4 ms·

Interestingly, development of rockets has only made a bunch of the things you mention cheaper (to the multiple orders of magnitude), not impossible. Eg. determ

Interestingly, development of rockets has only made a bunch of the things you mention cheaper (to the multiple orders of magnitude), not impossible. Eg. determining location through radio signal triangulation can tell you a location pretty well, but would require placing a lot of signal stations throughout the world. Eg. remember the time-synchronisation mechanisms for watches through AM signals (including in hand watches). Similarly, we did build a global communications network by placing expensive undersea cables across the world, but systems like StarLink are much cheaper (once you get to economies of scale for launching satellites). So, like many things, rockets have accellerated discovery and progress, but are ultimately not the be-all solution: they work in tandem with the rest of science and engineering (including cultural development).

lazide 3y ago
GPS done via land radio systems would be so flakey and expensive it would still likely not be implemented. Easy to jam too. And subject to control by terrestrial authorities. Putting a dozen satellites in orbit - and out of reach of local authorities - is so much cheaper and more reliable, it’s not just a matter of cost - it’s an entirely different product. Same with starlink. A big part of its advantage is someone can’t just walk over and cut a cable. And no one needs planning approval to put a cable in. Line of sight to low orbit is about the only way to accomplish that - maybe some kind of high altitude ballon/plane could (loon?) but they’re so comparatively easy to shoot down that it makes it a very different kind of situation.
- necovek 3y ago
  It seems like you are looking at it only from one side. Undersea cables are probably more expensive than satellites today, but we'll still continue to put them in. And nope, someone can't just walk in and cut a cable sitting at 5000m under the surface. Detecting a StarLink terminal is relatively easy from the ground, and someone can just walk in and demolish it once they locate it. Basically, all tech has pros and cons.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Of course. But to Russias recent chagrin, blowing up/severing a fixed and very expensive cable (or underwater pipeline) is a generally far easier proposition than tracking down mobile and intermittent sources on the ground. Still possible. But orders of magnitude harder. Nothing says that starlink ground station needs to stay in one place, after all. Undersea cables get cut all the time, from shipping to nation states. Trains don’t make cars obsolete, anymore than cars make trains obsolete. Taking out train tracks is much easier and more effective than taking out all possible roads though.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > Undersea cables are probably more expensive than satellites today, but we'll still continue to put them in. And nope, someone can't just walk in and cut a cable sitting at 5000m under the surface. The cable has to come out on to the surface somewhere, though. But barring that, dropping IEDs from a fishing boat, with a time fuse and some weight, isn't hard; the trickier part would be knowing where to drop them so they land near the cable. But there are tricks for that too.
    - lazide 3y ago
      Dragging an anchor seems to work pretty well.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        D'oh. Of course! All too easy to get bit by the curse of overcomplicating things.
- dingaling 3y ago
  You might be surprised to learn that Enhanced LORAN recently became operational around the UK's coast, specifically because satellite-based PNT is so susceptible to interference and jamming.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Not at all. It's only being installed in specific, high value areas within a specific jurisdiction. And mainly as a backup. Notably by a party which doesn't control GPS (albeit a close ally). LORAN has also been used near airports in developed areas for a long time. That isn't the 'base case' though. The US military initially developed and launched GPS because of the reasons I stated, and it is still widely used as a base case for exactly those reasons.
- godelski 3y ago
  Yeah and to add to this I think people are forgetting why Bell was given a sanctioned monopoly. Because there were just cables everywhere. When people say natural monopolies exist in markets with network effects, that can mean literal networks of cables that will block out the sun. Sure, this stuff will improve too, but I think people are also forgetting about the increased surface area and the increased gravity which makes each of these cables required to be thicker or require more support. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-really-have-individual-telephone-wires-going-from-a-central-tower-to-ea https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-r...
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Interestingly, development of rockets has only made a bunch of the things you mention cheaper (to the multiple orders of magnitude), not impossible. With finite time, lifespan and resources, "cheap" is often equivalent to "possible". If you look at the connections between inventions and developments that GP mentioned, it's usually the case that the necessary prerequisites don't involve just knowledge, but something getting cheap enough to be available / worth building.
- necovek 3y ago
  If something is worthwhile, it gets developed and gradually becomes cheaper. If you were handed an internal combustion engine car without petrol, it would be extremely expensive to get that fuel for the first time. That even happened with satellites!

lazide 3y ago

GPS done via land radio systems would be so flakey and expensive it would still likely not be implemented. Easy to jam too. And subject to control by terrestrial authorities. Putting a dozen satellites in orbit - and out of reach of local authorities - is so much cheaper and more reliable, it’s not just a matter of cost - it’s an entirely different product. Same with starlink. A big part of its advantage is someone can’t just walk over and cut a cable. And no one needs planning approval to put a cable in. Line of sight to low orbit is about the only way to accomplish that - maybe some kind of high altitude ballon/plane could (loon?) but they’re so comparatively easy to shoot down that it makes it a very different kind of situation.

necovek 3y ago
It seems like you are looking at it only from one side. Undersea cables are probably more expensive than satellites today, but we'll still continue to put them in. And nope, someone can't just walk in and cut a cable sitting at 5000m under the surface. Detecting a StarLink terminal is relatively easy from the ground, and someone can just walk in and demolish it once they locate it. Basically, all tech has pros and cons.
- lazide 3y ago
  Of course. But to Russias recent chagrin, blowing up/severing a fixed and very expensive cable (or underwater pipeline) is a generally far easier proposition than tracking down mobile and intermittent sources on the ground. Still possible. But orders of magnitude harder. Nothing says that starlink ground station needs to stay in one place, after all. Undersea cables get cut all the time, from shipping to nation states. Trains don’t make cars obsolete, anymore than cars make trains obsolete. Taking out train tracks is much easier and more effective than taking out all possible roads though.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > Undersea cables are probably more expensive than satellites today, but we'll still continue to put them in. And nope, someone can't just walk in and cut a cable sitting at 5000m under the surface. The cable has to come out on to the surface somewhere, though. But barring that, dropping IEDs from a fishing boat, with a time fuse and some weight, isn't hard; the trickier part would be knowing where to drop them so they land near the cable. But there are tricks for that too.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Dragging an anchor seems to work pretty well.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      D'oh. Of course! All too easy to get bit by the curse of overcomplicating things.
dingaling 3y ago
You might be surprised to learn that Enhanced LORAN recently became operational around the UK's coast, specifically because satellite-based PNT is so susceptible to interference and jamming.
- lazide 3y ago
  Not at all. It's only being installed in specific, high value areas within a specific jurisdiction. And mainly as a backup. Notably by a party which doesn't control GPS (albeit a close ally). LORAN has also been used near airports in developed areas for a long time. That isn't the 'base case' though. The US military initially developed and launched GPS because of the reasons I stated, and it is still widely used as a base case for exactly those reasons.
godelski 3y ago
Yeah and to add to this I think people are forgetting why Bell was given a sanctioned monopoly. Because there were just cables everywhere. When people say natural monopolies exist in markets with network effects, that can mean literal networks of cables that will block out the sun. Sure, this stuff will improve too, but I think people are also forgetting about the increased surface area and the increased gravity which makes each of these cables required to be thicker or require more support. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-really-have-individual-telephone-wires-going-from-a-central-tower-to-ea https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/58872/did-they-r...

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> Interestingly, development of rockets has only made a bunch of the things you mention cheaper (to the multiple orders of magnitude), not impossible. With finite time, lifespan and resources, "cheap" is often equivalent to "possible". If you look at the connections between inventions and developments that GP mentioned, it's usually the case that the necessary prerequisites don't involve just knowledge, but something getting cheap enough to be available / worth building.

necovek 3y ago
If something is worthwhile, it gets developed and gradually becomes cheaper. If you were handed an internal combustion engine car without petrol, it would be extremely expensive to get that fuel for the first time. That even happened with satellites!