Presentation to the 11^th Meeting of the PNT Advisory Board

The following is an abbreviated transcript of Don Jewell’s briefing to the PNT Advisory Board at its meeting on Tuesday, May 7. The slides from Jewell’s briefing and the other briefings to the board are available at pnt.gov under the heading 11th PNTAB meeting.

Good morning, everyone.

A special thanks to Jim Miller, Dr. James Schlesinger and Dr. Bradford Parkinson for inviting me to speak this morning on the future trends of PNT user equipment, particularly as it pertains to warfighters and first responders — certainly a subject I have been passionate about for only…oh, let’s say about 35 years.

Why GPS World?

Ever since the agenda for the PNT Advisory Board meeting appeared online, I have been receiving emails and phone calls asking why I was speaking not as one of the IDA (Institute for Defense Analysis) subject-matter experts on GPS but as the Contributing Editor for Defense for GPS World. Frankly, the answer is simple. Wearing the GPS World hat gives me the freedom to say what needs to be said today, whereas the IDA think tank attribution and publication rules, which are absolutely necessary for an FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center) to operate effectively and efficiently, would unduly restrict my comments.

Plus, for 21 years GPS World magazine has been the publisher of the definitive GPS user equipment survey for global users. It’s free for everyone to use, and it covers PNT receiver information from 55 global manufacturers with data on all aspects of 502 PNT receivers. And it is a great boon for me personally, as I only receive on average about 50+ emails or letters per month from users simply wanting to know what GPS/PNT receiver they should purchase. It is wonderful to be able to point them to the GPS World Receiver Survey.

Also wearing my GPS World hat, I can easily refer to the several thousand warfighter and first responder inputs we have received over the last 10 years — generally expressing what they would like to see in a GPS/PNT receiver or sometimes specifically the Perfect Handheld PNT Transceiver (PHPNTT), which I first wrote about six years ago (and most recently in December) in GPS World magazine.

Top 10 Warfighter – First Responder Requirements for the PHPNTT

Adhering strictly to the latest fad in government briefing formats, it is now time for me to BLUF, or give you the Bottom Line Up Front. However, being a journalist, I also have to hold something back for the end. So here are the top 10 PHPNTT requirements, in order of preference, as submitted over the last 10 years by thousands of warfighters and first responders:

• Mil-Spec rugged – solid state drive – no moving parts
• Friendly, intuitive, familiar interface – easy to use
• Multi-GNSS – All signals available – space and terrestrial
  • Wi-Fi, eLORAN, space/terrestrial augmentations, networks, communications
• Wireless, portable, seamlessly networkable
• SWAP friendly, long battery life, with solar charger
• Real-time 3D map data, NGA, Google, satellite imagery
• Not a stand-alone PNT device
  • Embedded in a computer with multiple communication capabilities – one must be secure
• Must be able to download, store and utilize new applications
• Software-defined and expandable
• Act as a sensor with automatic reporting

All these “user requirements” are closely related to what our warfighters and first responders don’t like about the current GPS MUE or Global Positioning System Military User Equipment. I state that specifically because, make no mistake about it, the current MUE is strictly GPS-based. However, the current MUE only receives two of the many signals available today on the GPS SVs, and certainly not any of the other numerous PNT (position, navigation and timing) signals also available, which of course is the crux of the issue for user equipment of the future.

Most of the top 10 requirements, and there were more than 50 requirements identifiable in all, are self-explanatory, and time does not permit me to cover them all in detail. But bear with me for a couple of quick explanations. Certainly the rugged requirement is readily understandable, and there are numerous manufacturers around the globe today that make excellent Mil-Spec rugged devices. However, the one I am most familiar with and have been extremely happy with are the rugged units from Trimble Navigation produced in Corvallis, Oregon. Trimble also happen to be a certified SAASM (Selective Availability and Anti-Spoofing Module) supplier as well.  More on those units later.

The second bullet concerns the human-machine interface on the current MUE, which is so poor that a Marine three-star wrote me a few years ago to say that in his opinion, “If anyone wants an example of how not to design an operational equipment interface then they should refer to the PLGR or DAGR. Both are consistently and sufficiently horrendous, in my opinion.”  I could not have said it better. The PLGR and DAGR use the gold standard for PNT as a signal, but the human-machine interface (HMI) is, in my opinion and in the opinion of thousands of warfighters, so antiquated and non-user friendly as to be almost unuseable. However, the units do work well and provide outstanding signals when embedded with other equipment. They just do not work well as a handheld device. The other items on the list we will cover as we proceed through the briefing.

GPS MUE Historical Perspective

I have been involved with GPS user equipment for the last 35 years, and this behemoth of a receiver was my first unforgettable encounter.

First GPS MUE receiver developed under government contract by Rockwell Collins, circa 1977.

Yes, this huge device is GPS user equipment. Can you imagine? It weighs more than 300 pounds, without the two operators, and was the very first workable GPS receiver produced for the U.S. military by Rockwell Collins, who has been producing GPS MUEs ever since. Which is an example of the prodigious acquisition issues that also need to be addressed, or corrected, if you will. Our antiquated acquisition practices are to blame for many of the failings in MUE equipment today. While I feel it is critical to mention this as a major contributing factor to the state of MUE today, it is also a story for another time.

Other than being the first GPS MUE, the significance of this huge receiver is that in my estimation it is the first and last time the U.S. military possessed a purpose-built military GPS receiver clearly superior to the products being produced by commercial and civil manufacturers for global users.

First Significant Usable and Transportable GPS Civilian Receiver

Fortunately, a good friend and colleague, both at IDA and ION (Institute of Navigation), Philip Ward, came to the rescue of all GPS users in 1981 when he delivered the TI 4100 NAVSTAR Navigator Multiplex Receiver.

TI 4100 NAVSTAR Navigator Multiplex Receiver designed by Phil Ward for Texas Instruments.

The TI 4100 was indeed the first commercially viable receiver that could be considered a transportable by anything other than an aircraft. To be historically correct, there were some backpack models that were very short-lived and not as significant as the TI 4100. The main unit and two antennas weighed approximately 50 pounds and showed promise in station wagons and helicopters. I can see a few folks in the audience smiling, so I will reiterate that the TI 4100 was a significant milestone, both in SWAP (size, weight and power), accuracy and TTFF (time to first fix). TTFF was 15-20 minutes in search mode, however; after the four SVs were located and the unit was initialized, it could consistently present a fix location in just a couple of minutes. Plus, the TI 4100 was immune from most jamming signals of the day — an impressive receiver and accomplishment for 1981.

Evolution of Commercial GPS/PNT UE

Fast-forward several years and the following picture presents a view of how quickly GPS UE developed.

Trimble units from the mid 1980s until today.

The first unit on the right in the above photo is a Trimble unit that was about the same size as the TI 4100, but considerably more capable. As you follow the units around counter clockwise, you will see that they decrease in size and weight, but what you can’t see is that they also increase incredibly where acquisition and processing speed (TTFF), accuracy and capability are concerned. Note also that you start to see stand-alone units that appear to be antennas with separate handheld display units. This is a feature the commercial manufacturers incorporated over 20 years ago, and in some respects a feature the MUE manufacturers and services are just now considering.

The defacto Garmin standby device.

Note also the Garmin GPS wrist receiver (right), which until 2005 was the most prevalent civil receiver in both of the wartime AORs (Area of Responsibility). Compare this Garmin wrist unit to the 300-pound Rockwell Collins unit I first showed you and consider that where SWAP and performance are concerned, the wrist unit is hundreds of times more capable and portable.

Current MUE – Program of Record and the Future

The pictures below depict the current MUE – Program of Record equipment, again both manufactured by, you guessed it, Rockwell Collins. First is the PLGR or the Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver. Second is the DAGR or Defense Advanced GPS Receiver. The third unit, known simply as the “Puck,” is what the U.S. Army would like to field in the next couple of years along with that separate display unit I spoke of earlier. Starting to sound very commercial, right? By the way, the Puck measures only 2 x 2 x 1/2 inches and weighs just a few ounces.

Rockwell- Collins PLGR.

Rockwell Collins DAGR.

Army’s Future PUCK.

Between the PLGR, which was decertified by the Marine Corps in 2010, and the DAGR, there are approximately 500,000 of these MUE devices fielded today, and yet almost none of them are utilized as handhelds. Our research shows that indeed only 1 in 40 is used as a true stand-alone handheld. Most DAGRs are primarily used to interface with legacy communications equipment, primarily U.S. Army, that calls for fire support, read ordnance, and all the others are either stored or embedded with other equipment, which means the “horrendous user interface,” a common warfighter description, is not a major issue. The bottom line is the DAGR is very good at what it does, it is just that what it does (warfighter quote) “…stopped being functional, when compared with other more capable PNT equipment, almost the day is was delivered to the AOR in 2005.”

While the Puck is certainly a major improvement in SWAP and concept, it essentially provides the same two GPS signals and SAASM capability as provided by the DAGR, just in a smaller form factor, and it does away with the continuously vilified user interface. The Puck technology totally ignores current-day PNT, multi-GNSS platforms and the other 160 PNT signals available today. Review the GPS World 2013 Receiver Survey and you will only find a handful of receivers that are so incredibly limited, and they are invariably produced, you guessed it, for the U.S. government as part of a GPS program or alternate program of record.

MUE: How Not to Build a PNT Device, or Why Warfighters Use Garmins and iPhones

The list you are looking at now is comprised of the first 15 minutes of conversation with thousands of warfighters interviewed over the last 10 years — they just had to tell us what was wrong with the current MUE before they finally got around to telling us what, if they were king or queen for a day, they wanted to see in the PHPNTT. This is not my opinion but the actual words of the warfighters. First of all, understand that the PLGR is a single-frequency GPS-only receiver with a security module (PPS-SM) to access encrypted P(Y)-code for anti-jam purposes. It was initially fielded 1990-2004, replaced by the DAGR in 2005. There are approximately 165,000 PLGRs and 450,000 DAGRs fielded at a cost of more than $1 billion. Now the warfighter comments:

• Both the PLGR and DAGR have an antiquated, proprietary OS and “extremely unfriendly — non-intuitive” user interface.
• PLGR and DAGR are not functional as handheld units but function well as embedded devices — although typically not networked, and we are not even sure they can be networked.
  • Example: One STRYKER vehicle variant has nine separate DAGRs incorporated, each with its own antenna and operating totally independently of the others.
• PLGR was decertified by U.S. Marine Corps in 2010 due to friendly-fire incidents.
• DAGR used today primarily as embedded device only with a “ horrible user interface”:
  • Monochrome screen, no active maps, navigation direct waypoint only.  Provides user with PNT information as coordinates — requires paper map to be an effective tool.
  • For other than straight-line navigation — time, distance and ETA are incorrect.
  • Programming/mission planning require special cables, software and a laptop computer.
  • Additional cables, radios and hardware are required for PLGR or DAGR to communicate.
  • Proprietary OS — no capability for additional programs to be added or utilize.
  • SWAP issues — large, heavy, limited battery life (multiple batteries) for typical missions.
  • TTFF — warm, approximately 2 minutes; cold with almanac download, 30+ minutes.
  • Position accuracy expressed as PDOP (1-6) on separate screen from PNT data. Nominal accuracy of a coded DAGR is typically about 1 meter or more.
• Advantages: Anti-jam and legacy interface capabilities.

So, the bottom line as far as the warfighters are concerned is that if you want to operate legacy equipment that requires a GPS input, such as calling in “fires” or artillery or if you are in a jamming environment, then you need the DAGR or its capability. Our survey shows, however, that only 1 in 40 use the DAGR as a handheld, and yet every single one of our respondents — that’s 100 percent, a rarity in statistics — stated they had a backup unit, primarily a Garmin, until 2005, and then popular backup units were more than likely an iPhone, iPad or Trimble unit.

One of the Most Popular PNT Devices in Theater Today – More than 365M Sold to Date

Today there is no question concerning the most prevalent PNT unit in both AORs. It is, you guessed it, the Apple iPhone and/or the Apple iPad. Let’s take a brief look at the capabilities of this non-ruggedized but still amazing device, which can easily be made Mil-Spec rugged with aftermarket cases and enclosures such as those produced by Otterbox, which I have personally tested and reviewed numerous times.

The Apple iPhone 5.

The attributes you see listed here are for the iPhone and iPad, and are those that assist in some aspect of PNT and/or integrity and accuracy.

• Assisted GPS SBAS — WAAS (PNT)
• Assisted GLONASS — (SBAS) (PNT)
• Digital compass (PN)
• Wi-Fi (Communications-Data + PNT)
• Cellular (Communications-Data + PNT)
• Bluetooth (Communications-Data + PNT)
• Skyhook Wireless (PNT)
• Three-axis gyro (PN)
• Accelerometer (PN)
• Pedometer (PN) – Application
• Internet (Communications-Data) Skype application (PNT)
• Real-time accuracy and integrity representation (PN)
• 361+ navigation applications in the App Store ready for instant download and designed for iPhone and iPad. The majority of these applications are available at no cost to the user.
• Real-time 3-D maps — Google maps — satellite imagery — updated continuously
• Automatic location-based services (LBS) — warfighter support
• BFT (Blue Force Tracking) + other .mil App Store apps including multiple mil-GRID systems.
• Warfighter discounts and mil-spec hardened cases (http://www.apple.com/r/store/government/).
• One-button combat application.

All this capability available in just four ounces — truly a SWAP and capability revolution.

Of course, what really makes the list of iPhone and iPad capabilities revealing is that the first two attributes alone more than double the number of PNT signals received and utilized by the iPhone versus the DAGR, and that number does not account for the GPS L2C (second civilian signal) and L5 (DOT safety of life signal) with CNAV, which when activated will be the strongest GPS signal broadcast to date. The CNAV data is an upgraded version of the original NAV or navigation message. It contains higher precision representation and nominally more accurate data than the nominal NAV data. There are 26 more PNT satellite signals available today in the iPhone and iPad, and they are comprised of multi-GNSS signals and augmentations. The kicker for me is that in addition to all the additional space signals are terrestrial signals, and almost any map or grid system the user desires. Plus there are apps (software applications) that translate between grid systems. And if you don’t like the interface of the navigation program you are using, then there are literally 360+ other choices. I also find the pedometer function interesting, in that firefighters now use this capability along with the Blue Force Tracking app in buildings when they are momentarily without GPS, GLONASS (Russian GNSS), WAAS (U.S. Wide Area Augmentation System), EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service) or other SBAS (Satellite Based Augmentation System) signals.

Realistically, to defeat the current unencrypted MUE today, an adversary only has to jam one GPS signal, but to defeat the iPhone or iPad an adversary has to jam all the GPS signals, all the GLONASS signals, all the Wi-Fi signals, all the mobile 3G and 4G CDMA and GSM (read as different mobile telephone systems) signals and still the iPhone or iPad will use the accelerometer, gyro, compass and pedometer functions to determine position. Indeed, it will continue to function as a PNT device. All this in just four ounces at a cost about one-sixth of the DAGR displayed on a screen that has 100 times greater resolution and is in color. Remember, the DAGR has a monochrome screen. No contest. Plus try saying, “Take me home, Siri” to a DAGR and see what happens.

Garmin

What about Garmin, you ask? At the beginning of the current conflicts, Garmins were the prevailing additional PNT device. There are still thousands of them in theater, and they have saved many lives, as we will see. However, just look at this sales chart for smart PNT devices.

Products                                                             Total Units Sold (approximate)

iPhone (since 2005)                                            250,600,000 (M)

iPad (since 2010)                                                115,000,000 (M)

Garmin Sales                                                     ~100,000,000 (M)

iPhone/iPad App Store (since 2008)

Downloads of the 361+ navigation apps         2,200,000,000+ (B)

(Note: Total App Store downloads will exceed 50 billion by the time this is published.)

The Future

The future of PNT devices globally, especially for warfighters and first responders, is clearly with rugged mobile devices capable of downloading, storing, updating and utilizing applications. The Garmin cannot do that, although it can be updated, and just look at the numbers. Garmin started business as a GPS device provider in 1989. In that time, while branching out into marine and aviation devices, some of the best in the world for those purposes, they are still primarily GPS only (with SBAS). They have sold approximately 100M devices in 24 years compared to Apple’s iPhone and iPad numbers, which total more than 365M devices in less than eight years. The iPad alone outsold all Garmin products in just three years. I confess that I happily own several Garmins, think that are fantastic PNT devices, and it is really tough to beat the $99 wrist Garmin. When all is said and done, the Garmin gives you better information in a non-jamming environment than the DAGR. And Garmin units are still saving lives. Take this vignette from SSG Kyle Dorsch:

“My name is SSG Kyle Dorsch…a Reconnaissance team leader in the 2-30 Infantry Battalion, 10th Mountain Division, deployed to the Logar province, Afghanistan. I have used my Garmin eTrex Vista H throughout my deployment…it has been a lifesaver in more than a literal sense. In fact, there isn’t a leader in our establishment without a Garmin product…my Garmin guided me and my four-man team seamlessly through some of the toughest areas of Afghanistan…it also literally saved my life.”

SSG Dorsch goes on to explain that the eTREX, which was placed strategically on his combat vest, actually stopped an enemy bullet meant for him, and just like Timex the eTREX kept on ticking.

My Obligatory Caveat

Note that SSG Dorsch has always had a Garmin with him in theater and indicates that his leadership has as well. There is no doubt the eTrex saved his life, literally. However, I would never tell a warfighter to not use their government-issued MUE. In a severe jamming environment, it may prove to be a lifesaver, and it may be the only equipment that interfaces with legacy communications and fire support equipment. Take that advice for what it is worth today, because hopefully this will not be the case much longer.

DARPA and Smart COTS Devices on the Battlefield Now

DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the real inventors of the Arpanet and the Internet), a much-storied DoD research arm, launched an effort recently called “Transformative Apps.” It developed a few dozen smart applications that work on a number of mobile devices. In addition to mapping, navigation and smart routes, the apps identify explosives and various weapons, and help navigate and locate parachute drops.

A screenshot of the DARPA Smart Routes application. The green routes are safe routes and the red are routes that have been traveled too many times or indicate where problems may exist.

DARPA builds prototypes that are transferred to the Services and become official applications used by hundreds of thousands of warfighters. The challenge is to rapidly adapt COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) technology to the unique circumstances of the military, which often operates over large, hostile areas with little to no formal communications infrastructure.

DARPA reports that more than 1,000 war fighters in Afghanistan now use the DARPA Transformative Apps technology as it continues to be rolled out to the Services.

The most interesting aspect of DARPA’s participation in PNT software is that it will definitely accelerate the multi-GNSS and all-signals-available scenario, because it is  constrained by woefully out-of-date DoD regulations. DARPA does what is smart, what cutting-edge technology will support, what makes sense, and ultimately what saves lives.

This good bit of news from DARPA combined with the following statement from the DoD in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month should give us all some hope for the future of PNT and MUE.

Pentagon Expects to Enlist Apple, Samsung Devices

The U.S. Department of Defense expects in coming weeks to grant two separate security approvals for Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones, along with iPhones and iPads running Apple’s latest operating system — moves that would boost the number of U.S. government agencies [ed. legally] allowed to use those devices.

–  Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2013

In my humble opinion, this announcement is simply outstanding…albeit about 10 years late to need. Indeed, Ms. Teri Takai, the current DoD CIO (Chief Information Officer) gest it and is trying hard, but she can’t do all the heavy lifting alone.

Old Adages Die Hard

I remember an old GPS adage that portentously proclaimed, “If it is not supported on the GPS satellite, it cannot be supported in the user equipment.” Unfortunately, there are those still holding to this totally fallacious belief. Today in the current budget environment, amazing capabilities are being implemented with user equipment that multiply the capabilities of the PNT satellite, other satellites and space signals, terrestrial signals and synergistic augmentations. Indeed, the total price of the PLGR and DAGR program combined would barely pay for some NRE (non-recurring engineering) costs and two launches of the GPS III satellites that should be ready for launch in 2014. Today we need to look even harder at what is doable with user equipment, especially in the military, because it is all we can afford. As Winston Churchill was once quoted as saying, “Gentlemen, we have run out of money; now we have to think.” However, having said that, let’s not forget that the multi-GNSS environment has multiplied many fold the number and capabilities of PNT signals on orbit today.

PNT User Equipment TRENDS — Space SIGNALS available

Jim Doherty, USCG Captain retired, and I are friends and colleagues at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). We are both old retired navigators as well. We both still have the skills to successfully navigate an aircraft or ship, for that matter, from San Francisco to Tokyo using only a sextant. While we are proud of that talent or ability, one that very few possess today, we would much rather accomplish the feat with an exceptional multi-GNSS device, and they exist today like never before. These next lists show all the signals that are available today compared to what the GPS MUE can receive and use for PNT purposes. Plus, Jim and I both share a firm belief in another old navigators’ adage: Receive Everything – Trust Nothing!

Civil-commercial multi-GNSS UE receives more space and terrestrial signals than U.S. GPS MUE.

• GPS MUE “officially” utilizes L1(CA), L2 P(Y) with SAASM.
  
• There are NO commercially viable M-code receivers available today and there will not be for several years to come.

PNT civil UE philosophy: Track and use all PNT signals available.

• GPS L1-CA/L2-codeless and ready for L2C, L5, L1C (GPS III & QZSS)
• SBAS (WAAS, EGNOS, MSAS, GAGAN, SDCM) + NDGPS & many other augmentations
• GLONASS L1/L2/L5
• Galileo E1/E5 (CBOC & Alt BOC)
• Compass B1/B2/B3 (carrier signals only- no full signal specifications)                           
• QZSS (Japanese GEO – highly elliptical) broadcasting L1 CA/C/SAIF, L2C, L5, LEX Pilot
• Wi-Fi, 3G-4G, Skyhook, eLORAN (UK), networks, CORS, VRS, GVRS

And do not be deceived: there are plenty of PNT receivers available today to receive all these signals and they have existed for some time. Equipment manufacturers have been ready to receive, process and utilize all the GPS and multi-GNSS signals for years. For example, Trimble built and shipped an L2C receiver in 2003, and that signal has still not been activated on any U.S. GPS payloads although, as we heard from Major General Marty Whelan (USAF – AFSPC/A5) earlier today, General Shelton (USAF), the four-star commander at AFSPC (Air Force Space Command) has announced a six-week test of the L2C signal and full CNAV message in June of this year. A great step forward.

One of these days we might even catch-up with the Japanese – more on that in a moment.

Trimble built and shipped receivers for GLONASS signals in 2006, even though GLONASS did not reach FOC or Full Operational Capability until late in 2010. A designation it is having serious problems maintaining. Trimble also ships L5 receivers as well as commercial SBAS receivers that result in extremely accurate and reliable positions. Lest you think all these signals have gone to waste, remember that Japan’s QZSS-1 broadcasts both L2C and L5 with a full CNAV message today, and the Trimble receivers and others with the multi-GNSS capability work well with those signals, as we shall see.

Global Virtual Reference Stations

Trimble (VRS) and John Deere (StarFire) PNT receivers have the capability Trimble has designated as Global Virtual Reference Stations, which — along with real-time kinematic (RTK) processing — provide users with an unprecedented number of signals and a real-time processed signal with corrections. This results in centimeter-level accuracy for any of their receivers that have the capability to receive and process the signals. For both manufacturers, that will soon be almost all of their receivers. Sure, there will probably be a small monthly fee involved, but the accuracy difference between 1 meter (~3 feet) and 3 centimeters can mean life and death if you are unlucky enough to be in the collateral damage zone or in the sights of a Hellfire missile during war time.

Multi-GNSS SVs and Signals in View

To highlight this point, just glance at the following graphical log file generated by software in the latest Trimble Multi-GNSS PNT receiver. The chart depicts a log file from a receiver located in Singapore. The location is significant only because in that location the receiver is in full view of the Japanese QZSS-1 PNT SV and all its extra U.S. originated PNT signals (L2C & L5) mentioned earlier. This particular Trimble receiver is networked and reports results automatically and continuously to a web page, while receiving GVRS updates and corrections plus other PNT information, such as an updated almanac, over the same network. The question becomes, is it a PNT device with a computer and embedded communications? Or is it a computer with communications and an embedded PNT function? You be the judge. Regardless of which you choose, this is the future of PNT and MUE.

This civil receiver reports 40+ SVs with 169 separate signals in view and usable. This does not count the number of Wi-Fi and/or GVRS signals it is capable of receiving. Meanwhile, a GPS MUE receiver in the same location only observes a total of 10 SVs it can process for a total signal count of 20. However, one of the key points on this log depiction has to do with integrity. Notice the orange and red lines. They indicate that the receiver has labeled these signals as “suspect” and has automatically dropped them from the solution for any of a host of reasons — a failed integrity check, jamming, spoofing, wrong way path, a runaway clock, etc. You name it, and if it is suspicious, the receiver will drop that SV and its signals from its PNT calculations. Built-in integrity.

The obvious question becomes just how accurate is this Trimble receiver over a 24-hour period? The next graphical log file denotes that it is accurate within 3 centimeters.

Trimble multi-GNSS receiver web page log file denotes continuous availability of PNT signals with an average accuracy of 3 cms.

Assured PNT

When we asked warfighters what was more important to them in a combat zone — availability or accuracy of the PNT signals, the answer was, not surprisingly, both. But, of course, they need to receive the signal first, and then they can worry about accuracy.

So, if you were Ms. Teri Takai and you were worried about “assured PNT,” would you rather do that with 20 signals from 10 SVs or 169 signals from 49 SVs and some very strong, difficult to jam, terrestrial signals as well — adding up to, on average, 33 times more accuracy than the GPS-only signal? To me, the answer is obvious. And of course, all that is on the line with every mission the DoD performs, as is the safety of our critical national infrastructure as this next chart depicts.

• Assured PNT or lack thereof impacts all missions, across all platforms and domains
• Assured GPS MUE PNT today depends on:
  • L1(C/A), L2 P(Y), SAASM (Future M-Code)
  • Accuracy ~ 1m

• Assured Multi-GNSS MUE PNT with all signals available depends on:
  • GPS L1/L2/L5/L1C/L2C/M-Code/SAASM
  • SBAS (WAAS, EGNOS, MSAS, GAGAN, SDCM+)
  • GLONASS L1/L2/L5
  • Galileo E1/E5 (CBOC & Alt BOC)
  • Compass B1/B2/B3
  • QZSS GEO – L1 CA/C/SAIF, L2C, L5, LEX Pilot
  • Two-way communications, Networking, PNT servers, each PNT device with unique IP address and each PNT device serves as a sensor
  • Software definable devices
  • Multiple software applications (Apps)
  • Accuracy ~ 3 cm

Army Making Strides

I spoke above about DARPA getting into the PNT business, and that is a good thing. But how about the largest military user of PNT, the United States Army? The U.S. Army is making some interesting changes as well. The Army announced a few months ago that there would be no more purchases of DAGRs, and that it was pursuing smartphones as a communications and small computing platform as well as an alternate PNT tool and display device. This is where the Puck comes into play.

Inside the Puck.

While it is a wonderful idea I fully endorse, the problem with the Puck is that under the current design scheme it will still only transmit the current two GPS signals to a smartphone or other PNT display device. And warfighters lament that it is another device run by batteries for which our warfighters need to carry spares. Why not make the Puck a multi-GNSS device? we asked. The answer we received is that it would make it too power hungry and just require more batteries. So to misquote Shakespeare “…for want of a battery, the war was lost?” The Army is definitely on the right track, but they need to figure out how to make the Puck a multi-GNSS device. Can you say Lithium ION and solar charger – Hoorah!?

The Army Hub

The Puck is moving in the right direction. However, with the addition of another device, the Army is definitely on the right track. This device is designated the “Hub,” and while it is again GPS-oriented, it contains multiple terrestrial and internal signal augmentations and backups, as the image depicts.

Inside the U.S. Army’s Hub.

With apologies to the U.S. Army, I unabashedly modified the chart, and I made it very obvious. The red text depicts my addition of a multi-GNSS card or module versus or in addition to the CGM (Common GPS Module) and GB-GRAM or Ground-Based GPS Receiver Application Module. The multi-GNSS card/module already exists today. Several PNT receiver manufacturers manufacture it with 28-nm technology versus the 95-nm technology — for the as-yet-unavailable for about four more years if the rumors are correct — GPS-only CGM. For me, the addition seems to be an easy fix, as there is lots of room in the Hub. But this fix or module (CGM) is years and millions of dollars down the road, versus a solution that exist today.

YUMA 2 or Hub or Both

The solution, frankly, is one of the smart tablets available today from numerous manufacturers — seven, actually, that have the wherewithal to produce a secure multi-GNSS device with a SAASM module.

The Trimble Yuma 2.

The Army Hub.

This is an example of the solution in the form of a Yuma 2 tablet computer from Trimble, which I am in the processing of reviewing for GPS World. The Yuma 2 has all the multi-GNSS features we have been discussing and more, plus it can in time accommodate all the modules scheduled to be incorporated into the Hub. Why build a whole new display device when the core already exists with many more capabilities than were imagined or real estate would ever allow for the Hub? Plus, it is available today as a rugged Mil-Spec device with a full color, high-resolution touch screen. And in the end it will provide a 3-cm solution versus a 1-meter solution. What more could you want? And it is available today with an outstanding and intuitive interface.

Conclusion – Services PNT UE Trends

I have been focusing on the Army today not simply because they are the biggest U.S. military user of PNT devices, but because they are moving in the right direction for the future of PNT and MUE devices. Of course, all the services and many agencies need a well-thought-out and secure PNT solution, and if we have learned anything it is that one size does not fit all. Indeed, our national security and our national infrastructure depend upon future PNT devices. For security purposes alone, they should have a certain degree of application and signal diversity.

Now let’s review:

• Army has a way ahead with an assured PNT program.
  • Includes end of PLGR and DAGR and adding new networkable devices.
  • Plans for fourth-generation multi-GNSS and multi-function handheld devices and embedded PNT devices as sensors to include the Puck and Hub.
• Marine Corps: Decertified PLGRs in 2009 and attempts to limit the use of DAGRs.
  • DAGRs used primarily as embedded devices.
  • Purchasing approved SAASM devices from commercial vendors.
• USAF: Outfitted 70% of aircraft with modern, integrated, networkable and upgradeable PNT devices.
• Navy: More than 60% of the fleet outfitted with modern PNT networked devices.
• The Bottom Line is – One size does not fit all but one conclusion is clear – while GPS may and will always hopefully be the Gold Standard – multi-GNSS solutions are the future.

The Future of PNT Devices

This last list depicts the future of PNT as best as I can define it; indeed, as it has already been defined for us by our warfighters and first responders or, as Kirk Lewis would have me say, government users. The users are not waiting around, nor have they bothered to adhere to woefully out-of-date regulations. It is what they desire, and since their lives depend on it, it is what they should have.

• Multi-GNSS — Utilize all PNT signals available.
  • Space and Terrestrial (GPS, GLONASS, eLORAN).
  • Traditional and non-traditional (Wi-Fi, GVRS, carrier signals).
• Multi-function COTS devices with non-proprietary OS (operating System), intuitive interfaces and Mil-Spec ruggedized.
  • Multiple methods of communications: Wi-Fi, Skype, 4G, text, auto-text, satellite.
• Software Downloads – Applications
  • COTS applications plus .mil apps store.
• Networked devices for SA, updates and PNT,
  • Real-time satellite imagery and mission data injects.
  • Defense and intelligence LBS.
• Each device will be a sensor on a network,
  • Automatically report jamming, interference and location data.
• Utilize SAASM and anti-jam military signals only as required.

Thanks you for your time and kind attention today. And remember, Happy Navigating!

Loosely Translated, Herodotus, Histories (8.98)

…attendees at the 29^th National Space Symposium from their appointed rounds.

Seriously, folks, with apologies to postal workers everywhere, here in the Rocky Mountains it was 72 degrees on the eighth of April, the first day of the largest space symposium in the world. This morning, the ninth, the startled thermometer hovered around eleven degrees with snow, high winds and attendees searching for any outer wear they could find. And except for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) personnel, everyone braved the weather and soldiered on.

NASA, of course, one of the few government agencies with space in its name, decided they did not need to attend the National Space Symposium this year. But that is NASA’s loss and a story for another time, because more than 9,000 other dedicated space professionals did attend, and more than 170 companies provided major exhibits that filled to capacity the largest pillar-less exhibition hall west of the Mississippi. Just writing this makes my feet hurt. And the best part is this all takes place at the five-star Broadmoor Resort in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, hence Mother Nature’s raucous spring weather shenanigans.

Broadmoor resort.

This is truly a watershed event for the global space community, and it improves every year. I have had the honor of attending 25 of the 29 National Space Symposiums, and as usual there are always a few major topics of interest that everyone wants to discuss. This year I can literally not walk ten feet without someone stopping me to discuss:

1. The error-plagued GAO (Government Accountability Office) OCX (Next Generation GPS Operational Control System) report and subsequent regrettable sensationalized news reports
2. The actual status of the OCX program
3. Lockheed Martin’s GPS III program
4. NavSat – Nee Parkinson’s NibbleSat – real or imagined
5. Software-defined GPS receivers and GPS user equipment in general

When it comes to opinions, informed or otherwise, concerning each of these topics, the resulting litany reminds me of the old saw about asking three psychologists to comment on a patient’s diagnosis, and you will invariably wind up with four opinions. But have no fear: I spoke directly with the prime companies developing each of these programs, and the following is straight from the horse’s mouth, or some other part of their anatomy as the case may be. You be the judge.

GAO and OCX

The Government Accountability Office, which historically is anything but, released a report on March 28titled “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,” in which it seems to claim that the original $886 million GPS OCX program awarded to Raytheon Information Systems in Aurora, Colorado, in February 2010, has grown by 43 percent and ballooned to $3.695 billion. In fact, the report does not actually say that exactly, but you have to dig deep to determine that. Most readers won’t take the time to do that and will assume that the OCX program is grossly over budget. It is not. In fact, to reach that extraordinary number, OCX cost overruns would need to have grown by 43 percent for each year since it was awarded, and that is ludicrous. According to Raytheon VP and OCX Program Manager Ray Kolibaba, the $3.695 billion number probably comes from including “…programmatic costs beyond OCX development costs and pessimistic projections from the government” that in my experience no acquisition agency, nor Congress for that matter, would ever include when determining true program cost adherence parameters. Such ancillary costs would certainly never be included in a Nunn-McCurdy-Sarbanes-Oxley-Graham-Rudman-Harry Potter fiscal responsibility evaluation.

Speaking from personal experience, in 1990 I was appointed the very first Legislative Liaison Director for Headquarters Air Force Space Command. I had a small office and staff and spent most of my time on Capitol Hill meeting with congressmen and senators, where I advocated the latest space programs, and/or sat in on congressional hearings and then advised senior U.S. Air Force space officials on what budget and policy decisions they could expect from Congress. And I can tell you now, using the methods the GAO concocted to compile this report, I could cause any space program to come under close and unwarranted scrutiny. However, using time-tested congressional oversight rules of engagement (ROE), OCX has not come close to triggering any of the automated congressional watchdog cost overrun tripwires. The truth of the matter is OCX has grown in scope and schedule due in part to government change requests, mainly in the cyber and information assurance areas, along with affordability mandates due to schedule slips and sequestration. According to Stephen Moran, Raytheon mission solutions director, the true cost of OCX today is approximately $967 million, which means the total program cost to date has grown by approximately 10 percent, a far cry from the fictitious annualized 43 percent increase claimed by the GAO. While the GAO goes to great lengths to justify its inflated numbers, it is comparing or rather sensationalizing apples and oranges.

Some may say, so what? Who outside of Washington D.C. reads or believes GAO reports? Unfortunately, Congress, the congressional staff and congressional budgeters read these reports, since the GAO is officially the investigative arm of Congress. In fact the GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the “congressional watchdog,” GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. And many times they do a great job. But in this case they are wide of the mark. It would be a shame if Congress cancelled OCX because of a flawed or, at a minimum, a poorly explained report.

Ray Kolibaba and Stephen Moran assured me during our talks at the 29^th NSS that OCX was alive and well and on track to meet a re-baselined time and costs schedule. OCX Block One RTO should occur as planned in the first quarter of 2017 and will include the ability to launch and control GPS IIF and GPS III satellites and payloads, but not GPS IIA satellites and payloads. That mission, along with the responsibility for maintaining residual satellites, still falls to the LADO (Launch Anomaly and Disposal Operations) contractor Braxton Technologies, which is an OCX subcontractor to Raytheon.

The bottom line is the OCX schedule has slipped and the budget has grown, but within historically acceptable parameters; certainly, it is not even close to triggering congressional oversight. However, having said that, in this budget sequestration environment, the overall GPS budget has taken some significant hits so that even the slightest cost overrun is of concern. Still, let’s hope that Congress makes funding decisions using actual historically acceptable numbers and not overblown rhetoric.

LMCO and GPS III

Keoki Jackson

Let me say right up front that I really like Keoki Jackson and what he has accomplished on the GPS III program at Lockheed Martin. Keoki is the vice president of Navigation Systems, and as such heads the GPS III program. Keoki has an honest and open demeanor and just oozes integrity. He runs a very open program and, indeed, has extended an open invitation to me, wearing multiple hats, to visit the LMCO GPS III facility in Waterton, Colorado, to discuss GPS III anytime. Believe me, I have and will continue to take him up on his offer. To someone in my line of work, that confidence speaks volumes. Keoki obviously has supreme faith in his people, and is assured the GPS III program is on the path to success. I spoke with Keoki on Monday, April 8, as I toured the GPS III facility with him. He was like a father with pictures of his children. Happy, smiling, engaging — he could not wait to show off their latest accomplishments.

My bottom line is this is a rare attitude among senior execs and PMs on major space programs. And that may be because so many of them are under congressional scrutiny. Not the case for GPS III, however. The back-to-basics GPS III program is on schedule and budget, and is set to deliver GPS III SV-01in May 2014, exactly six years after program award. The USAF has said it may not launch the first GPS III until April 2015, but that is a separate ground support and commanding issue. It has nothing to do with the schedule and availability of the GPS III satellites.

Historically, LMCO-built satellites are some of the best in the world. According to LMCO statistics, and verified by yours truly, LMCO GPS satellite vehicles have accumulated more than 175 operational years on orbit with a reliability record better than 99.9 percent. Keoki also proudly pointed out that the Lockheed Martin heritage dates back to the production of the Oscar and Nova Transit satellites — programs that paved the way for the current GPS gold standard on orbit today.

Now, don’t let the back-to-basics approach fool you. That just means sound, solid, proven engineering and management practices are employed, but the technology is anything but basic. The kingpin of the LMCO GPS III approach is an artifact known as the GNST, or pathfinder spacecraft. The GPS III Non Flight Satellite Testbed (GNST) gives everyone confidence that Lockheed is on the right track. The pathfinder goes through all the rigorous steps a flight article goes through, only it completes them first and allows LMCO personnel to find all those schedule-busting, expensive glitches that show up in any program. As Keoki said, “Our endeavor is to find any anomalies now before the satellites and payloads are on orbit.” The GNST, along with cutting-edge 3-D motion studies with avatars (an amazing story and teaser for another time), will hopefully allow a smooth transition for SV-01 through SV-09 when the program plans to initiate programmatic and hardware changes to allow for the first-ever GPS dual launch.

This is a far different approach from the Boeing GPS IIF spacecraft and payloads, which experienced major anomalies on orbit for the first two SVs. Changes were made to subsequent ground space vehicles before launch, but the first two SVs on orbit are stuck with those anomalies. The LMCO approach hopes to eliminate or at least minimize that risk. If the full LMCO GPS III program comes to fruition, there could eventually be as many as 32 GPS III satellites in various configurations on orbit. Which means Keoki will probably be referring to GPS IIIs not as children but grandchildren, and he will need a much bigger scrapbook. Bottom line, GPS III is alive and well, on schedule and budget.

NavSat or NibbleSat

For those of you who have not heard about the NavSat or NibbleSat, it is a small GPS satellite endeavor by AFSPC, SMC, and AFRL to determine the feasibility of building a GPS-only small satellite, one without NDS, SAR, or any other auxiliary payloads. However, this is not solely a Weight Watchers program — it is about far more than a slimmed-down GPS. It addresses technological aspects of the GPS program as well as SWAP (size, weight, and power) issues that have plagued the GPS program since its inception.

Since 1978 when the very first GPS satellite was launched, the program has grown in complexity and size with ancillary payloads, more signals, more power, and more flexibility, which all add up to a heavier, more complex satellite — and in space, where weight and complexity equal greater costs. GPS III has finally reached the point that it will cost nearly $450 million to place a single GPS SV and payload in orbit.

As I said earlier, the GPS III payload may last 30 years, which equates to a sizeable return on your investment (ROE) for space assets, but in this constrained sequestration budget environment Congress is not looking down the road 30 years; it is barely able to consider the FYDP or the next five years’ development plan budget. So $450 million per GPS III on orbit is a big number. Even with dual launch, according to Lockheed’s Keoki Jackson (see above, “LMCO and GPS III”), from SV-09 forward the savings will only amount to about $70M per launch because it will require a larger launch vehicle. Certainly, $70 million is not a number to disregard, especially if you could build and launch a small GPS-only SV for that same amount. I know it sounds nearly impossible, but that is what the NavSat program hopes to achieve. To date, no less than 20 companies, U.S. and European, have expressed an interest in making NavSat happen. Most companies I spoke with are convinced it is not a technological issue, but a commitment and funding issue on behalf of the U.S. government. So what else is new? In my book, NavSat is a real possibility, and the recent plethora of BAAs (Broad Area Announcements) from SMC (Space and Missile Systems Center), AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory), and SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command) attest to that fact. Stay tuned for more.

GPS Payloads, Receivers: Software-Defined and Otherwise

It is a fact of life where GPS is concerned that when you talk about GPS technology, you are talking about ITT Exelis. There is not a single U.S. GPS payload on orbit today that was not built in whole or in part by ITT Exelis. There are few companies in the world today that can claim such a prestigious record for space assets that are arguable the best in the world. The ITT Exelis record of providing proven GPS payloads for 35 years is unequaled in the space arena, and the company continues to innovate and grow. So, it should come as no surprise that Exelis provided LMCO with the GPS payload for the GNST pathfinder mentioned earlier. The bottom line is, when it comes to GPS payloads, nobody does it better than ITT Exelis.

Therefore, I took the opportunity to sit down with Mark Pisani, a vice president and general manager in the geospatial systems business at ITT Exelis, to discuss the recent $2.15 million contract award from AFRL to research navigation payloads to support the current GPS program and the NavSat program specifically. Mark stated that the technologies being investigated could easily translate to the entire GPS program.

Mr. Pisani stated that over the next 18 months, the company will conduct research into potential methods to reduce payload size, weight, and power, and improve GPS signal strength and reception for disadvantaged users, especially warfighters, in either urban canyons or mountainous terrain. ITT Exelis is also working on new methods of tamper-proofing for its GPS reference and monitor receivers, which will deployed around the globe to ensure GPS accuracy for all global users. So it appears that where GPS is concerned, you name it and ITT Exelis is working some aspect of the program.

NSS Wrap-up

Space Foundation Leadership Team.

NSS 29 is still in full swing as I write this. Indeed, my old friend and colleague in uniform, General William (Willie) Shelton, just gave his state-of-the-military-space-community address, and he did it in his usual exemplary manner. Few generals can match his grace and style. But to paraphrase Robert Frost, “…deadlines, time and tides wait for no man,” so I will wrap up with a few personal observations.

As many of you have heard me say, year after year, the National Space Symposium is like no other space event in the world. It gets bigger and better every year, and this year events extended all the way to LMCO in Denver and to Broadmoor properties that have never been used for this event previously. The NSS agenda and speakers are top notch and international in nature. Just a sampling are George Nield, associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Jean-Jacques Dordain, director general of the European Space Agency (ESA), and Yasushi Horikawa, chairman of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Officials from commercial space leaders such as LMCO, SpaceX, Boeing, XCOR Aerospace, Sierra Nevada Space Systems, and others will also speak, while actress Sigourney Weaver, star of the Alien films among others, is the featured speaker at the Space Technology Hall of Fame gala tomorrow night. So there is literally something for everyone.

Sigourney Weaver

I have known Elliot Holokauahi (yes, it is a mouthful) Pulham (CEO), Chief Chuck Zimkas (USAF, Ret) who serves as president of the Space Foundation, and Holly Roberts, the CFO, for many, many years, and they are always striving to make the National Space Symposium better every year; in my book, they have succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Their zeal is combined with the dedicated support of Steve Bartolin, CEO and president of the Broadmoor. I first met Steve more than 25 years ago when he ran the famed Greenbriar Resort in White Sulphir Springs, West Virginia, the playground of congressmen and senators. Steve has always had a penchant for living in places that ended in Springs, as well as for perfect service, while going to great lengths to make sure his employees are happy and enjoy their work. It shows at the Broadmoor, which is a Triple AAA Five Diamond Resort, and has been for more than 20 years. Together, Steve’s commitment to perfection and the vision of the Space Foundation make the National Space Symposium not only the world’s largest but by far the best space symposium in the world today.

Braxton Technologies Sets the Example

The Braxton Technologies booth.

Personally, I enjoy the exhibit hall and tend to spend most of my time there. The event along with the Cyber presentations lasts for four full days, but you cannot see and do everything in that time, which leads me a personal observation. Many of the vendors and exhibitors in the past several years have begun to offer refreshments in their booth space, to help draw in the huge crowds always roaming the exhibition floor. Some offer ice cream, coffee, even beer and pretzels, but personally I like what Braxton Technologies has developed. Remember, this is a Space Symposium, so Braxton decided to mount small-scale full working models of various satellites above their booth space and allow attendees to actually send wireless commands to control the satellites. You can sit at one of their control stations, see a real spacecraft commanding (TT&C) screen, send commands to the scale-model satellites, and watch the satellites react in real time.

Now, Fred (I call him the model builder and engineer extraordinaire) is the one who built the majority of the models, and they are an excellent example of fine craftsmanship. Indeed, the first night there were some issues with one of the older models, and Fred stayed in the booth working the problem from closing time on Monday evening until 0700 on Tuesday morning. And his hard work paid off, because there is always a crowd around the Braxton booth waiting to control or just watch the satellites respond. The Braxton folks are very good at and very proud of what they do, and it shows. They automated GPS scheduling, on their own nickel last year, and this year offer a glimpse at the future of GPS mission planning. Plus, they have an application for unimproved aircraft landing sites around the world that is simply amazing.

But, in the end it is watching the children, the future space operators and astronauts, who gather in huge crowds around the Braxton booth, waiting with thinly veiled anticipation to send a command to a satellite. It has been a long time since I was a child, but you should have seen the smile on my face when Fred allowed me to send a command and I could see the satellite model respond. Both Frank Backes, Braxton CEO, and Kenny O’Neil, Braxton president, and most of the Braxton employees are former space operators, and they have not forgotten the thrill of actually commanding satellites. Now they have made that thrill available for our future space operators. I think they hit it out of the park.

There’s still time. Drop by the Braxton booth, speak with Fred, and send a command to a satellite. Oh, and you are allowed to smile!

Until next time, happy navigating, and go fly a satellite!

I mentioned at the time how incredulous I was at the question, but that I answered it with a straight face. Now, while professional courtesy prevents me from ever revealing the name of the female journalist, I will say that she evidently started an uncomfortable trend. Much of my correspondence lately has concerned the connections between time and position and/or navigation and why we are so concerned about time.

I won’t bore my more sophisticated readers with GPS 101, or certainly not Time and Frequency Metrology 101, but I will tell you that I think we (this is not the royal “we” but includes all of us who work with and promote GPS on a daily basis) need to do a better job describing just how GPS works and more importantly how critical precise time and frequency is to position and navigation solutions, whether GPS is utilized or not. And I don’t have the time here to take up the argument concerning how important GPS is to our critical national infrastructure. Indeed, a topic and column for another time.

I am sure my time and frequency metrology friends and colleagues at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado) and USNO (U.S. Naval Observatory — read as UTC — home of Coordinated Universal Time and the Master Clock) would probably go about this differently. They tend to approach these problems strictly from a metrology viewpoint. While there is nothing wrong with that perspective, I hope to give you a more hands-on operational view of time and how it relates to position and navigation.

Smithsonian Institution and Time Exhibit

An operational backup of a Transit 5-A satellite.

Of course, I could take the easy way out and advise all my readers to visit the latest Smithsonian time exhibit entitled: Time and Navigation – The Untold Story of Getting From Here to There. The new exhibit opens in April.

Here are a few quick Smithsonian facts, with commentary added, for those who want to visit and learn just what time has to do with GPS and navigation in general:

What: The Relationship Between Time and Navigation

When: Opens in April 2013.

Where: The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, Independence Avenue at Sixth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Responsibility: “Time and Navigation — The Untold Story of Getting From Here to There” is being produced jointly by the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of American History. This is one of the few times, if not the first, that two museums have jointly produced a major exhibit of this importance.

Sponsors: The exhibition is made possible through the generous contributions of Northrop Grumman; Exelis Inc.; Honeywell; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; U.S. Department of Transportation; Magellan; National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing; Rockwell Collins; and ION the Institute of Navigation. Note: The sponsors are listed in order of the amount they gave to present the exhibition, but it should be noted that ION was among the first contributors, making the museums’ decision to go ahead with the exhibit a more comfortable one. More on that and why it is significant later.

The USS Alabama.

Artifacts: (Don’t you just love the word artifact? Indeed, someone once told me, and not unkindly, that I resemble that word.) The time exhibition features 144 artifacts, drawn primarily from the collections of the participating museums. Highlights of the exhibition include a representation of a 19th-century ship from the U.S. Exploring Expedition; the first sea-going marine chronometer made in the United States; the submarine navigation system for the USS Alabama; a TRANSIT navigation satellite (a major naval predecessor to GPS); Wiley Post’s airplane, the Winnie Mae; and Stanley, originally from the Stanford University Racing Team and written about many times by yours truly in GPS World. Stanley is a robotic vehicle that can drive itself. Stanley is a 2005 Volkswagen Touareg, which has been considerably modified to navigate without remote control and without a human driver onboard. Stanley handily won the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a robotic vehicle race. Stanley successfully navigated 212 kilometers (132 miles) across desert terrain and has had his (here we go, anthropomorphizing automobiles) own robotic exhibit at the Smithsonian since 2009.

An official DARPA photograph of Stanley at the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. Stanley, created by the Stanford University Racing Team, won the race.

Organization: The current time exhibition is organized into five sections: Navigation for Everyone; Navigating at Sea; Navigating in the Air; Navigating in Space; and Inventing Satellite Navigation.

Theme: If you want to know where you are, you need an accurate clock. In other words, you need to know when you are. About 250 years ago, sailors first used accurate clocks, later known as chronometers, to navigate the oceans. Today, we locate ourselves on the globe with synchronized atomic clocks in orbiting satellites (GPS is the primary method today). Among the many challenges facing navigation from then to now, one stands out: keeping accurate time.

For centuries, nations have invested enormous resources to determine time and place for geopolitical reasons, and their research has changed people’s view of the world. Advanced technology that was once available only to the military has become commonplace and downloadable to cell phones, iPADS and computers. Instead of unfolding a map or stopping at a gas station to ask for directions, drivers can now consult their car’s GPS (Global Positioning) system. The new gallery examines the cultural and technological history of precise timekeeping and navigation at sea, in the air, and in space and the impact of satellite navigation on our everyday lives. Which of course are also the missions of the Institute of Navigation and GPS World magazine.

When Am I?

Many of you have heard the old saw about those who don’t know history being doomed to repeat it, and if you don’t know where you have been, how can you know where you are? There are probably numerous maxims that fit the bill when it comes to the history of time and navigation, and the Smithsonian Exhibit certainly does a great job of hitting all the high points, but beyond that, they will take you into about as much detail as you can stand. If possible, plan on attending the exhibit several times and delving into each of the five major themes. But if you can’t visit Washington, D.C., and the Smithsonian exhibit, then visit virtually on their excellent website.

For our purposes, suffice it to say that you can’t really know where you are unless you know when you are. That requires a clock, the more precise the better, and consequently the more accurate your position.

History Lesson

More than 200 years ago, sailors sailing between Europe and the New World knew where they were only in relationship to their latitude, but had no idea other than dead reckoning of their longitude.

Enter Boston clockmaker William Cranch Bond who, although he was not the first, constructed a specialized timepiece, which later became known as the Bond Chronometer, which sailors used to determine longitude at sea. But still there were problems. Sailors used a maritime sextant and chronometer to determine position, but both devices depended on the other. On cloudy or foggy days, either the horizon or the sun and stars or both were unavailable, and positioning/navigation was relegated to, in all seriousness, dead reckoning with a dubious magnetic compass, a rock and a rope. The problem being, of course, that dead reckoning made many mariners resemble the first word in that very unfortunate navigational phrase.

Time and Air Navigation

Fast forward almost a century (1903), and aeroplanes are now on the scene along with all the problems attendant in navigating a machine easily traveling ten times faster than most ships. But of course the U.S. Navy rationalized that if a watch and a sextant were good enough for navigating maritime ships, then they were good enough for ships of the air — even if the horizon was often obscured or moved around a great deal, or turbulence made balancing a sextant difficult.

The result was most aviators gave up on the sextant, especially solo aviators, and just used a watch and, you guessed it, dead reckoning, which is exactly what happened to many aviators in 1927 who attempted to win the Raymond Orteig $25,000 prize for being the first solo aviator to cross the Atlantic nonstop from the East Coast of the U.S. — in fact, it had to be New York to Paris, France. For you trivia buffs, it had to be New York to Paris because the person offering the prize, Monsieur Raymond Ortieg, was an emigrant from France who did well for himself and went from a penniless restaurant busboy to owning two of the most prestigious hotels in New York City at the time. Hence the connection between New York and Paris. But I digress.

Charles Lindbergh (left) and Raymond Orteig.

Enter Lindbergh

As most of you are aware, then captain, later colonel, Charles Lindbergh took up that dare and won the Orteig-prize on the 21 of May, 1927, when he landed in Paris after a grueling 33½-hour solo flight across the Atlantic. When Lindbergh hit land after being “feet wet” for more than 30 hours and 3500+ miles, he was less than three miles from his intended European entry point, a feat that would be hard to duplicate today without GPS, as even with an unaided inertial system the drift can sometimes be as high as one kilometer per hour.

One part I always find amusing about the Lindbergh transatlantic saga is that after flying with “dead reckoning” as his only means of navigation for 30 hours across the Atlantic, he followed the Seine river all the way to Paris, so he essentially converted from VFR (Visual Flight Rules) to the IFR or “I fly rivers” navigation method for the last part of his journey.

Meteorologists and the sealed barometric equipment Lindbergh carried on board — to prove he never landed enroute or that it was indeed a non-stop flight — would not only verify that fact but also verify that he navigated the Atlantic in what we might call today The Perfect Calm. Indeed, Lucky Lindy picked the perfect 48-hour period for his flight. For those of you who read the book, saw the movie, or were there, will remember that in New York the weather during the night preceding his historic takeoff from the dirt-churned-into-mud runway at Roosevelt Field, Long Island, New York, was less than cooperative. There was a major thunderstorm with lots of lightning and several inches of rain; consequently, many counseled Captain Lindbergh to postpone his flight. But he would have none of it and the rest is history.

The most interesting part of the story, however, is that the entire flight was accomplished with “dead reckoning,” a compass and a watch, the very same tools that Captain Lindbergh used during his tenure as a U.S. Mail pilot. So, in fact, Lucky Lindy actually knew very little about navigating an airplane or avigation, as many called it at the time. Indeed, according to Roger Connor from the National Air and Space Museum and his wonderful article in this month’s Smithsonian Air & Space magazine, Even Lindbergh Got Lost, Captain Lindbergh did not learn to properly navigate with a sextant, chronometer and star charts until more than a year after his famous flight to Paris.

I won’t spoil the story for you, but he learned to navigate as did his famous wife, Ann Morrow Lindbergh, from then Lieutenant Commander Philip V.H. Weems of the U.S. Navy. LCDR Weems set up the nation’s first independent navigation school, and went on to instruct such notables as General Curtis LeMay, the Commander of Strategic Air Command (SAC), who went on to serve as the Chief of Staff of the USAF. Most people are not aware, but General LeMay was dual-qualified as a pilot and a navigator in the USAF. As the Commander in Chief of SAC or CINCSAC, he mandated that all SAC flight crews be able to navigate from Point A to Point B using only passive means that were always available and did not involve transmitting a signal outside the aircraft. In other words, celestial navigation, using a sextant, chronometer, special plotter and star charts, much as was taught by LCDR Weems.

I was one of the lucky SAC flight crew members who learned to navigate with those basic instruments. And checking my logbooks, I find that I made just short of 200 flights (99 round-trips) across the big pond, the Pacific that is, using those basic instruments. I mentioned this to a group of USAF aircrews recently during a speech, and when I asked how many of them could accomplish that feat if required to do so today, I was informed that sextants are no longer carried on USAF aircraft and most do not even have sextant ports. In other words, it is a lost art among flight crews today, and it is a shame, but it is also a topic for another time.

The important fact concerning navigation and time is that time — indeed, precise time — is and always has been critical to accurate navigation, especially aircraft navigation, no matter whether you are flying from New York to Paris, Texas, or New York to Paris, France. And GPS Atomic Reference Systems (Atomic Clocks) on orbit today, which deliver time accurate to millionths of a second, are even more critical since they are the heart of the system. So I would say to my journalist enquirer, GPS and atomic clocks are one and the same. You can’t navigate accurately without precise time.

Weems Legacy

Now, to bring this full circle, I first heard about the proposed Smithsonian Time Exhibit about two years ago from a friend and professional colleague, James Doherty, Captain, USCG retired. Jim, who once served as the Commander of the United States Coast Guard Navigation Center, is a past President of ION (Institute of Navigation), one of the few U.S. members of the Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN) in London, England, and now serves as the Chairman of the newly created Military Division at ION. And for full disclosure purposes, I must say that I have been a proud member of ION for more than 30 years.

Jim, who was serving on a Smithsonian panel as a subject-matter expert on navigation, told me that the Smithsonian had the idea for the time exhibit, but was looking for support, and the first organization to pledge support was indeed ION. The Institute of Navigation certainly does not have the deep pockets of Northrop and Exelis or the other major sponsors, but they are very serious about navigation and they are always looking for ways to promote their vision. This was the perfect opportunity.

And just in case you were wondering, the legacy that Captain, U.S. Navy, V.H. Weems left the world is a method of celestial navigation that persisted as the primary means, especially in the U.S. military and military forces around the world, for more than 60 years and is still the only reliable means of navigation available to us when everything else goes away. For with the Weems Method, as long as you have a sextant and an accurate clock, you can navigate anywhere.

Oh, and one other legacy: Captain V.H. Weems was the founder of the Institute of Navigation, which is the leading society devoted to the advancement of navigation in the world today. And for you trivia fans, the ION predates the RIN by two years.

Sequestration and Cancellations

Normally I would wrap it up here and say grab your sextant and happy navigating, but just as I wrap this up I have been told by informed sources at SMC and AFCEA that the GPS Partnership Council scheduled for May this year has been postponed. Sources at ION tell me that ION/JNC in Orlando has been cancelled for this year due to the restrictions on travel for U.S. government and military officials. In other words, more victims of sequestration and a Congress that can’t make the decisions we elect and pay them to make.

At ION they have always had the mantra, do it right or don’t bother doing it at all, and this year the travel restrictions are just too great. Certainly Jim Doherty and I were in the process of setting up another great Warrior Panel for the classified day, but that will have to wait for another time. However, I am assured by ION Executive Director Lisa Beaty that the ION GNSS meeting from September 16-20 at the Nashville Convention Center is definitely a go, so I look forward to seeing everyone there. Stop by the GPS World booth and say hello. Plus, I hope to see many of you at the 29th Annual National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs from April 8-11, 2013.

Until then, Happy Navigating – blow the dust off your sextant and give it a shot.

• BYOD – Disaster Waiting for Government Networks
• BYOD – Bring Your Own Disaster to the Government Enterprise
• BYOD – Are the Military Networks Ready?
• BYOD – Bring Your Own Destruction
• BYOD – A Huge Security Risk?
• BYOD – A Smart Choice or a Cyber Disaster?

Historical Perspective

The naiveté of the authors that penned these stories astounds me, as frankly they are out of step with the times by about 2,000 years. BYOD and the military go hand in hand. During Roman times, except for conscripts or slaves, Roman soldiers were expected to furnish their own supplies, their own weapons, their own horses and their own support. Often they brought their own slaves/servants to care for them in camp. In our (U.S.) Revolutionary War, many of the ragtag regiments were formed from state volunteers and local militias who were commanded by officers who, having paid for their commissions, supported the soldiers they brought to the fight, with food and uniforms; many were even expected to bring their own weapons and ammunition. The same applies to our (U.S.) Civil War, the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression, as my Southern colleagues are wont to constantly remind me.

Since warfare began, warfighters have supplied their own equipment (BYOD), and today’s warfighters are no different, especially when it comes to personal electronic equipment, even though antiquated DoD (Department of Defense) regulations frown on such behavior. Hopefully you can see where I am going with this, especially as it relates to GPS/PNT user equipment. Unfortunately, DoD regulations also specify our warfighters in all services must utilize the government-supplied GPS equipment known as MUE (Military User Equipment), and even specifies the consequences of not adhering to that inane policy. Consequently, warfighters generally have the GPS MUE readily available if it is embedded, thereby avoiding the horrendous user interface, but they invariably also have their own personal GPS/PNT devices close at hand.

These BYO-GPS-D are, without a doubt, more useful, certainly more user friendly, and actually provide a modicum of situational awareness, with such incredible features as actual moving color maps, annotated roads and rivers, up-to-date geographical features and even voice guided navigation — all features not available on the GPS MUE as a stand-alone unit today. Some PNT devices answer verbal inquiries from their users. Can you say, “Hi Siri, where am I?”

Fast Forward: First Gulf War

Consider the first Gulf War in 1990, which in GPS lore is touted in military aviation circles as the turning point for GPS transitioning from just another en route navigation system to a weapons systems multiplier and situational awareness tool that made believers of even the most jaded fighter pilots and land warriors. Suddenly fighter pilots and weapons systems operators were scoring “shacks” or direct hits on targets, on every sortie. Instead of using four bombs to hit one target, four bombs now equaled a direct hit on four targets — a phenomenal increase in accuracy, with minimal collateral damage, all due to the Global Positioning System.

For land warriors, the famous “left hook” strategy, employed during the midst of a major, once-a-decade sandstorm that placed American warriors behind the Iraqi forces occupying Kuwait, was widely credited with bringing the ground war to a close in just four days, and it could never have been accomplished without GPS. However, the part of this story that often gets misinterpreted is the sudden appearance of BYOD GPS devices during that extremely short duration conflict (August 2, 1990, until February 28, 1991).

Newspapers and military magazines carried numerous pictures of commercial/civil GPS devices taped to military vehicle windshields, windows on ships bridges, in fighter cockpits, inside tanks and fighting vehicles — and of course carried by individual warfighters, despite regulations to the contrary.

I Don’t Know Where It Came From Sir…It Just Magically Appeared!

What we tend to overlook is that these BYOD or personal PNT devices, despite warfighter protestations to the contrary (“Methinks thou dost protest too much…”) did not just appear overnight. Warfighters carried them in flight-suit pockets and briefcases for years. They saw minimal use, and then the U.S. decided to fight a war on and over a featureless desert. And I can confirm first-hand that navigating over a featureless desert without any external navigation aids is particularly troublesome. No landmarks, no ground-based navigation aids, no radar returns, and frequent sandstorms that obscure everything in sight and radically change the landscape make life a real challenge for warfighters prosecuting a war. Navigation in this environment is challenging at the best of times; add the fog of war and it becomes a nightmare. General William Tecumseh Sherman said “War is hell!” and while it can certainly never be a walk in the park, add GPS and precise navigation along with precision targeting/bombing becomes infinitely doable.

Personal Experience

I sat in my first aircraft cockpit and took my first flight more than 50 years ago. Contrary to popular belief, neither Orville or Wilbur Wright were my first flight instructors, just close friends, but I did learn a great deal from Charles Lindberg. Seriously, I can tell you that in the “good ol’ days” an inordinate amount of airborne time was spent determining your position/location, airspeed, altitude and heading to your destination or next waypoint, often with wildly varying degrees of accuracy. Ask any aviator hailing from that era and they will tell you we really had to work at it. It was a constant struggle where IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) frequently equated to “I Fly Roads.” Certainly it was gratifying when it all worked out, but also extremely frustrating when it did not, and there was no alternative.

Nature of the Beast

Fighter pilots by nature tend to be vain and querulous creatures that by definition are the best at what they do. Did you ever meet one who wasn’t? Just ask them and they will be quick to tell you they are the best fighter pilot in the world, every one of them. And they hate to ask for directions or admit they are lost, male and female alike, hence the old adage, “You can always tell a fighter pilot, but you can’t tell them much.” Indeed, just ask any fighter pilot worth their wings and they will invoke the Daniel Boone response when asked about being lost. When asked if he had ever been lost, that great woodsman, statesman and explorer replied, “Lost? No I can truly say that I have never been lost… I was mighty bewildered once for about four days, but never lost.”

Unfortunately pilots and/or navigators don’t have the luxury of pulling over and checking for moss on the south side of trees. But one glance at a GPS device in flight (it does not have to be an aviation-grade receiver) will tell you your current heading, time and desired heading to your next waypoint and final destination, speed along the ground, altitude, and of course current position down to a meter or better. This wonderful device leaves the intrepid aviator with time to concentrate on putting weapons on target, which, if they are also GPS guided, is almost a cinch.

Now you understand why aviators were among the first warfighters to embrace BYO-GPS, and why they seemed to just “pop-up” during the first Gulf war. Today’s ultra modern jets, such as the F-22 and F-35, have built-in GPS/PNT systems with redundant inertial systems, Doppler systems, and of course radars that are all tightly integrated. Some smart weapons even have their own GPS and laser systems on board. But you can bet your next paycheck there is a backup civil/commercial battery-operated BYO-GPS in a flight-suit pocket or helmet bag, just in case, as fighter pilots also have a great sense of self-preservation.

Warfighter GPS Equipment Database

I have personally compiled a “Warfighter GPS Equipment Database” over the last 10 years, since we have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The database is comprised of more than 8000 entries from warfighters from all services, U.S. and allies alike. Only 1 in 40 warfighters utilize issued GPS MUE as a stand-alone handheld device, but every single warfighter (that’s 100 percent, a rare event in statistics) in the database proudly possessed and freely spoke about their own personal BYO-GPS device, with the majority of them being various iterations of a Garmin device, with Trimble devices and iPhones coming in a close second and third; although the iPhone and other smartphones are rapidly gaining ground on all the PNT devices in theater. So the bottom line is when it comes to BYOD, GPS is alive and well and has been for the last 23+ years with no end in sight.

BYOD Here to Stay

While thousands of warfighters have written me to say, “I love my Garmin, Trimble, iPhone, etc.” I do not have a single letter or email saying I love my PLGR or DAGR (precision lightweight and defense advanced GPS receivers or MUE). However, I will and must caveat my BYOD position by stating, as I always do, that while the PLGR and DAGR are, in my opinion, woefully inadequate as handheld PNT devices, they are extremely functional and sometimes the best/only option warfighters currently have as an embedded device, especially in a GPS-denied environment. Anything that improves on the display, battery life and user interface of the current GPS MUE is to be applauded.

So to be clear, I would never advise a warfighter not to utilize the GPS MUE issued to them, but would certainly encourage them to have a backup or two. Fortunately that encouragement is totally superfluous as I have yet to meet a warfighter who did not have at least one civil/commercial PNT receiver as a backup, even in the cockpit. During a recent visit to a local firefighting C-130 squadron, the navigator utilized the on-board, original equipment MAGR GPS unit, a Trimble unit, Velcroed to the navigation console, and two laptops with different independent GPS capabilities, such as color real-time moving map displays, and the navigator had a BYOD Garmin in his flight suit pocket. QED!

BYOD is here to stay!

Let’s embrace the technology of the 21st century, stop asking if our warfighters, government employees and government contractors should be allowed to use their own PNT, computer and communication devices, and begin incorporating the smartest and best devices in the world into our networks and enterprise infrastructures. For all the hype to the contrary, there really is no alternative.

Until next time, don’t forget to BYOD and happy navigating!

Don Jewell

With apologies to the Bard of Avon, as I paraphrase his prose, 2C or not 2C — that is the question for millions of GPS users and has been for several years. Indeed, over the past seven years hardly a week has gone by without an email or inquiry about the status of the GPS L2C signal.

The name “L2C” refers to the radio frequency used by the signal (1227 MHz, or L2) and the fact that it is for civilian use, but of course it will also be used by the military. There are also two military signals on the L2 frequency. In the past couple of months inquiries concerning L2C have become an almost everyday occurrence. Plus I have it on good authority that it was a topic of conversation at recent a PNT EXCOM or Executive Committee Meeting.

However, when I started making inquiries I was met with an interesting dichotomy. One group of users actually laughed and accused me of having a Don Quixote complex and tilting at windmills, since this debate has been continuing for over seven years, while other more sanguine user groups are seriously interested in the future of L2C. Here is what I discovered.

What is L2C?

According to the official U.S. government website concerning GPS, “L2C is the second civilian GPS signal, designed specifically to meet commercial needs. When combined with L1 C/A [ed. coarse acquisition] in a dual-frequency receiver, L2C enables ionospheric correction, a technique that boosts accuracy. Civilians with dual-frequency GPS receivers enjoy the same or better accuracy as the military. For professional users with existing dual-frequency operations, L2C delivers faster signal acquisition, enhanced reliability, and greater operating range. L2C broadcasts at a higher effective power than the legacy L1 C/A signal, making it easier to receive under trees and even indoors. The Commerce Department estimates L2C could generate $5.8 billion in economic productivity benefits through the year 2030. The first GPS IIR(M) satellite featuring L2C launched in 2005. Every GPS satellite fielded since then has included an L2C transmitter.”

Problems

So while this would appear to be a “no brainer” as it were, especially the $5.8 billion in economic benefits, it appears the Global Positioning System is actually at a crossroads and the decision makers are apparently on the horns of a dilemma. For some groups of users, the laudable global PNT (position, navigation and timing) gold standard is looking a bit tarnished of late but has an opportunity to shine once again. The question and future perception of GPS by many global users simply revolves around implementing full navigation messages on signals that are already in place, namely L2 and L5 with CNAV and M-code with MNAV. So, what’s the issue, you say? The signals are there, and in the case of L2C and M-code, have been for seven years — simply upload a full navigation message and be done with all the ambiguity that has become unwelcome baggage for these modern day signals. Au contraire, mon ami, if it were only that simple.

Now grant you this, should be a simple decision, but remember this is the U.S. government we are talking about — apropos failed budgets, endless continuing resolutions, health care fiascos, and the fiscal cliff — important but in the end actually simple decisions all. Unfortunately, history reflects when the U.S. government is involved, nothing is ever easy and timely decisions are hard to come by. So as not to confuse anyone, especially the players, let’s take this process one step at a time and see what all the fuss is about, shall we?

Problem Statement: The L2C and M-code signal capability has been on orbit for more than seven years, since 2005. In 2009, the 2SOPS began uploading and broadcasting a Message Type Zero on L2C, which, while not a navigation message, does put data on the channel. What users are now asking for is the full navigation message on L2C or CNAV, which is a modern-day navigation message and will have significant advantages for all users. Plus, the signal would be available to potentially more than 3 billion users versus the small subset today that utilizes the L2C carrier phase for RTK (real-time kinematic) operations. Indeed, when compared to the L1 C/A (coarse acquisition) signal, L2C has 2.7 dB greater data recovery (with a navigation message) and 0.7 dB greater carrier tracking.

The bottom line is that, with the addition of a valid and updated CNAV message on L2C, all users, the military included, would immediately have ten more potential navigation signals available, and that number would grow with each new GPS launch. Obviously, the same is true for military users with M-code and for all users with an L5 capability. However, the upgrade process needs to start somewhere, and L2C is the obvious choice since there are essentially no M-code receivers available today and there are approximately between 450,000-500,000 L2C capable receivers already in the hands of users.

Assets

Hardware – Simply put, there are currently 10 satellites (SVs) capable of broadcasting a full navigation message or CNAV message on the L2 signal and MNAV message on the M-code signal, also on L2 and three L5 CNAV capable SVs:

7 – IIRM SVs (does not include SVN-49 which, while capable, is currently in residual and/or test status).

3 – IIF SVs (same capabilities as the IIRMs and also capable of broadcasting an L5 signal with CNAV).

While the lack of L2C monitor stations has historically been used as a reason for not broadcasting the new CNAV navigation messages, today there are literally more than one hundred L2C- and L5-capable monitoring stations, which includes the NASA JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) monitoring stations. Logs from several independent monitoring stations show that at any given time there are from one to three L2C SVs visible for the majority of global users, including our warfighters, who in the mountains of Afghanistan need all the signal availability we can provide.

Plus, of the estimated 450,000-500,000 fully capable L2C receivers, several thousand of those are in the hands of our warfighters. Trimble started building in the L2C and L5 CNAV capability as far back as 2003, a full two years before the first L2C launch, for users that wanted the option. However, that option has never been fully tested with live on-air CNAV coded transmissions and they need to be. More on testing later.

From a global user perspective, Japan has essentially leapfrogged the U.S., since the L2C and L5 signals with full CNAV messages are already being broadcast on the Japanese QZSS navigation satellite QZSS-1.

Software was initially thought to be an issue, but according to my sources, the current MNAV or M-code full navigation message is remarkably similar, as to be almost identical to the CNAV messages for L2C and L5, and MNAV has already been shown to work well on the ten GPS SVs capable of broadcasting the M-code signal. Granted, it is not fully integrated into the current OCS or operational control system known as AEP or Architecture Evolution Plan, but then not many future capabilities are, so this is really not an issue since manual processes abound in the current OCS. The L2C, L5 and M-code full navigation messages are supposedly still part of the plan for OCX or the future operational control system for GPS, which should be up and working sometime in early 2017. This would be twelve years after the L2C and M-code signal capability was first placed on orbit.

Timelines

Given those timelines, some would say, hey that’s only four years from now, maybe five if you count testing, and the full navigation message might actually be turned on. But, alas, rumors abound that there is a government agency apparently objecting to the immediate activation of L2C and L5. This agency, and it is not hard to ferret out exactly which one, wants extensive testing to ensure there will be no complications with the WAAS or Wide Area Augmentation System broadcasts, and as an alternative plan it proposes waiting until all the L5 satellites are on orbit before activating navigation messages on L2C or L5. Let’s do the math – that’s 24 L5 SVs, before the L2C and L5 PNT signals are activated with full navigation messages. At one launch per year, the current GPS launch rate, and it matters not whether it is a IIF or a III, and with three L5 SVs already on orbit, that effectively means we will see all 24 L5 SVs on orbit sometime in 2034, if indeed the II-F SVs are truly the first 30-year GPS SVs. If not, then it could be as late as 2037.  However, given the average life span of GPS SVs today, it is more than likely that by 2037 every single L2C, L5 and M-code capable satellite on orbit today will have been disposed of without ever having broadcast any of the new signals for which they were designed. Now, how’s that for a lachrymose plan?

Fortunately, this alternate long-term “plan’ has not a prayer of passing, dare I utter the words, the dreaded Washington Post test. Never having purposely written anything for the Washington Post, even though several of my articles have been quoted and misquoted there, it is still a force to be reckoned with in our nation’s capital, simply because the Washington Post continually asks the question, “Is this a wise use of taxpayer’s money?” The answer for the alternative GPS L2C and L5 plan is obvious.

Personnel and monetary issues are always mentioned in the context of new GPS capabilities; however, I have no doubts that the absolutely superb blue suit operators, tacticians and support contractors at 2SOPS are more than capable of performing the simple actions of uploading the new navigation messages on their own.

Sure, times are tough but the blue suit operators and their on-site support staff, at the 2SOPS, have proven themselves time and again to simply be the best in the business. They have brought GPS SVs back from the dead, they (with Braxton Technologies Software) maintain residual satellites that everyone thought for years was an impossible task, and they have saved SVs for important missions that everyone else thought should have been abandoned. We don’t give the fine men and women at Schriever AFB, the 50^th Space Wing and the 2SOPS (2^nd Space Operations Squadron) enough credit, and I am not about to sell them short. I am convinced the signals in question can be uploaded with full navigation messages, tested and made operational, even if only on a test basis, within six months without expensive outside help.

Full-Scale Testing

This brings us back to the full testing proposal, which actually makes a lot of sense. We (all users) need immediate full scale and extensive operational evaluations that confirm “we have it right” with the CNAV and MNAV data messages. We should encourage manufacturers to participate in this testing process to ensure their GPS devices meet specifications and are not flawed because of a misinterpretation of an interface specification. The GPS equipment manufacturers would be the first to embrace this approach. The manufacturers and users need open-air full-scale testing with valid CNAV messages being broadcast by numerous satellites to ensure they have coded the L2C, L5 and M-code receivers properly.

Immediate testing is the key here, because otherwise under one proposed plan we will only find out if there is a problem with full end-to-end testing of the L2C CNAV signal and user equipment 13 years after manufacturers began fielding the supposed and promised capability. Under the wait for L5 FOC (full operational capability) plan, we won’t find out if the implementation of specifications are correct for another 20-plus years. Personally, I find this to be unacceptable. We need to begin the immediate six-month test plan now. 

The aviation community has the mantra, “Test it as you fly it.”  We should not do any less.  A full six-month evaluation is absolutely appropriate and should be undertaken now. We cannot afford to repeat the 5.5C debacle. [ed. click to read more about 5.5C].

Users, of course, are the prime concern. If you or your organization, including the military, can benefit from 23 more navigation signals today (and three additional signals each year from now until 2034), one of them being the strongest GPS signal to ever be broadcast (L5 with CNAV), and you want/need those signals active now, then please let us know. You may email me at djewell@gpsworld.com.

Stand up and Be Heard

Although some of my comments have been a bit tongue-in-cheek, this is indeed your chance to be heard and to make a difference. Let there be no mistake: there is no other PNT system in existence today, planned or unplanned, on the drawing boards or on PowerPoint slides that approaches the capability, availability, reliability, longevity, accuracy and integrity of the Global Positioning System. The folks at Air Force Space Command have been and continue to be admirable stewards. We just need to let them go about their business without undue restrictions.

Dare to Compare

If you want to know exactly how the GPS compares to other PNT systems, consider that the Russian GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema), which came into existence in 1979 only one year after the first GPS launch, has only been Fully Mission Capable (FOC) as a global PNT system for about two years, and that dubious status is literally day-to-day as it teeters on that magic number of 24 available SVs broadcasting multiple PNT signals simultaneously. Contrast that to the GPS, which currently has 32 active SVs with several additional SVs in residual status. Three GPS SVs are nearing, have attained or will soon attain 20 years on orbit. One of our SVs has been on orbit for more than 22 years. GLONASS has serious problems merely attaining an average SV life of less than five years on orbit. Even the vaunted Chinese are experiencing serious technical, longevity and integrity issues with their multiple PNT constellations. It is just not as easy as it sounds. So yes, GPS is the global PNT gold standard, and its stewards must always strive to improve and lead the way. The GPS must continue to grow and innovate or risk being left behind. This is your chance to contribute to that leadership role. Let your opinion be heard.

Until next time Happy New Year, happy navigating, and keep those card, letters and emails coming.

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

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 30^th anniversary of Air Force Space Command. Can you tell us about some of the 30^th anniversary plans?

WS: Don, there are numerous activities planned around our 30^th 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 30^th 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 (2^nd 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.

Tuesday, the 26^th of June, started off as a beautiful day in Colorado Springs, if you ignored the towering plume of smoke to the west from the Waldo Canyon Wildfire.

The wildfire started three days before in the popular Waldo Canyon hiking area in the Rocky Mountains just off Highway 24. While people in the Colorado Springs area were concerned, there were currently eight other wildfires raging in the state of Colorado and over the past month arsonist(s) were suspected of starting up to 20+ wildfires. So, many had become inured to the sight and smell of smoke. Only one serious wildfire was known to be currently out of control in Colorado at the time, so concerns in the Colorado Springs community could be described as moderate.

Then, at 1630, that’s 4:30 P.M. for my non-military readers, the wildfire displayed its true personality. Driven by what meteorologist later described as “a perfect storm of weather conditions” and howling winds exceeding 65 miles per hour out of the West, the fire spread eastward toward Colorado Springs at an alarming rate.

The dark black roiling smoke blotted out the sun, which was suddenly no more than an angry red disc in the sky providing little illumination. The suddenly disobedient wildfire began marching, indeed running and leaping, relentlessly eastward voraciously consuming homes and lifetimes of memories. My wonderful wife of 32 years and I had all of five minutes to leave our comfortable foothills home, amid swirling, stinging, cloying black smoke, flying embers, and flames that danced over 100 feet high. It was simply a terrifying event. As we fled the wildfire with quickly gathered pictures, important papers, and little more than the clothes on our backs, neither of us thought we would ever see our home of 22 years or anything inside intact again.

Fox 21 file photo of the Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs, June 26, 2012.

Evacuation

The wildfire and smoke turned a now-indelible drive down familiar streets into an alien landscape. Visibility was limited to less than ten feet and premature night had fallen in a fiery, smoky, unbreathable pall on more than half of Colorado Springs. In the end more than 32,000 people were evacuated, 11,000 homes were threatened in several nearby communities, and approximately 350 homes were lost in the Mountain Shadows neighborhood in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. Firemen tell me the heat was incredibly intense, and homes that were lost were quickly turned into nothing more than smoky white ash. It was a truly devastating turn of events but without all the capabilities generated by and enabled by GPS, the results could have been much worse. Mayhem was avoided, and I have no doubt that GPS units of various descriptions guided thousands of people to safety that unforgettable day. Thousands of people, who suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves to be evacuees, followed voice and visual commands from small electronic GPS units that eventually led them to safety and safe havens all around the state of Colorado.

Heroes

Firefighters and support agencies from around the U.S. responded. When the fire broke out and wreaked havoc in the Rocky Mountain foothills, there were ~423 firemen fighting the fire. After the breakout and at the height of the fire, there were firefighting assets from every source available including the DoD and the National Guard. They totaled more than 1500 in number, and in my book they are all heroes. Case in point, as we were fleeing down the mountain from our home in a billowing preternatural darkness, along with thousands of others just like us that just wanted to get out safely, the brave men and women of Fire Station #12, at the end of our street, were racing up the mountain to confront the fire and save our homes and our neighborhood. In this regard I hold them and all firefighters in the same regard as U.S. Marines, who when shots are fired run toward the sound of gunfire, not away from it. Our courageous local firefighters, joined by a thousand more from across our nation, were running toward the fire, not away from it. Their bravery brought tears to your eyes that had nothing to do with the smoky atmosphere.

We Survived

All this occurred less than two weeks ago — as I write this column from my home, which was fortunately spared, albeit with a slightly smoky bouquet. We certainly consider ourselves to be blessed as the fire was stopped just a few hundred feet from our neighborhood.

When we finally and gratefully returned home and were able to fire up our computers, I discovered several testimonials from readers, first responders, firemen, and GPS users extolling the virtues first of the firemen and then of the GPS equipment that played such an important role in averting a total catastrophe.

One note from a couple who had only been in the local area for a couple of months described their experience fleeing before the raging wildfire in an only vaguely familiar neighborhood suddenly plunged into darkness, with air that was difficult to breathe and street signs that were unreadable. However, they movingly wrote, “Our brand new Garmin, that led us across country, also led us to safety during the WC wildfire and it was extremely comforting to know that the GPS knew the way…it eventually led us safely to a hotel outside the evacuation area…we had no idea which way to go and were totally dependent on our Garmin…we had a map but in all the confusion and panic it was of very little use…we could not read the map in the sudden darkness…we just listened to that small little voice that said…prepare to turn right in 400 feet…it saved our lives.”

USAFA under Attack by the Waldo Canyon Wildfire.

Another shining example of bravery in firefighting came from the various agencies and firefighters that joined the firefighters from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA). A USAF Colonel went on local television and declared that they had evacuated the academy and then established what they hoped was an impenetrable several-mile-long firebreak with bulldozers and heavy equipment, and although their numbers were limited, they would not allow the fire to penetrate the USAFA beyond that line and hold the line they did. These brave men and women were not all trained and certified wildfire firefighters, but they had the courage of their convictions and they held the line. The fire did not penetrate the USAFA beyond that firebreak. There are many more examples of true heroism that are too numerous to mention.

Firefighters from across the Nation

I spoke with many first responders — as I said, eventually 1500+ were fighting the fire — from as far away as California and Utah, who knew nothing about Colorado Springs or the Rocky Mountains to the west when they arrived on the scene, but who efficiently navigated the fiery wasteland with their map reading skills and various official and commercial/civil GPS units, both stand-alone and embedded units. And again Garmin units were almost always mentioned in the conversation — from sophisticated Garmins using elaborate forestry and military grid systems used by military and Forest Service first responders, in vehicles and aircraft, to wrist Garmins that simply allowed users to immediately locate their positions on a local area map.

At the height of the WC Wildfire, which as I write this is 98% contained but most certainly not under control, there were firefighters and first responders from the Forest Service, U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, National Guard (Army and Air Force), the U.S. Air Force Academy, and numerous federal agencies to include C-130 MAFF (Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System) units from Peterson AFB, in Colorado Springs (the 302^nd) and from a National Guard Unit in Wyoming. The majority of the firefighters were not from the local area; consequently, most all of them were using an incredible array of various GPS devices to locate and navigate. And in most all cases there was some reference to an external map. Local television stations, which covered the fire exclusively for the first five days, all had different and multiple maps and many were frankly almost indecipherable. What was interesting is that in almost every case there was a definite and clearly visible unfamiliarity by the participants with both the maps and even the local area. It seems that except for certain branches of the military and those who use maps daily in their profession, map reading and orienting skills have fallen by the way side, if indeed there was ever any initial proficiency. It is a skill we all need to relearn.

Maps and GPS

A very close friend and business colleague of mine, Robert Rosenberg (Maj Gen USAF Retired), once ran what was then known as DMA or the Defense Mapping Agency and is now known as NGA or the National GeoSpatial Intelligence Agency. NGA specializes in maps and may be the best in the world at gathering the necessary data and producing them. Indeed, some of the NGA maps are simply amazing and true works of art. However, the sad fact is they are utterly useless if you don’t know how read and utilize them properly.

Historically, some of the inaccuracies wrongly attributed to the GPS were actually map errors. I personally observed an incident where Dr. Ivan Getting, a possible father of the GPS, whom I have written about previously, determined the exact geographical coordinates of his home from a long integrated GPS position, but which DMA maps showed to be in the middle of a lake. Obviously the map was several hundred meters in error, and this was a common occurrence in the “old” days. However, modern map-making techniques and accuracies today are such that this is no longer the case. But even the best and most accurate map in the world today is useless if we don’t know how to make use of it — we must learn to orient ourselves, accurately locate our position on a map, and generally make use of the features all modern maps provide. It is time to stop blaming the maps and map makers and start learning to use the phenomenal maps and PNT tools at our disposal.

Now, please don’t misinterpret my comments or take them out of context. After all, this is GPS World magazine and there is not a greater proponent of GPS anywhere than yours truly; however, I have also always been a proponent of developing simple map reading skills as well, which to some seems to be anything but simple.

Dwindling Skillsets

Like many of you, I have read passionate and somewhat inaccurate articles bemoaning the use of GPS for the navigation and situational skills that are lost by blindly following GPS dictates, and certainly I have received numerous letters from and responded to those who prefer to navigate using granddad’s old Texaco map in the glove compartment. However, unlike many uninformed critics of the GPS and proponents of map reading skills, I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, one of the features I most appreciate about the GPS navigation system in my Audi is the traffic avoidance feature that when potential routes are blocked, or conflicts arise, automatically reroutes, without ever broadcasting that most irritating word “recalculating.” The other feature is the map display zooms out and displays more map features and alternate routes, so if I wish I may manually choose an alternate route. I have, just as you do, the option of blindly trusting the GPS, picking my own route on the map display or, as I most frequently do, using a combination of both map-reading skills and PNT automation.

In the grand scheme of things, map-reading skills are not difficult to develop and the basics are simple; however, it does take some practice — practice that can be gained every day by choosing different routes to work or common destinations and challenging yourself and your map reading skills when you travel. And here is a novel idea — actually read the instructional/operators manual that came with your GPS — learn all its secrets and built-in capabilities. You might be surprised by what you will learn and the skills GPS can help you develop.

Plethora of PNT Equipment

I had the enviable opportunity to speak with representatives from many of the more than 20 agencies that responded to the Waldo Canyon Wildfire and get a brief look at some of their PNT equipment. The equipment in general ranges from high end and highly sophisticated official first responder units with built-in communications capabilities to Garmins, iPhones, and iPads. The Garmins were equally split between vehicle-mounted, aircraft-mounted, and portable units, while the more sophisticated units were large and considered more appropriately as portable units with communication capabilities than as true handhelds. By far the most noticeable and prevalent units, other than Garmins, were Apple iPads, especially the new iPad IIIs with retina displays and ruggedized with Otterbox and Otterbox-like enclosures. There are numerous mapping and GPS/GIS applications that run on the iPad and other portable display devices, and in the future I will be reviewing the best mapping applications to assist you in choosing the one that is best for your situation. However, regardless of the application or device it would behoove us all to learn a bit more about maps and the devices we have on hand to display them, to include becoming familiar with that old Texaco map in the glove compartment, even if it is a last resort.

Tragically two souls perished in the Waldo Canyon Wildfire, as they were unable to evacuate their home before the fast moving wildfire overcame them. The Waldo Canyon Wildfire is truly a catastrophic event that will long be remembered in Colorado, and from which we can all learn a valuable lesson. And I wholeheartedly believe that many lives were and will continue to be saved by GPS/PNT devices in these types of catastrophes. We simply owe it to ourselves and our loved ones to learn how to best use our GPS/PNT equipment now, so it will be second nature when a catastrophe occurs. Take it from me, you life may depend on it. When you are fleeing for your life, you need all the help and good fortune available — it is not the time to figure our how your GPS/PNT device really functions.

God bless our firefighters and first responders.

Until next time, as Tennessee Ernie Ford said, “God willin’ and the creek don’t rise,” happy navigating and remember to read your GPS/PNT equipment owners manual.

The Question

A few months ago at a speaking engagement, I took questions from the audience after my presentation. The audience was made up of GPS enthusiasts, GPS equipment vendors, and evidently GPS neophytes as well, because the last question was asked by a young lady, from a large well known government user segment, who was intrigued by but obviously knew little about the inner workings of GPS. Her question so stunned me and the audience that it brought the questions to an abrupt end. Thank goodness no one actually laughed out loud, and frankly I was so incredulous that I almost gave an impertinent answer that would not have served any purpose other than to embarrass the young lady and expose some insensitivity on my part. No, fortunately, after recovering from the initial shock due to the naiveté of the question, I answered her with a straight face, because it seemed to be an honest and sincere question.

Allow me to set the stage. My talk was on the Perfect Handheld GPS Transceiver and how the PHGPST could be aided by a Symmetricom Chip Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC).

The young lady’s comment and eventual question was exactly as follows: “I came here this afternoon because I was intrigued by your columns in GPS World and I wanted to know more about the Perfect Handheld GPS Transceiver and possibly learn how I could even purchase one or more for my organization. However, most of your comments have been focused on the benefits of atomic clocks. Frankly, I am a bit disappointed. So where can I buy a PHGPST and what do atomic clocks have to do with GPS anyway?”

Retrospective

I have had a few months to think about that episode, and although all ended well, with no one being overly embarrassed, despite some good-natured ribbing, it was a little unsettling. It also takes me back to a previous theme in several of my columns concerning educating users about the Global Positioning System. Not just what GPS can do for you — certainly that is well covered in GPS World, other publications, and on the Internet. Indeed, just type the acronym “GPS” into any search engine and you will be rewarded with the rather daunting number of 1,670,000,000 hits — yes that’s 1 billion, 670 million hits.

A Daunting Perspective

Considering that the average person today, who has reached my advanced age, my will probably live to be approximately 80 years of age or more, the obvious question is does anyone actually have the time to peruse ~1.6B websites on GPS?

You don’t have to be a professional metrologist or an expert mathematician to determine the logical answer, but if you are really concerned about time it might help. Consider the following answers — yes, plural — to the question posed, which assumes that a person would spend one minute or 60 seconds at each website — which begs the question, just how many minutes are there in an 80-year life span anyway? Of course, this answer assumes the hopefully unlikely event that one would come out of the womb Googling “GPS.”

Calculations

By the nominal quartz clock on the wall, and using the Gregorian calendar, and not considering leap years, 80 human years equates to 42,048,000 minutes.  If we utilize the Julian calendar and add leap years, it equates to 42,076,800 minutes. By a standard years definition it equates to 42,075,936 minutes. By SI, international system of units, or true metrology standards, 80 years equates to, 42,075,901.3 minutes. The differences have to do with metrology and atomic reference systems versus the nominal unaided quartz clock. And although we say GPS runs on atomic clocks, the true answer is GPS runs on highly stable (accuracy is not a relevant term to be used here) atomic reference systems — noble gases and all that.

Now stay with me and allow me to explain the 80-years-in-seconds answers (and you naively thought there was only one answer) in terms a metrologist (the guys and gals who really care about time and frequency) at NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado, would use:

80 Years by the Calendar and Clock

For an entire block of 80 years, containing 20 leap years, the number of minutes would be the same as in 80 Julian calendar years of 365.25 days.

The number of minutes as calculated by calendar and clock is 42,076,800 — 80 years x 365.25 days/year x 24 hours/day x 60 minutes/hour = 42,076,800.

Or 80 times the number of minutes in a year, which is calculated as 525,960.

SI or Leap Years

Now, when we approach the question from an SI perspective, the answer is slightly but significantly different. The definition of a year is 31,556,926 standard seconds, while the standard leap year calculation is equal to 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, and 12 seconds (31,556,952 seconds). Instead of 525,960 clock minutes, you have 525,949.2 (standard) minutes. For 80 years, the results equal 42,075,936 minutes.

The variation between clock/calendar minutes and the measured length of the year only becomes important to those unfortunate enough to be born on the 29^th of February. That’s when the two calculations and calendars diverge by enough to subtract an entire day from the normal leap year system, hence the varying length of February, on the Gregorian calendar, every four years. However, to metrologist and GPS experts, who define an SI second as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Caesium 133 atom, the differences are astronomical (pun intended).

Caesium, Rubidium, Hydrogen…

At this point many GPS/PNT cognoscenti are probably saying, wait a minute, there are also Rubidium and hydrogen maser clocks on orbit today, so why use the Caesium standard for the SI second?

The Standard Tale

The Caesium standard for the SI second was established in 1960 when it was decided that it was time to abandon the astronomical or ephemeris, revolution of the Earth around the Sun, basis for the second. Indeed Louis Essen from the National Physical Laboratory (NPL in Teddington, England) and William Markowitz of the United States Naval Observatory (USNO in Washington, D.C.) determined the relationship between the hyperfine transition frequency of the Caesium atom and the ephemeris second. Using a common-view measurement method based on the received signals from radio station WWV  (operated by NIST and broadcast continuously from Boulder, Colorado) they determined the orbital motion (ephemeris) of the Moon about the Earth. From this data they inferred the apparent motion of the Sun, in terms of time as measured by an atomic reference system, in this case Caesium. They determined a second of ephemeris time (ET) to be equal to 9,192,631,770 ± 20 cycles of the atomic Caesium frequency. Consequently, in 1967 the 13th General Conference on Weights and Measures formally defined a second of atomic time in the International System of Units as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Caesium-133 atom.

So, since 1967 the Caesium atom has determined and supplied the atomic time reference for the globe. Caesium clocks have certainly undergone numerous refinements, and companies like Symmetricom in the U.S. still build Caesium reference systems that are used globally to determine the SI second and hence coordinate both International Atomic Time (IAT) and UTC or Coordinated Universal Time. And just how accurate is Caesium as a standard? The Swiss have built a continuous cold Caesium fountain atomic clock in Switzerland that started operating in 2004 at an uncertainty of one SI second in 30 million years.

Numbers Can Be Deceiving

Now while that sounds and is very impressive, the fact of the matter is one SI second is a long duration when it comes to atomic clocks — notice I avoided saying a “long time.” Indeed, today metrologists routinely speak in terms of 18 orders of magnitude less than an SI second. That is 18 places to the right of the decimal place, a very small number, destined to become even smaller.

We are speaking of incredibly short measures of duration (time) and they keep getting smaller.

So What?

Now many of you may be thinking, this is all very well and good, possibly even interesting, but so what? OK, here is the “so what.” Asking what GPS and all the incredible technology it enables has to do with atomic clocks is like asking what gas or electricity, as the case may be, has to do with my automobile. Atomic clocks, and the increasingly minute measurements of time they define, fuel our global economy today. And if you doubt the veracity of that statement, think about all that GPS/PNT enables in around the globe. All of our critical national infrastructure depends on a coordinated time, and the primary distribution system for that time for the last 20+ years has been GPS.

While there are academically numerous definitions of time and several so-called standards, primarily today the world runs on UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) distributed by GPS and other PNT systems with the requisite corrections.

Note: In June 2012, GPS will add another leap second.

NIST and Metrology

What then is time? If no one asks me,
I know what it is. If I wish to explain
it to him who asks, I do not know.
— Saint Augustine
Now, just how do you learn about atomic time and frequency, GPS, UTC, clock errors, ephemeris errors, and all the other multitude of errors that affect the GPS time we all, meaning the world, depend on every day?

Obviously there are many routes to that knowledge, but for me, and I have been involved with GPS since 1978, the best resource I have experienced to date was the annual week-long Time and Frequency Metrology Seminar that has been held at NIST in Boulder, Colorado, for the last 37 years.

I was kindly invited by Dr. David Howe, the seminar chair and group leader of the Time and Frequency Metrology Physics Measurements Laboratory, Time and Frequency Division at NIST, to attend this year’s seminar, and it was an eye-opening experience. Not only for the knowledge gained, but for the people met and the networking opportunities as well.

The Metrology Seminar

The seminar is billed as a course on understanding clocks, oscillators, atomic frequency standards, RF (radio frequency) and optical synchronization, optical oscillators, quantum information, optical cooling and heating (think lasers); making precise frequency, time, phase-noise, and jitter measurements; and establishing measurement accuracy and traceability. I am convinced the four-day course is the most comprehensive available anywhere today.

The June 2012 seminar included extremely informative presentations by Judah Levine, David Howe and David Allan (Ph.D.s all) — David Allan is the author of the Allan Variance — and 23 other presenters in subjects as diverse as direct-digital PM (phase modulation) noise measurements, how to specify frequency uncertainty, oscillator needs for new radars and surveillance systems, GPS vs. other global navigation satellite systems, photonic (laser-based) oscillators, chip-scale atomic clocks, femtosecond laser dividers, active PM-noise reduction techniques in oscillators, millimeter-wave applications and noise measurements, and ultra-low noise amplifier design techniques.

As the seminar descriptor says it is comprehensive in nature and there is no wasted time. One day the presentations lasted from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m. that evening. So it is an intensive metrology seminar filled with incredible learning opportunities. This year’s activities included an enjoyable and educational evening with Symmetricom, a forward-looking company that I sincerely view as the last true major commercial atomic reference builder in the United States. Symmetricom produces Hydrogen, Cesium (the ubiquitous 5071A), and Rubidium atomic reference standards, as well as high-end quartz oscillators with superior spectral purity and short-term frequency stability that support more military communications, satellite ground stations, and test and measurement applications than any other precision frequency references in the world today. Plus the incredible Symmetricom Chip-Scale Atomic Clock (CSAC), the world’s smallest atomic reference, has achieved historic breakthroughs in size, weight and power consumption — you can and I have balanced a CSAC on the end of my little finger. It is tiny yet powerful, and supports reference requirements as small as 1x10E-12 for specified periods of time. Indeed, this is the device that has the potential to revolutionize the Perfect Handheld GPS Transciever (PHGPST), but that is the subject for another column. As are the interviews I conducted with Judah Levine, who I refer to as “Father Time,” a Fellow at NIST, and David Allan, the originator of the Allan Variance and Allan Deviation, which allows the GPS Kalman Filter to work wonders and assures a GPS position accuracy of less than 1 meter possible for us all, with the right equipment of course.

The Right Equipment

Which leads me to my closing comments for this month’s column. While it is true that you can now routinely utilize GPS for real-time centimeter accuracy, since GPS does have the best atomic reference systems of any PNT system in orbit today, without monitoring systems and excellent GPS receivers you can’t depend on those parameters — the integrity is just not guaranteed without adequate signal monitoring, corrections, and augmentations.

Consequently, to ensure the best possible results, the receivers in the GPS global monitoring stations, of which there are hundreds more than those sanctioned by the U.S. government, tend to be high end and of stellar quality. And a majority of those receivers, according to my sources are, NovAtel receivers. Certainly NIST has a good number of NovAtel reference receivers, even though they are not allowed to specify or recommend a reference-grade receiver. I have also noticed large numbers of NovAtel receivers at FAA facilities around the U.S., and NovAtel’s reference receivers are at the core of national aviation ground networks around the world.

Recently NovAtel announced the development of a new receiver card known as the OEM625S Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver, which is actually a collaborative effort between NovAtel and L-3 Interstate Electronics Corporation (IEC). Since this is designated an OEM card, it is primarily for system integrators. However, since many users worldwide have come to rely on the centimeter-level positioning accuracy of real-time kinematic (RTK) GPS receivers, this may be a card you want to specify in your next high-end GPS receiver purchase or upgrade.

PPS Accuracy

Since defense users routinely rely on access to the Precise Positioning Service (PPS) for single-point positioning and this is certainly available with the OEM625S, it should be of special interest to those users. The card combines a commercial dual-frequency NovAtel GNSS receiver with an L-3 IEC XFACTOR SAASM in a single card solution, reducing overall size and power requirements for user applications. The new card maintains the OEMV-2 form factor, meaning it should be a drop-in replacement with backward compatibility for existing users.

NovAtel has promised to ship me a card to review in depth at the end of the third quarter of this year, so more on the new NovAtel/L3 card at that time. It promises real-time centimeter level accuracy and I can’t wait to see how it performs.

Make Your Reservation

Meanwhile, give Dr. David Howe a call at NIST and sign-up for the 38^th Annual Time and Frequency Metrology Seminar — you will be glad you did.

I hope to see you all at ION JNC (Institute of Navigation – Joint Navigation Conference) in Colorado Springs, June 12-15, 2012! The classified Warrior Panel promises to be the hit of the show. Don’t miss it!

Until next time, Happy navigating.