GPS outage could cost $1 billion per day, study finds

[mongeese]

The big picture: It shouldn’t surprise anyone to know just how dependent on technology the American economy is, but what you should be thinking about is how poorly these systems are protected. Last April, a basic mistake nearly crashed old GPS systems as their 20-year timers reset themselves, providing a chilling reminder of the Y2K bug. Severe space weather or hackers could also take out the entire GPS network pretty quickly – but what are the consequences?

A state-sponsored study into the use of GPS in the US can answer that question. In the first day, not much would happen. The second day, cellular networks start falling out of sync and shipping, mining, and agriculture industries grind to a halt. By the third day, most networks are down and the problem is inescapable, causing losses of almost $1 billion. Each day more networks fail, communications are severed, navigation errors delay more shipments and more money goes down the drain. Over the course of a typical month, damages would be in the ballpark of $1 billion per day, or up to $1.5 billion during key months in agriculture.

Since 1984, when the GPS network was opened up to commercial use, its value in the US economy has increased exponentially. While GPS technology has generated (very) roughly $1,354 billion from 1984 to 2017, over $300 billion was created in 2017. Approximately 90% of its value has appeared since 2010.

The largest user has been telecommunications, which employed the GPS network to “improve reliability and bandwidth utilization” to make $685,990 million. Next was telematics, which is everyone that uses GPS to increase efficiency and save money in otherwise unrelated areas, which made $325,182 million. Third was you and I, who’ve made companies like Google $215,702 million by using GPS in our smartphones and devices.

The ubiquity of GPS technology, and its foreign competitors is not to be understated. While only some industries rely on it heavily, such as telecommunications which require it to sync and control their networks, it has replaced almost every other positioning and timing technology due to its convenience. Even the maritime industry, which could use other technologies just fine, is now completely dependent. Let’s just hope that the unthinkable doesn’t happen, and the GPS network stays switched on and without fault.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80529-gps-outage-could-cost-1-billion-day-study.html

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Massive solar flare, rogue state attack, meteor cloud - not unthinkable. So we should at least 'think about it'.

 

[p51d007]

As long as the sun is quiet....cycle 24, which is ending has been VERY quiet, 25, appears to be headed to being as quiet as 24, which should "help" keep the satellites protected from CME's.
Some ***** in their basement on the other hand, acting a a client of a rouge state, could take the entire thing down if they figure out how to hack it. When the GPS was first put up, the programmers probably never really dreamed someone would want to take it down. If it did go down, I'd say about 90% of those that depend on it for whatever reason, couldn't use a paper map if they had to. Yeah, I know GPS is used for more than finding your way from point A to B, but you get my drift. If GPS, power grid, gas/oil/trucking went down and there were no way to move goods from point A to B, many people, especially those in more urban areas, would DIE because they don't have and haven't had the skills taught to them (for obvious reasons) on how to survive.

 

[Nobina]

Massive solar flare, rogue state attack, meteor cloud - not unthinkable. So we should at least 'think about it'.

Can't forget alien invasion.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Can't forget alien invasion.

I'll count on you to do the thinking on that.

 

[Skjorn]

Did I just read 686 thousand million. Wouldn't that be 686 billion?

 

[yeeeeman]

No problem in my country, we still have human drivers on tractors and on combines harvesters.

 

[Uncle Al]

My biggest concern is all the space junk there now and all those little satellite's that are soon to be launched; I know it's a big sky up there but it's filling up fast ......

 

[psycros]

No problem in my country, we still have human drivers on tractors and on combines harvesters.

Right? I haven't used GPS in years. I refuse to depend on it and life is just fine.

My biggest concern is all the space junk there now and all those little satellite's that are soon to be launched; I know it's a big sky up there but it's filling up fast ......

You really have no idea how big space is. To cause the problem you suggest, we would have to deplete the entire Earth of metal, including the core, 100 times over and stick it all in geosynchronous orbit for that to be a problem.

Actually the space junk is becoming a serious problem. It all has to be tracked and some countries don't report what they put up to international authorities. Anything military launched by China, N Korea, etc is almost certain to be kept quiet. Thankfully the western nations have the technology to detect it anyway. Further, you've people like Elon Musk wanting to put thousands of micro-sats in orbit which only complicates things.

 

[wiyosaya]

You are talking about problems in low-Earth orbit regions. GPS satellites operate in geosynchronous orbit, which is much further out. Orbital debris is not a problem out there.

Um, no, they are not in geosynchronous orbit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

The space segment (SS) is composed of 24 to 32 satellites in medium Earth orbit and also includes the payload adapters to the boosters required to launch them into orbit.

 

[bluetooth fairy]

Can't forget alien invasion.

I'll count on you to do the thinking on that.

It was sarcasm by Torus, I guess,

 

[bluetooth fairy]

Over the course of a typical month, damages would be in the ballpark of $1 billion per day, or up to $1.5 billion during key months in agriculture.

US with the help of other countries (Russia, China, India, etc) could launch needed satellites again. I'm pointing on this because they are probably also dependent on GPS infrastructure.

When a problem is global it is solving by combined efforts.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Over the course of a typical month, damages would be in the ballpark of $1 billion per day, or up to $1.5 billion during key months in agriculture.

US with the help of other countries (Russia, China, India, etc) could launch needed satellites again. I'm pointing on this because they are probably also dependent on GPS infrastructure.

When a problem is global it is solving by combined efforts.

Which is why it is important to prepare for the alien invasion.

 

[Lew Zealand]

No problem in my country, we still have human drivers on tractors and on combines harvesters.

In our country, tractors have GPS and soil analysis detectors on them so you know how much of each fertilizer component to use both this year and next. Keeps waste, runoff, and prices down.

 

[yeeeeman]

In our country, tractors have GPS and soil analysis detectors on them so you know how much of each fertilizer component to use both this year and next. Keeps waste, runoff, and prices down.

In my country, people use old seeds from a few generations back that aren't genetically modified and have a much better taste. Here people care more about health and less about getting rich. At least not from the food we all eat. So, frankly, I am happy we are still in the pre tech age when it comes to agriculture.

 

[H4nz0]

Over the course of a typical month, damages would be in the ballpark of $1 billion per day, or up to $1.5 billion during key months in agriculture.

US with the help of other countries (Russia, China, India, etc) could launch needed satellites again. I'm pointing on this because they are probably also dependent on GPS infrastructure.

When a problem is global it is solving by combined efforts.

Russia, China and India have their own satellite navigational systems (GLONASS, BeiDou and IRNSS respectively) and require support of these systems from manufacturers of devices being sold in their territories.

 

[wiyosaya]

Um, no, they are not in geosynchronous orbit - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

My mistake. However that does not change my point. Orbital debris problems generally only effect low-earth orbit because that is where most(if no all) launch system stages have separation procedures which is what creates most of the debris in orbit. Medium, Geo-stationary and high orbital areas do not have nearly as much debris because of this..

Space junk is a problem. IMO, characterizing it like this:

You really have no idea how big space is. To cause the problem you suggest, we would have to deplete the entire Earth of metal, including the core, 100 times over and stick it all in geosynchronous orbit for that to be a problem.

under-estimates the problem. Though there is less junk in medium earth orbit, there is still junk there.
In particular, this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford
All junk is not tracked - especially small particles. At the speeds orbital that these particles travel, even a small particle could easily take out a satellite especially if it hit on the right trajectory. KE = 1/2mv^2. At orbital speeds, that v squares to a very large value.
More on space junk:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_debris
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/reference/space-junk/

 

[ZipperBoi]

No problem in my country, we still have human drivers on tractors and on combines harvesters.

This is the same for rural America. Farmers in my home town still drive themselves and only a few use any form of GPS when planting or harvesting. Our main ag would be fine.

 

[Lew Zealand]

In my country, people use old seeds from a few generations back that aren't genetically modified and have a much better taste. Here people care more about health and less about getting rich. At least not from the food we all eat. So, frankly, I am happy we are still in the pre tech age when it comes to agriculture.

Psst..... all seeds are genetically modified.

However if you want to play the "natural is better" game, feel free to go back to the wild variants of your food crops and attempt to eat those. Half contain tiny fractions of the nutrients and calories you need and the other half contain enough natural toxins to make them less healthy than eating nothing.

 

[wiyosaya]

Psst..... all seeds are genetically modified.

However if you want to play the "natural is better" game, feel free to go back to the wild variants of your food crops and attempt to eat those. Half contain tiny fractions of the nutrients and calories you need and the other half contain enough natural toxins to make them less healthy than eating nothing.

http://www.etcgroup.org/whowillfeedus

 

[Lew Zealand]

http://www.etcgroup.org/whowillfeedus

Yup, all of whom use genetically modified seeds to plant their crops.

 

[Roush60]

The biggest impact at first would be trans-oceanic shipping. I bet there is no one alive in the maritime services that knows how to use star charts, a sextant and a compass to plot a position on the earth's oceans. These skills were once required for any captain and or pilot for any ship that travelled out of sight of any land mass on the earth, whether it be an island or continent. How many adults these days know how to read a paper road map? Probably not many and certainly even less if they are younger than 35 to 40 years old.

 

[Markoni35]

Almost all cellphones and similar devices in the world support at least American GPS and Russian GLONASS. Optionally other systems as well. So if one of them shuts down, the device can use another one. But if you have a device that can only use GPS then the blame for your losses is completely on you.

 

[yeeeeman]

Psst..... all seeds are genetically modified.

However if you want to play the "natural is better" game, feel free to go back to the wild variants of your food crops and attempt to eat those. Half contain tiny fractions of the nutrients and calories you need and the other half contain enough natural toxins to make them less healthy than eating nothing.

Lol. Maybe in your country. Here, old people have kept their seeds from parent and grand parents, so they are not genetically modified. Also, the nutrition facts is purely speculation on your part. You don't need a lab analysis to say that non GMO food is much better.
Matter of the fact is that the food industry in big countries cares only about business and as a result food is utterly crap.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Lol. Maybe in your country. Here, old people have kept their seeds from parent and grand parents, so they are not genetically modified. Also, the nutrition facts is purely speculation on your part. You don't need a lab analysis to say that non GMO food is much better.
Matter of the fact is that the food industry in big countries cares only about business and as a result food is utterly crap.

You might want to look up the definition of genetically modified.

All crops have been genetically modified from their original (wild type) state by selective breeding of mutations. All crops, even your parents and grandparents seeds. This selection for favorable mutations has been done for over 10,000 years and all of our crops differ significantly from their original natural states. By human selection of induced mutations. That's how it works.

The nutrition changes are easily confirmed by comparing, say wild teosinte to maize. One of those has orders of magnitude more calories in it than the other. Hint: it's maize.

Nowadays there are more directed means of speeding up those induced mutations and the selective breeding as well as direct genetic changes to cut out that middleman, but the end result is the same: selection for favorable mutations and increased genetic distance from the original wild types.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Done.


You just described selective-breeding, not genetic modification. Genetic modification is the direct change of the DNA strand itself. And wait for it...


You just confirmed that in your very own statement, simultaneously contradicting yourself in the process.

Nope. Reading comprehension, dude.

Selective breeding required an already extant *genetic modification* to select for. The source of those *genetic modifications* is mutation. Some sources of that mutation are random DNA copying mistakes, sun (UV) induced mutations, and environmental mutagens. Those environmental mutagens can be something extant in nature or something that people give the plant to induce mutation at a higher rate.

Of course you can also nowadays splice in genes or use CRISPR to induce site-specific mutations as well to speed up the process. But in the end, you need to make a change and then select for it in the wider population using breeding.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Look, I totally get where you're coming from and it's all part of the "natural is better" idea which has merit. The problem is that "natural is better" is drawing an arbitrary line in the sand. We have been selecting for genetic mutations in crops for 10,000 years and have changed the genetics of the plants that we eat, all without modern methods. Those crops are hugely changed from their "natural" counterparts, so any argument for "natural" is already off the mark.

The argument is then against more modern, directed methods of making the same genetic changes in crops and because our parents and grandparents didn't make the genetic changes this way (they just used other ways), that is somehow bad.

So we argue about the means when the end is still the same thing.

 

[Markoni35]

Lew Zealand, it always makes me angry when someone compares selective breeding and direct messing with DNA as identical. Because there are 3 very important distinctions:

1. Nature allows only mild genetic modifications. A dog and a cat can make love, but they will have no offspring. A mule and a horse can't produce any offsprings. Putting a piece of corn into a giraffe's vagina won't make any corn-giraffe hybrids either. In nature, huge changes only happen over thousands or millions of years.

2. Since natural genetic mutations are so slow, animals and humans eating those plants have thousands or millions of years to adapt to the changes. As opposed to that, GMO changes made in labs are so huge and quickly introduced that there's no time for adaptations, causing the unsuspecting population to get all kinds of diseases and conditions. Which means that avoiding GMO labeling is a crime against humanity. People fighting against GMO labeling should be prosecuted same way as Nazis.

3. GMO is almost always related to a specific pesticide. Which means a diluted military poison. And that's not good for your health. You don't believe me? Here, Monsanto has just lost the case where their product caused cancer to an elderly couple. They have to pay them 2 billion dollars. Yes, that's two billions, or two thousands millions dollars):
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...nto-cancer-verdict-billion-glyphosate-roundup

The verdict above also spits in the eye of all those naive people who though that GMO tests were "independent, scientific and peer-reviewed". Because now we know all those "respectable independent studies conducted over the 30 years period" were scam. It just shows how easily science can be corrupt if you have enough money and power.

 

[Lew Zealand]

Lew Zealand, it always makes me angry when someone compares selective breeding and direct messing with DNA as identical. Because there are 3 very important distinctions:

1. Nature allows only mild genetic modifications. A dog and a cat can make love, but they will have no offspring. A mule and a horse can't produce any offsprings. Putting a piece of corn into a giraffe's vagina won't make any corn-giraffe hybrids either. In nature, huge changes only happen over thousands or millions of years.

Except when they don't. Sometimes big chunks of DNA are altered, duplicated, or removed. Yes, by "nature." And those big, single-event changes are often advantageous in some circumstances and disadvantageous in others, thus offering different conditions for natural or artificial selection to occur.

And cross species DNA transfer has been happening since the beginning, thanks to viruses and bacteria acting as the middlemen. But thanks for the colorful strawmen you constructed.

2. Since natural genetic mutations are so slow, animals and humans eating those plants have thousands or millions of years to adapt to the changes. As opposed to that, GMO changes made in labs are so huge and quickly introduced that there's no time for adaptations, causing the unsuspecting population to get all kinds of diseases and conditions. Which means that avoiding GMO labeling is a crime against humanity. People fighting against GMO labeling should be prosecuted same way as Nazis.

Godwin's Law invoked! Not much more to say here, your mind is made up and appears closed to other opinions, or *gasp* science.

Name a Disease that has was caused by eating a GMO food.

It's people like you who prevent children from getting GMO golden rice which effectively reduces a Vitamin A deficiency that leads to blindness in thousands of malnourished children. But that's OK, let them go blind, right?

3. GMO is almost always related to a specific pesticide. Which means a diluted military poison. And that's not good for your health. You don't believe me? Here, Monsanto has just lost the case where their product caused cancer to an elderly couple. They have to pay them 2 billion dollars. Yes, that's two billions, or two thousands millions dollars):
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...nto-cancer-verdict-billion-glyphosate-roundup

Yup, they certainly did. That was about pesticides, not GMOs. But I see you trying to conflate those in your sentence.

But that's a legal case and the mechanism of liability in legal cases has *nothing* to do with how the science works. Put another way, I do not ask a lawyer abotu scientific concepts and do not ask a scientist for legal advice.

Or put another way: Please point to the scientific study that proves that glyphosate causes cancer. A legal decision proves nothing scientifically. I want the science.

The verdict above also spits in the eye of all those naive people who though that GMO tests were "independent, scientific and peer-reviewed". Because now we know all those "respectable independent studies conducted over the 30 years period" were scam. It just shows how easily science can be corrupt if you have enough money and power.

A legal verdict. Like the OJ case. Like many other cases which proved one thing to a jury: lawyers can convince you of almost anything.

The point of doing the science is to prove the cause and effect. Legal proceedings do not do that, their job is to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. And because you may be motivated to argue conspiracy (OK, which you already did): Scientists love to prove scientists wrong, it makes careers. I would like to see the scientific study proving GMOs cause any disease. Because there's a lot of motivation to do just that.