Personal tools
Document Actions

GIAC-925

GIAC-925.html — HTML, 5Kb

File contents

<HTML>

<HEAD>

<TITLE>GIAC GPS Modernization</TITLE>

</HEAD>

<BODY TEXT="Black" LINK="Blue" VLINK="#551A8B" ALINK="Red" BGCOLOR="White" leftmargin=25 topmargin=25>



<table border="0" cellpadding="5">

<tr>

	<td><img src="fgcsicon.gif" width=110 height=115 align="left" border=0></td>

	<td align="RIGHT" valign="BOTTOM"><FONT SIZE="+3"><STRONG>GIAC </STRONG></font>

	<FONT SIZE="+2"><STRONG>GPS Interagency Advisory Council</STRONG></font>

<BR>

                   September 25, 1998

</td>

</tr>

<tr><td colspan="2"><p>&nbsp;</p></td></tr>

<tr>

	<td valign="TOP">MEMORANDUM FOR:  </td>

	<td valign="TOP">Arthur L. Money, IGEB Co-Chair

<br>			  Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

<br>			  Department of Defense

<P>		 	      Mortimer L. Downey, IGEB Co-Chair

<br>			  Deputy Secretary of Transportation

<br>			  Department of Transportation

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

	<td valign="TOP">FROM:      </td>

	<td valign="TOP">          Charles W. Challstrom

<br>               Chair, GPS Interagency Advisory Council</td>

</tr>

<tr>

	<td valign="TOP">SUBJECT:</td>

	<td valign="TOP">          GPS Modernization</td>

</tr>

</table>



<P>At the September 15, 1998, meeting of the GPS Interagency

Advisory Council (GIAC), discussions centered on issues

associated with GPS Modernization.  As you probably know, the

GIAC was formed in 1995 by an exchange of letters between the

Secretary of Interior and the Secretary of Transportation to

represent the non-transportation users of GPS.  I believe this

memorandum accurately describes the consensus view of the GIAC

membership and is provided for your consideration.</P>



<BR>

<P>1.  <U>Set Selective Availability (SA) to a zero state immediately</U>.

<br>We do not believe SA provides additional national security

sufficient to warrant its continuation.  To the contrary, the

continuation of SA only serves to delay acceptance of GPS as the

international foundation for positioning and timing systems, and

may, therefore, pose a greater risk to national security.



<BR>

<P>2.  <U>Implement a civil C/A code, similar to that of L1, on L2 as

soon as possible</U>.



<br>We recommend modification of the last twelve IIR satellites and

the first six IIF satellites to provide a C/A-centered signal on

L2 at the earliest opportunity.  The basis of this recommendation

is our concern that sufficient dual-frequency GPS signals will

not be available to the civil sector by the solar maximum

expected in 2011-2012.  Furthermore, early fielding of a civil

signal at L2 will significantly increase the utility of GPS and

increase its acceptance as an international standard.



<P>3.  <U>Identify a third civil signal suitable for use by aviation

that, when used in conjunction with civil signals on L1 and L2,

supports long-distance precise differential positioning</U>.



<br>We accept and support the Federal Aviation Administration's

requirement for a second GPS signal in a band with an

Aeronautical Radio Navigation Service (ARNS) allocation. 

However, the frequency selection of this third signal must also

support the establishment of a nationwide precise

(centimeter-level) positioning capability.  If this third signal

is not implemented, we are certain a competitive system, either

private or foreign, will replace GPS as the international system

of choice.



<P>4.  <U>Define a national funding strategy to assure GPS will

continue</U>.



<br>We are greatly concerned by recent activities associated with

funding for GPS and its government-provided augmentations.  They

indicate a lack of understanding for our nation's dependency on

the services provided by GPS in our day-to-day activities.  Due

to the importance of GPS, its funding process must not be reliant

on multi-departmental funding mechanisms.  A joint committee

mechanism, similar to that used for government printing, should

be implemented to provide a completely unified funding process

and best support IGEB policy decisions. 



<P>5.  <U>Increase the effort to retain GPS spectrum</U>.



<br>There is a serious threat to the utility of GPS from

communications systems that are competing for GPS spectrum.  GPS

spectrum issues must have the highest level of support from all

agencies involved in radio spectrum allocation and agencies that

use GPS to accomplish their missions.



<P>We are aware that there are significant funding issues associated

with some of these goals, and many IGEB agencies have not had

sufficient time to develop budget initiatives to support the

near-term funding requirements.  Concerned that policy decisions

may be unduly affected by agency budget competition, we felt it

necessary to explicitly state what is in the best interests of

the Nation, our agencies, and our constituents.  The GIAC

membership will continue to support activities to achieve these

goals to the fullest extent possible.  Your due consideration of

these goals is requested.



<P>cc:

<br>Stephen G. Moran, Office of Science and Technology Policy

<br>Robert Bell, National Security Council

<br>Lieutenant General Douglas D. Buchholz, Department of Defense

<br>D. James Baker, Department of Commerce

<br>Gary Bachula, Department of Commerce

<br>Melinda L. Kimble, Department of State

<br>Mark Schaefer, Department of Interior

<br>Glenda Humiston, Department of Agriculture

<br>Robert Spearing, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

<br>Mark A. Boster, Department of Justice

<br>General John Gordon, Central Intelligence Agency



<p><font face="Arial" size="-1"><b><i>GPS INTERAGENCY ADVISORY COUNCIL

<br>FEDERAL GEODETIC CONTROL COMMITTEE

<br>1315 EAST-WEST HIGHWAY ROOM 8657

<br>SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND  20910-3282</i></b></font>

</BODY>

</HTML>

Last Updated: Feb 01, 2007 04:09 PM
Spinner Image