Galileo

> 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