Satellite imagery from the Corona project

Timeshifter

Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
162
Reaction score
371
Came across this article just now. My first thought was wow, some cool images for us to utilise. Then I read on, and thought mmm...

'Satellite imagery from the Corona project, a Cold War spy program that acquired military intelligence about the Soviet Union for the US, is proving useful in ways its creators could have never imagined—including for archaeologist'.

'A trove of some 850,000 images were taken by Corona satellites between 1960 and 1972, after President Dwight Eisenhower approved it as part of the world’s first space imaging program. A spy satellite offered an unprecedented view of the enemy and its missile sites, warships, and military bases'.

There is always a big 'lol' in these stories...

'At the time of its creation, Corona also represented an impressive feat of engineering, requiring the development of film that could survive space radiation and high air pressure—not to mention be retrieved from a satellite orbited high above the atmosphere. After a dozen failed launches, the first successful Corona flight managed to make eight passes over the USSR. An Air Force plane retrieved the 20 pounds of film in midair as it floated down to Earth by parachute. 😀

I would love to study this film and it's protection. Film is so sensitive to light a mere photon will destroy it, nevermind 'space radiation'

Let's face it, this was a high altitude plane taking photos, wasn't it?

'Today, those high-resolution images represent a snapshot of an earlier planet, making visible global ecosystem transformations that happened right under our noses, including from the effects climate change. Spanning nearly the entire globe, the photographs were declassified in the mid-1990s'

yjfa_a_1713285_f0001_oc-793x1024.jpeg

'Examples of recent land use changes detectable on CORONA imagery: A) Western Mexico City, where massive urban sprawl has destroyed archaeological remains; B) Indus River Valley, Pakistan, where intensified irrigation agriculture has obscured archaeological sites; C) Three Gorges Dam, China, where construction of the world’s largest dam project has submerged countless archaeological sites. CORONA imagery courtesy US Geological Survey; Modern satellite imagery ©ESRI and DigitalGlobe'
Now it starts to get interesting...

'Analyzing Corona imagery, Ur has spotted “communication networks of the Early Bronze Age, state-sponsored irrigation under the Assyrian and Sasanian empires, and pastoral nomadic landscapes in northwestern Iran and southeastern Turkey,” he writes on his website. These large-scale features, if still in existence today, would be all but invisible on the ground, without the aid of the full picture'.

Ok, so, what else do they want to see/ remove, or invent 'explanations' for?

'To date, only about five percent of the images have been scanned (and each photograph costs $30 to digitize). Because the perspective of the satellite distorts spacial accuracy of the terrain, (no, a wide lens tilted out of a plane will do the same TS) images require orthorectification before geographic features can be seen in their true position. But the software used to correct the images has improved in recent years'.

Ok, whoever is billing them for scanning is having them over :) also, the software to do this is available in photoshop, as presets, so I don't buy this as a reason for delaying pictures. These guys will have a team who can quickly fix any image 'skewing' they could also just as quickly add in skewing, reshaping...

In my opinion, it is more likely they are examining these images for things they don't want regular folks to see, including historical markers, the shape of terrain, the earth, etc.

Of these images, how few will we ever see? 1% if we are lucky, and you can guarentee they are doctored.

Source


 

codis

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
254
Reaction score
627
Location
Austria
I would love to study this film and it's protection. Film is so sensitive to light a mere photon will destroy it, nevermind 'space radiation'
I would say this is an invalid overgeneralisation.
Let's face it, this was a high altitude plane taking photos, wasn't it?
Like an U-2 ?
 

Timeshifter

Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
162
Reaction score
371
I would love to study this film and it's protection. Film is so sensitive to light a mere photon will destroy it, nevermind 'space radiation'
I would say this is an invalid overgeneralisation.

Not sure what you mean? ISO/ASA has no bearing on light (or radiations) ability to destroy film. In a commercial dark room, with just the light emiting from a luminous exit sign, was enough to ruin photographic film, I've tested this. You could have photographic film that is 2000 iso/ asa and if you open it in even minimal light it will be ruined.

Let's face it, this was a high altitude plane taking photos, wasn't it?
Like an U-2 ?
And yes, a U-2 or the like would do the job, IMO.
 

Magnetic

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
313
Location
USA
When I tried to find out if any Star Forts had been found off the coast of America in the large continental shelves nothing came up. I know there there and oil prospecting companies must have found these massive structures but they are not telling. I would hazard a guess that hundreds of Star Forts would be found in the Atlantic and Gulf coasts continental shelves covered in mud.
 

codis

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
254
Reaction score
627
Location
Austria
And yes, a U-2 or the like would do the job, IMO.
As the U-2 incident suggests, it did no more already in 1960.
In the '40, the Germans built the Ta152 fighter with pressure cabin and NO injection to shoot down British Mosquitos (tasked with reconnaisance missions).
The Russians took it equally serious.
 

Onijunbei

Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
81
Location
Las Vegas
Like Codis said, U2 and possibly SR 71s could have taken high reconaissance photos. A buddy of mine use to take photos with satelites while working for a Defense Contractor, so I know satelites exist and can take photos. Just in case some people are still undeveloped film, the goverment operates most media and Wikipedia...they're are plenty of tall stories that they write to make fun of the readers intelligence.
 

kd-755

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
340
Reaction score
1,020
If you don't mind me asking what powers the satellites?
 

Corsair

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
2
CORONA was actually pushed up directly because of the U-2 being insufficient, in 1960 a Soviet SA-2 Guideline missile shot down a U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers near Yekaterinburg. The SR-71 was still under development at the time, its initial version (the A-12 OXCART made its first flight in 1962), and the satellites were able to image a much larger area per pass than a plane.

If you don't mind me asking what powers the satellites?
The Corona series were built on the RM-81 Agena rocket upper stage, early satellites operated a bit differently than today's and in this case the Corona camera package remained attached to the Agena instead of separating like you'd see a modern one do. Power for those was supplied by silver-oxide batteries, supplemented by solar panels once the tech was viable in the '60s. Later generations went entirely solar with hydrazine maneuvering boosters, actually closely resembling the Hubble Telescope once they switched from dropped film canisters to datalinks.
 

kd-755

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
340
Reaction score
1,020
I should have made it clear I was asking Onijunbei as his friend must have known how these things are able to move at thousands of miles per hour without any propulsion mechanism.

Seems it like every satellite I have ever looked into it didn't have a propulsion system. Emphasis mine.

To succeed, the Corona effort had to achieve a number of technological firsts. For the first time, engineers had to stabilize a satellite in three directions—a technique known as three-axis stabilization. It has since become routine for spacecraft, but in the 1950s it was not. The required orbital velocity had never before been reached, nor had reentry vehicles survived the hot trip back through the atmosphere to the ground. In addition, designers had to figure out how to build a camera that could operate remotely in the cold vacuum of space.


Agena included a Bell rocket engine with 16,000 pounds of thrust to propel the system into final orbit and a platform to carry the Corona payload. Unlike other early satellites that spun to stay stable, Agena used horizon sensors and cold-gas valve-thruster firings to correct its attitude and keep it steady. The ability to point from a stable platform while whizzing through space as the Earth rotated below was especially important if the camera were to get clear pictures.

The recovery system, supplied by General Electric, had a thermal protection system, retrorocket, cold-gas spin-stabilized attitude control system, power and telemetry gear, and a parachute.
What was the cold gas valve-thruster pushing against in the cold vacuum of space?

It gets better
On April 15, 1960, Discoverer XI made it into orbit. The camera worked, thanks to a new type of polyester-based Kodak film. Corona was almost there, but the recovery system malfunctioned this time.
Polyester eh, impervious to the 'hot trip' out and back and also the 'cold vacuum of space'.

A fabricated story if ever there was one.

This is a horizon sensor, apparently. Source

https _airandspace.si.edu_webimages_collections_full_A19731177000cp03.JPG.jpeg
 

codis

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
254
Reaction score
627
Location
Austria
Like Codis said, U2 and possibly SR 71s could have taken high reconaissance photos. A buddy of mine use to take photos with satelites while working for a Defense Contractor, so I know satelites exist and can take photos.
My point was and is - the U-2 and other reconaissance aircraft were useless as soon as the adversary (like the Russians) hat the means to detect them (radar) and shoot them down (either with fighter planes, or Flak).
If you don't mind me asking what powers the satellites?
I mentioned Newton's second law already in another thread here.
You need to get the satellite into the orbit, which the expensive rocket does. At the right hight with the right speed, forces (centrifugal and gravitational) equal out, and theoretically, there is no further propulsion required. Satellites have boosters and a small amount of fuel for course corrections.
 

codis

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
254
Reaction score
627
Location
Austria
Same question. What in the cold vacuum of space does the booster push against?
I answered that in another thread.
A rocket "pushes" against it's own exhaust, generated from the fuel it brought with it.
Physically, according to the rules of an elastic impact.

Rocket engines don't need air (oxygen) input like comustion motors or jet engines, they are self-contained.
Due to several factors, rockets are more efficient in vacuum than in the atmosphere.
 

kd-755

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
340
Reaction score
1,020
Same question. What in the cold vacuum of space does the booster push against?
I answered that in another thread.
A rocket "pushes" against it's own exhaust, generated from the fuel it brought with it.
Physically, according to the rules of an elastic impact.

Rocket engines don't need air (oxygen) input like combustion motors or jet engines, they are self-contained.
Due to several factors, rockets are more efficient in vacuum than in the atmosphere.
Apologies for not seeing the theory you posted in another thread, sadly I don't get to read every post.

So a rocket creates its exhaust by burning a fuel and then it is able to push on its constantly dissipating exhaust to move itself in the opposite direction to its exhaust which has much less mass than the mass of the rocket which is constantly diminishing as the fuel it is carrying gets used up, if I am understanding the theory correctly.
And a rocket engine works in a pressurised water vapour atmosphere which is itself contained within the cold vacuum of space by some currently unknown container that can be penetrated at will by rockets and this same process works the exact same way in the cold vacuum of space and presumably if the right fuel were used in the liquid water of the ocean.

I will have to defer to you on this theory as there is no way to practically demonstrate it within the pressurised water vapour. atmosphere we live in.
I have however had first hand experience of a high pressure compressed air line blowing at 1500 psi due to a faulty cone and that was impressive but after the initial bang and the fitting separation the end producing the jet of air at 1500 psi didn't move at all whereas the rocket exhaust theory would suggest it should have at least deformed in a direction opposite to the compressed air exhaust. Granted it was clipped to some sheeting but then again so was the bit that separated and that bugger bent double and ripped through the sheeting so clearly the pressure can break clips effortlessly.
 

codis

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2020
Messages
254
Reaction score
627
Location
Austria
Point by point ...
I will have to defer to you on this theory as there is no way to practically demonstrate it within the pressurised water vapour. atmosphere we live in.
Not so much vapour in the air to be critical, but some rocket engines have burst discs at the nozzle, that closes the engine, and seals it from environmental influences. It usually ruptures at ignition.

...it is able to push on its constantly dissipating exhaust to move itself in the opposite direction to its exhaust which has much less mass than the mass of the rocket...
Much less mass, but much higher velocity.
You can read up the theory of supersonic flow across laval nozzles. High pressure and high temperature before the nozzle (insidde the chamber) translates to high exhaust speed after the nozzle (expansion). Usually in the range of 1000...3000 m/s. And momentum is mass x velocity.
...which is constantly diminishing as the fuel it is carrying gets used up, ...
At least with the "old school" chemical rocket engines, like the boosters they use for long-range missiles.
If you are British, as the location flag suggests, you might find some old folks from London you can ask if the Nazi V2 attacks were real.
I had experimented quite a bit with solid fuel engines, which are easy to build.
There are exotic thruster concepts that supposedly only work in outer space, but which are not really interesting for me ...

I have however had first hand experience of a high pressure compressed air line blowing at 1500 psi due to a faulty cone and that was impressive but after the initial bang and the fitting separation the end producing the jet of air at 1500 psi didn't move at all whereas the rocket exhaust theory would suggest it should have at least deformed in a direction opposite to the compressed air exhaust.
The excerted force must overcome the gravitaional weight of the container (engine) first.
My dad used to operate a gas-fuled power plant of his company for a few years. For that position, he attended several operation and maintainance courses, where he had been shown pictures of related accidents. At one instance, the outlet valve broke off from overpressure, and the whole boiler broke away from the mounting and took off. After about a mile of flight, it landed a few meters away from a railway track.
That's what he told me ...
PS:
Here a website I used to consult for my own designs.
Quite simple to reproduce with for an average crafty person with a bit of engineering aptitude.
Legal issues aside ...
 
Last edited:

Broken Agate

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2020
Messages
82
Reaction score
175
Location
Arizona
Corona satellites, corona virus, TPTB surely love their crowns of glory, don't they? There is something about crowns that we no longer remember because it was hidden from us. Royalty are often shown with a crown and scepter. Was the crown part of a weapon? Corona satellites were used in wartime, the coronavirus is being used as a weapon (psychologically, if not physically) against all of humanity. It doesn't matter much what the satellites actually were, it's the symbolism that is the most important. Symbolism and ritual are everything, and they like to hide it in plain sight. Besides taking pretty pictures that we'll never get to see, what was the purpose of this "satellite," I wonder?
 

kd-755

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
340
Reaction score
1,020
As I said I defer to you. Nakkas rockets are all tested within the pressurised water vapour atmosphere. None have crossed the unknown barrier between the pressurised atmosphere and the vacuum it is supposed to be within. I remember discovering his work when Top Gear launched a Reliant Robin atop a rocket. Here's how Top Gear actually built a working Space Shuttle

We hold very different ideas of what is over our heads and to continue would I feel detract from the op too much. Sorry Timeshifter if this conversation has already wandered too far.
I am with you fwiw those photos indeed all aerial photos are taken from aircraft.
 

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Top