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.
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
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:
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.
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 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
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.
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
ION GPS 2002 Meeting
ION Section Interest Grows
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.
LAAS Status Update
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)
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 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).
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
—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.
ION 58th Annual Meeting & CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium
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
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.
"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
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”
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”
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 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.
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.
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!
Pendulum Experiment (Top View)
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.
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
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
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
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.
Space Technology Agreement Signed
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.
NEW ENGLAND SECTION
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
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
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SECTION
WASHINGTON D.C. SECTION
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.
All contents (c) Institute of Navigation, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Close Window / Return to ION Website