Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!lion.ecn.purdue.edu!milton
From: milton@lion.ecn.purdue.edu (Milton D Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.time.ntp
Subject: Re: 'time' for war
Keywords: Iraq, GPS
Message-ID: <1991Jan17.190654.15179@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
Date: 17 Jan 91 19:06:54 GMT
References: <9101170200.aa15102@louie.udel.edu>
   <9101171132.aa10312@huey.udel.edu> <48202@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@noose.ecn.purdue.edu (USENET news)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Lines: 84

In article <9101170200.aa15102@louie.udel.edu> Shaw@udel.edu (Mark Shaw) writes:
>Philisophically, scientifically, or just for a laugh ...
>How is time effected by war?
>

In article <9101171132.aa10312@huey.udel.edu> Mills@udel.edu writes:
>Colin,
>
>We will know the status of timekeeping in the Gulf more precisely
>when we learn the fate of the LORAN-C station in Kuwait operated
>by the previous government.
>
>Dave

I found this article posted by Patty Winter for Phil Karn; it is
not quite your question, but sort of the reverse: not how
does war affect time, but how does time affect war.
milton

>From: winter@apple.com (Patty Winter)
>Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio
>Subject: Attack planning by celestial navigation? (P. Karn)
>Message-ID: <48202@apple.Apple.COM>
>Date: 17 Jan 91 07:38:19 GMT
>Sender: winter@Apple.COM
>Reply-To: karn@thumper.bellcore.com

In article <48202@apple.Apple.COM> karn@thumper.bellcore.com writes:
>
>
>[Phil's news server is acting up tonight so he asked me to post this
>for him. His copy will probably show up on the net eventually. --pw]
>
>
>Tuesday afternoon I read in Aviation Week that only 10 of the DoD's planned
>18 Global Positioning System (GPS) block II satellites have been launched
>and were operational. This means that the GPS navigation service is not yet
>continuous world wide.
>
>It suddenly occurred to me that GPS coverage windows might be a factor in
>the timing of the US attack on Iraq and Kuwait; especially at the beginning
>of an nighttime air attack, precise and accurate navigation would be very
>important.
>
>Since I have both the GPS operational status listing and a complete set of
>GPS satellite orbital elements, I thought it might be interesting to run off
>a set of GPS coverage windows for Baghdad. Unfortunately I didn't have time
>to write the program until well after the attack had begun tonight, but I
>think the results are still very interesting.
>
>A GPS receiver requires at least 4 satellites to be visible simultaneously
>in order to produce an unambigous fix in latitude, longitude, altitude and
>time. (Theoretically, you need only three satellites if you have an
>accurate, i.e., atomic, clock in the receiver. But lots of civilian GPS
>receivers have been shipped to Saudi Arabia, and these certainly don't have
>atomic clocks.)
>
>Here are the results.
>
>Sunset in Baghdad occurred at about 1500 UTC on Wednesday the 16th (6pm
>local time).  At that time, there was four satellite coverage. This lasted
>about two hours, when there was a 10 minute period in which only three
>satellites were visible, and then four satellite coverage returned for
>another hour.
>
>However, at that point, coverage got much poorer (at one point consisting of
>only one satellite) until 2240 UTC when three satellites returned. Four
>satellites returned at 0040 UTC.  At least four satellites were then visible
>until 0320 UTC. Four satellite coverage returned at 0600 UTC.
>
>The actual attack on Baghdad started at 0000 UTC on the 17th. It seems to
>have lasted for several hours. And now a report on CNN right now (0612 UTC)
>says that a second wave might be starting.
>
>Hmmm. Could it be...?
>
>The region does have good continuous Loran-C coverage from permanent sites
>in Saudi Arabia, and of course inertial navigation is probably available in
>every US military plane and missiles. On the other hand, GPS is the most
>accurate navigation system ever built. Its availability might have been a
>factor in planning, especially given the billions of dollars that the DoD
>has invested in it so far...
>
>Phil