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

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 5:29 pm

Quote: wissa @ 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?

There are bad people in this world, and some of them are in power and would like nothing more than destroy the country that (used to) stand for liberty.  A strong defense usually deters aggression.


One of the few Constitutional duties of the US government is to protect us.  While I would hope we never have to use them, history shows that we must be armed to protect against outside aggressors.


The spending on this could easily be covered (many times over) by killing off all the unConstitutional programs.


 


Now, I know other countries really don't want the USA to be in space, but we are.  Territory has expanded from land and waterways to air and will, in time, include space.  Anyone that has ever watch Star Trek knows that there were territories in space and I fully expect that will happen as space travel becomes as common as air travel.  And while we don't have that yet, our space capabilities and assets must be protected, or someone else will use that to harm us.


 


Just so you know, my first job when I was in the military had to do with data from satellites - it was amazing what they could do and that was several years ago - those capabilities have increased exponentially.  Many of those capabilites can only be done from orbit... so how would you protect them?


DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14340

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 5:49 pm

Quote: wissa @ 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?


Morse code is defunct. In WWII they used radio for short range communication. Long range communication was down telephone wires laying on the seabed which even today still need constant replacement. Communicating with ships at sea could be done by radio if they were close enough to the transmitter, otherwise it meant sending out another ship with a letter on board to find them.


 

Commandamanda

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 7:26 pm

Quote: DS9TREK @ Sep. 28 2012, 5:49 pm

>

>Morse code is defunct. In WWII they used radio for short range communication. Long range communication was down telephone wires laying on the seabed which even today still need constant replacement. Communicating with ships at sea could be done by radio if they were close enough to the transmitter, otherwise it meant sending out another ship with a letter on board to find them.

>


 


Those "trunk" cables are still in the Atlantic, believe it or not, and are still being used. In fact, more cables have been laid for other forms of communication (like computers!) So they are going nowhere...they will be there till they rot (which some of them are.)


To all persons conrtibuting to this conversation:


 


You MUST read this new article about the failing Russian "NASA" program - it's a COMPLETE eye opener!


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49217472/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.UGZW164QePo


 


It blew my socks off.

wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 9:23 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 5:29 pm

Quote: wissa @ 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?

There are bad people in this world, and some of them are in power and would like nothing more than destroy the country that (used to) stand for liberty.  A strong defense usually deters aggression.

One of the few Constitutional duties of the US government is to protect us.  While I would hope we never have to use them, history shows that we must be armed to protect against outside aggressors.

The spending on this could easily be covered (many times over) by killing off all the unConstitutional programs.

 

Now, I know other countries really don't want the USA to be in space, but we are.  Territory has expanded from land and waterways to air and will, in time, include space.  Anyone that has ever watch Star Trek knows that there were territories in space and I fully expect that will happen as space travel becomes as common as air travel.  And while we don't have that yet, our space capabilities and assets must be protected, or someone else will use that to harm us.

 

Just so you know, my first job when I was in the military had to do with data from satellites - it was amazing what they could do and that was several years ago - those capabilities have increased exponentially.  Many of those capabilites can only be done from orbit... so how would you protect them?


and your constitution overrides the rest of the world's populations rights?  the arrogance is unbelievable. 


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

entropyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 127

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 9:36 pm

It's not as if the "arms race" ever ended. It never does...ever. There's always some nation trying to get ahead of another. There's always going to be an Iran or Russia and if anyone thinks there're no countries in the world that wouldn't be happy to take the USA out by any means, they're just fooling themselves. Safety and security is the number one purpose of government. Not handing out Obama phones, not forcing health care on unwilling, supposedly free people. Not telling people what they can and can't eat...this regime's so backward it's literally dangerous to our soveriegnty.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Sep. 28 2012, 9:57 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 9:23 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 5:29 pm

Quote: wissa @ 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?

There are bad people in this world, and some of them are in power and would like nothing more than destroy the country that (used to) stand for liberty.  A strong defense usually deters aggression.

One of the few Constitutional duties of the US government is to protect us.  While I would hope we never have to use them, history shows that we must be armed to protect against outside aggressors.

The spending on this could easily be covered (many times over) by killing off all the unConstitutional programs.

 

Now, I know other countries really don't want the USA to be in space, but we are.  Territory has expanded from land and waterways to air and will, in time, include space.  Anyone that has ever watch Star Trek knows that there were territories in space and I fully expect that will happen as space travel becomes as common as air travel.  And while we don't have that yet, our space capabilities and assets must be protected, or someone else will use that to harm us.

 

Just so you know, my first job when I was in the military had to do with data from satellites - it was amazing what they could do and that was several years ago - those capabilities have increased exponentially.  Many of those capabilites can only be done from orbit... so how would you protect them?

and your constitution overrides the rest of the world's populations rights?  the arrogance is unbelievable. 

What's unbelievable is people arguing against the US defending ourselves, which does NOT infringe on the "world's populations rights."  And of course... people in other countries don't want us to have the right to defend ourselves....


wissa

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4031

Report this Sep. 29 2012, 7:14 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 9:57 pm

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 28 2012, 9:23 pm

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 5:29 pm

Quote: wissa @ 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?

There are bad people in this world, and some of them are in power and would like nothing more than destroy the country that (used to) stand for liberty.  A strong defense usually deters aggression.

One of the few Constitutional duties of the US government is to protect us.  While I would hope we never have to use them, history shows that we must be armed to protect against outside aggressors.

The spending on this could easily be covered (many times over) by killing off all the unConstitutional programs.

 

Now, I know other countries really don't want the USA to be in space, but we are.  Territory has expanded from land and waterways to air and will, in time, include space.  Anyone that has ever watch Star Trek knows that there were territories in space and I fully expect that will happen as space travel becomes as common as air travel.  And while we don't have that yet, our space capabilities and assets must be protected, or someone else will use that to harm us.

 

Just so you know, my first job when I was in the military had to do with data from satellites - it was amazing what they could do and that was several years ago - those capabilities have increased exponentially.  Many of those capabilites can only be done from orbit... so how would you protect them?

and your constitution overrides the rest of the world's populations rights?  the arrogance is unbelievable. 

What's unbelievable is people arguing against the US defending ourselves, which does NOT infringe on the "world's populations rights."  And of course... people in other countries don't want us to have the right to defend ourselves....


pretty sure I've been saying all along there are cheaper and more practical ways to do that.  Arming space is neither cheap or practical


We welcome st.com refugees! click on the image

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Sep. 29 2012, 10:03 am

Quote: wissa @ Sep. 29 2012, 7:14 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Sep. 28 2012, 9:57 pm

>

>What's unbelievable is people arguing against the US defending ourselves, which does NOT infringe on the "world's populations rights."  And of course... people in other countries don't want us to have the right to defend ourselves....

>

pretty sure I've been saying all along there are cheaper and more practical ways to do that.  Arming space is neither cheap or practical

Never said it was cheap, but defense is seldom cheap (and actual war is a lot more expensive.)  You have yet to provide alternatives to keeping space capabilities safe...., that's more "practical."  The only thing you've brought up is taking our technology back 70 years.... which is NOT practical..... but I guess it makes sense to those that want the USA to be broken.


Just remember..... you're not the one paying for it.  And while I absolutely hate the USA being the world's policeman, a strong and safe USA is a good thing for other countries.


Commandamanda

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Sep. 29 2012, 11:57 am

Agreed, fellas. All of the programs need some serious weedwacking. Their implementaion will be catastrophic.


Bumping this because it's so freaking inportant to the conversation:


Russia's Failing Space Program (from the eyes of one of their astronauts)


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49217472/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.UGZW164QePo


 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Sep. 29 2012, 2:32 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>Just for the record, I'm all for the private sector getting deeply invloved in the USA space adventures also.

>
Absolutely!!!!  It's going take some time, but competition will make technology get better and cheaper.


DS9TREK

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 14340

Report this Sep. 30 2012, 1:43 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>Morse code is defunct. In WWII they used radio for short range communication. Long range communication was down telephone wires laying on the seabed which even today still need constant replacement. Communicating with ships at sea could be done by radio if they were close enough to the transmitter, otherwise it meant sending out another ship with a letter on board to find them.

>

 

Those "trunk" cables are still in the Atlantic, believe it or not, and are still being used. In fact, more cables have been laid for other forms of communication (like computers!) So they are going nowhere...they will be there till they rot (which some of them are.)

To all persons conrtibuting to this conversation:

 

You MUST read this new article about the failing Russian "NASA" program - it's a COMPLETE eye opener!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49217472/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.UGZW164QePo

 

It blew my socks off.

Yup, that's our ride to the space station.

You know what this whole things sounds like to me? Russia needed money and Obama figured out a way to give them some. 


As things stand Russia has a lot more money than the USA these days. Russia isn't up to its eye balls in debt.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Sep. 30 2012, 1:50 pm

Received a pro-Obama advertisement in the snail mail yesterday.  I had to laugh....


 


On the front, it says, "Birth Control Coversage Is a Private Family Decision - Not Mitt Romney's."


On the back, it says, "Keep Government Out of Your Birth Control Coverage."


 


Considering how Obama has placed government squarely in that equation....


 


 

padracin

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 325

Report this Oct. 05 2012, 5:24 pm

It's surprising to me how surprised folks on these boards are at the centrality of communication satellites in our modern lives.  It has been decades since the number of commercial comm satellites in space greatly exceeded everything NASA is flying including the planetary mission.  The geostationary orbit is so crowded that an international body is required to allocate frequencies for downlink.


Romney's comment is intriguing however.  The DoD has vacillated over the decades in their policy as to whether they must own their own comm assets or were willing to lease transponders on the spot market.  In reality they hold a lot of commercial leases without owning the satellites.


But we have to remember that these comm satellites in addition to being commercial are often owned by foreign companies or if in the US, by multinationals. 


Surveillance satellites, of course, are a different matter.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46360

Report this Oct. 12 2012, 8:35 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>We can afford it. Just need to get entitlements under control.
Yep - entitlements is over half the US Federal budget.  And if the US would stop being the word's policeman..... imagine what we could do without all those other expeditures!  (A whole lot smaller budget, wiping out the debt, lower taxes, smaller government, etc.)


CommanderDor

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12

Report this Oct. 15 2012, 4:26 pm

The U.S.A. put a flag on the Moon; so I say it belongs to the U.S.A. ... the whole dang thing. 


Jolan Tru

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