Satellite Access in Time of War 213
miladus writes "Interesting report in the Washington
Post this morning about how the Pentagon is buying access to commercial satellites to meet its bandwidth needs. Most of the commercial access will be used for backup to the military satellites and for non-military tasks. And the Pentagon has to compete on the market with all the news organizations trying to cover the conflict in Iraq."
Used all the time (Score:5, Interesting)
Good idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good idea (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
*lol*, yes, it was an amusing choice of words :)
But seriously, having a large technological edge over your opponent allows you to reduce civilian casualties in war.
Suppose satellite (GPS) guided bombs and satellite (spy) pictures relayed by satellite (communications) allowed us to whack Saddam last night and to prove we'd done so to the world - including Iraqi soldiers. The war could be over by this time tomorrow.
(In fact, based on what I saw on the news and the blogs overnight, even if half of it eventually turns out to be disinfo/psyops, I'm still just about ready to wager that this war will be over by this time next week.)
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Famous Last Words?
You'd just as well say our troops will be home by Christmas!
/.'ed (Score:2)
Just how much bandwidth is up there? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just how much bandwidth is up there? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just how much bandwidth is up there? (Score:4, Informative)
We do a lot of this (for medical projects) and sometimes mux two channels for a 128k connection, but it is not something you'd want to troubleshoot in the field with a non-technical person. It also gets a lot bigger in size, while the little video systems the news guys have all fit in a small briefcase and have a single panel dish built in.
Re:Just how much bandwidth is up there? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, and mostly yes. The news organizations are also using regular Sat broadcast equipment in more establish/less dangerous places (in Kuwait for example). That, however, requires a big truck.
The InMarSat is a relatively new -- much more portable -- method.
Re:Just how much bandwidth is up there? (Score:2)
Re:Just how much bandwidth is up there? (Score:4, Informative)
military bandwidth and FCS (Score:3, Informative)
enough (Score:2)
As someone else pointed out [slashdot.org], there's enough bandwith for better pictures. Oh dear, that's an AC and might be a troll. Anyone who remembers "satilite broadcasts" on CNN from the last Gulf war might think pictures could be clear. Surely capacity has not decreased since?
Grainy pictures, however, are a nice Product Placement
Re:Just how much bandwidth is up there? (Score:4, Funny)
Does that come after the beta version?
Try AOL Broadband! (Score:5, Funny)
(ducks)
Re:Try AOL Broadband! (Score:2)
[/joke]
Bandwidth, damn Bandwidth and Statistics (Score:2, Funny)
At a time like this, they shouldn't be downloading more pr0n!
--
GWB: "My troops went Iraq, and all they brought home for me was a lousy body bag"
"compete"? I don't think so (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"compete"? I don't think so (Score:2)
Re:"compete"? I don't think so (Score:1)
Re:"compete"? I don't think so (Score:2, Interesting)
military data over private satellites? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:military data over private satellites? (Score:1, Insightful)
weakly encrypted stream having payload of higly encrypted stream.
Of course they can allways encrypt encrypted stream with so strong encryption that meets current military standards.
Re:military data over private satellites? (Score:2, Informative)
private satellites as military targets? (Score:2)
My question is: how safe is this for the companies? Civilian resources that are used during a time of war become targets. We hit a civilian bomb shelter during the last war that was being used a command and control center.
Re:private satellites as military targets? (Score:4, Interesting)
1) I would guess (having not read the article) that any information that is encrypted tighter than a whale's bum under water, is either comms stuff, or information that is non-critical, things like before and after shots of Saddam's royal palaces, the before shot might be useful but the smoking crater that is the after shot will be very little use, and almost indistinguishable from all the other smoking holes in the ground
2) As to the civilian satellites being targets, despite what the spin doctoring and hawks would have you believe Saddam would have trouble getting ordinance to hit a barn door at 50 metres, never mind picking satellites off.
open season on civilians (Score:2)
I wasn't thinking about the actual satellites, so much as the offices, personnel, relay stations, etc. It weakens the presumption that civilians are off limits.
Re:private satellites as military targets? (Score:2)
Well considering that their equipment is 22,400 miles a way, and it's all uphill to it; I'd say it's pretty safe. It's not like Iraq could do anything to a satalite, and the bandwidth is pretty much a commodity, so Knocking out the other guys bandwidth is the same as knocking out your own. As long as the providers are playing fair their satelites would be off limits. Now Military satelites a lot of the time are place in polar orbits usualy circular about 600 mi up, still
Re:military data over private satellites? (Score:3, Insightful)
Time when data is valuable is probably quite short. And decrypting and analyzing data may take quite long.
Data Priorities (Score:4, Interesting)
What screwy priorities, there should be *no* issue... ' we need the bandwidth, too bad' ' you |biased| news services can have what is left'.
keep your shirt on. (Score:2)
They might also need shelter from the cold, but quartering in your house any old way is a violation of the third amendment to the Constitution [archives.gov]:
"Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed b
Re:keep your shirt on. (Score:2)
In other words: it's fine in wartime, as long as Congress passes an Act saying so. In peacetime, of course, they have to make their own arrangements.
it says more than that. (Score:2)
It places a burden on Congress to detail exaclty how and under what circumstances soldiers should be quartered. "Do it now, and as you like" would violate that and would require an amendment, not just an ordinary law.
You have to understand the respect for private property and law this underscores. Abitrary searches, confiscation and encumberance, even in time of war, are UnAmerican.
I never said liberal or conservative bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus why I said biased. I'm not making judgments of which side is right or wrong.. Only that its no longer simple news reporting.
Re:Data Priorities (Score:2)
I don't read indymedia or other left-wing web sites, so I wonder... how could I have found out such things without mainstream media?
Speaking of your signs: There was a group of anti's here in DC with a "Stop the Slaughter of innocents in Iraq" sign... before any fighting really started (aside from the usually no-fly-zone bombings and such). My question about that one: What slaughter?
Oh, and I saw
Re:Data Priorities (Score:2)
It's your money (Score:2)
No competition! (Score:4, Interesting)
With the budget that the Pentagon has, I'm sure that's no competition...
Re:No competition! (Score:3, Funny)
Crossed signals... (Score:4, Funny)
"We now cross live to our correspondant, Richard Jones, in the north of Iraq..."
"Affirmative.. unit 4, prepare to advance on the enemy position to your south."
"Ermmmm...."
I know it wouldn't happen, but hey.. at least try and have a little humour at such a bad time
Re:Crossed signals... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Crossed signals... (Score:2)
Satellite Antennae discussed a day or 2 ago (Score:1)
Re:Satellite Antennae discussed a day or 2 ago (Score:3, Funny)
Yea? Maybe they should hold the Acadmy Awards there in stead of Hollywood...
CNN and it's low-quality Videophone (Score:1)
a group with lots of money forced to compete?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Deep pockets are going to fight over limited resources - which means a lot of money is going to be exchanged in the short term.
Assuming that they satellite companies don't offer some sort of bargain deal or preference to the military/gov't, then they are looking to make a metric crapload on this.
Re:a group with lots of money forced to compete?? (Score:2)
Bandwidth and SPAM (Score:3, Funny)
oil and measuring (Score:2)
Satellite accuracy (Score:4, Funny)
the goddamn size 85 arial fonts should
help the bandwidth problem. Half the
page is only three words.
That's got to help.
Of course I almost had a
seizure when I first loaded it.
-J
Re:Satellite accuracy (Score:2)
Videophone (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Videophone (Score:1)
Re:Videophone (Score:5, Informative)
you are watching videophones runing at 56 K.
Don't these reporters have access to a satellite uplink?
that was a satellite uplink, via a satellite phone.
And if not, why can't they get enough bandwidth over a decent ISDN connection?
antenna size and power budget.
No broadband small satellite dishes? (Score:2)
Webcam? (Score:3, Funny)
GPS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GPS (Score:2)
Re:GPS (Score:2)
Re:GPS (Score:2)
What I am interested in is how much of an impact will this have on farmers, mining expeditions, and everyone's onSTAR (how may i help you batman?)
Although, it is a smart thing to do during a war, when you do own the s
Re:GPS (Score:2)
Cool, I learned a new word. Till now I called it childish and stupid.
For anybody else that needs to look it up:
jingoism (jngg-zm) n.
Extreme nationalism characterized especially by a belligerent foreign policy; chauvinistic patriotism.
This would have the added strategic benefit.... (Score:2, Insightful)
so how much would it hurt (Score:1)
Re:so how much would it hurt (Score:1)
Playing it safe (Score:3, Funny)
War = $$ (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't tell if he's amazed or excited. Chances are DalBello is calculating his stock options as we speak. War will always make some people millionaires.
Re:War = $$ (Score:2)
First floor, $200 hammers, $1,000 toilet seats and other hardware.
Second floor, B1B engines, stealthy surface ships, 747 based chemical lasers and other exotic equipment made to order in special lots.
...
Orbit: Spy platforms, navigation equipment, $2,000 email and other bandwith.
Luna: Tritium, ...
Great... (Score:3, Interesting)
Great.
Actually it IS great. (Score:2)
They already control the uplinks... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not like the media is going to report anything negative about them... they want to keep their "approved" status.
Sukotto
Did the poster also not read the article... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't htink USA has any shortage of imaging tech., most probably trying to stop Saddam from buying the images
How are they going to stop bin Laden tho. , how long can they monopolize commercial satellites?
Scary.
Re:Did the poster also not read the article... (Score:2)
Re:Did the poster also not read the article... (Score:2)
They certainly have geosync satellites, but they aren't useful for visual surveillance: too far out. For video, you need to be quite close; the best results come from airborne drones. LEO (Low Earth Orbit) is OK: 100-odd miles up, where the Space Shuttle, International Space Station etc live. Out in GEO, you're moving at 2 miles per second, more than 20 000 miles up. Photographing the ground from 100+ miles up is difficult
OMG they're buying photo's to? (Score:2)
Sorry if you wasn't joking, just in case you wasn't they're digital first one costest plenty, the next just a blank cd or bandwidth.
Re:Did the poster also not read the article... (Score:2)
How are they going to stop bin Laden tho. , how long can they monopolize commercial satellites?
At least for satellite imaging companies in the United States, one of the conditions in order to get a imaging satellite license is to abide by US government regulations that include a list of 'denied parties' that cannot be sold to, and the ability to issue 'shutter control' directives for sensitive p
Price surprise. (Score:2, Interesting)
Media companies such as Fox pay about $1.50 per minute for voice communication via satellite and about $6 per minute to transmit video.
I must admit I'm really surprised by these numbers. $1.50 for voice is not far from what we paid for ordinary cell phones 5 years ago. Will be interesting to see if these kind of services can be extended to the use of ordinary people one day.
No Un-Authorized Sattalite (Score:2, Informative)
Buying it so others can't use it (Score:2, Insightful)
Domestic "Shock and Awe" (Score:5, Funny)
"Hello, CBS? We'd like some of that bandwidth you've reserved. No? Well, OK. Say, out of pure curiosity, what are Dan Rather's coordinates?
Not the first time either (Score:2)
The time has come to act (Score:2, Funny)
We will no longer allow our children to be held hostage by the threat of foriegn satellites. We will be resolute and just in our cause, as we cannot risk anymore lives.
Without going to war with any country that threatens to charge us for data access, we would allow the proliferation of ways to take our money and force us to act like a responsible part of the world. We will not allow this to happen.
What about jamming every communication in Iraq... (Score:2, Interesting)
If we're jamming every radio communication in Iraq and taking out their telephones, how is it that CNN et al can have live broadcats out of Baghdad? I assume that we can selectively jam communications, or is it something else?
IT'S NOT A WAR, DAMN IT (Score:3, Informative)
call it what you like (Score:2)
Encryption?? (Score:2)
Re:Encryption?? (Score:2)
Not an issue. Encrypt it, then send it out over the unsecure channels.
Kind of like your email client doesn't do any encryption, but who cares if somebody intercepts your PGP-encoded message?
Re:Encryption?? (Score:2)
Nicely done
Law generously doesn't attempt to alter physics? (Score:2, Funny)
"Permitting" the satellites to fly at 17,000mph was a wise agreement, considering the alternative was to "allow" them to fall to earth at 9.8m/s/s.
Propaganda Control / Censorship by death (Score:4, Interesting)
BBC correspondent Kate Adie [bbc.co.uk] who is now covering the US invasion reports in an interview on Irish radio about pentegon censorship:
"I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness. The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon
"I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks--that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example--were detected by any planes
Some will argue this is a necessary step in protecting the invaders, but this threat came well before the 'war' started. I for one doubt physical safety is anywhere close the true goal here. Political and public opinion safety is more like it.
And perhaps foreshadowing our buying up extra bandwidth for 'backup' Adie later in the interview says:
"...the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to be acceptable.
Secondly, they are intending to take control of the Americans technical equipment
Guess she had it right.
A description of the interview with links to audio and other sources can be found here [eircom.net]
it's called "spying" (Score:2)
I'm perfectly happy with having reporters present, but restricting them from reporting operational details until after the operations ar
Re:Propaganda Control / Censorship by death (Score:2)
These instructions are to protect the safety of the journalists, not threaten them. This is a war, not the world cup.
The Military don't have them all... (Score:2)
There is still some non-military data coming from the satellites: http://www.methaz.com/blogpics/iraq.html [methaz.com]
Hey! Where's _All My Children_? (Score:3, Funny)
All they have to do (Score:2)
Re:This is a golden time for the coalition. (Score:1, Insightful)
Terrorism? Iraq? A "president" could strike much closer, idiot. As far as Osama and chums are concerned, Saddam Hussian is just as much an infidel as you or I.
Re:amen brother.. (Score:2)
Remember too that a majority of his campaign funds were raised by Albert Hakim [google.com] during the period of ten years after Hakim's Christmas Eve pardon of his conviction in the Iran-Contra scandal.
But to keep the Offtopic mod at bay, I wonder if the Pentagon h4x0rz have figured out how to selectively censor "offensive" news items passing through the same satellites? Think about it: if they make this war appear entirely sanitary, with the only dead body being that of Saddam Hussein, won't the next war be much
Holy shit Hakim raised his money? (Score:1)