Tag: GPS III

Latest Words from the Acquisition Guru of the World’s Gold Standard for PNT
Col. William Cooley, Director, U.S.A.F. Global Positioning Systems Directorate.

Colonel William “Wild Bill” Cooley, director of the GPS Directorate at Space and Missile Systems Center, discusses CNAV signals, GPS IIF launches, and the OCX with Defense Editor Don Jewell.

There is probably no busier United States Air Force officer than Colonel William “Wild Bill” Cooley, Ph.D., the director of the GPS Directorate at Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), Los Angeles AFB, California. He is the driving force for all things dealing with acquisition and development for GPS. Currently, he is juggling so many objects, it is amazing that he is not totally overwhelmed. Consider the issues with the Next-Generation Operational Control System (OCX), GPS IIF, GPS III, and military government user equipment (MGUE), plus a plethora of classified endeavors we can’t even discuss here. He is one busy man, but even with all that, he found time to sit down and answer a few questions in an effort to bring us all up to speed on GPS and PNT.

Don Jewell (DJ): One of the hot topics at all the symposia lately, here and abroad, has been the broadcasting of additional civilian navigation signals and messages. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) originally objected and sent a strongly worded and probably unadvisable letter to General Shelton (AFSPC/CC) on the matter, but sanity prevailed, and the GPS navigation signals on L2C- and L5C-capable satellites began broadcasting with full navigation messages on April 28. However, we understand DOT still insists some restrictions be put in place for the L5C signal. Can you provide us with an update and a status on that program? Plus, what can users expect in the way of improved accuracy and signal availability?

Colonel “Wild Bill” William Cooley (WBC): As of April 28, the civil navigation message (CNAV) broadcast was implemented on all operational GPS satellites capable of transmitting the L2C and L5 signals. Currently, seven GPS IIR-M satellites broadcast L2C, and six GPS IIF satellites broadcast L2C and L5. On average, users may expect at least one L2C-broadcasting satellite to be in view at all times.

The CNAV message content now includes the minimum message set needed to support the positioning, navigation, and timing mission, namely Broadcast Message Types (MT) 10, 11, 30, and 33, which contain information about the satellites’ position, clock, health, and corrections, in lieu of the previously transmitted MT-0 placeholder or default message.

The Air Force intends to broadcast L2C messages with the health bit set healthy and L5 messages with the health bits set unhealthy until sufficient monitoring capabilities are available for the L5 signal. We expect the accuracy to be slightly less than the Legacy Navigation Message (LNAV) because we are only updating the satellites two times each week. The accuracy should improve to be slightly better than LNAV beginning this December, when we begin updating the CNAV message on each satellite daily.

DJ: The M-code (military code) and MNAV (military navigation) signals are also being broadcast on M-code-capable satellites. So, the same questions apply: what can our warfighters and government users expect as far as M-code availability and accuracy? What can you say about the multiple messaging capabilities both on the civilian and military (CNAV and MNAV) signals?

WBC: Like the civil CNAV message, the modernized military-data message MNAV will enable military users to take advantage of all of the performance improvements offered by a modernized military signal. We can expect continued accuracy improvements as newer satellites replace aging satellites.
MNAV broadcast testing will continue occasionally in support of developmental test events for the next-generation military GPS receiver cards.

DJ: I know we can get in sensitive territory here in a hurry, but since we are discussing the military signals, can you give us an update on the long-running MGUE and M-code program? When can government users expect to see an actual signal and a receiver with M-code chips and/or modules that utilize the military only signals? Plus — and here’s where we have to be careful — what can you say about the security, availability, and accuracy of the military signal?

WBC: The M-code-capable military receiver (MGUE) modules in development have successfully acquired and tracked M-code during live-sky tests, and we have many more tests scheduled. MGUE is expected to begin fielding by 2017, at which point at least 18 M-code-capable GPS satellites are expected to be on orbit, providing global four-in-view coverage of full M-code capabilities.

In the meantime, the most recent GPS IIF satellite launches have raised the total number of M-code-capable modernized GPS spacecraft to 14 (seven GPS IIR-M and seven GPS IIF). This provides four or more M-code satellites in view globally at least 50 percent of the time, and at least one M-code satellite in view continuously. This increasing M-code satellite signal coverage will enable effective, realistic, developmental and operational testing of MGUE receivers.

The new GPS III block of satellites will provide an M-code signal with greater security, and higher power, comparable availability, and accuracy when compared with the GPS IIF satellites, allowing users to operate closer to jammers and under trees, as well as with greater resistance to jamming and spoofing. Also OCX will offer significantly improved crypto protection and cyber security.

DJ: Recently, the U.S. Air Force successfully launched the fifth, sixth, and seventh SVs in the GPS IIF family of satellites in less than seven months. Quite a feat! Congratulations are in order for that milestone. However, in the past, the checkout times averaged approximately 30 days. In fact, speed in initializing the IIF SVs and declaring them operational seemed to be an unofficial goal. On GPS IIF-5, however, the rapid checkout timelines have been extended considerably. Can you enlighten us concerning the checkout program and what the government hopes to achieve?

WBC: There are three key dates with regard to checkout timelines: completion of on-orbit checkout, the transfer of Satellite Control Authority (SCA), and the Operational Acceptance of the vehicle. Measured from launch, the nominal on-orbit checkout timeline is 21 days. The nominal checkout for SCA transfer is 28 days. For the IIF-5 mission, the on-orbit checkout occurred in six days and the SCA in 11 days, a record for the IIF program!

The operational acceptance was completed 60 days later, following an on-orbit observation validating a requirement to see if the vehicle works as expected without receiving any commands from the ground segment in that time period.

This may explain the perceived extended checkout, which is in reality a delayed operational acceptance.
The average time to SCA transfer for the first four vehicles is 42 days. The average is inflated due to a long checkout of the first GPS IIF space vehicle, which took 88 days. From IIF-2 to the present, the average SCA transfer time has been 21 days.

Using SCA transfer time makes the most sense, because that is the time it took the SPO to go through the entire process (to include meetings and documentation) to hand over the vehicle.

DJ: Can you give us a status update on the entire GPS IIF family of satellites? How are the SVs faring in orbit, and are the clocks proving to be as stable and accurate as forecast?

WBC: The first seven of 12 GPS IIF satellites are currently on-orbit and meeting all mission requirements. Of the remaining satellites, one is being prepared for launch in October 2014, one is being prepared for shipment to Cape Canaveral AFS, two are in storage, and one is completing production. The oldest satellite is now four years old. The legacy GPS satellites have remained operational well past their design lives, demonstrating the high-quality engineering and mission-assurance practices used on this program. The clocks are improving the overall accuracy of the constellation with the best-ever day (measured in Signal-in-Space User Range Error) in June 2013 of 46.6 centimeters and the best week in April 2014 of 64.6 centimeters.

DJ: What exactly do the IIFs mean to the GPS modernization program, for the average user and for the GPS constellation and program as a whole?

WBC: The 12 Boeing-built GPS IIF satellites will provide improved signals that will enhance the precise global positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) services supporting both the warfighter and the growing civilian needs of our global economy. The next-generation satellites will provide improved accuracy through advanced atomic clocks, a longer design life than previous GPS satellites, and a new operational third civil signal (L5) that benefits commercial aviation and safety-of-life applications. It will also continue to deploy the modernized capabilities that began with the modernized GPS IIR satellites, including a more robust military signal.

The anomalies that we have seen on orbit have been resolved either through rework at the factory or through modifications in flight software.

GPS IIF Launch. The seventh of the follow-on generation, rising August 1.

DJ: Bill, that’s comforting, but what about the clocks on the IIF SVs? There were serious problems with the Cesium clocks on the first couple of launches. Are the operators now able to utilize or activate either the Rubidium or the Cesium atomic reference systems?

WBC: Don, the answer is yes. The system has triple redundancy with two Rubidium frequency standard clocks and one Cesium frequency standard.

DJ: What about signal strength and stability on the IIF birds?

WBC: In addition to an increased number of signals, GPS IIF provides more than the legacy power levels, and all signals on GPS IIF meet stability requirements. For reference, the GPS IIR-M series introduced one new L1 and two new L2 signals, while GPS IIF introduced the new L5 signal. All of these signals are part of the GPS IIF navigation payload and provide information including GPS date and time, satellite health, satellite ephemeris (for individual satellite positioning), and almanac information (for information on other satellites in the constellation).

The L1 frequency carries the L1 C/A code for civil users, and the L1 P (Y) code and L1 M-code for military users. The L2 frequency carries the first modernized civil signal, L2C, and the L2 P (Y) code and L2 M-code for military users. Finally, the L5 frequency carries the newest modernized civil signal.

Modernized GPS civil signals provide dual-frequency signals to all GPS users, enabling ionospheric corrections that greatly improve the accuracy. The new L5 signal will be used for safety-of-life applications, including aviation. In addition to an increased number of signals, GPS IIF provides more than the legacy power levels, and all signals on GPS IIF meet stability requirements.

DJ: Let’s move to the ground segment. OCX, the next-generation GPS Command and Control (C2) system, has literally moved to the right on the schedule timeline for every month it has been in existence since it was awarded in 2010. The end date just keeps getting farther and farther away. OCX is also currently exceeding the original contract budget by a large margin.

What’s the problem? Is OCX more difficult or complicated than originally planned? Is there any good news to report to users on OCX? What can users expect in the future?

Just so our readers know, just what is it that OCX brings to the GPS arena that cannot be provided by the current Architecture Evolution Plan (AEP) C2 system? Why do we need OCX? And in your opinion is it still a viable option? Are there contingency plans?

My apologies — that is about eight questions in one, but hopefully you can bring us up to speed on OCX.

WBC: Actually, the primary drivers of schedule delays for OCX are related to:
- issues with the integration and testing of Block 0 on the cyber-hardened infrastructure; and
- the concurrent systems engineering approach for Block 1 and Block 2, which drove a high rate of rework and inefficient staffing.
The OCX program is a pathfinder for many of the U.S. Air Force’s and Department of Defense’s most rigorous Information Assurance (IA) and Cyber Security requirements, which have turned out to be more complex to implement than anticipated.

OCX is a challenged program, but there is progress to report. Raytheon completed a hardware compatibility and integration test with the non-flight test bed of the Lockheed Martin GPS III space vehicle. This test validated the network infrastructure’s ability to communicate between the Lockheed Martin Launch and Checkout Capability and the Raytheon Launch and Checkout System, sending commands to the full-sized, functional satellite prototype test bed.

In addition, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin completed the third of five planned launch and early orbit exercises to demonstrate launch readiness. This exercise used new installments of the Raytheon OCX software and network infrastructure to demonstrate space-ground communications for initial acquisition, orbit-raising maneuver planning and execution, and basic anomaly detection and resolution.

Another recent accomplishment was the merging of the Cyber Security hardware and software baseline with the Block 0, Launch and Checkout System, mission applications. The completion of this merge allowed the program to enter formal integration and test activities, which are ongoing.

The full capabilities of OCX provide more than a dozen new capabilities for the GPS mission. OCX enables the full capabilities of the modernized navigation signals: adding L2C and L5 for civil users, M-code secure signal for military users, an internationally compatible L1C, as well as worldwide monitoring of these modern signals for quality and integrity.

OCX enables operation of the new GPS III satellites. As we discussed previously, OCX will provide the USAF’s most rigorous cyber-security capabilities, built in from the OCX foundation.

Raytheon just completed implementation of a program re-plan, which implemented lessons learned to date to correct many of the development challenges encountered, and created a lower risk schedule for delivery. With these changes, the program remains a viable and important component of the modernized GPS enterprise.

DJ: With that in mind, when do you currently plan on having the first GPS III OCX-controlled launch? Original schedules called for a late 2014 date, then it was 2015, and now we are hearing 2016 or as late as 2018 for OCX. Are there viable alternatives, and if so, can you tell us what they are and if they are being pursued?

WBC: OCX and GPS III are synchronized to support launch of the first vehicle in the second half of 2016, conditioned upon launch manifest availability. Contingency plans are being developed, but will only be implemented if warranted by the risk.

DJ: Now, Bill, I am not asking you to blow your own horn here, but frankly we have heard nothing but good reports from SMC and the GPS Directorate since you arrived about 14 months ago. That is a short period of time, but evidently you have made your presence felt and have had a major impact on the GPS program overall. What have you done differently that seems to work so well? To what do you ascribe your success so far?

WBC: Thank you, Don. I’m very happy to hear the reports are positive, but the credit goes to the men and women of the GPS Directorate, our federally funded Research and Development Center personnel, and our contractors. My job is to continually assess the challenges and barriers that slow modernization. I help resolve the challenges or get additional resources if needed to enable the team to accomplish their important mission.

I am incredibly fortunate in that the GPS team is passionate about our mission to maintain the Gold Standard for position, navigation, and timing (PNT) for the world. The entire directorate understands the critical role we play for civilian and military users worldwide, and that knowledge motivates and energizes us every day!

I’m the luckiest colonel in the Air Force because I get to work alongside this terrific team of government and contractor professionals on one of the most important missions in the U.S. Air Force.

DJ: Obviously you are proud of your team, and you know what it means to be a great leader. In closing, do you have any final comments?

WBC: Don, just that the GPS Directorate and our contractor team, along with our partners at the 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2SOPS) who fly the GPS constellation 24/7, take our job seriously and understand the important mission we have: to provide reliable and precise position, navigation, and timing services for America’s warfighters, our allies, and civilian users around the globe. GPS is the Gold Standard for space-based PNT today, and we are modernizing to ensure GPS is the Gold Standard for the future.
September 1, 2014
GPS III Sources Sought?
Artist’s rendering of GPS III satellite (courtesy of Lockheed Martin).

So, there I was, sipping a cold green tea in the shade on my back deck in the beautiful foothills of the Rocky Mountains in early June, when the phone began to ring off the hook. Upon answering, I was hit with a barrage of questions. Have you seen the GPS III Sources Sought? What should we do? Do you have any advice? Should we respond? But by far the question I thought expressed most everyone’s initial reaction of incredulity was “Are these guys serious?” For frankly this Sources Sought does contain a bit of a giggle factor.

The questions continued and the phone rang all week. Officially the Sources Sought being referenced is the GPS III Space Vehicles Production Readiness Solicitation Number: FA8807-14-R-0008. Prepared or not prepared by, take your pick, the space acquisition folks at SMC (USAF, Space and Missile Systems Center), and it has caused quite a stir in the PNT (position, navigation and timing) industry.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, I should explain exactly what a Sources Sought means in terms of what the U.S. government is looking for and how to respond — in my humble opinion of course.

First a Sources Sought, as defined by the business folks at Georgia Tech (GTPAC) who have researched the matter thoroughly and who I absolutely agree with, is not an actual bid or proposal solicitation; instead, it’s a solicitation of interest. You should think of a Sources Sought as market research being conducted by a government agency or service to determine the capabilities and interests of the marketplace in a specific area, product or capability. This specific Sources Sought should be of interest to companies having an interest and capability to produce products relating to GPS III specifically.

So, that’s the boring official definition, but what is a Sources Sought really? Certainly, the official definition works, but more often than not in my experience, the Sources Sought has also been used to:
1. Determine what companies, new and established, are players and who is still in the game.
2. Determine what partnerships might be formed and how companies might work together to provide a required and often difficult capability. Often government acquisition officials will discover a new capability from a trusted supplier, or discover new teaming arrangements that provide a synergy otherwise unavailable.
3. Determine who is paying attention.
4. See which companies answer the announcement. Acquisition officials say it is often just as interesting and enlightening to see which companies do not submit a response as it is reading the proposals of the responders, especially if the Sources Sought is being used as justification for a Sole Source award.
5. Determine if the project has any hope of succeeding, and if so, how do various companies approach the problems involved?
6. Provide an official and public catalyst for lethargic or too-comfortable contractors that are not getting the job done on a current contract. Fear can be a great motivator.
7. Enact the old marketing axiom, “Let’s run it up the flag pole and see who salutes.”
Regardless of what you feel the real reason or reasons for the GPS III Sources Sought might be, or even if you have doubts about the seriousness of the release, the one hard and fast rule among marketers is that if you have any capability that even vaguely matches the Sources Sought announcement, then by all means respond.

The official GTPAC advice — and again, I totally agree — is to always respond to a Sources Sought if it appears to be of any interest to you. Just as I have always said to company marketing reps, when asked about the company’s capabilities, the answer, a la Marketing 101, is always “Yes” until it is emphatically “No.” As in:

“Can you build that MDU?”

“Absolutely!” (Stage whisper) “What’s an MDU?”

“Dude, it’s a Mission Data unit.”

“Oh yeah, that MDU. Of course we can build it!”

It may be hard to believe, in this technological day and age, but contracting officials frequently complain about the limited responses they routinely receive to Sources Sought. Responding is usually quick and painless, and can be the first step to place your company in the running for a lucrative government contract. It distinguishes you from your competitors, who did not take the time or effort to respond. The bottom line is it may very well lead to an inside track on an eventual government contract. Just like poker — you can’t win if you are not in the game.

Of course, the reverse is also true, as almost every Sources Sought states. There are no guarantees, and a Sources Sought announcement may — or may not — be followed up by the agency or service with the issuance of an actual bid or RFP (Request for Proposal). The GPS III Sources Sought legalese reads this way: “This notice does not constitute a Request for Proposal. There has been no decision to develop an RFP for the effort in this sources sought notice.”

You take your chances, but nominally it is time well spent, as most Sources Sought require very little in the way of scripted paperwork and government forms. Sometimes the response may be in the form of a simple response on company letterhead laying out your qualifications and stating clearly that you and your company are interested.

However, the government being the government, more often than not the reverse is true, and there may be very specific instructions in a Sources Sought for responding. GTPAC recommends, as do I, that your company follow these instructions to the letter. Give the government no more or less than requested — in other words, give the federal agency or service which posted the Sources Sought notice exactly what it asks for in exactly the form it asks for it.

Now that we are all on the same sheet of music and fully understand exactly what a Sources Sought announcement means, why did this particular GPS III Sources Sought generate so much interest?

Caught off Guard

First I think, well actually I know, this announcement caught almost everyone off guard. It was a surprise, even to those of us who heard rumors about it for some time, not only because of the timing, but also the scope. It far exceeded what most everyone expected —we will get to that shortly. My sources inform me the exact wording and timing were even a surprise to Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company (LMSSC) and Exelis, who are, of course, as incumbents officially excluded from responding.

In retrospect, however, perhaps it should not have been that big of a surprise. General William (Willie) Shelton (USAF), who when this column is first released will have only 48 hours remaining as the commander of Air Force Space Command, had been telegraphing for some time, in sometimes strident language, that he was not happy and something was in the works. He has been uncharacteristically publicly critical of both LMSSC and Exelis for schedule slips and overruns pertaining to GPS III.

Without a doubt, Lt. General Ellen Pawlikowski (USAF), the most recent former commander at SMC (Space and Missile System Center) where the GPS Directorate is located in Los Angeles, California, at LA AFB, let her misgivings concerning a single provider for the GPS III payload be known for some time. Earlier this year, referring to LMSSC, General Pawlikowski was quoted as saying “They know we are not happy — that we are disappointed at the delays we have seen, the technical issues that their subcontractor [Exelis] has had, and probably they are considering whether an alternative source could provide them a better opportunity…I think that Lockheed is doing the right things to figure out how do they best deliver the GPS III in the timelines that they’re expected to.”

In LMSSC’s defense, it was always aware of a possible schedule slip, as was the USAF — for more than two years a bevy of LMSSC engineers and senior managers have been putting in overtime at the Exelis facility in Clifton, New Jersey, to try and wrestle the wayward Mission Data Unit back on track. Many of them are still there, plugging away, including the indefatigable and always optimistic former LMSSC GPS III Program Manager and VP for Space Keoki Jackson.

The MDU is the beating heart of the payload for the GPS III SVs, and it has been in trouble for some time. So, although LMSSC and Exelis are late to need for the three LMSSC GPS III payloads awaiting a heartbeat in the City of Oz or the new LMSSC manufacturing facility in Deer Creek Canyon in Littleton, Colorado, it is not from want of extraordinary efforts to deliver the payloads on time, and those efforts continue today.

Lockheed Martin spokesman Chip Eschenfelder dropped me an email recently that stated: “All GPS III SV01 (Space or Satellite Vehicle Number One) Navigation payload components — including the Mission Data Unit — have successfully completed unit acceptance testing; these components have been integrated onto the payload panel; and the panel is now undergoing panel-level testing [at Exelis]. The SV01 Navigation Payload forecast delivery to Lockheed Martin is Fall 2014.”

As I write this, I have just received an email from Kristin Jones, the senior communicator for Geospatial Systems at Exelis. She states: “Delivery of the GPS III navigation payload to Lockheed Martin continues to progress following recent Mission Data Unit build and successful test activities. The GPS III navigation payload is an original, highly advanced system that brings new capabilities to the GPS constellation, including improved user accuracy and a more robust signal for contested environments. The new flexible design is also optimized to accommodate additional capabilities in the future. This system has now successfully completed testing and has been added to the payload panel. The integrated payload panel is now going into ambient testing. Also, all six of the navigation payload transmitters have successfully completed their ATP testing. To date, significant testing with flight-like engineering units and the SV01 flight hardware indicates that signal crosstalk variances have been addressed, and GPS III will meet all mission and quality requirements. Exelis is on track for a fall delivery to Lockheed Martin.”

The Farmers Almanac states: “In 2014, the autumnal equinox brings the fall season to the Northern Hemisphere on September 22 at 10:29 P.M. EDT. Let’s see, that is only a biblical 40 days and 40 nights from now, and according to both LMSSC and Exelis the MDU problems have been resolved, to the best of their knowledge to date. The MDU for GPS III SV01 is in the final portion of panel testing, and will undergo more rigorous testing, including thermal vacuum testing at the LMCO (Lockheed Martin Company) facility in Deer Creek this Fall. That is very positive news, and it sounds as though the MDU is back on track.

LMSSC has been involved with GPS for decades, and Exelis, formerly ITT, has been involved in producing all or some portion of almost every GPS payload for four decades, since the GPS program began. So why were there technological problems at this late date? I can only say that providing the Gold Standard for space-based PNT is a complicated business, and as the Europeans are learning the hard way with Galileo, slips are just part of the environment in spaceborne PNT platforms.

How Would It Work?

A subset of the official wording of the GPS III Sources Sought, which you can view in its entirety at Fed Biz Ops.gov goes like this:

SMC/GP is conducting market research to review the industrial base and determine whether viable alternate sources exist to the continued GPS III SV production on the current baseline by LMSSC. For every block of GPS satellites over the past 40 years, the primary risk has been the navigation payload. This market research seeks to determine if alternate sources can attain a production-ready configuration for a GPS III SV with an alternate navigation payload in time to allow the Production Ready Alternate Source to compete with LMSSC for up to 22 satellites.

For many, the key phrases are “product ready” and “compete.” This is not only, as many first thought, a Sources Sought searching for an alternate source for a GPS III MDU. It is that and much more. It is a Sources Sought for new competition. SMC is also looking for a full up GPS III production capability that is able to compete with LMSSC for up to 22 more GPS III SVs, and they want it at a FFP (firm fixed price). At this stage, some pundits might say it is a solution looking for a problem.

The bottom line is SMC is asking for companies to step up and produce a full-blown and fully compliant GPS III space vehicle, with NDS and all the associated payloads. This includes a validated, certified and integrated launch capability to compete with LMSSC for the next 22 GPS III SVs, and even though it is not specifically mentioned, competitors could find themselves competing against the United Launch Alliance with launch services from SpaceX, who bill themselves as the world’s fastest-growing launch provider. Who are the competitors? Can you say Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics? Because these are the usual suspects, and all conspiracy theories aside, it appears the government does not want LMSSC to have a monopoly on GPS, and the Exelis MDU worries have given them…well, let’s just say, have justifiably fed that fear. The GPS III Sources Sought is just one result.

Results

So, just what were the results of the GPS III Sources Sought? I could easily say your guess is as good as mine, but I do have my sources, and they tell me on the one hand SMC heard from the usual suspects, and now you know who they are, about what they expected to hear, but then again they also heard from a couple of surprise (only to SMC) companies. Both have significant space capabilities, but have in one case not played in the GPS arena in some time (several decades), and in another case, a well known company may be looking for a way to increase their GPS role.

I also heard that few of the submittals were compliant or met all of the required criteria, and that should definitely not have come as a surprise to SMC. Consider they are asking companies with space capabilities to commit to designing an MDU from scratch — and indeed it may need to be an advanced MDU for new capabilities that will work with the current GPS III LMSSC interface. Those specifications are not exactly common knowledge, certainly not for a Sources Sought. SMC is asking for a full-up compliant system, and only gave companies two weeks to think about it.

Going back to my original premise: How should these companies have responded? Again, Marketing 101 — hopefully they said, “Sure, we can do that,” submitted the required paperwork, and then started scrambling to put a team together and figure out how they can produce and compete. And competing against the incumbents, especially when they are LMSSC and Exelis, is no easy task. Hopefully past performance still matters.

The 2014 Lamborghini Gallardo (Wikimedia Commons).

Still the disconcerting, curious and, according to some space companies, the giggle factor, concerns the scope of this would-be proposal. LMSSC has three almost-complete (missing only one crucial part) GPS III space vehicles waiting for a fully tested and certified MDU. Every other aspect of the GPS III program is on track and has been tested.

This is analagous to Sant’Agata Bolognese, a small comune in the province of Bologna, which just happens to be the home of Lamborghini, complaining that it has three brand-new Lamborghinis waiting to be delivered, if only Audi would ship the engines. One of the reasons I like this analogy is that it happened, it works, and I love exotic sports cars. The other reason is that it is easy to see the problem is the engine, not the Lamborghini, which remains as exotic and flamboyant as it has always been. Lamborghini is only going to fix the actual problem, a tardy engine delivery. They are certainly not going to scrap everything and fund competitors to build a new Lamborghini from the ground up.

Or closer to home, consider the F-35 engine issue. The USAF did not ask for companies to design a new F-35 just because it needed an alternate engine. It just contracted for another engine supplier — a simple solution to a complex problem. Viola! Bob’s you uncle!

The F-35C Lightning II test aircraft CF-1 performs a flight test (photo by Andy Wolfe, courtesy of the U.S. Navy).

The U.S. government, DoD, USAF, Air Force Space Command, and SMC is putting forward the proposition that it will pay for another company or companies to compete with a proven system that works, and works well. LMSSC GPS IIRs and IIRMs are on orbit today and preforming well past their programmed life. LMSSC knows how to build the best GPS satellites in the world today. Like Lamborghini and the USAF, LMSSC is just waiting on a subcontractor to supply the GPS III engine or MDU.

So regardless of the purpose or multiple purposes of the GPS III Sources Sought, and whether you think it is an overreaction or not, in the end it opens the door to numerous potential players in the GPS space arena. To paraphrase that paragon of wisdom, Martha Stewart, “Competition is a good thing,” even if you have to pay for it.

Until next time, happy navigating, and remember GPS is brought to you free of charge by the United States Air Force.
August 13, 2014
The System: GPS III, Always a New Horizon

First, Lockheed Martin began investigating options for its GPS III payload supply line last year. Then in June of this year, the U.S. Air Force opened a “sources sought” initiative for a production-ready GPS space vehicle, equipped with an alternate payload, for consideration alongside the Lockheed Martin-built GPS III vehicle. Grumman and Boeing have responded to the U.S. Air Force call. Now the U.S. Senate has jumped into the act, with a 2015 defense spending bill that directs the Air Force to allocate at least $20 million for work on a space-based “digital navigation instrument” as a possible alternative to the payload developed for the GPS III satellites.

The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee stated that it “believes that early Air Force investment, when combined with industry investment, into the development of a digital navigation payload will significantly reduce cost and schedule risk for the future GPS constellation.” What exactly is meant by a “digital navigation payload” — as opposed to the current payload under construction — is unclear. The systems on earlier GPS satellites probably used some analog components. Even modern receivers have an analog front end before the analog-to-digital converter. Perhaps the Senate Appropriations subcommittee wants more digitization in the nav unit.

Disaggregation. Further, the committee “firmly believes that movement away from large satellites, where possible, will result in significant cost savings and reduce the schedule to deliver payloads into orbit.”

This idea calls for dispersing space capabilities away from large platforms and into smaller ones.It would require, at the very least, a new constellation architecture for GPS III, an as-yet unexplored concept.

Status. Lockheed Martin is under contract to deliver the first eight GPS III satellites, but the award for up to 22 further IIIs remains open. Difficulties with the payload for the first batch of satellites mean that although Lockheed has three space vehicles ready, it has no signal payload to put aboard them. Subcontractor Exelis is at work on that.

Lockheed Martin spokesperson Chip Eschenfelder has stated that “signal cross talk issues are resolved. The SV01 navigation payload forecast delivery to Lockheed Martin is fall 2014. Once the first navigation payload is delivered, we are into the production phase.”

General John E. Hyten

General Support. At June’s ION Joint Navigation Conference, General John E. Hyten, currently vice and soon to be commander of USAF Space Command, while evincing unqalified support for the system operators, did not address the GPS III manufacturing and supply issue. He confined his industry-related remarks to warning commercial PNT vendors and government program managers to cease placing commercial GPS receivers in critical government systems that support warfighters, government users, and critical national infrastructure.

He strongly advocated for Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Modules and M-Code to help secure these critical systems against interference, jamming and spoofing, and urged manufacturers to build their devices in strict adherence to the U.S. government’s ICD process.

FCC Seeks Spectrum but Supports GPS

In a June 20 workshop on “GPS Protection and Receiver Performance,” the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reiterated the need to safeguard critical infrastructure and public safety — two key uses of GPS.

Despite fears that the FCC would call for new GPS receiver standards, the meeting took a protective and conciliatory tone, even as the FCC continues to seek more frequencies for mobile broadband, citing the need “get more out of the radio spectrum.”

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler stated, “Today is not about FCC-mandated receiver standards. Rather it is about the best way to protect GPS operations in the context of evolving technology and adjacent spectrum activities.”

The specter of adjacent spectrum use hovered through the day, fully appearing in LightSquared and administration presentations. Otherwise, scant mention was made of the 2012 notion that GPS receivers should be modified to stop alleged “peeking” into adjacent spectrum.

Panel discussions focused on GPS in critical infrastructure and public safety, with presentations by Qualcomm, Motorola, and AT&T. Speakers from T-Mobile, Spirent, Garmin, NovAtel, and John Deere covered GPS’s role in timing and the power grid, financial markets, telecommunication network, and precision agriculture. Paul Galyean of Deere said that “Certainty on the spectrum environment is needed. It’s difficult to design for the future without it.” If GPS receivers had to filter out cellular activity, this “might impact sensitivity, involve excessive size or cost, and might cause distortion of GPS measurements.”

Chris Hegarty, MITRE Corporation, gave a compelling argument for not overhauling receiver methodology: the extremely long lead times for commercial passenger aircraft. “Until 2022 every new Boeing and Airbus is going to fly off with $250,000 worth of navigation equipment that has three $50,000 GPS receivers and antennas and everything else, and they are going to want to use that for 20 to 25 years. So, you have a timing issue. Even if we all decided today that we wanted to do that, some communities simply aren’t going to be able to get it into place until we’re all dead.”

Power Loss Strikes Galileo Satellite

In-Orbit Validation Vehicle May Be Lost to Further Use

The disappearance of signals from Galileo GSAT0104, the fourth in-orbit (IOV) Galileo satellite, arose from a sudden, unexpected loss of power aboard the space vehicle. The exact cause is unknown, or at least unreported as of press time. Some have speculated that the cause could lie in a failure of components around the solid-state power amplifier, including the output multiplexer, cables, or antenna.

If such proves to be the case, ground operators may be powerless to repair the problem. The satellite would be a total loss.

The power outage flashed on May 27, shutting down the satellite’s E1 signal. The signal “re-established itself almost immediately. But as soon as it was back in service, the two other channels’ power dropped and did not recover. The full satellite then was shut down by ground teams,” reported correspondent Peter de Selding.

Looking for a Fix. European Space Agency (ESA) officials stated on July 3 that they would power-on the satellite again during the week of July 7–11 to continue an investigation into the problem, but there have been no subsequent reports. Investigation has been ongoing since the shutdown but has not identified a cause; officials state they have established that it is not related to the onboard atomic clocks.

The four IOV satellites currently aloft differ in both technology and manufacturer from the next phase of Galileo satellites to be launched. The GSAT0104 satellite now in silent orbit was built by Astrium. The newer, operational satellites are produced by OHB-System, following a different payload design. Two of the newer generation are at the Guyana spaceport awaiting a possible late August lift date.

Reporting History. The possibility of a satellite failure was first floated in the June 30 EAGER newsletter (European GNSS and Earth Observation Report), by contributing editor Tim Reynolds. He wrote:

“Has anyone heard anything from Galileo GSAT0104 recently? According to the European GNSS Service Centre, the fourth IOV satellite is ‘unavailable until further notice.’ The setting of unavailability may be due to in-orbit validation testing, as the website implies may be the case, but no further official statement has appeared, nor active user notifications (NAGUs) at http://www.gsc-europa.eu/system-status/user-notifications.”

Two days later, GPSWorld.com posted a follow-up story: “According to reports, the root cause of the outage is under investigation. Some unofficial sources have gone so far as to speculate that GSAT0104’s useful transmission life may be over.”

Then, on July 3, correspondent Peter de Selding (who also contributes to EAGER) reported in Space News, after questioning sources at ESA, that the trouble aboard the fourth IOV Galileo satellite arose from a sudden, unexpected loss of power, as stated in the first paragraph of this article.

Largest Fine in FCC History — $35M — for Chinese Jammer

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to issue the largest fine in its history against C.T.S. Technology Co., Limited, a Chinese electronics manufacturer and online retailer, for allegedly marketing 285 models of signal jamming devices to U.S. consumers for more than two years.

The FCC applied the maximum fine allowed to each jammer model allegedly marketed by C.T.S., resulting in a planned fine of $34,912,500.

“All companies, whether domestic or foreign, are banned from marketing illegal jammers in the U.S.,” said Travis LeBlanc, acting chief of the Enforcement Bureau. “Signal jammers present a direct danger to public safety, potentially blocking the communications of first responders. Operating a jammer is also illegal, and consumers who do so face significant civil and criminal penalties.”

C.T.S. operates a website that markets consumer electronics to individuals in the United States, where it allegedly misled U.S. consumers by falsely claiming that certain signal jammers were approved by the FCC. In fact, the use of such devices by U.S. consumers is illegal under any circumstance. C.T.S. also sold 10 high-powered signal jammers to undercover FCC personnel.

The FCC also is ordering C.T.S. to cease marketing illegal signal jammers to U.S. consumers and provide information to the FCC about any persons and entities in the United Sates that purchased its devices.

Signal jammers are radio frequency transmitters that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized communications, such as cellphone calls, GPS systems, Wi-Fi networks, and first responder communications. It is a violation of federal law to market, sell, import, or use a signal jammer in the United States and its territories, except in very limited circumstances involving federal law enforcement.

The FCC asks people to report the sale or use of an illegal jammer by contacting the FCC Enforcement Bureau through the FCC online complaint portal, or by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (or 1-888-225-5322). To voluntarily relinquish a signal jammer, e-mail [email protected]. Additional information, including a Consumer Alert and Enforcement Advisory to retailers, is available at www.fcc.gov/jammers.

The FCC enforcement action against C.T.S. is available.

July 30, 2014
General Dynamics Awarded $25M by Lockheed for GPS III Program

At least some of the work on GPS III continues along prepared tracks, with the award of a Lockheed Martin contract to General Dynamics for two more satellites’ worth of communications hardware. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics, was awarded a $25.4 million full-production contract from Lockheed Martin to support the GPS III Network Communications Element (NCE) for space vehicles seven and eight (SV 07-08). This commitment fills out that aspect of the current Lockheed Martin bevy of eight bought by the U.S. Air Force.

Many if not all components of the GPS III constellation beyond the Initial Eight have been called into question recently, with the U.S. Senate, the Air Force, and Lockheed itself keeping open minds about alternatives.

General Dynamics’ NCE components provide the communications functions for the GPS III satellites, including the ground-to-space command and control channel, the space-to-space inter-satellite channel and the command and telemetry communications channels within each satellite. General Dynamics is now under contract with Lockheed Martin for GPS III SV 01-08. Delivery of the NCE components for SV03 and SV04 are scheduled for this summer.

Compared to prior GPS vehicles, the Air Force’s GPS III satellites will deliver three times better accuracy, provide up to eight times more powerful anti-jamming capabilities and include enhancements that extend spacecraft life 25 percent further. GPS III-series satellites also will carry a new civil signal designed to be interoperable with other international global navigation satellite systems, enhancing civilian-user connectivity.

The majority of the work under contract will be performed at the General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems facilities in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Bloomington, Minnesota.

July 29, 2014
Boeing, Northrop Grumman Enter GPS III Bid

Northrop Grumman and Boeing have responded to a U.S. Air Force call for contractors interested in building a follow-on set of GPS III satellites, according to a report in Space News.

Lockheed Martin is under contract to deliver the first eight GPS III satellites, but the award for up to 22 further IIIs remains open. Difficulties with the payload for the first batch of satellites mean that although the Lockheed has three space vehicles ready, it has no signal payload to put aboard them. Subcontractor Exelis is at work on that. Delivery delays have prompted the Air Force to look about for alternatives.

Lockheed Martin itself began investigating options for its supply line last year.

Air Force “Sources Sought” Call

The U.S. Air Force issued an official “Sources sought” notice in June on a production-ready GPS space vehicle, equipped with an alternate payload, for consideration alongside the Lockheed Martin-built GPS III vehicle. The first phase of the contract would include two firm-fixed price contracts worth $100–$200 million to demonstrate a competitor to GPS III.

Key requirements are that the satellite must offer a payload alternative to that built by Exelis; the satellite must be ready to launch by 2023; and the production line must turn out two to three new satellites per year.

The second phase features a competition between Lockheed Martin and one or more other companies for as many as 22 satellites. A final contract award would be made in 2017 or 2018.

Current GPS III contractor Lockheed Martin reportedly sent an engineering team to help Exelis expedite a resolution of payload holdups, while simultaneously investigating a switch to other suppliers, beginning with the ninth satellite in the GPS 3 series. Lockheed Martin says five companies responded to its solicitation last year.

Air Force Gives Free Hand. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, head of the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC), told the national Space Symposium in Colorado in June, “Obviously we want a GPS III that does what its supposed to do, delivered on time, and it’s up to Lockheed to manage its subcontractors. My view is if Lockheed is not happy with their subcontractors nav payload, and they believe that they can get a lower risk approach to delivering a nav payload by seeking a secondary source for that, then that’s clearly a decision for them to make.

“They [Lockheed ] know we are disappointed at the delays that we have seen, the technical issues that their subcontractor has had, and probably they are considering whether an alternative source could provide them a better opportunity.“

Lockheed Martin spokesman Chip Eschenfelder issued a statement: “Exelis has made good progress on the first GPS III space vehicle, SV01 navigation payload. All GPS III SV01 navigation payload components have successfully completed unit acceptance and environmental testing, with the exception of one component, the mission data unit.

“To date, significant MDU hardware testing indicates signal cross talk issues are resolved. The SV01 navigation payload forecast delivery to Lockheed Martin is fall 2014.”

Boeing built the platform and major payload components for the GPS IIF satellites and is one of three companies that received contracts in January 2013 to study how to improve the accuracy, coverage, and efficiency of GPS using smaller satellites.

Northrop Grumman Aerospace of Redondo Beach, California, has already delivered deployable antenna sets to Lockheed Martin for the first six GPS III satellites. The division has delivered more than 1,000 antennas for previous generations of GPS spacecraft, Northrop Grumman said.

July 8, 2014
Out in Front: Epic Fail

Sometimes the patient has to get sick in order to get better. The eruption of a malady leads to identification of an underlying condition; appropriate treatment can then be devised to cure the body of its ills. Sound like House, M.D.?

As a variant on this plot line, the patient can know full well what is wrong deep down inside, but refuses to acknowledge or deal with it. As in, “I’ll stop smoking when I start coughing,” or “My drinking hasn’t gotten to the problem stage . . . yet.”

Let us examine the patient GNSS. The April signal outage, system-wide on the GLONASS constellation, lasted less than 12 hours. That was long enough to cause consternation for end users around the world, and for several voices to renew their calls for multi-constellation GNSS and alternative PNT. The interruption was also short enough that it has now vanished from most rear-view mirrors. Everything is back to normal and everyone can go about their business.

But the patient is still unhealthy, and vulnerable.

It is easy enough to fault the system operators, who after all are only human, and to say, “That can’t happen here. We have enough safeguards in place. And our guys and gals are just that good.” In other words, we take enough antibiotics and are generally, you know, well, healthy. As healthy as anyone else.

We have yet to see a full-scale jamming or spoofing attack on the order of cyber-security breaches in other targeted areas that have made off with millions or billions of dollars.

We have yet to experience a truly major-league Sun event, when global circumstances would be in dire need of PNT help just when GNSS was least helpful.

We have yet to encounter some other unknown, unexpected event or environment that will reveal in painful detail the vulnerabilities of GNSS.

Which are well known to us at this writing.

This month’s cover story on a new enhanced differential Loran technique represents one arm of geospatial-medical research. Notably, it evinces little concern for GLONASS, the area where the latest malady erupted. No, the Dutch harbor pilots are concerned about over-reliance on GPS, the Gold Standard. The Gold Standard! What could possibly be wrong with the Gold Standard? After all, it’s golden.

GPS III Misses Delivery Date. The U.S. Air Force is shopping for alternative companies to make future GPS III satellites after the first eight birds come through. Current contractor Lockheed Martin Space Systems missed a 2014 delivery date because, although it has three satellites in the production barn and a satellite test-bed vehicle that has successfully passed system tests, it has received no payload from subcontractor Exelis to put aboard same.

Delivery of the first GPS III satellite is now expected to slip from fiscal 2014 as far as fiscal 2016. Then there’s launch to consider, which brings to mind the launch budget and schedule, annually trimmed back by Congress. Then there’s OCX, needed to operate GPS III, also struggling to stand up.

Even once established, GPS III will share the same vulnerabilities of current GNSS.

The doctor looks worried.

July 1, 2014
Lockheed Misses GPS III Deadline After Production Delays

The U.S. Air Force is shopping for alternative companies to head the GPS III program after its current contractor, Lockheed Martin Space Systems, hit production delays, according to the Denver Post.

There have been technical problems with the first GPS III satellite navigation system, which is supplied by Lockheed Martin subcontractor Exelis, the newspaper reports.

After the current eight-satellite contract is fulfilled, contracts to build the 22 remaining spacecraft are up for bid, according to a notice posted by the Air Force on the Federal Business Opportunities website.

Exelis’ navigation system was producing signal interference that prevented Lockheed from delivering by its target date earlier this year, which is now anticipated for delivery in 2015. The system is undergoing rigorous tests.

June 13, 2014
The Adventure of the Atomic Clock

In consulting my notebooks for the spring of 2014, I find many remarkable cases that engaged the attention of my intimate friend Mr. Sherlock Holmes. Among them stand out the tragedy of the ancient British barrow, the disappearance of Pemblestoke the magician, and the curious facts associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a tale for which the world is still not prepared. Perhaps none of these so well illustrate, however, the advanced technical insights and consultative powers of the great detective as did the intrigue into which we were drawn by the brilliant young American scientist, Geo. P. Hess.

“Watson, we have a new client,” Holmes announced over breakfast, “a friend, actually, upon whom I have depended for many years. He has always proved reliable, helping me navigate the highways and by-ways all across the land.”

“His name?” I inquired.

“The Right Honorable George Parkinson Hess from California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Florida, and doubtless many other parts of the American nation. I have watched G.P. Hess grow these last 36 years into a prodigiously successful entrepreneur, known the world round for his ubiquity, openhanded generosity to all, and, equally, his devotion to his own country. Now it seems he needs my advice, and I cannot refuse him.“

“I wonder that an American should be able to find his way here this morning,” I replied. “There’s a beastly fog about, and London streets are no friendly environment under the best of conditions.”

“Have no fear, Watson,” Holmes chuckled. “I have never known G. P. Hess to be late for any function. Since a lad he was always on time, right to the second. You can set your watch by him, and as far as I know he has never been lost. He has an uncanny sense of direction and is indeed a fount of knowledge concerning maps and directions. I believe I hear his ring at the bell even now.”

Mrs. Hudson ushered in our American visitor, and Holmes introduced us. “It is always good to see you, G.P. How are you — in good health, I presume?”

“Indeed, Mr. Holmes, things are neither as well they may seem on the surface, nor as well as they could be. I am troubled of late, severely troubled by potential gaps in my future. Not to mention the seismic activity lately in Los Angeles. In the last 18 months, the magnitude of the tremors has grown from 3.1 to 5.1 on the Richter scale. I just can’t understand why they thought to have our major acquisition headquarters in a place that is constantly threatened by tremors, outright quakes, wild fires, floods, landslides, and tsunamis. Not to mention the traffic. It would have been much better to co-locate acquisition with the main headquarters in Colorado. All they have to worry about there are blizzards, high winds, and an occasional wildfire.

“While I could not agree with you more, G.P., I fail to see what I can do, try as I might, about Mother Nature.”

Fire in Florida

“Right you are, Mr. Holmes. I’ll get to the heart of the matter. I am deeply concerned about several of our business ventures: expansion and modernization efforts, if you will. You may have heard about a small but rather serious fire at the U.S. Air Force’s Cape Canaveral radar tracking facility and the subsequent launch delays. That small fire at a single tracking facility has already delayed a National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) launch, and a resupply mission to the International Space Station, currently manned by U.S. and Russian crews who, whether or not they are still speaking to one another, really need the replenishments. Now we aren’t allowed use Russian engine cores for space launch any more. A blessing, actually, as the Russians have put more malfunctioning GLONASS satellites into salt water lately than into the vacuum of space, when they aren’t simply blasting them to kingdom come.

“With all the troubles besetting Cape Canaveral, Elon Musk is burning figure eights in his Tesla, and SpaceX is a very happy company — in the right place at the right time, what? Able to launch its Falcons and Falcon Heavies from Vandenberg as well as Canaveral.

“Imagine, one little fire has caused the cancellation of several space launches, and those still on the manifest are moving to the right daily. We had hoped to put into orbit four new IIF models this year, but that looks next to impossible now. Plus it appears the GPS III payload has hit a snag. It is delayed six to nine months.”

GPS III Delay

“A delay in GPS III had not been looked for, had it?” queried Holmes.

“No sir, it had not. Everything was proceeding smoothly, but now the satellite payload is in question. Subcontractor Exelis has provided every GPS payload since 1978 and all have worked marvelously well, some of them for more than 23 years. But now — there is a problem. Some say it is signal crosstalk, some say it is with the new rubidium clocks. One thing for sure, it is demoralizing. I am given to understand the powers that be in Colorado Springs and Los Angeles are calmly but firmly looking for some competition or even an alternate payload provider.

OCX Delay

“And then there is the GPS ground segment. It has moved one month to the right for every month it has been in existence, it has gone over budget, and now is on its third program manager in three years. Whatever happened to the days when a capable leader conducted a program from beginning to end, knew it intimately from top to bottom, from soup to nuts? What is this world coming to? Where are our leaders?

“And don’t get me started on the effects of ‘seques-castration’!” fumed the young man.

“And the Chinese!” he continued, gathering steam. “Just who do they think they are? Do you know they called their regional system a PNT gold standard? Gold standard! Don’t make me laugh!”

“Now G.P., don’t despair,” soothed Holmes. “There are still excellent leaders out there, you just have to look a bit harder nowadays. In the space arena, Elon Musk, General William Shelton, Wild Bill Cooley, Frank Kendall, and Keoki Jackson are just five of many that come immediately to mind. Of course I would not want to play poker with any of them, but I digress.”

Solutions Appear

“I have been reading and thinking about the alternative payload issue,” the detective continued, “and I have other sources of information as well. Dr. Watson calls them my Baker Street Irregulars, and they are both resourceful and quite knowledgeable. These sources tell me there is another Colorado company, with excellent leadership, that is really on the ball, can move mountains (or huge boulders, anyway), and mark my words, they have top-notch crews, expertise, and even some past performance where an alternative GPS payload is concerned. They might be worth watching.

“As far as OCX goes, frankly I am hearing there are indeed backups and alternatives. My sources have confirmed the existence of a bracket of applicable technologies belonging to a small residual company, run by an Irish clan, believe it or not, with considerable past performance and expertise. Once officially launched to work on the real-time issues, they should be able to help the ground-segment team get back on the fast track.

“As for as the Chinese and their claims, all I can say is no one believes their gold standard rhetoric, although it obviously has a purpose.”

“Mr. Holmes, I hope you are right,” the American replied with an assuaged look. “I knew that if I talked with you I would feel better about these perplexing issues.

“I must resume my journey to Rotterdam, where I will hear a lot more about the Galileo program meeting its launch dates — or not — and the GLONASS outage. As rough a shape as we are in, we’re still far better off than the rest! In the meantime, I’ll pop over to Greenwich to synch up and universally coordinate with those folks before I move on to the Continent.”

G.P. Hess carefully scrutinized his pocket watch. “Now Mr. Holmes, Dr. Watson, I must depart. As you know I have a reputation to maintain: always precisely on time, never lost, and as far as I know, I have never blacked out. Cheerio!”

“What a remarkable fellow, Holmes!” I said after our client had left. “He is certainly full of energy.”

“Yes,” my friend replied, “energetic and very successful. If you had observed him more closely, Watson, you would have noticed his pocket watch. Ah, you did not remark upon it? Standard-issue, atomic-reference version, crafted of solid gold. You might say, and rightly so, that where time is concerned, G.P. Hess is the undisputed holder of the Gold Standard.”

So ends our brief visit with Holmes and the illustrious Watson. Stay tuned for further adventures, and until next time, Happy Navigating! G.P. Hess and I hope to see you all next week in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, at the European Navigation Conference, ENC-GNSS 2014. Drop by and say Hello!

If you can’t drop by and say hello in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, then please join me at the 30th Space Symposium, which is slated for May 19-22, 2014, at The Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. The Space Symposium is considered by many of us in the Space business to be the premier gathering of space professionals in the world.

In June, I will be attending the 39th NIST Time and Frequency Seminar. It has a great lineup of speakers this year to include: Judah Levine who is the NIST civilian time leader, David Allan who is the original creator of the famous Allan variance, and Neil Ashby, an expert in relativistic timing effects. The seminar takes place in Boulder, Colorado, June 3-6, 2014.

What Is Don Reading?

I had very little time for reading this month, or so I thought — then I had a brief but enlightening correspondence and conversation with local author George E. Nolly, who also lives in Colorado. George sent all four of his wonderful books direct to the Kindle app on my iPad. I had told George I was so swamped I would save his books to read on the airplane on my way to Rotterdam and report on them after the European Navigation Conference.

Then I read just one chapter of the first book and I was hooked. There was nothing for it but to devour all four volumes of the escapades of young Vietnam era USAF pilot, Hamilton “Hamfist” Hancock.
Hamfist Out: The Chill Is Gone;
Hamfist Over Hanoi: Wolfpack on the Prowl;
Hamfist Down! Evasion, Survival and Combat in the Jungle;
Hamfist Over The Trail: The Air Combat Adventures of Hamilton “Hamfist” Hancock

It will be like going back in time for many readers of a similar age. George Nolly writes with such an easy-going grace and fluidity that reading of these often stressful and life-threatening times, while sitting in my lounge chair, was, for me anyway, indeed a pleasure.

Certainly I can remember undergoing many of the same flying and ground ordeals, and Nolly tells his tales with such honesty and clarity that it brought back vivid memories. In fact I have never read such accurate descriptions of what it was like to fly the old T-29 with radial engines and all that entails. George actually brought back the unforgettable sound and smell of those two Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial, air-cooled engines. They are from a long-forgotten era of aviation, but those of us who heard them will never forget them.

T-29A Aircraft, Vietnam era, restored. Courtesy of CONVAIR T29A.

George also makes wonderful plugs for GPS, possibly without knowing it, when he describes using LORAN maps under red lights in a cramped cockpit. This, along with all the time he spent just trying to figure out where he was or where the target was located, just screams for a GPS solution. In truth, in the Vietnam era we airmen spent a great deal of time trying to figure out exactly where we were, where our target was, and where the enemy was located, especially if he was shooting at us. Today all those tasks are made infinitely simpler with the use of GPS and modern electronics. However, this also highlights the amazing feats of airmanship accomplished in the Vietnam era, all while being constantly targeted by the enemy, all the more incredible.

Radial engine.

Just between us veteran airmen, the author relates the tales with such clarity and detail I suspect many of them are autobiographical. George E. Nolly, after graduating from the U.S. Air Force Academy here in Colorado Springs, served as a pilot in the United States Air Force, flying 315 combat missions on two successive tours of duty in Vietnam, winning three Distinguished Flying Crosses and 24 Air Medals, flying O-2A and F-4 aircraft, so he knows whereof he writes.

Even if you are a few generations younger than George Nolly and me, and don’t undergo a nostalgic experience as you read, you will certainly enjoy these fabulous books. Be sure to read them in order, as they are actually one running story that brings to life the trials, tribulations, and joys of Hamilton “Hamfist” Hancock for all of us and vividly recreates the way things were back in the 1960s and ’70s in the United States, the USAF, and what it was like flying in combat in Southeast Asia. I highly recommend these tales. I hope there are more to come.

Upcoming Conferences

If you can’t drop by and say hello in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, then please join me at the 30th National Space Symposium, which is slated for May 19-22, 2014, at The Broadmoor Hotel in Colorado Springs. The National Space Symposium is considered by many of us in the Space business to be the premier gathering of space professionals in the world.

In June I will be attending the 39th NIST Time and Frequency Seminar. It has a great lineup of speakers this year to include: Judah Levine who is the NIST civilian time leader, David Allan who is the original creator of the famous Allan variance, and Neil Ashby, an expert in relativistic timing effects. The seminar takes place in Boulder, Colorado, June 3-6, 2014.

April 9, 2014
GPS III Alternative Payloads Canvassed

GPS III prime contractor Lockheed Martin has heard from six companies concerning alternate designs for the GPS III satellite payload, according to reports. A company spokesperson said “constantly canvassing the industrial base to see what’s out there” is merely part of Lockheed’s standard business practice.

Lockheed Martin partner Exelis Geospatial Systems currently supplies the payload, as it has for all previous GPS generations. Earlier this year, Gen. William Shelton, Air Force Space Command, said the first GPS III launch date had slipped from late 2015 into 2016, and confessed to “patience wearing thin” at a press breakfast.

Part of the delay may have been due to signal crosstalk in the new, as yet unlaunched, payload. Crosstalk occurs when a signal broadcast on one circuit creates an undesired effect on another circuit.

The Story So Far. In December 2013, Lockheed Martin turned on power to the bus and network communications payload of the second GPS III satellite, SV-02, at its test facility in Denver. This demonstrated the satellite’s mechanical integration, validated its interfaces, and opened the way for electrical and integrated hardware-software testing. The first GPS III satellite (SV-01) was powered on in February 2013.

In October, the Lockheed Martin GPS III Nonflight Satellite Testbed (GNST), a full-sized, functional satellite prototype at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, successfully communicated via cross-links to Air Force simulators of the current GPS constellation in orbit. Testing also demonstrated the ability of an Air Force receiver to track navigation signals transmitted by the GNST.

Exelis Advances. In mid-March, Exelis announced successful completion and full testing of six transmitter assemblies, which are integral payload components for the GPS III satellites. The test program includes random vibration, pyroshock, and thermal vacuum testing, replicating space-like conditions through deployment and on-orbit environments. In January, Exelis received three rubidium atomic frequency standard clocks from Excelitas Technologies specifically designed for GPS III.

April 1, 2014
General Dynamics Awarded $26M for GPS III Communications

General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems, a business unit of General Dynamics, has been awarded a $26 million contract from Lockheed Martin to support the U.S. Air Force GPS III Network Communications Element (NCE).

General Dynamics is already under contract with Lockheed Martin to produce the NCE for the first four GPS III space vehicles (SV01-SV04), as well as for the procurement of long lead material for the second set of four space vehicles (SV05-SV08). This follow-on contract provides General Dynamics with the funding to complete the NCE for SV05 and SV06.

General Dynamics’ NCE components provide the communications functions for the GPS III satellites, including the ground-to-space command and control channel, the space-to-space inter-satellite channel, and the command and telemetry communications channels within each satellite. NCE components have been delivered for SV01 and SV02. The NCEs for SV03 and SV04 are scheduled for delivery by June 2014.

“We bring more than a half-century of experience in the spacecraft communications and navigation domain to this program,” said Kirstan Rock, vice president and general manager of Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance at General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems. “We look forward to continuing working with Lockheed Martin to deliver high-quality, reliable and affordable solutions to the Air Force to advance their mission.”

The Air Force’s next-generation GPS III satellites will improve position, navigation and timing services and provide advanced anti-jam capabilities yielding superior system security, accuracy and reliability.

GPS III is a critically important program for the U.S. Air Force, affordably replacing the aging constellation of GPS satellites currently in orbit. Compared to prior GPS vehicles, GPS III satellites will deliver three times better accuracy, provide up to eight times more powerful anti-jamming capabilities and include enhancements that extend spacecraft life 25 percent further. GPS III-series satellites also will carry a new civil signal designed to be interoperable with other international global navigation satellite systems, enhancing civilian user connectivity.

March 25, 2014
GPS III Payload Facing Delays

An artist’s rendering of the GPS III satellite.

Gen. William Shelton, chief of Air Force Space Command, said the date when prime contractor Lockheed Martin and payload manufacturer Exelis are expected to have the first GPS satellite ready for launch will slip from its original target at the end of this fiscal year, according to National Defense Magazine. Technical difficulties are slowing the development process, he said.

“We’re not happy at all. Is my patience wearing thin? Yes. Has it gotten to the place where I am going to step off the cliff? No,” he said at a breakfast sponsored by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute.

Gen. Shelton said the Air Force is working closely with the contractors.

Shelton said the issue highlights the problem inherent in relying on one contractor for a critical technology, reports Space News. Exelis Geospatial Systems has supplied the payloads for all previous generations of GPS satellites.

“The payload hardware is built and is currently in test,” said Jared B. Adams, director of communications for Exelis geospatial systems, in an email to National Defense Magazine. “Last year, Exelis identified some development issues with the navigation payload for the first GPS III satellite that needed further work. Significant testing with flight-like engineering units and the first GPS III satellite’s flight hardware indicates that the known technical issues have been resolved, and GPS III will meet all mission and quality requirements.”

The payload delay is not expected to push back the first launch of the Lockheed Martin-built GPS III satellites in 2015. Lockheed Martin Space Systems is under contract to build eight GPS III satellites.

February 11, 2014
Lockheed Martin Powers on Second GPS III Satellite in Production

The Lockheed Martin team developing the U.S. Air Force’s next generation Global Positioning System (GPS) recently turned on power to the bus and network communications equipment payload of the program’s second satellite designated GPS III Space Vehicle 2 (SV-02).

The successful powering on of GPS III SV-02, on December 19, 2013, at Lockheed Martin’s Denver-area GPS III Processing Facility (GPF), is a major production milestone which demonstrates the satellite’s mechanical integration, validates its interfaces, and leads the way for electrical and integrated hardware-software testing.

“The GPS III SV-02 bus power on is a significant milestone, positioning SV-02 in line with the Air Force’s first GPS III space vehicle, SV-01, in our GPF, where both satellites are progressing through sequential integration and test work stations specifically designed for efficient and affordable satellite production,” explained Mark Stewart, vice president for Lockheed Martin’s Navigation Systems mission area.

On November 11, 2013, the propulsion core module for SV-02 was delivered to the GPF from Lockheed Martin’s Space & Technology Center, in Stennis, Mississippi, where the core was manufactured. The structural backbone of the satellite, the core contains the integrated propulsion subsystem that allows the GPS III to maneuver on orbit immediately after launch, as well as to conduct repositioning maneuvers throughout its mission life.

The GPS III program will affordably replace aging GPS satellites, while improving capability to meet the evolving demands of military, commercial and civilian users, Lockheed Martin said. GPS III satellites will deliver three times better accuracy; provide up to eight times improved anti-jamming capabilities; and include enhancements which extend spacecraft life 25 percent further than the prior GPS block. The GPS III also will carry a new civil signal designed to be interoperable with other international global navigation satellite systems, enhancing civilian user connectivity.

Lockheed Martin is under contract for production of the first six GPS III satellites (SV 01-06), the first four funded under the original contract and the fifth and sixth recent fully funded by an exercised Air Force option on December 13, 2013. Lockheed Martin had previously received advanced procurement funding for long-lead components for the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth satellites (SV 05-08).

The first GPS III satellite (SV-01) was powered on February 28, 2013. GPS III SV-01’s spacecraft bus and antenna assemblies were delivered to Lockheed Martin’s GPF this summer. SV-01 is now in the integration and test flow leading to delivery “flight-ready” to the Air Force.

The GPS III team is led by theGlobal Positioning Systems Directorateat the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. Lockheed Martin is the GPS III prime contractor with teammates Exelis, General Dynamics, Infinity Systems Engineering, Honeywell, ATK and other subcontractors. Air Force Space Command’s 2nd Space Operations Squadron(2SOPS), based at Schriever Air Force Base, Colo., manages and operates the GPS constellation for both civil and military users.

January 29, 2014