IN THIS ISSUE LAAS Status Updated ION 58th Annual Meeting Annual Awards Departments: From the ION Presidents: Outgoing & Incoming Congressional Fellow Report: Busting the Big Banks Portney’s Corner: 3D with Half a Pair From the ION Historian: The Mercator Projection GNSS Around the Globe: News in Brief, Section News, Launches, and more Calendar

Congratulations to our new ION Officers 2002-2003 Officers Assume Duties at 58th Annual Meeting

The newly elected Institute of Navigation officers for the coming year assumed their duties at the conclusion of the ION’s Annual Meeting, held in Albuquerque, NM, June 24-26. These officers also serve on the ION council along with other members of the council, the ION section chairs and ION past presidents. The Institute would like to recognize the considerable contributions of the outgoing officers and wish a successful year to the incoming officers.

President: Dr. Rudolph Kalafus, Trimble Navigation, Ltd.
Executive Vice President: Mr. Larry Hothem, U.S. Geological Survey
Treasurer: Mr. John Clark, The Aerospace Corporation
Eastern Region Vice President: Mr. James Doherty, Institute of Defense Analyses
Western Region Vice President: Dr. Gérard Lachapelle, University of Calgary, Canada
Eastern Council Member-at-Large: Ms. Marie Lage, ARINC
Western Council Member-at-Large: Mr. Kevin Rudolph, Raytheon Electronic Systems
Air Representative: Dr. Todd Walter, Stanford University
Land Representative: Mr. James Arnold, Federal Highway Administration
Space Representative: Ms. Ruth Neilan, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Marine Representative: Mr. Richard Hartnett, U.S. Coast Guard Academy

NATO Discusses GPS and Galileo Security Issues

Robert G. Bell, NATO assistant secretary general for defense support, told the European Satellites for Security Conference in Brussels on June 19 that NATO had not taken a position for or against Galileo, the European Union’s planned satellite navigation system.

However, Bell said NATO wants to make sure that, if Galileo is eventually deployed, it does not interfere with or impair NATO’s access to the significant military advantages afforded NATO forces by GPS.

Bell’s remarks come as U.S. and European officials continue talks on a proposed agreement on GPS-Galileo cooperation. While originally intended for military applications, the U.S. government made GPS available for civilian use in the 1980s. The Galileo project calls for developing and launching a network of satellites that would reduce Europe’s dependency on the GPS system.

Bell said that potentially the most serious military issue related to Galileo/GPS compatibility and interoperability is that the European Commission is considering placing one of the four services proposed by Galileo directly on top of—or “overlaying”—the “M-Code,” the encrypted future military GPS capability that will be used by U.S. and NATO forces for crucial military operations.

If the Galileo signal directly overlays the GPS M-Code signal, he warned, “jamming one would also jam the other, resulting in a negative impact on NATO’s military effectiveness in the area of operations, potentially risking fratricide on friendly forces and civil populations.”

“The stakes here are huge—and I am not talking about dollars or euros,” Bell concluded. “I am talking about our nations’ security and the well-being of the men and women in uniform we send in harm’s way. Therefore, the sooner we can wrestle these technical issues to the ground, the better.”

Below Are Mr. Bell’s Remarks From the Conference
As we all know, NATO forces are required to perform missions and tasks in direct support of each other in NATO’s Article 5 and non-Article 5 operations. Last Fall, the Alliance for the first time in its history invoked Article 5 in response to the horrific attacks in the U.S. of September 11.

At present, NATO is continuing to lead three separate non-Article 5 crisis response operations in the Balkans. And, today, over a dozen NATO Allies are military engaged alongside the United States in Afghanistan, either in the search for Al Qaida or in bringing stability to Kabul as the new Afghan government is established.

To accomplish these operations, it is essential that reliable positioning, navigational and timing (PNT) services are available in all foreseeable areas of operations, including training and exercises. The advent of worldwide satellite-based PNT systems have changed both the scope of military operations and weapon systems, and the supporting services required. Increased PNT performance (accuracy, integrity, availability and continuity of service) will improve both overall military capabilities and the accomplishment of individual service missions. Communication networks, long-range sensors and weapons, precise positioning for mine countermeasure operations, precision delivery of weapons, forward artillery survey, automatic data exchange, targeting, aircraft approach and landing and many other military operations, including carrying out the high-priority missions of NATO AWACS, require a high level of PNT performance.

In this context, the United States Global Positioning System, NAVSTAR GPS, is—simply put—indispensable for NATO. Moreover, as recognized in NATO’s Strategic Plan for Navigation Systems, in the long-term (2010-2015+), GPS, possibly in conjunction with inertial systems, will become the primary navigational aid.

NATO has therefore been following with interest the plans of the European Union to develop, by 2008, the Galileo global positioning satellite navigation system as a European alternative to the U.S.-owned and operated GPS system—an alternative that the European Commission has declared “must be an open, global system fully compatible with GPS, but independent from it.”

I want to emphasize that NATO has not taken a position either for or against Galileo. The Alliance respects the right of the European Union to decide, as it did at the March 15/16 Barcelona Summit, to go forward with this program into its next, developmental phase.

That said, NATO does have a very clear interest in making sure that, if Galileo is eventually deployed, it does not interfere with or impair NATO’s access to the significant military advantages afforded NATO forces by GPS, and that NATO is able, if required, to deny a potential adversary’s access to the satellite positioning services available from any other satellite navigation services during a conflict.

In this regard, the most important and potentially serious military issue related to Galileo/GPS compatibility and interoperability is that the European Commission is considering placing one of the four services proposed by Galileo, the restricted and encrypted Public Regulated Service (or “PRS”), intended for users such as EU national law enforcement and internal security agencies, directly on top of—or “overlaying”—the encrypted future military GPS capability, the “M-Code.” The M-Code will be used by U.S. and NATO forces for crucial military operations, including navigation and precision-strike.

Although the Commission has emphatically stated that Galileo will not be under EU military control, it has acknowledged that it cannot be excluded that EU militaries will be able to use it in some respects. Indeed, one recent publication by the Directorate General for Energy and Transport claims that Galileo will “underpin” the CSFP (Common Safety and Foreign Policy) by providing the EU a “military capability.” At the end of the day, though, it is up to the Member States of the EU to decide whether Galileo is to be “civil” or “military” and how to define those terms. I understand that at the Summit, some EU States were quite emphatic that Galileo must be strictly “civilian.”

The co-existence of the GPS and Galileo has been discussed at meetings of the North Atlantic Council in recent months. These discussions resulted in a tasking to the NC3 Board (which is in charge of the Consultation, Command and Control issues in NATO and which I chair) to examine the interrelationship between the GPS and Galileo satellite navigational systems “in the context of NATO military effectiveness.”

The interrelationship between GPS and Galileo satellite navigation systems obviously depends on the frequency bands that will be used. Both will employ multiple frequencies for different types of services. However, the focus in the NATO Council meetings has been on the issue of a direct overlay of the PRS and the “M-Code.” I want to be clear in acknowledging that the EC has not selected a single frequency for the PRS, but rather has continued to consider several “options” for this service, including:

A. A direct overlay of the M-Code frequency, using a wave form modulation scheme (known in the business as a “Binary Offset Carrier” or BOC) of 10,5;

B. A “straddle” or “overlap” of the M-Code frequency through a BOC (14,2) scheme, which would be centered on the M-Code frequency but extended beyond the M-Code “sidelobes” in each direction;

C. A “flexible BOC” approach, in which the PRS would directly overlay the M-Code normally (i.e., with a BOC of 10,5) but could presumably be “switched” to a different waveform modulation scheme (BOC) in times of crisis; or

D. A BOC different altogether from the GPS M-Code, e.g., a BOC (15,1) or (5,1).

The Board is continuing to review these issues within its subordinate structure, including with the assistance of experts from capitals, so today I can only offer a preliminary estimate of where, subject to confirmation later this summer, some of the technical judgements seem to be headed.

First, it seems clear that if the Galileo PRS signal uses a BOC (10,5) signal and therefore directly overlays the GPS M-Code signal, jamming one would also jam the other, resulting in a negative impact on NATO’s military effectiveness in the area of operations, potentially risking fratricide on friendly forces and civil populations;

Second, modulation waveforms for the Galileo PRS such as BOC (14,2) which are centered on but “straddle” or “overlap” the M-Code would apparently not permit selective jamming, as the Commission suggested in one media article.

Third, if the Galileo PRS were to use a flexible BOC modulation that would allow the PRS to change from BOC (10,5) to another BOC that does not overlay the GPS M-Code, it would be technically possible to jam one signal without impacting the other if either the PRS or the M-code were compromised. However, there would appear to be significant technical and operational implications to NATO should a flexible BOC signal structure be pursed by Galileo. For example, in times of tension or conflict, NATO would have to ask the EU to change the signal structure from BOC (10,5) to another BOC signal to be able to deny an adversary access to a compromised PNT service.

As this audience is well aware, not all EU members are members of NATO. If the request were denied or delayed, there could be a significant impact on military effectiveness or timely combat decision-making on the battlefield, thereby placing the lives of NATO’s military forces at risk. Some might argue that such concerns are overdrawn—that NATO could always count on the EU to quickly say “yes.” But others, including myself, would argue that one of the basic arguments for Galileo—that the EU could not trust the U.S. not to turn off GPS—is itself overdrawn.

Lastly, if the EC selects modulation structures for the Galileo PRS other than BOC (10,5), such as BOC (15,1) or (5,1), this may allow selective jamming of these services thereby minimizing M-Code fratricide. This would also provide two redundant systems that could provide a back up PNT capability for those NATO nations to choose to use PRS for military purposes. However, such a PRS signal would not be as “robust” as using BOC (10,5), and thus may hurt the “business case” for the EC to market the PRS (and hence Galileo itself) to governments and customers.

A second technical issue concerns the integrity of the proposed encryption regime for the PRS. The EC hopes to persuade NATO and the U.S. Government that they can be confident that the encrypted PRS signal will not be compromised and exploited by an adversary, and thereby persuade NATO and the U.S. that they do not need to threaten to jam the PRS during hostilities. Others have argued that if one believed the PRS access code had been compromised, it could simply be changed. But such a change would be easier said than done. And how would one know whether the code had been compromised? Here, the World War II experience with ENIGMA comes to mind.

Removing the threat of jamming would facilitate the Commission’s efforts to persuade prospective PRS users (i.e., “customers”) that the PRS will provide a reliable and uninterrupted service. While EC officials have stated in press accounts that they recognize that there could be some “very serious crisis situation” in which NATO might nonetheless need to jam Galileo, it hopes that such contingencies can be restricted to the most extreme circumstances. Detailed discussion on the crucial issues associated with high-confidence protection of an encrypted Galileo PRS regime—including issues related to the control and possible proliferation of user equipment, the robustness of associated cryptography and distribution and control procedures for the keys have not been initiated or authorized between NATO and the EC, but such discussions would obviously be crucial to any hope of achieving mutual trust and confidence.

In closing, let me simply underscore the complexity of the technical challenge before the two proud institutions if we are to get this right. The stakes here are huge—and I am not talking about dollars or euros. I am talking about our nations’ security and the well-being of the men and women in uniform we send in harm’s way. Therefore, the sooner we can wrestle these technical issues to the ground, the better.

From the Outgoing ION President: A Pleasure to Serve Ronald R. Hatch

In reviewing the past year, our most lasting memories are naturally of the tragedy of 11 September, the day that ION GPS-2001 was scheduled to start. Many were on their way to the conference and were diverted in flight. Others arrived at the airport to find that their flights had been canceled. Many made extraordinary efforts to attend by driving long distances. Many authors were not able to attend the conference and the attendance was only half that expected. There were outstanding efforts by General Chair Larry Hothem and Program Chair Gérard Lachapelle together with the track and session chairs to salvage the program and make it a useful meeting. Many alternate authors were called upon to present papers they had expected their coauthors to present. Others stepped into the gap and presented unscheduled material. The ION staff also performed above and beyond the call of duty.

The meeting was successful in spite of the national tragedy.

Consolidating the ION Regions
The National Technical Meeting in January was a good meeting and it was a relief to see that it was well attended. The Council meeting held at that conference approved a change in the bylaws to create an East and West region in place of the three former regions. In support of this change, the council member-at-large from each of the regions will serve two years terms, and two members will serve in each position with staggered terms of office.

The Strategic Planning Committee has worked at a complete revision of the strategic plan. The incoming president, Rudy Kalafus, has put a significant amount of effort into this rewrite. Thank you Rudy. The National Office has continued their excellent work this past year. The Web site is better than ever and has become an extremely valuable resource for members. Thank you Rick Buongiovanni for making this happen. Lisa Beaty and Carl Andren have been extremely helpful this past year in supporting all the officers and members. Lisa is to be congratulated on planning and implementing an office move that has been a tremendous help in keeping the office expenses under control. Thank you Lisa.

My Personal Thanks
I want to express my personal thanks to all the committee chairs. Thank you for willingly serving the ION. You have been a pleasure to work with. My thanks also go to the members of the Council who have served this past year. It was sad to lose Robert Mitchell, who served for many years as the chair of the Bylaws Committee. He was a joy to work with. He will be missed by all of the Council. It has been a pleasure to work with the Council and especially to become acquainted with several new members.

Finally, I want to thank you for allowing me to serve as ION president this past year. In general, the experience has been a positive one. It has always been great to work with the Executive Committee, the Council and the National Office. Thank you again Lisa and Carl for the tremendous help you have been to me this past year.

Rudy Kalafus served as executive vicepresident and chair of the Strategic Planning Committee this past year. I have been very impressed with how well he has handled his responsibilities, and it has been a pleasure to work with him. He will make a great ION president this next year.

Regards,

From the Incoming ION President: Navigation is News Rudy Kalafus

First, I want to thank the members of the ION for the opportunity to serve as president of the Institute. It is a privilege to be associated with an organization that has so many talented and interested participants. Second, I want to thank Ron Hatch for the excellent job he has done during the past year, and I hope I can do as well. I also want to thank the general chair, Chris Bartone, and the program chairs, Boyd Holsapple and Fred Schreiber, for running a successful Annual Meeting in Albuquerque.

GPS Is Now a Household Name
In spite of the lagging worldwide economy, the ION remains strong financially, achieving break-even during a year in which other organizations suffered serious losses. The relevance of navigation to the world’s economic and political structures is getting increased recognition, as evidenced, for example, by the European community’s decision to fund Galileo and the use of high-accuracy guided unmanned aircraft and munitions in Afghanistan. By now GPS is a household name, as E-911 cell phones and auto navigators are coming into widespread use. So navigation is in the news.

ION GPS 2002 Meeting
This widespread interest in navigation is reflected in the large response to the call for abstracts for the September ION GPS 2002 meeting—nearly 500 abstracts were submitted from all over the world. This year the ION GPS 2002 meeting will be held in Portland, Oregon, a lovely area of the country. With 36 sessions of eight papers each, this conference promises to be one you won’t want to miss. Looking through the program, it is obvious that there will be a lot of highly relevant, state-of-the-art subjects addressed.

ION Section Interest Grows
We now have a new ION section in northern California, centered in Silicon Valley. Its initial meeting in May exhibited a high level of interest and enthusiasm, so we’re hopeful it will become a viable group.

Sections enable ION members to tailor programs to their own interests—some sections concentrate on educating their members, while some reach out to the community. Check out the Rocky Mountain Section Web site, which you can access via the Links connection on the ION Web site, on some ideas for involving young people.

The Dayton Section ran a pilot program to provide college scholarships, and two $2,500 scholarships were recently awarded as you saw in the Spring newsletter. The ION council recently voted to expand the program, allowing sections to award such scholarships each year. It’s great to see this kind of forwardthinking activity.

I’d like to congratulate our National Office staff for making a major move to our new quarters while still carrying out all the plans for the Annual Meeting and ION GPS 2002 Meeting, and somehow maintaining their good humor. That was quite a feat.

I look forward to working with the officers and staff of the ION during the next year, and I hope to see you in Portland.

The Purpose of The ION The Institute of Navigation, founded in 1945, is a non-profit professional society dedicated to the advancement of the art and science of navigation. It serves a diverse community including those interested in air, space, marine, land navigation and position determination. Although basically a national organization, its membership is worldwide, and it is affiliated with the International Association of Institutes of Navigation. 2001-02 National Executive Committee President: Dr. Rudy Kalafus Executive Vice President: Mr. Larry Hothem Treasurer: Mr. John Clark Eastern Region Vice President: Mr. James Doherty Western Region Vice President: Dr. Gérard Lachapelle Immediate Past President: Mr. Ron Hatch How to Reach The ION Telephone: 703-383-9688 Facsimile: 703-383-9689 Web site: http://www.ion.org E-mail: membership@ion.org ION National Office Staff Director of Operations: Lisa Beaty Technical Director: Carl Andren Assistant to the Technical Director: Miriam Lewis Meeting Services/Author Liaison: Connie Mayes Member Services/Registrar: Wendy Hickman Graphic Design/Editor: Paula Danko Information Manager: Rick Buongiovanni

Fellow Nominations Being Accepted
The Institute of Navigation is currently accepting nominations for the election of Fellows. Election to Fellow membership recognizes the distinguished contribution of ION members to the advancement of the technology, management, practice and teaching of the arts and sciences of navigation, and/or for lifetime contributions to the Institute. Former members of the ION who are not currently active members of the organization may be elected to nonvoting Fellow membership. A limited number of individuals may be accepted as posthumous Fellow members. Members of other National Institutes of Navigation who are qualified by their accomplishments for recognition as a Fellow member are eligible for election to Honorary Fellow membership.	Nominations may be submitted by currently active ION members. All nominations must conform to ION nomination guidelines as outlined on the nomination form. Nominations must include a brief biography and proposed citation. Details of the nomination process and forms are available at www.ion.org. Nominations must be received by Dec. 13, 2002, to qualify. Kindly address any correspondence to: Fellow Selection Committee, The Institute of Navigation 3975 University Drive, Suite 390 Fairfax, VA 22030 fax: 703-383-9689 email: mlewis@ion.org

Traditionally, LAAS activities range from Government Industry Partnership (GIP) activities, to LAAS CAT I Acquisition activities and LAAS CAT II/III R&D efforts.

These activities are expressed in the following three phases:

Phase I (April 1999–September 2005)
GIP to Develop Non-Fed CAT I System Under FAA Type Acceptance (TA) Process (Honeywell, Raytheon, Thales).
Phase II (September 2002–September 2005)
FAA Full-Scale Development (FSD) and Production of Fed CAT I Systems and Development of Advanced Procedures.
Phase III (October 2002–September 2004)
Research & Development (R&D) to Mitigate Technical Design Risk (CAT II/III).

The LAAS team has achieved major milestones in all three areas. However, the team’s main focus has been the LAAS CAT I acquisition activities. For the LAAS CAT I acquisition, a number of activities had to be finalized in order for the Request for Offer (RFO) to be released. The LAAS CAT I System Specification had to be finalized and baselined, and the Integrated Program Plan (IPP) and Acquisition Strategy Paper (ASP) approved by the Integrated Management Team (IMT).

Release of Final CAT I RFO
The Final RFO for CAT I Development/ Production Contract was released April 26, 2002. While Industry works on the RFO, the team will start preparing the required Source Selection Activities, which include finishing the Source Selection Evaluation Plan and setting up the infrastructure to be able to perform all Source Selection Activities in an orderly manner. Replies from industry to the RFO were expected on June 17, 2002. After Source Selection Activities are completed the LAAS team expects the LAAS CAT I Contract Award by September 30, 2002.

The contract will basically include LAAS CAT I Complete System Design and Documentation and a procurement of ten Limited Rate of Initial Production (LRIP) systems—four for direct FAA support and six at different airports in the NAS to support OT&E activities and promote user involvement. After the successful commissioning of the first LAAS site, the FAA will make a decision for further “Priced Production Options” (15-40 systems/year).

LRIP Criteria
For the six LRIP sites/airports, the team looked at many different criteria including:

• AIR 21 Request /Proposal
• Diverse Geographical Locations
• Diverse FAA Regions
• Diverse Siting Conditions
• Existing GIP Installations
• Airport/Region Support
• Airline Support
• Close Proximity to Aircraft Manufacturer
• Close Proximity to Avionics Manufacturer
• Good Mix of large and small airports, Cat I and CAT II/III airports
• Minimal Environmental Impact Study Requirements

Based on criteria discussions, the sites that are currently under consideration are (in alphabetical order) Chicago O’Hare, Houston, Juneau, Memphis, Phoenix, and Seattle.

Parallel to those activities, the LAAS team decided to update LAAS Benefit Categories (User and Service Provider), which had not been addressed since the Investment Analysis performed for LAAS and WAAS in 1999. WAAS LPV implementation and LAAS user requirements and expectations mandate an Update/Revalidation of LAAS Benefits (Maximum Quantification), which will address aviation community plans for LAAS and give an updated list of airports to receive LAAS CAT I and CAT II/III Systems. Study participants include Aircraft Manufacturers, Airports, DoD, FAA, GIP teams, MITRE, and User Groups. A Preliminary Report is expected in September 2002, and the Final Report in August 2003.

LAAS Advanced Procedures
A major item in the LAAS Benefit discussions will be LAAS Advanced Procedures (curved/segmented approaches). These types of procedures are strongly requested by the Aviation Community and were included in the FY02 LAAS Appropriation Language, specifically the LAAS Development of a Data Collection Plan and Initiation of Flight Evaluations for Development of Complex LAAS Approaches (curved, segmented, and offset). The LAAS team works with Aviation Community to determine exact industry requirements, validate industry requirements, assess feasibility for LAAS or other technology/systems providing those capabilities, and develop cost and schedule estimates. Above and beyond all those activities, the LAAS team is looking one step further into the future with CAT II/III R&D efforts commencing. A major meeting concerning those R&D efforts was conducted at MITRE May 22–23, 2002. Technical design and schedule mitigation efforts are to be completed over the next 2–3 years.

—Dieter Guenter, a former pilot and senior operations research analyst with Innovative Solutions International Inc., currently supports the FAA GPS Program Office under the GPS Technical Assistance Contract (TAC). He is the TAC task lead/program manager for LAAS and supports the FAA in all aspects of the LAAS program management.

Approximately 300 people attended the ION 58th Annual Meeting and the CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium that was held June 24–26 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Nearly 100 technical papers were on the program at the three-day meeting.

Highlights of the technical program included a plenary panel that addressed GPS Modernization, GPS in a Combat Environment, 27 Optimized GPS Constellation, and An American Perspective on the European Galileo System. Plenary speakers included Col. Douglas Loverro, USAF GPS JPO; Col. James R. Greenlee, USAF JGPSCE Joint Test Force; and Keith McDonald, Navtech Consulting.

Dr. Chris Bartone was this year’s ION general chair; Boyd Holsapple was the ION program chair and Fred Schreiber was the CIGTF program chair.

The meeting included a simultaneously running one-day classified session at Kirtland Air Force Base.

Ron Hatch Receives Distinguished Service Award

ION President Rudy Kalafus (left) proudly presents immediate past president, Ronald Hatch, with the ION Distinguished Service Award.

Mr. Ronald Hatch served as the ION president from June 2001 to June 2002. Prior to his term as president, he served on the ION’s Executive Committee, the ION Council and the Satellite Division Executive Committee. Mr. Hatch also served as the program chair of the 1997 National Technical Meeting and as the general chair of the 1998 NTM. He received the Johannes Kepler Award in 1994 and the Thomas L. Thurlow Award in 2001. Mr. Hatch was one of the ten ION fellows named in 2000.

2002-2003 Committee Chairs Named 2002-2003 NATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE President: Dr. Rudy Kalafus Executive Vice President: Mr. Larry Hothem Treasurer: Mr. John Clark Easter Region Vice President: Mr. James Doherty Western Region Vice President: Dr. Gérard Lachapelle Immediate Past President: Mr. Ron Hatch Satellite Chair: Ms. Penina Axelrod STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRS Membership: Dr. Duncan B. Cox, Jr., DBC Communications Nominating: Mr. Ron Hatch, Navcom Technology, Inc. Finance: Dr. Mike Braasch, Ohio University Fellow Selection: Mr. Tom Stansell, Stansell Consulting Technical Committees: Mr. Larry Hothem, U.S. Geological Survey Publications: Dr. Christopher Hegarty, The MITRE Corporation Meetings: Dr. Frank van Graas, Ohio University Awards: Mr. Ronald Braff, The MITRE Corporation Bylaws: Dr. Richard Greenspan, C.S. Draper Laboratory Sections: Mr. Len Jacobson, Global Systems & Marketing AD-HOC COMMITTEE CHAIRS Editor, NAVIGATION: Christopher Hegarty, The MITRE Corporation International Affairs: Mr. Keith McDonald, Navtech Consulting Student Awards: Maj. John Raquet, Ph.D., Air Force Institute of Technology New Initiatives: Mr. Ron Hatch, Navcom Technology, Inc. Strategic Planning: Mr. Larry Hothem, U.S. Geological Survey ION Conference: Mr. Larry Hothem, U.S. Geological Survey Other Publications: Mr. Ronald Braff, The MITRE Corporation Historian: Mr. Marvin May, ARL Penn State Congressional Fellow Program: Dr. Richard Greenspan, C.S. Draper Laboratory Spectrum: Ms. Sally Frodge, DOT HQ IMU Interface Standard: Dr. Jim Farrell, VIGIL, Inc.

Congressional Fellow Report: Busting the Big Banks Clark Cohen

"You’ve just found a billion-dollar footnote, Clark,” said the chief investigator of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations as I showed him a certain subpoenaed Enron document. Not exactly a typical moment for a congressional fellow.

I am the 2002 ION Congressional Fellow working for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Sen. Levin is chairman of both the Armed Services Committee and the Investigations Subcommittee. It is in his latter capacity that I have been serving him since January when the subcommittee began its work on Enron. Our charter has been to get to the bottom of what really happened at Enron with an aim toward helping the Congress craft more effective legislation in response. Unlike any other investigation associated with the collapse of Enron, we have taken substantial time outside of the media spotlight (seven months) to formulate conclusions (to be disseminated publicly) and have done so with the benefit of meticulous study of the actual internal documents (more than a million pages worth) obtained from an array of document subpoenas (at least 60) backed up by interviews with the actual people who witnessed or were central to the collapse (over 300 hours worth).

Not What I Expected
I did not exactly expect to be doing something like this when I came out here, but I am certainly grateful for the opportunity. My own technical background is in high-integrity, centimeter-level GPS positioning. Having founded a GPS company in Silicon Valley, I have come to appreciate some of the challenges of business. Although my charter is nominally a Science and Technology Policy Fellowship, it made more sense as the Enron investigation was commencing for the senator to tap my business experience.

Here I am getting a first hand look at how politics in Washington, D.C. really works. At the very highest level, it has been no different from what I had expected prior to coming here. But seeing it at work, close up on a day-to-day basis has been a profound experience. Yes, there is a fair amount of "sausage" made¹ on Capitol Hill, but there are also occasional reassuring signs that democracy may still truly work—in spite of its seemingly awkward progress in fits and starts.

When we started out our investigation, each member of our team (roughly 10 people) picked a specific aspect of Enron to investigate. These aspects included its board of directors, its auditor, Arthur Andersen, and the infamous partnerships of Enron. On one hand there were hundreds of these partnerships and on the other hand there were the obvious ones that were in the newspapers every day.

“Yosemite” the “Black Box”
I picked a structure called “Yosemite” that nobody else seemed to be looking at. (I wanted something off the beaten path.) Yet Yosemite still appeared to involve rather significant sums of money. Nobody seemed to know what it was all about (and as it turned out later, many people had already looked at it and were not seeing an obvious purpose). Meanwhile, I had flipped through some subpoenaed Enron documents and seen enough “suspicious items” in there to think that there might be something illegitimate about the structure. The subcommittee’s chief investigator, Bob Roach, turned out to be very encouraging about my targeting Yosemite. His own instincts seemed to be corroborating my conclusions.

Yosemite still seemed like a “black box.” It was raising billions of dollars in bonds linked to Enron, yet there was no indication what the money was to be used for. (It turned out that this lack of clarity was exactly the intention of Yosemite’s designers!) Then we found some documents that suggested to us that Yosemite might be similar in structure to the J.P. Morgan Chase “Mahonia” deals that had fallen into litigation where loans were disguised as commodity trades. The only problem was that we just weren’t sure. I set to work trying to unscramble the complex pieces of the transaction. Finally, late one night, I broke the code. Yosemite was indeed another sham transaction to disguise loans as trades—known by Enron as a “prepay.”

The “Billion-Dollar Footnote”
The next morning, I showed Roach how the deal all fit together. But instead of being elated, he drooped his shoulders in disappointment. Here’s one of the places I have learned how Congress works. The problem was, even though we had this sham transaction completely understood, it seemed next to impossible to demonstrate the deception to the general public because of the sheer complexity of Yosemite’s inner workings.

So out came the “billion-dollar footnote.”² I had zeroed in on a single-sentence footnote in an Enron memo that indicated that the participants knew full well that they were carrying out an accounting deception. We now had a solid case on which to proceed.

The prepays could be used to make Enron’s financial statements look significantly better than they really were and improve its standing with ratings agencies and investors. Yosemite, the largest of the prepays, had been used to raise $2.4 billion for the fake trades. To top it off, Citigroup had set up Yosemite so that if Enron ever went bankrupt, the bondholders— not Citigroup—would be left holding the bag.

At this point it was becoming clear that the financial institutions were in many cases willing collaborators with Enron. Sen. Levin broadened the scope of the investigation to include financial institutions. Ultimately, when it was time to hold hearings this summer, Sen. Levin and the staff leadership chose “prepays” as a central subject.

Preparing for the Hearing
The next order of business was to choose and pre-interview witnesses in advance. I have come to appreciate that putting together a hearing of this type represents an extraordinary effort. I have been greatly impressed with the adroit skill of Roach and the rest of the staff in putting together this investigation. It was not easy. For anyone who saw or read about the hearing, these powerful banks didn’t exactly roll over when confronted with page after page of solid, black-and-white evidence. Sen. Levin provided an adept and seasoned performance throughout the hearing, clearly drawing on his successful background as a prosecutor.

The hearing made quite a splash. Just a few days before, I had met with a Wall Street Journal reporter in a session that had been set up by the subcommittee. There I described to him how Yosemite worked. The day before the hearing, the Journal ran the story on Yosemite on the front page. I also met with a reporter from the New York Times where I went over documents I had found relating to a Citigroup transaction known as “Roosevelt.” This story also ran on the front page the day of the hearing.

The story of the actual hearing landed on the network nightly news that evening and in major papers across the nation the morning after. The story on the front page of the New York Times on July 24 stated that due to revelations from the Senate hearing the previous day, the two stocks of Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase “accounted for most of the 1.1 percent decline in the Dow Jones industrial average.” The following Monday, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial saying that these two banks “deserve the beating they’re now getting.”

Again, it was hardly a typical experience. I have had the privilege to witness and contribute to what goes into a tightly focused Senate hearing. I also perhaps helped establish its subject matter. But sadly, the hearing could never have taken place without the existence of such widespread fraudulent activity.

The impact has been exciting of course. But more importantly, we should all be disappointed by the opportunity cost associated with the billions of dollars in capital that could have been invested in bona fide economic growth for our country that instead was squandered on form-over-substance accounting deceptions.

Legislation is underway in response to corporate malfeasance. The president has already signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill and the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting bill into law. I am hopeful that these and other bills now being contemplated will go a long way toward eliminating future Enrons and paving the way toward substantive market growth.

I am grateful to the ION for making this opportunity available. It is truly an experience like no other.

¹ There is an old saying that there are two things that one does not want to witness being made first hand: laws and sausage.
² Later it turned out that we had both underestimated the magnitude of the discoveries that we were making.

Portney's Corner: 3D With Half a Pair Courtesy of Litton Guidance and Control

An avionics designer wearing dark glasses and watching an in-flight movie (during a scene with significant motion) suddenly realizes that he is seeing the scene in 3D. This occurs beginning a moment after the left lens of his glasses pops out. Has he discovered a new approach for 3D navigation displays? The 3D effect can be explained as (select the best answer):

A. The subtle change in the refraction of the light path as seen in the left eye (when compared to the right eye) causes the customary two dimensional movie image to appear to have gained a third dimension as the brain interprets the resulting images created in the retina.
B. The brain reacts to the delayed light path seen by the right eye and compensates for this out-of-phase condition by creating the added third dimension for each instant of motion.
C. Motion parallax is induced as the view compensates for the disturbed light path seen by the right eye which is interpreted by the brain as an added dimension.
D. Both A and D.

And the correct answer is ... B

The image seen by the right eye is delayed by the presence of the dark lens. The image seen by the left eye is not delayed. The brain composes a scene based on the interaction of the nondelayed and delayed sources of light striking the retina that effectively results in a displacement of the scene either in front or behind the screen depending upon the direction of motion and which eye’s light path is delayed by the darkened lens. As seen in the diagram, the right eye and left eye view the same scene at slightly different times. A slight delay is introduced into the light path of the right eye (by the dark glass lens) and the image on the retina is interpreted by the brain as one compensated by the intersection of the two light rays at a displaced point from the plane of view.

You Can Try This at Home!
Tracing the locus of these successive intersection points reveals an elliptical path as seen in the diagram. The reader can demonstrate this phenomenon by fashioning a pendulum with a light weight hanging on the end of a string from the top of an open doorway and imparting a swing to the weight so that it oscillates in a plane. The observer, covering one eye with a dark lens, directing his line of sight perpendicular to the plane of the oscillating pendulum will see an elliptical pattern described by the weight during its swinging motion.

Pendulum Experiment (Top View)
The pendulum swings along the major diameter of the ellipse. The observer views the scene with the right eye line-of-sight interrupted. Examine the mid-point of the pendulum swing and assume the right center block is the leading image as the pendulum’s motion is from left to right. The left eye sees the right block and a fraction of a second later the right eye sees the left center block. The two lines-of-sight intersect at the center point of the lower limb of the ellipse. Conversely, as the pendulum swings from right to left, the left center block represents the pendulum as initially seen by the left eye and the right center block represents the delayed image of the pendulum as seen by the right eye. The lines-of-sight of the two eyes intersect at the midpoint of the ellipse’s upper limb (Figure 1).

The ellipse is the path of intercepts of the successive images. This experiment illustrates the 3D illusion and demonstrates how two-dimensional motion in a plane can be interpreted by the brain as three dimensional.

Note: This 3D effect was first noted by a German physicist by the name of Pulfrich (earlier in the century) and is known as the Pulfrich effect. In recent years, the effect has been used for commercial and research purposes.

You can find more of Portney's Ponderables at www.navworld.com.

From the ION Historian: The Mercator Projection One of a Series of Columns by ION Historian Marvin May

The journeys of Columbus and Magellan and the transition from the Dark Ages to the Renaissance, opened up a new era which saw the world’s greatest minds applied to the refinement of the knowledge of the shape of the earth. But the realization that the earth was round and should be portrayed as a globe, presented practical problems to the navigator during the Age of Exploration. The globe, in spite of its inherent freedom from distortion, was bulky, difficult to produce, awkward to employ for measurements, unstable in a moving environment, and less than half of its surface could be seen at one time.

A Round Earth on a Flat Surface
During this period and continuing to modern times, the mathematical, philosophical and geographical challenges of representing the round earth on a flat surface has been a vibrant research topic in navigation and its sister sciences, cartography and geography. It was apparent that a flat map representing the (near) spherical earth necessarily introduced distortions of many forms: shape, area, distance, direction and omission. The designer of map projections, of which there are hundreds, attempts to minimize or eliminate some of the distortion of one type at the expense of more distortion of another type.

Unquestionably the most famous projection is the one simply named for the inventor Gerardus Mercator. Mercator was born in Flanders (then the Netherlands) in 1512 and received his Master of Arts from the University of Louvain in 1532 where he studied philosophy and theology. After graduating, Mercator began to have worries on how to reconcile the account of the origin of the universe given in the Bible with that given by Aristotle. Sponsored by his uncle who was an affluent ecclesiastic, Mercator traveled widely in Europe from 1532 to 1536 developing interests in mathematics, geography, astronomy and calligraphy. He constructed a terrestrial globe in 1536 and produced his first map of Palestine in 1537.

In 1538, Mercator produced a renowned world map using a heart-shape projection (double cordiform) in which he was the first to use the name North America. In 1552, he moved to Duisburg, Germany where he opened a cartographic workshop and taught mathematics.

The First Atlas
In Duisburg, Mercator prepared numerous maps as well as terrestrial and celestial globes. Many of these maps were published a few at a time during his lifetime and then as a bound collection, the Atlas sive cosmographicae meditations de fabrica mundiet fabricate figura, by his son Rumold the year after Mercator’s death in Duisburg in 1594. This was the first time a book of maps was titled with the name of the mythological Greek Titan Atlas, who was condemned to carry the heavens, earth, and pillars on his back and shoulders.

Mercator’s famous 1569 projection is a cylindrical projection, with equidistant, straight meridians (see figure). Unlike those of earlier cylindrical projections, the parallels of latitude are spaced more widely as the poles are approached. The spacing of the latitude lines is directly proportional to the increasing scale along the parallels, or as the trigonometric secant of the latitude; the poles cannot be shown at all because they are infinitely far from the equator on the map.

The popularity of the Mercator projection lies not so much for its minimization of distortions or omissions, but for its utility for navigation. Rhumb lines, which are lines of constant track angle, appear as straight lines on a Mercator projection. This unique attribute was a boon to navigators, who could follow a single compass setting (adjusted for the variation of true from magnetic north) based on the bearing or azimuth of the straight line connecting the point of departure to the intended destination. The Mercator projection, with its straight loxodromes or rhumb lines, gradually became the standard for much of the maritime mapping.

A Misleading Picture
Although Mercator developed the projection with navigational uses as his main objective, it has been used extensively, with significant criticism, as a general geographical map projection. Even the New York Times, in a 1943 editorial, wrote: “the time has come to discard [the Mercator projection] for something that represents continents and directions less deceptively. … We cannot forever mislead children and even college students with grossly inaccurate pictures of the world.” It was furthermore suggested that the popularity of the projection was related to colonialism as the size of Europe is represented as twice the size of an equal area territory located on the Equator. The pronounced areal distortion of the projection, stimulated, with varying degrees of success, the development of hundreds of other projections with subjectively less distortions.

Not only was the use of Mercator projections for non-navigational purposes controversial, but so was the competence of Gerardus Mercator as a cartographer. It is possible that he formulated his 1569 map based on a graphical transference of rhumb lines from a globe, rather than using a more elegant mathematical development. Some writers, including Edmond Halley, a cartographer of considerable competence himself, but more notably of comet fame, attribute the invention of the Mercator projection to Edward Wright (1561-1615). Wright, an eminent mathematician of the time, documented explicitly the mathematical formulation of the projection.

Despite the geographical distortions of the projection or the lack of mathematical rigor in Mercator’s original development, navigators have depended on its friendly, straight rhumb lines for centuries.

—Portions of this article have been excerpted from: Snyder, John P., “Flattening the Earth, Two Thousand Years of Map Projections,” University of Chicago Press.

GNSS AROUND THE GLOBE

Space Technology Agreement Signed
A five-year renewable Agreement for Cooperation was signed in Brussels by Director General Antonio Rodotà of the European Space Agency (ESA) and by Director General Victor Aguado of Eurocontrol on July 26.

The agreement establishes a general framework for cooperation and support between the two organizations regarding the use of space technology for civil aviation purposes in areas of common interest such as satellite navigation, telecommunications, and the environment.

Under the agreement, the parties will exchange information about programs and projects, research results and publications, and will coordinate research and development programs. Specific arrangements will be implemented, spelling out the technical and operational interfaces between the respective activities and the roles and responsibilities of the parties. Each party will bear the cost of work to be done without funds being exchanged.

DAYTON SECTION
The Dayton Section recently announced its newly elected officers for 2002–2003 as follows: Capt. Charles D. Ormsby, chair; James D. Leonard, vice chair; Capt. Jamie Coker, executive secretary; Kenneth W. Weis, treasurer; George W. Simons, facilities coordinator; and Lisa McMahan, administrative secretary. The past chairman is Rob B. Stephens. The liaison/membership officer position is open at this time.

NEW ENGLAND SECTION
In August, the New England Section celebrated its twenty-fifth meeting at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge. A delightful dinner preceded Patrick Martone’s presentation on “Helicopter In-flight Tracking System for the Gulf of Mexico.” Martone is an electrical engineer at the Volpe Center who specializes in radar systems engineering including various ground- and aircraft-based radar surveillance systems.

According to Martone, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center (ARC) is sponsoring deployment and testing of the Helicopter In-flight Tracking System (HITS) in a portion of the Gulf of Mexico offshore area. Using multilateration principles, HITS determines the location and altitude of all transponder-equipped aircraft without requiring changes to current Mode A, C or S avionics. HITS tracks both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft operating in the 8,500 square mile coverage region. The minimum coverage altitude of 100 feet is beneficial for the petroleum industry, allowing helicopters to be tracked onto the pad of most offshore platforms. In addition to multilateration, HITS provides surveillance reports for aircraft equipped for Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B), a new surveillance system under development by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The DOT Volpe Center is supporting NASA in managing HITS installation and operation and in evaluating the system’s effectiveness. Sensis Corporation is supplying, installing, and maintaining the HITS ground system. Project activities are being coordinated with the FAA and local helicopter operators. Flight testing in the Gulf will begin in mid 2002.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN SECTION
Section members presented two classes on the Global Positioning System at Russell Middle School in Colorado Springs on May 6. Each class began with a 20-minute presentation surveying the benefits and drawbacks of traditional navigation methods, time-of-arrival triangulation theory, GPS capabilities, uses of GPS, and GPS limitations.

After the presentation, with the assistance of ION members and the Russell Middle School teaching staff, the students went outside and took turns using GPS receivers to locate and identify pre-programmed waypoints around the school grounds. RMS members Ken Park, Garth Powell, Stephen Bolt, and Dick Pache participated in this event.

SAN DIEGO SECTION
On June 17, the San Diego Section met at the U.S. Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center in San Diego. Dr. A.J. Van Dierendonck of AJ Systems discussed the benefits of the planned improvements to the GPS civil signals to the civil community. Approximately 40 people attended the San Diego Section meeting.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTION
As of this writing, the ION Southern California Section will hold its August luncheon meeting at the Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo. The guest speaker will be Mr. Joe Portney who is especially well-known for his brain teasers and ponderables. Mr. Portney will present excerpts from his book Portney’s Ponderables, which contains 25 historical navigational controversies, paradoxes, and other related topics. The excerpts for the presentation will include “Columbus Found Longitude?”, “Peary and Henson at the Pole,” “Lewis and Clark Expedition,” and “WWII B-24 Lady Be Good Disappearance.”

WASHINGTON D.C. SECTION
On July 24, the Washingon Section met at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) in Alexandria, Va. Dr. Scott Pace, Deputy Chief of Staff to the NASA Administrator, was the featured speaker at the lunchtime meeting. Prior to joining NASA, Dr. Pace was the Assistant Director for Space and Aeronautics in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Section Chair Jim Doherty welcomed five young NASA colleagues from the Goddard Space Flight Center to the meeting. They were Brian Batovsky, Kristen Cetrone, Miriam Wennersten, Rich Burns, and Frank Bauer.