Speaking of boosting efforts for space technology, the US is strongly
opposing Europe's own global navigation satellite system, on the ground that
it will threaten US security since it won't be under direct control of the
US army like GPS, or according to the cynics, because it will break the US
monopoly in GPS technology... how do you deal with issues like these?
As long as space technology is the cutting edge of military systems I think
international cooperation on any project is very unlikely... that's why I
was saying that even if someone will come up with a fantastic new technology
that will drastically reduce orbital launch costs, being a space elevator, a
rotosomething or whatever, it will also need to be a US based operation,
because unless it is a US company it won't stand many chances of success,
the military implications are so enormous that the US will stop it unless
they have complete control of it... not trying to shift the discussion
toward politics, just pointing out that the economical aspects are not the
only factor in play in colonising space...
Just another reason why China won't do it for us I guess... :)

Cheers,

Claudio

> Speaking of boosting efforts for space technology, the US is
strongly
> opposing Europe's own global navigation satellite system, on the
ground that
> it will threaten US security since it won't be under direct
control of the
> US army like GPS, or according to the cynics, because it will
break the US
> monopoly in GPS technology... how do you deal with issues like
these?

We're entering the arean of national pride. The US GPS signal is
available to all, but the military accuracy is restricted. The US
retains sole control of their system. Everyone can use it for free.

The US control imperils European security if the US can turn off
civilian signals if the US is faced with a threat.

So Europe has to put up a system that it controls. I don't really
see that the US can do much unless they can use influence or they
link the Galileo issue to others that are important to Europe.

What'll be different about Galileo is that they will charge users
for access to its signal.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/galileo/intro/viabilit
y_en.htm

Now the question becomes would Europeans and others be willing to
pay for access to a signal that they can get for free from the
Americans?

> As long as space technology is the cutting edge of military
systems I think
> international cooperation on any project is very unlikely...
that's why I
> was saying that even if someone will come up with a fantastic new
technology
> that will drastically reduce orbital launch costs, being a space
elevator, a
> rotosomething or whatever, it will also need to be a US based
operation,
> because unless it is a US company it won't stand many chances of
success,

Depends on whether the asset can earn enough without US revenue.

> the military implications are so enormous that the US will stop it
unless
> they have complete control of it...

They may try, but look at how much luck they're having convincing
the world on recent topics.

not trying to shift the discussion
> toward politics, just pointing out that the economical aspects are
not the
> only factor in play in colonising space...

Hey, we'll talk about anything to do with space settlement.

> Just another reason why China won't do it for us I guess... :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Claudio

No, they probably won't do us any favors.

TangoMan

snip*

> Now the question becomes would Europeans and others be willing to
> pay for access to a signal that they can get for free from the
> Americans?

Not quite, Galileo would provide level of accuracy that at the moment are
only available to the military, as only the low-res (for lack of a better
word) GPS signal is available to civilians.
Also the GPS is controlled directly by the military who understandably
retain the right to switch off the signal at any time without advance
warning, which makes it unsuitable for a number of civilian applications.
For instance is ok for ships, but can't really be used for landing
airplanes... :) Galileo is designed to be always on, and includes several
failsafe devices and spare satellite exactly for this purpose, and aim at
making the signal reliable enough to be used in any civilian operation, like
landing aircrafts for instance.
So the question is would anyone (including US companies) pay for a much more
accurate and reliable signal?
Which in turns brings the question is there a market for it? And the answer
seems to be yes, since they are getting funding and investments... :)

> > As long as space technology is the cutting edge of military
> systems I think
> > international cooperation on any project is very unlikely...
> that's why I
> > was saying that even if someone will come up with a fantastic new
> technology
> > that will drastically reduce orbital launch costs, being a space
> elevator, a
> > rotosomething or whatever, it will also need to be a US based
> operation,
> > because unless it is a US company it won't stand many chances of
> success,
>
> Depends on whether the asset can earn enough without US revenue.

That's not enough, this is the point I was trying to make... the control of
LEO-MEO-GEO is the key to the current US department of defence strategy, and
they have openly declared their intentions in this sense. Current military
projects are investing billions of US$ in space technology and military
satellites, and IIRC NASA is going to have only dual purpose
(military-civilian) operations from now on... I think there is also a
process of bringing NASA under the control of the military altogether... so
it seems to me that the military will just not allow a foreign company to
develop a technology that would compromise their monopoly of space.

> > the military implications are so enormous that the US will stop it
> unless
> > they have complete control of it...
>
> They may try, but look at how much luck they're having convincing
> the world on recent topics.

Frankly I don't think any country would be able to support a space program
if the US decide to stop it... the threat of an economic embargo would
probably be well enough! :)

> not trying to shift the discussion
> > toward politics, just pointing out that the economical aspects are
> not the
> > only factor in play in colonising space...
>
> Hey, we'll talk about anything to do with space settlement.

well then, going back to the example of other settlements operations in
history, is generally the army that gets there first, then a small amount of
economy associated with the military avamposts develops, and from those
grows larger civilian settlements... pretty much any frontier colonisation I
can think of followed this model, and I tend to think that as of today we
are pretty much settled to follow this pattern in the space frontier as
well... so IMHO the military will be the first to put enough hardware up so
that a large enough market may develop to supply, repair, update, etc. all
this hardware, opening up the opportunities for more investments in this
sense from civilian companies. In this scenario, and I return to the
original point, this market would then be open, at least at the beginning,
only to US companies, as the military won't let their supersecret godrods
satellite to be maintained by the Chinese I'd imagine... ;)
I guess it's possible that a level of cooperation will be tolerate with
compatible partners, NATO members perhaps, but the way I see it outside the
circle of US strategic allies if not of US alone space settlement will be
limited to what US military will see as not threatening, so whatever
strategy you come up with bootstrapping space economy is better be based in
Texas... ;)

Cheers!

Claudio

> snip*
>
> > Now the question becomes would Europeans and others be willing to
> > pay for access to a signal that they can get for free from the
> > Americans?
>
> Not quite, Galileo would provide level of accuracy that at the
moment are
> only available to the military, as only the low-res (for lack of a
better
> word) GPS signal is available to civilians.

Oh, I didn't know that Galileo was that accurate.

So now I offer the question of the terrorist bogey-man. Build
yourself a cruise missile for $5,000, equip it with Galileo
receivers and you can match US military accuracy.

http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

http://www.msnbc.com/news/955176.asp?0dm=s129k

> So the question is would anyone (including US companies) pay for a
much more
> accurate and reliable signal?

If they need that reliability, then I'm sure they will, even if
they're American companies. The US probably couldn't stop them
because it would be in violation of WTO rulings.

> Which in turns brings the question is there a market for it? And
the answer
> seems to be yes, since they are getting funding and
investments... :)

Good for them.

> > Depends on whether the asset can earn enough without US revenue.
>
> That's not enough, this is the point I was trying to make... the
control of
> LEO-MEO-GEO is the key to the current US department of defence
strategy, and
> they have openly declared their intentions in this sense.

This could be a tactic similar to Microsoft's vaporware. Announcing
new features with the aim of scaring away competitors. The US does
have ambitous space plans but can that thwart the plans of others
short of going to war? I doubt it.

> > They may try, but look at how much luck they're having convincing
> > the world on recent topics.
>
> Frankly I don't think any country would be able to support a space
program
> if the US decide to stop it... the threat of an economic embargo
would
> probably be well enough! :)

But embargoes work both ways. So does economic counter-pressure.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/959467.asp?0dm=s214k
BEGIN QUOTE
"We'll also depend heavily on foreign lenders to close our cash gap.
Last year, according to Treasury statistics, foreigners bought 58
percent of the securities that Treasury sold to investors. Some 60
percent of that 58 percent was bought by central banks. Although
Treasury doesn't say so, a large percentage of that went to the
central banks of Japan and China. So you can imagine what would
happen if, for reasons financial or political, either bank stopped
buying Treasuries. Or, heaven help us, began selling them heavily."
END QUOTE

>
> > not trying to shift the discussion
> > > toward politics, just pointing out that the economical aspects
are
> > not the
> > > only factor in play in colonising space...
> >
> > Hey, we'll talk about anything to do with space settlement.
>
> well then, going back to the example of other settlements
operations in
> history, is generally the army that gets there first, then a small
amount of
> economy associated with the military avamposts develops, and from
those
> grows larger civilian settlements... pretty much any frontier
colonisation I
> can think of followed this model, and I tend to think that as of
today we
> are pretty much settled to follow this pattern in the space
frontier as
> well... so IMHO the military will be the first to put enough
hardware up so
> that a large enough market may develop to supply, repair, update,
etc. all
> this hardware, opening up the opportunities for more investments
in this
> sense from civilian companies.

This point is what Ryan was making. You are right that there are
historical precedents for this. Even in terms of space frontiers.

My point is that if the US military can avoid sending people to live
in orbit and do it manly with robotics, then that's what they'll do.
They'll need a compelling reason to send people to live there, and
to exploit resources. I think they may be undertaking a search for
rationale as we are here for civilian development.

In this scenario, and I return to the
> original point, this market would then be open, at least at the
beginning,
> only to US companies, as the military won't let their supersecret
godrods
> satellite to be maintained by the Chinese I'd imagine... ;)

As with many things - it depends. The US invited other countries to
become part of the JSF (Joint Strike FIghter) program. Countries
taht ordered planes also won the right to buiild portions of them.
So now the US is hostage to foreign parts suppliers for its next
generation fighter aircraft.

OTOH, all naval shipbuilding is done by US shipyards. All secret R&D
is done by US companies.

> I guess it's possible that a level of cooperation will be tolerate
with
> compatible partners, NATO members perhaps, but the way I see it
outside the
> circle of US strategic allies if not of US alone space settlement
will be
> limited to what US military will see as not threatening, so
whatever
> strategy you come up with bootstrapping space economy is better be
based in
> Texas... ;)
>
> Cheers!
>
> Claudio

LOL.

The thing is that some smart analysts may figure out that a nation
with an economy much smaller than the US, that wants to undertake
space development efforts may be embarking on a road to bankruptcy
and perhaps the US should counsel that they proceed. Very
Machiavellian.

TangoMan

> So now I offer the question of the terrorist bogey-man. Build
> yourself a cruise missile for $5,000, equip it with Galileo
> receivers and you can match US military accuracy.
>
> http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/955176.asp?0dm=s129k
>

I guess this one of the reason why US defence doesn't like it... ;)

> My point is that if the US military can avoid sending people to live
> in orbit and do it manly with robotics, then that's what they'll do.
> They'll need a compelling reason to send people to live there, and
> to exploit resources. I think they may be undertaking a search for
> rationale as we are here for civilian development.

Funnily enough, I think it's possible that the military have more reason
than everyone else for putting real people in control... I think pretty much
anything can be made with a mix of semiautomatic and remote control system
as far as civilian engineering is concerned, but those systems are very
fragile. They rely heavily on good communications and that's one thing that
in a military hypothetical theatre will not be available. EMP devices can
wreck robotic systems and they can be jammed or blanked out relatively
easily. A human crew would be able to operate in a much wider range of
scenarios, that's a pretty good reason for choosing that approach, much
better than anyone I can imagine for the civilian industry anyway... :)

> As with many things - it depends. The US invited other countries to
> become part of the JSF (Joint Strike FIghter) program. Countries
> taht ordered planes also won the right to buiild portions of them.
> So now the US is hostage to foreign parts suppliers for its next
> generation fighter aircraft.

I'll be impressed if Chine is one of them... ;) I agree anyway, is what I
meant when I referred to "compatible partners".

> OTOH, all naval shipbuilding is done by US shipyards. All secret R&D
> is done by US companies.

Exactly... what's the military new budget for R&D in space technologies?
Probably is classified, but I doubt any civilian institution included NASA
gets anywhere near that... and as you say it's mostly top secret stuff
anyway... for all we know there may already be a manned military station up
there, and they're probably down to the last sardines tin right now and
wondering if they should ask the Russians to send them a BLT or starve to
death to protect national security... :)

Cheers,

Claudio

>>
> Exactly... what's the military new budget for R&D in
> space technologies?
> Probably is classified, but I doubt any civilian
> institution included NASA
> gets anywhere near that...

you'd be suprised what you can find out in public
records. The military budget for space is at posted
by the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/index.html

Its kinda interesting actually, I use to read these
reports quite regularly but today was the first time
in about two years I've looked at it and it hasn't
been updated with the newer budgets. I wonder if this
is a byproduct of current policies. It looks like it
hasn't been updated a whole heck of alot since 2001, I
really hope they continue to post things because this
is a valuable resource.

Ryan

\
> So now I offer the question of the terrorist bogey-man. Build
> yourself a cruise missile for $5,000, equip it with Galileo
> receivers and you can match US military accuracy.
>
> http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/

This guy is a dangerous stupid nut. All he is going to achieve is
decreased freedom based on irrational fear. His "cruise missile" has a
nearly useless payload, needs huge up-front investment of time by an
educated person, and does less damage than a truck or even a backpack
full of explosives. It can be defeated with simple jamming equipment
that is almost certainly already installed in high value targets like
the white house, pentagon, and Capitol building.

The thing to remember about GPS (and Galileo) is that the signals are
*weak* - they have to travel hundreds of miles, and the power source on
the satellites isn't large. A ground based GPS jammer can have
thousands of times the power, and the 1/r^2 scaling of signal with
distance means it gets more effective the closer you are to the target.

Terrorists are *evil* not stupid. They can do cost/benefit analysis
just as well as anyone else. Time and money (and risk exposure)
invested in a "cruise missile" is more effectively spent recruiting
naive young kids willing to get themselves killed.

This may seem OT, but it's not. Access to sophisticated technology is a
necessity if people like us are going to be able to have an impact on
the development of a spacefaring civilization. Hysteria-mongering
reduces access, raises barriers, and makes it all the more difficult
for private individuals to do work that might actually improve life for
everyone.

......Andrew

>
> On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 10:37 PM, victoriatangoman
> \
> > So now I offer the question of the terrorist bogey-man. Build
> > yourself a cruise missile for $5,000, equip it with Galileo
> > receivers and you can match US military accuracy.
> >
> > http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
>
> This guy is a dangerous stupid nut.

He's trying to make a point that he feels is important. He believes
that nations are discounting the threat of "home-made" missiles to
their ultimate peril. The threat will always be dismissed until
someone shows it can be done. He's not showing people how to do it,
just that it can be done.

All he is going to achieve is
> decreased freedom based on irrational fear.

Yes he will.

His "cruise missile" has a
> nearly useless payload, needs huge up-front investment of time by
an
> educated person, and does less damage than a truck or even a
backpack
> full of explosives.

And if it was deployed it could get where a truck couldn't, would
inspire fear in the populace at that technical sophistication of the
terrorist organization, undercut the air of technological
superiority that buttresses Western militaries. Now you have an
enemy that can strike just as well as the US. An enemy that you will
fear more, just as the technology of the US was hard to stop in the
Iraq and Kosovo wars/campaigns. The actual damage level isn't
relevent.

It can be defeated with simple jamming equipment
> that is almost certainly already installed in high value targets
like
> the white house, pentagon, and Capitol building.

Consider thought, the value may not be in the target struck but in
the sophistication of the weapon. All you need is some amateur video
aired on TV of the cruise missile flying down the interstate at rush-
hour heading for the day-care center, bank tower, oil refinery, etc.

>
> The thing to remember about GPS (and Galileo) is that the signals
are
> *weak* - they have to travel hundreds of miles, and the power
source on
> the satellites isn't large. A ground based GPS jammer can have
> thousands of times the power, and the 1/r^2 scaling of signal with
> distance means it gets more effective the closer you are to the
target.

Very true, but the jammer can't be everywhere all of the time. This
would invalidate the signals. No terrorist is going to tell you to
prepare your jammer at X place at Y time.

>
> Terrorists are *evil* not stupid. They can do cost/benefit
analysis
> just as well as anyone else. Time and money (and risk exposure)
> invested in a "cruise missile" is more effectively spent
recruiting
> naive young kids willing to get themselves killed.

Suicide bombers and cruise missiles deliver two different messages
to the affected audience. The smart terrorist will decide to use the
right "vehicle" to deliver the message they want to convey.

>
> This may seem OT, but it's not. Access to sophisticated technology
is a
> necessity if people like us are going to be able to have an impact
on
> the development of a spacefaring civilization. Hysteria-mongering
> reduces access, raises barriers, and makes it all the more
difficult
> for private individuals to do work that might actually improve
life for
> everyone.
>
> ......Andrew

Yes we need access to that technology. Free access to that
technology can also create threats. And that's why we have
governments so afraid of private control of missile technologies and
we have the Missile Technology Control Regime.

TangoMan

Galileo will track every passenger car's location within Europe.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-03w.html

I wonder what the privacy advocates are going to say knowing that
Big Brother knows where they (or their car, rather) are within 2
meters at amy given moment.

TangoMan

> Galileo will track every passenger car's location
> within Europe.
>
> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/gps-03w.html
>
> I wonder what the privacy advocates are going to say
> knowing that
> Big Brother knows where they (or their car, rather)
> are within 2
> meters at amy given moment.
>
> TangoMan
>
In San Francisco there is something similar to this
already implemented. The Fast Track system is a
transmitter on card you through on your dashboard.
This chip has a unique ID on it which corresponds to a
user and allows you to go through tolls and pay
electronically.

An interesting side effect of this is that there are
stations throughout the highway system being built
which can also recieve the signal emitted from
transmitter. It then correlates the time it read with
the station before you to see how long it took you to
go from station to station. This system is built with
the idea that the data collected is for statistical
purposes only and cannot be used by law enforcement
(for now). An advantage of this though is actually
accurate traffic predictions. As a commuiter here,
this alone is worth the potential risk to privacy IMO.
If a similar thing is being proposed with galileo,
more power to it!

Ryan

> In San Francisco there is something similar to this
> already implemented. The Fast Track system is a
> transmitter on card you through on your dashboard.
> This chip has a unique ID on it which corresponds to a
> user and allows you to go through tolls and pay
> electronically.

I believe these are actually quite common. London has one for
commuters entering the City.
>
> An interesting side effect of this is that there are
> stations throughout the highway system being built
> which can also recieve the signal emitted from
> transmitter. It then correlates the time it read with
> the station before you to see how long it took you to
> go from station to station. This system is built with
> the idea that the data collected is for statistical
> purposes only and cannot be used by law enforcement
> (for now). An advantage of this though is actually
> accurate traffic predictions. As a commuiter here,
> this alone is worth the potential risk to privacy IMO.
> If a similar thing is being proposed with galileo,
> more power to it!
>
> Ryan

Ah, but Galileo will track you as you drive from your house to your
girlfriends house. If your wife subpeona's the records, you may not
like that LOL.

Galileo is true tracking whreever the car goes, not just on the Toll
road.

TangoMan

> Ah, but Galileo will track you as you drive from
> your house to your
> girlfriends house. If your wife subpeona's the
> records, you may not
> like that LOL.
>
> Galileo is true tracking whreever the car goes, not
> just on the Toll
> road.
>
I read David Brin's book "Kiln People" recently and
have been toying with his concept of a transparent
society. If ever anyone has a chance to see him
speak, I also recommend this because he has some very
good views on space development also and is a
personable fellow. Anyhow, the concept of a
transparent society is that everyone sees what
everyone else is doing at any time they are in the
public. This is illustrated as having cameras
everywhere in the world and then hooking up their feed
to the internet so anyone can access their live or
archived footage. Add to that all the remote sensing
sats and you've pretty much got coverage of
everything.

At first you may think of this as big brother all
over, but differs in a significant way. Everyone has
access! So not only are the police watching you, but
you are watching the police! I won't go over all the
different effects this has, as I believe Brin does a
good job in his book, but I relate this back to space
habitats in the following way.

Due to the need to ensure the integrity of the colony,
space habitats will also need to have a drastic
reduction in privacy. All public areas will NEED to
be monitored. This very scenario may be the reality
in all colonies. Do you think you could adapt to live
in such a scenario? Or do you think this is not
needed?

Ryan

--- In ssi_list@...

Some more updates on Galileo - China is to be a player.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030918115229.wew4fc3h.html

TangoMan