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

From Derek Lyons:
(Stuf4) wrote:

(quoted)
But you could only expect to hit a silo if you knew exactly where you
were launching from. That's not hard if your missiles are on land, as
most of them were in the Soviet Union. But most of the U.S. nuclear
arsenal was at sea on subs. To maintain the balance of power the U.S.
had to
come up with a way to allow those subs to surface and fix their exact
position in a matter of minutes anywhere in the world.... Hello GPS!

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'.

Derek, of course that is the grossly abbreviated version that they are
relating. Knowing the more complete history of GPS, it's easy to
infer that the folks at Trimble were referring to Transit as a
precursor to GPS. Note that Transit was first launched a mere two and
a half years after Sputnik.

GPS along with LORAN and some other things is used to calibrate the
ships inertial navigators. Once the calibration is complete, we only
need access for a few minutes to *one* of the multiple reference
standards (GPS, LORAN, BQS-3) to ensure the calibration remained
accurate. At one point the D-5 operational concept included both a
GPS mast for obtaining the calibration update prelaunch and GPS
systems in the missile itself. Both were dropped because they added
very little to total system accuracy, though the capability to obtain
discrete updates from GPS as a calibration aid were retained.

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

But the fact is that many billions of dollars *were* spent. The
problem was that INS was far from perfectly reliable. Acceleration
errors accumulated in both air and sea navigation. This meant that
warheads would land *off target*.

There was a definite need to improve navigation.

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.


The accuracy and reliability desired by astronauts today to reach
their touchdown zone follows the accuracy and reliability that the Air
Force and Navy wanted for their Triad back in the 60s when GPS
concepts were being brewed.

NavSTAR could easily have been named "Deathstar".

For anyone interested in a more detailed short history of GPS, here is
a link that includes the Air Force nuclear strike efforts with their
MOSAIC and 621B programs along with the Navy contributions:

http://www.aero.org/publications/cro...er2002/01.html

That link is so wrong it's laughable.

The Aerospace Corporation is one of the original players in GPS. I'm
sure they'd appreciate having any errors pointed out to them.


~ CT

(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 in message
...
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?

I will agree that those satellites are part of space militarization, but
a. such militarization is allowed under by UN treaty.
b. in the absence of armed hostilities, there is no requirement that
military cargos be delivered by military vessels.
c. there is a huge gap between specifically military satellites and claiming
that Gemini missions were militarized because they took photographs of areas
of the earth, and were flown by military personnel working for NASA.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
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?

A pair of binoculars, though it may be controlled by and tailored
specifically for the military, is not an offensive weapon. So I don't see
how a GPS constellation could be considered one either.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:49:10 -0400, "Ami Silberman"
wrote:

On the other hand, satellite reconnaissance may arguably have made the world
a safer place.

True, but I'll bet false alarms have made for some anxious moments as
well.

For example, since we have the ability to detect ICBM
launches, we now have a longer decision cycle to determine whether the
launch is real, and who did it, than in the 1950s when the first we would
know was when the Geese, er, bombers crossed the DEW line.

OTOH, most of the nuclear threat and deterent is SLBMs and the dection
from those is so short that few, if any, land based nuclear bombers
would escape the blast.

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 +++