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