Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III Satellite Buy

[Sam Wormley]

Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III Satellite Buy
> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/3538


> The Air Force will decide this fall whether to build more GPS III
> satellites or move to a new generation of spacecraft, the leader of
> Air Force Space Command told Congress last week.
>
> �We�re on contract right now . . . through (GPS III) satellite
> vehicle number eight. Satellite vehicles nine and beyond � the
> acquisition strategy for that � will be debated in the fall,� General
> William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), told
> the House Armed Services Committee on April 25.
>
> The issue is cost. The price of the spacecraft � and of getting them
> into orbit � has escalated to the point that the program no longer
> appears affordable, sources familiar with the issue told Inside GNSS.
> One source said that a decision has already been made to stretch out
> the launches of the GPS III satellites � to the point that there are
> no launches planned for 2017.

[miso]

I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I missing here?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/1/13 2:08 AM, miso wrote:
> I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I missing here?

1. Launch cost
2. New satellite have so much more than older satellites

[matt weber]

On Wed, 01 May 2013 00:08:26 -0700, miso <mi...@sushi.com> wrote:

>I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I missing here?

Civilians are least somewhat sensitive to price/performance, and
unless you really want to be absolute cutting edge, those costs come
down over time.

OTOH, the military wants performance at any price, and over time, they
find more and more way to 'gold plate' the products, which means that
the price goes up over time, often astronomically.
Add that to the fact that every day contractors look for ways to
further gold plate the product so they can get even more money for it.

I suggest you obtain a copy of Augustine's Laws, and it will provide
vast insight into why these costs escalate far faster than the rate of
inflation...

[miso]

Well that I read. But there are more companies than every doing launches.

What is the "more" the new satellites have?

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.04.30 21:42 , Sam Wormley wrote:
> Air Force Examining Broader Options for Next GPS III Satellite Buy
>> http://www.insidegnss.com/node/3538
>
>
>> The Air Force will decide this fall whether to build more GPS III
>> satellites or move to a new generation of spacecraft, the leader of
>> Air Force Space Command told Congress last week.
>>

>> “We’re on contract right now . . . through (GPS III) satellite
>> vehicle number eight. Satellite vehicles nine and beyond – the
>> acquisition strategy for that – will be debated in the fall,” General

>> William Shelton, commander of Air Force Space Command (AFSPC), told
>> the House Armed Services Committee on April 25.
>>

>> The issue is cost. The price of the spacecraft — and of getting them
>> into orbit — has escalated to the point that the program no longer

>> appears affordable, sources familiar with the issue told Inside GNSS.
>> One source said that a decision has already been made to stretch out

>> the launches of the GPS III satellites — to the point that there are

>> no launches planned for 2017.

By 2017 the constellation of Galileo should be pretty rich if not
complete. Between GLONASS, Galileo and GPS, there will be more than
enough satellites up there to satisfy most civil GNSS needs. Combined
GPS/GLONASS chipsets abound, and there is no doubt that combined
GPS/GLONASS/Galileo chipsets will become common as the constellation
fills out.

The potential impact on civil aviation is a worry, however, as most
certified receivers are GPS only. A shortage of on orbit GPS satellites
could cause single source GPS RAIM outage regions/periods.

--
"A Canadian is someone who knows how to have sex in a canoe."
-Pierre Berton

[mar...@m2j.com.br]

Em quarta-feira, 1 de maio de 2013 04h08min26s UTC-3, miso escreveu:
> I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I missing here?

Military projects almost never get cheaper, because:
- pork&barrel politics (spread the cost throughout congressional districts instead of lowest possible cost)
- lack of real competition (only a duopoly of suppliers)
- the US military always worked with make it the best in the world, cost don't matter
- there's huge improper cozyness between congress and defense contractors
- people outside the game that ask really hard questions are always outcasts like me
- demanding cost savings isn't sexy, and is very unpopular

If it were up to me, all projects would be fixed cost, PERIOD, if necessary, have a design competition competition first as a fixed cost project, then the winner gets a fixed cost project to do the main work.

Just look at the SpaceX case, they're offering space launches at less than half price of Boeing / Lockheed Martin launches. Boeing / Lockheed Martin / DOD got so cozy with their relationship they created the United Launch Aliance, essentially a launch cartel.

Now it has to be acknowledged that GPS satellite functionality has skyrocketed throughout GPS I ... II ... IIA ... IIR ... IIR-M ... IIF ... IIIA. The obsession with stuffing each generation with a mission impossible of more technical features cuminating with the fiasco of GPS IIF (huge delay and cost overrun).

Finally the military chain of command mentality doesn't lead to individual initiatives to make things better, most times the junior officers know exactly what to do, with almost zero leeway in carrying their orders, not to mention actually thinking of something better along the way.

[mar...@m2j.com.br]

It's insane, between satellites built and on ordered, there's 9 IIF and 8 IIIA, 17 total, more than half of a full constellation. I questioned this a lot, if you order 8 IIIA birds, then the IIIB project will be way out there.

Always question congressman opinions stating we should start over with a new generation, stating the cost has run so high, by starting over, they can disregard all the cost overruns, and get a chance to overrun once again !

What really needs to be cut is the launch costs, but pork & barrel arrangements make that a very unpopular proposition with congressman from areas with Boeing and Lockheed Martin facilities. That's the largest vice of the current defense industry complex, congress won't stomach the job losses stemming from their absurdly inneficient pork barrel arrangements. SpaceX alone will be able to handle all planned US govt space launches in a few years if the process would be openned up. Not to mention the other alternatives that are just becoming a reality (antares rocket).

Just look at the discussion between the US Army and Congress, where the US Army states they have more Abrahms tanks than they need for another 4+ yrs, but Congress won't allow tank production to stop, even though there's a huge stockpile of new tanks with no use.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.02 17:20 , mar...@m2j.com.br wrote:
> Em quarta-feira, 1 de maio de 2013 04h08min26s UTC-3, miso
> escreveu:
>> I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I
>> missing here?
>
> Military projects almost never get cheaper, because: - pork&barrel
> politics (spread the cost throughout congressional districts instead
> of lowest possible cost) - lack of real competition (only a duopoly
> of suppliers) - the US military always worked with make it the best
> in the world, cost don't matter - there's huge improper cozyness
> between congress and defense contractors - people outside the game
> that ask really hard questions are always outcasts like me -
> demanding cost savings isn't sexy, and is very unpopular
>
> If it were up to me, all projects would be fixed cost, PERIOD, if
> necessary, have a design competition competition first as a fixed
> cost project, then the winner gets a fixed cost project to do the
> main work.

That's how the F-35 was borne. First the government paid Boeing and
Lockheed to design their respective versions of the ATF. They selected
Lockheed.

In the real world, esp. where there are a lot of unknowns going into the
program, no contractor would commit to fixed cost and the government
would not get what it wants or needs.

Also in the real world, when programs last 5, 10, 20 years, there are
inevitably scope changes over the course of the program. These drive up
the costs further. There are many things that happen over the course of
these programs - the classic being the reduction in production quantity
and rate of build thereby resulting in higher unit costs.

> Just look at the SpaceX case, they're offering space launches at less
> than half price of Boeing / Lockheed Martin launches. Boeing /
> Lockheed Martin / DOD got so cozy with their relationship they
> created the United Launch Aliance, essentially a launch cartel.

True they are more expensive. They also lift heavier and larger
payloads into higher orbits. The SpaceX current booster is considered a
medium booster whereas the ULA have medium and heavy capability.

There is also the scope of work that needs to be considered. SpaceX
scope is much narrower in a contractual sense than the scope taken on by
ULA.

I won't do a blow by blow comparison. Who has the time. But you're
comparing apples and pumpkins.

> Now it has to be acknowledged that GPS satellite functionality has
> skyrocketed throughout GPS I ... II ... IIA ... IIR ... IIR-M ... IIF
> ... IIIA. The obsession with stuffing each generation with a mission
> impossible of more technical features cuminating with the fiasco of
> GPS IIF (huge delay and cost overrun).
>
> Finally the military chain of command mentality doesn't lead to
> individual initiatives to make things better, most times the junior
> officers know exactly what to do, with almost zero leeway in carrying
> their orders, not to mention actually thinking of something better
> along the way.

GPS design and contracting is mainly civilians, not military personnel.

[miso]

On 5/2/2013 3:03 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2013.05.02 17:20 , mar...@m2j.com.br wrote:
>> Em quarta-feira, 1 de maio de 2013 04h08min26s UTC-3, miso
>> escreveu:
>>> I thought technology gets cheaper as time goes on. What am I
>>> missing here?
>>
>> Military projects almost never get cheaper, because: - pork&barrel
>> politics (spread the cost throughout congressional districts instead
>> of lowest possible cost) - lack of real competition (only a duopoly
>> of suppliers) - the US military always worked with make it the best
>> in the world, cost don't matter - there's huge improper cozyness
>> between congress and defense contractors - people outside the game
>> that ask really hard questions are always outcasts like me -
>> demanding cost savings isn't sexy, and is very unpopular
>>
>> If it were up to me, all projects would be fixed cost, PERIOD, if
>> necessary, have a design competition competition first as a fixed
>> cost project, then the winner gets a fixed cost project to do the
>> main work.
>
> That's how the F-35 was borne. First the government paid Boeing and
> Lockheed to design their respective versions of the ATF. They selected
> Lockheed.
>
> In the real world, esp. where there are a lot of unknowns going into the
> program, no contractor would commit to fixed cost and the government
> would not get what it wants or needs.
>
>

But you didn't mention how badly the F-35 is over budget.

I suggest getting a copy of the book "Boyd", or at least listening to
the NPR podcast with the author. Boyd and his mafia were responsible for
the F-15, F16, and the A-10. Indirectly they were responsible for the
F-18. These are planes that truly stood the test of time.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_%28military_strategist%29

Good family man...well no. Single minded pain the ass? Yes. Used the
ties of generals as ash trays? Well yes so the story goes.

[miso]

> Just look at the discussion between the US Army and Congress, where the US Army states they have more Abrahms tanks
> than they need for another 4+ yrs, but Congress won't allow tank production to stop, even though there's a huge
> stockpile of new tanks with no use.

Also congress mandated C-17s that the USAF didn't want.

I don't know about the F-35, but the F-22 has parts made in all 50
states. It was a tough to kill its production simply due to the
congressional pork.

[Alan Browne]

Why mention it? It's such a well known fact. The F-35 is cancel-proof.
One of the best write ups on it was in the WashPost about 2 months
back. .... here: http://tinyurl.com/b2xbefz

[miso]

> Why mention it? It's such a well known fact. The F-35 is cancel-proof.
> One of the best write ups on it was in the WashPost about 2 months
> back. .... here: http://tinyurl.com/b2xbefz
>

Pierre Sprey was part of the fighter mafia and one of Boyd's acolytes.

Note the F35 lacks much of a bubble top in the canopy. No problem if all
the electronic gizmos work. Big problem if you need to look behind you.

This is a good collection of videos critical of the program, with number
5 being short and sweet. Number 6 could use some subtitles.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh2Gnxa_fTw
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojPnp2hwqaE
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhGIglwmFB8
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS7O14nzrzE


Unfortunately, the opponents to the program are gray and balding. Nobody
will listen.

[Marcelo Pacheco]

Em quinta-feira, 2 de maio de 2013 19h03min30s UTC-3, Alan Browne escreveu:

In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to control costs. The overruns are almost for sure. Isn't it time to change it once and for all ?

Obviously Boeing, Lockheed Martin and gang are private sector companies, but GPS, F35, ... projects are subject to military oversight and control, those that would actually be in a position to incentivise cost savings are the majors and Lt Cols that are the liasons talking to the contractors on a more regular basis.

There should be a maximum cost overrun percentage, once the overrun exceeds that much, that extra cost should be the burden of the contractor and not the customer (USAF in this case), this would incentivise a much more realistic cost projections, without pipe dream economics like it's done today. Additionally, changes in requirements should be essentially forbidden.

There are over 3000 new/refurbished to new condition M1A Abrahms tanks, aparently more tanks than are deployed in active units worldwide, and congress won't allow production to shutdown, thanks that to General Dynamics bribing lots of US congress members (US$ 5.3 million in bribes), the US Army wants to at least stop refurbishing old tanks, using the new ones instead, receiving couple US$ billion/yr in that activitity, also overruled by the US Congress.

The vast majority of the world population don't want to understand issues well enough to have an actually informed point of view, they just don't care.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.05 15:53 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:

> In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to control
> costs.

Since you obviously ignored the key point that I wrote above, I'll do
you the same courtesy.

[mar...@m2j.com.br]

The key point to your answer is you're not interested in discussing a way to reduce the cost of DoD development projects, you're interested in defending the status quo.

Perhaps you have skin in the game.

It's rather easy to just poke small holes into an idea you don't like. And it's very unsettling to sugest changes that will bother a boatload of people that has been profiting from the Cold War mentality of the DoD.

The simple fact that the F-35 is a cancel proof project in your mind shows your mindset. In my opinion, the F35 cancellation should be completely on the table as a means to force Lockheed Martin and gang to get their act together and ensure there will be zero extra cost overruns and instead that costs will come down at least a bit. The alternative: UCAVs, UCAVs, UCAVs and a little more UCAVs. The base tech is ready. The bloated functionality mindset needs to stop. That's perhaps the largest F35 issue. And in the case of UCAVs, make sure there will be at least 3 of them being developed for fixed runway / carrier usage, without any mass production award until they have fulfilled all tecnical and cost requirements. Make sure 90% of profits come from mass production, so it's effectively a competition until mass production is awarded, much like the idea to let the X32 and X35 be developed (however they intended to split production between Boeing and Lockheed) and give 75-100% production to the company that comes with the lowest cost product.

Most solutions to lower DoD costs and limited by congress intentional desired to keep pork barrel politics going on forever.

[Alan Browne]

On 2013.05.08 13:31 , mar...@m2j.com.br wrote:
> Em domingo, 5 de maio de 2013 18h12min48s UTC-3, Alan Browne
> escreveu:
>> On 2013.05.05 15:53 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to
>>> control
>>
>>> costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since you obviously ignored the key point that I wrote above, I'll
>> do
>>
>> you the same courtesy.
>>
>>
>

> The key point to your answer is you're not interested in discussing a
> way to reduce the cost of DoD development projects, you're interested
> in defending the status quo.

Obviously you didn't read or understand the key point I mentioned
earlier so it is pointless to answer your latest mindless barb.

>
> Perhaps you have skin in the game.

Sure do.

>
> It's rather easy to just poke small holes into an idea you don't
> like. And it's very unsettling to sugest changes that will bother a
> boatload of people that has been profiting from the Cold War
> mentality of the DoD.

You still don't get it. I don't have an answer to the problem, to be
sure. But your suggestions are those of a 5th grader suggesting GUT
solutions to Einstein and Hawking.

> The simple fact that the F-35 is a cancel proof project in your mind
> shows your mindset.

It's not my mindset. The "cancel-proofness" is the subject of a
Washington Post article that I linked to in this thread. Read that.

I in fact hope that Canada cancels its current intent to buy the piece
of shit F-35 and instead re-up with the latest v. of the F-18.

[oriel36]

On May 8, 10:17 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:

> On 2013.05.08 13:31 , marc...@m2j.com.br wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Em domingo, 5 de maio de 2013 18h12min48s UTC-3, Alan Browne
> > escreveu:
> >> On 2013.05.05 15:53 , Marcelo Pacheco wrote:
>
> >>> In any non fixed cost project there's no true incentive to
> >>> control
>
> >>> costs.
>
> >> Since you obviously ignored the key point that I wrote above, I'll
> >> do
>
> >> you the same courtesy.
>
> > The key point to your answer is you're not interested in discussing a
> > way to reduce the cost of DoD development projects, you're interested
> > in defending the status quo.
>
> Obviously you didn't read or understand the key point I mentioned
> earlier so it is pointless to answer your latest mindless barb.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps you have skin in the game.
>
> Sure do.
>
>
>
> > It's rather easy to just poke small holes into an idea you don't
> > like. And it's very unsettling to sugest changes that will bother a
> > boatload of people that has been profiting from the Cold War
> > mentality of the DoD.
>
> You still don't get it.  I don't have an answer to the problem, to be
> sure.  But your suggestions are those of a 5th grader suggesting GUT
> solutions to Einstein and Hawking.
>

Unlike the political,financial or medical institutions,there is
absolutely no regulation applied to empirical speculation and that is
astonishing given the influence this doctrine has in the wider
world.By merely mentioning Einstein,you set an artificial intellectual
standard that the wider community believes is superior to their own
understanding of things even when some members of the empirical
community realize the proposals of the early 20th century were
nonsense and especially those involved in the development of
timekeeping instruments for navigation purposes such as Louis Essen.

The vicious strain of empiricism inherited from Newton is fascinating
by all accounts,it uses the predictive convenience of Ra/Dec, which is
based on the 365/365/365/366 day calendar format, in an attempt to
bridge the divide between astronomy and science at a human scale.The
idea that a person can extrapolate the motions of the Earth from a
rotating celestial sphere framework and then make sense of the motions
of all other objects in the celestial arena or even the structure of
the celestial arena itself is intellectually bankrupt and always
was.They detested Newton's sterile clockwork solar system by the late
19th century but they had so endeared themselves to the dubious method
by which got his agenda to fly that when relativity came along,its
acceptance was a no-brainer.

The wholesale fraud is making it appear that explanations are being
given when the whole point of the exercise is keeping the genuine
reader off-balance with intentional distortions and obfuscations,it is
how Isaac managed to foist mathematicians above astronomers in the
scheme of things and set in motion the peer review process which is
the empirical answer to patronage,serving the peer reviewers's
reputation and salary rather than any productive or creative human
endeavor.The genius of the fraud is maintaining the reputations and
salaries through the education system where students are cannon fodder
for a small group of people who can chant voodoo and then pass it off
as an explanation.

Late 17th century Royal Society empiricism is the scourge of astronomy
and terrestrial sciences insofar as the connection between dynamics
and terrestrial effects has suffered heavily from the reckless attempt
to homogenize motions on a celestial scale with objects at a human
level, mathematicians might not care but the rest of world truly
should.

Fraud is fraud,it does not matter if there is only one person at the
moment who is capable of spotting the subtleties involved in the
empirical treatment of astronomy and terrestrial sciences,this fraud
is such that it is the only reality for its proponents who, in some
way, can be excused as their crime is almost unconscious as they
maintain the scam from one generation to the next through the anti-
competitive peer review process which gives no incentive to do
anything other than rubberstamp the reputations of those doing the
reviewing.

Einstein and Hawking indeed !.what a scam.