US trying to claim near-earth orbit for it's own?

Oh pish posh and piffle...gimme a break. All the NRO is doing is setting up a national defense plan like every nation with the capability does. In the event of war, the US wants to be the country that can retain its near earth assets....as opposed to say....china...which is really the only other nation that could currently challenge the US for dominance there...altho France may be getting close...if their newest booster will quit blowing up. This isn't about peace time control, it is about war time tactics.

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Azred: True, this will impact only nations who possess the capability to put many objects into near-Earth orbit, and since some of those nations are our allies we cannot realistically hamper their own intelligence-gathering capabilities. Besides, how else could you enforce such control without blowing up their satellites?

Ever heard of signal processing? All that is needed is a scrambler signal to disrupt the transmission of the enemy satellite.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Vaskez: Ever heard of signal processing? All that is needed is a scrambler signal to disrupt the transmission of the enemy satellite.

Yes, I have. However, I defer to those whose expertise in that area exceeds my own. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

You know...there is a joke in there somewhere, incorporating "signals" given by "digits", but I'm not going to touch it. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img]

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Vaskez: Ever heard of signal processing? All that is needed is a scrambler signal to disrupt the transmission of the enemy satellite.

Yes, I have. However, I defer to those whose expertise in that area exceeds my own. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

You know...there is a joke in there somewhere, incorporating "signals" given by "digits", but I'm not going to touch it. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]You defer what to those with greater knowledge? The chance to argue with me about it? I'm armed with the knowledge of a 1 semester course on Signal Processing and another course of similar length in Digital Transmission plus two courses on Communications

[Animal]

"NRO and NASA will spend more than $10 billion in coming years to define a network of joint NRO-NASA satellites that will bring Internet-like space communications to terrestrial battlefields."

Now here's money well spent.

It continues to amaze me just how much money is wasted in idiotic pursuits.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Vaskez: You defer what to those with greater knowledge? The chance to argue with me about it? I'm armed with the knowledge of a 1 semester course on Signal Processing and another course of similar length in Digital Transmission plus two courses on Communications

Well, that is exactly 4 courses more of information than I possess.

Who? Me, argue? Never! [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Well...I still think this "negation" theory looks good on paper, but will be difficult/impractical, if not impossible, to implement in reality.

[ 06-03-2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Vaskez]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Vaskez: You defer what to those with greater knowledge? The chance to argue with me about it? I'm armed with the knowledge of a 1 semester course on Signal Processing and another course of similar length in Digital Transmission plus two courses on Communications

Well, that is exactly 4 courses more of information than I possess.

Who? Me, argue? Never! [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

Well...I still think this "negation" theory looks good on paper, but will be difficult/impractical, if not impossible, to implement in reality. [/QUOTE]You might be thinking about decrpyting an enemy signal. That is a different matter. Encryption technologies these days usually use a non-linear function of a HUGE primary number to multiply the transmitted data values. It is computationally almost impossible (would take far too long) to decode such encryption so you would not be able to read what the enemy satellite is transmitting.

However, simply scrambling the signal is a different matter. You would simply have to detect the carrier frequency of the signal they transmit and transmit one of your own in the same space. Physics will do the rest the voltage of the signals will add, destroying the data in the transmitted signal (interference).

I realise they probably do some really clever stuff with adding redundant bits to enable error correction on receival, but if the signal is completely corrupted by noise then they won't get any useful data out of it.
Well with my limited knowledge that is the conclusion I come to. I still think it'd be relatively simple to "take out" satellites this way i.e. render the signal unreadable, so no need to destroy them.

[Indemaijinj]

So for the uninitiated this would mean that they are trying to flood them with static noise.

Originally posted by Indemaijinj: So for the uninitiated this would mean that they are trying to flood them with static noise.

Yep [img]smile.gif[/img] All you have to do is make it so the other guys assets are unusable by him.

Signal Processing [img]smile.gif[/img] brings back memories [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Firestormalpha]

EEWW. . . this is too complex. So is my country planning for defense?, or getting excessively power-hungry. Some one give me the simplified stuff?