RE: [GZG] Interesting?

[Doug Evans <devans@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

> G'day,
>
> Would they really have shelved it for money reasons or
> because they've
> already got something better?

Now, Beth, you know, given the way these things work, it could be far more
complicated, and perhaps even just plain dumb. Some particular project
manager falls out of favor, some particular state's representative loses
the pork barrel power, some particular pentagon planner has a 'change of
vision'...

Some basic cost/benefit analysis chart dipped below a particular threshold;
if the underlying data assumptions didn't tend to be too complicated to
follow, they wouldn't have need the chart in the first place. ;->=

See? Mundanes can speculate with the best of 'em.

> 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?

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

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l