DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Space » Army to Launch Sats After 50 Year Lull

Army to Launch Sats After 50 Year Lull

FL_minotaur_042808.jpg

The U.S. Army plans to build and launch into orbit a con­stel­la­tion of satel­lites for the first time in roughly 50 years. And it plans to build the clus­ter of eight minia­ture com­mu­ni­ca­tions satel­lites within as lit­tle as nine months, defense offi­cials told Military​.com.

The roughly $5 mil­lion effort is part of the Army’s com­mit­ment to what is known as Operationally Responsive Space. The joint pro­gram, based at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M., was cre­ated in May 2007 after years of vig­or­ous prod­ding by Congress to get the U.S. mil­i­tary to change how it con­ceives of, builds and flies satellites.

For the Army, this is “a pathfinder project to ful­fill an urgent need for beyond line of sight com­mu­ni­ca­tions capa­bil­ity,” said James Lee, chief of strat­egy and pol­icy for Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala.

Lee’s office set up a task force in March to decide how the Army should tackle the deploy­ment of space assets. And the money for the service’s satel­lite effort is com­ing from Army cof­fers, Lee added.

The require­ment for the bantam-​​weight sats — which mea­sure about 30 inches square and weigh around five pounds — was gen­er­ated by a com­bat­ant com­man­der whom Lee declined to iden­tify. But you can get some idea who it is by the mis­sion he described for the so-​​called “cubesats.”

The satel­lites should pro­vide com­mu­ni­ca­tions for Army units below the brigade level oper­at­ing in parts of the world where the mil­i­tary has no cur­rent secure satel­lite com­mu­ni­ca­tions, such as Africa, Lee explained.

The only ser­vices avail­able in those regions come from com­mer­cial ven­dors, he said, and they’re often not American-​​owned.

In addi­tion to pro­vid­ing needed com­mu­ni­ca­tions links, the effort would also help build the Army’s over­all space capa­bil­i­ties, Lee said.

“We feel it’s impor­tant to have expe­ri­ence at an engi­neer­ing level to build space capa­bil­i­ties, even if it’s a sim­ple as a cube­sat,” he said. Army engi­neers will work along­side design­ers from a Huntsville-​​based com­pany called MilTec, which will build the first six satel­lites. Space and Missile Defense Command will build the last two.

“We believe we have the exper­tise but many of our sci­en­tists don’t have hands-​​on expe­ri­ence,” Lee said.

All eight satel­lites will be launched together, either on a Minotaur or Falcon rocket. Minotaur, a four-​​stage solid fuel rocket that uses decom­mis­sioned Minuteman mis­sile rocket motors, is built by Orbital Sciences Corp. The Falcon 1 is built by PayPal mil­lion­aire Elon Musk’s SpaceX Company.

The Minotaur has flown seven times and the Falcon has launched twice but has not suc­cess­fully lofted a pay­load into orbit.

The satel­lites will fly either in a swarm or will be flown in a loose for­ma­tion. And Lee said the Army wants mem­bers of its space cadre to do the flying.

A senior Defense Department offi­cial who tracks space pro­grams was sup­port­ive of the Army’s plans, call­ing the move “great news.” And in a sign of just how much the Air Force has dom­i­nated space sys­tems and oper­a­tions, the offi­cial noted that, “a lit­tle com­pe­ti­tion never hurt anyone.”

And Lee was care­ful to avoid offense: “We don’t really want to replace the Navy or the Air Force.” But with today’s strate­gic real­i­ties, and the lim­ited resources cur­rently avail­able in orbit, the Army wants to make sure it plays its part.

– Colin Clark

Share |

April 28th, 2008 | Space | 281315 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/04/28/army-to-launch-sats-after-50-year-lull/Army+to+Launch+Sats+After+50+Year+Lull2008-04-28+17%3A21%3A31Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « MEDIA WARFARE — Hacking Live Television | What About this Army Satellite Business? » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. ak says:
    April 28, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    Given the extreme depen­dance on main­tain­ing con­stant com­mu­ni­ca­tions these days, a bit of redun­dancy with this new sys­tem is a good thing regard­less of how many toes it might tread on.

    Reply
  2. Shamus62 says:
    April 28, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    God for­bid the Army pro­vides for Joe to com­mu­ni­cate at the expense of the Air Forces reputation.$5 mil­lion? Thats like a seat cush­ion in the F-​​22 right?

    Reply
  3. Dennis says:
    April 28, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Is I just me or would they be doing this because the AirForce has cre­ated a bunch of Know-​​it-​​all Generals who do not respond to the needs of the other ser­vices?
    So much for “Playbing well with others.….”

    Reply
  4. Dennis says:
    April 28, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Is I just me or would they be doing this because the AirForce has cre­ated a bunch of Know-​​it-​​all Generals who do not respond to the needs of the other ser­vices?
    So much for “Playing well with others.….”

    Reply
  5. CTR1(SW) says:
    April 28, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    I was active Navy for over eleven years. Then, later, I was in the Army NG for a year. The mem­bers of these two ser­vices have rad­i­cally dif­fer­ent thought processes founded in their rad­i­cally dif­fer­ent mis­sions. This is the dom­i­nant rea­son I left the ANG.
    My point: While an Air Force gen­eral may “know” that an Army unit needs com­mu­ni­ca­tions in some out-​​of-​​the-​​way loca­tion. It would take some con­vinc­ing for me to believe that he would fully appre­ci­ate all of the nuances of that need.
    Besides, where is it writ­ten that only the Air Force con­trols space? Where is it writ­ten that the Army is the only ser­vice to be denied access to space? In 1947, when the mod­ern tasks for the ser­vices was defined, no one was in space and space is not men­tioned in those def­i­n­i­tions.
    Perhaps it is time for the Army to bring their unique view and pur­pose to the “final fron­tier.“
    Certainly a small clus­ter of eight com­mu­ni­ca­tion satel­lites is hardly a major rev­o­lu­tion against the cur­rent paradyme.

    Reply
  6. stephen russell says:
    April 28, 2008 at 9:32 pm

    We need backup & the Army should since it does know Battlefield mis­siles any­way.
    Why not have another Launch source vs the AF.
    Army can launch sup­port vehi­cles while the AF shoots up the Big ones etc.

    Reply
  7. Chiki says:
    April 28, 2008 at 10:09 pm

    This is actu­ally a very good step from the army con­sid­er­ing the crit­i­cism of too much reliance on satelites for day to day mil­i­tary activ­i­ties. The best thing about these satelites is that they are CHEAP and SIMPLE mean­ing that if one or more were to fail its not a major break down in your capa­bil­ity to wage war, either rely on the back up satelites already up there or launch some new ones.
    A great response to a spe­cific coun­tries announce­ment that they can shoot down satelites now, because this says that, as far as the army is con­cerned, the satelites are not the weak link in the chain any more, if one or more were to be lost its will no longer have the dramitic effect on army offen­sive capa­bilites as before.

    Reply
  8. Byron Skinner says:
    April 28, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Good Evening Guys,
    Good for the Army, cheate satel­lites that pro­vide data and com­mu­ni­ca­tions at the sub-​​battalion lev­els.
    Like close air sup­port the AF wants to dic­tate to the troops on the ground. As long as the pen­ta­gon gets there daily ration of war pic­tures thats all that impor­tant.
    The squad and pla­toon lead­ers who can’t talk to each other in built up areas because Harris Communications who build their AN/​PRC 117C and 119’s won’t build sets that work beyond 6Km. and are NLOS.
    ALLONS,
    Btron Skinner

    Reply
  9. Rix says:
    April 28, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    eight sats, five mil­lion dol­lars. Five mil­lion. That’s prob­a­bly an order of mag­ni­tude less than it would cost to shoot all of them down. Sounds like a win­ning pro­gram to me.

    Reply
  10. Pan says:
    April 29, 2008 at 6:31 am

    Cheap, replen­ish­able microsats are the way to go. The Air Force and NRO model of expen­sive, one of a kind satel­lite are a drain on resources, and offer noth­ing for surge replen­ish­ment capa­bil­i­ties if they are lost.

    Reply
  11. DC2 Jennings says:
    April 29, 2008 at 8:55 am

    Why not, the Army has a Navy too. They must be know it alls.
    DC2

    Reply
  12. RTO says:
    April 29, 2008 at 10:00 pm

    Skinner,
    Careful or you’re going to reveal your igno­rance to every­one instead of just the 25C/​2841/​2E1X3 MOS’s. I’ll save you the time. You don’t know what the hell you’re talk­ing about.

    Reply
  13. Bill says:
    May 8, 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Is the pro­gram being man­aged out of Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M (Operationally Responsive Space) or out of Huntsville (SMDC)?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage