GPS and Other Satellites

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

You'r right but seriously, during (and more so after) the war, who is going to use the massive quantities of resources needed to launch a rocket when you could better use them for making food, ammo, spare parts, etc. etc.?
Then after the satellite is actually in orbit, who's going to commit all the resources to run the ground tracking and control stations to constantly monitor and control it?

A little common sense goes a long way, satellites are for countries that are not pulling themselves back from the ruins of an apocalyptic war.

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

any such satellite wouldn't be state of the art of course - but anything they can get to maintain communications or get weather data is better than nothing

even if it was short lived - i.e. like the satellite used in Twilight 2013 to do the "you are on your own" speech - you could see MilGov using something like that to give orders to Korea and the Middle East - even as simple as a recall order or a "you are on your own as to getting home" message - even if all it did was play a recorded encoded or plain language message at intervals that could be picked up by any surviving US units

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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

As always, pick and choose what works for your game but I would argue that the logistics train & the personnel necessary to launch just one rocket plus the consumables necessary to maintain the logistics train and the launch facilities most definitely constitutes "massive resources". I mean, what are you using to feed & fuel all the vehicles/ships/aircraft and personnel, what fuel are you using to supply the electricity etc. etc. You can't just pluck it out of thin air.

Just because you have a few rockets sitting around unused, doesn't mean you have the resources free to actually use them. Who the hell is left to convert them to satellite carriers, who the hell is still alive to ensure the conversion is done correctly, who the hell is still available to organize all the launch requirements, where the hell is all the food coming from to feed all these people, what the hell is available to transport all that food and so on and so on ad nauseam.

[Legbreaker]

And, given the massive amount of resources required to launch and maintain just one satellite, what's wrong with the old (and very cheap) map and compass?
May not be as accurate as GPS, but with proper training it's not far off! Certainly good enough for a post apocalyptic world such as T2K, and pretty much how everyone was doing it up until the 1990's anyway.

[kalos72]

While dedicating the resources needed to launch and control a satellite T2K to GPS seems a bit far out for me...

I do NOT however feel that a large, powerful organization could not get a new one up by 2002/2003 maybe.

Now alot of things would have to "work" for the group to get that far, I do think that a dedicated, efficient group holding the right location and hardware/skill sets, could get it done.

For me, it would be about communications I think. Although I admit I am still really "newbish" when it comes to communications/radio details.

[kato13]

Found a map of the four locations that can upload corrections to the satellites (surprisingly to me via direct s-band). From 1995



Colorado Springs (Colorado, US),
Ascension Island (South Atlantic),
Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean),
Kwajalein (North Pacific).
(Hawaii cant upload as it is only is part of the monitoring network)

Edit Replaced map due to AFB naming error (Thanks ArmySGT). Cape Canaveral went online in 2001 so please ignore

http://www.navipedia.net/index.php/GPS_Ground_Segment

Might be an interesting Last Submarine Scenario to go to either Ascention Island or Kwajalein (I've always assumed Diego Garcia was nuked) to get either data, personnel, or equipment to bring back to Colorado Springs to help keep the satellite update system there running.

Again in my game the satellites were generally shredded by a low tech ASAT solution (otherwise how can you explain the 8th Mech getting totally lost) right after the initial US Strikes (when ICBM launches are not unexpected), but the game as written has the players being responsible for transporting the inventors of low tech cold fusion technology, and bringing a microchip replacement to life, so helping to bring out of sync satellites back into service seems like an equally plausible adventure seed.

[RN7]

Once the nukes start landing I think we can forget about the US and Soviets having a satellite launching capacity. Some infrastructure and capability to launch something into orbit may survive, but not the resources to design, manufacture and test satellites.

France on the other hand might. It would depend on if you believe France was targeted by Soviet nuclear weapons in T2K or not. I don't think France was and if it was it was a limited nuclear strike on French oil refineries. The French completely withdrew from the Atlantic Alliance (they withdrew from NATO in 1966) once NATO crossed into East Germany in December 1996. Unlike Japan the French offered no support to the US or NATO before the war went nuclear in any capacity. Their actions after the nuclear strikes do not follow that of a country wounded by the Soviets. No cooperation with NATO in Europe, in fact they invade two NATO countries (Germany and the Netherlands), they carve out a new power-bloc with Belgium in Africa, they send a fully functional and well equipped military expeditionary force to the Middle East in direct rivalry to CENTCOM and the RDF, and they support French separatists in Canada.

Their main launching site is in Kourou in French Guyana which is in South America. Latin America wasn't nuked in T2K and if Kourou was nuked why did did the Soviets miss the Panama Canal? The French had another launch site in Hamaguir Algeria until the early 70's. Main French satellite tracking stations at Aussaguel and Bretigny-sur-Orge (France), Kourou (Fr. Guyana),
Kerguelen Island (southern Indian Ocean), Kiruna (Sweden) and Hartebeestehoek (South Africa) but they also used stations all over the place in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Japan, Kenya, Norway Portugal, Spain and the US.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

Once the nukes start landing I think we can forget about the US and Soviets having a satellite launching capacity. Some infrastructure and capability to launch something into orbit may survive, but not the resources to design, manufacture and test satellites.

Agreed. IF, and that's a BIG if, anyone is in a position to launch more than a weather balloon, it'd be using existing stocks of rockets, etc. Can't imagine any new materials would be created for a good decade after the nukes, at best.

Originally Posted by RN7

France on the other hand might. It would depend on if you believe France was targeted by Soviet nuclear weapons in T2K or not. I don't think France was and if it was it was a limited nuclear strike on French oil refineries. The French completely withdrew from the Atlantic Alliance (they withdrew from NATO in 1966) once NATO crossed into East Germany in December 1996. Unlike Japan the French offered no support to the US or NATO before the war went nuclear in any capacity. Their actions after the nuclear strikes do not follow that of a country wounded by the Soviets. No cooperation with NATO in Europe, in fact they invade two NATO countries (Germany and the Netherlands), they carve out a new power-bloc with Belgium in Africa, they send a fully functional and well equipped military expeditionary force to the Middle East in direct rivalry to CENCOM and the RDF, and they support French separatists in Canada.

Those actions occurred after the nukes, and the "invasion" of the Netherlands and Germany were little more than a realignment of the border to the river - a geographical obstacle they could use to repel the hordes of refugees. Makes perfect sense to me, and is certainly understandable, if not even forgiveable.
As for the middle east, why does any country send troops? Oil, a resource France, like every other country, really, really needs. It'd be astonishing if they didn't have a presence there!

Originally Posted by RN7

Their main launching site is in Kourou in French Guyana which is in South America. Latin America wasn't nuked in T2K and if Kourou was nuked why did did the Soviets miss the Panama Canal?

In 2.x Chile and Brazil nuked each other. Where did they get those weapons? Was part of that deal a deniable requirement to attack French interests (Nato may have wanted a bit of payback for France abandoning them, and the Soviets to deny a historical ally of their enemy certain vital facilities and resources).

And what about conventional attacks? Not everything has to be nuked, not when conventional explosives emplaced by saboteurs will do the job. Nukes against French interests may prompt retaliation in kind, while sabotage may be either ignored in the big picture, or illicit a similar "low scale" retaliation by commandos.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I'll add some fuel to this fire by pointing out that there are inventories of replacement satellites kept in parking orbits for situations where segments of satellite networks fail. Backups, if you will, that can be maneuvered into place where a former satellite was.

This still takes a lot of work on the ground presuming the backups weren't hit, too. Also you'd have to wonder if the backup satellites weren't already moved into place.

But it is worth considering.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

Also you'd have to wonder if the backup satellites weren't already moved into place.

Probably were if they could be - and hit by the same ASATs and shrapnel that took out the originals.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Those actions occurred after the nukes, and the "invasion" of the Netherlands and Germany were little more than a realignment of the border to the river - a geographical obstacle they could use to repel the hordes of refugees. Makes perfect sense to me, and is certainly understandable, if not even forgiveable. As for the middle east, why does any country send troops? Oil, a resource France, like every other country, really, really needs. It'd be astonishing if they didn't have a presence there!

France left the Atlantic Alliance a year before the nukes and remained completely neutral in the war. If France got nuked by the Soviets it would not be invading the Netherlands and Germany or would it have the resources to send an intervention force the size of what it does to the Middle East.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

In 2.x Chile and Brazil nuked each other. Where did they get those weapons? Was part of that deal a deniable requirement to attack French interests (Nato may have wanted a bit of payback for France abandoning them, and the Soviets to deny a historical ally of their enemy certain vital facilities and resources).

Is there some reference to French Guyana been nuked?

Brazil: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/brazil/nuke.htm

Chile??? I duno where they would get nukes from, but I don't think French Guyana would be on their list.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

And what about conventional attacks? Not everything has to be nuked, not when conventional explosives emplaced by saboteurs will do the job. Nukes against French interests may prompt retaliation in kind, while sabotage may be either ignored in the big picture, or illicit a similar "low scale" retaliation by commandos.

France still has a fully functional (or near enough) armed forces in T2K, including an air force and navy. T2K lists a lot of French land forces in the nearby Caribbean and French Guyana. I would say they also have enough air and naval forces around their main rocket lunching site to make anyone think twice about attacking it. France also has nuclear forces.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

Is there some reference to French Guyana been nuked?

Not directly, no, just the reference to neutrals being attacked to remove those assets for enemy use. It's up to the individual GM to decide for themselves if if was hit or not. There is a case for it, though it's debatable how strong that case is.
For my game world, it's getting hit in some way, although probably just a conventional guerilla attack on fuel storage or something like that which would take the facility out of action for a few years. Rocket fuel isn't the most stable of substances...

[Rainbow Six]

Disclaimer - I do not have any books in front of me - all of this is from memory so I can't quote page numbers etc. Someone that does have the relevant books and cares enough to check can likely verify (or not) the following (Legbreaker?)

Originally Posted by RN7

Is there some reference to French Guyana been nuked?

I think there is a reference to French Guyana in the V2 NATO vehicle guide. IIRC it mentions that there's a large detachment of Foreign Legion troops providing security for the Space Centre. I don't think it specifically says whether or not said Space Centre is intact or not so each individual would need to draw their own conclusions as to whether a large detachment of Foreign Legion troops would be tasked to provide security for either a) an at least semi functional site or b) a pile of radioactive ruins.

I choose to go for A.

Originally Posted by RN7

Chile??? I duno where they would get nukes from, but I don't think French Guyana would be on their list.

From memory it was Brazil and Argentina that had a nuclear exchange, not Brazil and Chile.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Gateway to the Spanish Main: SSN Corpus Christian
Last sub series: SSN-705 City of Corpus Christi

Similar names granted, but definitely different.

Or a typo.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by Olefin

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.

Originally Posted by Olefin

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.

Originally Posted by Olefin

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