ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Alarming Romney Statement About Securing US "Leadership" In Space

entropyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 127

Report this Sep. 25 2012, 7:01 pm

I see nothing wrong with what Romney said. While NASA and other outfits provide research and development of a lot of tech that has nothing to do with war, advances in space technology is important in defense as we don't want to fall behind other more agressive nations who wouldn't mind taking advantage of a weakened America. Also, being the best at something- anything- means attracting the best and brightest in the world, something  that America has benefited greatly from. The USA has always had the kind of people who aspire to something greater. When did this become something to criticize?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46302

Report this Sep. 25 2012, 9:26 pm

Quote: entropyman @ Sep. 25 2012, 7:01 pm

>Also, being the best at something- anything- means attracting the best and brightest in the world, something  that America has benefited greatly from. The USA has always had the kind of people who aspire to something greater. When did this become something to criticize?
When the socialism that so many people are demand came into fashion..... it's the very antithesis of aspiring to being greater.


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4023

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 2:03 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 25 2012, 6:18 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 25 2012, 3:07 pm

>

>

>when did the world decide space belonged to the US?  I think we need a recount. 

>
I don't think anyone said or suggested this.... We're talking about protecting our assets and our country.  What would happen if one of USA's enemies took out a number of our satellites.... or all of them?


 


I'm thinking it would be far cheaper to replace multiple satellites multiple times than to put one system for protecting them in place.  Besides, the vast majority of your enemies don't have the means to attack anything in space.  And if they did it would more likely that they would hack into the guidance system.  That can be guarded against from the ground.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46302

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 2:28 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:03 pm

>I'm thinking it would be far cheaper to replace multiple satellites multiple times than to put one system for protecting them in place.  Besides, the vast majority of your enemies don't have the means to attack anything in space.  And if they did it would more likely that they would hack into the guidance system.  That can be guarded against from the ground.

>
It takes quite a while to put a new satellite into place, so how would people communicate, especially in times of emergency, if they've been destroyed or disabled?  Yes, the majority of our enemies can't do it yet... but it just takes one.... and we know that more than one can do it and more are getting closer.  Yes, hacking into them is another method.  Security is done in many layers - physical and virtual.


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4023

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 4:28 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:28 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:03 pm

>

>I'm thinking it would be far cheaper to replace multiple satellites multiple times than to put one system for protecting them in place.  Besides, the vast majority of your enemies don't have the means to attack anything in space.  And if they did it would more likely that they would hack into the guidance system.  That can be guarded against from the ground.

>
It takes quite a while to put a new satellite into place, so how would people communicate, especially in times of emergency, if they've been destroyed or disabled?  Yes, the majority of our enemies can't do it yet... but it just takes one.... and we know that more than one can do it and more are getting closer.  Yes, hacking into them is another method.  Security is done in many layers - physical and virtual.


the telephone? 


 


there are plenty of ways to communicate without satellites.  Really, I think the solution (if there really was a concern) is to spread out the work load on satellites so that losing one wouldn't be such a hit not to arm space.  From what I understand there are hundreds up there. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46302

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 4:46 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 4:28 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:28 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:03 pm

>

>

>I'm thinking it would be far cheaper to replace multiple satellites multiple times than to put one system for protecting them in place.  Besides, the vast majority of your enemies don't have the means to attack anything in space.  And if they did it would more likely that they would hack into the guidance system.  That can be guarded against from the ground.

>
It takes quite a while to put a new satellite into place, so how would people communicate, especially in times of emergency, if they've been destroyed or disabled?  Yes, the majority of our enemies can't do it yet... but it just takes one.... and we know that more than one can do it and more are getting closer.  Yes, hacking into them is another method.  Security is done in many layers - physical and virtual.

the telephone? 

 

there are plenty of ways to communicate without satellites.  Really, I think the solution (if there really was a concern) is to spread out the work load on satellites so that losing one wouldn't be such a hit not to arm space.  From what I understand there are hundreds up there. 

Yes, there are a lot of them up there.... from multiple countries.  You'd be surprised how many billions of voice, data, and video transmission go through the satellites.  Yes, there are backups, but taking out the satellites would do a lot of harm.  Additionally, there are multiple reasons for the satellites - communications isn't the only thing and are a very good tool in our defense capabilities.  A country taking out key satellites could do serious damage.


At one time, people didn't understand the importance of air superiority and how it affected wars.  Now, space superiority is just starting to come into play, and in time, space will be even more important.


Commandamanda

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 11:34 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 25 2012, 6:18 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 25 2012, 3:07 pm

>

>

>when did the world decide space belonged to the US?  I think we need a recount. 

>
I don't think anyone said or suggested this.... We're talking about protecting our assets and our country.  What would happen if one of USA's enemies took out a number of our satellites.... or all of them?


I guess that would depend upon which satellites they took out.


1. telecomm : thousands of people would be without cellphone service


2. television : thousands of people would miss watching Warehouse 13 (including me)


3. Weather : NOAA might lose it's great pics of the Atlantic Ocean


4. GPS: ton of clueless peeps would get lost


5. spying: on the off chance that they get the right satellite, we'd lose our spysight over Turkey.


 

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this Sep. 27 2012, 5:55 am

The "space program" has been a team effort for decades.


...and the Russians are getting paid for allowing us to "bum rides".


The fact that we even accept this travesty is saddening. The richest nation on earth can't afford to send it's own folks into space.


As far as defending what is our? Long time overdue. Our satellites are not only important for national security, but directly impact almost everyones life here in the US.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Sep. 27 2012, 7:54 pm

It is my belief that some amount of defensive capabilities already exsist for our orbital assets, most likely at a level of security clearance way beyond Mitt's pay grade. One example would be the airforce's X-37B.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14322

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 6:27 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 4:28 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:28 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:03 pm

>

>

>I'm thinking it would be far cheaper to replace multiple satellites multiple times than to put one system for protecting them in place.  Besides, the vast majority of your enemies don't have the means to attack anything in space.  And if they did it would more likely that they would hack into the guidance system.  That can be guarded against from the ground.

>
It takes quite a while to put a new satellite into place, so how would people communicate, especially in times of emergency, if they've been destroyed or disabled?  Yes, the majority of our enemies can't do it yet... but it just takes one.... and we know that more than one can do it and more are getting closer.  Yes, hacking into them is another method.  Security is done in many layers - physical and virtual.

the telephone? 

 

there are plenty of ways to communicate without satellites.  Really, I think the solution (if there really was a concern) is to spread out the work load on satellites so that losing one wouldn't be such a hit not to arm space.  From what I understand there are hundreds up there. 


Telephone?!


Submarines can ONLY communicate with base by coming close to the surface and downloading orders from a satellite. During the Falklands War, HMS Conqueror received her orders to sink the Belgrano from a satellite. Had the Argies been able to take out Britain's military satellites, the captain of Conqueror would've had no choice but to get out and swim to Argentina to use a pay phone to receive orders. Hell, Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward who commanded the 125 ship task force would've had to have done the same.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4023

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 7:10 am

Quote: DS9TREK @ Sep. 28 2012, 6:27 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 4:28 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:28 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 26 2012, 2:03 pm

>

>

>

>I'm thinking it would be far cheaper to replace multiple satellites multiple times than to put one system for protecting them in place.  Besides, the vast majority of your enemies don't have the means to attack anything in space.  And if they did it would more likely that they would hack into the guidance system.  That can be guarded against from the ground.

>
It takes quite a while to put a new satellite into place, so how would people communicate, especially in times of emergency, if they've been destroyed or disabled?  Yes, the majority of our enemies can't do it yet... but it just takes one.... and we know that more than one can do it and more are getting closer.  Yes, hacking into them is another method.  Security is done in many layers - physical and virtual.

the telephone? 

 

there are plenty of ways to communicate without satellites.  Really, I think the solution (if there really was a concern) is to spread out the work load on satellites so that losing one wouldn't be such a hit not to arm space.  From what I understand there are hundreds up there. 

Telephone?!

Submarines can ONLY communicate with base by coming close to the surface and downloading orders from a satellite. During the Falklands War, HMS Conqueror received her orders to sink the Belgrano from a satellite. Had the Argies been able to take out Britain's military satellites, the captain of Conqueror would've had no choice but to get out and swim to Argentina to use a pay phone to receive orders. Hell, Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward who commanded the 125 ship task force would've had to have done the same.


so how did they communicate in ww 2?  The military still uses morse code you know. 


I just think there are a whole lot of things that could be done to protect communications before arming space.  More practical and cheaper.  Where do you think the billions of dollars to create this would come from anyways?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46302

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 9:56 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 7:10 am

>so how did they communicate in ww 2?  The military still uses morse code you know. 

>I just think there are a whole lot of things that could be done to protect communications before arming space.  More practical and cheaper.  Where do you think the billions of dollars to create this would come from anyways?

>
Most of those old systems had almost no security and didn't have the bandwidth to handle the amount of data that gets passed nowadays.


But then again, back then, most people sent mail via the government postal system.  How many of us do that nowadays?  About the only time I use the mail system is to send something to the government.  Do you really want to go back to that?  I know I don't.


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4023

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 10:05 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 9:56 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 7:10 am

>

>so how did they communicate in ww 2?  The military still uses morse code you know. 

>I just think there are a whole lot of things that could be done to protect communications before arming space.  More practical and cheaper.  Where do you think the billions of dollars to create this would come from anyways?

>
Most of those old systems had almost no security and didn't have the bandwidth to handle the amount of data that gets passed nowadays.

But then again, back then, most people sent mail via the government postal system.  How many of us do that nowadays?  About the only time I use the mail system is to send something to the government.  Do you really want to go back to that?  I know I don't.


yeah, morse code really sucks in the bandwidth department


I'm just saying in some short term emergency issue we don't need the satellites in order for the military to function.  I'm sure the rest of us can go without sattellite tv for the few weeks it would take to redistribute the load.  Like I said before, doubling up on sattelite functions and having alternatives to it are going to be a much better defense than arming space.   And don't forget any foreign agent that is capable of destroying satellites in the first place are probably just as dependent on them as we are.  There is no way the slight security is worth the billions it would cost. 


 


and we havn't even gotten into the ethical problems of one county arming what is truly neutral territory that doesn't belong to them.


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46302

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 10:15 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 10:05 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 9:56 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 7:10 am

>

>

>so how did they communicate in ww 2?  The military still uses morse code you know. 

>I just think there are a whole lot of things that could be done to protect communications before arming space.  More practical and cheaper.  Where do you think the billions of dollars to create this would come from anyways?

>
Most of those old systems had almost no security and didn't have the bandwidth to handle the amount of data that gets passed nowadays.

But then again, back then, most people sent mail via the government postal system.  How many of us do that nowadays?  About the only time I use the mail system is to send something to the government.  Do you really want to go back to that?  I know I don't.

yeah, morse code really sucks in the bandwidth department

I'm just saying in some short term emergency issue we don't need the satellites in order for the military to function.  I'm sure the rest of us can go without sattellite tv for the few weeks it would take to redistribute the load.  Like I said before, doubling up on sattelite functions and having alternatives to it are going to be a much better defense than arming space.   And don't forget any foreign agent that is capable of destroying satellites in the first place are probably just as dependent on them as we are.  There is no way the slight security is worth the billions it would cost. 

 

and we havn't even gotten into the ethical problems of one county arming what is truly neutral territory that doesn't belong to them.

Wow... I'm surprised that you really don't understand.  Pretty soon you're going to be telling us to go back and live in caves...


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4023

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 2:04 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 10:15 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 10:05 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 9:56 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 7:10 am

>

>

>

>so how did they communicate in ww 2?  The military still uses morse code you know. 

>I just think there are a whole lot of things that could be done to protect communications before arming space.  More practical and cheaper.  Where do you think the billions of dollars to create this would come from anyways?

>
Most of those old systems had almost no security and didn't have the bandwidth to handle the amount of data that gets passed nowadays.

But then again, back then, most people sent mail via the government postal system.  How many of us do that nowadays?  About the only time I use the mail system is to send something to the government.  Do you really want to go back to that?  I know I don't.

yeah, morse code really sucks in the bandwidth department

I'm just saying in some short term emergency issue we don't need the satellites in order for the military to function.  I'm sure the rest of us can go without sattellite tv for the few weeks it would take to redistribute the load.  Like I said before, doubling up on sattelite functions and having alternatives to it are going to be a much better defense than arming space.   And don't forget any foreign agent that is capable of destroying satellites in the first place are probably just as dependent on them as we are.  There is no way the slight security is worth the billions it would cost. 

 

and we havn't even gotten into the ethical problems of one county arming what is truly neutral territory that doesn't belong to them.

Wow... I'm surprised that you really don't understand.  Pretty soon you're going to be telling us to go back and live in caves...


that is exactly where another arms race could put us


 


but no, I don't understand how a country in such financial trouble could seriously think it might be a good idea to spend billions developing a system they don't need when the same goals could be achieved more easily and cheaper.  But hey.  What do I know right?


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum