In case you don't know who he is, he was instrumental in the development of NAVSTAR GPS. After leaving the USAF he taught at Stanford.
Some call him the "father of GPS."
Great story, Mike, thanks. All I have to do is push a button here on the ground, all the heavy lifting has been done by physicists, scientists, geodisists(sp?).
Absolutely insane to contemplate a satellite 20k miles away is telling me I need to move Weat 0.05', and these same satellites exist 0.25 seconds in the future.
It is geodesist. I am a retired one.
I used "father of GPS" in quotes because there is some "controversy" with this article making the case for Roger Easton of the NRL: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/626/1
I thought today's piece was too short. The issues the Colonel/Professor did highlight, jamming and interference, are real threats to real time users especially and all users most likely.
Cheers,
DMM
GeeOddMike, post: 373200, member: 677 wrote: I used "father of GPS" in quotes because there is some "controversy" with this article making the case for Roger Easton of the NRL:
Interestingly, in that era, it was the Rand corp. that held considerable sway with with the NSC, administration, and Pentagon. A project of that scale, and importance, especially dealing with national defense and the nuclear arsenal, would have likely had, at the very least, the input or recommendations of the Rand corp. By 1960 the corp. had considerable influence, and were instrumental in getting JFK into the white house.
They attracted some of the best and brightest from academia, to include; sociologists, economists, physicists, game theoroticians(sp?) and could likely be credited with "inventing" the internet, though claimed as a DARPA project, it was the Rand corp. that decentralized SAC's command and control structure, to a sort of neural net, that wouldn't be taken out in a coordinated nuclear first strike.
gschrock, post: 373308, member: 556 wrote: ... the whole "broadband vs. GPS" debacle a few years back
There's some recent news about that:
http://insidegnss.com/node/4961
The new interference tests apparently didn't cover any carrier-phase positioning modes, which seems like a bit of an oversight.
Cheers,
Peter
People may find the interview of Roger Easton and me on The Space Show of interest. The first six minutes are announcements. Since this is my first post, I can't add a link. You can search on Roger Easton and The Space Show; the program was on 9/28/2008. My book, GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones, covers the controversy over who invented GPS in detail. I include new details about the meetings over Labor Day, 1973 in which the initial architecture of GPS was determined.
R.J. Schneider, post: 373294, member: 409 wrote: Interestingly, in that era, it was the Rand corp. that held considerable sway with with the NSC, administration, and Pentagon. A project of that scale, and importance, especially dealing with national defense and the nuclear arsenal, would have likely had, at the very least, the input or recommendations of the Rand corp. By 1960 the corp. had considerable influence, and were instrumental in getting JFK into the white house.
They attracted some of the best and brightest from academia, to include; sociologists, economists, physicists, game theoroticians(sp?) and could likely be credited with "inventing" the internet, though claimed as a DARPA project, it was the Rand corp. that decentralized SAC's command and control structure, to a sort of neural net, that wouldn't be taken out in a coordinated nuclear first strike.
Yes Rand was the Govt. 'go to' think tank of that era.
Started in the early 50's. Remember John Nash ( A Beautiful Mind film)was working for Rand on game theory or whatever they tossed his way.
That was my assumption (I do all my own stunts here) that the current GPS system was begun in around 1960, while reading the history on Wiki. The space based satellite navigation system may have had it's predecessors in that time, and on the conceptual level the distinctions might appear granual, they are apparently considerable on the scientific and technical level.
R.J. Schneider, post: 374665, member: 409 wrote: That was my assumption (I do all my own stunts here) that the current GPS system was begun in around 1960, while reading the history on Wiki. The space based satellite navigation system may have had it's predecessors in that time, and on the conceptual level the distinctions might appear granual, they are apparently considerable on the scientific and technical level.
This article: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950613Arc5183.html provides a nice (Stanford-centric) history of NAVSTAR GPS.
I always see the critique of TIMATION as being only 2D curious. The solution to issues of signal structure and the like evolved. Many of the solutions, now in place, are not ideal when compared with what is possible today. As for the argument that it was too susceptible to jamming, what about GPS?
The Naval Research Lab has not achieved the recognition it has deserved over the years. For me the Rand Corporation always seemed more policy than technical oriented. Think of Herman Kahn's "On Thermonuclear War." Lots of government research labs do work without acknowledgement. Look at the pioneering work of the NRL in the field of airborne gravimetry.
Wikipedia is a surprisingly good resource. I find the references in their articles to be most useful in evaluating their credibility and completeness.
DMM
Richard Easton, post: 374609, member: 11760 wrote: People may find the interview of Roger Easton and me on The Space Show of interest. The first six minutes are announcements. Since this is my first post, I can't add a link. You can search on Roger Easton and The Space Show; the program was on 9/28/2008. My book, GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones, covers the controversy over who invented GPS in detail. I include new details about the meetings over Labor Day, 1973 in which the initial architecture of GPS was determined.
Welcome.
While the controversy over who is the father of GPS continues, surveyors and geodesists should acknowledge the important role of people like Charles Counselman of MIT who showed how to use the GPS carrier phase for precise positioning.
See: https://alum.mit.edu/news/AlumniProfiles/Archive/charles-counselman
What is the old saying? "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan."
So much of the world's commerce has become GPS dependent. And it's without fee.
It is a free lunch.
GeeOddMike, post: 374678, member: 677 wrote: The Naval Research Lab has not achieved the recognition it has deserved over the years. For me the Rand Corporation always seemed more policy than technical oriented. Think of Herman Kahn's "On Thermonuclear War." Lots of government research labs do work without acknowledgement. Look at the pioneering work of the NRL in the field of airborne gravimetry.
Thanks for putting that together for us, Mike. I had no idea of the work different labs had in putting wings on those ideas.
The Rand corp. was policy. They were first nuclear and foreign policy, later branching out into social and domestic policy.
GeeOddMike, post: 374678, member: 677 wrote: I always see the critique of TIMATION as being only 2D curious.
DMM
I can easily refute the assertion that Timation was 2D since there are many 1970s documents that state that it was 3D. If you look at the resources tab of my book's website. gpsdeclassified no space dot com you'll find some of them. One is the Navstar-JPO-Program-Plan15July1974 which was signed off by Parkinson. On chapter 1, page 1 it states that Timation was 3D. The Timation Development Plan NRL-7227 from March, 1971 shows on Fig 3-1 four Timation satellites sending signals to an airplane (pg 10). It states that the satellites provide the data for the navigator to determine his latitude, longitude, altitude and time. I could quote many other documents which talk about its 3D nature. Parkinson has asserted this since the early 1980s but the facts don't support him.
gschrock, post: 374618, member: 556 wrote: Aerospace Inc. was another player... there was a cast of many; and of course Roger Easton. It would have been amazing to be a fly on the wall when folks like Roger were dreaming this stuff up.
Jim Buisson, who helped work on the constellation studies for Timation, sent me an email a while back (11/9/15) in which he stated:
I think the memo covers almost all the problems that could and did exist with the program.
These were weight, power, orbital altitude and inclination, type of oscillators, tracking stations, etc.
Read the memo slowly and many are addressed.
Of course, a big problem was the Navy funding, until we got into 6.3 funds in 1969.
That really was one fantastic Technical Memo written in 1967, especially RogerÛªs concept for the pilot equipment (Fig. 20).
It all seems like yesterday. Those were GREAT days, something new each day!
It could never be done again with just a handful of people, solving problems by the seats of their pants.
It all came true!!
GeeOddMike, post: 374694, member: 677 wrote: While the controversy over who is the father of GPS continues, surveyors and geodesists should acknowledge the important role of people like Charles Counselman of MIT who showed how to use the GPS carrier phase for precise positioning.
See: https://alum.mit.edu/news/AlumniProfiles/Archive/charles-counselman
What is the old saying? "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan."
Great story! Here is his acceptance speech after the AGU award:
http://honors.agu.org/winners/charles-c-counselman-iii/
