Sun-synchronous orbit key to US spy satellites—best imaging Korody 6 (Patrick, JD candidate, Ohio School of Law, 11/26, http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/lawjournal/issues/volume65/number6/korody.pdf, accessed 7-3-11, CH)
Although spy satellites continue to become more technologically advanced, the quantity, quality, and availability of their images are constrained by two physical principles—orbit and inclination. 24 The orbit and inclination of a spy satellite play an important role in determining where and when a satellite will be over a target and the quality of the image captured. The orbit is the distance a satellite maintains from the Earth as it circles, and it affects the coverage area and resolution quality of spy satellite imagery. 25 Based on the inclination of a satellite, “planners can predict when an area of interest will appear under the sensors of their satellite . . . . With altitude control rockets, . . . [ground controllers] can also alter the altitude of their space assets, dropping in for ‘close look’ purposes.” 26 For example, some of the United States’ spy satellites are in sun-synchronous orbits, 27 a type of polar orbit. 28 A spy satellite in a sun-synchronous orbit will predictably pass over a target at the same time daily, but will have the benefit of lighting from the sun to capture images with the optical sensor. 29 Some spy satellites are in an equatorial orbit. 30 A satellite in equatorial orbit flies along the line of the Earth’s equator. 31 This disadvantage can mean less than optimal performance in areas that are distant from the equator. If a satellite is 35,850 km above the Earth, it is in a geosynchronous orbit and hovers over one spot on the equator. 32 Weather satellites are often placed in geosynchronous orbits so as to provide around-the-clock coverage of a specific region. Thus, when discussing the capabilities of spy satellites, it is important to remember that the satellites are constrained by physical principles. The orbit and inclination of a satellite determine its ground tract, footprint, overflight time, and influence the quality of images the satellite’s sensors can capture.
Spy satellites key to peace—maintains US dominance without triggering a space race Windrem 7(Robert, Senior Investigative Producer, NBC News, 4/11, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18023834/print/1/displaymode/1098/, accessed 7-3-11, CH)
Rather than a kinetic approach, say officials and experts, the United States has adopted a method that relies on spy satellites’ most vulnerable aspect: the need for constant housekeeping from the ground. To maintain satellite orbits, particularly low Earth orbits, controllers on the ground must send their satellites a constant barrage of signals from ground stations around the world. For example, the United States maintains the Satellite Control Network, a string of eight tracking stations in places as remote as Thule Air Base on Greenland, and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. By interfering with those signals — called telemetry, tracking and control signals — the United States can put satellites out of commission for critical periods of time or send them spiraling out of control. Intelligence experts call the strategy “electronic negation” or “intrusion.” "The best ASAT [anti-satellite device] is not a weapon that detonates next to an enemy satellite," said William E. Burrows, a journalism professor at New York University who is also the author of "Deep Black," a book on spy satellites. "Instead, it would be a signal that would tell the satellite to take the rest of the afternoon off." Such a device is best for a number of reasons, experts say. Sending up a flurry of ASATS —missiles or space mines — would be obvious and could start an arms race in space or trigger a war in a crisis. Blinding an adversary has had that effect for eons. Using signals intelligence and intrusion is far subtler, and thus more difficult for the victim to detect.
Defense—NUQ – Cuts Up
Waning public support makes defense cuts inevitable Barrett 11(Rick, reporter, Journal Sentinal, 1/28, http://www.jsonline.com/business/114830464.html, accessed 6-30-11, CH)
Yet some people worry that the good times could come to an end as the war in Iraq winds down and public support for the war in Afghanistan has waned. Military programs are at risk of spending cuts by Congress and the Pentagon. "Annual federal borrowing considerably exceeds the entire defense budget, the government's credit rating is waning, inflation is perking up, and no one is in the mood for massive tax increases," said James Hasik, a defense industry consultant from Austin, Texas. "Thus, it's inconceivable that military spending won't be cut sharply, regardless of whatever hopes the industry might harbor," Hasik said.
The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to eliminate funding for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that the Pentagon has called an "unnecessary and extravagant expense." The House voted 233 to 198 to approve an amendment that will halt $450 million in fiscal 2011 funding for the engine being developed by General Electric and Britain's Rolls-Royce as an alternate to an engine built by United Technologies Corp unit Pratt & Whitney. The vote must still be approved by the Senate but it was clearly an important victory by newly elected Republican lawmakers who are concerned about spiraling U.S. deficits. "This was an important vote to demonstrate that nothing should be off limits when it comes to cutting wasteful spending," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "If we're going to deal with the enormous deficits, everything has to be on the table and that certainly includes defense spending." The vote came just hours after Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the House Armed Services Committee that he would look for all available legal options to kill the program if lawmakers insisting on funding it again. F-35 cuts are inevitable – new technology Solon 11 (Daniel, writer @ Intl Tribune, “A pinched world of weapons; Hugely expensive planes fall victim to increasingly tight defense budgets”, 6/21/11, lexis/nexis) JPG
The U.S. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, also a Lockheed Martin product, is an exception, but its development remains well behind schedule and its costs are rising. A recent Pentagon projection of total ownership costs over 50 years of development, testing, manufacturing and operational service arrived at the staggering figure of one trillion dollars, causing serious apprehension even among hardened veterans of military budget wars. As the late U.S. senator Everett Dirksen said: A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. The same goes for trillions. The F-35 is a multinational project with a number of NATO and U.S.-friendly countries among its intended customers and co-producers, including Australia, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Israel and Singapore. The U.S. plans to buy 2,443 of the aircraft, and purchases by the other nations will bring the total to more than 3,100. The alarm among all parties about costs continues to mount and is becoming increasingly vocal, raising concerns about the number of aircraft that will actually be produced. Alexandra Ashbourne, a military consultant based in London, has suggested that the combined effects of delays, rising costs and the rapid increase in capabilities of drones and more sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles may lead to the termination of F-35 purchases earlier than planned. Her view is supported by recent discussions of a possible U.S. strategic strike system - still in the early planning stage - including an ''optionally manned'' nonnuclear delivery platform, capable of staying airborne, on-station, for up to 100 hours.