​

DARPA Blackjack low-earth orbit spy satellites

by

Mr. Paul “Rusty” Thomas, Program Manager, DARPA Tactical Technology Office presented at the Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group Telecon. He described the “DARPA Blackjack Demo Program – Pivot to LEO & Tactical Space Architecture”. This would be 90+ low-earth orbit spy satellites. DARPA plans a 20 satellite demo and then full deployment could start in 2022.

Many low-earth orbit spy satellites would be tougher for Russia and China to take out. A constellation of low-earth orbit spy satellites could be less expensive and more powerful than a single larger geosynchronous satellite.

41 thoughts on “DARPA Blackjack low-earth orbit spy satellites”

  1. They turned it around with this big long, drawn-out and blasphemous plan to make it look like the faithful people were those who were going to be “eaten alive” or “harvested from;” but the only they will take are those who are unfaithful and devising/blaspheming/conspiring against the liberty & freedom & corrupt of the world.

    I literally am him; can literally move the ground as wax (posted a video of this, but MJ12/MAJIC had edited the video I posted & reset the frame @ an interval so that nobody would see it… very apparent if you watch it); literally play with the clouds; can literally hear the true Holy Ghost… But with it, the unholy, the plan that Project Bluebeam had literally found me in trying to defame my name, shame & name, to make me feel as if I need them, as if they control anything, blaspheming me, blaspheming God, etc.

    I called Navy NCTAMS, after I was erroneously/by God fed their number thru what appeared a “butt dial,” only to call back, finding them heavily defensive & stating such as “top secret,” “highly-classified,” idk “how you got this number,” etc.
    Then, at that very same time, I began getting shocked around my heart, around my ENTIRE BODY, and began hearing a VERY HIGH-PITCHED ring in my ears; with the voices saying “he’s not dead yet,” or “that doesn’t hurt” the entire time. The false voices also began to accuse DARPA… Not sure if cover for making it look like Navy , or DARPA; nonetheless, division exists & MAJOR EFFORTS KEEPING ME FROM TRUMP

  2. This is likely. I feel as if they may pay for the whole thing. Remember they are short lifespan sats. So they could have a network as large as they want they continuously are replaced and upgraded to newest models.

  3. This is likely. I feel as if they may pay for the whole thing. Remember they are short lifespan sats. So they could have a network as large as they want they continuously are replaced and upgraded to newest models.

  6. It could come down to economics. You could put up a $50M satellite. Your enemy might have to spend a multiple of this sum to shoot it down. Then multiply that number by the number of American satellites. It reminds me of the Palestinians who fire a $500 rocket, and it is “defeated” by a $50,000 missile, only this time it’s in reverse.

  7. It could come down to economics. You could put up a $50M satellite. Your enemy might have to spend a multiple of this sum to shoot it down.Then multiply that number by the number of American satellites.It reminds me of the Palestinians who fire a $500 rocket and it is defeated”” by a $50″”000 missile”” onlythis time it’s in reverse.”””

  8. …which designs advanced weapons for the US military, and has done so productively for decades. To the extent that the US military crushed or will crush an adversary by application of overwhelming technological superiority, DARPA likely has or will have developed the war-winning technology.

  9. …which designs advanced weapons for the US military and has done so productively for decades. To the extent that the US military crushed or will crush an adversary by application of overwhelming technological superiority DARPA likely has or will have developed the war-winning technology.

  10. Which is why, for both the satellite-kill mission and the ballistic missile-kill, directed energy’s the way to go if it can be made to work (say, a NORAD-controlled network of very high power solid-state lasers riding piggyback on military and civilian aircraft so that the lasers are up out of much of the atmosphere and ready to do mid-course or re-entry kills of incoming ballistic payloads). We have to assume that our near-peer adversaries are aware of Firestrike, HELLADS and other such laser weapon systems, and making their own versions to kill even constellations of LEO satellites. The plan in that case is to make cheaper and more numerous satellites, and/or have spares on stand-by at various undisclosed launch sites (to prevent them being killed in boost phase or orbit in the same way as the satellites they replace).

  11. Which is why for both the satellite-kill mission and the ballistic missile-kill directed energy’s the way to go if it can be made to work (say a NORAD-controlled network of very high power solid-state lasers riding piggyback on military and civilian aircraft so that the lasers are up out of much of the atmosphere and ready to do mid-course or re-entry kills of incoming ballistic payloads). We have to assume that our near-peer adversaries are aware of Firestrike HELLADS and other such laser weapon systems and making their own versions to kill even constellations of LEO satellites. The plan in that case is to make cheaper and more numerous satellites and/or have spares on stand-by at various undisclosed launch sites (to prevent them being killed in boost phase or orbit in the same way as the satellites they replace).

  15. This is likely. I feel as if they may pay for the whole thing. Remember they are short lifespan sats. So they could have a network as large as they want they continuously are replaced and upgraded to newest models.

  16. This is likely. I feel as if they may pay for the whole thing. Remember they are short lifespan sats. So they could have a network as large as they want they continuously are replaced and upgraded to newest models.

  17. This is likely. I feel as if they may pay for the whole thing. Remember they are short lifespan sats. So they could have a network as large as they want they continuously are replaced and upgraded to newest models.

  18. It could come down to economics. You could put up a $50M satellite. Your enemy might have to spend a multiple of this sum to shoot it down. Then multiply that number by the number of American satellites. It reminds me of the Palestinians who fire a $500 rocket, and it is “defeated” by a $50,000 missile, only this time it’s in reverse.

  19. It could come down to economics. You could put up a $50M satellite. Your enemy might have to spend a multiple of this sum to shoot it down.Then multiply that number by the number of American satellites.It reminds me of the Palestinians who fire a $500 rocket and it is defeated”” by a $50″”000 missile”” onlythis time it’s in reverse.”””

  20. …which designs advanced weapons for the US military, and has done so productively for decades. To the extent that the US military crushed or will crush an adversary by application of overwhelming technological superiority, DARPA likely has or will have developed the war-winning technology.

  21. …which designs advanced weapons for the US military and has done so productively for decades. To the extent that the US military crushed or will crush an adversary by application of overwhelming technological superiority DARPA likely has or will have developed the war-winning technology.

  22. Which is why, for both the satellite-kill mission and the ballistic missile-kill, directed energy’s the way to go if it can be made to work (say, a NORAD-controlled network of very high power solid-state lasers riding piggyback on military and civilian aircraft so that the lasers are up out of much of the atmosphere and ready to do mid-course or re-entry kills of incoming ballistic payloads). We have to assume that our near-peer adversaries are aware of Firestrike, HELLADS and other such laser weapon systems, and making their own versions to kill even constellations of LEO satellites. The plan in that case is to make cheaper and more numerous satellites, and/or have spares on stand-by at various undisclosed launch sites (to prevent them being killed in boost phase or orbit in the same way as the satellites they replace).

  23. Which is why for both the satellite-kill mission and the ballistic missile-kill directed energy’s the way to go if it can be made to work (say a NORAD-controlled network of very high power solid-state lasers riding piggyback on military and civilian aircraft so that the lasers are up out of much of the atmosphere and ready to do mid-course or re-entry kills of incoming ballistic payloads). We have to assume that our near-peer adversaries are aware of Firestrike HELLADS and other such laser weapon systems and making their own versions to kill even constellations of LEO satellites. The plan in that case is to make cheaper and more numerous satellites and/or have spares on stand-by at various undisclosed launch sites (to prevent them being killed in boost phase or orbit in the same way as the satellites they replace).

  24. It could come down to economics. You could put up a $50M satellite. Your enemy might have to spend a multiple of this sum to shoot it down.
    Then multiply that number by the number of American satellites.
    It reminds me of the Palestinians who fire a $500 rocket, and it is “defeated” by a $50,000 missile, only
    this time it’s in reverse.

  25. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead. I can see the DOD having a few dedicated SpaceX rockets on standby to deploy these systems on demand.

  26. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead. I can see the DOD having a few dedicated SpaceX rockets on standby to deploy these systems on demand.

  27. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead. I can see the DOD having a few dedicated SpaceX rockets on standby to deploy these systems on demand.

  28. Nice to know someone is thinking ahead. I can see the DOD having a few dedicated SpaceX rockets on standby to deploy these systems on demand.

  33. …which designs advanced weapons for the US military, and has done so productively for decades.

    To the extent that the US military crushed or will crush an adversary by application of overwhelming technological superiority, DARPA likely has or will have developed the war-winning technology.

  34. Which is why, for both the satellite-kill mission and the ballistic missile-kill, directed energy’s the way to go if it can be made to work (say, a NORAD-controlled network of very high power solid-state lasers riding piggyback on military and civilian aircraft so that the lasers are up out of much of the atmosphere and ready to do mid-course or re-entry kills of incoming ballistic payloads).

    We have to assume that our near-peer adversaries are aware of Firestrike, HELLADS and other such laser weapon systems, and making their own versions to kill even constellations of LEO satellites.

    The plan in that case is to make cheaper and more numerous satellites, and/or have spares on stand-by at various undisclosed launch sites (to prevent them being killed in boost phase or orbit in the same way as the satellites they replace).

Comments are closed.