KH-12 - was Re: USA 40 debris storm

Philip Chien (kc4yer@amsat.org)
Thu, 8 Feb 1996 01:44:50 -0400

I said:

>>Short answer -
>>
>>USA 40 was virturally identical to the USA 89 (a/k/a DOD-1) satellite
>>launched during the STS-53 shuttle mission.
>>
>>USA 41 was a GLOMR-class microsat ejected from a GAS can.
>>

Tristan Cools tcools@nic.INbe.net replied:

>Another question pops up to me.  If it wasn't a KH12 satellite, did there
>ever excist something like a KH12 then ?

The term 'KH12' is a bit confusing.  Bill Burrows used it in his book "Deep
Black" and since then it's become a popular term in the aerospace press and
with the general public.  Others claim that the term does not exist, and
the actual satellite designation is "Advanced KH-11", or "Kennan" or
"Crystal" (with various spellings).

For a pretty good artist's rendition of the spacecraft, and an even better
technical write up (and even a launch photo!) check out the February 1996
issue of "Popular Mechanics".  I'm much much much too modest to mention who
wrote that particular article.

What's interesting is the artist's rendition is based - in part - on an
unclassified CIA rendition of a reconnisance satellite in orbit!

There are two confimed Advanced KH-11 launches, both on expendable Titan
IVs from Vandenberg AFB. - USA 86 launched on November 6, 1988 and USA 116
launched on December 5th 1995.

It is *possible* that the STS-36 payload, USA 53, launched on February 28,
1990 was a similar payload, but the evidence is shakey at best.  By that
time the Titan IV was active out of Vandenberg and operational.  Launching
from the shuttle in to a 62 degree orbit required USA 53 to use its own
propellant to raise its orbit to 800 km, and do an inclination change to 65
degrees - a costly move in terms of propellant.  A Titan launch out of
Vandenberg could have gone almost directly to an 800 km. 65 degree orbit so
it seems very likely that USA 53 had to be launched from the shuttle, and
the particular shuttle orbit and post-deployment maneuvers were necessary
to put it in to an operational orbit which may not have been optimum.
(It's likely that the payload was originally intended for a DoD shuttle
launch from Vandenberg using the high performance filament-wound solids.)

Regretably USA 53 was lost to visual observers in mid 1990.  It's logical
to assume that the spacecraft was involved in the Gulf War in some way.
The two probable assumptions are either lowering the spacecraft to an
extremely low perigee to take very high resolution photos of the war zone
and strategic targets in Iraq, or (less likely) raising the orbit for 'big
picture' photos.

If the orbit was lowered then it's possible that the managers did it
knowing that there wouldn't be enough propellant to raise it back to an
acceptable altitude after the war was finished, and were willing to
'sacrfice' that satellite as part of the war effort.



Philip Chien, Earth News - space writer and consultant  PCHIEN@IDS.NET
   __                                 __^__          __________
  |   \                          +---/     \---+    (=========
  |____\___________              +---\_____/---+     //
  >____)|        | \__                    \  \______//___
 >/     |________|    \                   [         _____\
 >|____________________\                   \_______/
 Roger, go at throttle up         CHR$(32) the final frontier