Talk:Reconnaissance satellite

Move debate

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This page should not have been moved as Wikipedia uses common names, not technical ones. Spy satellite is by far the more commonly used name.- SimonP 17:54, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * For whom is the term more common? In history or polisci classes, they use 'reconnaissance satellite' as well. I know, I have been there. And on TV documentaries, they use the same thing. "Spy satellite" is a negatively charged term that should not be used in an apolitical setting. It's not as if "reconnaissance satellite" is uncommon usage, either. -Joseph 18:13, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)


 * The normal Wikipedia standard for determining common usage is Google hits, and "spy satellite" wins convincingly by this measure. At university I took a couple of History of Espionage classes and my professor would often refer to them as spy satellites.  Even in academic texts spy satellite is often used, as a JSTOR search shows. - SimonP 18:53, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should put this to a vote. Articles are to remain NPOV, and 'spy satellite' is not an NPOV term. And if you're going to correct me, you'd better learn how to spell in the article text. -Joseph 19:42, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)


 * Any poll would have to be one on revoking Naming conventions (common names) as this is a perfect example of that rule. Also I would contest that "spy satellite" is a pejorative term. Rather I would view an American government euphemism as the more biased title.  - SimonP 20:00, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Simon, where did you go to college, may I ask?:-) Meanwhile, a brief question someone more knowledgable than me might want to answer in the article...Did film-return sats carry multiple film canisters? It's never mentioned. --Penta 01:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose moving from spy satellite, which is much more common. Jonathunder 23:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose moving from spy satellite; I agree that "spy" has some negative connotations, but the terms do seem to be used interchangeably, with "reconnaissance" used more euphemistically than as a broader term; in the event that "reconnaissance" could be applied to "satelllite" in a broader sense than that used here (intelligence gathering) then I'd support creation of a separate, more general article and have the present article avaialble via a main link in context. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support (weakly) moving from spy satellite, but I have mixed feelings. Re "an American government euphemism...biased title", keep in mind there are many types of reconnaissance satellites: U.S. military, non-U.S. military, and civillian, e.g,.


 * If this rename doesn't happen, does that mean we should change the commercial QuickBird high-res imaging satellite to be "commercial spy satellite?". Or what about the European SPOT satellite? Or the Indian Remote Sensing satellite? Are "earth observation satellite" and "remote sensing satellite" also biased titles? Or is it only a biased euphamistic title when applying to American military satellites? What about the Israeli EROS (satellite) commerical imaging satellite, which is based on their Ofeq military recon sat?


 * Wikipedia articles use the term "reconnaissance satellite" more than "spy satellite". Within articles there are already more hyperlink redirects from reconnaissance satellite to spy satellite than vice versa. It would seem changing this article title would improve internal consistency. OTOH I don't think "spy satellite" is a very perjorative term. Also "reconnaissance" is harder to say, spell and type than "spy". But a redirect page can handle that just as it does now.


 * Common usage is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. As mentioned above there are various issues that must be weighed when naming an article. Often there are entanglements to many other articles, as exists here.


 * BTW the latest generation of commercial imaging satellites have better resolution than military recon sats did not that long ago. Quickbird has 61 cm resolution. During the Gulf War, SPOT images were voluntarily witheld because of potential military value -- to prevent SPOT's use as a commercial "spy satellite". The issue is bigger than just military recon satellites, or a quick decision based only on common usage. The whole thing needs careful thought. Joema 02:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Support it's more encyclopedic, so whether or not it's "more common" it is more proper, even though it's less cool. Like ninja stars (okay, bad example) —Fitch 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you couldn't already tell, support.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Erhard Kietz
This guy is mentioned in "see also" as having something to do with the Cuban Missile Crisis. His individual page says nothing about the Cuban Missile Crisis, spy satellites, etc. It seems he researched electrical recording devices. I'm not at all sure that he is eminently relevant to spy satellites, and suggest that his name be removed from the "see also" section.

Expand
I think this article needs to be expanded. What technology it use, how it works, what it does, etc...

Move
"No consensus?" There were three "pro" votes and two "nay" votes on the topic of renaming. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 14:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and one of the "pro" votes was only weakly in favour, plus "use common names" seemed to be in favour of the current name. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot understand why spy is not a neutral term. A spy satellite is a spy.  It spies on others.  Reconnaissance is spying.  Call a spy a spy.--user talk:hillgentleman 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Satellite surveillance
Can someone expand on the Satellite surveillance aspects? Especiall in reguards to privacy concerns and military operations? 134.193.94.173 19:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Broken link removed

 * Chronology of reconnaissance satellites --190.39.135.131 02:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed the wording on the sentence regarding the name
It had previously stated that some people regard the term spy satellite in a negative sense... I changed the wording to that it was preferred to be called reconnaisance satellite by some, I felt that the version that stated spy satellite carried a negative connotation was a very one-sided opinion that would be argued by many if not everyone... I dont really think that anyone EXCEPT the governments that employ them regard the term "spy satellite" as offensive or unsavory... To the majority (and to wikipedia's standard of neutrality) spy satellite is just another item to study and learn about, not to label as being something negative. Realistically THEY ARE USED TO SPY, so "spy satellite" is a very apt term. I've never heard of reconnaisance that wasn't absorbed as intelligence. Species2112 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian spy satellite
CARTOSAT -2 has been mentioned as India's spy satetllite. Are there any links to support this statements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.198.15 (talk) 04:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

naming conventions
For what it's worth, a huge amount of intelligence is gathered from commercial sources. Are you suggesting that commercially-available imaging products are "spy satellites"? That seems a bit harsh. ... aa:talk 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition
At present this article is undefined, no source is used to explain the term, instead we have a personal interpretation and amplification, followed by some cherry picking of sources and half explored issues. Does anyone have anyhting that defines this?

ALR (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Globalize tag -- very United States-centric article
The article seems extremely focused on US spy satellite in terms of its examples (with only one mention of a Soviet one). In particular, the history section only deals with the US side. It might be better to have more information on the parallel development of Soviet and US satellites, as well as other countries' catching up. -Kieran (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

In the Spy Satellite page there is no information given about the Indian Spy Satellite RISAT
The title Spy Satellite directs to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_satellite, there is no info given about the Indian Spy satellite RISAT, though a separate page exists for RISAT 1 and RISAT 2, they have not been mentioned in the Spy Satellite page. I wish the links for RISAT 1 and RISAT 2 are provided in Spy Satellite page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISAT-2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusudhan27 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Madhusudhan27 (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

References for improvement
Here are some references that might be useful for those expanding the article, entered as citation templates already:

History of some US satellites:

News story on the history of russian anti-satellite weaponry:

There's quite a good deal of history in this book, but it doesn't focus on the "spy" part much:

Background on some satellite technology:

Other articles covering related topics that may be useful to get references from:
 * Lots in Category:Reconnaissance_satellites and on Template:Rest_of_the_World_Reconnaissance_Satellites
 * S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia
 * Indian Space Research Organisation
 * National Reconnaissance Office
 * Zircon affair
 * Zenit (satellite)

There are also a number of "references" in the "Further reading" section that need to be turned into inline citations. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 01:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The missing book
It is Deep Black: Space Espionage and National Security by William E. Burrows, which is the first really excellent book on the subject. It was used by the CIA for years as introductory reading material for new officers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.85.168 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reconnaissance satellite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027181013/http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/ to http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reconnaissance satellite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090920093817/http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Erickson/erickson.pdf to http://aupress.au.af.mil/Books/Erickson/erickson.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

USA 224
In the "United States reconnaissance satellites" dropdown, USA-193 is included but USA 224 is not. Is there a reason for this? I know it is not a thing thats known for sure but.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0w0 catt0s (talk • contribs) 00:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)