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

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

If GPS had such a high military justification as you assert, then they
wouldn't have taken 18 years to implement the system (even the first 10
"Block 1" satellites took 7-1/2 years to implement), they probably would
have done the whole 24 in 3 years or less.

Had this capability been considered necessary, then I would agree. A
key factor to remember here is that no one knew for sure whether GPS
would actually work (let alone work so well).

Three satellites would have been sufficient to fully test the concept.

They started launching in 1978, and by the time they were finished in
1996, the Cold War had been over for five years. That shows that they
put hardly any priority on GPS.

I would agree that GPS was not a top priority program in the early
years. I don't see how that in any way refutes the point that GPS was
funded because of its military justification. (Again, it was seen as
a force multiplier, not as some necessary vital element that the
military could not do without.)

While we can agree that "National Defense Highway System" was not the
official title, I have no problem with its use as a short title.

I have a big problem with that very misleading name. It suggests that
"national defense" is the sole purpose of the Interstate highway system,
when that is and was only a minor role. It doesn't include the very
predominant "Interstate", which is the one system-related word that is
on the red-white-and-blue shield highway route markers.

Commonly used "short titles" such as "Interstate System" and "Interstate
Highway System", are appropriate and accurate, and implicitly would
include the transportation of all types of vehicles, people and cargoes,
both civil and military.

(I see these points as thoroughly covered.)

And I find your criticism of "military myths" particularly curious,
especially since you have stated that you have a wealth of background
on the matter. Here are quotes from a speech prepared by Eisenhower
himself:

...cited five "penalties" of the nation's obsolete highway network:
the annual death and injury toll, the waste of billions of dollars
in detours and traffic jams, the clogging of the nation's courts
with highway-related suits, the inefficiency in the transportation
of goods, and "the appalling inadequacies to meet the demands of
catastrophe or defense, should an atomic war come."

Of the "five penalties" cited in one Eisenhower speech, four were purely
civil and only one was for defense; and each of those four "civil
penalties" were -huge-.

It seems we can agree that the threat of atomic war was a concern.
That would make the disagreement a matter of degree.

Because of the significance of the interstate system to national
defense, Fallon changed the official name to the "National System
of Interstate and Defense Highways." This new name remained in all
future House versions and was adopted in 1956.

Like I said, the system was officially named "National System of
Interstate Highways" when it was first established by Congress in 1943,
and the "and defense" was tacked on in 1956, the year that final
approval for construction occurred and actual construction began.

You have piped in with an extended commentary to "set the record
straight with respect to Interstate highways" and then you support
your points with a webpage that tells us about the threat of atomic
war and "the significance of the interstate system to national
defense".


If you and I can agree with the points made in the very reference you
have provided, then there is nothing else for us to discuss about
highways here.


Where did I find these quotes? On the very webpage that you provided:

From the official DOT website for the Federal Highway Administration:
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm

(I don't know whether you didn't bother reading the page you linked,
or whether you are choosing to ignore it.)

Of course I read it, Stuffie. You found the word "defense" in there,
and think you can make that the main justification for the Interstate
system, when in fact it was a minor element.

I don't recall ever communicating that defense was the main
justification for this legislation.

I said "quite accurate in their own right", as before GPS, U.S. ICBMs
were accurate enough to hit point hardened targets, U.S. manned bombers
were accurate enough to hit point hardened targets, and U.S. SLBMs were
accurate enough to hit cities, ports and industrial centers (but not
point targets).

I don't disagree with that. But once again...

The percentage expected to hit accurately with GPS is greater than
without. This fact is encompassed by the term "force multiplier".

By itself it doesn't do anything, and it wasn't completed until well
after the Cold War had ended.

By itself, a nuclear warhead does not "do anything" either. (Except
rust and decay.)


~ CT

"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message ...
(Stuf4) wrote:
GPS was designed from the outset to create new capability for
offensive strategic forces.

Cite, please.

Any thorough reference on the history of GPS makes this clear.

More he

http://tinyurl.com/63s2p
.com)


~ CT

From Scott Hedrick:
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...

I'd be interested to see the references you are basing these
statements from.

You first. You are way behind in producing verifiable references.

(If anyone would like to discuss an issue, it helps to identify the issue.)


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

Three satellites would have been sufficient to fully test the concept.

They started launching in 1978, and by the time they were finished in
1996, the Cold War had been over for five years. That shows that they
put hardly any priority on GPS.

I would agree that GPS was not a top priority program in the early
years. I don't see how that in any way refutes the point that GPS was
funded because of its military justification. (Again, it was seen as
a force multiplier, not as some necessary vital element that the
military could not do without.)

You have failed to post any credible cites that GPS was funded because
of "military justification" or that it was a "force multiplier".

The low priority on implementation that I cited above, strongly argues
against it.

And I find your criticism of "military myths" particularly curious,
especially since you have stated that you have a wealth of background
on the matter. Here are quotes from a speech prepared by Eisenhower
himself:

...cited five "penalties" of the nation's obsolete highway network:
the annual death and injury toll, the waste of billions of dollars
in detours and traffic jams, the clogging of the nation's courts
with highway-related suits, the inefficiency in the transportation
of goods, and "the appalling inadequacies to meet the demands of
catastrophe or defense, should an atomic war come."

Of the "five penalties" cited in one Eisenhower speech, four were purely
civil and only one was for defense; and each of those four "civil
penalties" were -huge-.

It seems we can agree that the threat of atomic war was a concern.
That would make the disagreement a matter of degree.

A 'catastrophe' could include a natural disaster such as a hurricane or
an earthquake or a flood.

When I buy a car, its use for evacuation in case of atomic war would
have a greater than zero weighting among all the other reasons for
buying the car, but that weighting would be less than 1% when weighed
against all the other routine uses for the car, and when considering
that the car would be useless if millions of other cars in the
metropolitan area were trying to do the same thing (nuclear evacuation).

That is a good illustration of the relative importance of new highways
for nuclear evacuation, the relative weighting of importance would be
tiny, and no urban freeway would ever be built for that reason alone.

You have piped in with an extended commentary to "set the record
straight with respect to Interstate highways" and then you support
your points with a webpage that tells us about the threat of atomic
war and "the significance of the interstate system to national
defense".

If you and I can agree with the points made in the very reference you
have provided, then there is nothing else for us to discuss about
highways here.

The fact that something is mentioned somewhere in a long article,
doesn't mean that it was any more than a tiny justification. The
webpage doesn't rank the various justifications.

Of the "five penalties" cited in one Eisenhower speech, four were purely
civil and only one was for defense; and each of those four "civil
penalties" were -huge-. According to that, maybe it could be argued
that of the total justification, that no more than 1/5 (or 20%) of the
total justification was for military reasons.

Most of the military uses would be for the transportation of freight,
personnel, and fighting vehicles, just like how the railroads would be
used.

Of course I read it, Stuffie. You found the word "defense" in there,
and think you can make that the main justification for the Interstate
system, when in fact it was a minor element.

I don't recall ever communicating that defense was the main
justification for this legislation.

You have certainly acted like it, and you posted and defended a webpage
that (wrongly) calls it the "National Defense Highway System", which
makes it sound like all or nearly all of the justification was for
national defense.

By itself it doesn't do anything, and it wasn't completed until well
after the Cold War had ended.

By itself, a nuclear warhead does not "do anything" either. (Except
rust and decay.)

Oh please. When a nuclear warhead explodes, it does one heck of a lot.
A GPS satellite can't hurt anybody.

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

The analogy is bogus. Police work is within one country, and it deals
with one or a few criminals in an incident, and is not to be compared to
two countries that are at war with each other. Police powers are quite
limited and circumscribed, whereas when two countries are at total war,
all possible resources are mobilized to win the war.

To check the notion of all possible resources being mobilized to win a
war, evidence the fact that no nuclear weapons have been used in
combat since 1945.

There have been no world wars since 1945, either, nor has the U.S.
needed to launch such weapons in any war since 1945. Thank goodness
that the USSR didn't use them.

Police actions are limited and circumscribed. Pentagon actions are
limited and circumscribed. Both use deliberate homicide as a method
of dealing with problems.

Baloney. Police work in the U.S. avoids killing suspects in all but the
rarest of instances. "Good police work" generally means taking the
suspects into custody without injuring the suspects.

Just War Theory is in large part an extension of Law Enforcement
Theory.

Baloney! Thick, too!!

The U.S. was under no obligation whatsoever to use "surgical
precision" on those military targets. The Japanese had 6 months to
surrender after Leyte Gulf, before the first Tokyo fireraid occurred,
and this was at a time when about 300,000 people per month were dying on
the Asian mainland as a direct result of WWII.

Perhaps we could agree that if an alternative solution that did not
involve the targeting of non-combatants was known to be effective,
that we would both prefer it.

Sure, I would agree with that. Of course, the Japanese has the power to
stop the war, or to have never started it the first place.

Economic expansion is not to be compared with attempted world conquest
of a dozen countries by military force.

How do you think America got to be dominant over the entire planet?
Military conquest of the British, Spanish, Iroquois, Apache,
Hawaiians, etc.

The U.S. did not "conquer" the British, the U.S. colonies declared
independence from Britain in 1776, and Britain started a war in an
effort to bring the colonies back into Britain.

The Spanish did their share of attacks against the U.S. in the 1800s.
There was no U.S. military conquest of Hawaii.

A point I have made in the past...

If you take a globe and stick a pin hole in every place that a US
military base has been built, the Earth starts to look like Swiss
cheese.

Much fewer bases than 15 years ago. It is also hilarious that you
mention Britain, without any mention of their centuries of empire
building.

What about what China and the Indochina countries had to say about the
"Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere"?

Leads me to wonder how the phrase "manifest destiny" translates to
their languages.

China and Japan have histories that go back over 3,000 years, with
numerous military conflicts being fought there over that time period.
They were fighting wars 2,500 years before the U.S. even existed in its
earliest form.

The U.S. with its few centuries of existence is a young nation in
comparison.

If the Allies had to invade Japan by land, it was estimated that they
would have lost between 150,000 and a million lives, and that the
Japanese would have lost (additionally) between 3 million and 20 million
lives. These were reasonable estimates, and the war as prosecuted by
the Allies avoided such a land invasion.

Obviously Stuffie would have preferred to see the U.S. lose far more
lives in WWII that it did. Stuffie doesn't care about the Japanese,
either.

An alternative conclusion that can be gathered from the points I have
offered is that I value all life.

Your complaints about the prosecution of WWII, would indicate that your
method of the U.S. fighting the war would have led to vastly higher
casualties on both sides, and you seem unconcerned about that.

On Friday, June 18, 2004 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, gcash wrote:
(Peter Stickney) writes:

The AIr Force's biggest problems, wrt GPS vs. on-board targeting
systems, is that it's only useful for weapons direction if you
actually know where the target is. Even today, most of the world's
maps aren't usable. (Show me the Syrian/Iraqi border for example -
it's never been properly surveyed, and you can't tell where it is, on
the ground.) This doesn't even include stuff like teh deliberate
disinformation that the Soviets engaged in, misstating the position of
geographic features and significant facilities by a wide margin.
(Yes, we're using GPS-aided weapons now. (Although INS is actually
the primary, and the GPS system provides updates) But in those cases,
either the target is spotted adn located by a nobserver who now,
through GPS, knows their own position, and can thus provide a good
location independant of the cartography, or teh target is spotted by
systems on board the aircraft - the same sort of deal, now that the
airplane can tell where it is.)

And to bring this back to space, I believe the last Shuttle hi-res mapping
mission had this as one of it's objectives. It's really really hard to get the
full resolution data from the government.

I remember an article about one of the research projects that benefitted was
trying to map/model the Amazon. They finally had terrain data that predicted
the Amazon would flow to the sea. Their former elevation data was too
inaccurate.

Does anyone remember TERCOM guidance for cruise missiles? The acronym stood
for TERrain COMparision and tried to fit output from a mapping radar in the
missile to a digital map, to figure out where it was. It sucked, but it was
eventually brute-forced to work. This was because we didn't have any decent
maps of the USSR. I'm sure they chucked that sucker as soon as GPS receivers
dropped below 50 lbs.

-gc

--
I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming intelligent
and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared from the common
culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with the release of MS-DOS.
-- Larry DeLuca

That's right.

Lazarus Thread, awoken from 10 years in cryosleep...
"Are we at Saturn yet? Whoa, looks like we overshot!"

Well, while were here looks like another reply could be made to gcash's ancient statement...

And to bring this back to space...


The topic didn't leave space, because GPS *IS* space.
In the ensuing decade, it does not appear that much progress has been made in general awareness of that fact.

~ CT


On Saturday, November 22, 2014 12:59:33 PM UTC-6, Samsa wrote:
On Friday, June 18, 2004 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, gcash wrote:
(Peter Stickney) writes:

The AIr Force's biggest problems, wrt GPS vs. on-board targeting
systems, is that it's only useful for weapons direction if you
actually know where the target is. Even today, most of the world's
maps aren't usable. (Show me the Syrian/Iraqi border for example -
it's never been properly surveyed, and you can't tell where it is, on
the ground.) This doesn't even include stuff like teh deliberate
disinformation that the Soviets engaged in, misstating the position of
geographic features and significant facilities by a wide margin.
(Yes, we're using GPS-aided weapons now. (Although INS is actually
the primary, and the GPS system provides updates) But in those cases,
either the target is spotted adn located by a nobserver who now,
through GPS, knows their own position, and can thus provide a good
location independant of the cartography, or teh target is spotted by
systems on board the aircraft - the same sort of deal, now that the
airplane can tell where it is.)

And to bring this back to space, I believe the last Shuttle hi-res mapping
mission had this as one of it's objectives. It's really really hard to get the
full resolution data from the government.

I remember an article about one of the research projects that benefitted was
trying to map/model the Amazon. They finally had terrain data that predicted
the Amazon would flow to the sea. Their former elevation data was too
inaccurate.

Does anyone remember TERCOM guidance for cruise missiles? The acronym stood
for TERrain COMparision and tried to fit output from a mapping radar in the
missile to a digital map, to figure out where it was. It sucked, but it was
eventually brute-forced to work. This was because we didn't have any decent
maps of the USSR. I'm sure they chucked that sucker as soon as GPS receivers
dropped below 50 lbs.

-gc

--
I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming intelligent
and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared from the common
culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with the release of MS-DOS.
-- Larry DeLuca

That's right.

In article ,
says...

On Friday, June 18, 2004 9:36:41 PM UTC-4, gcash wrote:
(Peter Stickney) writes:

The AIr Force's biggest problems, wrt GPS vs. on-board targeting
systems, is that it's only useful for weapons direction if you
actually know where the target is. Even today, most of the world's
maps aren't usable. (Show me the Syrian/Iraqi border for example -
it's never been properly surveyed, and you can't tell where it is, on
the ground.) This doesn't even include stuff like teh deliberate
disinformation that the Soviets engaged in, misstating the position of
geographic features and significant facilities by a wide margin.
(Yes, we're using GPS-aided weapons now. (Although INS is actually
the primary, and the GPS system provides updates) But in those cases,
either the target is spotted adn located by a nobserver who now,
through GPS, knows their own position, and can thus provide a good
location independant of the cartography, or teh target is spotted by
systems on board the aircraft - the same sort of deal, now that the
airplane can tell where it is.)

And to bring this back to space, I believe the last Shuttle hi-res mapping
mission had this as one of it's objectives. It's really really hard to get the
full resolution data from the government.

I remember an article about one of the research projects that benefitted was
trying to map/model the Amazon. They finally had terrain data that predicted
the Amazon would flow to the sea. Their former elevation data was too
inaccurate.

Does anyone remember TERCOM guidance for cruise missiles? The acronym stood
for TERrain COMparision and tried to fit output from a mapping radar in the
missile to a digital map, to figure out where it was. It sucked, but it was
eventually brute-forced to work. This was because we didn't have any decent
maps of the USSR. I'm sure they chucked that sucker as soon as GPS receivers
dropped below 50 lbs.

-gc

--
I've noticed lately that the paranoid fear of computers becoming intelligent
and taking over the world has almost entirely disappeared from the common
culture. Near as I can tell, this coincides with the release of MS-DOS.
-- Larry DeLuca

That's right.

Just a reminder, GPS was originally not for targeting, it was for
positioning the launcher accurately. With three hundred 400KT warheads
close counts.

From J. Clarke:
snip

Just a reminder, GPS was originally not for targeting, it was for
positioning the launcher accurately. With three hundred 400KT warheads
close counts.

I'd be interested to know where you got that idea from. If all that was needed was precise coordinates for launching mobile systems, you could simply hire teams of surveyors, at little more than minimum wage, to paint a bunch of 'X's on the ground at potential launch sites. This is a *far cheaper* solution than a multi-billion dollar satellite constellation, especially if you wait til the Glidden paint buckets go on sale.


The reason why GPS was developed and implemented was very straightforward:
Inertial Nav Systems (INS) are inherently prone to errors that can run away in a huge way. ALL THREE legs of the nuke triad depended on INS - the bombers, sub-launched and land-based missiles.

INS's measure acceleration, so you have to go through two integrations to get position, and that's only after you've initialized it to an accurate position by some other means - taken a fix. After feeding the INS an accurate fix, errors can still go wildly out to lunch.

GPS measures position (and velocity) directly, so the entire nav problem is *solved*. This is the reason why DoD knew that what GPS offered was worth megabucks, in order to get those megatons on target reliably and precisely..

GPS offered a way to cover nav for the full trajectory of those nukes as the warheads found their way to their targets, not merely fixing launch coordinates (a much easier problem to solve).

~ CT

In article ,
says...

From J. Clarke:
snip

Just a reminder, GPS was originally not for targeting, it was for
positioning the launcher accurately. With three hundred 400KT warheads
close counts.


I'd be interested to know where you got that idea from. If all that
was needed was precise coordinates for launching mobile systems, you
could simply hire teams of surveyors, at little more than minimum
wage, to paint a bunch of 'X's on the ground at potential launch
sites. This is a *far cheaper* solution than a multi-billion dollar
satellite constellation, especially if you wait til the Glidden paint
buckets go on sale.

Good luck painting Xs in the middle of the ocean.

The reason why GPS was developed and implemented was very
straightforward:
Inertial Nav Systems (INS) are inherently prone to errors that can run away in a huge way. ALL THREE legs of the nuke triad depended on INS - the bombers, sub-launched and land-based missiles.

Sorry, but neither ICBMs nor manned bombers DEPEND on INS. Manned
bombers have it and use it as one of their aids to navigation, but they
don't require it to deliver the payload to the target. That's done by
radar or by visual means.

ICBMs are just that, BALLISTIC. There is no terminal guidance. Once
the engine shuts off it is going to go where it is going to go. You
seem to be conflating nuclear armed ICBMs with conventional cruise
missiles.

Where GPS was needed was to provide an accurate launch position for the
submarine force.

INS's measure acceleration, so you have to go through two integrations
to get position, and that's only after you've initialized it to an
accurate position by some other means - taken a fix. After feeding
the INS an accurate fix, errors can still go wildly out to lunch.

So what?

GPS measures position (and velocity) directly, so the entire nav
problem is *solved*. This is the reason why DoD knew that what GPS
offered was worth megabucks, in order to get those megatons on target
reliably and precisely.

Land based missiles can get those megatons on target reliably and
precisely without GPS.

GPS offered a way to cover nav for the full trajectory of those nukes
as the warheads found their way to their targets, not merely fixing
launch coordinates (a much easier problem to solve).

Except that GPS has never been used for terminal guidance of ballistic
nuclear warheads. Peacekeeper was able to achieve 40 meter CEP while
GPS was still in the process of launching experimental satellites.

Since the reentry vehicles have no propulsion system or control surfaces
there is little that a navigation system can do for them.

Sorry, but it was well known when GPS was first deployed was to allow
FBM submarines to determine their launch position. This information has
since been diluted.