Seems that EU has ordered other 8 satellites for the Galileo
constellation.
By 2015, there should be 26 satellites for Galileo in space.

4 IOV + 14 IOC + 8 new sates just awarded

I was a bit skeptic that the EU could finance so quickly more
satellites than the 18 alread planned, but I was wrong
(and Alan was right, if I remember well)

On 2012-02-02 11:09 , claudegps wrote:
> Seems that EU has ordered other 8 satellites for the Galileo
> constellation.
> By 2015, there should be 26 satellites for Galileo in space.
>
> 4 IOV + 14 IOC + 8 new sates just awarded
>
> I was a bit skeptic that the EU could finance so quickly more
> satellites than the 18 alread planned, but I was wrong
> (and Alan was right, if I remember well

Very gracious of you Claude, but there's lot's of room for me to have
been wrong then, now and in the future - it's still not clear that
funding is locked in.

--
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty."
Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer).

On Feb 2, 11:09*am, claudegps <claude...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seems that EU has ordered other 8 satellites for the Galileo
> constellation.
> By 2015, there should be 26 satellites for Galileo in space.
>
> 4 IOV + 14 IOC + 8 new sates just awarded
>
> I was a bit skeptic that the EU could finance so quickly more
> satellites than the 18 alread planned, but I was wrong
> (and Alan was right, if I remember well)

Notwithstanding the deployment timeline, I was never a skeptic about
the system coming to fruition. Of course, presenting a schedule on
the VuGraph is notactually executing it.

But they do have a plan to accelerate the program. They will launch
four satellites simultaneously on the Ariane 5 rocket. Certainly
there is a gamble of losing assets to a launch failure but the Ariane
5 pretty much works flawlessly.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202...ileocontracts/

GPS will require five years to orbit four new satellites with it's
snail's pace replenishment schedule.

While NAVSTAR user equipment still abounds, development and production
Galileo equipment will also certainly be accelerated.

Galileo exhibits a major a major advantage over GPS .. it has no
legacy users. So it comes to fruition as a modernized system with a
totally compatible ground control system. With 'slow execution' of
OCX, modernized GPS signals will not be available until 2016! Indeed,
it's possible that a GPS IIRM might be decommissioned before any of
it's modernized signals are usable. That is poor project management
and the USAF should hang its head in shame when Galileo eclipses
NAVSTAR as the 'Gold Standard'.

Neverthe less, EU has expressed concern about a lack of innovation
with respect to utilization of Galileo's superior attributes.

Certainly, NAVSTAR has served us well for general navigation and
precision timing. With augmentation submeter real-time positioning is
routinely achieved. With post processing, centimeter positioning is
achieved. The book of GIS applications is being written during the
NAVSTAR era. What superior applications can Galileo actually
achieve? I guess that depends upon how much superior the real world
performance actually will be.

--- CHAS

On Feb 3, 2:14*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 11:09*am, claudegps <claude...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Seems that EU has ordered other 8 satellites for the Galileo
> > constellation.
> > By 2015, there should be 26 satellites for Galileo in space.
>
> > 4 IOV + 14 IOC + 8 new sates just awarded
>
> > I was a bit skeptic that the EU could finance so quickly more
> > satellites than the 18 alread planned, but I was wrong
> > (and Alan was right, if I remember well)
>
> Notwithstanding the deployment timeline, I was never a skeptic about
> the system coming to fruition. *Of course, presenting a schedule on
> the VuGraph is notactually executing it.
>
> But they do have a plan to accelerate the program. *They will launch
> four satellites simultaneously on the Ariane 5 rocket. *Certainly
> there is a gamble of losing assets to a launch failure but the Ariane
> 5 pretty much works flawlessly.
>
> http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202...ileocontracts/
>
> GPS will require five years to orbit four new satellites with it's
> snail's pace replenishment schedule.
>
> While NAVSTAR user equipment still abounds, development and production
> Galileo equipment will also certainly be accelerated.
>
> Galileo exhibits a major a major advantage over GPS .. it has no
> legacy users. *So it comes to fruition as a modernized system with a
> totally compatible ground control system. *With 'slow execution' of
> OCX, modernized GPS signals will not be available until 2016! *Indeed,
> it's possible that a GPS IIRM might be decommissioned before any of
> it's modernized signals are usable. *That is poor project management
> and the USAF should hang its head in shame when Galileo eclipses
> NAVSTAR as the 'Gold Standard'.
>
> Neverthe less, *EU has expressed concern about a lack of innovation
> with respect to utilization of Galileo's superior attributes.
>
> Certainly, NAVSTAR has served us well for general navigation and
> precision timing. *With augmentation submeter real-time positioning is
> routinely achieved. *With post processing, centimeter positioning is
> achieved. *The book of GIS applications is being written during the
> NAVSTAR era. *What superior applications can Galileo actually
> achieve? * I guess that depends upon how much superior the real world
> performance actually will be.
>
> --- *CHAS

In that tone, I should recognize that IIF-1 and IIF-2 are around 5th/
6th best performing NAVSTAR birds. Its interesting that they're still
lagging behind many IIR and IIR-M birds (and IIR-M performance
average). Their performance certainly isn't enough to consider going
beyond the current 12 bird order. I contend that the single most
important feature of the entire GPS III family will be the cross
linked architecture starting with IIIB. I sure hope as few GPS IIIA as
possible will be built. And we're still stuck at one launch per year
throughout 2012, with a realistic projection of L2C IOC for 2021 and
L5 FOC for 2030. Hopefully with the end of the current solar maximum
and with an improving US economy, that launch pace can be upped to a
twin launch yearly beginning in 2013 or 2014.

Marcelo Pacheco

On Feb 3, 3:28*pm, macpacheco <marc...@macp.eti.br> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:14*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 11:09*am, claudegps <claude...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Seems that EU has ordered other 8 satellites for the Galileo
> > > constellation.
> > > By 2015, there should be 26 satellites for Galileo in space.
>
> > > 4 IOV + 14 IOC + 8 new sates just awarded
>
> > > I was a bit skeptic that the EU could finance so quickly more
> > > satellites than the 18 alread planned, but I was wrong
> > > (and Alan was right, if I remember well)
>
> > Notwithstanding the deployment timeline, I was never a skeptic about
> > the system coming to fruition. *Of course, presenting a schedule on
> > the VuGraph is notactually executing it.
>
> > But they do have a plan to accelerate the program. *They will launch
> > four satellites simultaneously on the Ariane 5 rocket. *Certainly
> > there is a gamble of losing assets to a launch failure but the Ariane
> > 5 pretty much works flawlessly.
>
> >http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202...ileocontracts/
>
> > GPS will require five years to orbit four new satellites with it's
> > snail's pace replenishment schedule.
>
> > While NAVSTAR user equipment still abounds, development and production
> > Galileo equipment will also certainly be accelerated.
>
> > Galileo exhibits a major a major advantage over GPS .. it has no
> > legacy users. *So it comes to fruition as a modernized system with a
> > totally compatible ground control system. *With 'slow execution' of
> > OCX, modernized GPS signals will not be available until 2016! *Indeed,
> > it's possible that a GPS IIRM might be decommissioned before any of
> > it's modernized signals are usable. *That is poor project management
> > and the USAF should hang its head in shame when Galileo eclipses
> > NAVSTAR as the 'Gold Standard'.
>
> > Nevertheless, *EU has expressed concern about a lack of innovation
> > with respect to utilization of Galileo's superior attributes.
>
> > Certainly, NAVSTAR has served us well for general navigation and
> > precision timing. *With augmentation submeter real-time positioning is
> > routinely achieved. *With post processing, centimeter positioning is
> > achieved. *The book of GIS applications is being written during the
> > NAVSTAR era. *What superior applications can Galileo actually
> > achieve? * I guess that depends upon how much superior the real world
> > performance actually will be.
>
> > --- *CHAS
>
> In that tone, I should recognize that IIF-1 and IIF-2 are around 5th/
> 6th best performing NAVSTAR birds. Its interesting that they're still
> lagging behind many IIR and IIR-M birds (and IIR-M performance
> average). Their performance certainly isn't enough to consider going
> beyond the current 12 bird order. I contend that the single most
> important feature of the entire GPS III family will be the cross
> linked architecture starting with IIIB. I sure hope as few GPS IIIA as
> possible will be built. And we're still stuck at one launch per year
> throughout 2012, with a realistic projection of L2C IOC for 2021 and
> L5 FOC for 2030. Hopefully with the end of the current solar maximum
> and with an improving US economy, that launch pace can be upped to a
> twin launch yearly beginning in 2013 or 2014.
>
> Marcelo Pacheco

Marcelo,

I should have mentioned that United Launch Alliance has performed an
analysis confirming an Atlas 5 rocket can simultaneously orbit two GPS
III satellites. Until then the US still seriously lags behind
everyone else in launch assets.

Proton rockets do three GLONASS per launch. Now the EU plans two
launchers with Soyuz just having completed a dual Galileo mission and
Ariane 5 to be available for quad missions when the new satellites are
delivered. I'd say let's buy launch services but that's prohibited by
a US Law disallowing DoD payloads from foreign launchers. Only God,
the USAF and probably the Chinese know anything about those rumored
classified auxiliary payloads.

Several years ago, Perkin Elmer was awarded a sole source contract to
redesign the Rubidium frequency standards .. parts obsolesce. Those
probably are flying in the IIF satellites and, to the best of my
knowledge, they will be the black boxes flying aboard GPS III. You
are correct about those IIF satellites under performing the IIRM
series. I suppose a detailed analysis is underway to determine if
clock performance explains why.

Despite a gloom and doom sounding outlook, NAVSTAR still slightly
outperforms GLONASS and Galileo isn't here yet to claim 'Gold
Standard' status. I commented in another discussion about the
intellect behind NAVSTAR sustaining the constellation. Alan responded
how underlying program inadequacies, as analyzed by the General
Accounting Office back during 2009, remain. A point well taken.

--- CHAS

A flurry of press releases, most mentioning an adapter for the Ariane
5, but no details:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16845557

"A contract to launch the bulk of the initial 14 OHB-SSTL satellites
has already been placed with French firm Arianespace, using its
Russian-built Soyuz rockets that fly from the Kourou spaceport in
South America.

But Mr Tajani announced at the London event that he would also be
purchasing additional launch capacity from Arianespace.

A 30m-euro "booking fee" is to be paid to Arianespace to secure the
services of up to three Ariane 5 rockets, which can loft four
satellites at once (two more than Soyuz).

But for this to happen, the rocket will need a special adapter to
dispense the spacecraft in orbit, and an additional 30m-euro contract
was signed with Astrium, the launcher's prime contractor, to develop
the required equipment."


http://www.esa.int/esaNA/SEM825TXXXG_index_0.html

"The Ariane 5 ES is currently used for launching ESA’s Automated
Transfer Vehicle to the International Space Station at around 380 km,
but requires changes and requalification to deliver satellites to
orbital altitudes of 23 222 km.

A dispenser will be developed to carry and then release a quartet of
satellites into their target orbits.

The requalified launcher, known as the ‘Ariane 5 ES Galileo’, should
be available by the second half of 2014, along with the current Soyuz
from French Guiana. "


http://www.arianespace.com/news-pres...o-contract.asp

"This agreement provides for the possibility of using Ariane 5
launchers in 2014 and 2015 to complete the deployment of the Galileo
constellation. Arianespace will have launched the 26 satellites in
this constellation using a combination of Soyuz launch vehicles (two
satellites per launch), and Ariane 5 launchers (four satellites per
launch). The contract for adapting the Ariane 5 launcher to enable
simultaneous launch of four Galileo satellites was also signed today
by the European Space Agency and EADS-Astrium."


Description of Ariane 5 ES (but not "ES Galileo"):

http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Launchers_A...0W67ESD_0.html

http://www.arianespace.com/launch-se...7s-Manual..asp


Hi res (2.7 MB) portrait of Galileo satellite:

https://www.ohb-system.de/tl_files/s...B%20System.jpg

Linked from this press release:

https://www.ohb-system.de/press-rele...atellites.html

On Feb 3, 7:47*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 3:28*pm, macpacheco <marc...@macp.eti.br> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 3, 2:14*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 2, 11:09*am, claudegps <claude...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Seems that EU has ordered other 8 satellites for the Galileo
> > > > constellation.
> > > > By 2015, there should be 26 satellites for Galileo in space.
>
> > > > 4 IOV + 14 IOC + 8 new sates just awarded
>
> > > > I was a bit skeptic that the EU could finance so quickly more
> > > > satellites than the 18 alread planned, but I was wrong
> > > > (and Alan was right, if I remember well)
>
> > > Notwithstanding the deployment timeline, I was never a skeptic about
> > > the system coming to fruition. *Of course, presenting a schedule on
> > > the VuGraph is notactually executing it.
>
> > > But they do have a plan to accelerate the program. *They will launch
> > > four satellites simultaneously on the Ariane 5 rocket. *Certainly
> > > there is a gamble of losing assets to a launch failure but the Ariane
> > > 5 pretty much works flawlessly.
>
> > >http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1202...ileocontracts/
>
> > > GPS will require five years to orbit four new satellites with it's
> > > snail's pace replenishment schedule.
>
> > > While NAVSTAR user equipment still abounds, development and production
> > > Galileo equipment will also certainly be accelerated.
>
> > > Galileo exhibits a major a major advantage over GPS .. it has no
> > > legacy users. *So it comes to fruition as a modernized system with a
> > > totally compatible ground control system. *With 'slow execution' of
> > > OCX, modernized GPS signals will not be available until 2016! *Indeed,
> > > it's possible that a GPS IIRM might be decommissioned before any of
> > > it's modernized signals are usable. *That is poor project management
> > > and the USAF should hang its head in shame when Galileo eclipses
> > > NAVSTAR as the 'Gold Standard'.
>
> > > Nevertheless, *EU has expressed concern about a lack of innovation
> > > with respect to utilization of Galileo's superior attributes.
>
> > > Certainly, NAVSTAR has served us well for general navigation and
> > > precision timing. *With augmentation submeter real-time positioningis
> > > routinely achieved. *With post processing, centimeter positioning is
> > > achieved. *The book of GIS applications is being written during the
> > > NAVSTAR era. *What superior applications can Galileo actually
> > > achieve? * I guess that depends upon how much superior the real world
> > > performance actually will be.
>
> > > --- *CHAS
>
> > In that tone, I should recognize that IIF-1 and IIF-2 are around 5th/
> > 6th best performing NAVSTAR birds. Its interesting that they're still
> > lagging behind many IIR and IIR-M birds (and IIR-M performance
> > average). Their performance certainly isn't enough to consider going
> > beyond the current 12 bird order. I contend that the single most
> > important feature of the entire GPS III family will be the cross
> > linked architecture starting with IIIB. I sure hope as few GPS IIIA as
> > possible will be built. And we're still stuck at one launch per year
> > throughout 2012, with a realistic projection of L2C IOC for 2021 and
> > L5 FOC for 2030. Hopefully with the end of the current solar maximum
> > and with an improving US economy, that launch pace can be upped to a
> > twin launch yearly beginning in 2013 or 2014.
>
> > Marcelo Pacheco
>
> Marcelo,
>
> I should have mentioned that United Launch Alliance has performed an
> analysis confirming an Atlas 5 rocket can simultaneously orbit two GPS
> III satellites. *Until then the US still seriously lags behind
> everyone else in launch assets.
>
> Proton rockets do three GLONASS per launch. *Now the EU plans two
> launchers with Soyuz just having completed a dual Galileo mission and
> Ariane 5 to be available for quad missions when the new satellites are
> delivered. *I'd say let's buy launch services but that's prohibited by
> a US Law disallowing DoD payloads from foreign launchers. *Only God,
> the USAF and probably the Chinese know anything about those rumored
> classified auxiliary payloads.
>
> Several years ago, Perkin Elmer was awarded a sole source contract to
> redesign the Rubidium frequency standards .. parts obsolesce. * Those
> probably are flying in the IIF satellites and, to the best of my
> knowledge, they will be the black boxes flying aboard GPS III. *You
> are correct about those IIF satellites under performing the IIRM
> series. *I suppose a detailed analysis is underway to determine if
> clock performance explains why.
>
> Despite a gloom and doom sounding outlook, NAVSTAR still slightly
> outperforms GLONASS and Galileo isn't here yet to claim 'Gold
> Standard' status. *I commented in another discussion about the
> intellect behind NAVSTAR sustaining the constellation. *Alan responded
> how underlying program inadequacies, as analyzed by the General
> Accounting Office back during 2009, remain. *A point well taken.
>
> --- *CHAS

Until GPS satellites become a lot lighter, no chance of a triple
launch with today's operational boosters.
But what's the point of a triple launch capability for constellation
sustainment ? To do one triple launch every three or four years ?
It doesn't look like a triple launch would make much sense.
SpaceX Falcon Heavy advertises a 53 ton payload from Cape Canaveral to
Low Earth Orbit (200km height, 28,5 degree inclination). The tonnage
is plenty, but is the orbital height enough for a third stage per
satellite booster to finish the job (from 200km to 18000km) ?

Marcelo

On Feb 4, 12:02*am, macpacheco <marc...@macp.eti.br> wrote:

>
> Until GPS satellites become a lot lighter, no chance of a triple
> launch with today's operational boosters.
> But what's the point of a triple launch capability for constellation
> sustainment ? To do one triple launch every three or four years ?
> It doesn't look like a triple launch would make much sense.
> SpaceX Falcon Heavy advertises a 53 ton payload from Cape Canaveral to
> Low Earth Orbit (200km height, 28,5 degree inclination). The tonnage
> is plenty, but is the orbital height enough for a third stage per
> satellite booster to finish the job (from 200km to 18000km) ?
>
> Marcelo

Launching more than two NAVSTAR GPS satellites simultaneously has not
been proposed. It's not strictly a weight issue but it's more like
they just wont fit under the fairing. The illustration I saw depicts
two GPS III satellites in tandem as opposed to the side by side
clustering for Proton GLONASS or Ariane 5 ES Galileo.

Certainly, triple or quad launches make sense for accelerating the
buildout of a new constellation. In essence, that's what Russia
required and what EC is attempting to accomplish

I do agree with you, when sustaining of a six plane constellation, two
at a time seems more reasonable. If the USAF could perform a dual
launch now, they could refurbish the A Plane and 'bank' two IIA spare
satellites. When dual launch becomes available, that capability can
hasten modernization while amortizing launcher costs.

Many 'rocket people' praise SPACEX as the solution to the world's
problems. If they continue without a launch failure, NASA will
certainly employ them per their COTS agreements for resupply missions
to the ISS. Then, they have signed commercial customers. That will
keep them quite busy so I don't regard SPACEX to be a factor for GPS.

--- CHAS

On Feb 4, 2:16*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 12:02*am, macpacheco <marc...@macp.eti.br> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Until GPS satellites become a lot lighter, no chance of a triple
> > launch with today's operational boosters.
> > But what's the point of a triple launch capability for constellation
> > sustainment ? To do one triple launch every three or four years ?
> > It doesn't look like a triple launch would make much sense.
> > SpaceX Falcon Heavy advertises a 53 ton payload from Cape Canaveral to
> > Low Earth Orbit (200km height, 28,5 degree inclination). The tonnage
> > is plenty, but is the orbital height enough for a third stage per
> > satellite booster to finish the job (from 200km to 18000km) ?
>
> > Marcelo
>
> Launching more than two NAVSTAR GPS satellites simultaneously has not
> been proposed. *It's not strictly a weight issue but it's more like
> they just wont fit under the fairing. *The illustration I saw depicts
> two GPS III satellites in tandem as opposed to the side by side
> clustering for Proton GLONASS or Ariane 5 ES Galileo.
>
> Certainly, triple or quad launches make sense for accelerating the
> buildout of a new constellation. *In essence, that's what Russia
> required and what EC is attempting to accomplish
>
> I do agree with you, when sustaining of a six plane constellation, two
> at a time seems more reasonable. *If the USAF could perform a dual
> launch now, they could refurbish the A Plane and 'bank' two IIA *spare
> satellites. *When dual launch becomes available, that capability can
> hasten modernization while amortizing launcher costs.
>
> Many 'rocket people' praise SPACEX as the solution to the world's
> problems. *If they continue without a launch failure, NASA will
> certainly employ them per their COTS agreements for resupply missions
> to the ISS. *Then, they have signed commercial customers. *That will
> keep them quite busy so I don't regard SPACEX *to be a factor for GPS.
>
> --- *CHAS

I'm hopeful SpaceX will change the landscape of launch solutions
because their product isn't full of pork barrel costs like Boeing/
Lockheed/Europe suppliers are. There is/was a LOT of incentive money
from NASA to SpaceX, but it was awarded as a result of an open
competitive process. So far they're are not required to split
manufacturing by state/congressional district.

They're promising launch costs at a substantial discount to current
prices paid by NASA / DoD, and lower even than private enterprises
pay. They should be able to provide a twin bird launch at current
single launch costs.

But like Galileo, they're still a promise in the process of proving
themselves.

I don't expect them to be tied by with NASA without any leftover
capacity for provide for the DoD. Quite on the contrary, they're
taking their time because their whole process is 100% economics driven
instead of pork barrel driven. Efficiency is the name of their game.
They are investing in making their product as cheap a possible without
compromising quality. But time will tell. They already have perhaps
three revolutionary improvements over current launch / space capsule
technology (first and second stage launcher reusable, launch escape
system that doubles as a solution for moon landing, reusable space
capsule).

I believe Ellon Musk will leave a large contribution to mankind. He
has this adventurous entreprenour personality much like Sir Richard
Branson, another space revolutionary with his Virgin Galactic
initiative.

Marcelo Pacheco