Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications The Internet The Military Technology

The Mobile Internet You'll Be Using In 10 Years 137

Posted by timothy from the so-long-as-the-nukes-remain-sheathed dept.
mr sanjeev writes "After being plagued with project overruns and a scaling back of the final system, the US military's next-generation satellite communications network is another step closer to reality, with completion of the payload module for the third and final Advanced Extremely High Frequency (EHF) satellite ... If GPS and remote imaging (think Google Earth) have proven anything, it is that technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Mobile Internet You'll Be Using In 10 Years More

The Mobile Internet You'll Be Using In 10 Years

Comments Filter:

  • How's the speed? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mad Merlin ( 837387 ) on Monday September 22, 2008 @11:57PM (#25115929) Homepage

    Obviously I didn't read TFA, but does anyone know about the possible speeds on these wireless links? As it stands, wifi is still (in practice) a lot slower and less reliable than even 100 mbit ethernet. It'd be pretty interesting if this new technology could offer reliable gigabit ethernet speeds (or better!) and similar reliability over reasonably long distances (similar to current wifi). But, my instincts tell me that that's just a pipe dream.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 )

      Really, any new technology is good - we will weed out the bad ideas, keep the good. Ideally, we will take the best from each and mix it together, producing a superior solution to anything else.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by davester666 ( 731373 )

        I realize how expensive this technology is every time I have to pay taxes.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by MrNaz ( 730548 )

          "without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point"

          I guarantee you that the countries that were used as an excuse to wage war are very conscious of it too.

          • I guarantee you that the countries that were used as an excuse to wage war are very conscious of it too.

            Yes, most American's are quite well aware of what the War on Poverty has cost us.

            • Yes, most American's are quite well aware of what the War on the Impoverished has cost us.

              There, fixed that for you...

    • Re:How's the speed? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by vought ( 160908 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:47AM (#25116273)

      Ten years, hunh?

      I remember reading about the imminent introduction of wildly fast new 3G cellular phone technology...in 1999. In fact, it scared a lot of investors off of other, faster microcellular wireless WANs under development.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gingerTabs ( 532664 )

        Move to Europe - we have a choice of carriers all across europe who can offer this :)

    • Obviously I didn't read TFA

      Translated: FIRST POST!!!

    • Re:How's the speed? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:04AM (#25116351) Journal

      More important, how's the latency? The RTT to a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is pretty high (especially considering that when requesting data, you have to double the RTT vs. streaming). The article doesn't seem to say if this is high-, low-, or medium-earth orbit.

      Low earth orbit can get you RTT to the satellite of ~13 milliseconds at 2000 km, adding ~26 ms to the average page load, whereas a geosynchronous orbit could take ~240 milliseconds, adding ~480ms to a page load - quite a difference. Of course, these are optimal times, assuming the satellite is directly overhead.

      That said, it does mention a constellation of three satellites, and there's no way that this could be practical with three satellites in a low- or even medium-earth orbit that I can see. Bandwidth is great, but latency is killer.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JohnnyComeLately ( 725958 )
        Yes, AEHF and the old MILSTAR are geo-syn which is a little over 22,000 miles out. You wouldn't use it for local comm. AEHF falls under the "specialized" communications and is meant to be anti-jam, survivable and secure. It allows new cypto keys (OTAR) to be sent, has spot beams so you can "ignore" the spoofing from the enemy nearby, and would be able to communicate through a nuclear "event" (survivable). This isn't to be used to just send an email to a buddy stateside. For anyone interested, there's 3

      • Wont matter in 10 years, as all we will be able to afford to do is read a couple of emails and dream of the days before oppressive metered service that wasn't monitored for content.

    • Re:How's the speed? (Score:4, Informative)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:57AM (#25116643) Homepage

      8.2 Mbps to 4k terminals.

      Advanced EHF is designed to provide 24 hour coverage from 65 North, to 65 South across the K and Ka sub bands, and when combined with the prototyped Extended Data Rate (XDR) terminals and systems, will offer up to 8.2 Mbps data rates for around 4,000 terminals in concurrent use per satellite footprint (whether that scales to 12,000 systems in concurrent use globally isn't clear from source material).

      Compared to current satellite rates, this is pretty good. Additionally, this allows them to bounce satellite signals quickly and reliably around the globe before having to incurr the atmosphere penalty.

      However, if you're looking for replacement for WiFi, a final 802.11N spec is only about 10 years off.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      MILSTAR and the follow on program AEHF are designed to provide secure, reliable, and protected communications. Bandwidth was not the main goal. Commercial geo satellites offer considerable more bandwidth, flexibility, and cost savings.

      MILSTAR is a relic of the Cold War and has many shortcomings. It was designed to maintain military and key leadership communications in a ballistic missile (nukes) exchange with Russia. When the Cold War ended the program had to âoereinventâ itself many times ove

  • I have a question (Score:3, Funny)

    by isBandGeek() ( 1369017 ) on Monday September 22, 2008 @11:57PM (#25115933)
    Did Al Gore invent this?

  • Satellites=suck for communications (Score:5, Interesting)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:01AM (#25115959)
    It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board. It would be cheaper to startup, cheaper to maintain, easier to upgrade, lower latency, etc. For certain applications satellites will still be needed, but we are at the edge of the next generation of low cost communications brought to us by continuously flying drones flying between 10 and 20 miles up.

    • Re:Satellites=suck for communications (Score:5, Funny)

      by snl2587 ( 1177409 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:03AM (#25115981)

      It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board.

      Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.

      • Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.

        Yes, but it'll have to be mil spec cable.
        So really, we're back to Plan A, since it's cheaper to just loft a global network of communication satellites.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Perf ( 14203 )

        It would be much better to use a small fleet of high altitude autonomous drones with communications gear on board.

        Or even better: giant balloons and a couple of routers. Plus a lot of cable.

        How about hippies in a tree?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rho ( 6063 )

        You joke, but John Sidgmore used to yammer on about balloons all the time. It's not necessarily a crazy idea.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by metalcoat ( 918779 )
      That would bring about a few questions. How many would that require just to cover the entire United States? You state that it would be cheaper. How much do these autonomous drones cost a piece? What about the cost in terms of energy to keep charging and relaunching? What if they were to crash? With so many required to cover the entire US or Metropolitan areas surely some would come down and certainly harm someone. Just something to think about. I agree that this would make more sense, but before jumpi

      • Re:Satellites=suck for communications (Score:4, Insightful)

        by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:53AM (#25116293)
        The idea behind autonomous high altitude drones is they stay up indefinitely (barring parts breaking) by using solar panels to produce and store enough energy to stay aloft. Today we have thousands of flights a day using much more massive aircraft, I don't think a few extra ultralight drones are a significant increase in the risk associated with aircraft.
        • Aircraft land and spend a lot of time in maintenance. If they stay up there indefinitely they wouldn't get all that attention. Balloons would have less moving parts, but they could still fail. So could the emergency parachute they'd have. Hey, they could double as a weapon!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Chabil Ha' ( 875116 )

      We are at the edge of the next generation of low cost communications brought to us by continuously flying drones flying between 10 and 20 miles up.

      Weather permitting, of course.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Vizzoor ( 777022 )
      I believe DARPA has a project for a plane that can stay in flight for several years without needing to land. You're probably just predicting the next phase of this plan.

  • Drones (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hao Wu ( 652581 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:02AM (#25115967) Homepage
    Assuming the tech filters down, something like Google Maps could be done in real time. Companies will launch surveillance planes, blimps, or piggyback on cellular towers so that anyone can zero-in on your house.

    For a price, obviously, because my privacy is worth trading for their profits.

    • Re:Drones (Score:5, Funny)

      by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 ) <mewshi@mewshi.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:04AM (#25115987) Homepage

      Dude, anyone in a plane can 'zero-in' on your house. It's essentially being broadcast. It's not a breach of privacy if someone sees your house; now, if they see something that you have a reasonable expectation of, such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. But it probably won't happen.

      • such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. But it probably won't happen.

        It definitely won't happen. He doesn't have a wife. He's on Slashdot.

        • It definitely won't happen. He doesn't have a wife. He's on Slashdot.

          Hey! That's not fair. I have a wife and am on slashdot. Which is to say i didn't get it for a long time now...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by couchslug ( 175151 )

        "now, if they see something that you have a reasonable expectation of, such as your wife sunbathing in the nude... that's different, and sexy. "

        I defend my privacy by sunbathing nude.

        The last time a Black Helicopter came in visual range, it hauled ass away like it had spotted a flight of MiGs. They must have been overwhelmed by my "different, and sexy" tactic.

      • Dude, anyone in a plane can 'zero-in' on your house. It's essentially being broadcast.

        I know, right?

        One of these days I need to stop painting "my house" on the roof.

      • if you are willing to sacrifice your children.. and as the post below says you need a wife first.. get them to skinny dip in ur pool.. then thats under-age porn and that can get the FBI to start invading their privacy

        • wow... just wow... and you don't need a wife to have kids! Just ask my ex-girlfriend! That bitch has no problem getting pregnant from any guy, as long as she's not dating him...

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:08AM (#25116011)
    Quote: "it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point."

    "Not conscious", my ass. Military investment makes up a very large part of our tax and trade burden, and many of us are conscious as hell of how much it costs. If the research did not eventually get into civilian hands, there would be hell to pay.

    I am not saying it's not worth it... just that unlike the OP, I pay attention.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by PunkOfLinux ( 870955 )

      Uh... most people don't think, when they turn on their in-car nav systems, "Gee, I'm glad my tax dollars went to pay for this system!"

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:17AM (#25116419) Homepage Journal

        Uh... most people don't think, when they turn on their in-car nav systems, "Gee, I'm glad my tax dollars went to pay for this system!"

        True, but they should. A lot of the bitching about "wasteful government spending" would go away if people realized how much government programs (like this little thing called ARPANet that made a splash a few years ago ...) lead to dramatic improvements in their everyday lives.

        • A lot of the bitching about "wasteful government spending" would go away if people realized how much government programs (like this little thing called ARPANet that made a splash a few years ago ...) lead to dramatic improvements in their everyday lives.

          Maybe people should realize that before they lead to "dramatic improvements in their everyday lives" that these military programs will lead to hundreds of thousands of dead people.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by 0xygen ( 595606 )

            However, without any advancements, we'd still have hordes of barbarians, which also leads to hundreds of thousands of dead people.

            Without the tech, it's a much slower death too!

            Definitely worth bearing in mind how much of the industrialisation we see in the world is purely a result of the first two world wars.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mollymoo ( 202721 )
          The fact that obscene levels of military spending sometimes produces results for the population as a whole doesn't make it good value. For example, how would the results of military spending compare to spending 80% of the military budget on higher education and academic research?

          • Honestly, I think it's a matter of the political realities, and what the money is going for. Communication and transportation (including aerospace) spending is a lot easier to sell politically when it's defense-related, but if it's done right everyone benefits: commercial aviation, the interstate highway system, satellite communications, the internet, and GPS are all fine examples of this sort of spinoff. On the other hand, medicine and basic science do indeed tend to work better on the civilian side. (

      • The military only released very low-resolution (within about 100-200 yards) GPS to the public. They did NOT release high-resolution GPS reception. It took some civilians a lot of work to figure out how to get high-resolution GPS navigation from the satellites without using the military's own high-resolution system, before it was very useful to the public.

  • It's tough (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tftp ( 111690 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:13AM (#25116043) Homepage

    I worked in ARRL "10 GHz and up" contest last weekend, at 10 and 24 GHz, and those frequencies are not for beginners. The dish has to be pointed precisely to the source, with error within a couple of degrees. If the satellites are not geostationary then tracking would be a major problem, and I think they are not geostationary due to the distance involved.

    Among other problems, microwave gear is very expensive, sensitive to abuse, and has low power output. Hams can deal with that, being happy with mere 100-200 mW at 10 GHz, but they don't mind chasing the signal as atmospheric conditions change during the day. It would be a lot of work to achieve a reliable link whenever you need it. Rain and fog are major problems in these bands. You basically have to throw power (and money) at the problem; if the military complains about "high cost" of these systems, they are surely not affordable yet to a common man. Considering that the economy just entered a tailspin, we may have bigger problems in coming years than fixing the mobile internet thing.

    • Re:It's tough (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ihmhi ( 1206036 ) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @03:35AM (#25117163)

      Satellite > Base Station > Your Mobile Device

      That's how I imagine it would work. Honestly, do you really think that there are going to be thousands upon thousands of direct connections to the satellites? They would probably have to be sent through switches anyway, so so long as the base station's dish doesn't get tampered with it would work just fine.

      10Ghz Space to Base Station, and a more stable protocol (Wireless N, 3G, etc.) to your mobile device.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 0xygen ( 595606 )

        If that's how it is going to go, intuition seems to point towards the lowest cost per coverage still being fiber on the ground?

        I would have thought the satellite solution is aimed at providing coverage to areas where the density of people on the ground is too low for base stations to make sense, which is where (certainly in the UK) we have the most problems at the moment.

        We have a number of areas with no ADSL, and big mountains stopping the 2g/3g wireless networks where satellite could hopefully provide the

  • Hope not, cos that'll mean I've somehow been drafted into the US Army and I'm not an American!!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Patrik_AKA_RedX ( 624423 )

      Hope not, cos that'll mean I've somehow been drafted into the US Army and I'm not an American!!

      "drafted" is a very PC term for being a POW now?

  • Thurn & Taxis APRP... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Anonymous Pigeon Relay Protocol...

  • Always interesting to follow. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WiiVault ( 1039946 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:22AM (#25116119)
    We may live in the armpit of freedom right now, but there is no doubt that our government funded initiatives like this have provided more fruit to the world than any other nation is hundreds of years. Now lets win back our freedom of speech and assembly!

    • UK (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Frankie70 ( 803801 )

      I would imagine that if you consider even the last 100 years, the UK come up trumps in terms of "provided more
      fruit to the world than any other nation".

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Warll ( 1211492 )
        Oh, how do you figure that? I mean you have to admit, California produces a lot of fruit.
      • Funny enough I would imagine that Cali is about on par with the UK. Listen I didn't mean to bash other nations, but the airplane, the car, nuclear energy.... I'm sorry but be happy with music.

        • Listen I didn't mean to bash other nations

          I never thought you meant to bash others. Never attribute to
          malice, that which can be explained by ignorance.

          airplane, the car, nuclear energy.

          I thought we were talking about Govt funded research.
          How is airplane & car govt funded research.

          Other than that
          1) Airplane
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stringfellow [wikipedia.org]

          2) Cars
          Far too many europeans made cars before the US did it
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Trevithick [wikipedia.org] - steam powered locomotive
          http://en.wi [wikipedia.org]

          • "How is airplane & car government funded research"

            The US Air Force and CARB, that's how, and we were talking about research, not "firsts", nice try changing the goalposts.

            Now, what's next? Well Fermi got his funding from the US Government, so his citizenship is irrelevant, since as you say, we were discussing government funding not place of birth.

            Two people on your list aren't from and seemingly got nothing from the UK, so WTF?

            Then there's Stringfellow, who got his funding privately and developed very

      • Yes! (Score:1)

        by QZTR ( 1351145 )

        "I would imagine...the UK comes up trumps..."

        Yes, you would have to imagine that.

        I kid I kid! (not really)

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well, for starters, you don't seem to be doing so bad on that 1st amendment issue here on /.

      and secondly, who exactly is stopping you from going out onto the street (or other less dangerous public place) and forming an assembly?

      its been a while since I've seen american citizens being put in jail for loitering....

      • Police fight that every day (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        its been a while since I've seen american citizens being put in jail for loitering....

        Then you're not looking very hard. More and more cities are passing increasingly punitive "anti-loitering" laws all the time. Mostly under the logic that they "clean up" downtowns and prevent panhandling.

        As for people getting punished for public assembly, just go to Flickr and type in "RNC" and you'll find plenty of people, almost all non-violent and cooperative, fwiw, being stopped from public assembly.

        • So? (Score:1)

          by QZTR ( 1351145 )

          So, you mention the anti-loitering laws, but fail to mentio whether they work, and more importantly that the laws protect other citizen's rights, namely customers and property owners.

          But who gives a fuck about the rights of people who are actually useful and productive, there are downtrodden residentially challenged citizens to protect! They should absolutely have the right to soil themselves in my doorway and run off my customers...

          As to the "free speech zones", I'm so tired of this stupidity.

          Did it ever

    • Oh shut up. You've made a tremendous leap using "the armpit of freedom". Such statements discredit everything else you say or write, whether they deserve discrediting or not. Point being, if you want people to listen, if you want to make a difference for something that you claim to care so much about, don't say such obviously stupid and exaggerated things.

  • Wont take that long (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DesScorp ( 410532 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:24AM (#25116131) Journal

    These days it seems all but the most classified tech makes it into market very, very quickly. In ten years, not only will this system be a reality, but the civilian market will have figured out how to squeeze even more out of it than the military figured.

    A top Admiral in the Navy was lamenting how the Navy is having a problem selling itself as a cutting edge tech provider simply because any such new tech they get goes to the civilian sector so quickly, and further, civilian use eclipses military use. In particular, he used the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers as an example. When it was being designed in the 80's, it was absolutely cutting edge stuff. It's been in service just over 15 years, and now the Admiral lamented that a single Blackberry has more com bandwidth than an entire Burke destroyer.

    Kind of hard to sell recruits on "cutting edge" when that's the case.

    • Re:Wont take that long (Score:4, Insightful)

      by YttriumOxide ( 837412 ) <yttriumox@COUGARgmail.com minus cat> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:33AM (#25116197) Homepage Journal
      The scale is much lesser, and the technology much less cool, but we get the same thing where I work. There's a development lifecycle of a couple of years, and someone somewhere in "Management" decided that they'd go with a Waterfall model of development, where our spec is TOTALLY fixed in stone about 2 years before we release the product. Every product is therefore close to 2 years behind where it really should be. Right now, this also applies to all of our competition (they're all equally as dumb as we are in that regard), so it's not hurting us too much, but I recently gave a presentation to them about how we effectively implement a better development model (I was aiming at a variant of Agile that's tailored to our business) so we can (at least until the competition catch on) be effectively two years ahead of our competition. Perhaps the US Navy should re-consider their design processes also...

      • Re:Wont take that long (Score:4, Insightful)

        by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:00AM (#25116319)
        The problem isn't so much the design lifecycle, it's the cost of upgrades. When you have to essentially rebuild an entire ship to retool the comm infrastructure that's a hell of a lot of cost. They design a hull to sail for 50 years, but the ship will typically have to be refitted multiple time during that span to keep up with newer technology costing several times the initial cost to build it and keeping it out of service for years in total.

        • Re:Wont take that long (Score:4, Interesting)

          by YttriumOxide ( 837412 ) <yttriumox@COUGARgmail.com minus cat> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:20AM (#25116443) Homepage Journal

          I'd say it's a bit of both. To clarify and expand on my last post, I work for an MFP manufacturer (Konica Minolta). Our hardware (print engines/scanners/accessories) tends to have a much longer lifecycle, and you can still see design elements from 10 year old equipment in things we're releasing today (although only if you know what you're looking for). Many models will come out that are only a minor incremental change in hardware while being a huge change in the software/firmware (my side of it).

          This pretty much means the same thing as far as those "upgrades" you're talking about on naval vessels (but again, a totally different scale of course). When I gave my "development process" explanation/presentation to the appropriate people in our company, they raised this exact point - how to handle it when the hardware just isn't capable of what we want these software improvements to do - they considered it to be basically a kind of solid limit where no amount of software would get around it. They were right to an extent, but only an extent. I explained to them that the system should be designed from a hardware perspective in the same sort of way as I proposed for software: Much more modular and with less "reliance" on the exact workings of other parts (as long as a common messaging system is understood by both ends, they don't need to know HOW the other end accomplishes its tasks).

          Now, I will freely admit I don't know much about Naval Vessels and maybe this concept just wouldn't fit at all, but given the example of comms - everyone has known for a LONG time that comms improve at a rapid pace, they're high-tech. So, when designing a vessel, the comms system should never be so tightly integrated in to it that it's hard to upgrade - even the channels that carry the wires around the ship should be (relatively) easy to access and replace the cables should an upgrade require it. I'm not thinking that one should be able to "swap it all out just like that", but to plan to be able to do a complete comms refit in a matter of weeks with as minimal cost as possible. They KNOW they'll need to do it (as I mentioned, it's blatantly obvious that comms tech improves rapidly, and has been obvious for many decades already), so they should plan ahead for doing so.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )

      In ten years, not only will this system be a reality, but the civilian market will have figured out how to squeeze even more out of it than the military figured.

      Of course, the US military is about 3 million people. The world's population is about 2 thousand times that. Once a technology makes its way into a base that large, of course it will advance more rapidly.

      "A top Admiral in the Navy was lamenting how the Navy is having a problem selling itself as a cutting edge tech provider..."

      Cutting edge tech fre

    • It's been in service just over 15 years, and now the Admiral lamented that a single Blackberry has more com bandwidth than an entire Burke destroyer.

      Yeah, but an EMP kills the blackberry. And you have to compare it to civilian boats, not civilian cellphones. It's cheaper to replace one than the other.

    • > These days it seems all but the most classified tech makes it into market very, very quickly.

      No, you didn't got it right. The article meant that, in 10 years, everybody will be enrolled in the military due to the global draft to fight in the war after the economic collapse...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mikael ( 484 )

      GlobalSecurity has a list of communications systems that the Arleigh Burke class of destroyers have. [globalsecurity.org]

      # LF through HF Receive,10 kHz - 30 MHz
      R-1051 H/URR; twelve receivers
      R-2368 H/URR; three receivers
      # HF Transmit; 2-30 MHz
      AN/URT-23D; nine transmitters
      # VHF Transmit and Receive, 30-162 MHz
      AN/GRR-211; two transceivers for non-secure voice
      ANNRC-46A; two FM transceivers for secure voice
      AN/URC-80 (V)6; one transceiver for bridge-to-bridge communications
      # UHF Transmit and Receive, 220-400 MHz
      AN/URC-93 (V)1; two

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:24AM (#25116137)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Hal_Porter ( 817932 )

      Greetings,

      My name is Adeola Hussein, son of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. I have come into the possetion of 10 North Korean Taepodong 2 ICBMs and I need your help transferring them from a warehouse in Syria to a third country.

      I have been informed you were a trustworthy fellow.

      In return for your help you will collect a commision of 1 Taepodong 2 missile.

      I look forward to doing business with you.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by MrNaz ( 730548 )

        I'd love to help you but there's no space in the garage for a Taepodong 2 launch assembly :(

  • Internet in Jail (Score:5, Funny)

    by syousef ( 465911 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:30AM (#25116167) Journal

    I thought the Internet I'll be using in 10 years will be called the RIAA distribution network and that I'd be using it from a jail cell because I once hummed "Happy Birthday" at a children's birthday party sometime in the 90s without paying the piper.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You forgot to use the TM or R symbol in your post regarding "Happy Birthday". Up against the car and spread your legs punk!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nurb432 ( 527695 )

      You may have been modded as funny, but don't be surprised if in 10 years the RIAA/MPAA own the commercial internet.

      They own pieces of the entry points now via companies like timewarner..

  • Extremely High Frequency

    I'm usually not paranoid about radio radiation... But extremely high frequency from a satelite?

    Also, I've got to comment this thing... I'm sorry can't hold it back... :)

    If GPS and remote imaging (think Google Earth) have proven anything, it is that technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point.

    I don't think that means that the technology could not have been developed without the military... It's just because you Americans have a problem subsidizing general purpose technology if it doesn't have a military purpose...

  • Ridicolus (Score:5, Funny)

    by Eivind ( 15695 ) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @02:17AM (#25116743) Homepage
    LF
    Low Frequency
    MF
    Medium Frequency
    HF
    High Frequency
    VHF
    Vergy High Frequency
    UHF
    Ultra High Frequency
    SHF
    Super High Frequency
    EHF
    Extremely High Frequency

    Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..

    • Still waiting for Ludicrously High Frequency.... Seriously..

      Well, EHF is up to 0.3 THz (1 mm wavelength). Long-distance fiber links already use 1.5 micron wavelengths (200 THz); it is called infrared and it is already widely used for communication.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Eivind ( 15695 )
        I know. I was just commenting on the folly of having a unbounded variable and labeling the three main spectra in use on a certain date "low" "medium" and "high". That way lays madness, because soon thereafter you need "very" high, thereafter "extremely" high, etc....
  • It doesn't cost the military anything to have millions of GPS users using their GPS system because the satellites take a passive role. It is the device in your hand doing the calculations based on signals and timing from a few satellites. On the other hand, a communications network actually has a limited resource in the form of bandwidth to be consumed by the millions of potential users.

    • If GPS and remote imaging (think Google Earth) have proven anything, it is that technology initially developed for military purposes, and extremely expensive for initial civil use, will eventually reach the point where it forms part of our daily lives without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point.

      If the massive investment has to keep on happening in relation to the number of users, then we probably will be aware of it because we'll be paying for it in a monthly fee and companies will have bidding wars for their slice of the bandwidth.

  • Screw mobile internet, i want my flying car (Score:3, Funny)

    by freedom_india ( 780002 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @02:24AM (#25116771) Homepage Journal

    Screw the predictors' predictions.
    10 years from now...20 years from now... blah, blah...
    WHERE THE FUCK is my Flying car promised to me 50 years ago???
    Bring that first, and we will talk about stupid mobile internet...
    As if enough AOL morons don't exist already...
    The predictors should be drafted and send to Iraq: they can get to experience mobile artillery very much...

    • WHERE THE FUCK is my Flying car promised to me 50 years ago???

      Do you see that smoking crater over there?

      Here's the keys... Enjoy!

    • Clearly you don't watch Mythbusters enough, or you'd have a flying car by now.

      At least, the remains of a few.

  • Massive investment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by willyhill ( 965620 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `kaw8rp'> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @02:24AM (#25116777) Homepage Journal

    Yes, and that's also the reason why there should be a space program. Sadly though, many people nowadays don't see it that way. They think that reaching for the stars is "impractical" when we have so many problems here at ground level. But money spent this way, even in military endeavors, is *never* wasted. Eventually it reaches everyone in some way or another.

    Like... TANG!

    (just kidding)

  • Forget 10 years, we have better systems NOW. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hozza ( 1073224 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @03:24AM (#25117103)

    The EHF satellites are great for what they've been designed to do, deliver bandwidth to 10,000's users over a large area of the earth, but that isn't what most consumers need.

    They need things that will work in urban canyons and can cope with 10,000's of users within a few square miles. This is much better served by local radio masts than satellite systems.

    The future of mobile internet is 3G and WiMAX and its rivals, and its already here.

  • without us ever being conscious of the massive investment to get to that point

    You must be rich, us middle-class are very aware of how much it costs every time we pay taxes...

  • How do they know I'll be running that in 10 years? Crazy! They must be spying on me...in the future!
  • Tight-beam high-bandwidth satellite radio links are great for military use, where it's unlikely that you can depend on existing communication infrastructure.

    However, for most commercial uses, it's just silly: even if it were just being used as backhaul for base stations, the requirement for directional antennas alone means that it's way more expensive and less reliable than conventional alternatives, and bandwidth to satellites can't help but be vastly more expensive than terrestrial connections, either w

  • Not the internet of tomorrow (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    EHF communications is NOT the mobile internet of tomorrow. In fact AEHF won't even be the military's SATCOM system of choice when bandwidth is the primary requirement. They're generally going to turn to WGS (http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5582) or even more likely, commercial SATCOM because that's where the REAL bandwidth is.

    Don't get me wrong EHF SATCOM does what's it designed to do very well. It's protected. The narrow beam widths on uplink and downlink provide low probabi

  • I am too cheap to pay $30/mo for mobile internet on my phone. A service beamed from OUTER SPACE doesn't sound like it is going to be a bargain.

    The mobile internet that I am using in 10 years will be cheap, or I will be relying on unicorn-rare wlan hot spots as I do today.

  • Satellite photography and the GPS system have the property of being usable by large numbers of people with no reduction in quality. A wireless internet will degrade as usage increases. Therefore we may not see this technology open itself to widespread usage in the way Google Earth and GPS have.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close