Boeing contends they can save DoD money by selling the USAF more GPS
IIF satellites:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ou-gps-iii%3F-
decision_time-nears.html

--- CHAS

On Sep 6, 11:20*am, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Boeing contends they can save DoD money by selling the USAF more GPS
> IIF satellites:
>
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...3/128454/gps-i...
> decision_time-nears.html
>
> --- *CHAS


Sorry the link didn't copy properly:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ime-nears.html

On 2011-09-06 11:20 , HIPAR wrote:
> Boeing contends they can save DoD money by selling the USAF more GPS
> IIF satellites:
>
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ou-gps-iii%3F-
> decision_time-nears.html

I'm sure Lockheed-Martin are amused.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Sep 6, 12:28*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 11:20*am, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Boeing contends they can save DoD money by selling the USAF more GPS
> > IIF satellites:
>
> >http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...3/128454/gps-i...
> > decision_time-nears.html
>
> > --- *CHAS
>
> Sorry the link didn't copy properly:
>
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...3/128454/gps-i...

Yeah, and give up L1C, give up crosslink satellite updates, give up
enhanced integrity, give up spot beam M-code, give up signal power
increases.
GPS III is necessary. Both for military purposes as well as civilian
needs.
The DoD is already doing most of what it can do to save money, by
postponing launches as much as possible.
In my opinion the only thing that can be done extra to save money is
skipping GPS IIIA manufacturing, with the current launch policy, GPS
IIIB will be ready with a couple of years to spare before the last IIF
bird is launched (even with two years delay from schedule). We'll
still be launching IIF birds at least until 2017. Most likely until
2019.

Marcelo Pacheco

On 2011-09-06 18:55 , macpacheco wrote:
> We'll
> still be launching IIF birds at least until 2017. Most likely until
> 2019.

"we"?

Brazil isn't launching anything. Given the state of US debt I think
it's up to the US government to decide where they can save money even if
it means less satellite service over the next 20 years for the rest of
the free-loading world.

--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

On Sep 6, 10:49*pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:
> On 2011-09-06 18:55 , macpacheco wrote:
>
> > We'll
> > still be launching IIF birds at least until 2017. Most likely until
> > 2019.
>
> "we"?
>
> Brazil isn't launching anything. *Given the state of US debt I think
> it's up to the US government to decide where they can save money even if
> it means less satellite service over the next 20 years for the rest of
> the free-loading world.
>
> --
> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

If that's the only criticism you can make out of my post, I'll take
that as a compliment...
1 - I lived there long enough. That should have been enough but.
2 - We're not free loaders neither to the US or to the world. Our
natural resources and food surplus is essential to the world. Pretty
soon our Oil (combined with Canadian and Venezuelan) will make the
middle east much less important to the USA. The US exploited Brazil
for a long, long time. Finally we're in a reasonably balanced footing.
And we don't manipulate currency like China.
And besides my interest of GPS is completely non-patriotic. You guys
that criticize me for not being North-American and complaining about
anything from the USA, should realize the world is now a tiny tiny
place. Everything we do here or there affects everybody. Both burning
tens of millions of barrels of oil a day in the US and burning down
many football fields worth of Amazon forest everyday.
I give 100 years for at least the free world to be united in a similar
way to the European Union. Globalization and Climate issues will force
us to do that.
And they (Europe) have a common space policy. No redundant anything to
space.
The USA has a very strong legacy of being an isolated country in the
19th century that (100+ years latter) doesn't seem to want to die. If
I was a Frenchman criticizing Germany, a German criticizing a British
or whatever, (without being prejudicial) they would attain themselves
to the facts and not to xenophobia.
If I lived in the US on a work visa legally, would you hold the same
grudge ?
Alan, you're from New England aren't you ? I lived in Nashua-NH and
worked in Bedford-MA, so I know why they say new englanders think of
themselves as the americans of the americans.

Marcelo Pacheco

On 2011-09-07 06:31 , macpacheco wrote:
> On Sep 6, 10:49 pm, Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 2011-09-06 18:55 , macpacheco wrote:
>>
>>> We'll
>>> still be launching IIF birds at least until 2017. Most likely until
>>> 2019.
>>
>> "we"?
>>
>> Brazil isn't launching anything. Given the state of US debt I think
>> it's up to the US government to decide where they can save money even if
>> it means less satellite service over the next 20 years for the rest of
>> the free-loading world.
>>
>> --
>> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.
>
> If that's the only criticism you can make out of my post, I'll take
> that as a compliment...
> 1 - I lived there long enough. That should have been enough but.
> 2 - We're not free loaders neither to the US or to the world. Our

On GPS, everyone is a freeloader. The US has never asked for a dime
from anyone. If the US makes economic decisions, and they should, it is
their business.

No - I don't live in the US, I'm not American.


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

I like a plan to launch two satellites per mission. United launch
Alliance studied that problem and concluded the Atlas V rocket is
capable of launching pairs of GPS III satellites.

It's just a matter of time. One launch per year will not suffice to
offset the attrition of 'geriatric' GPS IIA and middle age GPS IIR
space vehicles. And modernization is getting nowhere fast.

Of course, there is a downside. A launch failure would be doubly
disastrous.

--- CHAS

On Sep 7, 1:53*pm, HIPAR <captc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I like a plan to launch two satellites per mission. *United launch
> Alliance studied that problem and concluded the Atlas V rocket is
> capable of launching pairs of GPS III satellites.
>
> *It's just a matter of time. One launch per year will not suffice to
> offset the attrition of 'geriatric' GPS IIA and middle age GPS IIR
> space vehicles. *And modernization is getting nowhere fast.
>
> Of course, there is a downside. *A launch failure would be doubly
> disastrous.
>
> --- *CHAS

Pardon my ignorance, does that means a twin launch to the same orbital
plane, or is it possible to launch into two different orbits at once ?
Considering the launch failure history... The biggest risk is the
first one with any given booster (half the failures anyway).

Marcelo

On Sep 7, 4:39*pm, macpacheco <marc...@macp.eti.br> wrote:

> Pardon my ignorance, does that means a twin launch to the same orbital
> plane, or is it possible to launch into two different orbits at once ?
> Considering the launch failure history... The biggest risk is the
> first one with any given booster (half the failures anyway).
>
> Marcelo



Translations of orbital plane require a great deal of energy. To my
knowledge, no GPS satellite family has ever been designed with on-
board fuel sufficient to do that.

Then one might suggest sending the launcher to an orbital plane,
separating one spacecraft and then re-burning the launcher to move it
into an adjacent plane were the second satellite is separated. I'll
have to defer to someone who understands the Atlas V launcher and
orbital mechanics on that. But, those maneuvers do appear rather far
fetched to me.

So most likely the launcher will release both satellites slightly
above the intended plane where they can slow drift to their final
slots. When the time for dual launching arrives, most of the planes
will need several fresh space vehicles.

--- CHAS