Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!sri-unix!Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g.arpa From: Howard.Gayle@cmu-cs-g.arpa Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Relative costs of Geostar and Navstar Message-ID: <742@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Sat, 4-Aug-84 07:30:29 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.742 Posted: Sat Aug 4 07:30:29 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 6-Aug-84 05:42:19 EDT Lines: 23 I don't understand why Geostar users will, at least in principle, pay so much less than Navstar users. (Note that I am talking here about direct costs to the user, like hardware and user fees. I exclude indirect costs like the taxes that pay for the Navstar satellites.) A Geostar transceiver consists of an antenna, a receiver, a processor, a display, and a transmitter. A Navstar receiver consists of the same functional units, but without the transmitter section and its relatively expensive, high peak power components. A Navstar receiver contains a much more complex processor, but this is just silicon, so once mass production starts, i.e., once the custom VLSI design is done, this should be negligible. Geostar will charge a user fee, but DOD has announced that there will be no user fee for Navstar. A Navstar receiver will probably have a simpler antenna, since it will not need to handle transmitter power. A Geostar transceiver will probably need an FCC radio station license. Present military Navstar prototype receivers are, of course, very expensive, but Aviation Week is already talking about pocket size receivers. I expect the Japanese to produce a pocket size Navstar receiver for well under $1000 (1984 dollars). I would like to read technical replies to this post, but please no flames about DOD stupidity, Free Enterprise, etc.