US Military using teleport in Australia

[marlonb]

Is it true the US military has its teleport system based down under? I never thought of it because the US has a lot of teleport systems already. So if the teleport operator's in Australia, what must be the advantages of putting mission critical communications there?

The first thing on my mind is the weather. Thoughts?

 

[ngatimozart]

Is it true the US military has its teleport system based down under? I never thought of it because the US has a lot of teleport systems already. So if the teleport operator's in Australia, what must be the advantages of putting mission critical communications there?

The first thing on my mind is the weather. Thoughts?

Could you please elaborate. A little bit of info would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Waylander]

Are you talking about the teleporters I have in mind?

"Beam me up Scotty..."

 

[My2Cents]

Is it true the US military has its teleport system based down under? I never thought of it because the US has a lot of teleport systems already. So if the teleport operator's in Australia, what must be the advantages of putting mission critical communications there?

The first thing on my mind is the weather. Thoughts?

He is referring to a hub connecting a geosynchronous satellite to a terrestrial communications network. The US military probably a large number around the world, probably even in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nothing that special.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Australia hosts a huge number of US communication stations as well as Australian stations that hook in the US network.

They are here for a wide varity of reasons, relay, south coverage etc. Australia is also a very secure, with lots of remote locations and has existing networks for other purposes. Its quiet easy to hide fairly large complexes (as long as the Australian PM doesn't tell everyone).

I would imagine they would have some scattered around the world to cover network disruption (either through conflict, jamming, weather (atmospheric and solar) aging etc).

 

[marlonb]

Australia hosts a huge number of US communication stations as well as Australian stations that hook in the US network.

They are here for a wide varity of reasons, relay, south coverage etc. Australia is also a very secure, with lots of remote locations and has existing networks for other purposes. Its quiet easy to hide fairly large complexes (as long as the Australian PM doesn't tell everyone).

I would imagine they would have some scattered around the world to cover network disruption (either through conflict, jamming, weather (atmospheric and solar) aging etc).

I see.

Yes, I do think Australia's remoteness also provides for secure and undisrupted connectivity and minimal frequency interference as well.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I see.

Yes, I do think Australia's remoteness also provides for secure and undisrupted connectivity and minimal frequency interference as well.

I would say another important one would be latency.

Depending on where and where you might have to relay several times. If its geostationary you are talking seconds of latency for each hop. Latency is aways bad, so you want to reduce it as much as possible. So it makes sense to have them scattered about so depending on network load, latency, weather and network bandwidth.

 

[marlonb]

I would say another important one would be latency.

Depending on where and where you might have to relay several times. If its geostationary you are talking seconds of latency for each hop. Latency is aways bad, so you want to reduce it as much as possible. So it makes sense to have them scattered about so depending on network load, latency, weather and network bandwidth.

I read somewhere it's also because of Australia's location providing optimal look angles into the Middle East and Africa. And since the US and Aus share the same "border" via the Pacific Ocean, direct cable access is also possible through the Southern Cross cable.

 

[Feanor]

Yup, sorry if it was unclear, but I was talking about the teleporters. :

Yes they are. They are also building a deathstar, right behind the moon. That way nobody notices it. That way when those pesky rebels (pirates) attack, the imperial forces can destroy Aldebaran (Somalia).

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes they are. They are also building a deathstar, right behind the moon. That way nobody notices it. That way when those pesky rebels (pirates) attack, the imperial forces can destroy Aldebaran (Somalia).

That's no moon... That's a space station.

 

[Feanor]

That's no moon... That's a space station.

An abandoned Soviet space station. They built a time machine, and sent a construction crew back to the age of the dinosaurs, and started building a gigantic space station. It was supposed to be powered by 666 nuclear reactors, and have giant engines (that's what the craters really are). However after the USSR collapsed, it became abandoned. The technicians consumed all the rubbing alcohol (which the station uses as lubricant), and sold all the wiring to pay for tickets back to Siberia.

The real reason NASA wants to get back on the moon by 2020, is so they can recover the secret time travel technology.

 

[Feanor]

:jump2

Normally that would not be a valid reply to a post, but I'd feel ashamed to make that statement after my last post... Anyways.

To respond to the original topic: while the US may or may not be building a teleport in Australia, I think it's safe to say that it's highly unlikely. Please continue discussing satellite communications and disregard the last few posts.

 

[Deterrence Wonk]

Air Force Satellite Control Network

Is it true the US military has its teleport system based down under? I never thought of it because the US has a lot of teleport systems already. So if the teleport operator's in Australia, what must be the advantages of putting mission critical communications there?

The first thing on my mind is the weather. Thoughts?

The Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) has to span around the world because all satellite communications are 'Line of Sight' or LOS.

Satellites orbit the earth and are not within the 'field of view' (FOV) of a ground control station for very long. Since you cannot send a radio signal through the earth, Satellite Command and Control, telemetry, and monitoring must be constantly handed off between the ground stations as the satellite passes overhead. It is a very complicated system that demands alot from the Air Force satellite controllers and planners.

That is why automated relay stations are set up around the world in places like Australia, England, and Guam to pass information to and from dedicated command centers in the US to the satellites circling around the globe.

And it is all pretty much transparent to everyone on the ground!

 

[marlonb]

The Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) has to span around the world because all satellite communications are 'Line of Sight' or LOS.

Satellites orbit the earth and are not within the 'field of view' (FOV) of a ground control station for very long. Since you cannot send a radio signal through the earth, Satellite Command and Control, telemetry, and monitoring must be constantly handed off between the ground stations as the satellite passes overhead. It is a very complicated system that demands alot from the Air Force satellite controllers and planners.

That is why automated relay stations are set up around the world in places like Australia, England, and Guam to pass information to and from dedicated command centers in the US to the satellites circling around the globe.

And it is all pretty much transparent to everyone on the ground!

Wouldn't that pose a threat to the location, for example in Guam or Australia? You know, make them a lot more appealing as a target?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Guam has a large military presence on Guam. Australia has its own capable defences. While telecommunication networks might sweeten them slightly as targets, the communication links are redundant. So even nuking entire facilities would merely result in traffic being switched else where.

There are way bigger targets in both of these locations than this. To take either would be a huge effort.

 

[marlonb]

Guam has a large military presence on Guam. Australia has its own capable defences. While telecommunication networks might sweeten them slightly as targets, the communication links are redundant. So even nuking entire facilities would merely result in traffic being switched else where.

There are way bigger targets in both of these locations than this. To take either would be a huge effort.

Oh I see. Thanks for explaining. So basically it would be quite a dead-end for anyone with terror plots.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Guam is essentially a military base already. Its US territory, has i dunno 10,000+ US military personel. Carriers, USMC amphibs and the USAF often base out of Guam. It would be akin to trying to attack a huge military staging point on US soil.

Australia's communication stations are very remote, and include things like echelon stations etc. Most of the important bits are fortified, and behind multiple fences km away from the actual sites. Usually manned by US and sometimes US and Australian personel. These sites probably have as their biggest threats all out nuclear attack by ICBM's, because thats the level you would have to go to take them out.

Terrorists would find a lot softer target than that. Usually civilian or troops moving about in unarmoured humves.

 

[marlonb]

Yeah, I do think it's going to take so much to disrupt satellite communications especially remote areas. Terrorists are most likely going to look for easier targets anyway.

 

[marlonb]

Normally that would not be a valid reply to a post, but I'd feel ashamed to make that statement after my last post... Anyways.

To respond to the original topic: while the US may or may not be building a teleport in Australia, I think it's safe to say that it's highly unlikely. Please continue discussing satellite communications and disregard the last few posts.

I think I found a video to it as well. [nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcI1tfLHHGg"]‪The advantages and benefits of Australian Teleports‬‏ - YouTube[/nomedia].

 

[My2Cents]

Yeah, I do think it's going to take so much to disrupt satellite communications especially remote areas. Terrorists are most likely going to look for easier targets anyway.

Terrorists need headlines stoke their egos and bring in recruits/groupies. Taking out a military telecommunications hub probably would not even make page 6 in the papers and be ignored by the others unless there is a high body count or they use a nuke. :splat