The Air Force repositioned and reactivated GPS 2A-22 (SVN 30 or 35, PRN 30) after it was out of service for 2 years. Aledgedly the key reason was to replace GPS 2A-27 which has no good clocks left. That this occured in GPS Plane B points to another reason. Plane B is also occupied by GPS SVN 49 (was PRN 01 for a while) the IIR-M model that had the extra L5 package that messed up it's L1/L2 signal. It broadcast L5 only for 2 years to maintain America's claim to the frequency. With the IIF launches of SVN 62 and 63 they were able to take the errant satellite off line.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1108/17gps/
I would say with budget shortages there be very few additional launches in the next few years.
I apologize for any SVN/PRN number errors as the Coast Guard has not been keeping accurate track on the websight. I know of at least 3 uncorrected errors in their 32 satellite postings. For instance the Coast Guard list SVN as a IIR-M not the IIF which it is.
Paul in PA
Paul, maybe you should re-read the article. This is the whole point of keeping spares in orbit. Very little downtime when a satellite fails. A new GPS satellite was launched just last month. This has absolutely nothing to do with any budget issues you are for some reason speculating about.
All Government Programs Have Less Money
And will get even less in the future.
There are a half dozen GPS near ready to fly with 4 more planned. The next series has design problems. Launches have been 1 a year for the past 2 years and I expect it to remain at that level.
There are 11 IIAs in service at this time, design life was 7.5 years, the oldest is up 20 years, the newest is up 14 years. Expect several of them to give up soon.
The article paints a rosier picture than is true.
Paul in PA
All Government Programs Have Less Money
In a period of heightened solar flare activity, do you think GPS satellites are safest on the ground awaiting launch or in orbit around the earth?