RE: NOSS & Spysats (Cont'd)
John Pike (johnpike@fas.org)
Wed, 22 May 1996 16:19:55 -0400
At 04:03 PM 5/22/96 -0400, Larry Klaes <larryk@cambridge.village.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 1996, Ted Molczan wrote:
>
>> The NOSS 2's are 2 magnitudes brighter than the NOSS 1's,
>> so they would seem to be good candidates for some flat
>> black paint
I kinda lost Ted here, as this would only follow if one buys my argument
about the things being pretty large objects, which I *think* is correct but
is not quite yet demonstrably correct. If we accept that the NOSS-2 vehicles
have been given the same surface treatement relative to the NOSS-1 as the
KH-12 was given relative to the KH-11, which produced a 1 magnitude
decrement, the size of the NOSS-2 would be even larger relative to NOSS-1
than I asserted in my previous message on this point.
>Would it be wise to really paint a satellite black, as it might
>absorb too much solar radiation and overheat?
I don't think that it is painted black. But if the theory that the NOSS-2
has as a primary payload a cryogenic IR scanner for wide area surveillance
[which IMHO accounts for the things being so much larger than NOSS-1], there
would be a pretty decent radiator onboard for keeping the sensor cooled, and
handling other spacecraft thermal sources wouldn't be too much of a problem.
>Would painting a
>sat white be at least somewhat less reflective than silver or gold
>foil and keep the sat cool in the process?
I think that something like this is the theory. One might imagine that since
these birds have several kw of electrical power running through them, that
they have a more robust thermal management system with radiators and
whatever, and that as a result they rely less on passive thermal control
through gold foil.
____________________________
John Pike
Director, Space Policy & CyberStrategy Projects
Federation of American Scientists
307 Massachusetts Ave. NE
Washington, DC 20002
V 202-675-1023, F 202-675-1024, http://www.fas.org/