GPS World

Category: Defense

  • Tip Line Encourages Public Participation in the Fight Against GPS Jammers

    Washington, D.C. — The Federal Communications Commission’s Enforcement Bureau today launched a dedicated jammer tip line – 1-855-55-NOJAM (or 1-855-556-6526) – to make it easier for the public to report the use or sale of illegal GPS, cell phone or other signal jammers. It is against the law for consumers to use, import, advertise, sell or ship a GPS or cell jammer or any other type of device that blocks, jams or interferes with authorized communications, whether on private or public property.

    The FCC asks people to call the toll-free Jammer Tip Line immediately if:

    • you are aware of the ongoing use of a cell, GPS, or other signal jammer;
    • your employer operates a jammer in your workplace;
    • you observe a jammer in operation at your school or college;
    • you observe an advertisement for a jammer at a local store; or
    • you observe a jammer being operated on your local bus, train or other mass transit system.

    “We need consumers to be our eyes and ears. Jammers do not just weed out noisy or annoying conversations and disable unwanted GPS tracking, they can prevent 9-1-1 and other emergency phone calls from getting through in a time of need,” Michele Ellison, chief of the Enforcement Bureau, said.

    Calls to the Jammer Tip Line will be handled by experienced Enforcement Bureau staff. Callers are encouraged to provide as much detail as possible, including the time and location of the incident, a description of the jamming device (if available), and the name and contact information of the individual or business using or selling the device.

    While callers may remain anonymous, the bureau urges callers to provide a contact phone number in case additional information is needed. “Every tip can make a difference,” Ellison said. “While our agents are actively pursuing these violations online and on the street, you can help. We encourage concerned parents, commuters, employees, and anyone else with credible information to tip us off. Working together, we can stop the spread of illegal jammers.

    For more information, Frequently Asked Questions about cell, GPS, and Wi-Fi jammers are available at www.fcc.gov/jammers, or email [email protected].

  • USAF Awards Four Contracts To Improve GPS Performance

    The U.S. Air Force is investing to improve the Global Positioning System (GPS) used worldwide for military and civilian purposes.

    Between Sept. 28 and Oct. 1, the Air Force announced four new GPS contracts.

    Three were in the $30 million range, including contracts to Rockwell Collins and L-3 Communications to test and engineer new GPS technology, while Raytheon was awarded just under $30 million to develop receiver cards for GPS systems. Honeywell International also received a $14 million contract for engineering services related to GPS.

    Maintained by the Air Force, the GPS is used in everything from civilian car navigation to targeting for military weapon systems. The only competition for the American GPS is the Russian GLONASS system, although the European Union is currently developing its own system, nicknamed Galileo.

    The contracts were announced days before the Oct. 4 launch that put the first new GPS satellite of 2012 into orbit. That satellite, a Boeing-designed GPS IFF, improves on navigational accuracy, provides a more secure military signal and has a longer design life than older satellite models. It should deploy fully in about three months.

  • Trimble’s Yuma 2 Rugged Tablet Provides Full Office Capabilities

    Logo: Trimble
    Logo: Trimble

    Trimble introduced today the Yuma 2 rugged tablet computer, which it says is a powerful mobile computing solution that provides full office capabilities in the field for construction, transportation, public safety, field service, forestry, utilities, mapping, insurance and any other outdoor or service-related industry.

    The Yuma 2 offers a seven-inch capacitive multi-touchscreen in an easy-to-hold form factor that measures 6.3 x 9.6 inches, and weighs less than three pounds. Featuring new display technology for clearer readability in direct sunlight, the Yuma 2 can be used by mobile workers in the brightest outdoor conditions. The 3.75G dual-mode cellular data capability enables connectivity anywhere GSM or CDMA cellular networks are available.

    Featuring the Microsoft Windows 7 Professional operating system, the Yuma 2 is a fully functional field computer with a 1.6-GHz Intel Atom dual-core processor, 4 GB of DDR3 DRAM, a 64-GB solid state drive (SSD), and a dual battery with eight hours of typical run-time. Optional features include a 128-GB SSD, 3.75G cellular data connectivity and an extended battery set that provides up to 16 hours of operation.

    With the multi-touch capacitive touchscreen, users can type with fingers, stylus, or capacitive gloves and can control the size of the keyboard on the display for ease of use. Controlled zoom can optimize the user experience with maps and detailed information. The display supports use in landscape or portrait mode and is configurable to hold the orientation or to alter it in response to the accelerometer. The 5-megapixel camera provides video and photo capture with geotagging. The GPS receiver provides 2 to 4 meter accuracy, and is designed for data collection in applications such as distributed asset management, work order management, fleet logistics and more.

    “Ruggedness and connectivity in the field are vital for mobile workers — and Trimble has a history of providing innovative computing solutions to the market,” said Jim Sheldon, general manager of Trimble’s Mobile Computing Solutions Division. “Today, users demand solutions that are even tougher, faster, more reliable and easier to use, so they can be more efficient and productive. With new features and functionality, the Yuma 2 is an ideal solution that provides even more computing power to mobile professionals — more memory, computing speed, drive capacity, connectivity options and better display readability.”

    As with other Trimble rugged mobile computers, the Yuma 2 meets stringent MIL-STD-810G military standards for drops, vibration and humidity; and with an IP65 rating, it is protected against dust and water.

    Four different configurations are available to provide the tablet that meets the right need at the right price. Options include a larger SSD and 3.75G GSM and CDMA cellular data capability, as well as three different color schemes.

    The Trimble Yuma 2 tablet computer is expected to be available early in the fourth quarter of 2012.

  • NovAtel Announces New SPAN MEMS Enclosed Receiver

    Photo: NovAtel
    Photo: NovAtel

    Today at Intergeo, NovAtel Inc., NovAtel announced the addition of a new commercially exportable single-enclosure SPAN MEMS receiver to its line of SPAN GNSS/INS products. Available in the first quarter of 2013, the low-power, lightweight SPAN MEMS enclosure incorporates a diminutive Micro Electromechanical Systems (MEMS) Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and a NovAtel high-precision OEM615 GNSS/INS SPAN receiver to provide continuously available position, velocity and attitude (roll, pitch and yaw) in a small, single-unit form factor, the company announced.

    “This product ensures we meet crucial price/performance and size/weight requirements for our customers,” Jason Hamilton, director of Marketing at NovAtel, said. He added, “By integrating this IMU with our powerful OEM6 GNSS/INS SPAN engine, which provides many advanced positioning options such as AdVance RTK, ALIGN heading technology and RAIM, we are able to offer a GNSS/INS solution for a wide range of applications.”

    The lightweight SPAN MEMS enclosure provides a rugged housing for demanding applications. Serial and USB communication interfaces plus several I/O options support additional peripherals. An embedded wheel sensor interface is also available to enhance GNSS outage bridging capabilities. Tight coupling of the GNSS and inertial technologies enables continuous, robust positioning in difficult environments where satellite signals are unreliable or unavailable for short periods of time.

    This product will be available as an integrated single-enclosure SPAN solution, enclosed standalone IMU for use with external SPAN-enabled receivers, and as an OEM component.

    Shipments of the new receiver start Q1 2013 with OEM availability Q4 2012. A limited supply of enclosure evaluation units will be available in Q4 for integrators looking to get a head start on their projects.

  • ION, LightSquared, and GPS IIF-3

    Headshot: Don Jewell
    Headshot: Don Jewell

    By Don Jewell

    It had to happen sometime. I just thought or hoped it might take a few more years.

    But I guess I should not be surprised since I experienced a wonderful 30-year U.S. Air Force (USAF) career and that has been over for more than a decade. I have been working GPS issues since 1978. So I guess it should not have come as a surprise when just a couple of weeks ago a wet-behind-the-ears USAF 2nd Lieutenant actually inquired of me, in a public GPS-related forum no less, “So, what did you do in the war, granddad?”

    Several irreverent and potentially satisfying responses immediately came to mind:

    1. I am not your granddad.
    2. Where do you get off asking me a question in that tone of voice?
    3. Frankly, it is none of your business.

    Instead, I simply inquired, “Which one?” This obviously unexpected response necessitated a long pause while the offender, a now obviously-easily-confused 2nd Lieutenant, ruminated about which war(s) to inquire. For my part I was ready to hit him over the head with my cane if he responded with WWII. Of course I would probably have been accused of child abuse, so he saved the day and a possible court date when he replied in a questioning falsetto, “Vietnam?”

    I won’t bore you with my response. However, since that unfortunate “age discrimination” incident (from both parties), it has occurred to me that many of us who were privileged to experience GPS in its infancy are certainly not spring chickens. Indeed, many (Dr. Ivan Getting for one) have passed on to their great reward. Remember, Professor (Colonel) USAF Ret. Bradford Parkinson, who created and ran the NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office from 1972 to 1978, was a full colonel in 1972. However, that says nothing about commitment or expertise. Most of us, Brad included, are still as engaged and passionate about the future of GPS as we ever were. Consider that the first satellite in the system, Navstar 1, was launched February 22, 1978. In just a few months the GPS operational constellation will be 35 years old, and Air Force Space Command is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year. My point being that few operational space systems, if any, engender this type of lifelong loyalty, passion and dedication. Plus, those of us who count ourselves among the original sojourners on this amazing journey, especially those who are graying and threatening to beat impertinent whippersnappers with canes, are actually very proud of the fact that we are still engaged, and even more amazed and heartened that there’s a generation of young USAF and other military personnel, engineers, scientists, inventors, and everyday believers to follow in our footsteps. I highlight the USAF personnel because they are the official stewards of GPS.

    Indeed, at the recent ION GNSS Conference held it Nashville, Tennessee, it was apparent that many of the youngsters (many of whom are Ph.D.s) are just as engaged as we are. They see a future for GPS and PNT (position, navigation and timing) systems that we may never have imagined. As prescient as many of us “seniors” claim to be, I have no doubt, indeed I fervently hope, that the young men and women following in our footsteps will achieve feats with GPS and PNT systems of which we never dared dream.

    ION GNSS 2012 – Nashville

    I state here without equivocation or worry of being challenged that the plenary at this year’s event, which was titled “GNSS Revolution, the Catalyst of the New Information Age,” was the best I have ever encountered at any ION event in the past twenty years. Dr. Jade Morton from Miami University was an excellent moderator and kept the program moving along, but it was the presenters, their evident, extensible passion for their subjects and their excellent presentations (see list below) that made the night unforgettable:

    1. High Precision Agriculture: Tony Thelen, Director of Intelligent Solutions Group, John Deere
    2. Crime, Punishment, and the Global Positioning System: Professor David Last, Crime Consultant Engineer and Professor Emeritus, University of Bangor, UK
    3. Precision Navigation Sensors Based on Atom Interferometry: Professor Mark Kasevich, Applied Physics, Stanford Universit

    GPS and Agriculture

    Tony Thelen, the first presenter from John Deere — yes, the people who make green farm and lawn tractors among other things — actually made GPS and agriculture sound interesting. His presentation was top notch. It certainly kept my interest, and he left me wanting to know more about GPS and agriculture! Of course, I am being a bit disingenuous, since one of my most requested columns, titled “The Farmer in Finland,” concerns the unparalleled John Deere StarFire system, which probably deserves another column soon. Conversations with plenary attendees after his excellent presentation indicate that Tony managed to ignite that spark and interest again for many in the audience. The effect that GPS and companies like John Deere have had on agriculture is simply amazing, and the quantifiable benefits almost beyond belief. Plus, according to Tony Thelen, there is good reason to believe we will continue to be astounded at what the future holds for GPS and agriculture. I encourage you to visit the ION website and review not only Tony’s excellent presentation, but all the ION GNSS 2012 Plenary presentations.

    GPS Forensics

    When you have three excellent and inspiring speakers lined up for an evening of edification, you always face the conundrum of order. Should the featured or most entertaining speaker be in the middle, or should you risk losing some of your audience early and build toward a climax? With this audience Dr. Jade Morton made the wise decision, and put the most anticipated speaker in the middle of the lineup. There is always great expectation on my part, and I expect from most of the audience, when Professor David Last is scheduled to speak. At Nashville, he certainly did not disappoint. Only the infamous tonal chimes from “Law and Order” could have made his presentation any more dramatic.

    For my part, I kept expecting to hear those infamous tones whenever David transitioned to a new slide. David’s presentation was a perfect combination of “Law and Order” combined with “The World of Stupid Criminals.” With material like that, how could it have not been a roaring success? Add the dulcet British Public School accent and perfect comic timing and delivery and you can’t fail. Indeed, anyone listening outside the auditorium that night would have thought they had stumbled upon a standup comic convention instead of a bunch of staid scientists and engineers listening to a presentation on GPS forensics.

    David is always interesting, but that night he was competing for and in my book won the ION GNSS Emmy. If you ever have the chance to hear Professor David Last speak publicly, don’t miss it. And criminals in the UK should just surrender — they don’t stand a chance in court against a consulting engineer and expert witness like Professor Last. I dare say even Sherlock Holmes, the famous consulting detective, would be proud of Professor Last.

    Cold Atom Interferometry

    None of this lessens the impact or obvious passion for his subject displayed by Professor Mark Kasevich from Stanford University. It is not that I don’t have a passion for cold atom interferometry, it’s just that two weeks later I am still trying to figure out what he said and how it applies. I have no doubt that you can, excuse me, that Professor Mark Kasevich can, construct a cold atom interferometer that can be used to determine a position or a fix; I am just trying to figure out how that 10-cubic-foot rack is going to fit into anything remotely mobile. But, of course, even the optimistic Professor Kasevich admitted that mobile or handheld atom interferometers of this caliber are probably 10 years in the future.

    So, at this years’ ION GNSS Plenary event, the audience was treated to a down-to-earth and yet exciting look at the future of GPS and agriculture: the comedic and yet brilliant GPS forensic expertise of a passionate John Cleese wannabee, a caped crusader who is feared by criminals everywhere, and the futuristic “Star Trek” look at cold atoms and interferometry. What more could you ask for? This was an evening that for me elucidates the best ION GNSS Plenary ever. My hat is off to ION Executive Director Lisa Beaty and Plenary Program Director Dr. Jade Morton for an excellent program, but mostly I applaud all three speakers for a wonderfully educational and entertaining evening. How often do you get to combine those adjectives?

    GPS World Leadership Dinner and Annual Awards Ceremony

    However, for myself and many others the highlight of the ION GNSS event for the past several years has been the annual GPS World Gala and Dinner, now known as the annual GPS World Leadership Dinner and Awards Ceremony. This wonderful and prestigious event is the brainchild of Alan Cameron, our beloved editor-in-chief and now publisher of GPS World. Every year the event just gets better and better. The venues are always palatial, and this year was no exception as we held the event at the beautiful Nashville Hermitage Hotel. The stained-glass ceiling in the lobby was astounding.

    I won’t say much more since Alan wrote a complete review of the evenings events, except to caution you that invitations to this wonderful event are extremely hard to come by, and if you are nice to me, who knows? You might receive an invitation next year. It reminds me of the admonition from my daughter, a PsyD in Psychology and a practicing clinical psychologist, when she says: “You should always be nice to me Dad. Remember, I get to pick your nursing home!”

    Kudos and Final Thoughts on ION GNSS 2012

    I can’t complete my comments on ION GNSS this year without pointing out that the venue, Nashville or Music City, and the Renaissance Hotel by Marriott were both outstanding. The ambience of the entire event was professional yet also warm and friendly, and the ION staff as well as the staff at the Renaissance could not do enough to make my stay more memorable. The Renaissance staff was extremely professional and attentive, working hard to make the event a success. I am already looking forward to next year’s conference, which will be held at the same location September 16-20, 2013. Book early and arrive early for reasons I elucidate next.

    Lest we forget, while the ION GNSS is the main performance, the center ring if you will, it is historically preceded by the Civil GPS Service Interface Committee (CGSIC) meeting, which is co-chaired by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) NAVCEN/CC. The CGSIC has been around for 52 years, and was outstanding this year. Yes, the title sounds incredibly dry and boring, but CGSIC meetings are actually very informative, down to earth, informal and even occasionally entertaining. The new USCG NAVCEN commander, Captain William Burns, and his NAVCEN team did an excellent job putting the event together. So, again, I highly recommend arriving a couple of days early for next year’s ION GNSS in Nashville, so you too can attend the CGSIC. You will find it worthwhile.

    LightSquared

    As much as I hate to close my column on a downer I must unfortunately inform you that the amnesiacs at LightSquared (LSQ) are at it again. Not exactly the same amnesiacs, of course, as their CEO resigned in February, and Philip Falcone from Harbinger, whose solipsistic behavior resulted in a federal security SEC indictment for fraud, joined the LightSquared board recently. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently filed securities fraud charges against Falcone and Harbinger Capital Partners. However, this has not slowed LSQ as it subsequently on Septembert 28 submitted two proposed spectrum sharing filings with the FCC, proposing to utilize the lower 5 MHz of LSQ’s non-existent broadband network in a form that was not initially sanctioned or envisioned and, according to the filings, will not interfere with GPS signals. LSQ did not submit any evidence or test data to prove the lack of interference, just conjecture. These filings, of course, are in addition to LSQ’s recent filing for Chapter 11, better known as a bankruptcy filing. Plus, Philip Falcone has publicly alerted the FCC that LightSquared will not go away!

    Where have you heard this song and dance before? I have read both filings very carefully, and they are filled with the same flawed technology and total refusal to adhere to the laws of physics as their previous filings. LSQ fails to understand that you cannot abrogate the laws of physics merely because they are inconvenient and interfere with your grand scheme. Previous test results have determined that transmitters as powerful as the ones proposed by LSQ will interfere with GPS signals no matter what portion of the immediately adjacent spectrum bands are proposed.

    The latest filings clearly seem to be a last-gasp effort of a dying company that is attempting to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. LSQ must think the U.S. government has an incredibly short attention span. In my humble opinion, if the FCC were to approve either of the proposed filings, pilots, airlines and passengers at Ronald Reagan National Airport and other major airports on the East Coast would be unable to use GPS to fly out of or navigate to the airports. LSQ continues to think it is more important to be able to tweet, “I just saw Elvis” than it is to navigate safely to your destination. However, as improbable as the acceptance of these LSQ filings may be, in a recent memo I warned my GPS/PNT colleagues, via notable quotes you may recognize,  “…unfortunately this is not over, ‘prepare for boarders’ and remember ‘we have not yet begun to fight’.”

    GPS II-F 3

    Fortunately, I won’t end on a down note after all. As I write this, the third GPS IIF satellite, designated SVN-65, is on orbit being checked out by the 19th SOPS (Space Operations Squadron) with LADO (Launch, Anomaly, and Disposal Operations) software developed by Braxton Technologies. My hat is off to AFSPC (Air Force Space Command), SMC (Space & Missile Systems Center), Boeing, ULA (United Launch Alliance), the 50th Space Wing, and Braxton Technologies for a successful launch and hopefully a quick and flawless checkout. It has been a long 15 months since the last IIF launch, and this is the only launch in calendar and FY12. Plus, technically the satellite on orbit is actually satellite vehicle (SV) four, as SV three is undergoing some necessary changes. Most experts expect a minimum 30-day checkout. However, my sources tell me it could be as long as 90 days. Wouldn’t it be great if it were sooner? We will just have to wait and see. Stay tuned to GPS World for the latest news on GPS IIF-3. The good news is we have another GPS IIF on orbit.

    Until next time, happy navigating, and remember all of us at GPS World now have new email addresses in the following format. If you wish to email me please do so at [email protected]. I look forward to your comments.

  • Handheld Launches the Algiz 10X, a 10-inch Rugged Tablet for Outdoors

    Handheld Group, a manufacturer of rugged mobile computers and smartphones, today announced the launch of its new rugged mobile device for field professionals, the Algiz 10X  rugged tablet PC. The Algiz 10X can withstand tough weather elements and harsh handling. It has a large, 10.1-inch touchscreen.

    “The new Algiz 10X is perfectly suited for field professionals who need a rugged tablet computer that is lightweight and built to withstand the harsh conditions that come with all kinds of industry fieldwork, and that can display detailed maps and other visuals even in bright sunlight,” said Jerker Hellström, CEO of Handheld.

    The Algiz 10X is IP65-rated and meets stringent MIL-STD-810G military standards for protecting against dust, water, vibrations, drops, extreme temperatures and varying altitudes. It is lightweight at 1.3 kg (2.9 lbs), and  32 mm (1.2″) thick.

    The Algiz 10X’s brilliant display features the latest generation of MaxView technology. The tablet also comes with a u-blox GPS receiver and WAAS/EGNOS/MSAS capability, plus Bluetooth 4.0, WLAN 802.11 b/g/n and it is WWAN Gobi 3000-ready with fully integrated modem and antennas for wireless connectivity. It has a built-in 5-megapixel camera with LED flash, and several connectivity opportunities, including waterproof USB 2.0, VGA and RS232 ports. The Algiz 10X operates on a powerful Intel Atom N2800 dual-core processor with 4 GB of DDR3 RAM, offering top-of-the-line computing capability, and the SSD disk is expandable via microSD for massive storage capacity. The Algiz 10X runs Windows 7 Ultimate, and is ready for Windows 8.

    “With the Algiz 10X, we are expanding the popular product family that includes our Algiz 7, which is the preferred choice today for field professionals worldwide. The Algiz 10X comes with increased processing power and storage plus a larger display — something that the market has been asking for,” said Hellström.

    Like all of Handheld’s lineup of rugged PDAs, smartphones and mobile computers, the Algiz 10X is specifically developed for field workers in industries such as geomatics, logistics, forestry, public transportation, utilities, construction, maintenance, mining, military and security.

    The Algiz 10X rugged tablet PC is being showcased at INTERGEO in Hanover, Germany, on October 9-11, and will be shown Mobility for Business in Paris, France, on October 10-11, plus several shows throughout the fall.

    The Algiz 10X will be available in January 2013. Orders can be placed immediately.

  • Letter to the Editor: Using One Part of GPS, Ignoring Another

    The article “Drone Hack” in the August issue of GPS World and Todd Humphreys’ testimony before a House Subcommittee overseeing the Department of Homeland Security cited results of a spoofing experiment Humphreys conducted with University of Texas colleagues, demonstrating that a drone helicopter, navigating principally on the civil GPS signal, could have its vertical channel spoofed, causing it to descend. Reaction, quite strong from some directions, prompted one observer to investigate whether a “sky-is-falling” perception is fully warranted. Partly for that reason, emails started circulating among various individuals, including some directly involved in the design. When first brought into the group I was not expecting to be the one to summarize, but, as events unfolded, I’m called on to act as techno-sleuth.

    Let me first state the conclusion: the sky is not falling. That’s not intended to discourage corrective measures — and it is immediately acknowledged that definitive answers remain unresolved (detailed configuration of the Kalman filter, state estimates, weighting of the baro altimeter). But this much is clear: conditions weren’t 100 percent normal. From here I’ll cover the supporting facts, followed by possible corrective measures. Discussion will be technical, without any hint of administrative authority or approval.

    Key revelations came to light in discussion with the chief scientist of Adaptive Flight, who designed the drone’s nav system software and operator interface.

    “The reason Todd and his team were able to modify the vertical position of the aircraft even though altitude aiding is actually coming from the pressure sensor,” he stated, “is that the GPS vertical velocity was being used. The spoofed GPS position (altitude error) was actually being ignored.”

    We might call that a hybrid mode, using one part of GPS and ignoring another. Selectivity isn’t intrinsically unwise — we need options to reject some data without automatically rejecting other information — but, with GPS-derived altitude ignored for any reason, why not reject all vertical-channel influence from GPS? In fact that’s consistent with normal operation; disabling (again a quote) “GPS vertical velocity as an aid … can be done with a command from the control station (and saved as default for the aircraft).”

    Well, then, the demo doesn’t reflect 100 percent normal procedure. Relief: our drones aren’t as vulnerable as we thought, and the fear expressed in various publications can be reduced.

    For further support of that conclusion, additional major information from that same designer includes a quote that “The baro altimeter is used to provide a vertical position discrete update to the Kalman filter. This is true for both normal and GPS-denied modes. There are no (automatic) divergence tests in this system. There is some outlier detection/rejection on the GPS (which probably was not triggered in the spoofing tests, but I haven’t seen the data). There is nothing on the baro altimeter.” Finally, he says “it is a trivial change from the control station to make the vertical channel ignore GPS in normal mode by turning off the down GPS velocity measurement update; it would still fly fine.”

    The combined weight of all that can justifiably reduce the level of concern — but not all the way down to zero. Now that all this happened, the subject of prevention needs to be addressed.

    As Todd Humphreys correctly noted, without spoofing but with existing errors, GPS position updating cannot adequately mitigate low-cost IMU drift.

    High-end IMUs bring budget issues (and their motion-sensitive errors limit performance anyway). Spectrum and signal quality is seen by many as an important consideration; residual monitoring is another. For the latter to be effective, the existing (loose) coupling needs upgrading (loose coupling wastes information content; the loss is greatest when GPS coverage is marginal). Extent of refinement (tight/ultratight/deep) and usage of carrier phase (while sidestepping its usual traps) open up a subject with much wider scope: cross-checking. I offer just a few fundamentals here.

    • Known data-edit capabilities available with existing provisions (for example, baro altimeter cross-checking), rather than something that “can be done” can always automatically disallow any partial influence from GPS instantly upon spoof detection, regardless of its genesis (Kalman filter bias state traceable to past history or any other source).
    • The step just noted generalizes to include all sensor data extant onboard, including carrier phase. The specter of huge expense for this particular step is nonessential; some receivers output raw measurements that can be put into public domain algorithms.
    • With access to all the raw data, every solution combination — federated and integrated — can be generated for cross-checking. In all cases, thresholds for residual testing are set with conservative assessments of sensor error statistics; this overbounding enables integrity testing to err on the side of caution (sacrificing some valid data to better ensure rejection of bad). Integrity test algorithms are likewise public domain.

    I close by paraphrasing an observation offered by Mitch Narins in a LinkedIn discussion: Deter threats before they happen. With a robust non-GNSS PNT alternative, spoofing will have no affect on safety or security.

     — James L. Farrell
    President, VIGIL, Inc.
    Severna Park, Maryland

  • Trimble Introduces Compact Receiver for Mobile Positioning Applications

     

    Trimble has introduced at the ION GNSS Conference in Nashville the Trimble BD920-W3G receiver and communication module. As part of Trimble’s GNSS OEM portfolio, the new compact module features centimeter-level, real-time kinematic (RTK) positioning capabilities coupled with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and cellular that deliver flexible communication options for precise, mobile positioning. The BD920-W3G module’s connectivity and configuration ease allow system integrators and OEMs to easily add GNSS centimeter-level positioning to specialized or custom hardware solutions, Trimble said.

    “The OEM and system integrator communities demand high performance, reliability and support for their positioning solutions,” said Dale Hermann, director of marketing and sales. “The Trimble BD920-W3G delivers the latest in GNSS and communication technology in an easy-to-integrate form factor for demanding conditions and applications such as field computing, port automation, and lightweight robotic or unmanned vehicles.”

    The Trimble BD920-W3G module has been designed for applications requiring centimeter accuracy in a compact package. By integrating wireless communications on the same module, the task of receiving and transmitting data such as RTK corrections is greatly simplified. A single intuitive Web interface allows a variety of use cases to be supported. In addition to GNSS base and rover setups with Wi-Fi or UMTS modem, the module also allows simultaneous customer access to the Internet.

    The dual-frequency GPS/GLONASS BD920-W3G provides customers with a more integrated product that can reduce their integration effort and time to market. Wireless communications and Ethernet connectivity are available on the module to allow high-speed data transfer and configuration via standard Web browsers. USB and RS232 are also supported. By tightly integrating communications and GNSS receiver, integrators can reduce costs and integration complexity, the company said.

    The Trimble BD920-W3G is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2013 through Trimble’s Precision GNSS + Inertial sales channel worldwide. The BD920-W3G can be viewed in 3D on Trimble’s 3D Warehouse by SketchUp. OEMs and integrators can also download a 3D model into their applications. For more information, visit www.trimble.com/gnss-inertial.

  • ITT Exelis Announces New Capability in GPS Interference, Detection and Geolocation

    ITT Exelis has announced what it calls a significant development in the field of GPS technology. Exelis GPS Interference, Detection and Geolocation (IDG) will provide near real-time geolocation of intentional and unintentional GPS jamming sources through a network of sensors and advanced geolocation technology, the company announced at ION-GNSS, being held this week in Nashville, Tennessee.

    “From security to transportation and almost every sector of the economy, the world relies on receiving precise GPS timing and positioning data,” said Mark Pisani, vice president and general manager, Precision Instruments and Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Systems, ITT Exelis Geospatial Systems. “As GPS jamming devices become cheaper and more accessible, there is a greater need to protect military, commercial and industrial systems from a diverse range of threats. This technology is a major step forward in delivering actionable interference intelligence to an array of GPS users.”

    IDG technology is based upon a network of threat detection sensors that are networked to a centralized server running Exelis-developed geolocation algorithms. These sensors would be strategically located around high-risk areas, such as airports or utility grids, to instantaneously sense and triangulate the location of the jamming source. Should a threat be detected, users would receive pin-point geolocation information and actionable intelligence in order to respond.

    The Exelis solution would benefit a broad range of GPS customers and users. Jamming devices can send out signals capable of disrupting the synchronization of a utility power grid and creating significant infrastructure and economic damage. In each of these scenarios, IDG would detect, analyze and geolocate the hostile signal, sending the intelligence through a secure network in order for the user to mitigate the threat.

    Exelis payloads and payload components have been aboard every GPS satellite for almost 40 years. Today, Exelis is involved in developing and integrating the navigation payloads for GPS III. Exelis is also providing navigation processing components, precision monitor station receivers, and key components of the system security design for the GPS Operational Control System, also known as GPS OCX.

  • USAF GPS Expert Benshoof to Lead Locata Initiatives

    Locata Corporation has announced that U.S. Air Force (USAF) veteran Paul Benshoof, formerly chief of strategic development at the 746th Test Squadron at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, has joined the company as global business development manager for military and government applications in the U.S. and abroad.

    This team expansion primes the company to meet growing global demand for GPS backup for critical government, civilian, and commercial infrastructure, Locata said. Benshoof, who witnessed the success of Locata’s precision positioning in GPS-denied environments during USAF LocataNet development at White Sands Missile Range, will set and execute the company’s worldwide defense sales initiatives.

    Near universal reliance on GPS for a broad range of critical positioning and navigation requirements in military, civilian government, and commercial applications — despite the fact that GPS signals are frequently blocked, jammed, spoofed or unavailable — is driving increasing demand for an alternative positioning solution. Locata’s terrestrial technology is the first and only system to locally replicate GPS precise positioning — on the ground. Locata is therefore the only real “backup to GPS” across any area where satellite-based signals aren’t reliable. Many modern applications (such as machine automation, military operations in GPS jammed areas, and all manner of positioning across campuses, ports, downtown “urban canyons,” open-cut mines, warehouses, malls and more) have far outstripped the original design parameters of the GPS satellite constellation. The ability to provide a backup to GPS is therefore now recognized as an essential national requirement for future mobile, industrial, transportation, homeland security and other critical infrastructure applications, as clearly laid out in the 2010 Federal Radionavigation Plan and the U.S. President’s National Space Policy of the USA.

    On September 7, the USAF granted Locata a multi-year contract to install a LocataNet over a vast 2,500 square mile (6,500 sq km) area of the famed White Sands Missile Range. The LocataNet has been described in a current USAF technical report as the key component for the realization of the USAF’s new “gold standard” military-grade reference system required to test and evaluate future navigation and guidance systems for the U.S. Department of Defense when GPS signals are jammed or unavailable. Locata has been proven by independent USAF testing to be fully autonomous from GPS, delivering the same or better positioning, navigation and time (PNT) as the GPS satellite constellation. Locata has invented a large portfolio of new technologies to create this new capability. Locata currently has 94 granted patents and over one hundred more in process to protect their innovations.

    “It’s an honor to have Mr. Benshoof join our team,” said Nunzio Gambale, CEO and co-founder of Locata. “Paul’s caliber of GPS expertise and firsthand experience with military and government positioning requirements will be instrumental in helping grow our business in this sector. He will help military and government organizations meet next-generation positioning needs using Locata’s world-first backup to GPS. I’ve known and worked with him and his USAF team since 2005, so he’s seen Locata’s groundbreaking technology in action. The fact he has now chosen to join our company is a tribute to the importance of our emerging technology. It also tells you all you need to know about how well our ‘impossible technology’ actually works!”

    Benshoof began his 22 years in GPS as the Project Manager responsible for the development and procurement of the PLGR — the DoD’s first secure handheld GPS receiver, manufactured by Rockwell Collins. He then devoted his technical prowess to developing navigation warfare (NAVWAR) test assets to support advanced technology demonstrations in GPS-denied environments, as well as supervising international test programs for NATO and allied forces. As GPS testing became increasingly important, he formed and directed the GPS Test Center of Expertise, a consortium of U.S. test agencies dedicated to GPS test and evaluation, while also chairing an international working group that helped standardize GPS test practices among 11 participating countries. Ultimately, he was selected to implement and lead the 746th Test Squadron’s Strategic Development activity that worked with commercial and military GPS industry to project guidance, navigation and NAVWAR testing shortfalls, and then managed developmental programs to fill technical capability gaps.

    “I’m excited to join a company that has done what no one thought was possible,” said Benshoof. “While other companies have attempted to replicate GPS without satellites, Locata is the first to succeed. Just as the early days of GPS were sparked by groundbreaking military applications, Locata has followed this same evolutionary path, yet much more rapidly. I’m honored to be a part of the team bringing essential GPS backup to the countless nations, organizations and partners that need it.”

  • A Conversation with General William Shelton, Commander, Air Force Space Command

    Don Jewell
    Don Jewell

    It happened over 20 years ago and I remember it like it was yesterday.

    Three young U.S. Air Force officers stood respectfully in the office of Lt Gen Thomas Moorman, then Vice Commander of Air Force Space Command. All three were summoned to the same meeting, but I expect none of us knew exactly why. It would soon become apparent that we were there for “The Talk.”

    For those of you unfamiliar with “The Talk,” it is not unlike the awkward conversation most young men have with their fathers around the age of puberty. However, this talk would determine if the powers that be thought we had a future in the USAF.

    I naively assumed that all military officers at some point experience “The Talk” with their superiors, but I have discovered this is not the case. For many, “The Talk” launches them confidently into the latter part of their service careers, and for others it is the dreaded signal that immediately pursuing other endeavors is in order, i.e., look for a new day job.

    The three of us that day actually had little to fear. We all served, or in my case were serving, as Executive Officer for General Thomas Moorman. Serving as an Executive Officer for a senior General Officer can be daunting, but for each of us it was also a rewarding experience; indeed, none of us could have asked for a more perfect mentor and role model. Plus, we knew that General Tom Moorman cared about each one of us. He did not choose his Executive Officers lightly…many volunteered, few were chosen. Plus, I will give you a hint: long though the hours may be, it is easy to work for a man that you admire, and to this day we all admire General Tom Moorman.

    The meeting that day was short and to the point. We were all cheerfully informed that we had a future in the USAF and from that simple statement we also knew that assignments would be forthcoming. I say cheerfully because, when all is said and done, General Tom Moorman is a very cheerful man. He always has a ready smile, is kindhearted and loves a good joke. He also has a prodigious memory and is a workaholic, but that often comes with the territory. He is tough when he needs to be, but his countenance inspires confidence. So we all felt honored, fortunate and even blessed to be mentored, counseled and led by this wonderful man. I know we all left his office that day with a smile on our face, although my trip was only about five feet outside his front door. We all briefly discussed what our future assignments might hold and then went our separate ways, little aware of what the future would actually hold.

    Of the four officers in the AFSPC Vice Commander’s office that day, all experienced or are experiencing successful military careers: two eventually pinned on four stars, one found himself literally and successfully fighting for his life in intensive care at the United States Air Force Academy hospital only a year later, and yours truly proudly served his country for 30 years and now finds himself writing about “The Talk” and having a conversation with General William “Willie” Shelton, who now sits in that same office where “The Talk” occurred 20 years ago.

    Indeed, General Willie Shelton and I have been good friends for almost 25 years, and so it feels natural for us to sit down and have a brief conversation about the past and what the future holds for him and his family, for Air Force Space Command and, of course, the Global Positioning System.

    WS = General (USAF) – William Shelton, Commander, Air Force Space Command

    DJ = Don Jewell (USAF, Ret) Defense Editor, GPS World magazine

    DJ: First of all, General Shelton, thank you for your time today. To say that you are a busy man is a gross understatement and we do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation.

    First of all, on a personal note as an Air Force Academy graduate, with numerous assignments in the Colorado Springs area, do you find this to be a nostalgic time in your life?

    WS: Don, it is great to be back in Colorado Springs. You know Linda and I really love it here. If any place is home anymore then this is it, and when retirement comes around, this is the place where we will retire. So we are delighted to be back in town and delighted to be back at Air Force Space Command.

    DJ: You and I have spoken many times about how much we, and our families, love this area. However, I’m not sure that back when we were carpooling together to Falcon, now Schriever Air Force Base, either one of us would have predicted we would be having this conversation 20 years later and you would be presiding over the 30th anniversary of Air Force Space Command. Can you tell us about some of the 30th anniversary plans?

    WS: Don, there are numerous activities planned around our 30th anniversary. We have new Space Pioneers that we will induct. We’ve planned a big Commanders Conference, of course. We are bringing in our Commanders Group, which  is a group of civilians from across the Command that provides advice to our Commanders. We are also having a 30th Anniversary Gala sponsored by the Space Foundation at the Broadmoor. And while we are looking forward to all these activities, there is another major event that is special to me and I know will be to you and many of us in this community, and that is the naming of our new education building after General Thomas Moorman.

    DJ: I know General Moorman must be pleased about that. He always pushed education as a way to get ahead in the USAF and in life. I’ve heard he’s been a bit under the weather; will he and Barbara be able to attend the dedication ceremony?

    WS: Absolutely, he and Barbara and several family members will attend, along with several of his old cronies. It will hopefully be a nice celebration.

    DJ: Indeed, it will probably be old home week for many of them — many of whom you and I met when we worked for General Moorman back in the day. There will be a lot of people looking forward to that dedication ceremony.

    And speaking of General Moorman helps me segue into our next topic, which is stewardship. General Moorman has always been a big proponent of the importance of the stewardship of space. In this case I would like to bring us around to the stewardship of one system in particular, and that of course is the Global Positioning System or GPS.

    Recently a retired General officer, who you know well and has served as a mentor and still serves as an advisor, made a telling comment concerning the stewardship of GPS, “Thank God GPS is run by the United States Air Force and not the French Air Controllers, who go on strike every August.”

    WS: I had not heard that one but it does make a point. I guess what I want to say about stewardship is that for 20+ of the 30 years that  AFSPC has been in existence, the USAF has been the proud steward of GPS. We built and sustained the constellation, we have operated the constellation, we have been the engine driving many of the innovations in receiver technology — indeed there have been a whole variety of technologies and innovations concerning GPS that the USAF has been behind.

    Now this takes nothing away from a critical industry that continues to develop applications that I personally never dreamed of.  But in terms of the basic provisioning of the GPS capability and all that GPS enables today, we — the United States Air Force and Air Force Space Command — are very proud of our accomplishments and our stewardship

    DJ: Certainly no one can deny the Air Force has been an excellent steward of GPS, but what can you tell us about the future of GPS? What do you personally see as the way ahead? You have commissioned several studies to look into what the future holds. What can you share with us?

    WS: First of all, Don, we want to stay the course with GPS III and then maybe look at some different constructs for future satellites…adding some capabilities and looking at a whole mix of future opportunities. But as you said, those are all studies that are under way. In this budget environment we definitely don’t have a course set in concrete, but for GPS III we are definitely on a good path for now. I think we want to stay on that path. It is really a very good and well-run program. It is on schedule and pretty much on cost. We have a little bit of cost growth in the program but it is not anything outside the management reserve fenced for the program. So we are in very good shape on GPS III. Lockheed Martin is doing a very good job putting the factory together, in Denver, to crank out those satellites. All signs are good.

    DJ: That’s great to hear. Coincidentally, I have a column coming out shortly on the status of the GPS III program. Now, what can you share with us about OCX, the ground control segment?

    WS: Don, the ground segment is coming along. OCX has had some issues but we really believe we have turned the corner on OCX.

    Indeed, my hat’s off to Raytheon for really taking this on. The management within Raytheon has taken this program very seriously. They’ve brought in the right people and basically turned the OCX program around, and we are confident that we are going to be in a good place once we get OCX delivered. It is not going to be as soon as we had hoped. It is not going to be coincident with the arrival of GPS III, but it will be ready shortly thereafter, and we will have some capability of controlling the GPS III satellites until we can get them OCX support.

    DJ: That, of course, brings us to the inevitable “gap” question, which I know you have been asked a hundred times; it sounds like you now have a plan for that eventuality.

    WS: We do. We have some special software that we are going to have to work to get that accomplished, but we have a good plan to make that happen. We will be in good shape on GPS III. We will not have all the capabilities that OCX will bring us, of course, but we will at least be able to make use of the satellites while we are waiting on OCX to deliver.

    DJ: There are those who openly speculated about whether OCX even had a future, so it is certainly good to hear that there is a plan, you have confidence in that plan, and in the future of OCX.

    You and I had a conversation recently where you stated emphatically that you were not interested in placing GPS III satellites on orbit just as a means of storage, but that they had to be operational.

    WS: That’s exactly right. We certainly need to get the first GPS III satellite up as soon as possible to make sure that we don’t have any design issues. And you’re right, I am not in favor of storing on orbit, because of life-limiting components.

    DJ: Then you must be comfortable with the fact that in the future we will most assuredly be launching GPS-IIFs and GPS-IIIs simultaneously?

    WS: Yes, we know how to handle that.

    DJ: OK, then as long as we are discussing GPS III, why don’t we move into the arena of trying to pin down a vehicle or set of vehicles for dual launch? You and I once discussed GPS III vehicles 7-8 for that honor, and you mentioned at the time that it was a moving target. Where do we stand today?

    WS: Don, I think we are now probably talking about GPS III vehicles 9-10.  We are still in the  study phase on this issue with Lockheed Martin and United Launch Alliance. We are still trying to figure out how we would do dual launch and what kind of capabilities we need to develop. I think this is really the wave of the future…being able to put two up simultaneously will save us a lot in launch costs.

    Plus, we will look at new launch entrants. If a new entrant can come in and provide a cost-effective launch capability for several launches, then we will look seriously at them as well.

    DJ: I can barely remember the last GPS launch failure — it was more than 15 years ago — but that is the last thing any space program needs, a launch failure. In that regard are you comfortable with the, as you say, new entrants into the launch market?

    WS: Not yet. We will go through a very rigorous certification process to get new entrants certified, but once they are certified we will look to contract with them just like we do with ULA today. New entrants will certainly introduce new options for us.

    DJ: Some would argue that the USAF really has very little choice but to look at alternative launch systems. I was briefed recently that the projected on orbit costs of an initial GPS III satellite, with NRE (non-recurring expenses) but without added launch costs, is in the neighborhood of $265M. When you add the launch costs of approximately $220M, you get to $480M or just shy of half a billion dollars in a hurry. Is this sustainable?

    WS: That is exactly why we are looking at alternatives to include dual launch. We know we need to bring the launch costs down as much as we can. We are doing that in a variety of ways, both in terms of how we are acquiring boosters, and what we are paying ULA for — just an overall launch capability from an infrastructure point of view. We are, as I said, considering new entrants. So there are a variety of things we are doing, trying to get a handle on launch costs.

    DJ: So, what I take away from that is that studies are under way both for dual launch and launch acquisition and stay tuned for more. But in the area of affordability in this budget environment, surely there is more to consider than just launch costs?

    WS: Of course, we are looking at GPS III for example — when I first arrived here the plan called for GPS III A, B and C variants. I thought that was probably not going to be affordable in the future. So we scrapped the A, B and C mentality and went with a basic GPS III. Now as we can afford it, we will roll in additional capabilities that we might want or need for the future. I think that helps control the costs. We are also looking at what we can do in the manufacturing area to help control costs. So we are going at this from a variety of ways. We are leaving no stone left unturned in terms of trying to drive out costs.

    DJ: Controlling costs is certainly admirable, but you and I have been in the space business for a long time and I cannot ever remember launch costs going down, can you? Do you really think you can make that happen?

    WS: I suppose it depends on what you mean by going down. I don’t know that we will ever get cheaper than we are right now, but the cost projections left unchecked were a 40% increase in costs. So we are really talking about controlling the growth as much as we are about reducing costs.

    Now, if you can introduce some of these new entrants and they deliver on their promise — for example let’s say you can do a medium class EELV [Ed. Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle] for $90M, which has been suggested by one particular company…what a bargain. Now we will see if that price really holds when we put in our mission assurance requirements and as we look at those rocket companies when they actually go into production as opposed to a one-off type of rocket.

    DJ: When you talk to Dr. Bradford Parkinson about launch and the history of GPS, he will quickly remind you that back in the day, GPS could not stand on its own as a space requirement. Back in 1978, GPS had to have additional payloads to justify the mission just to get the GPS satellites into orbit. That is certainly not the case today, so are you seriously looking at a GPS-only configuration?

    WS: God bless Brad Parkinson. He certainly fought through a very different environment than we have today. And yes, we are certainly looking at a very de-scoped capability for NDS [Ed. Nuclear Detection System], and we are considering some options that might have some GPS platforms being a navigation payload only. So, we will see what comes out of the studies. We are concerned about the size, weight and power of the NDS payload, and we think we have a handle on that for GPS III number 9 and out. But the first eight GPS III satellites will still have a fairly heavy NDS payload.

    DJ: Well, these things do take time to fix. And speaking of the number of satellites, things have changed quite a bit from when you were the 2SOPS Commander (2nd Space Operations Squadron) back in 1990. GPS had only been FOC (Full Operation Capability) for about five years and you were struggling just to keep 24 active payloads on orbit. Today there are 32 active payloads and three residuals. Do you think we are going to be able to maintain those numbers?

    WS: This is actually more of a debate about actual coverage of the GPS constellation. I don’t think it is going to be as much about numbers as it will be about coverage and dealing with things like terrain, terrain masking, and urban canyons. How much coverage do we in the United States want to provide? Do we want to instead count on other satellite systems to fill in gaps that we might have — such as systems like Galileo? So it is going to be an interesting future. We really have some serious debates on what kind of coverage we want to provide from GPS and what kind of coverage we might count on from others. We also have to consider how we might alter our architecture designs based on the need for coverage.

    DJ: Now it sounds like we are getting close to discussing the mastodon that has been unsuccessfully trying to hide in the corner, and that is budget issues. Cost savings and cost reductions are terms thrown around by your budgeters today. I assume you are looking at all these issues to include the dreaded sequestration costs.

    WS: It is all the same to me; whether it is cost avoidance or cost savings, it is all part of the space budget. But as to sequestration, that’s another matter.

    Space and cyber are foundational capabilities for this nation. That said, we’ll take our reductions, and certainly we’re proactively looking for places we can reduce, but we believe foundational space and cyber capabilities will have to remain to support every other military operation.

    I challenge audiences to find a military operation that doesn’t in some way depend on space and cyber.  That foundational capability must be protected, despite what might happen with sequestration or any other budget reduction.

    DJ: In a couple of weeks you will be attending the annual AFA (Air Force Association) national meeting in the D.C. area. Is there a space message, such as you just mentioned… all military operations depend on space and cyber in some way, that you will be trying to get across this year?

    WS: Don, the message I am trying to develop is the need for a partnership across the community. From Capitol Hill to OSD [Ed. Office of the Secretary of Defense] to the operational commands, to Air Force Space Command including SMC [Ed. Space and Missile Systems Center] — we all need to have a very strong partnership and pull on the rope in the same direction so that we are not at cross purposes. As we look at some of the acquisition challenges and as we look at some of the congressional marks, it is not always apparent that we are all singing from the same hymnal. That is one thing I would like to see us work very hard — getting everybody on the same sheet of music.

    DJ: While that is certainly a laudable goal, with all the budget issues and everybody wanting to have a hand in the space AOR (area of responsibility), do you really think it is realistic or even doable?

    WS: I am not so naïve as to believe that there will ever be a time when there will not be challenges to our plans. We would like to get to the place where the long experience we have with GPS — along with the architectural designs we have developed that have helped give us that experience — that all this carries some weight.

    DJ: I agree, but a great deal of that weight and responsibility winds up on your shoulders. I don’t think that you or I ever thought there would be three billion plus GPS users in the world. Isn’t this global utility we call GPS an incredible burden on the USAF and yourself? No other service in the world today has the responsibilities that are attendant on the USAF as stewards of the Global Positioning System.

    WS: Don, I think we happily bear that burden. To tell you the truth, our job is to provide the best signal that we can provide from space. That is what we do every day, and we are happy to do that. We know it supports billions of users, and we know that we are underpinning economic institutions around the world. We know we have fundamentally changed war fighting as a result of that signal. So it is a source of pride for us – it is not a burden.

    DJ: Well said! Any final thoughts? There are so many issues we haven’t had time to discuss.

    WS: The one point I want to be sure and make is one of credibility. There are certainly some naysayers out there, but I firmly believe that we have proven our credibility over the past 20-plus years that we have been flying the GPS constellation. I think we have done a good job… I am talking about the U.S. Air Force writ large now… a good job of funding the GPS constellation and being responsible stewards of the capability and insuring that that the world has this capability where it is needed. GPS has enabled applications that are simply mindboggling, and the credibility piece doesn’t get stated as often as it could.

    The other issue is that there are certainly threats to GPS that we need to pay attention to. The jamming threats are obvious. Not so obvious are the spectrum threats such as we have been through in the last year. We need to continue to be vigilant and protect that part of the spectrum that is essential for GPS to work as well as it does.

    It is truly a physics problem. It is not just GPS encroachment on somebody else’s spectrum. The way receivers are designed to work, they have to be able to acquire the GPS signal and the harmonics of that signal in an adjacent spectrum. If you bring in rather noisy signals or you allow noisy signals to operate in the GPS neighborhood, you are going to kill the accuracy of GPS. So, I think as we continue to provide good stewardship for GPS, we need to be good stewards of the spectrum as well.

    DJ: Actually, I was hoping this would come up. I want to publicly thank you for being one of the few general officers, from any service, who stood up and were counted when it came to this huge threat to billions of GPS users worldwide.

    But, in the end, were you surprised that it took over a year to fight the spectrum battle?

    WS: Not necessarily. I knew we were into a very structured process with the FCC [Ed. Federal Communications Commission] and they have their way of doing business. I was confident that once we could get the facts on the table, the right decisions would be made. It was just a problem of making sure that the facts were heard. In the end it came out like it should have come out, it just took longer than I think most people were comfortable with.

    DJ: Without a doubt the world and GPS users everywhere owe you a great debt of gratitude for your fearless leadership during a very trying time.  Thank you for your leadership, and thank you for taking the time to speak with us today.

    WS: It was my pleasure, Don.

    Until next time, happy navigating. All of us at GPS World hope to see you at the ION Technical Meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, September 17-21 , 2012. Drop by the booth and get acquainted.

  • No Status Quo for GPS

    Defense PNT Newsletter

    By Don Jewell

    The huge white charger galloped into the clearing. The destrier slid to a stop, steam snorting from his nostrils, as he pranced to a huge oak tree where the four-star Templar Knight astride the magnificent equine posted an urgent message for all to see in status quo voluntas non sufficit. Checking his GPS, the knight charged off into the surrounding woods.

    Then I awoke, but remembered the quirky dream vividly. The Latin phrase, resurrected from torturous Latin courses more than 45 years ago, translates to, “The staus quo will no longer suffice,” a theme being pushed at Air Force Space Command and, indeed, throughout the space community and the entire DoD, for that matter.

    Budget Control Act and Sequestration

    And here’s why, just in case you have a bad case of Rip Van Winkle syndrome. Consider that all space programs, which have relatively huge budgets, are in jeopardy in 2012 and the decade beyond due to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). The BCA reduces DoD budget authority by approximately $500B over the next ten years. Now consider that number doubling due to a process incongruously labeled sequestration, a deficit- reduction consequence called out in the BCA triggering $500B more in Defense cuts unless Congress agrees to change the law. Oh, by the way, none of this would have occurred in the first place if Congress had only managed to agree on a budget-cutting process in 2011.

    Consequently, General William “Willie” Shelton, Commander of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) announced recently, in several forums, that the status quo for space acquisitions and operations would no longer apply in status quo voluntas non sufficit, although of course he said it in English and not Latin. He urged AFSPC and Space and Missile Systems Command (SMC) to find more cost efficient and innovative methods of conducting business, which is successfully acquiring, developing, launching, and accomplishing space missions. In the case of GPS it also means supporting more than 1 Billion users globally.

    None of this activity can be officially designated “planning for sequestration,” however, because according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), services, departments, and agencies are not allowed to plan for sequestration. Truly an insane edict that hopefully every organization is ignoring. Just imagine… BTW, DOD we plan to cut your budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years, but you are not allowed to plan for it. Really?

    Naturally, OMB edicts aside, this started me thinking about how the new paradigm General Shelton desires to implement applies to GPS operations, especially the ground control and operational support segments. Both these segments, in almost all space operations, are historically behind the power curve, especially when it comes to cutting-edge operational capabilities. In other words, the ground control segment and operational support missions are too often implemented as though they were an afterthought.

    When it comes to a highly successful and visible system like GPS, which is the most ubiquitous and yet by far the most operationally critical satellite constellation in orbit today, the story is unfortunately no different. So the key question quickly becomes, how can an antiquated space acquisition system, that General Ellen Pawlikowski, the Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) commander, is working hard to change, overcome that unfortunate legacy and find options and companies that offer General Shelton, AFSPC, and SMC something other than the status quo?

    Fortunately, there are ongoing studies to determine how to infuse the support and operational segments of GPS with cutting-edge capabilities, and while that sounds great, even an old aviator knows that unless you change the acquisition and contracting process, very little progress is actually achieved. The words “smoke and mirrors” come to mind. Companies with great innovative ideas literally spin their wheels seemingly forever if governmental processes fail to change along with or fail to embrace new requirements and processes. The government has to be willing to totally support the cutting-edge model, or new paradigm, not just give it lip service.

    CSC

    So imagine my surprise when I learned the operational support contract for GPS, better known as Level 1 and Level 2 Operational Support, was up for re-competition. Boeing has functioned as the operational support contractor for about the last ten years. Now they are being challenged by several teams, one of which is a CSC-led team with several small companies as subcontractors that are looking to implement a totally new level of support, one that will virtually do away with legacy support as we know it today. As Martha says, this is a good thing.

    Consequently, I sat down recently with retired Air Force Major General Irv Halter, who leads the CSC team efforts in Colorado Springs, to discuss new operational support options for the Global Positioning System.

    First, a quick word about my experience concerning retired general officers of any service and how they typically function as managers and business professionals. I had the pleasure of working with two retired USAF three-stars at one of the largest government contractors in the world, and frankly, they were not initially very good businessmen. In some cases generals have less business sense when they initially come on board than a brand new MBA. However, they are certainly great leaders, know how to be an effective team member, have the highest integrity; those traits combined with their contacts and operational expertise is exactly why they are hired. It is up to the company to make it work. I have long said, mangers can be trained but leaders are born with an ability to lead that cannot be taught. So find a general officer who is a great leader and is humble enough to suck it up and learn the business and you most likely have an unbeatable combination. This is exactly my impression of General Irv Halter and his position at CSC. He is a leader and he now knows how the business works. I was impressed with his grasp of GPS and the current business climate, which is one of the reasons our scheduled thirty-minute conversation took over two hours.

    Rules of Engagement  

    Loyal readers know I rarely conduct formal interviews. I prefer to engage in a focused yet relaxed conversation and see what transpires. People like to hear about other people and what motivates them to be successful more than they like to hear about boring programs and policies. If we manage to combine all these aspects in an amiable, interesting conversation and still inform GPS World readers about subjects that matter and they care about, then we have all succeeded. I see it as a win/win for everyone, and hope you do as well.

    My conversation with General Irv Halter from CSC came about initially because of General Shelton’s desire to conduct space business differently. He certainly has not spelled out exactly what that entails; however, he has let it be known, in no uncertain terms, that the status quo will no longer suffice, and presenting him with that option as a way ahead is a non-starter.

    The space acquisition community at SMC, led by Lt Gen Ellen Pawlikowski, has taken General Shelton’s admonition to heart and are providing alternative pathways especially in the area of GPS operational support. Considering all the GPS specific programs that are looming on the horizon, it is proving to be a daunting task.

    Key GPS Programs in Progress

    OCX

    For example, GPS OCX or the GPS Ground Command and Control contract is in its 30th month since being awarded to Raytheon (Aurora, Colorado) in February 2010. (Ed. Click here to see Don’s column on the OCX award from Feb 2010.) While the contract is progressing, it has not been a smooth ride for Raytheon or the government. Both the Raytheon and U.S. government OCX program managers were replaced in 2011, and many of the original OCX requirements have been restructured to help Raytheon meet looming deadlines and critical milestones. Raytheon says it has a plan in place and is pressing forward. Only time and pending reviews will tell. I wish them the best of luck, but schedules have slipped and the current OCX RTO (Ready To Operate) Phase One date now hovers around December 2016 — almost three years after the first GPS III satellite will be ready for launch. The dreaded gap does exist, but I am told both AFSPC and SMC have plans in place to address the issue.

    GPS III

    As for the space and satellite segment, the GPS III contract awarded to Lockheed Martin (LMCO) in May 2008 has excelled in all respects. Unlike any other major space program in recent memory, LMCO is set to deliver on time and within the scope of the original contract budget, an almost unheard of accomplishment for a major space program. The GPS III delivery date could still move to the left, and the first GPS III satellite should be ready for launch in early 2014, depending on the length of the checkout schedule — by anyone’s yardstick the GPS III program is a proving to be a phenomenal success.

    I offer these predictions and congratulations armed with a plethora of supporting data. I recently had the opportunity, and pleasure, to tour the 5,400-acre LMCO GPS III Waterton Canyon manufacturing and assembly facility in Littleton, Colorado, with the LMCO VP for Navigation Mission Systems Keoki Jackson, and I was very impressed. But that is a success story for another time. Suffice it to say that GPS III is right on schedule thanks to Lockheed Martin and teammates Exelis, General Dynamics, Infinity Systems Engineering, Honeywell, ATK, and other subcontractors.

    GPS User Equipment

    The GPS user equipment segment is in turmoil due to the lack of a suitable stand-alone handheld GPS device that the troops will actually use. This is where we segue into the evolving Perfect Handheld GPS Transceiver, written about so many times in this column. PHGPST has become practically a perpetual topic, although I never intended for it to be one, and I promise more on that avenue as well at a later date.

    Operations Support

    For now, let’s concentrate on a less well-known aspect of the GPS — and that is what functional system operators and maintainers historically label as Level 1 and Level 2  operations support.

    This is the contract now up for a major recompetition and is what I discuss with General Irv Halter from CSC, which is the prime for one of the teams competing with Boeing for the new support contract.

    Before you say why do I care, allow me to explain exactly what Level support actually means and why it is critical to the GPS signal we all utilize and depend on everyday.

    Level 1 and Level 2 Support

    The current GPS operational control segment (OCS) program implements a traditional support model with Level 1 support providing basic day-to-day administration of the ground system and routinely handles rudimentary troubleshooting of basic system problems. Level 2 troubleshooting issues, however, frequently deal with advanced operational configurations, system capabilities, and possible product bugs or even failures.

    The current GPS OCS Level 2 support team is off-site — in other words, not co-located with 2 SOPS (Second Space Operations Squadron) that flies and maintains the GPS satellites. Rather, the Level 2 support operators are called on as needed. Which unfortunately puts them out of the operational loop for day-to-day operations.

    The current support model reflects a traditional and outdated legacy approach, concerning only the signal in space, that weighs the value of operational uptime and reliability against the cost of expert support. Such an approach may work well for a satellite system where downtime is not a big concern. However, that is certainly not the case for a system as universally critical as the Global Positioning System. Unfortunately, historically the cost of downtime, critical problems, and impacts to the mission were rarely considered in the trade analysis between cost and operations resiliency.

    An excellent operational example of the realm of the possible and hopefully the future for operational support is the Cheyenne Mountain complex, which moved away from the traditional Level 1 and Level 2 based support model in 2004 in order to significantly improve operational resiliency, support response times, and mission success.

    One of the critical downsides of the traditional Level-based support model is the time required to determine and solve problems. It takes considerably longer than the more modern and responsive support model implemented in 2004 by the Cheyenne Mountain complex.

    Typically, using the GPS Level 1 and Level 2 operational support model in place today, when a mission operations team is in need of technical assistance, a Level 1 technician is notified and attempts to troubleshoot and solve the issue. Only when the Level 1 support team fails to remedy the technical issue is the Level 2 team called. The Level 2 support team, which is usually offsite, then starts the troubleshooting process from the very beginning.

    This reminds me of the frustrating process we all go through when we call our local cable, satellite, television, Internet, or phone provider(s). Before the problem is finally solved, we typically explain it no less than three times and spend an inordinate amount of time talking to people who are not able to solve our problem. Eventually we are routed to the correct technician and the problem is solved. This is a perfect example of the failings of Level 1 and Level 2 based support. The model CSC and Braxton Technologies are proposing fixes these major shortcomings of the current process.

    For GPS operational support, the circumstances are even more complicated and nonsensical. The GPS Level 2 operational support team is at a critical disadvantage from the beginning of the process, since they do not have the day-to-day context of the operational use of the system to assist them in the troubleshooting process. Again, precious time and money are wasted explaining the problem and its criticality in the context of day-to-day operations.

    How do Air Force Space Command, SMC, and 2SOPS plan to fix the problem? Hopefully by searching for a better operational support system that does away with the frustration of two independent levels of support and brings the GPS OCS (Operational Control System) into the 21st century.

    Mission and Delivery Assurance 

    One solution could certainly be the proposed CSC team operational support concept, which builds on the foundation and solution established and sustained by Braxton Technology and CSC at Cheyenne Mountain several years ago, as in the example mentioned earlier. This new support paradigm revolves around two basic concepts: 1) Mission Assurance and 2) Delivery Assurance. The mission assurance concept centers on putting the smartest personnel on the operations floor with the operators, so that most problems are identified, triaged, and solved without calling in outside help. CSC and Braxton initiated this concept in Cheyenne Mountain in 2004 in an operations area that appropriately enough became known as the Cheyenne Mountain Mission Assurance Center (CMAC). Level 2 support personnel replaced Level 1 personnel in Cheyenne Mountain, and the talent pool was significantly upgraded in an effort to increase mission uptime by having the most knowledgeable personnel on the floor at all times, so problems could be remedied in seconds or minutes, not hours or days.

    This concept proved so successful that the Integrated Space Command and Control (ISC2) Program Office supported expanding this single-level operational support concept to the primary Test and Development Facility (TMAC), the Alternate Missile Warning Center at Offutt AFB (OMAC), the Command Center at Peterson AFB (NMAC), and the Space Control Center at Vandenberg AFB (VMAC), just to name a few.

    Hopefully, the operational success of the support model used in the Cheyenne Mountain complex teaches us that mission critical systems have unique requirements that weigh in favor of a more experienced operational support team with mission and operational knowledge/exposure. History has proven, time and time again, that the length of time to repair operational problems and outages impacts the overall cost of sustaining the system significantly and outweigh the marginal increase in cost of moving to a more experienced operational support team. Time is money and downtime for the GPS is an unacceptable compromise, especially in wartime and when lives are at stake.

    The success story continues; shortly after the Mission Assurance Center concept was rolled out, it was expanded by adding an element known as Delivery Assurance. Personnel from the MACs were exported for short periods of time to participate in critical delivery milestones, to include software unit test, factory acceptance testing, hardware/software integration, and installation procedure testing. Many MAC personnel participated in the writing and testing of installation and integration procedures so that problems encountered prior to the installation of new hardware and software were familiar to those participating in installation, integration, and checkout, thereby reducing the probability of problems and significantly shortening the time to solve issues during delivery.

    Remember the AEP GPS 5.5C upgrade fiasco? Consider that the problem might have been avoided entirely with the CSC approach that has proven so effective in the operations centers where it has been fully implemented.

    These intuitive concepts, Mission Assurance and Delivery Assurance, increased operational uptime markedly in the Cheyenne Mountain Complex as well as throughout the Integrated Threat Warning/Attack Assessment (ITW/AA) network in general. In addition, scheduled downtime for testing and installation were reduced as problems were eliminated altogether, or lessened as many issues encountered during installation and integration at the operational site had been previously encountered and successfully solved by the same personnel responsible for the long-term success of the installation. Using the foundation of efficient and effective processes combined with an experienced support team to deliver software and system sustainment, the GPS program can deliver exactly what the GPS user community needs: dependable deliveries of new capabilities, at a lower cost, with shorter and reliable schedules, and without giving up dependability, quality, or the critical integrity of the GPS signals we all depend on everyday.

    That is why the new AFSPC GPS support paradigm and the CSC approach are so critical to all users, and why I dropped by CSC to speak with General Halter.

    The CSC Discussion

    With the previous history as a background, I contacted Irving L. Halter Jr. (Maj Gen, USAF Ret), who is leading the CSC efforts in Colorado Springs. A few weeks ago, we sat down to discuss the issues. With 60 years of U.S. Air Force aviator experience between us, I was sanguine we would solve all the world’s problems in less than five minutes, with a couple left over for GPS issues.

    This was a focused conversation among aviators, so we both spoke at length, using our hands a great deal, shot our watches and checked six continually.

    I asked General Halter (GIH) if CSC was nervous about taking on an established prime like Boeing in the recompete, thinking that it was a key concern. However, he soon let me know that Boeing was not the issue. CSC’s primary consideration is focusing on bringing value to the U.S. government and SMC through a new contract proposal and the reality of a new paradigm.

    GIH: Don (DJ), the very first issues we had to ascertain were do we have the requisite expertise, can we put a qualified team together, and is this a serious competition or is SMC merely re-competing the contract just because it is time? Are they (SMC and AFSPC) seriously looking for a new contractor, a new paradigm, and a new way of doing business? In this case, we have every reason to believe the acquisition community and AFSPC are looking for an agile, more compact team with a fresh new outlook, and new ideas to perform operational support for GPS.

    We’ve had the sense for some time that SMC’s objectives are the same as General Shelton’s, and we determined that indeed they are; so we set out to achieve GPS operational support in the most effective way possible that relates to cost, schedule, risk and efficiencies. This is a serious competition that enables us to bring an extraordinary new way of doing business to Air Force Space Command and SMC in the Ground Segment sustainment domain.

    Partners

    GIH: Don, let’s start by discussing our partners because we can’t do this alone. One of our key partners is Braxton Technologies. Braxton is the current LADO (Launch, Anomaly, and Disposal Operations) contractor for the GPS. They do launch, on orbit checkout, anomaly detection and resolution, perform some normal housekeeping chores similar to or in place of AEP, and they maintain the current residual satellites, all while their current LADO software provides troubleshooting capabilities that fit well with our new approach to operational support. In fact, the Braxton LADO software is the only software capable of performing all these actions. We are very happy to have them as a partner. They are a small business that has a great reputation in the space community. They are an agile and highly respected small company, always leaning forward, their reaction time is phenomenal, they adjust quickly to changes, and frankly they are one of the most knowledgeable partners we have on the CSC team. We would not have bid this contract without them.

    Now, just like you, I have been an operator my whole life and now I am in the support business, but that does not mean that I have lost sight of the operational impacts of support. I know first-hand our support operators benefit by understanding the operational mission and making things happen. For the military customer our job is to provide unparalleled rapid operational support that makes a significant difference to warfighters and theater commanders, and that is not reciting battery voltages and satellite ephemeris parameters. It is enabling the GPSOC, the JSpOC, and the operational commanders to make the best decisions that affect, number one the warfighters, but also support all global users.

    By teaming with companies like Braxton Technologies, who already have an incredible GPS experience base, we make the CSC team stronger and more relevant.

    And I agree with you, Don, and with General Shelton — GPS support and operations have to change, and I firmly believe the CSC team can make that happen, quickly and effectively, with the government a full partner in the process.

    I mentioned that I have always been an operator (fighter pilot) but that also applies to space operations. I spent a significant amount of time in the National Reconnaissance Office or NRO — remember when we could not even say those three letters together? — my job there was to translate operational concepts into support for the warfighter and vice versa. I was the translator so to speak. Because often in the intelligence-gathering world and in the space world in general, the warfighters, first responders, and even everyday users are not aware of all the capabilities that exist or the abilities that GPS enables. So when any of those folks (the users) came to the NRO with a request, it was our job to hook them up with the right people who could provide what they needed. My team and I were very successful with that at the NRO, and I see this new challenge as very much the same scenario. Our task at the 2SOPS will be to support and enable the operational GPS mission so all the enabling capabilities are utilized and shared across the broad spectrum of users.

    Government Participation

    GIH: Don, along with this operational bent we need to work hand in glove with the government, support them to the best of our ability and at the same time be alert for new ideas and innovations that make a difference. We need to do that in such a way that the government — the customer — is excited to see our innovative approach and will help us implement proposed efficiencies. Not every new idea requires a contract modification or a new contract line item number (CLIN); many innovations simply involve a smarter way of doing business, and those that do require a change can many times be offset by dropping something that is not as productive. It requires cooperation from and probably a new attitude by the government, but I am convinced, partially by my experience at the NRO, that this support contract can and indeed needs to be accomplished in just that manner; it’s a new and better way of doing business.

    DJ: Let’s hear about the rest of your team. We have certainly established the Braxton bona fides but there are several other members of your team as well.

    GIH: That’s right, Don, we strategically selected our team, and the next partner is one that many teams forget and that is our new government partner in this endeavor, the professionals at the Ogden Air Logistics Center (ALC) in Odgen, Utah. This is a new line of business and support for them but I can tell you they are chomping at the bit to make this happen. They are excited about this contract and we are excited to be teamed with them in this new acquisition paradigm. In fact I would go so far as to say our success is directly related to their success in assuming this new line of business…we both have to succeed in a new way of doing business and break some rice bowls or this will not work. However, I am convinced that with perseverance and hard work we can make it work and work well for the benefit of the government and GPS users everywhere.

    Now I don’t want to make it sound like our relationship with Ogden is totally new because we (CSC) have been working other efforts and contracts with them as well, as have some of our partners. So we understand the new AFSPC mandate, we know how Ogden ALC prefers to operate, and we are excited about pursuing that relationship and expanding our partnership.

    Now on to other more traditional teammates:

    Exelis is a former ITT company spun off in 2011. They are a leader in Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) related products, systems, information and technical services that supply military, government and commercial customers in the United States and abroad as well. They are a relatively new company with a rich heritage and a phenomenal legacy with significant bench strength because they can reach back to their original parent. They have a strong presence including a depot in Colorado Springs and are a key-player supporting GPS operations today. Exelis has Kalman Filter expertise, they build monitor station receivers, and they understand the GPS extremely well from a technical and support standpoint. We are proud to have them as a partner.

    Apogee is another partner. They are a small business in Colorado Springs that fills a particular niche for us that I don’t want to go into here, as it gets too much into our acquisition strategy. But they are a great small business known for excellent execution.

    Kratos Defense and Security Solutions is a fast growing company, that recently bought Integral Systems Inc., and has a great deal of experience supporting Command and Control solutions. We are currently working with them on a MILSATCOM contract and we know they are a great teammate.

    We previously discussed Braxton Technologies, a key player in this effort and frankly we know what they are doing currently with GPS and they have demonstrated excellent results.  As the current LADO contractor, and member of the Raytheon OCX Team they are working future OCX efforts and other critical aspects of GPS; so their system knowledge nicely augments the expertise and experience the rest of the team brings to this new acquisition strategy with SMC, AFSPC and the Ogden ALC.

    And, Don, the other important scenario for our partners is that we, CSC as the prime, look at this as a long-term relationship. This is a formidable team and we desire to do more with our partners in future endeavors and opportunities. We think both the team and the contract have considerable growth potential.

    DJ: Now that we know about the team, tell us something about CSC.  To me CSC is like Northwestern Mutual Life who describe themselves as the ‘Quiet Company.’ Certainly those of us in the industry know CSC but you don’t exactly put yourselves out there in the public eye. You don’t advertise during the Super Bowl!

    GIH: Don actually CSC is the ninth largest government contractor. We are primarily an IT, IA, crypto and services company. And talk about slogans — remember the old BASF slogan? I modified it slightly and unofficially for CSC “…’at CSC we don’t make many of the products you use, we make the products you use better’. We have significant contracts with the U.S. military, with NASA, the FAA and the IRS just to name a few. So we may be a bit on the quiet side but ‘still waters run deep’ and we are very good at what we do.

    The CSC Team has some great new ideas about operationally supporting GPS and taking it to new levels. We strongly believe that the most effective way to successfully execute in a new paradigm, such as GPS GCS (Ground Control Segment) is for Team CSC to truly partner with AFSPC, SMC and the Ogden ALC.

    The other issue I see here Don is that the world in general does not know what the USAF does with GPS and how critical it is to our national infrastructure. You quoted someone as saying, “Thank goodness the USAF runs GPS and not the French Air controllers.” While I could not agree more I unfortunately run into people all the time that just do not understand GPS. They see GPS as a tool that get’s them from Point A to Point B. They don’t understand that this country would quickly grind to a halt without the critical national infrastructure and services that GPS enables. I often tell people and mention in speeches that they could not cash a check or buy gas for their car if GPS failed. In fact they could use their credit cards as Frisbees without GPS timing. When I make statements like that people generally look at me dumbfounded because they just don’t get it. But we do understand that at CSC, and we understand it at a personal and professional level as well.  The bottom line is we look forward to the opportunity to deliver excellent results to GPS users worldwide.

    DJ: Gen Halter I was around during the AEP transition and as transitions go it went well, but it can be a perilous process especially for a system considered a worldwide utility. Have you thought much about the transition process and how that will play out?

    Technical Expertise and Transitions

    GIH: Don, CSC has a Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 3 certification and we have developed a tried and true transition process, we call ‘Sure Start’, to minimize risk and provide a seamless transition plan that will be invaluable to our partners and invisible to the GPS community, users included. Part of that process will be supported by our forensics process, which examines every level of a problem to insure we provide the best information assurance possible. If something doesn’t work, if it is broken or just not working efficiently, we examine it with our forensics tools and devise a real time plan to make it better and more bullet proof. We feel strongly this will prove to be a huge benefit to the government and to GPS users.

    Information Assurance and Crypto

    DJ: Gen Halter some of the most stringent regulations and requirements today exist around information assurance and cyber threats? How are you going to address what has to be a very dynamic process?

    GIH: Information Assurance (IA) and Cyber are both a process but cyber is not IA and IA is not cyber even though they are at times closely related and often integrated. We understand this completely and since we are known as an IA and cyber company, we are going into this with our eyes wide open and are fully confident that we can respond as required. We know from experience at CSC that the IA and cyber process is not something you bolt onto the end of a program or another process but rather IA and cyber today are an integral part of operational support that must be infused from the very beginning to be effective.

    Plus we are always looking at automation and for ways to work IA and cyber issues more efficiently. Certainly Braxton Technologies is a recognized expert in this area; all their processes are IA and cyber certified currently, so we feel we have a good handle on those issues.

    We are also familiar with how automation can improve most any process. Our program manager, Tom Ocvirk, is very familiar with GPS and the issues involved.  Tom worked in the GPS Program Office and he supported the Boeing IIF satellite program as the sustainment manager. So he has considerable experience and is recognized for his innovative ideas. Certainly we will depend on him to keep us compliant with all the rules and regulations, which are considerable, but we feel strongly that compliance should never get in the way of innovation.

    Bottom line we are excited about this opportunity, we have put together a phenomenal team and we look forward to the competition because frankly we have developed a better way of doing business, of supporting GPS operations and users globally will be the beneficiaries.

    DJ: General Halter I appreciate your candor. I enjoyed our conversation immensely and I wish you the best of luck in the competition. We will certainly keep our readers informed as the competition progresses.

     

    Until next time, happy navigating.