<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 s!
upport,
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.