Quote from: kevin-rf on 05/17/2016 02:24 pmI would argue that understanding what optical satellites do is pretty straight forward. SIGINT is not, and the reason they are dragging feet as much as possible is telling how they work lets people understand and counter it. You kind of know if something can or can not be seen from space and if you should or could hide it ... but if you don't know something is emitting critical data, you can not mask it.The Soviets evidently did know about the SIGNIT program because during the 80s, they switched to using landline cables for communication which could not be read by a satellite.
I would argue that understanding what optical satellites do is pretty straight forward. SIGINT is not, and the reason they are dragging feet as much as possible is telling how they work lets people understand and counter it. You kind of know if something can or can not be seen from space and if you should or could hide it ... but if you don't know something is emitting critical data, you can not mask it.
Quote from: Vlong on 09/21/2016 10:02 amThe Soviets evidently did know about the SIGNIT program because during the 80s, they switched to using landline cables for communication which could not be read by a satellite.It's way more complicated than that. You are apparently referring to communications. But SIGINT includes detecting radar signals too.Also, if you read my series of articles, you'll note that one of the first communications targets that the Americans went after was Soviet air traffic control, meaning the communications between military pilots and ground controllers. That could be encrypted, but it was radio.
The Soviets evidently did know about the SIGNIT program because during the 80s, they switched to using landline cables for communication which could not be read by a satellite.
Quote from: Blackstar on 09/21/2016 12:33 pmQuote from: Vlong on 09/21/2016 10:02 amThe Soviets evidently did know about the SIGNIT program because during the 80s, they switched to using landline cables for communication which could not be read by a satellite.It's way more complicated than that. You are apparently referring to communications. But SIGINT includes detecting radar signals too.Also, if you read my series of articles, you'll note that one of the first communications targets that the Americans went after was Soviet air traffic control, meaning the communications between military pilots and ground controllers. That could be encrypted, but it was radio.I was mostly referring to COMINT and yes, not everything could be converted to landline.As for Ivy Bells, that was a Navy program and had nothing to do with space missions.
Yes, some Soviet communications switched from being transmitted to going over landlines. But my point is that there were ways to intercept those communications too. Ivy Bells is one example.
Marco Langbroek has published an article on Orion and PAN, based on the Intercept documents and his own observations:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3095/1
Quote from: gosnold on 11/01/2016 09:01 amMarco Langbroek has published an article on Orion and PAN, based on the Intercept documents and his own observations:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3095/1This might be a bit off-topic from the thread title (1960s versus quite recent missions) so might perhaps be moved better to another thread.It is an _excellent_ article. It nicely combines sleuthing, information, observation of orbital positions, but also somewhat delves into political and societal effects.
I'm trying to piece together a history of US high-altitude SIGINT, and I'm looking for sources.For now I have found a few of Blackstar's articles on LEO systems ("The wizard war in orbit" in the Space Review), with explanation about the US needs in SIGINT (as listed in COMOR memos). I am also looking at Jeffrey T. Richelson's work, mostly "The Wizards of Langley" and his "Eavesdroppers in disguise" article. Also found "The SIGINT Satellites of Pine Gap" by Desmond Ball, which is interesting.Anybody knows about other content on the subject?
For those, like me, who need a better hint...https://www.nsa.gov/about/scamlogic-heritage/historical.../telint-9-19-2016.pdf
Quote from: Targeteer on 05/29/2017 12:37 amFor those, like me, who need a better hint...https://www.nsa.gov/about/scamlogic-heritage/historical.../telint-9-19-2016.pdfThe link is not working. The complete link should be https://www.nsa.gov/about/scamlogic-heritage/historical-figures-publications/publications/misc/assets/files/telint-9-19-2016.pdf