|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
From Neil Gerace:
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. I did not see anyone state that GPS was an offensive weapon. As far as comparing binoculars with GPS, note that the binoculars have no direct input to aerospace navigation systems that are used for delivering nuclear warheads. GPS, on the other hand, *does* provide offensive weapons capability to *many* such systems. ~ CT |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
: 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 We had very good maps of the USSR. Of course we had to make them ourselves. TERCOM wasn't bad, andindeed some of its descendants are still in use thuogh now they often find spots on targets and not just valleysand roads. regards, --------------------------- |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
B
: Notice that DNSS was created from Air Force and Navy programs. This : isn't to say that the Army didn't ask for their own separate program : like the AF 621B or Navy's Timation. But it's not hard to imagine a : scene where the Army chief of staff approaches the SecDef... The Army did have its "own" system into the late 60s and early 70s, called SECOR. It was used extensively for geodetic survey and pre0surveying launch locations for army missiles. Like its contemporaries, it was not designed for "tactical" use like GPS. One thing to keep in mind about GPS is that it has worked so much better than most hoped for. With continuing advances in electronics manufacture and computers it has become possilbe to makerelatively cheap/reliable units for the smallest echelons. Originally there were doubts as to how practical it would be for aircraft, for example. Its tunred out to be a wonder. I There was a re-organization in the 60s that rationalized a lot of the space projects, expecially as there was increasing overlap between "black" NRO systems and 'mundane' DoD efforts. The Navy was put in charge of timekeeping and precision time interval technology, more or less, and GPS ended up being one facet of that. It was a traditional mission, the Navy had been keeping time since noon "dropping the ball" in DC in the 1850s. Just a tad bit more acccurate these days. :-) regards, --------------------------- |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
From Steven James Forsberg:
: Notice that DNSS was created from Air Force and Navy programs. This : isn't to say that the Army didn't ask for their own separate program : like the AF 621B or Navy's Timation. But it's not hard to imagine a : scene where the Army chief of staff approaches the SecDef... The Army did have its "own" system into the late 60s and early 70s, called SECOR. I wasn't saying that the Army didn't have any sat-nav system. My comment was regarding *quality*. High performance nav systems require high dollar investment in research. A general statement about funding during the Cold War is that the Air Force and Navy got the lion's share. The Triad was... 2 x AF, 1 x Navy, 0 x Army. It was used extensively for geodetic survey and pre0surveying launch locations for army missiles. Like its contemporaries, it was not designed for "tactical" use like GPS. One thing to keep in mind about GPS is that it has worked so much better than most hoped for. With continuing advances in electronics manufacture and computers it has become possilbe to makerelatively cheap/reliable units for the smallest echelons. Originally there were doubts as to how practical it would be for aircraft, for example. Its tunred out to be a wonder. I Here's where that hypothetical scene comes in... We can guess that the Army wanted a system with performance specs along the lines of 621B/Timation, but research for this would require big bucks. Someone at OSD had to prioritize which services would get how much. And this required a judgement of projected return on each dollar of investment. With the Army having little control over nukes, they get little priority for funding. (This happened with *lots* more programs beside sat-nav.) There was a re-organization in the 60s that rationalized a lot of the space projects, expecially as there was increasing overlap between "black" NRO systems and 'mundane' DoD efforts. The Navy was put in charge of timekeeping and precision time interval technology, more or less, and GPS ended up being one facet of that. It was a traditional mission, the Navy had been keeping time since noon "dropping the ball" in DC in the 1850s. Just a tad bit more acccurate these days. :-) No doubt about the accuracy of atomic clocks compared to sundials! But as far as how long the US Navy has been keeping time, I'd go back a lot earlier than the 1850s. And if you meant to say how long the _USNO_ has been keeping time, their official site states that their time-ball in DC started in 1845 (ref- http://www.usno.navy.mil/command_history.html). Well before the US Navy had a USNO, they kept time and communicated it. There's a long history of time being critical to ship navigation. While latitude can be directly measured, longitude measurements are a function of time. This is a necessary result of Earth rotation symmetry. While time-balls provided a visual synchronization for clocks, the older "technology" of bells communicated an aural synchronization. The word 'clock' came from the word that meant 'bell'. While the very word 'navigate' came from the same origin as the word 'Navy'. The Latin 'navis' simply means 'ship'. I'd say that the US Navy has been keeping time since the very first day of the US Navy. And the amazing story of pre-US Navy ship timekeeping focuses on that famous pre-Beatle Brit by the name of John Harrison. His chronometers were as big a revolution for navigation in the 1700s as GPS is for us today. (...although his 'Pi'-based musical scale theory has been slow in catching on! http://www.lucytune.com/academic/manuscript_search.html) ~ CT |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
From Scott Kozel:
(Stuf4) wrote: From Scott Kozel: (Stuf4) wrote: From Scott Kozel: The Soviets also considered ICBMs to be long-range artillery. 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. What I put in quotes, is a paraphrase of what you were asserting. Your paraphrase completely altered the meaning of 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. Given that you have not posted one single jot about the USSR's offensive ballistic missile systems that the U.S. was trying to defend against during the Cold War, nor about the USSR's "hunter killer" sattelites which actually -were- an offensive spaced-based weapon, I have to question everything that you have posted and wonder why you are digging down so deep to construct your anti-U.S. rants, and complaining about a communication system. Please check what you've just said with the following: - GPS is not a communication system. - The US gave up on trying to _defend against_ Soviet ICBMs. - I'm well aware of Soviet offensive weapons (to include space station armament). - Criticism of the US government does not necessarily make someone "anti-U.S." 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. GPS is incapable of killing a single person. We are agreed that GPS is not a weapon. GPS was not funded so that you can have a moving map in your car for your daily commute to work. "Originally designated the NAVSTAR (Navigation System with Timing And Ranging) Global Positioning System, GPS was developed by the US Department of Defense to provide all-weather round-the-clock navigation capabilities for military ground, sea, and air forces. Since its implementation, GPS has also become an integral asset in numerous civilian applications and industries around the globe, including recreational uses (e.g. boating, aircraft, hiking), corporate vehicle fleet tracking, and surveying". http://leonardo.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/gps.html That is consistent with everything I have been saying. It was developed to provide military capability. Today we use it for boating, hiking, OnStar and such. One point you might want to check against here is the meaning of the acronym NavSTAR. This is from the official source (it doesn't get any more official than the NavSTAR GPS JPO): NavSTAR - Navigation Satellite Timing and Ranging (https://gps.losangeles.af.mil/gpslibrary/Acronyms.asp#n) ~ CT |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gravity as Falling Space | Henry Haapalainen | Science | 1 | September 4th 04 04:08 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |
Space Calendar - July 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | July 24th 03 11:26 PM |