Letters to the Editor

You Go Too Far, Too Far, to Be Honest

Reaction to August’s editorial, “Fair Play to Those Who Dream,” concerning the as-yet unreleased Galileo signal specification, came swift — and mixed — from both sides of the Atlantic. Correspondents were unanimous, however, in wishing their names kept off the record.

From Europe:
“I really think you go too far, too far to be honest.”

“I truly appreciate your open words. They come right out of my heart. I’m not sure, though, whether they are loud enough to make the European Space Agency and European Union wake up at last.”

From the United States:
“. . . ranting sensationalism . . .”

“Nice job. I think you will get some kudos for this.”

Interference Counter-Effort Gets Cart Before Pony

Your May 2009 editorial bemoaned the fact that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, blessed little had been accomplished in our ability to identify and localize sources of GPS interference. Some of my colleagues might describe me as a bit obsessed with this issue, but I think it a healthy obsession.

The most recent attempt I’ve seen that addresses this issue is a program sponsored by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Based on a briefing of this effort that’s available on the Internet, I seriously doubt that this program, as presently structured, has much chance of yielding a useful product. Why? Because I believe the approach to be thoughtless rather than thoughtful. And I mean “thoughtless” in the literal, not pejorative, sense. Those involved in the program, as listed in the briefing, are among the brightest talents available to address this issue.

My past dissatisfaction with the way the government has treated this issue — at least from the early 1980s — stems from what I call its planning-to-plan mode. An agency would lay out an elaborate plan, replete with words like “coordinate” and “support,” but include few if any specific action items such as “Agency A should develop specific capability B.” So no one was on the line to deliver.

Preparatory to writing this letter, I thought I would do a few searches to see if there were any new initiatives underway. I was rather pleasantly surprised to see that DHS had produced, and briefed, a study titled “GPS Interference Detection and Mitigation.” That is, until I read it.

The DHS briefing is a 25-slide presentation. To its credit, it doesn’t plan-to-plan. The brief lays out a procedure to address the issue. But once we eliminate the boilerplate describing the non-specific tasking and coordination, we wind up with roughly seven slides devoted to a detailed description of the central data repository and the logging of data. Excluding a page that vaguely describes potential sources of data without describing how they could contribute to the tasking, there are zero pages devoted to the sensors! But these sensors are the heart of the system, and will dictate the types of data that the central facility must process.

The problem is compounded since, according to the briefing, the only aspect of the program assigned funding is the central data repository. So we’re putting the seed money into some generic repository? A classic case of buying the cart before the (as yet) undefined pony.
What’s the problem? I think there are several.

• First (and I’m guessing here), someone was given a mandate to do something. And with insufficient time to do the necessary thinking. Which primarily requires a few folks closing the door, putting their feet on the table, and actually thinking about the problem.
• This, in turn, produced a description of a processing/repository center that had to be generic, since without defining the sensors one can’t define the data types, formats, and quantity that the sensor arrays would provide. So how does one spend the repository funding indicated by the DHS study?
• And, it’s a hard problem. You can’t solve it by just brute force.

Let me end by suggesting how I would contrast a thoughtful approach from a thoughtless approach to the issue. The thoughtless approach would be to develop a one-size-fits-all solution, by which all data sources will filter through the distribution chain to the repository.

The thoughtful approach is for one of the guys/girls to eventually take his/her feet off the table, and suggest, “Hey, our major heartburn at this time is fratricide! Rather than spend a lot of time and money reporting this interference, why not adopt procedures for preventing it? And, given we provide a training program in place on potential problem sources and corrective procedures, we might spend a few dollars on the type of jam meter (see Phil Ward’s paper in Inside GNSS, Sept/Oct 2007) to show that violations will be monitored.”

Under this scenario, with a bit of luck, a potential San Diego (2006) or Rome AFB (1997–1998) event never gets to the reporting stage.

Is the above the ultimate solution? Of course not. Countering the intentional jamming of GPS will be the larger challenge. But a bit of forethought appears preferable to blindly funding the cart,
before knowing how the pony behaves.

— Terry McGurn, Reston, Virginia

Military Handhelds

I just wanted to say how much I enjoyed Don Jewell’s column, “The Warfighter and Rorschach Shock.” It is a sad fact that the DoD has not woken up to the potential of a market-driven procurement process for products like handheld GPS. I’m of the opinion that if tamper-resistant SAASM OEM chips or boards were available to the Garmins of the industry, and the military user had his choice of units, we’d see a much superior offering to the warfighter at a lower net cost. Companies like Garmin are not GPS receiver builders, they buy their receivers from companies like SiRF and Broadcom. Their expertise is as systems integrators and they do a superb job of it. Obviously, the warfighter values this expertise and wants to use it — so why don’t we give them what they want?

— Logan Scott, Breckinridge, Colorado

Time for GPS 101

Ijust read Don Jewell’s article “Time for GPS 101.” I too am appalled by the ignorance of the public and, more importantly, of our political decision-makers, not just about GPS (critical enough in isolation) but about a myriad of national and global safety and security issues. As a 30-year member of the aerospace engineering community, I am fearful of the future of our country and society because of bad decisions made by ignorant decision-makers, sometimes supported by technical “experts” who provide bad information and advice, usually from their own ignorance but often cynically from a hidden agenda.

— Name Withheld

I truly enjoy Don Jewell’s editorials!

After reading the GPS 101 column, I wondered: Why is there nothing presenting this technology to children? (If there is, I have yet to find it.) Before their minds turn to mush, I believe if we start them with the basics, coupled with the present technology evolving as fast as it is, imagine what they could be doing with GPS when they graduate from high school! I understand that the teenagers have the iPhone with the hip applications and such, but wouldn’t it be neat to see a seven-year-old with a handheld scouring a park looking for his/her first geocache?

— John Pollard, Southeastern, Electric Cooperative, Sioux Falls, SD

I enjoyed your “Time for GPS 101” article. Your point was driven home last night as I watched the National Geographic Channel program, Known Universe: “The Fastest,” when they used GPS in their discussion of the relativistic effects of velocity. To my horror, they described how the GPS receiver sends signals to the satellites which are used to determine your time and space coordinates. The ignorance of the unwashed masses may be excused, but when a channel dedicated to science gets it so wrong, I really worry.

— John Zander, St. Inigoes, Maryland