Russians want to place GPS tracking stations on US Soil, and John Kerry wants to let them....

[Guest TankerHC]

The CIA is fighting the State Department to put a stop to it. Thing is, when I first saw this thought it had to be a joke or some tin foil hat crap. But its now popping up all over on legit sites, like here on the New York Times.

 

"In the view of America’s spy services, the next potential threat from Russia may not come from a nefarious cyberweapon or secrets gleaned from the files of Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor now in Moscow. Instead, this menace may come in the form of a seemingly innocuous dome-topped antenna perched atop an electronics-packed building surrounded by a security fence somewhere in the United States. In recent months, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon have been quietly waging a campaign to stop the State Department from allowing Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, to build about half a dozen of these structures, known as monitor stations, on United States soil"

 

 

So the Russians dont want to have to rely on our Sattelites for GPS, they just want their monitering stations on our soil.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/world/europe/a-russian-gps-using-us-soil-stirs-spy-fears.html?_r=0

[Wyldk2]

Personally, if this happens it is an act of treason by those in the federal government and anyone who allows this to happen needs to be hanged( Would have suggested firing squad, but we need to save as much ammo as possible). Rope is a lot cheaper than bullets, these days.

[Guest ThePunisher]

Another action to accelerate the destruction of our country. It seems you can't make up this stupidity, but it's happening more frequently in our government. And the people are still asleep while the ships is sinking.

[Mark@Sea]

The Russian GPS system (GLONASS) is incompatible with ours.  Also, it isn't as accurate as ours.  By a significant factor.  Fewer birds, for one thing.

 

These monitoring stations would be useful in determining error rates INCONUS, which in turn would be useful to anyone in the US using a GLONASS receiver.  There aren't a whole lot of Russian smartphones in the states (approx. zero, at a guess).  Hmmm, what other devices might use Russian GPS and could benefit from terminal error correction?  Gee, I'm stumped.

[RichardR]

The Russian GPS system (GLONASS) is incompatible with ours. Also, it isn't as accurate as ours. By a significant factor. Fewer birds, for one thing.

These monitoring stations would be useful in determining error rates INCONUS, which in turn would be useful to anyone in the US using a GLONASS receiver. There aren't a whole lot of Russian smartphones in the states (approx. zero, at a guess). Hmmm, what other devices might use Russian GPS and could benefit from terminal error correction? Gee, I'm stumped.

"Treason doth never prosper: what ’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - Sir. John Harrington.

[BrasilNuts]

“I would like to understand why the United States would be interested in enabling a GPS competitor, like Russian Glonass, when the world’s reliance on GPS is a clear advantage to the United States on multiple levels,” said Representative Mike D. Rogers, Republican of Alabama, the chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee

I would like to know the answer to this as well.

[Guest TankerHC]

The Russian GPS system (GLONASS) is incompatible with ours.  Also, it isn't as accurate as ours.  By a significant factor.  Fewer birds, for one thing.

 

These monitoring stations would be useful in determining error rates INCONUS, which in turn would be useful to anyone in the US using a GLONASS receiver.  There aren't a whole lot of Russian smartphones in the states (approx. zero, at a guess).  Hmmm, what other devices might use Russian GPS and could benefit from terminal error correction?  Gee, I'm stumped.

 

 

They would also be good ELINT sites. 

[JPS]

Come on guys, Putin has way too much respect for Obama to try anything nefarius.

 

 

 

...... :cool:

[GlockSpock]

I use survey grade GPS equipment rather quite often in my line of work. I am not going to try and portray myself as an expert on anything here, but I believe what the Russians are wishing to setup here in this topic are what we refer to as "base stations". In order to triangulate your position on Earth, theoretical minimum number of satellites you need would be three. Four to six are better, and anything above that you are doing great. However, typically speaking, triangulation based upon the satellites alone ss not 100% accurate. Depending on environmental factors, you'd be looking probably .5' to several feet accuracy based upon GPS satellites alone. Most of the time this is ok, but when you are doing survey work you want it as accurate as possible.

 

To increase the accuracy, we tie into what we refer in this field as a "base station". It is essentially a GPS unit (typically permanently installed) that constantly talks to the satellites. Without going into a lot of detail, you can connect your GPS unit to the internet (over Wi-Fi or cellular), and then receive "corrections" from the nearest base station. Typically speaking, the closer you are to the base station the more accurate your surveying. Generally, we get somewhere between .05' and .2' at work.

 

As far as GLONASS not being compatible with "our system", that's not entirely true. The unit I use at work can receive GLONASS signals. GLONASS has it's benefits. I used to use an older Leica unit that did not receive the Russian signals. If I was under heavy tree cover, it was useless. Sometimes (most of the time really) light tree cover would make it useless. The new unit I use (Topcon) is very close to being unaffected by tree cover. Supposedly the GLONASS frequencies penetrate cover better because of the wavelength. We don't use GLONASS much at all because it isn't compatible with the base station we use. However, if we had access to base stations that support GLONASS, I would consider this a good thing.

 

If I am correct regarding them installing base stations, this will typically just increase the accuracy from a few feet to theoretically half an inch. Personally from a surveying point of view, I'd consider this a good thing to happen. The GLONASS satellites themselves have the capability to direct the right form of weaponry within a few feet of intended target (I believe anyway). 

 

Perhaps there is a huge aspect of this that I am unaware of or do not understand correctly, but considering that Russia has plenty of nukes that can wipeout cities regardless of inch accuracy, I am not going to worry about it. There are plenty, plenty of bigger things to worry about in my opinion.

[jwinter]

I use survey grade GPS equipment rather quite often in my line of work. I am not going to try and portray myself as an expert on anything here, but I believe what the Russians are wishing to setup here in this topic are what we refer to as "base stations". In order to triangulate your position on Earth, theoretical minimum number of satellites you need would be three. Four to six are better, and anything above that you are doing great. However, typically speaking, triangulation based upon the satellites alone ss not 100% accurate. Depending on environmental factors, you'd be looking probably .5' to several feet accuracy based upon GPS satellites alone. Most of the time this is ok, but when you are doing survey work you want it as accurate as possible.

 

To increase the accuracy, we tie into what we refer in this field as a "base station". It is essentially a GPS unit (typically permanently installed) that constantly talks to the satellites. Without going into a lot of detail, you can connect your GPS unit to the internet (over Wi-Fi or cellular), and then receive "corrections" from the nearest base station. Typically speaking, the closer you are to the base station the more accurate your surveying. Generally, we get somewhere between .05' and .2' at work.

 

As far as GLONASS not being compatible with "our system", that's not entirely true. The unit I use at work can receive GLONASS signals. GLONASS has it's benefits. I used to use an older Leica unit that did not receive the Russian signals. If I was under heavy tree cover, it was useless. Sometimes (most of the time really) light tree cover would make it useless. The new unit I use (Topcon) is very close to being unaffected by tree cover. Supposedly the GLONASS frequencies penetrate cover better because of the wavelength. We don't use GLONASS much at all because it isn't compatible with the base station we use. However, if we had access to base stations that support GLONASS, I would consider this a good thing.

 

If I am correct regarding them installing base stations, this will typically just increase the accuracy from a few feet to theoretically half an inch. Personally from a surveying point of view, I'd consider this a good thing to happen. The GLONASS satellites themselves have the capability to direct the right form of weaponry within a few feet of intended target (I believe anyway). 

 

Perhaps there is a huge aspect of this that I am unaware of or do not understand correctly, but considering that Russia has plenty of nukes that can wipeout cities regardless of inch accuracy, I am not going to worry about it. There are plenty, plenty of bigger things to worry about in my opinion.

Well said fellow surveyor. I still don't want their stations here though. :usa:

[Wyldk2]

Well said fellow surveyor. I still don't want their stations here though. :usa:

Same from a former 3D mapper, And I don't think most americans will want them here either.

[JWC]

It may be selfish but I'd rather have their GLONASS bases than to cut line for 3 days- eye man's perspective. Just sayin'.