GPS and Other Satellites

[Olefin]

Keep in mind that even a catastrophic Kessler scenario in LEO (low earth orbit) poses a minimal risk for launches of craft that are going past LEO - or for satellites and craft above LEO. Also even in the worst case scenario what you get is an increase in the number of collisions, not a physically impassable barrier to space exploration or a barrier that prevents craft to getting to higher orbits.

After all the Soviet weather satellite did survive to re-enter - if the debris had been so bad that LEO was impassible then it would been destroyed long before.

Also the debris in LEO will eventually decay and re-enter just due to residual air drag at those orbital heights - meaning that in a couple of decades at most the increase in collision risks will significantly be reduced.

And France has one big advantage in that they may very well have an intact satellite manufacturer - i.e. Cannes Mandelieu Space Center in Cannes has been making satellites for quite a while - i.e. the satellite division of Aerospatiale - so that would give the French most likely the last intact satellite manufacturing plant in the world and a launch facility that they could use as well - the question is how much of their facilities are still in one piece along with engineers and technicians

[RN7]

http://www.oocities.org/littlegreenm...T2K_France.htm

I love it when people quote my work.

[RN7]

Keep in mind that even a catastrophic Kessler scenario in LEO (low earth orbit) poses a minimal risk for launches of craft that are going past LEO - or for satellites and craft above LEO. Also even in the worst case scenario what you get is an increase in the number of collisions, not a physically impassable barrier to space exploration or a barrier that prevents craft to getting to higher orbits.

After all the Soviet weather satellite did survive to re-enter - if the debris had been so bad that LEO was impassible then it would been destroyed long before.

Also the debris in LEO will eventually decay and re-enter just due to residual air drag at those orbital heights - meaning that in a couple of decades at most the increase in collision risks will significantly be reduced.

And France has one big advantage in that they may very well have an intact satellite manufacturer - i.e. Cannes Mandelieu Space Center in Cannes has been making satellites for quite a while - i.e. the satellite division of Aerospatiale - so that would give the French most likely the last intact satellite manufacturing plant in the world and a launch facility that they could use as well - the question is how much of their facilities are still in one piece along with engineers and technicians

I think higher orbits were for example the French would place an INTEL satellite would be at lest risk from debris due to their being less junk at that altitude.

[.45cultist]

The impact of EMP would be felt more among the younger digital generations. Something to stress in role-playing T2013 or later timelines. If I run a game for my nephews again, I'll have to have my map protractor as an aid.

[rcaf_777]

Well since no one is going to ask, I going too. Why is it that the intro in Satellite down contradict the downing of DP 201

And why dose the downing of DP 201 contradict the rest of the Twilight 2000 Version 1 Timeline

[bobcat]

There is an uneven trend to correct the reliance on digital navigation. Not just the military, but civil aviation as well. Uneven because the U.S. started with aviation and armor. 11B are personal initiative of the training nco's and officers. This was from discussions, reading various articles and is by no means "scientific".

very uneven in aviation with GPS based systems replacing older systems for most air traffic control systems. not to get int specifics(you can google all of this and there's even a few defcon talks on the subject you can watch on youtube) but most commercial aircraft now have a built in guidance and collision avoidance system that is driven almost entirely off of GPS data.

[Legbreaker]

Well since no one is going to ask, I going too. Why is it that the intro in Satellite down contradict the downing of DP 201

And why dose the downing of DP 201 contradict the rest of the Twilight 2000 Version 1 Timeline

How does it do that

[rcaf_777]

Page 4

"Now, during the height of the war, just about every satellite on both sides was knocked down or rendered worthless junk."

And on Page 5

But due to some damage from America's space-born anti satellite system and lack of good ground signal communication, it crashed off the coast of Mexico in the Gulf of California.

So ever other Satellite is worthless junk except for America's space-born anti satellite system which is in orbit and knocked out DP 201

Funny how it could knock a satellite but not a ICBM missile, hmmm wasn't that the point of SDI

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You seem to have missed the point.
The text refers to the American anti-SATELLITE system and NOT the anti-missile system.

[rcaf_777]

if you say so but SDI came first and then it's research was applied latter to anti satellite warfare. So if you shoot a orbiting satellite traveling around 6000-7000 miles per hour, why couldn't it shoot a missile out of the sky

You find some pictures of how the system was to work here

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Space_weapons

There is also a chart on how high a EMP wave can travel upwards

http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/03/23/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-gps/

[bobcat]

if you say so but SDI came first and then it's research was applied latter to anti satellite warfare. So if you shoot a orbiting satellite traveling around 6000-7000 miles per hour, why couldn't it shoot a missile out of the sky

simple a satellite is a single target, a MIRV in post-boost phase is at least a dozen targets plus decoys. given the scale of the TDM it is easy to see how such systems can be overwhelmed especially considering the effects of previous intercepts, opposing ASAT/SDI systems, hostile network-based attacks, and our dear friend Murphey.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Plus, you know, general and special relativity...

A satellite targeting another satellite in orbit is not travelling very fast relative to the other satellite because they are both travelling at roughly the same speeds (and the speeds are irrelevant for this purpose as long as they are roughly the same).
It's the same sort of thing if two cowboys on horseback were trying to shoot each other - relative to each other, they aren't moving particularly fast but relative to someone standing still, they're both moving too fast to get an accurate shot at.
This is what applies to a satellite trying to shoot down in incoming ICBM. Relative to the ICBM, the satellite is practically standing still.

[.45cultist]

very uneven in aviation with GPS based systems replacing older systems for most air traffic control systems. not to get int specifics(you can google all of this and there's even a few defcon talks on the subject you can watch on youtube) but most commercial aircraft now have a built in guidance and collision avoidance system that is driven almost entirely off of GPS data.

I think that the powers that be decided to settle on teaching the old stuff to show what to do when the guidance and positioning devices fail, depriving the crews of the GPS data. Also malfunctioning systems are accidently rotated back onto aircraft. This happened to my dad, the FAA told him to personally take a hammer the the auto pilot in question.
It would be quite a scenario involving armor guys to have these fail in a campaign. An old timer NPC might be needed to instruct PC's in the old style.

[Targan]

simple a satellite is a single target, a MIRV in post-boost phase is at least a dozen targets plus decoys. given the scale of the TDM it is easy to see how such systems can be overwhelmed especially considering the effects of previous intercepts, opposing ASAT/SDI systems, hostile network-based attacks, and our dear friend Murphey.

The ABM programs of both the US and Soviets during the 1980s were focused on shooting down ICBMs before they became sub-orbital.

Interesting article from earlier this week:

The Rise and Fall of the Soviet 'Death Star'

[unkated]

You don't really need massive quantities of resources to launch a rocket - the question is what kind of rocket and what payloads is it carrying

To launch a rocket no.

To build the rocket parts - or even assemble a rocket from spare parts from different parts across the US I have my doubts.

To assemble a satellite in post-1997 US To calculate a useful orbit, launch (easy) and track that it hit orbit, and get useful data downloads or communication links (as payment for the effort) I have graver doubts.

keep in mind that the timeline strongly suggests that the US didn't launch a bunch of their rockets that were in silos and the like -

Yes.

those rockets, at least those still operational,
would be perfect to use to get a communications or weather satellite into orbit

Not really. These are suborbital. They could probably be repurposed to get a smaller package (satellite) into a stable LEO. To launch into a useful GSO (GeoSynchronous Orbit) where the satellite would stay overhead and provide useful weather comverage over a large chunk of earth or a while No. And therefore probably not worth the effort. LEO commo satellites are only useful in a constellation; teh lower the orbit, the more needed for coverage.

Uncle Ted