Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Priorities

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Mike Jr

unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 10:50:50 AM12/21/09
to
I would prioritize the three GPS segments thus:

1. Space
2. User
3. Control

Space first because:
- the 11 Block IIA birds are aging with 8 one critical subsystem away
from total failure
- The Block IIF birds are five years late; the first set for launch in
June of 2010

User second. The GAO (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09325.pdf ) report
stated the following:
- "New Satellite Capabilities Will Not Be Leveraged Because of Delayed
Delivery of Ground and User Equipment Capabilities"

"GPS satellites that will broadcast the modernized military signal
require military user equipment capable of receiving and processing
the signal so that military users can take advantage of the improved
military capabilities. Before the modernized military signal can be
considered initially operational, it must be broadcast from at least
18 satellites, which is expected to occur in 2013. For full
operational capability, it must be broadcast from 24 satellites, which
is expected to occur in 2015. Consequently, the new military signal
will be made operational by the GPS satellites and ground control
system in about 2013, but the warfighter will not be able to take full
advantage of this new signal until about 2025— when the modernized
user equipment is completely fielded. See figure 6 for our analysis of
the gap between when the modernized military signal
will be available on the GPS satellites and when the military services
will be able to take advantage of it."

Control segment last. Why?
- AEP was just delivered and seems to be working fine
- It should be practical to gradually retrofit the best features of
OCX into AEP; it's just software
- OCX costs money that would be better spent on the space and user
segments

Mike Jr

Happy Trails

unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 12:42:13 PM12/21/09
to
On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:50:50 -0800 (PST), Mike Jr
<n00...@comcast.net> wrote:

>I would prioritize the three GPS segments thus:
>
>1. Space
>2. User
>3. Control


What was the question?

Alan Browne

unread,
Dec 21, 2009, 4:34:30 PM12/21/09
to
On 09-12-21 10:50 , Mike Jr wrote:
> I would prioritize the three GPS segments thus:
<-->

> - It should be practical to gradually retrofit the best features of
> OCX into AEP; it's just software

"it's just software" is possibly the phrase that has cost aerospace and
defense firms and their customers more time and money losses than any
other single issue.

I concur with Happy Trails.

Mike Jr

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 12:54:05 AM12/22/09
to
On Dec 21, 4:34 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:

The question is, given the priorities, why would you spend another
dime on OCX?

What do you think it will cost to just get OCX up to the point of
doing what AEP already does? IMHO, OCX is just another attempt to
sock it to the American tax payer.

Adding along track ranging, support for modernized signals, and many
other OCX goodies should fit easily within the existing AEP
architecture. That is what I meant by "it's just software". Believe
me, I know the ins and outs of software.

--Mike Jr

HIPAR

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 11:12:09 AM12/22/09
to
On Dec 21, 10:50 am, Mike Jr <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I would prioritize the three GPS segments thus:
>
> 1. Space
> 2. User
> 3. Control
>
> Space first because:
> - the 11 Block IIA birds are aging with 8 one critical subsystem away
> from total failure
> - The Block IIF birds are five years late; the first set for launch in
> June of 2010
>
> User second. The GAO (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09325.pdf) report

Evidently the Congress with you. A bill awaiting the president's
signature doesn't include $97.4 M requested for the upgraded GPS
control center:

http://pnt.gov/policy/legislation/funding/2010.shtml

I'd believe the new GPS features will still be controllable by the
system engineers. Air Force operations personnel will need to wait
for a new fancy user interface.

--- CHAS

Mike Jr

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 12:46:49 PM12/22/09
to
Agreed. This assumes some funding to bolt on the new features.

> Air Force operations personnel will need to wait
> for a new fancy user interface.

I can't believe that AEP is ASCII on green tube; it's two years old!

>
> ---  CHAS

--Mike Jr.

Alan Browne

unread,
Dec 22, 2009, 2:47:23 PM12/22/09
to

What does that matter if the job gets done? (rhetorical).


Terje Mathisen

unread,
Jan 18, 2012, 5:37:37 AM1/18/12
to
The canonical term is SMOP: Just a "Small Matter Of Programming".

Covers anything from 10 standalone lines to 10M lines of additions and
modifications to a 100M line project.
:-)

Terje

--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Mike Coon

unread,
Jan 18, 2012, 6:47:09 AM1/18/12
to
Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
> The canonical term is SMOP: Just a "Small Matter Of Programming".
>
> Covers anything from 10 standalone lines to 10M lines of additions and
> modifications to a 100M line project.

Something that all programmers have to cope with, of course. I used to
reckon that a program was never "finished"; it was either in maintenance
mode or abandoned! Too much modification, even with the best initial
structure, leads to "stretch marks", akin to darns in a woollen garment...

Mike.
--
If reply address is Mike@@mjcoon.+.com (invalid), remove spurious "@"
and substitute "plus" for +.


0 new messages