Why Obama doesn’t want to defeat ISIS

Loading

isis and global warning

 

Never let a good crisis go to waste.

Some time ago I wrote that Barack Obama’s foreign policy for the remainder of his regime tenure was going to be sweep everything under the rug and leave the mess for his successor. It’s largely true, now I realize how horribly cynical it really is.

Remember when, in the face of the JV ISIS, getting repeatedly humiliated by Putin, being hacked by the Chinese, Barack Obama declared that the biggest threat we face is climate change?

What President Barack Obama described as the greatest threat to future generations was neither terrorism nor ISIS. It wasn’t nuclear weapons in rogue states either.

“No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama in his State of the Union speech Tuesday.

His statement was met with scattered, muted applause.The United States should lead in international efforts to protect “the one planet we’ve got,” he said.

The general reaction was incredulity. And rightly so.

There is more than a faint hint of rat on the nose. I properly presume that anything Obama says is a lie and generally is a set-up for something else.

ISIS?

Caused by climate change.

Syrian refugees?

They’re climate refugees.

Picking up a pattern here? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? It’s already established that climate change causes more snow, less snow, more hot days, colder winters, greater frequency of stronger hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, more tornados and fewer tornados, loss of Antarctic ice and the growth of Antarctic ice. And we’ve seen that the Arctic has been ice-free since 2013. On top of all of that, climate will lead to less sex.

Now it has a strong interaction with the geopolitical theater.

Yes, the Syrian refugee flight is not cause by ISIS or war. It’s all about climate change, and Angel Merkel has jumped onto the non-stop Looney Tune Central train. Climate change causes refugee flight via drought, except when causing it by too much water.
Drought:

Drawing one of the strongest links yet between global warming and human conflict, researchers said Monday that an extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that the drought was a factor in the violent uprising that began there in 2011.

The drought was the worst in the country in modern times, and in a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists laid the blame for it on a century-long trend toward warmer and drier conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than on natural climate variability.

Drench:

This immense human tragedy also affirms the significance of a recent study in the journal Nature, regarding climate change and sea level rise. The study concludes that unless we limit global temperatures to 1.5 to two degrees Celsius above present levels, the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet will cause unstoppable sea level rise that will continue for hundreds to thousands of years.

Angel Merkel of Germany is so bent on destroying her country by flooding it with refugees that she’s leading it toward civil war. She’s on board with the climate change conspiracy and only cutting emissions is going to stop ISIS and the refugee flood. Rat grows from a faint hint to a clear odor. The odor rapidly grows into a puerile stench with the addition of one George Soros. Soros asserts the problem with the world is national borders:

Soros said in an e-mailed statement that a six-point plan published by his foundation helps “uphold European values” while Orban’s actions “undermine those values.”

“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” he said in the statement. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”

Obama’s attitude toward our national borders is much the same. The plan now is clear. Obama’s pathetic and tepid response to ISIS is part of an extortionist scheme. Climate change is the wedge issue if we’re going to even discuss ISIS. If America wants ISIS stopped then it has to address climate change on Obama’s terms. After all, according to Obama climate change is a bigger threat than is ISIS. ISIS could have been crushed early on. Obama allowed ISIS to grow, thinking of ISIS as a means to further his ends.

I think Merkel has lost her mind over this. I think she too underestimated the magnitude of the Muslim refugee problem and now it has overwhelmed her. The sands in her hourglass are disappearing.

It’s unbelievable.

Crush ISIS and the refugee flood stops, but that’s not what Obama wants. If ISIS is allowed to continue, Obama gets to continue his efforts to “fundamentally transform” the demographics of this nation, especially diminishing the influence of the white Christian population.

ISIS is a direct threat to our nation. It’s going to take boots on the ground to crush them. It’s going to take a strong American leader to cobble together a coalition to utterly destroy them, and that is what is necessary, and what is entirely doable. It’s is absolutely not going to happen under a President who can’t even say “Islamic terrorist.”  I’ll address this in a separate post, but if it turns out that ISIS took down that Russian airliner, it’s not just Russia’s problem. It’s ours too. This idiot President cannot be gone too soon. The ante may have just upped- to the house limit.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
94 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Ditto, #46:

The vast majority of surveillance-specific satellites are geostationary spacecraft, which means they are parked in an orbit covering a specific portion of the Earth.

I’m not certain that is so. Geosynchronous orbit requires satellites to be positioned 22,000 miles above the earth. That’s a long way up for high resolution still photography, which would require relatively large optical components at such a distance. Video would be impossible without a very large light gathering component. While we likely have a few geosynchronous optical spy satellites, I would think most surveillance satellites are still in relatively low orbits for high-resolution photography. An advantage of low earth orbit is the short orbital period. In a polar orbit, the view of a single satellite will progressively take in much of the earth’s surface as the earth rotates perpendicular to the satellite’s orbital path. You cut the time before any given point again comes into view by having an array of satellites.

It’s hard to know much more than what can be deduced from known technology, of course. I’m speculating here.

@Artfldgr, #45:

As long as the GOP continues to view every single issue in terms of how it relates to their obsessive political war against Barack Obama, they will have views so seriously distorted that they cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the nation.

BTW, I hope you liked the October 2015 jobs report. The economic news is so positive that even FOX hasn’t figured out how yet how to apply a negative spin. Feel free to compare and contrast it with what was happening at the exact same point during his predecessor’s second term.

@Greg:

An advantage of low earth orbit is the short orbital period…

(Snip)

…of course. I’m speculating here.

I’m not speculating. I know what the relevant spacecraft can do. You’re out of your depth here Greg.

which would require relatively large optical components at such a distance.

Yeah? Do you have any idea how big these spacecraft are? I know the exact specifications.

Video would be impossible without a very large light gathering component.

Ever heard of the Sun? Regardless of your uninformed opinion, these spacecraft have video capabilities beyond that of standard old school photography. That means they are fully capable of capturing other forms of video imagery besides that of mere reflected light.

I would think most surveillance satellites are still in relatively low orbits for high-resolution photography.

You would think wrong. The low orbit satellites are only capable of snapshots, not continually up to date video. This is a limitation of their orbital path and velocity.

You cut the time before any given point again comes into view by having an array of satellites.

You still can only get snapshots. There is a limit to how many spacecraft you can put up in a polar or sun-synchronous orbit without risking collisions. Additionally, there is the need to track the satellites in their path, acquire communications, and download the data from multiple low orbiting spacecraft in the limited time window that you have a clear lines of communication with the spacecraft. (Typically 15 to 25 minutes.) There are only so many satellites you can track and receive information from in a given day. as you need to calculate the orbital windows and times, and re-position the tracking system for each satellite you desire to communicate with.

The other problem with using low orbit spacecraft for photography is the sheer velocity of the spacecraft. You simply can not get high definition close-up stills from that height while traveling at the speeds of low orbit sun-synchronous/polar orbit satellites. Your “light-level” argument is minuscule in comparison. There is a reason why Google uses both low and high orbit satellites for it’s imagery. The low orbit craft are used mostly to create the bigger mid-range composite pictures while the high level geostationary satellites are used to take the close-up shots.

@Ditto, #54:

You still can only get snapshots. There is a limit to how many spacecraft you can put up in a polar or sun-synchronous orbit without risking collisions.

Actually, you could put numerous surveillance satellites in precisely the same elliptical polar orbital path, strung out like beads on a string, and they would never need to come within a thousand miles of one another. That would seem like an entirely logical and achievable arrangement. Spaced properly, the blind intervals between successive views of any given point of interest could be greatly reduced.

No surveillance satellites in geosynchronous orbit are thought to be currently capable of real-time video monitoring. They would require a truly enormous optical reflector for video, in excess of 60 feet in diameter. DARPA is thought to have a satellite with such a capability in development, utilizing a membrane optical reflector. (MOIRE technology.) Proof of concept work was supposedly completed in 2011, but that’s a long way from a functional orbiting satellite.

@Greg: Greggie Greggie Greggie, if America wanted to support Obola and his agenda then tell me why the voice of America voted to oust his legislature and replace them with Republicans in historic fashion? America rejected his rule Greggie!! When he ignores our Veterans and wants to grant 11 million illegals immunity he was rejected. Obolacare will be stopped no matter how much you whine about it!! I voted for a legislature that would oppose this failure of a President and they are doing exactly what they should be for the sake of our country!! Don’t like it, then leave!! You don’t get any more votes than I do!!

@Common Sense, #56:

I’m not sure how that explains the fact that Obama won two presidential elections by very wide margins, and had a November 3, 2015 Gallup poll approval rating of 49 percent, compared with a disapproval rating of 47 percent.

Congress has a current approval rating of only 12.9 percent.

@Greg:

Actually, you could put numerous surveillance satellites in precisely the same elliptical polar orbital path, strung out like beads on a string…

Theoretically, in a perfect universe yes, in actuality no. Each and every satellite follows it’s own specific orbit with it’s own specific velocity, with it’s own particular orbital perturbations. And all orbital objects are acted upon by many other factors that effect their orbits. You can not so precisely synchronize the orbits without exhaustive and near continual course and attitude corrections. It’s impossible.

No surveillance satellites in geosynchronous orbit are thought to be currently capable of real-time video monitoring…

LOL you’re an idiot!!! Do you even know how video operates? You have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re speculating about things that are out of your league. Quit wasting our time with your speculative nonsense.

Even obama now smells blood in the water he is a lame duck the entire country is moving right so how bad can he make it for the next republican president? Screwing up the military by getting rid of the best and most effective leaders and the rest of his failed policies..gonna be a hard haul hope the next prez is a strong one. A good running mate for any of the candidates would come from a strong military background.

@Ditto, #58:

You can not so precisely synchronize the orbits without exhaustive and near continual course and attitude corrections. It’s impossible.

Precise synchronization isn’t necessary to keep satellites apart along an orbital path. The circumference of the earth itself is 24,901 miles. The higher the satellite, the more by which the circumference of its orbit exceeds that number. Twelve satellites could be placed in the same orbital path with one never being within 2000 miles of another.

LOL you’re an idiot!!! Do you even know how video operates?

Yes, I believe I do. Light gathering power is always a function of the size of the lens or reflector that focuses an image on the CCD. The farther you are from the subject, the larger the lens or reflector must be to achieve the desired level of resolution. 22,000 miles is a rather large distance to be taking still photos. Video is an even more difficult proposition, because you cannot gather light over time by utilizing a long exposure. That causes moving objects to blur or vanish from the image entirely. DARPA is shooting for a precisely-configured reflector over 60 feet in diameter to take video from geosynchronous orbit. That’s a very tall order. The Hubble Space Telescope reflector is only 8 feet in diameter, and the entire device weighs in at 24,500 pounds. An entirely new technology is necessary to create an optically precise 68-foot reflector.

@Greg: Greggie you make this so easy it’s hilarious. Why did Obola win, simple he lied. He lied about Obolacare and America kicked out those who voted for it and replaced them with Republicans in 2012, BTW in historic numbers in the House. In 2014 after he lied to get elected again America gave the Senate to Republicans. He lied about how Al Qaeda was on their heels, he lied about Benghazi being a video, and of course he has gotten almost half of America depended on welfare with his failed economic policies. Greggie, let me ask you sense you pound Bush every chance you get, how did he win two elections?? Face it Greggie, Obola lied to get elected and re elected and America caught him twice and that’s how Republicans control the legislature!!

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/googles-satellites-could-soon-see-your-face-from-space

IF this is what civilian satellites can see, imagine what a spy satellite can.

@Nanny G: We can go to super secret spy google earth and put on our make-up

@Greg:

Precise synchronization isn’t necessary to keep satellites apart along an orbital path. The circumference of the earth itself is 24,901 miles.

It is if you want to insert multiple objects in the exact same orbit and keep them there. To keep them synchronized, you would have to ensure that each one of them is traveling at the exact same velocity, at the exact same altitude and along the exact same orbital path. That is an impossible, very expensive and asinine idea.

In your uninformed, hypothetical premise, you are assuming that everything will work perfectly, that the satellites will all be neatly inserted in the desired orbit, at precisely the desired velocity, and that nothing else can affect their orbit. Well welcome to reality Greg, because that simply isn’t the case. While it is possible to precisely inject a satellite into such an orbit. It WILL be affected by a wide variety of outside influences: such as fluctuations in the Earth’s gravity and magnetic fields, the tidal effect of the moon, the variances in Sol’s gravitational forces, solar storms and gravitational effects of other objects in space. Even if you were able to precisely insert an array of satellites into the exact same orbital path, altitude and with the exact same velocity, these very real outside influences WILL affect the satellites, but not necessarily to the same amount or in the same way to each individual satellite. Within a very few orbits, all your carefully placed satellites will no longer be in the exact same orbits that they were placed in. As time passes, accumulated perturbations of their orbits will insure that they will no longer be synchronized. You can try to do course corrections to try to put them back into synchronization, but this rather wasteful practice will burn up precious fuel, and will have to be repeated time after time, again and again to keep each spacecraft in synchronized orbit with it’s fellow array spacecraft.

On the other hand, if you don’t reestablish synchronization, each of the satellites will continue merry along in their (now) near identical orbits. with nearly the same apogee and perigee points. However! The tidal forces of the moon and it’s specific orbital orientation and path can cause minor gravitational acceleration or deceleration to one or more of the array satellites yet, (because both the moon and the satellites are on different orbits,) without necessarily having the same effect on the other array satellites. More than one object orbiting in nearly the same orbital path and altitude but with minor variances in velocity makes it a greater eventuality that one satellite may hit another. (As a matter of fact, the closer they get to each other, the minor mass of each satellite can also work to draw the spacecraft closer to each other.)

Those of us who work in the field of satellites know better than to do such dumb things with the very expensive high velocity lower orbit spacecraft we manage. You never insert more than one object into the exact same high velocity lower orbit unless you purposely want them to rendezvous (or impact).

@Greg:

Video is an even more difficult proposition, because you cannot gather light over time by utilizing a long exposure.

Greg, Greg Greg, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You think you do but you don’t. I’ve worked with these satellites and I know full well what they are capable of. The civilian GOES satellite provides continual imagery in Visible and x-ray imagery, atmospheric temperature (aka Infra-Red). NOAA’s spacecraft provides significatly higher resolution than those satellites used by Google Earth, and Military spec spacecraft put even the NOAA birds to shame. As for video, It’s all dependent on the image capture capabilities of the spacecraft’s optic sensor packages, the data storage and transfer capabilities and the data processing capabilities of the ground systems. The capabilities of spy satellites of the 1970’s are still impressive (and classified) by today’s standards. Do you really think that they haven’t advanced the technology since then? No, Greg, the capabilities of our surveillance spacecraft have continued to advance far beyond the old Apollo spacecraft days. as for video capabilities of the systems. It is a piece of cake to process digital imagery into video.

The Hubble Space Telescope reflector is only 8 feet in diameter, and the entire device weighs in at 24,500 pounds.

Yes, and aside from the excellent photographs it takes, the Hubble space telescope also records and transmits video. Where the hell do you think the technology to create the civilian space program’s Hubble spacecraft came from? Where do you think High Def television technology came from? As for DARPA, Yes I’ve read about that project plan you mentioned but didn’t reference. You can’t go by what the press is told. The government and the military has been known to not give the press the straight scoop. Are you so naive that you don’t know that? The military always down-plays the capability of it’s systems, but you can pretty much bet that the highest of the high tech classified military aircraft and space system equipment are going to be capable of considerably higher quality than anything even only available at the big multi-billion dollar business level, and much less so for what can be found available in the civilian marketplace.

Greg, Greg Greg, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. You think you do but you don’t. I’ve worked with these satellites and I know full well what they are capable of. The civilian GOES satellite provides continual imagery in Visible and x-ray imagery, atmospheric temperature (aka Infra-Red).

The assertion I disputed is that video of sufficient resolution and detail to be useful to the intelligence community can be captured from surveillance satellites in geosynchronous orbit, which are necessarily observing from a distance of around 22,000 miles. I don’t believe this can be done at present, because of the limited size of the reflectors and lenses. There are likely classified spy satellites with Hubble-size optics capable of very good resolution of objects on the ground. Assuming so, they’re likely in low orbits only a few hundred miles up. Park them in a geosynchronous orbit 22,000 miles away for continuous observation, and they become useless for video. That’s why DARPA is trying to come up with a low weight 68-foot reflector.

The civilian examples you’ve referred to are videos recorded from relatively low orbit of no more than a few hundred miles, or higher orbit images that only need sufficient resolution to observe weather patterns. Nobody disputes such capabilities. Such videos can be found online.

So far as an array of satellites in polar orbit goes, use of a single orbital path is hypothetical. I assume there actually is an array of surveillance satellites—I don’t pretend to know how many—in polar orbit, positioned so that areas on the ground that slip out of the view of one shortly come into the view of another. Spacing satellites out along a single polar orbital path is a logical way to accomplish this, since the earth is rotating steadily beneath the orbit. I think technology allows enough control over a satellite’s orbital insertion point that a number could be spaced in an optimal fashion. In whatever orbits they actually occupy, routine orbital adjustments will always be necessary, owing to the variable influences you’ve mentioned.

All objects in geosynchronous orbit share a single orbital path, like beads on a very long string, correct?

It’s very obvious, the current resident of the White House hates this country and everything it stands for while loving islime and jihad. He is actively working against the best interests of the United States every minute his golf schedule allows.

If the Earth is getting warmer, and the seas are rising, why do so many of the wealthy GLOBAL WARMISTS have houses on the beaches? Shouldn’t they be moving inland? They should be buying up the land that people will have to move to after the land they have now is flooded.

Climate change is nothing new. It has been going on since the Earth started being formed. We even have names for the biggest climate changes THAT HAPPEN EVERY YEAR: Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.

The main reason obama doesn’t want to defeat ISIS is that a person stands by their friends, and ISIS is obama’s friend. It is as simple as that. Look at how many times obama has defended the muslim religion, and muslim countries. Iran is the best example. He is helping them get the nuclear bomb, so it can be used against Israel and America. Who else would they use it against?

@Ditto:

I just have to share the chuckle I get reading the exchanges between you, someone with actual expertise on satellite functionality and processes, and Greg apparently mining Google for distilled bits of superficial scientific talking points.

It is highly analogous to the frustrating discussions I get into with parents who are absolutely certain their brief internet searches regarding the “evil” of vitamin K injections for neonates is so much more accurate than my 20 years of medical expertise in preventing hemorrhagic disease of the newborn.

@mos 8541: ‘America’s muslim, terrorist pres., a prime example of welfare fraud. ‘

You’re an example of the right’s intellectual fraud.

@Greg:

I don’t believe this can be done at present, because of the limited size of the reflectors and lenses. There are likely classified spy satellites with Hubble-size optics capable of very good resolution of objects on the ground.

I don’t care what you “believe”. I’m telling you the way it is. If you can’t handle the truth because of your lack of knowledge of the advanced capability of military spacecraft optical sensor systems, that’s a reflection of your own obstinate desire to remain ignorant. The Hubble optics technology was pioneered by the DSP spacecraft program, which is still existent, and whose satellites have continued to advance in their systems and capabilities. The main appreciable difference between the Hubble’s optics and that of these spy satellites is that the Hubble’s space telescope is aimed away from the Earth, and the higher resolution Mil-spec birds optics are aimed at the Earth. And yes again the Hubble has no problem shooting video of distant galaxies and nebula, way out there in the dark regions of space. Why you can’t understand that higher spec geostationary military spacecraft can shoot close-up video of the Earth, which is considerably much closer, proves you are unable to accept anything that does not fit your ignorant preconceived flat-earth notions.

Yes, There are a number of low orbit spacecraft that can take short snippets of video of an area while they are in range, then it will be roughly 12 hours before they will pass over the area again. Yes you can put a number of such satellites in comparable orbits, but you can’t synchronize them to into a perfectly timed and spaced string. There will always be outside influences subtly altering their orbit and possibly even their velocity (which, incidentally, will also alter their orbit). Typically the optics systems of these low orbit spacecraft are rather limited in size and their optical range. The civilian SkySat spacecraft are impressive but they don’t hold a candle to the military birds. The geostationary military spacecraft, on the other hand have much more room for their optical systems. They can specifically target an area, zoom in, and remain pointed on target for as long as is is needed, using multiple sensors of various types to view and record through the same optics.

So far as an array of satellites in polar orbit goes, use of a single orbital path is hypothetical….blah, blah, blah (Greg continues to talk out of his ass) …I think technology allows enough control over a satellite’s orbital insertion point that a number could be spaced in an optimal fashion.

Because Greg envisions it it must be so? I tried to explain to you why your uninformed “vision” is not only not feasible, but why it can’t work that way in the real universe. What is laughable, is that with your imaginative dreaming of how you “think it could be”, that you lack the capability to accept how it really is, and thus you refuse to accept reality over your own obstinate opinion. You are too hard-wired into being a typical leftist “useful idiot”. which is why you continue to remain an ignorant twit.

@Pete:

Yeah, It’s hard to decide between beating your head against a wall, or theirs.

Greg, do you EVER actually know what you are talking about? You beclown yourself so thoroughly and frequently that it seems to be your default state. To retain what shred of credibility you still have, stop simply posting democrat talking points. Regardless, please stop suggesting that the dem talking points you senselessly regurgitate are your own, independently derived thoughts.

@Ditto –

Greg is trying to school you. He apparently didn’t read the part where you mention you flew military satellites. Just like he tried to school me about special operations. Just like he tried to school Old Trooper about Tora Bora. Just like he tried to show his “expertise” about riverine operations. I try to ignore him.

Have a good Sunday, Ditto. 🙂

“It is highly analogous to the frustrating discussions I get into with parents who are absolutely certain their brief internet searches regarding the “evil” of vitamin K injections for neonates is so much more accurate than my 20 years of medical expertise in preventing hemorrhagic disease of the newborn.”

My wife occasionally has those type of discussions when someone invokes “Dr. Oz says this,” or “I saw on The Doctors”. She bites her tongue most of the time, but every once in awhile she let it slips by saying, “Dr. Oz isn’t here.”

@David: and Ditto

Or about how much more he knows about Iraq than 4 or 5 of us here who combined probably spent 8-10 years over there compared to his ZERO. He also tried to tell me once that a friend of mine who was investigating a fraud case against the VA didn’t know what he was talking about with regards to federal employee protections under federal law. He was wrong about that too. The ultimate shithouse lawyer. Not exactly the type of person you’d want to go down range with as he is the type who would get you killed with his “expertise”. Ignoring him is best.

@Pete:

I just have to share the chuckle I get reading the exchanges between you, someone with actual expertise on satellite functionality and processes, and Greg apparently mining Google for distilled bits of superficial scientific talking points.

Once you understand that Greggie Goebbels tries to be an expert in (all things, but mostly) the subject shell game, you understand his agenda. He changes the subject, attempting to do so in a related issue, to avoid the truth when he is smacked up against the head with it.

Notice how the subject has gone from Greggie Goebbels claiming that tanks can hide under tarps to the subject of the capabilities of satellites where he is going to school those who actually have experience with satellites to show just how smart he is.

Greggie Goebbels is a fraud. He is a Democratic Party mouth piece who is here for no other reason than to pimp for the DNC.

He’s a clown. We know it. He knows it. But he is so lacking in self respect that he comes back, time after time, to be made a fool.

There has to be a psychosis named after Greggie Goebbles (or the DNC’s answer to Baghdad Bob.)

@Ditto, #71:

I don’t care what you “believe”. I’m telling you the way it is. If you can’t handle the truth because of your lack of knowledge of the advanced capability of military spacecraft optical sensor systems, that’s a reflection of your own obstinate desire to remain ignorant.

You keep making this personal, post after post. That doesn’t make what you’re saying correct.

Why you can’t understand that higher spec geostationary military spacecraft can shoot close-up video of the Earth, which is considerably much closer, proves you are unable to accept anything that does not fit your ignorant preconceived flat-earth notions.

Because that’s not presently true. Geosynchronous orbital paths, inclined or otherwise, are at a fixed distance from the surface of the earth of approximately 22,236 miles, which is a very long way. One rule of optics is that as distance doubles, brightness diminishes by a factor of four. Given the sensitivity of the best CCD light sensors, gathering enough light to produce high resolution videos at such a great distance requires a very large and precisely configured reflector—something much larger than a Hubble-size mirror. Thus DARPA’s quest for an orbital reflector 68 feet in diameter.

High resolution still images from such a distance are entirely feasible with a smaller reflector because the exposure time can be lengthened as needed. More light is gathered over a longer time. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that classified geostationary satellites—which share a single geosynchronous equatorial orbital path with many other satellites by default—can resolve details of less than a foot, or even a few inches, given optimal atmospheric conditions, provided the details aren’t moving.

Because Greg envisions it it must be so? I tried to explain to you why your uninformed “vision” is not only not feasible, but why it can’t work that way in the real universe.

There’s nothing impossible about multiple satellites sharing a single orbital path. As I pointed out, many geosynchronous satellites do, in fact, share a single orbital path. There are around 600 geosynchronous satellites total, some alive and some dead, including civilian and military communication satellites, classified geosynchronous surveillance satellites, etc. Many follow one another like beads on a single string that circles the earth directly above the equator at a distance of 22,236 miles. Sharing a path is not just possible; it’s the only possibility, if you want a non-inclined geosynchronous equatorial orbit. That’s a straightforward matter of Newtonian physics. In the case of elliptical polar orbits, such an arrangement would be an option. Whether it’s the particular option adopted or not is a different question. I don’t claim to know. There are vastly more possibilities, since you aren’t restricted to only one orbital distance from earth and one orbital period. There would be many practical considerations: optimizing observation time during daylight hours, for example, or taking advantage of the best angle of the sun to maximize light and shadow contrast.

I’ve reached the limits of my patience with this particular pissing match. There’s much that I don’t know, which I will readily admit, but some things I do know that I have little or no doubt about. People, of course, are entirely free to believe whatever they wish without reference to fact. On the political right this has become routine.

@retire05, #76:

You attack people rather than what they’re saying whenever you can’t refute the fact or logic of their argument, which seems to be much of the time.

This is hardly surprising. Personal attacks presently comprise around 90 percent of all republican political effort. This is because their positions—on those rare occasions when they’re clearly stated—are inconsistent, impractical, illogical, or intended to benefit someone other than the average American voter. It has made the GOP the party of negativity, not to mention pseudo-scientific fantasy.

@Greg: Greg you defended Reid when he personally attacked Romney on the floor of the Senate with NO proof!! You personally attack Bush by saying he doctored the intel prior to going to Iraq. You have provided NO evidence of either accusation. Obola lied to America about his health care plan and admitted to it and you can’t even say he lied!! Before you try and accuse anyone of this kind of conduct look in the mirror you libturd MORON!!

@Greg:

You attack people rather than what they’re saying whenever you can’t refute the fact or logic of their argument, which seems to be much of the time.

Refute what? Your claims that tanks can hide under tarps? Tell me, Greggie, does ISIS build little tarp frames to go over the tanks so when they are on the move they can hide?

Or perhaps it is you who can’t refute your own claims. And if the Obama administration is so damned on top of the ISIS issue, where is all our human intel?

You have been bitchslapped on satellites and yet, you continue to post the crap you have gleaned from some internet site. You are so dishonest you can’t even admit that you have no experience in satellites and are just blowing smoke.

In matters of basic science, you obviously can’t distinguish shit from Shinola.

@Greg:

In matters of basic science, you obviously can’t distinguish shit from Shinola.

Sure I can. Shinola is what I use to clean my boots after wading through your [bull] shit.

You’re a typical liberal, Greggie Goebbels. You think you are the sharpest knife in the drawer when in reality, you are just a clueless useful idiot.

@Greg:

You keep making this personal, post after post. That doesn’t make what you’re saying correct.

Nor does it make me wrong, which I am not.

As I pointed out, many geosynchronous satellites do, in fact, share a single orbital path.

Similar paths, not a single specifically precisely identical path. If someone told you that these satellites are on the exact same orbital path they are making an inaccurate over simplification that is simply not the case. Every orbiting body will have specific eccentricities to their orbit independent of any other orbiting object, and their orbital eccentricities are under constant flux. Their orbits also are affected by the variety of other outside influences that I have already mentioned above. It is not possible to stop these outside influences. The laws of physics and orbital mechanics can not be ignored. Every nearby gravity well will exert it’s influences on the orbit of a satellite. That is why command and control centers for each spacecraft must occasionally make adjustments to it’s orbit to keep it stabilized. Because of the fact that Geostationary satellites are placed to orbit over a specific segment of the earth, it is much easier to keep them in position, and even when they stray slightly from their normal positions (due to outside influences,) it will only be by a minor factor. Their orbits can be easily and efficiently corrected. Each and every Geostationary satellite’s orbit is precisely 24 hours. This is important to remember!. No more no less. Because they orbit farther out there is much more room for other geostationary satellites and virtually no risk of any two geostationary spacecraft ever getting close to each other.

The game changes where polar and heliosynchronous orbiting spacecraft are concerned. These satellites are usually placed in orbit in the lower exosphere layer (above 1000km,) so as to minimize atmospheric effects. To maintain their orbits, these objects typically have an orbital period of roughly 100 minutes, which means they orbit the Earth 14.4 times times a day at 248.6 miles per minute. These satellites are also vulnerable to the same outside influences as the geostationary spacecraft. In fact, because of their orbital period they are more vulnerable to lunar tidal forces, which means that tracking and data retrieval stations. have to make daily updates to their tracking schedules. This means that such orbital path fluctuations are going to occur. Not maybe, it’s a given. Additionally, no two satellites will have the same orbital fluctuation, and the fluctuations of a specific satellite can and will vary from day to day. The daily orbital path fluctuation corrections (usually calculated to -15th digit), is used to calculate the orbital path and subsequent tracking “look angles” for these satellites, and from vast experience I can guarantee the the orbital fluctuations are never, ever the same from day to day. What all this means is that it is impossible to set and maintain multiple polar/heliosynchronous orbiting satellites spaced into precise intervals in the exact same orbit, and even if by some incredible miracle someone did, they wouldn’t stay that way for very long at all.

Given the sensitivity of the best CCD light sensors…

(Snip)

…There’s much that I don’t know, which I will readily admit, but some things I do know that I have little or no doubt about…

Again, you have no idea about the capabilities and configuration of the advanced optical sensor systems of these spacecraft. All you are doing is going off on a layman’s knowledge of civilian sensors, based on your speculations of how you “think” the spacecraft’s systems are designed, which is wholly dependent on what limited information you have been able to find on the web. You think you know what you’re talking about but you don’t. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and the same goes for the technology behind surveillance spacecraft. Even the Hubble Telescope uses multiple sensors, and yes, once again, even with it’s mere 8 foot reflector, the Hubble can capture video. I can not and will not describe in detail the optical systems of these spacecraft, (including the Hubble,) or how it is possible for them to capture video in further specifics because it strays into the area of classified information. Unlike Democrats, I take the oaths I swear to very seriously.

People, of course, are entirely free to believe whatever they wish without reference to fact.

The only reason you are arguing with me about this is because you are a Democrat and I am not. When Democrats say things, you blindly accept everything they tell you without question. Even as their global warming theories are falling like the house of cards it is, you continue to follow what they say religiously. On the other hand, if it is not a Democrat, you assume that everything they tell you is false. Go ahead and crawl back under your rock troll

@Ditto, #84:

What is a keyhole satellite and what can it really spy on?

You can think of a KH satellite as a gigantic orbiting digital camera with an incredibly huge lens on it. Optical image reconnaissance satellites use a charge coupled device (CCD) to gather images that make up a digital photograph for transmission back to Earth from an altitude of about 200 miles. Since the satellites are in orbit, they cannot hover over a given area or provide real-time video of a single location.

Real-time video of a single location would require a geostationary orbit. A geostationary orbit requires a satellite to be at a distance from the earth of 22,236 miles. From that distance, a Hubble-size mirror cannot collect enough light for real-time video. If you truly have different information from some inside source, perhaps you should stop broadcasting it.

The relationship of resolution to reflector size from geosynchronous orbit is a topic considered by this 15-year-old declassified document. I’ll readily admit that the mathematics involved are beyond my reach. Note that the conclusions are summarized in plain English in the final paragraphs of the document, however:

“From the military and risk management applications point of view the availability of a laser continuo(u)s observation capability and a real time beams data delivery constitute an (i)nvaluable asset. Despite the one meter spatial resolution needs 25 meters diameter optic, for a five meters resolution reference only five meters telescope would be necessary.”

Twenty-five meters of reflector diameter to yield only one meter of ground resolution… And that’s a very big reflector, three times wider than Hubble optics. Thus, my layman’s conclusion that we’ve got no high resolution video capability from geosynchronous orbit.

Regarding real-time video from low earth orbit, there’s this, from the HubbleSite’s FAQ pages:

Can Hubble take pictures of Earth?

The surface of the Earth is whizzing by as Hubble orbits, and the pointing system, designed to track the distant stars, cannot track an object on the Earth. The shortest exposure time on any of the Hubble instruments is 0.1 seconds, and in this time Hubble moves about 700 meters, or almost half a mile. So a picture Hubble took of Earth would be all streaks.

That seems like an answer most people can grasp. Forget high-resolution satellite video, at least for the time being. A passing low-orbit satellite can only record a short video with fairly good resolution before the subject has slipped from view. High altitude drones are far more useful for this purpose.

The only reason you are arguing with me about this is because you are a Democrat and I am not. When Democrats say things, you blindly accept everything they tell you without question. Even as their global warming theories are falling like the house of cards it is, you continue to follow what they say religiously. On the other hand, if it is not a Democrat, you assume that everything they tell you is false. Go ahead and crawl back under your rock troll

I take issue with those on the right when they make claims I believe they cannot back up with facts. Facts themselves are not political. My motivation for wanting them to be correct is, however.

@retire05: #77
I quit using google years ago. I don’t want to help those who helped get obama get elected TWICE. There are many other browsers to choose from. I use one that does not track me.

google has change the way it lists suggestions. It no longer lists them by the most popular, but by, “the most trusted”. google didn’t say how they determine which sites are, “the most trusted”. I’m guessing that there are a lot more liberal sites in their suggestions, than there are conservative.

@Smorgasbord:

Google also tends to give anti-conservative sites first. HuffingtonPost seems to be a favorite.

I, also, do not use Google.

What you’re doing is self-censoring your own access to information.

@Greg: Adlai Stevenson to Republican opponent
“If you promise not to tell lies about me I promise not to tell the truth about you.”
I often think of that during back and forth with some of these folks.

@Greg: Like the democrats and President Bush eh?? How quickly you forget that. Slimy Harry is doing the same thing he despised before he got kicked out with the rest of the liars in the Senate!!