Parkinson Prescribes Remedy for GAO Report Alarm

Parkinson Prescribes Remedy for GAO Report Alarm
http://sidt.gpsworld.com/gpssidt/content/printContentPopup.jsp?id=3D59=
9901

May 26, 2009
GPS World

Brad Parkinson, the first GPS Program Office Director, chief architect an=
d advocate for=20
GPS, submitted written testimony to Congress on mitigation options for po=
ssible GPS=20
brownouts. His presentation comes in reference to the recent GAO report h=
ighlighting the=20
risk that the GPS constellation may fall below the minimum level of 24 sa=
tellites required=20
for full operational capability. In his opening, Parkinson states that =E2=
=80=9CGAO correctly=20
points out the possibility that the GPS constellation will be reduced to =
less than the=20
current number of 30 to 32 satellites. In fact, it is possible that the =
constellation=20
will be at a level of less than 24 satellites. I would like to focus on t=
he options that=20
would help reduce this risk.=E2=80=9D

Parkinson chides those who may not have been paying attention over the la=
st two years, at=20
least. =E2=80=9CIt should be noted that the risk of brownouts has been re=
peatedly pointed out by=20
the independent review teams,=E2=80=9D he states, referencing the the Def=
ense Science Board, the=20
GPS Independent Review Team, and the Pos-Nav Timing Advisory Board, who h=
ave all stated=20
all that =E2=80=9C30 satellites is the correct number.=E2=80=9D He points=
out that the European Galileo=20
program and the Chinese Compass system have also arrived at that number.


=E2=80=9CAlthough brownouts would only be =E2=80=98officially=E2=80=99 de=
clared at levels below 24, anything below=20
the current level of 30 satellites is a cause for concern. The potential =
economic impact=20
if the number were below 24 may be quite serious.=E2=80=9D

To rectify the situation, Parkinson first gives a history lesson. The fir=
st GPS satellite=20
went from contract award to launch in 44 months. =E2=80=9CThe keys to suc=
cess were a streamlined=20
approval chain (all the way up the OSD chain), severe restrictions on any=
contract=20
changes, and an integrated product team.=E2=80=9D He believes that GPS II=
IA can achieve the same =E2=80=94=20
given the same playing conditions.

Spartan. He does throw in one twist not currently in the plans: =E2=80=9C=
To develop a simplified=20
GPS IIIA based design, Spartan satellite (IIIS) that would not include th=
e extra payloads,=20
and, once designed, could be built quickly and launched into space with t=
wo satellites on=20
a booster. This would be done in parallel with the current program.=E2=80=
=9D

Parkinson appears to advocate complete abandonment of the IIF line. =E2=80=
=9CThe reason is simply=20
that the satellite design is old and relies on parts that are no longer a=
vailable. In=20
addition, the satellite, while providing the older signals, does not meet=
current=20
requirements.=E2=80=9D

He closes with a final admonition. =E2=80=9CAbove all, the senior decisio=
n making chain has to=20
become a part of the solution. This means that they do everything in thei=
r power to help=20
the program office achieve the needed schedule."

Click here for the full Powerpoint file of Brad Parkinson=E2=80=99s prese=
ntation, including=20
talking points.
http://pnt.gov/advisory/2009/05/parkinson-brownouts.ppt

Footage of live testimony given at the Congressional hearing is also onli=
ne.


[There you go Jon]

=3D599901
d advocate for
ssible GPS
ighlighting the
tellites required
=93GAO correctly
less than the
e constellation
he options that
st two years, at
ly pointed out by
cience Board, the
ave all stated
e European Galileo
elow 24, anything below
economic impact
st GPS satellite
ere a streamlined
contract
achieve the same =97
elop a simplified
e extra payloads,
wo satellites on
e reason is simply
vailable. =A0In
current
ng chain has to
r power to help
n, including
ne.

Cancel IIF procurement? With deference to those who contend
satellites launched during the 90s will surely begin to fail, IIF
satellites currently are the only option to maintain parity between
decommissionings and replenishments. If that procurement is
terminated we definitely will experience a decline in GPS performance.
There remains only one new satellite available for launch with the
usability of newest satellite in orbit doubtful. Let's hope we are
not spending good money after bad money; we cannot wait until 2015
for GPS-III.

Accelerating development of GPS-III with a cash infusion is doubtful.
There is a dwindling number of engineers/analysts who are qualified to
do this kind intricate work. There is becoming a major problem with
human technical resources both the government and private defense
sectors. More money costs more money because it cannot overcome
shoddy work.

The IIF procurement is also a disgrace from a management viewpoint.
But that's not entirely the fault of management. The acquisition
regulations are so cumbersome that it's a wonder anything is
acquired. There are so many 'stops' that add acquisition costs
causing a funding allocation to be quickly inadequate. Often a
'freight car' load of documentation/paperwork gets delivered before
the actual work commences. It gets stashed in a filing cabinet and
nobody ever reads it. Additionally, much of that paperwork explains
how minority/woman owned business, environmental impact and a hundred
other Congressional mandated matters were handled.

During WWII, the P51 fighter plan went from approval to fielding in
less than two years. Now, administrative work, including unending
legal reviews, source selection and trial of legal suits filed by
losing/disqualified bidders cannot be accomplished in that time
frame.

And I don't even want to get into the politics. Suffice to say there
is much talk about a corrupt Air Force procurement official that
complicated relations between the DoD and Boeing.

I worked at DoD for 35 years

--- CHAS

d=3D599901
and advocate for
possible GPS
highlighting the
satellites required
at =93GAO correctly
o less than the
the constellation
the options that
last two years, at
edly pointed out by
Science Board, the
have all stated
the European Galileo
.
below 24, anything below
l economic impact
irst GPS satellite
were a streamlined
ny contract
an achieve the same =97
evelop a simplified
the extra payloads,
two satellites on
=94
The reason is simply
available. =A0In
et current
king chain has to
eir power to help
ion, including
line.

I too was confused by the statement, "Parkinson appears to advocate
complete abandonment of the IIF line." Why restart a line that has
just produced SV1 and SV2 and is presumably producing SV3? It is
clear that Parkinson doesn't think much of the IIF bird. Is he so
sure that it will fail? Or does he thank that even if it operates as
advertised that its capabilities are obsolete? Hey, IIA birds are
filling the role; how badly does IIF have to perform to fail that
benchmark?

Lets say that Parkinson knows something that we don't about IIF.
Building a IIIS is only half the battle. You will need a ground
control segment. OCX is a long pole. What are the odds that OCX will
not overrun? I hope that somebody is doing a study about what it
would take to extend the current ground control software to support a
new bird.

The late 1990's solution was to get rid of the oversight. Clearly
that was a bad idea. People work on what they have to report on.
Clearly the best tool that senior management has to influence what
gets worked is to dictate what gets reported. :-)

Lets hope that the wing remembers that it was engineering that built
GPS and it will take engineering to get out of the hole that they find
themselves in.

--Mike Jr

Mike Jr wrote:
599901
t and advocate for
r possible GPS
rt highlighting the
4 satellites required
at =93GAO correctly
to less than the
the constellation
on the options that
e last two years, at
atedly pointed out by
se Science Board, the
ho have all stated
t the European Galileo
er.
ls below 24, anything below
ial economic impact
first GPS satellite
ss were a streamlined
any contract
can achieve the same =97
develop a simplified
e the extra payloads,
th two satellites on

The reason is simply
er available. In
meet current
making chain has to
their power to help
ation, including
online.



http://waas.stanford.edu/people/parkinson.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Parkinson

"Bradford Parkinson (February 16, 1935) is an American inventor and Unite=
d States Air=20
Force colonel best known as the father of the Global Positioning System.
He attended the United States Naval Academy, graduating in 1957, but deci=
ded to join the=20
Air Force because of its superior educational opportunities. Parkinson th=
en attended the=20
Massachusetts Institute of Technology for his M.S. in Aeronautics, gradua=
ting in 1961.

"After several years in the Air Force, he entered a Ph. D. program at Sta=
nford University,=20
graduating in 1966. In 1973 he became manager of the NAVSTAR GPS developm=
ent program,=20
where he remained until 1978 when he retired from the Air Force. In 1984,=
Parkinson became=20
a professor at Stanford University, where today he is a professor emeritu=
s.

"In 2003 he shared the Draper Prize with Ivan Getting for his contributio=
ns to the=20
invention of the Global Positioning System. In 2004 he was inducted into =
the National=20
Inventors Hall of Fame. Today Parkinson lives in San Luis Obispo, Califor=
nia near his six=20
children and five grandchildren".

d States Air
ded to join the
en attended the
ting in 1961.
nford University,
ent program,
Parkinson became
s.
ns to the
the National
nia near his six

Sam,

I'm sure I would be humbled in Mr Parkinson's presence. His intellect
is obviously beyond reproach. We all are grateful to him as a pioneer
who made our GPS possible.

The GPS 'landscape' is a different place then when he managed NAVSTAR
during the 70s. When he was 'in charge', DoD was his only concern.
Look at who's involved with making GPS developmental decisions now:

http://pnt.gov/orgchart.pdf

I'm not sure if Mr. Parkinson would have same patience and energy
working within that level of bureaucracy. There are too many parochial
interests to satisfy. I also doubt a professor emeritus at Stanford
has any tolerance for the drudgery of administrative difficulties
associated with a modern DoD major procurement.

--- CHAS