TDRSS ground station expansion?
Allen Thomson
I was looking at the original TDRSS ground station (32.502 N, 106.611
W) in Google Earth historical imagery and noticed that a substantial
addition was made to the existing building between 2005 and the last
available imagery in 2007. There's also a new big (19 m diameter)
round thing just south of the TDRSS antennas, but I can't tell if it's
a water tower, dish or what. In addition, quite a bit of additional
parking was added, which is curious because a) the existing parking
was greatly underused, at least in the period of available imagery
(1998-2007) and b) the ground station is advertised as highly
automated, so what's going to be the need for so many people?
Does anybody here know what the expansion is for? I have a WAG, but
would rather get Ye Readers' inputs before saying what it is.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
This may end up tending towards policy than actualy technical issues, but let's see where it goes. GdM
Ken S. Tucker
My personal experience with NASA and it's contractors has
been excellent, in that I've emailed questions and have received
excellent replies and had some good discussions.
Usually NASA is separate from the military, but in some
cases things may overlap such as in this TDRSS at
White Sands,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TDRSS#Military_Applications
and NASA may not respond.
You can ask them, but I think that info is classified.
Ken
Allen Thomson
There's another one at the northern TDRSS site, 32.542 N, 106.612 W,
that appeared in the same period of time, so I think it's also an
antenna. Interestingly, in the last available imagery (27 May 2007) of
the northern site, it looks as if the foundations for two more
antennas had been started. This starts to look like a non-trivial
expansion of relay satellite capability.
Thanks to Ken Tucker and OM for the advice on contacting NASA. I'll do
that and see what they say.
Pat Flannery
Allen Thomson wrote:
> There's another one at the northern TDRSS site, 32.542 N, 106.612 W,
> that appeared in the same period of time, so I think it's also an
> antenna. Interestingly, in the last available imagery (27 May 2007) of
> the northern site, it looks as if the foundations for two more
> antennas had been started. This starts to look like a non-trivial
> expansion of relay satellite capability.
>
Considering the present threat of cyber-spying, I wonder if the DOD is
going to be using TDRSS for transmitting classified data point-to-point
on the Earth so as to avoid any use of the internet or landlines, which
could be compromised.
That would account for a large expansion of the ground stations, to keep
up with the bandwidth needed to do that.
Pat
Ken S. Tucker
> > There's also a new big (19 m diameter) round thing just south of the TDRSS antennas,
>
> There's another one at the northern TDRSS site, 32.542 N, 106.612 W,
> that appeared in the same period of time, so I think it's also an
> antenna. Interestingly, in the last available imagery (27 May 2007) of
> the northern site, it looks as if the foundations for two more
> antennas had been started. This starts to look like a non-trivial
> expansion of relay satellite capability.
The US Military is publicily expressing intentions to
boost the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle
I'm guessing, a lot more data flow and redundancy will
be required to link to the expanding UAV fleet, and
of course the DoD uses the TDRSS.
> Thanks to Ken Tucker and OM for the advice on contacting NASA. I'll do
> that and see what they say.
Your welcome, kindly let us know if you find anything.
Ken
David Spain
> Thanks to Ken Tucker and OM for the advice on contacting NASA. I'll do
> that and see what they say.
And assuming it isn't a secret, don't forget to share what you learn....
Dave
Derek Lyons
>
>I was looking at the original TDRSS ground station (32.502 N, 106.611
>W) in Google Earth historical imagery and noticed that a substantial
>addition was made to the existing building between 2005 and the last
>available imagery in 2007. There's also a new big (19 m diameter)
>round thing just south of the TDRSS antennas, but I can't tell if it's
>a water tower, dish or what. In addition, quite a bit of additional
>parking was added, which is curious because a) the existing parking
>was greatly underused, at least in the period of available imagery
>(1998-2007) and b) the ground station is advertised as highly
>automated, so what's going to be the need for so many people?
>
>Does anybody here know what the expansion is for? I have a WAG, but
>would rather get Ye Readers' inputs before saying what it is.
Just published in the today's Space Review and appears to answer your
question.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1384/1
"The Las Cruces [NRO relay] site is collocated with NASA�s Tracking
Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) ground station on the White Sands
Missile Range. TDRSS has long included �national security customers�
in its operations. The NRO also operates its own fleet of data-relay
satellites in both geosynchronous and highly-inclined orbits. The
White Sands site grew significantly in recent years and has a lot of
parking spaces outside its buildings."
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Pat Flannery
Allen Thomson wrote:
> There's another one at the northern TDRSS site, 32.542 N, 106.612 W,
> that appeared in the same period of time, so I think it's also an
> antenna. Interestingly, in the last available imagery (27 May 2007) of
> the northern site, it looks as if the foundations for two more
> antennas had been started. This starts to look like a non-trivial
> expansion of relay satellite capability.
>
> Thanks to Ken Tucker and OM for the advice on contacting NASA. I'll do
> that and see what they say.
>
Dwayne Day has a article on these ground stations (which were recently
declassified) in the new edition of The Space Review:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1384/1
Pat
Allen Thomson
> Allen Thomson <thoms...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >I was looking at the original TDRSS ground station (32.502 N, 106.611
> >W) in Google Earth historical imagery and noticed that a substantial
> >addition was made to the existing building between 2005 and the last
> >available imagery in 2007. There's also a new big (19 m diameter)
> >round thing just south of the TDRSS antennas, but I can't tell if it's
> >a water tower, dish or what. In addition, quite a bit of additional
> >parking was added, which is curious because a) the existing parking
> >was greatly underused, at least in the period of available imagery
> >(1998-2007) and b) the ground station is advertised as highly
> >automated, so what's going to be the need for so many people?
>
> >Does anybody here know what the expansion is for? I have a WAG, but
> >would rather get Ye Readers' inputs before saying what it is.
>
> Just published in the today's Space Review and appears to answer your
> question.
>
> http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1384/1
>
> "The Las Cruces [NRO relay] site is collocated with NASA�s Tracking
> Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) ground station on the White Sands
> Missile Range. TDRSS has long included �national security customers�
> in its operations. The NRO also operates its own fleet of data-relay
> satellites in both geosynchronous and highly-inclined orbits. The
> White Sands site grew significantly in recent years and has a lot of
> parking spaces outside its buildings."
That was my WAG -- I just wanted to be sure there wasn't some non-NRO
purpose for the expansion. BTW, I'm still waiting for a reply from
NASA. (I got a copy of the NRO declassification memo mentioned in the
TSR article last week, which was what sparked my curiosity about the
matter.)
Jan Vorbrüggen
> going to be using TDRSS for transmitting classified data point-to-point
> on the Earth so as to avoid any use of the internet or landlines, which
> could be compromised.
I'm sure that they are assuming any comms, whatever the actual technical
means, are potentially compromised. That's why you use end-to-end
encrpytion (e.g., SSL/TSL). Denial-of-service would be another matter -
that might conceivably motivate using an alternate path.
Jan