3 ms·

That's what army mapping service essentially did with early radar distance measuring projects. Huge expensive fleet of 18-wheeler trucks failure. And classical

That's what army mapping service essentially did with early radar distance measuring projects. Huge expensive fleet of 18-wheeler trucks failure. And classical surveying methods beat it in every way at the time. But it was the direct predecessor to microwave communications. It was just portable military distance measuring equipment (like the model-99 dme w/ ~1cm @50km) that used a signal they found easy to piggyback voice and data on. And included that in the field units. AND 2nd, after a dozen or so more hugely expensive projects (ranging from failure to moderate success to "achieves objectives"), it led to the Airforce NAVSTAR program, which you know as... GPS. So the question becomes: What was the actual "objective" value provided by those expensive initial radar experiments, despite failing to achieve their direct objective?

whatshisface 5y ago
It's difficult to say without access to the counterfactual world where GPS was invented based on civilian microwave communication which itself would have evolved from civilian radio communication. We live in a world where the DoD redistributes money away from private industry and towards another sector of private industry, and it is hard to say what would happen if R&D tax laws were changed to move that money back from private military industry R&D to industry-industry R&D.
- beerandt 5y ago
  Maybe microwave transmission, but the economics of GPS or GNSS in general would preclude civilian investment in such an expensive constellation without obvious revenue channels. And it's moot for both these cases because the technology was needed for direct military applications anyway. What's the practical or ideological benefit of industry-industry R&D when the military is going to be the only customer, or at least the only paying customer for the first years/decades of use? I agree with you in general, with it being better for governments not picking the winners of markets or deciding who gets research money. But military is such a unique (yet universally needed) type of market, that practicality here means treating them as a large customer with unique product needs ( products unlikely to be revenue generating on the public market), even if you don't treat it as direct government allocation or a fixed/manipulated market. The only way I can think of to avoid that entirely would be some libertarian version of an all private, defense-by-contract type military. And then you'd have concerns about whether that could hold up to peer adversaries, and dozens of other wildcard concerns.

whatshisface 5y ago

It's difficult to say without access to the counterfactual world where GPS was invented based on civilian microwave communication which itself would have evolved from civilian radio communication. We live in a world where the DoD redistributes money away from private industry and towards another sector of private industry, and it is hard to say what would happen if R&D tax laws were changed to move that money back from private military industry R&D to industry-industry R&D.

beerandt 5y ago
Maybe microwave transmission, but the economics of GPS or GNSS in general would preclude civilian investment in such an expensive constellation without obvious revenue channels. And it's moot for both these cases because the technology was needed for direct military applications anyway. What's the practical or ideological benefit of industry-industry R&D when the military is going to be the only customer, or at least the only paying customer for the first years/decades of use? I agree with you in general, with it being better for governments not picking the winners of markets or deciding who gets research money. But military is such a unique (yet universally needed) type of market, that practicality here means treating them as a large customer with unique product needs ( products unlikely to be revenue generating on the public market), even if you don't treat it as direct government allocation or a fixed/manipulated market. The only way I can think of to avoid that entirely would be some libertarian version of an all private, defense-by-contract type military. And then you'd have concerns about whether that could hold up to peer adversaries, and dozens of other wildcard concerns.