Any guess on the origin of the "aerial photographs" shown in his address?
Quote from: hoku on 07/01/2023 12:54 pmAny guess on the origin of the "aerial photographs" shown in his address? SR-71. I have a vague recollection that it was a special flight ordered to gather imagery for this purpose.
A GAO report on the Homing Overlay Experiment. HOE was tested in 1983 and 1984 and the last test was successful. In 1993, information became available indicating that the Army made the target much more detectable in order to produce a successful test (i.e. they cheated). There were allegations that the Army had lied to Congress about this. The GAO report found that although there was a "deception" effort associated with the program, it did not happen for the fourth test.<...>
LACE/RMEDelta 180 VSEDelta 182 TVEDelta 183 Delta-StarMSXMSTI(s)StarlabStarbirdAFP-675 CIRRISSKIRTCLEMENTINE
Quote from: Jim on 07/10/2023 02:47 pmLACE/RMEDelta 180 VSEDelta 182 TVEDelta 183 Delta-StarMSXMSTI(s)StarlabStarbirdAFP-675 CIRRISSKIRTCLEMENTINE Thanks for that list. Should it include LOSAT-X?https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2700/1
... and for context, here are the YouTube links to Reagan's pre-briefing announcement of SDI to "High Levels Defense officials", followed by his "Address to the Nation", both on March 23, 1983:Any guess on the origin of the "aerial photographs" shown in his address?
Quote from: hoku on 07/01/2023 12:54 pm... and for context, here are the YouTube links to Reagan's pre-briefing announcement of SDI to "High Levels Defense officials", followed by his "Address to the Nation", both on March 23, 1983:Any guess on the origin of the "aerial photographs" shown in his address? The aerial photographs of Cuba, Grenada, and Nicaragua you mention were taken by the SR-71 Blackbird in the early 1980s.
While not an official report this 2003 history seminar on the UK's response to SDI is fascinating:https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/assets/icbh-witness/sdi.pdf
Quote from: LittleBird on 07/10/2023 08:08 amWhile not an official report this 2003 history seminar on the UK's response to SDI is fascinating:https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/assets/icbh-witness/sdi.pdfAaron Bateman's upcoming book is going to delve into this in greater detail. He has information on how Thatcher and her government responded to SDI. Naturally it was complicated. Thatcher was interested in cooperating for several reasons, not necessarily because she shared Reagan's vision for SDI. But maintaining a good relationship with the United States and access to American technology and particularly intelligence information was important to Thatcher.Thatcher was much more in favor of cooperating with the United States on missile defense, but she had members of her government who were opposed and who actively sought to undermine her. A few weeks ago I heard a former UK scientist who was involved in the work say that he had been told by a senior government official to not do what the prime minister had ordered.
https://thespacereview.com/article/4622/1Smashing satellites as part of the Delta 180 Strategic Defense Initiative missionby Dwayne A. DayMonday, July 17, 2023<snip>The program was named Vector Sum.
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/17/2023 11:45 pmhttps://thespacereview.com/article/4622/1Smashing satellites as part of the Delta 180 Strategic Defense Initiative missionby Dwayne A. DayMonday, July 17, 2023<snip>The program was named Vector Sum.Isn't a codename supposed to obfuscate the purpose of a project? Who came up with the idea to choose Vector Sum, which is a most concise description of the function of an interceptor vehicle, for this (secret SDI) program?
Quote from: hoku on 07/18/2023 02:04 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 07/17/2023 11:45 pmhttps://thespacereview.com/article/4622/1Smashing satellites as part of the Delta 180 Strategic Defense Initiative missionby Dwayne A. DayMonday, July 17, 2023<snip>The program was named Vector Sum.Isn't a codename supposed to obfuscate the purpose of a project? Who came up with the idea to choose Vector Sum, which is a most concise description of the function of an interceptor vehicle, for this (secret SDI) program? I believe it is not a real code word
https://thespacereview.com/article/4622/1Smashing satellites as part of the Delta 180 Strategic Defense Initiative missionby Dwayne A. DayMonday, July 17, 2023<snip>What discussions about the test took place within the White House before and after the test, and how did they affect policy?
Somewhat surprising (at least to me) the official briefing by Lt Gen Abrahamson to the president on the "technically significant results" of Delta 180 (and plans for 181) did not take place before March 1987, i.e. 6+ months after the flight of Delta 180.
Quote from: Blackstar on 07/10/2023 03:36 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/10/2023 02:47 pmLACE/RMEDelta 180 VSEDelta 182 TVEDelta 183 Delta-StarMSXMSTI(s)StarlabStarbirdAFP-675 CIRRISSKIRTCLEMENTINE Thanks for that list. Should it include LOSAT-X?https://www.thespacereview.com/article/2700/1I forgot about that one.
"SDIO Data Center Overview" has a complete(?) list of experiments (including air and ground-based experiments/facilities) as of Jan 1991. The doc also has info on where the data were (or were to be) archived, and a few (badly scanned) pages with sample data.
63428F Space Surveillance Technology SBSSIn fiscal year 1976, the Space Infrared Sensor Program and the early phases of the SBSS Program were initiated. During its conceptual phase, SBSS had been referred to as Deep Space Surveillance Satellite or Low Altitude Surveillance Satellite.(28)The 1977 Hysat Study, a part of the Deep Space Surveillance System program (DSSS), was sponsored by the USAF Space & Missile Systems Organization. Fairchild investigated the applicability of nuclear radioisotope heat sources for this mission. The rather sizable electrical power requirement (1500-3500 watts (e)) is provided by rollup solar arrays, alongside or atop the spacecraft, and attached to the upper body.(29)The Space Based Surveillance System (SBSS) concept, which called for the deployment of four satellites in equatorial orbits at an altitude of 1100 kilometers, with the possibility of additional satellites in inclined orbits for polar coverage. The satellites were to be launched by the Shuttle using the Inertial Upper Stage, and have a design life of five years.
In the late 1960s, ARPA and the Air Force SAMSO had very ambitious goals for space-based infrared surveillance and a succession of Air Force company grade officers pushed thetechnology and flight tests. At ARPA, Maj. Bob Paulson provided Project 1366 funds toSAMSO for the Autonetics Stellar Radiation Sensor and the Hughes HI STAR telescopes and toAFCRL to fly them. At SAMSO, Capt. Ted Jenks directed the Autonetics SRS effort whileCapt. Bill Crabtree did the same for the Hughes HI STAR sensors. The SRS and HI STARprovided the technical demonstration for the first proposed operational infrared surveillancesystem, the Deep Space Surveillance System (DSSS), which was to fly by the end of the 1970’s.However, a satellite demonstration was needed and SAMSO took the initial steps in 1971 byflying two celestial mapping satellites. The Autonetics Celestial InfraRed Mapper (CIRM) wasan analog of the SRS except that it had a two color infrared focal plane and was cooled by a largesuper-critical helium cryostat. This experiment was launched on 6 June 1971 and surveyed 38%of the sky during its brief 138 minute mission. Unfortunately, cross-talk from the attitudecontrol system into the sensor electronics limited the observations to the very brightest infraredsources. The Hughes HI STAR class Celestial Mapping Program (CMP) instrument was insertedinto a sun-synchronous 793 km altitude circular orbit on 17 October 1971 on what was plannedto be a long duration experiment as the sensor was cooled by a closed cycle Viulleumier cooler.However, two problems arose that compromised performance and lifetime. A higher priorityexperiment on the payload required that the satellite be oriented such that the CMP sensorscanned parallel to the Earth’s horizon rather than through the zenith as preferred. The photonbackground from off-axis Earth radiation in that configuration reduced sensitivity. The highpriority package was to operate for the first several weeks and then emphasis was to shift toCMP and zenith scans. Unfortunately, the cryocooler flex lines across the scan gimbal began toleak after two weeks in orbit and CMP only obtained three orbits of data early in the mission.Although SAMSO considered CIRM and CMP as failures and the problems with the CMPcryocooler put a taint on mechanical low temperature coolers that lasted for decades, CMP didobtain redundant coverage in two infrared spectral bands on about as much sky (82%) as HISTAR and HI STAR South combined and demonstrated the feasibility of infrared space-basedsurveillance from an orbital platform. Holman, Smith and Autio (1976) also used the CMP datato demonstrate that particle radiation was not an insurmountable barrier to space-based infraredastronomy missions (see also McCarthy and Autio, 1978).
To me one interesting aspect is how much "iceberg" there was already "underwater, i.e. pre existing R&D in the 70s and 80s *before* Reagan's speech. Bears on the question of the balance between Teller and co's X ray lasers, and other technologies which may have actually been both more mature and far more consequential.
Quote from: LittleBird on 10/22/2023 06:49 pmTo me one interesting aspect is how much "iceberg" there was already "underwater", i.e. pre existing R&D in the 70s and 80s *before* Reagan's speech. Bears on the question of the balance between Teller and co's X ray lasers, and other technologies which may have actually been both more mature and far more consequential.I think that uncovering this would be really difficult. You'd have to go deep into the technical literature and understand it, and do a lot of interviews to figure out how the improvements in sensor technology happened. And a lot of that stuff would be classified. It might be doable for somebody working inside the field, like a DoD historian. It could be interesting stuff, but it's probably a topic that is never going to be really explored for that reason.
To me one interesting aspect is how much "iceberg" there was already "underwater", i.e. pre existing R&D in the 70s and 80s *before* Reagan's speech. Bears on the question of the balance between Teller and co's X ray lasers, and other technologies which may have actually been both more mature and far more consequential.
Patented yes, Yoda was.
Thanks for the interesting article - this story has many facets indeed! But really, they couldn't come up with anything better than "SSS", "ANDES", and "ANDI" when they thought about rebranding "SDI"?
https://thespacereview.com/article/4874/1Ronald Reagan and a goal far, far away: Star Wars and the Strategic Defense Initiative in Simi Valleyby Dwayne A. DayMonday, October 14, 2024<snip>Critics of SDI pointed out that the Soviets could easily build more missiles and add decoys to their existing weapons, swamping the defensive shield. The Soviets could also engage in other deceptive practices and alternative weapons, like cruise missiles. None of these options available to the Soviets required new technological breakthroughs, although somewhat bizarrely, the Soviets sought to develop entirely new anti-satellite systems to destroy SDI weapons. <snip>After the end of the Cold War, it became clear that the Soviet threat was exaggerated and misunderstood. The mere fact that the superpower Reagan warned about so alarmingly in the early 1980s crumbled so easily within a decade demonstrated that Soviet might had been overestimated, including by the Soviets themselves.
So were the critics right, or might some version of SDI actually have worked quite well (thanks due to the Soviet's underwhelming capabilities and technology)?
The Soviets had by the 1980's close from 40 000 nukes. Admittedly, not all of them MIRV on ICBMs.
Quote from: Spiceman on 10/16/2024 06:55 pmThe Soviets had by the 1980's close from 40 000 nukes. Admittedly, not all of them MIRV on ICBMs."Not all" is a huge understatement. They probably never had more than about 10,000 deliverable ICBM warheads at any time.
https://thespacereview.com/article/4874/1Ronald Reagan and a goal far, far away: Star Wars and the Strategic Defense Initiative in Simi Valleyby Dwayne A. DayMonday, October 14, 2024<snip> In the 1990s, some claimed that SDI led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, although Soviet defense expenditures were so high even by the 1970s—up to 20% of their government budget—that they were effectively bankrupting the country, and there is little evidence that the Soviets substantially increased spending to respond to SDI.
The Soviets had by the 1980's close from 40 000 nukes. Admittedly, not all of them MIRV on ICBMs. But, at such numbers, only 0.1 percent of 40 000 is still 40 nukes. At 10 megatons each, that 400 megatons. For
Quote from: Jorge on 10/16/2024 07:01 pmQuote from: Spiceman on 10/16/2024 06:55 pmThe Soviets had by the 1980's close from 40 000 nukes. Admittedly, not all of them MIRV on ICBMs."Not all" is a huge understatement. They probably never had more than about 10,000 deliverable ICBM warheads at any time.Given how expensive it is to maintain those warheads (half-lifetime of Tritium, etc.), and that the Soviet warheads reportedly had a much shorter shelf life than the US ones, 10,000 deliverable ICBM warheads must have been one of the major drags on their economy. Thus maybe the following claim had some merit after all?Quote from: Blackstar on 10/15/2024 01:47 pmhttps://thespacereview.com/article/4874/1Ronald Reagan and a goal far, far away: Star Wars and the Strategic Defense Initiative in Simi Valleyby Dwayne A. DayMonday, October 14, 2024<snip> In the 1990s, some claimed that SDI led to the downfall of the Soviet Union, although Soviet defense expenditures were so high even by the 1970s—up to 20% of their government budget—that they were effectively bankrupting the country, and there is little evidence that the Soviets substantially increased spending to respond to SDI.
Quote from: hoku on 10/16/2024 06:05 pmSo were the critics right, or might some version of SDI actually have worked quite well (thanks due to the Soviet's underwhelming capabilities and technology)?I think the critics were right. The number of Soviet reentry vehicles was in the thousands, every single one of them with a nuke. As I noted in the article, 99% successful intercepts would still result in a few dozen nukes hitting US soil.
Nukes was one thing, but look at what has been happening in just the past two years in Ukraine and the Middle East. Missile defenses aren't perfect, but imagine the alternative if these conventional munition missile barrages had gone unopposed. Someone was right to clamor for missile defense R&D back then, I think, even if it worked out differently than then-expected. - Ed Kyle