blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/that-satellite.html
perhaps the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects," The New York Times once wrote. FIA was originally supposed to be a constellation of satellites using electro-optical and radar sensors to "gather clearer and more-frequent images -- even at night and when there is a cloud cover -- of enemy military activity than current satellites can," the Los Angeles Times notes.
won the FIA contract, back in 1999, it was something of a coup. Lockheed was the country's big satellite builder, not Boeing. As the Los Angeles Times observes, the company "had little experience manufacturing satellites with optical lenses that can take close-up pictures from space of objects on the ground." So it's not surprising that Boeing's technology just plain didn't work.
optical engineers working on the project said it could not be built," The New York Times writes. "Engineers constructing a radar-imaging unit at the core of the other satellite could not initially produce the unusually strong radar signal that was planned." A torrent of defective parts, like gyroscopes and electric cables, repeatedly stalled work. Even an elementary rule of spacecraft construction -- never use tin because it deforms in space and can short-circuit electronic components -- was violated by parts suppliers... "The FIA contract was technically flawed and unexecutable the day it was signed," said Robert J Hermann, who ran the National Reconnaissance Office from 1979 to 1981 and in 1996 led the panel that first recommended creation of a new satellite system. Boeing started burning through cash and dropping deadlines.
By 2005, an independent review board said propping up FIA "would require another $5 billion -- raising the ante to $18 billion -- and five more years," The New York Times notes. After spending $10 billion on FIA, including about $4 or $5 billion in cost overruns -- the government finally had enough, taking the project away from Boeing, and giving it to Lockheed.
Feb 20, 2008 10:08:30 AM I've heard tell that Lock-Mart's contract was for upwards of $300 million for this particular sat. It's sort of ironic that the Navy is also paying Lock-Mart for the three SM-3 missiles to be used to break it up, to the tune of $10 mil each.
Feb 20, 2008 10:57:48 AM You sure you got the right illustration for FIA bird? I thought one goal was a low profile, minimal sq ft panel area. This looks more like ACeS, Thuraya or other cellphone birds.
Future Headline: Navy misses rogue satellite and destroys GPS satellite by mistake causing world wide Panic! Terror level elevated to Black just like the color of the bloated bodies of the dead victims of the poisonous satellite!
Feb 20, 2008 2:27:51 PM And the best line in the entire piece (Sorry, Noah, you couldn't out-do this one): Even an elementary rule of spacecraft construction -- never use tin because it deforms in space and can short-circuit electronic components -- was violated by parts suppliers... and the American people will laugh and shrug and children in Illinois will die because the Fed thinks wasting $50 million dollars on this is a better idea than supporting our nation's inner cities.
Feb 20, 2008 7:51:11 PM I'd posted earlier suspecting what kind of evil they were trying to cover up shooting it down. Now it's obvious, the grotesque mechanical and technical blunders that were allowed into space in the first place...
Feb 21, 2008 6:21:10 AM The general consensus of those around me is that the goverment wants it shot down to protect the technology on the sat. It strikes me as funny, if this is true, because based on this article that highlights how poorly it was designed, maybe we should let another country pick it up and let them reverse engineer our "technology" to use in their own sat's.
Feb 21, 2008 7:40:56 AM Judging from the content of this article and the comments that follow, I think my browser has been hijacked over to the web site of Code Pink.
Feb 21, 2008 7:52:29 AM One more part of the not so great, but unspoken "Regan Legacy." Another unspoken Regan Legacy is that our educational system has been so degraded, its not very likely we are going to have the engineering resources in coming generations, to do a better job than this one. Isn't that where conservative economic logic has taken us?
|
http://csua.com/feed/