Comments on: Blair, Gates OK Multi-Billion Secret Sats

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 12:25:56 +0000

Whether its need or want, I don’t know. Wat happens if an enemy sets off an EMP, or, hacks into our computers, our power grid, or tries to shoot them down? I hope there are contingencies or safeguards in place, those sats won’t be worth a dime if they are not protected.

By: Colin Clark

Colin Clark — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:55:49 +0000

Helen,

This isn’t exactly traditional journalism but I take your point and made the changes. The full names and titles can be useful, especially for those who don’t pay much attention to the intelligence world (most of our readers know the military pretty well).

Please keep an eagle eye on us and fire when needed!

By: Helen Hightower

Helen Hightower — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:25:12 +0000

In traditional journalism, the reporter would tell readers who or what “Blair” is, or perhaps provide a first name as a clue. “Gates” is presumably Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defense.

By: Back to BASICs

Back to BASICs — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 16:21:34 +0000

This is trying to revive the B.A.S.I.C. program. The issue is that it will kill companies that rely on the promise of imagery sales. The prospects for GEOEYE and DIGITALGLOBE will die and two more companies will go by the wayside.

Kind of goes hand in hand with he new administrations plans to take over companies, fire CEO’s and now kill companies.

Do we really need it? NO, but we really want it.

By: Cortland

Cortland — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:01:44 +0000

headline: Adjectives to be cut in new budget.

By: mike mak

mike mak — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:25:07 +0000

In a time of global economic stress, “exquisite” sensing systems must take a back seat to “required” sensing systems. This kind of largesse is what gets the Defense budget in trouble with thinking people.
A more rational approach would be to replace obsolescent systems with satellites with true longevity and multi-purpose design. Ones that can be continuously upgraded to enhanced capabilities through software uplinks and Space Shuttle visits.

By: Do the right thing

Do the right thing — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 05:52:38 +0000

So not only do we need to see a truck in front of a building, we need to be able to read the VIN number now?

I thought the trend was to go back to using more field operators rther than better images?

I’m not opposed to buying good equipment as long as we need it and it works.

I wonder how many field operators and UAV’s the CIA could fund with $10 billion?

By: InDeep

InDeep — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:37:00 +0000

The primary use for commercial data is for sharing with other “partners” that may not be DOD cleared (ie, coast guard, FBI, National Guard, DEA, etc). The intelligence obtained may be interpreted from classified means, but portrayed on unclassified imagery as to make a unclassified product to be shared.

DensityDuck said:
“You can have “experience of space programs” and still not know a damn thing about overhead strategic-intel EO“
YOU ARE SO RIGHT!!

Unless you have worked ‚as an analyst, with past or current constellations of our classified satellites and understand their capabilities, you should not be nay-saying an upgrade to the capabilities that will allow the IC to provide both the IC and the DOD partners with the needed intel as well as new products well into the future.

Instead of referring to this solution as the “Rolex” of all solutions … think of it as the IC’s long awaited “Bail Out” that is over due. Ha Ha!

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:51:33 +0000

"There may be one big flaw in the plan currently being considered: it completely ignores US policy that requires the government use commercial data whenever possible."No, it doesn't "completely ignore" anything. The policy says that you use commercial data whenever possible. Key phrase here being "whenever possible". When you're dealing with strategic intelligence, it isn't.See, the thing is, in the strat-intel world, EVERYTHING is a piece of information. Not just the content of the picture, but the mere *existence* of the picture. You can't just buy "every image ever taken at all times" from a commercial provider--they have other customers than just the NGIA. So you're forced to target your interest to specific areas, which immediately tells people what you're looking at. "Can I buy some sat imagery of Novaya Zemlya?" "No, the US NGIA bought all of it." "hmmmm...is that so? (picks up phone) Cheese it, comrades, they're on to us!"*****No surprise that Cartwright is involved in trashing this. The guy never saw an advanced program he didn't hate. I'm sure that, secretly, he's one of those guys who's still VERY VERY UPSET that they made him trade in his M14.*****"A former government official with experience of space programs was sharply critical of the DNI’s approach..."Ah-heh. You can have "experience of space programs" and still not know a damn thing about overhead strategic-intel EO. There is a reason for the level of capability being requested.The problem is that everyone's acting like the current war is the only thing worth spending any money on ever. Should we have the CIA stop funding intel activites that aren't focused directly on Iraq and Afghanistan? Should we sink the Coast Guard because they aren't involved in those theaters? Eighty-six any non-deployed National Guard or Army Reserves? Hey, we aren't using those Minutemen or Tridents to fight in the desert--scrap 'em!