If you say so. I can't stop the U.S. from being stupid. Proven fact. Knock yourself out.
And by the way, you also have to rad-hard all your circuitry. Those are completely different IC circuits in outer space than the rad-hard circuits designed to withstand an EMP in stratospheric temperatures. All the while, your DSP's have to filter out noise on the 250MHz band--not the 125 MHz band, as the USAF uses. That's twice as much performance needed, rad-hardened, and has to work over a much wider temperature range. Putting a USAF commander in charge of that is pure folly. Not unusual for the government to do, but pure folly.
More technobabble.
More technobabble. You are mashing together a bunch of concepts incorrectly to lend your argument weight.
-----------------
Because: Why not?
You have to verify your materials work at both 7 degrees kelvin and 1000 degrees kelvin,
Standard mil-spec temperature ranges for space applications are usually between -45C to 75C.
and at both 0 pascals and 102 kPa.
And? Are we supposed to be shocked that things in space have to work in vaccum or what?
Much wider range than a sub-ionosphere craft.
This is meaningless gibberish. The ionosphere is a thing. You can be beneath it. Sub-ionosphere craft is meaningless.
And that means very different machines and techniques to simulate & verify it on the earth surface.
This is just like saying things in space have to work in space. It adds nothing to the argument but gives it a patina of sophistication.
Maintaining a geosynchronous orbit is a full-time job and takes post-doctorate level expertise.
All full time jobs are full time jobs. What does this even mean? Most satellites fly themselves most of the time anyhow and in many ways, GEO birds are easier to fly than their LEO counterparts. And you definitely don't have to have a post-doc to 'maintain a geosynchronous orbit', whatever that means.
Big difference in RF communications bouncing off the ionosphere vs. the van allens.
Bouncing shortwave off the ionosphere has as much to do with communicating with satellites as two kids talking to each other with coffee cans and string. No one uses the van allen belts as a communications medium. The idea itself is pretty funny though.
You're in a realm of specialization where if anybody says, "it's all RF; the same people can do it" I know they don't know what they're talking about. And if they don't, kill the program.
Weird flex but ok?
And by the way, you also have to rad-hard all your circuitry.
Not true. It's far more common to make the architecture rad tolerant rather than rad hard. Also, CubeSats are showing how you can do meaningful science and missions without either.
Those are completely different IC circuits in outer space than the rad-hard circuits designed to withstand an EMP in stratospheric temperatures.
This is also false. The same chips get passed around for many different applications. There are very few niches that require completely unique architectures.
All the while, your DSP's have to filter out noise on the 250MHz band--not the 125 MHz band, as the USAF uses.
No and no? This doesn't make enough sense to me to correct, I'm sorry.
That's twice as much performance needed, rad-hardened, and has to work over a much wider temperature range.
'Twice as much performance' is rarely the driving criteria in space electronics. I mean what performance are you even specifying? I kind of assume you mean processing speed, which is definitely not a driver of satellite flight computer design. We're well into 'everything is fast enough' when it comes to most satellite use cases and processing speed comes with lots of draw backs including higher temperature excursion and radiation susceptibility, less reliability, increased cost and less compatibility with common hardware and software.
