Expert Advice - Pointed Opinions
December 1, 2007 By: GPS World Staff GPS WorldWe present a selectively abridged version of the published minutes of the second meeting of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board, held October 4-5 in Washington, D.C. The full minutes are posted for public review.
Bold headings have been added to indicate topics and to facilitate reading. Other than deleting some discussions entirely and others partially to get the original document from 18,000 words down to this 4,000-word version, no other changes have been made to the minutes.
_____________________________________________
The results of the Board's work will be in the form of findings and recommendations to the National Space-Based PNT Executive Committee (EXCOM), co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
Dr. Schlesinger stated that we are here today to discuss the future of the 25-year-old GPS system, with a goal to provide the EXCOM with actionable recommendations backed by solid rationales. Dr. Schlesinger stated that his goal for the meeting was to obtain two or three recommendations for consideration and action by the EXCOM at its next meeting scheduled for November 8. The recommendations will require a strong intellectual basis and should be capable of being implemented in the near term.
Dr. Schlesinger informed the Board that he was pleased to report on the clear success of the Board's recommendation regarding elimination Selective Availability (S/A) on the next generation of GPS known as GPS III. That recommendation has been implemented and S/A will be removed from all future programs for satellites, monitoring equipment, and military user equipment. He observed that removing S/A has been an 11-year quest upon which we can now close the book.
He presented several questions for future discussion. How can we leverage this decision that reduces GPS system costs and complexities? What are some near term actions? Are there some residual issues that need to be addressed?
Dr. Parkinson noted that Dr. Schlesinger had worked towards this goal [elimination of S/A] for over 10 years and is owed a debt of thanks. Mr. Trimble questioned whether anything else could be accomplished if it took 10 years to accomplish something so obvious as the elimination of S/A.
Policy Update
In response to a request from Board member Mr. Terence McGurn, Mr. Shaw described the current budget status for GPS. Gen. Lance Lord contended that 20 consecutive miracles will be needed to make it work and that a sustained funding line is needed to protect the resources to assure continued linkage between the ground stations and the constellation. Mr. Shaw explained that the budgets will be reviewed to assure continued operations. Dr. Schlesinger recalled there had been a recommendation years ago to open up the discussions to international members and, he observed, that has come to fruition.
Arctic Challenge. Mr. Arve Dimmen briefed the Board on E-Navigation, Galileo, and the Arctic challenge. He noted that the ice is disappearing and that the Northwest Passage was free of ice in August of this year. There are two main drivers that make the Arctic area important. First, 25 percent of undiscovered oil resources are there. Second, supertankers and large container ships can now use the passage. It shortens the time to sail between the west coast of North America and Europe, and the trip from the East Coast to Japan. The time can be shortened by as much as 30 percent.
The GPS is not used north of the Arctic Circle due to coverage limitations. This can create a precision navigation problem. They are trying to expand the usefulness of the GPS signal. There is very sparse infrastructure in the area, both in the way of harbors and navigational aides. The challenge will be in the area of international cooperation — how we can combine ground-based and space-based services from all service providers. He expressed his belief that this will occur within the lifespan of GPS III. In response to a question from Dr. Schlesinger, Mr. Dimmen stated that the information regarding undiscovered oil came from the U.S. Geological Services. Dr. Schlesinger advised that those reports are biased in the optimistic direction. Ms. Nielson commented that the benefits from opening the Northwest Passage could give a positive spin to global warming. She explained that this is why the IGS is so interested in using GPS to accurately measure sea level rise and the disappearance of glaciers.
Panel 1: Leadership
Dr. Bradford Parkinson briefed the Board on the Leadership Panel's recommendations.
- Place GPS III quickly under contract with early delivery. He noted that GPS III provides significant improvements over GPS IIF and provides insurance against "brown-outs" that could impact 150 million users. He noted that it is imperative to avoid GPS brownouts. The current GPS average on-orbit life is 8.9 years. The first GPS III will not be available for launch until December 2013.
- Formally commit the U.S. to the current level of service. This would enable civilian users to take advantage of GPS's proven capabilities. It calls for 30+ satellites to be geometrically optimized for users. Dr. Parkinson explained how the masking angle affects the ability to use GPS because many users cannot see down to the horizon. The 30+ satellite constellation would insure military availability in impaired regions. It would compare to the projected capabilities of China's COMPASS and the EU's Galileo systems. It would also support worldwide use to reduce aircraft congestion under a program known as "Relative Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring" (RRAIM). This is a new development that provides the integrity to allow aircraft to land at regional airports in bad weather and to use lightly instrumented developing-nation landing fields with safety.
- Ensure affordability to enable service without brown-outs. A sensible fasttrackapproach should be utilized. Dr. Parkinson noted that expensive, complexsatellites could threaten schedule as well as the constellation size. Non-GPSrequirements, such as Nuclear Detection Sensors (NDS) should be avoided,as these add weight to the satellite and may prevent achieving savings from insertingtwo GPS satellites into orbit with one launcher. A dual launch saves $50Mper satellite.
- Place the GPS signal specifications under a true national organization such as the RTCA to ensure transparent, technical excellence for all users. This would assure that the signal is truly compatible and help maximize its usefulness. It would call for strong participation by users as well as government agencies.
Gen. Lord observed that many people on Capitol Hill think that the status quo is sufficient. Mr. McPherson stated that geometry is the key thing in the Southern Hemisphere, where geometrical dispersion is extremely important and piggy-backing is a problem. He asserted that the right orbits are needed.
Dr. Pace requested additional information about dual launches. Dr. Parkinson responded that we should start those tests now because the savings are tremendous. Dr. Schlesinger observed that if there is no dual launch for GPS III, then there will not be dual launchfor the next group of GPS satellites. Mr. Trimble agreed that more satellites are more important than adding unnecessary functions or complexity.
Mr. James Miller asked how a national committee process would differ from today’s EXCOM deliberations. Dr. Parkinson replied that currently there is no representation from civil and commercial users. He asserted that their participation would help eliminate majormistakes from being made as usual requirements would be considered from the beginning. He conceded that working the details is difficult and offered that control is not needed, just transparency. Mr. Hall made a point that one aspect of affordability is the assumptions and methodology used to estimate a satellite’s lifespan. He noted that different assumptions allow calculations showing a longer life of satellites than the mean lifespan. Dr. Parkinson agreed, but remarked that some form of operational risk assessment is needed. He noted that a large number of satellites is down to no back-up; a single string. Mr. Shaw stated it was 50 percent, although sometimes the last one lasts a long time. Dr. Parkinson responded that hope is not a strategy.
Gen. Lord recommended coming out strong on the affordability issue. He also recommended launching new satellites as soon as possible after they are delivered. The satellites are no good “i n a barn,” he said; they need to be in orbit.Dr. Schlesinger concurred with Gen.Lord. Mr. Kirk Lewis stated that a full operational risk assessment is essential.The track record must be taken into account, he said, and there is a need for more than just a gap analysis. He added that more good data is needed; otherwise we can only express what we’d like.Dr. Parkinson agreed. He cautioned, however, that a severe GPS brown-out would affect most weapons systems and most civilian users.Dr. Schlesinger advised that everyone who depends on the GPS System should “please continue to sleep soundly.” Dr. Parkinson added “at least for the next year or two.”
Panel 2: Engagement, Comm
Ms. Neilan, Panel Co-Chair, introduced Mr. James A. Slater, who briefed the Board about the benefits of having standardized reference systems.
Mr. Slater discussed the concerns in exploiting GNSS performance. There are quality assurance and enhanced performance for GPS III. He explained that there are four long-term geodetic objectives: achieve a stable geodetic reference frame; maintain a close alignment of the WGS 84 with the ITRF; provide an independent quality assessment capability independent of current radiometric measurements used to determine GPS orbit and clock performance; and ensure the interoperability of GPS with other GNSS systems. He stated that these objectives make the case for putting laser retro-reflectors on GPS III. He noted that they will be on GLONASS and Galileo. Mr. Slater concluded by stating that a Global Standard Terrestrial Reference System is critical to future positioning and navigation with Global Navigation Satellites. Multiple systems will need to be exploited to support the increased demands of a wide range of users. The WGS 84 reference frame has been and will continue to be periodically realigned to the ITRF.
Mr. Slater reviewed the biggest impediments to achieving conformity. He explained that China is an unknown and that India and Japan are also uncertain.He asserted that it would be useful if the international community could influence them to conform. The impediment on the laser reflectors is a U.S. agency decision to determine if there is a conflict with NDS. Mr. Trimble asked if it is a ground-based software issue and Mr. Slater responded affirmatively. Mr. Miller discussed concerns over putting lasers on the satellites. He asserted that situational awareness would be improved.He noted that there is an Interagency Forum on Operational Requirements (IFOR) managed by Space Command that has recommended that satellite reflectors be incorporated into the GPSCDD for the GPS IIIB block. Mr. Slater explained that his was a geodetic point of view. He added that we are now in the millimeter range. He recommended that we build-in the capacity that we can imagine now.
Panel 3: Future Challenges
Mr. Trimble presented a fact-finding report on behalf of the Future Challenges Panel. He stated that GPS is the GNSS world standard and that it would be advantageous to the U.S. to maintain that position. The key is leadership and the Panel has four recommendations:
- There should be a transparent evolution of GPS. This calls for policy stability and predictable change. For civil integrity, the transition from one set of capabilities to another has to be seamless.
- There should be a commitment to the 30+ satellite constellation. This is valuable for the U.S. military; it is needed for the national air space; and it is important for the international community.
- Use of the EXCOM should be maximized. Its existing structure is adequate; it should provide for a national plan; and it should oversee the evolution of GPS. Mr. Trimble stated that the EXCOM should be urged to step up to a higher level, rather than simply providing supervision.
- There should be international collaboration. As we transition, we should involve our international partners in testing the changes; involving partners would ease in solving problems.
Dr. Schlesinger observed that the organizations in the Executive branch are difficult to manipulate. He advised that we should talk about tasks the EXCOM may be willing to take on. He noted that the House has cut $150 million from the GPS budget. That, he asserted, is not conducive to policy stability or to the earliest possible deployment of GPS IIIA. Dr. Schlesinger concluded that the appropriation committees are going to have to go to conference and the damage may have to be mitigated.
Mr. Trimble emphasized the importance of avoiding surprise. He suggested that reinstituting the ISDC process would be helpful. Dr. Schlesinger asked, rhetorically, which would the Air Force object to most strongly to, a cut in the F-22 budget line or in the GPS budget line? Dr. Hermann opined that there is a need to describe to Congress what we are trying to do, and a need to apply discipline to make it a national effort. He questioned whether the Federal Government was up to the task. Ms. Neilan asked about the effectiveness of the EXCOM and how it was working.
Mr. Shaw stated that Dr. Hermann was right about a 5-year plan and agreed that there is a lot to be done. He explained that when plans are released, the EXCOM reviews them. There has been an exchange between the officials. The EXCOM members push things through. It is not a body that is directed towards any one department. Dr. Hermann stated that as an institution, the EXCOM is not directive. It will happen if they have a will, he asserted. If something does not get done, it is not for lack of authority. Mr. Shaw agreed with Dr. Hermann and explained that is why the EXCOM membership has been elevated to the Deputy Secretary level. At that level, he explained, they are more liable to understand the position of each department and they have a better national and global view.
Mr. Trimble asserted that the EXCOM is too engaged in coordination and is not providing enough adult supervision. Dr. Schlesinger stated that he has been impressed with level of discussion and briefings at the EXCOM. He noted that Deputy Secretary of Defense England has been instrumental in increasing the level of discussion, particularly in regard to GPS III and in understanding the breadth of coordination that is required. Dr. Hermann asserted that the EXCOM needs to become a management tool, although performance will matter in due course. Mr. Trimble stated that Panel is encouraging Dr. Schlesinger to help the EXCOM go to the next level. Mr. Shaw noted that the EXCOM is not shy about receiving criticism; that is how it gets better. Dr. Enge cautioned that the GPS system is interconnected and that small changes may have unintended consequences.
Ms. Neilan asked Dr. Parkinson to clarify his vision for a national committee. He responded that there needs to be an in-depth technical exchange that will generate a feeling of stability by giving the civil side an opportunity to provide input. That process would empower the committee by assisting it to understand what is needed. Mr. Trimble agreed. Mr. McPherson asserted that there is a need for guidance and leadership in going forward, and he recommended having an overarching group to look at the civil and military sides. He would like to see sustainability, and he encouraged efforts to stabilize the technical side.
GPS PS: DoD Perspective
Dr. Schlesinger introduced Brigadier General Donald Alston, Director of HQ USAF Space and Nuclear Operations. Gen. Alston stated that he is busy thinking about how to protect the GPS assets from hostile interventions, in addition to concerns over radiation and vibration. He is mostly concerned about the signal in space. Dr. Parkinson stated that the 30+ satellite parameter is also important to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Gen. Alston discussed the January 11, 2007, China anti-satellite event. He acknowledged that the Chinese have successfully proved their capability and stated that their achievement was not a surprise. He stated that as we work through and posture ourselves for what will follow in the coming years, it will be useful to understand how the combatant commanders will handle space combat. We have to go forward and demystify how they are depending on space. Broadly, folks have a great appreciation for how space helps, but they do not understand how it is done. A resulting protection and augmentation strategy would be brought forward. Understanding those dependencies is important. The combatant commanders have different priorities. He indicated that he feels good that the government is moving in a deliberative way; however, the targeting problem has to be made more challenging. Ways to mitigate risk are needed from platforms down to ground stations.
Gen. Lord, who was formerly Gen. Alston's superior, suggested that Dr. Schlesinger bring to the next EXCOM meeting the two points made by Gen. Alston, observing that it gets it into an effects-based approach. Dr. Schlesinger stated that the Air Force has done a remarkable job, but more is wanted. The DoD has set up the Northern Command to deal with the protection of the country, among other things. The overall responsibility is to protect the U.S. and its allies. Dr. Schlesinger criticized the DHS for poorly articulating the importance of GPS. He expressed his belief that GPS is critical to the DHS mission and crucial to national security. Dr. Schlesinger reiterated that more is wanted.
GPS PS: Civil Perspective
Dr. Schlesinger introduced Mr. Hank Skalski, DOT's Liaison to Air Force Space Command. Mr. Skalski briefed the Board on the process for updating the GPS SPS Performance Standard (PS). Only government civil agencies participated in the crafting and review of the draft SPS PS update.
Mr. Skalski reported that the informal review process was completed in late July 2007, and that, overall, the civil team was satisfied with the draft GPS SPS PS update. They are now waiting for DoD to establish the process and schedule for the formal government review.
Dr. Parkinson observed that the Board has not seen the document and expressed concern that it does not reflect the constellation that is currently flying if it reflects 21+3 satellites. Dr. Hermann declared that the decision-making process is unsatisfactory. Mr. Skalski responded that the document has to be a snapshot as of today. In response to a further comment from Dr. Hermann, Mr. Skalski stated that the document for the F-22 fighter plane was a different type of document. Dr. Herman rejoined that it is also an expression of what the institution wants to do and he asserted that the decision process is the reason there is a problem. Mr. Skalski suggested that there may be a need to reconsider what we want this document do.
Mr. Trimble contended that what exists today is what we have in space; it is the performance today, and he asked whether that is what is in the document. Mr. Shaw answered that the performance standard is the committed level of performance that the U.S. Government will guarantee to provide. The actual level is much better. What will happen in the future also gets back to the piggy-back issue — when there is a satellite at risk, a satellite is put next to it. Right now, the performance standard can only reflect what the government is committed to provide. Mr. Trimble asked what purpose would be gained from using that as the performance standard. Mr. Shaw responded that it is not ignored and that actual performance is much better. Dr. Hermann opined that the process is an arcane process dealing with only what the DoD is interested in.
In response to a question from Mr. Trimble on how to get to 30 certified satellites, Dr. Schlesinger counseled: with pressure. In response to a question from Ms. Neilan, Mr. Shaw stated that the operators were willing to sign up to better standards than in the document. Dr. Parkinson stated that the issue is where the commitment is and he asked: where is the lever? He stated that there is concern over what the budget cutters will decide and the fear that we will end up at 21+3 satellites in the constellation. He asserted that we are not well with respect to the commitment, and again asked how a lever could be found to make it a real commitment. Mr. Skalski responded that we need to start with the Capabilities Development Document (CDD), not this document. Dr. Parkinson stated that range error is not as important is having 30+ satellites. He asked where the steering is that will get somebody's attention. Mr. Shaw suggested that 30 satellites would have to be put in different terms. Dr. Parkinson stated that was unacceptable. He added that the payoffs have been shown and are not a single data point. Mr. Shaw replied that it must go through the process. Mr. Trimble asked whether anyone could move it through the process in a matter of months, and Mr. Shaw responded that no one could do that. Mr. McPherson concluded that it was a useless document. Mr. Skalski observed that they were asked to describe what level of performance GPS is giving today. Dr. Pace contended that the SPS is intended to communicate a message to the global community and he asked if this is what the U.S. wishes to communicate, or if it is just helping an internal process.
Mr. Trimble asserted that nothing new is required other than an acceptance that 30 satellites is what is needed. Mr. Skalski remarked that no one has provided Air Force Space Command with the proof that 30 is the number that is needed. Dr. Parkinson responded by stating that the highest advisory board is the Defense Science Board, and they brought it forward. Dr. Hermann declared that the authorities that need to speak up are "the rest of the nation."
Mr. Hall observed that when setting in motion an acquisition program, the "elephant in the room" is the budget. He stated that the problem is that the Air Force has delivered more than was specified and the users got used to it. He predicted that a lot more than 30 satellites on orbit would be the result if the specification was 98 percent availability for 30 satellites on orbit. This would be especially true, he noted, if new satellites were launched on availability, regardless of the health of the constellation.
Mr. Trimble declared that it is not worth the time for private industry to participate in putting out a document that does not describe what exists. Dr. Parkinson analyzed that if you are talking about an extra 6 satellites, it is one half satellite a year if they last 12 years. In the greater scheme of things, this isn't a "break the bank" deal. What is on the table is the budget and the priorities. We don't understand how to influence the process. The people we need to influence are the representatives to the EXCOM. Mr. Shaw stated that we will struggle with a 30-satellite constellation. At the end of the day it is a budget issue; 33 satellites will be needed for a 30 satellite constellation. Mr. Trimble recalled that it has been recommended to make the satellites simpler and send up two per launch; this will save enough to pay for the additional satellites. Mr. Shaw stated this will be considered by the EXCOM.
Ms. Ciganer observed that we have an opportunity to affect the receivers, which come out faster than the satellite processes. Ms. Neilan opined that the requirements process is convoluted and flawed. Mr. Skalski replied that the basic premise is to identify the requirement and bring it forward; nobody has done that. Mr. Lewis noted that backward compatibility is an issue; sometime we have to say it can't be forever. Backward compatibility will create problems in the military, and it has an impact on the rate at which we can bring out the technology. Dr. Schlesinger observed that satisfaction can be at two levels: one is with a document that is meaningless; there is also what the civilian agencies want to achieve from the GPS system. That, he noted, is not being articulated. It goes to the JROC, and nobody at the JROC understands the problem. The civilian agencies should say that the process is flawed.
Mr. Shaw agreed that it is becoming an irrelevant document. He asserted that our goal should be to make it a relevant document to indicate what we can depend on the U.S. Government to provide. He added that some buffer is needed and that, clearly, where it is now it is not relevant. Mr. Skalski advised that one needs to identify what is meant by "tomorrow." Ms. Ciganer stated that it is important to know that there is some degree of stability in the SPS document. Mr. Lewis observed that people are making economic decisions and are counting on what they will get tomorrow. Mr. Skalski noted that there are a lot of misunderstandings out there, and people will be pleasantly surprised by what the document will do.
Board Member Feedback
Dr. Schlesinger solicited comments from the Board for recommendations to bring to the EXCOM. Dr. Hermann asked for a list to work from and the Board decided to use the list from the Leadership Panel's presentation. Dr. Schlesinger stated that this exercise would also help identify the tasks for the three Panels. Dr. Hermann offered that there was a need for an affordability paper to identify value-added from increasing the GPS constellation to 30+ satellites. Dr. Hermann also suggested that the Performance Standards might be useful to look at, noting that the planned level of performance over a period of time was important. He opined that the current performance specification document is vague in its utility.
Dr. Schlesinger agreed with Dr. Hermann and stated that there is more than a gap between the performance standards and the future requirements for both the FAA and the military. Dr. Schlesinger noted that it is not a gap, it is a chasm, and suggested that attention should be called to the chasm.
Dr. Hermann requested that the EXCOM be informed that the entire country is not represented in the process. He stated that he believes that this is an urgent problem and that there is a need for a better decision-making process. Dr. Schlesinger recalled that former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had stated that he could only slay a limited number of dragons in one day. He cautioned that the EXCOM has enough on its plate and recommended against using the Board's political capital to say "you federal officials are not properly informed and need more help."
Dr. Parkinson stated that he would revise the Leadership Panel's recommendations and circulate them to the Board and to Chairman Schlesinger. Dr. Schlesinger asked whether anything should be done about the SPS Performance document, cautioning that it might have a pernicious impact. Dr. Parkinson questioned whether the Board should expend its political capital on that issue. Mr. McGurn opined that one problem is that the current performance as stated in the document is not the current performance — it is better than that. Dr. Parkinson stated that the concept is imbedded in Leadership Panel issue number two. He agreed to make it a sub-bullet so that it could be emphasized.
Future Taskings
Mr. Miller informed the Board that the next EXCOM meeting after November would be scheduled for the February/March 2008 timeframe. Dr. Schlesinger announced that the next PNT Board meeting would be tentatively scheduled for March 27-28, 2008.
_____________________________________________
MEETING ATTENDEES, October 4-5, Washington D.C.
U.S. Board Members
Dr. James R. Schlesinger, Chair, Chairman, Board of Trustees, MITRE Corporation
Capt. Joe Burns, United Airlines
Ms. Ann Ciganer, US GPS Industry Council
Prof. Per Enge, Stanford University, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Mr. Martin Faga, Former President and CEO of MITRE
Mr. Keith Hall, Booz-Allen Hamilton
Dr. Robert Hermann, Global Technology Partners, LLC
Mr. Chet Huber, OnStar Corporation/General Motors
Mr. David Logsdon, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Gen. Lance Lord, Retired USAF - Former Commander Air Force Space Command
Mr. Tim Murphy, Boeing Corporation, Commercial Airplane Group
Mr. Terence McGurn, Retired CIA (currently private consultant)
Ms. Ruth Neilan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Dr. Brad Parkinson, Vice-Chair, Stanford University, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Mr. Charles R. Trimble, Founder, Trimble Navigation (currently private consultant)
International Board Members
Prof. Gerhard Beutler (Switzerland), Astronomical Institute, University of Bern
Mr. Arve Dimmen (Norway), Director, Maritime Safety, Norwegian Coastal Admin.
Mr. Keith McPhersonn (Australia), Airservices Australia
Mr. Hiroshi Nishiguchi (Japan), Secretary General of The Japan GPS Council
Capt. Richard Smith (UK), Pres., International Assn of Institutes of Navigation
Other Participants (partial list)
Brigadier General Donald Alston, Director of HQ USAF Space and Nuclear Operations.
Mr. Kirk Lewis, Institute for Defense Analyses
Mr. James Miller, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. Michael Shaw, Director, National Coordination Office for Space-Based PNT
Mr. Hank Skalski, Dept. of Transportation Liaison to Air Force Space Command
Mr. James Slater, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
RSS
Become a Fan
Join our Network
Follow Us
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.