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

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:

- GPS is not a communication system.

It functions fundamentally by receiving and transmitting radio waves,
and that makes it a communication system.

You might want to re-evaluate the fundamental mission of GPS.

Comm signals are used to facilitate its primary role, and that is
-navigation-.

A secondary role of GPS satellites is nudet location. Comm does not
make the list of *any* missions that the system serves.

Its hardware and software functions as a communication system.

The technology to directly do that didn't exist when GPS started in
1978, so the U.S.'s prime defense against Soviet ICBMs/SLBMs was to have
a survivable second-strike capability, so that the Soviets would know
that they couldn't launch a first strike that would prevent devastating
retaliation from the U.S.

Subtle, but critical point here is that second-strike is not a
defense. It is a deterrence.

Conceptually, it was a defense against a potential aggressor.

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote:
From Scott Kozel:

I snipped the rest of your post because my comments above were
sufficient to refute your argument.

The space shuttle is not a "military aircraft" and it is not an
"aircraft" at all during the cruise portion of its mission, so your cite
the Hague Rules of Air Warfare is irrelevant.

There are many who would say that these Rules of Air Warfare are
irrelevant no matter what. Even for regular aircraft. Notice that
Tokyo firebombing, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc came *well after* these
rules were drafted.

Strawman alert. It's also amusing that you don't mention that the
Japanese were the ones who first conducted the firebombing of cities.

Since the focus has been on NASA, I considered it to be more relevant
to focus on other US gov't observance/lack of observance of the Hague
rules (rather than the Japanese or anyone else).

The fact that the Japanese were the ones who "lowered the bar" and first
conducted the firebombing of cities in that war, is crucial to
understanding why they later got the same treatment, and those cities
that you mentioned were legitimate aerial targets by the standards of
Hague, in that they were defensed cities that contained valid military
targets.

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Scott Kozel:

The initial projected uses of them [GPS] were far more diverse than things
related to nuclear warfare.

Of course.

Now try to build a case to fund those multi-billions of dollars so
that the Army grunts won't get lost. Or any other application.

Not for any -single- application, but justified for a diverse group of
applications.

Notice that it wasn't the Army who got funded for GPS R&D. Notice
that is wasn't the FAA. Notice that it wasn't the USGS. Not the
Coast Guard. Not EMS 'R' US.

It was not a federal grant to Cadillac.

Just two players:

- The US Air Force,
- The US Navy.

All in all, the cost of putting up 24 GPS satellites over an 18-year
period, was a very modest cost to the federal government. The
government spent more money on Food Stamps in the same time period.

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.

You've mentioned Interstate highways several times now, and highway
administration happens to have been my profession for 30 years, so let's
set the record straight with respect to Interstate highways. The
Interstate highway system was first approved in plan in 1943 (before
nuclear weapons existed), and in actual construction beginning in 1956,
and the federal funding mechanism was 90% federal funds from the Highway
Trust Fund which was stocked with the receipts of direct road user tax
revenues.

The Interstate highway system never got funding from the U.S. Defense
Department, and the prime impetus for beginning the system was to
provide more capacity for the burgeoning civilian traffic in the nation,
and the "and defense" in the system name "National System of Interstate
and Defense Highways" was tacked on by politicians who wanted to add
weight to getting the 1956 Highway Act passed; but the IHS always was
intended primarily for handling civilian traffic.

About 3,000 miles of state-built (with no federal funds) turnpikes
predated the Interstate highway system, and they were built for the same
basic reasons as the Interstates, to the same basic superhighway design
standards, so the concept and need for such superhighways was well
established before the Interstate highway system was started; in
fact, much of that turnpike mileage was later incorporated into the
Interstate highway system, route-wise.

This aside on highways is instructive, because it highlights how
misconceptions can arise about the origins of things.

So what are you saying is a missconception? You yourself highlight
how politicians added "and defense" to add weight to getting it
passed.

Politicians do all kinds of things, and that "weight" was merely of a
verbal nature, for a very expensive project.

Here is an excellent reference about the military aspects of
interstate highways:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ility/ndhs.htm

Its message fits in with your message, as I see it (save the
misconception part).

It uses the label "National Defense Highway System" several times, which
is incorrect, there never has been a USA highway system by that name,
and sources like that are among those who perpetuate military myths
about the Interstate highway system.

It was named the "National System of Interstate Highways" from 1943
until 1956 when the "and defense" was tacked on.

Quotes --

"From the outset of construction of the Interstate System, the DOD has
monitored its progress closely, ensuring direct military input to all
phases of construction".

SMK: DOD had relatively little input to the Interstate system, as the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and its predecessor Bureau of
Public Roads (BPR) was the federal agency that led the project.

"The National Defense Highway System was responsible for building many
of the first freeways".

SMK: Wrong. The state highway departments administered the design,
right-of-way acquisition and construction of every Interstate highway
route, the FHWA provided design approvals and 90% of the funding, and
the state highway departments owned the completed Interstate highways.

"Its purpose was supposedly to allow for mass evacuation of cities in
the event of a nuclear attack".

SMK: Baloney. Highway and traffic engineers back then greatly
discounted the ability of the freeways to provide timely mass evacuation
of cities, because their traffic engineering knowledge knew of the
impossibility of throwing 3 million or more vehicles onto a metropolitan
area's freeway system and expecting anything but total gridlock. Here's
a hint: one freeway lane has a maximum capacity of about 2,000 vehicles
per hour.

"The Interstate system was designed so that one mile in every five must
be straight, usable as airstrips in times of war or other emergencies".

SMK: That is a myth.

See: "One Mile in Five: Debunking the Myth", by Richard F. Weingroff,
FHWA historian
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/rw00b.htm

"Was designed to move military equipment and personnel efficiently".

SMK: As a purely secondary function.

Here is a much better history of the Interstate highway system, by
Richard F. Weingroff, chief FHWA historian --

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956: Creating the Interstate System
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm

"The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 primarily maintained the status
quo. Its biggest departure was in Section 7, which authorized
designation of a 65,000-km "National System of Interstate Highways," to
be selected by joint action of the state highway departments:
... so located as to connect by routes, as direct as practicable, the
principal metropolitan areas, cities, and industrial centers, to serve
the national defense, and to connect at suitable border points with
routes of continental importance in the Dominion of Canada and the
Republic of Mexico".

Still, GPS did not provide any new unique capability, and all 3 legs of
the U.S. nuclear triad were quite accurate in their own right prior to
GPS.

?

I just stated that nuclear warhead delivery had unreliable accuracy.
You are agreeing with that point. And then state that they were quite
accurate.

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 agree that they *can be* quite accurate without GPS. But this takes
a high degree of skill, and even then, the best navigators were known
to unwittingly degrade their system accuracy (if not a hardware only
problem).

GPS is a no brainer. It pumps into the system many highly accurate
fixes that keep the inertial part of the system *tight*.

...and that *is* a unique capability. It greatly increased the
percentage of bombers that could be expected to reach their targets
accurately. Same for other types of warheads.

GPS is NOT "unique", conceptually it is a "better navigation system".

It also was vulnerable during the Cold War, as the satellites couldn't
be hidden, the Soviets knew exactly where they were, and their
hunter-killer satellites could have quickly destroyed enough so as to
heavily degrade or even neutralize the GPS system.

--
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

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

A secondary role of GPS satellites is nudet location. Comm does not
make the list of *any* missions that the system serves.

Its hardware and software functions as a communication system.

Maybe your definition of "communication system" disagrees with the
established one. Tell us how you think the GPS satellites are used to
communicate among their users, and maybe we'll understand your claim
better.

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

(Alan Anderson) wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

A secondary role of GPS satellites is nudet location. Comm does not
make the list of *any* missions that the system serves.

Its hardware and software functions as a communication system.

Maybe your definition of "communication system" disagrees with the
established one. Tell us how you think the GPS satellites are used to
communicate among their users, and maybe we'll understand your claim
better.

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Well, that is what I meant, that a GPS satellite transmits and receives
radio waves in intensities that are not damaging to humans or other
satellites, i.e. that it is not a 'weapon'.

From Alan Anderson:
snip
Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.


~ CT

"Stuf4" wrote in message
om...
From Alan Anderson:
snip
Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that
GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

I would say "enhances" rather than "offers".

tdadamemd-spamblock-@exc
wrote:

From Alan Anderson:

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

Well, no, what you said is tantamount to what Alan said, almost the same
thing. All the weapon systems that you mentioned, including the U.S.
nuclear triad, already had massive amounts of "offensive weapons
capability", before GPS was implemented, as the U.S. nuclear triad could
have destroyed the Soviet Union several times over. Therefore, GPS did
-not- "offer offensive weapons capability".

--
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

From Ami Silberman:
"Stuf4" wrote
From Alan Anderson:
snip
Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that
GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

I would say "enhances" rather than "offers".

Note here a case where GPS *creates* an offensive weapons capability:
GPS bombs.

Imagine during the biggest, most recent raid on Baghdad...

All of a sudden turning off GPS the constellation.

This would have had an effect reminiscent to that scene in a new Star
Wars episode where in the heat of battle, all of the robot warriors
instantly become useless.


Despite the facts presented here, the general public will continue to
see GPS as a benign technology.


GPS was designed from the outset to create new capability for
offensive strategic forces. Consider, for example, the planning of
the route taken by a B-52. The Strategic Air Command had a
requirement for how often navigational fixes needed to be available
for updates of the nav system to prevent the INS position from
wandering off.

One consequence was that missions planned over the open ocean had to
periodically be within radar fix distance of identifiable land points.
GPS eliminates that constraint, creating new capability for mission
planning.


~ CT

From Scott Kozel:
tdadamemd-spamblock-@exc wrote:

From Alan Anderson:

Many of us probably won't *agree* with it, any more than we agree that GPS
is a space-based offensive weapons system, but at least we might know
where you're coming from.

Please note the distinction between a space-based offensive weapons
system versus a space-based system that offers offensive weapons
capability.

Well, no, what you said is tantamount to what Alan said, almost the same
thing. All the weapon systems that you mentioned, including the U.S.
nuclear triad, already had massive amounts of "offensive weapons
capability", before GPS was implemented, as the U.S. nuclear triad could
have destroyed the Soviet Union several times over. Therefore, GPS did
-not- "offer offensive weapons capability".

That conclusion does not follow.

An illustration as to why, consider the case of satcom. The triad had
the capability to destroy the USSR several times over prior to satcom
(and after satcom). Yet satcom still offered new offensive strike
capability in the command and control aspects.

GPS offered new offensive strike capability in the navigational
aspects.


~ CT