Talk:Misty (satellite program)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Misty (satellite program) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article deals with a military black project.
Because of the nature of such projects, the most authoritative sources (any involved governments and defense contractors) may not even acknowledge its existence. The most reliable sources may be highly speculative. Please ensure that the article is well and reliably sourced and does not contain unverifiable information or vague predictions.For more details, see the black project working group of the military history project. |
Program, not satellite
editYou did write an article about misty. My inquiry is, wouldn't it be more accurate to say misty is a program instead of a satellite? In fact, the Washington post article you have linked to use the word program instead of satellite. Quote "The satellite in question would be the third and final version in a series of spacecraft funded under a classified program once known as Misty" [1] If you don't agree with this, what would you call the combined 3 satellites? One last question, what do you mean by "and decayed on March 31, 1990"? I think STS 36 ended in March 4th and the satellite surely must have stayed longer than 30 days. Do you mind clarifying that please? See some other articles [2] and [3]
Stealthy or not stealthy, that's the question
editI have a silly question. You wrote: "Misty is reported to have optical and radar stealth characteristics, preventing it from being detectable by other nations".
Well, if this gadget is stealthy, so why could some amateur astronomers track it? Please, don't take that personally. I really don't want to insult you. But it really doesn't make any sense to me. Surely, the unknown satellite these observers tracked must be a military one. But it cannot be a stealth satellite. 141.2.22.211 14:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have to correct myself: My conclusion is wrong, as it was built on a somewhat weak premise. Just ignore my question. 141.2.22.211 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
FUD
editConspiracy theories, anyone? US Patent 103,909 was issued in 1870, and describes a metal polishing paste. If you're going to make stuff up, at least look up the patent number so you don't look foolish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.188.235 (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yup, now it changed to U.S. Patent #6,103,909; which is a chemical process. Someone made it up and I've removed it. --129.65.145.172 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Construction
editThis seems speculative to me so I moved it to talk. RJFJR (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
One clue about satellite camouflage has been found in the patent literature. Patent #US 5345238 describes an inflatable balloon that can be made rigid on exposure to ultraviolet radiation and can serve to lower the radar and optical signature of the satellite. Once deployed, the cone-shaped balloon could be steered to deflect incoming laser and microwave radar energy by sending it off into outer space. Whether or not these stealthy ideas are actually used in the Misty satellite series is not publicly known.[original research?].
The effect of the cone-shaped balloon on RF Stealth in S-band is analyzed in an academic article. It is found the RCS on the bore-sight direction can be decreased with the ballon, but not enough to hide it from modern Space Fence system.[1]
References
- ^ "Shen Shou Max Chung(2015), Effects of Inflated Cone on Satellite Radar Cross Sections in S-band via FDTD Simulations". Progress in Electromagnetic Research. 2015-06-04. Retrieved 2015-06-04.