# Raise Shields! Stealth Satellites Decloaking! **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 3, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908 "2005-01-03T22:21:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/1 "2005-01-03T22:21:35Z")
[Interesting if true.](http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/mystery_monday_050103.html) > [@](#): > > One document is U.S. Patent 5,345,238, issued to Teledyne Industries of Los Angeles, California in 1994. It details a movable “satellite signature suppression shield” – a bit of clever technology that can suppress the laser, radar, visible, and infrared signatures of a satellite. The invention makes spotting or tracking a satellite a tough-to-do proposition. > > The camouflage space shield, as reviewed in the patent, takes on the form of an inflatable balloon. It can be quickly deployed and made rigid upon exposure to both outside and internally-created ultraviolet radiation. This shield can be tailored to a particular spacecraft and orbital situation. Once deployed, the cone-shaped balloon is oriented to deflect incoming laser and microwave radar energy, sending it off into outer space. > > While an intriguing bit of high-tech handiwork, whether or not this stealthy idea is an active ingredient of the MISTY satellite series is not publicly known. The program, is however, a bit controversial as many people don’t seem to think we need them anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/2 "2005-01-04T00:44:10Z")
**Tuckerfan** , you gotta re-read that article. It asserts that the theory about the alleged “Aurora” spyplane program is a proven fact, & a given. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/3 "2005-01-04T01:23:33Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > **Tuckerfan** , you gotta re-read that article. > > It asserts that the theory about the alleged “Aurora” spyplane program is a proven fact, & a given. :rolleyes: What, you don’t think it exists? Next you’ll be trying to tell me that they only launch weather balloons from Area 51. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Exgineer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Exgineer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exgineer)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/4 "2005-01-04T01:56:01Z")
I can’t be lifted off my ass to click the link and read the article. Is this that “cold plasma” thing again? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d26b3c/32.png) [@Mr.Blue\_Sky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Blue_Sky)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/5 "2005-01-04T02:04:45Z")
> [@](#): > > While an intriguing bit of high-tech handiwork, whether or not this stealthy idea is an active ingredient of the **MISTY** satellite series is not publicly known. Oh crap! Dr. Forrester suceeded! We’ll all be forced to watch Manos for all eternity! ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/6 "2005-01-04T02:06:31Z")
> [@Exgineer](#): > > I can’t be lifted off my ass to click the link and read the article. > > Is this that “cold plasma” thing again? No mention of cold plasma in the article (or plasma at all). ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/7 "2005-01-04T02:22:47Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > No mention of cold plasma in the article (or plasma at all). Yeah, but the sound of rainfall pitta-patting on the tinfoil hat the author was wearing is clearly audible. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![WilhelmGefallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/9f8e36/32.png) [@WilhelmGefallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilhelmGefallen)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/8 "2005-01-04T23:25:54Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > **Tuckerfan** , you gotta re-read that article. > > It asserts that the theory about the alleged “Aurora” spyplane program is a proven fact, & a given. :rolleyes: I skimmed the article (and did a search) but couldnt find anything about the Aurora program. Are you saying that there wasn’t (isn’t) an Aurora program? because it seems that there were plans which were blackballed (at least under that name): > [@](#): > > The first suggestion that these studies might be translated into operational hardware appeared in the Fiscal Year 1986 procurement program document, colloquially known as the P-1, dated 4 February 1985. A line item in this document, labeled “Aurora,” was slated to receive $80 million in 1986, and over $2.2 billion in 1987.\<73\> Since this line item appeared next to the line funding the TR-1 reconnaissance aircraft, it stirred up a hornet’s nest of conjecture that a secret aircraft was being developed to replace the aging SR-71. > > The Air Force quickly denied the existence of a secret program, and said the “Aurora” budget line was simply one site for B-2 bomber funds when that program was highly classified.\<74\> One Air Force official commented, “I wish I could say it is (an SR-71 follow-on), because we’d love to have it. But it’s just accounting, I’m afraid.”\<75\> > > Others disagreed. One journal reported that “the general consensus now is that the item did not refer to the B-2 bomber but to another effort.”\<76\> Other analysts placed the SR-71 follow-on at both Edwards Air Force Base and Nellis Air Range.\<77\> > > Other publications saw a more complicated, more expansive black world. These periodicals posited that Aurora was one of several code names “nested within other code names, all referring to a class of aircraft designed for multiple missions.”\<78\> > > \*\*However, the discussions of the Aurora budget line item overlook one very crucial fact: > > No money was ever appropriated for Aurora!\*\* [cite](http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm) Reading between the lines that reads to me that the Aurora project did exist until some moron let it slip into budgeting, when it became whatever the B2 Bombers project is now known as (i think it is Spirit, but that could just be like the Phantom, Tomcat etc). You’d have to be pretty naieve to think that there are no black budget planes in development (hell how long was the F-115 or JSF in black budget?) one of them might be the successor to the SR-71 but there is no way in hell we’ll know about it until the next one is in development (ie like the Raptor) or the US needs another PR victory like with the F-115s. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/9 "2005-01-05T01:03:29Z")
> [@WilhelmGefallen](#): > > one of them might be the successor to the SR-71 One must wonder why the SR-71 was retired. ---
**Author:** ![WilhelmGefallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/9f8e36/32.png) [@WilhelmGefallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilhelmGefallen)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/10 "2005-01-05T01:45:25Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > One must wonder why the SR-71 was retired. Clinton killed the program, claiming that the U2 and Satellites were more equipped to do what the SR-71 was doing in its current role as a recon plane (after being retired originally in the early 90’s for the same reason). [cite](http://www.wvi.com/%7Esr71webmaster/sract%7E1.htm) whilst Clinton is correct that in peace time it is easier to use the U2 and Sat. recon, it fails to recognise the need for the speedy gathering of intelligence, during war time. A sat. takes time to task over to a designated spot, and the U2 has a top speed of Mach .5, instead of Mach 3 that the SR-71 can do. The SR-71 is coming up to 50 years old now, and a high speed recon plane is most definately needed the SR-71 would be fine as a stop-gap measure (assuming that there isn’t a black budgeted replacement we dont know about) ---
**Author:** ![WilhelmGefallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/9f8e36/32.png) [@WilhelmGefallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilhelmGefallen)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/11 "2005-01-05T01:53:00Z")
> [@WilhelmGefallen](#): > > whilst Clinton is correct that in peace time it is easier to use the U2 and Sat. recon, it fails to recognise the need for the speedy gathering of intelligence, during war time. > A sat. takes time to task over to a designated spot, and the U2 has a top speed of Mach .5, instead of Mach 3 that the SR-71 can do. > > The SR-71 is coming up to 50 years old now, and a high speed recon plane is most definately needed the SR-71 would be fine as a stop-gap measure (assuming that there isn’t a black budgeted replacement we dont know about) \*gah cant edit my post, that’ll teach me not to proof read :smack: \* that should’ve read: whilst Clinton is correct that in peace time it is easier and cheaper to use a combination of U2 and Sat. recon, it fails to recognise the need for the speedy gathering of intelligence, during war time, and whilst its a nice thought to say well why dont we stop preparing for war, and maybe peace will win out, the second you do those who arent as altruistic as yourself will attack you. A sat. takes time to task over to a designated spot, and the U2 has a top speed of Mach .5, instead of Mach 3 that the SR-71 can do, which means that as a stop gap\* whilst your Sat. is tasking to the combat field and the U2 is getting there, you can have near real time imaging of it. \*The SR-71 is coming up to 50 years old now, and a high speed recon plane is most definately needed (imo), and the SR-71 would be fine as a stop-gap measure (assuming that there isn’t a black budgeted replacement we dont know about) if it was updated to take advantage of the tech. currently available. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/12 "2005-01-05T02:00:23Z")
I just googled that site looking for the FY12A. 🙂 Nice pics. Thanks ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/13 "2005-01-05T02:00:57Z")
> [@WilhelmGefallen](#): > > A sat. takes time to task over to a designated spot, and the U2 has a top speed of Mach .5, instead of Mach 3 that the SR-71 can do, which means that as a stop gap\* whilst your Sat. is tasking to the combat field and the U2 is getting there, you can have near real time imaging of it. [nitpick]The top speed of the SR-71 is Mach 3\*\*+\*\*, what it’s real top speed is, we have no idea.[/nitpick] And IMHO, we should keep the SR-71s flying because they’re about the coolest looking planes ever built. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/14 "2005-01-05T02:07:07Z")
While I’ve got you here… Where was the YF12 going to shoot down Russkies with nuclear missiles? Even at mach 3, it would be over Canada wouldn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![WilhelmGefallen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/9f8e36/32.png) [@WilhelmGefallen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WilhelmGefallen)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/15 "2005-01-05T03:17:42Z")
> [@Tuckerfan](#): > > [nitpick]The top speed of the SR-71 is Mach 3\*\*+\*\*, what it’s real top speed is, we have no idea.[/nitpick] True, but technically the U2s top is about Mach .4998 or something like that. > [@](#): > > And IMHO, we should keep the SR-71s flying because they’re about the coolest looking planes ever built. Yep totally agree, Im very tempted to use the pic of the YF12 in mid-air refuelling as a wallpaper. > [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Where was the YF12 going to shoot down Russkies with nuclear missiles? Even at mach 3, it would be over Canada wouldn’t it? [Seems to have been over China](http://roadrunnersinternationale.com/antelopevalleypress.html) ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/16 "2005-01-05T03:29:53Z")
> [@WilhelmGefallen](#): > > Yep totally agree, Im very tempted to use the pic of the YF12 in mid-air refuelling as a wallpaper. Got a linky to the pic? I’ve never seen it. (BTW, the donuts on a rope that all the nutbags were saying was produced by ubersecret aircraft were most likely “burps” from the SR-71s engines.) ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/17 "2005-01-05T03:45:07Z")
I had a tape where a pilot was describing a flight. “We actually dive to attain our maxium speed. We climb to…I can’t tell you that…and dive to accelerate to…I can’t tell you that…” It is said that you would burn your fingers on the windows heated by friction with air. Here is your link: [http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/yf12~1.htm](http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/yf12~1.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/18 "2005-01-05T12:43:51Z")
We can do better with unmanned drones, launched locally or from subs. “Superplanes” aren’t needed, any more than battleships are. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/19 "2005-01-05T14:13:55Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > We can do better with unmanned drones, launched locally or from subs. > > “Superplanes” aren’t needed, any more than battleships are. :rolleyes: I’d like to offer an opposing viewpoint. First off, the SR-71 remains almost impossible to intercept. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe the US has any AAW assets that can target and take out an SR-71 at operational speed and altitude. In a high threat environment, that’s pretty important. Secondly, most of the current smart drones (Global Hawk, Predator and the other remote recon assets) used for intel, recon and attack, are susceptible to jamming interference. Having an autonomous pilot aboard the platform offers more flexibility and survivability in a high EW environment. Third, we don’t have, AFAIK, any sub launched drones at the moment in deployable inventory. A platform we have is worth at least three in the works. Until something is deployable that matches the first points I’d raised about the SR-71, I think it is foolish to take an effective and working asset out of use because other potential assets may be able to be developed with superior abilities. An additional point - the U2 is a very good plane, don’t get me wrong, but - it’s even older than the SR-71. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2005, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908/20 "2005-01-05T14:27:34Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > I’d like to offer an opposing viewpoint. > > First off, the SR-71 remains almost impossible to intercept. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe the US has any AAW assets that can target and take out an SR-71 at operational speed and altitude. In a high threat environment, that’s pretty important. > > Secondly, most of the current smart drones (Global Hawk, Predator and the other remote recon assets) used for intel, recon and attack, are susceptible to jamming interference. Having an autonomous pilot aboard the platform offers more flexibility and survivability in a high EW environment. > > Third, we don’t have, AFAIK, any sub launched drones at the moment in deployable inventory. A platform we have is worth at least three in the works. > > Until something is deployable that matches the first points I’d raised about the SR-71, I think it is foolish to take an effective and working asset out of use because other potential assets may be able to be developed with superior abilities. > > An additional point - the U2 is a very good plane, don’t get me wrong, but - it’s even older than the SR-71. None of your points are relevant. [ol] [li]It is not important if the SR-71 can be taken out or not, unless one is taken out. With drones, you get no Gary Powers situations. Let them kill all the drones they want, who care? :rolleyes: [/li][li]Jamming is irrelavant. Global Hawk can fly itsself, robotically, & store its data internally.[/li][li]Several short-range Marine Corps drones can be launched from any ship, subs included. And if you can launch Cruise Missiles from subs, drones are not a high hurdle. We may well a a functioning system _right now_, just not advertised.[/li][li]Drones are smaller, lighter, easier to transport, cheaper, & pose no risk to human pilots in entering extremely high risk combat environments.[/li][/ol] [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raise-shields-stealth-satellites-decloaking/282908.md?page=2)