Jump to content

$8 billion upgrade to satellites


Recommended Posts

"Well, at least it ain't $8 billion going to welfare"

 

Agreed, corporate welfare is total BS. Not only do we bail them out but then we hand them obscene $$'s in tax breaks.

 

Good news for us! I love when the gov't spends money on my interests for a change.

Edited by yogazoo
Link to comment
But increasing the number of GPS-capable devices also increases the load on the system of GPS satellites and infrastructure, which is aging quickly and in need of serious overhaul.

 

What terrible journalism! Did they do no research? GPS receivers put 0 load on the satellites and infrastructure. GPS receivers are just that - receivers. The satellites put out the same signal and are under the same load whether there are 50 million receivers or just one.

 

Also "aging quickly" is also completely inaccurate. The average life of a GPS satellite has been around 2 times longer than the designed life! Also, the current infrastructure as only been operational for less than three years. Now is hardly time for an infrastructure overhaul. They're just adding the next-generation satellites.

 

"There are 24 satellites that provide GPS data" is also inaccurate. GPS needs 24 satellites for whole-earth coverage. Currently, there are 31 operational satellites (minus any temporarily disabled satellites). The launch of IIF-1 will be #32. There are also a few spares on orbit.

 

"...working in tandem to pinpoint the location of GPS-enabled devices around the world." Wrong again. It's the receiver that pinpoints its location; not the satellite.

 

"The upgrade process will have to be seamless, so the satellites will be replaced one by one." The launch schedule is more driven by an as-needed basis with consideration of the maximum number of supported operational SVs (32). They're not going to replace a perfectly good older satellite just because they have a new one ready to go.

 

Some other things to note: While the new Block IIF satellites should boost our accuracy as I believe they have more powerful transmitters (I'd have to double check that), the real benefit to us will be the addition of a second civilian signal. However, this won't be a benefit to us until there are significantly more of these new satellites being operational and we have new receivers which can receive and use this new signal.

 

Just trying to dispel some GPS untruths. :)

Link to comment
But increasing the number of GPS-capable devices also increases the load on the system of GPS satellites and infrastructure, which is aging quickly and in need of serious overhaul.

 

What terrible journalism! Did they do no research? GPS receivers put 0 load on the satellites and infrastructure. GPS receivers are just that - receivers. The satellites put out the same signal and are under the same load whether there are 50 million receivers or just one.

 

Also "aging quickly" is also completely inaccurate. The average life of a GPS satellite has been around 2 times longer than the designed life! Also, the current infrastructure as only been operational for less than three years. Now is hardly time for an infrastructure overhaul. They're just adding the next-generation satellites.

 

"There are 24 satellites that provide GPS data" is also inaccurate. GPS needs 24 satellites for whole-earth coverage. Currently, there are 31 operational satellites (minus any temporarily disabled satellites). The launch of IIF-1 will be #32. There are also a few spares on orbit.

 

"...working in tandem to pinpoint the location of GPS-enabled devices around the world." Wrong again. It's the receiver that pinpoints its location; not the satellite.

 

"The upgrade process will have to be seamless, so the satellites will be replaced one by one." The launch schedule is more driven by an as-needed basis with consideration of the maximum number of supported operational SVs (32). They're not going to replace a perfectly good older satellite just because they have a new one ready to go.

 

Some other things to note: While the new Block IIF satellites should boost our accuracy as I believe they have more powerful transmitters (I'd have to double check that), the real benefit to us will be the addition of a second civilian signal. However, this won't be a benefit to us until there are significantly more of these new satellites being operational and we have new receivers which can receive and use this new signal.

 

Just trying to dispel some GPS untruths. :)

I believe even the more powerful "safety of life" signal is a new code sequence - existing receivers won't be able to receive it.

 

However it's gonna rock when L2C goes live and receivers that support it come out. Bye bye ionospheric error!

Link to comment
But increasing the number of GPS-capable devices also increases the load on the system of GPS satellites and infrastructure, which is aging quickly and in need of serious overhaul.

 

What terrible journalism! Did they do no research? GPS receivers put 0 load on the satellites and infrastructure. GPS receivers are just that - receivers. The satellites put out the same signal and are under the same load whether there are 50 million receivers or just one.

I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant a political load, i.e. pressure on the GPS Wing to keep a high standard. But given how bad the rest of the article is, that might be too much credit.

Link to comment

I wonder how long until all of our current GPS units become "legacy" units and no longer work with the new satellite transmissions...

 

The new Block IIF satellites are not getting rid of or changing the "old" signals. They just add signals and (I believe) boost the signal strength of the "old" signals.

 

Nothing to worry about.

Link to comment
The new Block IIF satellites are not getting rid of or changing the "old" signals. They just add signals and (I believe) boost the signal strength of the "old" signals.

 

Nothing to worry about.

 

Good to know. Now, I'm puttin' my tinfoil hat on and hoping no goobermint types are around... :cry:

 

I'm truly surprised they haven't started implementing a way to charge for GPS usage as another TAX for the civilian side. Seems like it would be something pretty easy to work into the new satellites/upgrades. Require subscription type BS along the lines of XM radio.

 

I can see it happening, though. Hell, we already pay federal income tax, state income tax (most of us), local state and city taxes, blah, blah...and STILL have to friggin' pay to get into national parks and such. Why not TAX us again on something we've already paid for? :)

 

Hope it never happens, but I won't be surprised if/when it does...

Link to comment

I'm truly surprised they haven't started implementing a way to charge for GPS usage as another TAX for the civilian side. Seems like it would be something pretty easy to work into the new satellites/upgrades. Require subscription type BS along the lines of XM radio.

 

I think I heard Europe was going to do that with Galileo but then backed off under pressure.

 

Maybe instead of charging, they'll just add advertisements: Every 15 minutes you lose your location while your GPSr shows an ad for the latest must have product! :)

Link to comment
The new Block IIF satellites are not getting rid of or changing the "old" signals. They just add signals and (I believe) boost the signal strength of the "old" signals.

 

Nothing to worry about.

 

 

I'm truly surprised they haven't started implementing a way to charge for GPS usage as another TAX for the civilian side. Seems like it would be something pretty easy to work into the new satellites/upgrades. Require subscription type BS along the lines of XM radio.

 

 

You shouldn't even think that way, it's like that kid in class who reminds the teacher he/she assigned no homework for the night! :rolleyes:

 

In all seriousness though, we already pay taxes on the system... civilian or not, we are all flipping the bill for it.

Link to comment

I wonder how long until all of our current GPS units become "legacy" units and no longer work with the new satellite transmissions...

The new Block IIF satellites will still transmit the old L1 signal with the C/A codes legacy GPS units use. The future Block III satellites will transmit a new L1C signal that includes the old C/A codes.

 

There's just too many legacy receivers out there for them to shut off the C/A code.

Link to comment

However it's gonna rock when L2C goes live and receivers that support it come out. Bye bye ionospheric error!

The L2C signal is active but last I heard they're not modulating any NAV or CNAV data onto it. I've read that the receivers aren't going to start showing up until they get at least 24 satellites transmitting the signal. Based on the current launch schedule that won't be until 2014. [:rolleyes:]

 

I'm trying to dig up more information.

Link to comment
The L2C signal is active but last I heard they're not modulating any NAV or CNAV data onto it.

 

Active on what? IIF is the first to have L2C and we don't have IIF SVs on orbit yet (cross your fingers for the launch tomorrow night).

Link to comment

In all seriousness though, we already pay taxes on the system... civilian or not, we are all flipping the bill for it.

 

Are you serious? Like they wouldn't "tax" us again to use GPS? :rolleyes:

 

We are taxed multiple times to use things we ALREADY paid for via taxes. Just try to go to the Grand Canyon and park and get into the National Park facilities for free. What's it up to these days? $40...$50/car? It was $25 or so last time I went years ago. Um, don't we ALREADY pay federal income tax to fund the Department of the Interior, which includes parks and recreation? Even the local parks around here in Prescott, AZ make you pay to park even though we pay state income tax, city taxes, property taxes, etc.

 

The government, federal or local, does not give a dadgum and they'd love to tax us again and again and again for the same things if they can get away with it...and they do... :ph34r:

Link to comment

There's just too many legacy receivers out there for them to shut off the C/A code.

 

FOR NOW.

 

Doesn't mean they won't turn it off in a heartbeat in the future. Look at the analog to digital TV transition the FCC (i.e. government) forced on everyone...

Link to comment

 

FOR NOW.

 

Doesn't mean they won't turn it off in a heartbeat in the future. Look at the analog to digital TV transition the FCC (i.e. government) forced on everyone...

Fortunately, the FCC doesn't operate the GPS system. That said, the analogy isn't all that great. To play the digital game, they had to force the conversion due in part to bandwidth issues and due in part to a chicken-and-egg problem. These sorts of issues don't come into play in the upcoming GPS data improvements.
Link to comment
To play the digital game, they had to force the conversion due in part to bandwidth issues and due in part to a chicken-and-egg problem. These sorts of issues don't come into play in the upcoming GPS data improvements.

 

Um, I wasn't talking about technical issues/conflicts. I was talking about the government's NEVER ENDING quest to squeeze more revenue (i.e. TAX) out of the population. It's BECAUSE GPS use is so widespread, that it is a vast untapped resource of money just waiting to be collected. And they, along with pretty much everyone else, know MANY people would pay the tax, subscription fee, whatever to use it... Oh, sure...they'd bitch about it, but they'd pay it... Everyone from the casual user to the airlines, shipping and trucking industries, etc... Again, I'm pretty surprised they haven't tried to implement this or that I haven't even heard about it on a higher level than personal musings.

 

For those claiming, "But, but, but!!!! There's too many receivers already out there!!!" Yeah right... Do you really think the government cares about personally owned GPS systems and the need to potentially have to replace them, be they in the hands of the likes of us here or commercial enterprises? Really??? They'd make us sh!tcan our gasoline burning cars TODAY if it were feasible and "public outcry" would be the LEAST of their concerns.

 

I'm still waiting for an answer about how the government would *never* tax us again for something for whch we already *paid*. See National (and local) Park access example above... :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Active on what? IIF is the first to have L2C and we don't have IIF SVs on orbit yet (cross your fingers for the launch tomorrow night).

No, IIF is the first to have L5 on it. The 7 active IIR-M's have L2C.

 

I stand corrected regarding L2C! Here, I've been mislead all this time by a IIF poster here which says "New civil signal on L2"! I guess "new" was used loosely. :rolleyes:

 

As an aside: IIR-20 (a IIR-M) has L5 on it. :ph34r:

Link to comment

As an aside: IIR-20 (a IIR-M) has L5 on it. :rolleyes:

I was debating whether to mention that in my previous post. That was a demonstration signal of L5 so they wouldn't loose their ITU frequency allocation because of the delay in launching the IIF block.

 

I'm not sure if it's still transmitting on L5. Its signal is slightly different from the IS-GPS-705 spec so they'll most likely shut it of when IIF-1 starts transmitting L5.

Link to comment

In all seriousness though, we already pay taxes on the system... civilian or not, we are all flipping the bill for it.

 

Are you serious? Like they wouldn't "tax" us again to use GPS? :rolleyes:

 

We are taxed multiple times to use things we ALREADY paid for via taxes. Just try to go to the Grand Canyon and park and get into the National Park facilities for free. What's it up to these days? $40...$50/car? It was $25 or so last time I went years ago. Um, don't we ALREADY pay federal income tax to fund the Department of the Interior, which includes parks and recreation? Even the local parks around here in Prescott, AZ make you pay to park even though we pay state income tax, city taxes, property taxes, etc.

 

The government, federal or local, does not give a dadgum and they'd love to tax us again and again and again for the same things if they can get away with it...and they do... :ph34r:

 

Vehicle entrance fee to Grand Canyon NP is $25.00 for a seven day pass. A yearly pass for entrance to all parks is only 80 bucks. Not sure where you are getting your figures from. Source: http://www.nps.gov/grca/planyourvisit/entrance-fees.htm

 

DOI budget is only 12 billion per year from the Feds. This covers multiple agencies; not just the NPS. The budget includes money the different agencies must pay the states they are in for the land they are using. It is federal land, but agencies like BLM pay the state a set fee due to loss of taxes.

 

Most of the entrance fees charged in the parks go into a general fund for equal distribution on ratio of visitors back to the parks. (Example, Great Smoky Mountain NP cannot charge an entrance fee, but Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Arches takes it a lot, so it is distributed.)

 

Some fees in the parks remain in the parks. Example, camping fees in Canyonlands, Island in the Sky District went toward the new visitor center. Same with Arches NP.

 

Not a bad problem to have people pay for usage of what they use. Therefore, you want to visit a park, you have to pay. If you visit one particular park often, they sometimes offer a yearly pass, or you have the option to get the Yearly pass for all parks in the USA.

Link to comment

Justify it all you want. It's all just more TAXES. $25 for a 7 day pass at the Grand Canyon? BFD. If you just want to hike around for a few hours, it's still $25. It's all BS. These areas were here thousands of years ago and they'll still be here thousands of years from now...

Link to comment

On the (off)topic of taxes; In many states, WA being one of the worst offenders, tobacco and

alcohol consumers are paying tax on tax. Not supposed to be federally legal, but they've been

doin' it for so long it just seems to be a 'given' (so to speak). About 80% of the cost is tax,

then sales tax @ point of sale. Not that I have vested issues, outside of principal.

"There's no justice, there's just us" mentality happenin' rampant. On a related note, it's not

illegal to be stupid, but it sure can be to not protect those who are, . . . so just who is the

stupid one in those scenarios? Those bound and determined to take themselves out, . . . or,

those who are compelled to prevent the inevitable, . . . or, those doing the compelling? Hmmm?!?

"Who's minding the store?"

 

Norm

Edited by RRLover
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...