> The first signals from Tyche were received a few hours after lift-off on Friday night, confirming the successful launch from Vandenberg space force base, in California, on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket as part of the Transporter-11 mission.
Acadia-5 is a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) earth observation satellite operated by Capella Space. The orange bundle would be the radar antenna all folded up (see render in link below).
"It's designed to capture 5km-wide spot scenes on the ground and have a best resolution of 90cm."[1]
Some sample ~90cm-ish imagery from Airbus Vision-1 (20km swath 87cm resolution) is available at [2].
It looks like it'd be used for knowing when a warship is in port (but perhaps having to guess which one), or when a warship under construction has been floated, or when a large military construction project has started or completed, or when ground for a new military forward operating base has been cleared, etc. Then more expensive higher resolution imagery could be ordered if it were worthwhile to do so.
About military satellites specifically? I'd say most governments are lying about something about them just about every time they mention them (possibly by omission)
You believe your government? The track record on transparency for most western governments has been so bad the last 25+ years that trusting them is kinda psychotic honestly
Actually, I think the opposite is likely true: the track record has been exemplary compared to previous periods, precisely because now we get to see through lies almost instantly.
Until the mass-internet made this possible, governments actually got away with it pretty much all the time. In some cases we got to know decades later, as documents were declassified or people confessed on their deathbeds. In most cases, we likely never got the truth. That's really not possible now, as long the internet stays up.
(Also, big shout out to FOIA laws. With all their limitations and imperfections, they were a massive step forward towards transparency in government. They would arguably have become a historical necessity at some point, but the anglosphere - Clinton, Blair - was definitely at the forefront of that shift.)
It’s a fair point that the internet and in particular civilian watchdogs on said internet have given us great tools in the fight for transparency but it can also be argued that the internet and its anonymous nature has created a whole new kind of misinformation/propaganda problem which governments are exploiting other (and many times their own) citizenry. This lessens the impact of the previously mentioned transparency boons and imo strengthens the idea that you can never trust government.
TLDR: GCHQ spend 500million on a satellite, and decide that not only is it too secret for the BBC to talk about it's too secret for Parliament to know about. Huge row ensues.
Matrix-Churchill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report a number of people are given permission by the MOD to supply weapons to Iraq. These are stopped by UK customs. In the subsequent prosecution, those involved attempt to raise the permission they were given .. but the government signs a number of Public Interest Immunity Certificates, making it illegal to mention that, including at their own criminal trial in their defense.
Important information is still redacted by the D-Notice system. The MOD have free reign to lie about things and have people prosecuted for revealing the truth. There are a few incidents where Americans and Brits on social media have radically different views on what happened because of what is and is not legal to report.
There is a very long history of critical information on weapons systems and capabilities being kept secret.
(Despite that, their Ukraine war briefings to the public are pretty reliable)
It's difficult to imagine the era when lying to the public and misleading Parliament were considered serious matters. But yes, Clark was next-level BS in all matters.
Wikipedia:
When Clark was Minister for Trade, responsible for overseeing arms sales to foreign governments, he was interviewed by journalist John Pilger who asked him:[31]
JP "Did it bother you personally that this British equipment was causing such mayhem and human suffering (by supplying arms for Indonesia's war in East Timor)?"
AC "No, not in the slightest, it never entered my head. You tell me that this was happening, I didn't hear about it or know about it."
JP "Well, even if I hadn't told you it was happening, the fact that we supply highly effective equipment to a regime like that is not a consideration, as far as you're concerned. It's not a personal consideration. I ask the question because I read you are a vegetarian and you are quite seriously concerned about the way animals are killed."
AC "Yeah."
JP "Doesn't that concern extend to the way humans, albeit foreigners, are killed?"
AC "Curiously not. No."
Also Wikipedia:
While involved in the Matrix Churchill trial he was cited in a divorce case in South Africa, in which it was revealed he had had affairs with Valerie Harkess, the wife of a South African barrister, and her daughters, Josephine and Alison.
“The Post Office was determined to keep a lid on the Horizon problems. To do this, it instructed staff in its call centre, which was the first contact point for subpostmasters having problems, to tell callers they were the only ones experiencing problems.
It went further than this by using its legal teams and deep pockets to defend itself against accusations, in court if necessary. It bragged about stopping subpostmasters from “jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon” when it silenced them. It also lied to journalists, politicians and anybody else who questioned the robustness of the Horizon system.”
The best way to tell a government is lying is to NOT find news about its lies. In a country with government that is pathologically lying more than 50% of the time those would simply be suppressed, newspapers closed, journalists jailed.
Russia where I'm from is a great example of that because I witnessed it and I personally know some journalists currently rotting in jail.
The first quote is water, no wisdom or any useful statements. News at 11, lying people exist.
The last quote is between wrong to idiotic on many levels. Ads are a compromise needed for free media to exist and journalists to eat and are the least trustworthy part.
The vendor tells us that Tyche is supposedly derived from their existing carbonite satellites.
The carbonite product page broadly lines up with the claimed specs (~5km swath, ~1m resolution). At the claimed orbit (500km), a ~0.5m aperture (see "washing machine sized") is diffraction limited at about 0.7m, so there doesn't appear to be too too much wiggle room.
The effective resolution is limited by the atmosphere as far as I understand. Eddies etc.
Also this satellite was very cheap at 22 million, the US cutting edge ones are rumoured to cost over a billion (and they're much bigger than washing machine size). So I wouldn't expect it to be a lot better than what's commercially available.
Why would you think it is a lie? Planet Labs' SkySat satellites have been flying for a decade and have 30cm resolution. The UK ones are based on existing Carbonite satellite that do 90cm.
If anything, having only 90cm when could be better is the odd thing.
> If anything, having only 90cm when could be better is the odd thing.
Seems you found the answer to your own question: it would be odd for it to be not better.
The other reason why it might be a lie is because the exact specs of spy gear is often kept secret. It is very hard to disguise the fact that you have launched a satelite, but comparatively easy to keep it secret what exactly is on it.
90cm resolution is more than enough to identify a ship. There arent manu military ships in this world. All appear in public regularly . 90cm is enough to get overall hull dimensions and thereby separate a ship from its neighbours in port. They dont need to be read license plates. Ships are very big.
Decoys are harder to fake, for instance an inflatable tank doesn't emit much infrared compared to a real tank. This was not an issue for camera that only capture visible light such as what was available in WWII or the naked eye.
It's easier in space because of no air resistance, but stuff like mylar balloon/sheath decoys I think beats out basically all missile defense. Aside from the infrared stuff, inflatable ships not in port wouldn't leave an actual wake of the right size etc. and might not be viable.
Yes to 90cm being used for identifying the class of a ship. But probably no for 90cm being used for identifying a particular hull, which may only be determinable with higher resolution imagery to confirm a hull-specific feature such as an upgraded radar or gun.
> The washing machine-sized satellite, was designed and built in the UK under a £22m contract awarded to Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL) and is the first to be fully owned by the MoD.
Win for the UK satellite industry here. Also a win for NATO capability that can operate independently of the US if needed.
Vastly different kinds of satellites. The KH-11 satellites weigh 17,000 kg, these weight 150kg. KH-11 has 2.4m mirror and resolution of 6cm. The UK ones are resolution of 90cm.
Both kinds are useful, cause the UK ones are small and cheap and good for general surveillance. While the big ones are useful for detail. My feeling is that the US should launch some small ones, but I think they buy that from Planet Labs and others.
I know, my point was that this can't really be anything else than a commercial off the shelf model with minor modifications. Still useful but I wouldn't expect magical resolutions from it.
People expect a lot these days because Google maps "satellite view" but the highest zoom levels are generally aerial.
For starters, it's still a lot bigger than Ukraine. Ukraine have successfully resisted Russian invasion for a couple of years, initially without the modern Western weaponry they now have (limited) access to. And they've recently pulled a switcharoo and actually invaded Russia a bit.
Even if the US decided to pull out of NATO, should Russia invade a NATO country then Russia is getting bounced out on its collective ear.
Would the US leaving vastly weaken NATO? For sure.
But is NATO still fit for purpose without the US for the remaining states? Yes.
A worse scenario would be if the US and its contractors pulled out of everything, like the F-series plane agreements, the shared nuclear arsenal with the UK, Five Eyes etc. That would be catastrophic. But those left behind would still have enough to defend itself against Russia.
Somewhat ironically, the BBC article illustrates the "similar capability" with a picture taken by a commercial British satellite launched in 2018 and built by the same private British company.
So there is nothing ground breaking there in term of capability. The point is just that this is apparently the first reconnaissance satellite owned by the MoD, which probably means much faster reaction times and more independence.
Interesting factoid:
"One interesting feature is its propulsion system which manoeuvres the satellite using water. The water goes through a thruster that heats it up to make superheated steam. That's how we get thrust and do station-keeping," explained chief technology officer Andrew Haslehurst." [1]
The press release (as well as product sheet of the Carbonite line that this is based on) say 5-7 years.
Resistor jet thrust and specific impulse is heavily influenced by how much electric power you supply.
We don't know what performance specs for this satellite is, but we can estimate using modules from this other company as a stand in - their PBR-50 seems to be about the right size for Tyche (100-200kg class). https://pale-blue.co.jp/product/pbr-50/ and it claims 70s of specific impulse. Using the 160kg mass from the BBC article and 10kg of water as propellant, you'd get a delta-v of about 45.
so I assume Britain received its imaging intelligence from the US as part of five eyes. or else I cannot explain how a nuclear armed country has skipped over one of the main prerequisite for missile targeting for 60 years
The UK nuclear arsenal has always been a strategic deterrent. The weapons in the UK arsenal (trident missiles with MIRV warheads) are designed to destroy cities, so unless the Russians have managed to conceal the locations of their major cities, targeting shouldn’t be an issue.
>Presumably part of the nuclear doctrine is to take out your enemies nuclear launch sites before they launch
It is not. The UK, like most nuclear armed states, has a "No first use" doctrine, meaning its nukes exist only to retaliate, to turn cities to ash.
Whoever is nuking you, to the point that you use those retaliatory nukes, might be targeting your weapons, but they are on submarines in friendly waters, so not likely to be destroyed before they can launch.
No but the latter only works if you're already in proximity. With the speed these things come down you have to be already in the right vicinity to catch it.
This is where GPS+track prediction could help a lot. And why I think it's so impressive.
I was 15 years old in 2004 when I have guessed the existence of that program :)
I was reading a scientific magazine article about the planed return of the Genesis spacecraft’s samples. They were writing about how the probe will float back to Earth under a parachute and a helicopter will catch it mid—air. That plan sounded absolutely bonkers crazy to me and I would have assumed they needed a long process of trial drops to practice this stunt, but the documented evidence shown that they were quite non-chalant about it. Almost as if they have done such things previously. But since there were no public evidence of prior art I assumed some classified spy stuff was what gave them the experience needed to be confident about the skill. (This was 7 years before the declassification of the existence of the KH-9 program)
You should see how often I was wrong about stuff though! :D
I only wrote about this because later it become clear that I was right.
I would never tell you about how much time I spent thinking about how a submarine could use laser back-scatter to track the slightly warmer wake of an enemy submarine. :P Not until they declassify that too.
Probably a combination of Trump and Brexit. The Tory governments made a big song and dance of investing to replace the access to European space programs that they lost, I wouldn't be surprised if this project sat in the folds of one of those efforts - even just financially.
On the other hand - this was actually delivered, so maybe not a Tory thing at all... /S
> It's designed to capture 5km-wide spot scenes on the ground and have a best resolution of 90cm.
Does somebody here know the military logic behind making these specifications public? I would imagine you don't want your opponents to know how much you know?
Nothing outstanding with this spec (can buy the same from commercial satellite imaging companies). So either they thought it did not harm to publicise or the actual capability is better than they tell us.
Public money paid for it and they have a right to know it does at least something useful. Also it 90% can do a lot more than that. It will probably have a higher resolution optic.
There's no harm in making it public because the technical capabilities itself are outdated. As stated in the article, the news is that it's owned by the UK Ministry of Defense.
It's not a particularly advanced capability, and as far as the opponents are concerned, the UK can request imagery from its allies, some of whom do possess imaging satellites capable enough that their exact specifications are a secret.
We have one recently completed in the Shetland Islands, the SaxaVord Spaceport [0], which has been given approval to do up to 30 launches a year. The UK spaceport guide [2] has more details and a few more planned launch sites.
Virgin Orbit has unsuccessfully tried to launch satellites from the UK [1], so I thought it might have been that, but it turns out they went out of business a couple of months later [2].
It's already just about possible on paper, but directed energy weapons are poorly characterised even on the ground so nobody's going to be in a hurry to mount them on a very expensive easily identifiable platform that covers a very narrow ground path on a very predictable schedule while being extremely vulnerable to counterattack.
Kinda the same reason we could have RFGs but don't.
I was in Grand Teton national Park last week and was looking at the sky to view the Perseids meteor shower, and I just saw chains of these Starlink satellites constantly moving across the sky. They look like tiny little stars, moving smoothly in an equally spaced out line.
Surveillance is just as important. In the months and years before a war begins, you need preparation and deterrence.
And as a NATO member and nuclear weapon state, UK's wars are not likely to escalate to satellite shooting. I mean, if it does escalate to that point it's going to be with Russia or China and there'll be bigger problems to worry about than losing a satellite.
I would put it to you that with bigger problems to worry about, you'd really rather not have other problems to worry about as well, such as the complete loss of space-borne surveillance capability, which likely would prove very useful with regard to the bigger problems.
Brits had a launch, 36 satellites, ready to go from Russia, days before the invasion.
Putin's Russia says (having just invaded Ukraine!) : we will only launch if guarantee not to use satellites for military purposes, and UK Gov divests shares (it was the large majority shareholder).
UK Gov oddly enough says no. Russia refuses to launch.
Russia then also refuses to return satellites, and they were in the end written off.
119 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 187 ms ] threadAnd this particular launch carried 116 satellites: https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cvg495lr8pjo
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/D4D22AQGbFrotEJ8sDA/fee...
The odd-looking satellite on the top right is blurred, I wonder what it is.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58043.msg2...
Acadia-5 is a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) earth observation satellite operated by Capella Space. The orange bundle would be the radar antenna all folded up (see render in link below).
https://www.exolaunch.com/news_95.html
Some sample ~90cm-ish imagery from Airbus Vision-1 (20km swath 87cm resolution) is available at [2].
It looks like it'd be used for knowing when a warship is in port (but perhaps having to guess which one), or when a warship under construction has been floated, or when a large military construction project has started or completed, or when ground for a new military forward operating base has been cleared, etc. Then more expensive higher resolution imagery could be ordered if it were worthwhile to do so.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1d77yq9zz2o
[2] https://intelligence.airbus.com/newsroom/satellite-image-gal...
Absent that, I would expect the 2-3x on what's made public.
Pink Floyd
Please tell me you know they all will say whatever public want to hear to make record companies money and profit from concerts ?
Until the mass-internet made this possible, governments actually got away with it pretty much all the time. In some cases we got to know decades later, as documents were declassified or people confessed on their deathbeds. In most cases, we likely never got the truth. That's really not possible now, as long the internet stays up.
(Also, big shout out to FOIA laws. With all their limitations and imperfections, they were a massive step forward towards transparency in government. They would arguably have become a historical necessity at some point, but the anglosphere - Clinton, Blair - was definitely at the forefront of that shift.)
TLDR: GCHQ spend 500million on a satellite, and decide that not only is it too secret for the BBC to talk about it's too secret for Parliament to know about. Huge row ensues.
Matrix-Churchill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Report a number of people are given permission by the MOD to supply weapons to Iraq. These are stopped by UK customs. In the subsequent prosecution, those involved attempt to raise the permission they were given .. but the government signs a number of Public Interest Immunity Certificates, making it illegal to mention that, including at their own criminal trial in their defense.
Important information is still redacted by the D-Notice system. The MOD have free reign to lie about things and have people prosecuted for revealing the truth. There are a few incidents where Americans and Brits on social media have radically different views on what happened because of what is and is not legal to report.
There is a very long history of critical information on weapons systems and capabilities being kept secret.
(Despite that, their Ukraine war briefings to the public are pretty reliable)
<<The Matrix-Churchill trial collapsed when former minister Alan Clark admitted he had been "economical with the actualité">>
Wikipedia:
When Clark was Minister for Trade, responsible for overseeing arms sales to foreign governments, he was interviewed by journalist John Pilger who asked him:[31]
Also Wikipedia:While involved in the Matrix Churchill trial he was cited in a divorce case in South Africa, in which it was revealed he had had affairs with Valerie Harkess, the wife of a South African barrister, and her daughters, Josephine and Alison.
https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Post-Office-Horizon-s...
“The Post Office was determined to keep a lid on the Horizon problems. To do this, it instructed staff in its call centre, which was the first contact point for subpostmasters having problems, to tell callers they were the only ones experiencing problems.
It went further than this by using its legal teams and deep pockets to defend itself against accusations, in court if necessary. It bragged about stopping subpostmasters from “jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon” when it silenced them. It also lied to journalists, politicians and anybody else who questioned the robustness of the Horizon system.”
Russia where I'm from is a great example of that because I witnessed it and I personally know some journalists currently rotting in jail.
Found in the fortune database, I have my doubts about it's universal validity, But I am a sucker for a good quote.
For free, another quote I found while looking for this one.
"The advertisement is the most truthful part of a newspaper" -- -- Thomas Jefferson
The last quote is between wrong to idiotic on many levels. Ads are a compromise needed for free media to exist and journalists to eat and are the least trustworthy part.
The carbonite product page broadly lines up with the claimed specs (~5km swath, ~1m resolution). At the claimed orbit (500km), a ~0.5m aperture (see "washing machine sized") is diffraction limited at about 0.7m, so there doesn't appear to be too too much wiggle room.
Side note - carbonite doesn't just do imagery - it does video too (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf_zd9MvW44).
https://www.sstl.co.uk/space-portfolio/missions-in-build/202...
https://www.sstl.co.uk/getmedia/b38389d7-cb07-4308-944a-a916...
Also this satellite was very cheap at 22 million, the US cutting edge ones are rumoured to cost over a billion (and they're much bigger than washing machine size). So I wouldn't expect it to be a lot better than what's commercially available.
If anything, having only 90cm when could be better is the odd thing.
Seems you found the answer to your own question: it would be odd for it to be not better.
The other reason why it might be a lie is because the exact specs of spy gear is often kept secret. It is very hard to disguise the fact that you have launched a satelite, but comparatively easy to keep it secret what exactly is on it.
" 01_OPTICAL SIGNATURE - LIFE SIZE, PERFECT SHAPE AND LIGHTWEIGHT
02_RADAR SIGNATURE - ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS UNPACK THE DECOY AND TURN ON THE ENGINE. 90 SECONDS LATER THE DECOY GENERATES YOUR DESIRED RCS.
03_INFRARED SIGNATURE - INFLATECH DECOYS CONTAIN INTEGRATED THERMAL SIGNATURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WE GUARANTEE 100% MULTISPECTRAL COPY OF THE DESIRED SIGNATURE."
It wasn't as common as today but we already had IR aerial photography in the 40s
Win for the UK satellite industry here. Also a win for NATO capability that can operate independently of the US if needed.
Both kinds are useful, cause the UK ones are small and cheap and good for general surveillance. While the big ones are useful for detail. My feeling is that the US should launch some small ones, but I think they buy that from Planet Labs and others.
People expect a lot these days because Google maps "satellite view" but the highest zoom levels are generally aerial.
Funding reference: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/14636.jpeg
For starters, it's still a lot bigger than Ukraine. Ukraine have successfully resisted Russian invasion for a couple of years, initially without the modern Western weaponry they now have (limited) access to. And they've recently pulled a switcharoo and actually invaded Russia a bit.
Even if the US decided to pull out of NATO, should Russia invade a NATO country then Russia is getting bounced out on its collective ear.
Would the US leaving vastly weaken NATO? For sure.
But is NATO still fit for purpose without the US for the remaining states? Yes.
A worse scenario would be if the US and its contractors pulled out of everything, like the F-series plane agreements, the shared nuclear arsenal with the UK, Five Eyes etc. That would be catastrophic. But those left behind would still have enough to defend itself against Russia.
So there is nothing ground breaking there in term of capability. The point is just that this is apparently the first reconnaissance satellite owned by the MoD, which probably means much faster reaction times and more independence.
Interesting factoid:
"One interesting feature is its propulsion system which manoeuvres the satellite using water. The water goes through a thruster that heats it up to make superheated steam. That's how we get thrust and do station-keeping," explained chief technology officer Andrew Haslehurst." [1]
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1d77yq9zz2o
Resistor jet thrust and specific impulse is heavily influenced by how much electric power you supply.
We don't know what performance specs for this satellite is, but we can estimate using modules from this other company as a stand in - their PBR-50 seems to be about the right size for Tyche (100-200kg class). https://pale-blue.co.jp/product/pbr-50/ and it claims 70s of specific impulse. Using the 160kg mass from the BBC article and 10kg of water as propellant, you'd get a delta-v of about 45.
(And I clearly should have read more carefully)
Very surprising for a country as large as the UK, I can only assume they used US satellites up until now, and started designing their own due to Trump
[0] https://www.gov.uk/guidance/uk-involvement-in-the-eu-space-p...
Also, even large cities have places which are better to target
It is not. The UK, like most nuclear armed states, has a "No first use" doctrine, meaning its nukes exist only to retaliate, to turn cities to ash.
Whoever is nuking you, to the point that you use those retaliatory nukes, might be targeting your weapons, but they are on submarines in friendly waters, so not likely to be destroyed before they can launch.
"The UK’s membership of the European Space Agency (ESA) is not affected by leaving the EU as ESA is not an EU organisation."
I think you meant the EU Space programme, but that does not seem related to military imaging satellites.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skynet_(satellite)
Imagine tracking and catching something falling from space using only 60s tracking tech. No GPS. Wow.
This is where GPS+track prediction could help a lot. And why I think it's so impressive.
I was reading a scientific magazine article about the planed return of the Genesis spacecraft’s samples. They were writing about how the probe will float back to Earth under a parachute and a helicopter will catch it mid—air. That plan sounded absolutely bonkers crazy to me and I would have assumed they needed a long process of trial drops to practice this stunt, but the documented evidence shown that they were quite non-chalant about it. Almost as if they have done such things previously. But since there were no public evidence of prior art I assumed some classified spy stuff was what gave them the experience needed to be confident about the skill. (This was 7 years before the declassification of the existence of the KH-9 program)
(yes, I know it's not a real quote)
I only wrote about this because later it become clear that I was right.
I would never tell you about how much time I spent thinking about how a submarine could use laser back-scatter to track the slightly warmer wake of an enemy submarine. :P Not until they declassify that too.
On the other hand - this was actually delivered, so maybe not a Tory thing at all... /S
Does somebody here know the military logic behind making these specifications public? I would imagine you don't want your opponents to know how much you know?
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-she... [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/643e6a4222ef3...
https://orbex.space/launch-vehicle
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-64218883
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Orbit
Kinda the same reason we could have RFGs but don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MVs37rxJL0
Single large satellites are I think going to be sitting ducks for anti-satellite missiles. Be destroyed first five minutes of a war.
What you need is something like Starlink - bazillions of tiny satellites.
https://www.starlinkmap.org/
And as a NATO member and nuclear weapon state, UK's wars are not likely to escalate to satellite shooting. I mean, if it does escalate to that point it's going to be with Russia or China and there'll be bigger problems to worry about than losing a satellite.
Brits had a launch, 36 satellites, ready to go from Russia, days before the invasion.
Putin's Russia says (having just invaded Ukraine!) : we will only launch if guarantee not to use satellites for military purposes, and UK Gov divests shares (it was the large majority shareholder).
UK Gov oddly enough says no. Russia refuses to launch.
Russia then also refuses to return satellites, and they were in the end written off.
Like dealing with stroppy children with guns.
Would Russia ever know or not on the usage?
This Satellite does not exist: The Story of Zircon(lazerpig)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1CKnFqeXkg
Black Arrow. And why Britain doesn't have a space program(alexander the ok)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0FLy2nI13E