[GZG] Re: Gzg-l Digest, Vol 11, Issue 26

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lUAVs and satellites
fulfill different functions.  Also, are we talking geosynchronous
(spelling) satellites?

gzg-l-request@lists.csua.berkeley.edu wrote:	 <snip>

Beth wrote on 03/07/2006 11:24:18 PM:

> G'day,
>
<snip infinite money question>
> 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!)

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?
  
 
  Glenn:  No Comment on that one except it  varies by the UAV I
"suppose."
  
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
  
 
  Glenn: But if you need to know exactly where you and/or another
'object' are then one solution is GPS.	Since there will be several
systems up shortly in Earth's orbit it seems reasonable to use that
although fixed point inertial guidance can work when you aren't trying
to be doing any extremely precise 'deliveries' - according to
unconfirmed open sources of course.  Note that precision and accuracy
are not always the same thing.

Gracias,
   
  Glenn Wilson