National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982)

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
Steve Hix wrote:
From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Steve Hix:

What offensive weaponry, in particular?

This was addressed early on in this thread. Examples given from that
June 12th post are ICBMs as offensive space weaponry,

They're just *very* long-range artillery. Not space-based currently,
either.

The Soviets also considered ICBMs to be long-range artillery.

and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability.

Pure baloney, any way you slice it.

Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the
Iron Curtain, long before GPS ever existed.

I don't see how those facts refute anything I've stated.

GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that
it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic.

In sci.space.policy Scott M. Kozel wrote:

GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that
it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic.

Fine. And I doubt many people would argue against that. But surely you
don't want to claim that specificly military tailored and military
controlled navigation satellites used in weapons targeting are part
not of space militarisation?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: The problem with that is... We had no need of such a capability.
: What an SSBN needs is a method of knowing it's position *without*
: having to surface, or preferably even coming close to the surface. We
: already had that capability with SINS, SINS/ESGM, and with ESGN.
: From the point of view of an SSBN, GPS is 'nice-to-have', not 'must
: have'.

I'm not certain I quite agree with that.

You may do so. I'll refute as best I can without risking a
vacation in Kansas. (Do keep in mind I did this stuff for a living.)

The USN definitely needed such a capability. For starters, SSBNs launch
from relatively close to the surface, and in launching advertise themselves
very well, and are not supposed to be anywhere near an enemy when they
do. Thus, coming close to or at the surface is not such a liability.

SSBN's launch from considerably beneath periscope depth. Transiting
to PD and back to launch depth not only increases the length of the
launch process, but increases the 'something is up' signature. We
won't launch if we know we are being shadowed, but for obvious reasons
we always behave as if we are being shadowed and just don't know it.
Thus coming close to the surface does the two things the USN has
always avoided (and spent a great deal of money to avoid[1]);
increasing the length of the launch sequence and increasing the launch
signature. Thus coming to or close to the surface is a liability.

[1] For example, modifying the valves used to pressurize the launch
tubes in order to reduce the noise they generated. The pressurization
and flow control valves in the hovering system were also modified for
greater quietness because setting up that system as we made other
launch preps was a noisy and very obvious signature.

Across the history of the SSBN force reducing the indiscretion rate
and reducing the length and signature of the launch process have been
right behind accuracy (and not far behind at that) in the goals and
requirements of the system. Thus LORAN capability was added to the
bouy and wire (discussed below) and the BQS-3 secure fathometer
developed to avoid surface exposure. We did/do have mast mounted
antenna for Transit/GPS, but these are used as little as possible to
avoid going near the surface.

This is particularly true if you are going to be using satcomms for any
purpose - verification, mission update, etc.

We don't, not really. Satcomm is a backup for two other systems, one
which allows us to patrol deep (the bouy) and another which allows us
to patrol near (but not breaking as satcomm requires) the surface (the
wire). Also, SSIXS is a store-and-forward system (which requires
interrogation by the SSBN) rather than the continuous comms provided
by the systems the surface fleet and the rest of the DoD uses.

Secondly, the USN wanted to be able to use SSBN launched missiles
in counterfire, not a a countervalue, role. You can nuke a city without too
much accuracy, but if you want to plink hardened silos and buried targets
accuracy becomes much more important.

Certainly accuracy is important, but SSBN/SLBM system design also has
to consider issues (outlined above) that an ICBM system does not.
That was a prime driver behind the development of the ESGM/ESGN. Not
only was it more accurate than SINS, but it also required fewer and
less frequent (possibly detectable) external updates to maintain
overall system accuracy.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

(Stuf4) wrote:
You could likewise argue that Air Force strategic bombers had no need
for GPS because they had INS supplemented with TACAN and RADAR.

The behavior of the USAF across it's history supports that argument,
they were a latecomer to GPS, not an early adopter. The bombers
depended on radar and visual sightings once they entered the bombing
run. One suspects their involvement was more attributeable to
politics (increasing the accuracy of manned bombers increases their
viability, and being involved in a program that was in space but not
USAF controlled) as any desire for accuracy.

Notice that even today the space shuttle is involved with a GPS
upgrade. For every flight to date it had multiple INS with multiple
TACAN. If this was deemed reliable and accurate enough then the GPS
conversion would be a complete waste of time and money.

Now talk to the astronauts and see how badly the want GPS.

They want it because it's available. There was certainly no such
clamor during the design phase.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Sander Vesik wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that
it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic.

Fine. And I doubt many people would argue against that. But surely you
don't want to claim that specificly military tailored and military
controlled navigation satellites used in weapons targeting are part
not of space militarisation?

I just got done refuting that notion. GPS has many civil uses, and is
no more "space militarisation" than is things like computers,
calculators, and microelectronics that makes modern satellites feasible,
plus weather satellites and other communication satellites.

Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the
Iron Curtain, decades before GPS ever existed.

In sci.space.policy Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that
it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic.

Fine. And I doubt many people would argue against that. But surely you
don't want to claim that specificly military tailored and military
controlled navigation satellites used in weapons targeting are part
not of space militarisation?

I just got done refuting that notion. GPS has many civil uses, and is
no more "space militarisation" than is things like computers,
calculators, and microelectronics that makes modern satellites feasible,
plus weather satellites and other communication satellites.

This is simply nonsense. When was the last time you saw a receiver on
sale that could actually make use of all GPS? GPS is not in any way
comparable to computers or modern electronics. It is not even designed
for civilian use, you may as well claim military cargo planes are not
military aircraft at all.

In fact, if you go by US laws, any placement of satellites in orbit at
all is space militarisation due to classification of satellites and
satellite technology as munitions


Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the
Iron Curtain, decades before GPS ever existed.

Which is utterly irrelevant to whetever GPS is space militarisation
or not.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:
Scott M. Kozel wrote:

GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that
it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic.

Fine. And I doubt many people would argue against that. But surely you
don't want to claim that specificly military tailored and military
controlled navigation satellites used in weapons targeting are part
not of space militarisation?

I just got done refuting that notion. GPS has many civil uses, and is
no more "space militarisation" than is things like computers,
calculators, and microelectronics that makes modern satellites feasible,
plus weather satellites and other communication satellites.

This is simply nonsense. When was the last time you saw a receiver on
sale that could actually make use of all GPS? GPS is not in any way
comparable to computers or modern electronics. It is not even designed
for civilian use, you may as well claim military cargo planes are not
military aircraft at all.

You're the one who is posting nonsense. Obviously you've never seen the
commercially available receivers that instantly provide the exact
coordinates of a location to within a few feet. That has valuable civil
navigational uses.

In fact, if you go by US laws, any placement of satellites in orbit at
all is space militarisation due to classification of satellites and
satellite technology as munitions

Complete, utter nonsense.

Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the
Iron Curtain, decades before GPS ever existed.

Which is utterly irrelevant to whetever GPS is space militarisation
or not.

It is totally relevant, since those ICBMs and SLBMs can be (and were)
very accurate without GPS.

You're just looking for any far-fetched excuse possible to attack the
U.S.

From Derek Lyons:
(Stuf4) wrote:
You could likewise argue that Air Force strategic bombers had no need
for GPS because they had INS supplemented with TACAN and RADAR.

The behavior of the USAF across it's history supports that argument,
they were a latecomer to GPS, not an early adopter. The bombers
depended on radar and visual sightings once they entered the bombing
run. One suspects their involvement was more attributeable to
politics (increasing the accuracy of manned bombers increases their
viability, and being involved in a program that was in space but not
USAF controlled) as any desire for accuracy.

Perhaps I was not clear enough the first time. Derek, GPS was funded
because:

INS was neither accurate nor reliable.


INS may be accurate after being fixed to a known location, but INS
*does not measure position*. It does not even measure velocity. It
measures acceleration. And that means that the slightest error gets
integrated into a larger error in velocity, which gets integrated into
an EVEN LARGER error in position. Over short periods of time, INS
accelerometers were well known for running the position away with a
skewed platform.

Bomber missions take several hours and there are long stretches of
time between fixes where INS's often behave badly. It took diligence
of a highly skilled navigator to keep the INS "corralled", so to
speak, by regularly pumping good fixes into the system.

....and *even then* it was known to go inaccurate. Aside from errors
within the INS itself, even highly skilled navigators would make
errors in identifying radar targets to fix off of (there were lots of
other sources of error as well).


The optimal solution was to measure position directly, instead of
integrating all those errors.

The Air Force was in on the *ground floor* for the DNSS (renamed GPS),
so I don't know why anyone would say that they were latecomers. The
Navy had a 2-D system that worked at extremely low velocity. Jets
can't stop like subs can. And jets need 3-D position. It *was* the
Air Force who created such a system.

The most significant GPS contribution from the Navy was the atomic
clocks. The basics of the signal theory came from the Air Force. As
derived from MOSAIC, it was the technology that was designed for
positioning ICBM launches that gave us the system we use today. Air
Force technology.


Notice that even today the space shuttle is involved with a GPS
upgrade. For every flight to date it had multiple INS with multiple
TACAN. If this was deemed reliable and accurate enough then the GPS
conversion would be a complete waste of time and money.

Now talk to the astronauts and see how badly the want GPS.

They want it because it's available. There was certainly no such
clamor during the design phase.

While the shuttle is capable of doing automatic navigation fixes from
TACAN stations, it still suffers the accuracy problems inherent in INS
systems that don't get precise position updates.

Part of astronaut pilot training is practicing landings with *bad
nav*.


This is why they want GPS. They don't like the idea of their nav
system taking them down to a spot that is so far off the runway that
they crash. The primary issue isn't convenience. It isn't technology
fashion trends.

It's a matter of living, versus not.


The reason why there was no "clamor during the design phase" was
because there was no GPS when shuttle was designed. It was just a
theory.


~ CT

From Derek Lyons:
Steven James Forsberg wrote:

: The problem with that is... We had no need of such a capability.
: What an SSBN needs is a method of knowing it's position *without*
: having to surface, or preferably even coming close to the surface. We
: already had that capability with SINS, SINS/ESGM, and with ESGN.
: From the point of view of an SSBN, GPS is 'nice-to-have', not 'must
: have'.

I'm not certain I quite agree with that.

You may do so. I'll refute as best I can without risking a
vacation in Kansas. (Do keep in mind I did this stuff for a living.)

People who did navigation for a living knew that GPS was so good that
it was going to force thousands of them into unemployment.

The USN definitely needed such a capability. For starters, SSBNs launch
from relatively close to the surface, and in launching advertise themselves
very well, and are not supposed to be anywhere near an enemy when they
do. Thus, coming close to or at the surface is not such a liability.

SSBN's launch from considerably beneath periscope depth. Transiting
to PD and back to launch depth not only increases the length of the
launch process, but increases the 'something is up' signature. We
won't launch if we know we are being shadowed, but for obvious reasons
we always behave as if we are being shadowed and just don't know it.

(According to that statement, SSBNs would never launch.)

Thus coming close to the surface does the two things the USN has
always avoided (and spent a great deal of money to avoid[1]);
increasing the length of the launch sequence and increasing the launch
signature. Thus coming to or close to the surface is a liability.

[1] For example, modifying the valves used to pressurize the launch
tubes in order to reduce the noise they generated. The pressurization
and flow control valves in the hovering system were also modified for
greater quietness because setting up that system as we made other
launch preps was a noisy and very obvious signature.

Across the history of the SSBN force reducing the indiscretion rate
and reducing the length and signature of the launch process have been
right behind accuracy (and not far behind at that) in the goals and
requirements of the system. Thus LORAN capability was added to the
bouy and wire (discussed below) and the BQS-3 secure fathometer
developed to avoid surface exposure. We did/do have mast mounted
antenna for Transit/GPS, but these are used as little as possible to
avoid going near the surface.

This is particularly true if you are going to be using satcomms for any
purpose - verification, mission update, etc.

We don't, not really. Satcomm is a backup for two other systems, one
which allows us to patrol deep (the bouy) and another which allows us
to patrol near (but not breaking as satcomm requires) the surface (the
wire). Also, SSIXS is a store-and-forward system (which requires
interrogation by the SSBN) rather than the continuous comms provided
by the systems the surface fleet and the rest of the DoD uses.

Note the strict definition of continuous comm here.

ELF != broadband

Imagine sub crews trying to surf the internet at a baud rate of 5.
Thats "5" as in "5.0". Not 5.0k. Just plain five.

Talk about comm brevity. Bubbleheads redefined the term.

Secondly, the USN wanted to be able to use SSBN launched missiles
in counterfire, not a a countervalue, role. You can nuke a city without too
much accuracy, but if you want to plink hardened silos and buried targets
accuracy becomes much more important.

(Counter_force_ is the standard compliment to countervalue. I know
that college profs have a way of inventing new terminology!)

Certainly accuracy is important, but SSBN/SLBM system design also has
to consider issues (outlined above) that an ICBM system does not.
That was a prime driver behind the development of the ESGM/ESGN. Not
only was it more accurate than SINS, but it also required fewer and
less frequent (possibly detectable) external updates to maintain
overall system accuracy.

Here you are talking about late-90s technology.

We were talking about satellite navigation, a concept as old as
Sputnik[+]. Notice that the first Transit satellite was launched in
*1959*.

Notice also that the first sub-launched ballistic missile happened a
mere three months after the first successful Transit satellite reached
orbit.
(One reference- http://www.redsword.com/GPS/old/sum_his.htm)

I don't see this as a mere coincidence, Derek. Accurate navigation is
a requirement for accurate missiles. Satellites provided that.


[+] - An interesting story is how the concept of satellite navigation
dates back to the early days of Sputnik. Folks at Johns Hopkins were
able to work an orbit determination for Sputnik based on the doppler
shift of its beeps.

It was soon reasoned that just as measurements from a known ground
location could be used to determine an unknown satellite's orbit, the
converse applied as well. Measurements of a known satellite's orbit
could be used to determine an unknown ground location.


~ CT

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
Steve Hix wrote:
From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Steve Hix:

What offensive weaponry, in particular?

This was addressed early on in this thread. Examples given from that
June 12th post are ICBMs as offensive space weaponry,

They're just *very* long-range artillery. Not space-based currently,
either.

The Soviets also considered ICBMs to be long-range artillery.

and GPS as providing offensive weaponry capability.

Pure baloney, any way you slice it.

Accurate ICBMs and SLBMs existed by the thousands, on both sides of the
Iron Curtain, long before GPS ever existed.

I don't see how those facts refute anything I've stated.

GPS is not "offensive space-based weaponry", and for you to assert that
it is, shows you have an agenda to post disinformation about the topic.

If you're concerned with disinformation, you might want to be more
careful about the words you choose to put quotes around, because that
isn't what I said.

And if you don't see how GPS was funded for its offensive capability,
I suggest that you review the plethora of information in the links
provided in this thread alone.

A grand total of -ZERO- of those words came from me.


The words I did use were "offensive weaponry capability".

So what are we disagreeing on here? Perhaps you have a problem with
the adjective "offensive".

Do you think that the military developed GPS for *defense*? They are
in the business of killing people. They use technology to kill people
more efficiently. The justification for funding multiples of billions
of dollars for GPS fits right in with that.

Perhaps you have a problem with the term "weaponry capability". What
examples would you like to examine? Nuclear bomber capability? SLBM
capability? GPS bomb capability?!

I'll go back to my original point:

GPS was not funded so that you can have a moving map in your car for
your daily commute to work.


I do agree with a particular point you made. I do have an agenda. My
goal has been stated clearly several times on this forum:

I strive for accurate space history.


Consider the masses who make experience a daily scene like driving
their car on the interstate using a GPS moving map, go to their office
and use the internet to check the weather radar... Totally oblivious
that all of these systems:

- Interstate highways,
- GPS,
- Internet,
- Weather sats

All were derived from nuclear motivations of the Cold War. That's the
story that accurate space history tells. If you don't see how GPS
fits into that. If you don't see how it came about as a system for
increasing offensive weaponry capability, then I am glad to consider
any perspectives that you have to offer.

I am here to learn from others. And to share what I know. By all
means, please take what you like and discard the rest. I appreciate
all constructive feedback because that helps me achieve my "agenda".


~ CT