sense and is correct.
> Intimate knowledge of the numerical techniques behind this process is
> required, along with considerable experience with both conjunction
> analysis specifically and space surveillance in general.
> With rare exceptions, active duty military personnel do not develop
> the skills to perform this task. At most, they will be in a particular
> location for a three- or four-year tour and within that tour they are
> likely to have multiple jobs. The military promotions system demands
> incremental moves within a tour to various leadership, instructor, or
> evaluator positions to demonstrate suitability for promotion. Staying
> in the same job for an entire tour is considered evidence of someone
> who doesn't have "the right stuff" and is a potential death knell for
> any career. There is also a strong prejudice against analysts in the
> officer ranks. ...
>Suppose there was effective online (InterNet-based) training at
>this sort of thing. Suppose that lots of otherwise unemployed
>people were enticed (by offer of regular employment) into taking
>the training then working at the job, so that instead of a few
>highly paid military personnel who are shunned if they keep at the
>job long enough to become expert, we have millions of random people
>doing the work, with a way to determine who is doing the best work?
>Would that fix the problem?

One clear argument against farming out the work: No one wants the bad
guys to know when spy satellites are overhead.

But it's hard to know why they can't create some other scheme to
create, keep and reward people who are good at this work. Maybe they
will after more collisions, more debris and it's too late. Trapped on
the surface, no way out...

Posted by Steve Hall on February 25, 2009, 1:33 pm



>On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:07:15 -0800, seeWebInstead@rem.intarweb.org
>(Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t ) wrote (with clarity & insight):
>>> A very good article on this is available at:
>>> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1314/1
>> The main limitation on how many satellites can be screened by the US
>> military is trained personnel, with computational resources and sensor
>> network capacity being secondary and tertiary limitations. The
>> computers do all the heavy calculations, but it is up to the human
>> analyst to determine if the answer makes sense and is correct.
>> Intimate knowledge of the numerical techniques behind this process is
>> required, along with considerable experience with both conjunction
>> analysis specifically and space surveillance in general.
>> With rare exceptions, active duty military personnel do not develop
>> the skills to perform this task. At most, they will be in a particular
>> location for a three- or four-year tour and within that tour they are
>> likely to have multiple jobs. The military promotions system demands
>> incremental moves within a tour to various leadership, instructor, or
>> evaluator positions to demonstrate suitability for promotion. Staying
>> in the same job for an entire tour is considered evidence of someone
>> who doesn't have "the right stuff" and is a potential death knell for
>> any career. There is also a strong prejudice against analysts in the
>> officer ranks. ...
>>Suppose there was effective online (InterNet-based) training at
>>this sort of thing. Suppose that lots of otherwise unemployed
>>people were enticed (by offer of regular employment) into taking
>>the training then working at the job, so that instead of a few
>>highly paid military personnel who are shunned if they keep at the
>>job long enough to become expert, we have millions of random people
>>doing the work, with a way to determine who is doing the best work?
>>Would that fix the problem?
>One clear argument against farming out the work: No one wants the bad
>guys to know when spy satellites are overhead.
No need to tell the analysists what they're analyzing. It just two
potentially intersecting trajectories; could be a comms satellite,
could be a scientific satellite, could be debris from a previous
collision.

Posted by Roy Lewallen on February 25, 2009, 8:18 pm


Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
>> A very good article on this is available at:
>> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1314/1
>
> The main limitation on how many satellites can be screened by the US
> military is trained personnel, with computational resources and sensor
> network capacity being secondary and tertiary limitations. The
> computers do all the heavy calculations, but it is up to the human
> analyst to determine if the answer makes sense and is correct.
> Intimate knowledge of the numerical techniques behind this process is
> required, along with considerable experience with both conjunction
> analysis specifically and space surveillance in general.
>
> With rare exceptions, active duty military personnel do not develop
> the skills to perform this task. At most, they will be in a particular
> location for a three- or four-year tour and within that tour they are
> likely to have multiple jobs. The military promotions system demands
> incremental moves within a tour to various leadership, instructor, or
> evaluator positions to demonstrate suitability for promotion. Staying
> in the same job for an entire tour is considered evidence of someone
> who doesn't have "the right stuff" and is a potential death knell for
> any career. There is also a strong prejudice against analysts in the
> officer ranks. ...
> . . .

A lot of my customers are civilians working in various military
orgainzations, and my very occasional contacts with military
organizations indicates that there are still a lot of civilian employees
working side by side with active duty military personnel at virtually
all levels. Are you saying that analyzing space objects is restricted
for some reason to active duty military personnel only, unlike just
about any other military job except combat? If so, why?

Roy Lewallen

Posted by Runge13 on February 23, 2009, 4:57 pm


Great OT news, Jimmy Olsen !

> TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT
> -------------------------------
> In an unprecedented space collision, a commercial Iridium communications
> satellite and a presumably defunct Russian Cosmos satellite ran into each
> other Tuesday above northern Siberia, creating a cloud of wreckage,
> officials said today.
> http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0902/11iridium/


Posted by Gene E. Bloch on February 23, 2009, 9:00 pm


Note that the middle name of this NG is "satellite".

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:57:59 +0100, Runge13 wrote:

> Great OT news, Jimmy Olsen !
>
>> TWO SATELLITES COLLIDE IN ORBIT
>> -------------------------------
>> In an unprecedented space collision, a commercial Iridium communications
>> satellite and a presumably defunct Russian Cosmos satellite ran into each
>> other Tuesday above northern Siberia, creating a cloud of wreckage,
>> officials said today.
>> http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0902/11iridium/


--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

Page 12 of 12   << first < 10 11 12
Related Posts
  • Subject
  • Posted In
  • Date